Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 85-1(B) VOL 6_RESPONSE TO COMMENTS*NEW FILE* GPA 85-7(B) VOL 6 1 Newport Center We! Peripheral, Sites. GPA 85ml(B) Environmental Impact Report Responses to Comments Volume 6 sancbez ta]arico associates DRAFT EIR: JULY 8, 1986 CERTIFIED FINAL EIR: JULY 14, 1986 CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B) NEWPORT CENTER AND PERIPHEAL SITES STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 85061211 VOLUME 6 PREPARED FOR: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 PREPARED BY: SANCHEZ TALARICO ASSOCIATES 359 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 JULY 14, 1986 ii VOLUME 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..................................................1.1 II. COMMENTS......................................................2.1 III. RESPONSES.....................................................3.1 IV. REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES...................................4.1 V. ERRATA........................................................5.1 APPENDIR A - Letter Report: Basmaciyan-Darnell Incorporated B - Letter Report: James W. Anderson C - Letter Report: Natelson-Levander-Whitney, Inc. D - Letter Report: James W. Anderson E - Letter Report: Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates VOLUME 7 CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL I Introduction '1 1.2 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to transmit all comments received related to the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for General Plan Amend- ment 85-1(B) Newport Center and Peripheral Sites [GPA 85-1(B)] State Clear- inghouse Number 85061211 (SCH #85061211) received subsequent to the prepa- ration of Volume 5. It responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. Public Review Period The Draft Environmental Report for the Newport Center and Peripheral Sites project was distributed to various public agencies, responsible agencies, citizens groups, and interested individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The public review period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on April 14, 1986 and expired on May 29, 1986. In order to provide for the maximum participation of all members of the community in the environmental analysis of this project the City has chosen to respond to comments and issues subsequent to the close of the review period. The City has not as of this writing received comments related to the Draft EIR that would require the preparation of additional environmen- tal analysis. Public Comment/Hearings The City of Newport Beach has utilized several methods to solicit input on the Draft EIR. These methods have included holding several noticed hear- ings on the Draft EIR. This includes a public hearing noticed in accor- dance with City and State CEQA Guidelines related to the Draft EIR held by the City of Newport Beach City Council on June 23, 1986. I 11 1 I 1 2.2 1 1 II. COMMENTS Copies of all comments received subsequent to June 13, 1986 and before July 1 8, 1986 are contained in the comments section of this report. Comments have been numbered and responses have been correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant envi- ronmental issue. II II II 1.1 II i 1 1 1 2.3 Commentors Comment/Response Series 1. Meeting date - June 23, 1986 CC 1 - 64 City Council Meeting 2. Letter - June 23, 1986 CdM 1 Dee Masters and Luvana Hayton Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce 3. Letter - April 22, 1986 NCA 1 Richard H. Marowitz Newport Center Association 4. Letter - June 23, 1986 CMCA 1 - 7 Ronald C. Covington Corona del Mar Community Association S. Letter - June 16, 1986 SPONc 1 - 4 Jean Watt SPON 6. Letter - June 19, 1986 NHCM 1 - 2 Terry McCardle Newport Harbor - Costa Mesa Board of Realtors 7. Letter - June 20, 1986 WOLF 1 - 7 Jonathon Lehrer-Graiwer Western Center on Law and Poverty, Inc. 8. Letter - June 19, 1986 NHCA 1 - 4 Karen Harrington Newport Heights Community Association 9. Letter - June 23, 1986 FNB 1 2 John Roetman Friends of Newport Bay 10. Letter - June 23, 1986 CH 1 Chuck Hirsch 11. Letter - June 23, 1986 DWA 1 - 2 Terry Stahl and William McCroskey Douglas Wood & Associates 2.4 12. Letter - June 11, 1986 BF 1 Bill Ficker 13. Letter - June 23, 1986 SPONd 1 Jean Watt SPON 14. Letter - April 21, 1986 SPONa 3,5 Jean Watt SPON 15. Letter - June 6, 1986 EMA 2,3 Murray Storm Environmental Management Agency County of Orange 16. Letter - May 29, 1986 RN 2,5 Richard A. Nichols 17. Memorandum - June 12, 1986 QOL 3 Quality of Life Committee City of Newport Beach 18. Letter - May 28, 1986 SMW 25,29,46,47, Terry Watt 48,50,51,52 Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger 19. Memorandum - May 28, 1986 WQ 1-4 Nancy Olden California Regional Water Quality Control Board 20. Letter - May 28, 1986 SPONb 25-26 Jean Watt SPON 2.5 0Y • • U / YIY I_ The following comments were included in Volume 5 of the Draft Elk. It was indicated that these comments would be responded to under separate cover prior to final action on the project. SPONa 3 Comment It is of concern that the traffic analysis figures are made by committed projects and a trend analysis. Committed projects are described at those (in Newport) which "have an adopted Traffic Phasing Plan or approved traf- fic study". These projects do not include those in Newport's sphere of influence. SPONa 5 Comment We have requested earlier that the traffic figures and dispersal of traffic be included for the Irvine Company's Irvine Coast project. This project continues to be excluded even though the County had studied earlier plans even to the extent of traffic figures and dispersion. We believe that the Irvine Coast project should be considered at the same time as Newport Can- ter in order to accurately assess the impact on Corona del Mar. ENVIRONMENTAL, MANACEMENm AGENCY (EMA) EMA 2 Comment In response to the Notice of Preparation, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency noted that further urbanization in Newport Beach would increase the incidence of runoff to the Bay. We specifically requested that the Elk "should fully assess the impact of such runoff into the Bay, and should offer detailed proposals for reducing the entry of street conta- minants such as solid matter, oil, and grease into the storm drain system." The draft EIR, while concluding that the proposed development "will add to a significant cumulative impact on water quality in Newport Bay," fails to provide specific mitigation measures. EMA 3 Comment Currently, Newport Center adheres to the City of Newport Beach policies and requirements sited in the EIR, but still impacts the water quality of the 2.6 Bay on a regular basis, as shown by the following examples: 1. At the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club, complaints have been received re- garding the discharge of trash, oil and grease from the storm drain serving Newport Center. The Orange County Health Care Agency monitors total coliform, fecal coliform and enterococcus levels at this site. The results show that standards for water contact sports have been exceeded frequently compared with an equivalent site at Lido Yacht Anchorage, which has no storm drain (70% versus 19% for total coli- form). 2. At Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, samples taken from the dunes drain out- let in the swimming lagoon show that bacterial levels have exceeded the standards for water contact sports and shell -fish harvesting in over 75% of cases throughout the year. The lagoon has very poor flushing characteristics and is susceptible to coliform upsurges fol- lowing freshwater inputs from the watershed. This situation is likely to be exacerbated by the proposed development of boat slips at the lagoon entrance. Three other monitoring sites in the Dunes Lagoon are not as severely impacted as this drain from the east bluffs area, demonstrating the localized impact of this storm drain. For a number of years, efforts have been made by the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, the Department of Fish and Game, the Coastal Commis- sion and other interested parties, including the proponent, to improve the environmental quality of the Bay. Some progress has been made and further actions have been planned. Any deteriorative action, however small, is detrimental to this goal and should be avoided, wherever reasonably pos- sible. The draft EIR should fully evaluate all possible on -site mitigation measures for reducing the harmful effects of runoff to the Bay, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Improvements to source control practices such as the frequency of street sweeping, refuse pick-up and drain cleaning. A national study recently concluded that "sweeping just prior to the rainy season could produce some benefit in terms of reduced pollution in urban runoff in an area which had pronounced wet and dry seasons." 2. Mechanical methods of separating trash from runoff water. 3. Oil/water separators, as requested by the Coastal Commission in the mid 19701s. 4. Installation of retention basins and/or other viable treatment technologies. 5. Alternative location of outfalls for storm drain. 2.7 RN 2 Comment Our point is that all businesses directly fronting Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and all residences in at least the 65 CNEL range should be noise mitigated by sound insulation etc. This is not discussed although it was brought to the Staff's attention numerous times before and during the EIR. RN 5 Comment Further, between 9.5 and 10.7 acres of needed parks are being transferred from Newporter North and Newport Village to West Bay for a county regional park not even bordered by Newport Beach on its longest side. CDM and Bal- boa are deficient in Parks by Park Dept. survey. Harbor View Hills, CDM and East Bluff are dependent on closed school property for recreation facilities. The fields at Lincoln, East Bluff adjacent the Boys' Club and the 1/3 of Grant Howald Park form the backbone of our recreation facili- ties. Why is the Park Dept. not tying up these facilities and why are we not expanding facilities in the Grant Howald Park area for the sizeable expected and current needs. QOL 3 Comment The use of dated and inaccurate statistical information in the EIR, such as the use of 55 daily flights as the statistic for the number of daily flights at John Wayne Airport. Cli Y i• � Y SMW 25 Comment What is the basis for trip generation figures for apartments (Table 1-JJJ)? It would seem that with the growing number of dual employee, mid -to upper -income families, trip generation would be closer to 10 daily trips per unit? SMW 29 Comment What are the respective costs of improvements listed in Table 1-GGG and 1-III? 2.8 SMW 46 Comment The City of Newport Beach has concluded that John Wayne Airport (hereinaf- ter "JWA") will never be capable of meeting the region's air transportation demand. Under the circumstances it would seem prudent to minimize approval of projects which will contribute to demand until an alternative site has been secured and development is underway. At a minimum, the EIR should quantify the increased demand for air transportation use likely to result from this project so that decision -makers can be apprised of the full con- sequences of their actions on activity at JWA. In addition, cumulative impacts on JWA should be quantified. SMW 47 Comments Of equal or greater importance to the overall quality of the Newport Beach environment is water quality. Adverse impacts upon water quality from the project could have serious -repercussions on public health and safety as well as on wildlife. The EIR's discussion of such likely effects is dis- mally inadequate for a number of reasons: First, the discussion fails to provide even the most basic information about the project's impacts, including how much runoff will increase with the project, what constitu- ents, toxic and otherwise, will be contained in the urban runoff; and what capacity remains in the various drainage systems that serve the project areas (1969 data should be updated). SMW 48 Comment Second, the EIR provides no indication of the quality of water now flowing into the bay from Newport Center, though the system has been in place for years and studies must have been done on impacts of the outfalls on plant and animal life and overall water quality. SMW 50 Comment Studies of impact should not be deferred until a later time, but should be undertaken as part of the EIR so that adequate mitigation measures and pro- ject alternatives can be adopted. SMW 51 Comment At a minimum, this section should be rewritten to contain a quantification of the aforementioned impacts and technical information regarding the con- tents and effects of "urban runoff pollutants." Particularly important is an inclusion of a complete analysis of impacts on sites within the Coastal Zone as per coastal plan policy requirements. 2.9 SMW 52 Comment The EIR should also provide a description of existing water quality, whether or not it meets the standards in the outfall areas, and indicate the degree to which the project may frustrate attainment of any standards. WQ 1 Comment In the discussion of Water Resources (Volume 2, pages 93-107), the DEIR states correctly that implementation of the proposed project will result in changes in drainage patterns both on and off -site, as well as increase in the amount and velocity of runoff due to increases in impervious surfaces. The DEIR also recognizes the resultant increase in input of urban runoff pollutants to Newport Bay but describes this primarily as a short-term impact (p. 98-99). WQ 2 Comment It is noted that the project "will add to a significant cumulative impact on water quality in Newport Bay" (p. 106) but there is no detailed evalua- tion of the project's long-term impacts on the water quality or beneficial uses (e.g. wildlife, recreational activities) of the Bay. The final EIR should incorporate this discussion and include alternatives to the project or other measures which would mitigate adverse impacts. WQ 3 Comment The project proponent should be advised that an ongoing gasoline recovery Project at the PCH/Jamboree Road site. Prior to development at this site, the extent of soil and ground water contamination must be determined. Kurt Berchtold of this office and Seth Daugherty (714-834-8182) of the Orange County Health Care Agency can provide specific information about the proce- dures needed to conduct this investigation. WQ 4 Comment In addition, if dewatering is necessary and the discharge of wastewater to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (waste discharge require- ments) will be required from this office prior to initiating the discharge. In addition, any dewatering of the area affected by the on -site gasoline leak will require extensive treatment prior to discharge. Processing of an NPDES permit may take as long as 120 days. Any questions pertaining to this permit may be addressed to Mr, Gary D. Stewart of this office. 2.10 SPON (SPONb) SPONb 25 Comment But it is not clear whether other huge projects such as one in Irvine pro- posed just this week are included. It appears that the increased Trend Growth is a misnomer and since all projects included in such a forecast are known projects, it should be considered the Trend Growth. An increased Trend Growth forecast should be those that would tend to still be proposed due to the cumulative forces of expansion. SPONb 26 Comment The most critical aspect of this proposed project to residents who are con- cerned that the city does grow in a true phased manner with adequate sup- port systems in the proposed Development Agreement. II �1 1_ l Corona de! Mar CHAMBER of COMMERCE Honorable Mayor and Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Honorable Mayor and Council: A unique blend of people and place dune 23, 1986 We believe the advantages the City will reap in increased revenue, housing, improved intersections, street improvements and new roads to combat traffic congestion in CDM, far outweigh any disadvantages associated with approval of GPA 85-1(B). We think the Irvine Company has shown great sensitivity to the surrounding communities' concerns, especially in regard to alleviating traffic congestion in Corona del Mar. We are very aware that our traffic problems are regional in nature and origin and cannot be solely attributed to this project. Because CDM has borne the burden ofitheitraffic generated by development in the county, we are especially sensitive to the phasing of construction of Pelican Hills Road and.San Joaquin Hills Road Extension. We respectfully request, and plead, that council require. that 4 lanes of PHR be in place before Certificates of Occupancy are issued for Block 600. We further re-' spectfully request, and plead, that SJHR Extension be retained on the Master Plan as a 6-lane Major Arterial but that only 4 lanes be developed before Certificates of Occupancy are issued for Block 600 and before building and grading permits are issued for Block 800. It is our honest and sincere belief that approval of this amendment will provide the most benefit for the most people, the City at large, and for the Irvine Company, We commend your staff for a yeoman job of negotiating this complex plan and contingent conditions and for their willingness to listen and explain. We urge approval for PHR and SJHR and add dollars F.-ZFM 11 I 11 CdM 1 ' 11 i I I 11 11 of the amendment and incorporation of our recommendations ' Extension. Purther delays will only complicate matters o the eventual cost. 5i er yours ' Masters /_ LVVena Hayton74Y Co -Chairmen Transportation Committee , 11 2855 East Coast Highway • Post Office Box 72 • Corona del Mar, California 92625 • 714/673.4050 1 Newport Center Association 180 Newport Center Drive Suite 180 Newport Beach. California 92660 (714)640•1861 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Richard N. Manville. President Griner Newport Chddrens Secure David R. Carmichael. Vice President and Woe Pmadenl ASSGG11e General Counsel Pacific Muntal We insurance Comport/ NankAdler, Vice President Partner TauMe Press & comply timerd E. Schneider. Esq.. Treasurer Pon or Buchalter Oemer. Rates Christie & lounger Lynn Slanlan, M.D., Secretary Narrate L. Arthur. Past President Vice Pretment. Distract tianager Great American first Sawngs Bane Walter B. Brandt. Ph.0.. M. Ed Thomas C. Casey SMIdrVice Pmf0eel RRtl4nenan Trust cemetery David Omohowskl Alsrager. Governmental R^Emns The Irvine Company Reason English. Jr. vice Ptes101nt Oink olAri Wllllam A. Gating Director of Pra pem/ hlamg<m<nt CunrOmlapment Raymond Kavaa Genera lAIDager NnrpaR Beach r tacnGR Hale[ &Terms Crum RogerL. Neu. J.O.. C.PA. RMu$G. Tenter Genera manager Four Seasons hotel EX•OFFICIO DIRECTORS Richard Uri E/tcutut Garver billion. Nlmdr A," charizel at COTmate Imam Rappola Urea-., hmmn island Management EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Karen Kennedy RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(B) Whereas, the completion of Newport Center is necessary to the vitality of Newport Center and the City of Newport Beach; Whereas, the Newport Center Association has thoroughly reviewed and considered all aspects of proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) NCA 1 Now T erefore Be It Resolved, that the Board of Directors of the Newport Center Association do hereby unanimously recommend and endorse the approval by the -City of Newport Beach of General Plan Amendment 85-1(B). � 1L�lILL•�..lL K / / / /C7/T..Cei�C%'C�ja�„� Richard H. M 6-a3-8 CORONA DEL MAR '"' ' COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 0„r' - P. O. BOX516 CORONA DEL, 1vfAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 June 23, 1986 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mayor Maurer and Council Members: Re: CDMCA Positions on Newport Center GPA 85-1B It is important that these hearings on the proposed General Plan A- mendment open the lines of communication between the residents and the Council; and that testimony from a broad range of residential communities be elicited in order that we may define their needs and problems relating to this proposal and ultimately arrive at a satisfying decision. This plan is part, � major pa%t al i that, of the rapid commercial and residentiall-growth our community has experienced in the past few years. It also reflects a trend toward accelerated growth within the region. Such de- velopment requires planning and management if we are going to attempt to minimize the harmful impacts and retain the quality of life we have come to expect in our community. CMCA Corona del Mar, because of being situated on one segment of the Pa- cific Coast Highway has historically been expected to bear large volumes of traffic. In fact it continues to operate at a seriously deficient level. It serves as you well know as an alternate route to the 405 freeway for the north and southbound commuter. Our residential streets increasingly serve as bypasses around the congested segments of the highway during peak hours. The 65 CNEL contour reaches much further back on both sides of the highway than it did only a few years ago. Residential neighborhoods Ct CA have been bisected. We have become a community growing apart because of the highway, The opportunity for residents to do business in their com- munity is severly hampered by these conditions. Traditionally, easy pedes- trian access to the business community has been an important characteristic of Corona del Mar. Thus, what we know about this growth trend is that we have been unable to adequately mitigate the significant impacts causing a deteriorating quality of life in our community. This we find totally unaccep- table. CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 0"Ir' a `J P. O. BOX 516 L CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 Mayer Maurer and Council Members June 23, 1986 Page Two With this in mind then you can well understand our sensitivity to an;. •plans to further increase development over and above that which is already allowed. Our association has discussed the General Plan Amendment and.has endorsed unanimously the following resolutions: First, the circulation element of our community, and other roads such as Pelican Hills, must be planned, designed, built and functioning as viable CMCA bypass routes for regional traffic. This should be done before the commence- 3 ment of any additional development activity in Newport Center. This in- cludes development allotted under the existing General Plan. We cannot adequately mange the 93, 000 trips per day from the center. It is unrea- sonable to expect that''+ve can absorb ar.y(more without further deterioration in the quality of life. Second, the propos6d.General Plan should be.denied. • It fails to move, we' believe, in the direction of low intensity development in both the residen- COCA tial and commercial areas. It does not conform adequately to the existing general plan. Third, the Pacific Coast Highway should not be expanded. It must remain JCMCA a four lane highway. 5 Fourth, MacArthur Blvd, should remain a four land highway from the Coast ICMCA Highway to San Miguel. J 6 The positions we have taken are supported with a good deal of resolve on our part. Of paramount importance is the need to build bypasses around the community before, not in conjunction with, development in the Center, CMCA In the long term we need relief in our circulation system. If this results in 7 a much reduced level.of development then we should accept that consequence. Very tfuly yours, Ronald C. Covington, President CDMCA RCC:sn r CITY OF NEVInRT BEACN, CALIF. JUN 1.7 1986 00 RECEIVED CITY CLERK 2 STOP A D yCr '1 a t OUR O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 June 16, 1986 Newport Beach City Council Philip R. Maurer, Mayor 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Maurer and members of the City Council, We have reviewed the plans for the expansion of Newport Center, the EIR for General Plan Amendment 85-1(B), and the comments by other reviewing organizations. We have dis- cussed the matters at issue, such as traffic and intensity of development, with members of othler organizations and wish to relay to you the following conclusions and requests: Residents of Newport want the City to remain a high quality residential community. We believe that the direction we are going is away from the City's long held policies to retain the residential nature of the City. The projected increase in commercial development jeopar- dizes the residential community. The increasing commercial development requires roadways that are too large for the residential nature of the City. _ It has been the policy of the City to limit the width of roads and intersections and avoid freeway type overpasses. Now, with proposed increases in commercial development, these limits will be exceeded. Besides changing the character of the City, excessively wide roads and freeway type overpasses will create excessive speeds, hazardous conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, more noise and adverse visual impacts. The intensity of development proposed is so great that, even with wider roads, intersections and overpasses, the traffic levels of service at the peak hour will be unacceptable. We believe these problems should be addressed by a representative body of residents before further increases are 1 1 I I I SPONC , 2 11 •1 � MM�MWf414M'M•\V.2A1lAY�. •Jp?• ••l � �ifi i allowed in General Plan densities. - The Newport Center expansion plan is of particular con- cern because of the plan to lock 1,275,000 square feet of additional office/commercial development into a development agreement which will bind future Councils. Therefore we make the following request: 1. That an advisory committee be formed of representatives from all organizations representing homeowners in the City and wishing to be represented on such a committee. 2. That a staff representative from the City be assigned to help with traffic and engineering expertise. 3. That a Chairman and Vice Chairman be elected from among the representatives. 4. That a short term agenda and meeting dates be developed by the Chairmen. 5. That recommendations for the following be developed: a. A redefinition of roadway facilities with a• commitment to retaining a size and scale compa- tible with;the inteiests of the community asso- c+i-a t i o n s. b. An ordinance calling for significant decreases in commuter traffic by the use of hig og ccupancy vehicles as is being accomplished in other cities. c. A limit to the amount and type of commercial development depending upon the availa 7 sty of roads and acceptable levelsservice. Very Truly Yours, Jean Watt, Presiding Officer SPON c 3 SPON c 4 WEC»IEDl�('!DR ' Newpoirt Harbor -Costa Mesa IFoar` ea o 401 North Newport Blvd., Post Office Box 1815 Newport Beach, California 92663 1671 June 18, 1986 Newport Beach City C �iut City of Newport Beach P-04 Box 1768 1986 Officers Newport Beach, CA 92663 TERRY McCARDLE President MARY DANK Vice-Presiden: NINFA O'BRIEN Secretory MAX ADRIAN Treasurer JANE BOYD Immediate Post President CITY OF NE NORT Bm". CI,fiittl'r, CITY CLkr r�. Dear Mayor Maurer and Council Members: OFFICE/OFT-}�t1�',rr�AY0R C(INES SENT TO: 9mnittn n]5er ❑4• irat:r a/ Cntk bh On June 17, 1986 the Board of Directors of the Newport Harbor - Costa Mesa Board of REALTORS approved a resolution in support of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 85-1B for completion Of Newport Center as proposed by the Irvine Company. The Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of REALTORS is composed of some 1,800 members, including REALTORS and Affiliates, most Of whom Teside and/or wojA in the Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa area, and are genuinely concerned with the quality of life in the area. We believe the Newport Center General Plan Amendment will re- 1986 Directors suit in improvements beneficial to the entire community, includ- ing: ROBERT BURTNER Expanded sho in with a broader mix of retail opport- JOYCE SPILLER unities, thus eliminating much of the need to travel long ART REESE distances to satisfy shopping requirements; LEE MOHLER Increased facilities for dining, entertainment and leisure time activities; Significant infrastructure improvements such as, -reduced traffic through Corona del Mar due to the Pelican Hills Road bypass, Execulive Officer -completion of San Joaquin Hills Road through to Pelican ]Hills Road; and, DWIGHT DICKEY -widening MacArthur Boulevard to provide for smoother traffic flow. As citizens with a genuine concern and commitment to our commu- nity, the'Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of REALTORS urges your support of the Newport Center General Plan Amendment. LEI Sincerely, REALTOR'� crry/bicCardle, President NPWL'UttT HARBOR -COSTA MESA BOARD OF REALTORS it in Ri-eelknee PHNY.d. � � }Lwilai 11 11 11 k A►ORT HARBOR COSTA MESA e BOARD OF REALTORS ' 1986 Officers TERRY McCARDLE President ' MARY JANK Vice -President ' NINFA O'BRIEN Secretary MAX ADRIAN ' Treasurer JANE BOYD Immediate ' Past President 1986 Directors ROBERT BURTNER JOYCE SPILLER ' ART REESE LEE MOHLER 1 Executive Officer ' DWIGHT DICKEY t� Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of Realton: j 401 North Newport Blvd., Post Office Box 1815 Newport Beach, California 92663 Telephone (714) 646-1671 NEWPORT HARBOR -COSTA MESA BOARD OF REALTORS RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1B INH COMPLETION OF NEWPORT CENTER 2 RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the NEWPORT HARBOR - COSTA -MESA BOARD OF REALTORS hereby supports Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 85-1B for completion of Newport Center as propdsed by The Irvine Company. Adopted. by the Board of Directors this 17th day of June, 1986. Sedr� eta�Cy " Profit in Excellence " e me WestCsrn-Cant-a1 '+Mull Lmu and poy;qi zy9 In�e 3535 W °L•ct h Wrest • Los Angeles, CA 90020-2898 -2 (213) 487-72.11 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINiED'Ez- June 20, 1986 EXPRESSMAIL City council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mo'•! 3 9: alC. Vyyr �••• �. \.• '''ctcrYa Toth;,;^,Ia ` E; ,�, � RE�. u �� 1101htlYf(gI W!•fOn Mmn:4a:Or t�',�.�� JUNZ31586y- Melmtlo 8uc L.2 Ca'rrerlEslra.o Gty 1AInjor Gty of Newport Mare Greencerq Mary Lee BHAh (� al•tln Lehrer•Grorwer Robert rlewmcn Fti coursel Re: Proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) Dear Mayor and Membersiof the city -'{Council: This office represents a number of the plaintiffs in Davis, et al. V. City of N-wi rt Beach. This statement is submitted as testimony in opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendment 85- the 1(B) and I hereby request that this letter be included as WCLP amendments of the public hearing concerning that general plant of General the Constructionnof andadditionalment B1,275,000)o which is a request to allow are feet Of uses, 2481000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses residential ando700ce units on property located in Newport Center and some peripheral sites, is inconsistent with the Cityls 1984 Housing Element in that it will exacerbate an existing imbalance in the City of Newport Beach between low and moderate income demand housing resulting from employment in the City and the availability of low WCLP 21 City ofing Newportrdable Beach.to GeneraldPlanerate incoe Amendmentmpersons in the inconsistent 85-1(B) is also with the City's obligations under its constitutional Police powers, to take into ' account and accommodate in its land use decisions the existing and regional needs for very low, low and moderate income housing, GPA 85-1(B) will adversely affect the city's regional need for lower and moderate income housing by creating significant employment for lower ' and moderate income persons without a concomitant provision of housing affordable to those persons and their families. ' `(onrtrrn Czklorma . 1900 "Kr. a Suaa 200 • Socromcnto, CA )5E14 . (916) -12.753 , rCrCca Ca'w/ dCr99•rr :5 raaYr • :.aCnrO C .G•tS • vrt•.. F :CFI'Itl • n•ra•a Sr..0 a•trq • 2i•178w•:rE Newport Beach City Council ' June 20, 1986 Page 2 The imbalance in the City between employment generated demand for lower and moderate income housing and the availability of housing affordable to such families has been elaborated upon in WCLP testimony in the trial of Davis v. City of Newport Beach by expert 3 witnesses Perla Eston and Alan Mallach and such testimony is incorporated herein by reference. GPA 85-1(B) will also exacerbate the City's existing indigenous need for low and moderate income housing to the extent that a commercial development will increase the demand for such WCLP housing in the City of Newport Beach, thereby creating a tighter 4 housing market and contributing to a further increase in the housing costs. The agenda for the City Council meeting of June 23, 1986 doe; not specify whether any of the 700 residential units will be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households and GP; 85-1(B) may also be inconsistent with the Cityfs 1984 Housing Element if low and moderate income housing units are not required in the proportions provided for in that housing element. Furthermore, even apart from the requirements of the 1984 Housing Element, the City hasjan indep4ndent constitutional obligation to meet its fair share of the regional need for very low, low and moderate income households which will require that a significant percentage of the 700 residential units be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households for a significant period of time, such as 30 years as provided for in Government Code 65916. Unless these requirements are part of GPA 85-1(B) then the Genera: Plan Amendment will be deficient. — Finally, the environmental documentation on GPA 85-1(B) is inadequate due to its failure to adequately assess the impact of the proposed additional commercial development on the Cityts regional and indigenous need for very low, low and moderate income housing and for its failure to fully explore all available mitigation measures, including the use of all available local, federal and state programs for the development of very low and low income housing. The environmental documentation also fails t adequately assess and consider the effects of the commercial development on limiting or restricting future residential development and for its failure to adequately assess and consider mitigation measures for the inconsistencies between GPA 85-1(B) and both the CityIs'1984 Housing Element and its constitutional obligations under its police powers. _ I look forward to the City considering and addressing the highly important issues raised in this letter concerning the 1 WCLP 5 WCLP 6 11 Newport Beach City Council June 20, 1986 Page 3 opportunities for very' low and low income families to live in the City of Newport Beach. WCLP ' J7 S erely, , nathan Lehrer-Graiwer , JLG/jac 1 t 1 1 Newport H hts Community Association vport Beach, California II II June 19, 1986 Councilwoman Hart Newport Beach City 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Cal Council 92663 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED!' Dear Councilwoman Hart and fellow City Council members: ' The Newport Heights Community Association is concerned about the General Plan Amendment requested to facilitate the Newport Center buildout. We believe Newport Beach is a prime residential community. As the -General Plan is the.blueprint for our City's growth, we 1 believe it should reflect this residential character. We further believe any action taken by the City Council must be based first and foremost on this basic premise. Given Newport Beach is a residential community, it follows that the streets must ref Sect this character in size and type. We do not believe six lane roads and overpasses are appropriate in a. primarily residential community. As traffic and growth are tied together, it 'is necessary for the City Council to'look at our roads, listen to what the community wants and determine how they should function, then plan growth accordingly. General Plan amendments that suggest increasing the building areas must be analyzed critically with traffic in mind. .Specifically, .the Newport Heights Community Association believes the Geheral Plan Amendment is out of character to our City and creates too much traffic for our roads. The EIR for the Newport Center expansion responds to the increase in traffic with mitigation measures. We find these measures unacceptable. We N?CA also find it- unacceptable to allow the Amended Plan growth without the mitigation measures needed to avoid further traffic congestion. We feel the only way out of this bind is to scale down the development to allow for an acceptable and workable circulation system which is reflective of Newport Beach's low density development and residential character. Specific requests regarding the Newport Center expansion include (but may not be limited by): 1) Bayview - Limit restaurant development to a maximum of two, NHCA with the rest of the area dedicated as a park and bike staging 3 area for the Back Bay. I Newport is Community Association 11 June 19, 1986 Page 2 of 2 2) Newport Village - Keep residential but lower density. Include a park for the residents and local workers. 3) Total Office Square Footage - Block 600 and block 800, Newport Village etc. Reduce the square footage to 500,000 square feet. This reduction should significantly reduce commuter trips. Regarding traffic: 1) Require a traffic management system such as can/van pooling and staggered work hours. 2) Beep streets residential in nature. This means NO SIX lane roads and No overpasses. 3) Do not improve capacity of intersections in Mariners Mile. 4) DO NOT WIDEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ANYWHERE. But plan for improvements to oar streeto �#at enhance our city's image further. The citizens of Newport Beach feel the character of our city is "- threatened by too much commercial growth. This feeling is evidenced by the Traffic Ordinance Initiative and by the active interest in the Citizen's Traffic Task Force. We feel it is time for the City Council to meet with' Homeowners and Citizen's groups to review the circulation system. We believe this must be accomplished prior to processing of the General Plan Amendment. Representatives of the Board of the Newport Heights Community Association are ready and willing to assist in this endeavor. Our suggestions are made with the best interests of Newport Beach at heart. We sincerely hope the City Council will rise to the occasion and protect those interests. Thank you, �Wtmj ��%k� Karen Harringt President• NHCA 722-8413 cc: Dick Nicoles, Com Homeowners Assoc. Dave Dmohowski, Irvine Company I� 11 FRIENDS OF NEWPORT BAY PRiMED:"� P.O. BOX 2001 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 June 23, 1986 Mayor Maurer and honorable members Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: General Plan Amendment #85-1 (3) We have reviewed the GPA f81-1 (B), the staff report and the appropriate sections of the E.I.R. that'apply to development of lands that may impact Upper Newport Bay ecological reserve. In addition, we reviewed the development possibilities of the sites with Mr. Carl Wilcox of the California Department of Fish and Game. We offer the following comments: (1) Newport North and John Wayne Gulch sites A 100' set -back applies to these two sites. It is our under- standing, as well as that of Mr. Wilcox, that the 100' set- back is to be measured from theitop of the bluffs and no de- velopment (other than trails, etc.) would take place- for 100' .back from the bluff edge. We contacted Patricia Temple of the FNB 1 Newport Beach planning department and confirmed our interpre- tation of the 100' measurement.. The documents are not clear on this point. We request that the appropriate documents be clarified to state that the 100' set -back begins at the topof the bluff and extends away from the reserve. Otherwise, the bluffs will have little protec- tion.- In many areas no public trails could be constructed without destroying the bluff faces. The 100' set -back from the to, of the bluffs will go a long way to prevent collapse of the bluffs as happened in several areas on the west side of the Upper Bay in the Dover Shores development. (2) West.bay site We support the planning commission's recommendation that this site be re -designated for open space and recreational pur- poses. Since 75% of the D.U.'s already have been transferred to Newport Centet, transfer of the remaining 25%, as recom- FNB mended, complete the process. We al.so recommend that dedica- tion of this site to the city be implemented. It is the best way to protect public rights gained through this mitigation. Respectfully, fohn Ro tman Y President, Friends of Newport Bay June 23, 1986 Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is Chuc Hirsch. I have been in business in Newport Beach for 23 years, and a former 10 year member of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, and my daughter has been in a business in Corona del Mar for the last 6 years. We are all concerned about transportation, for that is how we are abl to maintain businesses which generate profits to keep our area viable and a pleasant place to live — and be able to pay taxes to pay for city services to be provided for the people who live and work in Newport Beach. That any expansion of current properties or building of new improvements in Newport Beach generates additional traffic, is fully understood. Any similar construction in cities and the County land adjacent to or near our city, over which we have no control, produces traffic also. We have such marvelous and attractive nuisances, such as our beaches and harbor, that draw visitors from near and far, with their associated traffic, also over which we have absolutely no control. We also have a new State beach between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach, which attracts increasing traffic each year, over which we cannot exercise 6ny control. Welcannot stop the growth of traffic, but we can thoughtfully achieve development agreements which will provide for road improvements that will improve the circulation of traffic. There was an opportunity to provide for traffic improvements when GPA 80-3 was proposed. It included some of those improvements being proposed with GPA 85-1(8), such as the Pelican Hill Road. Had that Amendment had the needed support, the improvements would have been constructed, and, as an example, the heavy congestion experienced now on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar in the morning and evening would bi dramatically reduced. The EIR includes analyses of the traffic which could be generated by the buildings requested in GPA 85-1(8), and many of us have spent hours reading those analyses.. As the staff summary indicated, the incremental increase in traffic, which would be contributed by the total requested project, would, in various locations, range from a to of 2% to a high of only 117. One example of this is the increase on Pacific Coast Highway, west of Dover Drive, in the Newport Heights area due to the General Plan Amendment, alone. Based on the traffic volume forecasts from the EIR the increase in the traffic is estimated to be 2200 Averhge Daily cars, and this amounts to only a 4.3% increase over currrent traffic counts. This number is somewhat obscured in the estimated traffic volumes presented in the EIR, which account for the total possible 11 11 4, II J II II II II 11 growth of traffic, and which include that increment from GPA-85-1(B). When a business, such as the Irvine Company, plans a project defined in GPA 85—l(B), that business understands certain corollary investments are reqired. The Pelican Hills Road is an example of one of those that could be justified, assuming that the necessary income stream generated by the project can realized. If that road is built, the analysis shows it should divert a major portion of the total projected increased traffic — from all sources — off PCH in Corona del Mar, and MacArthur Boulevard. There are other circulation element components and improvements which would be provided with the approval of the total project that would also improve the conditions on our roads as well as reduce the noise generated by traffic, such as the lowering of MacArthur Boulevard and the construction of minimal sound walls. Consideration for widening of MacArthur Boulevard to 6 lanes was part of•the•presentation and considerations before the Planning Commission; however, the community adjacent to MacArthur asked that the widening b'e withheld until traffic demonstrated the need to widen. In addition, an analysis of improvements are competed, than is needed to accimodate completion of the GPA. the data shows that when the more capacity is provided on the t'r4ps generated through road those roads the The Master Traffic Circulation Element, which was addopted in March o 1974, ,and which has.been modified in minor respects over the years, had the build —out of Newport Center included in its calculations. It is recognized that the details of that build —out have changed since that time, but the land use element used to provide the estimates of traffic to provide that document is the same. There is a proposed change to.the Circulation Element that is incorporated in the GPA and set forth in the EIR. That one is the deletion of the Avocado/MacArthur one—way couplet. The Pelican Hill Road is an example of link that would be added as part of the project, improving the Circulation Element. Some years ago, when the Citizens Traffic Advisory Committee studied the Circulation Element and the needs for improvement, they used data developed for a traffic volume to be anticipated by 1995, and those numbers included all the influences throughout the County which impact traffic in Newport Beach, and not just the buildout of the land in accordance to the land use element in Newport Beach. At that time recommendations from that committee to the City Council included such items as widening Pacific Coast Highway between MacAthur Boulevard and Dover, widening of MacArthur and Jamboree, and the grade separation for the PCH/Jamboree intersection. The introduction of these as consider—ations in the analysis of this project are not new or unique. Douglas Wood & Associates Land Use Planning / Governmental Relations / Environmental Analysis June 23, 1986 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA Attn: The Honorable Phillip Maurer, Mayor Subject: Newport Center General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) as related to San Joaquin Hills Road Dear Mayor Maurer: It is the intent of this correspondence to provide a response and respectfully propose changes to recommended Conditions of Approval concerning the Newport Center General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) as -specifically related to the future extension of San Joaquin Hills Road. These proposed changes articulate the position of both the Spyglass Hill and Spyglass Ridge Community Associations, the two residential Communites immediately adjacent to and impacted most by San Joaquin Hills Road. These proposed changes are intUded to accomplish the following goals: 1) insure that Pelican Hill Road is completed (i.e. from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Blvd. at or near Bristol Street) prior to the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road; 2) extension of San Joaquin Hills Road as a four -lane Primary Arterial from its current terminus at Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road within the timing parameters recommended by Staff; 3) dedication of right-of-way necessary to accomodate San Joaquin Hills Road to six lanes (in the event of the need arising for widening); and 4) initiation of an Amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to redesignate San Joaquin Hills Road to a Primary Arterial (4 lanes, divided) between Marguerite Avenue to Pelican Hills Road. In order to accomplish these goals, we wish to respectfully propose the following changes to the proposed Conditions of Approval concerning the Newport Center General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) as specifically related to the future extension of San Joaquin Hills Road, The following revised Conditions of Approval are numbered and page referenced to correspond to their listing in the June 23rd Staff 'Report. Page 4 - Circulation Element 1. Delete Avocado Avenue/MarArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet designation; designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes divided); designate Avocado Avenue as DWA 1 3800 Inlet Isle, Corona Oft Mar, California 02625 714n69.8949 a Secondary Artari,al (4 lanes) between Coast lil.ghway and Sari Miguel Drive and designate San Joaquin Hills Road as a Primary Arterial-(9 lanes divided) between Marguerite Avenue and Pelican Hills Road. This ci.rculation element revi.sion is subject to approval of the County of Orange. 2. Recommend to the City Council initiation of an amendment to the"Ci.rculatioq Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to designate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arter.i.al (8 lanes di.vided) and San Joaqui.n Rills Road as a Primary Arterial (4 lanes, —cT3ViTedj 5eNeen:Mar uer%i e`Avenue and Pelican ff i =0acl- Further,. recommend to the City Council that fi.nal action on this amendment be taken concurrent with the action on GPA 85-1(B). Page 6 - Construction Phasi.ng (Including Staff Recommendati.on on page 24) l� 4. Certifi.cate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of construction of four lanes of Peli.can Hill Road Vrom Pacific Coast Highway to.MacArthur Boulevard at or near Bri.stoi Street): DWA 2 -Block 600 5. Building or grading permits for the followi.ng projects maybe issued upon full dedication and commencement of construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road to Pelican Hill Road: A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West Page 7 - other Requi.rernents 5b. Full dedication and completion of San Joaynin Hills Road to�Aa-3er Prterial configuration 46-1-anes-, di.Vided) (4-lanes, divided easterly of Spyglass Road, and cunneutno� n to —Pelican Iti.11 Road. As representatives of the two Community Associations most impacted by San Joaquin•llills Road, we feel that the proposed revisions rioted above respond to our local concerns while also respecting regional transportation goals. We will be in attendance at your bearing of June 23, to answer your questions and provide any information as necessary on this matter. Thank you for your patience and consideration. Sincerelv. ty Association William McCros.ey Spyglass Hill Community Association June 1111986 NEWPORT CENTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Introduction. Mr. Mayor, my name is Bill Picker. I live at 522 West Oceanfront. I have been a permanent resident in Newport Beach since 1953. I was a member of the Planning Commission at the inception of the Irvine Company's Master Plan that included Newport Center, and I•am*here•to speak in favor of the Newport Center General Plan Amendment. — I have had an unwaivering interest in the maturing of this community and take great pride in being part of it, but particular. pride it the quality with which it has matured. But there are many people of varying opinions who have a common interest to see our'city be the finest city in the world. In the last 25 years, Newport Beach has become the hallmark by which other cities, their patterns of growth and maturity are measured. People literally come from all over the world to copy or understand how a city can not only maintain, but improve -in quality, its expansion and development. We were fortunate in having, perhaps, the most creative land planner of our timer Bill Pereira, "master plan" the area surrounding what we knew in 1963 as Newport Beach, so the land wasn't merely subdivided in a grid pattern like most of Southern California at the time. Instead, it has been developed in the most ideal manner with highly identifiable areas of residential, commercial and industrial uses. The keynote has, been quality, and today it is more obvious than ever that there is a dedication to excellence. There are traffic concerns that we all sharer but as a planner, I know that traffic studies are not an exact science, and I hope that we will not try to anoint them as an exact science in the deliberations before you. BF 1 June li, 1986 Newport Center General Plan Amendment Page 2 However, traffic engineering does provide a magnitude of concern for us to consider. The magnitude of impact or concern is almost insignificant in the proposed General Plan Amendment. It is a small fraction of the overall impact of the surrounding areas. With regard to traffic, there are some elements to consider that, perhaps, cannot be quantified, and that is the tremendous benefit to our emotional and physical welfare in being able to live in Newport Beach and work in Newport Beach. This takes a dramatic amount of cars and pollution away from our greater environment. Certainly, it is an overwhelming plus for our transportation concerns: We can carry on all phases of our life for entertainment, shopping, medical services, education and cultural opportunities without leaving our surface streets and with short trips. We should be secu�e in tha� we do have adequate controls over our destiny. We should have confidence that traffic mitigations do work. The back bridge is, perhaps, the classic example of that philosophy. We did not simply move the problem to anothet location, but the problem was almost entirely removed. I would like to address some points that I think have not been stressed adequately in the past, but are extremely important to the future and present welfare of our community. We must have some balanced growth. We have an obligation to our young people that are born and raised in this community. We graduate over high school students a year, Some stay in our locality and attend college, some go directly into the labor market, and others go away to school, but I venture that most all of them, such as our own daughter, like to come back and live in Newport Beach. What you see in this General Plan is just part of the opportunities that we must provide for these young people. They need to know that they can return home and participate with their families, friends and community, as clerks, laborers, professionals, doctors and maybe even architects. We cannot merely say that they should go somewhere else to liver although we recognize that the economics of housing in Newport Beach might mean an interim stop along the road before they can return. BF 1 ' June 11, 1986 Newport Center General Plan Amendment Page 3 Newport Beach was a wonderful place when I moved here, it is more wonderful today. ' It is a community that has the best of everything and we have matured from sitting on the beach and only sailing and needing to go elsewhere for cultural and ' social enrichment. We have now attained that social and cultural enrichment here in Newport Beach and its surrounding areas. I say "surrounding areas", because Newport Beach has infected those surrounding areas with similar qualities. We have an-opportunity.to provide the finest shopping, the finest professional services, cultural activities, and perhaps most importantly, the finest private hospital and medical center of any area this size. Hoag Hospital and the outstanding staff it has attracted would not be herq without the dedication to quality and the growth of this community that has taken place. I agree there are some inconveniences with growth, but they are dramatically out weighed by the benefits which we all enjoy. The plans for the visual enhancement of areas of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road will strongly add to the visual pleasures of driving through our City and One point that I am particularly interested in is the retention of the view at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway. This view should even be enhanced by some grading to provide a vista of the Back Bay, and if some buildings are built on that site, they should be well below the view. I am very much in favor of shared public and commercial use of the site, if for no other reason than security. Merely a view park with no other access or use, not as successful as the shared use. An example is the old Victor Hugo in Laguna Beach and similar commercial uses. It provides an opportunity for the private sector to participate in the maintenance and visual enhancement, and also provides the security for public participation and enjoyment. 'f BF 1 June 11, 1986 Newport Center General Plan Amendment Page 4 I think this Plan provides for the maximum opportunity to provide a quality environment for the completion of Newport Center and its surrounding area and the quality of the entire City will be enhanced by it. This type of commitment also breeds confidence in other land owners who might also be more secure to continue to cleanup redevelopment areas of the City, such as Old Newport and the Cannery Village. Newport Center need its renaissance just as other areas need revitalization. It is important to the overall City that all entities are successful. Finally, and perhaps, one of the most important considerations is that I would like to see our City at peace. The controversy in the past was debilitating to the City. There fre so ma�yipositive opportunities in SF 1 this City and so much love fdr the City among all of use that I would like to see all of our energies channeled together to work toward enhancing the quality of every street, block and building in this community. We have the energy, we have the wealth and the desire to do that. The approval of this General Plan Amendment,, will be one of the most worthwhile actions this City has ever taken. Thank you for the opportunity of addressing you here tonight. II . . CITY COUNCIL HEARING FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1 (B) Newport Center expansion and peripheral sites June 23, 1986 S.P.O.N. 's statement: We would like to call your attention to our prior testimony on this project. It has consisted of verbal comments before the Planning Commission and written comments regarding the issues to be addressed in the EIR and the adequacy of the EIR. So far we have not received answers to these comments nor have the comments made during the official comment period (which ended on May 29) been made part of a final EIR so all interested parties can have the benefit of such dialogue. This seems to be a deficiency in the process required by the California Environmental Quality Act. To add to our concern, the EIR for this project came in four volumes, the third and fourth of which were not generally fiven out. Yet, Volume 3 contained the written comments of all the various agencies, individuals, and associations. When reading these comments it is obvious that there is great concern about the intensity of the project and its effect of trafficland as,•many stated, the quality of life. In reviewing the mitigations for the traffic from this project, S. P. 0. N. and other associations find that the improvements called for include wider roads and intersections and in the case of Pacific Coast Hwy. and Jamboree, a "diamond" shaped grade separation or overpass. The size of the roads and intersections is increasing beyond what had been -previously considered compatible with the residential nature of the community. We believe these problems should be considered by a representative body•of residents before further increases are allowed in the General Plan densities. Therefore, we make the following request: 1. That an advisory -committee be formed of representatives from interested homeowner -associations. 2. That recommendations for the following be developed: a. A redefinition of roadway facilities with a committment to retaining the size and scale compatible with the interests of the homeowners. b. An ordinance calling for significant decreases in commuter traffic by the use of high occupancy vehicles as is being accomplished in other cities.. C. A limit to the amount and type of commercial development depending upon the availability of roads and acceptable levels of service. I 1 1 I 3.2 III. RESPONSES The following section responds to all comments related to the Draft Envi- ronmental Impact Report made at the City Council meeting of June 23, 1986. There were several comments made at the City Council meeting that will be responded to in the Staff Report to the City Council for the their meeting of July 14, 1986. It is the intent of the City to incorporate all staff reports and correspondence into the Final EIR for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Volume 5 of the Draft EIR (Responses to Comments) indicated that several responses would be provided under separate cover prior to final action on the EIR. Those responses are provided in this volume. The responses to issues raised in correspondences subsequent to the close of the official review period for the Draft EIR and printing of Volume 5 of the Draft EIR are also provided in this volume. There are several comments that do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive responses to such comment is not appropriate within the context of the California Environ- mental Quality Act. Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decisionmakers for their review and consideration. 3.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNF 23, 1986 (CC) CC 1 Comment Has the Irvine Company indicated a willingness to work with the Natural History Foundation related to their desire to establish a museum on the Newporter North Site? CC 1 Response Yes, the feasibility site requirements, and environmental constraints remain to be determined. CC 2 Comment When will the Response to Comments previously made on the Draft EIR become available? CC 2 Response The responses to comments previously made on the Draft EIR are included in Volume 5 of the Draft EIR. There were several comments on the Draft EIR that due to the nature of the comment or the timing of the receipt of the comment could not be included in the Response to Comments, Volume 5. Those comments are responded to in Volume 6. CC 3 Comment Why wasn't Volume 3 and 4 of the Draft EIR given out to the public? CC 3 Response Volumes 3 and 4 (Technical Appendices) of the draft EIR were provided to all persons and agencies requesting them, are available upon request from the Planning Department and are also available for review at the Planning Department and all public libraries. CC 4 Comment What are the intersections that will require diamond -shaped grade separa- tions? CC 4 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated July 1, 1986, Appendix A. 3.4 ' CC 5 Comment Would it be appropriate to have the City Council form an Advisory Body of Homeowners Associations to meet as a committee to review the proposed pro ject? CC 5 Response ' This proposal to establish a committee is a policy decision which is the responsibility of the City Council. The City is under no constraints as to the amount of time taken in considering a General Plan Amendment. The ' City must, however, certify the final EIR within one year (Section 15108) except that a 90 day extension may be granted. The Notice of Preparation of this EIR was distributed on June 10, 1985, and the City is required to certify the EIR, or deny the project no later than September 10, 1986. All homeowners associations in the City of Newport Beach received a Nonstatu- tory Advisement for the preparation of a Draft EIR, a Notice of Completion ' of the Draft EIR, and were contacted regarding all public hearings on the Draft EIR and proposed project. CC 6 Comment What are the roadway limitations (size and scale) being established by the ' proposed project? CC 6 Response ' Please refer to the letter report prepared by BDI dated July 1, 1986, Appendix A. ' CC 7 Comment Will there be some kind of ordinance requiring the use of high occupancy vehicles for the project? CC 7 Response ' An ordinance requiring use of HOV (High Occupancy Vehicles) for the pro- ject is not proposed at this time. CC 8 Comment ' Will there be a limit on the type and amount of commercial development proposed by the project? 3.5 CC 8 Response Yes, development will be limited on a block basis in Newport Center and a site basis around the Center. CC 9 Comment Wouldn't the planned roads bisect existing residential communities? CC 0 Response No new roads are proposed which bisect residential communities. New roads will be developed in unincorporated and undeveloped areas southeasterly of Newport Beach. Existing arterial highways in the area will be widened. These roads are not considered to "bisect" residential communities, but are contiguous to various residential developments in the City. CC 10 Comment Will the 65 CNEL be moved further into the residential community of Corona del Mar by the project? CC 10 Response Table 4 "Increase in CNEL Noise Levels Due to the Project" in Appendix D of Volume 3 lists roadway segments which will experience a noise increase of 0.5 dBA or more attributable only to the proposed project. Roadways not listed in Table 4 including Coast Highway through Corona del Mar, will experience increases in noise levels of less than 0.5 dBA due to the pro- ject. CC 11 Comment What is the growth projections for the City and the County used in the preparation of the environmental document? CC 11 Response The specific growth assumptions used in the preparation of the Draft EIR are provided in the Local and Regional Setting section of the Draft EIR Volume 1 pages 54-111. A "worst case" approach has been taken for all ana- lyses. The proposed project is a General Plan Amendment (CPA) that will occur over several years. In the timeframe of the potential adoption and implementa- tion of the project, several possible projects will be proposed, approved, 11 3.6 and implemented; proposed, approved, and not constructed; and denied. To the maximum extent feasible, known projects that would have a direct impact on the environmental setting or that would add to cumulative or incremental impacts of this project have been included in the development forecasts upon which this project has been evaluated. CC 12 Comment Should the GPA be denied because it fails to move the City toward low den- sity and is not consistent with the existing General Plan? CC 12 Response Whether the CPA should be denied because it fails to move the City toward low density is a decision to be made by the City Council as a legislative body. The proposal in and of itself is a General Plan Amendment to allow the proposed density and intensity of development. CC 13 Comment Why can't the by-pass around Corona del Mar be constructed before the pro- ject and not in conjunction with the project? CC 13 Response There is no specific environmental constraint know that would prohibit the construction of Pelican Hill Road prior to the development of the proposed project. The by-pass around Corona del Mar (Pelican Hill Road) is being financed and constructed at the developer's expense. Privately funded road improvements depend on granting of development rights and are ultimately paid for by income generated by the proposed development. Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect construction of very expensive road improve- ments such as Pelican Hill Road (in excess of $20 million) in advance of project approvals and in advance of start of construction of the proposed development. As a mitigation measure for the project, it will be required that no major office project be allowed to occupy prior to completion of the by-pass. Also, there is lengthy governmental approval process invol- ving the County, and the State Coastal Commission prior to construction of the road. CC 14 Comment Won't the project add a 50% increase in traffic to the community? 3.7 CC 14 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated July 1, 1986, Appendix A. CC 15 Comment Will the project underground the utilities along the roads that are being improved as a part of the project? CC 15 Response With respect to all of the project frontage in Newport Center, existing overhead utilities (such as at Newport Village) will be undergrounded as part of project construction. Existing overhead utilities on MacArthur north of San Joaquin Mills Road are not proposed to be undergrounded due to extremely high cost, and the technical complexities involved in under - grounding this level of high voltage power lines. CC 16 Comment Can we have a third party EIR in the future? CC 16 Response The State CEQA guidelines (Section 15084) set forth the procedures for preparing a draft EIR. The Lead Agency may choose any of the following arrangements or a combination of them for preparing a draft EIR. (1) Preparing the draft EIR directly with its own staff. (2) Contracting with another entity, public or private, to prepare the draft EIR. (3) Accepting a draft prepared by the applicant, a consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. (4) Executing a third party contract or Memorandum of Understanding with the applicant to govern the preparation of a draft EIR by an independent contractor. (5) Using a previously prepared EIR. The City of Newport Beach contracts with private consulting firms for the preparation of a draft EIR. The City Council could direct a "third -party" EIR in the future. If this procedure were used, the actual preparation process would closely reflect the procedure currently used by the City. It 3.8 is important to note that the lead Agency is ultimately responsible for the contents of an EIR, no matter who prepares the document, as clearly stated in the CEQA guidelines: "Before using a draft prepared by another person, the Lead Agency shall subject the draft to the agency's own review and analysis. The draft EIR which is sent out for public review must reflect the independent judgement of the Lead Agency,. The Lead Agency is responsible for the adequacy and objectivity of the draft EIR." CC 17 Comment Isn't Pelican Hill Road already required of the Down Coast project and an are we not giving the project proponent double credit for the construc- tion of this roadway? CC 17 Response As indicated in response to SPON's comment 29, page 5.101 of Volume 5 of the Draft EIR. The Irvine Coastal Plan (County of Orange) requires the construction of Pelican Hill Road. Based on conversations with the Envi- ronmental Management Agency of the County of Orange, the road is required after the construction of 100 dwelling units, 350 hotel/motel rooms, and 26,000 square feet of related uses. The development would be in the juris- diction of the County of Orange. This is a change in the number of dwel- ling units from the previously cited 150 dwelling units in SPON's Response 29. A concept of double credit for the construction of a roadway assumes that the roadway is being constructed to a large extent to only serve a specific development. Pelican Hill Road is a roadway designated on the County Mas- ter Plan of Arterial Highways to serve travel patterns beyond those required of the Irvine Coastal Plan or the proposed project. CC 18 Comment Where will the setbacks for ecological resources on the Newporter North site be located? CC 18 Response There will be two kinds of setbacks from the bluff required of the project by the proposed mitigation measures. The first is a setback required by the following mitigation measures: 3.9 r r 12-27, The property line setback shall be no closer to the bluff ' top than 40 feet or the property line setback shall be no closer to the bluff top that a 2:1 (26.6 degrees) imagi- nary projection line from the toe of the bluff to the top of the mesa (whichever is greater)." I , "2-45. No structural construction shall be no closer that 20 feet to the bluff property line setback." It is the intent of these measures to provide assurance related to the sta- bility of the bluff and is not related to biological resources. The third and fourth measures are designed to reduce impacts to biological resources they are as follows: 012.53. Setbacks of development from the bluff edge shall be no less than 100 feet to provide a partial buffer between development and resources areas as wall as protect the bluff face coastal sage scrub. The 100 feet setback is the minimum needed to retain existing vegetation and less than 100 feet would not prevent human activity from dis- turbing the normal behavioral patterns of wildlife when resting, feeding, and reproducing. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments." "2-54. Preservation of the John Wayne Gulch wetland areas as nat- ural open space and setbacks of development from the edge of this area. To be fully effective, this setback shall also be a minimum of 100 feet. Allowable uses within the 100 foot setback shall be low intensive uses such as: bicycle and hiking trails, educational signage, benches, and fencing to be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments." The specific location of the resource is shown on Exhibit 2-23 in Volume II of the Draft EIR page 117. It is further intended that more definitive review of the setback location will be provided in conjunction with Site Plan Review which is suggested by Mitigation Measure No.1-30 indicated below: 01-30. In conjunction with site plan review or use permit appro- val, the project proponent shall prepare a detailed grad- ing and landscaping plan for the blufftop setback. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks Department, the Parks, 11 11 3.10 Beaches, and Recreation Department, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, and the Planning Department." CC 19 Comment Why is there a.difference.in the traffic projections from the GPA 80-3 Cer- tified Final EIR and the GPA 85-1(B) Draft EIR? CC 19 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated July 1, 1986, Appendix A. CC 20 Comment Why did the GPA 79-1 EIR project 46,000 ADT on East Coast Highway in the Corona del Mar area and the project EIR only 40,000 ADT? CC 20 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated July 1, 1986, Appendix A. CC 21 Comment Why does Figure 3.4 in the Draft EIR show 62,900 ADT and the previous docu- ments only 49,000 ADT? CC 21 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated July 1, 1986, Appendix A. CC 22 Comment When will the comments on the Draft EIR be answered? CC 22 Response Please refer to CC 2 Response. 11 1 3.11 CC 23 Comment Does the plan allow for the same unlimited height limits and zoning the presently exists (C-0-H) for the project? Will this zoning not allow for unlimited development intensities and heights? CC 23 Response The proposed project would allow for height limits provided in the Newport Center Planned Community and District Regulations Text. This would allow for the construction of highrise structures on Block 600 and 800 of 375 feet. Mitigation measures (MM's) have been suggested that would limit the height of structures as follows: Fashion Island No change to existing limits. Block 600 20 stories (MM's 1-27, 1-1) Block 800 12 stories (MM's 1-27, 1-5) PCH/Jamboree 32 feet (as modified by the Harbor View Hills view plane down to 10 feet) (MM's 1-1, 1-16) Corporate Plaza West Limited by Harbor Hills view plane only. (MM's 1-1, 1-17) Newport Village Limited by Harbor Hills view plane only. (MM's 1.1, 1-19) Avocado/MacArthur 50 feet (MM's 1-1, 1-23) Big Canyon/MacArthur No change to existing limits. (MR's 1-1, 1- 27) Bayview Landing No change to existing limits. (MR's 1-1, 1- 31) 3.12 Newporter North 35 feet (MM's 1-1, 1-37) Development intensity is a function of the amount of land area related .to the permitted development on.that land. --Intensity is always referred to•in-' reference to commercial, industrial, and office uses as opposed to density. Density is a factor of residential development. Density is generally - expressed as a number of, dwelling units or homes per net or gross acre. (du/ac). Intensity is generally referred to as a Floor Area Ratio (i.e. 3:1, 2:1 or .5 times the buildable area). The General Plan of the City of Newport Beach does not establish arbitrary intensity limits on development with Newport Center. Rather it establishes overall development limits by block within the Center. The effect of these overall intensity limits by block is to establish Floor Area Ratio's (FAR) for individual blocks. It further establishes limits for the overall project. The project proposed to reestablish these limits at higher limits. The overall effect of the general plan amendment will be to establish limitations, not to provide for "unlimited" development. CC 24 Comment Where will the Park Credits be given for the Westbay site if it is going to be designated for Open Space? CC 24 Response It is not currently anticipated that park credits will be given for the redesignation of the Westbay site. CC 25 Comment Isn't there a deficiency in flat useable park land in the Corona del Mar area that needs to be addressed before credits are given and park land accepted on the west side of the Bay? CC 25 Response The Recreation and Open Space Element does indicate a deficiency of park- land in Corona del Mar. No sites in Corona del Mar are being considered in the GPA 85-1(B) project. As previously stated, no park credits are being given by the City of Newport Beach for the redesignation of Westbay. 3.13 CC 26 Comment What is the noise increase in Corona del Mar along East Coast Highway from the project? What can be done to eliminate and improve on this condition? CC 26 Response Please refer to the response to comment CC 10. CC 27 Comment What are the water quality impacts of the project on the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club draining into Lower Newport Bay? CC 27 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by James W. Anderson dated June 27, 1986, Appendix D. CC 28 Comment Didn't the Coastal Commission put restrictions on the buildout of the Cor- porate Plaza are to limit the traffic impact of that project? What is the status of those restrictions? CC 29 Response The California Coastal Commission applied conditions to the approval of Corporate Plaza in the areas of public transit and development phasing, as follows: 1. An agreement between the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) and the applicant providing for a site for a central transit station facility within the Newport Center. The site shall be available to OCTD for at least 25 years. The agreement shall provide for one alternative site acceptable to OCTD in the event that governmental approvals cannot be obtained for use of the first site and shall provide for a temporary interim transit transfer area to be used while governmental reviews and necessary construction are in prog- ress for the permanent site. 2. An agreement between OCTD and the applicant to undertake a joint "Transit Plan Study". The Study shall be completed by June 1, 1977, and shall provide the OCTD's recommendation regarding the designation of transit routes necessary to serve Newport Center's current and projected levels of development, designation of shuttle routes within the Center, levels of service needed, the amount of 3.14 financing required to service these levels of development, and the respective roles of public agencies and lessees of Newport Center in financing the required levels of public transit. The Commission shall review this study and either approve or reject within 45 days. of submission of OCTD. 3. The applicant's commitment to implement a mini -bus shuttle -service- within- Newport Center, acceptable to OCTD, connecting the transit center with the remainder of Newport Center. This shuttle service may be operated either by OCTD or by the applicant and applicant shall assure that the level of service will be acceptable to OCTD for service time totaling six bus -years. For this purpose a bus - year shall be considered one bus, operating for 52 weeks of full- time service. The applicant's funding responsibility shall not exceed $300,000 and shall not extend beyond five years from the commencement of service. 4. Assurances that a system of validating bus fares for users and employees of Newport Center facilities acceptable to OCTD will be in effect for at least 25 years, or the lifetime of the transit station, whichever is the shorter period. 5. Occupancy of the proposed Corporate Plaza buildings shall be lim- ited to 50% of the permitted floor space until construction has commenced on the proposed Coast Highway bridge over Newport Bay. If by January 1, 1980, construction of the Coast Highway bridge has not commenced, the Commission, in consultation with the State Department of Transportation, shall review and determine within 60 days of that date whether this condition shall remain in effect or whether alternative conditions relating to transit improvements or improvements in the Coast Highway transportation corridor will alleviate the adverse impact on recreational access of additional traffic generated by new development along the corridor in the New- port area. These conditions have been satisfied by the applicant or the time require- ments have run -out. It should be noted that Corporate Plaza is no longer in the Coastal Zone. CC 29 Comment Are the proposed erosion and siltation controls of the City adequate to meet the requirements of the County and State? Is the mitigation suggested in the Draft EIR adequate? 3.15 1 t CC 29 Response , Please refer to letter report prepared by James W. Anderson dated June 19, 1986, Appendix B. CC 30 Comment ' Is it necessary to build out all of Newport Center to get the cultural t improvements proposed by the project (i.e., library expansion, museum expansion, etc.)? CC 30 Response , The City can designate sites and square footage within Newport Center for cultural facilities. Absent the willingness of the property owner to donate land or other financial support, the actual provision of the facili- ties will depend on the availability of funds from the City of Newport Beach and the private, non-profit entities involved. CC 31 Comment How does the projects proposed road improvements respond to the existing City policy related to San Joaquin Hills Road as expressed in Resolution No. 85-11? CC 31 Response Resolution 85-11 addressed a preliminary policy position of the City Coun- cil in regards to the connection of various roads in the City of Newport Beach to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The recommend- ations of the Planning Commission do not phase any portion of the project with the completion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, nor the extension of any road in the City to the Corridor. There is no con- flict between the position in the resolution and the circulation improve- ments proposed. CC 32 Comment What is the justification for having four lanes on MacArthur Boulevard? How can the six lane MacArthur Boulevard transition into the four lane East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar? If, we implement a six lane MacArthur Boulevard won't it require widening East Coast Highway to six lanes in East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar and the removal of parking for the existing commercial area? 3.16 CC 32 Response MacArthur Boulevard is currently four lanes. Six lanes of MacArthur Boule- vard at Coast Highway is necessary -to accommodate turning movements,.as follows: Three northbound lanes will provide for safe entry to .MacArthur..' Boulevard from two east -to -north bound left turn lanes from.eastbound Coast Highway and one west -to -north bound free right turn -lane from westbound Coast Highway. Three southbound lanes on.MacArthur Boulevard will .provide_.. for safe entry to Coast Highway from two south -to -east bound left turn lanes from southbound MacArthur and one south -to -west bound free right turn lane from southbound MacArthur. Only two southbound lanes will lead into the two eastbound through lanes on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Devel- opment of six lanes of MacArthur Boulevard does not require widening East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar to six lanes, nor the removal of on -street parking. CC 33 Comment What will be the fiscal impact of the project? What is the increment of change between the existing plan and the proposed project? CC 33 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by Natelson-Levander-Whitney, Inc. dated June 25, 1986, Appendix C. CC 34 Comment What are the costs of all of the improvements that The Irvine Company is going to make? CC 34 Response The final cost of all improvements The Irvine Company will make as part of the traffic mitigation for the proposed project will not be determined until the City Council takes final action on the GPA and until a supplemen- tal traffic study for compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance has been completed and approved. A rough estimate for the arterial roadway improvements and intersection improvements which may be required (based on the Planning Commission recommendation) is approximately $20 million. In addition the extension of San Joaquin Hills Road (4 lanes) and the con- struction of Pelican Hill Road (4 lanes), which are located outside the City, are expected to represent a total cost of over $30 million. 3.17 CC 35 Comment What traffic improvements will be made by the project? CC 35 Response The General Plan Amendment as recommended by the- Planning Commission require improvements to exiting or development of new roads, as follows: Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive (dedications only), Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road easterly of Spy- glass hill Road and Pelican Hill Road. In addition to these master plan improvements, intersection improvements will be mandated at the time of approval of a Traffic Study under the provisions of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. CC 36 Comment What are the present and future Im's in the Corona del Mar area both with and without the project and with and without Pelican Hill Road? CC 36 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by SDI dated July 1, 1986, Appendix A. CC 37 Comment What are the revenue projections of the proposed project? CC 37 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by Natelson-Levander-Whitney, Inc. dated June 25, 1986, Appendix C. CC 38 Comment How can we require the daycare facility and guarantee that it will be in -- place and not lost similar to the transportation management program that went away in CPA 80-3? CC 38 Response The day care center can be mandated if it is the desire of the City Council to do so. The transportation management program required by GPA 80-3 was "lost" only because the approval of that amendment was rescinded by the City Council. 3.18 CC 39 Comment How much employee housing will be required by the approval of the project? CC 39 Response The amount of employee housing- required by the project is indicated in detail in the Housing Section of the Draft EIR Volume I on pages 117-175. The section indicates that the project will generate a need for 3,906 hous- ing units. CC 40 Comment How does the traffic management program of the project relate to the past one proposed in CPA 80-3? CC 40 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated July 1, 1986, Appendix A. CC 41 Comment What are the costs of each improvement to The Irvine Company required by the Planning Commission? CC 41 Response Circulation improvements and their costs as recommended by the Planning Commission are as follows: 1. Jamboree Road (PCH to SJH Road) $ 2,000,000 2. MacArthur Blvd. (PCH to Bonita Canyon) $15,000,000 3. Avocado Avenue (PCH to San Miguel) N/A 4. San Joaquin Hills Road (to PHR) $ 5,000,000 5. Pelican Hill Road (4 lanes) $25,000,000 6. Intersection Improvements $1-2 million 7. Signal Improvements $ 800,000 Note: Cost estimates subject to revision. CC 42 Comment What is the timing of Pelican Hill Road? 'I 3.19 CC 42 Response The timing of Pelican Hill Road is as indicated it the May 12, 1986 letter from The Irvine Company. This letter was transmitted to the City Council as a portion of the Planning Commission May 22, 1986 Staff Report. The letter indicates that the construction schedule calls for a start date of April 1987 and completion in October 1988. CC 43 Comment Can we require The Irvine Company to dedicate six lanes and improve only four and bond or deposit funds for the remainder. CC 43 Response The Planning Commission recommendation, if approved, requires construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road. The power of the City in mandating this improvement is in the specific phasing program which allows the City to withhold building and/or occupancy permits until the road is completed. Since the road is entirely outside the City of Newport Beach, it is more difficult to mandate further dedications and bonding, since this would man- date actions on the part of other jurisdictions, the county of Orange and the City of Irvine. CC 44 Comment What is the timing of San Joaquin Hills Road? CC 44 Response There is presently no schedule for the construction of San Joaquin Hills Road from the City boundary to Pelican Hill Road. CC 45 Comment What will be the cost of roadway improvements such as the landscaping along MacArthur Boulevard? CC 45 Response Please refer to response to comment CC 41 regarding roadway improvements. Landscaping improvement costs for MacArthur Blvd, (between PCH and Ford Road) have not been calculated in precise detail since the project is still at the general plan level. Preliminary estimates indicate that landscaping costs are expected to exceed $1 million. 3.20 CC 46 Comment When will we receive the responses to questions that were noted in Volume 5. of the Draft EIR as "to be provided under separate cover"? CC 46 Response The responses -to comments previously made on the Draft EIR are included -in+- Volume 5 of the Draft EIR. There were several comments on the Draft EIR that due to the nature of the comment or the timing of the receipt of the comment could not be included in that responses to comments, Volume 5. Those comments are responded to in Volume 6. CC 47 Comment What is the status of the Park Dedication Credits? What will be the impact of the project on the credits? CC 47 Response Currently park credits exist for the dedication of the mouth of Big Canyon and the North Ford community park. It is currently anticipated that the Big Canyon and Villa Point residential developments will make use of these credits. The Newporter North and Newport Village sites have master plan parks shown within the site boundaries, and will be required to dedicate parkland. CC 48 Comment What specifically will occur if the Westbay's remaining development rights are transferred off the site related to park credits. CC 48 Response No park credits are proposed relative to the redesignation of Westbay. CC 49 Comment What is the effect of the Quality of Life Committee recommending that the Draft EIR is not adequate? Have they ever made a recommendation of this type before? CC 49 Response The Quality of Life Committee, and its predecessor Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee, have often made comments regarding the ade- 3.21 III quacy of EIRs. The comments received form the Committee have been responded to over the years in the "Responses to Comments" section of the EIR. The comments of the Committee have been responded to in Volume 5 of the EIR previously distributed to the City Council. There is no CEQA requirement that an EIR be reviewed or found adequate by a citizens committee. The City of Newport Beach has established this process to enhance the public review process of EIRs. The responsibility for the determination of the EIR adequacy is the sole responsibility of the body which takes final action on a project. In the case of General Plan Amendments, it is the City Council which determines adequacy of the EIR. CC 50 Comment What is the estimated cost of the project related to the revenue generated by the project? CC 50 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by Natelson-Levander-Whitney, Inc. dated June 25, 1986, Appendix C. CC 51 Comment What will be the impact of keeping MacArthur Boulevard as a four lane road be on Poppy, Fifth, and Marguerite Avenues? CC 51 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated July 1, 1986, Appendix A. CC 52 Comment Will the capacity on Pelican Hill Road all be utilized by the Down Coast development? CC 52 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated July 1, 1986, Appendix A. 3.22 CC 53 Comment Would the construction of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over MacArthur Boule- vard north of Harbor View Drive and south of San Miguel Drive eliminate project impacts? What would be the -cost of such a bridge? Can a bridge of this type be constructed without blocked views and in accordance with the Newport Center view plane? CC 53 Response Please refer to the Staff Report to the City Council for the meeting of July 14, 1986 for the response to this comment. CC 54 Comment What is the formal staff position on the deletion of the couplet? CC 54 Response So long as MacArthur Boulevard is designated as a major arterial (6-lanes, divided) roadway, the function of the couplet and two-way MacArthur are considered equivalent. CC 55 Comment Where will any overpasses (grade separations) be located? CC 55 Response There is currently a grade -separated intersection at Coast Highway and New- port Boulevard. The traffic study prepared for the project has indicated the desirability of a grade -separation at Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. CC 56 Comment .How can the Bayview Landing site be developed? What are the development constraints? What are the setback requirements for biology, geology, ­ coastal bluffs, and rights -of -way? Where could the parking be located and how would the access work? CC 56 Response Because of its location in relation to the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park and the Newporter Resort, Bayview Landing is considered an appropriate site for visitor -serving uses such as restaurants and a public view park. Develop- ment constraints include: slope conditions, access, view impacts from PCH, 3.23 Coastal Act requirements, and future right-of-way for PCH/Jamboree inter- section improvements. Setback requirements for biology, geology, and coastal bluffs are examined in the EIR. Building setbacks will be estab- lished through adoption of a Planned Community Development Plan. Parking is proposed by the applicant to be located both on the upper and lower lev- els of the site, with primary access off Backbay Drive. The exact method of providing additional access points off PCH or Jamboree remains to be determined. CC 57 Comment Is there a traffic management plan required by the GPA? CC 57 Response Mitigation measures 1-39 as clarified in Responses to Comments (page 5,47) requires a Transportation System Management program, as follows: "Prior to occupancy of any individual structure per- mitted by GPA 85-1(B), a site specific TSM component shall be prepared and approved by the City Public Works and Planning Departments." CC 58 Comment What are the time limits on the preparation of the EIR and GPA? CC 58 Response There are no specific time limitations on the preparation and adoption of a city general plan and/or general plan amendment in the California Planning and Zoning Laws, The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides a one year time limitation on the preparation and certification of an EIR. The City of Newport Beach is the applicant for the proposed project and Initiated the GPA (project) on June 10, 1985. The City granted an exten- sion of the one year requirement to itself on June 10, 1986, to allow addi- tional time for the complex project to be evaluated. .The extension is valid till September 10, 1986. CC 59 Comment Will people use Pelican Hill Road to get to Newport Center or around New- port Center if it is three times as far as other routes? 3.24 CC 59 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by.BDI dated'July 1, 1986, Appendix A. CC 60 Comment -Was the East Bluff Homeowners Association consulted related to the prepara- tion of the Draft EIR and the CPA? CC 60 Response A copy of the Nonstatutory Advisement of Preparation of a Draft EIR was sent to the East Bluff Homeowners Association on June 10, 1985. No com- ments on the preparation of the Draft EIR were received from the Homeowners Association. A copy of the Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR was also sent to the East Bluff Homeowners Association on May 29, 1986. CC 61 Comment Does the project or the mitigation measure required of the project require the widening of Coast Highway in the Mariners Mile area or in the Corona del Mar area? CC 61 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by BDI dated July 1, 1986, Appendix A. CC 62 Comment What is the status of the launching ramp required by the Bridge? CC 62 Response The launch ramp adjacent to the Coast Highway Bridge has been approved by the City Council. A grant application has also been approved by the City Council and is under review by the Department of Boating an& Waterways. A ­ decision is expected before the end of 1986 with construction occurring in 1987. CC 63 Comment What are other employers in Newport Center and other areas doing about child care? Are there not other programs that would achieve the same results as the proposed project? 3.25 CC 63 Response Some major employers in Newport Center, like Pacific Mutual, offer child care subsidies as an employee benefit. In terms of existing child care services and facilities, there are currently no facilities located directly in Newport Center in close proximity to employment centers. There are a number of existing facilities easterly of Upper Newport Bay including in the Eastbulff area and in Harbor View Hills. Market studies have shown there is a shortage of facilities providing infant care in the immediate area, The Newport Center location would have an advantage in that it would be within walking distance of major office and retail facilities. Surveys of office workers indicate a desire for a facility in Newport Center. CC 64 Comment Can we plan for a deficiency on MacArthur Boulevard? CC 64 Response The City can plan for deficiencies in its Circulation System. Careful con- sideration should be given to such an action, as traffic has shown a ten- dency to use local residential streets when arterial roadways become overly congested. It is important to remember that "Planned Deficiency" means accepting higher levels of traffic congestion as appropriate. CdM 1 Comment We believe the advantages the City will reap in increased revenue, housing, improved intersections, street improvements and new roads to combat traffic congestion in CDM, far outweigh any disadvantages associated with approval of GPA 85-1(B). We think the Irvine Company has shown great sensitivity to the surrounding communities' concerns, especially in regard to alleviating traffic congestion in Corona del Mar. We are very aware that our traffic problems are regional in nature and origin and cannot be solely attributed to this project. Because CDM has borne the burden of the traffic generated by development in the county, we are especially sensitive to the phasing of construction of Pelican Hills (sic) Road and San Joaquin Hills Road Extension. We respect- fully request, and plead, that council requite that 4 lanes of PHR be in place before Certificates of Occupancy ate issued for Block 600. We fur- ther respectfully request, and plead, that SJHR Extension be retained on the Master Plan as a 6-lane Major Arterial but that only 4 lanes be devel- oped before Certificates of Occupancy are issued for Block 600 and before building and grading permits are issued for Block 800. 11 3.26 It is our honest and sincere belief that approval of this amendment will provide the most benefit for the most people, the City at large, and for the Irvine Company. We commend your staff for a yeoman job of negotiating this complex plan and contingent conditions and for their willingness to. listen and explain. We urge approval of the amendment and incorporation of our recommendations for PHR and SJHR Extension. Further delays will only complicate matters and add dollars to the eventual cost. CdM 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. NEWPORT CENTER ASSOCIATION (NCA) NCA 1 Comment Whereas, the completion of Newport Center is necessary to the vitality of Newport Center and the City of Newport Beach; Whereas, the Newport Center Association has thoroughly reviewed and considered all aspects of proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B); Now Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Board of Directors of the Newport Center Association do hereby unanimously recommend and endorse the approval by the City of Newport Beach of General Plan Amendment 85-l(B). NCA 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. CORONA DEL MAR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION (CdMCA) CdMCA 1 Comment It is important that these hearings on the proposed General Plan Amendment open the lines of communication between the residents and the Council; and that testimony from a broad range of -residential communities be elicited -in order that we may define their needs and problems relating to this proposal and ultimately arrive at a satisfying decision. This plan is part, a major part at that, of the rapid commercial and resi- dential growth our community has experienced in the past few years. It also reflects a trend toward accelerated growth within the region. Such 3.27 development requires planning and management if we are going to attempt to minimize the harmful impacts and retain the quality of life we have come to expect in our community, CdMCA 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. CdMCA 2 Comment Corona del Mar, because of being situated on one segment of the Pacific Coast Highway has historically been expected to bear large volumes of traf- fic. In fact it continues to operate at a seriously deficient level. It serves as you well know as an alternate route to the 405 freeway for the north and southbound commuter. Our residential streets increasingly serve as bypasses around the congested segments of the highway during peak hours. The 65 CNEL contour reaches much further back on both sides of the highway than it did only a few years ago. Residential neighborhoods have been bisected. We have become a community growing apart because of the highway. The opportunity for residents to do business in their community is severely hampered by these conditions. Traditionally, easy pedestrian access to the business community has been an important characteristic of Corona del Mar. Thus, what we know about this growth trend is that we have been unable to adequately mitigate the significant impacts causing a deteriorating quality of life in our community. This we find totally unacceptable. CdMCA 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. CdMCA 3 Comment With this in mind then you can well understand our sensitivity to any plans to further increase development over and above that which is already allowed. Our association has discussed the General Plan Amendment and has endorsed unanimously the following resolutions: First, the circulation element of our community, and other roads such as Pelican Hills (sic), must be planned, designed, built, and functioning as viable bypass routes for regional traffic. This should be done before the commencement of any additional development activity in Newport Center. , This includes development allotted under the existing General flan. We cannot adequately manage the 93,000 trips per day from the center. It is iy 1 3.28 unreasonably to expect that we can absorb any more without further deterio- ration in the quality of life. CdMCA 3 Response The comment is noted and included in•the final record of the project •for: review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. 1 CdMCA 4 Comment Second, the proposed General Plan should be denied. It fails to move, we believe, in the direction of low intensity development in both the residen- tial and commercial areas. It does not conform adequately to the existing 1 general plan. CdMCA 4 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. iCdMCA 5 Comment Third, the Pacific Coast Highway should not be expanded. It must remain a four lane highway. CdMCA 5 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. CdMCA 6 Comment Fourth, MacArthur Boulevard should remain a four lane highway from the Coast Highway to San Miguel. CdMCA 6 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of•.•the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. CdMCA 7 Comment The positions we have taken are supported with a good deal of resolve on our part. Of paramount importance is the need to build bypasses around the community before, not in conjunction with, development in the Center. In 3.29 the long term we need relief in our circulation system. If this results in a much reduced level of development then we should accept that consequence. CdMCA I Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SPONc 1 Comment We have reviewed the plans for the expansion of Newport Center, the EIR for General Platt Amendment 85-1(B), and the comments by other reviewing organi- zations. We have discussed the matters at issue, such as traffic and intensity of development, with members of other organizations and wish to relay to you the following conclusions and requests. Residents of Newport want the City to remain a high quality residential community. We believe that the direction we are going is away from the City's long held policies to retain the residential nature of the City. The projected increase in commercial development jeopardizes the residen- tial community. The increasing commercial development requires roadways that are too large for the residential nature of the City. SPONc 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SPONc 2 Comment It has been the policy of the City to limit the width of roads and inter- sections and avoid freeway type overpasses. Now, with proposed increases in commercial development, these limits will be exceeded. Besides changing the character of the City, excessively wide roads and freeway type overpasses will create excessive speeds, hazardous conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, more noise and adverse visual impacts. ' 3.30 The intensity of development proposed is so great that, even with wider roads, intersections and overpasses, the traffic levels of service at the peak hour will be unacceptable. SPONc 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the -final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SPONc 3 Comment We believe these problems should be addressed by a representative body of residents before further increases are allowed in General Plan densities. The Newport Center expansion plan is of particular concern because of the plan to lock 1,275„000 square feet of additional office/commercial develop- ment into a development agreement which will bind future Councils. SPONc 3 Response 1 The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SPONc 4 Comment Therefore, we make the following request: 1. That an advisory committee be formed of representatives from all orga- nizations representing homeowners in the City and wishing to be repre- sented on such a committee. 2. That a staff representative from the City be assigned to help with traffic and engineering expertise. ' 3. That a Chairman and Vice Chairman be elected from among the representa- tives. 4. That a short term agenda and meeting dates be developed by the Chair- men. 5. That recommendations for the following be developed: a. A redefinition of roadway facilities with a commitment to retaining a size and scale compatible with the interests of the community associations. I 3.31 b. An ordinance calling for significant decreases in eo mu of is by the use of high occupancy vehicles as is being accomoliAhL in other cities. c. A SPONe 4 Response Please refer to the response to comment CC 5 for requests 1-4. The request 5 is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. NHOH 1 Comment On June 17, 1986 the Board of Directors of the Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of Realtors approved a resolution in support of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 85-11 for completion of Newport Center as proposed by the Irvine Company. The Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of REALTORS is composed of some 1,800 members, including REALTORS and Affiliates, most of whom reside and/or work in the Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa area, and are genuinely concerned with the quality of life in the area. We believe the Newport Center General Plan Amendment will result in impro- vements beneficial to the entire community, including: Expanded shopping with a broader mix of retail opportu- nities, thus eliminating much of the need to travel long distances to satisfy shopping requirements; Increased facilities for dining, entertainment and lei. leisure time activities; Significant infrastructure improvements such as, - reduced traffic through Corona del Mar due to the Pelican Hills Road bypass. - completion of San Joaquin Hills Road through to Pelican Hills Road; and widening MacArthur Boulevard to provide for smoother traffic flow. 3.32 As citizens with a genuine concern and commitment to our community, the Newport Harbor -Costa Mesa Board of REALTORS urges your support of the New- port Center General Plan Amendment. NHCM 1 Response The comment. is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. NHCM 2 Comment NEWPORT HARBOR -COSTA MESA BOARD OF REALTORS RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1B COMPLETION OF NEWPORT CENTER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Newport Harbor Costa Mesa Board of Realtors hereby supports Newport Beach General Plan Amendment 85-1B.for completion of Newport Center as proposed by The Irvine Company. NHCM 2 Response ..The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY. INC. (WCLP) WCLP 1 Comment This office represents a number of the plaintiffs in Davis. et al. v. City of Newport Beach. This statement is submitted as testimony in opposition to the proposed General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) and I hereby request that this letter be included as part of the record of the public hearing con- cerning that general plan amendment. WCLP 1 Response The comment is noted and -included in the final record-of'the project for - review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. WCLP 2 Comment General Plan Amendment 85-1(B), which is a request to allow the construc- tion of an additional 1,275,000 square feet of office residential units on property located in Newport Center and some peripheral sites, is inconsis- 3.33 tent with the City's 1984 Housing Element in that it will exacerbate an existing imbalance in the City of Newport Beach between low and moderate income housing demand resulting from employment in the City and the avail- ability of housing affordable to low and moderate income persons in the City of Newport Beach, General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) is also inconsistent with the City's obligations under its constitutional police powers, to take into account and accommodate in its land use decisions the existing and regional needs for very low, low and moderate income housing. GPA 85-1(B) will adversely affect the City's regional need for lower and moderate income housing by creating significant employment for lower and moderate income persons without a concomitant provision of housing affordable to those persons and their families. WCLP 2 Response Please refer to the Staff Report to the City Council for the meeting of July 14, 1986 for the response to this comment. WCLP 3 Comment The imbalance in the City between employment generated demand for lower and moderate income housing and the availability of housing affordable to such families has been elaborated upon in testimony in the trial of Davis v City of Newport Beach by expert witnesses Perla Eston and Alan Mallach and such testimony is incorporated herein by reference. WCLP 2 Response Please refer to the Staff Report to the City Council for the meeting of July 14, 1986 for the response to this comment. WCLP 4 Comment GPA 85-1(B) will also exacerbate the City's existing indigenous need for low and moderate income housing to the extent that a commercial development will increase the demand for such housing in the City of Newport Beach, thereby creating a tighter housing market and contributing to a further increase in the housing costs. WCLP 4 Response Please refer to the Staff Report to the City Council for the meeting of July 14, 1986 for the response to this comment. 3.34 WCLP 5 Comment The agenda for the City Council meeting of June 23, 1986 does not specify whether any of the 700 residential units will be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households and,GPA 85-1(B) may also be inconsistent with the City's 1984 Housing Element if low and. - moderate .income. housing. - units are not required in .the proportions provided,for in that housing-.. element. Furthermore, even apart from the requirements of the 1984 Housing_ Element, the City has an independent constitutional obligation to meet its fair share of the regional need for very low, low and moderate income hou- seholds which will require that a significant percentage of the 700 resi- dential units be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households for a significant period of time, such as 30 years as provided for in Gov- ernment Code 65916. Unless these requirements are part of GPA 85-1(B) then the General Plan Amendment will be deficient. WCLP 5 Response Please refer to the Staff Report to the City Council for the meeting of July 14, 1986 for the response to this comment. WCLP 6 Comment Finally, the environmental documentation on GPA 85-1(B) is inadequate due to its failure to adequately assess the impact of the proposed additional commercial development on the City's regional and indigenous need for very low, low and moderate income housing and for its failure to fully explore all available federal and state programs for the development of very low and low income housing. The environmental documentation also fails to ade- quately assess and consider the effects of the commercial development on limiting or restricting future residential development and for its failure to adequately assess and consider mitigation measures for the inconsisten- cies between GPA 85-1(B) and both the City's 1984 Housing Element and its constitutional obligations under its police powers. WCLP 6 Response Please refer to the Staff Report to the City Council for the meeting of July 14, 1986 for the response to this comment. WCLP 7 Comment I look forward to the City considering and addressing the highly important issues raised in this letter concerning the opportunities for very low and low income families to live in the City of Newport Beach. 3.35 WCLP 7 Response Please refer to the Staff Report to the City Council for the meeting of July 14, 1986 for the response to this comment. NHCA 1 Comment The Newport Heights Community Association is concerned about the General Plan Amendment requested to facilitate the Newport Center buildout. We believe Newport Beach is a prime residential community. As the General Plan is the blueprint for our City's growth, we believe it should reflect this residential character. We further believe any action taken by the City Council must be based first and foremost on this basic premise. Given Newport Beach is a residential community, it follows that the streets must reflect this character in size and type. We do not believe six lane roads and overpasses are appropriate in a primarily residential community. As traffic and growth tied together, it is necessary for the City Council to look at our roads, listen to what the community wants and determine how they should function, then plan growth accordingly. General Plan Amendments that suggest increasing the building areas must be analyzed critically with traffic in mind. NHCA 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. MICA 2 Comment Specifically, the Newport Heights Community Association believes the Gen- eral Plan Amendment is out of character to our City and creates too much traffic on our roads. The EIR for the Newport Center expansion responds to the increase in traffic with mitigation measures. We find these measures unacceptable. We also find it unacceptable to allow the Amended Plan growth without the mitigation measures needed to avoid further traffic con- gestion. We feel the only way out of this bind is to scale down the devel- opment to allow for an acceptable and workable circulation system which is reflective of Newport Beach's low density development and residential char- acter. I 3.36 NHCA 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. NHCA 3 Comment Specific requests regarding the Newport Center Expansion include (but may not be limited by): 1. Bayview - Limit restaurant development to a maximum of two, with the rest of the area dedicated as a park and bike staging area for the Back Bay. 2. Newport Village - Keep residential but lower density. Include a park for the residents and local workers. 3. Total Office Square Footage - Block 600 and Block 800, Newport Village, etc. Reduce the square footage to 500,000 square feet. This reduction should significantly reduce commuter trips. Regarding Traffic: 1. Require a traffic management system such•as car/van pooling and stag- gered work hours. 2. Keep streets residential in nature. This means NO SIX lane roads and NO overpasses. 3. Do not improve capacity of intersections in Mariners Mile. 4. DO NOT WIDEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ANYWHERE. But plan for improvements to our streets that enhance out city's image further. NHCA 3 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. NHCA 4 Comment The citizens of Newport Beach feel the character of our city is threatened by too much commercial growth. This feeling is evidenced by the Traffic Ordinance Initiative and by the active interest in the Citizen's Traffic ' Task Force. We feel it is time for the City Council to meet with Homeown- ers and Citizen's groups to review the circulation system. We believe this 3.37 ' must be accomplished prior to processing of the General Plan Amendment. Representatives of the Board of the Newport Heights Community Association are ready and willing to assist in this endeavor. Our suggestions are made with the best interests of Newport.Beach at heart. We sincerely hope the City Council will rise to the occasion and protect those interests. NHCA 4 Response ' The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. FNB 1 Comment We have reviewed the GPA *81-1(B), the staff report and the appropriate sections of the EIR that apply to development of lands that may impact Upper Newport Bay ecological reserve. in addition, we reviewed the devel- opment possibilities of the sites with Mr. Carl Wilcox of the California Department of Fish and Game. We offer the following comments: (1) Newport North and John Wayne Gulch sites. A 100' setback applies to these two sites. It is our understanding, as well as that of Mr. Wilcox, that the 100' setback is to be measured from the = of the bluffs and no development (other than trails, etc.) would take place for 100' h1gk from the bluff edge. We contacted Patricia Temple of the Newport Beach planning department and confirmed our interpre- tation of the 100' measurement. The documents are not clear on this point. We request that the appropriate documents be clarified to state that the 100, set -back begins at the /<gg of the bluff and extends away from the reserve. Otherwise, the bluffs will have little protection. In many areas no public trails could be con- structed without destroying the bluff faces. The 100' set -back from the .r&a of the bluffs will go a long way to prevent collapse of the bluffs as happened in several areas on the west side of the Upper Bay in the Dover Shores development. FNB 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. For additional information, please refer to the response to comment CC 18. I 3.38 II FNB 2 Comment (2) Westbay site We support.the planning commission's. -recommendation that this site be re designated for open space and recreational purposes. Since 75% of the D.U.'s already have been transferred to Newport Center, transfer of the remaining. 25%, as, recommended, completes the process. We also recommend that dedication of this site to the city be implemented. It is the best way to protect public rights gained through this mitigation. FNB 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. CHUCK HIRSCH (CH) CH 1 Comment Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name. is Chuck Hirsch. I have been in business in Newport Beach for 23 years, and a for- mer 10 year member of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, and my daughter has been in a business in Corona del Mar for the last 6 years. We are all concerned about transportation, for that is how we are able to maintain businesses which generate profits to keep our area viable and a pleasant place to live -- and be able to pay taxes to pay for city services to be provided for the people who live and work in Newport Beach. That any expansion of current properties or building of new improvements in Newport Beach generates additional traffic, is fully understood. Any simi- lar construction in cities and the County land adjacent to or near our city, over which we have no control, produces traffic also. We have such marvelous and attractive nuisances, such as our beaches and harbor, that draw visitors from near and far, with their associated traffic, also over which we have absolutely no control. We also have a new State beach between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach, which attracts increasing traffic each year, over which we can thoughtfully achieve development agreements which will provide for road improvements that will improve the circulation of traffic. There was an opportunity to provide for traffic improvements when GPA 80-3 was proposed. It included some of those improvements being proposed with GPA 85-l(B), such as the Pelican Hill Road. Had that Amendment has the needed support, as an example, the heavy congestion experienced now on Coast Highway in Corona del Mar in the morning and evening would be dramat- ically reduced. 3.39 The EIR includes analyses of the traffic which could be generated by the buildings requested in GPA 85-l(B), and many of us have spent hour reading those analyses. As the staff summary indicated, the incremental increase in traffic, which would be contributed by the total requested project, would, in various locations, range from a low of 26 to a high of only 11%. One example of this is the increase on Pacific Coast Highway, west of Dover Drive, in the Newport Heights area due to the General Plan Amendment, alone. Based on the traffic volume forecasts from the EIR, the increase in the traffic is estimated to be 2200 Average Daily cars, and this amounts to only a 4.3* increase over current traffic counts. This number is somewhat obscured in the estimated traffic volumes presented in the EIR, which account for the total possible growth of traffic, and which include that increment from GPA 85-l(B). When a business, such as the Irvine Company, plans a project defined in GPA 85-l(B), that business understands certain corollary investments are required. The Pelican Hills Road is an example of one of those that could be justified, assuming that the necessary income stream generated by the project can be realized. If that road is built, the analysis shows it should divert a major portion of the total projected increased traffic -- from all sources -- off PCH in Corona del Mar, and MacArthur Boulevard. There are other circulation element components and improvements which would be provided with the approval of the total project that would also improve the conditions on our roads as well as reduce the noise generated by traf- fic, such as the lowering of MacArthur Boulevard and the construction of minimal sound walls. Consideration for widening of MacArthur Boulevard to 6 lanes was part of the presentation and considerations before the Planning Commission; how- ever, the community adjacent to MacArthur asked that the widening be with- held until traffic demonstrated the need to widen. Consideration for widening of MacArthur Boulevard to 6 lanes was part of the presentation and considerations before the Planning Commission; how- ever, the community adjacent to MacArthur asked that the widening be with- held until traffic demonstrated the need to widen, In addition, an analysis of the data shows that when the road improvements are completed, more capacity is provided on those roads than is needed to accommodate the trips generated through the completion of the GPA. The Master Traffic Circulation Element, which was adopted in March of 1974, and which has been modified in minor respects over the years, had the build -out of Newport Center included in its calculations. It is recognized that the details of that build -out have changed since that time, but the I' 3.40 land use elements used to provide the estimates of traffic to provide that document is the same. There is a proposed changed to the Circulation Ele- ment that is incorporated in the CPA and set forth in the EIR. That one is the deletion of the Avocado/MacArthur one-way couplet. The Pelican Hill Road is an example of link that would be added .as -part -of -the project:,. improving the Circulation Element. Some years ago, when the Citizens Traffic Advisory Committee•.studied..the., Circulation Element and the needs for improvement, they used data developed for a traffic volume to be anticipated by 1995, and those numbers included all the influences throughout the County which impact traffic in Newport Beach, and not just the buildout of the land in accordance to the land use element in Newport Beach. At that time recommendations from that committee to the City Council included such items as widening Pacific Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Dover, widening of MacArthur and Jamboree, and the grade separation for the PCH/Jamboree intersections. The introduc- tion of these as considerations in the analysis of this project are not new or unique. CH 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. DOUGLAS WOOD & ASSOCIATES (DWA) DWA 1 Comment It is the intent of this correspondence to provide a response and respect- fully propose changes to recommend Conditions of Approval concerning the Newport Center General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) as specifically related to the, future extension of San Joaquin Hills Road. These proposed changes articulate the position of both the Spyglass Hill and Spyglass Ridge Commu- nity Associations, the two residential Communities immediately adjacent to and impacted most by San Joaquin Hills Road. These proposed changes are intended to accomplish the following goals: 1) insure that Pelican Hill Road is completed (i.e., from Pacific Coast High- way to MacArthur Boulevard. at or near Bristol Street) prior to the exten- sion of San Joaquin Hills Road as a four -lane Primary Arterial from its current terminus at Spyglass Hill Road to Pelican Hill Road within the tim- ing parameters recommended by the Staff; 3) dedication of right-of-way nec- essary to accommodate San Joaquin Hills Road to six lanes (in the event of the need arising for widening); and 4) initiation of an Amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to redesignate San Joaquin Hills Road to a Primary Arterial (4 lanes, divided) between Margue- rite Avenue to Pelican Hills Road. 3.41 In order to accomplish these goals, we wish to respectfully propose the following changes to the proposed Conditions of Approval concerning the Newport Center General Plan Amendment 85-1(B) as specifically related to the future extension of San Joaquin Hills Road. The following revised Con- dition of Approval are numbered and page referenced to correspond to their listing in the June 23rd Staff report. DWA 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. DWA 2 Comment Page 4 - Circulation Element 1. Delete Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Primary Couplet designation; designate MacArthur Boulevard as a Major Arterial (six lanes divided); designate Avocado Avenue as a Secondary Arterial (4 lanes) between Coast Highway and San Miguel Drive and designate San Joaquin Hills Road as it Pri- FnmmwaoC•:. This circulation element revision is subject to approval of the County of Orange. 2. Recommend to the City Council initiation of an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to designate MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and Route 73 as a Major -Modified Arterial (8 lanes divided) and In Further, recommend to the City Council that final action on this amendment be taken concurrent with the action on GPA 85-l(B). Page 6 - Construction Phasing (Including Staff Recommendation on Page 24) 4. Certificate of Occupancy may not be issued for the following project until the completion of construction of four lanes of Pelican Hill Road (from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard at or near BristolStreet),- 3.42 I Block 600 5. Building or grading permits for the following projects may be issued upon full dedication and commencement of construction of four lanes of San Joaquin Hills Road to -Pelican Hill..Road:.- A. Block 800 B. Corporate Plaza West Page 7 - Other Requirements 5b. Full dedication and completion of San Joaquin Hills Road to Majer Primary Arterial configuration (6- lases;- divided) (4-lanes, divided) easterly of Spyglass Road, and connection to Pelican Hill Road. As representatives of the two Community Associations most impacted by San Joaquin Hills Road, we feel that the proposed revisions noted above respond to our local concerns while also respecting regional transportation goals. DWA 2 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Additional informa- tion related to this comment is provided in the July 14, 1986, Staff Report to the City Council. BILL FICKER (BF) BF 1 Comment Mr. Mayor, my name is Bill Ficker. I live at 522 West Oceanfront. I have been a permanent resident in Newport Beach since 1953. I was a member of the Planning Commission at the inception of .the Irvine Company's Master Plan that included Newport Center, and I am here to speak in favor of the Newport Center General Plan Amendment. ' I have had an unwavering interest in the maturing of this community and take great pride in being part of it, but particularly, pride in the quality with which it has matured. But there are many people of varying opinions who have a common interest to see our city be the finest city in the world. In the last 25 years, New- port Beach has become the hallmark by which other cities, their patterns of 1 growth and maturity are measured. People literally come from all over the world to copy or understand how a city can not only maintain, but improve in quality, its expansion and development. 3.43 We were fortunate in having, perhaps, the most creative land planner of our time, Bill Pereira, "master plan" the area surrounding what we knew in 1963 as Newport Beach, so the land wasn't merely subdivided in a grid pattern like most of Southern California at the time. Instead, it has been devel- oped in the most ideal manner with highly identifiable areas of residen- tial, commercial, and industrial uses. The keynote has been quality, and today, it is more obvious than ever that there is a dedication to excellence. There are traffic concerns that we all share, but as a planner, I know that traffic studies are not an exact science, and I hope that we will not try to anoint them as an exact science in the deliberations before you. 140wever, traffic engineering does provide a magnitude of concern for us to consider. The magnitude of impact of concern for us to consider. The mag- nitude of impact of or concern is almost insignificant in the proposed Gen- eral Plan Amendment. It is a small fraction of the overall impact of the surrounding areas. With regard to traffic, there are some elements to consider that, perhaps, cannot be quantified, and that is the tremendous benefit to our emotional and physical welfare in being able to live in Newport Beach and work in Newport Beach. This takes a dramatic amount of cars and pollution away from our greater environment. Certainly, it is an overwhelming plus for our transportation concerns. We can carry on all phases of our life for entertainment, shopping, medical services, education, and cultural opportunities without leaving our surface streets and with short trips. We should be secure in that we do have adequate controls over our destiny. We should have confidence that traffic mitigations do work. The back bridge is, perhaps, the classic example of that philosophy. We did not simply move the problem to another location, but the problem was almost entirely removed. I would like to address some points that I think have not been stressed adequately in the past, but are extremely important to the future and pre- sent welfare of our community. We must have some balanced growth. We have an obligation to our young people that are born and raised in this community. We graduate over high school students a year. Some stay in our locality and attend college, some go directly into the labor market, and others go away to school, but I venture that most all of them, such as our own daughter, like to come back and live in Newport Beach. What you see in this General Plan is just part of the opportunities that we must provide for these young people. They need to know that they can return home and participate with their families, friends, and community, as clerks, laborers, professionals, doctors, and maybe even architects. We cannot merely say that they should go somewhere I 3.44 I' else to live, although we recognize that the economics of housing in New- port Beach might mean an interim stop along the road' before they can return. •Newport.. Beach was a;wonderful place when I moved here-, it is:.more wonderful• today. It is a community that has the best of everything and we have matured.•from-- sitting on the beach and only sailing and needing to go elsewhere for cul- tural and social enrichment. We have now attained that social and cultural enrichment here in Newport Beach and its surrounding areas. I say "sur- rounding areas", because Newport Beach has infected those surrounding areas with similar qualities. We have an opportunity to provide the finest shopping, the finest profes- sional services, cultural activities, and perhaps most importantly, the finest private hospital and medical center of any area this size. Hoag Hospital and the outstanding staff it has attracted would not be here with- out the dedication to quality and the growth of this community that has taken place. I agree there are some inconveniences with growth, but they are dramati- cally outweighed by the benefits which we all enjoy. The plans, for the visual enhancement of areas of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road will strongly add to the visual pleasures of driving through our City and One point that I am particularly interested in is the reten- tion of the view at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway. this view should even be enhanced by some grading to provide a vista of the Back Bay, and if some buildings are built on that site, they should be well below the view. I am very much in favor of shared public and commercial use of the site, if for no other reason than security. Merely a view park with no other access or use, not as successful as the shared use. An example is the old Victor Hugo in Laguna Beach and similar commercial uses. It provides an opportu- nity for the private sector to participate in the maintenance and visual enhancement, and also provides the security for public participation and enjoyment. I think this plan provides for the maximum opportunity to provide a quality environment for the completion of Newport Center and its surrounding area and the quality of the entire City will be enhanced by it. This type of commitment also breeds confidence in other land owners who might also be more secure to continue to cleanup redevelopment areas of the City, such as Old Newport and the Cannery Village. 3.45 Newport Center needs its renaissance just as other areas need revitaliza- tion. It is important to the overall City that all entities are success- ful. Finally, and perhaps, one of the most important considerations is- that I would like to see our City at peace. The controversy in the past was debilitating to the City. There are so many positive opportunities in this City and so much love for the City among all of us, that I would like to see all of our energies channeled together to work toward enhancing the quality of every street, block, and building in this community. We have the energy, we have the wealth and desire to do that. The approval of this General Plan Amendment, will be one of the most worthwhile actions this City has ever taken. Thank you for the opportunity of addressing you here tonight. SF 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. SPONd 1 Comment We would like to call your attention to our prior testimony on this pro- ject. It has consisted of verbal comments before the Planning Commission and written comments regarding the issues to be addressed in the EIR and the adequacy of the EIR. So far we have not received answers to these comments nor have the comments made during the official comment period (which ended on May 29) been made part of a final EIR so all interested parties can have the benefit of such dialogue. This seems to be a deficiency in the process required by the California Environmental Quality Act. To add to our concern, the EIR for this project came in four volumes, the third and fourth of which were not generally given out. Yet, Volume 3 contained the written comments of all the various agencies, individuals, and associations. When reading these comments it is obvious that there is great concern about the intensity of the project and its effect on traffic and as many stated, the quality of life. In reviewing the mitigations for the traffic from this project, SPON and other associations find that the improvements called for include wider roads and intersections and in the case of Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree, a "diamond" shaped grade separation or overpass. The size of the 3.46 roads and intersections is increasing beyond what had been previously com- patible with the residential nature of the community. We believe these problems should be considered by a representative body of ,residents before further- increases•are. allowed in the -:General Plan densi-­ ties. Therefore, we make the following request: 1.- That an advisory committee be formed of representatives from interested homeowner associations. 2. That recommendations for the following be developed: a. A redefinition of roadway facilities with a commitment to retaining the size and scale compatible with the interests of the homeowners. b. An ordinance calling for significant decreases in com- muter traffic by the use of high occupancy vehicles as is being accomplished in other cities. C. A limit.to the amount and type of commercial development depending upon the availability of roads and acceptable levels of service. SPONd 1 Response The comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by appropriate decisionmakers. Additional infor- mation related to the specific requests of SPON is provided in the July 14, 1986, Staff Report to the City Council. Volume 5 Comments and Responses The following comments were included in Volume 5 of the Draft EIR. It was intended that these comments would be responded to under separate cover prior to final action on the project. STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT (SPONa) SPONa 3 Comment It is of concern that the traffic analysis figures are•made by committed projects and a trend analysis. Committed projects are described at those (in Newport) which "have an adopted Traffic Phasing Plan or approved traf- fic study". These projects do not include those in Newport's sphere of influence. 3.47 SPONa 3 Response All past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City of Newport Beach Sphere of Influence were included in the growth forecasts from which the analysis was accomplished. _.The work effort -included verifi- cation by the County of Orange of land use assumptions. Contact was made through the Notice of Preparation process. Additional contact was made by the Staff of Sanchez Talarico Associates and Basmaciyan-Darnell Incorpor- ated. This contact included traffic model discussions and land use assump- tions analysis. SPONa 5 Comment We have requested earlier that the traffic figures and dispersal of traffic be included for the Irvine Company's Irvine Coast project. This project continues to.be excluded even though the County had studied earlier plans even to the extent of traffic figures and dispersion. We believe that the Irvine Coast project should be considered at the same time as Newport Cen- ter in order to accurately assess the impact on Corona del Mar. SPONs 5 Response The approval County of Orange Local Coastal Plan land uses and development assumptions were utilized in the traffic model to forecast future traffic impacts of the project. EMA 2 Comment In response to the Notice of Preparation, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency noted that further urbanization in Newport Beach would increase the incidence of runoff to the Bay. We specifically requested that the EIR "should fully assess the impact of such runoff into the Bay, and should offer detailed proposals for reducing the entry of street conta- minants such as solid matter, oil, and grease into the storm drain system." The draft EIR, while concluding that the proposed development "will add to a significant cumulative impact on water quality in Newport Bay," fails to provide specific mitigation measures. EMA 2 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by James V. Anderson dated June 19, 1986, Appendix B. 3.48 .EMA 3 Comment Currently, Newport Center adheres to the City of Newport.Beach policies and requirements sited in the EIR, but still impacts the water quality of the -Bay on a regular basis, as shown by the -following examples: , 1. At the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club, complaints have -been received.re- garding the discharge of trash, oil and grease from the storm, drain serving Newport Center. The Orange County Health Care Agency monitors total coliform, fecal coliform and enterococcus levels at this site. The results show that standards for water contact sports have been exceeded frequently compared with an equivalent site at Lido Yacht Anchorage, which has no storm drain (70% versus 19% for total coli- form). 2. At Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, samples taken from the dunes drain out- let in the swimming lagoon show that bacterial levels have exceeded the standards for water contact sports and shell -fish harvesting in over 75% of cases throughout the year. The lagoon has very poor flushing characteristics and is susceptible to coliform upsurges fol- lowing freshwater inputs from the watershed. This situation is likely to be exacerbated by the proposed development of boat slips at the lagoon entrance. Three other monitoring sites in the Dunes Lagoonare not as severely impacted as this drain from the east bluffs area, demonstrating the localized impact of this storm drain. For a number of years, efforts have been made by the County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, the Department of Fish and Game, the Coastal Commis- sion and other interested parties, including the proponent, to improve the environmental quality of the Bay. Some progress has been made and further actions have been planned. Any deteriorative action, however small, is detrimental to this goal and should be avoided, wherever reasonably pos- sible. The draft EIR should fully evaluate all possible on -site mitigation measures for reducing the harmful effects of runoff to the Bay, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Improvements to source control practices such as the frequency of street sweeping, refuse pick-up and drain cleaning. A national study recently concluded that "sweeping just prior to the rainy season could produce some benefitin terms of reduced - pollution in urban -runoff in an area which had pronounced wet and dry seasons." 2. Mechanical methods of separating trash from runoff water. 3. Oil/water separators, as requested by the Coastal Commission in the mid 19701s. 3.49 4. Installation of retention basins and/or other viable treatment technologies. 5. Alternative location of outfalls for storm drain. EMA 3 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by James W. Anderson dated June 19, 1986, Appendix B. RN 2 Comment Our point is that all businesses directly fronting Pacific Coast Highway in Corona del Mar.and all residences in at least the 65 CNEL range should be noise mitigated by sound insulation etc. This is not discussed although it was brought to the Staff's attention numerous times before and during the EIR. RN 2 Response The proposed project does contribute to a cumulative impact on noise. Due to the project, Corona del Her along East Coast Highway will experience noise increases of leas than 0.5 dBA. Through the City of Newport Beach's Fair Share Program, funds are available which could be utilized for sound mitigation. RN 5 Comment Further, between 9.5 and 10.7 acres of needed parks are being transferred from Newporter North and Newport Village to West Bay for a county regional park not even bordered by Newport Beach on its longest side. CDM and Bal- boa are deficient in Parks by Park Dept. survey. Harbor View Hills, CDM and East Bluff are dependent on closed school property for recreation facilities. The fields at Lincoln, East Bluff adjacent the Boys' Club and the 1/3 of Grant Howald Park form the backbone of our recreation facili- ties. Why is the Park Dept. not tying up these facilities and why are we not expanding facilities in the Grant Howald Park area for the sizeable expected and current needs. RN 5 Response The comment indicates that between 9.5 and 10.7 acres of needed parks are being transferred from Newporter North and Newport Village to Westbay for a county regional park. This statement inaccurately portrays the project proposal. As proposed by The Irvine Company, the neighborhood park cur- 1 3.50 rently designated for the site would be maintained on the park master plan. The park designated for the Newport Village site would be deleted with the redesignation of the site to office and retail uses. Designation of the Westbay site for regional park uses was not proposed by the project propo- nent.- -Currently,the Planning Commission and staff 'are .-recommending, the Newport Village site be maintained as -a residential site and are also recommending the four -acre park shown on the park master plan be main- tained. The .Planning Commission and -staff are also recommending that the Westbay site be redesignated to the "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" category, but no park credits are proposed in connection with this recommendation. The Recreation and Open Space Element indicates that at buildout Corona del Mar may be deficient in local park facilities and that Balboa will have an excess of park facilities. The remainder of the comment is noted and included in the final record of the project for review and consideration by the decisionmakers. QUALITY OF LIFE (OOL) QOL 3 Comment The use of dated and inaccurate statistical information in the EIR, such as the use of 55 daily flights as the statistic for the number of daily flights at John Wayne Airport. QOL 3 Response The Draft EIR used the 4.75 million annual passenger ceiling established in settlement with the County of Orange. The 55 daily flights refers to the 39 A's and 16 AA's. After 5 years, the ceiling goes to 8.4 million annual passengers after the new terminal building is constructed. The Draft EIR utilized the best available information at the time of preparation. Spe- cific information was received by contacting adjacent jurisdictions and agencies. SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER (SMW) SMW 25 Comment What is the basis for trip generation figures for apartments (Table 1-JJJ)? It would seem that with the growing number of dual employee, mid -to upper -income families, trip generation would be closer to 10 daily trips per unit? 3.51 SMW 25 Response This comment was responded to by BDI in Volume 5 Responses to Comments. SMW 29 Comment What are the respective costs of improvements listed .in Table 1-GGG •and 1-III? SMW 29 Response Please refer to the response to comments CC 41 and 34. SMW 46 Comment The City of Newport Beach has concluded that John Wayne Airport (hereinaf- ter "JWA") will never be capable of meeting the region's air transportation demand. Under the circumstances it would seem prudent to minimize approval of projects which will contribute to demand until an alternative site has been secured and development is underway. At a minimum, the EIR should quantify the increased demand for air transportation use likely to result from this project so that decision -makers can be apprised of the full con- sequences of their actions on activity at JWA. In addition, cumulative impacts on JWA should be quantified. SMW 46 Response As noted on page 234, Volume 1 of the Draft EIR, the project will generate 5,859 new employees in Newport Center. The proposed project will require approximately 488 residential units. The project will contribute to a need for airport facilities generating 26 total daily trips and 9,550 total yearly trips. SMW 47 Comments Of equal or greater importance to the overall quality of the Newport Beach environment is water quality. Adverse -impacts upon water quality from the project could have serious repercussions -on public health and safety as - well as on wildlife. The EIR's discussion of such likely effects is dis- mally inadequate for a number of reasons: First, the discussion fails to provide even the most basic information about the project's impacts, including how much runoff will increase with the project, what constitu- ents, toxic and otherwise, will be contained in the urban runoff; and what capacity remains in the various drainage systems that serve the project areas (1969 data should be updated). 11 3.52 SMW 47 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by.James W. Anderson dated June 27, 1986, Appendix C. Please also refer•to the letter report prepared by RBF dated June 18, 1986, Appendix E. SMW 48 Comment Second, the EIR provides no indication of the quality of water now flowing into the bay from Newport Center, though the system has been in place for years and studies must have been done on impacts of the outfalls on plant and animal life and overall water quality. SMW 48 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by James W. Anderson dated June 19, 1986, Appendix B. SMW 50 Comment Studies of impact should not be deferred until a later time, but should be undertaken as part of the EIR so that adequate mitigation measures and pro- ject alternatives can be adopted. SMW 50 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by James W. Anderson dated June 19, 1986, Appendix B. SMW 51 Comment At a minimum, this section should be rewritten to contain a quantification of the aforementioned impacts and technical information regarding the con- tents and effects of "urban runoff pollutants." Particularly important is an inclusion of a complete analysis of impacts on sites within the Coastal Zone as per coastal plan policy requirements. SMW 51 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by James W. Anderson dated June 19, 1986, Appendix B. 3.53 SHW 52 Comment The EIR should also provide a description of existing Wtar quality, whether or not it meets the standards in the outfall areas, ask indicate the degree to which the project may frustrate attainment -of ay Mmdards, SHit 52 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by James W. Anderson dazed June 19, 1986, Appendix B. WQ 1 Comment In the discussion of Water Resources (Volume 2, pages 93-3*7). the DEIR states correctly that implementation of the proposed projectsall result in changes in drainage patterns both on and off -site, as well amissrease in the amount and velocity of runoff due to increases in impervisea surfaces. The DEIR also -recognizes the resultant increase in input afru lan runoff pollutants to Newport Bay but describes this primarily as a abort -term impact (p. 98-99). WQ 1 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by RBF dated June 18, 79", Appendix E and by James W. Anderson dated June 19, 1986, Appendix B. WQ 2 Comment It is noted that the project "will add to a significant cumdUtiu impact on water quality in Newport Bay" (p. 106) but there is no deuilea evalua- tion of the project's long-term impacts on the water quality xr lmficial uses (e.g. wildlife, recreational activities) of the Bay. 'As final Elk should incorporate this discussion and include alternatives isribe project or other measures which would mitigate adverse impacts. WQ 2 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by James W. Anderson. June 19, 1986, Appendix B. WQ 3 Comment The project proponent should be advised that an ongoing ga dlm recovery project at the PCH/Jamboree Road site. Prior to developmettatl%is site, 3.55 SPONb 26 Comment The most critical aspect of this proposed project to residents who are con- cerned that the city does grow in a.true phased•manner•with adequate sup- port systems in the proposed Development Agreement. SPONb 26 Response ' The comment is noted and included in the final report for the project for review by appropriate decisionmakers. 1 1 1 1 1 3.54 the extent of soil and ground water contamination must be determined. Kurt Berchtold of this office and Seth Daugherty (714-834-8182) of the Orange County Health Care Agency can provide specific information about the proce- dures needed to conduct this investigation. WQ 3 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by James W. Anderson dated June 19, 1986, Appendix B. WQ 4 Comment In addition, if dewatering is necessary and the discharge of wastewater to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (waste discharge require- ments) will be required from this office prior to initiating the discharge. In addition, any dewateritig of the area affected by the on -site gasoline leak will require extensive treatment prior to discharge. Processing of an NPDES permit may take as long as 120 days. Any questions pertaining to this permit may be addressed to Mr. Gary D. Stewart of this office. WQ 4 Response Please refer to letter report prepared by James W. Anderson dated June .19, 1986, Appendix B. SPONb 25 Comment But it is not clear whether other huge projects such as one in Irvine pro- posed just this week are included. It appears that the increased Trend Growth is a misnomer and since all projects included in such a forecast are known projects, it should be considered the Trend Growth. An increased Trend Growth forecast should be those that would tend to still be proposed due to the cumulative forces of expansion. SPONb 25 Response It is unclear exactly what project the comments author is referring to as Just being announced this week. The Increase Trend Growth Assumption includes staff assumptions for future growth in the city and adjacent com- munities that is considerable beyond announced projects. The cumulative forces of expansion have been included by increasing growth assumptions from Trend Growth in the communities. This was done to provide a worst case assumption for analysis. The case was then utilized to ana- lyze project impacts. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i [1 1 1 p 1 i i 1 Revised Mitigation Measures 1 1 4.2 No mit at the 7 u 11 J Errata 5.2 V. ERRATA No errata is necessary based upon information presented at the City Council meeting of June 23, 1986. Appendix I I II II L I If II II 1 r APPENDIX A LETTER REPORT: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL INCORPORTATED II II 3190 CG1 Airport Loop Drive July 1, 1986 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ENGINEERING AND PLANNING Transportation, Trafflq Municipal, Transit Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 557-5780 Ms. Pat Temple City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Responses to Comments Enclosed are the responses to comments prepared by Basmaciyan- Darnell, Inc. (BDI). Responses to the following comments are presented: Comments at 6/23/86 City Council Meeting: 6, 14, 19, 20, 21, 36, 40, 51, 52, 59, 61 NHCA : 5 SPONa: 3, 5, SPONb: 25 Note: SPON stands for Stop Polluting Our Newport NHCA stands for Newport Harbor Community Association Also enclosed are Tables 1, 2, and 3, in support of responses to Comments 36, 59, and 61 respectively. Please contact me if I can provide further details or answer any questions. Sincerely, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. o-- Herman Basmaciyan, P.E. / cc: Sanchez Talarico Associates RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE JUNE 23, 1986 CITY COUNCIL MEETING COMMENT 4 What are the intersections that will require diamond -shape grade separations? RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4 A grade separation is recommended at the intersection of Coast ' Highway and Jamboree Road. This would be required for the 1993 conditions analyzed in the traffic study. 1993 traffic would include existing traffic plus regional growth, plus approved projects, plus the proposed GPA. No other grade separations have been suggested in the traffic study for the proposed GPA. COMMENT 6 , What are the roadway limitations (size and scale) being established by the proposed project? RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6 The proposed project does not attempt to establish roadway limitations (size and scale). Roadway improvements outlined in the Traffic Study, Volume 4 of the EIR, are consistent with the City's General Plan, except for a change involving MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue. With the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Avocado Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard one-way couplet would be deleted. Instead, MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue would be designated Major and Secondary Roads, respectively. r COMMENT 14 Won't the project add a 50% increase in traffic to the community? RESPONSE TO COMMENT 14 No. Compared to the Adopted General Plan, the proposed GPA would add about 20 percent to the traffic to and from Newport Center. On individual roads and streets, the increase in traffic would be far less. Except in the close vicinity of Newport Center, increases will be less than five percent. At some locations near Newport Center, increases of 10 to 12 percent would be antici- pated. COMMENT 19 Why is there a difference in the traffic projections from the GPA 80-3 Certified Final EIR and the GPA 85-1(B) Draft EIR? RESPONSE TO COMMENT 19 Traffic projections for both GPA 80-3 and GPA 85-1(B) are made on the basis of the best information available at the time of analysis. Many factors influence the traffic projections, of which land use projections and the circulation system assumptions are the most important considerations. Countywide transportation ' planning techniques and methodology are being refined continuous- ly and the most recently available countywide data have been incorporated into the traffic projections for GPA 85-1(B). Also, the most recently available countywide land use/socio-economic projections have been used. To the extent that these differ from conditions used for GPA 80-3, traffic projections for GPA 85-1(B) differ from those for GPA 80-3. COMMENT 20 Why did the GPA 79-1 EIR project 46,000 ADT on East Coast Highway in the Corona del Mar area and the project EIR only 40,000 ADT? RESPONSE TO COMMENT 20 An EIR was not prepared for GPA 79-1. An Initial Study was 1 prepared for GPA 79-1, which provided an assessment of expected project impacts and fulfilled requirements of the environmental review process. The projections in the Traffic Study, Volume 4 of the EIR, for GPA 85-1(B) for Coast Highway in the Corona del Mar area for the Trend Growth Plus GPA 85-1(B) condition are: Coast Highway: East of MacArthur Blvd. 53,800 vehicles per day East of Marguerite Ave. 46,700 vehicles per day East of Poppy Avenue 36,900 vehicles per day At East City Limits 33,800 vehicles per day The GPA 85-1(B) projection of 46,700 vehicles per day east of Marguerite Avenue should be considered comparable to "46,000 ADT on East Coast Highway in the Corona del Mar area." COMMENT 21 Why does Figure 3.4 in the Draft EIR show 62,900 ADT and the previous documents only 49,000 ADT? RESPONSE TO COMMENT 21 The projection for Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Marguerite Avenue for the Increased Trend Growth Plus GPA 85-1(B) condition is 62,900 vehicles per day. This a long-range projection with all inherent assumptions pertaining to the Increased Trend Growth scenario. The source of the "49,000 ADT" li is unclear. COMMENT 36 What are the present and future ICU's in the Corona del Mar area both with and without the project and with and without Pelican Hill Road? RESPONSE TO COMMENT 36 The ICU values for those conditions are presented in Table 1, attached. COMMENT 40 How does the traffic management program of the project relate to the past one proposed in GPA 80-3? RESPONSE TO COMMENT 40 Some elements of the traffic management program proposed in conjunction with GPA 80-3 are now in place and operating at Newport Center. The most visible of these are that the Irvine Company has a Transportation Coordinator, an intra-Center shuttle has been put into operation, and express bus service is being operated between Newport Center and Northern Orange County via Route 73 and the commuter lanes on Route 55. In conjunction with proposed GPA 85-1(B), the continuation and enhancement of traffic management programs would be encouraged. On the other hand, traffic impacts have been analyzed and roadway system improve- ments are recommended without considering reductions in traffic volumes that would be attributable to traffic management programs. To the extent that Newport Center traffic management programs reduce traffic volumes in comparison to the levels presented in the Traffic Study, Volume 4 of the EIR, the areawide roadway system would provide better levels of service, especially in the vicinity of Newport Center. COMMENT 51 What will be the impact of keeping MacArthur Boulevard as a four - lane road be on Poppy, Fifth, and Marguerite Avenue. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 51 The origin -destination survey conducted in June, 1985 in the Corona del Mar area during peak hours indicated that motorists use the Poppy Avenue/Fifth Avenue/Marguerite Avenue route as a bypass to Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. To the extent that congestion along MacArthur Boulevard were to be encountered, in addition to congestion on Coast Highway, more motorists might be inclined to bypass Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard. The construction of Pelican Hill Road will divert traffic away from Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard, especially during peak periods and will help reduce congestion in Corona del Mar. This I in turn will reduce the number of use Poppy/Fifth/Marguerite Avenues MacArthur Boulevard. COMMENT 52 motorists who would otherwise to bypass Coast Highway and Will the capacity on Pelican Hill Road all be utilized by the Down Coast development? RESPONSE TO COMMENT 52 No. Pelican Hill Road will ultimately be constructed with six lanes. The capacity of a six -lane road would be about 54,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Traffic volume projections for Pelican Hill Road are less than 22,000 vpd, including traffic associated with downcoast development. Accordingly, Pelican Hill Road would operate at a very satisfactory level of service, and will have excess capacity. COMMENT 59 Will people use Pelican Hill Road to get to Newport Center or around Newport Center if it is three times as far as other routes? RESPONSE TO COMMENT 59 There is no indication that times as far. Table 2 distance and travel time. the Traffic Study, Volume Table 2 for easy reference. COMMENT 61 the Pelican Hill Road route is three (attached) presents a comparison of The detailed discussion contained in 4 of the EIR, is excerpted and follows Does the project or the mitigation measure required of the project require the widening of Coast Highway in 'the Mariners Mile area or in the Corona del Mar area? RESPONSE TO COMMENT 61 Widening on Coast Highway, where necessary, will be needed with or without the proposed GPA, since the capacity of a four -lane Coast Highway would be exceeded even without the proposed GPA. Also, as indicated in Table 3, (attached) 'traffic increases attributable to the proposed GPA constitute a small percentage of the total traffic. Likewise, specific intersection improvements will be necessary with or without the proposed GPA. The cons- truction of Pelican Hill Road, proposed in conjunction with proposed GPA 85-1(B), will help divert traffic off Coast Highway through Corona del Mar and will help reduce congestion. I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY NEWPORT HEIGHTS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION NHCA COMMENT 5 Regarding traffic: 1) Require a traffic management system such as can/van (sic) pooling and staggered work hours. 2) Keep streets residential in nature. This means NO SIX lane roads and NO overpasses. 3) Do not improve capacity of intersections in Mariners Mile, 4) DO NOT WIDEN PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY ANYWHERE. But plan for improvements to our streets that enhance our city's image further. RESPONSE TO NHCA COMMENT 5 1) Traffic management, with such measures as staggered work hours and car/van pooling can be effective in reducing peak hourly traffic. 2) The Circulation Element of the City's General Plan included a number of six -lane "Major Roads," including Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, and others. 3) Comment noted. 4) Comment noted. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS BY SPON SPONa COMMENT 3 It is of concern that the traffic analysis figures are made by committed projects and a trend analysis. Committed projects are described as those (in Newport) which "have an adopted Traffic Phasing Plan or approved traffic study". These projects do not include those in Newport's sphere of influence. RESPONSE TO SPONa COMMENT 3 The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analyses presented in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Study, Volume 4 of the EIR, have been conducted in accordance with the procedures of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance in effect immediately prior to recent amendments. The approved projects are listed in Table 4-1 of the Traffic Study. The long-range projections presented in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Study include developments in the City, in adjoining communities, and the County as a whole. SPONa COMMENT 5 We have requested earlier that the traffic figures and dispersal of traffic be included for the Irvine Company's Irvine Coast project. This project continues to be excluded even though the County had studied earlier plans even to the extent of traffic figures and dispersion. We believe that the Irvine Coast project should be considered at the same time as Newport Center in order to accurately assess the impact on Corona del Mar. RESPONSE TO SPONa COMMENT 5 The downcoast development is included in the long-range projec- tions presented in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Study, Volume 4 of the EIR. Consistently with the planning work for the downcoast area, the traffic projections reflect tripmaking associated with a development of approximately 1,800 dwelling units, 146,000 square feet of commercial development, and approximately 2,000 hotel rooms. This level of development would generate approxi- mately 49,000 daily trip ends. Some of the tripmaking would be internal within the downcoast area (home to commercial, hotel to commercial, etc.); the remainder would be distributed over an areawide street and highway system which would include Pelican Hill and Sand Canyon Roads in a north -south direction and Coast Highway and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor in an east -west direction. t SPONb COMMENT 25 But it is not clear whether huge projects such as one in Irvine proposed just this week are included. It appears that the increased Trend Growth is a misnomer and since all projects included in such a forecast are known projects, it should be considered the Trend Growth. An increased Trend Growth forecast should be those that would tend to still be proposed due to the cumulative forces of expansion. J RESPONSE TO SPONb COMMENT 25 The developments included in the Increased Trend Growth scenario are described on pages 3-19 and 3-20 of the Traffic Study (Volume 4 of the EIR). Briefly, these consist of Koll Center Newport, Irvine Business Complex (IBC), and intensification of land use in Corona del Mar. The reference to the project proposed in Irvine , 'just this week" is unclear so it is not possible to state whether or not this project is included in the Increased Trend Growth scenario. J I I I 1 11 I r M M M I" on� as M M r an M M im M M Im M r Intersection ODAST HIGHWAY at: Poppy Avenue Marguerite Ave. Goldenrod Ave. MacArthur Blvd. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF ICU VALUES WITH/WI71= PELICAN HILL ROAD AND WPPH/WITHOUT THE PROPOSED GPA 1989 W/ Committed 1993 w/ Committed 1993 w/ Committel 1989 With 1989 With Committed Improvements and Improvements w/o Improvements and Existing panes Improvements Pelican Hill Road Pelican Hill Road Pelican Hill Road w/ Phase 1 w/ Phase 1 ----- w/ Phase 1 ----- ------ With -------------- With Existing w/o GPA of GPA w/o GPA of GPA W/o GPA of GPA w/o GPA Entire GPA w/o GPA Entire GPA 0.92 1.05 1.10 1.05(a) 1.10(a) 0.83 0.84 1.11(a) 1.15(a) 0.86 0.89 1.02 1.16 1.21 0.90(b) 0.93(b) 0.80 0.83 0.90 1.00 0.80 0.86 1.13 1.25 1.31 1.25(a) 1.31(a) 1.09 1.14 1.30(a) 1.37(a) 1.15 1.18 0.85 0.99 1.04 0.81(c) 0.84(c) 0.73 0.74 0.82 0.89 0.74 0.79 (a) No committed improvement (b) Addition of third eastbound through lane (c) Addition of second eastbound left -turn lane and third eastbound through lane (d) Winter/Spring 1985 conditions I TABLE 2 DISTANCE AND TRAVEL TIME COMPARISONS Distance Comparison Number 1--- --------------------------------- From Intersection of Coast Highway and Pelican Hill Rd To Intersection of MacArthur Blvd. and Bonita Canyon Rd: a) Via Pelican Hill Rd/Bonita Canyon Rd 5.9 mi. b) Via Coast Highway/MacArthur Blvd 5.1 mi. Comparison Number 2 -------------------------------- From Intersection of Coast Highway and Pelican Hill Rd To Intersection of MacArthur Blvd. and San Joaquin Hills Rd: a) Via Pelican Hill Road/San Joaquin 5.4 mi. Hills Road b) Via Coast Highway/MacArthur Blvd 3.0 mi. Travel Time ---------------- Non_Peak Peak 7.0 min 8.0 min 6,5 min 5.3 min Note: See detailed discussion excerpted from Traffic Study 8.0 min 11.0 min , 7.3 min 7,9 min 11 1 1 1 IEXCERPT FROM TRAFFIC STUDY Travel Time Comparisons Comparisons have been made of the estimated distance and travel times for routings via Pelican Hill Road and via Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. The southeasterly terminus for the travel time comparison is taken as the intersection of Coast Highway .at Pelican Hill Road, since this would be the point of a ' routing decision for a motorist approaching Newport Beach. Two northerly termini are considered in the travel time comparisons. The first is the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and ,Bonita Canyon Road, which would be the common point along the routing options for motorists traveling to the northern portion of Newport Beach and points further north. The second is the inter- section of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, which would be the common point along the routing options for motorists traveling to the vicinity of Newport Center. The following describes the two paths analyzed for travel between each origin/ destination pair: A. Travel distance and time comparison between the future intersection of Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road and the ' intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at Bonita Canyon Road (representing locations in northern Newport Beach and further north): Path 1 - via Pelican Hill Road, to Bonita Canyon Road, to MacArthur Boulevard iPath 2 - via Coast Highway, to MacArthur Boulevard, to Bonita Canyon Road tB. Travel distance and time comparison between the future intersection of Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road and the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road (representing locations in Newport Center and vicinity): Path 1 - via Pelican Hill Road, to San Joaquin Hills Road, to MacArthur Boulevard Path 2 - via Coast Highway, to MacArthur Boulevard to San Joaquin Hills Road. For ease of reference, Path 1 described for travel distance and time comparison "A" will be referred to as Path Al; Path 2 for comparison "A" will be Path A2. Similarly, Path 1 for travel distance and time comparison "B" will be referred to as Path B1; Path 2 for comparison "B" will be Path B2. From Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur_ From Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur Boulevard at Bonita Canyon Road, via Path Al would be a travel distance of approximately 5.9 miles. The distance between the same two points via Path A2 would be approximately 5.1 miles. ' 3-42 Average travel speeds have been estimated for each path for off- peak conditions and for peak conditions. Estimated delays due to traffic signals and traffic conditions have been included in the computation of average travel speeds. During off-peak condi- tions, vehicles would be expected to travel at approximately 50 miles per hour along Path Al. Estimated off-peak travel speeds along Path A2 vary. Along Coast Highway between Pelican Hill Road and Cameo Shores, a vehicle would travel at approximately 50 miles per hour (m.p.h.) during off-peak hours. On Coast Highway between Cameo Shores and MacArthur Boulevard (through Corona del Mar) average travel speed would be approximately 25 m.p.h. Along MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, estimated travel speed is approximately 45 m.p.h. Between San Joaquin Hills Road and Bonita Canyon Road, the estimated travel speed would be approximately 50 m.p.h. Based on the travel speed assumptions described above, it would take approximately 7 minutes to drive between Coast Highway at Pelican Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard at Bonita Canyon Road via Path Al, and approximately 8 minutes via Path A2. During off-peak hours, the difference in travel time between Path Al and Path A2 would be minimal. During peak traffic hours, the average travel speed along Path Al is estimated to be approximately 45 m.p.h. For Path A2, the estimated peak hour travel speed along the segment of Coast Highway between Pelican Hill Road and Cameo Shores would be approximately 45 m.p.h. Peak hour congestion significantly reduces travel speed on Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. An average speed of 15 m.p.h. was assumed along the segment between Cameo Shores and MacArthur Boulevard. On MacArthur Boulevard between Coast Highway and San Joaquin Hills Road, vehicles are estimated to travel at an average speed of 40 m.p.h. during peak hours. From San Joaquin Hills Road to Bonita Canyon Road, the average speed during peak hours was assumed to be 35 m.p.h. Based on estimated peak hour speed assumptions, travel time along Path Al would be approximately 8 minutes, travel time along Path A2 would be approximately 11 minutes. In summary, the total distance from Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur Boulevard at Bonita Canyon Road is 5.9 miles via Pelican Hill Road to Bonita Canyon Road (Path Al), and 5.1 via Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard (Path A2). During off- peak hours, the difference in estimated travel time between the two paths is nominal (approximately 1 minute). However, during peak hours, congestion along Coast Highway and along MacArthur Boulevard cause traffic delays and reductions in average travel speeds. The difference in estimated travel time between Path Al and Path A2 is approximately 3 minutes during peak hours. 3-43 During off-peak hours, the two paths are comparable in terms of ' distance and travel time. Some motorists would choose to use each path, based on factors of personal choice and preference other than distance and travel time. During peak hours, however, 1 it would be expected that a significant number of motorists would (Path to choose to travel along Pelican Hill Road A1) avoid congestion and potential delays along Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. From Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur ' Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road The travel distance from Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, via Path B1 (Pelican Hill Road), would be approximately 5.4 miles. The distance between the same two points via Path B2 (Coast Highway through Corona del Mar) would be approximately 3.0 miles. Travel speed assumptions along the roadways included in each path have been discussed previously, with the exception of speed assumptions for San Joaquin Hills Road. During off-peak hours, vehicles would be expected to travel approximately 50 m.p.h. along San Joaquin'Hills Road. During peak hours, this average speed would be estimated to reduce, somewhat, to approximately 45 m.p.h. During off-peak conditions, it is estimated that it would take approximately 6.5 minutes for a motorist to travel from Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road to MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road, via Path B1. The same trip, via Path B2, would take approximately 5.3 minutes. During off-peak hours, it would be shorter and faster to travel from Coast Highway at Pelican Hills Road to MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road by way of Coast Highway through Corona del Mar to MacArthur Boulevard. During peak conditions, the travel time via Path B1 would take approximately 0.8 minute longer than during off-peak hours, or approximately 7.3 minutes. The travel time via Path B2 would increase from 5.3 minutes during off-peak hours to approximately 7.1 minutes during peak traffic hours. longer be the fastest route. During peak hours, Path B2 would no The difference in travel time between Path B1 and Path B2 would be approximately 0.6 minute, with Path B1 being the faster. In summary, Path B2 (Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard) would provide the shortest distance between the intersections of Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road and MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road. During off-peak hours, it would also be the fastest route. It would therefore be expected that, during off- peak hours, most motorists travelling between Coast Highway at Pelican Hill Road and the Newport Center area would choose Path B2. 3-44 During peak traffic hours, traffic delays due to congestion along Coast Highway through Corona del Mar would be expected to increase the travel time along Path B2 by approximately 2.6 minutes. Although Path B2 is considerably shorter than Path B1, travel along Path B2 is estimated to take approximately 0.6 minute longer than along Path B1 during peak hours. Therefore, during peak hours, some motorists may select Path B1 (Pelican Hill Road), preferring to drive a little further to save a small amount of travel time. Summary The construction of Pelican Hill Road would offer an alternative to routings via Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard, albeit the travel distance via Pelican Hill Road would be longer. During peak periods of travel, time of travel via Pelican Bill Road would be less than via Coast Highway for motorists travelling to and from the northern portion of Newport Beach and points further north. For motorists travelling to.and from Newport Center and vicinity, the travel time in peak periods via Pelican Hill Road and via Coast Highway would be approximately the same. During off-peak periods, travel time via Coast highway would be less than via Pelican Hill. Canyon Crest Road Prior to the formulation of the current County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) to include the San,Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Pelican Hill Road, and Sand Canyon Road in the area immediately east of Newport Beach, an arterial facility immediately adjacent to the east city limits of Newport Beach (east of Cameo Highlands) was included in both the County MPAH and the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. This arterial facility, recognized generally as Canyon Crest Road, would have constituted the extension of Spyglass Hill Road southerly of San Joaquin Hills Road, to Coast Highway. A very small portion of Canyon Crest Road would have been in Newport Beach; the rest would have been in a County unincorporated area. The County MPAH was revised in the mid to late 70's to delete Canyon Crest Road. As part of the adoption of GPA 79-2 by the City of Newport Beach in December 1980, Canyon Crest Road was deleted from the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The reasons for the deletion were that Pelican Hill would serve areawide traffic circulation needs better than Canyon Crest Road, and that the construction of Canyon Crest Road would have necessitated the crossing of a sizeable gulley with a long bridge span. 3-45 Coast Highway through Corona del Mar At East City limits East of Poppy Avenue East of Marguerite Avenue East of MacArthur Boulevard Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile West of'Dover Drive East of Newport Boulevard TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF VOLUME TO CAPACITY ON COAST HIGHWAY Existing Daily Capacity Future Daily Traffic ---------------- Trend Trend Growth Growth Plus GPA Ratio of Future Volume to Existing Daily Capacity ----------------- Trend Trend Growth Growth Plus GPA Percent Increase in Traffic Due to GPA 36,000 (a) 33,000 33,800 0.92 0.94 2.4 36,000 (a) 35,800 36,900 0.99 1.03 3.1 36,000 (a) 45,500 46,700 1.26 1.30 2.6 36,000 (a) 48,400 53,800 1.34 1.49 11.2 36,000 (a) 45,800 48,000 1.27 1.33 4.8 45,000 (b) 68,200 70,400 1.52 1.56 3.2 (a) Four lanes of traffic, two in each direction (b) Two eastbound and three westbound lanes APPENDIX 8 LETTER REPORT: JAMES A. ANDERSON JAMES W. ANDERSON . Attorney at Law June 27, 1986 Fred Talarico Sanchez/Talarico Associates 359 San Miguel Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 •Dear Mr. Talarico: This is to follow-up on the public hearing comment regarding water qualt,ty in the vicinity of the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club. In general, the bacterial quality of the lower Newport Bay has degraded over the last few years. However, the exact cause of this degradation has not been isolated. There are significant increases in the bacterial counts associated with storm flows discharging into the Bay. The Orange. County Health Care Agency does not view that these increases as a public health hazard, because the storm'flows do not carry pathogenic bacteria. The studies so far on'vessel waste discharges, which might carry pathogens, do not indicate conclusively that the increased counts are from that source. Neither the Regional Board, or the Orange County Health Care Agency appear interested in following up on previous studies to adequately study or pin -point the cause. The City of Newport Beach is undertaking a program of adding vessel waste pump -out stations to remove vessel sewage from the Bay. If further sampling programs are initiated, there should be some indication of the effectiveness of these facilities. However, until extensive bacterial sampling to determine the effects of storm 'channels and urban run-off on the quality of the Bay, there will continue to be conflicting comments on the cause of increased levels of bacteria. As long as.the Orange County Health Care Agency does not believe that'the•increased levels constitute a health hazard, and post the Bay durt'ng non -storm events, the Bay can be considered to meet all bathing water standards and be safe for swimming. With the foregoing as background, I am enclosing the specific response•to the comments received at the public hearing. Please let me know if there is anything further you will need. ' Sincerely, ` /00V ' ' ames W. Anderson Enclosure P.O. Box 5025-306 • Riverside, California 92517 • (714) 785-5413 (714) 683-8486 COMMENTi The quality of the water in Newport Say has deteriorated In the vicinity of the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club, and the area is not safe for swimming. RESPONSE: Bacterial Standards for swimming in salt water are set by the State Health Department. Compliance with these standards are monitored by the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. During the last quarter of 1985, the Health Care Agency indicated that "five stations In October, ten stations in November, and twelve stations in December exceeded California Ocean Water Contact Sports Standards." The report concluded that elevated coliform levels may be attributed to storm runoff occurring on or Prior to the sampling date(s). "Other high coliform values throughout this quarter may be attributed to surface drainage from urban and agricultural area, vessel waste or animal wastes." (January 28, 1986, Memorandum from Robert E. Merryman, R.S.,MPH, Director, Environmental Health) The Santa Ana Regional Board has conducted extensive sampling of the Bay waters to determine the effects of vessel waste contamination of the Bay. The 1985 report concludes: "Ocean Water -Contact Sports standards for total coliform densities were exceeded at the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club, Balboa Bay Club and Promontory Bay. . Storm drain inputs to the Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club and Balboa Bay Club, though minimal, may contribute to the high total coliform counts; these contributions could not be quantified. . . The Orange County Health Care Agency is conducting routine monitoring of the stations at which water - contact recreational standards were exceeded. The results of necessary." (Emphasis added) (November 8, 1985 Report to the Santa Ana Regional Board, "Newport Bay Bacterial Quality Study") I APPENDIX C LETTER REPORT: NATELSON-LEVANDAR-WHITNEY, INC. NATELSON • LEVANDER - WHITNEY 10960 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 222 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9OD24 (213) NEMORAIDUN To: From! Sanchez Talarico & Associates Dale H.Lovander Natelson Levander Whitney, Inc. Date June 25, 1986 Job # 3158 Sub3acts REVISED NEWPORT CENTER FISCAL ESTIMATES --PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS. At your request, we have prepared the subject estimates, utilizing the Newport Beach fiscal impact model (updated 1985). Results are summarized in Table 1 attached, and further detailed in the two computer runs attached. Two basic scenarios have been computed per your instructionss o Ground to Plan. Measuring the impact of additional new development recommended for SPA 85-l(B) over and above what exists today. o Plan to Plan. Measuring the impact of changes in recommended new development under SPA 85-1(B) versus new development allowable under the existing general plan. As indicated in Table 1, recommended development as measured by the City's fiscal model will generate a surplus of approximately $1.2 million annually over that provided by current Sand use and $879 thousand over that which would result were current general plan development levels realized. As indicated in Table 1 by footnote, these estimate■ assume that Civic Plaza expansion will be in the form of 61,000 square feet of institutional space (library, etc,), which because of public ownership will not generate property taxes. Under an alternate development plan calling for 30,000 square foot of office in place of the institutional uses, resultant annual cash flow to the City would be about $12 thousand greater. Detailed figures in support of these alternate estimates are found in our work papers. Please let us know if you have any questions converning the above. DHLixi REAL ESTATE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS TABLE 1 HET ANNUAL REVENUES TO CITY BY SITE NEWPORT'CEHTER DEVELOPMENT PER PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION (1985 DOLLARS) Site 1 Block 600 2 Block 800 3 Avocado/MacArthur 4 Newport Village 5 Corporate Plaza Hest 6 Fashion Island, 7 Bayview Landing 8 PCH/Jamboree 9 Big Canyon/MacArthur 10 Herporter North a it Civic Plaza Expansion 12 Hest Bay 13 Floating Residential Total Ground Plan to Plan to Plan ---Thousands of Dollars--- 205 205 301 244 38 -- 183 98 64 58 184 184 31 25 31 31 19 19 115 65 -- (5) -- (9) -- (36) 1,171 879 a These estimates are based on development of 61,000 SF of institutional use in the Civic Plaza expansion. If alternate development of 50,000 SF of office is undertaken, cash flow estimates are $32,000 higher for mite 11 and the total for both columns. Source: Hatelson Levander Whitney, Inc. IBVt[ W Itlet taE POUM ml FKM w M cmf is ww wm n wL wa mm IILV aranc ftgwt Come Fnaalalleit *ammo 60" to Fla INPICIa nawlA rmt.w bassomm++I. 64M s Whirl..$ Fr Civic FIm FiFrda FIMaITTMtI{-w0 te1tdMs a a Can has Fr All limo 1 swat TFCi� .I rainstorm towel -� hide Onto ffiOla O9 Tdd Laws Oafr ' let Fite Mark Oh+d Try rtik No Tsai taimmattrom Valet win Per Tile K test For Vile$ Vie Ip 7 a tedIMPa T r•,t mom .............. m a m t w wh Ib Ilrwla*ud van Fr Can "Fatimbe I- temmef TYaed n6 ft, ky Ta Mtn ILM mosta R AM Aqmed Wla( Ifn+d Yt fir TM OF-0 i TM MFNt Bt Ara Fmodldla Fairy LM w Amorrs Mr AleL Otte$ To IVI Aires ""t does ad l cl.i a alead Raye►toa mold$ td Mir nlcal" a YNL year at amoFldlle of iwiatt.l 16su ISM km Imo 7,40 Mot V,III I. mmr....�..�,....=Mao....rmmm Table I RsetieaL.......... PIP 21 KVM BOB WMrnE MAXTI01 FILTH PER CITY OF WWW IEIW FIOL INP CT Nli$ 1190 Nrpt hntr Preslopum" Pleredq Commission Aaeseesnd I la CAR FN.TVl4................. kaldaabial IUglr Dglw Nalti- While Fully Forpla Family Itse FACIM SAW Pr Unit Pr Ualt Par twt Per tkit UK m m16 1 Limits 17,792 7,431 6,3111 963 l SF OWS) 1 AW15 EIEAE FiCIINS Property Tars-t4ratid LM LM LM LM Taw mm Time h'owty Sala t lee In 15193 113.61 0.67 OL14 All 6Uir, .31.57 X57 34.91 3LI4 Total 19L9 15Z16 11L9 12129 Limms L Permits 13.23 13.08 IWS 1112 Use of Navy t Property SL57 SL57 M37 55.37 haves a Fra Other Apecin 7573 44.93 32.52 31.2E awles for Services 63.63 6L63 6163 6153 LiUsr 6aral Ford 111.53 111.53 191.2 111.53 Part t laQeatia Ferd 24.65 IL52 13.44 14.12 Library Ferri 9.17 LIS 4.96 5.25 State Sac In Fad 3L12 M16 21.11 22.23 Fines, Forfeit 1 Pa Ferri 64.11 6%.11 64.11 64.11 Mildiq Excise Tax Fad L73 8.71 L76 8.76 Total Mery Factors 647.76 ML31 497.00 56.51 E mmen11E muss Several Ponessei 7.21 7.26 7.21 7.21 Public Safety NL&t 12114 21LS4 1119 Public Marts 52.96 2.98 SL96 5L91 Library 9.25 6.95 5.83 3.31 Party, leadms 1 loautla 71.47 53.61 3665 48.93 Capital Impra,ei,ds 91.26 9L26 SL26 SL26 Total Euperd Factors MW M4.21 411.26 38L16 NET 10 tee EIP 21L79 &A." 1i75 IZL42 lle.nrles Yoard to Res Impeeta 61,6M IF Institutional for Civic Plea Expansion Commercial teal lgional office/ lost or Mail Mail Vise rant Indn Hotel Per F Pr SF Pr SF Per IF Pr SF Pr Amon 42l 3, 156 1,791 96 t,69S 2, 162 LSW LOW LOOS! LOOA LOOM 14.M L2697 LOGO LIM 1.9143 L1%3 LM LIM LIM LIM LOW L1291 1,431.94 L2999 L9137 L1316 1.9711 L2M 1,434.64 LEIS LEIS L1516 LEIS LEIS 16.71 L8471 L1471 L2471 L1471 0,1471 15.25 0.1132 LSIM L2152 L9152 8.1152 4.91 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM 17.46 L061 L1661 0.II61 LIM LM61 27.25 LIIM LMM LOON LIIM LOW LM LMN LIM LOW LMN LMM LM LNM LMM LIIN LSPN LMM LIS L1343 L1543 L1543 LM43 LMU 17.59 LM74 LM74 0.0174 L1674 LM74 MI LU14 1.262 L4%S 2.3324 L5661 I,91.A1 LOU LN6l LM61 LN61 LN61 L97 L5315 L3315 L192 1.4132 LE9 116. 17 LOOM LIM LPIM 8,1116 LNN LM LOON 8.1981 LIIM LOOM LMN LM LOON LMN LOOM LMM LOOM LN LASS L1765 LASS LIM L1765 24.76 L6141 L6141 0.1649 1.49% L1164 14L91 L1472 L6311 L3112 LL365 L4714 1^91 Notes Toes factors arm fro the updated Flaeai Impact !halal of hmmbw 198; bead a the City*s 1913-M budget. Sm cm City of Newport, leachl Natelme LwvA* Whitney, Irc. Iscludd All Variable Allocation Par Tables N4,47, t RIB All Variable Allocation Per Tables IN, NY, t MP All Variable Alloratia Per Tables M, A, t NIS All Variable Allocation Pr Tables M, N7, 1 Nil All Variable Allocation Pr Tables M, 97, 1119 All Vrlable Allocation Pr Tables IN, N7, / Nil All Variable Allocation Pr Tables M, 117, 9,NIS All Variable Allocation Pr Tables M, N7, 1 NIl All Variable Allocation Pr Tables IN, N7, 1 Nit All Variable Alloatin Pr Tables N4, NT, t Nil All Variable Alloatia Pr Tables M, N7, t NIS All Variable Allocation, Pr Tables N4, N7, t NIS All Variable Allocation Pr Tables M, N/, t NIP All Variable Alloodia Pr Tables 9% 114 t Nil All Variable Allocation Pr Tables N, 10, S Nil Variable Alla Pr Tables N% Ilk 1 Nil for Mfan sly All Variable Allocation Per Tables A NI, a Nil Variable Alloe Pr Tables 15, N6, 1 Nil Eal Strut Tana All Variable Allaedla Pr Tables A Ilk 1 Nil U Tile! lMlBfUMMNNVINFR7M•laltF RI SN Ilyot tatter ssralt^t 11s7o tram to Pin kPKw "aw17 &minim hmmm Ho a,M I: Wiwlad hr CIde PAa bpojM ar. I • � � s c 7 • • >, !I >t u dr+a of CIVIC metro _ _ blow aukbl Plata ram" 4dat POM Color �a Phu Not Irai6r M ►r Vl�t late tri Idai Lads• Sria=Nwart►o Nat► rm o rp tw Tint 1t1RMW a lMff= Cow MdU4 spoon ► e • •fftaalaa 3106M AM AM Ike" Ul,w • • • • • • Mtwi • • • fl • Am • • • • • hsWra• • ! • • • • 3;m • • • • Trial JAM Ml,w Am AM MN,m Am Am • • • • Maskm Yes • • • • • 430 • • • • • Nwdm trite • • • i• • • • 1s ■ MI • t•rsi alo • • Or • • • f • • • • .a No MORAWN Msf new IN w rF atr a ft" afldao M w 173 M ITS 17S Mit 1a M 315 - Natafti as IQ Nr Maio lot MT f or err lyd7 Ottt a4M a,w rw slim is,M a tat saillaN VM I MMW talN OWN) few lwwlss 4es WHOWUM il,M a,w ak3TS 146w IT,w • • It • • • Wit • • • • • a4M • • • • • Iratart • . • • • • Total sew NNW AM NINO MM AM %M i i 1o•etr • • • • f Sim • • • • • Ntolty Bits • • • M,M • .• • IkM 440 3%M • Tiff KM KM AM 96M Mm AM NM slim f,M Am • 99MMi •® tML tM IJ • • • • • • • • • • • Im NL NONE OW d I•,M I&M 3%325 Ss,M 17,M 31,M ;iii 11640 1640 376M • a • e 1 u 1sw untat sdISM %m w afleal IS,M w ly fats Naltr CIi falters aim W WNwtotl Wt o to roils). aster+• %-fAw Ttt*4m a a...t+tat MetaMn etVAa•r Y11ta1y sort 31>Mh W Puns r i t: r t r. t t. c t: 4 L I= m m =m = m m m m m m m m m= m = = Tame 3 31>F3. 1111pp. CITY 1F NNW IM WAXLE 6 ENWITIE Io01gITIMS Vy 1 rLL xvnz t w tN1 1915111[im mum VMS *Apwt Odor lealop et smriot lroad to plo lopcts Plaadap Ca1Mia Fcaasadatla 6t,M11F lotitdluul for Civic Pim Egmiaa site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 t 9 is 11 2 13 Carporate 11p Civic Flatlet 11erk hack Ikoeado/ glint Fashion Plu% Vat �ltliil Ito 6M 1M NKArthr Village Le ding Jamboree NKArUw Narth Eapa, bay Total KYEWM in tluads of dollars Beoparty Toga Serves in 1% 19 lit 33 62 11 19 ffi 73 1 1 1 615 ttaeosud 14 21 3 4 5 9 I 1 1 1 1 1 • 935 Total 126 IN 22 113 37 71 2 19 12 73 1 1 • 669 Taus Other Them Mopm ty Sala 4 Own Tau 32 47 6 m 11 162 46 11 7 41 1 1 1 429 All Oth? 1 12 2 ffi 3 7 1 5 3 17 1 1 1 61 Total 41 59 a 77 13 176 49 15 9 56 1 1 1 SM Licomras d peeps M 2T 3 1l 5 11 1 2 1 6 t 1 1 76 On of pm al property 14 2i 3 35 S 9 1 7 4 27 • 1 1 126 Aaoseu Fros Other Ppaicla 5 7 1 19 2 3 1 4 3 16 1 1 1 59 thrp for Services 16 24 3 M 5 is 1 a 5 31 1 1 1 144 Other Samurai Fd 26 31 5 a 9 16 2 13 6 a 1 1 1 231 Park 4 Recreation Fd 1 1 1 / 1 t 1 2 1 7 1 1 6 17 Literary Fd 1 1 1 3 1 1 t t 6 2 6 1 1 6 State Sr Tau Fed 1 1 1 l2 t 1 t 3 2 to 0 1 1 ffi Figs, Forfelt 4 Pan Food 16 M 3 44 5 11 1 a 5 31 t 1 1 146 1Wldlap Facia Tao Fad 2 3 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 21 Total b"Wm 261 312 49 43 12 310 69 64 2 317 0 1 1 4823 ETwB01711F1 bm aT Borarsssd 2 3 • 5 1 1 • 1 1 4 1 1 6 16 pihllc Iafsty 31 45 6 to M 1M 33 Is 17 116 1 1 1 519 Public Soria 1 1 6 31 1 1 1 7 4 26 1 1 1 67 Literary 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 6 M4 taadut 6 men too 1 1 1 22 4 1 1 3 3 19 1 1 t 49 Capital Igrwmumots 23 31 5 57 1 14 2 12 7 44 1 1 1 215 Total Eaponditero m at it 245 M 115 31 53 33 2.2 1 1 1 am NET 0110 lt➢0= m Sot 39 111 64 114 31 31 19 113 1 t 1 1,171 —4 to Total taraaos 7L73 7L73 77.53 W1 77.59 61.4% 45.65 36.37 36.37 3L37 WI W1 Wo 57.115 —% to Total Expenditures 3IL22 37Lffi 314.99 74.2 UL99 M66 13.99 57.13 57.15 57.15 NIA W1 W1 137.41 IL ...,.. o..gpon I . t* t wr, Im Tab i omwmcooKRKPNWMRCM M CM W tW m= FMx tIIILT litl4 lI7ICl Irq, "Mohr bolop * s.rrl« na. to Fla I,.ds nman unto" Ysvatitta M,M F tadltalad hr awe "m EaFada mom lAd-� coaltty as a cewbda Far MI Its MM IIt1E M. EVW*t M alra Pole meta flak b Thal LM be= FAt Pole bft wad TOM am@ a Taal Evadtw and I" hp %alma LL 6a For lava file w t1.014.d a vad we .............. w a pms mr wh Ma bolspm t filar tr Gf lh* Edda M tmnd Mlal Flit MF,►y La PoI 1LN taats Fr sm hrr ldaat cwrmt Po hr 70 IIF#1 17m IRON W, *Pod BedLtaa Fades/ LM h it ar w aaals mat lla lln hdasta nFat ttm ad aalvi an anal pgadta ailt td Iwo cdc"m a sigh year d ampldia of iwlepmLl 16ml 1,741 l,w 0 7,41ti Mot 34M 31swu LN want m� m m m� m m m m m m m m m it m m m!=== m m! m i m m=!= m= m TIME 11Cai3asL.......... Pop 2) EVEIK Rli ETENIMINE PIRIKET101 FICIIR PER CM W IM31917 RM FIOL IWO NMEL ll961 Nowt tide- Imlopeant Plamiq Fcsisslas soeae.datloe UM FiCM................ Residential Slagle- 1up1M- Haiti- Mile Faulty Forpls Foully Hoan FWMR 1161E Pr that Pr Wit Per Ddt Per Ihlt ME M36M I Omits 17,792 7,431 6,3111 %T 1 SF (I1rai S Sox EVW F LIM Property Taw-IMened LII LM LM LM Tens other Than Property ' Win a Us Ts 15193 115.61 $167 OL14 All Other .3L57 3657 34.91 3LI4 Total 19LDI l9L 11 1IL56 IM29 Licensa 1 Perin 13.25 13.111 12.79 IL82 the of many a property SL57 BL57 n37 5L57 Rmeeee Free Other Agencies 75.73 44.93 32.52 34.26 Oargs far Srrim 6163 6163 63.63 63.63 other san al Ford 111.53 111.33 101.53 111.53 Park 1 Raecreation Fraud 24.65 IL52 13.41 14.12 Library find 9.17 L6 4.96 5.25 State Ws Ts Fad 31.12 29.1E 21.11 2L23 Flees, Forfeit 1 M Ford 64.I1 SIM Kit 64.11 Ielldieg Fsin Tax Ford 1.71 1.71 L73 1.71 Total Rneiee Faeton 647.76 SLM 497.0 56.5E EDMMINE FACM Omen) owwsirt 7.21 7.26 7.26 7.28 Public Safety "LAI 12114 21L94 16151 Public Marks MSG 7.95 W-95 52.9E Library 9.25 L95 5.63 5.31 Park, Beads f Recreation 71,47 5161 38.6 40,93 Capita ImrorsrRs 98.26 96.26 90.26 91.26 Total Expand Factors 43697 334.21 411.26 39L16 KI NEV LESS ED 21L79 124.E IL75 IM42 saaerlot Flan to Aln impacts 61,M SF Tstitotlosl far tide Flan Fxpanim Fumirclal Loaf Rgieeai Office/ star Retail Mtall Ilse not lads Hotel Pr E Purr per W he- F Pr IF Pr Rene 421 3,156 16791 516 1,693 4162 LIM LOW LOW LIM LM57 14.91 LIM LOGO LIFIS 1.9143 L1963 LM LIM LIM L0276 LE67 LIM 1,43664 L2M L9137 L1346 1.'9118 L2M 1,434.64 L616 L8316 L616 L616 L616 1671 0.8471 L1471 L6471 L1471 L8471 1125 9.1132 L9152 L1152 L11S LI132 4.91 LEM L639 LIM LOW LEA 17.46 LIM LOKI LM61 LM6l LWfit 27.E LOW LMM LMM LMM LOW LM LMM LMM LMM LIMA LMM LM LMM LMM LMM LMM LMM LIS LIM LI343 LOW LOW 9.1343 17.39 LU74 LM74 LM74 LM74 LM74 L41 L6614 1.2652 0.4961 WK4 L5161 1,S1.11 LM1 LUI6l LMl LMI 8.1461 1.97 LM15 L5313 LISM 1.4132 LIM 1tL17 LMM LMM LMI LMM LOW LM LMM LIM LMM LIM LOW LM LMM CM LMM LMM LMM LM 0.8765 L1765 8.1765 L9765 4.1763 24.76 8.6141 LE141 -L1649 1.4939 LIMO I4L91 LM72 L6319 L3112 LLi65 LIM 1,41L91 Met Thee factors r from the mldatod Fiscal Impact Nodal of NNUbr 1915. band an Ur CiYs 19" budget. 4orsea City of limport lsadii Satelm Lerandr IPttraf, Ion M31?4a L97 I6/EIIG All Variable Allocation Per Tabin M, 19, 1 Illl All Variable Allocation Pr Tables It, 10, 1 NU All Variable Allocation Pr Tubls At, 111, 1 AlI All Variable Allocation Pr Takla M, N7, I All All Variable Allocation Per Tabin M, AT, 6 AlI All Variable Allocation Pr Tables M, I7, 9918 All Variable Allocation Pr Tables M, 97, 61UI All Variable Rlloatim Pr Tables M, 117, L All All Variable Allocation Pr Tables M, N7, 6 AlI All Variable Alloation Pr Tables M, N7, t AlI All Variable Allocation Pr Takla Ili, Iff, 1 Kit All Variable Allocation tr Tables M, 10, L NU All Variable Rllocatim Pr Tables M, 10, 1119 All Variable Alloutim Far Tables Iq III, / Nit All Variable Allocation Pr Tables R IN, 1 Nil Variable Alloc Pr Tables N% N1, 1 Alt for Refuse Ddy All Variable Allocation ►a` Tables; A Alt, 1 Nll Variable Allm M Tables A 10, 6 All Eocl Street Tres All Variable Allocation Pr Tables All, M, 1 All Oil no lab 1 300bMMOWMNBWUE1 Vff M��M� . ,�w nwtoPIwl� Sam noaq comb" he�ddlw i1,w v Lditdiwal tv pde name Ewni. site 1 1 3 i 1 / 7 • / IN n u 1s Cwpwde SIR u.k FHdlq aim* auk Iowdaf tlgwt Plan, FdJaw Morriss N7v c"" wMwlp Am Not hdt a- M M Number w11W but Llwd LnMq 7adww Md►Gr Met• Fapn My Ilal 7" KNEI Mrt MWTT= timmor 1d" Mao an / e ' ofrlMllw 30,M %%W / 7%= /1,10 • t • • • • • t /! Mall t • • / • 1M,M • / • / t • • tM,M twdawwt • • t • • t a,w t • • • t t 1;M T" ASw 1MtM t 7.%Z% /t,M AM AM t / / / t t 1,wtw %Ash sods • • t • • 1,M • / / • 14330 • / 4w IYwiq bits • we • M • • rm Lis M M • NM it" TIT !rink Mils 1 • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • m/flRa MlxN Nt Pr w boar aft spa wimonow w M 171 in M t7s rwt us 1n fa M.tmora• w as Par 7kd*e sod as 1,w hr 1Mwtq bit iqw M,w •/,M 1SM MkW a,M M1M a NO a1B11197MI1E r MINIM 1MJE Miss) ammomw /dLiq Mrs Mfidaw •I,M 101111111 • 13,M N,M / • t • • • • • 117,20 Mdatl • • • • • }t,M • • • • • • • • a,M }dosed • • / • t • %in t • • • • • 16M T" MyM 01,1011 • /41011 1i,M AM 36tl1 • • • • • • 9147% Miwlq bits • 11%vas / u w 1 6,40 11,146 / qMM tt1,Mt NNW 7" 6%W aw / atw KM 3;M ;Iff M,M r,M t:,w 0,7011 11601111 t31.M ar,ak 1s7QMM / 'AL Owd • • t / 1 • • • / • / / • / /Mao a DOMM: "me) M,M 616I0 • D,M MOM 331M ;i6 10,41/ 9,40 V*w tytM 06191111 1I1,MM 1%,1f1 Ie 17M thetas) Mlat "a poi M,M N foss 7! or raldtq Cwws7d. bdwis 04M s lwtil ds"d W w to pold. so.wt /woiw horse / bwMwi. Mielwe twwiw bitwh In& . Tile 3 mx cm IF WNW mm BRIE i INWI0E FIDJB. = • FILL OEtfl11 M US 1985 C36M Olurm **ork cotr srwlcpst Sariet Flan to no laws planing Fatssion Iss.nWIN 61,s111F Inditsttarl for civic Flue Expansion Site 1 ! 3 4 s 6 7 a 9 to it 12 13 Ccnpasta III civic Pleating •IOck /leek &MOOD/ IVPst FLe Fadniom Irynis paw Canyon Omportan flue Spot Isidw Its 6M IN Nadaihr Village Vmt Island Leading Jaiwa Nadkthr )bath Enema Say tlal Total In thosads of dollars WMIES Rvi arty Tam Sstsrrd 112 121 • 56 31 62 11 19 12 41 (5) (6) 122) 437 tksurad 14 21 1 4 4 9 1 s 9 1 1 1 1 51 Total in 141 1 39 34 71 12 19 12 41 m (6) t221 409 Tans Other Than Property Sala: 1 Ike Tax 32 27 s 23 to t62 41 11 7 23 1 u) 113) 321 ' All Other 1 4 1 9 3 7 (1) S 3 t1 1 ill (3) 41 Ttital 41 31 1 34 12 171 M is 9 33 1 (5) [is) 363 s Liars 6 Psretts 15 0 1 7 S Is 1 2 1 4 t 131 (21 6• Iln of"1 froprty 14 7 1 is 4 9 (3) 7 4 1s 1 0 (6) 63 Nnmr From lltirr Agencies s 11) • 1 1 3 12) 4 3 9 1 11) in 23 Charge far Services 16 s 1 17 s is 131 1 s 1s 1 0) (is) 72 Otter Immoral Fad a 13 • 2I a 16 (6) 13 s 29 1 (4) Ils) Its Park 6 Iovsatia Find s 131 1 3 1 S' (1) 2 1 4 • 111 (2) 2 Utray Find 1 (1) 1 1 1 1 11) 1 1 1 1 (1) it) I State Gas Tax Feet / 0 • 4 1 1 (2) 3 2 6 1 11) (3) 4 Fin, Forfeit I Pan Find 16 a 1 17 s 1• (4) 1 s t1 1 131 (11) 72 Srtldlng Eseis Tax Fad 2 1 s 2 1 1 (1) 1 1 2 s (1) (1) 11 TOW bar 261 224 1 1% 75 3111 31 84 2 IM c0 is) (97) I'm EIPWI ISIES ' Brand gorrmom_nt 2 1 9 2 1 I (1) 1 1 2 1 (1) (1) S Pilic Safety 31 (s) 1 71 9 to 19 Be 17 6/ 1 (9) 133) 26T Pilic Was 1 113) 1 it s 1 (4) 7 4 13 1 m 11) 9 Likriny 1 (1) 1 1 • 1 11) 1 1 1 1 (1) (1) 1 My Ssadrs 111100 IN 1 (11) 1 s 1 1 (3) 5 3 11 1 m (6) 7 Capita lo,ma 5 23 12 6 24 7 14 (sl 12 7 21 1 14) (14) lie Teel Expaditrs 26 (19) 1 97 17 115 6 13 33 114 1 116) to 394 IEf StAIU111cu T1 215 244 • 91 55 lot 25 31 19 65 (61 (91 Li3) m -3 to Total Snrwa 71.73 1OL67 N!t 31.17 77.53 61.49 OLD 36.37 X37 36.37 111.N X37 36.37 MIS -3 to Total Eaprd(tres 3IL22 (1,23LIM NIA 1M.66 34L" ISL66 465.35 57.15 57.13 37.15 NIA 57.15 57.15 223.16 Serest Ibtdan lrrdr' Ibitrry, Ire. 3,5164a t91 O6mm 11 t_ I APPENDIX D LETTER REPORT: JAMES N. ANDERSON JAMES W. ANDERSON Attorney at Law June 19, 1986 Dana C. Privitt, Assistant Planner Sanchez Talarico Associates 359 San Miguel Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms..Privitt: This will transmit the Draft responses to the water quality comments on the Newport,Center EIR. Please note that I did not prepare a response to comment SMW 51. However, the response to SMW 48 may be sufficient to include for that specific comment. Please call me if you have any questions or wish me to expand on any on the responses. Sincerely, :1 me W. Anderson Enclosure P.O. Box 5025-306 • Riverside, California 92517 • (714) 785-5413 (714) 683-8486 SUBJECT: Responses to the EIR Comments COMMENT EMA 2: The EIR "should fully assess the impact of such runoff into the Bay, and should offer detailed proposals for reducing the entry of street contaminants such as solid matter, oil and grease into the storm drain system." RESPONSE: Specific detailed proposals for the added impacts from individual projects will be discussed when those projects have been fully developed and the detailed increase in effects on the storm drain systems are understood. Street contaminants can be limited by frequent sweeping of public streets with vacuum type sweepers which not only remove particulate matter but solid refuse coilected in gutters. (See Comment EMA 38) COMMENT EMA 3A: Bacterial quality of the Bay is affected by the location of storm drains such as at Bahia Corinthian Yacht Club and Newport Dunes Aquatic Park. RESPONSE: This comment is noted. The bacteriological effects of storm drains are recognized as producing high coliform counts. However, this type of bacteria is not generally from sources associated with pathogenic bacteria. Bacterial contamination from vessel waste pose a serious health threat to the Bay, because this source could be associated with pathogenic bacteria from human origin. II II II COMMENT EMA 38: The EIR should eva-luate all possible on -site mitigation measures for reducing the harmful effects of runoff to the Bay. RESPONSE: The following mitigation measures are being Implemented as part of existing City Policies and Requirements: 112-P. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department." The City of Newport Beach erosion control program is well recognized by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as being effective in reducing the effects of siltation and erosion products to the Bay. The program complies with the 11208 Plan" and the State Water Resources Control Board "Bays and Estuaries Policy" (1974) which prohibits the discharge of erosion products to enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California. 112-S. All parking and other onsite paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum -swept and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system." The City of Newport Beach provides vacuum sweeping of major public streets and thoroughfares in the project area three times per week, and minor streets on a weekly basis. (Telephone conversation with M. Milne, City of Newport Beach Public Works, 6-18-86.) This program removes both particulate matter and solid waste without the need to flush materials into the storm system. The Irvine Company provides vacuum sweeping of those private areas under their control by private contract. (Telephone 1 2 conversation with John Graves, The Irvine Company, 6-17-86.) This removes similar material as the program conducted by the City. The sweeping of streets and parking areas alone will remove slightly i-ess than one half of the heavy metals found In these areas.l PERCENT HEAVY METAL REMOVAL BY AVERAGE STREET SWEEPER METAL TULSA SEATTLE SAN JOSE BALTIMORE AVERAGE Zinc 59% 48% 41% 49% 49% Copper 55% 42% 45% 42% 46% Lead 58% 54% 45% 46% 51% Iron 62% 57% 52% 49% 55% Cadmium -- -- 38% 38% 38% Chromium 58% 49% 46% 69% 56% Manganese 61% 50% 51% 48% 53% Nickel -- 50% 51% 48% 53% Strontium 61% 65% 17% 52% 46% I TOXIC MATERIALS ANALYSIS OF STREET SURFACE CONTAMINANTS Pitt and Amy, EPA August 1973. Pages 74 and 84. COMMENT FG 2: Planning efforts should be made to minimize any Increases in runoff to Upper Newport Bay. RESPONSE: Specific project developments will evaluate the amount 3 of additional runoff from the particular site. The addition of fresh water into the salt marsh of Upper Newport Bay will be minimized to the maximum extent possible in keeping with the City of Newport Beach policy of mitigation so that "no adverse impacts related to hydrology or drainage will occur." COMMENT SPON b4: List all possible plans and techniques which could provide mitigation for polluting run-off. RESPONSE: While all possible plans and techniques for mitigation of run-off could not be addressed in this response, some of the obvious mitigation measures to limit the addition of pollutants In the drainage system are as follows: STREET/PARKING AREA SWEEPING: This has been addressed in the RESPONSE to COMMENT EMA 3B. The high frequency of sweeping should prevent the "first flush" of rain water from carrying the high-level of pollutants commonly found in these areas. The "first flush" from infrequent storms in Southern California is generally higher in nitrate -nitrogen and accumulation of trash and other solid waste. RECLAIMED WATER USE: The use of reclaimed waste water for irrigation is generally available in the Irvine Ranch Water District area. There is no reclaimed waster system provided at this time by the Orange County Sanitation Districts in the project area. The use of reclaimed waste water in areas adjacent to the Bay would have to be carefully controlled to prevent surface runoff that could add further pollutants to the Bay. The 4 Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued stringent reclamation requirements to the Irvine Ranch Water District to assure this type of control. LIMITATION OF POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES: The use of potable water for wash down of impervious surfaces could be considered a waste of water. The specific projects which might need to Provide for washing of impervious surfaces should provide a source of brackish local ground water or salt water from the Bay for this purpose. COMMENT SMW 48: The EIR contains no Indication of the quality of water now flowing into the Bay from Newport Center, nor the impacts on plant and animal life and overall water duality. RESPONSE: Although studies have been made regarding the quality of water from Urban run-off into Newport Bay, specific studies of the quality of water from Newport Center are unknown. (Telephone conversation Dr. Betty Olson, UCI 6-17-86). One study in 1977, "Urban Non -Point Source Pollution of Upper Newport Say, John L. Price and Associates, provided chemical characteristic of dry weather flows from various streams in Southern California Including San Diego Creek. However, no specific storm drainage sampling was compared. The State Water Resources Control Board "Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1984 Indicates that fish analyzed from San Diego Creek do not exhibit adverse quantities of heavy metals. However, some pesticide residues have been noted in 3 II i r these fish. The source of these pollutants has not been Identified. However, it is suspected that the source of pesticide residue is from previous application in the agricultural area in the San Diego Creek watershed and not due to Urban run-off. The State Water Resources Control Board, "Mussel Watch" program has shown increased incidence of heavy metal contamination in shell fish in the Lower Bay. However, this is more likely due to the presents of heavy metals from boat paints historically discharged into the Bay than from urban run-off. MITIGATION: The Federal Clean Water Act (Section 402) will likely require that all point -source storm drain systems be permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This permitting process will require all storm drains to be monitored for pollutant discharges. Application for these permits will be required for Municipal urban run-off sites by December 31, 1987 under present federal legislation. (Telephone conversation with Gary Stewart, Santa Ana Regional Board, 6-18-86.) It is recommended that any new storm drainage facility which is constructed on a specific project be equipped with access locations which will allow ease of sampling and measurement of flow. This should allow the collection of data to adequately determine the effectiveness of source control programs. COMMENT WQ 1: The amount and velocity of urban run-off will Ichange because of the increase in impervious surfaces. The EIR Ci indicates that this will be a short-term Impact. RESPONSE: The increase in amount and velocity of urban run-off will occur during storm events and therefore will occur only over a relatively short term. The effects of additional pollutants to the Bay from infrequent storm events can be mitigated as Indicated above. The addition of pollutants from construction activities wiii be a short term effect and can be mitigated by the erosion, siltation planning by the City and the Regional Board. COMMENT wQ 21 The EIR should discuss the cumulative impacts on water quality of Newport Bay and include alternatives to the project or mitigation of adverse impacts. RESPONSES The specific impacts of Individual projects will be discussed in supplemental environmental documents prepared for those specific projects. Mitigation measures for the water quality impacts of urban run-off have been discussed above. COMMENT NQ 3: There needs to be an investigation of the gasoline recovery project at PCH/Jamboree Road prior to development of that site. RESPONSE: The Regional Board and the Orange County Health Care Agency will be advised prior to any development of this site for their advice and direction on the treatment and disposal of any waste discharge which may be necessary In connection with the development. 7 COMMENT WQ4: Waste discharge requirements of NPDES discharge permits will be necessary for any discharge of waste to waters of the state from the resulting development projects. RESPONSE: The comment is noted. All laws and regulations with respect to development projects will be complied with. I 1 I I I APPENDIX E ' LETTER REPORT: ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES I I t 1 1 [l I I I, ckober1 `Beirt,`Wi1 amcPiost 6& Associates PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS & PLANNERS June 18, 1986 Mr. John Graves Manager, Urban Planning & Design The Irvine Company 620 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Newport Center - Preliminary Storm Water Discharge Determination Dear John: As you are aware, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, under direction from Sanchez Talarico Associates has completed an overview 'hydrology study for response to the Newport Center EIR screencheck comments. This analysis applies to selected sites to be developed under GPA 85-1(B) in Newport Center. The attached table provides approximate flowrates for existing land use conditions and future conditions as proposed in the GPA. It should be noted that these flows are provided for a basis of comparison of possible flowrate changes resulting from development and do not represent actual flows for either current or future development. In the future, should development of the proposed sites occur, a design level hydrologic analysis incorporating site grading will be performed. The results of the analysis shown in the attached table indicate that the proposed land uses (per GPA 85-1(B)) are hydrologically similar to the original development plans for Newport Center. Increase in flow from Block 800 would occur due to the changes in land uses from Residential/Commercial to Commercial. A reduction in flow would likely occur in Newport Village and PCH/Jamboree due to a change in land use from Commercial to Residential. It should be noted that, hydrologically, office and industrial uses are assumed to be equivalent to commercial uses. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed information, or, if you would like to discuss the results further, please feel free to call me or Derek McGregor at 833-0070. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, Sco/t��t /�Tay� Design Engineer cc: Dana Privitt, Sanches Talarico Dave Dmohowski', TIC Trgfassiortal Scrvicc 51ilce 1944 PO BOX 2590 • 1401 OUAIL STREET. NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 • 17141 833.0070 r r Table of Flows for the Existing and Proposed Land Uses of Newport Center I ISite I Proposed Lard Use I Existing Lard Use I Original Land Use I Proposed Flowrate (cfs) i Existing Flowrate tcfs) I Difference Mock 800 1 Commercial I Come cial/vacant 1 Commercial/Residential 1 67 1 61 1 6 I IPCINamboree I Residential I vacant I Commercial 1 16 1 7 1 9 I (Newport village I Commercial/Residential I vacant I Commercial 1 61/45 1 21 1 40/24 I IlhrocadoVbcRrthur I Commercial 1 Vacant I Commercial 1 16 1 5 1 II 1 ICivic Plaza Expansion I Commercial I Commercial/vacant i Commercial 1 58 1 58 1 0 I (Corporate Plaza West I Commercial I vacant 1 Commercial 1 25 1 8 1 17 I (Corporate Plaza I Commercial ( Commercial/vacant I Commercial 1 83 1 75 1 9 I ' Notes: 1. Flows are for a 10 year reccurance interval. 2. All flows are in cubic feet per second (cfs). 3. `Proposed' flows reflect a land use change only, no allowances were r made for grading operations an other construction which may alter overland relief and fIowpaths. 4. Flows given are 'peak* flowrates only and do not necessarily represent an increase or decrease in runoff volume. 5. Newport village has two alternatives, all residential or all commerical values are shown for each alternative. r