Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2005_10_01• • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA October 1, 2005 9:00 a.m. Central Library Friend's Meeting Room 1000 Avocado Avenue I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes July 16, 2005 July 23, 2005 III. Policy Review: Public Safety Arts & Culture Historic Resources IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items V. Public Comments Public Continents are invited on items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Committee -- Speakers are asked to limit continents to 5 minutes. Before speaking, please stale your name and city of residence for the record. *Reports are available on line at www.nbvision2025.com DRAFT • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Saturday, July 16, 2005, at the Newport Beach Central Library. Members Present: Roger Alford Nancy Gardner Ronald Baers Gordon Glass Patrick Bartolic Louise Greeley Philip Bettencourt Ledge.Hale Carol Boice Bob Hendrickson John Corrough Mike Ishikawa Lila Crespin Mike Johnson Laura Dietz Donald Krotee Grace Dove Lucille Kuehn Members Absent: Elizabeth Bonn Bill Kelly Gus Chabre William Lusk Kim Jansma Barbara Lyon Tom Hyans (sick leave) Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Marlie Whiteman, Urban Crossroads Members of the Public Present: Teresa Barnwell Mike Erickson Lynda Feffer Brandon Johnson Jeffrey Lambert Carol Martin Nelson Nio Marice White Phillip Lugar Marie Marston Jim Naval Charles Remley John Saunders Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Larry Root Tom Webber Dennis Wood Cynthia Young -West 3 I. Call to Order iNancy Gardner called the meeting to order. II. Approval of Minutes Don Krotee pointed out a correction in the minutes of April 25t", page 3, the last word in his comment should have been "income." Jan Vandersloot also pointed out a correction in the minutes of April 25t", page 4, in his comment he stated the comparison did not include the "existing conditions as well as the adopted plan." The minutes of the April 25 meeting were approved with the corrections. The Minutes of the May 2, May 9 and May 16 meetings were approved as submitted. III. Selection of Preferred Land Use Alternatives for: West Newport Highway Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that in the introduction today it was stated that we are trying to reduce traffic and the staff recommendation for this area adding development which would increase the traffic. He suggested staying with the current general plan or . another plan that would reduce the amount of traffic. Mr. Tescher reminded the group that the goal of reducing traffic was Citywide and that the added commercial in this area is less than half the size of a typical grocery store. Mr. Krotee asked what affects the additional square footage would be on traffic as well as fiscally. Mr. Tescher indicated retail use creates positive benefits and the thought is to provide commercial that benefits the surrounding neighborhood'as well as visitors. Ron Baers had a concern about multi -family adjacent to the busy traffic corridor. He also pointed out that on the opposite side of the highway effort was made to create a buffer for the residential community and thought the same should be done for the north side of the highway. Sharon Wood pointed out that was covered in the 3rd bullet under the policy discussion. Patrick Bartolic asked how the area would look with the added square footage, he didn't see how it could be achieved and still provide the required parking. Mr. Tescher stated the number had been derived using the existing FAR, and that any development would have to provide adequate parking. Marie Marston pointed out that the responses from the workshop indicated people strongly disagreed with the multi -family housing in this area. Ms. Wood stated that the comments she heard indicated they did not support residential along the highway, they felt that was not a good use on the frontage. • Bob Hendrickson pointed out that the business serving uses suggested in this area would not affect the peak hour traffic. 2 q Charles Remley stated he didn't think that the mix of residential and visitor serving uses • from the Santa Ana River to the end of the peninsula should change. Ron Yeo asked what the housing density was now for the area. Patty Temple stated in the older beach areas (R-2 & MFR), the density ranges from 24 to 36 units per acre. Mr. Yeo asked how these recommendations would affect the LCP process. Ms. Wood explained that if something different comes up in this process, the LCP would be changed to match it. John Corrough pointed out that the green portal as entry to the City makes a lot of sense however as the park is developed it will add to traffic and destroy the concept. Ms. Gardner pointed out that the Orange Coast River Park is not designed to be the kind of park to create massive entry and exit problems. Mr. Corrough pointed out that if parking is available there, it may be used for other purposes than what it was designed for. Mr. Bartolic asked for .an explanation of the logic behind the increase in retail square footage. Mr. Tescher explained it would provide property owners with flexibility. Ms. Wood added that it is not expected that all property owners will build out to the full FAR, however if you ratchet the number down too tightly there is no incentive to improve the area. John Saunders thought it would be helpful to know how many trips would be associated with the additional retail and pointed out it might require 95 new parking spaces. . Philip Bettencourt asked what a map would look like with the desired policy alternative sitting on top of a land use designation. Mr. Tescher referred to the first bullet which states there is an objective to create some open space with an underlying land use for multi -family residential. Mr. Vandersloot asked if the Council were to vote to retain the existing general plan then could we still do other things, like open space? Mr. Tescher indicated that we could take each area separately, the portal area and then the balance. Gordon Glass pointed out that the area we're talking about is very small scale and because of the highway only serves the inland residents. He also thought that if there was a demand for more retail it would be there. He added that the area provided part of our responsibility for affordable housing. Carol Boice asked about an ordinance -that would restrict a property owner who wanted to rebuild to 50% of the original building size. Ms. Wood indicated there was no such ordinance. Mr. Vandersloot made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for the first bullet regarding the westernmost parcel. Ms. Gardner opened the discussion to the public. Marice White, Government Solutions, pointed out that in this part of town with free • parking near the beach, there would always be a lot of traffic. She stated that with the 3 6 phenomenal commercial area to the north we are missing opportunities to have existing • property owners make improvements in this dying commercial area. Ms. Gardner called for a vote on the motion. Motion passes. Mr. Vandersloot made a motion to retain the existing general plan for the second area. Ms. Wood clarified the motion stating it would cover the rest of the corridor except for the area labeled "C." Ms. Gardner announced the motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Krotee made a motion to accept the staff recommendation except split the 19,000 square feet for additional commercial in half. Mike Johnson asked how this would impact the current application from the owner of the Spagetti Bender. Ms. Temple indicated the application will be heard by the Planning Commission at their next meeting and that current regulations allows consideration of the project; increased entitlements would make the process easier. Lucille Kuehn asked about the economic impact of arbitrarily cutting the number in half. Ms. Wood indicated it would be minimal because the increase was not that great when looking at the whole City. Ms. Marston asked if the number was cut in half, what replaces it. Ms. Wood responded that it just doesn't happen, there would be no replacement. • Hall Seely asked if the motion was based on the existing general plan and would not adopt the recommendation for additional housing units. Ms. Gardner pointed out it did not affect the housing number. Mr. Tescher explained it was the existing general plan plus half of the 19,000 square feet for commercial. Mr. Yeo asked if there could be a vote on Sub Area D separately, converting to single family. Mr. Tescher reminded the group that this issue had already been approved at a prior meeting. Ms. Wood indicated a separate discussion could take place. Ms. Gardner called for the vote on the motion. Motion passes. Mr. Yeo made a motion to adopt the staff recommendation to convert R2 to RI. Ms. Gardner called for a vote on the motion. Motion passes. Banning Ranch Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area, which included a primary plan and a fall back alternative. Mr. Baers wanted to add a comment to the policy discussion regarding the deficiency in recreational resources in West Newport and the opportunity exists within Banning Ranch to help with that deficiency. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that the staff recommendation is the so-called Taylor • Woodrow plan and he made a motion to accept the reduced Taylor Woodrow plan instead. 0 J Ms. Kuehn asked what mechanisms were available for acquiring the area as open space. Ms. Gardner explained several options were being explored. Ms. Kuehn asked if those options should be made explicit before deciding on the use of the property. Ms. Wood indicated it was too early to know what would be feasible. Mr. Saunders asked to amend the motion to include stronger language that the City actively pursue and try to create a large open space on Banning Ranch. Mr. Vandersloot agreed to amend the motion. Ms. Boice asked if the reduced Taylor Woodrow plan would include the access road. Mr. Bettencourt indicated he would not be voting on this area; however he pointed out that the Taylor Woodrow plan had included approximately 200 acres of open space and a large public trail network system. He also pointed out that this area included a piece of property owned by the Newport -Mesa School District. Mr. Hendrickson added that he didn't think this was a viable area for a resort, he also thought it was a mistake cutting the housing units because it would not allow economic flexibility. Laura Dietz asked if there should be a time limit on how long we should wait for the land to be acquired for open space. Mr. Bartolic thought the reduced Taylor Woodrow seemed to be a realistic and fair compromise. • Mr. Johnson asked about the impact of having the County controls on Banning Ranch, he felt that if we put too many limitations on the property it would be developed under the County rules/regulations instead of the City's. Mr. Baers pointed out that the benefit to some development is restored open space, he thought the motion was a reasonable compromise. Mr. Vandersloot stated he didn't think we had to rely on a developer for the restoration and pointed out that the money used for Bolsa Chica came from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Ms. Boice asked what type school was planned for the Newport -Mesa property. Mr. Bettencourt responded that it was acquired for an elementary school; however they found it was not suitable for that purpose, so it is surplus land. Louise Greeley asked if the figures from the Hoag Hospital expansion plan were considered. Ms. Wood indicated they were in the Citywide numbers. Roger Alford pointed out that when you arbitrarily cut the project in half it might not provide the economic viability for the project. Mr. Lugar agreed and suggested taking away the financial feasibility might mean nothing happens to the property. Ms. Gardner reminded the committee that when you talk about housing numbers, new legislation requires increasing the number by 35%. Mr. Corrough stated that he was against limiting numbers purely for statistical reasons • when the underlying policy suggests flexibility for future decision makers. 5 7 DRAFT Mr. Seely pointed out that he did not think the reduced Taylor Woodrow plan was • arbitrary, he understood it was recommended after carefully considering the impacts of the plan. Mr. Yeo agreed and added that the Taylor Woodrow plan required a huge amount of grading and the subcommittee wanted to preserve more of the bluffs. Mr. Glass suggested that the transportation corridor should be included with any of the options selected. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out that if Banning Ranch was acquired for open space the City would loose the affordable housing site currently listed in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that we have discussed the airport area for additional affordable housing, he also added that the developer at Bolsa Chica was very happy with the 349 units allowed on that site. Mr. Vandersloot thought the reduced Taylor Woodrow plan gives plenty of economic incentive and flexibility for a developer. Mr. Bartolic stated when he attended the Public Workshop, the public overwhelmingly supported the open space concept. Mr. Baers asked if we shouldn't hold off on determining the development program because the site will have to go through a lengthy planning and permitting process with several agencies. Mr. Tescher stated they recognize that fact, however legally we have to determine numbers for the general plan EIR so that impacts can be evaluated. • Ms. Boice asked what percentage of the land would be covered by the recommended development? Mr. Tescher indicated that it would be difficult to determine the footprint at this point because it will be affected by regulations, setbacks, wetland delineations, etc. Ms. Boice asked if the remaining land would be left as open space. Ms. Wood recalled that with the Taylor Woodrow plan it was estimated 35% would be open space and with the reduced plan it would be approximately 75%. Mr. Bartolic stated he would rather see fewer high quality units on the property. Mr. Vandersloot added that a developer may choose to build estates like Bolsa Chica where the Coastal Commission approved 1,200 units and the developer came in with 349 units based on the housing market. Ms. Gardner opened the discussion to the public. George Basye, Aero Energy, stated he was representing some of the Banning Ranch property owners and the Taylor Woodrow plan was the result of several years of study and research. 'He added that the ownerships are complex on the property and felt somewhat skeptical that all the obstacles could be overcome to acquire the property for open space. He also pointed out that there was a lot more flexibility with the Bolsa Chica property than there is with Banning Ranch. He stated the owner preference was the Taylor Woodrow plan which was a significant reduction from the current General Plan and allowed a lot of flexibility. . Marice White, Government Solutions, pointed out that this as the last area where incentive from the City could get some densities for affordable units. She didn't feel this area was comparable to Bolsa Chica because that area is adjacent to equestrian 0 E F-010-Uttl estates and Banning Ranch is adjacent to industrial manufacturing. She also pointed out that residential units near the airport are already nearing the seven figure range. She added that the more flexibility you give to developers, the more you'll get from them. Brandon Johnson, Newport Beach, stated he felt we would not get the full buildout amount or 100% open space for this property. He said personally he would not pay the $20,000 which would be required of each citizen to acquire the property for open space. He thought in order to get something to happen in the next 5 to 10 years we should accommodate a reasonable density on a smaller portion of the property with a quantity of open space. Ms. Gardner called for the vote. Mr. Bettencourt abstained. Motion passes. West Newport Industrial Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Ms. Dietz pointed out that she would like to see affordable housing near medical facilities and asked if affordable units above medical would be considered medically related use or residential use. Mr. Tescher indicated housing was not recommended above medical uses, however the residential area in Sub Area A and C is nearby. Mr. Baers asked that Hoag Hospital be added to the map since it is an important part of . the area. He also pointed out under the policy discussion it suggests encouraging the preservation of the existing mobile home parks and felt that housing should not be restricted to mobile homes. Mr. Saunders suggested increasing the FAR to 1.0 from the current .5 to allow flexibility for the medical and office uses in the area. Mr. Corrough pointed out that the marine uses leaving the city were just outside the boundaries of this area and would be well suited for Sub Area B. He felt that at the policy level we could consider offering incentives to get the uses back into the City. Mr. Bettencourt stated he did not recall giving special validation or recognition to the mobile home park and didn't think we should limit the property owner to only that type housing. Grace Dove asked if there were special parking standards for medical offices. Ms. Temple indicated the parking requirement was higher than for general office. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that the office space is tripling in this area and he was unclear what the traffic impact would be. Marlie Whiteman indicated it would add approximately 4,000 daily trips, however only 300 peak hour' trips. Mr. Vandersloot again pointed out that our goal was to improve traffic, not make it worse. Ms. Wood pointed out these were raw numbers and adding medical office near the hospital could possibly reduce the number of trips. Mr. Yeo asked if it was possible to have an overlay on Sub Area B. Mr. Tescher indicated that could be dealt with on a policy level. 7 9 Mr. Yeo made a motion to adopt the staff recommendation. Ms. Gardner called for a vote after no comments were offered from the public. Motion Passes. Old Newport Boulevard Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Mr. Baers pointed out that all the neighborhood serving retail has left this area as the medical office use intensified. Ms. Dietz stated she would like to consider putting a new senior center on this side of town because OASIS is bulging. Ms. Kuehn pointed out there is one now. Ms. Wood stated it was the West Newport Community Center. Mr. Hendrickson thought that site would be too small for a senior center. Mr. Bartolic made a motion to accept the staff recommendations. Mr. Baers asked for an amendment to the motion because he feels neighborhood retail is not feasible in the area. Mr. Bartolic rejected that amendment. Ms. Gardner called for the vote after hearing no comments from the public. Motion Passes. Balboa Penninsula (Cannery Village/Lido Village/McFadden Square) Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Mr. Vandersloot questioned the theory of mixed use versus the practice, stating it was supposed to be residential above retail or commercial however the commercial is not being used and they are ending up with -a 3 story residential unit. Mr. Tescher indicated mixed use does work however there is just so much demand for the retail use which is why the recommendation for mixed use is only required at the intersections to cluster the uses. Mr. Vandersloot asked if it wouldn't be better just to make it all residential. Mr. Tescher said that could be considered. Mr. Glass pointed out he thought we were getting into spot zoning where we're practically telling each owner what they can do with their property. He also questioned the change to Sub Area E because of the small lot size and asked where parking could be placed. Mr. Tescher indicated the intent was that if the Albertsons property changed to mixed use, the other side of the street would mirror those uses. Mr. Saunders made a motion to accept the staff recommendations except also allow mixed use in Sub Area H. Mr. Baers asked if small scale visitor accomodations were included in Sub Area G. Mr. Tescher indicated that was the intent. Mr. Yeo asked how public safety was integrated with these changes. Mr. Tescher said there was a section of the plan for public safety that we would get to. 10 DRAFT Charles Remley suggested an amendment to the motion which would eliminate the • proposal for Sub Area E. John Saunders agreed to the amendment. Mr. Lugar asked Ms. Temple about the enforcement of mixed use buildings to prevent them from becoming a 3 story residential unit. Ms. Temple indicated they usually start out with some type of office/commercial activity which sometimes is no more than a home office; however we did not have a good way to enforce the use. She added that the new mixed use development is functioning as it was portrayed and that is live/work. Ms. Wood added that current regulations allow you to have residential only if you provide commercial on the ground floor and the market isn't supporting that. She added that what is being suggested is that mixed use be an option except for the corner parcels in the interior of Cannery Village. This would allow someone to build a two story unit if they only wanted residential. Mr. Bartolic asked about the height limit on a mixed use structure. Ms. Temple indicated it was the current commercial height limit, 26 feet. She added that the three story buildings were approved with a use permit which allowed them to go to 35 feet. Mr. Bartolic suggested that if residential would be mixed in that all the buildings should have the same residential height restriction of 29 feet. Mr. Tescher pointed out that in order to make mixed use work, it must be three stories. Mr. Bartolic felt that if some buildings were allowed to go to 35 feet the residential units would find a way to get to that limit also. Ms. Wood indicated that not every project is allowed to go to 35 feet, there were strict findings that must be met before being approved. Mr. Vandersloot • agreed that some people take advantage of the system to get the added room. Mr. Corrough suggested that in Sub Areas A and F we should consider incentives for the development of water and coastal dependent uses when we get into policy issues. Mr. Glass pointed out the guiding principles state we will facilitate an economically viable concentration of marine uses, however he heard that South Coast is on its way to becoming condominiums. Ms. Wood indicated there was an application, but not to assume it would be approved. Mr. Glass asked if this process was too late to affect that application. Ms. Wood indicated it was; however we have an existing Harbor & Bay and Land Use Element that will affect it. Ms. Gardner asked for comments from the public. Carol Martin, Central Newport, asked about the rationale to the conversion of some of the properties to single family units which were currently condominiums. Ms. Gardner pointed out that she was talking about areas outside the area we were currently discussing. . Brandon Johnson, Newport Beach, asked about the uses listed for Sub Area A, he pointed out these were the same type uses that are not working now. He suggested coordinating the entire south side along with the north side and making it all residential mixed use. z W DRAFT Ms. Boice asked if someone had a commercial building and we rezone the area to • mixed use, can they rebuild commercial? Mr. Tescher indicated this is permissive, so it lists what you can get within the area. Ms. Gardner called for the vote. Motion Passes. Balboa Village Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Mr. Baers asked if visitor accommodating uses could be listed for Sub Areas A and B to make it clear. Mr. Tescher indicated that could be done. Ms. Dove pointed out that the chart showed no mixed use and she thought that was an error. She also pointed out that this area is virtually all multi -family. Ms. Temple agreed that the yellow areas (single family) on the map are currently multi -family. Mr. Remley pointed out that most the of the visitor serving retail in Sub Area A fail and we need to emphasize residential serving retail/commercial wherever possible. Ms. Wood pointed out we have to say both in this area because of the Coastal Commission requirements. Mr. Baers asked about the first bullet under Development Capacity, it lists 3-4 stories. Mr. Tescher indicated that was an error and should be 2-3 stories. Mr. Hendrickson indicated at the Public Workshop there was an emphasis on trying to • promote marine uses as well as more recreational uses that would be both visitor and local serving. Mr. Baers made a motion to accept the staff recommendation as modified. Mr. Bartolic indicated he was in the area recently and it was filthy, he asked if there was something we could do. Ms. Wood pointed out that it was included in the Policy Discussion; to provide incentives for property owners to make improvements and completion of enhancement to the Balboa Village sidewalks and street crossings. Ms. Boice asked about rebuilding a commercial building that burned down. She asked if the owner could only be rebuild 50% of the building. She felt this would be a deterrent to revitalization. Ms. Wood pointed out that she might be talking about the FAR requirement. Ms. Temple pointed out that the Balboa Village Specific Plan allows for reinstatement of non -conforming buildings. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that more mixed use was added to this area and we don't really have experience with mixed use in the City. Ms. Dove pointed out that there is a dynamic to the retail in this area and is concerned about the mixed use becoming a home office when the need in this area is for visitor serving retail. Ms. Boice pointed out a couple articles reporting that developers say they can't make mixed use pencil out and that studies are finding that traffic is not reduced because • people are keeping their cars in the mixed use areas. Mr. Tescher said this is a new 10 qv report and that the study is finding traffic is being reduced by 1/2 a trip per person not • per unit. The full study is due out in 2006. Mr. Baers indicated that Balboa is mixed use so we do have some experience with the use. Mr. Hendrickson suggested an amendment to the motion which would require visitor serving retail in mixed use developments. Mr. Yeo accepted the amendment. Ms. Gardner asked for comments from the public. Charlie Douglas pointed out this area isn't mixed use, it I mostly old beat up retail stores. He feels soon it will be residential because that's where the money is. He added that there is no incentive with the retail and so you're not going to improve the neighborhood. Ms. Gardner called for the vote on the motion. Motion Passes. Ms. Wood suggested that the Committee should revisit the R2 to R1 issue at the next meeting. Mr. Tescher agreed and the item will be placed on the next agenda. IV. Public Comments Carol Martin spoke about the conversion from R2 to R1 requesting that the Peninsula • area be left as R2. She added there were no suggestions at the public workshop about this conversion in this area. 11 Ig DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Saturday, July 23, 2005, at the Newport Beach Central Library. Members Present: Roger Alford Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn John Corrough Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Grace Dove Nancy Gardner Members Absent: • Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Gus Chabre Kim Jansma Gordon Glass Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Mike Ishikawa Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Philip Lugar Marie Marston Jim Naval John Saunders Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler Tom Hyans (sick leave) Charles Remley William Lusk Larry Root Barbara Lyon Tom Webber Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Staff Present: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Carleton Waters, Urban Crossroads Members of the Public Present: Seymour Beek Steve Koen Mark Murrell Walt Boice Robert Launsbury Nelson Nio Robert Brower C. Lush Dennis O'Neil Dan Daniels Adele Mann Dolores Offing Mike Erickson Mel Mann Mayone Saweps Magdi Hanna Carol McDermott Dolly Shaw Jack Hardy Stu McKenzie Karen Tringali Kelly Hillman Craig Morissette • I. Call to Order Philip Lugar called the meeting to order. �S DRAFT • II: Rezoning of R-2 Areas to R-1 Patty Temple reviewed the memo distributed with the agenda packets and the feedback received from some of the community associations regarding this issue. Raymond Zartler asked why some people considered it a bad idea. Ms. Temple stated there were two concerns: one from people who rely on the second unit for retirement income and the other from those who feel it would reduce the housing supply. Gordon Glass asked if the process included a vote of the affected property owners. Ms. Temple indicted it did not, however they must be notified by mail. Philip Bettencourt asked if R-1.5 would reduce the building bulk/mass and still allow the opportunity for income. Ms. Temple indicated R-1.5 is still two family zoning with a FAR difference. She added that the areas being discussed are already R-1.5. John Corrough asked if creating a second unit overlay would address some of the concerns. Ms. Temple thought conceptually it would give someone the right to have the second unit within certain parameters. Ron Yeo didn't recalling discussing this change for Balboa Village. Ms. Temple confirmed we had not discussed Balboa Village. Mr. Yeo asked if it would remain the same if we did nothing. Mr. Tescher indicated it would. John Saunders suggested a compromise which would be to change the zoning to R-1, • however build in very generous grandfathering/rebuilding provisions. Jim Naval pointed out that parking is an important issue to consider so we don't increase the problem. Ms. Temple indicated that the second units are usually granted a lower parking requirement because of the size of the unit. Nancy Gardner pointed out that the second units have assisted first time home buyers get into the market. Mike Ishikawa asked if any parking was lost when making the change to R-1. Ms. Temple indicated that many of the existing duplexes do not provide the amount of parking that would be required if built today; the parking requirements have changed. Lucille Kuehn asked if it would be possible to allow the current owner to take advantage of the second unit and when the property changed hands go to the lower density. Ms. Temple explained that existing units would still be legal, just non -conforming which would limit the amount of modification allowed. However if a new owner wanted to tear down the structure they could only build a single unit. 1 Bill Kelly pointed out that there was no reason to change the zoning, the trend is already taking place. Ms. Temple indicated we base traffic projections on the zoning which assumes there are two units; which could penalize the city has a whole when trying to get an accurate picture of traffic conditions for the future. Mr. Tescher added that there could also be impacts to the infrastructure systems. 2 Ito Mr. Yeo pointed out that in Corona del Mar people are tearing down single family units • and replacing them with two large units. Mike Johnson thought that we should not discourage owners who want to retain their duplex units from remodeling a structure that may be 25-40 years old. Mr. Lugar opened the discussion to the public. Craig Morrisette, Central Newport Community Association, stated he had received input from association members regarding this issue. They are concerned with what would happen if their homes were destroyed by fire or natural disaster —would they be permitted to rebuild their duplex units and they were also concerned about income from the second units. They don't want the City second guessing what they may want to do with their properties in the future. They feel there is no compelling reason to rezone the area to R-1. He pointed out that developers who are purchasing multiple lots, are rebuilding single family units due to the market today. He feels this is a temporary trend that will not last. He added that granny units are for people 62 and over, however these units are usually on the second floor and not conducive to seniors. He stated that the Central Newport Association supports the enforcement of current code and reinforced their major concerns. Stewart McKenzie, Newport Beach, stated he was involved in the last down zoning when the area went from R-3 to R-2 which also affected the height of structures. He also pointed out that parking is reduced when you go to a single family unit. He • pointed out when homes are over 2,000 square feet at least 3 parking spaces are needed and R-2 provides 4 parking spaces. He felt that we are trying to change the peninsula into something it really isn't. Jack Hardy, Newport Beach, pointed out that lenders do not like to loan on non- conforming structures, so it may be difficult to resell these properties. Mr. Yeo made a motion to retain the decision to change West Newport to R-1 and rescind previous actions taken for Balboa Island and the peninsula. Mr. Glass suggested amending the motion to leave Balboa Island open for discussion until staff has met with the homeowner associations to determine how they feel about the issue. Mr. Yeo accepted the amendment. Mr. Lugar called for the vote. Motion passes. III. Selection of Preferred Land Use Alternatives for: Mariner's Mile Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Ms. Temple reported that the Economic Development Committee reviewed the alternatives and could not come to any firm conclusion for this area. Don Krotee asked what the traffic impacts would be for the staff recommendation. • Carleton Waters indicated that adding residential to the area would be a positive impact with a slight reduction in peak hour traffic. 0 11 Jan Vandersloot pointed out that the alternatives summary showed an increase in • traffic. Mr. Tescher indicated that summary was based on the GPAC alternatives not the staff recommendation. Mr. Navai is concerned about preserving the views from the parks and homes located above this area. Mr. Tescher pointed out that this issue would be addressed in policy and added that staff recommended the mixed use in the back of the property so the buildings would not impact the views. Mr. Yeo made a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Mr. Johnson asked if the staff recommendation considered moving the post office. Mr. Lugar indicated that would be a policy decision. Mr. Johnson was also concerned with the safety of bicyclists in the area and asked how we could address the issue. Mr. Tescher indicated Mr. Waters was making a notation and it would be discussed when we deal with the Circulation Element. Ms. Dietz suggested additional signage might help with the situation. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that the staff recommendation is being presented without the benefit of analysis we have been able to review for previous alternatives. He would have liked to see the analysis prior to voting on the recommendations. Mr. Lugar opened the discussion to the public. Carol McDermott, Government Solutions, stated she was representing property owners in the area and participated extensively with the subcommittee discussions. She offered the committee wording changes to the staff recommendation document. She recommended adding residential as a permitted use on the bay side of the highway. She felt that a mixed use development would spur revitalization for the area, and recognized that the Coastal Commission would have to evaluate each request. She also recommended adding housing above retail or office uses on the Coast Highway frontages. She also asked that the words "rear portion" be removed from the bullet referring to Sub Area D with the recommendation to take into account the views of the residents above. Under development capacity, Ms. McDermott recommended adding "which results in a minimum frontage of 100 feet" to the requirement for .5 FAR. She pointed out that discussion of height limits might be more of a zoning issue rather than a General Plan issue. Dan Daniels, Ardell Marina, pointed out the need for revitalization in Mariners Mile. He felt that restaurants do not do well because of the complaints of noise from residents of Lido Isle. He added that most residents surveyed during this process have objected to a hotel on Mariners Mile. He stated that he was very excited early in the process when residential was considered for the area and felt that without residential there won't be revitalization on the bay side. He added that without additional development the walkway will not happen. Mark Murrell, Mariners Mile property owner, pointed out that communication among the • property owners is better than it has been in 25 years. The property owners want revitalization for Mariners Mile. He added that they had just worked with CalTrans to 51 O R' get streetlights for the area. He acknowledged that redevelopment could be difficult • due to the number of small parcels owned by families/trusts. He asked the committee to allow mixed use on both sides of the highway and also to consider softening the requirements for marine uses. Dolores Otting, Newport Beach, indicated she appreciates the rights of property owners however she feels there may come a day when you won't see water anywhere in the city. Seymour Beek, .Balboa Island, indicated he had attended the Economic Development Committee meeting when they discussed the area and the committee was split on whether to allow residential on the bay side of the highway. He felt that if residential was allowed it will take over and marine uses will suffer. Ms. McDermott disagreed with Mr. Beek stating that the Coastal Commission has the ultimate control and is required to balance the provisions of the Coastal Act. She believes that residential could not take over because of those provisions. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that there has been a lot of degradation of views from the parks above for many years and this may be the last chance to preserve the remaining view. He added that in the document Ms. McDermott presented she suggested striking out the word "preserve" and replace it with "consider" under the policy discussion regarding views. He is also concerned with traffic in the area and even though it was stated that the staff recommendation would reduce traffic he would like to see it in a • document he could study. Ms. Dietz asked for clarification of what views were being discussed, she felt that we have a large number of public view sites already in the city. She pointed out that we need to balance the loss of view against what is economically beneficial. Mr. Bettencourt stated he supported residential on the coastal side of the highway. Ms. Dietz suggested an alternate motion accepting Ms. McDermott's changes under Uses. Mr. Yeo did not accept the alternate. Lucille Kuehn stated that when she was on the City Council in 1974 they were talking about revitalization of Mariners Mile and it hasn't succeeded yet. She felt we need to take into consideration all that we have seen in presentations from other areas of the state in order to make it work. Mr. Corrough added that this area is trapped in 1974 and other communities have found ways to work with the private sector to seek creative proposals. He added that the Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan and the LCP are currently treated passively by the City. Roger Alford indicated he would be voting against this motion because he agrees that the uses need to be expanded to include residential and allow owners to take full advantage of their property. 5 0 DRAFT Mr. Bettencourt also indicated he would be voting no because he felt that with proper design standards developments could still provide view protection and provide public access along with residential uses. Mr. Johnson asked if we allowed residential would there be any impact for the City from the Coastal Commission. Ms. Temple responded that she really didn't know how the Coastal Commission would view this type of development. Hall Seely stated he would also vote no on this motion because he felt residential would create no more of an impact on the marine environment than a hotel or other commercial use. He felt that providing flexibility to the property owners was important. Mr. Glass pointed out that the reason some of the restaurants have failed on the bay side is because they were trying to become more of a nightclub instead. Carol Boice asked about the traffic impacts of residential on the bay side of the highway. Carleton Waters responded that the addition of residential compared to the staff recommendation would increase traffic. Mr. Lugar called for a vote. Motion Passes. Newport Center/Fashion island Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Ms. Temple reported that the Economic Development Committee reviewed the alternatives and favored • Option 1 which added 480 hotel rooms and 1,100 housing units. Ms. Boice pointed out that adding residential to the area increases traffic as well as impacts the local schools which are already overflowing. Bob Hendrickson felt that the additional 40,000 sq. ft. for office was not going to be adequate considering the amount existing in that area. He added that the subcommittee thought allowing more hotel use would have positive fiscal affects. Ms. Boice added that with the amount of traffic that would be generated in the area the noise levels would be higher than 65 CNEL at the airport which would impact the neighborhoods on MacArthur, Jamboree and Coast Highway. Mr. Yeo made a motion to accept the staff recommendation. Mr. Vandersloot was concerned with the additional trips generated by the staff recommendation and made an alternate motion to stay with the existing general plan instead. Mr. Yeo did not accept the alternate motion. Mr. Krotee asked what the impact on traffic would be if the housing was cut in half and the hotel numbers were doubled. Mr. Waters thought it would be a slight reduction in overall trip generation. Mr. Glass offered an alternative motion to accept Option 3 instead of the staff recommendation. Mr. Yeo accepted this alternative. r, P DRAFT Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that Option 3 adds approximately 600 peak hour trips. Mr. • Glass questioned that amount because there is less office and the hotel traffic is trickle traffic. Ledge Hale pointed out that Option 3 adds 1,226 housing units versus the staff recommendation of 450 units. Mr. Tescher added that Option 3 triples the housing units and does not provide for another anchor in Fashion Island. Ms. Kuehn asked what the fiscal impact would be if the additional anchor was deleted and housing was increased. Mr. Tescher indicated there would be a significant impact however did not have the exact amount. Mr. Glass withdrew his motion because he felt it did not make economic sense. He then offered another motion to accept Option 3 and add the additional anchor. Mr. Yeo accepted that alternative motion. Lila Crespin asked what type housing was recommended. Mr. Tescher indicated it would be multi family units. Ms. Gardner was concerned with the amount of housing because recent legislation increases housing numbers by 35%. Mr. Tescher indicated pending legislation may require minimum density be 30 units per acre. Ms. Boice again pointed out that the schools in the area cannot handle the number of students that would come from the additional housing. • Mr. Lugar called for a vote. Motion failed. Mr. Yeo made a motion to accept the staff recommendation. Mr. Krotee recommended an alternative motion to limit the housing to 60'0 units and raise the hotel rooms to 200. Mr. Hendrickson agreed adding that the hotel should be 250 units instead. Mr. Yeo agreed to the changes. Ms. Dietz asked if the Marriott renovations had been factored into the numbers. Ms. Temple indicated that the Marriott had reduced their current unit numbers. Ms. Kuehn asked about the rationale of decreasing the housing units when the community needs housing. Ms. Gardner responded that we added approximately 2,000 units at last week's meeting and we have some large numbers in the airport area also. Mr. Lugar called for a vote. Motion passes. Corona del Mar Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Ms. Temple reported that the Economic Development Committee reviewed the alternatives and recommended the retention of the existing general plan. Mr. Glass pointed out that even though the study did not include the strip behind the • commercial, this area is a section that could make a difference. 7 V DRAFT Mr. Yeo pointed out that there is a lot of parking behind the commercial areas that is • currently zoned residential. He indicated there is concern about loosing that parking due to the current market. He made a motion to accept the staffs recommendation and grandfather existing buildings to allow a maximum 1.0 FAR under development capacity. Mr. Lugar opened the discussion to the public. Walt Boice, Newport Beach, told the group that the current .5 FAR discourages redevelopment of the older buildings in Corona del Mar and asked the group to consider allowing the leeway similar to Balboa Village to encourage redevelopment. Ms. Crespin asked how this would affect parking. Ms. Temple explained that in Balboa Village allows for complete reconstruction of non -conforming buildings without required parking. Ms. Dietz pointed out we should keep in mind that is a walking community. Ms. Crespin added that the restaurants get more visitors than any other area and parking impacts the residents who live near them. Ms. Gardner agreed and asked if there was a way to encourage added parking. Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that Option 2 causes the least amount of traffic. Mr. Lugar called for a vote. Motion passes. Airport Area • Woodie Tescher reviewed the staff recommendation for the area. Ms. Temple reported that the Economic Development Committee reviewed the alternatives and recommended Option 3. They didn't think the area could accommodate the 6,600 dwelling units so their recommendation was consistent with the staff recommendation. Mr. Yeo asked if the City was trying to take over the airport. Ms. Temple responded that the City was talking with the County about becoming part of the management of the airport. Mr. Kelly asked if the housing would be multi -story buildings. Mr. Tescher indicated there was a separate study going on looking at a variety of housing types for this area. Mr. Seely pointed out that the subcommittee thought part of Area A would also be suitable for housing, currently one story office buildings between Teller and Von Karman. Mr. Tescher indicated the dilemma was that there were so many property owners there and staff felt that the area would not be redeveloped because of that. Mr. Seely stated the property owners he knew were waiting for redevelopment opportunities and would not be opposed to residential. Mr. Tescher indicated he would get that information to the people doing the study. Mr. Bettencourt indicated he was going to abstain on this issue and reviewed the Brookfield project he is working on in the area. Mr. Corrough asked where the Council thought 6,000 housing units would fit in this • area. Mr. Tescher indicated the analysis had not been done at the time Council indicated they thought residential would work in this area. N. 5ti Mr. Saunders made a motion to accept the staff recommendation with the addition of • residential in Area B and in the area of Area A referred to by Mr. Seely. Ms. Kuehn asked where the affordable housing would be designated in this area. Mr. Tescher indicated that would be a policy, not a designated area on the map. Mr. Vandersloot indicated he was in favor of more residential in the area however felt we should subtract other elements to make it traffic neutral. Mr. Tescher indicated the motion would have slightly higher traffic numbers. Mr. Vandersloot asked to have the motion amended to neutralize the traffic impact. Mr. Saunders asked how much office would need to be eliminated to do this. Mr. Waters indicated it would be approximately 600,000 square feet. Mr. Saunders agreed to amend his motion to reduce office by 300,000 square feet. Mr. Lugar opened the discussion to the public. Carol McDermott, Newport Beach, distributed a document with language changes to the recommendations presented to the Committee. She agreed that housing is appropriate in Area C and thought the most logical place will be in existing parking lots. She felt the amended language would make it clear housing would be allowed as replacement of an existing building or parking lot. Steve Koen, Newport Beach, stated he agreed with the motion made by Mr. Saunders which allows 3,500 units plus any exchange of office space that will neutralize the traffic concern. Mr. Lugar called for the vote. Motion Passes. III. Reconsideration of Land Use Alternatives West Newport Highway Banning Ranch West Newport Industrial Old Newport Boulevard Balboa Penninsula (Cannery Village/Lido Village/McFadden Square) Balboa Village The Committee did not want to reconsider any of the Land Use Alternatives decided for any of the areas discussed at the meeting. IV. Public Comments No additional comments were offered. 9 7� CITY OF N EWPORT BEACH TO: General Plan Advisory Committee FROM: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner DATE: September 27, 2005 SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Policy Meeting No. 1 The comprehensive General Plan Update includes the drafting of new General Plan elements, or chapters, as required by State Law. In addition to the seven required elements (Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation and Natural • Resources, Recreation and Open Space, Noise and Public Safety) the City has determined that the inclusion of four additional study areas, Historical Resources, Arts and Cultural Resources, Growth Management and Harbor and Bay are worthy of inclusion in the updated General Plan. Each element contains a series of goals and policies that provide the City with long term guidance in relation to each of the topic areas. Attached herein are draft copies of the Public Safety, Arts and Cultural Resources and Historical Resources sections, including goals and policies, for the consideration of GPAC. All comments and recommendations made by GPAC will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration at their meetings on October 4, 2005. r-� ATTACHMENT 1 Draft Historical Resources • Historical Resources This Chapter addresses the protection and sustainability of Newport Beach's historic and paleontological resources. Goals and policies presented within this Chapter are intended to recognize, maintain, and protect the community's unique historical, cultural and archeological sites and structures. Preserving and maintaining these resources helps to create an awareness and appreciation of the City's rich history. For many years, Newport Beach's scenic location, attractive neighborhoods and active commercial areas has continued to place many of the City's original buildings, paleontological resources and historical sites under extreme development pressures. Many of the community s early structures and archeological sites have since been demolished or altered. However, a significant number of historical sites and buildings have been preserved that are representative of the community and the region. Many of these historical resources have been recognized as being of statewide or national importance. The preservation of these sites has been the result of active efforts by residents, community groups, private organizations and the City of Newport Beach. As recen0y as 1947, lands surround Newports Upper Bay were developed tenant farms. Newport Beach 75., A Diamond Jubilee History, James P. Felton. Photo courtesy of the Irvine Company It is important to continue to protect Newport Beach's heritage and to identify and safeguard historical resources worthy of protection and ensure that new development enhances rather than alters or eliminates reminders of Newport Beach rich heritage. CONTEXT —EARLY HISTORY The community of Newport Beach has a rich and diverse history. The picturesque coastline of community and its close proximity to the water have played a large role part in the development of the City. Early inhabitants thousands of years ago were aboriginal hunters and gatherers were first drawn to this area by the rich bounty of the bay and ocean. The most recent native people were the Tongva (Gabrielinos) and the Acjachemem Qunnenos), who lived in small villages around the bay. In July of 1769, the expedition led by the Spaniard Gaspar de Portola reached the boundaries of present-day Orange County. Father Junipero Serra, a member of the expedition, dedicated the Mission of San Juan Capistrano, Orange County's first permanent settlement, on November 1, 1776. The Mission's chapel and adjoining structure were the first signs of civilization erected upon the Santa Ana Region. Decades later in the 1800's, land holdings of the Capistrano Mission were parceled out as Spanish and Mexican land grants to war heroes and aristocratic families. Later, many Spanish and Mexican landowners were forced to sell large tracts of their land. The most prominent landowners of the area, Don Sepulveda and Don Bernardo Yotba, men whose HISTORICAL RESOURCES 1 combined holdings comprised Newport Beach's upper bay and lower bay, sold their tracts to • American entrepreneurs by the names of Flint, Bixby, Irvine and McFadden. The first stirring of commerce began in the community of Newport Beach began in 1870, when a small stern wheeler from San Diego named "The Vaquero" made its first trip to a marshy lagoon to exchange lumber for hides, tallow, livestock and gain. James McFadden and other ranch owners in the Lower Bay decided from then on that the area should be called "Newport." In 1888, James McFadden changed the isolated settlement by building a wharf that extended from the shallow bay of the peninsula to deeper water where large steamers could dock. Shipping activity increased dramatically and for the next eight years, the McFadden Wharf area was a booming commercial and shipping center and a company town began to grow. However, in 1899, the Federal Government allocated funds for major improvements to a new harbor at San Pedro, which would become Southern California's major seaport. The McFadden Wharf and railroad was sold to the Southern Pacific Railroad that same year, signaling the end of Newport Bay as a commercial shipping center. In 1902, James McFadden sold his Newport townsite and about half of the Peninsula to William S. Collins, who saw Newport Bay's resort and recreation potential. Collins took on Henry E. Huntington as a partner in the Newport Beach Company. Huntington had acquired the Pacific Electric railway system and used it to promote new communities outside of Los Angeles. Soon after, the Pacific Electric Railroad established itself in Newport Beach in 1905, connecting the City of Los Angeles by rail. Rapid transit brought new visitors to the waterfront, and small hotels and beach cottages were developed that catered to the tourist industry. At about the same • time, the McFadden brothers sold their holdings of Peninsula land. Between 1902 and 1907, many of Newport Beaches' waterfront communities were subdivided, including West Newport, East Newport, West Newport, East Newport, Bay Island, Balboa, Corona del Mar, Balboa Island and Port Orange (at old Newport Landing), and in August 1906, residents in the booming bay town voted to incorporate. Parts of Newport Heights and Corona del Mat were annexed soon after the turn of the century. Between 1934 and 1936, the federal government and the county undertook work around the harbor. They dredged the Lower Bay, extended jetties, and created the present day contour of Newport Beach. In 1936, community members dedicated the City's main harbor, named Newport Harbor. During World War II, the harbor became a vital hub as naval ships were built and repaired in its coastal waters. • The Santa Ana freeway, built in the 1950s, triggered further growth. During this time, housing development began to spread northward from the waterfront to the hills and mesa areas. The community's economic industry changed, as the fishing industry, once the backbone of Newport Beach's economy, gradually declined to be replaced with new businesses and commercial centers. Beginning in the 1970s, the building of shopping centers such as Fashion Island, hotels, high - scale restaurants, offices, and many new homes lead to the creation of many active employment, retail, and residential areas that characterizes much of Newport Beach today.' However, while Newport Beach is no longer a small resort community, the bay and beach continue to play an important role in the community's character and economy and the City continues to be a destination for visitors. I History of Newport Beach. Newport Beach Real Estate. Webpage: http://www.reatestatenewportbeach.com/relocation/Mstory.php HISTORICAL RESOURCES K RELEVANT AND RELATED PROGRAMS Federal Programs The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 is a federal law that establishes the legal and administrative context to encourage preservation of historic resources associated with the country's history and heritage. The NHPA establishes criteria for inclusion into the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) which is an inventory of the United States' historic resources maintained by the National Park Service. Structures and features must usually be at least 50 years old to be considered for listing on the NRHP, barring exceptional circumstances. Properties listed in the NRHP, or determined eligible for listing, must meet certain criteria for historical significance and possess integrity of form, location, and setting. State Programs The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) was created to identify resources deemed worthy of preservation on a state level and was modeled closely after the NRHP. The criteria are nearly identical to those of the NRHP but focus upon resources of statewide, rather than national, significance. The CRHR automatically includes resources listed on the NRHP as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest. California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains (except • as allowed under applicable sections of the Public Resources Code), as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, treatment of the remains prior to, during and after evaluation, and reburial procedures. • California Senate Bill297 (1982) This bill addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. Local Regulations —Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual HISTORICAL RESOURCES Reflective of Newpotes unique history, several properties in the City exhibit significant heritage distinction. Twelve sites have been listed or designated eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources, or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. HISTORICAL RESOURCES Nationally Recognized Resources • Four properties within the City have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. ■ Balboa Inn —Built in 1929, the Balboa Inn is representative of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture and beachfiont tourist development. • ■ Balboa Pavilion—Consttucted in 1905, the Balboa Pavilion has been the site of numerous social and cultural activities over the turn of the century. It is one the state's last surviving examples of great waterfront recreational pavilions. ■ Crystal Cove Historic District —The Crystal Cove Historic District is a 12.3- acre coastal portion of the 2,791-acre Crystal Cove State Park. The federally listed Historic District is an enclave of 46 vintage rustic coastal cottages originally built in the 1920's and 1930's that are nestled around the mouth of Los Trancos Creek. It is one of the last remaining examples of early 20th century Southern California coastal development. '. t. ZP�S,•VI T�''• One of the Cdy's first landmarks was the Balboa Pavilion constructed in 1905. Today It Is listed on the National and State Historic Registers. (Newport Beach 75: A Diamond Jubilee History, Photo courtesy of Phil Tozer) ■ Lovell Beach House —Built in 1926, the Lovell Beach House was designed by Rudolf Schindler and is considered the first pure International Style house built in America. State -Recognized Resources In addition, four properties within the City have been listed as California Historical Landmarks. ■ Old Landing —Established by Captain Dunnells in the 1870s, it was the site of the first shipping business in Newport Bay. ■ Site of First Water -to -Water Flight —Commemorates the May 10, 1912, flight of pioneer pilot Glenn L. Martin who flew from the waters of the Pacific Ocean at Balboa to Catalina Island; on a primitive hydroplane; the first water -to -water flight. Today a plaque at the foot of the Balboa Pier honors the memory of Glenn Martin. ■ McFadden Wharf —The site of the original wharf built in 1888 by the McFadden brothers. ■ Balboa Pavilion —described above Four additional properties ate also listed in the CHRIS database: ■ B.K. Stone Building —one of the oldest commercial structures in Newport Beach. ■ Balboa Island Firehouse No. 4—early police and fire station for the Balboa Peninsula • ■ Bank of Balboa/Bank of America —Bank of Balboa, Bank of America, provided services from.1928-1984 (now demolished) HISTORICAL RESOURCES 4 ■ Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church • Locally Recognized Resources Properties that are not listed on the NRHP or CRHR may also be considered historical resources. The City of Newport Beach has established the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property ("City Register") to recognize structures or properties of local historical or architectural significance. The City has listed seven properties in the City Register in recognition of their local historical or architectural significance, as described above. In addition to the Balboa Pavilion and the Balboa Inn, which are also listed in the NRHP and CRHR, the City Register includes the following: ■ Rendezvous Ballroom Site —A popular Balboa Dance Hall that featured numerous famous Big Bands of the 1930's and 1940's. It was destroyed by fire in 1966. ■ Wilma's Patio (formally Pepper's Restaurant) —Located on Balboa Island, the exposed structural components of Wilma's Patio are timbers used in the original Balboa Island Bridge and McFadden Wharf. ■ Balboa Theater —Built in 1928, the Balboa Theater is a former vaudeville theater that at one time housed an infamous speakeasy during the prohibition period. Currently, the theater is under renovation. ■ Balboa Saloon —The 1924 building is representative of the nautical history and Main Street commercial masonry style of Newport Beach. • ■ Dory Fishing Fleet —The Dory Fishing Fleet is located adjacent to Newport Pier. The fleet and open-air fish market have operated at this location since the founding of the fleet in 1891 by Portuguese fishermen. The last remaining fleet of its type, it is a historical landmark designated by the Newport Beach Historical Society. It is a general policy of the City that an area immediately west of the Newport Pier be reserved for the Newport Dory Fishing Fleet. Additionally, in 1991, City Council established an Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHHPAC) to investigate the historic resources of the community and make recommendations regarding preservation. The AHHPAC completed its assignment on May 12, 1992, and reported its findings, which included a Historic Resource Inventory of 61 properties, to City Council June 8, 1992. The inventory categorized the properties surveyed in five hierarchical "classes" of significance: ■ Class 1—Major Historic Landmark ■ Class 2-1-listoric Landmark ■ Class 3—Local Historic Site ■ Class 4—Structure of Historic Interest ■ Class 5—Point of Historic Interest Under this system, Class 1 to Class 3 would be eligible to use the State Historic Building Code; Class 4 and Class 5 properties would be listed for recognition purposes only. The inventory was • never officially adopted by the City, and the structures were never placed on the City Register, HISTORICAL RESOURCES 5 but the inventory still serves as a useful guide to potentially historic properties that may have • historic or cultural significance to the City. • r 1 L J Left, In 1953. the International Boy Scout Jamboree was held where Newport Center and Fashion Island are now located. Thousands of tents were pitched in the area reachable only by a two-lane muddy trail. A memorial plaque located at what Is now Fashion Island commemorates the event (Below) HISTORICAL RESOURCES 0 • GOALS AND POLICIES Goal H1 Historically significant landmarks, sites, and structures that are recognized and protected. Policy 1-11.1 Historical Resources Inventory Maintain and periodically update the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property for buildings, objects, structures, and monuments having importance to the history or architecture of Newport Beach. Policy H1.2 Preservation or Re -Use of Historical Structures Discourage the demolition of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or the list of California Historical Landmarks, and/or the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property. Provide incentives, such as grading reductions or waivers of application fees, permit fees, and/or any liens placed by the City to properties listed in the National or State Register or the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property in exchange for preservation easements. Policy H1.3 Historical Landmarks Encourage the placement of historical landmarks, photographs, markers, or plaques at areas of historical interest or value. Create a Landmark Plan that will recognize and designate culturally important heritage sites that are eligible for • the placement of historical landmarks or plaques. The Plan will also identify funding opportunities to support the program such as development fees, corporate or civic sponsorships, donations, or utilizing General Funds. • Policy H1.4 Adaptive Re -use Encourage alternatives to demolition of historical sites or structures by promoting architecturally compatible rehabilitation or adaptive re -use. Provide incentives such as permit and application fee waivers, flexible building requirements and free technical advice by person(s) qualified in historical Preservation. Policy H1.5 Historical Elements within New Projects If preservation or adaptive reuse is not a feasible option for a proposed development that is located on a historical site or structure, require that the proposed projects must incorporate a physical link to the past within the site or structural design. For example, incorporate historical photographs or artifacts within the proposed project or preserve the location and structures of existing pathways, gathering places, seating areas, rail lines, roadways, or viewing vantage points within the proposed site design. HISTORICAL RESOURCES 7 IN E E • Goal H2 Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City. Policy H2.1 New Development Activities Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. Policy H2.2 Grading and Excavation Activities Continue to maintain sources of information regarding paleontological and archeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals, who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological or archeological findings. Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. Policy H2.3 Cultural Organizations Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. Policy H2.4 Paleontological or Archaeological Materials Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within the Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible. HISTORICAL RESOURCES 8 0 ATTACHMENT 2 Draft Arts and Cultural Resources 0 Arts and Cultural Resources INTRODUCTION Arts and cultural activities play an important role in community life and have been a valued component of Newport Beach for over 125 years. Newport Beach has a wide range of art and cultural organizations, resources, attractions, and activities that are a source of community pride and enrichment. These achievements have evolved over time and have been the result of the dedication and involvement of numerous individuals, groups, and organizations. However, without intervention, coordination, preservation and promotion, art and cultural activities and resources can easily be lost through destruction, indifference, or through unintended land use decisions or policies. The goals and policies of the Arts and Culture Chapter ate intended to be a guide for meeting the future cultural needs of the community. Future challenges in Newport Beach require maximizing the community's cultural arts potential by coordinating with various community groups, businesses, agencies, citizens and the City to create an active and cohesive cultural and arts programs. The Chapter is intended to serve as a mechanism for integrating these resources in order to provide improved and expanded arts and cultural facilities and programs to the community. COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS Cultural Arts Organizations and Programs Newport Beach's nonprofit arts community includes a broad array of organizations, and a substantial number of arts programs and activities. There is a diverse range of artistic disciplines and a strong focus on programs for children and youth. Through its grant program, the City of Newport Beach distributes funds to arts organizations on a yearly basis, which enables them to expand their cultural programs offered in the community. Through its Department of Recreation and Serior Services, the City also Provides year-round educational programs for l� adults and children in music, dance, arts and ` r crafts, and drama. Newport Beach's arts community also contains various private and nonprofit arts organizations and arts groups. These groups include the Newport Beach Film Festival, Newport Theatre Arts Center, Baroque Music Festival, Newport Beach Arts Foundation and the Newport Beach Theatre Company. Newport Theatre Arts Center Thls non-profit community theatre company provides a variety of theatrical productions throughout the year. The plays and shows are affordable to all economic segments of this community and offer residents a unique opportunity to attend or participate In theatrical productions. ARTS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES tv F City of Newport Beach Arts Commission The City of Newport Beach Arts Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council on all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic, and cultural aspects of the City. Established in 1972, as the Newport Beach Arts Committee and in 1974 in the City Charter as the Newport Beach City Arts Commission, the Commission recommends to the City Council ordinances, rules, and regulations as it may deem necessary for the administration and preservation of the s arts, performing arts, and historical, ,w aesthetic, and cultural aspects of the community. The Arts Commission, working with staff in the Cultural Arts Office, provides free or low-cost programs for cultural enrichment including temporary art exhibits at City Hall and the Central Library, juried art exhibitions, permanent art collections for City facilities, summer concert in the park series, arts lectures for • the public, cultural festivals, and performances, educational seminars and workshops. • Nakayosh"ood friends. Located In front of the Central Library, this Japanese friendship statue was a gift from Newport Beach's sister City Okazaki, Japan. It depicts two children embracing and sits on a large granite base with a plaque describing the piece and declaring the citizens of Newport Beach and Okazaki as friends. The Arts Commission also participates in the designation of historical landmarks, and reviews design elements for public sculpture, fountains, murals, benches, and other fixtures. Performing and Visual Arts Facilities The primary performing arts facilities in Newport Beach are those that are associated with local cultural arts organizations and programs. They include the Newport Theatre Arts Center and the Orange County Museum of Art, which has an auditorium that seats 120 people. Local schools have auditoriums and other facilities that can be used as performing arts spaces, such as Loats Auditorium at Newport Harbor High School. In addition, the Balboa Performing Arts Theater is a planned facility, which will seat approximately 350 people. Civic facilities in Newport Beach, such as the library and City Hall, have exhibition spaces that display the work of local artists. The Central Library visual arts gallery displays different exhibitions of local artists monthly. The library also hosts a variety of programs for adults, including Sunday musicals, art exhibitions, author appearances, lecture series, book discussions, and Internet workshops. ARTS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 2 15 • Museums In addition to the numerous galleties throughout the City, Newport Beach is also home to a variety of museums. Located in near the Fashion Island Shopping Center, the Orange County Museum of Art, features modern and • The Orange County Museum of Art moved to Its current location in Newport Center in 1977. The Museum serves as the premier visual arts organization in Orange County, and is especially noted for organizing Important exhibitions of contemporary art Events and Festivals contemporary 'art. The museum houses a permanent collection of paintings, sculpture, photography, and changing installations, all documenting California's artistic heritage. The Newport Harbor Nautical Museum is located in the "Pride of Newport, "a 190-foot paddle wheeler docked in Newport Harbor. The museum focuses on industrial and recreational history and features local photographs, artifacts, and memorabilia. Sherman Library for California History, located in Corona del Mar, features detailed exhibits on the history of the Pacific southwest, as well as a public garden. 'The Newport Sports Collection Museum, located in Newport Center offers several educational programs to motivate youth to stay in school and be active in athletics. Various festivals and events occur throughout the year in Newport Beach. Some of these attractions include the Newport Beach Jazz festival, Concerts in the Parks hosted by the City Arts Commission, Newport Beach Festival of the Arts, Shakespeare by the Sea, Balboa Island Art Walk, Southern California Plein Air Paintet's Association (SOCalPAPA), yearly Sandcastle contest, the countywide Imagination Celebration, and the Newport Beach Film Festival. GOALS AND POLICIES Goals CA 1 Participation in Cultural Arts Active and vital arts and cultural activities and programs that enrich the community. Policy CA l .l Public Projects Encourage the incorporation of public art into public projects that enhance the City's community character as well as its built environment, through public art donations, and working with local artists, students, and community groups to create public art projects. The City should explore requiring art work to be installed and funded by private developers for larger residential or commercial . projects. ARTS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES lq Policy CA 1.2 Promotion of Cultural Arts • Continue to promote Newport Beach's unique cultural and historic assets to visitors and residents by working with other agencies such as the Orange County Museum of Art. Policy CA 1.3 Events and Programs Encourage the continuation and expansion of cultural arts events and programs such as festivals, seminars, workshops, concerts in the parks, and community cultural festivals. Policy CA 1.4 Arts Education Partner with the community to encourage and strengthen arts education for children, youth, adults and senior in the City. Goal CA 2 Provision of Physical Facilities Adequate physical facilities and venues that support cultural art programs. Policy CA 2.1 Facilities Explore opportunities to accommodate current or emerging cultural arts programs within existing and new facilities by working with community groups for sharing of performance and exhibit space and considering the potential for • new facilities. Policy CA 2.2 Shared Venues Continue the use of shared exhibit space for the display of arts exhibitions such as the Central Library and City Hall. Goal CA 3 Funding A broad range of public and private funding sources to support cultural arts goals and activities. Policy CA 3.1 Public and Private Sources Support the efforts of non-profit, private and community organizations to apply for public and private grants and promote donations to support art and cultural activities. Policy CA 3.2 Volunteer Opportunities Promote and support volunteer opportunities for public involvement in arts and cultural programs and events. Policy CA 3.3 Additional Resources Utilize cultural resources outside of Newport Beach. Continue to promote the Newport Beach Sister City Association and other cultural exchange programs. • ARTS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 1s Policy CA 3.4 Cultural Tourism • Promote cultural tourism in Newport Beach to attract visitors and tourists interested in cultural events. r1 LJ 01 ARTS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Ro ATTACHMENT 3 �-A Draft Public Safety u I'l 0 Safety INTRODUCTION The primary goal of the Safety Element is to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from natural and human -induced hazards. This Safety Element recognizes and responds to public health and safety risks that could cause exposure to the residents of Newport Beach. Implementation of city, county, and state emergency response and mutual aid plans will enable the community to avert or minimize impacts to the extent practical and feasible, as well as allow restoration of the City in a timely manner after an event. This element specifically addresses coastal hazards, geologic hazards, seismic hazards, flood hazards, wildland and urban fire hazards, hazardous materials, aviation hazards, and disaster planning. As discussed below, the type and location of hazards have been identified in this element, as well as policies and programs to minimize impacts. Coastal Hazards Newport Beach is susceptible to low -probability but high -risk events such as tsunamis, and two, • more common, isolated hazards such as storm surges and coastal erosion. Each of these has a potential to significantly impact Newport Beach residents and the built environment. Figure 1 shows potential tsunami inundation areas, and areas subject to coastal erosion. Tsunamis and Rogue Waves. Newport Beach is generally protected from most distantly generated tsunamis by the Channel Islands and Point Arguello, except for those generated in the Aleutian Islands, off the coast of Chile, and possibly off the coast of Central America. Nevertheless, since the early 1800s, more than thirty tsunamis have been recorded in Southern California, and at least six of these caused damage in the area, although not necessarily in Newport Beach. Tsunamis generated in the Alaskan region take approximately six hours to arrive in the Southern California area, while tsunamis generated off the Chilean coast take 12 to 15 hours. Given those timeftames, coastal communities in Southern California can receive adequate warning, allowing them to implement evacuation procedures. Alternatively, very little warning time, if any, can be expected from locally generated tsunamis. Locally generated tsunamis caused by offshore faulting or landsliding immediately offshore from Newport Beach are possible, and these tsunamis have the potential to be worst -case scenarios for the coastal communities in Orange County. Modeling off the Santa Barbara coast suggests that locally generated tsunamis can cause waves between 2 and 20 meters (6 to 60 feet) high, and that these could impact the coastline with almost no warning, within minutes of the causative earthquake or slump. Areas within Newport Beach that are most likely to be impacted by a tsunami include West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Lido Isle, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay. Rogue waves are very high waves that arise unexpectedly in the open ocean. These waves are . difficult to plan for as they are unpredictable. Rogue waves have historically impacted the Orange County coast and have the potential to impact Newport Beach in the future. SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 1 t`b Storm Surges. Unlike tsunamis, which can occur anytime, storm surges are associated with • inclement weather. Given that during inclement weather a lot less people ate expected to be at the beach, storm surges are more likely to impact residents than tourists, and the potential number of casualties can be expected to be significantly less. The most common problem associated with storm surges is flooding of low-lying areas, including structures. This is often compounded by intense rainfall and strong winds. If a storm surge occurs during high tide, the flooded area can be significant. Coastal flooding in Newport Beach occurred in the past when major storms, many of these El Nino Southern Oscillation events, impacted the area. Storm surging associated with a tropical storm has been reported only once in the history of Newport Beach, in 1939. This suggests that the hazard of cyclone -induced storm surges has a low probability of occurrence. Nevertheless, this incident caused millions of dollars in damage to Newport Beach. Storm surge events affect development along the ocean, and to a lesser extent, Newport Bay. Coastal Erosion. Newport Beach has a variety of coastal features ranging from replenished beach sands in West Newport, to steep bluffs comprised of sandstone and siltstone to the south of Corona del Mar. Significant coastal bluff retreat, bluff -top erosion, gullying, and beach erosion are occurring along the eastern Newport shoreline, and the rates of erosion are dependent on the underlying geologic units and their different responses to the weathering effects of water (including rain and waves), gravity, and wind. Coastal erosion occurs as a result of natural processes such as long -shore drift, storm surge, and sea level rise. Sea bluff erosion occurs as a result of processes that impact both the bottom and top of the cliffs. Pounding of the waves during high tide and storm surges causes considerable damage to the bottom of the bluffs. If the • sediments exposed in this zone are soft and highly erodible, eventual collapse of the bluff can occur as it is undercut by wave action. Uncontrolled surface runoff, if allowed to flow over the top of the bluffs, can cause extensive erosion in the form of rills and gullies. During wet years, large canyons can develop quickly, often as a result of a single storm. Unchecked foot and vehicular traffic and rodent burrowing can also cause significant damage at the top of the bluffs. Increased irrigation associated with agricultural and residential watering can lubricate fine-grained layers in the sediments or bedrock forming the cliffs, leading to failure as a result of landsliding. The protection of the beaches from coastal erosion, through effective structural devices and sand replenishment, provides more than just a wider beach; it serves as a buffet zone that provides protection from tsunami run-up or storm surges, especially in areas where there are no dune deposits in front of residential or commercial development Geologic Hazards The geologic diversity of Newport Beach is strongly related to tectonic movement along the San Andreas Fault and its broad zone of subsidiary faults. This, along with sea level fluctuations related to changes in climate, has resulted in a landscape that is also diverse in geologic hazards. Geologic hazards are generally defined as surficial earth processes that have the potential to cause loss or harm to the community or the environment. Slope failures. Slope failures often occur as elements of interrelated natural hazards in which one event triggers a secondary event such as a storm -induced mudflow. Slope failure can occur on natural and man-made slopes. The City's remaining natural hillsides and coastal bluff areas are • generally vulnerable to slope failures that include: San Joaquin Hills; and bluffs along Upper Newport Bay, Newport Harbor, and the Pacific Ocean. Despite the abundance of landslides and SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 2 11 new development in the San Joaquin Hills, damage from slope failures in Newport Beach has been small compared to other hillside communities. This can probably be attributed to the development of strict hillside grading ordinances, sound project design that avoid severely hazardous areas, soil engineering practices, and effective agency review of hillside grading projects. Compressible Soils. Compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City, typically in the lowland areas and in canyon bottoms. These ate generally young sediments of low density with variable amounts of organic materials. Under the added weight of fill embankments or buildings, these sediments will settle, causing distress to improvements. Low -density soils, if sandy in composition and saturated with water, will also be susceptible of the effects of liquefaction during a moderate to strong earthquake. Expansive Soils. Some of the geologic units in the Newport Beach area, including both surficial soils and bedrock, have fine-grained components that are moderate to highly expansive. These materials may be present at the surface or exposed by grading activities. Man-made fills can also be expansive, depending on the soils used to construct them. Seismic Hazards The City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The highest risks originate from the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that . would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. Earthquake -triggered geologic effects also include surface fault rupture, landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, and seiches. Earthquakes can also lead to urban fires, dam failures, and toxic chemical releases, all man -related hazards. Figure 2 shows areas within Newport Beach that are subject to liquefaction and landslides. Liquefaction. Strong ground shaking can result in liquefaction. Liquefaction, a geologic process that causes ground failure, typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments primarily of sandy composition. Areas of Newport susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e. seismically induced settlement) include areas along the coastline that includes Balboa Peninsula, in and around the Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, in the lower reaches of major streams in Newport Beach, and in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. It is likely that residential or commercial development will never occur in many of the other liquefiable areas, such as Upper Newport Bay, the Newport Coast beaches, and the bottoms of stream channels. However, other structures (such as bridges, roadways, major utility lines, and park improvements) that occupy these areas ate vulnerable to damage from liquefaction if mitigation measures have not'been included in their design. Seismically Induced Slope Failure. Strong ground motions can also wotsen existing unstable slope conditions, particularly if coupled with saturated ground conditions. Seismically induced landslides can overrun structures, people or property, sever utility lines, and block toads, thereby hindering rescue operations after an earthquake. Much of the area in eastern Newport Beach has been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure. Approximately 90 percent of the • land from Los Trancos Canyon to State Park boundary is mapped as susceptible to landsliding by the California Geologic Survey. Additionally, the sedimentary bedrock that crops out in the San SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 Joaquin Hills is locally highly weathered. In steep areas, strong ground shaking can cause slides or • rockfalls in this material Rupture along the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone and other faults in Southern California could reactivate existing landslides and cause new slope failures throughout the San Joaquin Hills. Slope failures can also be expected to occur along stream banks and coastal bluffs, such as Big Canyon, around San Joaquin Reservoir, Newport and Upper Newport Bays, and Corona del Mar. Flood Hazards Flooding can be a destructive natural hazard, and is a recurring event. Flood hazards in Newport Beach can be classified into two general categories: flash flooding from small, natural channels; and more moderate and sustained flooding from the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek. The 100- and 500-year flood zones have been identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and include the low-lying areas in West Newport at the base of the bluffs, the coastal areas which surround Newport Bay and all low-lying areas adjacent to Upper Newport Bay. 100- and 500-year flooding is also anticipated to occur along the lower reaches of Coyote Canyon, in the lower reaches of San Diego Creek and the Santa Ana Delhi Channel, and in a portion of Buck Gully. Most flooding along these second- and third -order streams is not expected to impact significant development. However, flooding in the coastal areas of the City will impact residential and commercial zones along West Newport, the Balboa Peninsula and Balboa Island and the seaward side of Pacific Coast Highway. Figure 3 shows the 100- and 500-year flood zones. Ili addition, seismically induced inundation, which refers to flooding that results when water • retention structures fail due to an earthquake, can also occur in the City. Portions of Newport Beach are threatened by flooding from Prado Dam, Santiago Creek Reservoir, Villa Park Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, Big Canyon Reservoir, and Harbor View Reservoir. Seismically induced inundation can also occur if strong ground shaking causes structural damage to aboveground water tanks. Currently, there are no above -ground water tanks in the City. Various flood control measures have helped mitigate flood damage in the City, including reservoirs in the San Joaquin Hills and Santa Ana Mountain foothills, and channel alterations for the Santa Ana River. These structures help regulate flow in the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and smaller streams and hold back some of the flow during intense rainfall period that could otherwise overwhelm the storm drain system in Newport Beach. Fire Hazards Wildland Fires. The City of Newport Beach defines a wildland fire hazard area as any geographic area that contains the type and condition of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density that potentially increases the possibility of wildland fires. The eastern portion of the City and portions of the Newport Beach region and surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast include grass- and brush -covered hillsides with significant topographic relief that facilitate the rapid spread of fire, especially if fanned by coastal breezes or Santa Ana winds. Fire susceptibility in Newport Beach is shown in Figure 4. In those areas identified as susceptible to wildland fire, land development is governed by special State codes. In addition, the Fire Department enforces locally developed regulations which . reduce the amount and continuity of fuel (vegetation) available, firewood storage, debris clearing, proximity of vegetation to structures and other measures aimed at "Hazard Reduction." SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126MS 4 a New construction and development ate further protected by local amendments to the Uniform . Building Code. These amendments, which are designed to increase the fire resistance of a building, include: protection of exposed eaves, non-combustible construction of exterior walls, protection of openings, and the requirement for Class "A" fireproof roofing throughout the City. Additionally, a "Fuel Modification" plan aimed at reducing fire encroachment into structures from adjacent vegetation must be developed and maintained. Urban Fires. Many factors contribute to an area being at risk of structural fixes in terms of the local fire departments capabilities to control them, including the construction size and type, built- in protection, density of construction, street widths, and occupancy size. The City's daytime population levels may also add to the congestion and difficulty of ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles. Many of the structures in the older portions of the City, some dating back to the 1930s, are susceptible to urban fires. These areas were built to older building standards and fire codes, made from non -fire -resistive construction materials, and built with no internal sprinklers and other fire safety systems in place. These areas include Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar. Newport Beach has over 30 high-rise buildings that were constructed since the 1960s, four of which are not sprinklered: 3121 West Coast Highway, 601 Lido Park Drive, 400 Newport Center Drive, and 611 Lido Park Drive. Geography is also a factor to fire safety in the City. Upper and Lower Newport Bay essentially divide the City into two regions, with approximately one-third of the Fire Department assets located west of the bay, and the remaining assets east of the bay. Connection between these two • sides is provided by only a limited number of roadways (Pacific Coast Highway in the south, Bristol Street and the 73 Freeway on the north), making it difficult for fire stations on both sides of the bay to support each other during multiple alarm emergencies. Failure of the bridge connectors on any of these roadways as a result of an earthquake, for example, would hinder emergency response from fire stations in east Newport Beach and Newport Coast into the densely populated areas of the City west and south of the bay. Earthquake -induced fires have the potential to be the worst -case fire -suppression scenarios for a community because an earthquake can cause multiple ignitions distributed over a broad geographic area. There ate some older sections in Newport Beach where due to ground failure, breaks in the gas mains and the water distribution system could lead to a significant fire -after - earthquake situation. The City of Newport Beach has adopted the 2001 California Fire Code with City amendments and some exceptions. These provisions include construction standards in new structures and .remodels, road widths and configurations designed to accommodate the passage of fire trucks and engines, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates for water mains. Hazardous Materials The state of California defines hazardous materials as substances that are toxic, ignitable or flammable, reactive, and/or corrosive. The state also defines hazardous materials as 'substances that show high acute or chronic toxicity, is carcinogenic (causes cancer), has bioaccumulative properties (accumulates in the body's tissues), is persistent in the environment, or is water • reactive. The primary concern associated with a hazardous materials release is the short and/or long term effect to the public from exposure to the hazardous material. The best way to reduce SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 5 9a the liability for a hazardous material release is through regulation governing the storage, use, • manufacturing and handling of hazardous materials. These regulations are typically issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but various local agencies are tasked with the responsibility of monitoring those facilities that use, store, transport, and dispose hazardous materials for compliance with the federal guidelines, or if applicable, with more stringent State guidelines. Following is a summary of hazardous material found in Newport Beach. Toxic Release Inventory. According to the EPA records, there is one facility in the Newport Beach area that is listed in the most recently available Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). TRI sites are known to release toxic chemicals into the air. The EPA closely monitors the emissions from these facilities to ensure that their annual limits are not exceeded. The South Coast Air Quality Management District also issues permits to facilities that emit chemicals, both toxic and non- toxic, into the atmosphere. These facilities include restaurants, hotels, dry-cleaners, and other small businesses. Hazardous Waste. According to the most recent EPA and City data available, there are two large quantity generators and approximately 115 small quantity generators in the Newport Beach area. The number of small quantity generators is expected to increase with increasing development in the City, since this list includes businesses like gasoline stations, dry cleaners, and photo -processing shops. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. According to data from the State Water Resources Control Board, 76 underground storage tank leaks have been reported in the Newport Beach area. Of these, 47 sites have been either cleaned up or deemed to be of no environmental • consequence, leaving 29 cases that axe still open and in various stages of the remediation process. None of the leaks that have been reported in the City have impacted a drinking source of ground water. The Orange County Environmental Health Department provides oversight and conducts inspections of all underground tank removals and installation of new tanks. • Oil Fields. There is one oil field in the City of Newport Beach and one in its Sphere of Influence. Hazardous materials are often associated with these facilities, usually as a result of poor practices in the early days of exploration, when oil cuttings, brine water, and other by- products were dumped onto the ground. The development of oil fields for residential or commercial purposes typically involves a detailed study to identify any areas impacted by oil or other hazardous materials, and the remediation of the property prior to development. Methane Gas Mitigation Districts. Natural seepages of gas occur in the western and southwestern portions of the City. Methane gas associated with an abandoned landfill has also been reported near the City's northwestern corner. The City has implemented a series of mitigation measures to reduce the hazard associated with methane gas. Hazards Overlay. Given the mixed -use character of Newport Beach, where residential and commercial uses reside relatively close to one another or often co -exist, facilities that generate, use, or store hazardous materials are often located near residential areas or near critical facilities, with the potential to impact these areas if hazardous materials are released into the environment at concentrations of concern. SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 6 23 Aviation Hazards John Wayne Airport GWA) generates neatly all aviation traffic above the City of Newport Beach. On an average business day, 150 commercial and 20 regional flights arrive at and depart from JWA. Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of JWA. More than 95 percent of all airplanes take off and ascend over the City. Accidents with one or more fatalities involving commercial aircraft are rare events. However, in the event of an aviation hazard, pilots are instructed to follow Newport Bay away from residential or developed area. Any potential impact will be significantly reduced by coordinated response operations of all available emergency services. The airport is protected by an on -site airport fire service as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. This service is provided by Orange County Fire Station No. 33. In addition, the Orange County Fire Services Area Plan Annex contains a Marine (Air/Sea) Disaster Response Plan that establishes protocols for marine disasters in the harbor or ocean from either aircraft or boating accidents. This plan, which includes a county -wide mutual aid response to a disaster, would be implemented by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Three areas found to be of increased vulnerability to aviation hazards in the City are Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay. As previously discussed under Urban Fires, Balboa Island is susceptible to fire hazards due to the fact that structures were built prior to implementation of stringent fire codes. Additionally, access and egress is limited to a small bridge. In the event of a fire caused by an aviation accident, it could spread quickly. An aviation accident in Upper Newport Bay could create a significant ecological and economic hazard to the environment. The recreational value of the City of Newport Beach with its more • than 9,000 registered boats could be dramatically affected, and an aviation accident could significantly pollute the waterways. Disaster Planning Any potential hazard in the City resulting from a manmade or natural disaster may result in the need for evacuation of few or thousands of citizens of Newport Beach. Homeland Security has brought disaster awareness to the forefront of the minds of the community, safety officials, and City staff. The City of Newport Beach is currently using the Standardized Emergency Management System for emergency response in the City, where depending on the type of incident, several different agencies and disciplines may be called upon to assist with emergency response. Agencies and disciplines that can be expected to be part of an emergency response team include medical, health, fire and rescue, police, public works, and coroner. Additionally, policies and plans from the Orange County Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan, the state's Mutual Aid Plan, and the states Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System would be implemented. Within the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD), the Disaster Preparedness Coordinator has updated the City's Emergency Management Plan, including the development and implementation of disaster training for employees. The Emergency Management Plan describes the different levels of emergencies, the local emergency management organization, and the specific responsibilities of each participating agency, government office, and City staff. A City- wide fire drill, which involves implementation of the Plan, is conducted annually. Currently, NBFD provides basic life support (BLS), advanced life support (ALS) and emergency • transportation utilizing the fire engines and ladder trucks housed in the Department's eight fire SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 7 2ll stations along with the paramedics housed in three of those stations. While the NBFD has the • immediate capability of providing ALS service at three simultaneous incidents, there is an occasional need for additional ALS units. Additional ALS service is provided by nearby and adjoining public agencies by means of cooperative automatic aid agreements. Emergency transportation beyond the capability of the department is provided by private ambulance companies. Mass casualty incidents, those incidents usually involving three or more critical patients requite the implementation of the Orange County Fire Services Operational Plan Annex "Multi -Casualty Incident Response Plan." This Plan is an organizational plan that aids in assigning treatment teams and quickly moving patients off scene to appropriate receiving centers in an expeditious and organized manner. The multi -casualty plan is intended to be implemented during any multi casualty incident, such as multiple vehicle accidents, aviation accidents, hazardous materials incidents, high-rise fires, and so forth. Although the system has been designed to be used with as few as three patients, it can be expanded to an infinite number as it becomes necessary. Lastly, in the event of a disaster, the City's Emergency Operations Center can be opened. The center has undergone a series of considerable upgrades and improvements. Training for the residents within the City continues through the Community Emergency Response Team program. The continued development of the community's disaster preparedness efforts will aid the residents of Newport Beach in an areawide disaster by fostering a citywide culture of "preparedness." GOALS AND POLICIES Coastal Hazards Goal S1 Adverse effects of coastal hazards related to tsunamis and rogue waves will be minimized. Policy S1.1 Review local and distant tsunami inundation maps for Newport Beach and adjacent coastal communities as they are developed to identify susceptible areas and plan evacuation routes. Policy S1.2 Participate in any regional effort to develop and Implement workable response plans that the City's emergency services can adopt immediately for evacuation in the case of a tsunami warning. Policy S1.3 Prepare and deploy a system of tsunami detection and early warning systems. Policy S1.4 Include tsunami evacuation route information as part of any overall evacuation route sign program implemented in the City. Evacuation routes off of the peninsula and islands in the Bay should be clearly posted. An evacuation route traffic monitoring system that provides real-time Information on the traffic flow at critical roadways should be considered. Policy S1.5 Continue projects like the SurfsideSunset/West Newport Beach Replenishment program to maintain beach width. Wide beaches provide • critical protection against tsunami run-up for structures along the oceanfront. SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 2'� Policy S1.6 Develop and implement a tsunami educational program for residents, visitors, and people who work in the susceptible areas. Policy S1..7 Require overnight visitor -serving facilities in susceptible areas to provide tsunami information and evacuation plans. Policy S1.8 Encourage the Newport -Mesa School District to include in their earthquake - preparedness curriculum information specifically related- to the natural hazards that Newport Beach's citizens could face, and what to do about them. Policy S1.9 Support tsunami research in the Newport Beach offshore and Newport Bay areas. Goal S2 Adverse effects of coastal hazards related to storm surges and selches will be minimized. Policy S2.1 Prepare and periodically update (every 5 years) comprehensive wave up - rush and impact reports for shoreline and coastal bluff areas subject to wave action that will be made available to applicants for new development on a beach or coastal bluff property. Policy S2.2 Develop and implement shoreline management plans for shoreline areas subject to wave hazards and erosion. Shoreline management plans should provide for the protection of private property, public improvements, coastal access, public opportunities for coastal recreation, and coastal resources. • Policy S2.3 Continue to utilize temporary sand dunes in shoreline areas to protect buildings and infrastructure from wave up -rush, while minimizing significant Impacts to coastal access and resources. Policy S2.4 Encourage the use of sand dunes with native vegetation as a protective device in beach areas. Policy S2.5 Encourage the use of nonstructural methods, such as dune restoration and sand nourishment, as alternatives to shoreline protective structures. Policy S2.6 Maintain and regularly clean out storm drains in low lying areas, as necessary, such that flood waters can be effectively conveyed away from structures. , Policy S2.7 Require new or remodel of residential structures in flood -prone zones to raise floor elevations by a minimum of three feet. Policy S2.8 Continue to enforce policies that prohibit the construction of seawalls, groins, or other hard devices to protect public property from storm surges. Goal S3 Adverse effects of coastal erosion to people and property will be minimized, when feasible. Policy S3.1 Prepare and periodically update comprehensive studies of seasonal and long-term shoreline change, episodic and chronic bluff retreat, flooding, and local changes in sea levels, and other coastal hazard conditions. SAFETY -DRAFT, 9126105 g(. Policy 53.2 Continue to monitor beach width and elevations and analyze monitoring • data to establish approximate thresholds for when beach erosion or deflation will reach a point that it could expose the backshore development to flooding or damage from storm waves. Policy S3.3 Develop and implement a comprehensive beach replenishment program to assist in maintaining beach width and elevations. Analyze monitoring data to determine nourishment priorities, and try to use nourishment as shore protection, in lieu of more permanent hard shoreline armoring options. Policy S3.4 Maintain existing groin fields and jetties and modify as necessary to eliminate or mitigate adverse effects on shoreline processes. Policy S3.5 Permit revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls and other structures altering natural shoreline processes or retaining walls when required to serve coastal -dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Policy 53.6 Design and site protective devices to minimize impacts to coastal resources, minimize alteration of natural shoreline processes, provide for coastal access, minimize visual impacts, and eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. • Policy S3.7 Discourage shoreline protective devices on public land to protect private property/development. Site and design any such protective devices as far landward as possible. Policy 53.8 Limit the use of protective devices to the minimum required to protect existing development and prohibit their use to enlarge or expand areas for new development or for new development. "Existing development' for purposes of this policy shall consist only of a principle structure, e.g. residential dwelling, required garage, or second residential unit, and shall not include accessory or ancillary structures such as decks, patios, pools, tennis courts, cabanas, stairs, landscaping etc. Policy S3.9 Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach or shoreline that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. Policy S3.1O Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). SAFETY —DRAFT, 9/26105 i[9 Policy 53.11 Require applications for new development to include slope stability • analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. • Policy S3.12 Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and/or native or drought -tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. Seismic and Geologic Hazards Goal S4 Adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards will be minimized by reducing the known level of risk to loss life, personal injury, public and private property damage, economic and social dislocation, and disruption of essential services. Policy 54.1 Require applications for new development, where applicable [i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a geologic/soils/geotechnical study that identifies any geologic or seismic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject to review and approval by the City. Policy 54.2 Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to reflect the best available standards for seismic safety design. Policy S4.3 Support and encourage the seismic retrofitting and strengthening of essential facilities such as hospitals and schools to minimize damage in the event of seismic orgeologic hazards. Policy S4.4 Continue to require the retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings during remodels to minimize damage in the event of seismic or geologic hazards. Policy S4.5 Prohibit the location of new essential facilities within areas that would directly be affected by seismic or geologic hazards. Policy S4.6 Prohibit the location of new sensitive facilities such as schools, hospitals, and facilities for the elderly population, within 500 feet to active and potentially active faults. Policy S4.7 Ensure that existing essential facilities that have been built in or on seismic and geological hazards are upgraded and maintained in order to prevent and reduce loss. SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 11 Flood Hazards • Goal S5 The potential risk of flood hazards to human life and public and private property will be reduced. Policy 55.1 Require that all new development within 100- and 500-year floodplains incorporate sufficient measures to mitigate flood hazards including the design of onsite drainage systems that are connected with the City's storm drainage system, gradation of the site such that runoff does not impact adjacent properties, and buildings are elevated. Policy S5.2 Implement flood warning systems and evacuation plans for areas that are already developed within 100- and 500-year flood zones. Policy S5.3 Require that all new facilities storing, using, or otherwise involved with substantial quantities of onsite hazardous materials within flood zones comply with standards of elevation, anchoring, and flood proofing, and hazardous materials are stored in watertight containers. Policy 55.4 Require stormwater detention basins, where appropriate, to reduce the potential risk of flood hazards. Fire Hazards Goal S6 Damage to people and property caused by wildfires and urban fires will • be minimized. Policy S6.1 Continue to conduct annual training sessions using the adopted emergency management systems. Policy S6.2 Review the adequacy of the water storage capacity and distribution network, in the event of a natural disaster, on a regular basis. Policy S6.3 Apply hazard reduction, fuel modification, and other methods to reduce wildfire hazards to existing and new development in urban wildland interface areas. Policy 56.4 Site and design new development to avoid the need to extend fuel modification zones into sensitive habitats. Policy S6.5 Use fire -resistive, native plant species from the City -approved plant list In fuel modification zones abutting sensitive habitats. Policy S6.6 Prohibit Invasive ornamental plant species in fuel modification zones abutting sensitive habitats. Policy S6.7 Continue to maintain a database of parcels in urban wildland interface areas. Policy 56.8 Continue annual inspections of parcels in the urban wildland interface areas and, if necessary, direct the property owner to bring the property into • compliance with fire inspection standards. SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 12 51, Policy 56.9 Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to reflect the best • available standards for fire safety design. Policy 56.1O Continue to require property owners to conduct regular maintenance on their properties to reduce the fire danger, and to maintain a fire -safe landscape. Policy S6.11 Encourage owners of non-sprinklered properties, especially high- and mid - rise structures, to retrofit their buildings and include internal fire sprinklers. Hazardous Materials Goal S7 Exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators will be minimized. Policy S7.1 Require proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the proponent to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the County Environmental Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination). Policy S7.2 Ensure that prior to approval of any development within identified methane gas districts are consistent with Chapter 15.55 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Policy S7.3 Educate residents and businesses about how to reduce or eliminate the use of hazardous materials, including using safer non -toxic equivalents. Policy S7.4 Minimize the potential risk of contamination to surface water and groundwater resources and implement remediation efforts to any resources adversely impacted by urban activities. Policy S7.5 Develop and implement strict land use controls, performance standards, and structure design standards including development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, day care facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses, if it is determined that a hazardous materials management facility or hazardous waste collection center is required. Policy S7.6 Require all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, County, State and Federal agencies in the event of a violation. SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 13 50 Aviation Hazards • Goal S8 Impacts to residents, property, and the environment from aviation - related hazards will be minimized. Policy 58.1 Designate staging areas and rendezvous points for mutual aid agencies and procedure to escort outside ambulances, fire companies, and other relevant emergency vehicles to the incident site, and casualty collection points. Policy 58.2 Provide a formalized Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting training program (including airport and aircraft familiarization, fuel fire extinguishment, hazards associated with airplanes and aircraft cargo, safety procedure, aviation communications, evacuation, and rescue operations) for all firefighters and Chief Fire Officers in Newport Beach. Policy S8.3 Provide Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting awareness training for all Newport Beach emergency personnel on a regular basis. Policy S8.4 Develop, implement, and exercise a citywide aviation emergency response plan. Policy S8.5 Conduct comprehensive exercises on mass casualty events in areas potentially at risk that include areas such as Upper and Lower Newport Bay, Balboa Island, and Main Channel) with the participation of all available agencies, jurisdictions, and resources. • Policy S8.6 Implement policies outlined in the Orange County Fire Services Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan, and the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan. Policy 58.7 Develop clear mutual aid agreements and Memoranda of Understanding with the airport fire service, county emergency and law enforcement agencies, United States Coast Guard, private ferry providers, and other potential resources. Policy 58.8 Oppose any facility expansions or increase in air operations proposed by John Wayne Airport. Disaster Planning Goal S9 Effective emergency response to natural or human -Induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property, while also reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster will be implemented. Policy S9.1 Review and update, as necessary, the City's Emergency Management Plan on an annual basis. Policy S9.2 Ensure that the City's Emergency Management Plan provide for efficient and orderly notification and evacuation on a citywide basis. • Policy S9.3 Ensure that all Newport Beach emergency services personnel are familiar with the Standardized Emergency Management System, Multi -Casualty SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 14 $` Incident Response Plan, the County's Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan, the • State's Mutual Aid Plan, the State's Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System, and any other relevant response plans. Policy 59.4 Coordinate with other urban area jurisdictions to execute a variety of exercises to test operational and emergency plans. Policy S9.5 Sponsor and support education programs pertaining to emergency/disaster preparedness and response protocols and procedures. Distribute information on about emergency planning to community groups, schools, religious institutions, and business associations. • • SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 Figure 1 COASTAL HAZARDS CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Legend Coamed Eroslon Nmords - xntlsrano mnmbnrpl Mente-ey formpt.on;mostresto bFR(- "going t. sProne b "going npputb nt. wa d wr»re uneelM W ways do don. especbry at pdnls Fob as brge bbc4i. - SAhtpnm.mbero/Montedy, brmntb,very too kind rrocmeenenes to ram on apron of taus N me bme of sbpes dabs, ts, notnorenace tlepositl:pronebIc b (i.e. Hsldlnt;plow 1).o[uh (b.a.HYaby Ni D. no ro p,n ct d,bkind guRying abng bN➢tl[p5 by woe Tsunoml Inundabon d Extreme Nigh Tide pna 'Elev .=Mwfeet) 5 Year Zone (Inirddbn Ebvpnerr_,524 rear) d 0 os I Mgef PfI — NRAOFR IOSO. frequr.%.]by. MN Oeobetl b/ My of EIP Figure 2 SEISMIC HAZARDS CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Legend iveosw � Po 1 aaos rein mtaaaa uormna 0 os I MMa s+aca. Uvawm+rPan�Iybrmrr wr m�. 0�aa ww�mf. wne vnw, tam %NJfCI �b, IOSby H 0— N LIeoRE Ly. I.fJ EIP Figure 3 FLOOD ZONES CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Legend nalwm`a'd°OM°Nwv reno�oo _aaaa ols�vaa�nrAb: oleos of laryear maa x+m waive aepm� or rev man i rm. o� wm ala�aga aaw uss Ism � mwa mile: aM ae¢ gotecRtl by WW�um han ltlYYewllmtl Ml" �M d xew.r wcx ady xvanv,'mr Mquesletl W. MlV LbabO W. MV EIP Figure 4 WILDFIRE HAZARDS CITY of NEWPORT BEACH Legend Fire Susceptibility - High Moderate Low/None a os i wM ntJIfCI MWABEh 10.5)OLI IbfppAetl Cy HA Cmlktl q^. MV RN. 04f3ZV5 W: EIP r, City of Newport Beach Arts and Cultural Resources Element Draft • • Arts and Culture in Newport Beach INTRODUCTION Newport Beach's array of cultural attractions is unmatched for a city of its size and beautiful location. From the Orange County Museum of Art, an internationally renowned showcase for contemporary art, to the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, with the city's marine heritage preserved aboard an historic boat; from the well -attended outdoor art festivals on Balboa Island and in the Cannery Village, to the dozens of art galleries that dot the cdy's landscape; from the highly -regarded cinema presentations of the Newport Beach Film Festival, to the acclaimed performances at the charming cliff -side Newport Theatre Arts Center; from the three elegant bronze figures depicted in Fashion Island's "Sky Dive," to the delightful Japanese friendship statue in front of the Central Library; from the variety of free cultural lectures and performances at the Central Library, to the exquisite classical offerings of the Baroque Music Festival; the arts are alive and thriving in Newport Beach. Offering the best of the best clearly builds upon the traditions of our city's founders and includes room for an enhanced future vision of a healthy and vital cultural community. BACKGROUND • The arts and culture have been a valued part of the Newport Beach community for over 125 years. As early as 1877, the first artists journeyed to Orange County's coastal towns to paint, attracted by the natural beauty and the extraordinary quality of light. Many of these artists played a continuing role decades later when in 1935, Sidney Davidson, principal of Newport Harbor High School, urged each graduating senior class to present a painting to the school. By 1938, Principal Davidson hired Ruth Stoever Fleming as the school's first full-time librarian to manage and exhibit the painting collection, which includes a total of 56 paintings from such well-known California Impressionists as William Wendt and Edgar Payne. The resulting Annual Newport Harbor Art Exhibit was displayed from 1946 to 1966. In addition to this ongoing project, in 1935, WPA (Works Project Administration) murals were painted at locations around Orange County, including Newport Harbor High School. The legendary watercolorist Rex Brandt was drawn to the Newport Beach coastline, painting the sea and sun, as well as building a home and studio in Corona del Mar in 1946. With fellow artist Phil Dike, he established a summer school of painting with a national reputation that flourished for nearly 40 years. In 1957, Rex Brandt designed the seal for the City of Newport Beach, and he and his wife were also active in the organization of the Newport Harbor Art Museum in the early 1960s. in 1962, the 13 original founders of the Fine Arts Patrons of Newport Harbor met to discuss transforming the second floor of the Balboa Pavilion into a world -class art museum. Their work laid the foundation for the development of the Newport Harbor Art Museum and eventually the Orange County Museum of Art, which moved to a new . home in Newport Center in 1977. In the 1950s, the founder of Sherman Library & Gardens, Arnold Haskell, moved to Corona del Mar and acquired property on Coast Highway, which opened in 1965 as a two -acre public garden and research library of regional history. The performing arts also had an early start in the Newport Harbor area. Between 1910 and 1930, over 500 motion pictures were filmed on location in Orange County, including "Captain Blood" in 1923, which featured a ship battle in Newport Harbor. in 1927, movie stars Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks presided over the opening of the new stretch of Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. The 350-seat Balboa Theater on the Peninsula first opened in 1927 as a vaudeville venue. The big band music that echoed for years from the Rendezvous Ballroom (which opened in 1928) at the nearby Balboa Pavilion still resonates with some area residents. The king of the surf guitar, Dick Dale, performed with the Del -Tones to sell -out crowds at the Rendezvous Ballroom and other beach locations beginning in 1961. Several years later, two young men fresh out of college opened the first permanent home for South Coast Repertory, creating a 75-seat theatre in 1965, in a former used boating equipment store in Cannery Village. By 1968 the company had moved to a second home, a 190- . seat theatre in a converted dime store on Newport Boulevard. These are just a few of the artists and cultural organizations that helped give birth to the lively cultural scene that exists in Newport Beach today. THE ROLE OF THE CITY The City's more formal dedication to the arts can be traced to the 1972 creation of the Newport Beach Arts Committee and the 1974 city ordinance establishing the Newport Beach City Arts Commission. The City of Newport Beach Arts Commission is a seven -member volunteer body, appointed by City Council to act in an advisory capacity in all matters pertaining to artistic, aesthetic, historical and cultural aspects of the City. The Arts Commission, working with staff in the Cultural Arts Office, provides free or low cost programs for the cultural enrichment of the community, including temporary art exhibitions at City Hall and the Central Library, juried art exhibitions, a permanent art collection for City facilities, a cultural grants program, a summer concert in the park series, arts lectures for the public, community cultural festivals and performances, educational seminars and workshops, and an art in public places program. The Commission and Cultural Arts Office also serve as • liaison to the Newport Theatre Arts Center, the Sister City Association, and the Newport Beach Film Festival; work with the Chamber of Commerce and the Conference and Visitors Bureau to promote cultural tourism; and advise City staff and Council on historic preservation, community design and beautification issues. The City began its permanent art collection in the early 1970s, acquiring award -winning work from juded exhibitions and donations from the public. The land for the Newport Theatre Arts Center was acquired by the City in 1975, and the all -volunteer community theatre first opened its 90-seat facility in 1979. Further commitment was demonstrated with the adoption by City Council of five policies on arts and culture beginning in 1981. The City's Cultural Grants program began with the establishment of a Reserve Fund for Culture and the Arts in 1981 to fund requests from arts groups that provide programs to benefit Newport Beach residents. The Arts Commission inaugurated an Art in Public Places Program in 1989 with the dedication of a project called "Disappearing Path," a landscape and architectural design at inspiration Point in Corona del Mar. It was closely followed in 1993 by the "Pelican Wall" intaglio concrete retaining wall panels on Mariners Mile, the "Horizon 76" sculpture at City Hall, the blue "Metalphorn sculpture on Pacific Coast Highway and other outdoor public art projects. The popular community Concerts in the Park program began in the summer of 2001. It is evident that the longtime presence of arts and cultural offerings in the City of Newport Beach has contributed to our community's high quality of life and uniqueness as one of Southern California's most stellar coastal towns. • 9 0 GOALS AND POLICIES Vision Statement: The City of Newport Beach has long recognized that the arts enrich our lives. The arts bring us together as a community and help us to grow as individuals. The arts enhance education, urban design, tourism, and economic development. The arts foster appreciation of historic resources, highlight the City's unique cultural heritage, and contribute to civic pride and Identity. With this in mind, the City promotes public awareness and participation in the arts, and encourages and supports a wide range of cultural activities and facilities to address the needs and interests of residents and visitors in the Newport Beach community. g Goal 1 Provide the Newport Beach community with broad access to the City's cultural resources, as well as arts programs from outside the City. City Council Policy 1-6, 1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 1-18, K-2 0 Goal 2 Build'public awareness and encourage participation in the City's arts and cultural activities. City Council Policy 1-6, 1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 1-18 ¢ Goal 3 0 Support the City's arts organizations and individual artists in their growth and development. City Council Policy 1-6, 1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 1-18, K-2 0 Goal 4 Partner with the community to encourage and strengthen arts education for children, youth, adults and seniors in Newport Beach. City Council Policy 1-6,1-10,1-12 0 Goal 5 Encourage the incorporation of art and design into public projects that enhance the City's community character as well as its built and natural environment City Council Policy 1-12, 1-13, 1-18 0 Goal 6 Enhance the City's identity through promotion of its unique cultural and historic assets to visitors. City Council Policy 1-6, 1-10,1-12, 1-18, K-2 0 0 Goal 7 • Integrate cultural elements into the City's community development and revitalization efforts. City Council Policy 1-18, K-2 0 Goal 8 Promote the City's heritage and historic resources through its cultural arts programs. City Council Policy 1-10, 1-12. K-2 0 Goal 9 Continue the role of the Arts Commission as the advisory body for the arts in Newport Beach. City Council Policy 1-12 0 Goal 10 Identify and provide funds drawn from broad sources to achieve the City's cultural arts vision and goals. City Council Policy 1-10 is 0 Goal 11 Ensure adequate staff, equipment, supplies and facilities to support City -provided arts programs. City Council Policy 1-12 • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Saturday, October 1, 2005 Roger Alford Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Gus Chabre John Corrough Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Grace Dove • Nancy Gardner Gordon Glass Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Philip Lugar William Lusk • Barbara Lyon •, . 1 Marie Marston Jim Naval Catherine O'Hara Charles Remley " Larry Root John Saunders Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler • • • GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE Saturday, October 1, 200S PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE n L� E-MAIL ADDRESS u B ee kp am .t • GENERAL PLAN AMISORY COMMITTEE Saturday, October 1, 200S PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS i GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITt'EE Saturday, October 1, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS GENERAL PLAN ANISORY COMMITTEE Saturday, October 1, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE I: aiIfix IwLI1711amF; .�1 DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Saturday, October 1, 2005, at the Newport Beach Central Library. Members Present: Roger Alford Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Phillip Bettencourt Elizabeth Bonn Gus Chabre Lila Crespin Laura Dietz Grace Dove Nancy Gardner Members Absent: Carol Boice John Corrough Tom Hyans (sick leave) Staff Present: Gordon Glass Louise Greeley Ledge Hale Bob Hendrickson Mike Ishikawa Kim Jansma Mike Johnson Bill Kelly Donald Krotee Lucille Kuehn Philip Lugar Marie Marston Jim Naval Charles Remley John Saunders Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler William Lusk Larry Root Barbara Lyon Hall Seely Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) Jan Vandersloot Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Members of the Public Present: Marcia Dossey Kirwan Rockefeller I. Call to Order Nancy Gardner called the meeting to order. • 1 Ft. • II. Approval of Minutes: July 16, 2005 & July 23, 2005 Ron Yeo pointed out that Mr. Baers should have accepted the amendment instead of Mr. Yeo. The minutes for the July 16 and July 23 meetings were accepted with the corrections. III. Policy Review: Historic Resources/Arts & Culture/Public Safety Sharon Wood asked the Committee to focus on the goals/policies and asked that comments on the narrative be given to staff for corrections. The following comments/changes were made to the goals/policies for each element. Historic Resources Grace Dove asked that some reference be made to natural historic districts, such as Downtown Balboa and McFadden Wharf and possibly Balboa Island. Mr. Yeo asked about the sentence structure in the goals. Ms. Wood indicated that she was not the drafter, however she agreed the goals should be more active. Lucille Kuehn suggested changing the language in Policy H1.2 to "Prevent the demolition of structures..." Ms. Wood indicated she was not comfortable with using "prevent" in this policy; there are ways to mitigate the impact of removing a structure when that is the only choice. Mr. Lugar suggested using "Restrict." Ms. Kuehn also asked if there was a current Historical Resources Inventory. Ms. Wood indicated there • is a list, however it is very short. She suggested strengthening the policy to get an updated list which would be needed to trigger an EIR to protect the structures. Ms. Kuehn thought the inventory should be done by the City instead of volunteers. Lila Crespin suggested the Arts Commission might be able to do the work. Gordon Glass suggested making it a positive statement by encouraging protection and continuation through the use of incentives. Ms. Dove po inted out there are substantial incentives to government if we have the appropriate be gained from the State and Federal g Ppriate p Wood indicated the incentives aren't what the designations, nations. Ms. oo Y used to be. Philip Bettencourt thought property owners would be frightened if there was a non-public process putting their property on a list and then prohibiting demolition. Ms. Wood indicated there would be a public process which would include the property owners, even if the list was created by volunteers. Roger Alford indicated property rights is a real issue when you restrict what can be done with a structure; property values could be affected. Ms. Gardner pointed out that if the word "prevent" was used, the Balboa Theater project could not be done. Charles Remley added that he had done quite a bit of research on his own property going back beyond 1900 and it takes a large amount of time going through County records. Bill Kelly suggested this might be a project for the Centennial Committee. Ms. Wood indicated that if the committee was serious about this, it is important to take the structures on the list to a designation. Jim Naval suggested that a definition should be determined. Ms. Wood stated the State had a pretty standard criteria which the City could use or modify. Ron Baers suggested • creating a master planning program document like some other cities use, which would indicate how the inventory is to be done and maintained, as well as other detailed issues. Ron Yeo suggested the policy could be to develop an historic preservation plan. 2 DRAFT • Ms. Gardner suggested protection of historically significant landmarks, etc. by, the development of a preservation plan. Ms. Dove made a motion to include the language "conduct a comprehensive historic survey and maintain the inventory." MOTION PASSED Ms. Wood suggested adding bullet points for the issues to be included in the master plan which would include policies 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5. Marie Marston asked about H2.2, who determines the cultural affect? Ms. Gardner indicated it was an on -site person usually paid by the developer. Ms. Temple added that through the environmental review process sites are evaluated before grading occurs and on a routine basis the City allows research and recovery. Gordon Glass pointed out that the Coastal Commission requirements are not included here. Mr. Alford indicated that developers have a lot of hurtles already and asked if these issues were redundant or will it require more work, reports, or cost? Ms. Temple indicated it does not create any more, it puts it all in one location —the General Plan. Mr. Yeo made a motion to adopt the language. MOTION PASSED Ms. Gardner asked for consensus on accepting the other policies. The Committee agreed. Arts/Cultural Resources Ms. Wood indicated the Arts Commission document passed out today had been submitted months ago and staff has incorporated them into the policies. Lila Crespin • recommended adopting the Arts Commission document. Bob Hendrickson asked if we could require new art projects with new building. Ms. Crespin thought it could be accomplished easily by adding some amount to new permits. Ms. Kuehn asked that Policy 2.1 include a large meeting place. Ms. Wood indicated it was incorporated in the City Hall plans. Phil Bettencourt spoke against mandating another development cost. Ms. Gardner suggested encouraging it at the private level. Gus Chabre disagreed pointing out that privately owned buildings in Los Angeles have wonderful public art. Ms. Crespin added that the art is also maintained by the people who own the building and it also draws people to the area. John Sauders agreed that the arts are very important and suggested taking some tax revenue to encourage the arts. Roger Alford moved to strike the last sentence of Policy 1.1. Ron Baers suggested a substitute motion changing the first wording to require preparation of public art for major public projects, etc. and then consider designation of special districts where private projects should incorporate a contribution of public art in their project. Mr. Sauders thought it should be done by encouragement rather than requiring. Ms. Wood restated the motion, the wording would be changed to: Require the incorporation of public art into major public projects that enhance the City's community character as well as its build environment through public art donations and working 0 DRAFT with local artists, students and community groups to create public art projects. Consider forming special districts where major private projects should contribute public art. Ms. Gardner called for the vote. MOTION PASSES. Patrick Bartolic pointed out that the goals do not indicate that Council should review and establish funding. Ms. Crespin indicated currently the Council budgets $40,000 which covers 17-21 performing arts grants. Kirwan Rockefeller spoke about the budget, he indicated the City gives the Arts Commission $59,5000 annually, $40,000 is for arts grants leaving $19,500 for programs such as concerts by the sea, lecture series, etc. Mr. Bartolic made a motion to review what other successful communities are doing in terms of funding the arts and identify whether we should establish some form of funding commensurate with those. Ms. Gardner asked for other language. Ms. Wood suggested establishing a goal for a level of funding to support the arts. She added it was a Council decision however this Committee could at least set a goal. Mr. Saunders made a motion that we encourage the Council to strongly consider the arts, allocating public funding. Kim Jansma suggested increasing the funding for the arts in Newport Beach. Mr. Naval asked Ms. Crespin for an idea of the amount she thinks we might need. Ms. Crespin indicated Brea started with 1% of all building costs put into a fund for the arts. Mr. Naval asked if we could suggest a similar amount. Ms. Gardner didn't think a specific number should be in the policy. Mr. Alford agreed that a number in the policy was not a good idea and supported Mr. Saunder's original motion. . Charles Remley thought maintaining a consistent level should be added. Ms. Wood reminded the group that this was a policy statement , not a requirement. Ray Zartler suggested the Arts Commission submit a budget each year instead of just getting money and spending it. Ms. Gardner called for the vote. MOTION PASSED Ms. Wood indicated she had compared both documents and they are virtually the same with a few exceptions. Goal #8 City's heritage and historic resources, was covered earlier through a number of policies. Goal #9 continue role of Arts Commission, she didn't think it was necessary because its provided in the City's Charter. Goal #2 build public awareness and encourage participation in the City's arts and cultural activities, this one was not covered. Mr. Glass thought it was included in policy 1.2. Ms. Wood thought the language in Goal #2 was a little broader. Ms. Gardner asked that Goal #2 replace Policy 1.2. The Committee agreed. Public Safety Coastal Hazards Ms. Wood indicated these policies largely repeat those in the Coastal Land Use Plan we're hoping the Coastal Commission will approve in the next couple weeks. Mr. Bettencourt indicated he had raised a number of objections to these policies stating this policy includes duplicate construction standards. Mr. Chabre added his neighbor had applied to repair his seawall and has found it almost impossible. Ms. Wood . indicated that the process will be easier when the City has a certified LCP and we have permit authority for coastal development permits. DRAFT Mr. Bettencourt pointed out 3.10, avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protection . devices for the economic life of the structure, which would have a huge impact on development of Banning Ranch. Ms. Gardner pointed out that in Solano Beach areas where they build causes the bluff to crumble and they put up huge concrete walls to protect the site. Mr. Bettencourt responded that there are other devices that can be uses, for instance a drain system would redirect drainage and protect the bluff. Grading also has acceptable protective devices but according to this you can't use it. Ms. Wood indicated this was an argument for the Coastal Commission because it was one of their requirements. Mr. Webber talked about Policy 1.3, tsunami detection; he felt it was unrealistic for Newport Beach. He felt the development of a local alert system should include an indication of the potential threat. Ms. Temple pointed out that the technical documents for the LCP put tsunamis in the low probability, high impact category. She thought policies 1.2 and 1.3 should be combined. Ledge Hale asked if policy 1.4 was recommending evacuation route signs in the City, he felt in some areas (peninsula, Balboa Island, etc.) there is only one way out so there really isn't a need for signs. Ms. Wood indicated maybe they would help visitors. Mr. Bettencourt asked if it was appropriate for citizens to be advising the Police and Fire Departments on operations during disasters as well as saying where signs should be placed. Ms. Wood indicated both departments reviewed the policies and were happy. • Mr. Saunders made a motion that this area be more general in this area. Ms. Wood pointed out that there are specific State requirements for this element, so we may not be able to get as general as we might like; however we can take another look at them and generalize where we can. Mr. Hendrickson made a motion to delete 1.4. MOTION PASSED Ms. Jansma made a motion to delete 1.7. MOTION PASSED Ms. Gardner suggested deleting 1.8 & 1.9. The Committee agreed. Mr. Chabre asked about policy 2.8, construction of seawalls. Ms. Gardner asked why we would want more when they affect sand transport. Ms. Wood indicated the policy says to protect public property from storm surges and does not refer to private property. Mr. Chabre pointed out that the streets are public property. Ms. Wood recommended eliminating 2.8, she pointed out Goal S3 has more detail in the policies. Mike Johnson made the motion to delete Policy 2.8. MOTION PASSED. Mr. Webber made a motion to add storm surges to Goal S3. MOTION PASSED. Mr. Chabre made a motion to eliminate Policy 3.7. MOTION PASSED. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out that 3.10 denies responsible behavior where its environmentally appropritate to rehabilitee and protect the bluff. Ms. Wood suggested adding a phrase at the end: unless there are more environmentally friendly means of • protecting the bluff. Ms. Gardner asked that it indicate that it doesn't mean covering it with concrete. 0 DR Mr. Glass asked about the liquefaction map. Ms. Wood indicate the map was based on • a generalized soil study; however before developing a site you need to find out exactly what going on at your site. Mr. Glass suggested having the property owners sign a waiver acknowledging that they are in a liquefaction zone instead of having to do a study for every small project. Ms. Wood advised that without a study they wouldn't know how to design the building and our Building Department wouldn't know what to require; not every lot is going to be the same. Mr. Saunders thought this was getting too specific for the General Plan and should be put in the Building Code. Ms. Temple reported that currently all new construction requires a geo study. Ms. Gardner made a motion to eliminate 4.1 because 4.2 covers the issue without the detail. The Committee agreed. Mr. Webber asked if 4.2 required people to build using the best available standards which is not currently being done. Ms. Marston suggested taking out the word best. Mr. Hendrickson suggested best available practices. Ms. Wood suggested saying continue to regularly update building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety design. The Committee agreed. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out that in 4.6 State law already governs this. Ms. Gardner suggested deleting it. The Committee agreed. Ms. Marston thought the word prevent in Policy 4.7 was problematic. Mr. Webber suggested eliminating "to prevent." Flood Hazards • Ms. Marston asked about Figure 3 which shows West Newport in the 100 year floodplain; she though the Santa Ana River improvements had taken that area out. Ms. Temple responded that staff would check on that. Mr. Saunders asked in Policy 5.1 the word require be substituted with encourage. Ms. Gardner thought that would weaken the policy. Mr. Hendrickson was not happy with sufficient measures because there may be other ways to address the hazard in the future. Ms. Gardner made a motion to require all new development to incorporate measures to mitigate flood hazards and eliminate the specific items. MOTION PASSED Fire Hazards Ms. Wood suggested moving 6.1 to Disaster Planning. Ms. Marston asked about 6.6. Ms. Temple responded fuel modification programs are in place in some areas of the City. Mr. Hendrickson asked about 6.10. Ms. Wood wasn't sure it was needed as well as 6.8. Hazardous Materials Mr. Naval spoke about the methane gas problem in West Newport and wanted some kind of policy addressing the issue. Ms. Wood indicated this was an issue that can't be resolved in the General Plan; however Policy 7.2 talks about new development areas impacted by methane gas. She added the policy could be reworked to say new • development within identified methane gas districts are designed to prevent gas from coming into the building. However the policy does not address existing structures. Ms. Gardner pointed out that if we encourage the City to establish a program, we don't 11 DRAFT need to say how its going to work. Mr. Bettencourt suggested continue to work to mitigate or eliminate methane gas from the City's identified methane gas districts. The Committee agreed. Aviatio_, n Hazards Ms. Wood indicated 8.4 could be eliminated because it is included in disaster planning. Ms. Temple suggested the same for 8.5. Ms. Wood also suggested adding language to 8.8 regarding the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Hendrickson suggested 8.8 should oppose any expansion that would increase operations. Mr. Bettencourt pointed out that the Settlement Agreement already conceded to some expansion. Mr. Glass pointed out that the Settlement Agreement only referred to commercial airline operations. Ms. Temple added that the Settlement Agreement was concerned more about noise and this section refers to hazards which is related more to the number of airplanes in the air and what might happen if they fail. Ms. Gardner suggested adding, except as covered by the Settlement Agreement which would cover the private aircraft. Laura Dietz did not want to restrict the ability of private plane owners to go in and out of JWA. Mr. Hendrickson still didn't like the word facility, because some facilities could be safety facilities, etc. Mr. Chabre added they may want a fire facility or better tower facility and we wouldn't want to oppose that. Ms. Dietz asked if this was needed due to the Settlement Agreement. Ms. Wood indicated it was necessary since the Settlement Agreement has an end date. Mr. Gordon suggested saying any facility expansions or increase in commercial airline operations. Mr. Webber suggested oppose any increase in air operations or facility expansion supporting and increase in air operations. The Committee agreed. Mr. Hendrickson thought this belongs in the Land Use policy. Ms. Wood indicated staff was trying to figure out where it should go. Mr. Yeo suggested that the narrative for this section needs to be stronger to reflect some of the items that were identified in the hazards study. Ms. Wood suggested adding a reference to the report because the general plan does not have that level of detail. Disaster Planning Mr. Baers suggested in 9.2 to establish evacuation plans for each district of the City. Ms. Dietz suggested adding a sentence that says that a system for signal coded sirens for City evacuation shall be developed. Ms. Wood thought the policy already calls for orderly notification. IV. Discussion of Future Agenda Items The next meeting is scheduled for October 15t' and will cover Parks and Recreation and Natural Resources. V. Public Comments None offered. 7