HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS001_HARBOR HILLS IS001
•
I,
i
1
INITIAL STUDY
•
HARBOR HILL SUBDIVISION
TENTATIVE TRACT 10151
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
•
•
•
•
PREPARED BY
LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
610 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 645
• NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
PHONE 714/640-6363
DECEMBER 9, 1977 ;
�1
•
❑ 610 newport center drive,suite 645
newport beach,california92660
phone(714)640.6363
• 0 1050 northgate drive,suite 554
san rafael,california 94903
LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES phone(415)479.3370
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS
December 9, 1977
•
Ms. Beverly Wood
Environmental Coordinator
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
• Newport Beach, CA 92660
SUBJECT: Initial Study, Harbor Hill Subdivision,
Tentative Tract 10151
Dear Ms. Wood:
•
Transmitted herewith are 30 copies of an initial Study for the
proposed Harbor Hill Subdivision pursuant to an agreement with the City
of Newport Beach.
The report focuses on the issues discussed and identified in our
• agreement dated November 4, 1977, notably geologic hazards, hydrology,
water quality, archaeology, land use, noise, and energy and water
conservation. The analysis draws from environmental documents and
technical reports applicable to the area, especially the Final EIR
for Harbor View Sector IV, as well as inspection of the proposed
• project site.
If you have any questions, or if you require additional analysis,
please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
• ARRY SEEM N ASSOCIATES
Larry Se man
• Principal
LS:rkc
Enclosures
•
i •
•
LARRY SEE~ ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
PROJECT INFORMATION 2
Introduction and Sponsor's Objectives 2
Project Sponsor and Contact Person 2
Project Description 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 7
Landforms/Soils/Geology 7
Hydrology/Water Quality 8
Climate/Air Quality 9
Vegetation/Wildlife 10
Archaeology/Paleontology 11
Land Use 11
Transportation and Parking 13
Noise 14
Community Services and Utilities 15
Energy Conservation 15
Visual/Aesthetic Conditions 18
ALTERNATIVES 20
BIBLIOGRAPHY 22
APPENDICES
i
Appendix A - Archaeologic Survey and Test
Investigation Reports
Appendix B - Noise Impact Report
•
O
iv
LARRY SEWAN ASSOCIATES
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Project Location 3
Figure 2 - Tentative Tract Map 5
TABLES
Table A - Summary of Project Statistics 6
Table B - Comparison of Alternatives 21
O
0
1
•
IAfW SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
i
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project sponsor proposes a 41-lot residential subdivision on
20.0 gross acres at the southeast corner of San Miguel Drive and Spyglass
Hill Road. Custom homes or conventional single family housing would
eventually be constructed on 10.52 acres and a neighborhood park site
would be set aside for the City on 7.38 acres.
The principal short-term impacts of the proposal are concerned with
construction disturbances to nearby residents in Broadmoor Sea View homes
and the Bren development north of Spyglass Hill Road. Standard conditions
of City approval of grading plans should keep these impacts to an acceptable
level .
The principal long-term impacts of the project relate to the presence
of residential uses on a formerly undeveloped site and the attendant
affects of increased traffic, energy consumption, and public services.
The site plan layout avoids impacts on views of adjoining residences.
41
•
1
•
e
2
f
LAM SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
I
PROJECT INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION AND SPONSOR'S OBJECTIVES
This Initial Study evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed
f Harbor Hill Subdivision, Tentative Tract 10151 , a 20 acre parcel at the
southeast corner of San Miguel Drive and Spyglass Hill Road in Newport
Beach, California.
The objective of the project sponsor is to develop 41 residential
lots suitable for the construction of custom designed single family
♦ detached homes or conventional single family detached housing and complete
rough grading for a neighborhood park. In order to develop these uses,
City of Newport Beach approvals are required in the form of a Planned
Community Regulations Amendment (Harbor View Hills Planned Community) , a
Resubdivision and new Subdivision Map, and grading and building permits.
f The intent of this Initial Study is to provide sufficient information
to enable decision-makers to determine whether there are potentially
significant adverse environmental effects associated with the project
that are not mitigated by design features of the project.
f PROJECT SPONSOR AND CONTACT PERSON
The landowner and sponsor of the Harbor Hill Subdivision is The
Irvine Company. The project sponsor's representatives for this project
are: 1 ) Mr. Mike Mohler, Project Manager, The Irvine Company, 610
Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92663, Phone 714/644-3011 and
♦ 2) Mr. David Neish, Urban Assist, Inc. , 610 Newport Center Drive,
Suite 645, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone 714/640-1882.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location. The proposed Harbor Hill Subdivision is located at the
♦ southeast corner of the intersection of San Miguel Drive and Spyglass Hill
Road in the Harbor View Hills area of Newport Beach, CA. For reference,
the proposed project site is shown on a sketch location map (Figure 1 ) .
More specifically, the site includes Lot 1 , Tract No. 9587 M. M. 400/20-24
and a portion of Blocks 92 and 97 of Irvine's subdivision, M. R. M. 1/88 .
in the City of Newport Beach.
1
f
f
3
FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION LARRy eEEeMri ASSOCIATES
/R!//NE
TENTAT/t/E TRACT 0 a RESERrO/ ' RESER O R/~
/VO. /0/6'/
rE.vr.
neacr
� 0 8725
0 00(i EY �
NEWPORT � ` �
h
CEN7F:P
a y u m y 9�p 3�pyQ.
3 Q• � Z� Q���C��� Q�Q��v
Giv P � Ro.
v Tc�44Po- j J
N ORANGE CO.
~D' NEGYPORT 1
BEACH
z
•
•
4
lAFM SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
• Residential Lots. Forty-one residential lots will be created on
about 10.52 net acres as shown on the Tentative Tract Map (Figure 2).
The lots would average about 6,500 square feet in area and would be at
a density of about 3 per acre. The maximum lot size (Lot 22) would be
22,100 square feet with the minimum lot size being 5.,000 square feet.
Approximate project statistics are summarized in Table A.
•
Several options are available when the improved lots are completed.
They could be sold to individuals who would construct their own homes or
they could be leased or sold to one or more custom builders who would
construct homes for resale.
• Open Space and Recreation Area. An open space and recreation area
is proposed in the area designated on the Tentative Tract Map as "Lot
42." The area would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association.
Park. A 7.38 acre area, designated as "Lot 43" on the Tentative
i Tract Map is proposed to be offered for dedication to the City of Newport
Beach as a park site (San Miguel Park) . Uses planned for the park site
include a bail diamond, four tennis courts, and 30 parking spaces to
provide for public parking. The project sponsor would rough grade the
park site and dedicate it to the City, who would then develop the ball
diamond, tennis courts, and parking.
• Off-site Improvements. There are no off-site improvements that
would be req iu red to implement this project, aside from connections to
utility services which already exist in San Miguel Drive or Spyglass
Hill Road adjacent to the site.
Phasing and Development Schedule. Buildout of the subdivision, while
not a part of this project, will probably require 1 or 2 years following
abandonment by the MWD and necessary site improvements. At this point,
the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation plans to develop the park
within about three years.
The Metropolitan Water District, who will abandon the reservoir site
indicates that construction of a bypass pipe at the site and the pressure
relief structure (at Big Canyon Reservoir) would probably be accomplished in
winter of 1978 and would require 4-5 months to complete. Grading for all
or a part of the Tract 10151 project could be delayed until the MWD
construction is complete.
•
•
5
FIGURE 2
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP LARRY SEES ASSOCIATES
•
i0ft�,�[wvL , � ••
^,,,•-„ •JCS ��%'�k•'�hl, ........
. ®... �r:T�r% 9 � �-�C� O S .��u:�•
rlmm `/�'i'\.• ��µ4. +.L\.' 7" n-,,;, y y.•r 'I „J 9q 4
• �`�.. �'j,�X r� —O •\a./^? ` �• p `\` 1i4% —� ti• rrcm�r�ee
! f ' �"" �'S�, . ' -;: .� ._,-� �. �;, �. \�`•. ��-.._., THAGT NO. 10151
Pill
yl
f.3 III\ •• � r ®~ I ...r.—r'-r • - 1'.. •} �'�!�%Gy`"�i�?�_=
•
•
6
• TABLE A
SUMMARY OF PROJECT STATISTICS
TARRY SeEMAN ASSOCIATES
TABLE A
SUMMARY OF PROJECT STATISTICS
• FACTOR ACRES
Residential (Lots 1-41 ) 10.52
41 Custom Lots
Max. Lot 22,100 sq. ft/Min. Lot
• 5,000 sq. ft./Mean 6,500 sq. ft.
Open Space/Recreation (Lot 42) 2.10
Park (Lot 43) 7.38
Ball Diamond
• Four Tennis Courts
30 Parking Spaces _
TOTAL 20.00
• Source: Project Sponsor
•
•
•
7
•
lAIM SeE~ ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
LANDFORMS/SOILS/GEOLOGY
Setting. Tentative Tract 10151 is located on a sloping site that
ranges from about 260' MSL to 410' MSL. Nearly all of the site has
previously been graded in conjunction with development of Tract 9587
(Harbor View Hills) or development of the Metropolitan Water District
reservoir site which now occupies a part of the site (to be abandoned) .
Several geologic and soils investigations have been conducted in
to the area, including all , or portions of the site. They include Woodward-
Clyde-Sherard and Associates (1967) , Slosson and Associates (1971 ),
Converse-Davis and Associates (1971 ) , Woodward-McNeill (1974), Vedder
et. al . (1957) , and Dalton (1952) . The findings and conclusions of these
reports are discussed in an EIR for Harbor View Hills Sector IV certified
by the City in 1974 (Environmental Analysis Foundation, 1974) . Information
• from these reports indicates that the site is underlain by quarternary
terrace material or alluvium and that there are "no known adverse geologic
conditions within or adjoining the property that cannot be effectively
controlled by proper engineering and grading design" (Slosson and
Associates, 1971 ).
• A fault trace crosses, Tract 10151 , but according to the previous
geologic reports, it is not active. The nearest active fault is the
Newport-Inglewood Fault several miles to the southwest. Earthquakes of
magnitude 6.0 to 6.5 on this fault system could result in groud acceler-
ation of .25g at the site (Slosson and Associates, 1971 ) .
411 Impact. Creation of the proposed Harbor Hill Subdivision would
require movement of about 100,000 cubic yards of material . Cut and fill
areas are shown on Figure 2. Earth movement would not occur in the extreme
southerly portion of the site where a drainage Swale occurs along Spyglass
Hill Road where an existing fill slope occurs. Grading of the site would
require about six weeks.
Mitigation Measures. The following measures are included as a part
of the project to offset potential adverse effects.
1. A soil engineers report wiU be obtained for the purpose
of grading control and to establish basic fdundation design
criteria for proposed improvements. The report wiZt be
specific to the project area of Tract 10151, and wiZZ
41
•
8
•
LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
• include the MWD site (not specifically addressed in avail
able tract map level geoZogic/soiZs reports. The report
will satisfy the California Division of Mines and Geology
standards for geologic and soils reports.
2. A registered soil engineer will supervise the grading and
• placement of fill and will certify that appropriate standards
are met.
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Setting. The proposed project site is located in the upper portion
• of the Big Canyon watershed, tributary to Upper Newport Bay. Surface
runoff from the site is presently by overland flow to an unnamed drainage
swale, one of several of its kind which drain Harbor Ridge and flow to
Big Canyon. The swale is an open channel where it crosses the site.
Drainage from developed areas higher up on Harbor Ridge crosses the site
in two subsurface storm drains until reaching the swale. Where the
• larger of the two storm drains return runoff to the swale, an energy
dissipator is in place. In the swale just upstream of San Miguel Drive,
a small debris basin has been constructed. Downstream from the site
stormwater flows through residentially developed areas and is in storm
drains until it reaches Big Canyon where there are several small detention
• ponds. Storm drain sizes downstream of the site have been designed by
Raub, Bein, Frost and Associates and Simpson-Steppat Associates to
accommodate all drainage in the watershed, at full development (including
development of this site) .
At present there is a small concrete lined water supply reservoir of .
• the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) occupying a part of the site. The
reservoir, known as the Corona del Mar Reservoir, is operated by the MWD
as a relief facility to maintain proper pressure in the water distribution
system in the Harbor View Hills area, but is not essential to the operation
of the distribution system. The MWD anticipates abandoning the Corona del
Mar Reservoir- in the near future and plans to regulate pressure by means
of a pressure relief structure to be constructed near Big Canyon Reservoir
(Metropolitan Water District, 1977) .
Impact. With development, the MWD reservoir will be eliminated. As
with surrounding areas, surface runoff from the proposed subdivision area
will be collected in street drains and conveyed in drains beneath the
• streets to the open swale. Installation of storm drains within the
project will also involve rerouting of two existing storm drains to conform
to street and subdivision designs. Existing and proposed rerouting are
shown on Figure 2.
•
•
• 9
IA W SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
• The quality of runoff water from the site will change with development
to include less silt and more "urban" runoff constituents such as oil ,
grease, and metals. Although it would be desirable to control these
pollutants from the paved surface, because the storm drainage is combined
with flows from existing developed areas upstream, there is no practical
• cost-effective means of improving overall runoff quality in this minor
watershed that would have any significant effect on removing pollutants
from the receiving water body (Newport Bay) .
At present, plans are to grade the park site at the time the balance
of the subdivision area is graded, which has implications for runoff
• control from the time the park site is graded till the time it is ultimately
developed. According to the project engineer, drainage and water quality
control of the park site will be dealt with as the grading plan is developed
and will meet the standards of the City Grading Ordinance.
Mitigation Measures. The following measures are included as a part
• of the project to offset potential impacts.
3. The grading plan developed for the site will include -
measures to reduce off-site effects of grading on water
quality. Measures to be considered include berming in
selected perimeter areas of the park site to avoid
• siltation before the park is developed, surface and sub-
surface drainage devices, and establishment of ground
cover.
4. An energy dissipator will be designed and installed
on the relocated stormdrains where they discharge to the
• natural open drainage swale.
CLIMATE/AIR QUALITY
Setting. The climate of the Newport Beach area has been described in
detail in many previous reports. The climate is moderate with few extreme
conditions. Air quality data are not monitored at the site but are
monitored by the Orange County APCD. The monitor data indicates that
air quality conditions in coastal locations such as Harbor View Hills
are generally better than more inland locations.
Impact. The project will have no significant effect on either
• climate or air quality, although the approximately 12 vehicle trips per
day from each of the 41 homes and from visitors coming to use the neigh-
borhood park facilities will result in generation of automobile pollutants.
•
10
•
IAFW SEEMM ASSOCIATES
• During construction, especially grading, there is a potential for
dust to be generated which may adversely affect adjoining residents
(about 5 homes) fronting on the north side of Spyglass Hill Road. Because
of prevailing on-shore sea breezes in this area, it is unlikely that other
nearby residential areas to the south would be affected.
• Mitigation Measures. The following measure is proposed to offset
potential adverse effects.
5. The standard dust suppression provisions of the Department
of Community DeveZopment wiZZ be compZied with. Specific
conditions concerning dust controZ, if required, wiZZ be
• incZuded as part of grading permit review.
VEGETATION/WILDLIFE
Setting. An ecological evaluation of Harbor View Hills Sector IV,
Site 11 , was prepared by California Environment (1973) and is included
• as an appendix to Environmental Analysis Foundation (1974) . Prior to
grading, grassland and chapparal associations were found on the site.
At present, remnants of these associates are present in a disturbed
condition. No rare or end@gered species of plants or wildlife were
noted in the original survey. Lists of species associated with the chap-
paral and grassland in this area are contained in California Environment
• (1973) . I
The MWD site is landscaped, primarily with ice plant as ground n cover. /
Ten fifteen monterey pine trees line the entry road to the MWD site. ✓ 4,
A wildlife survey of the MWD site conducted by Hitchcock (1977) for the
• MWD indicated that a bobcat lives on the site (not a rare or endangered w'
species). No other wildlife of consequence was noted.
Impact. Except for 2 or 3 acres in the drainage Swale, all of the
vegetation on the site will be removed during grading (Figure 2). A
complete change in the vegetative mosaic of the graded area will occur as
landscape plant materials grow to maturity. Existing wildlife, primarily
birds and burrowing rodents will be eliminated as their habitat is
transformed.
Mitigation Measures. The following measures are included as a part .
of the project to offset potential adverse impacts.
•
•
• 11
LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
• 6. Drought tolerant plant materials will be emphasized by
the project sponsor in any landscaping that is done, and will
be recommended to lot purchasers as lots are sold. This
has a dual purpose of keeping the appearance of the area as
natural as possible (as most drought tolerant plants are
native to this climate type) and reducing demand for water
• consumption.
7. A report on drought tolerant landscape species by Larry
Seeman Associates (1977) will be provided to the Department
of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation for their reference as
they select plant materials for the park site.
•
ARCHAEOLOGY/PALEONTOLOGY
Setting. Ah Archaeological/Paleontological survey of Harbor View
Hills Sector IV was conducted by ARI (1973) and is contained as an appendix
to Environmental Analysis Foundation (1974) . The report covered a portion
• of the Tract 10151 area. This report did not note any archaeologic or
paleontologic finds on the Harbor Hill site. A second survey, including
the portion of the site where the MWD reservoir is located, was recently
completed by Archaeologic Resource Management Corporation (1977) in accordance
with the City's Guidelines for Archaeological Surveys (Council Policy K-6)
and is included here as Appendix A. This survey detected two areas of
• shell scatter and recommended testing to determine the significance of the
finds. A test level investigation was conducted which found no significance
to the potential sites. The results of the test investigation are also
contained in Appendix A for those desiring further detail .
Impact. . Based on the findings of the surveys, no impacts on archaeo-
logical or paleontological resources are contemplated.
Mitigation Measures. The following measure is included as a part of
the project to offset potential adverse impacts.
• 8. In accordance with the recommendation of the archaeo-
logical consultant, an archaeologist will be notified when
grading commences and will be able to observe grading
operations to detect subsurface artifacts, if any exist.
LAND USE
• Setting Prior to August 8, 1977, the Newport Beach General Plan
Designation for the proposed project site permitted "Governmental ,
•
•
12
•
LARW SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
• Educational , and Institutional Facilities" use of the site as well as
"Recreational and Environmental Open Space" and "Residential" uses. On
that date, on application of The Irvine Company, the Newport Beach City
Council acted to amend the General Plan (General Plan Amendment 77-2;
Item D) to delete the "Governmental , Educational , and Institutional
Facilities" designation and to rearrange the remaining designations to
• reflect the intention of the Metropolitan Water District to abandon a
small reservoir site.
Actual use of the site at present is limited to the Corona del Mar
reservoir and appurtenant equipment buildings, tanks, and custodial
buildings. As noted in the discussion of hydrology in a previous section,
• the reservoir serves as a pressure relief in the local water distribution
system and is not an essential element of the system. Its function is
planned to be replaced by a pressure relief structure to be constructed
near Big Canyon reservoir.
Impact. Implementation of the project will result in removal of the
• small reservoir and creation of a neighborhood park and a 41 unit subdivision.
The proposed uses are consistent with the current General Plan designation,
but will require amendment of the Harbor View Hills Planned Community
Regulations (Zoning) and resubdivision to technically redefine the existing
parcels.
• The proposed park site is arranged so that the entire frontage of the
site along San Miguel Drive, and the frontage along San Joaquin Hills Road
from San Miguel to Port Dunbar Drive is park. In this arrangement, the
existing five houses north of San Joaquin Hills Road that front on the
site will overlook the proposed San Miguel park. Uses in the park will
• include a ball field and four tennis courts.
Proposed San Miguel park is anticipated by the Department of Parks,
Beaches, and Recreation (1977) to be a neighborhood park rather than a
community scale park. Community park needs of the area are met by other
larger facilities in the nearby Bren subdivision. The ball field is
• anticipated to be used by the Harbor Area Baseball Program as a practice
field (not for actual games) and for flag football . Night lighting is not
anticipated. The four tennis courts are also expected to serve neighbor-
hood needs and are not planned to be night lighted.
Mitigation Measures. None are proposed.
•
•
13
•
LAFM SEeMAN ASSOCLATES
• TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING
Setting. The site is bounded on the west by San Miguel Drive, desig-
nated a primary 4-lane divided roadway (capacity about 40,000 ADT) , and on
the north and east by Spyglass Hill Road, designated a secondary 4-lane
undivided roadway (capacity about 30,000 ADT) . At present, traffic levels
• on San Miguel are about 7,000 ADT. Spyglass Hill Road is not yet open to
through traffic so there is no current data available. Parking is not
permitted along either roadway adjacent to the site. Traffic flows entering
San Miguel Drive from Spyglass Hill Road is regulated by a stop sign. The
site is served by Route 65 of the Orange County Transit District which runs
along San Miguel Drive.
•
A traffic analysis report, prepared in 1973 by Herman Kimmell and
Associates, projected ultimate traffic levels in the area based on 400
single family dwelling units with a trip generation of 12 per unit. The
results of that report are contained in an appendix to the Final EIR for
Harbor View Hills Sector IV and indicated no special problem for the
•
vicinity of the site. Discussions with the City's Traffic Engineering
Department indicate a current concern for pedestrian safety at the inter-
section of San Miguel Drive and Spyglass Hill Road. Children walking to
a nearby school west of San Miguel Drive must cross that street without
benefit of traffic control devices.
• Impact. The proposed residential uses will generate about 12 trips
per unit per day for a total of 492 trips per day and would obtain access
to the site at a single entry point as shown on Figure 2. The combined
number of units proposed in Tract 10151 and existing built units is
somewhat less than that originally contemplated in the original studies
• (368 vs. 400), so the cumulative impact of traffic from the new subdivision
and development under construction should be somewhat less than that
already taken into account and reported in the overall impact report for
the Sector IV area. Traffic generation from the park is not expected to
be great as the park is a neighborhood park, although the tennis and ball
field uses will generate some traffic. The park site is larger than the
• size of the park originally contemplated at this site.
Since offsite parking is not permitted on streets adjacent to the site
parking for about 30 cars is to be provided in support of park uses. This
appears to be an adequate number and has been judged adequate by the
Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation (1977). If all of the courts
• are full at the same time (doubles play) and if everyone drives a car, 16
spaces would be filled, leaving 14 spaces available for the ball park and
people coming and going.
14
•
TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATE5
• Pedestrian movement in the vicinity of the site is facilitated by
sidewalks on either side of San Miguel Drive and Spyglass Hill Road (under
construction).
Mitigation Measures. The following measure is proposed as part of
• the project to offset potential adverse impacts.
9. Condition 23 of Tentative Tract 8725 (which applies to this
area at present) requires that a traffic signaZ be constructed
at the intersection of SpygZass SiZZ (toad and San MigueZ Drive
when warrents are met, with the funding to be 50% City. This
• tract wiZZ contribute to the generaZ traffic ZeveZs at the
intersection so this condition indirectZy appZies to this
subdivision as weZZ.
NOISE
• Setting. An analysis of,the noise exposure characteristics of the
project site was conducted by John E. Parnell , acoustic consultant,
during November 1977. A copy of the noise analysis report is included
in Appendix B. The project site is a quiet suburban location with
minimum ambient noise levels on the order of 42-45 dBA. The survey
determined the present noise environment to be not representative of
• the projected condition following completion of development in the area.
Cessation of the temporary construction noise and changes in the traffic
noise conditions will result in differences in the noise exposure patterns.
Impact. The proposed plan calls for recreational facilities (tennis
and baseball ) where people may concentrate and produce noises audible at
• adjacent residential locations. These noises have been determined to be
comparable to, or lower than, the noise from motor vehicles on nearby
roadways. As concluded in the acoustic analysis report (Appendix B) ,
the recreation facilities shown in the proposed project plans will not
constitute a significant intrusive noise source for the existing residences.
Noise from traffic in and out of the project site will not constitute a
• significant increase to existing or projected traffic noise in the area.
Noise exposures from intermittent sources such as aircraft are similar to
those in other segments of the City. Future traffic noise from adjacent
roadways will be below recommended residential land use criteria.
Mitigation Measures. No measures are proposed aside from conformance
• with City construction noise criteria (Code of Ordinances Chapter 10.28 -
Noise) .
•
•
15
•
TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
• COMMUNITY SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Setting. Utilities and public services in the vicinity of the project
site include electricity (Southern California Edison Company, Huntington
Beach, CA), telephone, (Pacific Telephone Company, Newport Beach, CA) ,
natural• gas (Southern California Gas Company, Anaheim, CA) , water (City
• of Newport Beach) , wastewater (Orange County Sanitation District, Santa
Ana, CA) , police and fire (City of Newport Beach) , and schools (Newport
Mesa Unified School District, Newport Beach, and Irvine Unified School
District, Irvine, CA). All utilities are available in the right of way of
streets adjacent to the site.
• Impact. As reported in the Harbor View Hills Sector IV EIR, all
service and utility agencies have indicated the ability to meet the needs
of new development in the area. Since approval of this Tract will bring
the cumulative total number of units approved in Sector IV to about 368,
and the service agencies had reported the ability to serve based on a total
of 400 units permitted by the zoning, this tract map should not result in
• - any overloads to available infrastructure.
Mitigation Measures. No measures are proposed.
ENERGY CONSERVATION
• Setting. The project site and Newport Beach in general experience a
moderate, marine-influenced climate which is not subject to temperature
extremes. As a result, the area does not have excessive heating or
cooling requirements as do more northerly or inland parts of California.
According to climate design criteria contained in standards adopted by
the California Energy Commission, the Newport Beach area experiences
• about 2,350 annual heating degree daysl . This compares with San Francisco
(3,080) , San Jose (2,656), Palmdale (3,088) . By comparison to most of
the United States, Newport Beach's inherent heating and cooling require-
ments are minimal .
•
IA heating degree day is a measure of the heating requirements dictated
by climatic considerations. Heating degree days ••are calculated by summing
• temperature variations relative to a 65OF ambient temperature. For example,
on a day when the air temperature reaches 75°F, the number of heating degree
days is 75-65=10. Annual degree days are the sum of daily variations.
•
•
16
•
TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
• Impact. Analysis of the impacts of Harbor Hill Subdivision requires
a consideration of 1 ) initial energy inputs necessary for site preparation
and construction; 2) long-term energy inputs required for operation of
structures and uses; and 3) long-term energy inputs required for maintenance
and operation of streets, utilities, and other support infrastructure.
• Initial energy inputs required for the development of Harbor Hill
would be greater than the energy needed to construct a development of
similar scale on flat land since more grading (more equipment operation)
would be required.
Long-term energy inputs for operation of housing would include energy
• used for space heating and cooling, cooking, water heating, lighting and
appliances. The significance and scale of energy impacts depends upon the
equipment included in the residential units and the degree to which energy
conservation opportunities are exploited. In the case of a custom lot
subdivision most of these factors are beyond the direct control of the
project sponsor. However, siting of structures in relationship to micro-
climate can be the single most important factor determining long-term
energy costs for space heating and cooling. The project sponsor, through
design of lot layouts, can influence siting of houses.
In the Newport Beach area, the best orientation (for the long-side
of structures) in terms of optimizing energy conservation is to the south
• or southeast (Larry Seeman, Inc. , 1977). Units with their long sides
and glazing facing those directions tend to maximize the use of natural
sunlight as an aid to space heating. On the other hand, units facing to
the north tend to require more energy for space heating given the same type
of construction techniques. Units facing east or west are in between in
• terms of energy requirements for space heating/cooling. East facing units
receive sun in the morning when it is needed but will need space heating
during winter because of limited exposure. In the case of Harbor Hill
Subdivision, the orientation of lots is mixed with the result that some
units will be better situated with respect to solar exposure than others.
Other considerations in site planning (e.g. cul-de-sac length, the park
• site configuration, etc.) have been of overriding concern in site layout.
Other factors which can influence long-term energy consumption for
operation of housing include use of alternative energy sources and use of
landscaping as a modifier of climate. Because this is a custom lot
subdivision, the level of site planning which has been performed relative
• to the project is not of sufficient detail to evaluate the impacts of
landscaping on energy use.
•
•
17
•
u►RRY SEeWAN ASSOCIATES
• Maintenance and operation of streets, street lighting, and infra-
structure can represent a significant energy cost during the life of a
project. Hillside development in particular may be more energy consuming
because of required pumping facilities for water and wastewater. Relative
to a flat site, Harbor Hill may consume more energy over its lifetime for
these purposes. In the case of Harbor Hill , utility infrastructure is
• already in place and is not amenable to change.
Finally, the location of a site in relationship to transportation
systems, community support facilities, and employment centers can make a
difference in terms of energy used for travel . Since the Harbor Hill
site is serviced by public transportation, it is generally in an advan-
tageous position.
Mitigation Measures. The following measures are proposed or otherwise
required, to offset potential adverse effects.
10. Builders (whether the project sponsor or others) will be
• required to comply with recently developed state energy
conservation standards as stated in the California
Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Division T-20,
Chapter 2. These standards prescribe requirements for
insulation, glazing, and other related practices.
• 11. Energy conservation literature published by the gas and
electric companies is automatically made available to new
homeowners upon connection of service.
12. The project sponsor will request that lot purchasers,
• and their architects consider use of appliances, lighting,
and space heating methods that could reduce internal load
factors. Similarly, lot purchasers and their architects will
be encouraged to take into account the following factors in
their building designs:
• a. Consider building orientation within the lot that
allows long sides of units to face south insofar as
possible. Southerly orientation maximizes winter solar
heat gain and reduces requirements for space heating.
b. Orient opening windows so as to take advantage of
•
prevailing southwesterly sea breezes as` a means of
natural ventilation and reducing the need for air
conditioning.
•
18
•
TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
c. Provide air conditioning in units as an option
rather than as a standard appliance.
d. Consider use of Light exterior coZors on buildings
that are predominantZy oriented with their Long sides
to the west.
• e. Consider orienting Large windows towards the south to
maximize winter solar heat gain. Minimize west and north
facing glass.
f. Consider shading south, southeast and east facing
• windows with deciduous Landscaping or roof overhangs
designed with heat gain control in mind.
VISUAL/AESTHETIC CONDITIONS
Setting. The site is situated on the west face of Harbor Ridge and
• commands spectacular views over Newport Beach and the ocean beyond. The
most prominent features of the site itself from the perspective of
passing motorists are the berms of the reservoir site, the row of trees
lining the MWD entry road, and the rough graded appearance of the balance
of the site.
• Impact. Grading for this project will result in elevation changes
that will change the appearance of the site. However the proposed tract
map presents a grading concept and layout of building sites that should
fit in well with adjoining land uses. The type of homes will also be
similar in scale and character to those already in the area. The site
plan avoids locating building sites where they might obstruct views of
• neighbors to the north. Neighbors to the west (across Sap Miguel Drive)
have no views of the site because of grade differences. Four or five
homes in the Broadmoor Sea View development to the south overlook the
site (views to the north). While a natural open space corridor about
150 feet wide separates them from this subdivision, a few homes in
Broadmoor Sea View will overlook homes in Harbor Hill .
•
At present, the exact plans of the City Department of Parks, Beaches,
and Recreation concerning uses and landscaping of San Miguel Park are not
defined. It is anticipated, however, that landscaping of the park site
can be accomplished without adversely affecting existing views.
•
19
•
TARRY SeEMAN ASSOCIATES
• Mitigation Measures. The following measures are included as/ a part
of the project to offset potential adverse effects.
13. The proposed Zot Zayout avoids visuaZ conflict with
existing residential uses to the north (Refer to Alternatives
discussion which follows).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
20
•
LA§W SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
• ALTERNATIVES
During the project formulation stage, three alternative land use
schemes were considered. The alternatives were identified as Plan A,
Plan B, and Plan C. Plan C is the alternative proposed, and is shown
• here as Figure 2.
Because the site is relatively small to begin with, alternative land
use configurations were limited. The differences between the three
alternatives are shown in Table B, which also summarizes the differences
• in impact. In general , the increased number of lots in the proposed
plan (41 versus 38 in the other alternatives) result in slightly greater
impacts in terms of traffic levels, air pollutant emission, and traffic
noise levels.
•
•
•
•
•
•
TABLE B 21
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
• TABLE B
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
• ISSUE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE
PLAN A PLAN B PLAN C
Number of Lots 38 38 41
Number of Access Points 1 1 1
Lot Area Amenities 2 Tennis 2 Tennis ---
Courts Courts
Size of Park ± Equal ± Equal ± Equal
•
Park Area Parking Not Shown 33 Spaces 30 or more
Grading Volume +100,000 yds. +100,000 yds. +100,000 yds.
Runoff Effects Equal Equal Equal
•
Biotic Effects Equal Equal Equal
Archaeologic Impacts Equal Equal Equal
Park Layout Potential Viewl No Viewl No Viewl
• Blockage Blockage Blockage
Traffic --- --- 8% more traffic
Public Services --- --- 8% more demand
• Energy Demand --- --- 8% more required
Visual Potential Viewl No Viewl No Viewl
Blockage Blockage Blockage
•
lfor homes north of Spyglass Hill Road.
•
22
TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archaeological Research, Inc. , 1973. Report of Survey - Harbor Hills
Development . . . , Costa Mesa, CA
�► Archaeological Resource Management Corporation, 1977. Report of Survey,
Harbor Hill Site, Garden Grove, CA
Archaeological Resource Management Corporation, 1977. Report of Test
Level Investigation, Harbor Hill Si.te, Garden Grove, CA
California Environment, 1974. An Ecological Evaluation of Harbor View
Hills Sector IV, Site 11 , Capistrano Beach, CA
Converse Dixon and Associates, 1970. Geologic and Soil Investigatio_n_,_
Tract 7247, Upper Harbor View Hills, Anaheim, CA
i- Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation, 1977. Conversation with
Cal Stewart, Director, concerning anticipated facilities and use
patterns for San Miguel Park
Dolton, G. L. , 1952. Geology of the Southwest Portion of the San Joaquin
Hills, MA Thesis, Claremont College
•
Environmental Analysis foundation, 1974. Environmental Impact Report
for Harbor View Hills Sector IV, Newport Beach, CA
Hitchcock, Phillip, 1977. Staff Biologist, Metropolitan Water District,
Survey of biotic resources of the Corona del Mar Reservoir site in
conjunction with an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for
abandonment of the reservoir site, Los Angeles, CA
Metropolitan Water District, 1977. Conversation with Mr. Clare J.
Gagnon on December 5, 1977 concerning Corona del Mar reservoir
abandonment
Newport Beach, 1977. Staff report for General Plan Amendment 77-2,
Department of Community Development, Newport Beach, CA
Larry Seeman Associates, 1977. Energy Conservation Opportunities for New
Developments of The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA
Larry Seeman Associates, 1977. Water Conservation Opportunities for New
Developments of The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA
i-
23
IAFM SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
• S1osson and Associates, 1971 . Geologic Report for Upper Harbor View
Hills Sector IV, Sherman Oaks, CA
Vedder, Vierkes, Schoellenhamer, 1957. Geologic Map of the San Joaquin
Hills - San Juan Capistrano Area, USGS OM-193, Washington, D. C.
•, Woodward-Clyde-Sherad and Associates, 1967. Geologic and Soil Investi-
gation for Upper Harbor View Hills Area, Santa Ana, CA
Woodward-McNeill and Associates, 1974. Review of Section IV-B-1 of EIR
for Harbor View Hills Sector IV, Orange, C
•P
41
•
f
•
IAFM SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
APPENDIX A
ARCHAEOLOGIC SURVEY AND TEST INVESTIGATION REPORTS
i
f
t
t
II •
•
Archaeological Resource Management Corporation
12900 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 230
Garden Grove, California 92626
(714) 530-6380
November 2, 1977
1
Mr. Larry Seeman
Environmental Science Consultant
* 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 525
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Mr. Seeman:
40 An archaeological survey was performed on a parcel of land south of the
intersection of San Miguel Drive and Spyglass Hill Road in Newport Beach,
Orange County, California on October 28, 1977. The survey was performed
by Jill Neitzel for Archaeological Resource Management Corporation at your
request.
0 The purpose of the survey was to systematically inspect the property for
any signs of prehistoric Indian activity. The investigation consisted of
two phases. First, records maintained at ARM were examined to determine
whether any archaeological sites had previously been recorded as being lo-
cated on the property. The results of the records search were negative.
The second phase of the investigation consisted of a field reconnissance
of the property. The systematic surface survey was the method used during
the field work. The property was traversed by foot in parallel swaths
approximately ten meters apart and carefully examined for evidence such as
scatters of stone artifacts, a darkening of the soil resulting from the decay
of organic material , food remains such as shell and bone, and possibly pieces
i of pottery which might indicate the presence of a prehistoric Indian site.
Since most sites in southern California are at least partially visible on
the surface, the absence of any evidence of prehistoric Indian activity would
lead to the conclusion that no known archaeological resources would be im-
pacted
b proposed development on the property.
Y P P P
'0 The survey area consisted of- a roughly triangular piece of property of
approximately twenty acres in size (see Figure 1). The area is defined on
the west by San Miguel Drive, on the east by Spyglass Hill Road, and on the
south by the upper reaches of Big Canyon. Sea View Development is located
on the opposite side of the drainage. The property under investigation can
be divided into three parcels which are discussed' separately below (see Fig. 2) .
The first area which was surveyed consisted of property owned by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (see Figure 2). The property
Reservou
,Co I �t L•' �}° i Q , iSUr/e •,Rf'a .E EV 471Y )
f Sour 2. .. % �••~ ti: '/�\ �[' ` K 4.
1256" - -1 I i �•�,• -J �• `-o<)' Y. I Btomm�g o ••
.572 �, �l San Joaquin i
`..RnKcrroir i..
• , , �-l.•s , �r' '1 n,.' ' ,� \'"��a'�Q•f•`\'; I^ to t' !/ y)• -\ 1 // )
t 4 1 a / Reser+eoir
.2051, ,\ seh f�,' , / Mausole
n1um �• , , < <'
• �ry�` •; :�.. ',i/' R:! f���ail.�\ ' •,) : ���
p ,• ubstalicn
-
Eck �r
`rt�;'_j1''^1• ;' `` �`\ SPILLWAY " „� �./4j�. 1 i;:, zy.�e<-•• .��'�•`.
`••T ',p�,Hvbor.(ew '\ELEV 200: .. n - , _"� '
Corona�l\1el Mar:':5 h•' �\ - ::•'.� ':1�.1 � ..l ;f<^ _.-- ` \�\'1
s<h It�, y :. NEWP'&kT BEACH O;
i. `i:'"0 c\ +/'R •'y'.x. Rerbor `� •• �n •I ' ,,` •\.y '�:.`• (�•� (/
p•,t.1 ,.°z:,i,\.p° p�: )'A' s<h
B �..:�n1-,''r�='�� `.1—':`1�,�== mow_---^ ----^--�,—_—•\t (} —�—.
�,
92
' aP Sf :Yt\V1a 'fie i'\'-"� .� i.` yn _ .. I 1 ..?o_-�•
��-4 ,Y�•x�� '/T>i�`= BM 'i� ��~\�l , ' =-i t '. 1 . . Pellcan`_q-. ', ,L
'PP
1 �Pg y;
Corona ?'R�. ,/ �
del filar- P 'I tom/ rr^Si"�'� ,,"•,,••,� �r..r.. .
13
142
'l i f,i O' / '/ '• 1 / n
Arch Rock i n
Figure 1. General Location Map (taken from USES Laguna Beach Quad. , 7.51 ).
s •
0 100D 2000 30p0 40P0
feet
4 S IN
a
•
4Qr �� t
v OO \�� ±, � + • �' l , to
44
p
of
\ . t
� do v
0/1
toil
/• p a kZ
• `S'oo 1
N i
_ 5k c{�crt {I�Kc
not fo fait C1 5�c11 sceNcr
Figure 2. Sketch Map of Survey Area
is completely fenced and is bounded by San Miguel Drive on the west. On the
other side of the southern fenceline is a concrete drainage culvert and an arti-
ficial terrace. This portion of the survey area has been extensively disturbed
by the construction of a large reservoir. Also located on the property are a
house and garage with a paved driveway leading from San Miguel Drive. Vege-
tation consists of a grass lawn, various trees, and iceplant and shrubs around
the reservoir.
During the systematic surface survey of this first area several isolated
shell fragments were observed west and south of the reservoir. Four Chione
shell fragments were present in the dirt road which bounds the west side of
the reservoir; and another four fragments of Pecten and Chione shell were in
the same dirt road south of the reservoir by the water tank. An isolated
chert flake %•,as also observed on the west side of the reservoir near the fence.
These isolated finds were not called a site for several reasons. First, they
were not concentrated enough to define site boundaries. Second, no midden or
any other artifacts were observed. Finally, the context of these shell frag-
ments was so disturbed that they could represent material dragged from a
nearby area or a secondary deposit involved in the construction of the reser-
voir.
The area between the southern fenceline of this reservoir area and the
* north bank of Big Canyon was also surveyed. A small , light scatter of frag-
mentary shell was observed on a small dirt road which borders the fenceline.
The scatter was located between two gates which are in the fenceline south-
west of the water tank. Shell species which were observed included Chione,
Pecten, Ostrea, and Tivela. All of the shell was extremely fragmentary and
was lightly scattered over a small area approximately 10 M x 5 M in size.
• No artifacts were observed. The soil consisted of a compacted brown silty
sand which showed no evidence of midden. Although this shell scatter is in
a disturbed context, it may represent the remains of a prehistoric Indian site.
A single test unit, one meter x one meter in size, should be excavated in the
area of the scatter to determine its nature and content.
r The second portion of the project area which was surveyed is the northern
section which is bordered by San Miguel Drive and Spyglass Hill Road (see
Figure 2) . The western portion of this second section along San Miguel Road
and the intersection with Spyglass Hill Road is covered with dense vegetation
consisting of coastal sage-brush, tumbleweed, artichokes , buckwheat, mustard,
and miscellaneous grasses. The eastern portion along Spyglass Hill Road has
0 been cleared and apparently graded with the only vegetation consisting of
patches of tumbleweed. Other disturbance in this second area which was sur-
veyed consists of a dirt road along the fenceline, piles of fill dirt, gravel
and broken pieces of concrete and asphalt, a cement drainage culvert near
Spyglass Hill Road, large metal pipe, and miscellaneous historic debris.
During the survey of this second section, several Chione shell fragments
were observed. These appear to be isolated finds. Although six fragments
were found together in a small cleared area of rodent disturbance approxi-
mately 5 meters square in size, no midden or artifacts were found which would
indicate the presence of an archaeological site.`. According to a sign located
e on this section of the property, this area is going to be preserved as a park
•
and thus will not be impacted by development. However, if any earth moving
activities are planned during the landscaping process, a qualified archaeo-
logical observer should be present to make sure that no archaeological mate-
rials were hidden beneath the dense vegetation and to confirm that the shell
0 fragments represent isolated finds.
The third section of the property which was surveyed consists of the area
between Spyglass Hill Road and the first section owned by Metropolitan .Water
District of Southern California where the reservoir is located (see Figure 2).
This final section is where the condominium community of Harbor- Ridge is to
• be built. The section has apparently been graded and cleared of brush except
for patches of tumbleweed and buckwheat. The area slopes from the northern
end of this section where a construction camp is now located to a flat area
along the nurth bank of Big Canyon. The section is bordered on the east and
west by artificial terraces. During the survey a large shell scatter approxi-
mately 25 M x 50 M in size was located on the gentle slope below the construc-
• tion camp. Shell species which were observed included Chione and Pecten, a
large proportion of which were whole. No artifacts were observed. The soil
consisted of a compacted brown sand with numerous eroding pieces of gravel
and siltstone cobbles. No evidence of midden was observed. Small erosion
gullies extended down the slope through the shell scatter. This scatter pro-
bably represents a prehistoric Indian site and has been assigned site number
• CA-Ora-686 (see attached site survey record form). The site will have to be
tested to determine its horizontal and vertical extents along with its con-
tent. It may represent the remains of a larger site which was present before
extensive land moving activities associated with the construction of the reser-
voir and Spyglass Hill Road occurred.
0 If you have any questions concerning this survey, please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
• �4�.Lc,c e.. lQ.-Q
Marie G. Cottrell
President
MGC:el
Enclosure
•
•
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH, INC.
3303 HARBOR BOULEVARD, B-9
COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 9262.6
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SURVEY RECORD
t 1. Site CA-Ora-686 2. Map Laguna Beach Quad 7.5' 3. County Orange
4. Twp. 6S Range 9W NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 Sec. 97
5. Location On gentle south facing slope on north side of upper reaches of Big Canyon;
bounded on east and west by man made terraces which border Spyglass Hill Rd on east
! and reservoir property on west
UTM - 2115019925 6. Contour elevation 340'
7. Previous designation for site unknown
S. Owner The Irvine Company 9. Address 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach
10. Previous owners, dates unknown
11. Present tenant N/A
12. Attitude toward excavation- necessary: site in danger of destruction
13. Description of site roughly oval shaped shell scatter
14. Area approximately 50 x 25 M 15 . Depth unknown 16. Height N/A
17. Vegetation tumbleweed, buckwheat 18. Nearest water Big Canyon south of site
19. Soil of site compacted brown sand 20. Surrounding soil type compacted brown sand
21. Previous excavation unknown 81 anyon
22. Cultivation none 23 . Erosion downslope wash to south towards
! 24. Buildings, roads, etc. Immediately west of high terrace which rises to Spyglass Hill (ovei
25 . Possibility of destruction Future condominium site Harbor Ridge to be completed early 1978
26. House pits none observed
27. Other features none observed
28. Burials none observed
29 . Artifacts 1 chunk of chert
shell species: Chione> Pecten
30. Remarks Site area has already been graded; large proportion of whole shell on surface;
no artifacts observed; numerous pieces of eroding gravel & siltstone cobbles observed.
31. Published references unknown
•
32. Accession No. N/A 33 . Sketch map attached
34. Date 10/28/77 35 . Recorded by J. Neitzel 36. Photos N/A
Archaeological Resource Management Corp.
November 14, 1977
_J
•
Mr. Larry Seeman
Environmental Science Consultant
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 525
Newport Beach, California 92660
Dear Mr. Seeman: -
An archaeological test level investigation was conducted on two
shell scatters located on a roughly triangular piece of property bor-
dered by San Miguel Drive, Spyglass Hill Road, and Big Canyon drainage
on November 13, 1977 in the city of Newport Beach, Orange County, Cali-
fornia. The test was performed by Jill Neitzel and Frances Cope of
Archaeological Resource Management Corporation at your request.
! The two shell scatters were discovered during a walk-over survey
which was performed by Jill Neitzel of ARM on October 28; 1977. The
purpose• of the test level investigation was to determine if these shell
scatters represent prehistoric deposits and, if so, to define their na-
ture and extent.
'! The first area which was tested was a shell scatter located west of
Spyglass Hill Road on the gentle slope south of a construction camp and
north of a flattened area on the north bank of Big Canyon. This shell
scatter was assigned site number CA-Ora-686 due to its large size of
approximately 25 meters x 50 meters and due to the presence of a high
P
proportion of whole shell . Shell species which were observed included
I!
Pecten and Chione. No artifacts were found during this survey except for
one small chunk of chert at the bottom of the slope.
An examination of the shell scatter •indicated that it was badly dis-
turbed. The entire area has been extensively graded. Since the shell was
! found on a gentle slope which was characterized by numerous small erosion
gullies, it seemed possible that the shell had washed down the slope from
the area where the construction camp was located. However, it was not sur-
prising that no shell was found in the area of the construction camp, since
this area had been extensively graded.
•
12900 Garden Grove Blvd.- Suite 230 • Garden Grove, CA 92647 • (714) 530-6380
During the test level investigation, one 1 M x i M test unit was dug
in the midst of the shell scatter. The unit was dug in 10 cm levels with
the use of a shovel and trowel ; and all materials were screened through
1/8" mesh. The unit was dug to a depth of 18 cm. The results of this
excavation indicated that the area had been graded within 10 cm of silt-
- stone bedrock and that any site which had been located in the area had been
destroyed by earth moving activities. The soil consisted of a compacted
brown silty sand with numerous pieces of gravel and siltstone on the surface
and large chunks of siltstone immediately below the surface. In fact, the
first attempt to lay out a unit was unsuccessful because stakes could not
be pounded into the ground due to the presence of bedrock immediately below
the surface. The only shell which was recovered from the excavation unit
was from the surface. No midden was observed; and no artifacts were
uncovered.
Undoubtedly a buried archaeological site was once located in the area.
Despite the large degree of disturbance which has occurred removing all
topsoil down to bedrock, a fairly large amount of whole shell remains
scattered across the surface. Development which is planned for this area
will not disturb any significant archaeological site, since what was once
• there has been destroyed. All that remains is a scatter of shell on what
Is now the surfaces, evidence which can provide little information on the
aboriginal inhabitants of the area. It is recommended that a qualified
archaeological observer be present during any additional grading activities
In the area of the shell scatter to make sure that archaeological materials
which might possibly still be present are not also destroyed.
r •
The second area which was tested consisted of a very small scatter
located south of the reservoir •fence and north of Big Canyon near San
Miguel Drive. This light scatter was found during the walk-over survey
to cover a small area approximately 10 M x 5 M in size. It was not given
a site number because of the smallness of its size and the light density
of the shell. Shell species which were observed consisted of extremely
fragmentary Chione, Pecten, Tivela, Ostrea, and Cerithidea. No midden
or artifacts were observed dur ni g the survey. The, scatter. had been dis-
turbed by a small dirt road which bisected it. A test unit was excavated
immediately south of the dirt road in an area which appeared to be less
disturbed than• the road and which had fragmentary shell on the surface. The
unit was dug to a depth of 13 cm. The soil was an extremely compacted silty
sand.. The results of the excavation of the test unit indicated that the
shell was on the surface and that- no sub-surface deposit was present. No
midden•or artifacts were observed. The excavation also indicated that the
area was disturbed with pieces of asphalt and concrete along with a rusty
nail being uncovered. . ,
The test level investigation indicated that the small' scatter did not
represent a buried archaeological deposit. Although the source of the
r
scatter is uncertain, it appears that no archaeological resource will be
destroyed by development in this area. An observer will not be necessary
• when earth-moving activities occur,here due to the small size of the
scatter.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me.
0 Sincerely yours,
Marie G. Cottrell
President
MGC:el
Enclosure
f
•
•
•
TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES
APPENDIX B "
•
NOISE IMPACT REPORT
•
•
t
•
•
NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS
for
• HARBOR HILL PROJECT
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
November 1977
•
Prepared by
John E. Parnell
! P. 0. Box 45811
Los Angeles , CA 90045
(213) 641-7230
•
• I
INTRODUCTION
•
A preliminary analysis of noise exposure conditions has been conducted
for the proposed Harbor Hill Development in Newport Beach. This site
is located immediately south of the intersection of San Miguel Drive
and Spyglass Hill Road and includes the existing Metropolitan Water
District facilities. The property is exposed most directly to motor
vehicle noise from San Miguel Drive and Spyglass Hill Road. As a result
of the relatively high elevation with an increasing west to east slope,
• the continuous ambient sound level on the property is attributable to a
composite of motor vehicle noise sources on more distant roadways in
surrounding areas. Other transient or intermittent noise exposures are.
produced by nearby construction activity and from aircraft operations
• from Orange County Airport and the Santa Ana Marine Corps helicopter
station.
This noise exposure evaluation included both on-site sound level measure-
0 ments and application of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) traffic noise prediction model . The noise exposure levels pre-
dicted by the NCHRP model have been computed for two widely varying traffic
volumes. This was done to accommodate the incomplete traffic data result-
0 ing from recent changes in roadway configurations and vehicle movements in
the area. Spyglass Hill Road is not open to through traffic at the present
time, but will soon become a principal north-south traffic artery. San
Miguel Drive has been expanded to a divided roadway with a raised median
• divider since the reported traffic counts were -obtained. A more recent
survey has been carried out for San Miguel Drive and revised traffic
counts should be available in the near future.
• SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT
Sound levels on the property were measured using a Bruel and Kjaer (B&K)
Precision Sound Level Meter (Type 2209). A B&K one-inch condenser
•
1
•
• microphone (Type 4145) with windscreen was used and calibrations were
performed with a B&K Type 4220 Pistonphone. The measurement samples
obtained were A-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels using the slow meter
response mode.
I•
A 5 minute sample of noise exposures was obtained at each of 3 locations
on the property. The levels recorded included minimum values at each
location, the range of levels with no visible motor vehicle noise sources
• and peak levels attributable to specific sources. The locations of the
measurement stations and recorded noise levels are shown in Exhibit I.
The range of sound levels with no motor vehicles in the immediate area
• was 44-48 dBA across the north boundary of the property. These levels,
measured at 1300-1400 Hours on a weekday, are characteristic of a quiet
suburban residential area. The levels were slightly lower (43-45 dBA)
• at the highest elevations on the property where there was some additional
terrain shielding from nearby roadways. The traffic on San Miguel Drive
produced noise levels typically between 62 and 66 dBA (with peaks to 69-71
dBA) at stations 1 and 2 located 50 feet from the near traffic lane. These
• levels were typically 43-48 dBA at station 3 for vehicles on San Miguel
Drive.
Day hour noise exposures at the property are currently dominated by con-
struction activity on adjacent parcels. Diesel tractors used for grading
produce intermittent sound levels of the order of 65-75 dBA at the near
boundaries. Construction related trucks are currently using Spyglass
Hill Road while it is closed to through traffic. These trucks typically
produce noise levels of 75-85 dBA 100 feet from the roadway. These levels
(and other noises from single identifiable sources) decrease at the rate
of about 6 dBA with each doubling of distance from the source. It seems
probable that this construction related noise will be continuing over the
• next 12-24 months.
2
•
s affecting the property include aircraft
• Other recurring noise source g p p y
operations originating at Orange County Airport or the U.S. Navy Marine
Corps helicopter facility in Santa Ana. Small general aviation aircraft
overfly the property at the FAA minimum 1 ,000 feet above ground level
• with noise levels at the property of 55-65 dBA. The 2 engine jet trans-
ports pass about 2 miles east of the property with peak noise levels of
55-60 dBA. The military helicopter route from Santa Ana to the coast
passes almost directly over the property. The noise levels from the
• helicopters peak at 75-80 dBA. These aircraft noise exposures are
characteristic of those occurring across most of the Irvine and Newport
Beach communities.
• The current noise exposure condition at the property is, for the most
part representative of a temporary situation. For this reason, the on-
site measurements must be viewed as a transient condition. The construc-
tion related noise will not continue indefinitely, traffic on San Miguel
Drive will increase rapidly and there wil•1 be an immediate traffic increase
when Spyglass Hill Road opens. It would be more prudent to rely on future
traffic volumes on these roadways as a basis for long term noise exposures.
• PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
A current traffic volume of 7,000 vehicles per hour on San Miguel Drive
is cited by the Traffic Engineering Section of the City of Newport Beach.
This count was obtained before development of the divided roadways and
may not be representative of current conditions. A capacity of 40,000
vehicles per day for San Miguel Drive was acknowledged by the City. As
previously stated, Spyglass Hill Road is currently closed so that a
• representative range of future traffic volumes must be selected arbitrarily.
The most descriptive procedure will be to display the vehicle noise ex-
posures as a function of distance from the roadway for selected traffic
volumes. These data are shown in Exhibit II.
I • '
3
i
NOISE EXPOSURES GENERATED BY THE 'PROJECT
The noise resulting from implementation of the project would be produced
by motor vehicle traffic added to projected traffic volumes, construction
activities and proposed recreational facilities. The traffic volume
• increments are insignificant in terms of contributions to, projected
traffic noise levels. Construction activities would produce intrusive
noise exposures at adjacent residential parcels (between San Miguel Drive
and Port Dunbar Drive) for the duration of the project. Construction
noise is addressed in the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance in terms of limits
on daily work hours. A copy of the noise ordinance is attached to this
report.
0 One of the characteristics of the proposed development is the concept of
intensive recreation in the form of tennis courts and a baseball field.
Noise exposures from activity on the tennis courts will not exceed 55 dBA
at distances of 100 feet. The courts are positioned in the development
9 so as to eliminate any potential noise intrusion in adjacent residential
areas. The baseball field is located about 200 feet from existing resi-
dential units. The only conceivable intrusive noise would result from
crowd noises during events (presuming no amplified sound equipment will
be used) . A single shouting voice would produce a level of about 48-50
dBA at the residences (outside). A- crowd of 50 individuals shouting
synchronously (an unlikely event) would increase this to 65-67 dBA at
the residences. This would be more or less equivalent to automobiles
passing 50 feet away. The conclusion is that the recreation facilities
shown in the project plan will not constitute a significant intrusive
noise source for the existing residences.
ALTERNATIVE PROJECT CONFIGURATION
An alternative configuration for the residential units in the proposed
project is designated "Plan A" and is shown conceptually in Exhibit III.
The tennis courts are relocated and the baseball field is eliminated in
this alternative. The only potential impact with respect to -recreational
4
•
•
noise will be the removal of the baseball field from the area adjacent to
! existing residences with a small decrease in the potential noise exposure.
The layout of residential units in "Plan All shows some of the lots closer
• to both Spyglass Hill Road and San Miguel Road so that some minimal increase
(1-2 dBA) in traffic noise levels might be expected at these locations.
There are no significant differences in the projected noise exposure
conditions for the two alternatives.
•
•
•
!
I •
It
_ n
J
r
Exhibit I . Proposed Project Plan for Tentative Tract o. 1 1 N Q 55. Noise Measurement Locations Shown.
` "� • ' '� G KEIVIiiii-OGARS5 MI.3CIXYSASXWIVISIONS p`� • 46 5490• • r I, • �:t„ •
f+ N W A CSI Ol V W lD O
N W A GI 61 V W tD ' I I I I I r •
N W A UI Ol V DO lO
I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 t
I' II( !II: .!`: !'1; :i'I
I II r 1 I ' I !i I li- I "! I � I' I I III '' I it 111 --I_ ! !i I!I I Ilil •li 'I I` I It1. ;l!'
._�_�_I i _I I ! I I ! i - (I I , illl i�l •I I I I }, ( IIII `Iil II'i ! _i I I � l I t � I !i � I � ,1! `1 I !!I► ��1! ! _� -�I ! �. ! ! , il; I!4l i;lf i I I •;,�� I:!: �,' i'I
ii;;
i „- IiTI �!! I! �r I�1 (I; +i!i i� T! f !1�i �I;! ! it I(I' ' -I �l I I �( '! I �I II 1 ! l!�• { 1 I - I • � II 1 i '!'{ I,; !�j !� i �li� I,:i �'i
i i I IIi I �t ' ' �I I i l j ii , !i i �• . ;(11 . 'I( 'I ,!;. .
I I t III! . I' llll I ! II!I .11l IIltl �!Ii tiilJ; l I 1 ,II I V "tl . l I t!'' •:I �,:.
! 1 IT .-1- -`• : It� II II; +I ill' ill. ! GNR �.G f f - } t I t II I I !I .I, I ' ,. I i ( ,'it �_ ar___ �N b`D ' [•£ G i1I I IIII -�--- -I' _ .tli {. III ;Ili I�!j r.� tll.
'I—' j I ' ! I ' ' II' ! ! 1 li 17 III It II ..I I r RtY y1 E •t��; L! 11 S- _ I i ! I i 'II
T+i'll ,• rl '! I i ,
_(= I i .il !li►�i! 'I EIS !Ij jl ;!,
i ili fit i
_I I:l ( 11 , .ki?1;,I1 Itltij! Iflilli:} 1jIrI �II''-ffihi t-r !- - I ,!i`.'t 7 -!ItI.I ; - T11 ' i - _ --- -I ` Ill � llll� i"c�,rr-i'' ' •' ! illl;I (;!I
C I ' I I. ►ill il: �LI I I t
I�
' li II -1 + 1 i li' I� 'I I II' I t !1 -- -I-- • A ,ya4" � _L . '�
f 1�'I,
I I ( ( ::!1i � I �( ���( ;�I! I�" }I I • '°I -�— -- - _ �o ,I 1!I �I� ( __- -ii MI jiilit'ItT! �!!! i ill•�Ill! 1!{I il!i
!
I ,I II•r ! I 1 � t - ' .� • + II III I, I I I 'I i 'I `I !
1 I I 1 1' ! � t • �' I -- - - i � •! �• IIII I i ', i� !I ! j1
i! - �•i I(i 11 I I ; - -- - I � III f I - - _ _ _ - !4 I 1! III;I I i!il l li I"i jilt II 1111 jll
! ! I ! i I I�{ III' ili I I I 1 I ; � !!I ! I I , i I I) - I I ; �j I llt IIrIrI �, III !�I I I;
_ _ - 'hi l II ICI,'T�v '1[ - i'
' - -- I- "l it I I TII 1; • IIII'I JI II!� lit
!l;- g II III !I I � _ _ _ • � ��! ill I -�nI I:.I !I! � !I•! !;ii
! I I i ' ii i�!140 ,1i( il! . !I till i!I ' Ar i i-�I llil �II I III 11! I I I IN I ' 'Itl r!`� IiI III 'lll❑.I
_ I Ir I II�W'II 'i! •IIII I I ! ! _ , I I ! I I I �1{ ! III fjll !I•
I f- i t l ' "� ! I I II. f'li i(I�'!I I I) ,f• 'I!I (i i ll• 1 ! ICI iI I! l iu' I �1- - ! t! ' i 1 IIi I!!: III, I;i; !y
� __ ;Ilr!;T;t�;;• �iiljl� l(:i 'i � T
l 17 ! II I. 7
r'll fJ Illl III,1il1'!t ! a �1! III� CI!I ij! .il,
- (- ,.!__. 1 . I III !I I• ! ' I i " �--'-1- I _!, I I I II I 1 I , 11 1 __ I I I, ' I, f!I. I! I I: I ;• 1 -I;.
l II O
! �. ..I !ill If
I I i I ri -' -f � I I! !'1� I ' i - I ! 1 I A• I I "' t f? I! '! 'I('I -� I I C `I I I I I;! i.l; II;' ! I i i, I!!I I' n
!IIi 11, {i!• •i Ljl t.l'
i!j ��111t i
!-��-"I I �tj-;-- -� I, i � , - -I - - - - 1� I k��I i! II '►�i I1 i� -- -- -I---k_ i C ! I!!I ►II� I,!• ;t:; .;tl ij'I ;i ..1:
I .I ir
I� ._ _ - - '� t,� tl :t' i' ' .. ' -id
-I ,1(! 7 I I - l 7 t ! t - _ -- - !I,(• l i! i l I I, , ,. ,:I
i i ' ` i � l �l i' 1� I C� I fll � ( �I! III -=�- I_� .l f I( �Il ! 1i , I I 'I � - 1l�' i� !lCi•- - -� t ! i�l! I• 'i;' � I Ali ', I `�'• • l;
• • • •C��$gay • • •
P�
t�
H
� � h
Exhibit III . Alternative "Plan A" for Tentative Tract No. 10155.
•
NOISE 10.28.010-10.28.050
• discharge of their duties, to discharge or cause to be discharged within the
corporate limits of the City of Newport Beach any rifle, shotgun, pistol, ynln
revolver or other firearm, or any air-gun, air-pistol or air-rifle, or any other lax
weapon which emits a projectile as a result of pressure exerted at the breech,
unless the person or persons have fast obtained permission in writing so to
do from the Chief of Police. (Ord. 614 (part), 1950: 1949 Code § 4231).
Chapter 10.28
• NOISES
Sections:
10.28.010 Unnecessary Noises Prohibited.
10.28.040 Noisy Construction and Excavation Work—Hours
Permitted.
10.28.050 Exceptions.
•
10.28.010 Unnecessary Noises Prohibited. No person shall make any
loud or unusual noise, din or clamor, or any loud or senseless sound, on the
public streets, or in public or semi-public places in the City. (1949 Code §
4208).
• (, 10.28.040 Noisy Construction and Excavation Work — Hours Permitted.
No person shall construct, demolish, alter or repair any building, grade or
excavate on any private or public property, or cause or permit such work to
be done, the performance of which work is attended by any loud or unusual
noise or sound which interferes with or may reasonably be presumed to
interfere with the peace, comfort and repose of persons residing in the
neighborhood or general vicinity in which such work is being performed,
other than between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. on any weekday,
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays, and between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays, except that in cases of
urgent necessity or emergency the Building and Safety Director may grant a
• revocable permit authorizing such work to be done at different hours. (Ord.
1191 § 1, 1966).
10.28.050 Exceptions. The provisions of Section 10.28.040 shall not be
construed to prohibit such work at different hours by or under the direction
of any governmental agency in cases of necessity or emergency. (Ord. 1191 §
2, 1966).
S.Sound amplifying equipment—See Chapter 10.32.
173 (Newport Beach 7-26.76)
r
June 14, 1978
TO: ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: ABANDONMENT OF CORONA, -DEL MAR RESERVOIR
Attached for the Committee's review and comment is
a draft EIS prepared by the Metropolitan Water District for
the subject project. The tentative project schedule calls
for construction to start in the fall of 1979.
Also attached are Notices of Exemption for Signal
Construction - Intersection of Birch Street and Quail Street,
and for phase I - Lighting System Replacement on Balboa and
Newport Piers.
The tentative project schedule calls for the Signal
Construction to start in November 1978 and for the Lighting
System Replacement to ,start in. August-1978.,
osep Devlin
ubli orks Director, ,
M:jd
Att.
RECEIVEU
co",.muny
6 Deda.{s...
ant
Dent, 2
SUN 16 1978,b-
CITY OF 3 MEWPART BEACH,
CALIF.
4v
.�y sr
The Metropolitan Water District'
of Southern California
O/ RECEI Draft
ueVD��t•,nt Initial Environmental Study
�1�D1I"O 3 for
p011 O EACH,
NEW OpIIF• <�
The Abandonment of
b
rn Corona Del Mar Reservoir
W.O. 5-4515
1. Project Purpose and Description
Purpose
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
proposes to abandon its 15 acre-foot capacity Corona Del Mar
Reservoir which is surplus to its needs, remove the reservoir
by-pass control and outlet valve structures, and install approxi-
mately 800 feet of 36-inch diameter bypass pipeline around the
west side of the reservoir to form a connection between the
existing inlet and outlet of the reservoir with the Orange County
Feeder Extension Pipeline. After abandonment, pressure in the .
pipeline will be regulated by a topographic control pressure
relief pipeline which will be located at, and discharge into Big
Canyon Reservoir. Big Canyon Reservoir is a water distribution
storage facility of the City of Newport Beach which is supplied
via a service connection from Metropolitan's Orange County Feeder
Extension. Exhibit -1 shows the location of both reservoirs and
the proposed modifications to be made at each site.
Corona Del Mar IES 1-2
Corona Del Mar Reservoir is being abandoned and the '
pressure relief pipeline built to eliminate a small surplus
reservoir. Abandonment of the reservoir will reduce required .
maintenance, increase pressure and capacity in the Orange County
Feeder Extension Pipeline, and increase operational flexibility
and efficiency.
Under present operating conditions, to fill Big
Canyon Reservoir, the City of Newport Beach must pump water from
the Orange County Feeder Extension Pipeline. Because additional
pressure in the pipeline will be available, pumping will no
longer be required to fill the reservoir, resulting in a net
energy savings. It is also anticipated that the increased
pressure in the pipeline will increase. the resultant carrying
capacity of the pipeline from 30 to 60 cfs.
The deed by which Metropolitan acquired title to the
Corona Del Mar Reservoir site provides that should the property
no longer be utilized for water reservoir purposes, title is to
revert to the Irvine Company. Because of this, an easement will
be retained on the property for the operation and maintenance of
the bypass pipeline. It is understood that the Irvine Company
plans to develop the site for park purposes with housing on the
perimeter of the property and is currently negotiating with the _
City of Newport Beach regarding lot sizes, recreational and park
facilities and other details.
For purposes of compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act, this initial environmental study is concerned
Corona Del Mar IES 1-3
only with -the environmental effects' of Metropolitan's proposal
to abandon the reservoir, install a section of pipeline and build
a pressure relief pipeline. This action is separate and -indepen-
dent of any future steps to be taken in regard to the site.
Since the site is located in Newport Beach, it is assumed that
the City will be the lead agency for purposes of• the California
Environmental Quality Act in regard to any future development of
the reservoir site, for which City approval is needed. After
abandonment of the reservoir, Metropolitan will have no control
over any future use of the site.
Location
Corona Del Mar Reservoir is located approximately 2.5
miles north of the Pacific Ocean, and approximately 0.4 miles
southwest of San Joaquin Reservoir in the hills of the City of
Newport Beach. The site is bordered on the west by San Miguel
Drive, on the east and south by properties being developed for
residential purposes, and on the north by a vacant lot. The
reservoir lies on the side of a gently sloping hill on land
committed to and developed for water distribution use.
The pressure relief pipeline site is located approxi-
mately one-half mile south of Corona Del Mar Reservoir. _It is
bordered by San Miguel Drive on the 'west, Big Canyon Reservoir
to the east, and housing to the north and south.
Description
Corona Del Mar Reservoir is a small 15-acre-foot
- Corona Del Mar IES 1-4
reservoir measuring 215 by 290 feet at the top of the dike.
The site consists of approximately 10 acres which is fenced
around the perimeter with access controlled by an automatic
gate. Within the confines of the property are the reservoir,
an operator' s residence, the reservoir bypass control structure,
a buried meter testing structure, a manhole and outlet valve
structure, and a small maintenance shed.
Work to be performed at the reservoir site consists of
abandonment of the reservoir, dismantling the reservoir by-pass
control structure and outlet valve structure, and abandonment of
all other features at the reservoir site in place. The upstream
and downstream portions of the Orange County Feeder Extension
Pipeline will be connected by approximately 800 feet of 36-inch
diameter pipeline 'to complete 'the bypass of the reservoir.
A buried 36-inch-diameter pressure relief pipeline
located adjacent to Big Canyon Reservoir will be built from a
point between Stations 2075 and 2076 on the Orange County Feeder
Extension. The pipeline will run up and over the embankment of
Big Canyon Reservoir and will terminate in an overflow bubbler
and basin to be constructed within Big Canyon Reservoir, approxi-
mately two feet below the top 'of the reservoir embankment.
Corona Del Mar IES 2-1
2. • Environmental Setting
Corona Del Mar Reservoir
The slopes of Corona Del Mar Reservoir on the west and
south sides have been planted with iceplant to control erosion.
An operator' s cottage is located to the northeast of the reservoir
and is surrounded by nectarine, cherry, and willow trees. A few
large pine trees are located on the embankment above the east side
of the reservoir and the fence along the east side has fuchsias .
growing over it. The area immediately in front of the operator' s
cottage and between the reservoir and north property line has
been planted in grass. The level areas below the dam embankment
to the west and south have supported weeds but have been recently
disced to eliminate them.
Two belted kingfishers along with robins, meadowlarks
and mourning doves were observed about the reservoir site.
Reservoir personnel reported that in the past, cooperr redtailedr
and sharpshined hawks have been sighted near but never on the
reservoir property. •Since nearby San Joaquin Reservoir has been
built, these species .have moved to the vicinity of that reservoir.
One active bobcat burrow was observed along with signs
of gophers and ground squirrels. Reservoir personnel have also
reported sighting skunk, opossum, fox and coyote in the area
in the past. Due to • increased urbanization in recent years such
sightings have decreased.
The proposed relocated bypass pipeline will be parallel
to and about 15 feet easterly of the existing bypass pipeline.
Corona Del Mar IES 2-2
It will be situated along the existing base of a 2 to 1 slope on
the west side of Corona Del Mar Reservoir. The present embank-
ment is about 17 feet high, appears quite stable and is covered
with ice plant to minimize erosion. Elsewhere the relocated
pipeline will lie across nearly flat terrain. The ground surface
is covered by a black, clayey loam and is underlain by clay and
sandy clay which during the construction of the reservoir was
found difficult to excavate and compact.
Pressure Relief Pipeline
The proposed pressure relief pipeline site lies between
Big Canyon Reservoir and San Miguel Drive adjacent to the reser-
voir spillway structure. The surrounding area .has been completely
urbanized due to residential construction. A few sparrows were
the only animal species observed on the site.. Flora consisted
mostly of tumbleweeds, wild oats, and black mustard. No rare or
endangered species were observed or have been reported from these
sites nor are there any archaeological or historical sites within
the area.
The proposed pressure relief pipeline site is a sandy
loam which is underlain by sand and soft sandstone to a depth
of about 15 feet based on a nearby test hole drilled during
construction of the existing Orange County Feeder Extension
pipeline. The site is adjacent to San Miguel Drive, which was '
built through the area several years ago.
The nearest active fault to the proposed relocated
pipeline and proposed pressure relief pipeline is the Newport-
Corona Del Mar IES 2-3
Inglewood Fault which has a maximum credible earthquake magnitude
(Richter) of 7. 0. These proposed projects lie from 3 to 5 miles
southeast of the south-end projections of this extensive fault
zone.
Corona Del Mar IES 3-1
3. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Project
Implementation of the proposed project will create
both short and long-term environmental impacts.
Short-term impacts associated with this project include
construction of the replacement pipeline, dismantling of the
reservoir by-pass control structure and outlet valve structure,
and Construction of the pressure relief pipeline. Noise, dust
and air contaminants emitted during construction will not con-
stitute a significant impact due to the limited construction,
required on this project. Some landscaping at the reservoir site
may be removed along with some brush at the relief structure
site; however, only a very limited area will be affected.
The only possible adverse long-term environmental
impact associated with the project is the aesthetic effect
associated with the elimination of a small open body of water at
the reservoir site. No recreational benefit will ,be lost as the
public has never been permitted access to the reservoir. Abandon-
ment of Corona Del Mar Reservoir could have a minor long-term •
effect upon the environment in that a small open body of water
will be eliminated; however, the water in the reservoir cannot be
observed from San Miguel Drive, the major transportation artery
in the area, nor can it b'e seen from most housing in the area
with the exception of a few homes under construction to the south
and east of . the site.
Long-term beneficial environmental effects consist of
more efficient operation of Metropolitan' s Orange County Feeder
• Corona Del Mar IES 3-2 _
Extension Pipeline, elimination of the need to pump water to pro-
vide service to the City of Newport Beach' s Big Canyon Reservoir
and the attendant reduction in electrical energy demand. A
greater volume of water will also be available in the pipeline as
a result of this action. In addition, although Metropolitan will
have no control over the abandoned reservoir site, it is under-
stood that a portion of it will be used for park purposes.
Corona Del Mar IES 4-1
4. Adverse Environmental Effects, Which Cannot Be Avoided
The only possible adverse environmental effect
associated with this project is the aesthetic effect of the
elimination of a small reservoir.
Corona Del Mar IES 5-1
5. Mitigation Measures to be Taken to Minimize the Impact
During construction, the contractor will be required to
observe all applicable ordinances and regulations and to take
practical measures to minimize construction impacts. Some of
these mitigating measures are:
(1) Perform all work without undue noise and make
every effort to alleviate or prevent noise
nuisances;
(2) Prevent dust in amounts damaging to property,
domestic animals, or causing a nuisance to persons
in 'the vicinity;
(3) Provide necessary traffic control for the protec-
tion of traffic on public roads;
(4) Comply with all applicable rules and regulations
of the California Regional water Quality Control
Board; and
( 5) Dispose of all construction wastes in an area where
they will not affect the environmental balance of the
area or in approved Orange County disposal sites.
Corona Del Mar IES 6-1
6 . Alternatives to the Proposed Project
No Project Alternative
The no project alternative is not considered viable
because, if the reservoir is not taken out of service and .
replaced with a pressure relief pipeline, Metropolitan will
continue to incur the costs associated with the operation and
maintenance of a small reservoir which no longer serves a useful
purpose, and the City of Newport Beach will not be able to save
the energy now required to pump water into Big Canyon Reservoir.
Corona Del Mar IES 7-1
7 . Growth Inducing Impact 'of the Proposed Action
The purpose of this project is to replace an unecon-
omical reservoir with a pressure relief pipeline which will have
the beneficial effect of eliminating the electrical energy now
needed to fill Big Canyon Reservoir.
Although an additional benefit will be increased
capacity in the pipeline, this increase cannot be looked upon as
growth inducing in and of itself. Other factors such as employ-
ment and housing availability will determine this. The City of
Newport Beach, has the responsiblity to determine and provide for
growth patterns and population levels which it considers desirable
for the future.
I
Corona Del Mar IES 8-1
8 . Consultations With Other Agencies Involved in the
Proposed Action
Conversations have been conducted between Metropolitan
and the City of Newport Beach, the Irvine Company, and Coastal
Municipal Water District. Discussions have also been conducted
between Metropolitan and Newport Beach' s consultant, James
Montgomery Engineering. The State Division of Safety of Dams
will be contacted regarding the installation of the pressure
relief pipeline at Big Canyon Reservoir. No other entities are
involved in the proposed project.
Corona Del Mar IES , 9-1
9. Conclusions
Based on this initial study, it has been determined
that the action will not have a significant effect on the en-
vironment. The primary reasons for this conclusion are:
(1) Short-term impacts such as noise, dust, and air
contaminants emitted during construction will be
mitigated and are not considered significant.
(2) The elimination of a small uneconomical regulatory
reservoir will not result in any adverse effect
upon flora or fauna;
(3) Higher pressure in the pipeline will result in
elimination of the use of electrical energy now
required to pump water into Big Canyon Reservoir;
(4) Operation of the pressure relief pipeline will
have no impact on air or water quality nor will
it cause any increase in noise levels, growth
inducement, or socio-economic impact.
(5) There will be no significant adverse effect on
the aesthetics of the area because only a few • -
home sites have a view of the reservoir and the
traveling public cannot see the reservoir water
from. San.Miguel Drive, the only major nearby
•highway.
Corona Del Mar 1ES -1-
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
YES MAYBE NO
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: T
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures? X
b. Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic
or physical features? _X__
e. Any increase in wind or water .
erosion of soils, either on or off
the site? -�-
f. Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in silt-
ation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? X
g. Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth-
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards? X
2. Air . Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectionable
odors? X
C. Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally? X
Corona Del Mar IES -2-
YES MAYBE NO
3. Water . Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water move-
ments, in either marine or fresh
waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff? X
C. Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters? X
d. Change in the amount of 'surface
water in any water body? X _
e. Discharge into surface. waters, -
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not .
limited to temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters? X
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct add-
itions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations? _ X
h. Substantial reduction in the
amount of water otherwise available
for publfc water supplies? X
i. Exposure of people or property
to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal waves? _ X
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Change in the diversity of
species, or number of any species of
plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic
plants) ? _ X
Corona Del Mar IES -3-
YES MAYBE NO
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants? — X
C. Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of
existing species? - X
d. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop? X
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of
species, or numbers of any species
of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms, insects
or microfauna) ? - -- X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals? X
C. Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or move-
ment of animals? . X
d. Deterioration to existing fish
or wildlife habitat? X
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise
levels? X
b. Exposure of people to severe
noise levels? X
7 . Light and Glare. Will the pro-
posal produce new light or
glare? X
Corona Del Mar IES -4-
YES MAYBE NO
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result
in substantial alteration of the
present or planned land use of an
area? X --
9 . Natural Resources. Will the pro-
posal result in:
a. Increase .in the rate of use
of any natural resources? X
b. Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource? X
10 . Risk of Upset. Does the proposal
involve a risk of an explosion or
the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? X
11. Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human popu-
lation of an area? _ %
+ 12. Housin . Will the proposal affect
existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? X
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will
the proposal result in:
a. Generation. of substantial addi-
tional vehicular movement? X
b. Effects on existing parking
facilities, or demand for new
parking? X
c.• Substantial impact upon exist-
ing transportation systems? X
Corona Del Mar ItS -5-
YES MAYBE NO
d. Alterations to present patterns
of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? X
e. Alterations to waterborne,
rail, or air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards
to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X
14. Public Services. Will the proposal
have an ef£ect upon, or result in a -
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the folowing areas:
a. Fire protection? X
b. Police Protection? X
C. Schools? _ X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? %
f. Other governmental services? X
15. Energ Will the proposal result in:
a. Use-of substantial amounts of X
fuel or energy? T _
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources X _
of energy? _
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result
in a need for new systems, or sub-
stantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? X
Corona Del Mar IES -6-
YES MAYBE NO
b. Communications systems? X
C. Water? X
d.• Sewer or septic tanks? X
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal? X
17. Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard
or potential health ,hazard (exclud-
ing mental health) ? X
b. Exposure of people to potential•
health hazards? X
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal re-
sult in the obstruction of any
scenic vista or view open to the
public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically '
offensive site open to public view? X
19. Recreation. Will the proposal re-
sult in an impact upon the quality
or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities? X
20 . Archeological/Historical. Will the
proposal result in an alteration of
a significant archeological or his-
torical site, s-t'ructure, object or X
building? _
Corona Del Mar IES -7-
YES MAYBE N0 -
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the poten-
tial to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or- wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or elimin-
ate important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the pot-
ential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term impact
on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, defini-
tive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the
future. ) X
c. ' Does the project have impacts
which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (a pro-
ject may impact on two or more sep-
arate resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment
is significant. ) X _
d. Does the project have environ-
mental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? X_
• /� POSEO - • ,
36! BYPftS
P/ // A!f \
Corona fOe/ Na.-
p ff,
yAa r9�
or j,
- - F'RQ PdSED
" 36 /NCf! P.4ESSURE
mac.
B/y CQnyoo
• �" _., Reservoir -
/ THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
� [�SOVTN[RN cAurarwu.
EXHIESIT No. /
f
/ AW
MN._......
j7RACE0......._....
kTROVE'D......................._.
FORD ROAD
MAG . ARTHUR BOULEVARD
Pesidential Develop e r
Ff
October , 1075
f� ;L-7fpAR CONSULTANTS
•E(I M Anc.! Asr,�Cclat�-v,tnc; -
MLLl
`• y ISE LAND USE PLAN
VENT N0. 2 FOR DIRECTOR USE ONLY
T{1E {RVINE COMPANY
01
�+O •.:. In .�lt,� T] � ".'f"'�"l rk-.�j L :. � nu••ro+ .':'r�N•
' �O J rr:'f 'M1fy - iL• ] A a . Gi",;�i,�a9:,i:1.-.��� .;��:i:::':. .ir
•:I.T.y, :n.4- O�•p.,_a�..!��,:(• fC b -">t�nS.i4 k A'S F• ...
y�� .n/+� 'FP,.•C':„Y •. .dy�i'T�. :� pyC'r-.�1:k`�:.W'"'�`lI `�-= :�•�^��:• •
,• �..<4��`: •i�C,�•,r o.3n. ...i^ar�tl •h.l,., I:.i•-_ vl• ..���• -•••
•. -4Y•i�; <¢ - ` 'X'i• r�1.i'r!F..'.%:'iq M_�A.r. .'.i e`:�u,•:i{�• •
V•.,�0� %'Fn'a�1:T. Tv1'ai'�'=;�y_' :;. �J: 4r71;�A 4`%'' - ...:l.`::'14•".. •;
•_,I. fa ..^*?l' 'p"' rr,o-�•P: J}} yT ,-�;1:-',�. ;'n•����l�ll'iY ��.•1,.
hi-,tj.� �, yr-AyNi•;. .� d•,•.l.�r w r£ti.,
O y%1` -�• .G •.: .^ ,r3- '1 �t •��'•— � rash •' n,�f;'y�i.•i.;'
•-C ..- �n'S w 5.y 5t�/�' .+.._"0.Y'h. iA• ?.-a vv-.
�O Q .�-. .. :i••� S• L :I T \ .Y J+. .` 4 I• F,. L {�T'-�+
FC,� L} .at`�` r,�'tiv,';rsc�' i�,.`.:#:•.�'-''?��fa'�• �`d t�'.;��y '`ri•"`F,s-�:•,.�;t•.;.
'P� -� _ .;� .Ja^rt:':31. {:.. wT. , 1 �r��. •a'�...c.'s g.^ i_'�S.I�F=. i.��
`� _ - � Ik rr•;7„ 1"'�9•...••���.,_: ri57"-a, r,a• t .�.a' �y
` !L', :_� ;- •�•1:�4, n,,_sc.: ;E•.r,•_iTrt r"., r.::�rtr.•.Sw, ,h,S F':5:" .✓''
"Y ...,1-.r'.;•y,'),'.ar,/�.F yt: f3::v%f}'_ •.Y ..r�. ;.1v=.,. tYP'
7J j.�',''�.�:1-'✓i+ai,'.�".�k:•S%• ,:�'.`CL C"Fi. q:+
b 1 _ .� }i i� ..-. .�'."k��•'-:..p•�"�r':n �r�d,�l,�.�a�• �'j:'�'��iSa.�T•�� -
$• J. a•d..t'.
•, i ��q =.;n�f ya?bs:.',.rr:�Y 7*_rr;. }�`��..
Cum NMLS VP
LEGEND -•
• G� LOW MEONM ANDHILL+WE '
' LOW MEOW"DENSITY P!SiDEMT1Al,
—� HECNM MION DCHSITY flC310EN11A1,
Cn�I COM'.IEPCUL
C_J SCHOOL
c♦,--1'r•.'3 PAMA Aa OPCN SPACE
PESENY"
IH4fmmO-• U
• HARBOR VI
EV/HILLS Amendment No.2
1'— 7 i.�'� .,• \ (` W.ICCS:L? D USE%.AN
fi
FORD ROIIR
BOULEVARD
AD/MACARTH 6
r TRAFFIC ANALYSISAitions -
traffic generated v
affic con
This report is an analysis of existinga Arthur Boulevardn Ford Road between
Old MacArthur Boulevard and New M
to Ford Road from future developments south of Ford Road and 'east of Old
MacArthur Boulevard; and future roadway
of future of F6rd Road ased on traffic
developments-
increases and time periods of Occupancy
Existin Intersection and Roadw& Conditions
Ford Road, between Old MacArthur Boulevard and New MacArthur Boulevard,
is a two lane a tdoway f Old1MacArthur Boulevard th a p�arking lane on hwhere
ht.�idenexcept
to a-four ane for °Y_
imately 100 asking prohibited. Currently, Ford Road terminates
divided roadway, with p complex just
to the e s between Nethese limits,� Bexcept for driveways t the Off
controlaccess
control
east of Old MacArthur Boulevard.
evard is
The intersection
of t leftt trnandxcattion and old s o Old MacArthur acArthur Boulevard.controlled They
a traffic signal
stop signs on New
Hills Drive East and West.
intersections of Ford Road with Newport Hills Drive West and Newport Hills
Drive East are controlled by P
The intersection of New MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road is uncontrolled
s terminate, thus making g -
Ford Road. ,As traffic on Ford Road increases, '
The intersections of Ford Road with Newport Hills Drive East and West do not '
have separate left-turn lanes on F the
motorists desiring to turn left. rate
Newport Hills Dft turn ellane is notprovided, have
increased delays. Since a s h"trrafficeon Ford Road• provisions for'100' left
delays will also affect throng
' turn lanes on Ford Road at both intersections would eliminate .this potential J
problem.
Existin Traffic Volumes
The intersection of Ford
or aR font to Corona Del uMar Freewayr Boulev.Lrd sal gnme t plans now ait an im
location, according P
Ford Road is tentatively planned to be relocated approximately alignment
south, if and
approximately 6, 700 and 6, 200
when the Corona Dald Mar
Freeway is Ford Road is carryin
onstructed long the alignment o .Ole
MacArthur Boulevard. of Old MacArthur Boulevard(l)-
vehicles per day east and west, respectively,
(1) City of Newport Beach Traffic Volumes
kln F?ACON9ULanNTgIN6
i
o roximately .,3, 600 and 25, 700 vehicles
! Old MacArthur Boulevard is carrying aof Ford Road('). - Exhibit 1 illustrates 24
per day north and south, respectively, -ies at
hour and A. M. -P. M• pealc h u directional
irec i nal traffic
r if it Lvo `i lust atesedata obtained
rx
occurring on Thursday, Y
by our firm on Wednesday, September 24, 1975.
Current average daily traffic volume's on Ford Road decrease, 200 rom 6,00 Per
isles per day east of Old MacArthur Boulevard to 4,
ZOO
day east of
iIl ust atesl24 h Drive
ur andWest
A Ma P.M`Newport
peak hour dir ct onalEast,
)t affic volumes
Exhibit 2
at the intersections of Ford Road with Newport Hills Drive West and East.
Current Capacity
The operating condition Of a roadway is dependent on traffic conditions at.inter=
e limits under study. The operating condition at an intersection is
sections along th
vice" it is providing, c y
expressed in the "Levvel of Ser f Service "A") to a 'forced flow" condito n '
from a "free flow" condition (Level o
(Level of Service "F")_. Level of Service "E" is at capacity and operates with
is. A stable operating condition (Lev
some backups of vehicles at i practices(2).
el of
ntersecton
Service "C") is the condition associated with urban design
oad
mer-
In calculatine e "Level of considered that reflect pre ice" Ford Rvail og s operating roadway and trafficcondi ions.
ous factors ar
Some of these factors are:
Pedestrians
Approach width at intersections On-street parking conditions
Directional peak traffic volumes Number of approach legs
Lane widths Driveways
Channelization
Roadway alignment
Utilizing traffic volumes indicated on Exhibits 1, 1-A, and 2, and factors indicated'
the
above, it was determined that the intersections are and even ogppeaiclhourttra£fic
following Levels prese
of Service under existin morning
conditions:
Level of Service Existing Traffic
Intersection
A. Flow Condition
A _ C Free to Stable Flow
- Ford/Old MacArthur.Newport Hills We A A Free Flow
- Ford/ st y A Free Flow
- Ford/Newport Hills East A -
it was noted that the
During field observation of existing peals hour conditions,
nd to northbound right turn had short periods where
morning peak period westbou
(2) 1965 Highway Capacity Manual, HRB Report 87
7RAFPIC CONSULTAN rP.LVO 2 .
®�,rmsn
JCImmei and AssocWds,4nc.
" 53,600)
v o Lo
• RNA- �� • 1
FUl�I.? //7 56
J�OA0
4U 55 247
45 /08
03 /00
Q ti
1 m
Q \ rv:l'�
(25, 700)
k Hr' 1/0
f
D- 7.
� d IT _1
Yermmir PMcor UNGI N�.1 NO %/ICf J�¢d C' ZJ/%¢CT�%Of7'
Ojrr rM and gaecciates,inc. 3 T/"3ff%G 110/U177e5
A - 1$9 - 7-5 /ra.. l -7_ �.i _ ��
8
v
DAD
365 /57
/66 73
F<58 z02 /
O No
-3 005 /q/ 38
ti 69 93
Q : .
OD
(25,700)
• N•w
,4./mil yak r/r�l/o%
00 00
Nr. 1/o/
rl
(#11S)
FXj�b� 9taffic. ' 1/o/uirsd
GOtw�VLTAM•CD •' 't ., f� ..
NmAg7 �lII . r� i)
235 /53 n
8
5 /0 N
33 250 C}�
v
U e8 Z/6
p co w
J
w A.di1 peak Hour !/o%
�2,8co) -
00 00
PSI A¢a.� Hour
(0,006) - A. 0 T.
. FO17r> �UArU .
,a------ //7 /0/ ..
_ N • � /6 //6 _ t\j
i 37
N �o
m
N to
4
• /9 75
-'rI?AC�,' "V.T�"o
ULTAExlstir�g P¢ak T�irec74104,
XI�/NI^+Jl 9Y1f1 Q3900
backups occurred but a majority of motorists were. ablo to clear during the green
period of each signal cycle. During the evening peak hour period, the same con-
dition,was observed for the southbound to eastbound left turn movement,
Future Developments
Future 'developments east of Old MacArthur Boulevard and south of Ford Road
that are considered to generate traffic.to Ford Road are indicated in Table 1.
TABLE 1
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Approx. First 10010
D. U. Occup. OCCUR.
Development •
Harbor View Townhomes (1) 64 Units Nov. , 176 Feb. , 177
Broadmoor New MacArthur Dey. 175 Units Dec. , '76 Dec. , 178
Port MacArthur Commercial (70, 000 sq.ft. Jan.,, 177 Feb. ,. t77
Center (1) G.F.A;)
Harbor View Sector IV (1) 350 Units Dec. , 177 May, 182
Lusk Spy Glass Hill Development (2) 349 Units 18o Spnits;pri r Sept. , 177
(1) The Irvine Company developments
(2) Assumed not to contribute traffic to Ford Road until after improvement
of Spy Glass Hill Road to New MacArthur Boulevard (December,; 1978).
A future residential development (Village.of Bonita Canyon) north of Ford Road
and east of Old MacArthur Boulevard is tentatively planned to contain 1, 400
residential units with the first occupancy occurring in May; 1980 and 1007o
occupancy in May, 1985. Future traffic generated by this development will not
be included in this analysis because of various unknown factors, such as:
1. Occurrance and location of phase developments.
2. Occurrance of the extension of Ford Road to Bonita Canyon Drive_
3. Occurrance of the extension of New MacArthur Boulevard to the
realignment being constructed currently.
4. Location and type of access to Ford Road west of New MacArthur.
It is assumed that Ford Road, between Old MacArthur Boulevard and New
MacArthur Boulevard, would be constructed to its ultimate width prior to first
occupancy of the Village of Bonita Canyon Development (May, 1980).
It is noted that a portion of existing shopping traffic on Ford Road and NewMac-
Arthur Boulevard will be attracted to the planned Port MacArthur Commercial
Center. Also, traffic generated by the Lusk Spy Glass Hill Development would
not use Ford Road until such time as Spy Glass Hill Road is extended through the
Harbor View Sector IV Development.
T(IAPPIC CNCINEEHINO
OHlerm in CONSULTANTS
ummel and Assoclates.Inc. f ,
i
E• Future Traffic
Utilizing traffic generation rates derived from studies of similar type develop-
ments by CALTRANS, Orange County Road Department, and private firms, esti-
mated total average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were calculated for each develop-
ment that would cause an increase of traffic on Ford Road. Tables 2, 3, and 4
show estimated total ADT volumes and peak hour volumes that would be generated
by each development.
Distribution of traffic generated by each development will vary depending on the
location of the site, employment areas, commercial areas and most direct and
convenient route to freeways or other major transportation facilities. Table 5
illustrates the traffic distribution estimated from each development on 10056
occupancy.
It is noted that the amount of traffic generated by the Village of Bonita Canyon is
not included in Table 5 for reasons indicated previously. An extensive traffic
analysis would be necessary to determine the affect of extending'Ford Road to
Bonita Canyon Drive, and New MacArthur Boulevard northerly to the relocation
of Old MacArthur Boulevard. It can also be presumed that when the development
occurs, Ford Road would be improved• to its ultimate width (4 lane divided road-
way) in conjunction with that development. Therefore, this analysis will not
include an analysis of the Village of Bonita Canyon Development (May, 1980).
Exhibit 3 illustrates the estimated increases in traffic on Ford Road, between
Old MacArthur Boulevard and New MacArthur Boulevard, as future developments
occur up to May, 1980, the first occupancy of the Village of Bonita Canyon Develop
ment, or at the time Ford Road, within the study area, is improved to its ultimate
width.
Future Traffic Conditions
A review of Exhibit 3 identifies two major points, or time periods, in which a
major increase in traffic on Ford Road will occur. These periods are between
November, 1976, and February, 1977,-.and by May, 1980. The first increase in.
traffic is from the Harbor View Townhome Development, Port MacArthur
Commercial Center Development, and approximately 876 of the Broadmoor New
MacArthur Development. The second major increase is due to the opening of '
Spy Glass Hill Road within the Harbor View Sector IV Development; thus allowing
residents within the Lusk Spy Glass Hill Development to travel north to Ford Road
Prior to the opening of Spy Glass I-Iill Road, Lusk residents would use San Joaquin
Hills Road and Old Mac-Arthur Boulevard, since it would be the most convenient
and direct route to freeways to the north.
/ The analysis of t.jistinZ operating traffic conditions on Ford Road, at the three
`! intersections, concluded that they are operating between a free flow condition and
a stable flow condition. In order to analyze the change in traffic flow conditions
7RA �N£_RlNO
}^dYm Rn coN CONSuLrUL7AN f8
�Simmel and Asscclates,Inc. 7
II
TABLP. 2
PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS
(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS)
The Irvine Co. Projects
,AREA 11 - HARBOR VIEW SECTOR IV DEVELOPMENT
Single-family Detached Units = 100
Trip Generation - = 12 trips/unit/day
Total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) _ ,1,00 x 12 = 1, 200
A. M. Pk. Hr. (Bet. 7-9 A. M. )
Total A.M. Pk. Hr. = 9 % x ADT = 108
Inbound A. M. Pk. Hr. 2 afo x ADT = 24
Outbound A. M. Pk. Hr. = 7 °fa x ADT = 84
P. M. Pk. Hr. (Bet. 4-6 P.M. )
Total P. M. Pk. Hr. = 10 °fox ADT = 120
Inbound P. M. Pk. I-Ir. = 6. 316 x ADT = 76
Outbound P. M. Pk.. Hr. = 3. 776 x ADT = 44
Townhome Units = 250 '
Trip Generation = 10 trips/unit/day
Total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) = 250 x 10 = 2, 500
A.M. Pk. Hr. (Bet. 7-9 A. M. ) .
Total A.M. Pk. Hr. = 9 % x ADT = 225
Inbound A. M. Pk. Hr. = 2 o/u x ADT = 50
Outbound A. M. Pk. Hr. = 7 °fo x ADT = 175 '
P.M. Pk. Hr. (Bet. 4-6 P. M. )
Total P.M. Pk. Hr. = 10 % x ADT = 250
Inbound P. M. Pk. Hr. = 7. 316 x ADT = ' 182
Outbound P. M. Pk. Hr. = 2. 710 x ADT = 68
,AREA 13 - HARBOR VIEW TbwNHOME DEVELOPMENT
To�vnhome Units = 64
Trip Generation = 10 trips/unit/day
Total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) = 64 x 10 = 640
A. M. Pk: Hr. (Bet. 7-9 A. M. )
Total A. M. Pk. k1r. = 9 °fo x ADT = 58
Inbound A. M. Pk' Hv. = Z. 51f6 x ADT = 16
Outbound A. M. Pk. Hr. = 6. 50/o x ADT = 42
P. M. Pk. Hr. (Bet. 4-6 P.M. ) '
Total P. M. Pk. Hr. = 10 % x ADT = 64
Inbound P. M. Pk. Hr. = 7. 3ofo x ADT = 47
Outbound P. M. Pk. Hr. = 2. 7% x ADT = 17
8
+( TA BLE 3
' PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS
r'
• (COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) •
AREA 11 - PORT MACARTHUR COMMERCLAL CENTER
Commercial Area = Y. 69 net acres t
Gross Floor Area = 70, 000 sq. ft. :�- •
Trip Generation = 60 trips/1000 sq, ••£t. /day
Total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) = 70 x 60 = 4, 200
,Street A.M. Pk. Hr. (Bet. 7-9 A.M. )
Total A.M. Pk. Hr. = 2. 976 x ADT = 120
Inbound A.M. Pk. Hr. = 1. 810 x ADT = 75 ,
Outbound A.M. Pk. Hr. = 1. 176 x ADT = 45
,Street P.M. Pk. Hr_ (Bet. 4-6 P. M. )
Total P.M. Pk- -Hr. = 10 % x ADT = 420
Inbound P.M. Pk. Hr. = 4. 576 x ADT '= 190
Outbound P.M. Plc. Hr. = 5. 516 x ADT = 230
,Site Plc. Hr. (Bet. 11 A. M. '- 1 P.M. )
Toial Site Pk. Hr. = 11 % x ADT = 460
Inbound Site Pk. Hr. = 5. 710 x ADT = 240
Outbound Site Plc.. Hr. 5. 3% x ADT = 220
CONLMERCIAL CENTER EMPLOYEES
,Estimated number of employees = 1. 4 employees per 1000 sq. ft. G.F_A.
Total employees = 70 x 1. 4 = 98
Estimated Employee Trips = 2 trips per day, per employee Y
Total Estimated Employee Average Daily Traffic = 200
CO.vz;jERCIAL CENTER SERVICE VEHICLES
Estimated Service Vehicles Per Day = 20
Total Estimated Service Vehicle Average Daily Traffic = 40-
i
=.Grip Generation, Ora. Co. Rd. Dept. , Oct. 1972
Trtarrr.' �:.oaeej:no ,
merman co�.s�:*:.vrs
at E;Smm�t end A330C+2teg,lnc..
TABLE 4
PEAK I-IOUR ANALYSIS
(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS) `
Lusk & BroadC4oOr Projects
B,ROADMOOR NEtiV MAGARTHUR DEVELOPMENT
Single-fa Detached Units = 175
= l2 trips/unit/day
Trip Generation (ADT) _'175 x 12 = 2, 100
Total Average Daily Traffic
A.M. Pk. Hr. (Bet. 7-9 A.M.)
=
Total A.1�I. Pk. Hr. 9 To xADT = 18942
Inbound A.M. Pk. Hr. = 2 % x ADT =
Outbound A.M. Pk. Hr. = 7 %u x ADT = 147
P.M. Pk• Hr. (Bet. 4-6 P.M-)
Total P.iv4. Pk. Hr.
= 10 5oxADT = 210
Inbound P.M- Pk. Hr. = 6. A x ADT = 132
Outbound P.M. Pic. Hr. = 3.75o x ADT = 78
TUSK SPYGLASS HILL DEVELOPMENT
Single-family Detached Units = 129 rips/unit/day
Traffic Generation 4, 200
Total Average pai.ly Traffic (ADT) =
A.M. Pk. I-Ir. (Bet. 7-9 A.M. )
Total A.M. Pk. Hr. = 9 A16 x'ADT = 378
' Inbound A.M. Pk. r. = 2 % x ADT = 84
H
Outbound A.M. Pk. Hr. = 7 % x ADT = 2.94
P.M. Pk. Hr.. (Bet. 4-6 P.M. ) "
= 10 % x ADT = 42Q
" Total P.M, Pk. Hz. .
o x•ADT = 265
Inbound P.M- 'plc. Hz. = 6• 3%
Outbound P.M., Pk. Hr. = 3.756 x ADT = 155
TRACONSUL-ANTS CCiNIN0 10
Yvrn3n
�y .tlnnal and Aasoclatas•Inc.
--
TABLE 5 - Traffic bistribution
May, 1982 Ultimate ADT Volumes 1'
Development ADT m Specific Locations Listed Below
Ultimate To Coma:
Development Total ADT A B C D E F G PI I Center
Harbor View Townhomes 640 600 500 500 500 150 250 100 100 100 40
Broadmoor New MacArthur 2, 100 - 600 600 600 200 400 nom 600 340 240
Port MacArthur Comm. Ctr. 4, 200* 400+ 800+ 400+ 400 100 200 100 1 400+ 1200+ 20.
400 400 400 300+ =_00
Harbor View Sector IV 3, 700 200 1300 1300 1300 400 900 noire 1400 300 800
Lusk Spyglass Hill 4, 200 100 700 700 700 200 500 nom 800 noire 500
Total Estimated New Traffic - 1700 3500 3500 3500 1050 2250 200 3200 1240 19�0
Existing ADT 1975 - - 2200 4200 6700 6200 3360.0 25,700 4200 2400 -
Total Estimated ADT 1982 - 5700 7700 10,200 7250 35850 25900 7400 3680 3980
A - Ford E/o New MacArthur NOTE
B.- Ford E/o N'ewport Hills Dr. E. *Approx. 240 trips per day are "New" employees
C - Ford E/o Newport Hills Dr. W. trips plus service vehicle trips. Estimated 1740
D - F ord E/o Old MacArthur -customer trips are "New" to the area and re-
maining 2380 trips attracted from existing adjacent
E - Ford We Old MacArthur
F - Old MacArthur N/o Fgrd residential areas,
G - Old MacArthur S/o Ford
H - New MacArthur S/o Ford +From existing traffic
I - New MacArthur S/o Spygla§s Hill, ,
Impacts of traffic for Village of Bonita Canyon
Development not included in Table 5,
N��� ■/nn■■iOOi■OOON■EEN■ENO ■ /■ MEMO■ ■■
ee INE'eECEE."' ::"E 'EeeeEEEEE�.EC�EE oE
eNE.EEC.EE....iEEE..EE.EEi■■E■EN■E■E■■M.
CC:.ECC::'C:CCCCC:CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC E:� - �7.•Ci
N/■/■Es■EC:/EEO■E/E/■M/E/nEEC/EE■.....■.E.......n��.;
OMEN:C�■C'C•■iEEEEEiiE'■'/'■CCCE/CECCCEECEEE■ iC 1. e-
i�CCn/■■�■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■n■EMEEN/■■ N■■/■�. �,'
iiii/ iiii/■ ■//ME■■ ■/■■ ME■■■a on
■■�/ ■ ■/
i� ii� ■i■ ■■� ■■n■/iMOiiii■iEi■ ■ ■■■■■■■� i ■
iiii iE■■■■ irii■■■iiiiMiMiiEiE/■iiii■■■■■. ■/ ii//�
MM • iiGi'iii■ ■■iii/EE■M■EEiii ii ..iiii■■iii iMiiii
■ ■ i ■■iiii■iii ■iii Oi ■i EMEMEME■E■E■
■ .. .. . i■■EE iiii. E■ / , ■MEi ■iEE iM■ii■ENEMN■
C� /■ NHE'C •• .ii::::e:■■ .:EE:E'ilmmMMMMM•i■■i■■■i.....E■ENE■EEE■:nso'EC:
■iEO�■i ■ /tlii 1 .�■//EEM■■iii■■iiOE■O■OEiE■EEEi
::'' ' / ': CECEOE''•EC'CEEEEEEEEE %EIII
■ - �• EEEE - �• .Ti CC // EC 1111MEE /EEO■ /ME CC/
�r■��/.i■ .■. .. ■NMI . i■i■iE.■■■En
/ ' �' neiiiiiCCCCCm ONE' CCCCCCCCCC CCrC
GG ECC CE ' ECEOE■E."CEECCME ■O En/Omom E/EEo/E■■■■■C/■E■EM MO■EG " E'EE'CECIsom
EEEEC0 C mC..ECE :
MEMO ■■i EOECn/■ EE■i lair
mi i. . m SME
MEN IllE/E M'EE o �E■'�i��Ct'Ei�t'"�i@iiDi� EEEEEEEEEEEE
O■■EE E■EE■EEMEM/EEME/ mom M■■EEo
:•
a{
f after the two future major increases in traffic, future peak hour traffic volumes
were calculated for each intersection along Ford Road for February, 1977, and'
for May, 1980. These volumes are shown in Exhibits through 7.
Without changing the geometrics of the -intersections along Ford Road, and using
the addition of new peak traffic volumes, it was determined that the Level of v Service during the selected time periods is anticipated to be:
` Level of Service
IJ 1975 1977 1980
Intersection A.M. -P. M. A.M. -P.M. A.M. -I'.M.
Ford - Old MacArthur A - C A - C A - D
Ford - Newport Bills West A - A A - A A - A
Ford - Newport Hills East A - A A - A A - A
A - Free Flow
C - Stable Flow
D - Approaching Unstable Flow
Other future developments in the area south, .north, and west of the intersection
of Ford Road and Old MacArthur will contribute to increases in traffic at the
intersection. The affect of increasing the estimated 1980 traffic volumes by
1070 for all movements except those associated with the east leg of Ford Road,
without changing intersection conditions of the intersection, would result in
Level of Service "B" (Stable Flow) during the morning peak and "E" (Unstable
Flow - Capacity) during the evening peak. This analysis would conclude that
/ improvements at the intersection should be made prior to 1980 to increase the
V Level of Service for evening peak conditions.
Various intersection improvements can improve traffic flow conditions,. Each
potential improvement must be analyzed separately with existing and estimated
future peak traffic volumes in order to determine-the degree of their effective-
ness. Possible improvements were analyzed and their affect on improving
traffic conditions at the intersection of'Ford Road and Old MacArthur Boulevard
determinedi
Potential Improvement
Change in Level of Service
1) Dual southbound left turn lanes and -Improve 1g80 evening peak fro
unstable condition to a stable
signalized eastbound right turn condition.
-Improve 1980 evening peak
2) Left turn signal on Ford Road unstable condition to a stable
condition.
I
TRAP?IC ENOINEERINO 3
1 Merman CONSULTANTS 1
Clmmn{ and Asaoclstes,lnc.
(34y 080)
n
P co
FCal2lJ 1-20AD "
470 /7a /30 70 O
" 55 250 20 3CJ
01130 /5U 454 tom-
�a /00
O (ZI
Alp-
00 00
r (00,000) = A0. 77
F13,
rn+rrc em +cere}»a A-Mrua'-17 ./977 65b;77a
r }y,•myyn co»susa»ra
D1,,-ac11017a/ Traffic llok
a-- --- 280 200
?e / 1 /O 30
n �✓
u 30 220
Peak Hour I/O/.
00 00
(01000)
�70
------------------
O 20
u 40 150 U
qK
(2,800) ;
f1t rmxi cc»�u�saNre1977
/
F01211. r�oAr�
430 040
n 55 Zw 20 3G�
/80 550
zo iCo .....�..
00 00 ,
(oo, 000) - A. D.-T.
�/r1 �
n +t emna J�Ja /980 Es�`ima fC
M
Con U
TRN' "
J LTAHT-%fMK1
aw 16 lJir¢cfiowa/ Traf{c llblellz
. . a
Fora,{;• r.��ar�
.ell
; --w----- 400 270
/0 30 (3
Q) /OO 380
"o •
U 30 000
1
wA.�fi1. Peak Hour 0/�
00 00
• piti/. nea,� Hour 1/0% � , .
— r .
A. U. T.
1 r
FO�� QUAY
� ---- 290 040
O /0 25 0 . ..
O 70 2VV 'j w
w 1 r•�
40 150
O Q G7
Another alternate analyzed to determine the affect of traffic flow conditions,
at Ford Road and Old MacArthur Boulevard, was to realign only the east leg
of Ford Road approximately 480' south. This alternate will increase right
and left turns due to the "jog" for motorists on Ford Road desiring to continue '
on Ford Road. The affects of this alternate, with dual left turns and two
through lanes on each side of Old MacArthur Boulevard, were determined for
volumes associated.with 1975, 1977, and 1980, as indicated on Exhibits 8, 9 and
10 respectively.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
1975 1977 1980
"Jog" Type Improvement A.M. -P.M. A.M. -P. M. A. M. -P. M.
Old MacArthur @ Ford East A ' - C A- - C. C - D •
Old MacArthur @ Ford West A - B A - C B - C
A factor that should be considered for any improvements at the intersection of
Ford Road and Old MacArthur Boulevard is the time span required for City and
State agreements, permits, and possible impact reports, The "jog" type
improvement„would most likely take considerable time as compared to minor
improvements of upgrading the existing intersection within the State right-of-
way. Other factors affecting any decision to make improvements may be the
indecision for construction and location of the Corona del Mar Freeway southerly.
" r
Traffic on Ford Road, between Old MacArthur Boulevard and New MacArthur.
Boulevard, will increase. Only those developments listed in Table 5, without
consideration of additional arterial routes to the east,or north, are considered
in the following:
Average Daily Traffic
Location 1975 1977 1980
Ford E/o Old MacArthur 6, 700 7, 650 9, 600
Ford E/o Newport Hills West 4, 200 5, 150 7, 100
Ford E/o Newport Hills East 2, 200 30 150 5, 100.
Improvement of Ford Road to provide four through lanes should be considered
by 1977 to adequately carry the estimated 7, 660 vehicles pek day. The remaining
portion of Ford Road, Newport Hills Drive West to New MacArthur Boulevard,
will adequately handle the increase in traffic until such time as the proposed
Village of Bonita Canyon is developed. Again, left turn storage lanes on Ford
Road at both Newport Hills Drive East and West should be provided to prevent
blockage of the through lane.
Two alternate improvement plans to widen Ford Road between Old MacArthur.
Boulevard and Newport Hills Drive West were reviewed. •The first alternate
considered is to realign Ford Road to provide four through lanes to the existing
TRAFFlC CNOINCCRINO
d }'ormnn CONSULTANTS
( 133,600)
�o
co n
'o m
m
p v
55 047
68 208
QUEST
co ti
^
EAST
peak
A. 0. 7 (27,700)
TRAFFIC ENOINEFRINO Existing / ea,k ✓�IYCA1017a
j�F 9FI ANR CONSULTANT'S T� Y GZ/ f�G 01UlnQ•J5
v ktmmal and ASSOCIBMS.tnC. 19 `
• o
O m .
Ct• 60 z50 � '
n
fRI
Folw eb1
zk
480 060
20 30
EAST. • .
Oo 00 %"
A. 0. 7 (25,900)
MIT 9
`R YB /`¢brUary , /977 L's- iinaA¢
CC to"TANTM ,
kr Pro A -40cw fs,WT - z
o
p �5 250
63 060
O 0 p
600 330 r1
• O
�O 30 m
EA5T
y'
1/0% m
o0 00 ' •' o o _
. N N
P.�J. n¢�� her. 1/0% � - •
'
z� ?.5,900).
r. � _
FOC
19460715 ti0na/ 71-c3ffIL V
�r µ nod,
alignment approximately 800' east of Old MacArthur Boulevard. This alternate
would have a 15 degree skew as it intersects the centerline of Old MacArthur
Boulevard and would require removal of an existing building.
The second alternate would be to relocate the entire intersection approximately
60' south and realign both legs of Ford Road. .This alternate would not require.,,
removal of existing buildings.
Both alternates would result in a design speed of 30 to 40 mph on. Ford Road,
which is adequate for increased traffic volumes and speeds associated with
arterial streets of this type.
If the Corona del Mar Freeway is not constructed south of Ford Road, either
alternate could be used as the ultimate roadway alignment. If the freeway is
constructed, either alternate could be used while the Corona del Mar Freeway -
Ford Road interchange is under construction. If the "jog" type improvement
is constructed, detours around future interchange construction would be
required, most likely along the present alignment of Ford Road.
Conclusion `
Existing traffic volumes at the intersection of Ford Road and Old .MacArthur
Boulevard indicate that traffic conditions vary from a free flow condition to
a stable condition. Factors that would change present intersection conditions
are an increase in traffic, caused by future developments, and future roadway
and intersection improvements.
C
The increase of traffic from future developments east of Old MacArthur Boule
vard and south of Ford Road is dependant on the time frame of the developments,
as illustrated in Exhibit 3. Traffic conditions at the intersection of Ford Road
and Old MacArthur Boulevard were analyzed for the years 1975, 1977, and 1980.
These periods represent present and future conditions; major traffic volume
increases anticipated, and the time period that Ford Road is anticipated to
require widening.
Future improvements of the intersection of Ford Road and Old MacArthur Boule-
vard will increase (improve) the Level of Service. The effectiveness of each
potential improvement was analyzed with respect to traffic conditions at three
selected time periods.
The following summarizes anticipated traffic conditions of Ford Road and Old
MacArthur Boulevard with various traffic volumes and intersection improve-
ments:
TRAPPIC ENOIN"."Nd
0 i �-xerrnan CONSULTANTS
kirnmal and Assoclates,Inc. ZZ
r:
y
f LEVEL OF SERVICE 1980
1975 19.77
P. • Ate
A. M.
M -=
. A — •
Intersection Condition A - C A _ D
A - C
- No change B
- No change, hut10% increase _ _
in traffic _ C A C
- Add SB dual left-turn & add A _ B A
WB right-turn signal A _ C
Add EB & WB left-turn _ B A - C
A
Signal
Relocate east leg of Ford _ D
' south A - C C
Road 480 . . A - C - C B _ C
Ford East A - B A
Ford West -. C A - D
Relocate intersection 60' A - C A
south to at a
although blockage of the westbound through lane
Ford Road at NoHills h 1g80 ralthou-Fast and West °s are provided.
ill opera. free ow
traffic condition through d left-turn storage lane
may occur unless westboun
and Newport Hills Drive West
Ford Road between old-MacArthur acArthur Boulevard 7 to adequately carry
should be improved to provide four through lanes r 197•
the estimated 7,
650 vehicles per day. The ttivo through lanes on Ford Road,
between Newp a lanes are provided at
ort Hills Drive West and New MacArthur Boulevar ,
adequate through 19.80, if westbound left-turn storage
West-
the intersections of Newport Hills Drive East andh tough lanes east of Old
Both alternates for improvi g Ford Road to future traffic increases fo
MacArthur Boulevard are ad
equate to carry as discussed in
1g80 Each alternate has i.ts advantages and disadvantages,
this report•
e�of improvement to make.at the intersection of Ford
The selection of what typ since this intersection
agreements) etc. ,
Road and Old MacArthur ulevard and should also consider factors involve �•n
obtaining necessary permits
involves the State Department of Transportation-
involves
'
/ Ford Ro
ad be Old MacArthur Bay?v.r1977d Netivport Hills llrive West
Y should be improved to four through should be improve
The intersection of ford Road and Old MacArthur Boulevard ,
to increase tha Level of Service in 1980,
TftM,C ENOINEEftWO 7.3 ,
__�YOIT Sin
CONSVlTAN73P Inc. '
` 1 1
�t
rd Road at Newport Hills Drive Fast and West
Left-turn storage lanes on Fo
should be provided to prevent blockage of the through travel lane.
The selection Of improvements at the intersection of Ford Road and Old
MacArthur Boulevard should be viewed with respect to the degree of improving
traffic conditions, cost, time span to obtain necessary permits, and construction
of the Corona del Mar Freeway on Old MacArthur Boulevard.
t
1a
7IIAFMIC rNGINEEP.ING
t r+ermsn CONSULTANT5
fummei and Assoclates,lnc. 24
19
�v° n?
�
n, 13 32
ZA 0
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Date February 14, 1978 a FQGP���c•
TO. ❑ Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Develo depart
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Newport Be NO �
Sacramento, California 95814 3300 Newport Boulevar
Newport Beach, Calif. 92663
® Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Orange
P. 0. Box 687
Santa Ana, California 92702
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance-with Section 21108 or
21152 of the Public Resources Code
PROJECT TITLE: Harbor Hill Subdivision: Tentative Map 10151
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (If submitted to State Clearinghouse) : 1
CONTACT PERSON: R.• V. Hogan, Director TELEPHONE, 6BER: 714-6.40-2137
PROJECT LOCATION: Spyglass Hill Road at San Miguel Drive
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed 41 lot subdivision on 20 ± acres ,
including a neighborhood park site .
This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations
regarding the above described project:
1 . The project has been 0 approved by the City of Newport Beach.
O disapproved
2. The project O will have a significant effect on the environment.
Q will not
3. C] An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant
to the provisions of CEQA.
® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached.
DATE CE ', E FOR FIND
F E B 161978
JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk Beverly .Wood,
of the Board of Supervisors Envirortmental Coordinator
By - Deputy
• NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO: Secretary for Resources ':ROM: Community Development Dept.
lJ 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Newport Beach
Sacramento, California 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Calif. 92663
(�1 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
^� P. 0. Box 687
Santa Ana, California 92702
NAME OF PROJECT: Harbor Hill Subdivision
PROJECT LOCATION: Spyglass Hill Road at San Miguel Drive
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Prop'osed 41 lot subdivision on 20 .0 acres ,
neighborhood park site . . - -
FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to
procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental
Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the
proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not
have a significant effect on the environment.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
See Attached Sheet
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: Larry Seeman Associates/City of Newport Beach
INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING:
Beverly . Wo6d,
Enviror6ifental Coordinator
Date: December 16 , 1977
' i •
Harbor Hill Subdivision
MITIGATION MEASURES :
1 . A soil engineers report will be obtained for the purpose of
grading control and to establish basic foundation design criteria
for proposed improvements . The report will be specific to the
project area of Tract 10151 , and will include the MWD site . The
report will satisfy the California Division o•f Mines and Geology
standards for geologic and soils reports .
2. A registered soil engineer will supervise the grading and placement
of fill and will certify that appropriate standards are met .
3 . The grading plan will include measures to reduce off-site effects
of grading on water quality .
4 . An energy dissipator will be designed and installed on the relocated
storm drains where they discharge into the natural open swale .
5 . Standard dust suppression provisions will be required as part of
the grading permit .
6 . Use of drought tolerant plant material will be emphasized .
7 . An archaeologist will be notified when grading commences and
will be able to observe grading operations to detect subsurface
artifacts, if any exist.
8 . Condition 23 of Tentative Tract 8725 (which applies to this area
at present) requires that a traffic signal be constructed at the
intersection of Spyglass Hill Road and San Miguel Drive when
warrants are met, with the funding to be 50% City . This tract
will contribute to the general traffic levels at the intersection
so this condition indirectly applies to this subdivision as well .
9 : Builders (whether the project sponsor or others) will be required
to comply with recently developed state energy conservation
standards as stated in the California Administrative Code , Title
24, Part 6 , Division T-20 , Chapter 2 . These standards prescribe
requirements for insulation , glazing , and other related practices .
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
Date February 14, 1978
TO: ❑ Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Department
1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Newport Beach
Sacramento, California 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, Calif. 92663
® Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Orange .
P. 0. Box 687
Santa Ana, California 92702
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or
21152 of the Public Resources Code
PROJECT TITLE: Harbor Hill Subdivision: Tentative Map 10151
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (If submitted to State Clearinghouse) :
CONTACT PERSON: R. V. Hogan, Director TELEPHONE NUMBER: 714-640-2137
PROJECT LOCATION: Spyglass Hill Road at San Miguel Drive
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed 41 Iot subdivision on 20 ±. acres ,
including a neighborhood park site .
This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations
regarding the above described project:
1 . The project has been O approved by the City of Newport Beach.
❑ disapproved
2. The project ❑ will have a significant effect on the environment.
Q will not
3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant
to the provisions of CEQA.
M A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the
provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached.
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING:
Beverly ood,
Environmental Coordinator
_ per,•__ - - - _�1_w�•�, ��Qy_ ---- -------- ----- ------
_,�r_�_ �-�Ly- as
C oxitr�Lr�4_u - - �s�u�
__�L//36/7.7 300. Od --- /5.00
- - /l 4/7g-- — --- - -- —�r� • O�-- --- ----- ------
-- --- --- - -- - --- --- ----- - --
--_________ _______________________ ______._ _ 4
RECEIPT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEA REC
aEwaDR. ,
NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 926619-12 No 76170ICI
DATE !
yyy! RECEIVED FROM
{({1 FOR: Z. fe-
1 !
i
ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT
! O i
! M DEPARTMENT-
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered- into on this 4th day of
November, 1977, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a
municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as " CITY , " and
LARRY SEEMAN , INC . , ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CONSULTANTS , hereinafter
referred to as "CONSULTANT. "
W I T N t S S E T H
WHEREAS , the CITY has determined that an Initial Study is
necessary in conjunctio-n with an application, of the Irvine Pacific
Development Co. for a Tentative Map and Pl-anned •Community Amendment
of a site on San Miguel Drive at Spyglass Hill Road , in the City of
Newport Beach , County of Orange, State of California ; and
WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has submitted to CITY a proposal to
prepare said Initial Study; and
WHEREAS , CITY desires to accept said proposal , as amended .
NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the foregoing, the parties
hereto agree as follows :
1 . GENERAL
CONSULTANT agrees to prepare the subject Initial Study
in accordance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 2 of
this Agreement . CITY agrees to remit to CONSULTANT the amounts
set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the
terms and conditions set forth in this document .
2 . SCOPE OF WORK
The subject Initial Study will be prepared in accordance
with the CONSULTANT ' S proposal dated October 4, 1977 , which is
attached to this Agreement marked as Exhibit "A" and by reference
incorporated herein at this point as if fully set forth.
+,
3.. BILLING AND PAYMENT
CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time
and material basis and in ,no event shall the maximum amount of this
Agreement exceed Three Thousand Nine Hundred dollars ( $3 ,900. 00) .
Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT' S
presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs
incurred by it in connection with this Agreement.
4. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete this
contract within twenty-one (21 ) days after execution of this
Agreement. The subject Initial Study must meet the approval of
the Environmental Affairs Committee of the City. In the event
additional work is required due to input during the public hearings ,
said additional work shall be subject to a separate contract.
5 . TERMINATION
This Agreement is subject to termination by the CITY at
any time upon serving written notice ,to CONSULTANT. The CITY shall
be thereafter liable to CONSULTANT only for fees and costs incurred
as of the date CONSULTANT receives such notice of termination .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this
Agreement as of the date and year first above written .
APPROVED AS TO FOR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
B.
s'�s, s a ' ty t rney D rector
Comm y Dev, pment Department
CITY
LARRY SEEMAN, INC. ,
ENVIRONMENTA SCIENCE CONSULTANTS
L
By
CONSULTANT
2 -
.fir *"•'
Exhibit "A"
0 500 newport center drive, suite 525
newport beach, california 92660
phone(714)644-5900
0 post office box 6339
san rafael, california 94903
LARRY SEEMAN, INC phone(415) 897-6363
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CONSULTANT
October 4, 1977
Ms . Beverly Wood
Environmental Coordinator
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
SUBJECT: INITIAL STUDY FOR HARBOR HILLS SITE
Dear Ms. Wood:
Pursuant to my recent discussion with you and Mr. David Neish, this
letter will serve as our proposal for professional services in the
preparation of an Initial Study for the proposed resubdivision and site
plan review for the Harbor Hills park and residential development proposal
(former Water District Reservoir site) .
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Initial Study report will be prepared addressing each issue
normally covered in environmental documents in an organizational framework
that focuses on those issues that have been identified as having the most -
important implications in development of the site. Based on our discussion,
these issues include:
1 ) Geologic hazards - the relationship of the uses proposed
to fault traces mapped in the area and mitigation of
these potential hazards .
2) Site drainage/Water Duality - the implication of site
development on runoff and downstream water pollution
potential .
3) Archaeology - a survey of the presence or absence of
archaeologic sites .
n
LARRY SEEMAR INC
'4) Land Use - effects of the proposed uses, on adjacent '
land uses, notably niqht uses of the park site... 6wauvm� s+T�rm+�K"'`suc
x%'�NT;TOVMA L. fig)ft.D74e'iaapn.1P a ,
5) Noise - effects of park uses on adjacent residential 5�' ssvvnastrs+rsr4�..
areas.
6) Energy and Water Conservation - measures proposed to
reduce consumption of energy and water (e.g. drought
tolerant plant materials) in both park and residential
areas.
.The analyses will be prepared by Larry Seeman and Associates except
for the archaeologic reconnaisance which will be performed by Marie Cottrell
(formerly of ARI) . Existing data from the Harbor View Hills Sector IV EIR
will be used to the extent possible.
SCHEDULE AND REPORTS
We are prepared to initiate report preparation work as soon as authorized
and can complete our services prior to November 15, the date the project
sponsor plans to submit related application. Twenty copies of the Initial
Study will be submitted.
COMPENSATION
We propose to prepare the Initial Study for a fee not to exceed $3,900,
including the services of Ms . Cottrell . This not-to-exceed fee includes
preparation of 20 copies of the report, which will contain several color
xerox illustrations, acceptable in form and content to 'the City of Newport
Beach. Not included in this not-to-exceed fee is attendance at public
meetings subsequent to the delivery of the report, or preparation of
supplements to address new issues that may arise in the project review
process. These services would be performed on an hourly basis at my
customary hourly rate of $30/hr as authorized and required.
CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
In order to perform''the aforementioned services in the most expeditious
manner, we would anticipate that the project sponsor would make available
illustrations of the proposed site plan, grading plan, and tract map.
w
LARRY SEEMAK INC
AUTHORIZATION
We are prepared to initiate work as soon as verbal authorization is
received, followed by an appropriate contract. We look forward to working
with you and the project sponsor in this endeavor.
Sincerely yours,
LARRY SE MA INC.
Larry Sheman
President
LS:rkc
cc: Mr. David Neish
Mr. Mike Mohler, TIC
,p------ -------:�..«.�..�..�...�..�..�..�..�. .�.,�..�..1.
TY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT
+
•NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92663 N0, 7 5-219 ,
9 1 DATE
RECEIVED FROM �•� v�' 'iT�.[- U �' C-C� v'" """ T D "' (�G/ +
FOR. E
IACCOUNT NO AMOUNT ;I
t DEPARTMENT
O y � �rIS.DC7 E
FORM 246.3320 8.76 P 5 0 4 1 8 8
COMA. INVOICE NUMBER INV. DATE INVOICE DISCOUNT NEW AMOUNT
3210 IP311 10-20-77 Fee for Initial $4,09 00 $4,095 DO
Study and City
Counsultant fees
necessary to prepar
draft EIR for Harbo
Hill
Irvine Pacific Development Co. TOTALS $4,095 00 $4z095 PO
40.
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF
/ / DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACE REP No .
X NEGATIVE DECLARATI0N `b Application ec By
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � �,��t �� , FEE:
o� e� y. DRAFT E . I . R . $-3.9.0r60
Department of Community Dev p�ef t, �1 10 NEGATIVE DECLARATION $Z4-8-8.0•
Zoning and Ordinance Admini tratvb� `4'Asio •rN,-r�AL s�rvo � s. c0 -1-
3300 Newport Boulevard G�`�eckC�6a c,o-,sv�r r�s 3100=°
Phone ( 714) 673-2110 ` O �QGP��F• 7J
The Irvine o parF
Applicant ( Print) dba Irvine a ent Company Phone 644-3547
Mailing Address 610 Newport 4Vr Drive, Sui 00, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Person to Contact
Concerning this Application Michael A. Mohl r Phone 644-3547
Mailing Address Same as above
Location of Property Invol Ved Southeast corner of San Miguel Drive
and Spyglass Hill Road
Purpose of Application (describe fully) Compiling initial study and requesting
Negative Declaration•for proposed Harbor Hill project. Applicant is intending to file a
Tentative Map and P.C. Amendment in conjunction with this study.
Zone PC Present Use Vacant Land and Reservoir Site
Legal Description of Property Involved ( if too long , attach separate sheet)
DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE
Date Filed Fee Pd . Receipt No .
Staff. Review Date Action
P . C . Review Date Action
C . C . Review Date Action
NOTE : A copy of the Finding must be attached to this application following
Final City Action .
114ne Paco
development company
December 27, 1977
Department of Community Development
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attention: Beverly D. Wood
Environmental Coordinator
Dear Ms Wood:
Pursuant to your letter of November 21, 1977 requesting an additional deposit
of $315 for archaeological investigation at the Harbor Hill site, I have en-
closed a check in that amount.
It is understood that this deposit is necessary to cover consultant's fee of
$300, plus the City's administrative fee of $15.
Thank you for your assistance in processing the Harbor Hill package.
SitLely,
!h .
Mi hael A. Mohle
Pr ject Director
MAM:er
Enclosure
610 newport center drive newport beach califomia 92663 (714) 644-3165
�4 W PO�r.
0, 0
/u ,z Department or Community Development
DATE: December 13, 1977
TO: Cal Stewart, Parks , Beaches & Recreation
Glen Weldon , Harbor Department
Irwin Miller, Public Works Department
Bill Darnell , Traffic Engineer
FROM: Beverly Wood, Environmental Coordinator
SUBJECT: Environmental Affairs Committee Agenda : `
Harbor Hill Initial Study
Bank of Newport Project
There will be a meeting of the Environmental Affairs Committee on
Friday, December 16 , 1977 , at 10 : 30 A.M. to discuss the Harbor Hill
Initial Study and the proposed Bank of Newport building . The
Harbor Hill Initial Study , prepared by Larry Seeman , was distributed
last week . This project -includes 41 residential units and ± 9 .0 acres
of park on the MWD reservoir site at the corner of Spyglass Hill Road
and San Miguel Drive . The key issues here were identified as Land
Use (especially use of the park) , parking and circulation, grading
and drainage, views , and archaeological investigation .
The second project, the Bank of Newport building, is located at the
corner of East Coast Highway and Avocado Street in Corona del Mar.
To date, all that has been completed for this project is an environ-
mental questionnaire which is attached for your review . Potentially,
the impacts to be discussed would be traffic, compatibility with
surrounding uses , protection of the residential uses adjacent to
commercial , impacts associated with demolition of existing buildings ,
views and aesthetics . Also to be clarified for his project is the
applicability of the Atherton Ordinance to the proposed residential
units for park in-lieu fees . The applicant has submitted preliminary
plans for the project for the purpose of making an environmental
determination and to get initial feedback on the project. Any and
all comments would be appreciated .
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
R. V . HOGAN , DIRECTOR
By
Beverly D . Wood ,
Enviroental Coordinator
BDW/sh
✓�E`wPO
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
�C/FOA��P
November 21 , 1977
Michael A . Mohler
Irvine Pacific Development Company
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 200
Newport Beach , Calif.92663
Subject: Harbor Hill Initial Study
Dear Mr. Mohler:
Attached is a letter from Larry Seeman regarding the need
for additional archaeological investigation on the Harbor
Hill Site above and beyond that which was previously antic-
ipated and budgeted. In order to facilitate this additional
work , please deposit with the City a total of $315 .00 . This
amount will cover the consultant' s fee ($300 . 00) plus the
City ' s administrative fee ( $15 .00) . If you have any questions ,
please feel free to call me .•
Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.
Sincerely
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
R. V . HOGAN, DIRECTOR
Beverly D . Wood,
Environmental Coordinator
BDW/sh
Encl .
City Hall 8300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
•
❑ 610 newport center drive,suite 645
newport beach,Cal Ifornia 92660
phone(714)640.6363
❑ 1050 northgate drive,suite 554
san rafael,California 94903
LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES phone(415)479.3370
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS
November 16, 1977 S REQS�yED
Cown.nunit
tj De,DeonrQrj
t r 9
N&V 18 1977c,-
Ms. Beverly Wood �' kEWaor;OFacH
Environmental Coordinator CALIF
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Ms. Wood:
Pursuant to our discussion last week, this letter is to inform you
that ARM advises that supplemental archaeologic investigation will be
required at the Harbor Hill site to determine the significance of shell
scatter found in their reconnaissance.
ARM estimates that a test level reconnaissance to resolve this
question will require an additional $300 budget.
I have informed Mr. Mohler of The Irvine Company who has indicated
he was willing to.go ahead so that the issue can be resolved in the
Initial Study. To do this you probably should contact him to arrange
for an augmentation of his deposit account.
If there are any questions, please call .
Sincerely yours,
6ARRI SEEM N ASSOCIATES a
Principa
LS:rkc
WF ' Exhibit "A"
❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 525
newport beach, california 92660
phone (714) 644-5900
❑ post office box 6339
san rafael, calif ornia 94903
LARRY SEEWK INC phone(415) 897-6363
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CONSULTANT
October 4, 1977
Ms . Beverly Wood
Environmental Coordinator
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
SUBJECT: INITIAL STUDY FOR HARBOR HILLS SITE
Dear Ms. Wood:
Pursuant to my recent discussion with you and Mr. David Neish, this
letter will serve as our proposal for professional services in the
preparation of an Initial Study for the proposed resubdivision and site
plan review for the Harbor Hills park and residential development proposal
(former Water District Reservoir site) .
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Initial Study report will be prepared addressing each issue
normally covered in environmental documents in an organizational framework
that focuses on those issues that have been identified as having the most
important implications in development of the site. Based on our discussion,
these issues include:
1 ) Geologic hazards - the relationship of the uses proposed
to fault trace s mapped in the area and mitigation of
these potential hazards .
2) Site drainage/Water Quality - the implication of site
development on runoff and downstream water pollution
potential .
3) Archaeology - a survey of the presence or absence of
archaeologic sites .
TARRY SEEMAN. INC.
4) Land Use - effects of the proposed uses, on adjacent
land uses, notably night uses of the park site awaunorti-s�'>1 Pm'4K'wb 'N
Fv6(mwTDM6t Ko,1��A1✓n'A►��MpAtits o�Rlail09'�nn�,�j�a owrhewrtnrlRAfli&;Mu&
5) Noise - effects of park uses on adjacent residential b�' urxsvnnartreHs�vn�..
areas.
6) Energy and Water Conservation - measures proposed to
reduce consumption of energy and water (e.g. drought
tolerant plant materials) in both park and residential
areas .
The analyses will be prepared by Larry Seeman and Associates except
for the archaeologic reconnaisance which will be performed by Marie Cottrell
(formerly of ARI) . Existing data from the Harbor View Hills Sector IV EIR
will be used to the extent possible.
SCHEDULE AND REPORTS
We are prepared to initiate report preparation work as soon as authorized
and can complete our services prior to November 15, the date the project
sponsor plans to submit related application. Twenty copies of the Initial
Study will be submitted.
COMPENSATION
We propose to prepare the Initial Study for a fee not to exceed $3,900,
including the services of Ms . Cottrell . This not-to-exceed fee includes
preparation of 20 copies of the report, which will contain several color
xerox illustrations, acceptable in form and content to the City of Newport
Beach. Not included in this not-to-exceed fee is attendance at public
meetings subsequent to the delivery of the report, or preparation of
supplements to address new issues that may arise in the project review
process . These services would be performed on an hourly basis at my
customary hourly rate of $30/hr as authorized and required.
CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES
In order to perform the aforementioned services in the most expeditious
manner, we would anticipate that the project sponsor would make available
illustrations of the proposed site plan, grading plan, and tract map.
LARRY SEEMAN. INC
AUTHORIZATION
We are prepared to initiate work as soon as verbal authorization is
received, followed by an appropriate contract. We look forward to working
with you and the project sponsor in this endeavor.
Sincerely yours,
LARRY SE MAN, INC.
Larry Seeman
President
LS:rkc
cc: Mr. David Neish
Mr. Mike Mohler, TIC
Il,
I
I
7
- I 11�.}-.���=-1�-1J���l��L-YJ-�-K-��-4•-.�-'���� r��ram.
` -
- 17 --
-1 oi lz -- ---- --------- -
f
- - - -- ---------------- ----- ----- ------------------ --
----- ,=p4p.4 - - - -
-tu, - - j - -- - - -- -
I _
rat- rraK«rn-c �'---