HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOAST HWY BAY BRIDGE*NEW FILE*
COAST HWY BAY BRIDGE
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
G'�—act
��d�� � ��
E
RESOLUTION NO. 885
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO CONSIDER THE DESIGN OF THE
UPPER BAY BRIDGE
WHEREAS, the.Planning Commission finds that it is
desirable to study various proposals concerning the design of
the Upper Bay Bridge; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also finds that it
is desirable that a public hearing be held to discuss these
proposals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission intends to consider proposals concerning the design
of the Upper Bay Bridge at a public hearing to be held on the
llth day of July, 1974, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the
Newport Beach Planning Commission is hereby directed to publish
notice of said hearing in accordance with the requirements of law.
Regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Newport Beach, State of California, on the 20th day
of June, 1974.
AYES: Beckley, Hazewinkel, Heather
Parker, Rosener, Seely
NOES: None
ABSENT:, Agee
WqL�L cjh�g
Chairman William C. Hazewinkel
Se retar Joseph Rosener, Jr
DRB/bc
7/10/74
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
1 ' F
8tzt�.� �S'�uflY
___--_-��--
i
AM
1
IIi '
II
----- - - '
I Utz-oP9�c-D i�`_� `c�cz�—� �- 1'► •���4��3Z�z.----'ib0�.5�e� -
- --- -i-
I
------------ ----- ---------------- _- ----------
I —
-
--- --- -- - I-LG COP_y ----
-- -- - �O-'NOtREMOVE- ---
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
NEWFORT HARBOR ENSIGN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS.
County of Orange j
I . ............ ARVO E. HAAPA ........ being first FILE COPY
dilly sworn, and on oath depose and say that I am the
printer and publisher of the Newport Harbor Ensign, a
weekly newspaper printed and published in the City of DO SNOT REMOVE
Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California,
and that the... NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
..............................................................
.......................................................................................... of which
copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was
printed and published in the regular issue(s) of said
newspaper, and not in a supplement, .......1......... consecu-
tive times: to -wit the issue(s) of
June 27, 1974
..........................................
(Signed)...Qt'.s t . .... .}."...:`T.. .......
Subscribed and sworn to before me this..�7.thUday of
......_June 74
.........., as.........
_�..........._- .............
Not Public in and fo
Cou y of Orange, State of California.
OFFICIAL SEAL
• m� MARY A. HAAPA
IVotory Pubic - CaRfarnio
PRIPlCIPAL OFFICE IN
MY COMMISSION EXPIRESN ECEMBEBT'ld Iq%
d9 ye07 4��`FiQ
✓uN � e��
NFwpoR og ���rd.
• 0 1 3.14
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City
of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to consider the
Pacific Coast Highway Bridge crossing Newport Bay and including
consideration of bridge height alternatives.
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will
be held on the llth day of July, 1974, at the hour of 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, at
which time and place any and all persons interested may appear
and be heard thereon.
Joseph Rosener, Jr., Secretary
Newport Beach City
Planning Commission
Publication Date ��, , -27 /97`i
Received for Pub.�—
M
TECowell/jmb (6-24-74)�6—
DO 'NOT REMOVE
0 •
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City
of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to consider the
Pacific Coast Highway Bridge crossing Newport Bay and including
consideration of bridge height alternatives.
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will
be held on the llth day of July, 1974, at the hour of 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, at
which time and place any and all persons interested may appear
and be heard thereon.
Joseph Rosener, Jr.
Newport Beach City
Planning Commission
, Secretary
Publication Date �2 /97//
Received for Pub.„ _��
By
TECowell/jmb (6-24-74)
DO -NOT REMOVE
w
rm
■
x
0
0
T
d
t
.
9
C
E
i
w
0
`s
W
.s
0
8
-
v
W
`p
1�
�
S
6\1
8`
C L I FF DR.
K/NGS RD.
u
/4'
ALTERNATE A
rz"
Proposeal Bridge
/2' 2 2' 12 /2
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
AL TERAIA TE5 4, 9 �C
No Scale
ALTERNATES A, 9 C
3
2
/0
0
-/0
/4
0
y�c
Existing Utilities
f,-
r
T sG°� Oro
��� off' Pr®ieCf
0�� ■MM
n Mno
ml `
-'
_ mmCI
�_
.36 40
5D
ml
8 �
/4'
ProPOsea' Bridge
/2" ' /2' 2 Z" /?' /2
TYPICAL CROSS SECT/ON
AL TERN4TE D
No 5c ale
CLIFF DR.
0
0
rn
KINGS RD.
—a To L on Beach "
i
CRESTli/EW DR. i
i
aaP�J E RLV DR. Ex/sf. 9, ye No. 55 21
V`
0
�Ce,6 DR'
sy
IM
Ono FMA
milk,_
mm
Elm
MMIMEME1 �®
EMEME
44 48 .52 56 60 .56 40 44 48 52
AL TERNATE 6 ALTERNATE C
/ $400 Nori3 . ca/e ,
/ = 20 Verf.
50
40
3
2
/0
0
-/0
04
4L TERNA TE D
/4'
0
.36 40
5D
ml
8 �
/4'
ProPOsea' Bridge
/2" ' /2' 2 Z" /?' /2
TYPICAL CROSS SECT/ON
AL TERN4TE D
No 5c ale
CLIFF DR.
0
0
rn
KINGS RD.
—a To L on Beach "
i
CRESTli/EW DR. i
i
aaP�J E RLV DR. Ex/sf. 9, ye No. 55 21
V`
0
�Ce,6 DR'
sy
IM
Ono FMA
milk,_
mm
Elm
MMIMEME1 �®
EMEME
44 48 .52 56 60 .56 40 44 48 52
AL TERNATE 6 ALTERNATE C
/ $400 Nori3 . ca/e ,
/ = 20 Verf.
50
40
3
2
/0
0
-/0
04
4L TERNA TE D
/4'
0
44 48 .52 56 60 .56 40 44 48 52
AL TERNATE 6 ALTERNATE C
/ $400 Nori3 . ca/e ,
/ = 20 Verf.
50
40
3
2
/0
0
-/0
04
4L TERNA TE D
/4'
0
MOM
�
ANN
ME
Elm
MMEM
ME
1�-=ESE
111111111
====:
\ICI
MIA
�
sommo
MEN
■M
56 60 36 40 4 48 52 56 60
AL TERNATF D
b4 69
/9 iz
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
T
07- ORA -1- 17 9'119. 5
9TRIP f A
REPLACEMENT OE SR1®6E'
O✓E R UPPER AIEWPORT 94V.
From 0.1 Mile Wesf 0/'001/gr Dr.
f0 0.1 0.2 Mile Easf of 9� sio'e Or �
/ y
Sc�/e : As Naier�
07- 2o9 - 2,9 0200 May, /973
a
JOHN T. CHIU, M. D.
STEVEN F. WEINSTEIN, M. D.
PRACTICE LIMITED i0 ALLERGY AND OLINIGL IMMUNOLOGY ,
The Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
ALLERGY MEDICAL GROUP, INC.
NEWPORT CENTER MEDICAL BUILDING
400 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 401
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
TELEPHONE (714) 644-1422
November 14, 1975
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
As a resident of Newport Beach for the past 7 years, I have seen a tremendous
growth in our city and do appreciate the complexity in the tasks the members of
your committee have to face from day to day.
As you know, a lot of work and money have been expended regarding the wild
life sanctuary in upper Newport Bay but we were just advised that the Planning
Commission has nonetheless voted $50, 000 of the city's money to study the
possibility ,of putting a 6-1ane University 1 rive through the upper Bay area. I
believe this is a waste of the taxpayer's monby especially during this time •of
rising taxes, galloping inflation and the continued high rate of unemployment.
This is especially unreasonable in view of the fact that a major freeway is being
constructed just a few blocks away from the proposed 6-lane highway (that is,
the proposed University Drive). I believe strongly also, that by putting a major
highway through the area it would undo all the environmental protective measures
workepl out by various groups of interested citizens as well as governmental agencies.
Obviously there is absolutely no possibility that this major artery would not affect
the wild life in this so-called bird sanctuary and if you members -do agree with this
statement, then there is really no point in expending any funds in getting a rather
obvious answer. I do fear that various commercial interests have already exerted
enough pressuretb,Uave this study performed in order to further their gains at the
expense of the taxpayers since the only obvious reason would be to develop the upper
Bay area commercially in order to justify the construction of such a high volume
highway. I believe by now we all realize that constructing more freeways simply
does not relieve traffic congestion. On the other hand, it would only entice more
incoming traffic and environmental pollution.
I strongly urge your committee to reconsider getting this project even started because
I do not believe such a study would serve the interests of the people in our cityc.arid
certainly not for the birds for which the state has expended 3z million dollars to
establish the haven to preserve their way of life.
Very tr 1'y yours,
Joh/Z Chiu 4A
JTC:cmf
COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT TEACH /3.1
Special Planning Commission Meeting
Place: City Council Chambers
g ; 70 o Time: 7:00 P.M.
onti rAll m Date: July 11, 1974
MINUTES
unev
Present
X
X
X
X
X
X
Absent
X
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS
R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director
David R. Baade, Assistant City Attorney
Benjamin B. Nolan, City Engineer
STAFF MEMBERS
Tim Cowell, Advance Planning Administrator
Shirley L. Harbeck, Secretary
Public hearing to consider the Pacific Coast
Highway Bridge crossing Newport Bay.
Community Development Director Hogan advised that
copies of the Bay Crossing Committee's report, the
Chamber of Commerce Report, and a staff report
have been distributed to the Commission.
Robert Shelton, 2908 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del
Mar, Chairman of the Pacific Coast Highway Bay
Crossing Committee appeared before the Planning
Commission and introduced those persons present
who had participated on the Committee and in an
advisory capacity as follows:
Roger Turner, Committee Member
Willard Wade, Committee Member
Wally Knudsen, State De'partment of Transportation
Lt. Lee During, U. S. Coast Guard
Joe Devlin, Public Works Director
Ken,Perry, Secretary of the Committee
Mr. Shelton reviewed the basic recommendations of
the committee as follows:
1. That the tunnel crossing be dropped from furthIr
consideration.
2. That the present four lane bridge be replaced
with a new bridge having three through lanes
in each direction.
3. That a separated crossing at the intersection
of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway not
be constructed. F I L G am' C4P
Page 1.
YV N01 R(C1MWVC
COMMISSIONERS *CITY OF NEWPORT RACH
yC�'v m v O m
n m
7 <
c Z
'°
A
VAI.L CALL m July 11. 1974
MINUTES
IMMY
4. That improvements at,grade, as described in
Section I11 C. be constructed at the inter-
section of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast High-
way as part of the bridge project.
5. That bridge design features listed in Sections
II C and III C of this report be given special
consideration in the preparation of the final
plans for both the bridge and the intersection
of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway.
I
As to the question of height, there was much
discussion by the Committee on the alternatives,
however, no recommendation was made.
City Engineer Nolan reviewed a photograph of the
existing bridge and explained the colored delinea-
tions on same which indicate the various height
clearances under consideration.
Wally Knudsen, State Department of Transportation,
appeared before the Commission and answered questio
s
relative to the span and grading required for the
various bridge heights. In answer to questions of
the Commission, he also advised that any recon-
struction of the existing bridge would be "money
down the drain"; that when the State holds their
public hearings, the recommendation of the City of
Newport Beach on the design of the bridge would be
an important factor; that permits would have to be
obtained from the Coastal Commission and the Coast
Guard; and that the earliest date for construction
would be January, 1976. Planning Commission also
discussed with Mr. Knudsen the matter of funding
the project and bicycle trails on the bridge ,and
the proposed routes for same which would be include
in the design.
Improvement of traffic through the area by the
construction of a new bridge was questioned and
City Engineer Nolan advised that the capacity of
an arterial highway with at -grade intersection
is controlled by the intersection itself. He
reviewed the various design configurations which
could improve traffic through the intersection and
provided information on traffic counts recently
made indicating the present volume of traffic.
Planning Commission discussed the Coast Highway
corridor from MacArthur Blvd. to Riverside Drive
Page 2.
COMMISSIONERS 9 CITY OF NEWPORT VIACH
MINUTES
ROLL CALL July 11, 1974
IP,1P7#:1
and whether or not a significant improvement would
be made through the construction of a new bridge.
It was pointed out that the total project consisting
of a new bridge as well as reconstruction of the
intersection of Dover Drive and Coast Highway are
the factors which will increase the capacity and
efficiency through this area.
Planning Commission discussed with the staff the
matter of additional -right-of-way, the effect of
a new bridge on the Upper Bay Wildlife
Preserve, and the widening of the channel on the
easterly side.
At this time staff presented slides of various
bridges in the Long Beach, Huntington Beach, and
local areas for review by the Commission.
Public hearing was opened in connection with this
matter.
A. P. Benson of Dover Shores appeared before the
Planning Commission and stated he felt that
regardless of the height, the design and conttruc-
tion of a new bridge would be an improvement over
the existing bridge.
Ellis Glazier, 2552 Vista Drive, Bayshores, appeared
before the Planning Commission and presented a
petition with 142 signatures, representing approx-
imately 50% of the Bayshores residents, indicating
opposition to the relocation of the entrance to
Bayshores or any intersection design which would
increase traffic through the narrow street system
of Bayshores.
Larry Miller, Newport -Harbor Chamber of Commerce,
appeared before the Commission with the recommenda-
tion that the bridge be a height of at least 32
feet. This recommendation was based on the trend
towards smaller boats and especially trailerable
sail boats which require public launching faciliti
s
as well as space for trailer parking while sailing.
Since most of the publiclaunching facilities are
north of Coast Highway for this type of activity
and there is no guarantee that facilities will be
made available on the south side of the bridge,
the higher bridge was recommended. This would
allow sail boats to be launched, space for
parking and the sailing public Would be able to
erect the masts before launching rather than
while under way.
Page 3.
COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
m i 0 Z <
p m
o,,,, July 11, 1974
MINUTES
,uncv
Bill Wittman, Director with the Chamber of Commerce,
appeared before the Commission with the recommenda-
tion that the intersection at Dover Drive and Coast.
Highway be a grade separation, and that the entranc
to'Bayshores be relocated westward and signalized
in conjunction with the Bay Club entrance.
jFunding
of a grade separation at the intersection
of Dover Drive and Coast Highway was discussed and
Public Works Director Devlin advised that the out-
look for funding a grade separation structure at
that intersection was grim.
Frank Robinson, 1007 Nottingham Road, Westcliff,
appeared before the Commission and agreed with the
Chamber as to the boating needs, however, in order
to solve future traffic problems, recommended that
the bridge height be 17.5 feet and designed in such
a way that a double deck could be added at a later
date. It was his feeling that a lower bridge
would cost less and could allow for right-of-way
acquisition on the south side of Coast Highway
for boat launching.
Jeff Farwell, Anchorage Apartments, Bayshores,
appeared before the Commission in favor of maintain-
ing the existing entrance to Bayshores, in favor
of the diamond configuration at the intersection
of Dover Drive and Coast Highway, and in favor of
the lower bridge.
Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 P.M. and
reconvened at 9:25 P.M.
Ken Clissett, resident of Eastbluff, appeared
before the Planning Commission and commented on
the size of boats which cannot be used because of
the low bridge. He recommended the construction
of a 40 foot bridge with parking and storage under-
neath the bridge, widening of the channel, and
felt a 40 foot bridge would be more compatible
with the diamond configuration intersection needed
at the entrance to Bayshores.
Bob Shelton appeared before the Planning Commissio
and commented on a previous question raised as to
whether or not the Committee had considered
alternatives to the intersection, including a
Page 4.
COMMISSIONERS IOCITY OF NEWPORT #ACH
m
m m Y= r Z <
� 2 P P A
unn rni� m July 11
1974
MINUTES
.uncv
grade separation. He advised that several plans
were examined, however the Committee was reminded
that if a grade separation was to be considered,
the project would differ from that which the State
had considered and probably would not be fundable.
Also, the Committee was advised that a grade separa-
tion at Nover may help the situation at that inter-
section but would create an impossible situation at
Bayside Drive because of the short distance between
the two intersections.
Douglas Barmantier, Eaton Place, appeared before
the Commission in favor of a 17 foot bridge.
I"om Semandle, resident of Newport Beach and Vice
President of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce
appeared before the Planning Commission and recom-
mended a frontage road and signalization at the
Balboa Bay Club entrance.
Edwin Amies, Morning Star Lane, Dover Shores,
appeared before the Commission and commented on
the pollution in the bay, the need for a bridge
high enough to accommodate sail boats, and the
need for a new bridge with a pleasing design
rather than the present unsightly bridge.
E. P. Benson, Dover Shores, appeared before the
Commission and commented on the matter of funding
the project.
Jesse Curtis, Evening Star Lane, appeared before
the Commission in favor of a bridge high enough to
accommodate the boating public and supported a 32
foot high bridge.
Fred Carlin, Eastbluff, commented on the responsi-
bility of the City to recommend a bridge which
would be in the best interest of Newport Beach
and felt that the Back Bay area should not be
landlocked.
J. R. Blakemore, Corona del Mar, appeared before
the Commission in favor of an interchange at Dover
Drive and a bridge high enough to accommodate the
interchange.
John Amies, resident of Bayshores, appeared before
the Commission to comment on the height and length
of the proposed bridge and felt that a 17.5 foot
bridge was adequate to accommodate trailered boats.
Page 5.
COMMISSIONERS 0 CITY OF NEWPORT 11ACH
�^'v
n
m m Y= m Z
e m 1°
a
m
Z
ROLL GALL July 11, 1974
MINUTES
INDEX
Ken Clissett again appeared before the Planning
Commission and commented on development in the
Upper Bay.
Betty Storch, 2508 Marino Drive, Bayshores, appeared
before the Commission in favor of a 17 foot bridge
which she felt was adequate.
Lt. Lee During of the U.'S. Coast Guard appeared
before the Planning Commission to answer questions
land commented on the procedures used in granting
a permit by the Coast Guard.
Mr. Knudsen of Cal Trans answered questions by the
Commission relative to the funding of the bridge
should the City recommend a grade separation at
Dover Drive, as well as the problems of such a
design. Planning Commission also discussed the
signalization at Dover with an at -grade intersection.
There being no others desiring to appear and be
heard, the public hearing was closed.
Motion
X
Motion was made that the Planning Commission
recommend the following:
1. That the present four lane bridge be replaced
with a new bridge 17.3 feet above mean high
water with three through lanes in each direction
plus two lanes.8 feet wide for pedestrian and
bicycle use.
2. That improvements at grade, as described in
Section III.C. of the Bridge Committee's report,
be constructed at the intersection of Dover
Drive and Pacific Coast Highway as part of the
bridge project with the exception that the
signalization, combined entrance for Bayshores
and the Balboa Bay Club in the vicinity of
Marino Drive be eliminated; that consideration
should be given to improving the signalization
at the current Bays'hores entrance; and that
the other design features recommended in the
Bay Crossing Committee's report, Sections II.C.
and III.C., should be included in the State
design of the bridge.
Motion
X
A substitute motion was made that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council the
following:
1. That the height of the bridge be 32 feet with
Page 6.
COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
C �^
m
m F
`_"c
ROLL CALL P July 11 1974
MINUTES
INDEX
,
the design features as recommended by the Bay
Crossing Committee's report in Section II.C.
2. That in order to relieve congestion at the
intersection of Dover Drive and Coast Highway
and to preserve the entrance and exit to Bay -
shores, the design of the bridge and intersec-
tion be -planned to incorporate the most efficie
t
development with particular reference to a
diamond configuration grade separation.
3. That the City proceed immediately and give
priority to site studies with respect to the
design of the bridge, the interchange, and the
adjacent property.
Planning Commission discussed the motions and
reasons for same and the suggestion was made that
the height of the bridge and recommendations for
design be separate issues. Therefore, Commissioner
Agee and Commissioner Seely both withdrew their
motions.
Motion
X
Motion was made that the Planning Commission
Ayes
X
X
recommend to the City Council that the height of
Noes
X
X
X
X
the bridge be 32 feet incorporating the design
Absent
X
features recommended by the Bay Crossing Committee
in Section II.C. Motion failed.
Commissioner Parker introduced a new thought as to
the architectural design of the bridge and propose
a design contest to ensure an esthetically pleasing
bridge.
Motion
X
Motion was made that the bridge height be 17.3 fee
Ayes
X
X
X
above mean high water. Planning Commission discussed
Noes
X
X
X
the motion including the need for a compromise
Absent
X
because of the problems encountered with respect
to launching facilities. Motion was then voted on
and failed.
Motion
X
Motion was then made recommending that the height
Ayes
X
X
X
of the bridge be 25 feet. Foll-owing further
Noes
X
X
X
discussion on the bridge height, motion was voted
Absent
X
on and failed.
Motion
X
Motion was made that the height of the bridge be
within a range of from 17 feet to 20 feet.
Motion
X
Substitute motion was made that the height of the
Ayes
X
X
bridge be within a range between 17 feet and 25
Noes
X
X
X
X
feet. Motion failed.
Absent
X
Page 7.
\F
COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT OACH
n m
x P A A
rims m July 11. 1974
MINUTES
Ayes
X
X
X
X
The previous motion recommending a bridge height
Noes
X
X
of from 17 feet to 20 feet was voted on and carried
Absent
X
Motion
X
Motion was made that the Dover Drive intersection
Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
X
should be at grade, with improvements as recommende
Absent
X
,in
the Bay Crossing Committee's report, except that
the Bayshores entrance should not be relocated and
that consideration should be given to improving the
signal ization at the current Bayshores entrance.
Planning Commission discussed bicycle trails and
design features for bicycles,following which the
motion was amended that in addition, bicycle access
should be a major consideration in the bridge and
intersection design -
Motion
X
Additional motion was made that the other design
Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
X
features recommended in the Bay Crossing Committee'
Absent
X
report, Sections II.C. and III.C. should be include
in the State's design of the bridge.
Planning Commission requested Mr. Knudsen to
comment on the matter of a design contest to which
he advised that the State wat also concerned with
the esthetic design of the bridge and the City
would be presented with several architectural
designs for their review and recommendation.
Planning Commission discussed the feasibility of a
design contest or a design review committee,
Motion
X
following which a motion was made that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council that an
architectural review committee be established to
review the designs submitted by State bridge
architects. Following discussion, motion was
withdrawn.
Motion
X
There being no further business, motion was made
Ayes
X
X
X
X
X
X
to adjourn. Time: 12:00 Midnight.
Absent
X
R. V. HOGAN, Ex-Officio Secretary
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
Page 8.
0
a
City Council Meeting August 12, 1474
Agenda Item No. D-1
i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH1 i
August 5, 1974
TO: City Council
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Coast Highway Bay Bridge (Public Hearing)
A public hearing for consideration of the Coast Highway Bay
Bridge design has been set for the August 12, 1974 City
Council meeting.
Attached, for the Council's information, are the following
documents:
1. Department of Community Development memo
to City Council, dated July 17, 1974.
2. Department of Community Development memo
to Planning Commission, dated July 10, 1974,
together with a Public Works Department
memo, dated July 10, 1974.
3. Bay Crossing Committee Report.
4. Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce Report.
5. Memo from Citizens' Environmental Quality
Control Advisory Committee, dated June 29, 1974.
6. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, dated
July 9, 1974.
7. Petition from Bayshores residents, dated
July 11, 1974.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
If desired, support or modify the Planning Commission recommendation
0
TO: City Council - 2 1
for the Bay Bridge height and Dover Drive intersection
I
configuration, and direct staff to send -appropriate communi-
cation to the California Department of Transportation.
Respectfully submitted,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Eft. 7. Hoaan, or
RVH:TC:jjmb
Enclosures: Noted
V
i
City Council Meeting July 22, 1974
Agenda Item No. H-8
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
July 17, 1974
TO: City Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
SUBJ: Coast Highway Bay Bridge
On July 11, 1974, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
for consideration of the Coast Highway bay bridge design. .The
two major design aspects discussed were the height of the
bridge (in terms of vertical clearance above mean high water)
and the configuration of the Dover Drive intersection and
related bridge design considerations. In addition, the
Commission discussed the need for provision for,bicyclists and
were assured by the State Department of Transportation representative
that bicycle access will be included in the detailed design of
the bridge.
Plann-ing Commission Recommendation
Bridge Height:
The Planning Commission recommendation on bridge height (in
the form of the motion made by Commissioner Beckley which passed
4 to 2) is that the bridge should have a vertical clearance of
from 17 feet to 20 feet. Prior to this successful motion, there
were motions for a 32 foot height and a 17.3 foot height; both of
these motions failed on a 3 to 3 tie vote.
TO: City Council - 2
Dover Interchange and Design Considerations:
On motion by Commissioner Agee and a unanimous vote in favor,
the Planning Commission made the following recommendation:
"The Dover Drive intersection should
be 'at -grade', with improvements as
recommended in the Bay Crossing
Committee's report, except that the
Bayshores entrance should not be
relocated and that consideration
should be given to improving the
signalization at the current Bay -
shores entrance. The other design
features recommended in the Bay
Crossing Committee's report
(Sections II.c. and III.c.) should
be included in the State design of
the bridge. In addition, bicycle
access should be a major considera-
tion in the bridge and intersection
design."
It was noted by the Plannina Commission that the Circulation
Element of the General Plan calls for an "interchange" at Coast
Highway and Dover Drive (Point 5, Pages 7 and 8) and that the
Circulation Element should be amended to delete reference to an
interchange if the City Council approves the grade level
intersection.
Recommended Action
Staff suggests that, if desired, the City Council set a public
hearing for consideration of the Coast Highway b,ay bridge design
on August 12, 1974.
Respectfully submitted,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. Ho , r ctor
RVH:TC:jmb
Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1974
Agenda Item No. 1
CITY O� ,NEWPHT BEACH
July 10, 1974
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
i
SUBJ: Bay Bridge Height
The report of the Bay Crossing Committee includes recommendations
for all aspects of the bay crossing, except for a specific
recommendation on the height of the bridge. This memo is directed
to this controversial question of bridge height.
Staff would suggest that there are three basic alternative bridge
heights: low level (17.3'), medium level (25' ±), and high
level (321). Staff would also suggest that each of th6se three
alternatives be weighed against the following factors:
1. Traffic flow and safety.
2. Traffic noise and air pollution effiects.
3. Accommodation of boats.
4. Aesthetic effect.
5. Effect on Upper Newport Bay Wildlife•Preserve.
In terms of the first factor, traffic flow and safety, please refer
to the attached Public Works Department memo.
In terms of the second factor, traffic noise and air pollution
effects, it is apparent that both noise and exhaust emissions will
increase with an increase in bridge height (due to the increased
grades). There is, however, no readily available means of
quantifying this increase in noise and exhaust emissions and
relating this to a 17.3, 25, or 32 ft. high bridge.
The third factor against which the three alternatives should be
weighed is the accommodation of boats. Obviously, the higher the
bridge, the more types and sizes of boats can be accommodated. The
0
TO: Planning Commission - 2
1-1
Chamber of Commerce has developed a sailboat mast height study which
was included in the Chamber's packet sent to the Planning Commission."
While the 17.3 ft. alternative would accommodate none of the
trailerable sailboats listed, the 32 ft. alternative would accommodate
all of those listed. The 25 ft. alternative would accommodate most
of the smaller sailboats, and at low water, many of the sailboats
with masts higher than 25 ft.
The Chamber packet also includes information on the number of boat
slips contained in the three marina areas above the bay bridge:
Marina Dunes, Inc. (221 boats), De Anza Bayside Village (265 boats),
and Dover Shores (94 boats), for a total of 580 boat slips. These
slips range from 25 ft. to 50 ft. in length, with an average of about
30 ft. Nearly all of the boats presently berthed above the bay
bridge are powerboats, with but one or two sailboats.
The Irvine Company indicates that their plans for the "Castaway
Site" include only a limited number of guest slips in conjunction
with the proposed restaurant and inn'development (with most of the
waterfront devoted to public beach use).
In terms of the fourth factor, aesthetic effect, the higher the
bridge, the more potential for an adverse scale relationship. Staff
will display photos of bridges of various heights at the meeting.
In terms of the fifth factor, effect on the Upper Bay Wildlife
Preserve, the height of the bridge would have only an indirect
effect. A low-level bridge may discourage larger boats and may
somewhat reduce pressure for additional marina development in the
Upper Bay, but would be no guarantee of -additional protection. There
may be more effective and permanent means of barring boats from the
Upper Bay and preventing marina development northerly of the presently -
developed area, such as physical barriers, boating regulations, land
use regulations, and land acquisition. Certainly, the State Department
of Fish and Game, now in the process of acquiring the Upper Bay
,1' 0 '
TO: Planning Commission - 3
lowlands, will not permit marina development in the Wildlife
Refuge.
In conclusion, it is apparent that no alternative will satisfy all
of the objectiveg. The Planning Commission's recommendation to the
City Council must be based on the relative weight given to traffic
flow, safety and environmental effects versus the accommodation of
boats.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR
By,
in Cowell
Advance Planning Administrator
TC:jmb
Enc. Memo from Public Works,
0
1,i. " .
July 10, 1974
TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BAY CROSSING
Attached are copies of material prepared by the State Department
of Transportation describing the proposed project for replacing the Upper Bay
Bridge. This material, together with the previously furnished copies of the
Citizens' Committee report, provides general background information as to the
nature of the alternates considered to date.
The State is currently investigating 4 alternate,designs for the
bridge; with the heights, maximum approach grades, and costs as tabulated
below.
Alternate
Height*
Grades
Cost (Millions)
A
13.6 ft.
3.2%
$2.4
B
17.3 ft.
3.0%
$2.6
C
25.4 ft.
6.0%
$3.0
D
40.0 ft.
7.2%
$5.5
*Height is measured in feet above mean high water to the bottom
of the bridge superstructure. Mean high water is 1.87 feet above
mean sea level, or 4.6 feet above mean lower low water.
In addition to the above alternates, the Citizens' Committee con-
sidered an intermediate high level bridge with a height of 32 feet. No design
or cost information has been developed for this alternate.
The significance of the indicated heights is: 13.6 feet is the height
of the present bridge, 17.3 feet is an arbitrary height chosen by the State to
provide a modest improvement to the present clearance, 25.4 feet is the same as
the height of the Coast Highway bridge over the Sunset Harbor - Huntington Harbor
Channel, 40 feet is the height that had formerly been contemplated for the Coastal
Freeway bridge, and 32 feet is a height selected by the Citizens' Committee for
compatibility with trailerable sailboats.
With regard to traffic operation and safety, the desirable maximum
grade for an arterial street such as Coast Highway is 4%; with a maximum of 6%
often specified where lesser grades are not practicable. For purposes of com-
parison, the grade on Jamboree Road in the area of the northerly Eastbluff Drive
intersection is 6%. As grades exceed 4% the climbing ability of trucks and
low -powered economy vehicles is affected, noise levels increase significantly, and
a decrease in traffic capacity and safety can be anticipated.
CONCLUSIONS:
From the point of view of highway operations, funding capability,
and project scheduling the 17.3 foot clearance alternate is preferred. Against
these considerations must be balanced the improvements in boating operations
which results from greater waterway clearances.
July 10, 1974
Subject: Proposed Bridge Replacement - Pacific Coast Highway Bay Crossing
Page 2
For clearances exceeding 17.3 feet, it appears that the cost and
operational penalties for clearances up to the 25.4 foot alternate are moderately
severe. For clearances exceeding 25.4 feet the cost, operational, and environ-
mental problems become more severe; and substantial delays to project scheduling
can be anticipated.
Benjamin B. Nolan
City Engineer
BBN:hh
Att.
I. PROJECT D" iPTItI; Aril} PURi'OSE
�------ --- - - •
The project is located on Coast Highway (State Route 1)
in the City of Newport Beach, bet:reen Bayside Drive and Dover
Drive-Bayshore Drive, a length of 0.6 mile.
Since the new location is parallel and just inland from
the existing highway, there is very little increase in length
between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive-Bayshore Drive.
As shown on the attached strip nap, the Cal ifornia.Depart-
ment of Transportation proposes to replace the existing 4-lane
bridge over Newport Bay with a new structure to provide a 6-lane
roadway. The new structure would have a minimum clear span of
80 feet, doubling the existing 40-foot channel span. This project
also includes the widening of Coast Highway from a 4-lane to a
6-lane facility between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive-Bayshore
Drive, and widening of about a 200-foot length of Dover Drive to
provide an additional northbound lane.. Sidewalks for both pedes-
trian and bicycle use, compatible with loca•1 master plans for
such facilities, will be provided on both sides of the bridge and
approaches.
As shown on the attached Summary of Engineering and
Economic Data, the cost of construction ranges from $1,820,000
to $3,050,000 and the cost of right of way ranges from $620,000
u
- 1 -
to $2,450,000, depend -Inn on rrhich alternate is selected. The
dos of AI tern ate D (40' height) could increase by' about �Z.1
million, depending on the architectural treatment provided.
The architectural treatment oecores more imaortant as the h•eigh.t.
is increased because of the increased exposure to view.
The project is scheduled for construction in the 1975-76
fiscal year but the scheduling could chance depending on which
alternate is decided upon. The higher the cost, the greater the
possibility of having to delay construction to a later year be-
cause of financing problems.
The propose-d project is not related to any possible future
freeway. The Route 1 Fheeway, previously planned in this area,
has been deleted by the Legislature and is not now under con-
sideration.
The proposed project was initiated in response to a written
request by Mayor E. F. Hirth of Newport Beach.
This project will relieve the present traffic congestion
at this location; however, it is not expected that this project
will solve the traffic problems through the Coastal corridor.
- 2 -
•1 1
The predicted 1995 average daily traffic for this portion
of Coast Hignway is 112,000 vehicles per day. The predicted
1980 average daily traffic, after the bridge is comoleted, is
79,000 vehicles per day, an increase of 28,000 vehicles per
day from the 1973 traffic count of 51,000 ADT.
An accident summary for the approximately four and one-
half year period from January 1, 1969 to June 30, 1973 includes
a total of 349 reported accidents, as follows:
1. Intersection with Cayside Drive - 33 accidents
2. Intersection with Dover Drive-
Bayshore Drive - 69 accidents
3. Between the intersections - 247 accidents
TOTAL 4-7 accidents
A Collision Diagram for this period is attached in the
appendix.
The purpose of this project is to'alTeviate traffic con-
gestion, reduce the accident rate, and provide better traffic
service by building a new wider bridge and by improving the inter-
sections of Coast Highviay with Bayside Drive and with Dover Drive-
Bayshore Drive.
Coast Highway is a 4-lbne roadway with painted median, on
' a 100-foot right of way east and west of the Upper Newport Day
bridge. The proposed cross section for the portion between the
west end of the bridge and the intersection with Dover Drive-
Bayshore Drive is a right of way width from 125' to 220'. The
right of tray width for the portion between east -end o` the
and Cayside Drive varies from 100' to 240'.
bridge
'.
t'
•
3
The existing bri�.'c, tr(iich ryas built in 1932) has a roac•.-
way width of only 40 ieot curie to curb, striped for 4-lanes,
and has a 4-foot sidewall, on each side. Because of this narrow
width plus the inadequatei capacity of the intersections at both
ends of the bridge, the traffic capacity between Dover Drive
and Dayside Drive is very inadequate, resulting in seve.re con-
gestion and long delays to traffic. As a result of the narrow
width, inadequate capacity and resultant congestion, a total of
349 accidents was reported from January 1969 to June 1973 on
and near the structure- Because of the limited width of both
the traveled way and the sidewalks, there is no convenient
passageway for bicyclists. This problem is becoming more signi-
ficant because of the rapid increase in the use of bicycles for
bot'h transportation and recreational purposes in Newport Beach.
The Coast Highway bridge provides the only crossing of Upper
(letiport Bay, a natural barrier approximately 3-1/2 miles in
length.
The existing bridge is of timber construction has been
repaired several times in the past,•and continues to deteriorate.
Eventually, it will probably be necessary to close the bridge for
extensive repairs.
- a -
14
Four a!Lennates (A,B,C,D) for reolacinq the existina
bridge with a new brioge, and the Alternate (E) of keeping
the existing bridge, are under consideration as follows:
A. A profile similar to the existing bridge, to provide
a vertical clearance of approxinatel_v 13.6 feet above
mean high water, the same as the clearance of the
existing bridge; estimated total cost is $2,434,000;
$1,517,000 for construction and $617,000 for right of
way.
E. A somewhat higher profile, which provides a vertical
clearance of approximately 17.3 feet above mean high
:later; estinated total cost *is $2,613,000; $1,992,000
for construction and 5621,00u for right of way.
C. A. considerably higher profile, with a vertical clear-
ance Of approximately 25 feet above mean high water;
estimated total cost is S3,903,000; 52,371,000 for
construction and 5632,000 for right of way.
D. The highest of all alternatives considered, with a
vertical clearance of approximately 40 feet above
water; estimated total cost is $5,502,000; 53,053,000
for construction and $2,449,000 for right of way.
This alternate has been commonly referred to as the
"high level bridge". Tie_ G_O5— •"OR ri-its 4L—,, 2NRi� C.06,1
/MGRBRSE 1W UP TO 2� 100 000 ,� DEPENJ/ti/6
TRCATMENi OF THE T3,QID6E ST2uci Ue�„
- 5 -
t. itlC 'no pro; :..° alternate, 1ea inr, the existing
bridge as is except for necessary repairs.
Alternates A, 3, and C (13.6, 17.3 and 25-foot clearance)
would have the centerline of the net.,, bridge just north of the
existing bridge, so as to use as much as possible of the exist-
ing right of way. The northerly portion of the proposed new
bridge would be built first, before removal of the existing
bridge. Upon completion this northerly portion can be used for
carrying 4 lanes of traffic during removal of the existing
bridce and construction of the renaining portion of the new
bridge. This stage construction would eliminate the need for
building a detour bridge.
The right of way required for any of these three alter-
natives is approximately the same.
-Alternate D, with 40-foot vertical dlearance above mean
high water, cannot be built by the method of stage construction,
because the approach fills would encroach on the existing road-
way. Therefore, this alternate has the bridge located further
north so that the existing. bridge can remain in use until the
new bridge is completed. This alternate requires much more right
of way than any of the other alternates, and also results in
inconvenient access to adjacent business property.
- 6 -
The "no project" alternate, winch would leave the existing
bridge as is, except for necessary repairs, is considered totally
unacceptable. T;ie narrow width and limited capacity of the
existing bridge result in severe traffic congestion, long delay
to traffic, and a high accident rate on this section of highway,
which is the only route crossing Upper Newport Bay, a natural
barrier approximately 3-1/2 miles long. The existing bridge,
of timber construction., has been repaired several times in the
past, and continues to deteriorate. Eventually, it will probably
be necessary to close the bridge for extensive repairs. Because
of the shape of the bay, closure of the bridge would require
Coast Highway through traffic to travel a minimum additional
distance of o miles, over roads not at all capable of carrying
such traffic volumes.
Three other alternatives were considered, which consist
of various schemes for widening the existing bridge. These
three alternates were dropped from further consideration because
they do not solve the problem of the continuing structural deter -
oration of the existing bridge.
- 7 -
St31•IiARY 0? AND MON101MIC DATA
A
B
C-
D
l LL' i•733 to
? rL,cal Clearance Above Mean HiO 1•13ter 13.6
v.3
_ii 'Miles 0.6
0.6
0.6
-0.7 _
Const. 1817_-
1992
2337�
Right of Way 61-7
621 (
632
2-449 _
TOTAL 243�
2613 1,3003
5w
COST
Const. I I.8p2
T ,
1977 —�
S6
OttB
-THOU3AI7DS
SHARE
Ric-tht of Way 597 1
601
612_
2429
239-9�
2578
2968_
514-77 '
TO lAL ,
'
Const. I 15
15
_.15'
5
CITY'S
20_
20
Right of ITay 20
20 _
SMRE
35
35
25
TOTAL 35
-Sin„le-,; • r�3.1;? Residence6
6 _
6
------
_6
q,
MISr,�SIP-
INU
RTGiiT
Multi -Family.. R.es'idonce
0
_O
_— O
O
-
II•,fRUVtihiL'iVTS
0'r'
Co:.... .a:::: Industrial UnIts ,
1I--
—T1} -
--4—
5
t-.isc3ar:t S^ii_�s� I
2
,.,
"YIPA
2
2
— Z
TOTAL
12
12
1 P-
73
q'otnl lzurrber of Livint; Vnits
6
6
6
66
F.stir,:a ted Population �: :cntcd15
l5
5
168
27
B.7
27
--
of Rmployee�. a. _ _ c _..:,
�.` conStruotron cost. on Alternate D can increase to 5.2 Million depend['n9 on the
archl.tectural treatment provided.
8 /4 /2 /2 2 2 /2
yo'
f-2%
aC C�C
C L I FF DR.
o
0
J3
JKINGS RD.
To Long Beach
CRESTVIEW DR.
- �PJ E RLr
c,
�Qs- e pR
ss,
o,Q
F
_ o,Q
Begginnin of Pro, jecf
ALTERN,4TE A
n
T YPI C,4 L CROSS SECTION
AL TERNA TES 4, B �C
No Scale
Brid9 e No. 55 -2/
/--- 7X
0
CC7
xis/'ihy 9rio9e
j /fExistin9 Utilities
20 , 20 ( 4•
c�
<
AL TERN4 TES A, B � C
I
Sc�/e I 400"
L 8 -1 /4
CCC
A
NeWpo1,� - To L ol7q Beach
I��hes
CRESTVIEW DR.
FF- - ��PJ E
� C
End of Projecf
CCii
i rr
i'01
mmmE
w
II'CCCCCC�CC
��CCCCCCCCC
36 40 44 48 32
ALTERNATE B
20
/o
0
-/0
T Sq
Be�inninof
Ejj4=
IMEMEMMINIMME
.56 60 -46 40
/ = 20 verl.
44 48 SZ 3b
ALTERNATE C
50
40
3
/0
0
-/0
/2 /2' 2 2 /2 /2 /4 e
CCU
TYPICAL CROSS .SECT/ON
AL TERN4TE D
No Scale
ALTERNATE D
n�
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
- LYW
Cjea
-
r-
- - t
-� -
- fib-
—
----
-- —
-
-
-
-
1
�
-
--
- -
-
--a-
--
---
-
- -
-
--
t J
60 96 40 44 49 52 56
AL TERNATE D
proiecf
07-ORA- I - /771160..5
STRIP MAP
REPLACEMENT of BRIDGE
OVER UPPER #vEWPORr BAY
From 0 / We We s/ of VOW Dr.
to 0.110.2 Mile Easl of 9uyslde Dr
Scale : As Nolea'
07- 209 - 290200 May, /979
...
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BA`I CROSSING COMMITTEE
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 1974
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Robert Shelton, Chairman
Gordon Glass, Vice Chairman
Ray E. Williams
Willard Wade
Roger Turner
Richard Clucas
Marshall Duffield
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
John Store
Howard Rogers
�t-
S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDINGS
I. TUNNEL
II. HIGH BRIDGE vs. LOW BRIDGE
III. INTERSECTION OF DOVER DRIVE WITH
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
APPENDIX
A. CITY COUNCIL POLICY
B. EXCERPTS FROM GENERAL PLAN
C. FLOW CHART
1
2
3
3
4
n
10
12
0
INTRODUCTION
On January 14, 1974, the City Council established the Pacific Coast
Highway Bay Crossing Planning Committee to study and make recommenda-
tions regarding a Pacific Coast Highway bay crossing. As part of its
work the committee considered a tunnel crossing, a high-level bridge,
a low-level bridge, and improvements to traffic service at Dover Drive
and Pacific Coast Highway.
The committee has held eleven meetings. The first nine meetings were
open to the public but were primarily for the purpose of hearing from
invited guests and organized groups. The tenth meeting'was a public
meeting held on May 29, 1974 to hear from the general public. The
last regular meeting was held on June 3, 1974 for the purpose of pre-
paring this final report. This report was approved unanimously by the
six committee members present.
While a majority of the committee was able to agree on a number of
specific recommendations and basic design concepts, the individual
members did differ in their opinions as to the height of the bridge.
For this reason the report contains no specific recommendation on the
bridge height. The committee has been able to identify the advantages
of both a high-level bridge and a low-level as well as a number of
design features that should be given consideration in the preparation
of the final plans. These findings have been included as part of the
report.
The committee reviewed a history of bridge clearance actions dating back
to 1950. It was noted that all earlier actions recommending a high-level
bridge were taken prior to the elimination of the coastal freeway through
Newport Beach, and the decision not to develop the Upper Bay in a commer-
cial manner.
The committee appreciates the opportunity to assist
complex bay crossing matter and is now standing by
instruction by the City Council.
with the study of the
awaiting any further
- 1 -
+' . Y
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the tunnel crossing be dropped from further consideration.
2. That the present four lane bridge be replaced with a new bridge
having three through lanes in each direction.
3. That a separated crossing at the intersection of Dover Drive and
Pacific Coast Highway not be constructed.
4. That improvements at grade, as described in Section III C, be
constructed at the intersection of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast
Highway as part of the bridge project.
5. That bridge design features listed in Sections II C and III C of
this report be given special consideration in the preparation of
the final plans for both the bridge and the intersection of Dover
Drive and Pacific Coast Highway.
- 2 -
FINDINGS
I. TUNNEL CROSSING
A thorough investigation of the highway tunnel was not made
by the committee; however, on the basis of information currently
available, the majority of the committee does not believe that
a highway tunnel would be practical.
A. The estimated cost is in excess of $30,000,000. It would
be impossible to finance the project within a reasonable
length of time.
B. The estimated yearly maintenance cost approximates
$100,000.
C. Both the easterly approach and the westerly approach to
a tunnel would create access problems along Coast Highway
and at its intersections with Bayside Drive and Dover
Drive.
D. Representatives from California Department of Transporta-
tion have stated (1) that the cost of a tunnel is beyond
the realistic funding capabilities of the State and (2)
that the design constraints caused by the proximity of
both Dover Drive and Bayside are too restrictive to assure
a satisfactory solution.
- 3 -
II. HIGH BRIDGE vs. LOW BRIDGE
The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) has prepared
preliminary plans and estimates for four alternative bridge designs:
Clearance Estimated Cost
13.6 feet above Mean High Water $2.4 Million
17.3 It " " " " 2.6 1125 11 11 11 11 11 3.0 11
40 It 11 It It II 5.5 II
Each proposed bridge design will have a design speed of at least 50 miles
per hour.
The committee has made findings on the advantages of a high-level bridge
(32 feet, deliberately chosen to accommodate boating traffic), and a low-
level bridge (17.3 feet, corres onding to the alternate currently pro-
grammed for funding by CALTRANS.
For reference, the clearance under the existing bridge is 13.6 feet above
Mean High Water. Mean High Water is 1.87 feet above Mean Sea Level.
A. Arguments favoring a high-level bridge with a clearance of 32 feet
above Mean High Water are listed below:
1. 32' clearance will accommodate all trailerable sailboats
currently in production and a large percentage of the boats
in the harbor.
2. Will increase opportunities for boat oriented activity and
development in the Upper Bay.
3. Is recommended by the Board of Directors of the Newport Harbor
Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Directors of the Dover Shores
Community Association, and Staff Commodore Morrie Kirk of the
Association of Orange Coast Yacht Clubs.
4. Will decrease problems for boats that are berthed in the
Upper Bay that have to lower equipment to pass underneath
the present bridge.
B. Arguments favoring a low, -level bridge with a clearance of 17.3 feet
above Mean High Water are listed below:
1. Flatter grades will improve traffic safety and pedestrian
and bicycle service.
2. More compatible aesthetically with the low-lying surrounding
area. Less visual impact on the community.
3. Will decrease opportunities for boat oriented activity and
development in the Upper Bay
4. Will cost approximately $1,500,000 less than a high-level
bridge.
MIM
II. HIGH BRIDGE vs. LOW BRIDGE - Continued
5. Earlier construction may be possible because cost is within
the State's current funding program. (A cost in excess df
the programmed funds could result in a delay.)
6. Flatter grades will reduce noise impact.
7. Represents the desires of the Friends of Newport Bay and
other environmental interests who favor the preservation
and enhancement of the natural assets of the area.
C. In preparing the final plans for the bridge design, regardless of
height, consideration should be given to the following items:
1. Future widening of the channel on the east side of bridge.
2. Clearance for vehicles under the easterly end of the
bridge. Potentially this would permit trailerable boats
to be launched in the lower bay, and the trailers then
taken underneath the bridge and parked on the inland side
of the Coast Highway.
3. Open -type bridge railings. (See General Plan Policies.)
4. "Walk -along Floats" under the bridge for assisting the
passage of sailboats if a low-level bridge is selected.
5. Provisions for pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the bridge.
- 5 -
III. INTERSECTION OF DOVER DRIVE WITH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
The committee has made the following findings on methods to improve the
flow of traffic through the intersection of Dover Drive with the Coast
Highway.
A. A "flyover" which would elevate the southbound traffic on Dover
Drive over the intersection and then merge it into the eastbound
traffic on the Coast Highway would be impractical for the following
reasons:
1. The weaving distance between the crest of the bridge and
Bayside Drive would not meet accepted design standards.
Most of the advantages in traffic service obtained by a
separated structure would be lost because of the short weave
distance.
2. Would cost an additional $1,450,000, exclusive of right-of-way
costs.
3. Substantial delay will ,occur as a result of the difficulty in
obtaining additional funding, and the time required to prepare
a separate Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.), and obtain
the necessary permits.
4. Would have an adverse environmental -impact on the area.
B. A "diamond" type interchange would provide the highest level of traffic
service, but would be impractical for the following reasons:
1. The weaving distance between the crest of the bridge and Bayside
Drive would not meet street design standards. Most of the advan-
tages in traffic service obtained by a separated structure would
be lost because of the short weave distance.
2. Would cost an additional $2,500,000.
3. Substantial delay will occur as a result of the difficulty in
obtaining additional funding, and the time required to prepare
a separate E.I.S. and obtain the necessary permits.
4. Would have an adverse environmental impact on the area.
C. Maximum improvements at grade should be constructed at the intersection
of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway. It is recommended that the
following design factors be considered for this intersection:
1. Free right turns westbound on Pacific Coast Highway bridge to
Dover Drive.
2. Free right turns southbound on Dover Drive to Pacific Coast
Highway.
3. Pedestrian and bicycle lanes that cross under the bridge to
reduce the pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the intersection
of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway.
III. INTERSECTION OF DOVER DRIVE WITH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - Continued
4. Signalized, combined entrance for Bayshores and the Balboa
Bay Club in the vicinity of Marino Drive.
5. Restrict movements into and out of Bayshores at the inter-
section of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway.
6. Widen Dover Drive northerly of Pacific Coast Highway.
7. Restrict vehicular access at properties located at the
northwest corner and northeast corner of Dover Drive and
Pacific Coast Highway.
8. Double left turn lane from Pacific Coast IHighway to Dover
Drive.
9. Three left turn lanes from Dover Drive onto Pacific Coast
Highway.
-7-
APPENDIX A
x-z
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
UPPER NEWPORT BAY
OBJECTIVE: It is the policy of the City Council, through cooperative and mutually
supporting endeavors of the County of Orange, The Irvine Company, the City of Newport
Beach, and the State of California to produce comprehensive general plans to guide
the pattern of land use in the Upper Bay area. These plans will be designed to insure
compatible land and water uses, preserve and enhance the natural assets of the area
and create the beat possible total environment.
Plans will be guided by goals of "Newport Tomorrow" and will be directed toward
achieving a natural environment featuring compatible uses of the waters and shoreline.
Accordingly, study plans will include, but not be limited to, consideration of air,
noise and water quality; multiple recreational uses; public access to tidelands and
waters of the State; marine and wild fowl ecology; human factors, aesthetics; and the
necessary supporting activities and transportation systems.
SCOPE: Each alternative plan will contain the following elements:
a. Channel development and use plans;
b. Land use and development plans;
C. Transportation and traffic plans;
d. Public facilities plan, including recreational and ecological factors;
e. Public utilities plan;
f. Public land acquisition requirements;
g. Suggested funding and development schedule.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: In the preparation of the general plans, the following
factors affecting the development of the Upper Bay area will be analyzed:
a. County -wide demographic and economic trends;
b. Physical characteristics of the planning area including topography,
soils, tributary drainage areas, and climate;
c.
Marine characteristics of the planning area to include water quality,
factors affecting water quality, and engineering considerations,
including channel widths, energy absorption requirements, and sedimenta-
tion characteristics;
11-11-73
H-2
UPPER NEWPORT SAY - Page Two
d. Ecological considerations for the uplands, littoral and water zones;
e. Air and noise pollution factors;
f. Analysis of recreational trends, requirements, and opportunities and
constraints;
g. Public facilities and utilities;
h. Circulation and transportation;
i. Considerations of land acquisition and development costs to potential
revenues and benefits.
PLANNING ACTIONS: It is intended that, whenever possible and appropriate, data from
existing studies and reports will be utilized in analyzing the factors included in the
planning considerations. New studies and reports, or updating of existing studies, wil
be generated only in the absence of adequate data. To this end, it is intended that
the participating organizations will supply appropriate existing data for the common
use of the project.
FEDERAL WILDLIFE SANCTUARY: Upper Newport Bay lies entirely within the City limits of
Newport Beach, and the future of Upper Newport 'Bay is of extreme importance to the
citizens and the City of Newport Beach.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors, trustees of Upper Newport Bay for the State of
California, has requested the Department of the Interior to study the possibility of
preserving Upper Newport Bay as a wildlife sanctuary.
The "Newport Tomorrow" survey showed that a large majority of the residents of Newport
Beach advocate preserving a substantial portion of Upper Newport Bay as a wildlife
sanctuary.
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach supports the above request of the Orange
County Board of Supervisors, and joins with the County of Orange in urging the appro-
priate Federal and State agencies to make the necessary studies.
Adopted -
March 14,
1966
Amended -
November
25, 1968
Reaffirmed
- March 9,
1970
Amended -
November
9, 1970
Reaffirmed
- February
8, 1971
" Amended -
March 13,
1972
11-11-73
-9-
APPENDIX B EXCERPTS FROM GENERAL PLAN
The following are excerpts from the General Plan Policies adopted by the
Planning Commission on January 20, 1972, and the City Council on March 13,
1972:
Land Use
Page 6: h) Consistent with all other policies to protect and enhance
the quality residential Character of Vie•c4mmunity, the
City shall encourage both public and private water-
_ oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a
means of providing public access to'the waterfront.
i)•`Provisions shall. be made for the preservation of suitable
and'adequate sites for -commercial and industrial marine -
related facilities so as to -protect the City's historical
and maritime atmosphere, and the charm and character such
industries have traditionally provided the City.
Circulation and Transportation
Page 7: b) The City shall continue the active investigation of all
planned local and regional transportation systems to
determine the impact of each on the community, and to
ensure that all such facilities serve to protect and
maintain the sociological,'ecological, economic and
aesthetic environment of the Newport Beach area.
Natural Resources
Page 19: d) The City shall also endeavor •to'preserve and enhance a
significant portion of the Upper Bay and marine coastal
preserves which support varied species of plant, marine
and wildlife population to insure their availability
and continued use for ecological, educational and
aesthetic purposes.
e) The City shall preserve and protect those areas within
the City that, due to their outstanding aesthetic quality
and value, their natural value as watersheds or wild-
life habitats, or their high susceptibility to major
hazards from such phenomenon as earthquakes, floods
(including tidal floods), or landslides, should be con-
sidered for permanent open space.
Page 20: i) The City shall identify and measure the chief sources
of noise and air pollutants within the community, and
their impact upon the local environment. The City shall
also encourage and promote the development of a compre-
hensive air and noise quality program to ensure adequate
regulations and controls for the preservation and enhance-
ment of the environment.
Shorelines
Page 22: a) The City shall encourage marine recreational and educa-
tional opportunities for continued public use and enjoyment,
including such activities as: boating, swimming and sun-
bathing, sport fishing, underwater diving, surfing,
picnicking, and marine and wildlife observation.
I
APPENDIX B - qntinued •
b) The City shall plan for and encourage the maintenance of
the necessary support facilities and services for marine
recreational and educational activities in reasonable
numbers and places, including: marine ways and services,
launching facilities, gas and pump -out stations, parking
facilities, restrooms, showers, and concessions.
Page 231 c) Natural resources of the shoreline, including the harbor
and ocean waters, the adjoining natural beaches and bluffs,
and the marine and wildlife habitats and preserves shall
be conserved or enhanced in a manner that will ensure
their availability for continued public use and enjoyment.
Community Design
Page 25: d) All existing bridges shall be altered when reconstruction
is necessary and future bridges shall be designed to
utilize an open -type bridge railing so that pedestrians
and motorists may enjoy the view.
The following are excerpts from the Circulation Element of the Newport
Beach General Plan adopted by the Planning Commission on January 10, 1974,
and the City Council on March 11, 1974:
Specific Proposals
Page 7: 5. COAST HIGHWAY FROM UPPER BAY BRIDGE TO DOVER DRIVE
This project includes the construction of a bridge on Coast
Highway across the Bay to replace the existing bridge which
is not only deficient in capacity, but is becoming struc-
turally deficient. A bridge of relatively low profile would
permit most trailerable vessels to pass under. After cross-
ing the Bay, the structure would continue westerly, providing
an interchange with Dover Drive, and dropping back down to
the grade of existing Coast Highway west of Dover Drive.
Provisions are planned for bicyclists, pedestrians and
transit. The plan includes widening of Dover Drive to
provide two right turning lanes from Coast Highway to Dover
Drive. The bridge would essentially be eight lanes, six
lanes of which would provide for relatively free flow of
traffic, the additional width being for the other facilities.
No traffic deficiency is projected with this design. These
improvements would eliminate what is considered to be the
most heavily -congested section in the City of Newport Beach.
Page 8: 6. COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN JAMBOREE ROAD AND'THE UPPER BAY BRIDGE
This improvement provides for wideping Coast Highway to six
lanes from Jamboree Road to the proposed Upper Bay Bridge re-
placement. This segment of Coast Highway will have signalized
intersections at Jamboree Road, Promontory Point and Bayside
Drive. Future capacity deficiencies can be expected to occur
at these intersections. It is important that this project be
implemented in conjunction with the improvements to the new
Upper Bay Bridge.
• - 11 -
NOG OS
B.C.P.GI I G.C.
TD TO ,o C.
G. C. cna.vu
LFGENO
:i
• I
0
•� G'
G C.L&A
CWTAMS
Ci1LTiP4iNS .BR/06F
gFFlaPTS
AWDS
STAQT5 COWS%AW05
AMWSPN
9///74
/2/74
EARLY 17 LAiE -78
D�PAiT
To C.C. •
7//5174
B. G_ P. C. - BAY CROWS/NG AX4AIN/JVCi COMM/77EE
C.C. - C/TY COUNC/L
P. G . - PLA1VN/N6 COA~155140N
P. fI - P419L/G !,/BAR/NG
CALTRA,V6 - CAL/F. STATE OEPT. OF TRAoV5AP3e7ATAOW
C/TY OF /YEWPO,?T 49EACA/
P. C./,! .BAY CRO55/NG
FLOW C,14R7-
6-545 d.c '
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
270 NEWPORT CENTER DR, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714) 644-8211
JACK BARNETT
EXECUTIVE MANAGER
LARRY MILLER
ASS-T. MANAGER
June 12, 1974
Mr. William Agee, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California
Dear Bill:
In order to provide background for the recommendations made
by the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce relative to the
Coast Highway Bridge and the intersection at Dover Drive and
Pacific Coast Highway. I am enclosing copies of the various
reports that have been previously submitted to the advisory
committees as follows:
s• i 1. Report on sailboat mast heights prepared by the Chamber 's
Marine Division and presented to the Citizens Transportation
Plan Study Committee on July 10, 1973.
2. Report on degree of difficulty that boats berthed north of
Pacific Coast Highway Bridge go to in passing under the
existing Bridge, prepared by Marine Division for the PCH
Bridge Citizens Advisory Committee on May 1, 1974.
3. Final Report and recommendations submitted by a special
Chamber Committee to, the PCH Bridge Citizens Advisory
Committee dated May 15, 1974,
The Chamber is vitally concerned with this subject, feeling
that it is one of the most important and far-- roaching decisions
to be made at this'time. We continue to offer the services of
our committees for any additional information you might require.
The City of Newport Beach is Composed of the Fallowing Areas:
BALBOA • BALBOA ISLAND • CORONA DEL MAR • EASTBLUFF • HARBOR VIEW • LIDO ISLE
MARINER'SMILE • NEWPORTCENTER • UNIVERSITY PLAZA AIRPARK • WESTNEWPORT • WESTCLIFF
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER -OF COMMERCE
270 NEWPORT CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714) 644.8211
JACK BARNETT
CMECUTIVE MANAGER
LARRY MILLER
A93'T. MANAGER
July 10, 1973
Mr. William Agee, Chairman
Citizens Transportation Plan Study Committee
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Agee:
In order to provide additional input regarding the design
characteristics for reconstruction of the Coast Highway Bridge in
Newport Beach, the Marine Division of the Newport Harbor Chamber
of Commerce would like to provide the following information:
1. The only launching ramp for trailerable small
craft in Newport Harbor are located in Upper
Bay inland of Coast Highway Bridge.
2. There are no suitable sites seaward of Coast
Highway Bridge where additional launching ramps
and storage areas for trailerable boats could be
developed.
3. The existing low-level Coast Highway Bridge
effectively prohibits the launching of trailerable
sailboats at the Upper Bay launching ramps; for
in order to utilize these launching ramps, a
sailboat must launch with its mast down, pass
under the bridge by either hand paddling or with
a small outboard, and then raise the mast while
still underway. This entire operation can be
very awkward, and even hazardous on a small
boat with other boats passing nearby.
4. With the desire for boating recreation increasing
more rapidly than the availability of moorage
facilities, more and more boaters will be
purchasing trailerable boats.
The City of Newport Beech is Composed of the Following Areas:
BALSOA • BALBOA ISLAND . CORONA DEL MAR • EASTBLUFF . HARBOR VIEW . LIDO ISLE
MARINER'S MILE . NEWPORT CENTER . UNIVERSITY PLAZA AIRPARK . WEST NEWPORT . WESTCLIFF
Mr. William Agee, Chairman
Citizens Transportation Plan
Study Committee
Page Il
5. To accomodate this increasing demand, more
manufacturers are orienting their production
toward this market, with the trend in design
being toward larger boats (with taller masts)
capable of being trailered.
6. Our studies indicate that a bridge height of 32'
MHHVI would clear all trailerable sailboats
currently manufactured and/or sold locally.
(See attached exhibit)
With the above factors as a foundation, the Marine Division
of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, with the
v concurrance of the Chamber Board of Directors, makes the
following recommendation:
That the new Coast Highway Bridge be designed to have
a minimum height clearance of 40' MHHW in order to provide
adequate clearance for existing and future -designed trailerable
sailboats, and in order to ensure proper public ocean and bay
access for the general boating public.
Sincerely,
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
David New, President
Marine Division
•
m
MAST
TiZAILttr.BLE_
NE-WPORT 16
B..-LBOA 20
ENSSNADA 20
V 6NTURE 17
BRISTOL 19
VENTUIZA 21
6t C(?UARI(TS 23
CtiTALINA 22
HO3IE 14
VENTURA 22
NE'V%JPORT 20
COLUYIBIA_ 25
CORONADO 23
HOB M 16
CLIPPER 21
BR19TOL 22
VENTURA M
NIDSHIP 25
CLIPPZR 2G
HEIGHT STUDY
- - DEALERS
_FIX D I%gB L _
22'
BRISTOL 24
33'
35'
22'
BRISTOL 26
36'
22'
COLUNiBIA 26
37'
23'
CORONADO 27
25'
ERICSON 27
38'
26'
NEv.'PORT 27
391
25'
BRISTOL 30
40
25'
CATALENTA 27
40'
26'
BRISTOL 28
40
271
ERICSON 29
41'
28 V
28'
CT 34
CAL 29
42'
28'
CORONADO 30
421
29'
ERICSON 32
42
421
29'
BRISTOL 35
43
29'
IS Lt.NIDER 30
431
30'
CORONADO 32
30'
IDTE\JPORT 30
45
CAL 30
45'
45
OLSON 38
05
46'
CORONADO
COLUMBIA 30
AV
ERIC,SON 35
47'
COLUMBV' 34
48'
BRISTOL 1r0
48'
CT 41
COLUMB11, 41
50'
CORONADO 41
J2'
ERICSON 37
53'
RANGER 37
53'
ERICSON 39
56'
ERICSON 41
57'
CORONADO 45
58'
NEWPORT 41
60'
ERICSON 47
681
NO
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
270 NEWPORT CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714) 644.8211
JACK BARNETT
EXECUTIVE MANAGER
LARRY MILLER
A55'T. MANAGER
May 1, 1974
Mr. Robert Shelton
PCH Bridge Citizens
Advisory Committee
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Calif.
Dear Bob:
At the last meeting of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge Citizens
Advisory Committee meeting on April 17, 1974; it was requested
that the Marine Division of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Comnn?rce
provide information regarding the extent of difficulty that boats
currently berthed North of Pacific Coast Highway go to in order to
pass under the existing Pacific Coast Highway Bridge (13' - MHHW).
The information obtained from Marina Dunes, Inc. (221 boats), De
Anza Bayside Village (265 boats), and Dover Shores Community
Association (94 boats), was compiled in five categories of increasinri
degrees of inconvenience for these boats to pass under the bridge.
The totals for these categories will be found on the attached
copy of the survey form used to gather the information.
If we can be of any additional assistance in this project,
please don't hesitate to contact us.
Most sincerely,
Larry A. Miller
Assistance Manager
Encl:
LM/d
The City of Newport Beach is Composed of the Following Areas:
BALBOA • BALBOA ISLAND • CORONA DEL MAR • EASTBLUFF • HARBOR VIEW • LIDO ISLE
MARINER'S MILE • NEWPORT CENTER • UNIVERSITY PLAZA AIRPARK • WEST NEWPORT • WESTCLIFF
JACK BARNETT
EXECUTIVE MANAGER
LARRY MILLER
A99'T. MANAGER
10
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
270 NEWPORT CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714)644.8211
MARINE _DIVISION
_ PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BRIDGE _B OAT SURVEY _
Please report the number of boats in your Marina or Facility
that fall into the following categories:
1.
Can pass under Bridge at any tide without an
adjustments to boat gear.
152_
2.
Can pass under Bridge at any tide by lowing
134,
one piece of boat gear (i.e. antenna)
3.
To pass under bridge at any tide must lower 2-4
pieces of boat gear, such as 'radio antennas 'z
146.
outriggers .
4.
To pass under bridge at any tide must make additional
major adjustments to vessel, such as lowering mast,
radio tower, Bimini top, etc.
63
5.
After making above adjustments, can only pass under
bridge at low tide (these boats should not be
85
included in item #4 )
TOTAL NUMBER OF BOATS IN
MARINA
580
Thank you for your assistance,
Larry A. Miller
Assistant Manager
LM/dl
The City of Newport Beach Is Composed of the Following Areas!
BALBOA • BALBOA ISLAND . CORONA DEL MAR • EASTBLUFF . HARBOR VIEW • 41DO ISLE
MARINER'S MILE . NEWPORT CENTER . UNIVERSITY PLAZA AIRPARK . WEST NEWPORT. WESTCLIFF
l
I
•
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
270 NEWPORT CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714)644-8211
JACK BARNETT
EXECUTIVE MANAGER
LAR=
A55-TY ER�J, 1974
Mr. Robert Shelton
PCH Bridge Citizens
Advisory Committee
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California
Dear Bob:
Upon direction of the Board of Directors of the Newport Harbor
Chamber of Commerce to further consider its previous recommenda-
tion relative to the reconstruction of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge,
and to evaluate the several alternatives to alleviate traffic conjestion
at the Dover Drive/Pacific Coast Highway Intersection, a special
Chamber Committee has been meeting and following the progress of
the PCH Bridge Citizens Advisory Committee.
This Chamber Committee has had the opportunity to study design
plans outlining the various alternatives for the new bridge and inter-
section modifications, and has analyzed these alternatives in light
of efficient traffic circulation, safe traffic movement, and proper
service to boating. The Committee is aware that major deviation
from the pre'limary design alternatives, as well as specifying
intersection modifications to be constructed in conjunction with the
new bridge, would necessarily delay initiation of the project. However,
the Committee feels that the importance of this project is of such
magnitude that certain delays could be warranted in order to further
what would ultimately be the optimum solution for our community.
Additionally, the Committee is aware that there are certain unknowns
regarding the availability of financing for portions of the project.
Again the Committee feels that the importance of the project is
such that once the community consolidates its position on a desired
alternative the acquisition of necessary funding could be facilitated.
Specifically the Committee strongly reaffirms the Chamber's original
recommendation that the height of the bridge be sufficient to
accomodate trailerable sailboats utilizing the launching ramps north
of the existing bridge. Surveys performed by the Marine Division
of the Chamber indicate that a height of 32' MHHW would accomplish
this purpose. Although not one of the available alternatives originally
offered by the State Department of Transportation, the Committee
feels that this height would be the best solution for Harbor boat
traffic and hereby again makes that recommendation.
The City of Newport Beach Is Composed of the Following Areas:
BALBOA • BALBOA ISLAND • CORONA DEL MAR • EASTBLUFF • HARBOR VIEW • LIDO ISLE
MARINER%MILE • NEWPORT CENTER • UNIVERSITY PLAZA AIRPARK • WEST NEWPORT 0 WESTCLIFF
Mr. Robert Shelton
PCH Bridge Citizens
Advisory Committee .
Page II
one of the major factors influencing this decision is the fact that
Newport Harbor is a recreational boat harbor. It has been the stated
policy of the City of Newport Beach to . . . . . . .
" ....... promote the marine related environment of the
community ...... (and) encourage marine recreational and
educational opportunities for continued public use and enjoyment......
The City shall plan for an encourage the maintenance of the
necessary support facilities and services for marine recreational
and educational activities in reasonable numbers and places,
including Marine ways and services, launching facilities, gas and
pump -out stations, parking facilities, restrooms, showers and
concessions. " ( General Plan Policies )
The Committee feels that this is one of the available opportunities for
the City to implement the above policy. It is now possible with the re-
construction of the PCH Bridge to eliminate what has in the past been
a partial barrier separating the approximately 760 acres of marine
recreational areas in the Lower Bay from the 124 acres of developed
marine recreational area North of the Bridge up to the future Wildlife
Preserve. In this "North Bay" area are located the only launching
ramps for the public in the entire Harbor, 18°l0 of all the public boat
slips; 13% of the total number of boats over 20' in the Harbor; a boat
repair yard, and a boat rental agency serving the needs of the public.
The Committee feels that in order to properly connect this valuable
marine recreational area with the Lower Bay and to maintain the
boating character of Newport Beach, the PCH Bridge should of necessity
be designed with a sufficient height clearance to adequately serve the
needs of the boating public.
In reference to the Interchange at Dover Drive and PCH the Committee
has Studied the various alternatives presented. in analyzing the "at grade"
alternatives it is the observation of the Committee that it is inefficient
as an eventual- -solution to our present traffic conjestion to continue to
interrupt West -bound traffic at a signalized intersection, considering
the volumn of traffic turning left from Dover Drive to PCH and daft
from PCH to Dover Drive.
In addition, in analyzing those alternatives incorporating a fly -over from
Dover Drive to PCH, it apparently would be necessary for over 50% of
the vehicles proceeding Eastward across the bridge to change lanes
either to the right or left where the fly -over merges with PCH. This
would be an extremely hazardous and dangerous situation.
Mr. Robert Shelton
PCH Bridge Citizens
Advisory Committee
Page III
With the elimination of the "at -grade" and "fly -over" alternatives
— from consideration; it becomes the conclusion of the Committee that
an intersection incorporating a grade separation that allows free East-
West traffic flow offers the best solution to efficient traffic movement
and with modifications, provides a greater potential for solving the
hazards of merging traffic.
The Committee also suggests that in conjunction with this alternative the
relocation of the entrance to Bayshores westerly (combined with a re-
located entrance to the Balboa Bay Club) with a possible frontage road
to the existing Bayshores entrance be considered.
In conclusion, the Recommendations of the Committee, supported by the
Executive Board of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce are as
follows:
L ' The height of the new PCH Bridge be no less than 32' MHHW.
2. The Intersection at Dover Drive and PCH be a grade separation
allowing free East-West Traffic Flow, with modifications to
alleviate merging hazards.
3. The entrance to Bayshores be relocated westward to a signalized
intersection in conjunction with a Balboa Bay Club entrance; with the
possibility bf a frontage road connecting to the existing Bayshores
entrance.
4. Preliminary plans showing actual design treatment of the Bridge
should be submitted to the Citizens Advisory Committee for approval
to ensure that the design treatment is properly in keeping with the
character of Newport Beach. and Newport Harbor.
5. No commercial development should be allowed in the area to be
designated as The Upper Newport Bay Wildlife Preserve.
If we can be of any additional assistance in this project, please don't
hesitate to contact us.
Most sincerely,
Larry A. Miller
Assistant Manager
�. LAM/dl
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA vew
city Flan
3300 Newport Blvd.
i (714) 673.2110
CITIZENS' ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY, COUNCIL
THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT: NEW BAY CROSSING AT COAST HWY.
DATE: 29 JUNE 1974
At its meeting of 26 June 1974, the CEQCAC authorized submission bf the
following statement:
The CEQCAC has reviewed the report of the Pacific Coast
Hwy. Bridge Crossing,Committee that had been submitted to the City CouncSl.
The major item of interest to CEQCAC is that on which the Bridge Committee
made no recommendation, that is, the height of the bridge to be constructed.
It is the recommendation of CEQCAC that the height of the
bridge be kept to the minimum possible and in no case higher than the 17.3 ft.
above mean high water as defined in the plan currently proposed by CALTRANS
for funding.
It is abundantly clear that at this point in time both the
sentiment and actions of the citizens of this area favor an Upper Newport Bay
which is to be left in its natural state, in so far as possible, to act as a
marine and bird preserve and a large scale open space. All efforts have been
directed toward this end. The construction of a high bridge to allow extensive
boat traffic into the upper bay would not only be a retreat from this goal
but would bring future pressure, once boats are using the upper bay in large
numbers, to make substantial changes in the upper bay to accommodate both the
boats and the boating public. This large scale invasion by people -and their
paraphernalia into the upper bay is clearly at odds with the bay as an open
space preserve. We cannot countenance this, nor do we believe the citizens
of this city would agree to it since the net effect would be so detrimental
to their previous efforts.
There is another environmental issue involved. A bridge
high enough to be of -value to passage of boat traffic would necessitate a
roadway which is twenty feet higher than that which presently exists.. Not
only would the bridge be higher ,but longer in order not to have too steep
a grade for the bridge. This immense structure, jutting up along Coast Hwy.,
would visually overpower the area around it and be visually detrimental to
the residents of the area.
• CEQ CAC
• BAY CROSSING
29 June 1974
continued
The cost for a high bridge would be considerably more
than that for a low stucture and far more than CALTRANS has planned for.
With the decrease in gas tax revenues that CALTRANS has recently and
publically noted and with a portion of these revenues now to be used for
rapid transit systems, it appears doubtful that funding for a structure
much more expensive than outlined in the CALTRANS plan could he possible.
We must conclude, since CEQCAC is empowered to represent
the environmental interests of the city, that the total environmental effect
will be served better with a low structure. This low structure will also be the
one which is more economically feasible. Again,it is our recommendation that
a low bridge,no higher than 17.3 feet above mean high water„ be built.
Respectfully submitted,
.dn-- '&
>. LEAGUE OF WOMEN RIOTERS OF ORANGE COAST
Costa Mesa Newport Beach Irvine Laguna Beach Saddleback Valley
r 1701C Westchff Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone:645-7120
P•, i" Office hours: 10-2, thonday through Friday
TO: THE PLANNING CON-iISSION, CITY OF NEWPOlIT BEACH
SUBJECT: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BAY CROSSING
DATE: JUNE 11, 1974
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
After studying the report of the Pacific Coast Highway Bay Crossing
Committee, the League of Women Voters of Orange Coast submits the following
statement for your consideration.
Since 1970 the League of Women Voters of Orange Coast has maintained,
as part of its adopted program, support of estuarine preservation of
Upper Newport Bay through plans which give priority to those features which
are unique to an estuary rather than those which can be developed elsewhere.
To promote this type of preservation safeguards must be placed on the
7 area and limitations set on the activities allowed. Whereas boat oriented
wllfrd44' ,activities and development can be promoted in the I9,ger Nay.Q RAy, and
in the Upper Bay,
construction of a
Highway.
i ies cou be cietrimental to the wildlife preservation
the League of Women Voters of Orange.Coast urges the
low-level bridge over Newport Bay at the Pacific Coast
sp-ct'ull yours,
'Judy S yne
President, LWV - Orange Coast
Y'RECEIVED
Comtn•imty
peV�,r�p�nant
Dept.
JIfN 14197400-
civ OF
NEWpEACHCALI,
I
LINDSLL'Y PARSONS 17 June 1974
TO: 1W'J1-'ORT BEACH CITY PLiOTINING COHNISSION
FROM: I,INDSLEY PARSONS
Re: UPPER BAY BRIDGE
siouncilman, I worked with Glen Vedder of Laguna
Beach to bring about the establishment of the series
of Marine Preserves along the -Orange Coast, so I am
certain that my sympathy with envirwonmental problems
is unquestioned. However, in the determination of the
recommended height of the Upper Bay Bridge, I would
like to point out several considerations that would
cause me to be in favor of a higher rather than
1. Rather than permitting more access to the Upper
Bay for boat traffic from the lower bay, a higher bridge
would permit the present partially landlocked boatsin
die t Fner ay more convenien access to coas�Twate.
The small boats that customaril3r Qruise the bay have
no problem getting under the present bridge, but the
larger deep water cruising vessels can only leave and
re—enter the Upper Bay on the lower tides.
2. There should be no increase in sail boat traffic
in the Upper Bay, since the high cliffs, narrow channels
and swift tides make saling above the bridge a practical
impossibility.
3. Since any bridge which replaces the present bridge
will probably be there for the next century, I must
pleade that consideration be given to the rapidly dis—
ap Baring ma ine service aci i in t e ow , r/
can be developed, is the Shellmaker Island 't
vcomm'odate the great numbers of vessels in the lower
bay which will of necessity -be serviced in the Upper
Bay.
In'closing, I would like to state that I consider boating
one of the principal -attractions of Newport Harbor, and
that I toast that the Planning Commission will. recognize
the problems of the boat owners when these factors can be
considered without harm to -the Upper Bay ecology.
/Y Rc _CE1 y
JUN2p 15�5
ci
Rr op
NEVy 0.414r cN,
2461 Crestview Drive
Newport Beach, Ca.
July 9, 1974
Cam, City of Newport Beach
City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, California
Dear Council Members:
We are residents of the community of Bayshores and would like you to
consider some of our points concerning the Upper Bay Bridge and the
possible relocation of the Bayshore Gate. Each is discussed separately.
BRIDGE HEIGHT
We feel that a low profile bridge would best benefit the City. Some
of the compelling reasons determined by the Citizens Committee are
that,a low profile bridge would; (1.) be:safest (2.) have the least
visual impact (3.) cost the least to build (4.) probably be built'sooner
(5.) have fewer environmental consequences. In addition, we feel that
the following points are also important and should be considered.
1. 0n busy days the Lower Bay is extremely crowded. A higher
bridge would promote additional bay traffic. Small out-
i:-s;;:., of -town sail and power boats would create additional bay
conjestion.
2. A high bridge will make it difficult for bicyclists and
pedestrians to cross.
3. The area between the narrows and the bridge would be an excel-
lent area for club ,sponsored small sailboat races. This area
would be a much safer place for children to be racing on busy
days and could also serve to some what reduce congestion in .
the Lower Bay. The club launches could pull the small boats
under the bridge and the masts stepped on the other side for
racing.
4. Dover Shdres residents have gone on record for a higher bridge
for their own benefit. Since they purchased their homes with
knowledge of the low bridge, their comments -should be judged
accordingly.---
` `� • (2) Ju99, 1974
RELOCATION OF BAYSHORES ENTRANCE
We feel that the entrance to Bayshores should not be relocated for the
following reasons.
1. The Anchorage Apartments and Swales Yacht Anchorage has forty
apartments and fifty boat slips. Their present access is
over an easement of Bayshores streets from Coast Highway and
not within Bayshores itself. it would be necessary to const-
ruct a service road along the highway ifithe gate were closed.
The possibility of these vehicles using Bayshores streets has
been discussed. In order to accomplish this residents affected
would be entitled to damages and the easement taken through
eminent domain. In addition, the street that would be used
by these people would be Crestview Dri which is only twenty-
five feet wide and one of the most congested streets in the
community. This solution seems unworkable.
2. The Bridge Committee determined that "fly-overs" would be
unworkable in terms of cost and safety at the Dover Dr., PCH
intersection and would be a surface intersection. Most
Bayshores residents do their shopping in the Westcliff area.
A resident on any day no mattes how busy the highway can simply
cross the highway and be out of the congestion. Relocating
the gate would require a right turn then a quick lane change over
three lanes to make a left turn on Dover Dr. It seems that this
would create additional 'traffic on Coast Highway.
A possible solution tb this dilemma would be to pLt the signal
from Bayshores on a demand basis with a very short green period.
Durin% this period a11 other entrances to the intersection
would be red. The present situation is very inefficient in that
left turn traffic from Dover Dr. is constantly halted during the
green period by cars "dribbling" out of Bayshores. Each time
the cars are halted, they must again start up wasting valuable
green time. This solution could be put into effect immediately.
and the results evbluaTed prior to making possibly the wrong
decision.which could possibly create additional congestion on
Pacific Coast Highway.
We are.hopeful that you will consider our views and suggestions. With all
the pressures that are continually placed on the City of Newport Beach,
we would like to try and keep it our town.
Very truly yours,
��zdr�i�/1 ^�_
.1 V
•
ASSOCIATION OF
ORANGE COAST YACHT CLUBS
July 8, 1974
reply to. -
Planning Commission
City Hall
Newport Beach, California
Gentlemen:
Please be advised the Association takes the position on
the proposed new HIGHWAY BRIDGE that the interests of
yachting will be best served by a high bridge.
Yours very truly,
ASSOCIATION OF ORANGE COAST YACHT CLUBS
James E. Munroe
Commodore
JEM:mjs'
�UTH MORE SAILING CLUB
SHARK ISLAND YACHT CLUB
BAHIA CORINTHIAN YACHT CLUB
�BAL"' YACNi CLU9
MEYf 0IB GCTAN SAHING ASSOCIATION
CANA POINT YACHT CLUB
"4t,t au
VUA
rrhoA
n w
•
L
TO THE CITY COUNCIL, NIMPORT BEACH
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BAYS11ORES, NEWPORM BEACH, BELIEVE THAT THE
FUTURE RESTRICTION OF THE BAYSROXrS ENTRANCE' AT DOVER DRIVE, BECAUSE OF THE
NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, AND THE COMINMIG OF AN ENTRANCE FOR BAYSUORES AND
TIM I3ALBOA BAY CLUB AT MARINO DRIVE WILL NOT ONLY BE DETRIMENTAL TO ME
BAYSHORES RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW THRU OUR NARROWe STREETS
FROM THE ANCHORAGE APARTMITS AND It XM, BUT WILL.NOT SOLVE THE PACIFIC
COAST llWY. TRAFFIC FLOW BECAUSE OF THE NECES'SM.OF PUTTING ANEW STQPLIGHT
IV
RETURN TO E.R. GLAZIER 2552 V10,14. 548-8975
1-------- 1 I
TO THE C* COUNCIL , NEWPORJ'BEACH •
WE,THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BAYSHORES , NEWPORT BEACH, BELIEVE THAT THE
FUTURE RES''gCTION OF THE BAYSHORES ENTRANCE AT DOVER DRIVE,BECAUSF, OF THE
NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION,AND THE COMBINING OF AN ENTRANCE FOR BAYSIIORES AND
THE BALBOA BAY CLUB AT MARINO DRIVE. WILL NOT ONLY BE DETRIMENTAL to THE
BAYSHORES RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW.THRU OUR NARROW STREETS
FROM THE ANCHORAGE APARTMENTS AND MRRMA,BUT WILL NOT SOLVE THE PACIFIC COAST
IM, TRAFFIC FLOW BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF ;,'UTTING A NEW STOPLXGHT.ON THE
COAST HIGHWAY AT THE NEW ENTRANCL'. .. . .. .. .
TART NAME _ SIGNATURL ADDRESS.___
17
19
20
21
22
RETURN TO E.R. GLAZIER 2552VISTA 548-8975
Mp-
Wd
I �.
TO THE CITY COUNS, NEWPORT BEACtI •
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BAYSHORES, NEWPORT BEACH, BELIEVE THAT THE
FUTURE RESTRICTION OF THE BAYSHORES ENTRANCE AT DOVER DRIVE, BECAUSE OF THE
NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION , AND THE COMBINING OF AN ENTRANCE FOR BAYSHORES AND
THE BALBOA BAY CLUB AT MQRINO DRIVE WILL NOT ONLY BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
BAYSHORES RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF INCREASED Tf%AFI'ICFLOW�8& NARROW STREETS FROM
THE ANCHORAGE APARTMENTS AND MARINA; BUT WILL NOT SOLVE THE PACIFIC COAST ISVY.
TRAFFIC FLOW BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF PUTTING A NEW STOPLIGHT ON THE_
COAST. HIGHWAY AT THE NEW, ENTRANCE.
1
Z to
-7L
21 - •
23
24
• TV 7'IU3 CITY COi�7t:I&a ISG'CII°(�rx LItdlCdi
list a M UI7 rnvj=MD !tHNV?M'dTS OF I3A1.'n?ORnSs Iy'EI'JEC)I•tffi 13FACne BELL 18 VIAT TIM
'dyL FUT"WX RL".tTR CTIOIJ' OIL ',2SIG If1 MIOR= 1:17 NCH AT DOVER I)nXVi;> PJi::AUSL° OF TIM
�5 S� IrIw Drumm (:t"Km-mu:.Tm7a Am 17M t.l,);rX77SIG OF All T:CITRAWc.S: FOIL rAY.IUM:S AI D
6y !'tJl4 Lt9LP,OA DAY CLM AT• P NUUO VXkXVF, S UAL NOT (ULY MC I &TJIIJTf;Gt7AT, TO 7II$
BAYMIORBS IIJ3,9D) ITS BECALIPL" OF ZI7CI',GASI'.D TPAP£IC' F1U R TRW 04M VARRal ST14=8
PAM3 TIM AWC1101%GB APAI .UITS AI) UAItZWIA, DUT iJxI,I, WT WI.Va ',CATS PAGIV IC
COAST IIWY• TMUPIC T'WU T.T,IAM11,13 OP 'lml. Iit3CkSSM OF P071T=G A bfW STOMIGIIT
CU TIM COAST I1IC17HAY AT TM 17J.W MT11.1VILHo
r.
G(N
nMwn.xr
/E
0
F
0
VA
,vn�a�lQ.. �. `ezz�Lt'..�� �1;�1«�'..,.a,•N/1pa�ti�r_crctr�v.2. `�'J ., �� .
TO THE CIO COUNCIL , NEWPORT BEACH •
WE,TIIN UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BAYS110RES , NM*"T BEACH BELIEVE THAT TIME
FUTURE RES*CTION OF THE BAYSPORES 21TRANCE AT DOVER DRIVE ,,:CAUSE OF THE
NEW BRIDGE Coll 6TRUCTION,AND THE WMBINING OF AN 13NTRANCE FOR BAYSHORES ALI)
THE BALBOA BAY CLUB AT YARMO DRIVE vl!L.L NOT ONLY BE DETRIMI TAL TO 711E
DAYSIIORES RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF 7NCRFASED TRAFFIC FLOW T11RU OIIR NARROW STREETS
FROM THE ANCHORAGE APARTWITS AND V&Rn4A,BUT WILL140T SOLVE THE PACIFIC COAST
IIWY. TRAFFIC FLOW BECAUSE OF TILE NEXESSTPY OF PU1'Tm A NEW STOPLIGIrx ON 711E
COAST 11IGIMWAY AT TIM NEW LrdTRANCE.
?_2
RETURN To E.R. CLAZIER 2552VISTA 540-0975
TO TITS CITY �at:Ir;, IT>3IWRIT BEACII
14II, TIM UIMURSEI-M RESIDWITS OF DAYSITMIES, JIMI.U;LV DrACIt, DELIBV$ THAT TIM
FUTW'X RPOcTItl(: 1"T OF 't?TM EAXSIiOiM'S 101TrWIC: AT DOVE DRIVE, PECAUSH OF TILE
III:`E%I BEIDGE COIISTRUCTIONs ADD TILE CO:L;jff3NG Or All LjjTRAITCE FOIL IAYSI95R) S AIM
TIM BALBtII! BAY CLUB AT t.14:T.IaO DRIVE WILL NOT 01%MY DR =RIt11T4TAL TO %tit
BAYSIIORES RESIDM')TS PJECAUSE Or INCREASED TRAFFIC FIJDW T11RU OUR I•TARROW STREETS
FROX TILE ANCItOr.AGS APARTWITS APTD HA RD A, BUT WILL NDT SOLVE TITS PACIFIC
COAST TIWY, TRAFFIC FLOW FHCAUSH Or 741E ITftCESSITY Or PUTTWG A IlMl STOPLICIIT
09 TIM COAST IIIGM-IAY AT TIM DEW TTJTPAPaCE.
xIJRIT TO T:.'t. GTA.27.1 1 2552 VISTA 548-3975
1i !f .. ,'w
',Ss M WOMM Z:.$J+. C= nA DAYMUSs tWMI cwA(li•ULM %M2 awl
u2?TM £tE.S"a ICTJDO[7 QF IIIH rA4MRBS tt7Ct1 U,U AT In9Y!! R DttZT 4 MCAUrin OF TDC
111W 11G" XL' OLVa "TZCU, AM IIM i,033R= OD AN =9WCX WS 21t1'ft'..l' S)P89 AM
TIC SALM AAY LUG AT !li mo VRxva VUL um OMIT DR USTltmm 7lCY um
i3AYb29 us P=xD=s DirtAum OAP YIi(.3zrt om wirr c is rwi "j a OYiYt IiA"Motl mmil
$17.Cf.'i'I Z AMMMOB At'c1iYTtZiI a Aim t AE IMO I?fi7R tjM MT POlIVS TM Mj;XIrxC
C'MST Ii M- TPAVPIC Ml DM ACM W 27M lil cKS9M 4F LiJ7lT= A M STopl n
M MM CCYIbV iMMAT AT IIW ICJ Z'iGiT" dc:B.
z
.
AWN
z�
�o
x.
pop OWN 11-0-4—
za
"45z V=% -asps
11
0.
tv", °r-z-a-ii C4, 1"n- 1-alm. OL YT�,kwye LR.3S?" T "''F.�t.slo fii;A'a %im
R;}E'ua..�i ta, i!'&,�€� C9.:� t.,.;. Yb:�jt.�f�':,stF.'.?: Z:tia'L..�.3� 13 dfo- NAM,s,Cti::�7Y♦ l�1't2'"?:•£a �?,c rcl9"
Ta`W.. „�, K&. •�a.;•"s�.�,•�cit:I:i,t t,,r., A.x 0.1:A= or c,, =11.1, ron rka«.;x,cM3 tM
1"a.i tG,� 1"{r'S..y8.``n,l{ PkAlyl, k US O tp"iM3 t"hz a S,ir «!i EM rZIN 12.2 i:1':%�'X:7G W$L %T) u"ITI
Gw,1 {1W J�••�(,Y� i'�J:i.Y.`��. t;1«ii i��i'.M1\(J.'4S OY, .ii.f .., frY 1. MM' ktW'1. Sl I. I,N.! lt 13F W.n airX,ui.? I.,4=
,` 1 7 1 9"Fn 11lV , Ar Pp F , Y: P, .'. er • rpl r.
1 l.il.:'P L�1 �.%'�: ..,..•ui lL(,,. LL.'dLSrQ "i t�,.Ri ,Ek.ir.y�1p tn:K, i.`V.P. Ei'.Jr, +.3:::I.i� A�'{ Q.. x.. :.('..
(•, i" re• 5•,• ', ,• N r.Y! 1 h xo-+ M,•1'�f,r
�a.T ra.�,r .s.�{.�,�� r�t .u�,,.fdL�:iII a;, �,�{, r;�.r:�a.:�,�+�v C+;x:^�o..w h'itFa�3 r;,,:,.�.�.&F
fl:� �+m�.<.aonn.f..a,.a._a�.urv,rnw,wrfN.a�*nm,wr+�wr.,fu�rwurrw,rm
�r�m+.�w,y.sNw.rfw..�..r�� W �r.'r.rw.raw•+rcw..a«.n..r+N.w.+•
��,,,r+M�r.�+NtY+fMMnrN.•rAr�MrbwwlrMna�'MFYnwtMrr
•^awl vrM•wTMMMNWMO.,lwrwmeWYMeMrMlMNxmwxMY�M`i�,nUM�W
^`�N�tf'q..«wrJw.YulrWr'1YyNW.k�.fNrn'+WrN..Nf.R,F.1.WrOtWM,.�+•Mu•w.'•pV
A'��a/.wr«�,Ix,�rRyHM1u�v14.�.tywar«r»WrMNIr4r W Nrw«Hov.n+t++ANfrMNr4v+r++�
---------------
nr�LtlIbANA.RrfeMrrarlY✓AYrr}«..1fr,YWWIMMriYW91U�
`n
�N,MNIYYtlr W M'l1�NY'M. W.«rMlMrr•IMw/FeMA�411xR• V W k0.W MIW.4,rYlY rlXrflr'l�r�.Mdd,ptr W MM�YY� EY4 W N/1MIItl4MW.
t
�1�ct«Nba,r� M
M W rM4I.IMtlMMINCrrr WY,�
1%:
TO THE CUIV cotfxTL r. I10,791OR14 DCI-MIti
tuT. ,ram 13�10k;4?,"`.ZC= Iy1i:7tilolT9 ov IS.AIXAt:1Tt3;:7 p iTlat'7x�12T1 D%��l"tSp I�7STrx4J8{ 'TiI�T 'S13&
E'tPkW,r, Tgjf� I.C."CIG^dV 017 't"IM Ia Yt- I9`.TS mr:GMII:x ba k)C►vml I)17M. "r""cau.8 077 'Ma
E'IE'I DF C:t1 t:Ct,Jt;Smy:tt.'R:::I ytll M"a (i'aWI u.'IG Gu !)i+1 S:iili)liI7i:1i FUR I SX:"1C la'"S 11�'I8f
'F.,M BALrC l L`.�v CUT11 A:''. I"h tiT30 WILL I' CYX C7i1X M .1guTitx Sari.AL TO LiS
rAyglIMS RES1EpF793 lll..'AUM ov MT ;l;&9t;Y:.`U Ti. r.171c. rL%l "maw alm IIAu:C&I =Ims
El ClM 'CI1Di AC1:,loVACR At 11nal .l` is L'.JD I.OWULNOW9 i':I l UC'T 'somm 11L L'�1C'L1?TCt CCKST.
11 M. Tmm?zc FLOU ?.G:t=Mm% vuvx i:ii.::li:13$Fit ov Z:'CYl' =G A &It J 940PLEC1tx (v THE
(;0 %t.' G>si✓-'( r. Jh', rz t' �'l �'+t �L; / C! l I S
VL
(. rl
2G4
Wui �MMM�N'iMW WM4AWYM'.M�WIMM.�'M/AY�MM4Mw1�wrW�M���'M�'�w�Mww
G� • �.y'IiO�AA`M. WIM��. Wtl1w
1
Zii 6M�MY.'��AYYI..IMwiMMM1�FM�'MYM. .MM�.M
tC1 �'.s.nwM�MMV�YIM���
RHsJJ�%mnyrwu.nr
2�i�r.,apyw�wtrwcfr ...+
To Tim CITY cotucle 1`Tis'CL'OP.7,' BLACu •
1JTs. TIM IM)M. SIC= MSIDLIITS OF BAYSIIORLS. IJ1:21 irrI T D1;A;..i, DGLY.ME THAT T118
FUT•UC.L MSTRICTION of THE Mysli0I1LS BP1Tsom AT 1)=rt Pi �1Vr"., 11uCAtl;;1; (JP 'SOIL
1JCId BRIDGE COIJSTP.UGTIOIT , AND T113 COI1'uEMIC OF AN LMAI(X, FOR DAYG1i AMS AND
TI1L BALBOA DAY CLUB AT IMUTO• DT.1C M t•i)J.d, NOT (AMY�• ,,,T)��MM.T?U 'ITAL TO
BAYSIIOI`.GS P.L3ID1"l.` S DLCAU.rM OF I21CMASU) TrAFF%c LayMtlt i!Ai'aM'S.Ia3MS MOM
TIIL ANCHORAGE APARTMITS AIID ti1AT1JA, BUT MI.Y. 11OT SOLVE '!"i''; PACIFIC CWL�a"1 It1Y•
TFAFFIC VLO11 BECAUSE OP TIM NGCISSS= 017 PUTTMO A 1101 STOPLIGITT CLJ '.1111'1
COAST MGMZ&Y AT THE 110; J3IaI JCL.
S' S4CNATURN -
p n ADDRrDS �
a YI• s 2�'----i('�-
3
5
'
G
7
10'
12 . _.M......_....._r - -...
14 �-
13 _, .._..
19 ..�..._.�.�.. _....
20 _._ .Y...._. ,
2l,.._..,_,....
24� . _, ,.,. ,,V, , . .�. .._ .. , ... ..........,..... ....»....._ ...._ ._,.
�'25 t L Swim,
ASSOCIATION OF.
ORANGE COAST YACHT CLUBS
July 9, 1974
reply to:
Planning Commission
City Hall
Newport Beach, California
Gentlemen:
Please be advised the Association takes the position on
the proposed new HIGHWAY BRIDGE that the interests of
yachting will be best served by a high bridge.
Yours very truly,
ASSOCIATION OF ORANGE COAST YACHT CLUBS
James E. Munroe
Commodore
JEM:mjs
YOYAG YAf T CLUB
OUTH SHORE SAILING CLUB
UDO ISLL r
SHARH ISLAND YACHT CLUB
UE9iFCfiC HAABO&J
&LHJ CORINTHIAN YACHT CLUB
BALBOA ISLAND,
BALBOA YACHT CLUB
.„_
NEWPORT OCEAN SAILING ASSOCIATION
DDAA.NA POINT YACHT CLUB
Y �O
1gAU0
DO INOT REMOVE
A Fvp� rl �- E-
uT-47Y)
UE COPY
00 NOT REMOVE
�1
\i
5
TO THE CITY COUNCIL, NEWPORT BENCH
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BAYSHORES, NEWPORE BENCIi, BELIEVE THAT THE
FUTURE RESTRICTION OF THE BAYSHORES ENTRANCE AT DOVER DRIVE, BECAUSE OF THE
NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION, AND THE COMBINING OF,AN.ENTRANCE FOR BAYSHORES AND
THE BALBOA BAY CLUB AT ZARTNO DRIVE WJ,:LL,NOT ONLY BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
BAYSHORES RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW THRU OUR NARRObT STREETS
FROM THE ANCHORAGE APARTMENTS AND bARM,•BUT,WILL-NOT•SOLVE THE PACIFIC
COAST HWY. TRAFFIC FLOW BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY-QF,•PUTTIPJG A,NEW,_STQPLIGHT
ON THE COAST HIGHWAY -AT NEW ENTRANCE
IAST NAMP ADD SS
2 rc.
4
5
- - a
6
7 99—
a y
�� J RETURN TO E.R. GIAZIER;2552 VISTA 548M8975
I
TO THE CIOCOUNCIL , NEWPORT. BEACH •
WE,THE ULDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BAYSHORES , NEWPORT BEACH, BELIEVE THAT THE
FUTURE REMCTION.OF THE BAYSHORES ENTRANCE AT DOVER DRIVE,BECAUSE OF THE
NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION,= THE COMBINING OF,AN.M- TRANCE FOR BAYSHORES AND
TIME BALBOA BAY CLUB AT MARINO DRIVE.WILL NOT ONLY _BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE .
BAYSHORES RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW.THRU OUR NARROW STREETS
FROM THE ANCHORAGE APARTMENTS AND MgRMA,BUT,WTLL NOT SOLVE THE •PACIFIC COAST
HWY, TRAFFIC FLOW BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF PUTTING f1 NEW STOPLIGH-0 THE
COAST HIGHWAY AT THE NEW ENTRANCE.
6ylJ3
19
20
21
22
RETURN TO E.R. GLAZIER 2552VIM 548-8975
� If
,- i
r
TO THE CITY COUNO NEWPORT BEACH
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BAYSHORES, NEWPORT BEACH, BELIEVE THAT THE
FUTURE RESTRICTION OF THE BAYSHORES ENTRANCE AT DOVER DRIVE, BECSAUSE OF THE
NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION , AND THE COMBINING OF AN ENTRANCE FOR BAYSHORES AND
THE BALBOA BAY CLUB AT MARINO DRIVE WILL.NOT ONLY B ETRIMENTAL TO THE
BAYSHORES RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF INCREASED TRAFFICFLOWNARROW STREETS FROM
THE ANCHORAGE APARTMENTS AND MIRINA; BUT WILL NOT SOLVE'THE.PACIFIC-COAST HWY.
TRAFFIC FLOW BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY. Or PUTTING,A NEW.STOPLIGHT ON THE._
COAST.HIGHWAY.AT THE NEW,ENTRANCE... „- .. •
2I
23
24
�A
ZnoP,�, &i
,Aw
/J c/,/,
�L
6 2
4Aww.4p '�• I r, IOA -A-M' N/j fA
WE* IM t9tTi)Mtu1r,1W EI RSDT3iRS OF PA'r"t? Sq Ir"IWtIFt M PSAC1i, J EW= TMT TIM
� L rtrj s RE UCeTCm OF zr.zl 1'IWS1 RES 1:171v IX-9 AT i'®E*Pki DUVEt DSCAUSL OV TM
4� i'fir°'N BRMCr. =99RUM—Mla AID) a'M coingiw Or 43 MMUM, VOR =16MMMES AM
�Ov TIM MUM DAY CXAM AT MUM PIAXVB 43I%,i;, NOT fYidh?f BS n.MID=L{D7ML TO 'ails
PAY13:1EiM315 WOMMUS $w'CAU..°cR Rol? 1Q oarAgro :£EVA1Yc I C 1<Mv? aC1M QUA NARM-1 b' mwo
FROM 'PM ARi% ORAGE APAMab• ''a.'S AM Ma<Mo PUT TIM MT 800ME `UR IAC1< lc
CCMM 1114V- mks FFXC VWR BECAUSE £fir `LK-M NUCLSS12V OF 1'U'A'1MG 4 BJE 1 SW?m7€a"Ed9:
W TIM COAST VIGfiltlAY AT ` M MV i31<i2PbUCE*
%,
TO THE CIT•OUNCIL , NEWPORT BEACH •
WE,TIIE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF BAYSHORES , WFORT BEACH, BELIEVE THAT THE
FUTURE RES2CTION OF THE BAYSIIORES ENTRANCE AT DOVER DRIVE,BECAUSH OF THE
NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTIOII,AND THE COMBINING OF AN ENTRANCE FOR BAYSHORES AIM
THE BALBOA BAY CLUB AT YARINO DRIVE WILL NOT ONLY BE DETRIZENTAL TO TIM
BAYSHORES RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF INCREASED TRAFFIC FLO7jTHRU OUR NARP(m STREETS
FROti THE ANCHORAGE APARTMENTS AND IARM,BUT WILL NOT SOLVE THE PACIFIC COAST
107Y. TRAFFIC FLOW BECAUSE QF THE NECESSITY OF PUTTING A NEW STOPLIGHT -ON THE,
rnAem tITr_?AYAV AT TRT, TM rrI -RANCH.
TO TIM CITY COUNCTT„ IWIPORT DrACH
V'Ro TIM MR)ERSL"MED IMSIDENTS OF DAYSII=S, XMIPOIM' DMACFI, BELME TIMT VIE
FUTURE ASSTAICTI(XIT UP TITD DAYSIIORES MUP4110E AT DOER DRVE, BECAUSE OF TIM
NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTI(Va ADM TILL COAL IMMG OF AN MURMICE FOR rAYSIXORPS, AND
TIM BALBOA BAY CLUB As llkr dfl DRWE I11M NOT ONLY BE DETRII-MiTi >+L TO THE
13,9,YSIIOP,ES RgsIDEI.3TS n2caUSE or T cavASFSID TP,APrIC VI D:d THRU OUR iiARROW STftms
FRO'H TIM ANCROP.AGE AP,ARTMOTS AND rAR1idA6 BUT WILL NUT SOLVE THE PACIFIC
COAST IMY. TRAFrIC FLO61 BECAUSE OF TIM NGCESSZ$Y 4F 1?=ZaG A NEW STOPLZGHT 6
ON THE COAST IlIGrMAY AT THE W1 MTRANCE.
I
Vvo 'Iris trMI AISS UM 0.'+y�"It"L' M OF MLZ:CWirrso Lm7G4.��T mr: a(,Jjy Atli}P.sb ,7U- .RSA,: M, jc[k]
MY =Mr= MUS'TM%•`i.MUs tail.') 2SS aE°i;t�MMG OF AIJ =`iY7i.' rfQ SUMMM9 AM
TIM PAW -al DzIii: LUZ AT tARM MINIva F3M tom" 0047 Da cD.p Hltlll=Z r z
TL+Ta��1 E'93s%gn 6 s ^EAU a !° ;' Y9 2itaii' PLO. °t'tm. cou F;'4�i!�t�� amo
MIST I5mv WIDAMC rwlj DECAl9M op Tau f:113CO-MV 07 M.9104 CVWJ M09MUT
Al
V-OG V
7•oe
)r,
19.
M
GAG<MIINNbFY�'R�1Wd'CCAMbYiYkM �b.9.t%!ap Yi�f>I'p44WIFf.
b�yanNVa�esr�pdxp
tlZO, �5� � c�bF'iM31� Y�''riJ a ��d"Y,'".u�..gi gOrMvettw+a o RMI!Mt MUZISUUMM Akii:IT M
rM w ramrMlctl 4iY47 TIM L""rApalfjl-a feg E'�"'$+'k��l MMM4 clMAM113 (41 4
MW Bi i.."S: ry AM Tim OP tr:3 WMAW-M 3 ;ka`JClZi r M
Lpi(�.v ayqlm-sa(� �f�':�Y�15�:%'E"� h yy.�yr�`ugg�lU��;••eeu.55�� �rt��i,,��}}�•���:�%�?���.y�'���:yy�•�:�,pp3 °�iTxxd``E''11'iL'Yv*, :R0pq-7yy�}�a.�t%} yn ��Yy"�ZrItz ? IC r S
i'oon t.m t]f.��• 1.,{v��ilcma d.x�KeFtf9.i�{,i•}b�ii Am �44k =o, Vm vain a Giwmt ,R7m g.0 viic
rOtIT Ea rl, 4SPAPIM rml Yk'AU i W, FYI: Muf3= 07 £-sMIis A am
wGsfAMAFAE
AYI:61 jib q-,
g4
^•t� M1�N r`BgtYRAIMYdhS`F.WAY.hCiM S HUo1PMlAkh`iiVllM'R'etSlVOAVWQP'
�`-k{dgA��$J6W�)( f$ikw'1.i161PX�h9t'A� WNWM%47pEA0YA�Wdy4MW6'(C4MY4M
grwxa raawpmw>K +konr+�amc+
�A�'nau�.w��«�4«ra��n�swdr mrs��s�'�aws��.wc�ws�Nax,��:�xmr+�n�rirw'Kw
p3ooe 04*
+.tea eMWAWA%pMo
M RAM fAP: ,IM M Mr- M, Ws
To -Am cal com cm WIMR2 BrAck,
or's,wim IrADEP'sZow Et;i3"BuT9 or a:1Imams a B'1 irm 33mals, mu&"i7is Gs A& c=
F"14 2r, ti 1 Ck= co I a nli`i".ri omwo" &.ra'.En13 -.0 AT &K1 ER '!)EVEaM-CAUM OF TIM
imn tuI' £s cogniSEF%fi?GN AM rFA Cons allao (rm Aul i�,mirium" F'm t1kI:'S'€lWX-S AM
'f£It"i ;3��lZ'w s Elk'. CUM AOT BUTAMO DRI t?%7s, I�L� Ct73,T�' }�{ S7ai£tZi�;Ct"sAb'Sf! a ti3
;�95dk9i:D11 3 EMSEOM799 43W".I.%ugi air 111,,m om 2�rwk.�ac 3 `,you vull NAm= a& Ms
Z%'.Cx3 ^a4 i QI;G.N2tka^G$ �!x$A7ix:Y 9 X37i3 PaR13'�."a.m um LfoT SDLV' AIIE mczrzc
? E 1^ Pf � `GBITIC w r= A Wei 8'a"iDMWIT CU
�
C£AISV 11ZG4a14)w AT Tex Iml A},Mr•.ss
2(046
i BAN+MWYIh`gmP/rt�km°uPwaroM•d�°.+l��wan~
*�gAypMYMW1ApM•M . Q
[{ t�
YyptlgykR'MWMY 9>A'�WA�FNM't
n �
^f�FMp�y'MprsMw6A�AMMKVNMWM�M°`�'MA
yA�q))----- W ---- �
.y^^.WIAMgAYPY�MWY a A �.
'^Y'• WY.1W�..dgllMpq'�`A�N�N�WYlVM1�'�i+�IW1R��MKM'.FMMhWI✓CM'RMgWR'QIMf�AMMW WIHT1�✓MM'A
Ped +F'V�'T� �"•'
Iy.•W Aa'AI�w��MN vAK+svaNANAS•1Awn .
�.ffw(:�t�yypyy�yy�p MlawiYO
�iV�WWMM�MIMXiN�Pb+�M''Ftl�M1PMA�•
y4��•y"amll�wlpMro�+�'iPcuCn�4Mx�nWd�r�'a•Yrek�aaM�WMAkMMM N+Iw�
{�:I•�WyyAyy° pAillhkpYi�iNLYV.AAYItlWLvMDfIBN'�
pxL
140 Mm CITY COMA EIEI?PORE' BEACII •
I• a a,
1-7E4, THE amERS%GNED RESIi?mas OF EIlymorm36 laam'.T BEWTV l3ELIM' . THAT THE
FUTtdRE P.ESTRECT?ON OF TIM I.tA'YSHORES I NTRANCS AT DOVER DR , BECAUSE Or TUE
N•EN DREDGE" CONSTRUCTION a AND THE C0MMING OF AN ENTruVICE FOR rAyoIiO ES AJD
TI%E RALDQA rAy CLUB AT 1ARnM. DrM, t-7IM NOT (tjlM BTT.yy,,,��rTF.LMMI`TAL '90 TI s
'MY,SHOI2ES RESIDENTS BECAUSE OF iNCRt3ASED TRAFFTCx A-rg4 xA NARRM STREETS FROM
THE ANCHORAGE APARTi1I ITS AND MRINA, BUT Z+ LYE NOT SOLVE: `:.'FIM PACIVEC CUM 19-17.
TRA'(:FEC b'LOIY DECAUSE OF THE NECESS= or PUTEMG A NEtd STOPLIGHT aid 1179E
CoAs`9 YTEGMAY AT THE NMI ENTRANCE,
SE' AR4' St dAT .E ADDE33S
3
a
fl0
bb
12
13
b5 p-
20 ---
fni„2awwWM'�.MYM'M11�t�w�Mm1��MMr1NbwMml/wlmwM.Vssnil.w+4NK MI.W�vW�Y
24��FUY�YA MMfi�wMMCpM Nn.�ffiµ
MA
i tj�t sv —sfir
Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1974
Agenda Item No.
dITY OF NEWPURT BEACH
July 10, 1974
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJ: Bay Bridge Height
The report of the Bay Crossing Committee includes recommendations
for all aspects of the bay crossing, except for a specific
recommendation on the height of the bridge. This memo is directed
to this controversial question of bridge height.
Staff would suggest that there are three basic alternative bridge
heights: low level (17.3'), medium level (25' i'), and high
level (321). Staff would also suggest that each of these three
alternatives be weighed against the following factors:
1. Traffic flow and safety.
2. Traffic noise and air pollution effects.
3. Accommodation of boats.
4. Aesthetic effect.
5. Effect on Upper Newport Bay Wil`dli'fe'Preserve.
In terms of the first factor, traffic flow and safety, please refer
to the attached Public Works Department memo.
In terms of the second factor, traffic noise and air pollution
effects, it is apparent that both noise and exhaust emissions will
increase with an increase in bridge height (due to the increased
grades). There is, however, no readily available means of
quantifying this increase in noise and exhaust emissions and
relating this to a 17.3, 25, or 32 ft. high bridge.
The third factor against which the three alternatives should be
weighed is the accommodation of boats. Obviously, the higher the
bridge, the more types and sizes of boats can be accommodated. The
DO NOT REMOVE
TO: Planning Commission - 2
Chamber of Commerce has developed a sailboat mast height study which
was included in the Chamber's packet sent to the Planning Commission.
While the 17.3 ft. alternative would accommodate none of the
trailerable sailboats listed, the 32 ft. alternative would accommodate
all of those listed. The 25 ft. alternative would accommodate most
of the smaller sailboats, and at low water, many of the sailboats
with masts higher than 25 ft.
The Chamber packet also includes information on the number of boat
slips contained in the three marina areas above the bay bridge:
Marina Dunes, Inc. (221 boats), De Anza Bayside Village (265 boats),
and Dover Shores (94 boats), for a total of 580 boat slips. These
slips range from 25 ft. to 50 ft. in length, with an average of about
30 ft. Nearly all of the boats presently :be�thed above the bay
bridge are powerboats, with but one or two sailboats.
The Irvine Company indicates that their plans for the "Castaway
Site" include only a limited number of guest slips in conjunction
with the proposed restaurant and inn'development (with most of the
waterfront devoted to public beach use).
In terms of the fourth factor, aesthetic effect, the higher the
bridge, the more potential for an adverse scale relationship. Staff
will display photos of bridges of various heights at the meeting.
In terms of the fifth factor, effect on the Upper Bay Wildlife
Preserve, the height of the bridge would have only an indirect
effect. A low-level bridge may discourage larger boats and may
somewhat reduce pressure for additional marina development in the
Upper Bay, but would be no guarantee of additional protection. There
may be more effective and permanent means of barring boats from the
Upper Bay and preventing marina development northerly of the presently -
developed area, such as physical barriers, boating regulations, land
use regulations, and land acquisition. Certainly, the State Department
of Fish and Game, now in the process of acquiring the Upper Bay
1' A • •
TO: Planning Commission - 3
lowlands, will not permit marina development in the Wildlife
Refuge.
In conclusion, it is apparent that no alternative will satisfy all
of the objectives. The Planning Commission's recommendation to the
City Council must be based on the relative weight given to traffic
flow, safety and environmental effects versus the accommodation of
boats.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR
By
rim Cowell
Advance Planning Administrator
TC:jmb I
Enc. Memo from Public Works.
July 10, 1974
TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: PROPOSED BRIDGE REPLACEMENT - PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BAY CROSSING
Attached are copies of material prepared by the State Department
of Transportation describing the proposed project for replacing the Upper Bay
Bridge. This material, together with the previously furnished copies of the
Citizens' Committee report, provides general background information as to the
nature of the alternates considered to date.
The State is currently investigating 4 alternate designs for the
bridge; with the heights, maximum approach grades, and costs as tabulated
below.
Alternate
Height*
Grades
Cost (Millions)
A
13.6 ft.
3.2%
$2.4
B
17.3 ft.
3.0%
$2.6
C
25.4 ft.
6.0%
$3.0
D
40.0 ft.
7.2%
$5.5
*Height is measured in feet above mean high water to the bottom
of the bridge superstructure. Mean high water is 1.87 feet above
mean sea level, or 4.6 feet above mean lower low water.
In addition to the above alternates, the Citizens' Committee con-
sidered an intermediate high level bridge with a height of 32 feet. No design
or cost information has been developed for this alternate.
The significance of the indicated heights is: 13.6 feet is the height
of the present bridge, 17.3 feet is an arbitrary height chosen by the State to
provide a modest improvement to the present clearance, 25.4 feet is the same as
the height of the Coast Highway bridge over the Sunset Harbor - Huntington Harbor
Channel, 40 feet is the height that had formerly been contemplated for the Coastal
Freeway bridge, and 32 feet is a height selected by the Citizens' Committee for
compatibility with trailerable sailboats.
With regard to traffic operation and safety, the desirable maximum
grade for an arterial street such as Coast Highway is, 4%; with a maximum of 6%
often specified where lesser grades are not practicable. For purposes of com-
parison, the grade on Jamboree Road in the area of the northerly Eastbluff Drive
intersection is 6%. As grades exceed 4% the climbing ability of trucks and
low -powered economy vehicles is affected, noise levels increase significantly, and
a decrease in traffic capacity and safety can be anticipated.
CONCLUSIONS:
From the point of view of highway operations, funding capability,
and project scheduling the 17.3 foot clearance alternate is preferred. Against
these considerations must be balanced the improvements in boating operations
which results from greater waterway clearances.
July 10, 1974
Subject: Proposed Bridge Replacement - Pacific Coast Highway Bay Crossing
Page 2
For clearances exceeding 17.3 feet, it appears that the cost and
operational penalties for clearances up to the 25.4 foot alternate are moderately
severe. For clearances exceeding 25.4 feet the cost, operational, and environ-
mental problems become more severe; and substantial delays to project scheduling
can be anticipated.
Benjamin B. Nolan
City Engineer
BBN:hh
Att.
�. 1. pGOjEC, O-. IPTION AND PURPOSE •
The project is located on Coast Highway (State Route 1)
in the City of Newport Beach, between Bayside Drive and Dover
I Drive-Bayshore Drive, a length of 0.6 mile.
Since the new location is parallel and just inland from
the existing highway, there is very little increase in length
between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive-Bayshore Drive.
As shown on the attached strip map, the California. Depart-
ment of Transportation proposes to replace the existing 4-lane
bridge over Newport Bay with a new structure to provide a 6-lane
roadway. The new structure would have a minimum clear span of
80 feet, doubling the existing 40-foot channel span. This project
also includes the widening of Coast Highway from a 4-lane to a
6-lane facility between Bayside Drive and Dover Drive-Bayshore
Drive, and widening of about a 200-foot length of Dover Drive to
provide an additional northbound lane. Sidewalks for both pedes-
trian and bicycle use, compatible with loca•1 master plans for
such facilities, will be provided on both sides of the bridge and
approaches.
As shown on the attached Summary of Engineering and
Economic 'Data, the cost of construction ranges from $1,820,000
to $3,050,000 and the cost of right of way ranges from $620,000
- 1 -
to $2,450,000, dependinn on which alternate is selected. The
lost of Alternate D (40' height) could increase by'about .$2.1
million, depending on the architectural treatment provided.
The_ a.rc.hitectu.ral treatment becomes more important 4s the',h•eiaht
is increased because of the increased exposure to view.
The project is scheduled for construction in the 1975-76
fiscal year but the scheduling could chance depending on which
alternate is decided upon. The higher the cost, the greater the
possibility of having to delay construction to a later year be-
cause of financing problems.
The
proposed
project is
not related
to any
possible
future
freeway.
The Route
1 Freeway,
previously
planned
in this
area,
has been deleted by the Legislature and is not now under con-
sideration.
The proposed project was initiated in response to a written
request by Mayor E. F. Hirth of Newport Beach.
This project will relieve the present traffic congestion
at this location; however, it is not expected that this project
will solve the traffic problems through the Coastal corridor.
- 2 -
The predicted 1995 average daily traffic for this portion
of Coast Hignway is 112,000 vehicles per day. The predicted
1980 average daily traffic, after the bridge is completed, is
79,000 vehicles per day, an increase of 28,000 vehicles per
day from the 1973 traffic count of 51,000 ADT.
An accident summary for the approximately four and one-
half year period from January 1, 1969 to June 30, 1973 includes
a total of 349 reported accidents, as follows:
1. Intersection with Bayside Drive - 33 accidents
2. Intersection with Dover Drive-
Bayshore Drive - 69 accidents
3. Between the intersections - 247 accidents
TOTAL 349 accidents
A Collision Diagram for this period is attached in the
appendix.
The purpose of this project is to*alTeviate traffic con-
gestion, reduce the accident rate, and provide better traffic
service by building a new wider bridge and by improving the inter-
sections of Coast High:•ray with Bayside Drive and with Dover Drive-
Bayshore Drive.
Coast Highway is a 4-lane roadway with painted median, on
a 100-foot right of way east and ~•rest of the Upper flewport Bay
bridge. The proposed cross section for the portion between the
west end of the bridge and the intersection with Dover Drive -
Bayshore Drive is a right of way width from 125' to 2201. The
right of way width for the portion between east -end of the
and Dayside Drive varies from 100' to 240'.
bridge
The existing bridge, which -was built in 1932, has a road-
way width of only 40 ieot curb to curb, striped for 4-lanes,
and has a 4-foot sidewalk on each side. Because of this narrow
width plus the inadequate capacity of the intersections at both
ends of the bridge, the traffic capacity between Dover Drive
and Bayside Drive is very inadequate, resulting in seve.re con-
gestion and long delays to traffic. As a result of the narrow
width,.inadequate capacity and resultant congestion, a total of
349 accidents was reported from January 1969 to June 1973 on
and near -the structure- Because of the limited width of both
the traveled 4jav and the sidewalks, there is no convenient
passageway for bicyclists. This problem is becoming more signi-
ficant because of the rapid increase in the use of bicycles for
both transportation and recreational purposes in Newport Beach.
The Coast Highway bridge provides the only crossing of Upper
Newport. Bay, a natural barrier approximately 3-1/2 miles in
length.
The existing bridge is of timber construction has been
repaired several times i'n the past,•and continues to deteriorate.
Eventually, it will probably be necessary to close the bridge for
extensive repairs.
_ 4 _
a
• 0
Four al:er--pates (A,B,C,D) for replacing the exis-ina
bridge with a new bridge, and the Alternate (E) of keeping
the existing bridge, are under consideration as follot•Is;
A. A profile similar to the existing bridge, to provide
a vertical clearance of approxinately 13.6 feet above
mean high water, the same as the clearance 'of the
existing bridge; estimated total cost is $2,434,000;
$1,317,000 for construction and $617,000 for right of
way.
E. A somewhat higher profile, which provides a vertical
clearance of approximately 17.3 feet above mean high
water;,estinated total cost'is $2,613,000; $1,992,000
for construction and $621,000 for right of way,
C. A considerably higher profile, with a vertical clear-
ance of approximately 25 feet above mean high grater;
estimated total cost is S3,903,000; S2,371,000 for
construction and $632,000 for right of way,
D. The hi_ohest of all alternatives considered, with a
vertical clearance of approximately 40 feet above
water; estimated total cost is $5,502,000; S3,053,000
for construction and $2,449,000 for right of :•ray.
This alternate has been commonly referred to as the
"high level bridge". Trre cos,-- FOR 7-HeS
/NGR2R5E 23Y up To $ 2V 10016001 DEPEND/ti/6 ON 4P-C.F(r Taco ORAL,
TREATM ENi OFTHE T3.etDG�. $T2ucTu�,
5 -
E. The "no project" alternate, leaving the existing
bridge as is except for necessary repairs,
Alternates A, B, and C (13.6, 17.3 and 25-foot clearance)
would have the centerline of the nev., bridge just north'of _the
existing bridge, so as to use as much as possible of the exist-
ing right of way. The northerly portion of the proposed new
bridge would be built first, before removal of the existing
bridge. Upon completion this northerly portion can be used for
carrying 4 lanes of traffic during removal of the existing
bridge and construction of the ,remaining portion of the new
bridge. This stage construction would eliminate the need for
building a detour bridge.
The right of tray required for any of these three alter-
natives is approximately the same.
•Alternate D, with 40-foot vertical dlearance above mean
high water, cannot be built by the method of stage construction,
because the approach fills would encroach on the existing road-
way. Therefore, this alternate has the bridge located further
north so that the existing -bridge can remain in use until the
new bridge is completed. 'This alternate requires much more right
of way than any of the other alternates, and also results in .
inconvenient access to adjacent business property.
- 6 -
The "no project" alternate, which would leave the existing
bridge as is, except for necessary repairs, is considered totally
unacceptable. The narrow width and limited capacity of the
existing bridge result in severe traffic congestion, long delay
to traffic, and a high accident rate on this section of highway,
which is the only route crossing Upper Newport Day, a natural
barrier approximately 3-1/2 miles long. The existing bridge,
of timber construction., has been repaired several times in the
past, and continues to deteriorate. Eventually, it will probably
be necessary to close the bridge for extensive repairs. Because
of the shape of the bay, closure of the bridge would require
Coast Highway through traffic to travel a minimum additional
distance of o miles, over roads not at all capable of carrying
such traffic volumes.
Three other alternatives were considered, which consist
of various schemes for widening the existing bridge. These
three alternates were dropped from further consideration because
they do.not solve the problem of the continuing structural deter -
oration of the existing bridge.
- 7 -
0SUI41ARY OF F':GI? .:M1G AND "''MOMIC DATA
-na to
A
B
C.
D
'I rt;cal Clearance Above Mean High water)
13.6
17.3
25
40
.h (Miles)
o.6
o.6
D.6
0.7
Const.
1817
1992
2371
30515
Right of Way
61_7
621
632
234LI9
,;,.,M„
TOTAL
_
2434-
261.3
30U3
Z
COST
-
IN S Const.-- 1
1802—
1977-23Sb—
309'8--
THOU3AI•IDS Ri,'ht of 4c:ty
SHARE;
597
--
601
612
---•
242c%
- —_.
2399
2578
2968
TO TA
54r77
Cor•st.
15
15
CITY'S
of Way
20
-
20 ----
---
2D
2U
-
SHARERimht
-- ---- --
TOT;U
Single-F"::mily Pcsidencc
35
6
l 35
6
35
6
25
966
I
i;XISTING
_---
RIGHT
l.ulti-b'arnily Residence
D
O
---
0
- 0
z�..pRovrt,;l;�tTs
— --
OF
r_1 an Industrial U'nit-s
1¢_
1+
$
5
r-
2
2—
2
2
TOTAL
Iz
• 12.
12
73
--
{
Total Number of Li.vinn Units
6
6
b
666
fFstj
r!n t-d Population( e i-- cr ccd _! �—
15
15—
—
15—
] 68
�- 27
27
2.7—
li
er of r_mplo!/ec_..—_. ` '^
—31
Construction cost. oh A7te►^nate D can i ncrea5e to 5:2 Milliciependl n 9 on ttm
architectural treatment provided,
ASSOCIATION OF
ORANGE COAST YACHT CLUBS
July 9, 1974
reply to:
Planning Commission
City Hall
Newport Beach, California
Gentlemen:
Please be advised the Association takes the position on
the proposed new HIGHWAY BRIDGE that the interests of
yachting will be best served by a high bridge.
Yours very truly,
ASSOCIATION OF ORANGE COAST YACHT CLUBS
�%��erirriti. e�
James E. Munroe
Commodore
JEM:mjs
- YOY Y T CLUB OUTH SHORE SAILING CLUB
LIDO ESL
SHARK ISLAND YACHT CLUB
NFNPORT HAROC
BAHIA CORINTHLVL YACHT CLUB
BALBCA•ISTAR\
BALBOA YACHT CLUB
NEWPORT OCEAN SAILING ASSOCIATION
Y DANA POINT YACHT CLUB
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
•
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
2461 Crestview Drive
Newport Beach, Ca.
July 9, 1974
Gi-t y-, City of Newport Beach
City Hall
3300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, California
Dear Council Members:
We are residents of the community of Bayshores and would like you to
consider some of our points concerning the Upper Bay Bridge and the
possible relocation of the Bayshore Gate. Each is discussed separately.
BRIDGE HEIGHT
We feel that a low profile bridge would best benefit the City. Some
of the compelling reasons determined by the Citizens Committee are
that a low profile bridge would; (1.) be safest (2.) have the least
visual impact (3.) cost the least to build (4.) probably be built sooner
(5.) have fewer environmental consequences. In addition, we feel that
the following points are also important and should be considered.
1. On busy days the Lower Bay is extremely crowded. A higher
bridge would promote additional bay traffic. Small out-
of-town sail and power boats would create additional bay
conjestion.
2. A high bridge will make i-t difficult for bicyclists and
pedestrians to cross.
3. The area between the narrows and the bridge would be an excel-
lent area for club sponsored small sailboat races. This area
would be a much safer place for children to be racing on busy
days and could also serve to some what reduce congestion in
the Lower Bay. The club. launches could pull the small boats
under the bridge and the masts stepped on the other side for
racing.
4. Dover Shores residents have gone on record for a higher bridge
for their own benefit. Since they purchased their homes with
knowledge of the low bridge, their comments should be judged
accordingly. —
I �•L
• (2) July 9, 1974
RELOCATION OF BAYSHORES ENTRANCE
We feel that the entrance to Bayshores should not be relocated for the
following reasons.
1. The Anchorage Apartments and Swales Yacht Anchorage has forty
apartments and fifty boat slips. Their present access is
over an easement of Bayshores streets from Coast Highway and
not within Bayshores itself. it would be necessary to const-
ruct a service road alorg the highway if the gate were closed.
The possibility of these vehicles using Bayshores streets has
been discussed. In order to accomplish this residents affected
would be entitled to damages and the easement taken through
eminent domain. in addition, the street that would be used
by these people would be Crestview Dr. which is only twenty-
five feet wide and one of the most congested streets in the
community. This solution seems unworkable.
2. The Bridge Committee determined that "fly-overs" would be
unworkable in terms of cost and safety at the Dover Dr., PCH
intersection and would be a surface intersection. Most
Bayshores residents do their shopping in the Westcliff area.
A resident on any day no matter how busy the highway can simply
cross the highway and be out of the congestion. Relocating
the gate would require a right turn3then a quick lane change over
three lanes to make a left turn on Dover Dr. It seems that this
would create additional traffic on Coast Highway.
A possible solution tb this dilemma would be to put the signal
from Bayshores on a demand basis with a very short green period.
During this period all other entrances to the intersection
would be red. The present situation is very inefficient in that
left turn traffic from Dover Dr. is constantly hal-ted during the
green period by cars "dribbling" out of Bayshores. Each time
the cars are halted, they must again start up wasting valuable
green time. This solution could be put into effect immediately
and the results evaluated prior to making possibly the wrong
decision.which could possibly create additional congestion on
Pacific Coast Highway.
We are hopeful that you will consider our views and suggestions. With all
the pressures that are continually placed on the City of Newport Beach,
we would like to try and keep it our town.
Very truly yours,
COLE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA 926io
Clty Heu
3300 Newport Blvd.
t (714) 673-2110•
CITIZENS' ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THE MEMBERS OF THE PL, RfING• COMMISSION ,
SUBJECT: NEW BAY CROSSING AT COAST HWY.
DATE: 29 JUNE 1974
At its meeting of 26 June 1974,
following statement:
the CEQCAC authorized submission of the
The CEQCAC has reviewed the report of the Pacific Coast
Hwy. Bridge Crossing•Committee that had been submitted to the City Council.
The major item of interest to CEQCAC is that on which the Bridge Committee
made no recommendation, that is, the height of the bridge to be constructed.
It is the recommendation of CEQCAC that the height of the
bridge be kept to the minimum possible and in no case higher than the 17.3 ft.
above mean high water as defined in the plan currently proposed by CALTRANS
for funding.
It is abundantly clear that at this point in time both the
sentiment and actions of the citizens of this area favor an Upper Newport Bay
which is to be left in its natural state, in so far as possible, to act as a
marine and bird preserve and a large scale open space. All efforts have been
directed toward this end, The construction of a high bridge to allow extensive
boat traffic into the upper bay would not only be a retreat from this goal
but would bring future pressure, once boats are using the upper bay in large
numbers, to make substantial changes in the upper bay to accommodate both the
boats and the boating public. This large scale invasion by people and their
paraphernalia into the upper bay is clearly at odds with the bay as an open
space preserve. We cannot countenance this, nor do we believe the citizens
of this city would agree to it since the net effect would be so detrimental
to their previous efforts.
There is another environmental issue involved. A bridge
high enough to be of value to passage of boat traffic would necessitate a
roadway which is twenty feet higher than that which presently exists., Not
only would the bridge be higher ,but longer in order not to have too steep
a grade for the bridge. This immense structure, jutting up along Coast Hwy.,
would visually overpower the area around it and be visually detrimental to
the residents of the area.
CEQ CAC
BAY CROSSING
29 June 1974
continued
The cost for a high bridge would be considerably more
than that for a low stucture and far more than CALTRANS has planned for.
With the decrease in gas tax revenues that CALTRANS has recently and
publically noted and with a portion of these revenues now to be used for
rapid transit systems, it appears doubtful that funding for a structure
much more expensive than outlined in the CALTRANS plan could he possible.
We must conclude, since CEQCAC is empowered to represent
the environmental interests of the city, that the total environmental effect
will be served better with a low structure. This low structure will also be the
one which is more economically feasible. Again,it is our recommendation that
a low bridge,no higher than 17.3 feet above mean high water„ be built.
Respectfully submitted,
Bernard Pegg 0�
CEQCAC, Vice Chairman
E
15,1 Z,/
LINDSLEY PARSONS
17
TO: N JEORT BEACH CITY PLIU NING COMMISSION
FROIuT: LINDSLEY PARSONS
------------
Re: UPPER BAY BRIDGE
June 1974
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
n)urjngmy t?nnr(= nt' nt't'inP AC a NP_W ni rT. Kpgnn tn:G ^
Oouncilman, I worked with Glen Vedder of Laguna
Beach to bring about the establishment of the series
of Marine Preserves along the -Orange Coast, so I am
certain that my sympathy with envirmonmental problems
is unquestioned. However, in the determination of the
recommended height of the Upper Bay Bridge, I would
like to point out several considerations that would
cause me to be in favor of a higher rather than _a
1. Rather than permitting more access to the Upper
Bay for boat traffic from the lower bay, a higher b
would permit the present partially landlocked boats
no problem getting under the present bridge, but the
larger deep water cru1sing vessels can only leave and
re-enter the Upper Bay on the lower tides.
2. There should be no increase in sail boat traffic
in the Upper Bay, since the high cliffs, narrow channels
and swift tides make saling above the bridge a practical
impossibility.
3. Since any bridge which replaces the present bridge
will probably be there for the next century, I must
pleade that consideration be given to the rapidly dis-
marine ways can be developed is the Shel m ker Isl
area. iere u e ri ge should be high enough to
aQcommodate the great numBers of vessels in the lower
bay which will of necessity be serviced in the Upper
Bay.
In closing, I would like to state that I consider boating
one of the principal attractions of Newport Harbor, and
that I trust that the Planning Commission will. recognize
the problems of the boat owners when these factors can be
considered without harm to the Upper Bay ecology.
Pec
JJ/ 01g7y
NEWppRToR
• CALIp FACyI
/9' /z�
2
fs
o"9
#LE CO,"Y
DO NOT REMOVE
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
270 NEWPORT CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714) 644-8211
JACK BARNETT
EXECUTIVE MANAGER
LARRY MILLER
ASS-T. MANAGER
June 12, 1974
Mr. William Agee, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd,
Newport Beach, California
Dear Bill:
In order to provide background for the recommendations made
by the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce relative to the
Coast Highway Bridge and the intersection at Dover Drive and
Pacific Coast Highway. I am enclosing copies of the various
reports that have been previously submitted to the advisory
committees as follows:
1. Report on sailboat mast heights prepared by the Chamber Is
Marine Division and presented to the Citizens Transportation
Plan Study Committee on July 10, 1973.
2. Report on degree of difficulty that boats berthed north of
Pacific Coast Highway Bridge go to in passing under the
existing Bridge, prepared by Marine Division for the PCH
Bridge Citizens Advisory Committee on May 1, 1974.
3. Final Report and recommendations submitted by a special
Chamber Committee to the PCH Bridge Citizens Advisory
Committee dated May 15, 1974.
The Chamber is vitally concerned with this subject, feeling
that it is one of the most important and far-- reaching decisions
to be made at this time. We continue to offer the services of
our committees for any additional information you might require.
LM/d
The City of Newport Beach is Composed of the Following Areas:
BALBOA • BALBOA ISLAND • CORONA DEL MAR • EASTBLUFF • HARBOR VIEW • LIDO ISLE
MARINER'S MILE • NEWPORT CENTER • UNIVERSITY PLAZXAIRPARK • WEST NEWPORT • WESTCLIFF
E
0
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
270 NEWPORT CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714) 644-8211
JACK BARNETT
EXECUTIVE MANAGER
LARRY MILLER
ASS-T. MANAGER
July 10, 1973
Mr. William Agee, Chairman
Citizens Transportation Plan Study Committee
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California
Dear Mr. Agee:
In order to provide additional input regarding the design
characteristics for reconstruction of the Coast Highway Bridge in
Newport Beach, the Marine Division of the Newport Harbor Chamber
of Commerce would like to provide the following information:
1- The only launching ramp for trailerable small
craft in Newport Harbor are located in Upper
Bay inland of Coast Highway Bridge.
2. There are no suitable sites seaward of Coast
Highway Bridge where additional launching ramps
and storage areas for trailerable boats could be
developed.
3. The existing low-level Coast Highway Bridge
effectively prohibits the launching of trailerable
sailboats at the Upper Bay launching ramps; for
in order to utilize these launching ramps, a
sailboat must launch with its mast down, pass
under the bridge by either hand paddling or with
a small outboard, and then raise the mast while
still underway. This entire operation can be
very awkward, and even hazardous on a small
boat with other boats passing nearby.
4- With the desire for boating recreation increasing
more rapidly than the availability of moorage
facilities, more and more boaters will be
purchasing trailerable boats.
The City of Newport Beech is Composed of the Following Areas;
BALBOA - BALBOA ISLAND - CORONA DEL MAR - EASTBLUFF - HARBOR VIEW - LIDO ISLE
MARINER'S MILE - NEWPORT CENTER - UNIVERSITY PLAZA AIRPARK - WEST NEWPORT - WESTCLIFF
LJ
Mr. William Agee, Chairman
Citizens Transportation Plan
Study Committee
Page II
5. To accomodate this increasing demand, more
manufacturers are orienting their production
toward this market, with the trend in design
being toward larger boats (with taller masts)
capable of being trailered.
6. Our studies indicate that a bridge height of 32'
MHHW would clear all trailerable sailboats
currently manufactured and/or sold locally.
(See attached exhibit)
With the above factors as a foundation, the Marine Division
of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce, with the
concurrance of the Chamber Board of Directors, makes the
following recommendation:
That the new Coast Highway Bridge be designed to have
a minimum height clearance of 40' MHHW in order to provide
adequate clearance for existing and future -designed trailerable
sailboats, and in order to ensure proper public ocean and bay
access for the general boating public.
Sincerely,
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE
David New, President
Marine Division
MAST HEIGHT STUDY - - DEALERS
TRAILElhf_BLE_
_FIXED KEEL_
NEV;PORT 16
22'
22'
BRISTOL 24
BRISTOL 26
33'
35'
BALBOA. 20
ENSENADA 20
22'
COLUNlBIA 26
36'
37'
VENZURE 17
23'
25'
CORONADO 27
ERICSON 27
37'
BRISTOL 19
'VENTURA 21
25,
NE�,,'PORT 27
38'
39'
p CnUAR1US 23
25;
26'
BRISTOL 30
CATALINA 27
40'
C. � TALINA 22
HOBIE 14
BRISTOL 28
40'
VENTURA 22
271
ERICSON 29
41
41'
NE��dPORT 20
28 '
28'
CT 34
CAL 29
42 1
COLUNiBIA 23
CORONADO 20
28'
CORONADO 30
42'
42'42'
HOB M 16
29'
29'
ERICSON 32
BRISTOL 35
CLIPPER 21
BRISTOL 22
29'
IS Lf_NDER 30
43'
1
VENTURA 2C.
30'
30'
CORONADO 32
NEWPORT 30
45'
NIDSHIP 25
CLIPPLR 2G
^l�
CAL 30
45'
45'
OLSON 38
CORONADO 05
46'
COLUNaLA 30
47'
ERIC,SON 35
47'
COLUPV-1311-1 34
48�
BRISTOL 40
CT 41
50'
COLUMBIA 41
50'
CORONADO 41
52'
ERICSON 37
53'
RANGER 37
53'
ERICSON 39
561
ERICSON 41
571
CORONADO 45
58'
NEWPORT 41
660'
ERICSON 47
I
*'I
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
270 NEWPORT CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714) 644-8211
JACK BARNETT
EXECUTIVE MANAGER
LARRV MILLER
ASS-T. MANAGER
May 1, 1974
Mr. Robert Shelton
PCH Bridge Citizens
Advisory Committee
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Calif.
Dear Bob:
At the last meeting of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge Citizens
Advisory Committee meeting on April 17, 1974, it was requested
that the Marine Division of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce
provide information regarding the extent of difficulty that boats
currently berthed North of Pacific Coast Highway go to in order to
pass under the existing Pacific Coast Highway Bridge (13' - MHHW).
The information obtained from Marina Dunes, Inc. (221 boats), De
Anza Bayside Village (265 boats), and Dover Shores Community
Association (94 boats), was compiled in five categories of increasing
degrees of inconvenience for these boats to pass under the bridge.
The totals for these categories will be found on the attached
copy of the survey form used to gather the information.
If we can be of any additional assistance in this project,
please don't hesitate to contact us.
Most sincerely,
Larry A. Miller
Assistance Manager
Encl:
LM/d
The City of Newport Beach Is Composed of the Following Areas:
BALBOA • BALBOA ISLAND . CORONA DEL MAR • EASTBLUFF . HARBOR VIEW . LIDO ISLE
MARINER'S MILE . NEWPORT CENTER . UNIVERSITY PLAZA AIRPARK . WEST NEWPORT • WESTCLIFF
0
JACK BARNETT
EXECUTIVE MANAGER
LARRY MILLER
ASS-T. MANAGER
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
270 NEWPORT CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714) 644-8211
_MARINE _DIVISION
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BRIDGE �B OAT SURVEY _
Please report the number of boats in your Marina or Facility
that fall into the following categories:
1. Can pass under Bridge at any tide without any
adjustments to boat gear. 152_
2, Can pass under Bridge at any tide by lowing
one piece of boat gear (i.e. antenna) _134
3. To pass under bridge at any tide must lower 2-4
pieces of boat gear, such as radio antennas 3Z _14 6
outriggers .
4. To pass under bridge at any tide must make additional
major adjustments to vessel, such as lowering mast,
radio tower, bimini top, etc. 6 3 _
5. After making above adjustments, can only pass under
bridge at low tide (these boats should not be 85
included in item #, )
TOTAL NUMBER OF BOATS IN
MARINA 580
Thank you for your assistance,
Larry A. Miller
Assistant Manager
ILM/dl
The City of Newport Beach is Composed of the Following Areas:
BALBOA • BALBOA ISLAND . CORONA DEL MAR . EASTBLUFF . HARBOR VIEW • 41DO ISLE
MARINER'S MILE . NEWPORT CENTER . UNIVERSITY PLAZA AIRPARK . WEST NEWPORT . WESTCLIFF
If
it
E
NEWPORT HARBOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
270 NEWPORT CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714)644-8211
JACK BARNETT
EXECUTIVE MANAGER
A99'TYI;v= rj.5, 1974
Mr. Robert Shelton
PCH Bridge Citizens
Advisory Committee
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, California
Dear Bob:
Upon direction of the Board of Directors of the Newport Harbor
Chamber of Commerce to further consider its previous recommenda-
tion relative to the reconstruction of the Pacific Coast Highway Bridge,
and to evaluate the several alternatives to alleviate traffic conjestion
at the Dover Drive/Pacific Coast Highway Intersection, a special
Chamber Committee has been meeting and following the progress of
the PCH Bridge Citizens Advisory Committee.
This Chamber Committee has had the opportunity to study design
plans outlining the various alternatives for the new bridge and inter-
section modifications, and has analyzed these alternatives in light
of efficient traffic circulation, safe traffic movement, and proper
service to boating. The Committee is aware that major deviation
from the pre*limary design alternatives, as well as specifying
intersection modifications to be constructed in conjunction with the
new bridge, would necessarily delay initiation of the project. However,
the Committee feels that the importance of this project is of such
magnitude that certain delays could be warranted in order to further
what would ultimately be the optimum solution for our community.
Additionally, the Committee is aware that there are certain unknowns
regarding the availability of financing for portions of the project.
Again the Committee feels that the importance of the project is
such that once the community consolidates its position on a desired
alternative the acquisition of necessary funding could be facilitated.
Specifically the Committee strongly reaffirms the Chamber's original
recommendation that the height of the bridge be sufficient to
accomodate trailerable sailboats utilizing the launching ramps north
of the existing bridge. Surveys performed by the Marine Division
of the Chamber indicate that a height of 32' MHHW would accomplish
this purpose. Although not one of the available alternatives originally
offered by the State Department of Transportation, the Committee
feels that this height would be the best solution for Harbor boat
traffic and hereby again makes that recommendation.
The City of Newport Beech is Composed of the Following Areas:
BALBOA - BALBOA ISLAND - CORONA DEL MAR - EASTBLUFF - HARBOR VIEW - LIDO ISLE
MARINER'S MILE - NEWPORT CENTER - UNIVERSITY PLAZA AIRPARK - WEST NEWPORT - WESTCLIFF
• . •
Mr. Robert Shelton
PCH Bridge Citizens
Advisory Committee.
Page II
One of the major factors influencing this decision is the fact that
Newport Harbor is a recreational boat harbor. It has been the stated
policy of the City of Newport Beach to . . . . . . .
" ....... promote the marine related environment of the
community ...... (and) encourage marine recreational and
educational opportunities for continued public use and enjoyment......
The City shall plan for an encourage the maintenance of the
necessary support facilities and services for marine recreational
and educational activities in reasonable numbers and places,
including Marine ways and services, launching facilities, gas and
pump -out stations, parking facilities, restrooms, showers and
concessions. " ( General Plan Policies )
The Committee feels that this is one of the available opportunities for
the City to implement the above policy. It is now possible with the re-
construction of the PCH Bridge to eliminate what has in the past been
a partial barrier separating the approximately 760 acres of marine
recreational areas in the Lower Bay from the 124 acres of developed
marine recreational area North of the Bridge up to the future Wildlife
Preserve. In this "North Bay" area are located the only launching
ramps for the public in the entire Harbor, 18% of all the public boat
slips; 13°l0 of the total number of boats over 20' in the Harbor; a boat
repair yard, and a boat rental agency serving the needs of the public.
The Committee feels that in order to properly connect this valuable
marine recreational area with the Lower Bay and to maintain the
boating character of Newport Beach, the PCH Bridge should of necessity
be designed with a sufficient height clearance to adequately serve the
needs of the boating public.
In reference to the Interchange at Dover Drive and PCH the Committee
has studied the various alternatives presented. In analyzing the "at grade"
alternatives it is the observation of the Committee that it is inefficient
as an eventual --solution to our present traffic conjestion to continue to
interrupt West -bound traffic at a signalized intersection, considering
the volumn of traffic turning left from Dover Drive to PCH and laft
from PCH to Dover Drive.
In addition, in analyzing those alternatives incorporating a fly -over from
Dover Drive to PCH, it apparently would be necessary for over 50% of
the vehicles proceeding Eastward across- the bridge to change lanes
either to the right or left where the fly -over merges with PCH. This
would bo an extremely hazardous and dangerous situation.
0 •
Mr. Robert Shelton
PCH Bridge Citizens
Advisory Committee
Page III
With the elimination of the "at -grade" and "fly -over" alternatives
from consideration; it becomes the conclusion of the Committee that
an intersection incorporating a grade separation that allows free East"
West traffic flow offers the best solution to efficient traffic movement
and with modifications, provides a greater potential for solving the
hazards of merging traffic.
The Committee also suggests that in conjunction with this alternative 'the
relocation of the entrance to Bayshores westerly (combined with a Ve-
located entrance to the Balboa Bay Club) with a possible frontage road
to the existing Bayshores entrance be considered.
In conclusion, the Recommendations of the Committee, supported by the
Executive Board of the Newport Harbor Chamber of Commerce are as
follows:
1.The height of the new PCH Bridge be no less than 32' MHHW.
2. The ]Intersection at Dover Drive and PCH be a grade separation
allowing free East-West Traffic Flow, with modifications to
alleviate merging hazards.
3. The entrance to Bayshores be relocated westward to a signalized
intersection in conjunction with a Balboa Bay Club entrance; with the
possibility bf a frontage road connecting to the existing Bayshores
entrance.
4. Preliminary plans showing actual design treatment of the Bridge
should be submitted to the Citizens Advisory Committee for approval
to ensure that the design treatment is properly in keeping with the
character of Newport Beach. and Newport Harbor.
5. No commercial development should be allowed in the area to be
designated as The Upper Newport Bay Wildlife Preserve.
If we can be of any additional assistance in this project, please don't
hesitate to contact us.
Most sincerely,
Larry A. Miller
Assistant Manager
LAM/dl
L
OFIL: �; P1(1R
DO NOT REMOVE
+� LEAGUE OF WOMEN RIOTERS OF ORANGE COAST
Costa Mesa Newport Beach Irvine Laguna Beach Saddleback Valley
1701C 47estcliff Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone:645-7120
Office hours: 10-2, Monday through Friday
TO: THE PLANNING C01MISSION, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
SU3JECT: PACIFIC COAST HIGH7AY BAY CROSSING
D_1TE: JUNE ll, 1974
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
After studying the report of the Pacific Coast Highway Bay Crossing
Committee, the League of Women Voters of Orange Coast submits the following
statement for your consideration.
Since 1970 the League of Women Voters of Orange Coast has maintained,
as part of its adopted program, support of estuarine preservation of
Upper Newport Bay through plans which give priority to those features which
are unique to an estuary rather than those which can be developed elsewhere.
To promote this type of preservation safeguards must be placed on the
area and limitations set on the activities allowed. Whereas boat oriented
:+'• activities and development can be promoted in the Lgwer NewoorSv, and
w ereas suc ac ivitie"'"'"" s coM be etrimen a to the wildlife preservation
in the Upper Bay, the League of Women Voters of Orange Coast urges the
construction of a low-level bridge over Newport Bay at the Pacific Coast
Highway.
spectfull yours,
udy S yne
President, L14V - Orange Coast
Z,
RECEIVED
Cone,•�nity
DeveWp�nent
Dept.
SUN 141974,3-
CITY OF
NEWpoRT BEACH
CALIF•
I
CITY OF NEWPOFT BEACH
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BAY CROSSING COMMITTEE
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
June 10, 1974 i
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Robert Shelton, Chairman
Gordon Glass, Vice Chairman
Ray E. Williams
Willard Wade
Roger Turner
Richard Clucas
Marshall Duffield
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
John Store
Howard Rogers
FILE COPY
DO NOT REMOVE
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDINGS
I. TUNNEL
II. HIGH BRIDGE vs. LOW BRIDGE
III. INTERSECTION OF DOVER DRIVE WITH
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
1
2
3
3
4
E
APPENDIX
A. CITY COUNCIL POLICY 8
B. EXCERPTS FROM GENERAL PLAN 10
C. FLOW CHART 12
INTRODUCTION
On January 14, 1974, the City Council established the Pacific Coast
Highway Bay Crossing Planning Committee to study and make recommenda-
tions regarding a Pacific Coast Highway bay crossing. As part of its
work the committee considered a tunnel crossing, a high-level bridge,
a low-level bridge, and improvements to traffic service at Dover Drive
and Pacific Coast Highway.
The committee has held eleven meetings. The first nine meetings were
open to the public but were primarily for the purpose of.hearing from
invited guests and organized groups. The tenth meeting was a public
meeting held on May 29, 1974 to hear from the general public. The
last regular meeting was held on June 3, 1974 for the purpose of pre-
paring this final report. This report was approved unanimously by the
six committee members present.
While a majority of the committee was able to agree on a number of
specific recommendations and basic design concepts, the individual
members did differ in their opinions as to the height of the bridge.
For this reason the report contains no specific recommendation on the
bridge height. The committee has been able to identify the advantages
of both a high-level bridge and a low-level as well as a number of
design features that should be given consideration in the preparation
of the final plans. These findings have been included as part of the
report.
The committee reviewed a history of bridge clearance actions dating back
to 1950. It was noted that all earlier actions recommending a high-level
bridge were taken prior to the elimination of the coastal freeway through
Newport Beach, and the decision not to develop the Upper Bay in a commer-
cial manner.
The committee appreciates the opportunity to assist with the study of the
complex bay crossing matter and is now standing by awaiting any further
instruction by the Citv Council.
lJ
1. That the tunnel crossing be dropped from further consideration.
2. That the present four lane bridge be replaced with a new bridge
having three through lanes in each direction. '
3. That a separated crossing at the intersection of Dover Drive and
Pacific Coast Highway not be constructed.
4. That improvements at grade, as described in Section III C, be
constructed at the intersection of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast
Highway as part of the bridge project.
5. That bridge design features listed in Sections II C and III C of
this report be given special consideration in the preparation of
the final plans for both the bridge and the intersection of Dover
Drive and Pacific Coast Highway.
- 2 -
11
IM04M
I. TUNNEL CROSSING
A thorough investigation of the highway
by the committee; however, on the basis
available, the majority of the committee
a highway tunnel would be practical.
tunnel was not made
of information currently
does not believe that
A. The estimated cost is in excess of $30,000,000. It would
be impossible to finance the project within a reasonable
length of time.
B. The estimated yearly maintenance cost approximates
$100,000.
Both the easterly approach and the westerly approach to
a tunnel would create access problems along Coast Highway
and at its intersections with Bayside Drive and Dover
Drive.
D. Representatives from California Department of Transporta-
tion have stated (1) that the cost of a tunnel is beyond
the realistic funding capabilities of the State and (2)
that the design constraints caused by the proximity of
both Dover Drive and Bayside are too restrictive to assure
a satisfactory solution.
MM
L
II. HIGH BRIDGE vs. LOW BRIDGE
The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) has prepared
preliminary plans and estimates for four alternative bridge designs:
Clearance Estimated Cost
13.6 feet above Mean High Water $2.4 Million
17.3 iI 11 " " " 2.6 "
25 It 11 11 11 11 3.0 11
40 it It It to It 5.5 to
Each proposed bridge design will have a design speed of at least 50 miles
per hour.
The committee has made findings on the advantages of a high-level bridge
(32 feet, deliberately chosen to accommodate boating traffic), and a low-
level bridge (17.3 feet, corres onding to the alternate currently pro-
grammed for funding by CALTRANS�.
For reference, the clearance under the existing bridge is 13.6 feet above
Mean High Water. Mean High Water is 1.87 feet above Mean Sea Level.
A. Arguments favoring a high-level bridge with a clearance of 32 feet
above Mean High Water are listed below:
11
1. 32' clearance will accommodate all trailerable sailboats
currently in production and a large percentage of the boats
in the harbor.
2. Will increase opportunities for boat oriented activity and
development in the Upper Bay.
3. Is recommended by the Board of Directors of the Newport Harbor
Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Directors of the Dover Shores
Community Association, and Staff Commodore Morrie Kirk of the
Association of Orange Coast Yacht Clubs.
4. Will decrease problems for boats that are berthed in the
Upper Bay that have to lower equipment to pass underneath
the present bridge.
Arguments favoring a low-level bridge with a clearance of 17.3 feet
above Mean High Water are listed below:
1. Flatter grades will improve traffic safety and pedestrian
and bicycle service.
2. More compatible aesthetically with the low-lying surrounding
area. Less visual impact on the community.
3. Will decrease opportunities for boat oriented activity and
development in the Upper Bay
4. Will cost approximately $1,500,000 less than a high-level
bridge.
- 4 -
II. HIGH BRIDGE vs. LOW BRIDGE - Continued
5. Earlier construction may be possible because cost is within
the State's current funding program. (A cost in excess of
the programmed funds could result in a delay.)
6. Flatter grades will reduce noise impact.
7. Represents the desires of the Friends of Newport 'Bay and
other environmental interests who favor the preservation
and enhancement of the natural assets of the area.
C. In preparing the final plans for the bridge design, regardless of
height, consideration should be given to the following items:
Future widening of the channel on the east side of bridge.
2. Clearance for vehicles under the easterly end of the
bridge. Potentially this would permit trailerable boats
to be launched in the lower bay, and the trailers then
taken underneath the bridge and parked on the inland side
of the Coast Highway.
3. Open -type bridge railings. (See General Plan Policies.)
4. "Walk -along Floats" under the bridge for assisting the
passage of sailboats if a low-level bridge is selected.
5. Provisions for pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the bridge.
- 5 -
0
III. INTERSECTION OF DOVER DRIVE WITH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
The committee has made the following findings on methods to improve the
flow of traffic through the intersection of Dover Drive with the Coast
Highway.
A. A "flyover" which would elevate the southbound traffic on Dover
Drive over the intersection and then merge it into the eastbound
traffic on the Coast Highway would be impractical for the following
reasons:
1. The weaving distance between the crest of the bridge and
Bayside Drive would not meet accepted design standards.
Most of the advantages in traffic service obtained by a
separated structure would be lost because of the short weave
distance.
2. Would cost an additional $1,450,000, exclusive of right-of-way
costs.
3. Substantial delay will occur as a result of the difficulty in
obtaining additional funding, and the time required to prepare
a separate Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.), and obtain
the necessary permits.
4. Would have an adverse environmental•impact on the area.
B. A "diamond" type iriterthange would provide the highest level of traffic
service, but would be impractical for the following reasons:
1. The weaving distance between the crest of the bridge and Bayside
Drive would not meet street design standards. •Most of the advan-
tages in traffic service obtained by a separated structure would
be lost because of the short weave distance.
2. Would cost an additional $2,500,000.
3. Substantial delay will occur as a result of the difficulty in
obtaining additional funding, and the time required to prepare
a separate E.I.S. and obtain the necessary permits.
4. Would have an adverse environmental impact on the area.
C. Maximum improvements at grade should be constructed at the intersection
of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway. It is recommended that the
following design factors be considered for this intersection:
1. Free right turns westbound on Pacific Coast Highway bridge to
Dover Drive.
2. Free right turns southbound on Dover Drive to Pacific Coast
Highway.
3. Pedestrian and bicycle lanes that cross under the bridge to
reduce the pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the intersection
of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway.
- 6 -
III. INTERSECTION OF DOVER DRIVE WITH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY - Continued
4. Signalized, combined entrance for Bayshores and the Balboa
Bay Club in the vicinity of Marino Drive.
5. Restrict movements into and 'out of Bayshores at the inter-
section of Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway.
6. Widen Dover Drive northerly of Pacific Coast Highway.
7. Restrict vehicular access at properties located at the
northwest corner and northeast corner of Dover Drive and
Pacific Coast Highway.
8. Double left turn lane from Pacific Coast Highway to Dover
Drive.
9. Three left turn lanes from Dover Drive onto Pacific Coast
Highway.
mm
E
I- APPENDIX A
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
UPPER NEWPORT BAY
H-z
OBJECTIVE: It is the policy of the City Council, through cooperative and mutually
supporting endeavors of the County of Orange, The Irvine Company, the City of Newport
Beach, and the State of California to produce comprehensive general plans to guide
the pattern of land use in the Upper Bay area. These plans will be designed to insure
compatible land and water uses, preserve and enhance the natural assets of the area
and create the best possible total environment.
Plans will be guided by goals of "Newport Tomorrow" and will be directed toward
achieving a natural environment featuring compatible uses of the waters and shoreline.
Accordingly, study plans will include, but not be limited to, consideration of air,
noise and water quality; multiple recreational uses; public access to tidelands and
waters of the State; marine and wild fowl ecology; human factors, aesthetics; and the
necessary supporting activities and transportation systems.
SCOPE: Each alternative plan will contain the following elements:
a. Channel development and use plans;
b. Land use and development plans;
C. Transportation and traffic plans;
d. Public facilities plan, including recreational and ecological factors;
e. Public utilities plan;
f. Public land acquisition requirements;
g. Suggested funding and development schedule.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: In the preparation of the general plans, the following
factors affecting the development of the Upper Bay area will be analyzed:
a. County -wide demographic and economic trends;
b. Physical characteristics of the planning area including topography,
soils, tributary drainage areas, and climate;
C. Marine characteristics of the planning area to include water quality,
factors affecting water quality, and engineering considerations,
including channel widths, energy absorption requirements, and sedimenta-
tion characteristics;
11-11-73
H-2
UPPER NEWPORT BAY - Page Two
d. Ecological considerations for the uplands, littoral and water zones;
e. Air and noise pollution factors;
f. Analysis of recreational trends, requirements, and opportunities and
constraints;
g. Public facilities and utilities;
h. Circulation and transportation;
i. Considerations of land acquisition and development costs to potential
revenues and benefits.
PLANNING ACTIONS: It is intended that, whenever possible and appropriate, data from
existing studies and reports will be utilized in analyzing the factors included in the
planning considerations. New studies and reports, or updating of existing studies, wil:
be generated only in the absence of adequate data. To this end, it is intended that
the participating organizations will supply appropriate existing data for the common
use of the project.
FEDERAL WILDLIFE SANCTUARY: Upper Newport Bay lies entirely within the City limits of
Newport Beach, and the future of Upper Newport Bay is of extreme importance to the
citizens and the City of Newport Beach.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors, trustees of Upper Newport Bay for the State of
California, has requested the Department of the Interior to study the possibility of
preserving Upper Newport Bay as a wildlife sanctuary.
The "Newport Tomorrow" survey showed that a large majority of the residents of Newport
Beach advocate preserving a substantial portion of Upper Newport Bay as a wildlife
sanctuary.
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach supports the above request of the Orange
County Board of Supervisors, and joins with the County of Orange in urging the appro-
priate Federal and State agencies to make the necessary studies.
Adopted -
March 14,
1966
Amended -
November
25, 1968
Reaffirmed
- March 9,
1970
Amended -
November
9, 1970
Reaffirmed
- February
8, 1971
' Amended -
March 13,
1972
11•-11-73
APPENDIX B EXCERPTS FROM GENERAL PLAN
The following are excerpts from the General Plan Policies adopted by the
Planning Commission on January 20, 1972, and the City Council on March 13,
1972:
Land Use
Page 6: h) Consistent with all other policies to protect and enhance
the quality residential character of tie -community, the
City shall encourage both public and private water -
oriented recreational and entertainment facilities as a
means of providing public access to'the waterfront.
i),-Prov.isions shall.be made.for the preservation of suitable
and adequate sites for -commercial and industrial marine -
related facilitids so as to -protect the City's historical
and maritime'atmosphere, and th'e charm and character such
industries have traditionally provided the City.
Circulation and Transportation
Page 7: b) The City shall continue the active investigation of all
planned local and regional• transportation systems to
determine the impact of each on the community, and to
ensure that all such facilities serve to protect and
maintain the sociological, ecological, economic and
aesthetic environment of the Newport Beach area.
Natural Resources
Page 19: d) The City shall also endeavor to preserve and enhance a
significant portion of the Upper Bay and marine coastal
preserves which support varied species of plant, marine
and wildlife population to insure their availability
and continued use for ecological, educational and
aesthetic purposes.
e) The City shall preserve and protect those areas within
the City that, due to their outstanding aesthetic quality
and value, their natural value as watersheds or wild-
life habitats, or their high susceptibility to major
hazards from such phenomenon as earthquakes, floods
(including tidal floods), or landslides, should be con-
sidered for permanent open space.
Page 20: i) The City shall identify and measure the chief sources
of noise and air, pollutants within the community, and
their impact upon the local environment. The City shall
also encourage and promote the development of a compre-
hensive air and noise quality program to ensure adequate
regulations and controls for the preservation and enhance-
ment of the environment.
Shorelines
Page 22: a) The City shall encourage marine recreational and educa-
tional opportunities for continued public use and enjoyment,
including such activities as: boating, swimming and sun-
bathing, sport fishing, underwater diving, surfing,
picnicking, and marine and0 wildlife observation.
APPENDIX B-4pontinued
b) The City shall plan for and encourage the maintenance of
the necessary support facilities and services for marine
recreational and educational activities in reasonable
numbers and places, including: marine ways and services,
launching facilities, gas, and pump -out stations, parking
facilities, restrooms, showers, and concessions.
Page 23a c) Natural resources of the shoreline, including the harbor
and ocean waters, the adjoining natural beaches and bluffs,
and the marine and wildlife habitats and preserves shall
be conserved or enhanced in a manner that will ensure
their availability for continued public use and enjoyment.
Community Design
Page 25: d) All existing bridges shall be altered when reconstruction
is necessary and future bridges shall be designed to
utilize an open -type bridge railing so that pedestrians
and motorists may enjoy the view.
The following are excerpts from the Circulation Element of the Newport
Beach General Plan adopted by the Planning Commission on January 10, 1974,
and the City Council on March 11, 1974:
Specific Proposals
Page 7: 5. COAST HIGHWAY FROM UPPER BAY BRIDGE TO DOVER DRIVE
This project includes the construction of a bridge on Coast
Highway across the Bay to replace the existing bridge which
is not only deficient in capacity, but is becoming struc-
turally deficient. A bridge of relatively low profile would
permit most trailerable vessels to pass under. After cross-
ing the Bay, the structure would continue westerly, providing
an interchange with Dover Drive, and dropping back down to
the grade of existing Coast Highway west of Dover Drive.
Provisions are planned for bicyclists, pedestrians and
transit. The plan includes widening of Dover Drive to
provide two right turning lanes from Coast Highway to Dover
Drive. The bridge would essentially be eight lanes, six
lanes of which would provide for relatively free flow of
traffic, the additional width being for the other facilities.
No traffic deficiency is projected with this design. These
improvements would eliminate what is considered to be the
most heavily -congested section in the City of Newport Beach.
Page 8: 6. COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN JAMBOREE ROAD AND THE UPPER BAY BRIDGE
This improvement provides for wideping Coast Highway to six
lanes from Jamboree Road to the proposed Upper Bay Bridge re-
placement. This segment of Coast Highway will have signalized
intersections at Jamboree Road, Promontory Point and Bayside
Drive. Future capacity deficiencies can be expected to occur
at these intersections. It is important that this project be
implemented in conjunction with the improvements to the new
Upper Bay Bridge.
- 11 -
A
B. G..dC. dFaRlpll
G. C. PC. C. C.
Q
70
QEFEAS C
7.g0.P75REPO <,fG:05 �.�/OLOS
ylEETN6 G. G. R y' G.G. P. N,
B•/•5.
TO C.C.
7115174
ZlcozmO
B. G.P. C. -BAY CAM8/N9 f3'ANN/NAG COMM/TTEE
C. C. - C/TY COUNC/L
P. C. - PLAA1 V/N6 COMM/S5/ON
IRIA/ - PC/6L/G L/EWR/NG
CALT.?AN5 - CqL/F. 67,47.E DE,40 OF TRANSPORTATAW
M
•
C. C.
Cq[T6fAC5
C4'*' S
BR/D6�
WIA
//OLD$
5VATS
cO.VST.
cw
OA2AFT
8R/00E
� �
E• / s.
cON5T.
911174 /4/74 ZZWI 17 44it`%8
•
CITY OF /YEWPORT aeACAI
RG/,! .B.4Y CROSSING
FLOW CAI,4R7-
1` 1
6-544 d L,
V
" .. r
a S
N
PRESIDENT CHARLES E. BROWN /✓JwEC/. "��
G �\vn'A c
N ' T BREAKFAST MEETING:. THURSDAY,.:DUNE 13, 1974, 8:00 A.M., LLSE�aR0�O1K� INN
GUEST SPEAKER: RAY E. PREHM, PRESIDENT, f —'
• PROFESSIONAL ESCROW SERVICES
• � SUBJECT: "IISE.OF THE CONTRACT OF SALE
IN THE TIGHT MONEY MARKET"
THE PRESIDENT'S SSAGE:
Following is•th text of a letter -sent out this week -over my signature and that of
REACTOR ROD CALDER CREA 32nd District Land Use Committee Chairman. I believe the
letter self-explanato , and hope -YOU will take -action on it as suggested.
' June 4, 1974
To: All REALTOR Board PresidA ts,.CREAjand members of the CREA Land Use Committee.
Dear Fellow REALTORS:
We add our. voice to the gutspoke)k comments of'REALTOR. and -Congressman Clair W.
Burgener-andcautions of the National- Association of REALTORS and the spirit'of CREA
Land Use'Guidelines.
Our private property rights are serf :1sly threatened today since the -Congressional
Rules Committee- voted.. 8 to. 7 to send thL--Nafi(nal! Land Use Bill; H. R. 10294;• to the' ' `
Floor to be,voted by the -full -House;; This is a\dramatic reversal of the 9-to 4 vote on
February 26, 1974 which almost killed this legislation.
Congressman.Morris.Udall, D-Arizona, chief spq�.sor of H. R. 10294, stated in the
Los Angeles Times: "California is already doing muck the -same sort of thing that the
Bill envisions with its new procedures -for controllin, oastal development." We would
have a National Proposition.20 if this Bill passes. --
Please send a•telegram (or telephoue)'your'Congressman asking -him to oppose
H. R. 10294 or any Federal Land Use legislation:" A Political Opinion Message costs
just two dollars for fifteen words; a longer night letter of up to one hundred words
can be sent to Washington for three dollars.
Quoting the Orange County Council of CEEED: "We.are concerned that the provisions
of H. R. 10294 may have the same effect upon all of.America as similar land use Bills
have had in many of the local,communities where -they are now in force. These land use
and zoning ordinances have been'used,.not to improve the environment, but to limit
growth." ..
"This controls the amount of capital expended on roads and utilities X�e,stricting `
the amount of housing available. This.has•resulted in fewer jobs for those;'c�orkers in
the construction industry, rising prices•on new homes and skyrocketing prices on all.,
property for everyone." M ;
Be sure to stress in your, messages% that no such':legislation should. be•'debate 'on
the FLOOR until extensive public hearings have,' beea•�conducted in each Congressiona
District permitting each Congressman to.determiui tith-.accuracy how the. voters feel --.about this vast new change to,our•whol'-American-life and life style. Our Congressmen,
should be prepared to tell "us-both-.the�benef it and 'the, cost of National landuse .
legislation. ,4_'.K; : 4 .. ,i
We urge immediate action since this Bill is expected to reach the Floor"this month..
THANK YOU
Sy'i• f-
3 �� J•
e r'
FILE COPY
DO 'NOT REMOVE' ''
page 2 JUNE 7, 1974
. i1TiC.�1 ,4 g
"~ _ 3� axs
REPORT
SUPERVISOR SWEEPS THa FIELD
Congratulations to RON GASPERS for making the necess effort to win_ over three
opponents. We trust that those who opposed him will no let their views be known
early enough and forcefully enough to receive his full att tion. RON has shown
his ability and willingness to respond to what the people say hey want.
MAKE ELECTION PLANS NOW
Now that the issues are at least partially drawn for the fall elections re YOU
willing.to discuss YOUR opinions with colleagues, friends and neighbors? r unknown
reasons an old saw says don'.t - possibly because many opinions can't stand ve lation
or a fact -based attack. --However REALTORS should excel in meeting objections or ust-
ing their..point of.view-to meet new facts.
Certainly your side of, the•issues is going to need more than just your vote to win
Plan now to_participate with support for the organization best representins vour v
BUILD THE BAY BRIDGE SOONEST
Our need to travel from one end of town to the other rapidly requires a focus on the
BRIDGE problem.. If we can determine which proposal. is .best for self and clients we
would push hard. What is the critical need?
Ans., A.total plan that speeds traffic thru Dover and Coast Highway.
This means.closing the Bayshores exit at Dover and integrating the Dover and Coast
Highway traffic.
How high to go? This appears to be a function of cost which is proportional to height.
Any increase -over present height will please some sailor.
Therefore -we need.the.minimum height which will enable the Dover -Coast traffic to
integrate and•speed through. Tell your councilman.
What critical issue do you want .to argue?' Let us know or try your hand.
LYbLbST PAUL'CNER, member
Political Affairs Ccnmtitt_e
�,-.
MAY M/L SALES::, Sales continue strong as you generated :2.67 uni for a total o'_ $17.3
million in May this year,.•a35`% increase over May of197 Sde erronacusly reported
last month thatour volume of:sales through April of74 was 90% ahead of the same
time period of 1973.. The correct. reporting is tt1a.11, were 40% ahead of 1973, 90`%
ahead.of 1972.;_Adjusted figures indicate you,. ve produced 1696 unit sales for the
first 5 months of 1974 fora net dollar totdl of $98,7 million, 37% ahead. of the
same. time period in'1973. - Statistics" arcate you. have produced 43% of your total
annual volume for the year." - '
N� "LA8 `^ c ::G �.5;'. ,,., iy:µ.�k2- .5 ssk?-•y,:� :b; �_yI; , .. ::• jR. . _ _ - -
I
COUNCILMEN
P��Lo� A NNa
'FO g 0� 22 0 a O
ROLL CALL T� mN a pm
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
April9, 1973
MINUTES
INDEX
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Motion
x
The following items were approved by one motion affirming
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
the actions on the Consent Calendar:
1. The following ordinance was introduced and set for
public hearing on April 23, 1973:
Proposed Ordinance No. 1496, being, AN ORDINANCE
Dist
OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A
Map 13
ORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 13, Planning
0-1496
ommission Amendment No. 367, establishing sixteen
f
oside yard setbacks on the east side of Lots 9, 14
and and on the west side of Lots 10 and 15 in
Beaco Bay. (A report from the Community Develop-
ment De artment was presented. )
2. The followin resolutions were adopted:
Resolution No. 59 authorizing execution of a co-
Traffic
operative financin agreement between the City and
Signals
the California State ivision of Highways for traffic
R-7959
signal modificatign at est Coast Highway and Orange
Street. (A report from Is Public Works Director
was presented.)
Resolution No. 7960 declaring that weeds and other
Weed
public nuisances exist upon stye s, alleys, sidewalks,
Abatement
parkways, and private property wain the City,
R-7960
declaring that said weeds and public nuisances must
be abated, setting the time and place • r a public
hearing at which the City Council will co sider pro-
tests from persons objecting to the propos d destruc-
tion or removal of such public nuisances by e City,
and directing the Fire Chief to give notice of t e
passage of this resolution and of the public hears g;
setting the hearing for April 23, 1973.
Resolution No. 7961 designating Polaris Drive from
Polaris Dr
Santiago Drive to Galaxy Drive as a through street.
-7961
(A report from the Public Works Director was pre-
sented.
3. The following communications were referred as in-
rr11
dicated:
o)3• 01
Referred to Transportation Plan Citizens Committee
Upper Bay
for inclusion_in study, thirty-one letters opposing tt a
Bridges
proposed bridges over the Back Bay.
Referred to Transportation Plan Citizens Committee
Transpor-
and to the Pending Legislation Committee, a reso-
tation
tion of the City of Long Beach urging the enactment
of Sena 50250, "The Federal -Aid Highway Act of
1973, " pertainingn ublip c transportation.
FILE COPY
~ '
Volume 27 - Page 81
DO NOT REMOVE