Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2005_10_1511111111111111111111111111111111111111 lill III III F 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA October 15, 2005 9:00 a.m. - Central Library Friend's Meeting Room 1000 Avocado Avenue I. Call to Order II. Policy Review: Natural Resources Recreation III. Discussion of Future Agenda Items IV. Public Comments Public Comments are invited on items generally considered to be within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Conunittee -- Speakers are asked to limit comments to 5 minutes. Before speaking, please state your name and city gfresidence.for the record. *Reports are available on line at www.nbvision2025.com City of Newport Beach Planning Department PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BCH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8915 Memorandum To: General Plan Advisory Committee From: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Date: October 12, 2005 Re: General Plan Update — Policy Meeting No. 2 Attached are draft copies of the Natural Resources and Recreation • elements for your review. Each element contains goals and policies for GPAC'a consideration. Additionally, a strikeout version of the Safety element that reflects direction given to staff by the City Council is attached for your reference. The City Council decided against including the Historical Resources and Arts and Cultural Resources optional elements in the General Plan update. All comments and recommendations made by GPAC will be presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting on October 20, 2005 and the City Council at their meeting on October 25, 2005. 0 Natural Resources INTRODUCTION The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element is to provide direction regarding the 'conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It -identifies Newport Beach's natural resources and policies for their preservation, development, and wise use. This element addresses: water supply (as a resource) and water quality, air quality, terrestrial and marine biological resources, open space, archaeological and paleontological resources, mineral resources, visual resources, and energy. A commitment to sustainable development through the efficient use and conservation of natural resources is important to meet the needs of current and future residents of Newport Beach. Commitment to conservation secures ongoing availability of finite resources such as an ample supply of safe water, diversity of biological resources, and available energy resources. This assurance contributes substantially to the physical and psychological health and well-being of the community and strengthens the vitality of the local and regional economic base. CONTEXT Water Supply • Water supply is an important resource that needs to be used efficiently. Water service within Newport Beach is provided by the City, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa). Generally, Newport Beach provides water service to approximately 13.5 square miles of the City; IRWD serves approximately nine square miles; and Mesa serves less than one square mile. Domestic water for the City is supplied by both groundwater and imported surface water. Currently, about 75 percent of the water supplied to both the City and Mesa's service area is from groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (administered by the Orange County Water District or OCWD), and the remaining 25 percent of water supply is provided by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), which delivers surface water imported from the Colorado River and State Water Project. This ratio can change year to year based on the OCWD's administration of the Basin's supply. Approximately 50 percent of IRWD's current water supply is purchased from MWD, with the remaining 50 percent coming from groundwater. The future supply projection assumes that the City will continue to produce groundwater and purchase local water from MWD, which is projected to meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs until the year 2010. Beyond that, improvements associated with the State Water Project supply, additional local projects, conservation, and additional water transfers would be needed to adequately provide surface water to the City. OCWD projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any future demand requirements in Newport Beach. IRWD's treated and clear groundwater supplies are also expected to be a significant source of potable water supply in the future. MWD water will be required for supplemental supply as well • as peak and emergency conditions. NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 1 3 In an effort to effectively manage water resources, the City's service area participates in regional • water management programs that assist in the development of resource mixes that balance water supply sources and meet future local and regional water requirements. In addition, all service providers focus on demand management efforts that promote efficient water use and effective management of imported and local water supplies through a variety of water conservation programs. The City also began purchasing recycled water from OCWD and IRWD in 1999, and has identified and approached all cost-effective end users in the City that could potentially use recycled water, and uses a combination of incentives to encourage recycling. The City has maximized opportunities for end users of recycled water and could only increase users if a neighboring water agency provided the reclaimed water to the City. Both Mesa and IRWD encourage water recycling as well. Currently, reclaimed water makes up 20 percent of IRWD's total water supply. Water Quality Newport Beach's greatest resources are its coastline and bay. Urban runoff from the surrounding watershed impacts not only the biological diversity and functionality of Newport Bay and the surrounding coastal waters, but also its water quality. This runoff includes various pollutants, such as fecal materials from pets, oil and grease, fertilizers, and other urban -based pollutants. The City has traditionally been concerned regarding these issues and has embarked on a number of programs to improve its quality. • Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Newport Bay receives urban runoff from the Newport Bay watershed, and is designated as "water quality -limited" for four impairments under the federal Clean Water Aces Section 303(d). Being "water quality -limited" means that a water body is "not reasonably expected to attain or maintain water quality standards" without additional regulation. The law requires that US EPA develop TMDLs for each impaired water body in the nation, which specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. A TMDL may also include a plan for bringing an impaired water body back within standards. TMDLs have been developed for the following substances in Newport Beach: sediment, nutrients, fecal coliform, and toxic pollutants. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Additionally, Newport Beach operates a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit under the NPDES. MS4 permits require an aggressive water quality ordinance, specific municipal practices, and the use of best management practices (BMPs) in many development -related activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff. MS4 permits also require local agencies to cooperatively develop a public education campaign to inform people about what they can do to protect water quality. Sanitary Sewer Overflows. Newport Beach owns and operates a wastewater collection system that collects residential and commercial wastewater and transports it for treatment to the Orange County Sanitation District. Portions of the City receive wastewater service from IRWD. Residences and businesses hook up private lateral lines to the City's collection lines. Private and public lines and the City's pump stations have the potential to cause sanitary sewer overflows • (SSOs), which may lead to several beach closures in and around Newport Beach each year. Most SSOs in the area are caused by line blockages from grease and root clogs, or maintenance failures NATURAL RESOURCES-DRAFT,1019105 of plumbing associated with pump stations. The City regulates the disposal of grease and other • insoluble waste, and follows a defined Sewer System Master Plan to replace or reline older wastewater lines and upgrade pump stations. Air Quality Newport Beach is located within the South Coast .Air Basin (Basin), named so because its geographical formation is that of a basin, with the surrounding mountains trapping the air and its pollutants in the valleys or basins below. Due to the typical daily wind pattern, much of the Basin is flushed of high levels of air pollutants on most spring and early summer days. From late summer through the winter months, the flushing is less pronounced because of lighter wind speeds. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air pollutant emissions within the Basin. Both the Federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for bringing air quality within the Basin into conformity with the national and state standards. In an effort to monitor the various concentrations of air pollutants throughout the Basin, the SCAQMD has divided the region into 27 source receptor areas (SRAs). Newport Beach is located within SRA 18, which encompasses the North Coastal Orange County area. The air pollutants for which national and state standards have been promulgated and which are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO), • and sulfur dioxide (SO). As of 2003, SRA 18 did not exceed state or national standards for any criteria pollutant monitored. Toxic air contaminants are also a concern in the air basins, but are different than the "criteria" pollutants listed above in that ambient air quality standards have not been established for them, largely because there are hundreds of air toxics and their effects on health tend to be local rather than regional. These contaminants include chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, painting and industrial operations, etc. Land use patterns and density of development affect the amount of air pollutants that are generated by communities. Newport Beach is a low -density community, where the distance between uses is greater than in high -density communities. As a result, there are fewer public transportation routes and vehicles, and an increase in the number of motor vehicle trips and associated air pollutant emissions. Newport Beach is also a jobs -rich City, which increases the potential for emissions to be generated as employees or residents have to commute long distances to and from their homes and work. The City's Municipal Code does address air quality by establishing a special fund to receive revenue distributed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD imposes an additional vehicle registration fee, of which the City is eligible to receive a portion, to implement mobile source air pollution reduction programs. NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 5 Aircraft Pollution • Aircraft operations at the John Wayne Airport contribute air pollutants that affect residents and visitors of Newport Beach. Specifically, aircraft engines emit water vapor, carbon dioxide, small amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur gases, and soot and metal particles formed by the high temperature combustion of jet fuel during flight. NOx emissions are a precursor to the formation of ground -level ozone, also known as smog. Ozone affects human pulmonary and respiratory health. Also, NOx reacts in the atmosphere to form secondary particulate matter (PM25), which also causes detrimental health effects. In addition, NOx, ozone, and PM adversely affect the environment in various ways including visibility impairment, crop damage, and acid rain. Aircraft engine emissions prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) were adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the United States in 1997. The City of Newport Beach does not have any specific regulations governing aircraft engine emissions. Biological Resources A variety of diverse, valuable, and sensitive biological resources occur within the City of Newport Beach. The terrestrial and marine resources that are present in the City ate described below. Terrestrial Resources isriparian plant habitats can be found in Newport Beach that includes scrub, chaparral, grassland, and riparian habitats. Additionally, Newport Beach contains vernal pools, seeps, and wet meadows. Other plant habitats present in Newport Beach include annual grasslands, ruderal areas that are generally a result of disturbances caused by humans, and ornamental landscaping that consist of introduced trees, shrubs, flowers, and turf grass. Sensitive Terrestrial Species The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California identifies occurrences of federal- or State -listed or proposed endangered or threatened species, Federal Species of Concern, species categorized as Federal Species of Concern, California Species of Concern, or otherwise sensitive species or habitat that may occur within or in the immediate vicinity of Newport Beach. These species are protected under state and federal regulations. The databases indicate that there are three listed plant species that occur or have the potential to occur within the City of Newport Beach: San Fernando Valley spineflower, salt marsh bird's beak, and Crownbeard. Eleven listed wildlife species occur or have the potential to occur within the City of Newport Beach: San Diego fairy shrimp, Tidewater goby, California black rail, light-footed clapper rail, western snowy plover, California least tern, southwestern willow flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, least BeTs vireo, Belding's savannah sparrow, and pacific pocket mouse. In addition, other sensitive species include 27 sensitive wildlife species and 24 sensitive plant • species that occur or potentially occur within the Newport Beach area. NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 4 Marine Resources • The marine resources of the City and surrounding ocean waters are very diverse. They include plants and animals of marshes and wetlands living in Upper Newport Bay, the developed channels, beaches, and hardscape of Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor), and the intertidal and subtidal landfotms (sandy beaches, rocky intertidal, sandy subtidal, and subtidal reefs) along the coast of Newport Beach between the Santa Ana River and the boundary between the City and Laguna Beach. Many of these areas are considered wetland habitat by the State of California and federal wetland definitions axe protected by a no -net loss wetlands policy Sensitive Marine Species Several species of marine mammals are present in the waters near the shote along the Newport coastline. All marine mammals are protected by the Maine Mammal Protection Act. Protected marine mammals that are most likely to occur in the City are: California sea lion, Harbor seal, California gray whale, Killer whale; Common dolphin, Pacific white sided dolphin, and Dall's porpoise. Eelgrass (Zostera manna), a flowering, marine vascular plant, is considered a sensitive marine resource due to its nursery function for invertebrates and fishes, and because it is considered critical foraging habitat for the federal- and State -listed California least tern. Eelgrass is protected by the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, which requires impacts to this species be avoided, minimized or compensated. Other sensitive marine resources include eelgrass restoration areas, Giant kelp, California . Grunion, and California halibut. Environmental Study Areas Undeveloped areas supporting natural habitats that may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources within the City are also referred to as Environmental Study Areas (ESAs) by the Local Coastal Plan. An ESA may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. The portions of the ESAs within the Coastal Zone that contain sensitive or rare species are referred to as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs), as defined by the California Coastal Act. ESHAs are areas in which "plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or are especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem that could easily be disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments." The Coastal Act requires that ESHAs be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values. Only uses dependent on those resources are allowed within ESHAs and adjacent development must be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade the ESHA and must be compatible with the continuance of the ESHA There are 28 identified ESAs within the City of Newport Beach: (1) Semeniuk Slough, (2) North Star Beach, (3) West Bay, (4) Upper Newport Bay Marine Park (UNBMP), (5) De Anza Bayside Marsh Peninsula, (6) San Diego Creek, (7) East Bluff Remnant, (8) Mouth of Big Canyon, (9) Newporter North, (10) Buck Gully, (11) Morning Canyon, (12) Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge, (13) Castaways, (14) Banning Ranch, (15) Newport Coast Open Space, (1 G) Los Trancos, • Pelican Hill, (17) Ridge Park, (18) Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge, (19) Newport Harbor Entrance Channel, (20) Bonita Canyon Creek Watershed, (21) San Joaquin Reservoir, (22) Arroyo NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 5 Park, (23) Coyote Canyon, (24) MacArthur and Bison, (25) MacArthur and San Miguel, . (26) MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills, (27) Spyglass Hill, (28) and Non -Coastal Buck Gully. Many of these sites contains one or more sensitive plant communities, and many species of wildlife. Some of the ESAs also contain endangered species of plants and animals. Most of these ESAs are protected as parks, conservation areas, nature preserves, and other open space areas. However, each of these ESAs are subjected to various threats from the surrounding urban environment that include polluted water quality, traffic, noise, public access, development encroachment, erosion and sedimentation, dredging or filling, stormwater runoff, invasive species, and feral animals. Newport Harbor Newport Harbor is home to valuable habitat such as eelgrass and mudflats that support a wide range of species, and also provides the public with recreational boating opportunities. There is a need to protect the biological habitat, and continue to serve the needs of the recreational boating community by ensuring compatibility between these uses of Newport Harbor. The City believes the best way to meet this objective is to develop a comprehensive plan for the management of the Harbor, with the support and cooperation of the County of Orange, US National Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, recreational boating community, environmental community, and public. Upper Newport Bay • The City Council has consistently supported the concept of developing, in cooperation with DFG and the County of Orange, a facility on Shellmaker Island that would serve as a center for water quality and ecosystem education as well as water quality testing and research. The proposed facility, Back Bay Science Center (BBSC), includes a County -operated water quality lab, facilities for DFG personnel involved in the management of the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park (UNBMP), space and exhibits for estuarine, ecosystem and water quality education and research programs, a wetland demonstration marsh and ecological interpretive stations. The City has taken the lead role in the planning/design of the Back Bay Science Center using Oil Spill Settlement Proceeds designated for that purpose. The City, DFG, County, and UCI have entered into a cooperative agreement that identifies the maintenance and operational responsibilities of the parties involved. The UNBMP, one of few remaining estuaries in Southern California, is home to nearly 200 species of birds, including several endangered species, as well as numerous species of mammals, fish, and plants. UNBMP is an important stopover for migrating birds on the Pacific Flyway and up to 30,000 birds can be seen here on any day during the winter months. UNBMP is contiguous to 140 acres of County owned uplands on the north and northwest that was, in 2000, designated as the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve and which includes an educational facility known as the Muth Center. UNBMP is an extremely valuable natural resource that must be carefully managed to (a) protect and enhance the habitat of the endangered species; (b) protect and enhance the various ecologies within and adjacent to UNBMP; (c) ensure that the public's access to and use of UNBMP does • not adversely impact the flora or fauna; (d) maximize the public's understanding and awareness of NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 6 S the resource and recreational value of UNBMP; and (e) promote direct community involvement • in resource protection and enhancement. Natural Comminutes Conservation Plan (NCCP) In July of 1996, the City became a signatory agency in the Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP Subregional Plan. The plan covers nearly 38,000 acres in coastal southern California and is a collaboration of federal and State resource agencies, local governments, special districts and private property owners. The NCCP uses a multi -species habitat conservation approach rather than a species specific approach resulting in the preservation of some of the most valuable native habitats while freeing other properties for development. As a signatory agency, the City is responsible for enforcing mitigation measures and other policies identified in the NCCP/Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement for properties located within the City Limit that are part of the NCCP Subregional Plan. Open Space Resources Open space may be defined as areas generally free from development or developed with low intensity uses that respect the natural environmental characteristics. Open space is generally non - urban in character and may have utility for the following: park and recreation purposes; conservation of land, water, or other natural resources; or for historic or scenic purposes. Most of the City's open space resources are located along the coast and in the eastern half of the City. Newport Beach's open space resources consist of undeveloped areas such as the Environmental Study Areas as described above, the Newport Bay, and Newport Harbor. Other resources include • the City's many undeveloped canyons and hillsides located primarily in the Newport Coast area. The beaches, parks, and the Crystal Cove State park also represent some other open space resources. Some of these resources are not preserved as parks or dedicated open spaces; however, local, State, and federal regulations help protect, preserve, and restore lands containing hillsides, sensitive biological resources, coastal beaches, and sensitive coastal bluffs. Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) Some of the City's open space areas consist of dedicated lands through the CIOSA. This agreement is between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, and has allowed building entitlements for The Irvine Company in exchange for payments of required proposed projects, an interest free loan, and land for open space and a potential senior housing site for the City. The amount of open space land dedication was substantially more than what would have been required under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Four sites have been dedicated under CIOSA in Newport Beach, two of which exist as open space areas: Newport Village (Newport Center Park), and Newporter Knoll Grand Deeds. Another site, located at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard will also be dedicated as open space upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for final CIOSA project. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Fossils in the central Santa Ana Mountains represent the oldest formations in Orange County at 145 to 175 million years old. Changes in geological land formations over time, brought upon by is tectonic activity, have resulted in a mix of aquatic and terrestrial fossils underlying the City. The NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 7 Miocene -age rock units (26 million years ago [mya] to 7 mya), particularly in the Newport Coast area, are considered to be of high -order paleontological significance (6 to 9 on a scale of 1 to 10). Other deposits found in the Newport Beach area include a variety of marine mammals, sea birds, mollusks, and a variety of vertebrate animals typically associated with the Ice Age (2.5 mya to 15,000 years ago). Local paleontological sites, particularly near the Castaways, have yielded fossils of Ice Age horses, elephants, bison, antelopes, and dire wolves. Also, a number of localities in the portions of the Vaqueros formation that underlie the Newport Coast area have yielded a variety of invertebrate and vertebrate fossils, and are also considered to be of high -order paleontological significance. Other areas with significant fossils and known paleontological deposits include the Banning Ranch area, which contains at least fourteen documented sites of high significance, and Fossil Canyon, in the North Bluffs area, which is considered a unique paleontological locality. Newport Beach also contains many significant archaeological sites. The Upper Newport Bay area has yielded some evidence for the earliest human occupation of Orange County and date to about 9,500 years before present. Over fifty sites have been documented in the Newport Beach area, including the Newport Coast area and Banning Ranch, many yielding substantial information regarding the prehistory of the City and County, and have included human burials. At least two and possibly three distinct cultural groups inhabited the area, including the Tongva and Acjachemem tribes, although the boundaries of their tribal territories are unclear. Mineral Resources Historically, drilling for oil in this part of Orange County began as early as 1904, and oil • production became the primary mineral extraction activity in and around the City. Two separate production and reserve areas exist within the City and its Sphere of Influence: Newport oil field, which lies within the City limits and West Newport oil field, which is located in the Banning Ranch area. The Newport Oil Field is located in the western portion of the City, and is estimated to have oil reserves of approximately 35 million barrels (Mbbl) and produces approximately 55 billion cubic feet of gas. The West Newport oil field produces approximately 20.5 billion cubic feet of gas with a daily production per oil well of approximately 5 bbl. Estimated oil reserves within this field are approximately 728 Mbbl. The concentration of active wells lies within the West Newport and Newport production areas. As of 2002, there were approximately 68 wells (plus four injection wells) producing oil and natural gas within the City - three gas wells in the Newport production area (out of 68 total oil and gas wells) and 65 oil wells in the West Newport area (out of 862 total wells). Of the 65 wells in the West Newport area, 16 are directionally drilled from onshore to offshore and 29 are currently not used for production but have not been abandoned (classified as "shut in"). Fifteen (not counting one injection well) of the 68 producing wells are operated by the City; 48 are operated by West Newport Oil Company, three by Hoag Memorial Hospital, and two by South Coast Oil. Thirty-three abandoned oil wells are located in numerous sites throughout the City, concentrated along the northwest boundary. Additionally, other than oil and gas resources, there is no active mining within the Newport Beach area. Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) within the City are either classified as containing no significant mineral deposits (MRZ-1), or the significance of mineral • deposits has not been determined (MRZ-3). NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 to Section 1401 of the City's Charter does not allow new drilling, or production or refining of oil, • gas, or other hydrocarbon substances within the City. However, the Section does not prohibit these activities within any area annexed to the City after the effective date of the Charter if these activities were already in operation. The City's Municipal Code does allow for slant drilling activities for oil, gas, tar, and other hydrocarbon substances within a designated area of Newport Beach. Visual Resources Visual resources are an important component of the quality of life of any geographic area. The City of Newport Beach is located in a unique and dynamic physical setting and enjoys views of the rolling green hills of Crystal Cove State Park to the east, and spectacular ocean views to the southwest, including those of the open waters of the ocean and bay, sandy beaches, rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. From higher elevations within the City, views to the north include the rolling hills of the San Joaquin Corridor, and in the distance, the Santa Ana Mountains. Specifically, the City's habitat areas and open spaces are among the contributing visual resources, including the Semeniuk Slough, North Star Beach, West Bay, Upper Newport Bay Marine Park and DeAnza/Bayside Marsh Peninsula, and San Diego Creek. Coastal views are also provided from a number of streets and highways and, due to the grid street pattern in West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar, many north -south tending streets provide view corridors to the ocean and bay. Coastal canyons and gullies in the eastern portion of the City known as the Newport Coast/Ridge area, typify the topographic landforms that render significant views of the City, including Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, Los Trancos, Muddy Canyon, and Pelican Hill. The City's coastal bluffs along the shoreline, facing the wetlands, and surrounding Upper Newport Bay are also important scenic resources. Other valuable resources include the City's more than 441 acres of parkland and passive open space, including the Crystal Cove State Park, and State Route 1, which is identified as Eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. The City has historically been sensitive to the need to protect and provide access to these scenic resources and has developed a system of public parks, piers, trails, and viewing areas. The City's development standards, including bulk and height limits in the area around the bay, have helped preserve scenic views and regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Located throughout Newport Beach, the City's many small "view parks" are intentionally designed to take advantage of significant views. In addition, the City provides policies in the Municipal Code and Local Coastal Plan that protect public views, which is defined as views from public vantage points. As for the City's coastal and other bluffs, while many have been preserved as parkland and other open space, most have been subdivided and developed over the years, including Newport Heights, Cliff Haven, Irvine Terrace, and Corona Del Mar. Energy Conservation Natural Gas. Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natural gas service for the City. Natural gas is a "fossil fuel" and is a non-renewable resource. Most of the major natural gas transmission pipelines within the City are owned and operated by SCG. SCG has the capacity and NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 9 resources to deliver gas except in certain situations that are noted in State law. As development isoccurs, SCG will continue to extend its service to accommodate development and supply the necessary gas lines. Electricity. Electricity is provided on an as -needed basis to customers within existing structures in the City. Southern California Edison Company (SCE) is the distribution provider for electricity in Newport Beach. Currently, SCE has no immediate plans for expansion of infrastructure, as most of the City is built out. However, every year SCE expands and improves existing facilities according to demand. GOALS AND POLICIES Water Supply Goal NR1 Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques. Policy NR1.1 Continue to enforce water conservation measures that limit water usage during water shortages, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water -efficient landscaping in conjunction with new construction projects. Policy NR1.2 Establish and actively promote use of water conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. This can include the use of rainwater capture, storage, • and reuse facilities. Policy NR1.3 Explore implementation of alternative conservation measures and technology as they become available. Goal NR2 Expanded use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present uses and future growth. Policy NR2.1 Increase the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expand recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible. Policy NR2.2 Use alternative water sources by implementing advanced water treatment processes such as brackish groundwater and seawater desalination programs, when feasible. Goal NR3 Recharge of groundwater resources. Policy NR3.1 Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge. Policy NR3.2 Require new development to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the • maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of feasible. pervious surfaces, where NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 10 Iv Water Quality • Goal NR4 Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. Policy NR4.1 Support the development of a model (physical and/or mathematical) of the Bay and coastline that provides information regarding the nature and extent of the water quality problem and enables prediction of the effects of changes on the entire system. Policy NR4.2 Continue to oppose oil drilling in the offshore area to protect water quality. Policy NR4.3 Support regulations limiting or banning the use insecticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals which are shown to be detrimental to water quality. Policy NR4.4 Promote pollution prevention and elimination methods that minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural water bodies. [LCP] Policy NR4.5 Suspend activities and implement appropriate health and safety procedures in the event that previously unknown groundwater contamination is encountered during construction. Where site contamination is identified, implement an appropriate remediation strategy that is approved by the City and the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Policy NR4.6 Continue to require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Policy NR4.7 Require that development not result in the degradation of natural water bodies. [LCP] Policy NR4.8 Support and participate in watershed -based runoff reduction and other planning efforts with the Regional Board, the County of Orange, and upstream cities. [LCP] Policy NR4.9 Continue to update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance.[LCP] Policy NR4.1.0 Develop and maintain a water quality checklist to be used in the permit review process to assess potential water quality impacts. [LCP] Policy NR4.11 Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -construction. [LCP] Policy NR4.12 Implement and improve upon best management practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. [LCP] Policy NR4.13 Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Elimination System, structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. [LCP] NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 11 Policy NR4.14 Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of • runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. [LCP] Policy NR4.15 Retain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into recreational waters, to the maximum extent practicable. [LCP] Policy NR4.16 Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of diverting or treating street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. Policy NR4.17 Require that development be located on the most suitable portion of the site and designed to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources that provide important water quality benefits. [LCP] Policy NR4.18 Require that parking lots and public and private streets be swept as frequently as necessary to remove debris and contaminated residue. [LCP] Policy NR4.19 Effectively communicate water quality education to residents and businesses, including the development of a water quality testing lab and educational exhibits at various educational facilities. [LCP] Goal NR5 Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards. Policy NR5.1 Continue to develop and implement the TMDLs established by the California • Regional Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region and guided by the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee (WEC). [LCP] Policy NR5.2 Secure funding for the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project and long-term funding for successor dredging projects for Upper and Lower Newport Bay. Policy NR5.3 Preserve, or where feasible, restore natural hydrologic conditions such that downstream erosion, natural sedimentation rates, surface flow, and groundwater recharge function near natural equilibrium states. [LCP] Policy NR5.4 Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. [LCP] Goal NR6 Minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows (SS0s). Policy NR6.1. Continue to implement the Sewer System Management Plan and the Sewer Master Plan. [LCP] Policy NR6.2 Require waste discharge permits for all food preparation facilities that produce grease. [LCP] Policy NR6.3 Continue to renovate all older sewer pump stations and install new • plumbing according to most recent standards. [LCP] NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 12 l4 Policy NR6.4 Comply with the Regional Board's Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) • associated with the operation and maintenance of the City's sewage collection system. [LCPj Air Quality Goal NR7 Reduced mobile source emissions. Policy NR7.1 Require development of walkable neighborhoods by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas especially in the Airport Area, Newport Center, and Banning Ranch. Policy NR7.2 Support mixed -use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. Policy NR7.3 Support at -work day care facilities, on -site automated banking machines, and other measures to reduce vehicle -trip generation. Policy NR7.4 Continue to implement the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance which promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and provides those facilities that support such alternate modes. Policy NR7.5 Collaborate with local transit agencies to: develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare and transit; establish mass transit • mechanisms for the reduction of work -related and non -work related vehicle trips; and promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways, origins and destinations ,and types of vehicles. Policy NR7.6 Encourage synchronization of traffic signals throughout the City and with adjoining cities and counties to allow free flow of traffic. Policy NR7.7 Continue implementing the program to replace existing vehicles in the City fleet with the cleanest vehicles commercially available that will provide needed services. Policy NR7.8 Support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is available and accessible to the public, and provide incentives for alternative fuel vehicles. Goal NR8 Reduced air pollution emissions from stationary sources. Policy NR8.1 Support the use of fuel efficient heating equipment and other appliances such as water heaters, swimming pool heaters, refrigerators, furnaces, and boiler units. Policy NR8.2 Require the use of best management practices to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. Policy NR8.3 Provide incentives to promote siting or to use clean air technologies and • building materials (e.g., fuel cell technologies, renewable energy sources, UV coatings, hydrogen fuel). NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 13 Goal NR9 Reduced air pollution emissions from aircraft. • Policy NR9.1 Work with John Wayne Airport to continue efficient airport operations through high gate utilization and other methods. Policy NR9.2 Work with John Wayne Airport to encourage development and use of emission reduction equipment for aircraft. Biological Resources Goal NR10 Protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development. Policy NR1.0.1 Continue to cooperate with the state and federal resource protection agencies and private organizations to protect terrestrial and marine resources. Policy NR10.2 Comply with the policies contained within the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan. Policy NR10.3 Continue to protect, and prohibit development in, nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas in order to minimize urban impacts upon resources in identified Environmental Study Areas (ESAs). Policy NR1.0.4 Require a site -specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist • as a filing requirement for any development permit applications where development would occur within or adjacent to areas identified as an ESA. Policy NR10.5 Require that the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values. • Policy NR10.6 Limit uses within an area containing any significant or rare biological resources to only those uses that are dependent on such resources, except where application of such a limitation would result in a taking of private property. If application of this policy would likely constitute a taking of private property, then a non -resource -dependent use shall be allowed on the property, provided development is limited to the minimum amount necessary to avoid a taking and the development is consistent with all other applicable resource protection policies. Public access improvements and educational, interpretative and research facilities are considered resource dependent uses. Policy NR10.7 Maintain a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological resources, if present, to ensure the protection of these resources. Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within these buffer areas. Policy NR10.8 Shield and direct exterior lighting away from significant or rare biological resources to minimize impacts to wildlife. NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 14 Policy NR10.9 Prepare natural habitat protection regulations for Buck Gully and Morning . Canyon for the purpose of providing standards to ensure both the protection of the natural habitats in these areas and of private property rights. Include standards for the placement of structures, native vegetation/fuel modification buffers, and erosion and sedimentation control structures. Policy NR10.10 Protect the sensitive and rare resources that are known to occur on Banning Ranch by preserving the site as open space. If development is permitted, concentrate development to protect biological resources and coastal bluffs, and design structures to not be intrusive on the surrounding landscape. Require the restoration of any important habitat areas that are affected by development. Policy NR10.11 Coordinate with County and State resource agencies to monitor ecological conditions within the Newport Beach Marine Refuge and Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge.and to implement management programs to protect these marine refuge areas. Maintain public use of the refuges to the extent it is consistent with the preservation of intertidal and subtidal resources. Policy NR10.12 Support reforestation programs for giant kelp. Policy NR10.13 Support the construction of tide pool exhibits away from ocean beaches to provide an educational alternative to the tide pools at Corona del Mar State Beach and Crystal Cove State Park. Goal NR11 Protection of eelgrass meadows for their ecological function as a nursery • and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem, balanced with maintenance of Newport Harbor as a recreational boating resource. Policy NR11.1 Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible. [LCP] Policy NR11.2 Continue to cooperate with the County of Orange, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and resource agencies to establish eelgrass restoration sites. [LCP] Policy NR11.3 Allow successful eelgrass restoration sites to serve as mitigation sites for City projects and as a mitigation bank from which eelgrass mitigation credits will be issued to private property owners for eelgrass removal resulting from dock and channel dredging projects. [LCP] Goal NR12 Protection of coastal dune habitats. Policy NR1.2.1 Require the removal of exotic vegetation and the restoration of native vegetation in dune habitat. [LCP] Policy NR12.2 Design and site recreation areas to avoid impacts to dune habitat areas, and direct public access away from these resources through methods such as well-defined footpaths, boardwalks, protective fencing, and signage. • [LCP] NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 15 0 Policy NR12.3 Limit earthmoving of beach sand in dune habitat areas to projects • necessary for the protection of coastal resources and existing development. [LCP] Goal NR13 Protection, maintenance, and enhancement of Southern California wetlands. Policy NR13.1 Recognize and protect wetlands for their commercial, recreational, water quality, and habitat value. [LCP] Policy NR13.2 Require a survey and analysis with the delineation of all wetland areas when the initial site survey indicates the presence or potential for wetland species or indicators. Wetland delineations will be conducted in accordance with the definitions of wetland boundaries established by California Department of Fish and Game, and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Goal NR14 Allowed diking, filling, and dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries to maintain deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats. Policy NR14.1 Support and assist in the management of dredging within Newport Bay. [LCP] Policy NR14.2 Continue to cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their maintenance and delineation of federal navigational channels at Newport • Harbor in the interest in providing navigation and safety. [LCP] Policy NR14.3 Continue to secure blanket permits or agreements through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission to expedite permit processing for residential and commercial dock owners in the Bay. [LCP] Policy NR14.4 Require that any project that includes diking, filling or dredging of a wetland or estuary must maintain the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Functional capacity means the ability of the wetland or estuary to be self- sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity. [LCP] Policy NR1.4.5 Require that all structures permitted to encroach into open coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries be sited and designed to be consistent with the natural appearance of the surrounding area. [LCP] Goal NR15 Proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to naturalhabitats. Policy NR15.1 Monitor dredging projects within the region to identify opportunities to reduce disposal costs and utilize dredge spoils for beach nourishment. [LCP] n LJ NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 16 i% Policy NR15.2 Participate in regional sediment management by maintaining records of the number of channelized streams, miles of channelization in streams, • volumes of sediment extracted from stream channels and debris basins, and the grain size distribution of the extracted sediments. [LCP] Policy NR15.3 Secure permanent use designation for the LA-3 sediment disposal site for future dredging projects. [LCP] Goal NR16 Protection and management of Newport Bay commensurate with the standards applicable to our nation's most valuable natural resources. Policy NR16.1 Develop a Harbor Area Management Plan that will provide a comprehensive approach to management of the resources of Newport Bay such as protection of eelgrass and other natural resources, dredging for navigation and continued use of private piers. Policy NR16.2 Continue support of and secure federal funding for the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project to restore the Upper Newport Bay to its optimal ecosystem. [LCP] Policy NR16.3 Support unified management of Upper Newport Bay by collaborating with Orange County and California Department of Fish and Game to maximize resources and maintain public access. Policy NR16.4 Maintain public use of the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park to the extent such use is consistent with the preservation of sensitive resources. • Policy NR16.5 Ensure that facilities in and around Upper Newport Bay adequately serve as water quality and estuarine education and research programs. Open Space Resources Goal NRV Maintenance of designated open space resources. Policy NR17.1 Protect, conserve, and maintain the existing open space areas that define the City's urban form, serve as habitat for many species, and provide recreational opportunities. Policy NR17.2 Consider conversion of public sites designated for open space to other uses only when the conversion will meet a significant public need, and there are no alternative sites that could feasibly meet that need. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Goal NR18 Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources. Policy NR18.1 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. NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 17 Policy NR18.2 Prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological or • archaeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified Individuals who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological and archaeological findings. [Council Policy Manual] Policy NR18.3 Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. [LCP] Policy NR18.4 Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. [LCP] Mineral Resources Goal NR19 Minimized impacts from oil drilling activities. Policy NR19.1 Continue to prohibit additional oil extraction activities within the City limits but allow that existing wells be used, if needed, for water injection systems that increase oil extraction. Policy NR19.2 Oppose new offshore oil drilling activities. • Policy NR19.3 Prohibit on -shore support facilities for off -shore oil drilling. Policy NR19.4 Encourage consolidation of existing oil and gas activities. Visual Resources Goal NR20 Preservation of significant visual resources. Policy NR20.:L Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, and ridges from public vantage points. Policy NR20.2 Require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate. [LCP] Policy NR20.3 Protect public views from the following roadway segments: ■ Avocado Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway ■ Back Bay Drive ■ Balboa Island Bridge ■ Bayside Drive from Coast Highway to Linda Island Drive ■ Bayside Drive at Promontory Bay • ■ Coast Highway/Santa Ana River Bridge ■ Coast Highway/Newport Boulevard Bridge and Interchange NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 If] 901 ■ Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Marino Drive (Bayshores) Is ■ Coast Highway/Newport Bay Bridge ■ Coast Highway from Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive ■ Coast Highway from Pelican Point Drive to city limits ■ Eastbluff Drive from Jamboree Road to Backbay Drive ■ Irvine Avenue from Santiago Drive to University Drive ■ Jamboree Road from Eastbluff Drive/University Drive to State Route 73 ■ Jamboree Road in the vicinity of the Big Canyon Park ■ Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Bayside Drive ■ Lido Isle Bridge ■ MacArthur Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway ■ Marguerite Avenue from San Joaquin Hills Road to Fifth Avenue ■ Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road/Westminster Avenue to Via Lido ■ Newport Center Drive from Newport Center Drive E/W to Farallon Drive/Granville Drive ■ Newport Coast from Pelican Hill Road North to Coast Highway ■ Ocean Boulevard ■ Pelican Hills Road South ■ San Joaquin Hills Road from Newport Ridge Drive to Spyglass Hill Road ■ San Miguel Drive from San Joaquin Hills Road to MacArthur Boulevard • ■ State Route 73 from Bayview Way to University Drive ■ Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway ■ University Drive from Irvine Avenue to the Santa Ana —Delhi Channel ■ Vista Ridge Road from Ocean Heights to Altezza Drive Policy NR20.4 Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent, and minimize impacts to public views. [LCP] Policy NR20.5 Provide public trails, recreation areas, and viewing areas adjacent to public view corridors, where feasible. [LCP] Goal NR21 Minimized visual impacts through regulation of signs and utilities. Policy NR21.1 Design and site signs, utilities, and antennas to minimize visual impacts. Policy NR21.2 Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs. [LCP] Policy NR21.3 Continue programs to remove and underground overhead utilities, in new development as well as existing neighborhoods. [LCP] Goal NR22 The intensity of development around Newport Bay is consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. • NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 19 yk Policy NR22.1 Maintain the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone to protect views of the water. . Consider amending the boundary of this Zone where public views would not be impacted. Policy NR22.2 Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. [LCP] Goal NR23 Development respects natural landforms such as coastal bluffs. Policy NR23.1 Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource. Policy NR23.2 Maintain approved bluff edge setbacks for the coastal bluffs within the planned communities of Castaways, Eastbluff, Park Newport, Newporter North (Harbor Cove), and Bayview Landing to ensure the preservation of scenic resources and geologic stability. Policy NR23.3 Establish bluff edge setbacks based on the predominant line of existing development in each conventional residential neighborhood containing coastal bluffs, including those within the communities of Dover Shores, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores. Require a minimum bluff edge setback of 15 feet for the principal building and 5 feet for accessory structures. Policy NR23.4 Require new planned communities to dedicate or preserve as open space the coastal bluff face and an area inland from the edge of the coastal bluff • adequate to provide safe public access and to avoid or minimize visual impacts. Policy NR23.5 Require all new blufftop development located on a bluff subject to marine erosion to be set back based on the predominant line of development. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. Policy NR23.6 On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations to be sited at least 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. Policy NR23.7 Establish canyon development setbacks based on the predominant line of existing development for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. Do not permit development to extend beyond the predominant line of existing development by establishing a development stringline where a line is drawn between nearest adjacent corners of existing structures on either side of the subject property. Establish development stringlines for principle structures and accessory improvements. Policy NR23.8 Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native • vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 20 ;ti I Energy Conservation • Goal NR24 increased energy efficiency in City facilities and operations and in private developments. 11 • Policy NR24.1 Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by private and public developments. Policy NR24.2 Promote energy -efficient design features, including appropriate site orientation, use of lighter color roofing and building materials, and use of deciduous shade trees and windbreak trees to reduce energy consumption for heating and cooling. Policy NR24.3 Promote or provide incentives for "Green Building' programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage energy efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" status. Policy NR24.4 Provide incentives for implementing Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certified building such as fee waivers, bonus densities, and/or awards recognition programs. Policy NR24.5 Allow new methane extraction activities to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. NATURAL RESOURCES—DRAFT,1019105 21 91 • Recreation INTRODUCTION The City's parks, bicycle and pedestrian trails, recreational facilities, and coastal resources such as beaches play an important role in the physical, mental, social, and environmental health of Newport Beach residents. These facilities are important land use components in an urban environment, providing both visual relief from the built environment and contributing to residents' quality of life through recreation and aesthetic value. California State Law requires that recreational issues be discussed in the General Plan. Since 1973, Newport Beach has had a Recreation and Open Space Element that was most recently amended in 1998. With the update of this General Plan, only policies related to recreation are included within this element, while open space policies are contained within the Natural Resources Element. The primary purpose of the Recreation Element is to ensure that the balance between the provision of sufficient parks and recreation facilities are appropriate for the residential and business population of Newport Beach. Specific recreational issues and policies contained in this Recreation Element include: parks and recreation facilities, recreation programs, shared facilities, coastal recreation and support facilities, marine recreation, and public access. • CONTEXT Parks and Recreational Facilities The City has approximately 278 acres of developed parks. Newport Beach's parklands range in size from mini -parks such as the Lower Bay Park (0.1 acre) to the 39-acre Bonita Canyon Sports Park. School facilities also provide indoor and outdoor recreational opportunities in the City, while greenbelts and open space areas provide passive recreational opportunities or open space relief. These park and recreation facilities are described below. Additionally, bikeways, jogging trails, pedestrian trails, recreation trails, and regional equestrian trails are also available in Newport Beach. Park Types Community Park. Community parks serve the entire City and are easily accessible via arterial roads. Community parks are those with improvements such as community buildings, parking, swimming, facilities for picnicking, active sports, and other facilities that serve a larger population. Community Parks may have a particular theme or orientation such as active sports or aquatic facilities. Mini Park. Mini parks are smaller parks which may take one of two different forms. Most mini parks are less than one acre in size, serve a quarter -mile radius and ate located within a neighborhood, separate from major or collector roads. Some mini parks serve the entire City and are located as urban trail heads along major trails or streets. • RECREATION-DRAFT,10112/05 1 Neighborhood Park Neighborhood parks serve all ages and are generally one to eight acres in • size. They are located adjacent to public schools when possible. Neighborhood parks contain a wide variety of improvements which can include turf areas, active sport fields and courts, community buildings, play apparatus and picnic facilities. Other improvements might include senior centers, youth centers, and aquatic facilities. View Park. View parks are smaller passive parks designed to take advantage of a significant view. They are often located on coastal bluffs to focus upon ocean or bay views. Most view parks are between one-half to three acres in size and serve the entire City. View parks are generally improved with landscaping, walkways and benches. Greenbelt. Greenbelts in public or private ownership are included in this category. They may include areas with some recreational facilities, although the primary function of the area is passive open space. Open Space. Open space includes passive and active open space areas which do not function as public parks but do provide open space relief Such areas may or may not be accessible to the general public. Public Beach. Public Beaches serve a number of local and regional functions. In some neighborhoods, beaches function as neighborhood or community parks. Easy accessibility, lack of entrance fees and a lack of other available parks has contributed to this function. Public beaches all include sandy beach areas adjacent to the bay or ocean and may include active sports, snack bars, showers, drinking fountains, resttooms, walkways, docks, benches, shade trees and • parking areas. From observation, it has been determined that active beach recreation takes place within about 100 feet of the water's edge. Therefore, this Element treats this seaward 100 feet of the public beaches in the City as active recreation acreage. • School. Public schools are a part of the recreation system in the City because field and playground areas can serve the general public during weekends and after school. Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement Some of the City's parks and open space areas consist of dedicated lands through the Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). This agreement is between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, and has allowed building entitlements for The Irvine Company in exchange for payments of required proposed projects, an interest free loan, and land for open space and potential senior housing site for the City. The amount of open space land dedication was substantially more than what would have been required under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Four sites have been dedicated under CIOSA in Newport Beach, and include: Back Bay View Park, Newport Village (Newport Center Park), Newpoxter Knoll Grant Deeds, and Freeway Reservation. Back Bay View Park and Freeway Reservation are both developed as parks, while the remaining two sites are open space areas. Another site, located at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, will be dedicated upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy fox final CIOSA project. RECREATION—DRAFT,10112105 2 N Recreational Facilities • The City's parks contain a variety of recreational facilities, with areas available for organized sports including soccer fields, baseball diamonds, tennis courts, volleyball courts, and basketball courts. Recreational opportunities exist for children in many of the play areas in the City's parks. Biking and walking trails are also popular recreational amenities. Swimming pools are available to the public at aquatic facilities at the Marian Bergeson Aquatic Center and Newport Harbor High School through joint use agreements with the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. Additional recreational resources in the City include three community centers, several multipurpose recreation centers, a senior center, and two gymnasium facilities. Private facilities, including yacht clubs, golf courses, and country clubs ate also facilities that serve residents of Newport Beach. Sharing of Parks and Recreation Facilities Public schools within the City under the jurisdiction of the Newport -Mesa Unified School District contain a number of important recreation facilities. Currently, after -school recreational use of these facilities is utilized by youth and adult residents through joint use agreements between the school district and the City. Parkland Dedication Standards Parkland dedication standards associated with the Quimby Act and the Newport Beach Subdivision Code are applicable to development in the City. As required under the State Government Code, the Quimby Act provides for the dedication of parkland, or the payment of • fees in lieu of land, by developers as a requirement for residential development. The Act requires the provision of three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, in which case the City may adopt a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 residents. Chapter 19.52, Park Dedication and Fees of the City's Municipal Code provides for the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of residential development. Newport Beach's park dedication requirement is five acres per 1,000 persons. In -lieu fees are placed in a fund earmarked for the provision or rehabilitation of park and recreation facilities that can serve the subdivision. The park dedication ordinance also provides for credit to be given, at the discretion of the City Council, for the provision of private recreation facilities within a new residential development or for the provision of park and recreation improvements to land dedicated for a public park. If allowed, the private facilities or public improvements are credited against the dedication of land and/or the payment of in -lieu fees. The ordinance is not applicable to non-residential subdivisions. Marine Recreation and Facilities Throughout its history, Newport Beach has been a major marine recreational center. There are over eight miles of sandy beaches that provide opportunities for sunbathing, volleyball, swimming, surfing, windsurfing and other recreational activities. Newport Bay and Harbor are used for a wide variety of recreational activities, including boating, diving, excursions, fishing, kayaking, paddle boarding, parasailing, rowing, sailing, swimming, and windsurfing. • RECREATION-DRAFT,10/12105 3 2;1 Coastal Recreation Opportunities • As previously discussed, public Beaches serve a number of local and regional functions, while providing the largest coastal recreation opportunity within Newport Beach. Public beaches all include sandy beach areas adjacent to the bay or ocean and may include active sports, snack bars, showers, drinking fountains, restrooms, walkways, docks, benches, shade trees and parking areas. Other coastal recreation opportunities include two recreational piers, provided by the City. The 800-foot Newport Pier is located at the end of Newport Boulevard (McFadden Place) in McFadden Square. The 950-foot Balboa Pier is located at the end of Main Street in Balboa Village. Additionally, the City provides ten public docks in the harbor, which can be used for boat launching and fishing. The Newport Aquatic Center property is also co -owned by the City and County, but is leased and privately operated by the Center. Located on Northstar Beach, the Newport Aquatic Center provides an opportunity for the public and members to kayak and canoe in Upper Newport Bay as well as advanced training facilities for world -class athletes. The County and the State own four recreational areas in Newport Beach. The privately operated 100-acre Newport Dunes Aquatic Park provides opportunities for camping, boating, canoeing, kayaking, swimming and other water and beach activities. The 752-acre Upper Newport Bay Marine Park and 140-acre Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve provide opportunities for canoeing, kayaking, horseback riding, biking, and hiking. Lastly, the Crystal Cove State Park also provides coastal recreation opportunities with 3.5 miles of beach and 2,000 acres of undeveloped • woodland which is popular for hiking and horseback riding. Approximately 240 acres is located within the City. The offshore waters ate designated as an underwater park. Crystal Cove is used by mountain bikers inland and scuba and skin divers underwater. The beach is popular with swimmers and surfers. Visitors can explore tidepools and sandy coves. Commercial areas adjacent to beaches and the bay play an important role in providing and enhancing recreational activities. A large number of businesses provide recreational services to residents and visitors that include charter, entertainment and excursion vessels, sports equipment rentals, launching facilities, amusement facilities, and shops and restaurants. Shoreline Access The public's right to access recreational features such as the Pacific Ocean beaches, Lower Newport Bay/Harbor, and Upper Newport Bay are important. According to the City's Local Coastal Plan, there are two basic types of public access: vertical access (access to the shoreline), and lateral access (access along the shoreline). Newport Beach has developed an extensive system of access to ocean beaches and the bay. Virtually all of the Pacific Ocean shoreline beaches are public and the bay is accessible via public beaches, parks, street ends, shoreline trails, walkways and boardwalks. NEEDS Although the City of Newport Beach appears largely built out, there are a number of vacant parcels available for future development. The General Plan Land Use Element projects additional • population increases through infill development, intensification of existing uses, and annexations. Therefore, in addition to any unmet park and recreation needs of the present population, the RECREATION—DRAFT,10112105 4 2% demand for recreation facilities will grow. In addition, the Land Use Element allows for higher • density development within the City, where opportunities for different types of park and recreational facilities may arise. Specific citywide and service area needs for parks and recreational facilities, as well as marine recreation and facilities, are described below. Citywide Issues and Needs Parks and Recreational Facilities • In June 2005, it is estimated that a total of 415.6 acres of parklands are needed within the City to accommodate the current population of 83,120 residents (utilizing the City standard of 5 acres per 1,000 population). As shown in Table 1, below, there are an existing total of 286.4 acres of parks and 90.4 acres of active beach recreation within Newport Beach with a combined total of 376.8 acres. Thus, this represents'a total deficit of 38.8 acres of combined park and beach acreage citywide. Seven of the 12 service areas are experiencing a deficit in this combined recreation acreage. Three planned parks in West Newport, Newport Center, and Newport Coast would help alleviate the citywide park deficit. The citywide parks and recreation facilities needs described below have been identified through the following: (1) community surveys (administered from December 1996 to February 1997); (2) data shown in Table 1 (Parkland Acreage Needs); and (3) monitoring of the use of recreation programs and facilities. Service Area Park Acres ; Needed Park Acres Existing Active Beach Recreation Acreage Combined ParWBeach Acreage Deficit(--) Excess (+)' 1. West Newport 64.7 9.1 34 43.1 -21.6 2. Balboa Peninsula 25.5 6.5 44 50.5 +25.0 3. Newport Hits. at al 64.3 50.2 0 50.2 -14.1 4. Santa Ana Heights 3.2 6.8 0 6.8 +3.6 5. Lower Bay 17.3 0.1 0 0.1 47.2 6. Balboa Island 17.9 0.3 1 1.3 46.6 7. Eastbluff 31.3 71.0 0 71.0 +39.7 8. Big Canyon 13.9 0 0 0 -13.9 9. Newport Center 10.9 19 0 19 +8.1 10. Corona del Mar 44.4 23.9 11.4 35.3 -9.1 11. Harbor View 72.2 99.5 0 99.5 +27.3 12. Newport Coast* 50 58.1* Private parks only 0 -50 Totals 415.6a 286.4 90.42b 376.8 �38.8** *Newport Coast Private Park Area is 58.1 ac. This private parkland satisfies the County park dedication standards. **DeflciVexcess acreage if no additional parks are built. a 83,120 x 5 ac. per thousand - 415.6 ac. b Includes beach area where active recreation takes place (i.e., typically within 100 feet of the water). In addition, there are 174 acres of passive beach open space,136 acres of open space land In the Upper Bay Ecological reserve, and an undetermined amount of water open space In the Upper Bay and Newport Harbor. RECREATION-DRAFT,10112105 y'k IDENTIFIED ISSUES AND NEEDS • Sports Fields. Perhaps the fastest growing recreational demand in Newport Beach is the need for additional sports fields, especially lighted facilities available for after -work sports leagues. This need stems from the evolving nature of sports activities, diversity of sports that residents are involved in, growing participation of girls in a number of field sports, the lengthening of seasons for many sports and consequent season overlap, the need for sports facilities for the physically challenged, and the continuing high level of participation in company sports leagues such as coed softball. Meeting this need will be a challenge because of the large amount of area requited for sports fields, the lack of suitable vacant land in the City, and the high cost of such land. In addition, school districts are adding new teams to accommodate the diversity of sports students are interested in, making it more difficult for the City's Recreation Department to use school sports fields to provide public recreation opportunities. Indoor Facilities. The community surveys emphasized the need for additional gymnasium or other indoor sports facilities, such as for basketball, volleyball, and gymnastics. With the exception of the West Newport Community Center, all of the current indoor facilities owned by the City are small and consist of one or two small classrooms. There is a need for community centers with large meeting and multipurpose rooms that can be programmed for many different classes and activities. Additional indoor facilities should be planned for the long-term, located preferably within a community -level park. Community Pool Facilities. The need surveys showed a strong desire for additional adult and youth swimming pool and aquatic sports facilities and programs. The City does not own a • swimming pool and currently offers all aquatics programs to the community at one of two high school pools. There is a growing demand through the schools for additional aquatic programs serving the students, thereby limiting the amount of time the City can operate programs for the general public. Sharing of School Facilities. Public schools within the City administered by the Newport -Mesa Unified School District contain a number of important indoor and outdoor recreation facilities. After -school recreational use of these facilities including playfields, swimming pools, gymnasiums, and other facilities could be utilized by other non -school age residents of Newport Beach to maximize the recreational opportunities available. However, as schools evolve in function, the City's Recreation Department may lose use of these school facilities. Other Facilities. Other identified facility needs include bike and pedestrian trails, lighted tennis courts, dog parks, tot lots/playgrounds, golf driving range, public marine recreational and educational facilities, and public restrooms. Temporary Events. Temporary events such as festivals are held at parks and recreation facilities within the City. During these events, access to and use of these facilities could be impacted. Marine Recreation and Facilities The citywide marine recreation and facilities needs described below have been identified through community surveys (administered from December 1996 to February 1997), through the data in Table 1 Parkland Acreage Needs, and through monitoring of the use of recreation programs and • facilities. RECREATION-DRAFT,10112105 30 IDENTIFIED ISSUES AND NEEDS • Boating Facilities. Although not as great as the need for sports fields, there is a substantial demand for public boat launching facilities, sailing facilities, marine sanitation facilities, and guest slips. In addition, there is a continuing high level of interest in crew rowing and outrigger paddling activities and facilities. Shoreline Access. Throughout Southern California, access to the shoreline is restricted to the public due to private residential communities. However, there are a few private residential communities that impede public access to and along the shoreline. Temporary Events. Newport Beach's coastal areas have long been the venue for temporary events, including film production, surfing contests, volleyball tournaments, runs, races, concerts, boat shows, and other such competitions, exhibitions, and events. Also, a number of view parks have become popular locations for large private gatherings. The nature and frequency of such events can impact access to the shoreline and other coastal resources. Service Areas The City has been divided into service areas, as shown in Figure 1, for the purposes of park planning and to equitably administer parkland dedications and fees provided by residential development. Two of the 12 service areas within the City, Santa Ana Heights/Airport Commercial and Newport Center, have no identified park and recreation needs, as discussed below. • Service Area 4 — Santa Ana Heights/Airport Commercial. The population within this area is expected to remain stable or decline in light of the Land Use Element's policies aimed at limiting residential development under the flight pattern of John Wayne Airport. There is currently a park surplus, and the present two -acre Bayview Park and the proximity of the Upper Bay recreation area provide substantial recreational opportunities for this area. There is also a planned pocket park and the City is planning a joint use community center project with the YMCA. Service Area 9 — Newport Center. There is park surplus within this service area. The Back Bay View Park was completed in the summer of 2005, and a new passive park, Newport Center Park, is planned for development sometime after 2006. Parks and Recreational Facilities Service area parks and recreational facilities needs described below have been identified through community surveys (administered from December 1996 to February 1997), through the data in Table 1 Parldand Acreage Needs, and through monitoring of the use of recreation programs and facilities. IDENTIFIED ISSUES AND NEEDS Service Area 1—West Newport. Most of West Newport's recreation land is in beaches. There is a deficit of 21.6 acres, and a need for sports fields within a new community or neighborhood - level park. There is a future park site identified in this service area, Sunset Ridge Park which is designated as an active park to include ball fields, (possibly lighted), picnic areas, a playground, • parking, and restrooms. If Banning Ranch is annexed into the City and is developed for urban RECREATION—DRAFT,10112105 7 31 10 N W l� 1 MILE ... ... SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY NE, P ' RT r. • Easibluff/ Newport North*'*.. • i • Big Canyon/ 3 • Belcoun t •♦ Newport Heights/ • '♦ Upper Bay ♦+ • Newport center '• Balboa 4 V • '♦� ,' Harbor View Pens 2 •4_ Corona del Mar°•�L'' Figure 1 Service Area Locations 12 Newport Coast ,, a uses, there will be additional demand for recreation facilities by new residents of this area. Locating an active park on Banning Ranch could help satisfy the existing and future park needs of the area. Service Area 2—Balboa Peninsula. Like West Newport, most of the peninsula's recreation area is in beaches. This area has little vacant land for development and the population is expected to remain stable. Although there is currently a surplus in park acreage, any future park needs can be satisfied via the renovation and upgrading of facilities, such as those at Las Arenas Park and Peninsula Park. Additional active park facilities are desirable, along with support facilities such as restrooms, showers and drinking fountains. There is also a need for additional boat launching and mooring facilities, as well as pedestrian pathways to and along the Bay. Future development of RECREATION—DRAFT,10112105 8 sv the City's Marina Park property could provide for the existing community center and the City's • current sailing and boating facilities on the site to be renovated and expanded. Service Area 3—Newport Heights/Harbor Highlands. This area is largely built out and contains several important park and recreation facilities. Substantial school recreation facilities, including Newport Harbor High School, Ensign Junior High, Mariners Elementary, and Newport Heights Elementary, compensate for the deficiency in total park area. Service Area 5—Lower Bay. This area contains Lido Isle and the Bayside Drive area and is largely built out. Although there is a deficiency in park area, the service area has substantial private recreational and boating facilities. It is also adjacent to Area 3 (Newport Heights) where there are extensive recreational facilities. Because of these factors and the fact there is little or no vacant land suitable for park use, the provision of additional parkland is probably not feasible in this area. Service Area 6—Balboa Island. This area is similar, in terms of recreation needs and conditions with a deficiency in park area, to Area 5 above. However, Balboa Island contains more public recreational facilities in the form of public beach area, the Carroll Beek Community Center, and Balboa Island Park (a mini -park). The acquisition of additional parkland is probably not feasible in this area. Service Area 7—Eastbluff/North Ford. Although there is a numerical excess of existing parkland in this area, most of the land is limited to passive use, such as Big Canyon Park. Additional sports fields and other active facilities will be needed to satisfy the recreational • demands from new development. However, this Service Area is adjacent to Service Area 11 Harbor View, which contains the 47.6 acre public park in Bonita Canyon that is available to all Newport Beach residents. • Service Area 8—Big Canyon/Belcourt. Although there are substantial private facilities, there ate no public recreation facilities in this area; thus, there is park deficiency. However, this Service Area is adjacent to Service Area 11 Harbor View, which contains the 47.6 acre public park in Bonita Canyon that is available to all Newport Beach residents. Service Area 10—Corona del Mar. Although there is a deficiency in park area, existing active and passive facilities should meet present and future need, provided these facilities are renovated and upgraded to meet demand for sports fields and active recreation. Service Area 11—Harbor View. Although there is a deficiency in park area, the Harbor View Service Area contains substantial active and passive recreation facilities. The City's efforts should be focused on maintaining and/or upgrading existing facilities, such as Grant Howald Park, Arroyo Park and Bonita Canyon Sports Park. Service Area 12 Newport Coast. This area is deficient in public facilities, but exceeds the City park ratio standard if its extensive private facilities are included. Currently, there is one public park planned for development in the future at the end of Ridge Road, and a neighborhood community center that will include meeting and activity rooms and a gymnasium. The City's Recreation Department has not been permitted to offer programs at the privately -owned park. The youth of Newport Coast Service Area participate in programs outside of the service area. RECREATION—DRAFT,10/12105 0 GOALS AND POLICIES • Park and Recreation Facilities Goal R1 Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community. -Policy R: 1 Require future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Policy R1.2 Require developers of new residential subdivisions to provide parklands at 5 acres per 1,000 persons, as stated in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, or to contribute in -lieu fees for the development of public recreation facilities meeting demands generated by the development's resident population. Policy R1.3 Require developers of new high -density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to provide on -site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on -site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. On -site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on -site recreational • amenities, the developer shall be required to pay the City of Newport Beach cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. Policy 131.4 Update the park fee assessed to new residential development in lieu of dedicating park land on a regular basis. Policy R1.5 Consider development of incentives such as density bonuses for private commercial, office, and other developments to provide usable open space such as rooftop courts, pocket parks, public plazas, jogging trails, and pedestrian trails. Policy R1.6 Use the following criteria when considering acquisition for parkland: a) City's identified current and projected needs for recreation and sports facilities b) City's needs for recreation facilities based on location of existing facilities c) The preservation of natural resources, historic and cultural areas d) Ease of accessibility e) Usability of proposed parklands considering topography and other landform constraints f) Consistency with established parks and recreational facility goals • g) Fiscal impact on General Fund for any immediately needed refurbishments and on -going maintenance RECREATION—DRAFT,10112/05 10 V Policy R1.7 In the event that surplus school sites become available for parkland • acquisition, site desirability should be evaluated using the following criteria: a) Does the school site currently provide recreational facilities that have been identified to meet local or community -wide needs? b) Are other public lands in the vicinity of the school site inadequate to meet the identified existing or foreseeable needs of the community for recreation or open space purposes? c) Is the school site a more economical or otherwise more feasible alternative than other parcels which are available as potential sites in the area? Policy R1.8 Coordinate with the appropriate home owners association to conduct City recreation programs on private parkland. Policy R1.9 Continue to use underutilized City rights -of -way located on Ocean Boulevard and Bayside Drive in Corona del Mar as passive parks. Policy R1.10 Provide additional park and recreation facilities, in the priority order listed below, that meet the needs as identified by direct feedback from residents, analysis of future trends, and through observations by Recreation and Senior Services staff. Parks 1. Newport Center Service Area: Develop Newport Center Park as a passive park. • 2. West Newport Service Area: Develop Sunset Ridge Park, an active park with playfields, picnic areas, a playground, and other facilities. 3. Newport Coast Service Area: Develop an active park located at the end of Ridge Park Road; and develop a community center and a gymnasium. 4. Santa Ana Heights/Airport Commercial Service Area: Develop a pocket park in Santa Ana Heights, and consider acquiring the Caltrans excess right-of-way site located at MacArthur Boulevard and SR 73 as a park to support future residents in the Airport Area. 5. West Newport Service Area: If the Banning Ranch area is annexed into the City, develop an active park on this site. Recreation Facilities 1. Complete the Santa Ana Heights and Newport Coast Community Centers in a manner that allows the provision of a variety of recreational programs while meeting the needs of the community. 2. Renovate the Oasis Senior Center to continue to function as a multipurpose senior center that meets the needs of the Senior population. 3. Renovate the existing recreation facilities to ensure they are a safe environment and offer quality programs and services. Policy R1.1.1 Review the list of identified community park and recreation needs on a • regular basis, and update them as priorities for facilities change. RECREATION—DRAFT,10112105 11 "J� Policy R1.12 Review policies regularly for priority usage of facilities to ensure fair and balanced assignments. Priority hierarchy shall be weighted for programs • that are inclusive in nature and provide for the recreational enrichment of community's youth, adults, groups, and businesses. Scheduling shall be done in a manner that accommodates both the needs of organized activities as well as casual use by residents. Consideration shall also be given to the proper maintenance and revitalization of facilities when scheduling programs and activities. Goal R2 Maintenance and preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities. Policy R2.1 Use funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and recreation facilities. Policy R2.2 Protect public parkland from non -recreational uses; any loss of parkland through governmental action shall be replaced in -kind. Policy R2.3 Preserve all beaches for public only purposes. Goal R3 Accessible parks and recreation facilities to persons with disabilities. Policy R3.1 Ensure that parks and recreation facilities include provisions for adequate access for persons with disabilities and that existing facilities are appropriately retrofitted to include such access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. • Policy R3.2 Continue to provide beach wheelchairs commensurate with demand. Policy R3.3 Design guardrails on parks, piers, trails, and public viewing areas to take into consideration the views at the eye level of persons in wheelchairs. Recreation Programs Goal R4 Provision of a variety of seasonal and year-round recreational programs designed to meet the needs of all residents, including children, seniors, and persons with special needs. Policy R4.1 Provide high quality recreational services through professionally -trained recreational personnel to program participants. Policy R4.2 Provide a variety of compatible recreational activities within a given location. Policy R4.3 Continue to provide a variety of quality programs offered in safe and secure environments for the community's youth that enhance and extend the learning day, promote health and wellness, encourage expansion of skills, and reinforce self esteem, good character, and positive behavior. Policy R4.4 Prioritize outdoor youth sports programs that are inclusive in nature, not for profit, and recreational in focus. Policy R4.5 Continue to provide a variety of quality enrichment and recreational • programs for the adult population that promote health and wellness; RECREATION—DRAFT,10112105 12 311 development and/or enhancement of skills and talents; extend learning • opportunities; promote sportsmanship; and provide unique opportunities to engage in new activities. Policy R4.6 Design adult programs to be self sustaining in nature, covering all direct expenses and administrative overhead costs. Policy R4.7 Continue to provide quality services and programs which meet social, recreational and health needs of the senior population. Policy R4.8 Continue to form partnerships with other organizations in order to optimize the services and programs available to seniors in this community. Policy R4.9 Give priority usage to senior programs before other uses are allowed in facilities that are designated for senior services. Shared Facilities Goal R5 Maximized use of the community's recreational resources by coordinating with the agencies responsible for non -city recreational facilities and open space. Policy R5.1 Utilize non -City recreational facilities and open space (i.e., Newport -Mesa Unified School District, county, and state facilities) to satisfy park and recreational needs of the community. Maintain the use of existing shared facilities, and expand the use of non -city facilities/amenities where • desirable and feasible. Policy R5.2 Continue to expand and maintain existing joint use agreements with Newport -Mesa Unified School District for use of facilities that will enhance the provision of parks and recreational facilities for residents. Policy R5.3 Develop additional long-term, joint -use agreements with other public and private agencies to assure recreation facilities for future generations. Policy R5.4 Continue existing joint use of facilities for City -operated recreational programs on City -owned properties that are used for other purposes, as needed. Policy R5.5 Design public facilities to incorporate recreational elements such as children's play areas, rooftop courts, pocket parks, and usable public plazas. Policy R5.6 Explore use of government -owned surplus or remnant parcels for public park use. • RECREATION—DRAFT,10112105 13 91 Coastal Recreation and Support Facilities • Goal R6 Protection and enhancement of a wide -range of recreational opportunities along the coast and beaches. Policy R6.1 Protect recreational opportunities along the coast and beaches from non - recreational uses. Where feasible, expand and enhance recreational opportunities along the coast and beaches. Policy R6.2 Continue to cooperate with the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Department of Fish and Game, and Orange County to protect, expand and enhance opportunities for recreational activities at County and State beaches and parks. [LCP] Policy R6.3 Continue to allow recreational commercial uses in commercial areas adjacent to beaches and the bay. [LCP] Goal R7 Adequate support facilities serving recreational opportunities within the coastal zone. Policy R7.1 Continue to protect public coastal access recreational opportunities through the provision of adequate support facilities and services. [LCP] Policy R7.2 Distribute support facilities and services in coastal areas to avoid overcrowding and overuse by the public. [LCP] Policy R7.3 Maintain the ability to distribute, remove and relocate support facilities and • services in coastal areas in response to changes in demographics and recreational interests while continuing to provide comparable facilities and levels of service. [LCP] Policy R7.4 Continue to cooperate with the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Department of Fish and Game, Orange County, and private organizations to protect, expand and enhance support facilities and services at County and State beaches and parks. [LCP] Marine Recreation Goal R8 Provision and maintenance of marine recreation related facilities that enhance the enjoyment of the City's natural resources. Policy R8.1 Continue to utilize existing City marine recreational facilities, including piers, docks, bays, beaches and educational and support facilities such as the intercollegiate rowing facilities, marine ways and services, launching facilities, gas and pump -out stations, parking facilities, restrooms, showers, drinking fountains, and concessions. [LCP] Policy R8.2 Provide additional marine recreational, educational and support facilities and opportunities as feasible. [LCP] Policy R8.3 Encourage the provision of guest slips, moorings, and anchorages in • Newport Harbor. Coordinate work with the Orange County Harbor, Beaches, RECREATION—DRAFT,10112105 14 3b and Parks Department to provide such facilities where appropriate and • feasible.[LCP] Policy R8.4 Provide for marine safety such as lifeguards, harbor patrol, police, traffic and parking enforcement. [LCP] Policy R8.5 Protect and, where feasible, expand, and enhance: [LCP] ■ Vessel launching facilities ■ Low-cost public launching facilities ■ Marinas and dry boat storage facilities ■ Guest docks at public facilities, yacht clubs and at privately owned - marinas, restaurants and other appropriate locations ■ Facilities and services for visiting vessels ■ Facilities necessary to support vessels berthed or moored in the harbor, such as boat haul out facilities ■ Existing harbor support uses serving the needs of existing waterfront uses, recreational boaters, the boating community, and visiting vessels Policy R8.6 Continue to provide shore moorings and offshore moorings as an important source of low-cost public access to the water and harbor. [LCP] Policy R8.7 Protect and enhance specific programs that utilize the harbor, bay, and ocean such as the City's sailing program and junior lifeguard program. [LCP] • Public Access Goal R9 Provision and maintenance of public access for recreational purposes to the City's coastal resources. Policy 119.1 Provide adequate public access to the shoreline, beach, coastal parks, trails, and bay and acquire additional public access points to the areas. Policy R9.2 Develop and implement a long-range plan for public trails and walkways to access all appropriate commercial areas of the harbor, including: [LCP] ■ Extend the Lido Marina Village boardwalk across all of the waterfront commercial properties in Lido Village ■ Provide a continuous waterfront walkway along the Rhine Channel connecting Cannery Village and McFadden Square waterfront commercial areas with Las Arenas Beach at 19th Street ■ Provide a walkway connecting the Lido Village area with Mariner's Mile, if feasible ■ Provide a continuous walkway along the Mariner's Mile waterfront from the Coast Highway/Newport Boulevard Bridge to the Balboa Bay Club Policy R9.3 As part of a uniform coastal access signing program, provide information to direct the public to parking areas, restrooms, and other support facilities. [LCP] • RECREATION—DRAFT,10112105 15 51 • • • Policy R9.4 Protect public access to coastal resources from bay/harbor encroachments such as piers, floats, and bulkheads. Policy R9.5 Protect public access to coastal resources from private/gated communities. Policy R9.6 Continue to require that impacts to public access, recreation, and coastal resources be minimized as a result from special events. RECREATION—DRAFT,10112105 16 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN_ CITY COUNCIL LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS August 30, 2005 deletions • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH -E--I P-- \SSPtATLS In association with URBAN CROSSROADS ■ APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 West Newport Highway 3 Banning Ranch 7 West Newport Industrial 12 Old Newport Boulevard 16 Balboa Peninsula (Lido Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square) 19 Balboa Village 25 Mariners' Mile 29 Newport Center/Fashion Island 34 Corona del Mar 38 John Wayne Airport Area 41 • Other Land Use Changes 46 Citywide Entitlement Reductions 51 • • INTRODUCTION reeemmendabens. The GPAGan"tafffeensultant-recommendations considered the benchmark documents prepared for the General Plan Update including the Community Directions for the Future developed during the General Plan Update Visioning Process, the Guiding Principles and Land Use Alternatives formulated by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPACZ with modifications to reflect Planning Commission and City Council input, and the Land Use Alternatives Traffic, Fiscal, and Environmental Impact Analyses prepared by the consultant. Additionally, the recommendations were-lnAueneed-b)-considered the public input received at the June 25 Land Use Alternatives Public Workshop finally-the-staffand-sensaltant resemmendatiens to GRAGeensidered-the goals of property owners with whom we -staff and consultant have met, as well as our professional judgment. The City Council's recommendations culminate a sequential process involving: 1. Submittal of staff and consultant's land use recommendations for GPAC consideration 2 GPAC review and recommendations at their July 16 and 23, 2005 meetings at which the public was invited to comment regarding their preferences. 3 Submittal of the GPAC's recommendations for Planning Commission and City Council deliberations. 4 Planning Commission review of the GPAC recommendations and selection of preferred land uses to be considered in the EIR at the August 16 and 30 meetings. In framing the recommendations, it is acknowledged that the City of Newport Beach will continue to experience some population and employment growth, though it is almost fully developed with few remaining vacant lands. The challenge is to accommodate the incremental growth in a manner that is consistent with, complements, and does not incur undue impacts on the qualities that uniquely distinguish the City. Important among the sta#f-s and sensuttants considerations for the recommended land use alternatives are the following goals: ■ Traffic impacts —reduction of citywide traffic volumes below those that would result from continued implementation of the existing adopted General Plan. ■ Fiscal impacts —attainment of a net fiscal benefit (citywide revenues exceed costs), while providing jobs and services for residents. ■ Environmental impacts —minimization of impacts on public services, infrastructure, natural resources, and scenic quality. ■ Community character —maintenance of the character of the City's distinct neighborhoods and • commercial and business districts. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS ■ Community viability —assurance of the economic viability of the City's uses through improvement • of underperforming and incompatible mixes of land uses and reinforcement of key business sectors that support the vision for the role and character of Newport Beach. Inherently, it is recognized that it is impossible to optimize each of the goals in each of the sub -areas and trade-offs among these may be necessary. For example, the maintenance of a pedestrian -oriented "village" character for Corona del Mar, where the objective normally would be to slow traffic, may conflict with intentions for efficient traffic flows on Coast Highway. As a result, in selecting the recommendations, it was necessary to prioritize the most important goal, or goals, for each planning sub -area in consideration of the choices and trade-offs that may be required. For each planning sub -area of the Citv, this paper presents; ■ Background information regarding existing conditions and issues; ■ GPAC recommended vision, land uses, and development capacity (density), and staff/ssnsuttantPlanning Commission recommendations, where they are different; ■ City Council modifications of the GPAC recommendations. ■ Key policies that will be expanded in subsequent drafts of the updated Plan; and ■ Bases for recommendations. Unlike prior discussion papers, in which the study areas were presented alphabetically, they have been organized sequentially from west to east to enable-the-Geunsil-and Semrnissien te-sensider-facilitate understanding of the relationships among adjacent areas. Land use recommendations and a discussion of related policy implications are graphically presented in a • gray highlighted box to facilitate yeur-review. The bases for the recommendations are presented thereafter, including public input from the Visioning and Land Use Alternatives Workshops. • GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 2 EST NEWPORT HIGHWAY Description West Newport Coast Highway Corridor is located along Coast Highway, which runs northwest to southeast, from Summit Street to just past 60th Street. This is a mixed commercial and residential area, with the former serving the Newport Shores residential neighborhood closest to Banning Ranch, the West Newport Residential neighborhood south of Coast Highway, and beach visitors. The Corridor consists of commercial uses along the north side of Coast Highway, at about one block in depth on average. Residential uses are interspersed between commercial uses, with approximately half of those being multi- family residential and half being mobile homes. A portion of the mobile homes are situated along Semeniuk Slough and the Army Corps restored wetlands, while a number of the single-family homes outside the area are also located along the Slough. A mobile home park containing older units, many of which appear to be poorly maintained, is located on the westernmost parcels and a portion of the tidelands. This site serves as the "entry" to the City and as a portal to the proposed Orange County River Park The Corridor "commercial strip" serves residential neighborhoods as well as beach visitors. Primary commercial uses include community -related retail such as a dry cleaners, liquor store, deli, and grocery. A few motels are interspersed among the commercial uses. There are also a number of dine -in, family - style restaurants, as well as a handful of fast-food establishments. Many of the commercial structures appear to have been built in the 1960's to 1980's although some • hotels have been recently upgraded. The area's overall appearance, in terms of architecture and maintenance, is not attractive and few commercial buildings have undergone the same upgrades as adjoining residences. The commercial area is mostly highway -oriented, with parking lots fronting many of the commercial uses. Many of these parking lots are of substandard size and configuration due to past widening of West Coast Highway. This area is governed by an adopted Specific Plan, which was intended to promote its orderly development and provide service commercial uses for nearby residences. • 'Recommendations Vision, A corridor,that includes a gateway to the, community with amenitles'that:supportlhe Orange County River 'Park, as well as commercial clusters that serve local residents and coastall visitors at key intersections,{ interspersed with compatible.residential development. Uses (refer to Figure 1) Designate the Westernmost parcel, occupied by the trailer,park, for open space and, as an alternative use, for multi -family housing. If and when funding is.available, portions of .the site should be'used as! a staging area for'Orange County River Park with parking, park -related uses, and an underpass to the ocean. Establish clusters of retail, restaurant, and' hotel uses near the intersections of Orange and Prospect! Avenues and encourage the redevelopment of intervening parcels for housing (duplexes or toWnhomes), (Note: the eastern commercial node sub -area "A" shall be extended east along the, GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 3 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS OCommercial Node - Local and Yislfor-Serving Uses © Mum-FamllyResidenfial I 0 �� A" r- © Mulli-Family ResidenBal and River Park Staging Area QD Convert "R-2" to "R-1' CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 1 WEST NEWPORT HIGHWAY CORRIDOR AND RESIDENTIAL Edstng Land Use Rmltl w ® MfdFFVMyResitlenlbl &ediyRadive)GuOen 5W1 and - Pgfesikvfd Of�cNedcdNel ® FOY.151tNe5 -Dn hReS t '� Hotel Opl ft dW ..... CM Do-ww M 9�+ e 173 �a m�waw.cnuanr+ww.yr�m. ay I v"�.�mnwxovn's aax.mvwm.aavays oaurem.rmnwisa.m..mm PROJECTM.W1BEk 1067M RequeAetlbf• MR Gealea W MV1PP Dme• mnms L_ ■ Commercial uses should include a, mix, of convenience retail serving adjoining residents and, near • Prospect Avenue, visitor -serving: uses. ■ Residential parcels zoned as "R-2" on the coastal- side of Coast'Highway will be fe-designated-te! 'the EIR. .Development Capacity ■ Retail: CO FAR to a maximum addition of 24,000 square fleet, or 10,000 square .feet above :the existing General Plan. resommendatien-Was-aAraAmum--of4a4 square' feet -abeve existing -General Rlary, ■ Housing: 18 —22 units per acre, except -for affordable units, where a•bonus density may be provided,, pursuant to•State'laW. ■ .Fe -designate Area D, south 9PGeast-Hi94way-freer-duPlex to single famlay-residential. 9olicv Discussion ■ Promote the clustering of retail and hotel+ uses by the aggregation of individual .parcels into larger development sites through]ncentives such as density bonuses.or comparable techhiques'. ■ Design guidelines should be considered'to guide development in the.corridor to improve its visual.andl physical quality. , • ■ Implement streetscape.improvements to enhance the area's character and image as a, gateway to' Newport Beach and develop a stronger pedestrian environment, • Basis for Recommendations 1. The Visioning Process found that the Coast Highway Corridor is among those that require revitalization. To this end, the City may be proactive in creating a vision for its improvement that would help to guide future private development. 2. The clustering of commercial uses would enhance their economic vitality and improve the appearance of the area. Depending on the scale, aggregation of individually owned parcels could provide for more efficient building footprints and parking. Generally, this approach received support in the Public Workshop (in excess of 50% indicated moderate to strong agreement). Improvement of the quality of commercial development on the Highway would enhance property values of adjoining residential neighborhoods, as well as provide revenue to off -set the costs associated with maintaining the City's affordable housing. 3. Alternatives providing for the redevelopment of existing commercial parcels for housing would remove a number of uses that serve the surrounding community, including restaurants, and coastal visitors. Public Workshop input opposed their conversion (65% indicated moderate to strong disapproval) and the Coastal Act prioritizes the development of uses that support coastal visitors. 4. While mixed -use development (defined as the integration of housing in buildings above ground level retail was supported in the Public Workshop (61% indicating moderate to strong agreement), the GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS area's two-story height restriction, also supported in the Public Workshop, would preclude such development (minimum of 3 stories required for a financially viable project). 5. Redevelopment of the westernmost parcel occupied by the trailer park was strongly supported in the Public Workshop (78.3% indicating moderate to strong agreement). Of these, 83% supported the development of a staging area and trailhead for the Orange County River Park. As such facilities would require only a portion of the site and the demand for affordable housing is high, it is feasible to develop both uses on the property. 6. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. b. Protect the high value of residential property. c. Support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels. d. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. e. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. Maintain quality residential development through the application of sound planning principles and policies that encourage the preservation, conservation and appropriate renewal of the City's housing stock. • g. Improve, where feasible, parking. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS L • BANNING RANCH Description Located within the City's Sphere of Influence (SO[), the Banning Ranch area encompasses approximately 518 acres, of which 465 acres (includes 47 acres of water features) are under the jurisdiction of Orange County, and 53 acres are within the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. Banning Ranch is located in the western -most portion of the Newport Beach Planning Area, north of Coast Highway and the Newport Shores residential community, just east of the Santa Ana River, and west and south of residential and industrial uses. The eastern portion of the site is higher in elevation and contains the western edge of Newport Mesa that slopes gently from east to west. Bluffs form, the western edge of the mesa, and are located in the central portion of the Banning Ranch area. The western portion of the site, which is lower in elevation, historically contained a tidal marsh associated with the Semeniuk Slough and Santa Ana River. The site is located within the coastal zone boundary and is subject to the provisions of the Orange County Local Coastal Program (LCP). However, the site is referred to as a "white hole" since the County's LCP does not provide land use designations for the Banning Ranch area. Currently, the Banning Ranch area is primarily undeveloped with some historic oil extraction infrastructure located in the central and southern portions of the site that includes wells, pipelines, buildings, improved and unimproved roads, and open storage pipes and machinery. There are 65 active oil wells and four active injection wells located throughout the Banning Ranch area. Oil extraction activities date back at least 75 years. Although the Banning Ranch site contains an assemblage of diverse habitats that have been historically disturbed, when this area is considered with the contiguous Semeniuk Slough, it provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. Biological studies performed for Banning Ranch indicate that, while disturbance associated with oil activities diminishes the quality of existing habitat to some extent, overall, the area should be regarded as relatively high -quality wildlife habitat due to its size, habitat diversity, and continuity with the adjacent Semeniuk Slough. A preliminary field evaluation of Banning Ranch was conducted by the consultant as a general indicator of the presence of habitat and species that may be subject to regulatory review. Based on this analysis, the property is estimated to contain approximately 69 acres with a habitat value rank of "1, which are primarily concentrated in the northwestern portion of the site. These areas are considered to have a high biological resource value, and are likely to require a resource permit from federal and/or State agencies prior to development. Other areas scattered throughout the site may also be of biological value but to a lesser extent. Areas with a rank of "2" (approximately 96 acres) may need a resource permit for development, where additional studies would be required to make this determination. More than likely, areas with a rank of "3" (approximately 118 acres) contain habitat and species that are not likely to require resource permitting for development. Resource permitting would likely result in the need for mitigation measures associated with development such as payment of mitigation fees, habitat restoration, or off -site habitat replacement. The actual acreage subject to environmental permitting will be determined in subsequent studies to be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 7 r1 U Rank Acres 1 69 2 96 3 118 Total 283 Recom'me'ndations 'Vision ,Preferably a protected open space amenity, with restored' wetlands and habitat areas. If acquisition for !open space is not supported by the.voters, a high quality residential community.with supporting uses that; ;provides revenue to restore and protect wetlands and important habitats. 'Uses (refer to'Figure 2) ■ Open space, Including 1in*edsionifcant, active parklands 'that serve adjoining residenti.0 neighborhoods, if the site is acquired through publiafunding. ■ If not acquired for open space, the site maybe developed as a residential, village, containing a4 mix of housing types, limited supporting retail, visitor accommodations, school, and active parkland§, with a substantial portion of the property (66-75%) preserved as open space. ■ Oil,operations that are relocated andiclustered. • 'Development Capacity (as an alternative to open space) '■ Housing: 1y375 = units(8riginal staftonstlliantrecemmendatien-was4-,7.65 units.) • :■ Retail: 75,000 35;094 square feet,pNginal-staff/sensultant-reoemmer ndatien-Was-75; g"quare #ee4 i Overnight accommodations: 75 units ■ Note: These, represent general development capacity estimates, with, ,the property's ultimate development footprint and capacity determined through required federal and state regulatoy environmental permitting processes and a planned community development plan approved 'by the City of Newport Beach. Policy Discussion Acquisition of the Banning Ranch as permanent open space should be actively pursued, which may ,be accomplished through the issuance of state bonds, environmental mitigation fees, ;purchase by private entities, developerdedication,, and'similar techniques. ■ 'Should the entire site not be acquired as open space, its development should be located and designed to preserve wetlands, drainage courses, bluff faces, and other important resources and ;located to be contiguous and compatible with existing and planned development along. its eastern, property line. Development shall be set back from the bluff, faces, along which shall be located' a G'PAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 8 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS A. Open Space and Parks B. Residential Village with Convenience Retail, School, Parks, and Overnight Accommodations (If not acquired as Open Space) -- - - - : NEYyf?bRT. - r'SHO,,ESI \� TA ANA- P.J \ RIVER jENX _ ' N CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 2 BANNING.RANCH III * Devebpment Footprint ). to be determined by State and Federal Permitting Agencies I . / wa � se,oz araxsuneoxwwva,ymn.Wea p A*.vmm�. m.w�uaam uttavi.,eaawra+ ( _ _ ewxvx.�¢esauv�mnw?mmzaa®� I , e PROJECTMR!®ER' 10579-01 �w�. by. wR creaeew: WRP JQ�tg 3' L • .■ Some-Significaht active recreation uses,-indluding lighted fields, should'be included with either land', use. ■ Site grading and infrastructure,should.be designed �to prevent runoff, ,pollution, orother degradation of, Wetlands and habitats. ■ A major ungated thoroughfare should be provided through the property linking Coast Highway with Newport Boulevard to relieve congestion at Superior Avenue, if the,property is.developed. ■ 'Development should be coordinated with development in the adjoining, West. Newportlndustrial area: Basis for Recommendations 1. The majority of the Banning Ranch is located on unincorporated lands in the County of Orange, with development approvals subject to its General Plan and regulatory authorities. The property owner can request annexation to Newport Beach, which would give development review authority to the City. 2. During the Visioning process, residents were divided in opinion regarding the future of Banning Ranch. Some residents preferred preserving Banning Ranch as open space, while others supported development for needed housing. 3. At the Public Workshop, the majority of participants supported the preservation of the Banning Ranch as open space, with limited parklands (58.1%). • 4. During the Visioning process, 46% of the survey respondents supported preserving Banning Ranch as open space if it requires a tax increase of $250 per parcel for 15 years, along with other funds for the restoration of the site. A similar percentage of Public Workshop participants supported an annual tax of $50 to $100, with 14.5% supporting a tax of $500. Some indicated a preference for funding through state bonds, use of environmental mitigation fees, and/or acquisition by a private or non-profit agency. 5. In an informal poll, a majority of Public Workshop participants indicated their willingness to support some development of the property if it would generate revenue to help fund the preservation of the majority of the property as open space. In general, they were almost equally divided between a residential village that would be smaller than the Taylor -Woodrow proposal or a resort hotel. Approximately 5% supported the existing General Plan's uses and 6.5% the Taylor -Woodrow proposal. 6. While a resort hotel may result in the least traffic and environmental impacts, its inland location with no beach access, views of the sewage treatment plant, and competition from more desirable sites in the City and Huntington Beach would likely inhibit its market for development. Inclusion of a small hotel or vacation rentals into a residential village would benefit from the other uses and contribute additional revenue to the City. 7. Visioning participants indicated the desire to protect and preserve the bluffs located within Banning Ranch and public view corridors Some supported restricting the height and size of homes, establishing large setbacks to protect the bluffs. These opinions were reiterated in the Public Workshop, where participants indicated that any development should be located and designed to . assure maximum protection of the wetlands, important habitats, natural drainages, and bluff faces and clustered, to the extent feasible, adjacent to surrounding residential and industrial development. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 10 8. A roadway connection connecting Coast Highway and 15 Street is important to relieve traffic • congestion at Superior Avenue. 9. Proposed land uses would result in approximately 500 fewer peak hour trips than the existing General Plan and a net annual fiscal benefit of approximately $700,000. • • 10. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels. b. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. c. Balance developed lands with adequate open space and recreation areas and preserve opportunities for maintaining healthy life styles in Newport Beach. d. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. e. Protection, rehabilitation, or enhancement of terrestrial and marine habitats through careful siting of future development. f. Encourage the maintenance of natural landforms. g. Protect and, where feasible and appropriate, create public viewsheds within the City. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 11 0 WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL Description The area is generally bounded by Newport Boulevard to the east and 16th Street to the north. Southwest of the West Newport Industrial area lies residential and condominium developments, beyond which Banning Ranch is located. The City of Costa Mesa is located directly north of the area. West Newport Industrial area is a mix of residential (41.8 percent), industrial uses including the Newport Technology Center business park (32.9 percent), and commercial uses (17.3 percent). Other uses include public uses such as the City Corporation Yard and Carden Hall Elementary School on Monrovia Avenue. Development in the area dates back to mid -twentieth century. Commercial uses in the area include professional/medical office (13.2 percent) and auto -related uses (1.8 percent). There are few neighborhood -serving retail uses in the area (about 2.0 percent of the area). Some of the commercial uses are under -performing. Hoag Hospital is located immediately south of the planning area and is a major activity center of the City. Its proximity to the West Newport Industrial area may act as an economic attraction for new medical and related uses, stimulating the conversion of existing uses into a medical campus that creates an attractive and convenient place where people can live and work. There are significant amounts of multi -family uses (32.1 percent) in the center of the area, separating industrial uses to the north and south of the area. Light industrial uses (30.0 percent) account for the majority of industrial uses in the area, while marine -related industry and multi -tenant uses together . account for less than 3.0 percent of the area. The mix of industrial and residential uses is not always complementary within and at the edges of the area. • The City's current General Plan Circulation Element identifies several streets in the area for widening and reconfiguration. The streets planned for widening include 151h Street between Monrovia Avenue and Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue from Superior Avenue to Hospital Road. New road extensions are planned west of the area for 15th Street, 17" Street and 19'h Street (in Costa Mesa). These streets are planned to extend to a new road to be constructed, Bluff Road, located in the Banning Ranch area -to the west. Recommendations Vision A medical district/campus with Hoag Hospital as the primary stimulus to attract peripheral medical services and research into an attractive and well planned: neighborhood, reducing automobile trips t to, and from outlying,areas. Uses (refer to Figure 3) Medical related uses on properties abutting Hoag 'Hospital and the Newport Technology Center site (sub -area "A"), including'offices, laboratories, supplies, pharmacies, assisted living, facilities and! group quarters, and similar facilities. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 12 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS CltYof NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN QA Medical -Related Uses © Muth -Family Residential QE Single -Family Residential Figure 3 © Light Industrial QD Commercial WEST NEWPORT INDUSTRIAL Eamnplmeu® RatlOenfial ResW enOd, SngeFamly Reaitlentlal p aaoaeimea C�T,ercw � rno<k�meacerm�,ob ® PeMXKA5W1= Rn0wiGWM soap. wo Cwe � kWC-TercadCmt+wcbl �Pm�et a==CtnvneMM Dw"19. Dr�h RsOmwnt ® Mah\a kiOueKb ML Terar kxkzw 8 Pb[c 5dwch VC=d Rlk�O BUY vccunttot WmdM ry J// �\,'�.'"` •�%^- oo '�"'' ` %) �* / y4'.� . ba WdNeVatsmvGswlML'�.CT' U/ml.Wa¢bvtwva'8641bIJLtrYM ]S. • t ' y� t . ; y 'n• ' <; PPOJE(.RNM'BER 10519-01 ! ■ Research and development and' )fight manufacturing uses on properties north of 'Production Place • (sub -area "B"), ■ Multi -family housing on properties northwest of Superior Avenue, west of'Monrovia, Avenue, and the existing mobile home sites (sub -area "C"). ■ Retail commercial' uses on the west side of Superior Avenue (as currently developed- in sub -area ;Development Capacity ■ Medical office and ancillary uses: 1.0FAR and height up to 5 stories (current limit is 3'stories) ■ Research and development/ manufacturing: 0.5 FAR ■ Housing: average of 32 Units per 'Policy Discussion ■ Develop a master plan for properties that are related to and support Hoag Hospital to establish at cohesive integration of medical, medical -supporting, commercial, residential, and.industrial uses. ■ Provide incentives for the relocation of marine -based 'Newport Beach ,businesses to. properties •retained'for industrial:purposes (sub-area'1B"), :■ .Encourage the conservation and enhancement ,of the existing mobile home, parks as a source of • affordablemork.force housing. Basis for Recommendations 0 1. Visioning process participants indicated that the West Newport Industrial area would benefit from revitalization. 2. The development of additional medical offices and other facilities supporting Hoag Hospital was widely endorsed by participants at the Public Workshop (in excess of 76% indicated moderate to strong agreement). 3. An almost equal number of participants supported the development of additional housing in the area (74% indicated moderate to strong agreement). 4. Participants were divided in their support for the retention of industrial uses (approximate 45% indicating moderate to strong agreement and 55% indicated moderate to strong disagreement). The retention of the lands north of Production Place for light manufacturing purposes provides opportunities for jobs, start-up businesses, and essential "support" uses that are not accommodated elsewhere in Newport Beach and can serve as a transition between the area's multi -family housing and Costa Mesa's more intensive industrial uses. 5. Expansion of medical offices and housing, while replacing some existing industrial uses (e.g., Technology Center) will reduce peak hour trips from the existing General Plan. The development of additional housing allows a greater number of residents to live closer to their jobs, reducing the length of vehicle trips. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 14 6. Additional height for medical office and ancillary buildings, while holding the permitted density • constant, provides the opportunity to reduce the land area occupied by the building increasing ground level open space and parking. 7. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: • • a. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy. b. Capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. c. Promote a balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments including very low, low, moderate, and upper income households. d. Maintain quality residential development through the application of sound planning principles and policies that encourage the preservation, conservation and appropriate renewal of the City's housing stock. e. Preserve, promote and respect the existing goals and policies set forth in the City's currently certified Housing Element. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 15 0 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD Description This area is situated east of Newport Boulevard and runs from 15th Street at the north end to Catalina Drive at the south end. Old Newport Boulevard was formerly the primary roadway leading into the city from the north. A residential neighborhood lies directly to the east, while Hoag Hospital is situated to the west across Newport Blvd. This area is primarily commercial (71.3 percent of the area) comprised mainly of professional offices, and multi -tenant commercial uses. Secondary uses include personal services, restaurants, and specialty shopping such as home furnishing stores and beauty salons. Most specialty retail appears to occupy converted residential buildings. Recently, this area has experienced a transition towards increased medical office uses. This transition is likely attributable to the proximity of Hoag Hospital. There are two vacant buildings at the northern end of the study area, (3.5 percent of the area), as well as a few auto -related uses (4.7 percent) such as auto service repair. The mix of uses is not always complementary, with auto repair uses adjacent to hair salons and/or specialty retail. This area is not pedestrian -oriented. While there are some walkable areas, the boulevard is wide and there are a mix of uses and lot configurations that do not create a consistent walkway. This area is governed by a Specific Plan. Recommendations • Vision :A district that supports,Hoag Hospital and,adjoining: residential neighborhopds. Uses (refer to Figure 4) ■ Convenience retail that serves adjoining residential neighborhoods, as well as medical office uses supporting Hoag Hospital en-the-west4de eKNe"eft-Bedlevard. ■ Mixed use buildings that integrate housing above ground level, retail or office?uses en-the-east-side-ef 9ld-NewpGW'Blvd-(Note: consider on both sides for the IR). Development Capacity ■ Retail: 0.5 FAR. ■ Office: 0,5 FAR, up'to 2 stories. Mixed use and live/work facilities: 1.5 FAR; up to 3 ,stories. ,,Policy Discussion ■ Preclude the development of highway-otiented' and "heavy" retail uses such as automobile supply and repair facilities. ■ Promote .the clustering"of uses by the.aggregation of individual parcels into, larger development sites . (as prescribed by4he existing General Plamand the Old -Newport Boulevard Specific Plan). GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 16 0 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS CITY of NEWPORT BEACH ONeighborhood -Oriented Convenience Commercial, © Same as X, with Moved Use Buildings GENERAL PLAN Including Medical -Related Uses (Housing above Retail or Office) Figure 4 OLD NEWPORT BLVD \\ E&ft twd u:a Rag enW ReOdenta Sh&FomA7 Rewwtla kkowa * ReskJentu < \ _ Ca Cia mwhefewe cam:wcu \ Persawd Servke; FinesslGyms \\ - M1AJIHewt Corns** l -Profes=Ccny BusinesYMeacaVei W z ,\ �C°mmWlyCaNnctckd, D Wn9. tirehReslWr°nt 1rght kdmtkl mustad nduft Pkdc \\Ovicemt e a °moo e°rdng ®V°°mt tnt °cdYBOUXIMY s` B � HOSIITAb AOM ,(� � t �'\ / - \ I.' •, .��, ^,1 ` scum a�a:em�ewnc+xaMANsuxa+ edms seymcAwm.onxamw.a�ossozmsms an,meeanwrt.�+.,r+.h.sa.aoa PROJECMM ER: 10579L1 We4etl W FM OBCIed W rMRP " D me• 07mg5 -TT7- � T ■ Encourage the development of public uses that serve adjoining neighborhoods, such as a seniors. center. ■ Sidewalks and street, crossings should' be improved to facilitate pedestrian access to Hoag Hospital' andtdiscourage automobile trips. Basis for Recommendations The majority of seven Public Workshop participants opposed the development of uses supporting Hoag Hospital, additional retail and office development, and housing. In general, they supported the preservation of the status quo. However, there is a strong market for medical support uses, as reflected in recent development activity, with insufficient market to maintain the current mix of retail commercial uses throughout the corridor. Medical offices can be designed and scaled to be compatible with adjoining residential neighborhoods and improved pedestrian connections can help to reduce automobile trips. Resident serving retail uses will be more compatible with the adjoining neighborhood than the existing "heavy" uses. 2. Workshop participants supported the development of mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with ground floor retail on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard as a transition with adjoining residential neighborhoods (71% in favor), with a smaller percentage (57%) supporting the development of townhomes. 3. Adjoining residential neighborhoods are sufficiently high that they will not be impacted by three story development in the mixed -use area on the east side of Old Newport Boulevard. • 134. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. • b. Encourage mixed -use development. c. The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses should reflect the market support that can reasonably be anticipated during the General Plan time horizon. d. Capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic centers of the community. e. Future development should consider the scale, urban form, design, character and quality of the community. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 18 BALBOA PENINSULA (Lido Village, Cannery Village, and McFadden Square) Descriptions Lido Village and Civic Center This sub -area is comprised of two distinct locales, Lido Village and the Civic Center, which comprises the area in which City Hall is located. Lido Village is bounded by Finley Drive to the south, the Lido Channel to the north and east, and Newport Blvd to the west. Primary uses in Lido Village include salons, home furnishings, apparel, and other specialty shops ranging from jewelry stores to wine merchants. Lido Village includes Lido Marina Village, a waterfront development situated between the Lido Channel, Newport Boulevard, and Via Lido, and is adjacent to City Hall. Lido Marina Village is primarily a pedestrian -oriented retail area, with a mix of neighborhood -serving commercial uses and specialty shopping. A parking structure, located in the center of Lido Village, accounts for 8.3 percent of the land area. The area also contains the historic Lido Theatre located on Via Lido, and civic/social uses such as the Elks Lodge. Commercial land uses predominate at 53.5 percent of the area, with some residential condominiums (2.9 percent of the area) located along Via Lido. While Lido Village contains specialty retail and restaurants, the Civic Center area is more public -use oriented. This area primarily contains public/semi-public uses, with City government offices, a church and a fire station. It consists of the City Hall complex, a Fire Station, a public parking lot, and a stretch of landscaped parkway along Newport Boulevard; these uses account for 24.8 percent of the study area. In addition, the area contains multi -tenant commercial uses such as (38.0 percent of the study area), located in the commercial strip on Newport Boulevard west of City Hall between Via Lido and 32nd Street. Vacancies account for 3.1 percent of land uses in the study area. Cannery Village Cannery, Village is the historic center of the City's commercial fishing and boating industry and has a mix of small shops, art galleries, and professional offices and service establishments. This area is bounded'by 32nd Street to the north, Balboa Boulevard to the west, Lido Channel to the east, and 26th Street to the south. The area is primarily commercial (71.3 percent of the sub area) with a variety of neighborhood - serving commercial and specialty shops. Residential uses comprise 15.4 percent of the area; these are mostly multi -family and/or attached homes. A new loft -style development has recently been constructed. Additionally, older developments in the area include some single-family residential units combined with commercial uses on single lots. Specialty retail in the area includes home furnishings and art galleries, and architectural and design offices. There are also professional offices, located mostly in the northern portion of the area. Community - related commercial uses, such as Albertson's grocery and gyms, are located in the area. Dine -in and fast food restaurants account for more than 7.0 percent of the land area. Marine -related commercial (boat sales) and marine -related industrial uses (boat repair) can also be found between Newport Boulevard and the Lido Channel, representing 2.2 percent and 1.5 percent of the area respectively. Religious institutions are located in the northwest portion of the area and represent 4.8 percent of land uses. Public parking is available on several small lots throughout the area, accounting for 3.1 percent of land uses. Vacant lots or buildings account for less than 2.0 percent of the area. This area is included within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 19 Properties west of Newport Boulevard are developed for community -serving commercial uses, including a • grocery store and fast-food restaurants. McFadden Square McFadden Square lies south of Cannery Village, and is bounded by 26th Street to the north, 19th Street to the south, and Ocean Front and the Pacific Ocean to the west. It features commercial operations from restaurants, beach hotels, dory fishing boats, and tourist -oriented shops to service operations and facilities that serve the Peninsula. An important feature of this area includes the Newport Pier, which attracts many visitors. The McFadden Square area is known for its marine -related industries such as shipbuilding and repair facilities on the harbor, some of which have been in continuous operation for over fifty years. Commercial land uses are largely concentrated in the commercial strips of Balboa and Newport Boulevards, with residential along Ocean Front. This area is a combination of residential (39.6 percent) and commercial (27.8 percent) uses, with multi - tenant and visitor -serving commercial uses, such as t-shirt shops, and rental shops. Dine -in and fast food restaurants account for 7.0 percent of the area. There are also many bars and clubs in the area with some featuring live music, especially along Ocean Front. The Newport Pier extends from McFadden Square, and there are many nearby recreational uses (bike rentals, surf shops, etc.). Other uses in the area include industrial and public uses. There are a number of marine -related industrial uses (boat storage, restoration and repair, etc.) between Newport Boulevard and the West Lido Channel. Balboa Community Center is located just south of the pier and accounts for 7.0 percent of the land uses within the area. Public parking (22.1 percent of area land use) is available in two lots, of which the easternmost one is separated from commercial uses by residential uses. These lots primarily serve the • beach users, tourists, and the restaurant patrons. Much of the McFadden Square area is pedestrian - oriented, with storefronts facing the street, the presence of signage at a pedestrian scale, outdoor furniture, and landscaping to provide a pleasant environment. However, certain areas present difficulty for pedestrian street crossing. Specifically the intersection of Newport and Balboa Boulevards, known as "Mixmaster' is one such crossing as the roadway configuration at this location allows traffic flow from different directions and the street is wide. Improvements at this intersection are currently under construction. Recommendations 'Vision A series of commercial, visitor -serving, marine related, civic districts, and residential neighborhoods that ,are differentiated by 'their functional characteristics and, at the same time, .integrated by walkways, streetscape amenities, and urban form. These districts are evocative of Newport Beach's history and the Peninsula's unique location between the ocean and bay. Although important to provide, for coasta[ visitors, the area's capacity for commercial,uses is reduced to a,levetthat can be supported by the,marketl ;and augmented by residential uses that;provide,customers year-round. ;Urban,Form Concept ■ Balboa Peninsula's urban form should evolve as a series of distinct centers/ nodes and connecting:; corridors. ■ 'Lido Village and McFadden Square should'be reinforced as the Peninsula's primary •activity, centers, • separated by a predominately, residential neighborhood in inland portions of Cannery Village (east of GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 20 Newport Boulevard), and linked by retail and marine -related commercial corridors along; Newport! • Boulevard and the Bay frontage. ,Uses (refer to Figure 5) a, Lido Village ■ Visitor- serving and retail commercial, with small lodging facilities (bed and breakfasts, inns) (sub- area ■ Mixed -use buildings that integrate, housing ,with retail uses in-thearea-bounded-by- 4a-L4do—Via 9perie, andAAa-Malaga-(sub-areas "A" and "B"). ■ New office uses should be,discouraged to:improve the area's,pedestrian character b. Cannery Village (sub-area':C"--properties generally bounded by Via Malaga,'28th Street, the Newport. ;Boulevard commercial,frontage, and 32"d Street), ■ Multi -family housing; including townhomes and live/work buildings, except at street intersections. ■ Mixed' --use structures with residential,above reta1Ppermitted in,any location, and required at street` intersections. Limits are defined for the amount, of ground floor retail square footage-,(seeibelow). . ,c. Albertsons Market ,property,(sub-area "D"--west.of'Newport,Boulevard and south of 32no Strept)' ■ Neighborhood -serving retail, commercial. ■ Mixed-use'structures with. residential above retail, • d. McFadden Square, west of Newport'Boulevard (sub -area "E"), ■ Visitor -serving retail commercial* and: smaliscale overnight accommodations. f. Mcradden'Square, east of Newport Boulevard (sub -area`")' +—Water-GOented-semmarsialand-suPpe#in�es ■ Mixed -use structures with residential above retail. ig. Outside of study areas: ■ Newport Boulevard (sub -area "H"): highway oriented retail;commercia.1 and mixed -use buildings, that integrate housing with commercial uses. ■ Bayfront ;properties, east of Lafqyette Avenue (sub -area "G"): Water -oriented commercial and; supporting uses and mixed -use structures with residential above ground level water -oriented uses. !Development Capacity ■ Retail, • Lido Village and. McFadden Square: 1.0 FAR • All other areas: 0.5 FAR GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 21 rC 9 - -ew.ii i LAND USE PRECOMMENDATIONS Small Overnight Lodging Facilities and Inns © Mixed Use -Housing above Retail © * Moved Use Permitted In any Location and Required at Sheet Intersections, * Mum Family Residential and Tovmhomes - any location except Intersections Qo Nelghborhood-Serving Retail or Mixed Use CRY of NEMORTBEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure 5 BALBOA PENINSULA LIDO VILLAGE / ' CANNERY VILLAGE / MC FADDEN SQUARE Re9denbol Re6dmi Lslnsie( rr iReWenAd / % 1 ®"AW.i7 ReWwtkA cowtemlel r-3 �eMedc etcbl _ tvlokk rP bled Conmercici ® Pen«�SeN,ms Rlnoty(9fiss \\ ��parell�� .FtvNMe. P`Qf—d offiook sIneWAeGccWet ® �canvnwty aanvnereid. - � OYieJn Rerawmtfayt Food Restoiaant Hotel fglplplllll� �t II►Iplllll� �►�IN�4 �1111111►11 �VII,'� �Ig1111U11/Igl/Ilgq„� nnnlr, annr►nun rinmmuuu Innnui � � r�niin�� � r hResldenfial or Mixed _ if Subarea D Reclevelopsfor IMixed Use ©Madne-Related Commercial Visdor-Serwrig Commercial or -Mixed Use © Highway commercial and Unifying Streetscape Amenities _Nbac FalkQ ovece,,tP�D ®veco,ttLot rae waaxs�m-uas. bora.cw,o•vwu I .•n. e,,. ,(-\-Z l _0—� _ A �a a.a ota�kw.n mncawem•x�xav i �rm�wm.aaa. aar PRa1ECf NUMBER 10579-01 Re Oodby: Cl' treotedby. W Dote: 0717M ■ Mixed Use • • All areas except interior parcels in Cannery Village: 1'.5 FAR with no restriction on commercial, square footage • Cannery Village parcels: 1'.5 FAR; with retail limit of 0,25 FAR .except at intersections where It, shall'be b.5 FAR ■ Housing: 12-18 units per acre -Policy, Discussion Streetscape improvements, should be implemented to improve the area's visual quality, image, .and, pedestrian character. This should include clearly defined linkages among individual districts, between, the ocean and Bay, and along the Bay frontage. The City ,should provide incentives for owners to improve their properties and' achieve the, community's vision for this area. The City should provide incentives for .the retention and development of marine -related: uses along the,harbor,frontage (sub-areas."A" and "G'T Basis for Recommendations 1. There is an oversupply of land zoned exclusively for commercial uses on the Balboa Peninsula based on ADE's market analysis. The concentration of retail uses in limited locations and re -use of other properties for residential uses would improve the area's economic and social vitality throughout the • year and reduce peak hour trips from the existing General Plan. 2. Participants in the Visioning process indicated that both Cannery Village and McFadden Square need continuing revitalization and the City could be proactive in creating a vision for revitalization to help guide future private development. 3. While overnight lodging has not been supported in the Visioning process survey and public meetings, we believe that smaller bed and breakfast and boutique hotels could be designed and scaled to complement the pedestrian -oriented village character of Lido Village and McFadden Square, as well as help the City's fiscal balance through the revenue that would be contributed. 4. Approximately 56% of Public Workshop participants supported the reinforcement of Lido Village and McFadden Square as primary activity nodes with the interior of Cannery Village allocated for housing or mixed -use development. 5. The majority of Visioning process and Public Workshop participants indicated their support for mixed - use buildings in Lido Village, McFadden Square, and portions of Cannery Village. While this may be feasible in a number of locations, the immediate bayfront may be restricted to non-residential coastal - dependent uses as required by the Coastal Act. 6. The Visioning process indicated support for the protection of historic commercial and residential villages, such as Lido Village. 7. Suggestions of tools to protect the villages including the narrowing of permitted uses, adopting design and development guidelines, establishing a design review process, and adopting specific plans. • 8. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 23 a. Facilitate an economically viable concentration of marine uses. • b. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. • • c. Encourage mixed -use development. ' d. The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses should reflect the market support that can reasonably be anticipated during the General Plan time horizon. e. Support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities. f. Encourage the redevelopment of under -performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. g. Enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 24 • BALBOA VILLAGE Description Balboa Village is the historic center for commercial, recreational, and social activities in the community. Balboa Village is located on the Balboa Peninsula between Coronado Boulevard to the northwest, and A Street to the southeast. This study area has 19 acres, of which a mix of commercial uses represents 33.5 percent (6.4 acres) of land uses within the area. Of the retail uses, multi -tenant buildings with a variety of commercial uses are the largest commercial land use, representing 15.3 percent (2.9 acres) of the area. The retail uses are a mix of neighborhood -serving and visitor -serving commercial, i.e., ice cream, bike rentals, and T-shirt shops. Fast food and dine -in restaurants, apparel and specialty shops predominate along Balboa Boulevard and Main Street. A "fun zone along Edgewater Place includes entertainment uses such as an arcade, amusement park rides, fast food restaurants, and souvenir shops. Marine - related commercial uses such as ferries to Balboa and Catalina Islands, and harbor tours are present in the area. There are a number of commercial vacancies throughout the area, as well as in the multi -tenant complexes along Edgewater Place. This study area is pedestrian -oriented with articulated building facades, and signage that is pedestrian scale. The single largest land use category in the study area is public parking. Two parking lots account for 36.9 percent (7.0 acres) of the area's land uses, providing parking for the adjacent beach area as well as the study area. This is appropriate in an older pedestrian -oriented area where buildings typically have zero lot lines (built to the property line), and limited private parking areas. • Residential land uses accounting for 21.5 percent (4.1 acres) of the area are located primarily within the western portion of the study area from Adams Street to Coronado Street, at the eastern boundary of the area, and along Ocean Front. A large park, Peninsula Park, accounts for 4.8 percent (0.9 acres) of the area. The City has embarked upon a number of public improvements in the area within the last few years, which include the addition of street furniture, lighting, landscaping, widened sidewalks, and decorative paving. This study area is within a Specific Plan area. • The Balboa Peninsula Planning Study was conducted in 1996. The study concluded the area has a strong marine heritage, and has drawn fishermen, recreational boaters, summer residents, and beachgoers. Over time, the area has experienced a transition to year-round residential use while the visitor uses have continued, with no comprehensive planning to ensure the compatibility of these uses. Parking supply has been improved through the construction of a new parking lot at Palm and Balboa Boulevard and the refurbishment of the beach lot to improve access for short-term users. Cumulatively, there is more commercial space than can be supported by local residents, and marginal commercial space is used by businesses that are seasonal and do not promote a quality image for the Peninsula. In 1997, the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee (BPPAC) published its vision for Balboa Village. The vision consisted of aesthetic improvements such as landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and design standards. The vision addressed property maintenance standards, parking district implementation, and circulation improvements. The vision also sought to establish a "family marine recreation theme," upgrade the Fun Zone, and improve the quality and mix of commercial tenants. In excess of $5 million has been invested by the City for landscape, streetscape, and parking improvements and Design Guidelines were adopted for Balboa Village in 2002. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 25 Recoimmendat.ions • Vision ,A pedestrian oriented village that serve's locali residents and recreational visitors, providing, housing in proximity to retail uses, entertainment, and recreation, Uses (refer to Figure 6) ■ Visitor and local -serving retail commercial or mixed (use buildings that integrate housing with ground level retail on properties generally bounded by Bay Avenue, Balboa Boulevard frontage, Adams, Street, and Main Street frontage (sub -area "B" ). ■ Water -dependent, marine -related retail' and services, visitor -serving retail and mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with ground Ievei retail -and services on, commercial properties between Bay Avenue and the Bay (sub-area."A"). ■ Small scale overnight accommodations, such as bed.and.breakfast facilitiesand boutique hotels. ■ Museum youth recreation and other Water -related institutional and cultural uses. ■ Housing on existing commercial properties on.•Balboa -Boulevard west of Adams Street, developed at "R-2" densities. ;Development Capacity, • ■ Mixed -use buildings: maximum density -of 1.6 FAR, and height of 2 - 3 stories. ■ Retaii'commerclaL net reduction of approximately'23,000 square feet. i1 U ■ Office: net reduction of approximately,90;000 square feet from existing-General'Plan. i Overnight accommodations: net increase ofapproximately'90 rooms. ■ Residential (in mixed -use, buildings and, single family detached Units): net increase of approximately 2,10400 units from, existing use. Policy Discussion ■ The City should provide incentives for owners to improve their properties, achieve the community's vision for the area, and protect the value of nearby residential neighborhoods. ■ Incentives should' be provided for the development of retail uses that serve adjoining residential neighborhoods. ■ The City should promote marine uses on the Bayfront. ■ Completion: of enhancements to Balboa Village's. sidewalks ;and street crossings would contribute tol the area's visual quality, and character asa'pedestrian-oriented environment, GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 26 C� LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS Clio or NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN OVisitor -Serving Commercial O Commercial or Mixed -Use Mousing above Retail O Residential-Townhomes Figure 6 BALBOA VILLAGE ` Reskl OT4 Sn9�'aY Rtl esltl¢nL ®MUXFF«N7 Resitlentlal Ca Pemon APP Twx0 u«V. (cid aI _ MWLLienmf Conmcicbi .e l /,/ J •• > �4 - - - r Mnoreeb ol(aou*awmecsww -Dote-F Ret«+an1. FaC FOOtl Rastcvml MxotN Fntattomwnt, Vst«ae Av A o RJR htlusMal NSHNtlawVow saaae . i4~ ``F1N F40A 1, ,,,epcftg _ROB PUbrC •m \ _ C B — flva rtul*Q p aDxaR s«.pw `��\ � _ - - na�WRm Wzfn'G9sICWtm4MYY1fY 1 It • •• - e �\ASTFEFT I �,uwaroxww4ocmam.noow.aa-cram. ®garb TnMM.'<W>rev. Rill. - -' . - - - - - - f PROJECTNUMEIM. 1Q579-01 Req a by'. M OeOW W Wff Dole 07P/05 Basis for Recommendations • 1. Participants in the Visioning process indicated the need for revitalization of Balboa Village. 2. Year-round tourism on Balboa Peninsula is inadequate to support all commercial areas and interest has been expressed to rezone areas for residential or mixed -use development. 3. A significant majority of the Public Workshop participants (82%) supported the concentration of commercial uses in the core of the Village and re -use of outside commercial properties for housing. 4. A similar majority, 75% of the participants, supported prioritizing water -oriented and visitor -serving commercial uses. 5. A somewhat smaller number of participants, though still a majority, supported the development of mixed -use buildings that integrate housing with ground level retail uses (54%). This is consistent with input from the Visioning process, where the Village was identified as a suitable location for mixed -use development. Development of mixed use buildings would expand the customer base for retail commercial uses and services and enhance the area's pedestrian activity. 6. Consolidation of commercial uses coupled with the re -use of underperforming commercial properties for mixed -use and housing would expand the customer base for local retail uses, helping achieve economic development objectives, conform to the community's vision, and protect property values in nearby residential neighborhoods. Development of additional housing in Balboa Village and reduction of commercial capacity would increase pedestrian activity and reduce vehicle trips, benefiting traffic conditions on the Peninsula. • 7. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. • b. The quantity of land designated for commercial use and the development standards that regulate such uses should reflect the market support that can reasonably be anticipated during the General Plan time horizon. c. Enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach d. Preserve the community's heritage. e. Encourage the redevelopment of under -performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 28' MARINER'S MILE Description Mariner's Mile is a primarily auto -oriented area located along Coast Highway, which runs west to east, from the Arches Bridge on the west to Dover Drive on the east end. Commercial uses account for 82.9 percent of land uses in the study area: a mix of marine -related commercial uses (boat sales, sailing schools, and marina), some auto -related uses (auto dealerships and service) and neighborhood -serving commercial are located throughout the area. The Balboa Bay Club and Resort, a hotel and a private club located on City tidelands, represents 19.4 percent of uses in the area. Marine related uses account for 12.8 percent of the area, while auto -oriented uses account for 9.0 percent of the area. Multi -tenant commercial uses that combine a number of related or complementary uses in a single building or buildings that are connected physically or through design, account for almost 25 percent of area land uses. Waterfront development, such as dockside restaurants, is concentrated on the southern side of Coast Highway, while there are more general commercial uses along the northern side. Secondary uses include salons, restaurants, apparel, and other specialty shops ranging from wine stores to home furnishings stores. There are a high number of vacancies in Mariner's Mile relative to the other areas; 8.5 percent of the area contains vacant buildings. Many of these vacancies are sites with development potential. The City has recently embarked on a plan, Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan (adopted by City Council in 2000), to accomplish the following: create a pedestrian -friendly retail district along the • northern portion of Coast Highway in the vicinity of Tustin Avenue, Riverside Avenue, and Avon Street; improve the auto -oriented strips located on the north side of Coast Highway, in the western and easternmost portion of the area; create a vibrant public waterfront south of Coast Highway; upgrade the visual character of the area with new landscaping and streetscape amenities; and improve private development standards associated with signage, architecture, and lighting. Parts of the area may not easily adopt a pedestrian character as there are commercial uses with parking in the front and traffic on Coast Highway is heavy. In addition, there is a possibility that Coast Highway could be widened in this area in the future, which would detract from the intentions of a more pedestrian -friendly environment by potentially narrowing sidewalks and allowing more traffic in the area. An issue to consider is how future development will affect the character of Mariner's Mile, and what kind of uses the community would like to have in this area. • The western half of this area is within the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan has designated the bay side of Coast Highway for Recreational and Marine Commercial, which allows for the following: (1) continuation of marine -oriented and visitor -serving uses; (2) maintains the marine theme and character of the area; and (3) encourages public physical and visual access to the bay. For the area inland of Coast Highway, the Specific Plan allows for Retail and Service Commercial uses, which is intended to serve as an active pedestrian -oriented retail area with a wide range of visitor -serving, neighborhood commercial, and marine -related uses. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 29 Recomm,end'atioms • ;Vision ,A corridor that reflects and takes advantage of, its location on,the•'NewportBay waterfront, supports and respects adjadentrresidential'ne,ighborhoods, and exhibits a.quality visual image, for travelers, on Coast 'Highway. tUses (refer to Fioure 7) ■ Bay frontage properties ;(sub -area ' ): marine -related and visitor -serving retail commercial, restaurant, hotel, institutional, and recreations[ uses as well as, on a orbiect-by-project basis, permitted square footage is devoted to the principally permitted use ■ Inland side of Coast Highway: a mix of visitor and local -serving retail commercial; residential, and public uses. • All -property frontages on Coast Highway shall be developed for commercial uses. • The rear portion of properties generally east of Tustin Avenue and the southerly projection of, Irvine Avenue (sub -area "D") maybe developed forfree-standing multi -family residential. • Inland parcels generally between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue (sub -area "C") may be developed for commercial or mixed -use buildings with housing integrated above ground level! retail or office uses. • Remaining parcels (sub -area "B" ), maybe developed for commercial uses. • :Development Capacity ■ Retail; 0:35 FAR and-0.5 FAR with lot cons,olidationwhich results in a minimum°frontage of 2Mfeet. ■ Mixed use; 1,'5.FAR. ■ Residential: 18 — 22 units per acre. !Policy Discussion ■ Consider adopting design guidelines so that the development of inland —properties with a mix of commercial;and; residential uses does•not create land use conflicts, provides adequate circulation and parking and preserves views of the water. These should also provide for the protection of the bluff. faces. ■ Consider options for the relocation of the City parking lot on Avon Street to better support the corridor'& retail uses. ■ Consider options for the relocation of the postal distribution center to reduce parking impacts ,in the immediate area. ■ Consider modifying the Shoreline Height limit (26') on the inland side of Coast 'Highway to accommodate mixed use buildings.provided that the limits fully protect views of the water. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 30 ■ 'Development on the Bay frontage should implement amenities that assure access for.coastal visitors, • including views of the Bay from Coast.Highway,and a pedestrian promenade along the Bayfront. Basis for Recommendations Visioning process participants identified Mariner's Mile as a location that needed revitalization and suggested that an overall vision be defined to meet this objective. It was also defined as a location appropriate for mixed -use development integrating housing and commercial or office space. A majority of survey respondents opposed hotel development in Mariner's Mile. 2. Participants in the Public Workshop (22 people) were almost equally divided on the questions of preserving opportunities for coastal -related uses in Mariner's Mile and whether the City should require or offer incentives to assure such uses. A number of participants indicated that high land values and rents limit the number of marine -related uses that can be economically sustained in the area. 3. ADE's study of the local marine industry found that rising costs have resulted in fewer firms serving the demand for boat service and parts, and businesses that do not have to be on the water have moved to inland locations. There is a possibility that reduced availability of boat services in Newport Beach could cause boat sales businesses to move inland as well, costing the City sales and property tax revenues. 4. Approximately 83% of the Workshop participants supported the development of housing in Mariner's Mile. This was evenly split between those who believed that housing should be located on both sides of Coast Highway and those who favor limiting it to inland parcels. • 5. The Coastal Act prioritizes the development of coastal -related uses over the development of housing in the Coastal Zone and Coastal Commission staff have advised the City that provision of marine - related uses must be made along the Newport Beach waterfront. 6. Housing developed as free-standing structures or in buildings that integrate housing above ground level commercial uses can serve as a transition from Coast Highway's intensive commercial development and upland residential neighborhoods. 8. Inland properties flanking Riverside and Tustin Avenues offer the opportunity for the development of additional retail uses that support upland residential neighborhoods. These can be located and designed to promote active pedestrian activity, and, with adjoining housing development, could establish a "village" character, as proposed in the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. 9. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. b. General Plan land use policies should facilitate an economically viable concentration of marine uses. c. Support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels. d. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. e. Encourage the redevelopment of under -performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. • f. Encourage the maintenance of natural landforms. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 32 0 • g. Encourage the protection and, where feasible and appropriate, creation of public viewsheds within the City. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 33 • NEWPORT CENTER/FASHION ISLAND Description Newport Center is generally located in the center of the city, north of Coast Highway between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Newport Center is a regional center of business and commerce that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and housing in a master planned mixed -use development. Fashion Island, a major retail shopping center, forms the nucleus of Newport Center, and is framed by this mixture of office, entertainment, residential, and housing. Newport Center Drive, a ring road that surrounds Fashion Island, connects to a number of interior roadways that provide access to the various sites within the Center and to the four major arterials that service this development. High-rise office and hotels buildings to the north of the Center form a visual background for lower rise buildings and uses to the south and west. Newport Center is essentially built out with the exception of a couple of vacant strips of land in the eastern portion of the site. There is entitlement for 185 additional hotel rooms and just less than 300,000 square feet of entitled undeveloped retail space in Fashion Island. Combined, Newport Center and Fashion Island contain commercial land uses that represent 57.4 percent of this sub area. Fashion Island, a regional mall with a mix of specialty shopping, accounts for 15.8 percent of the uses within the sub area. Newport Center consists of professional office uses (26.6 percent of the study area), two hotels (6.3 percent), multi -tenant commercial (5.9 percent), public and semi-public uses such as the Police and Fire Departments and Orange County Museum of Art and Sports Museum (2.9 percent), and entertainment (1.5 percent) uses along the perimeter of Newport Center Drive. The Center is also the site of a • transportation center, located at San Joaquin Hills Drive and MacArthur Boulevard that includes a Park and Ride. A large open space area (26.1 percent) adjacent to Coast Highway and Jamboree Road in the western portion of the sub area is the site of the Newport Beach Country Club and Balboa Bay Tennis Club. Single- family attached residential uses (10.4 percent) also are located in this quadrant. There is a considerable amount of vacant land (approximately 16 acres) between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. Newport Center is largely built out, but there has been discussion of future development of office, hotel, retail, and residential uses in this area. Reco inen,dat:ion's Vision A successful mixed -use district that combines an economic and commercial center, which serves the needs of Newport Beach residents and the sub -region, with expanded opportunities to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and -recreation, and is supported:by a pedestrian -friendly environment. !Uses (refer to -Figure 8) Fashion Island: retail, restaurant, entertainment, and comparable uses. Opportunity should be, provided to accommodate the development of an additional anchor tenant and supporting uses. ■ Newport Center: professional office, hotel, entertainment, housing, and' recreational uses.: Opportunity should be provided -to expand housing, and hotel uses, but additional office development • should be limited to existing buildings. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 34 ■ "Newport Village" site, north,of the Library, shall be developed as a City park, • ,Development,Capacity '0 Retail/entertainment: increase entitlement by approximately 125,000 square feet (net increase of 425,000 square feet above existing Use) 10 Office: no'change,from existing, entitlement (net,tincrease,of 401000 square feet above existing; use) ■ Housing: increase entitlement by 600 dwelling units ■ Hotel: increase entitlement by 65 rooms (net increase -of 250 rooms above existing use) Policy Discussion . ■ 'Pedestrian access and connectivity should be improved with additional walkways and'streetscape amenities. ■ Additional retail entitlement should,not be used,for office development. Basis for Recommendations 1. In the Visioning process a majority of residents and businesses supported little or no change to Newport Center, but some were willing to allow growth for existing companies. At the same time, a majority supported keeping retail space at current levels, but many were willing to support expansion of existing stores and moderate increases for new businesses. Some participants favored mixed -use • development and stressed the need for more affordable housing in particular. A majority of resident and business survey respondents supported building new hotels in Newport Center. 2. In the Public Workshop, approximately, two-thirds of the participants expressed moderate to strong support for the expansion of retail and entertainment uses in Fashion Island and about half supported the development of another retail anchor. Over half were opposed to further office development, while two thirds indicated support for additional hotel rooms. Development of additional housing was strongly supported by three-quarters of the participants. 3. The flexibility to develop retail space and hotel rooms will enable Fashion Island to respond to market demands as they evolve over the next 20 years and help to maintain its economic viability. 4. Additional hotel, retail, and residential uses will contribute to the City's fiscal well-being, while more office development would not pay the full costs to provide needed City services. 5. Increased residential entitlement will enable a larger number of persons to live close to their jobs, commerce, entertainment and recreation, reducing vehicle trips and length, energy consumption, and air pollution below those resulting from more dispersed patterns of development. Newport Center residents who commute to jobs outside the area will be traveling in the opposite direction of peak hour traffic. 6. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Support City efforts to optimize retail sales capture in the community. b. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality • of the local economy. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 36 c. Capitalize on market and demographic changes and opportunities that emerge in key economic • centers of the community d. Support the careful expansion of visitor -serving businesses and facilities, including hotels and meeting facilities e. Consider mixed -use development as a means to create additional housing opportunities. f. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for development patterns that will minimize traffic. • g. Additional development entitlement needs to demonstrate significant fiscal, economic or other community benefit. h. Establish land use and density/intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 37 n LJ CORONA DEL MAR Description The Corona del Mar planning area is located along Pacific Coast Highway from Avocado Avenue to Hazel Drive. Figure 6-1 shows the regional location of the Corona del Mar area. Commercial land uses front Coast Highway with residential land uses directly to the east and west of the commercial uses. This area is primarily commercial (78.6 percent), with a mix of neighborhood -serving commercial (approximately 10.0 percent) and specialty shops (6.0 percent). Primary retail uses include restaurants (more than 8.0 percent), home furnishings, and other specialty shops ranging from apparel to architectural design services. Many commercial uses (about 40.2 percent of the area) are located in multi -tenant buildings with retail on the first floor of buildings and professional services located on the second floor. While there were a few commercial vacancies at the time of the land use survey, the most prominent was that of the Port Theatre located at the corner of Coast Highway and Heliotrope. Sherman Library and Gardens (about 9.0 percent of the area) is a private facility and research library open to the public. There is an assisted -living residential complex representing 7.4 percent of land uses in the area. Corona del Mar is pedestrian -oriented with a dense mix of commercial uses, streetscape amenities, street medians, and a limited number of signalized crosswalks. The Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (BID) was established in 1996 to enhance the shopping district of Corona del Mar to create an exciting, pedestrian and resident friendly experience. In 1999, the BID developed the "Vision 2004" Plan to implement community improvements for Corona del Mar. The plan envisions the creation of a linear park -like environment along Coast Highway from • Avocado Avenue to Seaward Drive. The plan also calls for sidewalk landscaping, street furniture, street lighting fixtures, pedestrian activated crosswalks, parking lanes and various other improvements. A Specific Plan has also been contemplated for this area, but one has not been developed. Recommendations "Vision ,A pedestrian -oriented "village" that serves as the center of community commerce, culture, and social, ,activity and provides identity for'Corona.del Mar. Uses.(refer to Figure 9) ■ Retail, office, cultural; andoivic.uses (comparable to and,compatiblewith•existing, development). ■ Shared.parking structures, provided,that the ground'floor of the street frontage contains retail uses. ■ Surface parking on parcels directly behind �commercial uses. Development Capacity 11 Retaitc rnmerciatandoffice,uses:0:5,FAR,(perexisting.General.Plan) 'Policy Discussion • ■ Allow buildings destroyed by fire or other naturakdisaster or voluntarily renovated, and �upgraded,to be reconstructed to their pre-existing density if they exceed'the-permitted'0.5 FAR. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 38 ■ Permit the use of residential properties adjoining commercial parcels for surface parking, requiring • that it be designed to mitigate visual, noise, vibration, lighting, and other impacts on residents. ■ Explore other,methods to provide parking convenient to commercial uses, such as a parking, district; or relocation of the City parking lot at the old school site. '■ 'Consider adopting design guidelines to,proinote,pedestrian activity along Coast, Highway. ■ Continue implementation of Vision 2004 streetscape improvements that contribute to .the corridor's, pedestrian character. Basis for Recommendations 1. Visioning process participants expressed support for protecting Corona del Mar as an important historic village of the City. 2. Approximately two-thirds of the Public Workshop participants indicated moderate to strong support for the enhancement of Corona del Mar as a pedestrian -oriented commercial center that serves its adjoining neighborhoods. A significant majority (61%) indicated moderate to strong opposition to the development of mixed -use buildings at key intersections and more (70%) opposed the clustering of commercial at intersections and redevelopment of intervening parcels for housing. 3. Redevelopment of residential properties abutting commercial uses for parking was supported by slightly more than half of the Workshop participants and opposed by about one-third. 4. Development of centralized parking facilities would provide opportunities for customers to park once • and walk among the corridor's businesses, reducing vehicle trips and pollution. 5. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy. b. Enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods and business districts that together identify Newport Beach. c. Preserve the community's heritage. n U L.I JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT AREA Description The Airport Area covers approximately 360 acres and is bound by Campus Drive to the north, Bristol Street North/Corona del Mar Freeway to the south and Jamboree Road to the east. As the study area name implies, the area is adjacent to the John Wayne Airport. It is also in close proximity to the University of California, Irvine. This proximity has influenced the many uses in the area that support the airport and the university, such as research and development, high technology industrial and visitor -serving uses, such as hotel and car rental agencies. This area consists of 83.7 percent commercial uses with administrative, professional, and financial office uses accounting for 62.0 percent of the area's land uses. Multi -tenant commercial accounts for 7.5 percent of the area's land uses and provide support retail and services for office and industrial employment centers in the area. A number of industry headquarters are located in the Airport Business Area including Conexant and Jazz Industries, along with other major businesses located in Koll Center at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. Industrial related uses account for 13.1 percent of the study area. Three large hotel developments account for 4.5 percent of the area's land uses. Also significant are a number of auto -related commercial uses located primarily in the northwest portion of the area. These auto -related uses include carwash, auto -detailing, rental, repair, and parts shops. The Airport Area is surrounded by John Wayne Airport in the County of Orange on the west, and the City • of Irvine on the north and east. Recent development activity in the City of Irvine's Business Complex has included the transfer of development rights, bringing more intense development closer to the Airport Business area, and resulting in the conversion of office to residential entitlement. This activity is changing the area to a mixed -use center. Ll Recommendations Vision A mixed -use center that provides jobs, housing, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. Uses (refer,to-Figure 10) ■ Office and hotel uses on,parcels not targeted for residential development (all sub -areas). ■ Retail' services that support local housing• (such as .a grocery, store), office tenants, industrial' employees, and other uses (sub -area "A"). ■ Housing, mixed -use buildings that, integrate housing with retail, or office uses, and supporting retail' uses (sub -area "C"). GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 41 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS OA Commercial and Office © Infill and Reuse of Campus Tract for Office, Commercial, Hotel, and Alrport-Supporting Businesses © Office, Residential, Mixed -Use, and Supporting Retail (with Guidelines for Design and Development) CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FIGURE 10 AIRPORT BUSINESS AREA r �♦� �'�, ExMng Land Use Cwnmerelrl ♦ '��4h 1®AtA&Rebted Camkl �c Flte (i flineu/gnu ' spedawRetdl A `+' � MLMTmMCa7meclal `� (♦ Pmresbnal OfrcelEu*e MedeaVVet w1 cmyr"ibcmme�dd Mh hRes xo .FaQ Food Resfaaanl = How kxknbicd ■ Pa' ® " M rlpht ■, ♦ ; ' ' ,M MUYldenanl lndisbbl � \ f'�, butlMbnaVOpen space ®ftbwsert Oftr l'Wab Ept .... MY E' %�' �sbcksou7tlory z, • Il' «aK wcminwn.uasw.ra.axwarw. i1f; •.�t ..4ry =,k t ��rcrma�mw�mm m�m.�ouwi,v¢t ;; 7 anv. mwn.warv.W ro..mn _ PROJECr MIMM 10579-01 Req.,e by: HIR Qededbp WRP ' sv` We. 077113j3Q105 P '11t ■ Office, industrial, airport -related; and, residential -supporting retail in the Campus tract (sub -area "B") • I and housing in areas exposed to a CNEL of less than 65 dBA. A higher development Intensity than exists should be allowed as .an incentive for redevelopment (within prescribed ,airport ,height restrictions). 44ausing-rnay-be-peFn4itted-previde$#hat4he4atakt4ip generated-on-the-prepeFty-do-net exceed-ihe-nurnbeFof-trips�ha# Waald=be-generated-by-other-perfn+tted-uses-(9tigina!-and-sufrent ataf#Fsensuliaaf-reser�nendatien-is-net-te�ermrt-geusing-in-ibis-area:} ,Development Capacity ■ Retail: maximum of 100,000 square feet of additional development (50% less than existing General Plan). ■ Office: net reduction of approximately 615,000, square feet from existing use (1 million square feet less than•existing General Plan), ■ Industrial: maximum of 43,000 square of additional development`(per existing General Plan). ■ Hotel:' additional 125 rooms. (For feasibility, staff/consultants mcomrimend a maximum of 600 additional units, consistent with existing General Plan) ■ Residential: maximum of 3-,390-4. 000 units as re -use and infill of properties currently developed, for' office, industrial, and retail. uses. Tktis lirai#-may be increased-for--heusing-development-iin the Campus Tract the number of residential units shall be determined by the requirement that their provided -that -the vehicle trips generated fog4e-subjeet-prepertyL�eshall-not exceed those attributable to the permitted underlying non-residential use. • Policy Discussion ■ Establish development standards and design guidelines to assure that residential development creates a cohesive district that is compatible and integrated With adjoining office, retail, and lgclustrial uses, At a,minimum, the guidelines should address site,planning, architectural character, landscape, site accessldriveWays, parking, streetscape/urban design elements, -and inclusion of open space and! rebreational- amenities. ■ To assure compliance with State Noise Guidelines and the Airport Environs Land 'Use'Plan, housing should -shall bellocated outside of areas exposed to a 65 dBA CNEL. ■ Underperforming retail uses located on parcels at the interior of large blocks should be redevelopedi for other uses, with retail clustered along major arterials (e.g., Bristol; Campus, MacArthur, and Jamboree), except where intended to serve,and be integrated with new housing development. ■ Incentives should be given to encourage lot consolidation and the re -use and improvement of properties located; in the "Campus tract," west of Birch Street. Basis for Recommendations 1. Visioning process participants prefer revitalization of the Airport Area with income generating land uses over undirected growth. Generally, a range of development types were acceptable as long as traffic is not adversely affected. There was strong support for new hotels and broad consensus on mixed -use development with residential and revenue -generating uses. Survey respondents were • comfortable with low-rise office buildings, and opposed to more car dealerships and industrial uses. There was split support for high-rise development and retail. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 43 2. A majority of Visioning process participants believe it is acceptable to have more traffic congestion in • certain locations of the City, such as the Airport Area, than in other parts of the City. 3. Almost 80% of the Public Workshop participants expressed moderate to strong agreement that the Airport Area is urban in character, different than other City neighborhoods, and suitable for additional development. 4. Almost 80% of Workshop participants supported the development of housing in the Airport Area. Of those, about 60% favored a mix of low and mid -high rise buildings and the remainder supported high rise. 5. Almost all Workshop participants supported the revitalization of economically underperforming properties, such as the Campus tract, for office, industrial, and other uses. An equal number indicated that allowing somewhat higher densities was acceptable as an incentive for the area's revitalization. 6. Strong market demands and nearby development in the Irvine Business Complex make the Airport Area suitable for housing, provided that it is developed to achieve a cohesive district that is integrated with adjoining office/ retail/industrial uses, as well as incorporates amenities that support an urban residential neighborhood. 7. Development of housing with the office uses provides the opportunity for residents to live close to jobs, reducing vehicle trips in the sub -region, air pollution, energy consumption, and noise. Airport Area residents who commute to jobs outside the area will be traveling in the opposite direction of peak hour traffic. 8. Areas generally west of Birch Street are within the 65 dbA CNEL for John Wayne Airport and • unsuitable for housing development, based on State noise guidelines. While housing can be insulated, experience indicates that this would result in higher energy costs that contradict community conservation objectives, and outdoor spaces would be adversely impacted. 9. Increasing hotel and residential uses, while reducing office and industrial entitlement, will have a positive fiscal impact. 10. Clustering of retail uses along the major arterials will enhance their economic viability, provide shopping services for workers and residents in the Airport Area, and draw customers from Irvine's residential developments, increasing fiscal benefits for Newport Beach. 11. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Encourage the revitalization of older commercial areas. b. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality of the local economy. c. Additional development entitlement needs to demonstrate significant fiscal, economic, or other community benefit. d. Offer a distinct land use concept and policy framework for the Airport Area. e. Encourage the redevelopment of under -performing commercial areas to allow residential or mixed -use development. f. Consider establishing a different level of service standard for the airport area, subject to • evaluation of possible impacts on residential areas. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 44 g. Consider urban scale development in areas where there is potential for development patterns that • will minimize traffic. h. Establish land uses and density/intensity limits that will have less impact on peak hour traffic. • CJ • OTHER LAND USE CHANGES A number of areas have been identified by City of Newport Beach staff in addition to those previously evaluated as exhibiting conditions that may —warrant revisions to the current General Plan land use designation or development standards. Generally, these are small in area and do not exhibit the diversity of land use changes that were considered for the targeted study areas. This papeFsection describes the existing conditions, key planning issues, and land use and policy approaches recommended by the General-1211an-Advisory-6emmittee (GPAG)-City Council to address these issues -for the Gity-Seunsil's and Wanning Semmissien� Gansideratisn. Refer to attached figures for the location of each sub -area. Sub -Area Description ■ Area is predominantly developed for single-family residential units. ■ It was subdivided originally for 30 foot wide lots; however, properties were sold by the foot rather than the parcel boundary. This resulted in 'a diversity of actual development, with many instances of housing that spans multiple lots (e.g., two units built on three lots). ■ Under the existing General Plan, theoretical buildout of the original subdivision would result in the construction of as many as 300 additional units. ■ Using typical trip generation factors for single family residential this could result in 3,000 to 3,600 • additional vehicle trips per day on Via Lido and the Lido Isle bridge. Recommenda.tion, ■ Implement a lot merger program to reflect existing single family residential' development, prohibitingi an increase in housing_units. Basis for Recommendation ■ Reflects predominant pattern of existing development, reducing the number of housing units below the existing General Plan by approximately 300. ■ Maintains and does not worsen existing level of impacts on traffic, parking, infrastructure and service demands, and general community character. ■ If the Planning Commission and City Council support this change, staff will contact the Lido isle Community Association to inform them and gain their input. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 46 n U Ll • Description ■ West Newport and Balboa Island contain a mix of single family and duplex housing units. ■ In recent years, there has been a trend to replace duplexes with single family detached units, due to land and housing values. ■ Beacon Bay is somewhat different, in that it is City owned property which is leased to the homeowners. Also, the terms of the leases only allow for one residence. Because of this, the change is fairly straightforward. However, we will still contact Beacon Bay residents to inform them of what is going on in the General Plan Update related to their area. Recomm,errdation ■ Re -designate West Newpert-and-Beacon •Bay as "R-1".{9kigirial-aNd-st+rrent-staff/ seasultent reGommendet 9Fa-is-te-4nslud"albea4sland-if-aeseptable to the-preper#y-ewner"ta#4s-meeting wlth-repiter, at;s-Gf the-twG4sland Assesiatiens to discuss this itena R Saturday August 13}h� ■ ;polic'y Discussion iimaited ^.�nd-raay-be-subjest tealtem ^'•,a:..e-dave(epment at concept would -make second units pernmissible but netMaadatamy- Smnall-second-units would-be-consistent-with-the-histeris; beach-develepmentpa#em-ef-a-smnall second unit'abeve-the garage-er atthe -Fear-af-a-single-fam�ity prepedy an"etfld-not-lend4emn eWes4o-4Dseupaney-Warge numbers ef-peeple-with-attendant: tra#i6-apd-parkisg4esues. Basis for Recommendation ■ The trend in West Newport and Balboa Island is single family development. Second units are not allowed by lease provisions in Beacon Bay. ■ If only single family units are developed (no small "Second Dwelling Units"), there would be a reduction of approximately 1,500 units below the capacity of the existing General Plan, resulting in a reduction of 11,250 average daily trips. ■ Visioning Process neighborhood workshops revealed that the West Newport community is largely supportive, as this would likely result in higher rates of owner occupancy. At the West Newport Beach Association vision meeting and at the recent public workshop on June 25, 2005, we again received feedback that this idea is strongly supported in West Newport. ■ Through discussions with some community members on Balboa Island (we will meet with the Associations on Balboa Island on August 131h to confirm this), staff believes that a change from R-1.5 to R-1 is also supportable in this area. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 47 ■ Balboa Peninsula property owners did not support this idea in the June public workshop, nor at the • July 23rd GPAC meeting. Because of the opposition expressed by property owners on the Balboa Peninsula and the lack of information on the sentiments of the homeowners on Balboa Island, GPAC recommended that these two areas should NOT be considered further. Staff is meeting with Island representatives before the Planning Commission and City Council meetings on August 161h. The outcome of that discussion will be reported to both bodies at that time. ■ If the Planning Commission and City Council support this change, staff will contact Beacon Bay residents to inform them and gain their input. Description ■ Designated for "multi -family" and developed with a mix of housing units, including older apartments, small lot units, and single family detached units. ■ The area is transitioning, with higher densities being replaced with small lot residential and detached units. Rental units are changing to condominiums. Recommenda,tvon • ;&2 designate4ar-single-family-residential., Retain existino "multi -family" desianatioh. Basis for Recommendation • ■ Consistent with current development trend for replacement of higher density apartments for small lot residential and detached units. This would result in a reduction of approximately 110 units and 1,100 average daily trips below the existing General Plan. ■ Provides more opportunities for home ownership, though reduces capacity for affordable units. SOUTHERN FRONTAGE OF WESTCLIFF DRIVE, EAST OF IRVINE AVENUE, AND WESTERN FRONTAGE OF DOVER DRIVE, SOUTH OF WESTCLIFF DRIVE M�_1'C4 Description ■ Designated for "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial' uses. ■ Area contains a diverse mix of uses including small professional offices, medical offices, financial institutions, specialty and boutique retail, restaurants, and similar uses. The mix serves both local residents and the greater region. ■ Some properties on Dover Drive are underdeveloped and offer opportunities for intensification. ■ Some redevelopment has been occurring. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 48 ■ Some conflicts exist with adjoining multi -family housing, where apartment tenants and visitors park in • the commercial areas. Recommendation s ■ Westcliff Drive: designate the ,properties for "mixed Use," allowing a mix of office and retail/ commercial uses. ■ Dover Drive: designate the properties for "mixed use," allowing a mix of office and multi -family residential. Basis for Recommendation ■ Consistent with current development trends and provides the opportunity to achieve more affordable housing, as well as cohesive development patterns. CAL TRANS PROPERTY BOUNDED BY THE CORONA DEL MAR/73 FREEWAY, JAMBOREE ROAD, MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, AND UNIVERSITY DRIVE s Description ■ Vacant property; remnant from freeway construction. • ■ The property does not have a General Plan or zoning land use designation. Recommend,at[on ■ Designate for "epee -space." (original -and datien-is-retail and/or service commercial ronly for the are&south-of the freeway ramp.) Basis for Recommendation ■ GPAC wishes to preserve the site for open space. ■ In the opinion of the staff and consultant, there is a unique opportunity to develop a portion of the site to enhance economic activity and fiscal benefits, because it is large (5.3 acres), in single ownership, and has freeway visibility. REMNANT PROPERTY ADJOINING THE CORONA DEL MAR/73 FREEWAY, NORTH OF BISON AVENUE .'i}I;�t6 Description ■ Vacant property owned by the Irvine Company, a remnant from immediately abutting residential developments located to the west and functions as drainage corridor. • ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Undesignated." GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 49 . Recommendation !11 Designate for "bpen space," Basis for Recommendation ■ Preserves open space and local drainage. ■ Topography and configuration limit its suitability for development. Description ■ Single parcel formerly used as a child care facility, abutting multi -family residential uses. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Government, Educational, and Institutional." Recommemda,tion ■ Re -designate -as "Multi -Family Residential," with no access from,San�Miguel. • Basis for Recommendation ■ Consistent with adjoining uses. ■ Provides additional opportunities for affordable housing, resulting in an increase of approximately 196 units. ■ Site size would limit increases in additional local traffic. 'ROPERTY WEST OF BIG CANYON RESERVOIR, NORTH OF PACIFIC VIEVI )RIVE . s Description ■ Developed with senior affordable housing. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Government, Educational, and Institutional." Recommendation ■ Re -designate as"`Multi-Family,Residential," • Basis .for Recommendation GPA•C LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 50 0 • ■ Reflects existing developed uses (seniors units) and maintains commitment for affordable housing. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 51 0 0 I1L CITYWIDE ENTITLEMENT REDUCTIONS In addition to the areas abeve-that-were considered by the GPAC, staff looked for other areas throughout the City where development entitlement could be reduced. The following areas, which have been or are being developed by The Irvine Company; have entitlement in the existing General Plan that is unrealistically high. Staff has discussed these areas with The Irvine Company, and they have agreed to the following reductions in entitlement. Recommendation ,a. Newport Coast/Newport Ridge b. Bonita Canyon �c. 'Upper'Castaways d: Newporter North ,e. Freeway Reservation Parcel 'f. Bayside Center g. The Bluffs Center h. ,Eastbluff Village Center I. Harbor View Center j. 'Newport Hills Center ik. Newport North Center I. Westcliff Center -373 housing units -1,461 housing units -147'housing units -63 housing units -36 housing units -11,579 square feet,cominercial -3,430 square feet commercial -15,224 square feet commercial -6,907 square feet commercial -8,407 square feet commercial -3,089 square feet commercial -4,047 square feet commercial GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 52 • Safety deletions by &g4eeetx Recommendations of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC and Planning Commission are not included In addition the recommended goals have been revised to reflect State of California General Plan Guidelines' directives that they be worded as "...ends. not actions." 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. CONTEXT 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 timeframes, 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 SAFETY —CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS, 9014105 1 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 ate 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. Storm Surges. Unlike tsunamis, which can occur anytime, storm surges are associated with inclement weather. Given that during inclement weather a lot less people are 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 buffer 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. • SAFETY -DRAFT, 9126105 2 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 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 are 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 SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 3 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 are vulnerable to damage from liquefaction if mitigation measures have not been included in their design. Seismically Induced Slope Failure. Strong ground motions can also worsen 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 roads, 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 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. In 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. SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 Fire Hazards • Wildland Fires. The City of Newport Beach defines a wildland Fite 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." New construction and development are 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 fires 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 sprinkleted: 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 are some older sections in Newport Beach where due to ground failure, SAFETY -DRAFT, 9126105 5 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 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 are 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 SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 6 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 comer. 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. Aviation Hazards John Wayne Airport QWA) generates nearly 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 rate 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 requited 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 SAFETY -DRAFT, 9126105 7 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 state's 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 fox 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 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 require 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 area -vide disaster by fostering a citywide culture of "preparedness." GOALS AND POLICIES Policies derived from the draft Ci!T of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan are indicated by (LCPI. In some cases these have been simplified for purposes of the General Plan. Coastal Hazards Goal S1 Adverse effects of coastal hazards related to tsunamis and rogue waves to people and property are -will -he 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. CP SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 8 r� L • 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. LCP Lfflffie tneftitftiag SySt6ftl Policy S1.35 Continue projects like the Surfside-Sunset/West Newport Beach Replenishment program to maintain beach width. Wide beaches provide critical protection against tsunami run-up for structures along the oceanfront. LCP Policy S1.36 Develop and implement a tsunami educational program for residents, visitors, and people who work in the susceptible areas. LCP Peliey 81.7 Requke avetfiig' ptible ateas te L phftis- Peliey 818 r___......__ .he Mesa 1 prepatzedness , Policy S1.44 Support tsunami research in the Newport Beach offshore and Newport Bay areas. Goal S2 Adverse effects of coastal hazards related to storm surges and seiches to people and property snare 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. -.CP 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. _CP 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. -a CPI Policy S2.4 Encourage the use of eu�sand dunes with native vegetation as a protective device in beach areas. -a CPI Policy S2.5 Encourage the use of nonstructural methods, such as dune restoration and sand nourishment, as alternatives to shoreline protective structures. ("CPI SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 • 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 areas susceptible to storm surge ties to raise floor elevations as requited by building codes. s paliey _. , gf Goal S3 Adverse effects of coastal erosion to people and property will-4eare minimized, v `- 'tee. 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. a'CP� Policy S3.2 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. (LCP� 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, CPS Policy S3.4 Maintain existing groin fields and jetties and modify as necessary to eliminate or mitigate adverse effects on shoreline processes.-aCP� 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. a CPJ, Policy S3.6 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. -a CP Policy S3.7 Discourage shoreline protective devices on public land to protect private property/development. Site and design any such protective devices as fax landward as possible. (LCP� Policy S3.8 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, requited garage, or second residential unit, and shall not include accessory or • SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 10 u r 1 U ancillary structures such as decks, patios, pools, tennis courts, cabanas, stairs, landscaping etc. LCP 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. CP Policy S3.10 Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years), unless an environmentally acceptable design to stabilize the bluff and prevent bluff retreat is devised. (LCP) Policy S3.11 Requite that applications for new development with the potential to be impacted or impact coastal erosion tfr- 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 are will —fie minimized by reducing the known level of risk to loss of life, personal economic and social injury, public and private property damage, dislocation, and disruption of essential services. Policy SC. l Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to provide for tefleet the best vai tble d_..a. 6e& seismic safety design._(LCPI Policy S4.32 Support and encourage the facilities such as hospitals seismic or geologic hazards. seismic retrofitting and strengthening of essential and schools to minimize damage in the event of SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 11 Policy S4.43 Continue to require the retrofitting of unreinforced masonry buildings during • remodels to minimize damage in the event of seismic or geologic hazards. Policy S4.34 Ptehibit Re to the location of new essential facilities within areas that would directly be affected by seismic or geologic hazards: in accordance with State law. Policy S4.Fi5 Piekibit Rgplate the location of necv sensitive facilities such as schools, hospitals, and facilities for the elderly population, within 500 feet to active and potentially active faults.- in accordance with State law. Policy S4.76 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. Flood Hazards Goal S5 Protection of human life and public and private property will -be _redueet4 from the risks of floodin2- Policy S5.1 Require that all new development within 100 —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. Pokey352 implement need _ systefttq and evaeuatiae plans • . (moved and re -worded for Goal S9) Policy S5.32 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 S5.43 Require stormwater detention basins, where appropriate, to reduce the potential .risk of flood hazards. Fire Hazards Goal S6 Damage to peeple-Protection of human life and property eaased-by-from the risks of wildfires and urban fires will be fainifnized Policy S6 �Ll Review the adequacy of the water storage capacity and distribution network, in the event of a natural disaster, on a regular basis. Policy S6.32 Apply hazard reduction, fuel modification, and other methods to reduce wildfire hazards to existing and new development in urban wildland interface areas. •(T—IC-4 SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126/05 12 Policy S6.43 Site and design new development to avoid the need to extend fuel modification • zones into sensitive habitats. CP Policy S6.54 Use fire -resistive, native plant species from the City -approved plant list in fuel modification zones abutting sensitive habitats. a) CPI Policy S6.65 Prohibit invasive ornamental plant species in fuel modification zones abutting sensitive habitats. CP Policy S6.7G Continue to maintain a database of parcels in urban wildland interface areas. .CP Policy S6.87 Continue ml-xgV ar inspections of parcels in the urban wiidland interface areas and, '_` neeees.:_ , ditect 41-e—property owners to bring their property into compliance with fire inspection standards. ,CP Policy S6.98 Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to VmZide for fire safety design. ..CP pfeer-ties to „a.. t t- . a,.nget, . i Policy S6.149 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 -Deis 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 priei! ta appi!Ewal a f-any development within identified methane gas districts are -be deeigned consistent with the regturements 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. SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 13 Policy 57.5 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 57.6 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. E Aviation Hazards Goal S8 Inrpaets-i"Residents, property, and the environment are protected from aviation -related hazards . ORION Policy S8 91 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 58.3�2 Provide Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting awareness training for all Newport Beach emergency personnel on a regular basis. Policy S8.Q 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 58.74 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. 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 SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 14 disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and fellewing it disastet. will be implemented. Policy 59.1 Review and update, as necessary, the City's Emergency Management Plan on an annual basis. t Gity', Rmetgetiey r r m f6ja effidew Pettey 89.2 Eastite that the 5 Y Policy S9.3 Ensure that all Newport Beach Personnel are familiar with the National Incident Management System, the National Response Plan the State of California Master Mutual Aid Agreement, t r 44 Gftsu_lw ineid nt es .__e Plat-. the Orange County'e Operational Area Mutual Aid Plan the c M t n ifl Pifin. t c r' . __,t o,.seti,.'n r. tual and agy other relevant response Plane consistent with their position in the City's Emergency Management Plan. Conduct annual training sessions ush�¢ adopted emergency management systems. Coordinate with other urban area jurisdictions to execute a variety of exercises to test operational and emergency ip ans. Policy 59.5 Sponsor and disseminate—sagpert--educadon programs pertaining to emergency/disaster preparedness. evacuation —and response protocols and . procedures. Distribute information -err about emergency p6+3rring-prenar_�dness to community groups, schools, religious institutions, *ntl-transient occupancy establishments. business associations and residents.: Policy S149_6 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 disseminated to the public. An evacuation route traffic monitoring system that provides real-time information on the traffic flow at critical roadways should be considered. aLl Policy 53�9_7 Implement flood warning systems and evacuation plans for areas that are already developed within 100-year flood zones. management systems. Policy SgA9.8 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 S8=49.9 Develop, implement, and exercise a citywide aviation emergency response plan. Policy S$39.10 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. SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 15 0 • exercises to test operational and emergency Plans. Policy 9.12 Maintain participation in local regional state and national mutual aid systems to Polimr 913 Develop and maintain a hazard miti�ation plan that advocates the use of SAFETY —DRAFT, 9126105 16 in-- "Newport Village"'site, .north of'th-e Library, shall be-dev-eloped'ras a City park.- • t (Develoament Capacity RetalVentertainment: increase entitlement''by approximately 125;000 square feet (riet increase•of 426,600'aquare,feet.above existiny.yse)',' In Office: no change from, existing entitlement (net increase,of 40;000 square feetabove General,Plan) �■ Housing: increase entitlement by600 dwelling units ■ Hotel: increase entitlement by'65 rooms (net,incfease of 250400ms above existing use). Policy Discussion j ■ 'Pedestrian access and connectivity -should be 'improved with additional walkways and streetscape} amenities. Addttional;retail entitlementshould:not _be used.fo1a9fric0 development Basis for Recommendations 1. In the Visioning' process a majority of residents and businesses supported little or no change to Newport Center, but some were willing to allow growth for existing companies. At the same time, a majority supported keeping retail space at current levels, but many were willing to support expansion of existing stores and moderate increases for new businesses. Some participants favored mixed -use • development and stressed the need for more affordable housing in particular. A majority of resident and business survey respondents supported building new hotels in Newport Center. 2. In the Public Workshop, approximately, two-thirds of the participants expressed moderate to strong support for the expansion of retail and entertainment uses in Fashion Island and about half supported the development of another retail anchor. Over half were opposed to further office development, while two thirds indicated support for additional hotel rooms. Development of additional housing was strongly supported by three-quarters of the participants. 3. The flexibility to develop retail space and hotel rooms will enable Fashion Island to respond to market demands as they evolve over the next 20 years and help to maintain its economic viability. 4. Additional hotel, retail, and residential uses will contribute to the City's fiscal well-being, while more office development would not pay the full costs to provide needed City services. 5. Increased residential entitlement will enable a larger number of persons to live close to their jobs, commerce, entertainment and recreation, reducing vehicle trips and length, energy consumption, and air pollution below those resulting from more dispersed patterns of development. Newport Center residents who commute to jobs outside the area will be traveling in the opposite direction of peak hour traffic. 6. Among the Guiding Principles that support the recommendations are: a. Support City efforts to optimize retail sales capture in the community. b. Facilitate the development and retention of a variety of business types that strengthen the vitality • of the local economy. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 36 J CORONA DEL MAR Description The Corona del Mar planning area is located along Pacific Coast Highway from Avocado Avenue to Hazel Drive. Figure 6-1 shows the regional location of the Corona del Mar area. Commercial land uses front Coast Highway with residential land uses directly to the east and west of the commercial uses. This area is primarily commercial (78.6 percent), with a mix of neighborhood -serving commercial (approximately 10.0 percent) and specialty shops (6.0 percent). Primary retail uses include restaurants (more than 8.0 percent), home furnishings, and other specialty shops ranging from apparel to architectural design services, Many commercial uses (about 40.2 percent of the area) are located in multi -tenant buildings with retail on the first floor of buildings and professional services located on the second floor. While there were a few commercial vacancies at the time of the land use survey, the most prominent was that of the Port Theatre located at the corner of Coast Highway and Heliotrope. Sherman Library and Gardens (about 9.0 percent of the area) is a private facility and research library open to the public. There is an assisted -living residential complex representing 7.4 percent of land uses in the area. Corona del Mar is pedestrian -oriented with a dense mix of commercial uses, streetscape amenities, street medians, and a limited number of signalized crosswalks. The Corona del Mar Business Improvement District (BID) was established in 1996 to enhance the shopping district of Corona del Mar to create an exciting, pedestrian and resident friendly experience. In 1999, the BID developed the 'Vision 2004" Plan to implement community improvements for Corona del Mar. The plan envisions the creation of a linear park -like environment along Coast Highway from • Avocado Avenue to Seaward Drive. The plan also calls for sidewalk landscaping, street furniture, street lighting fixtures, pedestrian activated crosswalks, parking lanes and various other improvements. A Specific Plan has also been contemplated for this area, but one has not been developed. Kit 0m, mendaivo.ns ` r vision ,A pedestrian -oriented "village" that serves, as the center of,community, commerce, culture, and social, (activity and provides Identity foe Corona del Mar. - 'Uses (refer to Figure 9) in, 'Retail, office, cultural, and civic uses (comparable to -and compatible,with,existing development),, ■ Shared parking structures, pro4lded that'thelground floor ofthe street'frontage:contains retail'uses. ■ Surface parking on parcels directly behind commercial uses. Development Capacity ■ 'Retail commercial, and office uses: 0.6 FAR (per existing GenerafPlan) lP.olicvDiscussion Allow buildings to^be renovated, upgraded �or reconstructed to their pre-existing denbity if they exbeed{ • the permitted 0.5 FAR. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 38 I■4 Office, industrial; airport -related, and residential=supporting'reta'll in the.Campus'tracY(sub-area "B"); • j and housing' in areas'exposed to a CNEL of less than 65 dBA: A -higher development, intensity khanI t exists should' be allowed' as an, incentive 'for redevelopment (within prescribed airport height) restrictions); • [Development Capacity ■ Retail: maximum of 100,000 square,feet,'of additional development.(50% less than •existing General Plan). �■ Office; net reduction of approximately 676,000 square; feet,firom existing ,use' 0 million square'feeff less than existing General -Plan). ■ Industrial: maximum of 43;000 square,of additional3development (per- existing•General'Pian). ■ Hotel: additional 125 rooms. Residential: maximum of 4,300 units as re -use and :infill of properties; currently developed, for, office, industrial, and, retail uses. In the Campus Tract the number of,? residential units shall be determined' by ,the, requirement that their vehicle trips generated 'shallnot; exceed those attributable to the permitted•undedying non-residential•use. ' ;Policy Discussion ■ 'Establish .development standards and'design guidelines to assure that residential development,' creates a -cohesive district'that is compatible and integrated•with adjoining office; retail, and industrial, uses. At a minimum, the guidelines should address site -planning, 'architectural,character, landscape, site access/driveways, parking, streetscape/urban design elements,,and inclusion of open space and; recreational amenities. ■ To assure compliance ,with State, Noise Guidelines and'the Airport, Environs Ladd Use Plan,,housing, shall be located outside of areas exposedto a,65 dBA CNEL.: ; ■ Underperforming retail uses located on -parcels at the, interior of,large blocks should ,be redeveloped' for other uses, with retail clustered ,along major arterials (e:g., Bristol, 'Campus, MacArthur, and, Jamboree), except Where intended taserve and be integrated with new housing development. !■ :Incentives should be given to .encourage 'lot consolidation and! the re -use .and improvement of, properties located, in_the "Campus tract," west,of Birch Street. Basis for Recommendations Visioning process participants prefer revitalization of the Airport Area with income generating land uses over undirected growth. Generally, a range of development types were acceptable as long as traffic is not adversely affected. There was strong support for new hotels and broad consensus on mixed -use development with residential and revenue -generating uses. Survey respondents were comfortable with low-rise office buildings, and opposed to more car dealerships and industrial uses. There was split support for high-rise development and retail. 2. A majority of Visioning process participants believe it is acceptable to have more traffic congestion in certain locations of the City, such as the Airport Area, than in other parts of the City. GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 43 ■ The property does not have a General Plan or zoning land use designation. • Recomme,mdatloin • Basis for Recommendation ■ GPAC wishes to preserve the site for open space. ■ In the opinion of the staff and consultant, there is a unique opportunity to develop a portion of the site to enhance economic activity and fiscal benefits, because it is large (5.3 acres), in single ownership, and has freeway visibility. ZEMNANT PROPERTY ADJOINING THE CORONA DEL MAR/73 FREEWAY JORTH OF BISON AVENUE Description ■ Vacant property owned by the Irvine Company, a remnant from immediately abutting residential developments located to the west and functions as drainage corridor. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Undesignated." tacommend,at1ori Desionatefor "open space." Basis for Recommendation ■ Preserves open space and local drainage. ■ Topography and configuration limit its suitability for development. JORTH SIDE OF SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, EAST OF SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD, ANC VEST OF WEST NEWPORT HILLS DRIVE (FORMER CHILD CARE FACILITY) iRs1'i�t� Description ■ Single parcel formerly used as a child care facility, abutting multi -family residential uses. ■ Designated by the existing General Plan as "Government, Educational, and Institutional." R e c o m m, e'n d a t i o n ■ Re -designate as "Mulfi'FamilResidential " With,no access Flom San Miguel • GPAC LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS 49 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Saturday, October 15, 2005 Roger Alford Ronald Baers Patrick Bartolic Phillip Bettencourt � Carol Boice Elizabeth Bonn Gus Chabre John Corrough Lila Crespin 1S�f 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 Navai Catherine O'Hara Charles Remley�� Larry Root John Saunders Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler u Cl rj 1 41 '% 0 o-4 Wgj 7,01 GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE Saturday, October 15, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE 0 E-MAIL ADDRESS (e • GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE Saturday, October 15, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESS/PHONE 0' E-MAIL ADDRESS • GENERAL PLAN AASORY COMMITTEE Saturday, October 15, 2005 PUBLIC SIGN -IN NAME ADDRESSIPHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS F•. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Saturday, October 15, 2005, at the Newport Beach Central Library. Members Present: Patrick Bartolic Bob Hendrickson Carol Boice Mike Ishikawa Elizabeth Bonn Mike Johnson Grace Dove Lucille Kuehn , Nancy Gardner Philip Lugar Gordon Glass Jim Naval Louise Greeley Charles Remley Members Absent: • Roger Alford Laura Dietz Ronald Baers Ledge Hale Phillip Bettencourt Tom Hyans (sick leave) Gus Chabre Kim Jansma John Corrough Bill Kelly Lila Crespin Donald Krotee Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Woodie Tescher, EIP Consultant Harriett Lai Ross, EIP Members of the Public Present: Lynn Cathcart Kelly Hillman Laura Curran Larry Porter I. Call to Order 0 Phillip Lugar called the meeting to order. Larry Root Hall Seely Jan Vandersloot Tom Webber Ron Yeo Raymond Zartler William Lusk Barbara Lyon Marie Marston Catherine O'Hara (sick leave) John Saunders DRAFT Ms. Gardner announced that the City Council had decided not to include the Historical • Resources and Arts/Cultural Resources elements in the General Plan. She advised that because it was not on this agenda the Committee could not discuss it today. The Committee asked for the item to come back in the future. II. Policy Review: Natural Resources / Recreation Natural Resources Jan Vandersloot pointed out that the narrative the environmental areas should be considered to be ESHAs instead of ESAs. Ms. Wood indicated staff would take another look at that issue. Mr. Vandersloot also questioned the reference to the CIOSA sites, he felt there were additional areas that needed to be included. Ms. Temple indicated staff would check. Water Supply Ms. Gardner asked about NR 1.1, why was the policy only concerned about limiting water usage during water shortages. She also asked if NR 2.2 should indicate that a desalinization project would be beneficial to the City. She also asked if we should encourage looking at tiered water rates which would encourage water conservation. Mr. Tescher suggested consider the appropriateness of tiered water rates in the future. Gordon Glass thought that the language in NR 1.1 requiring the use of water efficient • landscaping was too strong. Mr. Tescher pointed out that the language needs to be there based on current State legislation, he added the codes today require more efficient approach to landscaping. Water Quality Mr. Glass asked if there were techniques for minimizing runoff on site as required in policy 4.11. Ms. Temple responded that there is a current requirement for projects of a certain size to have a water quality management plan dealing with construction and the long term of the project. Patrick Bartolic asked if there was a place in this section to allow property owners to clean the sidewalks which should be better for water quality if they are proactive in cleaning more often. Mr. Tescher suggested adding language to 4.18. Carol Boice asked where the water from carwashes go, including the car dealerships. Ms. Wood responded that the water used at the carwash goes into the drain and is treated and the dealerships will also have to comply with wter quality management plan sometime in the future. Mr. Webber asked if the language in 4.18 should be changed because as frequently as necessary to remove debris" could mean the streets need to be swept everyday. He suggested taking out "as necessary." Grace Dove thought 4.8 should include language to address runoff from other cities. • Mr. Tescher suggested adding the language to 4.6 because the NPDES standards give us the leverage. 2 Ron Yeo suggested adding alleys to 4.18. Greg Ramirez suggested using "rights of • way" which would include sidewalks, alleys, etc. Mr. Vandersloot thought the reference to the Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project in 5.2 was a misnomer because the project is actually a detention basin building project. Mr. Tescher suggested changing the language to "a restoration project." Harriet Lai Ross pointed out that it would change the meaning so a new policy should be added that says secure funding for the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project. Mr. Tescher indicated there were two questions here, one is whether the project should be supported and if yes then we'll keep the policy; and ,two is Mr. Vandersloot's recommendation in terms of the characteristic of what the project is going to achieve needs to be defined in the policy. Mr. Remley suggested eliminating the word "project." Mr. Hendrickson agreed and made a motion to delete the word project. MOTION PASSED. Mr. Tescher added that the wording would be changed to lower case. Ms. Gardner asked that the second to the last line in 4.16 switch the wording to treating and diverting. She also asked if there was a section encouraging wetlands and other water quality treatments. Mr. Tescher stated a policy would be added that talks about integration of natural wetlands into developed projects as a way to treat water quality. Mr. Lugar asked for comments from the public on water quality. Larry Porter, Newport Beach, felt the narrative on page 1 needed to be completely • rewritten because it was in error; he stated the City currently receives 62% of the water supply from the ground water basin which was recently reduced by OCWD and the rest comes from MWD. He felt the narrative indicated there is an unlimited water supply that will support the additional demand which is not true. Laura Curran, Corona del Mar, asked that the narrative include language about the protection of the habitats listed. She suggested a policy encouraging use of native plants that are also water efficient. She encouraged continued public education to let residents know about rate increases; rates recently were increased without much public comment. She thought requiring residents to use pervious services in their parkways would help in Corona del Mar where many people cement their parkways. Mr. Vandersloot suggested adding a policy encouraging the use of native drought resistant plantings and landscaping. And also adding a policy establishing a public education program to encourage water conservation. Mr. Lugar had a problem with native landscaping because the area was a desert so native would mean desert cactus. Mr. Vandersloot suggested native and/or drought resistant plants. Ms. Gardner asked if there was another area for this language because native plants really don't deal with water quality. Mr. Hendrickson asked if there was a policy addressing pesticides and other things people put on their lawns that end up running off into the ocean. Ms. Temple stated • the only water treated is anything that goes into the sanitary sewer system and there is a very limited number of uses requiring their drainage to go into that system. Ms. Gardner suggested adding something encouraging organic gardening products. Mr. 3 DRAFT Hendrickson stated he was suggesting something like that as well as establishing . treatment of water before it goes into the ocean as some other cities have done. He suggested, encourage treatment of storm water runoff prior to it going into the ocean. Mr. Tescher asked if 4.4 addressed his concerns. Mr. Vandersloot indicated there were immerging technologies and filters that could be used. Ms. Wood thought 4.4 covered the issue. Hall Seely suggested adding language to 1.4 to establish program to actively promote water conservation educational programs. Mr. Hendrickson suggested adding water quality as well as water conservation educational programs. Mr. Tescher indicated we already had it in water quality. Mr. Bartolic suggested adding language to address the use of permeable surfaces in the parkways. Lucille Kuehn suggested adding preserve parkways. Mr. Tescher suggested require new development and public improvements. Mr. Bartolic agreed. Air Qqali Mr. Webber thought the language in 7.7 should be changed from cleanest vehicles to clean vehicles. Mr. Vandersloot opposed that change because he thought we should buy the cleanest vehicles. Ms. Gardner disagreed stating that for example natural gas would require setting up a whole system; it might be a matter of economics. Mr. Vandersloot stated in Policy 7.2 he was not in support of mixed use development • because he doesn't agree that people are going to walk from their residence to the businesses. He sees it as a way to increase density. Mr. Glass indicated mixed use had already been addressed in other elements. Ms. Wood indicated we may have to revisit this policy when the Land Use policy is finalized. Mr. Bartolic asked if this section addressed the leaf blowers; he felt the blowers affect the air quality. He suggested using vacuums as opposed to blowers. Mr. Lugar asked if there were codes restricting the use as far as air quality or noise. Ms. Temple reported that we limit the hours they can be operated. Ms. Wood added that it is a very touchy subject. Mr. Tescher pointed out that air quality management districts have proposed restricting the use of gas leaf blowers and its been defeated. Ms. Kuehn made a motion to eliminate the use of blowers. Mr. Bartolic suggested discouraging the use rather than eliminating. He added that the City should not use them and homeowners should be discouraged. Mike Johnson asked to amend it to all gas powered lawn mower equipment. Ms. Gardner added two stroke engines which would include personal craft in the bay. Ms. Wood didn't see the City ever having enforcement resources for that type of policy. Mr. Tescher clarified the motion prohibiting the City and discouraging private property owners. MOTION PASSED Ms. Gardner asked that 8.1 be divided somehow to include the larger equipment, we're not going to tell people what type refrigerator to purchase. She added that supporting wasn't strong enough language. Mr. Tescher indicated Title 24 does the requiring and • the City is supporting it by implementing Title 24. Z DRAFT Mr. Vandersloot commented on 9.3 stating the City should encourage less polluting • aircraft including noise also. Ms. Wood thought that if the policy was rewritten, that was what it was supposed to say. Ms. Kuehn didn't think the language was strong enough because it's a major problem and will increase when gates are added. Mr. Lugar pointed out that we don't have jurisdiction over the airport. Mr. Vandersloot asked what high gate utilization meant. Ms. Wood indicated she got the language from a presentation to Council by Allan Murphy; she indicated it meant they pack every plane to maximize the number of people flying with minimizing the number of aircraft. Mr. Lugar asked for public comments. Laura Curran, Corona del Mar, thought Goal NR7 should include support for bicycle traffic encouraging bike lanes, education, etc. Specific areas of concern for bicycles are Mariner's Mile and Corona del Mar. She also asked that language be added to 7.5 to promote use mass transit through careful planning of routes and use of bus shelters/benches at bus stops. She also asked to add language to Goal NR 8 to discourage people from leaving their vehicles running at the curb. Ms. Boice stated the bus shelters in Corona del Mar were put in by the CdM BID. Mr. Lugar asked if everyone approved adding bus shelters to 7.5. The committee agreed. Mr. Tescher asked if the group agreed to add bicycles to 7.4. Mr. Lugar asked that it also include language or an additional policy for education. Mr. Hendrickson opposed that stating he doesn't think the City should fund education. Mr. Lugar called for a vote • on adding a policy regarding education for air quality. MOTION PASSED. Mr. Zartler asked if we were going to address the need for bike lanes. Mr. Tescher indicated there is a substantial section in the Circulation Element covering bicycles. Mr. Bartolic asked to add some support for establishing a City -owned transit system, allowing locals to use the system instead of their cars. Mr. Tescher indicated the Circulation Element would be a more appropriate location. Biological Resources Mr. Webber thought the statements in 10.10 don't agree; one deals with preserving open space and the next with development. Ms. Gardner stated that was our recommendation in the Land Use Element, first priority was open space. Mr. Tescher indicated staff would work on the language to make it more consistent. Mr. Webber also commented on 11.1 stating it could be integrated with 11.2 as one policy. He also suggested deleting the last sentence in 11.1 that relates to reforestation of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor, he added that eelgrass is a problem now. Mr. Lugar pointed out it did say where feasible. Mr. Tescher suggested changing the word throughout to the word in. Mr. Glass asked that 10.10 be amended to indicate it referred to future development. Ms. Dove was concerned that there is a hole in this area for things that aren't • endangered yet but depend on the ocean and bay for survival. Ms. Gardner thought 10.1 states to protect terrestrial and marine resources. Mr. Glass felt Goal NR 10 5 DRAFT covered the subject. Mr. Bartolic pointed out that the City's program regarding . protection of the tidepools went above and beyond the State requirements. Ms. Dove pointed out that the burrowing owls were a dime a dozen and were ignored until they became endangered. Mr. Vandersloot suggested a separate goal protecting terrestrial and marine resources through identification and protection of habitat within the City. Mr. Tescher indicated we need to identify what we are protecting otherwise you're protecting mice, pigeons, etc. Mr. Bartolic made a motion that the City be proactive in protecting terrestrial and marine resources. Mr. Lugar called for a vote on the motion. MOTION PASSED. Ms. Wood suggested deleting 10.13 which is an implementation action for what was just done. The Committee agreed. Ms. Gardner asked if NR 14 was referring to established channels or creating new ones. Mr. Glass asked to change the language to maintain sufficient area for the navigation of boats. Ms. Wood pointed out that she has received input from other staff people that this goal shouldn't deal with the entire Newport Bay, so it will be separated out with one goal for the Upper Newport Bay dealing mostly with habitat and another goal for Lower Newport Bay which is more harbor oriented. She added that 16.1 addresses Mr. Glass' concern. Ms. Dove asked what is the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park. Ms. Temple indicated it was a County park. Ms. Dove indicated it was the Upper Newport Bay Ecological • Reserve. Ms. Temple stated she would check the name. Mr. Vandersloot opposes 15.3, the permanent use designation for LA3 and asked to delete the policy. Mr. Tescher suggested changing the language to state, work with appropriate agencies to identify and secure appropriate sites for sediment disposal, which would not identify a specific site. The Committee agreed. Mr. Vandersloot also asked that the language in 16.2 be changed to continue support of and secure federal funding for an upper Newport bay ecosystem restoration, rather than "the" upper Newport bay ecosystem restoration. • Open Space Resources Mr. Vandersloot asked why the language in 17.2 considers conversion of public sites instead of prohibiting conversion of public sites. Mr. Glass asked if the conversion could be a park instead of a building. Mr. Tescher stated it could. Mr. Yeo thought that the policy should protect public sites designated open space from other uses. Ms. Gardner made a motion to eliminate 17.2. MOTION PASSED Mr. Yeo suggested adding the words "and expand" to 17.1. The Committee agreed. No public comments. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources No comments from the Committee or public on this section. [: F'' Mineral Resources • Ms. Boice asked how much power the City had. Ms. Wood stated our Charter prohibits any new facilities within the City, so to the extent that support facilities would be needed on land we could prevent them. Ms. Temple added that we could not prevent platforms themselves because we have no land use authority. Mr. Tescher added they would have to be outside the 3 mile limit. No public comments. Visual Resources Mr. Webber suggested changing the language in 20.3 to minimize impacts to public views which would be consistent with 20.4 and 21.1. Mr. Vandersloot disagreed and wanted to stay with protect. Mr. Yeo made a motion to change the language to protect and enhance. Mr. Vandersloot agreed and wanted to add view segments and suggested adding other locations to the list. Mr. Lugar called for a vote on the motion. MOTION PASSED Mr. Lugar asked if the Committee wanted to add Cliff Drive, Kings Road and Galaxy Drive to the list. Ms. Gardner thought it would weaken the policy if there are already parks there. Mr. Vandersloot stated he was referring to roadway segments. Ms. Temple had concerns that the roadway segments might get too small and they view at the parks are already protected. Mr. Yeo indicated what we are trying to say is that we . don't want to have any more Balboa Bay Clubs. Ms. Gardner thought we should just say that. Ms. Dove asked if we should add a segment, Balboa Boulevard between 15th and 18th. Ms. Temple said that would be a separate policy. Ms. Gardner felt that might be too specific and maybe add language to say protect and where feasible enhance and/or create new. Mr. Naval asked for a clarification regarding the view protection for the park on Kings Road versus view protection for private residents. Ms. Gardner pointed out that early in this process it was decided we weren't going to get into the private view issue, only public views. Ms. Gardner suggested adding language to 20.3 to suggest that the list is not finite. Mr. Webber asked why the Irvine Terrace area was left out of 23.2 as well as the bluff area on Bayside from Jamboree down to Corona del Mar. Mr. Vandersloot agreed stating the new setback in the LCP is 25 feet from the bluff edge. Ms. Gardner asked about 23.7 as it pertains to the predominant line of existing development in Buck Gully. Ms. Temple indicated some people along Hazel had added accessory structures in that area, she added that the implementation application would be different for properties north of 5th Avenue and we don't want to put the City in the position of not being able to issue building permits for reconstruction. Mr. Webber made a motion to include Irvine Terrace in 20.2, 3 and 4. Mr. Tescher asked if he wanted to include Newport Heights also. Mr. Webber indicated he did. Ms. . Temple indicated we would match it to the LCP. She also added that Irvine Terrace was not considered coastal bluff because it's a manufactured slope. Mr. Vandersloot II DRAFT stated the Coastal Commission didn't agree with that. Mr. Lugar called for a vote on . the motion. MOTION PASSED. Mr. Naval asked about 22.1 and why we shouldn't protect the coastal view. Ms. Gardner agreed. Ms. Wood indicated where public views would not be impacted. Ms. Gardner asked why should someone be able to amend that height restriction and cut off private views behind it. Ms. Wood pointed out it said consider. Mr. Lugar suggested deleting the sentence that consider amending. Mr. Naval agreed. Ms. Wood indicated the purpose of the policy was to allow the mixed use development on the inland side of Mariner's Mile. Mr. Tescher indicated the discussion included allowing taller, buildings if they did not impact views. Mr. Naval stated if they didn't affect views then let them do it. Mr. Tescher pointed out that it changes the height in the zone. Ms. Gardner suggested consider amending the boundary of this zone where views would not be impacted. Ms. Wood indicated that the City has never dealt with private views so this would be a policy departure. Mr. Naval made a motion to review the second sentence. MOTION PASSED. Ms. Boice asked if 21.3, could the tower lines along MacArthur Boulevard be put underground also. Mr. Tescher indicated that technically it can be done but there is an issue of safety and cost. Mr. Yeo made a motion to add language to 22.2 encouraging opening up windows to the bay. MOTION PASSED • No public comments. Energy Conservation Mr. Johnson asked if this section covered solar panels. Mr. Tescher suggestedadding solar panels to 24.2. Mr. Lugar added shade trees. Mr. Glass thought adding shade trees was a great idea however it might cause problems if the City if promoting trees at the expense of private views. Mr. Johnson stated he was on the PB&R Commission and one of the problems were trees planted in Corona del Mar growing too tall and affecting views in Harborview. Mr. Vandersloot indicated the wrong trees were selected and smaller shade trees wouldn't cause a problem. Mr. Lugar suggested adding trees of appropriate height. Ms. Gardner thought that was adding too much detail. Mr. Lugar made a motion to eliminate the words in the sentence beginning with "including" and ending with "cooling" leaving just "promote energy efficient design features." MOTION PASSED No public comments. RECREATION Ms. Dove pointed out on page 4 there was reference to the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park and the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve. Ms. Temple indicated she would check the names. • Mr. Vandersloot pointed out that on page 2 there is reference to four sites dedicated under CIOSA. Ms. Gardner indicated that would be made consistent with the earlier section. Mr. Vandersloot asked if the beach acreage should be included in the park system. Ms. Wood pointed out that could cause problems because due to state law we were able to require dedication of parkland at no more than 3 acres per 1,000 unless you had something greater than that; if the beaches were included we would have more than 3 acres per 1,000. Facilities Mr. Naval indicated the small park on Kings Road did not have any facilities and during the boat parade that becomes a problem with all the people visiting to watch the parade; he asked if this problem has been considered. Ms. Temple indicated there were other small/view parks without facilities and because they are view parks the City wouldn't want to add permanent buildings. Mr. Bartolic asked if passive parks could include access relative to parking; and pointed out that the Back Bay View Park is a great open space but there's nowhere to park. Ms. Wood indicated there is public parking provided on Backbay Drive. Mr. Bartolic suggested providing a limited number of parking spaces as Aliso Viejo does. Ms. Wood advised that access for parking at the Back Bay View park would not be safe from Coast Highway or Jamboree. Mr. Yeo asked about the adequacy of 44 sq. ft. referred to in 1.3. Mr. Tescher indicated it was a national standard for higher density units. Mr. Bartolic made a motion to provide adequate public access to the shoreline, beach, • coastal parks, trails and bay and acquire additional public access points to the areas and provide parking where practical or where possible. MOTION PASSED Ms. Boice asked if there was some way to control the lights from sports fields. Ms. Wood indicated that should be caught during the environmental review process. Mr. Tescher added the draft Land Use text has some policies to address the interface between public and private development citywide. Ms. Greeley made a motion to delete "possibly lighted" on page 7under identified issues and needs for Sunset Ridge Park. Ms. Gardner questioned limiting the future of that park. MOTION PASSED Mr. Glass asked if there was going to be a plan for the airport area. Mr. Tescher indicated there was a plan that would be covered in the Land Use Element. Ms. Dove asked if Marinapark should be included. Ms. Wood indicated she would talk to Dave Kiff to see what should be included. Ms. Dove made a motion to omit the priority order in 1.10. MOTION PASSED Ms. Dove made a motion to add Marinapark to the list. Mr. Webber disagreed stating we should wait until the City Council decides what to do with it. Ms. Wood indicated if the Council didn't agree, they could take it out. MOTION PASSED Mr. Glass asked that public beaches be added to 2.3. • No public comments. Q DRAFT Recreational Programs • Mr. Glass asked if the school district could give priority to local residents/programs. Mr. Lugar suggested adding something to 4.4. Mr. Glass made a motion to prioritize city outdoor youth programs. The Committee agreed. Mr. Bartolic asked if there was a restriction on outside entities using public facilities. Ms. Wood indicated 4.9 is the only policy addressing priority usage and that's with regard to the senior program. Ms. Boice indicated at OASIS for non-residents the cost is double. Ms. Kuehn thought the point was not to allow permanent/repeated usage. Elizabeth Bonn thought this as getting into some constitutional issues if you're prohibiting use of a public park because of what they do, restricting their right of association. Ms. Wood indicated he was referring to frequency of use. Ms. Gardner stated there was a policy, reservations can only be made for six months in advance. No public comments. Shared Facilities Ms. Dove proposed to add to 5.1, utilize non -City recreational facilities as a supplement to satisfy park and recreational needs. Mr. Glass asked that wording be added that would give priority on school property to City programs. Ms. Wood indicated we can't because they're not ours. Coastal Recreational & Support Facilities • Mr. Glass asked if wording could be added to 8.4 to prevent the County from dumping the Harbor Patrol on us. Ms. Wood indicated we might want it. Ms. Dove referred to 8.6 and indicated she had been on the list for 33 years, people are selling the moorings for $40,000. She added that live-aboards are not consistent with the tidelands trust. Mr. Webber indicated this was being looked at by the Harbor Commission. Ms. Wood indicated this issue would be included in the Harbor and Bay Element. Mr. Lugar asked if the word recreation could be added. Ms. Dove pointed out that 8.1 implies the City owns gas stations. Ms. Temple indicated the City has pump out stations; the word gas would be deleted. No public comments. III. Discussion of Future Agenda Items Mr. Lugar asked the locations of the future meetings. Ms. Wood indicated we were still trying to get confirmations, but the Saturday meetings should be here at the Library. More information will come with agenda packets. IV. Public comments None offered. 10