HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRAFT EIR 477_UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
*NEW FILE*
DRAFT E I R 477
W-11DA ITEM TRANSMITTAL
AGENCY DEPT. USE
CAO REVIEW
CLERK USE ONLY
CONSENT YES
I-XINO
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ORANGE
FROM: EMA
Concur
Do Not Concur
Exempt
CONTACT FOR INFORMATION
Robert Peterson 834-5377
Rich Adler 834-2125
MEETING DATE
SUBJECT PUBLIC HEARING - Transportation Element Amendment 1990-1
SUP -DIST.
and Community Profile Amendment 1990-1; EIR 477 -
5
February 28, 1990
University Drive Deletion
SUMMARY OF REQUEST (Desc(ption for agenda)
The Environmental Management Agency and the Planning Commission recommend certification
of Final EIR 477 and adoption of Transportation Element Amendment 1990-1 (T 90-1) and Communit
Profile Amendment 1990-1 (CPA 90-1) deleting University Drive between Irvine Avenue and
Jamboree Road from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
ADDITIONAL DATA: An amendment to the Transportation Element of the General Plan and a companion
Community Profile Amendment are recommended to delete the segment of University Drive between
Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) (Figure 1)
and Community Profile 47 (North Newport Beach) (Figure 2). Construction of the road is
effectively precluded by several constraints, including State opposition (by the Department
of Fish and Game and the Coastal Commission), community opposition and restrictions associated
with The Irvine Company's offer of dedication of land for the proposed Upper Newport Bay
Regional Park. Additional background information on the road is included in the EMA Report
to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3 - on colored paper). (Continued on Reverse)
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM:
Minute Order June 3, 1986; Minute Order January 6, 1987.
FUNDING SOURCE(S)
CURRENT YEAR COST
ANNUAL COST
BUDGETED? E YES NO
Road
N/A
N/A
WILL PROPOSAL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL?
CONSISTENT WITH BOARD POLICY?
ENO IF YES, STATE NUMBER —PERMANENT _ LIMITED TERM
[!]YES EINEW ITEM OR EXCEPTION
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Adopt Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) certifying Final EIR 477.
2. Adopt Draft Resolution (Attachment 2) adopting Transportation Element Amendment 1990-1
(T 90-1) and Community Profile Amendment 1990-1 (CPA 90-1).
3. Direct EMA to return within six months with the Circulation Improvement Phasing and
Funding Program for the alternative circulation improvements.
CONCURRENCES (If applicable)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Board Resolution for Final EIR 477
2. Draft Board Resolution for T 90-1 and
CPA 90-1. (Continued on Reverse)
J;- Ken R. Smith, WE AGENCY DN DEPARTMENT Au, IZED REMESENTAME
Director of ansportation, EMA Michael 11. Ruane, Director, ERA
gi fAg;A4 j,,Ai 12) 0046
VFM -2-
141rTAL
ADDITIONAL DATA: (Continued)
Because of constraints such as these, your Board directed EMA to prepare an EIR addressing
the impacts of deleting the road from the MPAH and implementing alternative circulation
improvements needed as a result of the deletion. The EIR was completed through a cooperative
effort involving the County and the affected cities: Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Irvine.
A technical advisory group of County and city staff met regularly to oversee and direct
the process.
The principal traffic diversion impacts of deleting University Drive occur in the Bristol
Street couplet area (Figure 3). While intersection deficiencies are projected to occur
even if University Drive were built, the deficiencies would be exacerbated by its deletion.
As a result, improvements are proposed through the addition of travel and turn lanes at
the intersections of the couplet with Campus Drive, Irvine Avenue and Birch Street. Right-of-
way will need to be acquired for some of the Bristol Street couplet area improvements, including
airport property presently occupied by a vehicle maintenance building.
Two other alternative circulation improvements mitigate the impacts of deleting University
Drive, but are planned to be implemented regardless of whether'or not University Drive is
built. These are construction of the north -to -east and west -to -south connectors between
the 55 and 73 freeways and the widening of Irvine Avenue between Bristol Street South and
University Drive.
While funding sources are not currently identified for the alternative circulation improvements,
it is recommended that, in conjunction with deletion of the road, a circulation improvement
phasing and funding program be undertaken by all affected cities and the County to ensure
timely construction of all of the alternative circulation improvements and to determine
the pro rata share of the cost of the proposed improvements based upon the traffic contribution
of the affected jurisdictions.
Planning Commission Action:
On January 24, 1990 the Planning Commission recommended that your Board: a) certify Final
EIR 477 as complete and adequate CEQA documentation for Transportation Element Amendment
1990-1 and Community Profile Amendment 1990-1, b) adopt Transportation Element Amendment
1990-1 and Community Profile Amendment 1990-1 and c) direct ERA to initiate the circulation
improvement phasing and funding program for the alternative circulation improvements (Planning
Commission Resolution 90-2 - Attachment 4).
Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
Proposed Final EIR 477 (Attachment 5) has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA and the County's
environmental analysis procedures. Attachment 1 is a draft resolution which, if adopted,
will certify proposed Final EIR 477 as complete and adequate environmental documentation
for the proposed actions.
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for EIR 477 has been prepared in compliance with
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The purpose of the program is to ensure that mitigation
measures adopted as part of the EIR will be effectively monitored. The program is incorporated
into the attached EIR resolution.
Attachments: (Continued)
3. Environmental Management Agency Report to Planning Commission dated January 24, 1990.
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-2.
5. Final EIR 477
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND
STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DELETION OF THE EXTENSION OF
UNIVERSITY DRIVE FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY MASTER
PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (MPAH).
ITT0,"wallsioll
On November 17, 1989, the County of Orange issued Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) No. 477 (State Clearinghouse No. 88031607) for the deletion of the
University Drive extension from the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(UTAH). The purpose of the DEIR is to provide full public disclosure of the potential
environmental effects of deleting the conceptually proposed University Drive from • the
MPAH, as well as to assess impacts associated with specific circulation improvements to
surrounding roadways which are necessitated by the University Drive deletion. Two
alternatives to the project were also evaluated.
Draft EIR No. 477 complies with the state and county guidelines for environmental
documentation and evaluates the project with respect to:
Land Use
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Acoustic Environment
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Public Health and Safety
Parks and Recreation
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines
(Guidelines) •promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
'No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental
impact report has been completed and which identified one or more significant
effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings
for each of these significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each findings." (Section 15091)
The Orange County Board of Supervisors proposes to approve the proposed project.
Further, the Board of Supervisors has determined that DEIR No. 477 is complete and
adequate and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines. The
DEIR identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of this project
Therefore, the following findings are set forth herein pursuant to Section 15091 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
SiGmificant Effect - Right-of-way acquisitions along the Bristol Street couplet
associated with the project circulation improvements will result in the loss of privately
owned land, and a John Wayne Airport maintenance building. Some landscaped areas
which are required by local zoning ordinance will be affected.
Mifleation Measures - The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the
project to avoid or substantially lessen the potential effects cited above:
1. Caltrans, the County of Orange, and the City of Newport Beach shall
approve street improvement plans for the project and establish precise right-
of-way and acquisition requirements for the Bristol Street couplet widening
prior to implementation.
2. The County of Orange and/or the City of Newport Beach shall follow state
guidelines for right-of-way acquisition.
3. The County of Orange will work with John Wayne Airport staff and
attempt to accommodate the needs of John Wayne Airport by developing
a prioritized phasing plan for the recommended circulation improvements
which does not require the immediate removal of the airport maintenance
building.
FINDING - The' County of Orange finds that the incorporation of the above
mitigation measures only partially mitigates the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Draft EIR. The loss of landscaped setback area where required by
local zoning ordinance and the loss of the airport maintenance building will require a
statement of overriding considerations.
Significant Effect - The deletion of the University Drive extension results in
increased traffic along the Bristol Street couplet and contributes to the need for
implementation of the planned widening of Irvine Avenue from Bristol Street to
University Drive.
Mitigation Measures - Several circulation improvements are recommended to
mitigate the impacts of deleting University Drive. These measures include improvements
(additional travel and turn lanes) to the Bristol Street couplet, implementation of the
planned Irvine Avenue widening and implementation of Mesa Drive/Birch Street
widening. Concurrent with the completion of street improvement plans, a circulation
improvement phasing and funding program shall be completed by the EMA Transporta-
tion Planning Division to ensure the timely construction of all circulation improvements.
The program shall identify agencies, and jurisdictions responsible for each circulation
improvement.
FINDINGS - The County of Orange finds that the incorporation of the above
mitigation measures only partially mitigates the significant environmental effect as
identified in the Draft EIR. Some intersections will continue to operate at unacceptable
levels of service. Due to physical constraints, it is not feasible to provide further
improvements at these intersections. Project traffic impacts are considered significant at
Birch Street/Bristol Street North, Jamboree Road/Bristol Street South, MacArthur
Boulevard/Campus Drive at MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road after mitigation.
Therefore, these significant traffic impacts will require overriding considerations.
Significant Effects - Short-term air quality impacts (construction -related emissions
and dust) will affect adjacent developments.
Mitigation Measures - The following summarizes the mitigation measures which
have been incorporated into the project to avoid or lessen substantially the potential
significant effect cited above:
1. Short-term construction -generated dust and emissions shall be reduced
through efficient construction scheduling, by periodic watering at the
construction site, and by compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Construc-
tion shall be discontinued during second stage smog alerts.
2. The County Health Department shall monitor the local air quality
conditions (CO emissions) adjacent to the Bristol Street couplet for
restaurants with outdoor dining areas. Prior to approval of the street
improvement plans, the department shall also review the projections for
local emissions at these locations. If customers are being exposed to public
hazard by exposure to vehicular emissions while dining, subsequent action
shall be taken by the County Health Department.
FINDINGS - The County of Orange finds that the significant effect identified
above has been mitigated adequately.
R
Significant Effects - Project construction activity may result in short-term acoustical
impacts to adjacent residences and commercial establishments.
Under future cumulative conditions, ambient outdoor noise levels are forecast to
exceed 65 dBA in three residential areas with or without the project. The project
diverted traffic would contribute less than 3 dBA to increased noise levels in these areas.
Mitjgation Measures - The following mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the project to avoid or substantially lessen the potential effects listed above:
1. Construction activities near residential areas should be limited per the
Orange County Noise Ordinance. This essentially will limit construction
near residential areas to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on weekdays.
Construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating and
maintained mufflers. Vehicle staging areas should be located away from
residential dwellings.
Z' Prior to implementation of street improvement plans, the Orange County
Environmental Management Agency (EMA) shall monitor existing noise
levels in residentially zoned areas along Irvine Avenue between University
Drive and Bristol Street, Mesa Drive/Birch Street between Santa Ana
Avenue and Bristol Street South, and Bristol Street between Newport
Boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue. Final street improvement plans shall
provide attenuation measures (eg., sound walls) in areas projected to be
exposed to traffic noise in excess of 65 dB CNEL
FINDINGS - The County of Orange finds that the short-term significant acoustical
effects of the project are mitigated adequately. Potential acoustical impacts on outdoor
residential areas are only partially mitigated and require a statement of overriding
considerations.
Significant Effects - Project -related circulation improvements will necessitate the
removal and relocation of several existing.public service and utility lines.
Mitigation Measures - The following summarises the mitigation measures which
have been incorporated into the project to- avoid or lessen substantially the potential
effect cited above:
1. Concurrent with completion of street improvement plans, a final survey to
identify the exact location of existing utility facilities will be conducted and
precautionary grading and construction procedures will be established to
avoid unnecessary removal of lines and facilities.
2. Construction activities shall be coordinated by the Orange County EMA
Transportation Planning Division with responsible city departments and
utility companies to minimize impacts associated with necessary interruptions
of service, as well as to complete the proposed circulation and utility
improvements in the most efficient, expeditious manner possible.
3. Prior to roadway construction, the Orange County Transit District shall be
consulted to coordinate bus access routes. Through access of sufficient
width should be maintained along the Bristol couplet throughout the
duration of the construction activities for passage of Orange County Transit
District vehicles.
FINDINGS - The County of Orange finds that the significant effect identified
above has been mitigated adequately.
Significant Effects - No hazardous material or contaminated soil conditions are
known to occur in the vicinity of the project proposed circulation improvements; however,
precautionary measures will be taken during the removal process to identify and ensure
the containment of any potentially hazardous substances (eg. contaminated soil, sulfur -
based asphalt, asbestos, gasoline tanks) encountered during the removal and demolition
process.
Mitigation Measures - The following mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the project to avoid or lessen substantially the potential effect cited above:
1. Following completion of street improvement plans, onsite inspection should
be conducted by the Orange County Fire Department to identify the
presence of any potentially hazardous material. All removal/demolition
activities shall conform to the requirements of the Orange County
Department of health and state regulations.
2. Subsurface soil testing shall be required prior to excavation work should the
removal of underground gas tank facilities be required. Removal practices
shall comply with all permit and current code requirements.
FINDINGS - The County of Orange finds that the potentially significant effect
identified above has been mitigated adequately.
The Draft EIR evaluated three topical areas for which no significant adverse
effects were found to occur•with respect to the project For these areas, the County of
Orange is not required to prepare findings. A summary of the Draft EIR's evaluation
of these topical areas is provided below.
The project provides a beneficial impact to known cultural resources in the area
of the planned University Drive extension. No adverse impacts to cultural and historical
resources are anticipated to occur due to project -related circulation improvements.
The project provides a significant beneficial impact to the biological resources in
the vicinity of Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. No adverse impacts to biological
resources are anticipated to occur due to project -related circulation improvements.
The project provides significant beneficial impacts to park and recreational
resources by eliminating roadways through the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional
Park, which would occur if the University Drive extension were to be implemented.
Cumulative impact considerations for the project include contributions to increased
noise and fossil fuel (gasoline) consumption associated with future traffic volumes
accommodated by the proposed circulation improvements. These impacts cannot be
considered as strictly attributable to the project, inasmuch as traffic increases and related
air, noise and fuel consumption would occur with or without the proposed roadway
extension in a regional context
The deletion of University Drive from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and
the implementation of alternative circulation improvements will result in the following
significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
1. Circulation improvements along the Bristol Street couplet and Irvine
Avenue will result in the loss of privately owned land, a John Wayne
Airport maintenance facility. Loss of landscape setback areas required by
the City of Newport Beach under the Newport Place Planned Community
Ordinance also will occur. _
2. Project circulation improvements will improve the level of service at most
intersections; however, several intersections in the project area will remain
at an unacceptable level of service due to physical constraints of adjacent
buildings which limit intersection improvement opportunities.
3. Three residential areas will experience outdoor noise levels above 65 CNEL
under future conditions: Bristol Street between Newport Boulevard and
Red Hill Avenue, Mesa Drive/Bitch Street between Santa Ana Avenue and
Bristol Street South, and Irvine Avenue between University Drive and
Bristol Street South.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that, in addition to evaluation
of the No Project alternative, an EIR must address a range of reasonable alternatives to
a project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and which could
conceivably reduce the adverse environmental impacts of the project.
Draft EIR No. 477 evaluated' a "no project" alternative, a University Drive
extension alternative, and a south side widening along Bristol Street South project
alternative. These alternatives are considered a reasonable range of alternatives, include
alternatives which have fewer potential environmental impacts than the project, and
include alternatives which address some of the project objectives. The project
alternatives are considered less desirable than the project for the following reasons.
NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the status of the existing circulation system would remain
as it is today. The extension of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree
Road would not be built but would remain on the Orange County MPAH for possible
future construction. In addition, the proposed circulation improvements along the Bristol
Street couplet would not take place.
Under the "no project" alternative, environmental effects may be slightly reduced
in comparison to the project in the following topical areas.
Land Use. Land and building acquisitions associated with the alternative
circulation improvements of the project would not occur.
Air Ouality/Acoustical I=acts. Short-term air and noise impacts associated
with project circulation improvements would not occur. Localized air and noise
effects may be less than project effects; depending upon the areas where
additional traffic is generated.
Public Services. The "no project" alternative eliminates any need for public
facility and/pr utility line relocation associated with the circulation improvements
of the project
The environmental effects of the "no project" alternative may be greater than
those identified for the project as follows:
Tra=ortation/.Circulation Under the "no project" alternative, existing
traffic volumes occur on the existing circulation network. Unacceptable levels of
service occur at three intersections along the Bristol couplet
Parks and Recreation Because the "no project" alternative retains the
University Drive extension on the County MPAH . and thus ultimately allows for
its future implementation, it is inconsistent with the county's commitment to
conserve land in the Upper Newport Bay area as outlined in the recently adopted
offer of land dedication agreement for lands donated by the Irvine Company.
The "no project" alternative provides no circulation improvements along the Bristol
couplet, and does not meet the project's objective to remove the University Drive
segment from the MPAH.
This alternative means that the extension of University Drive as depicted on the
MPAH would be completed. The proposed improvements to Bristol Street would not
take place as this is a project -related development.
Land Use. Right-of-way acquisitions associated with project alternative
circulation improvements would not occur.
Tr=VortationiCirculation. The primary effect of the completion of the
University Drive extension would be the diversion of traffic from SR-73 and the
Bristol Street couplet to the MPAH designated extension. As indicated by Table
5, levels of service along several intersections, most notably along Bristol Street,
would improve slightly with the extension as traffic is diverted to this facility.
Traffic volumes on Del Mar Avenue would increase significantly as a result
of the University Drive extension. Two intersections along Irvine Avenue also
were analyzed. With the extension, the level of service for Irvine Avenue at Mesa
Drive would improve significantly. However, under the same conditions, Irvine
Avenue at University Drive would experience a deterioration in service levels due
to the heavy traffic flows along University Drive.
Air Oualit�v. The University Drive extension alternative would elevate air
pollution effects along the extension and the surrounding Upper Newport Bay
area. This area includes the sensitive Ecological Reserve and residential uses
within the Santa Ana Heights area
J
Y
Acoustic Environment. Significant traffic noise effects on adjacent
residences along the University Drive extension would occur. However, the
University Drive extension would result in decreased noise levels along Bristol
Street and surrounding commercial areas as traffic is diverted to University Drive.
Biological Resources. The University Drive extension alternative would
result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources within the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Impacts to habitat and wildlife would include
habitat elimination/alteration- associated with construction activity, wildlife
disturbance by noise, increased air emissions, and increased water pollution
Cultural Resources. Seven archaeological sites have been identified in the
area adjacent to the planned extension Construction activities may disturb or
destroy these resources.
Public Services. Because this alternative assumes no circulation improve-
ments to the Bristol Street couplet, utility lines and other service facilities will not
require removal and relocation as with the project.
Parks and Recreation The development of any public roadway is not a
permitted use in 'the proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park, and the
extension of University Drive as planned represents an inconsistent use within the
proposed park area. Roadway implementation would require amendment to the
offer of dedication agreement by the City of Newport Beach, the California
Coastal Conservancy, the Irvine Company and the County of Orange. Further,
roadway implementation would convert the natural setting of this area into a more
urban environment and would likely detract from the recreational experience of
future users.
The tradeoff between the project and the extension alternative comes
primarily in the form of land use impacts. The project will impact some limited
areas along the Bristol Street couplet and Irvine Avenue while the extension
alternative will impact existing and planned uses in the Upper Newport Bay area.
A roadway in this area would violate the agreement outlined in the Irvine
Company's offer of dedication of 114 acres for regional park purposes which
surrounds the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Roadway implementation
would also adversely impact the existing equestrian and bike trails in this area,
and would negatively effect biological resources in the ecological reserve.
Additionally, residents adjacent to the proposed extension route would experience
noise and visual impacts associated with the roadway.
This alternative discusses an optional widening scheme for the Bristol Street
couplet to accommodate the intersection and lane improvements identified in the project
This widening would take place primarily on the south side of Bristol Street South.
Land Use. The acquisitions along Bristol Street South will effect a number
of business establishments. Beginning at Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive, ap-
proximately 18 feet of additional right-of-way acquisition would be required along
Bristol Street South (south side) to Birch Street From Birch Street eastward the
south side acquisition is gradually reduced to nine feet to the point where Bristol
Street South merges with the SR-73 off -ramp.
Acquisitions on Bristol Street South could involve the removal of several
gas pumps at the Exxon and Arco stations, the elimination of outdoor seating area
for the Del Taco and MacDonald's restaurant and the removal of the Laff Stop
Comedy Store. Approximately 62 surface parking spaces would be lost along. the
section of Bristol Street South from Irvine Avenue to Cypress Street, which may
exacerbate the existing access and parking problems for the commercial
establishments.
In the vicinity of Bristol Street North,• right-of-way acquisition along Birch
Street would impact parking, landscape and setback areas of office centers on
Birch Street and Bristol Street North.
Tra=ortatio Circulation. This alternative proposes the same circulation
improvements as the project but provides a new widening and land acquisition
plan to accommodate the improvements along the Bristol Street couplet
Therefore, the impacts of this alternative would remain essentially the same as the
.project
Au Ouali>vy. Air quality impacts would remain the same as the project
Acoustic Environment Noise impacts would remain the same as the
project
Cultural Resources. Cultural resource impacts would remain the same as
the project
Biological Resources. Biological resources would remain the same as the
project
Public Services This alternative is not expected to require relocation of
existing water and sewer mains located within Bristol Street South but may require
relocation of e.,dsting lateral lines and surface facilities (valves, water meters,
hydrants, covers, eta) at a cost to be incurred by the County of Orange.
The need for relocation of gas and electric utility and facilities, cable lines,
television and telephone transmission lines would be determined during the design
phase of roadway improvements.
Health and Safety. Because this alternative results in right-of-way
acquisition along the commercial area on Bristol Street South, it may result in the
removal of additional underground gas tanks but does not represent a significantly
greater risk to public health than the project.
Parks and Recreation Impacts are the same as the project.
Although this alternative achieves essentially the same objectives as those of the
project, the increased land use impacts along Bristol Street South which would occur as
a result of this alternative make it much less desirable than the project.
EXHIBIT B
r
MITIGATION MEASURE
MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
for
EIR 477
University Drive Deletion/
Alternative Circulation Improvements
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Plan
for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 477 is to ensure compliance with
provisions of the State Public Resources Code. Code Section 21086.6
requires that public agencies approving a project with an environmental
impact report (EIR) adopt a program to monitor and report on the EIR
mitigation measures during project implementation.
II. DEIR 477 MITIGATION MEASURES
In certifying EIR 477, the Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted
mitigation measures for the University Drive Deletion/Alternative
Circulation Improvements project. These mitigation measures are
identified in the EIR and are contained herein, listed by category of
impact, in chronological order according to project implementation
milestones.
III. MONITORING AND REPORTING ON MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION
Mitigation Measures are tied to the following milestones:
o prior to approval of street improvement plans
o prior to implementation of street improvements
o during construction
o following construction
and will be monitored and reported in the following manner:
The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency (EMA) will be
responsible for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the
mitigation measures. EMA, in conjunction with appropriate responsible
jurisdictions and agencies, will prepare semi-annual reports, beginning
within sixty days of the approval of any street improvement plans
identified as mitigation measures in the EIR. The reports will be made
a part of the project file and, thus, a part of the public record.
Reports will be available in the offices of EMA/Environmental Planning
Division during normal work hours: Room G-24, 12 Civic Center Plaza,
Santa Ana, CA.
MB:fc/crPE01-243/0037
0011715140920
MMGATIOM MBASURR D(PLBMHNTAITON CRROMOLOGY
LA[O) USE
u rage
Timing Mitigation Measure Reference
Prior to implementa- Caltrans, the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach shall approve P. 18
tion of street street improvement plans for the project and establish precise right-of-way
improvements. ; and acquisition requirements for the Bristol Street couplet prior to
implementation.
The County of Orange or the City of Newport Beach shall follow state
guidelines for right-of-way acquisition
The County of Orange will work with John Wayne Airport staff and attempt to
accommodate the needs of John Wayne Airport by developing a prioritized
phasing plan for the recommended circulation improvements which does not
require the immediate removal of the airport maintenance building.
-1-
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION CHRONOLOGY
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
.. rax=
Timing Mitigation Measure Reference
Concurrent with the A circulation improvement phasing and funding program shall be completed by P. 35-36
completion of street the EHA Transportation Planning Division to ensure the timely construction
improvement plans. of all circulation improvements. The program shall identify agencies and
jurisdictions responsible for each circulation improvement.
To be determined by Widen the east side of Birch Street north of Bristol Street North by 28
circulation improve- feet, and the east side of the Birch Street freeway bridge overcrossing by
ment phasing and 28 feet. These widening improvements would provide additional travel lanes
funding program. and correct the existing lane alignment of the freeway bridge overcrossing
at Birch Street.
Construct a free right -turn lane from Campus Drive southbound onto Bristol
Street North eastbound. Overhead signing at Campus Drive will be required
to identify the free right -turn lane onto Bristol Street North.
Construct an additional left -turn lane on Bristol Street South at Irvine
Avenue within the existing Bristol Street right-of-way.
Add a left -turn only and a right -turn only lane from Bristol Street South
onto Birch Street. A 29-foot widening is required on the north side of
Bristol Street South between Campus Drive and Birch Street to accommodate
two left -turn, three through lanes and a fourth combination
acceleration/deceleration/turn lane with bike lane. This fourth lane will
serve as an ingress and egress lane for the commercial uses along Bristol
Street South between Irvine Avenue and Birch Street.
A 7-foot widening on the north side of Bristol Street South, east of Birch
Street, to accommodate an additional eastbound through lane. The widening
would extend approximately 800 feet east of the Birch Street/Bristol Street
South intersection to the point where Bristol Street South currently exists
at its full width.
A shared funding program shall be established between the City of Newport
Beach, the Orange County Airport, the County of Orange Environmental
Hanagement Agency, and any other relevant agencies to ensure the timely
construction of this roadway improvement.
-2-
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION CHRONOLOGY
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
DEIR Page
Timing Mitigation Measure Reference
In conjunction with
the redevelopment of
Santa Ana Heights.
The County of Orange and the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and
Irvine shall work with Caltrans, the Orange County Transportation
Commission, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency to
develop a funding program and construction timeline for the implementation
of SR-55/SR-73 north-to-east/west-to-south freeway connectors to ensure
their timely completion.
The alignment study prepared by the County of Orange and the City of
Newport Beach provides for a widening of Birch Street at the Bristol Street
South intersection in accordance with the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan.
P. 35-36
-3-
x- -
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION CHRONOLOGY
AIR QUALITY
Timing
DEIR Page
Mitigation Measure Reference
Prior to approval of
The County Health Department shall monitor the local air quality conditions P. 52-53
street improvement
(CO emissions) adjacent to the Bristol Street couplet for restaurants with
plans.
outdoor dining areas. Prior to approval of the street improvement plans,
the department shall also review the projections for local emissions at
these locations. If customers are being exposed to public hazard by
exposure to vehicular emissions while dining, subsequent action shall be
taken by the County Health Department.
Ongoing.
The County of Orange shall cooperate with the appropriate transit agencies
to encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public
transit usage and providing secure bicycle facilities.
During design
The County of Orange or the City of Newport Beach shall cooperate with the
improvements.
appropriate public transit agencies to ensure adequate mass transit
accommodations such as bus turn -out lanes and bus shelters.
During construction.
The County of Orange or the City of Newport Beach shall ensure compliance
with SCAQMD Rule 43 (Fugitive Dust Emissions) to assist in mitigating the
impact of construction -generated dust particulates.
The County's Environmental Hanagement Agency or the City of Newport Beach
Public Storks Department shall review and approve construction, grading and
scheduling to avoid the driest summer months, by requiring periodic
sprinkling of exposed surfaces with water during construction, and by
paving the area proposed for parking as soon as possible.
Construction shall be discontinued during second stage smog alerts. Code
enforcement shall be handled by the Orange County Building Division.
-4-
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLMENTATION CHRONOLOGY
ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
Timing Mitigation No Reference
Prior to the imple- The EMA shall monitor existing noise levels in residentially zoned areas P. 63-64
mentation of street along: 1) Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street,
improvement plans. 2) Mesa Drive/Birch Street between Santa Ana Avenue and Sir -eh South Bristol
Street, and 3) Bristol Street between Newport Boulevard and Santa Ana
Avenue. Final „ L ennni-pted hnqpd An o• ,
Final street improvement plans shall provide attenuation measures (e.a.
to
During construction. Construction activities near residential areas shall be limited per the
Orange County Noise Ordinance. This essentially will limit construction
near residential areas to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on weekdays.
Additionally, the following instructions shall be issued to the
construction teams.
A. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated
within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
B. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as
practicable from residential dwellings.
-5-
MITIGATION MEASURE IMPLEMENTATION CHRONOLOGY
CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEIR Page
Timing Mitigation Measure Reference
During grading. Project shall cease if the presence of archaeological resources is evident. P. 66
A qualified archaeologist shall examine any artifacts and all subsequent
actions shall be in accordance with the provisions of Appendix K of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
10
MITIGATION MEASURE impLEmEmTION CHRONOLOGY
PUBLIC SERVICES
DEIR Page
Timing Mitigation Measure Reference
The following mitigation measures will be the responsibility of the agency P. 77
or jurisdiction implementing individual improvements:
Prior to completion A survey to identify the exact location of existing utility facilities will
of street improvement be conducted and precautionary grading and construction procedures will be
plans. established to avoid unnecessary removal of lines and facilities.
Concurrently with the The relocation plans for the major existing water pressure reduction
completion of street facilities located near the Campus Drive bridge freeway overcrossing shall
improvement plans. be finalized.
Prior to roadway The Orange County Transit District shall be consulted to coordinate bus
construction. access routes. Through access of sufficient width should be maintained
throughout the duration of the construction activities for passage of
Orange County Transit District vehicles.
During construction. Construction activities shall be coordinated by the Orange County EMA
Transportation Planning Division with responsible city departments and
utility companies to minimize impacts associated with necessary
interruptions of service, as well as to complete the proposed improvements
in the most efficient, expeditious manner possible. Sufficient notice
shall be provided by service agencies to affected residences and businesses
prior to any anticipated service interruptions.
-7-
-^ rage
Ting Mitigation Measure Reference
Onsite inspection shall be conducted by the
to identify the presence of any potentially
removal/demolition activities shall conform
Orange County Department of Health and stat,
Subsurface soil testing shall be requ
gas tank facilities be required. Rem
current permit and code requirements.
MB:sah/apPE01-242/0045
0011713211428
Orange County Fire
hazardous material.
to the requirements
regulations.
EXHIBIT C
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines
promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
"(a) CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to
approve the project If the- benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may
be considered 'acceptable:
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant
effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not mitigated, the agency
must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the Final Eir
and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the
agency also makes the finding under Section 15091 (a)(2) or (a)(3).
(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement
should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned
in the Notice of Determination. (Section 15093 of the Guidelines)."
The County of Orange proposes to approve the deletion of the University Drive
extension from the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Because
the actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, an environmental
impact report (EIR) has been prepared by the County of Orange. The EIR has
identified certain significant effects that will result from this project that cannot feasibly
be completely avoided
The significant effects are as follows:
1. Project right-of-way acquisition in the vicinity of the Bristol Street couplet
will result in the loss of landscaping where specifically required by local
building.ning ordinance and the removal of a John Wayne Airport maintenance
2. The project contributes • to cumulative noise levels in outdoor areas
projected to -be in excess of 65 dB CNEL at three residential areas along
a) Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street, b) Mesa
Drive/Birch Street between Santa Ana Avenue and Bristol Street South,
and c) Bristol Street between Newport Boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue.
Therefore, the following overriding considerations are provided against which the
unavoidable adverse effects are balanced in reaching a decision on this project. The
remaining unavoidable adverse impacts are found acceptable given the mitigations, condi-
tions and overriding considerations contained in this Resolution.
1. The deletion of the University Drive extension is consistent with the offer
of dedication and conservation easement agreements recorded by the County of Orange
for the purpose of creating a regional park on lands surrounding the Upper Newport
Bay. These agreements between the City of Newport Beach, the California Coastal
Conservancy, the Irvine Company, and the County of Orange are specifically for the
provision of a passive use regional park facility in , which public roadways are not a
permitted use.
2. The deletion of the University Drive extension eliminates potential adverse
biological impacts upon the Upper Newport Bay Ecological. Reserve anticipated as a
result of the implementation of the roadway extension.
3. The project eliminates potential adverse impacts to known cultural resources
in the vicinity of the proposed University Drive extension
4. The deletion of the University Drive extension eliminates future traffic
noise and visual impacts'to Santa Ana Heights residences located immediately adjacent
to the proposed roadway segment.
5. The projects alternative circulation improvements provide for some
improved projected traffic conditions in the vicinity of the Bristol Street couplet and
partially mitigate the diversion of traffic flows due to the deletion of the University Drive
segment. All feasible circulation diversion mitigation measures have been recommended
for the project. Physical constraints prevent further mitigation for intersections which
remain operating at unacceptable levels of service after project mitigation _Projected
future traffic volumes require that a free right -turn lane be implemented to accommodate
future traffic movements from Campus Drive southbound to Bristol Street North,
westbound
6. Cumulative noise impacts to the three residential areas previously identified
are projectedto occur with or without the project. Mitigation for the project includes
future monitoring of noise levels and the provision of attenuation measures for those
areas projected to be exposed to cumulative traffic noise in excess of 65 dB CNEL
However, an increase in noise levels is inevitable given the projected future traffic
volumes.
ATTACHMENT 1
:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 28, 1990
On motion of Supervisor
following resolution was adopted :
duly seconded and carried, the
WHEREAS, Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 477 for the University Drive
Deletion/Alternative Circulation Improvements has been prepared to address the
environmental effects, mitigation measures and project alternatives associated with
proposed Transportation Element Amendment 90-1 (Tz' 90-1) and Community Profile
Amendment 1990-1 (CPA 90-1); and
WHEREAS, FEIR 477 for the University Drive Deletion/Alternative Circulation
Improvements project was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the County's
environmental analysis procedures; and
WHEREAS, written comments on DEIR 477 were received from the public and
responsible agencies during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, such comments were responded to through a Response to Comments
document and staff report submitted to the Orange County Planning Commission and
received by this Board; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 24, 1990
to receive public testimony with respect to FEIR 477; and
WHEREAS,•the Planning Commission has reviewed all environmental documentation
comprising FEIR 477 and has found that FEIR 477 considers all environmental effects
of proposed T•, 90-1, CPA 90-1 and deletion of the proposed University Drive segment
between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road, and is complete and adequate and fully
complies with all requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, FEIR 477 did not reveal any information which would preclude deletion
-1-
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
71
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
271
of the proposed University Drive from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways; and
WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines
require that the Board of Supervisors make one or more of the following findings
prior to approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed identifying one
or more significant effects of the project, along with statements of facts
supporting each finding:
Finding 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project that mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as
identified in the draft and final EIRs.
Finding 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency.
Finding 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the draft and final
EIRs; and
WHEREAS, Section 15093(a) of the Guidelines requires the Board of Supervisors
to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental
risks in determining whether to approve the project; and
WHEREAS, Section 15O93(b) requires, where the decision of the Board of
Supervisors allows the occurrence of significant effects that are identified in the
EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the Board must state in writing
the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR or other information in
the record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. Prior to approval of FEIR 477 (State Clearinghouse No. 88031607) the County
of Orange Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the above -mentioned
FEIR and hereby certifies the FEIR for the University Drive Deletion/Alternative
0
-2-
I
Circulation Improvements, Transportation Element Amendment 1990-1 (TE 90-1) and
Community Profile'Amendment 1990-1 (CPA 90-1) as complete and adequate in that the
FEIR addresses the significant adverse effects of the proposed project and actions
and complies with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Said
FEIR is composed of the following items:
a. Draft EIR 477 for the University Drive Deletion/Alternative
Circulation Improvements
b. Technical Appendices to Draft EIR 477;
c. Comments received on Draft EIR 477 and responses to those comments;
and
d. Environmental Management Agency staff report dated January 24, 1990;
e. Minutes of the Orange County Planning Commission meeting dated
January 24, 1990;
f. All attachments, incorporations and references as delineated in a-e
above.
All of the above information has been and will be on file with the County of
Orange Environmental Management Agency, Environmental Planning Division, 12 Civic
Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California.
2. This Board adopts the Findings with respect to each significant
environmental effect identified in the FEIR and the mitigation measures related
thereto, as set forth in the document entitled "Statement of Facts and Findings",
attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
3. This Board adopts the list of project mitigation measures, and the
mitigation measure monitoring and reporting plan as set forth in the document
entitled "Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Plan for EIR 4770" attached
hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof. These mitigation measures shall be
incorporated into the project.
4. This Board adopts the Findings with respect to the alternatives to the
-3-
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
"I
191
all
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
project, as set forth in the document entitled "Statement of Facts and Findings,"
attached hereto a's Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
5. The Board of Supervisors finds that the unavoidable significant
environmental effects of the project have not been reduced to a level of
insignificance, as identified in the document entitled "Statement of Facts and
Findings," attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof, but have been
substantially lessened in their severity by the imposition of mitigation measures.
This Board finds that the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts of the project are
clearly outweighed by the social, public welfare and other benefits of the project,
as set forth in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations," attached hereto as
Exhibit C and made a part hereof.
6. This Board adopts the recitation of overriding considerations which
justify approval of the project notwithstanding certain unavoidable significant
environmental effects which cannot feasibly be substantially mitigated, as set
forth in the document entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," attached
hereto as Exhibit C.
7. This Board finds that the FEIR has identified the significant
environmental effects of the project, as set forth in the Findings attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
8. This Board finds that, although the FEIR identifies certain significant
environmental effects that may occur if the project is approved, all significant
effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been reduced to an
acceptable level by the imposition ofmitigation measures.
9. This Board finds that the project alternatives described in FEIR 477,
including the no -project alternatives, were rejected as infeasible, based upon
specific social, public welfare and other considerations, as set forth in the
document entitled "Statement of Facts and Findings," attached hereto as Exhibit A,
and the FEIR.
-4-
i
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board hereby directs EMA to return within six
months with the Circulation Phasing and Funding Program for the alternative
circulation improvements.
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY
OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
LINDA D. RUTH
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Orange, California
AYES: SUPERVISORS
NOES: SUPERVISORS
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, LINDA D. RUTH, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County,
California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the
28th day of February 1990, and passed by the above vote of said board members.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 28th day of
February 1990.
LINDA D. RUTH
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Orange, California
RA:mgPE01-255/0039/0020721395199 -5-
ATTACHMENT 2
BOARD RESOLUTION
For
Genera/ Plan Amendment
2
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 28, 1990
On the motion of Supervisor , duly seconded and carried,
the following Resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500 et seq., the
County of Orange has an adopted General Plan which meets all of the requirements of
State law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning Law of the State of
California, this Board has reviewed Transportation Element Amendment 1990-1 (T 90-1)
and Community Profile Amendment 1990-1 (CPA 90-1) for the University Drive
Deletion/Alternative Circulation Improvements project; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with State Law, a legally noticed public hearing
for said amendment and related items was held by the Orange County Planning
Commission on January 24, 1990; and
WHEREAS, EIR 477 was prepared for said proposed amendments and related
actions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors has
considered Final Environmental Imapet Report (FEIR) 477 and that the FEIR is
complete and adequately addresses the environmental effects, mitigation measures and
overriding considerations of the project. '
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that' the Board of Supervisors finds:
a. General Plan - The proposed actions are consistent with the
objectives, policies and general land uses and programs specified in
the General Plan, as amended.
b. General Welfare - The proposed actions will not result in conditions
or circumstances contrary to the public health and safety and the
-1-
u
general welfare.
1
c. CEQA - The approval of T 90-1 and CPA 90-1 is in compliance with the
2
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
3
d. Mitigation Monitoring - The monitoring requirements of Public
4
Resources Code Section,21081.6 (AB 3180) have been met in that a
5
Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been adopted.
6
7
8
9
10
12
-
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of Supervisors hereby
adopts Transportation Element Amendment 1990-1 and Community Profile Amendment
1990-1.
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY
OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
LINDA D. RUTH
Clerk Of The Board Of Supervisors
County Of Orange, California
AYES: SUPERVISORS
NOES: SUPERVISORS
ABSENT: SUPERVISORS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, LINDA D. RUTH, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County,
California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the
28th day of February, 1990, and passed by the above vote of said Board members.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 28th day of
February, 1990.
LINDA D. RUTH
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of County of Orange, California4B
RA:mgPE01-256/0039/0020722130921 -3-
ATTACHMENT 3
►.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY REPORT
DATE: January•24, 1990
TO: Orange County Planning Commission'
FROM: EMA/Transportation (Transportation Planning Division)
EMA/Planning (Environmental Planning Division)
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Transportation Element Amendment 1990-1 (TE 90-1)
(University Drive Deletion) and Community Profile Amendment 1990-1
(CPA 90-1)
LOCATION: Unincorporated County territory and the cities of Newport Beach and
Costa Mesa. South of John Wayne Airport and north of Upper Newport
Bay in central Orange County.
CONTACT PERSONS: Rich Adler, 834-2125
Harry Persaud, 834-3669
Marlene Brajdic, 834-4630
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
An amendment to the Transportation Element of the General Plan and a companion
Community Profile Amendment are proposed to delete the segment of University
Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road from the Master Plan of Arterial
Highways (MPAH) (Figure 1) and Community Profile 47 (North Newport Beach)
(Figure 2).
Deletion of the segment of University Drive will divert the future projected
traffic to alternative routes. The impact of this diverted traffic can be
accommodated by the following planned and proposed circulation improvements
(Figure 3):
o Completion of the north -to -east and west -to -south connecting ramps between
the Costa Mesa (55) and Corona del Mar (73) Freeways,
o Widening of Irvine Avenue between Bristol Street and University Drive.
o Improvements within the Bristol Street couplet area, including the addition
of travel and turn lanes. (Project mitigations)
These improvements will not change existing highway or freeway classifications
and, therefore, do not require amendments to the MPAH or the Community Profile.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The segment of University Drive proposed to be deleted was depicted on the
original MPAH, developed in 1956, and is presently classified as a conceptually
proposed primary arterial highway (four lane, divided) connecting Del Mar Avenue
in Costa Mesa with California Avenue in Irvine. It is also depicted on the
circulation plans for the cities it connects or passes through: Costa Mesa,
Newport Beach and Irvine.
jRLINGTON
I=P.
MASTER PLAN OF
ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS
M �L/levv)cv
0 ST
0y �
q IMPULARINO
9G
A
M
a
P
MICHELSON
P
9 ,
t
N
` UNIYERSIT%
c
UNIVER o� 9L 9`r�o�tir
.DRIVE v
DELE ON
2�T9 c�
, �9 ,
AV \\ 0 m cl
3 \ 2
FIGURE 1
COMMUNITY PROFILE 47
North Newport Beach •�•
N
t--•--- m - --' /IlsFli N. / a zzrl
a 5 /
.. bf STa
ARLINGTON P OR 4.1
' 5.2
OR1.4
1.5
1.5 3.2
1.4 3.2 1.3
1.5 1.5 2.11 1.4
I.5 NIVER tTY.�
DRIVE I oR
L DELETI N 4
1.5 L E y
A
F HS
LP L
3.2
'4.1
4.1
FIGURE 2
u
UNIVERSITY- DRIVE DELETION /
1
ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION
TY DF
ETION
IMPROVEMENTS
v
u
T
N
STREET COUPLET
,TION
CITY OF
0.
FIGURE 3
e"
EMA Report
Public Hearing on TE 90-1/CPA 90-1
Page 2
The proposed road provides an alternative east -west route in an area between the
San Diego Freeway and Pacific Coast Highway where east -west route options are
constrained by the physical barriers of John Wayne Airport and Upper Newport
Bay. Traffic projections indicate that, if built, the road would carry
approximately 27,000 vehicles per day around the northern end of Upper Newport
Bay. This volume of traffic is consistent with the road's designation as a
primary arterial highway. The traffic would have origins and destinations
primarily in the cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Irvine.
While the need for the road can be justified from a transportation planning
perspective, the ability to build it is precluded by several constraints,
including:
o State opposition - the road is located adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve (owned by the State and managed by the Department of Fish
and Game) and within the State -defined coastal zone (subject to the
jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission). Because of the road's
potential impacts on the ecological reserve, both Fish and Game and the
Coastal Commission strongly oppose its construction. In 1982, the Coastal
Commission, in approving the City of Newport Beach's Local Coastal Program
(LCP), required the City to delete the road from its LCP, essentially
precluding its construction.
o Regional Park restrictions - the road is located within the northern section
of the County's proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The road would
traverse a section of the proposed park for which an offer of dedication has
been made by The Irvine Company. A roadway is not a permitted use under the
terms of the offer. Therefore, retaining the road on the MPAH could
preclude the County's ability to accept the offer.
o Community opposition - owners of property adjacent to the proposed road have
been highly vocal in their opposition to its construction.
Because of constraints such as these, the Board of Supervisors directed ERA to
prepare an EIR addressing the impacts of deleting the road from the MPAH. In
conjunction with work on the EIR, a traffic study was prepared to identify where
the projected traffic diverted from a deleted University Drive would go and what
alternative circulation improvements might be needed as a result of the
deletion. The traffic study and Draft EIR were completed through a cooperative
effort involving the County and the cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and
Irvine. A technical advisory group of County and city staff met regularly and
provided invaluable support to the process.
The principal traffic diversion impacts of deleting University Drive occur in
the Bristol Street couplet area. Intersection deficiencies are projected to
occur even if University Drive were built. The deficiencies are projected to be
exacerbated by its deletion. As a result, improvements are proposed through the
addition of travel and turn lanes at the intersections of the couplet with
Campus Drive, Irvine Avenue and Birch Street (see Attachment 1). With'the
exception of the widening of Birch Street south of Bristol Street South (No. 5
on Attachment 1), the Bristol Street couplet improvements are necessitated
solely by the deletion of University Drive. Right-of-way will need to be
acquired for some of the Bristol Street couplet area improvements, including
airport property presently occupied by a vehicle maintenance building.
EMA Report
Public Hearing on TE 90-1/CPA 90-1
Page 3
Two other alternative circulation improvements, which mitigate the impacts of
deleting University Drive, are planned regardless of whether or not University
Drive is constructed. These are construction of the north -to -east and
west -to -south connectors between the 55 and 73 freeways and the widening of
Irvine Avenue between Bristol Street South and University Drive.
While funding sources are not currently identified for the alternative
circulation improvements (no funding source has ever been identified for the
construction of University Drive), it is recommended that, in conjunction with
deletion of the road, a circulation improvement phasing and funding program be
undertaken by the County to ensure timely construction of all of the alternative
circulation improvements and to determine the pro rata share of the cost of the
proposed improvements based upon the traffic contribution of the affected
jurisdictions.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Draft EIR 477 (Attachment 2) was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts
associated with the deletion from the MPAH of the segment of University Drive
between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road and the implementation of alternative
circulation improvements and is intended to serve as complete and adequate CEQA
documentation for the proposed Transportation Element Amendment and Community
Profile Amendment. Draft EIR 477 was circulated for public review in November
1989. All comments received and the responses to those comments are included in
this report as Attachment 3. Most comments were of a positive nature.
A Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Plan for EIR 477 has been prepared
in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. The purpose of the
program is to ensure that mitigation measures adopted as part of the
EIR will be effectively monitored. The program is included as part of the
attached Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 4).
NOTIFICATION/REFERRALS
A "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING" was placed in the January 14, 1990 edition of the
Orange Coast Daily Pilot. Also, the notice was mailed to interested community
organizations and individuals.
EMA Report
Public Hearing on TE 90-1/CPA 90-1
Page 4
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
1. Receive staff presentation.
2. Conduct public hearing.
3. Adopt resolution (Attachment 4) recommending that the Board of Supervisors:
a) certify Draft EIR 477 as complete and adequate CEQA documentation for
Transportation Element Amendment 1990-1 and Community Profile Amendment
1990-11 b) adopt Transportation Element Amendment 1990-1 and Community
Profile Amendment 1990-1 and c) direct EMA to initiate the circulation
improvement phasing and funding program for the alternative circulation
improvements.
Rob t Pet son, Manager T thy k. keely,AM4naSbr
Tra sportation Planning Division Environmen PlannAeDivision
Attachments:
1. Alternative Circulation Improvements
2. Draft EIR 477
3. Response to Comments
4. Planning Commission Resolution
RA/MB:sah/mhPE01-240/0019
0011111365287'
Attachment 1
ALTERNATIVE
1. Birch Street .8ridge Widening
Widen the east side of Birch Street north of Bristol Street North by 28
feet, and the east side of the Birch Street freeway bridge overcrossing by
28 feet. These widening improvements would provide additional travel lanes
and correct the existing lane alignment of the freeway bridge overcrossing
at Birch Street.
2. Campus Drive/Bristol Street North Intersection, Right -Turn Lane
Construct a free right -turn lane from Campus Drive southbound onto Bristol
Street North westbound. Overhead signage on Campus Drive will be required
to identify the free right -turn lane onto Bristol Street North.
3. Bristol Street South/Irvine Avenue
Construct an additional left -turn lane on Bristol Street South at Irvine
Avenue within the existing Bristol Street South right-of-way.
4. Bristol Street South/Birch Street Intersection
Add a left -turn only and a right -turn only lane from Bristol Street South
onto Birch Street. A 29-foot widening is required on the north side of
Bristol Street South between Campus Drive and Birch Street to accommodate
two left -turn, three through lanes and a fourth combination acceleration/
deceleration/turn lane with bike lane. This fourth lane will serve as an
ingress and egress lane for the commercial uses along Bristol Street South
between Irvine Avenue and Birch Street.
5. Birch Street Widening South of Bristol Street South
The alignment study prepared by the County of Orange and the City of Newport
Beach provides for a widening of Birch Street at the Bristol Street South
intersection in accordance with the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. This
improvement will be implemented in conjunction with the redevelopment of
Santa Ana Heights.
6. Bristol Street South Widening, East of Birch Street
A 7-foot widening on the north side of Bristol Street South, east of Birch
Street, to accommodate an additional eastbound through lane. The widening
would.extend approximately 800 feet east of the Birch Street/Bristol Street
South intersection to the point where Bristol Street South currently exists
at its full width.
7. Irvine Avenue Widening
A shared funding program shall be established between the City of
Newport Beach, the Orange County Airport, the County of Orange Environmental
Management Agency, and any other relevant agencies to ensure the timely
construction of this roadway improvement.
-1-
y-
8. SR-55/SR-73 Freeway Connectors
The County of Orange and the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and Irvine
shall work with Caltrans, the Orange County Transportation Commission and
the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency to develop a funding
pro¢ram and construction timeline for the implementation of SR-55/SR-73
not
con
AG:sah/rt
00118143
REVISED TEXT
For
E/R 477-
X
slight change. Little scientific evidence is available to support the use of
3 dBA as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations humans
are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in
a community noise situation the noise exposure is over a long time period, and
changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison
made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in
community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater
than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people.
The most significant change in noise levels will be along Del Mar Avenue between
Santa Ana and Irvine. Deletion of University Drive would result in a 3 dBA
decrease in noise levels in comparison to noise levels that would occur if
University Drive was connected. This area is all residential with very few
sound walls. Therefore, the maintenance of the lower noise levels that will
occur with the University Drive deletion should be reviewed as a beneficial
impact.
Two areas will experience increases of noise levels in the 1 to 3 dBA range with
the proposed project. Irvine Rouleuard Avenue between Del Mar and Bristol will
experience noise increases in the 1 to 1.4 dBA range. Similarly, Mesa Drive/
Birch Street from Santa Ana Avenue to Bristol Street will experience noise
levels in the 1.2 to 2.1 dBA range. Residences do exist in these areas,
although, most mueh of the Mesa Drive/Birch Street area is being redeveloped
with commercial uses. These eise mere.,.... are eensidered to be barely
level_ will ll pEebably net be di "- "' te te me -re_' demi -ent-____-__ •.else
en-vir-enment Additionally, the hnMg in- th-P Santa Ana Heights area will be
provided with additional upgEades through the Orange Gounty Alvereft Gaund
standard.
Other residential areas in the project vicinity will have noise increases that
will definitely not be discernible. These would include the residential areas
along Bristol Street, and those near the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) near the San
Diego Freeway (I-405) interchange. The traffic noise increases will be less
than 1 dBA in these areas, and will not be discernible to residents.
2.3 Traffic Noise Levels
Traffic volumes reported in the traffic study were used with FHBA Highway
Traffic Noise Model to project future noise levels with and without project.
The modeling results are reported in Tables 3 and 4 in the form of distances to
the 60, 65;'and 70 CNEL contours. 'Table 3 represents contour distances with
the project, and Table 4 without the project (with the University Drive
connection). These projections do not take into account any barriers or
topography that may reduce noise levels.
MGA
Table 15 (cont'd)
Bristol Street North
Santa Ana to Birch
0.3
0.3
Birch to Jamboree
0.9
0.9
Bristol Street South
Santa Ana to Birch
0.4
0.4
Birch to Jamboree
0.7
0.7
MacArthur Boulevard
Jamboree to University
0.4
0.4
University to Eastbluff
0.0
0.0
Irvine
University to Mesa
1.4
1.4
Mesa to Bristol
1.1
1.1
Mesa/Birch
Santa Ana to Irvine
1.2
0.9
Irvine to Bristol
2.1
2.1
Bristol to MacArthur
0.4
0.2
MacArthur to Von Kerman
0.6
0.6
In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are
often noticeable or identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA
generally will not be discernible. Those who are very sensitive to noise may
perceive a slight change even between 1 and 3 dBA. Under laboratory testing
conditions, of course, changes of less than 1 dBA remain detectable to the
people being tested. On a long-term basis, as in community noise evaluation,
changes in noise levels may not be in sharp contrast as in laboratory
conditions. Therefore, it appears appropriate to consider the level at which
changes in community noise levels become discernible to most people to be 3 dBA.
Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street will experience noise
increases in the 1 to 1.4 dBA range. Similarly, Mesa Drive/Birch Street, from
Santa Ana Avenue to Bristol Street, will experience traffic noise levels
measured in the 1.2 to 2.1 dBA range. Residences do exist in both of these
areas, although most PA" of the Mesa Drive/Birch Street area is being
redeveloped with commercial uses. Some residents in these two areas may
consider the increase in roadway noise levels significant.
-59-
struction near residential areas to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on
weekdays. Additionally, the following instructions should be issued to the
construction teams.
A. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated
within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as
practicable from residential dwellings.
Prior to the implementation of street improvement plans, the EMA shall
monitor existing noise levels in residentially zoned areas along: 1)
Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street, 2) Mesa
Drive/Birch Street between Santa Ana Avenue and Hirer Bristol Street South,
and 3) Bristol Street between Newport Boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue.
Final mint...«,n pEegFafas shall be eampleted based on f4aal ..t..-w3etiep
impvevemeats and detailed ell pFejeetiens for then aveae Final street
t plans snail proviae attenuation measures (e.g.
ected to be exposed to traffic noise in excess c
3.4.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Short-term noise impacts associated with roadway construction will occur but are
not regarded as significant after mitigation. Under future conditions, ambient
noise levels are forecast to exceed 65 dBA in three residential areas with or
without the project. Although project diverted traffic would contribute only
slightly to increased noise levels, some residents may regard any increase in
noise levels as significant.
MB:fcPE01-244/0045 -64-
0020107145045
IMPACTS
ACOUSTIC
Project construction activity
may result in short-term
acoustical impacts to adjacent
residences and commercial
establishments.
MITIGATION MEASURES
A detailed list of mitigation
measures is provided in
Section 3.4.3. These measures
include:
Construction activities near
residential areas should be
limited per the Orange County
Noise Ordinance. This
essentially will limit con-
struction near residential
areas to daytime hours (7 a.m.
to 7 p.m.) on weekdays.
Construction equipment shall
be equipped with properly
operating and maintained
mufflers. Vehicle staging
areas should be located away
from residential dwellings.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
IMPACTS
Under future conditions,
ambient noise levels are
forecast to exceed 65 dBA in
three residential areas with
or without the project. The
project diverted traffic would
contribute less than 3 dBA to
increased noise levels in
these areas.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Prior to implementation of
street improvement plans, the
EMA shall monitor existing
noise levels in residentially
zoned areas along Irvine
Avenue between University
Drive and Bristol Street, Mesa
Drive/Birch Street between
Santa Ana Avenue and Bir-eh
South Bristol Street, and
Bristol Street between Newport
Boulevard and Santa Ana
Avenue. Final nitigatien
based on i 1 l
noise prrojeetiens feE these
aeeas. Final street imorove-
ment Dlans shall nrnvi2
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Although project diverted
traffic would contribute only
slightly to increased noise
levels, some residents may
regard any increase in noise
levels as significant.
IMPACTS
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project provides a
beneficial impact to known
cultural resources in the area
of the University Drive
extension.
No historical or cultural
resources are known to exist
adjacent to the Bristol Street
couplet or Irvine Avenue in
the areas where project -
related circulation improve-
ments are proposed.
MB:jnPE01-252
0020614043686
MITIGATION MEASURES
None are required.
Project grading shall cease if
the presence of archaeological
resources is evident. A
qualified archaeologist shall
examine any artifacts and all
subsequent actions shall be in
accordance with the provisions
of Appendix K of the
California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Beneficial project impact.
Mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Y' � _.
Y
slight change. Little scientific evidence is available to support the use of
3 dBA as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations humans
are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in
a community noise situation the noise exposure is over a long time period, and
changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison
made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in
community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater
than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people.
The most significant change in noise levels will be along Del Mar Avenue between
Santa Ana and Irvine. Deletion of University Drive would result in a 3 dBA
decrease in noise levels in comparison to noise levels that would occur if
University Drive was connected. This area is all residential with very few
sound walls. Therefore, the maintenance of the lower noise levels that will
occur with the University Drive deletion should be reviewed as a beneficial
impact.
Two areas will experience increases of noise levels in the 1 to 3 dBA range with
the proposed project. Irvine Boulevard Avenue between Del Mar and Bristol will
experience noise increases in the 1 to 1.4 dBA range. Similarly, Mesa Drive/ -
Birch Street from Santa Ana Avenue to Bristol Street will experience noise
levels in the 1.2 to 2.1 dBA range. Residences do exist in these areas,
although, most meek of the Mesa Drive/Birch Street area is being redeveloped
with commercial uses. The , ism iner....se are eensidle-redd to he- b.._.`,
other residential areas in the project vicinity will have noise increases that
will definitely not be discernible. These would include the residential areas
along Bristol Street, and those near the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) near the San
Diego Freeway (I-405) interchange. The traffic noise increases will be less
than 1 dBA in these areas, and will not be discernible to residents.
2.3 Traffic Noise Levels
Traffic volumes reported in the traffic study were used with FHWA Highway
Traffic Noise Model to project future noise levels with and without project.
The modeling results are reported in Tables 3 and 4 in the form of distances to
the 60, 65;'and 70 CNEL contours. Table 3 represents contour distances with
the project, and Table 4 without the project (with the University Drive
connection). These projections do not take into account any barriers or
topography that may reduce noise levels.
MGA
E
Table 15 (cont'd)
Bristol Street North
Santa Ana to Birch
0.3
0.3
Birch to Jamboree
0.9
0.9
Bristol Street South
Santa Ana to Birch
0.4
0.4
Birch to Jamboree
0.7
0.7
MacArthur Boulevard
Jamboree to University
0.4
0.4
University to Eastbluff
0.0
0.0
Irvine
University to Mesa
1.4
1.4
Mesa to Bristol
1.1
1.1
Mesa/Birch
Santa Ana to Irvine
1.2
0.9
Irvine to Bristol
2.1
2.1
Bristol to MacArthur
0.4
0.2
MacArthur to Von Karman
0.6
0.6
In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are
often noticeable or identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA
generally will not be discernible. Those who are very sensitive to noise may
perceive a slight change even between 1 and 3 dBA. Under laboratory testing
conditions, of course, changes of less than 1 dBA remain detectable to the
people being tested. On a long-term basis, as in community noise evaluation,
changes in noise levels may not be in sharp contrast as in laboratory
conditions. Therefore, it appears appropriate to consider the level at which
changes in community noise levels become discernible to most people to be 3 dBA.
Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street will experience noise
increases in the 1 to 1.4 dBA range. Similarly, Mesa Drive/Birch Street, from
Santa Ana Avenue to Bristol Street, will experience traffic noise levels
measured in the 1.2 to 2.1 dBA range. Residences do exist in both of these
areas, although most waeb of the Mesa-Drive/Birch Street area is being
redeveloped with commercial uses. Some residents in these two areas may
consider the increase in roadway noise levels significant.
-59-
struction near residential areas to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on
weekdays. Additionally, the following instructions should be issued to the
construction teams.
A. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated
within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
B. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as
practicable from residential dwellings.
Prior to the implementation of street improvement plans, the EMA shall
monitor existing noise levels in residentially zoned areas along: 1)
Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street, 2) Mesa
Drive/Birch Street between Santa Ana Avenue and HiFeh Bristol Street South,
and 3) Bristol Street between Newport Boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue.
Final-iti-ati_n programs _hall be eemal_t_d based en final _i-_.OA ti
An
impEevements and detailed alas ejeetiens for these areei% Final street
3.4.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Short-term noise impacts associated with roadway construction will occur but are
not regarded as significant after mitigation. Under future conditions, ambient
noise levels are forecast to exceed 65 dBA in three residential areas with or
without the project. Although project diverted traffic would contribute only
slightly to increased noise levels, some residents may regard any increase in
noise levels as significant.
MB:fcPE01-244/0045 -64-
0020107145045
IMPACTS
ACOUSTIC RNVIRONMERr
Project construction activity
may result in short-term
acoustical impacts to adjacent
residences and 'commercial
establishments.
MITIGATION MEASURES
A detailed list of mitigation
measures is provided in
Section 3.4.3. These measures
include:
Construction activities near
residential areas should be
limited per the Orange County
Noise Ordinance. This
essentially will limit con-
struction near residential
areas to daytime hours (7 a.m.
to 7 p.m.) on weekdays.
Construction equipment shall
be equipped with properly
operating and maintained
mufflers. Vehicle staging
areas should be located away
from residential dwellings.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
IMPACTS
Under future conditions,
ambient noise levels are
forecast to exceed 65 dBA in
three residential areas with
or without the project. The
project diverted traffic would
contribute less than 3 dBA to
increased noise levels in
these areas.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Prior to implementation of
street improvement plans, the
EMA shall monitor existing
noise levels in residentially
zoned areas along Irvine
Avenue between University
Drive and Bristol Street, Mesa
Drive/Birch Street between
Santa Ana Avenue and Bi:seh
South Bristol Street, and
Bristol Street between Newport
Boulevard and Santa Ana
Avenue. Final -itiontiA
areas, Final street imnrove-
F]
to
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Although project diverted
traffic would contribute only
slightly to increased noise
levels, some residents may
regard any increase in noise
levels as significant.
IMPACTS
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project provides a
beneficial impact to known
cultural resources in the area
of the University Drive
extension.
No historical or cultural
resources are known to exist
adjacent to the Bristol Street
couplet or Irvine Avenue in
the areas where project -
related circulation improve-
ments are proposed.
MB:jnPE01-252
0020614043686
MITIGATION MEASURES
None are required.
Project grading shall cease if
the presence of archaeological
resources is evident. A
qualified archaeologist shall
examine any artifacts and all
subsequent actions shall be in
accordance with the provisions
of Appendix R of the
California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Beneficial project impact.
Mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
ATTACHMENT 4
RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
RE: Transportation Element Amendment 1990-1, Community Profile
ana Draftn vers ty Drive Delet9
RES. NO. 90-2
DATE OF ADOPTION:
Jann�T 19 90
On the motion of Commissioner Moody, duly seconded and carried the following
Resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500 et. seq.,
the County of Orange has an adopted General Plan which meets all of the
requirements of State law; and
WHEREAS, in conformance with State Law and the Orange County Zoning
Code, a legally noticed public hearing was held•by the Orange County Planning
Commission on January 24, 1990 for Transportation Element Amendment 1990-1
(T 90-1), Community Profile Amendment 90-1 (CPA 90-1) and Draft EIR 477 for the
deletion of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road from the
Master Plan of Arterial Highways of the Transportation Element.
WHEREAS, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq.), the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Administrative Code Sections 15000 et. seq) and the
County's environmental analysis procedures, Draft EIR 477 has been prepared to
address the potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project.
NOV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission has
reviewed Draft EIR 477 and finds that it is complete and adequate and addresses
all potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project and meets
all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and recommends
certification by the Board of Supervisors.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Commission finds:
a. General Plan - The proposed actions are consistent with the
objectives, policies and general land uses and program specified in
the General Plan.
b. CEQA - The approval of T 90-1, CPA 90-1 and Draft EIR 477 are in
compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
c. General Welfare - The proposed actions will not result in
conditions or circumstances contrary to the public health and
safety and the general welfare.
d. Mitigation Monitoring - The Planning Commission finds that the
monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6
(AB 3180) will be considered as having been met in that a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been prepared and is
contained herein as Exhibit A.
-1-
F oz50-151
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Planning Commission
hereby approves and recommends Board of Supervisors' adoption of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan contained herein as Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Planning Commission
hereby approves and recommends Board of Supervisors' adoption of Transportation
Element Amendment 1990-1, and Community Profile Amendment 1990-1 for the
deletion of University Drive and related improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Planning Commission
hereby recommends that the Board direct the Environmental Management Agency to
initiate the circulation improvements phasing and funding program for the
alternative circulation improvements identified in Draft EIR 477.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 90-2 was adopted on
January 24, 1990 by the Orange County Planning Commission by the following vote:
AYES: Moody, Slates, Wooden, Nordeck
NOES: Leavenworth
�! •
Joan S. Golding, Executive 0
Orange County Planning Commission
MB:fc/jcPE01-263 -2-
0021415482184
.,r
Final
Environmental Impact Report
SCH # 88031607
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION/
ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
prepared for
COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
JANUARY 1990
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #477
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION/ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
SCH #88031607
Prepared by:
PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK
18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine, California 92714
Contact person: Sid Lindmark, AICP
(714) 261-8820.
Prepared for:
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Environmental Management Agency
Environmental Planning Division
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
Contact Person: Marlene Brajdic
(714) 8344630
January 1990
4
A. INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report contains the comments received on the Draft
FIR #477 University Drive Deletion/Alternative Circulation Improvements, and the
responses to the comments by the Lead Agency, which is the County of Orange. The
Draft EIR was circulated by the State Clearinghouse for a 45 day public review period
from November 17, 1989 to January 2, 1990. All written and verbal comments received
on the Draft EIR are included herein.
For each written comment letter, the specific comments are indexed and correspond to
the numbered Response to Comments.
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR
Letter
Index Correspondence
1 State of California Office of Planning and
Research
2
A.B.C.O.M./Rita Jones
3
Printemps & Kaufman, Attorneys at Law
4
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
5
City of Costa Mesa/Development Service
6
Thomas T. Tierney
7
Friends of Newport Bay/Frank Robinson
8
John Wayne Airport/George Rebella
9
City of Irvine
10
County of Orange Harbors, Beaches and Parks
Verbal Comments
D-=
O1/02/90
O1/08/90
11/27/89
11/30/89
01/08/90
12/27/89
12/28/89
O1/12/90
01/10/90
L
1
STATt OF CAWCONIA-4WFIC[ Of tefE COWANCR
GCORGE DtURME1IAN, Cew«
4
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
140 TENTH
SACACRAMFNTO. CA CA 13e14
Marlene Brajdic
Coi7nty of Orange
12 Civic Center Plaza/P.O.Box 404
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
January 2, 1989
Subject T Unviersity Drive Deletion/Alternative Circulation Improvements,SCHf 88031607
Dear Ms.9rajdiet
The state Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document ewto
selected state agsneiss for review. The review period is Closed and none o£
the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have ..
complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for dragt
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environseatal quality Act. _
Please call Garrett Ashley at (916) 443-0613 if you have any •Ausgtions
regarding the environmental review process. When Contacting the Clearinghouse
in this nattert please use the sight digit State Clearinghouse number so that
we nay respond promptly.
�Sincerely.
David C- Bmankamp
Deputy Director, Perait Assistance
REOEIVED
JAN 04 So
EMA
Z
-C .. . . . . . . . . .
2=1 S.W. Cypress St.
Santa Ana Hts., CA 92707
8 January 90
Timothy S. Neely, Manager
E.M.A., Environmental Planning Division
County of orange
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 02702-4048
RE: Draft E.I.R. for University Drive Deletion Altematfve Circulation Improvements.
Dear Mr. Neely:
The A.B.C.O.M. committee and its members have reviewed the Draft E.I.R.?
number 477. "University Drive DeletiorVAfternative Ctrrxrlation Improvements". We
thoroughly approve of the "Deletion" and the "Aftemative Circulation" presented In the I
draft.
Sinoerely, +
Rita Jones \.
A.B.C.O.M. Executive Committee
Rogeers
Dan Mille
Rita Jones
Alice Rodriguez
oa. Thomas F. Riley, Supervlsor, County of Orange
Rich Adler, Senior Planner, County of Orange
3
EDWIN r?JNTEMPs
NANCV 1cAU1MAN
November 27, 1989
Timothy S. Neely,
EMP/Environmental
County of orange
P.O.Sox 4048
Printemps & Kaufman
Attorneys at Law
Manager
Planning Division
NOV 2 91989
ORANGE
ENVIRCN IENTAL 4 SpMA
PIiCJECTS a
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
RE: Draft SIR 477z University Drive Deletion
Dear Mr. Neely:
(714) 013•8077
The Back Bay Community Association has reviewed Draft` 3 !
SIR 477 and feels that it adequately addresses the impacts
of the proposed deletion of University Drive.
on a substantive level, we feel that the slight incre
in traffic and noise at certain Santa Ana Heights
intersections will be trivial in relation to the total
noise and traffic situation, and insignificant in relation
to the major environmental disruption that would be
caused by the originally proposed extension of University
Drive.
tie ura_e the Board to accept the SIR and to delete
university Drive from the MPAH.
?;X/plm
' Yours very truly,
7'
n
on beh if of
back Bay Community Association
RECEIVED
NOV 29$89
217 NORTH MAIN SMET • ATRrUM SUnZ LLao a iANTA ANA. CALROR141A • 1=14M EMA
4
y4,t1IET�q�,�
COSTAMESA
November 29, 1989
Mr. Tim Neely, Manager
EMA/Environmental Planning Division
County of Orange
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
RE: UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION
DRAFT EIR 477
Dear Mr. Neely:
DISTRICT
DIRECTORS
Jim" A. Wahnmr, Frn4ant
Ones O. Crank, V" Pr"dant
RaWrt Manion, baoragry
Nary S. Omn
- -- F,rrymrn
RECEIVED
OkV° COWY EW
prv!!?WJI "TAi* d SPECME
P4ar-Crs
The Sanitary District is in receipt of.the Draft EIR and has
reviewed the sections pertaining to sanitary sewer.
The existing conditions, planned improvementsand impacts on
i
sewer lines are adequately stated on pages 74 75 of the Draft q —1
EIR.
If you have any additional questions, please call me at 714/631-
1731.
Sinprely.
Alta
It
obin B. Namers
District Engineer
RBN/Jp/eir477
cc. Bob Brock
Flo Reichle
RECEIVED
NOV 30 to
EMA
P. 0. box law. coirrA MSSA. CALIFORNIA 521128-1=51977 FAIR DRIVE •(714I 7E/i71=
CITY OF COSTA MESA
CALIFORNIA 12626.1200 P.O. 60X 1200
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT .
January e, 1990
Marlene Brajdic
County of Orange - EMA
Environmental and special Projects Division
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
REa UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION/
ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATjQN IMPROVEMENTS DRAFT EIR
Dear Ms. Brajdic:
Due to changes in our Transportation Services Staff, comments onI
the University Drive Draft EIR come to you after the noticed public
review period. I apologize for the delay but feel this letter is 5-(
still important since the City of Costa Mesa is listed as a�
"responsible agency".
The City of Costa Mesa met with your agency and environmental
consultant over the past year to discuss the impacts of this
project. The Draft EIR adequately discusses the impacts and puts
forth satisfactory mitigation measures. With regard to mitigation :•Z
t8 on page 36 and 2 on page 64, the City is interested in the
details of their implementation. Would it be possible to obtain I
a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Final SIR after)
adoption and certification by the County of Orange?
s
If the County downgrades University
secondary roadway, the City of Costa
a similar amendment to its Master Plan
this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
KRISTEN A. CASPERS
Associate Planner
KAC:j1(MB.RAC)
cc: William Morris,
Public Services Director
Costa Mesa
Drive from a primary to a�
Mesa will then proceed with S'3
of Highways. Thank you for
PBR
15012 Sky
Irvine, CA
ATTN: Bid
Park Circle
92714
Lindmark
61u1An6 Div n (714) 7M•6626
77 FAIR OAP4
Cam DftmMeno www" Ut~ (714176"Wu
0 PWnft Db4bn (11417M.04.
TEL No.714-834-4772
VNrAoTECH
T E A N A T I O N A L. I N C.
December 27, 1989
Mr. Timothy S. Neely, Manager
EMA/ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION
County of Orange
P,O. box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
Jan 4.90 11:52 N0.008 P.02
RE: Draft EIR 477: University Drive Deletion
Dear Mr, Neely,
2832 Dow Avanuo
Tustin. CsIdofroe 92680 U.S A.
(714) 832.9700 Telex. 277714
Cable VITATECH
TeleFAx' (714) 731.5482
I an a resident of Mesa Drive, Santa Ana Heights.
This to confirm my full .support for deletion of University
Drive from the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
This action will particularly benefit County Biological
Resources (3.6) and enhance County Parks and.Recreation (3.9)
assets. The sensitive ecology of the Back Bay needs to be b „'
stabilized and protected from recuring pollution, noise and
trauma associated with vehicular movement. This is even more
a mandate now with increasing flights from John Wayne Airport.
Additional tons of vented raw jet fuel and toxic exhaust vapors
will increasingly damage the natural eco-system. Surface
vehicle mitigation is in order.
Circulation improvement strategies which include addition
of arterial capacity to Campus Avenue and Birch Street are
supported. I recommend alignment at Mesa Drive and Birch
street be planned in such a way that a clearly defined I
residential traffic edrridor be accomplished.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important
matter.
Sincerely,
om Tay
241 Mesa Drive
Sa a Ana Heights, CA 92707
TTT/ocr
%;; A
on %Wts and Narorsnvulos
FRIENDS OF NEWPORT BAY
D,O.BOX 20ti1
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 22663
,,euer,:,er 26 r 13
89
'Pimoth'i �• tIC-Olyf
LMA/ErIvi rorimental
coul.t; of orange
p O lie:. 4048
7
manager
planning DSviSiOti
Santa A:1a, CA 92702-4048
ECEIVED
DEC 291999
ORANGE MUM EMA
ENVIROW"TAL 6 MCUIL
Mason
-^,iBjv,CT: Draft EIR 477: University Drive deletion/
A1t.,rllative Circulation Improvements
Dear air: 7
board of di.reCtOrs of Friends of iiewportBelY (FO: B) hAS
deked lue t:. review Draft Zin 477.77. FOrs he.s _=pported for canny
vaers the deletion of University Drive .e::tenciou from the County 7-1
+,3stc�r plan of Arteric.l ylgtlwrys- Draft EIR 477 is very compre-
;,ansive• The staff should ae commended for a thorough and pro-
teer.ional analysis; -
The project history (1.2 parje 2) is ev.tremely brief coexteerinc;
t:ne c:oviplexitiess and lonu.; history of Ulsivers;ity Drive extension.
I Y:c.'uld like to include some facts concerning its history end
hope that they will be included in the Sinal EIR-
FitU,7:SC",.' t1:ti7'h1:Y
ltl I356, the extensiots of University Drive across the northern
slope of Uppor Newport Day wan added to tho orange County Master
21ars of arterial ai911wsys• This was an intrinsic part of a plan
for the commercial and residential development of upper Newport
Bay by The Irvine Corepany. :he plan required an el:c:hange of
comity tidelands for uplands owned by The Irvine Company- -Cot'-'
aidereble o;)po3ition by the publi.a to the exchanges devclOPcd-
In 1973, the Fourth District Court oi':.ppeal ruled that the -pro-
posed exchange of tidelands was unconatitutional thereby ending
any i+o�sibility of massive re-alijnment and development of the
1.ay. 'I'rs 1979, with 'the concurrence of the U. S. oepartnent of
the Interior, both houses of our state logislaturo, the County
of Oran+;e, the city or 2aewport Beach and The Irvine Co.ipanyr
of Or ngleNew,oth Bay y Of N the states largeat ecological reserve.
N_anwhile., in 19'/2, detailed plans for University Drive exten-
ai.on were shown to the Newport Peach City Council. The plates
showed a :;i::-lane divided highway ff
lion -A road was 'shownrthein �toctra-
7'Z-
the baYl and ill sours places, the p ---
verse part of what is now the ecological reserve- RECEIVED
DEC 28 10
RIM
` (2) Draft EIR 477 - Friends of Newport Bay
Those of us who were helping to establish the reserve saw the
presence of a major highway along and into an ecological reserve
as a major incompatible use of the land and water. Since the re-
serve is a wetland of prime importance in California, a search
for an alternative to University Drive extension began.
In 1982, the California Coastal Commission approved the Newport 7rZ„
Beach Local Coastal Plan (LCP) only after the city council re-
moved University Drive extension. The commission was convinced
that an alternative route was feasible (the alternative analyzed
in Draft EIR 477).
On June 3, 1986, the Orange County Board of Supervisors directed
the EMA staff to study the University Drive extension and feasible
alternatives. The staff also was directed to contact, the city
councils of Irvine, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach
for their inputs. The city councils, after consultations with
their staffs, took the following actions
City council vote
Irvine 5-0 to delete University Drive
Costa Mesa 5-0 to delete University Drive
Newport Beach 6-1 to delete University Drive
Huntington Beach No action since the project
would not impact city.
The staff report dated January 6, 1987, found that the alternative
to University Drive extension could be built for the same amount
of money as University Drive extension. See the last page of en-
closed report dated January 6, 1987. The investigation found
that the improvements needed to complete the interchange of SR 73
and SR 5b have been on the state's master plan for many years but
never were completed because of higher priorities. Similarly,
the widening of SR 73 to 6 lanes, likewise, is planned. The cost
of University Drive extension, or the cost of the alternate, was
estimated to be about $12,000000.00.
in September, 1987, tie Board of Supervisors directed the LAMA
to prepare the EIR for the deletion of University Drive extension.
SUMMARY
This section of Draft EIR 477 does not provide a good overview
of its -findings. it is stated many times in this EIR that no
funding is available for the alternative design, but it is also 73
true that no funding is available for University Drive extension,
a fact not made clear. Since the January 6, 1987, report revealed
that the cost of University Drive extension and the alternate are
approximately the same $12,000,000), the alternative should be
adopted to protect Upper Newport Say Ecological Reserve.
Ve y tr ly s,,
V.
Fza on
cc: Supervisor Thomas Miley
SPON
1
01Urq 'Y OF C> aANG►F
JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT
atal ANIWAT AVE
01" NO K•101
COSTA 1AtU4 CA SAW
January 12, •1990
MOM A. REvEl1A
AMVORT MANAGER
NYIftv
Ph,?W?Ss"
Ms. Marlene Bro iic, Start Planner
EMA, Environmental and Special Projects Division
County of Orange
P.O. Boo 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Sub3tCt! University Drive Deletion/Alternative Circulation improvement DEIR,
Dear Marlene:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment On the.Dratt EIR. The Airport has
some concerns about the Bristol Street couplet and the Irvine Avenue gf�
right-of-way acquisitions sections. The project impacts land use, impacts the
airport as a public service. and impacts the golf course, a public
recreational -facility.
The report states that the project will require the removal of the Airport
Maintenance Building and some parking. This is an unacceptable project
impact. John Wayne Airport has already given up right-of-waymo
on th s corner.
Furthermore, the Airport is currently giving up a substantial aunt of
additional right-of-way and paying for the videnin9 of Gmpus Drive. The
Airport cannot give up any additional property without impacting its operation
and level of service. A reduction in the amount of land available for Airport $-Z
services is not in conformance with the Airport Master and General Aviation
Master Plans.. Airport property is governed by FAA airspace and setback
regulations and restrictions which prohibit construction of building on most
of the airport. Airport property can only be used to benefit the airport.
Additionally, the Airport has been surrounded by development and freeways
which preclude the airports ability to mitigate the impact of right-of-way
acquisitions by acquiring additional adjacent property.
CAR: CaC:ln
08871
Ks. mas4r,,e BrojII#.
January 12, 1990
Page 2
The EIR needs to address several of the Airport's concern. It needs to
discuss the operational and economic impacts to the airport crated by having
to relocate the Maintenance Building and the associated parking area. This
includes the impacts caused by displacing other existing or proposed airport
commercial or support buildings or functions in order to accomplish this .
relocation, and the costs associated with demolition and reconstruction
including the replacement value of the land and lost revenue due to
displacement of other facilities.
83
J
In regards to the,MA
Irvt.no Avenue. right-of-way acquisitions, the plan discussed I
In the DURs pots beyond the impacts identified in the J/Santa Ana Heights
Master Plan and EIR 508. The proposed area of widening is wider than
anticipated and appears to impact more property then previously envisioned.
The Airport has already given up right-of-way along the golf course*
contributed to the funding of several bridge widening projects along Irvine
Avenue, and is widening the SR73 bridge and the intersections of Bristol
Street North/South and Campus Drive/Irvine Avenue.
The EIR needs to address the operational and economic impacts associated with
the proposed widening on the golf course and its parking tot. An engineering $�S
study should be conducted to determine it a narrower cross-stction is possible
which might reduce project impacts. --�
In addition to these issues, revenue sources which.are proposed to pay for and q (,
mitigate the project and the impacts of right-of-way acquisition. need to be
addressed.
If I can be of any further assistance to you on this matter please feet free
to call me or Chris Caliendo of my staff at 755-6525.
Sincerely#
,- a�.-
George A. Rebell*
Airport Manager
GAR:C8C:1n
08871
OF 14�
U
City of Irvine One Civic Center Plaza. P.O. Sax N575, Irvine. Cal fornia 92713 (714) 724.6000
January 10, 1990
Mr. Richard M. Adler
county of Orange
Environmental Management Agency
Environmental and Special Projects Division
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Dear Mr. Adler:
City of Irvine staff has reviewed the University Drive
Deletion/Alternative Circulation Improvements Draft Environmettal
Impact Report (SC #88031607) and has the following comments
GENERAL:
1. The document throughout should capitalize "City" when
referring to City of Irvine, City of Newport Beach, and
capitalize "County" when referring to county of Orange, and
"The" when referring to The Irvine Company. _!
2. The EIR should also address the following issues which have
not been included in section 3.0, nor in the Table of
Contents as an environmental condition: natural resources, g-Z.
aesthetics, and earth resources. These issues should all be
separately addressed in the EIR as other topics under i
section 3.0. _J
3. Are there any statyements of overriding Considerations/Fact f 3
and Findings that need to be included in this project?
J
4. The document should avoid the use of the term "missing" when 1u
referring to the unconstructed BR-55/SR-73 connectors. page 9�7
23, bottom paragraph is one example.
S. P. I. ascend paragraph: "The County of Orange is the load q r
agency for the preparation of ! environmental....." �,
needs to be added to the sentence.
6. P. 9t Under 2.1 it discusses roads that may be impacted by�
the deletion, but does not cite which ones they are. It 9.(p
would be appropriate to state what roadways these are under
this section.
Mr. Richard M. Adler
January 10, 1990
Page 2
P. 9t Under '2.2 it states that the project has been
expanded'to include the probable consequences of deleting
University Drive over the Bay as planned in the MPAH. This 9-7
should be reworded because as part of the planning process
you always look at the consequences of a decision, you would not expand a project to include such analysis. _ I
jiest naraq�p� "The need for these recommended
improvements, which are part of the project description, are 14
based on tjjg traffic forecast analysis that evaluated future
(year 2010) traffic...."
7. P. 14: The first paragraph concludes that no .significant
impacts are anticipated to the MPAH by the deletion of this
roadway with the recommended improvements to the surrounding
circulation system. This sounds as if the recommended
improvements will be built. But, as stated in the text,
there are several constraints to those improvements being-9
constructed. This paragraph needs to add the following
words: "No significant impacts to the MPAH are anticipated
as a result of this roadway deletion given the recommended
improvements to the surrounding circulation system are
constructed." The underlined words should be added.
S. P. 26: The document states no implementation plan exists now
7
for the widening of Irvine Avenue and goes on to may later
on page 24 that as parcels are redeveloped by a landowner,
the landowner gives to the County a portion for right-of-way �.rp
requirements of Irvine Avenue. It sounds as if this process
is not systematic. Could that not be a recommendation of
this project that a formalized policy/process be developed
and implemented for Irvine Avenue since this project relies
upon Irvine Avenue being widened?
9. P_ 24, Table S: Why do the ICU/I+OSs for "Without Extension"
increase above "With Extension" for the following
intersections: Mac&2;ihur and Campus, Von Xarman and Campus,
Jamboree and Birch, MacArthur and Jamboree, Campus and 4
Bristol N., Birch and Bristol N., Campus and Bristol S.,
Birch and Bristol S., Jamboree and Bristol N., Bayview and
Bristol S.$ Jamboree and Bristol S., Irvine and Mesa?
In -fact, the only roadway that is significantly improved is
Irvine and University, if University Drive was to beJ
extended.
.10. The second paragraph states that all area
improvements have been included in the traffic analysis. j
Will all these improvements coincide with one another? A '
table should bs included referencing when the various
improvements the traffic study has assumed in the modeling
effort will occur. If this has already been included in the
traffic study, it should also be included here in the BIR's�
traffic/ circulation discussion.
Mr. Richard M. dler
January 10, 1990
Page 3
21. P_ 11: Tl%e text discusses intersection improvements as not
feasible due to "physical constraints." The discussion ,�-13
should include what physical constraints make the
improvements not feasible.vi
12. 46: Under Ambient Air Quality change in the second to,
last line "short -tarn" to short -I
13. P. 47: ozone is identified as a major pollutant in the
ambient air quality for state and nationwide, yet fails to 9.6
be identified under local air quality impacts, ozone as anJ
impact.
24. P. 49: Tables 11 and 12 note the air quality impactsa
attributable to diverted traffic, but provide no comparison /-16
of emission byproducts against similar roadways/arterials.
Table 12: how can the CO one -hour concentrations not
increase significantly under the Bristol Street
South/without University Drive scenario, given that Bristol q-�%
Street will be carrying more traffic and more congestion
will result should other improvements not be made.
The analysis should examine Bristol Street with the various
improvements shown: Irvine Avenue and SR-73/SR-55 Freeway
interchange, for example.
15. P. 50: If Bristol Street, South is designed to accommodate
higher traffic volumes, and although it's being widened, the Q
ICUs are still poor, not really changing from the existing 9 'j
conditions, how can the ppm only increase by 0.2ppm?.- J
If the one -hour standard is exceeded by a small amount each
time, does not it follow that the eight -hour may be
exceeded. Furthermore, the one -hour standard may not be .24
exceeded, but the,pight-hour can be? Now is the eight -hour.
standard arrived at, how is it computed given the one -hour I
standard? !
16. P. 51: Under Construe ion -Related Exhaust Emissions change ,i9.21
"If can be... to," to "It can be... tJ
Secorid paragraph states that the proposed project would
reduce future CO concentrations. This is misleading since
the proposed project consists of deleting University Drive I
and making other roadway improvements which will increase
concentrations., I r
Under rugjttiivg Dust emissions it states that for every acre
of Sand, 1.2 tons of dust is generated. Now many acres will ;
the proposed road widenings involve, and therefore, how many
tons? Additionally, what it is the expected cumulative 9-Z3
construction time for the various roadway improvements?
This information should all be provided in this section of J
the EIR.
Mr. Richard M. Adler
January 10, 1990
Page 4
Tables 11 and 12 note the air quality impacts attributabler, t�
to diverted traffic, but provide no comparison of emission.
Table 13 discusses distances in "meters" --this should be i
revised to foot for comparison with Tables 11 and 12 which 7.ZS
use "feet." additionally: __(
o Table 13 is also confusing; how is it to be used?�l
comparisons should be drawn between Tables 11, 12, 9-24
and 13 for the reader to understand their
information.
o How can existing ppm be higher under existing
conditions than for No SR-55/SR-73 connectors/no 9-2%
University Drive, when there will be more ADT_J
trying to get on roads with less capacity.
o Does the SR-55/SR-73 heading assume all other j!
improvements except University Drive? J
o A cumulative analysis should also be done for this "l
project for the regional area. 9- 2g
' J
17. P. 52; Under 3.33, delete the underlined portion ,of_071
"Specific measures which may be appropriate include.".1-30
These are mitigation measures to. off -set potential adversa�
impacts; they should not be written as to be optional.
la. P. 53: what does "periodic sprinkling" refer to? How olten7l
is "periodic": hourly, every 4 hours, every lour days? V31
This measure should be written to be enforceable. J
19. P. 57& The second paragraph under Construction Activities,�7.
second line from the bottom of the paragraph, should have
"should" changed to "shall" and "will" to "would."
20. P. 38, Table 151 since these CNELs are based upon the
traffic study, the ADT should be represented in the table '33
for quick and easy ,reference.
21. P. 63: Under 3.4.3, the mitigation measures shouldn't be 9-
"proposed," but "are" the mitigation measures. .MJ
22. P. 66s The standard county archaeology condition should be
included as a mitigation measure requiring an archaeologist
on -site during grading operations. This measure should come
for mitigation measure #1 since that one says grading 9.35
operations will cease if resources are evident, and the
archaeologist will examine artifacts. ShouidnIt the
archaeologist be on -site so the project can keep moving
should the artifact not be of significance? __�
Mr. Richard M. Adler
January 10, 1990
Page 5
23. P. 72: Will vegetation removed by the widening be replaced? 71
If sot at what ratio? This information should be included f7z
in the EIR.
24. P. 75: Will any public utility services be interrupted
during construction? If sot the new/relocated utilities
should be installed prior to beginning of widening projects,
as requested by the Santa Ana Heights Water Co. O
Furthermore, on page 77 the EIR states that due to /� 3
circulation improvements some public utilities will have to
be removed and/or relocated. Thus, a mitigation measure
should be provided in the document. ��JJ
25. p_],s On the top of the page it says that noise levels may
be increased due to an increase in traffic. This isn't
totally correct; noise levels may or may not increase with 2d
additional traffic if congestion continues, and thus the 7-
speed of traffic remains the same despite roadway
improvements. This clarification should be provided in the
text.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, or if you
need additional information, please give Jennifer Regan a call at
724-63651 or Ruben Santana at 725-7354.
Sincerely,
,e. ,' f �
WILLIAM M. HUB
City Enginser
WMB:SL:rh/ruben
ner
cc: Dan Nattras, Phiil;ps Brandt Reddiek, 18022 Sky Park Circle,
Irvine CA 92714
Joe Foust, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., 2450 North Tustin
Avenue, Suite 108, Santa Ana, CA 92701
Marlene Brajdie, OCEMA
Shirley Land, Principal Transportation Analyst, City
of -Irvine
Ruben M. Santana, Senior Transportation Analyst, City
of Irvine
Jennifer Regan, Assistant Planner, City of Irvine
C. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
1-1 The Office of Planning and Research acknowledgement that the lead agency
has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements is noted. No
additional response is necessary.
2-1 Support for the project is noted.
3-1 Comments that the DEIR adequately addresses potential project impacts
are noted.
3-2 The comments balancing environmental disruption versus slight increases
in traffic and noise due to the project are noted. As indicated in the Draft
EIR, the incremental increase in noise and traffic volumes as a result of
the project would be slight in relation to the overall noise and traffic in the
area. Page 90 of the Draft EIR indicates that the environmental impacts
associated with constructing the University Drive extension are higher than
those associated with the. proposed project.
3-3 Support for the project is noted.
4-1 The comment that the DEIR adequately addresses potential project impacts
on the Costa Mesa Sanitary District is noted.
5-1 The comment is introductory and responses to this letter's comments are
provided below.
5-2 Comments that the Draft EIR provides an adequate environmental analysis
and appropriate mitigation measures are noted. A mitigation monitoring
program for the project will be adopted by the County of Orange EMA
and available as a part of the public record.
5-3 Comments are noted. No response is necessary.
6-1 Support for the project and its beneficial impact on biological resources is
noted. The projeces beneficial impacts on the biological resources of the
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve are discussed in Section 3.9 of the
Draft EIR. By improving traffic flow, the recommended traffic mitigation
will also lower concentrated emission levels.
6-2 The Mesa Drive realignment is a separate project, subject to an
independent environmental review process. The specific design of this
roadway alignment as recently approved by the City of Newport Beach and
the County of Orange is intended to separate residential and business park
traffic.
7-1 Support for the project is noted. We appreciate your commendation of the
Draft EIR.
7-2 Sectidn 1.2, Project History, of the Draft EIR adequately describes the
background of the project for the purposes of the Draft EIR. The material
presented in the comment letter provides useful information and is
incorporated into the Final EIR as referenced.
7-3 Section 1.3, Summary of Impacts, briefly identifies the potential significant
project impacts, mitigation measures and level of significance after
mitigation as required by CEQA Section 15123.
The Draft EIR states that no funding program has been established for
construction of the SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors; not. as quoted,"the
alternative design." Although the construction of these freeway connectors
is not regarded as a part of this project, the freeway connectors are
considered a major component of the regional circulation system and critical
to maintaining acceptable future traffic flow on the surrounding roadway
network. Costs of constructing the "extra" circulation improvements required
on the roadway network if the SR-73/SR-55 freeway connectors were not
completed are provided on page 34 of the Draft EIR. The quoted cost
estimates for the construction of the University Drive extension versus 'the
recommended alternative circulation improvements is from 1987 data and
would need to be updated.
8-1 The comments are noted. As indicated in Section 3.1.2 of the Draft EIR,
the alternative circulation improvements proposed as a result of the
University Drive deletion will result in right-of-way acquisitions affecting
John Wayne Airport property and causing the removal of an airport
maintenance building. Only in this sense does the project impact the
airport.
Right-of-way acquisitions along Irvine Avenue, which affect the public' golf
course facility, are- a result of the planned reclassification of Irvine Avenue•
to a modified major arterial as shown on the Orange County Master Plan
of Arterial Highways. This roadway reclassification has occurred as a result
of the County's adoption of the Master Plan for John Wayne Airport and
the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. The deletion of University Drive
confirms the need to implement this roadway reclassification.
8-2 Opposition to the project is noted. It is recognized that relocation of the
airport maintenance building impacted by the recommended circulation
improvements may be difficult since it may have to be located on or close
to -the airport facility. However; project implementation requires that
additional vehicle capacity (for airport and area traffic) at Campus
Drive and Bristol Street North be provided. Therefore, the proposed
additional capacity from the additional free right -turn lane also benefits the
airport.
The County of Orange will work with John Wayne Airport staff and attempt
to accommodate the needs of John Wayne Airport by developing a
prioritized phasing plan for the recommended circulation improvements
which does not require the immediate removal of the airport maintenance
building.
8-3 See Response 8-2. The County will develop a priority phasing plan for the
project's recommended circulation improvements which will attempt to
minuet a impacts on the airport facility where feasible. The County is
committed to minimizing airport revenue loss as a result of relocation of
the airport maintenance building. The Draft EIR properly identified the
impact of a specific mitigation measure (the right -turn lane improvements
impact on the vehicle maintenance building). However, as stated in Section
14131 of the CEQA Guidelines, a detailed assessment of a project's
economic impacts is not required to be provided in an EIR, and the
economic effects of a project "shall not be treated as a significant
environmental impact".
84 As stated on page 16 of the DEIR, the reclassification of Irvine Avenue on.
the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways has occurred primarily
as a result bf the adoption of the John Wayne Airport Master Plan and
the Santa Heights Specific Plan (DEIR 508/508A). No additional widening
of this roadway is required as a result of the University Drive deletion.
Exhibits 6a-c and 9a-c in the Draft EIR identify the conceptual cross
sections of the planned reclassification of Irvine Avenue to a modified
major arterial as shown on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. As
stated in section 3.1.3 of the Draft EIR, the County of Orange or the City
of Newport Beach shall follow approved guidelines for right-of-way
acquisition. Previous right-of-way dedications and contributions to
surrounding circulation improvements by John Wayne Airport are
acknowledged.
8-5 As stated on page 28 of the Draft EIR, several ongoing projects in the area
have contributed 'to the planned reclassification of Irvine Avenue to a
modified major arterial as shown on the MPAH. The deletion of University
Drive will not require additional widening of this facility beyond the
planned modified major classification. Therefore, the widening of Irvine
Avenue occurs as a separate project, subject to independent environmental
assessment and review.
The Draft EIR does point out that the deletion of University Drive will
contribute to the need for the timely construction of the planned Irvine
Avenue widening. Section 3.2.3 of the Draft EIR recommends that a
circulation improvement phasing and funding program be completed by
Orange County EMA Transportation Planning Division for all circulation
improvements. Austin -Foust Associates evaluated the plans for the
4
proposed crosssection for Irvine Avenue and concluded that a narrower
section may not be sufficient for the projected traffic volumes and turning
movements in the area.
8-6 As noted in Section 3.2.3 of the Draft EIR, "a circulation improvement
phasing and funding program shall be completed by EMA Transportation
Planning Division to ensure the timely construction of all circulation
improvements." As stated, the funding program will identify potential
revenue sources and pro rata cost contributions.
9-1 Comments are noted. This change is a matter of style, of no substantial
relevance and is not incorporated into the Draft EIR.
9-2 As stated on page 1 of the Draft EIR, the EIR focuses upon areas of
potentially significant environmental effects as identified by the County of
Orange in their "Environmental Analysis Checklist". This checklist and
attached explanation of anticipated significant environmental effects is
provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Additionally, as indicated on
page 2 of the Draft EIR, the EIR's overall contents and scope reflects the
input from and discussion with the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa
and Irvine, which along with the County, participaed in a technical advisory
group for the project. John Wayne Airport and Caltrans staff were also
regularly advised and consulted during the development of the EIR.
9-3 A Statement of Overriding Considerations and Facts and Findings for the
project will be considered by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in
their review of the project. Section 1.3, Summary of Impacts, indicates
which impacts are not mitigated to a level of insignificance by the
recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations may be required for land use impacts, traffic impacts and
acoustical impacts.
9-4 Page 10 of the Draft EIR discusses the plans and status of the SR-55/SR-
73 freeway connectors. The connectors are "missing" in the sense that they
are planned, but not constructed.
9-5 Due to the scope and complexity of the project, the Draft EIR has provided
an extensive description of the project's characteristics, components and
impacts to facilitate public review of the document. It is recognized that
there may be isolated typographical errors which occur and that a few
sentences may be slightly: enhanced with the minimal modifications
recommended. However, unless the sentence does not convey the correct
meaning or intent in its relevant context, modification is unnecessary.
Further, the City of Irvine's request to modify this sentence does not
address the adequacy of the Draft EIR's description of the project's existing
conditions, impacts or recommended mitigation measures and will not
provide new meaning or information to the document. No modification is
warranted.
5
9-6 Section 2.1 of the Draft EIR only provides a brief description of the
project's location and characteristics. Exhibits 6-9c and the entire traffic
analysis identify which roads are impacted. A specific analysis of the
project's potential impacts on surrounding roadways is provided in Section
3.2 of the Draft EIR. No changes to the text are required.
9-7 The comments are noted. Please see response 9-5.
9-8 Please see response 9-5.
9-9 Please see response 9-5. Both versions convey similar meanings.
9-10 Please see response 8-5. The implementation and potential funding sources
of all recommended circulation improvements will be addressed by the
circulation improvement phasing program described on page 35 of the Draft
EIR. Dedication of required right-of-way as adjacent development receives
approval is "systematic," as occurs in the City of Irvine or in the County.
9-11 As stated throughout the document, the extension of University Drive
represents an important east -west connector designed to accommodate
increased traffic flows associated with future regional growth. Deletion of
this planned University Drive segment will consequently result in the
redistribution of traffic flows and affect the intersections as referenced.
However, Table 5 of the Draft EIR identifies the Intersection Capacity
Utilization and Level of Service (ICU/LOS) for the affected intersections
prior to the recommended mitigation for the project. Without mitigation,
ICU increases do occur. After mitigation, LOS impacts are reduced as
shown on Table 6 of the Draft EIR and do not change compared to the
no project alternatives.
9-12 Please see response 9-10. The timing of project related circulation
improvements will be addressed by the circulation improvement phasing
program described on page 35 of the Draft EIR. The traffic analysis for
post -project conditions with mitigation assumes all mitigations are
implemented.
9-13 Page 29 of the Draft EIR indicates that additional mitigation measures for
the intersections at Birch Street/Bristol Street North and Jamboree
Road/Bristol Street South are not feasible due to physical constraints.
These constraints include existing roadway widths, lane configurations and
'adjacent newly constructed buildings. Given the respective roadway
classifications, these intersections will be developed to provide the maximum
feasible operational capacity.
9-14 The typographical change is noted.
9-15 Local air quality impacts are projected using the CALINE4 computer model
developed by Caltrans. This model projects carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations which are considered appropriate indicators of local air
quality as impacted by roadways. As mentioned on page 42, all areas of
the South Coast Air Basin contribute to ozone levels experienced locally.
Ozone is not directly emitted, but is the result of chemical reactions of
other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide in the
presence of bright sunlight.
9-16 The purpose of Tables 11 and 12 is to compare CO emissions (the major
airport) with and without University Drive. Analysis for the two major
roads (University Drive and Bristol Street couplet) impacted by the project
is included.
9-17 As stated on page 51, ambient carbon monoxide levels are forecasted to
decrease under project conditions resulting in CO levels not significantly
higher than existing conditions.
9-18 The traffic volumes used for the air quality analysis provided for all future
roadway improvements included in the traffic analysis. In addition, as
discussed on page 51, the analysis evaluated carbon monoxide impacts
without the SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors and without University Drive
which is considered the worst -case scenario.
9-19 Although Bristol Street South will be designed to accommodate higher
traffic volumes, the paragraph referred to on page 50 explains that the
proposed transportation improvements will increase traffic flow, therefore
resulting in improved ICU and LOS figures and reducing localized CO
emissions. See response 9-17.
9-20 The eight -hour standard may or may not be consistent with a one -hour
standard, depending on local conditions. However, since the peak hour
usually carries a major proportion of daily traffic, usually the one -hour
standard is a "worse case' analysis of eight -hour condition. Six or more
hourly samples are required to project whether any eight -hour period
excedes the eight -hour standard.
9-21 See response 9-5.•
9-22 Please refer to response 9-19.
9-23 The comment ignores the sentence on page 51 which follows the fugitive
dust emission factor giving the approximate acreage (15.5) and estimated
fugitive dust emissions (18.2 tons). It also states the expected grading
period (1-2 months).
9.24 Tables it and 12 show the results of modeling which compares carbon
monoxide concentrations with and without University Drive which is a
comparison of emissions.
7
9-25 It is recognized that Tables 11 and 12 use feet for distance while Table 13
uses meters for distance (1 meter = 3.3 feet). However, either way is
acceptable for CAI.INE4 analysis and does not affect the result.
9-26 Table 13 simply represents the results of air quality analysis at four
additional intersections which were not shown in Tables 11 and 12. No
comparison of the three tables is necessary. The relevant comparison is to
the CO standard of 20 ppm.
9-27 Please refer to response 9-19.
9-28 Yes. As explained on pages 51 and 52 of the Draft EIR, the air quality
analysis completed for no SR-55/SR-73 connectors is provided to indicate
potential local air quality impacts should construction not occur. All other
recommended circulation improvements are assumed in this analysis.
9-29 The traffic and air quality analysis is regional in the sense of including
traffic from the region entering or leaving the project study area. No wider
"regional" analysis is appropriate. The traffic/air quality analysis is a
cumulative analysis.
9-30 Comments are noted. This line is hereby changed to read: "Specific
measures will be implemented as appropriate".
9-31 This mitigation measure is provided to minimise potential fugitive dust
impacts during grading activity in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403.
Periodic sprinkling of graded areas is the accepted method whereby fugitive
dust emissions are reduced. The specific duration of sprinkling events and
the number of times this exercise will be carried out during a particular day
is dependant upon local weather conditions (wind velocity etc.) and the
need for the project to meet SCAQMD standards. The County of Orange
EMA approves all grading plans which specify further requirements for
sprinkling.
9-32 The comments are noted and are hereby incorporated in the Final EIR.
9-33 Average daily traffic volumes are provided both on Exhibit 7 and in
Appendix B of the Draft EIR. Additionally, Appendix C provides the
technical noise study for the project and includes all the average daily traffic
and assumptions for each modeled location.
9-34 The mitigation measures provided in the Draft EIR are "recommended" or
"proposed" for County adoption as conditions of project approval.
9-35 As indicated in Section 35.2 of the Draft ER. project circulation
improvements are not expected to have any adverse impacts on historical
or cultural resources because they are not prevelant in the Bristol couplet
area. Project circulation improvements will occur in areas already highly
disturbed due to existing development, utility placement, etc. A survey of
Orange County records identify no known archaeological or historical
resources in the area. Only minimal grading is anticipated with the
proposed circulation improvements. No additional mitigation is required.
9-36 No significant impacts on biological resources occur by the mitigation
measures proposed along the Bristol couplet. To the extent landscaping will
be included in future street improvement plans, replacement will occur.
9-37 Coordination with the Santa Ana Heights Water Company will occur when
street improvemt plans are finalized and if widening of the Bristol couplet
occurs, construction improvements will be coordinated to prevent significant
interruptions of service. The section quoted from page 77 relates to the
impact of not having the SR-55/SR-73 connectors. The mitigation measures
proposed in Section 3.73 are sufficient for the project impacts identified in
Section 3.7.2. No additional mitigation measures are required.
9-38 The comments are noted. Traffic noise is both a function of traffic volume
and speed; isolating the analysis by assuming increased congestion and lower
speed only is of limited usefulness for noise analysis. No additional changes
in the text are required or proposed.
10-1 The County of Orange EMA, Environmental Planning Division, received
one verbal comment from the County of Orange EMA, Harbors, Beaches
and Parks, regarding the Draft EIR's description of the Irvine Company's
offer to dedicate land for park purposes surrounding Upper Newport Bay.
Section 3.9.1, paragraph 2 on page 80 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended
to read:
The University Drive extension route occurs in the vicinity of the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The lands immediately surrounding the
Reserve Area are designated for regional park uses on the Orange County
Master Plan of Regional Parks. Recently, the Irvine Company offered 114
acres to the County of Orange for the purpose of creating a county regional
park. The Irvine,Company's irrevocable offer of dedication was accepted.
for recordation purposes and recorded by the county on July 18, 1989. The
offer requires that offers of a conservation easement be recorded before
county takes title to the property. The easement offers are to be to the
City of Newport Beach, and the California Coastal Conservancy.
P
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION /
ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT SCH# 88031607
prepared for
COUNTY OF ORANGE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
prepared by
z *
NOVEMBER 1989
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION/ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH 188031607
Prepared by:
PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK
18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine, California 92714
Contact Person: Sid Lindmark, AICP
(714) 261-8820
Prepared for:
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Environmental Management Agency
Environmental and Special Projects Division
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
Contact Person: Marlene Brajdic
(714) 834-4630
November 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No. Title
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 PROJECT HISTORY
1.3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 LOCATION
2.2 CHARACTERISTICS
2.3 INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR
3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, IMPACTS,
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1 LAND USE
3.2 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
3.3 AIR QUALITY
3.4 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
3.8 HEALTH AND SAFETY
3.9 PARKS AND RECREATION
Page No.
1
2
3
9
9
11
12
12
19
38
54
65
67
73
78
80
4.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 83
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 85
5.1 NO PROJECT 85
5.2 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXTENSION 87
5.3 SOUTH SIDE WIDENING SCENARIO FOR BRISTOL STREET SOUTH 90
6.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 94
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Section No. Title
7.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT
OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES SHOULD
THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED
8.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED
10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
11.0 APPENDICES
A. Notice of Preparation and Responses
B. Transportation/Circulation Analysis
C. Acoustical Analysis
D. Air Quality Data
E. Miscellanous Correspondence
F. Cultural Resources
ii
Pale No,
95
97
99
101
LIST OF EXHIBITS
I
1
Following
Exhibit No
Title
Page No.
1
Regional Location
9
2
Project Vicinity
9
3
Surrounding Land Use/Bristol Street Couplet
12
4
Master Plan of Arterial Highways
13
5
Right-of-way Acquisitions
15
6a-c
Irvine Avenue Right -of -Way Acquisitions
16
7
2010 Traffic Volumes With and Without
University Drive
22
8
Bristol Street Couplet Improvements
26
9a-c
Irvine Avenue Improvements
26
10
Biological Resources
67
11
Proposed Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
80
12
Alternative 2 - South Side Right-of-way
90
Acquisitions
i i i
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Title
Page No.
1
Right-of-way Acquisitions (Bristol Street complex)
15
2
Right -of -Way Acquisitions (Irvine Avenue)
17
3
Existing Traffic Conditions
20
4
Traffic Diversion Summary
23
5
2010 Levels of Service With and Without
University Drive
24
6
2010 Levels of Service With and Without
Bristol Street Improvements
30
7
2010 Levels of Service With and Without SR-73
Freeway Connectors
33
8
Extra Mitigation Required Without SR-73 Connectors
34
9
Ambient Air Quality Summary
42
10
Daily Emissions Attributable to Diverted Traffic
45
11
CALINE4 Modeling Results for University Drive
49
12
CALINE4 Modeling Results for Bristol Street South
49
13
Maximum One -Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
(ppm) With Ambient Concentrations
51
14
Existing Traffic Noise Levels
56
15
Increase in CNEL With the Project
58
16
Future Traffic Noise Levels With Project
60
17
Future Traffic Noise Levels Without Project
61
18
Future Traffic Noise Levels Without SR-55/SR-73
Connectors Without University Drive
63
19
Sensitive Species Near Upper Newport Bay
69
20
Alternative 2 Right -of -Way Acquisitions
91
iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This focused environmental impact report (EIR) presents an assessment of
the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with the
proposed deletion of the University Drive extension between Irvine Avenue
and Jamboree Road from the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(MPAH). This report has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources
Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the State Guidelines for Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act 1970 as amended (California Admin-
istrative Code, Section 15000 et seq.), and Procedures, Objectives and Cri-
teria for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act 1970, as
amended, adopted by the county of Orange. The purpose of this EIR is:
1. To assess potential environmental impacts associated with the dele-
tion of the conceptually proposed University Drive extension from
the MPAH;
2. To assess impacts associated with specific circulation improve-
ments to surrounding roadways which are necessitated by the Uni-
versity Drive deletion; and,
3. To identify mitigation measures for potential impacts.
The county of Orange is the lead agency for the preparation of environmen-
tal documentation in compliance with CEQA. The cities of Newport Beach,
Costa Mesa and Irvine also are responsible agencies with respect to this
project. This EIR focuses upon areas of potentially significant environ-
mental impact as identified by the county of Orange in their "Environmen-
tal Analysis Checklist." These issues include:
Land Use
Transportation/Traffic Circulation
Air Quality
Acoustic Environment
Biological Resources
. Cultural Resources
. Public Services and Utilities
Health and Safety
Parks and Recreation
Natural systems impacts including topography, geology/soils, and hydro-
logy, were considered to be insignificant or absent altogether as a reflec-
tion of the urban setting of the study area and surrounding vicinity.
Because this project involves potential regional circulation impacts, the
cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and Irvine, as well as the John Wayne
Orange County Airport and Caltrans were regularly advised and consulted
during the development of this EIR. Regular meetings of public works and
planning staff from the County of Orange and the cities of Newport Beach,
Costa Mesa and Irvine were held to coordinate and review the preparation
of this EIR. The overall contents and scope of this EIR reflects the
Input and discussion at these meetings.
1.2 PROJECT HISTORY
University Drive was included on the original Orange County Master Plan of
Arterial Highways (MPAH) adopted in 1956. The uncompleted segment between
Irvine Avenue in Newport Beach and California Avenue in Irvine remains a
"conceptually proposed" primary arterial in that no definite alignment has
been selected. This segment has represented an important east -west link
in the MPAH system designed to accommodate increased traffic flows associa-
ted with future regional growth. Physical barriers, imposed by John Wayne
Airport to the north and the ecologically sensitive Upper Newport Bay to
the south, limit viable alternative east -west routes in this geographical
area.
In recent years, a major portion of the planned link, from Irvine Avenue
to Jamboree Road, has been the subject of controversy because of its loca-
tion adjacent to both the Santa Ana Heights community and the Upper New-
port Bay Ecological Reserve. In 1985, the Board of Supervisors did not
approve the Santa Ana Heights Local Coastal Program principally because it
included the planned University Drive extension. In 1982, the California
2
II
1
II
Coastal Commission analyzed the extension of University Drive in detail
and required the removal of the planned roadway extension from the City of
Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan.
In January 1987, the Orange County Board of Supervisors reviewed a study
which identified preliminary circulation impacts of deleting University
Drive from the MPAH. The study indicates that without the link, future
traffic volumes will be diverted onto 1) Bristol Street couplet, 2) Corona
del Mar Freeway (SR-73), and 3) Pacific Coast Highway, and that alterna-
tive circulation improvements would be required to alleviate volumes on
these roadways.
In July 1987, after discussions with the cities of Irvine, Newport Beach,
Costa Mesa, and the Santa Ana Heights community, the Board directed Orange
County's Environmental Management Agency to prepare an environmental
' impact report and transportation analysis for the deletion of University
Drive from the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
Although previous environmental documents have discussed the traffic -rela-
ted impacts of a University Drive/no University Drive scenario (Final EIR
508 John Wayne Airport and Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Pro-
gram and a supplement to EIR 508 for the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan
EEIR 508A]), none have specifically identified whether adjacent facilities
can accommodate increased volumes, or whether alternative improvements
need to be implemented. A new traffic analysis has been completed by
Austin -Foust Associates in association with this EIR to identify the spe-
cific circulation improvements required if University Drive is deleted.
1.3 SUMMARY
This section is presented as a brief guide to the conclusions reached as a
result of the environmental analyses performed for each distinct topical
area. A detailed description of environmental findings is provided in Sec-
tion 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEA-
SURES. Impacts that are noted in the Summary as "unavoidable adverse
impacts" after mitigation are significant effects in that they would
require the county of Orange to adopt statements of overriding considera-
tions, if the project is approved as proposed (CEQA Section 21081).
91
IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES
LAID USE
The project involves deletion of a
planned roadway from the Orange
County MPAH and alternative circula-
tion improvements. Right-of-way
acquisitions associated with the
alternative circulation improve-
ments will involve the loss of pri-
vately owned land, a John Wayne Air-
port maintenance building and park-
ing areas. Some landscaped areas
which are required by local zoning
ordinance will be affected.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The- deletion of the University
Drive extension' requires several
circulation improvements (addition-
al lanes, widenings, etc.) along
the Bristol Street couplet and con-
tributes to the need for implementa-
tion of the planned widening of
Irvine Avenue from Bristol Street
to University Drive.
Caltrans, the County of Orange and
the City of Newport Beach shall
approve street improvement plans
for the project and establish pre-
cise right-of-way and acquisition
requirements for the Bristol Street
couplet prior to implementation.
The County of Orange or the City of
Newport Beach shall follow state
guidelines for right-of-way acquisi-
tion.
Several circulation improvements
are recommended to mitigate the
impacts of deleting University
Drive. A detailed list of mitiga-
tion measures is provided in Sec-
tion 3.2.3. These measures include
improvements to the Bristol Street
couplet and the implementation of
the planned Irvine Avenue widening
and Mesa Drive widening. Concur-
rent with the completion of street
improvement plans, a circulation
improvement phasing and funding pro-
gram shall be completed by the EMA
Transportation Planning Division to
ensure the timely construction of
all circulation improvements. The
program shall identify agencies,
and jurisdictions responsible for
each circulation improvement.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Land use impacts are only partially
mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance. The loss of landscape set-
back areas where specifically
required by local zoning ordinance
may be regarded as a significant
impact.
Project impacts are not fully miti-
gated to a level of insignificance.
Some intersections will continue to
operate at unacceptable levels of
service. Due to physical con-
straints, it is not feasible to pro-
vide further improvements at these
intersections. Project traffic
impacts are considered significant
at Birch Street/Bristol Street
North, Jamboree- Road/Bristol Street
South, MacArthur Boulevard/Campus
Drive at MacArthur Boulevard/Jambo-
ree Road after mitigation.
07
LEVEL OF SKYW LANCE
KWACTS MRIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION
itg MITT
Short-term air quality impacts (con-
struction -related emmissions and
dost) could be troublesome to work -
We iul adjacent developments.
The contribution of project -diver-
ted traffic to local air quality is
insignificant. Alt medeTmd later -
sections are Within the state and
federal one -bur standards far
carbon amamm- do levels.
A detailed list of mitigation
measures is provided in Section
3.3.3 and includes the following:
Short-term construction -generated
dust and endssions shall be reduced
through efficient construction sche-
duling, by periodic watering at the
contraction site, and by copli-
ance with SCAM Rule e03. Con-
struction shall be discontinued dur-
ing second stage smog alerts.
The Canty Health Department shall
monitor the local air quality condi-
tions (Co emissions) adjacent to
the Bristol Street couplet for res-
tourants with outdoor dining areas.
Prior to approval of the street
Improvement plans, the department
shall also review the projections
for local emissions at these lo:a-
tioes. if customers are being
exposed to public hazard by expo-
sure to vehicular emissions while
dining, subsequent action shall be
taken by the County Health Depart-
ment.
The county or the City of Newport
Beach shall cooperate with the
appropriate traomit agencies to
awcomrs" the use of alternate
transportation modes by promoting
public trannsit usage and providing
secure bicycle facilities.
Mitigated to a level of insfgnifi-
cance.
Insignificant impact.
S M M M M M M M ' M M i♦ M
M M M M M M
M
0
IMPACTS
ACOOSTIC EWIROWWI
Project construction activity may
result in short-term acoustical
impacts to adjacent residences and
commercial establishments.
Under future conditions, ambient
noise levels are forecast to exceed
65 dBA in three residential areas
with or without the project. The
project diverted traffic would con-
tribute less than 3 dBA to increased
noise levels in these areas.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project provides a beneficial
impact to known cultural resources
in the area of the University nrive
extension.
No historical or cultural resources
are known to exist adjacent to the
Bristol Street couplet or Irvine
Avenue in the areas where project -
related circulation improvements
are proposed.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION
A detailed list of mitigation mea-
sures is provided in Section 3.4.3.-
These measures include:
Construction activities near resi-
dential areas should be limited per
the Orange County Noise Ordinance.
This essentially will limit con-
struction near residential areas to
daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) on
weekdays. Construction equipment
shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
Vehicle staging areas should be
located away from residential
dwellings.
Prior to implementation of street
improvement plans, the EMA shall
monitor existing noise levels in
residentially zoned areas along
Irvine Avenue between University
Drive and Bristol Street, Mesa
Drive between Santa Ana Avenue and
Birch Street, and Bristol Street
between Newport Boulevard and Santa
Ana Avenue. Final mitigation pro-
grams shall be completed based on
final circulation improvements and
detailed noise projections for
these areas.
None are required.
Project grading shall cease if the
presence of archaeological
resources is evident. A qualified
archaeologist shall examine any
artifacts and all subsequent
actions shall be in accordance with
the provisions of Appendix K of the
California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines.
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
Although project diverted traffic
would contribute only slightly to
increased noise levels, some resi-
dents may regard any increase in
noise levels as significant.
Beneficial project impact.
Mitigated to a level, of insignifi-
cance.
LEVEL OF SKNAF LANCE
IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES AFTER MITIGATION
The project provides a significant
beneficial impact to biologf;al re-
sources in the vicinity of the Upper
11"Of t Bay Ecological Reserve by
eliminating potential Impacts to
these resources Mid weld occur
in assocfation with the implementa-
tion of the Mrivevsity Drive extM-
sion. No adverse impact to bfoiogi-
cal resources is anticipated to
occur due to circulation improve-
ments along the Bristol Street coup-
let and Irvine Avenue.
Project -related circulation improve-
14 sent s will necessitate the removal
and relocation of several existing
public service and utility lines.
Now are required.
A detailed list of all mitigation
measures is provided in Section
3.7.3 and includes:
Prior to completion of street
improvement plans, a survey to
Identify the exact location of
existing utility facilities rill be
conducted and precautionary grading
and construction procedures rill be
established to avoid unnecessary
removal of lines and facilities.
Construction activities should be
coordinated by the Orange County
E1M Transportation Planning Divi-
sion with responsible city depart-
mmnts and utility companies to misi-
mize impacts associated with neces-
sary interngtions of service, as.
well as to complete the ►rape sed
fmprovements in the cost efficient,
expeditious manner possible.
Prior to roadway construction, the
Orange County Transit District
shall be consulted to coordinate
bus access routes. Through access
of smfficient width should be main-
tained throughout the duration of
the construction activities for pas-
sage of Orange County Transit Dis-
trict vehicles.
Beneficial project impact..
Mtigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
M M M M
IMPACTS
No hazardous material or contamina-
ted soil conditions are known to
occur in the vicinity of the pro-
ject proposed circulation improve-
ments; however, precautionary mea-
sures will be taken during the
removal process to ensure the
containment of any potentially haz
ardous substances encountered
during the removal and demolition
process.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The project provides significant
beneficial impacts to park and
recreational resources by avoiding
degradation to the Upper Newport
Bay Regional Park, which would
occur if the University Drive exten-
sion were to be implemented.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Following completion of street
improvement plans, onsite inspec-
tion should be conducted by the
Orange County Fire Department to
identify the presence of any poten-
tially hazardous material. Al re-
moval/demolition activities shall
conform to the requirements of the
Orange County Department of Health
and state regulations.
Subsurface soil testing shall be
required prior to excavation work
should the removal of underground
gas tank facilities be required.
Removal practices shall comply with
all permit and current code require-
ments.
No mitigation measures are
required.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigated to a level of insignifi-
cance.
Beneficial project impact.
' 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
' The planned segment of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree
Road in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, is located both in the city
of Newport Beach and unincorporated county territory, south of John Wayne
Airport and north of Upper Newport Bay in central coastal Orange County
(Exhibit 1). This proposed link connects an existing section of Del Mar
' Avenue in the city of Costa Mesa with a proposed section of University
Drive North in the city of Irvine (Exhibit 2). Roads that may be impacted
' due to the deletion of University Drive from the MPAH are located in unin-
corporated county territory and the three cities of Newport Beach, Costa
' Mesa, and Irvine.
2.2 CHARACTERISTICS
The project consists of the deletion of the unconstructed University Drive
' link between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road as currently designated in
the county of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Since the
project, in its simplest form, is the deletion of a proposed future road-
way, the project characteristics are expanded to include the probable con-
sequences of the deletion of the roadway segment from the MPAH. The pri-
mary result of deletion of the roadway is the diversion of future traffic
volumes forecast for the "project link" to alternative roadways. There-
fore, the project characteristics are expanded to evaluate the circulation
improvements required to accommodate the additional traffic flows onto the
surrounding roadways as a result of the proposed roadway deletion. How-
ever, notwithstanding the University Drive deletion, a number of circula-
tion improvements are planned in the project vicinity to accommodate
traffic volumes associated with future growth and general plan buildout
' conditions. This document recognizes these planned improvements and quan-
tifies the additional increment of improvements necessary if the extension
of University Drive is deleted from the MPAH. These "project -related"
' improvements include specific lane additions and intersection widenings
along the Bristol Street couplet, and the implementation of master trans-
portation planned widenings along segments of Irvine Avenue.
9
r
i
�..
Ilk
J + d
<n<. \
a.r<X
PROJECT -SITE
Ye+cx ua+ 1
/
<n[.
f �
.X c.Ylfln+x0 . •�
fA.
CL[Y[Xr
Regional Location.
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DF--kETj t0N•
' ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION -IMPROVEMENTS
Ire
EXHIBIT 1
�fJ
PROPOSED
ss ': CITY OF NEWPOR
IYY�
NNECTOR, r:: /
N,
....: .' �' tip• � •
LETION
m! [t
41•l .
BRISTOL STREET COUPLET IMPROVEMENT LOCATION
IRVINE AVENUE IMPROVEMENT LOCATION
MPAH PLANNED UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXTENSION
' Project Vicinity
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION
ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION -IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF IRVINE
M ..
EXHIBIT 2
I
The need for these recommended improvements, which are part of the project
description, are based on traffic forecast analysis that evaluates future
(year 2010) traffic conditions assuming the construction of the north to
east/west to south SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors.
The construction of these connectors is considered a major component of
the regional circulation system and critical to maintaining acceptable
future traffic flows on the roadway network in the project area. However,
because no funding sources have been identified for the construction of
these freeway connectors, Caltrans has not included them in any near -term
implementation program. Therefore, to respond to the potential future
traffic scenario without the SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors, a traffic
analysis has been completed to evaluate the year 2010 conditions without
the SR-55/SR-73 connectors and without University Drive. Although the com-
pletion of these freeway connectors is not regarded as a part of this pro-
ject, the analysis serves to indicate the magnitude of impacts without
their implementation, and the need to establish a funding program to
ensure their timely construction.
Within each topical subsection evaluated in Section 3.0 EXISTING CONDI-
TIONS, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES, this document provides an analy-
sis of project impacts as well as a discussion of the impacts associated
without the SR-55/SP,-73 freeway connectors. However, it must be empha-
sized that the construction of these connectors is a separate project and
the connectors are needed with or without deletion of the University Drive
segment.
A full description of all recommended project circulation improvements is
included in Section 3.2 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
10
2.3 INTENDED USES Of THIS EIR
This focused EIR is prepared for and will be used by the county of Orange,
as the lead agency and the cities of Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Irvine
as responsible agencies, in their review and consideration of the proposed
deletion of the University Drive extension as depicted on the Orange
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the cities' respective
circulation elements. The EIR will provide environmental information to a
number of agencies and cities which may have an interest in the project's
environmental effects. These agencies and cities and their probable inter-
est in the project are:
A enc
County of Orange
South Coast Air Quality Management
District
Orange County Transit District
City of Costa Mesa
City of Irvine
City of Newport Beach
Interest
Lead agency, implementation
of county Master Plan of Arter-
ial Highways (MPAH), traffic/
circulation, noise, air quality
and park and recreation impacts.
Impacts to John Wayne Airport.
Long-term cumulative pollutant
emissions, mitigation measures,
and compliance with applicable
SCAQMD rules and regulations.
Planning for future bus stops.
Traffic/circulation, noise and
air quality impacts. Modifi-
cation of existing circulation
el-ement.
Traffic/circulation, noise and
air quality impacts. Modifi-
cation of existing circulation
element.
Traffic/circulation, noise,
air quality impacts. Cultural,
biological and parks and
recreation impacts in the
Upper Newport Bay. Modifica-
tion of existing circulation
element.
F
t
' 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Environmental concerns identified by the county of Orange, impacts result-
ing from implementation of the project, and recommended mitigation mea-
sures are discussed in the following subsection.
H
I
In addition, a separate subheading, SR-55/SR-73 Freeway Connectors, is pro-
vided in the impacts section of each topical analysis to discuss the poten-
tial impacts and required mitigation measures for future conditions with
deletion of University Drive, without the SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors.
3.1 LAND USE
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
As previously noted, the planned University Drive extension route between
California Drive in Irvine and Irvine Avenue in Newport Beach, extends
along vacant land immediately north of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve and immediately south of existing homes in the Santa Ana Heights
community. Recently, 114 acres of land surrounding the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve including lands along the proposed extension route, was
dedicated by the Irvine Company to the County of Orange for the purpose of
creating a large regional park. Section 3.9 PARKS AND RECREATION provides
a detailed discussion of this issue.
In addition to the proposed University Drive deletion, the project descrip-
tion includes a number of specific circulation improvements to segments of
the Bristol Street couplet and acknowledges the need to widen Irvine Ave-
nue from Bristol Street to University Drive to its full modified major
designation as indicated on the MPAH. Surrounding land uses along these
roadway segments include commercial, office, residential and some parcels
of vacant land. Exhibit 3 indicates land uses in the vicinity of the Bris-
tol Street couplet. Land uses surrounding Irvine Avenue are noted on Exhi-
bits 6a-c in the following impacts section.
12
• ` i� R • �i,. f r jy � ,\\ r '•jf o 13 ,t \y "i
4 LSs3D Y
�' ♦ `.l•' Bl.
y � - � �Olr �1��• }4 'w 1��� t
Sys S� rl • �; .w .. 55 �•. '1�p Yf
''+' •f J -tu Sx� rr- jiCy lrfiYiJ_ ett� �r ae v }V�'', �mw!A.'�r' }
� a,.uy�,r t. � ,,j �'��:�W��.W,—ai771 .,� � • +.a a� a. A. _I S..C' ?� 1 :
tt. lu I
�:• • 1 �':. irry"�t"s�i J•rs .•., t It iyGy?iL't �. n
_. _5•yty. _' •-•ter.... . �..
L
I
I
Relevant Plans
The Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) indicates
planned designations for existing and future roadways in the project area
(Exhibit 4). The University Drive extension is currently planned as a pri-
mary arterial on the MPAH. The Bristol Street couplet is designated as a
primary arterial between Santa Ana Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard on the
MPAH. The Corona Del Mar Freeway (SR-73) runs between the north and south
sides of the Bristol Street couplet in the project area and currently ends
at MacArthur Boulevard. Caltrans has planned the SR-73 as an eight -lane
facility, and this facility is shown to connect with the planned San Joa-
quin Hills Transportation Corridor on the MPAH.
The surrounding cities of Newport Beach, Irvine and Costa Mesa have also
identified a number of planned circulation improvements to the local circu-
lation system in response to growth projected in the area. Several of
these planned improvements occur in the vicinity of the Bristol couplet.
A list of planned circulation improvements in the project area is given in
Section 3.2 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Another major component of the regional circulation network is the comple-
tion of the SR-55/SR-73 north-to-east/west-to-south freeway connectors.
However, because a funding mechanism for the construction of these connec-
tors has not been established, Caltrans has not included them in any near -
term improvement plans. A traffic analysis was completed to determine the
impacts and mitigation required for future conditions without the SR-55/
SR-73 freeway connectors and without University Drive. A summary of the
land use impacts associated with this scenario is provided in the follow-
ing impacts section.
Additionally, the Orange County Master Plan of Regional Parks identifies
the land surrounding the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve as a planned
regional park. The implementation of a large-scale regional park in this
area has recently been made feasible through the July 1989 land dedication
by the Irvine Company to the County of Orange of 114 acres in. this area
for park purposes.
13
1
Orange County Master Plan Of Arterial Highways
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION/
ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
SOIRiCETRANSPORTATION PLANNING,
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
0• IOoo 16000
m%:� ..
EXHIBIT 4
I
LJ
I
3.1.2 Impacts
The deletion of the University Drive segment and the implementation of the
recommended Bristol Street couplet would necessitate revising the Master
Plan of Arterial Highways by deleting the extension as described. No sig-
nificant impacts to the MPAH are anticipated as a result of this roadway
deletion with the recommended improvements to the surrounding circulation
system.
In terms of land use compatibility, the proposed deletion of the planned
roadway extension is viewed as having a beneficial impact to the existing
and planned uses adjacent to the proposed extension route. As indicated
in Section 3.9 PARKS AND RECREATION, roadway development is not a permit-
ted use within the planned regional park area surrounding Upper Newport
Bay under terms of - the Irvine Company's offer of dedication agreement,
recently recorded by the county. The extension of University Drive,
therefore, represents an incompatible use within the park and could not be
constructed without amending the recorded land dedication agreement
between the County of Orange, City of Newport Beach, the California Coas-
tal Conservancy and the Irvine Company.
The deletion of the planned roadway would also eliminate any potential
future roadway noise and visual impacts to Santa Ana Heights residents
located immediately adjacent to the extension area.
In terms of alternative roadway improvements to accommodate future traffic
volumes without University Drive, the traffic analysis recommends specific
widenings and lane additions for the Bristol Street couplet area. Addi-
tionally, it is recognized that this project contributes to the need to
widen the existing Irvine Avenue from Bristol Street to University Drive
to its MPAH designation of a modified major arterial. Other area projects
which contribute to the need to widen this roadway are the John Wayne Air-
port expansion and the Santa Ana Heights Redevelopment plan.
Along the Bristol Street couplet, several lane and intersection improve-
ments are required to accommodate increased- future traffic volumes expec-
ted on this system specifically as a result of the University Drive dele-
14
tion. These improvements will require right -of -Way acquisition on the
north side of Bristol Street South, on the west side of Campus Drive at
Bristol Street North and some land acquisition on the east side of Birch
Street, north of Bristol Street North. Exhibit 8 in Section 3.2 TRANS-
PORTATION/CIRCULATION identifies the recommended street improvements for
the Bristol'Street couplet.
Exhibit 5 illustrates the approximate locations of the right-of-way acqui-
sitions along Bristol Street South and Birch Street. These acquisitions
will include land only, land and parking, and acquisition of one building
on the airport property adjacent to Campus Drive. Table 1 indicates those
properties affected by the acquisitions. To obtain a more accurate and
precise description of right-of-way acquisitions, street improvement plans
are required.
Table 1
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS
(For Bristol Street Couplet)
Parcel Name Impact
1 County Airport Maintenance Building Building and some
parking removed
2 Office complex under construction Loss of approxi-
mately 27 feet of
landscaping area
3 Nexus Corporate Plaza Loss of approxi-
mately 29 feet of
landscaping area
The loss of landscaping area for parcels 2 and 3 as noted above will signi-
ficantly reduce the required landscaped setback area required by the City
of Newport Beach under its Newport Place Planned Community "Special Land-
scaped Street" standards. Therefore, these two properties will become
legal, non -conforming structures.
Other areas of roadway widening will occur on the north side of Bristol
Street South and will involve a maximum of 29 feet of right-of-way acquisi-
tion at the project's widest point (between Irvine Avenue and Birch
15
�� iw,_�..<, �- tar $��x a s � IId'": '•-II � i [<:4 °a -a a 3 � a
�s21Ta Y•ipi.e?b""`;Yta �aaa �+^�
k
�g�
bS t'j `�
}Ix
«f,
�°
�p'�.,
.,+g�`$d .te ra J is „. ,
rY•
�
a:
"�,xaa^P
xt,nz,a as '�
�
.••••' '$
j Zl
iiIDs q Ff �'" g'
'� .� Y,. 4 +\ I .3v .. ...^. �� S di :` ��\ , :��� a "`��•'' .`�`4�:�` `a.aa� w : $ � �'m e T�.f
% Wp Qi x F P i` �+a `,. •Fi y »t\ Wbq .: e d
fixil
aITS,
Li..f tit
\-." xb`:\\a :t `,1::! .:1; x.: �.```la �;\a `a's.`-I._,•.n l.,,_,SM a; •<gg
4,4
wx{\
"WEl'� .t i ��?m` .a, �:'nn, "„ i".�p� `eta@,... "" ••.'um`^`-. `i_ ,,,: ,:.a, r'J«' ,. .`\..4'+e� h�\laaww�'•`m�s6 "wwx�„".rc,QaeB
a,.w< ., ,m. ..a .\-•°�..:'.Wxa�vax:,,�0.�xm « ., , � Y � y 6 .
...,.. °ea«a..,m .,, @aa „ w. C at w, @Edwl$, a. -!",a. a..w" .a`mw.` `"'x a„„ ..,.„. .'a "°..3 * a^+`�`«¢`...a�.a,.w\,.a"„"-„me •. .:..;«.�...>
Soutll Sla;eet,`�`° " .,,aro.q r`n'--aa'rsa<� -�`•� , . 1 a.-.
x� -as '"€ t:,P .w'F"S•a«.@sr `���Mm. a.
,. ,.., mrau`aw,`""°, � i F...a-cAw'" «««,.m....,.., .. ,.v wmww ,a ro`�< - ^'a�°:'< -a. a `x :. :.,: . »ai ... ,. .f... uaea..,,M,.a....a..,,., ... • ,
,. •aa bp-, b''^ ' .maa .,•uciaabro•.�xa\d�maii��._+ ,,,n.a«wm<a", ,. m.;...- o <• „ I
as<. Y• ,. �``a`u "fie N'ax °ah�\` �. s<. �: "..�� •. .\, � ��P. �i. „ ,` � � ,„e, \ «e•^ .�< '7 i y e•• a>` � Caa«we;;A�'n.'rv"",. i>"r ":w`.
a r ., A"a N.. ba4i�:•..4�" o "�r�. ,a -•; \: �x wxa. ,• a+";t �' °w9. ',i.a. a`n., ", a\-y`:> \.\ a,. �P. .3:.a<aaa,wy
ia, a ".s• ,. .. . �,".,.> � .,� " . 'dAT �. "S@p�ae7 � la's.«. Tt�' '�,-..aa,..- XXa � ., aaovs w a...wa..». .. ,may` `. 4 -"mow daa- `o`\� e "`a` " ' w;o.,�i. " . 6;`,\i\
i� wS 'a. �.:.•� � °`4�„°a ,' ,:,.a..r. . � a." V @r'a �:z a , .oaiy
t pppi ,
, ., Yi ,., a, ,. .., m\ "„a aua a,`„\•. <a., ,,,.. a„", , ^, ".C, ,. ^".^x`ro., , " a,,,,. .,. w \{` av0 ea.- ., g....w.,a,.wa<,s l\,.a aP- \, Va a, M,wq m.
,,, ... ♦ (( '{ pp rya` .., ram`@; k �„ `.,, ,ra ua `n..,.. mbbaam�h��. ,�' \',la„ a '• ,,,-., ,
' wawq `- .wmro..w, H, w�.@a 1 E S +.+«a°,.miy`�°a ay@,� b ,w � �^'o -.Ts >T<�ep-a�apxnr'Paayrorw i ,. � w N. �q•„S a,y. <. 'am'°`"�" . 'eN. .a "w_"
.
u`.ta ., �° a,c � �,g.,.,`.:� 'w�. ,g @ ��;,..,.."�r•��,. .� �4 a+A•m:J, s' moo:' .a flap ?'$� a d „� '�.a:.:. "'t. ...,.�.. ... ... @�. fi* t
�; <. � ` .P, � \ `�w`a'1t`.>.i�`� •E �`t°„aGa. 8 ia�a. 'z�"<v ^„a,, w,,.-, a. , a' w-"' x....".; _ `fie` �<
-.,,<..a` ...wa>.„ ."_ ,,....+.ar",- .. tP- - .. „�t'\ <'�„»C..ww.,`k`,``yt,�•°.z� 'a �`�?�.a»r +-^cw_y@. x a�,, ^'.. ,,.,x„
,.^ ... I...`�-^".-`«a°w..ert'F"t-.`@ns'�Fia«t-`•.. � -_. --` ate, ae .3w�a:±:$ a.M«.+sw•...: �\g..a.`4.a'. a� a+A.�.,..:" -
..,-.-.."..mraweavw-,^
Bristol Streem rth"
_.., a.,....„a-
� � . .� ..M.�°t;.,. '@ n....e . ," _ •^. .a•`;:: ahy,saic . .� $ - MY E T417-'j�$; '�4 3q t .�c„<- 'r r�y W, � Y.
w """� a.,.w S,�.wY _`��v. .�'' :.�• R♦ ��.� \j« # �i� ea'YF. � f. 'Ik ^ ..
`•`\,\ M1 � f xa 4
° ,.`d
'•ate
Bristol Steet Couplet Right -of -Way Acquisitions
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION/ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT
a a
SEE TABLE
t
FOR LEGEND
••
EXHIBIT 5
Street). This area of land on the north side of Bristol Street South con-
sists of flat terrain approximately 38 feet wide before it drops in eleva-
tion along a 2:1 Caltrans maintained slope, down to the SR-73 freeway.
The land in this area is mostly vacant with the exception of a few above-
ground public utility maintenance facilities and a Caltrans fence line.
Widening of Bristol Street South along this area will involve relocation
of the Caltrans fence line (north) by six feet and the removal and reloca-
tion of the above -ground public utility facilities (see Section 3.7 PUBLIC
SERVICES AND UTILITIES). Minimal grading is anticipated and no support
structures such as retaining walls along the adjacent slope will be neces-
sary.
At the time of this report the exact right-of-way delineation between
Caltrans and the City of Newport Beach on the north side of Bristol Street
South is unclear. However, both bodies have conducted a preliminary
review of the recommended Bristol Street couplet improvement plans and
have not indicated any major constraints to the roadway widening in this
area. A detailed review of circulation improvements and right-of-way
acquisitions recommended as part of this project will be conducted by all
responsible agencies upon completion of street improvement plans.
As discussed earlier, the widening of Irvine Avenue from Bristol Street to
University Drive to a six -lane facility (modified major arterial), as
shown on the MPAH, is recognized as a necessary improvement to accommodate
future traffic volumes from several contributing sources, including the
John Wayne Airport expansion, the Santa Ana Heights Redevelopment Project
and the deletion of University Drive. Currently no implementation plan
exists for widening Irvine Avenue.
As shown in Exhibits 6a-c, right-of-way acquisitions vary along the Irvine
Avenue segments. Exhibit 6a and 6b indicate that the majority of right-
of-way acquisition from Bristol Street to Mesa Drive occurs along the New-
port Beach Golf Course to accommodate a six -lane facility. Acquisition
along the golf course- is greater closer to Orchard Drive and narrows
approaching Mesa Drive. At the Irvine Avenue/Bristol Street intersection,
the right-of-way width is increased to provide for a 500-foot transition
lane on the east and west sides of the roadway. The widening on the east
S
Orchard Di q At
F.t ., _ E,T4r
y � � �� O-Y `l•=�S+L nh �1y`i`` m y� ' • 9ru7 a'�LL'��`1AE[a(--V...1at�i �....>s3< #=sc.~
PROPOSED R/W. (C
IR
GOLF COURSE y t'
+a � -n - '.:M�J:j `+;ire" •T :$ �i •-Y la-'s 't,;
rs Tor�0
— . —fir 1, .1
r
4-
a
Orchard Dr
mul
mm
ci
F yb
<... �\'R _ ;,a.s�'• ..+1..-� c _ e * ..a_— �_ .an.^"-."' �••^". IXISl7NG R/W
PROPOSFU
'�Nr - .:�-::l• Ks:;�'."- �.� .. g,-, ..r+ C'E � 6 '� '•`tip �.A
'� �l �l .iCi..� dv 4�A: �--.•..,... '... .; v `� �yqx fiber �
. naMn^�.'.rR�' `. -SN" ���'�a' V`x+"- '�J' s..• !'..W'•�ii.'... � �e .. { y� � \
NE� 9 � .1-^'-.+�����,�,,^u��yy'.: _ - �w !.•,�_»;�. �.� pas>•.._--, ,.,«n _V .�.�`..a-�, '" >a...•.' -�•,yc � _ 4�
74 r - •tea s { ;
BR:STOI OGOLF COURSE
Irvine Avenue Right -of
-Way AV quasi}
ion (Approximate right-of-way width: subject to engineering studied -
UNIVERSITY DRIVE/ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
SEE TABLE 2
FOR LEGEND
EXHIBIT 6A
m
;<
A
'ION
i .. . . �;s� - V .4
;n
is, . . . . . .
�y ylt
llld� �zv,
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL PROPERTY
EXISTING.
PROPOSED RIW
%
Aw Z
ir0*01'.0
rp
VINE AW
E_
Nl�
g-0
0
0e, X
1A
0
'"GOLF COURSE TO MESA DRIVE
Irvine Avenue Right -of -Way Acquisition(Approximate right-of-way width: subject to engineering studies)
UNIVERSITY DRIVE/ ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
olk
-gg
or
Xw
SEE TABLE 2
FOR LEGEND
EXHIBIT 6B
C J r-
��• Y j V
' 3, �y � • ' • • __ -- __ \O __ J PION-•,
_�--tea
�o���¢ _ _ _ _ t Pto I
EXISTING Rny'
c' r
NIVEgSITY-D
VE
e S 77k'
Seawind Drive Granada Way
Z_ W ® � � ttj •� J
J N-
ti
Vl 4y
a-"'EXISTIII
N W.
t OITYOROTF
IT
B—OA
_—A-- _
i'r r
� - EXISTING R
<`�[ MESA DR. — F - �'� -�-'>;k�'� t1-IF
PROPOSED
G rr
r
�Y � r~
'r T ` IRVI A7
MESA DRIVE TO UNIVERSITY DRIVE
Irvine Avenue Right -of -Way Acquisition (Approximate right -of -Way width: subject to engineering studies)
UNIVERSITY DRIVE/ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
SEE TABLE 2
FOR LEGEND '•
EXHIBIT 6C
II
side of the roadway at this location requires a maximum 8-foot land acqui-
sition affecting the properties noted in Table 2.
On Irvine Avenue, south of Mesa Drive, acquisitions will occur primarily
on the west side of the roadway, affecting existing residences, the Uni-
versity Montessori School, and some landscape areas along the Back Bay Cen-
ter. The approximate locations of these acquisitions are indicated on
Exhibit 6c and described on Table 2.
Table 2
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS
ON IRVINE AVENUE
Parcel
Name
Impact*
1
University Montessori School
8-foot loss removal of one
structure and single parking
spot.
2
Residence
8-foot rear yard encroachment.
3
Residence
8-foot rear yard encroachment.
4
Residence
8-foot property encroachment.
5
Back Bay Center
8-foot loss of existing land-
scape.
6
County Flood Control land
18-foot property encroachment.
7
Newport Beach Golf Course
18-foot property encroachment
loss of 23 parking spaces and
8 feet of landscape.
8
Newport Beach Golf Course
8-foot loss of golf course
land.
9
Newport Beach Golf Course
28-foot property encroachment
Maintenance Building
and loss of landscape.
10
Newport Beach Golf Course
28-foot loss of golf course
land.
11
Chevron Station
Loss of 8-foot driveway area.
12
Liquor store
8-foot property encroachment.
13
Alamo Rent-A-Car
8-foot property encroachment.
14
Impact Travel Group
3-foot loss of landscape area.
* All dimensions are approximate,based on Irvine Avenue right-of-way
widths shown on Exhibits 6a-c and subject to future engineering
studies.
The loss of landscaping in these areas where it is specifically required
by local zoning ordinance is considered an unavoidable adverse impact.
17
The realignment and widening of Mesa Drive/Birch Street is a planned
improvement associated with the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan adopted by
the County of Orange and the Santa Ana Heights Specific Area Plan adopted
by the City of Newport Beach. The improvements for this roadway will
occur in conjunction with the redevelopment of Santa Ana Heights and will
be implemented by developers and the Orange County Development Agency.
SR-55/SR-73 Freeway Connectors
Circulation improvements required to accommodate future traffic flows on
local arterials without the construction of the SR-55/SR-73 freeway connec-
tors are listed in Table 8, Section 3.2 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
However, land acquisitions for additional roadway right-of-way would
likely involve commercial property landscape, parking and buildings in the
Bristol Street couplet vicinity; residential property and possibly dwell-
ing units adjacent to Irvine Avenue, Santa Ana Avenue and Mesa Drive, and
some parkland acquisition adjacent to Irvine Avenue. The cumulative
effect of such unmitigable impacts is considered significant.
3.1.3 Mitigation Measures
1. Caltrans, the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach shall
approve street improvement plans for the project and establish precise
right-of-way and acquisition requirements for the Bristol Street coup-
let prior to implementation.
2. The County of Orange or the City of Newport Beach shall follow state
guidelines for right-of-way acquisition.
3.1.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Project recommended circulation improvements and associated right-of-way
acquisitions will result in the loss of privately owned land, a John Wayne
Airport maintenance building and parking areas. The loss of landscaping
in areas where it is specifically required by local zoning ordinance is an
unavoidable adverse impact and may be regarded as significant.
it
3.2 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
A traffic study to evaluate the proposed deletion of University Drive from
the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and to identify
recommended traffic improvements was completed by Austin -Foust Associates,
Inc. in January 1989. A report to evaluate future traffic conditions with-
out the SR-55/SR-73 freeway connector ramps also was completed by Austin -
Foust Associates in October 1989.
The traffic analysis was performed using the city of Newport Beach traffic
analysis model (NBTAM), a subarea model developed from the Orange County
Traffic Analysis Model and used in updating the General Plan Circulation
Element of the city of Newport Beach. This model incorporates recent land
use traffic forecasts for the city of Newport Beach and the adjacent por-
tion of Irvine, and therefore generates traffic forecasts which are highly
representative of the project study area.
The model forecasts for future conditions assume the completion of the
missing north-to-east/west-to-south SR-55/SR-73 freeway connector ramps.
Although these ramps represent a significant component to the regional cir-
culation system, a funding program has not been established for the SR-55/
SR-73 connectors, and no construction date is scheduled. However, the
City of Costa Mesa is preparing a project study report for the connectors
for submittal to Caltrans.
In an effort to provide a more comprehensive analysis of possible future
traffic conditions, Austin -Foust Associates also evaluated a worst case
future traffic scenario, without the freeway connectors and without Univer-
sity Drive extension. While the impacts of this "worst case" scenario are
evaluated throughout this document, it should be noted that these connec-
tors are not considered a part of the project description nor are they a
required improvement due to the deletion of University Drive. The discus-
sion is included to emphasize the importance of the connectors to the over-
all regional circulation network under future conditions and to assess the
impacts on the entire network if the connectors were not constructed.
This information may also help the agencies involved to identify the need
for the freeway connectors.
1
19
The traffic analysis for the project and the SR-55/SR-73 connectors are
summarized below and the entire traffic study is included in Appendix B.
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
The University Drive extension represents an important east -west link in
the Master Plan of Arterial Highways designed to accommodate increased
traffic flows associated with future regional growth. However, because
the segment is aligned near the ecologically sensitive Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve, and near the Santa Ana Heights Community, the planned
construction of this roadway has been reevaluated. Deletion of the seg-
ment requires a thorough circulation analysis because the viability of
other east -west routes is limited due to the physical constraints imposed
by the Upper Newport Bay and the John Wayne Airport.
Traffic counts in the project vicinity were conducted by the cities of New-
port Beach and Irvine in 1987. Table 3 identifies the a.m. peak hour and
p.m, peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU)1 values and the cor-
responding level of service (LOS) based on the 1987 data.
Table 3
EXISTING (1987) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
A.M. Peak
Hour
P. M.
Peak Hour
Intersection
ICU
LOS2
ICU
LOS2
MacArthur & Campus
.63
B
.80
C
MacArthur & Birch
.40
A
.40
A
Von Karman & Campus
.50
A
.58
A
MacArthur & VonKarman
.36
A
.57
A
Jamboree & Campus
.71
C
.64
B
i The Intersection Capacity Utilization Value is based on the ratio of
traffic volumes to the capacity of the intersection.
2 LOS - Level of Service, which is based upon the ICU ratio and defined
in terms of the following ranges:
0.0 - .60 - A
.61-.70-B
.71 - .80 = C
.81 - .90 = D (maximum desirable)
.91 - 1.00 - E (maximum capacity)
Above 1.00 = F (exceeds capacity and is regarded as unacceptable)
W
I
' Table 3 (cont'd)
A.M. Peak
Hour
P. M.
Peak Hour
Intersection
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
Jamboree & Birch
.39
A
.46
A
Campus & Bristol N.
.92
E
1.25
F
Birch & Bristol N.
.66
B
1.00
E
Campus & Bristol S.
1.03
F
.87
D
Birch & Bristol S.
1.09
F
.66
B
Irvine & Mesa
.92
E
1.17
F
Irvine & University
.91
E
.98
E
MacArthur & Jamboree
.63
B
.61
B
Jamboree & Bristol N.
.62
B
.82
D
Jamboree & Bristol S.
.97
F
.79
C
Generally, intersections are considered to be at their maximum desirable
capacity at level of service D. As shown on Table 3, seven intersections
in 1987 were operating at unacceptable levels of service for a.m. and p.m.
peak hours. These intersections are Campus Drive at Bristol North, Birch
Street at Bristol North, Campus Drive at Bristol South, Birch Street at
Bristol South, Irvine Drive at Mesa Drive, Irvine Avenue at University
Drive, and Jamboree Road at Bristol South.
Future traffic volumes were forecasted for year 2010 scenarios assuming
the buildout of general plans for the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa,
and Irvine; and the General Plan for the County of Orange. The forecasts
also assume an improved circulation system corresponding to the current
Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
Several major circulation improvements are planned in the project vicin-
ity. The completion of the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor is shown
on the County MPAH and is proposed to connect to the existing SR-73 seg-
ment. Additionally, the completion of the west-to-south/north-to-east con-
nectors between SR-73 and SR-55 represent a significant regional circula-
tion feature and are currently under study by the city of Costa Mesa and
Caltrans.1 As noted previously, a funding program for the project has not
1 State Route
ct
1 21
been developed, and no construction schedule is planned. A summary of
impacts for traffic conditions without these connectors is provided in the
following impacts section.
Other relevant circulation projects in the project area include the
southerly extension of the SR-55 to 19th Street in Costa Mesa, the widen-
ing of Campus Drive to six lanes (divided) in the vicinity of the Bristol
Street couplet in association with the John Wayne Airport expansion, and
the realignment and widening of Mesa Drive -Birch Street in conjunction
with the redevelopment of Santa Ana Heights.
3.2.2 Impacts
The impact of the deletion of University Drive from the Master Plan of
Arterial Highways is evaluated in two primary ways:
1. What traffic impacts (traffic volume and levels of service at spe-
cific intersections) result from the diversion of traffic onto
alternate routes when the specific link of University Drive is
deleted; and,
2. What traffic improvements (street widening, intersection improve-
ments, acquisition of right-of-way) are necessitated by the diver-
sion of traffic onto alternative routes resulting from the dele-
tion of the University Drive link.
In addition, the associated air quality and noise impacts of the deletion,
diversion and traffic improvements are evaluated in Sections 3.3 and 3.4.
Traffic Diversion
The proposed deletion of University Drive would result in the diversion of
future traffic volumes planned for that segment of roadway onto other por-
tions of the circulation system. Table 4 summarizes the diversion of
future traffic volumes onto other east -west arterials for year 2010 scena-
rios with and without University Drive. Exhibit 7 includes the forecasted
ADT volumes for all surrounding roadways.
22
IF
II
II
t
II
V rru I W11%m arry f1QIVC
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES (000) FOR YEAR 2010
' 2010 Traffic Volumes SOURCE: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION / ,.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS W
' EXHIBIT 7
I
II
�1
Table 4
TRAFFIC DIVERSION SUMMARY (WITH AND WITHOUT UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXTENSION)
YEAR 2010 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
With
Without
Roadway
Location University Dr.
University Dr.
SR-73
at SR-55
204
210
SR-73
at Birch
179
185
SR-73
w/o Jamboree
161
169
Bristol St.
at SR-55
34
34
Bristol St.
WB
at Campus
24
26
Bristol St.
EB
at Campus/Irvine
20
22
TOTAL
at Campus/Irvine
44
48
Bristol St.
WB
at Birch
22
29
Bristol St.
EB
at Birch
24
30
TOTAL
at Birch
46
59
Bristol St.
WB
w/Jamboree
27
33
Bristol St.
EB
w/Jamboree
32
38
TOTAL
w/Jamboree
59
71
Irvine
S/0 Bristol
32
41
Irvine
N/O Del Mar
27
37
Birch
S/O Bristol
11
18
Santa Ana
S/O Bristol
15
17
Newport Blvd.
S/O Bristol
41
42
SR-55
S/0 Bristol
113
115
Coast Hwy.
W/O Bayside
80
78
University
Drive
Extension segment
27
0
As indicated, traffic volumes would be primarily diverted onto SR-73 and
the Bristol Street couplet as a result of the University Drive deletion.
Caltrans has planned the SR-73 as an eight -lane facility and is not expec-
ted to require additional lanes as a result of the University Drive dele-
tion. However, due to future traffic volumes diverted onto the Bristol
Street couplet several circulation improvements are recommended for this
roadway segment, which are summarized later in this section.
With the deletion, all traffic is eliminated on the MPAH link near Upper
Newport Bay. Assuming construction of the SR-55/SR-73 missing interchange
links, forecast traffic volumes for Del Mar Avenue are reduced from 21,000
ADT to 13,000 ADT. This enables the MPAH designation for this roadway as
a primary to be downgraded to a secondary. The existing two-lane Del Mar
Avenue facility will only require widening to a four -lane undivided road-
way.
23
Intersection Capacity Utilization/Levels of Service
The traffic study also analyzed future ICU and levels of service for selec-
ted intersections in the study area. Forecasts were conducted for year
2010 conditions with and without University Drive. Table 5 summarizes the
projections.
Table 5
2010 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH AND WITHOUT UNIVERSITY DRIVEL
Intersection
With Extension
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU/LOS ICU/LOS
Without
AM Peak Hour
ICU/LOS
Extension
PM Peak Hour
ICU/LOS
AIRPORT AREA
MacArthur & Campus
.60/A
1.24/F
.60/A
1.32/F
MacArthur & Birch
.66/B
.74/C
.74/C
.71/C
Von Karman & Campus
.93/E
.88/D
.88/D
.91/E
MacArthur & Von Karman
.66/B
.86/D
.71/C
.85/D
Jamboree & Campus
1.02/F
1.21/F
1.01/F
1.21/F
Jamboree & Birch
.73/C
,76/C
.75/C
.75/C
MacArthur & Jamboree
1.21/F
1.05/F
1.13/F
1.12/F
AVERAGE ICU
.83
.96
.83
.98
BRISTOL COUPLET
Campus & Bristol N.
.90/D
1.10/F
.88/D
1.15/F
Birch & Bristol N.
.79/C
1.05/F
.84/D
1.13/F
Campus & Bristol S.
.99/E
.78/C
1.02/F
.88/D
Birch & Bristol S.
1.33/F
1.24/F
1.39/F
1.25/F
Jamboree & Bristol N.
.51/A
.65/8
.50/A
.78/C
Bayview & Bristol S.
.49/A
.67/8
.65/B
.73/C
Jamboree & Bristol S.
.74/C
.92/E
.77/C
.90/D
AVERAGE ICU
.82
.92
.86
.97
IRVINE AVENUE
Irvine & Mesa
.76/C
.58/A
.97/E
.86/D
Irvine & University
1.29/F
1.54/F
1.08/F
.76/C
COAST HIGHWAY
Coast Hwy at Jamboree
.73/C
.65/B
.74/C
.66/B
Coast Hwy at
Dover/Bayshore
•72/C
'67/8
.69/8
Coast Hwy at Bayside
.78/C
.75/C
,
CITY OF IRVINE
Jamboree at Bayview
.59/A
.86/D
.62/B
.66/8
1 Without University
Drive;
assumes no
additional mitigation
measures
are implemented.
24
Intersection analysis expressed as average ICUs was completed in three gen-
eral areas. Within the airport area, overall levels of service would not
change significantly with the deletion of University Drive. However, the
current unacceptable p.m. peak hour ICU at MacArthur Boulevard and Campus
Drive would continue to decline from 1.24 to 1.32 (level of service F).
Significant impacts would occur along the Bristol Street couplet as a
result of the roadway deletion. Projected levels of service without the
extension of University Drive diminish the level of service at the major-
ity of intersections. At those intersections which already have projected
level of service F with the extension, the level of service would deterior-
ate further (higher ICU values) without the extension.
Two intersections along Irvine Avenue were also analyzed. Without the
University Drive extension, the level of service for Irvine Avenue at Mesa
Drive would deteriorate significantly. However, under these same condi-
tions, Irvine Avenue at University Drive would experience improvement with-
out the extension due to the absence of heavy traffic flows along Univer-
sity Drive. It should be noted `that these forecasts assume the construc-
tion of Irvine Avenue to a six -lane undivided arterial as planned in the
MPAH, and the widening of Mesa Drive/Birch Street as planned by the City
of Newport Beach and the County of Orange.1
At the three intersections analyzed on Pacific Coast Highway, some slight
deterioration of ICU values is forecast due to the deletion of the Univer-
sity Drive extesnion. However, no decrease in levels of service occur,
and all modeled intersections are expected to operate at level of service
D or better.
Traffic conditions are expected to improve due to the University Drive
deletion for the intersections at Jamboree Road/Bayview Way and at
MacArthur Boulevard/University Drive South. Impacts to MacArthur Boule-
vard/University Drive North is minimal and not significant.2
1 The county is scheduled to amend its Master Plan of Arterial Highways
to upgrade Mesa Drive/Birch Street roadway to secondary status in
December 1989.
2 Analysis of impacts to MacArthur Boulevard/University Drive North and
South were evaluated using average daily traffic volumes and are
included in Appendix B.
25
Recommended Improvements
As indicated, the deletion of University Drive results in traffic diver-
sion primarily to the Bristol Street couplet facility which will require
specific lane additions and intersection widenings to accommodate future
traffic volumes forecast for this facility. These improvements are shown
in Exhibit 8 and summarized below. In addition, recognizing that no cur-
rent funding program or phasing schedule exists for the improvement of
Irvine Avenue to a six -lane facility as designated in the MPAH, this road-
way widening is also included in the following recommended improvements.
Exhibits 9a-c indicate the recommended widening scheme.
Bristol Street North
1. Birch Street/Bristol Street North Intersection
Currently, the Birch Street bridge lanes access the freeway do not align
directly with the traffic lanes of Birch Street north of Bristol Street
North. The traffic study recommends the widening of Birch Street and the
freeway bridge overcrossing to provide for two right -turn only lanes, two
through lanes, one left -turn only lane on the southbound leg of the inter-
section, and two left -turns and two through lanes on the northbound leg.
The intersection improvements would require a 28-foot widening on the east
side of the freeway overcrossing, a 28-foot widening on the east side of
Birch Street and would correct the existing alignment between Birch Street
and the freeway overcrossing. The Birch Street widening would gradually
transition to the existing Birch Street alignment over a 720-foot dis-
tance.
2. Campus Drive/Bristol Street North Intersection, Right -Turn Lane
At Campus Drive, the proposed improvement is to provide a southbound free
right -turn lane for access to Bristol Street North only. This will allow
additional capacity for vehicles making right turns from Campus Drive onto
the SR-55 freeway ramp. Construction of the right -turn lane will require
the acquisition of right-of-way within the county's John Wayne Airport pro-
25
a
c
>m <aarc
O
€
R
SECTION A -A
NO SCALE
-------------------------------
— _ — — — — _ _ - _ — _ _ _ — — — — _ — _ II
II
II
CORONA DEL MAR FRWY IRT. 731 — — — ,e•�„It,
I
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ;I
BRISTOL ST. INORTHI
ri
I=
Ia
II
1I
A
II
II — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
BRISTOL ST. ISOUTHI ,
___-____-___------- ______ ---I-{ ==___ _____-___`_---
p ' A
PROJECT R-O-W ACQUISITIONS
II III I
q
SOURCE:AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES,INC.
Bristol Street Couplet Improvements
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION/ ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS Ij =
EXHIBIT 8
�10
174,
/y0&0
/ I
.-ate
PROP
D R/W
yo yo
EXISTING R/W
IRVINE AVE.
GOLF COURSE PARKING
PROPOSED
K
N -_♦ /°' PROPOSED R/W
.Y OF��H -a
OORr_ -o r _ _ _ GOLF COURSE LAND
4 ^"
RA GE
r IRVINE AVE.
W PROPOSED AREA OF WIDENING
(Approximate width; subject to engineering studies)
a
BRISTOL EET TO GOLF COURSE
Irvine Avenue Improvements
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION/ALTER
NATIVE CIRCULATON IMPROVEMENTS
u
K
O
\� K
4
� U
O
1 \
EXHIBIT 9A
1-N
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL PROPERTY
PROPOSED R/W EXISTING RM
IRVINE AVE.
PROPOSED AREA OF WIDENING
(Approximate width; subject to engineering studies)
GOLF COURSE TO MESA DRIVE
Irvine Avenue Improvements
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION/ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATON IMPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT 9B
1
i
--- __—CITY OF NEWPOF
COUNTY OF OR)
iEXISTING R/W—� I —
iPROPOSED R/W7-�
UNIVERSITY DRIVE
i
1
i
i U
fi B 16
a I DETAILED ENGINEERING SUTDIES WILL ESTABLISH EXACT
i ? W j RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE CAPACITY -OR
m TURNING MOVEMENTS FROM MESA DRIVE TO IRVINE AVENUE
a w
-BEACH --_
i — — _ --- COUNTY OFF OIANGE
it
MESA DR. —
' PROPOSED AREA OF WIDENING
(Approximate width; subject to engineering studies)
i -
MESA DRIVE TO UNIVERSITY DRIVE
i Irvine Avenue Improvements
1
n
1
IRVINE AVE.
EXISTING & PROPOSED R/W—
CITY OF NEWPORT Bf,ACN
-- -- - -' -- -- - -- COUNTY OF ORANGE
—
m EXISTING R/W `
�-�—/—/7'' m
PROPOSED R/W' 4
LA CANADA WAY MIRA LOMA PL.
IRVINE AVE.
i UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION/ALTERNATIVE CIRCUL-ATON IMPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT 9C
' perty and the removal of a maintenance building onsite. The exact right-
of-way acquisition will depend on the precise alignment of the right -turn
lane.
Bristol Street South
I
1
I
1
I
II
IL
These proposed improvements involve the widening of Bristol Street South
on the north side of the roadway to allow additional vehicle capacity
including eastbound left -turn capacity at both Campus Drive and Birch
Street.
1. Bristol Street South/Irvine Avenue Left -Turn Lane
At Irvine Avenue the proposed improvement involves an it -foot expansion on
the north side of Bristol Street South, within the existing Bristol Street
right-of-way, to provide an additional left -turn lane. The approach lanes
at this intersection would provide two left, three through and two right.
2. Bristol Street South/Birch Street Intersection Turn Lanes
The segment of Bristol Street South from Campus Drive to Birch Street will
require a 29-foot right-of-way acquisition on the north side of the road-
way to accommodate a total of two left -turn, three through lanes and one
combination acceleration/deceleration/turn lane (with bike lane). This
combination lane would serve to facilitate movement to and from the commer-
cial uses on the south side of Bristol Street South.
3. Birch Street Widening South of Bristol Street South
A future widening of Birch Street is planned in the Santa Ana Heights Spe-
cific Plan, which was also adopted by the City of Newport Beach. These
improvements will expand the intersection pavement width to 80 feet from
its current 62-foot width. Transitional improvements will correct the
alignment of Birch Street and the freeway overcrossing, and will provide
adequate travel lanes for future conditions. No additional widening is
required as a result of the University Drive deletion.
II
27
4. Bristol Street South Widening East of Birch Street
The project also proposes to widen Bristol Street South east of Birch
Street to allow a total of four eastbound lanes along this segment. This
improvement will involve the acquisition of approximately seven feet of
right-of-way on the north side of the roadway extending 800 feet to the
point where Bristol Street South currently exists at its full width.
Irvine Avenue
As noted previously, Irvine Avenue is designated on the Orange County MPAH
as a six -lane modified major arterial. Several ongoing projects in the
area are contributing to the need to expand this facility from its current
width to the planned modified major arterial width between Bristol Street
and University Drive. These projects include the Santa Ana Heights Rede-
velopment Plan, the Orange County John Wayne Airport Expansion Project,
and the deletion of University Drive. Although a preliminary plan for
widening this roadway segment has been completed (Exhibits 9a-c), no fund-
ing program has been established, and programming for the implementation
of this project is not scheduled other than dedications by adjacent
development projects. Therefore, a ci-rculation phasing program is recom-
mended to ensure the timely construction of this facility to its full
width.
A number of other circulation improvements are planned to occur in the
project area in conjunction with other transportation plans. They include
an additional right -turn lane on Bristol Street South approaching Irvine
Avenue, the widening of Campus Drive in associated with the airport expan-
sion, and the proposed Mesa Drive -Birch Street connection (which includes
the widening of Birch Street approaching the Bristol Street South intersec-
tion to an 80-foot right-of-way).1 All area improvements have been
Included in the traffic analysis.
1 The City of Newport Beach is proposing an 80-foot right-of-way; the
Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan designates a 64-foot right-of-way for
this segment of Birch Street.
Table 6 provides a year 2010 comparison of the ICUs and corresponding lev-
els of service at previously identified intersections for scenarios with
and without the recommended Bristol Street circulation improvements.
Among the three areas identified in Table 6, some ICUs for intersections
in the airport area would experience slight deterioration after improve-
ments to the Bristol Street couplet. This is primarily explained by the
' redistribution of traffic as conditions change along the Bristol Street
couplet. However, these intersections are not projected to experience any
decline in their respective level of service categories. Two intersec-
tions projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service will also
experience slight deterioration of ICU values. MacArthur Boulevard/Campus
Drive deteriorates from 1.32 to 1.35 (level of service F) and MacArthur
Boulevard/Jamboree Road deteriorates from 1.12 to 1.17 (level of service
F). At these intersections project impacts are considered significant.
' Along the Bristol Street couplet, several intersections would experience
increased level of service as a result of the proposed couplet improve-
ments. These intersections include Campus Drive at Bristol Street North
in the p.m. peak hour, Birch Street at Bristol Street North in the p.m.
peak hour (LOS F to LOS E), Campus Drive at Bristol Street South for both
1 peak hours, and Birch Street at Bristol Street South for both peak hour
conditions.
' Two intersections on the Bristol Street couplet would remain operating at
an unacceptable level of service. Both the Birch Street at Bristol Street
North and the Jamboree Road at Bristol Street South intersections are pro-
jected to operate at level of service E in the p.m. peak hour. Additional
mitigation measures to improve the level of service at these intersections
are not considered feasible due to physical constraints. All other inter-
sections in this area would operate at level of service D or better.
Because these intersections of Birch Street/Bristol Street North and Jambo-
ree Road/Bristol Street South would continue operating at unacceptable
levels of service, the project impact is considered significant at these
two locations.
29
I
Table 6
2010 LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH AND WITHOUT BRISTOL STREET IMPROVEMENTS
University Dr. Deleted/ University Dr. Deleted/
With No Improvements with Improvements
AM Peak Hour PM peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
AIRPORT AREA
MacArthur & Campus
.60/A
1.32/F
.60/A
1.35/F
MacArthur & Birch
.74/C
.71/C
.74/C
.73/C
Von Karman & Campus
.88/D
.91/E
.88/D
.91/E
MacArthur & Von Karman
.71/C
.85/D
.71/C
.84/D
Jamboree & Campus
1.01/F
1.21/F
1.01/F
1.21/5
Jamboree & Birch
.75/C
.75/C
.75/C
.75/C
MacArthur & Jamboree
1.13/F
1.12/F
1.13/F
1.17/F
AVERAGE ICU
.83
.98
.83
.99
BRISTOL COUPLET
Campus & Bristol N.
.88/D
1.15/F
.88/D
.87/0
Birch & Bristol N.
.84/D
1.13/F
.89/D
.95/E
Campus & Bristol S.
1.02/F
.88/D
.87/D
.78/C
Birch & Bristol S.
1.39/F
1.25/F
.74/C
.86/D
Jamboree & Bristol N.
.50/A
.78/C
.50/A
.77/C
Bayview & Bristol S.
.65/B
.73/C
.65/B
.73/C
Jamboree & Bristol S.
.77/C
.90/D
.77/C
.93/E
AVERAGE ICU
.86
.97
.76
.84
IRVINE AVENUE
Irvine & Mesa .97/E .86/D .97/E
Irvine & University 1.08/F .76/C 1.08/F
.76/C
.74/C
1
30 1
As noted earlier, 2010 traffic projection scenario along Irvine Avenue
account for the future widening of this roadway to six lanes, as indicated
on the MPAH. In October 1988, the segment of Irvine Avenue from Univer-
sity Drive to the Bristol Street couplet was upgraded from primary to modi-
fied major arterial status in both the County MPAH (March 1987) and in the
City of Newport Beach Master Plan (October 1988). Major arterials are
designated six -lane divided roadways. This upgrade was based on projected
future traffic volumes expected as a result of future growth in the area
(ie., the Santa Ana Heights Redevelopment Project and Orange County Air-
port Expansion), and without the University Drive extension. However, spe-
cific plans for widening this roadway improvement do not exist to date.
The table indicates that improved levels of service would be expected at
the Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive intersection during the p.m. peak hour.
' However, the a.m. peak hour level of service remains unacceptable at both
the Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive intersection and at the Irvine Avenue at
University Drive intersection. Since no change in the ICU value or level
of service occurs related to the project, the project impact is not consi-
dered significant at these two locations.
SR-55/SR-73 Freeway Connectors
As discussed in the introductory remarks of this section and throughout
this document, the SR-55/SR-73 north-to-east/west-to-south freeway connec-
tors represent a major component of the regional circulation network. The
construction of these links as well as other regionally significant circu-
lation components such as the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor and the
southerly extension of the SR-55 freeway are critical to accommodating pro-
jected 2010 traffic volumes on the existing circulation network. The con-
nectors are especially important to facilitating traffic flows between the
Newport -Costa Mesa region (via the extension of SR-55) and areas to the
east (via the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor and the SR-73).
Although the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor and the southerly exten-
sion of the SR-55 freeway are both in the final- planning phases, a funding
program for the SR-55/SR-73 connectors has not been established and no con-
struction date is scheduled.
�1
The traffic consultant estimates that 42,000 average daily trips would
occur on the SR-55/SR-73 connectors under year 2010 conditions. These
future trips would then be shifted to local arterials which have not been
master planned for the higher traffic volumes. Local arterial impacts
vary from 5,000 average daily traffic (ADT) increases on Irvine Avenue and
Santa Ana Avenue to 129000 ADT on Birch Street and 14,000 ADT on Bristol
Street. Because circulation impacts occur in the vicinity of the planned
University Drive extension, the deletion of this roadway results in the
further decline in level of service at several overcapacity intersections.
Table 7 indicates the change in intersection level of service with and
without the SR-55/SR-73 connectors and with and without University Drive
and with mitigations. The conclusions from this analysis ate that the pri-
mary impacts of deleting the University Drive extension occur on the Bris-
tol Street couplet and the magnitude of impacts depends on whether or not
the SR-55/SR-73 connection is in place.
For example, without the freeway connectors, traffic moving north to east
and west to south is funnelled onto roadways north of Upper Newport Bay
and then to Irvine Avenue or Birch Street. This results in higher ICU
values at the intersections between these two arterials and Bristol
Street.
The "extra" mitigations recommended without the SR.55/SR-73 connectors and
without the University Drive extension are extensive and involve Intersec-
tion improvements such as triple right -turn lanes from Campus Drive south -
bound to westbound SR-73, and lane widenings that include additional
right-of-way acquisitions on both Bristol Street North and Bristol Street
South. Even with "extra" mitigations, however, the average level of ser-
vice at surrounding intersections remains below the level of service fore-
casted for the project with its described circulation improvements. A bud-
getary Cost estimate of the "extra" mitigation required on local arterials
without the freeway connectors is listed in Table 8. These mitigations
would be required to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes without the
SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors, whether or not the University Drive exten-
sion were constructed.
32
m m MI M y r■1 ■rim m m m m m m m m
Table 7
2010 LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH AND WITHOUT SR-73 FREEWAY
With SR-55/SR-73 Connrdion
-
-•-SR-55/SR-73
Deleted
W/O Uarvasity
W/O Univality
W/ Uwanky
W/O Univcnity
W/ Bristol Mit.
W/ University
W/O
University
W/ Bristol + EL
MIL•
Intanectioa
AM LOS
PM LOS
AM LOS PM
LOS
AM LOS
PM LOS
AM LOS
PM LOS
AM
LOS PMLOS
AM LOS PM LOS
AIRPORT AREA
-
MaeAnhur & Campus
.60 A
124 F
.60 A
132
F
.60 A
13S F
A9 B
130 F
.62 B
134 F
.62 B
134 F
MacArthur & Birch
A6 A
.74 C
.74 C
.71
C
.74 C
.73 C
.72 C
.73 G
.70 B
.74 C
.70 B
.74 C
Van Karmen & Campus
.93 E.
.88 D
.88 D
.91
E
JIB D
91 E
.81 D
.91 E
J13 D
95 E
.83 D
.95 E
MacArthur & Von Kerman
." ,B'
26 D
.71 C
A5
D
.71 C
.84 D
.73 C
.89 D
.6913
.87 D
.698
.86 D
Jamboree & Campus
1.02 F
121 F
1.01 F
1.21
F
1.01 F
121 F
1.03 F
1.19 F
1.09 F
121 F
1.09 F
121 F
Jamboree & Birch
.73 C
.76 C
.75 C
.75
C
.75 C
.74 C
.77 C
.77 C
.74 C
.77 C
.74 C
.77 C
MacArthur & Jamboree
121 F
1.05 F
1.13 F
1.12
F
1.13 F
117 F
121 F
1.13 F
1.16 F
122 F
1.16 f
122 F
AVERAGE ICU
.83
.96
A3
98
.83
.99
.85
.99
.83
1.01
.83
1.01
w
w
Can" & Brktol N.
90 D
1.10 F
M D
1.15 F
M D
.87 D
AS D
1.26 F
1.02 F
1.44 F
1.02
F
1.09 F
Birch & Bri" N.
.79 C,
1.05 F
.84 D
1.13 F
29 D
.95 E
.79 C
1.07 F
.77'C
122 F
A7
A
.95 E
Campus & Bdua i
99 E
.78 C
1.02 F
M D
.87 D
.78 C
.86 D
.83 D
1.02 F
95 E
37
D
.es D
Bitch & Bristol &
133 F
124 F
139 F
1.25 F
.74 C
.86 D
12D F
1.16 F
IAS F
135 F
1.02
F
.97 E
Jamboree A Bristol N.
31 A-
.65 B
30 A
.78 C
30 A
.77 C
30 A
.640
32 A
.86 D
32
A
.86 D
Bayvicw A Bristol S.
.49 A
.67 B
.658
.73 C
.65 B
.73 C
34 A
.628.
.698
AD C
.69
B
.80 C
Jamboree & Bristol &
.74 C
92 E
.77 C
.900
.77 C
93 E
.79 C
.86 D
.78 C
.97 E
.78
C
97 E
AVERAGE ICU
.82
.92
.86
97
.76
.84
.79
.92
.89
1.08
.77
.93
IRVINE AVENUE
Irvine & Men .76 C 38 A .97 E .860 .97 E .76 C 1.15 F 90 D 136 F .94 E 91 E .% E
Irvine & Uaivenky 129 F 134 F 1.08 F .76 C 1.09 F 74 C 1.54 f 1.88 F 136 F 1.00 E 1.05 E 98 E
• Smmwy of Extra MitiWion Required W/O Sr-55/SR-73 Coaneaon
Campus & Bristol N. - add 3rd SR, add 6th WB One
Birch & Bristol N. - add WL & reuripe 4 WT
Campo & BdMoI & - restdp: 4 ET & 1 ER
Birch & Bristol S. - no additional mitiptlon beyond project mitiption
Irvine & Meas - widen for 2 EL & 7 ETR & add NB Free Rt One
Irvine & Uarverdty - add 3rd NT & strip: 2 EL
1�
Table 8
"EXTRA" MITIGATION REQUIRED WITHOUT ROUTE 73 CONNECTORS
Budgetary
Location Description Cost Estimate
Bristol Street Widen one additional lane in each $ 5,500,000
direction between SR-55 and Jamboree
Road to provide capacity for 82,000 ADT.
Irvine Avenue Widen to six lanes between Del Mar and 2,500,000
22nd Street to provide 46,000 ADT capacity.
Santa Ana Avenue Widen to four lanes between Bristol 3,500,000
Street and 22nd Street.
Birch Street Convert four -lane undivided cross-section 500,000
to four -lane divided cross-section.
Newport Blvd. No additional widenings required, but 0
80000 ADT of existing capacity would be
used and not available to serve other
demands.
Irvine Avenue/ Widen intersection approaches to provide 21500,000
Birch Street/ four -lane divided section on Birch Street/
Mesa Drive Mesa Drive.
intersection
Coast Highway Increase in traffic (+9,000 ADT) justi-
fies widening by one and one-half lanes.
However, with forecasted volume up to
87,000 ADT, it must be recognized that
there is no practical way to provide such
capacity within the segment of Coast High-
way between Bayside Drive and SR-55.
Subtotal (exclusive of Coast Hwy.) $ 14,500,000
The table indicates that failure to construct the SR-55/SR-73 freeway con-
nectors would cost a maximum of $14.5 million in additional roadway
improvements, and that a significant impact on the Pacific Coast Highway
could not be mitigated. Additional impacts associated with the no freeway
connectors scenario are discussed in each topical section of this report.
3.2.3 Mitigation Measures
Several circulation improvements are recommended to mitigate the impacts
of deleting University Drive. These include improvements to the Bristol
Street couplet and the implementation of the planned Irvine Avenue Widen -
it
34
I
ing and Mesa Drive widening. Concurrent with the completion of street
improvement plans, a circulation improvement phasing and funding program
shall be completed by the EMA Transportation Planning Division to ensure
the timely construction of all circulation improvements. The program
shall identify agencies and jurisdictions responsible for each circulation
improvement.
1. Birch Street Bridge Widening
Widen the east side of Birch Street north of Bristol Street North by 28
feet, and the east side of the Birch Street freeway bridge overcrossing by
28 feet. These widening improvements would provide additional travel
lanes and correct the existing lane alignment of the freeway bridge over -
crossing at Birch Street.
2. Campus Drive/Bristol Street North Intersection, Right -Turn Lane
Construct a free right -turn lane from Campus Drive southbound onto Bristol
Street North eastbound. Overhead signing at Campus Drive will be required
to identify the free right -turn lane onto Bristol Street North.
3. Bristol Street South/Irvine Avenue
Construct an additional left -turn lane on Bristol Street South at Irvine
Avenue within the existing Bristol Street right-of-way.
4. Bristol Street South/Birch Street Intersection
Add a left -turn only and a right -turn only lane from Bristol Street South
onto Birch Street. A 29-foot widening is required on the north side of
Bristol Street South between Campus Drive and Birch Street to accommodate
two left -turn, three through lanes and a fourth combination acceleration/
deceleration/turn lane with bike lane. This fourth lane will serve as an
ingress and egress lane for the commercial uses along Bristol Street South
between Irvine Avenue and Birch Street.
35
5. Birch Street Widening South of Bristol Street South
The alignment study prepared by the County of Orange and the City of New-
port Beach provides for a widening of Birch Street at the Bristol Street
South intersection in accordance with the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan.
This improvement will be implemented in conjunction with the redevelopment
of Santa Ana Heights.
6. Bristol Street South Widening, East of Birch Street
A 7-foot widening on the north side of Bristol Street South, east of Birch
Street, to accommodate an additional eastbound through lane. The widening
would extend approximately 800 feet east of the Birch Street/Bristol
Street South intersection to the point where Bristol Street South cur-
rently exists at its full width.
7. Irvine Avenue Widening
A shared funding program shall be established between the City of Newport
Beach, the Orange County Airport, the County of Orange Environmental Man-
agement Agency, and any other relevant agencies to ensure the timely con-
struction of this roadway improvement.
8. SR-55/SR-73 Freeway Connectors
The County of Orange and the cities of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and
Irvine shall work with Caltrans, the Orange County Transportation Commis-
sion and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency to develop a
funding program and construction timeline for the implementation of SR-55/
SR-73 north-to-east/west-to-south freeway connectors to ensure their
timely completion.
3.2.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The recommended circulation improvements will provide increased levels of
service at several intersections. However, some intersections will con-
tinue to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Due to physical con-
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
straints, it is not feasible to provide further improvements at these
intersections. Project traffic impacts are considered significant at
Birch Street/Bristol Street North, Jamboree/Bristol Street South, Mac-
Arthur Boulevard/Campus Drive and at MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road
after mitigation.
i
37
3.3 AIR QUALITY
An air quality assessment for the project was prepared by Mestre-Greve
Associates in January 1989. PBR also conducted air quality analysis for
additional intersections, not included in the Mestre-Greve report. Both
the Mestre-Greve report and the PBR technical data are summarized below
and are contained within Appendix D.
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
The study area is located within the 6,600-square mile South Coast Air
Basin (SCAB). The air quality of the basin is determined by the primary
pollutants added daily and the secondary pollutants already present in the
air mass.
Primary pollutants are emitted directly from a source and include carbon
monoxide (CO), nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide (NO and NO2), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), particulates and various hydrocarbons (HC). Secondary pol-
lutants are created with the passage of time in the air mass, and include
ozone (03), photochemical aerosols and peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN). Oxi-
dants represent the major air quality problem basinwide. Air quality at
the site is a function of the primary pollutants emitted locally, the
existing regional ambient air quality, and the meteorological and topogra-
phic factors which influence the intrusion of pollutants into the area
from sources outside the immediate vicinity.
Climate
Climate combines with meteorologic and topographic conditions to affect
local and regional air quality. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is a
coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills bounded by the
Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains forming the remaining
perimeter. The region lies in the semi -permanent high pressure zone of
the eastern Pacific. Therefore, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea
breezes and interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather,
winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.
M.
I
I
I
Southern California frequently experiences temperature inversions which
inhibit the dispersion of air pollutants. Inversions may be either ground
based or elevated. Ground -based inversions are most severe during clear
cold early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground -based inversion,
very little air mixing occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollu-
tants may collect near major roadways. Elevated inversions act as a lid
over an area and restrict vertical air mixing; however, below the elevated
inversion, pollutant dispersions are not restricted. Mixing heights for
elevated inversions are lower int he summer than in cooler months. This
low summer inversion puts a lid over the South Coast Air Basin and is
responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in
the air basin.
Air Quality Management
Regionally, the proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin
(SCAB) and lies within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Man-
agement District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary air pollutant
sources in the basin. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle
emissions.
In 1982,
the SCAQMD and the Southern
California Association of Governments
adopted
the Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP) for
the South Coast Air
Basin.
This plan was required by
the federal Clean
Air Act and is
intended
to guide the attainment of
national ambient
air quality standards
at the
earliest feasible date. It
is part of the
State Implementation
Plan submitted to the EPA. Included
in the plan are
a number of station-
ary and
mobile source controls, ride -sharing programs,
and energy conserva-
I
tion measures. The AQMP is designed to accommodate a moderate amount of
new development and growth throughout the basin.
SCAQMD adopted the latest Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) on March 17,
1989. The AQMP includes a wide range of emissions control measures that,
if implemented, are projected to lead to attainment by 2007 of all state
and federal ambient air quality standards.
39
The 1989 AQMP was approved by the California Air Resources Board in August
1989 and will be included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not yet approved the plan.
When fully adopted, the plan will then serve as the framework for all
future air pollution control efforts in the South Coast Air Basin.
In developing the AQMP, all the potential control measures that could be
available by the year 2007 were identified and, to the extent possible,
their emission reductions were quantified. These control measures were
categorized into three tiers, based upon their readiness for implementa-
tion.
The short-term, or Tier I, component of the AQMP fs action -oriented. It
identifies specific control measures for which control technology exists
now. For the most part, these measures can be adopted within the next
five years, prior to the next AQMP update. They consist mainly of station-
ary source controls that will be the subject of district rules and ARB-
adopted tailpipe emissions standards and performance requirements for
motor vehicles. Transportation and land use controls and energy conserva-
tion measures also are included in Tier I of the plan, to the extent that
technology is available to accomplish the emissions reduction targets.
Tier I control measures are expected to be implemented by 1993 except for
facility construction which may continue up to 2007,
Tier II measures include already -demonstrated control technologies, but
require advancements that can reasonably be expected to occur in the near
future. When necessary, these advancements are promoted through regula-
tory action, such as setting standards at levels that force the advance-
ment of existing technology, or establishing a system of emission charges
that provide an economic incentive to reduce emissions.
Tier II measures focus mainly on transportation sources and the use of
coatings and solvents, All the Tier II goals are expected to be achieved
by 2000 except for transportation facility construction which may continue
up to 2007.
!n
11
Tier III goals depend on substantial technological advancements and break-
throughs that are expected to occur throughout the next two decades. This
requires an aggressive expansion of Tier II research and development
efforts. After achieving Tier II goals, Tier III measures must be imple-
mented on an accelerated schedule to achieve attainment by 2007.
The 1989 AQMP includes 23 control measures, which will be added individu-
ally by SCAQMD, CARB or local jurisdictions.
The California Air Resources Board has recently adopted new legislation
with respect to the auto emission inspection program which became effec-
tive January 1, 1989. Required inspections will remain at two-year inter-
vals, but increases will be made on the current $50 repair limit depending
on the age of the car. In addition, auto manufacturers will be required
to provide a broader warranty on new vehicles and mechanics will be divi-
ded into two classes: one, mechanics allowed to work on 1980 vehicles or
newer and a second class of mechanics to work on vehicles built before
1980. Mechanics working on newer vehicles will require more training and
a license to state their ability to work on more technologically advanced
autos.
The CARB has also passed a measure requiring stringent new tailpipe emis-
sion controls on cars and pickup trucks beginning in the 1993 model year.
The controls would be phased in over a three-year period and are expected
to reduce carbon monoxide emissions from new cars by 50 percent and emis-
sions of hydrocarbons by thirty percent overall by 1997.
Ambient Air Quality
Air quality at any site depends upon both the regional ambient or surround-
ing air quality and local sources of air pollutants. Regional air quality
results from the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Mobile
or vehicular sources are considered the major source of emissions in the
South Coast Air Basin.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District divides the air basin into
Source Receptor Areas (SRAs) to compare the air the air pollutant emis-
!E
�I
sions generated by a project with the emissions currently generated in the
area. The project site within SRA 18 for which the designated monitoring
station is located in Costa Mesa. Annual air quality data for 1984
through 1987 for the Costa Mesa station is provided in Table 9.
Table 9
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SUMMARY
Pollutant
California
Standard
National
Standard
Year
Maximum
Level
Days
Std. E
Ozone
0.1 ppm
0.12 ppm
1984
0.25
29
for 1 hr.
for 1 hr.
1985
0.21
33
1986
0.17
24
1987
0.16
23
CO
9 ppm
9 ppm
1984
13
1
for 8 rs.
for 8 hrs.
1985
9
5
1986
15
3
1987
12
0
NOp
2u0
pm
5vg
1984
.22
0
for Ihr.
a
anna.
1985
.24
0
1986
.20
0
1987
.19
0
State
Notes:
1 Standards for sulfur dioxide were not exceeded.
2 Monitoring of lead and particulates was discontinued in 1981.
The air quality data indicate that ozone is the air pollutant of primary
concern in the area. Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not emitted
directly, but is the result of chemical reactions of other pollutants,
most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide in the presence of
bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during trans.
port downwind to produce oxidant concentrations experienced in Costa Mesa.
All areas of the South Coast Air Basin contribute to the ozone levels
experienced at Costa Mesa, with the more significant areas being those
directly upwind.
Particulate levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading opera-
tions, and motor vehicles. Monitoring of particulate levels at the Costa
Mesa station was discontinued in 1981. Levels of particulate monitored
previous to 1981 indicated that the levels were low.
I
11
11
!I
11
11
r
42
i
The number of times each year that the carbon monoxide standards have been
exceeded has decreased steadily over the past several years at the Costa
Mesa station. The trend in maximum carbon monoxide concentrations experi-
enced is less clear. A one -hour high of 15 ppm was reached in 1985. The
average of the yearly one -hour maximums for the last four years is about
12 ppm. Carbon monoxide is generally considered to be a local pollutant.
That is, carbon monoxide is emitted directly from several sources (most
notably motor vehicles), and the highest concentrations experienced are
directly adjacent to the source. The Costa Mesa station is located near
' Harbor Boulevard, and it is very likely that the carbon monoxide concentra-
tions recorded at this station are highly influenced by the motor vehicle
' activity on this roadway.
Existing CO levels at the site are estimated from data at the Costa Mesa
station and by modeling traffic emissions with -a computer dispersion
model. This is discussed in detail in the following section.
Local Air Quality
Carbon monoxide is the pollutant of major concern along roadways. It is
' emitted directly from a variety of sources but the most notable source of
carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For this reason, carbon monoxide con-
centrations based on current or projected traffic are added to existing
air quality conditions and used as indicators of local air quality near a
Iroadway network.
Carbon monoxide levels in the project vicinity were assessed with the
CALINE4 computer model. CALINE4 is a third -generation line source air
quality model developed by the California Department of Transportation
("CALINE4," Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-84-15, November 1984). The purpose of
the model is to assess air quality impacts near transportation facilities
1 in what is known as the microscale region. Given source strength, meteor-
ology, site geometry, and site characteristics, the model can reliably pre-
dict pollutant concentrations.
Worst -case meteorology was assessed. Specifically, an early winter morn-
ing with a ground -based inversion was considered. For worst case meteor-
43
I
ological conditions a wind speed of 0.5 meter per second (1 mph), and a
stability class G was utilized for a one -hour averaging time. The CALINE4
model determined worst -case wind direction. A mixing height of 11000
meters was used as recommended in the CALINE4 model. Technical data for
the air quality analysis is included in Appendix D.
3.3.2 Impacts
Air Quality Management
Air quality forecasts in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) are gener-
ally based upon buildout of local general plans and the traffic associated
with those land uses. Buildout of the proposed project may be inconsis-
tent with the AQMP since the project will require the deletion of the pro-
posed University Drive extension from the Master Plan of Arterial High-
ways, Should the project be adopted and University Drive deleted from the
MPAH, the county would officially revise the MPAH. This would bring the
project into consistentCy with the AQMP.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District uses the following daily
pollution thresholds as a guideline to determine if the project should be
considered to have an environmentally significant impact on air quality.
CO 550 pounds
Sox 150 pounds
NOx 100 pounds
Particulates 150 pounds
Reactive organic gases 75 pounds
Lead 3 pounds
Also, any project that causes an exceedance of any ambient air quality
standard or makes a substantial contribution to an existing exceedance,
can be considered significant. If a project exceeds land use and popula-
tion forecasts adopted by the Southern California Association of Govern-
ments (SCAG) or consists of 300 or more units, it can be considered signi-
ficant.) Based upon these guidelines, the project will not have a signifi-
cant impact on air quality.
1 Air
11
it
11
11
44
II
I
The deletion of the University Drive extension will require that drivers
travel a farther distance to get around the Upper Newport Back Bay area.
A driver who normally would take the University Drive extension would have
to divert to Jamboree Road, northbound Bristol Street, and then down
Irvine Boulevard or Birch Street. This is an additional distance of 0.6
miles. Approximately 27,000 vehicles per day would travel this additional
distance, resulting in 16,200 additional vehicle miles per day being
driven. This diverted travel was combined with emission factors to calcu-
late the additional pollutant burden resulting from not constructing the
University Drive extension. The data is summarized in Table 10 below.
Table 10
DAILY EMISSIONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIVERTED TRAFFIC
Contaminant
CO
NOx
Sox
Part.
TOG
ROG
Emission Factor (gm/mi)
5.82
1.09
0.24
0.268
0.52
0.46
Total Emission (lbs/day)
208
39
9
10
19
16
2000 Orange County (tn/day)
1010
173
19
118
362
230
Percent regional
0.010
0.011
0.023
0.004
0.003
0.004
1987 Receptor #18 (tn/day)
215.5
38.2
N/A
NIA
N/A
38.6
Percent receptor area
0.048
0.051
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.021
As indicated in Table 10, approximately 208 pounds per day of carbon
monoxide plus quantities of other pollutants will be generated by the
diverted traffic.
Ozone is also a recognized air pollutant in the area. However, since it
is not emitted directly, the emissions of nitrogen dioxide and organic
gases are also noted to be approximately 48 pounds per day. Emissions gen-
erated by the diverted (longer) travel route will be very small in compa-
rison to regional and subregional emissions. For all pollutants the emis-
sions generated will be less than 0.03 percent of county emissions, and
about 0.05 percent of the Source Receptor Area 18 emissions. Due to the
small quantities of emissions generated, there will be no significant
impact on regional or subregional air quality levels.
�I
ER
Ambient Air Quality
Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the
proposed project: stationary and mobile sources. Stationary source consi-
derations include emissions onsite from construction activities, emissions
from space and water -heating devices, and power plant emissions from the
generation of electricity for the project. Mobile source emissions are
those generated by short -tern construction activities and long-term traf-
fic from the project.
Short Terns Impacts
The preparation of the study area for road improvements along Bristol
Street will produce two types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from
construction equipment and fugitive dust generated by soil movement. The
equipment emissions and dust produced during construction activities and
grading, although of short-term duration, could be troublesome to workers
and adjacent developments. Each of these is discussed in more detail
below.
Construction -Related Exhaust Emissions - Detailed construction equipment
emissions were not calculated due to the lack of specific construction
equipment information. If can be anticipated that construction exhaust
emissions will be comparable to other development projects and will not
have a significant effect on state and federal air quality standards.
Fugitive Dust Emissions - Construction activities are a source of fugitive
dust emissions that may have a substantial temporary impact on local air
quality. Building and road construction are the prevalent construction
categories with the highest dust emission potential. Dust emissions typi-
cally result from land clearing, blasting, ground excavation, cut and fill
operations, and construction of buildings, and infrastructure systems.
Dust emissions will vary substantially from day to day, depending on the
level of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing weather. A
large portion of dust emissions typically results from equipment traveling
over temporary roads at the site. The volume of fugitive dust generated
46
is proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of con-
struction activity. Based upon field measurements of suspended dust emis-
sions at various construction projects, an approximate emission factor for
construction operations is 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of construc-
tion per month of activity. The total construction area for the recom-
mended Bristol Street couplet circulation improvements is approximately
15.5 acres which would generate an estimated 18.2 tons of fugitive dust
over an expected 1-2 month grading period. The fugitive dust could nega-
tively impact outdoor seating areas for restaurants along Bristol Street
South.
I Along Irvine Avenue, where widening is required as a result of the Santa
Ana Heights Redevelopment project, the Orange County airport expansion and
' the deletion of University Drive, the total construction area is approxi-
mately 3.57 acres. Construction activity may generate up to 4.3 tons of
fugitive dust over a 4 to 6-month grading period and may impact negatively
the adjacent residences on Irvine Avenue.
' Local Air Quality
' The potential impacts of the proposed project on local air quality with
respect to carbon monoxide (CO) were determined through use of the Cal -
trans CALINE4 air quality model. The purpose of this model is to assess
air quality impacts near transportation facilities in what is known as the
' microscale region (along a roadway corridor).
Because of the relative inertness of carbon monoxide in the photochemical
' smog formation process and limitations on present scientific knowledge of
dispersion characteristics of the other air pollutant species, carbon
monoxide is the most suitable tracer pollutant for microscale modeling.
Secondary pollutants, such as ozone, are a large-scale phenomenon and
should be analyzed on a regional basis, rather than a local one.
The background data used in the model was selected to provide a "worst
case" scenario for each analysis. Vehicle projections for the local road-
wayswere -obtained from the traffic study by Austin -Foust Associates.
Emissions factors were obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Manage-
1 47
ment District ("Air Quality Handbook," April 1987). and are representative
of arterial traffic in southern California. The factors were generated
using the EMFAC7C rates. An average vehicle speed of 25 mph was used.
Roadway locations and widths were estimated from maps of the area. A sur-
face roughness for the area of 108 centimeters was utilized and is based
on the CALINE4 manual (referenced above) recommendation for single family
residential areas.
Modeling was conducted along two roadway segments, the University Drive
segment on the Back Bay area along the route now proposed for deletion,
and the Bristol Street South segment where roadway widening is anticipa-
ted. In both cases the model incorporated future traffic volumes for con-
ditions with and without the University Drive extension. Four receptor
locations were modeled along each segment. For the University Drive seg-
ment, the results are based upon these receptors being located at any
point along the segment between Jamboree Road and Irvine Avenue. Like-
wise, for the Bristol Street segment the receptor locations could be found
anywhere between Jamboree Road and Birch Street. For both segments the
receptors are then placed 50, 100, and 200 feet from the roadway edge.
The same receptor locations were modeled for both the project and no pro-
ject cases.
Estimates of the ambient background concentrations were made based on the
Costa Mesa monitoring data.. The average of the maximum one -hour concentra-
tions over the past four years is 12 ppm. A portion of the carbon monox-
ide levels is attributable to local roadways. It was assumed that at
least 4 ppm was attributable to local roadways and that a maximum of 8 ppm
was attributable to ambient sources during worst case conditions. There-
fore, 8 ppm was added to the worst case meteorological one -hour projec-
tions to account for background carbon monoxide levels for the Upper New-
port Back Bay area modeling. A slightly higher background estimate of 10
ppm was used for the Bristol Street modeling to account for the number of
additional roadways in the area.
The results of the modeling effort for future air quality are presented in
Tables 11 and 12. The modeling results for University Drive (Back Bay
W
I
I
F1
area) are presented in Table 11, and results for Bristol Street South are
presented in Table 12. The pollutant levels, expressed in parts per
million (ppm) for each receptor area reported.
The data in Tables 11 and 12 indicate that carbon monoxide levels anticipa-
ted along Bristol Street South and University Drive segments will not
exceed the state and federal one -hour air quality standards. Under worst -
cast meteorological conditions, a maximum one -hour average concentration
of about 9.0 ppm and 11.3 ppm carbon monoxide is estimated to occur in the
Back Bay area and Bristol Street area, respectively. These figures are
well below the 35 ppm federal and 20 ppm state one -hour carbon monoxide
standards.
Table 11
MODELING RESULTS FOR UNIVERSITY DRIVE
(Concentrations in ppm)
Distance from
CO One -Hour
Concentration
Receptor
Road (feet)
W/University Drive
W/0 University Drive
1
0
9.0
8.0
2
50
8.5
8.0
3
100
8.4
8.0
4
200
8.3
8.0
Concentrations include
background level of 8
ppm.
Note:
Table 12
MODELING RESULTS FOR BRISTOL STREET SOUTH
(Concentrations in ppm)
Receptor
Distance from
Road (feet)
CO One -Hour
W/University Drive
Concentration
W/O University Drive
1
0
11.1
11.3
'
2
50
10.6
10.6
3
100
10.4
10.5
4
200
10.3
10.3
1 Note:
Concentrations include background level of 10 ppm.
�I
In both areas only about 1 ppm is directly attributable to the roadway of
concern, while the remaining 8 to 10 ppm are attributable to ambient or
"background" levels. The bulk of the carbon monoxide levels are due to
sources outside the project area. The "background" concentrations cur-
rently exceed the California standard of 9.0 ppm for an 8-hour period, how-
ever, the one -hour air quality standards are not anticipated to be
exceeded due to the proposed project in itself.
Variations between, the project and no project cases are not significant.
For the Back Bay area, the addition of the University Drive extension into
the area would only increase the local concentration by 1 ppm. Since the
proposed project would delete this connection, it can be stated that the
proposed project would reduce future CO concentrations by up to 1 ppm.
Along Bristol Street South the road widening is designed to accommodate
higher traffic volumes. The proposed' transportation improvements shall be
designed to increase traffic flow, ie., lane additions, intersection
improvements, traffic light synchronization, etc. (Please refer to
Section 3.2 of this EIR). The resulting increase in CO levels would be
only 0.2 ppm. For both areas, the differences between project and no pro-
ject cases are 1 ppm or less, and are not considered significant.
eight -hour traffic projections were not available, and therefore eight -
hour carbon monoxide levels were not projected. However, considerable
information regarding the eight -hour concentrations can be inferred from
the one -hour averaging analysis. Based on monitoring data reported by the
SCAQMD, it appears that the eight -hour California and federal standards
are exceeded slightly more often than the California one -hour standard.
For this project, the one -hour standard is not projected to be exceeded by
a considerable amount. Therefore, it would be anticipated that the eight -
hour standard also would not be exceeded.
PBR also conducted air quality analysis to determine project impacts on
four additional intersections using the CALINE4 computer model. Modeling
occurred at 15, 30 and 45 meters from the centerline of the roadway with
wind conditions oriented toward the receptor locations and assuming peak
hour traffic volumes. Carbon monoxide was modeled for existing, project
11
11
11
it
II
11
s0
' (2010) conditions as well as for 2010 conditions without the SR-55/SR-73
freeway connectors and without University Drive. Table 13 summarizes the
data from the intersections modeled.
Table 13
MAXIMUM ONE -HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS (PPM)
WITH AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS
u
At 30
Meters from
Centerlinel
No SR-55/SR-73
Fwy. Connectors,
Location
Existing2
Project3
No University Drive
Bristol Street/west
of Red Hill Avenue
10.9
6.7
7.4
Mesa Drive/Irvine Avenue
14.5
9.8
11.2
Mesa Drive/east
of Irvine Avenue
10.0
5.4
6.3
Irvine Avenue/University Drive
14.8
10.7
11.7
Comparison between existing and project conditions indicate that existing
CO concentrations do not exceed the state and federal one -hour air quality
standards of 20 and 35 ppm, respectively. Generally, under project condi-
tions (year 2010), ambient carbon monoxide levels are forecasted to
decrease. This is due primarily to the fact that future vehicle emission
rates are anticipated to be much lower than current emission rates as new
vehicles comply with more rigorous control standards and older vehicles
are removed from the fleet. Therefore, during project conditions the one -
hour standard will not be exceeded at the four intersections modeled.
SR-55/SR-73 Freeway Connector
Carbon monoxide impacts also were evaluated at the four modeled locations
for traffic conditions without the SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors and with-
1 Projected CO emissions for 15- and 45-meter locations modeled are pro-
vided in Appendix D.
2 Ambient concentration of 9.6 ppm assumed.
3 Ambient concentration of 4.9 ppm assumed.
51
out University Drive. As explained for project conditions above, ambient
carbon monoxide levels are anticipated to be significantly reduced for
2010 conditions. Therefore, although traffic volumes are significantly
Increased, carbon monoxide levels remain below the state and federal
one -hour standards.
However, short-term fugitive dust impacts would be considered greater than
those of the project due to the additional widening requirements on the '
Bristol Street couplet area and on Irvine Avenue under the future scen-
ario. ■
3.3.3 Mitigation Measures
Significant air quality impacts are not projected to occur with the pro-
ject. However, the continued support by the County of Orange of the mea-
sures contained in the AQMP is an important measure toward achieving
healthful levels of air quality. Since the air quality impacts associated
with this project result from automobile traffic, the most significant
mitigation measures will take the form of regional vehicle miles traveled
reduction programs. These programs require cooperating participation of
local governments and regional planning which can be generated by the air
quality planning process. Support of federal and state legislation aimed
at lowering air pollution emissions from new cars and trucks will also
result in improved air quality.
Specific measures which may be appropriate include:
1. The County of Orange shall cooperate with the appropriate transit
agencies to encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by
promoting public transit usage and providing secure bicycle facili-
ties.
2. During design improvements, the County of Orange or the City of New-
port Beach shall cooperate with the appropriate public transit agen-
cies to ensure adequate mass transit accommodations, such as bus turn-
out lanes and bus shelters.
52
' 3. During construction of alternative circulation improvements, the
County of Orange or the City of Newport Beach shall ensure compliance
with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Emissions) to assist in mitigating
the impact of construction -generated dust particulates.
II
�J
4. The impact of short-term construction -generated emissions (including
those associated with capital improvement projects) shall be reduced
to the extent feasible by the following measures:
a. The county's Environmental Management Agency or the City of New-
port Beach Public Works Department shall review and approve con-
struction, grading and scheduling to avoid the driest summer
months, by requiring periodic sprinkling of exposed surfaces with
water during construction, and by paving the area proposed for
parking as soon as possible;
b. Discontinuing construction during second stage smog alerts. Code
enforcement shall be handled by the Orange County Building Divi-
sion.
5. The County Health Department shall monitor the local air quality condi-
tions (CO emissions) adjacent to the Bristol Street couplet for restau-
rants with outdoor dining areas. Prior to approval of the street
improvement plans, the department shall also review the projections
for local emissions at these locations. If customers are being
exposed to public hazard by exposure to vehicular emissions while
dining, subsequent action shall be taken by ,the County Health Depart-
ment.
3.3.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Short-term air quality impacts (construction -related emissions and dust)
are mitigated to a level of insignificance. The contribution of project
diverted traffic to local air quality is insignificant. All modeled inter-
sections are within the state and federal one -hour standards for carbon
monoxide levels.
53
L
3.4 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
An acoustical survey of the project area was performed by Mestre-Greve
Associates in January 1989. The complete report is included as Appendix
C. Additionally, PBR performed acoustical analysis at six residential
locations for conditions without the SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors and
without University Drive. This data is also available within Appendix C.
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
The noise environment in the vicinity of the University Drive project site
is determined by traffic on adjacent roadways and aircraft overflights.
The project is subject to overflights of aircraft from Orange County's
John Wayne Airport.
Co mnity Noise Scales
Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A -weighted decibel,"
abbreviated as dBA, A -weighting is a frequency dependent correction
factor which modifies the measured sound pressure level in correlation
with the frequency response of the human ear.
Several rating scales have been developed for the measurement of community
noise. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use
compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).
The CNEL reading is obtained by averaging in a logarithmic sense the 24
hourly readings from 7 a.m. to 7 a.m. of equivalent noise levels, abbre-
viated Leq, also A -weighted. However, some of these readings are adjusted
or time -weighted, to account for increased sensitivity to hearing. For
the evening period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m,), 5 dBA is added to each hourly
reading and for the nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.), 10 dBA.
Noise Standards
The California Department of Health has established guidelines for assess-
ing the compatibility of community noise environments and land uses. The
guidelines rank noise and land use compatibility the order of normally
11
11
54
' acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly
unacceptable. These guidelines are summarized in Appendix C.
' In addition, the California Noise Insulation Standards require that new
' multifamily residential construction should be noise insulated so that the
interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL. Orange County standards for
' both single and multifamily developments are 45 CNEL for interior areas
and 65 CNEL for private outdoor living areas (eg., rear yards and patio
areas). These standards, 45 CNEL indoors and 65 CNEL outdoors, will be
' used to evaluate the potential noise impact on surrounding residential
uses. The surrounding communities (ie., Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Newport
Beach) use the same noise standards for new residential developments.
' Aircraft Noise Sources
The John Wayne Airport lies north of the project site. The aircraft noise
levels along the University Drive connection range from less than 60 CNEL
at the east end to a high of about 67 CNEL near the westerly end. Air-
craft noise levels along Bristol Street are higher; ranging from 60 CNEL
to almost 75 CNEL.
' Existing Traffic Noise
An estimate of traffic noise levels in terms of CNEL was computed for the
roadways in the vicinity of the project. The Highway Noise Model pub-
lished by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978) was utilized. The FHWA
' model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geome-
try to compute the,"equivalent noise level." A computer code has been
' written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time per-
iods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and
summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL
contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to
the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found.
1
Estimates of existing traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and truck volumes
' were used with the FHWA model to estimate existing noise levels in terms
55
of CNEL. Traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study prepared by
Austin -Foust Associates (January 1989). The distances to the CNEL con-
tours for the roadways serving the project are given in Table 14. These
represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour
value shown. Note that the values given in Table 14 do not take into
account the effect of any noise barriers that may affect ambient noise
levels.
Table 14
EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Distance to
CNEL Contour
From
Centerline
of Roadway (Feet)
Roadway
70 CNEL
65 CNEL
60 CNEL
State Route 73
SR-55 to Irvine
221
476
1,025
Irvine to Jamboree
207
447
963
State Route 55
SR-73 to Del Mar
228
491
1,057
Jamboree
California to MacArthur
68
147
317
MacArthur to Bristol
72
155
333
Bristol to University
110
237
510
University to Eastbluff
110
237
510
Del Mar
Newport to Santa Ana
15
32
68
Santa Ana to Irvine
15
32
68
Bristol Street
Newport to Santa Ana
62
133
288
Bristol Street North
Santa Ana to Birch
66
143
308
Birch to Jamboree
41
88
190
Bristol Street South
Santa Ana to Birch
66
143
308
Birch to Jamboree
63
137
294
MacArthur Boulevard
Jamboree to SR-73
57
122
264
SR-73 to University
133
287
617
University to Bonita Canyon
128
275
593
Irvine
University to Mesa/Birch
57
123
264
Mesa/Birch to Bristol
57
123
264
Mesa/Birch
Santa Ana to Irvine
24
52
ill
Irvine to Bristol
24
52
ill
Bristol to MacArthur
•38
82
176
MacArthur to Von Karman
31
66
142
This data indicates that two residential areas currently experience noise
levels above 65 CNEL for existing conditions. These are the multifamily
11
11
11
56
J
II
II
II
II
II
homes located on the south side of Bristol Street between Newport Boule-
vard and Santa Ana Avenue, and in residential areas along Irvine Avenue
from University Drive to Bristol Street South.
3.4.2 Environmental Impacts
Potential noise impacts may arise from construction activities and traffic
impacts on surrounding land uses. Each of these activities is addressed
below.
Construction Activities
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels.
Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bull-
dozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels.
Noise levels for equipment which might be used for the excavation and con-
struction of the proposed project are presented in Appendix C.
Residential areas adjacent to roadway construction zones will be exposed
to noise levels that may cause the residents to be annoyed. If University
Drive was constructed across the Back Bay the homes adjacent to the align-
ment would be impacted by construction noise. With the proposed deletion
of the University Drive, roadway construction will occur along portions of
the Bristol Street couplet where intersection improvements are planned.
There are four scattered residences along Bristol Street South, east of
Birch Street. These residents would be impacted by construction noise.
In addition, commercial establishments, most notably restaurant uses,
would be impacted negatively at times by the construction noise. To miti-
gate the effects of construction noise, compliance with the Orange County
Noise Ordinance should be required. The ordinance will essentially limit
construction operations that occur near residential areas to weekday, day-
time hours.
Traffic Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses
The proposed deletion of University Drive will modify future traffic flow
patterns in the project vicinity, resulting in higher traffic volumes
57
along several roadways. Noise levels associated with these increased vol-
umes may impact the residential areas along these streets. To assess the
Impact of the project on land uses adjacent to roadways that will serve
the area, the expected increases in roadway noise along these streets were
determined. These roadways were modeled for future traffic conditions
with and without the University Drive extension. Two cases are presented
in Table 15, Case I is a comparison of the CNEL contour for future traf-
fic volumes with University Drive and the CNEL contour for future traffic
volumes without University Drive and with mitigation. Case 2 is similar
to Case 1, except that the proposed circulation improvements along the
Bristol Street couplet are in place. A negative number for either case
indicates that a decrease in the noise level will occur at the right-of-
way line with the project.
Table 15
INCREASE IN CNEL WITH THE PROJECT
Increase in CNEL Noise Level (dBA)
Roadway Case 1 Case 2
University Drive University Drive
deleted, with no deleted, with Bristol
improvements Street improvements
State Route 73
SR-55 to Irvine
0.1
0.1
Irvine to Jamboree
0.1
0.1
'
San Joaquin Hills T.C.
Jamboree to Bison
0.1
0.1
State Route 55
SR-73 to Del Mar
0.1
0.1
Jamboree
California to MacArthur
MacArthur to Bristol
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
Bristol to University
0.1
0.0
University to Eastbluff
-0.4
-0.3
,
Del Mar
Newport to Santa Ana
-0.6
-0.6
,
Santa Ana to Irvine
-3.0
-3.0
Bristol Street
Newport to Santa Ana
0.2
0.2
58
1I
J
1
II
Table 15 (cont'd)
Bristol Street North
Santa Ana to Birch
0.3
0.3
Birch to Jamboree
0.9
0.9
Bristol Street South
Santa Ana to Birch
0.4
0.4
Birch to Jamboree
0.7
0.7
MacArthur Boulevard
Jamboree to University
0.4
0.4
University to Eastbluff
0.0
0.0
Irvine
University to Mesa
1.4
1.4
Mesa to Bristol
1.1
1.1
Mesa/Birch
Santa Ana to Irvine
1.2
0.9
Irvine to Bristol
2.1
2.1
Bristol to MacArthur
0.4
0.2
MacArthur to Von Karman
0.6
0.6
In community noise assessment, changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA
are often noticeable or identified as significant, while changes less than
1 dBA generally will not be discernible. Those who are very sensitive to
noise may perceive a slight change even between 1 and 3 dBA. Under labora-
tory testing conditions, of course, changes of less than 1 dBA remain
detectable to the people being tested. On a long-term basis, as in commu-
nity noise evaluation, changes in noise levels may not be in sharp con-
trast as in laboratory conditions. Therefore, it appears appropriate to
consider the level at which changes in community noise levels become dis-
cernible to most people to be 3 dBA.
Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street will experience
noise increases in the 1 to 1.4 dBA range. Similarly, Mesa/Birch Street,
from Santa Ana Avenue to Bristol Street, will experience traffic noise
levels measured in the 1.2 to 2.1 dBA range. Residences do exist in these
areas, although much of the area is being redeveloped with commercial
uses. Some residents in these areas may consider the increase in roadway
noise levels significant.
11
-M
Other residential areas in the project vicinity will have indiscernible
noise increases of less than 1 dBA. These would include the residential
areas along Bristol Street, and those near the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55)
near the San Diego Freeway (I-405) interchange.
It should be noted that the deletion of University Drive will result in
slightly reduced noise levels along Jamboree from University Drive to
Eastbluff and along Del Mar from Newport Boulevard to Irvine Avenue, which
would benefit residents in these areas.
Traffic Noise Levels
Traffic levels reported in the traffic study were used, with the FHWA High-
way Traffic Noise Model, to project future noise levels with and without
the project. The modeling results are reported in Tables 16 and 17 in the
form of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. Table 16 repre-
sents contour distances with the project, and Table 11 without the project
(with the University Drive connection). These projections do not take
Into account any barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels.
Table 16
FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITH PROJECT
(Without University Drive Extension)
Distance to
CNEL Contour From
Centerline
of Roadway
(Feet)
Roadway
70 CNEL
65 CNEL
60 CNEL
State Route 73
SR-55 to Irvine
473
11019
2,196
Irvine to Jamboree
435
937
2,018
San Joaquin Hills T.C.
Jamboree to Bison
401
864
11862
State Route 55
SR-73 to Del Mar
282
605
1,303
Jamboree
California to MacArthur
93
201
433
MacArthur to Bristol
102
221
476
Bristol to University
89
191
411
University to Eastbluff
101
218
469
Del Mar
Newport to Santa Ana
25
53
114
Santa Ana to Irvine
25
53
114
Bristol Street
Newport to Santa Ana
73
168
340
M
Table 16 (cont'd)
Bristol Street North
Santa Ana to Birch
59
127
274
'
Birch to Jamboree
69
149
321
Bristol Street South
Santa Ana to Birch
53
114
245
'
Birch to Jamboree
76
164
352
MacArthur Boulevard
Jamboree to University
105
227
489
University to Eastbluff
104
224
483
Irvine
University to Mesa
61
132
285
Mesa to Bristol
66
142
305
'
Mesa/Birch
Santa Ana to Irvine
37
79
170
Irvine to Bristol
38
82
176
Bristol to MacArthur
42
91
196
MacArthur to Von Karman
34
73
156
'
Table 17
FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITHOUT
PROJECT
'
(With the
University Drive Extension)
'
Distance to
CNEL Contour
From
Centerline
of Roadway (Feet)
Roadway
70 CNEL
65 CNEL
60 CNEL
'
State Route 73
SR-55 to Irvine
464
1,000
2,154
Irvine to Jamboree
425
916
1,974
'
San Joaquin Hills T.C.
Jamboree to Bison
395
850
1,832.
State Route 55
SR-73 to Del Mar
277
598
1,288
Jamboree
California to MacArthur
93
201
433
MacArthur to Bristol
96
208
448
'
Bristol to University
87
188
404
University to Eastbluff
107
230
496
University Drive
Irvine to Jamboree
60
130
281
Del Mar
Newport to Santa Ana
27
58
125
Santa Ana to Irvine
39
84
181
'
Bristol Street
Newport to Santa Ana
70
152
327
Bristol Street North
Santa Ana to Birch
56
120
259
Birch to Jamboree
60
130
281
Bristol Street South
Santa Ana to Birch
49
107
230
Birch to Jamboree
68
146
314
61
I
MacArthur Boulevard
Jamboree to University
University to Eastbluff
Irvine
University to Mesa
Mesa to Bristol
Mesa/Birch
Santa Ana to Irvine
Irvine to Bristol
Bristol to MacArthur
MacArthur to Von Karman
Table 17 (cont'd)
99
214
462
104
224
483
50
107
231
56
120
259
31
66
142
27
59
127
39
85
183
31
66
142
The results of Tables 16 and 17 indicate that three residential areas will
experience noise levels above 65 CNEL under future conditions with the
project. The first area includes the multifamily homes located on the
south side of Bristol Street between Newport Boulevard and Santa Ana Ave-
nue. The second residential area which may experience noise levels above
65 CNEL includes the single and multifamily homes along Mesa Drive -Birch
Street between Santa Ana Avenue and Bristol Street South. Additionally,
some increased noise levels above 65 CNEL will occur in residential areas
along Irvine Avenue from University Drive to Bristol Street South.
Although these three residential areas would also be subject to noise
levels above 65 CNEL without the project (with the University Drive exten-
sion) the project does contribute to the slight increase in noise levels
for these areas and therefore is considered to have a significant adverse
impact.
SR-55/SR-73 Freeway Connectors
PBR prepared a noise analysis for future traffic conditions without the
SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors at six roadway locations with surrounding
residential uses. Traffic noise levels are estimated using the Federal
Highway Administration model.1 The highway noise model estimates CNEL
noise levels generated by traffic at various observation points. The
model considers traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed and roadway geo-
metry to compute CNEL. Assumptions for the analysis are included in the
technical appendices.
1 "FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD-77-108," December 1978.
11
11
62
1
I
1
I
Table 18 indicates the CNEL contour location for each of the locations
modeled.
Table 18
FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITHOUT SR-55/SR-73 FREEWAY CONNECTORS
WITHOUT UNIVERSITY DRIVE
Distance to
CNEL Contour From
Centerline
of Roadway
(Feet)
Roadway
70 CNEL
65 CNEL
60 CNEL
Bristol Street South
West of Red Hill
66.9
182
565.3
Del Mar Avenue/University Drive
West of Santa Ana Avenue
*
68
207
West of Irvine Avenue
*
74
229
Mesa Drive
West of Irvine Avenue
*
71
218
East of Irvine Avenue
*
104
326
Irvine Avenue
North of University Drive
*
162
500
* Noise contour falls within roadway right-of-way.
This table indicates that under future conditions without the SR-55/SR-73
freeway connectors and without University Drive, all six residential areas
modeled would experience noise levels above 65 CNEL and require atten-
uation measures. Without the connectors, all six locations experience
significant noise impacts.
Additionally, it should be noted that additional circulation improvements
necessary without the freeway connectors would result in increased con-
struction activity along several roadways and thereby increase this short-
term noise impact in affected residential areas.
3.4.3 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are proposed.
1. Construction activities near residential areas should be limited per
the Orange County Noise Ordinance. This essentially will limit con-
1
63
struction near residential areas to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.)
on weekdays. Additionally, the following instructions should be
issued to the construction teams.
A. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated
within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
B. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far
as practicable from residential dwellings.
2. Prior to the implementation of street improvement plans, the EMA shall
monitor existing noise levels in residentially zoned areas along: 1)
Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street, 2) Mesa
Drive between Santa Ana Avenue and Birch Street, and 3) Bristol Street
between Newport Boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue. Final mitigation pro-
grams shall be completed based on final circulation improvements and
detailed noise projections for these areas.
3.4.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Short-term noise impacts associated with roadway construction will occur
but are not regarded as significant after mitigation. Under future condi-
tions, ambient noise levels are forecast to exceed 65 dBA in three residen-
tial areas with or without the project. Although project diverted traffic
would contribute only slightly to increased noise levels, some residents
may regard any increase in noise levels as significant.
11
11
11
64
1 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
A3.5.1 Existing Conditions
The proposed deletion of the University Drive extension involves specific
circulation improvements (widenings, intersection improvements, right-of-
way acquisitions) along the Bristol Street couplet and also contributes to
' the need to widen Irvine Avenue to its six -lane facility as shown on the
Orange County MPAH. These improvements are necessary to accommodate
future traffic volumes along this facility.
' According to Orange County historical records, no sites of historic or cul-
tural value are known to exist on the property immediately adjacent to the
Bristol Street couplet or adjacent to Irvine Avenue.
However, county records identify several archaeological sites in the imme-
diate vicinity of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve along the
planned alignment of the University Drive extension. These sites have
been identified during archaeological surveys conducted for previous pro-
jects in the area. Generally, the majority of the sites remain in an
undisturbed state due to their proximity within or adjacent to the Ecologi-
cal Reserve.
3.5.2 Impacts
Project circulation improvements along the Bristol Street couplet and the
planned implementation of planned improvements on Irvine Avenue are not
expected to have any adverse impacts on historical or cultural resources.
No archaeological resources are known to exist in or adjacent to these
roadways; however, should archaeological artifacts be discovered during
grading, the provisions of Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines shall be fol-
' lowed. The proposed deletion of University Drive will eliminate potential
adverse impacts to archaeological resources located in the vicinity of the
Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Seven archaeological sites have
been identified immediately adjacent to the planned alignment of the Uni-
versity Drive extension. Implementation of this segment would likely dis-
turb or remove these resources during grading and construction work.
1 65
Because the proposed deletion of University Drive from the Orange County
Master Plan of Arterial Highways will avoid these impacts, the project
represents a beneficial impact toward the preservation of known cultural
resources in the region.
SR-55/SR-73 Freeway Connectors
Additional circulation improvements required without the completion of the
SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors would involve further widening and intersec-
tion improvements along the Bristol Street couplet and Irvine Avenue.
These improvements would involve substantial right-of-way acquisition and
could impact two identified archaeological resources immediately adjacent
to the roadway near the intersection of Irvine Avenue/Santa Isabel Avenue
and Irvine Avenue/22nd Street.
3.5.3 Mitigation Measures
1. Project grading shall cease if the presence of archaeological
resources is evident. A qualified archaeologist shall examine any
artifacts and all subsequent actions shall be in accordance with the
provisions of Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines.
3.5.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Potential impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a level of insig-
nificance.
it
I
I
II
3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Introduction
The University Drive extension represented an important east -west link in
the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, designed to accommo-
date increased traffic flows associated with future regional growth. How-
ever, the planned alignment for this segment is adjacent to the ecologi-
cally sensitive Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, and its implementa-
tion is being reevaluated. The following summary of biological resources
within the Ecological Reserve is based on a literature survey and field
study completed for Section 4.4 of Orange County EIR No. 508 for the John
Wayne Airport Master Plan/Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Pro-
gram.
3.6.1 Existing Conditions
The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is regarded as a regionally signi-
ficant estuarine system in that it supports a high diversity of wildlife
species and habitat types within a predominantly urban area. Major habi-
tat types found within and immediately surrounding the Ecological Reserve
include disturbed annual grassland/ruderal, coastal salt marsh, riparian
and coastal sage scrub. The distribution of each of these within the pro-
ject area is depicted in Exhibit 10.
The majority of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is comprised of
low-lying vegetation characteristic of the coastal salt marsh and dis-
turbed and annual grass land/ ruderal plant communities. Coastal salt marsh
habitat occupies more than 90 percent of the plant community within the
Ecological Reserve, and is characterized by a variety of low -growth plants
which have adapted to harsh estuarine conditions including high salinity,
low soil aeration, and intense heat and light. Disturbed annual grass-
land/ ruderal habitats are located primarily along the border of the Ecolo-
gical Reserve and are comprised of introduced annual plants which also
have adapted to the harsh environmental conditions. This habitat prima-
rily represents a replacement community where indigenous habitat has been
removed and the natural environment condition altered.
67
11 tau
a9 mod'
m"
qnmmst:� �5
IJ
1,190ARN-1;
r-y
UFFE.1
I A hl/
1V xv
ADISTURBED
M,
ANNUAL
GRASSLAND/RUDERAL
5,71
COASTAL SAGE SCRUB
DISTURBED ANNUAL GRASSLAND
PLANNED UNIVERSITY
DRIVE EXTENSION
Biological Resources
RIPARIAN
COASTAL SALT MARSH
UPPER NEWPORT BAY ECOLOGICAL RESERVE
SOURCE:6RANGE COUNTY EIR 508 EXHIBIT 4.4-1
AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP MAP, THE IRVINE COMPANY
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION /
ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
I EXHIBIT 10
U
�I
Several small areas of riparian, or streamside, vegetation are also found
in and around the Ecological Reserve. These areas occur along drainage -
ways above tidal influence, and often contain freshwater marsh vegetation
in addition to riparian woodland and/or riparian scrub. The vegetation of
these areas is usually quite dense and provides habitat for a variety of
wildlife.
The coastal sage scrub community occurs sporadically on the mesas overlook-
ing the salt marsh, and in some distances along the sides, and at the foot
of bluffs above the high waterline. Generally, this habitat represents a
force of rapidly disappearing plant community in southern California due
to blufftop development and the invasion of competing weeds and ornamen-
tals.
The coastal sage scrub community in the Upper Newport Bay area consists
generally of semiwoody subshrubs, one to four feet in height, occurring in
a relatively open arrangement usually interspersed by grasses and forbs.
Wildlife
The estuary system and surrounding plant communities support an abundance
and high diversity of wildlife species. The area is particularly rich in
marine and avian fauna.
Within the estuary, 61 species of fish have been recorded. The estuary
waters serve as a seasonal spawning and nursery ground for many coastal
species. Additionally, more than 200 species of birds have been reported
In the Upper Newport Bay area. While fewer than 15 species actually nest
in the estuary habitats, the area is considered a significant stopover
point for migratory birds and an important avian habitat component of the
estuary -lagoon system in southern California.
Other wildlife found or expected to occur within and around the Ecological
Reserve include up to 24 species of mammals in the marsh and upland areas,
15 species of reptiles, and seven species of amphibians.
M.
Sensitive biological Resources
Overall, the flora and fauna in the Ecological Reserve is diverse and
Includes many native species important to the natural ecology of the area.
Within this ecological entity, two species of plants and six species of
birds were identified as rare or endangered in EIR No. 508, John Wayne Air-
port Master Plan and Santa Ana Heights Land Use Compatibility Program (see
Table 19).
Table 191
RARE OR ENDANGERED SPECIES RECORDED WITHIN UPPER NEWPORT BAY
Species Designation
Plants State (CDFG) Federal (USFWS)
Saltmarsh bird's beak Endangered Endangered
(Cordylanthus maritimus maritimus)
Laguna Beach live -forever Rare --
(Dud1e a stolonifera)
Wildlife
California brown pelican
Endangered
Endangered
(Pelecanus occidentalis californicus)
American peregrine falcon
Endangered
Endangered
(Falco peregrinus anatum)
Light-footed clapper rail
Endangered
Endangered
(Ralius longirostris lev_ ipes)
California least tern
Endangered
Endangered
(Sterna albifrons browni)
California black rail
Rare
-_
(Laterallus ,jamaicensis coturniculus)
Belding's savannah sparrow
Endangered
--
(Passewrculus sandwichensis beldingi)
1 John Wayne Airport Master Plan/Santa Ana Heights
Land Use Cc
1Program EIS/EIR No. 508, Section
11i11Inc—.,
wo
1
11
y II
1
Additional investigation would be required to determine whether additional
species found in the Ecological Reserve are now classified as rare, threa-
tened or endangered, and to determine any upgrade in status of the species
listed in Table 19.
' 3.6.2 Impacts
II
!J
II
II
Without the extension of University Drive several potential adverse
impacts to the biologically sensitive Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve
will be avoided.
As previous noted, the alignment of the planned extension of University
Drive is adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Construc-
tion of this roadway segment could result in potentially significant
impacts to habitat and wildlife, including: 1) habitat elimination/altera-
tion associated with construction activity, 2) wildlife disturbance by
noise, 3) short-term water quality degradation due to sediment transport
during construction phases, 4) higher concentrations of air emissions.
Construction of the planned extension adjacent to the Ecological Reserve
may eliminate or alter native plant communities of high habitat value. At
least one sensitive species of plant (Dudleya stolonifera) would expect to
be impacted directly by roadway construction as well as other more common
species important to the natural ecology of the region. Habitat in this
area serves a critical role in the maintenance of regionally significant
wildlife populations.
'
Noise
impacts to wildlife would occur as a
result of high traffic volumes
University Drive seg-
projected (27,000 ADT by year 2010) for the
extended
ment.
The extent and nature of noise -induced effects upon wildlife depend
'
upon
a variety of variables, including intensity,
frequency spectrum, dura-
tion,
rest intervals, exposure pattern and
species susceptibility. How-
, '
ever,
the area is impacted by noise levels
from aircraft overflight from
John
Wayne Airport.
■ High traffic volumes projected for the planned roadway segment would also
' produce high localized concentrations of air pollutant emissions that may
70
ultimately impact wildlife in the Ecological Reserve. Vehicle pollutants
such as carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particulate matter could accumu-
late in area soils, vegetation and eventually wildlife, thereby adversely
affecting the productivity of the area.
Additionally, the implementation of the University Drive extension may
have short-term effects on water quality in the Upper Newport Bay Ecologi-
cal Reserve. Short-term impacts consist of grading and earthwork activi-
ties during the construction phases of development which could potentially
increase erosion and the transport of sediment into the Ecological
Reserve. Cumulatively, the impacts of implementing the University Drive
extension would degrade the overall quality of the Upper Newport Bay Eco-
logical Reserve area.
Without the construction of the University Drive extension, high traffic
volumes and construction activity will be removed from the immediate area,
thereby reducing the aforementioned impacts to a level of insignificance.
Project circulation improvements in the Bristol Street couplet area and
along Irvine Avenue are not expected to impact areas of biological signi-
ficance. No important biological resources have been identified in the
areas of roadway widening and improvement.
By eliminating several potential adverse impacts to the biological
resources in and around the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, the dele-
tion of the University Drive extension serves to benefit; this regionally
important biological resource.
SR-55/SR-73 Connectors
Traffic mitigation required for conditions without University Drive and
without the SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors includes the widening of Irvine
Avenue from Bristol Street to 22nd Street to a six -lane facility. This
mitigation would involve some areas of significant right-of-way acquisi-
tion in areas adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. While
a biological survey has not been conducted in this specific area, roadway
widening near the ecological reserve would likely disturb biological
resources in a similar manner to those impacts described by the extension
of University Drive above.
71
3.6.3 Mitigation Measures
DUe to the nneitiva nenartc of tha rlalatinn of thin IlnivPrsity Drive exten-
sion from
3.6.4 Lev
Potential
of the Un-
nificant b
3.7 PUBLIC SERVICES
The deletion of the University Drive extension and alternative circulation
improvements will not result in an increased or decreased demand for pub-
lic services or utilities.
The following discussion of public services and utilities relates to the
physical impacts associated only with the circulation improvements along
the Bristol Street couplet. The project also recognizes the need to imple-
ment the planned widening of Irvine Avenue from Bristol Street South to
University Drive as shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways. However, this improvement is required as a result of future
regional growth as well as the Orange County Airport Expansion Project and
the Santa Ana Heights Redevelopment Project. Therefore, because this
widening is considered necessary with or without the University Drive
extension, the specific impacts on public service and utilities due to the
Irvine Avenue improvements are not evaluated in this report.
3.7.1 Existing Conditions
Water
Four water service agencies, the Santa Ana Heights Water Company, the Mesa
Consolidated Water District, the City of Newport Beach and the Metropoli-
tan Water District, maintain water service facilities in the vicinity of
the proposed Bristol Street improvements. Facilities include water mains,
lateral distribution lines, hydrants and pressure reducing station.
Within Bristol Street South, the Metropolitan Water District maintains a
36-inch service line and the Mesa Consolidated Water District maintains a
42-inch service line. Mesa Consolidated also maintains a pressure redu-
cing station on the north side of Bristol Street South, east of the Campus
Drive bridge overcrossing.
The Santa Ana Heights Water Company plans to install a 10-inch line within
Bristol Street South and an 8-inch line in Birch Street south of Bristol
Street South, in order to provide additional fire flows to the Santa Ana
73
Heights community. Additionally, the Mesa Consolidated Water District
plans the installation of a new water main and fire hydrant west of the
intersection of Campus Drive at Bristol Street North on county airport
' property.
1 Sewer/Storm Drain
it
II
J
The Costa Mesa Sanitation District maintains a sewer line within Bristol
Street South, south of centerline, which conveys flows south to a pumping
station near the intersection of Irvine Avenue and Mesa Drive.
The sewer district has published a project report which identifies alterna-
tive improvement schemes. One alternative is the installation of a new
pump station on the east side of Birch Street at its intersection with
Bristol Street South and the installation of a new sewer main in Birch
Street to convey flows northbound within the freeway overcrossing and con-
tinuing to MacArthur Boulevard. The project report has been distributed
to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, the City of Newport
Beach, and the Orange County Sanitation District.
In addition, a 24-inch local storm drain exists within Bristol Street
South.
Gas and Electric/Other Utilities
Southern California Gas Company and Southern California Edison Company
maintain facilities within the Bristol Street couplet, Campus Drive, and
Birch Street.
Surface meters and subsurface gas and electric transmission and distribu-
tion lines are located in close proximity to the proposed project improve-
ments. Subsurface facilities may be maintained and accessed by pull box
or vault facilities along the roadway.
Above -ground telephone and cable television transmission lines may also
exist adjacent to or within portions of the Bristol Street couplet. These
facilities will be identified by survey prior to construction of the
proposed improvements.
74
I
Public Transit
The Orange County Transit District currently operates a bus route in the
project vicinity. However, no bus stops are located in areas proposed for
roadway improvements.
3.7.2 Impacts
Hater
The proposed widenings along the Bristol Street couplet (see Figure 6, Sec-
tion 3.2 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION) are not expected to require the relo-
cation of existing water mains located within Bristol Street South.
The existing water pressure reducing stations located on the north side of
Bristol Street South, east of Campus Drive, represent the most significant
water facility requiring relocation. The County of Orange and responsible
water agencies will determine the appropriate placement for these facili-
ties prior to completion of street improvement plans. The impact of the
project's roadway improvements is not regarded as significant to water ser-
vice facilities in the area.
Sewer/Storm Drain
Existing sewer mains are not expected to be relocated or replaced as a
result of the project roadway improvements. However, lateral lines and
other near surface facilities (covers) may require relocation or replace-
ment at various locations. All replacement and relocation costs will be
Incurred by the County of Orange.
Additionally, the planned sewer improvements in the project area will be
coordinated with the county to ensure proper and timely placement of facil-
ities and to ensure that construction of new facilities does not conflict
with proposed street widening projects in the area. These impacts are not
regarded as significant.
I
75
I
Storm drain facilities which may need to be relocated or modified due to
project circulation improvements will be coordinated with responsible agen-
cies and conform with any new storm drain plans proposed in the Santa Ana
Heights Specific Plan.
IGas and Electric/Other Utilities
'I
I
Proposed roadway improvements along the Bristol Street couplet may necessi-
tate removal and relocation of existing gas and electric facilities,
including utility transmission lines, lateral distribution lines, line
access facilities, and surface meters. The exact alignment of replaced
lines and facilities will be determined during the construction phases of
the roadway, and will be the financial responsibility of the County of
Orange.
Similar impacts may occur to telephone and cable television transmission
lines in the project vicinity. Prior to implementing the proposed roadway
improvements, a survey of all existing utility lines in the area will be
conducted and a plan developed to minimize service interruptions and to
coordinate relocation efforts with the responsible agencies.
Public Transit
Proposed roadway improvements will not require removal or relocation of
any Orange County Transit District facilities. However, during construc-
tion activities, bus vehicle movement could be impaired for short periods
due to lane closures and related activities. To minimize this impact,
Orange County Transit District (OCTD) officials will be notified prior to
construction work in order to coordinate sufficient roadway access.
SR-55/SR-73 Freeway Connectors
The circulation improvements required to mitigate traffic impacts without
the SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors involve extensive widenings and circula-
tion improvements beyond those required for the project. Therefore, the
overall impact on public utility lines (electric, gas, water, sewer, etc.)
and public transit services would be substantially increased. Generally,
76
r
the mitigation of these impacts would be similar to those described for
the project in that they would involve coordinating with the affected util-
ity agencies to remove and relocate facilities where necessary.
3.7.3 Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures will be the responsibility of the agency
or jurisdiction implementing individual improvements.
1. Prior to completion of street improvement plans, a survey to identify
the exact location of existing utility facilities will be conducted
and precautionary grading and construction procedures will be estab-
lished'to avoid unnecessary removal of lines and facilities.
2. Construction activities should be coordinated with responsible city
departments and utility companies to minimize impacts associated with
necessary interruptions of service, as well as to complete the pro-
posed improvements in the most efficient, expeditious manner possible.
Sufficient notice should be provided by service agencies to affected
residences and businesses prior to any anticipated service interrup-
tions.
3. The relocation plans for the major existing water pressure reduction
facilities located near the Campus Drive bridge freeway overcrossing
shall be finalized concurrently with the completion of street improve-
ment plans.
4. Prior to roadway construction, the Orange County Transit District
shall be consulted to coordinate bus access routes. Through access of
sufficient width should be maintained throughout the duration of the
construction activities for passage of Orange County Transit District
vehicles.
3.7.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The project does not generate any additional demands for public services
or utilities. The relocation of existing service and utility lines and
facilities, where necessary, is mitigated to a level of insignificance.
I
77
I
3.8 HEALTH AND SAFETY
3.8.1 Existing Conditions
Project health and safety issues relate to public exposure to health and
safety risks in association with hazardous materials which may occur in
the project area. For this project, potential public exposure to health
and safety risks relate to construction and demolition activity associated
with recommended circulation improvements. Land on the north side of
Bristol Street South in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is
vacant with the exception of limited surface public utility facilities.
No toxic/hazardous material or contaminated soils are known to exist in
these areas. (See Land Use, Section 3.1.) The majority of surfaces along
Birch Street at Bristol Street North are characterized by typical urban
improvements (asphalt parking lots, sidewalks, landscaping, etc.). There
are no industrial uses in these areas. Along Campus Drive, in the
vicinity of Orange County John Wayne Airport Maintenance Building, there
exists the potential for soil contamination to occur due to the use of
chemicals, solvents, and the possible existence of an underground gas
tank. Along Irvine Avenue, adjacent uses include residential, commercial,
vacant land and the Newport Golf Course. No toxic/hazardous material or
contaminated soils are known to exist adjacent to Irvine Avenue.
3.8.2 Impacts
Project related Bristol Street couplet improvements will involve roadway
widening and necessitate the removal of adjacent urban landscapes, and the
acquisition of unimproved Caltrans property on the north side of Bristol
Street South. Minimal grading will be required.
Master planned widening of Irvine Avenue will result in the removal of
golf course property, some commercial land, residential property and
vacant County Flood Control land.
While no hazardous material or contaminated soil conditions are known to
occur in the vicinity of these roadway improvements, precautionary
measures will be taken during the removal process to ensure the contain-
ment of any potentially hazardous substances (asbestos, carcinogens,
sulfur -based asphalt) encountered during the removal and demolition
78
Process. Should sulfur -based asphalt be encountered in the project area,
specific measures will be taken to minimize potential air quality, health
and odoriferous impacts associated with its removal and remixing.
In addition, removal of underground gas tanks, if required, will be conduc-
ted in accordance with local state and federal regulations.
SR-55/SR-73 Freeway Connectors
Additional right-of-way acquisition and roadway construction is recom-
mended on the Bristol Street couplet and Irvine Avenue for future condi-
tions without the SR-55/SR-73 freeway connectors. These improvements will
also necessitate the removal of existing urban landscapes, sidewalks,
driveways, etc. No hazardous material or contaminated soil conditions are
known to occur in the vicinity of these improvement areas, However, dur.
ing the removal and demolition phase, the Same precautionary measures are
required in removing asphalt and with respect to underground gas tanks as
identified above for the project.
3.8.3 Mitigation Measures
1. Following completion of street improvement plans, onsite inspection
should be conducted by the Orange County Fire Department to identify
the presence of any potentially hazardous material. All removal/demo-
lition activities shall conform to the requirements of the Orange
County Department of Health and state regulations.
2. Subsurface soil testing shall be required prior to excavation work
should the removal of underground gas tank facilities be required.
Removal practices shall comply with all current permit and code
requirements.
3.8.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Public exposure to health and safety risks is not expected to occur as a
result of this project. However, the precautionary measures outlined
above will mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
79
I
3.9 PARKS AND RECREATION
3.9.1 Existing Conditions
A paved bike trail and adjacent equestrian trail have recently been compl-
eted in the Upper Newport Bay area, in the vicinity of the planned Univer-
sity Drive extension. These facilities were constructed as a joint pro-
ject by the Orange County Department of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks, and
the City of Newport Beach. A resolution currently is being developed to
allow the county to assume maintenance and ownership responsibilities for
the entire length of these easements by fall 1989.
The University Drive extension route occurs in the vicinity of the Upper -
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. The lands immediately surrounding the
Reserve Area are designated for regional park uses on the Orange County
Master Plan of Regional Parks. Recently, the Irvine Company dedicated 114
acres to the County of Orange for the purpose of creating a county
regional park. The Irvine Company's irrevocable offer of dedication was
accepted and recorded by the county on July 18, 1989. At the same time, a
conservation easement was recorded for other adjacent lands under owner-
ship of the county, the City of Newport Beach, and the California Coastal
Conservancy which will also be integrated into the parkland. Exhibit 11
identifies the dedicated area. The dedication agreement requires that the
park uses be limited to passive recreation and include the development of
a park visitors interpretive center. The interpretive center is planned
to be built near the intersection of the University Drive and Irvine Ave-
nue in the City of Newport Beach by late 1992.
The dedication agreement also identifies specific uses considered incompa-
tible with passive recreation, and therefore are not permitted in the park
area. The development of any public roadways is not a permitted use in
the park.
3.9.2 Impacts
The deletion of University Drive from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(MPAH) would avoid several potential negative impacts to the existing and
:O
I
I
1
I
11
f & DEDICATION AREA BOUNDRY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA OWNERSHIP
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OWNERSHIP
Upper Newport Bay Regional Park
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION /
ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT 11
1
planned park and recreational facilities in the Upper Newport Bay area.
As noted, the recorded land dedication agreement and conservation easement
' are for regional park purposes and public roadways are not a permitted use
within these areas. Therefore, the University Drive extension represents
an inconsistent use in the dedication area. Implementation of the roadway
extension in the park area would require amendment to the offer of dedica-
tion agreement by the City of Newport Beach, the California Coastal Conser-
vancy, the Irvine Company and the County of Orange.
Completing the University Drive extension also would negatively affect the
rural character of the existing bike path and equestrian trail recently
completed just north of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. High
traffic volumes and associated noise anticipated along the University
' Drive extension would convert the rural setting of this area into a more
urban environment and would likely detract from the recreational experi-
ence of future users. Therefore, deletion of the roadway from the MPAH
' would benefit the regional park site through ensuring consistency with the
provisions of the parkland offer of dedication and by preserving the exist-
ing rural character of the park setting and the bike and equestrian trail
facilities.
1 SR-55ISR-73 Freeway Connectors
' Under this scenario, the widening of Irvine Avenue beyond the existing
right-of-way would result in land acquisition within the park area
recently dedicated by the Irvine Company to the County of Orange. The
offer of dedication recorded by the county expressly prohibits use of the
' park area for a public roadway. Therefore, the widening of Irvine Avenue
into the park would require an amendment to the recorded offer of dedica-
tion agreement by the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, the
Irvine Company, and the California Coastal Conservancy. By constructing
the freeway connectors, the impact of constructing a public roadway within
' the park area is eliminated.
' 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures
Due to the beneficial impacts of the University Drive deletion from the
MPAH, no mitigation measures are required.
Ills ' 81
3.9.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
�I
The deletion of the University Drive extension from the MPAN will avoid ,
several potential impacts to the planned county regional park. Therefore, ,
this project provides a significant beneficial impact to the park and
associated recreational opportunities.
11
11
M
I1
4.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
I
I
I
III
The deletion of the University Drive extension from the Orange County Mas-
ter Plan of Arterial Highways will provide some beneficial environmental
impacts by eliminating the potential adverse impacts to the county
regional park and to biological and cultural resources in Upper Newport
Bay which would occur with the planned roadway extension implementation.
On the other hand, the project will also involve adverse environmental
impacts, many of which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Project -related impacts which are both unadvoidable and adverse in nature
are listed below. Section 1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, contained in this
report, lists all project impacts and mitigation measures.
Land Use
- Circulation improvements along the Bristol Street couplet and Irvine
Avenue will result in the loss of privately owned land, a John Wayne
Airport maintenance facility and parking areas. Loss of landscape set-
back areas required by the City of Newport Beach under the Newport
Place Planned Community Ordinance also will occur.
Transportation/Circulation
- Project circulation improvements will improve the level of service at
most intersections, however, several intersections in the project area
will remain at an unacceptable level of service due to physical con-
straints of adjacent buildings which limit intersection improvement
opportunities.
Air Quality
- Implementation of the project will slightly CO localized emissions
slightly; however, the project in itself will not cause a significant
increase in CO air emissions. State and federal one -hour standards
for carbon monoxide levels are not exceeded at modeled intersections.
LE
II
Acoustic Environment
Three residential areas will experience noise levels above 65 CNEL
under future conditions; Bristol Street between Newport Boulevard and
Red Hill Avenue, Mesa Drive between Santa Ana Avenue and Brich Street
and Irvine Avenue between University Drive and Bristol Street South.
Public Services
- Circulation improvements along the Bristol Street couplet and Irvine
Avenue will result in the removal and relocation of some public util-
ity facilities.
Er
5.0 'ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The purpose of this section is to describe and analyze reasonable alterna-
tives to the proposed deletion of the University Drive extension from •the
Orange County MPAH. A range of alternatives consistent with Section
15126(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines are consi-
dered. These include the "no project" alternative, which assumes the
existing conditions remain, and an alternative considering the extension
of University Drive as depicted on the MPAH.
' 5.1 'NO PROJECT" ALTERNATIVE
This alternative means that the status of the existing circulation system
would remain as is. The extension of University Drive between Irvine Ave-
nue and 'Jamboree Road would not be built but would remain on the Orange
County MPAH for possible future construction. In addition, the proposed
intersection improvements along Bristol Street would not take place.
Land Use
' The significant effects of the project identified in Section 3.1.2 would
' be avoided. These essentially relate to the land acquisitions required
along the Bristol Street couplet. The loss of the airport's maintenance
' building, north side of Bristol Street South land acquisition, the limited
loss of parking spaces, and the limited land acquisition in other areas
associated with the project would not occur.
II
Traffic
The planned extension of University Drive from Jamboree Road to Irvine Ave-
nue has been on the county's original Master Plan of Arterial Highways
(MPAH) adopted in 1956. It plays an important role in the MPAH system
because it would be one of the few east -west linkages available in this
section of the county due to the physical constraints of the John Wayne
Airport and the Upper Newport Bay.
.19
In recent years, the section between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road has
generated a great deal of controversy because of its location adjacent to
the Santa And Heights community and the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve. However, because the planned University Drive extension repre-
sents one of the few available east -west links located in central Orange
County, its deletion could significantly affect traffic flows in the cen-
tral county area.
The project provides a compromise in which the ecologically sensitive
Upper Newport Bay area is preserved, and the existing circulation network
is improved so that the quality of traffic flow in the central county
region is maintained.
The "no project" alternative would add projected future traffic volumes to
the existing circulation network. Noticeable examples of this increase
are higher traffic volumes on alternate routes, including Bristol Street
between Santa Ana Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, and along Campus Drive
and Birch Street near the Corona del Mar freeway (SR-73).
From a traffic and circulation standpoint, the "no project" alternative
does not represent a feasible alternative to the project.
Air Quality
The no project alternative may actually increase air pollution effects
along Bristol Street. This is based on the assumption that no additional
improvements for the Bristol Street couplet would occur. This results in
increased traffic and congestion with resulting delays at area intersec-
tions and adverse localized air emissions. Localized air emissions are
based upon a number of factors, including the volume of traffic, average
speed, and roadway widths.
Acoustics
As with air quality, acoustic impacts resulting from the "no project"
alternative are dependent upon the areas where additional traffic is gene-
rated. The "no project" alternative could increase traffic along the
9E
Bristol Street couplet and Irvine Avenue, thereby increasing noise levels
to the surrounding commercial areas.
Cultural and Biological Resources
The "no project" alternative would have similar impacts upon cultural and
biological resources as the proposed project. The difference between the
"no project" alternative and the preferred project relates essentially to
the intersection improvements along Bristol Street. No cultural or biolo-
gical resources were identified in this area.
Public Utilities
The "no project" alternative also would eliminate any public facility and/
or utility line movement associated with the project along Bristol Street.
This could be viewed as a positive impact of the "no project" alternative.
However, the "no project" alternative fails to respond to key project
objectives. While this alternative may be environmentally superior with
respect to several localized effects (air quality, acoustic, earthwork),
on the whole it is not environmentally superior to the proposed project
and is rejected from further consideration.
Parks and Recreation
Because the no project alternative retains the University Drive extension
on the county MPAH and thus ultimately allows for its future implementa-
tion, it is inconsistent with the county's commitment to conserve land in
the Upper Newport Bay area as outlined in the recently adopted offer of
land dedication agreement for lands donated by the Irvine Company.
Due to this alternative's traffic and land use impacts in the Upper New-
port Bay vicinity, this alternative is rejected and is not recommended for
consideration by the review process.
5.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 - UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXTENSION
This alternative means that the extension of University Drive as depicted
on the MPAH would be completed. The proposed improvements to Bristol
Street would not take place as this is a project -related development.
87
Land Use
The significant effects of the project identified in Section 3.1.2 rela-
ting to land takings along Bristol Street would be avoided. However, the
construction of the University Drive extension could negatively effect the
rural character of the planned regional park in the Upper Newport Bay and
may induce the conversion of some surrounding vacant land areas to urban
uses.
Traffic
As indicated in Section 3.2.2, the primary effect of the completion of the
University Drive extension would be the diversion of traffic from SR-73
and the Bristol Street couplet to the MPAH designated extension. As
indicated by Table 5, levels of service along several intersections, most
notably along Bristol Street, would improve slightly with the extension as
traffic is diverted to this facility.
Traffic volumes on Del Mar Avenue would increase significantly as a result
of the University Drive extension. Two intersections along Irvine Avenue
were also analyzed. With the extension, the level of service for Irvine
Avenue at Mesa Drive would improve significantly. However, under the same
conditions, Irvine Avenue at University Drive would experience a deteriora-
tion in service levels due to the heavy traffic flows along University
Drive.
Air Quality
The University Drive extension alternative would elevate air pollution
effects along the extension and the surrounding Upper Newport Bay region.
This area includes the sensitive Ecological Reserve and residential uses
within the Santa Ana Heights area.
Acoustics
Significant traffic noise effects on adjacent residences along the Univer-
sity Drive extension would occur. However, the University Drive extension
m-
D
II
II
J
II
II
II
II
would result in decreased noise levels along Bristol Street and surround-
ing commercial areas as traffic is diverted to University Drive.
The University Drive extension alternative would result in significant
adverse impacts to biological and cultural resources with the Upper New-
port Bay Ecological Reserve. Impacts to habitat and wildlife would
include habitat elimination/alteration associated with construction acti-
vity, wildlife disturbance by noise, increased air emissions, and increased
water pollution.
Biological Resources
Construction of the extension would have short-term effects on water qual-
ity in the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Grading and other earth-
work may increase erosion and sediment transport into the Reserve during
construction phases of the project. Construction of the roadway segment
will also eliminate some upland area above the bay which constitute for-
aging areas for some animals of the Reserve.
Cultural Resources
Seven archaeological sites have been identified in the area adjacent to
the planned extension. Construction activities may disturb these
resources.
Public Services
Because this alternative assumes no circulation improvements to the Bris-
tol Street couplet, utility lines and other service facilities will not
require removal and relocation as with the project.
Recreation
Construction of University Drive may negatively effect the rural character
of the propose Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The introduction of
nearly 30,000 vehicle trips along the park boundary will create a more
urban experience for parks users, including users of existing equestrian
and bicycle trails in the nearby vicinity.
II
While a number of significant impacts result from this alternative, most
notably in biological and land use implications for the Ecological
Reserve, this alternative represents the environmentally superior alter-
native and is not rejected from further consideration at this time. The
"no project" alternative would leave as is the existing circulation
system. The MPAH extension would not be built nor would any improvements
along the Bristol Street couplet.
Given the level of congestion and associated problems in the project area,
some type of action is needed. The construction of the University Drive
extension would facilitate the county's MPAH which recognizes traffic flow
problems in the central county area.
The tradeoff between the project and the extension alternative comes prima-
rily in the form of land use impacts. The project will impact some limi-
ted areas along the Bristol Street couplet and Irvine Avenue while the
extension alternative will impact existing and planned uses in the Upper
Newport Bay area. A roadway in this area would violate the agreement out-
lined in the Irvine Company's offer of dedication of 114 acres for
regional park purposes which surrounds the Upper Newport Bay Ecological
Reserve. Roadway implementation would also adversely impact the character
of the existing equestrian and bike trails in this area, and may nega-
tively effect biological resources in the ecological reserve. Addition-
ally, residents adjacent to the proposed extension route would experience
noise and visual impacts associated with the roadway. Because of these
Impacts, this project alternative is not considered environmentally
superior and is, therefore, rejected and not recommended to be considered
in the review process.
5.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 - SOUTH SIDE WIDENING SCENARIO FOR BRISTOL STREET SOUTH
This alternative discusses an optional widening scheme for the Bristol
Street couplet to accommodate the intersection and lane improvements iden-
tified in the project. This widening would take place primarily on the
south side of Bristol Street South as indicated in Exhibit 12.
x �
` N°
kC
a� >
Y
14�
mm\aWWav�avxx r a. .fir
a^asw
�.� as x • � „" g e +`R ° ¢,.
SYq s, .�� .;:I ��`F,ta :. ,,.�'^, '�?�,•� :�^y`"A,.
��� :� • � ., '_ ,.. - � ««qq . � �` .::� `fit' � - l
.,'&: '`�, c` #�.1=^,, �= x °$ � e' '•�^.��g � >±� ,`� �, ;� i`� �+� `"°S �^.,. $�<� `� Y.v' `x: K._r°fa Ws.ss�P..'s_ `
r:'
ae Re ge4Y "ay. ;s .b i its YE A .aE".' h.,'\•.na` °a:;a ..,. .' �o
-w M• ,�.p[x �y .,j .�'' 'w'"'�b"S g$¢y :` � `� �.. ... .:Y � , ' `�'.J �2=" 4 "•e• �^`fi:
'.js t .21s a h
jw
ItL, """....
x�i
l.
xvse�a.;aaRC`��`�'KIZaaI:°.',
tow Bristol' Street North.
--��a,.n�...mv.".,.«r i"-yp .,,...,. f .."" .. ;,.y5 +.,,t>•. ..y�-�nww\`9Tri'„""`�roe Mt
�>,. +awaa mwmv.--,,.-- ,... �x�R w'1.,�j,, p�0"bn��"w •wr, „ -n ` �.. �'ax c m„x ., as•...X.aw\s.i',r ..: ":.w ...,
o `e ,�... 's•.°:\^'`'.Na".�^�>. .`x a•� A i q n a- `
a, i�`.`� c �e � �.�e �• :\�+a. ;<.�.��.', ' � "\C?.�. �"'-a�,°N„^"'i � w �` <`'°. �, , a .,. � ..a �,qw>a pies •`"�>i v' 4w
'3 �Y`...:.:a^ar;�:: .�' be � .o .. ��i�.`.�aa,.l�`''n�'°M"'k,: °• :�.a'_'�--a �. .'�a,,�ay`� a» ,.am � ""�,°an, mAR�g ``��'�E�� '„, .d p >.,
R,..,,,, w\,a„"„�•,..+w.»..wR^Y„mwe�+%^,"w�"m., w,o�e.,�..•�.s,.w\ao taaavW�`�aMw `.axv+"at �'%g� 3 v`."�\\,. ,»"".,.. .�p,,.....a"...-a �\.a\jv`RR1F.wm2T `v..w`a4"'-"..waxawa`e.".
\:.. ..G:?.^ .. .,.,,. ,, .. ., .,. ., \. •„". .,w., ... .'ram" . .. :.�:,:r.�` :n\\'w�Za. ,,, _� .,.. a'..,.. ,. Yd'.�., ."°," " ",i'Tt'� ,
1
' t
A—
F W
. ....CBr"avw mwu `aJxam,AVs�,q- v
s
w ... ., �.. �.6n`IDba�' . d+P.w Z�......y K'Yx.. n � `• � ...n .,., "`0M@��. `l'"l7 {'
kv
' s ��` adpy».,>.� �,'�_. 's�„\ �+'t `` �����m,., �u;,"»„T.,,"""`•-�'.,a.�Vw�'ik`:'ta"`cme�"C \" � a.. ,.. `� ,.. ,... ,,. ^".,,, .,....,.
�`�:�'`?�'"z��\ A`-,.�, "'iV \,• _t'g'a%" :#�,,., ��zz !� z« 3 } `^°�.. �""``''._?, x�.�'affii"��J�.. m-,.;�. w� „y..,�
tw"�_
e\.^z`, w z`n.«� ".�, n^� c`u�,"%.. +xo.: r\r,... •`�+ ,..a.
Bristol Stredsouth
-."
�
'
�
`. ,@�j, .,,",,....... .l�t ='r-F
.,.,..,., �'Tti ;Y w. ,w. E 3' ' ..._ _ -
` ....� �'^. ...
, . "" gag•
1
'%s�s'u'i.
'rt$.
6
F tea'' ¢ :P
�' v
e ^�
�'P•.
rY_„
F.. r-
�e
ii � �
•`-so
Alternative 2 South Side Right -of -Way Acquisitions SEE TABLE 20
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION/ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR LEGEND ••
EXHIBIT 12
Land Use
I The acquisitions along Bristol Street South will effect a number of estab-
lishments. Beginning at Irvine Avenue/Campus Drive, approximately 18 feet
of additional right-of-way acquisition would be required along Bristol
Street South (south side) to Birch Street. From Birch Street eastward the
south side acquisition is gradually reduced to nine feet to the point
where Bristol Street South merges with the SR-73 off -ramp.
As shown on Exhibit 12, acquisitions on Bristol Street South could involve
the removal of several gas pumps at the Exxon and Arco stations, the elimi-
nation of outdoor seating area for the Del Taco restaurant, and the removal
of the Laff Stop Comedy Store. Further, approximately 62 parking spaces
would be lost along this section of Bristol Street South from Irvine Ave-
nue to Cypress Street, which may exacerbate the existing parking problems
at these commercial establishments.
In the vicinity of Bristol Street North, right-of-way acquisition along
' Birch Street could impact parking, landscape and setback areas of office
centers on Birch Street and Bristol Street North. Table 20 provides a
summary of the probable land acquisitions for this alternative; a precise
description of the right-of-way acquisitions requires completed street
improvement plans. In addition, right-of-way acquisition for an addi-
tional right -turn lane on Campus Drive southbound to Bristol Street North
westbound remains the same as the project and requires land acquisition
' and removal of an airport maintenance building.
Table 20
ALTERNATIVE 2 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS
Parcel Name Impact
' 1 Exxon Gas Station Removal of gas pumps
2 Del Taco Potential building loss, loss of
outdoor seating
' 3a Commercial/Office Loss of approximately 11 parking
3b Carl's Jr. spaces
4 Arco Gas Station Removal of gas pumps
5 Laff Stop Comedy Club Building remodeling and/or acquisition
' 91
Table 20 (cont`d)
6
Dollar Rent-A-Car
Loss
of
approximately 4 parking spaces
7
Sea Breeze Kennels
Loss
of
approximately 4 parking spaces
8
National Car Rental/Storage
Loss
of
approximately 9 parking spaces
9
National Car Rental Ofc.
Loss
of
approximately 2 parking spaces
10
Bristol Professional Bldg.
Loss
of
approximately 9 parking spaces
11a
McDonald's
Loss
of
approximately 14 parking spaces
11b
Commercial Center
No loss
of parking spaces
12
Ofc. complex under constr.
Loss
of
approximately 27' of right-of-
way
acquisition
13
Nexus Corporate Plaza
Loss
of
approximately 27' of right-of-
way
acquisition
14
County Airport
Building
removed
Maintenance Building
A parking analysis would be required to determine the effects of the loss
of parking spaces on the utility of buildings and to recommend measures to
provide adequate parking where no longer available.
Transportation/Circulation
This alternative proposes the same circulation improvements as the project
but provides a new widening and land acquisition scheme to accommodate
the improvements along the Bristol Street couplet. Therefore, the impacts
of this alternative would remain essentially the same as the project.
Air Quality
Air quality impacts would remain the same as the project.
Acoustic Environment
Noise impacts would remain the same as the project.
Cultural Resources
No historical or cultural resources are known to exist in the immediate
vicinity of the Bristol Street couplet. Therefore, the widening scheme
M
' proposed by this alternative is not expected to have any adverse impact on
historical or cultural resources.
Biological Resources
' Impacts are the same as the project.
' Public Services
This alternative is not expected to require relocation of existing water
and sewer mains located within Bristol Street South but may require reloca-
tion of existing lateral lines and surface facilities (valves, water
meters, hydrants, covers, etc.) at a cost to be incurred by the County of
Orange. Additionally, street widening activity would be coordinated with
' local water and sewer service agencies to coordinate the placement of
planned service facilities in the area.
' The need for relocation of gas and electric utility and facilities, cable
lines, television and telephone transmission lines would be determined
during the construction phases of roadway improvements.
Additionally, Orange County Transit District could experience service
interruptions if vehicle movement was impaired along the Bristol Street
' couplet during construction activity. Notification and coordination with
OCTD will resolve this impact.
' Health and Safety
' Because this alternative results in right-of-way acquisition along the com-
mercial area on Bristol Street South, it may result in the removal of addi-
tional underground gas tanks but does not represent a significantly
greater risk to public health than the project.
Parks and Recreation
' Impacts are the same as the project.
' This alternative is not rejected and should be considered in the review
process.
' 93
6.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE
' MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
J
i
I
Implementation of the proposed project will have minor long-term impacts
on land use and land availability within Orange County. The removal of
the University Drive extension from the MPAH will allow opportunities for
alternate land uses along the route designation.
Short-term costs of the project include the commitment of financial and
material resources and the adverse impacts of construction including tempo-
rary increases in noise, dust, and vehicular emissions associated with con-
struction vehicles. A short-term benefit resulting, from the project would
be the provision of construction -related employment.
Over the long-term, the project will provide increased vehicular movement
and accessibility in the central and south Orange County area. Long-term
effects of the project include the maintenance of the visual character and
open space nature of the route designation within the Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve. After the initial short-term construction impacts
associated with improving the existing circulation system, the project
entails continuing impacts associated with the generation of air pollu-
tants and noise associated with the increase in traffic.
The increase in traffic over the long term will occur regardless of pro-
ject approval. The project does not involve the construction of any poten-
tial traffic generators, but rather the removal of an extension of Univer-
sity Drive designated on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The elimi-
nation of this extension will permanently divert traffic from the environ-
mentally sensitive Upper Newport Bay area to existing street system.
94
I
1
I
1
J
1
I
1
I
II
II
II
II
7.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND
OTHER RESOURCES SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED
The environmental changes produced by implementation of the project
include alterations to the existing physical environment in the form of
continued commitments of land, construction materials, and community ser-
vices. There will be an irretrievable commitment of capital, labor and
materials used in construction of anticipated roadway improvements. Pro-
vided below is a summary of the anticipated long-term commitments of
resources that may directly or indirectly result from project implementa-
tion.
Commitment of Land
The removal of the route designation from the Orange County MPAH may
increase the options for future land uses along the route. The proposed
roadway improvements along Bristol Street will result in a long-term com-
mitment of land for roadway use.
Scenic Resources
The proposed project will provide for the maintenance of a significant
area of environmentally sensitive open space, incrementally decreasing the
regionwide loss of such lands.
Energy Resources
The modification of the existing circulation system will represent a long-
term commitment to a variety of resources. As fossil fuels are the princi-
pal source of energy, it can be stated that the proposed project would
incrementally reduce existing supplies of fuels including fuel oil, natu-
ral gas, and gasoline as they relate to initial project construction, and
the transportation of people and goods. However, the deletion of Univer-
sity Drive will result in increased fuel consumption as future traffic
volumes planned for the roadway extension are directed approximately 0.6
miles to alternative circulation routes.
0%
II
I
Other Natural Resources
' The construction of the proposed roadway improvements would require the
' commitment or depletion of other non-renewable and slowly renewable
resources. These resources include, but are not limited to: lumber and
' other forest products; sand and gravel; asphalt; petrochemical construc-
tion materials, steel, copper, lead and other metals; potentially valuable
agricultural soils; water, etc. An increased commitment of public mainten-
ance services (ie., street maintenance) would also be required.
I
I
I
II
II
96
II
I
!J
I
1
1
8.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Growth -Inducing Effects
The project can be considered growth -inducing to the extent that the
improved access and circulation offered by the improvements to the exist-
ing circulation system may stimulate the planned future construction of
housing in the central county area.
As stated previously, however, implementation of the project does not
involve the construction of additional traffic generating land uses. The
continuing growth that is found throughout the Orange County region is a
result of a number of market and economic factors beyond the influence of
this project. Therefore, any growth including effects of this project are
not considered significant.
In addition, current plans call for the construction of the University
' Drive extension. This extension is viewed as an integral part of the MPAH
to address the continuing growth pressures in Orange County. Therefore,
the indirect growth -inducing impacts would result with or without this pro-
ject.
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impact considerations for the project include contributions to
increased noise and fossil fuel (gasoline) consumption associated with
future traffic volumes accommodated by the proposed circulation improve-
ments. These impacts cannot be considered as strictly attributable to the
project, inasmuch as traffic increase and related air, noise and fuel con-
sumption would occur with or without the proposed roadway extension in a
regional context.
SR-55/SR-73 Freeway Connectors
I
To the extent that freeway connectors are viewed as a significant compon-
ent to the regional transportation system, their construction will substan-
tially reduce circulation impacts resulting from future regional growth.
' 97
II
I
Without the freeway connectors, the efficiency of the planned and existing
freeway system is significantly reduced. Traffic diverted from the connec-
tors would have to be accommodated on local arterials which have not been
master planned for such use. Furthermore, because this impact is sus-
tained in the vicinity of the University Drive extension, the cumulative
impacts would be increased. These impacts include the deterioration of
the level of service at key intersections; unacceptable noise levels in
several residential areas near affected roadways; and encroachment of
Irvine Avenue into the recently dedicated park area.
t
1
7
I
9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
9.1 PARTICIPANTS
Project Director
Project Manager
Environmental Research
Graphics
Editing/Word Processing
9.2 CONSULTANTS
Sid Lindmark, AICP
Dan Nattrass
David Merriman
Anne Koperski
Mark Simonsen
Barbara Heath
The consultants who participated in the preparation of this EIR include:
Austin -Foust Associates Joe Foust
(Traffic) Terry Austin
Mestre-Greve Fred Greve
(Noise/Air)
9.3 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
County of Orange/EMA Rich Adler
Harry Persaud
Michelle Schraeder
Marlene Brajdic
Orange County Department of Harbors,
Beaches and Parks
Yosh Kawasaki
Grace Secketa
Orange County Historical Records
Mary Gass
Southern California Edison
Jim Kennedy
Chris Cartright
Costa Mesa Sanitary District
Robin B. Hammers
Santa Ana Heights Water Company
C.O. Reinhardt
Metropolitan Water District
Russ Campbell
99
Caltrans
City of Costa Mesa
City of Irvine
City of Newport Beach
10o
Les Brooks
Clarence O'Hara
John Lower
Joanne Kulachok
Ruben Santana
Pat Temple
Don Webb
Rich Edmonston
10.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Analysis Tools, March 1983.
California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data, Vols. XVI-
XVIII, 1984-1987.
California Department of Transportation, State Route 55/State Route 73
Interchange Connectors Project Study Draft Report, November
County of Orange EMA, Draft Environmental Impact Report 508A, Santa Ana
Heiqhts Specific Plan. Auqust 1986.
County of Orange EMA, Fi
Environmental Imoacl
rt 508 and
ry 'Lb,
County of Orange EMA, Orange County General Plan, Land Use Element,
December 1980.
County of Orange EMA, Orange County General Plan, Noise Element,
October 1975.
County of Orange EMA, Orange County General Plan, Transportation Element,
September 1982.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Handbook for
Environmental Impact Reports, December 1987.
South Coast Air Quality Management District and Southern California
Associ-
ation of Governments, Draft Air Quality Management Plan, August 1988.
United States Department of Transportation, FHWA-RD-77-108, FHWA Highway
Traffic Noise Prediction Model, December 1978.
101
1
Appendix A
'
NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND RESPONSES
1
1
1
pbr
1
OF THE
GEORGE MUCMEMAN, Go,e ,
"ICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
TENTH STREET •
WENTO. CA 95E14
' DATE: March 17, 1988
II
II
1
TO: Reviewing Agencies
RE: The County of Orange' NOP for
Deletion of University Drive from the MPAH and Implementation of Alt. Circ
Improvements - SCH# 88031607
Attached for your comment is the County of Orange' Notice of Preparation of a draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Deletion of University Drive from the MPA4
and :,Implementation of Alt. Circ. Improvements.
r
Responsible agencies must transmit their concerns and ea®ents on the scope
and content of the EIR, focusing on specific information related to their
own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of this notice. We
encourage commenting agencies to respond to this notice and express their
concerns early in the environmental review process.
Please direct your comments to:
Richard Adler
County of Orange
400 Civic Center West
Santa Ana, CA 92702
with a copy to the Mice of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH
nunber noted above in all correspondence concerning this project.
If you have any questions about the review process, call Keith Lee
at 916/445-0613.
Sincerely,
David C. Nunenkamp
Chief
Office of permit Assistance
Attachments
' cc: Richard Adler
1
R8031 607
lw Yle'd
Air f2awlvc.. 1u.N
torn: 4 Strc••t
en+.:ntW. JA y5814
916/12 82:61
f�tt(
fatt.t1(tera,+ '-- IG19 oo r UcetllH S Vuluw+y_
AIM9:. Ctmt
.. CA 95814
9pJ445-L25-C2ef1
Cary b. Ib7lu.ay
C.Illumta Gaot.i Grr1..INU
631 fl and Su,rnt. 411, Nwr
:all G 941U5
4114543-8555
AwrnoR Saylor
•}-\G111 rUnIF).cn(y cuPwisarwl
Il IF 1516 M= Jt Rct, M.: W
Suar..11to CA 958t4
sit. JIM Uwalell
t.ailunda IIILnwy P.trul
Lay hUHc Pimvlhy :}Itlal
hLuA'h,L m.l AulYalt Ulvl'I'm
P.m Ia.A 8yl
•,.••r.nado. rA 9•JIu4
9h.1445-1591
Willi. A. JWvuul
Ibt C.. lwl lt.l It w.:,
( 915 C+Vlhd 1411, Inca 2atl
slcrvmnw, CA 'PJ114
ytc/7: °-1lyl
IWu areutxe.rY
hl'1'lu ul' Illah.rh•
PP.O.
ruuruetlai
IIIA ')4411%
slcrlA nln, CA ry4.yt owt
916/p.1 901
Mike Doyle
Dcl't. or Parka .uul 1lecocol
P.G. Ga 9428yt
.Z..acrJwllW. CA 94296-OWC
91513.4-6421
- 51c/l21-3231
Pohite UtIMI. Calrlaalal
SugY IkarrN
50., Pion Ik.J Avelw:
taltrau - bt, Iota, a hnanm
l: s un lbmclseu, CA IM02
( �f.0, fat 942874
415f457-1315 (11-Wil
.' :ac: ovento, CA 94=74-.k'ut
916l32a-0761
Wlll/r P. vaudn, Jr.
Wollc wal no ttl
Irw¢ut .If Tran.i•Ir[alpr
t rltt Cm4eti
Jerry Baynes
I`1ini lnuU, 1•l .t^La 1
lV,r. uui,w7invl
rA phdl
701/4111-W0
Michelle C.11salwr
lnitr+rq, fllatrlct '2
ltbf Ulvvr}(.Ti• ISo1vm
14•t1IrH. CA 9tt'OI
9Md2ei-3: •9
Orton J. Drtul
( Cldtr.uu, Dtau•ict 1
�703 a strict
M.rrivllit. CA 959u1
916/741-1171
I .11 .1 cure - I"lawl Ofrltea
A. Naylor, Ik,ihaul ltU.,&r
(-1 lotalr6wnt of Nth lull low
_ 16111 lx cunt
Iwa111H. CA 9LW1
910/225-23W
JIM MosenwAth. fk9lonol Flowcr
nCclwrh.cnt of FTWI A Coca,
1701 IIInWa f". raltU A
• VU'wIm Cul,iw., CA 05670
9lb/355-w22
11. linter, Ikalurwl M.ta9{ur
I+Purl p*t or P1.L1 .Ud Gw.,
( ,P.O. Ova 4f
I Yaunvtlle. CA 945`Y)
701/944-2011
aarl,Aud Water tmedlty Cwrttvl twin
lame COAST NIDICM (1)
1440 Gu.•nwwll le Ill,
•'Uan fo%a. CA 1,5401
101/510-210
/\SAN NWCISCO DAY 1NA101 (2)
1 i lilt Jack.) strict, ho a LOGO
l JOkhuJ. CA 94607
4I5/4u4-IL-'5
CWINAL GO= 1Ma[Ol (3)
t •�IIU:-A 1>urvl /Alw
San lalf. In1310, CA yawl
80J/549-3147
Cary Adeas
Gltrmu, Dlatrfct 4
^0. Nokas. Nealonxl Kowser
101yartment of rlah mil Game
1 Gat 31U Avenue
Los Alimm XMIC 1 (4)
(�107 rJnN 4'o.d+ y. Rx 4027
�12;t
It tom Agelea, CA 9W12
P.O. Ina 7'�IU
- trealn. CA 93710
�• 21;/62G-44(A
\ .an IrJ 13e[). CA 94120 20)/222-3761
41�J557-8311
Jerry latm.r
C.1tnau, fllutrl.' 5
Prod A. Uwthla ,Jr. 8K. hmger r
245 Wc3tnt or Flalt ant Crr
245 Neat Olw6ttr. !rlGe iA
3443 Fl vAl2T IM0I0N (5)
3443 Nmtter Port
C 5aerwenW,
P.O. Iba 8114
0
y lark: 0each. CA 90802
CA 95821-3098
916/361-%Du
+ r.,Ada Dotspo. CA
93401-8i 14 211/5"113
eft,/549-3161
'
IAttwn SriN
^Cnlcnuv, Dtatrlcc 6
L , O Du -'-�
Ikn Itelaearn
( j l j P itrcet. 4th Plwr
P.. A 9
Fri ru CA 93f7a
(l t.ltrans - PI.,.N.A
P.O. Iba 94:374
�. cr.a.nto. CA 95814
916:445-53J2
-
zowhili-ww
:.Craatntn. CA 9441-VXIl
916/445-551u
_ 1q.t. O'DrYaa
Ibl sclrarta
Iwclaa,clun Iwnl
C� 1416 ,lot,, bu,ct 14a 109-8
Walt UsIlmat Ict3•
320 Bluth ArhH slttct
Icpt. of Ganarv.cl.n
1'.,crmsnW,
` suctuumntn, CA TAIN
Wi Ae.Ics, CA 90➢12
141E UInN CA ' lbw 1 _ti-:
3
CA
hit{449-2458
- 9:et4
•ll0[122-59t3
_
i ) Uiv. r MI wJ a W C vlt er
Wrrla Nllikm
F S.K. lay IS Avavutton I Dealt.
3a Vre IkaJ L tau
Cur vl.GI
Cnitrws, Olatrlct N
Cuua. ( 217
)
(: Dlt, of 41i un cu
t 01
0. CA ,
can Fcwaaaw, CA 571a2
... Sul. Itittw557 CA y2w3
lw. rdlw. C
714/•JB3-4517
U
�LL ��} last IkJwn:ea Ft�ciut. LL.it
415{55f-idBG
7ta. Dalsk
GenitBa
Mike 4aa,
Gllr. caste Ntnrgonen[ Gala
Calt:avn, matrlet 9
�500 :tA1N Min strtet
��Vaa/dc
Ccpt. or leaf old Adrindtnrc
lew N strset, lua to%
j
1020 iItMR str'ett. Iona 300
Suer. Wnw G 95814
✓ 61a1
.•.ner.nto. CA 95814
J16/3'22-261h
6391873-84tt91A4
91olla-5221
W.41. Wtekle.r
l.PL. of Wrc.try
( 1416 tenth btrxct. Ir.,.. I.16-2
S.Z—nw. CA 95014
%C1122-cRb
Jr.. Mvartwc
I.PL. Of G.14 rp1 riCNll eJ
( 4U0-P Street, 958 ]4W
)WIL4nro, CA 75814
71 dl3' 1-02V)
Atlrlc a.
N Nit. of tk.lth
/�714 P Strict, Ii ca, 1.-51
Scrrrtnto. CA 95814
91 W 1- 6111
Tel 14dmalars
Su[e lArdi GaMalaatml
1807 - 13th Strict
�• :acnwenw. CA 91,814
910/322-1813
NaJill t:.yw
rcpt. of Itat.r HeJwra:a
1416 Ninth strict. Vona 215-4
CA 95814
91e/44S-1416
_ N.ut Naldetrl,
tnt. Cy.9ta1 Wu1FeNWley
1330 vrf .,way, Suit. 11W
t1,NI-J. CA 94612
4lS/4c4-1017
W"L Carrie
APCAltMuP* w4trlct 10
.O. D x ww —
tucktun CA y<i.Yll
2R)/948-3L87
JIM 0.e.IdR
Caltrmta. Ot.tict 11
P.O. irx 8>T06--
( )28£/ Juan Stmet
°.In 111.4tu, CA ')i'11a-5406
114nwJ 6755
AnTI/AtP41: LAII
Rolf G hall
lorine lieaoureei Dealon
245 WCSltte 35a
- Beach. CA 9O0
21j;59O1,I55
stet. Lahr lkaourcUs Control Ik.aw
Joan Jurua:ich
sta4 il.ter flc:rwtcc. CuUtrul Iwud
( �vivision or Clem, Ater Grunts
1 P.O. Wx IIIl
suera.ento. CA 95wi
916/322-3413
FW Anion
state [[Ater fhs rtes Control DJant
Division or Water W.Ilty,
P.O. an 100
Saeiasen[o, CA 958a1
916/445-%52
(tan larNer
0 NCe Water 8.3ources Control DA.N
tbita Wilt
P.O. Box 2000
SaenwttW. CA 95810
916/322-9810
//-- Prewoo Iknlch "flea
i 1 3374 Gat J.lelm Avenue, Doom 18
/ Frumo. CA 93726
209/445.5116
Mad1Ai11 Urm¢h Orrlee
IvaTiaat Crf.+aa Avenue
rim, CA 96002
5111/2i-2045
IAID11'AI fWGION (6)
0 20'.K.- lake .Ll" Doul".vJ
P.O. Box 9425
South ,aka Tkfa,c, CA 95731
916/544-3181
vletorwIll. Drsnch Cfflea
15171 Dorcas Nosd
0 v1<t4fullle, CA 92392-2494
619/245-6583
G0/\ DOrOtAM IIIYrN nUStN� 1ICH (1)
73-271 ittshwy 111. Suite 2l
Palm Ceaert, CA 92260
619/316-7%91
Mike ►alketwteln
Later Ifeww:ea Caltro) Uoans
SWA A94 /BnION (8)
�state
Glvlalu, of Later mal,ta
901 P Stnec
( 68fy IIWIarr Au,.. cart. NU
satmmenlo, CA 9'i814
( hlverstit. CA92506
714/182-41t0
'J16f324-5716
UA787n
SOUTH COAST AQMD
9150 FLAIR DRIVE
EL NORTEr CA 91731
�/ism DIICPMOI/to (9)
9761 Ctalna.allt tka. Lava., sate D
^••n Oteea, CA. 92124-1331
6191265i114
M M M M r= M M w M" M M M w M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGL ZNT AGENCY
P.O. BOX 4048 '
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702-4048
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Date: March 7, 1988
Subject: Notice Of Intent To Prepare A 477
Draft Environmental Impact Report #
Project title: Deletion of University Drive from the Master Plan of Aterial Highways
(MPAH) and Implementation of Alternative Circulation Improvements
Applicant: County of orange
The Orange County Environmental Management Agency has conducted an
Initial Study for the subject project and has determined that an Environmental
Impact Report is necessary. The County of Orange will'be the Lead Agency for the
subject project and will prepare the EIR. In order for the concerns of your agency to
be incorporated into the Draft EIR, we need to know the views of your agency as to
the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency's
statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency
must. consider the EIR prepared by the County of Orange when considering your
permit or approval for the project. The project description, location, and an analysis
indicating the probable environmental effects of the proposed action are contained
in the attached materials.
Pursuant to Section 21080.4 of CEQA, your response must be sent as soon as
possible but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
If any significant changes in the proposed project occur, we will advise you. If you
have need for additionaf information, contact cAdler
of the Environmental & special Division 3t 834-
3763
Projects Division
Attachment: Initial Study
F02SO-1031 Rl/0
Submitted by:
I
Introduction
University Drive
(MpAH) adopted i
California Avenue
highway in that a
In recent years, the section between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Read has
imarily
tonbothethe Santa AnadealHeightsof tcoommunityversy rand the UppersNewporte of sSaycEcologicaation I eat
Reserve. %in April 1985, the Hoard of supervisors did not approve the Santa Ana
Heights Local Coastal Program principally because it included University Drive
norther, because ew the
t Daystoatheasouths University Drive ised by John s one of the feir the
northavail and Upper Newport Y
available east -west routes located between the San Diego Freeway and Pacific
Coast Highway in central Orange County.. '
In January 1981# the Board of Supervisors reviewed astustudy
concludthe
ed tcirculation
impacts of deleting the road from the MPAH.
ut
the link, significant alternative improvements would need to be implemented.
After receiving comments on the study from the cities of Newport Beach$ Irvine
and Costa Mesa and the Santa Ana Heights community, the Board in July
987
directed the County's Environmental Management Agency
Uan
UnniversitytDrive from theact rt and MastertPlanpoftation ArterialaHighways. sis for deletion of
prepare an zIR
PThe ublicuResourcesof ange Coderill be the Section 21000 aet Agency
seq. for the deletion of University
to
Drive from the MPAH and implementation of alternative circulation improvements.
bylthetproject willtbeand includedninnthegencies planninghich processl affect or be affected
was on the County Is'original Master Plan Of Arterial Highways
n 1956. The section between Irvine Avenue Newport each and
in Irvine remains a "conceptually Proposed*Y
definite alignment has not yet been selected (Figure 1).
Project Description
The proposed project consists of both deletion of University Drive from the
Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and implementation of alternative
circulation improvements. Previous planning studies have indicated that the
following roads will carry the «tx affic.diverted from a, deleted University Drive:
1) Bristol Street couplet, 2) Corona del Mar Freeway.(Sart3) and the EIR process
Coast Highway. A traffic analysis to be completed as p
will wideningstito befy implemented ifcific iUniversity ve tDrive ion misodeleted. such as road
Protect Locatio11,
is located in th
University Drive, between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road, bo
the City of Newport Beach and unincorporated County territory, south of John
Wayne Airport and north Of�Upper Newport Bay in central coastal orange County.
The proposed link connects an existing section of Del Mar Avenue in City of
Costa Mesa with a proposed section of University Drive North in the CitY`Of
of
Irvine.
ementsdnre locatedbiniunincorporatedtCounyeterritoryiandcthe ve un
three
improv
cities.
.I-
Master Plan
of Arterial Highways
COUNTY OF
973
ORANGE E COUNTY
LOCATION MAP
j*90 SECTION OF UNIVERSITY DRIVE PROPOSED TO BE DELETED
PrlYlaus Ylanlla-•'- -
Of the following EIRe, no one document included an d the antraffalysis implications
is deleting
University Drivel however,severe' of em stscomprehensive Ofithe menvironmental
not implementing the proposed
e Airport and 'Santa Ana Seights Land
documents which eYaluated the traffic impacts o! University Drive/no University
Drive scenarios is final EIR 508'(John Ways po 985. li.supplement
Use Compatibility Program), which Was ssrt Scific ifi�Q ilitPitiR4YYY
to EIR 508 for the Santa Ana Heigh
sitDrive/nolunivan ersitts yBDrive scenario.
(from a traffic standpo ) iy _
While 'these Driver neitherdthe addressedithe specifelatedicmeffect £onothemsurzounding
University p
arterial highway system,, i.e.r whether adjacent facilities can handle increase
volumes or whether alternative improvements need to be implemented.
Environmental Review
The university Drive. , A xiu OO«� ! �" �OiicOring,t!te�aR• ..uuipac!„:y;air',
'ciil i il�seiint 'fi sv„uF�sl � a?!d ?�1.1• �ssr tion/c rcuTlationr public
health'arid safer+ noise and public sere' ces and uilYities.
Project Alternatives R will address a variety
in addition the *No project, s the ZI
alternative circulation improvements totbeeco considered £or implementation if of
University Drive is deleted from the MPAH.
RA:apPEos-53
8067
-2-
E N V I R 0 N M ; (t4 r ,"A;" N"; - A"'G"" E--�M'�EN
tio, sity
n _Drive
p.o.-BOX:404 VlROJ. REF.
Alit.;-�Circ. 3:Tnpro
.SAkTA� A�N4A�,�;bALIFb*RNIA"9�?702�--4048 and-2mP3-pmpn
IS CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL AN I kLYS.,-
sun or su"3=50" mimm
.1 IS &=Mon= Wng.41= so or WZ OPAIS= C== a to=,DW COO!® WZI9 2XX AMA=
-.cr Inct murrowm 2wvT=momL Q=m Der or lnctj�m:
AM parrop=00 =A Court:, "t PaTIAL I'mm US SU SUA230'r
.am,cupow-AL Im"W20K, POW Tax vwi= ow
In Kuls im to =X*=TIOK W=KD
rsojs=. mmis maim im), psy7=0 17 ZT IS tr=Wrp= TUr IS rp=wf I= IAV; A
-A jacal"cm? .93cl as us am I Dejor xgpm WILL ma MPAM MICE
simancAPT xrrx:T all I= mmww-1"7. AN larllaoull A,, �:."
V=XLZZg OK ffi or Cmv=X =lm=rZXD Iff =11. Im'm SPIUM.
•
11 =MIA= W C=rnau OR 32.
Ix SOW2=cnm ?
21 XXPOWU or ISO= OR vwm=s
• XWm-
to am=== Lvms socz AS
QOA)ocs, IA=S=iS' xx==X;t
rAz=, OR SZK=AA XAz%Sm_-."=_wC t.=
—7�
11 cvx= 70 TOPWRAPHY as 90030 % -
rxAxuxm — —
—
xv
A
%4.
02) =2 ZWTX=ncm. ONTS"r OR
MOOIr7ON m my Vag= ==J==
ORrZon rsansz? T.
C. �IfGCS ISOftOEITCR R ZROOOK
Or aucs VMS, OR CMUK= IISILTA-
TION , Immmop OR mc=om UNICS
'CSi6olry -mz cvxxr- or A arm all
of In
sm"Flot In S=
V= OR ZAXV
An - WILL om TAMOSAL X== 21,
L. =Zp= Allk 10CISIONS OR =71-
t.=OKMON OR matimm an 00==
a== COA3T
ammo pmw=cm sy THE
All Q=M KVL%=KMT VIAX-
-2.• xrpox= lop Imscam'20
UUCAUX.
• z6mT= I&v=s or AIR WO021097
C. UZ cn=cw Or
cooms?
D. Xt7gaj%Map or All N79CKWT,
1D7rmn Oft Twummum. OR A"
•XX MXK= === I`DC&=T
•P-0
xmn= Sum", 'a-T"
CRIS An ALTZX%=DK Or $=AM-
SAM
F. Afton
am, rum or ludzu?.
am= IN in QammTr Oft OUL-
It Or 030010 VATSMS, Zr%FIX "U==
I)rx= A=rzzogs OIL Wrmxy=, as, -P - -
• U== Ir=x==o" or
can OR mccAwmcow.
TO WAMI�-72u= xuml WCZ at
ru=xjj� OR TIDAL lmvIS?
v:rO&OG7= a=
VWMSAL —mu= 351
It com 21 Tax :)rVXP4= or Spt-
elm, C&MM OR DEZEM30RAXION of
rIapA &n TAM &ASITA?. CW= IS
IMZ =KIM 0? A" PC= Or VIA=
OR A?tDWZ. TrfRDD=()% Or NEW
SYSCM Of FLAR" 01 ARMU IM as
AM, OR .� OR OP A SAXAM
SO WZ MWAL 5231LARISSIUM
Or =avalr. 6FICIS6?
vw�w=om
09 Or IKE SINEW Or ART
Us, AWXMCAILT SIGSInCWT,
SEQ 7CIRUMARGUM Or SIAM
•
OR AWIXUA?
229=1=
�LTOSAIJs3
lopos� XWV� V AN
?xnWimoN or & SIQ=lCAXT &I=AZ-
V=lm OR slamut $III. STWc-
-
Tm, am=, OR NMZZ)M. PKLSW•
20=01= jr=, OR vmZR 2xpoj=m
• cwmvvj�tq==mnc sxm== : .:
CZAP= OR R=ZOKA=
(kwxmn
MV113WICS - W= 2U 110POSM
2
R=L'T If JK2 cm�m Or ARTcmml
XMIC InAU OR TZSW OM TO TKZ
3.
Uffn - Tm Ism 7XMSAL TJS= •w=c:,
OR W= tu rmmom 3xs=
In AZ CR=OR OP AS AtMInCALLT
•
IIl
OMKSIW grim am TO PvSWc vIW7
aOltti
NEWT -= 1In PODYOM
ams= us
A. =or APPOWAIZZ NXGK
'ar rm OR Somw"
a. 2=mn mm am zznnm
sOOACss of amcr, OR XK=u WE •
vm=pmz or am W=u Or
v=P=7
8. gain m - W= =9 IJOPOOZ
O. MICE If Tom Apo= or SmAct xm= Ili,
Is my WAM awry
-"r. a. com CT orm scram OR agwAL
nm Oulmanow=cza r" us
P20753=
zit, OR pJAMM ZND Vast ti!-'.,"Y: - •'
r.t2f000br, or iS: Try •tw �•�i ,t?G',::'• s'�• a-:.
I0=1r10 tpr0=09 w fAOffflt.� ''_ �"`.y •••G . �.
• ib •fiti tsotoAAi ISOOiS it astls,•' 11 A.'i,"? at ' ti.'
sirs or VUDWA AMSCOTl1s1Ai• sane ;� •. s ;
SO Vs1LOrtlslt : . �. •�
.%•%.: t ... •1.7!.L�l wt7wse. 'its5:'a.'d�•' tL� .e
., 11smR:Y stI!•ACltOR} ..'•! t." ,,.• .*,E `�
�.-Ltagmvtrstta . � -
•iti, >Q noFAAL ARI � !; YL�
• 1 'wrwAn00 or AtorrtOrrgL'rtiN- . •. • ••
'. " Lt t10rasRl mw V 12ML ! �'
- sitII.inrr Oi b�uRo TOR trL :' • : .. _
t DOKT irs rtrriR6 Q PLAN •�i:t: r.•.4
Anti 1RsbR Mltttl/ Of CiC7'i; •'
: Ana a wommlt Or atcns AAO/Ct,v v t s
fit+ ,...•' •..� = �irc,o.::x:.. � •' •-�
N A'.ij0.;�.�!''_�+-•i1. Lj:.L • .
.. '! • • ts"m fAAAllnt !o spOfif tltM. �r»«;-, m.,.r • •lr
Aciaa vmnczn, uatrans, as fca . ,G s "?:,' wv`
'0. tomool R Tr>:mL 11lc L1l m Y'r ��" •'t
mulct Ta M SKMC. 0011,11112 QOALSlS -
In otwmrr w tO=OO sCRYATiaW,' s, r':
3L Los-ie mLs AMC t►rai - eifii t.- :: • •,... , '
•A. TnOLTs sts ills or-
m 11IIA1 Or wTAWWX spsflASCr, t; �: }:,•-•: - - :r
MTOO OiL, PLMC=r, .1." , '" •_
tAnar SR sx tlMI a r.4 :4 • a:r: •�. • S
A=NWT Co. aT:tl alttlinOY}
SAJAIM
TZLO1.1100 an
M M 7RiV = art Q•7:4 , • ••
"Diem RAOti rrum tIR111ATrr• r, •�y Y: � ^� „
V.=rn 'as Ins TO auAimM
aAtat, Ss:taeac wr Trol imam r't :. i. • •, ".•
tO ou., IMMMr, cw"i ai t- _ :::
sloLTim? : t
A. SM In toglim wts r
mm= in WIST R A
OR 1020u Aer fxRO xwtsQtt AR ,-} •• ! =: �: •'ti.�,`...
=N or si}ot. to gaga CPR am='
Aatt &W, anoti0w of AOOy
lr
..1 rr
a'tt=t •..•4RM.�J'ti f+.�l.� jrt•oeV ;•�; '�
_r
0=01MLOR RAM • '• - —
L -
a. MU to rt M. rti a1 w"m
'.. L or lQml A= wtM000A AtTtKuw , -, •'
.,� W= As MM aslA =,. MWAKs .
OR 1bLOfftr} `•Sr:A'aia{12;aClr:,l; �.`
SL llSii. in rlOrML
Tsl
' A. TVO OA W aisriss tail t• • • • .
s, tatossLaz w PIMA so Oln
TATRLs II =cm or OOWR '•
W. wom Inn, - I= In FORWO tL
.
IN SAW OR GLAPW —
—
.TArOAtdt ORHd' ARP Olt7.inr •'x", f'' :• t
CaYAlY ac i® • 'Y•' •••
;
.
'
RALL Tst rwjv
MR oil rAttunr OR in >rwua
or 31LTKns6 rActuns mcx ww •
,:
Yon A"Em MUCAL 21011c l
Jim PUDOMM on.
::• i•s. •touts rioticsia'�..•; bon'}�; �� _••
_•
•
• b. ♦zu Ali% 0lss omag Com
bum"mom't
16 TamCNL
M,
o.• 101TR Y.�.• .. .,
`
1t, sl0a OR sane !tm'•' •' ..
,
S. KOM oat b1JSRACt.• g., •...>. �.
...r,
s. sotm sAits Aro otrrtws �.
_
,�
•';
R. aati Rona=, .._
_
.>:
Tsf'.osog envla ..... _
77L7 ... . 7
l '.. .. _.•, .
�" •
W ftdlMtA:to pt. m R IN OvAlomm, ptNrrrALLt Ts
LLR tarlt.Tlr1 t0 6" rums a10,4mlrdtrt0 Ltt6ar ts11A
j,lTT, Rlu1 Tltl ""to, OR Milmer To ww Q A sign
.- .�....... e.. rut rr ra OWN "MIN or OWOPI&A
iina� w rtnnnarr �..:.
�'• is • Pt IN PMUM wts•+A R I�orwri" W Aaron s{alr.}tM, W m rrtAAMArYi O lit A M&A
fiN0IN6S:" al~sir, iT twoo w�Ve Ishii wOar�Qt�tIN IMAM full,t am= sasu'an� O1NeORurNLr
C. a is "MIN wn 110" rra an srry}�•••T ArlutW, bsr 1R ttatntLt ewtbtltrW N
r torsr wT targ, w tao son "m orkmit wrwm Mtn Im 3owt at "a woom['s rY
siAlrtCt Pt1AAr Wr Mtn go g"M rr is WILL s Tlat MAr•Tt w IN nMltstslt It
r. w
rw go "WWI aft slrMitRs1AL bran aca hLL erlt RMNt1AL ArrRltt WNWR
u,da. artot sltlttLT a t�OtIrRLTt
_ tT long 1� .:• . a+. ^ -
T rw tse ttirsts ►twwt OMA so" A we"Mm sma w in onxx sR, YIR L font!!!!
103AWAN "M IS RIMMED.
OPM
OETENNINATION: rm o aiirita�wss rersit "Now � �m +o "ff1�m's m �°� l�'�,on saw
Oas Mum W INmrtti. A morm rtoAWM
nLL a rsrAw-
... .-,- �_ 7t rse sw itsatsi twtAt IRT A stslrlalar s1'rGt 40 w wnmmw# am Y MM
afar s "Am. _ �y/fi.. =—�/' •'AM.
I
�•�,. � •. ..r � ''�:.�F`��•-ram• - ...� r r� � ��....�. ram.. ` r ' ..'
I-
FR01 REF
r
D - ENVJROt L l FALiVXJaGETJ ENT AGiE' ICY
`P.O.80X -4048. _ z
SANTA ANA. CALiFORNIA 827h_2 >
C, t¢ f = c y
7.
-- EXPIANATIONSWRIGATION DISCUSSION j
• JPPS_EMENT TO c.HEGKLSST FdRM 2JC).FA25(3=338
a t
> t; : _ . •.
3. 'Y= AND MAYBE' CEB=IST RESPONSES
-
r
' ^,. _ � ' Y-,,.; > > � ,. '. •tom .-� � s� Y. 1.,-. -.e t .f - _
The proposed 'dele ion o� �nivsa erty:Mrive between'Srvine, venue end jamboree"
.Road on -the .Raster Flan -,Of _-rterial Highways, xould :lead -to iuture`.7ncreases
�in traffic levels oa' az3acent �oadtasy links: r Th?is 7n4y expose personsy to ` -
locally Qlevated levels bi aiz p6i3utants µ ♦� s
.r.r� ~r /� - r t•_ 3:.1 c i F f r� ;,r_r4 ^.�
5 �ultural�Scaentiflc resources
' I
Impiementation'of -alternative circulation impzovements, such as road
uiden3ngs,,anay.impact�iastoric stractures
$ F, i'i 3,ana use t
The-propasea .pro)ect would conflict'.srith e county's General Flan rich
aesii nates-University Drive as a proposed rimary Arterial ;'iaster -.-
Plan-oF Arterial highways Y - r
Implementation c`.alternative zircrilation improvements, such as road
kroeninas, may ampact existing a33acent land -uses T
T� B.'L M -G 3'ransvortationiCrrcu3ation - ` �,, _
j Tneproject, 3y re -traffic from�niversztygave to
alternative.routes, will Smpact both �arsting ana_plaane0 rirculai'ion
jj systems - 'R°iis diversion may alter�resent-patterns-of circulation.
j Implementation -of alternative ,:arculativn improvements,�nch as load
jl v! aenings, may nmpact -existing -parkingfacilities ,ana internal circulation
1 patterns s
1
1i-. P Public Sealth and Saletp r r �' - -
-Implementation of alternative circulation improvements, such $s soad
y }7 idenjngs, �ay�=eguire the disposal of pptential3y hazardous�aterials
rA TNoise 1
f 4 11- _, r 3 y L sea :A
Siesidenialxc�unitie6�d acentgto-Mrivers3t Aziveamap�emeapfl
icher:levels �f -noises due to capacity increases �n local arterial finks
and ,road viaenings theseSevels-jof,noise'.maya�etin excess of-Count_y
/E tB �aard6 y./ ws.A ..-. 1 c �3yre 5-i...= jy „�; i i•,�,�i`. ; `-
5 v e i,Tu f
.' i. '�'3`vt�• �H } , y i ♦ r j6 4 F _ i.-. / -
y-;"`� pa zr �S r-i','`r "i:_�'L,5- ~���, `fc•-� 3 .L., "
J&rw! a���Stx/Hj = ,,,5 "'_.^J-.'.s.,.` .tea i,=o-ht�ti�y.__,,C.,.sLr
14. E. F. G. 8, Public Services and utilities '
seisting wer, andublic stormfwatertiesi such as drainage, maypbe impacctednbyathenSystems,
proposed project.
II. ONO" C1CLI9T RESPONSES '
1 A t1,2) B tl,i) C Earth: Safety/Landform Alteration '
The proposed project would not result in changes in topography or ground
relief features, nor would it destroy any unique geologic or physical
features. The project would not create unstable earth conditions or expose
persons or property to geologic hazards. No changes in siltation or
deposition would occur.
2. A. C. D. Air
Adjacent arterials would accommodate future increases in traffic levels if
'University Drive, between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Boulevard, is deleted
from the master Plan of Arterial Highways. Although traffic levels are
increase,expected to projected
d the Air
Quality ManagementPlan'sregional prowjectionsfdt
ortheSouth eCoast Air '
Basin.
The project would not result in changes in climate or alterations of air
movement, moisture or temperature.
3. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. B. Water ,
The project would not result in changes in the flow of marine or fresh
waters, especially Upper Newport Bay, depletion of ground water resources,
nor cause substantial floodingr erosion or siltation. ,
4 A B Biological Resources
The proposed extension of university Drive lies in close proximity to the g r
northern boundary of the tipper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. By
the proposed segment of 'University Driver between Irvine Avenuevine andto� ee
Road, from the master Plan of Arterial Highways, Po pec,
significant biological resources in the Reserve would be eliminated.
6. AestheticsThe '
or thecreationproposed
joft anll not resuli in the obstruction
aesthetically offensivesiteoopenotoapublicCto
view.
7. A. B. Energy '
Implementation of -the proposed project would not preclude the recovery of a '
known or potential energy $ource such as oil or gas. In addition, the
project would not encourage activities which would result in the use of
large amounts of fuel, water or energy.
-2- 1
1
8. C. D. E. Land Use
The proposed project would not induce urban growth, population and housing
growth.
In addition, the portion of University Drive which would be deleted from the
Master Plan of Arterial Highways is not located on prime'agricultural land.
1
9 A E. F. Transportation/Circulation
There would be no generation of additional vehicular movement beyond
regional analysis caused by the proposed project. Waterborne, air or rail
traffic hazards to
traffic would not be altered, and the potential for
equestrians, motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians would be eliminated.
10. Recreation
The proposed project would not adversely impact the quality, or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities.
11 A B. C. D. E. Public Health and Safety
The proposed project would not involve the release of hazardous substances
which pose a threat to people or biological resources and will not interfere
with emergency response or evacuation plans.
13. Light and Glare
There would be no new light or glare generated.by the proposed project which
1
would adversely impact adjacent residences or wildlife in the ecological
reserve area.
14. A. B. C.D. J. Public Services and Utilities
Implementation of the proposed project would not create the need for new
1
fire, police, schools, park and solid waste disposal facilities.
1
1
1
1
1 .
1 RA-apPE05-54 -3-
8067
April 5, 1987
P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662
county of Orange
Environmental Management Agency
Environmental and Special Projects Division
P. 0. Box 4045
Santa Ana, CA 92702-404S
Attention Richard M. Adler
Subject: Draft EIR D#477, Deletion of University Drive
We support the deletion of University Drive from the Master Plan of
Arterial Highways. Such an arterial is incompatible with the longstanding
efforts to create an Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, the efforts to
retain a residential community along Mesa Drive and in Santa Ana Heights,
the recreational and equestrian uses which have been preserved in the area
and finally, the concept of an Upper Newport Bay Regional Park.
With respect to the Environmental Analysis checklist we would like
to comment that we believe many more items qualify for a YES than is
so far the case. We want to make sure that such items are given a strong
priority in the preparation of the EIR. Checklist items of concern are
as follows:
1. A. 1) and 2). LANDFORM ALTERATIONS : We believe that items 1) and 2)
should receive a YES because there would be a change in topography and a
modification in unique physical features when viewed from the Upper
Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and the bluffs.
2. B. C. AIR: We believe that both Of these items should receive YES
designations especially considering the nature of the area as it now
represents recreational and residential uses.
4. A. ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES: This arterial highway would represent a
barrier to animal life in the area and should receive a YES.
6. AESTHETICS: Clearly, in the context of a park and ecological reserve,
this project will result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view and should receive a YES to this item.
8. B. C. LANDUSE: B should be upgraded to YES and it is our belief that
such an arterial could result in inducement to growth beyond projected
I
I
Id
0
I
I
J
11
levels so that C should receive a MAYBE, o '
9. A. TRANSPORTATION: For the same reasons as in C above, this item sht7AS EI V E u
receive a MAYBE. APR 61988
EMA
I
I
I
1
10. RECREATION : In the context of a park this project will result
in a serious impact on the quality of recreational opportunities and
this item should receive a YES.
12. NOISE: This project will result in a serious increase of existing
noise levels in the area of homes and park users. This item A especially
should receive a YES.
13. LIGHT AND GLARE: Car lights at night will severely change the
quality of residential life as it exists on the bluffs on all sides of
this proposed project. This item should receive a YES.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preparation of this
project's EIR.
Very Truly Yours,
GU�zG-
Presiding Officers, SPON
Len Seltzer
Karl and Sally Hufbauer
Jean Watt
714-673-8164
April 51 1988
Mr. Richard M. Adler
Environmental & Special Projects Division
Orange county Environmental Management Agency
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Dear Mr. Adler:
SUBJECT: DELETION OF UNIVERSITY DRIVE FROM THE MASTER PLAN OF
ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (MPAH) AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS - NOTICE OF
PREPARATION FOR DEIR 4477
Thank you for providing the City of Irvine this opportunity to
respond to the Notice of Preparation for the subject project.
Staffs of the City's Public Works and Community Development
Departments have reviewed the proposed project and provide the
following comments.
1. Bristol Street Couplet Widening
Previous analysis by the County has shown that the deletion
of University Drive between Jamboree Boulevard and Irvine
Avenue will necessitate the widening of Bristol Street to
eight lanes and Route 73 to 10 lanes between Jamboree and
Route 55, Volume and capacity in this "la -Lane Corridor"
would increase, This would require weaving distances
between ramp movements greater than the distances
previously assumed for a 1114-Lane Corridor." It is
doubtful that the proposed additional lanes could
adequately be accommodated within the physical constraints
of the local circulation systems (through travel lanes on
Route 73 and on Bristol Auxiliary Lanes, on -ramps and
off -ramps, signalized and nonsignalized intersections of
Bristol, with local streets). The EIR should address the
feasibility of this and other possible mitigation measures.
I
k
I
I
RECEIVED'
Sim
Mr. Richard M. Adler
' April 5, 1988
Page Two
t2. Route 73 Widenin
The proposed widening of the Corona Del Mar Freeway to
accommodate the "spill over" traffic from the University
Drive extension might use all existing right-of-way along
Route 73 from MacArthur to Route 55. This would severely
' impact the regional circulation system since it could
preclude the implementation of high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes that could serve as a link between any future HOV
lanes on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor
(SJHTC) and HOV lanes proposed for the San Diego Freeway
(I-405).
' 3. Intersection Impacts
Previous analysis has shown that some area intersections
will be impacted due to diversion of traffic if University
Drive is deleted. This could require that some
intersections be widened in order to provide dual or triple
' right and left turn lanes. Each affected intersection
should be analyzed for such potential impacts, and
appropriate mitigation measures identified.
4. Other Circulation Concerns
A. Will the widening of any impacted roads cause the need
' to displace existing structures located within the
City of Irvine?
B." How will alternative road improvements be funded,
' including Bristol Street and the Route 73 widening?
5. Noise Impacts
I The EIR should address the potential for increased noise
levels in areas where alternative circulation improvements
are to be considered,
For any alternative circulation improvements that would
impact roadways located within the City of Irvine, the EIR
should identify any increases in traffic volumes that would
result from the alternative circulation improvements and
compare these volumes to the existing and ultimate traffic
volumes that are assumed in the pending update of the
City's General Plan noise element.
I
CJ
Mr. Richard M. Adler
April 51 1988
Page Three
We appreciate your desire to work closely with the City on this ,
project. The City's participation in the Technical Advisory
Committee for the University Drive deletion EIR will provide an '
excellent opportunity for City staff to provide technical
support and obtain useful information. We look forward to
reviewing the Draft EIR during the forthcoming review period.
if you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Jayni Barker of our Environmental Services section at
660-3832.
Sincerely,
a MURPH DENNIS WILBERG
Manager of De 1 ment Manager of Transportation
Services Services '
Community Development Department Public Works Department
JM/ss
cc: Rob McCann, Principal Transportation Analyst
Steve Letterly, Principal Planner
Uayni Barker, Associate Planner
J111aB/Ss ,
I
11
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSrVATATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gommor
I
J
I
D
DEPARTMENT OF
DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
TDD (213) 620.3550
(213) 620-5335
TRANSPORTATION
ST.
April 12, 1988
NOP for Deletion of
University Drive from the MPAH
and Implementation of
Alternative Circulation
improvements - SCH# 88031607
Mr. Richard Adler
County of Orange, EMA
P. O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Dear Mr. Adler:
CALTRANS has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Deletion of University
Drive from the Master Plan of Arterial Highway (MPAH) and
Implementation of Alternative Improvements.
' CALTRANS will not act as a Responsible Agency on the roadway
deletion. We will, however, act as a Review Agency because of
potential impacts to State facilities.
' Your project description has indicated that'the Corona Del Mar
Freeway (State Route 73) and Pacific Coast Highway (State Route
1) will carry the diverted traffic from the deleted University
' Drive. We are seriously concerned with potential overloads at on -
and -off ramps. CALTRANS suggests your traffic analysis discuss
impacts to the Corona Del Mar Freeway and Pacific Coast Highway
' including the level of service (LOS) and on -and -off ramp impacts,
cumulative traffic impacts, mitigation measures and the
effectiveness of any proposed mitigation.
41)
If, as mitigation for this action, improvements are necessary to
any State facility, CALTRANS would be Lead Agency on any
subsequent environmental document covering those improvements
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Any future
correspondence should be referred to Leonard Cornett at (213)
620-4524.
Very truly yours,
W%BBLLANTINE, Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
APB. 1 1988
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY _ _ "`•'""` ""'""""" -""""�
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
245 W. Broadway, Suite 350
Long Beach, CA 90802-4467
(213) 590-5113 ,
April 20, 1988
Richard Adler
County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency ,
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Dear Mr. Adler: '
We have reviewed the Notice of preparation of a Draft EIR for the
proposed High"Deletion University
Drive
ways (MPAH)and I plementatonofAlternative from the aPlan-ofster Arterial
Circulation '
Improvements."
The proposed deletion of University Drive from the MPAH is a positive
action and one we agree with because it will retain fish and wildlife
resources of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (Reserve). We
recommend that the Draft EIR provide an assessment of the beneficial ,
aspects of the proposed action upon the Reserve and the open space
values, water quality, and existing public use facilities within the
subject MPAH area. '
Also, if alternatives are proposed to replace the University Drive
project, we recommend that the DEIR provide assessments of potential
impacts to the natural resources of the Upper Newport Bay area. To
enable our staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed DEIR,
we recommend that the following information be included:
1) A complete assessment of flora and fauna within the project area.
Particular emphasis should be placed upon identifying endangered,
threatened, and locally unique species; 2) documentation of direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect
biological resources within and adjacent to the project site; and 3)
mitigation measures proposed to offset such impacts.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project.
If you have any questions, please contact Jack L. Spruill of our
Environmental Services staff at (213) 590-5137.
Sincerely,
Fred Worthley
Regional Manager
Region 5
cc: Office of Planning & Research
R. Hein
E. Burkett
I
I
1
11
H
1
F,
I
J
CIi i .OF COSTA MESA I
CAUFORNIA 92626 P.O. BOX 1200
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PUB LICSERVICES DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER
March 15, 1988
Mr. Richard M. Adler
Environmental & Special Projects Division
County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency
P. 0. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 1 477-
UNIVERSITy DRIVE DELETION FROM THE MPAH &
IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENTS
Dear Mr. Adler:
The City of Costa Mesa Transportation Services Division has reviewed the
Notice of Preparation for Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to study
the deletion of University Drive from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways
and implementation of alternative improvements.
Scope and content of the DEIR are requested to include the MPAH deletion of
Del Mar Avenue between Irvine Avenue and Newport Boulevard; and traffic
demand diverted from the deleted University Drive extension onto the
northbound SR-55 to eastbound SR-73 freeway connector, and onto the
westbound SR-73 to southbound SR-55 freeway connector.
We look forward to working with you on this important project. Our staff
representative will be John Lower, Associate Engineer in the Transportation
Services Division. If you have any questions please feel free to call him
at (714) 754-5182.
' Sincerely,
�/i i�G(/fiwv.v
MATTERN
BRUCE D.
Director of Public Services
'
JAL:ps
c City Manager
77 FAIR DRIVE (714) 754.5343
VuNflK4CH
A L. I N C
March 24, 1988
Mr. Richard Adler
Environmental and Special
Projects Division
County of Orange
Environmental Management,Agency
P. 0. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Ref: Deletion of University Drive from the
Master Planning Arterial Highways
Dear Mr. Adler:
2832 Dov: Avenue
Tuslo, Caldona 92E80 U S A
(714)832.9700Telex, 277714 ,
Cable VITATECH
TeleFA% (714) 731.8482
I completely support the proposed action to delete University Drive
from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. This action will protect
the sensitive ecology of the Back Bay from recurring pollution,
noise and trauma associated with construction and vehicular
trips through the area. The legacy of the Back Bay can only be
insured by this action.
As a matter of record, I understand you have over 10 years of
commentary from the community which supports this essential
action. I r quest that these responses be included as part of
this proje action.
la
�: 'Me e
sa Dr.= - •-••-•na Heights, 92707
4) 548-9346
EON
I
I
lI
I
I
1
4 haau.:m .; fefel+cn: r. CUSIom AldnulatfurrrNwutrmonal Supplenlan7°m 7sbli•Is coif Hnr(h.;gr.u,rts
I
' County of Ur ange
Environmental Management Agency
F.U. Box 4048
' Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
Attn: Rich Adler
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1 COMPANY
ORANGE COUNTY'D IV ISION • P.O. BOX 3334, ANA HE IK CALIF.92BB3
March 11, 1988
Subject: Draft E1R #477 Deletion University Drive -From Master P'a'I
Arterial Highways
' This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual ca-MI tment
to Serve the proposed project but only as an information service. :ts
Intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has
' ,facll,iItles in the area where the above -named project is proposed. Gas
Service to the project could be Served by an Existing main as shownCAI
the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact an the
' Environment. The service would be in accordance With the Company's
policies and extensian rules an file m
le with the California Public
Lit 1 ilt i'� es onmiss fort at the time contractual arrangeents are Trade.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter.
p_ and regulatory I
i -I^" r-�C.,`R! upon
present
�..G Id I l 11�iJ� df gam Supply
po I is ies. As a public Utility', the Southern California Gas Company is
l a '..rider tL.- jur isd ictlan aT ti'e L:a i i f or n is public Ut i I I t es Comm- Ss is -I. V can also be a`acted by actions of Gas supply or the card it ia'i
Uridar wh-1ch service i5 available, gas service Wi 11 be provided inl
accordance with revised condit ians.
1
H
Estimates of gas Usage for nan-residential projects are developed an
an indiv idea I bas is and are obta fined -From the Commercial -.ndUStr is
Markdt Services Steff , I..a 1 Iing (714) 834-3173.
To expedite Your future requests, please send correspondence to
t' 'tilern Ca i ifor n is Gas Company, Iy, Attention: TEChi I iCal Supervisor,
1A13 S. State College Blvd., P.U. Box 3334, Anaheim S2803-3334.
e'J= have develoDed several programs which 'ore ovollo}71E, Upon request,
t0 provide assistance In selecting the most energy efficient
lant
appliances or systems for a particular project. if you des -ire fur tiler
informstlan a-, any of cur energy conservation programs, please contact
this office 'or assistance.
LA: lm
Attachment
� inCe1 E Iy
R. M. Uclaray
Technical Supervisor
I E C E I V E D
MAR 151988
EMA
I
1
Appendix B
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ANALYSES
I
1
I
1
1
P
Draft
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION STUDY
'
Prepared by:
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.
'
1450 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 108
Santa Ana, California 92701
February 9, 1989
'
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
Background
Methodology
Regional Transportation Relationships
References
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing Roadways and Levelsof Service
III. IMPACT ANALYSIS
Land Use and Trip Generation
2010 Traffic Volumes - With and Without Project
SR-55/SR-73 Connector
IV, CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Improvement Strategies
Mitigation Measure Effectiveness
Cost Estimate
APPENDICES
A: Land Use and Trip Generation
B: Preliminary Improvement Construction Cost Estimate
C: ICU Summaries
Pape
IV-1
IV-3
IV-3
I. INTRODUCTION
This report provides a traffic analysis of the proposed deletion of the section of
University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree Road from the Orange County Master
Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The purpose is to show the effect of removing this link
from the MPAH, and to identify potential mitigation measures to alleviate the impacts.
The Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) includes University Drive
North as a new arterial extending from Irvine Avenue to California Street (see Figure I-1). It
would provide a new east -west link in this part or the county, and east of Jamboree would
provide a parallel facility to the existing University Drive South.
Most of the roadway section to be deleted is in the City of Newport Beach with a short
section in unincorporated county area. Recent actions by the City of Newport Beach and the
County of Orange have indicated a desire to delete the section of University Drive West to
Jamboree from the MPAH. That proposed deletion is the subject of this traffic analysis. The
deletion would. not effect the section between Jamboree and California, which is assumed here
to remain on the MPAH.
The scope of work involved examining the traffic volumes in this area with and without
the extension and identifying resulting capacity needs. Mitigation measures are then discussed
to indicate how the additional traffic volumes could be accommodated on other facilities.
To prepare the necessary traffic forecasts for this analysis, use was made of the City of
Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM), This is a subarea traffic forecasting model developed
from the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model (OCTAM) and used in updating the circulation
element of Newport Beach's General Plan. As a subarea model it has a finer level of detail
within the area of interest than does the OCTAM "parent" model. In particular, it uses recent
landuse traffic forecasts for the City of Newport Beach and the adjacent portion of Irvine.
Hence, it was considered to be an appropriate traffic analysis tool for examining the impacts of
this roadway deletion.
I-1
P
C
MESA
w
z
SECTION F m
ROADWAY a
BE DELE, ED w
larwAUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
Figure I-1
PROJECT LOCATION
I-2
The study area for the analysis can be seen in Figure I-2. This area, for which the
NBTM provides detailed traffic forecasts, includes all of Newport Beach and portions of the
City of Costa Mesa, the City of Irvine, and incorporated Orange County. It has in its data
base recent land use projections for the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) an area which has a
significant impact on portions of the circulation system that are directly affected by the
proposed roadway deletion.
The traffic analysis carried out here for University Drive recognizes the transportation
interrelationships with the surrounding region. Traffic forecasts are made within an
appropriate regional context which includes both local and regional travel components. Hence,
capacity of the deletion accounts for both local and thru traffic as far as the analysis area is
concerned.
The traffic forecasts presented here assume buildout of the City of Newport Beach's
General Plan and buildout of those of the adjacent communities (Costa Mesa and Irvine). In
the case of the portion of unincorporated county within the study area, year 2010 demographic
data forms the basis for the travel projections. Specific assumptions with respect to regional
transportation facilities are discussed in later chapters of this report.
Related studies that are significant as far as this traffic analysis is concerned are as
follows;
1. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) EIR. This study was recently
released by the County of Orange in draft form (see Reference 2 at the end of this
chapter), The 2010 forecasts were used as a primary data source for deriving the
NBTAM, and hence are reflected in the traffic data base used in this study.
2. IBC Baseline Traffic Analysis (Reference 3 at the end of this chapter). This study
was recently completed by the City of Irvine and provides detailed land use and
traffic forecast data bases for IBC. Both sets of data were incorporated into the
NBTAM, and hence the traffic data base used in this study again reflects the most
recently available data for this part of the study area.
2-3
MESA
l
I®FAUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
Figure I-2
STUDY AREA
I-4
1. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Traffic Analysis Traffic Model
Description.
2. City of Newport Beach General Plan Traffic Analysis - Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.,
November 1998.
3. San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Orange County EMA, June, 1988.
4. Irvine Business Complex Traffic Analysis, Baseline Capacity Evaluation, Austin -Foust
Associates, Inc., August, 1988.
S. Irvine Coastal Area Traffic Analysis, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., February, 1987.
I-5
I
I
II
1
F
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter describes the existing circulation system in the study area. Recent traffic
volume counts are summarized and existing levels of service at key intersections are discussed.
EXISTING ROADWAYS AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
The existing roadway system in the traffic analysis area is illustrated in Figure II-1.
Shown here are the number of lanes (midblock) on individual segments of the circulation system
and recent ADT volumes on the circulation system. The traffic volumes are based on traffic
counts made by the City of Newport Beach in 1987.
To analyze existing and future levels of service, peak hour data is used here. A set of
intersections in the study area were selected for analysis, and turn movement volumes estimated
for 'each intersection. The evaluation hence considers the key determinant of capacity, which
is peak hour intersection performance.
Figure II-2 shows recent (1987) AM and PM peak hour intersection turn volumes for the
intersections used in this analysis. The corresponding intersection capacity utilization (ICU)
values are listed in Table II-1, these being based on the existing intersection lane
configurations presented in Figure lI-3. The ICU values are a means of representing peak hour
volume/capacity ratios. A value of .90 generally represents the maximum desirable ICU, and at
a value of 1.0, the theoretical absolute capacity of the intersection has been reached.
Certain intersections have ICUs greater than .90, indicating that on the day of the count,
this maximum desirable ICU value was being exceeded. Two notable deficiencies are in the
Bristol Street area, with Campus and Birch showing ICUs greater than 1.00. Other
intersections with higher than desirable ICUs on the day of the count include Jamboree/Bristol
South, and Irvine/University.
Legend:
X - Number of midblock lanes
4
)t�
6
N
4
DEL MAR
Legend
X - ADT (000s)
Source: City of Newport Beach
1.1
DEL MAR
1 '. AYfTIN•FOYfT ASSOCIATES, INC.
7
2
v
Figure II-1
EXISTING (1987) CIRCULATION SYSTEM
II-2
m m m r m W m m m m m m = � r m m m m
H
H
I
W
�= o
✓ 4}13 ♦rN � 1
66 f t 151B7,
a��°aJDy R* i3 t
..-4 pia r.67 PPL7
°s 4
24 � r to] 65J
°' V 4,5 �� 123 ~a $an t25y Jd r ryy,�+� fir'
NP BIRCH 35Z No
/
/ 010
976
li~1� `rye2 V�i' 129 Nn L 157 J Y1 3Po
21D BRISTOL
1/33392
640 JZ�„ + •) �yA�Ftn �lG
,4
4J
'3
1092� 11
zd�
Yam^ 1800 �V OOY
I 1 L 3 �S
Y�Y i 9D MESA+(, i
'04- 652
65'Z .on r;M_24i-15 i 4
MAR , .c 2292� Itr 105'Z agen
N
AM
Source: City of Newport Beach and
City of Irvine traffic counts, 1987
14FrigAUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
BRISTOL
0
2200
— 3
titr ` 53tr �YS 95J5nv
3Y B-► 7�
1B4Z o
v nu-� 752
J84"'t89
h, v�tr
Figure II-2
EXISTING PEAK HOUR
NTERSECTION VOLUNES
err
PM I
Table 11.1
1987 ICU SUMMARY
Intersection
AM
►M
MacArthur ► Campus
.63
.72
MacArthur ► ►irch
.40
.40
Von Karmen ► CaepusA
.50
.58
MacArthur i Von Karmen
.36
.57
Jamboree i Campus
.71
.64
Jamboree ► ►irch"
.39
.46
Campus i Bristol M.
.92
L25 '
Birch A Bristol M.
.66
1.00
Campus i Bristol S.
.88
.87
Birch i Bristol S.
1.09
.66
Irvine i Mesa
.92
1.17
Irvine t University
91
.98
MacArthur ► Jamboree
.63
.61
Jamboree ► Bristol X.
.62
.82
Jamboree 1 Bristol S.
.97
.79
City of Irvine traffic counts, 1987.
Source: City of Newport Beach and City of Irvine Traffic Cants, 1987.
II-4
z
y z O
_ _F//_ A o 6
F ► ..
BIRCH ���' �I -F_— I ►
F
�C a F F
.� F
I I F
I 11/1
S��� ,r— BRISTDL
' FFFF F
m4 '
< �L
z �� MESA
z
cn
—1..
DEL MAR
w
z
5
Figure II-3
EXISTING (1987) LANE CONFIGURATIONS
AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
ON
III. IMPACT ANALYSIS
This chapter discusses future traffic demands on the study area circulation system in
relation to the proposed roadway deletion. Estimates of future traffic volumes are presented
for with and without project conditions, and traffic forecast data is provided for other system
alternatives that could potentially affect traffic volumes in this area.
The traffic generated by a certain type of land use is estimated by applying a
representative trip generation rate to the amount of the land use in the area under
consideration. The Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) uses a set of such trip
generation rates to calculate both peak hour and ADT trips by land use. These rates together
with a discussion on their derivation can be found in Appendix A.
Existing land use for the study area was obtained from the Cities of Costa Mesa and
Newport Beach, and from the County of Orange for the remainder of the analysis area.
Table III-1 summarizes the 1987 land use and trip generation for the entire analysis area
(detailed listings of this data by traffic zone can be found in Appendix A).
For buildout conditions (labeled "2010" throughout this report), data was again obtained
from the three cities and is summarized in Table 11I-2. In the analysis area (see diagram in
Chapter I) ADT trip generation is forecast to increase by 56 percent between 1987 and 2010.
To provide base case conditions for this analysis, a 2010 circulation system was assumed
which corresponds to the current Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). This is illustrated
in Figure III-1 together with the midblock lanes. Figure III-2 shows the intersection lane
configurations. The lane configurations are those currently planned under city and county
arterial highway plans.
ADT Traffic volumes with and without the extension can be seen in Figure 111-3. The
corresponding peak hour volumes are illustrated in Figures 111-4 and 1II-5. The traffic volume
diversion from University Drive occurs primarily on SR-73 and Bristol Street, with a minor
Table III-1
1987 LAND
USE
AND TRIP GENERATION
SUMMARY
-----AM PK HR-----
-----PM
PK
HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
1.
Res - Coast Estate
0.00
DU
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
Res - Estate/Rural
0.00
DU
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
3.
Res - Low (SFD).
30856.00
DU
6171
21599
27770
21599
12342
33942
339416
4.
Res - Medium (SFA)
20703.00
DU
4141
12422
16562
12422
8281
20703
178046
'
5.
Apartment
14451.00
OU
2890
5780
8671
5780
4335
10116
93932
S.
Park Newport
1306.00
DU
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
7.
Elderly Residential
100.00
DU
10
30
40
30
10
40
400
'
8.
Mobile Home
2138.00
DU
428
855
1283
855
641
1497
12828
9.
Motel
1384.00
ROOM
554
415
969
415
554
969
13978
10.
Hotel
3435.00
ROOM
2061
1031
3092
1374
1374
2748
36068
t11.
Resort Hotel
0.00
ROOM
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
738.31
TSF
443
369
812
1403
1477
2879
33224
13.
District Comm.
125.43
TSF
75
63
138
238
Z51
489
5644
14.
Regional Commercial
1223.66
TSF
245
122
367
857
1101
1958
26921
15.
General Commercial
4262.95
TSF
2131
1705
3837
5968
6821
12789
170518
16.
Comm./Recreation
Z.37
ACRE
1
1
2
6
6
12
95
17.
Resort Commercial
0.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18.
Unclassified Conn.
48.11
TSF
5
5
10
10
10
19
19244
19.
Restaurant
965.68
TSF
579
97
676
3380
1545
4925
64604
'
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
61.28
TSF
270
245
515
319
221
539
8702
21.
Auto Dealer
51.24
ACRE
343
477
820
282
374
656
7686
22.
Yacht Club
54.58
TSF
44
38
82
76
75
153
2729
23.
Health Club
243.01
TSF
146
146
292
462
462
923
9720
24.
Tennis Club
51.00
CRT
36
31
66
107
102
, 209
2259
25.
Marina
861.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
431
26.
Theater
7331.00
SEAT
0
0
0
1466
0
1466
10997
27.
Newport Dunes
65.00
ACRE
7
7
13
20
26
46
371
28.
General Office
16863.24
TSF
32040
5059
37099
ID118
28668
38785
219222
29.
Medical Office
860.78
TSF
516
172
689
689
2152
2841
38735
30.
Industrial
6697.09
TSF
5358
1339
6697
2679
4688
7367
33485
III
31.
R & D
1554.66
TSF
1555
155
1710
466
1710
2177
14769
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
0.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
Elementary School
5448.00
STU
545
0
545
0
0
0
5448
34.
Junior/High School
4253.00
STU
851
425
1276
425
425
851
5954
35.
Private School
1803.00
STU
180
0
180
0
0
0
1803"
36.
Government Office
450.34
TSF
856
135
991
270
766
1036
5854
37.
Civic Center/Museum
179.10
TSF
448
54
501
197
466
663
5731
38.
Library
38.95
TSF
55
51
105
140
125
265
1628
39.
Post Office
58.70
TSF
164
147
311
205
194
399
5095
40.
OCTD Facility
0.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
" 0
0
' 0
I
Table III-1
(cont.)
-----AM
PK HR-----
-'---PM PK MR-----
USEUNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
•- -------------------------------------"'-----------------------------•----------------------=-----------
41.
Fire Station
18.88
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
TJ
0
42.
Hospital
2165.00
BED
1516
650
2165
1083
1732
2815
24681
43.
Nursing/Conv. Home
1107.00
PAT
111
111
221
111
221
332
2989
44.
Church
478.49
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
11962
45.
Cemetary/Res/Util
6.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
46.
Youth Ctr/Service
48.46
TSF
5
5
30
10
10
19
194
47.
Park
82.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
492
48.
Regional Park
401.00
ACRE
80
0
80
80
80
160
2005
49.
Beach
0.00
UNIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50.
Golf Course
510.00
ACRE
102
51
153
51
153
204
3060
51.
Resort Golf Course
0.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
52.
Auto Parking
3498.60
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53.
Vacant Land
304.72
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54.
Christ Col (ADT/10)
160.90
UNIT
161
16
177
48
80
129
1609
55.
UCI-S.G.
0.00
NA
2093
567
2660
1264
2398
3662
43600
56.
Innovation Center
0.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57.
OC Airport-S.G.
0.00
NA
$62
652
1515
769
1049
1817
23300
58.
Service Club
4.10
TSF
2
2
4
6
7
12
164
SS.
Coastal Rec.(ADT/10)
20.50
UNIT
8
0
8
8
8
16
205
60.
Trnsptn Ctr (ADT/10)
0.00
UNIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61.
College
600.00
STU
120
0
120
0
60
60
960
GRAND TOTAL
68336 55419 123755
76079
85261 161340
1497039
Note: This summary is for
the traffic analysis
area which includes
the city
of Newport Beach and
its
sphere of influence
(currently unincorporated County),
plus
a portion
of the
cities
of Costa Mesa
and Irvine (see analysis
area diagram in
Figure I-1 of
Chapter
I).
III-3
�i
Table 111-2
2010 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
-----AM PK HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------------
1.
Res - Coast Estate
348.00
DU
104
348
452
348
174
522
5220
2.
Res - Estate/Rural
1501.00
DU
300
1051
1351
1051
600
1651
16511
3.
Res - Low (SFD)
35023.00
DU
7005
24516
31521
24516
•14009
38525
385253
4.
Res - Medium (SFA)
32487.00
DU
6497
19492
25990
19492
12995
32487
279388
5.
Apartment
19702.00
DU
3940
7881
11821
7881
5911
13791
128063
6.
Park Newport
1306.00
DU
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
7.
Elderly Residential
200.00
DU
20
60
80
60
20
80
800
8.
Mobile Home
1723.00
OU
345
689
1034
689
517
1206
10338
9.
Motel
1588.00
ROOM
635
476
1112
476
635
1112
16039
10.
Hotel
4160.30
ROOM
2496
1248
3744
1664
1664
3328
43683
11.
Resort Hotel
1900.00
ROOM •
380
190
570
380
570
950
11400
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
1482.92
TSF
890
741
1631
2818
2966
5783
66731
13.
District Comm.
66.95
TSF
40
33
74
127
134
261
3013
14.
Regional Commercial
1310.75
TSF
262
131
393
918
1180
2097
28837
15.
General Commercial
5775.19
TSF
2888
2310
5198
8085
9240
17326
231008
16.
Comm./Recreation
99.65
ACRE
50
50
100
239'
249
488
3986
17.
Resort Commercial
118.00
TSF'
59
47
106
165
189
354
4130
18.
Unclassified Comm.
92.17
TSF
9
9
18
18
18
37
36868
19.
Restaurant
1492.94
TSF
896
149
1045
5225
2389
7614
99878
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
179.23
TSF
789
717
1506
932
645
1577
25451
21.
Auto Dealer
56.18
ACRE
376
522
899
309
410
719
8427
22.
Yacht Club
96,77
TSF
77
68
145
135
135
271
4839
23.
Health Club
640.99
TSF
385
385
769
1218
1218
2436
25640
24.
Tennis Club
70.00
CRT
49
42
91
147
140
287
3101
25.
Marina
879.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
440
26.
Theater
7867.50
SEAT
0
0
0 '
1574
0
1574
11801
27.
Newport Dunes
65.01
ACRE
7
7
13
20
26
46
371
28.
General Office
28663.32
TSF
54460
8599
63059
17198
48728
65926
372623
29.
Medical Office
2074.90
TSF
1245
415
1660
1660
5187
6847
93371
30.
Industrial
7792.85
TSF
6234
1559
7793
3117
5455
8572
38964
31.
R & D
6985.81
TSF
5986
599
6584
1796
6584
8380
56865
32.
Pre-School/Day Care
9.60
TSF
58
52
109
57
61
118
643
33.
Elementary School
9451.00
STU
945
0
945
0
0
0
9451
34.
Junior/High School
5869.00
STU
1174
587
1761
587
587
1174
8217
35.
Private School
2105.00
STU
211
0
211
0
0
0
2105,
36.
Government Office
470.34
TSF
894
141
1035
282
800
1082
6114
37.
Civic Center/Museum
180.60
TSF
452
54
506
199
470
668
5779
38.
Library
42.95
TSF
60
56
116
155
137
292
1795
39.
Post Office
78.70
TSF
220
197
417
275
260
535
6831
40.
OCTD Facility
0.00
TSF
0
0
0
0,
0
0
10
1-4
Table I11-2
(cont.)
USE
41. Fire Station
42. Hospital
43, Nursing/Conv. Home
44. Church
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
46. Youth Ctr/Service
47. Park
48. Regional Park
49. Beach
50. Golf Course
51. Resort Golf Course
52. Auto Parking
53. Vacant Land
54. Christ Col (ADT/10)
56. UCI-S.G.
56. Innovation Center
57. OC Airport-S.G.
SB. Service Club
59. Coastal Rec.(ADT/10)
60. Trnsptn Ctr (ADT/10)
61. College
GRAND TOTAL
,
06-02-1988
-----AM PK HR-----
-----PM PK HR-----
'
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
------------------------
"---------------
•--------------------------------
18.88
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
tl
0
2140.00
BED
1498
642
2140
1070
1712
2782
24396
1164.00
PAT
116
116
233
116
233
349
3143
543.05
TSF'
0
0
0
0
0
0
13576
22.25
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
50.84
TSF
5
5
10
30
10
20
203
209.62
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1258
359.00
ACRE
72
0
72
72
12
144
1795
0.00
UNIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
965.02
ACRE
193
97
290
97
2qO
386
5790
367.00
ACRE •
37
0
37
0
37
37
1101
6736.04
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
219.40
ACRE
- 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
160.90
UNIT
161
16
177
48
BO
129
1609
'
0.00
NA
7403
1481
8883
4442
8883
13325
148054
0.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
NA
1733
1486
3218
1634
1832
3465
49500
4.10
TSF
2
2
4
6
7
12
164
2850.00
UNIT
1140
0
1140
1140
1140
2280
28500
0.00
UNIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
600.00
STU
120
0
120
0
60
60
960
,
113047 77657 190704 119839 08920 251759 2340335
Note: This summary is for the traffic analysis area which includes the city of Newport Beach and its
sphere of influence (currently unincorporated County), plus a portion of the cities of Costa Mesa
and Irvine (see analysis area diagram in Figure 1-1 of Chapter I).
III-5
m m m m m m. m MMIMM� m m m m m m
SR-55 AUGNMENT IS
DIAGRAMATIG ONLY
MD
6
If.AUSTIWFOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
4
72
4
%� NRi1f RDO(
`A A
6
Figure III-1
2010 BASE CASE CIRCULATION SYSTVI
III-7
WITH UNIVERSITY DRIVE
z DUPONT
0
a
a
J
u
c
a
0
i
25 Z 24
a,
py 2S
a
N
'0 1 LT' 11
0
oLs
23
?) BIRCH m
I
S rn co R2 9
27• 42
I �1, 24 22 �BRISTOLA ttA 32
`ti pAC/FpRN�A
I34 — --- � A�
rn �24 � a 20 179 16132 \
I w n 0 47^o \ SO
a y7 ry \ \ ry y0
10 > 13
N V V Z1
15 26
�R I DEL MAR N 21 yd
WITHOUT UNIVERSITY DRIVE o
I� Z DUPONT 0
9
J
I P n N. 0
25 Z 26
L? N -1� c9 y
°Cis
15 0' 11 c° 24
2 BIRCH
Co
4� tj
\� I 21p 133. 46
��� 26 29 :1BRISTOL~ g8 0 32
0 �0 CACIFpRNIq I 36 — --- a
I cn f 30 f
I z 22 185 16-38 \
I� N y V 49� r S
IN Z k1 m Sry \\\ O 02
10 a 17
J N v
.13 13 'ram rn
DEL MAR N 21 a
Figure III-3
2010 ADT VOLtZIES (000s) WITH AND
®NAUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. WITHOUT UNIVERSITY DRIVE
H
H
t
to
e'
I
177
ti
/
.9��r
7 /� •'O.O
1
1t
y0
^n
w•
as
U��
nno
nn
Jiti r 0
offI t r
5s-s :sa
o�w •�
T�_ t 1s
Jit : 114
BR15TOL
i21 -4. •1 �,
n %
ty4�l
s52—s�'N v5'^viT
N i 11
l
�
o
¢
.(
an
J
Y
K
r s5f
j-
::`� L 77
«n
4t�
58i
1tt
_r 17
1;01;
VOO
ryn
YnCII
N�
i !
505 i I�Yn�
f1
BB15T01.
J M / l2H--6
nI
1072--1 t1`o
Ii4i �$� t4 /
773
a« 1057
1571 -► ..
no Its -'►"au. w'b jy5
ar6i
334
21
7i
nnn
�I APM
Figure III -A
2010 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
WITH UNIVERSITY DRIVE
®AUSTIN-6OUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
a
o z o
\S >
✓ RSS r, Y no s\4\0
gyp'?y ✓ 7�0 iry'^ Nn°i i 0.1'aJ."'1o�ti,~'•�Y'JlF,) r rI /~n\gR\6'�.O?. , a / / / on Jai� rooJfa U' �1m 1's L Jis-Zb► �.~'r-�+o"-v' on,l 166/ 2H8J1
iii Nm1UN-4r ��4', 6nJ1 N�S-Z_�► .t7 Ht20
64i41jt 411171
1493216
BIRCH 42331t72U1
� /?d'49l•y5tihy\�R7✓)j'y
l/~� n,1i7Zj1'1J6•\
Dr4
.-
/
's � ✓ 9\R v
262 �Gp Vr h~rypp - 1/4jy It� tjr9 yr C �n.t
908 i~ ? 9!
469 Jj ems$ Z
Nn / na
- Nm m1p �N
b<
'9rm' t 207 7 it om t 20B
�-- BBS BRISTOL
�t �--2810
J1 r 2 JJ� s- 82
�
z
o
Q
J
79
mH^
i 1
t
Y 97i
J�1
y
Y S02
r
NNN
♦N t
r Sze
it
^„
41t1�
887J.
II
J+4r
45 Z
o
259-t 1
Gw�
BIRCII
NN
56�z r.
BRISTOL
I
O'
/ 1
9
I97 nm 693I]29Z m 295
1399 1 t A o / � 1037 1 t
27B4-s 1 1 1651 -► /
147 Znr. q� 223 Zna
F
121416 '7 j�,F 2
F 1022 1 ,t0\0F ,`�r Jib 4' J14r 3o6MESA2aLt
9255-'-. \\34 ri omiUo 433,959Z 21as
12
J14Jibi�699--► I56-s 1tP -
51 Z 15 Z mmo
-
W W
Z Z
AM PM
• Figure III-5
2010 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
WITHOUT UNIVERSITY DRIVE
IWAqW.AUSTIH-FOUST ASSOCIATES. INC.
diversion to Coast Highway. Table 1II-3 summarizes this diversion for a location just west of
Jamboree.
Peak hour ICUs for the 2010 base case circulation system with and without University
Drive extension are presented in Table III-4. The most significant impacts occur along Bristol
Street as traffic is diverted to this facility. Campus Drive north of Bristol is also affected
with significant increases in ICU occurring at MacArthur and Von Karman.
The traffic forecast data presented in the previous section assumed east/south connections
between SR-55 and SR-73. While not, yet constructed, they are part of the ultimate plan for
this freeway to freeway interchange. To show the effect of significant delays in their
construction, traffic forecasts were made with a network which did not include these east-to-
south/south-to-east connections. Both the with and without University Drive extension
conditions were tested.
Figure III-6 shows the ADT volumes for these conditions, and the corresponding
intersection volumes are illustrated in Figure III-7 through III-8. ICUs are listed in
Table III-5.
As can be seen from the forecast data and ICUs, deletion of this connection has
significant impacts on the Bristol Street couplet, and the impact of the University Drive ,
deletion is much greater than in the base case presented earlier.
Del Mar Avenue '
One of the consequences of the University Drive deletion is significantly lower volumes on ,
Del Mar Avenue (from 26,000 ADT to 13,000 ADT just west of Irvine Avenue). Assuming
suitable intersection treatment at Irvine Avenue, this would enable Del Mar to function as a
two-lane roadway, whereas four lanes would be needed with the extension.
SR-73 ,
Deletion of University Drive extension will increase traffic on SR-73 by around five
percent. While this does not necessarily trigger a need for additional lanes compared to the '
number of lanes required under the current MPAH, it should be taken into consideration in
design studies for expanding this part of SR-73.
III-11
Table 111-3
TRAFFIC DIVERSION SUMMARY
Location
ADT
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
SR•73 Eastbound
with
77016
4013
5058
(West of Jamboree)
without
81555
4213
5339
difference
4539
200
281
SR•73 Westbound
with
84169
$343
5131
(West of Jamboree)
without
87096
5376
5540
difference
2927
33
409
Bristol St Eastbound
with
31643
2361
3491
(West of Jamboree)
without
37754
3286
3737
difference
6111
925
246
Bristol St Westbound
with
26762
2739
2339
(West of Jamboree)
without
33235
2695
3094
difference
6473
•44
755
Coast Highway
with
79766
5818
6636
(Bay Bridge)
without
81754
6001
6894
difference
1988
183
258
Table 111.4
ICU SUMMARY • WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT
With Extension
Without Exonsion
Intersection
AM
PM
AM
PM
AIRPORT AREA
MacArthur 4 Compus
.60
1.24
.60
1.32
MacArthur B Birch
.66
.74
.74
.71
Yon Kerman B Cam"
.93
.88
.88
.91
MacArthur B Van Kerman
.66
.86
.71
.85
Jamboree B. Campus
1.02
1.21
1.01
1.21
Jamboree B Birch
.73
.76
.75
.75
MacArthur B Jamboree
1.21
1.0%
1.13
1.12
AVERAGE ICU
.83
.%
.93
.95
i1inT.Ta 'm
Campus S Bristol N.
.90
1.10
IN
1.15
Birch B Bristol N.
.79
1.05
.04
1.13
Campus B Bristol S.
99
.78
1.02
.88
Birch i Bristol S.
1.33
1.24
1.39
1.25
Jamborae B Bristol H.
.51
.65
.50
.78
Bayyiew B Bristol S.
.49
.67
.65
.73
Jamborea S Bristol S.
.74
.92
.77
.90
AVERAGE ICU
.32
.92
.56
.97
IRVINE AVENUE
Irvine B Mass .76 .58 .91 .86
Irvine S University 1.29 1.54 1.08 .76
WITH UNIVER!
I�
IN
IN
I
I\ 68� _ 2
45
I N
z 27
Lnnco
a
OD
z �5
11 a 17
I L4
24 35 to
DEL MAR
WITHOUT UNIVERSITY DRIVE
CA
I�
II
I
D
N
O
Z
j St2 Elip tl
29
27 �BRI TOL AS ti� ry1 C,gCIFpRNIq
3 r A9
151 13835�
50_-r r �
n �N
DUPONT y
n 1;�o
I Da 1c)
Z
A
fO
Re,
168
32
38, 44
33
SS 32
BRISTOL�
rye Cq
6 CIFpRN�q
52
—
---
L
S
38
I
z 30
151 14044
p
N
51
o
> R6
0
9
a 20
71T
I
I
cn
cn
I
19
21
�fl rn
DEL
MAR
Figure III-6
2010 ADT VOLUNES (000s)
WITHOUT SR-55/SR-73 CONNECTION
AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
®�
_
K ji
iia 4,9{,Sigja
q'ai f� $JP 2i9� 1� 4 5--t Itr
♦S1� 194 u 2-1 trs
•' YOdi r-Sn
rwa BIRgI n
i
v ♦ati
pas r o- 40 j Isaq �
961 < 5
M1
it
nr
nn i 323 -
ii ' %i BRISTOL
_iK-irl _ /
n /
WAdffA AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
= t. 1
a- 2
it 1t
s
OH
♦ 2
/ naa
•be`�y+��j n5•�77163! ''bl��. ti,,ss tsb�.aCin
` /fI �C 1 i r11ES ♦J,l�� ry Z +an
6 �
Pp
x
it
! 110
f{ r's39s' BRIST0L it
__ tit - ---------� IN
en
r'� t3f of a / ♦
11 an,.o
12353)-s I
nno 11i0 + WI`1'` y63
5
11%1
J� r 730MESA pi�
,2Sy
100 —i rn'On'a+a
vaaoi
•' t U
Sol
JK {- m
i5)-► rtr
137 nnn
yna
ar
_
5
Figure III-7
2010 PEAK HOUR VOLMIES
WITHOUT SR-55/SR-73 COffi7EC
PM I
m m m m S ! m m S i i i i �
m m m m m m m m i m m m m m m m m m m
AS ¢ V O 2 z
7 Ri 180 nm- Y m emR Z\A a
7o �i ✓ ma N=m t 628 U 4i \AF31 n Y nnm
S d r •^ t 372 9i�lA�l�t J14 i Jib r 65
11d nN t 9'9' mryf156 vr 3
380
�- 2 1~%~�'d6 J14 r JJ2 Jj4 t 314 +oNi 27
257 .i.
0 h1P 441 � ht�' 54 �f � ' �'�'•'o _ 899-. htP 62; :1tP i 1°
16 J�4 t
BIRCH -N i 222"7. nN 194
-y 'ws 6/ Z o+.m, y.ls : �.�
/ aoa BIRCH 5637
n
> /a .r 0 ow 9 o j /=°9 A v q75 � • `� � r=BB ds�yi j ^�i 260 •i�PS4 h~l�tPy. =B=�►htl ;PdsJ \F OY�•1>O 3J�4 9
+t663 �\ 7 >� 2sZ 7;;� ��j, h�L40 r010
ht >�P Jar 703
p M10 M1p ��y0 O h t `%p
oa yM1M1 nn 9`
nn t 702 J+ nm n`n_
J� i107i BRISTOL _ _ _ - t 641
ht �1709 JI ht
J� i-1709 BRISTOL _ ,--
ht_��+- -------------
Y z A -.
is
+n / 2351- t1 6,78Z 0 1871 to 3647-► A ` `
JI3'-y N / oa / 2738- 291 1
10871 96i
2822 --. t 1 1
1/6 Zrin / y 1927 -�t1 �111m
toe, t �P
r 78
t
1366 -'i�°• 1818w•• ye0
rmN �m �•'$Y 25 00 1319 '70tl 'muL 32% Pia^
t 21 14r oo m r lOS
J�4 r 0 MESA s��� J�4 rA 829 MESA IAAI
t3531 It� \14g lar �'�0 7116
206 -► o'^ 365.J t1 1S9 N
t1107
2:232 it
NNE i1, 7 NnN
J14 r( A59 Jt4 r 1136262
1I56 1 Itl 7611 ht'I
as tlNq 59 -►
Nam' S7 Nntl
N Oq0
W
$ W
AM 5: PM
Figure III-8
2010 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
' ; AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. WITHOUT SR-55/SR-73 CONNECTIONS
�1
Table
111.5
ICU SUMMARY
• SR•55/SR•73 CONNECTION DELETED
.....With
SR•55/8R•73 Coduction•.•••
........Sk.55/SR•73
Deleted ......
••
W/University
W/o University
W/University
W/O University
,
Intersection
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AIRPORT AREA
'
MacArthur & CO"A
.60
1.24
.60
1.32
.69
1.30
.62
1.34
MacArthur B Birch
.66
.74
.74
.71
.72
.73
.70
.74
Von karawA Csepus
.93
.BB
.eB
.91
.E1
.91
.93
.95
MacArthur i Von Karmen
66
.B6
71
BS
73
B9
.69
B7
'
Jamboree i Caspas
1.02
1.21
1.01
1.21
1.03
1.19
1.09
1.21
Jamboree L Birch
.73
.76
.75
..75
.77
.77
.74
.77
MacArthur i Jamboree
1.21
1.05
1.13
1.12
1,21
1.13
1.16
1,22
'
AVERAGE ICU
.83
.%
.83
.98
.85
.99
.83
1.01
BR1STOl COUPLET
Campus i Bristol M.
.90
1.10
.BB
1.15
.88
1.26
1.02
1.44
'
Birth S Bristol N.
.79
1.05
.64
1.13
.79
1.07
.77
1.22
Campus t Bristol S.
.99
.73
1.02
.BB
.86
.83
1.02
.95
Birch B Bristol S.
1.33
1.24
1.39
1.25
1.20
1.16
1.45
1.35
Jamboree B Bristol N.
.51
.65
.50
.78
.50
.64
.52
.86
Beyview i Bristol S.
.49
.67
.65
.73
.54
.62
.69
.60
Jmboree i Bristol S.
.74
.92
.77
.90
.79
.86
.78
.97
AVERAGE ICU
.62
.92
.86
.97
.79
.92,
.B9
1.08
IRVINE AVENUE
Irvine i Mess
.76
.55
.97
.E6
1.15
.90
1.36
.94
Irvine i University
1.29
1.54
1.06
.76
1.54
1.88
1.36
1.00
'
2YI-17
I
II
II
I
IV. CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
A set of potential circulation system improvements are presented here, which address the
deficiencies identified in the previous chapter.
IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
Deletion of University Drive across Upper Newport Bay from the MPAH will increase
traffic on Bristol Street and SR-73. Fo'r Bristol Street, the critical intersections are Campus
and Birch. Capacity problems at Campus are characterized by a heavy eastbound left -turn
(from Bristol to Campus) in the AM peak hour, and the reverse movement in the PM peak hour
(a heavy southbound right -turn from Campus to Bristol).
Of primary importance to future traffic conditions in this area is the implementation of
the two connections between SR-55 and SR-73 that are not yet constructed (northbound to
eastbound and westbound to southbound). Without these planned connections, impacts of the
proposed deletion would be significantly greater. Related to this is the need to enhance
circulation around Upper 'Newport Bay to minimize impacts on Coast Highway.
For. the AM movement, the proposed mitigation measure is to add sufficient capacity at
Campus and Birch to carry the left -turn demand. An option was explored which would involve
a crossing of the freeway at Spruce, thereby transferring some of the eastlound left -turns to
that location. However, such a scheme was found to. have significant traffic operations
problems and was determined to be infeasible.
The recommended improvements are shown in Figure IV-1. At Campus, the southbound
approach is widened to provide an additional right -turn lane, adding to the two existing right -
turn lanes. This additional lane would be a free right -turn and would be aligned so as to
provide access only to Bristol Street and not to SR-73. In this way, vehicles making this move
would not need to use intersection green time as do the other southbound right -turn vehicles
destined for SR-73. Overhead signing would be required on Campus Drive prior to the
intersection to advise drivers of this lane deployment.
At Birch and Bristol Street North, the proposed improvement is to widen Birch Street on
the east side and to widen the freeway overcrossing by 25 feet. This is to allow the
I
IV-1
11 ,
n ,
n
"t
Ir
r.
MMTaI K atwltw r:.u..niniivi i e
c - - - - - - - - -
n u
Ir n
n n _
_ _ _
IIIII�11
oyr4rlUSTIN•FOUST AflOCIATEf, INC.
MaNI •♦. tMwla
1
Figure IV-1
BRISTOL STREET
EMEU IMPROVEt•IENTS
I
I
1
1
southbound leg of the intersection to have two right -turns and two thru lanes, and for the
northbound leg to have two left -turns and two thru lanes.
At Campus and Bristol Street South, additional right-of-way is required on the north side
of Bristol for an added left -turn lane. Total eastbound lanes entering this intersection will
then be two left, four thru and one right.
At Birch Street and Bristol Street South, one of the four eastbound thru lanes from
Campus becomes a left -turn lane along the existing left -turn lane alignment. An additional
left -turn lane would then be added, bringing the total approach lanes at this intersection to
two left, three thru and one right.
Bristol Street South needs to be widened both to provide dual left-tum lanes at Campus
and at Birch and to ensure that the capacity of the three thru lanes is maintained. The south
side of Bristol South provides direct access to fronting properties via numerous driveways. In
order to maintain sufficient "through" capacity and provide for safety, an auxiliary lane to
accommodate bicycles, right -turn movements in and out of driveways and acceleration and
deceleration is recommended.
For these measures to be effective, maximum use will need to be made of Birch Street U
a parallel north -south facility for Campus/Irvine Avenue. Irvine Avenue is planned for
widening to six lanes under the City of Newport Beach General Plan, as is the proposed Mesa -
Birch connection. This latter improvement is particularly important for achieving effective use
of Birch Street.
MITIGATION MEASURE EFFECTIVENESS
Comparative ICUs with and without the recommended improvements can be seen in
Table IV-1. ADT volumes corresponding to the recommended improvement plan are illustrated
in Figure IV-2, and the corresponding peak hour volumes are shown in Figure IV-3.
Of importance from the comparative ICU data is average ICU for the Bristol couplet
intersection. This average is a measure of system performance. During the AM peak hour, the
mitigation measures reduce. the average by 12 percent and during the PM peak hour, the
average is reduced by 13 percent. In particular, the lower than desirable level of service in
IV-3
t
Table IV-1
ICU SUMMARY
'
2010
2010 best
Case
2010
Mitigated
Intersection
AIRVORT AREA
PM
AM
pm
MacArthur B Campus
.60
1.32
.60
1.35*
MacArthur B Birch
.74
.71
.74
.73
Von Karam B Campus
.88
.91
.39
.91
MacArthur B Von Korwn
.71
.85
.71
.34
Jambores S Campus
1.01
1.21
1.01
1.21
Jaaboree B Birch
.75
.75
.75
.74
MacArthur S Jamboree
1.13
1.12
1.13
1.17
AVERAGE 1W
83
.98
.83
.99
BRISTOL COUPLET
CARPA B Bristol M.
.811
1.15
.88
.87
Birth B Bristol M.
.84
1.13
.89
.95
'
Csopus B Bristol S.
1.02
.38
.87
.78
Birch 6 Bristol S.
1.30
1.25
.74
Jamboree B Bristol N.
.50
.73
.50
.86
.77
Bsyview R Bristol S.
.65
.73
.65
.73
Jamboree i Bristol S.
.77
.90
.77
.93
AVERAGE ICU
.86
.97
.76
.54
,
IRVINE AVENUE
Irvine B Moto
.97
.86
.97
.76
Irvin B University
1.08
.76
1.08
.74
'
'
*Mote: These ICUs do not recognize
any risht•turns•on•red.
An atkrmtedgement
that up to
15 percent ItTOR occur which
Mill mitigate
"at intersection with on ICU
over 1.0.
IV-4
'
• i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
I
I CTI
Ln'
I
I• .
I
d
Rio
I '36
I L
i D 22
z
N D 00
Z
I 10 D 16
I cn n' (A
I J 13 13
-DEL MAR
I®�AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
` DUPONT v
K52
NO
�°007O
29 3"BRISTOL R8 lb 32
CgCIFOPA
1 � q
30 %/
18516938 i4
49
rm
to
IV-
16,Q \
�� rn
ON
ry 21
Figure IV-2
ADT - TRAVEL FORECASTS
H
1
l3
+✓ 253
+Oj?f ✓ 0
2
<
< 1
X no C
R n °' 621 i>
i 360 ��� *'•• 661
i 1 r it s:'^i_ /
+� \\9
/ �i awl 'I6
+Q1i r
'iJ ,��l�t
2
o <
<
n Y a
ani✓- xP'+rain t lfl 0
r"�r+ �- 22 r �.• ]St
1 <-, 30012f �l� r �t .Pi.R. �-. It
�!� i
4O.'�4f� vrJ ^
w 1. ��
-► I�r Ili- Itr ilkr
✓,?
`><�jy/��J
N •-- it
w titr �t�
!, Itr E6t-s r�1tr0
14'i aN��
`,
�y.�.► .� 327 ♦n� 15�C
'N•�
9''
j0t'z �C d•.L
OVP BiRal 203'-►r�r+r
P Mai SM�nN
orb , o f , I'j11,
I92 '>i. M ti�i>♦ I,` Y Itr
909 1\ /9'Iti P„n
>�e i
Oe ~•�li�
Y v no'Z• 2t
eni 122 '� M `\i /y�tY Itr
'-� e - 76/ _�
<-2759 i11�Z ion
��.+
sir' 469 f$ 7 n^P
Z 1f je,J
J�.— 123
1t
/ es
tcN. / n+
XR
�o ns
° 5 J Jtyt
na
`-
1►it
J1I,�
emsta
it
elnsta _ _
_
Iff
it
♦
XG / 191S-f
319
F
13
•
31
6f3--\. r' /
0o X
So /'
164
/ 1265-.
F 2fSZ
1102 0tr
tr 112.-► r
2f9"a'
is /J `•
-f►tr
65;tr eOP
1\6]�Z07�tr
12
I916 �"a, ou �waivti 215 _ 0�
ss
7076 Pa ��t \
153
r o ]I�SA
}i�_11r1
ii tot N[aS
rise�sltr
9
N titr
ll3\'�Y4
44--
129�
21 Itl
19���Pi
>+
-'►
397 ion
8o
s
-►
86 Nnn
n
OPR N�
1
YM
ten_ i 12
ilk i30
,1j� f-- its
�tr
IV
SI vns
546
if Z �?o
N
W
AM
W
PM
Figure IV-3
2010 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES '
q�AUSTIN•FOUST
WITH RECOFItfENDED MITIGATION
ASSOCIATES, INC.
' the PM is improved to an acceptable level. The conclusion from this data is that the
improvements recommended here would mitigate the proposed deletion of University Drive.
' COST ESTIMATE
Estimated costs for the mitigation measures recommended here are summarized in
' Table IV-2. 'Backup cost data is given in Appendix B. As shown here, total construction costs
are in the order of $2.3 million. It should be emphasized that these costs include only the
actual construction. Right-of-way and building remodeling which will be necessary will cause
' these costs to at least double.
I
II
II
II
11
fl
Table IV-2
CONSTRUCTION COST KMRY
R/W
Bldg.
Comet.
Protect Description
ceded
Ramdto
Total Cost
1.
South bound "free" right -Lam • Caaipw B Briatol•North
Yes
Yes
f311,000
2.
Eastbound Ish-lane - Bristol -South B Caspus/Iryine
No
No
121,000
3.
Widen Bristol•Bouth
A. Csapw to Birch
Yes
Yes
360,000
S. Birch to 1,200 feet easterly
Yee
Yes
192,000
4.
Widen Birch Street Bridge
No
No
1,076,000
5.
Widen Birch Street (seat side) north of gristol-North
Yes
No
117,400
6.
Widen girth Street (east side) south of Bristol -South
Yes
Yes
131,000
TOTAL $2,298,400
Call $2,300,000
c
0
• XV-8
' APPENDIX A'
LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
' The trip generation rates used here are from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model.
A discussion on their derivation can be found in the traffic model or traffic anglysis report for
' the city's General Plan traffic study (References 1 and 2 in Chapter 1).
I-
I I
II
II
II
Ii
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
r_
�I
Figure A•-1
NBTA61 ZONE SYSTEFI
®�AUSVIM.VOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
m m m Wa m M
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED
TREND)
LAND
USE AND
TRIP GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------•
1
57. OC Airport (ADT/10)
4950.00
UNIT
1733
1485
3218
1634
1832
3465
49500
1
TOTAL
1733
1485
3218
1634
1832
3465
49500
2
15. General Commercial
11.72
TSF
6
5
11
16
19
35
469
2
19, Restaurant
20.6E
TSF
12
2
14
72
33
105
1379
2
28, General Office
635.12
TSF
1207
191
1397
381
1080
1461
9257
2
29. Medical Office
2.65
TSF
2
1
2
2
7
9
119
2
30. industrial
2.19
TSF•
2
0
2
1
2
2
11
2
TOTAL
1228
198
1427
473
1140
1612
10235
3
15. General Commercial
35.05
TSF
18
14
32
49
55
105
140E
3
19. Restaurant
10.07
TSF
6
1
7
35
16
51
674
3
28. General Office
1429.73
TSF
2716
429
3145
858
2431
3288
18585
3
30. Inoustrial
161.85
TSF
129
32
16Z
65
113
178
609
3
TOTAL
2870
476
3346
1007
2616
3623
21-471
4
10, Hotel
504.00
ROOM
302
151
454
202
202
403
5292
4
15. General Commercial
23.95
TSF
12
10
22
34
38
72
958
4
19. Restaurant
30.10
TSF
18
3
21
105
48
154
2014
4
28. General Office
1457.72
TSF
2770
437
3207
875
2478
3353
18950
4
30. Industrial
296.41
TSF
237
59
296
119
207
326
1482
4
TOTAL
3339
660
4000
1334
2974
4307
28696
5
2B. General Office
595.61
TSF
1132
179
1310
357
1013
1370
7743
5
30. Industrial
1.60
TSF
1
0
2
1
1
2
B
5
TOTAL
1133
179
1512
358
1014
1372
7751
6
15. General Commercial
9.20
TSF
5
4
8
13
15
28
368
6
28. General Office
1728.25
TSF
3284
518
3802
1 1037
2938
3975
22467
6
30. Industrial
224.49
TSF
180
45
224
90
157
247
1122
6
TOTAL
3468
567
4035
1140
3110
4250
23958
7
S. Apartment
350.00
DU
70
140
210
140
105
245
2275
7
10. Hotel
506.00
ROAM
304
152
455
202
202
405
5313
7
15. General Commercial
21.27
TSF
11
9
19
30
34
64
851
7
19. Restaurant
80.93
TSF
49
8
57
283
129
413
5414
7
28. General Office
1243.92
TSF
2363
373
2737
746
2115
2851
16171
7
29. Medical Office
10.61
TSF
6
2
8
8
27
35
477
7
TOTAL
2803
684
3486
1410
2612
4022
30501
8
15. General Commercial
4•.20
TSF
2
2
4
6
7
13
168
8
19. Restaurant
10.02
TSF
6
1
7
35
16
51
670
8
28. General Office
926.71
TSF
1761
278
2039
556
1575
2131
12047
8
30. Industrial
69.83
TSF
56
14
70
28
49
77
349
8
TOTAL
1825
295
2119
625
1647
2272 '
13235
9
19, Restaurant
30.09
TSF
18
3
21
105
48
153
2013
9
28. General Office
756.64
TSF
1438
227
1665
454
1286
1740
9836
9
52. Auto Parking
335.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
TOTAL
1456
230
1686
559
1334
1894
11849
10
28. General Office
312.80
TSF
594
94
688
188
532
719
4066
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED TREND) LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK HR-----
-----PM PK MR-----
ZONEUSE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
AOT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
36. Government Office
69.26
TSF
132
21
152
42
118
159
900
10
52. Auto Parking
523.68
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
TOTAL
726
116
841
229
650'
879,
4967
11
IS. General Commercial
353.64
TSF
177
141
318
496
566
1061
14146
11
19. Restaurant
10.00
TSF
6
1
7
35
16
51
669
11
28. General Office
709.63
TSF
1348
213
1561
426
1206
1632
9225
11
29. Medical Office
11.55
TSF
7
2
9
9
29
38
520
11
30. Industrial
115.34
TSF
95
24
118
47
83
130
$92
11
31. R S D
18.18
TSF
18
2
20
5
20
26
173
11
53. Vacant Land
1.27
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
it
TOTAL
1651
383
2034
1018
1920
2936
25324
12
10. Hotel
468.00
ROOM
981
140
421
187
181
374
4914
12
15. General Commercial
$7.38
TSF
29
23
52
80
92
172
2295
12
19. Restaurant
69.35
TSF
42
7
49
243
111
364
4640
12
21. Auto Dealer
10.63
ACRE
71
99
170
58
78
136
I595
12
23. Health Club
42.24
TSF
25
25
51
80
so
161
1690
12
28. General Office
2243.25
TSF
4262
673
4935
1346
3814
5159
29162
12
52. Auto Parking
326.89
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
53. Vacant Land
2.1S
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
TOTAL
4710
967
5677
1995
4361
6356
44295
13
10. Hotel
471.Q0
ROOM
283
141
424
188
188
377
4946
13
28. General Office
393.05
TSF
747
118
865
236
668
904
$110
13
46, Youth Ctr/Service
10.30
TSF
1
1
2
2
2
4
41
13
52. Auto Parking
792.84
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
TOTAL
1030
260
1291
426
859
1285
10096
14
19. Restaurant
21.39
TSF
13
2
15
75
34
109
1431
14
20. Fast Food Restaurant
2,15
TSF
9
9
18
11
8
19
305
14
28. General Office
1118.74
TSF
2126
336
2461
671
1902
2573
14544
14
30. Industrial
150.00
TSF
120
30
150
60
105
165
7SO
14
31. R 6 D
227.52
M
228
23
250
68
250
319
2161
14
52. Auto Parking
1395.37
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
TOTAL
2495
399
2895
$86
2299
316S
19191
15
26. General Office
2850.41
TSF
5435
$58
6293
1716
4863
6579
37185
15
TOTAL
$435
$58
6293
1716
4863
6579
37185
I6
28. General Office
914.80
TSF
1738
274
2013
549
1565
2104
11892
16
30. Industrial
331.10
TSF
265
66
331
132
232
364
1658
16
TOTAL
2001
341
2344
681
1787
2466
13548
17
26. General Office
435.93
TSF
828
131
959
262
741
1003
5667
17
TOTAL
828
131
959
262
741
1003
5667
18
SO. Golf Course
9.60
ACRE
2
1
3
1
3
4
57
18
TOTAL
2
1
3
1
3
4
57
19
16. Comm./Recreation
84.00
ACRE
42
42
84
202
210
412
3360
19
36. Government Office
86.00
TSF
162
26
187
51
145
196
1105
NE'WPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED TREND) LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM
PK HR• -----
-----PM PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19
50. Golf Course
150.00
ACRE
30
15
45
15
45
_ 60
900
19
TOTAL
234
83
316
268
400
667
5365
20
50. Golf Course
19.00
ACRE
4
2
6
2
6
8
114
20
TOTAL
._
4
2
6
2
6
8
114
21
30. Industrial
26.80
TSF
21
5
27
11
19
29
134
21
31. R & D
11.35
TSF'
11
1
12
3
12
16
108
21
36. Government Office
25.00
TSF
48
8
55
i5
43
58
325
21
TOTAL
80
14
94
29
74
103
567
22
30. Industrial
26.80
TSF
21
5
27
11
19
29
134
22
31. R Si D
11.35
TSF
11
1
12
3
12
16
108
22
36. Government Office
25.00
TSF
48
8
55
15
43
58
325
22
TOTAL
80
14
94
29
74
103
567
23
IS. General Commercial
30.94
TSF
15
12
28
43
50
93
1238
23
19. Restaurant
1.60
TSF
1
0
1
6
3
8
107
23
28. General Office
1035.19
TSF
1967
311
2277
621
1760
2381
13457
23
29. Medical Office
42.08
TSF
25
8
34
34
105
139
1894
23
30. Industrial
55.31
TSF
44
11
55
22
39
5i
277
23
TOTAL
2053
343
2395
726
1956
2682
16972
25
31. R & D
500.00
TSF
500
50
550
150
5'-0
700
4750
25
55. UCI (ADT/10)
525.19
UNIT
263
53
315
158
315
473
5252
25
TOTAL
763
103
855
308
865
1173
10002
26
31. R & D
500.00
TSF
500
50
550
150
550
700
4750
26
55. UCI (ADT/10)
525.19
UNIT
263
53
315
158
315
473
5252
26
TOTAL
763
103
865
308
865
1173
10002
27
31. R & D
500.00
TSF
500
50
550
150
550
700
4750
27
55. UCI (ADT/10)
525.19
UNIT
263
53
315
158
315
473
5252
27
TOTAL
763
103
865
308
865
1173
10002
28
31. R & D
500.00
TSF
500
50
550
150
550
700
4750
28
55. UCI (ADT/10)
525.19
UNIT
263
53
315
158
315
473
5252
28
TOTAL
763
103
865
308
865
1173
10002
29
55, UCI (ADT/10)
208.90
UNIT
104
21
125
63
125
188
2089
29
TOTAL
104
21
125
63
125
188
2089
30
55. UCI (ADT/10)
208.90
UNIT
104
21
125
63
125
188
2089
30
TOTAL
104
21
125
63
125
188
2089
31
55. UCI (ADT/10)
1104.89
UNIT
552
110
663
331
663
994
11049
31
TOTAL
552
110
663
331
663
994
11049
32
55. UCI (ADT/10)
104.45
UNIT
52
10
63
31
63
94
1045
32
TOTAL
52
10
63
31
63
94
1045
33
55. UCI (ADT/10)
9181.00
UNIT
4591
918
5509
2754
5509
8263
91810
33
TOTAL
4591 '
918
5509
2754
5509
8263
91810
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED
TREND)
LAND
USE AND
TRIP GE4ERATION
--.--AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK MR
-----
ZONEUSE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
In
OUT
TOTAL
ACT
..................................................................................................................
34
$5. UCI (ADT/10)
1896.52
UNIT
948
190
1138
569
1138
1707
18955
34
TOTAL
946
190
1138
569
1138
1707
18965
35
4. Res - Medium (SPA)
593.00
DU
119
356
47A
356
237
593
5100
35
24. Tennis Club
7.00•CRT
5
4
9
15
14
29
310
35
TOTAL
124
360
484
371
251
622
5410
36
S. Apartment
524.00
DU
105
210
314
210
157
367
3406
36
10. Motel
250.00
ROOM
ISO
75
225
100
100
20D
2625
36
16. General Commercial
$6.55
TSF
28
23
51
79
91
170
ZZ66
36
26. Theater
1554.00
SEAT
0
0
0
311
0
311
2331
'36
28. General Office
228.42
TSF
434
69
503
137
388
525
2969
36
TOTAL
717
376
1093
837
736
1573
13597
37
4. Res - Medium (SPA)
778.00
DU
156
467
622
467
311
778
6691
37
S. Apartment
160.00
DU
32
64
96
64
48
112
1040
37
13. District Comm.
66.95
TSF
40
33
74
127
134
261
3013
37
24. Tennis Club
6.00
CRT
4
4
8
13
12
25
266
37
36. Government Office
2.00
TSF
4
1
4
1
3
5
26
37
TOTAL
236
668
864
672
509
1180
11035
38
4. Res - Medium (SPA)
754.00
DU
151
452
603
452
302
754
6484
38
24. Tennis Club
4.00
CRT
3
2
5
8
8
16
177
38
TOTAL
154
455
608
461
310
770
6662
39
48. Regional Park
95.00
ACRE
19
0
19
19
19
38
475
39
TOTAL
19
0
19
19
19
38
475
40
44. Church
27.23
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
681
40
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
681
41
4. kes - Medium (SPA)
855.00
OU
171
$13
684
513
342
865
7353
41
I5. General Commercial
58.48
TSF
29
23
53
82
94
175
2339
41
16. Comm./Recreation
5.00
ACRE
3
3
5
12
13
25
200
41
IS. Unclassified Comm.
1.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
400
41
23. Health Club
96.25
TSF
58
58
116
183
183
366
38SO
41
24. Tennis Club
2.00
CRT
1
1
3
4
4
B
89
41
28. General Office
12.81
TSF
24
4
28
8
22
29
167
41
50. Golf Course
139.00
ACRE
28
14
42
14
42
56
$34
41
TOTAL
314
616
930
816
699
1514
15231
42
23. Health Club
200.00
TSF
120
120
.240
380
380
760
8000
42
TOTAL
120
120
240
330
380
760
8000
43
4. Res - Medium (SPA)
SBO.00
DU
176
528
704
528
352
880
7568
43
33. Elementary School
55.00
STU
6
0
6
0
0
0
55
43
TOTAL
182
528
710
526
$62
880
7623
44
3. Res - Low (SFD)
571.00
DU
114
400
514
400
228
628
6281
44
4. Res - Medium (SPA)
264.00
OU _
53
158
211
158
106
264
2270
44
TOTAL
167
658
725
558
334
892
85S1
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED TREND) LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
'
-----AM PK HR-----
-----PM
PK MR-----
ZONEUSE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
-------------------'
TOTAL
ADT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
507.00
DU
101
304
406
304
203
_ 507
4360
45
33. Elementary School
742.00
STU
74
0
74
0
0
0
742
45
TOTAL
176
304
480
304
203
507
5102
46
3. Res - Low (SFD)
101.OQ
DU
20
71
91
71
40
111
1111
46
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
377.00
DU
75
226
302
226
151
377
3242
46
15. General Commercial
78.52
TSF
39
31
71
110
126
236
3141
46
28. General Office
11.50
TSF'
22
3
25
7
20
26
150
46
29. Medical Office
9.10
TSF
5
2
7
7
23
30
410
46
33. Elementary School
951.00
STU
95
0
95
0
0
0
95i
46
38. Library
12.00
TSF
17
16
32
43
38
82
502
46
44. Church
8.02
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
201
46
48. Regional Park
15.00
ACRE
3
0
3
3
3
6
75
46
TOTAL
277
349
626
467
401
868
9781
47
3. Res - Low (SFD)
101.00
DU
20
71
91
71
40
ill
1111
47
4, Res - Medium (SFA)
377.00
DU
75
226
302
226
151
377
3242
47
TOTAL
96
297
393
297
191
488
4353
48
3. Res - Low (SFD)
230.00
DU
46
161
207
161
92
253
2530
48
33. Elementary School
509.00
STU
51
0
51
0
0
0
509
48
44. Church
4.60
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
115
48
TOTAL
97
161
258
161
92
253
3154
49
5. Apartment
296.00
DU
59
118
178
118
89
207
1924
49
15. General Commercial
65.32
TSF
33
26
59
91
105
196
2613
49
TOTAL
92
145
236
210
193
403
4537
50
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
850.00
OU
170
510
680
510
340
850
7310
50
TOTAL
170
510
680
510
340
850
7310
51
2. Res - Estate/Rural
230.00
OU
46
161
207
161
92
253
2530
51
3. Res - Low (SFO)
945.00
DU
189
662
851
662
378
1040
10395
51
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
330.00
DU •
66
198
264
198
132
330
2838
51
TOTAL
301
1021
1322
1021
602
1623
15763
52
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
188.00
OU
38
113
ISO
113
75
188
1617
52
48•. Regional Park
84.00
ACRE
17
0
17
17
17
34
420
52
TOTAL
54
113
167
130
92
222
2037
53
3. Res - Low (SFD)
314.00
DU
63
220
283
220
126
345
3454
53
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
208.00
DU
42
125
166
125
83
208
1789
53
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
159.00
OU
32
95
127
95
64
159
1367
53
TOTAL
136
440
576
440
272
712
6610
54
3. Res - Low (SFD)
225.00
DU
45
158
203
158
90
248
2475
54
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
192.00
DU
38
115
154
115
77
192
1651
54
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
252.00
DU
50
151
202
151
101
252
2167
54
33. Elementary School
90.00
STU
9
0
9
0
0
0
90
54
34. Junior/High School
1969.00
STU
394
197
591
197
197
394
2757
54
44. Church
30.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
750
54
48. Regional Park
90.DO
ACRE
18
0
18
16
18
36
450
54
TOTAL
555
621
1175
639
483
1121
10340
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED VEND) LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK MR -----
-----PM PK HA-----
ZONEUSE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
_....------"................................................
.
55
33. Elementary School
170.00
STU
17
0
17
0
0
0
170
55
48. Regional Park
60.00
ACRE
12
0
12
12
12
24
300
55
TOTAL
29
0
29
12
12
24 .
470
56
2. Ras - Estate/Rural
160.00
OU
32
112
144
112
64
176
1760
56
3. Res - Low (SFD)
472.00
OU
94
330
425
330
189
519
5192
56
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
390.00
DU
78
234
312
234
156
390
3354
56
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
320.00
OU
64
192
256
192
128
320
2762
56
33, Elementary School
$00.00
STU
50
0
50
0
0
0
500
56
47. Park
6.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0,
0
0
36
56
54. Christ Cot (ADT/10)
160.90
UNIT
161
18
177
48
BO
129
I609
56
TOTAL
479
884
1364
917
617
1534
15203
57
3. Res - Low (SFD)
1324.00
OU
265
927
1192
927
530
1456
14564
57
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
64.00
OU
13
38
51
38
26
64
550
57
16. Comm./Recreation
1.00
ACRE
1
1
1
2
3
5
40
57
33. Elementary School
1010.00
STU
101
0
101
0
0
0
1010
57
47, ParK
24.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
144
S7
TOTAL
379
966
1345
968
558
1525
16308
58
28. General Office
103.46
TSF
197
31
228
62
176
238
1345
58
TOTAL
192
31
228
62
176
238
1345
59
15. General Commercial
62.73
TSF
26
Zi_
47
14
84
158
2109
59
TOTAL
26
21
47
74
84
158
2109
60
28. Gene«al Office
456.94
TSF
868
137
100S
27A
777
1051
S940
60
TOTAL
868
137
1005
274
•777
1051
5940
61
3. Res - Low (SFD)
159.00
OU
32
111
143
111
64
175
1749
61
4, Res - Medium (SFA)
120.00
DU
24
72
96
72
48
120
1032
61
S. Apartment
570.00
OU
114
228
342
228
171
399
3705
61
16. General Commercial
50.00
TSF
25
20
45
70
80
ISO
2000
61
47. Park
14.23
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
61
53. Vacant Land
4.84
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
TOTAL
195
431
626
481
363
844
8571
62
30. Industrial
33.94
TSF
27
7
34
14
24
37
170
62
31. R 6 D
44.99
TSF
45
4
49
13
49
63
427
62
35. Private School
$2.00
STU
5
0
5
0
0
0
52
62
39. Post Office
$6.20
TSF
155
138
293
193
182
376
4791
62
44. Church
88.27
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
2207
62
45, Cemetary/Res/Util
2.27
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
62
53. Vacant Land
5.83
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
TOTAL
232
149
381
220
255
476
7662
63
3. Res - Low (SFD)
712.00
DU
142
498
641
498
285
783
7832
63
1, Neighborhood Comm.
110.60
TSF
66
55
122
210
221
431
4973
63
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.61
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
644
63
19 Restaurant
6.91
TSF
4
1
5
24
11
35
462
63
24. Tennis Club
19.00
CRT
13
11
25
40
38
78
842
63
28. General Office
28.93
TSF
55
9
64
17
49
6T
376
63
TOTAL
281
575
856
790
604
1394
15129
NE'WPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED TREND)
LAND
USE AND
TRIP GENERATION
•
-----AM
PK MR -----
-----PM PK MR
-----
ZONEUSE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
'--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64
3. Res - Low (SFD)
456.00
DU
91
319
410
319
182
502
5016
64
47. Park
1.60
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
64
TOTAL
91
319
410
319
182•
502.
5026
65
3. Res - Low (SFD)
662.09
DU
132
463
596
463
265
728
7282
65
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
164.00
DU
33
98
131
98
66
164
1410
65
33. Elementary School
300.00
STU
30
0
30
0
0
0
300
65
34. Junior/High School
1801.00
STU
360
180
540
180
180
360
2521
65
35. Private School
291.00
STU
29
0
29
0
0
0
291
55
47. Park
7.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
65
TOTAL
585
742
1326
742
511
1252
11850
66
3. Res - Low (SFD)
78.00
DU
16
55
70
55
31
86
858
66
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
358.00
OU
72
215
286
215
143
358
3079
66
31. R & D
1331.00
TSF
1331
133
1464•
399
1464
1863
12645
66
TOTAL
1418
403
1821
669
1639
2307
16581
67
30. Industrial
1908.04
TSF
1526
382
1908
763
1336
2099
9540
67
31. R & 0
1908.04
TSF
1908
191
2099
572
2099
2671
18126
67
TOTAL
3434
572
4007
1336
3434
4770
27667
69
2. Res - Estate/Rural
156.00
OU
31
109
140
109
62
172
1716
69
TOTAL
31
109
140
109
62
172
1716
70
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
144.00
OU
29
86
115
86
5B
144
1238
70
TOTAL
.2.9
86
115
86
58
144
1238
71
3. Res - Low (SFDI
283.00
DU
57
19B
255
198
413
311
3113
71
15. General Ccmne�cial
23.34
TSF
12
9
21
33
37
70
934
71
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.83
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
•732
71
TOTAL
68
208
276
231
151
382
4779
72
3. Res - Low (SFD)
179.00
DU
36
125
161
.125
72
197
1969
72
4. Res - Meaium (SFA)
80.00
DU .
16
48
64
48
32
80
688
72
S. Apartment
74.00
DU
15
30
44
30
22
52
481
72
33. Elementary School
498.00
STU
5o
0
SO
0
0
0
498
72
TOTAL
116
203
319
203
126
329
3636
73
3. Res - Low (SFD)
21.00
DU
4
15
19
15
8
23
231
73
TOTAL
4
15
19
15
8
23
231
74
3. Res - Low (SFD)
1143.00
DU
229
800
1029
800
457
1257
12573
74
33. Elementary School
489.00
STU
49
0
49
0
0
0
489
74
45. Cemetary/Res/Util
0.60
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
•0
1
74
47., Park
20.75
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
125
74
TOTAL
278
800
1078
800
457
1257
13188
75
5. Apartment
388.00
DU
78
155
233
155
116 '
272
2522
75
35. Private School
406.00
STU
41
0
41
0
0
0
406
75
TOTAL
118
155
273
155
116
272
2928
76
3. Res - Low (SFD)
119.00
DU
24
83
107
83
48
131
1309
NEr W BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODE: - 2010 (MODIFIED TREND) LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK
HR-----
-----PM PK
HR-----
20NE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
........................................
------------------------- `--------------
___.'.........................
76
4. Res - Medium (SPA)
$6.00
OU
17
52
69
52
34
86
140
76
12. Neighborhood Comm.
87.41
TSF
52
44
96
166
17$
341
3933
76
is. Unclassified Comm,
1.40
TSF
0
0
0
O
0
1
560
76
19, Restaurant
1.78
TSF
1
0
1
6
3
9
119
76
28. General' Office
15.62.TSF
30
5
34
9
27
36
203
76
TOTAL
124
184
308
317
287
803
6864
77
3. Res - Low (SFDI
205.00
DU
41
144
185
144
82
226
22SS
77
as. Cemetary/Res/Ut11
12.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
77
47. Park
7.32
ACRE ,
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
77
TOTAL
41
144
185
144
82
226
2324
78
3. Res Low (SFO)
2.00
DU
0
1
2
1
1
2
22
78
4. Res - Medium (SPA)
42.00
OU
8
25
34
25
17
42
361
78
5. Apartment
50.00
DU
10
20
30
20
15
35
325
78
7. Elderly Residential
100.00
DU
10
30
40
30
10
40
400
78
TOTAL
29
77
IOS
77
43
119
1108
79
S. Apartment
162.00
DU
34
68
101
68
51
Ila
1099
79
12. Neighborhood Comm.
67.75
TSF
41
34
75
129
136
264
30A9
79
18. Unclassified Comm.
L.95
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
780
79
28. General Office
ME
TSF
l9
3
21
6
17
22
127
79
TOTAL
93
105
198
203
203
406
5854
80
3. Res - Low (SFD)
$76.00
DU
115
403
518
403
230
634
6336
80
41. ParK
2.50
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
80
TOTAL
IIS
403
Sig
403
230
834
6351
81
6. Park Newoort
1306.00
DU
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
81
TOTAL
131
392
522
392
261
653
6269
62
3. Res - Low (SFDI
212.00
OU
42
148
191
148
85
233
2332
82
10. Hotel
920.00
ROOM
552
276
828
368
368
736
9660
82
15. General Commercial
228.36
TSP-
114
91
206
320
366
685
9134
82
17. Resort Commercial
18.00
TSF
9
7
16
25
29
54
630
82
19. Restaurant
87.93
TSF
53
9
62
308
141
448
S883
82
24. Tennis Club
16.00
CRT
11
10
21
34
32
66
709
82
27. Newport Dunes
65.01
ACRE
7
7
13
20
26
46
371
82
28. General Office
6.00
TSF
it
2
13
4
10
14
78
82
30. industrial
11.23
TSF
9
2
11
4
8
12
56
82
46. Youth Ctr/Service
2.69
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
11
82
50. Golf Course
9.00
ACRE
2
1
3
1
3
4
54
82
53. Vacant Land
58,23
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
82
TOTAL
$10
553
1364
1232
1067
2299
28917
83
8. Mobile Home
292.00
DU
58
117
175
117
88
204
1752
83
15. General Commercial
36.38
TSF
18
IS
33
51
58
109
14SS
83
19, Restaurant
24.25
TSF
15
2
17
85
39
124
1622
83
25. Marina
218.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
83
28, General Office
60.63
TSF
115
18
133
36
103
139
788
83
TOTAL
206
162
358
289
288
577
5721
TRIP GENERATION
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED
TREND)
LAND
USE AND
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM
PK MR
-----
'
ZONEUSE
UNITS
IN OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
84
84
4. Res - Medium (SPA)
TOTAL
132.00
DU
26
26
79
79
105
106
79
79
53 :
53
132
132
1135 ,
1135
85
S. Apartment
245.00
DU
49
98
147
98
74
172
1593
85
15. General Commercial
25.00
TSF
13
10
23
35
40
75
1000
85
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.76
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
704
85
19. Restaurant
13.10
TSF
8
1
9
46
21
67
876
85
26. General Office
797.93
TSF'
1516
239
1755
479
1356
1835
10373
85
36. Government Office
48.00
TSF
91
14
106
29
82
110
624
85
37. Civic Center/Museum
31.21
TSF
78
9
87
34
81
115
999
BS
11, Library
18.00
TSF
25
23
49
65
58
122
752
B5
41. Fire Station
13.48
TSF
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
47. Park
0.07
ACRE
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
85
52. Auto Parking
39.20
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
53. Vacant Land
9.43
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
85
TOTAL
1780
396
2176
786
1712
2498
16922
III
86
4. Res - Medium (SPA)
67.00
DU
13
40
54
40
27
67
576
86
10. Hotel
611.00
ROOM
367
183
550
244
244
489
6415
86
15. General Commercial
7.50
TSF
4
3
7
11
12
23
300
86
28. General Office
19.13
TSF
36
6
42
11
33
44
249
86
TOTAL
420
232
652
307
316
622
7540
87
S. Apartment
304.00
DU
61
122
182
122
91
213
1976
87
18. Unclassified Comm.
6,76
TSF
1
1
1
1
1
3
2704
87
24. Tennis Club
22.00
CRT
15
13
29
46
44
90
97E
87
28. General Office
8.40
TSF
16
3
18
5
14
19
109
87
47, Par,
1.51
ACRE
0
0
.0
0
0
0
9
'
87
50. Golf Course
131.52
ACRE
26
13
39
13
39
53
789
87
53. Vacant Land
25.67
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
TOTAL
119
151
270
187
190
378
6562
'
88
10. Hotel
325.00'ROOM
195
98
293
130
130
260
3413
88
19. Restaurant
5.33
TSF-
3
1
4
19
9
27
357
88
28. General Office
950.00
TSF
1805
285
2090
570
1615
2185
12350
88
47. Park
0.21
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
88
52. Auto Parking
402.19
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I'
88
TOTAL
2003
383
2386
719
1754
2472
16i20
89
14. Regional Commercial
1310.75
TSF
262
131
393
918
1180
2097
28837
89
26. Theater
1700.00
SEAT
0
0
0
340
0
340
2550
89
TOTAL
262
131
393
1258
1180
2437
31387
90
28. General Office
465.34
TSF
884
140
1024
279
791
1070
6049
90
11, Medical Office
111*11
TSF
211
70
282
282
880
1111
11131
'
90
40. OCTD Facility
0.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
47. Park
0.77
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
90
52. Auto Parking
492.05
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
53. Vacant Land
7.44
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'
90
TOTAL
1095
210
1305
561
1671
2232
21892
91
5. Apartment
360.00
DU
72
144
216
144
108
252
2340
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED TREND) LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
----AM
PK HR-----
--.--PM PK MR-----
ZONEUSE
--------------
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ACT
91
-----------------------------------------------------
15. General Commercial
3.15
TSF
2
-..............
1
3
............................
4
S.
9
126
91
IB. Unclassified Comm.
8.SO
TSF
1
1
2
2
2,
3
3400
91
19. Restaurant
14.10
TSF
8
1
10
49
23
72•
943
91
23. Health Club
16.13
TSF
10
10
19
31
31
61
645
91
26. Theater
2050.00
SEAT
0
0
0
410
0
410
3075
91
28. General Office
785,58
TSF
1493
236
1728
471
1335
1807
10213
91
47. Park
1.72
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
91
$2. Auto Parking
1641.17
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
53. Vacant Land
38.86
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
91
TOTAL
1585
393
1978
1111
1503
2615
20752
92
3. Res - Low (SFD)
220.00
DU
44
154
198
154
88
242
2420
92
15. General Commercial
56.77
TSF
28
23
51
79
91
170
2271
92
4$. Cemetary/Res/Util
2.79
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
92
41, Park
B.SO
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
92
TOTAL
72
177
249
913
179
412
4747
93
3. Res - Low (SFD)
225.00
DU
45
158
203
Ise
90
248
2475
93
S. Apartment
120.00
DU
24
48
72
48
36
84
780
93
33. Elementary School
790.00
STU
79
0
79
0
0
0
790
93
TOTAL
14B
206
3S4
206
126
332
4045
94
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
247,00
DU
49
148
198
148
99
247
2124
94
TOTAL
49
14¢
198
148
99
247
2124
95
3. Res - Low (SFD)
448.00
OU
90
314
403
314
179
493
4928
95
7. Elderly Residential
100.00
Du
10
30
40
30
10
40
400
95
3S. Private School
162.0b
STU
16
0
16
0
0
0
162
95
47, Park
5.97
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
95
TOTAL
116
344
459
344
189
533
5526
96
3. Res - Low (SFD)
40.00
OU
8
28
36
28
16
44
440
96
TOTAL
8
28
36
28
16
44
440
97
3. Res - Low (SFD)
246.00
OU
49
172
221
172
98
271
2706
97
4, Res - Medium (SFA)
266.00
OU
53 '
160
213
160
106
266
2288
97
15. General Commercial
98.46
TSF
49
39
89
138
158
295
3938
97
18, Unclassified Comm.
3.56
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1424
97
19. Restaurant
29.83
TSF
18
3
21
104
48
152
1996
97
22. Yacht Club
8.29
TSF
7
6
12
12
12
23
415
97
25. Marina
392.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
196
97
28. General Office
148.86
TSF
283
45
327
89
253
342
1935
97
30. Industrial
5.04
TSF
4
1
5
2
4
6
ZS
97
36. Government Office
0.60
TSF
1
0
1
0
1
1
8
97
TOTAL
465
426
891
67B
680
1358
14930
98
5, Apartment
520.00
DU
104
208
312
208
156
364
3380
9B
12. Neighborhood Comm,
149,84
TSF
90
7$
165
285
300
584
6743
98
15. General Commercial
$6.24
TSF
28
22
51
79
90
169
2250
98
18. Unclassified Comm.
1.20
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
480
98
19. Restaurant
37.88
TSF
23
4
27
133
61
193
2534
98
21. Auto Dealer
4,12
ACRE
26
38
66
23
30
53
618
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED
TREND) LAND
USE AND
TRIP GENERATION
-
-----AM
PK HR-----
-----PM PK MR
-----
ZONEUSE
UNITS
1N
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98
28.
General Office
18.95
TSF
36
6
42
11
32
44
246
98
TOTAL
308
353
662
738
669
1407
16251
99
3.
Res - Low (SFD)
410.00
OU
82
287
369
287
164
451
4510
99
4.
Res - Medium (SFA)
37.00
DU
7
22
30
22
15
37
318
99
S.
Apartment
45.06
OU
9
18
27
18
14
32
293
99
22.
Yacht Club
59.69
TSF
48
42
90
84
84
167
2985
99
25.
Marina
233.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
117
99
28.
General Office
282.62
TSF
537
85
622
170
480
650
3674
99
36.
Government Office
19.30
TSF
37
6
42
12
33
44
251
99
TOTAL
720
460
1179
592
789
1381
12147
100
3.
Res - Low (SFD)
43.00
DU
• 9
30
39
30
17
47
473
100
4.
Res - Medium (SFA)
3119.00
OU
624
1871
2495
1871
1248
3119
26823
100
S.
Apartment
13.00
DU
3
5
8
5
4
9
85
100
9.
Motel
4.00
ROOM
2
1
3
1
2
3
40
100
12.
Neighbornood Comm.
7.90
TSF
5
4
9
IS
16
31
356
100
15.
General Commercial
65.40
TSF
33
26
59
92
105
196
2616
100
18.
Unclassified Comm.
3.45
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1380
100
19.
Restaurant
16.54
TSF
10
2
12
58
26
84
1107
100
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
5.43
TSF
24
22
46
28
20
48
771
100
28.
General Office
40.82
TSF
78
12
90
24
69
94
531
100
29.
Medical Office
1.75
TSF
1
0
1
1
4
6
79
100
39.
Post Office
1.90
TSF
5
5
10
7
6
i3
165
100
41.
Fire Station
1.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
44•
Church
3.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
100
47.
ParK
1.62
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
100
52.
Auto Parking
7.65
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
TOTAL
792
1979
2771
2134
1517
3651
34509
101
3.
Res - Low (SFD)
78.00
DU
16
55
70
55
31
86
858
101
4.
Res - Medium (SFA)
1034.00
DU
207
620
827
620
414
1034
8892
101
12.
Neighborhood Comm.
14.62
TSF
9
7
16
28
29
57
658
101
15.
General Commercial
131.55
TSF
66
53
118
184
210
395
5262
101
19.
Restaurant
41.66
TSF
25
4
29
146
67
212
2787
101
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
2.19
TSF
30
9
18
11
8
19
311
101
26.
Theater
0.50
SEAT
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
101
28.
General Office
92.08
TSF
175
28
203
55
157
212
1197
101
29.
Medical Office
10.23
TSF
6
2
B
8
26
34
460
101
52.
Auto Parking
34.34
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
101
TOTAL
513
778
1290
1108
941
2049
20426
102
4.
Res - Medium (SFA)
626.00
OU
125
376
501
376
250
626
5384
102
15.
General Commercial
81.36
TSF
41
33
73
114
130
244
3254
102
18.
Unclassified Comm.
3.44
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1376
102
19.
Restaurant
21.97
TSF
13
2
15
77
35
112
1470
102
20.
Fast Food Restaurant
2.44
TSF
11
10
20
13
9
21
346
102
23.
Health Club
1.72
TSF
1
1
2
3
3
7
69
102
28.
General Office
51.25
TSF
97
15
113
31
87
118
•666
102
29.
Medical Office
5.70
TSF
3
1
5
5
14
19
257
102
44.
Church
12.34
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
309
102
TOTAL
292
438
730
618
530
1148
13130
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED TREND) LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION
-----AM PK HR-----
-----PM
PK HR-----
ZONE
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
iN
OUT
TOTAL
ACT
---------------------------------------
•---------------------------------
•-------------------------------------
103
3. Res - Low (SFD)
244.00
DU
49
171
220
171
98 _
268
2684
103
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
387.OD
DU
77
232
310
232
155
387
3328
103
S. Apartment
273.00
OU
55
109
164
109
82
191
1775
103
25. Marina
18.00
SLIP
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
103
TOTAL
181
612
693
612
334
847
7796
104
3. Res - Low (SFD)
50.00
OU
10
35
45
35
20
55
$60
104
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
854.00
DU
171
512
683
$12
342
854
7344
104
15. General Commercial
45.90
TSF
23
18
41
64
73
138
1836
104
18. Unclassified Comm.
2.02
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
1
808
104
19. Restaurant
13.08
TSF
8
1
9
46
21
67
875
104
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.69
TSF
3
3
6
4
2
6
98
104
'28. General Office
30.52
TSF
$8
9
67
18
52
70
397
104
29. Medical Office
1.61
TSF
1
0
1
1
4
5
72
104
39. Post Office
5.00
TSF
14
13
27
18
17
34
434
104
53. Vacant Land
0.33
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
104
TOTAL
288
592
880
699
531
1230
12415
105
3. Res - Low (SFO)
341.00
OU
68
239
307
239
136
375
3751
105
4. Res - Medium ISFA)
14.00
DU
3
8
11
8
6
14
120
IDS
S. Apartment
47.00
OU
9
19
28
19
14
33
306
105
it. General Commercial
63.76
TSF
32
26
57
89
102
191
2550
105
18. Unclassified Ccmm.
2.98
TSF
0
0
1
1
1
1
1192
105
19. Restaurant
18.17
TSF
11
2
13
64
29
93
1216
105
20. Fast Food Restaurant
0.96
TSP
4
4
8
5
3
8
136
105
28. General Office
42.40
TSF
81
13
93
25
72
98
551
105
29. Medical Office
2.23
TSF
1
0
2
2
6
7
100
105
52. Auto Parking
22.25
TSF
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
105
TOTAL
210
311
520
452
369
$20
9923
106
3. Res - Low (SFD)
163.00
DU
33
114
147
114
65
179
1793
106
4. Res - Medium (SFA)
201.00
DU
40
121
161
121
80
201
1729
106
S. Apartment
6.00
DU
1
2
4
2
2
4
39
106
TOTAL
74
237
311
237
147
385
3561
107
3. Res - Low (SFD)
142.00
OU
28
99
128
99
57
156
1562
107
A. Res - Medium (SFA)
2.00
OU
0
1
2
1
1
2
17
107
TOTAL
29
101
129
101
SB
158
1679
108
3. Res - Low (SFD)
142.00
OU
28
99
128
99
57
1S6
1562
108
TOTAL
28
99
128
99
57
156
1S62
109
3. Res - Low (SFD)
176.00
DU
35
123
158
123
70
194
1936
109
TOTAL
35
123
158
123
70
194
1936
111
3. Res - Low (SFD)
1375.00
OU
275
963
1238
963
550
1513
16125
Ill
S. Apartment
200.00
DU
40
80
190
80
60
140
1500
111
33. Elementary Schoai
850.00
STU
85
0
85
0
a
0
850
Ill
47. Park
3.00
ACRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
Ill
TOTAL
400
1043
1443
1043
610
1653
17293
112
2. Res - Estate/Rural
128.00
DU
26
90
115
90
51
141
1408
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MODEL - 2010 (MODIFIED TREND) LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
-----AM PK HR-----
-----PM PK HR-----
USE
UNITS
IN
OUT
TOTAL
IN
OUT
TOTAL
ADT
----
54.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ Col (ADT/10)
160.90
UNIT
161
16
177
48
80
129
1609
55.
UCI (ADT/10)
14805.42
UNIT
7403
1481
8883
4442
8883
13325
148054
56.
Innovation Center
0.00
TSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57.
OC Airport (ADT/10)
4950.00
UNIT
1733
1485
3218
1634
1832
3465
49500
58.
Service Club
4.10
TSF
2
2
4
6
7
12
164
59.
Coastal Rec.(ADT/1O)
2850.00
UNIT '
1140
0
1140
1140
1140
2280
28500
60.
Trnsptn Ctr (ADT/10)
0.00
UNIT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61.
College
600.00
STU
120
0
120
0
60
60
960
GRAND TOTAL
113217
78240
191457 ,
113925
138561
252488
2350021
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
1. Improvement: Southbound "Free" right -lane to westbound Bristol -North _
Existing Conditions: Presume O.C. Airport mitigation improvements implemented
Additional right-of-way and building relocation required.
Construction Estimate
1. Signal modification/relocation L.S. $50,000
2. Roadway Construction 1200 LF x 15 x S10.00/SF* 180.000
(including AC pvmt, ACC curb/gutter)
Construction Subtotal $230,000
Contingencies (15%) 35,000
Preliminary Engineer (10%) 23,000
Construction Engineer (10%) _ 23,000
Subtotal $311,000
R/W Acquisition ?
Building Demol/Relocation _ ?
TOTAL $311,000 + R/W
* Based on City of Costa Mesa estimate for commuter highway - $370/LF
2. Improvement: Second Eastbound left -turn lane on Bristol -South at Campus/Irvine
Existing Conditions: Presume second eastbound right -lanes. provided by Caltrans
Additional R/W: None required --construction occurs in Caltrans R/W
Construction Estimate
1. Signal modification/relocation L.S. $40,000
2. Roadway Construction (includes AC pvmt & PCC curb/gutter
450 LF x 11 FT x $10.00/LF 49.500
Construction Subtotal $89,500
Contingencies (15%) 13,500
Preliminary Engineer (10%) 9,000
Construction Engineer (10%) 9.000
Subtotal $121,000
R/W Acquisition -0-
TOTAL $121,000
3. Improvement: Widen Bristol -South between Campus and Birch
Existing Conditions: Same as currently (January 1989) exist.
Additional R/W:
1. 18 feet along south side of Bristol -South (private property)
2. 11 feet along north side of Bristol -South (Caitrans R/W)
1. Signal modification/relocation L.S. $100,000
2. Roadway Construction (including AC pvmt dt PCC curb/gutter)
A. Left -turn lane 525 LF x 11 FT x $10.00/SF 57,750
B. Right -turn lane 525 LF x l l FT x S10.00/SF 108,000
Construction Subtotal $265,750
Contingencies (15%) 40,000
Preliminary Engineer (10%) 27,000
Construction Engineer (10%) 27.000
Subtotal $359,750
R/W Acquisition - 10,900 SF @ 7
Building Remodelling _ ?_
TOTAL $360,000 + R/W + Remodelling
4. Improvement: Widen Bristol -South between Birch and 1200 feet easterly
Existing Conditions: Same as currently (January 1989) existing
Additional R/W:
1. 18 feet along south side of Bristol -South at intersection with Birch Street transiting to 9
and continuing until join existing widen section 1,200 feet east of Birch Street_
Construction Estimate
1. Roadway Widening (including AC pvmt & PCC curb/gutter)
450 FT x Aug 14 FT x $10.00/LF $63,000
800 FT x 9 FT x $10.00/LF 72,000
- Construction Subtotal $135,000
Contingencies (15%) 20,000
Preliminary Engineer (10%) 13,500
Construction Engineer (10%) 13.500
5. Improvement: Widen Birch Street Bridge
Existing Conditions; Same as currently (January 1989) existing
Additional R/W - None - Existing Caltrans R/W
(construction Estimate
1. Signal modification/relocation L.S. $100,000
2. Bridge widening - 29 LF x 300 LT x S80.00/SF 696,000
Construction Subtotal $796,000
Contingencies (15%) 120,000
Preliminary Engineer (10%) 80,000
Construction Engineer (10%) 80.000
TOTAL PROJECT $1,076,000
E
6. Improvement: Widen east side of Birch Street north of Bristol -North
Existing Conditions: Same as currently (January 1989) existing
Building on northeast corner under construction with adequate
setback to accommodate widening.
Additional R/W - some required from property north of northeast corner parcel
Construction Estimate
1. Signal modification (see Birch Street Bridge Widening)
2. Roadway Construction (includes AC pvmt & PCC curb/gutter)
24 FT x 720 FT x 1/2 x $10.00/SF $86,400
Construction Subtotal $86,400
Contingencies (15%) 13,000
Preliminary Engineer (10%) 9,000
Construction Engineer (10%) 9,000
Subtotal $117,400
TOTAL PROJECT $117,400 + R/W
7. Improvement: Widen east side of Birch Street south of Bristol -South
Existing Conditions: Presume Birch Street widened per Santa Ana Heights Plans
Additional R/W - None - acquired by Santa Ana Heights Widening
Construction Estimate
1. Signal modification/relocation (AC pvmt & PCC curb/gutter)
400 FT x 24 FT x $10.00/SF S96.000
Construction Subtotal $96,000
Contingencies (15%) 15,000
Preliminary Engineer (10%) 10,000
Construction Engineer (10%) 10.000
TOTAL PROJECT $131,000
0
APPENDIX C
ICU SUMMARIES
The following tables summarize the ICU calculations for the intersections analyzed in this
study. The ICU values are based on a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane with no
clearance interval. All data is for peak hour.
It should be noted that when a right turn movement -with its own separate lane is one of
the critical moves, the ICU -value listed in the summary is the value entered into the total ICU
rather than the actual V/C for that movement. The value is computed from the actual V/C for
that right turn movement minus the V/C for the left turn of the adjacent intersection leg.
ICU summaries given here are for the following land use/circulation alternatives:
1. 1987 observed (1987 modeled can be found in the Traffic Model Description Report).
2. 2010 modified trend land use with committed circulation system (Alternative 1).
3. 2010 modified trend land use with mitigated circulation system.
Summaries for other ICUs listed in this report can be found in the technical notebook.
The ICU tables show deficiencies under two categories, potential deficiency and
significant deficiency. For intersection groups, the ICU ranges are as follows:
.91 - .96 Potential deficiency
above .97 Significant deficiency
This is based on an estimated standard deviation of .06 for a group average ICU. At .90,
there is a 50 percent probability of the actual average exceeding .90, and at .96 there is a 15
percent probability of the actual value exceeding .90;
For intersections, the same probability characteristics are used, but both the group and
individual ICUs are considered. The ranges are illustrated in Figure C-1.
C-1
9. MACARTHUR PLVD & CAMPUS
TUP'Il MOVEMENT ANC, IIdTF•F.•3E_ri..+.;Uv Cnr-rc r'r U701Ll A1101J
19S7
I IF.I.
NRT
NI R
5.SI_
ss r
,BF
E DL
81; T
wrsl_
vie
W F
LANES CAPACITY
1 i�CU
4
1 16pi,)
Oar •+:,
1 160+:1
1 ioV�}
1 1�01�
1.'j1111
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
66
is. C15*
63—
b.10
95
i),06
12+)S
IJ.: 7dF
'96.
0.19
C) l
19*
71 K
4 i , 2,'y�
4 _,
v. 14*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
155
U. 10*
9u4
6.14
81
Cs, 05
157
0.1U
7s
Jam
513
r,. _
<7:
5'2.
0. 1
1'1
ci.1/ i
11E
10.
MACARTHUR
BLVD
& BIRCH ST
IURN
MOVEMENT
AND
INTERSECILON CAPACITY UTI.t-,1<:! nuh Ri,IMImR.
1987
NBL
NB1
N> R
S&L
SE-1
SE:R
EBL
Err
ESR
WBL
w6
WOR
LANES CAPACITY
1 1600
480i )
1 1600
1 16(.)Cl
4 6400
i) ll
71
O 0
4SCl i
0 C)
l 160u
'00
1 intro
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
4l
0.0_*
412
0.10
62
0.05f
171
Q.11
741.
1. 16k
ou
0.00
Utz
205
0. oo
385
U. 14x
77
0. 00
8
0.05*
242
0.08
67
0.05t
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
134
0.08*
619
0. 1•.,
In
0.054
79
fI, US
-578
0. 14*
252
C+. Cit.)
2c?2
4).1:3x
85
0. 05*
550
0. 1'i
197
0. 12f
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.40 0.40
11. VON KAFMAN & CAMPUS DR
111FN MOVENE1,11 t&10 11J1ER-ECT1Cgd Cr,P�,ClTi (TILT=ATTLIH zl{t•p•rtF:{
1987
148L
NST
NE:F'
1E,1_
SLI f
SR-p
EEL
ED1
E> R
WE'L
WL4 i
WEIR
LANES CAPACITY
1
1600
Z
_y0t;i
1
1bGU
1
1600
,,
L�tici
{)
it
1
lb?i0
1
1e.0ti
1
1.5+av
AM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
v5
:=76 ti, 12*
57
4:7, 1,1, 1irj•ls
257 ti.lti
54
247 0. 15*
4L5 0.15•
76
4"...
ec-
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
0.50
PM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
69 {t,t 5*
156 il, 1l•4
40t, ii, '2t
r:b4• i i, t'lt i
19. i 0. 07*
41 f I . Q0
0.55
12. MACARTHUR HL w VON KARMAN
'TURN MOVEMENT AND IIJfERSECiION CAPAGLTf UTJLI Af10N SUMMA t
1987
NBL
NBT
NBR
5BL
SNI
SBR
EBL.
EHr
E`;R
NBI_
w8l
WIP
LANES CAPACITY
1 16t>t)
4800
1 1600
1 1600
480Q
1 1600
1
1600
J
1600
1
16_)0
1
1000
1
1600
1
1600
-----------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
AM PY HOUR
VOL V/C
95 0.06
6_9 0.13*
346 0.22f
107 0.07*
_:_ 0.07
15W 0.10+
21 0. )5*
100 o.lu
41 0.05+
70 0.05
J,•7 O.1l*
W I).05f
0.36
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
5?
i). 05*
474
0.10
56
0.0 f
55
Q.05
756
0. 16f
98
0. i i6f
107
0.07
265
0.17+
.220
O. 14f
308
0. 1?*
24:.
0.15
95
O. u6f
0.57
13. JAMBOREE RD & CAMPUS DR
1UP14 NOQ5NENT At1D XWERSECTION CAFACIT'r UTILI1ATIOt! 6Urltli;Pr
1987
NBL
NBT
NBR
=EL
har
E.E.R
ESL
EB'r
EbR
WFt_
016. 1
WEIR
LANES CAPACITY
1 164):)
4 64GG
6 it
w �illlj
48CIt:1
C)
;ytlr�
1 1_IIl)
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
e9
i .fib*
9S2
0.17
75
t, . 00
I1, 09
124
C!.irF
EFf,
1��
11.lIJ#
1 L
487
.t 7 4
151
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
4.71
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
1044
t:).: ,*
456
0. 00
247
i 1, I,IH#
00
iH1
Q,IttJ
-84
0.64
0
14. JAMBOREE RD & BIRCH
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZA-f.[ON S1!1'IMHPY
1987
NBL
NBl
NBR
ABI_
Br
SBR
EBL
EBT
E B R
WBL.
WB 1'
WE:I1
LANES CAPACITY
1
160 ;
4SC)(_)
1
1oC)V
4U0ti
1
1600
j)
0
r
_2vt)
1
1 ni 0
7.
1.6i)Q
U
AM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
L' 6 0. 15*
952 0. S•_i )
5 (1. C)(.)
9 0,05'
929 0. 11? =
543 0.:'4f
125 (). (;)C)$
1 0.05
7.5 U.Obr`
1 0. ()5-x-
- u . CP,)
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
56
1l. i)ffi
94 ,
0. 20
4
C). 05
1177
0.25:
147
0.09f
5•'F.
f),Ot)
tj
0. 17*
loll
C). AOf
of.
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.39 0.46
15. BRISTOL ST N & CAMPUS DR
TURN Mi WMeN r AND 10 FERSECT I ON &AFAC I l i U T IL I M I UN 10MO A t
----------------------------------- ---------------
1987
NEL
NB 1
WSR
SBL
5s 1
bBk
EBL
EMI
EBF,
WBL
W61
WOP
LANES CAPACITY
1 1 E,i 1Cs
1200
i 1 is
4 w400
0 i)
o
1 I boo
4 m40u
1 0
AM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
477 0.70
216Z O.66*
ft 0. C)0
%)
Q.0 *
z i t
t'5
. 0.05
29?
0.00
it
il,ilit*
0.11
107
0.00
——
TOTAL' CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.92
PM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
446 0. 28*
71 0.0-
0 Q . (.10
0 i),iu7
1163 0.01)
0 O."Q
! r 0. ! 1{t?F
t) 1I. 1lll
951 0.02*
IS57 UM
Y. 0, ot)
c
1.25
16. BRISTOL ST N & BIRCH ST .
TURN MOVENEIVI' AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY LITTLIZAT'fON SlJN1-1;-iRY
1987
NBL
NBT
NBR
S&L
S s'f
SBR
EBL
EBr
ERR
WHL
WS f
WEIR
LANES CAPACITY
1 1600
2 = _00
C) 0
) 0
1 1.600
2 _2i+C)
C>
0
it
iY
0
0
.Liii 0
C,
0
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
1v9
0.09
1'31
0. 43+
0
t;, 00
0
;.0c)*
/4
0.(-.)5
199'
C).06
0
i, C,Or
0
0.00
29
0. (:)s
976
i,. 2.;.a4
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.66
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
156
0.10*
.32S
0. 10
C)
O.OV
0
0. 0i;
512'
U. =.,.
14'5
0.45u
C)
0, C,O*
(:1
C). (')l't
0
0.00
=56
0.2,.
L'i 5,t�
u.
74
V, (h)
---------------
1.00
17. 8RISTOL ST & CAMPUS OR
TURN 11CIVEMEM Wir, 1NTEPSTICTION CtNPACIT+ UT71_I::;TT0N cU104,P-
1987
MBL
HEIT
WBF.
SEL
se. T
SBk
EbL
E8
EBK
hJHI_
WHF'
LANES CAPACITY
4C+r fit
AM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
1478 0. zl
572 0.?r_.*
87 it. 054
1;1 1;1, 1,11
1yv�
14,*4 1 i. 47*
790 0, :'4
11 1,1, ili tr
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
0.88
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
644
Q. 14
17577
U . Z'*
1,)
0. (,){)
45A
1;1. i )r )
II 4
u.<:5r
S4
li,�4�
11
4l.Ir+!
0.87
16. BRISTOL ST & BIRCH ST
TUkN MCiVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
1987
NBL
NEt
NBR
S2L
SDI,
S>= R
ERL
ELjT
EBR
WBL
WijT
WBR'
LANES CAPACITY
it
i,t
1
1600
i
Ct
1
1 br)U
f 1
(>
1
16oO
)
3200
41
�)
{,
ct
C,
i )
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
0
it, 0c)
51S
0.C:4*
-6
0. 00
100
0.065
130
0.05
t/
0.00
1094
0. 66*
96
o.0ci
0
0.i,it
it
0.00
-------------------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.09.
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
it
0. pit
141
O.JZ
45
C04
C,.1?*
0
l),i 0
716
it,20
1235
0.41}
C>
U,Oita-
0.66
19. IRVINE AVE & MESA DR
T)!F i'! MOVEMENT AND I W EPSECT I ON CAPAC I T1' UT I L I ZfAT I ON a)!Pp'IHF' r
1987
N$L
NE+ I
NE R
SPL
sell,
S bRl
ESL
H P. 7
ESP
Wbl_
1a P. i
DIDF
LANES CAPACITY
1
16! )c)
it
!i
c;)
)
0
i
f
1 t-0 )
1
I e!t!
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
^?6
:), CL
192;
t:,,68*
254
U, or)
1
11. q5*
591
Q.20
41
1). or)
125
0. ou
84
!t. 13*
C.5
p.05.
917
/j.l -t*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0,92
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
1^7
i).i>4*
917
i).y�
95
(,).i)!)
q
0.05
L�F1!,
it.81*
5^
0.!)()
621
Q.
':',0
0421*
i_1
!). ):;
0.!10
1.17
20. IRVINE AVE & UNIVERSITY DR
TUhIN HOVEMEiNT AND 1,NTERSECT101N G( PAC I TY UT'[L17A'1 ION SUMMARt
1987
N81
NB r
NPR
SBL
Sal
SBF
I_=•1.
E B I'
EBR
LANES CAPACITY
1 1600
2 _ 00
j 0
1 1600
2 3 •.? W
1 1600
0 o
1 1'ZO i
1 1600
1 1. h, ifj
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
184
p,12
_5
0.00
4n
0.05*
41
0.0
292—
0. t_)f_)
?1
0.2t:,*
IOa
0.07
15
i). C)t)*
15
0. i)1
24
0. p(.,
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
13-5
11, (:)B.k
8s1-1
—
V. T9
._ _,
0.00
51
O. o5
2L91
U.7' *
1c?5
0.l:`.
154
t.).C)t)
1 2 o
0. 1.7f
lot.)
24
c.7
44
0(j
---------------------------------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.91 0.98
29. JAMBOREE RD & MACARTHUR
TI �P'Id Ilt-Y- I4FIJT Aldo I N TCRSEi T I OW CAF r11C T T r I I T 11_ t ; t j T i,;11! El_ll'lht tF •+
1V87
NL;L
N 1
NFF'
SL
raE:1
SBF'
EY1-
ESf
EL -IF
WSL
LANES CAPACITY
4 J+:n;)
i 1bi,i.!
41_7{llj
1 160o
1 1ctli!
AM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
fj6 11.1)5#
651 0.20
1419
Vi a} 0. 05+
S41 Q.11
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.63
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
t:5
o.,!G
1B`
+). 12
674
il, i:a4
�11
Il.i�t�
a4li
ti, 11
0.61
30.
BRISTOL ST
N &
JAMBOREE RD
TURN
NOYEMENT
AND
INTERSECTION
CAPACITY UTILlzi-;rl'ON SHHVI(-F'-,
19B7
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
ski r
SBR
E NL
EBI
EBR
WPL_
wis I
W Ham:
LANES CAPACITY
1 1600
4 640:,
1 1600
i) 0
4 6400
0 0
7 0
•ff i)
Q ft
i) 0
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
928
0.5^;
1770
t,.26
122-4
0.76f
0
0.00
.354
0. 1i,r4
'77
ir.iuo
0
0, t;)0*
:,. 00
0
0.00
0
O.i):,
0
0.0
0
i•�, i,i�a
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
S4C
0.5=*
1898
0,;30
0
0. 00f
0
0.00
]")95
o. ..r Je
805
0.00
0
C.I. fi[,yr
fr
cl.07
0
00
i)
i,00
i)
0.00
0
v. QO*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.62 0.82
ZC. BRISTOL ST & JAMBOREE RD
(UI+W M01.1ENEWT rtlrj IWiERSF.CTI0vi , r F il'r 1!L1-.ti I I1 ':ti)Nh
1987
i 1BL
WWf
rjsP
jk!
EBL
HST
ESP
W L,L
AM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
,:94d 4h�
11 fl, 4,tU
1 f+�4 II, I,Ii
27 i),4-,
-----------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
LANES CAPACITY
r i,
4 .4400
4,S, t t
0.97
PM PY
HOUR
VOL
V/C i
,
,;, . t R i
,
0.79
9. MacArthur & Camous
IAw MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION c EAC ITY UTILIZATION mmm¥
2010 _ Case
LANES CAPACITY
mE
1
1600
GI
4
6400
NER
1
1600
s E
2
3200
sT
4
6400
gR
I
1600
EBE
2
-3200
DI
3
4800
EBR
I
!6o
AE
2
3200
wST
3
4e
gR
I
1600
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
vZc
s
0.05
1122
0 3 e*
3
0.05!
12
0 3 5*
1023
026
607
0. 38
1047,
0.3*
1433
0.
5
0.34
0
0.
253
0 39
131
0. 08f
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
'2010 Mitigated
NBE
GI
mR
AE
gI
gR
EBE
EBT
EBR
GE
WBT
aR
LANES CAPACITY
I
10.
4
6400
I
1600
2
3200
4
6400
I
!mo
2<
_4800
.I
1600
20
.
:
4800
I
I o
0.60
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
vZc
a
0.05
1122
o. e*
=
o.05
12
o.o »
1023
0.16.
7
0.32
1043
0. *
1 =
0.30
5
0.7
0
0.c
2
o.05*
I31
0. 08f
PM PKHOu.
VOL vC
9 0.14*
1332 0.21
29 o3m
11 0.05
1859 o.29
1424 o Je*
357 o .11*
57e 0.12
s o.15
7e 0.05
1410 o.29*
6 0. 13f
1.32
PM PKHOu
VOL
v/C
243
025*
1314
0.21
2e
o.05
11
0.05
1857
0.29
1430
o.7B *
e
o. 2*
m=
0.12
5
03,
7e
o.05
1449
0. *
6
0.1.
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION . 0.60 1.35
10. MacArthur & Birth
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
I
2010 Base Case
NBL
NBT
NBR
M
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
1
160.1
3
4800
1
1600
1
1600
4
6400
0
1
1606
2
32, ox)
0
1
1600
2
^200
1
1600
AM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
26 0.05
1101 0.23*
68 0.05f
217 0.14*
1274 0.21
77 0.01:)
9 0.05
1002 0.7.37*
194 0.00
0.00*
70 0.05
98 0.06f
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.74
2010 Mitigated
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
1
1600
4800
1
1600
i
16w
4
64t.'W)
0
0
1
1600
2
Z,200
0
0
1
1601:1
2
3^00
1
1600
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
26
ppV/C
lam% 1 05
lil"i
C).2:*
68
Q.05f
217
0.14*
1..74
(.) . 21
77
0.00
9
0.05
1002
0.Z7*
194
0. or)
ii
0.0O*
70
0.05
98
0.06f
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
72
0.05*
1273
0.27
7
0.45f
97
0.06
1661
0.32*
414
6.00
76
0.05*
ti♦98
0.14
61
0.00
17
0.05
914
0.29*
231
Q.14f
0.71
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
75
0.05*
1^<81
0.27
5
t; . 05 f
96
0.06
1666
0.32*
408
0.00
56
0.05*
398
0.14
61
0.00
17
0.05
968
0.30*
248
0.16f
----------------------------- ----..____—_..___..----_----- ----
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.74 0.73
1
1
I
i
I
1
1
I
1
i
1
1
I
1
11. Von Karman & Campus
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 Base Case
-NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
1
1600
3200
1
1600
1
1600
2
75200
0
0
1 1600
2
3200
1
160o
1
1600
2
3200
0
0
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
110
0.07
1045
0.33*
596
(.),37f
`10
0.05*
622
0.22
73
0.00
•385
0.24*
504
0.16
149
0.09f
115
0.07
471
0.26*
.360
0.•00
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
2010 Mitigated
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
1
1600
3200.
1
1600
1
1600
2
7,200
0
0
1
16i i0
2
' •32i 0
1
1600
1
1600
2
•3200
0
0
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
0.88
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
110
Q.07
1045
0.33*
596
0.37f
50
0.05*
622
0.22
73
0.00
385
0.24*
504
0.16
149
0.09f
115
0.07
471
0.26*
360
0.00
0.88
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V%C
44
0.v5*
843
0.26
447
0.28f
275
0.17
1647
0.41*
268
4. (.)o
81
Q.05
785
0.25*
201
0.1.3f
•328
0.20*
974
0.""
79
0.00
0.91
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
46
0.05*
835
0.26
446
0.28f
275
0.17
10,90
0.41*
270
0.00
81
0.05
789
0.25*
201
0.13f
-Z29
0.21*
1009
0..34
79
0.00
0.91
12- MacArthur & Von Karman I i
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
------------ ---------------------- ----------------------
2010 Base Case
NPL
NPT
NPR
SPL
SPT
SPR
ESL
EST
E8R
WPL
W8T
WPR
LANES CAPACITY
1 1600
17
4800
1
1600
1
160C)
4800
1
16Ot.)
1 1600
2 32'0t:)
1 1600
1 1600
1 16(:)0
1 1600
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
"55
0.16*
1180
0.25
1262
0.79f
O
0. Ct<t
940
0.2C)*
Z15
0.20f
61
0.05*
Z06
0.10
253
0.16f
71 0.05
494 0.31*
0 0. C)0f
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
15.1
0.10*
1125
0.2L
511
0.32f
0
0.00
1669
0.i5*
1Z12
0.081
142
0.09
467
0.15*
594
0.Z7f
415 0.26*
490 0..31
0 0.0t.)f
-------------------------------------------- ------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.71 0.85
-------------------------
1 2010 Mitigated
1
1 LANES CAPACITY
I NPL
1
1600
I NPT
3
4800
1 NHR
1
160t:,
I SPL
1
1600
1 SPT
:.
4800
1 SPR
1
1600
1 EPL
1
1601)
1 EFT
1 ERR 1 1600
1 WPL i 1600
i WRT 7 1 a nr,
WPR i 1600
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
255
0.16*
1180
0.25
1262
0.79f
0
0,00
940
0.20*
Z15
0.20f
61
0.05*
Z06
0.10
253
0.16f
71
0.05
494
0,Zi*
0
0,00f
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
152
0.09*
ilia
0.2:.,
517
O.Z2f
0
0.00
1670
0.35*
175
0.08f
142
0.09* 1
457
0.14 I
583
0.:.4f I
7,98
1
0.25 I
489
0.ti,1* 1
0
() fief '
- - -, - ^ _--- . -
TOTAL CAPACITYUTILIZATION.0.710.-
84
13. Jamboree & Campus
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 Base Case
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
1
1600
4
640i l
i>
0
2Q 0
3
4800
0
0
1.5
2400
1.5
2400
1
1600
1.5
2400
1.5
2400
1 •
1600
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
114
0.07*
2404
0.43
360
0. 00
90
0.05
1797
0.42*
241
0.i.ui
417
0.17*
441
0.18
�2
0.05f
77
0.05
661
0.28
621
0.34*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
2010 Mitigated
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
1
1600
4
64i i0.
0
0
2
3200
3
480i i
0
0
1.5
2400
.1.5
2400
1
1600
1.5
2400
1.5
2400
1
1600
1.01
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
114
0.07*
2404
0.4:
7,60
0.00
90
0.05
1797
0.42*
241
0.00
417
0.17*
441
0.18
32
0.05f
77
0.05
661
0.28
621
0.34*
PM P•K
HOUR
VOL
V/C
0
0.00*
2498
0.42
211
0.00
328
0.10
2546
0.72*
893
0.00
566
0.24
887
0.37*
45
0.05f
302
0.13*
360
0.15
ISO
0.11
1.21
9
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
0
0.00*
2497
0.42
214
0,00
328
10
2506
0.71*
926
0.00
569
0.24
867
0..37*
44
0.05f
307
0.1•_,*
357
0.15
181
0.11
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.01 1.21
14. Jamboree & Birch
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 Base Case
NBL
NST
NBR
SSL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBK
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
1
1.600
3
4800
0
0
1
1600
3
480r )
i
1600
1.5
24f)O
0.5
e)x)
1
1600
0
0
1
160(.)
0
,.)
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
252
0.16
2877
0.60*
0
0.00
15
0. ):)5*
1255
0.27
546
0.34f
45
0.05*
16
0.09
203
0.13f
t)
{).00
2
0.05*
1
0.00
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
2010 Mitigated
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
1
16� i0
ti.
4800'
):)
0
i
1600
L
4800
1
160t)
1.5
24(.)0
S00
1
160t.)
o
0
1
160)_)
0
0
0.75
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
252
0.16
2877
0.60*
0
0. 00
15
0.05*
=85
0.27
546
O.34f
45
0.05*
16
0.05
203
0.1: f
0
0. 00
2
0.05*
1
0.0r)
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
75
0.05*
27=--
0.48
!i
0.00
2
0.65
2625
f.),55*
345
0.^2f
259
0.11*
5
0.05
561
0.,-55f
0
0.00
16
0.05*
28
C).(X)
0.75
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
78
0.05*
2717
0.48
0
0.00
2
0.05
2532
0.53*
Z95
0.25f
268
0.11*
5
0.05
54B
0,Z54f
0
4.), 00
17
0.05*
27
0.00
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION. 0.75 0.74
15. Campus R Bristol N
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 Base Case
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SE+T
SBK
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
3200
3
4800
C)
0
0
0
3
48(.)0
2
_200
C)
•0
O
0
0
0
2
3200
4
)
6400
0
0
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
45
0.05
3417
0.71*
0
0.00
0
0.00*
289
0.06
572
0.16
-----------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
2010 Mitigated
NHL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SST
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
2 3200
71 4800 .
0 C)
O 0
4800
2 3200
C) C)
0 0
0 C)
1 1600
4 6400
0 0
0 0.00*
0 0.00
0 0.00
28 0.05
885 0.17*
207 0. 00
0.88
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
45
0.05
3417
0.71*
0
0.00
0
0.00*
289
0.06
466
0.15
0
0.00*
O
0.0o
0
0.00
28
0.05
885
0.17*
207
0 . C)C)
PM PK" HOUR
VOL V/C
130 0.o5*
1740 0.36
0 0.00
0
C). C)C)
1666
0..35
2012
0.63*
0
0.00*
0
0.00
0
0.00
823 0.26
2810 0.47*
208 0.00
1.15
I
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
137
0.05*
1756
0.37
0
0.00
0
0.0O
1603'
Ci.ti,3*
935
0.29
0
0.00
0
0.0(.)*
0
0.00
784
0,49*
2716
0.46
216
() . Q ()
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.88 0.87
16. Birth & Bristol N
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
G
i
2010 Base Case
NBL
NET
NBR
SEAL
SET
SBR
EEL
EBT
EBB'
WPL
WELT
WKR
LANES CAPACITY
1
1600
2
3200
0
0
0
0
2
_,200
2
3200
0
0
0
0
0
2
"14200
L
4800
0
0
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
212
0.1z
1904
0.59*
0
0.00
0
0. (lei
1
0.05
0.
0 , 0(.)
0
0.00*
0
0.00
0
0.00
469
0.15
908
0.24*
262
0.00
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
2010 Mitigated
NBL
NET
NHR
SPL
SEAT
SBR
EHL
EPT
E 8 R
WPL
WET
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
2
=0
_200
0
0
0
2
3200
2
3200
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
16C.10
3
4800
0
0
0.84
AM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
212 0.07
190: 0.59*
0 0.00
0 0.00*
0.05
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0. or)*
0 0.00
469 0.29*
908 0.24
262 0.00
PM PK HOUR.
VOL V/C
45!Z, 0.2B*
242 0.08
0 0.00
0 0.00
649 0.20
1106 0.v5*
0 0.0r)*
0 6.00
0 0.00
426 0.17,
2282 0,50*
13::, (1.00
0
PM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
460 0.14*
224 0.07
0 0. or)
0 0.00
557 0.17
998 O.Zi*
0 0.00*
0 0.00
0 0.00
472 0.29
2258 0.50*
129 0.00
---------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.89 0.95
17. Campus °c Bristol S
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTE.-RSECTION CrsFACITY UTIL.IZr)T101.1 SUMNAF.v
2010 BASE CASE
NFL
NST
NFR
SFL
SFT
SSR
EFL
EFT
EFR
WFL
WFT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
O
Q
5
80tj0
1
160C)
1
160c?
_
4866
C)
0
0
0
4
6400
2
-2ni
i,)
0
Q
0
0
0
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
0
0, 0O
206
C).26*
667
0.42f
181
0.11*
136
0.05
0
0.00
1399
C).Oci
2784
C).65*
147
0. 05
0
0. 00+:
i �
t7 . i �0
0
0. 0� i
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
2010 Mitigated
NFL
NFT
NER
SFL
SFT
SFR
EFL
EFT
EFR
WFL
WET
WFR
LANES CAPACITY
i
0
4
6400
1
1600
1
1600
_
4800
C)
C)
2
3200
4
640()
2
3200
0
C)
0
O
C)
1.02
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
0
0.00
2063
O. :72*
667
0.42f
181
0.11*
1ti•6
().05
C)
C).00
17,99
0.44*
2784
0.44
147
0.05
i
0. 00
C)
0. 0(:)*
0
C),C)Q
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
783
0.10
4T3
0.27f
_2_
0.20
2166
0.45x
0
0, 0i>
1087
0.00
1651
>.4'*
2C=
0,07
0
ci3O(-)*
0
0.00
O
C).0);)
roWN
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
C)
0. 00*
791
0.12
419
0. 26f
290
0.18
2i �97
0. 44*
c:)
O . � i O
1102
0.7,4*
16�=
0.26
223
0. ci7
O
0.00
C)
().O(i*
O
c.). 00
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.87 0.78
18. Birch & Bristol S
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
I 2010 Base Case
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WSR
LANES CAPACITY
0
0
2
.200
0
0
1
ibC)0
.�
32Q0
{t
0
1
1600
by
4800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C)
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
0
0. Or)
% 5
0.35*
416
0.00
256
0.16*
346
0.11
0
0.00
14{)0
{ . Se*
191Z
0.47
319
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00*
0
0.00
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.39
2010 Mitigated
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
0
0.00
492
0.18*
78
0.00
988
0.62*
67
0.05
0
0.00
203
0.13
1875
0.46*
329
O.00
0
0.00*
0
0.00
{)
0.00
1.25
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
{)
0
0.00
0
0.00
NBT
2
3200
% 5
0.22*
50Q
0.16*
NBR
1
1600
416
0.26f
77
0.05f
SBL
2
3200
256
0.08*
975
0.30*
SBT
1
1600
346
0.22
54
0.05
SBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
EBL
3200
1400
.0.44*
184
0.06
EBT
3
4800
1913
0.40
1895
0.39*
EBR
1
1600
319
0.20
265
0.17'
WBL
a
{)
0
0.00
0
0.00*
I WBT
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00
I WBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.011
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION•
0.74
0.86
19. Irvine & Mesa
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 Base Case
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
1 1600
48C )C )
1 1600
1 1600
4800
1 1600
0 0
2 _ 20o
1 1600
2 3,200
1 1600
0 C)
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
49
0.05
2005
0.42
1059
0.66*
0
0.00*
185
0.05
77
O.05
925
0. )C)
48
0.•_0*
59
0.05
0
0.00*
1
0.05
0
0.00
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
2010 Mitigated
NBL
NBT
NPR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
1
1600
3
4800
1
1600
1
1600
3
4800
1
-1600
0
O
2
3200
1
1600
2
3200
1
1600
0
0
0.97
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
49
0.05
2005
0.42
1059
.0.66*
0
0.00*
185
0.05
77
0.05
925
0.00
48
0.710*
59
0.05
0
0.00*
1
0.05
0
0.00
PM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
2 0.05*
738 0.15
20 0.05
0 C),O(:)
1770 0.._7
910 0.57*
4 -, C).(:)C)
21 0.14*
88 (:) . 06
306 0.10*
38 0.05
0 0.00
0.86
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
2
0.05*
739
0.15
20
0.05
0
0.00
i819
0.38
804
0. 503
426
0.00
21
0.14*
88
0.06 '
207
0.06*
:_,5
O.05
0
0.0O
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.97 0.76
20. Irvine & University
TUPN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACIT`( UTILIZATION SUMMAPr
2010 Base Case
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
160t:).
45
0,05
Be
0. (:)6*
NBT
2
3200
2059
0.69*
718
0.26
NBR
0
0
14B
0. rju
107
0. i.)0
SBL
1
1600
1.1
0.01r)*
19
0.05
SBT
2
Z12-60
249
0.08
16C2
0.51*
SBR
1
1600
0
1.) . 00
484
0 * Z )
EBL
0
0
995
1:)400
&
0.00*
EBT
2
=0,0
89
(),Z4*
56
0.05
EBR
1
1600
51
0.0
15
0.05
WSL
0
t;)
57
Q.00*
178
0.00
WET
1
1600
34.)
0.06
120
0.19*
WBR
C.)
C>
1
0.00
12
0.1)0
--r----------r---r----------------rrrr----------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.08
0.76
2010 Mitigated
LANES
CAPACITY
NBL
1
160t:)'
NET
2
NSR
SELL
1
1600
SBT
2
3200
SBR
1
1600
EBL
0
Q
EST
2 '
3200
EBR
1
1600
WBL
i,)
0
WBT
1
1600
WBP
0
f)
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
45
().05
2059
1:) , 69 *
148
0.00
13
0.05*
249
0.08
0
0.Ot:)
PM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
Be
% 9
107
19
1570
494
995
0,00
6
89
1.).34*
56
51
0.05
18
57
0.00*
17B
Z.10
0.06
120
1
0.00
12
0.06*
1) , 26
0,l6c)
0.0$
0.49*
Q.31
0.00*
b .1;) 5
0.05
0.00
0. 19*
0.00
- T rr -- rw r r __ _ ______
r rIr w
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.08 0.74
1.
29. MacArthur & Jamboree
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 Base Case
NPL
NPT
NPR
SPL
SPT
SPR
EPL
EPT
EPR
WPL
WPT
WPR
LANES CAPACITY
1
1600
3
4a00
0
0
1
1600
.3
4200
1
1600
2
•3200
3
4800
i
1600
3
480!>
]
1600
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
299
0.19
1452
0.50*
954
0. (:)0
142
O.09*
829
0.17
55
0.16f
1384
0.4-,*
170.3
0.35
191
0.12f
42-3
0.17,
531
0.11*
61
0.05f
-----------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
2010 Mitigated
NPL
NPT
NPR
SPL
SPT
SPR
EPL
EPT
EPR
WPL
WPT
WPR
LANES CAPACITY
1
1600'
_
4800
0
0
1
1600
ti
4800
1
1600
2
3.200
-1
4800
1
1600
2
3200
3
4800
1
1600
1.13
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
299
0.19
1452
0.50*
954
0.00
142
0.09*
829
0.17
255
0.16f
1384
0.43*
17Ci.3
0.35
191
0.12f
423
0.1•=
531
(),II*
61
0.05f
-----------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.13
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
_35
0.21*
915
0.30
513
0.00
94
0.06
1799
0.37*
1249
0.78f
570
(:) . 18
1254
0.26*
38
0.05f
876
0.27*
1397
0.29
275
0.17f
1.12
c
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
447
ii.28*
885
0.29
503
0.00
94
0.06
1632
0.34*
1385
0.87f
597
0.19
1261
0.26*
38
0.OSf
914
0.29*
1.7,19
0.27
276
0.17f
1.17
30. Jamboree & Bristol N
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMAR';
2010 Hass Case
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SSR
EBL
EST
EBR
WBL
WST
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
2
3204)
3
48t:0
0
t;l
0
t;)
4
6406
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
t;)
AM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
1071 0.Z *
2312 0.48
to O , t;it;l
0 Q.pt_i
469 0.17*
616 0.00
0 0.0t;,*
0 0.00
0 0. 00
12 0.04:)
1008 0.00
966 0.00*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.50
2010 Mitigated
PM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
1004
1712 0.36
0 0.00
0
4). Of)
1619
0.47*
1362
0.00
0
0. 00*
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0,()c,)
728
(),0;
150
0,00*
0.78
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
1�3200
1071
0.7,Z*
891
0.28*
NBT
tit
4800
2312
0.48
1709
0 . Z6
NBR
0
0
t,)
0. or)
0
0.00
SSL
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
SLIT
4
6400
469
0.17*
1784
0.49*
SBR
0
0
616
0.00
iZ67
0.00
EBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
EBT
t:)
0
C)
0. 00
0
0.00
EBR
):)
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
WBL
C)
0
12
0 . c:,0
6
0. N.)
WBT
0
0
i008
0.00
726
0.00
WBR
0
0
966
0.00*
iS7
0.00*
------_-----------------
------ -'----------------------------•
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.50
0.77
31. Bayview & Bristol S
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 Base Case
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
th&(--ME LK,1.7GTeaVA
0
0
0
0
2
3200
0
0
0
0
C)
0
C)
0
4
6400
0
0
C)
0
0
0
0
C)
AM PK, HOUR
VOL
V/C
C)
0.00
O
0.00
158
0.05*
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0
0.00
3128
0.60*
.6c? ,
0.00
0
0.00*
0
0.0 )
C)
0,i-0
-----------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
2010 Mitigated
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
0 C)'
2 3200
0
0 0
C) C)
0 0
4 6400
0 0
0.65
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
0
0.00
0
0.00
158
0.05*
0- 0.00*
0 0.00
O 0.00
0 0.00
3128 0.60*
6173 0.00
C) 0.00*
0 0.00
0 0.00
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
0
0.00
0
Q.C)O
621
0.19*
0 0.00*
0 0.Oo
O 0.Oo
0
0. 04)
7.116
0.53*
295'
0.00
C)
0.00*
C)
0.i-0
0
0. 0(.)
0.73
PM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
C) 0.00
Q 0.0i--)
611 0.19*
0 0.00*
0 0.00
0 _ 0.00
0 0.00
3128 0.54*
296 0.00
0 0.00*
Q 0.00
0 0 . C)(:)
•-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.65 0.73
32. Jamboree & Bristol S
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTIQN CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 Base Case
NBL
NRT
NBR
SBL
SST
SEAR
ERL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
LANES CAPACITY
O
0
4
6400
4
0
0
0
3
4800
0
0
0
0
3
4800
2
3200
0
0
0
(,
0
0
AM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/0
O
0.00
1920
t-,.30*
3
0.00
4
0.00*
481
0.10
4:1
0,00
146Z
0.00
807
0.47*
1016
0.32
0
0.00*
0
0.00
0
0.00
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.77
2010 Mitigated
PM PK HOUR
VOL V/C
O 0.00*
1502 0.24
9 0.00
(,
().00
1619
0.34*
1214
0.(,p
1501
0.57*
1022
0.32
0
0.00*
0
0 . (,(,
0
0.00
n
0.90
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
0'
0
0.00
0
0.00*
NBT
4
6400
1920
0.34*
1395
0.22
NBR
0
0
3
Cl. 00
9
0.00
SBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00
SBT
3
4800
481
0.10
1784
0.77*
SBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
EBL
O
0
1463
0.00
1205
0.00
EPT
3
4800
B07
0.47*
1498
0.56*
EBR
2
:200
1016
0,32
1036
0.752
WBL
0
0
(,
(,.Op*
0
0.00* I
W8T
0
0
0
0.00
0
0. (j() I
WBR
0
0
4
0.00
0
0.00
1
---------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.77
0.93
9. MacArthur & Campus
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
------------------- --------------
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NSL
1
n
1242
0,05
0.19*
166
13:39
0.108
0.21
NST
4
1
4C>i.>
6400
160(.)
^
71
o.05f
33
0.Ct5f
NSF:
SSL
2
3200
107
a.Ct5*
114
1963
0.Ct5
0.31
SST
4
" l t "
64f t
• 1057
559
0. 17
0,35
1386
0.76*
SSF:
1
1.600
3200
878
0.27
356
0.11*
ESL
2
480Ct
1447
0 . _ 1
5i t1
0.10
EST,
_
1
1600
654
0.36*
i18
�> , r t7
ERR
41SL
2
7200
it
0.00*
75
1.=06
4i.05
0.27 *
WST
3
40
257
131
0.05
0.08f
218
0.14f
WBF,
1
1600r
- _____
TOTAL
_ -----=---------------
CAPACITY UTILIZATION
0.60
1.24
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK,
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
1
1600
83
0.0 5
219
0.14*
NSL
4
64Ct0
lip2._2
O. i8*
1.7312
0.21
NST
1
1600
_
0.05f
24
Ct.C>5f
NSR
4
05*
114
0.05
SST
4
�' _
6400
1121
0.16
1854
0.29
SST
1
1600
607
0.38
1424
Ci.78*
q8F
ESL
2
Z200
1043
0. 7+*
357
578
0. 11 *
�?•12
EST
34800
�i.t
1433
545
Ct..=O
0.34
235
ca . 15
ESR
1
1600
3200
0
0.00
76
0.05
WSL
2
4800
253
0.05*
1410
0.2Q*
WST
3
1
1600
131
0.08f
206
0.1._1f
WSR
___
- ___
TOTAL
CAPACITY UTILIZATION
------------------
0.60
1.32
9. MacArthur & Campus
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
i 2010 w/n 9R-5S/9R-73 Cnn_ A wltln4v_ tv+.
= AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR
f
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
7 NBL
1
1600
Be)
0.05
223
0.14*
1 NEST
4
6400
1255
0.20*
1353
0.21
I N&R
1
86
0.05f
26
0.05f
1
I SBL
2
3200
137
0.05*
102
0.051
I SST
4
6460
1059
0.17
1975
0.31
1 SSR
1
1600
524
0.33
1381
0.78*
I
1 EBL
2
3200
964
0.30
280
0.09*
1 E8T
3
4800
1353
0.28
678
0.14
I EBR
1
1600
708
0.39*
130
0.08
1 WBL
2
3200
2
0.05*
53
0.05
t WBT
3
4800
235
6.05
1447
0.30*
I WHF;
1
1600
140
0.09f
2355
0.15f
.
-----------------------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.69 1.30
----------------- _------ ----- --
1 2010
w/o SR-53/SR-73
Can.
& w/o
Univ.
Ext.
=
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
1 NBL
1
1600'
89
0.06
284
0.18*
I NRT
4
6400
1097
0.17*
1380
0.22
1 NRR
1
:5
0.05f
30
0.05f
1 SBL
2
3200
131
0.05*
99
0.05
1 SBT
4
6400
1028
0.16
1922
0.30
I SHR
1
1600
579
0.36
1367
0.75*
I
I EPL
2
3200
1077
0.3.4*
349
0.11*
I E8T
3
4800
1580
0.33
716
0.15
I EBR
I
1
1600
589
0.07
183
0.11
I WHL
320i,a
0
0.00
77
0.05
1 WBT _+ 4600 281 0.06* 1463 0. Z-0*
I WEIR 1 160:) 145 0.09f 214 0.13f
I
---------------------------------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0-.62 1.34
I
10. MacArthur & Birch
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION! CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
26
0.05
86
0.05*
NBT
3
4800-
1026
0.21*
1253
0.26
NBR
1
160(.)
66
0.05f
6
0.05f
SBL
1
1600
265
O. J.7*.
93
0.06
SBT
4
6400
1369
0.23
1689
0.--.2
SRR
0
0
77
0. 00
374
(j . OC i
EBL
1
1600
192
0.12
71
0.05*
EBT
2
'_200
743
0.28*
•_65
0.13
EBR
0
0
160
C),C>0
61
O.00>
WBL
1
1600
q
0.00*
17
0.it5 I
WBT
2
3200
77
0.05
1006
0.31*
WBR
1
1600
107
0.07f
214
0.1-f I
I
------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.66
0.74
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
26
ci,ii5
72
0.05*
NBT
3
4800
1101
0.23*
1273
0.27
NBR
1
1600
68
0.05f
7
0.05f
SBL
1
1600
217
0.14*
97
0.06
SBT.
4
6400
1274
0.21
1661
0.32*
SBR
0
0
77
0.00
414
0.0C>
EBL
1
1600
9
0.05
76
0,C>5*
EBT
2
3200
1002
0.37*
•398
0.14
EBR
0
i i
194
C> . 00
61
0.00
WBL
1
1600
0
C).00>*
17
0.05
blBT
2
3200
70
0.05
914
0,29*
WBR
1
1600
98
0.06f
231
0.14f
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.74
0.71
10. MacArthur & Birch
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Est.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
26
0.05
85
0.05*
N&T
4800
1260
0.26
NBR
i
1600
69
0.05f
6
0.05f
SHL
1
1601)
266
0.17*
93
0.06
SBT
4
6400
1355
0.27
1678
0.32*
SHR
0
0
148
00
3B7
0. 00
EBL
1
1600
118
0.07
119
0.07*
EBT
2
3200
8 _ 6
0.711 *
428
0.15
EBR
0
0
150
0.(u)
64
0.00
WBL
1
1600
0
0.00*
0
0.00
WBT
2
7,200
104
0.05
904
28*
WEIR
i
1600
122
0.08f
rii:
0.14f
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.72
0.73
2010 w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Est.
i
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
' NBL
1
1600
27
0.05
70
0.05*
I NBT
3
4800
1091
0.=*
1ti,41
0.28
I NBR
1
1600
23
0.05f
6
0.05f
I SBL
1
1600
179
0.11*
45
Q,06
I SST
4
6400
1..,52
0.22
1666
0. w,3*
I SBR
0
0
86
0.00
421
0.00
I EBL
1
1600
7
0.05
100
0.06*
I EBT
2
^.2tu:>
1015
0.36*
430
0.16
EHR
0
C>
1:8
0.00
72
0.00
WBL
1
1600
0
0.00*
16
0.05
4JfiT
320()
66
0.05
973
0.30*
WSR
1
1600
1=
0.08f
257
0.16f
-------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.70
0.74
11. Von Karman & Campus
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
i88
0.12
47
0.05*
NBT
2
3200 .
955
0.30*
820
0.26
NBR
1
1600
677
0.42f
460
0.29f
SBL
1
1600
44
0.05*
264
0.17
SHT
2
.3200
599
0.21
1025
0.41*
SBR
0
C>
'66
0.00
290
C>.0C>
EBL
1
1600
527
0.
8:
0.05
EST
2
32OC>
491
0.15
699
0.22*
ERR
1
1600
132
0.08f
210
0.1.3f
WBL
1
1600
122
0.08
314
0.20*
WBT
2
3200
493
0.26*
859
0.70
WHR
C>
t i
326
0.00
103
O.0i �
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.93
0.88
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
110
Q.07
44
0.05*
NBT
2
'200
1045
0•.33*
843
Q.26
NBR
1
1600
596
0.3%7f
447
0.28f
SBL
1
1600
50
0.05*
275
0.17
S8T
2
3200
622
C>.22
1047
0:41*
SHR
0
O
7--
4).00
268
0.00
EBL
1
1600
385
0.24*
81
0.05
EST
2
3200
504
0.16
785
0.25*
ERR
1
1600
149
C>.09f
201
0.13f
WBL
1
1600
115
0.07
7,28
0.20*
WPT
2
?20t:i
471
0.26*
974
0.33,
WBR
Q
0
=60
0.00
79
0.00
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.88
0.91
A
il. Von Karman & Campus
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMAP7
2010
w/o SR-53/SR-73 Can.
& w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NSL
1
1600
99
0,06
5
0.011*
NST
2
3200
993
0.41*
812
0.25
NBR
1
1600
562
0.35f
463
0.29f
SSL
1
16orl
43
0.05*
276
0.17
SST
2
3200
618
0.21
14)0 Z,
0. 4a*
SBR
0
0
66
0 , 00
265
0. C'M
EBL
1
1600
289
0.18*
131
EST
2
3200
474
0. i5
795
25
EBR
1
1600
194
0.12f
241
0.15f
WBL
1
1600
119
0.07
215
0.13
WET
2
3200
479
0.26*
1698
0.38*
O)BR
fa
0
367
0. 00
110
0. 00
-'----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.81
0.91
2010 w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NEL
1
1600
87
0.05
48
0.05*
NPT
2
3200
1067
0.33*
Eli)
s?.25
NEP
1
1600
510
0.32f
4 Q 3
0.25f
SBL
1
1600
41
0 , 05*
283
0.18
SHT
2
3200
598
0.21
1037
Q.41*
SSR
0
0
65
0.00
274
0.
ESL
1
1600
257
0.16*
89
0.06
EST
2
=00
709
0.22
8Q9
0.28*
EBR
1
1600
SS2
0.iif
194
0.12f
WSL
1
1600
118
0.07
332
0.21*
WHT
3200
5ti1
0.28*
1039
0. _,5
WSR
1.)Z72
0.00
91
0,00
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.83
0.95
12. MacArthur & Von Karman
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Can. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
NFL
1
1600
167
0.10*
NBT
_
4800
1081
0.2.3
NPR
1
1600
1476
0.92f
SFL
1
1600
i i
0. i O
SBT
3
4800
940
0.20*
SBR
i
1600
39-
0.25f
EBL
1
1600
71
0.05*
EFT
2
3200
297
0. 09
EBR
1
16OO
is4
0.12f
WFL
1
1600
7.3
0.05
WFT
1
1600
501
0.31*
WFR
1
1600
0
0.00f
•--------------------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.66
I 2010
w/SR-55/SR-73 Con.
& w/o
Univ. Ext.
AM PK HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C_
NBL
1
160(.)
255
0.16*
NBT
_
4800
1180
0.25
NBR
1
1600
1262
0.79f
SBL
1
1600
0
0.00
SBT
3
.4800
940
0.20*
SBR
1
160U
3515
O.20f
EFL
1
1600
61
0.05*
EFT
2
.3200
306
0.1O
EBR
1
1600
253
O.16f
WBL
1
1600
71
0.05
4JBT
1
1600
494
0.-1*
WBR
1
1600
0
0.0of
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.71
PM PK
HOUR
-VOL
V/C
150
O.ii9*
1111)
0.23
532
0.33f
ii
Q.00
1697
0.35*
1L1
Cf. Oaf
142
0.09
451
0.14*
501
0.31f
437
0.27*
481
0.30
0
0.00f
0.86
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
15--
().10*
1125
0.27,
511
O..32f
p
0.Oi)
1669
0.35*
1'2
0. Oaf
142
0.09
467
0.15*
594
0.=7f
415
0.26*
49O
0.31
i�
O..00f
O.S5
12. MacArthur & Von Karman
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/o SR-35/SR-73 Can. & w/Unit. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
255
r;.16*
124
o.r;8*
NST
3
4800
1332
0.28
1111
0.27,
NSR
1
1600
1147
0.72f
468
0.29f
SBL
1
1600
0
0.00
0
0. CIO
SBT
.3
4800
938
0.2r,*
1/09
0.36*
SPR
1
1600
367
0.23f
108
0.07f
EEL
1
1600
49
0.05*
166
0.10*
EPT
2
�+200
348
0.11
496
0.16
ERR
1
1600
255
0.16f
581
0.36f
WBL
1
1600
72
0.05
v81
0.24
WHT
1
1600
516
0.32*
$57
0.35*
WBR
1
1600
0
0.00f
0
0.r;0f
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.73
0.89
2010 w/o SR-55/SR-73 Can. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NRL
1
1600,
211
0.11*
195
0.12*
NBT
3
4800
1122
0.23
1161
r;.24
NBR
1
1600
1165
0.73f
501
0.31f
SPL
1
1600
0
0.00 �
0
0.00
SBT
3
4800
945
0.20*
1677
0.35*
SPR
1
1600
316
0.20f
127
0.08f
EEL
1
1600
63
0.05*
142
0.09
EBT
2
3200
Z44
0.11
468
0.15*
ERR
1
1600
207
0.13f
718
0.45f
WBL
1
1600
58
0.05
401
0.25*
WBT
1
1E00
493
0.31*
492
0..31
W8R
1 160c,; r; 0.00f 0 0.0of ;
------------- .------------------------------- ------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.69 0.87
11
13. Jamboree & Campus
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010
w/SR-55/SR-73 Con.
& w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
69
0.05*
NET
4
6400
2373
0.42
NBR
i)
0
333
0.00
SBL
2
3200
88
0.05
SBT
.3
4800
1832
0.44*
SBR
0
0
271
0.00
EBL
1..`,
2400
480
0.20*
EBT
1.5
240)>
444
0.19
EBR
1
1600
25
0.05f
WBL
1.5
2400
81
0.05
WBT
1.5
240t i
67.3
0.28
WBR
1
1600
613
0..--3*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
1.02
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
PM PK HOUR
VOL
V/C
0
0. ')0*
2507
0.43
221
0.00
278
0.09
2573
t_).70*
798
o . 00
494
0.21
863
0.36*
58
0.05f
363
0.15*
__:,
0.14
192
0.11
1.21
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
160C)
114
i).07*
0
0.00*
NBT
4
6400
2404
0.43
2498
0.42
NBR
0
0
360
0.00
211
0.00
SBL
2
3200
90
0.05
328
0.10
SBT
3
4800
1797
0.42*
2546
0.72*
SBR
0
0
241
0.00
893
0.Oo
EBL
1.5
2400
417
0.17*
566
0.24
EBT
1.5
240o
441
O. i8
887
0.37*
EBR
1
1600
'2
0.05f
45
0.05f
WBL
1.5
2400
77
0.05
.302
0.13*
WBT
1.5
240t)
661
0.28
360
0.15
WBR
1
1600
621
0.34*
ISO
0.11
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.01
1.21
13. Jamboree & Campus
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con.
& w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NPL
1
1600
123
0,08*
0
0.00*
NPT
4
6400
2466
0.45
L439
0.42
NPR
0
0
3c5$9
0.00
235
0.00
SPL
2
3200
87
0.05
324
0.10
SET
3
4800•
18_,O
0.43*
2470
0.70*
SPR
a
0
256
0.00
882
0.00
EPL
1.5
2400
425
0.18*
616
0.26
EPT
1.5
2400
390
0.16
843
0.,5*
EPR
1
1600
23
0.05f
51
0.05f
WPL
1.5
2400
107
0.05
342
0.14*
WPT
1.5
2400
655
0.27
392
0.16
WPR
1
1600
623
0.34*
181
0.11
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.03
1.19
2010 w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NPL
1
1600'
139
0.09*
0
0.00*
NST
4
6400
2337
0.42
2423
CI, 42
NBR
0
0
352
0 00
238
0. 0()
SBL
2
3200
88
0.05
285
0.09
SET
3
4800
1835
0.44*
2471
0.71*
SPR
0
0
.264
0.00
943
0. CIO
EPL
1.5
2400
535
0.22*
627
0.26
EPT
1.5
24C)O
441
0.18
877
0.37*
EPR
1
1600
21
0.05f
64
0.05f
WPL
1.5
240C)
81
0.05
Z14
0.13*
WPT
1.5
2400
685
0.39
380
0.16
WPR
1
1600
628
0.34*
186
0.12
---------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.09 1.21
14. Jamboree & Birch
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Can. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
290
0.19
71
NBT
•_,
4800
2772
0.56*
2._ 5._
Q.49
NPR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
SBL
1
1600
17
0.05*
2
0.05
SBT
-1
480o
1288
0.27
2667
0.56*
SBR
1
1600
573
0.: 6f
Z 95
0.25f
EBL
1.5
2400
43
0.05*
252
0.10*
EBT
0.5
Boo
14
0.05
5
0.05
EBR
1
1600
199
0.12f
503
0.3if
WBL
0
0
Ct
C),C)C)
C)
C), C)()
WBT
1
1600
2
0,05*
17
0.05*
4lBR
0
0
1
0, t.)r l
27
0.00
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.73
0.76
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
252
0.16
75
0.05*
NBT
_
4800
2877
0.60*
232_,
0.48
NBR
0
0
0
Ci . 00
C�
0.00
SBL
1
1600
15
O,C)5*
2
0.05
SST
3'
4800
1285
0.27
2625
Q.55*
SBR
1
1600
546
0.L4f
.3.45
0.22f
EBL
1.5
2400
45
0.05*
259
0.11*
EBT
0.5
800
16
0.05
5
0.05
EBR
1
1600
203
0.13f
561
0.35f
WBL
0
C)
0
0.00
i,>
0.00
WBT
1
1600
2
0.05*
16
0.O5*
WBR
O
0
1
0.00
28
0.00
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.75
0.75
14. Jamboree & Birch
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
1 2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con.
& w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
1
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
1 NSL
1
1600
291
0.18
86
0.05*
I NBT
3
4800
2995
0.62*
2271
0.47
1 NBR
0
0
0
0.0c>
r)
0.00
i
1 SBL
1
1600
15
0.05*
4
0.05
i SBT
3
4800
1288
0.27
2633
0.55*
1 SBR
1
1600
597
0.7.7f
295
0.18f
1 EBL
1.$
2400
47
0.05*
271
0.11*
1 EBT
0.5
800
16
0.05
5
0.05
1 EBR
1
1600
201
0.13f
588
0.37f
I WBL
0
0
0
QIOQ
0
0.00
I WBT
'WBR
1
1600
2
0.05*
17
0.05*
1
1
0
0
1
0.00
27
0.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.77
0.77
---------------------------------,-
-------
2010
w/o SR-50/SR-73 Con.
& w/o
Univ.
Ext.
AM Pk
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600'
ztx)
0.19
S5
0.05*
NBT
4860
2829
0.59*
2197
0.46
NBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
SBL
1
1600
15
0.05*
2
0.05
SBT
3
4800
1288
0.27
2505
0.52*
SBR
1
1600
565
0.35f
421
0.26f
EBL
1.5
2400
54
0.05*
338
0.14*
EBT
0.5
1800
16
0.",
5
0.05
EBR
1
1600
222
0.14f
543
0.35f
WBL
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
WE+T
1
1600
2
0.05*
17
0.05*
WBR
0
0
3
0.00 ,
27
0. 00
__. --------------------------------------------------.--
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.74
0.77
15. Campus & Bristol IV
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
51
0. 01i
130
0. (.')5*
NET
3
4800
-3476
0.72*
1582
0.33
NBR
0
0
C)
0.00
0
0.00
SBL
0
C)
0
0.00*
0
0.00
SET
3
4800
264
0.06
1524
0.32
SBR
2
3200
569
0.18
1904
0.60
EEL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
EBT
0
0
0
0.00
0
0. Q0
EBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
WBL
2
3200
18
0.05
449
0.14
WET
4
6400
855
0.17*
2648
1.i.45*
WBR
C)
0
249
0. (-.)(:)
234
(.) . 0(:)
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.90
1.10
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
45
0.05
130
0.05*
NET
_
480o
.3417
0.71*
1740
0.36
NBR
i.>
0
0
0.00
0
0.O0
SBL
C)
C)
0
0.00*
0
0.00
SBT
_
4800
289
0.06
1666
0.35
SBR
2
3200
572
0.18
2012
0.6;,*
EEL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
EBT
0
0
i.)
0.00
0
0.00
EBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0, 04.)
WBL
C
3200
28
0.05
827,
0.26
WET
4
6400
885
0.17*
2810
0.47*
WBR
0
0
207
O.00>
208
0.00
TOTAL
CAPACITY
-----------------------------------
UTILIZATION
0.88
1.15
15. Campus & Bristol N
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
t 2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con.
& w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
I
'
i NBL
2
?20i,
57
0.05
127
0.05*
i NST
3
4800
3283
0.68*
2612
0.42
i NSR
Q
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
SBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00
I SBT
3
4800
321
0.07
1278
0.27
SBR
2
.:200
'574
0.1B
2900
0.91*
EBL
0
0
0
0.0t:,*
0
0.01)
EBT
0
0
,:,
0.00
0
Q . � i0
EBR
t:,
0
0
o' {i0
t:s
0. 0i.,
WBL
7,200
21
0.05
964
0.30*
WBT
4
644:,0
963
0.20*
iz"91
0.24
WBR
0
0
321.
0.00
140
0.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.88
1.26
2010 w/o SR-53/SR-73 Coh. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM-PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200,
55
0.05
133
0.05*
NBT
3 -
4800
3567
0.74*
1924
0.40
NBR
4
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
SBL
0
0
0
0,00*
0
0.00
SBT
3
4800
261
0.05
1018
0.21
SBR
2
3200
592
0.19
2738
0.86*
EBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00
EBT
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00*
EBR
0
0
0
0. 00
0
0. r,,0
WBL
2
3200
ti.7
0 (I5
1709
0.53*
WBT
4
640C.)
i051
6.27*
.21641
0.43
WBR
0
0
702
0.00
131
0.00
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.02
1.44
16. Birch & Bristol N
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
131
0.08
462
0.29*
NET
2
3200.
1741
0.54*
242
0.08
NBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
SBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00
SBT
2
32C.W.)
142
0. 05
6(.-)0
0.19
SBR
2
3200
0
0.00
1306
0.41*
EBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
EBT
0
0
0
0.00
C)
0.00
EBR
0
0
C)
O. 00
0
0.00
4JBL
2
1•200
445
0.14
489
0.15
bJBT
._
4800
99.1
0.24*
156
0.35*
WBR
0
0
169
0.0o -
133
0.pi>
----7 ---------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.79
'1.05
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
212
0.13
453
0.28*
NST
2
3200
1903
0.59*
242
C).08
NBR
i)
0
0
0.00
G
0.00
SBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.0v
SET
2
3200
13.3
0.05
649
0.20
SBR
2
3200
0
Q.00
1106
0.35*
EBL
0
C�
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
EBT
Q
0
0
0. 00
0
O. t:u i
ERR
0
0
0
0.00
0
A.). 00 '
WBL
2
3200
469
0. 15
426
0.13
WBT
1
4e00
908
0.24*
2282
0.50*
4JBR
i i
0
262
O. Oi.)
133
0.00
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION.
0.84
1.13
16. Birch & Bristol N
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
1 2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73
Con.
& w/Univ. Ext.
1
I
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR 1
1
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
We 1
I NBL
1
1600
+346
0.22
464
0.29* 1
I NBT
2
32t_)0
1686
0.53*
112
0.05 1
NBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00 1
I
SBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0. Or) ;
SBT
2
32-00
91
0.05
510
(D.16 1
SBR
2
3200
0
0.00
1318
0. 41 * 1
1
EBL
0
0
0
t;i , C)O*
0.00 ;
EBT
0
G
0
0.00
0
0.00* 1
EBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00 i
WBL
2
3201.)
460
0.14
1185
0.37* 1
WBT
4800
961
0.27*
713}
0.31 1
WBR
0
0
315
0.0()
769
+;t , 00 ;
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION-
--
0.79
- - 1.07
---------------------►----------------------------
2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73.Con.
& w/o
Univ.
Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
701
0.44*
353
0.22*
NBT
2
3 t•ti0
1464
0.46
29:=
0.09
NBR
C)
0
0
0.00
0.0o
SBL
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.0t�
SBT
1
3200
159
0.05*
659
0.21
SBR
2
3200
C)
0.00
1108
0.35*
EBL
0
0
0
0,00*
0
0.00*
EBT
0
0
i?
0.00
0
0.00
EBR
0
C)
0
0.00
0
0.00
WBL
2
ti200
46-1
0.14
707%
0.22
WBT
4800
1089
0.28*
0.65*
WBR
0
0
260
0.00
117
0.00
--------------•----------
-------------- --------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.77
1.22
17. Campus & Bristol S
'rui4.,i\I MOVEMENT AND INTEPSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMAR'
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
C)
C)
Q
NBT
5
8000
2161
0,27*
640
0. OS
NBR
1
1600
743
0.46f
212
0.1.3f
SBL
1
1600
172
0.11*
257
0.16
SBT
3
480C)
110
(.).05
1716
0.36*
SBR
0
i)
i)
0. 0t.)
C)
EBL
o
0
1366
0.00
1072
o. 00
EBT
4
6400
25 7
Q.61x
1649
0.43�
EBF'
2
_ 2t_+)
147
O. Ci5
223
0. o 7
WBL
O
t:)
0
0. 00*
0
), C)(:)*
W o f
o
0
n
0. 0o
i,
I)Cj
WBR
0
o
0
Q. 00
i)
0. 00
------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.99
0.78
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ.•Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY,
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
0
0
(:), 00
0
C).0))*
NBT
5
800(:)
2(:)63
0, 26*
723
0. 10
NBR
1
1600
667
0.42-F
4=
27f
SBL
1
1600
I81
0.11*
323
0,0
SBT
3
4800
136
0.05
2166
0.45*
SBR
0
0
0
0, C)0
0
0, C)C)•
EEL
0
0
1399
Q. 00
1067
0, cif)
EBT
4
6400
2784
0.65*
1651
0.47-•*
EBR
21
Z 2 0 0
147
0.05
223
0.07
WBL
0
ti
C)
C).00}
0
C).C)(.)*
WET
0
C)
C)
0.00
C)
0. 0C)
WBR
C)
0
0
1.). c))
0
0. r)0
--------------------------------------------
TOTAL'CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.02
0.88
17. Campus & Bristol S
TUFN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITf UTILIZATION EUMMART
2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73 Can.
& W/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NEL
t:)
0
0
0.00
0
0.0tj*
NET
5
8000
1093
0.14*
910
4t.16
NER
1
1600
1764
1.10-F
249
0.16t
SEL
1
161.X)
:2.4
0.14*
1SG
0.10
SET
3
4900
11S
0.05
2081-
0.4 *
SERI
t:)
0
0
4.00
0
t:1.00
EEL
tj
0
2,247
0. 00
1329
6. uo
SET
EER
4
6400
1SOS
0.59*
1235
.-.,..t-)r.J
147
0.OS
29G
WEL
r;)
0
f,>
0. tjt.)*
0
WET
1:0
0
0
0. #)t)
0
WEF
6
0
0.00
0
t:),Ov
r-.-rr-r r --. - --- _-_ ----.--I-----------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.86 0,83
----------- --------------------------------
2010 w/o SR-55/Sk-73 Con. It w/o 'Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY,
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NEL
0
0
t:)
0.00
0
):).00*
NET
S
90tj0
2=5
0.32*
1096
0.14
NER
1
1600
971
0.61f
itj56
0.66f
SEL
i
160t;)
144
0.09*
340
0.:1
SET
3
4800
154
0.05
23S7
0. SO*
SER
0
0
Q
(.').00
0
0.00
EEL
0
0
1087
0.00
961
0.00
PET
4
6400
2922
0.61*
1927
0.45*
EER
2
320tj
146
0.05
2000
0. U6
wat_. U U 0 0. Ot;)* 0 0, tj0* 1
WET 0 cj 0 0.00 0 0.0c;
WER 0 ri 0.,
--------------- '---------------------- ------------- -- --- - - 1
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.02 0.95
18. Birch & Bristol S
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010
w/SR-55/SR-73 Con.
& w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
� i
n
0.00
0
0. Or;
NBT
2
3200
154
0.07*
501
0.18*
NBR
0
0
58
0.00
60
0.00
SBL
1
1600
299
0.19*
1066
0.67*.
SBT
2
-200
288
0.09
21
0.05
SBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0. CH)
EBL
1
1600
1718
1.07*
203
0.13
EBT
3
4800
1405
0.36
1676
0.40*
EBR.
0
i)
329
0.00
239
0.00
WBL
0
0
Q
0.00
0
0,i>(:)*
WBT
0
0
0
0,00
11
0.00
WBR
0
0
i)
0. (-.) i
C1
0. 00
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.33
1.24
2010
w/SR-55/SR-73 Con.
& w/o
Univ. Ext.
AM PK HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
C
0
0.iic)
i.�
0.00
NBT
2
7,200
715
� .3119*
492
(:),18*
NBR
0
C>
416
0.00
78
0.00
SBL
1
1600
256
0.16*
988
0-62*
SBT
2
3200
346
0.11
87
0.05
SBR
0
0
.0
0.00
0
0.00
EBL
1
1600
1400
0.88*
203
0.13
EBT
3
4800
1913
0.47
18755
0,46*
EBR
0
0
319
0.00
0
Z29
0. U0
WBL
C.
0
0
0.00
0
O.O(:)*
WBT
0
0
0
0.00 *
to
0.0o
4JBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0. 60
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.39
1.25
18. Birch & Bristol S
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMAPY
I 2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con.
& w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
I
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
4
0
0.00
i;i
0.00
I NBT
2
..200
848
0.32*
505
0.18*
NBR
0
0
180
0.00
61
0.00
SBL
1
1600
226
0.14*
1052
0.66*
SBT
2
7,200
ti25
0.10
64Z,
0.20
SBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
EBL
1
1600
1184
0.74*
71
0.05
EBT
Z
4800
1977
0.48
1413
0.Z,1*
EBR
0
0
Z,35
0.00
159
0.00
WBL
0
0
0
O.OQ
0
0. 0()*
WST
0
n
C).0O*
0
0.00
WBR
Q
0
0
0. 00
0
0. QQ
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.20
1.16
-----------
2010 w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
0'
0.00
0
0.00
NBT
2
3200
892
0.49*
459
0.17*
NBR
0
0
68z
0.00
74
0.00
SBL
1
1600
258
0.16*
845
0.53*
SBT
2
7,200
Z,64
0.11
517
0.16
SBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
EBL
1
1600
1273+
0.80*
187
0.12
EBT
_;
4800
2Z,51
0.56
27y8
0.65*
EBR
0
0
313
0.00
7198
0.00
WBL
0
0
0.00
0
0.00*
WBT
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00
WBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
----------------------------- -------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.45
1.35
19. Irvine & Mesa
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NPL
1
1600
43
0.05
42
0.05*
NPT
3
48C>ii.
2201
0.46*
479
0.10
NPR
1
1600
94
0.06
20
0.05
SPL
1
1600
0
0.00*
0
0.00
SPT
3
4600
157
0.05
1697
0.75
SPR
1
1600
' 75
0.C>5
586
0.37*
EPL
0
C)
922
0.00
3:.4
0.00
EPT
2
3200
41
0.30*
•21
0.11*
EPR
1
1600
58
0.05
76
0.05
WPL
2
3200
C>
0.00*
102
0.05*
WPT
1
1600
0
p.Q0
71
0.05
WPR
0
C)
0
C).C)C)
0
0.00
i
------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.76
0.58
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. &.w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NPL
1
1600
49
0.05
2
0.05*
NRT
.3
4800
2oO5
0.42
738
0.15
NPR
1
1600
1059
0.66*
20
0.05
SPL
1
1600
0
0.00*
0
0.00
SPT
3
4800
185
0.05
1770
0.37
SPR
1
1600
77
0.(.15
910
0.57*
EPL'
0
0
925
0.00
433
0.00
EPT
2
3200
48
0.30*
21
4.14*
EPR
1
1600
59
0.05
68
0.06'
WPL
2
3200
0
0.00*
308
r).10*
WPT
1
1600
1
0.05
38
0.05
WPR
0
C>
0'
0.00
0
4.). 00
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.97
0.86
19. Irvine & Mesa
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
A
2010 w/o SR-55/SR-73 Can. rk w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR 1
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C 1
NBL
1
1600
148
0,09
72
0.0$* 1
NBT
3
480C)
1546
0." 2
639
0. 1::, 1
NPR
1
1600
1112
0.69*
24
0.05 ;
SBL
1
1600
0
0.00*
0
0.06 ;
SBT
3
4800
168
0 , t)5
19y 3
0.40 f
SBR
1
1600
75
0.05
7$5
0.47* 1
EBL
0
0
1400
0. 00
443
0.00 ;
EBT
2
3200
68
Q.46*
25
0.15* t
EBR
1
1600
76
0.05
160
0.06 1
.
.
WBL
2
3200
0
0.00*
7-00
0.23* 1
WBT
1
1600
1
0.05
85
0.05 1
WBR
0
<t
0. 00
0
0.1)0 ;
1
-----------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.15
0.90
2010 w/o SR-53/SR-73 Con. k w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
270
0.17
2
0.05*
NPT
_
4800
2343
0.49
176"_.
O.y7
NBR
1
1600
1394
0.87*
27
0.05
SBL
1
1600
0
1?.00*
0
0,t:u;t
SBT
3
4e00
208
0.05
2007
0.42
SBR
1
1600
73
0.05
810
C>.51*
EBL
0
0
1ti53
0.00
365
0.00
EBT
2
3200
21t)6
0.49*
19
0. i2*
ESR
1
1600
60
0. 05
111
07 "
WBL
1.
3200
00
, i �i;i*
829
0.26*
WBT
1
1660
1
0.05
i2o
0.08
WBR
0
0
24
0.0t:t
0
Q , 00
--------------------- ---- ^----------------------- --------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.36 0.94
20. Irvine & University
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
16(.)0
14
0.05
74
0.05*
NBT
2
3200
1624
0.80*
474
0.28
NBR
C)
0
940
0.00
432
0.00
SBL
1
1600
19
0.05*
23
0.05
SBT
2
`200
221
Q.07
128o
0.40*
SBR
1
1600
0
0.00
54B
0.34
EBL
0
C>
647
Q.00
6
0,00*
EBT
2
7.200
756
0.44*
390
0.12
EBR
1
1600
40
0.05
2'
0.05
WBL
C)
0
114
0.00*
594
0.00
WBT
1
1600
76
0.17N
1100
1.09*
VJBR
0
0
18
0.00
56
0,00
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.29
1.54
2010_w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ: Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
45
0.05
Be
0.06*
NBT
2
3200
2059
0.69*
718
0.26
NRR
Ci
0
148
0. 0( i
107
O.0 i
SBL
1
1600
13
0.05*
19
0-05
SBT
2
3200
249
0.08
16.32
Q.51*
SBR
1
1600
0
C>.00
484
0„ ,0
ERL
0
0
995
0.00
6
0.00*
EBT
2
32c)o
89
0.34*
56
t).05
ERR
1
1600
51
0.05
15
0.05
WPL
0
0
57
0.00*
178
0.00
WBT
1
1600
-o
0.06
120
0.19*
WBR
0
0
1
0.00
12
0.00
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1,08
0.76
20. Irvine & University
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73 Can. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
14
0.05
NBT
2
32C)O
2485
0.97*
NPR
0
0
630
0.00
SEAL
1
1660
45
0.05*
SECT
2
T200
231
0.07
SSR
1
16t; o
0
0. 00
ESL
0
0
265'
0.00
EST
2
3,200
13,85
0.52*
ERR
i
1600
30
0.05
WPL
0
0
169
0.00*
WST
1
1600
144
0.20
WSR
0
0
11
0. i;)0
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.54
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
Vic
47
0.(.15*
637
0.41
667
O.0o
It.)
0.05
1968
0.62*
741
0.46
9
0.0O*
8$5
0.27
I ,
0.05
Sq8
0.00
967
1.22*
83
0.00
2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73 Can. & w/o
Univ.
Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NSL
1
1600'
28
0.05
102
0.06*
NST
2
a20()
2492
0.83*
995
0.Z34
NSR
0
0
149.
0.00
106
s:i , (X)
SSL
1
1600
13
0.05*
14
0.05
SPT
2
32oo
269
0.06
2175
0.68*
SSR
1
1600
2
0.05
%7
0.45
ESL
0
0
1456
0.00
761
0.00
EBT
2
3200
88
0.48*
59
0.26*
ESR
1
1600
42
0.05
5
0.05
WSL
0
0
59
0.00*
WST
i
1600
32
0.06
136
0.19
WPR
0
0
1
0.00
----
---.
-------------------------------------
�-
------,'-
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.36
1.00
I
a
29. MacArthur & Jamboree
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
281
0.1B
223
0.14*
NBT
3
480C>
1414
0.53*
878
0.28
NBR
i)
0.
1109
0.00
473
0.00
SBL
1
1600
142
0.09*
ii5
0.07
SPT
1
4900
229
0.17
1786
0.37*
SBR
1
1600
25B
0.16f
1207
0.75f
EBL
2
3200
1552
0.49*
627
0.20
EBT
3
4800
1497
0.31
1319
0.27*
EBR
1
1600
194
0.12f
3B
0.05f
WBL
2
3200
423
i>.1_
845
0.26*
WBT
4800
527
0.11*
1445
0.30
WBR
1
1600
S2
0.05f
272
0.17f
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.21
1.05
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES 'CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600•
299
0.19
335
0.21*
NPT
3
480i)
1452
0.50*
915
f> o
NBR
ti
0
954
i .(-,) >
513
0.00
SBL
1
1600
142
0.09*
94
0.06
SPT
•3
4800
829
0.17
1799
0.37*
SBR
1
1600
255
0.16f
1249
0.78f
EBL
2
3200
13584
0.43*
570
0. 18
EBT
4800
170.3
0.35
1254
0.26*
EBR
1
1600
191
0.i2f
38
0.05f
WPL
2
3200
42L
0.13
B76
0.27*
WBT
7%
4800
53-1
0.11*
1397
0.29
WBR
1
1600
61
0.05f
275
0.17f
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.13
1.12
29. MacArthur & Jamboree
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
I
1 2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con.
& w/Univ. Ext.
i
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
1
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
1 NBL
1
1600
400
0.25
416
0.26*
1 NBT
3
4800
127(1
0.55*
837
0.28
1 NBR
0
0
1353
0.00
tzlo
0.00
1 SBL
1
1600
118
0.67*
109
0.07
1 SST
3
4800
844
0.18
1786
O.ti7*
I SBR
1
1600
252
O.16f
1183
O.74f
I EBL
2
3200
1501
0.47*
574
0.18
I EST
7,
4800
1542
0.32
1140
0.24*
I ESR
1
1600
172
O.iif
52
0.0 5f
WBL
2
7,200
423
C�.1:
846
0.26*
WBT
3
48cv)
56(.�
1).12*
i287
0.27
WBR
1
1600
199
0.12f
276
6.17f
-------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.21
1.13
2010 w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext. I
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR 1
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C 1
NBL
1
1600
426
0.27
$01
0.31* 1
NBT
..,
4800
13i5
0.55*
1020
0.33 1
NBR
0
0
1330
0.00
562
0.00 1
SBL
1
160o
142
0. C--i9*
99
0.06 1
SET
•.
4806
823
0.17
1807
0.38* 1
SBR
1
1600
254
0.16f
1292
0.81f 1
EBL
2
3200
1299
0.40*
521
1
0�yy.16 1
EST
4800
1482
0.31
1068
0.22* 1
EBR
1
1600
226
0.14f
48
0.05f 1
1
WBL
2
7,200
431
0.13
988
0.31* 1
WBT
3
4800
554
0.12*
1285
0.27 1
WBR
1
1600
1Z,,6
0.09f
280
0.17f 1
1
-------------------- --------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
1.16
1.22
30. Jamboree & Bristol N
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
NPL
2
3200
1114
0.35*
hdPT
_
4800
2362
0.49
NPR
0
0 "
0
0.ti0
SPL
C)
0
0
0'. C)0
SBT
4
6400
475
0.17*
SPR
i.)
0
591
0.00
EPL
0
0
0
0.00*
EST
0
0
0
0.0C)
EPR
0
0
0
0.00
WPL
0
0
6
0.00
WBT
0
0
10.34
(-) . 60
WPR
C)
:)
BB1
0.00*
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.51
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
635
0.2ti*
1776
0. 7
C)
0.C)(:)
0
0.00
1835
0.45*
1040
0.00
0
i.00*
0
0.00
C)
0.00
0
0. uc)
664
0.00
2ti8
0.00*
0.65
-------------------------------------------------------
I
i
2010
w/SR-55/SR-73
Con.
& w/o
Univ. Ext.
i
AM
PK HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
1
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
1
NPL
2
3200 •
1071
' 0.33*
1004
0.31 *
1
NBT
.3
4800
2312
0.48
1712
0. 6
1
NPR
0
0
0
C).C)c)
C,
0.00
1
SPL
C,
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
1
SPT
4
6400
469
0.17*
1619
0.47*
1
SPR
0
0
•616
0.00
1362
0.00
1
EPL
0
C)
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
;
EST
0
C)
0
(D . 00
0
0.00
I .
EPR
O
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
1
WPL
0
0
12
C).00
0
Ct.00
i
WPT
0
0
1008
0.00
728
Q.00
1
WBR
0
0
966
0.00*
150
0.00*
1
------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.50
0.78
30. Jamboree & Bristol N
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
I 2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73
Con.
& w/Univ. Ext.
f
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
I
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
I NBL
2
3200
10C)l
0.31*
608
0,19*
I NST
3
4800
2388
0.50
1578
0.33
I NBR
0
0
0
0.OQ
0
0.00
I
I SBL
0
0
0
ii.00
0
I SST
4
6400
473
0.19*
192._
0.45*
I SBR
C)
0
739
0.00
963
0.00
I EBL
0
0
0
00*
0
0.00*
I EBT
0
0.00
0
0.00
I EBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
I
WSL
i>
0
13
0.00
0
0.06
I WBT
0
0
1109'
0.00
906
0.00
I WBP
0
0
827
0.00*
188
0.OQ*
•--------------------------------------•------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.50 0.64
2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73
Con.
& w/o
Univ.
Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
2
3200
1044
0.ZZ*
1220
0.38*
NST
=.
48CIO
2139
0.45
1581
0. =
NBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
SBL
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
SBT
4
6400
484
0.19*
1714
0.48*
SBR
0
0
750
0.00
1364
0.00
EBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
EBT
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
EBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
WBL
0
0
1:-:
0.00
0
0.00
WBT
0
1091
0.00
1181
0.00
WBR
0
0
B58
0.00*
56
0.00*
--------------------------_.--~------- ~---- --------------_
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.52 0.86
A
31. Bayview & Bristol S,
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
C i
O
O
0.00
C>
0.00
NBT
C
0
O
0.00
O
0.00
NBR
2
7,200
139
0.05*
49T.
0.15*
SBL
p
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
SBT
i,�
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
SBR
C>
0
0
0.00
0
C).Q )
EBL
0
C)
0
0. 00
0
0. 00
EBT
4
6400
2222
0.44*
2998
0.51*
EBR
0
0
621
0.00
284
C).00
WBL
0
C)
0
0.00
U
0.00*
WBT
0
0
0.00
0
0.Cu:)
WBR
Ct
0
0
0,00
ri
0.00
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.49
0.67
----------------------------------------
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C .
NBL
Cr
C) .
0
0.00
0
0.00
NBT
0
0
0
0.00
o
0.00
NBR
2
7200
156
0.05*
621
0.19*
SBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
SBT
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
SBR
O
0
0
0.00
O
Ci,C>C>
EBL
0
0
0.
0.00
0
0,00
EBT
4.
6400
3128
0.60*
3116
0.573*
EBR
0
0
693
0.00
295
0.C>0_
WBL
0
C>
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
WBT
0
0
0
0.00
0
C).(.)c:)
WBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0. 00,
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.65
0.73
I
31. Bayview & Bristol S
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/o SR-55/SR-73 Can. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
0
0
0,00
0
0.00
NBT
0
0
0
0. 4.0
0
0.00
NSR
2
7,20o
132
0.05*
518
0.16*
SBL
0
0
0
0.00*
ft
0.00*
SBT
0
sa
0
0.00
0
0.00
SBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
EBL
0
0
0
0.00
0
0010
EBT
4
6400
2496
0.49*
2655
0.46*
EBR
0
0
646
0.00
274
0,00
WBL
0
0
0
0. 00*
0
0. Cie)
WST
0
0
0
0.00
ii
0.00
WBR
C)
Q
0
0.00
0
0.00
•-----•----'----------------------------•-----_-----------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.54
0.62
2010
w/o SR-55/SR-73 Con.
& w/o
Uniy.
Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
0
O
0.00
0.00
NBT
0
0
0
0.01)
0
0.00
NBR
7200
149
0,05*
591
0.15*
SBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
SBT
0
0
0.00
0
0.06
SBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
EBL
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
EBT
4
6400 34L4
0.64*
3647
0.62*
EBR
0
0
678
0.06
291
0.00.
WBL
0
0
0
0. 0t:>*
0
0. t>0*
WBT
0
0
0
C> : 00
0
0.00
WBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.0.,
-------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.69
0.80
32. Jamboree & Bristol S
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Can. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
'PM PK
HOUR
LANES 'CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
Q
0.00
0
0.00*
NBT
4
6400
2341
0.39*
1359
0.22
NBR
0
01
142
0.00
59
O. Cu i
SBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00
SBT
3
4800
481
0.10
1835
0.38*
SBR
0
0
0
0. 00
.0
0.00
EBL
0
i>
1135
0.00
1052
0.00
EBT
3
4800
574
0.36*
1521
0.54*
EBR
2
3200
652
0.20
918
0.29
WBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
W8T
0
0
n
0.00
0
0.00
WBR
it
6
0
ti.00
0
0.00
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.74
0.92
2010 w/SR-55/SR-73 Con. & w/o Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
0.
0
0.00
0
0.00*
NBT
4
6400
1920
0.30*
1502
0.24
NBR
0
0
3
0.00
9
0.00
SBL
0
O
0
0.00*
O
0.00
SBT
3
480o
481
0.10
1619
0.34*
SBR
O
O
0
0.00
O
0.00
EBL
0
0
1463
0.00
1214
0.00
EBT
3
4800
807
0.47*
154.i1
0.57*
EBR
2
3200
1016
0.32
1022
0.32
WBL
Ci
C>
CU
0.00*
O
0.00*
WBT
O
0
O
0.00
0
0.00
WBR
C)
0
0
0.00
O
0.00
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.77
0.90
32. Jamboree & Bristol S
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 w/o SR-35/SR-73 Con. & w/Univ. Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
I
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
I NSL
0
0
0.00
0
0.(0*
NET
4
6400
2479
0.41*
11:91
0.27
I NBR
0
142
0.00
7,29
0.00
I SBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00
I SET
13
4800
466
0. it) -
192:
0.40*
I SER
0
0
0
0. (.)o
Q
0.00
I EEL
0
0
91O
0.00
795
0. i. 0
I EBT
3
4eot)
931
0.38*
1418
0.46*
I EBR
I
2
3200
787
O.Z5
960
0.30
WBL
0
0
0
0.00*
0
0.01:4
I WBT
O
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
I WBR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
---------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.79
0.86
2010
w/o SR-36/SR-73 Con.
& w/o
Univ.
Ext.
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
O
0-
0
0.00
0
0.00*
NET
4
6406
2047
0.32*
1700
0.27
NBR
o
0
2
0.00
9
0.00
SBL
0
0
0
0.00*
Q
0.00
SBT
4800
496
0.10
1714
0.36*
SBR
0
0
0
0.00
• 0
0.00
EEL
0
0
1136
0.00
1101
0.00
EBT
3
4800
1081
0.46*
1818
0.61*
EBR
2
3200
1366
0.43
1319
0.41.
WBL
0
0
0.00*
0
0.00*
WET
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
WBR
0
C>
0
0.00
0
0.00
---------- ----------------
------------------------ -,
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.78
0.97
(:3V�
RECEIVEQ 0 fl 1
1
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION STUDY
Comparison of Travel Forecasts
With and Without University Drive Extension
and the Rte 55 Freeway Connectors
I .
I
I
I
I
n
I
H
I
n
I
C
IF
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION STUDY AFA, October 30, 1989
Analysis With and Without University Drive Extension
and Rte 55 Connectors
These technical notes summarize the preliminary set of traffic forecast data produced for
the University Drive Deletion Study. The purpose is to establish an initial set of traffic demand
forecasts that can be used in evaluating iatpacts and identifying potential mitigation measures.
The University Drive Deletion Study utilizes the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model
(NBTAM) as the source of traffic forecast data. The information represents a 2010 time frame,
but with the assumption that both the City of Irvine and the City of Newport Beach land uses are
built out by the year 2010.
The set of data presented here examines two questions relative to the deletion:
1. The impact of the SR-55/SR-73 connector.
2. The impact of University Drive Extension.
The first of these is directly related to the traffic volumes that will occur in the area
affected by the University Drive deletion. Traffic forecasts have therefore been produced for
conditions that portray the regional networN with and without this connector.
OK atal M01 t t :
Traffic forecast data for the four alternative network configurations are illustrated in
Figures 1 and 2. They show the ADT volumes for the analysis area network with and without
the University Drive extension, and with and without the SR-55/SR-73 connection. A comparison
of roadway link volumes with and without University Drive Extension (and with and without the
Rte 55 Freeway Connectors) is presented in Table 1).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
�l
I�
C
WITH UNIVERSITY DRIVE
1I� 1
.
i
I
I\ I \4 24
34 "—
I
1� z 20
a
z
10 a 13
I 15 26 -. N
( N V V
I
1� ( DEl MAR
WITHOUT UNIVERSITY DRIVE
Iz
II
ICA
36
I
I z .. 22
I N > V z
10 a 17
V N V
1 13 13
i DEL MAR
I I ffAUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES. INC.
1PONT 0
a
0
z
Z4
11 C
9
27- 42
22 �BRIST01
I`2A r �l
179 16132
47
AT It,
tio,
\\ .
Asa \ �
32
DUPONT
0
x
z
N
N
Z
J�
C 2�
v
c°
�p24
*f3RIST0"4
0
7O
a4-
Rd'
6
� `yy
3
CAUFpR/y�q
R)
016938
185
_
Figure 1
2010 ADT VOLUMES (000s) WITH AND
WITHOUT UNIVERSITY DRIVE
ERSITY
Iz I
ro
1 N 27 $ 151
I � ��
11 > 17
I `° to
I 24 3 /
I DEL MAR
WITHOUT UNIVERSITY DRIVE
a/,
(6%
CA u v
•/� I 44
38
3 33 RISTOL� `s� .y� 5 CA 32
52 � —...— ti UFORNrq
O
I y 30 151 14044
r
9 > 20
w
19 21 tea,
DEL MAR N 24 As
Figure 2 '
,NAufTIN-ROUST ASSOCIATES, INC. 2010 ADT VOLUMES (0005 )
WITHOUT SR-55/SR-73 CONNECTION
I
I
11
I
1
I
Table r
COMPARISON OF ADT
nth and Without University Dove
and Rte 5S Fwy Connectors)
STREET
LOCATION
W/ RTE 55 CONNECTOR
W/ UNTV W/O UNIV.
W/O RTE 55 CONNECTOR
W/ UNIV. W/O UNN.
SR-73
@ SR-5S
204
210
168
168
SR-73
@ Birch
179
185
151
151
SR-73
W/O Jamboree
161
169
138
140
Bristol
@ SR-55
34
36
45
52
Bristol WB
@ Campus
24
26
27
32
Bristol EB
@ Campustwac"
20
22
27
30
TOTAL.
@ Campus/Irvine
44
48
54
62
Bristol WB
@ Birch
22.
29
27
33
Bristol EB
@ Bitch
24
30
30
38
TOTAL
@ Birch
46
59
57
71
Bristol WB
W/Jambotee
27
33
29
38
Briston EB
W/Jamboree
32
38
35
44
TOTAL
W/Jamboree
59
71
64
82
Irvine
S/O Bristol
32
41
43
46
Irvine
N/O Del Mar
27
37
39
51
Birch
S/O Bristol
11
18
15
30
Santa Ana
S/O Bristol
15
17
18
22
Newport Blvd.
S/O Bristol
41
42
45
50
Me 55 Freeway
S/O Bristol
113
115
89
90
Coast Hay.
W/O Bayside
80
78
91
87
University
27
0
31
0
The corresponding peak hour ICUs are listed in Table 2. The format used here is the same
as in the Newport Beach traffic analysis, whereby intersections are grouped to give system
performance measures in the form of group average ICUs. The critical intersection group as far
as University Drive is concerned is Bristol couplet, and particularly the intersections with Campus.
The conclusions from this analysis are that the primary impacts of deleting the University
Drive extension occur on Bristol Street and the magnitude of the impacts depends on whether or
not the SR-55/SR-73 connection is in place. For example, without that connection, traffic traveling
around the north part of Upper Newport Bay must use Irvine Boulevard or Birch. This results in
high ICUs at the intersections between these two arterials and Bristol Street.
Table 3 presents the results of the ICU analysis with and without both the University Drive -
Extension and Rte 55 Connectors, with and without the proposed project mitigation.
Table 2
ICU SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3
ALTERNATIVE 4
INTERSECTION
AM
PM
AN
PM
AN
PM
AN
PM
GROUP A (AIRPORT AREA)
9. MacArthur & Campus
.60
1.32**
.60
1.24**
.62
1.34**
.69
1.30**
10. MacArthur & Birch
.74
.71
.66
.74
.70
.74
.72
.73
11. Von Karmen & Campus'
.86
.91* •
.93
.88*
.83
.95**
.81
.91*
12. MacArthur & Von Kerman
.71
.85*
.66
.86*
.69
.87*
.73
.99*
13. Jamboree & Campus
1.01*
1.21"
1.02*
1.21**
1.09*
1.21**
1.03*
1.19**
I4. Jamboree & Birch
.75
.75
73
.76
.74
.77*
77
.77
29. MacArthur & Jamboree
1.13*
1.12"
1.21"*
1.05**
1.16**
1.22**
1.21**
1.13**
AVERAGE ICU
.83
.96**
.83
.96**
.93
1.01"
.85
.99"
GROUP 8 (BRISTOL COUPLET)
15.
Campus & Bristol N
.88
1.19**
.90
1.10*
1.02
1.97**
.88
1.56**
16.
Birch & Bristol N
.89
.99*
.82
.91
.75
1.11**
.81
1.30**
17.
Campus & Bristol S
.87
.79
.87
.69
.93
.80*
1.01
.85*
IS.
Birch & Bristol S
.74
.85
.72
.84
.85
.98**
.75
.78
30.
Jamboree & Bristol M
.50
.78
.51
.65
.52
.86*
50
.64
31.
Bayview & Bristol S
65
.73
.49
.67
.69
.80*
.54
.62
32.
Jamboree & Bristol S
.77
.90
.74
.92
.76
.97**
.79
.86*
AVERAGE ICU
.76
.89
.72
.83
.79
1.07**
.75
.94*
GROUP C (NORTH JAM80REE/IACARTINA)
33. Jamboree & Bayview
.62
.66
.59
.86
.70
.79
.53
.84
34. Jamboree & University
.76
.80
.91
.79
.85
.84
.89
.82
35. Jamboree & Bison
.71
.85
.71
.86
.74
.90
.72
.88
37. MacArthur & Bison
.77
.86
.76
.86
.76
.89
.19
.BB
38. Jamboree & Ford
.91
.87
.89
.86
.95
.91
.93
.88
39. MacArthur & Ford
.92
.90
.91
.90
.97
.94*
.95
.92
AVERAGE ICU
.78
.82
.80
.86
.83
.88
.80
.37
GROUP 6 (IRVINE AVENUE)
19. Irvine & Mesa
.97
.86
.76
.56
1.36**
.94
1.15*
.90
20. Irvine & University
1.08
.76
1.29
1.54
1.38**
1.00
1.54**
1.88**
21. Irvine & Santiago/22nd
.52
.48
.52
.48
.53
.48
.56
.51
22. Irvine & Highland/20th
.42
.47
.42
.47
.41
.47
.44
.49
23. Irvine & Dover/19th
.57
.63
.55
.83
.61
.66
.59
.66
24. Irvine & Westctiff/17th
.42
.61
.43
.60
.50
.70
.48
.70
25. Dover & Wastctiff
.39
.40
.35
.39
.43
.46
.38
.43
26. Dover & lath
.46
.45
.43
.42
.59
.52
.52
.47
AVERAGE ICU
.60
.56
.59
.64
.72
.65
.n
.75
* Potential deficiency
** Significant deficiency
Alt. 1 With oowixtion/Wtthout University Drive
Alt. 2 With connection/With University Drive
Alt. 3 Without cowwction/Without University Drive
Alt. 4 Without connection/With University Drive
AIRPORT AREA
MacArthur & Campus
MacArthur & Birch
Von Kaman & Campus
MacArthur & Von Karman
Jamboree & Campus
Jamboree & Birch
MacArthur & Jamboree
AVERAGE ICU
13RISTOL COUPLET
Campus & Bristol N.
Birch & Bristol N.
Campus & Bristol S.
Birch & Bristol S.
Jamboree & Bristol N.
Bayview & Bristol S.
Jamboree & Bristol S.
AVERAGE ICU
IRVINE AVENUE
Table 3
ICU SUMMARY - SR-55/SR-73 CONNECTION DELETED
._.._..___..-._._-With
SR-55/SR-73 Connection-----
-- ----- ---
-SR-55/SR-73 Deleted
--
W/O University
W/O University
W/ University
W/O University
W/ Bristol Mit.
W/ University
W/O University
W/ Bristol + Ex. Mit.•
AM
PM
AM PM
AM PM
AM
PM
AM PM
AM PM
.60
1.24
.60 132
.60 135
.69
1.30
.62 134
.62 1.34
.66
.74
.74 .71
.74 .73
.72
.73
.70 .74
.70 .74
.93
.88
28 .91
.88 .91
.81
91
A3 .95
.83 .95
.66
.86
.71 .85
.71 .84
.73
.89
.69 .87
.69 .86
1.02
1.21
L01 1.21
1.01 1.21
1.03
1.19
1.09 1.21
1.09 1.21
.73
.76
.75 .75
.75 .74
.77
.77
.74 .77
.74 .77
1.21
1.05
1.13 1.12
1.13 1.17
1.21
1.13
1.16 1.22
1.16 1.22
.83
.96
.83 .98
.83 .99
.85
.99
.83 1.01
.83 1.01
SD
1.10
.88
1.15
.BS
.87
RB
1.26
1.02
1.44
1.02
1.09
.79
1.05
.84
1.13
.89
.95
.79
1.07
.77
1.22
A7
.95
.99
.78
1.02
.88
.87
.78
.86
.83
1.02
.95
.87
.88
133
1.24
139
1.25
.74
.86
1.20
1.16
1.45
135
1.02
.97
.51
.65
SO
.78
SO
.77
SO
.64
.52
.86
.52
.86
A9
.67
.65
.73
.65
.73
.54
.62
.69
.80
.69
.80
.74
.92
.77
.90
.77
.93
.79
.86
.78
97
.79
.97
.82
.92
S6
.97
.76
.84
.79
.92
.89
1.08
.77
.93
Irvine & Mesa .76 .58 .97 .86
Irvine & University 1.29 1-54 1.08 .76
• Summary of Extra Miligetion Required W/O Sr-55/SR-73-Connectors
Campus & Bristol N. - add 3rd SR, add 6th WB lane
Birch & Bristol N. - add WL & stripe 4 WT
Campus & Bristol S. - restripe 4 ET & 1 ER
Birch & Bristol S. - no additional mitigation beyond project mitigation
Irvine & Mesa - widen for 2 EL & 1 ETR & add NB Free Rt lane
Irvine & University - add 3rd NT & stripe 2 EL
.97 .76
1.08 • .74
1.15 .90
1.54 1.88
1.36 .94 .91
1.36 1.00 1.05
.96
.98
Table 4 indicates the effects on ICUs at the critical over -capacity intersections of the
proposed project mitigation With and without University Drive extension and the SR-55 Freeway
connector. Table 5 illustrates the impact of the failure to construct the SR-55/SR-73 connectors
on daily traffic volumes in the study area.
Table 4
EFFECT ON ICUs OF UNIVERSITY DRM DELETION
ON OVER -CAPACITY INTERSECTIONS
W/ UNIVERSITY
W/0 UNIVERSITY
W/O UNIVERSITY
W/ BRISTOL MIT.
INTER"eMON
W/ CONNECTOR
Wt CONNECTOR
W/O CONNECTOR
W/0 CONNECTOR
L Inteneetion ICUs Ea Deeded by UnWWWtY Dr. Dwatioo
1.
MaWthuNGmpua 1.24
132
134
138
2.
MuArthur/390laxee (PM) 1.05
1.12
1.22
135
3.
Campur/BrWol N. 1.10
1.15
1.44
1.18
4.
BlrebMr4tol N. 1.05
1.13
I=
1.05
S.
Campua/Brbtol S. 99
1.02
1,02
.87
6.
BhabMrbtol S. 133
139
SAS
.81
IL Intersection Impmved by UnPmWly Dr. Deletion
1. MacArthttdlamboree (AM) 1.21 1.13 1.16 1.16
2. ItWne/Ualvetaily/Del Mat 1.29 1.09 136 136
Table 5
COMPARATIVE CHANGE IN DAILY TRAFFIC
WITHOUT EITHER RTE $S CONNECTORS OR UNIVERSITY OR EXTENSION
UJ
SR-73 Freeway
42,000
SR•5$ Freeway
-25,000
Bristol
+14,000
Newport Blvd
+81000
Santa Ana
+5.000
Irvine
+51000
Bitch
+12,000
Del Mu
+3.000
Coat Hwy.
+91000
Subtotal — Increred ADT on dry streets
+39,000
1
Examination of Table 5 reveals failure to construct the Route 75155 Connectors diverts
42,000 trips from the freeways to surrounding arterial streets. Table 5 also indicates the distribution
of these diverted trips. The local arterial impacts vary from as little as 5,000 ADT increases on
Irvine Boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue up to 12,000 ADT on Birch, and 14,000 ADT on Bristol
Street
The additional roadway capacity need to mitigate this shift of 42,000 ADT to local arterials
from the freeways is indicated in Table 6. It should be noted that the estimates of increased
capacity needs presented in this table are based on Orange County arterial roadway capacities at
level of service "D".
Table 6
"EXTRA" MITIGATION REQUIRED WITHOUT RTE 73 CONNECTORS
BUDGETARY
LOCATION DESCRB'TtON COST ESTIMATE
Bristol St. Widen one additional lane in each direction between Ric 55
and Jamboree Rd. to provide capacity for 82,000 ADT $5;500,0DD
Irvine Ave. widen to six lanes between Del Mar and 22nd St. to provide
46,000 ADT capacity. $2,500+000
Santa Ana Ave. widen to four lanes between Bristol and 22nd St. $3,500,000
Birch St. Convert four -lane undivided ctoas-section to four -lane '
divided creas-uction. $500,000
Newport Blvd. No additional widenings, required, but 8,000 ADT of existing
capacity would be used and not available to serve other demands. -0.
IrvineBirch. widen intersection approaches to provide four -lane divided
Mesa Intersect. section on Birch -Mesa 52 ODODD
i Coast Hwy Increase in traffic (+9,000 ADT) justifies widening by one
and a half lanes. However, with forecasted volume up to 97,000
ADT, it must be recognized that there is no practical way to
- provide such capacity within the segment of Coast Hwy between
Bayside Drive and Rte 55. 7
Subtotal (exclusive of Coast Hwy) $14,500,000
Examination of the anticipated costs to provide alternative arterial capacity to service the
42,000 ADT diverted from the freeways indicates that approximately $14.5 million would be
required and is forecast to be diverted to Coast Highway and the cost of mitigation for this
additional capacity for an estimated one to one and a half additional lanes (each additional lane
J
of a 6+ lane divided arterial is equivalent to 8,250 ADT in capadity at level of service "D") would
be beyond any practical means to consider. Therefore, it is concluded that failure to construct the
Rte 73 Connectors would cost a minimum of $14.5 million in additional roadway improvements
along with a determination that a significant negative impact on Coast Highway could not be
mitigated, but the project justified a finding of "overriding consideration".
In summary, it is concluded that from a practical viewpoint, the full impact of failure to
complete the Rte 73 Freeway Connectors cannot be mitigated. Deletion of these connectors will
divert 42,000 would be freeway trips to the, local arterial network requiring improvements costing
in excess of $14.5 million along with an unknown cost to widen Coast Highway another lane and
a half (how do you widen half a lane?), to increase it's capacity to 87,000 ADT. Such a capacity
is well beyond any practical widening project. Therefore, the 91000 ADT diverted to Coast Highway
would simply make much worse an otherwise overcapacity condition.
I
I
I
11
I
11
F
11
11
II
II
I
L�
I
I
I
h
I
I
I
I
I
it
Lq
I
II
III
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION STUDY
Supplemental Analysis of Additional Intersections
With and Without University Drive Extension
11/13/89
The Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine have requested analysis of the impact of deletion
of University Drive extension on additional intersections. The City of Newport Beach is concerned
with Coast Highway in the vicinity of the Bay crossing, and the City of Irvine is concerned with the
intersection of Jamboree Bayview as well as MacArthur at University Drive North and South.
Table 1 presents the results of the ICU analysis with and without the SR-55/SR-73 freeway
connectors for Coast Highway Intersections and Jamboree at Bayside. Examination of Table 1
indicates that diversion of trips to Coast Highway caused by delay in implementation of the SR-
55/SR-73 connectors has a significant impact of the resulting ICUs on Coast Highway. These ICUs
increase by as little as 4 percent at Jamboree up to it percent at DoverBayshore. On the other
hand, deletion of the University Drive Extension does not'have the dramatic impact on ICUs as
failure to implement the freeway connectors. Deletion of University Drive Extension causes the
Coast ICUs to increase from about two to six percent. Since the assumed improvement of Coast
Highway includes eight (8) ,travel lanes, no additional improvements appears practical and feasible
to mitigate the impact of increasing traffic from either or both deletion of University Drive
Extension and/or delay in construction of SR-55/SR-73 connectors.
Investigation of Table 1 also indicates the impact on the intersection of Jamboree and
Bayside. As expected, deletion of University Drive Extension creates a substantial reduction in the
ICU at Jamboree and Bayside. Failure to construct the SR-55/SR-73 connectors largely negates
this impact, but the 'worst case" ICUs remain 0.86 or better. Mitigation of these impacts would
seem, theoretically possible, but probably not required.
The impact on the intersections of MacArthur Boulevard at University Drive North and
South of deletion of the University Drive Extension was examined using ADT forecasts. As
indicated in Table 1, the change in daily travel on the four approaches to MacArthur and University
Drive -South in only 2,000 ADT out of total approach volumes of 144,000 ADT, or.about one
percent. Consequently, it is concluded that the impact of University Drive Extension deletion on
this intersection is minimal.
'I
The impact on the daily approach volumes at the intersection of MacArthur and University
Drive -North at the deletion of University Drive Extension is also indicated in Table 1. Review of
these volumes reveal deletion of University Drive reduces the volume on University Drive -South
by 7,000 ADT on the West approach, but increases the volume on the north approach by 4,000
ADT, and producing an overall net reduction in the intersection of 30000 ADT. Therefore, it is
concluded that the impact of deletion of the University Drive Extension is a positive impact on
University Drive -South at MacArthur and does not require mitigation.
Table 1
SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL PmRSEC170N ICt1 ANALYSIS
W/ SR-SS/SR-73 CONNECTORS
W/O SR-SSISR-73 CONNECTORS
Al
W/ UNMMIIE
W/O UNIVERSrrY
W/ UNIVERSITY W/O UNIVERSITY
INTERSECTION
AM PM
AM PM
AM PM AM PM
HIGHWAY
COAST
Coast Hwy at Jamboree
0.73 0.65
0.74 0.66
0.15 0.66 0.78 0.67
Cast Hwy at DoverA3gshtm
0.72 0.67
0,7S 0.69
020 0.70 0.86 0.12
,
Cast Hwy at Bayside
0.79 0.81
0.80 0.82
0.84 0.85 0.89 0.88
CITY OF IRVINE
L Jamboree at Bayview
0.59 0.86
0.62 0.66
0.53 0.84 0.10 0.79
!I. Impact on MacArthur Q University
INTER5ECTION APPROACH VOLUMES (ADT)
_ Cohdition
North
South
Fast West
MacArihur/Univ-North
,
(w/ Univ. Dr.)
44,000
47,n00
27,000 24,000
MacArthur/UnW-No
(w/o Univ. Dr.)
48,000
47,000
26,000 17,000
(9,000 west or SR-73)
MafAtthur/Univ-South
(w/ Univ. Dr.) 47,000 50,000 25,000 27,000
MacArthurftly-South
(w/o Univ. Dr.) 47,000 50,000 27,000 2ZW0
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I: "Wili i
1
33. Jamboree & Bayview
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 (W/O SR-55/SR-73 & W/O UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
130
0.08
41
0.05
NBT
4
6400
2149
0.34*
2134
0.31-:1
NBR
1
1600
398
0.25
26
0.05
SBL.
2
3200
600
0.19*
756
0.24*
SBT
4
6400
113+1
0.18
2161
0.34
SBR
1
1600
131
0.08
116
0.07
EBL
2
3200
41
0.05*
228
0.07
EBT
1
1600
115
0.10
159
0.17*:
EBR
0
0
45
0.00
107
0.00
WBL
2
3200
55
0.05
147
0.05*:
WBT
2
3200
242
0.13*
105
0.113
WBR
0
0
178
0.00
3+21
0.00
-------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
--------------------------------------
UTILIZATION
0.70
0.79
2010 (W/O SR-55/SR-73 & W/UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
154
0.1.0
224
0.14*
NBT
4
6400
1918
0.30*
1975,
0.3.1
NBR
1
•1600
-75
0.23
25
0.05
SBL
2
3200
125
0.05*
301
0.09
SBT
4
6400
1025
0.16
2234
0.35*
Sr?R
1
16C)0
123.
0. 08
328
0.20
EBL
2
3200.
43
0.05*.
201
0.06
EBT
1
1600
98
0.10
130
0.19*'
ERR
0
C)
61
0.00
175
().0C)
WBL
i
3200
144
0.05
511
0.16*
WBT
2
3200
317
0.13*
563
0.20
WBR
C)
t)
112
0. 00
91
0. � 0
-------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.53
0.84
i
33. Jamboree & Sayview
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 (W/SR-55/SR-73 & W/O UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
129
0.08
43
0.05
NBT
4
6400
1993
0.31*
2190
0.34*
NBR
1
1600
380
0.24
24
0.05
SBL
2
3200
357
0.ii*
430
0.13*
SBT
4
6400
1023
0.16
2099
0.33
SBR
1
1600
117
0.07
I =
0.07
EBL
2
3200
47
0.05*
253
0.08
EBT
1
1600
111
0.09
119
0.13*
EBK
U
0
34
0.00
92
0.00
WBL
2
3200
71
0.05
153
0.05&'
WBT
2
320(.)
242
0.15*
104
0.10
WBR
0
0
225
0.00
207
0.00
TOTAL
-CAPACITY
^UTILIZATION _-^0.62
0.66
0
2010 (W/SR-55/SR-73 k W/UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
143
0.09
315
0.20*
NBT
4
6400•
2093
0.33*
1969
0.31
NPR
1
1600
7,5,9
0.22
25
0. (_)5
SBL
2
3200
129
0.05*
329
0.10
SBT
4
6400
B89
0.14
2224
0.35*
SBR
1
1600
115
0.07
J96
0.12
EBL
2
114
53,
0.05*
209
0.67*,
EBT
1
1600
88
0.09
123
0.17
EBR
0
0
57
0.00
149
0.0c)
WBL
2
3200
111
0.05
301
0.09
WBT
2
320o
270
0.16*
643
0,25*
WBR
0
0
2357'
0.00
155
0.00
TOTAL-
CAPACITYUTILIZATION0.59
^-r-`yN
_
0.86
i
42. Jamboree & PCH
TURN MOVEMENT AN➢ INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010 (W/SR-55/SR-73 & W/O UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NDL
c�
0 •
492
().0c)
471
0.00
NDT
3
4800
740
0.31*:
1383
0.218:
NDR
0
0
244
0.00
162
0.00
SDL
1
1600
88
0.06*.
90
0.068
S8T
2
3200
156
0.05
802
0.25
SDR
1
1600
587
0.37f
1713
1.07f
EDL
3
4900
0
0.00
0
0.00
EDT
4
6400
2071
0.32*
1812
0.28
ERR
1
1600
303
0.19
509
0.32*
WDL
2
3200
59
0.05W
228
0.07*
WRT
4
6400
1221
0.19
2041
0.32
WDR
1
1600
174
0.11f
252
0.16f
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.74
0.66
2010 (W/SR-55/SR-73 & W/UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
N13t_
0
0
485
0.00
471
0.00
NDT
3
4800
751
0.31*
385
0.21*
NDR
0
0
244
0.00
165
0.00
SDL
1.
1600
Be
0.068'
92
0.06*
SDT'
2
3200
157
0.05
817
0.26
SEIR
1
1600
571
0.36f
1614
1.01f
EDL '
4800
0
0.00
0
0.00
EDT
4
6400
2024
0.32*
1798
0.28
EhR
1
1600
303
0.19
504
0.32*
WELL
2
3200
59
0.058
218
0.07&
WDT
4
6400
1213
0.19
1933
0.30
WDR
1
1600
175
0.1if
253
0.1.6f
--------------•----•----------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.73
.
0.65
42. Jamboree & PCH
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
9
2010 (W/O SR-55/SR-73 & W/0 UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
0
493,
0.00
466
0,00
NBT
3
4800
705
0.30*
385
0.214:
NER
0
0
262
0.00
158
0.00
SBL.
1
1600
86
0.05*
88
0.06*
SBT
2
3200
150
0.05
751
0.23
SHR
1
1600
671
0.42f
1929
1.2if
EBL
3
4800
0
0.00
0
0.00
EBT
4
6400
2367
0.37*
1975
0.31
ERR
1
1600
302
0.19
512
0.32*
WELL
2
3200
61
0.05*
261
0.08*
WBT
4
6400
1317
0.21
2351
0,3.7
WBR
1
1600
141
0.09f
244
0.15f
-----------------------'-----------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.78
0.67
2010 (W/O SR-55/91R-73 is W/UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
0
0
475
0.00
467
0.00
tJE+7
I4800
735
0.30A
389
0, 21 *
NPR
0
0
248
0.00
i60
0.00
SEAL
1
1600
87
0.05*
90
0.06*
SPT
2
3200
156
0.05
774
0.24
SRR
1
1600
624
0.39f
1781
1.iif
ERL
3
4800
0
Cr.00
0
0.00
EST
4
6400
2170
0.3,4%
1908
0.10
EBR
1
1600
2y9
0.19
500
0.31c
WRL
2
3200
59
0.058
253
0.0881
W81,
4
6400
1284
0.20
2230
0.35
WLiR
1
1600
147
0.09f
244
0,15f
-------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.75
0.66
27. Dover/Bayshore & PCH
TURN MOVEMENT AND,INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
----------------------------------------
i
i 2010
(W/SR-55/SR-73
&
W/O UNIV
DR)
AM PK
HOUR
I
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
I NHL
1
1600'
O
0.00
I NHT
2
3200
32
0.05*
I NHR
0
0
86
0.00
SHL
71
4800
1068
I SHT
1
1600
138
0.09
SHR
1
1600
13
0.05
EE(L
2
3,200
1
0.05
EHT
4
6400
2753
0.43*
EHR
0
0
0
0.00
WHL
1
1600
;+B
0.05*
WHT
4
6400
1637
0.26
WHR
1
1600
419
0.26f
----------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.75
2010 (W/SR-55/SR-73 & W/UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
NHL
1
1600
0
0.00
NHT
2
3200
_2
0.05*
N1HR
0
0
86
0.00
SHL
3
4800
967
0.20*
SHT
1
1600
135
0.08
SHR
1
1600
13
0.05
EHL
2
3-200
1
0.05
EHT
4
640o
2700
0.42*
EHR
0
0
0
0.00
WHL
1
1600
:9
0.05*
WHl'
4
6400
1625
0.25
WBR
1
1600 •
40J.
0.25f
--------------------
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 0.72
PM PK
HOUR
VOL
V/C
0
0.00
158
0.08*
85
0.00
653
0.14*:
138
0.09
2
0.US
11
0.05*
2427
0.38
0
0.00
104
0.06
2729
0.43*
896
O.56f
0.69
0
PM 'PK HOUR
VOL V/C
0 0.00
152 0.07*
85 0.00
635 0.I
136 0.09
2 0.05
11 0.05*
2392 0.37
0 0.00
104 0.06
2646 0.41*
766 0.48f
---------------
0.67
27. Dover/DayShore & PCH
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
i
2010 (W/b SR-55/SR-73 & W/O UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1600
0
0.00
0
0.00
NBT
2
3200
32
0.05*
165
0.08*
NBR
0
0
87
0.00
84
0.00
SBL
3
4800
1487
0.31*
750
0.16*
SST
1'
1600
157
0.10
141
0.09
SBR
1
1600
13
0.05
2
0.05
EBL
2
3200
1
0.05
7
0.05
EBT
4
6400
2907
0.45*
2681
0.42*
ERR
0
0
0
0.00
0
0.00
WBL
1.
1600
:,8
0.05*
110
0.07*
WBT
4
6400
1756
0.27
2682
0.42
WSR
1
1600
415
0.30f
1462
0.91f
----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.86
0.72
2010 (W/O SR-55/SR-73 & W/UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
1
1640
0
0.00
0
0.00
Nr(T
2
3200
37
0.05*
166
0.08*
NBR
0
0
83
0.00
84
0.00
SBL
3
4800
1.:'80
0.27*
662
0.14*
SBT
1
1600
151
0.09
139
0.09
SBR
1
1600
13
0.05
2
0.05
EBL
2
3200
1.
0.05
7
0-05*_
EBT
4
6400
2774
0.43*
2597
0.41
EBR
t;t
0
0
0.00
0
0,00
WBL
1
1600
.8
0.05*
ill
0.07
41BT
4
6400
1718
0.27
2739
0.43*
WBR
1
1600
421
0.26f
1138
0.71f
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.80
0.70
28. Bayside & PCH
TURN MOVEMENT AND -INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
2010
(W/SR-55/SR-73
&
W/O UNIV
DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
1
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
l
NBL.
4800•
89
0.05
166
0.05n
;
NBT
1
1600
2
0.05*
5
0.05*
I
NPR
1
1.600
230
0. 14
311
0.19
I
SBL
1
1600
96
0.06*
165
0.108•
''
SBT
1
1600
2
0.05
6
0.05
I
SBR
0
0
24
0.00
51
0.00
1
EBL
1
1600
36
0.05
45
0.05
;
EBT
4
6400
.3731
0.58*
2981
0.47W
ERR
J.
1600
138
0.09
139
0.09
WELL
J.
1600
173
0.11*
323
0.20*
i
WBT
4
6400
1981
0.33
3512
0.58
;
WBR
C)
0
117
0.00
177
0.00
I
I
------------------------------------------------------•
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.80
0.82
2010 (W/SR-55/SR-73 & W/UNIV DR)
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES
CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
NBL
:1
4800
90
0.05
1.67
0.05
NBT
1
1600
2
0.05*
5
0.051
NBR
]
1600
2ato
0.14
3.10
0.19
SBL
i
J 600
95
0. 061
9.64
0. ] 0*
SBT
1
1600
2
0.05
6
0.05
SBR
0
0
25
0.00
52
0.00
EBL.
1
1600
38
0.05
47
0.05
EBT
4
6400
3577
0.56*
2931
0.46*:
EBR
1
1600
i38
0.09
140
0.09
WBL
1
1600
173'
o.11*
325
0.208.
WBT
4
6400
1950
0.32
3299
0.54
WBR
0
0
117
0.00
175
0.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.78
0.81
28. Bayside & PCH
TURN MOVEMENT AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
1
2010
(W/O SR-56/SR-73 &
W/O UNIV DR)
I
=
AM PK
HOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
I NBL
4800
89
0.05
176
0.05
1 NBT
1
1600
2
0.05*
5
0.05*
1 NBR
1
1600
224
0.14
7,07
0.19
I SBL
1
1600
98
0.06*
161
0.10*
I SBT
1
1600
2
0.06
7
0.05
1 SBR
0
0
22
0.00
54
0.00
I EBL
1
1600
38
0.05
41
0.05
I EDT
4
6400
4305
0.67*
3341
0.52*
; EBR
1
1600
138
0.09
133
0.08
I
I WBL
1
1600
173
0.11*
330
0.21*
I WBT
4
6400
2158
0.36
4024
0.66
1 WBR
0
0
117
0.00
181
0.00
I
-----------------------------------------^--------------
TOTAL CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.89
0.88
0
G
2010
(W/O SR-55/SR-73 rk
W/UNIV
DR)
AM PKHOUR
PM PK
HOUR
LANES CAPACITY
VOL
V/C
VOL
V/C
I NBL
3
4800
9�,
0.05
171
0.05
' NBT
1
1600
2
0,05*
5
0.05*
' NBR
1
1600
222
0.14
.3+05
0.19
1 SBL
1
1600
97
0.06*
157
0.10*
I SBT
1
1600
2
0.05
7
0.05
1 SBR
0
0
23%
0.00
58
0.00
I EBL
1
1600
38
0.05
43
0.05
I EDT
4
641,K0
3961
0.62W
3179
0.503
' EBR
1
1600
138
0.09
141
0.09
41BL
1
160017,5
0.11W
3=�
0.20W25
1
I WBI,
4
6400
2061
0.34
3759
0.62
i WBR
0
0
117
0.00
179
0.00
------------------------------------------------------•--
TOTAL
CAPACITY
UTILIZATION
0.84
0.85
I
I
Appendix C
ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS
1
1
LJ
Noise Assessment for the
University Drive Deletion
County of Orange
Prepared for
PBR
18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine, CA 92714
Fred Greve,P.E.
Mestre Greve Associates
280 Newport Center Drive
Suite 230
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 760.0891
January 27,1989
Noise Assessment for the University Drive Deletion,
County of Orange
1.0 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The noise environment in the vicinity of the University Drive Project Site is determined by traffic
on adjacent roadways and aircraft overflights. The project is subject to overflights of aircraft from
Orange County s John Wayne Airport.
1.1 Community Noise Scales
Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A -weighted decibel," abbreviated dBA.
A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the
frequency response of the human ear. Exhibit 1 provides examples of various tioises and their
typical A -weighted noise level.
The "equivalent noise level," or Leq is the average noise level on an energybasis for any
specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise leveluring the hour,
specifically, 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 fluctuating
noise level. The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA, therefore, a sound measured for one
hour may be expressed as a one hour Leq of 57 dBA.
Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account
for: (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man,
(2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a
person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. The
predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the
Communit, Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 hour
average noise level based on the A -weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that
occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalised for occurring at these times. The evening
time period (7 p in. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by S dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
noises arepenalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's
increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods, The day -night or Ldn scale is similar to the
CNEL scale except that evening norsesare not penalized ACNEL noise level may be repotted as a
"CNEL of 60 dBA, 60 dBA CNEl,"or simply 60 CNEL. Typical noise levels in terms of the
CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented in Exhibit 2.
MGA X
i
I
I
�J
LJ
SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNESS OFIIlUnWIVENOISES IN/NDOORAND OUIDOOR ENVIRONMENTS
ra_C—U W.I�Ar dCe.1dLMM@k)
OVER•ALLLEVEL
LOUDNPSS
M(A)
SCAMPS pr�
contra
aoA>EORnvDtslRx
., �,rr
Ar�M� 2
MOltrylr AkaaRTakaORWM AlMbrar
OgYpaTomb(121)
1200(A)327imruLad
130
UNCOMFORTABLY
AvmAlraaRCrdwO SOR(130)
120
LOUD
71ubo-Fw Akwfk OTAIMofPwc
BismUalMuHu(110)
1I0dD(A)1dMoruLwd
0200R (90)
Rsmk•N•Rotl3ud001d14)
110
IrflYow * 10MM UM
Boeing 707. DW l6010A
tWdl(A)1TYasmuLwd
100
BdMLrdial(106)
VERY
BN h2AHdkoprl100A(100)
PorrrMwr(96)
LOW
BoeingA
NwrpprPtar(97)
90®(A)dTiarrLad
90
Bd=LAu N6010 71
Motarryda l2S A (9D)
CarWrhl20FL09)
FadDhdr(11)
Fro* Ak A%MF1Ywr/1000A01n
UWARMar1110006)
10d8(A)2TrrarLad
$0
DlsmdTnwk 40)OHOSOP(14)
Oathp>arPrd(wJ
Dismal7kde.45MPHl100R (93)
MODERATELY
i0litUrbu AmbismtSouad(10)
hwahUC,1z6S MPH 023 A(77)
UvloaRoraMria(76)
700(A)
90
yq)p
iMrylSOAPtao I's
TV.Adk.V& w CWr
Ed1o.10:00AM(76w 6)
Cash Ralirr OIOR 170)
Air Coadi6oaly Uaitl IOOR(60)
IYAWW ypaWeAffW h") l 10(6R(60
Dtk to it (!)
60d8(A)Vlrl.ad
60.
60)
CoavaaWoa(
SO
Q=
LMPT arfrarr*1oDR(30)
S0dXA)1Nu1AW
40
BklCatla(46)
40®(A) IA N LAW
Lary Lkdt Utbu Ambismt Swrd (40)
7URAMMLB
Fl77Dt85
o
=
cFHEARn4a
SOURCL Rgaodwd from Me1rBk C. Bmsmh ad R. Dw earoo,
wbtldra M ur aq otLsm Ayalr, t97o,ps
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit I
Examples of Typical Sound Levels
I
CNEL Outdoor Location
—90—
.—Apartment Next to Freeway
3/ 4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport
8 �--Downtown With Some Construction Activity
Urban High Density Apartment
—70—
�----Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue
Old Urban Residential Area
♦— Wooded Residential
0-- —Agricultural Crop Land
Rural Residential
4--Wilderness Ambient
Exhibit
I
F
I
L.J
L.'
I
MWRE GREVE ASMIATES � Typical Outdoor Noise Levels
I
1.2 Noise Standards
The California Department of Health has established guidelines for assessing the compatibility of
community noise environments and land uses. The guidelines rank noise and land use compatibility
1 in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly
unacceptable. Their guidelines are summarized in Exhibit 3.
In addition, the California Noise Insulation Standards require that new multi -family residential
construction should be noise insulated so that the interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL.
Orange County standards for both single and multi -family developments are 45 CNEL for interior
areas and 65 CNEL for private outdoor living areas (e.g., rear yards and patio areas). These
standards, 45 CNEL indoors and 65 CNEL outdoors, will be used to evaluate the potential noise
'
impact on surrounding residential uses. The surrounding communities, (i.e.; Irvine, Costa Mesa,
and Newport Beach) use the same noise standards for new residential developments.
1.3 Aircraft Noise Sources
The John Wayne Airport lies north of the project site. The existing noise contours for the airport
'
are reproduced in Exhibit 4. The aircraft noise levels along the University Drive connection range
from less than 60 CNEL at the east end to a high of about 67 CNEL nearly the westerly end.
'
Aircraft noise levels along Bristol Street are higher; ranging from 60 CNEL to almost 75 CNEL.
1.4 Existing Traffic Noise
An estimate of traffic noise levels in terms of CNEL was computed for the roadways in the
vicinity of the project. The Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway
'
Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108,
December, 1978) was utilized. The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed,
and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written
which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of
CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic
projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to
the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found.
Estimates of existing traffic volumes, estimated speeds, and truck volumes were used with the
FHWA Model to estimate existing noise levels in terms of CNEL. Traffic volumes were obtained
from the traffic study prepared Austin -Foust Associates (January 1989). The distances to the CNEL
contours for the roadways serving the project are given in Table 1. These represent the distance
from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 1 do
not take into account the effect of any noise barriers that may affect ambient noise levels.
L
I MGA 2
i
1.1
® NMMyAM"*
40""Lud Qn b *A00%
Dead Upor dw Awmgdw Met
AnyiwldbpIwd"dueel
Nonort cwv6w wA Glnmwdw
wrran Any SM"H O kulMior
BE CmAdonlyAewpaw
Haw Comm"Wa at Dnwopwnt
crowd ra Urdnnta OWY AMr r
DndWAwb*otiMNdn
ttWOONxwd6mmrr akad
NaeA AHolm INWIldwPaetwu
uwwded lr w Dwa anrlrtard
cmueadon,bewgcb.d
1 W9mmdPwarAtrlopSty
Sj*. wArCmWJdady,WW
N"Wy MAOIaa.
mmudytmwAFt k
New taereunotbr ar Dwwptran
Gard t7naany M DYsarged,
It Now CowwAdw acDw«epnwd
Den Tiosead,rDMrtlalAn b*N
tM Noln Raafwbr ROWMMau
More made red NnhdNwn
hodo mpanuarUorMadaw
DNIW
cwtyUnnapaae
Now Coomudbn or Dwdoprnt
Amid t7"e not M Uodada mL
Exhibit
MWREOREVEASSOCIATES� I California Land UselNoise G
re asto.. a • . n1�1..,�`nK •a • g
k.�: •,' ♦ .#�� ♦'`F�li•�"•.ia',}\?i \! ,` �fIll.1r I[Ilw� '.x:'r���y:!' , • t
r i [\,
'!. hrat i a�., \c\t�t"tQ7,i C �� !r aii, iJi'a
•. i S; i ,;r•a •�\f''il,� \\?nS`••~itra`\Mat • i •�.;t r�i �• i !:✓� �,� .• r t ,\k
//w' i•1' 11\ iif -%�• 46 ties:' y�vp
Jai c Alta�rw.,,. dI f It . r, lrT�. m1 •*•,
.�(•rwoy . .. + ' . r1f
'.<•\\'�!t�a 1 � : •d• a` ,'G •�' �� r t Q' w� \
It
ram: um.,:�{"
' .,q••' � �� � . ^ '. i•^'' � � i� , � ~M o •.. a �j � � \n • .
u 11Y
east
46
�. ;• t'•'�,�:Jj !!•�. it 1 } , ! � �''• •TI `•r ,� �� .`;<. n .
at
it
w • i• r ,y't'"• •rF �,1.i' " �"�' � \'� a 1 • r. � '! \ i • 6• , "t •. l t�� ,;1. ✓, ! .''' ., + I r
i '••.. ^ ::'lid,: . •wax rr \ i ' j �` . { • : a°" •� I �1M1jc' .. - i
, \, • �•r t a .. L-t Jr C: '-+x i a'a 1 i•.•4(. LL' �, }},, y� ' \�• � • is •( 'W � '.'�'•tj P . 'v,Y ^� ♦rAj �, ' •� Imo. ' �"+..
'tom; ill': a • • ,}ice":. .- .� , -• T- � Sf 1-•�: •• � •s� �'`j ly: \
F^%\'\. .a VS .. '�R ._ N f ` 11 i 7 ry/t .• w '�• (j P L.', ♦•`•` n
4 -- , ,� 111 ♦ I
A frr a �; ;•P' s .•.: •,.f -F'.' 41 " I 5t, �l '( r✓"�':,r�t1.'Y r
�•'t � '.:�,a tt• •• .. �+1.1'-/ ' t i • :"Z7 i:� ::i �.SG" •.Y ♦tt�' �aY'' , in' r I 1 ' •'" r .
tip
4'r'r �f Ate• :,I( j"}.'! p• � w •rt+1�•-'1� o• I ^`w N.�;"•4oi..l—
is
q 'C C• ,�Y - I lid w ♦r;:
i ter ? / �. kowl
n. A �' . ,�O !� t `.iN•• i • „jam ♦� % 71'r' •Q!'yh..� \'•.:.. 'Lwlx� •, • '�Ai ' 1 '
'•'•�'• '+ � :. L1 ;'�. ,law} ,�>5 /' � ,.._ +♦\. w •0.•,•
� is 'i + '. '•�,; �..I ��. ••`r•1t ,` •. N.�.(fy�l�3 •� ', •�ra� .,, ,. q t
a ~aa• a r• .a . •-.: f1:Y�l, f�iy �'1 •5 '� i. `-` N. ,�� b• ' �: :•{li•.'I. r� . .CulLn,
` '\•• •Ir
•-...:, ., �i' rY. a + •% Sri, a .•♦. A t.
all
16: . ,. '• t •Yi� Ll �w-•.�J'a ii.. �f .... L..�� ti i�Q,'\ ♦ ♦:`3' •.• 7 f`�,,' .%«
j �. tyi".>t'�j+�V'fl ''�♦ "�� �•�.`. i.•' is wl.lt'� ` tw n` 7� 1 I �?• i�(•!rttE
t•'I`,, �fJ •� (•. !. i •l MP••Y:y':'. ,.Iti.e f :�• • i�1'.'�.r. ,'1Wi�' ♦f i!ii�.` i ,
1 ; .. Mt) a .. y tau` t-+••;tIS`'r` 1.. ('a'=i+ l�• � ; � � ,�� • "' ...:�••a
•..i�t° t,�,,+•.y a\T . �, l: •.i , rn, lit.
+ � �.v ♦ 'i . t 1.i ^� .w< \{•_ . �r F
• ' S•l'•. /K •x� •' L� al �- +. 1 `' i.' 1:.' • P. I y /�'.. t �' �' r ', y,a .\ `O�
\. FI �i,`I S ;'i1"'•°�.'•9if/rN��/�N : • ' • K I� \i4. r . • � w .•' aK- �'
. ;x :'\\'ay1J� .1diw!1:-.. ^ta1'f •'/ -'+ . 1 ': �.%� •�\..�.�'.'. • .. ••.7)r `;�''.� '•/,.. •w,Yr'
GREVE ASSOCIATES
Exhibit 411
John Wayne Airport Noise Levels
I
1
TABLE 1
EXISTING TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Distance to CNEL Contour From
Centerline of Roadway fFeetl
Roadway
70 CNEL
65 CNEL
60 CNEL
State Route 73
SR 55 to Irvine
221
476
1025
Irvine to Jamboree
207
447
%3
State Route 55
,
SR-73 to Del, Mar
228
491
1057
Jamboree
California to MacArthur '
68
147
317
'
MacArthur to Bristol
72
155
333
Bristol to University
110
237
510
University to Easthluff
110
237
510
NNeewwport
,
to Santa Ana
15
32
68
Santa Ant to Irvine
15
32
68
Bristol Street
'
Newport to Santa Ana
62
133
288
Bristol Street Northbound
;Tanta Ana to Birch
66
143
308
Birch to Jamboree
41
88
190
'
Bristol Street Southbound
Santa Ana to Bitch
66
143
308
'II
Birch to Jamboree
63
137
294
MacArthur Boulevard
Jamboree to SR-73
57
122
264
SR-73 to University
133
287
617
University to Bonita Canyon
128
275
593
,
Irvine
Del Mar to Birch
Birch to Bristol
57
57
123
123
264
264
Birch
Santa Ana to Irvine
24
52
111
Irvine to Bristol
24
52
111
Bristol to MacArthur
38
82
176
MacArthur to Yon Karrnan
31
66
142
MGA 3
it
11
J
2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS
' Potential noise impacts may arise from construction activities and traffic impacts on surrounding
land uses. Each of these activities is addressed below.
2.1 Construction Activities
Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by
construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable
generators can reach high levels. Construction equipment noise comes under the control of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations). Presently, air compressors are the only equipment under strict regulation, and no new
regulations are currently under consideration.
' Noise levels for equipment which might be used for the excavation and construction of the
proposed project are presented in Exhibit 5. Note that the noise levels presented are for a distance of
50 feet. The noise levels in Exhibit 5 decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of the
distance. Therefore, at 100 feet the noise levels will be about 6 dBA less than reported in the
exhibit. Similarly, at 200 feet the noise levels would be 12 dBA less than indicated in the exhibit.
Intervening structures or topography will act as a noise barrier, and reduce noise levels further.
' Residential areas adjacent to roadway construction zones will be exposed to noise levels that may
cause the residents to be annoyed. If University Drive was constructed across the Back Bay the
homes adjacent to the alignment would be impacted. With the proposed deletion of the University
Drive roadway construction will occur along parts of Bristol Street. There are a few scattered
residences along Bristol Street South, south of Birch Street. These residents would be impacted by
construction noise. To mitigate the effects of construction noise, compliance with the Orange
County Noise Ordinance should occur. The ordinance will essentially limit construction operations
that occur near residential areas to weekday, daytime hours.
2.2 Traffic Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses
' The proposed deletion of University Drive will alter future traffic flow on roadways near the
site, and as a result may impact the residential areas along these streets. To assess the impact of the
' proposed project on land uses adjacent to roadways that will serve the area, the increases in
roadway noise along these streets were determined. These roadways were modeled for future traffic
conditions with and without University Drive. Two cases are presented. Case 1 is a comparison of
the future traffic volumes without University Drive and no mitigation with the future traffic volumes
with University Drive. Case 2 is similar to Case 1, except that the mitigations are in place for the
deletion of University Drive. A positive number indicates that an increase in noise will occur with
the deletion of University Drive. A negative number indicates that a decrease in noise will occur
with the deletion. All roadway links with noise level changes greater than 0.5 dBA are included in
the table below.
1 MGA
4
I
I
A -Weighted Sound Level (dUA) at 50 feet
60
70
s0
90
100
110
Compact (roller)
Front loader
Ilackhoes
Tractors
Scraper, graders
Paver
Trucks
Concrete mker
Concrete pumps
Cranes (movable)
Cranes (derrick)
PUMPS
Generators
Compressor
Pneumaticwrenches
Jackhammer and drills
Pik driver (peak levels)
Vibrators
Saws
...
■�
Swroe: "HwAbook of Noloo Cowol," by Cyril Harlot 1979.
MWRE GAVE ASSOCIATES
F
I
I
I
1
Exhibit S 11
Construction Equipment Noise
iI
II
II
I ,
I!
II
TABLE 2
INCREASE IN CNEL NOISE LEVELS WITH THE PROJECT (DBA)
Roadway
Increase in CNELNoise
Case 1
Level (d1_;1
Case 2
State Route 73
SR 55 to Irvine
0.1
0.1
Irvine to Jamboree
0.1
0.1
San Joaquin Hills T.C.
Jamboree to Bison
0.1
0.1
State Route 55
SR-73 to Del Mar
0.1
0.1
Jamboree
California to MacArthur
0.0
0.0
MacArthur to Bristol
0.4
0.4
Bristol to University
0.1
0.0
University to Eastbluff
-0.4
-0.3
Del Mar
Newport to Santa Ana
-0.6
-0.6
Santa Ana to Irvine
-3.0
-3.0
Bristol Street
rt to Santa Ana
0.2
0.2
Bristol Street Northbound
Santa Ana to Birch
0.3
0.3
Birch to Jamboree
0.9
0.9
Bristol Street Southbound
Santa Ana to Birch
0.4'
0.4
Birch to Jamboree
0.7
0.7
MacArthur Boulevard
Jamboree to University
0.4
0.4
University to Eastbiuff
0.0
0.0
Irvine
Del Mar to Birch
1.4
1.4
Birch to Bristol
1.1
1.1
Birch
Santa Ana to Irvine
1.2
0.9
Irvine to Bristol
2.1
2.1
Bristol to MacArthur
0.4
0.2
MacArthur to Von Karman
0.6
0.6
In community noise assessment changes in .noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often
identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernible to local
residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dBA residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a
MGA
5
I
alight change. Little scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as the
significance throahold. In laboratory testing situations humans are able to detect noise level
changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a community noise situation the noise
exposure is over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over yeah, rather than
the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes
in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than 1 dBA,
and 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people.
The most significant charge in noise levels will be along Del Mar Avenue between Santa
Ana and Irvine. Deletion of University Drive would result in 6 3 dBA decrease in noise levels
in comparison to noise levels that would occur if University Drive was connected. This area is
all residential with very few sound walls. Therefore, the maintenance of the lower noise levels
that will occur with the University Drive deletion should be viewed as a beneficial impact.
Two areas will experience increases
proposed project. Irvine Boulevard bets
increases in the 1 to 1.4 dBA range. Simi
will experience noise levels in the 1.2 to
although, much of the area is being redeve
are considered to be barely perceptible uni
noise in this area is already in the 61 to V
levels will probably not be discernible
Additionally, the homes in the Santa A
upgrades through the Change County Ain
required througgh this program will provic
meet the 45 CNEL indoor noise standard.
of noise levels in the 1 to 3 dBA range with the
peen Del Mar and Bristol will experience noise
irly, Birch Street from Santa Ana to Bristol Street
A dBA range. Residences do exist in these arm,
loped with commercial uses. These noise increases
or more ideal circumstances. However, the aircraft
CNBL range. Small changes in the roadway noise
due more dominant aircraft noise environment.
a Heights area will be provided with additional
raft Sound Proofing Program. The sound proofing
e ample mitigation for the homes in the
Other residential areas in the project vicinity will have noise increases that will definitely
not be discernible. These would include the residential areas along Bristol Street, and those
near the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55) near the San Diego Freeway (1.405) interchange. The
traffic noise increases will be less than 1 dBA in these areas, and will not be discernible to
residents.
2.3 TraMc Noise Levels
Traffic volumes reported in the traffic study were used with the FHWA Highway Triffic
Noise Model to project future noise levels with and without the project. The modeling results
are reported in Tables 3 and 4 in the form of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours.
Table 3 represents contour distances with the project, and Table 4 without the prc je t (with the
University Drive connection). These projections do not take into account any barriers or
topography that may reduce noise levels.
MCA 6
I
u
I
1
I
U
IF
t
I
TABLE 3
FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITH THE PROJECT
(No University Drive Connection)
Roadway
Distance to CNEL Contour From
Centerline of Roadwav (Feet)
70 CNEL 65 CNF.L 60 CNEL
State Route 73
SR 55 to Irvine
473
1019
2196
Irvine to Jamboree
435
937
2018
San Joaquin Hills T.C.
Jamboree to Bison
401
864
1862
State Route 55
SR-73 to Del Mar
281
605
1303
Jamboree
California to MacArthur
93
201
433
MacArthur to Bristol
102
221
476
Bristol to University
89
191
411
University to Eastbluff
101
218
469
Del Mar
Newport to Santa Ana
25
53
114
Santa Ana to Irvine
25
53
114
Bristol Street
Newport to Santa Ana
73
158
340
Bristol Street Northbound
Santa Ana to Birch
59
127
274
Birch to Jamboree
69
149
321
Bristol Street Southbound
Santa Ana to Birch
53
114
245
Birch to Jamboree
76
164
352
MacArthur Boulevard
Jamboree to University
105
227
489
University to Eastbluff
104
224
483
Irvine
Del Mar to Birch
61
132
285
Birch to Bristol
66
142
305
Birch '
Santa Ana to Irvine
37
79
170
Irvine to Bristol
38
82
176
Bristol to MacArthur
42
91
196
MacArthur to Von Kamm
34
73
156
' MGA
7
TABLE 4
FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS WITHOUT THE PROJECT
(With the University Drive Connection)
Distance to CNEL Contour From
Centerline Roadway
Roadway
of
(Peed
70 CNEL
65 CNEL
60 CNEL
State Route 73
SR 55 to Irvine
464
1000
2154
Irvine to Jamboree
425
916
1974
San Joaquin Hills T.C,
Jamboree to Bison
395
850
1832
State Route 55
SR-73 to Del Mar
277
598
1288-
Jamboree
California to MacArthur
93
201
433
MacArthur to Bristol
96
208
448
Bristol to Universittyy
87
188
404
University toEastbluff
107
230
496
University Drive
Irvine to Jamboree
60
130
281
Del Mar
Newport to Santa Ana
27
58
125
Santa Ana to Irvine
39
84
181
Bristol Street
Newport to Santa Ana
70
152
327
Bristol Street Northbound
Santa Ana to Birch
56
120
259
Birch to Jamboree
60
130
281
Bristol Street Southbound
Santa Ana to Birch
49
107
230
Birch to Jamboree
68
146
M4
MacArthur Boulevard
Jamboree to University
99
214
462
University to Eastbluff
104
224
483
Irvine
Del Mar to Birch
50
107
231
Birch to Bristol
56
120
259
Birch
Santa Ana to Irvine
31
66
142
Irvine to Bristol
27
59
127
Bristol to MacArthur
39
85
183
MacArthur to Von Kaman
31
66
142
MCA 8
I
u
1 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
' The following mitigation measures are proposed.
3.1 Construction Noise
Construction activities near residential areas should be limited per the Orange County Noise
Ordinance. This will essentially limit construction near residential areas to daytime hours (7 am. to
I
I
I
I
P
I I
1
1
1
1
1
II
Appendix
MGA 10
r M M M M r M M r M M W M M I _ M M M M
Uni Ex.
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CNEL CONTOUR SPREADSHEET
University Drive: Existing
Index Key:
Orange Coun Arterial Mix
1
Freeway w/ 2.5% Truck Mix 5% Trucksl
Z
Freeway w/ 3.5% Truck
Mix 7% Trucks
3
Distance to
CNEL Contour
feet
Roadway Name
Index
ADT
Seed
CNEL100
Barrier Att.
70 CNEL
65 CNEL
60 CNEL
State Route 73
SR 55 to Irvine
3
67
55
75.2
0
221
476
1025
Irvine to Jamboree
3
61
55
74.7
0
207
447
963
State Route 55
SR-73 to Del Mar
2
84
55
75.4
0
228
491
1057
Jamboree
California to MacArthur
1
25
50
67.5
0
68
147
317
MacArthur to Bristol
1
27
50
.67.8
0
72
155
333
Bristol to University
1
51
50
70.6
0
110
237
510
University to Eastblufi
1
51
50
70.6
0
110
237
510
Del Mar
Newoort to Santa Ana
1
6
35
57.5
0
15
32
68
Santa Ana to Irvine
1
6
35
57.5
0
15
32
68
Bristol Street
Newport to Santa Ana
1
28
45
66.9
0
62
133
288
Bristol Street Northbound
Santa Ana to Birch
1
31
45
67.3
0
66
143
308
Birch to Jamboree
1
15
45
64.2
0
41
88
190
Page 1
Uoi Er.
Bristol
Street Southbou d
Santa Ana to Oreh
1
31
45
67.3
0
66
143
308
Birch to Jamboree
1
29
45
67.0
0
63
137
294
MacArthur
Boulevard
Jemborse to SR-73
1
19
50
66.3
0
57
122
264
SR-73 to Univeraft
t
88
50
71.9
0
133
287
617
Universft to Bonita
1
1 64
50
71.6
0
128
275
593
Irvine
DM Mr lo Birch
33
40
66.3
0
57
123
204
Birch to Bristol
33
40
66.3
0
57
123
264
Birch
Santa Ana io kvkw
pi
9
40
60.7
0
24
52
111
kvine 10 Bristol -
9
40
60.7
0
24
52
t t i
BrWol to MacArthur
40
63.7
0
38
82
176
rmanMacArthur to Von Ka13
.118
40
$2.3
0
31
66
142
Papa 2
r M
NESTRE GRE
CNEL COMW
Unt Uv t
Roadway Na
State Route W
SR 55
Irvine
San Joaquin
H
Jamboi
State Route
5'.
SR-73
Jamboree
Califor
MacAr
Bristol
Univer
Del Mar
N
Santa
Bristol Street
INewpo
Bristol Street
Santa
Birch i
Page 1
Uni Without
Bristol
Strad Soutl bound
Santa Ana to Birch
1
22
45
65.8
0
53
114
245
Birch to Jarnbona
1
38
45
68.2
0
76
164
352
MacArthw
Boulevard
Jamboraa to University
1
48
50
70.3
0
105
227
489
1
University to EaslMuM
1
47
50
70.2
0
104
224
483
Irvine
Dal Ma to Bkolt
1
37
40
66.8
0
61
132
285
Birch to Bristol
1
41
40
67.3
0
66
142
305
Birch
Santa Ana to Irvine
1
17
40
63.4
0
37
79
170
kvkw to Bristol
1
18
40
63.7
0
38
82
176
Bristol to MacArthur
1
21
40
64.4
0
42
91
196
MAr#w to Von Kaman
1
15
40
62.9
0
34
73
156
Paps 2
m m m mom A m r m r m r r m m m M �m
Uni With
MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES
CNEL CONTOUR SPREADSHEET
University Drive: No Pro eet
With University Connection
Index Key:
Orange CguntyArtedal Mix
i
Freeway w/ 2.5% Truck Mix 5% Trucks
2
Freewayw/ 3.5% Truck Mix 7% Trucks
3
Distance to CNEL Contour
'feet
Roadway Name
Index
ADT
Seed
CNEL100
Barrier Att.
70 CNEL
65 CNEL
60 CNEL
State Route 73
SR 55 to Irvine
3
204.0
55
80.0
0
464
1000
2154
Irvine to Jamborre
3
179.0
55
79.4
0
425
916
1974
San Joa urn Hills T.C.
Jamboree to Bison
3
1 160
55
78.9
0
395
850
1832
State Route 55
SR-73 to Dal Mar
2
113
55
76.6
0
277
598
1288
Jamboree
California to MacArthur
1
40
50
69.6
0
93
201
433 -
MacArthur to Bristol
1
42
50
69.8
0
96
208
448
Bristol to University
1
36
50
69.1
0
87
188
404
University to Eastbiuff
1
49
50
70.4
0
107
230
496
Universitv
brave
Irvine to Jamboree
1
27
45
66.7
0
60
130
281
Del Mar
Newport to Santa Ana
1
15
35
61.5
0
27
58
125
Santa Ana to Irvine
1
26
35
63.9
0
39
84
181
Bristol Street
Newport to Santa Ana
1
34
45
67.7
0
70
152,
327
Bristol Sheet Northbound
Santa Ana to Birch
1
24
45
66.2
0
56
120
259
Birch to Jamboree
1
27
45
66.7
0
60
130
281
Page 1
Urd With
Bristol
Street Southboum
Santa Ana to Birch
1
20
45
65.4
0
49
107
230
Birch to Jamboree
1
32
45
67.5
0
88
146
314
MacArthur
Boulevard
Jamboree to University
1
44
50
70.0
0
99
214
462
Un to Easibluf►
1
47
50
70.2
0
104
224
483
Irvine
Del Mar to Birch
1
27
40
65.5
0
50
107
231
Birch to Bristol
1
32
40
66.2
0
56
120
259
Birch
Santa Ana to kvkw
1
13
40
62.3
0
31
Its
142
Irvine to Bristol
1
11
40
61.6
0
27
59
127
tn
Bristol to MacArx
1
19
40
63.9
0
39
85
183
MArthw lb Van Kerman
1
13
40
62.3
0
31
66
142
Pape 2
MIM M mom r m m m a ■r ■n m a m m� M m
WITHOUT CONNECTORS /
WTHOUT UNIVERSITY DRIVE
TABLE IC
FHNA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/13/89
ROADWAY SEGMENT: S. Bristol/N. of Red Hill
NOTES: No Connectors
e e ASSUMPTIONS + e
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 52000 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: 0
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING N16HT
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF-NIOTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD
} + CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS f }
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) - 60.59
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL b0 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
66.9 182.0 565.3 1764.2
0
TABLE 2C
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/13/89
ROADWAY SEGMENT: hl HarlVat of Sint& Ant
NOTESI Cmulatin
+ + ASSIIRPTIONS + +
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: MOD SPEED (NPH): 30 SRAM 0
TRAFFIC DISTRIDUTION PERCENTASES
DAY EVENINS NISHT
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
R-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): IS SITE CNARACTERISTICSt HARD
+ + CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS + +
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (di) • 64.90
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
»». ....... ».....
0.0 67.6 206.9 652.1
».... »........ »..... .........».................... ..............
TABLE 3C
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATE: 10/13/B9
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Del Mar/West of Irvine Ave.
NOTES: Cumulative
f f ASSUMPTIONS f f
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 21000 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: 0
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING - NIGHT
--- ------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.08
ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 18 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD
f f CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS f f
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) : 65.41
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 74.3 228.6 720.7
TABLE 4C
FHNA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DAM 10/13/89
ROADWAY SESNENT: Ness Drive/M.
of Irvine
NOTES: No Conncector
e e AB111NPTIINS e s
AVERAGE DAILY TWTICt 20M
!PEED MPH)i 30 6RADE: 0
TRAFFIC 111TRIDUTIOM IERCENIAGES
DAY EVENING
016HT
AUTOS
75.51 12.57
1.34
N-TkUCKS
1.56 0.09
0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.01
0.01
ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FM 18
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HAND
e s CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS e e
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM MEAN TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dD) • 65.20
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CREL 55 CNEL
....... ....... ... ....I..
0.0 71.0 217.8 606.4
.................................»....................................
TABLE 5C
FHWA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN ➢ATE: 10/13/89
ROADWAY SEGMENT: Irvine Ave/N. of Del Mar
NOTES: No Connector
a * ASSUMPTIONS a f
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: 46000 SPEED (MPH): 30 GRADE: 0
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES .
DAY EVENING NIGHT
---------- -----
AUTOS
75.51 12.57 9.34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 O.OB
ACTIVE HALF -WIDTH (FT): 36 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: HARD
t a CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS a t'
CNEL AT 50 FT FROM NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dB) = 60.06
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 55 CNEL
------- ------- ------- -------
0.0 161.9 500.4 1578.6
TABLE 6C
FNMA ROADWAY NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
RUN DATEt 10/13/09
ROADWAY SEGRENTt Ness Drive/E. of Irvine
MOTES= No Connector
ru..w .... uu...su. .......... . u...........4.uwu
e s ASSUMPTIONS s f
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFICt 30000 SPEED (HPH)i 30 SRADEt 0
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
DAY EVENING MIGHT
Auras
75.51 12.57 9,34
M-TRUCKS
1.56 0.09 0.19
H-TRUCKS
0.64 0.02 0.00
ACTIVE HALF-NIDTH (FM 1S SITE CNARACTERISTICS) HARD
VwuY.uY............i
e e CALCULATED NOISE LEVELS s s
CNEL AT 50 FT FRON NEAR TRAVEL LANE CENTERLINE (dl) a 66,96
DISTANCE (FEET) FROM ROADWAY CENTERLINE TO CNEL
70 CNEL 15 CNEL GO CNEL 55 CNEL
0.0 104.5 321,0 1029.4
J
I
Appendix D
' AIR QUALITY DATA
I
I
1
D
I
1
I
11
RECEIVED FEB - 3 1989
Air Quality Assessment for the
University Drive Deletion
County of Orange
Prepared for
PBR
18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine, CA 92714
Prepared By
Fred Greve, P.E.
Mestre Greve Associates
280 Newport Center Drive
Suite 230
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 760-0891
January 27,1989
Air Quality Assessment for University Drive Deletion ,
County of Orange I
1.0 EXISTING AIR QUALITY ,
1.1 Climate
The climate around the pro' area, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely ,
by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. It
maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities, and limits precipitation to a few
storms during the winter "wet" season. Temperatures are normally mild with rare extremes
above 100 degrees F or below freezing. Daily and seasonal variations about the annual mean
temperature of 62 degrees F are small '
Winds in the project area are almost always driven by the dominant land/sea breeze
circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime on -shore sea breezes. At
night the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Wind direction
is altered by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. During the
transition period from one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into
the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the south. The frequency of calm
winds pess than 2 miles per hour) is less than 10 percent. Therefore, there is lie stagnation in
the project vicinity, especially during busy daytime traffic hours.
Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of
pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground based inversions,
sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear cold early winter
mornings. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence
occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways.
Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated
inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict vertical miring. Below the elevated '
inversion dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the
summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the South Coast Air
Basin and is partly responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in '
the air basin.
1,2 Air Quality Management
The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin and, jurisdictionally, is the '
responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the
California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQ1v1D seta and enforces regulations for
stationary sources in the basin. The CARD is charged with controlling motor vehicle
emissions.
The SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) has developed' an Air Quality Management flan (AQMP) for the air basin. The South
MGA 1
I
L
i
CJ
Coast Air Basin has been designated a non -attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, total suspended particulates, and lead. The AQMP has the goal of achieving
healthful levels of air quality by 1987, and is mandated by State and Federal laws. Included in
the plan are new stationary and mobile source controls; carpooling, vanpooling, and other
ride -sharing programs; and energy conservation measures. The AQMP is designed to
accommodate a moderate amount of new development and growth throughout the basin. The
AQMP projections and mitigations are based on the SCAG-82 Growth Forecasts.
Within the AQMP is a list a strategies designed to improve the transportation system
throughout the region. This package of measures explores the feasible limits for long range
solutions to regional air quality concerns. Measures included in the AQMP can be divided into
five broad categories; transportation control measures, mobile technological controls, energy
conservation, land use, and stationary source controls. The land use strategies focus on land
use measures that could help reduce the number and length of automobile trips made. The
underlying premise for the land use measures is that trip making and mode choices are not only
a function of the transportation system, but also of such factors as housing density, the relative
location of land uses, and the way land uses relate to the transportation system. Improvements
in the transportation system recommended include; bus system- expansion, high occupancy -
vehicle lanes, traffic signal synchronization, and traffic pattern optimization.
Orange County has developed a "Subregional Element for the 1982 Regional Air Quality
Management Plan." The Orange County subelement encourages new development to
incorporate commercial/industrial uses near residential communities to reduce trips and trip
lengths. The element also encourages several parking management strategies, carpool and bus
alternatives, and the promotion of bicycle racks.
In 1987, Governor Deukmejian signed Senate Bill 151 into law which gives the SCAQMD
significant new powers. The law instructs the SCAQMD to develop new transportation control
measures and to develop rules for indirect sources (i.e., shopping centers, stadiums, and
facilities which attract a large number of vehicles). The District is also required to develop
further programs and regulations that would increase ridesharing and limit heavy-duty truck
traffic on freeways during rush hours. A Draft AQMP was released in the fall of 1988, with
formal adoption expected in early 1989.
The AQMP will set forth the SCAQMD's program aimed at achieving healthful levels of
air quality. It is anticipated that the plan will include new stationary and mobile source controls
such as trip reduction requirements established in Regulation 15. The plan takes into account
regional growth levels as reflected in February 1987 data provided by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG). These data are based on land use development expected
to occur pursuant to adopted city and county general plans. Attainment of all federal and state
ozone and PM10 health standards as adopted by the District Board is to occur no later than
December 31, 2007. For nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide the deadlines are December
31,1996 and December 31, 1997, respectively.
Once the 1988 AQMP revision is adopted locally, and approved by the California Air
Resource Board, it will be included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). It will then serve
as the framework for all future air pollution control efforts in the South Coast Air Basin.
In developing the AQMP, all the potential control measures that could be available by the
year 2007 were identified and, to the extent possible, their emission reductions were
quantified. These control measures were categorized into three tiers, based upon their
MGA 2
I
readiness for implementation. ,
The short-term, or Tier I, component of the AQMP is action -oriented It identifies specific '
control measures for which control technology exists now. For the most ppaartrt,, these measures
can be adopted within the next five years, prior to the next AQW update. They consist mainly
of stationary source controls that will be the subject -of district rules and ARB-adopted tailpipe ,
emissions standards and performance requirements for motor vehicles, Transportation and
land use controls and energy conservation measures are also included in Tier I of the plan, to
the extent that technology is available to accomplish the emissions reduction targets. Tier I ,
control measures are expected to be implemented by 1993 except for facility construction which
may continue up to 2007.
Tier II measures include already -demonstrated control technologies, but require '
advancements that can reasonably be expected to occur in the near future. When necessary,
these advancements are promoted through regulatory action, such as setting standards at levels
that force the advancement of existing technolooggyy, or establishing a system of emission charges
that provide an economic incentive to reduce emtssions. ,
Tier II measures focus mainly on transportation sources and the use of coatings and
solvents, All the Tier II goals am expected to be achieved by 2000 except for transportation
facility construction which may continue up to 2001.
Tier III goals depend on substantial technological advancements and breakthroughs that ,
are expected to occur throughout the next two decades. This requires an aggressive expansion .
of Tier II research and development efforts. After achieving Tier II goals, Tier III measures
must be implemented on an accelerated schedule to achieve attainment by 2007. ,
The California Air Resources Board has recently adopted new legislation with respect to
the auto emission inspection program, effective January 1, 1989. Required inspections will
remain at 2 year intervals, but changes will be made on the current $50 repair limit depending
upon the age of the car. In addition, auto manufacturers will be required to provide a broader
warranty on new vehicles and mechanics will be divided into two classes; one, mechanics
allowed to work on 1980 vehicles or newer and a second class of mechanics to work on
vehicles built before 1980. Mechanics working on newer vehicles will require more training
and a license to state their ability to work on more technologically advanced autos.
1.3 Monitored Air Quality '
Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. ,
Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin.
Estimates for the South Coast Air Basin have been made for existing emissions. The data
indicate that mobile sources are the major source of regional emissions. Mobile sources account
for 50 percent of reactive hydrocarbon emissions, 38 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions, and ,
85 percent of carbon monoxide emissions.
The nearest air monitoring station operated by the SCAQMD is in Costa Mesa. The data
collected at this station is considered to be representative of the air quality experienced in the
vicinity of the project area. The project site is in the SCAQMD's Source Receptor Area 18, for
which the designated monitoring station is Costa Mesa. Air quality data for 1984 through 1987
for the Costa Mesa station is provided in Table 1.
MGA 3 '
I
TABLE 1
AIR QUALITY LEvas M);ASURED AT THE COSTA MESA
AMBIENT AIR MONITORING STATION
California National Maximum Days State
Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Std. Exceeded
.1
Ozone 0.1 ppm 0.12 ppm 1984 0.25 29
for 1 hr. for 1 hr. 1985 0.21 33
1986 0.17 24
1987 0.16 23
'
CO 9 ppm
9 ppm
1984
13
1
for 8 hour
for 8 hour
1985
9
5
1986
15
3
1987
12
0
NO2 .25 ppm _
0.05 ppm
1984
.22
0
' for 1 hour annual average 1985 .24 0
1986 .20 0
1987 .19 0
NOTES:
1. Standards for sulfur dioxide were not exceeded.
' 2. Monitoring of lead and particulates discontinued in 1981.
The air quality data indicate that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the Costa
Mesa area. Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of the
chemical reactions of other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide, in
the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport
downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in Costa Mesa. All areas of the
South Coast Air Basin contribute to the ozone levels experienced at Costa Mesa, with the more
significant areas being those directly upwind.
Particulate levels in the area are due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor
vehicles. Monitoring of particulate levels at the Costa Mesa station was discontinued in 1981.
' Levels of particulate monitored previous to 1981 indicated that the levels were low.
The number of times each year that the carbon monoxide standards have been exceeded'
' have steadily decreased over the past several years at the Costa Mesa Station. The trend in
maximum carbon monoxide concentrations experienced is less clear. A one hour high of 15
ppm was reached 1985. The average of the yearly 1 hour maximums for the last four years is
about 12 ppm. Carbon monoxide is generally considered to be a local pollutant. That is, carbon
monoxide is directly emitted from several sources (most notably motor vehicles), and the
highest concentrations experienced are directly adjacent to the source. The Costa Mesa station
' MGA 4
is located near Harbor Boulevard, and it is very likely that the carbon monoxide concentrations
recorded at this station are highly influenced by the motor vehicle activity on this roadway.
MGA 5
2.0 POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
2.1 Short Term Impacts
The preparation of the study area for road improvements along Bristol Street will produce
two types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive
dust generated by soil movement. The equipment emissions and dust produced during
construction activities and grading, although of short-term duration, could be troublesome to
workers and adjacent developments. Each of these is discussed in more detail below.
Construction -Related Exhaust Emissions - Detailed construction equipment emissions
were not calculated due to the lack of specific construction equipment information. It can be
anticipated that construction exhaust emissions will be comparable to other development
projects and will not have a significant effect on state and federal air quality standards.
Fugitive Dust Emissions - Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions
that may have a substantial temporary impact on local air quality. building and road
construction are the prevalent construction categories with the highest dust emission potential.
dust emissions typically result from land clearing, blasting, ground excavation, cut and fill
operations, and construction of buildings, and infrastructure systems.
Dust emissions will vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level activity,
the speck operations, and the prevailing weather. A large portion of dust emissions typically
result from equipment traveling over temporary roads at the site. The volume of fugitive dust
generated is proportional to the area of land being worked and the level of construction activity.
Based upon field measurements of suspended dust emissions at various construction projects,
an approximate emission factor for construction operations is' 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre
of construction per month of activity.
2.2 Projected Emissions
The deletion of the University Drive Connection will require that drivers travel a farther
distance to get around the Back Bay area. A driver that would, normally take the University
Drive connection would have to divert to Jamboree Road, northbound Bristol Street, and then
down Irvine Boulevard or Birch Street. This is an additional distance of 0.6 miles.
Approximately 27,000 vehicles per day would travel this additional distance resulting in
16,200 additional vehicle miles per day being driven. This diverted travel was combined with
emission factors to calculate the additional pollutant burden resulting from not constructing the
University Drive connection. The results are presented in Table 2.
MGA 6
I
'
TABLE 2
EMISSIONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIVERTED
TRAFFIC
Contaminant '
CO
NOx
SOx
Fart.
TOG
ROO
,
Emission Factor (gm/mi)
5.82
1.09
0.24
0.268
0.52
0.46
Total Emission (Lb/Day)
208
39
9
10
19
16
,
2000 Orange Co. (Tn/Day)
1010
173
19
119
362
230
Percent Regional
0.010%
0.011%
0.023%
0.004%
0.003%
0,004%
,
1987 Receptor #18 (Tn/Dy) 215.5
38.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
38.6
Percent ReceptorAma
0.049%
0.051%
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.021%
The data in Table 2 indicate that approximately 208 pounds per day of carbon monoxide '
plus quantities of other pollutants will be generated by the diverted traffic. The omissions
generated by the longer travel route will be very small in comparison to regional and
sub -regional emissions. For all pollutants the emissions generated will be less than 0,03% of ,
County emissions, and about 0.05% of the Source -Receptor Area #18 emissions. Due to the
small quantities of emissions generated them will be no impact on regional or sub -regional air
quality levels. '
2.3 Local Air Quality
Carbon monoxide is the pollutant of major concern along roadways. Carbon monoxide is a ,
Primary pollutant. Unlike ozone, carbon monoxide is directly emitted from a variety of
sources. The most notable source of carbon monoxide is motor vehicles. For this reason
carbon monoxide concentrations am usually indicative of the local air quality generated by a '
roadway network, and are used as an indicator of its impacts on the local air quality.
Comparisons of levels with State and Federal carbon monoxide standards indicate the severity
of the projected concentrations. The Federal and California standards for carbon monoxide are
presented in Table 3.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA CARBON MONOXIDE STANDARDS
Averaging Time Standard
Federal I hour 35 ppm ,
8 hours 9 ppm
California 1 hour 20 ppm
8 hours 9 ppm ,
MGA
7 1
I
Carbon monoxide levels in the project vicinity were assessed with the CALINE4 computer
model. CALINE4 is a third generation line source air quality model developed by the California
Department of Transportation ("CALINE4," Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-84/15, November
' 1984). The purpose of the model is to assess air quality impacts near transportation facilities in
what is known as the microscale region. Given source strength, meteorology, site geometry,
and site characteristics, the model can reliably predict pollutant concentrations.
1-1
LJ
1
I
LI
Worst case meteorology was assessed. Specifically, a early winter morning with a ground
based inversion was considered. For worst case meteorological conditions a wind speed of
0.5 meter per second (1 mph), and a stability class G was utilized for a 1 hour averaging time.
The CALINE4 Model determined worst case wind direction. A mixing height of 1000 meters
was used as recommended in the CALINE4 Manual.
Two areas were modeled. The first area was the Back Bay area along the University Drive
route now being proposed for deletion. The second area is along Bristol Street South where the
roadway will be widened Four receptor locations were modeled for each area. For both areas
the receptors were located at the roadway edge, 50, 100, and 200 feet from the roadway edge.
The same receptor locations were modeled for both the project and no project cases.
Vehicle projections for the local roadways were obtained from the traffic study by
Austin -Foust Associates. Emission factors were obtained from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District ("Air Quality Handbook," April 1987), and representative of arterial
traffic in Southern California. The factors were generated using the EMFAC7C rates. An
average vehicle speed of 25 mph was used
Roadway locations and widths were estimated from maps of the area. A surface roughness
for the area of 108 centimeter; was utilized and is based on the CALINE4 Manual (referenced
above) recommendation for single family residential areas.
Estimates of the background concentrations were made based on the Costa Mesa monitoring
data. The average of the maximum one hour concentrations over the past 4 years is 12 ppm. A
portion of the carbon monoxide levels are attributable to local roadways. It was assumed that at
least 4 ppm were attributable to local roadways and that a maximum of 8 ppm was attributable
to ambient sources during worst case conditions. Therefore, 8 ppm was added to the worst
case meteorological one hour projections to account for background carbon monoxide levels
for the Back Bay area modeling. A slightly higher background estimate of 10 ppm were used
for the Bristol Street modeling to account for the number of additional roadways in the area.
The background levels of carbon monoxide were assumed to remain the same as currently
monitored. Generally, carbon monoxide levels are anticipated to decrease throughout the region
due to lower motor vehicle emission rates. However, due to the increase in traffic in this
portion of Orange County due to additional development, it was assumed as a worst case that
the background levels would remain the same for the future modeling years as currently
experienced.
The results of the modeling effort for future air quality are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
The modeling results for University Drive (Back Bay area) are presented in Table 4, and the
results for Bristol Street are presented in Table 5. The pollutant levels, expressed in parts per
Amillion (ppm) for each receptor are reported
MGA 8
I
TABLE 4
MODELING RESULTS FOR UNIVERSITY DRIVE
(Concentrations in ppm.)
Distance from CO Concentration
Receptor Road (Feet) W/ University W/O University
1 0
9.0
8.0
2 50
8.5
8.0
3 100
8.4
8.0
4 200
8.3
9.0
Note: Concentrations include background level of 8 ppm.
TABLES
MODELING RESULTS FOR BRISTOL STREET SOUTHBOUND ..
(Concentrations in ppm.)
Distance from CO Concentration
Receptor Road (Feet) No Connection No Project
1 0
11.3
11.1
2 50
10.6
10.6
3 100
10.5
10.4
4 200
10.3
10.3
Note: Concentrations include background level of 10 ppm.
Comparison of the information in Tables 4 and 3 to California and Federal carbon monoxide
standards indicates that levels projected will not exceed the 1 hour standards. Under worst case
meteorological conditions, a maximum 1 hour average concentration of about 9.0 ppm and
11.3 ppm carbon monoxide is estimated to occur in the Back Bay area and Bristol Street areas,
teapect►vely. In both areas only about 1 ppm is directly attributable to the roadway of concern,
while the remain 8 to 10 ppm are attributable to ambient or "background" levels. The bulk of
the carbon monoxide levels are due to sources outside the project area. The 1 hour air quality
standards are not anticipated to be exceeded due to the proposed project.
Variations between the project and no project cases are not significant. For the Back Bay
area the addition of the University Drive connection into the area would only increase the local
concentration by 1 ppm. Since the proposed project would delete this connection, it can be
stated that the proposed project would reduce future CO concentrations by up to 1 ppm.
MGA 9
[1
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
i
I
I1
I
I
J
I
1
I
Along Bristol Street the road widening are designed to accommodate higher traffic
volumes. The resulting increase in CO Ievels would only be 0.2 ppm. For both areas the
differences between project and no project case are 1 ppm or less, and are not considered
significant.
Eight hour traffic projections were not available, and therefore, eight hour carbon
monoxide levels were not projected. However, considerable information regarding the eight
hour concentrations can be inferred from the 1 hour averaging analysis. Bused on monitoring
data reported by the SCAQMD, it appears that the eight hour California and Federal standards
are exceeded slightly more often than the California 1 hour standard. For this project the 1 hour
standard is not projected to be exceeded by a considerable amount. Therefore, it would be
anticipated that the eight hour standard would also not be exceeded.
MGA
10
I
3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
The project should comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires watering of the
grading site.
Significant impacts am not projected to occur with the project. However, continued support '
by the County of Orange of the measures contained in the AQMP is an important measure in
achieving healthful levels of air quality. Since the air quality impacts associated with this
project result from automobile traffic, the most significant mitigation measures will take the
form of regional VMT reduction programs. These programs require cooperating participation
of local governments and regional planning which can be generated by the air planning
process. Support of federal and state legislation aimed at lowering air pollution emissions from
new cars and trucks will also result in improved air quality.
Specific measures which may be appropriate include:
1. Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public transit usage
and providing secum bicycle facilities.
2. Provide mass transit accommodations; such as but turnout lanes and bus shelters.
MGA 1I
1990 EMISSIONS FACTORS
EMFAC7PC EMISSION FACTORS
VERSION :EMFAC7C ... 1/4/87
YEAR : 1990 TEMPERATURE : 75
PERCENT VMT COLD : 35.0 PERCENT VMT NOT : 12.0
GRAMS PER MILE
Speed TOG CO NOX
30 MPH 1.16 12.18 1.72
Idle Emission Factors
Total Organic Gases 0.19 Grans/Minute
Carbon Monoxide 1.98 Grams/Minute
Nitrogen Oxide 0.17 Grans/Minute
I
EXISTING CONDITIONS
BRISTOL STJ WEST
OF
REDHILL AVENUE
REPORT FOR FILE : UNIVEI
1. Site Variables
U= 0.5 M/S 20= 108.0 CM
,
BRG= 30.0 DEGREES V➢= 0.0 CM/S
CLASS= 0 STABILITY VS-- 0.0 CM/S
NIXH= 1000.0 M AND- 9.6 PPM
SIGTH= 25.0 DEGREES TEMP= 25.0 DEGREE
(C)
2. Link Description
LINK f LINK COORDINATES (M) f
EF
H H
'
DESCRIPTION f X1 Y1 X2 Y2 f TYPE VPH
WHO
(M) (A)
............... f............................. f------------------------------
A. S. Bristol -100 0' f00 0 AS 2800
12.2
0.0 22.5
f MIXN
f L R STPL OCLT ACCT SPD
EfF
IDT1 IQT2
'
LINK f (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NOLA WHO
WAIN)
(SEC) (SEC)
}
------- f---- - ---- - ------ I --- . -- ..................
♦ -�-----
A. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
0.0
0.0 0.0
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y I
RECEPTOR 1 -11 -it 1.3
RECEPTOR 2 -21 -21 1.3
'
RECEPTOR 3 -32 -32 1,3
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE AmIYE)
'
f PRED f COCN/LINK
f CDCN f (PPM)
RECEPTOR f (PPM) f A
,
RECPT I + 11.8 f 2.2
RECPT 2 f 10.9 f 1.3
RECPT 3 f 10.7 f 1.1
'
1
MESA DR./IRVINE AVE.
REPORT FOR FILE : unive2
1. Site Variables
U=
0.5
M/S
10=
108.0
CM
BRG=
150.0
DEGREES
VD=
0.0
CM/8
CLASS=
6 STABILITY
VS=
0.0
CM/S
MIXH=
1000.0
M
AMB=
9.6
PPM
SIGTH=
25.0
DEGREES
TEMP=
25.0
DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
LINK f LINK COORDINATES (M) f EF H W
DESCRIPTION f XI Y1 X2 Y2 f TYPE VPH (8/MI) (M) (M)
--------------- }----------------------------- f-------------------------------
A. E. Mesa -100 -3 93 -3 IN 326 12.2 0.0 9.3
B. W. Mesa 106 3 -100 3 IN 467 12.1 0.0 9.3
C. S. Irvine' 0 100 0 -103 IN 2312 12.1 0.0 12.6
D. N. Irvine 7 103 7 100 IN 976 12.1 0.0 12.6
1 .
f MIXW
f L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK f (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) MCYC NOLA WHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
------- f--- "------------------------------ "--------------------------------
A. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 4 2 161 2.0 24.5 0.0
B. 0 0 106 6.5 9.1 30 11 7 436 2.0 24.5 0.0
C. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 34 21 2740 2.0 24.5 0.0
D. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 12 7 976 2.0 24.5 0.0
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y 2
RECEPTOR 1 -11 11 1.3
RECEPTOR 2 -21 21 1.3
RECEPTOR 3 -32 32 1.3
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE A:unive2
PRED f COCN/LINK
f COCN f (PPM)
RECEPTOR f (PPM) f A B C. 0
---------- f------- f-----------------------
RECPT 1 f 18.2 f 1.3 1.4 3.2 2.6
RECPT 2 f 14.5 f 0.8 0.9 1.5 1.7
RECPT 3 f 12.9 f 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.2
MESA DR./EAST OF IRVINE AVE.
REPORT FOR FILE : unive3
1. Site Variables
U= 0.5 M/S
ORO= 30.0 DEGREES
CLASS= 6 STABILITY
MIXH= 1000.0 M
SIGTH= 25.0 DEGREES
2O= 108.0 CM
VD= 0.0 CM/8
VS-- 0.0 CM/S
ANB= 9.6 PPM
TEMP= 25.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
LINK f LINK COORDINATES (Ml f EF H H
DESCRIPTION f X1 YI X2 Y2 f TYPE ,VPH (6/MI) (M) (M)
--------------*...------...._... _.�- -}- —------------ ------------
A. E. Mesa -100 0 100 . 0 A8 900 12.2 0.0 12,6
MIXN
f L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI 1DT1 102
LINK f (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NOLA WHO (WHIN) (SEC) (SEC)
------ .f-------------------"------------------------- ---- --- ------------
A. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y 1
RECEPTOR 1 -11 -11 1.3
RECEPTOR 2 -21 -21 1.3
RECEPTOR 3 -32 -32 1.3
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE A:unive3
f PRED f COCN/LINK
I COCN f (PPM)
RECEPTOR f (PPM) f A
---------- f-------}......
RECPT i f 10.2 f 0.6
RECPT 2 f 10.0 f 0,9
10.0
IRVINE AVEJUNIVERSITY DR.
REPORT FOR FILE : unive4
1. Site Variables
U=
0.5
M/S
20=
108.0
CM
BRB=
150.0
DEGREES
VD=
0.0
CM/S
CLASS=
6 STABILITY
VS=
0.0
CM/S
MIXH=
1000.0
M
AMB=
9.6
PPM
SIGTH=
25.0
DEGREES
TEMP=
25.0
DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
LINK a LINK COORDINATES (M) a EF H N
DESCRIPTION ► XI Yl X1 Y2 } TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
---------------}-----------------------------f----------------------------
A. E. Del Mar -100 -3 13 -3 IN . 440 12.2 0.0 9.3
B. N. Del Mar 106 3 -100 3 IN 135 12.1 0.0 9.3
C. S. Irvine 0 100 0 -103 IN 2535 12.1 0.0 12.6
D. N. Irvine 7 -103 7 100 IN 1050 12.1 0.0 12.6
f MIIN
a L P. STPL ➢CLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) MPH) NCYC NBLA WHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
------- +---------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 6 3 210 2.0 24.5 0.0
B. 0 0 106 6.5 9.1 30 9 5 395 2.0 24.5 0.0
C. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 31 19 2475 2.0 24.5 0.0
D. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 14 8 1080 2.0 24.5 0.0
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y I
RECEPTOR 1 -11 11 1.3
RECEPTOR 2 721 21 1.3
RECEPTOR 3 -32, 32 1.3
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE A:unive4 .
t PRED t COCN/LINK
+ COCN + (PPM)
RECEPTOR t (PPM) * A 8 C D
---------• ------- --------------=---------
RECPT 1 } 18.5 f 1.5 1.1 3.5 2.7
RECPT 2 + 14.8 a 1.1 0.7 1.6 1.8
RECPT 3 t 13.1 0.1 0.5 1.0 1.3
2010 EMISSIONS FACTORS
EMFAC7PC EMISSION FACTORS
VERSION :EMFAC7C ... 1/4107
YEAR : 2010 TEMPERATURE : 75
PERCENT VMT COLD : 35,0 PERCENT VMT HOT : 10.0
GRAMS PER MILE
Speed TOO CO NOX
30 MPH 0.77 8.13 1.35
Idle Emission Factors
Total Organic bases 0.12 braes/Minute
Carbon Monoxide 1.37 Grams/Minute
Nitrogen Oxide 0.14 6ramslNinute
PROJECT CONDITIONS
BRISTOL STJ WEST OF REDHILL AVENUE
REPORT FOR FILE : univP1
1. Site Variables
U=
0.5
M/S
IO=
100.0
CM
BRG=
30.0
DEGREES
VD=
0.0
CM/S
CLASS=
6 STABILITY
VS=
0.0
CM/S
MIXH=
1000.0
M
AMB=
4.9
PPM
SIGTH=
25.0
DEGREES
TEMP=
25.0
DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
LINK * LINK COOR➢INATES (M) * EF 4 H
DESCRIPTION * X1 Yi X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (61MI) IM) (M),
--------------- *----------------------------- -----------------------------
A. S. Bristol -100 0 100 R AG 3600 12.2 0.0 25.8
* MIXN
* L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK * (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO (6/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
-- =---*--------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 a 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y Z
RECEPTOR 1 -11 -11 1.3
RECEPTOR 2 -21 -21 1.3
RECEPTOR 3 -32 -32 1.3
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE A:univpl
* PRE➢ * CDCN/LINK
* COCN * WPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) * A
---------- *------- *------
RECP.T 1 * 7.5 * 16
P.ECPT 2 * 6.7 * 1.8
RECPT 3 * 6.2 4 —3
0
MESA DRARVINE AVE.
REPORT FOR FILE : UNIVP2
I. Site Variables
U=
0.5 M/S
20-
108.0
CM
He=
150.0 DEGREES
VD-
0.0
CM/S
CLASS=
6 STABILITY
VS=
0.0
CM/S
MIXH=
1000.0 M
AMB=
4.9
PPM
SIGTH=
25.0 DEGREES
TEMP=
25.0
DEGREE (C)
1. Link Description
LINK } LINK COORDINATES (M) a EF H N
DESCRIPTION ► Xi Yl X2 Y2 a TYPE VPH (8/8I) (M) (M)
A. E. Mesa -100 -3 113 -3 IN 542 12,2~ 0.0 12.6
B. N. Mesa 113 0 -100 0 IN 346 12.1 0.0 9.3
C. S, Irvine 0 100 0 -106 IN 2600 12.1 0.0 15,9
D. N. Irvine 7 -106 7 100 IN 760 *12.1 0.0 15.1
} MIXN
} L R STPL DCLT ACCT SP➢ EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK a (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NOLA VPHO (8/11I11) (SEC) (SEC)
--- - ---- ---------------- --- ----- ---.......... _...... ..... ....-----
A. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 1 0 41 2.0 24.5 0.0
8. 0 0 100 6,5 9,1 30 24 14 950 2.0 24.5 0.0
C. 0 0 100 6,5 9.1 30 18 11 2166 2.0 24.5 0.0
D. 0 0 100 6,5 9.1 30 12 7 976 2.0 24.5 0.0
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y 2
RECEPTOR 1 -11 tl 1.3
RECEPTOR 2 -21 21 1.3
RECEPTOR 3 -32 32 1.3
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE A:univp2
a PRED t COCN/LINK
: COCN + (PPM)
RECEPTOR * :PPM) e A 8 C D
-------- -+- --. _a ............. ......
RECPT 1 t 13.9 t 0.0 0.9 5.9 2,2
RECPT 2 + 9.9 + 0.0 0.6 .2.0 1.5
RECPT 3 + 8.1 f 0.0 0.4 1.7 •1.0
I
I
MESA DR./EAST OF IRVINE AVE.
REPORT FOR FILE : UNIVP3
1. Site Variables
U= 0.5 MIS
BRG= 30,0 DEGREES
CLASS= G STABILITY
MIXH= 1000.0 M
SIGTH= 25.0 DEGREES
10= 108.0 CM
VD= 0.0 CMIS
VS= 0.0 CM/S
AMD= 4.9 PPM
TEMP= 25.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Descriotion
LINK A LINK COORDINATES (M) + EF H N
➢ESCRIPTION + X1 Y1 X2 Y2 + TYPE VPH: (S/MI) (M) (M)
---------------+-----------------------------+----------------------------
A. E. Mesa -100 0 100 0 AG 1108 12.2 0.0 19.2
+ MIXN
+ L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK + (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA WHOI(G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
------ +--- ---------------------------------------------- --------------------
A. 0 0 0 '0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3. Receptor.Goordinates
X Y 2
RECEPTOR 1 -11 -11 1.3
RECEPTOR. 2 -21 -21 1.3
RECEPTOR 3 -32 -32 1.3
MODEL RESULTS FOR.FILE A:univp3
+ PRED t COCN/LINK .
+ COCN + (PPM)
RECEPTOR + (PPM)-+ A
'----------+------- +------
RECPT 1 + 5.9 + 0.9
RECPT 2 + 5.4 + 0.5
P.ECPT 3 + 5.4 + 0.5
IRVINE AVE./UNIVERSITY DR.
REPORT FOR FILE a UNIVP4
1. Site Variables
U=
0.5
M75
IO=
108,0
CM
BRB=
150,0
DEGREES
VD=
0.0
CHIS
CLASS=
G STABILITY
VS=
0.0
CNIS
MIXH=
1000.0
M
AMB=
4.9
PPM
SIGTH=
25.0
DEGREES
TEMP=
25.0
DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
LINK } LINK COORDINATES (M) ► EF H A
➢ESCRIPTION + XI v1 X2 Y2 + TYPE VPN ;6101) (8) (M)
------------ -rt-------- -------------------- a.................A...........
i A. E. Del Mar ' -100 -7 113 -7 1N 68 12.2 0,0 12.6
B. N. Del Mar 113 0 -100 0 IN 310 12.1 040 12.6
C, S. Irvine 0 100 0 -106 IN 2135 12.1 0.0 15.9
D, N. Irvine 7 -106 7 100 IN 913 12,1 0.0 15.9
a MIXH
a L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK a (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA VPHO WHIM) (SEC) (SEC)
----. -}_ .w......................... ............ 0.............
-, r--------
A. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 2 1 182 2.0 24.5 0.0
86 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 9 5 692 2.0 24.5 0.0
C. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 15 9 1825 2.0 24.5 0.0
D. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 6 4 736 2.0 24.5 0.0
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y Z
RECEPTOR 1 -di 11 1.3
RECEPTOR 2 -21 21 1.3
RECEPTOR 3 -32 32 113
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE Aeunivp4
e FRED + P,OCNILINK
4 COEN rPPM)
3Ei.E; TOP * �P?M t n 6 0
---------+----- -*------------------------
RECPT 1 t 15.4 t 0.4 1.5 5.6 2.9
RECPT 2 f 10.7 a 0,3 0.9 2.0 1.0
RECPT 3 e 8.8 F 0.2 0.7 1.7 1.2
r
WITHOUT FREEWAY CONNECTORS
BRISTOL ST./WEST OF REDHILL AVENUE
REPORT FOR FILE : UNIVCI
1, Site Variables
U= 0.5 M/S
BRG= 30.0 DEGREES
CLASS= 6 STABILITY
HIXH= 1000.0 M
SIGTH= 25.0 DEGREES
ZO= 108,0 CM
VD- 0.0 CM/S
VS= 0.0 CM/S
AMB= 4.9 PPM
TEMP= 25.0 DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
LINK { LINK COOR➢INATES (M) { EF H N
DESCRIPTION { XI Y1 X2 Y2 + TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
---------------4-----------------------------{-----------------------------
A. S. Bristol -100 0 100 0 AG 5200 12.2 0.01 25.8
{ MIXN
{ L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDT1 IDT2
LINK { (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NOLA WHO (6/6IN) (SEC) (SEC)
------- {----------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----
A. 0' 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 , 0 0 0.0 0.01 0.0
3. Reteptor Coordinates
X Y Z,
RECEPTOR. 1 -11 -11 1.3
RECEPTOR 2 -21 -21 1.3
RECEPTOR 3* - -32 -32 1.3 .
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE A:UnivCI
{ PRED' { COCN/LINK
{ COCN { (PPM) -
RECEPTOP. { (PPM) t A
---------- ►------- {------
RECPT 1 { 8.6 { 3.7
RECPT 2 { 7•.4 { 2.5
RECPT 3 { 6.7 { 1.8
MESA DR./IRVINE AVE,
REPORT FOR FILE i UNIVC2
1. Site Variables
U=
0.5 M/S
IO=
100.0
CM
BRS=
150.0 DEGREES
VD=
0.0
CM/9
CLASS--
6 STABILITY
VS-
0.0
CM/S
MIXH=
1000.0 M
AMB=
4.9
PPM
SIGTH=
25.0 DEGREES
TEMP=
25.0
DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
LINK + LINK COORDINATES (M) t EF H W
DESCRIPTION ► X1 YI X2 Y2 t TYPE VPH (WWI) W (M)
------------ -+- ------------------------ -t- ----------------------------
A. E. Mesa -100 -7 113 -7 IN 495 12,2 0.0 12.6
B. W. Mesa 113 0 -100 0 IN 949 12.1 0,0 12.6
C. S. Irvine 0 100 0 -106 IN 2817 12.1 0.0 15.9
D. N. Irvine 7 -1"06 7 100 IN 1792 12.1 0.0 15.9
a MIXW
a L R STPL OCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDTi IDT2
LINK a (0) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NOLA WHO (O/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
-a- ------ -------- -------------�--- --------------------
A. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 1 0 46 2,0 24.5 0.0
B. 0 0 100 6.5 9,1 30 12 7 932 2.0 24.5 0.0
C. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 25 15 2947 2.0 24.5 0.0
D. 0 0 100 6,5 9.1 30 18 10 2129 2.0 24.5 0.0
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y 2
RECEPTOR 1 -11 11 1.3
RECEPTOR 2 -21 21 1.9
RECEPTOR 3 -32 32 1.3
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE A:univC2
a PRED t COCN/LINK
+ COCN a (PPM)
.......... - .�__...--- '-------------
RECPT 1 a 15.7 f 0.0 1.7 5.0 4,1
RECPT 2 * 11.2 } 0.0 1.1 2.5 2.8
RECPT 3 a 9,2 t 04 0.8 1,5 2.0
MESA DR./EAST OF IRVINE AVE.
REPORT FOR FILE : UNIVC3
1. Site Variables
U=
0.5
M/S
ZB=
108.0
CM
BRG=
30.0
DEGREES
VD=
0.0
CM/S
CLASS=
G STABILITY
VS=
0.0
CM/S
MIXH=
1000.0
M
AMB=
4.9
PPM
SIGTH=
25.0
DEGREES
TEMP=
25.0
DEGREE (C)
2. Link Description
LINK + LINK COORDINATES (M) + EF H N
DESCRIPTION + XI Y1 X2 Y2 } TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
--------------- }----------------------------- }-----------------------------
A. E. Mesa . -100 0 100 0 AUG 3000 12.2 0.0 1912
} MIXN
} L R STPL DCLT ACCT SPD EFI IDTI IDT2
LINK + (Ml (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NDLA WHO (G/MIN) (SEC) (SEC)
------+--- —------- -------------------------------------------------------
A. 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 -0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 04
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y Z
RECEPTOR 1 -11 -11 1.3
RECEPTOR 2 -21 -21 1.3
RECEPTOR 3 -32 -32' 1.3
MODEL RESULTS FOR FILE A:univC3
+ PRED + CDCN/LINK
+ COCN + (PPM)
RECEPTOR + (PPM) + A
---------- +-------- }------
RECPT 1 + 7.2 + 2.3
RECPT 2 + 6.3 } 1.4
RECPT 3 + 6.0 } 1.1
IRVINE AVEJUNIVERSITY DR. '
REPORT FOR FILE : UNIVC4
1. Site Variables
'
U= 0.5 MIS IO= 108.0
CM
BRG= 150.0 DEGREES VD-- 0.0
CM/S
'
CLASS= G STABILITY VS= 0.0
CM/S
MIXH= 1000.0 M AMB= 4.9
PPM
SIGTH= 25.0 DEGREES TEMP= 25.0
DEGREE
(C1
'
2. Link Description
LINK. t LINK COORDINATES (M( +
EF
H
N
DESCRIPTION t X1 Y1 X2 Y2 + TYPE VPH
(S/MI)
(M)
(M)
'
--------------+...........................+.........._..................
A. E. Del Mar -100 -7 113 -7 IN
B. N, Del Mar 113 0 -100 0 IN
025
309
12.2
12.1
0.0
0.0
12.6
12.6
'
C. S, Irvine 0 100 0 -106 IN
2906
12.1
0.0
15.9
D. N. Irvine 7 -106 7 100 IN
1203
12,1
0.0
15.9
'
+ MIXH
+ L R STPL ➢CLT ACCT SPD
EFI
IDT1
IDT2
LINK + (M) (M) (M) (SEC) (SEC) (MPH) NCYC NOLA
VPHO
(6/MIN)
(SEC)
(SEC)
'
---- -+- -------------------------------------------------------------
A. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 2 1
179
2.0
24.5
0.0
B. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 12 7
955
2.0
24.5
0.0
,
C. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 29 18
2342
2.0
24.5
0.0
D. 0 0 100 6.5 9.1 30 15 9
1767
2.0
24.5
0.0
'
3. Receptor Coordinates
X Y I
'
RECEPTOR 1 -11 11 1.3
RECEPTOR 2 -21 21 1.3
RECEPTOR 3 -32 32 1.3
'
RESULTS FOR FILE A:univc4
MODEL
+ PRED t COCN/LINK
+ COCN + (PPM)
'
RECEPTOR + (PPM) + A B C D
--------` -+-----^ -+------------------------
P,ECPT 1+ 16.4+ 2.4 1.7 4.1 3.3
,
RECPT 2 +•I1.7 : 1.5 1.1 2.0 2.2
RECPT 3 t 9.5 + 0,9 0,8 1.2 1.6
1
1
Appendix E
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1
COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT
Orange County, California
PROJECT REPORT
Santa Ana Heights Sewer Study
Project No. 1112100-109
August, 1988
ROBIN B. HADIERS
District Engineer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Purpose ............................................... 1
Scope................................................0 2
Study Area ..................................... 4.0.... 3
Improvements Previously Constructed ................... 4
Comparison- of Improvements:-.
Alternative 1....................................... 4
Alternative 2....................................... 5
Conclusion k Recommendations .......................... 7
TABUS, FIGURES AND PLATES
Table 1. Service Areas ............................... S
Table 2. Recommended Improvements - Alternative I .... 9
Table 3. Recommended Improvements - Alternative 2 ....10
Table 4, Ultimate Land Use Flow Calculations ...... 11-12
I
11
PURPOSE:
The Santa Ana Heights area, currently in the unincorporated
'• territory of Orange County, is in the process of being annexed
into the City of Newport Beach. The Santa Ana Heights Specific
Plan as adopted by the County Board of Supervisors allows for
substantial increases in the intensity of development within the
area. Upon annexation, the City of Newport Beach intends to
allow the area to be developed similarly to the County adopted
Specific Plan. When this development occurs, the current sewer
system in the area will be inadequate to handle the increased
' flows.
1 The Board of Directors of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District, at
the request of the Director of Utilities of the City of Newport
' Beach, authorized the District Engineer to prepare a study
outlining the extent of the impact of the specific plan and
' annexation on the existing sewer system and proposed options to
mitigate those impacts.
u
`J
II
LJ
1
1
1
1
1
SCOPE:
This study addresses two options in resolving the effects of the
proposed land uses.
The first option is to redirect the flows across the Corona Del
Mar Freeway with a new pumping station and force main, and then
northeasterly in Birch Street to the County Sanitation District
trunk sewer in MacArthur Boulevard. The area can then be removed
from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's boundaries and all
facilities, and the maintenance thereof, would be the
responsibility of the City of Newport Beach.
The second option is upsizing the existing system by the addition
of parallel sewers and larger pumps. This option requires the
Costa Mesa Sanitary District to continue providing service to the
Santa Ana Heights area after annexation into the City of Newport
Beach, thereby obligating the City of Newport Beach to compensate
the Costa Mesa Sanitary District for the cost of providing and
maintaining service to the area.
STUDY AREA:
The current District boundaries include the area generally known
as Santa Ana Heights. The area includes approximately 220 acres
' and is bounded by Mesa Drive, Irvine Avenue, South Bristol
Street, and the old Bay View school site. Presently, the County
has adopted the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan which designates
' the proposed zoning for the study area. The City of Newport Beach
Planning Department has indicated that, should the Santa Ana
Heights area be annexed, a zoning similar to the current County
zoning would be adopted.
' The study area is divided into two sewer service areas. These
areas are outlined in Table 1. At present both these areas are
under consideration for annexation to Newport Beach.
1
5
3
Area 1
This area includes the 36 lots on Orchid Hil1, Bay Farm Place,
and Birch Street, and portions of the Newport Beach Golf Course.
The sewage flows from these areas are directed to Mesa Drive,
then pass under the flood control channel at Irvine Avenue via an
inverted siphon before reaching the Tustin Avenue Pumping
Station. Large portions of this area have been rezoned to
business park from low density residential. Due to grade
differences, it would be very difficult to redirect the sewage
flows from this area across the Corona Del Mar Freeway. See Table
4 for sewage flows.
Area 2
The sewage flows from this area ultimately collect in the sewer
main at South Bristol Street and Irvine Avenue, then continue
northwesterly in South Bristol Street before joining with flows
from the northwest. The flows then cross the Santa Ana -Delhi
Channel southeasterly of Kline Drive in an inverted siphon.
Sewage flows are shown in Table 4.
hprovements Previously Constructed
When the Orange County Flood Control District recently improved
the Santa Ana -Delhi Channel from Mesa Drive to Bristol Street,
the two Sanitary District siphons crossing the channel had to be
reconstructed due to grade conflicts. The Sanitary District used
the opportunity to install new siphons that are capable of
handling the ultimate design flow regardless of whether the
existing system is upgraded or the flows are redirected accross
the Corona Del Mar Freeway.
COMPARISON OF IMPROVEMENTS:
ALTERNATIVE I
This alternative involves construction of a new sewage pumping
station on the southwesterly side of the Corona Del Mar Freeway
at the corner of Bristol Street and Birch Street, and a sewer
force main across the freeway at Birch. The force main would
have to be installed in the recently constructed bridge
overcrossing. From this point, a new gravity sewer main would
convey the flow to the County Sanitation District trunk at Birch
and MacArthur. Also included is the replacement of a portion of
the existing sewer in Bristol, from Irvine Avenue to Birch,
4
' reversing the flow back to the new pumping station, plus upsizing
another portion in Bristol Street from Cypress St. to Birch.
' Finally, upsizing a portion of the 8" sewer line in Mesa Drive is
required, since it is not cost effective to redirect this area to
the proposed pumping station.
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
The total amount of flow diverted by this alternative would be
approximately 0.87 million gallons per day (MGD) (peak flow).
This Would alleviate the need of upsizing any of the existing
Sanitary District system.
The estimated cost of this alternative is as follows:
ITEM
CONSTRUCT SEWER PUMP STATION
1250 L.F. 12" GRAVITY SEWER
3 MANHOLES
FREEWAY CROSSING (8" FORCE MAIN)
4,000 L.F. 15" GRAVITY SEWER
14 MANHOLES
JOIN EXISTING CSD MANHOLE
900 L.F. 12" SEWER IN MESA DRIVE
UNIT COST TOTAL COST
$200,000. $200,000.
250. 312,500.
2,500. 7,500.
150,000. 150,000.
150. 600,000.
2,500. 35,000.
2,000. 2,000.
120. 108,000.
TOTAL $1,415,000.
Additionally the CMSD would still serve Area 1, since as
mentioned above, this area does not lend itself to being easily
sewered accross the Corona Del Mar Freeway. The cost of serving
this area is $108,000 and is shown in both Alternatives 1 & 2.
ALTERNATIVE 2
' This alternative requires the Sanitary District to maintain
service to the Santa Ana Heights area through the existing
system. To do this, the following improvements would have to be
constructed to adequately handle the increased flows:
1
1 5
A. BRISTOL STREET SEWER
A new parallel sewer in Bristol Street from Cypress to the
existing siphon under the Santa Ana Delhi Channel would
need to be constructed to relieve the overburdened existing
8" main. Estimated cost of construction is $750,000.
B. 12" SANTA ANA DELHI CHANNEL SEWERS
One of the existing twin 12" diameter lines would need to.be
replaced with an 18" sewer line. The estimated cost of this
line is $375,000.
C. TUSTIN AVENUE PUMPING STATION
The existing station will require new pumps, controls,
electrical service, and enlargement of the wet well. The
estimated construction cost is $200,000.
D. ELDEN AVENUE PUMP STATION
This pump station is pumping in parallel with the Tustin
Avenue Pump Station and is adversely affected by any
increases in the output of the Tustin Avenue Pumping Station.
"Therefore, the pumps in this station will also have to be
replaced. Estimated cost of replacement is S75,D00.
E. 24" FAIR DRIVE TRUNK
A parallel 15" sewer main in Fair drive will be necessary to
handle the increased flows. Estimated cost of construction
is ;300,000.
F. 8" MESA DRIVE SEWER
Existing 8" diameter line would need to be upsized with 12"
sewer line. The estimated cost for this line is $108,000.
Total estimated cost of construction for this alternative is
$1,808,000. The above costs are based in part on a 1983 study by
the CMSD on the Santa Ana Heights Area where this same issue was
addressed.
Additionally, the CMSD would incur increased electrical power
costs and maintenance expenses due to the increased output from
the pumping stations.
G
I
'I
I
I
1
I
D
I
1
COST TABLE — ALTERRATIVE 2
IMPROVEMENT REQUIRED
A. BRISTOL STREET SEWER
B. SANTA ANA DELHI CHANNEL SEWERS
C. TUSTIN AVENUE PUMPING STATION
D.. ELDEN AVENUE PUMP STATION
E. FAIR DRIVE TRUNK. SEWER
F. MESA DRIVE SEWER
Conclusion A Recomendations
ESTIMATED COST
b 750,000.
375,000.
200,000.
75,000.
300,000.
108,000.
TOTAL $1,808,000.
Since it appears it is more cost effective to redirect the sewage
flows from the Santa Ana Heights area across the Corona Del Mar
Freeway to an eventual entry into the County Sanitation District
trunk line in MacArthur Blvd. it is recommended that the Sanitary
District and the City of Newport Beach join forces to implement
the pl an.
Additionally, the County Sanitation District has previously given
verbal conceptual approval to the redirection of flows, but
should again be contacted to reaffirm the plan is acceptable
' based on the flows shown in the study. One benefit to the County
Sanitation District is that upon implementation of the plan the
' County would see'a reduced flow in the Fairview Road Trunk Sewer
which is currently scheduled for reconstruction.
' It is also recommended that should the City of Newport Beach
decide not to continue pursuing the annexation, the Sanitary
District work with the County of Orange to implement the
redirection concept since the County's zoning will necessitate
the identical improvements.
I
1
1
7
/MGLG /
SER {//CE AREAS
-5-
rABLE r
fCOMME/YDED /MPROYwrmONM.
AL rFf#AT/YE 1
;,
r
i'
r
1�
r /. ' A711
p
V / :
-? �,' � � �. ;mil•`_ jig 1
ARTH11 LV'd. PUAWNG STATIOM—�'
P
0
,r
'GZALE rz- i00'.
- 9-
9
n
^S
R
TASLE .I
tJfCa1MAIEA►DED /�IoAYOYEA�E7YTr — AL TEEiViI T/YEt
TflBLE 4
Page 1
of 2
ULTIMRTE
UND USE FLOW
CHLU"TIOHS
_ SERVICE LINE
RESIDENTIRE
COMM
IND OTHER
TOTFiL
DV[;.
PERK
STORM
TOTFIL
DIB.
SLOPE
Capacity
FWA
LOU MED HIGH
FLOW
FLOW
ItFLOW
flowing
acres
acres
acres
acres
(MGO)
(in)
full
(MGD)
lB
Ricacia ME Mesa
13
13
0.07
0.15
0.01
0.17
6
0.0024
0.39
18
Birch tE Mesa
14
14
0.07
0.15
0.01
0.17
8
0.0024
0.39
1C
Mesa SE Birch
22
22
0.03
0.07
0.02
0.09
8
0.0024
0.39
- IBC
Mesa SE Bcacia
25
14
39
0.11
0.24
0.03
0.27
8
0.0024
0.39
IR-E
Mesa SE Irvine
25
30
24
79
0.19
0.39
0.06
0.46
B
0.0024
0.39
2R
Irvine N. Orchard
12
12
0.06
0.13
0.01
0.15
8
0.0024
0.39
2B
Birch S. Bristol
22
22
0.11
0.24
0.02
0.26
8
0.0024
0.39
2C
Cypress SW Bristol
32
32
0.05
0.11
0.03
0.14
8
0.0024
0.39
2D
Spruce SW Bristol
63
63
0.1
0.22
0.05
0.27
8
0.0024
0.39
2FFG
Bristol NW Irvine
95
46
141
0.38
0.75
0.11
0.67
8
0.0024
0.39
2B-F
Bristol NW Birch
95
33
120
0.31
0-62
0.10
0.73
8
0.0024
0.39
2C-E
Bristol M Cypress
95
7
102
0.10
0.37
0.09
0.46
8
0.0024
0.39
M60 - million gallons per day
PUL" . dmk l� i 1 Iii
mm
m_ _
�aaOm l=
\I
=i=
Sam _ ■■
a
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSITDISTRICT Board Members '
January 30, 1988 R=rR.Stanton '
Mr. Dan Nattrass RkhardB.Edgar
vc.0 S n
Project Manager Wltilam E. Farris
Phillips Brandt Reddick °'V-(C' ,
18012 Sky Park Circle c'm A. Aofh
Irvine, CA 92714 John Erskine
Dear Mr. tm
James P. Reichert ,
Nattrass: jsmes4t, Reichert
SUBJECTS NOR DEIR - UNIVERSITY DRIVE (NEWPORT BEACH)
We have reviewed this project and have the following comments: '
• OCTD currently provides service within the project limits. '
We have indicated the route alignment on the attached maps.
There are presently no existing bus stops in this area.
• In order to minimize the delay to our buses, and to avoid '
patron confusion during the construction period, we would
appreciate coordination of the construction period with our
Bus Operations staff. Please contact the following staff
person approximately two weeks prior to beginning
construction, to coordinate access to bus stops and bus
vehicle movements through the project area: ,
Mr. Don Capps
superintendent of Field Operations
Division 04 Bus Operations '
orange County Transit District
P.O. Box 3005
Garden Grove, CA 92642 '
(714) 638-9000 Ext. 4130
• For your future information, all Notices of Preparation or
other similiar requests for information should be directed to
my attention.
We appreciate the opportunity to review these plans. If you have
any questions or require additional information, please call be or
Dave Michaelson at (714) 938-9000, extension 3408.
sincerely, ,
Christine Huard-Spen er
Environmental Coordinator
Attachment: One set of plans with OCTD Route Alignments ,
cc: Mr. Don Capps, OCTD
Ms. Patricia Temple, City of Newport Beach '
11222Acacia Parkway/P.O. Box 30051Garden Grove/caldornla 92642.30051gM) 638.9" '
r M M r m w m �m M M M M M M r M m m
7y N,I-I .,. I
- - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - -
COADMA DEL MR FRUIT 111T. Tit v�
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ,
u i I I I I l i
7�IHIDi
Bristol Street Improvements
UNIVERSITY DRIVE MPAH DELETION
I 1
1 1 1
I I
eusrot an wonTeu:—J—
I
BRISTOL ST. IVOOTM
1I-
SOURCE: AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCTp LINE IIJ(IIA o so in
T 0LT6 1.14E -M.
COMPANY
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gq C
ORANGE CCUMY DIVISION • P C. BOX 3334. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92003
June 28, 1989
PBR
18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine, CA 92714
Attention: Dan Nattrass
Subject: Gas Substructures - Bristol Street (University Drive SIR)
This is in response to your letter dated 6-23-89 requesting maps and
data on our facilities. For your use, atlas prints showing the
general location of our facilities are attached. For more precise
location information before you begin construction, contact USA
(Underground Service Alert) at 1-800-422-4133.
It is the responsibility of the utility; developer or engineering firm
to determine if a conflict exists between the proposed deVelopment and
our facilities. If a conflict is identified and can only be resolved
by alteration of our facilities, or additional information is
required, please contact our local District Distribution Supervisor at
(714)546-7010.
Please note that any alteration of our facilities is 100% collectible
from the respective agency.
Sincerre�lyyt
Ge' ra7,d Sr thl`��
Technical Supervisor
AKsdu
attachments
cci J. McMahon
APPENDIX E (ADDED)
RECEIVE JUN 2 8 S9 R
1122 S.E. Bristol
Santa Ana, California 92707
(714) 545-1060 or 5454050
Subject: University Drive EIR
June 26,. 1989
' Phillips Brandt Reddick
18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine, California - 92714
Attention: Mr. Dan Nattrass
Project Engineer
Dear Mr. Nattrass:
We have reviewed the plans that were submitted to us and Santa Ana
Heights Water Company has no facilities on the North side of
Bristol South.
Sincerely,
•C. 0. Reinhardt
Vice President
1 Board of Directors
COR:mr
YOUR INDEPENDENT WATER AGENCY
4965 Placenila Avenue • Coasta Mesa, California 92627 • 744 631-1200
Letter of Transmittal
TO: AB'p
/80/z S&Y'44z< C/R.
ZR- V1,ve, CA. q27/¢
ATTENTION:�� Sol /✓A75G44S
PROJECT: Ele
GENTLEMEN:
K Attsched O Under separate cover
WE ARE TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
It] TRACINGS
$iQPRINTS
❑ SPECIFICATIONS
❑ SHOP DRAWINGS
DATE: ---7,Z1?18/
VIA:
Aw
=�"
WA
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted O Resubmit ❑ Per your request
❑ For your use 0 Approved as noted NZL For review and comment
REMARKS:
..,v+rxalse-
y/—+dx<�
eve�u'
Southern Callfornla Edison Company
7333 GOLSA AVENUE
WESTMINSTER. CALIFORNIA 92683
February 7, 1989
J. E. KENNEDY
MANAGER. COSTA MESA
Mr. Dan Nattrass
PBR
18012 Skvpark Circle
Irvine, California 92714
SUBJECT: University Drive F.IR
Dear Mr. Nattrass:
Following are responses prepared by Chris Cartwright, our
service planner, for the proposed University Dr. deletion
and Bristol Street couplet questions:
1. Map enclosed
2. Yes
3. Depends upon our rights check; usually no
4. No, must review final plans
TELEPHONE
(71 A) 895-031 I
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Cartwright
on (714) 895-0203.
Sincerely,
J.E. KENNEDY
JEK:ct
Encl.
cc: C.H. Cartwright
6 - I
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA !ga `COMPANY '
ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • R Q ROX 33A ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, 92W3.9334
January 24, 1989
PER
18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine, CA 92660
Attention: Dan Nattrass
Subject: EIR - University Drive
This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve
the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to
notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the
area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the
project could be served by an existing main as shown on the attached map
without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in
accordance with the company's policies and extension rules on file with the
California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements
are made.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based
upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public
utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of
the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions
of gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will
be provided in accordance with revised conditions.
Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an
individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial -Industrial Market
Services Staff by calling (714)634-3180.
We have developed several programs which are available upon request to provide
assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a
particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy
conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance.
Sincerely,
Gerald Smith
Technical Supervisor
LA:du
attachment
I
1
�CIVoT'Rer UX IelvUOPIer
I ULI I L- J—UD I L'LUrlll I 114YJ IYV IY' IIMLV IL ILY II! i
1
I
YOUR INDEPENDENT WATER AGENCY
1965 Placentia Avenue I Costa Mesa, California 92627 ' 744 631.1200
Letter of Transmittal
tT0: 1` o
/80lZ 6- AA.l& Cie.
/,,G V1jV6,; Ch'. 427/¢
�TTENTION: ��✓ ���QAS$
PROJECT: LarN1F_eE5 �%e/v
,GENTLEMEN:
1, 6,I Artached ❑ Under separate cover
IWE ARE TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
TRACINGS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑
Q S140PDRAWINGS
DATE: 2hl89
VIA:
-/2
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
'(�3 for approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Per your request
�k-Fnr your use 0 Approved as noted ❑ For review and comment
' REMARKS: ---
' SIGNED s�N�
1tER7 1 In = 4 ft
KORZ: t in = 4Q It CAMPUS DRIVE
EXISTING AIRPORT CURB/FENCE LINE
PROPOSED AIRPORT 11
6
( CURB/FENCE LINE w qq f
STA 39+39.98
ANGLE PT.
STA 38+54=.74
INSTALL STD F.H.
SEE DET "A" T
(THIS SHT.)
— CUW FACE NORTH BRISTOL — —
C/L NORTH BRISTOL PROPOSED CURB —
_EXISTING CURB
TELE & W W IN COMMON TRENCH
X
rif
n /
STP�W
i on
ling
WAMR
n
W �VFTe
—} La
fill
STA 4-0+57.0
END PIPELINE
CONSTRUCTIO
Ir" i rsr T "D„
I
i$ttnfa
„
1122 S.E. Bristol
Santa Ana, California 92707
' January 26, 1989 (714) 545-1060 or 545.4050
Phillips Brandt Reddick
' 18012 Sky Park Circle
Irvine, CA 92714
Attention: Dan Nattrass
Subject: University Drive EIR
Dear Mr. Nattrass:
The Santa Ana Heights Water Company has no facilities that would be affected by
the deletion of the portion of University Drive between Irvine Avenue and Jamboree
Road.
' The existing Company facilities which will be affected by the proposed improvements
to the Bristol Street couplet are shown on our atlas sheet Numbers 97 and 98
enclosed. Widening Bristol Street South between Irvine Avenue and Birch Street will
require the relocation of one fire hydrant at $4;100.00 and eight water meters at
' $1,050.00. If the pavement grade is raised, two valve covers will have to be raised
to the new grade at $250.00. Widening Birch Street between Bristol Street and
Mesa Drive will require the relocation of two fire hydrants at $4,100.00 and
twenty-six water meters at $1,050.00 and raising five valve covers if the surface
elevation of the pavement is raised at $250.00. The total estimated cost of this
work in 1988 dollars is, say, $50,000.00.
The Company plans to install a 10 inch water line in Bristol Street and an 8 inch
line in Birch Street to provide additional fire flows in support of the Santa Ana
Heights Redevelopment Agency plans. These improvements should be installed prior
' to the proposed street improvements. This work, as shown in the enclosed Figure 5
from Santa Ana Heights Water Company 1988 Master plan update prepared by
Boyle Engineering Corporation, is estimated to cost $379,000.00 in 1988 dollars.
The Company is requesting funds from the Santa Ana Heights Redevelopment Agency to
pay for this work as the need is generated by the change in the land use general
plan which converts low density housing use to commercial use. Time of completion
of the work will depend on arriving at satisfactory financing arrangements.
1 Sincerely
dz
C. 0. Reinhardt
' COR:ms
Enclosure
1
1. n
32
W
:ft
<I
r
1
Iwnii'll 2"1
1400
III
f.MA .
I %2aa
W�I
1
H
20161 N
t�
/
201H
I
Zola
I
20201
I 3300
uttl-
a�
ORG RO
1 RACT N i.
I
i
I
O I 302tt
O�I
202/2
W I I 20292
= I I
� Iw
W I
N
I I m]tt
20142
I�20aa2
1
j 203U
I
I
I
I 10402
Itb
II
I I' •��y h N O
NI 7G9
SG n
N
Ion
20271
20201
1 RA:T
Cnii
I tows
2ga2
101ft
201t0
tout
xatox
292u
102]t
20292
20a0 220206
20]I_i
lost 2oa 1 1 spats
20341
1
20301 kosax
20at
2ma1
20372
20171
rA4).V ! . 2oa21 2
0
V
i
20411 29411
4
R
xatt
n
K «
R MESAN _
u
I^ QUAIL
i
I'l
?V
I
1
JI
ZI
'I
I
I
I
1 I
W
C
to
N
'
G.
i
Q
v
NO
TH
L�
L
36"MWO
PIPELINE
--
--------------
/p•dC/9S
..ot
2 —
(
TRACT
I
i
Ya N
N
N 41 V
N
_
e
b
I
12
W
2ooN
h
Q
IV
'
I�3
SSO
3330•�
20031
}
=
O
W
Z WIo
20061 V
e
m
_ 3500
20o1I
' I
(
3440
343O
1
I
3420
I
706
I
1
I
I[Jy1R
BRISTOL
i2 CC TN---(N.0 W.D
n
N I N I N I N I N
2 52
20062
zooez
20102
E
F JuNSF N
Upaize Motor To 10"
r S L(4VQt �" { {' i i A' •! orva JOY
,::•t ,•Adg,t � f � �j $ � R �,�6. /I � Erg; � j
�r t cr No roe
Aft
ix j,� j ..i :► i.
.) � • ' 1 . ! 1 , ' i •V „ � !� fi � • i W 1 !'••I t ,. y ` = r
f t •� er C '
, ! 'k St:al(, t,. 1'• .d i�^,l y,v r•:rr :: lk!`n` x n�... i• I .. .. ! :.2.
ts
IV
It
r 4 j i i Y, ryt '" S `,! Y t 1,�I f hr . i I1 w� •. i.• S. r a � t M n (M � -• � " j �„ j,• l 4 1 1 1 . !.
•�r•.iCT.•:�.+a �'•'f i•,.'j• 7; qlr f•Ti..� •y tom•, y ;!+ r:f�' ;, 1 1 ..
n } .• :jY P II+••i }� _{,.' Yj' K, to t. 9\..•
,\ .t•ei.•.. .3ti aa,• 4 �as:.PY i" ?.} K��I l' l.,i %i.: lspq�
•� t, u. t:t•NJ. "`s• �! .{i7' :1Y, aj !�N,4t .ij✓.ry��S,+, ``(��'..j 7/'— +.�.''.9. r.j :!a:
4� !' .,\i \ •.nn� 4l P,f;Sj. a 7j :o :tint y3�R:Y...' w !�y '•
�. •7 ,,,, .y, !. ..FF •^'_ 5t_ # •.� r j 'fir s. ..!
• 7' T :!]'""li' .! •Y:r. ! «, .I .! �: t �f Ir1 •'• •t., l.� � �:.�o •,M � iw'�
••�r n,�, TA••1i1'� .\ it a. I .:•"�:: Slit � •." Y "t� •+•d] a,
! ,• am.
'i,•1.,.�k. 'tl'� (?°'' •l..'t'i• �' .�4� •�� lTit'1'0 f7/' 1 i 1 •tt
. d..1r1_• �• ' t � •]M+ �t...�" • r /.�ry�._._�•a_�YC. •'.. T..,. .
.4•— —, a:.^•Gc:{:Llai.. ,:r•:. �..t t.t. Tt �.,, •,!�• �. ;., Iv M}rT �••ly. jt;�g1�;i;•T.t.ir.t. ' .��jt •.a,• ,
♦ i Y1i 4 ,p l:A,• .. a,. 1. ,! •l�S•a ,'; t(• -,.♦[ :...�ro, `1
4 S 11 is '• '1•..:=J.. } . Y..l..iY. .Y• �Y.
•tkliJt'916 � !• �eu t i.,• 7:,' j YN�G 1 •t1 } )tl r'
I M• "M•l.Mr1N1 ,Fl. j.•{�Y v!• •�R!'N!!1•; �1., Y'rl!"�•'l;t��•b,IISfM. ••'�'•'•�A•,�1! {•\'
r "j t: ]:.t ti .v'1 S: i * ij'S••} •j�� � Ir ,..! i •r t'� '.-"'• \
���r�r•rYMre�rdwe'a�'r`rTrLr •! � � iAeliir.t�+"�—J•„�._�...L_.� J.;*:�t'tr�'�'lrti�•i�t'i •r
J ! (l!r/NTANY SCxta
FIG 5
1 B04�LE SAN1A ANA MGHTS RECOMMENDED WiC1VE7vIENTS
1988 MASTER PLAN UPDATE BIRCH/BFdSTOL AFF-A ,
•
' itTi a �IxCM Bt$I��$Pater Ga.
1122 S.E. Bristol
' Santa Ana, California 92707
(714) 545.1060 or545-4050
1
June 26, 1989
Phillips Brandt Reddick
18012 Sky Park.Circle
Irvine, California - 92714
Attention: - Mr. Dan Nattrass
Project Engineer
Dear Mr. Nattrass:
Subject: University Drive EIR
We have reviewed the plans that were submitted to us and Santa Ana
Heights Water Company has no facilities on the North side of
Bristol•South.
Sincerely,
ev
C. 0. Reinhardt
Vice President
Board of Directors
'1
June 28, 1989
L%qS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIACOMPANY
ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION - R. Q BOX 3334. ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92903 r
r
r
PBR r
18012 Sky Park Circle
Trvine, CA 92714 r
Attention: Dan Nattrass
subjects Gas Substructures - Bristol Street (University Drive EIR) r
This is in response to your letter dated 6-23-89 requesting maps and
data on our facilities. For your use, atlas prints showing the
general location of our facilities are attached. ror more precise
location information before you begin consttuction, contact USA ,
(Underground Service Alert) at 1-800-422-4133.
It is the responsibility of the utility, developer or engineering firm
to determine it's conflict exists between the proposed development and
our facilities. If a conflict is identified and can only be resolved
by alteration of our facilities, or additional information is
required, please contact our local District Distribution Supervisor at
(714)546-7010.
Please note that any alteration of our facilities is 1004 Collectible ,
from the respective agency.
Sincera4tiv�
ely,"Geral
Technical Supervisor
AKsdu
attachments r
ccs J. McMahon
rl
it 1
T
!i
1'
YOUR INDEPENDENT WATER AGENCY
1965 Placentia Avenue • Costa M'630. California 92627 • 714 634-1200
Letter of Transmittal q
TO: t409DATE: L/8�
/s40/Z 'SKY Q.4,EK
I,2vi�vE, CA. 927/ye
ATTENTION: 16AW MAr ", pia
PROJECT: YAAr S12�% Z),tg ale
GENTLEMEN:
I'�3.Attar tnad ❑ Under separate eowr
WE ARE TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
❑ TRACINGS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS
t,PRINTS ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS
F
I
VIA:
r / /
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Per your request
❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted )tL For review and comment
REMARKS:
Appendix F
CULTURAL RESOURCES
I
1
J
I
1
I
-�4--��-� PLANNED UNIVERSITY DRIVE EXTENSION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Cultural Resources m, =
UNIVERSITY DRIVE DELETION
SOURCE:ORANGE COUNTY HISTORICAL PROGRAMS DIVISION