Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - PA2003-093 - Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan - LCP Amendment 2004-0010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. I May 25, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3235 Palfordecity.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Update of Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan — LCP Amendment No. 2004 -001 (PA 2003 -093) ISSUE: Should the City Council approve the proposed comprehensive update of the LCP Land Use Plan? RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 2004- (Attachment A) approving the Coastal Land Use Plan and authorizing submittal to the Coastal Commission for formal review and approval (formal adoption requires a separate action by the City Council following Coastal Commission approval). DISCUSSION: This report provides an overview of the draft Coastal Land Use Plan and the key issues discussed at the Planning Commission hearings. The April 22, 2004 Planning Commission staff (Attachment B) report includes all of the comments received prior to the hearing and staffs response. Introduction: The Coastal Act The Coastal Act and the California Coastal Commission were established by voter initiative (Proposition 20) in 1972 and made permanent by the Legislature in 1976. The Coastal Act includes specific policies that address issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, LCP Coastal Land Use Plan May 25, 2004 Page 2 commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works. The Coastal Act requires local governments lying within the coastal zone to prepare Local Coastal Programs (LCP) that are consistent with the Coastal Act. In the absence of a certified LCP, any development within the coastal zone is subject to Coastal Commission approval. After certification of a LCP, coastal development permit authority is delegated to the local government. The Coastal Commission retains original permit jurisdiction over certain specified lands, such as submerged lands, tidelands, and public trust lands, and has appellate authority over development approved by local government in specified geographic areas. A LCP consists of a land use plan and an implementation plan. The land use plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. The implementation plan consists of the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments necessary to implement the land use plan. The current LCP Land Use Plan was first adopted by the City in 1981 and certified by the Coastal Commission in 1982. The LCP Land Use Plan was revised and re- certified in 1990. However, the implementation plan was never completed. SB 516 Senate Bill 516 amended the Coastal Act to authorize the County of Orange to continue to implement the certified LCP for Newport Coast following the area's annexation by the City. SB 516 also requires the City to submit a LCP for all of the geographic area within the coastal zone and the city's corporate boundaries as of June 30, 2000 to the Coastal Commission for approval and certification. On October 6, 2001, Coastal Commission staff concluded that a comprehensive update of the City's certified land use plan was necessary. The Coastal Commission staff gave the City the option of either submitting an updated land use plan as a separate application or submitting it concurrently with the LCP implementation plan. On January 8, 2002, the City Council appointed the LCP Certification Committee ( LCPCC) consisting of three City Council members and three Planning Commission members to provide direction and oversight to staff during this process. The LCPCC directed staff to proceed with the update of the land use plan. After the updated Land Use Plan is adopted by the City, it will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification. After certification of the Land Use Plan, the implementation plan will be prepared and reviewed and adopted locally before submission to the Coastal Commission for final certification. LCP Coastal Land Use Plan May 25, 2004 Page 3 1�I The Coastal Land Use Plan The updated LCP Land Use Plan is titled the "Coastal Land Use Plan" (CLUP). The CLUP is divided into five chapters: Introduction, Land Use and Development, Coastal Access and Recreation, Coastal Resource Protection, and the Glossary. Each chapter is divided into sections and subsections. Each section or subsection begins with the identification of the Coastal Act sections that are relevant to Newport Beach, followed by a narrative of the local setting and policy direction adopted by the City to address the requirements of the Coastal Act and a listing of specific policies. Chapter 1 is the introduction, which contains an explanation on the organization of the CLUP and background information on the Coastal Act and the City. Chapter 2 covers issues related to land use and development. Section 2.1 (Land Use) sets forth land use classifications and the distribution of land uses in the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan Map provides a graphic representation of policies by depicting the land use designation for each property in the coastal zone. Chapter 3 addresses issues relating to public access, the provision of recreation and support facilities, and vessel launching, berthing and storage. Chapter 4 addresses issues relating to the protection of coastal resources, which under the provisions of the Coastal Act, can be natural, scenic, cultural, recreational, or manmade. Chapter 5 contains the glossary. The glossary was developed primarily from information provided by the Coastal Commission and the technical studies that were used in draft the CLUP. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission held three hearings on the CLUP. On March 3, 2004, the Planning Commission received a summary of the major issues associated with the CLUP. At the March 18, 2004 hearing, the Planning Commission received a substantial number of comments from the public. The Planning Commission gave the public an additional two weeks to submit comments and directed staff to prepare a written response to comments and questions for the next hearing. On April 22, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed all of the comments. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the CLUP with several revisions. 0 3 LCP Coastal Land Use Plan May 25, 2004 Page 4 Key Issues: Precedence of the LCP E Section 1.3 (General Policies) contains a set of general policies that are to be applied to achieve the goals and objectives of the Coastal Act through the policies of this CLUP. Coastal Commission staff recommended that policies be included that would provide the framework for interpreting the CLUP. This recommendation included a policy stating that where there are conflicts between the policies of the land use plan and those set forth in any element of the City's general plan, zoning, or any other ordinance, the policies of the LCP's land use plan shall take precedence. This is a standard policy that the Coastal Commission appears to require in LCPs. However, the inclusion of this policy led to concerns by some in the community that the CLUP would be used to circumvent the development limits of the General Plan. The City cannot approve a coastal development permit that is inconsistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the CLUP could not be used to approve a development that exceeds the density or intensity limits set forth in the Land Use Element. Nevertheless, to further address these concerns, staff revised the Coastal Commission's recommended language to include the statement: "...in no case, shall the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances." This similar language is also provided in Section 2.1 (Land Use). Translating Land Use Designations The Coastal Act requires that a LCP land use plan include the relevant portion of the local government's general plan, which is sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses. The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth specific development limits, typically in terms of dwelling units, floor area, or a floor area ratio. Rather than duplicate the Land Use Element's lengthy narratives and allocation tables, staff summarized the information in the form of a standard land use classification hierarchy. Density ranges are identified in terms of the number of dwelling units per gross acre and development intensity ranges are identified in terms of a floor area to land area ratio. While this land use classification system is commonly used in general plans and LCPs, it has not been used by the City. The CLUP does not change the land use type or the density /intensity limit of any property in the coastal zone. The LCPCC sought to insure that the LCP certification process did not preempt the General Plan update currently being conducted by the City. • LCP Coastal Land Use Plan May 25, 2004 Page 5 Some public comments expressed concern over using more land use designations than are in the General Plan. However, this approach is necessary because the General Plan land use designations alone do not convey the land use controls that are contained in the narrative. For example, there are a number of properties that are designated Retail and Service Commercial, but are restricted to "neighborhood commercial land use." The CLUP provides this information through the CN designation. Similarly, the General Plan has only four residential land use designations, but this is inadequate to describe the range of residential densities allowed under the General Plan. Another concern was that there were a few properties where the floor area ratio of the General Plan was lower than the range identified in the CLUP. To address this concern, four new commercial land use designations were added to narrow the FAR range to more closely reflect General Plan limits. Categorical Exclusions Since 1977, a categorical exclusion order has exempted most single - family and two- family development from the coastal development permit provisions of the Coastal Act. Pursuant to the Coastal Act, this categorical exclusion order will automatically terminate after the LCP is certified. The Coastal Commission staff has indicated that they will support a new categorical exclusion order application filed concurrently with the certification of the LCP. The CLUP includes policies supporting expanding the categorical exclusion to include multi - family residential projects and the commercial area located on the south side of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. There was uncertainty whether properties with bluffs in Irvine Terrace would be included in a new categorical exclusion order. The CLUP was revised to insure that all of Irvine Terrace will be included in the new categorical exclusion order request. Visitor - serving Commercial The Coastal Commission staff believes that there is an "overemphasis" on use of a general commercial designation in lieu of a visitor- serving commercial designation in areas such as the Balboa Pier area, Balboa Island, and the Newport Pier area. To address this issue, the CLUP includes data from a 2002 retail commercial market analysis, which verifies that the City's main coastal zone commercial areas largely serve the visitor market. Also, Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV) designation is applied to properties with a concentration of visitor - serving uses, including the Lido Village Commercial area. 03 LCP Coastal Land Use Plan May 25, 2004 Page 6 Some of the public comments implied that the CV designation in Lido Village • Commercial area was only proposed to allow the development of a hotel on the Lido Marina Village site. However, both the General Plan and current LCP Land Use Plan designate the Lido Village Commercial area for Recreation and Marine Commercial and Retail and Service Commercial uses. Both land use designations specifically allow hotels. Removing the proposed CV designation will not preclude hotel development. Lido Village Commercial is a logical area for the CV designation because of the current high concentration of visitor - serving uses (gift shops, galleries, restaurants, boat charter, etc.) and bayfront location. Oil and Gas Development The City's opposition to federal offshore oil leasing programs and the City Charter ban on oil and gas exploration, drilling, production, and refining is reflected in the CLUP. Policies prohibit the construction of onshore oil processing, refining or transportation facilities, including facilities designed to transport oil produced from offshore tracts, with the exception of slant drilling from onshore oil fields. The Planning Commission received comments in opposition to these policies. These argued that either it was inappropriate to address this issue in the LCP or that it would jeopardize new oil and gas operations in Banning Ranch. It should be noted that the Coastal Commission staff stated that such a prohibition should not be included because these activities are allowed by the Coastal Act. They suggested that the CLUP may include a statement that the City has concerns about the potential adverse impacts on the marine environment, coastal views, etc. and can therefore limit the areas where offshore oil production can be allowed; however, no outright prohibition should be included. The LCPCC considered the Coastal Commission's comments, but chose to keep this language in the CLUP because it reflects the current prohibition on such facilities contained in the City Charter and the General Plan. Banning Ranch The 505 -acre Banning Ranch is designated as a deferred certification area. A deferred certification area is an area where decisions are deferred to some future date in order to avoid delay in certifying the balance of the LCP. The Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction in all deferred certification areas. Oil and gas operations are conducted throughout the County (454 acres) portion of the property. The property also contains a number of sensitive habitats, steep coastal bluffs, gullies and ravines. Future land uses for Banning Ranch are currently under review as part of a comprehensive update of the General Plan. Because of these issues, Banning Ranch was designated as a deferred 0 LCP Coastal Land Use Plan May 25, 2004 Page 7 certification area until such time as the future land uses for the property are resolved and policies are adopted to address the future of the oil and gas operations and the protection of the coastal resources on the property. The Planning Commission received numerous comments from Aera Energy on behalf of the owners of Newport Banning Ranch. The comments questioned policies relating to land use, oil and gas development facilities, gated /private communities, public access, wetlands, water quality, coastal bluffs, and coastal views. The Planning Commission concluded that once the land use and resource protection issues relating to Banning Ranch are resolved, policies can be developed and incorporated into the LCP or in a separate LCP segment' for that property. California Coastal TraiUOceanfront Boardwalk The Planning Commission received a number of comments recommending that the California Coastal Trail (CCT) route be shown along the beach from the Santa Ana River, connecting to the existing Oceanfront Boardwalk at 36th Street. Several comments in opposition to this recommendation were also received. The CCT is envisioned as a continuous passage along the entire length of the State's shoreline. It was called for in the 1975 California Coastal Plan, but is not a specific requirement of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission Public Access Action Plan identifies major gaps in CCT. However, none of these gaps are in Newport Beach. The CLUP Coastal Access and Recreation Map depicts the Oceanfront Boardwalk ending at 36th Street. Lateral access continues along Seashore Drive in West Newport Park to the Santa Ana River. CLUP Policy 3.1.1 -9 calls for the City to cooperate with state agencies in planning and implementing the CCT. However, it does not require extending the Oceanfront Boardwalk. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas The Coastal Act requires that environmentally sensitive habitat areas or ESHAs be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values. The Coastal Act only allows resource - dependent uses within ESHAs and places additional restrictions on adjacent development. Therefore, the designation of an area as an ESHA must be given careful consideration. The CLUP establishes criteria for the designation of ESHAs that includes the evaluation of the habitat's integrity /connectivity, patch size, the presence of invasive /non - native species, the level of disturbance, the proximity to development, and the level of fragmentation. 0 ' The Coastal Act allows local governments to prepare their LCPs in geographic segments. LCP Coastal Land Use Plan May 25, 2004 Page 8 0 The Planning Commission received several comments relating to ESHAs. Many confused the discussion of a habitat area as the designation of an ESHA. In reality, the CLUP does not designate any area as an ESHA and requires that ESHAs be identified through site - specific survey and analysis on a project by project basis. Eelgrass Eelgrass is a marine plant that is currently abundant and expanding in several sections of Newport Harbor. While not an endangered species, eelgrass is considered an important marine resource due to its nursery function for invertebrates and fishes. Dredging and harbor construction projects have the potential to impact eelgrass and the loss of eelgrass is considered to be a significant environmental impact. Mitigation requires an expensive and time - consuming procedure that requires the eelgrass to be replanted, monitored, and maintained per the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Some of the public comments questioned eelgrass habitat value and sought to deemphasize or delete narratives and policies relating to eelgrass. The Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy is seen as preventing the proper maintenance of Newport Harbor. The Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy is a requirement of the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the Coastal Commission and needs to be included in the CLUP. The CLUP recognizes the shortcomings of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and calls for replacing it with an eelgrass acreage baseline approach. The CLUP advocates working with federal and state agencies to establish a baseline minimum acreage necessary for eelgrass meadows to fulfill their ecological function. Once the baseline is determined, projects may be granted exemptions to the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy mitigation requirements, provided the eelgrass acreage baseline is maintained. Wetland Definition and Delineation The CLUP establishes criteria to distinguish wetlands from other types of water areas and to delineate the boundaries of wetland areas. The Coastal Act requires protection of the biological productivity and quality of wetlands. Furthermore, diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, or estuaries may only be permitted where there is no less environmentally damaging alternative and must be restricted to a narrow range of allowable uses. 0 LCP Coastal Land Use Plan May 25, 2004 Page 9 Therefore, determining the boundary line between a wetland and adjacent upland area is very important. The Coastal Commission determines the boundary of a wetland by the presence of one of three parameters: hydrology, hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation. The CLUP includes a policy stating that when ambiguities in wetland characteristics exist, the presence or absence of more than one wetland parameter may be considered along with other factors to determine whether an area meets the definition of a wetland and to delineate wetland boundaries. This is consistent with the way the Coastal Commission delineated wetland boundaries on the Bayview Landing Senior Housing project. Coastal Bluff Protection Coastal bluffs are also identified as significant visual and environmental resources and polices are established for their protection against excessive alteration. These policies distinguish areas where the coastal bluff is essentially unaltered and those in developed areas where the coastal bluff has been altered. In areas with unaltered coastal bluffs, development on the bluff face should be prohibited, with exceptions for certain public improvements, and development of the bluff top should be controlled. In areas where the coastal bluff has been altered, development on the bluff face and bluff top should be controlled to minimize further alteration. Comments on coastal bluff policies were mainly from the Irvine Terrace community. The argument was made that the bluffs were cut and filled when Irvine Terrace was subdivided and should not be subject to coastal bluff policies. Irvine Terrace will be included in the next categorical exclusion order request and, if it is successful, new development will not be subject to CLUP policies. Nevertheless, the CLUP was revised to state that the development of Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point have altered the bluffs to an extent that they can be best identified as manufactured slopes rather than natural slopes. A policy was also included that states that those bluffs do not meet the definition of coastal bluffs and are not subject to the policies of the CLUP. Environmental Review: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter 3. 9 LCP Coastal Land Use Plan May 25, 2004 Page 10 Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot and mailed to over 200 community and business associations, advocacy groups, governmental agencies, and individuals, a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Copies of the draft Coastal Land Use Plan are available for review at the Planning Department office at City Hall and at all branches of the Newport Beach Public Library. Copies are also available at the Planning Department office for a two -week loan or purchase. The entire draft Coastal Land Use Plan is also available in PDF format at the City of Newport Beach Internet site at htta://www.citV.newl)ort- beach.ca.us /Pln /LCP /LCP. htm. Prepared by: Submitted by Patrick J. Alford Senior Planner Attachments: Patricia L. Temple 0 Planning Director A. Draft resolution. B. April 22, 2004 Planning Commission staff report. C. April 22, 2004 Planning minutes. D. March 18, 2004 Planning Commission staff report. E. March 18, 2004 Planning Commission minutes. F. March 04, 2004 Planning Commission staff report. G. March 04, 2004 Planning Commission minutes. H. Correspondence received since April 22, 2004. I. May 2004 Draft Coastal Land Use Plan (under separate cover). 0 10 ,a 0 0 0 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 2004 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -001 (PA2003 -093) FOR A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN WHEREAS, the California Coastal Act of 1976 established policies relating to shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, the Coastal Act relies heavily on local government and local land use planning procedures and enforcement through the preparation of local coastal programs; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan portion of City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program was adopted in 1981 and certified by the Coastal Commission in 1982. However, the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Program was never completed; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 516 amended the Coastal Act to require the City of Newport Beach to submit a local coastal program for all of the geographic area within the coastal zone and the city's corporate boundaries as of June 30, 2000 to the Coastal Commission for approval and certification; and WHEREAS, a comprehensive update of the Land Use Plan is necessary before the Implementation Plan can be completed and the Local Coastal Program certified; and WHEREAS, the Local Coastal Program Certification Committee reviewed drafts of the updated Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (Coastal Land Use Plan) in seventeen public meetings; and WHEREAS, public hearings on the Coastal Land Use Plan were held by the Planning Commission on March 4, 2004, March 18, 2004, and April 22, 2004, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meetings were given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at these meetings; and 0 /2 WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Coastal Land Use Plan was held by the City Council on May 25, 2004, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: 1. The Coastal Land Use Plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses and applicable resource protection and development policies. 2. The Coastal Land Use Plan is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. 3. The Coastal Land Use Plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act. 4. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is statutorily is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council hereby approves the Coastal Land Use Plan by approving Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2004 -001 (PA- 2003 -093) with the revisions contained in attached Exhibit 1. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby authorizes submittal of the Coastal Land Use Plan to the Coastal Commission for formal review and approval; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, formal adoption of the Coastal Land Use Plan by the City of Newport Beach shall require a separate action by the City Council following Coastal Commission approval. /3 This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of • Newport Beach held on May 25, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABESENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: • • 0 0 ATTACHMENT B 04/22/04 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Is CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 4 April 22, 2004 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3235 palford (aa)citv.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Update of Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan — LCP Amendment No. 2004 -001 (PA 2003 -093) ISSUE: Should the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed comprehensive update of the LCP Land Use Plan? RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing; adopt Resolution No. 2004- recommending approval of LCP Amendment No. 2004 -001 to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Introduction: At the March 18, 2004 Planning Commission meeting on the proposed update of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan, staff was directed to prepare written responses to all of the comments on the draft document. The Planning Commission set a deadline of April 2, 2004 for additional comments. Discussion: Staff has prepared responses to the comments in a table format. The comments and responses are listed in the order the subject section appears in the Coastal Land Use Plan. The comments are truncated or otherwise summarized to conform to this format. However, the entire comment is provided in the attached correspondence. Any proposed revisions to the Coastal Land Use Plan recommended in the responses are provided in the attached Revisions and Errata. /lo • l� J 0 Environmental Review: Pursuant to the authority and criteria Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is Section 15265(a) (1) of the California 3. Public Notice: LCP Coastal Land Use Plan April 22, 2004 Page 2 contained in the California Environmental statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter Since the hearing was continued to a specific date, no additional public notice is required. Notice of the March 4, 2004 hearing was published in the Daily Pilot and mailed to over 200 community and business associations, advocacy groups, governmental agencies, and individuals, a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Copies of the draft Coastal Land Use Plan are available for review at the Planning Department office at City Hall and at all branches of the Newport Beach Public Library. Copies are also available at the Planning Department office for a two -week loan or purchase. The entire draft Coastal Land Use Plan is also available in PDF format at the City of Newport Beach Internet site at http:/AWM.citV.newport- beach.ca.us/Pln/LCP/LCP.htm. Prepared by: 4?��7 7,w ` Patrick J. Alford Senior Planner Exhibits Submitted by: Qr��.a �_ T.VA.�,LL Patricia L. Temple Planning Director 1. Response to Comments. 2. Correspondence. 3. Coastal Land Use Plan Revisions and Errata. 4. A Brief Review of the Biological, Physical, and Regulatory Status Of Eelgrass (Zostera Manna) In Southern California 5. Draft resolution. /;1 Q 0 O 0-' CL J F N O U J U O J 2 g CL W N z Q2Q ..l F N O U It O N O F N 2 N W J 0 K pa U , O .y CD LU F t/1 N 2 O a W = /d • 0 0 Al- w .L.. N N O C C 2 O(D N O w ` .L-. N c@ a c 00 O> 0 2 n N E E p O E U Q U O L E@ O .-I V O C O N c V tLq N C Co .@. 3 .L-I N 7 N L C N CL v N N fn � v fl N.O C CO c V1 :r c v N c O N f6 c N w L' c N a U ca c aD ..�� v o �L m O v o— U N a �c no N•v_ o0 ca o o N L C .. (DmH C :7 -- m m 3_ (.O n mC7 > N N O c v� L E 3 m 0 0" •D (D c _.. V5 :5 0 0 p >,00 C O V fc6 �UD (,=�N f6 O)J,,,L.. Vi n V O Vl �fl ....0 V U U 7 3 CL Vl w-.- N N m y c° NU m 0�� $:a E a@ Co Co m p C O@ •c 3 c v ` U N@ n c >%:E E U d 0 0. Nil w N •� L .� O „O, 0-6, p� cO a N U J E� .-I N C N N n N U> L O0 p o€ @ U v w � 0 c m c r v d(D N@ O 0 N@ O 0 0 . N E E c..0 C n�v D 0 o U o@ O —° n o •C v� a> O E n m O o O N N C V U .N N fn N M d f0 > > > 'C f0 d O) N c N "' > O)-O •V f0 •• — J U 'O .L..I 'O Of a U LU O 0 � L.. N Z c0 m n� j L N w- c c0 C d C N N O U C L N c 8.2 o D L N M p n (D � Lf6:°.c CL CL o c-j m m W m L) (D �oLD (D c C d �? O N Op_ y E O N d '- U E (D J O O L N L) L) U d N W � c O r Cl) d N /d • 0 0 Al- 0 1] 0 C\j z9 A�r Deice c£22, §� [ f ) { 0 M (D k f22O= CL % . 2 \ D -i U) \]�(D�® (D �$ 7DOc (D .-200@ %0Si2a Q cn t \ m :3 0 (n 0° \tee CD L) 'Q) 2 r§ # ®fJ% oe2 §�E6 % (D t 2 § k m & �«aoeo: / e0) ec2 —Q)m \�am%_�\ (n ƒ\ { §2 e cQ)c L) Q) ($§3 ®f �% \7 (D (D c) %Sk c \ \ { /\ �$ /— ,&e�2o = 2\�& \ °J =tee t�a� \E 0e °®e$EkU) k#e2Z m0ec E—� \ (n ( «� D \\ \k2)n L0 ) :� e $© °® ®,_ /2(D CO (n \ -a ®— \\Q�E,«/ °£,�)2 ��7 k/%2 § (DE �c0 0U )k 0/0)2/0 \) / ƒ \;k§ \ L) 3: ujU) d :e& Q IM EL � = m_ � .D C\j z9 A�r E0 0 0 0 c @ @(D ma)U 'a d C (n a% Y y C N - ° .+ N O m (D c U m O E °'y ca (D o w d c c c N c m °,_ a)'V @mN N C a) C +•. C Co co N - _ ti N CL N N 0 0 0 O .+ c �- aD w- m d Q) vm00(D a) (D L m O) a) w E N N C a'cy"�aci aDmvmtiE o m -O(D m a) " -cE C a c 3 E n >1 E . O @ L N a) > � m U Q w c m LL w CM+L.+ (D Ny a) C " — 8 O Co nn0 aD O c:+L " o E O U N °' ° C U (D C m o m - nc _ (D @ c w v U@ C m > Nv �a (D c C > a) U a) � O 'O O C (D CL m a) m (D OL '" � w- .. p C J C 0 (DLC (D m m Ea i �'3v� mmn .0 QQ�o(D O wN, .L-. Vi C N O O y C L = C V) N m ° cmar CD 0 3 CD CL � - U) ,a� o a) CD -mU> rn m U .. - J X 0 C c •O E Q!� NZ 2 m n�_.1 V N N _8 OL NaL;° N C E O C C U) O N E C o 0-0 @ U N c m (D ° m o o m m= °-o c as c m @ (D a @v @ 3 4; p�L.. N Q D C V1 O O L J rn a) O- �p (D o c c U � O C N O a) x 0 C (D m� $ 2 m jL co @~ c c cti m �L� :. c mm @ ma °c °(D a� d L >�m @Lam a m m` m T@ @ @ @ c (D (L c C O m •` •U p N O CD C C Q m 0 ca C O m C m o E E E m a� a)..« nE Epp o m u, �•u, C .S O U U .S « 'O C9 'OI r N N r N N M 0 11 �D c c @(D ma)U C (n a% Y y O N j c U m aNi O CD N a N C Y m (D N Q c Co co N - _ ti m CL @ L E L U c �- aD N C m m d Q) C(D 7 _C % co L m O) a) C E N N C E•�:3 o m -O(D m a) C a c 3 E a E 5 L)X'Od _m ti -1 O V-- -j r N N r N N M 0 11 �D 9 0 It X7 L c N L L N m C C m 0 L •@ O 'Ll - '3 N .� O N m N c m N O .. EL rnw m � nC Co �.�� > N CL 0 o m m N C L 3 m a� v m s — > a 5 (D Cy (D � v Co U N v a>i n� m v mD cj � c o c m N 3 0 o c m N N J U Q '3 N 2 0 L j O_ c o C d @ c O- C m C C c o•v -U � (D w O c N ` N O N C CL C N °- Ev O O. c (D :3 j N C E N J o c..L D v �o v fz6 o Q- c o> U @.2)(L)i N 2 °•� '- c`0 m �w r c%° N d c m U N c N a N w C .O C C O@ O E N a m@ E :°@ � N N cn N > c > —c p .. C�i n `3 N .0 m-No rn aNiE CL o yv,v .0 -�v o E cg o L c$ N E _ @� U E .. a� •- E o d Cv° f6 @ o N o c c N c O 3 �, m �W..2t @ m�� (D of E �U O N O L C C N .`-� m C U N o ppE U (� N rn O -O N „M (D c Ep o J(7 ov' 0 c N m t cL E o 0 �HNUC QmvnCmvQco aNi H Qo —co mcU O >'OL O N �j N N C@ % 3 N O) O �' p J c0 w V °? @ rn Vl L •N m N m C~ O E 8 '=d = "U O` n O cU C C N(D . U L m m C C - O m m N L E N O N U N CL O N m CO C N . •N• N o 0 "E cMOO m f6m 'O C o- O N.L. °tom 0v 0) c N L r N f0 V N N @@ N m N Y.. N _ D_m N m N> c N O D O.O > > N ma � CL C m@ a Co 2• N E c •- N c C N � m C m m m. ._ L= U= � O L N C m> C C J m,- N U> N O a N O ], N C m� 'L" O m d t 7 E y N E� mU N mU O O e O� LD N C _ N N EJ2i -O '� O "-�" N N m N 17 lb @L O U '� N U �(D' E m N C N y C > OLEO U O�� J Nof Lo CL -. F� J >> > 7 N mL 7o'rU F� W d N C O fn N N N It X7 /! O) >. 'r N 'r c C 0 .N f0 U @ N " '> (D O) N C O w O c o @ w •c w EarCL E rn (D @ c° U @ °Ey N O N ° o 7 e N< J C LL .9 .9 vi 3 m O = 3 a> a P C O O U 3 C C •t.+ f0 L c J rno c :a c f6U c� m N�r O O c N LL ° ,, o w O CL d v� ° 7 n O` c @ W C c °' c L c@ H c0 'O m — @ c ° O ° a c N U L N @ E c ° ° w 0-6 r ca .Q c °w Q a Lip ° @ D N c N 0 p) w (D w U @ OOLL LL @ N O. O U (D (L 0)N 1' C c E 00tiN tpa @ ° °° oU my y, N U c O O 3 N O O_ T p d 3(D O O 0000 c > N ya w .vyi E@ C Q Q Q m N o@ N_ rz N :3 (7 �2ii L N = >— O O @= U d d N N (V C O (V O_ U CD rr f6 N N r N CV /! • • :] p- trail C trail C . . � c U p w @ w (U w U an d w-• ° c o 3v m °(u w n3 (D c` m° or E (D .-W m E >w (uo E rn o.: rnc) m E > @� m� 2 L U E° o N c Q"or m- (D c c ami N CL �v (D to m ° @ aZiL Tc @v m'cm -ice N w o c c E mw N° m f6 m ° mm 0 c w (D (D o E °Nom° c m c �mv 33. aE0 00Ecw �=woUg 3 15 (D " m E tri o c. :° U o ErU. -°l° @ ° x CL ° c c O ;a > (D aci f6 3 0 (U a) L) C C U to 0) tU '> " _ m> (� C 7 y C w J m CL m m N 0` >(D U r ra tU U ... m .m U N d rA N" E a, O m '-' `yu N OvO)o N Y C to U N .y L N :j `O O@ O (U m X N .m. C m C m O C y c N f0 c E @ L °� c N N N a U N U' °� CO U O rn (U O O N (U O N L Vl O m m J 3 U C L N' p N m p �- C N N a y @ O O '� (U C O ..+ '° U C O O O ,,, C L @ 'N o .L. E .2 �m °a�cnv.L�.'a U)) �'° U.. tU IM: 0 -0 NL) 2 U °'m Z N U �Lm. 0 0- -(D J @ c0 (U �' ' V O @ '-' @ ° m E ° o c m c O)O•- E 0 (U cEyc)o Ec0(D- 8 o c Em (u :.. �.. C Z m Q O (u O m mL U "' m U ;O d trail fd ` 'C O ti m m c a23 Q m "0 m m °c U c c a) —m U° . N C '.. (D C oZ L - v E( E CL 0 m V U L N c3 J fp w@ U O O H 'J (tU C U U (D O (D CO m C U ++ N@ O Z w T C p :g N (D m d ra_ n iL O i m •C N Q ~ o O (U E (u (u !N ° ° a) o-v (D Uc (u m� °° c-=OL m �p N mp w ? d 0) N d N N C O fV M 0 N N N fn :] p- 0 • �y .9� Noo(1) ago C +E O N .t.• 'O O O Lo @ N � ,C D O O N N .7 N @ 30 U p O D_ (1) Xa� 'OO tOj N (D Vl (Cp U C C `0Z2 r) C a —av ma„- -v o (D a (D . C @ O CUB (0) (D a� o a CD > f6 � v�� a� 0 r:°•U QD C .S m co w � @ a� r c W ;- m m Lc0 g.D0 N >(D .�mco N N'LD C p C N N C f0 a N O �,.... N N U' f�0 O O N N C 9) (D aD a L (D aD Vl Vl >O L C@ 0O U N C f0 O U 3 c a> a> O np:? .0 O p N >. N a € 7 Umm .0 (D .. N.NN C O N•C E-o0C C N o (D C O O ,�O_ U U N C N fp O W •U >, C — 7 e' 7 C Q C C m E anm �oL. to N �O C `'° C° C a N U O fN0 o y o D� O .0 E U L G ao �N: �N.omo *—" 8 m (D a> o (DC v > C V-nam E :3 C N d n o aO- a O rn 0 .. —C C m G no o o-o ma jz c �•Z j 000 w 00��o'S c (D Uo ca E N.L.. C 'O 'O C O)= -j 0 •U U O N 7 N a N> `'k U N Utnaw 3 H� r maw (D m N d N C C7 _O w N N U) 0 • �y .9� \_J 0 0 0 0 � �s f6 c s a>i aci (D (D _(D3 E>,"Qa U o 0(D .0 .. n olv U c NcN °m > d Uv m..or (D M L �' D O td C L "- O L U .. •Q . tT V c td O U N ct- ol� m �j "Uv Q " a ° p' a Nw�' >> m N N 0 m of d N>, C@ N p� U 3 E J m N 0 O W � L E N t6 � ° m o :° C 5 CD ° � �.. N Z N 3v L c > e o u°-, � m > vy w N m� m N >1 .- ° CT z;-- 'uc-i C j" C- `,� m N L L 0 0 CL N N U N w Nat u, ae.. t >1 n d m O o U C yN am C Q C NL O J N mU � p N O NCL N >� c 3 d �__ -Z5 o f6 nn c t6 0 F- L Z N 3" (D n U W E cTi w tNiJ d L T 7 O CO NCO awao Lc 3c (DiV @ @Nw .. ono .. m N meti��w�, Nom. = @ @E-PN� ..00 V1(D a� °L Co — ° ° °*= mw ° as �— QcO O cl .'C.. Q C.L.+ c of LN, n C t`o C 3 '0 w @ n w O U° v ZZ N N N a c N N O @ w- m" C N @ crj to .. to N ,., c E' v ��(Dn CL a>>CL CL aNi EL@, g0> °a Lm m co .a c ti U N t`6 > 3 c x U N Q N w U C m� ` C a C t W CO N �a•Ec N 'O N@ w N 0c N w Co— j N w v 0 •> > U�oM0M (D CL 0Om E� m�� 0.c'N NCCOCL NOm'p= wNL wmti •-tncm •.•. N L `mow 03L_NN U N N .. p N U C .. 3 m '> M 0) Co m E m U m c f6 N N 3r. w --.,e N N ,(D N J p v to ° m N to 'w N (D ` cu �sammwNpN m °v toil :3 (D cC �N� M V 3 m m v 3 t`a ` c 0 O N O (D -'Z Y U d x E L CV N OINm tTN m .. -p L c U p N �.. d N a G :Q a@ tT 13 c a '-cp O C y L °" U U C E Oa. m m m�'v m m° o N'Nw m o ° o`;a a�i Et- .0G6E "m °°ai °gym >�cm U ¢mna°i >10� U ¢OaNia°'im� co U fn m •ccl •vNi c°i vpi $ c U 'v 0 0i 0 E n a .N`., W� v� W Q �` 0 U .O N Im M M EL N N N C O M M Cl) U N N N !n N N N 0 rn • C_J �' L c w e c w 3- m cv a)0� v 'a e 6)iE@owoNU 010 c D oiv0 c D a;Q �p 0 w c�c N O U y N Q1 - •2 N Q1 - 2 U a3 N -0 ` 0 X L U a3 0 a3 '0 c0� L 0 c 3 a p > 0 a p > 0 ..0 L @ v� c c o~ c c'0 a• c0i > p N vi 0 a) 0 0 N 0 c� wLoU � :(D) @� 0 Za a Za a 3 0 a) y=D m m� a ac)— a ac). a3 DN@ a3 mac= xd � 0-@ L) va V as t O >' N_ a) J C a) c0) N > m J N > N NL.L.. O L.f6.U'L"' J L U w 0 0 e@+V C m0 O+L-' L .+ M.0 Nw.L. C L @ p ..+ Nw.L. C 0@ X co _ (d 3 al L w `� r-. 0,0 O L w `� O, O �mt(p�pUO.•3 al 0 @m N (D C (D >MM N C >t(D >mm 3 to L N N C� 0 'C a) �a=� U f6 N N N a) C N f; N C 0 N N a) 'y a) N 0 C a1 cpi U-0 > p ..+ N C ..+ N N C am Z X al N N U 0 .@+ a) a) E L N a) .@. N a) E L N a) N U M �O .L. w C 0_ co U H .L.. co U H e w 3 ° @ 0 > f0 X ~ N a) C L p U 'C N C 0 0 j N 0) C C E O G CD N N T O C L- CL @ N v N Q) 0 C 0 N a O( �> > 0 .0 v y CO 7 C C0 N �" O C X w •N ` m 0 C (D a �+ a) a p U 0 aci E - 0 �t @ ax) -0 c E v a) L+t.+ N N U w O n co dv v CL N N C O C7 C7 U N N 0 N N U) rn • C_J �' L 0 E 0 0 ,4:7- 4x (L) c C �-0 () v� C 0 O) C OL c� C o O t C L 0 O) -D Y C °Qj m CL 3m�c .. - wa0V C acm v `rnU e 0 0p ° ;° � °3-° aD m m O n0 mcam m ° - n @ m'- Nm o N O .L.. V N p U N m m pN 0 . >° ._. Y O mca�o:°.° Ua� >3 E VU) °C �'v�Nm U� 0ma oar o 00 3zU ma>pE�ar ac0u�a> a> �.Sca�ia> `—°ai0 W.— 0•- 0' 0 O U U � m E °.`` CO O� -'`•mow N> m13 D as > (� � U ma D J U O N w. @(D L� "0 "NECK 0c0a0 Y`�c @` w " N w C °D ��70w n,N N m O p L m m N ga O >v a) C c r0-- (D , N � o U J N 0 w m N C N a z a O >, w m m O •v_ m N m�rvt ° N p!=w Na mZt m C N 4 N U c w C w 0 m C > ..+ m m =_ (D N N 0 cvv0 mm° °p,Et��3 �. v N>a y 0 "N aa)i.Ae m E �` a t m e wr-i (D U N (D °L CL CL vi �v >, m a� '� E'v D N v. N �L U N w > j m E.O. U p m .O. m w C C N C aU C 0 d N to N N y CL U9 w U m s.S 3 .m. m m m N 3.9x a L f6 C 0 F maw C C m@ m` E c i (D !E o ct� C aD TU � m (D E Ems.. m` 0 3 L a CL .0., - 0 0 0 ja a"> N,0 �L on .. (D> ,a-- C L` 0(Dm `v t: L rn N c w C w O L N U m aM-6 c O C L N U U L O L 3.0 U m 0d .- �C 3 m L N 3' o C N ai �a pQ OO '0 X N O N N 3 C,. O L L m N N N N O a a 0- N N V.L. C C N U N m O` w' m `_` m 0 0 0 .L. o 3 0 ° ~( v > o o n o° (D L OOpmO0 w (D E° !E >, N- m x a� C m 0 C p y� -rr U 0 m O (D 0 .- L .. N C N a C U N ... N '.N-. O O a.0- w N ♦+ C O C N'U o U O N C C m c °' w N N L C N N U p N O N w D >` O G m z E 0 EL °13D °� m E ��'� N N.V �)U) 3 �. L LL �'c L) O a..Z amL ¢ a N N C O V tY U N N N N (V 0 ,4:7- 4x • L X8, lo� O (1) C d C 'p fd @ fd m >, @ d C d V) 'r C d 0 O V) m d L c" ;,, e0 C@ c J d a C d '� c O O j N Q = ( C U) to N U •- N v U N d w d m c E d p 0 C C N N L c a LL N @ a 3>, V _m Ndw Lc 0 :3 >,m O >,mJ 2`mO mcQ c O o C N O (D E o,uN_) (D d� -t (` E V)O -a� E 3 cn C7 NLGI�- o p d o E m (NO• U Q V w O J U@ L N N p` ~.L.. .L., c= j a N CO a) -j N NU N �, p_.: C m@ O -p U U E N m E d t> o) m `�- 5 p cn C C >, •U U m r.+ C E C O C C N o o c a O @ C L C N . : :3 c m CL .- 0 m O- d N> E 3 m ED o (d o f4L m Cam~ m 3a p cu> d C =_ >i c C "' N_ O OL N O U N >. U cwd„J'.> d L C --„�� L c J C mU O U @= CEO C c.d Q m e O d p) N N ... N .L.. d E 10 m e m mod, E m d N C O O N 0 m N :r C O.O d d y d CL d� n 0 m L 0 m �- O N m V �•c m E p p N p c p@ .. d o d w y c@ c> (D c C �d @Q "a @a CL < H my Z LLScj L) a- .. a C o t c c m o m L L '•" U m .y 3'm3 c ay Q") _o N O .0 a d 3 t7 >` d 0" 7 'p c N C d a O_ > Q� c U X ~ 3 T m E o m� E-o CL `-' -O O C m N N O (L N 'p L 3 U N 0 10 � U L N C O f0 E N U .r O �= O C d d a 3 •U ° N r c N O N cU (D r ° N E m >1 5 > U U 4-- O) p c N 0,2 01, L = p ri0 . C6 � C a U n d •d N. m p N QQ D L@ X d Z O E @ od E O i y . N- _ N O E p. UN Q CL (D c U� mn cL�3 O CL Ut42 l=tq$ �O d CO I- m m m tm m CL N N N N N C V N M Cl) Cl) Cl) N cy N N N N • L X8, lo� 0 0 r, N r d c voi ctLLO.t0U c f0 L s F- Y J C c f0 O O (1) = N @ @ Vl Z�Lxo°) @c3c° �wco`>> (D V Y W C@ Q f6 N w Vl 1 N C O ` L N U m U O f0 c f0 Q _ @ V1 C > m >, C)- > C EO � (DQ 1= 'O - @ -c - '.N NE zEO N n v o C ° � ° a)t wN v N —d a>N < E N m d > 'O N = ( fU y co > O ` O n -O ' N p p m J C ) � Y N M N o m c @ N C a) m. V V) m m C 0' C L U Z O, m m a > N E w N T Y :C L L Ea a Yv Ow CL (D E - N " �o ° 0 O V r-(D E N 'c> na E � E( a° 0> oaiY: c o m 5 O '' N m� O E c N N O Cl rn (D N N E N o do •N 0.0 (D 0 0 >, E m> C O p N N (D 0: (D 0 (D L) 2 c 00 Q U m a) N m N C7 (D 0 C E m r (D M m N O U 0 c L y r m O m m@ m N 0 N .-: c c Q m 0— C Q C m y m=m '"' N L CO y moo m3L�°NOL maw m O N N E Z - 'C y U m N to U) c 0� a) N N m y C 7 y@ m y N V y@ O c N C U m O L C @ m 0 m` O_ CO N O m Y 3 L_ r F" m m a N N@ C O r N c_ O _ c c r p) N' .x M 0 Q) M O N O :3 C y c c _m C C C Q) E m a N c U y" L e m N 7 0 7 V m j O N V 0.1 7 y @ m '- C "�' N V c U m c� ,m c @` N V N C'P N U O f0 m C- m O-L c C c m ,O M — 7 'O -O L 0 Y m N M O T -O c N E N fn f0 N 17 y: N U c m c �j m @ i 'p d y Oi >" C Y Q CO r 0 m C N tmq 0 y @ f0 N CO O m E m N 7, O -O > O C 7 N M 3 L U O CO C m' > (D.0 — m :n CO l0 N m a N > 0 (D •N a Q w L> N N y «) N 'D N t ' 'O 0 m v) c c -mO O 'O @ O «°- •> c •- L O .N V) m a 15 L) N L :. U N m V— E m C N 0 U V) T N cL O to 4? U m o E ` N o .� m 0 or o CY a>) > �w c`� cLLi co)-° ` ccu UdoF- —M (00 Ww O"'m cm3coi�.cm U 0o rn m N r LN N c 0, U M V D N N N r d M 0 0 2� 4-5- N f`6 m ca @ T. " c`0 d U C@ C c N X_ N.L.. C N c m N= .. N 'O J C m O N U E C E C N T� C j N U N N N m U •.0. U @@ T N N O n� O C M N L .-I V CL ` U� w m O N.L.. 3 >%.-° -- I O D N�� C a m O O c O'O N m E C Q N j y N O. U Q'V = t N @ .- C E O N C "- -O Nom@-„ U 'L E a E0 3 N U N @ N U E 0 w E TnD ... mL m N N NQ E•v_ v, C J � H. w w p_ .-i u U U N O N m N N m O O N@ O) N N C L N .0 .. C E m O C N c L C@ N ._ n 'O N V Z O "N' w n 0 I •C @' O"OL m m N V1 ca N a N L.. N ('C Co m .c Z N O (D C ° N T d U O N j m�c Co Q N N N U, L m •- . V N m E cD 'O C m O 0 ce) O@ `�- L N ' O c N n 0 @ N j L N C N 0 O m U O N m E .O O O 0 O) O) O a N n 3 L O d m E c O 2 .- o(D N V c c '4 O m 0 N L (D '> U C C W Q U CL nv @ a nC w H U) N w L H m m o m m m m v m N c Co _m U Cx V m E o E m O`> o N m L v a O O C w t/) o C V c 7 N m V) c N N N L .. _ o C C N °) c N= Z N O N N E c m NZ .�a ` c 3 U v N O fd O N ° 3 -(D f6 a cp N r) C " C o m 3 E n N O 2 v M cc am):°(D0 m j�E0- w V' V) 'O C W w U U O O 'O 'O m U N@ 0 p (D'p O UL O N L �? N N N 'a (D 0 T 0 > 0 0 3 0 ,n m O m CL O c m N c N > CL Q m C c c O N E C 7 Co L c H N .. N O m 7 .L. Co N 1 N N E m aE: N E 3 rn c= N �-E ovw n U N Q _ Q Uw Wvcmi�� �U �_' mwax)n� u N LO m N N d N N C O U V d N N M 0 0 2� 4-5- 0 0 v r 31 4jp- E o, m- m o c oN E a) -;--r a " a y •• 2 O Co n O d .. m J.L.. E n N C M a :3 - V (0 U j@ in >, O C L m C N d Cl_ L m m C N > U Y C m U m L H m n U CO CO NdU (D @ d o O '0 O 0 d m :� ca m@ j 3 d c c L d .. 0 c@ O Y N O =NZN7N4iE Qm;On O :ag�NmN(N2d r N N C N d N N C Q O L =_ L 0 0 N p O m "'� �' N vi E c C L •ca d d fn m L U j m V U "' C n m •L-, U p(D :r m O •p_ N a N N ,Ld,Ld. O c'-0 a 0 3 D Vi V) •W N 7 L M a N N d p N 'p w- N` 'O m U p U d p— J '- c d �? Vl n to to 4_ = m E o O �... N c ;_. m co c d L c N U p v � p d n V) v� c n m 'N y O J U E J U d U c N �_ O L d n C N.L.. c m E O d d U m m 0 ~ w 7 'O m w c N L c L w d :a C O c N N a 'p _ N a U w O V C >. m' Co N N :p O c o 0)i o c o o Oc ,C - ma m c oUcg o m :� ai N°@ m@ co o E f o m¢ c p'a)v) pv.- co ami o o� °v)��dw p d L d C U> V m m m c w co `) L N O N 0 pm O U N C mHw @ 2 oQ, w c 3 d o N mU @ (D (1) m '"' v) - N 3 aT� coo U O v N H (L) O o m ces. Om >c..L L N c d m mcL°E d L:`+• -NEmE �m Cvi d C m° m >> C o t O m (p d w C O p'j w 0 o m m Ow m— e (D c.5 MM N d d L c 0 O- m 'O '-' L N U L O a m .. 2 d ,( 1O m cu O Lo C nm c i d n j m ,,, Co CL fc6 CO E m o •3 p ,�, O C c Q N E E n 3 'c 3 m O a n m ac p d d �. d COQ NZ 70 o E Yz m d m N N 0— O m n 0 m j m aNi @c60"(D "vim O EUo p L E 'U '� N c L w 0 E U H w ti O d o m m.2) c CL LL'O nnL O .0 p c N�� d co d CM N r d N N c O U� (O U d N N v r 31 4jp- LO 0 r J7Z o c L @ N N C ° m c d 00 ° aTiv cv c wL Om - LL w CD CD m o v 0 L r @ 0 0 a L CD d n C U L N CD CD Z 0 L N C N E d U d d w CL we a) CL CD � j w 0 CD @ L v V ._. N 3 w 'C @ an d C N O U U f0 :+ - C 0 +d+U CD CD CL d N n mo E :3O= CD 'c d 'o m it C U Z U � w FL L C w +N O f j" C N �. 6 CD C m E ,0 d U U 0 ED E L O o N d 7 O V y d d V '° X d° N N V @ p n 0 c N C@ ` d N c 3 O V tf c .L-. W CL CD 7 C n .y N N e d N '= x d - C d 7 O 0)L N'V N d CD n M'° d N .t-. " N'° f0 O L 'J `@ v N E d CD �-. x c d .d. O L; 0 3 CD LL N Y c d C n._ :3 CD CD E O` C d@ U C O V O V N@= C n @ ° d C O O a y N r O a` � c 0 C a d d@ n 0 `� d .0 L C C d M CD C 0> � d E f6 N U C W .0 C 0 Z N C W� N c N 0 N O- O- Q C 'r W .pd d 16 CD 0 d 3 C) H� C Q� o0> a Q�w nwcn °V _0 a Q d d N N N C O w CD C d N N N . N LO 0 r J7Z E • CD 3 3�l E0 c� :°•o0c c .. O N U 3 O U @ E ,, Co 0.2:2 @ N >. O n c p> 0 n _ ° 0 (D d CM N C C"' •- ,c C f0 .@-I �p O) °) N C Cp d U O p 0 U O a @o (D U) P3 o m > co o m E °° E v O a O � UE O 'p N.- N O U aD 'a > OD 7 N n N N = N t( y n Q co Co C > N C N - c MV w- O E N N ° C - L LD d V w O C O C to 0 c7 V d a d@ > O O U O CV N 0 a Q- N p C f0 N N �HU°L):E E n Ur c n Hd f0 U 'p @ m@ '� N >+ O m . 'O C o o @ @ C 2 E O .L... (�. CO ° MU) Na (? o= °� > `wU E MOO (DEO 00 E 50-2 (D 0 'NFvo° N N W N U C a '7 . O L p Oo U 7 Cm m L .. 7 7 a. 0 C CO n° U N 'C to N U N "'. L@ CO @ U @ n ca rya 30 c�iaL :3 (D oU �.. 3'v (D mc.. c p > c O n -L @ vr..0(D c°: m �� > c° ..E :rwmvi u; C(D .."° m 04 —:3 N�o E`;oi c U N c U U o N O L N ° °� n . o T "' °-pd c °m o6 . a �o o @ ~ @ °D m 00 ° V o � t a L O d C O N aO C -O c � = �� ; �6- O Ea° vc (D Ev(D a o U� @ (Dc(DE n�U tw n �wUU QD•Ew? 1°-W U "ID E5 U d � VC') M Cl) N CL N CV C O d N N � O (V CD 3 3�l � 0 0 2� = 2»= 2& 2«000 =% § e =£= tc —e, &� =�eEf �� C (D ±£ ga ar= \ 7oe \£ #23 0 0 )/ 2+8 ƒ))` � 0 ID 95 $ f (» § °° —o �; ]E��2) CL .ESE — X28 - -£ >1 0 k� ;/�0 - `0 a (D CD ®b> e = e &o t@& } /_� ° —0 737& ��o / � \ \f �. 0c e �\§ k §/ 2a a) \2� §22 ee3ae2» » k&f E ®G 2« k§ \§\fC §� )R # ° \§ co 2f §2/ 0 > a»� a;K ;022]/, ._= 0Mmm 2a e ��oe,.to e_�6;'�e 0qG U) a- o /08§ e7£ �2�� =ewa £ (D a >`2 a) @ a Co _ — 0 k //) CL 0 �% \ E �\\ f) kc ° ) \ D o0k2 — / �t E E L 2 o — 200o & 2a o eCLa= d 2 � \ = m \(D % f ; �2$ 0 �® Cb (D 2: >a) & , \ CO (D �/ 9 � k _ �: § Coo 2 k 2« fa,/ / %»/ \ E 0 + §2k _ %g«2 \j °/k ® %.t2 @ 3 §/) k §(D of > %7 / 0 u�& ww�t ww_= mqw,&= §k2 o I ? ? 7 3 C14 C14 C14 & 0 g g R o 9 9 = a 0 C14 C14 & & � 0 0 2� � J 0 9 3� @> N c CL N c c O N tNi) > p L c> >v :0 > mm 0 m Ma (D �Lc+i m V v n 'C CL m c L U p m O O _m d°• e• n m N N Q- to . L• w '= ..+ U U N N Q N 7 O D D N f� .N.I N C .Lp. CL U c O N CO :O f0 O 'p ; MD c 't N 7 V O@ m w+ N N ' c' c 0— O U o o c c O m U U E O a N c O O p p O c D .a. o N � N� Nc _ ) °U o N @ L w L c O O L 'D N V cL (D N 0) O 0N ) @ C)c V .- Y j.O 0) n > > C y N O ON . c N �, U �L c c v y 0L 3 o- 7 O > p ,7 c f1 .,0 N c �O �r m E a tpV n m @ O 0 U @ � >1 C A N p ' C r-. f0 L m N CO Co N m c� N O) U.. c NN N cp (D 3 c f6 � 3 3 a L to N E 'O '- N U U .O fn c Co N Y 0 .S m U 7 N - w m •O O L N O L to 7 W �p 'O c p L to o n m N C Co CL O :=, m m@ U m N N 0 O N O O p co) F N U U C (D N w C~ O) w N m N c L �- O L n "' 7 U N-0 0 L-a 1 O n O O L .E c> ca :. p p L a C 7 c ° Co (D 3 m aNi w a) O C N N m N _U O)+L" M N@ E c n@ N co _0 7 -p C> O U C N nw U c c N p N U E c Tc @_ m a) (D 0) �m q UUi c a@im m o@i 0(D H 0� m E n3d W L N N c O I,. N U co N N (V O 9 3� 36 C O >,.0 C 4= O 3 oa•> @ m 3a) O'0t •�a)U c m 0. (D vi n O U) U) m a) SCm mY O.O. a)a)ca� n c = m� �w< jO c "' N N �m n O- c .@. m@ :. 3 a) O N U Q c 0 U Co L Y !n m N U V) U N c m O@ 'O C .. @ 'O f'-6 N C Co O.L. m O N' m N O O O N O N . Co O c O 3 E a) m 0 (D (D of CL v�o° O CO -- @ C ( O N J nm � m o> v N C E L_ @ ` C O O C O w O w .= Q c= N > c O -p d cc* E c o E m m U@ c�i o o n (D (D -O 008,002 00 c c ON V) L'> V O N y.- Co O C m> y O .2.s :_ m O Q- 0) W L O O H w 0. Co n w N to Co r ri n m to a m m — O mL m m E z8 m m a g w a) C a 0 >, E.o-0 Q c o n�N � Cmm :3 7 c O U N N m � >,.a c O m N m 0 0 w f0 O U O U) -.0 ..c >, Q (D (a >, O O m e c 0 o c 0 vm o wc°�oma) c w�° �a @vC0Y�°3 Vc v E o j (m 8 0 x— 0 o C O c° CL Y O T m . Ea)m..mmo 0 m m o�wU (D 0 O om°3ami O nm U 0 O 3 Co o �a m� O m Co (D Via) m— Y '0 (D O)o E m Qmm m m•0.0 j ° a m� N° mm m 0 3 M-0 7 ° o E C) O N O ° N L.L.. >, Y >, O L U N m y N O- y O Y O O � m c -G X -G ++ cocoa 2 Y m � 0m �m N U >_ .O �~ Ew O nwv � QL c E > m m N ami o m tom 3w a) vi a) m. mcmo�3' >n0.a) c N.EN U8� L)< mZ 3w UQU E Co W mac) tiW OUZWM 00 to CD r d N N ch c O N N Y C Q) 6 7 N N NCD 36 0 0 9 ° N 3:7- 0 °v °aNi.Nmw3$o"-o a�i °�o�(D m c 3 m m N o UL paw_ no n ..�. cr) c (D @ mw °i 3 @ ma V - (D " N N �> o a(D L� vi o@ E 2 E m ` d m O .' O C N Co N N L N O n U U ...` V1 :. m 'O = O a O m N .O O T U J m N C •> N C N C C y a a) U m N v m m v (DXL a)C (a c m 7 Qmyo 3�M_a O)'O n.N 'v m U C V x a Q.— O " V Mp o m m o �.. of CO (� N m v o U n U Q aria J 0 o (D- CO 0(D Q N .LO. N 7 7 0 y - "LC a" CL NCr U" Cm'OL m N•m'Um +•+ 0 p> N N U U in n:? w m ;4 Nv 3 (D rn� °� U U) m w L O m C C O O O U N � N M ° U O m@ O CL E p a E C .m .a 'O � on o n U ` m O n E y a C vN i o?m v E acmcoctD O V ' � 0 N _= N N n O _C> Ci N _nv n m O n N 0 U •'0 a C p • N N O U � `E m O U dL 3 oc :N > O (D <aoo CL UvmZnnav °��m(DC CL @ C c 3 m (D c V1 C N U U C N �p N U Ea C @ N @ n > a; N 3 Co _ c N Q N Nw O m t oC) —w m ° v c �° :3 o —_ �O % O r % r y .+ C N N > a N N Ora .G d U Y a CL E Evrn •O m n m N ._ O m N EN 3�U�A > � EW a`> c ti W z UWWv N m Cl) ) C% A d C O 0 � Cl) M M ° N 3:7- 0 0 0 mL °' mQ o n wL (D a� m !(D m 3: p 3 . . C (n !n > 'C N (n N fl m C@ w- cep rn N (D C C n..-� > CL (L) n m� m @ c @ vi c m w � N �' N O m O C V Q U N >O ,m � co 0 (n ) m a 0 0 (D E o ., mQ c'n m o v no C O O O N J C O .m. p N L U N U C c m N m N Q o U@ v c o o L L U n ., m, E n> (D (no Lcc .. o (n N m vmof6'- m a Y n O (D `� -Lo on .° °) (D Q U 3 O —* C m c •L••' � a) < 0 m 0- N N 3 a C 0 r U n'� U vi (o 0 c U N 3 N U O U C C U 7 U m U m Q �m y 3 N 0; o wa c o U- 0) M m> o ID m (D c UZ 70 n3 O c c M O CL O m N H L U p V m o rnZ p)= O > j .. @ V- U .. c m a) ,, @ U o c U C > (p w c CL N N m o @ rn O N • O U(D m 15 W O a C L HU0-1 m H m 3aH j E m o a U nU E O N C (p Q.� LQw @ m c rQ '- o oho m LL v:.•E ., �U c a� mD (D L o o m _ c Q. .c o -(? ��0 U E a U c U O w p L a C U '@ L. N U X C O > nmoo (a) D m � (D cn a w C N m rnE mr$ c L •> w @ a U a) v a) rnm �a o c c Yat ti o)EO O aCo mE � @' cm __ m— m�Uw0 3 otn m o � W '�c � o.C•N m0 �cmcap LU 0 �0cn 0 � o =ti~ O N j 0 p m O L m? w o ) y m O j •� m U O c jz jz M Uw nm (nm F-WHam m UWaLL aF- co(DCf) a :<GG m a � M N M c o r Ur d M Cl) N 0 0 0 0 0 N -5?0 L L a C w L L a C w L C r F- J N c r F- J N c r U (D Is (D n C 0) m w w� c @ te a co 0 c 3 c c CU @ 3 c. c U�Q._o cm Q._o U Co co r >, Co co r U O r Tm Co N m m @ On c 3: o c 0 o CL O -0 tn Qtr "a D_� Co O ,L„ C Co O L D O C �mCO C �m(rp �_ C m U M N m V Cl) cu of C Co fdc cOi�coE CU�w CU-O O '@ C C.�w .� O O C C•r r N.O.. O O ..+ O Co CO O O U c r U O m m O C.L.. U C V 0_ V •L.+ N U NU U) r NO'C U) Co Q C CL O V 0 7 LL 0_ o V 0 7 LL N .@-. U N N C Q r ` C C Q r C O C O L) C@ U N w w J .- C m r m O 0-0 co @ O r C N U :=. N U N r@. O r C N V S O U a N N OLD O N Co 'p_ @ N O O V.`. O N m 'p_ m 0 L�C O O V rLJ 0 D N O � F- (D L) D U) F- a) U -v o U) F- L) a L Y M @ C 7 12 m O 3 C C � a o o E @ @ E z E > O O CO 0 0 q": m oU) w a�i D m. E r -0 C CO O L O O m N CD O X 0 C CC ` V r N T:.. O O O Co ` : m O O C Y N N _ O O)O_D C O V a m> 0 O N 3 co 12 co 0 O_ U O 'p Co CO ¢gym O _0 O O v3��n0c O C ,� O Q ,C r -v C D O N V O N C O co m .0 U) '� .-. co o m N :_. c Q) O 7 N «�N O C O V O O (n +m°-o�ai 3ai° .-. N Y L C (n U) Ya d co > mj$-o m,rCp m U m a� E CO U N C (n c N ? C M U V 0 LD CD CO a�YE� aNi "mE 3 CD r- m 0�m o cD2 �cn� 3a ° a ��V5 caw d aM M M C O r d M M M N -5?0 c m E o vi C@ r L U vi nN 0 c >.-w- m c ("D m� Co (D c �� c >mL 0 L U L N 0 a) m n o ` U w >c° :, o 2 m o � U nm N o n3 nzQ n as O as M 0 0 a) C N a) CL= O O M N N a) N'O N'— co o..Z > a) U m NwQ as CID 0 CID M O •- L m a c 0 M N U UM ma Co L U J 0) o Q @ N t0q 0— Z N to >' >• 2 o'v_ Novicao•co cUw a O a� c n N 0@ L L N N@ N m._UL, tnv u)� (1) 00 0 6 a)c c> N° m F- (D w o °c o @ n c o EY rn U V N @ U N 0 a) d U C 0 U 0 0p_ O o r M F- � U U %? °- @ F- (D CL �@a "= Za fd a3 0 - 15 @ .L.. O 3 Om Mw V) C C.LD 73 0 L 0 C O> o m •? 0 C 3 v c0 v ) i m Uj c m •o C . o 0..00 Z L L N a) 0 C a 0 'O 1- a) 0 O a3 n •(ai_) O (1) 0 LZ'OL N C N.L.. O 3w, tcoTm0 @co3 m UEw - NZ a�ca)tnc•Qv aDNa>f6Ca�N @m M m E CZ E 5 E 2 nmdN r> ce) UI Cf W CID 0 i r U m iM v� o rno @w V) V) m Q � L 0 U Z L' O V) "' N f6 C N 0 C @ ..+ C O N @ O N N .0. ' O` .L.. N C V O N N N C C@ n 0 N w V) 0 0` O p N 0 •Vl O '= n @ 'L-' 0 o C O@ D E N U mw N aci c ma o 0 m 3 c �N o N -0 w -0 . c (D to O N N 0 � 0 >O .°- N C O C n C C(D 0 U C f0 C 0 '� °� CL � a ago., @ m O o�w:.� N L O to m t@ m:3 E 0 0 0 70 0 Z w U m 1 c m E o vi C@ r L U vi nN 0 c >.-w- m c ("D m� Co (D c �� c >mL 0 L U L N 0 a) m n o ` U w >c° :, o 2 m o � U nm N o n3 nzQ n as O as M 0 0 a) C N a) CL= O O M N N a) N'O N'— co o..Z > a) U m NwQ as CID 0 CID M O •- L m a c 0 M N U UM ma Co L U J 0) o Q @ N t0q 0— Z N to >' >• 2 o'v_ Novicao•co cUw a O a� c n N 0@ L L N N@ N m._UL, tnv u)� (1) 00 0 6 a)c c> N° m F- (D w o °c o @ n c o EY rn U V N @ U N 0 a) d U C 0 U 0 0p_ O o r M F- � U U %? °- @ F- (D CL �@a "= Za fd a3 0 - 15 @ .L.. O 3 Om Mw V) C C.LD 73 0 L 0 C O> o m •? 0 C 3 v c0 v ) i m Uj c m •o C . o 0..00 Z L L N a) 0 C a 0 'O 1- a) 0 O a3 n •(ai_) O (1) 0 LZ'OL N C N.L.. O 3w, tcoTm0 @co3 m UEw - NZ a�ca)tnc•Qv aDNa>f6Ca�N @m M m E CZ E 5 E 2 nmdN r> ce) UI Cf W CID 0 i r 0 0 r2 � 7 ¥� =eE =e woe =\ \@ A,&7. \2 0° 0ƒ IES E ° ®���` ,e_ �@&£f (D 2E (D (D j \@e7 0�o -. c 3' __ 0(D E 0C) a,=0 �k /\ °� /§/� @J',\ p\�} «2�j2w %3(=� e,C - §w ee �� `_ �k °�2ki§ k= 2\k - c (k 0 \kk /�� // ƒ\d_ �m ° J§V§@\ %2 °i> .�S =\ E0��\k f0k 2� o� =c E/ @ bid » e §° @M /§a§ \ff »£ =t ; )§/ CY)0) \M�5 }2 CL e2 >� E2) °«»o -ak .e == a) 3IAo �o ) ƒ$ §k }k ti2 /§J /3f /.9 ==, mt�m 2 2 /0\7j7 /Kw. _ o )Ek$£ ®8ga\I j * 7 a2act ° 22/ƒ\ I 0(D /a 2 /oo000 a0CLM §ƒ [ o0ccw 2 \%E? _2 g o ° °S) E -()0 0) / (D0 X (D (D \ §\ ƒ m0 �§ *j60 ; ®_k/ _/ w2 C -o - «Iw wa m# 2D -0 \f /§§ X77 ± «g$ -o ». 2 -� .o=x,m �,���R -- � &\f £% ° \2 A §� =E °«&R co ®kea -eI §£; »e, 3 °7aSa =R EIk 2 \E»i�)8 ®e =7 k # o2�8 po mt!2,— t§Q \B}2 /� °2 § § Ef¥\fE ; 2 /k( ocm Qoom Q4�CLCLoe; 2j §co Q 3 7 7 7 �7 // 3 2n 3 \ 7 ¥� � � 1] � /� =W eae =eea 0. -1 $e§ co tE Eo�S 2t Ike «e§, \\ 00 0 M.0 o/ §(D 0 CL , &E.� >= /2 e£,§ c�E_ e7 o , : _. � O 0 = 27 �2.�, =. e�2 �(D (D J+ < kC k%E§ CL X70 /»)j e - k` �D0 CL [2a3 , \[ §� \f 7k =t �wm ` »0(D M 0 ®9 \f%§e0 k/ o6mU = 2ma :3 �a- V5 o e =%,oa =o =e aa= 0( e - , \ / /k /k k0 E ®er Vim. Ek :3 g %o� §$=ec ; °�§ »E E , .9 �t�\k� 0 \��a� () 00, > 0) o co g$ac o 2kb «T �t2 ° °2A2tk *a 7 � \�j8\ 0a)0 oma >1 o ®�;K) w�22` ƒr_e " ">o eg�kf JCL= $ ;` =02 E2= ® e A - o;E_e)0 E� - }\ t22��2 0 EE .em;= �2�2m= ( Ec$�E2;§ ƒ\� / JU) Em » \e2 a� 0, m 0m & � � 1] � /� • • E 'V ! � rcNLC°c°(L)oLC0cyav) o�o`LVa �- i m U c>,c >,.-oc >Co 0Cic3 a) m m m 0 3g vi 3 V n N p E •C T+ m n' O` no n Cri V c ) o c o p -� a) �: >, f6: c. OU Cn mw> N n@ mN'a. a) c N >�° n� N D C._ o Cy @ c C> aEi C M E EO@ o o tz3oI -ma= m ,— C ""M(D W— op) N c oo> N "v_ a) o c• o�,c m m m N �r- n a� o m m m no m O N o) ` N L w? m0 U N C -cE y m vo '� U my E o w0 a� 3U 0).-- 0- m On CL ° o �_ a) v v my, 3 `�- @ c m x a)@ E c Cn L 0 0 @� c N U N •�p a) C CO C C N C " .. w w O N `� Cn Co CL- U N .- @.o U >a�'i0 N c> N .- n C �0amamo T v. " C om'oo n 2 CL >, NCvavv CL m W 46 m U mai CL n -c�° @ � • .@. C .0 a) D C a) rnvo3 O J - N ac ) CL v n nm ° c a a) y ( @00000a?L- w Lw L @�rn?o° L Cu �Q oo- oQ CL CL 3 E nn EE @H v H a) m Ua.E N CNO C c CO c C 0 C O c O N .. U L m .- m a) m a) NLOV° EaNi c mEa)3n3o QO a)wOwY�o� a)>tn0m UU @mot 3.E� o �a�v° m oa o o p�c"oi' E iCn L m> v "e p (D E o Ca o(D L.. tn' L o- p_Cy_+ o N o w ° N o -Q co (D ov �m rn L drama °-E co m f6U U) E Q (a> (D c .' oCOCno m E U) o n> c �E p) -° C) m 7 p m O M+- CL C +Lm„ a T Ca N U-p•3 w 'o C ~ O ai ° N N C ° O w •- >> N U O CCp •• 7 O Inv a) r v 0 E C m O w o c 3 m L n- o O - v) N C m L co r o c Ems- " o.... 46 v° c Y a) .+ o 0 0 ,G j d N j ,c m> a) v C, C L a v n J V N E.�cN° -team oomvN OUmv m � C)dOE°CELmE �m >ty oLCCL tc° C o o a) co H n o o W (D O) Cl) CO M d Cl) Cl) C O Cl) v w„ . M M M 'V ! � 0 Ily�c- -vr' a> o o a> U c .. w C ._ N> V O- �yU maci� E@ N 'p O N O.. m m 7 E- p +. y m n U O C U ' N '"' > 3 U U C '.' O C N N L N C @ O n CL C N� N m- E L.-. N CO m N a— 3 > D m'3 @ rn c N: D D c n o c @ L Ca a C @ m y 0 E'er C@ C -L p n �p U U y 7 •N mU m C•�� � 3 m N (Dm° "LU" m''mo o (D c 3 n momm -° E°�v �° Im C pn C N d o v> v> E Ci@ C '�. C O p_.N J A N T•U CO G> N> C L O p L. N N (Cp 'p L L L C V y C O y 0 0 'C � F- � F- F- U m co n T C T D uJ c N c Z+ O) O C U N C • m Y m m Y• OM C'-'L o o nL• - c . := 3 a°Lw U 0) Q) > p m C 0 3 0 0 C U C O O C L •,_, U r O m N U as 3_ 'CSR C T'C .N.. ° C D Q N N � 0` m v> U L O >. L C °> v� " E .. Q> �p c°°> a> CL a—Ei to (T O O E°� C U @ oU O w CD CL BEY rL• Z' °- n w 0 D rL• r C N O w w O U) '°O N U 0 w p_ N D C v> > C m m :� n U C ° C j m° C V) O �> :L- N 'p L p N .. y N Q E 3 �R m � � U � � @ o, L) U) 0 00� m> -rn0>" IQR CQl� CQ'1v °� T ULL ojnvm>v�> WQ�E�n� WQ c�o'> W d m a C; A A C O n M M u r r r d M M cM N 0 Ily�c- -vr' I] • • E YS J� 0 0 O_ n 0 L L 0 E .0 47 m a Ntn N2 cr�Q 0 (D (D (D CL C n c a?= rnm E C n W .. a E p M= a p p@ N` p c L 30 (D -a vy�L aD �� v� `L � CL 3w rn f`6 m•- �aYr @ N c 0 my m N O 'wS'c m p L (D V; 6LV O= Q 0 E CvCw � E c Lm E '6 cu ° fD 6 @ a`> v�v�oarnN.(D0 (D 0(DOV(D 0 00)= 5co cm m >>E.. L p C C OiyU @m 0 c O ; o cmi r v D -5 EcO D v >ama> (D CL a? m o o O X vi c O (D CL m O E m o> C 0 t N p ONnp NL nO E TJ@Om N a � C` c " � (D C a� " 0 -C N 0 m p m c L m W E > p @ ° • C 'O ^ C C U � ` m pN L O N CL 'S U N > p N U E- N> V U ' " • f-d C O E .p C F- ) P COL -- U 3 n $ U m > 0 n J Cl m m E (D (D U N L O (D p 2 E E a> O N Y 0 n N @ .O L U p 2 � p c N 0 0 O N 0 (D O m m o E c m Z5 CO rn a> O c_ a n m m v m Y � = � C 0- O 7 m N w 0. Yc CL vmo3 nE ap d LD O CO N a j m O E U 0 nm ,_, E m� mva m N rn a E 2 m E UQmn W dmmoi p 2 co d tm cO cO m CL M M c Ov v w� U � co Cl) !n E YS J� m co Y� L m •C a C> L c m L Vi L N E> 8 tq •,L,,, .. c N-0 O N .. O c w� > .. @ O Q w p� N j 0 .� N U w ( C c p• O o N (D U N E M 0 p vmmUan °wo c@ mpc cmm o@c .vc wN N N N a c'p - Um U U _ a O U 6= Cn N O j n0 C ° p O> OY Oa 3v L ` 3aD a no"O a> m n c r c CL w- m wO7 (D CL acia m ° p '?� o$ami c> m m' m .. n N LL r p� L' nc O 3 o 0 rw nc 3 nu m Co c� a>. yv c o .-a v� m �v_> a�oEQ °� cmU�o >m :3 (D >2N E =0 "M O JCL cnm; p of @.. O w n A2 @ w (D Nw m N p Q O 'O L O)'O N o-. M N° v O N aD to to i i 3 N .. > U N �? > n >, f6 c a �? > L v �HU �Z �w E of H mvds CL 0 CL CL a� c @ c c y w v c m (Dr- " N o� U axi >n=(D rn n o ..� 3air m c m c o o m o w c �a p:.v (D N m p E c> (D ° a np Ev - v� U `-' E o L co m >1 CL n 'O (D U O N � Q O N •.m- -, N s m E N c (D m nL ML N.m. 0 0 rn E 7 M N 0 N vi v~ N (D > 0 U @ p 01 V1 .. E d�O Co O) _ y G a N U O N m E c M i a c U ,-O a i cr a� c woo o� m ����� E 3° f E m rn= o a°'iav E o r o> aD —; >> m UH �o W Z.. F- WWNmwna> U mn n rn CL M M c O M M Cl) J) m co Y� • 0 O Cl) Y� N N N ,U w .>--., CL 7 Vl O n U � _ N 3 n N :w m c Q N 0.0- U c Q E C m n ;a vf6i m D U N U v O m o U vi h a> n w w o :3(D 0 Ea>io OZE Ea o c E U-oo a>0c c y � n w vm> aD O L�N @ 'a CL 0 O 0) N 0(D 0 0 O N v� v L 3 Q- CI c U c N n 0 Z m m �j '0 -0 (D c ?�. 0) 0 mL my E• E'a @ >> c 0 w m (D (D 8 E E r n Q v 3 n omE.. 0 : 0) n O m m E c w N o m C c 0 n v" 0-0 m N w w > C` N 0 .' E> N c n•c m O " v m n.- r c E v ,, _m ai v :3 c •� 0 C _m n V .-I N c > o C '0 > '0 U .N. N o m 0 .a 0- L 'C m C L m(D .m.I 0 •c N N 3 7 -p 3 n •- 0 p a@ O n Y c CL (Z C.0 m O L r c Q- w N •c Co L N L ctnE m .m. �'�'0j5 a(D �p •c :: 5 V5 p _ E a� aD d 0 00 .t? p X N Cl) 0 N@ n-p �' c N E U E n O c m n -0 0)'C c C W Em @mmL °(D >- :c`o0 m 0 L 7 N >. 0) 6 5 N a 2 L N O � L) o) .o s •c U d Ora m n U) a .o v� 0 Q (D rn m EL cf) Cl) c O 0 Cl) M !(D O Cl) Y� M4 LJ av) w f6 O U :°ate) @@ 0cc0 L' m w 0 3 X U d m N a) m O a) n �E �"v N > c� O U 0 n 0 a) 0 U. m nm m O� >.> Zt C L C n @Erri mEa)m v,w (1) a) N w N m.(D C n voa) C O a) v� �3 O U 0 N �' m V 0> mp O nQ 0 0 d V) m N :?v @ Qn� 4? a) N'm c • O m 0 0 d a) L 0 0 nO a) O 0 c E v �r_ > c " o nN a) Q o o N@ 5 yv 0 0UC ) > W a 0 o a 0 � �� LD a O 0 d 0 C n >. N 0 . m m d L C >> '0 U m L O j n m w C 0 > O N n 0 N .. N a) C> m a) :. N to N d O .L.. m >. �0mn FL-a3 FL - cocLw(D)FL -m c(D N@ N C ( 0 •C C @ L w N ..+ O @ N E C �= a) m j> •`—) @ N a) C N .. E N EL n0~ @ naNi N E E a)a a)a O o L m E Co L C 0 m 0) C 0 O N N N L m "�' n N 0 �O .Z U O n.V O 'L > C! a) c o w a> m n.°- L m .@ N 0 C n m d 'D n a) o 0 0 > (D m 0>= 0 a' ("D m (D0.-m •ca)rn"_o mmCc 0"0 a) 0n•- v w m a C C O wm m o (D "(D a 00� o ma) :.a)av c.. m we .,n ate) y 0 cv COL =C --.cam O (D m N O C .(D N 'n M O C O M C cj O N 10 ... N a) M a) o fE n °E c � o v �N m > 0 m O • U E o o Q L N p :3 + ° C N O N Ud0)vmcLU) V5aEw QrL E QQO U dm rn o m CV aM A A c O U) Un CJ 0 to Cl) c+i c+i M4 LJ 0 0 0 N M yq� �(, a c(D �(, O C 'V �c f0 C C L CL 3 L L a>i a>i a>i @� w-> o 00 0 c E.0 c 0O 0 c v C 0� O f0 @a v 7 C cv •- 0 'O Om 0 Om ("D 'O 0 N 0 0 O •- D_ 0 N O 'O O v n > a M > v v O 0 7 2 n U C C .O O_ a c C 0 C 0 0 N a M 3 N a N a s a = to to to C a N 3 L 3 L C N CL 7 L L C U C C ca U N O o~ co U O co U 0 o m 0 M.. o g m (D °-m (D w co O mw >tw y$ �= vi N @0v mvi€ >t� mw ot� W o cm O W O'•o W o to N O@ O O m� o O a 'O 0 'O = 2 'O '= �H my in � m UL @ H mv`Q m mv` 0 o �=:s w Co m 0 (am -° E M w E (D i o c''i o 0 0w o c `° @ .= O .. a°im�vcf6i�L m m E(m o w, > w a 00 0 0 N n "O' CL L > N y N E C to to aD cwa L .- V5 U m (D m o a> a vi 'v w c 0 cL m 0 mw (D= o m Ow O- 8m.!= C U O •L..Lw 0 E g Fni0 CL a vEv�0 " 0 0 o �cc M � 0 C U 0 3 C m 0 C @ O) N j5 w 0 L > '� 0 C M 'O O C f0 0 d O CL f0 .L. C L 0 0 C 0 •C 0 .. m .L-. a CO .� V O N O_ N@ @ 0 0 °- E 7 a C 0 �_ ma •O c w CM A «C' 0(D o 0 o o �tCL r @ E c 0 L 0 0 cT N N E ca 0 D_ C 0 O` C c6 ch �- E o Imo c � ¢U' � QU' oL> U�wata (D (Di a� o' aTi >1 n Ul pE» n F-W Q v E W o dw W 0 M O N N W N Cl) Cl) d M M M M C O 00 N M M 0 . N N M fn M M M M N M yq� M M0 1] 0 5DA� •3@ 3@ N N W W j vi Q U N vi Q Vl !n m U) m W na W na N N U N N U m.O_.•O m.O,.O O y C 0 O y 0 C n n v v ma ma O O U O O U C O C ,O N.L. O N.L. O O p n O n OO m N m N C O C o C J O N J O •N N L c0 N m �F-a m FL-a m oc0 I °mm mo N a t ° 00 O 0 O n @ L-j U) L C 0 0- >. O O m? E��.. O O L O N nL fC0 c rn= O O > °)O L U j C N O > O O nN CL •0 c waC •C m C @v J N 3 U O E O Y c c m m m m M.9 O:oo E o=� a 0In c yU� QU c p x QU) >,- `p�-p O O Vl a �2-j 'O 'O W c (D< 2 N N N f0 L m .E C O L w N N Q m O LL V 0 W m n C c mE L I �ow`Noo` � O c o •7 O gjCL U7 v a7 (D Er m c v N U OIL _j 0) C U 3 E =0 m C n O O O Z 2 U y m Uo wE ve Nv> @ ` m o :2E E � aL L O 'c N to E CL 7 O O.0 O3 0 „O E0 nEv � Z m y 0 5 N E L O L N n O O U O L m 7 m > UZ5 u)U)2mcv�n WQavE W m a4 c o w7 my v M M0 1] 0 5DA� 0 9 V• Cl) 5`/ C � fU C � ° C fU ° ° 0) = N V) 'r @ a @ (6 U O.L.. C O C fU N f0 '0 C C "' U L +•• 0 C N f0 O _ w Co @ C N c @ Co > (D On Q tl .. m w w0„ fuE�,oyoE :°•C °c 0 O @�'v> aoUfu •a1 fu"' C O @•� O T'O07c0•.@.L aaN w Q O n 0 U O 0 m C N 0 (U '6) m o c N fU 0 - m cca o" o L LO, 0- fU @ 0 '0 `t- m j 0 fU 0 m ° o ma 0.0 fu o 0- ° E- (D(D O UU(D m >> tofu L f0 U -- (D U° cc 0.— -I O w3a` _ E > E Cfu M:3 cf6N C L CL= O 'C T .. fU N a O N L ca ° n ` 3EfncE fu v, fn3 CL @ m.(D 00 OL U co c 2 9) ° Cl) %° ° Ea @.. O ° v L E NL - O °- m fn .. fu a fu ° 0) Co fU fU C > @L. O p Q L 0 m o) m Q 70 N O fU W o �tnwwa E c o mv` fl°1vw (D °- FL- L N N N U fa C O '0 0 CL w @ w N O V) U w 0) +L•, 0 w a `t- 0 w U N 0= (a co @ m� 3 fu N m 0`o mw m c o D)o o 0�1 3° m4- c a(DoFLfua(D°@ °L mm.- ° @0% -E of E° y m ° 0 y -N c.. N ov O c '0 C U U ° U• a O FL- E E 7 U O C f6 fU .. Cl) O(D N 0 3 U N '0 n L C ,., C a) j C@ L >,M--5 0 U O 0@ O L 'O a 0 0 --� O C 0 C U_ 0 .L. u1 Oaf"' Y p� fU u1 U) O Nm O pd'r 0NL O CQ m 'O C Z'r .-. > f0 'O0 r@@ Q E M OC +f6- > N _= w M ••@-.. 0 N C C @ @ u= T@ E fU f6 C fah O fU 3 y C 3 4) = c f EcU v vi ma m Q Vn) n oL m�. c 0 Z�� fD o 0 ma) °° Y O L D Q� C N L lV O N mw 0 C L O +.. rte-. C r U U) .@.. @ -0 L U) 7 7 0 N 'y O > C U) O N O OyD fdw uJ >,@ (V� ~.0 y'ON C.-: '0 fd 010 CM C 'C m '0 O '0 Q a Q) N 3 N '0 N fd M UO @ N t c0 U lU E .0.. m to y m to O C O C O@ (V'. V) ;_, E -5 0) _OEY° �, oov/al;gvi°��0a°i m .. .. C O O L O (V fd C@ T O O L n o O fa fd fd O` n c `� T N 0 0 0 n '0 n m� O a C U F- 0 U) 0 U E L N@ 3 a 7 lU M fd a �' C O CD Iq U) V• Cl) 5`/ MO zi-34 C 'N ° 'C C > ' C O C ° O (D (D .5 V c N E N 0 c p m m '-r- C L L O (D c O p = (D C—CL " w O m > m � 0 o Q o� c w m ° C a a D w o C(D ° N U CL iE '° ` C d N (D (D -a aa� @ N �x ai ° Eo 0 an a)�n v?m voo Q> rn U (n U J O U CL L C U m C Q m '-m+ C N N@ Q ` C Q0 3 (m/) � m N m 2 E 0 w (D w0 _o �@ M mn O(u C'- .@ v> >,o o v'�)n C' �a @ 2 o E nazi co' N c p)E v� C M (D m C O N N '° ° O` °) N O. O` .L.. v O O-' .L.. N CL J c c L .L.. Oa. Q m CAC a 0- oT h °mmoT. -mnm�j 3mwcmiom@ E o � � o oEl1? .2—= (n _ � v; 0L > N c o >S ` O-p c CL @ (a @ ° °r dower N � ¢ E m @@ E a N O 0 w U C c V) 'O N c y O U a) O 0 .. U ° O Q (D F'i Q CO '� (DV N E � N 2 w w p O m O U vi N' .= c° .O i= ce c w- m X o N@ p> 0 op L 3 ±� L a) a N it N U) (n W 'O 2 N U) 0 U) v a 0 m 0 0 m U C) C) E m N U C ." c o (u CL 0 m 0- L U CL F- J 0 Q "' (U L 0 N Cam. N (U 0 (D M (n U> 3 U (U = 0 W O_O-c 0 CY (6 NQ fl.N N(D O N Q 0) -I O m 0 0)- 2 m .m...m m N 3 o Q U N� c ctn O (° c m m p m ww L` m" U 3 c -° 0 3 L C C Q L (n Y@ o Co 0 > j.La �.�w ° m Co N N N (n .. M O F 0 w C Q co .'. O ` (D ` E D (D E m a W V J .a 3 "' o N L> Vm) N> O ... > O� .Q QO No 0:E-0 O Cl) +-' L V �-p . c U >+ m a+ C a c .+m'F-Na v 0UQ E- co J U-p N 2 p) 0) _C 0 V- c -- c j N p p L N (U CL O U� o L O> 0 I-W a m L 2° 3 CL0 p C O L N F 0 -w m CL 4 c O Nv v MO zi-34 0 m T @ m c U C w N � .. m y w O Z C = @ w w v�•3_ m :m (D (D O a N CL m i � N C 0(D O T N w U > 0 O C N W a m :2 v c (D m Q U V1 U U) Qa N (* U @' 62 c m o CL v ma 0 (D 0 0- p N m D C 0 J N N UM > N m Ha m oa�N 0 $ ww cmvi C m 0 co N .0 C c > c @ U L N — d 0 .. N N O po> mL @ n vi d .>--. c a> LU c f6 E C 0v E� N .0 p U mf6cEEc L t'il Co a cL >,.>__' �U) r+ C @ m oZ �w m CO :> 0 U) 0) y (D -0 0) m pv p O c N @ 0 m f`6 N 0 C L) O O (D 0 E (D C ui O C D . m � L n a(D (D w m -p f6 Q. 0 o LL w � @ a mma p 46 U) U m L C > LO v O a°i v v v CD Cl) 53 nq 0 $ a¢ N N = C m 0 c CN .. 0 0 0 CL mow m mEa mL @ �' c Q w '� (D �: cLi� a�(E c 6 2 p U 3 L t'il Co a cL >,.>__' =gyp 0 Q .. m CO • y 3 r p m (D 3 O �v�L =Sw-3 p O C E" m o o 3 0 ( .� c E (D v>1 a; c p _j � L n a(D (D w m -p f6 Q. 0 o w � @ a mma p 46 ocw c @ O > M 8�•> a� m :t- 0 p 0. - C O N C� >+C C N N f0 c O O p m L_ > p O N U C N O j N F -r- :7 .� Emc c d C m =a 2 O .. N C 0 CL w (D n N N 1=02: y m w m 3 w o LO v O a°i v v v CD Cl) 53 nq 0 a¢ N N = C m 0 c 46w= E mow m 3 Q w '� c 6 2 ...: U L (D 'O Lll (D (D v Q (D my upi ¢I�D �v�L =Sw-3 Owo w� w�Lm,N �a oL v>1 a; c p r @ of v3pm aci E a mma p ocw c W� a� m 0 p w m m w o w �a U 0 3 0 O O N w> N O N g QL O wr(a :3 n am -r- (D 0U) co c'a c d o 3 aD m =a 2 n f6 > N =a ov mw E y m N mw, c E :. a N Q _� o0 Q c w- _ a? 0p .. Utn.S !- WUvEnw tiWH3nw tiW LO v O a°i v v v CD Cl) 53 nq n 0 `J 5�� w w >. — C != C T to N N .0 N j .. O L U > m N U U FE F '•' tT = p '.' td m O O.L.. N p > > N= U p N p O_ to to a > m n > c m o= _ r r _ Q Q oO � 3 °tn a= a= @p>.@oawv_ mU w m� w to @acv' m• > m w- mwv •- a o O O C ; O O C tv 0 :L- m L N n N a o a o C c� co w T m p m U m U v m p '0 to a3 to a3 .0 (D c O _N '= oo N i N a a C w w m O 3 N w w N to N c m coax ao r 7 E >vE vm0 O-0 mw ° N 0 Na c v m v m c j@ o@ c U ° >, Q >, o N m 7 to N •- N C 3 N 3 to w N O N O N L ma @ O N w X w a' V1 @ L U m C O N O U p Q j �O c Vl 7 N C C 'O c 0 @ 'm-' O= N p` O. v m CL p w C p N m c _` d C oc mm y� N U w r 3 tats °p U O m ~ C 0 3 �= w L L CL 0) = r m a (d to a w N O 'O _ 0 L p 2 (D +-' to to .+ ` 05 t°j `� 0 C c L d O N O tt- O m H O - C N to °) a L .: ' O C @ N v „@, U N ' O E N> '� m C 0 = ca0 N L 0 N L �- o LO m a O � •@ U c > °c �- a�ci >� (D U) o :° co a�oi 00 > � E 000 > � N a C.= o > v E= a o o a m s r m U E O m ton mop to :+ EUN C m m C CD m m@ _ m to C m aD c d m E -a (D aU LO (D ( � 0 (D ID (D EOwMi°' EEEw �vmmv vp vU") °o ¢ Qvr ¢3 UWwo �°-¢ LU< 0�m � '* '* v CLm c O Cl) V N V N n 0 `J 5�� • • • 9 525',C' C D L O O L O 'O 'O •- = F- N ` U > N O) c c U N :. V1 U) @ O O •7 @ fd j @ N "' �- (N6 N p� O O N N @ L L f0 >.6 O >c�L Q C 405 0- (D U- w w U N Vl U Co 3 U) m y 'D T C fd c mo @ U N N Z51.2 (D a�i�EE(D aN N o 0 �. 2 v� Z (D �mL v (D 3 O M� N � U 0 U) w O N O� � y� c0 0.2 -a C a @� @ 0 0 y U c c C N O y U c Q N 0 .-0 d � N ._ d to �- N N@ a W to to �.(D >= ma �a 0 Co CO 02m mUoa�w3v W N J ID N O- 7 O O= c m m'02 rn v (D ma oE= V, V- E c�iw r F- o � :- c c o ~a3 aci am (D 0 c 0 m Y L E > N .t. N 7 0 (o a Z am. -mm v� N ("D� C .@. N O .- p C U c' - p N >, -O m F 'c 'O N L Q c m •• N Co �' M C 0 O (D 0 O `�- @ 3=� r v� a cw -ya�c U)5c..v�.. :? a C V v o c 0 U@ U m �= y Fn a> c w @ v m 0 o E_M: N OCO to>. =�� (D (a @ (a 0 E ca rnw 32 co QWW m 3 v,� N ° v,v- °'w (D c @Lv C m N c v N ,., p (a aoi N c v c•N a; c c.. (D a> a> :3 2E—(D Eaa€i(9�0(a ¢�`0ID vE0a•> U oo(D O .- m.�a.E LUF— (D co�� Qt UQv � 0 W cn av v c O co Cl) 0 9 525',C' rn v vio LN wLW(1)'>1coc rN mo ioma) @�cLnl -y 3h "L co c0ic@ U mNo !n @o� 0 N N C .O fd Co L L w L L U CO 0_ N N C N o vi a� N N >+ L d m 0_ Co N 3 L c nN 0) U .. N Co o N .. ca ca > L w ca > C L 0 != N U >+:.. cm O C "' c`0 Vl w, N C Co .. .L.. -0 0 -O c0 .:3 N Co co Vl N Co _N w .; @ O C L 'N O y +0•, N c0 = N d 0 0 N U O 'O (D mw C U� c0 (a C y coi C C� 3`! (a U � ..+ t .N .@.. 0 2 Q)= O m N c a�io y0cNic ccoco@cO_N..0 0r cu E w 0 °' N 3 co co O CO N N U vi o to C CO " N p •.�" --, c" 0 O y N m N '= •° ' °@ ?. (D-(L) 0 "cN @c @w wN30:� �m�Z ca of6a�.>c> c ca0c c0 •— (� N >, N N •— .— U O O> i O 0 C C (D LC C r D_ 'O N co N N> V@ m N C r+ a) 0 L O o @ N N o co 0 @ 00 m Y N 3 @ aci��y °acin�c°�NOV�m N Cl. c >0"o N E N'v 0 co 0m � co m:r C O a 0 o v �0 co N N N o_ Z O N C o> m O 0_ C co Co 'C L �H "aHU > E (D �w H� (D :3 CO na 0 H 0U 3 m o N w' N N N O c - c° '0 c0 Y N N v-1 c=acnw ,, 0 N 0 mo` 0 => = mm C � aUi fd Co N>1 m o 1 =v N -0LitL N >�,7 N= ` cO Cff Co > N: 7 y _ C C 0 y U C m Q @ .N. N co U Y 0- c 0 U L N m 0) m c0 10. 0 -O N N> 0 0 0 N Co > 0 = .. U N '0 N y N 0 c 6 62 CL co o Z@ @ 0) CO U m U@ c c nc co.53Lci zcm@ �mmoc w N N v V1 N C c0 0 @ rn'3 E N o ,N > c0 � L 0 :_. o:° c N N 0i1 ` T N Q 0) aci U U N c6 CL S� O N ,U > L O) 7 N_ +.., Q C J N i d N.L.+ N N 0 '.' N@ N O C �— L N UJ .� c0 L w > .. .. .. [L N V1 I- V1 O @ Co V1 p` '0 @ .Co '0 p >.'0 Lp N N N O @f6vNw(D o°� co 0w> 0).2! m ctE c` co 0 c6 ca� L N �' N( n C >, v c •i a C N N ., C O C 0) W Ea?co E N (D CO U (DxCLco °' a 22 +� N j rnv,a N E �> N E a� m o 0 °' m e O UL N m 0 QDZ 0 c 0 0 CD L N 0 0_ N I—m oM O UUU O m@ Co c w O» o O U m � 0 N r N co C O C7 c7 (7 rn v • 0 e -5 yy- C C c N C O C 0 d D d O co C'p 'a L '� (D (n;� .d�p. 'O 7 co d d I O L C L C U U 'O N .O d N CO d c O c_ b (n .N CV O O v L p- C m C m vm vm o�0 0 (D(DM d v 0 d v Q n 0) p 3 L m w d c- U cc' dU Z� �N E o c c ' LO@ o @ d d d d O) j O > Z d a d a O o n @o`oN rn s = ad _ rn - sad d @'c W > d d C CO . > U E o m o m� (D c °)� c cdLoc d (D d (D d 8 °� m 3 c m C O p@ w p@ w o Z 0 2" t" 0 U w U W O U W O d d W d d L 'O C@ d 'O L C@ d C d C@ L 0:2 d@ .dI C.L.. @ p �' I- f6 'O H f6 'O H U H w O d L T fN6 C > > O O @ L L > U O @ > N C @ fd N N N U L L t O O d a N d d _ �p O L L N- 7 (n (nn ° (D m > n w- O c v (D d a _a�3 +=d _ d L o .. L 3 0 QM 3 m . N . m o f m n)e c c N o W � � mm ae E @ �U >. rn dv O C d C d v(D0 U) c o din �•o(D ° c��,o � C7 E d U UU na V cn O d O@`p d �L7 CiL��pOCp U C U 6m UI- U WC D I- C W I- m Uvw > WZ 00 M M a4 v v c O M M M r+ r r r e -5 yy- • • MIS -p 'p Y (a f0 • (L) (L) (L) (L) a) A'p (1) a) "' >, 70 a) - '-' ° a) N f0 C °_ L N •L,,, O w C Q w E w C w w >O ` o � N° m 0Ea>ou (D rj F °o a) C a W ( M m °(D E °QN8 ° C ° y� U (D'cvL o o c o m d m o> a0 C . " N C w p C C C a) �N `c V O U.° U o 0 N E N O c 0Q a N M (D O E CL C E d L 'p C 0 N a) L m o ° a N (D Ev ° ° .N a rnTO o : ° U (D o ° U (D -0 aw L c �_ C 3 C w a) 4 a) C m a) o- f0 0 'p C N L d 0 m° r L L.. ' L c d> a) 3 'dp U w a) cm N 0 C H •- `�° c mU °- �' m m m- yL c aa) p ov N 5• •O o Co o c o m E cf0iwa a`°i oa o� m o 'S u, U Q C o U c X a) 0 N U c U N 'm N V° w- U p) ai E ._ 4? 'Sa a) a w >, J M y O CO .a M O y ui ° N -' Co a) o CT C rn m a� - o E m a) c a d rn 6 fN0 d �m Z U N w _ O a� U d N d a C fc0 N (D a 3 N d A U) da) °pN) OE�co L m o d oO c` . dC d " O N U - U O O p o >d > N N j0 .0 U U 0) y Q U N O L 0 � 0 "-6—J'5= 0 U d 0 a 0 .d. d U.L. d x� N m a) OR R a U HERO m to N R o a Mo m .M o o a) C M M j aL c U a) m�� � � d o p O p N a y Y `) 3 (_(pp CD U L C d d d r O Q) E c z L U a O L U 7 p C N fn p d Y m C r .p U N dt: U 3 d N p 3 d C p d p aZ .. d •C d +. L O pr p a) L d C a) °�� c a)> m E EU o a) z m c w wvr (D a o aci a) d U to a) U a) N a) y"- C L (D O E E m o w aD � `� m m m� 3° oLOEo >� ��m° magi U H U a o r o W W r y Q co d Lo CD m M M a v v c O M � U� � V Cd • • MIS 0 0 CNI v 15 � C U d N d E N N L w (D c a 0 0 L •- E d L c 3 ..c 5(D ed+ U D C d U p O O O N C o U U •C d d C ._ a c m a 0 'O Vl a — 3� c Nd L° L o mV aE c � d@ O O w N U f0 d "Dw c O@ N> U O CL d m _O d W �Ha L 0 L O HL L H C cOv CTU wr Eat o � m d to d p @ ul odi O 0 EU� .. � m'. N y aNi vvv •_- 7 0 V O f0 L .0 •V d 7 d L (D E U ..:� y N u/ d a @ T•+@+ d O Val -p C .V E O N :� O C @ r L 0 C N @ a N a d m d p d C t O (D v O C L O@ L o E M CD C'� Q) C d E �O' y� rnE� 3@ rn v rnc? �l U ¢ c CD 0 U J 3 N W' N D d > W U W m v C O V � � 0 CNI v 15 � Cl) 0 0 C N @ C c -O LL °TE me a) aL 0 S a) O C U N 7 a ` p C C C O t/1 a C a) 0.0 U N amia mL amity a= U' O 3 O .. m a 0,6 y v wL c f6U d O m (L) N — @ L .. > m O 2 W O o U m L L 7 U aNiLC �F m m y L � rn3 F-a a> O a> v w _c v� L O• m v a> w a> �a a> (D v a> w L Lim _ me m (D d>n3mLn3�_ @om.. 0 5m a>amL c•ww� d 0 a0 v_� E 0— 3 a c m� L a) �- a) o f 7 d C@ off, O- C L �.-a p c m @Z�' @f6�Qo @0 c �_'7 M •C p 0 N(D O� m@ f0 fC6 d C C d y '•�-• O@ C m L a� m E rnm ov o o)o 3 a 0 m o rn °� a C O m}o ma mo D N o L m Y :3.2 C 0 m U 0C— d dF_ U D'-''. C E E O vE (D Ep 0". y d @ o C >, f >, p 0 O ♦, C 7 d U ,� .-. U U p m p M m :. O m O a C O a L •D N N N m w C C S` d d •y C _ 3 @ r,- U d 7 a� N E -p c6 m O O 'C E 'O C_ C v. CD N D d '.@_.. C E °3 UU o U U > v d E d 7 3 o m,cL c— C' d 2 c o C d ¢ rn E :) :) d O S Jz O .L.. L D E ,� C O L O C O y d d C3 , d O 0 0 N m m OF mrnm6ouEU. a._�v�v ui aa..� OU d cp CD m M M CL v C O U ! � V) Cl) 0 0 Ll 9 v 6/ `l( :°. d v o N r 8o 015 l - °' m= ° p c Uc Em ` p N C C :3 0 O C° N L� N 7 C C .. .N L CA N N •N p O C O E cV m d C p D N a N > C N N N C w- Cp ^�p CO � j M C �p `p w C O - N Cl) c :r MNC N N (D aa= N 3 L w0 C 'O m O O U !n N O> w L w O N� .L-. C 'O 'NO 7 E- N V- O N E p C N U O C C V w Vl N M 0U C C O O'D C CL C'o N o 0 3a > a� o (DM U) .� °- O w j V m O� N C C N- 0-°' >L Nww ° 0 TN N m 3a a7-p N •V1 OLC N6 j N CQ :3 U,m, N o E w � �cd mt O p_ E a- d N m O p .. C N N m J pO� W O CL d M d i t N` N U N N 0) > .O a d N �° U " L m U N -a U to Q m m L C N N I— < "Q— 0 m •• N Q 3 w w L c I— m y L_ C� N m m° C N U O U v mU° w N Ca >L 0 0 O` (�O ,J p � 0 p (a O_ a NM c° E N N a C E a N 'O C N T 'O O 'p 'p p" y 'O N m 0--a m C m 0 co 'O O m _ Cl) (D C m C co 7 '°j- O 1 C LL E O O m -p y m N N N rU C C N dL N '"' L m m m.. C N L O)N N C C O) U ya M O a° � m c °) ° �n (D aN �..p0a Q C0i> c O" N O m o'D U N 'O (D W" L C y a co O N C N. 'O N m co -a (D Vim= N a > 0 3 0 �a O) N N M T v U° O N O N O `L. ° O W N -p �0 0 p_ N a N C w C N co Nm m �-p Nw c N2 m NomZ O rn C ° C N L �rnm"N N c C mvNN > E '"' m N U o N •C cpicNCOp N Vl O °' N > .N 'O 'O 4) O N C y N y i a O_ -p U O E U C C U E U) m w N 3 N> Q co .2 E E¢a m m Q ° c 0 N L m L N O` Ci O O X N O C'1 N N C'1 U"- fOr��Um UI -�ZQa WCDaNa UW X33 W N O m N m co Cl) Cl) IT d 4 C r U (V (n v 6/ `l( Lo v* 9 Ll �Z� W(1) W W o 0 0 N L ` ID `mac m > m > W N L 3 n n U V) C w C C m p N LO f0 to @ wU N N wa°ic`a m m Q' L N U N N 4O O C C E p N 0 C C O d 0 L C N@ N@ N ID m �FL-U (L C) (L C) C C p r D C L O .@-. C •C f0 T y to N C tq C O y 0 ADO o �EUv'E U > N r N = p N C p> C U O 0 C9 C m@ 0) Q C 'O N C'O 46(D T T w to O U p p 2 U N p U 3 p O to r O U O N )LL O_ `LL 'C 7 C to U 0)= N E OM C N p) U U o _ Q N D O .y C= E LO `� L C `� N Y r N C O O C LO CO @ a+ 0) L L S > L E O U :_. c to 3 O> c6 >> >p .@.. tq O F W Ld to LL O 0) U w Q d N N M C v v av C .07 N N U N N N 0 C C Lo v* 9 Ll �Z� `J 0 0 v my O (D O O 7 N t� N C U L N N a m m a� O L 30 70 N 7 U N V) Co N C m " m m N N � N C U 6 .•0-• .0 y oU cTim"E w a� �H-i L (L Z L) H U O N r O -„y, N-) C m N O c y N m y 0 0 N O Q N m L m m L_ m N .- m C C C C O pr p)� g =D D U 7 ?3 y m 7 m` L D m 0 'O m 0 � U 'O U U U o N > Q y >,,5 C O y m Qj d CD m L N N y C '.' � 3 0 -` m E -p o U E O 3_ �- m 0.5 m T U d 0 O m N M C V p U) m x y N a) O ._. D m U m N T L ` O T m D y m` N y 0.- >O TL > N .-. D O 'O N y U C O N m O ` m m C a N 3 7 L U ` C Cp Q) a m �. O E. O.O L C I N N U) 'O C U C C M C N L p 3 p V N N m m p QO y C CD E N N E ` N O C y C o 7 mD E G W E V N U) m CD m 0 o G O p D D D U U Lm U d3o°p0=o= m� (L L) — mv) WZ N M v v v amv C o N N N N U N N N N fn 'V* v 0 c 0 m � :? -=C? m A) c m cm -0 o m (D 0 :3 ° co (a ° E NaE °° N N'C _0'O O N �Z� C) E� m co 0 c m y unite° 6 a) p myZ v1 ° o w aQ w @ cc (D a_ - U m N @ >, ca @ O >, QL m U_ .� CO O w"-mL C) ` m V) E y .2 c Q- v� 3 c.5 m 0 UE m 3m(D cm— (Dc ID o� N aNiw rL-.L o v N UZ U• --)-1 c E m v, w A. � � N 0 0 0 0.0 C 0 O N 0-2 0 3 c y w 20 -0 N L (D 0 m c0 0 0 N V C °' C> C O m ' N O O y M d N L m M.0 E 0 j O d 2-0 0 C ° C L v 0 m E u1 C gran om 8 (DE d N ° O N � � r w (D (D �fnw CL aE m H v�-0 cm V)v` u1 0I olj 0 0 0 0= 0 0 0) 0 0 0 C 0 C 00 C r-• r-• L = C C C 'a = = QY _ E m C E - � �o > m ID AD : EM Co °C E E w . @� o0-=m m n -0 -0 c N> o3v C o C ag o m O C, Ow °-`E° E `M° O c m m .. v) m o ° C a) W (D n —'Q oZ 0 (D c) CL j co nc E m m >, (D �•Q0 mid c m @ E viw o U) cm 3= o o 0 nw_ (D-0 c y•C a> m o E 0 m >,m y ° o of � (D-0-J E 3 N (D r. n._ r o `h�cNO� (Dv_):D3N Ern � (D �Za) v om >, �nL� a)c)cmo a 0O COm N wMU?; ° =ym'°0a NO'N0`C O 0M o ° > _�'3g °� N =0 (D � Co I C4 r- E �a�, ya m Cl- Za (D > C c and a)p E.. E - m�� (DEN—m Q�`� == E(D .o (D °- °- (D -0 Ea`D'v:°.E Ea _ o COL gE(D E3w�amiEm e 0 UH L N CO o> W N N CO 0 N 0 0 V) d 0 0 m m 0 N ,,- v cn Z !_' S ca m `n m EL v v c O c) N V N N N 0 0 Ll • d i 0 aD (D v (D m (D v v 0 - L L C O)•C L C C •. •.mm�w -mmy N 0 46 (D o >, L L -O (D 0 0 Z3 > O)o U-0LLLL c 0 c Q 0 0 w .0 c m� m E e m 0 O �v? CO v L.. = N c.> += � C L N 0.0) N L •� O_ U Ui :-. •— (D f0 N C0 @ M h a> (D (>D N U) D E (D (D L @U (a oaD N�U�. aD�3o-�E a 0� C0 -E LU a L °..vfdiD J �n oLLUU o 0 O p fd M a> co Co 0~ V O 0 C V ov N E� NU m�� Q) U C N N C !0 /1 eN+ C O C N 0@ 7 U_m@ 0_- @ O E V °'� Vl d N N a Vov�voi- N O �p =vE� �p N fd fd CD af t) (D — tA( WZ: Vl C O@ .-..0 C `6 0 0 N 0 y@ o Y 0 fn Y @ N v) N L r C O 01 C f0 y0 O.E fd N p .2) � U 7 C V (D N V O` ID N U _ 0- Y y E 0).2 T Y m 0 � -O N L w O C c-o -. E y. C y m o E O C C y N w T N V fd 0 @ E E� o O @L °~ co 0 Y n0 mtn L° .0-. N 0 N N C@ N m V @ m 0@ C a�U) w o-0 E o W �aa aciw 'E O 'O 0 tq N@ C N N Q N f0 -00 0 C C r V E L @ C 00 = 0 7 0 N f0 0 m p 0-M 0 Q@ O " C E@ co O N 0-C N E ) 0 'O V) co p �O m co 3 0` tq O a nj C U C N> 3 3 co �, T 2' U Z C V) O N C�= .-. O - a 0 COV d C O N L 0_� 0 0 N N ton 0 0 0 0 r ♦+ O C 2. N ` N 7 :E 7 N= 0 0 0 0 0 r N Z E V�@ O N N N 0 L C am 0 O o E (D E 'VD) -0 p U U'-� 0@ N U C @ E T Q y 3 m V aO N 0rL 32 V a 3 TC v Na V .oL U y ao (Dof o o- v a� rn9 co y U�t m a W coW �dZm o- aoZ �d v ao 3'= C7 (D v co U av v C O U-) � V N N d i Q) .i E • C N C_ � C N N 2 > C_ m O N C E - @ a> (D aNi N U O L C +-' N V1 V1 L O) 3 @ v of w �•m coo yo° rnC7 c m D U N w N N V1 C 'O N U co m ,> N ° a m Fu O O tll 2 Lm U U �H3 _ ami a°in @ C N O O N c o c L L r w N f6L , O , - 1 M M= m m m fC6 m@ 3 (D 3 v.@i m mmE 3 c o j 046 U c° m y N N N � m m .. �mvimNa>� ° @>� -oor> v°° E°D ° 3 o°i c o co 0 a mca omr �vcam.• O °c c m"- >•N "0 ' N m N °c3 Y E c ma> N a v a L y C o o c o a E a' m O w> o rnc:°. umi >, @Z U rn> Nv ° (D Co O 3 > CL ° . € m .. ° 0 a(D �. E a � am= m �a° co V) N (D m� CL c w m-° ai Q m vo ' Lo E �> °o �>,E (D @ ca O • @ N o c o y m N O V1 wg oCL •-Emr N O m m _O m y u 1 O) m N m a C E y jz c�c ca %- >c>ca>Lmw '=w a°W @m E._ ca d o o p o @> y m m w rn E E c c 0 � Z N y Q) m m m a L a� � arc j w "0 m m O m'D m '� L"' C a p> C)w N Ei3 p •C N n:E N@ >w: �p w Em o L a3.5 :� m m stn p_ m 22D N W U 9 I-W (D CL c O Un fy M d 7 � N Q) .i E • • E 0 O )O 6� O t�6 C O w N 3 2 L o v N 42 O m 0 m 3 tnn m c �- E U0�' U (D o) U w m O E (D c @o L... (D 'o C > C L n tq L O -0 E >T U O n 0 L O +� O, C O— O a s N N > td E N : C O to 7 v c m » v O U N D O p "' O mcam= @ O L3 U tail C C N O C : a a O3(D cE fn am fn U Cl L n@ N @ L N > > .O O Z @a)cvoE otn> a c ON - ma o U D 'O td o _ N @ �� a � (D U O.O. C t0 .O. O O O �• .L. fd „@„ @ N N tn(D (D� @— w � (D0 to O Co L N Z 'L U "' O N .L. .. �.. �L t�0 a) Ld (D o n @ tn2 c E O tD ��— CL te° M ow .: th vi m n@ v N O m N M vM0 to NL nE v T U O > .. a U 3@ O >, U U C . C _ w CO '0 t) N •0 U O O)W- U 'O _ C N C O O td N C N to C L L 3 L L .. L (D toil U. (D t� tv c.5 0 " c 3 c E Li to �, : @ W § 3 O d N W( to W ai U(D cLiV5 ¢� m $U•E qQ q rn rn rn as v v v c O i ? th th O )O 6� 0 6 6- - c = C °° C O'ca WN ° m m _ m L( -ia T m > m� c00)m0 vi(D v o of ° U (D aa0 m o c at6 c m c •° O =a a� 0 0 N 6 m> O N 0-0 � U > n. C a(D m w N •C -°0 m N (D •c a j v� 0 >> '°. 0. L N — c N m 0 c c` w L m V m m Cw �' N c 0 ° 3 a'oL�m C m e M o o U co O) -Em > a >w. L ovm m° _ (D EoUOOOOC m U�comNC•oU U L c w O m 'O m c-J 0 - N m CN E.L.. 3 N U W m°°w.L.. O Nu> °m a =av�oca w'�L'V N c0i (D .0 c L 7 $.. NvL 0 Nm NL-0 ° rnN C aC Lm. ocn ° c 3 � c °.. (D -0 0 C* 0.c ao 3P 3 0clit w MO N Vl (3 m 0 C O •N C N C m N C v c U 0 N aE •- N L 0)L U U 0) 0" Vl O> 0 m m = °- U E 0 L O O :_. L C L c c� .�+ U N a U 0 �H vav�3m Hm2av�oNV��v� N 00 C.0 C N T0c C N N >° 0LO, - c c N ° vi E -(OD v_ ° w" m v v_i c m c ° 0)° 0 my 0 C O'O m c c 0 w'N O 0 0) m U m .+'L .m+ N CVi a m 0 0 m N C °m0a�OL a m 0 O` U c .m+ 0 N 0 EO N 0 N C Oa C U 0 N N 0 'D C 0 d N w N "' 2 N> w N O O m 0 U C 0 >, U U a rn v E m m a � t> m m w N °D (D :3 '-% m ° w (D m � o v ao Ev c 0 0-0 E o c o O° -° c m O c 0 `m r N0 :°. 0 �U _rn L N.-N m c IL C L. m N > c 'O m 'O c U d 0 j C w =( m 0 E m m°- c O O 'NO m c c a 2 m cTi c a c m.0 a c a O� -0 C cO m 0 m .01 ° c E m 0 3:3 0 0) �mv v�'- y a m� W `m ° Nv 0)a c� W O N O `O oc •m N cLi N m" N U� 3.. C C N °._ m'U> �' N O v5 0 N N O m° acv 0) E a0 � (D a� v c O cN V Cl) M 0 6 6- W 0 6/ N 0'C NL y norm3�E O p C O) m O > 'C ems+ N N 0 C L �0++ O O N@ a N U C C U w m 3 f6 0 O' o o w C U C . N - (D o• o � o r O 3 C L U N O I- '- Co > N vco 3 Nv 0 4? �(vi o � m 5 ° U m O > m C O J O 3 L @ L > >1 N U N p p V _O :3 7 L > 0 C _ O S .0 _ N_ � U CO EZ0�E.� a H a� .S a ° a- a (D C 0 0 0 'O c O O N fd 'O 'O O L L 0 0 ~0 >> N E 5 'C w 3 o C E'a w m C m U C C °E_ >0 mprnaDC m0 o @ o(D - o SE�000)0 U 'E E ° °� 0_ = E (DC:> (�i @•� E :3 O)tna C aD3m C.. ° Q a > (D E ° •L.+ � U N eO+ mu �.-= ° ° aaZim° � a o*=ma N 0-0 p m 3 a ry �= E o m� ri o (D m co j '- T.L.+ C c N N v (D aC:= (D N .UO. � 0 a Co C >; .. N > OL a� Tmw E p a•�v V5 0 a° E�N;O a>.- " rnE o o L rn�a ��2 ' °D E�LCCapa Wv� :3 Ravi W E @ m� N ` °'moo u m a�i m E Q) (D m� y U w o 5 m v a a w w o Q m� m CD CD EL v C O N N V M Cl) 6/ N '7 Cl) L* 0 003 r @0 0 UmL�c otri 30C(D 3 C . ° ° ov o aNiv c 3 m m to axis @�Evmo vv 3Y Nmto oo N V_ CND tq ._ C C C a) p� C m m> C U a) O 0 C m U c m -0 c m ui a- mu3i cmann °`Ema> rr� `� >m(D cm m a a� — w ° f6 p ° c mL w Ua o� m m E'> 0v ° °.r °a rnL c" ° to @ °,c (D :3 m c,�,� me 0 0 c 0 3° aci ntm`ayCcc >oMCo(D EoE� is O m 0c on O C N (Do@ "" (Dm °mN 5c'y° c c E 3 m m N o to u"oi D �� 0 3 O-o �v MA (D 0tn> o to -�mmcC w morn CL (D m c� m oQ O Co € .. m. c (D c 3 to o nN o B= coa c O ° ICL N m m m to . N E O:° nf6 tq @ m .. to O m U a) m v. L �aw- 0) r- (D :E 0 2 (D � m m t_' 0 (D r > GC H n-0 H U v nd $ c°i @ o w'> U w 3 H v c°i na L a) (D U-) r N V C C C 64 E .. a .. .. L C N m m O c o 5 o V c 3 E m E E L O w c_ a) N c Q ,U/ 0 N m to m 0 0 +•+ :_ c 3� c p c �° m n m> U p, >w 0m @ m o Ea �N rnE o cam - �m tri (D > c :: (A 0.0— (D O (D L N n a) w-. •x .. 0 0- �m3 0) >> (D r N C QC Z m .!2 N y m M C O E o o.m ' E@ i , to a) n o o O .L �000@��` �m >n3m CL E t5 M ar c(D oaDC.. > @nc CL n c ° $ o o co L 1 a d ° > o n t £ a) m n rn LU v n v Lu v n w 0 LU C N O N C :°— �" V EO f6 N N m m N N m EO L a) N UWo- (D tnE CD CD am4 v v c O� U ? ? '7 Cl) L* 0 0 a..J� @ o E 3L6 5V °CQw ID c o 0 m a >� 3. v, C m rn y d 7 E °L °a� °3UE = v . O a= off° d0) d C . cC�E °� >aa m °L�0 ° (D M(DE m-o._o o pC °Ea cy E y @ v a m E U d @ O m _ U> O •o D C: (D d C oU J U '0 ° °N n E U) . m . w C O O D "' a m U d E m L r- C C '5.G U (D (D m _ V V p 4_. 7,�'O 7 7HE T L C m d 7 m a(D m 3 w@ 3 °_'.°rnd t C -O L C m on c: O C U d O` °° a E a 0a °� — d U O N d d� V' V d � O N@ d L O V a.0 °-O J C N N N U a a U N T -O Z O j " d m m C 7 }a •' pi W �W /r11��. v1 m v� O 0 0 v a V r ° o d C d 3 "c%. "' d O'O d m O Z- d w @ y W E W L-. N V V L6 O C d V v C C = O O C_ CD m a a D Q) C ��OO p r N U 7 0 N V oU fd d L % J d CL � d 7 r'LV yF 3 yEm a -° -° E° W m L C w -- @ m C@ m m -O V C m L ` O d d d gym, m L N d °p > Uof 3-° ¢� v5� 3 Q=- W d ^ ^ co av v v C �Z a 0 to �j 0 46 E '= a `S A N N U N O '° a t%1 �p o a c� ° c my a�v�aU o m c a>U a� a� -2 ID c Vl '° d C M~ N a�i aciw° '.>-+ as E N U E O) U� ° v ° �,, y �" > o .. O N c,- U°— m o O L ° N 0 C C p N N U ovmN j > U N L Co N C (D L m ca w-3 °�3- :� O N U �.-ON ° •� N ,� m C a c L M d c0 c L) FL . .+ N N D o a 3 N N M N a C 0 N L U) " N m 0 0-0 O a Q 1 •' . N M J O L :0 C 3 O Oa) m > ai O U j 0 E m N � L o J U m = ° E N 0 N Nj L N N w w _ p p t> N O C d _.j O Z 0= m E. > m m . ? Cw O L c y-- d .r N 1p N o .. a N ° U N N d N` V .@. L a (D C O 0 d '- d N N C p' ro N O N �j U E E S2 d N N N N pp N d OChU{— L O L a� awmmUUmvc 0 0 N 0 0 L d d I— mow{— L O U d m .0 war-wFE c �La aC ° tm m @ c .. J 0 CD 0 D° ° CL _° 7 L a a `� d .N.. o. :3 CD o C ° E oa N d° C o U �.L .. N L O• 7? U y y U -p > d 0 @ =O mp E C 3@ •� C m N 0 U 0 ° N N d N 'y N N- d N C N y 0 N N� C C Y fl. O O N f`6 w .L-. N O 7 c -° N -v°i O a0 d I— N C O C cC N d L E 0) .. -O c N m 0 > t L N�a�Ea'an'a� EcFm 0- > .—° rc-- •� > (D O O C a� N U m 3 N N —rav N N O O a., m E= nnm �L d m O av v c O co Cl) U � � N � � �Z a 0 • • CD Lo �-3� 0 0 > O O Y C Y L Q C ova L c �aa°a cwo> �. Q cV f6�v a) w c�3ccc�cZr N aD m 7> W.- �@ E = Z' @ N TZ a N N 0- y C r o .V WUY ma m ) N — c O' w _ N fd °C w �[ O O- C@ a w C C@ CL .. am) E(Do5m. mad) °o�o�3:(D<(D 'Ca a. L (c 2: CL z 0-0 :3 aNi —_j °? ° cZ (D m @�_ O °� c 3 Opp CQ.N mC N O O� aY O U O V) U O C . N a UU -j O N C C.OD 3 Y �� @Y d= Om r. 0 U U `° m " mr Z ° as a3iY 3 (D 0 �° 3 a c 3°> a Z N 0 d via ° y c oQ c °> .. '� o =cam >o> m N r° o aD . tr >, �vr)Eom Co O N 5 o o N � (D ' 0 d WU O p N j tN nYU'° n 0 • O CLCLn-° m N N C L aw Om :3 46v6c oc °f O)o co- ocLiccoN�mmuNi•% 6GS CL @ m >@ fd O L Love ° O Qo N N N� @@ N C@ C O N N O O° N a E @ N'O O m.. U U C 5 G E Cr< 3 o N C (D �a :? �`o v_�a) (D o a�o0"a° c y aD _°Z���3�ma� L-JL+L.+ j C.L.. Z 0+L.+w !�/`)� •�vi @ 7 U U C w w N N G C L °" fd O O'i U M 0 ... .. C f0 C 0 '36co c iU vT c :� m�co c @ c > a°i U C U O C Co O' Vd N O N° Q N G CL ocZ..no@ C r ° ° � (D aGiL cC d C- U N C wmE3 0 C)@.- N aN - @M C° CO C L c6 N N U U �O w t6 C 0 mL N Q Q V- C LL d � r r- d V C O Cl) Cl) U � � CD Lo �-3� n u". u -I q4l U c 0 �L� 0 0 L a C NC' L M w (D :3 ma� (D 3 ( m Nt— c o c>-0 0v :3 c 0 ' v c c N N c 0 n N C1 C :c O N U 'c o (D (D 0o��vi N o —3 � o Uo' c °)U o 0 m E m N ci V1 a O C D N' NO m E >L -v " � Na aNi j @ N 'C C A O` O N t0i1 N w co N Cl cL -T m L Q r0 :? Co N N C C L E � 0 4? "'.@ mco yNm3c0mc N L `�- U O O 0).M= m N >`i A V/ y N m � m .-. j(D y 0 c A CL c O C O m @t�. oa °' ccvcL j 0 c`a -6 N � Y CL 0 '@ :) 'U N m 0 "0 0 E, N .. L 3 N c 'y L N c ° w m C@ .. a� (D c 0 v E c j N tit.. r m p0' v- Z 0 0 a)>� 0` N N O H A a Co M � N c O pm C- 4 U d� m C- Y M U '� N v co V - �'D 0 N C- w d 0 N N IM L O- C C H E c> :3 O a> 4:9 0 L > N M A N 0 U O c.'._ CL N a a N m c N° m; �w O E O N O L 0 N U N .. N U N V O U N o a 0 � O N @> co `: m :s 2 0 w U 0 it a p .m. O. N a- C/) p 0 m v 0 Q N 0 N >. 0 V c U> O O UwL OVA V N >> 0 c= 3 5" °' m o N to m CL )e — n 5 m '� E Q)p m m Q°v cD E w y 0° 00 N 00 0 > j E v._ oa m C c U.21 oL '� N U ,C 0 0 E m a -O L C W 0 L 0 CL C m 0 3 m 0 O w 0 A m 0 O@ CO > ~ ` 'O � C > 'C C M rL0. N 'O c @ 3 L Y .O m 0 CL N .6 V L '� Z-v o .- CL '- v 3 C m c N co a O. 0 y m N N 'O A N m 0 U N( N. L 0 N N 0 y U 0) 0 tq a C Q � m U N Cl j c V .Q 0 0 0 m m .Q .. a C c rL. 0 p L M 0'O ? t 0 a P2 t a Cl o,Ea' c o w G o+ 3 � 0)11, Y. V N E N 0 0 m v v W 7 a p� c `-aq c>w U Urn E rn° m m v m �° °•- N E'er o o' °cU0E c`i cUia c`> UQ0'0 �� -OcCL 2 8 LU - jU)00) W (D CL v v c O M Cl) Cl) n u". u -I q4l 0 11 • m i az v0) W>1 c3: c �rna)a) c c a (D w m o m o p c @ 0 CL a) N N o N j c - n> X .. O- v O 00 3p a) w a (1) ao (D `°(D "mom .. p_ a (a 3vm0 X�� 001 CL .c a�i >vi omaa)a)v� .. a)c v� c m CL:5 0 C a) E O c a) �•- T,a) ° 0` m N d N m 0 0. > On N N C C V1 U U 0 m nm m @- 3 w ono CL - -tz 0 0 nn E(D - .Q 0 C O m 0 >, C N m'D n - >' Z 'p 3 E L oc�' m C> N N m N C to EE w -O Q N .O C fl- C@ U @ -op N o L0 c m a.- v to >�- E =- 3 p OL•- c C > p U � m ° N N C d O~ N O (D j :p O p N p -JO U C C .L-1 w O V) •V o 'N a) n 0 0 0-> N N w O t .@ w O) U .N-1 E w t N N .. c C" (D C a) p w" _ E cs c w N= cF- 0).m : E w p 5 v o c o c° ° N `� ° �Lm. w m C C t°q O N m 0 C M O m C .O m 0 W C -p CO -p C d m O E` va`>r) N N �? E 7 N � E o m c? m m 0 E c o` �a c (D c 030:°0mo Qo >1 �w0 >ao @� O N p M N m N o N j V U m N p . CO 0 F OF 0U) F dc ° vwmv3d�mvy ° m O N S N j Q N C C ow E a) o s p o o �; > >•- E s E'Q Q) 'IC) E a,a m .. 0 nc°�v (D � v 3 cC`- 0 o` oS o � mom m'c (D (D CO O) m c E O CO � r�i �= 0) o• C n 0 .. O p y c p. c o a 0.ma � 0 c n 0 (D D >o m m `0 nv � . w E c 0 0 N M o f O C 0 O O o 0 a O o j a A o 7 V w �0 CL -I-- G O 0 N > N � o p Q) y - t O Z Cl) CO O U rn N N N U C 7 L N '.C—. m 0 N N 0) 0 N 0) 0x.,0 c a0 c0 �30 c m o a° c a) CVO, c a)� m o �fj cco ro o _ V) = N a o O > m co o .p +_• > m m to o -p +_• C c c V� a v N C .. N v Q) o G 0 Q Co � O c U E n mmm `�°v Q. (0 Qm op°>.Xp0o0 D a? 1° 5 m y v m ti m U�ma�w0nc may ¢ ox mv�mox °Ua� ¢Qom a) v a�o•X Qo��a) n 4 av v v v C O M M Cl) Cl) m i az 0) I• E BCD ' L P L C a N` L _> 4_ O O N c 0— O tl tl N 0 0 (L) ° ° N Nw a 0 N M N L 0 c @UE N 3acia a @= 0 m MD c �c v U c .O c O..- °OEU a O @ 0 0 N �..V V) — 0 M 0 0 •- v c° N.m (D - @nE > w .. 0 E O N� N� �- o (6" .. �oaNi 3 O U No 0 - N o'3r ' LD (D - n N ~ •n @ 0 O N O w ' ° a a Cl) Cl) M N M o O c w f0 L L @ 0 f0 U c 0 w slw 0C� O L_ °3 Nm (D Q °�o 0 Cl) D O O O N -I c 0= N 0 •N T >s -2 O O > C c O O f0 40 O 0) :. n C N @ 'N � 0 N 0 c E 0 K N .. 0 c c`0 c L> O C N 0 N 0 O 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 f0 O. O w, L 0 O@ ' c O o n.. c H U d 0 w f0 H E !n f0 d N .0 0 0O N m ° w O r N 0- N a O C`• mr _m f0 �' (D T c >+ 'in.0'Q L E 0) n O 2 O N n0 @ n C') -0 0 N v w O m N 4N-O N tl O 3 N w v m> CL N of p v O o a m C N 3 o N 0 a m w° �w o n Ev ` N NL aw 0 �0 N o 'C 'C° 0 OL TO d " M m @ >� m c CD @ 3 o 0 2 ca:° N pnn 0 0 e e co> M� 0 w L "' m N �O U O RR 0 0 U_ CA2 c �c0 (D (D 0ic°iaD0(D0) °° Co O N c w � C C a°`)a .. vO�c O M CO 0 O tl .• • O N L L D O n O L n 0 f0 J c CO >+ N 2 o_ E E O c O N O C M @ 0 C N f0 O-Q G O L .Q O a N C— 0 d W— V Vi L N o L 0 O +-' ��' d 0 O a 0) (D �3vEo0z s ac.5 W,emO vmooc 3 C c0:3 0>aNCONw- a ca 0 ° C -Z6 0 G E o c W U 0 V C1 -c 0 O 0 0 m N° ;c 3 0 vw -op N c 0 .. G c O 0 c W o) cp a C N t0i1 N U N C N O) 0 p U> Lo 0 0 0 N 0 0 6 o .. N 0.. Z 0 ) 0 0 0 2 c`a N,�- 0 UT- 0? Oa QCi60 0 c c�nZ �lQ� WI- �2a)naC Q 0 v v a v v c O M M M Cl) V V V V V 0 V V V V 0) I• E BCD ' • 11 �3YC� c�0(D o(D(Di rn C m m c0 E cO C +r C c -0 ai o o C m @ O O m C= U m c n O != _ .- O Q? °� o Q Fn (D46 G 3 0 >v c m Co >, m 0 O � m m •N vi C U o@ o o V Q.'O N N m Co ° 0.5 0 n (D'0 O, E m C o m o ° n N ° �i °-m v� m c oa � oo Ev ° 2m> > N ,m 3 Q. E- 0 � o o > (D c N O O =. O � C .O .O = O O O (D C d O� '�O w O ' N ELO o Cm ° (D O m C v - N a o v o o U 1] f0 w .- .- .- L o L` 3 O ` C C O- U o - W. N ..' N O° 'y O "' f0 N O - N j m m n 01 >, c am= C C M m- C ca m o C of �av c U o° no o v° o° cTi o. - m o° E oUaEEw n 2 o 0 vmm ° c o0 n CL n.+ n o m .+ .+ 0 U > rn .+ .+ d L m> Vl m 'O o C m co > -0 'U C y N` WF- O'm°L.E� F- UUN'o� CL F -V) N C° C L C° C C m � S 8SO c T<- r- C m �-r c c o ai N V1 .. m n o o, E N O) C N N ' 0 Co U 46 O N C ID m U U - E m( w On C C ti> m w 3 m> ° � o CL Qo o °-N r rn°� 2 .. m V O Cl) nC C@ O 3vi o °a o rnN(D�@ C a q °•C- v'o c t> cLD 6L0 mo E � N N N U U ' N M o �M.p G a m'� � ? � ao ` N w 0 .. V � 0 n .o (D (D ocCL 0 15 t 0UN d•L. ai o>° o m o o E��mcm (D m 0) ° �a° m oa0 o °�o�OO UQ- OmUU (D �LWZomoo� oE'xm =0E o v (D LD o d N N mn n as v v v c ° r? Cl) Cl) Cl) V ? ? V V 11 G� � � 7f � »#0 2& )�% ) /3 �� %ee _0 k -e G2 2 Eo 0 CL ® � 7CL � 2 \[ °2 \°� °�0 �\ \EEc { __ (D00 V5 $k ®� §2pk E E =33. = - EIE ,� 20 n_M& �m §\ ,E - 5E ■I`ot /0 E 10 , _ , 2 ■�/ -\ )0 kk �q3e, qa U) CL 22(DFZI ®__ \_& � (D e \ o-o E = 00 -00202 L »§ �o � � LD 2 1 0 ,Iz /.eR, §a( - \�� /k \3�§ )�(D §/ $e4Gc5z\c o� 0 (D -I -- 0;( �kk E> { 7 k ±ffkjk (D \0\ \ ;I.- e oo e %�&�/ c -�2. . 00 a E% ! %2 §� \2k \\ kjee\ \� (DC &/ _= - -1 °° 0jL = a E/ %a 2' �\ J§ \) ƒ3§3 \ \D /gk // \]k0 00 MQL(DM E \( $°i E N(D &2 o� » a£ E Q 2 2�� m 4!§! Lu Of w w ,/ R / CL + /@ @ m G� � � 7f � 0 c`~o A oo�t° c $�mao U U C '-' o-O W O O N c M C V o n @ c 0) 0 CL o m a>i LO, w aci E4>=oc CL 'p N C �� X me C ` N O L N a c'�m f6 ' E � N p U 'O .L-I -p C > O O) L N CL N U COL (a C M OC CL `� ` O Q M J o m�C @ cO pocox m33c��0 c� - ' E :3w a> m O o n@ c E — m m2 o m a> a�- as ami� ma c p-m y c'pa'rn a'3 �U�•v� E E c 0� o .0- :3 o O o 0 L p� a Q J � m m x O m c mU m 4) O 3 L N'ar . m" w of C p. c C m m = ai No C'p p Z cL NW p U m a ma �c N � CL om L) CL CL m I- m v I- cL w �O @ c @ @ N c :3 N co .0. > > >. 7 `� O O C m U V U y `� O O N CL ` N pp_ ... N O O m N C CL .L... d j U d o n0 E p.. c a> c N tv = CL m a�io aL o� V) C p W c o ° -..`ym 0.2 i to . om m CL W ai m a� pto E m o E y v a c m o m - w Co O y N N' . .40 VU co c Z co m C w' Co n.2p `U m •- m E > w C .- C o > W E m m Co0 Co 0 C L O N ti c:3 d C 0 to to d Z^ O ai -mm 'O ;° C 4- p N E m :3 of � 0 nca p y �LOiNC� rz UI -� mw a>iNO- ��� Loma h°-oiE O0•U L) L) ti am LO d� a> L c O� p U L6 c`~o A M (o0 rl 0 ddy� C O> d 'O O) C O) .: 'O u1 d d C O C U d m= °p d C :a u1 d V1 a '•' O c ,O v, 2:" a Na E c °�0 m o �= c C o c o j° w E o "' U m 3 m N E O d E o ;a Z' E O c f6 7 V) (Y ` '+ C d J C > U U >@ U u1 ° d 0 p U 0 O. >> m .L.. d C w w O "' @ .L.. @ .. N m O ,�- - ,- 0 mN�OOUw3m8Z5 (D0 -025 aE L o0U � U m•> cLiC) 3 C o° O U Co E 'O w c d 0" 0 d d C ,@ O L E 1 (D r N d O N N CL @ 15; N Z •@vN d '0 U C > U E UO J w @. ° r C E 3 (D 0 co N U d C O O d O 0.- >� U w d O C O U V L= d U O C d N U d - C C p _w w 0 N Vd Q E ='O o 'O V) p .L E 2.E 7 u 0 '0 N 0 0- L N u -. " �° C N m C L U CL U O Lo L t E d >` E N N N 0O U - d oo d U L N N U L d d O d o J L.d N J CD O d L N N O J C a l @a o am w ui cn aa)E _ EU (L U E Od o�, 2 p) do .p2 CL CD d a d c0 7 ° O •C d O U L +- @> L 'O E .d., J O (D E d U E L .d.. C U d f� 8 ' f0 0)•C m 0)'i T O ° C O o 'Z U O @ 3 m C O) O) 0 .�.. d U-) U ca �p C 7 fn Q O 0 O O d C V) Q N co .� fd @ ,N O @ .L.. N u1 �N�.N (D0 a d U .a) c °O� E m C7 d °.' ... E° 0 00 L 2 r-. U m d O d V) - U N E •c U V) = �O C •C U d �- W d v a I- U c �l l- w W d as CL (D w (D w (D w (D w c 0 •r0 O O O U d M (o0 rl 0 ddy� 0 0 It CD I Is aria v� 0 CU o W N W UY co c aD ci 03 co cc a`: 0 a�i3U$ cE mom (D 'a cc CL— a� V< 0 p nU f� N N N p_ E 2 N 0— n n E� C N= 0` > 3 E (D m m ai Y n a� m -° O O U W O y 0 N j 0> U 3 w 'D C C m @mac Cl. cNa 0 3a N ;aUJY a>) o a> c a> 0w mZ rd a� C m o nUw m mL m m a) L and c m my c mLLn cmi�OOav oY nmYw -j o" U`�� om 02 —o •3 mm maw" U w J 'O > CL L / ��$j11 E 'O n C L U' 0 N L Q C J � O O " C O m 0> 400 _ a m v Y - CL.- a> - •0 w C C Y U Y N "'� 'V) W. @° W E E L 0 a) N a O Q C w C 0 w C C L Y EO "' > m 0 g L to @ w �... 0 0 E C 0 m 0 -5.9 QV 0 m2 0YU @'(D " c O E U 2 c N (°) C .0. a) V) .L..- N 7 E M'O ('V C 0 m .. a) >L - 0 w, m '3 .m-1 f0 O 0 0 c 0w @m m ai v� o v a) >� c-0 N m �' m oQ�E U @�a°ia°'iL Np cE�Na0iii om"�_in:?V 0 °pw-- V•� a� 0 n N N C °- U L N L c@ N m m w' O U N L °- U Z m J .L I- n l- to O W' (A W w .0 0 U p O N @ O "' 0 0L, @ 0 0 0 0 0 a) L L Q==C) a) a) W (q m YO L n0 -O Y Y �p Y 0 C 0 7 E 0 c T n> CO 0 7 0 0@ rnUJE`)o�c @s3��° U 0U J 3 X o C o Q- m C m L a) =Z n m L Y p > (D 0vY 5Eo(D c N _ C 0 -- w��v N v c UL moc mmo caf6it3v a" cL��3>aa3i" °vami >c�oWU C in U a) a) I- Y V) v a) a) T a) O C N C ° .L.. 0 0 Y O V c n O C 0 ma U Q N V C 7 3 a) CO 'O 7 >' Z 0 N ° c 7 0 0 C 0 .0 .— U(D E .0 @ C 0 p w0 C 3 .. Y C 7 V Z •(D .m+ a) ma - L N O" N V L O n V O N >, y �... 0 C� D 0 0 3 0 m Q -p 0 p Y O m U V N m 0 /1 Y J Q 'O Y ,Q E O> 6 0 O W co) V N E C 'C a N L 'G 00 � C 'C 0 O C 2 O `5 0 U C_ V Co E rn a L E 0 a V C g O V V C .J O C Cp 0 E V C 0 0� .N:. E ,,, N� O co L 0 O V C O j 1 C `' ID E C j a) O z m C) 7 >, EL O Q) Q Qc) V tq J m W W� W (L M W 0 W N 0 0 c0 0 O O v m N It CD I Is LO '00 0 RAM FL O @ �w N CL N C N J = O c OU ° ° _c m _ E o 5 o— cU v - a> (D.. L E a� .- O C a> N E ° w .0 •@ ° ° (D > o -0 aD mm =E °= °m2 c O ca3�6 V N a w U O y r w @ J O d' Q 7 fC0 a w c3v m° c (DO'DoO0 L E c oo a c m i s :? Co @ ` .. O— a� @ c maf6i ° •- ° E W-°O�nE (D U�a� c O m .m. U N .L.. N U >. N 'D 7 1] = wL" o .Nm. o-m0 N-O 'O= •@ CO rU f6 0 '�-' N c `� -5 Q m c d m 'a �j N 0 CL a -2Z ° U :? (D CD O (D J N �L O`L O-mL C C 0 m " N ..+ O_ ..+ N mo 'O O N m > (D D v c m c v mo U ° 3� v O 0 0 o c 0' O' N O M to c c w w� c> V(D C vi Q. ..° � =�N °( CC °aw m a mow- EN ° > >OOLL7 V U ora�io ° E._ N O O U � .. .' 2 cv 3 ° ` 3 o N c oov>N v_� � (D > vi 3 :3 a (D o a� _D > U d Q v W U- 0 0 c %° 0 o a3ia3i:3L' Z Z t> W d tm m CL (D w (D w c 00 O N LO '00 0 RAM 0 • • I O N .. L N O N mE EF O @ � -0-0 -° N c w m @rr a 3 N U 3 E U o (D U- acf6i(D Ern�T3 0 N .. (D >�.N a; U O to a- 0 -0 m m � R U J O O c U -° to r .o aD c N U L N O U (D 0 d U O V1 N ca c O U 0 N O) � U J 'O c C Imo. N N j = f0 U I— O-'O O Vl 0-6-0 c 0 U 'V U C@ N 7 0.90)0 U U L 0 = Co V1 U N O O @ O E D-E aoi m c" (D Na U M U ° EN "a 0 @ Ea 5 L) 0ooa0 ° @ U :o U dL > J j U OJ O p L a N ` •-• D -O O V L C C y O O ++ 7 fn — C O O @w L o E.0) a�i a U�0aaE.�a� W d m CL CD r c O Q r V Co I A brief review of the biological, physical, and regulatory status of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in southern California . Merkel & Associates, April 1004 Significance of Eelgrass Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) is a marine vascular plant indigenous to the soft -bottom bays and estuaries of the. Northern Hemisphere and occurs along the Pacific coast of North America from the Bering Strait down to lower Baja California. Within southern California, eelgrass is well - represented in San Diego Bay, Mission Bay, the recently restored Batiquitos Lagoon, and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. It is more limited in its distribution within other systems such as Oceanside Harbor, Dana Point Harbor, Newport Bay, Huntington Harbour, Alamitos Bay, San Pedro Bay and Anaheim Bay. Eelgrass is a habitat forming species that creates unique biological environments, occurring in small beds or larger meadows. Throughout its range, eelgrass distribution is generally limited to depths where is receives adequate light for photosynthesis. Like many terrestrial plants, eelgrass has leaves and flowers, and expands both by clonal growth and through the dispersal of seeds. Eelgrass is given special status under the federal Clean Water Act. Eelgrass beds are recognized as important ecological communities in shallow bays and estuaries because of their multiple biological and physical values. Eelgrass habitat functions as an important structural environment for resident bay and estuarine species, offering both refuge from predation and a food source (Hoffman 1986, Kitting 1994). Eelgrass is a nursery area for many commercially and recreationally important finfish and shellfish species, including those that are resident within the bays and estuaries, as well as oceanic species that enter the estuaries to breed or spawn. Anchovies and other silversides often spend extensive amounts of time within eelgrass during development, and larval forms of a wide variety of other species may be seasonally found in abundance within eelgrass habitat (Bostrom and Bonsdorff 2000). Eelgrass beds in southern California provide habitat for California halibut (Kramer 1990), as well as other recreationally important species, such as spiny lobster and sand bass. Eelgrass also provides a unique habitat that supports a high diversity of non - commercially important species whose ecological roles are less well appreciated or understood. Eelgrass is a major food source in nearshore marine systems, contributing to the system at multiple trophic levels (Phillips and Watson 1984, Thayer et al. 1984). Eelgrass provides the greatest amount of primary production of any nearshore marine ecosystem, forming the base of detrital -based food webs and as well as providing a food source for organisms that feed directly on eelgrass leaves, such as migrating waterfowl. Eelgrass is also a source of secondary production, supporting epiphytic plants, animals, and microbial organisms that in turn are grazed upon by other invertebrates, larval and juvenile fish, and birds, thus. Eelgrass beds can have up to 15% greater secondary production than mudflats, sandflats, and marshes (Heck et al. 1995). In addition to habitat and resource provisions, eelgrass serves beneficial physical roles in bays and estuaries. Eelgrass beds dampen wave and current action, trap suspended particulates, and reduce erosion by stabilizing the sediment. They also improve water clarity, • cycle nutrients, and generate oxygen during daylight hours (Ward et a). 1984, Thayer et al. . 1984, Wyllie- Echeverria and Rutten 1989, Merkel & Associates 2000a). Not only does eelgrass provide high intrinsic values as a habitat, it can also be an indicator of estuarine health because it responds to environmental factors by changing in distribution and abundance (Thom et. al. 1998, Hovel 2003, Merkel 1992, 1997, 2000, 2003a and 2003b). Eelgrass is adapted to a wide range of tolerances and is capable of "averaging" exposure conditions including temperature, turbidity, seasonal light levels, sedimentation rates, to result in either positive growth or a gradual decline in the resource. Eelgrass abundance has declined worldwide over the past 20 to 30 years and loss of seagrass habitat has been identified as a major contributor to the degradation of the world's oceans (Ogden 1980). There are a number of factors that have contributed to the decline and fragmentation of eelgrass in Southern California, both natural and human - induced. Natural causes include disease, storms, grazing, competition with invasive species, and large -scale fluctuations in ocean conditions, such as El Nino. Human - induced factors that have contributed to the decline in eelgrass include dredging and filling of coastal wetlands, propeller scarring, vessel groundings, sediment and nutrient loading, and other degradation of water quality. Human activities that result in a reduced amount of light reaching seagrass communities are seen as one of the most significant threats to seagrass survival worldwide (Short and Wyllie- Echeverria 1996). Regulatory Status of Eelgrass Eelgrass is considered to be a habitat forming species that creates unique biological . environments when it occurs in the forms of submerged or intertidal aquatic beds or larger meadows. Recognizing the ecological and physical significance of eelgrass, as well as its limited distribution in shallow, clear waters, eelgrass is given special status under the Clean Water Act, 1972 (as amended), Section 404(b)(1), "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material," Subpart E, "Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites" Many activities conducted within tidal waters require review and permitting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulatory program or through a more narrowly applicable regulatory program of the U.S. Coast Guard. Work typically is authorized under either or both section 9 or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. As the regulatory authority under the federal Clean Water Act, the Corps evaluates proposed actions pursuant to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines and policies that call for impact avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation to the extent practical. In executing its duties under the Corps' regulatory program, the Corps must coordinate with state and federal responsible agencies. These include the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), EPA, California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), and California Coastal Commission, as well as others. In addition to coordination requirements with responsible agencies, the Corps also has specific legislated obligations under their regulatory programs. The Corps may not issue permits without a state water quality certification or waiver issued by the State Water Resource Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In accordance with _ 9_ the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act • (Federal Register 1997), federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), often including eelgrass habitat, are required to consult with NOAA Fisheries regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to the NOAA Fisheries recommendations. Finally, pursuant to Section 307 (c)(3)(A) of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, any applicant for a required federal permit to conduct an activity affecting a natural resource in the coastal zone must obtain the California Coastal Commission's (CCC) concurrence in a certification to the permitting agency that the project will be conducted in a manner consistent with California's approved coastal management program. The California Coastal Act (Section 30233) restricts the CCC from authorizing a project involving the diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes unless feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize any adverse environmental effects. The issuance of a consistency determination by the CCC, or the issuance of a coastal development permit within original or appealable jurisdiction satisfies federal consistency requirements. In 1991, NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS, and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG recognized a need for consistent, science -based guidelines to address impacts to eelgrass resources. This recognition came about due to inconsistent application of compensatory mitigation ratios and mitigation success standards. To address inconsistencies, the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (SCEMP) was developed. The SCEMP calls for applicants having impacts to eelgrass habitat to replace lost eelgrass in a timely fashion at a ratio of 1.2 (replacement) to 1 (impacted). The rationale for this ratio is based on the time necessary for a mitigation site to reach full habitat value and the need to offset any productivity losses during this recovery period within five years. In . addition to mapping and timing requirements, the policy requires monitoring the success of the mitigation efforts for a period of 5 years. Specific success criteria are also established and if mitigation fails to meet these criteria, then a supplementary transplant is required. The policy is not intended to be punitive, but rather is intended to be compensatory in nature. The policy has been consistently employed over the past 13 years and has been updated over time through workshops with resource and regulatory agencies and the public. The SCEMP provides considerable advantages to both permit applicants and resource /regulatory agencies by clarifying expectations on all parties and providing for scientifically -based mitigation ratios that are lower than what would be anticipated or required absent the presence of the SCEMP. As examples of the benefits of the SCEMP to mitigation ratios, the most recently adopted City of Malibu LCP requires that no wetland mitigation ratio shall be less than 2:1. Similarly, the adopted City of San Diego mitigation ratio for eelgrass is 2:1 unless regulated differently by federal or state agencies. Because projects requiring state and federal permits are obliged to mitigate under the SCEMP, the lower 1.2:1 ratio generally applies. \.J Y6 . REFERENCES Heck, K. L., K. W. Able, C. T. Roman, and M. P. Fahay. 1995. Composition, Abundance, Biomass, and Production of Macrofauna in a New England Estuary: Comparisons among Eelgrass Meadows and Other Nursery Habitats. Estuaries 18: 379 — 389. Hoffman, R.S. 1986. Fisheries Utilization of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds and non - vegetated shallow water areas in San Diego Bay. NOAA -NMFS, Southwest Region, Administrative Report SWR -864. Kitting, C.L. 1993. Investigation of San Francisco Bay Shallow Water Habitats Adjacent to the Bay Farm Island Underwater Excavation: A Report for U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Long Beach and Santa Rosa, CA. July 1993. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. R.S. Hoffman, ed. (1991, as amended, Version #8) Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2000. Environmental Controls on the Distribution of Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in South San Diego Bay: An assessment of the relative roles of light, temperature, and turbidity in dictating the development and persistence of seagrass in a shallow back -bay environment. January 2000. Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2003. Mission Bay Park Eelgrass Inventory and Change Analysis (October 1988, 1992, 1997, and 2001), San Diego, California Ogden, J.C. 1980. Faunal relationships in Caribbean seagrass beds. In A handbook of Seagrass Biology: An Ecosystem Perspective, R.C. Phillips and C.R. McRoy (eds.) Garland STPM Press, New York, pp. 173 -198. Phillips, R.C. and J.F. Watson. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific Northwest: A community profile. Fish & Wildlife Service FWS /OBS- 84/24:85pp. Short, F.T. and S. Wyllie - Echeverria. 1996. Natural and human - induced disturbance of seagrasses. Environmental Conservation. 23: 17 -27. Thayer, G.W., W.J. Kenworthy, and M.S. Fonseca. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows of the Atlantic coast: A community profile. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service FWS /OBS/84/02. Ward, L.G., W.M. Kemp, and W.C. Boynton. 1984. The influence of waves and seagrass communities on suspended particulates in an estuarine embayment. Marine Geology 59:58 -103. Wyllie - Echeverria, S. and P. J. Rutten. 1989. Inventory of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in San Francisco /San Pablo Bay. National Marine Fisheries Service Administrative Report SWR- 89 -05. October 1989. Page 1 of 1 Alford, Patrick From: Bluhms2 @cs.com Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 12:34 PM To: palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: everette _phillips @yahoo.com; michols @coastwalk.org; gdpace @cox.net Subject: Newport Beach LCP Mr. Alford, Congratulations to you and your staff for assembling an excellent LCP. Coastwalk is particularly pleased to see policy 3.1.1 -9 that specifically mentions the California Coastal Trail. In compliance with the Coastal Conservancy report, Comoletinq the California Coastal Trail mandated by SB 908, it is important that the CCT be continuous, and be as close to the shoreline as possible. Coastwalk makes the following recommendations: 1. That the Coastal Trail route be shown along the beach from the Santa Ana River, connecting to the existing Ocean Front trail at 36th Street. 2. That diligent efforts be made to establish a Coastal Trail route in the southeast portion of Newport Beach that avoids exposure of pedestrians to high speed vehicular traffic along Highway 1, and connects to trails in Crystal Cove State Park. 3. Provide connections from the Coastal Trail to inland trails within the city, and to trails in adjacent jurisdictions. Thank you for your consideration. Stan Bluhm Coastwalk, CCT Project Coordinator 310- 379 -1153 www.coastwalk.org 03/12/2004 MAR -12 -04 FR1 08:29 PM CMN DATti: March 12, 2004 City of Newport: Beach Patrick Alford; Senior Planner P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax number (949) 644 -3229 E -mail: palford @city.newporl- beach.ca.us California.Coastal Commission Teresa Henry, District Manager 206 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach. CA 90802 -4416 TEL(562) 590 -5071 FAX (562) 590 -5084 FA %:9498624967 PAGE 1 74 t"1-4 i;.150 FILE COPY FROM: J;vcretic Phillips RE: California Coastal Trails and completing the trail along the beach from 36 °i St to the River Dear Patrick, Thank you for your work on the LCP. 1 will send comments on different sections. Here l.just wanted to show my support for the California Coastal Trail and the hard work of Coustwalk. Attached please find comments to support the Coastal Trail in the L.CP by specifying; the completion of the trail along; the beach between 36 "' St and the Santa Ana River. KKindest regards, l� Everette Phillips 300 Canal St. Newport );each, CA 92663 0 4� AJAR -12 -04 FRI 08:29 PM CMN FILE COPY FAX:9498624967 PAGE 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS TO NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2004 MEETING TO REVIEW THE LCP PROPOSED FOR � SUBMISSION TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION p a" Background The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (I.CP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that "ideally the trails system should be continuous and located near the shoreline ". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millenium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it. Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of trails along the *bore and in the Coastal "Lone that make up the California Coastal Trail. 1): Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36th St to the PCH bridge that crosses the Santa Ana River. a. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36th Street and this violates the principles of the.Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report L Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea ii. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, commuuuities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. b. See Image 1 for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline 2) The trail alignment should include connections to Banning Ranch, Sunset Ridge Park and Newport Salt Marsh (Semeniuk Slough) 3) The LCP should outline the sphere of influence trail alignments proposed for Newport Coast, although Newport Coast is not part of this LCP, this area has been annexed by Newport Beach and lies within its sphere of influence for planning purposes 4) . Currently the City of Newport Beach collects encroachment funds frum beachfront properties in West Newport that have moved their property boundaries onto public state beaches. Newport Beach should more diligently monitor tidal and beach encroachment in public lands and should use the encroachment funds to improve the Coastal Trail alignments in Newport Beach and spheres of influence (Newport Coast and Banning Ranch), funds should be used first to complete the beach trail from the Santa Ana River to 36th St along the beach. NAME: 4" 1deope ov /- 0Lei ADDRESS:.3®® Cft el Sf M1lw� �e 91 Page 1 of 1 asbuS'dk.AA� 3.1(4 Saving the California coast... one step at a time 0 7207 Bodega Avenue Sebastopol, CA 95472 -3725 A 707 829 -6689 s 800 550 -6854 oo FAX 707 829 -0326 r www.coasrwalk.org March 12, 2004 Patrick Alford, Senior Planner FILE COPY City of Newport Beach Planning Department P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Newport Beach LCP The Board of Directors of Coastwalk directed me to comment on the LCP being prepared by the city. Coastwalk is the leading advocate for the California Coastal Trail (CCT). Our mission is to complete the CCT, promote the coastal protection and to work with and support and local organizations and jurisdictions towards that goal. We have been taking people out on coastal excursions for many years, including the Orange county coast. I have read the draft of the LCP and applaud your efforts to create and protect coastal access and especially your recognition of the CCT. In an urban setting such as Newport Beach, which has a very attractive coastline and an active outdoor population, it is important to increase the opportunities for many people to access the shoreline. Coastwalk is presently, with a grant from the Coastal Conservancy, working on a logo and signing plan, which we hope will be useful in marking the CCT through the many jurisdictions it passes. We look forward to the day when we can join Newport Beach in celebrated a signed CCT segment along the coast. The Newport Beach LCP needs to clearly designate the alignment of trails along the shore and in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. I hope the following comments will be of assistance in creating a truly continuous coast trail through Newport Beach. 1. The bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36th St to the PCH bridge that crosses the Santa Ana River. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36th Street. This violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report. > The Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea. > Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets. > Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic. > Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. 0 Del Norte Humboldt Mendocino Sonoma Marin San Francisco San Mateo Santa Cruz Z Monterey San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Ventura Los Angeles Orange San Diego ✓�— • 0 FILE COPY 3-Je 2. The trail alignment should include connections to Banning Ranch, Sunset Ridge Park and Newport Salt Marsh (Selmuik Slough). 3. The I_CP should outline the sphere of influence trail alignments proposed for Newport Coast, although Newport Coast is not part of this I_CP, this area has been annexed by Newport Beach and lies within Its sphere of influence for future planning purposes. 3. Currently, the City of Newport Beach collects encroachment funds from beachfront properties in West Newport that have moved their property boundaries onto public state beaches. Newport Beach should more diligently monitor tidal and beach encroachment in public lands and should use the encroachment funds to improve the Coastal Trail alignments in Newport Beach and spheres of Influence (Newport Coast and Banning Ranch). Funds should be used first to complete the beach trail from the Santa Ana River to 36th St. along the beach. However, Newport Beach should take steps to discontinue leasing of public property to homeowners. Sincerely, Richard Nichols Executive Director Cc: Coastal Commission Coastwalk Board Encl: Comoletina the California Coastal Trail MAR -13 -2004 11:53 AM HURLEY&THOMAS 949 548 2262 P_01 PUBLIC COMMENTS TO NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 7004 MEETING TO REVIEW THE LCP PROPOSED FOR SUBMISSION TOO THE COASTAL COMMISSION • THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPORT PEIR — CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR. FAMILIES Fill out the bottom and return to both people below City of Newport Beach California: Coastal Commission Patrick Alford. Senior Planner Teresa Henry,.Dlstrlct Manager P. O. Box 1768 200 Oceengate, 10th Floor , Newport Beach, CA 92668 -8916 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4416 Fax number(949) 644 -3229 TEL(562) 590.5071 FILE E- mail: oalford (Mcltv.newoort- beach.ca.us FAX (5821 590.5084 Background The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that "ideally the trails system should be continuous and located near the shoreline ". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal .Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it. Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of trails along the shore and- in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. 1) Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36t° St to the PCH bridge that crosses the Santa Ana River. a Tice bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36th Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea ii. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach wil l provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. b. See Image ) (next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail www.coastwalk.or www.californiacoastaltrail.info Please include this document as my comments on the LCP Name (! � H'VreLAC- y Address 410 C F} N/>Lt- City nrei000a .6 , c,4 Yz 66 Page 1 of 2 • 4� MAR -15 -04 MON 01:52 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 1 LCP Comments for the Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 2004L,-� • Newport Coast and SB516 3.15 DATE: March 15, 2004 MEMO TO: Patrick Alford, Newport Beach LCP Liaison FILE COP Y Cc: Theresa Henry, CCC Long Beach FROM: Everette Phillips, resident RE: Newport Coast and SB516 Information Missing from the LCP Dear Patrick, I am surprised that SB616 is not mentioned in the Newport Beach LCP. It has been a main driver for the LCP process and the information contained in SB516 is veiy:important for public comment. In.porticular in a conservative based community like Newport Beach, the value of local control is widely held. The LCP should explain why Newport Beach is yielding local control of Newport Coast to, Orange County in the LCP when SB516 specifically gives Newport Beach the choice to include Newport Coast within the LCP being submitted for certification. This does not make much sense, since the Newport Coast LCP is already certified; so anything in the LCP of Newport Coast should easily be incorporated in the new Newport Beach LCP, Leaving Newport Coast under Orange County authority goes against the commitments that Newport Beach made to LAFCO to create one community. Newport Beach residents will soon be able to get coastal permits locally, with the exception of Newport Coast resident who will have to drive to the Orange County Planning Commission for their permits. The city is also constantly crying about the need for revenue, yet here the city is giving the coastal permit fees to Orange County. The situation does not make sense and it should be better explained in the LCP. Most residents do not know about -the 2001 law SB516 that allowed Newport Coast to keep its Orange County LCP after annexation. Some LAFCO members don't know about it and some Coastal Commission staff are not familiar with it, so Newport Beach needs to make an stronger effort to community information about SB616 and explain why the city is opting out of local control of Newport Coast. Kindpes regards Everette Phillips 300 Canal St Newport Beach 0 MAR -15 -04 MON 04:50 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 1 LCP Comments for the Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2004 �_ _/1 1 b Coastal Bluffs �"'JL Coastal Bluffs are mentioned 35 times in the LCP, but the main focus area of policy is 4.4.3 4.4.3 Coastal Bluffs Coastal bluffs are a prominent landform in Newport Beach. There are ocean facing coastal bluffs along the shoreline of Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs; and Cameo Shores. There are also coastal bluffs facing the wetlands of Upper Newport Bay, Semeniuk Slough, and the degraded wetlands of the Banning Ranch property. Finally, there are coastal bluffs surrounding lower Newport Bay. These can be seen along Coast Highway from the Semeniuk Slough to Dover Drive, along Bayside Drive in Irvine Terrace, and in Corona del Mar above the Harbor Entrance. These bluffs faced the open ocean before the Balboa Peninsula formed and are now generally separated from the shoreline. Coastal bluffs are considered'significant scenic and environmental resources and are to be protected. Upper Newport Bay coastal blocs PC STUDY SESS /ON DRAFT Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -70 Most of thetoastal bluff top lands have been subdivided and developed over the years. However, many have been preserved as parkland and other open space. Also, most of the faces of the coastal bluff surrounding the Upper Newport Bay have been protected by dedication to the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve or dedicated as open space as part of planned residential developments. In other areas, including Newport Heights, Cliff Haven, Irvine Terrace, Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores, the coastal bluffs fall within conventional residential. subdivisions. Development on these lots occurs mainly on a lot -by -lot basis. As a result, some coastal bluffs remain pristine and others are physically or visually obliterated by structures, landform alteration or landscaping. Policies regarding coastal bluffs need to make a distinction between areas where the coastal bluff is essentially. unaltered and those in developed areas where the coastal bluff has been altered. In areas with unaltered coastal bluffs, development on the bluff face should be prohibited, with exceptions for certain public improvements, and development of bluff top should be controlled. In areas where the coastal bluff . has been altered, development on the bluff face and bluff top should be controlled to minimize further alteration, ILE COPY Pagc 2 of'1 �6 0 MAR -15 -04 MON 04:51 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 2 LCP Comments for the Planning. Commission Meeting March 18, 2004 Coastal Bluffs fq-113.IS° FILE E Cop Y Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -71 Policies:! 4.4.3=1.: In areas where the coastal bluff remains essentially unaltered, require new development to dedicate or preserve as open space the bluff face and an area inland from the edge of the bluff adequate to provide safe. public access and to avoid or minimize visual impacts. 4.4.3-2. In areas where the coastal bluff remains essentially unaltered, require all new development located on a bluff top to be setback from the bluff edge a sufficient .distance to ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion and to avoid the need for protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). 4,4.3 -3: In areas where the coastal bluff.remains essentially unaltered, prohibit development on bluff faces, except public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff :face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. 4.4.3.4. In areas where the coastal bluff has been altered, establish setback lines for:principal and accessory structures based on the predominant line of existing development along the bluff in each block: Apply the setback line downward from the edge of the bluff and /or upward from the toe of the bluff to restrict new development from extending beyond the predominant line of existing development. 4.4.3 -5. In areas where the coastal bluff has been altered, design and site development to minimize alteration of those portions of coastal bluffs with slopes in excess of 20 percent (5:1 slope). Prohibit Page 3 of i g� MAR -15 -04 MON 04:58 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 3 LCP Comments for the Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2004 Coastal Bluffs 3 development on those portions of coastal bluffs with unaltered naturat.slopes in excess of 40 percent (2.5:1 slope), unless the application of this policy would preclude any reasonable economic use of the property. . + 44.3 =6. Require applications for new development to include slope stability GUY � � r analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. 4.4:3 -7. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, .and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. :G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit. H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. 4.4.38. Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal bluffs to inco.iporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and /or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. 4.4.3- 9..Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources.. 4:4.3 -10. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to minimize impacts.to coastal bluffs. 4.4.3 -fit. Identify and remove all unauthorized structures, including protective devices,.fences, and stairways, which encroach into coastal bluffs. PC STUDY. SESSION DRAFT vocal Coastal Program Coastal land Use Plan 4 -72 u Page 4 ot'4 �J (' MAR -15 -04 MON 04:58 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 4 LCP Comments for the Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2004 Coastal Bluffs ,�,Q DATE: March 15, 2004 v I 3 Irp MEMO TO: Patrick Alford, Newport Beach LCP Liaison Cc: Teresia Henry,.CCC Long Beach P E 0PY FROM: Everette Phillips. resident RE: Coastal Bluffs in the LCP Dear Patrick, Thank you for making the effort to dedicate so much of the LCP to the important issue of Coastal Bluffs. I "counted 35 references in the LCP. In order.to protect this valuable resource, there should be more specifics in the policies. For example, regarding 4.4.3 -2 there should be a speck setback of 200 feet beyond the estimated bluff . position based on 75 years of erosion at a scientifically determined erosion rate specific for. the bluffs. There should be also be better wording to prevent someone from adding a structure accepting the 75 year moratorium and then coming back to request the ability to build a wall or engineer some change to the bluff to protect that structure, because it is an "existing" structure. This has happened so often in California as to warrant special attention in the LCP. lam concerned that 4.4.3 -4 is.not clear enough to prevent abuse from people claiming a site has been "altered" when 4.4.3 -2 should clearly apply. On solution is to identify altered and unaltered coastal bluffs in the LCP. For 4.4.3 -11 to be effective..the LCP should identify which department in the city is responsible and how frequently they should report to the city on the current status of problem areas and how the city will prevent abuse Kindest regards, Everette Phillips 300 Canal St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Pagc 1 of Q MAR -15 -04 MON 04:05 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 1 • L,CP Comments for & Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2004 Bulk & Height Limits .DATE: March 15, 2004 3 1 MEMO TO:: Patrick Alford, Newport Beach LCP Liaison Cc; Teresa Henry, CCC Long Beach COPY FROM: Everette Phillips; resident r+ RE: Bulk acid Height Limits in the LCP Dear. Patrick, The LCP.Policies should be refined to more accurately reflect the policies you describe in your descriptive paragraph. You specify a 27 ft and 35 ft restriction, yet only mention the 35 ft restriction in policy. You mention square footage in description but not in policy. In addition, 1 am in favor of increasing the residential level from 27 feet to 40 feet or a measurement in that range. I am also in favor of increasing the square footage allowed. The LCP is an opportunity to correctly communicate fair policies to residents. The current height limit is not effective as there have been so many variances that the actual residential level on average exceeds 27 feet. Let's face. it, the value of land has increased so greatly in Newport Beach that the only hope residents'have for seeing their children and grandchildren is to make space in their current residence through remodeling. This means Increasing the height and bulk limits. The system today is unfair, because, only if you have a great deal of resources, you can apply for and often get a variance to the height and bulk limits. Just drive around West Newport Beach. In addition, the size and scope of the homes in Newport Coast put pressure on all Newport Beach residents to increase size and scope.' We talk about affordable housing, but a related discussion is the ability for families to afford to remain in Newport Beach. Long time residents need the ability to increase bulk and height to support the needs of their families_ This should be recognized in the LCP. Kindest regards, Everette Phillips 300 Canal St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Pagc I of 1 /0??� MAR -15 -04 MON 04:05 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 2 L.CP Comments for the Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2004 Bulk & Height Limits 3.Jb 4.4.2 Bulk and Height Limitation Concern over the intensity of development around Lower Newport Bay led to the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970s that established more restrictive height and bulk development standards around limited to a height of 24 to 28 feet and FILE COPY 11 IF) the bay. The intent was to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the ' unique character and Flomes on Ibe Balboa Peninsula visual scale of Newport Beach. As a result. new development within the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone is limited to a height of 35 feet. Residential development is non - residential development is limited to a PC STUDY SESSION DRAFT Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4-69 height of 26 to 35 feet. Outside of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, heights up to 50 feet are permitted within the planned community districts. There are also two properties in the coastal zone that are within the High Rise Height Limitation Zone, which are permitted heights up to 375 feet. The first is the site of Newport Beach Marriott Hotel in Newport Center; the other is an undeveloped office site northeast of the Jamboree Road /State Route 73 interchange. Floor areas, are strictly limited citywide. In the coastal zone, residential developm'entis limited to floor areas ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 times the buildable area of the. parcel (the land minds required setback yards), which typically translates to actual floor area ratios of 0.95 to 1.35. Nonresidential development floor area ratios range from 0.30 to 1.25. Policies: ' 4.4.2.1. Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitatioh Zone. 4.4.24. Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. (D( Page 2 of 2 MAR -15 -04 MON 03:15 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 1 LCP. Comments for the Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2004 Beach and Bay Encroachments DATE: March 15, 2004 ►' =) MEMO TO:. Patrick Afford, Newport Beach LCP Liaison Cc: Teresa Fienry, CCC Long Beach FROM: Everette Phillips, resident FILE COPY RE: Beach end Bay Encroachments the LCP Dear Patrick, The LCP needs to address all encroachments on parklands, tidelands, ESHA, beaches and related public lands. Newport Beach has an excellent tool for taking inventory and accessing the status of encroachments through the satellite photos/Property boundary software that Newport Beach uses for planning. The LCP should have more specifics on the policies related to taking inventory and how those encroaching will be notified and the process of resolution. The LCP should have more specifics as to which department is responsible to monitoring encroachments and collecting the fees. The LCP encroachment portion of the LCP should review encroachment of Special Study areas as you outline in other parts of the LCP. In other words, there should be a regular review and report of encroachment throughout Newport Beach not just the beaches of West Newport. The LCP should outline how the encroachment fee is determined. The LCP should require an audit and report each year to outline the fees collected fo encroachment and the use of those fees so that compliance to 3.1.3 can be determined. Based on the feedback on the California Coastal Trail and because you already specify the bike /pedestrian paths at some streets, please add the following policy: S.1.34(e) Maintain a bicycle and pedestrian trail along the beach parallef to the shore to complete the alignment of the California Coastal Trail Kindest regards, Everette Phillips 300 Canal St. Newport Beach, ATTACKMENT: CA 92663 RELEVANT LCP SECTIONS 0 0 Of �p2 MAR -15 -04 MON 03:16 PM CMN 0 FAX:9498624967 PAGE 2 .LCP Comments for the Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2004 Beach and Bay Encroachments .G_ :?. I b 3.1.3 Beach Encroachments On June 11,1991, the Coastal Commission approved the Oceanfront Encroachment Policy (Amendment No. 23), which established a policy and mitigatiori program relating to private improvements within the Oceanfront public right -.of -way. The City Council finalized this policy with the adoption of Resolution No. 91 -80 on July 11, 1991. This policy established conditions and restrictions'on the nature and extent of these improvements and a mitigation program Involving the reconstruction of 33 unimproved street ends between 36th kill West Newport Street and Street and •Summit Street to.provide additional parking and improved public access_ In 2002, the final five street ends were reconstructed. Pursuant to the mitigation program, a'minimum of 85 percent of the encroachment fees will be used for the construction and maintenance of improvements which directly benefit the beachgoing public such.as parking spaces, restrooms, vertical or lateral walkways along the beach and similar projects. Policies: 3.1.3 -1. C.oritinue to maintain and improve the Oceanfront public right -of -way for public access purposes. 3.1.3 -2. Continue to restrict the nature and extent of improvements that may be installed over public rights of way on the oceanside of beachfront residences and to preserve the City's right to utilize oceanfront street easements.for public projects. 3.1.34. Limit the maximum oceanward extent of encroachments to the following encroachment zones: A. Santa Ana River to 52nd Street. A maximum of 15 feet oceanward of the rear (ocean facing) property line within the oceanward prolongation of the..side property lines. PC STUDY SESSION DRAFT Local Coastal Program Coastal Land, Use Plan 3 -14 B. 52nd' Street to 36th Street. A maximum of 10 feet oceanward of the rear (ocean facing) property line within the oceanward prolongation of the side property lines. C. 36th Street to E Street. Between A Street and a point 250 feet southeast of E Street, up to the inland edge of the Oceanfront Boardwalk (7 to 8 feet oceanward of the rear property line) and within an oceanward prolongation of the side property lines. • D. E Street to Channel Road. No encroachments are permitted from a point 250 feet southeast of E Street to Channel Road, with the 14 ,J 1 4W j03 ,� MAR -15 -04 MON 03 :16 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 3 LCP Comments for the Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2004 Beach and Bay Encroachments exception of landscaping trees existing prior to October 22, 1991 anc groundcover. 3.1.3 -4. Limit encroachments within encroachment zones as follows: A. Prohibit any structural, electrical, plumbing or other improvements that require issuance of a building permit. B'Prohibit pressurized irrigation lines and valves. C. Prohibit any object that exceeds 36 inches in height, with the exception of landscaping. . D. Prohibit any encroachments that impact public access, recreation, views and /or coastal resources. U � 31Il0 . FILE COPY E. Require landscaping to be designed and maintained to avoid impacts to public access and views. F. Restrict landscaping in dune habitat areas to native vegetation. 3.1.3 -6.. Require annual renewal of encroachment permits and a fee. 3.1.3 -6. Require encroachment permits to specify that the property owner waives and gives up any right to contest the validity of the oceanfront street :easement, and. that the encroachment permit is revocable, without cause, if the City proposes to construct public improvements within that zone- 3.1.3-7.. Require encroachment permit to also specify that the construction of any seawall;.revetment or other erosion control devices, if necessary, shall occur within, or as close as feasible to, private property. Require seawalls to be located as far landward as possible to protect private development in the encroachment zone. ,PC STUDYSESSION DRAFT Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 =15 3.1.3 -8. Incorporate into the implementation plan. regulations specifying the types of improvements permitted within encroachment zones, a prohibition on improvements that could impair or restrict public access or views, procedures;for the encroachment permit applications, City administration of the policy, and other appropriate provisions. As: mitigation for any impact on beach access..resulting from the encroachments: A. Maintain 33 street ends between 36th Street and Summit to provide an average of 2 parking spaces per street. B. Meter West Newport street end parking spaces in the same'rnanner as the West Newport Park in order to encourage public use of the. spaces. G. Maintain a hard surface walkway perpendicular to Seashore Drive at Orange Avenue. The walkway shall extend oceanward a sufficient • • MAR -15 -04 MON 03:17 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 4 LCP Comments for the Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2004 Beach and Bay Encroachments distance to allow a view of the surfline by an individual seated in a wheelchair. At least one handicapped parking space shall be designated at the Orange Avenue street and and at least one other handicapped panting space at one other West Newport street end. D. Require a minimum of 85 percent of the fees generated by encroachments will be used for the construction and maintenance of improvements which directly benefit the beach -going public such as parking. spaces, restrooms, vertical or lateral walkways along the beach: and similar projects. .West Newport Street end improvements PC STUDY SESSION DRAFT Local Coastal Program Coastal Land USe Plari 3.16 3.1.4 Rayfflarbor Encroachments Shore connected structures, such as piers, floats, and bulkheads have long been, permitted in the bay and harbor. Newport Beach, in conjunction with Federal, State, and County agencies, has established a set of Harbor Lines to define bayward limits for various types of structures: Harbor Lines and other 0 .regulations were originally established to Insure navigable channels and safe harbor operations and to minimize conflicts with adjacent properties. However, such regulations are increasingly used as a means of protecting public views and public access. Policies: °rrlrr, ti. FILE COPY t< 3.1.44. Continue to regulate the construction of bay and harbor structures within established Bulkhead Lines, Pierhead Lines, and Project Lines. 3.1.44. When applicable, continue to require evidence of approval from the County of Orange, Coastal Commission, U.S, Army Corps of Engineersi and other resource management agencies, prior to issuing permits. 3.1.4 -3. Design and site piers, including remodels" of and additions to existing piers so as;nofto obstruct public lateral access and to minimize impacts to coastal views and coastal resources. 3.1.4 -4. In residential areas, limit . structures bayward of the bulkhead line to piers and floats..Limit appurtenances and storage areas to those related to vessel launching and berthing. 3.1.4 -5. Encourage the joint ownership of piers at the prolongation of common Iot'lines as ;a means of reducing the number of piers along the shoreline. 3.1.4 -6. Continue to prohibit private piers at street ends, 11.4 -7. Design and site bulkheads to protect the character of the existing O a! MAR -15 -04 MON 03:17 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 5 LCP Comments for the Planning Commission Meeting March 18, 2004 Beach and Bay Encroachments 1� shoreline profiles and avoid encroachment onto public tidelands. Residential piers; Co STUDY SESSION DRAFT Local Coastal Program FILE COP Y Coastal Land. Use Plan 3 -17 0 /0 6 _QH- MAR -15 -04 MON 03:17 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 6 3•!!► to 84 4C10 W cBUOIiJ VC7 ODUOWvC7 OvUOWC7v^ >.o fl. _ i i A. i• i o c�t?e%�rn cimi'�mcn r»mm�m r%�r3�mcn�c%�c%� �t r.rrr Y V' V Q V V V FILE COP } } } 0VY 0�} 0�}Y 0 0V}00O} 0}�0 0} 0}V 0 0} 0} 4) d.0000 000000 000000 00000000 �Ew 'Z'n aaa.a aa.a. CL. aa a Cl. aaaa aoaaaaaaa N ry l0 Q d d N io . N ',in ;? x x x X � me .. 6€ x x x o Ix �a C W m W C c O ' Q c m cn A co � N ow U >+ d d m E R N o'w .G .c O VOV v X X X rm Y vQ W d n E E H E m _ mm x x x x CL o 3 p U J to m c 0' c Q m s as C U% m C .y � j ro T l4 10 T N lV w W E W r m G m4 z vi �¢a z° Vp N7 V • W Z mi N Fa- fn Q �0 MAR -15 -04 MON 03:18 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 7 FILE COPY tl'o �cvnw mUOw�c9 m�oC"uv? wcowvo mUawv9 mciow MAM rA MAMA MM M 7 66 cj C7M ..N E.0 �.-� � wr �•�' -r�� ������ rrr-A66 vvavvv c� c� vvvv -~ vvee oovaeo ovvovo v000aa 'ro uQuo vUVVVV vvvvvv v�vvvv vvvvvv vvvv OlY C -�:3JJ J-JJ J.JJ :i-, JJJJ JJJJ JJ JJ JJ . =ov 0000 000000 000.000 0.00000 000000 0000 . ate aaaa aaaaaa a.a.0. 0.0.a aaaaaa aaaaaa aaaa N W LL C a � 0 o' d x x x 00 5 r � o ` y Co x x x � d 8 p C o �= c O - - X x x X X X E O W N O U T dv �. c qL C « d v 1n {p W U V N to = X x x x x x a.. � G a ►. m e0. e o x x x x x x N E ry E o r E U a- Q yq U n. -j o' c co C T CC A C m. E 0 t °> U v Of rn :S d1 F FL Y C W E C h U G ' Z v1 W $ Z LA Y ui C1 N p m m D � Q ti h• N a MAR -15 -04 MON 03:18 PM CMN FAX:9498624967 PAGE 8 3'�� Oa� v ep�oWLL0 �, o L �� _��_,_c_,�_,C_, C_,_C_, FILE COPY C, a V' V? V 4 4 V V N P L- 0000.00 tjtj0000 V ry OV V_V V_ V_V V 000 V V_V 10 y az:;UU 0 x:0000 000000 _�Q. C �� 000000000 0000,00 000 � n.aaann. t_v_ daaaaa aaa 0 � w m V x mE x x O 0 O m O >y c N X ; X x E co c t � U G V C G G N ' m r x rn= X X tJ O C C O p y N .W O x 0 -� m v X x u a w N N `v d R N rinG 0 V X W O j D "1'""' 3 • I W Alford, Patrick From: Everette [everette _phillips @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:34 PM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Newport Shores in the LCP - Making sure that public docks and bulkheads to support them are possible Dear Patrick One of the challenges of the LCP is locating where Newport Shores fits into the LCP related to bulkheads, docks and piers. One might consider 3.1.4 Bay /Harbor Encroachments, but these items reflect the Harbor area of Newport Beach in particular. I would like to see the LCP address and permit bulkheads along Newport Shores and permit the creation of public docks for launching small boats and for fishing at the street ends. Currently street ends are common playground areas for our children but the storm sewer pipes and broken glass represent hazards to their playing, swimming, fishing and boating. Since the Army Corp has in accidentally filled our canals with silt from their upriver dam projects, it will be necessary to dredge. Dredging could cause structural damage without bulkheads. Also, public docks need the support of a bulkhead, so it would be useful if the LCP allowed for such things in Newport Shores. One way might be to add Newport Shores to 3.1.4 Bay /Harbor Encroachments, another might be to create a section to address bulkheads and docks in Newport Shores and have a policy to allow for the creation of fishing docks and boat launch docks at street ends in Newport Shores as part of public access. Kindest regards, Everette Phillips 300 Canal St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 FILE COPY 0 FILE COPY MEMORANDUM 0 To: Members of the City Council and Planning Commission City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach Subject: Local Coastal Program, Draft Land Use Plan Date: March 15, 2004 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 16 2004 71819110111,12,112131415�6 We would like to thank the City of Newport Beach planning staff, the City Council and the Planning Commission for the outstanding job in putting this Local Coastal Program, Draft Land Use Plan ( "LCP ") together. It was a huge undertaking, and overall, the document is both comprehensive and comprehensible. We appreciate the fact that most of our comments from the earlier draft have been incorporated into this document. As with our earlier comments, our goal is to assist in improving the final LCP. We offer the following comments and corrections: Chapter 2 — Land Use and Development +� Section 2. 1.1 (Page 2 -1) states: "However, in no case, shall the polices of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances." This repeats verbatim the last sentence of the preceding paragraph. One should be eliminated. Section 2.2.3 (Page 2 -13) states that "(r)esidential floor areas and building heights have been strictly controlled since the early 1970's to insure that the scale, size, and character of new development is compatible with existing development in the surrounding area." As evidenced by the trend toward larger homes in several areas in the City, including Balboa Island, the Peninsula and Corona del Mar, it is not clear that "the scale, size, and character of new development is compatible with existing development in the surrounding area." If the City wants to maintain control over development in these areas by means of a new categorical exclusion from the provisions of the Coastal Act, it would be beneficial to acknowledge the mansionization trend and discuss the measures that the City is considering to deal with it. Policy 2.2.3 -4 (Page 2 -14) states: "Depict the properties covered by categorical exclusions on the Exclusion Areas Map." It may also be useful for the exclusion areas to be depicted on the Land Use map, perhaps through use of a black crosshatch pattern over the color. Policies 2.3.1 -3 and 2.3.1 -4 (Page 2 -20) as written are not consistent with the language of the Coastal Act. They reference land "designated" for visitor and recreational use, while the Coastal Act refers to land "suitable" for such uses. These sections should be changed to use the language of the Coastal Act. Members of the City Council and Planning Commission March 15, 2004 Policy 2.4.1 -5 (Page 2 -25) should be changed to read: "...unless an applicant can demonstrate through a comprehensive commercial needs study that the demand for the displaced land use no longer exists." The added text will serve to prevent project developers from using this as a "loophole." Section 2.9.2 (Page 2 -57) addresses the bikeways and trails system in Newport Beach. The policies for this section should include a specific reference to the policies in Section 3.1 regarding development of public walkways around the harbor. These are an excellent means of providing coastal access to pedestrians. Perhaps the intent of Section 2.9.2 would be clarified if the title read "Bikeways and Pedestrian/Multi -use Trails." Chanter 3 — Public Access and Recreation Section 3. 1.1 (Page 3 -2) in discussing Little Corona Beach, the report appears to suggest that additional public access is necessary to the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area. Given the sensitive natural habitats to this area, the ending of the sentence that begins "Vertical access is provided by..." should be revised to add the words "and this degree of public access is appropriate given the sensitive natural habitats in the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area." Delete the next sentence that discusses additional public access. Section 3.1.1 (Page 3 -6) Please clarify whether additional public access is necessary at North Star Beach, Big Canyon Nature Park, and Semeniuk Slough. These parks may already have adequate access. The statement that provision of additional access must be consistent with the protection of resources may not be necessary if access to the park is not an issue of concern. This comment also applies to the discussion of Newporter Knoll Park and Newporter North View Park on Page 3 -12. Section 3.1.1 (Page 3 -6) Delete the third full paragraph on this page. It is a duplicate of the second paragraph. Policy 3.1.3 -7 (Page 3 -14) For clarity, revise the first sentence as follows: "Require encroachment permits to specify that the construction of any seawall, revetment or other erosion control devices, if necessary, shall occur within, or as close as feasible to, private property" Policy 3.1.3 -8 (Page 3 -15) Are the terms of the implementation plan referenced in this policy consistent with the mitigation plan adopted by the City Council in 1991, which is referred to in the introductory paragraph on Beach Encroachments? (Page 3 -13) Section 3.1.5 (Page 3 -17) We recommend that the first paragraph of this section be reworded to emphasize the City's opportunities for coastal access. Section 3.1.8 (Page 3 -23) The first paragraph needs to be revised to more fully describe the circumstances that lead to beach closures. Words such as "pack ", "party heavily ", "evening wears on" and "rowdy" should be deleted. Reference to problems caused by younger residents and their 2 //� Members of the City Council and Planning Commission March 15, 2004 •friends should be removed from the discussion unless the fact that they are younger increases the severity of the problem. Policy 3.2.3 -1 (Page 3 -32) Add to this policy the statement that consideration of additional handicapped access must ensure the protection of natural habitats. Policy 3.3.3 -3 (Page 3 -37) This policy is unclear. Please revise to make its intent more apparent. Chanter 4 — Coastal Resource Protection Section 4.1.3 (Page 4 -11) The policies for this section are incorrectly numbered 4.1.2 -1 through 10. In our earlier comments in June 2003, we noted that one of the policies in this section stated that the Planning Commission and/or City Council would determine ESHA boundaries based on the site - specific environmental studies. We suggested that a special committee or task force be named that would include individuals with the expertise to evaluate the environmental studies to determine ESHA boundaries. The policies addressing ESHAs in this revised draft have eliminated any discussion of how the ESHA boundaries will be determined. This is an important issue, and the document should be revised to address it. The eelgrass meadows within Newport Bay are not classified as an ESHA in this Draft LCP; therefore, eelgrass should not be referenced or discussed in this section. Because it may lead the review /approval authority to conclude that eelgrass should be classified as an ESHA, we • recommend that the last paragraph on page 4 -11 be deleted. • Policy 4.1.2(sic) -1. J (Page 4 -33) The use of docents will not ensure that the areas are consistently patrolled, and they will have no real enforcement power. The City should consider hiring special Rangers as they have done for the Parks with the ability to hand out fines. These areas are too valuable to leave to volunteers. Policy 4.1.5 -1. (Page 4 -39) Replace "Encourage" with "Enforce." If there is no penalty, it is likely that people there will continue to plant exotic, nonnative vegetation. Policy 4.2.1 -1. (Page 4 -42) "Recognize and project wetlands" should be "Recognize and protect wetlands." Policy 4.2.2 -2. (Page 4 -43) Factors to consider when ambiguities in wetland characteristics exist should include historic as well as recent precipitation patterns. Table 4.1 -1 (Page 4 -30) Policies 4.1.3 -11 - A through R do not exist in this Draft LCP. If the author of the plan meant to reference Policies 4.1.2 -1 - A through Q, the table should be revised to reflect the correct policy numbers. Section 4.1.4 (Page 4 -36) This section heading should be numbered 4.1.3, and Section/Policies 4.1.5, Coastal Foredunes, should be renumbered as 4.1.4. 3 /ice Members of the City Council and Planning Commission March 15, 2004 Section 4.1.4 (sic)(Page 4 -37) The second paragraph on page 4 -37 discusses a large -scale eelgrass restoration program for Newport Harbor. However, the Federal funding to support the • restoration program has not been provided, and the program is in doubt. Section 4.1.4 (sic)(Page 4 -37) The discussion on page 4 -36 attributes the abundance or lack of eelgrass in Newport Bay to growing conditions that are the result of the amount of rainfall, minimal runoff, and the quality of the water. Dredging and dock and bulkhead construction projects have existed in the Bay for the last 75 years and do not seem to be the main contributor to the abundance or lack of eelgrass in the Bay. Therefore the statement "high potential to impact eelgrass" is a conclusion and is not supported by scientific data. We therefore recommend that the word "high" in the first sentence of the third paragraph on page 37 be deleted. Section 4.2.5 (Page 4 -54) This section should be eliminated. The eelgrass has been covered under Section 4.1.4 with appropriate policies to encourage its growth and protection in Newport Bay. E 4 //- Message Page 1 of 2 FILE COPY Alford, Patrick . From: Temple, Patty Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 5:34 PM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: FW: LCP Amendment No. 2004 -001 Importance. High - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Carolyn Riel [mailto:CRiel @cci.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 5:29 PM To: Patricia Temple; Sharon Wood; Jeffrey Cole; Barry Eaton; Steven Kiser; Earl McDaniel; Ed Selich; Larry Tucker Subject: LCP Amendment No. 2004 -001 Importance: High Letter to Newport Beach Planning Commission concerning Section 4.1.4 of the Draft Land Use 117F.Ti1 Newport harbor is a man made bay dredged from the sloughs and swamps created by the Santa Ana river. Below Dover Shores there is virtuously nothing remaining of the original natural wet lands. The bay was created to provide and support housing, recreation and water oriented businesses. What •ever effort should have been made to preserve the natural estuary was forgone over a century ago. To now attempt to roll back history and create a natural habitat from a man made environment is both foolish and irresponsible. The proponents of such misguided policy development are misusing Federal and State statutes to develop agendas that have nothing to do with responsible management, development or stewardship of our waterway. The era in which citizens and their local governments were forced to abrogate their constitutional powers to Federal and State potentates is quickly passing, accelerated by the recent change of leadership in the California Governor's office. We need not, in fact must not, allow agenda bearing government officials to trample on our rights and protections including those provided in the statutes they attempt to twist to their irresponsible goals. Specifically, the Coastal Commission Act provides guaranties of basic Fifth Amendment property rights making assurances of due process and just compensation for any "takings" of property rights. (Sec. 30010 &Sec.30001.5(c)). It further promises significant citizen input with the presumptions that such responses will be given proper consideration. (Sec. 30523(b)). The Coastal Commission also assures citizens in both the information brochure they publish and in the Act that some types of development are exempt from permitting requirements including "repairs and improvements of single - family homes ". Sec 30610(d). Finally, the statute describes an appeal process and assures that the Commission can be sued. (Sec 30334 (b). In fact, the current draft appears to be the fabrication of State bureaucrats (contrary to Sec. 30512.2(a) &(b)) who tread heavily on the rights and protections provided in the law by forcing their irresponsible agendas on to the planning bodies with threats of disapproval if the demands are not carried out and enforcing draconian fines for non- or late- compliance. Despite the protections provided in the law, actual practice shows the Coastal Commission to be totalitarian, brooking no opposition and allowing no reclama or appeals. Most citizens would be shocked to know the level of unmitigated authority contained in the legislation and even more traumatized to understand the ruthless imposition of 03/17/2004 �j-�° Message Page 2 of 2 the Coastal Commission's power and perceived authority. It is surprising that a major attempt has not been made to prove the Act unconstitutional and the behavior of the Coastal Commission staff a gross trampling of basic civil rights. In additional to the protections outlined above, the Act also recognizes the need to balance protection with common sense and to protect recreation and marine oriented business. (Sec. 30001.5 (b) & (c)); (Sec. 30224). Setting eel grass as a straw man for a protected environment using make believe science and out right falsehoods — eel grass is not on the endangered and threatened species list nor is it on the list of habitats for endangered and threatened species, this issue is an exercise in pure power politics to gain an outcome which otherwise would not be recognized as legitimate in the Federal or State statutes -- the Commission has forced the local planning body to violate the intent of the law (Sec.30005.5), trample on basic Constitutional rights, and set up the community political bodies for violent retribution at the polls. In addition to the political havoc being fomented, this Land Use Plan will undoubtedly touch off an equally violent citizen response at least akin to the tax payer revolts of the past. The property value of the roughly 1,200 homes on the bay has a total value in excess of $3.6 Billion and has one of the highest property tax revenues in the State. Assuming most residents would join a class action lawsuit to roll back their property assessments, as a result of losing access to the recreation and waterfront uses of their property for the years since they were last allowed to dredge their docks and slips, the tax loss, damages and legal costs would be staggering to the City and County; the State already is upside down. Added to the home owners' losses would be the economic losses suffered by water oriented businesses that are protected in the Act, but are already being put out of business with out due process or compensation for the government takings. &((d)) Perhaps most importantly the Act specifically authorizes that "the ... dredging of wetlands. 0 & Sec. 30233(a)(2) & Sec. 30610(a) • While there are probably many well thought out and positive components of the current Land Use Plan, the section, memorializing unreasonable and inappropriate protections and making the enforcement of those protections tantamount to statute, which is related to eel grass (Section 4.1.4 to 4.1.5), must be removed from the final plan. The Planning Commission and eventually the City Council must stand firm against the unlawful and pernicious influence of the Coastal Commission staff in this regards. David G. Moore 88 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA 92660 • 03/17/2004 FROM ANN BIEGUN FAX NO. H U CUP Y Mar. 16 2004 01:55PM P1 MARC 3 Qe- 0 NPUBLIC COMMENTS TO NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 18, 2004 MEETING TO REVIEW THE LCP PROPOSED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPORT PEIR — CYCLING TO SCHOOL„ FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES Fill out the bottom and return to both people below City of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Teresa Henry, District Manager P. O. Box 1768 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Newport Beach. CA 92659-8915 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4416 Fax number.(94.9) 644 -3229 TEL(562) 590 -5071 E- mail:oalfordro) itv.newwrt- beach.ca.us FAX (562) 5905084 Background The _Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that "ideally the trails system should be continuous and located near the shoreline'. In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it_ Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it. Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of trails along the shore ,md in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. 1) Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36th St to the PCH bridge that crosses thu Santa Ana River. a. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36" Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea ii. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic _. iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. b. See Image 1(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail www.coastwalk.orq www.californiacoastaltrail.info Please include this document as my comments on the LCP Name Ft- a- i,ce.ss E NCI( Address 7 Q' a r ( C, rc:J� City Vewpo 0e&ca_� Ca v- 9 663 -/80'5 Page 1 of 2 ei ' J COUNTY OF ORANGE FILE COPT( RESOURCES & DEM0PMEIVTMLVAGEMEIVTDEPARTMENT March 15, 2004 Patrick Alford City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 SUBJECT: Draft LCP Coastal Land Use Plan Dear Mr. Alford: Bryan speegle, Dlrecror 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana, CA P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048 Telephone: (774) 8342300 Fax: (774) 834 -5788 RECEIVED BY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACHL 04 -009 MAR 17 2004 PM 7 �819110111,12,1 1213141516 The above referenced item is a Draft Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan for the City of Newport Beach. The Coastal Land Use Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach and its sphere of influence with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch. The County of Orange has reviewed the Draft Plan and offers the following comments: WATERSHED We recommend the following changes: a. Page 3 -6, delete third paragraph down (same as second paragraph). b. Page 4 -37, middle paragraph, delete "1" after eight. C. Section 2.8.6, consider adopting an opportunistic sand replenishment similar to Carlsbad or San Clemente. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION Study Area No. 9: Buck Gully: 2. The text should be expanded upon to indicate "Buck Gully" is a component of Laguna Coast Wilderness Park operated by Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks. Bikeways and Trails: • • 3. We would like to complement the City on Section 2.9.2 (page 2 -57). This is a thoughtful, well written, and comprehensive section. We suggest adding a policy that specifically calls for the ultimate extension of the Balboa Bikeway (the regional Class I bikeway on Balboa Island). By extending this off -road bikeway 1 %z miles to the Santa Ana River Bikeway and the Huntington Beach Bikeway (both regional Class I routes), residents and visitors would be able to walk or bicycle from Newport Beach to the Orange County boundary with Riverside County, or along Bolsa Chica State Beach - -- completely off -road. 5. Bikeways can help to reduce air pollution, traffic congestion, parking congestion, and noise. Class I bikeways in particular, because they are off -road and suitable for bicyclists and pedestrians with a wide range of ages and abilities, serve to encourage bicycling and walking as alternative modes of transportation. CULTURAL/HISTORICAL 6. The language in the plan should be updated to use current standard conditions for cultural resources management so that any recovered artifacts and fossils are prepared properly and their disposition is addressed as needed. The County of Orange Curation Project, funded by a TEA grant, has produced a set of guidelines and procedures as a model for cultural resource professionals to use in the field and in preparing the collections, including a recommended database. This information may be accessed on the California State University Fullerton Anthropology Department website. http://antliro.fullerton.edu/orangecocuration. (4.5.1 -4): We encourage the City of Newport Beach to follow the Board of Supervisors example in requiring that cultural resource artifacts, which may be discovered during the site development, be donated to a suitable repository that will maintain the collection for future scientific study and exhibition "within Orange County." Prior to donation, the certified cultural resources consultant should prepare the collection "to the point of identification." (4.5.1 -4): The project proponent should be prepared to pay "potential curation fees" to the County or other suitable repository for the long -term curation and maintenance of donated collections. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Plan. If you have any questions, please contact Charlotte Harryman at (714) 834 -2522. Sincerely, Ronal L. Tippets, Chief Public rojects Page 1 of 1 FILE COPY Alford, Patrick From: Gardnemcy @aol.com 0 Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 3:28 PM To: palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: Icp Section 4.1:2 -3 requires sustainability. I don't think that can be done with docents. 4.1.2 -1 J. I suggest the removal of docent programs and go back to the original language. RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 17 2004 PM ? 8191101111121112131516 J 03/17/2004 10 RIM MAR -17-2004 06:20 PM HURLEY&THOMAS 949 548 2262 P.01 PUBLIC COMMENTS TO NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 18, 2004 MEETING TO REVIEW THE LCP PROPOSED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPORT PEIR — CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES Fill out the bottom and return to both people below City Of Newport Beach CalHornia Coastal Commission Patrick Afford, Senior Planner Tomas Henry, Dishlot Manager P. O. Box 1768 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Newport Beach, CA 928511-8915 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4418 Fax numWr.(949) 844 -3229 TEL(562) 590 -5071 E- mailoaMordbchvnewoort- besch•ra.us FAX (5621590 -6084 1,011 F copy Background The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that "ideally the trails system should be continuous and located near the shoreline ". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) declared the hail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it. senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly dcsipate.the alignment of *trails along the-shore and is the Coastal Zone that make up the Califontia Coastal Trail. I—= ZQ wW F-m H orcrr a ;w 0 0- UzZ CZU_ Z a aU \J 1) Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36", St to the PCH bridge that crosses the Santa Ana River. a. The bicycle path current tuns on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36m Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea H. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, mco trailhead3, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by M irBfflC C`? iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach co N access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The r+ current trail on a street does not achieve this. a o b. See Image 1(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail Qh www.coastwalk.org www.californiacoastaltrail.info Please lncludq this document as my comments on the LCP .� V Name "p,�jryi gov ,10,5 Address 4 90 C qW L Sri City n1EWPPje7- 9,(_ y, c j `fZ 66 y Page 1 o£2 �N- Page 1 of 1 �, Pc Alford, Patrick 301 Y From: Gardnemcy @aol.com • Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 3:28 PM To: palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: lcp Section 4.1.2 -3 requires sustainability. I don't think that can be done with docents. 4.1.2 -1J. I suggest the removal of docent programs and go back to the original language. FILE COPY RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 17 2004 PM 718191101111121112131516 • • 03/17/2004 MRR.18.2004 2:26PM HORG NEWPORT SURGCRE PLEASE SUPPORT THE COASTAL TRAIL Newport Shores to Newport Pier NO. 626 P. 1/1 THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPI'JR tr'SHdIi:ES T11 NEWPORT PIER -- CYCLING TO SCHOOLr FRIENDS AND k ;P- RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES Try to send by March ler 2004 Fill out the bottom and return to both p6ople below City of Newport Beach Califomli Coastal Commission Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Teresa Henry�District Manager P. O. Box 1768 200 Oceange , 10th Floor Newport Beach, CA 926588915 Leong Beach, W190802 -4416 Fax number;(949) 644 -3229 TEL(662) 690;.5071 E- mail: 020ordt8citv,newoort- beach.ca.us FAX (562159' 084 Background The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alig�tent for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking. bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" d that "ideally the trails system should be continyous and located near the shoreline ", In 2001 A#embly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official State trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it, Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) reg*d a plan to complete the trail by 2008, In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated Californians Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it, Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more cleaily designate the alignment of •trails along the shore and in the Coastal.2one that make up the Californi4 Coastal Trail. 1) Specifically the bicycle and walling path should follow the beaelt from 360 St to the PCH bridge that crosses the Santa Ana River. a, The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Arta River to 3e Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in #ie Coastal Trail Report Z v co i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sio! and sound of the sea ww aE6 n. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connegtions to schools, communities, m ¢ m o M trailbeads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational besets o a m 0 N iii, Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuo's and not compromised by >Wa N traffic w ° � r. iv, Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach w z Z a o access facilitating compliance with the Amerie ' With Disabilities Act, The `: Z o �- current trail on a street does not achieve this. 7 ¢� M° b. See Image 1(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline n_V ¢h Learn more about Coastwalk and the Callfornpa Coastal Trail PI se Include this document as my comments: on the LCP Nameb1 Address 33 z o ru o. � r2 e* c�� R� Page 1 of 2 �l, Lisa Winter 314 % Amethyst Avenue Balboa Island, CA 92662 Work: 949 - 622 -3451 March 18, 2004 via fax & e Planning Commission City of Newport Beach C/o Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Re: Local Coastal Plan Language Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 18 2004 PM I7 819110111112111213141516 -mail FILE COPY This letter is to strongly protest a change to the language of the Local Coastal Plan as regards the section dealing with visitor - serving and recreational development. I read in the Daily Pilot dated March 17, 2004, "Carol Hoffman of Government Solutions Inc. has suggested some new wording under the section that deals with visitor - serving and recreational development. Hoffman has suggested changing a paragraph that said the city should 'preserve existing and new waterfront - oriented commercial uses' to 'encourage consolidation of waterfront parcels to stimulate new or revitalized waterfront - oriented commercial uses.' Hoffman said she believes the document must be very specific to avoid confusion in the future. 'Unless we pay attention to every single word, it may not be interpreted correctly in the future' she said. Another provision of the plan could also affect development in Lido Marina Village: Unlike the General Plan, which designates Lido Marina Village as 'retail and service commercial,' the proposed Local Coastal Plan defines it as 'visitor- serving commercial'— terminology that allows hotels." 0 Carol Hoffman is a lobbyist hired by developers. Her language change suggestion would reword the paragraph from one that preserves the existing area, to one that paves the way for development of the area. This area is a unique and wonderful area of Newport Beach frequented by locals and visitors because it is unique. We need to maintain the historical and unique character of our city and specifically Lido Marina Village instead of turning it into another homogeneous community of architectural blandness. I would suggest revitalizing the area with community sponsored events like an art walk or summer jazz nights but please don't turn it into another outdoor mall, hotel or condominium jungle. Ms. Hoffman is correct, unless we pay attention to every single word, it may be misinterpreted in the future. Please retain the retail and service commercial designation for the area and do not encourage consolidation of the parcels. That will only open the door for developers to come in and change the character of the neighborhood. The City of Newport Beach has encouraged the public to be involved in the revision of the General Plan. The General Plan designates Lido Marina Village as "retail and service commercial ", please align the Local Coastal plan to incorporate this designation also. Thank you for your consideration. • Lisa D. Winter �/ Alford, Patrick From: Peoria, Tim [fPaone @manatt.com] F Patrick Alford (E -mail) 004 3:01 PM Cc. Bob Bumham (E -mail) FILE COP Y Subject: Policy 2.3.1 -2 Patrick, thanks for taking the time to discuss Policy 2.3.1 -2. I appreciate your offer to propose and support a change to the policy which would read as follows: "Policy 2.3.1 -2: Continue to provide waterfront - oriented commercial uses, including eating and drinking uses and recreation and entertainment uses, as a means of providing public access to the waterfront." Thanks again. • l� 3/18/04 COMMENTS ON LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, COASTAL LAND USE PLAN DRAFT DATED FEB. 2004 (2.0 Land Use and Development) 2.6 Industrial Development Policies 2.64, 2.6-5 and 2.6-6 all have to do with Federal Government offshore drilling leases. Should this really be part of a Newport Beach land use plan? 2.6-6 talks about assisting other jurisdictions (outside Newport Beach) in fighting offshore oil drilling. (3.0 Public Access and Recreation) 3.1 Shoreline Access Policies: 3.1.1 -14 Calls for walkways to "...all appropriate commercial areas of the harbor." 3.1.1 -15 Lido Marina Village Boardwalk 3.1.1 -16 Rhine Channel Walkway 3.1.1 -17 Lido Village to Mariners Mile 3.1.1 -18 Mariners Mile Walkway The problem: We don't know if any of these are feasible and none of them have been approved by the city or even aired for public comment. This document should not be used as a back door route to establish city policy without the usual scrutiny. 3.1.4 Bay /Harbor Encroachments Policy 3.1.44 Regarding residential piers: "Limit appurtenances and storage areas to those related to vessel launching and berthing." The problem: Too restrictive. Do we want to eliminate,flagpoles, swim ladders, benches, planters, fishing rod holders, Etc.? (4.0 Coastal Resource Protection) 4. 1.1 Eelgrass Meadows. Last sentence of 1" paragraph mentions "...critical foraging habitat for the federal and state listed least tem... " The problem: "Critical" implies that the least tern would be in trouble without eelgrass, which just plain isn't true. And, the statement leaves out all the other birds that forage around eelgrass. Better to say, "The fish that congregate in eelgrass provide foraging for many species of sea birds." Why use wording that invites trouble? FILE COPY C `J 0 LL _i LLM Y N U a) a N a o > cn ch m o Q « O C C m L N = C) L C Y m a) a) ��EE o cn a m m CL CL y_ 0 0 0 0) c O a`� O t n C a—ai >> w 3 s � a . o oU € n Taa = 0) a 3 O O °) m Y Y N L U 7 m Y ' 0)o CL E nm� ° _ 2 0 - °06 Q � N U C E air vcoi = n >L c E o Nw �`-� -o ii >� m o Eo Q0a`i3�umi m m a xW s 0 as 3 aNi , .. •- mss... o w o � o > O t o r 0) CL M vi � •% 0) c �LNO °- 3 N w U) CL a'E"� =m �c Q ,.,. -- o a n X o '.. nc of o m m c�W 3;r c Z: m a� m w e :r- in -W O o N o W O Q_ > ,n c a 7 N N C N Ci p m N p p rn� ._. y E o �Z_e' j a0i QN3E oL w W :: Nw a�> N(n2D 03s` v Qo UC'' 0.E :°a 0 m �Lm. oN' >a�a� cn aa) 0 N a 0 0 C �aa O .m L m O y Q i 2 N ° N Y Q O O o f = c 0 ..:W N C) c o a`i c o a� �y N c p >3 0� E c:= E Om YE a�°�a' (n Za> °c '-' "' o�cN >�w0 "' C a) N z N Q •C y U 0 Y .2 "" m C 0 .0 O� N 0 0 N €v= w m n C c �' m y o 0 o'E aai nom' in a a) N � 'a� 0� Q m °p Q CL O 0) a) i a`) 0 0 a) LLJ a�� m N 2 ac(n :?�oa��am c o' o > 3 0� Q° c aa) 0. Q 2 E a0)i m �� a`i� =Sc n —° o a� m QQ c1°ia�.Na QU w C a y y o ;'N Qo 2L=nQ a) ui m a o a)m aa) ami E,cY Z amo LnW2E0.0D Z N E umia� Y p W L o Y m a W W LL 00 m a' w�0 O Q >a�miE Ln �= p -0 E Y Y N N N 1°a`i�Y� .5�o -j aOiaQi� 'a Q a) E a`, 2 yi3�� aa 'C €.0 CL •7 N '0 G O m C C U> d L •` 3 Y N . fn a s E fn �% O p m QErno2NNmCC0c o0EE w�aQQo0 V W c p �'c 0 N 4 0 0 d a o >'�:. Z ga Nar a E c o m (n 0�:.tn N E 0 Lq N rnF `-'m E Qm w e =LO w E O c NLW °= � Q 0 '0'0 0 Z U� �,0 C� N 0 0) 0'0 o N a Qm- W na)w Q Q N d m Ol> > O N LT . a� N N N> 0'QU �E _ c - Lo '.E aU .Y ! p r � L m W 0LnLL O 3� W 01 o F- N Ln 0. m N LL N w LL _i LLM • 0 • ,�Y Q) N C c o N L N C Z' C C O a) .N C U O :O N •Z r. to 'O U 'OO O N N N O C E fa C a a) Q U aj O _ Co co N (� a) CL— to•- 3� m c co i O ° w••0 0 2 �mNto`�oE EE 2 C U �:ry a) r � 0, U a) a � ;: 2v 0 d C U CL c v O 0 0 V 'o a) ( C c 3 r o ai aa) 3 Z ° a Cii o (D to ° r:: 0 0Z ,r -or o Ca to ca (D 0) N o >. O ca (D (D <' (D = r > c a) m cv�m�m Q� n" amCo vE O Z '� 'o O 00 7 t 0 CL C U N J O fa 'o a) a a) r U N C LL ,N a= a7 C u°i ai (a Co ca ° � 0 3 a) 0) :3 O > ai C2 +. o ° .= .. 3v 2� to ov O (D N O N d'y ` a) C 0> 0 d N C d It E N O C O N C '� != O C E Z' N O N CL —c! t=/1 N N to 2 fa J C N " 0Q a m E c x > 0 x U� w . <; a) 0� 0 a) L- m C E(D x 0 wra) =aNi aCm c� cSc - - oa W to U .. U .: 7 to 3 d Q: to to m 0 0 a) a s N N `� ui U C to ma U w S T U w C C= C rn O a) _ () 00) N o Q a) o Eaw o (a ca U) .°- aM m� o ac) tT m 2 ° o am n ac)U °� ° ° (D c c t�� m 0 of°mOEa)a>a): a2 y-o -to ca vcEui �`v__ Ca) c m _•• to- rnai E oa N yr: vii Na= a tri aG w N m 0 f°m- o (D WE 0 m C 3 >0 CO toga E `o= o a tT (D Q 0 0 >v' co N O N .0. to 42 N N= E y C N N� O a) w— N d_ E N N a 0)+••' O d mU E 7 a) C O t N a) >y '} ,,= .V a a r C to «. to a) v •' ca •- .0) o 2) E Z C Q) > y- N— C�°U 0 U U fa J a) 0 3 N r- .. tea) °md � N o) d- u0i N 0 ate:.. 0) 7 O a � w to U L C cad tocE6m�NN�C -- m mC m C;. fa -0-0 a) -o a E c C o m cd a) Co t J O 'O CO W a) a`> O O 'O m •O U.. fa fa U« U m 'O E O 'o C N U "o U N— «. to O N «..t.+ N t.1 ti J a) a J • y U to O O L N L N :' L to N Q) -o U N N C U .0 N C C C n C N .. W C C O 0 a) H W O V N J O N a) Q) .� (d y ''.: Z C N .� T 7 = •� N « L no E OD cL E E Ezra. Z 2)E cLcc 0 2 0 ca V O N = U y N N .. C N w N 0 E E? a N 2 d 0 ](D d._ «. a aa) ; I n. 0 0 0 0] m aa)) I d (D 2 t w m V x O x 0 t a) cam o� a �cAZW�� CL � rn� (a 3.SaJw0w uiC. N N M • 0 • ,�Y � � 0 0 I t tq, �, » o 2 } a $ \_ < \ 70 k cu cm E 2 <� ] E E 3§ w § R /]c § � \ � � \ < cu ) } f a & §) CL > ) 2 § 2®) o« J\ 3 { b0 a E 2 0 'co �0 ]m -° E = moj0 cu °a , < E2 (L -- E8 @ 3 =ao eoe co C.) -1 � =§ » \ /QTR �7 2 0.-cn §§ § '3= >- agme3 9LLI * co - % , S A G LL, )% o epf k • . \ff\§ �\ M d\ /2 wo *c =- °0 2 '�j8 mk <Fr6V5 F# « z75 22 O U-)t= w� k m o < o2Q F a% Q2 e S % /kE 2 �& f2 .w ,q /j 2/ «fJ3 %I LL] w> 'w /c .=c 2 / /aac .o § >a, §77 ,we co :%0) E / § §\0 �\ 2 .� kEE wC� M@f �� 2e,e =e «ee: -: co co U) (L ,�§§ °a2EeE '' *�G[ 2�?§ co 02 �G � � 7LLI \ L � o LLJ M - M � \ m 2 . ... U) $U) 3" /�. U) I t tq, �, 0 0 1] T fn M t5 � 0 O � N m Y c : TQ � m v0) c E Ae ',cmm E m m .o 'Cmrna a) 0 r 0 N O 'O C m .D o — [�' X m N N O{ @ V 3 O m C �O E +LO-' m .0 � m C: m n C c.0 o € 3 co o ui c T-0 `n E o o C 0 0 � U y C O O .0 C S O U U o E m@ o m w Ew rn C CL ° C L c my N Q U o o O �o W-c cu cu c4> 'D m w cu L 4c--- v y"( U >. J .0 O O .— m p C L Q C rn 00 O O U fn L- 0 3 o' 2 0� 0 .0 O O C om�° wc.0 S -0N >> in m m (u CO O V) m U O m 0 O y - M o° (U O o 0 L Y(U j Q N N ) O 0) 0 m 0 U Co .. m O C O E m -C m m o C v°i O O c o U m 7 c� c '° Q 0 Y O 7 E Y m p N O o v m N (4 C L F Cr d CCD m L .D @ .D 0 7 O 'C Y 0 N O m CL C m ; O O L 0 CD CD w- O O oL-. O 0 E N 'V O O O L L U C 0 C: O Q n .`� an d m a c a m m E2 3 m c " o o >>10 0 � 0w CD C v-00 CD c�v M 0 N" L Q N m 0' O y p C fn 07p CD rn� `�� Mn �� N NQ� C a O m O � m Y= oo 0 E `� `'2U 0 O.O E L to.0 m O N to 'C 'D O O O O .0 O T O C U m 0 'O L m O to m O yC- 'D O@ O 75 0 O O oO O O 0 'D O O N -O to @ L m 07 L 4c- m m rn m � v.0 o)m m� O O .0 �, 0 V O m O C N .: � me 50 ami r rn m.0oaof LLI 2 .0 CU vY r.0�mCD3" v� co cY Oo H S m o a $ c ° O o p p ° oc'v a v) E >m:3 a) � C_ CU xn m m .0 .D Z .0 U x m O m Q W C 'OO O C CU N @@ j O N T LA 0 m tp C@ m CD =m @'c rnrnm >rn � O o V'a m Q 2 3 "o�Vn a) CD CD m m mL m o o mL- m mnU T) 3: 3 v U UU Cumm0 Um Q.S w Y ami 3 0 0 1] C C • E 7 L a C C O C 0 m N U N N C nJ 0 C f6 7 L U N N O L Y N C .0 o m O0 O Y 'O , O .U-. � c N Y 0 E L tp U c p 'O U y 'O C U f6 f6 'y f6 U O d O L >` d '> CLO N O •C O O E J C . C OE E E 0 'O 0) O a C O O C a >. a > E 7 O_ M 0 0 2 0 CYO- O C N O C C C N n N O . O,O O E y C Y N y L N 07 C O 7 V) 'O f6 f6 > 'O N N f6 L N U O N U > U V N L. C N .L-. N O 'O 0 'O y ` O N m 'O U C O O O aY •� O C� N E C N Y a f6 U C _ f6 C N O O 'C N '° y N 0) C •C O L O U O O J L O_ m 3 O- (U •a°- a(U (U m C O C: (U aU w O N Z N C _0 N N j (U m m O• O _ U 'Ln q C . •� .� O X C 'O C C :O O O a L O V C O_ N C' 0 3 '° N O C L c (U Z m z �v!� m 3 ` �n �m '��°v � am =EO m L ;� rom O' o yam a C 0 (U C" U N O 6 N t -0 CL J O> E N L O O O U uj O U U 'O U O d C d N 0 U� N U 2 'O U C 7U O N L p) ,=! U U' J N 0 C: M d .L-. 7 D) O C I6 .0 L U U �+ w r N C O O d N CO C N O N N y Vj >_ y 4) C •L• N 0 U O_ > 'O � O 7 N co '� ,O C 7 fn '- C N N _ N C V O E w 0 O d (U w 0 m O O d o 7 16 •d O` Q C S L d U C N m O C L O O cn 3 O O Z T L U�- C U m N C d U C O IN6 ,Op >. O .D O C D y O U O 7 N f5 'y U d 7 j U d C E 0 .fn - U _ U _O d 0E n Uc�ma`�i IL c v N y non 7 U CL (D y .LO N EL C U L) J E O N N N m C 0) O L U (D U U° 0 C C N 16 C d I`6 C J 16 O CL C d mm �� E�CL �' of m d.�ncm0o L E y O 0` y E 0 0 X O 0 U O_ C O cn C O N 0 (D= p N • On d 0 Q C C L Q W> W d 0 O L = U IL n ° E.°' (D c rn a= m m CAMEO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION March 18, 2004 Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: The Cameo Community Association would like to propose the following changes to the wording of the draft of the Coastal Land Use Plan: The current paragraph3.1.5 -2 reads: Prohibit new private streets, or the conversion of public streets to private streets, where such a conversion has the potential to inhibit public access to and a long the shore line and to beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs when there is substantial evidence that prescriptive rights exist. We would like to propose that the paragraph be changed to read: Prohibit new private streets or the conversion of public streets to private streets where such a conversion would inhibit public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, trails or coastal bluff only in communities where such publi communities, where no public access has ever existed and there is no evidence that substantial prescriptive rights exist would be exempt from this prohibition. The term "potential to inhibit" is ill defined and could range from a potential of 1 % to 99 %. . The Cameo community was established in the early 60's and has never had any public access to its bluff and beaches. The beaches are currently designated "Marine Sanctuaries" and public access would be detrimental to the marine life in these areas. Cameo currently has no plans to gate the community but has conducted some studies and would like to keep the option open for future years. Regards, John Lindgren Association President 716 Cameo Highlands Dr. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 - 721 -1475 FILE COPY 0 • • 1.10— Letter to Newport Beach Planning Commission concerning Section 4.1.4 of the Draft Land Use Plan Newport harbor is a man made bay dredged from the sloughs and swamps created by the Santa Ana river. Below Dover Shores there is virtuously nothing remaining of the original natural wetlands. The bay was created to provide and support housing, recreation and water oriented businesses. What ever effort should have been made to preserve the natural estuary was forgone over a century ago. To now attempt to roll back history and create a natural habitat from a man made environment is both foolish and irresponsible. The proponents of such misguided policy development are misusing Federal and State statutes to develop agendas that have nothing to do with responsible management, development or stewardship of our waterway. The era in which citizens and their local governments were forced to abrogate their constitutional powers to Federal and State potentates is quickly passing, accelerated by the recent change of leadership in the California Governor's office. We need not, in fact must not, allow agenda bearing government officials to trample on our rights and protections including those provided in the statutes they attempt to twist to their irresponsible goals. Specifically, the Coastal Commission Act provides guaranties of basic Fifth Amendment property rights making assurances of due process and just compensation for any "takings" of property rights. (Sec. 30010 &Sec.30001.5(c)). It further promises significant citizen input with the presumptions that such responses will be given proper • consideration. (Sec. 30523(b)). The Coastal Commission also assures citizens in both the information brochure they publish and in the Act that some types of development are exempt from permitting requirements including "repairs and improvements of single - family homes ". Sec 30610(d). Finally, the statute describes an appeal process and assures that the Commission can be sued. (Sec 30334 (b). In fact, the current draft appears to be the fabrication of State bureaucrats (contrary to Sec. 30512.2(a) &(b)) who tread heavily on the rights and protections provided in the law by forcing their irresponsible agendas on to the planning bodies with threats of disapproval if the demands are not carved out and enforcing draconian fines for non- or late- compliance. Despite the protections provided in the law, actual practice shows the Coastal Commission to be totalitarian, brooking no opposition and allowing no reclama or appeals. Most citizens would be shocked to know the level of unmitigated authority contained in the legislation and even more traumatized to understand the ruthless imposition of the Coastal Commission's power and perceived authority. It is surprising that a major attempt has not been made to prove the Act unconstitutional and the behavior of the Coastal Commission staff a gross trampling of basic civil rights. In additional to the protections outlined above, the Act also recognizes the need to balance protection with common sense and to protect recreation and marine oriented business. (Sec. 30001.5 (b) & (c)); (Sec. 30224). Setting eel grass as a straw man for a protected environment using make believe science and out right falsehoods — eel grass is not on the endangered and threatened species list nor is it on the list of habitats for • endangered and threatened species, this issue is an exercise in pure power politics to gain FILE COPY j3 an outcome which otherwise would not be recognized as legitimate in the Federal or State statutes -- the Commission has forced the local planning body to violate the intent of the law (Sec.30005.5), trample on basic Constitutional rights, and set up the community political bodies for violent retribution at the polls. In addition to the political havoc being fomented, this Land Use Plan will undoubtedly touch off an equally violent citizen response at least akin to the tax payer revolts of the past. The property value of the roughly 1,200 homes on the bay has a total value in excess of $3.6 Billion and has one of the highest property tax revenues in the State. Assuming most residents would join a class action lawsuit-to roll back their property assessments, as a result of losing access to the recreation and waterfront uses of their property for the years since they were last allowed to dredge their docks and slips, the tax loss, damages and legal costs would be staggering to the City and County; the State already is upside down. Added to the home owners' losses would be the economic losses suffered by water oriented businesses that are protected in the Act, but are already being put out of business with out due process or compensation for the government takings. Perhaps most importantly the Act specifically authorizes that "the ... dredging of wetlandsLestuaries ... shall be permitted (to) ... (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged ... channels... vessel berthing and mooring areas... " (Sec 30233(a) & Sec. 30233(a)(2) & Sec. 30610(a) &((d)) While there are probably many well thought out and positive components of the current Land Use Plan, the section, memorializing unreasonable and inappropriate • protections and making the enforcement of those protections tantamount to statute, which is related to eel grass (Section 4.1.4 to 4.1.5), must be removed from the final plan. The Planning Commission and eventually the City Council must stand firm against the unlawful and pernicious influence of the Coastal Commission staff in this regards. David G Moore 88 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA • %�`i 11 • • BILL KORTUM, AV.M. 180 Ely Road North, Petaluma CA 94954 -1101 (707) 762 -6219 PLANNINGEDEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 19 2004 71819110111112111213141516 Patrick Alfr,rd, Senior Planner City of Ne,.+. port Beach Planning Department PO Box l 66 Newport r .ich CA 92658 -8915 Dear Nir. Alford: Sonoma County coastal advocates, together with State planners and Count,' park people, are devoting much time and energy to connecting; our segments of the California Coastal Trail. We want you who ave making decisions on the trail in Newport Beach to be assured that your efforts are being duplicated up and down the California coast. cc Teresa Henry, District Manager Calif on-ii a Coastal Commission 200 Oce,iiigate, 10th Floor Long Beach CA 90802 -4416 Sincerely, -n Y��- Bill Kortum j3S -� Mar 23 04 09:39a Isabelle Phillips (949) 650 -7528 p•1 PLEASE SUPPORT THE COASTAL TRAIL Newnnrt -RhnmQ fn Npwnnrt Pipr THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPORT PIER — CYCLING TO SCHOOL„ FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES &AW Fill out the bottom and return to both people below City of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Teresa Henry, District Manager P. O. Box 1768 200 Ooeangate, 10th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4416 Fax number(949) 644 -3229 TEL(562) 5905071 E- mail: oalfordia 7clm.newoort- be2ch.c3.us FAX (5621590 -5084 Background The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that "ideally the trails system should be continuous and located near the shoreline". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it. Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of trails along the shore and in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. 1) Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36th St to the PCH bridge that crosses the Santa Ana River. a. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 3& Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea ii. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. b. See Image 1(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail www.coastwalk.or4 www.californiacoastaltrail.irfo Please include this document as my comments on the Name j (5 () z;,t�ec `3 Address 15 /Cawa� City At. 1 r7 Pagel of 2 I� j36 Mar 23 04 09:39a Isabelle Phillips (949) 650 -7528 p.2 PLEASE SUPPORT THE COASTAL TRAIL Ncavunnrt Shnroc to Nrawnnrt Pinr THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPORT PIER — CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES Fill out the bottom and return to both people below City of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission Patrick Afford, Senior Planner Teresa Henry, District Manager P. O. Box 1766 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92656-8915 Long Beach, CA 90802-4416 Fax number.(949) 644 -3229 TEL(562) 590-5071 E- mail: oalfordabcity .newoort- bearh.ca.us FAX 156215905064 Background The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking , bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that "ideally the trails system should be continuous and located near the shoreline". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it. Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of Is along the shore and in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. 1) Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 3610 St to the PCH bridge that crosses the Santa Ana River. a. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 3e Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea ii. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. b. See Image 1(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline W Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail www.coastwalk.org www.californiacoastaltrail.info Please include this document as my comments �' on fire L CP Name - 1� ✓T� y -- Address 1 c Jf City Page 1 of 2 13-7- Mar 23 04 09:39a Isabelle Phillips (949) 650 -7528 p.3 PLEASE SUPPORT THE COASTAL TRAIL Newport Shores to Newport Pier THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPORT PIER — CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES Fill out the bottom and return to both people below City of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Teresa Henry, District Manager P. O. Box 1766 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4416 Fax number(949) 6443229 TEL(562) 5905071 E- maikoalfordgbcity .newoort-beach.ca.us FAX (562) 59M084 Background The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hlildng , bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that `ideally the trails system should be continuous and located near the shoreline". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it. Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of trails along the shore and in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. 1) Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36th St to the PCH bridge that crosses the Santa Ana River. a. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 360' Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea ii. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. b. See Image ] (next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline Learn more about Coastwaik and the California Coastal Trail wwW.coastwalk.orq www.californiacoastaltrail.info Please include this document as my comments on the LCP Name 1Si ",y F' R. Address ? y l CC --hit% 5't-- City k,'etvpCYt- / :lZ -Cl r Ck� qz Lrfn? 0 Page l oft /4e City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Draft February 2004 Comments to Section 4 Prepared by Gus Chabre March 23, 2004 Section 4.1.3 Environmental Study Areas Recommended change: Delete last paragraph on page 4 -11. Rationale: The eelgrass meadows within Newport Bay are not classified as Environmental Study Areas in the subject plan. Therefore eelgrass should not be referenced or discussed in this section. It may lead the review /approval authority to the conclusion eelgrass should be classified as an Environmental Study Area. Table 4.1 -1 Environmental Study Area Impacts and Mitigation Measures Recommended Change: Delete all references under heading of "Mitigation to Reduce the Potential Impacts of Identified Threats" Rationale: Policies 4.1.3 -11 - A through R does not exist in the subject plan. If the author of the plan meant to reference Policies 4.1.2 -1 - A through Q, the table should be revised and circulated for review before it is presented to the review /approval authority. Section 4.1.4 Eelgrass Meadows Recommended change: Delete second paragraph on page 4 -37 Rationale: The Federal funding to support the restoration program has not been provided. Therefore the program is in doubt. Recommended change: Delete the word "high" in the first sentence of the third paragraph. Rationale: The discussion on page 4 -36 attributes the abundance or lack of eelgrass in Newport Bay to growing conditions that are the result of rainfall, minimal runoff, and the quality of the water. Dredging and dock and bulkhead construction projects have existed in the Bay for the last 75 years and do not seem to be the main contributor to the abundance or lack of eelgrass in the Bay. Therefore the statement "high potential to impact eelgrass" is a conclusion and is not supported by scientific data. Section 4.2.5 Eelgrass Protection and Restoration Recommended change 1: Delete the entire section. Rationale: The eelgrass has been covered under section 4.1.4 with appropriate policies to encourage its growth and protection in Newport Bay. Recommended change 2: Rewrite Section 4.2.5 and delete all references to and discussions of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Rationale: The "Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy" has prevented the proper maintenance of Newport Harbor waterways, docks and seawalls by forcing expensive and sometimes impossible procedures to allow repair and dredging to take place. The result has been an economic impact on the property owners and economy of the Newport Beach. In January 2003 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to be in violation of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Act and the Administrative Procedure Act when they issued specifications and management measures without proper public notice and opportunity to comment. The policies which were the subject the Courts decision were similar in their intent to the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. The basis of the Court ruling is NMFS must provide notice and the opportunity for public comment before issuing specifications and management measures. The Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy is susceptible to a legal challenge by the citizens of Newport Beach for lack of notice and public comment. It is poor public policy to base a long term Coastal Land Use Plan on a document which can easily be challenged resulting in litigation that the City must defend. LI / E • E &OAA �A 410 SOUTH BAY FRONT March 19, 2004 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 RECEIVED BY Y4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT �7N4) 673 -1070 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Patrick Alford, Senior Planner MAR 2 4 2004 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. AM PM Newport Beach, CA 92663 71819110 it 1112111213141516 Re: Comments by Seymour Beek on LCP draft dated February 2004 Dear Patrick: At last night's Planning Commission meeting I distributed a single page of comments. assume you received a copy. In case you didn't, the following is a somewhat refined version: 2.6 Industrial Development Policies 2.6-4, 2.6 -5 and 2.6 -6 all have to do with federal government offshore oil drilling leases. It does not seem appropriate that this subject be part of a Newport Beach land use plan. If this plan is to deal with federal government policy, a higher priority would be airports and their effect on the community and the environment. 3.1 Shoreline Access Policies: 3.1.1 -14 Calls for a plan for walkways to "... all appropriate commercial areas of the harbor." 3.1.1 -15 "Extend the Lido Marina Village boardwalk ..." 3.1.1 -16 "Provide a ... walkway along the Rhine Channel ..." 3.1.1 -17 "Provide a walkway connecting the Lido Village area with Mariner's Mile, if feasible. 3.1.1 -18 Provide a continuous walkway along the Mariner's Mile waterfront ..." The wording of 3.1.1 -14 should be changed to read"... all appropriate visitor - serving areas of the harbor." The reason is that some commercial areas are not visitor- serving and walkways may not be wanted or needed. 3.1.1 -15 through 3.1.1 -18 should be eliminated or language added to make it clear that the city may study these things, but is not committed to "providing" them. The reason is that the city has not, in fact, planned to build these walkways and may never do so. Only very preliminary planning has been done for the Mariner's Mile walkway and a decision on building it is far from being made. i�� Page 2 3.1.4 Bay/Harbor Encroachments Policy 3.1.4 -4 (regarding residential piers) ..."Limit appurtenances and storage areas to those related to vessel launching and berthing." This wording is too restrictive. Such things as flagpoles and swim ladders are in common use and are appropriate for such piers. Suggest substitute wording as follows: "Limit appurtenances to flagpoles and items related to marine activities." 4.1.4 Eelgrass Meadows. If you eliminate the sentence about the least tem, as discussed in your memo to the Planning Commission of March 18,2004, I have no further comments. PERSONAL NOTE: In many respects, I believe you have created a wonderful document. I have learned from it even though I have lived here all my life and considered myself reasonably well informed. I know you're getting much irritating knitpicking, but considering the importance of the document, it is to be expected. Se our Beek • • r y� r1 LJ 519 Marigold Street Douglas W. Dreher Phone (949) 640 -7824 Corona Del Mar, CA 92695 Fox (949) 640 -5864 Tuesday, March 23, 2004 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City of Newport Beach MAR 2 5 2004 c/o Ginger Varin, Secretary, Planning Commission AM PM , Re: Local Coastal Plan (Draft, Feb. 2004) 71819110111112 13141516 Ref: Proposed Land Use Zoning Change for Lido Marina Village /Lido Shops Area, Sec. 2.3.1 Gentlemen: Recently, March 1, 2004, 1 submitted a letter to our mayor, Mr. Tod Ridgeway, concerning what appears to be a rapidly developing City /Developers juggernaut aimed at the Lido Marina Village /Lido Shops area. In that letter, copy attached, a number of basic questions were asked of Mr. Ridgeway. To -date specific answers are still awaiting. Obviously the first and most important aim of this Developer /City juggernaut is to push through a change, subtle in wording and camouflaged in intent, resulting in a change of land use zoning for the Lido Marina Village /Lido Shops area from its current General Plan designation of "retail and service, commercial" to now read under the LCP proposed plan, "visitor- serving commercial ". This wording allows among other things, HOTELS. I have personally met with the developers representative, reviewed the proposed concept calling for a hotel, multiple condo /time share units, open spaces, etc. To quote Newport Beach council member Steven Bromberg's statement to the Daily Pilot, "a very upscale and nice looking project ". It is the consensus opinion of those property/business owners along Via Lido, myself included, that Lido Marina Village needs Delp but is razing of the entire area including the Lido Shops and construction of hotels and condos the answer? I think not. In reviewing events of the past 30/40 days it becomes acutely aware that the city /developers team is proceeding along some stealthy path aimed at presenting this project to residents of the city of Newport Beach as "Fait Accompli ". I would ask you, members of our hardworking, dedicated Planning Commission the following: • Why, without the submission of any firm plans to the appropriate city departments would the developer spend or conunit to spend, by his own admission, upwards of 4 to 5 million dollars in the acquisition of initial pieces of Lido property for his project? 43 -0— • Secondly and most importantly, why would the same developer enter into very difficult, complex • and protracted negotiations with the present owners of the Lido Marina Village complex which, if successful, would call for the expenditure of an additional 22 to 25 million (my estimate) dollars? • Why would the same developer seek to purchase all those private parcels along the north side of Via Lido resulting in the expenditure of an additional 10 to 12 million dollars? • Additional moneys have been spent or committed to acquire other property along Via Lido, namely the Lido Building and quite possibly the church property at 3303 Via Lido. • One can only assume that somehow, someway, the developer /city team has a hidden agenda giving the developer confidence to spend many millions of dollars to date followed by even larger sums should they be allowed to proceed. Rumors are rampant that should those private property owners in the affected area decline to sell to the developers the city may consider some form of "Eminent Domain" action. This is a quote from Carol Hoffman of Government Solutions, Inc., a consultant to the developers. The most basic and simple questions one. would ask: WHO STANDS TO BENEFIT MOST FROM THIS PROJECT? 1S THIS PROJECT, AS CONCEIVED, GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE OF NEWPORT BEACH, ITS • RESIDENTS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OWNERS? SECONDLY, WOULD THIS PROJECT, IF COMPLETED, DRAW SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF OUT OF TOWN VISITORS ANXIOUS TO WANDER THROUGH A GROUP OF HIGH END PRIVATE CONDOS AND AN EXPENSIVE HOTEL? 1 respectfully ask that you, as members of our Planning Commission, consider the consequences of revising our Coastal Plan which would open the door for additional developments detrimental to the citizens of Newport Beach, who have chosen to live and work here because of our city's unique characteristics. Please work with us to keep it that way by deleting the term CV from the proposed local Coastal Plan as it pertains to the Lido Marina Village area and reverting to its current designation of "retail and service commercial ". Thank you for your time and courtesy in this matter. Sincerely, oc,,—, Doug Dreyer • 519 Marigold Street Douglas W. Breyer Phone (949) 640 -7824 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Fox (949) 640 -5864 Monday, March 1, 2004 Honorable Tod Ridgeway Mayor, City of Newport Beach SUBJECT: LIDO MARINA VILLAGE AND LIDO SHOPS Dear Mr. Ridgeway, For a number of months now the Lido area has been awash in gossip, rumors and innuendos concerning the Lido area and, more specifically, Lido Marina Village. Unfortunately, a number of those statements also apparently involve the Lido Shops area which as you know has no legal connection with LMV. As long term owners of that property located at 3416 Via Lido we are well aware of the history of Lido Marina Village dating back to before its concept ion/construction by the Kell Company. Suffice to say the general consensus of opinion shared by those owners of the Lido Shops is that the history of LMV has not been a positive one due mainly to poor planning in the beginning compounded by a succession of owners, none of whom appeared to have a cohesive, well thought out marketing plan. Our concern however is not with Lido Marina Village but with that area known as the Lido Shops consisting of those businesses on the no.th side of Via Lido between Central and Via Oporto. Comments made during the past few months seem to lump our properties in with those of LMV as part of a major master planned redevelopment. Consequently, we have a number of questions needing answers from yourself and /or your staff. Among them are the following: 1. Are the efforts and /or plans to redevelop LMV city driven or developer driven? 2. Is the apparent inclusion of the Lido Shops area a deliberate addition to the overall plan and if so, who determine this? The City or the developer? 3. To date no one to our knowledge has received any document from the City defining the intent of the City and /or developer team in regards to LMV or the Lido Shops. 4. is it the intent of the City of Newport Beach working in concert with a developer to present this project to the citizens /taxpayers /property owners as a "fait accompli ", thus trying to bypass same? 5. Do you and /or the developer anticipate the necessity to acquire approval of: a. Coastal Commision b. Greenlight c. Newport Beach Voters 6. The words "eminent domain" seem to be bandied about rather loosely by a number of people. Does this imply that the city intends to pursue this course of action should those existing Lido shop property owners refuse to sell? We would appreciate the opportunity of meeting with you at a place and time convenient to all for the purposes of discussing these issues. I will call you next week to hopefully arrange the details. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Dcx-%�w Doug and Judy Dreyer • 0 0 To: Patrick Adford Page I of I nkto . 11 and mft" to b,4 Beach Cecil Tw"M 200 Oc BE Bat ltground '. 1976?b SU alignment . for . the California . . . coastal The Coasto! Act of quMl0C0ljMiUkd0MtOidM 'd ' bicycle, Trail ,nOj*.L**pos AW profmms gjqi) and Pro 72 providt:s that hiki post. on 20, 19 aid 10, USHIS system sballbe-established along of am the COGsr and that Ideaft the tmils, 200 systerrs Sb . nold jjc, continnow and located near ft avo�. In Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (pavley) . declared the row state trail andurEps the Coastal CMMLWOII MA.Cowtal It. . W 'jjdq*Chesbo) mquircd a plan to 0,MPIcte the trail Conservancy to oonoboqft,� to Coastal by. 2009- In 1999.;ft Caff0mift Try . .3 Wdleunium legacy Trail encouraging federal agei46 to assist de top Public GovinttenttO tM . - N . ew . t POI . Beach LCP In gotuptimce vviAtthe law; the Newport nee& to mom clearly designate the allgmnew Of trails along the shoccipind-Mi the Coastal Zane that makeup theCalifornia Coastal Trail. ,. y ilic bicycle nod wWldng palh.should fDUow the beach from 3e St to the PCH bridge that ac=M the Sam'Ans RiveL The bWydG'p.Fdh.cun=trUnSO'rI3Lxh fiom the SantELAM River to:36 StreCtIlOdthis violates t6VpdDdPleS Of the Coastal Tug is outlined' !0410 Coastal Trail Report , -si& and sound of the sc LI Proxhidtr. me Coastal Trail should be-within.. a ii. Comwe6vity:'non-automofive altumative cojjjlectcans to schools; communities, traitheads, bus stops, restaurants and tecreaubnal assns iii. integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not cornpgomiscd by traffic iv: Wbok Beach Accew. moving the trail Ajongtbe beach will provide whole beach access facilitating co-nipliao'cel-Aiih the Americans With Disabilities Ad. The torrent trail Olin street does not achie4061L b. See tau the beach path that the LCP should oullim more about cAastwaut avid the California Coastal Trail .coastwalk.orq vry Cali foryti-acoastaltzall ..Into induft this docummt as my OwnMeff" on the LCP Name Add. C1W I of2 T' U 6(-7 TU OL -S Mar -19 -1004 10:16am F -611 From- PLEASE SUPPORT THE COASTAL TRAIL T -069 P.001 /001 Newport Shores to Newport Pier THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPORT PIER — CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES Fill out the bottom and return to both people below City of Newport Beach Cal- rPornia Coastal Commission Pakiek Alford. Senior Planner Teresa Henry, District Manager P. 0. Box 17W 200 Oceangate,10th Floor NleWPOrt Beach. CA 92658 -8815 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4416 Fax number(M) 644 -3229 TEL(5(2) 590-5071 e— may -.tmt wdtakcitv.newoort- neach4a.us FAX (MM 590 ei E Background The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hitting , bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that "ideally the trails system should be continuous and located near the shoreline ". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it Senate Bill 908(Chtsbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it. Public Comment to the Newport Beath LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of trails along the shore and in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. 1) Specifically the bicycle and waWng path should follow the beech from 36"' St to the PC14 bridge That crosses the Santa Ana River. a. The bicycle path current runs on a strut from the Santa Ana River to 360 Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea ii. Connectivity: non- automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, ttailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not coraproinised by traffic iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current teal on a street does not achieve this. b. See Imago l (ncxt page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail www.coastwalk.o www.californiacoastaltrail.info Please include this document as my comments on the LCP Name Addressya y e oil 6 CitVA/e711?f %�=v x v ry / STy2, va ty SN °/�D/2 y rz✓� Page 1 oft 0 1] /vsf o Mar-29 -2004 10:162m From- PLEASE SUPPORT THE COASTAL TRAIL 7-069 P.002 /002 F -611 Newport Shores to Newport Pier 'HIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPORT PIER — CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES Fill out the bottom and return to both people below City of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission Patrick Afford. Senior Planner Teresa Henry. District Manager P. O. Box 1768 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Newport Beads, CA 92658 -8915 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4416 Fax number.(949) 644 -3229 TEL(5M) 590 -5071 Background The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20,1972 provides that "A hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that °ideally the trails system should be continuous and located near the shoreline". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it. Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of s along the shore and in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. 1) Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 360 St to the PCH bridge That crosses the Santa Ana River. a. The bicycle path current rums on a street from the Santa Ana River to 3e Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report L Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea ii. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. b. See Image 1(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline Learn more about Coastwaik and the California Coastal Trail carrrr. coeStwalk, oxR www.californiacoastaltrail.info Please include this document as my comments on the LCP Name k -0il5//i �,) Ew115 Address G /l.cq �rfUYf st City 1;&,) orfi arm -A °lraG3 J Page 1 of t d �� �� //•[c— 4/Le, Alford, Patrick From: Everette Phillips [ everefte .phillips @sourceglobally.comi Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:29 PM To: palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: There is a great amount of excitement about the bike path - Thanks for the opportunity to make it possible Dear Patrick, I am surprised by the interest in West Newport and the Peninsula for competing the bike path from 36th St to the Santa Ana River as part of the Coastal Trail as supported by Orange County and by Coastwalk. So far of the many people asked in Newport Beach, I have only met 1 person, Paul Watkins, who apposed the concept. In Newport Shores, most people say that they have been hoping /fighting /supporting this need of the community for 20 years. Most people have given up hope that the city cares about them, and they say the game is rigged against the average citizen. I have been impressed by the city's work on the Vision 2025 project and the honest effort of city staff to have the average citizen heard. I don't want my neighbors to be disappointed. There is so much excitement that I need your help to best understand, what has to be don by April 2nd to have the completion of the bike path /California Coastal Trail between 36th St and the Santa Ana River along the beach spelled out the in the LCP policy? At the Planning Commission meeting, you requested specific policy items will the following language achieve the goal? Add Section 2.9.2 -8. Coordinate the California Coastal Trails and bike paths offering the public maximum access and lateral motion along the coast within view of the ocean Change Section 3.1.1 -9 to "Cooperate with state and county agencies..." Add Section3.1.3 -9.E Give priority to connecting the Coastal Trail from the Santa Ana River to 36th St as a lateral bike path on the beach within view of the ocean I am watching many people get excited that the city is taking an interest in this important project and that the LCP policy is the first step of both meeting the desires and needs of Newport Beach residents and meeting the spirit and letter of the law regarding the California Coastal Trail. Kindest regards, Everette Phillips 300 Canal St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 9 FROM : ANN BIEGUN FAX NO. : Mar. 29 2004 08:55PM P1 PLEASE SUPPORT THE COASTAL TRAIL Newport Shores to Newport Pier THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPORT PIER -- CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES Fill out the bottom and return to both people below Cil* of Newport Beach Callfornla Coastal Commission Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Teresa Henry, District Manager P. O. Box 17613 200 Oceangate,10th Floor Newport Bead n, CA 92658-8915 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4416 Fax number.(949) 6443229 TEL(562) 590 -5071 E- mail'oalfnrdri)cJty.newoort- beach.c .us FAX (5621590-5084 Background The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Gmstal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that "ideally the trails system should be con.inuous and located near the shoreline ". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Paviey) declared .:he trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it. Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of • trails along the shore and in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. 0 1) Specifically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36th St to the PCH bridge that crosses th a Santa Ana River_ a. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36th Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report i. proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea ii_ Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. b. See Image 1(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline Learn more about Coastwaik and the California Coastal Trail www.coastwalk.ora www.callforniacoastaltrail.info Please include this document as my comments on the LCP Name _ tQ�c�yv Address 7� a e city 7�<w�n d eA. 9663 Page 1 of 2 r PLEASE SUPPORT THE COASTAL TRAIL Newport Shores to Newport Pier THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPOI;f C PIER — CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES Fill out the bottom and return to both people below City of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission Patric[; Alford, Senior Planner Teresa Henry, District Manager P. O. 13:ix 1768 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor RECEIVED BY NewF u t Beach, CA 92659-8915 Long Beach, Ca 90802-4416 PLANNING DE By P Fax r n nber.(949) 644 -3229 TEL(562) 590 -5071 CITY NI NEWPORT BE I E -ma aatford(a�ciN.newoort beach -ca.us FAX (5621590 -5084 Background MAR 31 2004 The Coastal -1 a of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the Cal��ur� 1 1213141516 Trail in their 1 acal Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A Q , 61 cad, and equestri, it trails system shall be established along or near the coast' and that "ideally the trails system shou.J be continuous and located near the shoreline ". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) '_uelared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservanc' , ':o collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1!199, the California Coastal Trail was designated CalifomWs Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it. Public Co : riment to the Newport Beach LCP In complian r.: with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of trails along It a shore and in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. 1) Spe : i lically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36th St to the PCH bridge that : rosses the Santa Ana River. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36th Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea ii. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. b. See Image I (next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail co as tivalk -or q :.californiacoastaltrai_.ir.fo Please include this document as my comments on Dame CA RV- JE5 AND CU gt.]ENE WAL'rDAJ address 332 LwDD AMIE. City N 6W POWT 6 arm Ck4.1 CA q 2lolc r Page l of 2 the LCP 0 lSz PLEASE SUPPORT THE COASTAL TRAIL Newport Shores to Newport Pier HIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPO'I r PIER — CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES Mr Fill out the bottom and return to both people below City of Newport Beach California Coastal CommissoEIVED BY PLANNING DEPART Patric I: Alford, Senior Planner Teresa Henry, District Manager P. o. 13:)x 1768 200 Oceangate, loth Floor CITY NI NEWPORT I Newf > t Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4416 Fax r u nber.(949) 644 -3229 TEL(562) 590 -5071 E -m;; fir nalfordna citv.newnort- beach.ca.us FAX (5621590 -5084 MAR 3 1 2004 Backgrout u I 7 8191101111121112 The Coastal %::t of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the California Coastal Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking, bicycle, and equestri; a trails system shall be established along or near the coast" and that "ideally the trails system shou.' be continuous and located near the shoreline ". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) :.(:clared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservanc•,':o collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 11. 199, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging f::deral agencies to assist in developing it. Public Co r ment to the Newport Beach LCP In complian r.,: with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of Is along It n shore and in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. 1) Spe.:i fically the bicycle and walking path should follow the beach from 36`^ St to the PCH bridge that : rosses the Santa Ana River. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 36th Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea ii. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach vAll provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. I See Image I(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline • Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail .coastwa1k.orl :.caIi=orniacoastaltrai_.in - o Ple�ase include this document as my comments on the LCP flame Chr(S aoA lrer,� I1 ""A s,ddress 235 CANAL SrF—Et -T City NeW QO1ZT 6EAC4-1,., CA q 2 b6 3 Page 1 of 2 '153 March 28,2004 • To: Whom it may concern RECEIVED BY Re: Coastal trail from Newport Shores to Newport Pier PLANNING DEPARTMENT wPm wPe CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH From: The Walton Family MAR 31 2004 PM ? 8 910111112111213141516 We are residents of Newport Shores and would like to UP t is law be enforced. We have four children (llyear old, 8 year old, 2 year old, and 4 month old) that we intend to raise here in Newport Shores. More than for the enjoyment and beauty of the ocean, the boardwalk would benefit us for the pure safety of our family. We use the beach frequently. Our older children ride their bikes to and from school. Currently, they have to ride with cars on the path until they reach 36a` street This path will benefit our family for many years in the future, please consider finishing construction of this boardwalk separate from the street, P= We strongly support the coastal trail from Newport Shores to Newport Sine le , The Talton ely Ch 's, Geni, Calyn, Wyatt, Samuel, and Lily 0 0 15y PLEASE SUPPORT THE COASTAL TRAIL Newport Shores to Newport Pier IS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON A BIKE TRAIL FROM NEWPORT SHORES TO NEWPORT PIER - CYCLING TO SCHOOL, FRIENDS AND FOR RECREATION WILL BE SAFER FOR OUR FAMILIES -aWOM111ft no Fill out the bottom and return to both people below City of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, Teresa Henry, District Manager P. O. Box 1766 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor RECEIVED BY Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4416 PLANNING DEPARTME Fax number(949) 6443229 TEL(562) 5905071 CITY OF NEWPORT BE E- mai Ynalfordgbcitv.newwn43each.ca.us FAX 156215905084 Background AM PM The Coastal Act of 1976 requires local jurisdictions to identify an alignment for the Cagj80k1h0q1"l 1213141516 Trail in their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) and Proposition 20, 1972 provides that "A hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails system shall be established along or near the coast' and that "ideally the trails system should be continuous and located near the shoreline". In 2001 Assembly Concurrent Resolution 20 (Pavley) declared the trail an official state trail and urges the Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy to collaborate to complete it. Senate Bill 908(Chesbo) required a plan to complete the trail by 2008. In 1999, the California Coastal Trail was designated California's Millennium Legacy Trail encouraging federal agencies to assist in developing it. Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the law, the Newport Beach LCP needs to more clearly designate the alignment of trails along the shore and in the Coastal Zone that make up the California Coastal Trail. • 1) Specifically the bicycle and walling path should follow the beach from 36h St to the PCH bridge that crosses the Santa Ana River. a. The bicycle path current runs on a street from the Santa Ana River to 3e Street and this violates the principles of the Coastal Trail as outlined in the Coastal Trail Report i. Proximity: the Coastal Trail should be within sight and sound of the sea it. Connectivity: non - automotive alternative connections to schools, communities, trailheads, bus stops, restaurants and recreational assets iii. Integrity: The Coastal Trail should be continuous and not compromised by traffic iv. Whole Beach Access: moving the trail along the beach will provide whole beach access facilitating compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The current trail on a street does not achieve this. b. See Image l(next page) for a graphic of the beach path that the LCP should outline Learn more about Coastwalk and the California Coastal Trail mra. coastwalk. orq iavw .californiacoastaltrail.info Please include this document as my comments on the LCP Name Address LarryTaugher � �� (-2 312 Canal St. (�� City Newport Beach, CA 928 ?/ ` `_ .,,�_� Page 1 oft L' T April 2, 2004 TO: Planning Department • Planning Commission CC: Mayor Ridgeway, Mayor, City of Newport Beach Ray Kennedy, President, Irvine Terrace HOA RE: . Local Coastal Plan As a long time resident and property owner in Irvine Terrace and as recommended by the President of the Irvine Terrace Association, we are submitting the following comments and proposed revisions to the new Local Coastal Plan. This response is to voice our concerns and request revisions that will protect our existing rights to create single level basements that view out over the harbor on the slope above Bayside Drive. We therefore request that since Irvine Terrace is not immediately on the California Coast, and that the slopes above Bayside Drive are separated by other properties and roadway, and the slopes are altered and man made, Irvine Terrace in it's entirety remain categorically exempt. It is a fact that the unattractive slope, much of which is too steep to support vegetation, above Bayside Drive was created years ago when Irvine Terrace was originally created and the first homes were constructed. It is also a fact that new owners who alter the slope to create basement levels excavate out poorly compacted soil and then stabilize the slope • for new construction. This serves to help correct long existing problems. By terracing into existing altered slopes to create new lower basements and flat terraces at that new lower level, the new homes and terraces create places for vegetation to take hold. These new structures help solve the problem, not create it. We also request the following revisions be made to the LCP. Section 4.4.3 Coastal Bluffs; Page 4 -70; Revise Paragraph 2, Last Sentence with: "In areas where the coastal bluff has been altered the property owner and City shall strive to minimize further alteration to the bluffface. However this is not intended to prohibit the property owner's right to improve or rebuild said property per existing codes in the same manor as a neighbor or in that neighborhood Proposed new policy: Many older man made slopes are too steep to support vegetation and are a visual problem to the City. Additional modification of these slopes may be required by the City through the permit process to add vegetation and to stop erosion. It will be the property owner's responsibility to repair altered slopes on the owner's property whether the slope was created by the current owner or prior owner. Policy 4.4.3.1 Add at beginning of first sentence: With respect to new development projects consisting of multiple units in areas where... Policy 4.4.3 -2 Add at beginning of first sentence: With respect to new development projects consisting of multiple units in areas where.... 1 Policy 4.4.3 -3; Add after last sentence: New development is permitted on the bluffwhich conforms to existing string lines within the neighborhood or neighboring homes. Policy 4.4.3 -4; Add after Sentence 2: Removal of any bluffface and depth of removal of earth for the purpose of new structures built into the bluffface shall be limited to that of a neighbor and that existing in the neighborhood Policy 4.4.3 -5 Remove the first sentence on altered bluffs. It was addressed in 4.4.3 -4. This confuses what has been already stated. Revise second sentence to: "Prohibit development on those portions of coastal bluffs with unaltered natural slopes in excess of 40% (2.5:1 slope), unless the application of this policy would preclude use of the property as already allowed to the neighboringproperties. Policy 4.4.3 -7 Add to beginning: "On newly developed altered slopes other than those already existing, employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs, such as: Policy 4.4.3 -10 Delete: "including lot line adjustments" from sentence. Policy 4.4.3 -11 Add at end of sentence: `that are City orpublic land." Section 2.2.4 Deferred Certification Areas Remove this as written. Why are we as the citizens and owners of the land in this City required to, or want to, give all future permit jurisdiction to a body where we have no vote and have no control? No one can explain this policy. Policy 2.2.5 -1 Remove this Policy completely. It will be impossible to enforce, has no degree of logic and alters existing City codes and policies without public knowledge of how it affects property rights. Policy 2.8.6 -8 , ' Delete repetitive "for new development ". your consideration. Fleetwood Joiner 1119 Dolphin Terrace Cell 949 697 -7757 Received: By: IRVINE April 2, 2004 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Mr. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Re: Local Coastal Program Dear Chairman McDaniel and Members of the Planning Commission: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 0 2 2004 AM 619110111%1? 111213141516 I am submitting this comment letter on behalf of Irvine Terrace Community Association ( "Irvine Terrace ") with reference to the City of Newport Beach's Local Coastal Program ( "LCP') Land Use Plan currently pending before the Planning Commission. Our community encompasses almost 400 homes between Pacific Coast Highway and Bayside Drive in Newport Beach. Unfortunately, Irvine Terrace had little knowledge that this process has been going on for some time and recently learned that this approval process is in the final public hearing stage. Nevertheless. Irvine Terrace wishes to go on record in general support of the proposed comprehensive update of the LCP Land Use Plan for the protection and enhancement of the beaches, bay and shoreline areas in the City of Newport Beach. We understand that the California Coastal Act ( "Coastal Act ") requires the City of Newport Beach, as a California coastal city lying within the coastal zone, to prepare a LCP consistent with the goals and directives of the Coastal Act. Certification of the LCP Land Use Plan and implementing ordinances will facilitate coastal development permitting authority delegated to the City of Newport Beach and that will be beneficial for the landowners in the City of Newport Beach. We have been told that our community is included in a categorical exclusion from the coastal development permit provisions of the Coastal Act by order of the Coastal Commission. We understand that this categorical exclusion order will be automatically terminated after the City of Newport Beach's LCP is certified. Irvine Terrace further understands that it is the intent of the City of Newport Beach to process a new application for an order from the Coastal Commission to reinstate the categorical exclusions for those areas in the City of Newport Beach included within the existing categorical exclusion. We have been told that this will take place concurrently with the certification. Irvine Terrace strongly recommends P.O. Box 19530 • Irvine, California 92614 • (949) 752 -2225 0 0 0 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach April 1, 2004 Page 2 We note in the Planning Commission staff report dated March 4, 2004 that coastal bluffs are included as "Key Issues" representing either a new policy, a potential change in existing policy,, or unresolved issues with the Coastal Commission staff. The Coastal Commission staff has indicated that additional restrictions on the development of coastal bluffs in the City of Newport Beach may be required. This may be appropriate for the protection of "natural" coastal bluffs. Irvine Terrace submits that the lots with land having slopes graded away from the main flat buildable lot should not be included in the definition of "coastal bluffs" under the LCP sections dealing with coastal bluff protection. These areas have been created or altered through grading as part of the original subdivision or development in our community. These slopes in the Irvine Terrace development cannot, in any sense of the word, be considered "natural coastal bluff areas" and should be included as part of the categorical exclusion. On behalf of the Board of Directors of The Irvine Terrace Community Association, I respectfully submit these comments for your serious consideration. 0 cc: Tod W. Ridgeway, Mayor Steven Bromberg, Council Member Patrick Alford, Senior Planner truly yours, Raymond Kennedy, President The Irvine Terrace Community Association a„' �lr Co- President: Alan Silcock Balboa Coves 9491722 -6421 Co- President: Paul Watkins West Oceanfront 7141556 -0800 Vice President: Elliot Leonard West Oceanfront 9491515 -0911 Secretary/Membership: Chris Garber Lido Peninsula Resort 9491723 -3183 WEST NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATION P.O. Boa 1471 Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY P PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tod W. Ridgeway, Mayor CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mayor Ridgeway, APR 0 2 2004 718191101111121112131415 6 April 2, 2004 The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Board of Directors of the West Newport Beach Association (WNBA), who represent a membership of 250+ residents /property owners, after extensive and careful deliberation, have voted to take a position opposing extension of the cement/concrete boardwalk, either from 36th Street to the Santa Ana River or from approximately D Street to the Wedge. Historian: It is important to note that there is mixed opinion on this subject in the West Mike Johnson Newport Beach community, principally voiced by residents of Newport Numbered Streets Shores, who are concerned about the safety of those using the existing 9491642 -3125 East/West bike path along Seashore Drive. However, absent valid statistics Treasurer: about accidents/injuries resulting from use of the Seashore Drive bike path, Ann Krueger as well as similar data relative to the existing beachside cement boardwalk, Newport Shores 9491642 -2646 the Board's conclusion was to oppose any extensions. This position would, of course, be re- examined should we be presented with credible evidence of Directors: a reasonable likelihood of serious bodily injury taking place other than on a Karlene Bradley rare occurrence basis involving individuals using the Seashore Drive bike 9491548 -301sT path as an east/west travel route. 949/548 -3016 Mary Bryant In addition to the above, the position of WNBA also considered the Numbered Streets following: (949) 644 -6266 Gene Dorney Currently, an asphalt bike path covers 2.5 miles, or almost half, of our Numbered Streets oceanfront. Placing more cement/concrete on our beautiful beach 949/675 -0973 would seriously degrade the beauty of the area. It would also seem Margie Dorney unnecessary, considering the present wide bike path along Seashore Numbered Streets Drive that extends the existing cement bike path on the boardwalk 9491675 -0973 and serves as a continuous route. Joann Larson Numbered Streets • Strong public demand for a quiet beach area for picnics, family 9491650 -5533 gatherings, etc. as an alternative to the more active beach Jim Miller experience along the existing cement boardwalk. Newport Island 9491650 -3425 ■ Loss of privacy and less security for homes that would be close to the Pat Shehan proposed extended cement boardwalk. This would likely result in an Park Lido increase in crime in these areas necessitating police support and 9491548 -0966 causing resident concern. Sharon Silcock Balboa Coves Increased safety concerns for people crossing the proposed beach 9491722 -6421 cement boardwalk to get to the beach/water, especially older people Barbara Thibault and children. - Newport Shores 9491642 -5843 0 �bo 0 i 0 Page Two It is noted that extension of the cement boardwalk is not in the current Local Coastal Plan and we feel strongly that, in view of the above, it should not be added to the LCP. Your support of this position is respectfully requested. Sincerely, WEST NEWPORT BEACH ASSOCIATION 4L4--/4"V� " Alan W. Silcock Co- President Copies: Members of Citv Council ➢ Mr. Gary Adams ➢ Mr. Steve Bromberg ➢ Mr. John Heffernan D Mr. Richard Nichols ➢ Mr. Steve Rosansky ➢ Mr. Don Webb Members of the Planning Commission ➢ Mr. Earl McDaniel, Chair ➢ Mr. Jeffery Cole ➢ Mr. Barry Eaton ➢ Mr. Steve Kiser ➢ Mr. Ed Selich ➢ Mr. Michael Toerge ➢ Mr. Larry Tucker Paul K. Watkins Co- President �r:: April 1, 2004 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 REF: Local Coastal Plan 1. Dear Fellow Residents of Newport Beach: APR 0 2 2004 71819110111112111213141516 In February of this year, we purchased a lot on Dolphin Terrace. It was our intention to build a new home on this lot and move from our long time residence in Harbor View Hills. Today, we closed escrow on another lot with a house on Dolphin Terrace. Again, our intention was to replace the old dilapidated structure with a new home for my in- laws. It has been brought to my attention that the current exclusions pertaining to the bluffs in Irvine Terrance will be voided with the proposed new Coastal Plan. Both of these properties were purchased at considerable expense with the singular intent to build new two story structures. Removing the exclusions will, I have been told by members of the Irvine Terrance Architectural Committee, preclude me from developing these properties as planned and cause me and my family serious financial and personal problems. As a result, I am requesting that either the exclusions pertaining to the Irvine Terrace bluffs be retained or, at a minimum, the removal of the exclusions be delayed for a two (2) year period. I think this is a fair approach to an issue that has such a potential significant impact on the residents of Irvine Terrace. Respectfully submitted, Ste*and shid Rizzone 1301 Dolphin Terrace cc: Councilman Bromberg Mayor Ridgeway Patrick Alford • 0 /6 Z-„ APR-02 -2004 01:15PM FROM -JOHN BARRY Z ASSOCTES +949 675 6756 T -958 P.001 /001 PUBLIC COMMENTS TO NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ARE DUE APRIL 2 "dl 0 is F -105 THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE LAND ZONING AND DENSITY FOR OUR CITY'S COASTAL AREAS THAT INCLUDE CANNERY VILLAGE, LIDO VILLAGE, MARINERS MILE, BAYSIDE DRIVE, NEWPORT DUNES AND BALBOA PENINSULA — SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CURRENT GENERAL PLAN ZONING REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE THE PRESERVATION OF OUR COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE Fill out the bottom and City of Newport Beach Patrick Alford, Senior Planner P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Fax number: (949) 644 -3229 E -mail: palfordCOcity .newport- beach.ca.us return to both people below: California Coastal Commission Anne Blemker 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach. CA 90802-4416 Fax Number: (552) 590 -5084 E -mail: ablemker@coastal.ca.aov Background The Coastal Act of 1976 governs local jurisdictions to identify its Local Coastal Plan in alignment with a local city's General Plan for zoning and density specifications as measured in Floor Area Ratios (FAR's) and Dwelling Units (DU). A current threat to our coastal community's beachlbay character and quality of life may come from adding new land use categories and "upzoning" areas greater than what is specified in the current General Plan. Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the intent of the Coastal Act, the Newport Beach LCP needs to be in alignment with the Newport Beach General Plan land use designations and densities. 1) The current LCP draft being proposed has added numerous land use categories, particularly for high intensity residential development. Overall, the LCP shows 26 land use categories vs. 11 stated in our current General Plan. These proposed changes might intensify residential, commercial and industrial areas in our coastal zone. 2) This intensification is not in compliance with our General Plan and a threat to our beach community. Key areas where the LCP has upzoned are: a. Lido Marina Village- Commercial d. Lido Village- Residential b. Bayside Dr./PC.H e. Lower Bayview Landing c. Newport Dunes and Jamboree f. Lido Bldg. On Via Lido Dr. East 3) Recently, an increase in residential (condo) development projects has occurred along the waterfront of our coastal zone, particularly in Cannery Village, Southwast Shipyard and in proposal stages for Lido Marina Village. This bulk construction is replacing visitor serving retail and commercial uses, blocking public access and views of the bay. COMMENTS — Patrick, I've reviewed the LCP land use and Staff report however still do not see an explanation of what process or mechanism used to add numerous land use designations and increase densities for the areas noted above in conflict with the General Plan. Please include this document as my comments on the LCP Name Tom Billings Address 1409 Superior Ave City Newport Beach, CA j63 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 16' Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Email: JonV3 @aol.com April 2, 2004 Pat Temple Patrick Alford City of Newport, Beach Planning Department Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. . Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: LCP Comments Dear Pat and Patrick, Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 Office Fax: (714) 848 -6643 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan, Draft, February, 2004. Below are the references 1 made to the Newport Beach Planning Commission on March 18, 2004. In addition, since the Draft LCP has been changed from previous editions, I would like to be able to make even more comments after further review of this new document. Page 4 -11, Policy 4.1.3, Environmental Study Areas Add #14, Cliff Drive Park, West Side. This side of the park, about 1.5 acres, contains restored coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub, wetlands, and riparian habitat. Add #15, Bayview Landing. This 10 acre -plus site contains CSS, coastal bluff scrub, wetlands Add # 16, Jamboree/MacArthur Intersection. This 4.5 acre site contains wetlands and riparian habitat Add # 17 Bonita Creek. This site contains wetlands and riparian habitat Page 4 -28, Study Area 12, Castaways Correct the statement that says: "The center of site is characterized by non - native grasslands, which comprises the majority of the site." The Castaways site currently is undergoing restoration to native grasslands and other native vegetation including CSS and coastal bluff scrub. Page 4 -5, Policy 4.1.1 -5, "Limit uses within uses of ESHA that are dependent on such resources except where limitation would result in a taking of private property" This statement is not consistent with section 30240 of the Coastal Act. ESHA policies in the LCP should mirror the language in the Coastal Act. Who determines what a taking is? This policy should be stricken. If a taking is suspected, this is up to the landowner to allege the taking and pursue it in a court of law. Page 4 -3 and 4-4, concerning fragmentation. The last paragraph should be stricken. Even degraded habitats are protected by the Coastal Act as confirmed by the 1999 Bolsa Chica Decision, which dealt with degraded ESHA at Bolsa Chica. The last paragraph states: `9f, based on site - specific analysis by a qualified biologist, a habitat area that is degraded beyond the point of restoration or is isolated in a manner that precludes its use by most wildlife species, the habitat area does not meet the statutory definition of ESHA contained in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, such habitat does not warrant the special land use and development restrictions of • 11 JAN A VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 East 16'" Street Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office Phone: (714) 848 -0770 . Email: JonV3 @aol.com Office Fax: (714) 848 -6643 Section 30240 of the Coastal Act ". This language is not consistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal act, since isolation or fragmentation is a matter of degree. In a sense, most all of the habitat areas in Newport Beach are isolated by roads, etc. What is meant by "most" wildlife species? Again, ESHA policies should mirror the language of Section 30240 in the Coastal Act, without trying to, diminish the protections afforded by section 30240. Page 4-42 Wetlands Definition. Stick to the California Code of Regulations without exception. Wetlands are defined by any one of three criteria: hydrology, soils, or vegetation. Policy 4.2.2 -1, last phrase "nor vernally wet areas where the soils are not hydric" should be struck out, since vegetation alone may qualify the area to be a wetland, and "hydric soils" are based on an east coast definition based on chroma or soil color present on the east coast, but the west coast soil is different. For example, large areas of the Bolsa Chica wetlands were defined out of existence because of a consultant's determination of hydric soils that did not qualify the soils as hydric under the east coast bias. Policy 4.2.2 -2, strike out. Wetland definitions should be determined solely by the California Code of Regulations and the Coastal Act, not subject to interpretation by a paid consultant. Page 4 -52 and 4 -53 Dredge Spoils Disposal. Policy 4.2.4 -1 LA -3 status. It is premature to cooperate with the USEPA and ACOE to recommend LA -3 as a permanent dredge spoils disposal site. Currently it is a temporary site. The EPA is currently preparing an EIR/EIS to make it permanent, but this is likely to be a contentious issue. LA -3 is located in the Newport submarine canyon, within which the Orange County Sanitation District's sewage plume originating from the sewage outfall pipe travels towards Newport Pier, documented to come within % mile of the pier. Adding dredge spoils from various sites in Orange and Los Angeles County to an already impacted submarine canyon with currents coming towards Newport Pier and adjacent beaches may not be wise or acceptable. Page 4 -36, last sentence, first paragraph, just remove the word "critical ". It is entirely accurate to say that eelgrass is foraging habitat for the least tem. Removing the whole sentence as suggested by staff is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and appears to diminish the value of eelgrass to the endangered species least tem. Page 4 -55, Policy 4.2.5 -2 regarding: "When eelgrass planted in a mitigation area migrates into adjacent areas that did not previously contain eelgrass, further mitigation for dredging those adjacent areas shall not be required ". This policy should be struck out, since the behavior of eelgrass is not predictable, the quantity of eelgrass in Newport Bay fluctuates year by year and may increase then decrease, the success of mitigation efforts and transplantation is currently unknown, and how much eelgrass can be supported by Newport Bay, etc has not yet been determined. The status of eelgrass is simply too unknown to establish polices that would approve removal of eelgrass without mitigations. What happens if the eelgrass in the mitigation site dies out but survives in the adjacent site? Sincerely lAh D. VAhA lf(rrt, MD 40 Jan D. Vandersloot, MD aAERA. April 2, 2004 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission c/o Patricia Temple, Planning Director 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ptemplea,city.newport- beach.ca.us Fax: (949) 644 -3250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 0 6 2004 71819110111112111213141 6 5 Subject: Newport Banning Ranch Local Coastal Program: February 2004 Draft. Dear Chairman McDaniel, Commissioners and Staff: On behalf of the owners of the Newport Banning Ranch, we are writing in response to the Commission's invitation from your March 18, 2004 meeting to provide questions and concerns to the city staff by Friday, April 2, concerning the February 2004 edition of the Draft Local Coastal Program that the Commission has been considering. We understand that at the urging of the California Coastal Commission staff, your staff, with the concurrence of your LCP Certification Committee, has chosen to treat the Newport Banning Ranch as a "Deferred Certification Area" subject to consideration at a later date. Although we have been interested observers in the city's unfolding LCP process, we have not, until this time, provided our official observations on the draft documents. The Property. As you know, Newport Banning Ranch is a 412 -acre site, located near the mouth of the Santa Ana River. Currently Orange County has jurisdiction over about 87% of the site, with the balance within the City of Newport Beach. The Newport Mesa Unified School District owns an 11.4 acre parcel in the middle of the eastern boundary of the property. For the past 50 years, the site has been used for, and continues to be, an operating oil field and, today, remnants of old wells and pipelines co -exist with operating pumps and processing facilities. The City's portion of the property is identified in the General Plan for Multi - Family Residential and for Mixed - Administrative, Professional, Financial- - Commercial and Industrial. The property is zoned "PC Planned Community." Aera Energy LLC • 3030 Saturn Street, Suite 101 • Brea, CA 92821 • (714) 577 -9154 1] 0 • 0 r1 L_J City of Newport Beach Friday, April 2, 2004 Page 2 of 2 The property owners have been pursuing a draft LCP and program Environmental Impact Report for the entire property, through the County of Orange as lead agency, although those plans are temporarily on hold. Our Draft LCP provides for about 40% of the property to be identified as residential, another 6% to include a coastal inn, village plaza, roads and parkways and a candidate school site. About 4% of the site was set aside at discreet locations for continued and consolidated oil operations. About 50% of the site was envisioned to be set aside for future habitat restoration, neighborhood and community parks, and other open space, including a wetlands network. A schematic of that draft plan is attached for reference purposes. We look forward to continued participation in the LCP process, and we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft. Very truly yours, �. Geor . Basye Vice President Attachments cc: Patrick Alford Homer Bludau Sharon Wood Leonard Anderson /lm DABusiness Files \Newport Banning Ranch\Banning Ranch \City of Newport Beach, 04 -01 -04 1 , 1,{ _ I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 CITY OF COSTA MESA 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY GENERAL PLANS THE NEWPORT BANNING RANCH Legend 0 cell. aft AMcW ;Ta Flmllyftad.N & FlmMU kw�WMIL EdlAft� � pw p.n 3"m MPWk ftw & Zweac Ow , 1� 0 • L d C y_O N.. L d ❑ O CL C e m a. a� D w U a 0) C_ d J = in _ C•,m 9 0 c. z I O E U 0p a`c ea d 4, E (MO E A O O U U ea � � c O m J A E 3 co 0 m O L _ W T S .� O m � T V OE p % O. m W V) N E C ti N c m z . 1,2 ig y a �T V- a c O I Errc E = �y tZf p V m –I caWa mLOOrr ' Q a 30 =w �cmmmc '0 .:E p W v me Ow va ` E = L�Wo o$� c c— cur a" c � o=UOV w •Lp c 0 C M 0 C O L+" v) -o e -5 cc 0 rrO f.cO.0 CNz > owV eo � r � c m EUp gMMm=OV mg�EVF v=Q0 � °L oL ��7 WO c O Caq tW m L- �mV q p O ..mcV pc cc 0 ° a 3 %W�cy ap0 Cm on 0 V) C 2 W X 4 > E E O W O q O2 W m c ca=0 a caO p =00 E >` L 13 L m L V = O.2 V L O c Werm .0 0 m t- C y SO O J 0 Q m O �` W LL 3 E v W CC 7~ a UO a) C m t y az m tiE 3L m E c a C Wes – m Oo0 W– W c m W 0 (m o E– c �V O a) 4) GI m c m c -6E m m W W7 obiL oEc0m�-- q WIE_ C OP �m 0 mc� wm q R8cLa m��iLO� EriiOC�c U FzacmiLmc�i�rVm F -1Um�.°.z = O64)CL— Lm.. r – O L `o c E V$ m E cc m (m Q° C >. ° ~ V O O c N s L m 0 a Z 0 � W m V C C 'O •' L O P= c O 'O C E U V L p1 y W e 0 cc Ow O Q 0 0 � OL 0 E CC 2 m y WL >.e V L 7 � c W L o D0 0 13 CD m c c 064) —? Eouf V E C m m m " W O.ti 0 0 � 0 f6 � 0 ° v � C 7 0 0 W E° m W R E� > °LmiS- �cF,= 08'a � ycgo ODUW5E W= W a m Mm rii WV O°– gWLL 2:5 � O La m 2 c m c0 0.0 o °W c gZSEo c Lc4i�oi N cc coo Occur cc °m`EC Lmc=o�c�E c to MEW - a j� m >° �= z m 0 o, r 0 CL � v o y 02 p 0 0,0 o W z cz E�C 8 r E ° E a � 0 ° 02V 9a Lm WZ CL %6 oios a eV) °W msQ �V) V)0 *MM )> O �°T E- t W ow>cS O ULo � 00 r tswcccw am=b0 a aa aO ` CL N r N N r r co r co 4 r co A r co A N N N N N V N m a N N N N m N to N N to N 0 • d CL 0 Fa M c O � c � R IM a� c N R 7 m J p, m R Z oa U IM rEci � g E YCL 0 4 � m C N ;w m'� CL ZmAa E EN J N t1 L Ri tM cc IL m > m Cc Et :E M� O '31 �� i m C �+ 7 > c� to i5 �� c a °E�u�imc c o. W °E0L O.,�� a w mU mU Evca�5 EvcIo0�� c Q. T r 3 L m m >. >.'='O — ti q a a 2 — a m U m a W W m W m ra j aN -o E r cms 7 as 2 .W.. T W `T r .0 $v $v c a 0 Ov � 2.2=rg c a W O ov, u'nv Ev ° 3 yc L W L m C W m E W m m m m m Ea m 6=coott° . afc mv r. L �Ea L a V 0 O m V y L me 7 N 7 N .L.. 7 m L m m T U) C C W L U rO W T N C m (� 7 CW 'R v� va mm ac m :m>. mm ac W— o m �o Wo a�rmi,a.WC- W �qs, =ccN °- as :2M y i� 32 ErofV z32 Eacap�c mm> ° ° —E n ° Lc6� CL— 8 m �rm�cgammE�rii EE N rU Nw rU Nm �,m a= �rii c W002 m a =aa m m o >�wScE� c C V o ° a a m yy m O a a W m -0 o u% a qm U p 00 QUd W O p QU L C. t C e p c F L C .Y t W .W. C 7 Nf6 L p W.WwLdcgFWBWR=NmCL V N m W W N WE N X 1 u; v) meow - O L...0 U m `W L L 7 N m U L 0-0 .0 CL WL G' m m Q. �aoc o Lc cE N we a r r .o0 m0 czW ` ;m W E Wfe N C O r TO (M oC m L W m O cc MW m to 4) V) Va N g m m O N L L oi c:5 rmm , 03 E' -6 v � N V) pp > L W to .0 L W ama o ot c cW ma cg ` w ° gyE V=>17 o 3mWE 0.0 -a 0= O0L 2 a C �a qm m I �84) = r.W no r o 16 o � W W W mL L O y �uE L CCOL We ow EC . S � 2 V GLTW L m N L m C V p ca V m 4) = = ° oW C EN ° C � W r4)L N t o C Ib p O c C M O CL 0 omQ° �E�Y a WOOUm Q°Co> M" W co CL N N A A V 1 N O m m !j d, CL L Ri tM cc IL d c O 0 �a W L U o� c m o, d c c N Dm cY �8. m 3 �z o� U H i s E acr m 1000 Ypa0N C N V N C p 0 < R `>1E Ev U J N �i E Anil W, W IL L qc R Im c c C m Y V7 FM ll 0 v v 4 CL V °o v s .1 m c` r c OC O c E c A Y Z C o � C c � c L � � W E W m pGG c ° W cc.- W ° W a_ Sold CL m U_�i �U T 0 L E Z oC Q m O 0 rj �3W W ~ v J O � m— W -v am �m w � 3*L- � a?, = o ° O LQ O 0 C L_ L� VW L Q O g W v a 7 W - O � 7 IEL 0 (M eQ0O L � cc cm 12Qmocm O m"' V Cm 2c ,g�C0 W c m U E cc 0 c m U to 0 P m '0 q "W a E m cEoLVc cEo = 'ac 7�T= m OOrr. IIN W Ea -.cW - mmmcrii0 W Ea --cW— to � ciLmL 3r o gmmcriio 0 to to p.� 06 W o0 Lh 6a 6rC � G0mV maE %SO ct G N Oh �C C1 � 0 �.0 m c m — 0 O� .W o tom 0 cc o L m 4) oc mL, E E W o c WoU- cS '0 V m V m C W m O 0 V e U WE OL L F`o U1M L..� m y 5L L c W Q F`o WIL$a ° Z "O F��rii riiF m 7 L p OS t W N O W - m CO OJ V ° C WW M LW c C L w m O Z � ° c CL= C0 C c i �m ,S v C m 0 p m m oa cmc ; 0.016 5sOc a m -8 CL O op aac0 �am 00 — =0 Wm c�> W J > W> y o ° W •" C O m E m -0 0.E m 0 W c L c ; C 4 W m _m C Q p �E 3 We r c L O C p m v i � Wm to ca 0 CL �°ti�c O 7 O C O W m c m c T g v W L T" = L i V � WC % 0 E W m O W a 7— 7— a-v ocW c c= (MW� to 0 3r M- 8= rmmy a 3 c a a w e to g w - a C WVa L o o°o c z° C rVE1g W`W Wmv E 0CCEm y W'V m C E W W '00 W V m0 m W OW :ccW-0OM c 3 W 7U m- w� 2 TH O W W O °'mCSoS °0`r5 -m�� E o�°�'�mgW`WO�C ti °mc L c _ a 0 - ��E°0o 2m0 WWE W Wcm� L - =w ma €>geW>o�c1OV mq>3�m -9a�iW ��cc�W mg�mm�1 �m�E16 0MEC c �2 �0 �2e O pW°L >W3`oWWEN SCEE060tea L3:,o 0- wm CL Cl) Cl) a 9 a a 19 a V r lV N v 0 N N N lV lV H? M a s a a a a E Anil W, W IL L qc R Im c c C m Y V7 FM ll 0 v v 4 CL V °o v s .1 m c` r c OC O c E c A Y Z L c �T L C �a W L U p` C W c W CL �m J A 3 z O a Ua 1 « s E Oc m 808 r CL O CL c - gHW_ w U A Q CL 40 JN t IV • a cm vi m = � E N 32 C Vz O > z v . ' a ° W c N W rii O aE m�Emo (p��^ m °L >,E 0 = .a E `oo -� L W = L p —T+ N q c 2a c`° 2 y WW =a c L 0 =r NE L J m ;No20 V_ — W om ~Q E O�_ °c 0 c= Wc0 C pp O S •c ° �t9m �` E �i tY e c m 8 L m @yC = y- U o N m � c 0. W -w E v == - o o c °ccE mo„_, ... v- E c ° 0 5 4 W 's E °m C WW �•c a m0 — e c cCLV) c mmv` DOB'Em� am �' -° - cm�N 0m aW CN CD m E N V' 8 m wo �m L m r c m E m W E r> m ca e Vi �pp cm 0= C o 7 q co E C M N O V L C S E 23.0:1 V m E V g N N m 2 r_ 2 � V W 7 W— O tlm 0: C > C—= L CL CL m m -* ° Co. (�$ S E ; 7 T C m =p t 0. O W a 0> .... 0 It ' O .0. 4D O E C ra 4D m G> E .Lm. 0 V 0 -.o'O m? O. 9 CD a No O C 0 e tT:s 0 O :E 0 G•C � =Om WV L.m.. ceEVcc.c� Z o =O Lm,�co°E2m2om°oEoi>'o lY .2 32 m OL3c- R,�, 32 L"E m c oomimn �'E$ m m g �4`88R L�'mc C vmi S c c m 0 0 v F 0 3$ m=N o E a° 3 v' Q W M y LemEU9'am 7O c�ic3mcma =aam10z maT�nma Q m W vim�o mC;; o� >m �i oviro�aEv W p V a Q ra`°tic °c�cWt`��oEar FcOWmr 2�r� E3�CLo °'0MW 0Q aai FSc3 °v M -%'_E -E=U) C vi CrIm a to iii _a .Lm.. o CD �Ea >�LS� > cm tocg° c .0 :° c `cqr a W cm of rm >iON o E= v 4 m 2 0 =m W W v o m Q N L g 10 N„_. a ��EC =TF o E oEm�Hm � 0 o�`�i% Qr E E o 2 �� W v a�-°W e-0 o Ccmm�a�m0 ogmao�`m' � =�W cS tY cm- N 3 C 0• 2 v t W o E E^... a m° 0 g m> m z 4D m m 0 E C m W m 8 ._ W a � W m is cW m> C W N CD W v m gOW0 W'0 v U e m mma�L p m> O O W e lO L �c�Ey °3�av t3 m O N� c W pp0) 8 c� � 017 C 'D '.rm 3 N �,> 3 lO C-0 ���� � c = a y ( a N c> m 0 my W ..y W_ a 7 �o E m c' m v= o $- aaEVio c v W W 0w Q �� '0 = =8c me Ec��'Wt oE��2aI �c•C G1 pCp W c N W m m 0 m%= o �• i Y W N W; W of 7 7 W N W •S2 m t 2 c m m W C W 60= t7 cP DE � we cc m om °. a' -i�a= c0EN O'Da m== .0 .0O'o W mW `a+ Nm m0mmNOa` a m o E '�•' 0 0 m2wm.. c= d O W O.G0G 7 2 .0..0 m?; Eo'm 0 „_. L - v-. T +. y Q m� ao°D m N oW c0 —c � mCD E v$ -°m2 °a >a ° tEOrC >N acm WSoE m cc .0 W m8CW v = o EcEc`°Fn° q a ' E c N 2 ' 2 0 v E ° °' c> m m; m W 8 C �o m8_$oq°•a *gc1LEcE� CD C m>o °'E�o.` —� CL OJ W E C O b• m e e Cr- 2 a 0 �v W c m V V v m c EQ W O m= E �.� = U.0 UW cc 0 o m �ip .7..yp=Ug m c m E a o a �eo_� 5� m E c W 4) 0 „ � L O mV) m;a3roi8GWO. OmWN5 f aaa ME Mcc00 vacWo C1 CL a a a a s a O a vi s vi a vi vi � V' a a a a t IV • a m d 3 O a Y CL �a L c � a c � a a� c 0� Dm J p• -ji3 Wz o� U 2 I U E N E.4 E C CL a r+ n a C Z U R Q CL E„ Ev V U) IL I] Li OD IL r c P C C c a m z a c E v E a n Y 0 U s t' Q 0 L C c a m z j. Oq W $ `o " m5mE&am °.L.. Lm c o.m a o d�E q m3 E$ C O m m y C pp°3..� m W ._5 ti m 0 2 ° T m C m m rii `� E m v. m W l0 fAL ��poL 1'n V y �` �i o � c Or –U– m mm mOC o°0C L � y m. a. �amq o c $ C 2n -8oa m L Em 0 cc QE CL m22 ° m ma °v • a € s a: ' Q m E ` C o C 7 M E c P a Oa. O..i1_ oom C C � m M N E C V -° M C (d° �tS1QW –vT�n m °° --°AU) �U) C,;016C 3�EmE •BIZcc�_s`oQ$mY 04)aM °ESriim°°• a• 2L m '2 m 8 o�m0E -to . E €m 0M mom ooc5E�mU��� –mmo c io=0RR8mpSm`nC` QL�mr��� $ z�p;U) � M,r >o10m Z`E`E kr mm Wm 2 r"J� man'+ mm of c o`gi�QmZcmL CLr Tmo E N 3> mm a °mEL°v °�� rU)i'? mEm - –c0 Um -2 Em mEiae aaPSPo.o Cc�c°`a –�c� o�LC; �C' mr�°EUmvi��cc0 c2 cvm U mE'��'�CL >"mc F ao�Lm�.°.Sm�'roS(7S W N � M '0 C r°n ci ni >– m p $ c E $ 0-02 a E c ° p ow U) m > o m m 2 m o v m cm 1m '0 c L'S c v m a m - >Sa .0 m W Occ 0 �cmS.Sa E CL 0-0 o c T� ii m E .0= c cc o2E m 0v a> � = > c E� mc) e E�co �0c m Tm ii > a> E Q i L ?e O M Q v = C p M C mti D m m m S � Ev2 c•m> �ma. n+mv32ni WCL crM 9 m m 10Em >'6 $ m o��c $ m° y CL E;W � Q - -°m�OE m° MMw EVFE _ o— C1 m� CL Q o a� m 0 Tii D m Ev�2M m a m M 3: m E m v C Wg�c° �yCLJ Fs WCT Fs�e am o��mc�� E • Wgc� E ��Dmy+ O 0 W-5 �mmccL° Sma0 �crCL �eU) =am Oa m m m m i i a a s a s a a V N ri v 94 N I IIL 94 94 O CL v v s v v v a v a a a s I] Li OD IL r c P C C c a m z a c E v E a n Y 0 U s t' Q 0 L C c a m z j. Oq u N d O ?. O r c O � C � aE �m A O. F N Z O Ua is rEa�i d $E6 YaVtr O _ p N ZU Aa E �^ ENc J m LL CD 6 to m cm cd IL c >. .2 Lm.. g C c- OR 00-0 m c > m m E 2 Qz-2 o, O cic a y E aLE_�mc�v am �Wv aa c E05" p'�B m � m z m m o a > CL�(M+ 'w`��'� i aoc �° Er 8(I m2-a5 �8EpoV c�h am C cog $ :E C% It (I L 2 v a 4 2 m `O O� C 0 C ° mT C Qr3 m C °� a�?fL �O 0y`ma E y �cm >%=.O mm22m >m2a> a> ka m =c o O E O (Mmr c — p m V EOC m c 2 c$ '�� o °c"i ri M 0N �c � w € cgm °a _ m O m mm'aE cC E ° > q ;� mCc - =L= L . .. 2 m O m p M m m m O m m y pocm m m m V mm 7 vcc -0mac t0 o 'R m C_-0 m ° mcr ? VIE m c m c m p p �mEo E 3 - L y U X >> m mm2° F g c mLL+ ;; m m- E� m v m°O CFO E20m E °C .0 0`O =¢°v >� mv�ao c m Hv2SO,C m`0 CL mm nmi :w cc m`o�m aHDy c 0E 0 ac y oDm c L oaE m V;a EE m —° =7: Lp in mvLc T 7 m agwm L°�S ow .°.. O V � F t no y AFL -00 7 jm .° 0 C m W~ a O. 20 m mp c 0 C a m j co mmm m a },' a E N 7 a m W=E is a U m O. '°' m, G °i g maC- EXC W .8 cc mo AEao'm EE —' m EuiQmlu`�ao0 m mmma m�0003200- cy 8 V 1; 0 tie g3 m mom; L9V —cc me 01 m Op— c L.0 O�� d a m o. FL me >rm •�.m C D >;aoa.°.a a°iacw�Qm aNmm�'�o 30= am c p)'^ c Tp 7 m a m m'2 m c m 0 F ymj °m°�a C Q m U N °CCL8 E �aci >°_s;.��ti� 0m` ;}OEma— 0ac o. °$ mo —m— °ZE °c w H �EQQcm A? April 2, 2004 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission pLANNINGDEO�� MEK City of Newport Beach CITY OF NEWQ BEACH Attn: Mr. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner APR iJ 2 2444 RE: Addition to the LCP 81911011111211121314" 1 Dear Mr. Alford, Thank you for meeting with Zachary Sham of the Irvine Terrace Architectural Committee and ourselves this morning regarding the impact of the LCP on Irvine Terrace. As we discussed, it is important to clarify that much of the slope along Bayside Drive which is owned by the residents of Irvine Terrace was predominantly poorly compacted fill when Irvine Terrace was first constructed. The new homes and alteration of slope now permitted by City code. should remain categorically exempt so excavation and stabilization can continue as new construction takes place. Stabilization is to be done at the property owner's expense under the Irvine Terrace HOA Guidelines. Since Irvine Terrace is separated from the coast by other properties, street utilities and sea walls, it is no longer subject to marine erosion. We would suggest the following for Section 2.2.3: The definition of "coastal bluff" currently in the LCP only applies for purposes of setting jurisdictional boundaries. Bluff land forms that have been altered and /or are no longer subject to "marine erosion" for the purposes of policy and guideline implementation are not "coastal bluffs" and not subject to the policies dictated in the LCP and are to be included In any "categorical exclusion ". Thank you for your assistance. QJesca J hnston Joiner Office: 949 640 0606 11 19 Dolphin Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 0 i� April 2, 2004 Mr. Tod W. Ridgeway, Chairman LCP Certification Committee and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Proposed working changes in the Draft LCP Dear Chairman Ridgeway: The Mariner's Mile Business Owners' Association has been active in issues related to Mariner's Mile, including participation in the Mariner's Mile Business and Citizens Advisory Committee which developed study recommendations which led to the adoption of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework in 2000. While the Design Framework language did not get included in total in the changes to the existing Mariner's Mile Specific Plan in 2000, clearly residential uses were contemplated. We further participated in the GPAC process and the GPAC included a policy for mixed use (which includes residential) in its recommendations to the Planning Consultant for inclusion in the amended General Plan. The City Council approved these recommendations at its Study Session and they have been forwarded to the Consultant. We recognize the importance of the policies being developed for the LCP and offer the following proposed additions: Page 2 -19, Sec. 2.4.1 Commercial. Paragraph 2 Over the past 20 years, a number of marine- related businesses and industries in Newport Beach have moved to inland areas. This is reflective of a regional trend, largely due to increased environmental regulation in California affecting fiberglass manufacturing processes, as well as real estate price inflation in coastal communities. As shown in areas such as McFadden Square and Cannery Village, the incorporation of residential uses into these areas adds vitality and the synergy of mixed uses, while providing improved public access to the bay front. Page 2 -20, Policies: 2.4.1 -3 n, ",a;ntaiii AHow residential uses in areas of Recreational and Marine Commercial designations on or near the bay to encourage a continuation of coastal dependent and coastal - related uses, where feasible -, while insuring mixed uses with improved coastal access. 0 Thanks you for your consideration of our recommendations. Sincerely, Ned McCune, Chair Mariner's Mile Business Owner's Association cc: Steve Bromberg, Member, LCP Certification Committee Don Webb, Member, LCP Certification Committee Sharon Wood Patrick Alford George Berger 9 1] L_.J PUBLIC COMMENTS TO NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ARE DUE APRIL 2ndl THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE LAND ZONING AND DENSITY FOR OUR CITY'S COASTAL AREAS THAT INCLUDE CANNERY VILLAGE, LIDO VILLAGE, MARINERS MILE, BAYSIDE DRIVE, NEWPORT DUNES AND BALBOA PENINSULA — SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CURRENT GENERAL PLAN ZONING REQUIREMENTS TO ENSURE THE PRESERVATION OF OUR COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE Fill out the bottom and return to both people below: City of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Anne Blemker P. O. Box 1768 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Long Beach, CA 90802 -4416 Fax number: (949) 644 -3229 Fax Number: (562) 590 -5084 E -mail: palford (cilcity.newport - beach.ca.us E -mail: able mker(rDcoastal.ca.gov Background The Coastal Act of 1976 governs local jurisdictions to identify its Local Coastal Plan in alignment with a local city's General Plan for zoning and density specifications as measured in Floor Area Ratios (FAR's) and Dwelling Units (DU). A current threat to our coastal community's beachfbay character and quality of life may come from adding new land use categories and "upzoning" areas greater than what is specified in the current General Plan. Public Comment to the Newport Beach LCP In compliance with the intent of the Coastal Act, the Newport Beach LCP needs to be in alignment with the Newport Beach General Plan land use designations and densities. 1) The current LCP draft being proposed has added numerous land use categories, particularly for high intensity residential development. Overall, the LCP shows 26 land use categories vs. I I stated in our current General Plan. These proposed changes might intensify residential, commercial and industrial areas in our coastal zone. 2) This intensification is not in compliance with our General Plan and a threat to our beach community. Key areas where the LCP has upzoned are: a. Lido Marina Village- Commercial d. Lido Village- Residential b. Bayside Dr./PCH e. Lower Bayview Landing c. Newport Dunes and Jamboree f. Lido Bldg. On Via Lido Dr. East 3) Recently, an increase in residential (condo) development projects has occurred along the waterfront of our coastal zone, particularly in Cannery Village, Southcoast Shipyard and in proposal stages for Lido Marina Village. This bulk construction is replacing visitor serving retail and commercial uses, blocking public access and views of the bay. COMMENTS Examples of what should not be permitted is the newly renovated massive Balboa Bay Club and the bulky condos in Cannery Village that shut out water views and overwhelm the landscape. I'm concerned, from what I've heard , t the Lido renovation will also be overdeveloped and create unacceptable impacts. Please include this document as my comments on the LCP Name Louise S. Greeley Address 16 Swift Court City Newport Beach, CA 92663 r� mpg r ) o' ca co v co v =_°- 0 v ca N C ca - fM L ca a L> C ° L Q C O O L LL M a (n a) C ca p N E o c t a a) 3 O a) IL E ° ca y -o v a>> d 6 0) L oU 3 J € Q) ": ., c E m E a E Q v ` w Q) ca C7 �2 w J ° = o 0 o a) E 06 >. O o f° o m caw AD oN a) Q wa�'� (=j Q ° E � Q) !E co 2 o. a >W of c= o a c LU ° coa� a c �< Nw c� c EE ca 1 y I— E > a) w m w 3 Ec S ° c� a c LN Vco ° vm � a) 3Ec`� -�' ° 0 Q) co a)a) oEm CL m c wm CL o co co QEo__° o QQ ca ul m E co a C c IL € ca J m Q S = c_ (n w N C Z y CU Q) co v O �c cZ y ow o3N? LU ` °) $ E cl > w v c v '5 Co m m pc O x U N-a°� o mE y �`m�cOQ�'S F N)m E > c r. Q a) E L € 2 S Cl) 3 Z Um `° Vic'? :°v3E a3: Q) yw uN, o oca >a)a) O ca b a) O E E L E v co w Y v v � c:3 N Z O o O O O ca a) co .`+ c a O E a) Z w C) � Y E IL O ,,, N a) a) ` co AM3 7 Co Co a .S Y O �' YC O Q "' Q mE=' a� m °o W '2 ' a uNEio °€ aEc�� w Z W Q 2 co —°y > O m Q 7 0) N C 0 r ye o o W w C> •a O ( 2 c -o E Y .0 W W Q) 3vpv�; •O O W W �v E m� CL1J G S E a�i E` L 0 yac-i!� C O w E-o a= cc�� O N O` V E -0 cu X a Y V �° a V-0 ,L., CL O m c ca m N cd m a) o C Y y Z m o 'p cC cn W= E c m O U v� Emote a€ W N o � w ° Y w oU.� mm m W W o ar!� a) c Np o^` E° aw a) c Y y m m mnw i W y ?_ E' 1°v WYE O E 1°acimY�a�vo c Jy32mN�,; a>io vo° Z a cEi° >> Q n Eo _. €C0N'c0Lw IL m c> dL p 3 m N axiDDE vv E;c to 5 o E ca c y o J d ._ M E c° Y E a `) E C N_ d O Z N ° C L 'N O N 7 O Q'�y �� E am F E `0 V J 0 m� >m m� E o E E€ W o rn Q) w ao E C V aLLr 2 E w 3Y E-E ci E E EE E°c`°m>OO o a y � C aO 3DO €c LL `- 0 Q(n�SOw0 0 L V; U- m a� W m V L W O) 0 0 H N m N ii w r� mpg • • (a C Q (6 c (a -o c (6 O L (6 no V- 0 a) 3 E a) Z t'• O O% w > C a) . •. c w ;{ N O ti E !. 0 N N C a 2.; E C{ X Y3.' w M. r . m: L N ' p) (D 7 m C A) 2 c 7K r o c c -'- c U E d (6 fa L O C O 3 > a 3 3 C m •. N r Ua f O O" U U a) O (6 L U [6 O O D a) a) 3a) V m L L C 3 — U C a) O a� C O c wc-C aNi @ c`aa) N � rn� C) a) > a d . to �` > (D N O � � � yr CO ;r.• J a) 'O m . U Nnsw3c�aQ Q C c m c (6 to fa U m a) U •= I a) c mw a :` o� U-O O a aO �c> �f0coa)Ea)° a) >�: ate) c 5 Z U a) of O U (L) a 0 E . J Qw7 a) c `� rncu C E m a) a) U �_ O ns ' a) (6 M " w d E I a3 3 @ I E N O. co 5 of >a)L- 6•g r . m: L N ' p) (D 7 m C J N 3 N m Q) Z> U c M c v O O c Q) Qi > QE ) O 0 m W N I-F I -rw A) m w r o N � c U E d (6 fa L O C O 3 > a 3 E c N r Ua ?a)p7 > U O Y_ U U a) U L U [6 O O D a) a) @ V m L L C 3 — U C a) O a� C c wc-C aNi @ c`aa) 0 3 a) rn� C) a) > C = ..-• O L �` > (D N O gyp; O (6 N a•? > •C N U L a) N Nnsw3c�aQ L " c c m c (6 to fa U m a) U •= I a) c mw a :` o� U-O O a aO �c> �f0coa)Ea)° a) >�: a) 5 Z EcE � a) o a 3 c E aCO CO Qw7 a) c `� rncu C E . c a) a) U �_ O ns ' a) (6 M " w fa C (6 •NL E ac 3 @ aLC E N L+a) >a)L- 6•g 3 c W c E o c a) Co N c E a@ c N E m E a) a) mC c c U N fa eN+ 'y N U N a) N a) O O L �.- .- .-: L M .-: U p) c c c E .0 N O a) a) a) •- m Y Q- "EEEa) L CO • N U c U o 0 3 3 •V a) 3 a) - o• a6• —,z a N L m0 O a 0 I L COZWlrlr az> w J N 3 N m Q) Z> U c M c v O O c Q) Qi > QE ) O 0 m W N I-F I -rw 3 r o c a: E d (6 O C O C O C E N r Ua ?a)p7 > U O C N U J ? N [6 c6 a) @ N L L U N 16 O c wc-C aNi @ c`aa) V:2 N N C ..-• Q- C J Q > (D N O c UM 3V a) (6 N 'N L " c C 'an. c E 2 c cu 16 > O O L 0 C a O -0 CD o�E._ 16 5 Z EcE � a) O C a) E c D rncu c°) 3 p E C c ate— > L U O a) C a) 3 @ w L Z N N (D C N a) N O C o a) �� N N .@ �4y @'> N c Ea > E @ v E O > N o o°`- L CO • N U c N X c N U V L c L C N L m0 O a 0 I L M N c wcip L E .�-_ 3 ,c E c - 3 pU)mC'o Ey ate N N«L@. '7O " A U N C 'C c w >., a) C N Is It c O a U o� c yp 3 C C U a) ao ) N p o1 a) a ) c 00 a) c L a nI:;2 3�mo :S W J N 3 N m Q) Z> U c M c v O O c Q) Qi > QE ) O 0 m W N I-F I -rw M • • tg� a. Y C � m axi W 3 0 U T Om r O -2:, •'00_ C Y N 0 a O > EyU ao- U w €J30,. n 'v o C m C Z Y o Ea o'er r 3 Y m ca NU L E �o °� 'r mE o a O CL o a EaCa� m E Ja. U O 'O C N TW N � 0)L a) a) U F_az 9 m m= O U'Na a L U a -8-1 m 'N m m QJ-0 a? OJ o 0 3 T m E m C a.— a= a) Y m :3 0 U m Y o w IF- C O U C a) J Y w 0 (D 0) 3 t= o C m a) Q r (p m a N r O N E m o c 3 Y U a 0 N m ca (n ca C " yL NF N a) u3).. N QO(n mL N ,mac a) O' ) m€ a) a) 1—a a) Ca a)•.9 m Z C C U U m` C Q J N a a E a) 3 m Q O O .0 G.3 E O O_ C m`a) O U U �_ a)a na3 a3ia m as 1° n Z = a) O J O () Z ( C�pp a U O) N •C U w r U CO > '> ILU < CL U N N L 3 U y N a (L C O Q .y M J O O 'Q+� N �' j• V V C' a) m C N� O C 0)0) O LL a) C m m a Q C m O C m C :L a L O L r N W • L O O r �' O C N N (J W a) N m I"' C L a) fJ q Z s t- o a Q L ui ) _ aC QS m o E a) 0o E° 0 3 O On ZE3o QE Y (Y a) U W N o C a w _ r Q r a a) Z Q >. >. U m N> C �y L a) W C rL ' . N N p O �. U U —a a) > 1yJ •3 a) p` ETC w a) (L U U > 0- L C U L a) C)' w W a' a) 3 o O's vi e ca amai o 7_° a -0 W 3 &' co co a Z a) a) C- L O N V O r o — O a a a a aF ) 6 3 O wo N 0 .0 @ Y � a V) Y a No aJ37` 0 �O c ZI N�?C m 1 L o U a) ? I o o .mO m ' w 3° D a m W W N N U) . U) v) w M • • tg� 0 u • N 3 w O o a c m O O N N p ) 0) ' m O wca m N m � N N U L L L N N O 0.9 m U N m N O U L a) N Q U L N c >> m 7 O O` N m° .N Q. U w d m C d aIc d _ a C L C m IL m m (6 'C Ow :: c aU L E •o O (D o �O a) O) a) > N L L •c +0) L j c O O D N N °� L m m !-' O E E L _ m m c c N (D m E w� E Q C� c 3� 3 ui aa))m m �_ °°' tZ coc73 -°3 LLJ a) 0 a°� 3 Ummc 'O ) a N O N a) 3 m Q Na'C N U w N m 0 a) i%L`', L N d O ''o W �':° 0 3 mm c e... c m O N o cL O 3 ac) oa w Oo m m o F �w o c°) o O" a) acis �t 3 c m m V> Co Mn m O 3 O .0 m "" r N "' U m Nom_ 0 a) U C Co O N a) O m L ` m O m 0 O N V U Z N V N N c m U c L_ O a N> L ?, O N O a)w C ULL m 'l; 'C Co Co j +L... N O U J •o 'o C C N U •o N U !n N L c L O O O a) } m Co c m 7 m uLU a) ciNNE of oco_) 2 Co o 73 I�?T O O O E O.L.. a) a) a) +3r, r O Y N y •o 1��,It°�Nuo �O a) a) 0c0m :.e... O) •- N e E 7 E A ^i C •C m N Co +. DU c QO EL EO lai m N Oc �N QJ OL O a) 0 OU fL N ° Lp a.+ m L 3) O N a a) a C N o O U o _ m m Q' O N> O w J m J `. it w m p_ L �- c N c 2 N N a) U O L n- E a) U ° • 7 U L c O m a) a) ca c c L rn 0 7 N o O N Co c Y m" c O m •� o LL CO o CL j 0) 3: �¢ j Uwa X, t m 'o • . so�coom� c _LL N U LC UJ,R v U� 0 7 ° Ev co Co `u cu 3 °to, o of co Qcp Q� cYi 0 (/1 O N d O N y N Vj p) -O O L d. !-' 3 O N O Q Co O) N Co L > T _C C .- (D R V% N � z (D - � w 13 N N r—° o 0 L) C: c.- c 3 0 :3 o D o>,= c CLOT 0) " co c° (D �' o° E E o` o c o 3t. = 0.3 Z:. O (D c O(DEco �Z Qorn No�ox w� L) ("D o w E E c mo° 0 cut C Cut 3 a� aD O° ° c QCS' R N o O V Cu (DU L N "% 7 N C j� c O O n. N L N L O CD O (D C6 Q •0 ` >. Cu C O 0 .. c r • (n a °'°�' N co O N c(D o U m Q N c co C 0 3 a ( o r °. gym° ° o" tcn o tLt ° ° aNi C o >.. o (D m U 3 N- J O U J 1 7 m n. y .O. p` N co Cu O U N c o N w w °o N o 3 (� co n Co E ° c c E 8 E° o O >. ? Y Z L> U N E° o (D (D co ° cu z o a) N R 7 Oy •2 o N D n O R O` U) U t N O`.> C U w N EF'i .. N Q(D x C1> w rQ w R CL �.C'�" 3 w 0 0 3: (D (D E n N w= �� N (u a)— U (u 7 (D z L� '.' Ci C�6 N Z O c o ,co (D a '� o U '� t Cu O O c 'UCD mtn = N c6 vcn cnr w� 3w- a.0 c (D r- co �` (D o `� y a�.N U c� W O C N 7 E� L N o (n C ° ° U. ° E= (D a c N cn ("D 2- ((DD Cn co Eanvo (n$NONO ogw (D o� a�3� EUZ oZ E "0 Q, o �•� ° (D o Uw CL (D � 0 0 co 0 (Do �Y 0mO c0 C: (D of E owt a3i� r (OD n. m O w 6 O 0 U :3 aci o" cu rnr. 3 zo w a o Ij 0 o co E .O.� DE (DCVO_ NF'o>.cD cu O2`2u< p� arc 03'X°co °°oar'EUo °0)cou C CL o o U c of > v� Qci� U o o o U(D E (D (D 0 (D O > (D (D c U —� U rn M co 3(u° —'° E w- w -L�o.: N5 "00> (D :3 cowrn(uo' °CU O°i> 3(nc�.. OOE(uO.L.o oct Zo o F'i C (°j �- w 'C (D .. Cu 0 o U 3 Ca. � -° o 0 > CO 7 w V_i O CO CO N O N C 7 0 >. U o N :�, ° o rn L '- Cu -0 O. r co n'N o co > c No QD E °Lcurr r ° >.-' rn 0'� L E ° �v oit oLwtr Q E E 3 ocncn ° c °v.c `r3 " �'E ° ° O L E : 3 O � V$ o .N g- r r a w rn 3 � d N (D Cu C d O co O w O °. d Cu (D N w N a. p• 0 c Cu N O c ,,; 'O (D +a 'C to QD �cncuoE o2L _cz3 cu 0 me v� E��°oL� ~o°i�mZZcocaXio`> oW E c°iwC>u�C c o 'c (DL) o C`0 � �rn � � � � co ° o (DaciL' E N N N Cu CO tV N e N v o '? om E n O N Y CU R L O R 0 0 o w (D °• co o O N V/ L R O v) z u- U) E F— 2 E O n n. n. C=O U E °. 3 � L) 3 a v I • • 'c W to Cn QQ04 Orange Coast River Park Steering Committee A project of Friends of harbors Beaches and parks April 2, 2004 Patrick Alford, Newport Beach LCP RE: Coastal Bluffs in the LCP Dear Patrick, Everette Phillips, a member of the Orange Coast River Park Steering Committee, has shared with the Committee his LCP Comments re: the Coastal Bluffs. The OCRP Steering Committee wishes to endorse these comments which are itemized as follows:. In order to protect this valuable resource, there should be more specifics in the policies. For example, regarding 4.4.3 -2 there should be a specific setback of 200 feet beyond the estimated bluff position based on 75 years of erosion at a scientifically determined erosion rate specific for the bluffs. There should be also be better wording to prevent someone from adding a structure accepting the 75 year moratorium and then coming back to request the ability to build a wall or engineer some change to the bluff to protect that structure, because it is an "existing" structure. This has happened so often in California as to warrant special attention in the LCP. There is concern that 4.4.3 -4 is not clear enough to prevent abuse from people claiming a site has been "altered" when 4.4.3 -2 should clearly apply. On solution is to identify altered and unaltered coastal bluffs in the LCP. For 4.4.3 -11 to be effective, the LCP should identify which department in the city is responsible and how frequently they should report to the city on the current status of problem areas and how the city will prevent abuse. While Coastal Bluffs are mentioned 35 times in the LCP, the main focus area of policy is 4.4.3 4.4.3 Coastal Bluffs Coastal bluffs are a prominent landform in Newport Beach. There are ocean facing coastal bluffs along the shoreline of Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores. There are also coastal bluffs facing the wetlands of Upper Newport Bay, Semeniuk Slough, and the degraded wetlands of the • Banning Ranch property. Finally, 1� 2. there are coastal bluffs surrounding Lower Newport Bay. These can be seen along Coast Highway from • the Semeniuk Slough to Dover Drive, along Bayside Drive in Irvine Terrace, and in Corona del Mar above the Harbor Entrance. These bluffs faced the open ocean before the Balboa Peninsula formed and are now generally separated from the shoreline. Coastal bluffs are considered significant scenic and environmental resources and are to be protected. Upper Newport Bay coastal WAS PC STUDY SESSION DRAFT Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -70 Most of the coastal bluff top lands have been subdivided and developed over the years. However, many have been preserved as parkland and other open space. Also, most of the faces of the coastal bluff surrounding the Upper Newport Bay have been protected by dedication to the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve or dedicated as open space as part of planned residential developments. In other areas, including Newport Heights, Cliff Haven, Irvine Terrace, Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores, the coastal bluffs fall within conventional residential subdivisions. Development on these lots occurs mainly on a lot -by -lot basis. As a result, some coastal bluffs remain pristine and others are physically or visually obliterated by structures, landform alteration or landscaping. Policies regarding coastal bluffs need to make a distinction between areas where the coastal bluff is essentially unaltered and those in developed areas where the coastal bluff has been altered. In areas with unaltered coastal bluffs, development on the bluff face should be prohibited, with exceptions for certain public improvements, and development of bluff top should be controlled. In areas where the coastal bluff has been altered, development on the bluff face and bluff top should be controlled to minimize further alteration. PC STUDY SESSION DRAFT Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Igo LJ 3. Policies: 4.4.3 -1. In areas where the coastal bluff remains essentially unaltered, require new development to dedicate or preserve as open space the bluff face and an area inland from the edge of the bluff adequate to provide safe public access and to avoid or minimize visual impacts. 4.4.3 -2. In areas where the coastal bluff remains essentially unaltered, require all new.development located on a bluff top to be setback from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion and to avoid the need for protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). 4.4.3 -3. In areas where the coastal bluff remains essentially unaltered, prohibit development on bluff faces, except public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. 4.4.3 -4. In areas where the coastal bluff has been altered, establish setback lines for principal and accessory structures based on the predominant line of existing development along the bluff in each block. Apply the setback line downward from the edge of the bluff and /or upward from the toe of the bluff to restrict new development from extending beyond the predominant line of existing development. 4.4.3 -5. In areas where the coastal bluff has been altered, design and site development to minimize alteration of those portions of coastal bluffs with slopes in excess of 20 percent (5:1 slope). Prohibit development on those portions of coastal bluffs with unaltered natural slopes in excess of 40 percent (2.5:1 slope), unless the application of this policy would preclude any reasonable economic use of the property. 4.4.3 -6. Require applications for new development to include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. 4.4.3 -7. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. 18 Irk Ell E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a dwelling unit., H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. 4.4.3 -8. 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. 4.4.3 -9. Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. 4.4.3 -10. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to minimize impacts to coastal bluffs. 4.4.3 -11. Identify and remove all unauthorized structures, including protective devices, fences, and stairways, which encroach into coastal bluffs. We expect and will appreciate that the Orange Coast River Park Steering Committee endorsement of Everette Phillips comments be included in the LCP. With appreciation for all you and your staff are doing to complete the LCP assignment, Sincerely, Louise S. Greeley Louise S. Greeley, Chairman Orange Coast River Park Steering Committee 0 0 9 0 VIA LIDO SHOPS PROPERTY OWNERS COALITION Attn: Planning Commission City of Newport Beach c/o Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Ref: Proposed Local Coastal Plan — Feb. 2004 Re: Section 2.3.1 Dear Commissoners, We the undersigned property owners/business owners, list attached, would like to go on record expressing our concerns over a proposed change defined in the Local Coastal Plan revision, currently under study by the Planning Commission. Specifically of concern to us is the proposed change in zoning and /or land use designation whereby Lido Marina Village and the Lido Shops area would be rezoned from its current "Retail, Service and Commercial" to "Visitor- serving and Commercial ". A review of the proposed new LCP map of the City of Newport Beach shows an orange color code and letter designation of CV for all current hotels located within the city. However, Lido Marina Village and Lido Shops are also included in the identical color /letter coding even though NO hotel is or has ever been located in the area. A study of the developer's concept plan for Lido Marina Village reveals, in addition to the proposed hotel, construction of a large number of high end condominiums occupying a major portion of the Village property. Also, it is our understanding that [lie developer is proposing to connect the existing multi -story "Travel Max" building to condos as well. We believe this present proposed approach by the developers represents a potentially clear violtion of either the "Retail, Service and Commercial" or "Visitor- serving and Commercial" zoning. Is it the intention of the Planning Commission and city government to slip this change by the affected property owners, bus'.ness owners and voters? To our knowledge, as property owners no required legal notice of this proposed change has been received by us at any time. Should the city attempt to implement this plan, thereby allowing development of the area including hotels, condos and time share operations, we would consider this a major violation of our rights as property owners of the City of Newport Beach. RECEIVED BY We trust you wilt review this proposed action with careful consideration. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Thank you. APR 0 2 2004 7181911011111211121:115J6 1 tl')� VIA LIDO SHOPS — PROPERTY OWNERS COALITION PAGE 2 OF 2 OVERSTREETS — WINE MERCHANT 3400 VIA LIDO Owners: Dennis Overstreet Christina Overstreet Signed: DIMEN MARINE 3404 & 3406 VIA LIDO Owners: Chris Thomas Diana Thomas Signed: CHARLIE'S LOCKER 3410 & 3412 VIA LIDO Owners: Jon Birer Signed: _ DREYER BUILDING 3416 VIA LIDO Owners: D Dreyer ^ Judy Dreyer Signed: ATKINSONS MEN'S STORE 3430 VIA LIDO Owners: Gordon Atkinson Signed: 0 9 0 LJ 0 0 EXHIBIT 3 REVISIONS AND ERRATA l LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM • COASTAL LAND USE PLAN REVISIONS AND ERRATA APRIL 22, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Section 2.1.1: Revise the General Commercial paragraph to read as follows: General Commercial (CG). The CG designation is intended to provide for a wide range of commercial activities oriented primarily to serve citywide or regional needs. General Commercial A (CG -A). Development intensity ranges from a floor area to land area ratio of 0.00 to 0.30. General Commercial A (CG -B). Development intensity ranges from a floor area to land area ratio of 0.50 to 0.75. General Commercial B (CG -C). Development intensity ranges from a • floor area to land area ratio of 0.50 to 1.00. Section 2.1.1: Revise the Recreation and Marine Commercial paragraph to read as follows: Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM). The CM designation is intended to provide for commercial development on or near the bay in a manner that will encourage a continuation of coastal- dependant and coastal - related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive businesses, encourage visitor - serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the bay on waterfront commercial and industrial building sites on or near the bay. Recreational and Marine Commercial A (CM -A). Development intensity ranges from a floor area to land area ratio of 0.00 to 0.30. Recreational and Marine Commercial A (CM -B). Development intensity ranges from a floor area to land area ratio of 0.30 to 0.75. Recreational and Marine Commercial B (CM -C). Development intensity ranges from a floor area to land area ratio of 0.30 to 1.00. • Exhibit 1 ' 1 Section 2.1.1: • Revise the Visitor - serving Commercial paragraph to read as follows: Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV). The CV designation is intended to provide for accommodations, goods, and services intended to primarily serve the needs of visitors of Newport Beach. Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV -A). Development intensity ranges from a floor area to land area ratio of 0.50 to 0.75. Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV -B). Development intensity ranges from a floor area to land area ratio of 0.50 to 1.25. Section 2.1.1: Revise the sixth paragraph under Planning Study Area 2 (Cannery Village) to read as follows: Cannery Village is highly subject to redevelopment pressures. The Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan regulates development in this area. In order to maintain the particularly "marine" atmosahere of the area, careful consideration should be • given to all proposals for new development, especially in waterfront areas. Section 2.2.3: Revise Policy 2.2.3 -1 to read as follows: 2.2.3 -1. Pursuant to Section 30610 (e) of the Coastal Act, request a categorical exclusion for the residential areas: Balboa Island, the Balboa Peninsula, Cameo Highlands, Cameo Shores, Corona del Mar, Corona Highlands, Irvine Terrace, Lido Island, Newport Center, Newport Heights, Newport Shores, Shorecliffs, Upper Newport Bay, and West Newport. Section 2.2.4: Delete repeated first paragraph of this section. Section 2.3.1: Revise Policy 2.3.1 -2 to read as follows: Exhibit 1 f 2 2.3.1 -2. Continue to provide waterfront- oriented commercial uses, including • eating and drinking establishments and recreation and entertainment establishments, as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. Section 2.8.6: Revise Policy 2.8.6 -9 to read as follows: 2.8.6 -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. Section 3.1.1: Delete repeated second paragraph on Page 3 -6. Section 3.1.2: • The third sentence of the fourth paragraph on Page 3 -12 should read "Newporter North View Park," not "Newport North View Park." Coastal Land Use Map: 1. Revise to add new CG-A, CM-A, CV-A, and CV -B designations. 2. Change designators on all CG, CM, and CV properties to reflect new sequence (e.g., CG -A becomes CG -B, CG -B becomes CG -C). 3. Designate Bayside /PCH (Auto Center), Amling's (Armstrong) Nursery, and Bayview Landing CG -A. 4. Designate Bayside /PCH (Rueben's), Balboa Yacht Basin, and Lower Castaways CM -A. 5. Designate CV -A (0.50 -0.75) the north side of the 5900 -6300 block of West Coast Highway and Lido Village Commercial CV -A. i Exhibit 1 3 6. Designate CV -B (0.50 -1.25) Bayview (Marriott Suites), Hyatt Newporter, and Block 900 CV -B. 7. Expand the Banning Ranch DCA to include the NMUSD property. Section 3.1.3: Revise Policy 3.1.3 -7to read as follows: 3.1.3 -7. Require encroachment permits to specify that the construction of any seawall, revetment or other erosion control devices, if necessary, shall occur within, or as close as feasible to, private property. Section 3.1.5: Move the last paragraph on Page 3 -18 to the second paragraph on Page 3 -17: Most of the shoreline in Newport Beach is publicly owned and accessible. However, there are a few private residential communities that impede public access to and along the shoreline. These communities are Balboa Coves, Bay Island, Bayshores, Bayside Place, Collins Island, De Anza Bayside Village, Linda Isle, and Harbor island. Some of these communities are on small private islands. They do not impede access to public beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs; however, they do block public access to and along their immediate shoreline. Balboa Coves, Bayside Place, Bayshores and De Anza Bayside Village are on the mainland, but are situated so as not to block public access other than to their immediate shoreline. in all of these areas, the shoreline consists mainly of bulkheads with a few small and isolated sandy beaches. Section 3.1.8: Revise narrative on Page 3 -23 to read as follows: For many years, large crowds have been drawn to the streets of West Newport during the Independence Day holiday. The party atmosphere that pervades the area attracts these crowds. Large parties are held at many of the rental homes in the area, which often extend into the front yards and balconies, and even onto rooftops. The large crowds, the consumption of alcohol and the interaction between partygoers and the crowds in the streets has resulted in an average of over 170 arrests and over 1350 citations each year. The potential for a serious outbreak of violence exists throughout the daylight hours and increases dramatically in the evening. This environment dissuades visitors and residents from enjoying the beach or bay during Independence Day. The City has tried to reduce illegal drinking and minimize the potential for Exhibit 1 4 violence by significantly increasing the number of police and temporarily closing certain streets to pedestrians and visitors. The street closures do not restrict access to the beach but do function to fragment the crowds and reduce the number of people parading along Seashore Drive — an area where most arrests are made. The street closures are temporary — typically lasting less than twenty - four hours. Section 3.2.3: Revise Policy 3.2.3 =1 to read as follows: 3.2.3 -1. Ensure that planned public facilities include provisions for adequate access for the persons with disabilities and that existing facilities are appropriately retrofitted to include such access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act in a manner consistent with the protection of coastal resources. Section 3.3.3: Revise Policy 3.3.3 -3 to read as follows: 3.3.3 -3. In considering the essential nature of land uses that support the harbor, consider whether or not such support uses can be relocated to inland locations and /or if technological advances will eliminate the need such support uses in the foreseeable future. Section 4.1.1: Revise the second paragraph on Page 4 -4 to read as follows: If, based on site- specific analysis by a qualified biologist, a habitat area is degraded beyond the point of restoration or is isolated in a manner that it no longer has habitat value or a special nature or role in the ecosystem, the habitat area does not meet the statutory definition of ESHA contained in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, such habitat areas do not warrant the special land use and development restrictions of Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. Section 4.1.2: Revise the last two paragraphs on Page 4 -6 to read as follows: Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a marine plant that grows in Newport Harbor at depths below the low tide line and into the navigational channels. This true marine grass forms meadows and attracts many invertebrates and fishes that use the vegetation as foraging and nursery habitat. Eelgrass is discussed in Exhibit 1 lqb 5 ��jj "" more detail in Section 4.1.4 (Eelgrass Meadows) and Section 4.2.5 (Eelgrass Protection and Restoration). The Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area is located along the Corona del Mar shoreline and extends 200 feet offshore. Numerous types of invertebrates, algae, seagrass, fishes, and seabirds occur within the limits of the refuge, and marine mammals occasionally pass through. The Newport Beach Marine Conservation" Area is discussed further in Section 4.1.3 (Environmental Study Area 11). Section 4.1.2: Revise the Invasive Marine Species section to read as follows: Invasive Marine Species Caulerpa taxifolia is an extremely harmful, invasive species that has recently been introduced into southern California waters. It has been located within Huntington Harbour and in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in northern San Diego County. This species has a characteristic bright green color, flat, leafy fern -like fronds (branches), and below - ground root system. Caulerpa algae can be extremely harmful to marine ecosystems because it invades and out - competes native habitats by forming a dense blanket of growth on mud, sand, or rock surfaces. It can grow in shallow coastal lagoons as well as in deeper ocean waters, and can grow rapidly and up to 9 feet in length. However, its usual form observed so far is much smaller in length. The ecological consequences of the spread of this invasive algae can be extremely serious and can result in a significant loss of plant and animal productivity. Therefore, the spread of this species is being closely monitored and areas that have become infested are being treated chemically to eradicate any growth. The management, control, and eradication of this species is the responsibility of the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT). Newport Bay is not currently known to be infested by this species, however, continued surveillance for undetected or new infestations is a high priority to the SCCAT. Project site surveys for the presence of Caulerpa taxifolia are required by NOAA and CDFG prior to bottom - disturbing projects such as dredging, dock replacement, bulkhead repair . Assembly Bill 1334 (Chapter 338, Statutes of 2001) prohibits the sale, possession, and transport of Caulerpa taxifolia throughout California. The Bill also bans species of Caulerpa that look similar to C. taxifolia and are believed to have the capability to become invasive. The importation of the Mediterranean strain of Caulerpa taxifolia into the United States and interstate trade, including via the Internet, is also a federal offense under the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1999 and the Plant Protection Act of 2000. Exhibit 1 �,_ Section 4.1.2: Revise Policy 4.1.2 -6 to read as follows: 4.1.2 -6 Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval of projects in the Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. Section 4.1.3: The policy numbering sequence should be set at 4.1.3, not 4.1.2. Section 4.1.3: In Table 4.1 -1, in Policy number should be 4.1.3 -1, not 4.1.3 -11. Policy 4.1.3 -11 (R) should be 4.1.3 -1 (Q). Section 4.1.3: Revise Policy 4.1.3 -1 (Q) to read as follows: 4.1.3 -1 (Q) Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. Section 4.1.4: Revise first paragraph on Page 4 -36 to read as follows: The flowering, marine vascular plant "eelgrass" (Zostera marina) is an important marine resource due to its nursery function for invertebrates and fishes. Eelgrass forms meadows on mudflats and subtidal sediments in bays, estuaries, and occasionally, in offshore marine sand bottom habitats. The meadows (and sub units called "beds" and "patches ") provide a habitat for invertebrates as a source of food and attachment, and for marine fishes that seek the shelter of the beds for protection and forage on invertebrates that colonize the eelgrass blades and sediments in and around eelgrass vegetation. Section 4.1.4: Revise last paragraph on Page 4 -37 to read as follows: Dredging and dock and bulkhead construction projects have a potential to impact eelgrass bed resources within several areas of Newport Bay through direct habitat loss or secondary effects of turbidity or vessel anchor scarring. However, Exhibit 1 7 ongoing maintenance of harbor structures and periodic dredging is essential to protect the Newport Harbor's value as a commercial and recreational resource. A comprehensive and balanced management plan is necessary in order to maintain the recreational and commercial uses of the harbor while protecting its natural marine resources (see Section 4.2.5 — Eelgrass Protection and Restoration). Section 4.1.4:. The policy numbering sequence should be set at 4.1.4, not 4.1.3. Section 4.1.4: Revise Policy 4.1.4 -5 to read as follows: 4.1.4 -5 Continue to require Cau /erpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. Section 4.1.5: Revise Policy 4.1.5 -1 to read as follows: 4.1.5 -1. Require the removal of exotic vegetation and the restoration of native vegetation in dune habitat. Section 4.2.1: Revise Policy 4.2.1 -1 to read as follows: 4.2.1 -1. Recognize and protect wetlands for their commercial, recreational, water quality, and habitat value. Section 4.2.3: Policy 4.2.3 -5 should be numbered 4.2.3 -1. Section 4.4.3: Revise the paragraph on Page 4 -69 to read as follows: Coastal bluffs are a prominent landform in Newport Beach. There are ocean facing coastal bluffs along the shoreline of Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores. There are also coastal bluffs facing the wetlands of Upper Newport Bay, Semeniuk Slough, and the degraded wetlands of the Banning Ranch property. Finally, there are coastal bluffs surrounding Lower Newport Bay. Exhibit 1 8 These can be seen along Coast Highway from the Semeniuk Slough to Dover Drive and in Corona del Mar above the Harbor Entrance. These bluffs faced the open ocean before the Balboa Peninsula formed and are now generally separated from the shoreline. Coastal bluffs are considered significant scenic and environmental resources and are to be protected. Section 4.4.3: Add new paragraph on Page 4 -70: The bluffs along Bayside Drive were at one time exposed to the Lower Newport Bay. However, these bluffs separated from the shoreline when abutting tidelands were filled and reclaimed in the 1920s and later developed into the communities of Promontory Bay, Beacon Bay, and Bayside. Later development of Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point cut and filled these bluffs to an extent that they can be best identified as manufactured slopes rather than natural slopes. Given that the bluffs along Bayside Drive have faces that are not the result of erosion, faulting, or folding and are no longer subject to marine erosion, they did not meet the definition of coastal bluffs and are not subject to the policies of this section. Add new Policy: 4.4.3 -X. Coastal bluffs do not include bluffs along Bayside Drive that have been cut and filled by the Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point developments and are no longer subject to marine erosion. Section 4.5.1: Revise Policy 4.5.1 -4 to read as follows: 4.5.1 -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 Orange County, whenever possible. Section 5.0 (Glossary): Revise the definition of coastal bluff to read as follows: Bluff: A scarp or steep face of rock, decomposed rock, sediment or soil resulting from erosion, faulting, or folding of the land mass with 10 feet or more in vertical extent. Revise the definition of coastal bluff to read as follows: 0 U Exhibit 1 9 L Bluff. Coastal: A bluff overlooking a beach or shoreline or that is subject to marine erosion. For purposes of establishing jurisdictional and permit boundaries, (1) those bluffs, the toe of which is now or was historically (generally within the last 200 years) subject to marine erosion; and (2) those bluffs, the toe of which is not now or was not historically subject to marine erosion, but the toe of which lies within an area otherwise identified as an Appealable Area. Exhibit 1 Cpl 10 • U EXHIBIT 4 cL EELGRASS A brief review of the biological, physical, and regulatory status of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in southern California Merkel & Associates, April 2004 Significance of Eelgrass Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) is a marine vascular plant indigenous to the soft -bottom bays and estuaries of the Northern Hemisphere and occurs along the Pacific coast of North America from the Bering Strait down to lower Baja California. Within southern California, eelgrass is well- represented in San Diego Bay, Mission Bay, the recently restored Batiquitos Lagoon, and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. It is more limited in its distribution within other systems such as Oceanside Harbor, Dana Point Harbor, Newport Bay, Huntington Harbour, Alamitos Bay, San Pedro Bay and Anaheim Bay. Eelgrass is a habitat forming species that creates unique biological environments, occurring in small beds or larger meadows. Throughout its range, eelgrass distribution is generally limited to depths where is receives adequate light for photosynthesis. Like many terrestrial plants, eelgrass has leaves and flowers, and expands both by clonal growth and through the dispersal of seeds. Eelgrass is given special status under the federal Clean Water Act. Eelgrass beds are recognized as important ecological communities in shallow bays and estuaries because of their multiple biological and physical values. Eelgrass habitat functions as an important structural environment for resident bay and estuarine species, offering both refuge from predation and a food source (Hoffman 1986, Kitting 1994). Eelgrass is a nursery area for many commercially and recreationally important finfish and shellfish species, including those that are resident within the bays and estuaries, as well as oceanic species that enter the estuaries to breed or spawn. Anchovies and other silversides often spend extensive amounts of time within eelgrass during development, and larval forms of a wide variety of other species may be seasonally found in abundance within eelgrass habitat (Bostrom and Bonsdorff 2000). Eelgrass beds in southern California provide habitat for Califomia halibut (Kramer 1990), as well as other recreationally important species, such as spiny lobster and sand bass. Eelgrass also provides a unique habitat that supports a high diversity of non - commercially important species whose ecological roles are less well appreciated or understood. Eelgrass is a major food source in nearshore marine systems, contributing to the system at multiple trophic levels (Phillips and Watson 1984, Thayer et al. 1984). Eelgrass provides the greatest amount of primary production of any nearshore marine ecosystem, forming the base of detrital -based food webs and as well as providing a food source for organisms that feed directly on eelgrass leaves, such as migrating waterfowl. Eelgrass is also a source of secondary production, supporting epiphytic plants, animals, and microbial organisms that in turn are grazed upon by other invertebrates, larval and juvenile fish, and birds, thus. Eelgrass beds can have up to 15% greater secondary production than mudflats, sandflats, and marshes (Heck et al. 1995). In addition to habitat and resource provisions, eelgrass serves beneficial physical roles in . bays and estuaries. Eelgrass beds dampen wave and current action, trap suspended particulates, and reduce erosion by stabilizing the sediment. They also improve water clarity, cycle nutrients, and generate oxygen during daylight hours (Ward et al. 1984, Thayer et al. 1984, Wyllie- Echeverria and Rutten 1989, Merkel & Associates 2000a). Not only does eelgrass provide high intrinsic values as a habitat, it can also be an indicator of estuarine health because it responds to environmental factors by changing in distribution and abundance (Thom et al. 1998, Hovel 2003, Merkel 1992, 1997, 2000, 2003a and 2003b). Eelgrass is adapted to 'a wide range of tolerances and is capable of "averaging" exposure conditions including. temperature, turbidity, seasonal light levels, sedimentation rates, to result in either positive growth or a gradual decline in the resource. Eelgrass abundance has declined worldwide over the past 20 to 30 years and loss of seagrass habitat has been identified as a major contributor to the degradation of the world's oceans (Ogden 1980). There are a number of factors that have contributed to the decline and fragmentation of eelgrass in Southern California, both natural and human - induced. Natural causes include disease, storms, grazing, competition with invasive species, and large -scale fluctuations in ocean conditions, such as El Nino. Human - induced factors that have contributed to the decline in eelgrass include dredging and filling of coastal wetlands, propeller scarring, vessel groundings, sediment and nutrient loading, and other degradation of water quality. Human activities that result in a reduced amount of light reaching seagrass communities are seen as one of the most significant threats to seagrass survival worldwide (Short and Wyllie- Echeverria 1996). Reeulatory Status of Eelgrass Eelgrass is considered to be a habitat forming species that creates unique biological environments when it occurs in the forms of submerged or intertidal aquatic beds or larger meadows. Recognizing the ecological and physical significance of eelgrass, as well as its limited distribution in shallow, clear waters, eelgrass is given special status under the Clean Water Act, 1972 (as amended), Section 404(b)(1), "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material," Subpart E, "Potential Impacts on Special Aquatic Sites." Many activities conducted within tidal waters require review and permitting through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulatory program or through a more narrowly applicable regulatory program of the U.S. Coast Guard. Work typically is authorized under either or both section 9 or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. As the regulatory authority under the federal Clean Water Act, the Corps evaluates proposed actions pursuant to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines and policies that call for impact avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation to the extent practical. In executing its duties under the Corps' regulatory program, the Corps must coordinate with state and federal responsible agencies. These include the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), EPA, California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), and California Coastal Commission, as well as others. In addition to coordination requirements with responsible agencies, the Corps also has specific legislated obligations under their regulatory programs. The Corps may not issue permits without a state water quality certification or waiver issued by the State Water Resource Control Board or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In accordance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (Federal Register 1997), federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely impact Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), often including eelgrass habitat, are required to consult with NOAA Fisheries regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to the NOAA Fisheries recommendations. Finally, pursuant to Section 307 (c)(3)(A) of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, any applicant for a required federal permit to conduct an activity affecting a natural resource in the coastal zone must obtain the California Coastal Commission's (CCC) concurrence in a certification to the permitting agency that the project will be conducted in a manner consistent with California's approved coastal management program. The California Coastal Act (Section 30233) restricts the CCC from authorizing a project involving the diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes unless feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize any adverse environmental effects. The issuance of a consistency determination by the CCC, or the issuance of a coastal development permit within original or appealable jurisdiction satisfies federal consistency requirements. In 1991, NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS, and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG recognized a need for consistent, science -based guidelines to address impacts to eelgrass resources. This recognition came about due to inconsistent application of compensatory mitigation ratios and mitigation success standards. To address inconsistencies, the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (SCEMP) was developed. The SCEMP calls for applicants having impacts to eelgrass habitat to replace lost eelgrass in a timely fashion at a ratio of 1.2 (replacement) to I (impacted). The rationale for • this ratio is based on the time necessary for a mitigation site to reach full habitat value and the need to offset any productivity losses during this recovery period within five years. In addition to mapping and timing requirements, the policy requires monitoring the success of the mitigation efforts for a period of 5 years. Specific success criteria are also established and if mitigation fails to meet these criteria, then a supplementary transplant is required. The policy is not intended to be punitive, but rather is intended to be compensatory in nature. The policy has been consistently employed over the past 13 years and has been updated over time through workshops with resource and regulatory agencies and the public. The SCEMP provides considerable advantages to both permit applicants and resource /regulatory agencies by clarifying expectations on all parties and providing for scientifically -based mitigation ratios that are lower than what would be anticipated or required absent the presence of the SCEMP. As examples of the benefits of the SCEMP to mitigation ratios, the most recently adopted City of Malibu LCP requires that no wetland mitigation ratio shall be less than 2:1. Similarly, the adopted City of San Diego mitigation ratio for eelgrass is 2:1 unless regulated differently by federal or state agencies. Because projects requiring state and federal permits are obliged to mitigate under the SCEMP, the lower 1.2:1 ratio generally applies. a REFERENCES 0 Heck, K. L., K. W. Able, C. T. Roman, and M. P. Fahay. 1995. Composition, Abundance, Biomass, and Production of Macrofauna in a New England Estuary: Comparisons among Eelgrass Meadows and Other Nursery Habitats. Estuaries 18: 379 — 389. Hoffman, R.S. 1986. Fisheries Utilization of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds and non- vegetated shallow water areas in San Diego Bay. NOAH -NMFS, Southwest Region, Administrative Report SWR -864. Kitting, C.L. 1993. Investigation of San Francisco Bay Shallow Water Habitats Adjacent to the Bay Farm Island Underwater Excavation: A Report for U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Long Beach and Santa Rosa, CA. July 1993. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. R.S. Hoffman, ed. (1991, as amended, Version 48) Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2000. Environmental Controls on the Distribution of Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in South San Diego Bay: An assessment of the relative roles of light, temperature, and turbidity in dictating the development and persistence of seagrass in a shallow back -bay environment. January 2000. • Merkel & Associates, Inc. 2003. Mission Bay Park Eelgrass Inventory and Change Analysis (October 1988, 1992, 1997, and 2001), San Diego, California Ogden, J.C. 1980. Faunal relationships in Caribbean seagrass beds. In A handbook of Seagrass Biology: An Ecosystem Perspective, R.C. Phillips and C.R. McRoy (eds.) Garland STPM Press, New York, pp. 173 -198. Phillips, R.C. and J.F. Watson. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific Northwest: A community profile. Fish & Wildlife Service FWS /OBS- 84/24:85pp. Short, F.T. and S. Wyllie- Echeverria. 1996. Natural and human - induced disturbance of seagrasses. Environmental Conservation. 23: 17 -27. Thayer, G.W., W.J. Kenworthy, and M.S. Fonseca. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows of the Atlantic coast: A community profile. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service FWS /OB S/84/02. Ward, L.G., W.M. Kemp, and W.C. Boynton. 1984. The influence of waves and seagrass communities on suspended particulates in an estuarine embayment. Marine Geology 59:58 -103. Wyllie- Echeverria, S. and P. J. Rutten. 1989. Inventory of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in San Francisco /San Pablo Bay. National Marine Fisheries Service Administrative Report SWR- 89 -05. October 1989. Wpb RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -001 (PA2003 -093) FOR A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The California Coastal Act of 1976 established policies relating to shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works. Section 2. In order to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, the Coastal Act relies heavily on local government and local land use planning procedures and enforcement through the preparation of local coastal programs. Section 3. The Land Use Plan portion of City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program was adopted in 1981 and certified by the Coastal Commission in 1982. However, the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Program was never completed. Section 4. Senate Bill 516 amended the Coastal Act to require the City of Newport Beach to submit a local coastal program for all of the geographic area within the coastal zone and the city's corporate boundaries as of June 30, 2000 to the Coastal Commission for approval and certification. Section 5. A comprehensive update of the Land Use Plan is necessary before the Implementation Plan can be completed and the Local Coastal Program certified. Section 6. Public hearings on the proposed updated Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan were held on March 4, 2004, March 18, 2004, and April 22, 2004, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 2 Section 7. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses and applicable resource protection and development policies. 2. The proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. 3. The proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act. 4. The Local Coastal Plan Amendment will not become effective until approval of the amendment by the Coastal Commission. 5. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter 3. Section 8. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan by approving Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2004 -001 (PA -2003- 093) with the revisions contained in attached Exhibit 1. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2004. AYES: NOES: M. Earl McDaniel, Chairman BY: Michael Toerge, Secretary Is 0 F I 0 0 ATTACHMENT C 04/22/04 PLANNING MINUTES ,�o4 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 Page 7 of 34 images floating in the air. He supports the motion. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: Absent: None Abstain: None None. SUBJECT: Josh Slocum's Dinner & Supper Club (PA2003 -220) ITEM NO. 3 2601 W. Coast Highway PA2003 -220 Ms. Temple noted that staff has requested this item be continued Continued to to May 6, 2004 to allow additional time for staff analysis. 0510612004 Motion was made by Chairperson McDaniel to continue this item to May 6, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Noes: Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None None SUBJECT: Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LCP ITEM NO. 4 Amendment PA2003 -093 No. 2004 -001 (PA2003 -093) Recommended for Chairperson McDaniel stated that this item will be a review of approval staffs written responses to all of the comments received on the draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan contained in the 66 page report. He noted that each page of the responses will be reviewed and informed the audience if they had comments they would be allowed one minute to speak. He stated this is the opportunity to make a point, not to debate an issue. Mr. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, noted that revisions have been provided on an Errata sheet which represents staffs recommendation. We intend that this be the exhibit in the resolution should the Commission choose to recommend approval of the document tonight. If there are any recommended changes, we intend to incorporate those as well. But, if the Commission wants to see an actual revised complete document, then staff would need time to do complete that. ON file:HH: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 0 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 Chairperson McDaniel noted to the Commissioners that if they had comments let's give direction to staff. If there are comments and disagreements, I will take a straw vote. If there are 4 votes to change it, we will direct that change. Commissioner Cole asked about the current LCP and what is driving the changes and the process of the Coastal Commission. Mr. Alford noted the following: • The LCP consists of two parts: a Land Use Plan that is the policy document that you are seeing tonight. The second part is the implementation plan, which has all the various ordinances and regulations that would implement the policies of the Land Use Plan. • The City of Newport Beach currently has a certified Land Use Plan that was first certified in 1981 and re- certified in 1990. We do not have a certified LCP, we only have a certified Land Use Plan, we never adopted the implementing ordinances. • Senate Bill 516 requires the City submit an application for a completed LCP certification. When we submitted all our • documents to Coastal staff, they concentrated their review on our current Land Use Plan and felt it needed a comprehensive update. • In addition to proceeding with the second part of the implementation plan, we had to do this comprehensive update of the Land Use Plan and that is before you tonight. • If this is passed on to the City Council and they approve it, it will then go to the Coastal Commission and they will either certify it with or without changes. It will come back to the City if we need to incorporate additional changes and then we will start the process anew for the implementation plan. • The current Land Use Plan was deemed inadequate by the Coastal Commission staff as it had not been changed in some time and needed updating. • We have taken the Coastal Act and all the various policies and regulations we have on the books to craft a new document that is intended to take care of the deficiencies that Coastal Commission staff pointed out and also to implement all the policies and standards we have as well. • Ms. Temple added: Page 8 of 34 ,q iI file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 . The 1990 LCP was an effort to incorporate the 1988 General Plan provisions in regards to land use into the certified 1981 Land Use Plan. . It was not as complete an update as the current one is. We are looking at a document in its actual function more than 20 years old. . It Was no surprise that the1981 document was considered by Coastal staff to be antiquated in many areas. Chairperson McDaniel asked members of the audience to raise their hand if they wanted to comment on any page as it was being reviewed. The Planning Commission reviewed the Response to comments by page. The pages that were either discussed by the Commission or where testimony was given follows: Paget Commissioner Eaton noted: . He raised this issue as it had to do with Policy 3 under general policies where it states that when there are conflicts between the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the General Plan, the LUP policies shall take precedence. This undermines the City's General Plan update effort. . He noted that the language as written currently in Policy 3 is too blunt. The City has spent more than a million dollars in updating the General Plan. . Staff was asked to come up with alternative language that is preferable and asked that it be approved and included in the Errata. Mr. Alford answered: . The language was discussed in the previous staff report but staff did not recommend that language be incorporated. . We reiterated the reasons why in the included response to comments. Straw vote: Commissioner Selich - supports staff. The language that is in Page 9 of 34 ,912 file : / /H:1Plancomm1200410422.htm 05/07/2004 • �J • Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 there now was discussed in committee sessions and best • addresses this issue. Commissioner Tucker - supports staff. Commissioner Kiser - supports staff. Chairperson McDaniel - supports staff. Page 5: Commissioner Toerge. asked for clarification if commercial zones were being added or not. Mr. Alford answered: • This information is on various properties that have very specific land use restrictions. That while they were within the range, by narrowing them down with these new categories, they more closely reflect what is in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. • By incorporating these new categories and applying it to specific properties on the map, staff feels we have corrected that problem. There is now a lower land use category for properties that have a lower than .5 FAR. • Page 7: Jessica Joiner, noted that there is an error in her printed comment. The last part of her sentence should read, '.....not subject to the policies dictated in the LCP and are to be included in any categorical exclusion.' She asked that this be changed in the internet. Jan Vandersloot, noted he does not believe that coastal bluff is defined as marine erosion. It has to do with the basic land form and basic parameters of steepness. There should not be any categorical exclusions. Commissioner Toerge noted that he believes that the bluffs are coastal. Mr. Alford stated that the definition in question was taken from the California Code of Regulations, which is the administrative document for the Coastal Commission. The definition for coastal bluff is in the glossary and we are recommending that it be modified to indicate that it be used only for purposes for . establishing permit and jurisdictional boundaries which is the relevant section of the Code of Regulations. Page 10 of 34 ,p/3 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 Renetta Caya, noted: . She has a problem with the definition of coastal bluff. . Either further define what coastal bluffs are, or add exclusions to coastal bluffs, that would help and assist' homeowners in what areas are being specifically targeted. . As a future homeowner in Irvine Terrace, she would like to see it specifically excluded as a coastal bluff and retain that categorical exemption. Ms. Temple noted that in drawing specific line boundaries, we prefer to keep the definitions as such. When we get to the implementation plan, you will be applying these definitions through the re- application of the categorical exclusions and then we will start drawing the lines. Commissioner Toerge noted that the definitions refer to '.....subject to marine erosion within the last 200 years....' Wouldn't you suggest that those bluffs were at one time within the last 200 years subject to erosion? Mr. Alford answered, yes, that is why in the Revisions and Errata we have revised the definition to state that a coastal bluff is a bluff overlooking a beach or shore line or that is subject to marine erosion and that for purposes of establishing jurisdictional permit boundaries, we follow the definition that is in the Land Use Plan. That would be the definition of a coastal bluff for establishing jurisdictional permit boundaries for appeal areas and for the areas that need Coastal Development Permits. The overall definition of coastal bluff within the document is less specific and more generalized. Commissioner Tucker noted that there are policies that protect coastal bluff. How do you get from this jurisdictional and permit boundaries redefined to mean the policy of what happens with coastal bluff? Mr. Alford noted: . The previous definition included references to marine erosion historically, but more particularly there is another part of that definition that says the 'toe of the bluff is within an appealable area.' That created certain problems with this document, specifically within Irvine Terrace. The toe of those bluffs are within the appeal area. All those bluffs along Irvine Terrace would meet the definition of coastal bluff under the California Code of Regulations. Page I I of 34 afq file : /1H:\Plancomm\2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 • �J Ll Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 • That section within the California Code of Regulations only deals with permit and jurisdictional boundaries. • We want to clarify the definition used only for that purposes. • There is a whole section on coastal bluff policy only. • If we went strictly with the California Code of Regulations definition it would include some areas as coastal bluff that the City may not want to define as coastal bluff. • It might be fine for establishing where a coastal development permit is required or where an appeal area boundary is, but you may not want to use the policies for protecting coastal bluff for that definition. • We can have a more detailed and precise definition of coastal bluff and how those policies would apply in the implementation plan. For now, we have to have a more generalized definition of coastal bluff for the application of protection policies and limit the Code of Regulations definition fo only using it for permitted and jurisdictional boundaries. It would include too many areas that should not be considered coastal bluffs and should not be part of the protection policies. • At Commission inquiry he noted that Promontory Point and Irvine Terrace have been singled out to be excluded. It might come up in other areas where they might have historically been coastal bluffs. For example some of the areas on Coast Highway near Hoag, there were bluffs there at one time but Cal Trans operations has pretty much obliterated those. But, if there is a bluff there now and it toes into the appealable area it would fall under the definition of coastal bluff and all the policies that we have for true coastal bluffs would have to be applied to that severely altered and manufactured slope. • The intent is to apply policies to areas that really have natural coastal bluffs and not the ones that have been cut or filled to the point that they have no resemblance to the original natural Iandform. Commissioner Toerge noted he does not agree that Irvine Terrace should be included. Mr. Afford noted that if the Commission wants to give direction, changes could be made and included. He noted that all of Irvine Terrace is in the existing categorical exclusion. The commitment Page 12 of 34 ')� / S' file:HH: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 we had from the Local Coastal Plan Certification Committee was that we would leave the existing exclusion intact as much as possible. If we went with the definition of coastal bluff that is in the Coastal Code of Regulations then it is possible that the bluffs in Irvine Terrace could not be a part of the new categorical exclusion. The main thrust behind some of these changes was to alter the definition of coastal bluff to make sure that the areas that probably should not be included as coastal bluff are not and that the categorical exclusion that covers Irvine Terrace will continue to do so in the new policy. . Chairperson McDaniel confirmed that categorical exclusions still gives the City the right to determine what is built there. He was answered that it excludes them from the provisions of the Coastal Act that require Coastal Development Permit. Commissioner Eaton asked for an explanation of appealable areas and categorical exclusions and whether there is ever an overlap? Mr. Alford answered that there are overlaps currently. After an LCP is certified, the City will retain permit jurisdiction in most of the coastal zone. There will be certain areas that are a certain number of feet from certain types of land forms and habitat areas: coastal bluff, streams, wetlands, and the mean high tide line. There is a right to appeal Coastal Development Permit approvals to the Coastal Commission. If an appeal area extends into an area that is covered by the categorical exclusion, because there is no permit required under that categorical exclusion, there is nothing to appeal. Discussion followed on the definition of coastal bluff, marine erosion and the use of the implementation plan. Commissioner Tucker noted that based upon the definition, anything along Bayside Drive would also not be a coastal bluff. Mr. Alford confirmed, noting that right now we need something that is more broad in nature that we can interpret and then clarify through the implementation plan to cover the areas where we want protection provided. A lot of those areas that have been cut and filled to the point that they are no longer natural landform, those areas can be excluded, particularly for purposes of making the categorical exclusions. Commissioner Tucker noted he would support the staffs position. Commissioner Selich noted it is important to protect all the categorical exclusion areas in this document. If we have to finesse the definition of coastal bluff in order to do that I think that is Page 13 of 34 .;�/b file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 9 �J 10 L_l 11 0 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 important. There is nothing to say that when we adopt the implementation plan that we can't adopt a set of development regulations for the bluff slope area of Irvine Terrace going down to Bayside Drive that would be similar to regulations on a coastal bluff. Phillip Bettencourt noted on behalf of the owners of Banning Ranch: . Staff has given one definition of coastal bluff, yet has another set that would sweep in the whole of Banning Ranch (400 +acres) including some areas of 'bluff that overlook oil wells and the Huntington Beach sewer treatment plant. . There is no scientific basis in the administrative record to form the definition for either one. . There is no question that the whole of Banning Ranch is in the coastal zone. The property owners have a jurisdictional wetlands survey that has been approved by the Corps of Engineers and by the State Department of Fish and Game. They know where the marine erosion boundary is. • Vast swaths of bluff areas do not meet the coastal bluff 200 year definition as areas were not subject to marine erosion in the first place or that were profoundly disturbed by development or development that did not otherwise proceed. • Once the property is presumed to be in the coastal bluffs you pick up a whole series of regulations with it. That is troublesome and I don't think that is sound regulation on that basis. • What ought to be done with the land form is a separate policy. To classify them as coastal bluffs without any scientific basis I don't think is constructive. Commissioner Selich asked if this information is valid, is there any way to incorporate that as the definition of coastal bluffs for the Banning Ranch area? Mr. Bettencourt clarified that some portions would meet the definition and some would not. He is just saying that there is predisposition to the extent that statements are made about the classification of portions of the property for which there is nothing in the administrative record to support it. Some portions are because the erosive line has been established, but it is not the whole of the 400 acre property. We would like to not get caught up in that determination until the whole of the material is present. In file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm Page 14 of 34 ;2 / ?" 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 this case the removal of the determination of the whole is not helpful to include these categorical statements about the regulatory conditioned properties that is not based on evidence. Fleetwood Joiner suggested that this definition should refer to future marine erosion. This might help save the areas where we are concerned in Corona del Mar where we do have bluffs against the ocean, sand and surf. In areas where there are bulkheads, utilities, streets and other properties that separate us from the harbor such as Irvine Terrace that would be excluded because they are not subject to future marine erosion. Commissioner Tucker expressed his concern about the LCP imposing constraints on the Banning Ranch property due to the bluffs and being a deferred certification area. Mr. Alford suggested that a separate LCP segment just for Banning Ranch property to address all the complex issues as it is a deferred certification area be done in the future. Page 8 Commissioner Selich, referencing Section 2.2.3: . Look at protecting the existing exclusions tied in with the approval of this document. . Can the City approve an LCP with the caveat that if the Coastal Commission does not approve the categorical exclusion application then the City's approval of the LCP is rescinded? Mr. Alford answered that the Coastal Commission can not approve a categorical exclusion as part of an LCP. That has to be a separate action. Ms. Temple noted that it is staffs intention that final certification of the LCP and the new categorical exclusion will happen simultaneously as subsequent actions on one agenda. When we get to that point, the City will know whether it is going to be able to accept what the Coastal Commission is going to impose. We do not have to accept and ratify a certification if we choose not to. In fact that is what San Clemente recently did. Page 10 Commissioner Tucker noted the provision on Section 2.2.4 - will the implementation plan have a deferral for the Banning Ranch? Page 15 of 34 ,2 /f file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 0 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 Mr. Alford answered that the implementation plan will proceed as quickly as possible after the Land Use Plan is certified and approved by the Coastal Commission. He doesn't envision that the Banning Ranch will get ahead of the implementation plan. The bulk of the implementation plan will be Title 20 of the Zoning Code, but we do have the Planned Community texts that are stand alone adopted ordinances, those PC's in the coastal zone will be incorporated as.part of the implementation plan. We will probably amend the Banning Ranch portion to indicate that is a deferred certification area. Page 11 Fleetwood Joiner stated his intent when he bought his property was to go down one basement level below and get a view. His concern is the definition of non - conforming. If a home is built that is legal today and meets all the codes and regulations, does the home become legally nonconforming once the LCP is passed? The regulations for nonconforming only allow you to improve your home by 25% and you can only modify even your interiors by 50 %. How do these percentages relate when homes fall into disrepair? Ms. Temple answered it depends on whether the LCP implementation plan changes the regulations under which the original building was built. It is not automatic, it may or may not. The existing nonconforming provisions relate those percentages to alteration to the structural members of the building and not to cosmetic renovation and update. Unless those interior renovations involved the structural members of the building, you can do 25% of those members by right, 50% with a Modification Permit and up to 75% in any twelve year period with a Use Permit. Anything above 75% is not allowed. Mr. Alford added that even if Irvine Terrace was to fall outside the categorical exclusion and be subject to a Coastal Development Permit, that does not mean they are necessarily nonconforming. There would have to be a standard that they were built to that has changed to be more restrictive that would make them nonconforming and then the nonconforming provisions would apply. Commissioner Selich noted we are not doing any development regulations now. There is a second phase that is the implementation plan and at that point, you may or may not become non - conforming depending on what regulations are adopted as part of that. Your question is a good one, but is premature and should come at the second step of this process. Page 16 of 34 ,2!1 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 Page 12 Commissioner Tucker, noting the comment from Mariner's Mile Association wanting a statement incorporating 'As shown in areas such as McFadden Square and Cannery Village, the incorporation of residential uses into these areas adds vitality and the synergy of mixed uses, while providing improved public access to the bay front,' this language is not appropriate for the document. Should we, as a policy matter, have some indication when a mix of uses would allow a coastal dependent use to occur on a property that would otherwise be "infeasible? Would that be something to consider? The coastal dependent uses are a character that is slipping away in the City and there may be some policy language for this one exception. Staff noted this is a worthy policy discussion. The City Council and the LCP committee decided for this exercise of the LCP not to make any policy changes as it relates to land uses because of a serious concern that the LCP process would preempt the General Plan update. That very discussion will be part of the discussion on the geographic area of Mariner's Mile. Should the conclusion be to support such policy concepts in the General Plan, then we have already acknowledge we will go back and amend the LCP to reflect all of those changes, including land use changes. Commissioner Selich noted that the Committee discussed this quite thoroughly, and recommended that staffs recommendation be supported. Page 19 Commissioner Tucker noted the California Coastal Trails comes up several times, some people want it and some don't. Following a brief discussion it was decided to support staffs response. Page 25 Commissioner Tucker noted the suggestion of wording for 3.1.1- 14, '.... for development and implement a long range plan for public trails and walkways to access all appropriate commercial areas of the harbor....' The suggested verbiage change is to '.....all appropriate visitor - serving areas of the harbor.' There are still working areas of the harbor and there seem to be a natural conflict between these two areas. Mr. Alford noted the wording in policy 3.1.1 -19 on page 3.9, was written specifically to recognize that there might need to be some detours around some of the operations of the harbor. Page 17 of 34 A20 file: //14:\Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 Page 26 • Mr. Alford stated that all these policies. apply and there are provisions for public safety, protection for the coastal dependent and support facilities that surround the harbor. When we are reviewing the application of these policies on a project by project basis there has to be enough latitude in here to make sense if a particular segment should not be provided, or take an alternate form, or detour, then we can do so. The overall goal is consistent with the Coastal Act to provide lateral access along the waterfront. In these commercial areas, we have been requiring it as part of the application approvals and there may be a potential to connect them. The overall goal is the same, to provide lateral access on the shore. Page 29 Commissioner Cole noted the comments of the Cameo Shores Community Association regarding Policy 3.1.5 -2, the 'potential to inhibit' is ill defined. If they ever wanted to gate their communities or even build a guard gate that might look like a gated community in the future, they want to maintain that option. The language now is prohibitive. He suggested that the comment related to the words, the 'potential to inhibit public access' be changed to 'would' • inhibit public access. The Association feels there will be a potential situation in the future, even though this has to go through the City for approval, of conversion of streets from public to private. The language now would prohibit it from even getting to that point to the City. I would like to suggest that change. The other language they suggested was to at least acknowledge the current status of certain communities that do not currently have 'public access'. Can we include the definition of'public access'. Mr. Alford noted that the main focus of the comment from the community association was on the physical public access along the shore line. We tried to indicate in our response that the Coastal Commission has a broader term of 'public access' which would include removing public parking from public streets and blocking views from public roads to coastal views. We would have to do some type of analysis to indicate that there is no potential for public access to be denied by barring the public from those public streets within the community. This whole section was prepared because the Coastal Commission had indicated in the comments on the current LUP that we needed to do something to address the issue of private and gated communities. Our attempt was to merely identify all those areas and show even though they are gated or otherwise private, that their impacts to overall public access is very limited and that the nature of development that would occur in these areas is not such that you could have a Page 18 of 34 �l file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 development provide additional access. If we change the tone of this section to leave the possibility of expanding these private areas, 1 think we could run into some potential problems. It is more of a matter of how we address the current issue of the ones that exist and they should not be expanded to provide additional private communities in the coastal zone for reasons stated. Commissioner Selich noted he supports the original wording the Cameo Shores Community Association proposed. I think this document does not give adequate protection to both Cameo Shores and Shorecliff associations and I think something like this would go a long way. There is no public access in there and there is no reason for the public to go in there. I do not agree with staff on this. Commissioner Tucker asked what authority the Coastal Commission has to define on- street parking and views as public access? What about night time, when you can't see anything? Mr. Alford noted that the Coastal Commission interprets the Coastal Act just as the City Council, Planning Commission and staff do of their policies. There are definite references about providing public parking in the coastal zone and the removal of public parking even as on- street parking has long been considered to impact coastal access. I have seen reports written from the Coastal Commission that dealt with issues of beach curfew. They consider even night time curfews on beaches as denying public access. Commissioner Tucker continued by stating he supports Commissioners Cole and Selich on this item. Commissioner Kiser stated that if there is any way to modify the language he would like to see that worked with and supports the comments of Commissioners Cole and Selich. Commissioners Toerge and Eaton noted their support of the association language. Commissioner Cole stated he likes the suggestion of changing the language to 'would' in the first portion and then maybe staff can come up with language that meets the intent of trying to acknowledge the existing status of the communities that currently do not have access and might not prohibit the ability in the future for a gated community. Ms. Temple stated staff would come up with the wording and asked if the Commission wanted to review the language before it went to Council? Page 19 of 34 aa� file: / /H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.him 05/07/2004 • Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 The Commission discussed that if there was another meeting on the LCP, they would like to review this language. Commissioner Kiser noted that the way the community association worded it in the last part of the paragraph was that 'only in communities where such access exists as of the day of the adoption of the policy,' to likely not prohibit public access by privatizing or gating the community. Something to that affect so that there would not be a strict policy in the words like exempt. Mr. Alford stated that we responded with this section because the Coastal Commission initial comments were that they wanted to prohibit all private and gated communities, we did try to leave the door open with these policies. They would have preferred language to outright prohibit these communities. Commissioner Cole noted that even though the letter from Cameo Shores reflects policy 3.1.5 -2 it actually should also be similar in 3.1.1.5 -1 which also talks about structures such as gates, gatehouses and barriers. Mr. Bettencourt, speaking for the Banning Ranch owners, stated what troubled them was the language that outright prohibited new private streets based on a substantial evidence test that • prescriptive rights exist. It does not say adjudicated rights to public ! resource or established private rights. Look at the enormous power you would give to someone claiming prescriptive rights to in effect shut down the entire entitlement process without having any access rights adjudicated. Commissioner Kiser stated that he had raised this same issue and would like to not see it in the policy. However, we were advised that the Coastal Act gives the local body the right to determine if there are prescriptive rights. Commissioner Tucker noted the reality of how this clause would work is if staff found that there was substantial prescriptive rights and the property owner did not agree then the property owner would sue the person who claimed there were prescriptive rights to quiet title to those claimed prescriptive rights. If the person who brought the suit won, then they come back to the city and say that evidence is gone. I tend to think that language would probably stay in there. There is a way to go over the head of the agency. Ms. Clauson stated that this may be thought by the Coastal Commission to apply to prescriptive rights not established as between private property owners. There is an established line of • cases that say that the public can get prescriptive rights of access over private property for recreational purposes on beaches, rivers Page 20 of 34 ,�,23 file: / /H:\Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 or any other places for recreational uses. This is not something that needs to be adjudicated. Page 34 Jan Vandersloot, noted the following: . The issues of fragmentation and isolation are issues that do not apply to Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. If it was a habitat area it does not have anything to do with whether it was isolated or fragmented. . I don't think this should apply. . Even degraded habitats are protected by the Coastal Act as confirmed by the Bolsa Chica Decision. Commissioner Tucker noted that staffs proposed language deals with this. The speaker agreed. Page 35 Jan Vandersloot further noted: . This has to do with the fact the taking of private property is something that is protected by the Constitution and does not have to be stated in the LCP. This is supposed to conform with the Coastal Act Section 30240 that limits the uses of what you can do with ESHAs. The Coastal Act says nothing about the taking. Commissioner Tucker noted that if we eliminate that phrase, then assuming the implementation plan basically came out and said we will limit uses in ESHAs to only those uses that are dependent on such resources, if that resulted in a taking then we would have a plan that required us to take. Shouldn't that be a decision that is made later that would be of value to the public? What we are trying to do is not have a situation where we start down the path of, the policy says to limit the uses and therefore the implementation must follow the policy. Then we made a decision that has that effect without ever having the opportunity to say do we really want to do this, Mr. Alford noted that there are provisions in the Coastal Act for protection of property from a taking. A provision like this could be put on every policy because there is a possibility that they could effect property and result in a taking. However, we used it sparingly on those few policies that either limit use or development. There isn't anything in the Code of Regulations and Page 21 of 34 12,7y file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 • • 0 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 the Coastal Act relating to the limits of land uses that result in taking but then again those portions were written before a number of Supreme Court decisions related to the issue of taking. We feel comfortable adding this because we have seen similar language on these issues in other LCP's that the Coastal Commission has certified. Page 37 Commissioner Eaton questioned the criteria for what was listed and what was not listed. Mr. Alford answered that there seems to be some confusion between the ESHAs and the environmental study areas. The draft LUP has these study areas that are areas that were identified in the current Land Use Plan and these are large geographic areas that may have environmental sensitive habitats on all of them or a portion of them. We felt they were worth studying and to identify and to indicate that there are potential ESHAs in these areas and they should be looked at accordingly. The specific ones that were requested were areas that were smaller than the ones in the Land Use Plan and simply because we don't list them as a study area, it does not mean that if there are any coastal resources such as wetlands and sensitive habitats that they are not going to be • provided protections under this LCP. We don't have to study every single area simply because it may or may not have a wetland or an ESHA. Dr. Vandersloot stated he would add Banning Ranch to the four areas mentioned in the document. Commissioner Tucker noted it would be fair to have something that makes it clear that this doesn't preclude other areas from being study areas. Mr. Alford noted that study areas have no particular status, they are just areas we felt were large and complex enough that they needed some type of inventory and discussion. All the other polices we have related to ESHA, wetlands and other coast resources would apply to any development proposed in these areas. Ms. Temple noted that the more you add smaller and smaller areas the more it takes on the look and feel of a comprehensive list and what we don't want to do is lead someone to conclude that if they are not on this list that these policies do not apply. • Page 39 Page 22 of 34 ,2S file: / /H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 Gus Chabre stated he has a problem including eel grass in the section that involves environmental study areas. We have enough problems with eel grass now. The environmental study areas tend to take on special interest and concern. If we are going to be able to work with eel grass that is in the lower bay I suggest that we strike the last paragraph. Jan Vandersloot, stated that eel grass ought to be an environmental study area as it acts as a habitat for invertebrate and for threatened bird species as well. Page 41 Commissioner Eaton asked, noting the last item on the page, was the last sentence in the Errata removed as per the consultant? Mr. Alford answered that the revision was to remove the sentence and the comment on the next page was saying that the word 'critical' could be removed and that would also be consistent with what the City's biologist said. It could go either way. Commissioner Selich supported removing the last sentence on page 4 -36, Section 4.1.4. Following a brief discussion it was determined that the last sentence be removed. Page 43 David Moore talked about the issue of eelgrass. He discussed the issues of the dredging of wetland estuaries be permitted to maintain any existing or previously dredged channel and vessel berthing and mooring areas. The issue is not protecting eelgrass, the issue is using eelgrass as an anti - development issue to prevent maintaining existing waterways, berthing areas and estuaries. He happens to be a victim of that because eelgrass is in front of his dock. He has a permit from the City to put an 85 foot boat at that dock but in low tide has only 1 foot of water. It has been filled in by three major dredging operations that have taken place in Back Bay by the Irvine Corporation and neighbors on either side. He is being held accountable for eelgrass in the bay and that is clearly a taking. Property with eelgrass has dropped in value dramatically. The way to remove eelgrass from preventing dredging is to take the whole section 4.1.4 up to 4.1.5 and related implementation out. Reference to eelgrass needs to be removed. Commissioner Selich noted his agreement on the eelgrass situation. However, there was a committee that included three Planning Commissioners and three City Councilmembers who decided what the approach would be in the LCP. In all of the eelgrass issues, he supports the approach taken by the Committee fi le://H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm Page 23 of 34 ,06 05/07/2004 0 u Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 and staff. Page 44 Catherine Moore asked for clarification. Mr. Alford answered that all the provisions provided for dredging activities allowed under the Coastal Act are provided in the appropriate sections dealing with wetlands and deep water areas. The various resource agencies have taken the position that the impacts to eelgrass has to be mitigated under the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. It is a hindrance and a burden on people who want to dredge the areas around their properties. What we have attempted to do in this section is recommend the framework for an approach that goes beyond the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and propose a new method based on a base line. We can not do it unilaterally, because even if we put it in this plan and it was approved by The Coastal Commission, we would still have the other agencies to deal with it. We are recognizing that we have to have a broad based, comprehensive strategy to deal with at both the state and federal levels and we are attempting to set up that framework in this document as policy rather than just going with the status quo. We recognize the shortcomings of the existing policy and we have that clear in the narrative and are proposing an approach based on the direction we received from the City Council through the LCP certification committee. Chairperson McDaniel noted that the LCP doesn't necessarily cover the ability to dredge for eelgrass because the eelgrass mitigation has control over that. This document does not. Ms. Temple noted that the City is working with those agencies to devise improvements to that mitigation program that would resolve some of these issues. Ms. Moore stated that it is misleading the way it is written. I think it will be hard to explain to the citizens of Newport Beach the places where they are currently able to dredge or have a boat, they are no longer going to be able to do it. Mr. Alford noted that this stems from Section 30233 of the Coastal Act which outlines how you deal with projects that involve diking, filling, and dredging of open coastal waters. It states clearly that you have to go with the less environmentally damaging alternative and, where feasible, have mitigation measures and minimize adverse environmental impacts. The Coastal Commission and other resource agencies have seen the impacts to eelgrass as being a significant impact. The caveat for environmental protection Page 24 of 34 'V7 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 that is provided for in the maintenance dredging has put a limit on dredging projects. The eelgrass mitigation policy is the law of the land that we abide by. This policy document recognizes that there are extreme problems with that policy and offers up a policy framework as a solution. John Corrough clarified that it has always been a federal issue, federal requirements, federal permits, etc. It is not the City that decides and it is not the Coastal Commission that decides, its the federal agencies like National Marine Fisheries where this policy originated at a federal level that have always determined the policies and procedures. Everyone else follows those federal activities. If the Moores had applied for a permit 4 -5 years ago and dredged, they would have been applying external to the issues that are becoming confused and muddled in the LCP in the same way now as they would have applied five years ago. If you read the response section the first mitigation eelgrass beds are being planted next month. Dr. Vandersloot stated that the mitigation areas of eel planting are in areas that it is not in now. The mitigation efforts have to work first. Page 45 Dr. Vandersloot noted that the Coastal Commission in the past has allowed just one of the criteria for wetland to be existing to define a' wetland. He thinks it has to be consistent with the past Coastal Commission actions. Page 47 Commissioner Tucker commented on policy 4.2.4 -1: cooperating with the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Army Corps of Engineers to secure LA -3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site as a permanently designated disposal site. Wouldn't we also cooperate if there was another suitable or feasible site that is identified. Why are we limited to just this site? Mr. Alford answered part of it is the location. If it is a more distant site, it would increase the costs of disposal dramatically. We felt this site is appropriate and important in order to accomplish the restoration projects in the Upper Newport Bay. Commissioner Tucker asked if that site became unavailable, what would we do? What if we added 'or if feasible, another suitable site'? Commissioner Kiser noted that what is being discussed is the Page 25 of 34 is ,Vr file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 9 C_1 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 default unless something else is found. He supports staff response. Mr. Vandersloot stated we should not memorialize LA -3 because it is a temporary site that has been used. We don't have the money to barge the dredge spoils out to sea. John Corrough noted that over a period of a year and a half the various activities were underway with respect to our opportunity sites for the disposal of dredge materials. He outlined that LA -2 is the alternative and provided tables for analysis of differential costs of barging from this region. The Harbor Commission decided that the economics and science support LA -3 as the preferred site as has been described. All the agencies involved recognize that it needs to be codified as a long -term site, that's why the EIR/EIS is looking at it now. LA -2 is a fall back site. Our priority is very low and costs are exceedingly high. That is why you have LA -3 in front of you. Ms. Temple asked if the Commission is suggesting changes to LA- 3 policy or is it satisfactory. Chairperson McDaniel answered no change. Page 48 Gus Chabre asked why eelgrass is incorporated in this policy if it is such a recognizable problem? Why not strike all reference to it? Mr. Alford noted that this is the current policy we have to abide by, particularly by the federal agencies. We have to reflect this in the policy document at this time because that is what we have to operate under. Just because you disagree with a policy that might be imposed from outside the community, ignoring it does not mean it goes away. This is a policy document and it is used to guide the decisions in reviewing projects. We think it is important to have it recognize the current regulatory framework. This document is not etched in stone, it can be amended as situations change. As we indicated, the Coastal Commission would like to review LCP's every five years. At this point in time this policy reflects the current situation we have to deal with. We are proposing something that would replace that eelgrass policy in the future. Continuing, Mr. Alford stated that these terms were agreed to by all the resource agencies that participated in the project and it was fought hard for by the City. The recommendation from the Harbor Commission in particular is to keep this in the document. Page 51 file://H:\Plancomm\2004\0422.htm Page 26 of 34 ,x,21/ 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04 /22/2004 Commissioner Tucker noted that the comments heard earlier on the Banning Ranch were good ones. However, if we are going to defer this into another document, I am not going to belabor their points. There were several issues that were raised; certainly on water quality should be included and should be to the maximum extent practicable and modify a lot of those requirements. I would like to see how the language on Banning Ranch is going to work when it comes, back in terms of making it clear that all these policies that are, being adopted might not necessarily apply to Banning Ranch. Mr. Bettencourt noted that the property owners tried to draw on the millions of dollars worth of research and planning studies they have done on the property some that has been before public agencies, some that staff has seen, and show in this instance the sort of immutable law of unintended consequences by applying some of these polices and what it could have that would not meet a number of planning objectives here. One that is coming up recommended by the Coastal Commission staff is the water discharge regime should achieve a near natural equilibrium state. Doesn't that sound delightful? Banning Ranch receives 138 acres of drainage from east side Costa Mesa that drains otherwise unregulated in the Semeniuk Slough. Is that the near equilibrium state you want to maintain? The bluffs in the area are melting, because they are unprotected, into the Semeniuk Slough and onto Coast Highway. So, when you have policies that say, shall not be disturbed, you make the achievement of a better environmental outcome through improvement, remediation and mitigation more difficult to achieve. I think we need to propose some language that at least gives the property owner the opportunity to make their case on a comprehensive basis at some point in time without being tormented by some of the policies. At Commission inquiry, he stated that a comprehensive LCP covering both the City and County properties and an EIR was developed. The fact that the County of Orange was the lead agency, city staff was also involved with the documents. Ms. Temple noted that the LCP developed by the Banning Ranch developers could become a segment of the Newport Beach LCP if that is the way the City and property owner want to do it. Commissioner Kiser noted his concern of the policies overlapping. Commissioner Selich noted that there were many meetings on the LCP and we ended up deleting this area due to the complexities. When the time comes we can deal with it. Page 52 Page 27 of 34 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 9 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 Commissioner Tucker reiterated that there are a couple of places . on 4 -61 where the maximum extent possible (mep) applies. It applies in 4.3.2 -11 and -12. He asked staff to take a look at adding those so we have that concept. It is typical for the water quality stuff, that is generally the standard. Mr. Alford answered he would do so as directed by Commission. Page 53 Jessica Joiner noted her concern with regards to policy 4.4.1 -3 and -5 that it is bringing a huge amount of property into the Coastal Commission purview. Having worked with the Commission, they have typically demanded a setback of 20 feet on coastal bluffs. Perhaps there should be a distinction between altered and unaltered. Page 55 Fleetwood Joiner noted we are an urban community. I disagree that the Coastal Commission has the right to really control our City. We have property owners that need to be protected. There are areas that have existing bulkheads and harbors and things that have been built creating our City that need to be protected as well. • As a community we need to recognize the differences. I would like the last sentence of the second paragraph on 4 -70 section 4.4.3 'in areas where the coastal bluff has been altered the property owner and City shall strive to minimize further alteration to the bluff face. However, this is not intended to prohibit the property owner's righti to improve or rebuild said property per existing codes in the same manner as the neighbor or in that neighborhood.' Commissioner Cole noted he is sympathetic and asked for staffs response. Mr. Alford noted that this Commission has had to deal with the issue of coastal bluffs development. There are polices in the current LCP and the Land Use Element of the General Plan that call for protection of these land forms. The problem is that there really has not been any mechanism to implement these policies. You have not been faced with those issues often because the Coastal Commission reviews Coastal Development Permits. The language we have here would create a situation where it would make any policy pertaining to the protection of this land form moot. Because someone else severely altered the land form in the past means that same could be done on the property might be subject to the policy under review. We have these policies on the books now, are we going to continue to implement them when we have projects that are before you, something this broad and sweeping file : //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0422.htm Page 28 of 34 ,23 / 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 would basically change the policy. Commissioner Cole noted the sentence in question, '...in areas where the coastal bluff has been altered, development on the bluff face and bluff top should be controlled to minimize further alteration....' Is it your opinion that if we left that language in that if a property owner wanted to alter or remodel per the last speaker in the same format as.the adjoining property owner has done, would this prohibit them.from doing that? Mr. Alford answered that the proposed revision is in the narrative and therefore would not have the weight of a policy. You would create a conflict. The policy would generally override anything that is not clear in the narrative. The point is, what if you had a situation where the adjacent property had done something that was clearly inconsistent with the policies, not with this LCP but with the current one or what is in the General Plan? Again, by placing this in our policy, you are altering the effect of the entire policy because you are now saying that it doesn't apply to a property if the one adjacent to it was altered. At some point you have to decide is this a policy that you want to continue to work with? If you have a serious problem, you don't think these land forms need to be protected, then you should change the policy, not put a loophole that someone could use to escape it because then you run into a real danger of not applying the policy consistently and not providing people equal protection under the law. Commissioner Kiser noted his agreement that this is in the narrative and it would open up a lot of problems similar to the ones already seen by the Commission. We need to look at the specific policy 4.4.3 -5 for example and whether you like it or don't, we need to deal with the issues in a more specific way like the details in our policy rather than a broad statement in the narrative. Jessica Joiner proposed that the City deal with these issues through the codes and setbacks and maintain the power structure and control within the City rather than delegating it to the Coastal Commission, which is in Sacramento. Commissioner Tucker noted that these definitions get dealt with in our Code at least in the implementation plan under the LCP. Mr. Alford noted that the more you try to define something, you actually run into situations that are counter - productive. There has to be some room for judgment. These projects will be reviewed on a case by case basis and it will be up to the Planning Commission through review of Coastal Development Permits on such properties to determine whether this is an area where the bluff is a land form that is more or less in a natural form and has not been significantly Page 29 of 34 LJ • �2 3,-7 file: / /H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 0 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 altered. Then of course it should be protected under the policies in this document. If it is an area where there has been alteration such as landscaping, development and /or grading have virtually obliterated those bluffs that those areas have to be treated differently and that more extensive development could be permitted. Page Commissioner Toerge noted he agrees with the comments relative to the LCP meetings. There will be more meetings when we get to the implementation plan and to assist the public in focusing their comments in the early part of the process that by establishing dates on a consistent meeting schedule would help, even if we have to cancel a meeting on occasion for whatever reason. Jessica Jointer noted the responsibility of both staff and Commission to protect the property rights and protect the citizens investments. She thanked staff and Commission for all their efforts Jan Vandersloot noted: • The purpose of the LCP is to be consistent with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act was established by the State legislature • under a voter approved initiative in 1972. • These policies are to protect the coast, otherwise the whole coast would be built up and the public would be shut out. • There needs to be consistency with the laws and regulations that deal with land uses and property rights. • You need to be thinking how this is consistent and abiding with the Coastal Act. • We need to preserve the resources of the coast that are still there. Fleetwood Joiner thanked the Commission and staff for their work. He stated that the bluff in Irvine Terrace is not a natural bluff. When he was digging out some of his property he ran into bed springs and seaweed. Homeowners have helped to re- vegetate the slope. If you dig down, it takes caissons 35 feet deep to hit natural grade, all of that Irvine Terrace area was built by the Irvine Company for members of the Company. It is not a natural slope, there are pieces that stick out that are formations that have been cut to build Bayside Drive. • Public comment was closed. Page 30 of 34 A3 3 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0422.htm 05/07/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 04/22/2004 Commissioner Tucker noted the following: . There is a great deal of effort made to do things right and to preserve the beautiful area that we all have. . We all live here and have a goal for the community to be the best possible place to live. Commissioner Eaton noted his preference would be to vote on this tonight and let staff put together the areas that were unresolved. If we continue this it would be for only the purpose of reviewing those things where we asked staff to make changes and limit the public hearing to those things where we asked staff to make changes. Otherwise, my concern is there would be another three hours of testimony. Commissioner Selich agreed with the previous comments. The biggest thing we wanted to see is the private community language and I think staff can take care of that. I would just as soon vote on this tonight. Straw vote to vote on the LCP tonight: Commissioners Selich, Eaton, Cole, McDaniel Staff verified that there would be revised language on private communities. Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton to recommend approval of the LCP with all the corrections and Errata as proposed plus the additional ones that were provided tonight. Chairperson McDaniel thanked Mr. Alford for all his work on this item. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: Absent: None Abstain: None None SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach (PA2004 -028) Revisions to Appeal and Call for Review Procedures An amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code to review Page 31 of 34 • 0 ITEM NO. 5 PA2004 -028 Recommended for . Approval �23q file: //H : \Plancomm\2004 \0422.htm 0510712004 • 0 . ATTACHMENT D 03/18/04 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ,Z3S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda item No. 3 March 18, 2004 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3235 Pafford Co) city. newoort- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Update of Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan — LCP Amendment No. 2004 -001 (PA 2003 -093) ISSUE: - Should the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed comprehensive update of the LCP Land Use Plan? RECOMMENDATION: • Conduct the public hearing; adopt Resolution No. 2004- recommending approval of LCP Amendment No. 2004 -001 to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Introduction: At the March 4, 2004 meeting on-this item, staff received questions, comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission and members of the public. This report will address the outstanding issues. Section 1.3 General Policies Page 1 -2 Policy 3 states that where there are conflicts between the policies of the land use plan and those set forth in any element of the City's general plan, zoning, or any other ordinance, the policies of the land use plan shall take precedence. Commissioner Eaton expressed concern that this policy undermined the City's General Plan update effort. �3� LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 2 This policy appears to be a required policy by the Coastal Commission and appears in recently adopted LCPs in other communities. However, the City of Malibu's LCP contains a variation of this policy. The Malibu LCP policy provides that if there is a conflict between the LCP and the General Plan, and it is not possible for the development to comply with both, LCP takes precedence and the development cannot be approved unless it complies with the LCP provision. The Malibu LCP is significant because it was prepared by the Coastal Commission and certified in 2002. Therefore, it can provide insight into how the Coastal Commission may react to this issue. Staff believes that the current language adequately addresses this issue. However, should the Planning Commission wish to pursue an approach similar to Malibu, Policy 3 could be revised to read as follows: Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in this Coastal Land Use Plan and those set forth in any element of the City's General .: Plan, -zoning, or any other- ordinance,. and it is not possible for the development to comply with both the Coastal Land Use Plan and any- other such Plan or ordinance, the - pel+sies -of the Coastal Land Use Plan shall take precedence and the development shall not be approved unless it complies with the Coastal Land Use Plan. However, in no case, shall the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. Section 2.1 Land Use Page 2 -1 Mr. Tom Billings presented the Planning Commission with a list of five areas. Mr. Billings stated that these areas contain what he described as "density discrepancies" with the current General Plan. Staff reviewed this information and found the following: Lido Villaqe Commercial. This area contains the Lido Marina Village development and adjacent commercial properties. The Land Use Element designation is Retail and Service Commercial with an allowed floor area ratio (FAR) range of 0.5 to 0.75. The proposed Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) designation is CV (Visitor- Serving Commercial), which has a FAR range of 0.3 to 1.25. Although the CV designation has a higher FAR, CLUP Policy 2.1.1 -1 would prevent any new development from exceeding the Land Use Element FAR limit. All other proposed CV areas have actual FARs higher than 0.75. The CV designation was proposed on this site because of the current high concentration of visitor - serving uses and bayfront location. If the Planning Commission is ,?3 3- LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 3 • concerned about the FAR of the CV designation, the site could be designated CG -A (General Commercial A) with a FAR range of 0.5 to 0.75, which is the same as Land Use Element FAR limit. Lido Villaqe Residential. This residential area is located in the 3300 block of Via Lido. The Land Use Element designates this area Multi - Family Residential and allocates 12 dwelling units. The proposed CLUP land use designation is RM -C (Medium Density Residential C), which has a residential density range of 15.1 to 20 units per gross acre. The current residential density is 22.6 units per net acre and 15.8 units per gross acre, which is consistent with the proposed RM -C designation. Bayside /PCH. These commercial areas are located at the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection of Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. The Land Use Element designation is Recreation and Marine Commercial on the southwest corner and Retail and Service Commercial on the southeast corner. The maximum FAR• for -both -areas is 0.3. The- proposed -CLUP land use "tlesigriation on the southwest corner is CM -A (Recreational -- and Marine Commercial A) and CG -A (General Commercial A) on the southeast corner. Both the CM -A and CG -A designations have FAR ranges of 0.5 to 0.75. CLUP Policy 2.1.1 -1 would prevent any new development from exceeding the Land Use Element FAR limit. However, if the Planning Commission is concerned about the FAR, staff could develop a new CG and CM designation with a 0.3 FAR limit, which could be applied to these areas. Balboa Bay Club. The Land Use Element designation for the Balboa Bay Club is "for a mixture of Recreational and Marine Commercial and Multi Family Residential" and is "allowed a floor area ratio of 0.5 with residential development allowed in conjunction with commercial development up to a maximum total floor area ratio of 1.0 and 144 dwelling units." In recognition of these unique land use characteristics, the proposed CLUP designates the Balboa Bay Club as PSA -5 (Planning Study Area 5). The FAR and dwelling unit limits are the same as those in the Land Use Element. Lower Bayview Landing. This area is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bayside Drive. The Land Use Element designates this area Retail and Service Commercial and allocates 10,000 square feet for restaurant use or 40,000 square feet for athletic club use. The site can also be used for affordable senior citizen housing facilities. The proposed CLUP land use designation is CG -A (General Commercial A), which has a FAR range of .05 to 0.75. Gross acreage contains the entire area of the site, including interior streets, and the area to the centerline of abutting streets and one - quarter of abutting street intersections. '1113K L_l LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 4 The Bayview Senior Affordable Housing project approved for the site was originally designed with a 0.7 FAR. The revised project will have a FAR of approximately 0.6, which is consistent with the proposed CG -A designation. Section 2.1.1 Land Use Planning Study Area 2 (Cannery Village) Page 2 -5 Commissioner Tucker requested the last paragraph on this page be revised by deleting the words "specifically" and "all." The revised paragraph will read as follows: Cannery Village is highly subject to redevelopment pressures. The Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan syesifisally regulates all development in this area. In order to maintain the . :. -. particularly "marine''" atmosphere of the "area; careful consideration-- "should be given to -all Proposals fof "new development, - especially "in waterfront areas. Section 2.3 Visitor- serving and Recreational Development Page 2 -19 Ms. Carol Hoffman of Government Solutions, Inc. expressed concern that Policy 2.3.1 -2 would preclude replacing waterfront commercial uses with new uses and "consolidation uses." She proposed the following revisions: 2.3.1 -1. Preserve existing Encourage consolidation of waterfront parcels to stimulate new or revitalized waterfront- oriented commercial uses, including eating and drinking establishments and recreation and entertainment establishments, as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. 2.3.1 -2. Where consolidation of waterfront parcels is not feasible encourage the preservation and revitalization of existing waterfront- oriented commercial uses or the creation of new waterfront- oriented commercial uses including eating and drinking establishments and recreation and entertainment establishments as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. Section 2.3.1 addresses the provision of visitor - serving and recreational uses in the coastal zone. The Coastal Act requires the protection of land suitable for ,,2 34 LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 5 9 recreational use and development and that visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial development. Policy 2.3.1 -1 is an extension of an existing LCP Land Use Plan' that states that "the City shall encourage and protect both public and private water - oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a means of providing public access to the waterfront." The proposed revisions shift the emphasis from protecting water -front commercial areas to encouraging lot consolidation. This is not consistent with the preceeding narrative and does not address the requirements of the Coastal Act covered in this section. Staff recommends against incorporating this revision. Section 2.8.6 Coastal Erosion Page 2-48 Policy 2.8.6 -9 would require property owners in hazard areas to record a waiver of future shoreline protection as- -af condition of approval, of a.- coastal•- devel"opmenf. Commissioner Kiser expressed concern over this policy and requested that staff investigate other options. This policy was specifically requested by the Coastal Commission staff. It reflects the Coastal Commission position that that new development should not need a shoreline protective device for the duration of its economic life. The Coastal Commission bases this position on Section 30253(2) and Section 30235 of the Coastal Act. Section 30253(2) states new development may not "in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs." Section 30235 limits the use of shoreline protective devices to those "required to serve coastal- dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion." Staff recommends revising Policy 2.8.6 -9 to make it clear that the waiver of future shoreline protection would only apply to new structures and that existing structures could still be protected. This is consistent with Section 30235, which allows shoreline protective structures when they are needed to protect existing development. Staff also recommends including a statement that the waiver would only be for the duration of the economic life of the structure, which the Coastal Commission generally sets at 75 years. The revised policy will read as follows: 2.8.6 -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 CVO • LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 6 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. Section 2.8.7 Geological and Seismic Page 2 -51 Mr. Sean Burke requested that Section 2.87 include a policy requiring that any update of the fire codes or fuel modification standards include consideration of how those changes will impact erosion hazards in Buck Gully. Staff discussed Mr. Burke's request with the Fire Department. The Fire Marshall said that the Fire Department would not support such a policy, stating that it could interfere with the removal of volatile vegetation. Policy 2.8.7 -1 specially calls for conducting hydrological studies of Big Canyon, Buck Gully, and Morning Canyon to develop methods to control erosion and other -hazards. This and - .general erosion control policies provided elsewhere in the CLUP are adequate to address this issue. Section 3.1.5 Private /Gated Communities Page 3 -19 Policy 3.1.5 -1 and Policy 3.1.5 -2 prohibit developments with gates, guardhouses, barriers, or private streets if they have the potential to inhibit public coastal access. Commissioner Kiser requested revisions to these policies that would make them applicable only "when it has been determined by a court having jurisdiction that prescriptive rights exist ". Prescriptive rights refer to public rights that are acquired over private lands through use. Section 30211 of the Coastal Act states that "development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use, or legislative authorization." When reviewing coastal development permits, the Coastal Commission is required to protect those areas of use where investigation shows that public use is substantial enough to create potential prescriptive rights. The City will assume this responsibility when the LCP is certified and coastal development permit authority is delegated to the City. Therefore, it will be the City's responsibility to determine if prescriptive rights exist, not the courts. The City's determination could be appealed to the Coastal Commission, since it would more than likely involve a property located in the appealable area of the coastal zone. . Staff recommends against incorporating this revision. ,�-Vi LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 7 0 Section 3.1.6 Preferential Parking Districts Page 3 -20 Policy 3.1.6 -2 requires a coastal development permit to establish new, or modify existing, preferential parking districts. Commissioner Kiser requested that this policy be removed, suggesting that it undermined the City's authority to approve preferential parking districts even if they conform to the policies of that section. This policy was specifically recommended by the Coastal Commission staff. It is intended to insure that consistency with the LCP is required in order to establish a new, or modify an existing, preferential parking district. Section 4.1.4 Eelgrass Meadows Staff received comments regarding what appears to be an inaccurate statement in Section 4.1.4. This section states that eelgrass meadows are considered a critical foraging habitat for - California. least- tern. The City's biological, consultant looked into the -matter and replied that -while least terns do regularly forage ,irr eelgrass beds, eelgrass is not considered critical habitat for least terns. California least terns are opportunistic foragers, often feeding in the shallow waters of bays, which may or may not support eelgrass. California least terns • typically forage on small schooling fish that occur both in and out of eelgrass beds, and do not require the presence of eelgrass in order to successfully or adequately forage. The biological consultant concluded that it would be appropriate to remove the sentence in question from this section. Section 4.1.5 Coastal Foredunes Page 4 -39 Commissioner Eaton expressed concern over the use of the word "encourage" in Policy 4.1.5 -1, which deals with the removal of exotic vegetation on the dune habitat. He recommended that this policy be more strongly worded. Should the Planning Commission wish to strengthen this policy, the world "encourage" could be replaced with "require." All recommended revisions and corrections to typographical errors are provided in Exhibit 1. Environmental Review: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter . 3. ,2VZ LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 18, 2004 Page 8 Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot and mailed to over 200 community and business associations, advocacy groups, governmental agencies, and individuals, a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Copies of the draft Coastal Land Use Plan are available for review at the Planning Department office at City Hall and at all branches of the Newport Beach Public Library. Copies are also available at the Planning Department office for a two -week loan or purchase. The entire draft Coastal Land Use Plan is also available in PDF format at the City of Newport Beach Internet site at http://www.citv.newport- beach. ca. us /Pln /LCP /LCP. htm. Prepared -by: - • Patrick J. Alford Senior Planner Exhibits: Submitted by: - _..__.... _.. Patricia L. Temple Planning Director 1. Coastal Land Use Plan Revisions and Errata. 2. Draft resolution. 3. Correspondence. '2 Y3 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COASTAL LAND USE PLAN REVISIONS AND ERRATA MARCH 18, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Section 2.1.1: Revise the sixth paragraph under Planning Study Area 2 (Cannery Village) to read as follows: Cannery Village is highly subject to redevelopment pressures. The Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan regulates development in this area. In order to maintain the particularly "marine" atmosphere of the area, careful consideration should be given to..all,proposals for new developn.&�nt,.especially in waterfront areas.-. Section 2.2.4: Delete repeated first paragraph of this section. Section 2.8.6: Revise Policy 2.8.6 -9 to read as follows: 2.8.6 -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. Section 3.1.1: Delete repeated second paragraph on Page 3 -6. Exhibit 1 1 0 • u Section 3.1.2: The third sentence of the fourth paragraph on Page 3 -12 should read "Newporter North View Park," not "Newport North View Park." Section 4.1.2: Revise the last two paragraphs on Page 4 -6 to read as follows: Eelgrass (Zostera manna) is a marine plant that grows in Newport Harbor at depths below the low tide line and into the navigational channels. This true marine grass forms meadows and attracts many invertebrates and fishes that use the vegetation as foraging and nursery habitat. Eelgrass is discussed in more detail in Section 4.1.4 (Eelgrass Meadows) and Section 4.2.5 (Eelgrass Protection and Restoration). The Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area is located along the Corona del Mar shoreline and extends 200 feet offshore. Numerous types of invertebrates, algae, seagrass, fishes, and seabirds occur within the limits of the refuge, and marine mammals occasionally pass through. The Newport Beach Marine-' Conservation Area is discussed further in Section 4.1.3 (Environmental Study Area 11). Section 41.2: Revise the Invasive Marine Species section to read as follows: Invasive Marine Species Caulerpa taxifolia is an extremely harmful, invasive species that has recently been introduced into southern California waters. It has been located within Huntington Harbour and in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in northern San Diego County. This species has a characteristic bright green color, flat, leafy fern -like fronds (branches), and below - ground root system. Caulerpa algae can be extremely harmful to marine ecosystems because it invades and out - competes native habitats by forming a dense blanket of growth on mud, sand, or rock surfaces. It can grow in shallow coastal lagoons as well as in deeper ocean waters, and can grow rapidly and up to 9 feet in length. However, its usual form observed so far is much smaller in length. The ecological consequences of the spread of this invasive algae can be extremely serious and can result in a significant loss of plant and animal productivity. Therefore, the spread of this species is being closely monitored and areas that have become infested are being treated chemically to eradicate any growth. The management, control, and eradication of this species is the responsibility of the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT). Exhibit 1 ,y 2 / Newport Bay is not currently known to be infested by this species, however, continued surveillance for undetected or new infestations is a high priority to the SCCAT. Project site surveys for the presence of Cau /erpa taxifolia are required by NOAA and CDFG prior to bottom - disturbing projects such as dredging, dock replacement, bulkhead repair . Assembly Bill 1334 (Chapter 338, Statutes of 2001) prohibits the sale, possession, and transport of Cau /erpa taxifolia throughout California. The Bill also bans species of Cau /erpa that look similar to C. taxifolia and are believed to have the capability, to become invasive. The importation of the Mediterranean strain of Cau /erpa taxifolia into the United States and interstate trade, including via the Internet, is also a federal offense under the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1999 and the Plant Protection Act of 2000. Section 4.1.2: Revise Policy 4.1.2 -6 to read as follows: 4.1.2 -6 Continue.to require Cau /erpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval of projects in the Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. Section 4.1.3: The policy numbering sequence should be set at 4.1.3, not 4.1.2. Section 4.1.3: Revise Policy 4.1.3 -1 (Q) to read as follows: 4.1.3 -1 (Q) Continue to require Cau /erpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. Section 4.1.4: Revise first paragraph to read as follows: The flowering, marine vascular plant "eelgrass" (Zostera manna) is an important marine resource due to its nursery function for invertebrates and fishes. Eelgrass forms meadows on mudflats and subtidal sediments in bays, estuaries, and occasionally, in offshore marine sand bottom habitats. The meadows (and sub units called "beds" and "patches ") provide a habitat for invertebrates as a source of food and attachment, and for marine fishes that seek the shelter of the beds for protection and forage on invertebrates that colonize the eelgrass blades and sediments in and around eelgrass vegetation. • � y6 Exhibit 1 3 Section 4.1.4: The policy numbering sequence should be set at 4.1.4, not 4.1.3. Section 4.1.4: Revise Policy.4.1.4 -6 to read as follows: 4.1.4 -5 Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. Section 4.1.5: Revise Policy 4.1.5 -1 to read as follows: 4.1.5 -1. Require the removal of exotic vegetation and the restoration of native vegetation in dune habitat. Section 4.2.1: Revise Policy 4.2.1 -1 to read as follows: 4.2.1 -1. Recognize and protect wetlands for their commercial, recreational, water quality, and habitat value. Exhibit 1 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2004 -001 (PA2003 -093) FOR A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The California Coastal Act of 1976 established policies relating to shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works. Section 2. In order to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, the Coastal Act relies heavily on local government and local land use planning procedures and enforcement through the preparation of local coastal programs. Section 3. The Land Use Plan portion of City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program was adopted in 1981 and certified by the Coastal Commission in 1982. However, the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Program was never completed. Section 4. Senate Bill 516 amended the Coastal Act to require the City of Newport Beach to submit a local coastal program for all of the geographic area within the coastal zone and the city's corporate boundaries as of June 30, 2000 to the Coastal Commission for approval and certification. Section 5. A comprehensive update of the Land Use Plan is necessary before the Implementation Plan can be completed and the Local Coastal Program certified. Section 6. Public hearings on the proposed updated Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan were held on March 4, 2004 and March 18, 2004, in the City Hall Council Chamber, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. 0 ,�-yr City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 2 Section T. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses and applicable resource protection and development policies. 2. The proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. 3. The proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act. 4. The Local Coastal Plan Amendment will not become effective until approval of the amendment by the Coastal Commission. 5. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter 3. Section 8. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan by approving Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2004 -001 (PA -2003- 093) with the revisions contained in attached Exhibit 1. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2004. W4 0 Earl McDaniel, Chairman Michael Toerge, Secretary AYES: NOES: Page 1 of 1 Alford, Patrick From: Bluhms2 @cs.com Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 12:34 PM To: palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: everette,phillips @yahoo.com; michols @coastwalk.org; gdpace @cox,net Subject: Newport Beach LCP Mr. Alford, Congratulations to you and your staff for assembling an excellent LCP. Coastwalk is particularly pleased to see policy 3.1.1 -9 that specifically mentions the California Coastal Trail. In compliance with the Coastal Conservancy report, Completing the California Coastal Trail mandated by SB 908, it is important that the CCT be continuous, and be as close to the shoreline as possible. Coastwalk makes the following recommendations: 1. That the Coastal Trail route be shown along the beach from the Santa Ana River, connecting to the existing Ocean Front trail at 36th Street. 2. That diligent efforts be made to establish a Coastal Trail route in the southeast portion of Newport Beach that avoids exposure of pedestrians to high speed vehicular traffic along Highway 1, and connects to trails in Crystal Cove State Park. - 3. Provide connections from the Coastal Trail to inland trails within the city, and to trails in adjacent jurisdictions. Thank you for your consideration. Stan Bluhm Coastwalk, CCT Project Coordinator 310- 379 -1153 www.coastwalk.org 0 2 S� X' 03/12/2004 . ATTACHMENT E 03/18/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �5f SUBJECT: Local Coastal Plan (PA2003 -098) I ITEM NO. 3 City of Newport Beach PA2003 -098 Senior Planner, Patrick Alford noted the following: Continued to 04/22/2004 Issues and proposed changes are contained in the staff report.. A number of items of correspondence have been received since the staff report was published. They are listed in the order they were received and are in a matrix which summarizes the issues involved and refers you to the appropriate section of the draft document. Public comment was opened. John Lindgren, spoke as the president of the Cameo Homeowners' Association noting the following: Policy 3.1.5 -2 - regarding future gating of communities. The association does not currently have gates, but would like to keep that option open. He presented staff with some suggested verbiage to be incorporated. At Commission inquiry, he noted that their is no public access to the Cameo Shores today. There is a city sign that indicates no public access, but there is public beach access from Pelican Point or from Little Corona along the beach. David Moore, a local citizen, read his email that he had sent to staff and Commissioners referencing: Policy 4.1.4 to 4.1.5 regarding eel grass, dredging, legality of Coastal Act, vessel berthing and mooring areas. He recommended that the Section(s) on eel grass be completely removed as eel grass is not on the endangered and threatened species list nor is it on the list of habitats for endangered and threatened species. Seymour Beek, local resident read from his page of comments that he distributed, noting: Policy of 4. 1.1 regarding eel grass, recommended the verbiage be changed. Policy 3.0 Public Access and Recreation - 'walkways along all appropriate commercial areas of the harbor including Lido Marina Village Boardwalk, Rhine Channel Walkway, Lido Village to Mariners Mile and Mariners Mile Walkway.' By ,�5Z • 0 0 • 0 making these policies, we are getting way ahead as these walkways have not been studied much and we are far from conclusion that they are needed. He suggested this wording be stricken from this document. Policy 3.1.4 -4 regarding residential piers is too restrictive because flagpoles, swim ladders, benches, planters, fishing rod holders are common and limiting appurtenances and storage areas to those related to vessel launching and berthing would eliminate those items. Policy 2.6- 4, -5 -6 regarding Federal Government offshore drilling leases. Is this something that needs to be dealt with in the LCP? John Corrough, local resident noted the following: Supports staff recommendations on Section 2.3 Visitor - serving and Recreational Development. Supports staff recommendations on Section 4.1.4 to change language as the biological consultant concluded that it would be appropriate to remove the sentence in question regarding the least terns. Recommends that the Local Coastal Plan be recommended for approval and forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Eaton noted a communication from Mr. Paone regarding a change to Policy 2.3.1 -2 regarding providing waterfront - oriented commercial uses, including eating and drinking uses and recreation and entertainment uses, as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. Does staff support this and do you suppor this? Mr. Alford answered yes, staff feels the language changes contained in that communication are supportable. Mr. Corrough answered that he supports the verbiage change. Tom Billings, local resident, read from a list of issues that he distributed to staff and the Commission, noting: • Coastal Bluffs/beach development. • Set back requirements; definition of 'altered'vs. 'unaltered land' as it pertains to coastal bluffs. • ESHA - definitions as it pertains to Coastal Act and this document. • Public access issues - Balboa Bay Club not currently enforced. • California Coastal Trail - complete lateral trail from 36th to Santa Ana River. • The current General Plan has 11 categories - the new proposed LCP has 27 categories. • Would like to see more alignment with the General Plan designations and densities with the LCP. • He then concluded by questioning the amount of time given for public review of the document and the level of public participation in its development. Commissioner Toerge, speaking as a representative of the sub- committee on the LCP along with 3 Councilmembers and 2 additional Commissioners, commented on the public outreach that had been done to date: 17 public meetings between.February 2002 and January 2004. City Council had an update July 2002, Harbor Commission had an update, Speak Up Newport presentation, Public review of the draft LCP land use plan in March 2003, GPAC and EQAC presentations, EDC presentation, Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce presentation, Harbor Commission update, etc., Several more presentations, too numerous to list. Continuing, he noted that there has been and will continue to be a strong effort made to make this a document to represent the will of the people of Newport Beach. Chairperson McDaniel noted that this is the second Planning Commission meeting on this issue and that it had been heard and continued from the meeting of March 4, 2004. Dan Daniels, spoke on behalf of the Mariners Mile Business Association noting: • Support the revised language in Policy 2.3.1 -2. • Requested the need to include references to the desirability of mixed uses along the waterfront. • Mixed uses provide traffic benefits and allow revitalization in a way that single uses simply can't do. • The LCP both protects the waterfront and stimulates revitalization, such language is badly needed. �sq L 0 P 0 1 He volunteered to help staff come up with some language. Doug Dryer, local citizen and business owner noted the following: Lido Marina Village is in need of help. He is concerned about articles published in the papers and the sale of businesses in that area. Policy 2.3.1 -2 referring to a change from retail services to visitor serving commercial in this area will only benefit the visitors and not citizens of the City. Kathryn Moore, resident of Linda Isle noted the following: • She purchased a 38 foot boat in July, which is currently sitting on the bottom of the harbor. • She is unable to have her mooring area dredged as the next door neighbor is currently doing because a few blades of eel grass have been found in her area. • Referring to the California Coastal Act of 1976 reference to dredging of wetlands, estuaries shall be permitted to maintaining existing or restoring previously dredged channels, vessel berthing and mooring areas. I believe that means in front of my home. • Right now, because of this LCP, she is not allowed to dredge. • She suggests that Section 4.1.4 be stricken from the LCP and if that can't happen, suggests that the existing language from the Coastal Act be placed into this plan. Dr. Linda Orozco, local resident, noted the following: • The California Coastal Commission focuses on maximum public access. • Referring to a map she distributed, she noted that there are 6 rehab houses operating with a State license in Newport Beach. All of them are either on the waterfront, or within one block from the ocean. • The one at 1810 W. Oceanfront is a 35 foot lot that has 57 people operate out of that one residential property that has access off from an alley only. • She noted that those 57 people need to park and there is only 3 parking spaces provided. Any public access in the immediate area is used up by the rest of the people from this one residential property. • The LCP needs to address the land use designation for each property. • The Zone Code needs to be enforced. • She then noted that she is concerned with Policy 3.1.1 -2 regarding protection and enhancement of street ends for public access. At Commission inquiry, the speaker noted she will send an email to staff with specific language for her proposed changes. Paul Watkins, local citizen, noted the following: • There are a number of good reasons not to extend the boardwalk beyond 36th Street to the river. • The public has indicated a preference for an active area on the boardwalk and a more quiet, peaceful family oriented beach experience not involving distractions with a more intense boardwalk use. • He asked that you not include any language that would extend the boardwalk. • The pathway along Seashore provides a safe way for pedestrians and precludes the need to concrete over the sandy shore. Jessica Johnston, a local citizen noted: • Supports redevelopment and would like to see an increase in density through the use of mid and high rise condominium projects especially in Cannery Village. • The LCP language regarding the bluff along Bayside Drive that is within the currently exempt neighborhood of Irvine Terrace, seems to be conflicting. • Section 2.2.3 recommends Irvine Terrace be maintained 'categorically exempt' as it is a built out neighborhood. • Section 4.4.3 states that even in areas where there has been alterations to the bluff, new development must be set back with no bluff face alteration allowed. • What is the intent of the LCP? Jan Vandersloot, local resident noted the following. • Policy 4.1.3 - Environmental Studies Area, add #14 Cliff Drive Park west side, #15 Bayview Landing, #16 Jamboree and MacArthur intersection, #17 Bonita Creek because all of these contain wetlands. • Policy 4 -28 - Study Area 12 Castaways, 'non- native grasslands in the center of the site', is no longer true as it is being currently restored. ,�S6 9 • 0 0 Policy 4.1.1 -5 - '...limit the uses within ESHA uses that are dependent on such resource except where limitation result in taking of private property.' Who determines that? That language is not consistent with the Coastal Act and should be consistent. Page 4-4, '...or as isolated in a manner that precludes its use by most wild life species...', the habitat area does not meet the statutory definition of ESHA as contained in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, therefore such habitat area does not warrant the special land use and development restriction of Section 302.40 of the Coastal Act, and should be stricken. Page 4-42, Wetlands definition - strike out 4.2.2 -2 because you need to stick to the California Code of Regulation without exception. Page 4 -52, -53, Dredge Spoils Disposal, Page 4.2.4 -ILA 3, should not be codified in the LCP because an EIR/EIS is currently being prepared and LA3 is in the Newport submarine canyon where the sewer discharge from the Orange County Ocean outfall occurs and that dredge material may be brought back to the beach. Page 4 -36 - Eel Grass - the only word to remove is 'critical,' it still is habitat for foraging of the 'least tern'. Page 4 -55, 4.2.5 -2 -'Eel grass mitigation into adjacent areas that did not previously contain eel grass, further mitigation for dredging shall not be required.' I think it should be required. We must continue to have that section in our LCP and totally disagree with the previous speakers regarding eliminating complete reference to eel grass. Chairperson McDaniel asked that the speakers submit their written comments to staff in order for the comments to be addressed in a later staff report. Louise Greeley, West Newport Beach resident, noted the following: • Unfortunate that the LCP is coming before the Visioning Process is completed. • The residents of Newport Beach are very interested in maintaining the residential character of the City. • The requirement for coastal bluff setback should be at least a 200 foot setback. • It is important that our Coastal Plan be in synch with the General Plan. • The Balboa Bay Club has shut out the views of the bay. • The Technology Center on Superior is also massive and 125 not being rented. She is concerned about other uses being put to the lease of those offices that could engender more traffic. She thanked the Commission for their care on this matter. Public comment was closed. Chairperson McDaniel noting the testimony presented tonight, suggested that this item be continued. Commissioner Eaton noted his agreement and asked staff to narrow down the issues that have been brought as well as the several issues brought up by the members of EQAC. Commissioner Tucker noted his agreement to continue this item. The public is just now getting involved at the Commission level. The City can not be criticized for the outreach effort, the reality is people did not focus on this until now. We should continue this item and let staff respond. The public needs to go through and write their comments with specifics for response. Following a brief discussion, it was determined that the public needs to get their comments to staff by April 2nd with specificity and asked for this deadline in order to give staff time for responses through use of the actual draft LCP. Motion was made by Chairperson McDaniel to continue this item to April 22, 2004 and the public has until April 2nd to get their written comments to staff in order to be responded to in the staff report. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Noes: Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None None ,)5T 0 11 0 [--.Ij 0 ATTACHMENT F 03/04/04 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 195-y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 5 March 4, 2004 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3235 Palford a(a) city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Update of Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan — LCP Amendment No. 2004 -001 (PA 2003 -093) ISSUE: Should the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed comprehensive update of the LCP Land Use Plan? RECOMMENDATION: 9 Conduct the public hearing; provide direction to staff on potential revisions to the Coastal Land Use Plan; continue hearing to March 18, 2004. DISCUSSION: This report provides a synopsis of the draft Coastal Land Use Plan. It provides an overview of its organization and summarizes the major provisions. Key issues are identified. Key issues represent either a new policy, a potential change in existing policy, or unresolved issues with the Coastal Commission staff. The unresolved issues typically involve a point of disagreement regarding the interpretation of the Coastal Act as it relates to the City. In such cases, the LCP Certification Committee chose to continue to advocate the City's position in the Coastal Land Use Plan. Introduction: The Coastal Act The Coastal Act and the California Coastal Commission were established by voter initiative (Proposition 20) in 1972 and made permanent by the Legislature in 1976. ,26D LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 4, 2004 Page 2 The Coastal Act includes speck policies that address issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works. The Coastal Act requires local governments lying within the coastal zone to prepare Local Coastal Programs (LCP) that are consistent with the Coastal Act. In the absence of a certified LCP, any development within the coastal zone is subject to Coastal Commission approval. After certification of a LCP, coastal development permit authority is delegated to the local government. The Coastal Commission retains original permit jurisdiction over certain specified lands, such as submerged lands, tidelands, and public trust lands, and has appellate authority over development approved by local government in specified geographic areas. A LCP consists of a land use plan and an implementation plan. The land use plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the •applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. The implementation plan consists of the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments necessary to . implement the land use plan. The current LCP Land Use Plan was first adopted by the City in 1981 and certified by the Coastal Commission in 1982. The LCP Land Use Plan was revised and re- certified in 1990. However, the implementation plan was never completed. SB 516 SB 516 amended the Coastal Act to authorize the County of Orange to continue to implement the certified LCP for Newport Coast following the area's annexation by the City. SB 516 also requires the City to submit a LCP for all of the geographic area within the coastal zone and the city's corporate boundaries as of June 30, 2000 to the Coastal Commission for approval and certification. On October 6, 2001, Coastal Commission staff concluded that a comprehensive update of the land use plan was necessary. The Coastal Commission staff gave the City the option of either submitting an undated land use plan as a separate application or submitting it concurrently with the LCP implementation plan. On January 8, 2002, the City Council appointed the LCP Certification Committee ( LCPCC) consisting of three City Council members and three Planning Commission members to provide direction and oversight to staff during this process. The LCPCC directed staff to proceed. with the update of the land use • plan. After the updated Land Use Plan is adopted by the City, it will be submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification. After certification of the Land Use LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 4, 2004 Page 3 Plan, the implementation plan will be prepared and reviewed and adopted locally before submission to the Coastal Commission for final certification. The Coastal Land We Plan: The updated LCP Land Use Plan is titled the "Coastal Land Use Plan" (CLUP) The CLUP is divided into five chapters: Introduction, Land Use and Development, Coastal Access and Recreation, Coastal Resource Protection, and the Glossary. Each chapter is divided into sections and subsections. Each section or subsection begins with the identification of the Coastal Act sections that are relevant to Newport Beach, followed by a narrative of the local setting and policy direction adopted by the City to address the requirements of the Coastal Act and a listing of specific policies. Chapter 1 - Introduction Chapter 1 is the introduction, which contains an-explariation on the organization of the CLUP, and background information on the Coastal Act and the City. * KEY ISSUE: Precedence of the LCP Section 1.3 (General Policies) contains a set of general policies that are to be • applied to achieve the goals and objectives of the Coastal Act through the policies of this CLUP. Coastal Commission staff recommended that policies be Included that would provide the framework for interpreting the CLUP. This recommendation included a policy stating that where there are conflicts between the policies of the land.use plan and those set forth in any element of the City's general plan, zoning, or any other ordinance, the policies of the land use plan shall take precedence. This is a standard policy, which the Coastal Commission appears to require in LCPs. However, the inclusion of this policy led to concerns by some in the community that the CLUP would be used to circumvent the development limits of the General Plan. The City cannot approve a coastal development permit that is inconsistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the CLUP could not be used to approve a development that exceeds the density or intensity limits set forth in the Land Use Element. Nevertheless, to further address these concerns, staff revised the Coastal Commission's recommended language to include the statement: "...in no case, shall the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances." This similar language is also provided in Section 2.1 (Land Use). • abz E LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 4, 2004 Page 4 Chapter 2 — Land Use and Development Chapter 2 covers issues related to land use and development. Section 2.1 (Land Use) sets forth land use classifications and the distribution of land uses in the coastal zone: The Coastal Land Use Plan Map provides a graphic representation of policies by depicting the land use designation for each property in the coastal zone. The CLUP does not alter the basic land use designation of any property in the coastal zone. Commercial properties will remain commercial, residential properties remain residential, and so forth. However, the land use designations are less broad and establish more land use controls than those in the current LCP Land Use Plan. This approach was necessary either to incorporate an existing land use control or to meet a Coastal Act requirement. For example, the Commercial Residential (CR) designation is provided because current land use policy allows residential uses above the first floor in certain commercial areas. Anoflier ezample'is the Tidelands- and Submerged Lands (TS) designation,-which is applied to Newport Bay and the waters immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach. These tidelands and submerged lands currently have no official land use designation even though the use, management and protection of these areas need to be addressed under the provisions of the Coastal Act. The land use classification system includes six "planning study areas." Planning study areas are areas with unique land use and development characteristics that cannot be properly addressed through standard land use classifications. * KEY ISSUE: Translating Land Use Designations The Coastal Act requires that a LCP land use plan include the relevant portion of the local government's general plan, which is sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses. The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth specific development limits, typically in terms of dwelling units, floor area, or a floor area ratio. Rather than duplicate the Land Use Element's lengthy narratives and allocation tables, staff summarized the information in the form of a standard land use classification hierarchy. Density ranges are identified in terms of the number of dwelling units per gross acre and development intensity ranges are identified in terms of a floor area to land area ratio. While this land use classification system is commonly used in general plans and LCPs, it has not been used by the City. As stated above, after certification of the LCP, coastal development permit authority will be delegated to City. Section 2.2 (General Development Policies) is zone. policies relating to the review of new development in the coastal zone. These include policies relating to coastal development permit review ,�b3 LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 4, 2004 Page 5 procedures, provisions for the continuation and expansion of the existing categorical exclusion, establishing Banning Ranch as a deferred certification area, and the regulation of nonconforming structures and uses. There is also a section addressing Coastal Act provisions requiring that new development be located in areas in close proximity to existing development with available public services to minimize the impacts to coastal resources. * KEY ISSUE: Categorical Exclusions Since 1977, a categorical exclusion order has exempted most single - family and two- family development from the coastal development permit provisions of the Coastal Act. Pursuant to the Coastal Act, this categorical exclusion order will automatically terminate after the LCP is certified. The Coastal Commission staff has indicated that they will support a new categorical exclusion order application filed concurrently with the certification of the LCP. The CLUP includes policies supporting expanding the categorical exclusion to - include multi- family residential projects. and the commercial- area located on the south side of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. w KEY ISSUE: Nonconforming Structures The CLUP outlines the current regulations on the alteration of legally established non - conforming structures and uses. The City provides procedures that allow extensive alteration of nonconforming structures. Coastal Commission staff recommended that these policies should state that demolition of 50 percent or more of existing exterior walls constitutes demolition and as such, new development at the site must meet updated development standards. The Coastal Commission could certify the LCP with the condition that the City revise the regulations on nonconforming structures to meet their staffs recommendation. Section 2.3 (Visitor- serving and Recreational Development) addresses Coastal Act policies encouraging and protecting visitor - serving and recreational land uses. The Coastal Act requires that such uses have priority over other uses and places an emphasis on lower cost and public uses. The CLUP addresses these topics by providing an overview of the wide range of visitor - serving and recreational uses and facilities that are available in the City's coastal commercial areas and in parks, beaches, and other open space areas. CLUP policies provide for the protection of these uses and facilities and expanding them, where feasible. • -2Lq 0 LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 4, 2004 Page 6 * KEY ISSUE: Visitor - serving Commercial The Coastal Commission staff believes that the CLUP has an "overemphasis" on use of a general commercial designation in lieu of a visitor - serving commercial designation in areas such as the Balboa Pier area, Balboa Island, and the Newport Pier area. Staff addressed this issue in the CLUP by providing data from a 2002 retail commercial market analysis, which verifies that the City's main coastal zone commercial areas largely serve the visitor market. It is not certain how the Coastal Commission will respond to this argument. The Coastal Commission could certify the LCP with the condition that the City apply a visitor - serving commercial designation and a corresponding zoning district to properties in these areas. Section 2.4 (Coastal- dependent/related Development) addresses Coastal Act policies that require that coastal- dependent developments have priority over other 'developments on. - or near • the shoreline and that coastal - related - -- - -- developments should be accommodated within reasonable proximity to the coastal- dependent uses they support. The CLUP addresses this provision primarily through the application of the Recreational and Marine Commercial . (CM) designation. The CM designation is applied to areas that have historically provided marine - related businesses and industries and visitor - serving and recreational areas. The CLUP also recognizes coastal- dependent/related institutional uses, such as the Orange Coast College David A. Grant Collegiate Rowing Center, the Sea Scout Base, and the Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory. Section 2.5 covers issues relating to Tidelands and Submerged Lands. Tidelands and submerged lands are State lands held in trust by the City of Newport Beach, the County of Orange or State resource agencies. These lands are subject to the public trust doctrine and are limited to public trust uses, such as navigation, fisheries, commerce, public access, water - oriented recreation, open space and environmental protection. This section also covers legislation that modified some of the public trust restrictions on the Beacon Bay, Balboa Bay Club, and Harbor Island properties. Section 2.6 covers industrial development in the coastal zone. While none of the City's industrial areas are located within the coastal zone, portions of Cannery Village are allowed a mixture of general commercial and light industrial uses to ' On the draft Coastal Land Use Map, the Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV) designation is applied to properties currently developed with hotels; specifically, the Hyatt Newporter, the Newport • Beach Marriott, and the Newport Beach Marriott Suites. The CV designation is also applied to the 5900 -6300 block of West Coast Highway, which includes the Newport Channel Inn, the Best Western Newport Beach, and the Pine Knot Inn. abs LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 4, 2004 Page 7 • encourage marine - related business. Section 2.6 also addresses oil and gas development in the coastal zone, including offshore. * KEY ISSUE: Oil and Gas Development The City's opposition to federal offshore oil leasing programs and the City Charter . ban on oil and gas exploration, drilling, production, and refining is reflected in the narrative and policies of Section 2.6. Policy 2.6 -3 prohibits the construction of onshore oil processing, refining or transportation facilities, including facilities designed to transport oil produced from offshore tracts, with the exception of slant drilling from onshore oil fields. The Coastal Commission staff stated that such a prohibition cannot be included because these activities are allowed by the Coastal Act. They suggested that the CLUP may include a statement that the City has concerns about the potential adverse impacts on the marine environment, coastal views, etc. and can therefore limit the areas where offshore oil production can be allowed; however, no outright prohibition can be included. Section 2.7 addresses residential development issues, focusing mainly on overcrowding and public nuisance issues associated with short-term rentals and illegal units. The continued administration of short-term lodging permits and Report of Residential Building Records inspections are identified as the primary methods of reducing and preventing these problems. Section 2.8 (Hazards and Protective Devices) covers provisions in the Coastal Act that require that new development minimize risks to life and property. This section provides an assessment of the potential hazards, including earthquakes, storm surges, beach and bluff erosion, landslides and slope failure, and wildland fires and establishes polices to avoid or minimize potential impacts to life and property. * KEY ISSUE: Protective Devices The Coastal Commission places an emphasis on locating and designing new development to avoid hazardous areas rather than relying on protective devices. This is based on Coastal Act provisions for avoiding impacts to natural shoreline processes and to coastal resources. The policies of the CLUP reflect this emphasis. This represents a shift in the polices of the current LCP Land Use Plan, which are primarily limited to requiring analysis for projects located in geologic or flood hazard areas. New development on or adjacent to a shoreline, coastal bluff, or wildland areas will be most affected by the CLUP policies on hazards and protective devices. .W • 0 LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 4, 2004 Page 8 Chapter 3 — Public Access and Recreation Chapter 3 addresses issues relating to public access, the provision of recreation and support facilities, and vessel launching, berthing and storage. Section 3.1 (Shoreline and Bluff Top Access) presents an overview of the City's extensive system of public access. The narrative on shoreline describes lateral access (along the shoreline) and vertical access (to the shoreline) opportunities to Pacific Ocean beaches, the Lower Bay and Harbor, the Upper Newport Bay, and the Semeniuk Slough. Bluff top access describes access opportunities on the bluffs in West Newport, Newport Heights, Cliff Haven, Corona del Mar, and the Upper Newport Bay. Policies provide for protection, expansion, and enhancement of public access opportunities, while protecting coastal resources and private property rights. Section 3.1 also addresses types of development and activities that have the potential to impede public access. * These are beach and harbor encroachments,...__ gated communities, preferential parking districts, and temporary events. Polices are provided that will allow existing development to continue, but will place restrictions on new development and activities to insure that public access is protected, expanded, and enhanced. ■/ KEY ISSUE: Preferential Parking Districts The City has only one preferential parking district in the coastal zone. It was established for Newport Island in 1981 due to impacts associated with vehicle parking on streets and alleys by nonresidents for extended periods of time. The CLUP allows the establishment of new preferential parking districts where such restrictions would not have a direct impact to coastal access or where no other practical or feasible alternative exists to protect the public health, safety or general welfare. The Coastal Commission staff recommended that the CLUP include a policy prohibiting the establishment of preferential parking districts. Therefore, this presents another potential point of disagreement. Section 3.2 (Recreation and Support Facilities) addresses Coastal Act requirements for the provision of recreational uses and facilities and support facilities. This section provides an overview of the recreational opportunities available at public beaches and parks and commercial areas. Support facilities, such as parking, playgrounds, restrooms and showers, and support services, such as lifeguard services and instruction and education programs, are also identified. Section 3.2 also covers public access facilities for persons with disabilities. � 6� LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 4, 2004 Page 9 9 Section 3.3 (Vessel Launching, Berthing, and Storage) covers Coastal Act provisions supporting recreational boating and commercial fishing. The provision of harbor support facilities, such as those for repair, maintenance, fueling, and waste removal, is also addressed. Chapter 4 — Coastal Resource Protection Chapter 4 addresses issues relating to the protection of coastal resources. The Coastal Act refers to coastal resources as being the natural, scenic, cultural, recreational, and manmade. Section 4.1 covers the protection of biological resources. This section establishes criteria for the designation of environmentally sensitive habitat areas, which are afforded special protections under the Coastal Act. This section also identifies significant marine resources, in the City and surrounding ocean waters. This section also identifies thirteen environmental study areas, provides an assessment of biological resources found in each, -identifies potential threats to these resources, and provides potential mitigation policies. Finally, this section provides an analysis of eelgrass and coastal foredune habitats and establishes policies for their protection. * KEY ISSUE: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas The Coastal Act requires that environmentally sensitive habitat areas or ESHAs be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values. The Coastal Act only allows resource - dependent uses within ESHAs and places additional restrictions on adjacent development. Therefore, the designation of an area as an ESHA must be given careful consideration. The CLUP establishes criteria for the designation of ESHAs that includes the evaluation of the habitat's integrity /connectivity, patch size, connectivity, and the presence of invasive /non - native species, the level of disturbance, the proximity to development, and the level of fragmentation. It is not known how the Coastal Commission will respond to this approach. * KEY ISSUE: Eelgrass Eelgrass is a marine plant that is currently abundant and expanding in several sections of Newport Harbor. While not an endangered species, eelgrass is considered an important marine resource due to its nursery function for invertebrates and fishes. Dredging and harbor construction projects have the potential to impact eelgrass and the loss of eelgrass is considered to be a significant environmental impact. Mitigation requires an expensive and time - consuming procedure that requires the eelgrass to be replanted, monitored, and maintained per the Southem California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. The 0 LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 4, 2004 Page 10 CLUP advocates working with federal and state agencies to establish a baseline minimum acreage necessary for eelgrass meadows to fulfill their ecological function. Once the baseline is determined, projects may be granted exemptions to the Southem California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy mitigation . requirements, provided the eelgrass acreage baseline is maintained. The Coastal Commission staff recommends that the CLUP include policies to encourage avoiding impacts to eelgrass and restoring habitat throughout the Newport Harbor. However, it is not known how the Coastal Commission staff will respond to this approach. Section 4.1 (Wetlands and Deepwater Areas) addresses issues relating to wetlands and the dredging, diking and filling of wetlands. This section established criteria to distinguish wetlands from other types of water areas and to delineate the boundaries of wetland areas. Finally, this section addresses dredging projects in the Upper and Lower Newport Bay, including issues relating to the disposal of dredge spoils and the protection of eelgrass meadows. ♦ KEY ISSUE: Wetland Definition and Delineation The Coastal Act requires protection of the biological productivity and quality of wetlands. Furthermore, diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, or estuaries may only be permitted where there is no less environmentally damaging alternative and must be restricted to a narrow range of allowable uses. Therefore, determining the boundary line between a wetland and adjacent upland area is very important. The Coastal Commission determines the boundary of a wetland by the presence of one of three parameters: hydrology, hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation. The CLUP includes a policy stating that when ambiguities in wetland characteristics exist, the presence or absence of more than one wetland parameter may be considered along with other factors to determine whether an area meets the definition of a wetland and to delineate wetland boundaries. Section 4.3 covers issues relating to water quality. The CLUP provides an overview of City programs and policy relating to the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for Newport Bay; the municipal separate storm sewer system under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); and efforts to reduce sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Section 4.4 (Scenic and Visual Resources) addresses issues relating to the protection of coastal views and landforms. This section identifies view points and views from roadway segments and establishes polices to protect and enhance the scenic and visual qualities of these areas. gO LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 4, 2004 Page 11 Coastal bluffs are also identified as significant visual and environmental resources and polices are established for their protection against excessive alteration. These policies distinguish areas where the coastal bluff is essentially unaltered and those in developed areas where the coastal bluff has been altered. In areas with unaltered coastal bluffs, development on the bluff face should be prohibited, with exceptions for certain public improvements, and development of the bluff top should be controlled. In areas where the coastal. bluff has been altered, development on the bluff face and bluff top should be controlled to minimize further alteration. * KEY ISSUE: Coastal Bluff Protection The Coastal Commission staff has advocated additional restrictions on the development of coastal bluffs, including establishing a minimum bluff top setback and only allowing development on the bluff face when no buildable area is available on the bluff -top. Although the coastal bluff-. - protection policies in the CLUP are more detailed and restrictive than those in the current LCP Land Use Plan, the Coastal Commission may require additional regulations on the development of coastal bluffs. Section 4.5 addresses issues relating to the protection of paleontological and cultural resources: New development would be required to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources. Historical resources are also identified and incentives are provided to encourage their preservation. Chapter 5 - Glossary Chapter 5 contains the glossary. The glossary was developed primarily from information provided by the Coastal Commission and the technical studies that were used in draft the CLUP. Recommendations of the Biological Consultant: The City recently retained Merkel & Associates to serve as the biological consultant during the LCP certification process. The biological consultant reviewed the draft CLUP and is recommending a few minor revisions that relate to invasive marine species, Caulerpa taxifolia. The biological consultant points out that Southern California Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT) has the responsibility for control, and this fact should be reflected in the CLUP. The proposed revisions are attached. a �o • • LCP Coastal Land Use Plan March 4, 2004 Page 12 Environmental Review: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the proposal is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter 3. Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot and mailed to over 200 community and business associations, advocacy groups, governmental agencies, and individuals, a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Copies of the draft Coastal Land Use Plan are available for review at the Planning Department office at City Halt and- at all • branches of the- Newport Beach- Public Library. Copies are also available at the Planning Department office for a two -week loan or purchase. The entire draft Coastal Land Use Plan is also available in PDF format at the City of Newport Beach Internet site at http://www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /Pln/LC P /LC P. htm. Prepared by: Patrick J. Alford Senior Planner Attachments: 1. Proposed revisions to Sections 4.1 2. Correspondence Submitted by: PJA;,N'4 Patricia L. Temple Planning Director '2 7�-1 Proposed Revisions to the Coastal Land Use Plan • Section 4.1.2: Invasive Marine Species Caulerpa taxifolia is an extremely harmful, invasive species that has recently been introduced into southern California waters. It has been located within Huntington Harbour and in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in northem San Diego County. This species has a characteristic bright green color, flat, leafy fern -like fronds (branches), and below - ground root system. Caulerpa algae can be extremely harmful to marine ecosystems because it invades; and out - competes; and eliminates native habitats jalgae, seagrasses, kelp ferest^ and reef systems by forming a dense blanket of growth on mud, sand, or rock surfaces. It can grow in shallow coastal lagoons as well as in deeper ocean waters, and can grow rapidly and up to 9 feet in length. However, its usual form observed so far is much smaller in length. The ecological consequences of the spread of this invasive algae can be extremely serious and can result in a significant loss of plant and animal productivity. Therefore, the spread of this species is being closely monitored and areas that have become infested are being treated chemically to eradicate any • growth. The management, control, and eradication of this species is the responsibility of th Stale WateF ResearGes Cc^tre! °eaFd (SWRGB) Southern California Caulema Action Team (SCCAT). Newport Bay is not currently known to be infested by this species, however, continued surveillance for undetected or new infestations is a high Drioritv to the SCCAT. Project site surveys for the presence of Caulerpa taxifolia are required by NOAA and CDFG prior to bottom - disturbing proiects such as dredging, dock replacement, bulkhead re air b .t ^^^•^^^ ^ ^A^ ^ ^ ^' ^w;h'° ^ ^ ° ^' °° i Assembly Bill 1334 (Chapter 338, Statutes of 2001) prohibits the sale, possession, and transport of Caulerpa taxifolia throughout California. The Bill also bans species of Caulerpa that look similar to C. taxifolia and are believed to have the capability to become invasive. The importation of the Mediterranean strain of Caulerpa taxifolia into the United States and interstate trade, including via the Internet, is also a federal offense under the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1999 and the Plant Protection Act of 2000. Pi '..21 A�_ 4.1.2 -6 Continue to require Cauleroa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval of proiects in the Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. Section 4.1.3: 4.1.3 -1 (Q) Continue to require Meniter feFCaulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval for proiects in Newport Bay iafestatieas and immediately notify the SCCAT eradicate when found. Section 4.1.4: 41.4 -5 Continue to require MeniteFfeFCaulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval for proiects in Newport Bay 449statiipgs and immediately notify the SCCAT eradicate when found. :J .9 AA' Page I of 2 From: Glenn Zagoren, NHNM [gz@nhnm.org] Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 3:02 PM To: palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: LCP Mr. Alford, Please consider the importance of the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum in the development of the LCP and in other planning issues of the city. /have made my study session presentation to the council and have the support of every major organization in the city (i.e The NBCVB, Chamber of Commerce, Department of Education) As a majorcommunity asset we offer programs to the widest demographics of residents starting with our Pirates Cove" program that caters to 2 -4 year olds in partnership with the NS Public Library. It is currently required of all 5th graders in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District to attend our educational. programs. We hold special events like the recent tall ship visit that brought over 4,000 people to the museum in 6 days. And most important, we preserve the great history of this harbor. I urge you to place the museum high on the list of assets of the city. I am available if you have any questions. Sincerely, Glenn Allen Zagoren President and CEO Newport Harbor Nautical Museum 151 East Coast Highway . Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 675 -8915 Ext. 111 Fax: (949) 675 -8864 www.nhnm^org Our current exhibit Is HOOKED! "The Lure and Lore of Sportfishing" October 18- February 29, 2004 You don't want to miss this!. Now you can make a tax- deductible contribution to the Museum ONLINEI http.,IAvww.nhnm.orqlnew-membershi,o.htm The information contained in this message and all attachments are proprietary and are intended solely for the . person(s) to whom they are addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is forbidden without prior authorization of Glenn Zagoren. • file: //F: \USERS\PLN\Shared \PA's \PAs %20 %202003 \PA2003- 093 \Correspondence\LCP... 02/27/2004 0 0 0 ATTACHMENT G 03/04/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES � �5 SUBJECT: Local Coastal Plan (PA2003 -098) City of Newport Beach ITEM NO. 5 PA2003- Chairperson McDaniel noted this is the first meeting on this issue. Continued to There will be no vote on this issue at this evenings meeting. 03/18/2004 Comments and questions are requested of members of the audience and they will be responded to either tonight or in a follow -up staff report. Public comment was opened. Tom Billings, resident of West Newport made the following inquiries: • What residents were represented on the LCP committee? • FAR's are not in concert with the General Plan in some areas, he presented the list to staff. • What comments have been received from the Coastal Commission to this point in terms of what the City has submitted to date? • What mechanism has allowed staff to make changes in density? Mr. Alford, Senior Planner noted: • The Local Coastal Program certification committee is comprised of 3 Councilmembers and 3 Planning Commissioners and the meetings are publicly held and noticed. On several occasions citizens have attended and made contributions. • The Coastal Commission wants language saying that the LCP would have precedent over any other City policy or ordinance. We recognize the concern about consistency with the General Plan and have statements in two sections. • The Land Use Element has certain provisions for floor areas to exceed what is the common FAR for various land uses. • There has been on -going dialogue with the Coastal Commission staff and the City received two major responses in July and October 2003 with comments on the current LCP and the draft document. Several Coastal staff members were given a tour of specific areas where there are special issues. Ms. Temple noted: • The revised draft under consideration by the Commission has incorporated an acceptable response to items raised by a ?�p 0 • • 0 I* 0 the Coastal Commission in their two formal letters of comment. • The LCP committee has decided to try and maintain a course on a stated City position, we identified those within the issues discussion in the staff report. Sean Burke, resident of Newport Beach, noted: • He is concerned. about the modifications to Buck Gully as suggested by the Fire Department. • The development of Newport Coast has increased the fire danger to Buck Gully. • The erosion factor of Buck Gully is a concern to the residents due to the increased run -off from this development. • Requests that in the policy section of 2.8.7 it be specified that any updating of the fire codes, fire modification plans include consideration of how those changes are going to impact on the danger of erosion in Buck Gully. Carol Hoffman, resident of Newport Beach, noted: Policy 2.3.1 -2 should not indicate preserving existing uses only and in fact new uses or consolidation of uses would be allowed. There is some ambiguity in the language and suggested new language. Jan Vandersloot, citizen of Newport Beach, noted: The City should be abiding by the Coastal Act. Mr. Alford noted: The Coastal Act is subject to interpretation and we believe the LC is consistent with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission will review this document and if certified, it will be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Eaton noted the following: The policy of encroachments on the coastal fore -dune habitat. The policy on bluff developments are tough new policies. )II Our recommendation should include that the language in 1.3.3 be worded to reflect the wording in Section 2.4, which says whatever is more protective of coastal resources shall take precedent. This would protect the value of the General Plan to the City. Mr. Alford noted that the intent is to show that the LCP could not be used to allow more intense development or one that is being less protective of coastal resources. This language on the precedence of the LCP was specifically requested by the Coastal staff as they felt the current Land Use Plan was deficient as it did not contain that language. Looking at LCP's from other communities that have been adopted recently, this appears to be standard language. It will be reviewed so that there are no inconsistencies in the document. Chairperson McDaniel noted that a letter from Jennifer Winn, AICP the City if Irvine was received. Commissioner Kiser noted the following: Categorical Exclusions - will the Coastal Commission exclusion for most single - family and two- family development be eliminated? Mr. Alford noted that the information received was from Coastal staff. The termination of categorical exclusions is automatic and not unique to Newport Beach. We have discussed continuing the categorical exclusion and expand it to other areas. This would be done concurrently with the certification of the LCP. Coastal staff seems receptive to this approach and acceptable to expanding and extending the major provisions of the current categorical exclusion. The LCP consists of two parts, one is a land use plan, and the other is the actual regulations of the implementation plan. The implementation plan will be heard separately at public hearings locally for adoption prior to certification by the Coastal Commission. Ms. Temple added that they have agreed to concurrent processing. They clearly state that adopting a new categorical exclusion is an action separate from the certification. However, if they hold with the current position, a certification is only final when it is accepted by the City after the Coastal Commission sets down their final judgment on it. The City could decline to adopt the full certification and stay where we are at. 1 J q-e' 0 0 9 0 Commissioner Kiser noted the following: • Policy 2.8.6 -8 and 2.8.6 -9 regarding requirement of property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection as a condition of approval of coastal development permit for new development. He expressed his concern about the property owners having limited coastal protection. • Policy 3.1.5 -2 regarding prohibition of new development with guardhouses /enclosure gates and prescriptive rights. Recommended that a court should determine if such rights exist. • Policy 3.1.6 -1 and -2 regarding policy requiring a CDP to establish a preferential parking district in the coastal zone. He questioned whether a CDP was necessary. Discussion followed on existence of new development, shoreline protection, hazards, coastal access and requirements for coastal development permits. Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • Page 2 -5 regarding Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan regulations in the area - suggested minor word changes. • Page 2 -7 regarding 'wider range' verbiage to include resident - serving uses; • Page 2 -9 regarding Dunes and provision of lower cost uses and affect on the settlement agreement with the existing hotel; • Page 2 -10 regarding timing of the LCP certification and timing of the General Plan update with potential changes in land use; • Page 2 -14 regarding exclusions within gated communities - suggested not including development; • Page 2 -25 regarding recreation and marine designations - would maintain the RMC designation preclude projects like Cannery Lofts; • Page 3 -19 regarding private street issue; and • Page 4 -71 regarding bluff development issues - asked for clarification on the distinction between altered and unaltered slopes. Discussion followed on dedicated visitor serving commercial land use designations and implementing zones; business opportunities, suggested language; local serving businesses, public access uses more viable on a year- around basis; land uses in settlement agreement proposed changes; deadlines for certifications of both the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan; level of development in gated communities; requirements of Coastal Development Permits at the City level; uses identified in Cannery Village; and bluff neighborhood alterations. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to March 18, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Noes: Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None None g 0 I* 0 L, • ATTACHMENT H CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE 04122104 )Yl Local Coastal Program Certification Coastal Act ■ Proposition 20 passed by voters in 1972 ■ Statewide plan for coastal protection developed ■ Coastal Act adopted by the Legislature in 1976 ■ Established the California Coastal Commission (CCC) 1 Goals of the Coastal Act ■ Protect, maintain and enhance natural and artificial coastal resources ■ Balance utilization and conservation of coastal resources ■ Maximize public access and recreational opportunities ■ Priority for coastal- dependentI- related development NogLki ' y • • i LEGEND Local Coastal Boundary City of Newport Beach Boundary 0 0.5 1 2 Miles i Z Local Coastal Programs ■ Coastal Act policies are primarily implemented through the preparation of Local Coastal Plans (LCPs) ■ Each local government is required to prepare a LCP for that portion of the Coastal Zone within its jurisdiction ■ LCPs must be certified by the CCC ■ LCPs consist of a Land Use Plan and an Implementation Plan Why certify the LCP now? ■ Mandated by SB 516 (Newport Coast Annexation) ■ Must submit LCP by June 30, 2003 ■ Short term: late fee of $1,000 per month ■ Long term: CCC could impose LCP (Malibu) 3 After Certification ■ Coastal development permit authority is delegated to the City • CCC retains original permit jurisdiction over certain specified lands (public trust lands, such as tidelands) • CCC serves as an appellate authority over development approved by local government in specified geographic areas Key Issues: ■ Precedence of the LCP • Translating Land Use designations • Categorical exclusions • Visitor - serving commercial ■ Oil and gas development 0 Key Issues: • Banning Ranch • California Coastal Trail /Oceanfront Boardwalk • Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas • Eelgrass ■ Wetland definition and delineation Key Issues: • Coastal bluff protection 5 Public Outreach • LCPCC held 17 public meetings • Reviewed by City management staff ■ Reviewed by City committees and commissions ■ Also reviewed by community and advocacy groups Public Outreach • Copies of the CLUP at all NBPL branches • Copies sent to adjacent cities and the County • Posted on the Internet • Copies available for loan or purchase 0 Public Outreach ■ Notices mailed to over 200 community groups and business associations, advocacy groups, governmental agencies, and individuals ■ Planning Commission held three public hearings ■ Received comments from over 60 individuals and organizations What's Next ■ Local adoption of the Coastal Land Use Plan ■ Formal application to the CCC ■ CCC hearings ■ Adoption of any CCC revisions by the City Council ■ Implementation plan 7 ' ri ` � C► Page 1 of 1 HM .1GF,1J01A Alford, Patrick From: Tnrii @aol.com Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 3:22 PM To: palford @city.newport- beach.ca.us Cc: asalis @Buchalter.com Subject: Local Coastal Program Patrick I live at 204 Kings Place and was made aware this weekend by a flier dropped off at my house that the City Council is hearing comments on the draft proposal Coastal Land Use Plan. I believe that my residence may be affected by this plan. I need immediate verification from you if that is the case as well as the potential impacts. In addition, if it is I would like staff to postpone the vote at the upcomming City Council Meeting until staff can do their job properly and notify any property owner of the impact to thier property. In addition if the draft is heard on Tuesday (i will be out of town and cannot attend) I would like staff to present one of my reccomondation to amend section 4.4.3 -6 to add that the properties adjacent to Dover Drive opposite castaways park and along PCH to Newport Blvd be NOT included in the Coastal Bluff Designation. Since I was not notified of this Local Coastal Program I will review and have additional comments. I will be available by cell phone (949) 903 -3818 Monday morning and need to hear from you Sincerely, Thomas N. Robinson Thomas N. Robinson 4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500 Newport Beach Ca. 92660 Telephone (949) 631 -6620 Facsimile (949) 631 -8581 E -mail: TNRii @aol.com 05/24/2004 �j 36;'24; 20")4 __. 51 _= '46'D21 5 , May 23, 2004 Mayor Tod Ridgeway Council Members Don Webb Steven Rosansky Steven Bromberg Richard Nichols John Heffernan Gary Adams Iavorme Harkless City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. PAUL.^, FEPP, VIA. FACSIMILE AND US. MAIL Dear Mayor, Council Members and City Clerk: I five at 204 Kings Place and was made aware on Saturday the 22nd of May by a flier dropped off at my house that the City Council is voting on the draft Coastal Land Use Plan. This is the first I had heard of this plan. After briefly reviewing the document from the City web site I believe that my property may be affected. 1 would ask that the council postpone this discussion and vote until staff notifies all effected properly owners. I will be out of town on the 2e when this plan is being discussed. I am not in agreement of the draft proposal (partly because 1 do not know how it will impact my property) and would like the following amendments / clarification put on formal record and made to the document: Coastal Bluffs shag not include the area along the west side of Dover Drive from PCH to le Avenue. :;GE u'1 This area is built out with residential and commercial uses and should not be subject to additional constraints which would impact the economic use of the properties. i have not read the complete document and would hope the City Council gives the property owners who will be affected the notice and opportunity to voice their opinions. I can be reached at (949) 9033818. Sincerely, Thomas N. Robinson 204 Kings Place Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 (949) 903 -3818 May 24, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Mr. Homer Bludau, City Manager Mr. Robert Burnham, City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Local Coastal Program Dear Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council, Mr. Bludau and Mr. Burnham: As a resident of Irvine Terrace with property on an altered and filled slope overlooking Bayside Drive and the Balboa Island Bridge, I would like to thank Patrick Alford for continuing to maintain Irvine Terrace in it's entirety as an exempt neighborhood in the new LCP. The Irvine Terrace Association has worked hard to maintain guidelines that prevent more than one basement level day - lighting below grade. We appreciate the City's support in this effort. The only remaining question I have is: Does the new LCP definition of Coastal Bluff and /or the public coastal view roadway of Balboa Island bridge negate the exemption delineated in Section 4.4.3 and Policy 4.4.3 -6? Thank you for the clarification. Please let me know if there are any revisions that could potentially modify the full exemption of my property. Best regards, Je sica Johnston Joiner 1119 Dolphin Terrace RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAY 2 4 2004 PM 71819110111112 11213141516 Bluff Coastal: A bluff overlooking a beach or shoreline or that is subject to marine erosion. For purposes of establishing jurisdictional and permit boundaries, (1) those bluffs, the toe of which is now or was historically (generally within the last 200 years) subject to marine erosion; and (2) those bluffs, the toe of which is not now or was not historically subject to marine erosion, but the toe of which lies within an area otherwise identified as an Appealable Area. Most of the coastal bluff top lands have been subdivided and developed over the years. However, many have been preserved as parkland and other open space. Also, most of the faces of the coastal bluff surrounding the Upper Newport Bay have been protected by dedication to the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve or dedicated as open space as part of planned residential developments. In other areas, including Newport Heights, Cliff Haven, Irvine Terrace, Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores, the coastal bluffs fall within conventional residential subdivisions. Development on these lots occurs mainly on a lot -by -lot basis. As a result, some coastal bluffs remain pristine and others are physically or visually obliterated by structures, landform alteration or landscaping. Policies regarding coastal bluffs need to make a distinction between areas where the coastal bluff is essentially unaltered and those in developed areas where the coastal bluff has been altered. In areas with unaltered coastal bluffs, development on the bluff face should be prohibited, with exceptions for certain public improvements, and development of bluff top should be controlled. In areas where the coastal bluff has been altered, development on the bluff face and bluff top should be controlled to minimize further alteration. The bluffs along Bayside Drive were at one time exposed to the Lower Newport Bay. However, these bluffs separated from the shoreline when abutting tidelands were filled and reclaimed in the 192Os and later developed into the communities of Promontory Bay, Beacon Bay, and Bayside. Later development of Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point cut and filled these bluffs to an extent that they can be best identified as manufactured slopes rather than natural slopes. Given that the bluffs along Bayside Drive have faces that are not the result of erosion, faulting, or folding and are no longer subject to marine erosion, they did not meet the definition of coastal bluffs and are not subject to the policies of this section. Geomorphic map of Newport Beach CITY COUNCIL DRAFT 1 Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -70 Policies: 4.4.3 -1. In areas where the coastal bluff remains essentially unaltered, require new development to dedicate or preserve as open space the bluff face and an area inland from the edge of the bluff adequate to provide safe public access and to avoid or minimize visual impacts. 4.4.3 -2. In areas where the coastal bluff remains essentially unaltered, require all new development located on a bluff top to be setback from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion and to avoid the need for protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). 4.4.3 -3. In areas where the coastal bluff remains essentially unaltered, prohibit development on bluff faces, except public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. 4.4.3 -4. In areas where the coastal bluff has been altered, establish setback lines for principal and accessory structures based on the predominant line of existing development along the bluff in each block. Apply the setback line downward from the edge of the bluff and /or upward from the toe of the bluff to restrict new development from extending beyond the predominant line of existing development. 4.4.3 -5. In areas where the coastal bluff has been altered, design and site development to minimize alteration of those portions of coastal bluffs with slopes in excess of 20 percent (5:1 slope). Prohibit development on those portions of coastal bluffs with unaltered natural slopes in excess of 40 percent (2.5:1 slope), unless the application of this policy would preclude any reasonable economic use of the property. 4.4.3 -6. Coastal bluffs do not include bluffs along Bayside Drive that have been cut and filled by the Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point developments and are no longer subject to marine erosion. 4.4.3 -7. Require applications for new development to include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. CITY COUNCIL DRAFT 1 Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -71 V� 5 lor\j �°(- R -,, f\j N t Njj C. P� -� �. yP Comm Page 1 of 1 Temple, Patty From: Wood, Sharon Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:21 PM To: Temple, Patty Subject: FW: [BULK] DISAGREE WITH LCP AND VOTE TO APPROVE Importance: Low - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Venus Rising Limited [mailto:ziesche @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 6:13 PM To: swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us Subject: [BULK] DISAGREE WITH LCP AND VOTE TO APPROVE Importance: Low May 25, 2004 We, Vicki Edwards Ziesche and Gary Ziesche, at 2401 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, California 92663, find it very ;:;stressing that the City Council would approve the 25 items on the Local Coastal Plan (LCP). I seriously question why our City Planning Commission and Newport Beach City Council would give control of our property to the State. We have had past examples of extremely poor city decisions, i.e. Jon Dominis structure among many others. Our taxes increase yearly, yet our property rights decrease. I strongly suggest that the Newport Beach City Council not vote to approve the new LCP. Sincerely, Vicki Ziesche & Gary Ziesche 05,'2;'2003 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LCP Amendment No. 2004 -001 (PA2003 -093) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of Newport Beach for Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2004 -001. The proposed amendment is a comprehensive update of the Land Use Plan of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. The land use plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions, for the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15265(a)(1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 25th day of May, 2004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. Copies of the draft Coastal Land Use Plan can be viewed at the Planning Department office at City Hall and at all branches of the Newport Beach Public Library. A limited number of copies are also available at the Planning Department office for a two -week loan. Copies are also available for purchase ($50.00 with the large Coastal Land Use Plan map, $30.00 without). Copies are also available for purchase on CD -ROM in PDF format for $5.00. The entire draft Coastal Land Use Plan is also available in PDF format at the City of Newport Beach Internet site at htti): / /www.city.newl)ort- beach.ca.us /PIn /LCP /LCP.htm. wj -b hwi �� Pi lo-1 b�Q�� P I IOU f��'� -5 /bl� F,s046 LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach Notice of Public Hearing Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan The proposed amendment is a comprehensive update of the Land Use Plan of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. The land use plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions, for the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach (LC2004 -001). The City Council public hearing will be held on Mav 25, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. For information call (949) 644 -3200. CITY OF COSTA MESA PLANNING DEPT PO BOX 1200 COSTA MESA CA 92628 -1200 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT 2000 MAIN ST HUNTINGTON BCH CA 92648 CITY OF IRVINE COUNTY OF ORANGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 1 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA SERVICES IRVINE CA 92623 -9575 PO BOX 4048 SANTA ANA CA 92702 -4048 LOUISE GREELEY 16 SWIFT COURT NEWPORT BCH CA 92663 SCOTTS BARNARD PRINCIPAL BARNARD VENTURES 5100 BIRCH ST FIRST FLR NEWPORT BCH CA 92660 MARK MURREL 2439 W. COAST HWY, STE. 200 NEWPORT BEACH 92663 SEAN M BURKE APC 202 NEWPORT CENTER DR 2ND FLR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 LAURA CURRAN 437 DAHLIA CORONA DEL MAR CA CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 505 FOREST AVE LAGUNA BCH CA 92651 PHIL ARST 2601 LIGHTHOUSE LANE CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 CAROL HOFFMAN 230 NEWPORT CENTER DR STE 92625 210 NEWPORT BCH CA 92660 CHIN MCLAUGHLIN 544 SEAWARD RD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 PHILLIP BETTENCOURT 110 NEWPORT CENTER DR STE 150 NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 GREG WOHL MIOCEAN C/O WHOL INVESTMENT CO 2402 MICHELSON STE 170 IRVINE CA 92612 MR JOHN CORROUGH 1004 SO. BAY FRONT BALBOA ISLAND CA 92662 KENNETH BATTRAM 3335 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 l loLe FG! Z- ';2Id'Lua2 25n — Fic auc GaZ.F U30o€S1C ALTEZZA KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROP MGMT ALTEZZA C/O KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROP MGMT 16845 VON KARMAN 200 IRVINE CA 92606 6 AMERICAN LEGION POST #291 DENNIS LAHEY 215 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 1 BALBOA COVES COMMUNITY ASSOC. PETE COMPTON 56 BALBOA COVES NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 2 BALBOA ISLAND BUSINESS ASSOC. SHERRY DRURY P. O. BOX 64 BALBOA ISLAND CA 92662 5 BALBOA ISLAND IMPROVEMENT ASSOC. CRAIG PAIGE P. O. BOX 64 BALBOAISLAND CA 92662 5 BALBOA MERCHANT OWNERS ASSOCIATION GAY WASSELL -KELLY PO BOX 4336 BALBOA CA 92661 1 BALBOA PENINSULA POINT ASSOCIATION KEN DRELLISHAK, RHO 2145 OCEAN BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661 1 BALBOA VILLAGE B.I.D. BALBOA VILLAGE B.I.D. PO BOX 2295 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 1 BAY ISLAND CLUB, INC RON MERICKEL 18 BAY ISLAND NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661 1 BAYRIDGE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSN. ACCELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ACCELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/THERESE PRIMM 25032 ALICIA PKWY H -235 MISSION VIEJO CA 92692 4 /�� AVER` @ Address Lzbe�s BAYSHORES COMMUNITY ASSN. THE EMMONS COMPANY THE EMMONS CO /BAYSHORES CMMNTY ASOC 17300 REDHILL AVE 210 IRVINE CA 92614 3 BAYSIDE COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN. PCM PCM / BAYSIDE COVE HOMEOWNERS ASOC 23726 BIRTCHER OR LAKE FOREST CA 92630 5 BAYSIDE VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSN. BAYSIDE VILLAGE BAYSIDE VILLAGE HO ASSOC 300 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 5 BAYVIEW COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. PCM MGMT CO PCM / BAYVIEW COURT HO ASSN 23726 BIRTCHER DR LAKE FOREST CA 92630 4 BAYVIEW TERRACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. OPTIMUM PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY OPTIMUM / BAYVIEW TERRACE HO ASOC 17731 IRVINE BLVD IRVINE CA 92780 4 BEACON BAY COMMUNITY ASSOC MILT BOWER 70 BEACON BAY NEWPORTBEACH CA 92660 5 SELCOURT HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. SEABREEZE MGMT CO SEABREEZE MGMT/ BELCOURT HILL HO ASOC 39 ARGONAUT 100 ALISO VIEJO CA 92656 4 BELCOURT MASTER COMM. ASSOC. PROGRESSIVE COMM. MGMT. PROGRESSIVE COM. MGMT / BELCOURT MASTER 27405 PUERTA REAL 300 MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 4 BELCOURT PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. PROGRESSIVE COMM. MGMT. PROGRESSIVE COM MGMT / BELCOURT PARK HO 27405 PUERTA REAL 300 MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 4 BELCOURT TERRACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. PROGRESSIVE COMM MGMT PROGRESS COM MGMT / BELCOURT TERR HO ASOC 27405 PUERTA REAL 300 MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 4 BIG CANYON COMMUNITY ASSOC. (MASTER) VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VILLAGEWAY MGMT /BIG CYN COM ASOC P. O. BOX 4708 IRVINE CA 92616 BIG CANYON TOWNHOMES ASSOC. M &N COMMUNITY ASSN MGMT M &N COMM ASSN MGMT /BIG CYN TOWNHOMES 16742 GOTHARD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 , BIG CANYON VILLAS CONDO ASSOCIATION MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT MERIT PROP MGMT /BIG CYN VILLAS CONDO 25910 ACERO ST 2ND F MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 BLUFFS H. O. COMMUNITY ASSOC. C. M. "CORK" LEVINSON P. O. BOX 8167 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 BONITA CANYON MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION MERIT PROPERTY MERIT PROPERTY / BONITA CYN MAINT. ASOC 25910 ACERO ST MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 c BORDEAUX APARTMENTS ON -SITE MANAGER BORDEAUX APARTMENTS ATTN JESICA BERGIN 1 AMBROISE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92657 7 BREAKERS DRIVE ASSN. JAY COWAN 3030 BREAKERS CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 6 BROADMOOR HILLS COMMUNITY ASSN. VILLAGEWAY MGMT BROADMOOR HILLS %VILLAGE WAY MGMT PO BOX 4708 IRVINE CA 92616 6 BROADMOOR SEA VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSN. THE EMMONS COMPANY THE EMMONS CO /BROADMOOR SEA VIEW HO ASC 17300 REDHILLAVE 210 IRVINE CA 92614 7 CAMEO COMMUNITY ASSN. VILLAGEWAY MGMT CAMEO COMMUNITY % VILLAGEWAY MGMT PO BOX 4780 IRVINE CA 92616 E op ser CAMPOBELLO CANYON POINT COMMUNITY ASSOC. CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOC BHE MANAGEMENT VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY CAMPOBELLO C/O BITE MGMT VILLAGEWAY MGMT /CANYON PT COM ASSN DICK NICHOLS PO BOX 7736 P. O. BOX 4708 519 IRIS AVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92607 6 IRVINE CA 92616 5 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 E CANNERY VILLAGE ASSN. CANYON VIEW COMMUNITY ASSOC. CORONA DEL MAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION TOTAL PROPERTY MGMT INC BUZZ PERSON TOTAL PROP MGMT /CANYON VIEW COM ASSN CDM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION 507 29TH ST A 2 CORPORATE PARK 200 PO BOX 1500 179 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 1 IRVINE CA 92602 5 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 E CANNERY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK ASSN CASTAWAYS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. CORONA DEL MAR SANDCASTLE KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MGNT. TRANSPACIFIC MANAGEMENT SERVICE BUD MARTIN KEYSTONE MGMT /CASTAWAYS HO ASSN TRANSPACIFIC /CORONA DEL MAR SANDCASTLE 3355 VIA LIDA D 16845 VON KARMAN 200 2020 EAST 1ST ST. 500 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 1 IRVINE CA 92606 3 SANTA ANA CA 92705 E CANYON CREST COMMUNITY ASSOC. CENTRAL NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOC. CORONA HIGHLANDS PROPERTY OWNERS PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY MGMT PROGRESSIVE /CANYON CREST COM ASOC LOUISE FUNDENBERG ELEANOR LUMSDON, VICE PRESIDENT 27405 PUERTA REAL 300 808 W BALBOA BLVD 457 CABRILLO TERR MISSION VIEJO CA 92591 5 NEWPORTBEACH CA 92661 1 CORONA DELMAR CA 92625 E CANYON CREST ESTATES HO ASSOC. CHANNEL REEF COMMUNITY ASSOC. CRYSTAL COVE COMMUNITY ASSOC. (MASTER) P.A.S. CO., INC. KEYSTONE PROPERTY MGMT MS. B. J. JOHNSON DR. MARJORIE BAUGHAN CRYSTAL COVE COM ASSN C/O KEYSTONE PROP 23 CANYON CREST 2525 OCEAN BLVD 16845 VON KARMAN 200 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 7 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 6 IRVINE CA 92606 E CANYON FAIRWAY COMMUNITY ASSOC. CLIFF HAVEN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION DOVER SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOC. VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VILLAGEWAY MGMT /CANYON FAIRWY COMNTY NO CONTACT INFORMATION VILLAGEWAY MGMT /DOVER SHORES COM ASSN P. O. BOX 4708 PO BOX 4708 IRVINE CA 92616 5 CA 3 IRVINE CA 92616 CANYON HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOC. COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS ALLIANCE DOVER VILLAGE COMMUNITY ASSOC. VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY TOTAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT VILLAGEWAY MGMT /CANYON HILLS COM ASSN TOTAL PROPERTY MGMT /DOVER VILLAGE COMMN P. O. BOX 4708 2 CORPORATE PARK DRIVE 200 IRVINE CA 92616 5 CA 7 IRVINE CA 92606 CANYON ISLAND COMMUNITY ASSOC COROLIDO COMMUNITY ASSN. EASTBLUFF APT. OWNERS ASSOC. VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VILLAGEWAY MGMT /CANYON ISLAND COM ASSN JUNE JONES VILLAGEWAY MG / EASTBLUFF APT OWNRS ASSN P, O. BOX 4708 4316 SHORECRESTLN P. O. BOX 4708 IRVINE CA 92616 5 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 6 IRVINE CA 92616 e CANYON LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOC CORONA DEL MAR B.I.D. EASTBLUFF HOMEOWNERS COMMUNITY ASSOC. VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY THE EMMONS COMPANY VILLAGEWAY MGMT /CANYON LAKES COM ASSN CORONA DEL MAR B.I.D. THE EMMONS CO /EASTBLUFF HO COMM ASSN P. O. BOX 4708 PO BOX 2295 17300 REDHILL AVENUE 210 IRVINE CA 92616 5 NEWPORTBEACH CA 92659 IRVINE CA 92614 CANYON MESA COMMUNITY ASSOC. CORONA DEL MAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EASTBLUFF VILLAGE CENTER VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY MADISON MARQUETTE RETAIL SERVICES VILLAGEWAY MGMT /CANYON MESA COM ASSN LUVENA HAYTON, EXECUTIVE BOARD SECRETARY EASTBLUFF VILLAGE CNTR % MADISON MARQUET" P. O. BOX 4708 2843 COAST HWY E P. O. BOX 72 5 JENNER 100 IRVINE CA 92616 5 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 6 IRVINE CA 92618 l', kVEr-,Yc Address La�e;s r �� ESTATES, THE HARBOR RIDGE MASTERS ASSOC JASMINE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. SHE MANAGMENTT NANCY RYAN - GENERAL PROPERTY MANAGER VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY THE ESTATES C/O SHE MGMT HARBOR RIDGE MASTERS ASSN C/O NANCY RYAN VILLAGEWAY MGMT. /JASMINE PARK HO ASSN 2490 VISTA DEL ORO PO BOX 4070 1 CORPORATE PARK DR. 200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 7 COSTA MESA CA 92628 7 IRVINE CA 92716 E FAR WEST NEWPORT RESIDENTS ASSOC. HARBOR VIEW BROADMOOR ASSOC. LIDO ISLE COMMUNITY ASSOC. VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY NO CONTACT INFORMATION VILLAGEWAY MGMT CO /HARBOR VIEW BROADMOOR SID CROSSLEY P. O. BOX 4708 115 VIA KORON CA 2 IRVINE CA 92716 6 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 i FASHION ISLAND MERCHANTS ASSOC. HARBOR VIEW COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION LIDO MARINA VILLAGE FASHION ISLAND MANAGEMENT VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY MARVIN ENGINEERING FASHION ISLAND MGMT /F.I. MERCHANTS ASSN VILLAGEWAY MGMT COMARBOR VIEW COMMUNITY MARVIN ENGINEERING /LIDO MARINA VILLAGE 401 NEWPORT CENTER DR A150 P. 0. BOX 4708 3400 VIA OPORTO 104 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 5 IRVINE CA 92616 7 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 1 GRANVILLE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HARBOR VIEW HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOC. LIDO MOBILE HOME PARK ASSOCIATION SETH M OBERG IRIS KIMMEL DON FUNK 172 VILLA POINT DR PO BOX 7219 710 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORTBEACH CA 92660 5 NEWPORTBEACH CA 92660 6 NEWPORTBEACH CA 92663 1 HARBOR COVE COMMUNITY ASSOC. HARBOR VIEW HILLS SOUTH H 0 A LIDO PENINSULA COMPANY KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MGNT. THE EMMONS COMPANY BELLPORT GROUP KEYSTONE PACIFIC PRP MGMT /HARBOR COVE THE EMMONS COMARBOR VIEW HILLS SOUTH HO BELLPORT GROUP / LIDO PENINSULA CO 16645 VON KARMAN 200 17300 REDHILL AVENUE 210 101 SHIPYARD WAY G IRVINE CA 92606 5 IRVINE CA 92614 7 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 1 HARBOR HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSN. HARBOR VIEW KNOLL COMMUNITY ASSN. LIDO SANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INTEREST, INC. MERIT PROPERTY MGMT /HARBOR HILL HO ASSN INTEREST, INC. /HARBOR VIEW KNOLL COMM. DANA KROEGER 25910 ACER0 2ND FLR 3551 CAMINO MIRA COSTA N 4831 LIDO SANDS DR MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 7 SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672 7 NEWPORTBEACH CA 92663 HARBOR ISLAND COMMUNITY ASSN. HARBOR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSN. LINDA ISLE COMMUNITY ASSOC. VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT CO JOHN MARTIN VILLAGEWAY MGMT COMARBOR WOODS HOMEONER PEGGY LONG 32 HARBOR ISLAND PD BOX 4708 617 NARCISSUS AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 5 IRVINE CA 92616 7 CORONA DELMAR CA 92625 HARBOR POINTE HOMEOWNERS ASSN. IRVINE TERRACE COMMUNITY ASSN. LITTLE BALBOA ISLAND P.O. ASSOC. VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT CO. THE EMMONS COMPANY VILLAGEWAY MGMT CO /HARBOR POINTE HO ASOC THE EMMONS CO /IRVINE TERRACE COMM. ASSN. LITTLE BALBOA ISLAND P.O. /DEL CHESEBRO PO BOX 4708 17300 RED HILL AVE 210 1508 PARK AVE IRVINE CA 92716 5 IRVINE CA 92614 5 BALBOA ISLAND CA 92662 , HARBOR RIDGE CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. ISLAND LAGOON HOMEOWNERS ASSN. LOS TRANCOS MAINTENANCE ASSOC NANCY RYAN - GENERAL PROPERTY MANAGER PROGRESSIVE COMM MGMT KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MGMT HARBOR RIDGE CREST HO C/O NANCY RYAN PROGRESSIVE COMM MGMT /ISLAND LAGOON HO LOS TRANCOS MAINT ASSOC C/O KEYSTONE PAC PO BOX 4070 27405 PUERTA REAL 300 16845 VON KARMAN 200 COSTAMESA CA 92628 7 MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 5 IRVINE CA 92606 E HARBOR RIDGE ESTATES MAINTENANCE ASSOC. JASMINE CREEK COMMUNITY ASSN MAI KAI COMMUNITY ASSOC. NANCY RYAN - GENERAL PROPERTY MANAGER TRANS PACIFIC MANAGEMENT HARBOR RIDGE ESTATES MNT C/O NANCY RYAN JOHN GRIFFITH TRANS PACIFIC MGMT. /MAI KAI COMMUNITY PD BOX 4070 110 JASMINE CREEK DR 2020 EAST 1ST ST. 500 COSTA MESA CA 92628 7 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 7 SANTA ANA CA 92705 , MARINAPARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION NEWPORT BEACH RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION NEWPORT ISLAND INCORPORATED CATHIMARIES, INC. BOBSEYMOUR RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION %CATHIMARIES JIM MILLER 1770 BALBOA BLVD W 9A PO BOX 2295 3903 MARCUS AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 1 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 1 MARINE AVENUE BA D. NEWPORT BEACH TOWNHOUSES ASSN. NEWPORT KNOLLS HOMEOWNERS ASSN. J. L. GILL MANAGEMENT, INC. MARINE AVENUE B.I.D. JLGILL MGMT INC. /NEWPORT BCH TOWNHOUSES JANET LUKE PO BOX 2295 2872 DEVOY 848 HALYARD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 ANAHEIM CA 92804 2 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 MARINERS COMMU NTY ASSN. NEWPORT CENTER ASSOCIATION NEWPORT MOORING ASSN. JO VANDERVORT SARAJANE TOWNDROW 1147 PEMBROKE LN PO BOX 1118 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 3 CA 5 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 MARINERS MILE ASSN. NEWPORT COAST (MASTER) NEWPORT NORTH TOWNHOMES ASSN. MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TRANS PACIFIC NED MC CUNE NEWPORT COAST C/O MERIT PROPERTY MGMT TRANS PACIFIC /NEWPORT NORTH TOWNHOMES 424 E. 16TH ST. 25910 ACERO ST., 2ND FLOOR 2020 EAST 1 ST ST. 500 COSTA MESA CA 92627 3 MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 7 SANTA ANA CA 92705 e MARRIOTT NEWPORT COAST VILLAS NEWPORT CONDOS ASSN. NEWPORT PIER ASSOC. MANAGER VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY DIANA HARRISON VILLAGEWAY MGMT /NEWPORT CONDOS ASSN. 23000 NEWPORT COAST DR P. 0, BOX 4708 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92657 6 IRVINE CA 92716 2 CA 1 MEDICAL CENTER PLAZA AT NEWPORT CENTER NEWPORT CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. NEWPORT RIDGE (MASTER) PCM MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LILLANE COKER NEWPORT CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOC NEWPORT RIDGE MASTER C/O MERIT PROP MGMT P. 0. BOX 15905 23726 BIRTCHER DR. 25910 ACERO ST., 2ND FLR. NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 5 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 2 MISSION VIEJO CA 92691' - MONTECITO NEWPORT HEIGHTS COMMUNITY ASSOC. NEWPORT RIDGE APARTMENTS KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPRERTY MGMT IAMC MONTECITO C/O KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROP MGM JANINE ALLEN NEWPORT RIDGE ARTS C/O IAMC 16845 VON KARMAN 200 406 SAN BERNARDINO 43 DISCOVERY 150 IRVINE CA 92606 6 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 2 IRVINE CA 92618 MONTSERRAT NEWPORT HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOC. NEWPORT RIDGE NORTH MAINTENANCE ASSOC. COMMON INTERESTS INC VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MGMT MONTSERRAT C/O COMMON INTERESTS INC VILLAGEWAY MGMT /NEWPORT HILLS COMMUNITY NEWPORT RIDGE NO C/O KEYSTONE PACIFIC 3551 CAMINO MIRA COSTA N P. 0. BOX 4708 16656 VON KARMAN 200 SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672 7 IRVINE CA 92716 7 IRVINE CA 92606 - NB CHAMBER OF COMMERCE NEWPORT HILLS ESTATES ASSOCIATION NEWPORT RIDGE SUMMIT VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY SHE MANAGEMENT CO RICHARD LUEHRS VILLAGEWAY MGMT /NEWPORT HILLS ESTATES NEWPORT RIDGE SUMMIT C/O SHE MGMT CO 1470 JAMBOREE RD P. 0. BOX 4706 PO BOX 7736 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 5 IRVINE CA 92716 7 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92607 - NEWPORT BAY TOWERS NEWPORT HOMEOWNERS ASSOC NEWPORT RIDGE VISTAS NORTHWOOD ASSOCIATIONS MANAGEMENT CO TOTAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LOUIS VON DYL NORTHWOOD ASSOC. MGMT /NEWPORT H.O. ASSOC TOTAL PROPERTY MGMT /NEWPORT RIDGE VISTA: 310 FERNANDO 410 4840 IRVINE BLVD 208 2 CORPORATE PARK 200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92661 1 IRVINE CA 92620 4 IRVINE CA 92606 E €f'% A" r;t MYCR- ,tl.r?Cf I'aC'G f Aflak f scar C.`. 4n@ NEWPORT SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOC. PACIFIC RIDGE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION PROMONTORY BAY COMMUNITY ASSOC. THE EMMONS COMPANY VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY THE EMMONS CO /NEWPORT SHORES COMMUNITY VILLAGEWAY MGMT /PROMONTORY BAY COMMUNI 17300 RED HILL AVE 210 P. O. BOX 4708 IRVINE CA 92614 2 CA 6 IRVINE CA 92716 NEWPORT TOWERS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. PARK LIDO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RENDEZVOUS CONDOMINIUM ASSN. JD COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT DIVERSIFIED REAL PROP. MGMT. PERKCAM MGMT CO.. INC. NEWPORT TOWERS HO ASSN %JD COM MGMT DIVERSIFIED REAL PROP MGMT /PARK LIDO HO PERKCAM MGMTCO / RENDEZVOUS CONDO ASSN 3520 CADILLAC B 180 E. MAIN ST 220 1000 W LA PALMA AVE COSTA MESA CA 92626 3 TUSTIN CA 92780 2 ANAHEIM CA 92801 1 NEWPORT UPPER BAY ESTATES PELICAN CREST I RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MGMT. JAN H WESTERMAN JR PELICAN CREST I %KEYSTONE PACIFIC RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION %CATHIMARIES 2131 ANNIVERSARY LN 16845 VON KARMAN 200 PO BOX 2295 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 3 IRVINE CA 92606 6 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 NORTH BLUFF BAYVIEW COMM. ASSOC. PELICAN CREST II SAILHOUSE CMC ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MGMT PCM CMC ASSN MGMT /NORTH BLUFF BAYVIEW COMM PELICAN CREST 11 % KEYSTONE PACIFIC SAILHOUSE % PCM ATTN DEBRA SERRANO 2492 WALNUTAVENUE 100 16845 VON KARMAN 200 23726 BIRCHER DR TUSTIN CA 92780 4 IRVINE CA 92606 6 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 E NORTH BLUFF PARK COMMUNITY ASSOC. PELICAN HILL SAINTANDREWS VILLAGE SHE MANAGEMENT MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT P.A.S. CO., INC. BHE MGMT /NORTH BLUFF PARK COMM ASSN PELICAN HILL C/O MERIT PROPERTY MGMT P.A.S. CO. / DORIS HOPE 2490 VISTA DEL ORO 25910 ACERO ST.. 2ND FLR. P.O. BOX 2968 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 4 MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 6 COSTA MESA CA 92628 NORTH BLUFF VILLA COMMUNITY ASSOC. NORTHWOOD ASSOCIATIONS MANAGEMENT CO INC NORTHWOOD ASSOCIATIONS MGMT CO INC 4840 IRVINE BLVD 208 IRVINE CA 92620 4 OCEAN HEIGHTS MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OCEAN HEIGHTS C/O MERIT PROPERTY MGMT 25910 ACERO ST 2 FLR MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 6 PELICAN POINT COMMUNITY ASSOC. (MASTER) MERIT PROPERTY MGMT PELICAN PT COMNITY ASSN C/O MERIT PROPER 25819 ACERO ST, 2ND FLR. MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 PELICAN RIDGE ESTATES MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PELICAN RIDGE EST C/O MERIT PROPETY MGMT 25910 ACERO ST. 2D FL MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 SANCERRE SEABREEZE MANAGEMENT CO. SANCERRE C/O SEABREEZE MGMT CO. 39 ARGONAUT 100 6 ALISO VIEJO CA 92656 7 SANTA LUCIA MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SANTA LUCIA C/O MERIT PROPERTY MGMT 25910 ACERO ST., 2ND FLR. 6 MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 E OCEAN RIDGE PLAZA HOMEOWNERS COMMUNITYASSN. SEA ISLAND COMMUNITY ASSN. VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT CO CMC ASSOCIATION MGMT PCM OCEAN RIDGE I CMC ASSN MGMT /PLAZA HOMOWNERS COMMNTY PCM /SEA ISLAND COMMUNITY ASSN PO BOX 4708 2492 WALNUT AVE 200 23726 BIRTHCER DR IRVINE CA 92616 6 TUSTIN CA 92780 4 LAKE FOREST CA 92630 OCEAN RIDGE III POINTE DEL MAR ASSN. SEA VIEW COMMUNITY ASSN. KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MGMT VILLAGEWAY PROPERTY MGMT THE EMMONS COMPANY OCEAN RIDGE III C/O KEYSTONE PACIFIC PRO VILLAGEWAY PROPERTY MGMT / POINTE DEL MAR THE EMMONS CO /SEA VIEW COMMUNITY ASSN 16845 VON KARMAN 200 PO BOX 4708 17300 RED HILL AVE 210 IRVINE CA 92606 6 IRVINE CA 92616 6 IRVINE CA 92614 ONE FORD ROAD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION KEYSTONE PACIFIC KEYSTONE PACIFIC /ONE FORD ROAD COMMUNITY 16845 VON KARMAN 200 IRVINE CA 92606 4 EM fVERY0 Address Labels POINTE, THE SEAWIND NEWPORT COMMUNITY ASSOC. ACTION PROPERTY MGMT VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENTINC THE POINTE C/O ACTION PROPERTY MGMT SEAWIND NEWPORT % VILLAGEWAY MGMT 29 TECHNOLOGY. DR B -100 PO BOX 4708 IRVINE CA 92618 7 IRVINE CA 92616 Laser :z Q, SHORECLIFFS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN. THE EMMONS CO THE EMMONS CO/SHORECLIFFS PROP OWNERS 17300 REDHILL AVE 210 IRVINE CA 92614 6 SPYGLASS HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION SEABREEZE MANAGEMENT CO SEABREEZE MGMT CO /SPYGLASS HILL COM ASO 39 ARGONAUT ALISO VIEJO CA 92625 7 SPYGLASS RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSN. THE EMMONS CO DR. DONALD TURNER 3839 OCEANBIRCHDR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92626 7 STLAURENT BHE MANAGEMENT CO. ST LAURENT C/O BHE MGMT CO. PO BOX 7736 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92607 6 ST MICHEL KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MGMT ST MICHEL C/O KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY 16845 VON KARMAN 200 IRVINE CA 92606 7 TERRACES. THE OF CORONA DEL MAR H.O.A. VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VILLAGEWAY MGMT/THE TERRACES OF CDM P. O. BOX 4708 IRVINE CA 92616 6 TESORO KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROP MGMT TESORO C/O KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROP MGMT 16845 VON KARMAN 200 IRVINE CA 92606 6 TROVARE MERIT PROPERTY MGMT TROVARE C/O MERIT PROPERTY MGMT 25910 ACERO ST.. 2ND FLR. MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 6 TWENTYEIGHTH STREET OWNERS ASSN. MERIT PROPERTY MGMT TWENTYEIGHTH STREET OWNERS % MERIT PROPER 25910 ACERO ST 2ND F MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 1 VERONA CA 6 _71, AVERYO" Aderess Labels VERSAILLES HOMEOWNERS ASSN. CINDY KOESTER 901 CAGNEY LANE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 2 VILLA BALBOA COMMUNITY ASSN. VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VILLAGEWAY MGMTNILLA BALBOA COMM ASSN. PO BOX 4708 IRVINE CA 92716 2 VILLA GRANADA COMMUNITY ASSN. PATKRONE 835 AMIGOS WAY 4 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 4 VILLA POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT MERIT PROPERTY MTMGNILLA POINT COMMUNIT 25910 ACERO STREET, 2ND FLOOR MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 5 WEST NEWPORT BEACH ASSN. ALAN SILCOCK PO BOX 1471 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 1 WESTCLIFF VILLAS SUE FRACTMAN 1000 BUCKINGHAM LANE 21 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 3 ZIANI(MASTER) CA 5 Office of the City Clerk CITY HALL 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 JASMINE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC VILLAGEWAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VILLAGEWAY MGMT.UASMINE PARK HO ASSN 1 CORPORATE PARK DR. 200 IRVINE CA 92716 E IMPORTAN F R E T! R . . ...... . � PUBLIC HEARING j4MfG-E'- Office of the CitY Clerk CITY HALL 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 VVESTCLIFF VILLAS I Ot NIN SUE FRACTMAN 1000 BUCKINGHAM LANE 21 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 3 INIPOMANT PTO 0 s 0 :n,.. i 1 Authorized to Pabiish Advertisements of all kinds inc!udine public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California.. Number A -6214, September 29, 1961, and A-24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a parry to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates- May 15, 2004 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on e at Costa Mesa, California. v Signature NOTKEOF PUBU( HEARRIG L(PAmendment Na 2G04 -001 (PA2003 -093) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the' application of City of Newport Beach for Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2004 -001. The proposed amend -� ment'is a comprehensive update of the Land Use Plan of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. The land use plan indicates . the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and develop- ment policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions, for the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that Pursuant to the au. thority and criteria contained in the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality.Act (CEQA), the proposal is statutorily .exempt from CEQA Pursuant to Section 15265(a)(1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on 25th day of May, 2004, at the hour' of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boule- vard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all; persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing) described in this notice or in written car 'e- s prudence delivered to the City at, or prior to.� the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. Copies of the draft Coastal Land Use Plan can be viewed at the 'Planning Department office at City Hall and at all branches of the Newport Beach Public Library. A limited num- ber of copies are also available at the Planning Department office for a two -week loan. Copies are also available for purchase ($50.00 with the large Coastal Laud Use Plan map, $30.00 without). Copies are also available for purchase on CD -ROM. in PDF format for $5.00. The entire draft Coastal Land Use Plan is also avail- able id PDF form at at the City of Newport Beach Internet site at httP://www.city.newport- beach.ca-us/Pin/LCP/ LCP.htm. LvVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk, City of Newport Beach a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN date of the Lana The proposed amendment is a comprehensive up Use Plan of the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. land land use plan indicates the kinds, location, and int meies; uses, the applicable resource protection and develop nt polic the use and, whey dnwatesan thelooastal'zople wething the tCity of rNewport of land .a Beach (LC2004- 001).. The City Council public hearing will be held on Ma AR � 7-00_p in thBoulevard, Newport Beach, California. ech City Hall; e Council Chambers of the 3300 Newport For information call (949) 644'3200' __ 7a7Z Nuuusned in the Uity of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: May 15, 2004 (Main News Section) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 17, 2004 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature s Section: to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -631 J, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: May 15, 2004 (Main News Section) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 17, 2004 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature -Main News Section