Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPAC_2002_05_13G PAC_2002_05_13 NEWP(:?] • GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS May 13, 2002 7:00-9:00'pin. General Plan Advisory Committee '- MEETING #3 AGENDA 7:00 I. Welcome and Introductions Police Department Auditorium 870 Santa Barbara Drive A. Agenda Overview B. Approval of Minutes of April 8, 2002 7:10 II. Report Back from Vision Sub Committee and Discussion • 7:30 III. Discuss Neighborhood Workshop Results 8:30 IV. Discuss Key Questions 8:45 V. Next Steps 8:50 VI. Public Comments 41 ITI OT W • N EP P E GENERAL r -, VISIONING PROCESS General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, April 8, 2002 at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Dorothy Beek Carol Boice John Corrough Hoby Darling Julie Delaney Laura Dietz Florence Felton Nancy Gardner • Joseph Gleason Louise Greeley Members Absent: Evelyn Hart Ernest Hatchell Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa David Janes Catherine O'Hara John Saunders Brett Shaves Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Alan Silcock George Jeffries Jackie Sukiasian Mike Johnson Jan Vandersloot Heather Johnston -Reynolds Don Webb Todd Knipp Phillip Lugar Marian Bergeson — resignation received 4/1/02 Philip Bettencourt Karlene Bradley Carl Ossipoff Larry Root Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Members of the Public Present: Barbara Johnson Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo I. Welcome and Introductions • Bob Shelton called the meeting to order and introduced Ernest Hatchell member of the Committee replacing a member who had resigned. M announced that Marian Bergeson resigned from the Committee as the newest Shelton also due to her DRAFT' • overwhelming commitments, however she has offered to be a resource for the Committee. Mr. Shelton asked if anyone had comments regarding the minutes. Having heard none, the minutes were approved. II. Discuss Proposed Project Schedule Changes Carolyn Verheyen reviewed the agenda. Sharon Wood discussed the three handouts provided to the members which included expansion of the Committee's meeting schedule. The extra meetings were added in response to the Committee comments regarding the importance of reviewing the technical study results which will be completed later than originally anticipated. The first piece of technical information will be the fiscal impact model, which should be ready the end of June and will be on our agenda for July. The traffic model results for existing conditions will be ready for our meeting in August. In September we'll have the traffic model results for build -out of the existing General Plan. Another handout outlined the responsibilities of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), General Plan Update Committee (GPUC), Staff & Consultants, Planning Commission and City Council along with target dates. • There were no objections to the expanded schedule. Ms. Wood explained that it is understandable if some members have conflicts with new expanded meeting schedule. Questions came up regarding the telephone survey and were discussed. Carolyn Verheyen explained that the General Plan Update Committee and a survey research firm will develop the questions for the survey. 800-1,000 people will be surveyed and will proportionally represent the Community (geography, ages, income levels, ethnicity, family size, etc.). Although the whole community will not be surveyed, a statistically valid number will be represented. The Committee also discussed the traffic survey. The traffic study will include an origin/destination analysis to determine where the traffic is coming from and where they are going. The proposal going to Council tomorrow has the 0&D study as an option and the GPUC was recommending it be included. The sample size for the study is only 100 vehicle and it was recommended that a larger number should be much larger —Ms. Wood will look into this issue. Don Webb explained that the OD survey could be accomplished in many different ways: cover all entrance/exit ways and hand out colored postcards with questions, license plate survey, pull over cars and conduct a verbal interview, follow certain vehicles, etc. Ms. Wood announced that this and future meetings will not be videotaped as previously announced. The cable companies could only provide us with a one -hour time slot • which would not be sufficient for our two-hour meetings. We did run the introductions from the March 11t' meeting to let the community know who was serving on the Committee. 2 • III. Discuss Key Questions Carolyn Verheyen started the discussion with the results of the homework assignment, (members selected 3 to 5 questions they felt were most important and should be discussed with the full Committee). 10 members selected question #34 9 selected #17 8 selected #16 7 selected #1,15 & 33 6 selected #18, 46 & 48 5 selected #37 & 51 4 selected #13, 27 & 43 Ms. Verheyen led the discussion of the top questions. The first issue that came up was that there were not any water quality questions on the list. Sharon Wood noted that this issue has been brought up in the Neighborhood Workshops as well. Instead of taking the questions in order Ms. Verheyen suggested starting with #1, #17, #34, #33, #15, #16, #48 The discussion started with question #1. How would you characterize Newport Beach's identity today? Beach town? Residential town? Tourist destination? Corporate center? Cluster of villages? Urban -suburban city? And what would your preference be for Newport Beach's future identity? Residential town? Tourist destination? Corporate center? Cluster of villages? Urban -suburban city? Many comments were made: all of the above, one answer could not do justice to the City; beach should not be considered a negative, this is why we live here and visitors come to Newport; beach town = party town in the eyes of some people; diversity; separate and unique villages; business destination; quality of life. George Jeffries moved to Newport Beach 40 years ago and told the group that the City has changed over the years. It started out as a "beach town" where Corona del Mar ended at 5th Street and Fashion Island didn't exist. If you wanted to hear music or go to the theater you traveled to Los Angeles. The town changed when culture moved closer, when Fashion Island was developed giving residents shopping opportunities and larger office buildings were available for businesses. Mr. Jeffries feels that to say Newport Beach is a "beach town" is living in the past. Question #17. What are use priorities for vacant or underdeveloped sites such as those along Mariner's Mile or in the West Newport industrial area? Local resident serving commercial? Professional offices? Light industrial that serve as "incubators" for • developing new goods and services? Commercial uses that produce City revenue? Uses that serve both residents and visitors? Visitor accommodations? Research & development operations? 3 DRAFT • Discussion started with Banning Ranch. Sharon Wood advised the Committee that currently in the General Plan, it is classed as light commercial/industrial & residential. 75 acres are in the City and the remaining area is County. A Committee member mentioned that this area is on top of the Newport -Inglewood fault line, yet seismic activity has not been addressed. Louise Greeley stated that Banning Ranch has some environmental problems that must be corrected before it is developed due to the oil well activity (capping wells). One idea for the area was to require interested developers to set aside a portion of the development as usable open space. There were no clear answers for Banning Ranch. It was suggested we get information from other communities who have been successful in purchasing open space —Sharon Wood noted that Castaways was an example of an area the City was unsuccessful in purchasing. John Corrough pointed out that half of the property in Mariner's Mile is on the water; however there are no water -related uses listed —another box should be included with this question. Mariner's Mile is split and maybe should be treated differently; a generalized plan for the area will not work. Committee members also felt parking in the area is another major issue. George Jeffries pointed out that the 1988 General Plan specified Coast Highway as three lanes in both directions to relieve some of the congestion; however, that was not done when the bridge repairs were made. Mike Ishakawa noted Newport Heights is affected by traffic overflow from the highway. Also, • development in Mariner's Mile needs to consider the view corridor for Newport Heights residents —the community should be allowed to see the bay also. Laura Dietz mentioned she would like to see the industrial area next to Hoag be used to develop senior housing. Senior needs are not being met. Another Committee Member mentioned that Newport Beach is unique because we haven't segregated age groups. We don't want to create a Leisure World village. IV. Launch Vision Sub -Committee Bob Shelton announced the first sub -committee formed is the "Vision Sub -Committee". He and Phil Lugar reviewed everyone's resume and selected members covering all districts of the City. This sub -committee is tasked with reviewing and modifying the draft Vision Statement. The members of the Sub -Committee are: David Janes (Chair), Jackie Sukiasian, Roger Alford, Florence Felton, Nancy Gardner, Tom Hyans, and Phil Bettencourt. V. Next Steps Next meeting Monday, May 13t'. • VI. Public Comments No public comments offered. all • NEWPORT BEACH VISION STATEMENT VISION: Our desired end state. What we hope to have achieved by 2025. Community Character We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique community with a diversity of coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value the high quality of life, community bonds, and the successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses and visitors. Growth Strategy, Land Use and Development We have a conservative growth strategy that balances the needs of the various constituencies in our community and that cherishes and nurtures our estuary, harbor, beaches, open spaces and natural resources. Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and beneficial to both the economy and our character. There is a range of housing opportunities that allows people to live and work in the City. Design principles emphasize characteristics that maintain the community's • desire for its particular neighborhood or village. Public view areas are protected. Trees and landscaping are enhanced and preserved. A Healthy Natural Environment Protection of environmental quality is a high priority. We preserve our open space resources. We maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor and estuary. The ocean, bay and estuaries are flourishing ecosystems with high water quality standards Efficient and Safe Circulation The transportation and circulation system is safe and convenient for automobiles and public transportation, and friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. Public parking facilities are well planned for residents and visitors. Community Services We provide parks, art and cultural facilities, libraries and educational programs directly and through cooperation among diverse entities. The City facilitates or encourages access to high quality health care and essential social • services. Newport Beach is noted for its excellent schools and is a premier location for hands on educational experience in the environmental sciences. Draft #2 4129102 • Our streets are safe and clean. Public safety services are responsive and amongst the best in the Nation. Recreation Opportunities Newport attracts visitors with its harbor, beaches, restaurants and shopping. We are a residential and recreational seaside community willing and eager to share its natural resources with visitors without diminishing these irreplaceable assets in order to share them. We have outdoor recreation space for active local and tourist populations that highlight the City's environmental assets as well as indoor facilities for recreation and socializing. Coastal facilities include pedestrian and aquatic opportunities. Boating and Waterways We are recognized as a premier recreational boating harbor. We have maintained a hospitable, navigable pleasure boating harbor in the lower bay through careful, low density, non -intrusive on -shore development, by regularly dredging navigation and berthing/mooring areas, and by providing . adequate access to the water and vessel related servicing facilities. The upper bay retains an unencumbered shoreline and its waterways are maintained free of sediment and debris. • Draft #2 4129102 Airport We have been united in our efforts to control and contain the increase in noise, air and traffic pollution associated with operation of the Airport. Our City government has vigorously and wisely used the political process to control the impact of the Airport on our community. This has resulted in a level of Airport operation which has preserved our unique character and land values. Responsive Government Elected officials and city staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community. City of Davis General Plan Update WORKING DEFINITIONS Phase f: VISION: A desired end state. GOAL: A statement of general direction leading towards a desired end state or Asion; a "path of travel." Phase II. POLICY: A statement of values which provides a basis for consistent decision making and resource allocation; a statement of intent which is associated with implementing actions. IMPLH?VMNTING ACTION: A means for accomplishing a policy; a specific program of action. EXAMPLES Davis will enjinj clean air. Improve air qualihj. The Cihj mill facilitate the use ofpollution- reducing transportation modes. Modifij gas-poroered vehicles to reduce emissions Inj 30% by 2005. Danis General Plan Updak Pagel • • • TERM DEFINITIONS VISION GOALS POLICIES IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS Davis GeaeM Plau Update A broad abstract statement describing a desired end state. An action statement that is concrete and achievable, but still defined in terms that are unmeasurable and timeless. A statement of values which provides a basis for consistent decision making. A statement of intent which is associated with goals and implementing actions. not -measurable ..-------------------------- -• --------- __. .-------------- measurable How to do it! Page 4 G 0 h ti TERM DEFINITIONS o m .. N r a r yy �a m io /V,S\,OM v, VISION r t ;its A desired end state o .......... Definition YJ5019s FOLIIEti4,.y=: N yf1,I �i;;;+ P;=z' ' ,KY'• Davis will enjoy clean air mAUt s _'IY!�`;• ,`jM�l�ii,� �,'i�'�j9. n���l':���"�i��'%3..-MMr�= .......... Example e� + ir�y rg [1y^•y.�'��;, fe��illK'.'�2ra oi77c7;,�ii{''�.i�l�.l�',.�' +�s.� �'a:'''s�hppa'��''7�:1u Down$ EEU,CD k�'=`_=',�,, .!;"'is.Bi.A-`R` mN 0 "Vision Statements..... as statements of and mission..... are expressed at a high level of abstraction. purpose These statements are not designed to express concrete ends, but rather to provide motivation, general direction... and image, a tone... used to guide the enterprise." y A' y "A concrete Vision Statement is an essential first step in developing clear goals and objectives." m p Davis Ceuemf Plan UpAnte Page 2 +' 11 D U T N ko 0 m N r+ m (30 m a m m m TERM DEFINITIONS GOAL A statement of general direction leading towards a desired end state or vision; a "path of travel." .......... Definition Improve Air Quality .......... Example "In effective planning it is imperative that the broad, often abstract, vision statements be defined in more concrete terms called goals." "Goals are something to aim at... though they -should be regarded as a map grid rather than as a target at a rifle range." "Goals are usually not defined in terms that are attainable during any particular period of time." "Goals should be possible to achieve. In setting goals, a manager should not set unrealistic or impractical goals." -a Diw&Qaeral Plait Update - Page 3 m m A N r LAYER OF CAKE EXERCISE VISION IMPLEMENTI ACTIONS vision goal select one policy to achieve that goal examine the implementation requirements of that policy m Davis QiremlPlan UPAate Pages 0 a D n\i A I� I 'o to LAYER OF CAKE EXERCISE N o m m N I�+ m > A THE VISION From: "Portland Puts Together a Plan m 31f to Calm Neighborhood Traffic" H Cm A 4 Ln m �Y A O Ln 71 O THE STREETS OF PORTLAND WILL O to BE SAFE AND ATTRACTIVE y o • ......_.... ... o a MIS Cxucrnf Mon Update Page 6 D � i • • LAYER OF CAKE EXERCISE THE STREETS OF PORTLAND WILL BE SAFE AND ATTRACTIVE THE GOALS 1) Reduce Traffic Speeds 2) Reduce Traffic Volumes 3) Increase Bicyclist Safety 4) Increase Pedestrian Safety 5) Target Reductions of Drunk Driving Occurrences 6) Encourage the Use of Seat Belts 7) Encourage Alternative Forms of Transportation -a m Dnvis Cntem! Plait uIxlele Page 7 • i • N N N m m A to (33 Di a -o m to LAYER OF CAKE EXERCISE THE POLICIES THE STREETS OF PORTLAND WILL BE SAFE AND ATTRACTIVE REDUCE TRAFFIC SPEEDS 1) Implement traffic calming (TC) measures in neighborhoods. Prioritize TC over traffic management. TC defined as: Physical improvements on and near the roadways intended to slow traffic to within 5 mph of the speed limit, while maintaining or improving safety for non -auto users of the street (e.g., bicycles, pedestrians). 2) Vigorously and consistently enforce speed limits and other traffic laws. 3) Change the first priority of city-wide transportation planning from congestion management to safety (to the extent allowed by state law). Donis Geoemt Alan Update pap$ w i a G m LAYER OF CAKE EXERCISE THE IMPLFEMENTING ACTIONS 1) Implement coordinated media campaigns that inform and educate the public regarding traffic safety issues. 2) PubIicize traffic safety accomplishments of city agencies and local activist groups. 3) Conduct a Reclaiming Our Street radio program targeting commuter drivers and focussing an driving behaviors. 4) Expand Street Watch programs by providing additional radar guns,speeddisplay signs and increased staff. Focus initial expansion in school areas. 5) Create a community/neighborhood "pace car" program in which bumper stickers identify private autos as pace cars; these cars would pledge to drive at the speed limit as an example to fellow drivers. oauirCcserul Plait uldate r vt THE STREETS OF PORTLAND WILL '*t > BE SAFE AND ATTRACTIVE Pe v, r REDUCETRAFFIC SPEEDS o a u, VIGOROUSLY AND CONSISTENTLY ENFORCE SPEED LIMITS AND OTHER TRAFFIC LAWS c 6) Wherever appropriate, implement an alternating pattern of stop signs that eliminates uncontrolled intersections. 7) Investigate the feasibility of expanding the Police Bureau's Traffic Enforcement budget through the following sources: • traffic fines including photo radar; • insurance premium surcharge; and • fines for violators > 15 mph over limit. 8) Pass state legislation establishing photo radar as enforcement tool. 9) Convince State Speed Control Board to grant City authority to establish 15 mph zones for select streets that: • are low volume; • are no more than a few blocks from higher mph roads; and • have certain unsafe characteristics. Page 9 m N r ut r m m A Ul m m to x LAYER OF CAKE EXERCISE IMPLEMENTATION RAMIFICATIONS COSTS: • Five Access Roads • Time To Implement = 3 years THESTREETS OF PORTLANDWILL BE SAFE AND ATTRACTIVE REDUCETRAFFIC SPEEDS VIGOROUSLY AND CONSISTENTLY ENFORCE SPEED LIMITS AND OTHER TRAFFIC LAWS EXPAND STREET WATCH PROGRAMS BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL RADAR GUNS, SPEED DISPLAY SIGNS AND INCREASED STAFF. FOCUS INITIAL EXPANSION IN SCHOOL AREAS. Police Support: $3,000 • Radar guns are $1,500 per vehicle. $405,000 • Additional S20 hours/year/school = 2,600 total hours =1.5 persons at $90,000/yearfully loaded. $51,000 • Two additional vehicles for coverage at $25,500/vehicle including maintenance. Speed Display Signs and Installation: $22,590 • Thirty Display Signs at $750 per sign including installation. Overhead and Administration Costs: • 57.0 additional hours atone tickeyhour at 5 schools = 2,600 more tickets/year. $120,900 • Administrative costs to process ticket=$]5.50/ticket. 16 200 • Staff time to monitor program =120 hours/year at $45/hour for three years $618,600 for 3 year implementation. Total police budget = $15,000,000/3 years. Darts Geaeal Plal 11pink You just spent 4.1% of your police budget on this programt Page 70 s we've been goind4lirough '(—�, our ".visioning" )Si'ocess to � [ get started on upcliihrig the, general plan, I've been.ljearingy„',;F , comments from resiaehts;that'riiake me concerned that pele:may not . redly understand what this project is ail about. I hope I can�`+provide: , some clarity on the geirerar',plan update in this letter. ' The first thing I'd like to -tackle is the notion that Newport Beach is a "built -out" city. I happen to•fhink that's true — but it doetn't'lessen the importance of the general plan update.. Having, completed rAlicli of the development that was -planned -in 'the 1988 Land Use and Circulation ,Elements makes it all'the more important for Newport Beach to take a fresh look at the policies fora more mature city: And I don't think that . anybire on the City Council tlrinl s we're updating the general plan to cliange our built -out status by took ing for•more places for major new development. What we're doing in 'terms of land use and development policies is creating a place where we have economic growth even though. the population isn't growing. Taking a look at the differences between the original general planiof the early 1970s and the Land Use and Circulation Elements of 1988 help illustrate my point. In the early '70s, the:city was planning fora major wave of growth, as development made its • way into central Orange County and The Irvine Co. was ready to develop the Newport Beach portion of the Irvine Ranch. It was important for that general plan to provide for the land use and development that was expected, and accepted, at the time. By 1988, we could see and feel the effects of the'earlier general plan. A new gen- eral plan effort started to put more controls on development that result- ed in a stronger tie between land' use,and~cuculatioq •to -lessen the effects oilevelopment. lyow'we're one step-furtherin the evolution'of the city. We're close to '.the'planned•capacity of both our land and our circulation system. We have fewer opportuntties•to add things , .that will benefit our community, and people are,much more sensitive to every increment of development. The rebuilding of new.bomes fn 'the older parts of the city is creating new issues never'before imagined. That is•why tbi?; general plan update is so important. We need to consider very carefully what development opportunities remain„and what is the best way to use.them to complete Newport BeachrBut, this process must also take iritu consideration providing an envirbxiinent'for eco- nomic growth to provide for the high level of services for bur population. City revenue is hot keeping pace with the fncreased cost of services and infrastnfcture:'The rising prop erty tax'basd from our stratospheric, rise in housiug•prices wiil not in and of itself cover the future anticipated deficit. As an affluent and educated population„we:are capable of creat- ing economic growthawithout irnpairing.opr qualityof life. Howev- er, some change to:our policies dur- ing this general plan update.process is necessary.' . Some of the opportunities may not be apparent, and theymaf involve• change in the development and use of land. Many people probably think of, more high-rise offfce'buildings in Newport'Center as -the obvious development opportunities in New- port Beach. I do not think any addi- tional growth on the coast is appro- priate. But I. think the city should be more concerned about areas that have smaller properties in multiple ownerships, with development that is J` S balance. reaching the end of its useful life. I'm talking about.the 15th and - 16th streets'aiea befvnd i4oj dg Hospi- tal, and the triangle bounded by and Bristol Street.(the•interior,•not - the major streets). I challenge people to drive through those•areas and tell me their vision is for those cueas,'to remain unchanged for the next 20 to 25 years, especially the single story buildings'on Birch'Street. The city must continue to invest in our infrastructrire, continue our high level of services:and create an envi- ronment for redevelopment in certain area.of our city While Z respect the conflict between growth and these who wish•no'gtowth,-limited growth that is�logical.and-reasonable and tied to;traffic.unprovements; is appro-. priate. Our-aualittoflife is served :,not on -vices 1 IN ser- inevitable-and,necessary; but change doesn'.t necessarily mean growth, Change can have more positive than negative effects — if we plan for that change'and manage it well. So these aYe'the questions we need to answer in the visioning process,.and convert into policies for the updated general plan. Which areas do we want to change? How do we'want them to change? what do we want them to become? What incentivestan the city provide to facilitate'tlie kind of change we want? Whrch•areas. do, wewant to maintain in their current condition? How,should we respond to trends ' (e.g., "mansionization," condomini- um'conversfons, increasing density by using -old lot lines, etc.) to pre- serve these areas? That is what I think the•general plan update is about. ' ' TOD RIDGEWAY is the mayor,of Newport Beach. ' • as HOW TO HELP RIVER PARK AND STAY INVOLVED... • Become a member of FHBP with a yearly contribution to help with the work on River Park • Fill out form below to receive announcements • Check our Web Site, www.ocfohbp.org for events and progress ................................................, Yes! I'll help the Friends of Harbors, Beaches & Parks and Orange Coast River Park. : FHBP contributions are tax-deductible. Contributors receive news- letters and other information on our conservation activities. Please check the category you wish. : Friend ($50) Benefactor ($500) Associate ($100) Patron ($1,000+) : Sponsor ($250) Other • New Renewal Name • Address • City, State, Zip : : : • PHONE FAX E-MAIL : Please clip and mail to FHBP, PO. Box 9256, Newport Beach, CA 92658 : High adventure close to home In River Park. Imagine ten miles of trail connections creating a seamless passageway through the Orange Coast River Park's 1,000 acres. The OCRP will be an oasis of tranquility where residents and visitors can enjoy the serenity of connecting with nature. This vision can become reality with your help and support. Orange Coast River Park Committee A sub -committee of FHBP Louise Greeley, Mike Johnson riflI�" Ann Krueger Tam Egan Jean Nagy Bob Fisher Stephanie Sandy Gems Pacheco Lena Hayashi John Scott Justine Howard Jean Watt JOIN THE FRIENDS TODAY! Friends of Harbors, Beaches & Parks Board of Drecroa Jean Wall, Marilyn Ganahl NFIii Sandy Gem Alice Sorenson, Sri Grindle vlrF PRFSii Bob Joseph Don Thomas, TRF491RFR Paul Mudge Carolyn Wood, Stephanie SF:RFrc.. Pacheco Garry Brown John Scott Debra Clarke Theresa Scars Howard Nancy Skinner DeCruyenaere Bob Fisher, F%FIPNF DIRFi rOP 9' 5, o cc = = C CC M O N , C-) o'er W m E" a' a = o arc W cc Q 1:5 6- Q J IJJ 1- HUNTINGTON BEACH COSTA MESA NEWPORT BEACH C d u f f C O 0 N d� A park worth getting excited about. Black -Crowned Night Heron grows ready for release from Wildlife Care Center Interested volunteers (the human kind) may call 7141374-5587 to join in. r � TIN 9N LAN US CONS ILOLIFE CARE.. y 0 LEGEND C e STAGING AREA PEDESTRIAN ACCESS I� VEHICULAR ACCESS f ORANGE COAST RIVER PARK An Opportunity to Restore 1,000 Acres of Orange County's Historic Riverside Landscape! 1. Who are the "Friends of ATL_ANt"wp ' j Z Harbors, Beaches & Parks?" v, The Friends is anon -profit organization formed in 1997 to promote parks and wildlife preserves in Orange County. The ESA Friends' membership is made up of responsible citizens from throughout the County who are concerned about protect- fi ing and promoting environmental quality. his concern is accentuated by a predicted u e population increase of 500,000 over the next 20 years. The Friends' Board of Directors includes former mayors of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, business owners and long-time park volunteers and community activists. 2. Where and What is the Orange Coast River Park? The Friends envision a 1,000-acre park and nature preserve at the mouth of the Santa Ana River -- in the heart of the Orange County coastal area. (See map) For perspec- tive, this compares in size with the Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. The River Park would extend across 10 separately owned properties. Portions of the park would lie within the cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Huntington Beach, and under the jurisdiction of the County, State and Federal Governments. The park would also incorporate properties that are now privately owned but could be included in the park when purchased with available state and federal Qy funds. Cpgsr t wQ``� 3. Would the Three Cities Give up Their Ownership or Authority Over Their Areas? No The River Park is proposed as a cooperative venture of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, the County and private landowners. The Friends believe that the Individual open space areas will be more valuable and more useful if they are fashioned into one great park. The three cities, the County and the State Coastal Conservancy have endorsed the concept. Each has assisted financially toward the cost of preparing a plan to define and Illustrate the park and its advantages. 4. What are the Expected Benefits of the Friends' River Park Proposal? A. unified 1,000-acre park would... L: Lower overall taxpayer cost due to economics of scale in development, operation and maintenance. • Increase the likelihood of attracting state and federal grants and private donations due to the importance of the unified 1,000 acre park. ® Enhance wildlife diversity and protection due to a compre- hensive plan of operation for the entire area. 0 Expand enjoyment by visitors due to interconnecting trails and coordinated parking, restrooms and security services. Provide better protection of neighboring horres due to expanded security agencies 5. What Will This Cost Taxpayers? The cost to restore degraded lands for wildlife habitat and recre- ation has been estimated at S20 million. This surn can be raised by combining already planned expenditures of the public agen- cies with additional grants and donations. The State Park Bond Act of 1999 makes funds available. Our park concept will help Lis compete for these funds. 6. How Long Will it Take to Create the Park? Approximately 300 acres have already been developed and another 100 acres is planned soon. The remainder could take 5 to 10 years, depending on the availability of grants, donations and other contributions being pursued. The 1,000 acres does not need to be completed before the park is open for enjoy- ment. The grand park vision can be achieved, incrementally, in accordance with a plan that insures progress and the appropri- ate end result. 7. What is the Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center? The Wetlands and Wildlife Care Center is a non-profit facility dedicated to treat and rehabilitate injured and sick wildlife and educate the public about the fragile ecosystem of our area. It is a part of the Oiled Wildlife Care Network and has responded to a number of oil spills. 8. How Can You Get Involved? Join the Friends of Harbors, Beaches & Parks ($50.00 annual dues, with the bulk going toward our River Park effort). Let your friends and neighbors know about the park. Enlist the support of your elected officials. For further information, please contact: The Friends of Harbors, Beaches & Parks P 0 Box 9256, Newport Beach, CA 92658 Phone: (949) 399-3669 • www.ocfohbp.org Join us! Be a Friend of River Park, • To: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager From: Mike Johnson, GPAC member Date: April 16, 2002 Subject: The Banning Ranch As the most popular subject selected by the members — the future of undeveloped property, considerable time was spent at the GPAC second meeting discussing the Banning Ranch — residential vs open space/park. The following information should be of value to the Committee members in better understanding the area- l). A description of the geologic problems in Newport Beach and their particular effect on residential development on the Banning Ranch; Newport -Inglewood fault zone Recently discovered San Joaquin upthrust fault Numerous surface small faults . - Methane gas seepage Toxic chemicals in the soil Underground cavities due to oil production leading to subsidence and sink holes Oil production water runoff violations and undisclosed sump pits Weakened bluffs due to excavations, land fills and building Tsunami danger to Newport Beach City of Newport Beach legal liability 2). A brochure describing the proposed "Orange Coast River Park (OCRP) adjacent to the Banning Ranch. We can provide additional brochures if you can have prepared sufficient copies of the remaining information contained herein for GPAC members and staff. I will be out of town on vacation until May P. If you have any questions, call Louise Greeley at 631-1475. • EDWARD G. HEATH CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Mr. Mike Johnson April 4, 2002 5803 Seashore Dr. Newport Beach CA Dear Mike: ,At your request I have reviewed the Draft Report to the General Plan Committee prepared by Mr. James Orstad. With regard to the potential geologic problems to development on the Banning Ranch Property, Mr. Orstad has pointed out three major concerns that I agree must be addressed prior to any future development. The first potentially hazardous condition are the numerous small faults that have been identified on the property by Guptill et. al. These faults cut all but the most recent soil profile and are closely associated with the active Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone that caused the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake, the epicenter of which was near Huntington Beach. Future movement on this fault zone could cause some of the faults mapped on the subject property to experience surface displacement. • Another potential fault problem is the recently reported discovery of a possible buried fault that underlies the section of coastline from Huntington Beach to Dana Point. Lisa Grant, an assistant professor of geology at U. C. Irvine, has suggested that this fault produced a major earthquake in 1769. In my opinion this buried fault has not been confirmed by other scientists or scientific investigations and that even if it exists as proposed it may not be the cause of the 1769 event. However if it is a significant fault it would underlie the property and must be further investigated. The third area of my concern is the existence of old oil wells on the property and the posibility that all may not have been abandoned in a proper and safe manner. Also, there is evidence on adjacent properties of natural gas seepages and thus this represents a potential hazard to residential development on the subject property. • Respectfully Yours, EdwHeath 317 ARLINGTON DRIVE • PASADENA, CA 91105 . (818) 799-9755 • FAX (818) 289-5946 123 APOLENA AVENUE . NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 . (714) 673-2270 y DRAFT Ff PORT- 70 7HFGENERAL:PLA►0 COMMITTEE f Liz , �iar3 �cc90 Q dcS �'tn' �eVe�D�m�t t �1� (�?l�mL Srne� f�+n- �. Cm�as'1'a.Q. eve% ehtan7`I�i�?��ivc' `e�C ao©3. Q©tom plans tom �vE �{o Cis' oAe P�ennin7 its, .� P40 f�lX'i�sih �r �e/n°��j eR �'1/t92 CmrlS�j/uit4 �nne !�?Q {firs%��C Rts �►c�e��. d' v 11 �� I Mli C2Q. MT COWL$ ;k alege4q%? ra�q let' c� (1�. A'Yct �(o t w A.�,rAts, /Yews /a¢�i64 Gn� m r� �tis� nin Oct. R� h= Inca �cfi��s �'� �cs�ol f^d► Ris(� d� r J 4N� A- cif r /11�2 CRPrJG` deZamax oe�'�t a� ,�tn�!� ` 0'L =e>MfWk, 4he �k1his'�� a-F e�fsfl9 �A /Nvs7' �e%tom dt. f�a� Carl StAfm. a�v1�9r� �emuJ�se. 0M. Mayr,cZ Tog, IRi¢?e Aq FBAs eYfrUO4 -Rrs cuesiraes t -{f,¢ Gc-►woaQ ��art �o photGcl" blob lle t it 6e rko M verK Iy M4 Pa h'/a� a4g �J FpAW. rJa�' r1' Se (ten owh.� TAo�` -JPz> 9*eMo, M6 phs e , "'o a dev;'o. fo a. clar�R Q3arnnr I��r�;h b i I xnw�� wick b avtcoU Irr mk' ,rein -f P c.ef Ian�s c�► c�,n ale d>�nr zvov�cQOl�ov.S crATrri+ tf�te. I ' • January, 2002 rRINAw WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES The State is requesting Newport Beach to develop a local coastal program by June.2003. This includes the oil fields in the bluffs above PCH in West Newport. There is one developer proposing.hundreds of homes in these oil fields. The City, County, and the State must not overlook the safety and welfare of their citizens should they allow it to be developed. In 1935 EXXON began drilling and abandoning oil wells. There remains today uncharted sump pits, pipelines, tar levels, gas seeps and toxic chemicals in the soil. As late as March 1999, West Newport Oil was also suspect of discharging harmful material on this property. (See news article attached.) Equally dangerous are the geological hazards --sympathetic fault lines, weakened bluffs, underground cavities, storm drains to the ocean, and most of all ground settling and subsidence. Richard Baker, the District Deputy for the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, State of California stated, "The best way to mitigate these problems is, don't build over oil fields." • To date, methane gas seeps are still releasing odors to the residents of Newport Crest. A letter noting this problem was first sent September 8, 1991, to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Some bluffs on this property had coastal gun emplacements during WWII. They now contain FILL. Other bluffs lost much of their natural support when CALTRANS excavated a road through there intended to intersect a proposed freeway. At least one bluff developed large tension cracks after heavy El Nino rains. The City received two letters (dated June 8, 1993 and February 18, 1998) on this problem. There also exists two dangerous quake centers in this vicinity --the Newport-j!nglewooJ Fault lying just offshore and a Thrust Fault along Coast Highway. (See E.I.R. report attached.) We wonder why our local government would risk development and deep pocket lawsuits. The Sierra Club wishes to buy this property, clean it up and create a more beautiful wetland and wild life preserve. We couldn't ask for a more beautiful addition to our community. James Orstad 11 Summerwind Ct. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Enclosures C9, • • it Summerwind Ct. Newport Beach, CA 92663 949-548-5931 May 1, 1998 County of Orange 300 North Flower St., Room 321 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Attention: Ron Tippets, E.P.D. REGARDING: NEWPORT BANNING OIL RANCH This is unusual property with gullies and 55 foot high bluff tops. The area contains a multitude of natural and man-made hazards. This area is on Monterey formation with a dense bedrock of compressed earth. However, the bedrock contains old faults, fissures and clay seams. The risks of • mitigation increases when over old faults and an old oil field. Oil development began 1943. There was no state controlled safeguards. Old drilling oil, sludge and slurry was disposed of in an open pit to dissipate and dry before bulldozing over. Exhausted wells were not abandoned safely and old corroded pipes also leaked oil. Some geological reports made mention that old fault lines appeared to be transporting oil or gas. (See E.I.R. Report 142, Hoag Hospital Section 4.10.1.) Slope stability appears to be a major problem. (See Report by Earth's Technical Corp., July 31, 1986, for the oil company.) It states: "We recommend caution because of uncertainties and the lack of knowledge on the mesa walls." Our Condo structure shares a bluff top with Banning property. This bluff is 55 feet above the gully and our condo is 65 feet from the edge. We are the only structure that comes this close to an edge. This is the only bluff top that has experienced both surficial and deep failure. SubsicV,ias damaged our condo. This is the only bluff top having an old well site at its base, the only bluff top showing evidence of liquefication. We believe any excavation at this area of the cliff, bluff top, face or base will contribute to its geologic instability. In fact, our request for help began in June 1993 to the City of Newport and later to the oil company, who never responded. At this time we are in the dark as to their 5 planning to buttress this area or that it remains untouched as a park area. At any rate, some mitigation should be attempted even though it remains as is. SLIDES AND SUBSIDE.- 1. Kenneth Henderson, an official of the State Department of Conservation, Division of Gas and Oil, stated: The State needs additional inspections and test requirements on all old oil fields in our coastal zone. (L.A. Times, 12/29/93, page A3.) 2. The famous Geologist Arthur Sylester reported in the Science Journal: "Coastal oil fields pose a big worry to earth movement when old fault lines and fissures allow subterranean fluids to weaken and cause hillside disasters." 3. Geophysicists now use G.P.S. "Ground Positioning System" to pinpoint land subsidence within a few thousands of an inch. Also to determine how and where it is occurring. This method uses satellites. California's state law in 1956 required oil companies to inject as much fluid as it took out of the ground. This technique prevents subsidtffW lowever, between 1943 and 1956 they created many cavities. Cavities cause movement, even sink holes. On January 15, 1993, Costa Mesa experienced a large sink hole very near the oil • property, at Superior and 16th Street. No thorough investigations were made, but there were several theories. 4. Gases have no known means of generation, accumulation or migration. Hydrogen sulfide is dangerous to humans (E.I.R. No. 142 for Newport City, January 1992, page 5, Section 2.3). 5. A letter from this writer was written to your E.M.A. Department, September 8, 1991, reporting fumes and odor from the oil fields onto our area. SEISMIC DANGERS 1. Geological reports verify the presence of old faults; California's existing criteria on faults state: Pre -Holocene faults are presumed to be inactive and require no setbacks. However, Earth's Technical Corp. report for the oil company dated July 31, 1986, Section 3.4, states: "Owing to the lack of charcoal or other material amenable to absolute dating techniques (heir age is imprecise. 2. Pre -Holocene faults and volcanoes surprised everyone a few years ago when they became active. Science Journal reported scientists now theorize they V • cannot be considered inactive. 2 a • 3. Tectonic Geological Studies revealed that oil and sludge lubricate tectonic plates (L.A. Times, page B2). 3A9 4/47 4. Lucile M. Jones of the U.S. Geological Survey released their report on Epicenter Quakes. They affected sympathetic land disturbance within a 100 mile radius. The Banning project is within radius of five major epicenters — Newport -Inglewood, Northridge, Whittier, Landers, and San Andreas. The Newport -Inglewood epicenter is only four -tenths of a mile away. 5. Scientists at Caltech Seismological Lab report: There also exist many unknown, unmapped, deeply buried Thrust Faults that pose brutal danger (L.A. Times, 1/18/94, page Ali). We have one mapped Thrust Fault along Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach. See map by Moore in the E.I. Report No. 142 for the City of Newport. Since many builders shop around for various soil engineers, etc., to get the answers they want, and since there exist so many unknowns, it would be prudent to have a Geophysicist Report, a Geo-technical Report, since there are so many inaccessible portions of this jobsite. For assurance, the reports should be reviewed by the State geologist from the Division of Mines and Geology. Modern construction techniques can stabilize most hillsides providing all the facts get to the authorities and/or the developer is willing to spend the money. Insurance companies will not insure homes that slide and the victims' only hope to recover their investment is to go to court. Additional information and reports are available. Also an invitation to oversee the oil property from an upper balcony. Sincerely your�, James L. Orstad lYiLa JLO:rs CC: City of Newport Beach California Coastal Commission Attachments: Photo and (S) news clippings 7 0 0 Kevin Murphy, Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Sir: June 8, 1993 The recent rain on June 5 got us talking again about a possible hazard that was exposed during the heavy rains we had at the first of tjie year- A partial separation of the ground which caused an opening about 18" wide and approximately 30 feet long occurred overnight. The continuing rain and our recent rain is filling this crack with mud. It may not be so obvious in time. The location of this is on a strip of vacant city property between the southwest corner of Newport Crest Condominiums and the West Newport oil Company, in front of my unit. Our units are on top of a bluff situated 65 feet from the edge and 95 feet above the gully. In the gully was an abandoned oil well. We understand this area has old faults, but wonder if these wells caused a cavity or subsidence which contributes to this area being hazardous. Can the City investigate this opening triggered by the rainfall and let us know if there is any subsequent danger. Thank you for your prompt attention. P 368 190 210 Receipt for Certified Mail Me,mur.w. cm,.p. Mo rmm lnlemrtipr,t JO:rs J cer//�/ ,.'nJCos,00l.S//f� Z=s Orstad cc: California Coastal Commission Newport Crest Board of Directors Kevin Murphy, Manager City of Newport Beach 3399 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Sir: Z 138 142.766 usro,ws Receipt for Certified Mail ee e.+.v.. cww.p, FmtN1 Dem, u.bMml.vt 11.1 .wY This is our second letter asking for help regarding the safety of our multi -family condominium sitting on a bluff top. Mqst of the bluff belongs to the City. Too many things or warnings have occurred here. Our first letter was June 8, 1993. Our condo sits atop this bluff 45 ft. above the gully and 65 ft. from the edge. This mesa has been reported as being underlain by siltstone with clay seams. History also revealed there was an abandoned oil well at the very bottom of the bluff slope. Shortly after the heavy rains in 1993, a large Tension Crack appeared overnight. It was approximately 30 feet long and 18 inches wide. We had also noticed some mud slides on other adjacent slopes we face. It only took your grading engineer ten minutes to conclude it was a normal drainage swale. The bluffs edge stands about 4 feet higher and slopes toward us. We watched during later rains how much of the water was collecting and channeled underground through this newly created swale. We often wondered why he allowed this. Why not level this bluff and allow the'rain to dissipate evenly. Wouldn't that stabilize our biufftop? In 1995 we experienced mole heavy rains producing more cracks, house settlement, but worse —structural damage. The contractor said we experienced some subsidence. (Reports and bills available.) Is it advisable to have a qualified geological study made to determine what dangers the City could mediate? We have no insurance to cover soil movement. So we look to you for helping us to rest easy through the forthcoming El Ninos. T ank you. ames Orstad Condo Unit Representative Cc: California Coastal Commission ',� • STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF WEST NEWPORT MESA, Published in conjunction with by The South Coast Geological SOCIety'S EXCERPT Paul Guptill, Casey ArmstroT September 19-20, 1992 Feld Trip and Marc Egli INTRODUCTION A detailed geologic investigation was conducted on West Newport mesa in 1986 to evaluate the potential of faulting on property planned for t7ture development. West Newport Beach is one'of the few locations along the Newport -Inglewood structural zone where offsets in Pleistocene -sediments can be observed in outcrop_: During our field investigation we identified numerous near -surface faults in the mesa escarpment along road cuts and ip•trenchese _ The majority of these faults are normal faults with less than 6 inches of apparent dip separation in late Pleistocene sediments. Some faults were mapped, however, that have displacements.as great as 2 to 3 feet. 'rhe oil field is found to consist of two primary faults and numerous.?rif associated smaller faults such as the Banning fault.'Vo prominent faults are designated the North Branch of the Newport -Inglewood fault and the North Branch Splay fault. A third fault, the South Branch, which has the largest apparent separation (1,500 feet) of all of the faults is located south of the study area as reported by Hunter and Allen (1957) and is the main branch of the zone. The general tensional environmeni: across the mesa 15 reflected in the y, near surface apparent dip -slip separation observed in trenches and in -14 the bluff exposures. The discontinuous nature of faults on the terrace surface and small normal displacements, predominantly down on . the southwest toward the North Branch, indicate a broad zone of r@n5ion at the surface in response to normal fault slip at depth. The following conclusions are made: o Two zones of faulting are present on the mesa; one spatially associated with the North Branch Splay fault and the other with the North Branch of the Newport -Inglewood zone. o The zone of faulting associated with the North Branch Splay consists of a broad zone (up to 500 feet) of subparallel, discontinuous, normal fault traces, typically with less than 6 inches of dip -slip separation within the Pleistocene marine sediments. FLUVIAL PACIFIC COAST HIOIIWAY . , 1� t 111 I , • •4 .•• •�•• .1 •. /{: •• .•, .1•!' •yam•,••. y��. .� SA140CA13 o ' SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTION , WEST NEWPORT MESA The mesa is underlain by predominantly Pleistocene shallow -marine and tidal -flat and fluviomarine deposits that have been incised locally y�' by several stream channels. This marine and tidal deposits typically SEC • consist of well -sorted fine-grained sands, silts and clays. 0 0 0 • AESA COMMUNMES SINCE 1907 Fear Akv, :Mljy rraoz- WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1999 EPA probing Banning Ranch water violations ■ Federal agency is investigating whether dredged, fill aske Ern' San Resonance inlets.inlets.get sathe agency" gency wnotified fear to aLL facilities could ha,e ,e :d N the illegal discharging oil information bom'Ivah rldno. but has y'el In rtrene a o+l+•n••• material was dumped into wetlands. spring that them may have been of the vfolatloos d Section Ig1 d the of matenaL John Flynn. manomeYtor the despite rneral ealrnwm.. rah• cials sand. W,o wnI tie ❑•, ,.,n Icvon, Rnaxv have timed with housing duvet- 1 g open Taylor Woodrow Homes to peen Water Act on the Banning land°wnen end developer, said It Is dBBcull far his clients m rare- not kgow whrther tie In„+lints• Ton mil dP% Ta •lor i13,rdlen 4 L a*M ' loan Newport Banning Ranrh Ranchload.Thetsectonprotdbits discharges of dredged os IW meet about the matter until the — un a rr.••wn. a rn n,r M1Ttebusmessesatij'Tmmm�n NEWPORT BEACH — The I.I.C. a red Crude vemm� proPos- mate+Wbn otoaewatcrsaM wet• federal agency completes Its e, U.S. P.nWronmentd P+oteNon U.S. Ing to build 1,75o homes. a Mall �� Mlhasrl • permit, Leidy investig&tion. respond end am wnrkuur wnh Ill- ts investgating a passible village dad a small ire an the saw.•A, tar as we're concerned, agency, Flynht soul. violation of the Cimn Water Act mesa. About hat[ of the leadWe did an inspection and Wane was rho Killing of wetands The nest step in the pier,.%,. by the owner of the Renaing Reachproperty inWest NO -Part would remain open specs• Taylor Woodrow oftcials formd ibete were ectlt going oolWtwere nsultlngNdredgtd � W� �� 00 Of Rancho Santlego Parameter Aerie.' Flynn to vmt the site end datemnme ill•- boundary of the wetlands etl,rl The property, bordered by West Coast Highway and the Santa Ana River.mmistsof a 292- it= mesa ovmlooking about 120 acres of degraded wetlands. Landowners Anra Energy and Rancho Santiago' Partnership we unvelied a plan to resin We deg+edad proPe+ty Into a matenlW gafng Into wetaod;• he acid. said• Neocy Woo. chief of the F1hA1 ed, Wousmd. pbM.gY semi el the Rannu,n viable wetand. The head hall IDJum.the eganryondeRdan wetlands led sedirn at manage• Ranch p,nPcM allx ell,nul. Ilan been the site of oil opmadom by and to the discharging. met officer, sold Me lmestig, Is and so fee has were intend by the US Mn, West Newport Oil Co. for 16 years, Beemrsa the area has been usectf %tail production. Leidy said a civil maim fnvolved the landowners and Ne Corps of Enrmnas W.. s,ad Ih,• site may air may and 6"'. Rob Leidy, wetlands science and geld program manager for activities associated With closing old all wells or building roods to oilcompenS•. in Nwember. the EPA fegur•sl• SEE BANNING PAGE a BANNING CONTINUED FROM 1 affected by any dlscliarge. Leidy said violations of the Clean Water Act are punished either by fines or a' requirement to do some restoration for the damages. West. Newport Oil alsoW subject of a criminal invest by the, Orange County attomey's office, along wit and federal agencies, fo It possible environmental �� tions. Officials at the district attor- ney's office and the state Depart- ment of Fish and Game have declined to comment on the details of that investigation. Fly- nn also declined to comment. silt would be fruitless to specu- late about what conclusions the DA might or might not reach," he said. lb • 11 It► l 4I I ThE GKaEtq vitk—Banni�7 f16d Con too/ f RS ect Mama FJf, �Ve4 � IYoR� 1IesR Ve* HornEs_ Too mxh 0// was _XCAVA-b81) 'FRcm tf e- sl s at)d a suit was Pile arinst' f Re E'�K�' oSs CRTT And A Cif 4rezeA i1,6s0, wnm.FS TIMES COSTA MESA Project Blamed for Damage to Homes TUESDAY. DECEMBER 24.1991 S3 Lori Costa was awakened one night recently by "huge popping sounds like a hot water heater." When she got up to seek the source of the mysterious noise. she saw the Italian ceramic tiles that adorn her home cracking before her eyes. Costa later conferred with neighbors and found that they were experiencing similar troubles —cracked pools, fences, floors. kitchen walls and cement foun- dations. Last week, Costa and 10 other home- owners filed a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court against several govern- ment agencies demanding compensation for the damage in their North Mesa —t� patio is cracked in half." Costa said. "The concrete foundation of my house is crumbling and my walls are coming apart. They don't even touch am• more." The claim names the Countv of Or- ange Environmental Agency, the Or- ange County Flooa Control District. Grange County Sannaron District .and ire cat of Costa Mesa. The S10-million Gree,,viae-Banning protect began in Ann! =no :: schedules - be complete in rid-i993. It is the `irs: phase of the decade -long. Sls billion public works :mpror-cment clan. ■costa Mesa . ■Newport beach Irene ■ Corona del Mar (ink between the damage and the proj- ect has been established. ✓ "It's hard to say why [the tiles] cracked," said Medeiros. "Some of. the vwnes are quite a ways away from the rroject." Fullerton attorneys Warren B. Wim- rr and Randall J. Friend said the 11 aomeowners first noticed damage dur- ing the summer, when large amounts of : soil were moved to widen the walls of the channel, which is within several blocks of their clients' homes. . "Some of these homes are not everd marketable at this point," said Friend. The 11 homes. on New Hampshire. Europa and Sandpiper drives and.Iowa Street. have market values ranging from $260.000 to $600.000, he said. Costa. who bought her house a year ago. said if she had known about the construction project, she would not have boueht the S350.000 home. "_,Tv '�nme tnenr�nrP AOPc not cover damaees frotii land soil movement. sne ac:a. " t couia never seu . it in this condition. Now I stand to lose every- thing because (the agencies] decided to dig berind my house and be negligent. I put ever;: dime of my life savings into this house."—:)ONDU- BAR and LISA \fASCARO C�6�raq {n Tro //n� Ag471, ?P &,° ri1 gaue (SAY 14(i %fPpe* OF m inoq, (74 V 10 V �k FRIDAY JULY30,1999 Los Angeles rlmes • • Vulnerable toVapors, Abandoned Oil Fields Leave Dangers of Methane Blasts As if earthquakes weren't enough, there's another in- visible danger lurking be- neath the Los Angeles Ba- se, from Newport Beach north to Newhall. It is methane —a colorless, odorless, highly explosive gas oatmaily pro- duced by the 76odd oil fields on top Of which much of the metropolitan area Is built. The fields are primarily clustered along the area's major fault lines, where oil seeps out of ruptured rack. So, if your community is built on or near a fault, there's a good chance it's also sitting atop abandoned oil wells —and methane. If not properly vented, the gas can work its way through even concrete foundations and cause disastrous explosions. Along the portion of.Orange County's coast that roughly coincides with the Newport -Inglewood fault, everyone from hospital construction teams to developers of gated commis- nities we taking measures to reduce the threat of methane —or to harness it as an energy source. Ironically, wfien it comess to meth- ane. It's better to have plumping ad wells in residential areas than aban- doned wells without proper venting. Once a well Is abandoned, or even sitting idle. "What Mother Nature did to create the oil field, Mother Nature is going to continue to do—fdl that OR field back up," Baker said. And with the seeping oil come swelling methane fumes. If they find a weak IWr in an old well, where air mixes with the fumes, they can and do explode outward, ignited by as little as a light switch being flicked am "If you have oxygen and gas and a spark. you get an explosion." Baker said, an area of an oil field will repressur- ize ;but there are telling examples. In 1973, a Newport Beach cottage owned by a retired sea captain began filling up rapidly with crude oil. The culprit was an abandoned oil well directly below. The force of oil rising from the. improperly sealed well cracked the concrete foundation and flooded the kitchen. ,,'tpe house was partially, tam down to get to the leaking well and properly cap it. Several years earlier, a real es. tat' agent preparing to show a hditse ta Balboa Coves sparked an explostve fire by turning on a light switch, •` -No one was killed, but the house was,gutted in the blaze, which was attobuted to trapped methane from anpld well. •; The risk of methane explosions "is'probably very small, but it's always a possibility," Chalk said "It's that 1% chance that worries you:... The gas will seep up through cement and eventually come to the surface. It's just good all. field practice to go ahead and vent something. Otherwise, an ex- plosiori can happen." • While all fields could refill and repressurize, Chalk said -'.Orange County beaches offer proof that a great deal of oil and related meth- ane has been pumped out over in Newport Beach, though, city and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presby- terian officials found the supply of underground methane to be end- less —so they decided to harness it to power hospital boilers. highway from the neighborhood where the real estate agent turned oil the light switch and blew up thd: house, and the hospital pumps out methane from under those houses new as a community service, ac- cbri ing to Reveley. +•No state law requires that per- mits be obtained to build, on top of oil (lelds�, • "We wdl always leg people, with the earthquakes, ground settling, all kinds of dynamics going on underground, the but way to mlti- gate Is don't build over oil wells," Baker said. If they must build on them, them they need to vent. he said _ Ang leaking well on the site, even if It is not near the planned building, must be reported immedi- ately, and all wells under houses or businesses must be vented. State engineers lest for leaks and inspect capping and venting pro- ,cedures before issuing a certificate Times staff writer Edward Sayer' 'contributed to tab story. RICHARD BAKER IS DISTRICT DEPUTY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I9-- SUPPLY—NU—NTAL DRAFT This Report for Hoag and Vicinity (page 6 section2.4) FUDMRON1fE."lTAL I. PACT REPORT • NO. 142 FOR Oil property of Hoag and Banning are adjacent. The} HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN are considered common geological areas of gas seeps. SCH #89061429 • APPENDIX I (PPI-13 Sections 1.0-6.0) SUPPLEMENTAL HYDROGEN SULFIDE/METHANE GAS STUDY 3.2 Methane The effects of the local methane seeps in the Newport Beach area have been noted as including minor fires from the trapping of the gas within a confined space and economic impacts from source control measures and monitoring. The hydrogen sulfide and methane gases are likely to be seeping from the soils, with the unknowns associated with the fractured geologic system, leads us to conclude that the concentrations and locations of gas seepage from the soils are very poorly known. Scattered fractures may be acting as conduits for the gases almost anywhere on the subject property. 5.1 Project Specific Impact The project would result in the excavation of aiR,,9B8 cubic yards of soils to an undetermined 1epth The disturbance of the soils may result in levels of hydrogen sulfide and methane, • or another unknown hazardous constituent, in the atmosphere in quantities greater than the NIOSH; OSHA, and ACGIH limits, or in concentrations which may pose the threat of. explosion. • It is recommended that continuous monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide be conducted during the disturbance of the soils and during any construction activities which may result in an increase in the seepage of the gases. • A study of other hazardous constituents which may be present in quantities which pose a health risk to exposed individuals should be evaluated prior to theinitiation of the project. These may include compounds which are directly related to petroleum, such as benzene and toluene. 0 potential for increased fault activity and gas seepage during construction -related activities. • solubilized gases and byproducts in the water runoff form the site. (PPC,71 /, in& mv, ae..'a%londS) January 14, 1992 Project No. 200160-01 0 CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES COASTAL COMMISSION AS OF DECEMBER 16, 1981 =-CLCC•-TC STABLTIMr OF BLUFFTCP D=CF:�1T (Adopted 3/3/77) Section 30253 of the 1976 Coastal Act provides that Ifew development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologict food and fire hazard; (2) Assure stab ly and Structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute sign,'icantly to erosion., geologic instability, or destruction of the site or Surrounding area or in any gray recui-e•the construction of protec'cive devices that would substar_tizly alter natural landforms along bluffs and. cliffsn. Section 30251 provides that: "Pezmiitted'development shall be sited and desigmed...to mi-rim-ze the alteration of ratural 1an_dforns..." Altaration of cliffs and bluff tops, faces, or bases by excavation_ or other means should be mis.isnized. Cliff retaining wall should be allowed only to stabilize slopes. -3- The applicant for a permit for blufftop development should be reT3i=ed to demonstrate that the area of demonstration is stable for development and that the development will not create a geologic hazard or diminish the stability of the area. The applicant should file a report evaluating the geologic conditions of the site and the effect bf the development prepared by a registered geologist or professional cirri engineer with emertise in soils or foundation engineering, or by a certified engizeer:_^g geologist. (1) cliff geometry and site tcpogaolr erending the surveying work beyond the site as needed to depict unn sual gecmorpiic conditions that might affect the site; (2) historic,cu,-rent and forseeable cliff erosion, includ,:ag invest_ gation.of recorded land su--reys and tax assessme.=t records in addition to the use of historic maps and photographs where available and possible changes in shore ccnfig ration, and sand transport; (3) geologic conditions including soil, sediment ar_d rock t7mes and characteristics in addition to structural features, such as bedding, joints, and faults; (+) evidence of past or potential lards_A conditiors, the cations of such conditions for the proposed development, and tee potential effects of the development on landslide activity; (5) impact of ecnst:-_,cticr. act_r_ty Or -the stab- 1;tT of the site and adjacent area; (6) ground and surface water cgr�'iticas and Tiariations, inclurz, hydrologic changes caused by the deve opment (i.e. int=ducticn of 5ewa ef_1L'ert Z^_d � 33tior_ water to Lhe =0und ,Ie.er y� em; lterati.ons _^_ surface drainage);- • (7) potential ercdibi'_ity of site and mitigating measures to be used to ensure mi^=mized erosion problems during and after construction (i.e. landscamin-Z and draira des gn); (o^) potential effects of seismic forces resulting from a ma.Ndmut,•t credible earthquake; (9) a.-:y other factors that might affect slope stability. A Temblor Is Reminder to O.C. of Its Own Fault ■ Seismology: It underlines Nett'port-Inglewood FISStll'C S pOtellCV. By REBECCATROUNSON nWrs NTAFr WHITES ccording to Mark Johnson's personal seismic meter —a stairwell chandelier that smashed against a window in his home during Mon,day's violent earthquake —the 9:31 a.m. temblor was the strongest he has experi- enced in four years in Orange County. For Johnson, manager of the e County Fire Department's ency management division, Wake served as a powerful' reminder of the destructive poten- tial of the Newport -Inglewood Fault line, which stretches under some of the most populous areas of Orange and Los Angeles counties. he Northridge quake, which rumbled up from a previously unknown fault in the San Fernan- do Valley, causing 90 deaths and extensive damage. should• under- line to Orange County officials and residents that they, too, sit atop a potentially deadly geological crease, Johnson and others said Tuesday. The two faults are not connected. "Anytime we have an earth- quake, it is a reminder of the threat that we face here," Johnson said. "But this one yesterday was a better lesson for us for several reasons —because of its proximity and the way it impacted people here. and because of the similarity here to the population density in the valley." Geologists have long warned that even a moderate shaker on the Newport -Inglewood Fault, which • Deadly Fault Zone The Newport -Inglewood Fault covers a relatively short distance, but is considered potentially deadly because it runs through a densely populated area. •Newhall e San Fernando San _ Andreas ecanoga Fault a pads *Burbank ..,e` 0 eEl Monte Angeles $a Los Angeles •:S^`j+'+,t ;`-:' y' oode Norwalk county, �; :r. �'.ry,:&yw'y ��A•v. I Orange \ r 4i.5•,' k�. rs"' sr.µ ,._ J Long /- *Anaheim Reach eSenta Ana p•,r.. h "" Newport- Xy,Yk -.>�' -'t•"`•• '�'" Inglew00d Newport ••r N 1: �^ i.�.a:k: * ach - <:4 ,•B^'; •ate., • _ °Fault Laguna M a Beath close-up of area - nuc Aamua 22 � etvo. ACC 406e0q U.S. Nagar ?H e4d SEAL Weapoes �, hF�,� d �✓ BELCH stager, PP S/• � l atvo. dTPPE Huntingthon & 4S?Newport eeaeh Newport. ' { .,F,,,v3` ?ft::irh.:^-•w°. ,r.,.;r= 3ai -:. Inglewood Fault - Los An6eles'hmes cuts a 90-mile subterranean% path from Newport Beach through Long Beach and north to Beverly Hills, could result in a greater loss of life. than a more serious quake along the better-known San Andreas Fault.— . The Newport fault runs along the coastline, under more densely populated areas that sit atop sandy soil, which would prove unstable during a quake. In a 1988 report, experts with the statevivision of mines and geology warned that a quake of magnitude 7.0 on the Newport- Ing]ewood Fault "poses one of the greatest hazards to lives and property in the nation." "Everyone talks about the Big One and the San Andreas, but we are far away from the San An- dreas," said Medhat Haroun. chair- man of UCI's Civil and Environ- mental Engineering Department. "We can get potentially more dam- age from a magnitude 7 earthquake on the Newport -Inglewood than a magnitude 8 on the San Andreas." The Newport -Inglewood Fault, the only major one in the county, is best known for causing the 1933 Long Beach earthquake. which killed more than 100 people and resulted in millions of dollars in damage. Jim Davis, a geologist with the California Department of Conser- vation, the parent agency of the division of mines and geology, stressed that the Long Beach tem- blor, which measured 6.3 on the Richter scale, also was considered to be of moderate size. In the aftermath of Monday's quake, which caused comparative- ly little damage in Orange County, Johnson said the emergency man- agement division already had be- gun to study the preliminary seis- mic data and damage estimates in order to glean any information that might be useful to the county's emergency planning. In terms of lessons for Orange County, the quake —delivered by a fault that runs under populous areas of the northwest San Fer- nando Valley —may provide a far more useful example than if it had occurred along the bigger San Andreas Fault, about 60 miles east of Los Angeles, Johnson said. Times staff writer Jeff Brazil contrib- uted to this reriort. �5 • • • Proving an Earthquake UC Irvine,researchers know a part of Orange County's shoreline rose rapidly in about 1769 and theorize that a large earthquake is the likely cause. Proving it Is -a matter of linking a recently discovered fault with historic quakes, a Spanish explorer's writings, plants and geologic evidence: © Record of quakes along Pacific Coast There is no documentation of 1769 1800 an earthquake before 1769 Explorer Gaspar Quake cracked walls dePonclawrote of Mission San Juan of Capistrano Cap�iisstrano (t(3rn (rroo �Ti000 © Exotic pollens found In core samples of cllmate'change study 1855 1994 Quake may have Northridge generated tsunami 6.7 magnitude off Dana Point 11900 - Samples taken from San Joaquin Marsh show ©' Parts of a decrease in salinity, which means the marsh Orange County was forced upward, away from sea level. shoreline lifted, Also, pollens introduced by'Europeans between 5 to 11 feet 1776 and 1797 were found above the "salinity change —area, indicating that the earthquake physical evidence resulting from quake found from _ preceded their arrival Into the region. Corona del Marto Dana Source: Lisa Grant, U. Ballenger and E.E.Aunnerstrom of UC Irvine's school of sdciai Ecology Point strongly supports presence of fault. De Portola's camp San Joaqquin Hills fautt' PAUL D. RODRIGUEZ/ ORANGE COUNTY L.A. Basin's Big One May Have Been an O.C. Event Geology: In 1769, a magnitude-7.3 quake could have raised a South County area 11 feet, a UCI professor theorizes. By DAVIT) IIALDANE TIMESSfAITWRYMR A recently discovered fault may have been responsible for the larg- est recorded earthquake in the Los Angeles Basin —a seismic event more than 200 years ago so cata- clysmic that it raised the ground by as much as 11 feet. That is the premise of a UC Ir- vine professor's study, to be pub- Ushed next month in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, one of the premier jour- Dais of earthquake science. I "It was a fairly large earth- quake," said Lisa Grant, an assist- ant professor of geology, whose study links the Portola earthquake of 1769 to .the San Joaquin Hills fault in south Orange County. i "What I find the most interesting and important about this is that it shows the fault to be active." i Some scientists argue that the newly found fault is a slow -moving one unlikely to generate a major iearthquake more often than, say, I every 2,500 years. • "What's been demonstrated is that there has been a very recent large uplift event," said Tom Rock- well, a professor of geology at San Diego State University and leader of the geology group at the Southern California Earthquake Center. "One consequence is that a repeat of this earthquake is not likely to occur very soon —not in the next few decades, probably not for at least several hundred•years." If he owned property on the fault, he said, "I wouldn't sell it just yet." A 1999 study by Grant first drew attention to the • fault, which stretches about 25 miles from New- port Bay to Dana Point along the coast and inland as far as the San Diego Freeway. Previously the only major fault known in Orange County was the Newport -Ingle- wood Fault, which parallels the coast and 'generated the deadly 1933 Long Beach earthquake. Some scientists remain skeptical that the San Joaquin Hills fault ex- ists, said Chris Wells; senior engi- neering geologist for the California Geological Survey. But there is enough evidence that his agency has recommended its inclusion on an upcoming revision of the na- UOnalseismic hazard>tjap. " ere'is cgnserulu � t,W it MAI structure we need' to consider," In the latest study, Grant and several assistants relied, among other things, on diaries kept by members -of the Gaspar de Portola expedition, Spanish explorers who camped by the Santa Ana River in what is now north Orange County. Their accounts describe a "severe" earthquake on July 28, 1769, fol• lowed by aftershocks over the next several days, each measured by the number of Hail Marys the ex- plorers could utter during each•• tremor. The researchers examined geo- logical evidence of a major shift in the level of the land —a rise of 5 to n feet —indicated by changes in where the ocean hit the shore. They could approximate ,the date of those changes, Grant said, by studying inland marshes where decreases in the water's salinity caused by the lands rise appeared to coincide with early traces of ' European plants introduced by Spanish explorers. Grant concludes that the earth- quake chronicled by Portola's men probably happened along the San Joaquin Hills fault and may have had a magnitude of 7.3, consider- ably larger than the 6.7-magnitude Northridge earthquake of 1994 that •killedt;61 people and caused 1 $,40 ba7llog,in damage. if you hav+ ,4 fault that`a gener= ate'd' a large earthgpake before, it t-- -_ - - — - pbrlant because of Svhereat is" lust how.soon is a m, The general area includes jecture. Grant behoves heavily populated' areas of Costa yet enough data about Mesa, Irvine and Laguna of make predictions. not i t to 1L, January, 1992 Prepared for. City OfNeuport Beaeb Planning Daparunant 3300 Neuport Boubmard Neuport Beacb, CA926633884 Contact Porsou: Patricia Temple (714) 644-3225 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc Z Park Plaza, Sulfa 500 Lvine, Caltfomfa 92714 (714) 553.0666 I(NG eUPEwM r? .r C. �h SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT Val[RONMP.NCAL DWACr REPORT No. 142 FOR HOAG HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN / sCH #89061429 Underlying Thrust Faults are a potential threat in any area : Steve Walter, Seismologist, U.S. Geological Survey 1998. M Slltsto ie Monterey l:os Angeles dimes I MONDAY.NOVEMBF.R L M"? B13 R Report on New Fault The work has been recognized as amportant because it helps under- stand more about a fault that was not known to have existed. Recent e:uthquakes. including the Hector sine earthquake and the North- r:dee temblor. emanated from Dre- vtousiv unidentified faults. ' Prior to this work. most people considered the Newport -Inglewood to be the principal source of seismic .lcavity in Orange County." said Tom Rockwell. geology group Xader .it the Southern California Farthquake Center. "One possible outcome of this research is :hat there are other blind thrust faults that we do not know about in :he area. " )pprax nate Trace of Thrust Fattj,t_;k CONSTRUCTION HISTORY HOAG 7;::)- - Geology Notes added_1/92 MEMORIAL HOSPITAL_ PRESBYTERIAN - 7 =a�=__=2 -,: i Newport/ Inwood Fault ss Bwrongtai ni, Beach Beam tagurw Beam A New Fautt UCI scientists have discovered Dana a new blind thrust fault in Point south Orange County capable t\` of generating a 1.3 ¢ magnitude earthquake. I A look at a blind -thrust taut[: Blind fault thrusts upward, J without breaking surface tt L- _ sawcc urJ WORWAY �'bal 22 Jan .1976 - \`— NINYO & MOORC ICE .. ►ffA n • Aa IaAqp— man wda� r`r �o jfrosla o� .sludgy. Sltjidt�.. 11 a COMbAIAT/ON oS,' 6it )WAtMe anti _16091C chemic�a/ ct,hfch was rJ d 4 a/eaa Atlllf9 e rrJarO (N ft»u,�S slvbQe, WoU still K irFto ov¢. and (4fo�. co vatocL ovtJi ; a� c��i°. T rud �o ion -As dose 7tp Evt»r� Ctre2Q ��/IEC� (!n�'fbAB�>� Ii��S a'Vl2 Ao�' t='�IIe, , The Sierra Club and Barinirig�Kanch The Sierra Club has created a task force to save Newport Banning Ranch from development. This group, known as the Santa Ana River Estuary and Bluffs (SAREB) Task Force, is concentrating its efforts on keeping the 200 acres of i'vedands and 200 acres of adjacent bluffs as open land. Although the goal is to -purchase the land in order to clean it up and create an open space and wildlife preserve on the entire Banning; Ranch. 1 The Orange County Rel March 2, 2001 In earthquakes, more than just size matters Magnitude is not the only factor in determining the level of destruction an earthquake leaves In its wake. Since waves lose intensity as they travel outward from the epicenter, factors such as population density and the amount of construction near the epicenter are crucial. Here are some other important variables. Building design After scientists discovered that the Pacific Northwest A building built on a A quake -resistant " was at greater risk of a massive quake than previously noncontinuous building has a firm - thought, more than $130 million was spent between1988 foundation that foundation with a and 1995 to make buildings and other large structures, such as the Space incorporates posts or crawl space is less continuous perimeter. Needle in Seattle, more ,; � L: stable. earthquake resistant. Ground conditions A relatively dry winter In the Northwest probably helped to temper the effects of the magnitude"6.8 quake. Excessively moist soil could have facilitated destructive mudslides. 'Sources: U.S. Geological Survey. ; Southern California Earthquake Center Seismic waves are dampened by ;I hard rock: Z rnssoc,aceu 41T7•" ;Press Il9 Save Your �'�� �s • Neighborhood Park Where: Banning Ranch (along Pacific Coast Hwy. From Superior Blvd. To Santa Ana River) What: 200 Acres of wetlands and 200 acres of bluff tops with views of the ocean. Arroyos, multi use trails, picnic areas, and natural habitat for animals. When: Come to a Community Meeting about the Park On February 20t" at the Costa Mesa Community Center, 1845 Park Ave. (near library) at 7:30 pm Contact: Please visit our website for more detailswww.savebanninaranch.ora 1700 Homes and Hotel OR 400-Acre Park Proposed Development I Proposed bluff top Park and Trail system LI • 81.u�-'To p tg•d� skin �{es•Feru� glu{�.'r'dP'iR�IL Wll 1 \n&w 4- ocean aYr2a, ti [SSIre }iVroyO �' 77I ..,..ram l fat' coasf 0Wy, ,. ca • ;g J 6 P A SUPPLEMENT REPORT March 2002 • To be added to the earlier report covering the Oil Property referred to as Banning Ranch. This report stated the BLUFF'S were unstable. The natural support was destroyed when Caltrans cut a road through the property. Many BLUFFS also contain FILL. The area is a web of old faults. Old faults have recently been reported to be sympathetic to major earthquake within a 100-mile radius. The area has unknown contaminants and GAS SEEPS. This GAS has previously been reported and presents•a health hazard. Tension cracks, slides and subsidence has also been reported which endangers its neighbor "Newport Crest". Specialist says: "Don't build on Oil Property" "It's too risky and expensive to safely MITIGATE". Liability can last for years. James Orstad 11 Summerwind Ct Newport Beach, CA 92663 0 -How Hazards May Be Removed. stopped work on the project because of fears that gases from a former oil field under part of the campus could pose health hazards. Now, after spending $154 million on construction and about $20 million on litigation and other expenses, the district has voted to enter negotiations on a plan to mitigate environ- mental hazards and finish the school: The work may cost as much as $88 million more. The Belmont Learning Complex, the enormous high school just west of downtown Los Angeles, was designed to enroll about 4,600 students in one of the city's most crowded corridors. But, midway through construction, the Los Angeles Unified School District two years ago Venting System Methane and hydrogen sulfide in the soil will never be eliminated, but can be safely removed, treated and vented. The following are examples of the kinds of venting methods being proposed by the Los Angeles Unified School District to be Installed throughout the entire Belmont Learning Complex campus: Buildings With Unfinished Floors ; Building With Finished Floors L Methane and 2. Sensors under 4. Gases are L Holes are Outside the 4. If the sensors hydrogen sulfide the liner detect carried to a I drilled in the building, perfor• detect high gas gases travel up high gas treatment ; existing concrete ated pipes are accumulation from the soil until accumulation. system. Tiny to place -sensors placed vertically under either they hit the liner, 3. This triggers a amounts of ; in the soil below. in the ground, concrete layer, which they cannot vacuum system treated gases are 1 2 Layers of 3. The lower they trigger the penetrate. that pulls gases released Into gravel, perforated concrete floor vacuum system '.. through the air. pipes, sensors, would act as the to pull gases to perforated pipes liner, sand and initial barrier to the treatment In the gravel. concrete are gases traveling system. Once e .O ;spread over existing flooring. up from the sail. treated, smalllevels of the "ems Computer monitorand alarm system gases are released Into Sensors, vacuum system and treatment system are the air. ' Treatment system mum system An air monitoring station nearby keeps track of gas levels. Outdoors L Methane and hydrogen sulfide gases travel up -from the soil until they hit the liner. 2. Gases accumulate under the liner. A sensor placed just under monitored by a staffed, remote computer system. In addition, sensors and an alarm In the building act as an additional safety measure. perforated pipes I —Polyethylene liner Sensors r— Polyethyleneliner the liner detects 3. The gases are high gas carded to a accumulation. treatment Sensor triggers a system. Once vacuum system treated, small to pull gases levels of the through gases are perforated pipes. released Into the air. Grass/landscapin&oncrete Drainage pipes for water I n , Polyethylene liner " Perforated pipes R� �r ,Note: Schematic is a not proportional W, H A; T A B O U T N I N G Scam w LA. anlned, GeOSyntec Ca tints; graphic reporting by LYNN MEENSMAN / Los Angalea times , a'I LOS ANGELESTIMES SECTION B S& APRIL 27, 20M iounami .A b'outh'and '3 ® Powerful waves generated by an earthquake —even one centered on land —could strike coastal areas quickly, scientists say. But such events are rare. By.KENNETHREICH TIMES STArr WRITER .Until quite recently, scientists were inclined to downplay tsu- namis, as anything other than a remote danger on the Southern California coast. But their research in the last two years has altered that view. Scientists and emer. gency officials last week cautioned that tsunamis —often erroneously called tidal waves —could cause severe damage and ' loss of life in beach communities in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties, perhaps with little or no warning. If a tsunami is generated by an earth- uake or undersea landslide, he said, it � could take just five to 10 minutes to strike the coast with repeated waves 30 feet high or higher, That would not be enough time to sound much, if any, of a general alert. t In such a situation, said Rich Eisner, an Office of Emergency Services administra- tor, "an earthquake may be the only warn- , ing." People living near beaches should be taught not to wait for radio or television an- nouncements of the location of any quake that causes strong local shaking for 15 sec- onds or more, he said. Residents should head for higher ground without prompting. So-called near -source tsunamis, which are generated very close to the beaches, pose a more potent threat, according to this analysis, than long-range tsunamis, which may strike after moving across thousands of miles of the Pacific at speeds as high as nnn --u h.,i ...hinh etill nllnw hours of • First, a study by the National Science Foundation of the July 17, 1998, tsunami 'that killed 3,000 on the north coast of Papua New Guinea came up with a surprise conclusion about its origin. The study found striking topographic parallels be- tween offshore New Guinea and offshore Southern California. Since then, other studies have shown- steep.undersea slopes in the Santa.Monica Bay and off San Clemente Island. There may be others in the Santa Catalina Channel. That information seems to open a larger possibility of future local tsunamis in Southern California, those at the confer ence agreed. Jose Borrero, a doctoral candidate who works with Synolakis at USC, said last week that historic records indicate there were five near -source tsunamis in South- land waters between 1812 and 1930. he most recent, in 1930, caused one drowning in Redondo Beach. It fol- lowed a magnitude 5.2 earthquake that caused landslides at sea. Waves as high as 20 feet were reported. Such waves today, in an area with a much larger population, could cause sharply higher casualties. Synolakis also said that residents of Bal- boa Island in Orange County, like those of Marina del Rey, could be particularly vul- nerable because they have no high ground to flee to quickly. In that case, he sug- gested, the safest thing to do might be to go to the roof of one's house. A tsunami is not really made up of waves, as commonly pictured, but is more like surges of water, filled with debris, that suddenly move onto land. Bernard said there is also a history of fire associated with tsunamis, largely because they tend to breach fuel lines and may set off com- bustibles. Y/P YL c9tet `6 Tsunami: floods coastal and low- lying areas. Earthquake -:occurs Inlan��((,-or offshote, sendldg'Shock'waves thrb016 uri5iabie.,, offshore area. r Redondo Beach. Harbor. v Balboa Veninsula ® Oil refineries r,PW,a' df'ltos Angeles' and -Long Beach '-, wHeiinosa Beach .:_:_ i Along , S&1� 11'r 9;1' LOS ANGELES OC WEDNESDAY" 83 • is Orange CountyT By DAVE McKIBBEN TIMES STAFF WRITER San Juan Capistrano officials must require a developer to stabi- lize a hillside that partially col- lapsed in 1998 during El Nifio storms, damaging or threatening five homes, a judge has ruled. SunCal Cos. of Anaheim contnb- uted to the collapse while grading for the Pacific Point project, Orange County Superior Court Judge William F. McDonald ruled last week in a lawsuit homeowners filed in May 2001 against the city and the developer of the 256-acre project. Jay Curtis, forced out of his Mer- edith Canyon home after the land- slide, said the ruling was a victory for the homeowners. "This means they're going to have to make the homes stable so that they can be lived ili again," Curtis said. "In order to do that, they'll have to put the hill back. The judge ruled the developer had a duty to support the hill and they didn't do it." Lawyers for the city and SunCal said they have not decided whether to appeal the judgment, which ordered the developer to for- mulate a plan to stabilize the hill- side within 60 days. John Shaw, at - A Slippery Slope Residents are living in four of the five Meredith Canyon homes affected by the May 21,1998, landslide. Jay Curtis' home, which suffered the most damage, is still red -tagged. Addresses affected ® 26962: Threatened- © 26952: 1.6st comer of backyard; pool apparently intact © 26932: Portion of backyard lost O 26922: Suffered the most damage;.two-thirds of backyard lost, including pool and deck ❑E 26902: Threatened torney for San Juan Capistrano, ar- gued before McDonald that the city's original agreement with the developer said the city was not re- quired to stabilize the hillside. Lawyers for the homeowners ar- gued that the hillside should have. been stabilized early in the project.. The homeowners also -have law- Sm Clemente P. VIA LA MIRADA is Red tag —uninhabitable Q Yellow tag —habitable, could be evacuated Los Angeles Times suits pending against SunCal'and the city of San Juan Capistrano for damages for the valie of their homes and relocation expenses. Curtis' h6use on Via La Mirada 'is the only home still declared un- inhabitable. Owners of the other homes could be evacuated if there is more slippage. ANOTHER CITY GETS SUED A city is not required to stabilize a bluff or hillside, but they are responsible to see • the builder stabilizes it early in the project. If Banning Ranch is allowed to be developed with all their bluff problems, the safety and welfare of future buyers are at risk. A buyer must be given a full disclosure of the risks he takes. If not, it just presents another liability to be settled in court. There appears to be no time limits or Deep Pockets defendants. a0 L City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Visioning Process Neighborhood Workshops Summary Prepared by MIG, Inc. May 7, 2002 0 • The Newport Beach General Plan Update and Visioning Process continues to be a citywide experience involving the direct participation of hundreds who live and work in Newport Beach. For nearly a year, a partnership encompassing city government, individual residents, business leaders and appointed committee members have been collaborating in charting the future of the City for the next 20-25 years. This document summarizes the results from 9 workshops held over successive weeks from March 18s' to April I Ph, 2002. One workshop was conducted in each of the seven City Council Districts, with an additional workshop held to discuss issues regarding commercial interests and the John Wayne Airport area. In addition, the Youth Council held a workshop on April 8 s. Residents, business owners, property owners, youth and other stakeholders have participated in these workshops to define what the community believes about itself, to identify the key issues and challenges specific to the neighborhoods and to develop preliminary strategic directions related to these issues. OVERVIEW OF THE VISIONING PROCESS Visioning is the process by which community members collaborate on "big picture" decisions that affect the physical, economic, and social future of their community. The City of Newport Beach began its visioning process (phase one) in January 2002 to lay the groundwork for future policy development (phase two). The Newport Beach community has been actively participating in this collaborative dialogue, which began with the Visioning Festival in January. Over 400 participants attended one of two sessions to learn about the Update and to share their ideas about improving the future of Newport Beach. Participants discussed the assets and challenges of the City, and contributed vision statements for Newport Beach in 2025. Community members also interacted with activity stations, providing their input on strategic policy directions. In late January and early February, residents and business owners applied to serve on the General Plan Advisory Committee. The General Plan Update Committee (the steering group overseeing the update process) reviewed over 250 applications and recommended a balanced group of 37 GPAC members. They considered place of residence, affiliations and interests, age and gender along with statements made by applicants. The City Council confirmed the recommended GPAC membership at its • meeting on February 26th. The GPAC held its first meeting in early March and will General Plan meet continuously throughout the visioning process to discuss and resolve any issues of public process and outreach and to act as a sounding board for the visions, choices and strategic directions that arise from the Vision Festival and the Neighborhood Workshops. Outreach with the community continued with neighborhood workshop meetings. At these meetings, residents refined and confirmed the citywide visions, which developed from the Visioning Festival. The workshops also provided an opportunity for participants to develop strategic policy directions at the neighborhood level. Simultaneously, with the neighborhood workshops, workshop kit meetings were conducted on a smaller scale by volunteers who reached out to organizations beyond the City -sponsored workshops. Homeowners in Bayside Village and a facilitator for the Youth Council used the kits. (The information collected in Bayside Village will be incorporated into the next document entitled Vision, Values and Strategic Directions.) OVERVIEW OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS • The eight neighborhood workshops hosted by the City were extremely well attended by over 450 people, with a very good representation of General Plan Advisory Committee members at nearly every workshop. • The attendees were welcomed to the workshop by Sharon McNamee, a facilitator with Moore Iacofano Goltsman, (MIG) Inc., a consulting firm hired by the City. Ms. McNamee began with an overview of general planning and communicated the need for a comprehensive update of Newport Beach's General Plan. Ms. McNamee followed next with details about creating a citywide vision. She also introduced the Newport Beach: Current Conditions, Future Choices document, the Festival Summary and the newsletters as reference materials for the General Plan process. Following the overview, Ms. McNamee led workshop participants in an exercise to confirm or refine the Citywide vision drafted by MIG from comments received at the Festival. Participants reviewed the vision statement (included in Newsletter #2) and were asked the following questions: 1) Does the vision paint a good picture for the future of Newport Beach? 2) Is there anything of significance missing? 3) Is there anything you disagree with? 4) Is there anything that resonates with you or is most important to you? General Plan Update Visioning Process �J Subsequently, Ms. McNamee asked the group to confirm the key issues and challenges in their neighborhood. Attendees were requested to identify other critical issues if they had not been previously noted at the Festival. After listing all the key issues and challenges, participants prioritized the top three issues for discussion. Then Ms. McNamee led participants in discussing key questions relating to their neighborhood issues. Each question included a set of policy options provided by City staff for consideration by participants. Participants shared their thoughts about each option (and many times suggested other options), then in most cases, they indicated their preferred strategic or policy direction. Attendees held up either a green, yellow, or red card as Ms. McNamee tallied votes. Green cards indicated clear support for a policy direction, while a red card registered disapproval. The color yellow signaled that a participant was undecided or hesitant to reply, either because he/she needed more information or more time to think about the issue. These responses are denoted in the following pages as "yes," "no" and "undecided." Most of the "key questions" appear in the Current Conditions, Future Choices Resident's Guide, and are part of the discussion occurring throughout the Visioning Process. The brainstorming of ideas without key questions also occurred during the workshop sessions. These ideas are listed, but attendees were not asked to vote their preferences and tallies were not collected. • The workshops were concluded with a brief description of the next steps of the process. The information gathered from the workshops will be analyzed and presented in a summary to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The GPAC will consider the results from these workshops, along with all input gathered' during the visioning phase of the General Plan Update. GPAC members will make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding future directions for Newport Beach. • MAJOR FINDINGS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS The nine workshops drew responses from a wide variety of stakeholders who provided detailed information regarding citywide concerns and neighborhood issues. The various neighborhood groups, when asked about their responses to the vision statement, felt that it was too broad and perhaps lacking enough detail to tie the vision specifically to Newport Beach. The issue of water quality was mentioned in more than one workshop. Participants emphasized the need for water quality enhancement, as well as recreational opportunities in the water and on land. Additionally, attendees commented on growth issues within the City. The intensity of new development, traffic congestion, and the possibility of airport expansion resonated deeply with participants. Some felt that the impacts from tourism were also major issues. A discussion about tourism City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 4 • raised related concerns such as parking shortages, traffic congestion, and street safety. Issues at the neighborhood level focused on traffic safety, water quality, zoning and the preservation of neighborhood character. The traffic, zoning and water quality discussions, especially, produced many valuable options for the City to consider. When discussing the topic of zoning, attendees were most vocal about the mansionization trend in the older neighborhoods and its consequences -the subsequent change in the look and feel of their unique neighborhoods. NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS The sections that follow provide summaries of each neighborhood workshop by district. District 1— Balboa Peninsula /Lido Island The neighborhood workshop in District One was held on Tuesday, March 19a' from 7-9:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. This workshop hosted the greatest number of participants-107 attendees and 8 GPAC members came eager to share their ideas. Sharon McNamee focused the discussion first on generating a list of neighborhood issues, then outlined some strategic directions. Toward the end of the night, the group chose to stay focused on the key issues rather than provide comments on the vision statement. Although there was not a separate discussion of the vision statement, the comments made in regard to the issues are reflective of this group's vision for the City, especially given the high interest in water focus, water quality, tourism, traffic and revitalization. (Tallies for each issue are noted in parentheses.) Participants were most concerned about issues with water, particularly as it pertained to preserving the water focus and character of the City. Other issues the group discussed were the possibility of new hotel development and the value of tourism. Attendees were almost equally troubled by the increasing traffic in their neighborhood and the need for revitalization. Issues • Preserving water focus and character (100) • Proposed new hotel development (65) o Small or high end hotel more acceptable • Look at long-term value of tourism (60) • Concern for increasing traffic and the impact on the neighborhoods (54) • Revitalization (42) o Redevelopment needed o Failed commerce o Revitalization of the entire Peninsula region, including rentals City of Newport Beach Nelohborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 5 o Failed commercial areas need revitalization o Revitalization of Balboa Village o Preservation of historic homes and buildings o Vacant commercial buildings and absentee landlords • Parking (32) o Parking in Balboa Village o Parking related to tourism o Rental areas need better parking control • Change older commercial areas to residential (12) • Mansionization and/or canyonization (7) • No city subsidy for revitalization (2) • Airport Expansion (3) • Finish public works projects • Create reserved parking for residents (2) • Expand recreation opportunities (2) • Clean up Bay and improve water quality (0) • Preserve residential area character (0) Strategic Directions The following strategic directions were the result of a brainstorming session by the participants. Their ideas were recorded, but tallies were not taken. • Preservation of Water Focus and Water Quality Permit fewer tourist boats • Fix sewer lines • Enhance and preserve the marine industry • Create tidal flow between the ocean and bay west of Newport Blvd • Enforce live aboard regulations • Regionalize water regulations and projects • Control fishing trash • Focus on the harbor as the heart of the city • Seek State and Federal support for dredging the Bay • Regulate commercial boat size and number • Collect street runoff to the sewer • Improve the split agency coordination of control of the Bay • Increase street sweeping of alleys Revitalization and the Preservation of Neighborhood Character • 15th-18tb Street Marinapark property may provide options for recreation for residents Hotel at Marinapark/ Las Arenas Park The attendees felt a new hotel at Marinapark/Las Arenas Park is a critical issue and wanted to take a reading of support for this development proposal. This count was taken towards the end of the meeting when many people had departed. • 15 favored the hotel, 56 opposed the hotel and 9 were undecided City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 6 Transportation Improvements • Standardize commercial signage to minimize impacts to traffic • Work with Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) to revise transit • Develop a City shuttle • Strategically locate parking structures • Control double parking • Resurface streets • Create a toll road on Balboa Blvd. • Maintain status quo - no improvements District 2—West Newport/Newport Shores Residents from District 2 attended their neighborhood workshop on March 20th, from 7-9:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. Thirty-nine residents and business owners and 10 GPAC members gathered to provide feedback on the vision statements and to comment on their neighborhood's issues. Concerns about water quality, open space and zoning were key for District 2. These topics were emphasized during discussions about the vision and called out again when participants were asked to examine neighborhood issues. Zoning received the greatest amount of attention, and discussion touched on density, condominium conversions and rental properties. • Participants also spent time speaking about ways to alleviate the problems associated with the July 4th celebration in their district. A West Newport Committee member and a Newport Beach police officer both assured residents that a committee was actively seeking solutions with the City and invited participation from those at the workshop. Neighbors are invited to join the West Newport Committee studying ways to control the July 4 s party problem. Call Alan at 722-6421. • Vision Continents • Balanced Land Use and General Development o More emphasis on parks o Evaluate Banning Ranch as open space o Pier = Community focal point • Diminishing the "negative effects" of JWA is not enough to keep the neighborhood efficient and safe • Consider reducing density limits • Install underground utilities • Promote responsive government from all employees • Emphasize water quality enhancement and preservation • Focus on back bay wetlands • Revitalize/ Enhance commercial areas • Think more regionally • Integrate all ages into the City • Emphasize safe travel for pedestrians • Provide safe parking - consider parking permits for residents General Plan Undate Visioning Process • Issues • Zoning —population density- condominium conversion (34) • Preserve and respect open space (30) • Water—marine(30) • Owner occupancy (10) • Mansionization— density (5) • Drinking water quality (4) • Drug rehabilitation houses and summer rentals (4) • Beautification of commercial areas (4) • Reduce crime (3) • Parking (2) • Wider sidewalks (2) • Fix sewers (1) • Rundown properties (1) • Trailer park control (0) • Landlord issues (0) • Street safety (0) • Public safety (0) • View preservation (0) • Odor control (0) • Preserve natural resource (0) • Strategic Directions The following strategic directions were the result of a brainstorming session by the participants. Their ideas were recorded, but tallies were not taken. Zoning Density • Neighborhood approved summer rental permit (model after Laguna Beach) 21- yes 2-no 5-undecided • 24/7 residential parking permit with escalated fees depending on -the number of cars • Parking fees for visitors • Increase code enforcement (illegal units and use of garages) • Work with HCD to improve quality of trailer parks Park and Open Space • Work with Orange Coast River Park to connect at Banning Ranch • Create more wilderness parks • Consider a skate park • Zone and retain open space • Include more active sports facilities in the parks • Connect bike trails — don't pave them all Water Quality Solutions • Work with the Harbor Commission to maintain the bay • Flush the bay • Control environmental problems City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 8 • Coordinate with the Federal government to improve ocean water • Control storm drain runoff • Finish the Bay dredging • Increase education about water quality issues and solutions • Control boaters' waste • Consider implementing "dye tablets" (like Avalon) to police boaters' pollution Key Question #16--What should the City do to protect historic commercial and residential villages? What should the City do to protect areas that may not be historic by definition, but give the community a sense of identity and are important points of reference in the community, such as "Cannery Village?" (This key question can be found in the Current Conditions, Future Choices Document). • Adopt design and development guidelines 16- yes 5- no 6- undecided • Establish a design review process 11- yes 7-no 6-undecided • Adopt more Specific Plans with area specific development standards 12- yes 4- no 8- undecided • Reduce the permitted size of buildings in residential villages 10- yes 14- no 5- undecided • Narrow the permitted uses in some commercial areas 27- yes 3- no 2- undecided District 3—Newport Heights/Cliff Haven/Mariners Mile/ Dover ShoresMestcliff Fifty Newport Heights/Upper Bay residents and 8 GPAC members gathered on the evening of Thursday, April 1 Ith at Newport Harbor High School to refine both the citywide vision and neighborhood issues. Several participants attended, interested in hearing about the Irvine Avenue expansion. They were directed to the workshop by an anonymous flyer that mistakenly announced the workshop's focus as Irvine Avenue. City Planning Director Patty Temple clarified the workshop's intent as providing feedback on overall community visions and issues. District 3 residents discussed comments received at the Visioning Festival in January. Their main concerns were the expansion of John Wayne Airport, street widening and the loss of neighborhood character, safety on the streets, traffic congestion and mansionization. Participants chose not to discuss JWA but focus on the issues they could have some impact on. They spent the remaining time collaborating on resolutions to mansionization, traffic and street safety concerns. Vision Comments • Retain character and scale of neighborhoods • Emphasize desirability of growth • More pedestrian oriented mixed use and more sidewalks General Plan Update Visioning Process • Improve interface between commercial development and residential neighborhoods • More inter -government consultation and communication • Respect safety (traffic) Issues • No expansion of JWA (34) (skip discussion tonight) • Safety of neighborhood streets (19) • Street widening changes neighborhood character(17) • Traffic congestion at intersections (15) • Mansionization "starter castles" (11) • Maintain and retain street trees (7) • Increase street lights (6) • Underground utilities (6) • Better communication regarding impacts of interface between commercial and residential development (5) • More sidewalks (1) • Realistic speed limits (0) • View protection (0) Strategic Directions The following strategic directions were the result of a brainstorming session by the • participants. Their ideas were recorded, but tallies were not taken. Key Question #16—What should the City do to protect historic commercial and residential villages? What should the City do to protect areas that may not be historic by definition, but give the community a sense of identity and are important points of reference in the community, such as "Cannery Village?" • • Adopt design guidelines • Design review process • Develop specific plans • Reduce the permitted size of building • Narrow permitted uses in commercial areas • Expand uses in commercial areas • Enforce zoning regulations • Review footprint study • Expand notification for zoning changes and post larger sign • Eliminate permitted 3rd floors • Increase communication of responsible government leaders • Strengthen existing FAR's • Prohibit property lot combining Key Question #42—How should we protect our residential neighborhoods from traffic impacts? • Disallow street widening • Improve transit options • Coordinate with School District to improve school transportation City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 10 • Reduce overall growth • Regionalize traffic solutions • Change land use designations to create less traffic • Enforce stop signs and traffic rules • Create more mixed use zoning to reduce traffic District 4—Newport North/Eastbluff/The Bluffs Twenty-eight people from District 4 and 5 GPAC members attended the workshop at Newport Harbor High School on April loth. Participants had valuable contributions to the vision statement, focusing primarily on the improvement of City services. Airport issues such as noise pollution and expansion possibilities as well as infrastructure concerns regarding the widening of Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road fueled the workshop discussion, although maintenance of the Back Bay also is a very important issue in this neighborhood. Attendees felt strongly that the City should have a land use strategy to prevent the expansion of John Wayne Airport. A majority of residents also thought that it was a good idea for City members to work with the Federal Government in resolving the airport situation. • Residents were in agreement about traffic issues in District 4. They proposed that street infrastructure changes be made to reduce traffic congestion such as right turn lanes and U turn areas, traffic light timing and grade separations by the airport. Vision Coumtents • Include arts and culture • The vision is not specific enough i.e.: airport, views, water quality • Emphasize the need for local transit • Set priorities for City expenditures o Finance o How to grow without taxes • How to capture non-resident user costs, e.g., library fees • Improve and protect water quality • More access to water recreation: the bay, ocean and the Back Bay • Insure the Planning Commission and Council adhere to the vision • Preserve view corridors • Need for school facility improvements • City should share responsibility for improving the housing mix • Successfully coexist JWA and quality of life • Protect City from Airport growth beyond the agreement timeframe of 2015 • Develop a new international airport with San Diego and Orange Counties at Camp Pendleton Issues Airport noise pollution and expansion (24) Maintenance and upkeep of Back Bay (21) General Plan Update Visioning Process 11 • Traffic (20) o Irvine Ave expanding to 6 lanes north of University o Jamboree widening to 8 lanes • Residents should be a priority over commercial interests (3) • Crime (1) • City should control utilities i.e. cell phones sites (1) • Fletcher Jones Car dealership car lot light pollution (0) • Mansionization (0) • Barking dogs ordinance (0) Strategic Directions Key Question #45—What role should Newport Beach play in airport issues? • Provide education and support for the November ballot "V" plan 16- yes 2- no 1- undecided • Support the new JWA Settlement Agreement 17- yes 0- no 1- undecided • Create an International Airport at Camp Pendleton 13- yes 4-no 4-undecided • Coordinate with Orange County 5- yes 2- no 10- undecided • Educate community regarding airport impacts 11- yes 2-no 1- undecided • Focus City to work with Federal government 25- yes 0- no 0- undecided • City support November election 14- yes 0- no 5- undecided Key Question #46—Should the City have a land use strategy to prevent expansion of JWA? 17- yes 2- no 2- undecided Key Question #38—What kinds of transportation improvements are acceptable? Grade separated intersections? PCH widening through Mariner's Mile? • Provide free right turn lanes • Create single direction U turns • Reduce lanes with transitions that restrict traffic, e.g. Bristol • Grade separations by JWA • Manage traffic light timing to be more sensitive • Prohibit street expansions District 5—Balboa Island/Belcourt/One Ford Road/Big Canyon/ Bonita Canyon Twenty-eight residents and business owners and 12 GPAC members gathered at the Central Library on March 18th to provide feedback on the Citywide vision and neighborhood issues. Their vision comments centered on zoning concerns and • preservation of the City's identity and character. The main issues in District 5 were City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 12 related to the shortage of parking areas due to heavy tourism and traffic control and enforcement. After some discussion, participants agreed that parking permits may alleviate the lack of parking for residents and should be further explored. Attendees also liked the idea of more extensive visitor services, specifically shuttles from off site parking lots. The character of neighborhoods may be better preserved, residents thought, by reexamining parking solutions and maintaining the zoning limitations. Some participants also cited the lack of affordable housing as a major concern in the City. Vision Comments. • Coordinate with neighboring cities and communities • Implement R 1.5 zoning throughout city • Strengthen the existing R 1.5 zoning • City is already built out so need to preserve what we have • Control mansionization to maintain unique identity • Concern for regulation of growth —how to limit • Community character —preserve age diversity of residents • Plan for the graying of the city in housing and transportation • Grow to have a "trusted" government • Emphasize recreation opportunities for teens e.g., skate park • Need for odor control • Prioritize the preservation of residential neighborhoods over commercial and • non-residential Balance preserving a sense of community with tourism • Balance city revenue needs with community needs to support quality of life • Maintain old infrastructure and improve • Issues Tallies were not taken in this brainstorming session about neighborhood issues. • Traffic control • Need traffic enforcement • Lack of parking • Tourism parking problem - use resources to solve i.e.: shuttles from off site parking lots • Parking garages • Bonita Canyon noise pollution o Use technology to reduce noise pollution • Increase communication re: new development • Master Plan calls for road widening of Jamboree Strategic Directions Key Question #32—What changes would you like to see in our public visitor -serving facilities (e.g. restrooms, parking)? • Coordinate service and resources -such as parking and shuttles • Do nothing • More facilities • Better maintenance City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 13 • Higher quality Key Question #16—What should the City do to protect historic commercial and residential villages? What should the City do to protect areas that may not be historic by definition, but give the community a sense of identity and are important points of reference in the community, such as "Cannery Village?" • Adopt design and development guidelines • Establish a design review process • Adopt more Specific Plans with area specific development standards • Reduce the permitted size of buildings in residential villages • Narrow the permitted uses in some commercial areas • Allow the changes to be economy/market driven • Parking solutions need reexamining • Monitor Coastal zone parking requirements and solutions • Keep R 1.5 zoning on Balboa Island • Need a process that involves the neighborhoods and the community Key Question #24—How could the City facilitate more affordable housing? • Need more options • Focus efforts in selected opportunity areas such as northwest Newport Beach • Control or prohibit mansionization as it may reduce the number of housing units • Require commercial and office developments to pay affordable housing in - lieu fees • Increase housing density in selected areas • Establish minimum density requirements in multi -family areas • Use in -lieu fees to subsidize existing apartments • Require developers to incorporate a minimum percentage of units that are affordable for the workforce (inclusionary requirements) • Allow for the development of second units on residential lots • Allow for the development of buildings that integrate housing on the second higher floors of retail, commercial and office structures n Key Question #43—How should we protect our residential neighborhoods from parking impacts from commercial customers and beach users? • Parking permit • More pervasive use of parking meters • Increased parking fees • Increased off -site parking • Reduced commercial zoning • Regulation of business operations Visioning Process 14 District 6—Corona del Mar The neighborhood workshop for District 6 on Monday, April 25th was held at the Oasis Senior Center. Vision comments from the 71 residents and business owners and 4 GPAC members who attended touched on infrastructure and transportation alternatives, recreational and cultural activities for residents and environmental issues. The overwhelming concern from residents in this highly frequented area is the problem with traffic. Other issues mentioned were mansionization, carrying out policies in the General Plan and installing underground utilities. This neighborhood had a strong interest in design standards. When discussing ways to resolve these issues, participants indicated that they support the enforcement of speed limits and discourage "through" traffic as means to alleviate the traffic problem. Residents were also in favor of improved traffic engineering and grade separated streets as transportation improvements in the City. Vision Comments • Need for contiguous land use visions with neighboring cities • Healthy natural environment • Improve and restore recreation areas • Include recreational attractions for youth Implement a transportation system like the Laguna Beach shuttle • Include public use with mixed use • Hotel as attractions — need to control the increase in traffic and other impacts • Include cultural activities • Need circulation alternatives to cars, e.g., golf carts, bikes • One way streets • Growth strategy —review existing planning process • Healthy natural environment —xeriscape, native plantings, reduce pesticide • Issues use o Establish architectural and landscape standards o Retain beautiful Corona Del Mar o Develop a view protection ordinance to preserve Coastal Bluffs • Create uniform signage • Add "serene," "quiet," "peaceful' • Protect from obtrusive lighting • Improve traffic sensors • River Park at North Banning Ranch • Protect the canyons for open space • Clean up alleys • Create water transit • Underground utilities • Traffic (37) • Mansionization (22) General Plan Update Visioning Process Fhl • Carry out policies in General Plan (19) • Underground utilities (18) • Urban runoff (17) • Crosswalk safety i.e.: lighted crosswalk (11) • Big Corona Beach crowds in the summer (10) • View preservation (10) • JW Airport expansion (9) • Maintain assets, set priorities (7) • Review trees in Corona Del Mar (5) • Alley beautification (5) • Create architectural sign standards (4) • Improved parking Le: metered (4) • Clean up beaches (4) • Improve transportation (3) • Pedestrian bridge over PCH (1) • Restaurants with limited parking (0) • Provide restrooms and parking (0) • Encourage outdoor dining (0) • Street lights (0) • Improved sidewalks (0) Strategic Directions . Key Question #16— How should we protect our residential neighborhoods from traffic impacts? • Install "traffic -calming" features (like speed bumps) 4- yes 17- no 0- undecided • Use more one-way streets in some neighborhoods 18- yes 15- no 0- undecided • Enforce speed limits 27- yes 2- no 0- undecided • Discourage "through" traffic 28- yes 4- no 0- undecided Key Question #37—What types of transportation improvements should be made in the City? • More public transit 11- yes 0- no 0- undecided • Other street widening 5- yes 0- no 0- undecided • Improve traffic engineering of roads and signals 20- yes 0- no 0- undecided • Tunnel/ grade separation 16- yes 0- no 0- undecided Workshop participants, when discussing transportation improvements, suggested that the City add citywide bus stops and pullout areas. No tally was taken for this suggestion. City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 16 Key Question #16—What should the City do to protect historic commercial and residential villages? What should the City do to protect areas that may not be historic by definition, but give the community a sense of identity and are important points of reference in the community, such as "Cannery Village?" • Adopt design and development guidelines 27- yes 9- no 0- undecided • Establish a design review process 20- yes 13- no 0- undecided • Adopt more Specific Plans with area specific development standards 19- yes 8- no 0- undecided • Reduce the permitted size of buildings in residential villages 10- yes 9-no 0- undecided • Narrow the permitted uses in some commercial areas 28- yes 0- no 0- undecided District 7—Newport Coast/Newport Ridge/Harbor View Hilis District 7 residents attended their workshop on April 8th at the Central Library. • Forty-two community members (GPAC members could not attend this workshop due to a GPAC meeting conflict) commented on the vision and would like to see more specificity regarding the preservation of views, improved water quality and conditions in open space areas and maintaining the character of Newport Beach's villages. Additionally, workshop participants would like to see improved ongoing communication about citywide issues. They felt that promoting dialogue between residents and City staff members would lead to more responsive action from government leaders. View preservation (both public and private view preservation), traffic and mansionization were the top three issues identified by workshop attendees. A conversation about preserving views led most people to vote for limiting the scale and extent of housing and commercial development as a solution. To improve transportation conditions, participants suggested the City implement additional public transit options, particularly a shuttle service or possibly a water transit system, or limiting development. Vision Comments • Need to recognize the interdependency of regional issues • Need for regional transportation opportunities • Bay and ocean are full of sailing and fun • Maintain access and views • Improve safety in parks and recreation facilities • Add sense of community focus and character to Newport Coast • Maintain communication on issues • Need new innovative play equipment in the parks • City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 17 • Incorporate Hoag and UCI plans • Control air and noise • High Quality of Life = less traffic • Maintain character of the unique villages • Promote dialogue = responsive government • Improve water quality of the bay and ocean • Return more access to the Back bay • Newport Beach should be fan and full of activities • Newport Beach should have city focal points for gatherings Issues • View preservation (24) • Traffic (23) • Mansionization (18) • Water quality (13) • Need a new community center with a library, gym in Newport Coast area (8) • Improve utilization of open space for active recreation (4) • Maintain harmony of the neighborhood by controlling development size (i.e.: LDS Temple) (2) • Places for youth and teens (2) • More representation for District 7 (0) • Improve driving safety (0) • Need professional care of City trees (0) . Design Review models: (0) o Del Mar o Tiburon • Strategic Directions Key Question #15—How should the City preserve its remaining public and private view corridors, for example, the Coastal Bluffs or views of or from other prominent natural features? • Limit the scale and extent of private development, housing and commercial development (17) • Implement a "views equals value " view preservation law like Laguna Beach (12) • City rules about the Mormon Temple (9) • Create a design review process (7) • Create FAR's by neighborhood (3) • Consider binding arbitration to settle disputes on view preservation (0) • Allow for development in public view corridors provided that it is designed to provide viewshed opportunities (0) Key Question #37—What types of transportation improvements should be made in the City? • More public transit — shuttle- water (16) • Limit development (15) • More off street parkinglincrease parking requirement (10) • Improve synchronized traffic lights (5) Visioning Process 18 • PCH widening through Mariners Mile (3) • Increase parking requirements (2) • Grade separated intersections (1) Commercial / John Wayne Airport Area Meeting The Commercial/Airport Area Meeting for commercial stakeholders was held on April 8s'' from 5-6:30p.m. at the Muth Interpretive Center. Twenty eight attendees and 5 GPAC members arrived to talk about the citywide vision and neighborhood issues. Attendees felt that the vision statements were too general and should be revised to emphasize the unique characteristics of Newport Beach. Others mentioned how important it was to maintain the economic vitality of the area. Ensuing discussions touched upon the best way to do this. Some attendees preferred retail to office development because of revenue generation, and some felt that some commercial areas should be converted to residential uses. Most were in agreement about maintaining the "elite" status of Newport Beach, protecting land values and the high quality of life. It was also important to some participants that the City have an "end game' —where the City and the community are headed in regards to the future of the Airport Area and TWA /El Toro. Key issues that were discussed for this area include the redevelopment of obsolete • buildings, the balance of additional development and the ensuing traffic it would bring and the airport area surrounding JWA. • Vision Comments • The vision statements are very broad — need to emphasize uniqueness of Newport Beach • Protect land values when considering future airport expansion • Consider neighboring communities to airport (Santa Ana Heights) • Allow logical growth with fee structure to maintain the airport area • How do we pay for improvements related to growth? • Reuse/revitalize existing/older areas with new development, e.g., Campus tract. • Allow conversion of commercial to residential uses • Lean towards more retail dollars • Consider hotels near airport rather than in residential areas • Maintain economic vitality • Define the "end game" (as Irvine has done) • Don't shortchange Newport Beach with no growth • Maintain "elite" status and property values and quality of life • Define the "end game" for TWA/EI Toro airports • Is the vision consistent with controlling TWA expansion? • Sustain a competitive position for the Airport area both locally and regionally • Protect reasonable rents • Maintain air quality City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 19 Issues • Redevelop dysfunctional space that is physically and economically obsolete (22) • Balance additional development and traffic issue in Airport Area (14) • Agreement regarding JWA expansion (14) • Mixed use developments (8) • Maintain quality of life around the Airport and the whole City (8) • Annexation of Santa Ana Heights (7) • Traffic (7) • Airport noise and pollution (5) • Balboa Peninsula conversion of commercial to residential (4) • Improve aesthetics (Le: trees) between JWA and the City (3) • Street renovation impacts to businesses (2) • West Newport Beach revitalization (1) Strategic Directions Key Question #30—Which employment centers in Newport Beach should be retained at the current scale, and which, if any, should be expanded? Areas Retain at current scale Should be expanded • Commercial Centers Airport Office Area 8 14 Newport Center 8 1 Retail Center Hotel/Fashion Island 3 14 Youth Council Workshop Eleven of the City's Youth Council members participated in a General Plan Visioning Workshop at its regular meeting on Monday, May April 8 s. Airport issues were on the forefront, but the group identified the top issues for discussion as balanced growth, (i.e., the need to make sure infrastructure keeps up with new development), water quality and traffic. In discussing balanced growth, the consensus of the group was that the City should limit new housing and establish a cap on population. Participants also thought that hotel development should be limited and that the City should explore other options to better utilize existing buildings. The water quality topic generated suggestions such as: better storm water treatment, improvement of water quality in the Back Bay, better coordination with neighboring cities, stricter restrictions on dumping and requiring bio-degradable cleansers for boats in Newport Harbor. Proposals to alleviate traffic included a shuttle from an off -Peninsula parking structure to the beach for tourists, the better synchronization of traffic lights, the designation of one- way streets on the Peninsula and a bridge from 17th Street to San Joaquin Hills Road. City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 20 Other comments/suggestions were that the City should provide a curbside recycling program and be more lenient on the conversion of garages to dwelling units given the lack of affordable housing in the area. Issues • John Wayne Airport expansion vs. no expansion, unsafe • Poor water quality in Bay/Ocean • Too rapid growth/too slow infrastructure • Need more open space • Conversion of garages • Lack of parking on Balboa • Traffic congestion • View preservation • Blight on Balboa Peninsula Strategic Directions Proportional Growth • Limit housing and establish limit on how many people we want in the end • Limit hotels • Provide more convenience stores so people don't have to drive so far to get • needs met Use what's already here more efficiently 11 Water Quality • Better storm water treatment • Clean up the Back Bay • Cooperate better with neighboring cities • Establish regulations on dumping that are more strict • Require bio-degradable cleaners for boat cleaning • Establish a curbside recycling program Traffic • Build another bridge across Upper Newport Bay • Provide a shuttle for beach goers • Establish one-way streets on the Peninsula • Synchronize traffic lights • Reduce fees for residents on the tolls roads • Provide longer crossing lights for pedestrians Otter comments: Key Question #11—Does the City provide adequate services and facilities for youth? If not, what additional services and facilities are needed? • The City needs to provide more active parks and playing fields (8 out of 11 voted as highest priority) • The City needs to expand recreation programs • The City needs to help the school district improve its schools City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 21 A New Vision for Newport Beach An appointed subcommittee of the GPAC worked with a draft of the vision statement to incorporate the major refinements suggested by neighborhood workshop participants, which are listed in the various district summaries. The new vision statement revised by the GPAC subcommittee appears below. NEWPORT BEACH VISION STATEMENT VISION. Our desired end state. What we hope to have achieved by 2025. Community Character We have preserved and enhanced our character as a beautiful, unique community with a diversity of coastal and upland neighborhoods. We value the high quality of life, community bonds, and the successful balancing of the needs of residents, • businesses and visitors. Growth Strategy, Land Use and Development We have a conservative growth strategy that balances the needs of the various constituencies in our community and that cherishes and nurtures our estuary, harbor, beaches, open spaces and natural resources. Development and revitalization decisions are well conceived and beneficial to both the economy and our character. There is a range of housing opportunities that allows people to live and work in the City. Design principles emphasize characteristics that maintain the community's desire for its particular neighborhood or village. Public view areas are protected. Trees and landscaping are enhanced and preserved. A Healthy Natural Environment Protection of environmental quality is a high priority. We preserve our open space resources. We maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor and estuary. The ocean, bay and estuaries are flourishing ecosystems with high water quality standards. • _City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 22 Efficient and Safe Circulation The transportation and circulation system is safe and convenient for automobiles and public transportation, and friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. Public parking facilities are well planned for residents and visitors. Community Services We provide parks, art and cultural facilities, libraries and educational programs directly and through cooperation among diverse entities. The City facilitates or encourages access to high quality health care and essential social services. Newport Beach is noted for its excellent schools and is a premier location for hands on educational experience in the environmental sciences. Our streets are safe and clean. Public safety services are responsive and amongst the best in the Nation. Recreation Opportunities Newport attracts visitors with its harbor, beaches, restaurants and shopping. We are a residential and recreational seaside community willing and eager to share its natural resources with visitors without diminishing these irreplaceable assets in order to share them. We have outdoor recreation space for active local and tourist populations that highlight the City's environmental assets as well as indoor facilities for recreation and socializing. Coastal facilities include pedestrian and aquatic opportunities. Boating and Waterways We are recognized as a premier recreational boating harbor. We have maintained a hospitable, navigable pleasure boating harbor in the lower bay through careful, low density, non -intrusive on -shore development, by regularly dredging navigation and berthing/mooring areas, and by providing adequate access to the water and vessel related servicing facilities. The upper bay retains an unencumbered shoreline and its waterways are maintained free of sediment and debris. Airport We have been united in our efforts to control and contain the increase in noise, air and traffic pollution associated with operation of the Airport. Our City government has vigorously and wisely used the political process to control the impact of the Airport on our community. This has resulted in a level of Airport operation which has preserved our unique character and land values. City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 23 Responsive Government Elected officials and city staff listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community. NEXT STEPS IN THE VISIONING PROCESS In the following months, community members will have additional opportunities to stay engaged in the process. Valuable information is available by reading Newport Beach: Current Conditions, Future Choices; the series of Citywide newsletters; and the www.nbvision2025 website. Randomly selected residents and business owners will also be asked to share their opinions and provide their insights to the emerging Citywide and area -specific strategic directions during a telephone survey in the summer. Two committees- the General Plan Update Committee (GPUC), a steering committee composed of City Council Members and City Staff; and the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), made up of a well -represented group of Newport Beach residents and stakeholders -will continue to meet throughout the process to synthesize community input and preferred policy directions. isBroad participation in the visioning process will result in insightful information of the community's preferences, presented as visions and strategic directions. These will be shared at the Community Congress later in the fall. The community consensus that results from the Congress will be summarized in a final Vision, Values and Strategic Directions Report which will serve as a foundation for the second phase of the General Plan Update. City of Newport Beach Neighborhood Workshops Summary General Plan Update Visioning Process 24 IIIIIIIII` a • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, May 13, 2002 Roger Alford Dorothy Beek Phillip Bettencourt Carol Boice Karlene Bradley John Corrough Seth Darling Julie Delaney Laura Dietz Florence Felton Nancy Gardner • Joseph Gleason Jr. Louise Greeley Evelyn Hart Ernie Hatchell Bob Hendrickson Tom Hyans Mike Ishikawa David Janes George Jeffries Mike Johnson Heather Johnston -Reynolds Todd Knipp Donald Krotee Philip Lugar • Catherine O'Hara (1 1 A IN n LJ • 0 Carl Ossipoff Larry Root John Saunders Brett Shaves Robert Shelton Ed Siebel Alan Silcock Jackie Sukiasian Jan Vandersloot Don Webb Jennifer Wesoloski Ron Yeo GENERAL PLAN ADVOORY COMMITTEE Monday, May 13, 2002 NAME ADDRESS/PHONE U E-MAIL ADDRESS 104;lj "f 300 CaKaC+ 663 ejo�i�l��Pr1��Jeljo�t��.a Lw-oc,cou.� GENERAL PLAN ADMORY COMMITTEE Monday, May 13, 2002 NAME ADDRESS/PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS • N EWP GENERAL PLAN UPDATE VISIONING PROCESS General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting held on Monday, May 13, 2002 at the Police Department Auditorium. Members Present: Roger Alford Joseph Gleason Donald Krotee Dorothy Beek Louise Greeley Phillip Lugar Phillip Bettencourt Evelyn Hart John Saunders Carol Boice Ernest Hatchell Robert Shelton Karlene Bradley Bob Hendrickson Ed Siebel John Corrough Tom Hyans Alan Silcock Hoby Darling Mike Ishikawa Jan Vandersloot Julie Delaney David Janes Don Webb Laura Dietz George Jeffries Jennifer Wesoloski Florence Felton Mike Johnson Nancy Gardner Todd Knipp Members Absent: Heather Johnston -Reynolds Catherine O'Hara Carl Ossipoff Larry Root Staff Present: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patty Temple, Planning Director Tamara Campbell, Senior Planner Debbie Lektorich, Executive Assistant Carolyn Verheyen, MIG Consultant/Facilitator Members of the Public Present: Everette Phillips Wendy Brooks Michael Gelfand Pat Allen Brett Shaves Jackie Sukiasian Ron Yeo I. Welcome and Introductions • Bob Shelton called the meeting to order and announced that Don Krotee has been appointed to replace Marian Bergeson. Louise Greeley invited everyone to the Annual Picnic in the Park at Talbert Nature Preserve on June 1st. The minutes of the April 8th meeting were approved as submitted. II. Report Back from Vision Sub -Committee and Discussion Carolyn Verheyen reviewed the terms in one of the handouts provided in the agenda packet. The Sub -Committee used these definitions while creating the vision statement. "Vision" is defined as a broad abstract statement, which ideally reflects the unique concerns, values and aspirations of a community. "Strategic Direction" is defined as a statement of direction on a critical challenge, issue or problem; a method targeted to achieve a successful outcome. "Policy" is defined as a statement of intent to guide decision -making. "Actions" are the implementation plan; the how to's. David Janes introduced the members of the Sub -Committee —Jackie Sukiasian, Roger Alford, Florence Felton, Nancy Gardner, Tom Hyans and Phil Bettencourt and announced that the Sub -Committee met three times to create the draft Vision Statement provided which was distributed with the agenda materials. Mr. Janes • reviewed the document and gave a little background on how the Sub -Committee came up with the statement. The full Committee was asked to identify topic(s) which may have been missed and determine if anything should be added into the next draft. Evelyn Hart suggested including historic preservation. John Saunders suggested including under "Responsive Government" language regarding cooperation with neighboring cities. John Corrough suggested adding Commissions and Committees as part of "Responsive Government." Jan Vandersloot suggested adding language to suggest traffic congestion is reduced. Roger Alford suggested maybe we are getting too specific when we identify traffic. Joe Gleason suggested that the statement is too general and could be interpreted in different ways. Phil Lugar explained that the Sub -Committee was striving to find a balance. Carol Boice was concerned that balance should not mean equal weight is given to visitors, business and residents —priority should be given to residents. Mike Johnson suggested the need to plan for some type of transportation to accommodate the increasing number of visitors anticipated in the future. Bob Henderson suggested that the statement regarding the airport may not be applicable in the year 2025. Mr. Janes suggested that when coming up with the vision statement, we need to keep in mind that although this city is primarily residential, the major revenue source for city services comes from sales tax. Mr. Gleason asked if we were talking about expanding services or maintaining the level provided at this time. Ed Siebel agreed with Mr. Gleason in that we need to determine whether growth means keeping up with inflation • and providing the same services as we have today or growth as in expanding the services in the future. John Corrough suggested adding an additional item covering 2 economic sustainability. Jan Vandersloot suggested adding language indicating the • importance of keeping this a residential town and increasing property values which will increase property taxes. Ms. Verheyen summarized the discussion: the value of historic preservation, under responsive government include regional cooperation and coordination and perhaps address committees and commissions in addition to elected people; stay away from negative comments; mention traffic flow in some type of positive; airport statement should be reworked to be both positive and more vision oriented; add something about financial sustainability phrasing it in the positive; more discussion is needed on two topics, whether we want to maintain services as they are currently or expand significantly and are we balancing the needs of all people in Newport Beach or giving priority to residents. III. Discuss Neighborhood Workshop Results Ms Verheyen reviewed the preliminary results from the workshops and the Vision Festival. The full report from the workshops was provided with the agenda packets, a couple problems were pointed out at the GPUC meeting by Barry Eaton and the document will be corrected. Ms. Verheyen will provide a detailed presentation on all the results at the June loth meeting. Major issues emerging so far are maintaining the • beach town and residential identity of Newport Beach; maintaining the high quality of life; addressing traffic; preserving water quality; preserving harbors and beaches as significant resources; addressing the size and scale of new housing. Districts 3,5,6 & 7 are concerned about mansionization. Adopting design guidelines were favored in Districts 2, 51 & 6. Some people approved of allowing mixed -use development approved by some people in Balboa Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, Mariners Mile, portions of the Peninsula and West Newport (PCH frontage). At the Festival people favored developers paying in -lieu fees or providing a minimum percentage of affordable units for workforce housing. Districts 2, 3, 5 & 6 liked the idea of reducing the size or narrowing the permitted usage of some commercial areas. There is a split opinion on whether we want more retail development at Fashion Island. Another split opinion on expanding Newport Center and Airport office areas. On tourism people are of the opinion that they want to continue to accommodate and promote for all users —in particular hotel users and business travelers, however they do not want any more hotel development. Regarding tidelands, parks and open space there is strong sentiment that people want to preserve these areas. On the subject of transportation many feel we need to increase public transit options, there is support for some type of community shuttle for tourists. On the topic of parking ideas such as increasing off -site parking, regulating business operations came up, there was no clear direction regarding reducing commercial zoning. Under economic development there was another split opinion on accommodating job growth, there was a feeling that Newport Beach is job rich. Funding priorities were shown to be maintaining • infrastructure, acquire and improve open space and parks, revitalize older commercial areas, and improve water quality. Sharon Wood reminded everyone that comments 3 collected so far are from those who chose to participate, so there is no statistical • validity in these results. The telephone survey will provide a statistically valid sample. Discussion about the findings will be discussed at the June loth meeting after the Committee has a chance to review the results which will be provided with the agenda materials. 0 40 The Committee had questions regarding mansionization. Ms. Wood defined mansionization as construction of a building to the maximum allowable limits according to zoning code. Some neighborhoods feel that by doing this, it changes the character of the neighborhood. This issue is important to many people and could be addressed by indicating in the General Plan that zoning codes in certain neighborhoods would be amended. It was recommended that a list of terms and definitions be provided to assist the Committee through this process. IV. Discuss Key Questions No time for this discussion. Next question scheduled for discussion is #34 and then tourism question. V. Next Steps Traffic and Fiscal/Economic Studies are on schedule. In July we will discuss Fiscal/Economic Study and in August the report on Traffic Study -Existing Conditions will be discussed. Next meeting Monday, June loth VI. Public Comments Everette Phillips wrote to each member of the Committee, the letters were distributed at the meeting. His additional comments are attached to these minutes. Wendy Brooks introduced herself. She has quite a bit of background in historic preservation and offers to be a resource to the Committee. 0