Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - Call for Review of Planning Commission's Approval of a Mixed -Use Project at 2510 West Coast Highway (PA2019-249) - CorrespondenceApril 27, 2021 Agenda Item No. 12 Subject: FW: 2510 W. Pacific Coast Highway (PA2019-24) and the Future of Mariner's Mile Attachments: 2510 West Coast Highway - April 21 , 2021, Letter to City Council .pdf From: Patrick Gormley <pfg1941@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 202111:12 AM To: Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner Joy <joybrenner@me.com>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Blom Noah <noahblom@gmail.com>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 W. Pacific Coast Highway (PA2019-24) and the Future of Mariner's Mile Dear City Council, Newport is a community of villages. Newport's unique character and charm (Newport style designs) are on display in the villages surrounding the Newport Bay: Balboa Peninsula, Lido Marina Village, Mariner's Mile, Balboa Island, and The Islands of Newport Harbor. It is impossible to overstate the profound change 2510 West Coast Highway and all proposed property development projects will have on Mariner's Mile. The industrial box design and high density of 2510 West Coast Highway is out of character with Newport style development and not in harmony with Newport Bay marine design. The full scope of all the planed and proposed land use represents over one-third of Mariner's Mile and will forever determine the future destiny of Mariner's Mile. Without a clear vision guiding the transformation of the City and Mariner's Mile, ongoing efforts will continue to be suboptimal and disappointing. The last thing Mariner's Mile and the City of Newport Beach need is a cross town freeway along scenic West Pacific Coast Highway. Mariner's Mile is at a Crossroad: Will the City Council sustain the character, charm, and Newport style development by assuring Mariner's Mile becomes a "Village" or will our community's foundational core values be eroded by high density development that is out of character and not in harmony with the surrounding villages on Newport Bay? Opportunity: What would it take for the city to promote marine oriented businesses and appropriate Newport style designs in order for Mariner's Mile to become a friendly village and a gathering place which fosters the flow of pedestrians and bicyclists? This consideration should have priority over the suggested expansion of the highway that would increase the speed and flow of traffic. The attached letter dated April 21, 2021, to the City Council presents a vision, a course of action and a proven path forward for developing a Newport style Mariner's Mile "Village". Lido Marine Village and Lido Village are excellent examples of what is possible when the city, developers, and stakeholders work together. The process followed by the city in the development of Lido Marine Village where formal community outreach workshops presented the Lido Marine Village design guidelines to all stakeholders is what must be adhered to in developing Mariner's Mile as a "Village." It is a City of Newport Beach proven process for development of a "Village" (Best Practices) that has been successfully done before and can be achieved for Mariner's Mile. It can be the framework for Mariner's Mile to be developed into a "Village" that enhances the character and charm of the surrounding villages on Newport Beach Bay. Strength of Community: The Future of Mariners' Mile will be determined within the framework of the interaction of State impossible affordable housing requirements, the Developers, City Staff, Planning Commission, City Council, Caltrans, business and property owners, local merchants, and residents. Our community is stronger together, especially when Stakeholders, Developers, and the City work together to support each other based upon a common consensus, understanding, and purpose. Working separately and apart, the result will be high density development along a high speed cross town freeway that nobody truly wants. Community stakeholders are asking the City to lay out all the Mariner's Mile proposed and pending development projects together so we can study and understand how everything ties together. Planning Commission: On February 18, 2021, during the hearing for 2510 West Coast highway, the Planning Commission recognized the need for a Mariner's Mile Master Plan. Orange County Register Recommendations: • A decision on 2510 W. Coast Highway be postponed until the aggregate of all property development proposals including road safety, road widening and infrastructure projects along West Coast Highway are pulled together and evaluated before a single project is approved. • A Mariners' Mile Steering Committee be created that is composed of stakeholders to shape the future of Mariners' Mile as a Newport style "Village" (CalTrans, Property Owners, Local Merchants, and Residents). • The City Council, Planning Commission, and city staff assure that the proposed use of 2510 West Coast Highway and all Mariner's Mile property development projects be Newport style "Village" design in harmony with our community's character, community norms, and core values without adversely impacting the surrounding area. Your neighbor, Patrick 4 Patrick Gormley April 21, 2021 City of Newport Beach City Council 100 Civic Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear City Council, A Strong Desire for a Sense of Community: Residents and homeowners throughout Newport Beach share a common interest to sustaining and preserving the character and charm of our unique neighborhoods, villages, and beachfront community. When individuals and families establish a business, purchase a home, or rent in Newport Beach, they expect a set of common community values and expectations pertaining to the character and charm of their neighborhood. We trust that these values will be maintained and enhanced. Two principles for guiding our neighborhoods and villages are "Enhance Our Community's Quality of Life and Do No Harm," and "Character counts, it defines us, and matters in a neighborhood." As stakeholders each of us care about Newport Beach and are involved in the decisions that impact our quality of life, safety, health, and welfare. We want to enhance our community, not diminish it. Challenging Times: The City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange are experiencing a major paradigm shift in human events that is generating a restructuring of the way we live. The City is concurrently dealing with State and County mandated requirements. Newport Beach is being adversely impacted by the State imposing impossible affordable housing numbers. In addition the COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on employment. Businesses have shut down and substantial disruptions have occurred with essential health services. Social distancing and work from home practices have led to decreased transportation and our road systems are being used less frequently. As Councilman Will O'Neill stated on September 21, 2020, in the Orange County Register opinion page titled Building a ropen_in_g on sniffing sand, "We are making decisions on shifting sand" due to the ever-changing nature of the Governor's orders. Yes, COVID-19 state mandates including impossible affordable housing numbers, contradictions, and competition of priorities face the City Council. The City Council's primary role is to represent constituents in a balanced and fair manner without prejudgement or favorable treatment to anyone. This obligation includes continuous pushback on State mandates and proposed property developments that will adversely impact Newport Beach's character, charm, and quality of life, and they are at cross purposes by overriding scenic corridor, safety, noise, pollution, and Coastal Commission mandates. Mariner's Mile "Village" Mariner's Mile significanceandimpactnnuatnntbeundenxaued. Mariner's Mile isthe main street and gateway destination along Newport Bay and the heart of our charming coastal m}rnnnunity. It is our beach town's "Main Street," providing access to the waterfront and beaches. It services our schools, neighborhoods, business districts, hospital buildings, and post offices. Mariner's Mile imendowed with awaterfront that houses alarge number ofprivate boats. This gives Mariner's Mile the physical and visual presence of vibrant waterfront. it creates unique opportunities for marine -oriented businesses and offers public and private access for all toenjoy. |ti3impossible to overstate the profound change 2510 West Coast Highway and all proposed property development projects vvi||havennMar{ner'aMiie. The industrial box design and high density of2518West Coast Highway iSout Ufcharacter with Newport style development and not in harmony with Newport Bay marine design. The full scope of all the proposed land use represents over one-third of Mariner's K8i|a and will forever determine the future destiny of Mariner's Mile. Community 8takeho|dens, business owners, and residents ofcommunities along Mariner's Mile2lare troubled and highly apprehensive about 2510 West Coast Highway. This proposed project is (1) taking away protected views, (2) not addressing safety concerns as demonstrated by the number of serious accidents, and (3) endangering the children going to and from school, junior guards, and other activities. The intersection of Avon, Tustin, and Oonanvievvia extremely hazardous and simply cannot support ahigh-denaih/project. Furthermore, the residents strongly disagree with the Traffic Engineers of Newport who have stated that this projectdoea not require atraffic study despite the reality Vfthe existing extremely hazardous road safety conditions along Mariner's Mile. The City Council, in cooperation with Ca|Trgns District 12, must require a road safety analysis for the proposed 2510 W. Pacific Coast Highway (PA2019-24) project. Without a traffic and safety study, the City of Newport Beach Staff Report is fatally flawed. The community stakeholders are asking for the developers to lay out all the proposed projects at the same time sothey can study and understand how everything ties together. Common Ground and Agreement: Community stakeholders share common ground and are inmuch more agreement than disagreement pertaining tOthe vision Ofwhat Newport Beach can become to guide the transformation. During this past year 0fC{)V|O-10 reatriodons. our community has more and more embraced that the ''viUages''ofNewport Beach bind uatogether and provide uswith opportunities toenjoy our surroundings. People took advantage of the beaches, walkways, bike lanes, overlooks, and parks in order to safely get outdoors. Accordingly, ongoing efforts to develop the housing and circulation elements of the General Plan should complement and enhance the villages ofNewport. Opportunity: What would ittake for the city k7promote marine oriented businesses and appropriate Newport style desins/nondertor8&arino,'sMile/Obecome80ienoYvvillaoe and gathering place which fosters the flow of pedestrians and bicyclists? This consideration should have priority over the suggested expansion of the highway that would increase the speed and flow of traffic. Newport Style : Newport Beach isanaspirational city where @ large number nf accomplished developers who live locally understand Newport style development and desire to sustain and enhance Newport's unique character and charm. Newpa[tus a..QO1DD]uI1ity_of villagesL Newport's unique character and charm (Newport style designs) are on display in the FA villages surrounding the Newport Bay: Balboa Peninsula, Lido Marina Village, Mariner's Mile, Balboa Island, and The Islands of Newport Harbor. Mariner's Mile as an officially designated "Village" on Newport Bay must have a Vision, Strategy, & Compressive Development Plan that lays out all the Mariner's Mile proposed and pending infrastructure and property development projects together so Community Stakeholders can study and understand how everything ties together. This plan must include a set of design guidelines as a framework so everyone going in knows exactly the look and feel the city desires to develop. Lido Marine Village and Lido Village are excellent examples of what is possible when the city, developers, and stakeholders work together. The process followed by the city in the development of Lido Marine Village where formal community outreach workshops presented the Lido Marine Village design guidelines to all stakeholders is what must be adhered to in developing Mariner's Mile as a "Village." It is a City of Newport Beach proven process for development of a "Village" (Best Practices) that has been successfully done before and can be achieved for Mariner's Mile. It can be the framework for Mariner's Mile to be developed into a "Village" that enhances the character and charm of the surrounding villages on Newport Beach Bay. Planning Commission Recommendation: On February 18, during the hearing for 2510 West Coast highway, the Planning Commission recognized the need for a Mariner's Mile Master Plan. Orange County Register The Mariner's Mile Vision must enhance the waterfront and our community's quality of life. West Coast Highway as a scenic corridor must remain as it is now, adding no new lanes and retaining street parking, in order to transform Mariner's Mile into a friendly village that attracts pedestrians and bicyclists. The City, Developers, and Stakeholders can facilitate making such a vision a reality by working within the community. The Green Light Initiative and the General Plan were the result of community consensus. The intent of both must be adhered to along Mariner's Mile and applied to the combined scope and density of all proposed and future development projects before a single project is approved. Today's challenging situation clearly shows there is a disconnect, an obstacle that must be fully understood before it can be dealt with effectively. The City Council, as the community's Board of Directors, has the option to proactively view the obstacle as an opportunity to reach out to residents to fully understand the basis of homeowners' concerns and to work together with all stakeholders in finding solutions. The Council can be the catalyst by articulating a clear vision and an approach base upon community core values to guide the transformation of Newport Beach and Mariner's Mile as a "Village". Win/Win: Together Property Developers, the City Council, the Planning Commission, and City Staff working with Community Stakeholders can facilitate making such a vision a reality. Working separately and apart, the result will be high density development along a high speed cross town freeway that nobody truly wants. Mariner's Mile is the essential roadway for linking Newport's "villages" together. The City of Newport Beach and CalTrans are presented with a golden opportunity to rethink and embrace the ongoing paradigm shifts for shaping the future of Newport Beach and West Coast Highway. No one project should be seen in isolation. The aggregate of all proposed and planned road safety and widening and infrastructure projects along West Coast Highway must be evaluated 3 before a single project is approved. Before significant infrastructure and development investments are made, the Citywide General Plan must build a community consensus among stakeholders and a clear vision of what Newport Beach can become to guide the transformation. Without a clear vision guiding the transformation of the City and Mariner's Mile, ongoing efforts will continue to be suboptimal and disappointing. The last thing Mariner's Mile "Village" and the City of Newport Beach need is a freeway along scenic West Pacific Coast Highway. The Circulation Element of the General Plan can be a determinant factor to link the Peninsula, Lido Island, Lido Marine Village, Mariners Mile, Balboa Island and Corona del Mar. Street widths could be reduced and sidewalks and bike lanes expanded. This would benefit pedestrians and increase economic activity by linking neighboring businesses and "villages." The city's aspirational plan to build a pedestrian and bike way on the side of the bridge connecting Lido Marine Village and Mariner's Mile would be a step in the right direction. Decisions pertaining to whether Pedestrian Bridges should be built over Coast Highway must be made subsequent to the General Plan, including the Circulation Element, and the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Framework being finalized. The City Council, Planning Commission, and city staff must assure that the proposed use of 2510 West Coast Highway and all proposed Mariner's Mile property development projects will be in harmony with our community's character, community norms, and core values without adversely impacting the surrounding area. The City Council must independently ask important questions that need to be thought through to determine the facts before significant investments are made by CalTrans, the City, Developers, and the Newport Beach community. The City Council's responsibility as elected stewards is to build a community consensus among stakeholders and articulate a clear vision to guide the transformation of Newport Beach and Mariner's Mile. An analysis of the total land use and scope of all the proposed infrastructure and property development projects on Mariner's Mile must be done as a prerequisite to the approval of any one piece of all proposed and pending development. Accordingly, to facilitate fulfillment of their foundational responsibilities, the City Council must aggressively act to assure the above is accomplished to determine the future of Newport Beach and Mariner's Mile "Village," and to fully address the concerns of Newport Beach residents and stakeholders. The history and realities of today's existing situation clearly show that the City Council must fulfill their foundational responsibility. The future of Mariner's Mile will be determined by the City Council's actions. Mariner's Mile is at a Crossroad: Will the City Council sustain the character, charm, and Newport style development by assuring Mariner's Mile becomes a "Village", or will our community's foundational core values be eroded by high density development that is out of character and not in harmony with the surrounding villages on Newport Bay? Strength of Community: Our community is stronger together, especially when Stakeholders, Developers, and the City work together to support each other based upon a common consensus, understanding, and purpose. Community stakeholders are asking the City to lay out all the Mariner's Mile proposed and pending development projects together so we can study and understand how everything ties together. 11 Recommendations: • A decision on 2510 W. Coast Highway be postponed until the aggregate of all property development proposals including road safety, road widening and infrastructure projects along West Coast Highway are pulled together and evaluated before a single project is approved. • A Mariners' Mile Steering Committee be created that is composed of stakeholders to shape the future of Mariners' Mile as a Newport style "Village" (CalTrans, Property Owners, Local Merchants, and Residents). • The City Council, Planning Commission, and city staff assure that the proposed use of 2510 West Coast Highway and all Mariner's Mile property development projects be Newport style "Village" design in harmony with our community's character, community norms, and core values without adversely impacting the surrounding area. The City Council fought for establishing a Harbor Commission. Lido Village was reborn and revitalized by the City with City Council support. The City Council has previously recognized the necessity of a comprehensive revitalization master plan for Mariner's Mile "Village". How many members of the City Council will proactively fight for the future of Mariner's Mile? A comprehensive plan is a proven way for the city to have a framework in place so everyone understands the rules which will create the desired look and feel. Newport Beach Community Stakeholders need the City Council's help and support. Your neighbor, Patrick Gormley Former President Bayshores Community Association CC: Ryan Chamberlain, Director CalTrans District 12 Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie -Norris Katrina Foley, 2nd District Supervisor, Orange County 5 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 W. Pacific Coast Highway (PA2019-24) and the Future of Mariner's Mile Attachments: April 27, 2021 City Council Review Daily Pilot.pdf From: Patrick Gormley <pfg1941@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 23, 20212:47 PM To: Erik Haugli <erik.haugli@latimes.com> Cc: Canalis John <John.Canalis@latimes.com> Subject: 2510 W. Pacific Coast Highway (PA2019-24) and the Future of Mariner's Mile Good Afternoon Eric, I appreciate your reaching out to me. Community stakeholders, business owners, and residents in the abutting communities of Newport Heights/Cliff Haven, Bayshores and Lido Island are troubled and highly apprehensive about 2510 West Coast Highway. The attached shorter letter presents a perspective and analysis for your readers consideration. It raises several key questions the Newport Beach City Council must answer before a decision is made on the proposed property development located at 2510 West Coast Highway. For example, Will this proposed development create a precedent for all future development along Mariner's Mile? Given the community wide interest and concerns coupled with the City Council Review scheduled for April, 27, 2021, 1 request you consider an exception to the general limit and publish the enclosed commentary. Previously, the Daily Pilot Commentary Section presented several articles I authored. • Commentary: Mariners' Mile should become a village akin to Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach • Commentary: Mariners' Mile should be transformed into a village akin to Corona del Mar • Commentary: Proposed Porsche dealership is incompatible with surrounding area Kindest regards, Patrick l On Apr 21, 2021, at 8:31 PM, Haugh, Erik <erik.haugli@latimes.com> wrote: Hi Patrick, This is long for our Mailbag, which has a general limit of 350 words. Would you like to send us a shorter letter regarding this issue, written for our readers for consideration? Thank you. Erik Haugh I Deputy Editor Times Community News PATRICK GORMLEY Working together, let's imagine the possibilities to build a coastal city for people to enjoy now and in the future. April 23, 2021 Newport is a community of villages. Newport's unique character and charm (Newport style designs) are on display in the villages surrounding Newport Bay: Balboa Peninsula, Lido Marina Village, Mariner's Mile, Balboa Island, and The Islands of Newport Harbor. Mariner's Mile is an indispensable seaside center linking the Peninsula, Lido Island, Lido Marine Village, Mariner's Mile, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar villages and neighborhoods. Its significance and impact must not be undervalued. Mariner's Mile presents a unique opportunity to create a "Mariner's Village" for an active pedestrian' retail district to serve adjacent neighborhoods, visitors, and existing marine uses. It offers public views and access to Newport Bay for all to enjoy. The current structure for such a `village" is already present in the existing uses, pattern of streets and alleys, and current relationship to neighboring uses. Scenic corridor views along Mariner's Mile cannot be taken for granted. Safety of our children needs to be assured. The full scope of all foreseeable development project proposals along Mariner's Mile must meet Coastal Commission, community, and environmental requirements before approval. As Community Stakeholders we are all involved in the decisions that impact our quality of life, safety, health, and welfare. We want to enhance our community, not diminish it. Working together, let's get it right—the city, the developers, and the stakeholders. 2510 West Pacific Coast Highway (PA2019-24) Will this proposed development create a precedent for all future development along Mariner's Mile? It is impossible to overstate the profound change 2510 West Pacific Coast Highway and all proposed high density property development projects will have on Mariner's Mile. The full scope of all the planned and proposed land use represents over one-third of Mariner's Mile and will forever determine the future destiny of Mariner's Mile. The 2510 project consists of 35 apartments and an exotic car dealership. Its height of 35 feet exceeds the current shoreline height limitations of 26 feet. The developer is promising 3 low- income apartments within the 35 units in an attempt to use the State of California's affordable housing incentives to avoid (1) the normal zoning standards and required regulations to safeguard public views and (2) environmental studies to prevent adverse impacts upon our local neighborhoods. There are ample areas for low-income housing building sites available, away from the established villages surrounding Newport Bay, including Mariner's Mile. The industrial box design and high density of 2510 West Coast Highway is out of character with Newport style development and not in harmony with Newport Bay marine design. Without a clear vision guiding the transformation of the City and Mariner's Mile, ongoing efforts will continue to be suboptimal and disappointing. The last thing Mariner's Mile and the City of Newport Beach need is a cross town freeway along scenic West Pacific Coast Highway. Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 PATRICK GORMLEY Community stakeholders, business owners, and residents of communities along Mariner's Mile are troubled and highly apprehensive about 2510 West Coast Highway. This proposed project is (1) taking away protected views, (2) not addressing safety concerns as demonstrated by the number of serious accidents, and (3) endangering the children going to and from school, junior guards, and other activities. The intersection of Avon, Tustin, and Oceanview is extremely hazardous and simply cannot support a high-density project. Clearly, three low-income apartments, should not supersede public views from our city parks. These have been cherished by all since the 1900s and should be protected for generations to come. Mariner's Mile is at a Crossroad: Will the City Council sustain the character, charm, and Newport style development by assuring Mariner's Mile becomes a "Village" or will our community's foundational core values be eroded by high density development that is out of character and not in harmony with the surrounding villages on Newport Bay? Opportunity: What would it take for the city to promote marine oriented businesses and appropriate Newport style designs in order for Mariner's Mile to become a friendly village and a gathering place which fosters the flow of pedestrians and bicyclists? This consideration should have priority over the suggested expansion of the highway that would increase the speed and flow of traffic. Planning Commission: On February 18, 2021, during the hearing for 2510 West Coast highway, the Planning Commission recognized the need for a Mariner's Mile Master Plan. Orange County Rete ister Recommendations: • A decision on 2510 West Coast Highway be postponed until the aggregate of all property development proposals including road safety, road widening, and infrastructure projects are pulled together and evaluated before a single project is approved. • A Mariners' Mile Steering Committee be created that is composed of stakeholders to shape the future of Mariner's Mile as a Newport style "Village" (City, CalTrans, Property Owners, Local Merchants, and Residents). • The City Council, Planning Commission, and City Staff assure that the proposed use of 2510 West Coast Highway and all Mariner's Mile property development projects be Newport style "Village" designs in harmony with our community's character, community norms, and core values without adversely impacting the surrounding area. Your neighbor, Patrick Gormley Former President Bayshores Community Association Page 2 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:22 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 PCH Project Attachments: Pictures.pdf From: Sue Leal <sue@specceramics.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 10:17 AM To: Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; nblom@newportbeachca.go; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 PCH Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Why would the City of Newport Beach approve a project, such as the 2510 PCH, when they could promote the "Village Center" vision (as described in the General Plan) that would generate considerably more property tax and sales tax revenues for the City? The Newport Heights and surrounding area neighbors are all very concerned about the future of our community. If the 2510 PCH project were approved, it would set a very undesirable and dangerous precedence for our neighborhood! 1. WE WANT CERTIFIED STORY POLES! We do NOT want our views obstructed from John Wayne Park! We believe considerable views from John Wayne Park would be obstructed by this project, which is against the Coastal Commission as well as all neighbors and thousands of visitors. The applicant continues to represent that views would not be obstructed; yet he also refuses to build certified story poles to prove his assertion. 2. We want the "VILLAGE" feel as described in the General Plan! The proposed project has no "village" feel. A "village" feel would coordinate with the architecturally suitable Lido Village and newest project at Riverside and PCH. We are all in favor of this "village" feel and the tax revenue it would provide for the City. 3. WE WANT AN IN-DEPTH TRAFFIC STUDY: The applicant's attorney, Sean, wrote that the project apartments would utilize Avon as the primary entrance. Avon is one of a dangerous five -way stop! In addition, Avon is only 23 feet wide; way too narrow to be considered an "emergency" entrance/exit, much less a residential main entrance! 4. Tustin Avenue and Ocean View are the closest streets to Avon! They are both RESIDENTIAL streets, are already narrow one-way streets with two-way traffic and NO sidewalks. Instead of Riverside Drive (a non-residential street from PCH to Cliff), Tustin (a residential street) is used as a "shortcut" by those coming down from 17th or Irvine Avenue to PCH or up from PCH (or Avon) to all the schools, 17th Street or Irvine Avenue. Tustin is extremely dangerous to drivers, school children, pedestrians, skate boarders, bicyclist and the dozens of students that use it as their workout hill. Adding any new residential traffic to Tustin would be a license to kill innocent people! 5. The proposed project provides 1 parking space per bedroom unit. Where are the spouses/guests supposed to park? On Tustin or Ocean View? All the restaurant and Horn Blower employees already park on Tustin and Ocean View. There are NO more parking spaces available. 1 6. The proposed 2510 project includes open, unprotected underground parking, perfect for vagrants to gather and increase crime potential. It just doesn't make any common sense to embrace all these negative impacts to gain 3 low-income apartment units! There are plenty of areas for low-income housing that will not impact ocean views or pedestrian/vehicle danger (i.e. Coyote land fill area). Again, here's what the Newport Heights residents want: Protection of current public views of the bay and ocean views from John Wayne Park. New projects with a "village" feel that promotes pedestrian activity, inviting shopping for residents and PCH visitors, and adequate parking for all. NO "expansion" of PCH! Instead, how about adding one middle EMERGENCY lane for fire trucks and ambulances to get to/from Hoag, and a bicycle lane on each side. This promotes the "village" feel, designs our streets for safe and slow traffic, and maintains acceptable fire/emergency protection and traffic flow. Again, the proposed 2510 PCH project would set a very undesirable and dangerous precedence for our neighborhood. Please DO NOT allow one rich family to ruin our neighborhood. Continue to build upon the "village" feel throughout Newport Beach. Respectfully, Susan E. Leal 219 Tustin Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 714-231-4660 sue(b)soecceramics.com s. if I !I 1. fall I'II�`� I 1g�1��^I Au.i ''t I,I! .ili(,t�11 Illy�l� I��II�I�� rlt(l I r4 d'f'1 d f- flty�;ll` I IrifNll I� I�lis�l 41 § Ir l; � I I II, � ttrll II T 4 �'lr �,r� 1 7: tol 'h I.j ltl- 'ItX'`r I,,I_4�(�I y:i� I lll�f-fi�li lalrll}SII[ �� II' Ij+P��.!.a Ilj I�,i'lll I1 sllll� 'I I n !I I Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 PCH project From: Susan Skinner <susanskinner949@gmai1.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 11:00 AM To: Dept - City Council <CitvCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: 2510 PCH project Regarding 2510 PCH project: As you see below, Will questioned my concern that the project would not count towards the RHNA numbers. It appears that they would not if approved now, as I interpret this statement posted on the SCAG website: "SCAG is in the process of developing the 6th cycle RHNA ailocation plan which will cover the planning period October 2021 through October 2029. It is planned for adoption by SCAG in October 2020." 1 am certainly not the content expert on this, but defer to those who are. However, if it doesn't count, why in the world would we approve it now? Susan Skinner ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov> Date: Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 7:45 AM Subject: Re: 2510 PCH project To: Susan Skinner <susanskinner949@gmail.com> Thanks Susan. Why don't you think that these would count toward RHNA? Will O'Neill Newport Beach City Council Visit www .newportbeochco.govIcovial 9 to see our City's response to the coronavirus pandemic. Please sign up for City updates. From: Susan Skinner <susanskinner949@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 9:44 PM To: Dept - City Council <CitvCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 PCH project Dear City Council, Please do not approve the proposed project at 2510 PCH in its current state. It is too high, too large and too intrusive for its location and should be denied. There is a development that will work in this location but this isn't it. If we are going to get hit with RHNA numbers, why in the world would we approve anything that doesn't count toward RHNA? If this project is delayed, it will count toward the RHNA numbers, although should still be downsized. Please think of the residents before accommodating the developers. Thank you, Susan Skinner Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Just Say No - Keep Newport Unique/Beautiful - No High Rise Development/ Miracle Mile Area From: Jon B. Patton < of nbpatton@Kmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 20213:17 PM To: Dept - City Council <Cit)Council@newportb>; p anningcommission@n ewportbeach_cagov Subject: Just Say No - Keep Newport Unique/Beautiful - No High Rise Development / Miracle Mile Area Dear Council Members and Planning Commission First off, thank you for your hard work. I realize how much work goes into what you do. I was born and raised in Newport Beach and have been a longtime resident. I went to the local schools here and am starting my own family here. I hope this letter is not just skimmed and "counted" by staff. I am very concerned about high rise development in the Miracle Mile area, specifically the proposed large apartment complex. After college I made the mistake of living in Los Angeles for many years in a number of areas with high rise development. What I realized: there's no place like home and there is no place like Newport Beach. The reason? While Newport has surely morphed into a larger, world class community since I was a kid, we still have been able to keep our, mostly, low-rise, beach community atmosphere. We have been able to keep traffic down. We have been able to hang on to expansive views from most angles of the City and we have been able to keep our City beautiful with tasteful, unhurried development projects and continued proper zoning. Please consider this: low rise, well thought out, beautiful development is key. It really is one of the many reasons that makes Newport Beach different. There are plenty of cities around us that have morphed into versions of Los Angeles with their groupings of high rise development. It's not only ugly it causes congestion. Newport will always be a City that welcomes development and we will always need housing. Do you want this City to resemble certain neighboring cities, or worse, Miami Beach? I do not. Do you want our PCH, specifically the Miracle Mile area, to become more overcrowded? I do not care what traffic study you have in your hand --- a building like the one proposed for Miracle Mile -- will make an impact. And after this one, the next few that will be easier to approve because you've already done one --- will be even more impactful. Please listen to the residents and not just the developers because they will help quickly increase tax revenue. Newport has something special and we all need to work together to protect it. I realize the urge to sign on to something like this is strong. But I urge all of you to continue to work on developments which will blend well with our beautiful City. Thank you for considering what I've said above and I ask that you not approve high rise development in the Miracle Mile area. Kind Regards, Jon B. Patton 301 North Star Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 310-702-6949 cell Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:21 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 PCH From: Linda Heller <Isueheller@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 20218:45 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 PCH [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We love going to John Wayne Park and seeing the beautiful views. Please don't take that away from us. Let's not damage the views with this HUGE building. Linda Heller Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:20 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 PCH project - Mariners Mile -----Original Message ----- From: Janet Reuter <janet@3thirty3nb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 20215:22 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 PCH project - Mariners Mile [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a resident of Newport Heights I constantly enjoy our very own Cliff Drive Park. It is a spectacular unobstructed spot to view beautiful Newport Beach. During this Covid pandemic it has been discovered by more and more local residents and even out of the area people I have met who bring beach chairs along with their lunch and dinner to enjoy. We are all aware of development coming to Mariners Mile and just would like it to be positive and enhance the feeling of this stretch of Newport to create another "Lido Village" type area for walking, shopping and dining with low level buildings. The apartment project with a car dealership does not seem in keeping with this ideal and not only that it would block our precious view from Cliff Drive Park that has been used by so many of the PUBLIC in this pandemic year and it will continue to be a very popular park from now on. I respectfully request that the council think long and hard on the overall development of this area and the importance of the PUBLIC'S RIGHT to use the park and enjoy this unobstructed wonderful view of the bay, ocean and Newport Beach. This project is not right for Mariners Mile. Janet Reuter 549 Irvine Ave Newport Beach Sent from my iPad 2 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:19 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Mariners Mile -----Original Message ----- From: Kathe Choate <choateoncliff@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 20211:16 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mariners Mile [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the NPB city council: I have written to the council before on this subject and I haven't changed my opinion about what a terrible, life changing decision it would be to allow this development to go forward as it is currently proposed. There simply must be more study, including LOCAL input, in order to enhance this part of our jewel of a city. If you allow this project to go forward what comes next will be just as bad or worse in the proposed development of Mariners Mile. Apartments and car dealerships will not encourage foot traffic particularly with traffic speeding by at 50, 60 miles an hour. Sidewalks should be widened, traffic slowed down and PCH should be reduced to two lanes in each direction to make room for cars to park. Just because this land is owned by developers doesn't mean they should not have responsibility to develop a pleasing project. One that doesn't adversely affect our neighborhoods. These developers have made very little effort to engage local input and I'm not sure how our city representatives have participated in the decision making process. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS PROJECT TOGO FORWARD WITHOUT FURTHER STUDY. It's not all about the bottom line. We are trying to save our precious City. Thank you for your time. Katherine Choate 2924 Cliff Drive Newport Beach Sent from my iPhone Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:19 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Mariners Mile From: Constance Esposito <constance@dfgnewport.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 202111:40 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mariners Mile [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, The residents want to have more questions answered regarding the over building of Mariners Mile by land owners that do not have ours or the City's interest in mind. Specifically it has been brought to our attention that the owner/builder has donated large sums of money to Gavin Newsom's campaign and he is getting land favors in our City as a result of this cronyism. Please do not more forward with this project until We The People have a voice. TThank rou �onstanc 8 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:19 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Proposed 2510 PCH Apartment Project From: val-lyon@sbcglobal.net <val-lyon@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 202111:21 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Proposed 2510 PCH Apartment Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable City Council Members of Newport Beach, I am a 35+ year resident of Newport Heights. I am writing to express my concerns relative to the 2510 PCH Apartment Project. I strongly believe that there needs to be considerably more review of this project to fully assess its impact on traffic, safety, preservation of views, density, and overall quality of life for the residents of Newport Heights. I strongly urge your votes to pause this project until such time as additional meetings can be held with impacted parties and more thorough studies can be completed. Sincerely, Edward V. Lyon 427 San Bernardino Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 val-Ivon(@sbc0obal.net 949.351.4300 (m) 0 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:18 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Public Comments: 2510 West Coast Hwy -----Original Message ----- From: Siobhan Robinson <robiland@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 11:11 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Public Comments: 2510 West Coast Hwy [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach City Council, I am writing to contest the proposed development at 2510 West Coast Highway. The increased height on the structure will block "Public Views' from John Wayne Park, a view which my family has enjoyed for picnics, gatherings and boat parade events for almost forty years. I am not opposed to development in the Mariner's Mile. But the development must adhere to requirements that do not take away from public coastal views and limit access to these few viewing spots in the Newport Heights community. Thank you for your time and consideration in protecting this precious asset located at John Wayne Park! Regards, Siobhan Robinson Sent from my iPhone 10 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:18 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Save Miracle Mile - no high rise develeopments - Save our Beach Town From: William Patton <pattoncars@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 202110:58 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCounciI@new portbeachca.gov> Subject: Save Miracle Mile - no high rise develeopments - Save our Beach Town [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members My wife, Melinda, and I are 50+ year Newport Beach residents. Our parents spent a great deal of time in Newport Beach since the early 1900s. Our four children were born at Hoag Hospital and attended local schools. We do not want our beach community "flavor" to deteriorate into sterility any further. While multi story housing is the darling of the development community and cities greedy for increased property tax revenue to communities, our city has something few others can claim. We are still a beach town, certainly more sophisticated than most, but please do not bow to financial considerations and turn our town into Miami Beach! I urge you to vote against the proposed apartment development and leave it to small businesses to repopulate Miracle Mile and maintain the ambiance of our beach town. Thank you for your consideration. William "Bill" Patton 301 North Star Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 714-321-0000 cell 11 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:18 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: STOP 2510 PCH Apartment project - Mariner's Mile construction project. From: gregory cox <gregorypierrecox@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 202110:28 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: STOP 2510 PCH Apartment project - Mariner's Mile construction project. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I wholeheartedly oppose the construction of 2510 PCH Apartment project. Please stop this from being approved immediately. Regards, Gregory Pierre Cox 404 Goldenrod Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92615 12 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:17 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Mariner's Mile From: Pat Makris <pmak@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 10:26 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mariner's Mile [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I, like many thousands of other citizens of this sterling community, are against this project at Mariner's mile. Not only views, parking, relative lower traffic and some safety issues will decrease, but it changes terribly the "harbor feel" of this section of the city and the historical feel that the area has. Would much rather see the city convince an investor to keep the openness and "harbor related" businesses or entertainment (restaurants, classy bars, etc...) option for this area. Just my 2 cents but I feel fervent about it. We already have the ugliest building in Newport Beach sitting at 3121 PCH in Newport Towers, it is flat out BUTT UGLY, we don't need any other monolithic up buildings in this area ... or for that matter our town. Pat Makris 630-660-4099 13 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:15 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Re 2510 Pacific Coast Highway From: Mike Smith <mike.cdm@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, April 23, 20215:34 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Re 2510 Pacific Coast Highway [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 4/23/2021 City Council City of Newport Beach Dear Council Members, I have lived in this city for most of my 88 years and watched development generally stay in line with voters feelings about how Newport should grow and how it should look. That time seems to be ending. The three story apartment complex being considered for 2510 Pacific Coast Highway appears destined to make the promoters (and I understand, two members of City Council) a sizable profit while nearby residents, whose views are cheapened end up with an out of place three-story apartment house in their view line. I understand that this project is being moved through channels with little or no opportunity for serious discussion. This whole project smells bad. STOP IT. Michael C Smith 1807 Bayadere Terrace Corona del Mar Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:09 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 WEST COAST HWY MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2019-249 From: ttaw50@aol.com <ttaw50@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 20217:00 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: 2510 WEST COAST HWY MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2019-249 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I want to express several concerns I have regarding the height variance being requested by the developer underneath John Wayne Park. This project will result in significant traffic and safety impacts.. The project view will impact from West Coast Hwy, John Wayne Park and Newport Bay. The project does not blend with the community The project will negatively impact the marine industry The project should undergo environmental review!! The community needs time to understand the effect this and 'other' planned projects will have on the Mariner's Mile. Sincerely, Teri Watson Newport Beach Resident Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: I oppose 2510 PCH -----Original Message ----- From: Milda Goodman <teammilda@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 20217:41 AM To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: I oppose 2510 PCH [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am a resident at 310 Aliso Avenue and I have lived in Newport Beach for 23 years. I am opposed to the 2510 PCH project and want to be sure my voice is heard. Thank you. Milda Goodman 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20217:16 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 PCH Project - City Council Hearing - Tuesday, April 27th @ 6:30 PM Attachments: 2510CC427.pdf From: Protect Mariner's Mile <protectmarinersmile@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 202110:11 AM Subject: 2510 PCH Project - City Council Hearing - Tuesday, April 27th @ 6:30 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The Coalition To Protect Mariner's Mile �'ec"h kRs�"�r:.' �racrt.^7 any P Gry Our `vrn C >.Li _3 rl f i •i -P CK, ac P -1ICh 'y-r.el 4!_r;i i1 Ve.h .l' Y'<a t!.. `A.9r:rrPo SdJr N ^q G wJl v. c i:. J:n k -ny. mC-'�. tSl•'.'1"I; .. ^r C3::. 'hF :,.S'e�y r.';1•'crf^.l r�.h qCC rf•ntiCi "':�ha:'.rr Cry. :t��Y. 7r-;eM r^r^-L,S^. C. -.y P'ar^!rV h a tliNttl r Iccert' a omn,r rbr ncchrgs x arswcr c_r `^,s i _rtc c.jb ri ,Yc rrcd a: row `^ sar ov ._[rnm,;r.--y !rcm h �n 7cnsrt; revcy;�.rcr y. 'Yu•; i;. -F�'irti! :" :p rpra ar,:ye•„+.7 pn: crts alci g V;rPer i k! Lt .e recd ,-L 'o call :nd n-�-c :hc'iv, C�,_-c I ar.:cll :hcr-n :C.:kw tr!s ar:c-ss eowr 71: :Ic: rr:%v `,:.7 '...I 49� '..! •,iari-•.•,•r %1:A- trnnl 'W4 f. �, et' � ..9 t.!r,.. v'.li- Apri! 27111, The 2510 PCH Apartment Project goes before the. City Council at 6.30 PM " CoundI Chambers re .: 'ril i?v i��f; G'. �i't-.`i: LS tiles .,ry COi, �p,?, , 'f rl4 _ tl';:T, Please send to. .li.'„i.-J lJ ter '-i is ti•��7 .7 �', t,p !��,;,i)'. Be aw is a before and after artists simuOudon_ BEAUTIFUL VIEWS GONE FOREVER Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 5:21 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Project proposed at 2510 W. Pacific Coast Hwy From: Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates.com> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 5:20:33 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Project proposed at 2510 W. Pacific Coast Hwy [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APR 27TH SESSION, AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. Mayor and Council Members: We understand that you are considering approval of a project to be developed at 2510 W. Pacific Coast Hwy. The purpose of this letter is to voice our opposition to the proposed project to be developed at 2510 W. Pacific Coast Hwy. We request that the Council listen to its constituents, and deny approval of the project in its current form. The proposed development exceeds the established height limit. It will take away the view of the bay—a view enjoyed by the residents and visitors. It is over -intensified and has poor parking and ingress,egress solution. This will contribute to traffic obstruction and safety issues along problematic in the Mariners Mile stretch of PCH. The project includes a "sports car showroom"--- another potential contributor to this stretch of PCH being noisy,and attracting unsafe car -racing that the City has already acknowledged as an issue. We recognize that redevelopment of this stretch is timely. However,the City has for the past 5 or more years ignored residents' requests for a thoughtful, proactive approach to land use and traffic planning along the Mariners Mile stretch. Instead, it is deliberately allowing what is effectively spot -zoning and over -intensification including a hodge-podge of uses. This is rapidly becoming an unattractive, unsafe stretch of development overcoming views and preventing good flow of traffic. It is time for a legitimate, Specific Plan with the proper public participation—before it is too late. Thank you for your consideration. Denys H. Oberman Resident and Community Stakeholder Please disregard the Confidentiality Notice below. Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Norman Beres & Colleen Rafferty 5 Park Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 April 23, 2021 TO: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach SUBJECT: Proposed 2510 West Coast Highway Multi Use Project We have been residents and property owners in Newport Heights since 1996 and have valued the quiet and safe environment of Mariners Mile and Newport Heights. During the past several years our environment has degraded significantly with additional high-speed traffic and frequent accidents on West Coast Highway, as well as the associated side streets of Tustin, Ocean View, Riverside Drive, Riverside Ave., Cliff Drive and Irvine Ave. We are very disappointed in the lack of planning and the lack of interest and concern from the Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission which has promoted this uncontrolled growth. The city of Newport Beach has failed to work with the local community to control building development and to develop a long-range development plan which provides for the safety and quiet enjoyment of our neighborhoods for its local citizens and children. A prime example of the City's lack of interest is the Planning Commission's approval of the 2510 Multi Use Residential Project and showroom on West Coast Highway. This 35 -foot high, 35 -unit apartment complex and car dealership project exceeds the height zoning limits by 10 feet. Not only does this project non -conform to the city's height variance but also failed to provide: - the required traffic studies, - the required safety studies, - adequate parking for the 35 units, - story poles to see how our public views from John Wayne Park will be affected All of the above are normally required by the City of Newport Beach for building projects and development in the area. These were conveniently avoided by the developer, by promising 3 low-income apartments within the 35 units, using the State of California loopholes/incentives to avoid the normal building studies and regulations that affect our local neighborhoods. The City of Newport Beach, as well as other cities have been strongarmed by the State of California and Sacramento to provide for an unreasonable number of low-income housing units. There are ample areas for low-income housing building sites available, away from the established multi-million dollar residential and busy commercial areas such as Mariners Mile. I doubt that Sacramento can dictate new zoning laws to individual cities. The City Councils should begin to stand up to the State's arbitrary and frivolous demands and legislation passed in Sacramento. It is time that the local cities of California file class action suits against the arbitrary and ill-conceived legislation that has been passed by the State. No one is against a well thought out and attractive development plan for commercial businesses in Newport Beach. However, the subject 2510 Project falls severely short of a thoughtful project. If this project is approved and the follow-on residential projects are approved, Avon alley will become a major thoroughfare and a shortcut through Newport Heights to reach the businesses on 17th street. This will increase traffic and decrease safety on all of the West Coast highway feeder streets, where our neighborhood's children walk and play; these include: Tustin, Avon, Ocean View, Riverside Drive, Riverside Ave., Cliff Drive and Irvine Ave. We sincerely hope that the City Council rejects the approval of the 2510 Project which would set a terrible precedent for development of Mariners Mile. The citizens of Newport Beach are willing to work with the City to develop projects that are an amicable addition to our community and that represent the quality of life that we have come to expect from our previous years in Newport Beach. Sincerely, Norman Beres & Colleen Rafferty Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 April 23, 2021 Mayor Avery and Members of the City Council. Subject: 2510 West Coast Highway Mixed Use Project (PA2019-249). • CEQA Class 32 exemption. • Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-062, • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-051. • Major Site Development Review No. SD2019-003, Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2020-013 Mayor Avery, I and a number of residents want to provide the following information for the City Council for its consideration on the project. 1. I and a number of residents sought clarity on the requirement of the City's Local Coastal Program from the Coastal Commission staff. Specifically, we asked the Coastal Commission staff if protection of coastal views was absolute, or if as the City Staff is interpreting the LCP, protection of coastal views is to the extent feasible. We contacted the Mr. Zach Rehm, District Supervisor. Senior Planner. Mr. Rehm is the City's contact person and is familiar with the 2510 WCH Mixed Use Project. 1 asked the following: Is the intent of the Coastal Act: A. to protect and enhance coastal views and that development protect scenic and visual qualities where feasible, or B. to protect and enhance coastal views and that development protect scenic and visual qualities." Mr. Rehm provided the following response below in an email to me dated Nlarch 17.202 1. "Coastal Act 30251 requires as follov\-s: The scenic and visual qualities ofcoastal areas shall he considered and protected as a resource Of' public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect view s to and alon`a the ocean and scenic coastal areas. to minimize the alteration of natural land forms. to he visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas. and_ where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highh, scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government ,hall he subordinate to the character of its settin(). Some LCPs contain caveats like "where feasible". some LCPs don't. you'll need to review the specific policies of the Newport Beach [_CP so see what's applicable to the development you are interested in." Da% id Canner [ asc I of i dace a carsi.com Per Mr. Rehm's recommendation, we reviewed the City LCP. The City LCP contains the following language: 21.10.020 Purpose. The purposes of the Implementation Plan are to: G. To ensure that any development in the coastal zone preserves and enhances coastal resources, protects and enhances coastal views and access: and ensure that growth. development, and environmental management is conducted a manner consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Land tse Plan. (Ord. 2016-19 § 9 (Exh. A)(,part). 2016)" "21.30.100 Scenic and Visual Quality Protection, A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to ensure that development shall be sited and designed to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. including public views to and along the ocean. bay. and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas." The City's LCP is clear and as stated above, the purpose is to ensure that "development shall be designed to protect and. where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone_ including public views to and along the ocean Therefore, City Staff is miss -interpreting the LCP in its recommendation for approval of the Coastal Development Permit which acknowledges the Project will impact coastal views. We understand Coastal Commission staff has told City Staff additional project design changes are required to maintain public views to achieve Project consistency with LCP. This means the project as currently proposed is not consistent with the LCP. Because the 2510 West Coast Highway Mixed Use Project impacts coastal views. the Project fails to protect scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas and is therefore, inconsistent with the LCP. The LCP is a component of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project is also inconsistent with the City Municipal Code. If the Project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code, the Project does not qualify for a Class 32 C: EQA exemption. If the Project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code, the Project does not qualify for a Conditional Use Permit. If the Project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code. the Project does not qualify for a • Major Site Development Review'. If the Project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code and/or LCP. the Project is not subject to the Housing Accountability Act. David banner Page 2 of i day e a earsixom 2. I and a number of residents sought clarity from the Coastal Commission on whether the City's decision on the proposed Coastal Development Permit is appealable to the Coastal Commission. City Staff has said it is not appealable. We reached out to the Coastal Commission Mapping Unit and received the following response: "our mapping staff referred to the key on the Post Cert Nlap that you attached, which indicates that the light -,reen line is based on the appeal provision within 300 feet of the mean high tide line. which in the case of Newport Bay is the bulkhead. Measuring 300 feet inland of the bulkhead may :o a bit beyond the highw-av in some areas, but I am not sure whether it extends to the proposed development and our mapping staff did not want to speculate." We had two independent sources measure the distance from the bulkhead to the property line. Both independent measurements concluded a portion of the property falls within 300 feet of the bulkhead making the City Coastal Development Permit decision appealable to the Coastal Commission. We recommend the City Council require a precise measurement and include this measurement in the project's Resolution. should the Council vote to approve the project. We object to City Staff making a determination without this measurement. Staff s determination has influenced public opinion. Staff is telling the public Staff/the City is in control and there is nothing the public can do to alter this project! 3. I and a number of residents sought clarification from City Staff on the Project's consistency with the applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program. Staff (Mathew Schneider) was asked via email for the evidence in support of the Findings for the Coastal Development Permit. This evidence is required as part of the Coastal Development Permit application. Mr. Schneider provided the list of the information submitted with the Coastal Development Permit application. The list did not contain the required information (see below). Mr. Schneider was asked, who made the LCP consistency determination contained in the Staff report. Mr. Schneider's response was Staff. Mr. Schneider was asked for the names of the specific individuals. Mr. Schneider's answer was Staff. Mr. Schneider was asked for the written consistency determination. Mr. Schneider's response was to refer to the Staff report/Resolution. The project planning application fails to provide required information for the Coastal Development Permit. Specifically. Section 21.52.015 (C) (Coastal Development Permits) of the Municipal Code states: "1t is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence in support of the undines required by subsection (F) of this section (Findings and Decision)." Subsection (F) Findings and Decision: "I -he review authority mai approve or conditionally approve a coastal development permit application. only after first Finding that the proposed development: 1. Conforms to all applicable sections ofthe certified Local Coastal Program: DaNid Tanner Pagc 3 oC5 day e a carsi.com Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act if the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone." The public has asked Staff for the analysis which demonstrates project consistency with all applicable LCP Policies and development standards. Something required by the Coastal Development Permit application. Staff has not provided this information to the public because it does not exist! Without this information the City does not have factual and/or legal support for the City's decision that the project is consistent or inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the certified Local Coastal Program. This is a requirement to reach the Findings required for approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The project application should have been deemed incomplete by the Director. This is one of many written concerns I previously submitted to the City. My prior written comments are incorporated herein by reference. The City Council has the authority to deny the application, or perhaps pursuant to Section 21.50.050 (Initial Application Review) (A)(5) (Submittal of .Additional Information) to: --(a.) During the course of the review process. the reviewauthority may require the applicant to submit additional information or revised plans." City Staff and the Planning Commission were each asked to obtain visual impact analysis using story poles showing the whole of the building and a visual impact analysis from Newport Bay inland to the project. Staff and the Planning Commission failed to require this. To potentially avoid an appeal to the Coastal Commission, we recommend the City Council first seek guidance from the Coastal Commission should it wish to consider approval of the Project to ensure the City Council has the required information to support the required Finding that the project conforms to all appropriate sections of the certified LCP required for approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The City Council should realize that to approve the Coastal Development Permit the City must approve the required Findings of consistency with the Local Coastal Program. The City Staff and Planning Commission's conclusion that the development is consistent with the provisions of the LCP is not adequately supported by documents in the record file or the City's findings as stated in Local CDP No. CD2019-062. This includes environmental analysis of the project consistent with the LCP which exceed the requirements of the California Environmental Quality_ Act. Coastal Commission Staff has made this clear to the City previously when it stated in writing: "1t should also be noted that CEQA policies are not the standard of review" Taken in context, Coastal Commission Staff is saving CEQA policies are not the standard of review for a Coastal Development Permit (the entitlement within their jurisdiction). Citv Staff made its recommendation to the decision-making body, the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved Staffs recommended Resolution which contained Findings required for the Coastal Development Permit. Following the Planning Commission approval, Coastal Commission Staff told City Staff additional project design changes are required to maintain public David Canner Paee F ol'? da,,e a earsixom views to achieve Project consistency with LCP. According to the Coastal Commission Staff, City Staff and the Planning Commission both got it wrong! Recommendations The City Council find based on inconsistencies with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program, the project Conditional Use Permit. Major Site Development Review and Coastal Development Permit application be denied on their face. There is no need to comply with CEQA. • CEQA Class 32 exemption: Deny the CEQA Class 32 Exemption. Find that the project is not exempt from CEQA because the project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code/Local Coastal Program. • Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-062: Deny the Coastal Development Permit. Find that the project as presented fails to protect coastal views and is therefore. inconsistent with the Local Coastal Program. • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-05=4: Deny the Conditional Use Permit. Find that the project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code/Local Coastal Program. • Major Site Development Review: Deny the Major Site Development Review. Find that the project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code/Local Coastal Program. • Tentative Parcel Map: Tentatively Approve the Tentative Parcel Map: Instruct Staff to prepare an updated Resolution and return the matter to the City Council for final action. Welcome the Applicant to try again with a new design or alternative use that is consistent with the policies and development standards of the General Plan. Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program. Encourage the applicant if he chooses to do so. to meet with the public to hear and address public safety concerns in any future project application. It is now up to the City Council to "protect, maintain, enhance and restore the overall qualit,, of the coastal /one environment and its natural and artificial resources" pursuant to the privilege granted to the City by the California Coastal Commission. The residents would not like to see this privilege revoked. Uaai l I anncr Paan 5 of day e a carsi.com Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: City Council Members - Objection to PCH Apartment Project From: Lynda Lane <lynda@lyndalane.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 1:46 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: City Council Members - Objection to PCH Apartment Project City Council Members, I strong object to the proposed project on PCH for the following reasons, which is hard to believe it has moved forward this far. TraffiC: Traffic along PCH is already a major issue and as I am sure you know, today cars take a short cut up Dover to Cliff Drive to miss the dense traffic o PCH. This project will force more cars to this alternate route which goes directly by our middle school as well as parks where children play. Cliff Drive is also where children walk and ride their bikes to school. Cars that take this alternate route are speeding which is very dangerous in this residential area. As you know we already have a dangerous situation with speed racing on PCH and Cliff Drive. Now you add another exotic car dealership that allows potential buyers to take a drive in these vehicles with the intent to see how they perform at fast speeds in our neighborhoods and along PCH. Density Issues: With 35 residential units which may have 3 to 4 people living in each unity will cause stress on an already overburdened area. Did you plan for an additional 100 vehicles every day going and coming. That does not also take in to consideration visitors that come to see the residents in those units. There is not enough infrastructure to support this many people. Our local Parks: There are two very small parks on Cliff Drive that residents use and bring their children. Will this overburden these parks and create dangerous situations. During the Pandemic, these parks are already overcrowded. I really thought it was the City Council's job to protect our community and create an environment where the residents can enjoy what Newport Beach is about and they can raise their children and feel safe in their community. I have lived on Cliff Drive for 38 years and love our community. I do not believe this project is in the best interest of your residents and I am disappointed that this project hasn't already been denied. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD WHICH IS THE RIGHT THING FOR YOUR CITY. Lynda Lane Lynda@LyndaLane.com 949-466-2020 2708 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20218:47 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 West Coast Hwy will not work on Mariners Mile. Please decline. From: Theresa Golden <theresagoldenl@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20218:45 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 West Coast Hwy will not work on Mariners Mile. Please decline. [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members, I am so saddened at the thought of taking away the marine feel of Mariners Mile. It's such a landmark for all visitors as well as locals to enjoy. Newport Beach attracts so many due to locations such as this. Please don't destroy what beauty is left on our seaside coast. The proposed 2510 West Coast Hwy project would be dumping a building that is too tall, inadequate parking, major traffic issues and cause world renowned view would be gone forever. Why dump it there? We already have grid lock. Please keep our coast for all to enjoy and place this project where tourists and locals from our county and others don't flock to. Do the right thing. Sincerely, Theresa Golden Newport Beach Resident Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 10:26 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Public Comments: 2510 West Coast Hwy -----Original Message ----- From: Brett Robinson <bprobins@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 10:24 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Public Comments: 2510 West Coast Hwy [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. While I think that redevelopment of Mariners mile can be great for our city, I think this project does not fit the spirit of what we should be going for. We need more walkability and slower traffic speeds along pch, not more traffic lanes. Parking requirements should be adhered to absent a compelling reason to allow less parking especially since this application calls for removal of parking along PCH. the height variance request should be denied since it would block views from the public park above this proposed project. Further, any council members who have accepted donations from any interested parties have a clear conflict of interest and should recuse themselves from this project. Brett Robinson Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 10:01 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Public Comments: 2510 West Coast Hwy From: Michael Stewart <skip711@pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 10:00 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Public Comments: 2510 West Coast Hwy [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I have been a Sea Scout and working with the program for over 50 years and am against the 3 story residential program on mariners mile. Mike Stewart Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20218:37 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: NB development From: Vicki Ronaldson <v.ronaldson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20218:36 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NB development [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear NB City Council Members, Please complete the general plan amendments before approving any further projects. To repeat, no further development approval before general plan is completed. Thank you for your service. Sincerely, Vicki Ronaldson 506 San Bernadino Avenue Newport Beach 92663 vicki 949-933-2332c 1 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021833 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: NB development From: Don Ronaldson <sallybeardog@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20218:32 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCounciI@new port beachca.gov> Subject: NB development [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, Esteemed Council Members! We thank you for your gift of service to the community of Newport Beach and respectfully request that you complete the general plan amendments before approve any further projects. To repeat, no further development approval before general plan is completed. Thank you. Don Ronaldson 506 San Bernadino Avenue Newport Beach 92663 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 11:05 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Protect Mariners Mile From: Judy Elmore <elmorej@elmoretoyota.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 202111:08 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Protect Mariners Mile [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a homeowner in Newport Heights I want the city take a honest look at the plans for Mariners Mile. Once the views are gone they will only continue to overbuild in both density and height. Please keep something for the future of our lovely beach and ocean views so that our children and their children can have some of what we have today. Once the building is done there is no way to remove it. I think the residents should have a say in our future. Judy Elmore 2914 Cliff Drive Newport Beach Ca. Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 10:59 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 Project From: john tuttle <htutt@msn.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 10:58 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: 2510 Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Begin forwarded message: From: john tuttle <htutt(a)-msn.com> Subject: 2510 Project Date: April 25, 2021 at 8:09:42 PM PDT To: citycouncil(a)-newportbeach.gov Council members, I am objecting to the approval of this project with out the local reviews and control the city has always had over similar projects in the past in the surrounding areas. The city developed with a set of standards and codes and now the state bureaucrats are excluding us from making our own decisions. Not to have a traffic study in a crowded area with so many units does not make sense. No height poles for everyone to understand where the building will really be? I saw building superimposed pictures that defiantly showed view blockage form the park. That building blocks the near area of the bay, where the park views the Christmas Boat Parade. So why allow a variance for height? Most all developers know don't go in asking for variances if you want to get approved, yet they are getting one for the thing that affects neighbors and visitors the most. Why are they getting this and what did they give up in return? I don't think it was more open space with that many units. My property is only two lots off Avon and right behind the subject, so I am familiar with area traffic, and park views and standards that we had to go through to build. Sincerely, Howard Tuttle 4 Park Place Newport Beach 1a Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Public Comments re Mariner's Mile Project - 2510 West Coast Hwy - John Wayne Park From: Lisa Ackley <lisaackl�a!sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 1:31:27 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncilCcpnewQortbeachca_gov>; City Clerk's Office <CitXClerk.bnewportbeachcagov> Cc: Lisa Ackley <lisaackk ,9 sbcglobal.net> Subject: Public Comments re Mariner's Mile Project - 2510 West Coast Hwy - John Wayne Park Dear Council Members, Living in Newport Beach most of my life, I have a deep appreciation for the many wonderful things that set Newport apart and make it a great place to live or visit. One of those is free access to the amazing ocean and sunset views from public parks. The Pandemic highlighted how important John Wayne and similar parks are. Even more people gather at JWP to meet, picnic, relax, and watch the sunset. The sunset views are spectacular from that park. It is well located to provide access to many visitors. That you are considering a project that would impede the views from JWP is heartbreaking. I urge you to do everything you can to protect JWP and the few remaining similar parks so that everyone can enjoy them. Please vote against any project that would obstruct views and/or diminish valuable park assets. Parks are there for everyone to enjoy. Allowing variances and buildings to take away from the public's enjoyment only hurts the majority of residents and visitors and benefits those who can afford to live in view properties or develop same. As you consider the 2510 West Coast Hwy project and/or any similar ones, I urge you to visit JWP on multiple occasions to really understand the impact of your decision and who you will be hurting. How can you make a decision that affects so many without sharing their experience? Think of how many weddings, family gatherings, important moments, joyful and relaxing times are shared at these parks, that will never be as great if you take away the best part of the park, the beautiful view. It is the main reason people go to that park. Please vote against any impediment to the public's enjoyment of JWP's fantastic view and resources. Please also take these comments into account as you consider our General Plan and the Draft Housing Element. Thank you for your dedication to our City and all of the valuable time you spend making this a better place to live and visit for everyone. Best regards, Lisa Ackley Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:42 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Re Mariners' Mile Expansion -----Original Message ----- From: Lynn Lorenz <lynnierlo@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 202112:39 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Re Mariners' Mile Expansion [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: Mayor Avery and City Council Members: One of the most important issues before Newport Residents right now is that of the Revitalization Plan of Mariners' Mile and the widening of Pacific Coast Highway along that area to six lanes. First of all, nothing should be done right now before solving the city's traffic problems which have been increasing greatly in the last five years. Mariners' Mile is a hot topic ( seething) because MM which encompasses about 1.3 miles, is considered by most residents of Newport Beach as the traditional center of the city with its nautical structures, public ocean views and its proximity to Newport Bay. As a result of this unique location, the revitalization project under consideration would not only greatly affect the c locals » who live in the Heights, Cliffhaven, Bayshores and Lido Isle areas, but all of Newport Beach as well. Are there areas of Mariners' Mile that would benefit from a revitalization effort? Most decidedly so. But most importantly any changes to this area should only come with input from the homeowners and business owners who reside there, particularly those most directly affected. A majority of the people directly affected as well as Newport Beach residents in general, no doubt feel like the development in question would have a negative impact on traffic, driver and pedestrian safety, public and private views, and the overall personality of Newport Beach. We do not need any more monolithic, view shattering, and physically obtrusive developments so close to the water. Please consider your decisions individually and carefully as to whether you want on your conscience a development that is so unpopular with residents and one that will affect the beauty of Newport Beach. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Lorenz 434 Redlands Ave Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Sent from my iPad Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 202111:30 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: {proposal for Mariners Mile -----Original Message ----- From: Elaine Linhoff <elinhoffSSS@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 202111:30 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: (proposal for Mariners Mile [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and members of the City Council, You should postpone approval of the housing project on Mariners Mile until you get more public input and re -think this project. This project would set a precedent for the rest of the area, and it is too dense and too tall, and not enough parking is provided. And if you are going to approve this project as it stands, then all of the units should be affordable to help satisfy the unmet demands for affordable housing in the city. Elaine Linhoff 1760 E. Ocean Blvd Newport Bech CA 92661 2 Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 1:59 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 West Coast Hwy - Fix PCH congestion first! From: Chris Budnik <clbudnik2003@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 1:56 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 West Coast Hwy - Fix PCH congestion first! [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, With regards to any proposed development on Mariners Mile, please fix the congestion on this critical stretch of PCH first before approving anything. For more than four decades the city has been pressured by a small vocal group of people who own property backing PCH. It started with an attempt to reroute PCH up Dover Drive and across East 16th Street. When Costa Mesa stopped that effort, city staff was continuously pressured to make incremental changes that restrict the capacity and flow rate on Mariners Mile. The idea that restricting traffic flow on Mariner's mile somehow "protects" the residential neighborhoods to the north is technically flawed due to the unique geography of this area. The residential neighborhoods north of Mariner's Mile sit on a peninsula, surrounded by water on three sides including the back bay, the harbor and the Santa Ana wash. There are a three main access points to this peninsula including the bridges at Dover Drive and the Santa Ana wash and the 55 Fwy. PCH Mariners Mile forms a critical connection with all 3 access points via Newport Blvd. When Mariners Mile is congested, traffic avoids PCH and Newport Blvd as well. The result is regional traffic raining down on residential streets from Cliff Drive north to 19th Street and Dover Drive west to Orange Avenue. This problem continues to worsen as navigation apps constantly route drivers to avoid congestion by sending them through the residential neighborhoods. The affects of restricting traffic flow on Mariners Mile have been negative in several ways. First, Mariners Mile has been an underperforming commercial district for decades. Many businesses fail to draw enough customers to survive much less thrive. Secondly, residential streets north of Mariner's Mile are often unsafe because regional traffic that should use PCH and Newport Blvd floods residential neighborhoods. This strategy of shifting traffic off PCH Mariners Mile is likely a contributing factor in the recent fatal accident at the intersection of East 16th and Irvine Avenue. One of reasons that intersection is so congested is due to traffic trying to avoid Mariners Mile and using Irvine Avenue as an alternate to Newport Blvd. Finally, these neighborhoods have schools that already generate plenty of traffic. Adding regional traffic to the residential streets near schools does not improve safety. Mariners Mile should have increased to 6 lanes twenty years ago based on all the development in Huntington Beach and from Fashion Island to Newport Coast. Even without any new development in Mariners Mile, it may already need to be 8 lanes. The concept of traffic calming on PCH is one of the most dangerous ideas I've heard in quite a while. Can you imagine residents in Irvine living adjacent to the 405 Fwy pressuring their city council to "calm" traffic on the 405? Imagine what would happen to traffic on adjacent residential streets if they actually did that! PCH Mariners Mile is a state highway intended to carry regional traffic just like the 405 Fwy, albeit at lower speeds. To summarize, approving new Mariners Mile development without increasing PCH capacity risks the safety of the residential areas to the north. To approve new development while simultaneously "calming" traffic on Mariners Mile could be considered reckless disregard for public safety. Please work with Caltrans to increase capacity on this state highway asap and add more capacity than will be needed for new Mariners Mile development. Let's get PCH and Newport Blvd traffic back where it belongs, off the residential streets to the north and away from the schools! Sincerely, Christopher Budnik Newport Heights Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 20212:26 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 W PCH Project From: charlene murphy <murphy.charlene@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20212:26 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 W PCH Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As Newport Beach residents we are strongly opposed to this ill-conceived project. It will set a precedent with regard to the first mixed-use project along Mariner's Mile. The project incorporates a 35 -foot high "monolithic structure" that includes low-income housing and an elaborate car dealership - all of which will generate unnecessary traffic and negatively impact our neighborhoods. This project does not benefit and does harm to the surrounding Newport Beach communities of Bayshores, Lido Island, Newport Heights and Cliff Haven. If the project passes - it will forever be a gross disfigurement along our beautiful bay. Rick & Charlene Murphy 2552 Vista Dr Received After Agenda Printed April 26, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:58 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Mariners Mile From: Margee Drews <mdrewsdesign@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20212:57 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mariners Mile [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a home owners in the Heights,we oppose the plan as stated. Please stand up for us and do not allow such density of low income housing. Karl and Margee Drews Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Monday, April 26, 20214:47 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Public Comment 2510 W Coast Highway ... 4/27/2021 6:30PM Public Hearing Attachments: PCH_Traffic_Flow_Improvement_1983.pdf From: Jimmy Thomas <jpc12@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20214:45:52 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Public Comment 2510 W Coast Highway ... 4/27/2021 6:30PM Public Hearing [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. After reading a recent letter in Stu News regarding the project at 2510 W. Coast Highway, I am submitting a comment to the Newport Beach City Council. I am troubled by the ProtectMarinersMile proposal to turn Mariners Mile into a Newport style "village". --- Background In the 80s and 90s, Coast Highway, which is a state highway, had travel lanes added from MacArthur Blvd west to the Huntington Beach border, with the exception of the Mariners Mile section. This left the community with a traffic chokepoint between Newport Blvd and Dover Drive since Mariners Mile was left with too few travel lanes. The chokepoint is responsible for large volumes of regional traffic using CliffHaven and Newport Heights residential streets as a Mariners Mile bypass. For example, when travelling to the 55, many vehicles use residential streets instead of congested Mariners Mile. Some of the more impacted streets include Cliff Drive, 15`h Street, Clay Street, Tustin Ave, Irvine Ave, Kings Place, and Signal. In addition, the large volume of aggressive regional traffic using narrow residential streets adjacent to multiple schools threatens the safety of 4000 students. Recently, NMUSD moved to protect Ensign Students from regional traffic with the construction of a Cliff Drive drop off zone. --- Residents Expect 6 Mariners Mile Travel Lanes For years, we've patiently waited for this mess to be resolved once Mariners Mile is restriped to carry 6 lanes of regional traffic as planned. In fact, in 1983, Newport Beach city staff produced an EIR that concluded there is enough existing right away in Mariners Mile for 6 travel lanes without confiscating land from Mariners Mile property owners. The concept that Mariners Mile needs to be physically widened in order to carry six through travel lanes is false. By giving up a handful of street parking spots, a low cost restripe of Mariners Mile would greatly reduce regional traffic in our neighborhoods and protect our students. I would think the Coastal Commission would agree with that. Furthermore, new state level VMT regulations reward traffic circulation systems for reduced parking. A copy of this 1983 EIR is attached. A group of residents organized under ProtectMarinersMile effort wants to intensify the current chokepoint with a Mariners Mile Newport village concept. This would cause even larger volumes of regional traffic to travel our residential streets. Worse, we have noticed many residents are misinformed and do not understand that: #1. A Mariners Mile village would cause a dramatic jump of regional traffic on CliffHaven and Newport Heights residential streets as well as worsening an already precarious student safety problem; 1 #2. Restriping Mariners Mile to 6 lanes would greatly reduce regional traffic moving through OhfHavenand Newport Heights residential streets. —Summary Some residents point tmtraffic generated bythe 251Oproject asdangerous toour students. However, this is small potatoes relative to the current danger our students face from the existing Mariners Mile traffic chokepoint, or to the elevated danger from the village concept. |fthe City ofNewport Beach continues toobstruct 6travel lanes onCoast Highway, orworse, moves ahead with a Mariners Mile village, the winners will be a handful of people with residential property backing or near Coast Highway. The losers will be thousands of residents and thousands of students just to the north of Mariners Mile. Regardless ofwhat happens with 2S1O inthe fairness ofall residents and students, | urge the city torestripeMariners Mile to 6trave| lanes and abandon plans to physically widen Mariners Mile by confiscating land from Mariners Mile business owners. This plan isoutlined inthe attached BRfrom the early 8Os. Unfortunately, COVID has created a roadblock for a door to door petition effort to get the word out. VVeare planning to circulate a petition asking for a 6trave| lane restripe in Mariners Mile once [OV|D dears. Thank You ]imKoduba 97- ieport Number: FKTA-CA-EIS-83-01-D s bbbb U30 113674 SCH Number: 80121179 07 -Ora -1 Pacific Coast Highway Improvement Project 'roposed Improvement of Traffic Flow along Pacific Coast Highway (Route I) rom MacArthur Boulevard (Route 73) to Newport Boulevard (Route 55), City of lewport Beach, Orange County, California DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration and STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation and CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I iron X11 i r a � L g ax1 1111 Pursuant to: (State) Division 13, Public Resources Code; (Federal) 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), 23 U.S.C. 128(a) Comments on this document are due by April 15 1983 and should be sent to K. 0. Steele, Department of Transportation, Environmental Planning, 120 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. -Da�G���.,� TRAN �� p BVJ�A N0LAN Director of Public Works City of Newport Beach t r� JA '�!� rJIA-000* ANNKLE h of -4 Division of Transportation Pla California Department of Transportation BRUCE�E. CAhNON FHWA Division Administrator TRANSPORTATION LIBRARY APP 2 5 1993 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERS11Y Digitized by Go 081 TRAN +-Ru,,u a ueitAKY T i957. R C." � Ns-sc tz) C ii PREFACE The City of Newport Beach has requested construction of a road improve- ment project for Pacific Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard (SR -73) to Newport Boulevard (SR -55). The City of Newport Beach has made the request because existing traffic congestion as well as traffic volumes associated with expected local and regional growth require an improved arterial facility. The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) is circulating this draft Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with State and Federal environ- mental regulations. C. iii ABSTRACT Improvements to Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) from MacArthur Boulevard (SR -13) to Newport Boulevard (SR -55) are proposed to provide and facilitate improved vehicular circulation along Pacific Coast Highway; to improve travel speeds; to reduce the traffic accident rate; to provide improved facilities for public transportation and alternative modes of travel; and to implement a portion of the planned circulation system of the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange. Three alternatives are considered: Alternative A - Roadway Modification, Alternative B - Increased Transit Service, and Alternative C - No Project. Possible beneficial impacts of the project include decreased congestion, increased travel speeds, and reduced traffic accident rates. A possible sig- nificant adverse impact associated with the project is residential (mobile homes) displacement, which impact would be partially mitigated by relocation assistance. The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning the proposal and Environmental Impact Statement: K. D. Steele Department of Transportation Environmental Planning 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 620-5335 A. J. Gallardo Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 1915 Sacramento, California 95809 (916) 440-2804 t iv S"AR Y Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement �X) Draft ( ) Final ) Section 4(f) Statement Attached PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT The project is needed because Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) within Newport Beach is currently experiencing substantial traffic congestion, insufficient capacity, and high traffic accident rates. These conditions are expected to worsen significantly by 1985 and 1995. The purposes of the project are: 1) to provide and facilitate improved vehicular circulation along Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) in the City of Newport Beach for existing transportation demands, and planned residential, commer- cial, and industrial development which is either under construc- tion or approved for development pursuant to the City of Newport Beach General Plan: z) to improve travel speeds and reduce traffic accident rates along Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1); 3) to provide improved facilities for public transportation and alternative modes of travel (i.e., bus, bicycle, pedestrian); and 4) to implement a portion of the planned circulation system of the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange. LOCATION The proposed project route involves a 3.6 -mile stretch of State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) within the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The project route is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard (SR -73) and Newport Boulevard (SR -55). The project area is about 24 miles southeast of the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor complex and about 70 miles northwest of San Diego. The recently completed seven -lane Newport Bay Bridge constructed by CalTrans connects the two principle segments of the project area. ALTERNATIVES There are three basic project alternatives under consideration: Alterna- tive A - Roadway Modification, Alternative B - Improved Transit Service, and v Alternative C - No Project. All of these alternatives are under consideration and a specific preferred alternative will be selected following the environ- mental/design review and public review process. Alternative A proposes to substantially improve traffic flow and travel speeds, increase roadway capacity, and reduce accidents by widening the exist- ing roadway facility to its ultimate planned width from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive, and by adding travel lanes within the existing right-of-way from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard. This alternative would fully implement the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange Circulation Elements for the section from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive. It would also provide for increased bike lane facilities from MacArthur Boulevard to Sayside Drive. The alternative would improve the ability to provide fast and reliable bus service along the project route by reducing congestion and increasing travel speeds. The Alternative A proposal between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard would add roadway capacity within the existing right-of-way. The City antici- pates extensive redevelopment of the properties on the northerly side of Pacific Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard. All new development on the northerly side is being required to dedicate 12 feet of right-of-way. It is probable that the multiple parcels between Dover Drive and Rocky Point will be combined into two or three parcels and developed at one time. The ultimate roadway cross-section (112- foot right-of-way width) would be constructed by this redevelopment. While this portion of the alter- native does not provide the same level of improvements to traffic service as the portion to be widened between MacArthur Boulevard and Bayside Drive, it is considered an improvement over existing conditions and an interim measure until the road can be widened through adjacent redevelopment. Alternative B would propose expansion of existing bus service along Pacific Coast Highway. Alternative C would mean that neither Alternative A nor B would occur to meet the proposed needs of the project. Environmental Consequences. Table A provides a summary comparison of the environmental consequences of the three alternatives. As shown, a few significant adverse impacts which are not completely mitigated are associated with the alternatives under consideration. The only significant adverse impact associated with Alternative A is the potential disruption of mobile home residents and their community by displacement of from 3 mobile homes (under design alternative A-6) to 22 mobile homes (under design alternative A-5). This is partially mitigated by the relocation assistance which will be available. The significant adverse impacts associated with Alternatives B and C are related to circulation in that they do not meet the identified needs of the project area. This will cause congestion, continued high traffic accident rates, and insufficient road capacity. The project is consistent with the adopted City Master Plan Circulation Element and the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways which are r1L7IP It$1Glo TABLE A COMPARISON OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE vi Alternative A, Alternative B, Roadway Increased Alternative C, Modification Transit Service No Project Geo Iogylsoi1s None None None Hydrology None None None Water quality None None None Biotic resources None None None Cultural resources None None None Land Use Non None None Socio -economics Yes?, None None partially mitigated Visual and aesthetic resources None None None Circulation None Yes2 Yes3 Acoustics None None None Air.quality Hone None None Public utilities None done None Energy None None None 15ee discussion on Pages 125-131. 2See discussion on Wages 150-152. 3See discussion on Page 153. vii designed to accommodate approved General Plan land uses within the City and anticipated regional growth. The project is not expected to induce further growth. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION All responsible agencies and interested parties have been contacted in writing regarding the project through Notices of Preparation, Notices of Intent, or informational notices. Two public meetings were held in December 1980 in the City of Newport Beach to present the conceptual project and receive public input on specific environmental concerns. The City of Newport Beach Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee, Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee, and Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee will review this project. Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are being requested from the individuals, organizations, and responsible agencies listed on Pages 180-183. The Draft EIS and all technical appendices are available from the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, P.Q. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92660-3884, (714) 640-2281, and Cal Trans District 7, 120 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, (213) 620-3935. A public hearing will be held during the public review period for the Draft EIS at the City of Newport Beach City Council Chambers to receive com- ments on the Draft EIS and the proposed project.. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE.................................................................. ii ABSTRACT................................................................. iii SUMMARY.................................................... I............. iv PURPOSE AMC NEED FOR THE PROJECT ......................................... 1 ALTERNATIVES............................................................. 10 Introduction........................................................ 10 Location............................................................ 10 Alternatives Under Consideration ........................ 10 Other Alternatives Withdrawn from Consideration ..................... 17 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT..................................................... 51 Description of Local and Regional Land Uses and Transportation Improvements Relating to This Project 52 Geology and Soils ................................................... 60 Hydrology......................................................... 63 Water Quality .... ................................................... 63 Biotic Resources..................................................... 64 CulturalResources .................................................. 64 LandUse............................................................ 66 Socio -Economic Considerations ....................................... 66 Visual and Aesthetic Environment .................................... 68 Circulation......................................................... 68 Acoustics.......................................................... 97 AirQuality.......................................I .............. 104 Public Utilities .................................................... 112 Energy.............................................................. 112 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................... 114 Geologyand Soils ................................................... 115 Hydrology........................................................ 117 WaterQuality....................................................... 119 BioticResources .................................................... 120 CulturalResources .................................................. 122 LandUse ............................................................ 123 Socio -Economics ..................................................... 125 Visual and Aesthetic Resources ...................................... 131 Circulation......................................................... 133 Acoustics........................................................... 154 AirQuality........................................................ 165 Public Utilities .................................................... 174 Energy.............................................................. 174 Diatbeun t�, C 00 !L ix THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY................................................... 177 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES .................. 178 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS .................................................. 179 PUBLIC COORDINATION ................................. I.................... 180 PREPARERS OF THE REPORT .................................................. 181 DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST .............................................. 182 CORRESPONDENCE........................................................... 186 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................. 196 INDEX.................................................................... 198 APPENDICES Appendix A - Geotechnical Report Appendix B - Biotic Resources Survey Appendix C - Acoustics Study Appendix D - Air Quality Analysis (February 1982) Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Study (April 1982) Appendix E - Energy Study Appendix F - Technical Appendix, Traffic and Transportation Support Data (separate volume on file with City of Newport Beach Public Works Department) (All Appendices are available for review from the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department and CalTrans' [District 7] Environmental Planning Branch.) LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure I - Regional Location ..................................... 3 Figure 2 - Local and Regional Circulation ......................... 5 Figure 3 - Project Vicinity ....................................... 11 Figure 4a - Design Alternative A-1: Widening ....................... 19 Figure 4b - Design Alternative A-1 ........ ... .. ... .......... 20 Figure 4c - Typical Cross -Sections Design Alternative A-1 .......... 21 Figure 4d - Design Alternative A -I Intersection Detail/One-way Couplet........................ ....................... 22 Figure 4e - Design Alternative A-1 Intersection Detail/Without One -Way Couplet .............. ... ... .... 23 Figure 5a - Design Alternative A-2: Widening (Existing Profile).... 24 Figure 5b - Design Alternative A-2 ............................... 25 Figure 5c - Design Alternative A-2 Intersection Detail ............. 26 Figure 6a - Design Alternative A-3: Widening (Lowered Profile) ..... 27 Figure fib - Design Alternative A-3 ................................. 28 Figure 6c - Design Alternative A-3 Intersection Detail ............. 29 Figure 6d - Design Alternative A-3 Construction Phasing .......... 30 Figure 6e - Design Alternative A-3 Construction Phasing with Bypass................................................. 31 Figure 7a - Design Alternative A-4: Grade Separation ............... 32 Figure 7b - Design Alternative A-4 ................................. 33 Figure 7c - Design Alternative A-4 Construction Phasing ............ 34 Figure 8a - Design Alternative A-5: Widening, Northern Alignment ... 35 Figure 8b - Design Alternative A-5 ................................. 36 Figure 8c - Typical Cross -Section, Design Alternative A-5 .......... 37 Figure 8d - Design Alternative A-5 Intersection Detail ............. 38 Figure 9a - Design Alternative A-6: Widening, Southern Alignment ... 39 Figure 9b - Design Alternative A-6 ................................. 40 Figure 9c - Typical Cross -Sections Design Alternative A-6 .......... 41 Figure 9d - Intersection Detail Design Alternative A-6 ............ 42 Figure 10a - Design Alternative A-7: Addition of Travel Lanes at Signalized Intersections ............................ 43 Figure 10b - Typical Cross -Sections Design Alternative A-7 .......... 44 Figure 10c - Design Alternative A-7: Proposed Parking Restrictions .. 46 Figure 11a - Design Alternative A-8: Addition of Travel Lanes Within Right -of -Way. ... .., .. ............ 47 Figure 11b - Design Alternative A-8: Typical Cross -Sections ......... 48 Figure 11c - Design Alternative A-8: Proposed Parking Restrictions .. 50 Figure 12 - Existing Land Use ...................................... 53 Figure 13 - Projects Assumed for Development by 1986 ............... 57 Figure 14 - Committed Road Improvements ............................ 58 Figure 15 - Master Plan of Arterial Highways ....................... 78 Figure 16 - Newport Beach Circulation Element ...................... 79 Figure 17 - Existing Traffic Volumes ............................... 80 Figure 18 - Typical Hourly Weekday Demand .......................... 83 Figure 19 - Typical Daily Travel Demand ............................ 85 Figure 20 - Comparison of Peak -Hour Volumes ........................ 88 xi Figure 21 - Existing Bus Routes .................................... 90 Figure 22 - 1986 and 1995 Traffic Volumes .......................... 93 Figure 23 - Irvine Terrace Noise Exposure .......................... 99 Figure 24 - Promontory Point Noise Exposure ........................ 100 Figure 25 - Existing 67 Leg & 65 CNEL Noise Contours - Selected Table E - Present and Future Transit ServiceFrequency ........... Locations.............................................. Table 101 Figure 26 - Existing 67 Leq & 65 CNEL Noise Contours -Selected - Committed Intersection Improvements Along Pacific Locations .... ....... .. ............................ 102 Figure 27 - Wind direction Frequency Distributions ................. 105 Figure 28 - Mobile Home Park Impacts - Design Alternative A-5 ...... 127 Figure 29 - Mobile Home Park Impacts - Design Alternative A-6 ...... 130 Figure 30 - 1986 67 Le alternative and 67 CNEL Noise Contours - Irvine Terrace - A vs. No Project ................. 155 Figure 31 - 1995 67 Leq and 67 CNEL Noise Contours - Irvine L - Accident Rates ......................................... 89 Terrace - Rlternative A vs. No Project ................. 156 Figure 32 - 1986 67 Leq and 65 CNEL Noise Contours - Design 92 Table 0 Alternative A-5 vs. No Project ......................... 158 Figure 33 - 1995 67 Leq and 65 CNEL Noise Contours - Design P - Intersection Capacity Utilization Summary - Existing, Alternative A-5 vs. No Project ......................... 159 Figure 34 - 1986 67 Leq and 65 CNEL Noise Contours - Design Alternative A-6 vs. No Project ......................... 160 Figure 35 - 1995 67 Leq and 65 CNEL Noise Contours - Design Alternative A-6 vs. No Project ......................... 161 TABLES Table A - Comparison of Significant Adverse Impacts After ` 4L f Mitigation .............................................. vi Table B - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Summary - NoProject .............................................. 6 Table C - Intersection Levu of Service Definitions .............. 7 Table D - Accident Rates ..... ....... ..... ..................... 8 Table E - Present and Future Transit ServiceFrequency ........... 16 Table F - Future Projects Assumed Completed by 1986 .............. 55 Table G - Committed Intersection Improvements Along Pacific Coast Highway Assumed in Place by 1986 ................. 59 Table H - De Anza Bayside Village Resident Survey Responses ...... 67 Table I - Dates and Locations of Existing Traffic Counts ....... 81 Table J - Intersection Capacity Utilization Summary - Existing Conditions� .... ... ........................ 82 Table K - Comparison Between Peak -Month Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and Annual ADT, Pacific Coast Highway West of Jamboree Road .......................................... 87 Table L - Accident Rates ......................................... 89 Table M - Bus Service Frequency .................................. 91 Table N - 1986 Traffic volumes Related to Committed Projects ..... 92 Table 0 - Summary of 1986 and 1995 Traffic Volume Forecasts for Pacific Coast Highway ........................ ..... .... 94 Table P - Intersection Capacity Utilization Summary - Existing, 1986, and 1995 ......................................... 95 ` 4L f xii Table Q - Intersection Lane Configurations - Existing, 1986, 111 Table W and1995 ............................................... 96 Table R - dumber of Residential Structures Impacted by Existing 113 Table X Noise................................................. 103 Table S - Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................... 107 Table T - Clubhouse Drive Air Quality Monitoring Summary ......... 109 Table U - Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Summary, February -April 1982 110 ti VIcIl';r.1rXl o e (1979) ................................................. 111 Table W - Annual Summary of Clean Air Standards Violations - Costa Mesa Air Quality Monitoring Station .............. 113 Table X - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Summary ........ 135 Table Y - Summary of Expected Accidents Along Pacific Coast Highway.............................................. 136 Table Z - Projected Travel Speeds on Pacific Coast Highway ....... 137 Table AA - Parking Inventory, Pacific Coast Highway - Dover Drive to !Newport Boulevard ................................... 145 Table BS - Number of 0n -Street Parking Spaces Removed by Alterna- tive A (Design Alternative A-7) ........................ 145 Table CC - Summary of Parking Meter Use on Pacific Coast Highway Between Newport Boulevard and Rocky Point .............. 148 Table DO - Number of On -Street Parking Spaces Removed by Alternative A (Design Alternative A-8) .................. 149 Table EE - Effect of Increased Transit Ridership on Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes ........... ., ... .......... .. ..... ....... 151 Table FF - Alternative B Intersection Capacity Utilization ........ 152 Table GG - Sound Pressure Levels for Construction Equipment ....... 163 Table HH - Emissions Per Average Vehicle (Grams) an Pacific .. ......... .... ......... Coast Highway .......... � 166 Table II - Comparison of Future Emission Levels With 1981 Emissions... .. ...... . . ... .. ... . ........... .. .... 167 Table 3a - Alternative A vs. No -Project Air Pollution Benefit (penalty)....... .. ... .. ................. 168 Table KK - 8 -Hour CO Concentrations (ppm) Adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway ......... ..................170 Table LL - Maximum Hourly and 8-Hour�CO Concentrations at Two Selected Locations .................................171 Table MM - Peak -Hour Air Pollutant Emissions Along Pacific Coast Highway Area of Impact - No Project vs. Alternative B .. 173 Table NN - Comparison of Energy Consumption ....................... 176 ti VIcIl';r.1rXl o e PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT The purposes of the proposed project are: 1) to provide and facilitate improved vehicular circulation along Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) in the City of Newort Beach for existing transportation demands, and planned residential, commer- cial, and industrial development which is either under construc- tion or approved for development pursuant to the City of Newport Beach General Plan; 2 ) to improve travel speeds and reduce traffic accident rates along Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1); 3) to provide improved facilities for public transportation and alternative modes of travel (i.e., bus, bicycle, pedestrian); and 4) to implement a portion of the planned circulation system of the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange. The project is needed because Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) is currently experiencing substantial traffic congestion, insufficient capacity, and high traffic accident rates. Normal regional growth in accordance with the Gener- al Plans of Orange County, Newport Beach, and neighboring cities will increase the traffic demands on Pacific Coast Highway. Recreational traffic demands are also expected to increase. Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) is a regional arterial highway that provides a critical link in the circulation system within Orange County and the City of Newport Beach. It also parallels the Coastline, providing regional access through the community as well as regional access to the community and coastal opportunities. The proposed project involves a 3.6 mile stretch of State Route 1 (Pacif- ic Coast Highway) within the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, Califor- nia, and is some 24 miles southeast of the Los Angeles -Long Beach Harbor com- plex and approximately 70 miles northwest of San Diego. More specifically, the project limits are bounded by MacArthur Boulevard (SR -73) and Newport Boulevard (SR -55). Pacific Coast Highway directly serves several large residential areas, a large office/retail center currently employing an estimated 11,725 persons, numerous small business and restaurants along its route, and provides access to recreational areas such as Balboa Island, Newport. Bay State. Ecological Reserve, Corona del Mar State Beach, Balboa Peninsula, and Crystal Cove State Park. The adopted Master Plan Circulation Element for the City of Newport Beach classifies Pacific Coast Highway as a major arterial (six lanes divided) west- erly of Route 73 (MacArthur Boulevard). The County of Orange Master Plan of UVJ ItP&_ clod 2 Arterial Highways also classifies Pacific Coast Highway as a major arterial route at six lanes westerly of Route 73. The proposed alternatives for widen- ing are consistent with both City and County Master Plans as well as the Regional Transportation Plan. The existing facility for the major portion within the project limit is a four -lane conventional highway with a combination of painted and raised medi- ans with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in some areas and unimproved shoulders in other areas. Between Bayside drive and Dover Drive a seven -lane bridge facility (six through lanes, one westbound right -turn lane) with sidewalks and bike lanes adjacent to the vehicle traffic lanes was completed in April 1982. From Rocky Point westerly to Newport Boulevard (SR 55), a distance of 0.5 miles, there are three westbound and two eastbound travel lanes. Curbside parking is presently allowed in most areas between Jamboree Road and Newport Boulevard (SR 55). The existing right-of-way between MacArthur Boulevard (SR 73) and Jamboree Road varies from 127 feet to 148.5 feet and is IDD feet between Jamboree Road and Newport Boulevard (SR 55) except in the area of the newly constructed Upper Newport Bay Bridge. Easterly (down coast) of MacArthur Boulevard (SR 73), Pacific Coast High- way is a fully -improved conventional four -lane highway with raised medians, curb and gutter, and sidewalk within a 100 -foot right-of-way. Westerly (up coast) of Newport Boulevard (SR 55), to the Santa Ana River, Pacific Coast Highway is a conventional four -lane highway fully improved along the ocean side and with unimproved shoulders along the inland side. Portions of SR -1 within the project area are located in the Coastal Zone. The Orange County Transit District operates seven bus lines that provide service along portions of Pacific Coast Highway. Specifically, bus Route I provides continuous service along the project route, and bus Routes 57 and 55 serve the majority of the project route. Bus service provides a valuable mode of travel, transporting both recreational visitors and commuters to and from Newport Beach. The importance of Pacific Coast Highway for both regional and local transportation demands is apparent upon examination of its location and rela- tionship to the surrounding circulation system. Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) provides a continuous major roadway through Orange County which parallels the coastline. The nearest parallel facility which provides a continuous route serving the regional needs of the area is I-405/1-5 (Figure 1). The distance between Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) and I-40511-5 varies from four to eight miles throughout the majority of the county. I-405 is about eight miles inland from Pacific Coast Highway within the project vicinity. Between the communities of Costa Mesa and Dana Point (a distance of 20 miles), there are only five major roadways connecting with I -4051I-5. Within this coastal area there are in excess of 250,000 residents. As a result of these circulation characteristics in the area, Pacific Coast Highway is the only reasonable route for a large number of people wishing to travel between the coastal com- 3 1 Regional Location La Los Angeles Co. LSan Bernardino Co 87 f Riverside Co. f rs5 Cleveland 4ko , National Forest Protect '-Area 011111111111111111 2 A lMOO* Orange County 18 5 San Diego Co. munities and recreational areas. The requires at least 8 to 12 miles of destinations in the immediate coastal 4 only other alternate is 1-40511-5, which out -of -direction travel for origins and area. Within the City of Newport Beach, Upper Newport Bay provides a 3.5 -mile natural barrier to the local circulation system (Figure 2). The community is, in effect, severed by tipper and lower Newport Bay. Normally, there would be as many as seven roads tying the community together. The lack of these roads places a large burden on the roads at either end of the bay. The closest parallel route serving local circulation needs is Bristol Street/State Route 73, which is about five miles inland from Pacific Coast Highway. Traffic flow along Pacific Coast Highway currently experiences extensive delay and congestion during peak periods. Table B summarizes the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis for principal intersections along the project route. Table C provides a definition for the levels of service asso- ciated with ICUs. Four of the seven intersections currently operate at Level of Service E during peak -hour traffic flow. Table B also depicts intersection conditions for 1986 and 1995. Traffic congestion is clearly expected to wors- en to unacceptable levels. In 1986 alone, three intersections will operate at Level of Service p, three at Level of Service E, and three at Level of Service F. This analysis assumes that the roadway projects illustrated in Figure 14 and described on Pages 54-60 are constructed as planned. It did not assume implementation of the proposed project. An indication of the congested nature of the project route is the higher than expected accident rate along Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Boule- vard and MacArthur Boulevard. A traffic accident analysis was conducted for this segment of Pacific Coast Highway to compare actual accident rates with expected rates for similar types of intersections and roadway configurations. Table 0 compares the actual 1980 accident rates with expected accident rates for those intersections and roadway segments which experience higher than expected accident rates. An overall analysis shows that in the 48 -month peri- od ending December, 1980, there were 1,211 accidents along the project route. These included 5 fatalities and 441 injured persons. Of these accidents, 50% were rear -end type accidents. This high number of rear -end collisions reflects the lack of storage on intersection approaches and a mix of fast and slow traffic experiencing unexpected congestion during off-peak hours. If no improvements are made to traffic flow along Pacific Coast Highway, severe traffic congestion and safety problems will continue to occur and will increase over time. Several of the existing intersections are presently func- tioning under undesirable operating conditions. By 1986, the majority of the intersections will be operating under forced -flow conditions (ICUs greater than 1.0). The traffic capacity needs of the area would not be met and there would be an increase in severe traffic congestion, traffic accident rates, commuter inconvenience, and energy consumption. Also, if no improvements are made, implementation of the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange Circu- lation Elements will not occur for the subject portion of Pacific Coast High- way. :Ju 41(1 J i vU7oo t W 2 Local and Regional Circulation MACHh d a ` ns �1 M 68 ar 1'=approx. 1 mi. 73 GM8TCL ST. 73 K Project Area HfQIH4 low cc PAC a' _ A TABLE B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY - NO PROJECT Pacific Coast Highway Intersection at 1980(Existing) ICU2 Level of Service ICU2 19861 Levelof Service 19951 Levelo ICU2 Service Riverside Avenue 0.8969 D 0.9345 E 0.9563 E Dover drive 0.9501 E 0.8773 D 1.1313 F Bayside Drive 0.9657 E 0.9376 E 0.9772 E Jamboree Road 0.9407 E 1.1501 F 1.1094 F Back Bay Drive Extension NIA3 - 0.8594 D 0.9250 E Newport Center Drive 0.5969 AIB 0.8281 D 0.8375 0 Avocado Avenue 0.7125 C 1.0189 F NIA - wlone-way couplet NIA - 1.1532 F 1.1251 F MacArthur Boulevard 0.9644 E 1.0344 F NIA - wlone-way couplet NIA3 - 1.3126 F 1.3047 F 1See Table Q (Page 96) which provides a summary of the assumed intersection configurations for existing (1980), 1986, and 1995. The 1986 and 1995 configurations assume that the committed road projects illustrated in Figure 14 and described on Pages 54-60 are constructed as planned. 2ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization; Level of Service E (capacity) _ 1.0. 3Not applicable, future road improvement. 14woct. 3 7 TABLE C INTERSECTION LEVEL �F DEFINITIONS,SERVICE Level of Service Interpretation VIC2 A,B Uncongested operations; all vehicles 0.00-0.70 clear in a single signal cycle. C Light congestion; occasional backups on 0.71-0.80 critical approaches. 0 Significant congestion on critical 0.81-0.90 approaches, but intersection functional. Vehicles required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long standing lines formed. E Severe congestion with some long standing 0.91-1.00 lines on critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. F Total breakdown with stop -and -go operation. 1.01 lSource: Highwaz Capacity Manual, 1965. 2VOlume/Level of Service E capacity. Liailiicd Ej- i� TABLE D ACCIDENT RATESI Expected Actua12 L INTERSECTIONS Jamboree Road 1.87 0.74 0.85 Bayside Drive 0.90 0.42 0.54 ROADWAY SEGMENTS MacArthur Boulevard to Avocado Avenue 4.35 1.62 3.30 Bayside Drive to Dover Drives 6.64 1.62 3.30 Rocky Point to Riverside Avenue 5.43 1.62 3.30 Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive 2.20 1.62 3.30 1Rates for intersections are measured as accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection. Rates for roadway segments are measured as acci- dents per million vehicle miles. 21980 statistics. 3The source for the methodology used for calculating expected rates is the Los Angeles County Road Department In -Service Training Program Manual (April 11, 1978). Orange County and Newport Beach road conditions and accident characteristics were assumed to be similar to those evaluated in Los Angeles County. 4For comparison purposes, the State's TASAS expected accident rates are shown. SThese data are for conditions prior to the April 1982 completion of the Pacific Coast Highway bridge between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive. Updated actual accident rates are not yet available. C The proposed widening alternatives would have no significant impacts on the adjacent sections of Pacific Coast Highway. Corona del Mar, adjacent to the project's easterly terminus, presently experiences congestion during peak hours. Congestion will continue with or without the proposed widening project due to roadway deficiencies in Corona del Mar. Pacific Coast Highway in Coro- na del Mar is designated a Primary Road (4 -lane, divided) in the City of New- port Beach and County of Orange Master Plan of Streets and Highways. Histori- cally, the Corona del Mar community has consistently rejected any roadway wid- ening or parking restrictions easterly of MacArthur Boulevard, and thus no improvements other than improving the existing signalization are proposed in the future. At the westerly terminus, the rechannel i nation alternative would be com- patible with the existing roadway facility and would significantly reduce the existing merging conflict between Pacific Coast Highway eastbound -through traffic and north -to -eastbound Newport Boulevard traffic. Further, the pro- posed rechannel ization alternative at the westerly terminus would be compati- ble with the proposed widening of Route 1 between Route 55 and Golden west Street, and Route 55 alternatives which are currently under study with sup- porting environmental documentation. Construction of Route 1 between Route 55 and Golden West involves six miles and could begin in 1986. 10 ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION Several alternatives have been developed for consideration to evaluate their effectiveness in meeting the stated purposes of the project and in sat- isfying the identified needs demanding the project. The purposes of the pro- posed project are stated on Page I of the previous section. The following discussion provides a general description of the alterna- tives being evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement. It also briefly discusses alternatives which have been considered, but have been withdrawn from further consideration. LOCATION The proposed project involves a 3.6 -mile stretch of Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1) within the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California ( Figure 1, Page 3) . The project route is generally bounded by the intersec- tion of MacArthur Boulevard (Route 73)/Pacific Coast Highway and the intersec- tion of Newport Boulevard (Route 55)/Pacific Coast Highway (Figure 3). For purposes of discussion, the route can be divided into two geographic sections. The basic sections are: MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside drive and Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard. The first section comprises the primary project area for which FAU funding and physical roadway improvements are being considered. The second section, Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard, is included within the project area to address its traffic needs and be assured that it will not be adversely impacted by selection of an alternative for the section from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive. The section between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive is comprised of the newly completed seven -lane bridge spanning the Newport Bay. This bridge, which has been improved to ultimate conditions, was completed by CalTrans in April 1982. It provides six through lanes, a westbound right -turn land, side- walks, and bike lanes. ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION There are three basic project alternatives under consideration: Alterna- tive A - Roadway Modification, Alternative 8 - Improved Transit Service, and Alternative C - No Project. These alternatives are described below and evalu- ated within this Environmental Impact Statement. All of these alternatives are under consideration and a specific prefer- red alternative will be selected following the environmental/design review and public hearing process. 3 Vicinity Map Source: U.S.G.S. Topo Quads Newpor Do --i" ry G OOSle 12 Alternative A - Roadway Modification. General Description. Alternative A proposes to substantially improve tra is flow and travel speeds, increase roadway capacity, and reduce accidents by widening the existing roadway facility to its ultimate planned width from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive, and by adding travel lanes within the existing right-of-way from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard. This alternative would implement a portion of the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange Circulation Elements. It would also provide for increased bike lane facilities from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive. The alternative would improve the ability to provide fast and reliable bus service along the project route by reducing congestion and increasing travel speeds. The Alternative A proposal between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard would add roadway capacity within the existing right-of-way. Some congestion may still be experienced during the interim until the roadway can be widened by 12 feet to its ultimate width. The City anticipates extensive redevelop- ment of the properties on the northerly side of Pacific Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard. All new development on the northerly side is being required to dedicate 12 feet of right-of-way. It is probable that the multiple parcels between Dover Drive and Rocky Point will be combined into two or three parcels and developed at one time. The ultimate roadway cross- section [112 -foot right-of-way width] would be constructed by this redevelop- ment. while this portion of the alternative does not provide the same level of improvements to traffic service as the portion to be widened between Mac- Arthur Boulevard and Bayside Drive, it is considered an improvement over existing conditions and an interim measure until the road can be widened through adjacent redevelopment. Within the framework of Alternative A, eight design alternatives have been developed for consideration. These design alternatives are subdivided into the following roadway segments: MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road esign Alternative - ening Jamboree Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highwaz Intersection Design Alternative - i ening xis ing ra i e Design Alternative A-3: Widening (Lowered Profile) Design Alternative A-4: Grade Separation Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive Design Alternative A-5: Widening, Northern Alignment Design Alternative A-5: Widening, Southern Alignment Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard Design Altern�iv8-T: Addition of Travel Lanes At Signalized Intersections Design Alternative A-8: Addition of Travel Lanes Within Existing Right -of -Way ti L 13 Figures 4a -e, 5a -c, 6a -e, 7a -c, 8a -d, 9a -d, 10a -c, and Ila -c (Pages 19-50) provide a textual and illustrative description of these design alterna- tives. Typical widths of lanes depicted in these figures are 12 -foot through travel lanes, 10 -foot emergency parking/bicycle lanes, 5 -foot minimum bicycle lanes, 10 -foot left -turn lanes, and 8 -foot parking lanes. Selection of a design alternative for each geographic segment would result in a comprehensive improvement package designed to improve traffic conditions along Pacific Coast Highway. Fund ing. The City of Newport Beach has applied for Federal Aid Urban (FALU funds to fund the design and construction of Alternative A from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside drive. The City of Newport Beach matching funds will come from Gas Tax Fund monies. Funding sources for improvements related to the portion of Alternative A from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard have not been identified at this time. Additional Discretionary Approvals. Portions of' the project area are within the Goastai Lone asesign�by the California Coastal Commission. A coastal development permit will be required for construction within the Coast- al Zone. Cost Estimates. The following is a summary of preliminary construc- tion cost es ima es for various combinations of design alternatives A-1 through A-6. Right-of-way and relocation costs are estimated to be in the range of $1.3 to $1.8 million for design alternative A-5 and $2.1 to $2.6 mil- lion for design alternative A-6. Design Alternatives A-1, A-3, and A-5: Construction cost: $7,298,500 Construction cost with temporary construction bypass at Jambo- ree: $7,440,800 Required right-of-way: 2.54 acres Design Alternatives A-1, A-3, and A-6 Construction cost: $7,491,200 Construction cost with temporary construction bypass at Jambo- ree: $7,633,500 Required right-of-way: 2.55 acres Design Alternatives A-1, A-4, and A-5 Construction cost: $8,939,300 Required right-of-way: 5.12 acres Design Alternatives A-1, A-4, and A-6 Construction cost: $9,132,004 Required right-of-way: 5.13 acres I A;IIIIi�_- r.v C;oog1C 14 Design Alternatives A-1, A-2, and A-5 Construction cost: $6,064,800 Required right-of-way: 2.54 acres Design Alternatives A-1, A-2, and A-6 Construction cost: 56,257,500 Required right-of-way: 2.55 acres Design Alternative A-7 Construction cost: $163,000 Required right-of-way: None Design Alternative A-8 Construction cost: S190,O00 Required right-of-way: None Construction Schedule. Assuming expeditious review and approval of environmental and engineering work related to the proposal, Alternative A's construction schedule would proceed as follows: Phase I construction: MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road Begin construction Spring 1984 Complete construction Spring 1985 Phase II construction: Jamboree Road to Bayside drive Begin construction Fall 1985 Complete construction Summer 1986 Removal of parking and restriping sections of existing roadway: Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard Sumner 1986 Alternative B: Improved Transit Service. This alternative proposes expansion of existing bus service along PaciT7 Coast Highway in an attempt to reduce traffic congestion and meet the circulation needs of the area. How- ever, a bus transit system serving Newport Beach must be considered within the context of the entire range of Orange County Transit District bus services. Consequently, any bus service expansion must be consistent with OCTD standards and criteria for service expansion, patronage demand, ability to add buses to the fleet, equity of service among geographic areas, and other considerations. The following alternative description is consistent with OCTO policies and the agency's ability to expand in the future. For the year 1986, OCTO's Short -Range Transit Plan (SRTP) outlines the likely size of the bus fleet and increased service on OCTO's route along Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach. The amount of projected service increase is relatively small. Along Pacific Coast Highway west of Dover Drive, one bus in each direction would be added to bus Route 1 during peak periods. This will increase the frequency of service from one bus every half 15 hour to one bus every 20 minutes. East of Dover Drive, two buses in each direction would be added during peak hours (one bus to Route 1 and one bus to Route 45) . Service frequency would increase from one bus every half hour to one bus every 20 minutes for both lines. For the year 1995, the number of buses during the peak hour was estimated by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (SDI). This number represents potential maximum service frequency levels generally consistent with present policies and the District's financial outlook. West of Dover Drive, four buses every hour in each direction would be added between now and 1995. East of Dover Drive, six buses every hour in each direction would be added. Table E presents the pres- ent and estimated future service frequencies on the OCTD bus lines along Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach. These increases in service frequency would provide increased availability of buses and would encourage and accommodate increased patronage. However, expected growth in traffic is so considerable between existing conditions and 1986 and 1995 that the potential reduction in vehicles as a result of increas- ed bus patronage is negligible. The City of Newport Beach and County of Orange Circulation Elements would not be implemented if this alternative were the only one selected. Traffic congestion would still increase, travel speeds would be reduced, and accident rates would continue to be above standards for various roadway intersections and segments. This would, in turn, reduce the effectiveness and reliability of the bus service system. In addition, the City's bicycle circulation system would remain incomplete along Pacific Coast Highway. Funding,Cost Estimates and Right-of-WU Right-of-WRequirements. No additional right-of-way would be required as no road improvements would be necessary as part of this alternative. Cost estimates for expansion of the bus service system are not known. All costs for bus service expansion are expected to be borne by the Orange County Transit District in conformance with their adopted transit plans. Alternative C: No Project. Adoption of the no -project alternative wouldmeanthat the physical expansion and modification of Pacific Coast High- way as described in Alternative A, as well as the increased bus service described in Alternative B, would not occur. If no such improvements are made, it is expected that severe traffic congestion and high potential for traffic accidents will occur. A review of Table B (Page 6) shows that several of the existing intersections are currently operating at undesirable levels and, without improvements to Pacific Coast Highway, by 1986 the majority of the intersections will be operating at forced -flow conditions (ICUs greater than 1.0). This alternative would not implement the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange Circulation Elements. Lack of these improvements would result in the traffic/circulation needs of the area not being met (both regional and local dem ands), and an increase in congestion, inconvenience, energy use, and traffic accidents. 15 TABLE E PRESENT AND FUTURE TRANSIT EQUENCY ISolrr■I9 etfwaflra sww la. 1961 foraMp Qp1wtV TrwsIk 01a1rWI. 2Qs1a6 an Orplyw (brlty Trerlalt OINrICt+s Skprtt-lb"ge Tesmal'r Platy (311T}) ter Flecal yews 19112-1968 3411 awtIsoft of p7eelrfIaI eerler esw.law ►r/a..rey bum/ a+ Kesawr OCM policies all6 flwwefal efleak. LiMlizEd dy f 0giL rarw•Prlot frwq w y or service kor•Pwk Frpoewey of $a -vacs 19611 19"2 1s33 1"ll 19w 19933 wVfes OkOOP o n *0 IOIWW MON61W 04 MIRWPIO Number TO 4 +www bbm*w v asFrarw !Yelps Per 1pFrp- lweu per so lilies or f! -som brkw Ow som [war ow awroam &"" fpr Trwolt Lim" !mels Her bums Naw lupe mwr flumes "aw seri Now Sill" Npr Lima ale" Pwlrlc inept Hl gtwwr was h Qt Dorm OrNe 1 30 2 20 3 19 a 30 2 30 2 20 3 63 30 2 30 2 20 3 30 2 30 2 20 3 42 60 1 AO 1 30 2 60 1 60 1 60 1 Tv►sl uw of Ogrr Drive S 6 9 f 7 1 Linty viarA Pacific OWN* 11191-mp G"t a# Dmw Drive 1 30 2 20 3 19 a 30 2 30 2 20 3 435 30 2 20 3 13 a 60 I 30 2 30 2 51 10 b 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 8 10 a 69 30 2 30 2 20 3 30 2 30 2 20 3 03 60 1 60 1 10 2 so 1 60 1 60 1 7ata1 ep6t of Ow.* Drive l3 IS 19 - 12 13 15 ISolrr■I9 etfwaflra sww la. 1961 foraMp Qp1wtV TrwsIk 01a1rWI. 2Qs1a6 an Orplyw (brlty Trerlalt OINrICt+s Skprtt-lb"ge Tesmal'r Platy (311T}) ter Flecal yews 19112-1968 3411 awtIsoft of p7eelrfIaI eerler esw.law ►r/a..rey bum/ a+ Kesawr OCM policies all6 flwwefal efleak. LiMlizEd dy f 0giL 17 OTHER ALTERNATIVES WITHDRAWN Within the framework of developing alternatives for the project, addi- tional alternatives were considered for improving traffic flow along Pacific Coast Highway. These alternatives received preliminary evaluation and were withdrawn from consideration for various reasons described below. Wideninq from MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road along a Central Ali mien is alternative wou ave been a variation ot Alternative A, in which widening would have occurred along both the northern and southern edges of Pacific Coast highway. This alternative was rejected because of the severe impact it would have had on existing residences and commercial uses along the southern edge of the roadway. It would have required displacement of residences and businesses and disruption of the residential community. Widening as proposed under Alternative A would be solely along the northern edge and would not impact any permanent structures. Widening from Jamboree Road to Ba ide Drive along a Central Alignment. This a erns ive would ave been a variation of design alternatives and A-6. Widening would have occurred along both the northern and southern edges of Pacific Coast Highway. This alternative was not considered practical or desirable for several reasons. first, it would have substantially impacted both the mobile home park and the commercial establishments along the route. _D s_`i gn alternatives A-5 and A-6 attempt to minimize impacts on the commercial establishment and the mobile home park, respectively. Also, providing widen- ing on both roadway edges through the Promontory Point area would have sub- stantially impacted the slopes of Promontory Point, requiring massive earth movement and very high retaining walls without providing any circulation or geometric benefit over the design alternatives being considered. Ei ht to Ten -Lane Coastal Freewa . The Department of Transportation in the 1970S considered and evaluated in detail a proposal which would have provided an 8 to 10 -lane coastal freeway extending through Newport Beach along the Pacific Coast Highway route. This would have provided a high-capacity facility Serving regional and local needs. However, the coastal freeway was deleted from the State Freeway and Expressway System by the California State Legislature in 1972. Following deletion of the coastal freeway from the State system, related alternatives using the same right-of-way were considered. One of these was the Fifth Avenue Bypass. This proposal involved the extension of a conven- tional highway along the Fifth Avenue corridor inland from old Corona del Mar. This extension would have provided an alternative route for coastal traffic east of MacArthur Boulevard. It would not have improved traffic conditions west of MacArthur Boulevard within the project area. Because of substantial conflicting community opinion regarding the desirability of the road exten- sion, this route has never been officially adopted or approved and is not now under consideration. �JIJViII-J L • �1U%� C 18 Light Rail - HOV Lanes - Fixed Guideway. Alternatives other than vehicular modes were considered as alternatives to meet increased traffic demands along pacific Coast Highway. -The alternate modes included light rail, HOV (high -occupancy vehicle) lanes, and fixed -guideway transit. Each of these alternatives was reviewed and determined not to be practical within the con- text of the proposed project limits. Each of these alternatives requires development of regional systems and is not practical when considered as part of a minor circulation improvement project. In planning studies by CalTrans and the County of Orange (such as the Route 55 study and the Multi -Modal Transportation Study, MMTS), high -occupancy vehicle lanes and capital -inten- sive transit modes along Pacific Coast Highway are not considered. Further- more, fixed -guideway transit and commuter rail service in southeastern Orange County are considered enhancements to the transportation system rather than substitutes for the highway system. Wldenin to Ultimate Conditions between Dover Drive and Newport Boule- vard. The Gity of NewportBeach ircu a ion Element of enera an provides for a 6 -lane divided roadway to be constructed within a 112 -foot wide right-of-way section between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard. The addition- al 12 feet of widening to ultimate width is to occur on the northerly (inland) side of Pacific Coast Highway. This area is significantly different from the area being proposed for widening between Bayside Drive and MacArthur Boule- vard, which has been developed to accommodate the ultimate widening with the exception of the area near Bayside Drive. The Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard segment of Pacific Coast Highway is currently developed with older commercial uses on the inland side and is expe- riencing considerable redevelopment. Existing uses are constructed up to the present right-of-way line. The City is requiring right-of-way dedication and building setbacks on all new structures being constructed within this reach of Pacific Coast Highway. It is anticipated that most of the right-of-way and a substantial portion of the improvements can be obtained within the next five to eight years through the redevelopment process. A City or State project to widen this reach ahead of projected redevelop- ment would be disruptive to existing uses and to the redevelopment process, as well as being beyond the current funding capabilities of the City. Design alternative A-7 or A-8 should be considered as an interim improve- ment to provide added capacity at intersections until redevelopment along Pacific Coast Highway provides for widening. OHM t"i 19 4a Design Alternative A-1: Widening This alternative proposes to widen Pacific Coast Highway to a six -lane major arterial from about 200 feet easterly of MacArthur Boulevard to a point Immediately east of the Pacific Coast Highway/Jamboree Rood intersection (see abvrf). All widening Activity would occur along the rorthern (inland) edge of the misting roadway facility. No additional road widening is proposed for the southern edge of the road [aloe? existing commercial and residential areas•I (Figure 4b), The basic general CQ.poRents of design alternative A- include provision of three through Panes in each direction, on -street bicycle lances/amergancy parking, retention of the off-road bike trail along the southern edge of the project, and right and left -turn lanes at each intersection. figure 4e Illustrates typical cross-sections depicting general roadway widths and required rights-of-way at two locations within the alternative A -I Brits• There are Four major Intersections within the alternative A-1 limits ►which require special lane requireamtS. The Avocado Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway Intersection Is designed to accC+srI ate either the City of Newport Beach Cir- culation Element Mester Plan one-way Couplet configuration planned for MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue (Fig- ure 4d) or the continuation of two-way traffic on MacArthur Boulevard and the initial opening of Avocado Avenue northerly of Pacific Coast HiOrway for two -ray traffic (figure 4e). The exact timing of the one-way couplet is not know at this time, although It will definitely be constructed prior to 1945 and may tit constructed prior to 14811 In Conjunction with future development in a1,Jacent Newport Center associated with Gtiieral Plan Apandnent 9D-3. In general, the Avocado Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway intersection mould Provide three through lanes in each direction along Pacific Coaslt Highway. When the one-way couplet is haplamerted, Avocado Avenue would "lot ane right -turn lane, pee through tape. and three left -turn lane!. the intersection 0 MacArthur Boulevard at Pacific Coast Highway Is designed to provide the northbanrid component of the Avocado/Machrthtr one-way couplet (Figure 4d) or the continuation of two-way traffic on MacArthur Boulevard (Flgvre 4e). It would provide three threugh lan+S In each direction along Pacific Coast Highway with dvat left - turn lanes for eastbound traffic and an exclusive right -turn lane for westbound traffic. In the eastbound direc- tion, the three northhoxwid through lanes would be reduced to two through lanes to ,Join the two through lanes through Corona del Mar. The third through lane would be marked and signed to provide the second eastbovrd left - turn lane onto narthbotwtd MacArthur Boulevard, In the event the one-way couplet is not implemented prior to the Pacific Coast Highway project, provisions would be made to provide three through lanes In each direction through the MacArthur Boulevard intersection on Pacific Coast Highway. two southbound left -turn lanes, and dual right -turn lanes onto northbound Max Arthur Boulevard. At Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Center Drive, three through lanes In each direction will be provided. East- bound dual left -turn lanes and a westbound exclusive right -turn lame will be provided Into Newport Center. OR Hew - Wt Center, drive. two southbound }eft -tun tants and an exclusive right -turn lane will be provided. An Intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and the Back Bay Drive extension dares not presently exist. but Is antici- Pxted to be constructed prior to 1486 in conjunction with approved development in the area. This Intersection will be a 'T' intersection and wiiI orovide three through lanes in each dIrectiart along PaC11ic Coast Highway. with dual left - turn lanes for eastbovod AAd a stearate right -tun lane for westbound travel. Back Bay Drive will provide dual left -turn lanes and one right -tun lane onto Pacific Coast Highway. Two northbound through lanes will also be provided. This alternative does not impact any permanent structures. 5etection of this alternative is caepatibl,@ with design alternatives A-2, A-3, and A-4, o 4b Design Alternative 4c 2I Typical Cross-Sections Design Alternative A-1 a s � o. n e I,ir�/�,frr r y? c a J�iIMRt�T� 'slrf�t ' q Irr. =40 +�- riv' .r a n r AWCCI1 r uWrVf 7WCcr tiarwt W,'Vf yor ry lCed! �A�iidMCY I�t1'rrth'i W W � �r I+1/l�a A�1r27�N 'W" E 4./1Nd! J {I.Y!/ A rYCr►'Op�p r Cl .vr+? OR/YAW m .CvDCdGC a tri .VCT 7w SCp4. J Source: City of Newport Beach �JLIJHPL4.3 5V GY0C-)]( 4 4d Design Alternative A Digitized by GVoste 5a 24 Design Alternative A-2: Widening (Existing Profile) z� r - owl ' �� �• plo�n � a�3 5 � ,,Of 7..�-r'�'Tl1f • � . The intersection at Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway would be widened to the north (Figure 5b) so as to provide three through lanes and dual left - turn lanes in each direction in addition to a throughlright -turn lane for both eastbound and westbound travel (Figure 5c), Jamboree Road would provide two through lanes and a single left -turn lane for both directions of travel. In addition, two right -turn lanes for southbound Jamboree Road would be provided. Widening of this intersection under design alternative A-2 would not alter existing road grades along Pacific Coast Highway. However, minor adjustments to the existing grade along Jamboree Road might be necessary to assure proper design of the intersection. This alternative would displace two service sta- tions located at the corner of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway. Selection of this design alternative is compatible with design alternatives A-1, A-5, and A -b. 25 5b Design Alternative A-2 co W a Z U m U W W a ccCL N A LM C 4 lit 7 Goo- _ 1 =81 .a 13801Nvr f1, !f y J Z-1 - UL - f V co W a Z U m U W W a ccCL N A LM C 4 5c 25 Design Alternative A-2 Intersection Detail 41 6a 27 Design Alternative A-3: Widening (Lowered Profile) The intersection geometrics for this alternative are identical to those for design alternative A-2 (Figures 5b and 5c). The primary difference is that, under this design alternative, Jamboree Road would be lowered about 6-1/2 feet to improve the vertical curvature of Jamboree Road to improve sight distance at the intersection (Figures 6b and 6c). Lowering of the Jamboree Road pro- file would result in modifications to Pacific Coast Highway. This design alternative would require construction phasing and temporary traffic diversion to minimize construction impacts on traffic flow. Two alternative phasing schemes being considered are illustrated in Figures 6d and 6e. This alterna- tive lterna- tive would displace two service stations located at the corner of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway. Selection of this alternative is compatible with design alternatives A-1, A-5, and A-6. OYGooglc Lowered Profile at Intersection �' I I�• � r �• � 1 F. I 111 RIG T—DFWA —Y LINE' �rwwr•�w rw.�Ks - • _ : CURB LIN t r 4 f y�' • f � s ' i , w a �+. •--� �. � � as . w+ . ^ �... { PACIFIC I �•wnr t � 11 w'r� �Y •. `• ..a..r _. _ ! r -L --- �a�N •a���•..� I J. 1 — � 1 � � 1 -. .. ,i.�.. •i7�:i , � jam: _ ` iF Ik W t { A [ rar,� I1•., . l � I'll p u i�k.1r.-- -•. Source: Alderman, Swift, and Lewis 'i41( f�I 0-4,� �. _.i. �. `r• 4 �.■ wlil n. t� w rr PROPOSED CURD CHANGES Cr �a e w N 00 6c 29 Design Alternative A-3 Intersection Detail � _ . 1 b Nb4d y 6d Desi Alternative ® Phase 1: Lower portion of e: and construct wide, between PCH and Ba Drive. Traffic on PCH and Bayside lk ® Phase 2: Lower remaining po onto those portion Existing Source: Al ,F�6 no Scale t n Alternative ® Phase 1: Construct tempora No traffic divers Phase Z: Lower portions of use bypass. East traffic north of' narrowed portion each direction. Phase 3: Lower remaining P and Backbay Drive constructed porti to one lane each Phase 4: Remove bypass. r r r Sourd lie I t 7a 32 Design Alternative A-4: Grade Separation The Pacific Coast Highway/ Jamboree Road grade separation alternative is designed 'to provide three continuous through lanes in each direction on Pacif- ic Coast Highway, with Jamboree Road traffic carried underneath the Pacific Coast Highway travel lanes (Figure 7b). Access to and from the highway would be provided by single -lane access roads widening to two lanes at the intersec- tion with Jamboree Road. The grade separation and access roads would Create a "diamond" type grade separation -of Jamboree Road. This design alternative would require temporary diversion of traffic during construction. Figure 7c illustrates the proposed construction phasing plan. This alternative would displace two service stations located at the corner of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway. This alternative is compatible with design alterna- tives A -I, A-5, and A -b. GOOg 7b Desi n Alternative 5o 7c Design Alternative Existino Ron no scale Source 7.J4�081e Phase 1: Construct westbou Phase 2: Construct bridge Highway (PCH) tra Phase 3: Construct roadwor bridge structure. Arise and divert Phase 4: Construct eastbou PCH. Jamboree cl to the intersecti, northbound Jambor traffic use newly on PCH use overcr, and southbound Jau Existino Ron no scale Source 7.J4�081e 8a 35 Design Alternative A-5: Widening, Northern Alignment Design alternative A-5 would widen Pacific Coast Highway to six lanes along the northern edge of the roadway from a point westerly of Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive (Figure 8b). It would provide three through lanes in each direction, a raised median, and a bicycle lane/emergency parking. The width of the raised median will vary the roadway at points along the retaining walls to support the no encroachment of the road or Newport Dunes recreation area. this alternative's route. The Village mob i 1 e home park. It laundry room. so as to reduce the required overall width of route which will require slope embankments and roadway. This will ensure that there will be its supporting earthwork onto the County -owned Figure 8c illustrates two cross-sections along road will encroach into the Ile Anza Bayside s estimated to displace 22 mobile homes and a At Bayside Drive and Pacific Coast Highway, the intersection's lane configura- tions have been desioned to be compatible with the recently completed Cal - Trans' Pacific Coast Highway bridge improvement project between Dover Drive and Bayside drive. Specifically, the intersection will be improved to provide four through lanes westbound, three through lanes eastbound, and a left -turn lane, and a separate right -turn lane for each direction of travel on Pacific Coast Highway (Figure Sd). This alternative is compatible with design alter- natives A-2, A-3, or A-4. Sb Design Alternative A _ Source: Alderm' Ilustrations of Cross -Sections C and D i I DgNzed hey Goon 1e 8C 37 Typical Cross -Section, Design Alternative A-5 C LO JFa s r 4W a• rs/or P►rcrAI ,voprrrarar Source: Alderman, Swift, and Lewis l.. 1110 - Jv GIOk-) IC �' �M��•riY'r' /!!�'f,(1G Gri►l�il•CrC►' R7��r.tla OIMF z •Q b lr' sib' � '-•�' ?e' lr' D ❑rt � ,fir /Ir%.vdr l3vaGwer Q W&9;- GW tpCMaN7700Y OAPPfY& 19 t AVa " a'- we r I ar►���lcr oQPt'i.U� 4 � .P.rl0Ec ' d a Q �I �r r,HOCI La F 3 AA,& O Z~ s3 a' ,rte' �.riarncr� tc�a.s e r JFa s r 4W a• rs/or P►rcrAI ,voprrrarar Source: Alderman, Swift, and Lewis l.. 1110 - Jv GIOk-) IC 8d 38 Design Alternative A-5 Intersection Detail r I � Source: Alderman, Swift, and Lewis Digitized by Goog iL 9a 39 Design Alternative A-6: Widening, Southern Alignment This alternative is similar to design alternative A-5 (Figure 8b) except that in the 'vicinity of the Oe Anra Bayside Village mobile home park the roadway is shifted to the south in an attempt to minimize the impacts of the alternative on the mobile home park (Figure 9b). Figure 9c illustrates two cross-sections along this alternative route. Intersection geometrics are virtually identical to those in alternative A-5 (Figure 9d). This alternative would encroach onto Chick Iverson's auto dealership, Bobby Mk Gee's restaurant, and the Mobil ser- vice station. It would also displace an estimated three mobile homes and a Iaundry room in the mobile home park. This alternative is compatible with design alternatives A -Z, A-3, or A-4. Also, this design alternative requires minor modifications of the retaining wall and parking lot for Reuben's restau- rant located on the southwest corner of Pacific toast Highway and Sayside Drive. D'JII t_ --j f'v cloogle 9b Design_ Alternative A PROPOSED CURB CHANGES Digitized by V 0081c 9C 41 Typical Cross -Sections Design Alternative A-6 C E wir .- r -G Wegr Cf ,WPCM97N7-,- 7Y OAF/010 �.rrs rrrcrw piw•�rr.! ►ra r I �/ �/ ♦d r/e7p I � DSII W �,rtyTl,(/�r PfS'.vT � WAY I CM��di1C"1' �"r.NG ErVEP/�(rCr �c7!►wi.r✓G �E. , 3 7A,A ' daWFw ArtW NF rgApl+ 444VF 09 Cd XC Ld'+'►'I }� h o.rt tx.ETr,rrs �7aaO•weY rat '- in ' Wegr Cf ,WPCM97N7-,- 7Y OAF/010 r Cxr.�rrrtrw .�q�r►t4 Y E'd.JT ear nrrC.elU 506'?WSIV4 I 11174rr I r,S' GOC)S lc �.rrs rrrcrw piw•�rr.! ►ra r I �/ �/ ♦d r/e7p I � DSII W MFG►'a,M� �E. , 3 7A,A ' daWFw ArtW NF rgApl+ 444VF 09 r Cxr.�rrrtrw .�q�r►t4 Y E'd.JT ear nrrC.elU 506'?WSIV4 I 11174rr I r,S' GOC)S lc 9d 42 Intersection Detail Design Alternative A-6 0ig111zed by G0081' 10a 43 Design Alternative A-7: Addition of Travel Lanes at Signalized intersections ,.�- C i t Ly 27-� 7: Refer to Figure 10b for illustrations for cross- sections F -K. The improvowts proposed within design alternative A-7 consist primarily of rastriping Pacific Coast Highway to provide three through lanes in each direction (with a raised and/or painted w4dian) from Dover Drive to about 860 feet west of Dover Drive, and from about 400 feet east of Tustin Avenue to Newport Boulevard. Froo wit of Riverside Avenue to east of Tustin Avenue, the existing raised medians would be relocated to the neve locations. figures 10b and 10c provide cross-sec- tions depicting the lane configurations for six locations along Pacific Coast High- way from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard. This design alternative does not pro- vide for additional bicycle facilities. As under existing conditions, bicyclists would share the roadway with motorists. ImplaMentatian of these changes would require removal of on -street parking along the morth side of Pacific Coast Highway in the Mariners Mile area from Newport Boulevard to 400 feet easterly of Tustin Avenue, and free about 860 feet west of Dover Drive (In the vicinity of Mic0onald's restaurant) to Dover Drive (Figure 10c). Overall, a total of 62 parking spaces would be removed. In the Mariners mile area, a total of 52 parting spaces would be ramved. Twenty -saver spaces would be rashov- ed between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, 14 spaces between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue. and 11 spaces easterly of Tustin Avenue. In the vicinity of Dover Orive, 10 spaces would be removed (from easterly of Mc0onald's restaurant to Dover Drive). These improvements to Pacific Coast Highway traffic flow between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard are proposed to maximize the efficiency of the Dover Drive. Tustin Avenue, and Riverside Avenue intersections and to Improve the merging/weav- ing conditions for eastbound traffic between the Newport Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway interchange and Riverside Avenua. This alternative Is compatible with design alternatives A-1 through A-6. It is considered an Interim Improvement until the ultimate widening improvements are Implemented with redevelopment along the northerly (inland) side as detailed on page 18. 10b 44 Typical Cross -Sections Design Alternative A-7 , /00, .L .L.LTTT 00 AV" NIvAn 0 2wty ar. 40 arc' Wt- Ok 'POW D+'• 1 lee 1 Y 59. G I, t k H �r +f V W rC .11 i '!k A ?Die 4v u1W $" GAwb 10b(continued) 45 Typical Cross -Sections Design Alternative A-7 Ob fU4/r kt. I rip "A/ T T 6' ��u11Lhi� �lal�. '� ��` �tNf � '�rV�Sfivl, �• 4 T T T No PpKY�►� N�c�+iu+ � o �,� 11 Ih:y-jt' Goo8`L � ;T o T % "W -A-7 Ob fU4/r kt. I rip "A/ T T 6' ��u11Lhi� �lal�. '� ��` �tNf � '�rV�Sfivl, �• 4 T T T No PpKY�►� N�c�+iu+ � o �,� 11 Ih:y-jt' Goo8`L 1 Oc Design Alternative loop w �f 4 L,N LO_- N :Vv&. _ 1 : 800' PARKING DIC11 Zest by c;OOSIC 47 Ila Design Alternative A-8: Addition of Travel Lanes within Right -of -Way r y L Y pr 4e pw=— O - }*� J y► t _ I7If l� t ti ns ?.[• ., to=ne ' Harear r~ _ •� . , The- improvements proposed within design alternative A-8 are similar to those for design alternative A-7 (Figure 10a). The primary difference is that Pacific Coast Highway would be restriped to provide three through travel lanes and bike lanes in each direction between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard instead of restriping the roadway to three throuvh lanes near the signalized intersections only. Implementation of restriping the roadway to six lanes within the existing 76 - to 88 -foot curb -to -curb widths would provide for curbside parking along the south side (ocean side) from Riverside Drive to Rocky Point. The existing curb -to -curb width within this area is 88 feet. All other areas would require the removal of on -street parking. Overall, a total of 180 out of 208 on - street parking spaces would be removed. These improvements to Pacific Coast Highway are compatible with design alter- natives A-1 through A-6. It is considered an interim improvement until ulti- mate widening. Ultimate widening improvements will be implemented with rede- velopment along the northerly (inland) side as discussed on Page 18. 11b Design Alternative A-8 Typical Cross -Sections Em rev' �' A �. I I -�Wo T T T ml�p per. � L*W, No P� No Pa ul.urt � 'R�aov�id,c. lkwnoL Ic" B I T {� P� J �.ivrf�j 3 Nj p 6' to - T T T �m �06�Ifo wv� Re�,r td ,�t�wri 10-10 0.1 49 11b (continued) Design Alternative A-8 Typical Dross -Sections D � i 3 tea p 3 �ari►h �'`" L4ft �*a - IL '761 Ulahi o� Qacl� fowct kD 'P�oR.boa icy 1001 D 9►u•�Gd 3�i,� rh. w M ❑�Y� t }� ,fir ���n L 11c Design Alternative: jt 10 10 loo Z c = � y 4 _ ►. �. � r! � �1 p`,�+�-, K7 r -j �.oGO �J ,,�r� �• - I .Soo ARKING 1Dig]b-,ed tj c-joq,s1c AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 52 DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USES AND TRANSPMMTTON IMPROVERMM RELATING TO TH15 PRUXCT EXISTING LAND 115E The existing land uses along the project route are primarily various types of commercial, office, and residential Uses. Figure 12 illustrates the principal land uses in the vicinity. As depicted, there are several large residential communities along the project route, which include Irvine Terrace, the Promontory Point apartments, De Anza Bayside Village mobile home park, Bayshores, and The Towers condominiums. With the exception of the mobile home park, all of these residential areas are located along the southern edge of Pacific Coast Highway. Newport Center lies north of the project route between MacArthur Boule- vard and Jamboree Road. The Newport Center area is envisioned as a major com- mercial center dominated by business and financial uses including a regional shopping complex. To date, development in Newport Center, including existing and committed projects, amounts to about 4.1 million square feet of office and commercial uses, 199 residential dwelling units, 377 hotel rooms, and 1,750 theater seats (LSA, 1981). This includes Fashion Island (the regional shop- ping center), several low-rise and high-rise office buildings, the Marriott Hotel, the Granville Apartments, Irvine Coast Country Club, a movie theater, food/beverage establishments, an art museum, the City library, and police and fire facilities. These existing facilities provide full and part-time employ- ment for an estimated 11,725 persons (Williams-Kuebelbeck, 1981). To the north of the project route and west of Jamboree Road lies the New- port 'Dunes recreation area. Existing uses for this area include beach -orient- ed recreational facilities, overnight visitor facilities, restaurant and food service facilities, and boat and marina facilities. South of the project route, in the vicinity of Bayside Drive, there are various restaurants, a gas station, a car dealership,, and low-rise office buildings. Along much of the project route from Dover Drive to Newport Boule- vard, the primary land use is retail commercial, primarily marine -related. There are many restaurants, commercial retail establishments, several boat repair yards, boat sales and leasing establishments, and boat docks. Between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive is the new 7 -lane Pacific Coast Highway bridge spanning Newport Bay which was completed by CalTrans in April 1982. FUTURE LAND USE AND VEMENTS For the purpose of determining the need for the project and analyzing the effectiveness of the proposed alternatives, certain future land uses and transportation improvements have been assumed to occur by the years 1986 and 12 Existin M :f Z.) Land Use - 49- 9 -RER E , �J �1 CpM�ER -� 'TOWERS i = `� CL CONDOMINILiMS _ e N M- NEWPORT CENTE OFFICEICOMMERt 1 E� \' np �q ANNEL a Source: City of Newport Beach pl. it MACH !00 60C D ON 1600 2 ,��• - - -- [x FEEt 54 1995. These assumptions form the basis for the traffic and circulation fore- casts contained in this EIS. Land Use Assumptions. Table F provides a list of the future land development projects whic-li have been assumed to occur in the area by 1986. Figure 13 illustrates the location of these developments. Between the years 1986 and 1995, no further specific development proposals have been assumed; rather, an average annual growth rate in traffic volumes of 1% has been assum- ed. Figure 14 illustrates committed road improvements which are assumed to be in place by either 1986 or 1995. These improvements are either committed in conformance with the City of Newport Beach -Traffic Phasing Ordinance, required as a condition of approval of a tentative tract map, required in conjunction with adopted General Plan amendments, or planned as part of regional trans- portation improvements. Figure 14 shows which road projects are assumed in place by 1985 and which are assumed in place after 1986 but prior to 1995. Table G provides a detailed description of the committed improvements for Pacific Coast Highway intersections along the project route. These improve- ments are assumed to be in place by 1986. The following is a brief description of the road improvements depicted in Figure 14. Improvements Assumed by 1985 Construction of Back Bay Drive from Jamboree Road to Pacific Coast Highway Modification (widening) of Jamboree Road from Pacific Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road Modification (widening) of Jamboree Road from Ford Road to East Bluff Modification (widening) of Ford Road from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard (completed Spring 1982) Modification and extension of Bison from Jamboree Road to MacArthur Boulevard (completed Spring 1982) Construction of East Sluff from MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road Modification of MacArthur Boulevard from future University Drive to future Avocado Avenue Extension of San Miguel from Avocado Avenue to San Joaquin Fulls Road (completed June 1982) Construction of Pacific Coast Highway bridge between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive (completed April 1982) Construct ionlwidening of Avocado Avenue as a two-way roadway or as the southbound roadway for the Avocado/MacArthur couplet Modification of intersections along Pacific Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive, and Bristol Street �.■,Rli .1 0V mot.�g 1c. L• 55 TABLE F FUTURE PROJECTS ASSUMED COMPLETED BY 19861 Approximate Level Project Land Use Type of Development I. NEWPORT CENTER 1 Civic Plaza 2 Corporate Plaza Phase II 3 Pacific Mutual 4 Sea Island 5 GPA 80-3 Office, restaurant Office, restaurant Office Residential Office, retail, hotel II. BAYSIDE SQUARE s.f. Office 6 Bayside Square Commercial III. Mac ARTHUR RESIDENTIAL Office 12,000 s.f. 7 8aywood Apartments Residential 8 Harbor Point Residential 9 Roger's Gardens Commercial 10 Seaview Lutheran Plaza Residential IV. AERONUTRONIC FORD 11 Aeronutronic Ford Residential V. NORTH FORD 12 North Ford Industrial VI. AIRPORT AREA 13 Far West 14 Pacesetter 15 Back Bay Office 16 Boyle Engineering 17 Koll Center Newport 18 Campus/MacArthur 234,746 s.f. office 8,000 s.f. restaurant 162,644 s.f. 245,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. restaurant 132 d.u. 880,000 s.f. office 20,000 s.f. retail 665 rooms, hotel 34,000 s.f. 68 d.u. 21 d.u. 100 d.u. 250 Single-family 100 attached d.u. 295,000 s.f, Office 17,000 s.f. Office 16,500 s.f. Office 70,584 s.f. Office 12,000 s.f. Office 400,000 s.f. hotel 333,189 s.f. office Office 48,000 s.f. TABLE F (COHT'D) FUTURE PROJECTS ASSUMED COMPLETED BY 19861 VII. RUDY BARRONISHOKRIAN 24 Shokrian Office 25 Rudy Baron Office VIII. HOAG HOSPITAL AREA 26 Hoag Hospital Beds 27 441 Newport Boulevard Office IX. HUGHES AIRCRAFT 28 Hughes Aircraft V DAMMYuc 29 GPA 81-1 Industrial Residential, office, industrial, commercial 1See Figure 13 for locations of these developments. 24,000 s .f . 7,500 s.f. retail 8,500 s.f. office 113 beds 11,000 s.f. 13,000 s.f. 170 d.u. 430,000 s.f. office 300,000 s.f. industrial 75,000 s.f. coirmercial Lill) W -46i UP G 11r4j Approximate Level Project Land Use Type of Development 19 National Ed. Office Office 48,000 s.f. 20 Orchard Office Office 70,000 s.f. 21 3701 Birch Office Office 19,264 s.f. 22 Newport Place Office 110,000 s.f. 8,700 s.f- commercial 71,500 s -f- auto ctr. 23 Quail Business Center Office 17,000 s.f. VII. RUDY BARRONISHOKRIAN 24 Shokrian Office 25 Rudy Baron Office VIII. HOAG HOSPITAL AREA 26 Hoag Hospital Beds 27 441 Newport Boulevard Office IX. HUGHES AIRCRAFT 28 Hughes Aircraft V DAMMYuc 29 GPA 81-1 Industrial Residential, office, industrial, commercial 1See Figure 13 for locations of these developments. 24,000 s .f . 7,500 s.f. retail 8,500 s.f. office 113 beds 11,000 s.f. 13,000 s.f. 170 d.u. 430,000 s.f. office 300,000 s.f. industrial 75,000 s.f. coirmercial Lill) W -46i UP G 11r4j I m le 49 14 Committed Road Improvements I. Or P) J E Sr. Basra, St. . Z\ •A60� -%" 7 1(niversity flr' 1 F� no Scale 4ti- m m ''•- r �san! Carr�daTran_. ��•� 1 6. R d. San {4 1 Cc` � Q) ■ 7 � Back Bay Dr. hWr � coast 3 ,_ ❑r4 10 Intersections with committed improvements assumed in place by 1986 Roadways with committed improvements assumed in place by 1986 ��•-- Roadways with committed improvements assumed in place after 1986 and by 1995 ------- Roadways assumed in place after 1995 NOTE; See Table G for a description of committed improvements for intersection numbers 1 through 5 along Pacific Coast Highway. OiLjiiized bV G008I4 Q� Huls [A 5 � a• Hwy I 10 Intersections with committed improvements assumed in place by 1986 Roadways with committed improvements assumed in place by 1986 ��•-- Roadways with committed improvements assumed in place after 1986 and by 1995 ------- Roadways assumed in place after 1995 NOTE; See Table G for a description of committed improvements for intersection numbers 1 through 5 along Pacific Coast Highway. OiLjiiized bV G008I4 M TABLE G COMMITTED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ASSUMEDALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY N PLACE Pacific Coast Highway at Dover Drive estripe port bound right -turn -only lane right -turn lane. Add a third southbound left -turn lane. Add a second eastbound left -turn lane. Restripe eastbound right -turn -only lane right -turn lane. Add a third westbound through lane. Add a free westbound right -turn lane. to a combination through and to a combination through and 2. Pacific Coast Highwa-at� Bayside Drive Kestripe northboundthroughanT a and right -turn lane to provide one combi- nation through and right -turn lane. Add a third eastbound through lane. Add a third westbound through lane. 3. Pacific Coast Hi$hway at Jamboree Road Add d second southbound right -turn lane. Add a third westbound through lane. 4. Pacific Coast Hi9hwav at Back Bay Drive Lreate an intersection to provide: - two southbound left -turn lanes. - one southbound right -turn lane. - one eastbound left -turn lane. - two eastbound through lanes. - two westbound through lanes. - one westbound right -turn lane. 5. Pacific Coast Hiuhwav at Avocado Avenue Kestripe soutnpouna approacn to provide: - one left -turn lane. - one right -turn lane. - one right -turn lane. Restripe westbound approach to provide: - one left -turn lane. - two through lanes. - one right -turn lane. 1See Figure 14 for location of improvements. C fir, -�v c;oo,�Ie MN Improvements Assumed by 1995 After 1985) Construction of Pelican Hill Road from Pacific Coast Highway to Bonita Canyon Road Construction/extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road Extension of University Drive from Irvine Avenue to MacArthur Boule- vard Extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73) to MacArthur Boule- vard Status of Land Use Transportation Improvements Assumptions. The Cal- ifornia Coastal Lommission recently approve e z y s Local Goastal Program with the condition that the University Drive extension be deleted from the circulation system Master Plan. The City of Newport Beach City Council has accepted this condition and deleted the extension from the LCP. However, deletion of this extension from the city's circulation element will require a General Plan Amendment. To date, no such amendment has been initiated. Not all of the land assumed to be complete by 1986 has received approval by the City of Newport Beach. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the land use and transportation improvement assumptions presented in this document present a slightly "worst-case" analysis for purposes of determining the need for the project and its environmental impacts. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A report of geotechnical conditions and preliminary recommendations for this project appears in Appendix A which is on file with the City of Newport Beach for public review. The following discussion summarizes and extracts from the technical report. C 61 SURFICIAL DEPOSITS Onsite deposits consist of relatively recent marine deposits, Holocene - age alluvium and colluvium, and Pleistocene marine terrace deposits. Recent marine deposits are composed of unconsolidated sand, silty sand, and clayey sand. Alluvium and colluvium include fine-grained sand, silt, and silty clay and gravel. Marine terrace deposits are moderately consolidated sand, silty sand, clayey sand, sandy clay, and silty clay. Minor amounts of fill, appar- ently derived onsite, exist under and adjacent to the Highway. Preliminary investigation indicates that, because of their low density, the unconsolidated marine deposits underlying the north side of Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to the existing mobile home park, and possibly the waterfront areas between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard, are generally weak and com- pressible. BEDROCK The Capistrano Formation site. This formation consists venticular sandstone beds. The site, is composed of tuffaceous stone, and limestone interbeds. STRUCTURE of marine sedimentary bedrock underlies the of concretionary siitstone and claystone with Monterey Formation, which also underlies the and diatomaceous shale and siltstone, sand - The site is within the southwestern end of the Newport -Inglewood struc- tural zone. The structure in the immediate vicinity of the Highway is gently dipping and folded sedimentary bedrock from the ground surface to a consider- able onsider- able depth. FAULTING AND SEISMICITY No known faults project toward or across the project area. A buried fault exists 800 feet northeast of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. This fault does not appear to traverse through the project area and the potential for ground rupture is considered low. A major buried segment of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone occurs 2,000 feet Southwest of the Pacific Coast Highway intersection with Newport Boulevard. The site is located within 18 miles of the Palos Verdes fault, 18 miles of the Norwalk fault, 21 miles of the Whittier fault, 25 miles of the Chino fault, 35 miles of the Sierra Madre fault, 37 miles of the Raymond fault, 41 miles of the Santa Monica fault, 47 miles of the San Jacinto fault, and 52 miles of the San Andreas fault. These faults are considered active or poten- tially active and are considered to be those most likely to cause significant groundshaking to the site in the event of a major or great earthquake origi- nating within the region. This portion of Pacific Coast Highway is in an area of moderate seismic activity, based on available historic records of this area. No significant 62 epicenters (greater than Richter magnitude 3.5) have been recorded in the immediate project area since at least 1933 (instrumental data record). Sever- al significant epicenters have been located within five miles of the site, including the 1933 magnitude 6.3 Long Beach earthquake, which was instrumen- tally located about three miles offshore southwest of the site. Other lesser - magnitude earthquakes (epicenters less than 3.0) have been recorded in the general area, including seven epicenters located within one mile of the site (Morton et al., 1976). Based on the geology of the site and locations of active or potentially active faults, groundshaking at the site as a result of earthquakes occurring during an average time period is expected to be similar to other sites within the Orange County coastal area. The maximum credible earthquake for a particular fault is the largest - magnitude event that can reasonably be postulated to occur based upon existing geologic and seismologic evidence independent of time. Most maximum credible earthquakes are assigned a probability of occurrence that is very low over the useful design life of most construction and is therefore not very meaningful. The nearby Newport -Inglewood fault would appear to generate the most severe maximum credible site ground mations with a maximum credible magnitude of about 7.1 on the Richter scale. The estimated maximum credible ground accel- eration for a magnitude 7.1 earthquake on the Newport-Inlewood fault is between 0.4g and 0.7g (Housner, 1965; Schnabel and Seed, 19731. LANDSLIDES No landslides of significant size are known to exist at or adjacent to this portion of Pacific Coast Highway based on a review of available data for the general area. The potential for massive landsliding (i.e., debris flow, block glide, etc.) at this site is considered remote. GROUNDWATER Exploratory borings revealed groundwater depths of 8.5 to 10.5 feet on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway halfway between Jamboree Road and Bay- side Drive. A boring to 20 feet in terrace deposits near the Jamboree Road/ Pacific Coast Highway intersection encountered no free groundwater. LIQUEFACTION Results of the preliminary geotechnical investigation indicate that unconsolidated marine deposits found in the De Anza Bayside Village mobile home park have a relatively high potential for liquefaction. Extrapolation from the data suggests that a portion of the existing highway embankment adja- cent to the mobile home park might also be underlain by the loose native soils that could be subject to liquefaction. In addition, the portion of Pacific Coast Highway west of Bayside Drive lies within an area designated as "highest liquefaction potential" (Morton et al., 1976). Loose to medium -dense sandy zones below the groundwater table could temporarily be transformed dur- ing a strong credible earthquake into a liquid -like mass having virtually no shear strength to sustain loads. Structures or embankment fills supported on 63 or over these soils in their present state could be subjected to moderate to serious distress due to settlement and/or lateral movements. Because there are little direct data relating to subsurface conditions beneath the existing roadway, the extent of possible roadway failure due to liquefaction is inconclusive. HYDROLOGY Existing surface and storm waters within the project area are, in gener- al, presently conducted to various discharge points in Newport Say and Upper Newport Bay through systems of street inlets and underground pipes. The road- way itself is not subject to flooding. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Flood Insurance Rate Map, no construction for the project alternatives is within the 100 -year flood boundary. However, there have been reports of past instances of storm runoff from the existing roadway traversing the westerly portion of the De Anza Bayside Village mobile home park on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway east of Bayside Drive. WATER QUALITY The project study area is located within the watershed of Upper and Lower Newport Say. Newport Bay receives runoff, including pollutants and sedimenta- tion, from a variety of sources on a regional scale. Generally, urban devel- opment produces storm runoff and nuisance waters which contain pollutants from paved surfaces (e.g., rubber, oil, and metal particles) and landscaped areas (e.g., fertilizers and pesticides). Newport Bay is currently the subject of studies sponsored by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG), with the assistance of partici- pating agencies under the auspices of the Federal "2081* planning program. Planning issues focus on reducing pollution of Newport Bay. The principal pollutants currently affecting the bay are siltation (associated with agricul- tural activities, urban construction, and natural erosion processes within the watershed), high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural ferti- lization), and pesticides from irrigation runoff. High bacterial counts (col- iforms) are common in the bay, but their origin has not been determined. Stormwater runoff from the existing roadway is conveyed via an in-place drainage system within the local street network. Runoff is eventually dis- charged into Newport Bay. The existing roadway contributes incrementally with other existing development in the area to the degraded quality of Newport Bay. These areas produce pollutants from landscaped and paved surface areas. Undeveloped lots along the project route contribute incrementally to sil- tation of Upper and Lower Newport Bay to varying degrees during periods of heavy precipitation. Generally, siltation is controlled by desilting basins and temporary measures such as sandbagging. 54 BIOTIC RESOURCES A survey of the biotic resources onsite was conducted in April 1981. The results of this survey appear in Appendix B of this report. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted to obtain a list of threatened and endangered species know to occur in the area. The letter received from the Fish and Wildlife Service is found in the Correspondence chapter of this report. The Service reviewed their most recent information and found no known listed or proposed species within the project area. The project Site is extremely urban in character. The majority of the project area is lined with commercial and residential development, and there- fore almost all natural vegetation has been displaced. Ornamental species have been planted in various locations along the route. Undeveloped areas along the project route are small and few and occur in upland areas 40-50 feet above the bay shore. There are no wetlands within the area of environmental impact. Vegetation of the undeveloped areas is highly disturbed, consisting almost entirely of weedy and non-native species. Only three native plant species were found onsite. These Species occur in abundance and are of no special concern as a natural resource. The undeveloped areas support limited populations of fauna characteristic of disturbed grasslands. Seven avian species and two mammals were sighted. Of the species seen or expected to occur, none is endangered or rare, or of special biological importance. CULTURAL RESOURCES A survey of cultural resources conducted for the project addressed poten- tial impacts on archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources from the project and its various alternatives. The cultural resources study includes results of literature searches, records checks, and original field surveys conducted within the Area of Potential Environmental Impact (APEI) designated by FHWA. The complete study is available from the City of Newport Beach for public review. The APEI was determined during a field review attended by FHWA, Cal Trans, and City of Newport Beach officials. The APEI was defined along two dimen- sions. In areas where existing development occurs, the limits of the APEI was defined as including the first row of buildings. In areas where no develop- ment exists, the APEI was defined as being the area to be directly impacted by construction activities with a buffer zone of 15 feet. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES Eight archaeological sites are identified by the Regional Office of the California Archaeological Survey as being within the APEI. However, all of the eight sites are reported to have been destroyed. A field survey conducted for this project confirmed that the sites are no longer intact. C.�n �J b'v C11 65 The Federal Highway Administration in consultation with the State Histor- ic Preservation officer have determined that there are no sites on or eligible to be included on the National Register of Historic Places within the area of potential environmental impact. Included in the Historic Property Survey conducted for the project area is an evaluation of representative buildings within the APEI for architectural or historical significance. Consultation with Cal Trans' architectural histor- ian (Snyder, 1981) confirms that structures within the APEI are less than 50 years old, and none is of architectural or historical significance. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurs with these findings. See Page 185 for a copy of the letter received from SHPO. Approximately 600 feet north of Pacific Coast Highway, and west of Dover Drive, stands an historical monument commemorating the first boat landing at McFadden's landing in Newport Beach. The monument has been moved from its original location and serves only to commemorate the general location of the old McFadden's Landing. The Historic Property Survey is on file with the City of Newport Beach for public review. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES For the purposes of paleontology, the study area can be divided into two areas based on elevation and underlying rock types: the low-lying "beach" area and the higher "mesa" area. The low-lying "beach" area extends from Newport Boulevard to Bayside Drive. This area is underlain by recent alluvium, man- made fill, and beach deposits. There is one small exposure of Miocene -age marine sediments of the Monterey Formation on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway opposite the Boy Scout/Sea Scout Base. Fossil remains are rare in the beach and alluvial deposits, while they are more common in the Monterey Forma- tion. The higher "mesa" area extends from Bayside Drive to MacArthur Boulevard, This portion of the study area is underlain by Pleistocene marine and non - marine terrace deposits and the shale of the Miocene -age Monterey Formation. The Monterey Formation is well known for its fossil content such as the remains of fish, whales, sea lions, and birds. Pleistocene terrace deposits which cover the top of the "mesa" area have produced remains of numerous ver- tebrate and invertebrate organisms over the years. Results of a field survey for this project reveal the presence of abun- dant invertebrate remains in the roadcut on Jamboree Road just north of its intersection with Pacific Coast Highway. Also discovered in the roadcut were the lower jaw and other bone fragments of a Pleistocene horse. The jaw was collected to prevent further damage from weathering; however, several bones were left in place after being protected with plastic cement. LAND USE EXISTING LAND USE The existing land uses along the project route are primarily various types of commercial, office, and residential uses. Figure 12 (Page 53) illus- trates the principal land uses in the vicinity. As depicted, there are sever- al large residential communities along the project route, which include Irvine Terrace, the Promontory Point apartments, De Anza Bayside Village mobile home park, Bayshores, and The Towers condominiums. Newport Center lies north of the project route between MacArthur Boule- vard and Jamboree Road. The Newport Center area is envisioned as a major com- mercial center dominated by business and financial uses including a regional shoppinq complex. To the north of the project route and west of Jamboree Road lies the New- port Dunes recreation area. South of the project route, in the vicinity of Bayside Drive, there are various restaurants, a gas station, a car dealership, and low-rise office buildings. Along much of the project route from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard, the primary land use is retail commercial, primar- ily marine -related. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS As a major urban thoroughfare, Pacific Coast Highway provides prime loca- tions for commercial land uses. Consequently, the Highway is highly developed along most of its stretch through Newport Beach with retail businesses, ser- vices, and restaurants. Pacific Coast Highway development accounts for a sig- nificant portion of the commercial economic base of the City of Newport Beach. Residential land uses also exist within the project area. These include the Balboa Bay Club Apartments, De Anza Bayside Village, and Irvine Terrace. Each of these residential areas is a definitive community with distinct boundaries and a unique character. Each is therefore sensitive to divisive or disruptive effects that accompany displacement. A portion of the commercial area also possesses a cohesive character, particularly along Mariners Mile (Figure 12, Page 53), whose specific plan emphasizes marine -oriented commercial uses. De Anza Bayside Village Mobile home Park is the residential community expected to be impacted by the project. The mobile home park is about 18 years old and consists of 296 mobile home units with approximately 450 full- time residents. The De Anza property is leased by the De Anna Corporation. The park in turn leases individual spaces to residents. Mobile homes onsite are either owned or leased by their occupants. A survey was conducted in the portion of the mobile home park expected to be impacted by the project. Occupants of 18 of the 22 residences polled responded to the questionnaire. This represents 32 occupants. Results of the survey are depicted in Table H. �.:P1 :1,t �3c)g c 67 TABLE H DE ANZA BAYSIDE VILLAGE RESIDENT S Number Responding. Len th of resident 1- 3 years 1 in De Anza 4- 6 years 4 7- 9 years 6 10-13 years 4 14-17 years 3 Presently retired Yes 11 No 5 Semi -retired 2 Number of residents in 1 6 moi a omeunt 2 11 3 0 4 1 Age of residents 0-18 1 19-30 1 31-61 7 >62 23 Number of disabled Bedridden 1 residents deaf 2 Other 3 Ownership or lease Own 17 of mobile home Rent 1 Full-time resident Yes 18 in a nza aysie. No 1 Source: 1981 survey, City of Newport Beach. .: As Table H indicates, al l but one of the respondents own the mobile home in which they live. Nearly 72% are over 62 years of age and many are retired. Only 5 of the 18 residents responding have lived in the park for less than 7 years; some have resided there for from 15 to 17 years. According to the City of Newport Beach Housing Element, there are 1,033 mobile homes within 13 mobile home parks in the City of Newport Beach. The size of the parks range from 6 to 21.4 units. Turnover within the parks varies from one establishment to another. However, several of the larger parks are experiencing transfer of ownership at the rate of about one mobile home per month (City of Newport Beach Planning department, 1982). VISUAL AND AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT The visual character of most of the project area is that of an urban landscape, with intermittent vistas of Newport Bay. Although there are no designated scenic resources along the project route, the aesthetic quality is considered high. Undeveloped areas provide open space, wh i 1 e developed areas are maintained and well landscaped. CIRCULATION EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM AND CUND17= Figures and tables for this section appear on pages 78 - 96 at the end of the section. Existing Local Circulation SXsstem. Figures 2 and 3 (pages 5 and 11) illustratetheexissting circulation system in Newport Beach and in the vicin- ity of the project. Within the project area, Pacific Coast Highway (SR -1) parallels the coastline and intersects Newport Boulevard on the west and Mac- Arthur Boulevard on the east. Riverside Avenue, Dover Drive, Bayside Drive, Jamboree Road, Newport Center Drive, and Avocado Avenue each intersect Pacific Coast Highway to provide local circulation. Newport Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard also provide regional access to 5R-55, SR -73, and T-405. The importance of Pacific Coast Highway for both regional and local tran- sportation demands is apparent upon examination of its location and relation- ship to the surrounding circulation system. Pacific Coast highway (SR -1) pro- vides a continuous major roadway through Orange County which parallels the coastline. The nearest parallel facility which provides a continuous route serving the regional needs of the area is 1-40511-5 (Figure 1, Page 3). The distance between Pacific Coast Highway {SR -1} and 1-40511-5 varies from four to eight miles throughout the majority of the county. 1-405 is about eight miles inland from Pacific Coast Highway within the project vicinity. Between the Cities of Costa Mesa and Dana Point (a distance of 20 miles), there are fig oniy five major roadways correcting with 1-40511-5. Within this coastal area there are in excess of 250,000 residents. As a result of these circulation characteristics in the area, Pacific Coast Highway is the only reasonable route for a large number of people wishing to travel between the coastal com- munities and recreational areas. The only other alternate is 1-40511-5, which requires at least 8 to 12 miles of out -of -direction travel for origins and destinations in the immediate coastal area. Within the City of Newport Beach, Upper Newport Bay provides a 3.5 -mile natural barrier to the local circulation system (Figure Z, Page 5). The com- munity is, in effect, severed by Upper and Lower Newport Bay. Normally, there would be as many as seven roads tying the community together. The lack of these roads places a large burden on the roads at either end of the bay. The closest parallel route serving local circulation needs is Bristol Street/State Route 73, which is about five miles inland from Pacific Coast Highway. Existing Pacific Coast Highway is described on page 1 under Purpose and Heed for the Project. The following is a description of principle inter- secting roadways. Newport Boulevard (SR -55) northerly of Pacific Coast Highway to 19th Street in the City of Costa Mesa is constructed to provide a six -lane divided facility. Northerly of 19th Street the roadway is constructed as a one-way couplet with three through lanes in each direction. Southerly of Pacific Coast Highway (on Balboa Peninsula), the roadway is constructed as a four -Zane divided facility. Riverside Avenue is constructed to provide 56 feet between curbs and is striped to provide two through lanes plus a bike lane in each direction. Nor- therly of Avon Street the roadway is channelized to provide one through lane plus a bike lane in each direction. Dover Drive between Cliff Drive and Pacific Coast Highway is presently under construction to provide a widened roadway and intersection in connection with the new Pacific Coast Highway bridge crossing Upper Newport Bay. For purposes of analysis, Dover Drive is considered to be constructed as a divided highway providing two through lanes in each direction, a raised median, and intersection turning lanes. However, the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways provides for further widening to six lanes (undivided). Dover Drive is the first roadway west of Newport Bay and is the only northerly access for another .8 mile. Bayside Drive forms a four -legged intersection with Pacific Coast High- way. Northerly of Pacific Coast Highway, the facility is improved to provide one through lane in each direction plus a left -turn lane. Southerly of Paci- fic Coast Highway, the roadway is fully improved to provide two through lanes in each direction plus a painted median for turning vehicles. Jamboree Road northerly of Pacific Coast Highway varies from a four -lane divided highway to six lanes divided at various locations. Southerly of 70 Pacific Coast Highway, the roadway is improved to provide two through lanes in each direction plus a painted median for vehicles turning left. Jamboree Road is the first road offering northerly access east of Newport Say. The next northerly access is at MacArthur Boulevard 1.2 miles to the east. Newport Center Drive forms a "T" intersection with Pacific Coast Highway. Two through lanes in each direction are provided, and free-flowing right -turn lanes onto and off of Pacific Coast Highway are provided. Avocado Avenue primarily forms a "T" intersection with Pacific Coast Highway. Northerly of Pacific Coast Highway, access to a commercial develop- ment is provided, creating the fourth leg of the intersection. Southerly of Pacific Coast Highway, Avocado Avenue is constructed to provide two lanes in each direction plus a raised median. MacArthur Boulevard forms a "T" intersection with Pacific Coast Highway. Two through lanes in each direction are provided. The roadway is divided with a painted median. The following intersections with Pacific Coast Highway are signalized: Riverside Avenue, Tustin Avenue, Dover Drive, Bayside Drive, Promontory Drive, Jamboree Road, Clubhouse Drive, Newport Center Drive, Avocado Avenue, and Mac- Arthur Boulevard. Detailed descriptions of traffic signal operations at these intersections are included in Appendix F of this report. Arterial Highway and FreewaX Network. The existing arterial highway an reeway network in the region surrounding the City of Newport Beach is illustrated in Figure 15. The arterial highway network for the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange has been planned and developed to serve the transportation needs of the entire region. In general, the northern and central portions of Orange County have developed a regularly spaced one -mile grid of north -south and east -west major arterials. Between the major arteri- als, a System of primary arterials at half -mile spacing and secondary arteri- als at quarter -mile spacing has developed. However, as these regularly spaced arterials approach the irregular coastline and hillside terrain of southern Orange County, the grid pattern has been modified to provide a network compat- ible with the physical surroundings while still serving the transportation needs of the area. The freeway system in Orange County (Figures I and 15) reinforces the arterial highway street system by linking the arterial highways with major freeways that provide regional transportation routes within Orange County and to/from the surrounding counties of Cos Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego. The I-5 (Santa Ana) and 1-405 (San Diego) freeways are both parallel routes to the coastline which travel d1 agona l l y though the county to provide major regional transportation corridors serving Orange County as well as all of Southern California. Also in the vicinity of the project, SR -55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) provides a major north -south high-capacity facility from just south of SR -73 (Corona del Mar Freeway) to SR -91 (Riverside Freeway). Incomplete SR -73 (Corona del Mar Freeway) provides an east -west route in the area. 71 Cit of Newport Beach Master Plan Circulation 5 stem. The City of Newpor Master Plan Circulation tlement nas been panned to satisfy the existing and future transportation needs of the community and the surrounding region. In preparing the Master Plan, the City carefully reviewed existing and planned land development as well as 'regional traffic demands. The adopted Master Plan Circulation Element for the City of Newport Beach is presented in Figure 16. Review of Figure 16 shows that Pacific Coast Highway from the Santa Ana River to MacArthur Boulevard is classified as a major arterial (six -lane divided) providing three through lanes in each direction. Ex.isting Traffic Volumes. Existing average annual daily traffic (AAD and peak -period traffic volumes for the major roadways in the project vicinity are shown in Figure 17. These traffic volumes are based on 1980 sum- mer traffic counts and 1980181 winter counts collected by City of Newport Beach staff. Table I lists the specific dates and locations of these counts. The daily volumes range from 37,000 to 55,000 vehicles in both directions. The directional split of daily traffic is nearly even for eastbound and westbound travel except between Dover Drive and Newport Center Drive. At that point the split is slightly unbalanced in the eastbound direction between Dover Drive and Jamboree Road, and in the westbound direction between Newport Center Drive and Jamboree Road. The hourly volumes of traffic on Pacific Coast Highway in both directions remain relatively high throughout the normal working hours of the day. Morning peak -hour traffic accounts for approxi- mately 7% of the daily volume while the evening peak is 8% of the ADT. Fur- ther analysis reveals that 15-17% of the distribution of daily traffic occurs during the p.m. peak 2-112 hours (3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.). Existin Intersection Capacity. The capacity of each of the inter- sections within the project area was calculated using the Intersection Capaci- ty Utilization (ICU) method. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table J and copies of the ICU worksheets are contained in a technical appendix (Appendix F) on file with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. Traffic Flow Characteristics. As described above, traffic flow along Pacific Coast Highway currently experiences extensive delay and congestion during the evening peak hours. within the project limits, extensive delays occur for westbound traffic approaching Dover Drive. It is not uncommon for traffic to be backed up east of Jamboree Road. This present condition is pri- marily a function of the lack of capacity of Pacific Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Bayside Drive and should be partially mitigated when the new bridge and highway improvements are completed in early 1982. Seasonal daily and hourly traffic demand along Pacific Coast Highway was analyzed. Hourly weekday demand for summer and winter periods was plotted and compared to determine if any significant differences occur. The areas analyz- ed were: Pacific Coast Highway at the Santa Ana River, Pacific Coast Highway east of Dover Drive, Pacific Coast Highway west of Jamboree Road, and Pacific Coast Highway east of MacArthur Boulevard. Figure 18 illustrates these sea- sonal comparisons. I t-11Prar l y�'►t��L� i`~ 72 A review of the hourly demand at each section shows that typical a.m. and p.m. peaking characteristics occur at the Santa Ana River and east of MacAr- thur Boulevard, whereas east of Dover Drive and west of Jamboree Road there is not a well-defined a.m. or p.m. peak. Traffic along these stretches builds up in the morning and maintains the hourly flows throughout the day. At the Santa Ana River and east of MacArthur Boulevard, peak traffic rep- resents about 10% of ADT, whereas within the project area the peak hour occurs over a longer period of time and represents about 8% of ADT. During the sum- mer, the peaking is slightly higher at each of these locations. Typical daily travel demands along Pacific Coast Highway were also ana- lyzed for these four locations. At each of the locations, the summer and win- ter daily volumes were plotted for a one-week period. This allows for compar- ison of summer and winter volumes and determination of peak day of the week. This analysis, as would be expected, shows that the summer ADT is higher than the winter ADT. Moreover, the charts show that the peak day of the week occurs on Friday, with a dropping -off on the weekends. The daily traffic var- iations are depicted in Figure 19. Recreation travel demand along Pacific Coast Highway and to/from the coastal area is considered a major item of concern to residents of the area as well as to the California Coastal Commission, wf+ich desires to maintain capa- city for recreational travel. In the past, development along the coastal areas was light, and seasonal variations in traffic conditions were extreme due to the influx of visitors to the coastal regions. It was not uncommon during the early 1930s -1940s to experience long lines of cars on Newport Bou- levard backed up past PCH similar to the situation that presently occurs dur- ing peak summer times. To examine these characteristics, a 15 -year history of peak -month and annual ADT for the roadway segment west of Jamboree Road was obtained and is illustrated in Table K. Assuming that the difference between the peak -month ADT and annual ADT consists essentially of recreational travel, then the comparison reveals that the work/commercial travel demand is rapidly approaching the recreational travel demand. In 1955 the peak -month ADT was approximately 32% greater than the annual ADT, and in recent years the difference has dropped to a range of 5-15%. Although the difference between work/commercial and recreational demand is decreasing, the overall recreational demand is still increasing. A plot of hourly demand was made for a summer weekend versus winter week- day condition along the roadway segment on Pacific Coast Highway east of Dover Drive {Figure 20}. Review of Figure 20 shows that the current winter weekday peak periods are equal to or greater than the summer weekend peak period. Therefore, one can conclude that a traffic impact analysis based on winter weekday peaking characteristics should satisfy existing and future recreation- al demand. This conclusion is made because the normal recreation demand occurs at other than the normal peak weekday times. Therefore, development of a transportation system to accommodate the peak weekday traffic demand will provide capacity for recreation demand that occurs in the off-peak and weekend periods. 73 Accident History. A traffic accident analysis of Pacific Coast Highway was performed within the project area, east of MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive and the easterly adjacent section between Bayside Drive and Newport Boulevard. For purposes of review, the accident data were compiled by intersection (accidents occurring within 200 feet of the centerline of the intersection) and mid -block. The 1980 calendar year accident history was recorded and summarized by location, type of collision, severity, and road conditions. In addition, a summary of severity and roadway conditions was prepared for accident history from 1977 through 1980. A copy of the detailed accident analysis and the various summaries are contained in the technical appendix (Appendix F) on file with the City of {Newport Beach Public Works Department. Accident rates were computed and prepared with expected rates for similar types of intersections and roadway configurations using the method described in the Los Angeles County Road Department In -Service Training Program Manual (1978). Orange County and Newport Beach road conditions and accident charac- teristics were assumed to be similar to those evaluated in Los Angeles County. For comparison, the State TASAS expected accident rates are shown. The acci- dent history indicates no discernible difference between the month of the year or day of the week regarding accident frequency. The majority of the acci- dents occur in clear weather during daylight hours on dry pavement. Rear -end accidents accounted for 56% of all accidents during 1980. This high frequency suggests severe traffic congestion on the highway which causes frequent stop - and -go traffic and abrupt stops. Comparison of the 1980 accident rates against expected rates indicates that the roadway segments and intersections listed in Table L exhibit higher than expected rates. A detailed analysis was performed for each of these high -accident intersections and roadway segments with the following results: Jamboree Road Intersection - 21 of the 45 accidents (47%) that occurred at this Intersection in 1980 were of the rear -end type. This reflects unexpected stop -and -go traffic or congestion during most of the day. In addition, right-angle or broadside accidents account for 17 (38%) of the total accidents. These were caused pri- marily by insufficient sight distance for the non -protected north and south left turns and a short free right -turn merging lane on Pacific Coast Highway west of the intersection. Bayside Drive Intersection - Rear -end type accidents account for 61% of the total accidents at this intersection. These are expected to have been partially reduced by elimination of capacity constraints on the Pacific Coast Highway bridge with completion of the Cal Trans bridge construction project in April 1982. MacArthur Boulevard to Avocado Avenue Roadway Se ment - Five acci- dents during 1980 occurred in tis Short reach of Pacific Coast Highway. The 1980 accident rate is over the expected rates, although review of the previous 48 -month period shows that the over- all rate is slightly below the expected 3.3 accidents per million vehicle miles. 74 Ba side to Dover Roadway Se ment - As in the other reported high - accident oca ions, 81X ot al I accidents were of the rear -end type. Again, the major cause of this type of accident is congestion or lack of roadway capacity. Rocky Point to Riverside Avenue Roadway Segment - Over half of the accidents on this roadway segment were rear -end type accidents due mainly to congestion caused at the Dover intersection. An overall analysis shows that in the 48 -month period ending December, 1980, there were 1,211 accidents along the project route between Newport Boul- evard and MacArthur Boulevard. These included 5 fatalities and 441 injured persons. Of these accidents, about 509E were rear -end type accidents. As stated earlier, the number of rear -end collisions appears to reflect the lack of storage on intersection approaches and a mix of fast and show traffic experiencing unexpected congestion during off-peak hours. Public Trans ortation and Transportation Systems Mana ement. Seven public transpor a ion lines in the Orange Lounty Iransit District's route sys- tem provide bus service along all or portions of Pacific Coast Highway. These lines are Routes 1, 35, 43143Aj43B, 45, 57, 65, 80, and 82. Route 1 provides continuous service along the project limits and Routes 57 and 65 serve the majority of the project. Figure 21 depicts existing transit routes as of Feb- ruary 1, 1981. Current service frequencies an the ten lines are summarized in Table M. Service frequency varies between commuting peak and off-peak times on weekdays. Service is less frequent (or non-existent) for certain lines on Saturday, and only six of the lines currently operate on Sunday. Except for Route 43143A143B, all of the routes enter Newport Center and stop in the shopping center. This transfer point presently serves as a trans- portation terminal. In addition to OCTD service, Greyhound uses the Pacific Coast Highway corridor and makes a stop on Riverside Avenue northerly of Pacific Coast Highway. The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) currently plans to expand bus service in the City of Newport Beach by increasing the frequency of service and developing a transit terminal in Newport Center. The Irvine Company, the local landowner, has previously dedicated a site for the terminal and OCTD has prepared several planning studies identifying the type of center and public transit services to provide in Newport Center. This year OCTD will begin preparation of a detailed site selection study to determine the specific loca- tion of the transit center and the type of facility to be constructed. The center will provide a convenient transfer point for residents of Newport Beach and employees wfio work in the Newport Center complex. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies are being 'Formulated for new development within the City of Newport Beach. The strategies expected to be utilized include carpooling, increased bus patronage, flex time, and staggered work hours. As part of the approval of General Plan Amendment 80-3 O-A.4UklogIL 75 for Newport Center, a TSM program was formulated. The program as approved by the City of Newport Beach is geared to reducing peak -period traffic volumes generated by proposed new developments within Newport Center as well as by existing development within Newport Center. Bikeways. The City of Newport Beach has an extensive bikeway system servin�esidents of the community as well as providing commuter and rec- reation -type trails. The existing system ranges from shared roadway use to complete off-road bikeways. Within the project limits, a separate off-road bikeway exists along the south side of Pacific Coast Highway between Jamboree Road and Avocado Avenue. Between Riverside Avenue and Newport Boulevard (SR -55), a combination pedestrian/bicycle sidewalk facility. is provided along the southerly parkway. in other areas, lanes are provided along the roadway edge. Trans ortation Plannin Two planning and circulation studies are presently eing per orme an for processed that could impact circulation along Pacific Coast Highway in the project vicinity. The first study is the Route 55 Transportation Corridor Study. This study evaluates eight alternatives for the improvement of State Route 55 from the termination of the Costa Mesa Freeway (Route 55) in the vicinity of Bris- tol Street to Pacific Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The alternatives range from no project to a full freeway on the existing adopted alignment. Also included in the analysis of the eight alternatives are transit alternatives consisting of a park-and-ride bus system. Each of the alternatives will include an analysis of improvements needed for the Pacific Coast Highway/Newport Boulevard interchange. The full potential impacts of the Route 55 study are not known at this time, but it is anticipated that all the alternatives except for no project would result in improved traffic circulation for the area. The second circulation analysis being conducted in the City of Newport Beach is preparation of an EIRIEIS for widening Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Golden West Street in the City of Huntington Beach. This study was recently started and the Draft EIS is scheduled to be circu- lated in late 1982. FUTURE CIRCULATION SYSTEM AND CONDITIONS Local Circulation. The planned circulation network within the City of Newport ac is presented in Figure 16 (Page 79). The circulation system shown in Figure 16 has been planned to provide local and regional transporta- tion facilities to accommodate existing, approved, and planned development within the City of Newport Beach and the surrounding areas. Implementation and development of the City's Circulation Element Master Plan will be accomplished through construction of roadway improvements by the City of Newport Beach, California Department of Transportation, and in con- -III O.A J) Coo�+��� 76 junction with adjacent development. At this time, various segments have been constructed and other segments will be improved as a condition of development approvals. Figure 14 (Page 58) illustrates the location of committed roadway improvements expected to be in place by either 1986 or 1995. Pacific Coast Highway is one of the facilities which requires major improvements for comple- tion. These improvements are not committed for improvement in conjunction with approved development. Future Traffic Volumes. The need for improvements to Pacific Coast Highway within the project limits will be a function of existing and future traffic volumes. Future traffic volume forecasts for the area have been developed in conjunction with the processing of development applications with- in the City of Newport Beach. For short-term traffic conditions, the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) is a valuable tool in providing estimates of project - related traffic from planned developments. The TPO requires that any project greater than 10 dwelling units and/or 10,000 square feet be analyzed for its impact on the circulation system. The procedures contained in the TPO estab- lish criteria for analyses and require identification of the cumulative impact of traffic in the City. The TPO process has been in effect for more than three years and there- fore provides a major component to identifying future development within the City of Newport Beach and the anticipated timing of that development. Based on the most recent TPD analyses and traffic analyses conducted for General Plan Amendments 80-3 and 81-1 for the City of Newport Beach, the year 1986 provides for the most reliable accumulation of existing traffic, committed/ planned project traffic, and traffic resulting from regional growth. A discussion of the future land use and transportation improvements which have been assumed to occur by either 1986 or 1995 is found on Pages 52-60 of this document. Table F (Page 55) lists the various land development projects which are anticipated to be completed and fully occupied by 1986. Figure 13 (Page 57) illustrates the location of these projects. The projects listed in Table F were aggregated into ten sub -areas and daily and peak -period traffic distributed to Pacific Coast Highway. Table N provides a summary of traffic to/from these projects for various segments along Pacific Coast Highway. Figure 14 (Page 58) illustrates the locations of committed transportation improvements. Like the 1986 traffic forecasts, 1995 traffic forecasts for the area will be influenced by additional planned development within the City of Newport Beach and the surrounding areas, implementation of the circulation system for the area, and regional growth. It should be noted that currently approved and planned developments within the City, listed in Table F, represent the major- ity of future ultimate development within the City. Therefore, future traffic increases after 1986 are anticipated to be significantly less than the increases between 1980 and 1986. The following paragraphs provide a discus- sion of the 1986 and 1995 traffic forecasts. t 77 1986 Traffic Volume Forecast. The expected daily and peak hour- ly traffic volumes for aci is oas ighway are presented in Figure 22. The traffic volume forecasts are based on regional growth, approved projects, and proposed developments expected to be occupied by 1986 (Table F, Figure 13). Additional information on the methodology and procedures used to develop the 1986 traffic forecasts are contained in the technical appendix (Appendix F) on file with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. Figure 14 illus- trates the committed road improvements expected to be in place by 1986. Table 0 provides a summary of 1986 AADT and peak -hour traffic volumes. 1995 Traffic Volume Forecast. Development of the 1995 traffic volume forecastwas made atter careful review of traffic forecasts generated by the City of Newport Beach Transportation Computer Model and past growth trends along Pacific Coast Highway. Additional factors considered in project- ing 1995 traffic forecasts took into consideration the anticipated major road- way system that would be in place by 1995. Figure 14 illustrates the commit- ted road improvements assumed to be in place by 1995. The major assumptions were: 1. The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor would not be com- pleted. 2. Pelican Hill Road from Pacific Coast Highway to a connection with MacArthur Boulevard would be constructed. 3. The Avocado/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet would be con- structed. 4. The Corona del Mar Freeway (SR -73) would be extended from its present terminus to MacArthur Boulevard. To achieve the 1995 traffic volume forecasts, the 1986 ADT was projected to increase at the rate of 1% per year from 1986 to 1995. These forecasts were then adjusted to reflect traffic that would be diverted from Pacific Coast Highway by the Pelican Hill Road construction. In addition, minor adjustments were made in the traffic volume forecasts to account for the Avo- cado/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet. The results of these analyses are presented in Figure 22 and summarized in Table 0. Intersection Capacity. The capacity of each of the principal inter- sections w17n the project area for the years 1986 and 1995 was calculated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table P (copies of the ICU worksheets are contained in the technical appendix (Appendix F) on file with the City of New- port Beach Public Works Department). Table C (Page 7) provides definitions of the various levels of service. Table Q provides a summary of the assumed intersection configurations for existing (1980), 1986, and 1995. The 1986 and 1995 configurations -assume that the committed road projects illustrated in Figure 14 and described on Pages 54-60 of this document have been constructed as planned. O -A .4 IL 78 15 Master Plan of Arterial Highways N Source: County of Orange ❑i.,19m, G o os I c 16 Newport Beach Cir Inlled il,I III'+r C.v Goo L 17 Exist! Traffic Vo 4;4301490 UitL21 1100 26 012 000 21,60011,600 ici W HWY. W c ■ 24,4701 1.460 W 2 i 24.30011.7 r 0 650120 M 28 0601470 W 7 16,00011.630 18,7 Ci M d 21 60OI f 640 16,60014.010 W a HWY. � i r 24.36011.710 W W 16.60011,8130 t i 0,26011,140 Q T.40� m 2.2601270 t 7 16.00011.000 Md 15, 00, Mi _-j F'm NO SCALE IC t °a PACIFIC Q TRAFFIC/ 0 Source; Alderman, Swift, m TABLE 1 DATES AND LOCATIONS OF EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNT 5 Pacific Coast Date of Count Highway Segment Winter 1981 Surmner 1980 West of Riverside 214 - West of Haver 213 West of Bayside 213 5124-6130 West of Jamboree 2111 6124-6130 East of Jamboree 213 8111 West of Avocado 1116 9117 East of MacArthur 213 7113-7126 c 82 TABLE J INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ITION51 1980 (Existing) Pacific Coast Highway - i 2 Leve� Intersection at ICU Service Riverside Avenue 0.8969 D Dover Drive 0.9501 E Bayside Drive 0.9657 E Jamboree Road 0.9407 E Newport Center Drive 0.5969 A1B Avocado Avenue 0.7125 C MacArthur Boulevard 0.9604 E lAnalysis assumes the following intersection lane configurations: lacitic Coast ftgl I At Riverside Aromas Olsen Drive 2a"Ide Drive .1am&m Read sock far Df ivo R1iteaf i 0X f ft%woet centre Delve AVOCA" AwOe 7reArthw farlle►ard *W-ber of Lanae 7101r771eOtfW 58UTYIfU1i1D .}1'rIOKAL 91TI04AL T11 M1UGN/ T1tOl1C7i/ WT T11110UGIr h[Gu! RSCMT 1.RtT T"NOOM RiGIrr il]or? fAdTlO1RID 0" OMAL 1 TR RryV61!/ TKROtl6R XICRT alawr MLfTfO1JXD D"ION rNROUGN LC "F*" 111 WIT ■1011 0 0 iS,l 3 Ifb] 0 0 1 1 1 1 Q I 1 f I t I 0 i i o 1 0 1 Z 0 1 i t o ca u I a � e � WCoAlsilretioR tans - Wt. Thgo", amd Rig t TWO iti7Ca"Lwatlor tame - sats W TmfOmph Lane 21CU - Intersection Capacity Utilization level of Service E (capacity) = 1.0 _I1I,rriI stillG ooS I L All 18 Typical Hourly Weekday Demand 1 nANTrTP Pt%her UTfrUMAV I 2 1 4 s 9 1 11' T 10 II U 1 7 3 4 S i 1 s T Io- tl 12 h t n . A,M- P.M. T I Ak or ,]R T PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY LEGEND EAST OF MACARTHUR Summer aes tbound -- - Summer Eastbound Winter Westhound —4 Winter Eastbound Ii,i iac- Cl oot A f I �l is 11j � 1 r lk s 1 1 4 s R 1 0 1 IQ It Vi 1 3 3 1 5 6 1 4 9 In ti 17 Hrrw A.X. PA. Time 0 r)AT Ii,i iac- Cl oot 84 18(con#inued) Typical Hourly Weekday Demand PACIFIC COAST H r nHWAY H(AX0 Ric. 11.11. ■.N. timet nT MAT LEGEND PACIFIC C AST HIGHWAY AT SANTA HA RIVE: �-; Sumner Wes tboand ♦---i Stammer Eastbound a----� Winter Westbound 4---d Winter Eastbound ! f 1 1 ] [ i s $ 14 Al 12 1 Z ] i s a 1 / f !0 li 17 A. M. MIN P.M. i11P. TOM OT DAY 85 19 Typical Daily Travel Demand PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY EAST OF DOVER a K%t 9w %M LEGEND �---+ Sumner Westbound +'-- Summer Eastbound a---� Winter Westbound o ---a Winter Eastbound r 4 H j! sr ii ss w i] PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WEST OF DRYER 4 ti M T 0 rF ■ ■ Slut ow w wds 86 19 (continued) Typical Daily Travel Demand PACIFIC COAST HIGRWAT SANTA AHA RIVER :s u ss s: ]i le rr �� �`% +r�� 1 f -�" LEGEND Seer Westboand F-- Sumner Eastbound a Winter Westbound o ---a Winter Eastbound as f i i. I• l i. K x :M ! roll "T CIT rM L 87 TABLE K COMPARISON BETWEEN PEAK -MONTH AVERAGE DArLY TRAFFTC (ADT) AND rau � WAY Peak -Month Annual ADT % Year ADT ADT Difference Difference 1965 50.0 38.0 12.0 31.6 1966 48.5 38.0 10.5 27.6 1967 49.0 38.0 12.0 32.4 1968 48.0 36.0 12.0 33.3 1969 42.3 35.0 7.3 20.9 1970 43.0 35.0 8.0 22.9 1971 40.0 37.5 2.5 6.7 1972 42.0 37.5 4.5 12.0 1973 42.0 37.5 4.5 12.0 1974 43.0 37.5 5.5 14.7 1975 50.0 43.5 6.5 14.9 1976 50.0 43.5 6.5 14.9 1977 50.0 43.5 6.5 14.9 1978 50.0 43.5 6.5 14.9 1979 50.0 43.5 6.5 14.9 1980 45.5 43.5 2.0 4.6 1Volumes per day measured in thousands. Source: CalTrans published annual traffic volumes. GL�l1�y �l c QQ 20 Comparison of Peak -Hour Volumes lot- 9 {� 7 ■ ■ 0 i 1 t 5 u 4 ~� 102. It 1 • , ��a SUKHER WEEKEND W/a StI1 KZR WEEKEND E/8 • D-�d WINTER WRERDhx W/6 a.—_ -d WINTER weeKDAY E/8 Ji 1 2 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 d 7 8 9 10 11 12 NOON KID. A.H. A.K. TIKE or DAY Pacific Coast Highway east of Dover Drive �WCG• 0*41man �, ary 4t, 16 Cir�ni_Pr t M TABLE L ACCIDENT RATESI INTERSECTIONS xpecte Actual2 LACR03 TASAS4 Jamboree Road 1.87 0.74 0.85 Bayside Drive 0.90 0.42 0.54 ROADWAY SEGMENTS MacArthur Boulevard to Avocado Avenue 4.35 1.62 3.30 Bayside Drive to Dover Drives 6.64 1.62 3.30 Rocky Point to Riverside Avenue 5.43 1.62 3.30 Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive 2.20 1.62 3.30 1Rates for intersections are measured as accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection. Rates for roadway segments are measured as acci- dents per million vehicle miles. 21980 statistics. 3The source for the methodology used for calculating expected rates is the Los Angeles County Road Department In -Service Training Program Manual (April 11, 1978). Orange County and Newport Beach road conditions and accident characteristics were assumed to be similar to those evaluated in Los Angeles County. 4For comparison purposes, the State's TASAS expected accident rates are shown. 'These data are for conditions prior to the April 1982 completion of the Pacific Coast Highway bridge between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive. Updated actual accident rates are not yet available. 000 Digitized by GooSlc 21 Existing Bus Routes Orange County Transit District fill 11, i1rt by Goo le ,}-- Existing Roadways Proposed Roads -Master Plan of Streets and Highways r lutes r.� 43143A143B -- 45 • -� 57 s► $ °3 e5 82 F 0 A T • � 1 �� m PrasprCt at. � ��6R Qr�n� St. N no scale Orange County Transit District fill 11, i1rt by Goo le 91 TABLE M BUS SERVICE FREQUENCY 1Measured by minutes between buses. 2Not effective during University of California Irvine summer recess. Source: orange County Transit District Service Improvement Program, effective June 14, 1981. Transit Service Fre uenc 1 Route Weekday Weekday Number (Peak Period) (Off -Peak) Saturday Sunday 1 30 30 60 60 43A -- 15 15 15 45 30 60 60 60 57 10 10120 20 20 65 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 -- 822 60 60 -- -- 1Measured by minutes between buses. 2Not effective during University of California Irvine summer recess. Source: orange County Transit District Service Improvement Program, effective June 14, 1981. k1 -3:144K 1986 TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROJECTS See Table F for a description of CoRmitted Projects Avocado MacArthur to ffour MacArthur East or peak Hour o a ra Peak Project Areas ADT n ADTUF—V9 AUT Uff--VM I. Newport Center 30,086 1,354 ,290 464 195 2,924 286 132 11. Bayside Square 450 24 1 36 5 2 36 5 2 III. MacArthur residential 1,857 85 1 186 B 6 186 6 S 1V. Aeranutronic Ford 3,950 18Q I - - - 396 12 18 V. North Ford 3,840 180 I - - - 384 50 18 VI. Airport area 1,DOD 46 - - - 986 120 45 V11. Ruby Barron/Shokrian 640 17 144 15 7 I1Q 12 5 VIII. Hoag Hospital area 1,880 120 282 21 17 150 12 9 IX. Hughes Aircraft 170 9 24 3 1 18 2 1 X. Banning - GPA 81-1 14.287 656 61O 101 48 610 101 48 TOTAL COMMITTED TRAFFIC 58,164 2,667 1 �72 617 276 5,840 606 286 See Table F for a description of 22 1986/1995 Future 5 1301520 3,8041400 22.600/ 1.740 a 22,450/1 540 o PACIFIC 0. 21.100/Z IGO 22,000/2.250 2,0601140 2,0601180 w v 0 in I t t O a dc 0 0 7 eso►1 GE DAILY TRAFFIC/PEAK PERIOD TRAFFIC kGE DAILY TRAFFIC /PEAK PERIOD TRAFFIC a N0 SCALE 0 0 Q U 0 a 48 01110 . 16 5,23 001130 Ui 28.82012.910 Q 2s'so 28 30012 30,47413,174 21,15 ,,650 29,90012.W3U HWY. 30 67012 890 27 0 76012 400 32,32012,830 29,401 32.6M12A00 W O 260130 Q 2501 5001980 250130 w 2501 50!1.060 Q 19,35412 270 18 05 830 21,45012.470 19.88 ,7641880 0 ¢ 2§.30012.080 22460/1.540 29,90012.930 23,46011,780 HWY. N 7 5012 400 21,100/2,160 m 32.50012,640 22,00012,250 W W 9,35011,260 0 9,000) 1.015011,380 im 9,800 a 3,8041400 22.600/ 1.740 a 22,450/1 540 o PACIFIC 0. 21.100/Z IGO 22,000/2.250 2,0601140 2,0601180 w v 0 in I t t O a dc 0 0 7 eso►1 GE DAILY TRAFFIC/PEAK PERIOD TRAFFIC kGE DAILY TRAFFIC /PEAK PERIOD TRAFFIC a N0 SCALE 0 0 Q U 0 a 94 TABLE 0 SUMMARY OF 1986 AND 1995 FOR PACIFIC COAST 1 Roadway Segment 1986 1995 Newport Boulevard to Riverside Avenue ADT (in thousands) 59 63 Westbound peak hour 2900 3200 Eastbound peak hour 2700 2900 Riverside Avenue to Dover Drive ADT (in thousands) 54 56 Westbound peak hour 2600 2800 Eastbound peak hour 2500 2700 Dover Drive to Bayside Drive ART (in thousands) 67 71 Westbound peak hour 3600 3900 Eastbound peak hour 3200 3500 Bayside Drive to Jamboree Road AOT (in thousands) 59 62 Westbound peak hour 2700 2900 Eastbound peak hour 2400 2600 Jamboree Road to Newport Center Drive ADT (in thousands) 42 44 Westbound peak hour 2100 2300, Eastbound peak hour 1700 1900 Newport Center Drive to Avocado Avenue ADT (in thousands) 43 45 Westbound peak hour 1500 1800 Eastbound peak hour 2200 2300 Avocado Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard ADT (in thousands) 44 44 Westbound peak hour 1300 1200 Eastbound peak hour 2300 3400 MacArthur Boulevard to east of MacArthur Boulevard ADT (in thousands) 52 48 Westbound peak hour 1600 1700 Eastbound peak hour 3000 2900 1All volumes are rounded to the nearest whole number, Source: Alderman, Swift, and Lewis. L_ 95 TABLE P INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 5 1980(Existing) 1986 1995 Pacific Coast Highway Level nf Level o5f Level o Intersection at ICU2 5ervice3 ICU2 Service3 ICU2 Service3 Riverside Avenue 0.8969 D 0.9345 E 0.9563 E Dover Drive 0.9501 E 0.8773 D 1.1313 F Bayside Drive 0.9657 E 0.9375 E 0.9772 E Jamboree Road 0.9407 E 1.1501 F 1.1094 F Back Bay Drive Extension NIA4 - 0.8594 D 0.9250 E Newport Center Drive 0.5959 AIB 0.8281 D 0.8375 D Avocado Avenue 0.7125 C 1.0189 F NIA - wlone-way couplet NIA4 - 1.1532 F 1.1251 F MacArthur Boulevard 0.9504 E 1.0344 F NIA - wlone-way couplet NIA4 - 1.3126 F 1.3047 F 1See Table Q which provides a summary of the assumed intersection configura- tions for existing (1980), 1986, and 1995. The 1986 and 1995 configurations assume that the committed road projects illustrated in Figure 14 and describ- ed on Pages 54-60 are constructed as planned. 2ICU = intersection Capacity Utilization, Level of Service E (capacity) _ 1.0. 3See Table C for definitions of levels of service. 4Not applicable, future road improvement. TABLE Q INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS - EXISTING, 198r,--7mu 1995 bdisdM ( 1980) r-ricle comes alwe—r +la [l+spr/l4/ itWoosr an W Mlw laTrl+r 7rlw .T� PAN."a" lir lon pposom i4erarlrF wr}an swan a,r.w ;NN"Lkw 111"overd 96 imp Ce-ol"alall last - Lrfl. "WWW A &" lives I im Crwklraum IMn - i+/l @MR Thaws" L~. !! 1986 1� shits■ comm oil" ■a w►rrr-►M ArII-e1R Oarar Drive w.l+r srlrr ,mmo� lilowl lama " prise liae,�.alri •0"o" c rr Wive A-rre+r Brr-ea IlarArller .a.l.:.m loM V0RL M 1 LL!—, " -_t _- v '.t®s®sesesee�eee esse�ssesesaeeae • -� '1 ':3l Sa! '.:: '1 � V '�'-_ ' '..1 "11 'V LJ..'v s® www w��■� �wws�w ■�r �s■ ww w www www s� waw w w�ssw�� rw■w■■�■� wwww w w orslpell TRACIK)11. III Rtd1'r u ease© 101"1 TafCYC11. IL Car 111 GR' �ewessseses 11['trilplaN Tospou= i°R! I"Ism ^Y alorr RICA 0 0 1 1111 , it W� 0 0 2 3 iwwwww�ww� I 0 w�ww�■�■��■w,s 1 0 `I esaessasesseesee l l a 1 1 4 1 7 w w w w�■ww■www ■ l �wwsw 0 ■�r� �w w ��■ 11i1 ww w�+rwwww�ww■ 1 0 �■�■ �■ ■www / w wwwwiw www■ I w w imp Ce-ol"alall last - Lrfl. "WWW A &" lives I im Crwklraum IMn - i+/l @MR Thaws" L~. !! 1986 1� shits■ comm oil" ■a w►rrr-►M ArII-e1R Oarar Drive w.l+r srlrr ,mmo� lilowl lama " prise liae,�.alri •0"o" c rr Wive A-rre+r Brr-ea IlarArller .a.l.:.m friC+yia,600R 4r++ - &*I:. TArosso aid Aiv/ia Tare VHF CIe/lar "O 6Rwr - Lola uea TLrwlii Lamm 1995 inTsliMrcie raci!!r Cord Riverside Arrww Qr f prim "Wakoff get" S11a/orrr As*4 /-c11 /ar Drive 1[-eaa+lrei I I el Cellerr Drive at.real/o A+rllw --CAreR%r -wll Flab loM V0RL M 1 LL!—, " -_t _- v '.t®s®sesesee�eee esse�ssesesaeeae Asp �■ raw ■e�en�w�w��w� ■� ■�■ w�■ewe■w�■e� �w■wrw�■w�w�■w 'OQOwa0000®000040 www■ www w��■� �wws�w ■�r ��s�w ww w www www s� waw w Iww���■w■ rw■w■■�■� wwww w w friC+yia,600R 4r++ - &*I:. TArosso aid Aiv/ia Tare VHF CIe/lar "O 6Rwr - Lola uea TLrwlii Lamm 1995 inTsliMrcie raci!!r Cord Riverside Arrww Qr f prim "Wakoff get" S11a/orrr As*4 /-c11 /ar Drive 1[-eaa+lrei I I el Cellerr Drive at.real/o A+rllw --CAreR%r -wll Flab lei Corilnae Yee Lasa - te0l. '.hrw101 and iii Ha lam Goos le 1Y1[9ralMlllei.R[e eves Z*ralr�n Gla ww-bol 91 Lam" iIyLTTR! 14a711/I/1AO 0/7Yg11a;i TI1a0Y'6[.! K R! iOpRIIRKrJRIa orslpell TRACIK)11. III Rtd1'r u tmrrmp0m 101"1 TafCYC11. IL Car 111 GR' 11['trilplaN Tospou= i°R! I"Ism ^Y alorr RICA 0 0 1 1111 , it W� 0 0 2 3 Z I 0 l 1 0 `I 1 l l a 1 1 4 1 7 ] 3 ■ l i 0 1 4 11i1 0 1 0 1 0 3 l / t l 1 I Q ! 1 i 0 1 t v 2 t i a i I p 0 b 0 0 0 I110 0 L _9f /1 0 i lei Corilnae Yee Lasa - te0l. '.hrw101 and iii Ha lam Goos le 1Y1[9ralMlllei.R[e eves Z*ralr�n Gla 97 ACOUSTICS A comprehensive noise analysis of the project alternatives was conducted and appears in Appendix C of this document. The technical appendices are on file with the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department for public review. The noise study includes an assessment of existing noise conditions along the project area, as well as project impacts on the noise environment and recom- mended mitigation measures (see Environmental Consequences). There are two sets of noise criteria that are critical to analysis of this project. These are the Federal noise standards used by the Federal High- way Administration (FHWA) and the City of Newport Beach noise standards estab- lished in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan. Each of these stan- dards employs different noise metrics, reflecting a difference in methodology for measuring noise. The noise standard used by FHWA is related to the peak one-hour noise level. It is described in terms of the Equivalent Noise Level (Leq).The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour; i.e., the average noise based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the sound. It can be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the actual fluctuating noise level. The noise measure of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the most commonly used noise descriptor for land use planning purposes. CNEL is a time -weighted 74 -hour annual energy average noise level based on the A -weight- ed decibel. CNEL can be more comprehensibly defined by describing its compo- nent parts. CNEL is the combination of the loudness of a noise event, the duration of the noise event, and the time of occurrence of the event. The idea behind CNEL is that noises which occur during some times of the day cause more impact than those occurring at other 'times of the day. Three distinct time periods have been identified: daytime, evening, and nighttime. These time periods have been defined as 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. for daytime, 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. for evening, and 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. for nighttime. Noises that occur dur- ing evening and nighttime periods are penalized because of increased noise sensitivity during this period. The actual penalty applied differs for the two periods and can be described in two different but equivalent ways. Throughout the noise analysis for this project, two discussions of each alternative are presented: one in terms of Federal noise standards in Leq and one in terms of City standards in CNEL. FHWA design noise levels estab- lish an exterior noise standard for residential land uses of 67 Leq and an interior standard for residences of 52 Leq. The design noise level applies to private yard areas and assumes that typical wood frame homes with windows open provide 10 dB noise reduction (outdoor to indoor) and 20 dB noise reduction with windows closed. The City of Newport Beach, in its Noise Ele- ment of the General Plan, establishes noise standards for various uses. For residential land uses the City has established an outdoor noise standard of 65 CNEL and an indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL-for residential noise environ- ments. M MEASURED NOISE LEVELS Two sets of measurements were made, one during the summer of 1980 and one during the winter of 1981. This was done to identify any significant seasonal variation in traffic noise levels. Measurements were taken from 14 locations along the highway. Appendix C contains a description of the measurement meth- odology employed in the analysis as well as illustrations depicting the locations of the 14 measurement sites. Figures 23 and 24 illustrate the results of noise measurements from two of the sites: Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point. The two sites are not the same distance from the road, which accounts for the difference in measured levels. An interesting aspect of the resu 1 ts. is the lack of a peak noise hour reflected in the data. The peak hour begins about 7 a.m. and lasts through midnight. This is unusual for community noise, which usually shows a much larger variation in noise level with time. Review of the traffic data con- firms the long periods of high traffic on this roadway. The data also reveal that in the Irvine Terrace area there is not a significant difference between summer and winter noise levels, while at Promontory Point summer is distinctly louder than winter. "Lour *U11VO +INK11*11W, The noise measurements were taken for the purpose of calibrating the FHWA highway noise model. It is felt that modeling is a more accurate method of assessing existing noise levels than measuring, because the model can be used to calculate worst-case conditions. The model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the Leg equivalent noise level. Computer calculations can also produce CNEL noise levels from equivalent noise levels. The modeled results of the existing 67 Leq contour and 65 CNEL con- tour for selected locations along the section of Pacific Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive are illustrated in Figures 25 and 26. Based on the plotted location of the noise contours, the following land use impacts have been identified for existing conditions. Table R presents the number of residential structures currently impacted by existing noise along Pacific Coast Highway. This table shows that the current noise impact is most severe in the De Ania Bayside Village mobile home park. For Promontory Point, the number shown is the number of apartment buildings. Approximately six apartment units for each building are in a noise -exposed location (facing the roadway). Results of the noise study for the section of Pacific Coast Highway west of Dover Drive indicate that west of Dover Drive the 65 CNEL contour extends 164 feet from the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway. Several of the resi- dences in the Bayshores community west of Dover Drive appear to be well within the 65 CNEL contour and are thus presently impacted by noise levels exceeding local standards. r 99 23 Irvine Terrace Noise Exposure ��lUIlit!lt1C�, !lflI,3E,lflJvltf . . 68--- 64... 8 .. # I1�Tf ... ... ... .. .... . t t ... ...;... .. 5UPIM .. .. .... 58- 52- 46-F .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. . . a 6 8 18 12 14 16 182922 24 HOUR OF THE DAY Source: Vincent Hestre and Associates P ,L._�_-1 !,y 100 24 Promontory Point Noise Exposure WISE LOJEA ........ so* .....Amww."Cam.... ■.M.....�W..:- - .... 48 8 123 4'5 8 7 8 14 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 HOUR OF THE DAY Source: Vincent Mestre and Associates C1 _oh-= f fq Goos1C .. .. ... i ................��?. ... y.... y4 ..... .. . i. .............................. .�.7i f ......LT...................................... ... ! . . / . 1 . ..................................... . 48 8 123 4'5 8 7 8 14 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 HOUR OF THE DAY Source: Vincent Mestre and Associates C1 _oh-= f fq Goos1C A Source: Vincent Hestre Assoc. �fighwa a' 00810 102 26 Existing 67 Leq & 65 CNEL Noise Contours/Selected Locations f S raj lbAI '4`• - ti ' eta ro •`r I r �1 --T __ a� J Source: Vincent Mestre Assoc. Digitized by Google 103 TABLE R NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IMPACTED BY EXISTINGNOISE Impacted Structures Location Federal Standards Local Sta_n_d_a_rUs` De Anza Bayside Village 12 46 Promontory Pointl 6 9 Irvine Terrace 1 29 1Number indicates the number of apartment buildings. Approximately six apartments per building are in a noise -exposed location (facing the roadway). Source: Vincent Mestre Associates. I Goo Ile 104 AIR QUALITY An air quality analysis of existing and future air quality conditions within the project area and the surrounding region was conducted and is inclu- ded in its entirety in Appendix D of this report. In addition, a carbon mon- oxide monitoring study was conducted by the City of Newport Beach for an area near Pacific Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. This study conducted in Febru- ary to April 1982 is also included in Appendix D of this report. The follow- ing discussion is a summary of the analysis pertaining to existing air quality conditions. DISPERSION CLIMATOLOGY Weather patterns in Newport Beach which affect dispersion of roadway - related pollutants are governed by the prevailing high pressure over the ocean, low pressure over the desert, and interaction of wind and topography as air moves from the ocean toward the desert. Climatic conditions in the gener- al coastal area are marked by cool summers, mild winters, high humidity, limited rainfall, brisk winds, and a generally pleasant laving climate. Unfortunately, the same conditions that combine to create an attractive cli- mate also combine to severely restrict the ability of the atmosphere to dis- perse is- perse pollutants generated by the large population living in the coastal zone of the air basin. In the summer, stagnation of air pollutants generally occurs in the inland valleys of Southern California, while the sea breeze pushes pollutants inland. In the winter, winds become light and variable, and the potential for stagnation of pollutant emissions within heavily populated coastal communities increases. Winds. Dispersion of vehicular pollutants is controlled mainly by winds wi iich govern the horizontal rate of diffusion and by the thermal stabil- ity structure that determines the vertical depth through which emissions are dispersed. Along Pacific Coast Highway in the project area, two excellent wind data resources define the existing wind distribution within the project corridor. A wind station at the Orange County Harbor Department on Bayside Drive has been gathering data for 24 years. Also, a six-month monitoring study was conducted by Cal Trans near the Irvine Coast Country Club. Figure 27 illustrates the wind direction frequency distribution (wind rose) for the Bayside Drive monitoring station. It indicates that, in addi- tion to prevailing onshore flow from the southwest and west, the site experi- ences frequent channeling of winds up the Newport Bay entrance channel from the southeast and cool winter drainage winds from the north off the bluff from Corona del Mar into the bay. Figure 27 also illustrates the wind rose for the Irvine Coast Country Club site for March -September 1979. During the warmer months, the winds are almost exclusively onshore, with stronger winds by day (8-I0 mph) and weaker winds at night (1-3 mph). Although there are significant month-to-month variation in average pollutant distribution is caused by in wind distribution. 106 day/night variations, there is little wind speed. Consequently, seasonal air something other than seasonal differences Inversions. Pronounced seasonal differences in basin air quality result more from changes in the vertical stability structure than horizontal air movement. In warmer months, the sinking of the air in the large high- pressure center over the ocean creates compression and forms a huge dome of warm, dry air over California. As sea breezes develop, they bring a very shallow layer of damp, cool marine air inland. In the cool marine air, tem- peratures decrease with height, allowing for turbulent mixing of air. How- ever, with the warm, dry air above, temperatures increase with height, produc- ing an inversion. Inversions severely inhibit turbulent mixing such that the boundary between the marine and subsiding air becomes an impermeable barrier for vertical pollution dilution. This type of inversion (marine/subsidence inversion) occurs during all seasons of the year, but is most common in summer when the Pacific High is strongest and farthest north. During the summer the inversion acts in con- junction with well -organized onshore flow and abundant sunshine to create a photochemical reaction between the oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocar- bons emitted by automobiles and other sources, creating smog (mostly ozone). A second inversion type occurs at night when the air which contacts the ground cools, while the air aloft remains warm. This forms a surface -based radiation inversion that traps low-level emissions such as automobile exhaust near the ground. 'These inversions occur at night during all seasons, but are strongest in winter when the air is already cool, the nights are long, and the air is still. Since winter nights are characterized by weak offshore winds, the combination of these winds and radiation inversions leads to high concen- trations of unreacted automobile exhaust (such as carbon monoxide or oxides of nitrogen) in the coastal communities, while the inland valleys get a respite from their warm -season smog problems. As a consequence of this seasonal and daily inversion distribution in Southern California coastal areas, summer afternoons in inland valleys and winter nights in coastal communities have a significant potential for degraded air quality conditions. BASELINE AIR QUALITY National clean air standards have been established for seven pollutant species, with states retaining the right to establish even more stringent standards or to develop guidelines for additional species or different expos- ure periods. California had State air quality standards even before the Fed- eral action in 1971, thus there is considerable variation between California and national Ambient Air Quality Standards. Those standards currently in effect are shown in Table S. For roadway projects, standards for carbon mon- oxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead are of particular importance on a local 107 TABLE S AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS rwlu r4.a �R.w>♦rq run. Cr.lar.ra 31rw..e■ ht at.ewa� Sunaw4a _ Ca..e.wrrarwn M�.no4 � hwnw+r Sacontlarr ` MNI•oa• Qs.earK I how 0 10 DOM Iflera..p+.r •.• — — 1200 uV fwt rnprom.rnr 0ivn4 I 1 naw — — IW up! nN Sam* as 7nm&.v G+em.lu.��►aCM. IQ 12 a&rn Sunnara «n ^ea GJrlbn Ma.aa.Y. 12 'Rw + +Q elven — I W[ mqr el3 Non -O apa*sw Inlrarw S•mf of h..narS ksn•0r !nlri•.v a"O 6 h~ 1Q my1n+ Sprccrpirnev li OYwH 5taroaraa Saavrci_�p. 1 how 40 vwn :0 mym+ I" mpr 131 rmrr M.rropan .i+oad4 - �nrww A. -"g .' 100 .p.,..+ 005 00-6 Gas A•ss. Sa.tsman Munae — Scan a3 ►nnr4ry Suns3ora Ch.m..�n•.naaeaexa 1 *4■. ale "M 1470 rp4m+1 ULI•rr Q.oada anny4l A.wapa - 60 upr m' •� 1303 aeon 305 00m 365 rp/.wl _ 14 now 4131 WWWOMI COAOUR.marr.0 IOL il pNnl Ualhaa Altltla4 3 hew — — two WO/ MA 10.1 ltonu 0.3 asln — — 1 NOW 11310 up�n+l1 5.na.ntlac An m G.orwa" 80 .pr ai 7'f w/no 40 W lmr OatiNlsFe mo*" +uarrt• is how m4A VOauln. SM #Omq M.ph Vow"" Samp..rp 100 yv , Z6a QWM& 153 Yp/.n+ lui+arta 2A nov 7S �V m• +W+t Ap.rnpA _ — — tia a{ Laq 70 6a. 1.5 upl.ralI uwL Mnnaq Awe p. as 54 mw -o+ 1 S W fw 1.3 %wff j Aa34rp.on A n.aecm t now 003 vane cwrn,-m Swdr q 143 Woo tftaW■ S.racsa I rt.rnutl I If.mrvyraent 3 hey■ — 16a Wma Sam■ ■3 �1am4 .pn.iargn ICa•rraclad Ipr 16.9 &M) 424 00" i*.mary A.!aCx lcn Vsrnp Mwhann _ SI■raalpi Gas Chv*a +cegfjc+r Virr.r CNN de 14 hew 0-010 "m C43 C1rr ausp- IChwrp.rnanal IZ8 Qv -,I •aer+. 1►I16 teal! rupon 76 9-31 1 hoer 5.3 Dom 'r. s+a••rr s avroniea3n IA svh•n Mi YneY�r 'p 9atluonp ?&dUCa mg er..aH3.0.•r. w wa titan '6 meas ..n.n rn• rwan.. num.unr ,3 .as3 +h an -0 _ Bl qi izm by ClOOS iC 108 scale, while the vehicular contribution to increased ozone concentrations is the primary regional concern. There are several sources of data to define baseline air quality within the project area. CalTrans conducted a six-month (March -September 1979) air quality monitoring study at Clubhouse Drive (located between Newport Center Drive and Jamboree Road, Figure 12, Page 53) near Pacific Coast Highway (Irvine Coast Country Club). The City of Newport Beach conducted a 6 week Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Study (February 22 - April 12, 1982) within the De Anza (Bayside Village) Mobile Home Park (Figure 12) adjacent to the Pacific Coast Highway/Bayside Drive intersection (Appendix D). These data provide a good representation of microscale air quality near the roadway. Prior to these measurements, CalTrans also conducted carbon monoxide (CO) measurements for several months at three locations along the proposed Route 55 corridor. These measurements were between 2.6 and 4.2 miles from the intersection of Jamboree Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. In addition to CalTrans moni- toring studies, there are also the annual summaries from the Air Quality Man- agement District's air quality monitoring station in Costa Mesa, about one mile from the study area. These latter data provide a good representation of long-term regional air quality distribution. Table T -presents data of existing levels of carbon monoxide (a locally generated pollutant) and ozone (03) (a pollutant primarily blown into the area from the surrounding region) measured on Clubhouse Drive near Pacific Coast Highway. Local CO levels are well below the State and Federal stan- dards, while ozone levels exceed the standards on several occasions. One interesting aspect of these data is that the -highest concentrations observed do not occur during the morning or evening rush hour, but rather late on Fri- day and Saturday nights at 10 or 11 p.m. Although traffic volumes on late- night weekends are less than at rush hour, the poorer dispersion late at night more than compensates for the lower volumes. Table if presents a summary of the Carbon Monoxide Monitoring Study con- ducted from a monitoring station placed against the wall of an existing De Anza Village mobile home adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway. Again, localized one hour CO levels are well below the State and Federal standards. Results from the three sites along the Route 55 corridor are summarized in Table V. These data show that late-night revelers from 10 p.m. to midnight on Friday and Saturday night were responsible for the maximum concentrations observed at both of the sites with hourly 00 levels over 10 ppm. The morning rush hour is the second most important traffic period associated with increas- ed CO levels. However, the data indicate that along Newport Boulevard (Route 55), as along Pacific Coast Highway, nighttime recreation and entertainment traffic creates a worse (but not necessarily excessive) air quality impact than commuter traffic. 11041)-3LI GIL10 1 109 TABLE T CLUBHOUSE DRIVE AIR QUALITY MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS: Maximum 1 -!lour Maximum 8 -Hour CO Concen. CO Concen. (ppm) (Fpm) Maximum 1 -Hour Ozone Concen. (ppm) March 1979 _ 3.8 3.0 0.10 April 1979 4.1 3.2 0.09 May 1979 5.1 2.6 0.10 June 1979 3.0 1.8 0.12 July 1979 1.8 1.5 0.13 August 1979 3.8 2.3 0.10 September 1979 2.5 2.1 0.06 I - Hour 8 -Hour I - Hour 1 -Hour Fed. CO Fed. CO Calif. Ozone Fed. Ozone Standard Standard Standard Standard STANDARD VIOLATIONS: (Hours) (Hours _ _ (Hours) (Hours) March 1979 0 0 1 0 April 1979 0 0 0 0 May 1979 0 0 1 0 June 1979 0 0 3 0 July 1979 0 0 3 1 August 1979 0 0 1 0 September 1979 0 0 0 0 Source: CalTrans TABLE U 110 CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORING SUMMARY, 1 -hour standard - 35 ppm 8 -hour standard = 9 ppm Maximum 8 -hour CO Concentration Hourly Concentration Concentration (ppm) (Flours Observed} (Days Observed) 0-1 117 -- 1-2 191 -- 2-3 151 1 3-4 116 7 4-5 86 8 5-5 47 14 6-7 25 2 7-8 14 2 8-9 9 -- 9-10 6 -- TOTAL 762 34 1 -hour standard - 35 ppm 8 -hour standard = 9 ppm III TABLE V COSTA MESA/NEWPORT BASELINE CARBON MONOXIOE LEVEE 9j Source: CalTrans Hourly 8 -Hour Time of Time of Day of Maximum Maximum Hourly Max. 8 -Hr. Max. Week Ebb Tide Trailer Court 11 ppm 5.75 ppm 11-12 p.m. 4-12 p.m. Saturday (15th & Placentia) 11 ppm 5.25 ppm 9-12 p.m. 2-10 a.m. Wednesday 10 ppm 5.00 ppm 9-11 a.m. 3-11 a.m. Wednesday 9 ppm 6.00 ppm 9-10 p.m. 4-12 p.m. Friday 8 ppm 5.38 ppm 8-11 a.m. 6 a.m. - Monday 2 p.m. Southern California 12 ppm 7.25 ppm 10-11 p.m. 4-12 p.m. Friday College (Newport 10 ppm 6.00 ppm 10-11 p.m. 4-12 p.m. Saturday Boulevard) 9 ppm 5.50 ppm 3- 5 a.m. 1- 9 a.m. Wednesday Coastline College 7 ppm 6.00 ppm 1- 4 a.m. 1- 9 a.m. Friday Learning Center 7 ppm 4.87 ppm 9-10 a.m. 7- 3 p.m. Monday (Mesa Verde Drive 7 a.m. - East) 3 p.m. Source: CalTrans 112 The annual summary from the AQMD station in Costa Mesa is tabulated in Table W. Because the CalTrans monitoring data are somewhat limited in terms of sampling duration, it may be instructive to look at the long-term air qual- ity distribution data from the AQMD station. These data show somewhat higher levels of ozone and carbon monoxide than along Pacific Coast Highway, and also that particulate levels are at times exceeded within the region near the proj- ect site. There is no good explanation as to why 8 -hour CO levels are consid- erably higher at the AQMD site than at any of the Cal Trans sites, but it does suggest that there are significant microscale differences in CO distributions not well resolved by most monitoring networks. PUBLIC UTILITIES Several underground utility lines exist along the project site. These include a 30 -inch water main owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach, a Southern California Edison 1,240 -volt line, and a 12 -inch gas main operated by the Southern California Gas Company. The City of Newport Beach also main- tains storm drains along the route, and Pacific Telephone maintains under- ground cables. ENERGY An energy study was conducted for the proposed project. This study is found in its entirety in Appendix E. Existing energy use along the project route is caused primarily by fuel consumption of vehicles using the road and maintenance of the facility, s 113 TABLE W ANNUAL SUMMARY OF GLEAN AIR STANDARDS MONITORING STATION CARBON MONOXIDE L nr. ;� sz� ppm 8 hrs. > 9 ppm Max. 1 -hr. (ppm) Max. 8 -hr. (ppm) NITROGEN DIOXIDE r. ppm Max. 1 --hr. ( ppm) SULFUR DIOXIDE 24 r. > 0.05 ppm Max. 24 --hr. (ppm) PARTICULATES 24 hrs. 100 pg/m3 Max. 24 Fr. (pg/m3) LEAD Imo. > 1.5 rglm3 Max. monthly (pg/m3) 0 0 0 0 20 Pollutant - Standard 1977 1978 1979 1980 OZONE 17 12.4 12.8 10.9 F r. > 0.08 ppm 38 64 -- -- 1 hr. > 0.10 ppm 1 hr. ri 0.12 ppm 31 -- 52 25 26 16 20 5 1 hr. > 0.20 ppm Max. 17 -hr. (ppm) 0 0.18 3 4.22 1 0.21 0 0.16 CARBON MONOXIDE L nr. ;� sz� ppm 8 hrs. > 9 ppm Max. 1 -hr. (ppm) Max. 8 -hr. (ppm) NITROGEN DIOXIDE r. ppm Max. 1 --hr. ( ppm) SULFUR DIOXIDE 24 r. > 0.05 ppm Max. 24 --hr. (ppm) PARTICULATES 24 hrs. 100 pg/m3 Max. 24 Fr. (pg/m3) LEAD Imo. > 1.5 rglm3 Max. monthly (pg/m3) 0 0 0 0 20 9 18 7 18 18 21 17 12.4 12.8 10.9 13.8 0 4 4 2 0.23 0.30 0.29 0.31 0 0 0 0 0.034 0.017 0.018 0.020 13160 10161 26161 6120 202 175 225 125 5112 4112 3112 014 3.63 3.11 1.90 0.82 SULFATES "-Fr . > ug/m3 3160 2161 0161 4120 Max. 24 -'Fr. (pg/m3) 37.8 27.2 24.2 13.5 -- means no data. 1;:131a,14GOosil' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 115 GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadway Modification Design Alternative A-1: Widenin i Design Alternative A-2: Widening (Existing Profile). Road construction would result in moderate to minor grading. Uesign Alternative A-1 would require approximately 27,800 cubic yards of cut and 6,400 cubic yards of fi l l for a net export of cut materials totalling 21,400 cubic yards. Design Alternative A-2 would require about 2,100 cubic yards of cut and a negligible amount of fill. Preparation of pavement subgrade materials would be necessary to ensure that subsurface con- ditions are compatible with anticipated traffic conditions and pavement speci- fications. No significant adverse impacts related to geology and soils are anticipated as a result of grading and soils preparation. Design Alternative A-3: Widening ----Lowered Profile . Construction of the owe�dpro i e wou e�' r� in rate ' gr`aaing' a T the intersection. Design Alternative A-3 would require about 20,300 cubic yards of cut and 3,000 cubic yards fill for a net export of cut materials totalling 17,300 cubic yards. Laying of the pavement would require preparation of the pavement sub - grade materials. Should a detour route be constructed north of the intersec- tion, additional grading would occur. This would amount to about an addition- al 12,000 cubic yards of earth movement. No significant adverse impacts related to geology and soils are expected as a result of grading and soils preparation. Design Alternative A-4: Grade Separation. Construction of the grade separation would result in mo era a grading in an area larger than the exist- ing intersection. Design Alternative A-4 would require about 14,900 cubic yards of cut and 76,100 of fi 1 l for a net impact of fill materials totaling 61,200 cubic yards. Preparation of subgrade materials would be required before pavement could be laid. No significant adverse impacts related to geology and soils are anticipated as a result of grading and soils prepara- tion. Design Alternative A-5: Widening,,.Northern Alignment. Construction of this es1gn alternative wou require moderate gra ing to widen the roadway and to reconstruct the slope on the north side of the highway adjacent to De Anza Bayside Village (Figure 8b, Page 36). Design Alternative A-5 would require about 600 cubic yards of cut and 37,500 cubic yards of fill for a net import of fill totalling 36,900 cubic yards. Subgrade preparation would be required before paving could be laid. No significant adverse impacts related to geology and soils are anticipated as a result of grading and soils prepara- tion. Design Alternative A-6: Widening, Southern Alignment. Construction of the southern a ignmen requires modification to t e slope north of Pacific 116 Coast Highway adjacent to De Anza Bayside Village. Moderate grading would occur on bath sides of the highway to widen the roadway. Design Alternative A-6 would require about 1,400 cubic yards of cut and 35,500 cubic yards of fill for a net import of fill totalling 34,100 cubic yards. Subgrade prepara- tion would precede laying of the finished pavement. No significant adverse impacts involving geology and soils are expected as a result of grading and soils preparation. Design Alternative A-7: Addition of Travel Lanes at Signalized Inter- sections; Design Alterna Ive Addition of rave anes with n 7an,'- o - a o gra ing or sol s prepara ion is require y ese esign arna Ives. Consequently, no significant adverse impacts involving geology and soils would result from this design alternative. Alternative S: Improved Transit Service No significant adverse impacts involving geology and soils would result from this alternative. Alternative C: No project No significant adverse impacts involving geology and soils would result from selection of the no -project alternative. !MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification Standard Federal. State. and City Policies and Reauirements. a. Design Alternative A-1: widening; Design Alternative A-2: Widen- �in (Existing __ roz e Design Alternative - enin owered Profile ; Design Alternative'A-4:—taea a� ori. �Mn`To�ounda ion recormenda ions s a I be formulated to establish necessary procedures for grading -and subgrade material preparation. Grading plans shall be developed in conjunction with project design plans and in conformance with Ca]Trans and FHWA soil investiga- tion and engineering requirements. A more detailed geotechnical study shall determine procedures for grading, compaction, and subgrade preparation as well as make recommendations related to slope stability. The analysis shall include recommendations for the disposal of any excess cut material. b. Design Alternative A-5: widening, Northern Alignment; Design Alternative -6: Widenlng,_Southern Alignment. A more detal led geo ec nica s Eu -Ty s a I I de ermine procedures for grading—, compaction, and subgrade prepa- ration. The study shall address the potential for liquefaction in the area in and adjacent to the mobile home park and the slope separating it from the north side of the highway. The study shall recommend methods to remedy lique- faction potential which could include, but not necessarily be limited to: replacing low-density native soils with compacted material, chemical injec- tions or compaction grouting; in-place densification by vibro-compaction tech- niques; reinforcement of soils with piles or the -equivalent; or a combination 117 of these techniques. The modified slope on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to De Anza Bayside Village shall be reconstructed at a 2:1 grade. Mobile Domes shall be located at a setback distance from the property line of two times the adjacent slope height. Grading plans shall be developed in conjunction with project design plans, and in conformance with CalTrans and FHWA soil investigation and engineering requirements. c. Desion Alternative A: Roadway Modification. Borrow and disposal s- es utilized by the con rac or for construction of roadway modifications will comply with Sections 6, 7, and 19 of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications and Special Provisions. Alternative sites that the contractor may select will have local agency environmental clearances. These clearances will demonstrate that: i, There will be no effect on properties of historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance. ii. There are no endangered or threatened species of plants or animals affected. i i i . That dispsal of the matrial will not affect water quality or wetlands as defined by Federal Executive Order 11990. Other Mitigation. No further mitigation is required. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service No significant adverse impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. Alternative C: No Project No significant adverse impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. HYDROLOGY IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadway Modification Design Alternative A-1: Widening; Design Alternative A-4: Grade Separa- tion; Desiv Alternative - -eennin2, Northern Alignment; si nAlternative enin Southern AlIgnmen ere would e a slight increase in the amount of storm runoti t , is i w u d enter the existing drainage system. Slight storm flow increases would result from conversion of small portions of exist - 11041) -3 LI xist- 11041)-3LI GIL1081t 118 ing vacant lands adjacent to the present roadway into paved roadway improve- ments which are less pervious to rainfall. This increase is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the drainage system in the area. Existing drainage facilities along the northern edge of the roadway and through the Jamboree Road/Pacific Coast Highway intersection would be relocat- ed and/or redesigned to accommodate the widened roadway. Such adjustments would be easily accomplished as an integral part of construction. No adverse impacts related to relocation of the drainage system are expected. Design Alternative A-2: Widening (Existing Profile Design Alternative A-3: Widening (LoweredProfile). ere would be an imperceptible increase in the amount o s arm runoff as a result of this design alternative. Most widening would occur in areas already paved; consequently, the change in storm runoff would be undetectable. Existing drainage facilities would be relocated and/or redesigned to accommodate the widened roadway. Such adjustments would be easily accomplished as an integral part of the construction project. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. Design Alternative A-7: Addition of Travel Lanes at Signalized Inter- sections; Design Alternative - on of TravelLanes Within Existin of- a physical alterations eyon parking restrictions, roa res raping, and median construction are proposed. No significant adverse impacts on hydrologic conditions will occur. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service No significant adverse impacts on hydrologic conditions would result from this design alternative. Alternative C: No Project No signifidant adverse impacts on hydrologic conditions would result from this design alternative. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification Standard Federal, State. and City Policies and Reauirements. d. Desion Alternatives A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 and A-6. Drainage facility re oca ion or redesign will be accomplished in conjunction with design and construction of the alternative. All drainage systems will be approved by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. This will fur- ther assure that any slight increase in runoff or disruption of drainage facilities will cause no adverse impacts. Other Mitigation. No further mitigation is required. 119 Alternative B: Improved Transit Service No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. Alternative C: Pio Project No significant impacts are anticipated, therefore no mitigation is required. WATER -QUALITY IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadway Modification Design Alternative A-1: Widenin • Design Alternative A-2: Widen Existina Prof7e_TFlVilan Alternative - en nv(Lowered roe : 5Fs Alternative A-4: 6raae se aration• uesIn Alternative A-5: wiaeninj, northern Alignment; -Design Alternative Widening, u n Alignment. Development of these design alternatives mig cause elimination o a minute amount of sedimentation as a result of conversion of vacant fields to paved surfaces. However, construction could produce a temporary increase in sedimentation dur- ing the construction period. This could have a temporary impact on water quality in both Upper and Lower Newport Bay. Construction of the widening alternative will produce an incremental increase in runoff from increased paved areas which will contain other types of pollutants (e.g., oily substances and heavy metals). This incremental increase will be extremely small in terms of urban pollutants associated with both existing and future roadway systems in the area. This incremental increase is not expected to cause a significant adverse impact on water qual- ity. Desion Alternative A-7: Addition of Travel Lanes at Sianalired Inter- sections. nter- sections. Design Alternative A-8: Addition of Travel Lanes Within Existing Right- Of -- a . No Dhysical alterations will be made to this segment OF Pacific Loast Highway that will cause either short-term or long-term signifi- cant adverse impacts on water quality. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service No significant adverse impacts on water quality will occur as a result of implementation of this alternative. Alternative C: No Project No significant adverse impacts on water quality will occur as a result of implementation of this alternative. 10 q -1 '*' V Cip 0 og le 120 MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification Standard State, Federal, and City Policies and Requirements. e. Design Alternatives A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, and A -b. i. The alternative will be constructed in full conformance with Section 1-1.01L of the California Department of Transportation Standard Speci- fications entitled "water Pollution." Standard Cal Trans erosion control meas- ures typically include -seeding, mulching, immediate planting and fertilizing. ii. The erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be pre- pared by the City of Newport Beach. A copy will be submitted to the Califor- nia Regional water Quality Control Board for its review. iii. Exposed slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce erosion potential. Other Mitigation. No further mitigation is required The measures above wt a equa e y mitigate any temporary increase in sedimentation during construction% Alternative 8: Improved Transit Service No significant adverse impacts are expected as a result of Alternative B, therefore no mitigation is required. Alternative C: No Project No significant adverse impacts are expected as a result of Alternative C, therefore no mitigation is required. BIOTIC RESOURCES IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadwav Modification Design Alternative A-1: Widening. Widening of the MacArthur to Jambo- ree reach would impact 557 T -ons of two undeveloped areas. One of these areas is a vacant field on the northeast corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway with MacArthur Boulevard. The second undeveloped area that may be impacted is a weedy field on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway east of the Mobil station on Jamboree. These areas support limited populations of weedy vegetation and associated wildlife species. Only a fraction of these areas would be impacted by the widening alternative. Therefore, this is not considered a significant adverse impact. 121 Widening in the area of the Irvine Coast County Club would require remov- al of 11 rusty -leaf figs, 5 eucalyptus sideroxylons, 2 Monterey pines, and the relocation of 3 Victorian box trees and 1 date palm along the north side of the roadway. Since these trees are ornamental rather than native, they are considered an aesthetic resource rather than a biotic one (Visual and Aesthet- ic Resources section). Their displacement is not considered a significant biological impact. Design Alternative A-2: Widenin(Existing Profile); Design Alternative A-3: Widening (LoweredProfile Design Alternative - Grade SeRaration. ege a ion on small portions ot the disturbed UFT—area west of the eli service station and the vacant field east of the Mobil station on the high- way's northern side would be destroyed. The areas of destruction would be minimal and biotic resources that would be impacted are not significant. The grade separation alternative (A-4) and the northern ramp detour alternative for design alternative A-3 would impact slightly more area of dis- turbed slopes; but, due to the disturbed nature of the site, this is not sig- nificant. Design Alternative A-5: Widening. Northern Aliqnment: Desivn Alterna- ti ve A=6: Widening, SoutFiern ATT -nment . LTi dent ng oche T oree ays i e reach would require reconstruction of the slope north of the highway, adjacent to the De Anza Bayside Village mobile home park and Newport Dunes. This area is highly disturbed, very narrow, and supportive of minimal wildlife. Further disturbance of this area is not a significant impact. Design Alternative A-7: Addition of Travel Lanes at Signalized Inter- sections; Design Alternative - on of Travelanes within Existing Rl�ht- of -way. No impact is anticipated due to the lack ot biotic resources within this stretch of highway. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service There would he no adverse impacts on biotic resources as a result of this alternative. Alternative C: No Project There would be no adverse impacts on biotic resources as a result of this alternative. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification No significant adverse impacts have been identified, therefore no mitiga- tion is required. 122 Alternative B: improved Transit Service No significant adverse impacts have been identified, therefore no mitiga- tion is required. Alternative C: No Project No significant adverse impacts have been identified, therefore no mitiga- tion itiga- tion is required. CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadway_Modifications Archaeological/Historical Resources. Alternative A will have no advers_e_Mmp`ac s on significant arc aeo ogtcal or historical resources. Paleontological Resources. A high potential exists in the area between MacArthur Boulevard and Bayside Drive for tate discovery of significant fossil remains. Consequently, any excavation or grading associated with con- struction of design alternatives A-1 through A-6 has the potential to expose significant fossil resources. Without sufficient protective measures, this could be a significant adverse impact. Implementation of design alternatives A-7 or A-8 will not have the potential to expose or impact fossil remains. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service Archaeological /Historical /Pal eontoloical Resources. There would be no adverse impar s on cultural resources as a result of tfiTs alternative.' Alternative C: No Project Archaeological /Historical/Pal eontoloical Resources. There would be no adverse impacts on cultural resources as a result of M's alternative. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification Standard Federal,_ State,_ and City Policies and Requirements. f. Design Alternatives 8-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 and A-6. In accordance�with standard Ut y policies for the protection of paleontological resources, a qualified paleontologist will attend pre -grade meetings and will be onsite during all grading and construction activities. The paleontologist will have the authority to halt grading activities to expeditiously salvage I" 11K _! rpt L700- lile 123 any significant fossil remains uncovered during grading. These remains will be donated to a public, non-profit institution. Other Mitigation. 1. Desion Alternative A-3: widening {Lowered Profile); Design Alternative A-4: Tale epaar'a ion. Prior to any griming in the area of the slope's'a an 77Eoree oa a remains of the Pleistocene horse discovered during the field survey shall be examined and removed by a qualified paleontologist for donation to a public, non-profit institution such as the Natural History Muse- um of Los Angeles County or the Natural History Foundation of Orange County. A small surface collection of the invertebrate remains along the roadcut on Jamboree Road will be conducted. These measures will adequately mitigate any potential adverse impacts on paleontological resources. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service No significant adverse impacts have been identified, therefore no mitiga- tion is required. Alternative C: No Project No significant adverse impacts have been identified, therefore no mitiga- tion is required. LAND USE IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadway Modification Land Use. Authorization of Alternative A would result in improved circulation n e project vicinity. The proposed widening is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program. The planned surrounding land uses are also consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and adopted Local Coastal Program. Provision of the wid- ened roadway will not cause alteration in 'these planned land uses. Population and Employment. Alternative A will have no direct effects on residential oror�reemp oft population in the south Orange County region. State Urban Strategy. Both Alternative A and land development occurring In the surrounding area are compatible with the Governor's "An Urban Strategy for California." This conclusion has been reached based on the fol- lowing reasons. 124 Most of the area surrounding the project route is already developed, has been committed for development, or will remain permanently undeveloped (i.e., Upper Newport Bay). development now occurring could be described as "in -fill" development and redevelopment. It is not an example of the non-contiguous or "leap frog" development discouraged by the urban strategy. Design Alternative A -I: Widening. This design alternative would not have a significant adverse impact on any existing land uses. Design Alternative A-2: Widening (Existing Profile • Desi3n Alternative A-3: Widening (Loweredo e Design Alternative Grade _-SeRaration. e existing mobil and Shellstations on the corner of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway would be displaced. This is not considered a signifi- cant land use -related adverse impact. Discussion of economic and relocation considerations is found in the Socio -Economics section of this report. Design Alternative A-5: Widening, Northern Ali nment• Design Alterna- tive Widening, u ern A 11pnment.-Neither of ese design alterna- tives will encroach onto any portion of the Newport Dunes recreation area or otherwise adversely impact the area. Design alternative A-5 would displace an estimated 22 mobile homes and a laundry room within De Anza Sayside Village. Design alternative A-6 would displace an estimated three mobile homes and a laundry room within De Anza Bayside Village, as well as a restaurant and a gas station. Design alternative A-6 would also encroach upon the front parking area of an auto dealership. Displacement of these uses will not alter sur- rounding existing or planned land uses. Consequently, this is not considered a significant adverse impact on land use. however, potential socio-economic impacts and relocation considerations are discussed in the Socio -Economics section of this report. Desi n Alternative A-7: Addition of Travel Lanes At Si nalized Inter- sections• be -sign Alternative A-8, Aaditiono raveLanes Within s n MH -of -way. This design alternafive will not adversely impar any exist- ing xis - ing or proposed land uses. Alternative 8: Improved Transit Service This alternative would not affect any existing land uses. Alternative C: No Project. This alternative would not affect any existing land uses. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification No mitigation is required. C:W1tz-_W1 Gy GOO �l' 125 Alternative B: Improved Transit Service No mitigation is required. Alternative C: No Project No mitigation is required. SOCIO -ECONOMICS Alternative A: Roadway Modification Design Alternative A-1: Widening. No adverse socio-economic impacts would occur as a result- he widening activities between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road. impacts on facilities of a Mobil service station on the northeast corner of the intersection, and a Shell station on the northwest corner. Both service stations have been in operation onsite since 1967 and lease their property. The ground leases are scheduled to expire in August and September of 1983, with no options for renewal. Actual project construction is not expected to occur until 1984, and therefore will have no impacts on existing ground leases. Renewal of the ground leases beyond 1983 would not be feasible if this design alternative were selected. The two leases conceivably might be renewed on a month-to-month basis until construction impacts resulting from the project actually occur; however, whether or not this will be the case is not known at this time. The Shell station has 12 full-time employees and the Mobile station has 7 full-time and 2 part-time employees. In the event that the Shell and Mobil service stations are occupying the property when negotiations for right-of-way acquisition commence, they will be eligible for relocation assistance, according to guidelines of the Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual. These guidelines will apply with or without Federal funding for the project, since CalTrans adheres to them for State projects as well. Under the guidelines, relocation assistance to holders of month-to- month ground leases is identical to assistance provided to holders of long- term leases. Businesses are eligible for monetary compensation for the cost of actual moving of the business. If the business chooses not to move tangi- ble property, it is eligible for reimbursement for loss of tangible property. The business is also eligible for reimbursement for the expense of searching for a new location. Removal of the two service stations is not considered a significant adverse impact on the local economic community. Although loss of the stations in conjunction with the possible displacement of the Mobil station at Pacific Coast Highway and Bayside Drive (see design alternative A-5) may result in a ,.,,, � A1_fS_ Fid t- 126 considerable length of highway without service station facilities, there will be several remaining gas stations along Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and west of Dover Drive in the Mariners Mile area. Consequently, this is not considered a significant adverse impact. Design Alternative A-5: Widening,Northern Alignment. Widening along the northern alignment would create a significant adverse impact on residences in the De Anza Bayside Village mobile home park. The new alignment would dis- place 22 mobile homes. Figure 28 shows how it may be possible to relocate as many as eight homes. Displacement of any residences or private businesses requires relocation assistance as described in the Federal -Aid highway Program Manual (Vol. 7, Ch. 5, Sec. 1). Under the guidelines, a relocation assistance agent will be assigned to oversee relocation of the residents. Mobile home owners are entitled to compensation for the cost to relocate to another park. This com- pensation includes the cost of actually moving the owners' physical posses- sions. In the case of De Anza Bayside Village residents, however, the process of relocation may be complicated by the fact that most of the units in the park were formerly single -wide trailers which have since been converted to larger widths. Last Resort dousing Procedures may be required. Mobile home parks in Southern California typically no longer accept new residents with single -wide trailers or modified units, but prefer standard double -wide units. In order to relocate De Anza residents successfully into another park, it may be neces- sary to purchase a double -wide mobile home for each owner to replace the unacceptable single -wide. Relocated mobile home owners are also eligible for a four, -year rental supplement should they be forced to rent space at a more expensive rate in a new park. Mobile home residents who lease rather than own their mobile home are also eligible for relocation compensation. This includes the cost of moving and a rental supplement extending up to four years if the new residence is more expensive. If no recital mobile homes are available for relocation, the displaced resident may be relocated to an apartment rental. The resident may elect to purchase a residence rather than be relocated into another rental unit. In that case, there would be assistance in the accumulation of funds for a down payment. The impacts of residential displacement are more severe for some members of society than others. The majority of residents who would be displaced by selection of this design alternative are elderly and retired. This suggests a special sensitivity to the impacts of relocation; elderly residents may be dependent on limited incomes from Social Security, and may also be more depen- dent on the proximity to bus stops and shopping facilities. At least six of the polled residents are disabled. These disabilities, in addition to the possibility of failing health among elderly residents, demand special consi- deration to ensure that displaced residents are not removed from needed health facilities. 28 Mobile Home Park NI 200 300 400 Source: Alderman, Swift, and Lewi Goo lL Qigitized by �j 128 Potential secondary adverse impacts resulting from displacement of the mobile homes include neighborhood disruption that would affect the mobile home park as a whole. Highway alignment through the park would mean not only the loss of neighbors to all the residents, but would also result in alteration to the existing placement of residential units. The park's internal roadway sys- tem would need to be redesigned as a result of the impact, and residents who are not displaced will be exposed to the impacts of the highway being closer to their homes. Design Alternative A-6: Widening, Southern Alignment. Widening along the southern alignment would impact ree established businesses on the south side of the highway and may displace up to 61 full-time and 38 part-time employees. These businesses include the Mobil service station at the south- east corner of the Pacific Coast Highway/Bayside Drive intersection, Bobby McGee's restaurant on the parcel immediately east of the Mobil station, and the Chick Iverson Porsche/Audi dealership east of Bobby McGee's. The occu- pants each hold long-term ground leases with expiration dates well beyond the estimated construction date for the project. Impacts on the Mob i l station include realignment of the highway's south- ern edge through the southernmost service bay of the station. A proposed right -turn -only lane from Bayside Drive onto Pacific Coast Highway around the station would make station access difficult and hazardous except from Bayside near the parcel's southern property line. The difficult access along with the loss of a service bay would almost certainly make continued operation of the business infeasible. The station would therefore be forced to relocate if it chose to continue business. The southern alignment would transect where the dining room of Bobby McGee's restaurant presently stands, forcing the restaurant to terminate its operations onsite. Remodeling of the dining room is not believed to be feasi- ble, and the business would lose its viability due to the significant reduc- tion in its dining capacity. Impacts of the southern alignment on Chick Iverson's Porsche/Audi dealer- ship are considerably less severe than those on the other two businesses. The alignment would traverse part of the dealership's existing parking lot. Although the business would suffer a reduction in space, its viability would not be threatened, and it would not be forced to relocate. Under the FHPM guidelines, displaced businesses would be compensated dur- ing the purchase of right-of-way for their loss of real property. Relocation assistance provides compensation for the cost of moving tangible property to a new location. Businesses are also eligible for reimbursement of the cost of searching for a new location. Displacement of the two businesses, Bobby McGee's restaurant and the Mobil service station, is not considered a significant impact to the socio- economic community of Newport Beach. The restaurant serves a patronage for whom similar establishments exist within the city as alternatives to Bobby McGee's. Loss of the service station is also considered not to be signifi- GorL fi) I(- 0 129 cant. The Mobile Station has six full-time employees and Bobby McGees has 55 full-time employees and 38 part-time employees. This design alternative would also require some widening on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway. This part of the alternative would displace about three mobile homes within De Anza Bayside Village and the mobile home park's laundry room. Figure 29 shows how the laundry room and at least one of the mobile homes can probably be relocated onsite. Relocation of the addi- tional mobile homes would mandate relocation assistance as described in the FHPM guidelines and summarized above under design alternative A-5. Last Resort Housing Procedures may be required. Since only three mobile homes will be displaced, it is not felt that the potential for a significant disruption of the neighborhood is great. The park's internal roadway system will require only minor modification (figure 29). Design Alternative A-1: Addition of Travel Lanes at Signalized Inter- sections; Design Alternative- on of travelanes Within Existing IFT_gEt- of - a s alternative wi not displace any existing businesses or residences- In addition, as discussed in the Circulation section, although 62 parking spaces will be removed along two stretches of Pacific Coast Highway, there will be sufficient off-street parking so as not to adversely impact the economic viability of the businesses along the route. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service This alternative will have no socio-economic related adverse impacts. Alternative C: No Pro ect This alternative will have no socio-economic related adverse impacts. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification Standard Federal, State, and City Policies and Requirements. . Design Alternative A-2: Widening (Existing Profile • Design Alterna- tive en ng (LoWe'red Profilesion Alternative Grade Separa- tion. ShOM the two gas stations v be displacedy these alternatives FioTaers of ground leases at the time of project implementation, the leasehold- ers shall be eligible for relocation assistance in accordance with Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual (FHPM) relocation assistance guidelines. h. Design Alternative A-5: widening. Northern Alignment: Design Alter- native: en n ou ern nmen Displaced residents an busi- nesses shall e afforded all assistance and compensation for which they are eligible according to FHPM guidelines. The City of Newport Beach shall parti- cipate with CalTans and affected residents and business owners in actively 29 Mobile Home Park Source: Alderman, Swift, and' 29 Mobile Home Park 400 t� jt LI # _-I LA I i 14a . € Source: Alderman, Swfft, and! � IIIIA[rteM,Iif is i oo e 131 seeking sites for relocation in the City of Newport Beach or a nearby area. Last Resort Housing Procedures may be required. Other Mitigation. 2. Design Alternative A-5: wideninq, Northern Alignment; Desiqn Alterna- tive A-6: Widening, Southern Alignment. i. A good -faith effort will be made to relocate as many of the displaced mobile homes within Sayside Village as possible. In cooperation with the leaseholder, there will be an attempt to relocate mobile homes by rearranging the placement of the impacted mobile homes, utilizing any unused space within the park, and giving preference to onsite relocation over other existing onsite land uses such as recreational vehicle storage. i i . The City of Newport Beach will. provide a redesign of the park's internal roadway system. Alternative B:_Imgroved Transit Services No mitigation measures are required. Alternative C: No Protect No mitigation measures are required. VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadway Modification Design Alternative A-1: widenin . Widening would necessitate removal of 11 rusty -leaf figs ecus ru gnosa , 5 eucalyptus sideroxylons, 2 Monterey pines (pings radiata) and the relocation of 3 Victorian box trees (pittosporum undulatum) and 1 date palm (phoenix canariensis). Although these ornamental trees might be considered an aesthetic resource, their displacement is not a significant adverse impact. Design Alternative A-2: Widenin(Existing Profile Intersection widening wouldno resultin any significant adverse mpac o visual and aes- thetic resources. Desion Alternative A-3: Widenin Lowered Profile). Lowering the intersection would make the intersection less vise a rom a distance. The intersection at its present grade is visible from considerable distances from both the north and south. From the north, the intersection is a prominent horizon line to travelers southbound on Jamboree Road; from the south the intersection Is visible to residents on some areas of Balboa Island, but for the most part is hidden by adjacent bluffs of Promontory Point. Intersection lowering will reduce the intersection's visual prominence, which might be con- 132 sidered a beneficial aesthetic impact, though not a significant one. Lowering may also diminish the brief viewshed available to motorists through the inter- section. Since the existing vista at the intersection already offers a mini- mal visual experience, reduction of the viewshed is considered insignificant. Design Alternative A-4: Grade Separation. Construction of a grade separation at the intersection would significantly alter the visual environ- ment at the site. The grade separation would consist of raising Pacific Coast Highway to create an overcrossing over Jamboree Road, and providing signal- ized ramps for access onto and off of Pacific Coast Highway from Jamboree. The highway overcrossing would consist of six lanes. On -ramps would be an additional two lanes an each side, with free right -turn lanes. To achieve the separation, Jamboree Road would be lowered approximately 4 feet below its existing grade, and Pacific Coast Highway would be raised approximately 17.5 feet. The overall visual effect of the construction would be an increased mass of roadway at the intersection, an increased width and height of the intersection, and an increase in the number of lanes. The intersection would be increased in scale so as to became a visual landmark along the highway and from Jamboree Road to the north. The elevation of Pacific Coast Highway approximately 17.5 feet above its present grade would allow some visibility into some yards and windows of about nine residences in Irvine Terrace. These areas would be visible to bicyclists and pedestrians. Traffic lanes along the bridge would be separated from the bridge edge by an 8 -foot bicycle lane, a 6 -foot pedestrian walkway, and a guardrail; consequently, the residences would not be visible to passing motor- ists. The grade separation would be visible from these private residences; however, the homes were designed with a major emphasis on views toward the bay and ocean. Consequently, very little of the living area would orient toward the grade separation. In addition, there is extensive existing vegetation (trees and shrubs) along Pacific Coast Highway which visually separates the two areas. Based on these factors, the grade separation is not expected to have significant adverse impacts on the viewshed from Irvine Terrace resi- dences or on the privacy of the homes. 'Design Alternative A-5: Widening.an Northern Ali ent• Design Alterna- tive -Widening,ou ernmmen o signs scan impacts on visual an aesthetic resources are an icipate as a result -of these alternatives. A noise wall would be constructed along the northerly right-of-way to shield residents in the De Anza Bayside Village mobile home park from highway noise (see Acoustics section, Page 154). The noise wall would also function as an improved visual barrier over the fence which presently exists there. Con- struction of the wall would result in unavoidable destruction of the oleander bushes ornamentally planted in front of Bayside Village now; however, this is not considered a significant loss to onsite aesthetic resources. 'Design Alternative A-7: Addition of Travel Lanes at Sinalized Inter- sections• Uesign Alternative - on o _75—vel Lanes Within tXISTTM o -Way. significant impacts on visual and aestheUc resources are anticipatedafticipated as a result of this design alternative. 133 Alternative B: Improved Transit Service No significant impacts on visual and aesthetic resources would result from this alternative. Alternative C: No Project No Significant impacts on visual and aesthetic resources would result from this alternative. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification Standard Federal, State, and City Policies and Requirements. i. DeO4 Alternative A-4: Grade Separation. A complete landscap- ing plan of7he intersection site shall e deveioped and adopted along with approval of final alignments and grades, to lessen the visual impact of the grade separation. Alternative arrier along the northern right-of-way s a be accompanied landscaping to mitigate the stark visual charac ter of the wall the loss of existing oleanders. Other Mitigation. by ornamental and to mitigate 3. Design Alternative A-1: Widening. Should the widening alterna- tive be se ec ted, replacement rees will e planted within the proposed medi- an. Alternative 8: Improved Transit Service No mitigation measures are required. Alternative C: No Project . No mitigation measures are required. CIRCULATION IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadway Modification No significant adverse impacts related to circulation are expected to occur as a result of implementation of this alternative. The 1986 and 1995 134 traffic volumes associated with this alternative will be identical to those under the no -project description (Figure 22, Page 93). The alternative is expected to have beneficial impacts related to congestion, accident rates, and increased roadway capacity. It is not expected to generate or attract addi- tional ddi- tional volumes to the roadway. Intersection capacity wi l l be improved as shown in Table X. With imple- mentation of Alternative A, the 1986 ICU would be less than 0.90 (Level of Service E) for all intersections. The 1995 ICU would be less than 0.90 for all intersections except Dover Drive, which would operate at 0.9312 (Level of Service E). Alternative A will also have a beneficial impact on accident rates along the project route. The accident history for the project area is described on Pages 13-14 of this report. Anticipated accident rates were estimated using the Los Angeles County Accident Analysis Method. The proposed increased capa- city intersection improvements and revised geometrics should provide a signif- icant reduction in accident rates. In addition, improvements to traffic con- trol equipment, protected turning phases, and signal interconnection will assist in reducing the number of accidents by helping provide smoother opera- tion and a resulting decrease in anticipated rear -end type collisions. Table Y provides a summary that identifies the decrease in the number of accidents expected to occur as a result of Alternative A. Alternative A will bring accident rates to within expected levels. The existing peak -hour congestion and delay experienced along Pacific Coast Highway is expected to improve with construction of Alternative A. The expected increase in traffic volumes is expected to reduce travel speeds dur- ing peak and off-peak periods. However, existing congestion and delay which is experienced in the vicinity of Bayside Drive, Dover Drive, and Jamboree Road will diminish. Table 2 provides a comparison of projected travel speeds for existing conditions, 1986, and 1995 traffic conditions with and without Alternative A. Rather than identifying specific travel speeds, the table identifies expected travel speed as a range category to make a comparison of the levels of anticipated change. Alternative A will have a beneficial impact on bus and bicycle facilities within the project area. Alternative A has been designed to enhance the abil- ity to expand bus service and improve bicycle safety and travel. Improvements to bus operations will consist of roadway widening that will provide for improved bus stop locations and reduce the amount of delay expected through this corridor. Bus travel speeds will be enhanced with the traffic signal interconnect system which will provide for platooning of traffic along Pacific Coast Highway. These roadway improvements will allow the Orange County Trans- it District (QCTD) to expand bus service to and from the area as well as improve route scheduling. Bicycle lanes along Pacific Coast Highway wi l l be improved via the provision of additional roadway pavement. The additional roadway pavement will allow for marking of exclusive bicycle lanes. These improvements and existing off-road bicycle facilities, consisting of widened 135 TABLE X INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY Paelflc Cbast Highway I ntersect Ton at 1950 Exlstingl ICU3 ICULOS4 t966 Condltions No Projectl Alternative A2 II CU LGS4 ICLJ3 LOS 4 1993 Clonditlons No Proje tl Alternative A2 ' I CUT L'a5T I Qj3 LDS Riverside Avenue 0.6969 D 0.9345 E 0.8449 0 0.9763 E 0.8999 0 Lover Drive 0. 9301 E 0.8773 D 0.8773 0 1.1313 F 0.9317 E Bayside Drive 0.96'37 E 0.9376 E 015501 D 0.9772 E 0.8814 0 JaWwoo Rood 0.9407 E 1.1501 F 0.8875 D 1.T094 F 0.8734 D Grade separation alternative Mortherl y lntersect lon3 - 14/A 0.3500 A N/A 0.6094 8 Southerly I ntersact Ion4 - M/A 0.6%9 H N/A 0,7531 C Back Bay Drive (ertens ion) N/A 5 0. 8594 0 0.6704 B {1.9250 E 0.7198 C Newport Center Drive 019949 A/B 0.8281 0 0.6989 8 0.8377 0 0.7647 C Avoomoo Avenue 0. 7137 C 1.0189 F 0.8001 C;/0 - - With one -say couptrt - 1.1532 F 018376 0 1.1231 F 0.9991 0 MacArthur Bou I ward 0. 9604 E 1.0344 F {1.8313 D - - With on+ -ray couplet - 1.3126 F 0.8614 D 1.3047 F 0.8321 0 Source: Alderman, Swift, and Lads. 'Table Q (Page 96) provides a summary of the assumed Intersection conflguratlons for acfsting (1980), 1986 (no projactl, and 1993 (no project). The 1966 and 1995 configurations assume that the coram i tted road pro j ec rs I I i ustrated In Figure 14 and loser l bed on Pages 54-60 ars construct- ed as planned. 2Alternative A ICU& assume Implementation of the alternative as described In the Alternatives section of this report. 31 ❑.I ■ Intersection Capaelty Utillintlon. Level of Service E (cawlty) a 1.0. 4Level of Servicer sea Table C for definitions. 5%t applicable, future roadway Imorovsmrnt. t ]}ISL -J ink, r 7008le 136 TABLE Y SUMMARY OF EXPECTED ACCIDENTS Number of Accidents 198b 1995 WEST'OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD T4 BAYSIDE DRIVE Intersections No project 119.5 124.2 Alternative A 77.8 82.0 Expected decrease -Wr7 _TF7 Mid -block No project 46.1 48.3 Alternative A 41.2 43.2 Expected decrease 4.9 _77 Segment total No project 165.6 172.5 Alternative A 119.0 125.2 Expected decrease 46.6 -477 WEST OF BAYSIDE DRIVE TO RIVERSIDE AVENUE Intersections No project 44.2 45.1 Alternative A 28.9 30.6 Expected decrease '73`3 14.5 Mid -block No project 119.7 126.1 Alternative A 41.6 43.9 Expected decrease 71H Segment total No project 163.9 171..2 Alternative A 70.5 74.5 Expected decrease _ty� -W.T TOTAL No project 329.5 343.7 Alternative A 189.5 199.7 Expected decrease T77. 144.0 Source: Alderman, Swift, and Lewis. 137 TABLE 2 PROJECTED TRAVEL SPEEDS ON PACIFIC COAST HIGRWY Merpart Blvd. to Riverside Ava.2 II 1 III II 111 II IV III III Ii Riverside Ave. 2 Rocky Point/ It 1 11I 11 1II II [Y III II[ II Sea Stout Base Rocky Point/Sea Scout Base to I[ 1 III II III I[ III III [[I II Dover Dr. Dover Dr. to Bayside dr. III 111 I[ I1 [[ It Ii [I [I [[ Bayside Or. to Jamboree Rd. II[ I HI II [I [[ Ir Ili [f [1 Jamboree Rd. to Mewport Ctr. Dr. I I [II II II 11 111 III II II Me+gart Ctr. Dr. to Avocado 11 1 [If III it II It[ [It [[ I1 Avocado to MacArthur II I Ii[ 11I II [I fit I1I 11 II East of MacArthur III II [II III 111 Ili [II III III [II ITravel speed range categarles: I 45-35 mph II 35-25 mph 111 - 25-15 mph IY •less [hen 15 mph 2Mo project • 4 through lanes Project ■ 6 through lanes for 1985 and 1995 projections 138 sidewalks for bicycle and pedestrian use, and the exclusive off-road bicycle trail between Jamboree Road and Avocado Avenue, will allow for maintenance and completion of the City's Master Plan of Bicycles. The section of Pacific Coast Highway through Corona del Mar presently experiences congestion during peak hours. Congestion will continue with or without the proposed widening project through Newport Beach. No widening of this section is planned and, historically, the Corona del Mar community has consistently rejected any roadway widening or parking restrictions easterly of MacArthur Boulevard. The widening of Pacific Coast Highway west of MacArthur Boulevard will not bring about additional pressure for widening through Corona del Mar east of MacArthur Boulevard. This is because of the proposed configuration of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard. The westbound approach to this intersection (approaching MacArthur Boulevard from Corona del Mar) will not be changed. There will continue to be three through lanes plus the free-flowing right -turn lane onto MacArthur Boulevard. On the eastbound approach (approaching MacArthur Boulevard from Newport Center) there will con- tinue to be two through lanes leading to Corona del Mar. A left -turn lane will be added, so there will be a total of two left -turn lanes leading to Mac- Arthur Boulevard, which will be converted to a one-way northbound street. Since MacArthur Boulevard will be converted to a one-way northbound street, traffic which is now southbound on MacArthur Boulevard will use Avoca- do Avenue. with the present street system there are two south bound -to -east- bound left -turn lanes on MacArthur Boulevard. The traffic destined for Corona del Mar or points further east presently using MacArthur Boulevard will use Avocado Avenue when the one-way couplet is implemented. It will proceed through the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard as through (non -turning) traffic using the two lanes that will be available for that type of movement. Thus the rate of traffic through Corona del Mar will be controlled by the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway/MacArthur Boulevard which will have the same number of travel lanes as the existing intersection for traffic to, from, and through Corona del Mar. Construction Impacts. Potential impacts on circulation during the cons truction phase of the project originate from actual roadway construction, vehicular access to/from some properties, reduction of through travel lanes and/or turning lanes at intersections for short periods of time, and the addi- tion of construction vehicles and construction workers traveling to/from the work site. In general, the construction impacts will be short-term and associated with the actual construction taking place along the various segments of Pacif- ic Coast Highway. Access to/from adjacent properties will be maintained at all times; however, some minor disruption may occur. Disruption of through traffic may occur, but should be limited to short periods of time during the implementation of detours and/or installation of roadway and traffic signal improvements. L? ]{-11ILIgs Ie 139 Construction vehicles and construction workers traveling to and from the work site will constitute additional traffic to the area. The magnitude of this additional traffic is considered negligible compared to the prevailing traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. Detouring of traffic along Pacific Coast Highway will be associated with design Alternative A-3, and with design alternative A-4 for the Jamboree Road/ Pacific Coast Highway intersection. This is discussed more specifically below. Additional construction impacts will be related to relocation of OCTO bus stops during the various construction phases and rerouting of bus service if Jamboree Road between Pacific Coast Highway and Bayside Drive is closed. To minimize these impacts, pedestrian facilities along Jamboree Road will be maintained at al l times. The following is a discussion of the specific traffic -related impacts of each of the design alternatives being considered within Alternative A. Design Alternative A-1: Widening. The beneficial traffic -related impacts associated with s desiF alternative involve primarily the ability of the future roadway system to accommodate existing traffic demands, those expected to occur by 1986, and the long-term demands expected to occur by 1995. This design alternative provides for widening Pacific Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Boulevard northerly of the existing roadway. The beneficial impact of this alternative would be improvement of future traffic service along Pacific Coast Highway. A review of Table X (Page 135) shows that traffic demands along Pacific Coast Highway are expected to increase and that the existing capacities of the intersections have reached or are approaching traffic service levels that will require additional traffic improvements. Further review of Table X (Page 135) shows that each of the intersections within the project limits can be improved to acceptable traffic service levels with implementation of Alternative A. Specifically, the intersection with MacArthur would improve from Level of Service E to Level of Service D in 1986, and from Level of Service F to Level of Service D in 1995. The intersection at Avocado Avenue would improve from Level of Service F to Level of Service D in both 1986 and 1995. The intersec- tion at Newport Center Drive would improve from Level of Service D to Level of Service B in 1986, and from Level of Service D to Level of Service C in 1995. The intersection with Back Bay Drive would improve from Level of Service D to Level of Service 8 in 1986, and from Level of Service E to Level of Service C in 1995. Development of this design alternative will result in the potential for keeping accident rates within expected occurrence levels and maintaining acceptable traffic flow characteristics, including a reduction in congestion and maintenance of acceptable travel speeds along the roadway. This design alternative, if selected, will satisfy the existing and future traffic demands anticipated along Pacific Coast Highway. Design alternative A-1 can be inte- grated with the design alternatives identified for Jamboree Road and the Pacific Coast Highway intersection, which are design alternatives A-2, A-3, and A-4. 140 The construction impacts of this alternative involve primarily those impacts listed under the above discussion on general construction impacts. This design alternative can be phased to provide for widening on the northerly side of the roadway and maintain existing traffic on the existing roadway. Minor disruptions may occur at signalized intersections and during physical connection of new improvements with existing improvements. No traffic -related adverse impacts are anticipated with implementation of this design alternative. Design Alternative A-2: Widening (Existing Profile). This design alternative proposes that PacMF Coast Highway be widened through the Jambo- ree intersection consistent with the horizontal and vertical curvature of existing Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. Widening of the intersec- tion in conjunction with widening of Pacific Coast Highway to the east and west would improve the capacity of the intersection and, in conjunction with Improved traffic signalization, is expected to keep accident rates within expected occurrence levels. The level of service at this intersection will improve from Level of Service F to Level of Service D in 1986, and from Level of Service F to Level of Service D in 1995. There are no traffic -related adverse impacts associated with this design alternative. The construction impacts for this alternative will involve primarily dis- ruption of traffic during installation of traffic signal improvements and the shifting of traffic onto the widened roadway. These are considered minor and should not create a significant impact. Design Alternative A-3: Widening Lowered Profile). This design alternative willhave e -same benericial impacts'-ari'Fr_a Tit circulation as design alternative A-2. In addition, certain operating characteristics of the intersection could be improved through selection of this alternative. The beneficial operating improvements are associated with improving sight distance and the potential for improved signal visibility. No adverse impacts are expected. The existing vertical curvature of Jamboree Road establishes the crest of the vertical curve within the intersection. Vehicles now approaching the intersection on Jamboree Road are, in essence, climbing a hill with limited visibility of Jamboree Road on the other side of the intersection. Lowering the Jamboree Road profile to improve sight distance and vertical curvature is expected to result in a reduction in accidents that would be associated with limited sight distance and the stopping and starting of vehicles on grades. Construction of this alternative will require the phasing of roadway improvements to minimize impacts on traffic flow. To minimize these impacts, two phasing schemes have been developed and are depicted in Figures fid (Page 30) and 6e (Page 31). 141 Figure 6d depicts a two-phase construction detour plan. The primary components of this phasing scheme involve the closure of Jamboree Road between Back Bay Drive and Pacific Coast Highway, diversion of Jamboree Road traffic to Back Bay Drive, and the restriction of traffic on Jamboree Road between Pacific Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. This phasing scheme, similar to Figure 6e, will require a short closure of Jamboree Road during Phase 2 to allow for removal of the existing roadway within the intersection. During this closure period, traffic can be diverted to Bayside Drive. The phasing plan shown in Figure 6e utilizes a temporary bypass. This bypass would be used for westbound Pacific Coast Highway traffic; eastbound traffic would be shifted onto the existing and new roadway improvements. Jam- boree Road traffic northerly of Pacific Coast Highway would be diverted to Back Bay Drive. As shown in Figure 6e, this alternative has three construc- tion phases and a fourth phase to remove the bypass. Implementation of this phasing scheme will require modification of the existing traffic signal at Pacific Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive. Traffic on Jamboree Road southerly of Pacific Coast Highway will be restricted to one lane in each direction at all times and during Phase 3. A short closure of Jamboree Road will be required to lower the final portions of Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. Design Alternative A-4: Grade Separation. The beneficial traffic impacts associated with s design alternative involve improvements in. traf- fic flow along Pacific Coast Highway. The primary benefits associated with this design alternative provide a positive impact on intersection capacity and a significant improvement in the future capacity of Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. The significance of improved traffic service can be identified by comparing the 1986 and 1995 intersection ICUs for design alternatives A-2 and A-3 to the grade separation alternative ICUs. The results of this analy- sis are as follows: Alternative ICU 1986 level of Service ICU 1995 Leve7o7 Service No project 1.1501 F 1.1094 F Design alternative A-2 or A-3 (widening) 0.8875 0 0.8734 D Design alternative A-4 (grade separation) Westbound ramps/Jamboree 0.5500 A 0.6094 B Eastbound ramps/Jamboree 0.5969 B 0.7531 C 142 Review of the above data shows that, although two intersections are created with Jamboree Road as a result of the grade separation, the expected ICUs for 1986 and 1995 traffic conditions will be in the range of 19-32% less in 1986 and 12-26% less in 1995 when compared to design alternatives A-2 and A-3. In addition to the improved intersection capacities on Jamboree Road, through traffic on Pacific Coast Highway will be free-flowing at all times, resulting in a significant improvement to traffic along Pacific Coast Highway and improved traffic conditions along Jamboree Road. A comparison of design alternative A-4 to the no -project alternative in the above table indicates an ICU improvement in the range of 32-47% less for 1986 traffic conditions and 35-50% less for 1995 traffic conditions. Additional beneficial impacts of the grade separation alternative would be in the potential reduction► of accidents as a result of smoother and less congested traffic movement. Construction of this design alternative will impact circulation on Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. However, although considerable inconvenience will be experienced, this is not consider- ed a significant adverse impact. Physical construction of the grade separa- tion structure and lowering of Jamboree Road will involve detouring traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. Figure 7c (Page 34) presents a ten- tative phasing scheme. The primary components of this construction scheme involve initial construction of westbound ramps to facilitate westbound Pacif- ic Coast Highway traffic, construction of the approaches to the bridge struc- ture, closure of Jamboree Road northerly of Pacific Coast Highway and diver- sion of Jamboree Road traffic to Back Bay Drive, and closure of Jamboree Road between Pacific Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. This latter (Phase 4) con- struction will require a detailed detour signing program to properly direct traffic. Traffic on Jamboree Road southerly of Pacific Coast Highway will be directed to the Pacific Coast Highway/Bayside Drive intersection. Although complicated, implementation of this phasing scheme can be accomplished without a major impact to traffic except for traffic on Jamboree Road southerly of Pacific Coast Highway which will be diverted to Bayside Drive. Design Alternative A-5: Widening,Northern Alignment; Design Alterna- tive f Wideninuthern Alignment. The primary beneficial impact o these design alternatives would be improvement of future traffic service along Pacific Coast Highway. Traffic demands (as discussed above) are expected to increase along this stretch of highway and capacities of intersections have reached or are approaching levels which will require additional traffic improvements. these design alternatives as part of Alternative A will assist in improving traffic flow from Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive. Development of design alternative A-5 or A-6 as proposed would improve the Bayside Drive/Pacific Coast Highway intersection from Level of Service E to Level of Service 0 in 1986, and from Level of Service F to Level of Service E in 1995. This will improve traffic flow and have the potential for reducing accident rates to within expected levels. 143 A potential secondary impact associated with these design alternatives is the disruption of internal circulation within De Ansa Bayside Village mobile home park and the need to modify the existing interior circulation of the park adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway. Figure 28 (Page 128) depicts the proposed circulation system for the mobile home park resulting from construction of these alternatives. A review of the revised circulation system was conducted to determine whether there would be any adverse impacts on circulation and emergency vehicle access. The improvements and changes depicted in Figure 28 indicate that no adverse impacts would result. The revised circulation system provides adequate circulation for the residents of that portion of the mobile home park and will provide an adequate turning radius for emergency vehicles. Linder design alternative A-6, circulation within De Anza Bayside Village would be impacted only to a very minor degree and would require only minor changes to the existing circulation system (Figure 29, Page 130). The poten- tial negative impacts of design alternative A-6 are related to the access to/ from the remaining portions of the parcels along the southern edge of Pacific Coast Highway. The significance of these impacts will relate to whether or not the structures for the restaurant and service station are removed or modi- fied. If the structures were to be modified, it would be anticipated that access to each site would be partially restricted; whereas, if the structures are removed and a new building placed on each site, improved access could be achieved. Construction impacts associated with these two design alternatives are similar to the general construction impacts discussed above. The -primary dif- ference will be the potential short-term disruption of access to businesses near Bayside Drive. This is not considered a significant adverse impact. Design Alternative A-7: Addition of Travel Lanes at Signalized Inter - seetions. Implementation of design alternative - is considered an interim improvement and will improve traffic conditions at signalized intersections. The intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Dover Drive would improve from Level of Service F to Level of Service E in 1995. The Riverside Avenue inter- section would improve from Level of Service E to Level of Service D in 1986 and 1995. The City of Newport Beach Circulation Element of the General Plan pro- vides for an ultimate 6 -lane divided roadway to be constructed within a 112 - foot wide right-of-way section between Dover Drive and Newport Boulevard. The 12 feet of widening to ultimate condition is to occur on the northerly (inland) side of Pacific Coast Highway. The Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard segment of Pacific Coast Highway is currently developed with older commercial uses on the inland side constructed up to the present right-of-way line. The City is requiring right-of-way dedi- cation and building setbacks on all new structures being constructed in this reach of Pacific Coast highway. It is anticipated that most of the right-of- way and a substantial portion of the improvements can be obtained in the next five to eight years through the redevelopment process. A City or State proj- s 144 ect to widen this reach ahead of project redevelopment would be disruptive to existing uses and the redevelopment process, as well as being beyond the current funding capabilities of the City. Design alternative A-7 should be considered as an interim improvement to provide added capacity at intersections until redevelopment along Pacific Coast Highway provides for widening. The traffic -related impacts associated with this design alternative involve primarily the displacement of on -street parking and the use of travel lanes narrower than the CalTrans desirable width of 12 feet for through travel lanes. To properly identify parking -related impacts, a complete inventory of available on -street and off-street parking was conducted. The inventory was seperated into roadway segments and adjacent off-street areas. The results of this work are summarized in Table AA. Development within the design alternative limits can be separated into three distinct and separate areas. The first area would be between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue. This area contains 27 on -street parking spac- es.and 527 off-street parking spaces. The second area, Riverside Avenue to Rocky Point (the Sea Scout Base), contains 72 on -street parking spaces and 1,043 off-street parking spaces. Easterly of Rocky Point, 109 on -street spaces exist and 748 off-street spaces are provided. Of this latter total, 603 are provided by the Balboa Bay Club.. The total length of the project route provides 208 on -street parking spaces. Implementation of the suggested channelization improvements associat- ed with this design alternative will require removal of 62 of the 208 parking spaces. Fifty-two of these spaces are located between Newport Boulevard and 400 feet east of Tustin Avenue, and 10 are located between 860 feet west of Dover Drive and Dover Drive. Table BB lists the loss of parking by more spe- cific geographic segments. The loss of parking In these areas would be felt by adjacent businesses. To determine the implications of this loss, spot-checks on metered parking areas and off-street parking facilities were conducted. In general, it was concluded that adequate off-street parking is available for the majority of the businesses in the area, except along the southerly side of Pacific Coast Highway between Tustin Avenge and about 500 feet east of Tustin Avenue. The next key location was identified adjacent to the Balboa Bay Club. In this area, the on -street parking is used continually by employees of the Balboa Bay Club. This situation is not new and the City of Newport Beach has previously alerted the Balboa Bay Club that they should seek alternate means to provide needed employee parking. To further identify parking demand in the area, revenues from metered parking stalls westerly of Rock Point were monitored for a two-week period. In addition to overall monitoring, every third meter was counted separately to 145 TABLE AA PARKING INVENTORY, PACIFIC COAST BOULEVARD Riverside On -Street Off -Street Total Segment Parking Parking Parking Newport Boulevard to Riverside Avenue of segment 14 North side of segment 27 310 337 South side of segment 0 217 217 Riverside Avenue to Tustin Avenue North side of segment 14 239 253 South side of segment 5 205 210 Tustin Avenue to west of Rocky Point North side of segment 22 283 305 South side of segment 31 316 347 Balboa Bay Club to Dover Drive North side of Segment 51 145 196 South side of segment 58 603 661 Subtotals North side 114 977 1091 South side 94 1341 1435 TOTAL 208 2318 2526 Source: Alderman, Swift, and Lewis and City of Newport Beach 146 TABLE BB NUMBER OF ON -STREET PARKING SPACES REMOVED BY VE A (VESIGN ALTERNATIVE A-7) North side of Pacific Coast Highway Between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue Between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue Between Tustin Avenue and 400 feet east of Tustin Avenue Between Rocky Point and 860 feet west of Dover Drive Between 860 feet west of Dover Drive and Dover Drive South side of Pacific Coast Highway Between Newport Boulevard and Tustin Avenue Between Tustin Avenue and the Balboa Bay Club Between the Balboa Bay Club and Dover Drive (no on -street parking currently exists) TOTAL PARKING LOSS Source: Alderman, Swift, and Lewis. 27 spaces 14 spaces 11 spaces 0 spaces 10 Spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces 0 spaces 62 spaces 147 provide additional information on meter demand. Within the study area, 78 meters are operated seven days a week from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. at a cost of 10¢ per hour of use. Within the two-week time period, a total of 5100 in revenue was collected. Using the number of available hours the meters are in use,_ a total of $546 in revenue would be expected if the meters were used fully. This means that, during the two-week time period, overall use of the meters was 18% of the available meter hours. To identify the areas of higher parking demand, individual meters counted were evaluated to provide estimates of peak meter use and peak meter occupan- cy. These data could then be compared against the average meter usage and occupancy. The results of these analyses are depicted in Table CC. A review of Table CC, coupled with actual field observations at various times of the day during the months of June and July, is limited to specific areas adjacent to businesses that do not have adequate off-street parking. The actual loss of parking will be felt, but should not create a significant adverse impact. To offset the ultimate removal of parking along Pacific Coast Highway in the Mariners Mile area, the City of Newport Beach has identified and purchased property to construct an off-street parking lot. The location of this facili- ty is shown in Figure 10a (Page 43). Design and construction of the facility are in process, and the lot is scheduled for completion and occupancy by Spring, 1983. This lot will provide 122 spaces, which level of parking will adequately accommodate the parking spaces being removed within the Mariners Mile area. The loss of 10 spaces from between 864 feet westerly of Dover Drive and Dover Drive along the northerly side of Pacific Coast Highway will impact adjacent businesses; however, adequate off-street parking is available. Construction impacts associated with this design alternative involve mod- ification of traffic signals at Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue and restriping of Pacific Coast Highway to provide the recommended roadway geomet- rics. These impacts are considered minor and short-term. Design Alternative A-8: Addition of Travel Lanes within Existing Right-of-way. Imp emen a ion of design alfernative A-8 is considered an )n er m Improvment and will basically have the same beneficial circulation impacts as design alternative A-7 (Pages 144-148). The traffic -related impacts associated with this design alternative involve a substantial displacement of on -street parking. Additionally, the narrower travel lanes, coupled with numerous single purpose driveways and an abrupt cross -slope along the northerly side of the roadway would affect cer- tain operating characteristics such as speeds, accidents, and lane capacity. Implementation of the rechannel ization associated with this design alter- native will require removal of 180 of 208 parking spaces (Table LID). Of these spaces, 149 are located between Rocky Point and Dover Drive and 71 are located between Rocky Point and Newport Boulevard. 148 TABLE CC SUMMARY OF PARKING METER USE ON DINT Location North side - Newport Boulevard to Riverside Avenue Available meters 26 Available meter hours 260 hours/day Peak meter use 5.8 hours/day Average meter use 1.6 hours/day Peak meter occupancy 58%/day Average meter occupancy 16%/day North side - Riverside Avenue to Rocky Point Available meters 24 Available meter hours 240 hours/day Peak meter use 4.0 hours/day Average meter use 1.2 hours/day Peak meter occupancy 40%/day Average meter occupancy 12%/day South side - Riverside Avenue to Rocky Point Available meters 20 Available meter hours 280 hours/day Peak meter use 2.5 hours/day Average meter use 0.5 hour/day Peak meter occupancy 25%/day Average meter occupancy 5%/day 0i,g 149 TABLE DD NUMBER OF ON -STREET PARKING SPACES REMOVED BY VE A LDESIGN ALTERNATIVE T78) North side of Pacific Coast Highway Between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue Between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue Between Tustin Avenue and Rocky Point Between Rocky Point and Dover Drive South side of Pacific Coast Highway Between +540' west of Rocky Point and Rocky Point Between Rocky Point and Dover Drive 27 spaces 14 spaces 22 spaces 51 spaces 8 spaces 58 spaces TOTAL PARKING LOSS 180 spaces 150 The loss of parking along Pacific Coast Highway between Riverside and Rocky point wi l l be offset by a 122 -vehicle off-street parking facility cur- rently under construction. The loss of 109 curbside parking spaces easterly of. Rocky Point will primarily impact Balboa Bay Club employees and their loss is expected to create some adverse impact in the area. toss of parking along the northerly side of the roadway could possibly be felt by the adjacent busi- nesses; however, adequate off-street parking is available. Alternative 8: Improved Transit Service The combination of increased transit service along Pacific Coast Highway and the general growth and development of the area would undoubtedly tend to result in increased transit patronage. To a very limited extent, such increased transit patronage would tend to reduce projected auto traffic on Pacific Coast Highway. Transit patronage, as well as attendant auto traffic reduction, is subject to uncertainty and depends on many factors which can influence projections. In addition, without detailed knowledge of the future origins and destinations of transit patrons, segment -by -segment estimates can- not be made. Accordingly, for Pacific Coast Highway west of Dover Drive and for Pacific Coast Highway east of Dover Drive, a "low" and "high" estimate of transit patronage was made to describe the range of potential auto traffic reduction in 1986 and 1995. The low transit patronage estimate assumed that the average bus passenger load increases by 10% in 1986 and an additional 109E in 1995. It also assumes that new bus passengers converted to bus use primar- ily from high -occupancy automobiles (i.e., carpools). The high transit patronage estimate assumed that the average bus passenger load increases by 509E in 3986 and an additional 339 in 1995. It also assumed that new bus pas- sengers converted to bus use primarily from automobiles with single riders. Note that the reductions are not in reference to present levels of "actual" traffic, but for forecasted levels of 1986 and 1995 traffic (which are much higher than present levels). Table EE presents a summary of 1980, 1986, and 1995 peak hourly traffic volumes on Pacific Coast Highway. For 1986 and 1995, traffic volumes for the "low" and "high" transit patronage growth conditions are presented in addition to no transit patronage growth conditions. The greatest impacts associated with Alternative B would be on the por- tion of Pacific Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Newport Center Drive, since there are more OCTD bus lines on this segment than elsewhere on Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach. Even in this section, and even if transit patronage were to be at the "high" level, both 1985 and 1995 peak hourly traf- fic volumes would be far in excess of present levels, and the roadway improve- ments would be required regardless of potential transit service and patronage increases. To further identify the impacts of this alternative, ICU analyses were performed for the high transit patronage estimates and the no -project assumptions. The results of these analyses are depicted in Table FF. Compari- son of no -project ICUs resulting from high transit patronage shows that an improved ICU will occur; however, the transit alternative alone will not sig- nificantly reduce the ICU at each intersection so as not to require additional roadway improvements. 11..1Off, Pal AY oo g l l 151 TABLE EE EFFECT OF INCREASED TRANSIT RIDERSHIP ON PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Fetal ,All wwd a mew evrwiri d elwwrr! 700 .whines bon f 141 rstlmatwt �.,t'.� ..� ► G70»8 [e jeffla: Volume s on !bow t tow ftw t Olf 2. it >r 7lwte bar 1Ywte ltih lewlt t+ftOA ■ - 2MIS +s4rwr 1 sreraar,e serrwrw. _ . r�erawrI .� rwtti+rN � 7rrz. r+erar� 7aarwwww MuMMt terLLwwn" is nwwtwsaw bosom* sow benold 7,Ste1 1,114 7.100 3. SO0 7.700 S. s00 7.004 1OwcfwW" 7,100 1,10(1 x,7'10 1,700 7,100 3x140 7,700 Olw Ldlm bwAwe w 1Anae 4tw 4twt7"F=d 1.700 7.110 7.104 1. On 1.114 7.7'00 13.100 rAntlw�i 1,w0 1:304 3.7M 7.300 7.714 13.100 1. SO4 Comes LR37w M igw4/! Wive +tiwtfw�0 7,300 7.114 7.OM 1.700 7,141 7.100 7.304 w/tiobo" 7.500 7.714 7,701 7.SW 7.540 7.300 7.100 7wlwt" 0rlw to 13alwrww news eMttisr 1.700 1.700 7.700 1.110 1.000 3. tIM 7.7M rrt3�� 1.700 1,404 1,400 1.704 f,= 7,500 7.740 Jrsr4w ace1 M met d.A.r Ortww r.tbou" 1.014 2.100 1,100 11341 1.340 3115x1 1,144 i++e►n+ni t, 100 I'm 1,704 1.400 1, f0! 1.100 1.700 arrpee D..t.r arl+w be 1iwa.n" A.G . +mwtswoa s.104 7.714 l.l00 1.040 1.114 1.757a 3.74 ewwt3wwl 1.7/0 1.700 7,300 7.300 1,7U► 1,100 7,700 lowso4 "Woos to po wtler awlaned trwtlw ad 1.000 1.704 1,700 1.700 i, 740 L. 300 1, Lao 1awt7nan0 1.0x0 f.7M 1.740 7.100 7.N4 1.IW ],140 `t. 01 +rrwre7rr 1Mlwwef� Awtlw.ra 1.700 1.004 1.000 1.540 i, 700 7.100 1.40 faatlwd 1.300 13:00 7.OM 7,140 7.004 3,40 7.100 Fetal ,All wwd a mew evrwiri d elwwrr! 700 .whines bon f 141 rstlmatwt �.,t'.� ..� ► G70»8 [e 152 TABLE FF ALTERNATIVE 8 INTERSECTION L 14801 1986 Conditions 1995 Conditions Pacific Coast Highway Existing No _Project Alternative 82 No Project Alternative 8 Riverilde Avtnue 4.8%9 0 0.9345 E 0.9345 E n.9563 E 0.9146 E ower drive 0.9501 E 0.8773 0 0.8595 b 1.1313 F 1.0688 F Bayside 0rive 0.4657 E 0.9376 E 0.9167 E 0.9772 E 0.8939 b Jamboree Road 0.9407 E 1.1501 F 0.9906 E 1.1094 F 0.9%9 E Back Bay Drive (extension) IVAS - 0.8594 0 0.8594 0 0.9250 E 0.8000 C10 Neroort Center drive 0.5959 A/9 0.8281 0 0.7969 C 0.8375 0 0.8063 Q Avocado Avenue 0.1125 C 1.0819 F 0.9875 E - - WitA one-way Couplet WAS - 1.1532 'F 1.1224 F 1.1251 F 1.0939 F MacArthur Boulevard 0.9604 E 1.0344 F 1.0031 F - - - - With one-way couplet H/A5 1.3126 F 1.2813 F 1.3047 F 1.2735 F 1Refer to Table Q which provides a suamary of the 4ssuw&d intersection configurations for existing [1980], 1996, and 1995 for all of the above conditions. The 19A6 and 1995 configurations assuft that the committed road projects illustrated in Figure 14 and described on Pages 54-60 are con- structed as planned. 2Alternatiye B assumes "high transit patronage" which is defined on pa 150. 31CU ■ Intersection Capacity Utilization; Level of Service E [cao4cityJ - 1.0. 4Level of Service, see Table C for definitions. SHot applicable, future roadway iimprovesents. 153 Alternative C: No Project As shown in Fable X (Page 135), the no -project alternative will cause severe capacity problems at all major intersections along Pacific Coast High- way from Newport Boulevard to MacArthur Boulevard. In both 1986 and 1995, ten intersections will operate at Level of Service D or worse. In 1986, five intersections will be at Level of Service F. In 1995, four intersections will be at Level of Service F. As shown in Table Y (Page 136), accidents would continue to occur consistent with the historical trend. There would be 140 more accidents per year in 1985 and 144 more in 1995 than if Alternative A were implemented. In addition, Table 2 (Page 131) indicates that, under the no -project alternative, traffic speeds would be severely reduced, causing inconvenience and traffic congestion. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification Standard Federal, State, and City Policies and Requirements. k. Design Alternative A-3: Widening dowered Profile • Design Alternative A-4:ra e e araf ol�Detour plans, Including temporary lan�rip ng and e our signing, shall be evaluated to ensure that access to abutting proper- ties is not curtailed unnecessarily. No fewer lanes on Pacific Coast Highway than the number now available for vehicular traffic shall be maintained at all times. The detour plans at intersections shall maintain as high a degree of safety and operational efficiency as possible. Other Mitigation. 4. Design Alternative A-1: Addition of Travel Lanes at Signalized Inter- sections; Design Alternative on of Trave—FT—anes Within Existing Right -of -Way. Construction of the planned municipal parking lot shall completedcon-pleted prior to removal of parking along Pacific Coast highway from Newport Boulevard to 400 feet east of Tustin Avenue. Alternative 8: Ing roved Transit Service If this alternative is selected, there are no mitigation measures avail- able to avoid the remaining adverse circulation conditions expected in con- junction with this alternative. Alternative C: No Project If this alternative is selected, there are no mitigation measures avail- able to avoid the adverse circulation conditions expected as a result of this alternative. 154 ACOUSTICS An assessment of potential noise impacts and recommended mitigation has been conducted and appears in Appendix C. Impacts were analyzed for condi- tions projected for two different years. The year 1986 represents the year by which the project may be completed and is considered here to determine poten- tial oten- tia1 impacts that may be associated with project completion. The year 1995 is presented for consideration of ultimate traffic conditions. Please refer to Pages 52-60 which discuss the land use and committed transportation improvements assumed for the years 1986 and 1995. IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadwa Modification Design Alternative A-1: Widening. No significant adverse impacts are expected o result from this design alternative. Under this alternative, two lanes would be added by widening Pacific Coast Highway to the north. This would effectively move the highway to the north and away from the Irvine Ter- race residential community. Figure 30 shows the noise contours (61 Le and 65 CNEL) for the year 1986 along the Irvine Terrace area. The year 195 contours are shown in Fig- ure 31. The roadway is displaced 20 feet to the north from the current cen- terline position. This displacement of the centerl ine more than offsets the increase in noise due to increased traffic volumes projected for 1986 and 1995. Decreased speeds projected for 1986 and 1995 also reduce noise levels. The net change is that all homes (Figure 23, page 99) currently exposed to noise levels in excess of local noise standards (65 CNEL) will have noise levels reduced to less than 65 CNEL. No homes along this length of the proj- ect route are exposed to noise levels above the Federal 67 Leg standards for existing, 1986, or 1995 conditions. Homes near the intersection of Jam- boree Road are discussed in the next section under design alternatives A-2 through A-4. Design Alternative A-2: Widening (Existing Profile • Design Alternative A-3: Widening (Lowerede n ersec )on widening would reduce am yen noise levels in Irvine Terrace adjacent to the intersection below the Federal and local standards for all homes except the house at the southeast corner of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway. This home would be exposed to levels above Federal and local standards for both 1986 and 1995 conditions. This would also be true for the no -project alternative. The house is surrounded by an 8 -foot wall (and higher) and does not have any large windows or doors exposed to the roadways. This yard was not accessible for noise measurement during the measurement periods, so no actual in -yard measurements are avail- able. The home is built in an "L" shape adjacent to the roadway, with the yard separated from the roads by the building, thus the yard is shielded. For these reasons, it is felt that the home at Jamboree and Pacific Coast Highway is sufficiently designed to ensure that the impact of the road improvement will not adversely affect the noise environment at this home. G Pt 30 67 Leq & 65 1986 iry e Terrace - Alb Source: Vincent Mestre and Asyu`-. )OSIC i r ! 31 1995 67 Leq & 65 � Irvine Terrace -Alter - Alt. A ._ � -. . - ..-• __ � --.:.4.4..x_ - �� '�'hwrrrrr r No Project _ ♦ ry� Digitized by G OQS l C 157 Apartments in Promontory Point near the Pacific Coast Highway/aamboree intersection would not experience noise levels. exceeding Federal standards for either 1986 or 1995. However, the three wings adjacent to the intersection would be subject to levels in excess of local standards in both 1986 and 1995. When the Promontory Point apartments were built, noise problems were antici- pated and apartment construction was adapted to the anticipated high noise level s . The apartments facing Pacific Coast Highway are fitted with double- glazed ouble- glazed windows and are also the only apartments in Promontory Point that are provided with air-conditioning. The air-conditioning allows the windows to be kept closed to reduce noise levels and maintain a comfortable interior envi- ronment. The double -glazed windows provide much more transmission loss than do ordinary single -glazed windows. Because of these existing mitigating features built into the apartments, additional mitigation is not necessary. Design Alternative A-4: Grade Separation. This alternative will not have any significant 52 -verse noise impacts. onstruction of the grade separa- tion design alternative would displace the intersection a significant distance to the north, moving the noise source farther away from the Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point homes. In addition, the interchange structure would act as a noise barrier for noise from the ramps and from much of Jamboree Road. Under this design alternative, all homes in both Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point would be within acceptable noise levels of Federal and local standards in both 1986 and 1995. Design Alternative A-5: Widening,Northern Alignment. Widening to the north would involve removal and rearrangement of some mobile homes within the mobile home park. Widening would bring the noise source closer to mobile homes which are not displaced. There are currently 12 mobile homes exposed to noise levels exceeding Federal standards, and 46 exposed to levels higher than local standards. As a result of widening and redesign of the mobile homes, in 1986 6 mobile homes would experience levels beyond Federal standards, and 30 would experience levels above local standards. In 1995, Federal standards will still be exceeded with 6 mobile homes, but 31 units will exceed local standards (Figures 32 and 33). Design Alternative A-6: Widening, Southern Alignment. The southern alignment would also affect noise leveis within the mobile home park. In 1986, 14 mobile homes would experience noise levels in excess of Federal stan- dards, and 24 in excess of local standards; this compares to 12 and 46 for existing conditions. In 1995, 17 homes would exceed Federal standards, and 31 would exceed local standards (Figures 34 and 35) . Design Alternative A-7: Addition of Travel Lanes At Signalized Inter- sections; s an erns ve- : Addition o rave LanesWithin x s n Right- o - a _ without additional rave lanes, to H the _ con our woulda feet from the highway centerline, west ur cover Drive. !his is a reduction in the existing distance from the centerline, which is currently 164 feet . By 1995, without roadway improvements, the distance would be 79 feet . This reduction would be due to the expected decrease in travel speeds due to heavier congestion. 11 1.6111��riyl+3�i�� �L LeQ & 65 1986 67Alternative � pes 9 source- m VinCent liestre and ASSoc- GOosle Q�g its 4-10 LIV C. 162 With additional travel lanes from Dover Drive to Newport Boulevard, the 65 CNEL contour would be 131 feet in 1986, the same distance as would occur without roadway modifications. The 1995 distance from the contour with roadway modifications would be 135 feet, almost double the distance from the projected 1995 contour without roadway changes. This is due to the higher travel speeds expected as a result of implementation of design alternative A-7 or A-8. The location of the 67 Le.contour is a function of the peak noise hour and the number of lanes. With this alternative, the 67 Leg would be located 103 feet from the centerline in 1986 and 1995. This is compared to 78 feet from the centerline under the existing and no -project conditions. Construction Noise Im acts. Construction noise is a potential impact that must be considered in the environmental process. Construction noise rep- resents a short-term impact. Every effort must be made to ensure that exces- sive noise is not produced during construction. Table GG presents the noise levels generated by typical construction equipment. The most effective method of controlling construction noise is through local control of construction hours. The City of Newport Beach has adopted as part of its City code limits on the hours of noisy construction and excavation work. Section 10.28.040, "Noisy Construction and Excavation Work - Flours Permitted," limits construc- tion to daytime hours. During the week, construction is limited to 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Saturday construction is limited to 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and to 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. In emergencies, the Building and Safety Director may grant a revocable permit authorizing such work to be done at different hours. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service Implementation of the transit alternative will result in some minimal decreases in noise levels along portions of the project route. The greatest change in noise levels for the transit alternative is a decrease of .2 dB for 1986 and a decrease of .9 dB for 1995. These changes are not significant when one considers that the human ear is just barely able to discern a noise change of 3 dB. Noise contours would be virtually identical to those associated with Alternative C, no project (Figures 30-35). Alternative C: No Project Figures 30-35 illustrate the 67 Leg and 65 CNEL noise contours asso- ciated with no project for selected segments along Pacific Coast Highway. Under no project, the home at the southeast corner of Jamboree Road and Pacif- ic Coast Highway will be exposed to levels above both Federal and local stan- dards for 1986 and 1995. As discussed under design alternative A-2 (Page 155) this will not adversely affect the noise environment at this home. The no -project alternative will not adversely impact apartments in Promontory Point since apartments exposed to noise levels above standard have already been sufficiently noise -proofed. 163 TABLE GG SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS FOR Levels, in Decibels, Type of Equipment (A -Weighted) East Scrapers 89-95 Scrapers, elevating 88 Graders 77-87 Dozers 87-89 with squeaky tracks 90-93 Dozers, sheepsfoot 82-88 Rollers 72-80 Rollers, vibrating 80-85 Loaders, bucket 80-81 Loaders, terex 96 Backhoe 79-91 Gradall 87-88 Crane 80-85 Trucks, off highway 81-96 Trucks, asphalt 69-82. Trucks, concrete 71-82 Trucks, cement 91 Trucks, 14 -wheel 88 Tractors, with water pump 73-80 Pavers 82-92 Autograder 81 Compressors 71-87 Rock drills (hand-held, pneumatic) 88 (track -mounted) 91 Concrete saws 87 Concrete Saws, chain 88-93 Water pumps 79 Concrete pumps 76 Generators 69-75 Concrete plant 93 Asphalt plant 91 Pile driver (Vulcan No. 1) 90 "YGO( gle 164 Under the no -project alternative, in 1986 12 mobile homes will be exposed to noise levels violating Federal standards, and 26 will be exposed to levels violating local standards. In 1995, 12 will be exposed to levels violating Federal standards and 12 will be exposed to levels violating local standards. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification Standard Federal, State, and City Policies and Requirements. 1. Design Alternative A-5: Wideni Alternative -widening,ou e constructed aro—ng-7F—e-nortnern F2 adjacent to the mobile home park. to IO feet (see Appendix C, Table will mitigate all adverse impacts within the park. Al homes will Federal and local standards. Alianment: Desi rn AI] gment. A noise carrier snail be ci is Coast Highway right-of-way boundary The height of the barrier will range from 3 14 and Figures 13 and 14). This barrier related to highway noise on mobile homes be within acceptable noise levels under m. Design Alternatives A-1 through A -7 -Construction noise shall be 1mited in conformance with ] y Ot Newport Beach Code Section 10.28.040. Other Mitigation. No further mitigation -is required. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service Standard Federal. State, and City Policies and Recuirements. None applica e. Other Mitigation. 5. Construction of a noise barrier could bring all mobile homes within acceptable noise levels. Alternative C: No Project Standard Federal, State. -and City Policies and Revuirements. None applica e. Other Mitigation. 6. Construction of a noise barrier could bring all mobile homes within acceptable noise levels under Federal and local standards. gle 165 AIR QUALITY An air quality assessment in Appendix D discusses in detail potential impacts on local and regional air quality. The following is a summary of the report's findings. This project is in an area where there is not an approved State Implemen- tation Plan (SIP) currently containing any enforceable transporation control measures. Therefore, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project. A SIP revision was developed for this area containing TCMs, but that SIP has not been approved by EPA. The mobile emission analysis of the area's air quality maintenance plan, included in the proposed SIP, is based on a Regional Transportation Improvement Program that includes this project. Therefore, it is expected that if a SIP were approved for the project area that this project would have conformed to it. IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadway Modification. Changes resulting from Alterna- tive lterna- tive A -include an improvement in traffic speed and small changes in the loca- tion of travel lanes where the pollutant emissions originate. Traffic volumes are independent of the project. Table HH depicts calculated emissions per average vehicle traveling the project route. Impacts on regional air quality resulting from the alternative assume six through lanes along the project route for 1986 and 1995. Without Alternative A, future levels of emissions may increase on a meso - scale basis because the air quality benefit of the retirement of alder, pol- luting vehicles will be offset by the fact that along some segments future traffic speeds will decrease with increased congestion on Pacific Coast High- way. This relationship between future and current levels is demonstrated in Table II. Without Alternative A, future levels are characterized by a rela- tively small change in the levels of CO and RHC emissions and large future reductions in NOx because of reduced speeds plus vehicle emissions improve- ments. With Alternative A, the emissions improvements range from 209 to 60% for the three pollutant species compared to current levels. The emissions reductions are most noticeable during presently congested periods as conges- tion is relieved by the proposed Pacific Coast Highway improvements. The difference in future conditions with and without Alternative A between rush hour and the rest of the day is readily seen in Table JJ. By 1986, Alternative A creates a noticeable improvement in CO and RHC emission levels at rush hour, but no benefit is demonstrated during the off-peak hours because the mean speed with or without Alternative A is almost uniformly 35 mph for either alternative. By 1995, the percentage difference between no project and Alternative A becomes larger and there is a definite improvement for CO and RHC for the non -peak hours as well. In each case, any speed improvement introduces an increase in NOx emissions except for 1995 peak hour conditions where there will be a very small decrease in NOx. However, 166 TABLE HH EMISSIONS PER AVERAGE VEHICLE (GRAMS) ON PACIFIC COAST AY 1986 1995 ❑ Alternative No erns ive Pollutant 1981 Project A Project A PEAK HOUR Carbon monoxide 185.10 203.30 169.80 173.41 129.17 Reactive hydrocarbons 12.76 13.33 11.19 12.91 9.65 Oxides of nitrogen 12.38 7.93 8.53 6.06 5.95 OFF-PEAK HOURS Carbon monoxide 113.12 111.13 111.13 106.09 84.12 Reactive hydrocarbons 7.98 7.14 7.14 7.77 6.16 Oxides of nitrogen 15.98 9.81 9.81 6.39 6.88 167 TABLE II COMPARISON OF FUTURE EMISSION LLVLLS W11H 1981 EMISSIONS Pollutant 1981 1986 1995 PEAK HOUR - NO PROJECT Carbon monoxide - + 9.83% - 6.32% Reactive hydrocarbons - + 4.47% + 1.18% Oxides of nitrogen - -35.95% -51.05% PEAK HOUR - WITH ALTERNATIVE A Carbon monoxide - - 8.27% -30.22% Reactive hydrocarbons - -12.30% -24.37% Oxides of nitrogen - -31.10% -51.94% OFF-PEAK HOUR - NO PROJECT Carbon monoxide - - 1.766 - 6.21% Reactive hydrocarbons - -10.53% - 2.63% Oxides of nitrogen - -38.42% --59.89% OFF-PEAK HOUR - WITH ALTERNATIVE A Carbon monoxide - - 1.76% -25.64% Reactive hydrocarbons - -10.53% -22.81% Oxides of nitrogen - -38.42% -56.81% D,:,ll,�.;3 Gv G(108 le M1-3 TABLE JJ ALTERNATIVE A V5. NO -PROJECT AIR POLLUTION 9FREFIT Y) Pollutant PEAK HOUR Carbon monoxide Reactive hydrocarbons Oxides of nitrogen OFF-PEAK HOUR Carbon monoxide Reactive hydrocarbons Oxides of nitrogen 1986 1995 -16.48% -25.51% 16.05% -25.25% + 7.57% - 1.82% NIC -20.71% NIC -20.72% NIC f 7.67% jIr gzjF : 169 the increase in NOx is less in magnitude than any corresponding decrease in CO and RNC. Since RHCs are the pollutants most important in controlling ozone formation, the positive benefit of CO and RHC reduction, at least on a region- al scale, outweighs any penalty introduced by NOx increases. The reduction in CO is especially important on a microscale basis because CO is the primary air pollution concern for residential areas close to the roadway. Along the Pacific Coast Highway route and its various alternatives, occupied residences, especially those with children in Irvine Terrace and the many elderly residents of the trailer park near the bridge, constitute the most significant sensitive receptor impact zones. As discussed on Pages 104- 112 of the Air Quality section under Environmental Setting of this report, several CO monitoring studies have been conducted in the project vicinity. Also, as discussed at length in the CO monitoring study conducted by the City of Newport Beach (Appendix D), the monitoring studies indicate that the model- ed predictions discussed below appear to be over -predictive (over -conserva- tive). This is primarily due to the worst-case assumptions utilized by the model relating to traffic conditions and dispersion/stagnation patterns. Based on an average daily background maximum of 2 ppm of CO, traffic volumes, traffic speeds, receptor distances, and worst-case dispersion pat- terns, critical levels were calculated using a line source air pollution dis- persion model (CALINE3) to determine conditions that might result in unhealth- ful microscale CO levels. Results from the microscale dispersion modeling confirmed the findings from the CalTrans and City of Newport Beach CO monitoring efforts that CO levels along PCH do not exceed applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards (Tables KK and LL). Existing maximum 8 -hour CO levels along one of the most heavily traveled segments of PCH (between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive) are currently calculated to be 7-8 ppm, and with the project are predicted to decrease to 5-6 ppm throughout the next 10-15 years. This is sufficiently below the 9 ppm standard to assure that no exceedances will occur. Given that the ambient CO monitoring conducted near the above location (Appendix 0) found actual CO levels to be even lower than the estimated worst-case. maximum, and that a reasonable margin of safety exists between predicted maxima and the ambient CO standard of 9 ppm, it is safe to conclude that Alternative A will not adversely affect air quality at any sensitive receptor site within the project area. In particular, microscale CO receptor exposure in the mobile home park between Bayside Drive and Jamboree Road and in the Irvine Terrace residential community between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard is now and will continue to be well within recommended limits with implementation of any of the Alternative A design alternatives. TABLE ICK 8 -HOUR CO CONCENTRATIONS (PPM AY1,2 170 Roadway Segment01 6.9 Distance 10' 201 From Roadwa 30' 401 EdSe 60 5.1 Existing (1981) 4.1 Riverside Ave. to Sea Scout Base 6.5 6.0 5.6 5.1 4.8 Newport Blvd. to Riverside Ave. 5.5 5.1 4.7 4.4 4.2 3.7 3.5 Riverside Ave. to Sea Scout Base 5.2 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.6 3.4 Sea Scout Base to Dover Dr. 4.9 4.5 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.2 Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr. 7.8 7.1 6.6 6.0 5.6 4.9 4.5 Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd. 6.4 5.9 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.2 3.9 Jamboree Rd. to Newport Center Dr. 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.0 Newport Center Dr. to Avocado Ave. 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.1 Avocado Ave. to MacArthur Blvd. 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.1 MacArthur Blvd. 5.2 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.6 3.4 1986 Newport Blvd. to Riversfide Ave. 6.9 6.4 5.9 5.4 5.1 4.5 4.1 Riverside Ave. to Sea Scout Base 6.5 6.0 5.6 5.1 4.8 4.3 4.0 Sea Scout Base to Dover Dr. 6.3 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.7 4.2 3.9 Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr. 6.4 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.7 4.2 3.9 Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd. 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.7 4.4 3.9 3.7 Jamboree Rd. to Newport Center Dr. 4.7 4.4 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.2 Newport Center Dr. to Avocado Ave. 4.9 4.5 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.2 Avocado Ave. to MacArthur Blvd. 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.2 MacArthur Blvd. 6.8 6.3 5.8 5.4 5.0 4.4 4.1 1995 Newport Blvd. to Riverside Ave. 5.9 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.0 3.7 Riverside Ave. to Sea Scout Base 5.6 5.2 4.8 4.5 4.2 3.8 3.5 Sea Scout Base to Dover Dr. 5.4 5.0 4.7 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.5 Dover Dr. to Bayside Dr. 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2 3.8 3.5 Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd. 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.6 3.4 Jamboree Rd. to Newport Center Dr. 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 Newport Center Dr. to Avocado Ave.. 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.1 3.O Avocado Ave. to MacArthur Blvd. 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 MacArthur Blvd. 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.7 3.4 1Assumes a 2 ppm background level. 2Standard - 9 ppm. fir• -i k; k., 0„V C, 'L t 171 TABLE LL MAXIMUM HOURLY AND 8 -HOUR CO C NCENTRATIONS1,2 Roadway Seoent 1 -Hour CO Levels3,4 8 -Hour CO Levels5 Newport Blvd, to Riverside Ave. 15.6 5.9 Bayside Or, to Jamboree Rd. 14.6 5.9 1995 Newport Blvd. to Riverside Ave. 13.3 5.9 Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd. 15.7 5.1 1Concentrations given for two segments which exhibit among the highest -hour concentrations (see Table K). 2Background CO concentration = Z ppm. 31-ho,jr standard - 35 ppm. 4Assumes peak -hour traffic and theoretical minimum atmospheric dispersion conditions, 58 -hour standard - 9 ppm. 112 Alternative B: Improved Transit Service Under the improved transit alternative, transit ridership is assumed to increase with a corresponding decrease in auto traffic. The minor decrease in traffic volume would result in a small reduction in pollutant emissions. An indirect effect of the decrease in traffic volumes is a higher, more efficient traffic speed. While higher speeds result in slightly higher NOx emissions per vehicle, hydrocarbon and CO emissions are reduced. Table MM depicts air pollutant emissions along Pacific Coast Highway as a function of transit ridership projected for 1986 and 1995. The increase in transit ridership is projected according to three scenarios (described in the Circulation section under Environmental Consequences): no increase in rider- ship, a low increase in ridership, and a high increase in ridership. Peak -hour traffic along Pacific Coast Highway presently generates approx- imately 100 pounds each of NOx and RHC, and about 1,600 pounds of CO. Future traffic increases are compensated by continued retirement of older, polluting vehicles such that a small net emissions change occurs regardless of the tran- sit assumptions. By 1986, the reduction in emissions from the low transit ridership case is negligible, and only a 2% reduction occurs as a result of high ridership. By 1995, however, the low ridership case represents almost a 4% net decrease, and the high ridership case is almost 10% lower than the 1995 scenario with no increase in ridership. Thus, if sufficient incentives suc- cessfully induce enough drivers to forsake the single -passenger automobile in favor of transit, the improved transit alternative can significantly reduce vehicular emissions. Alternative C: No Project There are no adverse air quality -related impacts associated with Alterna- tive C. Table HH (Page 166) shows that there will be a decrease over existing pollutant levels for CO, reactive hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). This is due primarily to the retirement of older, polluting vehi- cles. Also, there is a reduction in NO, because of significantly reduced travel speeds. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification No mitigation measures are required. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service No mitigation measures are required. Alternative C: No Project No mitigation measures are required. TABLE NM PEAK -HOUR AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY OF IMPACT - NO PROJECT VS. ALTERNATM B 173 Emissions (Pounds/Hour) Year/Pollutant Protect Transit Reduction) ransit a .uction Reactive hydrocarbons 119.35 119.35 (0%) 116.76 (-2.2%) Oxides of nitrogen 89.60 89.60 t0%j 87.36 (-2.5%) Carbon monoxide 1832.14 1832.14 (0%) 1792.26 (-2.2%) 1995 Reactive hydrocarbons 111.41 106.78 (-3.8%) 100.74 (-10..3%) Oxides of nitrogen 68.29 65.67 (-3.8%) 61.10 (-10.3%) Carbon monoxide 1492.98 1436.02 (-3.8%) 1349.04 (-10.3%) 174 PUBLIC UTILITIES IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadway Modification There will be no significant disruption of public utility services as a result of any of the alternatives or design alternatives of the project. Con- struction of the lowering or grade separation design alternatives at the Jam- boree Road/Pacific Coast Highway intersection would require lowering of utili- ty lines at the time of roadway lowering. The underground lines can be splic- ed or diverted at the time of lowering to prevent any significant disruption of service. Impacts resulting from other design alternatives would be even less sig- nificant. The cost of relocating utility lines would be financed by the com- panies owning the utilities. The City would be responsible for any relocation of water, sewer, or storm drain facilities. Alternative B: Im_proved Transit Service There will be no impacts on public utility services as a result of Alter- native B. Alternative C: No Project There will be no impacts on public utility services as a result of Alter- native C. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternatives A, B, and C No mitigation measures are required. ENERGY IMPACTS The expected energy consumed was calculated by using a computer model developed by CalTrans Transportation Laboratory. The model computes the direct energy consumed by traffic traveling over a particular roadway along with the indirect energy associated with the vehicles and the roadway. The results are expressed in British Thermal Units (BTU) consumed over the life of the project and are then converted to equivalent barrels of oil (EBO) used per day. 175 Direct energy is that which actually propels vehicles. Direct energy is a function of traffic conditions (volume, speed, distance traveled, vehicle mix, and traffic flow characteristics) and facility conditions (grade, curva- ture, and stop signs/signals). Indirect energy is that used in the manufacture and maintenance of vehicles and the construction, operation, and maintenance of the roadway facility. Alternative A: Roadway Modification The widening of Pacific Coast Highway (Alternative A) will lessen the expected congestion, although traffic will still be impeded by side street and pedestrian demands. The vehicle speeds for Alternative A are expected to be 15 mph higher from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive and 5 mph higher from Bayside Drive to Newport Boulevard, than for Alternative BIC. This slight increase in operational speeds could cause a slight increase in fuel consump- tion. However, Alternative A will create additional capacity that will lessen congestion and related stop -and -go traffic conditions, resulting in an energy savings that will offset any potential increased use due to higher speeds. During the study .period, 1986 to 1995, energy consumption would be less for Alternative A than for either Alternative B or C (Table NN). Alternative B: Improved Transit Service As discussed above, Alternative B would consume slightly more energy than Alternative A. However, this increased energy use is not considered to be a significant adverse impact. Alternative C: No Project As with Alternative B, Alternative C consumption level than Alternative A. This cant adverse impact. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification No mitigation measures are required. Alternative 8: Improved Transit Service No mitigation measure are required. Alternative C: No Project No mitigation measures are required. would have a slightly higher energy is not considered to be a signifi- 176 TABLE NN rMPAIT OH OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION MacArthur Boulevard Bayside Drive to to Bayside Drive Newport Boulevard Alternatives Alternatives A Total energy consumed during sty5y period (Btu x 1011 ) 3.14 3.74 4.20 4.67 Equivalent barrels of oil (EBO) per day 148 177 198 220 Hate: Btu = British thermal units LIrI K1, c -y ny Gam, 0 117 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONNEWIND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHWERENT OF LONG-TERM PROUCTIVITY Most of the area within the project alternatives is part of the existing highway, and therefore already committed to transportation land uses. The ultimate design of Pacific Coast Highway, as stipulated in the City's Master Plan Circulation Element, is intended to meet the long-term needs of the City as a whole and its surrounding area. These long-term needs are described in the Purpose and Need for the Project section of this report. Potential impacts of the project, such as displacement of businesses and/or residences, would occur as a tradeoff for enhancing the long-term efficiency of Pacific Coast Highway as a transportation corridor. ``ti U..-�K@; P.7 AY �iL10gIl 178 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE C OM ITHENTS OF RESOURCES In considering adoption of the project, Alternative A is the only alter- native to have irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Con- struction of Alternative A would commit portions of land along. the existing roadway to use as a roadway. Reverting to other land uses after construction is highly infeasible because of the large capital investment and the necessity for the expanded roadway throughout the foreseeable future. Several irreversible commitments of limited resources would result from implementation of the project. These resources include, but are not limited to, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, and water. The alternatives would involve an irreversible commitment of labor and capital investment. They would also result in an irretrievable commitment of finite energy resources during construction (e.g., fuel oil, motor fuels). 179 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS The project alternatives are conceived to accommodate increasing traffic volumes in response to local and regional growth. To accommodate the General Plan land uses and anticipated regional growth, the adopted Master Plan Circu- lation Clement for the City of Newport Beach identifies the ultimate configu- ration of Pacific Coast Highway as a major arterial (i.e., six lanes undivid- ed). The County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways also classifies Pacific Coast Highway as a major arterial route at six lanes. As steps toward implementation of the City and County Master Plan, the project alternatives represent a consequence rather than a cause of local and regional growth. Southern Orange County, particularly that part proximate to the coast, is one of the premier growth areas in the nation. A number of factors contribute to this. For example, the region of which Southern Orange County is a part, is one of the nation's largest high technology industrial and service concen- trations. oncen- trations. As the United States continues to shift toward a service and high- technology dominated economy, areas such as this are expected to continue to experience strong growth pressure. Further, this area is ideally located to serve the massive Southern California market area so that employment in trade and service industries is expected to grow substantially. The data on ongoing development on Pages 52 to 60 clearly demonstrates this. In addition, the project area's physical amenities, the ocean and temperate climate are highly desirable from the perspective of both employers and potential residents. In view of the competitive advantages enjoyed by the project area, there are no factors or conditions which would suggest that a "no project" alterna- tive would affect the rate, magnitude or type of future growth. Not complet- ing the project would, however, result in a lower level of transportation service as discussed in the "Purpose and Heed for the Project" section of this document. In other words, completing this project, which is a relatively minor improvement in the context of the overall transportation network, would, to some extent, mitigate the adverse circulation effects arising out of growth occurring for unrelated reasons. r,�,� �J tiv Gvoo lc IM PUBLIC COORDINATION Initial contact regarding the project was made early in the environmental process. Notices of Preparation and letters advising of the project were sent to all responsible agencies and interested parties in November and December of 1980. A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register in February, 1981. In addition, two public meetings were held in December 1980 in Newport Beach, to which both interested public agencies and local citizens were invit- ed. At these well -attended meetings, the proposed project and the environ- mental process were described and the audience was given the opportunity to raise environmental issues and their concerns about the project. Finally, the City Council has appointed several standing citizen advisory committees which advise it on various issues in the city. Three of these committees will review the Pacific Coast Highway project. They are: 1. Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee Z. Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee 3. Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee During preparation of the Draft EIS, the fallowing entities were contacted: United States Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service Pacific Telephone Company Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Orange County Sanitation District #1 Orange County Transit District California State Historic Preservation Officer r c 181 PREPARERS OF THE REPORT The Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by: Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 525 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (114) 640-6363 Principal contributors: Annette Sanchez, Project Manager B.A. Social Ecology, M.S. Administration 3 years experience in land use planning and environmental analysis Edward Almanza, Assistant Project Manager B.S. Geography, M.S. Geography 1 year experience in land use planning and environmental analysis Vincent Mestre, Acoustical Analyst, Vincent Mestre Associates B.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering M.S. Environmental Engineering Registered Professional Engineer (State of California) Hans Giroux, Meteorologist and Air Quality Analyst B.S. Meteorology, M.S. Meteorology 13 years experience in weather forecasting and air quality impact analysis Bili Darnell, Transportation and Traffic Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering Registered Civil Engineer and Traffic Engineer (State of California) 18 years experience in transportation and traffic engineering Ron Douglas, Principal Investigator B.A. Anthropology, M.A. Anthropology 5 years experience in cultural resource investigations Edward Gardner, Project Archaeologist B.A. Anthropology, M.A. Anthropology 10 years experience in cultural resource investigations 182 DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Federal Activities (A104) 401 "M" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Al an Cranston 10960 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 S. I. Hayakawa 523 west Sixth Street Los Angeles, CA 90014 Robert Badham 1649 Westcliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Jerry Patterson 34 Civic Center Place Suite 921 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Marian Bergeson 833 Dover Drive Newport Beach, CA 92563 John Schmitz 4500 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Orange County Board of Supervisors County Government Center Santa Ana, CA 92701 City of Irvine Community Development P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92715 City of Costa Mesa Planning Department P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92526 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency/ Environmental Services P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Environmental Protection Agency EIS Coordinator, Region 9 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 9401.5 Urban Mass Transportation Admin- istration, Region 9 Two Embarcadero Center Suite 620 San Francisco, CA 94111 U.S. Department of Interior Director Office of Environmental Project Review 18th and "C" Streets, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20242 U.S. Department of Energy Director Division of NEPA Affairs 1040 Independence Ave., S.W. Room 4GO85 Washington, D.C. 20585 Department of Health and Human Services Director Office of Environmental Affairs 200 Independence Ave., S.W. Room 537 F Washington, D.C. 20201 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Engineer 300 N. Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Department of Housing and Urban Development Area Director 2500 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 183 U.S. Soil Conservation Service Area Conservationist Area VI 3519A Canyon Crest Drive Riverside, CA 92507 Southern California Rapid Transit Districts 425 South Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Attn: District Secretary's office Orange County Transportation Commission 1020 N. Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Orange County Transit District 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92542 SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Attn: Clearinghouse South Coast Air Quality Manage- ment District General Engineering Dept. 9150 E. Flair Drive El Monte, CA 91731 University of California Assistant Vice President Budget, Analysis, and Planning 247 University mall Berkeley, CA 94720 California Natural Areas Coordinating Council Executive Secretary 1505 Sobre Vista Way Sonoma, CA 95475 California Native Plant Society Environmental Impact Coordinator P.O. Box 669 Aromas, CA 95004 California wildlife Federation 1 California Street, Room 1115 San Francisco, CA 94111 Friends of the Earth State Capitol Office 717 "K" Street, Suite 209 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sierra Club 2410 Beverly Blvd., Suite 2 Los Angeles, CA 90057 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 2593 Life Sciences Building Berkeley, CA 94720 CalTrans Environmental Branch Chief Main Office 1120 "N" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 CalTrans District 1 Environmental Branch Chief P.U. Box 3700 Eureka, CA 95501 CalTrans District 2 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Box 2017 Redding, CA 95001 CalTrans District 3 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Sox 911 Marysville, CA 95901 CalTrans District 4 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Box 3355 Rincon, CA 94119 CalTrans District 5 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Box L San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 ,l CalTrans District 6 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Box 12616 Fresno, CA 93778 CalTrans District 8 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92403 CalTrans District 9 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Bax 847 Bishop, CA 93514 CalTrans District 10 Environmental Branch P.O. Box 2048 Stockton, CA 95201 CalTrans District 11 Environmental Branch P.D. Box 81406 San Diego, CA 92138 184 Department of Parks and Recreation Director 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Conservation Director 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Resources Agency Secretary 1416 Ninth Street, 13th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Chief Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission Executive Director 1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Chief California Transportation Commission P.O. Box 1139 Sacramento, CA 95805 California Highway Patrol 2031 E. Santa Clara Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 State Clearinghouse Governor's Office Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Water Resources Director 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State Lands Commission Executive Officer 1807 -13th Street, Room 101 Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Health Services Director 744 "P" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State Department of Housing and Community Development Director 921 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Fish and Game Director 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State Water Resources Control Board Executive Office 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Solid Waste Management Board Executive Officer 825 "K" Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 111 TABLE LL MAXIMUM HOURLY AND 8 -HOUR CO C NCENTRATIONSI,2 Roadway Segment 1 -Hour CO Levels3,4 8 -Hour CO Levels5 ITO Newport Blvd. to Riverside Ave. 15.6 6.9 Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd. 14.6 5.9 1995 Newport Blvd. to Riverside Ave. 13.3 5.9 Bayside Dr. to Jamboree Rd. 15.1 5.1 1Concentrations given for two segments which exhibit among the highest 8 -hour concentrations (see Table K). 2Background CO concentration - 2 ppm. 31 -hour standard - 35 ppm. 4Assumes peals -hour traffic and theoretical minimum atmospheric dispersion conditions. 58 -hour standard - 9 ppm. 172 Alternative B: Improved Transit Service Under the improved transit alternative, transit ridership is assumed to increase with a corresponding decrease in auto traffic. The minor decrease in traffic volume would result in a small reduction in pollutant emissions. An indirect effect of the decrease in traffic volumes is a nigher, more efficient traffic speed. while higher speeds result in slightly higher NOx emissions per vehicle, hydrocarbon and CO emissions are reduced. Table MM depicts air pollutant emissions along Pacific Coast Highway as a function of transit ridership projected for 1986 and 1995. The increase in transit ridership is projected according to three scenarios (described in the Circulation section under Environmental Consequences): no increase in rider- ship, a low increase in ridership, and a high increase in ridership. Peak -hour traffic along Pacific Coast Highway presently generates approx- imately 100 pounds each of NOx and RHC, and about 1,640 pounds of CO. Future traffic increases are compensated by continued retirement of older, polluting vehicles such that a small net emissions change occurs regardless of the tran- sit assumptions. By 1986, the reduction in emissions from the low transit ridership case is negligible, and only a 2% reduction occurs as a result of high ridership. By 1995, however, the low ridership case represents almost a 4% net decrease, and the high ridership case is almost 10% lower than the 1995 scenario with no increase in ridership. Thus, if sufficient incentives suc- cessfully induce enough drivers to forsake the single -passenger automobile in favor of transit, the improved transit alternative can significantly reduce vehicular emissions. Alternative C: No Project There are no adverse air quality -related impacts associated with Alterna- tive C. Table HH (Page 166) shows that there will be a decrease over existing pollutant levels for CO, reactive hydrocarbons, and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). This is due primarily to the retirement of older, polluting vehi- cles. Also, there is a reduction in NOx because of significantly reduced travel speeds. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification No mitigation measures are required. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service No mitigation measures are required. Alternative C: No Project No mitigation measures are required. ry G_10o e 173 TABLE MM PEAK -HOUR AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS AEONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AREA OF IMPACT - NO PROJECT VS. AET N 8 1995 Reactive hydrocarbons 111.41 106.78 (-3.8%) 100.74 (-10_.3%) Oxides of nitrogen 68.29 65.67 (-3.8%) 61.10 (-10.3%) Carbon monoxide 1492.98 1436.02 (-3.8%) 1349.04 (-10.3%) Emissions Pounds/Hour No Low i h Year/Pollutant Project Transit Reduction: Transit a uctlon 1986 Reactive hydrocarbons 119.35 119.35 (O%) 116.76 (-2.2x) Oxides of nitrogen 89.60 89.60 (0%) 87.36 (-2.5x) Carbon monoxide 1832.14 1832.14 (0%) 1792.26 (-2.2%) 1995 Reactive hydrocarbons 111.41 106.78 (-3.8%) 100.74 (-10_.3%) Oxides of nitrogen 68.29 65.67 (-3.8%) 61.10 (-10.3%) Carbon monoxide 1492.98 1436.02 (-3.8%) 1349.04 (-10.3%) 174 PUBLIC tfTILITIES IMPACTS Alternative A: Roadway Modification There will be no significant disruption of public utility services as a result of any of the alternatives or design alternatives of the project. Con- struction of the lowering or grade Separation design alternatives at the Jam- boree Road/Pacific Coast Highway intersection would require lowering of utili- ty lines at the time of roadway lowering. The underground lines can be splic- ed or diverted at the time of lowering to prevent any significant disruption of service. Impacts resulting from other design alternatives would be even less sig- nificant. The cost of relocating utility lines would be financed by the com- panies owning the utilities. The City would be responsible for any relocation of water, sewer, or storm drain facilities. Alternative 8: Improved Transit Service There will be no impacts on public utility services as a result of Alter- native B. Alternative C_: No Project There will be no impacts on public utility services as a result of Alter- native C. MITIIaATIQN MEASURES Alternatives A, 8, and C No mitigation measures are required. ENERGY IWACTS The expected energy consumed was calculated by using a computer model developed by CalTrans Transportation Laboratory. The model computes the direct energy consumed by traffic traveling over a particular roadway along with the indirect energy associated with the vehicles and the roadway. The results are expressed in British Thermal Units (BTU) consumed over the life of the project and are then converted to equivalent barrels of oil (EBU) used per day. e 175 Direct energy is that which actually propels vehicles. Direct energy is a function of traffic conditions (volume, speed, distance traveled, vehicle mix, and traffic flow characteristics) and facility conditions (grade, curva- ture, and stop signs/signals). Indirect energy is that used in the manufacture and maintenance of vehicles and the construction, operation, and maintenance of the roadway fact lity. Alternative A: Roadway Modification The widening of Pacific Coast Highway (Alternative A) will lessen the expected congestion, although traffic will still be impeded by side street and pedestrian demands. The vehicle speeds for Alternative A are expected to be 15 mph higher from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive and 5 mph higher from Bayside Drive to Newport Boulevard, than for Alternative BIC. This slight increase in operational speeds could cause a slight increase in fuel consump- tion. However, Alternative A will create additional capacity that will lessen congestion and related stop -and -go traffic conditions, resulting in an energy savings that will offset any potential increased use due to higher speeds. During the study .period, 1986 to 1995, energy consumption would be less for Alternative A than for either Alternative B or C (Table NN). Alternative B: Ignproved Transit Service As discussed above, Alternative B would consume slightly more energy than Alternative A. However, this increased energy use is not considered to be a significant adverse impact. Alternative C: No Project As with Alternative B, Alternative C would have a slightly higher energy consumption level than Alternative A. This is not considered to be a signifi- cant adverse impact. MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative A: Roadway Modification No mitigation measures are required. Alternative B: Improved Transit Service No mitigation measure are required. Alternative C: No Project No mitigation measures are required. 176 TABLE NN SON OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION MacArthur Boulevard Bayside drive to to Bayside Drive Newport Boulevard Alternatives Alternatives Total energy consumed during sty5y period (Btu x 10 ) 3.14 3.74 4.20 4.67 Equivalent barrels of oil (EBO) per day 148 177 198 220 Note: Btu - British thermal units 177 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF KAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE KAINTENA AND ENRXWCMT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Most of the area within the project alternatives is part of the existing highway, and therefore already committed to transportation land uses. The ultimate design of Pacific Coast Highway, as stipulated in the City's Master Pian Circulation Element, is intended to meet the long-term needs of the City as a whole and its surrounding area. These long-term needs are described in the Purpose and Need for the Project section of this report. Potential impacts of the project, such as displacement of businesses and/or residences, would occur as a tradeoff for enhancing the long-term efficiency of Pacific Coast Highway as a transportation corridor. 178 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS In considering adoption of the project, Alternative A is the only alter- native to have irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Con- struction of Alternative A would commit portions of land along. the existing roadway to use as a roadway. Reverting to other land uses after construction is highly infeasible because of the large capital investment and the necessity for the expanded roadway throughout the foreseeable future. Several irreversible commitments of limited resources would result from implementation of the project. These resources include, but are not limited to, sand and gravel, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, and water. The alternatives would involve an irreversible commitment of labor and capital investment. They would also result in an irretrievable commitment of finite energy resources during construction (e.g., fuel oil, motor fuels). 179 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS The project alternatives are conceived to accommodate increasing traffic volumes in response to local and regional growth. To accommodate the General Plan land uses and anticipated regional growth, the adopted Master Plan Circu- lation ircu- 1ation Element for the City of Newport Beach identifies the ultimate conf i gu- ration of Pacific Coast Highway as a major arterial (i.e., six lanes undivid- ed). The County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways also classifies Pacific Coast Highway as a major arterial route at six lanes. As steps toward implementation of the City and County Master Plan, the project alternatives represent a consequence rather than a cause of local and regional growth. Southern Orange County, particularly that part proximate to the coast, is one of the premier growth areas in the nation. A number of factors contribute to this. For example, the region of which Southern Orange County is a part, is one of the nation's largest high technology industrial and service concen- trations. As the United States continues to shift toward a service and high- technology dominated economy, areas such as this are expected to continue to experience strong growth pressure. Further, this area is ideally located to serve the massive Southern California market area so that employment in trade and service industries is expected to grow substantially. The data on ongoing development on Pages 52 to 60 clearly demonstrates this. In addition, the project area's physical amenities, the ocean and temperate climate are highly desirable from the perspective of both employers and potential residents. In view of the competitive advantages enjoyed by the project area, there are no factors or conditions which would suggest that a "no project" alterna- tive would affect the rate, magnitude or type of future growth. Not complet- ing the project would, however, result in a lower level of transportation service as discussed in the "Purpose and Need for the Project" section of this document. In other words, completing this project, which is a relatively minor improvement in the context of the overall transportation network, would, to some extent, mitigate the adverse circulation effects arising out of growth occurring for unrelated reasons. �• ]4��L ••� 7j' �7i IC7� M PUBLIC COORDINATION1 Initial contact regarding the project was made early in the environmental process. Notices of Preparation and letters advising of the project were sent to all responsible agencies and interested parties in November and December of 1980. A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register in February, 1981. In addition, two public meetings were held in December 1980 in Newport Beach, to which both interested public agencies and local citizens were invit- ed. At these well -attended meetings, the proposed project and the environ- mental process were described and the audience was given the opportunity to raise environmental issues and their concerns about the project. Finally, the City Council has appointed several standing citizen advisory committees which advise it on various issues in the city. Three of these committees will review the Pacific Coast Highway project. They are: 1. Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee 2. Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee 3. Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee During preparation of the Draft EIS, the following entities were contacted: United States Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service Pacific Telephone Company Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Grange County Sanitation District #7 Orange County Transit District California State Historic Preservation Officer 181 PREPARERS OF THE REPORT The Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by: Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 525 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (114) 640-6363 Principal contributors: Annette Sanchez, Project Manager B.A. Social Ecology, M.S. Administration 3 years experience in land use planning and environmental analysis Edward Almanza, Assistant Project Manager B.S. Geography, M.S. Geography 1 year experience in land use planning and environmental analysis Vincent Mestre, Acoustical Analyst, Vincent Mestre Associates B.S. Civil and Environmental Engineering M.S. Environmental Engineering Registered Professional Engineer (State of California) Hans Giroux, Meteorologist and Air quality Analyst B.S. Meteorology, M.S. Meteorology 13 years experience in weather forecasting and air quality impact analysis Bill Darnell, Transportation and Traffic Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering Registered Civil Engineer and Traffic Engineer (State of California) 18 years experience in transportation and traffic engineering Ron Douglas, Principal Investigator B.A. Anthropology, M.A. Anthropology 5 years experience in cultural resource investigations Edward Gardner, Project Archaeologist B.A. Anthropology, M.A. Anthropology 10 years experience in cultural resource investigations �Y :I+l .., ,,, � o 081 e 182 DRAFT EIS DISTRIBUTION L IST Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Federal Activities (A104) 441 "M" Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Alan Cranston 10960 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 94024 S. I. Hayakawa 523 West Sixth Street Los Angeles, CA 90014 Robert Badham 1649 Westcliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Jerry Patterson 34 Civic Center Place Suite 921 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Marian Bergeson 833 Dover Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 John Schmitz 4600 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Orange County Board of Supervisors County Government Center Santa Ana, CA 92701 City of Irvine Community Development P.D. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92715 City of Costa Mesa Planning Department P.O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency/ Environmental Services P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Environmental Protection Agency EIS Coordinator, Region 9 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94015 Urban Mass Transportation Admin- istration, Region 9 Two Embarcadero Center Suite 620 San Francisco, CA 94111 U.S. Department of Interior Director Office of Environmental Project Review 18th and "C" Streets, H.W. Washington, D.C. 20242 U.S. Department of Energy Director Division of NEPA Affairs 1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Room 4GO85 Washington, D.C. 20585 Department of Health and Human Services Director Office of Environmental Affairs 200 Independence Ave., S.W. Room 537 F Washington, D.C. 20201 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Engineer 300 N. Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Department of Housing and Urban Development Area Director 2500 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90057 183 U.S. Soil Conservation Service Area Conservationist Area VI 3619A Canyon Crest Drive Riverside, CA 92507 Southern California Rapid Transit Districts 425 South Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Attn: District Secretary's office Orange County Transportation Commission 1020 N. Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Orange County Transit District 11222 Acacia Parkway Garden Grove, CA 92642 SLAG (Southern California Association of Governments) 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Attn: Clearinghouse South Coast Air Quality Manage- ment District General Engineering Dept. 9150 E. Flair Drive El Monte, CA 91731 University of California Assistant Vice President Budget, Analysis, and Planning 247 University Hall Berkeley, CA 94720 California Natural Areas Coordinating Council Executive Secretary 1505 Sohre Vista Way Sonoma, CA 95476 California Native Plant Society Environmental Impact Coordinator P.O. Box 669 Aromas, CA 95004 California Wildlife Federation 1 California Street, Room 1115 San Francisco, CA 94111 Friends of the Earth State Capitol Office 717 "K" Street, Suite 209 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sierra Club 2410 Beverly Blvd., Suite 2 Los Angeles, CA 90457 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 2593 Life Sciences Building Berkeley, CA 94720 CalTrans Environmental Branch Chief Main Office 1120 "N" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 CalTrans District 1 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Box 3700 Eureka, CA 95501 CalTrans District 2 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Box 2017 Redding, CA 96001 CalTrans District 3 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Box 911 Marysville, CA 95901 CalTrans District 4 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Box 3366 Rincon, CA 94119 CalTrans District 5 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Bax L San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 ``ti U..-�K@; P.7 AY �it10gI 184 CalTrans District 6 Department of Parks and Environmental Branch Chief Recreation P.O. Box 12616 Director Fresno, CA 93778 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 CalTrans District 8 Environmental Branch Chief P.O. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92403 CalTrans District 9 Environmental Branch P.O. Box 847 Bishop, CA 93514 CalTrans District 10 Environmental Branch P.O. Box 2048 Stockton, CA 95201 CalTrans District 11 Environmental Branch P.D. Box 81446 San Diego, CA 92138 Department of Conservation Director 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Chief Resources Agency Secretary 1416 Ninth Street, 13th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Chief Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission Executive Director 1111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Chief California Transportation Commission P.D. Box 1139 Sacramento, CA 95805 California Highway Patrol 2031 E. Santa Clara Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 State Clearinghouse Governor's Office Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Water Resources Director 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State Lands Commission Executive Officer 1807 -13th Street, Room 101 Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Health Services Director 744 "P" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State Department of dousing and Community Development Director 921 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Department of Fish and Dame Director 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State later Resources Control Board Executive Office 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Solid Waste Management Board Executive Officer 825 "K" Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 185 State Air Resources Board The Irvine Company Executive Officer Government Relations 1102 "Q" Street 550 Newport Center Drive Sacramento, CA 95814 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Division of Aeronautics Chief 1120 "N" Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Greyhound Lines, Inc. Greyhound Tower Phoenix, A2 85077 Southern California Gas Co. Orange County Div. Hdqtrs. 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92845 Southern California Edison Co. P.O. Box 600 Rosemead, CA 91771 Pacific Telephone Van Nuys, CA 91388 Commander, Marine Corps Air Bases, Western Area Attn: Code AQ Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro Santa Ana, CA 92709 OCI Library/Government Pubs. P.O. Box 19557 Irvine, CA 92715 Attn: Lynda Adams Greater Irvine Industrial League P.O. Box 16062 Irvine, CA 92713 Orange County Flood Control District EMA P. 0. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Sea and Sage Audubon Society Orange County Chapter 666 Darrell Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Center for taw in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Environmental Defense Fund 2606 Dwight Way Berkeley, CA 94704 Chief, Airports Branch Federal Aviation Administration 5885 W. Imperial Highway Los Angeles, CA 90045 DeAnza, Inc. 9171 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 267 Bevely Hills, CA 9021.0 Bobby McGee's Restaurant Manager 353 E. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92660 Chick Iverson Porsche/Audi Attn: Chick Iverson 445 E. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92660 City of Newport Beach Public Works Department Newport Beach, CA 92660 RM CORRESPONDENCE The following letters were received during preparation of the Draft Envi- ronmental Impact Statement. Gail ::-I jy G113ot�IC 187 STAT! of CALIFOWIA—THr RESOURCES AGINCY 10MUN0 0. AROWN 1R., cw.in OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION 6=1 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FOST OFFICE sox 7390 SAC*AWNTO. CALIFOU" 13911 18 January 1.982 Bruce E. Cannon U. S. Department of Transportation California Division P.O. Box 1915 Sacramento, CA 95809 HE: Pacific Coast Highway Widening Project— Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr, Cannon: We are in receipt of the above referenced undertaking(s). Thank you for the opportunity to cornnent pursuant to 36 CFR 800. Based on the information provided in the report(s) noted above I concur that no properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places should be affected by the proposed undertaking(s). It should be remembered that compliance with 36 CFR 800.7 is required if presently unknown cultural resources should be discovered during subsequent work, If there are any questions, please feel free to contact Michael Rondeau, Staff Archeologist, at (916) 445-6766. Sincerely, Dr. Knox Mellon State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation U IU.,N U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL. HIGHWAY ADMINISTRAMN REGION NINE CALIFORNIA DIVISION P. 0. Box 1915 Sacramento, California 95809 Ms. Adriana Gianturco, Director CALTRANS, 1120 N Street Sacramento, California 95814 Attention: Federal -aid Branch, Room 3309 for Ms. Ann Barkley Dear Ms. Gianturco: •/IRON► M9VR&4 04WAN Ou.r wrew.Cw %&' p January 22, 1982 IfUIP-Ly �win F" TO HB --CA A M-5001(22) 07--Ora-1 16.3119.8 Your December 16, 1981 letter submitted a Historic Property Survey Report for the proposed project to widen the Pacific Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard.in the City of Newport Beach in Orange County. In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, we have determined that there are no properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places within the project's area of potential environmental impact. Zhia.completes 36 CFR 800 requ:.remeats for this project. Sincerely yours, P Bruce E. Cannon Division Administrator 189 . _. United States Department of the Interior ti-� 7" �? FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE -... AREA OFFICE �. +" sge y,Room Sacramento, California 95825 ,SUN 8 -al In reply refer to: SES0 Pis. Ann Barkley, Chief #1 -1 -81 -SP -226 Department of Transportation Division of Transgortation Planning 1120 "N" Street P.O. Box 1499 Sacramento, California 95807 Subject: Request for List of Endangered and Threatened Species in the Area of Mac Arthur Boulevard and Bayside Drive in Orange Count}, California Dear Ms. Barkley: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1981, requesting a list of listed and proposed endangered and threatened species that may occur within the area of the subject project. Your request and this response are made pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1573 as amended (PL 95-632). We have reviewed the most recent information and to the best of our knowledge there are no listed or proposed species within the area of the project. We appreciate your concern for endangered species and Look forward to continued coordination. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Swanson of our Endangered Species Field Office at (FTS) 448-2791 or (916) 440-2791, Sincerely, -Y Area hanager � rr b'v `voo C 190 dw- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES COAST GUAR❑ SLEVEIITH COASTAST GUARD DISTx;CT ELEVENTH +�e UNION BANK SLAG. 400 OCRAMGATE LONG 59ACV. CA. 90817 (213) 590-2287 16475 Jay 9 &WooI Mr. Horst H.1awaty Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport 'Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 52663 Dear Mr. Hlawaty: In reference to the phone conversation between you and Mr. Braff of my staff on 6 January 1981, the Coast Guard does not have any comment or any specific permit requirement regarding your project to widen the Pacific Coast Highway between Bayside Drive and MacAthur Boulevard, in Newport Beach. S. P. LEAVE Commander, U. S. Coast Guard District Planning Officer By direction of the District Commander PUBLIC WORKS JAN 11 1981 0- ° CITY Of Z . r�EwPORT BEACH, �� OAIIF. t_. ft — 191 STATE OF CALIFORMIA_--E RESJUACFS AGENCY EOMUMO G. BROWN JR.. GOVERNOR NATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD v. G. 6oX too 0 S4C"Aw[n'fa !SOOT December L1, _M Mr. Horst Hlawaty Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newtort Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear b1r. Hlawaty: NOTICE OF PREPARATION: (No SCH Number) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'S NOP FOR COAST HIG:MAY WIDENING Thank ,you for the opportunity to review the Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Impact Report you are preparing on the subject project. From the Lnformation given in your NOP, it appears that the project will not significantly effect water quality or quantity. Therefore, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Regional 'Water quality Control Hoards do not have major concerns with the project and have no recommenda- tions for information to be included in the environmental document. However, if it is -chown in your document that the project does have potentially sig- nificant relationships to water, we will comment at that time. If you have any further questions, please contact John Huddleson at 916/322-3583. Sincerely$ rry Nle 5chueller, Chief Legal and Technical Services Division EA -12 (780) ■ Ply. lie DEe2.4 r98�► � MEwpClry OF : f CAQF ' 3�, moos L 192 STATE OF CAL.I FORNIA--RFSOU R _ =, AGENCY CALIFORNIA REGIONAL ,:nTER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION 1309 INDIANA AVENUE. SUITE 200 0VERSIDE. CALIFQR-41 A 9?306 3HoNE: 57141 Ba4-9330 December 31, 1980 Public Wcrks Departmect City of Nawpert Beach 3300 Ne:rocrt Blvd. Newport Beach, Califoraia 92553 - Attention; Horst Hlawaty Dear Mr. Hlawaty: NOP - Coast Highway Widening State Route 1 between Bayside Drive 6 MacArthur Blvd. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governe- We have reviewed this Notice of Preparation for Coast Highway Widening (state Route 1), between Bayside Drive and MacArthur Blvd. in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed EIR must address all of the potential impacts on water quality which could occur as a result of the project. The undersigned will be the contact person for this agency. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Hisam A. Baqai Staff Engineer HAB:db 193 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS TEL COOK 4 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �J sbz 24'11 R 0, BCK FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIF❑RNIA 42708 1084; ELL'S a : ENUE (EUCLID OFF -RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) December 30, 1990 City of New -part Beach Public Works Department 2300 New_crt Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Horst Hlawaty, Civil Engineer Subject: Coast Highway Widening In response to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for subject project, please refer to the enclosed map entitled "interceptor Sewer Facilities" which delineates Districts' trunk lines and pump stations in the vicinity of the prcposed alternatives. Any studies performed should take into considera__cn the location and protection of these sewerage facilites. If you ramie any questions regarding the above, please do not hestitate to call. C�l HJB:mev Hilary J. Baker Senior Engineering Aide _ 1980 y,ln. alurock & Fanners oIti.1 r- -1 L. GoIJOSIC 194 STATE OF CALIFORNIA MMUND G. BROWN JR., Govor"r DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Research and Policy Development -� 921 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 9531 (915 ) 445-4725 Decemter 17. 1980 Mr. Horst Hlawaty Public 'Wcrks Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Hlawaty: RF: Coast Highway Widening We note that this highway widening project may require the relocation of a significant number .of households. We are requesting a copy of the reloc,1:ion plan prepared according to the California Relocation Guidelines or the requirements of the Federal Highway Administration. Also, please send us a copy of the EIS/EIR. The contact person at this Department is David Williamson. My phone number is (916) 323-6167. Sincerely, David Williamson Supervisor, Review Section T OIC-EIVEDUBLIC WOKS DEC 2 21980 CITY OF ' �; !@U.PCRT BEACH.�� 195 SMTI OF CJ UPORNIAr—RUOUBCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jlt_, G~sw DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME , 350 Golden Store Long Beach * CA 90802 03) 59c -5113 January 30f 1951 Horst Hlawaty., Project Manager Public Works Department City of Newport Beach. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Hlawaty: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for the widening of Pacific Coast Highway between Baysida Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. To enable our staff to adequately evaluate project impacts on wildlife resources, we recommend the fallowing information be included in the EM 1. A complete assessment of flora and fauna within the project area should be provided.. Particular emphasis should be placed upon identifying rare, endangere, and locally unique species. 2. Documentation of the short- and long-term impacts plus direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts which would adversely affect biotic resources within and adjacent to the project area. Measures to mitigate or compen- sate for the loss of wildlife habitat due to the project should be included. 3. An assessment of potential urban growth --inducement factors attributable to the proposed project should be provided. Of particular concern is the impact of urban growth upon natural open space and biological resources within the areas affected by the proposed highway. 4. Because of this project + s proximity to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, we believe erosion control measures should be implemented for use during the construction period to prevent materials from .entering Newport Bay. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Jack L. Spruill. or Kris Lai of our Environmental Services staff at (213) 590-5137• Sincerely, F A. ebAhley Jr. Regional Ma -lager Re Bion 5 � 118L1C �'� 4RKS t�.Ty C� �n>xuEVPCgT a ; 196 BIBLIOGRAPHY ASL Consulting Engineers, 1981. Design memorandum dated April 27, 1981, to Public works Department, City of Newport Beach. Subject: Updated Traffic Volume Data and Projections for Pacific Coast Highway Widening Project. California, State of, Department of Transportation, no date. 07 -Ora -1 17.9/ 18.5 Between Bayside Drive and 0.1 Mile west of Dover Drive, Bay Shore Drive, Design Study Report. California, State of, Department of Transportation, 1976. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Replacement of Upper Newport Bay Bridge, Pacific Coast (Route 1) Highway. California, State of, Department of Transportation, 1979. Memorandum dated November 9, 1979 to District Directors of Transportation. Subject: Replacement of Low and Moderate -Income Housing. California, State of, Department of Transportation, 1981a. Interim R/W Pro- cedures Handbook Change Transmittal. California, State of, Department of Transportation, 1981b. Letter dated June 4, 1981, to Ben Nolan, Director of Public works, City of Newport Beach from D. A. Dove, Transportation Analyst, LARTS Branch. Subject; Travel Forecasts. California, State of, Department of Transportation, 1981c. An Evaluation of Specified Buildings on 07 -Ora -1, P.M. 19.3117.4 in Newport Beach. Converse ward Davis Dixon, 1981a. Geotechnical Conditions and Preliminary Recommendations for Proposed Pacific Coast Highway Improvements. Pre- pared for ASL Consulting Engineers. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, 1981b. Letter dated June 10, 1981, to Mr. Richard Smith, ASL Consulting Engineers from Franklin Fong, Project Engineer. Subject: Recommended Setback Distances, Pacific Coast Highway Improve- ments, Newport Beach, California 12705. Giroux, Hans, 1981a. Giroux, Hans, 1981b. Air Quality Analysis. Energy Analysis. Housner, G. W., 1970. Strong Ground Motion and Design Spectra, Chapters. 4 and 5 of Earthquake Engineering. Mestre, Vincent Associates, 1981. Pacific Coast Highway Improvements, Noise Survey. Prepared for Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. Menard, Owen and Associates, 1975. Final Draft, Holiday Harbor EIR. 197 Morton, Paul K., et al., 1976. Environmental Geology of Orange County, Cali- fornia, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report 79-8, v�Tn_geIes. Newport Beach, City of, no date. Draft Project Report 07 -Ora -1 16.25118.05 MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive. Newport Beach, City of, 1977. Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan. Newport Beach, City of, 1980. Part I, Draft EIR, General Plan Amendment 79-2. Newport Beach, City of, 1981. Letter dated July 20, 1981, to Frank Wei filer, Senior Transportation Engineer, CalTrans, from Horst Hlawaty, Project Engineer. Subject: Coast Highway Widening, Bayside Drive to MacArthur Boulevard. Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc., 1981. Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Newport Beach, Banning -Newport Ranch, Prepared for the City of New- port Beach. Putnam, Gary Pierre, 1981. Pacific Coast Highway Biotic Resources Survey. Reynolds Environmental Group, 1976. Environmental Impact Report, Sea Island Apartment Site, McLain Development -Company. Schnabel, P. B. and Teed, H. B., 1973. Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United States, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 63, No. Z, pp. 501-506. Seeman, Larry Associates, Inc., 1981. Final Environmental Impact Report, Gen- eral Plan Amendment 80-3. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1916. Fed- eral -Rid Highway Program Manual. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1980. Relocation Planning for Displaced Businesses. Westec Services, Inc., 1979. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Newport Dunes Redevelopment. Williams-Kuebelbeck, Inc., 1981. Economic and Fiscal Impact Study, Newport Center and Proposed Hotel and Office Development. Abstract, iii Accidents, 4, 8, 73-74 Aesthetics, 68, 131-133 Affected Environment, 51-113 Air Quality, 104-133, 165-173 Alternatives, iv -v, 10-50 Apps nd i ces , Volume 11 Archaeological Resources, 64-65, 122-123 Biological Environment, 64, 120-122 Circulation List, 182-185 Climate, 104-106 Coordination, 180 Correspondence, 186-195 Costs, 13-15 Detours, 30, 31, 34 Endangered Species, 64 Energy, 122, 174-176 Environmental Consequences, v -vii, 114-177 Erosion, 63, 119-120 Floodplains, 63 Geology, 60-63, 115-117 Historic Resources, 74, 75 Growth, 179 Historic Resources, 64-65, 1.22-123 198 INDEX Housing, 66-68 Hydrology, 63, 117-119 Land Use, 52-54, 66, 123-125 List of Preparers, 181 Location Map, 3 Mitigation Measures, 116-117, 120, 122-123, 130-131, 133 Heed for Project, 1-9 No -Build Alternative, 5 Noise, 97-103, 154-164 Paleontological Resources, 65 Parking, 144-150 Permits, 13 Relocation, 126-131 Right -of -Way, 13-14 Seismicity, 61-62 Socio -Economic Considerations, Summary, iv -vii Table of Contents, viii -ix 118- 66-68, 125-131 Traffic/Circulation, 68-96, 133-153 Utilities, 112, 174 Vegetation, 64 Water Quality, 63, 119-120 Wetlands, 64 Wildlife, 64 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. 12 Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20217:37 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: I oppose 2510 PCH From: Rodriguez, Clarivel <CRodriguez@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20217:37:25 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Cc: Schneider, Matthew Subject: FW: I oppose 2510 PCH CLARIVEL RODRIGUEZ Community Development Department Assistant to the Community Development Director crodriguez@newportbeachca.gov 949-644-3232 -----Original Message ----- From: Milda Goodman <teammilda@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 20217:41 AM To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: I oppose 2510 PCH [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am a resident at 310 Aliso Avenue and I have lived in Newport Beach for 23 years. I am opposed to the 2510 PCH project and want to be sure my voice is heard. Thank you. Milda Goodman Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20217:12 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 PCH -----Original Message ----- From: Leslie Alsenz <lalsenz@abpcapital.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20216:54 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 PCH [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear council members, I am NOT in favor of the monolithic building proposed on this site. A more "human scale" development would be welcomed. Heights should be kept low to maintain our views in the two parks on Cliff drive. Mr Khoshbin seems to have great taste. I just caution his team to be mindful of scale and height and keep the spaces welcoming and airy. Luckily he lives in Newport and may well care about the final outcome. He will have to live with the results he creates. A human scale village will attract more interest in his project. Thank you! Leslie Alsenz 2948 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 563-822-7251 Sent from my Whone 111 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20217:11 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 PCH Development -----Original Message ----- From: TOMLU BAKER <tomlubaker@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20212:32 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: TOMLU BAKER <TomLuBaker@hotmail.com> Subject: 2510 PCH Development [EXTERNAL. EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Brad Avery and Council Members, The new facility, the Professional Mariner Training Center, is now part of the Orange Coast College (OCC) Waterfront Campus. This development reflects a maritime theme and has been well coordinated with the residential communities and the boating community. To their credit, the City and OCC planned the development in an open and transparent environment. Consequently a significant positive and compatible asset has been added to Mariner's Mile. In contrast the 2510 PCH development has been rushed : 1) with minimum open residential involvement, 2) under an obsolete General Plan, 3) while the Housing Element Update is still in Draft Form, 4) without a City issued policy on stopping the expansion of PCH ( the residents strongly oppose the expansion), 5) without a issued policy on a method is track mathematically the cumulative loss of public views. Consequently it is premature to approve the 2510 PCH Development. The City should not permit the detrimental piecemeal development of Mariner's Mile which will result in the permanent loss of the potential charm of Mariner's Mile and a significant reduction of the public views of the Bay Water and Bluffs. Please deny the 2510 PCH Development and protect Mariner's Mile so that it can be developed so that visitors, tourists and residents continue to enjoy this rare Newport Beach coastal gem. Sincerely, Tom Baker Newport Beach Sent from my iPad Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 7:11 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 251 PCH -----Original Message ----- From: Dana Anderson <danabelinda@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20219:41 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 251 PCH [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please slow down the process to decide the 2510 PCH apartment. We all need more time to study the end results and the affect this will have on our children and homes in Newport Heights. Thank you Dana Anderson 340 Catalina Dr Newport Beach 92663 4 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20217:08 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 PCH Apartment Project From: Georgia Peters <gpeters@ewsmgt.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20216:05 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 PCH Apartment Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon, This email is to inform the Newport Beach City Council that as residents of Newport Heights, my husband & I are vehemently against the high density residential development referenced above. Any such development will bring more traffic, and parking issues to our neighborhood, reduce public & private views, and create an unsafe environment for our children. We respectfully request the City Council's consideration of our neighborhood, and neighbors when discussing this agenda. A thorough, thoughtful and focused thought process is essential in deciding on a matter which will have a negative impact on so many members of the community. Thank you, Georgia Bradburne Boyd Peters Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20217:07 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: 2510 PCH Apartment Project - Against From: Rick Barrett <r.barrett@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20215:53 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 PCH Apartment Project - Against [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Council Members, As a longtime resident of Newport Beach, I strongly urge you to reject the apartment project located at 2510 Pacific Coast Hwy. Apartments/housing is not the right fit for the area. Also, the density and height is too invasive along Coast Hwy. Thank you, Rick Barrett 930 Via Lido Nord Newport Beach, CA 92663 10 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20217:06 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Mariner's Mile Development From: Joan McCauley <Joan.McCauley@csulb.edu> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20215:25 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Mariner's Mile Development [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members: Please save our community from high density development along Mariner's Mile. The 2510 PCH Apartment Project seems to be among the first of these projects. We in the communities of Newport Heights and Cliff Haven are extremely concerned that this type of development will do irreparable harm to the quality of life in our neighborhoods by generating additional amounts of traffic through our areas. The traffic on our streets has already been subject to many accidents to school children and one death. There are three schools in the area with all those children on the streets. Recently we had an automobile accident resulting in the death of one of our residents. What other Newport Beach residential areas have this type of traffic to cope with? Thank you for taking into consideration the impact of this development on us. Sincerely, Joan McCauley 542 Santa Ana Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 13 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 Subject: FW: 2510 WCH Apartment Project:: Comments from nearby property owner From: christopher cuse <cc@2400wch.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20219:10 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 2510 WCH Apartment Project :: Comments from nearby property owner Distinguished Members of the City Council, Staff, Members of the Community, We are the Cuse family, owners of the property situated at 2400 West Coast Highway. As concerned citizens, we wish to briefly opine on the proposed project at 2510, and more generally about safety and security in the area. While we have no particular objection to the thoughtful and respectful redevelopment of Mariners' Mile, we are quite concerned about security along the Coast Highway. Specifically, how increased residential growth and density will impact traffic patterns and safety. Tonight's discussion surrounding a small mixed-use project will set the stage for a much more extensive debate on upcoming large- scale projects. These new projects will redefine a segment of highway with businesses, into a coherent mix of residential, business, and leisure. Therefore, as you think about today's project, please think of it as one piece of a much larger and complex puzzle -- how to reconcile two seemingly incongruous objectives -- creating a residential community and modernizing a multi -lane thoroughfare that runs right through it. Property owners, community members, and the City are keenly aware that as density increases, so will the demands for traffic flow and parking. To address future demand, the City has discussed widening for many years, while simultaneously attempting to recast the area as a destination and residential community. All the while, we have argued that placing a bike path on a widened Coast Highway is a recipe for disaster. There are approximately 75 driveways on both sides the highway in the short distance between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive -- that translates to 75 intersections' where cyclists could encounter a vehicle. Cycling at reasonable speed, it is possible to confront a vehicle every six seconds or less. Additionally, cyclists could face vehicles leaving on -street parking. One bump, or a swerve to avoid collision, and in you're in a high-speed traffic lane. That's not a bike path, that's a deadly obstacle course. Would any member of the City Council honestly recommend that a family with children ride bicycles next to vehicles moving at freeway speeds just a few inches away? Creating the bike path at the bluff's base would allow families to safely enjoy a ride, offer students a safe way to and from school, and help community creation. Most importantly, the move obviates the requirement to widen the Coast Highway -- restriping and management of on -street parking will achieve the City's objectives for lane count and vehicle flow while maintain its current physical dimensions. Respectfully Submitted for Your Consideration, The Cuse Family 2400 West Coast Hwy Newport Beach, CA 92663 tel: 714-242-1209 email: cc@2400wch.com Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 Subject: FW: My comments on the2510 projects -----Original Message ----- From: MARY ANN HEMPHILL <mahemphill@me.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 4:54 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: My comments on the2510 projects Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Let's fast forward to 2027. After living outside of California for ten years, a family returns to Newport Beach, their former home. As they turn from Newport Boulevard onto PCH, they are stunned. "What happened? This used to be Mariners' Mile! Who in the world decided that these big -box -buildings would be attractive? They are so out of place! Nothing relates to the bayside setting!" Then they decide to drive to Cliff Drive, where they lived so many years ago. "This is even worse! Look, the view from 'our house' is gone!" After these disappointments, there is a lively conversation. "Who decided that this would benefit the city?" "The developer most likely had 'friends' on the City Council." Let's get out of here, there is nothing appealing, no place I want to stop." Is that the legacy that this City Council wants to leave? Do our elected representatives want to be remembered as the City Council that took away Mariners Mile, replacing it with dull chunky buildings bereft of any visual appeal, the City Council that thought, "Who needs the view? Who needs talented architects to design appealing buildings? Who cares if future development will be equally dreary?" Beyond being highly unattractive, the big block buildings will be dated. Mariners Mile deserves attractive buildings of varying styles and open spaces with views of the bay. And what right does the developer have to take away homeowners' views, thus lowering the value of their homes? Other than increased income for the developer, I see no benefits in this proposal. It will be a scar on our city. Please vote for what is in the best interest of our lovely city, not for the best interests of the developer. Please vote against the 2510 West Coast Highway project. Mary Ann Hemphill Balboa Island Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 Subject: FW: 2510 West Coast HIghway From: Portia Weiss <por_tiaweiss gr ail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20215:31 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbe_achca.aov> Subject: 2510 West Coast HIghway To: Mayor Avery and City Council Members Please do not approve the 2510 West Coast Highway development plan as currently proposed. Alternatively, seek a plan that can add harmony and charm to our coastal village. We absolutely must protect our natural resources and historic architecture of marine enterprises. The current project does not embrace any coastal charm which is so desirable in coastal communities to both residents and visitors. Residents and visitors alike would love dining at local seafood restaurants, and relaxing in local parks and preserves with the ocean and wildlife views, unimpeded by high rise buildings. Safety is key to any residential or holiday destination. There is nothing safe about a noisy, dangerous, high-speed 6 -lane "freeway" disrupting the charm of one of the most scenic nautical views in the world. No pedestrian or cyclist wants to be a part of this cacophonous setting. The unbearable noise and increased emissions of speeding vehicles from 6 lanes would far outweigh any potential benefits of this project. The onset of COVID 19 has made the outdoors considerably more popular. We must maintain and celebrate our irreplaceable coastal treasures at all costs. High-rise, corridor -blocking boxy apartments without necessary amenities is not the answer. This project eliminates all sense of "community" - and will undoubtedly move Newport Beach even further down the lists of coveted coastal destinations, let alone a charming, desirable place to raise a family in. Do not approve 2510 West Coast Highway as proposed. Rather, please listen to our pleas for maintaining a safe, peaceful, natural & historic coastal atmosphere. -We have survived Mariner's Mile for quite some time "as is." Investing a little bit more time in the planning phase and incorporating the project into the upcoming General Plan Amendment will be time well spent! Let's be excited and proud of responsibly redeveloping all phases of Mariner's Mile, starting with a winning project that we can all get behind! I am a concerned resident, willing to take the time to contribute to helping design a better plan. We need the right start. Our city is worth it! We trust that you will do everything within your power to protect our exceptional, precious coastal community. Portia Weiss 421 San Bernardino Ave Newport Beach, CA. 92663 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 Subject: FW: Public Comments: 2510 West Coast Hwy From: Kristin Cook <gidgetnry@aol,com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20216:02 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@ wpor:beachca.Rov> Subject: Public Comments: 2510 West Coast Hwy Dear City Council, Living in Newport Beach most of my life, I have a deep appreciation for the many wonderful things that set Newport apart and make it a great place to live or visit. One of those is free access to the amazing ocean and sunset views from public parks. The Pandemic highlighted how important John Wayne and similar parks are. Even more people gather at JWP to meet, picnic, relax, and watch the sunset. The sunset views are spectacular from that park. It is well located to provide access to many visitors. That you are considering a project that would impede the views from JWP is heartbreaking. I urge you to do everything you can to protect JWP and the few remaining similar parks so that everyone can enjoy them. Please vote against any project that would obstruct views and/or diminish valuable park assets. Parks are there for everyone to enjoy. Allowing variances and buildings to take away from the public's enjoyment only hurts the majority of residents and visitors and benefits those who can afford to live in view properties or develop same. As you consider the 2510 West Coast Hwy project and/or any similar ones, 1 urge you to visit JWP on multiple occasions to really understand the impact of your decision and who you will be hurting. How can you make a decision that affects so many without sharing their experience? Think of how many weddings, family gatherings, important moments, joyful and relaxing times are shared at these parks, that will never be as great if you take away the best part of the park, the beautiful view. It is the main reason people go to that park. Please vote against any impediment to the public's enjoyment of JWP's fantastic view and resources. Please also take these comments into account as you consider our General Plan and the Draft Housing Element. Thank you for your dedication to our City and all of the valuable time you spend making this a better place to live and visit for everyone. Sincerely, Kristin Cook Newport Heights Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 Subject: FW: Proposed 2510 PCH Project, The Newport Village Project and Mariner's Mile Revitalization From: Mary Howard <mghoward08@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 20219:20 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Proposed 2510 PCH Project, The Newport Village Project and Mariner's Mile Revitalization To The Newport Beach Planning Commission & City Council: I strongly oppose the about listed projects. Local residents consider Marmer's Mile to be Newport's Main Street incl the heart of our town. This regional artery services our business district, post office. schools and baysicle neighborhoods. 2. The City of Newport Beach has proposed that West Coast Highway, between the Arches Bridge and Dover Drive, be widened to three lanes in each direction, essentially becoming an alternate route for the 405 Freeway. Children traveling on bikes from the peninsula and surrounding neighborhoods to Newport Heights Elementary, Horace Ensign and Newport Harbor High should not be required to cross a major six -lane highway. 3. The City shoUld not use eminent domain to acquire private property to further the plan to widen the highway. 4. Until the City Council completes the process of updating the General Plan, which is scheduled to start within the next few months, the City needs to postpone any consideration of wholesale changes to Mariner's Mile. Adopting a Mariner's Mile Revitalization Plan now is simply puitting the cart befor- the horse �. after the General Plan is updated, residents need to direct the :Mariner's Mile Revitalization effort, to ensure that density. scale and height of redeveiopment projects are congruent .,vith, and respectful of the two natural features that form the boundaries of the corridor the bluff and rhe harbor. This vvill ensure that our quality of life is maintained and that the plan supports residents and local business owners. _. The proposed 25':0 PCH Project, The Newport village Protect along with the Mariner's Mile Revitalization and the expansion of West Coast Highway will oth?rvvise come at a high cost ro taxpayers while decreasing our quality W life and property values. Ne,,vport Beach Is our town. 'Ne believe in the common good that Includes bononng its historic and natural character of Mar!ner's Mile. We will ,,aiue Mariner s Mile oroperty and business owners, suirrounding residents and the harbor and the bluffs. Please listen to the citizens, Mary Howard 949.402.992 7 mghoward08@gmail.com Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:37 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Public Comments: 2510 West Coast Hwy From: Robert Sinclair Jr <surfboob@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:37 AM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Public Comments: 2510 West Coast Hwy [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. With the increase in traffic flow on PCH, especially on the weekends, I would think any development that would result in any additional constriction to the heavy traffic flow on PCH should NOT be approved. I've lived in NB for 48 years now, and I can't remember when the amount of visitors and accompanying traffic has been more intense and just over -the -top as now. I don't see this trend reversing into the future either. Please act in the best interest of the property owners and full- time residents, like my family and me. Thank you! R.R. Sinclair II 337 Cherry Tree Lane NB, 92660 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 12 Subject: FW: Mariner's Mile From: Pat Makris <pmak@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:51 AM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Re: Mariner's Mile I also realize I didn't answer your colleague's (city council member) 2nd question, so here it is. This is my initial feedback to you all from 3-4 days ago: I, like many thousands of other citizens of this sterling community, are against this project at Mariner's mile. Not only views, parking, relative lower traffic and some safety issues will decrease, but it changes terribly the "harbor feel" of this section of the city and the historical feel that the area has. Would much rather see the city convince an investor to keep the openness and "harbor related" businesses or entertainment (restaurants, classy bars, etc...) option for this area. Just my 2 cents but I feel fervent about it. We already have the ugliest building in Newport Beach sitting at 3121 PCH in Newport Towers, it is flat out BUTT UGLY, we don't need any other monolithic up buildings in this area ... or for that matter our town. Your colleague's Q: And is that the proper function of a city government? I do believe city government plays a very key role in carving out what they want the city to look like. It can't be all about sales tax revenue for the budgets. This council and those in the future, need to be bold in controlling what the cosmesis and usability of the city looks like for decades to come. This is not a 1 -year decision tonight, or any night of a council meeting, it is a decades -long decision that has impacts for several generations sometimes. Your vision of the city needs to be protected from overzealous or even great developers if their vision differs from yours. I do not believe this council wants to fundamentally change the openness and harbor accessibilities for business along Mariners Mile. It has a rich history, and it can be compatible with the future IF this council controls the direction of designs and footprints. So yes, it is a proper function of city government, that impacts us all for years to come. This is a big deal. This is not an anti -growth position, grow all you want, but design it right, make it look right, and make it work for all ... the citizens, the visitors, the developers, and the future. You only get 1 shot at this, or you ruin the parcel. Pat Makris 630-660-4099 -----Original Message ----- From: Pat Makris <pmak ,aol.com> To: citycouncil(Dnewportbeachca.gov <citycouncil(o)_newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Tue, Apr 27, 2021 10:38 am Subject: Re: Mariner's Mile After sending in my original comments, I was asked by an esteemed council member several clarifying questions. I just realized I don't share will all of you. Good luck tonight. Keep the Mariners Mile open, please: My additional comments: If other venue & buildings such as good restaurants, classy bars (food serving pubs), clothing shops, retail, marine orientated businesses (like the ones that have existed for years), intimate hotels, etc... can be built and sold by the developer, he/she will buy the land and get their just return..... if the right businesses are built and the investor wants to hold the land and improvements, they will get their return through rent & % of revenues they take on their leases. I am not necessarily against any residential buildings there, I am against a huge complex. Lido House -type buildings immensely scaled-down or the new & much improved Lido Village type design can be used as a model of design (gorgeous and fitting for the seaside locations and heritage of our town), for small interspersed residential units amongst the restaurants, bars, marine businesses, shopping etc.... But these ugly taller and wider single higher occupancy structures must be avoided to keep visual blight and the waterside use available for citizens and money spending sales tax -paying visitors. Intersperse the residential if you must. Buildings with 4-6 units (rent or condo) then place the retail/entertainment/marine businesses, then the small residential again, and repeat, stagger, repeat, stagger, repeat. Creating an urban living type hip area with open spaces and access to the harbor both physically & visually. Pat Makris 630-660-4099 -----Original Message ----- From: Pat Makris <pmakno aol.com> To: citycouncil(Dnewportbeachca.gov<citycouncil(o�_newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Sat, Apr 24, 2021 10:25 am Subject: Mariner's Mile I, like many thousands of other citizens of this sterling community, are against this project at Mariner's mile. Not only views, parking, relative lower traffic and some safety issues will decrease, but it changes terribly the "harbor feel" of this section of the city and the historical feel that the area has. Would much rather see the city convince an investor to keep the openness and "harbor related" businesses or entertainment (restaurants, classy bars, etc...) option for this area. Just my 2 cents but I feel fervent about it. We already have the ugliest building in Newport Beach sitting at 3121 PCH in Newport Towers, it is flat out BUTT UGLY, we don't need any other monolithic up buildings in this area ... or for that matter our town. Pat Makris 630-660-4099 Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. 12 To: City of Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission From: Mike Talbot Re: 2510 PCH Apartment Project Date: 27 April 2021 Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners: I join the organizations and Newport Beach residents in opposing the 2510 PCH Apartment Project in its entirety for all of the reasons provided to you by SPON and other organizations and residents. We are totally opposed to this project. Thank you for your consideration. If I can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, M. D. Talbot 324 Signal Road Newport Beach CA 92663 Telephone 949-795-9900 Email: talbot@spacelines.com FITZGERM D •YAP -KREDITGR LL.P April 27, 2021 VIA EMAIL Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Review of Mixed -Use Proiect at 2510 West Coast HiLyhwa Received After Agenda Printed April 27, 2021 Item No. 12 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Michael J. FitzGerald* Eoin L. Kreditor* Eric P. Franciscom Lynne Bolduc George Vausher, LLM, CPA$ John C. Clough David M. Lawrence Robert C. Risbrough Robert M. Yoakum Sherilyn Learned O'Dell Natalie F. Foti Brook John Changala Josephine Rachelle Aranda Derek R. Guizado Sara Rabiee John M. Marstont Deborah M. Rosenthalt Maria M. Rullot Larry S. Zemant Author's Email: Drosenthal@fyklaw.com FYK ref # 2021018-01 (PA2019-249) (949-270-8165) (4/27/2021 Agenda Item # 12) Dear Mayor Avery and Members of the City Council: This letter is submitted on behalf of the Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile (Coalition), a grassroots organization dedicated to preserving the special qualities of this stretch of West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach, including its marine orientation, human scale, and historic character. The Coalition set forth its serious objections to the mixed-use project proposed for development at 2510 West Coast Highway (Project) in previous correspondence and communications. A copy of the Coalition's letter expressing its numerous objections to the Project, dated February 17, 2021, is attached. The Project consists of a high-end boutique automobile showroom designed to house the developer's exotic car collection and a multi -story multi -family structure. The 11,266 square foot showroom will be housed in a free-standing structure, although it will be connected to the 35 -unit apartment building by aerial walkways. At the request of the Planning Commission, the Project will contain a ground -level pocket park for pet relief, with a 3015 square foot rooftop deck above the showroom for use of residential tenants. The Coalition's primary objections to the Project have focused on its visual impacts to views from John Wayne Park, West Coast Highway, and the water. Other objections include inconsistency with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Plan, as well as violations of CEQA and State Housing Law. The bulk of the residential building also overwhelms the site, with little or no significant articulation or visual relief. Although all of these objections have validity, especially those addressing view impacts, this letter focuses on an aspect of the Project that has been largely ignored to date. The 11,266 square foot auto showroom is apparently the minimum size allowed by the City's mixed-use requirement, while the 35 -unit apartment building is the maximum authorized size, including the maximum density bonus. In other words, the 2 Park Plaza, Suite 850 . Irvine, CA 92614 1 Tel: 949-788-8900 . Fax: 949-788-8980 . www.fyklaw.com *Professional Corporation . tOf Counsel . $Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law, and in Taxation Law, State Bar of California FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP Members of the City Counsel April 27, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Project was designed to designed to maximize the profitable residential uses allowed under the City's General Plan, while including an only enough commercial space to qualify for housing. Even at the minimum square footage of commercial, the Project site is too small for the proposed use and requires a 70 percent parking reduction to squeeze onto the parcel. The boutique auto showroom is a "white elephant" before it has even been built. The City has no power to require the showroom tenant to remain in operation. Because it is grossly under -parked, the building cannot be used for any normal commercial operations, now or in the estimated 55 -year life of the Project. Although the applicant has agreed to limit all future commercial uses to those that generate virtually no traffic, the City's only power is to refuse to modify the site's conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a higher intensity use — it has no affirmative power to keep the lights on and the site operating. The showroom and apartment building are proposed on a single lot and cannot be sold separately, although the showroom can be rented. The showroom is not for the benefit of the residential building, but will support the primary recreational/open space amenity for residents of the multi -family structure. In addition to the rooftop deck, the auto showroom will feature a "fireside lounge, communal dining, a lounge lawn with synthetic turf, lounge furniture, and hedge screening." (Attachment A, Resolution, p. 12.) The conditions of approval do not address the financial responsibility of the apartment owners to keep the commercial building in good repair, or to fund maintenance of the rooftop deck, fireside lounge, communal dining, or lounge lawn. There do not appear to be any requirements for security to protect either the expensive exotic car collection or high-end cars to be stocked at the showroom, or the residential project that shares the same lot and, perhaps, the same interior "communal" spaces. Insurance and security costs for a boutique auto showroom sharing the same building with indoor and outdoor recreational amenities serving an adjacent apartment complex are likely to pose special legal and financial problems. Although described as a commercial use, it appears the showroom will provide amenities for the residential tenants, with the cost of maintaining the showroom falling to the owners or operators of the apartment building. The CUP does not allow any other use of the showroom, and it prohibits introduction of any new commercial use generating a need for more than 13 parking spaces, which is the most that can be shoehorned onto the site. The Municipal Code requires 43 parking spaces, more than 3 times as many, for standard vehicle sales. The applicant has not identified any other likely or compatible uses that would need only 13 parking spaces for an 11,000 square foot building with almost 8,000 square feet of showroom floor — potentially including communal dining, a lounge, an exotic car collection, a lobby, an office, and a rooftop deck. This Project is intended to provide permanent housing for more than 50 years. The commercial space is required for the Project to comply with the City's mixed-use vision for West Coast Highway. As planned, with a 70 percent reduction in parking, the Project is a market disaster waiting to happen. Approving a commercial building with inadequate parking for any other commercial use, especially when it is designed for a tiny market dependent on the personal interests of an individual developer, is blight in the making. In the long-term, as property changes hands and market demand changes, a severely under -parked commercial structure at this location is likely to become a vacant eyesore and thus a health and safety issue for the City. FITZGERALD YAP•KREDITOR LLP Members of the City Counsel April 27, 2021 Page 3 of 4 The under -parked single -purpose auto showroom violates the City's Municipal Code and is not required by the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The 70 percent reduction in parking is not one of the incentives requested by the developer under the HAA. Government Code Section 65915(p) provides a special reduced parking requirement for residences, which the applicant has requested, that does not -apply to commercial development. Subsection (k) requires an applicant to demonstrate any parking reduction "resul[t] in identifiable and actual cost reductions" necessary for the provision of affordable housing. In this case, the site is too small for the commercial use mandated by the City plus the 35 residential units on the applicant's proforma if the Project meets the City's objective parking requirements. The applicant has made no showing that a 70 percent reduction in normal commercial parking requirements is required to provide a handful of affordable units. There is no requirement under State law that the City create a future planning problem at a prominent location on a major coastal highway simply because an applicant claims rights through the HAA. Under these circumstances, the City Council cannot make the findings required under the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and the Municipal Code and reflected in the draft Resolution in Attachment A to the Agenda. For instance, Section 20.52.080(F)(3) requires the Council to find the Project is not detrimental to the orderly growth of the City and will not "endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare" of residents or workers. The Resolution finds that 13 parking spaces will be adequate for the highly specialized use proposed for the commercial building, but it does not address whether the use is reasonable or feasible on a long-term basis. The lack of adequate parking for any commercial use other than a boutique auto showroom with very specific market characteristics, coupled with the inability of the City to mandate that it remain in operation, will jeopardize the public health and safety over the life of the Project. (See also Section 20.52.020(F)(5).) The Class 32 exemption from CEQA for infill projects also does not apply because the Project has the potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The HAA is intended to facilitate development of affordable housing by streamlining the approval process and restricting the City's authority to impose subjective standards that interfere with this goal. It is not intended to force the City to accept either (1) visual impacts to views from John Wayne Park or (2) a severely under -parked commercial building with no clear long-term use or design flexibility. The commercial auto showroom portion of the Project does not meet minimum City parking requirements and cannot be required to stay in business. With only 30 percent of the parking mandated for vehicle sales or other commercial uses, there are virtually no other uses for the building. Meanwhile, although it is intended to meet the City's mixed-use development ratios, the showroom building is attached to the apartment complex by aerial walkways and is described as providing significant amenities to residential tenants. The Coalition asks the City Council to deny the Project and to require that the applicant work with the community to develop a true mixed-use proposal that respects views from John Wayne Park and provides for commercial and residential uses that will serve City residents for the life of the Project. Ver i trul�r �rours y i .I FITZGERALD YAP-KREDITOR LLP Members of the City Counsel April 27, 2021 Page 4 of 4 Enclosure: 02/17/2021 Coalition Letter to Planning Commission cc: Ms. Jill Ayres Mr.Mark Moshayedi Sean Master, Esq. bcc: Mr. David Tanner FITZGERALD•YAP•KREDITQR UIP February 17, 2021 VIA E-MAIL Chairman Erik Weigand and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 ATTN: Deputy Community Development Director E: eweigand(c�newportbeachca.gov planningcommissioners(ane)yportbeachca. gov j campbellknewportb eachca. gov ATTORNEYS AT LAW Michael J. FitzGerald* Eoin L. Kreditor* Eric P. Francisconi Lynne Bolduc George Vausher, LLM, CPA$ Eric D. Dean John C. Clough David M. Lawrence Natalie N,FitzGerald Jodi M. Wirth Brook John Changala Josephine Rachelle Aranda John M. Marston f Deborah M. Rosenthalt Maria M. Rullot Larry S. Zentant Author's Email: drosenthal@fyklaw.com FYK ref # 2021018.01 Re: 2510 West Coast Highway Mixed Use Project (PA2019-249) fTPM No. NP2020-013; CDP No. CD2019-062; CUP No. UP201 Major SDR No. 2019-003; and CEQA Class 32 Exemption] Dear Chairman Weigand and Members of the Commission: This letter is submitted on behalf of the Coalition to Protect Mariner's Mile (Coalition), a grassroots organization dedicated to preserving the special qualities of this stretch of West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach, including its marine orientation, human scale, and historic character. The above -referenced project ("Project") will replace an existing coastal -related use with a high-end boutique automobile showroom and multi -story multi -family residential structure. The Coalition opposes approval of the Project in its current configuration as inconsistent with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Plan (LCP), violative of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and unsafe or unfair to existing residents. This letter summarizes the Coalition's objections to the Project and incorporates by reference the comments submitted by Mr. David Tanner, a Coalition member, as well as other community residents. The Project is clearly designed to maximize density, lot coverage, and height under recent changes to State housing law, without considering or mitigating obvious impacts to existing residents. In other words, the Project provides the absolute minimum of public benefits, if any, while claiming every potential incentive or benefit to maximize profitable residential development along an historically commercial corridor. The result is a Project that is seriously out of scale with the surrounding community and dismissive of legitimate planning concerns. The Project blocks important water views from numerous public view points, and sends traffic onto overcrowded and substandard streets with no mitigation measures, not even a traffic study. Rather than ignoring or 2 Park Plaza, Suite 850 . Irvine, CA 92614 1 Tel: 949-788-8900 . Fax: 949-788-8980 . www.fyklaw.com *Professional Corporation . tOf Counsel • $Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law, and in Taxation Law, State Bar of California FITZGERALD YARKREDITOR 1.1.Y Chairman Erik Weigand and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission February 17, 2021 Page 2 of 6 accepting the Project's numerous unmitigated impacts, the Coalition asks this Commission to use its authority to balance State policies in favor of additional housing with the City's long-time planning goals and the interests of existing residents. Coastal Act Noncompliance The Project is located within the Coastal Zone and affects views both from and to the Pacific Ocean protected under the Coastal Act. First, the Project is not a coastal -dependent use. In fact, auto sales and multi -family residences can be sited anywhere; they do not require a coastal location. At the same time, the Project proposes to replace a coastal -dependent use that has served the burgeoning boating community of Newport Beach for a substantial period. The Project should be required to mitigate its adverse impacts on coastal -dependent uses as a condition of replacing them with general uses that can be located anywhere. As coastal property is converted to non -coastal dependent uses, these valuable and iconic uses are crowded out, requiring mitigation within the City's control. Visual simulations show the Project will cover existing water views from numerous public vantage points and replace existing views with a monolithic multi -story building that eliminates any sense of proximity to the coast. Inland views from public vantage points will be partially obscured by the Project, and views of inland bluffs from the water (boaters and kayakers) will be largely blocked. The Project proponent claims that water views will only be partially obstructed from public view location, like John Wayne Park, but does not address the out -of -scale character of the residential building or the significant reduction in water views. The applicant unreasonably and deliberately restricted view simulations to a handful of locations where the Project will have the least impact, even though these carefully selected simulations actually show dramatic impacts to existing water views. Rather than water views of docks, boats, and other active uses, the Project will restrict public views to a tiny strip of empty water peaking from behind a large out -of -scale structure. The Project violates core tenets of the Coastal Act, including the City's obligation to encourage that all development in the Coastal Zone "preserves and enhances coastal resources ... and coastal views." It allows replacement of marine -related businesses with unremarkable housing, with no attempt to mitigate for the marine losses. By failing to adequately address traffic, air quality, and views, the Project worsens conditions of crowding in an already congested stretch of West Coast Highway. At a minimum, the Project should be required to mitigate for its adverse impacts on views, traffic, air quality, and community compatibility, in accordance with the City's certified LCP. Unless the Project is required to comply with the City's LCP, the proposed CDP cannot be issued in accordance with law. General Plan/Zoning Ordinance Noncompliance The Project is designed to meet the absolute minimum requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, with no effort to avoid significant adverse impacts or provide public benefits on a highly visible site along West Coast Highway. The bulk of the Project violates numerous FITZGERALD YARKREDITOR 1.1.Y Chairman Erik Weigand and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission February 17, 2021 Page 3 of 6 neighborhood compatibility requirements because its design is so much larger and bulkier than other structures in the same area. It hulks over views from John Wayne Park and other public view sites, concealing important water views and overbalancing existing structures. The theory of the applicant seems to be that it is entitled to ignore all compatibility and scale requirements so long as it provides the minimum number of very low income housing units to qualify for processing under the Housing Affordability Act (HAA). While the HAA is a powerful tool to encourage the provision of affordable housing, it does not automatically exempt the Project from compliance with the City's plans for West Coast Highway. The design of the boutique auto sales building along West Coast Highway appears to be largely compatible with surrounding development, except for the proposed rooftop recreation facilities serving the residential building. However, the multi -family residential building reflects mediocre design, with inadequate articulation, poor siting, and an overall impression that is out of scale with the neighborhood. The multi -story residential building is designed so as to obscure the character - defining bluff along the back of those lots fronting West Coast Highway. In other words, the Project will conceal important protected views in the Coastal Zone, both from the scenic West Coast Highway, as a City -designated Coastal View Road, and the water. Instead of views of natural coastal bluffs, the Project will offer a multi -story building of mediocre design that completely obscures the natural topography. The height variance requested for the Project cannot be granted under existing regulations. Although the Project's three proposed units of affordable housing under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) are eligible for incentives, all variances must nonetheless meet public health and safety requirements. In this case, the height variance is incompatible with the community character and potentially causes dangerous air quality impacts. The parking variance leads to severe overcrowding, with safety impacts to the surrounding community that will be required to deal with uncontrolled overflow parking. The Project applicant is obligated to demonstrate its proposal will meet health and safety requirements, which has not been done. In fact, both Staff and the Project applicant appear to have ignored the need to offer evidence the Project meets that standard for incentives under the HAA. This is not a Staff responsibility, and the Coalition asks the applicant to demonstrate the safety and compliance of the incentives it has requested to increase Project density. Under the City's LCP and General Plan, the proposed parking variance for the boutique auto sales showroom is improper and unsupportable, while the parking proposed for the residential section is clearly inadequate. The City estimated no morning peak hour trips for the showroom and Staff recommended a parking reduction of more than 30 spaces or 70 percent, leaving only 13 spaces to be provided. The City's traffic analysis suggests only 38 total daily trips associated with the showroom, equating to 17 in/out visits. In other words, the City appears to assume the showroom will not employ any salespersons who will require parking or access, or that they will sneak in and out during oof-peak hours. There is no attempt to determine if the Austin -Foust study involved a similarly -sized facility at a high-profile location. One of the concerns expressed by commenters is that a boutique auto showroom will not survive financially with fewer than 15 (potentially as low as 10) potential customers per day. In the alternative, a successful business is likely to generate FITZGERALD YARKREDITOR 1.1.Y Chairman Erik Weigand and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission February 17, 2021 Page 4 of 6 substantially more traffic. Although the City asserts it will not approve a replacement project requiring more parking spaces, it does not address the impacts of approving a development with a low likelihood of success and a high likelihood of remaining vacant for substantial periods of time in the future. The Coalition urges the City to consider the variances or "incentives" requested by the applicant to determine if they are necessary, feasible, and consistent with the City's plans for the long-term future of West Coast Highway. While the City is legally mandated to support the provision of low and very low-income housing, it is not obligated to grant every requested variance without searching review. By law, the applicant is required to show the proposed variance is necessary to allow provision of affordable housing, and that it will not endanger surrounding residents. In this case, the applicant has offered no information or analysis demonstrating the proposed Project will preserve the health and safety of surrounding owners. The Project cannot be approved without this crucial data, and the Planning Commission cannot carry out its statutory duties without insisting that it be provided, circulated for public review, and linked to actual conditions on the ground. CEQA Noncompliance The City is responsible for ensuring the Project does not have significant adverse impacts under CEQA, as well as the Coastal Act and the local Planning and Zoning Laws. In this case, City Staff has determined this highly -impactive Project is eligible for a Section 32 Infill Exemption, requiring no environmental review of the Project. Given the visible and sensitive site, as well as its location adjacent to an existing neighborhood, the City's approval of a Section 32 Exemption is inappropriate. The City also ignores the cumulative impact of the Project with other proposals along the same stretch of West Coast Highway with the potential for entirely changing the long- time character of the area. Section 32 is available for projects that will "not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality." City Staff simply assumed the Project would not have significant effects but made no effort to study actual impacts. For instance, public testimony supports a conclusion that odors and noxious emissions from development along West Coast Highway have serious adverse impacts on residences located on the cliffs above the Project. City Staff required no analysis of the known health impacts of development on cliff -front homes, including the likely impacts of the Project. It is the applicant's obligation to demonstrate eligibility for the Section 32 exemption by showing the Project had considered and addressed its odor and noxious gas impacts on other residents. Public testimony is that development along West Coast Highway has sickened residents on the cliffs above because of gas and odor emissions. While it is possible the Project will not have similar impacts, it is the obligation of the applicant to demonstrate that its impacts will not be significant. This has not occurred. Traffic is an area of major concern. The City concluded the Project will generate only 294 trips per day, only a handful of trips less than the number required to trigger a traffic study. The City's traffic generation numbers are extremely suspect and should have been subject to additional review. FITZGERALD YARKREDITOR 1.1.Y Chairman Erik Weigand and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission February 17, 2021 Page 5 of 6 For instance, the City assumes the residential units will each require only one parking space, with no allocation for visitors or multi -car families. While this is technically allowable for parking purposes under State law, there is no evidence that the 32 moderate -income tenants are likely to limit themselves to a single car. The parking and traffic analyses also assume that less than half of the residents will leave the property for work during the am peak period or return during the pm peal period. At the same time, the traffic generation figures for the boutique auto sales office assumes no traffic during the am peak period, not even salespersons. Similarly, the auto sales estimates appear to assume only two trips during the pm period, without indicating whether they are potential customers or salespersons. Parking for sales staff is not discussed. The Staff report addresses the possibility that the boutique auto sales office will fail but assumes the property will simply remain vacant unless a similarly low traffic generation use is located. In other words, it appears the Project was intentionally designed to avoid any requirement for a traffic study, even though any successful commercial use on West Coast Highway is likely to generate more than the handful of uses reported by the applicant, and the proposed parking variance drastically restricts the type of commercial uses that can occupy the site into the future. Residential traffic is equally troubling. The City's traffic study assumes approximately 7.3 daily trips from each of the multi -family residences. This is consistent with generally accepted traffic estimates for multi -family units. However, City Staff did not consider the possibility of mandatory accessory dwelling units that could effectively double the number of cars using the Project. The City also failed to consider the Project's residential traffic generation onto two-lane residential streets that do not have the capacity to carry additional cars. These streets are already crowded when families congregate to pick up school children from area schools, and they are marginal to carry the number of required cars. The Project should be required to direct improve these streets, if possible, or to avoid the two-lane streets. Except for sending residential traffic through the commercial project onto West Coast Highway, there are no alternatives that will be safe and usable. The minimal traffic numbers provided by the applicant show no reduction in vehicles miles traveled, which is one of the standard requirements under CEQA. The Project also proposes to provide only one parking space per residential unit, plus another 13 units to serve the commercial portion. Although the residential parking is technically consistent with State law, it is woefully inadequate to meet normal residential parking demand in southern California. The likelihood is that Project cars will spill onto surrounding neighborhood streets for overnight parking, adversely affecting residents and decreasing traffic safety. The Coalition suggests that a minimum parking mitigation measure should be a requirement for parking permits to prevent Project residents from utilizing scarce off-site parking within the neighborhood to the detriment of existing residents. This is a common mitigation measure in other areas and should be implemented to protect existing residents. Potential noise impacts are not demonstrated to be less than significant. As the Planning Commission is well aware, sound travels and is likely to be magnified by the location of the Project at the bottom of a cliff next to a major arterial. The City did not require adequate studies to ensure the Project will not impact existing uses in surrounding areas, especially due to mechanical FITZGERALD YARKREDITOR 1.1.Y Chairman Erik Weigand and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission February 17, 2021 Page 6 of 6 equipment and rooftop recreation. This analysis is not complicated and should have been an automatic requirement for a Project at this location. The bottom line is that the Project does not qualify for a Class 32 Infill Exemption because of the overwhelming likelihood it will have significant adverse impacts on traffic and air quality. The Project's traffic generation figures are extremely suspect because they assume virtually no commercial traffic and avoid any consideration of future ADUs. There is no consideration of cumulative project traffic. Parking is similarly understudied, especially since the Project is using an artificially low parking generation figure technically authorized under State law, but without any factual support in a mass transit -deficient area of southern California. The Coalition demands the Planning Commission require the applicant torp ove it qualifies for an Infill Exemption or prepare adequate environmental documentation for a Project that will bring significant new residents to an already crowded area of the City. Conclusion The Project requires substantial redesign to avoid view and traffic impacts before it can be considered for approval by the Planning Commission. The Coalition is happy to work with the developer to allow HAA development consistent with existing GP and LCP policies. In fact, the Coalition is disappointed the developer chose to pursue the maximum allowable development envelope with consulting the affect community until Project design was complete. This is a recipe for neighborhood dissatisfaction and exhibits a lack of genuine concern for anything except maximizing development and profits to the detriment of surround residents. The Coalition encourages, indeed demands, that the City require consider traffic impacts to two-lane streets not designed to handle multi -family traffic, odor impacts common in the areas, and view impacts to a highly -sensitive stretch of West Coast Highway with prized water views that will be eliminated by this Project. Thank you for your consideration of these comments in connection with this important, precedent - setting Project. Very truly yours, Deborah M. Rosenthal, FAICP cc: Ms. Jill Ayres Oillysawaltz@icloud.com) Mr. David Tanner (dave(c)earsi.com) Mr.Mark Moshayedi (mark@spaceip.com) Sean Master, Esq. (smatslsergcoxcastle.com) Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20219:20 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Story poles please for John Wayne park and the new structure From: Margee Drews <mdrewsdesign@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:20:12 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Story poles please for John Wayne park and the new structure [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Story poles please. The design is attractive and not conducive to a village feel. We need timeless charm like Lido Village. Balboa Village is also lovely. The proposed structure has zero maritime aesthetic or charm. We love Newport Beach and we want to see beautiful development. Please encourage the developers to redesign the project with high quality design and materials. Do not approve this project as submitted. Mulvey, Jennifer From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20211:59 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: Vote to Support the Most Beautiful Places in CA!! From: Jodi Patrich <jodipatrich@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 20211:32 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Vote to Support the Most Beautiful Places in CA!! [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: Your collective decision regarding the design direction and "look" of Mariner's Mile will have a profound impact on the way Newport Beach is viewed nationally and internationally. Any large mixed-use project such as the one currently proposed for Mariners Mile will in fact set the precedent for all other developments in Newport Beach moving forward; and it will be used to justify similar undesirable developments. The unintended consequences of this decision will in fact impact Newport Beach residents, tourists and businesses for generations to come. Below is a recent social media post about the top 10 most beautiful places in California that was pushed out to millions of people both nationally and internationally!! https://www.purewow.com/stories/most-beautiful-places-in-california/ Please vote to keep Newport Beach the envy of the world by considering how the Mariner's Mile proposed density and design will change the image of Newport Beach (good or bad) forever. Regards, Jodi P. Bole