Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2024-0069_2025.10.17_Final EIR_Appendix F. Alternative 4 1 Date: October 9, 2025 Prepared by: Renee Escario and Brady Connolly To: Joselyn Perez, JPerez@newportbeachca.gov Site: Snug Harbor Surf Park Project Subject: EIR Alternative 4 Memorandum In response to public comments raised regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment to increase the development intensity for the site from the current limit of 20,000 SF to approximately 59,772 SF, an additional EIR alternative was identified that would implement the proposed surf park without the increase in development limit. This alternative is identified as the Reduced Amenities Alterative and is evaluated herein to be included as part of the Final EIR. Alternative 4: Reduced Amenities Alternative Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed amenities of the proposed surf lagoon would be reduced by eliminating the athlete accommodations and providing a smaller clubhouse building. Specifically, the amenity clubhouse would be a maximum of 20,000 square feet (SF) and would largely provide the same functions (e.g., sit-down restaurant, full-service bar, quick food service coffee bar/snack shack). Development under the Reduced Amenities Alternative would reduce the proposed building area by approximately 39,773 square feet. The size and operations of the surf lagoon under this alternative would remain unchanged relative to the proposed Project, consisting of two 5.1-million-gallon basins on the site with the same number of warming pools and a spa. Hours of operation and operational activities would be the same for the Reduced Amenities Alternative as those proposed by the Project. Consistent with the proposed Project, all of the golf amenities would be removed from the Project site and the nine holes of golf (holes 10-18) to the north of Irvine Avenue and the six holes of golf (holes 3-8) to the south of Mesa Drive would remain. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would be consistent with the City General Plan policies and Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan design guidelines; and would not require a General Plan Amendment because the clubhouse building would not be over 20,000 square feet in size. A CUP (as required for the Project) would be required for this alternative with the clubhouse building over 18 feet in height. A site plan, first floor and basement level plan, and exterior elevations are included as Figures 1 through 3 at the end of this memorandum. As shown in the site plan, the footprint for the Reduced Amenities Alternative including the clubhouse, parking lots, and surf lagoon would be in substantial conformance with the proposed site plan. The athlete accommodations building would be replaced with a passive lawn. Environmental Impacts Aesthetics Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the Project site would be developed with two 5.1-million-gallon surf basins and a 20,000-square-foot amenity clubhouse building. Development under the Reduced Amenities Alternative would reduce the proposed building area by approximately 39,773 square feet, 2 which would reduce the height and mass of the buildings compared to the proposed Project. This alternative would remove the existing structures, poles, and netting on the site and develop one new building and two surf basins that would be visually less dense than the proposed Project with increased setbacks and a larger percentage of landscaped area, as the athlete accommodations and related parking would not occur. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would be consistent with the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan design guidelines and would not require a GPA for development of over 20,000 square feet on the site. However, a CUP for construction of buildings in excess of 18 feet would be required. This alternative would introduce new sources of light and glare like the proposed Project (although from a smaller area from the reduction of development) and would be similarly subject to the Newport Beach Municipal Code lighting requirements that would be verified during the development review and permitting process. Overall, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would result in a smaller development with less visual mass but would result in similar less-than-significant impacts as the proposed Project. Air Quality Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. The Project site would be developed with two 5.1-million-gallon surf basins, and a 20,000- square-foot amenity clubhouse building. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would incrementally reduce the amount and duration of construction activities compared to the proposed Project, which in turn would result in less overall construction-related air quality emissions. However, as air quality emissions are based on peak day emissions pursuant to SCAQMD guidance, the daily grading and construction activities would have similar levels of maximum daily emissions as the proposed Project that would be less than significant. Under this alternative, the stationary source operational air quality emissions would be reduced compared to those that would be generated by the proposed Project because only 20,000 square feet of the amenity clubhouse would be operational, with no overnight accommodations. Emissions from vehicle trips would be similar as the Project, because the surf lagoon would have the same capacity for surfers as the proposed Project. As the Project would result in operational emissions below SCAQMD thresholds, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would result in emissions that would be slightly further below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, this alternative would result in less overall air quality impacts compared to the Project; however, impacts under both scenarios would be less than significant. Biological Resources Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. However, development of this alternative would continue to require demolition of the existing structures and removal of existing vegetation, including trees and shrubs, which could provide nesting habitat for migratory bird and bat species. As such, the impacts to biological resources at the Project site would be similar to the Project and require Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats. These mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts from this alternative to a less-than-significant level, which is consistent with the proposed Project. Thus, under both the Reduced Amenities Alternative and the proposed Project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Cultural Resources Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. Consistent with the findings for the proposed Project, no impacts related to historic resources would occur under this alternative scenario. However, development of this alternative would continue to require excavation and grading that could impact potential archaeological resources or human remains. Thus, potential impacts would be similar to the Project and the same mitigation (Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2) would be required to reduce potential impacts related to inadvertent discovery of an 3 archeological resource during construction to a less-than-significant level. Further, like the proposed Project, in the unanticipated event that human remains are found during construction activities compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would ensure that human remains are treated with dignity and as specified by law and provide that the impact is less than significant. Therefore, potential impacts would be similar to those under the proposed Project and mitigation measures would be required. Under both the Reduced Amenities Alternative and the proposed Project, impacts would be less than significant with compliance with existing regulations and mitigation incorporated. Energy Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. This would result in incrementally less demand for building energy in comparison to the proposed Project, which was determined to be less than significant. This alternative would also be required to be in compliance with Title 24 requirements and would include similar features to reduce energy usage, such as EV charging stations, solar panels on building roofs, and solar panels on canopies in the parking area to implement onsite renewable energy. However, the use of solar paneling would also be reduced with the loss of building roof area under this alternative. Overall, impacts to energy from the Reduced Amenities Alternative would be less than significant, which is consistent with the proposed Project. Geology and Soils Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. The Project site would be developed with two 5.1-million-gallon surf basins, and a 20,000- square-foot amenity clubhouse building. Although the structures and capacity of the site would be less under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the same potential risks related to seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse within the Project site would occur, and the same California Building Code requirements would apply. Likewise, the same potential soil erosion impacts would be less than significant with compliance with NPDES water quality standards which would be verified through the City’s permitting process. Although the area of excavation that would occur by the Reduced Amenities Alternative would be smaller than that of the proposed Project, the same mitigation measures regarding paleontological resources would be required. Overall, this alternative would also result in the same type of potential impacts and would be required to comply with the same regulations and mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts under the Reduced Amenities Alternative would be the same as those of the proposed Project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. The Project site would be developed with two 5.1-million-gallon surf basins, and a 20,000- square-foot amenity clubhouse building. Therefore, a reduced volume of construction activities and related production of GHG emissions would occur. In addition, the reduced amount of building development by this alternative would result in less stationary source emissions from the clubhouse building and removal of the athlete accommodations. However, the same GHG stationary source emissions would occur from the onsite surf lagoon equipment, and similar vehicular trips associated GHG emissions would occur because the surf lagoon would accommodate the same number of surfers. Therefore, the overall volume of GHG emissions would be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project from the reduced building, which would also be below the SCAQMD’s 3,000 MTCO2e threshold. Impacts related to GHG emissions under both the proposed Project and the Reduced Amenities Alternative would be less than significant. 4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. The Project site would be developed with two 5.1-million-gallon surf basins, and a 20,000- square-foot amenity clubhouse building. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would involve use, storage, and transport of the same types of hazardous materials for construction and operation. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would be required to comply with existing regulations regarding hazardous materials such as fuel, paints, solvents, chlorine, and other similar substances that would reduce potential impacts to a less- than-significant level. Likewise, California Code of Regulations Sections 1529 and 341.6 through 341.14 as implemented by SCAQMD Rule 1403 (included as PPP HAZ-1) ensure that asbestos removed during demolition of the existing buildings is transported and disposed of at an appropriate facility. Demolition and disposal of lead-based materials are regulated by the Code of Federal Regulations Title 29, Section 1926.62, and the California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 1532.1, as implemented by CalOSHA (and included as PPP HAZ-2), which would also be implemented under this alternative to reduce potential impacts and would be consistent with the proposed Project. The Reduced Amenities Alternative and the proposed Project would result in the same less-than-significant hazard impacts related to operations at John Wayne Airport (SNA), which is located 0.4 miles northeast of the Project site. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would include PDF-2, that would ensure onsite landscaping does not produce seeds, fruits, nuts, or berries providing food for birds that would be an attractant and wildlife hazards to airport operations would be less than significant. The Project site is within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan Notification Area for John Wayne Airport, FAR Part 77 Notification Imaginary Surface area, airport safety zones, and the 65 CNEL noise contour. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would not require review by the John Wayne Airport Land Use Commission but would require FAA Part 77 evaluation. Both the proposed Project and the Reduced Amenities Alternative would result in less-than-significant impacts related to John Wayne Airport operational hazards. Overall, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would result in the same less-than-significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials as the proposed Project. Hydrology and Water Quality Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. Due to the decrease in development, this alternative would result in a decrease in impermeable surfaces and an increase in pervious landscaping areas compared to the Project. Consistent with the Project, construction of the alternative would require implementation of a SWPPP and operational stormwater drainage would be managed through implementation of a WQMP that would detail the design of vegetated biotreatment systems for water quality that would be sized to treat runoff from the Design Capture Storm (85th percentile, 24-hour) as required by the Orange County DAMP. Thus, consistent with the Project these construction and operational impacts to site runoff, hydrology, and water quality from the Reduced Amenities Alternative would be less than significant. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would result in a reduction in water demand, as the amenity clubhouse would be smaller and no athlete accommodation units would be developed. As the Project water demand would consist of approximately 17.2 percent of the anticipated increase in water supply between 2025 and 2030, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would be approximately 15.7 percent or 74-acre feet per year. Although a greater volume of landscaping irrigation may occur from the larger setback onsite, that increase would be offset by the removal of the athlete accommodations. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would generate a reduction in overall water demand. Consistent with the Project, impacts related to groundwater recharge and groundwater management would be less than significant under the Reduced Amenities Alternative. 5 Land Use Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. The Project site would be developed with two 5.1-million-gallon surf basins, and a 20,000- square-foot amenity clubhouse building. This alternative does not include athlete accommodations and would have increased setbacks compared to the proposed Project. This alternative would not physically disrupt or divide the arrangement of an established community. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would be consistent with the General Plan policies and Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan design guidelines; and would not require a General Plan Amendment because the amenity clubhouse building would not be over 20,000 square feet in size. A CUP (as required for the Project) would be required for this alternative with the building over 18 feet in height. Overall, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment. However, impacts related to land use and planning from the Reduced Amenities Alternative would be less than significant, which is consistent with the proposed Project. Noise Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. The Project site would be developed with two 5.1-million-gallon surf basins, and a 20,000- square-foot amenity clubhouse building. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would involve the same types of noise sources, although construction noise would be over a shorter timeframe, and no athlete accommodations would occur. As the capacity for surfers in the lagoon would remain the same, it is assumed that operation of this alternative would result in the same number of daily trips as the proposed Project and would result in the same less than significant traffic noise that would occur from the proposed Project. Short-term noise and vibration impacts during construction would be similar to the Project. Although occurring over a shorter time period with less building construction on the site, the same excavation and grading would be required for the surf lagoon. Like the Project, long-term operational noise would not expose nearby sensitive receivers to noise levels over the City’s daytime noise standards. Overall, a reduction in development on site would occur under this alternative. However, noise impacts would be consistent with the Project, and impacts would be less than significant under both scenarios. Public Services Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. The reduction in clubhouse space and elimination of the athlete accommodations would likely result in a reduction in employees and would eliminate the limited 24-hour population on the site. It’s likely that the need for fire and police services would be reduced incrementally. However, the same fire, police, schools, and other public facilities would serve the Reduced Amenities Alternative and the same development impact fees (based on square footage/amount of development) would be required. Therefore, although the volume of services needed could be less due to the reduction in square footage, impacts of the Reduced Amenities Alternative would continue to be less than significant. Parks and Recreation Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet, which would likely result in a reduction in employees and would eliminate the limited 24-hour population on the site. The reduction in clubhouse space would reduce the recreational space amenities provided by the Project and result in a reduced benefit related to meeting overall commercial park and recreation needs. Consistent with the proposed Project, the nine holes of golf (holes 10-18) to the north of Irvine Avenue and the six holes of golf (holes 3-8) to the south of Mesa Drive would remain. The same public park and recreation facilities would serve the Reduced Amenities Alternative. The decrease in employees and accommodation visitors to the site could slightly decrease the number of park and recreation facility users compared to the 6 proposed Project. However, impacts related to parks and recreation would be less than significant under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, which is consistent with the proposed Project. Transportation Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet, which includes reduction of clubhouse space and elimination of the athlete accommodations. This alternative would continue to provide EV parking, bicycle parking, and be access from existing sidewalks and bicycle lanes. As described in Section 5.14, Transportation (Table 5.14-2), the proposed Project would result in approximately 186 net new daily trips with a net reduction of 73 a.m. peak hour trips and 10 p.m. peak hour trips compared to the existing golf course uses. While the Reduced Amenities Alternative would result in a deduction in square footage, the capacity of the surf lagoon would remain and the proposed Alternative would still include amenities such as the restaurant and bar, and thus would result in a similar amount of visitors to the site and would not result in a reduction in vehicle trips. Consistent with the proposed Project, the Reduced Amenity Alternative would not introduce an incompatible use, increase hazard due to a geometric design feature, or result in inadequate emergency access. The City’s development review and permitting process would ensure that potential transportation hazard and access impacts would not occur. Overall, this alternative would result in similar less-than-significant impacts as the proposed Project. Tribal Cultural Resources Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet. However, development of this alternative would continue to require excavation and grading that could impact potential tribal cultural resources. Thus, potential impacts would be similar to the Project and the same mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts related to inadvertent discovery of a tribal cultural resource during construction to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, although the area and depth of excavation/grading would be less under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, potential impacts would be similar to those the Project and mitigation measures would be required. Under both the Reduced Amenities Alternative and the proposed Project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Utilities and Service Systems Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet, by reduction in the size of the clubhouse and elimination of athlete accommodations. Both the Project and this alternative would require the construction of water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities on the site that would connect to existing offsite systems. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would also require draining of each basin every other year, and therefore, consistent with the Project, the sewer line improvement would also be included. As detailed previously in the hydrology and water quality discussion, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would generate a slight decrease of water demand as the proposed Project; and consistent with the Project, impacts related to water supply in normal, dry, and multiple dry years would be less than significant. Regarding wastewater treatment, the average annual generation of wastewater would be slightly reduced in comparison to the proposed Project; but impacts under both scenarios would be less than significant. Consistent with the proposed Project, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would include installation of a drainage system that would be sized to treat runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm as required by the Orange County DAMP. Thus, consistent with the Project, potential impacts to site drainage from the Reduced Amenities Alternative would be less than significant. As the Reduced Amenities Alternative would include a 39,773 square foot reduction in building area with less capacity and no overnight accommodations, it is anticipated that solid waste generated by the 7 alternative would also be reduced. In addition, this alternative would be subject to State recycling and solid waste regulations. Thus, the alternative would not result in the generation of solid waste in excess of landfill capacity and would be required to comply with existing regulations through the City’s permitting process. Further, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would require a reduced volume of natural gas and electricity for operations. Overall, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would result in a reduced demand for utilities and service systems, and, consistent with the Project, impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion Ability to Reduce Impacts Under the Reduced Amenities Alternative, the proposed Project building area would be reduced by 39,773 square feet by reduction in the size of the clubhouse and removal of the proposed athlete accommodations. Under this alternative, the Project site would be developed with two 5.1-million-gallon surf basins, and a 20,000-square-foot amenity clubhouse building. The Reduced Amenities Alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment as the onsite building would not be over 20,000 square feet. A CUP would be required for the building over 18 feet in height. The same construction related mitigation measures regarding to biological resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources would be required for implementation of the Reduced Amenities Alternative. Similarly, a reduced volume of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would occur from the Reduced Amenities Alternative; however, impacts under both the Project and the alternative would be less than significant. Overall, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would reduce potential impacts related to four topic areas; however, all of the mitigation measures required for the Project would continue to be required for the Reduced Amenities Alternative (see Table 1). Ability to Achieve Project Objectives As shown below is Table 2, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would meet the Project objectives, but not to the same extent as the proposed Project. This alternative would develop an innovative outdoor recreational opportunity; however, it would not offer the full services of the proposed Project including less amenities within the clubhouse and no overnight accommodations. This alternative would expand the City’s tourism economy, but not the extent or intensity of the proposed Project. The alternative would utilize sustainable solar energy onsite and would be consistent with SP-7 and the OSR designation. Overall, the Reduced Amenities Alternative would not meet all of the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project. Environmentally Superior Alternative Consistent with the Draft EIR, the No Project/No Build Alternative remains as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives would continue to be the Reduced Project Alternative, which would reduce the proposed Project by 50 percent. The surf lagoon would consist of one 5.1-million-gallon basin. The amenity clubhouse would be 50 percent smaller, and the athlete accommodations building would provide 10 units; with five units on each level. The alternative would also provide for 50 percent less parking on the site. The additional space provided by the 50 percent smaller development footprint would be landscaped. The Reduced Project Alternative would result in less development on the site, but it would continue to require a General Plan Amendment and Major Site Development Review for development of over 20,000 square feet on the site, and a CUP for parking and construction of buildings in excess of 18 feet. The same mitigation measures related to biological resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources would be required for implementation of the Reduced Project Alternative. Similarly, a reduced volume of noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions would occur from the Reduced Project 8 Alternative; however, impacts under both the Project and this alternative would be less than significant. Overall, the Reduced Project Alternative would reduce potential impacts related to six topic areas; however, all of the mitigation measures required for the Project would also be required for the Reduced Project Alternative. Table 1 provides, in summary format, a comparison between the level of impacts for each alternative evaluated in the EIR, the additional Reduced Amenities Alternative, and the proposed Project. In addition, Table 2 provides a comparison of the ability of each of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the proposed Project. Table 1: Impact Comparison of the Proposed Project and Alternative 4 Proposed Project Alternative 1 No Project/No Build Alternative 2 Reduced Project Alternative 3 Alternative Commercial Recreation Use Alternative 4 Reduced Amenities Aesthetics Less than significant Less than Project Same as Project Same as Project Same as Project Air Quality Less than significant Less than Project Reduced, but still less than significant Reduced, but still less than significant Reduced, but still less than significant Biological Resources Less than significant with mitigation Less than Project, and no mitigation Same as Project, mitigation required Same as Project, mitigation required Same as Project, mitigation required Cultural Resources Less than significant with mitigation Less than Project, and no mitigation Same as Project, mitigation required Same as Project, mitigation required Same as Project, mitigation required Energy Less than significant Less than Project Same as Project Same as Project Same as Project Geology and Soils Less than significant with mitigation Less than Project, and no mitigation Same as Project, mitigation required Same as Project, mitigation required Same as Project, mitigation required Greenhouse Gases Less than significant Less than Project Reduced, but still less than significant Reduced, but still less than significant Reduced, but still less than significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than significant Less than Project Same as Project Same as Project Same as Project Hydrology and Water Quality Less than significant Same as Project Same as Project Same as Project Same as Project Land Use and Planning Less than significant Less than Project Same as Project Reduced, but still less than significant Reduced, but still less than significant Noise Less than significant Less than Project Reduced, but still less than significant Same as Project Same as Project Public Services Less than significant Less than Project Reduced, but still less than significant Same as Project Reduced, but still less than significant 9 Table 2: Comparison of the Proposed Project and Alternatives Ability to Meet Project Objectives Project Alternative 1 No Project Alternative 2 Reduced Project Alternative 3 Alternative Commercial Recreation Use Alternative 4 Reduced Amenities 1. Provide an innovative, world- class, full-service, outdoor recreational opportunity to serve a wide range of guests. Yes No Yes, but to a lesser extent Partially Yes, but to a lesser extent 2. Maintain consistency with the existing Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP-7) and the Open Space and Recreation (OSR) Specific Plan designation. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. Expand the City’s tourism economy and expand transient occupancy tax revenues. Yes No Yes, but to a lesser extent Partially Yes, but to a lesser extent 4. Utilize sustainable solar energy onsite that is consistent with the City’s sustainability goals. Yes No Yes Yes, but to a lesser extent Yes Proposed Project Alternative 1 No Project/No Build Alternative 2 Reduced Project Alternative 3 Alternative Commercial Recreation Use Alternative 4 Reduced Amenities Parks and Recreation Less than significant Less than Project Reduced, but still less than significant Same as Project Same as Project Transportation Less than significant Less than Project Same as Project Same as Project Same as Project Tribal Cultural Resources Less than significant with mitigation Less than Project, and no mitigation Same as Project, mitigation required Same as Project, mitigation required Same as Project, mitigation required Utilities and Service Systems Less than significant Less than Project Reduced, but still less than significant Same as Project Same as Project Reduce Impacts of the Project? Yes Yes No Yes Areas of Reduced Impacts Compared to the Project 15 6 3 4 Areas of Reduced Mitigation Compared to the Project 4 No mitigation required 0 Same mitigation measures required 0 Same mitigation measures required 0 Same mitigation measures required 10 This page intentionally left blank Snug Harbor Surf Park Project City of Newport Beach Main St C L mb ia S t St a t e S t an 79 Ki r b y S t M o u n t ai n A ve wood A Esplanade Ave S o b o b a R d He w i t t S t St 7th St R a m o n G i Zoning Map 2022 0 1½ MilesRANCHO SAN JACINTO SP 12 This page intentionally left blank Snug Harbor Surf Park Project City of Newport Beach Main St C L mb ia S t St a t e S t an 79 Ki r b y S t M o u n t ai n A ve wood A Esplanade Ave S o b o b a R d He w i t t S t St 7th St R a m o n G i Zoning Map 2022 0 1½ MilesRANCHO SAN JACINTO SP 14 This page intentionally left blank Snug Harbor Surf Park Project City of Newport Beach Main St C L mb ia S t St a t e S t an 79 Ki r b y S t M o u n t ai n A ve wood A Esplanade Ave S o b o b a R d He w i t t S t St 7th St R a m o n G i Zoning Map 2022 0 1½ MilesRANCHO SAN JACINTO SP 16 This page intentionally left blank