Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDOWNCAST DEVELOPMENTBOARD OF DIRECTORS President .. Margot Skdling 6610 West Ocoan Front 642.3214 Vice Prasident .... .Paul Salaiis 5309 River Avenue 645.0280 Treasurer ...... Lewis Sussman 5304 River Avenue 646.2969 Secretary .. • Drive Richard Clucas 44035eashore 673.3762 James k �Z 4603 Seashore Drive 675-088484 Steve Crummy 424 62nd Street 642-2440 Pat Foster 127 35th Street 675-3927 �. Suzanne Rudd 464 62nd Street 642.1999 John Shea 2214 West Ocean Front 675.6917 • WEST NEWPORT BEACH irhprovement Association NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA August 2, 1976 Newport Beach City Council Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: The Board of Directors has reviewed the recommendations and analysis of future development of the Orange County Planning Commission in relation to the down coast area between the.Cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach. We find ourselves in substantial agreement with those recommendations relating to land use and population densities. We urge you to follow the recommendations of our own Planning Commission of July 1 as related to the matter in pursuing Alternative Four, with an effort to reduce the density even below that projected figure in the Alternative Four data. For the Board of Directors, Sincerely, 61 t ) John W. Shea DateL `President 197E,� mayor - CY-ACL�a M1AanaG"r dFYbfi the Office of .�tt5r, i JWS/ppr City Clerk TODAY' S MAIL Date: Q —3 Att.: JA or( °,V-ACN, January 12, 1976 E� NEyJP pALIF. r v' MEMO TO; PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN NEWPORT BEACH, IRVINE, AND LAGUNA BEACH AREAS FROM: MITCH MODELESKI, DIRECTOR FRIENDS OF THE IRVINE COAST SUBJECT: The Irvine Coast "Compromise' Circulation System (Alternative 1 attached) Introduction It has come to our attention, through a combination of official written documentation and unofficial rumor, that a compromise circulation alternative has been developed for the Irvine Coast through the joint efforts of executive officers from the Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, and Laguna Beach. The official documentation to which we refer is a memo to the Irvine City Council from the City's Director of Public Works, dated January 6, 1976, on the subject of a circulation system for the Irvine Coast. The rumor is that the respective City Managers from these three cities hammered out this alternative in a series of private meetings and are now planning to present this alternative to their City Councils for official endorsement as a formal resolution to be forwarded to the Orange County Board of Supervisors this week. This is what we have heard, and this is why we have found it necessary to take immediate action, even at the risk of acting on inaccurate information. FIC's Interpretation The Friends of the Irvine Coast are very alarmed. Policy makers in the three cities surrounding the Irvine Coast are being asked to approve "Alternative 1" (as it is described in the abovementioned memo) and to -2- transmit their approval in the form of a resolution to the Board of Super- visors. The most critical assumption of this alternative is that the Irvine Coast will be developed with The Irvine Company's current proposal to the County of Orange, a proposal which anticipates a population of approximately 46,000. It ,is not only the policy implication'of such a resolution which alarms us; but also the process by which it has been formulated. Approval, even in concept, of Alternative 1 is tantamount to endorsing The Irvine Company's development plan for the Irvine Coast. Alternative 1 assumes that the Irvine Coast will be developed with at least 46,000 people, as proposed by The Irvine Company. This is the critical assumption that policy makers in the surrounding municipalities are being asked to endorse by approving the circulation system known as Alternative 1 for the Irvine Coast. Such a resolution will set• serious policy precedence both at the County and City levels of government. The Friends of the Irvine Coast are opposed to any Council endorsement of any alternative which assumes develop- ment of the Irvine Coast, at this time or at any other time. Such an endorse- ment is tantamount to a policy of developing the Irvine Coast as proposed by The Irvine Company, a policy which cannot and should not be adopted until appropriate environmental impact assessments have been made, if indeed such a policy is ever to be adopted at all. Reasons for Opposition and Anger The Friends of the Irvine Coast are angry. In the absence of infor- mation to the contrary, we are forced to conclude that a process of adminis- trative decision making has been used to minimize public participation in formulating a land use and circulation alternative for the Irvine Coast. Despite tremendous public interest in the matter, as demonstrated by previous -3- public attendance at presentations of The Irvine Company's development plan,, an important alternative has been formulated without so much as a single public hearing on the matter. Nor to our knowledge has the public been admitted to this process of policy formulation "behind closed doors." Must we continually intercept the in-house memoranda of local government bureaucrats before we are made privy to the critical decisions which will affect our lives so substantially? This is the very type of process which our original goals were designed to counteract. Public involvement in the planning process must occur, with or without the assistance of judicial review. Furthermore, we find it'nearly incredible that such a recommendation can be made with the barest of supporting analytical justification. Where are the quantitative volume -to -capacity calculations? What percentage of ultimate volume can be attributed to The Irvine Company's development pro- posal, and what percentage to ambient (i.e. regional) traffic? What are the implications of this plan for the land use and circulation networks analyzed in the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study (SEOCCS)? What role will alternative transportation modes play in the proposed circulation system, if any? What environmental constraints must be taken into considera- tion, both regional as well as local? In the absence of this essential back- ground data on the proposed alternative, The Friends of the Irvine Coast can only conclude that a decision to endorse the proposed alternative would be ill-considered and extremely premature. Decisions based on poor or inadequate information will of necessity be poor decisions. Finally, any decision to endorse the proposed circulation system for the Irvine Coast will have a highly prejudicial effect on official County proceedings dealing with SEOCCS and General Plan Amendment 1-76. This sS effect could sway the County to endorse the position of the local juris— diction in this matter, a position which has been contrived on the barest of analytical evidence, the least possible participation by the public, and no -consideration for the results of other ongoing planning processes such as the Laguna Greenbelt Implementation Study and the California Coastal Plan. Alternatives The Friends of the Irvine Coast are not opposed to the concept of for— mulating public alternatives to the initiatives of the private sector. In fact, we heartily endorse this concept, as long as these alternatives are given equal consideration with background analytical data, public hearings, full disclosure, and early environmental assessment consistent with the spirit, if not the letter of the California Environmental Act of 1970, as amended (CEQA). All alternatives must be supported with equal analysis and environmental assessment before any one alternative can be officially adopted. Accordingly, The Friends of the Irvine Coast recommend that the City Councils of Newport Beach, Irvine, and Laguna Beach refrain at this time from endorsing any one circulation alternative for the Irvine Coast until such time as all reasonable alternatives have been given equal consideration, consistent with the intent of C$QA. Furthermore, The Friends of the Irvine Coast formally request that two additional land use/circulation alternatives be incorporated into the process of formulating alternatives for the Irvine Coast. These are: (1) What circulation system should be designed to serve an Irvine Coastal Area maintained as permanent open space for, at most, recreational -5- uses, and otherwise surrounded by development envisioned by the current General Plans of Newport Beach, Irvine, and Laguna Beach? (2) What circulation system should be designed to serve an Irvine Coastal Area maintained as permanent open space for, at most, recreational uses, surrounded by the development envisioned by the current General Plans of Newport Beach, Irvine, and Laguna Beach, but otherwise augmented by densities increased by an amount equal to the population proposed for the Irvine Coast by The Irvine Company and allocated on the basis of remaining carrying capacity (e.g. ratio of current/planned development)? This latter alternative; i.e. maintaining open space with increased densities in existing urbanized areas, is consistent with the SBOCCS concept of urbanized "Centers" which facilitate alternative transportation modes to the automobile, reduce the incidence and magnitude of environmental impacts, and enhance the feasibility of badly needed open space, a vanishing resource in Southern California urban areas. Conclusions 1. The Friends of the Irvine Coast oppose City Council adoption of any circulation alternatives for the Irvine Coast at this time. 2. Approval of any alternatives which assume development of the Irvine Coast as proposed by The Irvine Company is tantamount to a policy of endorsing The Irvine Company's development plan, in concept if not in fact. 3. No endorsements should be made until appropriate environmental assessments are available for all reasonable alternatives, consistent with CBQA. 4. The Friends of the Irvine Coast support the formulation of alternative land use/circulation plans at this time, as long as each is accompanied by equal analysis and environmental assessment. 5. Two additional alternatives are formally offered for consideration herewith. These include the design of those circulation systems which would adequately serve an Irvine Coastal Area maintained as permanent open space/recreation (a) with and (b) without density trade-offs in the surrounding jurisdictj Irvine Company. Respectfully submitted, 94�XO-A Mitch Modeleski, Director Friends of the Irvine Coas cc: Master Distribution I MM:MM r m �1 r. dV 91. f;a 6-3 _� es) f112 0 INHTgIioazav �gW PO K% u, z Department of Community Development cy4 ao aNr DATE: March 7, 1974 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: TICMAP Attached are copies of the Proceedings of the meetings of the Committee working on the Downcoast Development. (Proceedings of all future meetings will be forwarded as received.) In addition are questions posed by Gordon Jones regarding the Coast Highway relocation study. The Technical Committee for the highway relocation study is cooperating with the Downcoast Committee in the development of the major road system. The Downcoast Committee, at its next meeting, will begin discussions of all the possible kinds of development which can include variations ranging from no development through residential development, commercial development; high -intensity recreational development, or a combination of all of the above. The next meeting will be April 3, 1974. Councilman Store would appreciate receiving any comments or suggestions that you may have. 7� �2' &4�� R. V. HDGA , Dir for cr RVH/kk CC: City Council City Manager L, 1GAI" THE IRVINE COMPANY COASTAL.COMMUNITY MULTI -AGENCY PLANNING PROGRAM (TICMAP) ,ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING Tuesday, December 18, 1973 - 9:30 a.m. Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks District Newport Beach, California ATTENDING: The Irvine Company Richard Reese Donald Cameron Gordon Jones Lawrence Moore California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission Pat Stebbins South Coast Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Commission Donald Bright Carmen Warschaw Mel Carpenter Joan Sunderland California Dept. of Parks $ Beaches Dick Felty California Dept. of Transportation H. Ayanian City of Irvine Gabrielle Pryor William Woollett City of Laguna Beach Roy Holm Phyllis Sweeney A.R. Theal City of -Newport Beach John Store R. Hogan Orange County Environmental Coalition Dale Secord 1 TICMAP - 2 12/18/73 DISCUSSION OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PROGRAM: The goals and objectives of TICMAP were presented in the framework of a series of five tasks to be accomplished by June - July, 1974. ' It was noted that this time -frame was chosen for two reasons: 1. In summer, 1974, the South Coast Regional Commission will be completing preparation of its regional plan for presentation to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. The results of TICMAP will be submitted to the South Coast Regional Commission for consideration in its planning process. 2. June 30, 1974, is the expiration date of special legislation which could provide $7.6 million for purchase of certain portions of the subject property which have been earmarked as potential public park areas. If this money is to be allocated to these properties, appropriate decisions must be made as soon as possible. The TICMAP program outline is as follows: GOALS Task #1) enti y and -define the viable land use concepts applicable to subject property. OBJECTIVES Identify and define all the viable land use schemes which have been suggested for'sub- ject property. 2. Categorize the identified schemes into -distinct land use concepts. 3. Prepare a list of objectives to be used to realize the distinct land use concepts. Task #2) enti y and define the 1. physical and environmen- tal opportunities and constraints of subject property. 2• Identify and define the physi- cal and environmental character- istics of subject property. Identify those areas within subject property which have environmental significance warranting sensitive treat- ment or preservation. TICMAP - 3 12/18/73 GOALS OBJECTIVES 3. Identify those areas within subject property which have significant physical oppor- tunities or constraints. Task #3) Determine the implications 1. Develop an illustrative land of applying each of the use plan representing the distinct land use concepts application of each land use developed in '.Cask #1 to concept to subject property subject property. wherein negative environmental impacts are minimized and physical opportunities and constraints are maximum and avoided respectively. 2. Analyze each illustrative land use plan for the following information: a. Cost/Revenue to the public (taxes vs. major capital improvements). b. Environmental implications. c. Relationship to the region. d. Ownership patterns, e. Identification and quantification of public served. Task #4) 0 tain local public/ 1. Package the material developed governmental input for to date. each land use concept. 2. Secure public input through public discussions in each local city and in the County. Task #5) rove a the results of 1. Package the concept statements, Tasks #1-4 to the Coastal physical and environmental Commissions. opportunities and constraints,, the illustrative plans, the implication analyses, and the public input for submission to the Coastal Commissioner. 2. Secure departmental input from State Department of Beaches and 'Parks and from State Department of Transportation. TICMAP- - 4 12/18/73 It was noted that the Tasks as outlined could be re- arranged or pursued concurrently in some cases without jeop- ardizing the program. Discussion then followed regarding combining Tasks #1 and #2. COMMUNICATIONS It was the consensus that future TICMAP meetings should be open to the press. A summary of the proceedings of each meeting will be written by The Irvine Company and mailed the day after the meeting to all TICMAP members. Proceedings will be subject to correction at each subsequent meeting. Copies will also be sent to the local press and to anyone else who asks to be put on the mailing list. Requestsfor'inclusion in the mailing list should be addressed to Lawrence B. Moore, Planning Department, The Irvine Company, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92663. INVOLVEMENT OF GOVERNMENT AGENCY STAFFS The question was raised as to the involvement which TIC - MAP might require from the staffs of the government agencies. The consensus was that staffs would be expected to review information presented to them by the company, its consultants, and/or TICMAP but would not be burdened with collection of basic technical information. CONCEPT ALTERNATIVES - INITIAL EXPLORATION (Task #1) Four starter concepts were offered for exploration and the group was asked to propose other possible concepts. The four illustrative concepts were: Concept A: Permanent passive open space for the entire 10,000 acres. Concept B: Passive and active open space, with certain areas identified for public recreational use. Concept C: A mix of uses, residential uses of TICMAP - 5 12/18/73 varying densities, destination tourist resort, public parks and access. Concept D: Emphasis on residential use with low and very low density. l A fifth concept was recommended for exploration: that of a self-contained community with a balance of uses that would make it "self-sufficient". The latter concept brought up the question of the rela- tionship of The Irvine Company Coastal Community to the neigh- boring municipalities and of possible annexations of portions of the coastal community by one or more of those municipalities. Discussion: The subject could be approached in two ways: 1. Decide what are the most desirable uses for the 10,000 acres, then decide which city or cities would find those types of land uses most com- patible. 2. Determine first which city or cities should annex the coastal properties, and then decide which land uses would be compatible with those cities. ' It was pointed out that the Local Agency Formation Com- mission had not established spheres of influence affecting this piece of property. 'It was recommended that LAFC be invited to join TICMAP to discuss this subject. It was brought up that, rather than determine only what the local interests are in this piece of -property, TICMAP should concern itself also with regional and statewide interests. In pursuit of this question the State Department of Beaches and Parks was asked to bring to the next meeting some notes on what• regional significance had been attached to these coastal lands at the time that $7.6 million in public funds had been earmarked by the Legislature for possible purchase of regional parklands there. A point of view was expressed that no decisions could be made on land use in this coastal region without taking into consideration such environmental constraints as air quality of the entire L. A. Basin, etc. It was stated that the coastal commission would definitely be considering this 10,000-acre region in the context of a larger regional framework, five miles inland at a minimum and beyond as appropriate, according to provisions of Proposition 20. It was pointed out that Proposition 20 is "supervening", TICMAP - 6 12/18/73 that plan decisions made by the coastal commission and endorsed by the legislature would override decisions by other regional boards, insofar as these decisions concern the coastal zone. Thus, the planning focus of TICMAP should be oriented to the goals andschedules of the coastal commission's planning process. It was pointed out that the coastal commission is charged with considering all coastal development in light of the following elements: Marine Environment Coastal Land Environment Geologic Hazards Water and Mineral Resources Energy Recreation Appearance and Design Water Transportation Land and 'Air Transportation Power Plants and Public Utilities Intensity of Development Powers and Funding Government Organization It was mentioned that, in considering land use concept alternatives, TICMAP should not restrict its thinking to such uses as residential, commercial, recreation and open space, but that it should recognize also the possibility that this might become a site for a power plant or other support facili- ties for the county or even the entire Los Angeles Basin. It was agreed that TICMAP should research the degree of likelihood of that possibility. Relocation of Coast Highway was discussed briefly. Each of the four "starter" concept alternatives presented to TIC - MAP showed the highway crossing the coastal lands at some point. It was suggested that another alternative might be to have no highway through this coastal area. Another comment was that, incorporating the no -highway idea, this could become a true destination. No one would be able to drive through it on the way to someplace else, but would drive to it and back out again. It was agreed that the highway relocation studies, re- lated to the regional park purchase contemplated by the State, would be made available to TICMAP at the next meeting. Time for ad4ournment arrived before completing discussion of Task #1. It was agreed the discussion would continue at meeting #3. Meeting #2 will be a field trip. TICMAP - 7 12/18/73 NEXT MEETING: FIELD TRIP Wednesday, January 16, 10:00 a.m., The Irvine Company Planning Department, 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach. After a briefing in the Planning Department, TICMAP group will tour the 10,000-acre Irvine Company Coastal Community site. TICMAP - 8 12/18/73 NOTE: This.page for TICMAP members only. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Mr. Felty of State Department of Parks and Beaches will look into his department's files on the regional park studies done for subject property. He will attempt to answer for TICMAP the following questions: a. What region was the department intending to serve with the parks? b. What was the capacity of the beaches and can- yons that was identified in the department's studies? 2. Mr. Moore, TICMAP discussion leader, will ask Dick Turner of the Local Agency Formation Commission if he will come down and discuss with TICMAP, the LAFC position and thinking on subject property as it relates to spheres of in- fluence. 3. Mr. Jones, director of engineering planning for The Irvine Company, will analyze what implications there might be for subject property in regard to regional support systems that might be located here -- such as a power plant. Mr. Jones will consult with Ms. Sunderland of the South Coast Regional 'Commission. 4. An Irvine Company representative will be prepared to present to TICMAP what the company believes its options are in regard to the June 30, 1974, expiration date of the $7.6 million in park funds appropriated by the Legislature. 5. Mr. Jones of The Irvine Company will be prepared to discuss with TICMAP details of the highway relocation studies. THE IRVINE COMPANY COASTAL COMMUNITY MULTI -AGENCY PLANNING PROGRAM TICMAP COORDINATOR: 550 NENCE B. CENTER 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 (714) 644-3440 PROCEEDINGS OF MEETING and GUIDE TO TICMAP TOUR of THE IRVINE COMPANY COASTAL PLANNING AREA Wednesday January 16, 1974 RECEIVED �\ Community Delolop ent JAN 3119741- -' Cll CN� 3tACHi[ �� NEWFCALIF. C'S� Wednesday, January 16, 1974 The Irvine Company headquarters Newport Beach, California ATTENDING California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission No representative South Coast Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Commission Donald Bright Carmen Warschaw Joan 'Sunderland . Robert Joseph State of California Department of Parks $ Recreation Richard Felty State of California Department of Transportation Norm Brinkmeyer County of Orange Jack Guiso Roger D. Slates F. W. Olson City of Irvine Gabrielle Pryor William Woollett City of Laguna Beach Roy Holm Phyllis Sweeney Al Theal City of Newport Beach John Store Richard Hogan Orange County Environmental Coalition Dale Secord Mary Jo Elpers Planning and Conservation League William Wilcoxen Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter Joseph T. Edmiston Myra Ellington The Irvine Company Richard Reese Don Cameron Lawrence Moore, TICMAP coordinator 1 Consultants to The Irvine Company Ray Balknap Ernest Reynolds Shirley Price Fred Sawyer John Schwellenbach Judy Kossy Dennis Turner Gary Peterson John Furtado Representing'Sen. Dennis Carpenter Walter Clark Representing Irvine Ranch Water District William Hurst Members of the Press Stewart Toy, Business Week George Leidal, Daily Pilot John Gregory, Los Angeles Times Mike Murphy, McGraw-Hill News Bureau Liza Bercovici, New York Times Larry Peterson, The Register Peter Jensen, Sunset magazine Lura Dymond, Westways magazine NEXT MEETING OF TICMAP Wednesday, February 6, 1974 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. at The Irvine Company 5S0 Newport Center Drive - 7th Floor Newport Beach, California The meeting convened at 10 a.m. at The Irvine Company headquarters in Newport Center. Ray Belknap, environmental consultant to'The Irvine Company, briefed the group on the physical,characteristics of the site, making the following major points: 1. The coastal planning area is bounded on the southern side by the Pacific Ocean, on the west by residential development of Newport Beach, on the north by the San Joaquin Hills ridge, and on the east by residential development of Laguna Beach near the coast and Laguna Canyon farther inland. San Joaquin Hills ridge lies approximately parallel to the coast, some four miles inland. The ridgeline coincides for the most part with the city limits of Irvine. From this ridgeline, a number of ridges and canyons extend perpendicularly towards the coast. 2. It is natural to consider this 10,000-acre parcel as a single unit, because it is separated from the inland hills and valley by the San Joaquin Hills ridge, and be- cause the coastal land forms are generally distinct from the land forms on the inland side of the ridge. However,. in reality, the 10,000 acres are made up of a number of zones, each with its distinctive combination of geo- logical features and vegetation. This suggest the possibility of applying different land - use criteria to each of the zones. 3. There is a general rise in elevation from the coast to the ridge, with Signal Peak the highest point at'1100 feet. The ridges and canyons which extend more or less per- pendicularly from the San Joaquin Hills ridge are .(from Newport Beach -moving towards Laguna Beach): Buck Gully, along- side Spyglass Hill; Pelican Hill ridge; Los Trancos Canyon ending in Crystal Cove; Wishbone Hill.ridge; Muddy Canyon; E1 Moro Canyon ending in the beach at the trailer park; E1 Moro Hill; Emerald Canyon ending in the private residential develop- ment of Emerald Bay; and Laguna Canyon. —.1- 4. There are five geological land form areas. (1) Beach and seacliff (2) Marine terrace (3) Round ridges and -slopes (4) Steep canyons (5) Ridges and valleys (wide bowl in upper end of Emerald Canyon) 5. There are numerous vegetation zones also, resulting from the variety of land forms, soils and orientation of slope to sun and moisture. These vegetation zones include the following plant communities: -- Grassland - Coastal sage -- Chaparral -- Oak and Sycamore woodland -- Wetland communities along the narrow intermittent coastal streams. 6. Nearly two-thirds of the coastal planning area is not visible from Pacific Coast Highway. Although the highway runs parallel to the shoreline, and only a few hundred yards inland, the beach is not visible because it is relatively narrow and hugs the bottom of the bluffs which are up to 70 feet in height for most of the 3.5 miles. On the inland side of the highway, the rounded hills that slope up from the highway conceal the ridge and canyon system which comprises a major portion of the,planning area. -2- THE FIELD TRIP After a light lunch in The Irvine Company boardroom, the group set out in 12-passenger mini -vans to tour the entire site. 1. Along San Joaquin Hills Road, through the Village of Harbor View. San Joaquin Hills Road is considered an arterial highway (with provision for four lanes), not a local road. Passed near San Joaquin Reservoir, and above the county's sanitary landfill in Los Coyotes Canyon. The landfill, operational for about four more years, is on the inland side of San Joaquin Hills ridge, in•the City of Irvine, and is not in the coastal planning area. The final alignment of the arterial highway, San Joaquin Hills Road, is planned to follow the inland side of the ridge. 2. Side trip to Pelican Hill, to note extreme length and width of that ridge, and light color and sandy quality of soil. Pelican Hill is part of the old marine terrace area of the coastal sector. 3. Los Trancos Overlook, at the head of Los Trancos Canyon. Noted ridge in Los Trancos Canyon, sandstone rock outcroppings. Looking'east (toward Laguna'Hills and Laguna Canyon), noted the way parallel ridges lie one behind the other. -all at about the same elevation giving the appearance almost of a plateau. Terminus of these ridges is Laguna Hills on the eastern side of Laguna Canyon. Across Los Trancos, noted the ridge going out to Wishbone Hill. Noted that the boundary of the proposed 4.20-acre public park in Los Trancos is at the lead edge (the most inland edge) of these ridges. State park planners envision this park as a wildlife preserve and nature study area. Views inland on a clear day: Mt. Baldy, the big mountain in the San Gabriel Range to the north.' Also Santiago Peak (called Saddleback) in the Santa Ana Mountains. -3- 4. Trip to Wishbone Hill. Approach to Wishbone shows small ridges and shallow valleys at upper end. Noted roller -coaster nature of long, oceanward extending ridge; long distance to the promontory of Wishbone Hill. Leaving upland area, noted V-shape of canyons, narrow canyon bottoms. Los Trancos Canyon was on the right; ' Muddy Canyon on the left (noted landslide area on far slope of Muddy). Contrast in appearance between Muddy $ Los Trancos -- Muddy more rounded, bare. Noted sandstone, rock outcrops in upper reaches of canyons, especially Los Trancos. Noted Edison Company power line. Vegetation. Gray is sage; large red -berry shrub is Toyon; Cactus occur at edges between grassland and sage; Mustard (dry stalks) invades ungrazed grassland and poses fire hazard. Noted large, flat areas on parts of the Wishbone Hill ridge. Noted division of Wishbone ridge into two forks (took east fork). In the upper ridge area, there is a sense of isolation, a feeling of being inland. Only after traveling halfway out the ridge does one have a sense of being near the ocean again. S. Helicopter flight, overview Helicopter flight from Wishbone promontory. Could see the variety of landform again that had been pointed out from the vehicles: the upland, sharper, more numerous ridges and shallow canyons; the midland, larger and deeper canyon areas and rounded hills; the gently sloping slopes seaward` of'the ridge endings and the flat coastal shelf. The helicopter followed the route of the proposed realignment of Pacific Coast Highway, and then went up and down the major canyons, ending at a major ridge overlooking Laguna Beach. —4- 12 7 M Helicopter stop at Laguna Overlook Looking down and slightly to the right, noted residential development of Emerald Bay, contrasted to hillside development in Laguna Beach. Observed that homes on hillsides could blend into the slopes, depending on color, siting, vegetation, road cuts, and steepness of slope. Last part of flight (from Laguna Overlook back to Signal Peak) was in part over the steep, rugged canyons draining eastward to Laguna Canyon. Signal Peak, 1100 feet. Looking inland from Signal Peak, noted houses of a portion of the village of Turtle Rock, an Irvine Company development in the City of Irvine. Signal Peak is site of Western Telephone installation and the antenna of The Irvine Company's Community Cablevision Company. On clear days, the view of the City of Irvine, Saddleback Mountain and valley and San Gabriel Range, are of equal interest with the distant ocean view. San Joaquin Ridge between Signal Peak and head of Moro Canyon. Noted difference in the land form of the canyons inland and,on the coast side of San Joaquin Ridge. Bommer Canyon (inland) has wide bowl and open valley. Coastal ridges and canyons are more sharply defined. Geology: On the coast side of San Joaquin -Ridge, the land is lifted relatively gently; on the inland side, San Joaquin Ridge is steep, drops off sharply. Noted long fingers of ridges extending from San Joaquin Ridge to ocean. At top of some canyons, observed V-shape of canyon and progression of slopes down the canyon. 4 lin 10 Moro Canyon Moro Canyon divides into two parts at upper end. Ridge between is included in proposed state park. Vegetation at upper end -of canyon: mosaic pattern of chaparral, sage mixed with sumac, toyon and chamise, tobacco. Descending into canyon: grassy terrain, sycamore. Coyo�'e bush, sage, buckwheat, mistletoe in oaks and sycamores,. Canyon bottoms: heavy vegetation -- oaks, ferns, gooseberry, blackberry. .Rock outcrops and caves. Steep sides of canyon give feeling of enclosure. Stream in canyon -- irregular course, shows erosion. Here, attention drawn to detail, not distant views. Canyon opens out at lower end into grassy meadows, fewer oaks and sycamores. Hills on either side are dropping down; canyon opens out until it no longer feels like a canyon. Followed canyon down to the mouth where trailer park is located, site of proposed state beach park. Moro Park and Pacific Coast Highway. Changed to lifeguard Jeeps for beach tour. Noted that inland area is not visible from the beach because of the bluffs. Beach is wide and sandy at Moro and Crystal Cove, rocky with reefs and tidepools in between. Noted that in the area south of Crystal Cove, bluffs are higher than north of Crystal. Variety in geology of underlying rocks. Bluff is relatively stable because of angle of rock layers. Crystal Cove: beach homes, on 30 day leases. From cottage at,Crystal Cove, looked back up Los Trancos Canyon to hill of first stop. THE IRVINE COMPANY COASTAL COMMUNITY MULTI -AGENCY PLANNING PROGRAM COORDINATOR: LAW RENCE B. Iy10ORE T�CMAP NEW NEWPORCENTER DRIV EWPORT BEACH, CALIFOR IA 92663 (714) 644-3440 PROCUTN":GS OF MEETING NUMBER THREE Wednesday, Februari 6, 1974 550 Newport Center Dr. Newport Leach, California e 1 N Ep peg paVt' 1g1 A• 0Oocll' ATTENDING: L California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission No representative South Coast Regional Coastal Zone Conservation Commission Robert Joseph Joan Sunderland California Department of Transportation N. C. Beinkmeyer R. F. Blocker County of Orange Roger D. Slates Jack Guiso Bart Spendlove Irwin Schatzman Hank Bowen City of Irvine Gabrielle Pryor W. Woollett City of Laguna Beach A. B. Theal Phyllis Sweeney Roy Holm City of Newport Beach R.' Hogan D. Store •Environmental Coalition of Orange, Inc. Mary Jo Elpers Dale A. Secord The Planning and Conservation League F. Lang Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter . Myra Ellington Consultants to The Irvine Company Paul Edwards Jack Schwellenback Michael A. Schley Shirley Price Members of the Press George Leidal, Daily Pilot Hal Ellingsworth, Register NEXT MEETING OF TICMAP Wednesday, March 6,•1974 10:00 a.m. 1:00 p.m. at The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach; California TICMAP PROCEEDINGS -- February 6, 1974 The meeting convened at 10:00 a.m. in the basement lounge of The Irvine Company headquarters in Newport Center. TICMAP PROGRESS REVIEW Larry Moore, TICMAP Coordinator,•reviewed TICMAP's progress and the tasks remaining: Meetin : This meeting was an orientation which concentrated on w at is T CMAP and what are its objectives. Meeting N2: This meeting was a tour of'the site which familiarized t e participants with the physical characteristics of the planning area. Meeting H3: Mr. Moore characterized the third meeting of TICMAP•as perhaps the most important meeting to date. He suggested the parti- cipants should mentally retrace their steps through the tour and recall their concerns and ideas in regard to the planning area. He indicated a comprehensive list of these concerns and ideas would be compiled and used as the basis for further considerations about the site. Between meetings three and four, Mr. Moore said that the Environmental subcommittee (discussed later) and The Irvine Company staff would: a. Vei+balize the ideas expressed by the -participants into use concepts compatible with South Coastal Regional Conservation Commission language. b. Develop a priority listing of environmental concerns (this will 'be the task of the environmental subcommittee). c. Develop a listing of local, county and regional socio/economic concerns. Meeting #4: Mr. Moore suggested a tentative date of March 6, 1974, or t e ourth TICMAP meeting. At that meeting, he said the participants will discuss and critique in depth the use concepts and -concerns developed between the third and fourth meetings. Between the fourth and fifth meetings, he indicated the sUbcommittee(s) and The Irvine Company staff would: a. Portray the articulated use concepts graphically, b. Evaluate each concept -in light of the refined environmental and socio/economic concerns. Meeting N5: Mr. Moore suggested a tentative date of March 2.7, 1974, or C7 th Meeting.#5. At this meeting, Mr. Moore described e TICMAP PROCEEDINGS - 2 - February 6, 1974 task as one of an in-depth discussion of the concepts developed and the accompanying evaluations. He further suggested, the parti- cipants should attempt to coalesce on conclusions reference concepts and/or guidelines if possible at this meeting. Between meetings five and six, Mr. Moore said the subcommittee(s) and The Irvine Company staff would: a. Prepare a draft report documenting the TICMAP work b. Send copies of this draft report to the participants for review. Meeting, #6: Mr. Moore suggested a tentative date of April 17, 1974,- Tor TICDI.4P Meeting #6. At this meeting, he indicated the participants would: a. Review the draft report b. Discuss the public hearing procedure. Following meeting six, Mr. Moore indicated the local government public review would begin. ENVIRONMENTAL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Ray Belknap, environmental consultant to The Irvine Company, reported that the first TICMAP subcommittee on environmental concerns had met this a.m. prior to this third meeting. He said that a commitment has been obtained from the group to function as an advisory subcommittee. He said the subcommittee feels that it has an important question to resolve, and that is, "How do you provide environmental input?" The subcommittee hopes to evaluate the geology, vegetation and wildlife of the planning area. Included in the subcommittee are members of the Audobon Society, the Sierra Club, the Planning and Conservation League, the Laguna Greenbelt Committee, the Orange County Planning. Commission and the South Coast Regional Commission. He said the subcommittee also discussed what other disciplines might be included, i.e. geology and marine biology. This subcommittee has set three (3) •meeting dates to work on the environmental priori- ties prior to TICMAP meeting #4, March 6, 1974. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY RELOCATION TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION Mr. Moore reported that a Pacific Coast Highway relocation technical committee had been meeting and that this 'committee would like to sit in on the TICMAP,meetings and contribute to the process where possible. This 'technical committee,' which is studying the relocation of the Coast Highway within the project area, consists of -membership from the City of Irvine Public Works Department, the City of Laguna Beach Planning Department, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, TICMAP PROCEEDINGS - 3 February 6, 1974� the Orange County Road Department, the Orange County Planning Department, the Orange County Multi -Modal Ttanspor•tation Commission, the Orange County Parks and Recreation Department, the State of California Parks and Recreation Department, California Transportation Department (Cal Trans) and the South Coast Regional Commission staff. There being no objections, it was decided that the Pacific Coast Highway Technical Committee will be an invitee to the TICMAP meetings. TICNIAP MEETING #3 WORK SESSION Ray Belknap, environmental consultant, assumed conduct of the meeting and asked for concerns and ideas in regard to the Coastal Planning Area which was toured during the previous meeting. Mr. Belknap first reviewed the site element maps: topography, geology, slope analysis, terrain zones, visual landscape elements and features, and vegetation to refresh the participant's recollec- tion of the site. The participants joined with Mr. Belknap and articulated their concerns and ideas about the site. A record of these were made on a large memo pad and on a tape recorder. Attached is a transcript of the memo pad record. Underlined words have been added to facili- tate clarifications. Mr. William Mott, State Director of Parks and Recreation joined the meeting briefly between other engagements, to express his department's position with reference to the Irvine coastal parks and beaches appropriation (FB 1089, Carpenter). Attached is a transcript of his remarks. At 12:30 p.m., the work session was concluded by the coordinator, Mr. Moore. Mr. Belknap distributed the Environmental Base Data Reports and requested the participants review same prior to the next meeting. He also noted they should bring the reports to TICMAP Meeting #4 so the colored maps could be inserted. Mr. Moore reminded the participants of the tentative time and place - for the next TICMAP meeting. At 12:35 p,m., the meeting was adjourned. LBM:rkg C TICMAP Proceedings - 4 - February 6, 1974 IDEAS AND CONCERNS - Traffic congestion in Laguna Beach/Newport Beach, existing and future. - Traffic impact from the project onto Pacific Coast Highway or into Irvine? - Inland dev. traffic should to inland rather than onto Pacific Coast Highway. - Impact of faults and landslides ref: highway and parks? - Is Pacific Coast Highway essential to development? - Other modes of transportation; consideration of. - No highway alternative; i.e. disconnect area from Newport Bea, and Laguna Beach via Pacific Coast Highway. - Pacific Coast Highway plan should not precede entire plan. - Composite constraints, environmental equalling least/most developable'. (A composite listing of environmental constraints should be made in or er to etermine the least most developable portions of the area. TICNIAP should compile constraints before evaluating land use concepts. - Impact on water supply, electric power, all services (tradeoffs in region). - Is a major highway needed along coast? Can the traffic be accomodated from the North? - Preservation of land forms, i.e. minimum cut and fill. Inland portion,, ridges, avoid valley destruction (water, grading, etc. - Low area development (shelf above the bluffs) - spread out more including public access and recreation. - Upper area available for views. - Preserve slopes. - Can access to the ridge tops be accomplished without destroying 1773 slopes. Preserve slope vegetation. TICMAP Proceedings - 5 - February 6, 1974 - Relation of ridge development to parks below. - What are the 'parks functions: active/passive/wilderness areas/ beach? - Who determines development pattern of the parks? - Ten thousand (10,000) acre wilderness park; is it viable? - What is the Pacific Coast Highway relocation's affect on land orms ? - Plan coordination with surrounding cities? - San Joaquin Road and its relation to !Moulton et al. - Super site for unique development. - Assume park purchase: How do you serve public who will come? - Any development should leave room for the public. -'Conflict of residence vs. tourist; what is solution? - State beaches and parks; impact, local and regional? - Camping, hotels, motels; impact, local and regional? - Identify needs of public., Pacific Coast Highway relocation: 1. Loss of view to ocean 2. Need not stop in order to enjoy 3. Option is view to ocean - Recreation attractiveness/there is a carry capacity limit, specifically traffic. - Environmental quality of development, all development. - Uniqueness is undeveloped character. r - Can this area be left undeveloped? - How can purchase of all or part be -accomplished? - Invite Department of Parks and Recreation for park presentation (Lee Warren) - No State purchase'to avoid congestion. TICMAP Proceedings - 6 February 6, 1974 Will the community contain balance; employment (yes/no?), etc. - Planning must be put in context of surrounding communities. - What types of housing (income), commercial types, etc. are applicable? - TICMAP should develop policy premises before plan is drawn. - Marine preserve - is'it adequate (size, type)? - Is this area a special biological area by State? - State underwater park? - How does whole plan interrelate, specifically maintaining character/system. - Maintain natural landscaping/maximize. - Define recreational use, education, (holding capacity). - Is loss of local control of property, especially parks to State a good idea? - The Irvine Company, incentive to hold open (special committee),, (change laws, etc.) - Should it be a resort or'low density residential? - Impact of highway relocation to Newport Beach and Laguna Beach?, - Check regional impact of all concepts and parts thereof. - Can Pacific Coast Highway component and park component go ahead oT—total program/what is Attorney General's opinion? - Does highway relocation and parks acquisition have E.I.R. or set pattern? - Emerald Canyon; future of: 1. Remove power poles? 2. Beautiful canyon 3 — Public? 4. Leave alone S. Wilderness preserve - How does Laguna Greenbelt plan relate? - Economics of leaving Laguna Canyon area open vs. other areas. - Laguna Greenbelt rationale: TICMAP Proceedings - 7 - February 6, 1974 *Maintain open space in region. *Large enough space to have real meaning. *Existing space incl. is unique to region. *Wide base support. - Concepts must serve cross section of public and consider unique resource over the long range/minimize irreversible commitments. - Define boundary -of Laguna Greenbelt, i.e. geographic features. - Dev. as island preserve in region. - Dev. as island regardless of type of development. - Pelican Hill; future of? - Political boundaries, where? - Crystal Cove; eviction of existing residents - Air quality ref. South Coast Air Basin • - Econ. concerns; are natural constraints included. - Does natural constraint equal lower assessed value? - What i's-high rise trade-off with open space? - What are economics of dev. types? - What are goals of The Irvine Company? - Would The Irvine Company leave the area, all or.part, open with tax relief. - Ag. Preserve status? - The Irvine Company can preserve because of its size: - San Joaquin Hills Road; future, impact: 1. Orange County arterial highway 2. Will generate own load (open or developed) 3. Impact of construction to site, Newport Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Orange County. 4. Orange County arterial 'system validity. - Can highway monies be diverted for open space purchase? - Can soils accommodate terracing, etc.? - How can development be fitted to land, particularly hills? TICMAP Proceedings - 8 February 6, 1974 - How do adjacent city plans etc. fit into process? - Road network - relationship of Corona del Mar Freeway. Could this be major access vice Pacific Coast Highway? - Laguna Beach/Newport Beach traffic solution. Will any dev. add traffic to Pacific C TICMAP Proceedings - 9 February 6, 1974 MR. WILLIAM MOTT, STATE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION I think basically our position has been that if we could achieve the possession of this shoreline and enough back-up land so that we can support the utilization of the shoreline. That is what we wanted to achieve. We said that we would be very pleased to work with The Irvine Company in connection with this kind of a concept. It was because the possibility of developing a design that would cause us to have a public use of this entire shoreline and the back-up lands to support•it existed that we were willing to work along those lines. That is the basis on which we have operated from the very beginning. We recognized that we would not have funds to buy the entireparcel of land all the way to the ridge - tops. Therefore, we felt that if we could achieve a sympathetic development in relationship to that concept, we would be willing to work with The Irvine Company in that regard. That is the basis on which we've gone along on this. I felt from the very beginning that if the highway could be moved in order to make a better planning area than the narrow strip that was available by virtue of the location of the present highway, that this would be a successful solution. We have maintained that the expense of moving the highway, would not be an expense that would be a responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department. We have also maintained that any crossing of the Moro Canyon area would have to be by an arched bridge so that continuity of feeling as well as vistas to and from'the shoreline through the canyon would be ' maintained. This would be a part of the conditions. Again, we have maintained that the responsibility for that cost would not be a cost responsibility placed upon the Parks and Recreation Department. We have negotiated to that point 6n this and have arrived at a satisfactory solution in so far as the beach area is concerned, the protection of the coastal shelf area on top of the bluff, and the needed back-up lands with the understanding that this property will be available to us at half the appraised value. That is where the matter is at the present time. I understand that we are now reviewing this whole program to determine whether this is a viable program as far as everyone is concerned. We are satisfied that from our position of the needs of parks and recreation that we have achieved a position that we can support insofar as The Irvine Company is presently concerned. There are details yet to be worked out in connection with the bike and walkway solutions and the vista points and the incidental greenbelt park areas along the coastal shelf. These can be worked out as more detailed planning develops. We believe that we have an understanding of how these planning concepts can be developed in the public interests. I think that basically that is our position and it has been our position from the very beginning. The only other matter I guess is the question of our funding in connection with this half appraised value. This may.have two possibilities. One is the present Bill (FB 1089, Carpenter), that's TICMAP Proceedings - 10 - February 6, 1974 there, makes this money available out of the general funds. We now feel that this bill probably cannot be implemented, and a continuation of this bill is not practical in relationship to the bond fund program. We will have on the ballot on June (Propo- sition 1) a bond fund for $250,-000,000. We consider this acquisition (the Irvine Coastal acquisition).a high priority acquisition because it does involve the coastline of California and we would use bond fund money for this acquisition program - about $7,000,000. We also have the possibility of funding with conservation funds since it is a half appraised value operation. We have been advised that the land and water funds for this coming fiscal year, starting July 1, will be appropriated to the total authorization of $300,000,000 for the whole United States plus $225,000,000 that was denied last fiscal year, making a total appropriation this fiscal year of $525,000,000. This means the State would receive something in the neighborhood of $15,000,000. As you know with land and water funds, we make half of it available to the State. So, this represents a funding source that we could use in connection with this project. Using bond funds and land and water funds we would be able to achieve our acquisition program in accordance with the present appraised values. Now, the existing coastline evaluation or appraisal was made two (2) years ago -after considerable discussion and negotiation and was agreed to by all parties. That appraisal would now have to be brought up to date. We have an understanding with The Irvine Company that we would still be able to acquire the property at half the appraised value, but not to exceed the $7,000,000 - or whatever that exact figure is. So if the appraised value toes up, you still have saved, if -it goes down, well you will benefit by it going down which I think again indicates the cooperative 'nature that we found in dealing with The Irvine Company on this project. That is about where we stand at the present time. We will, as I have indicated, support the acquisition program because we think that it is terribly important that this be in public owner- ship so that it goes for public purposes. Q - Has your department indicated which canyons it would want and the exact sizes? - Mott - Yes, Moro Canyon and Los Trancos, those two (2) canyons we feel ought to be available for backup in this project. Q - Can you define the boundaries? Mott - In a general way, yes, pretty much. In fact rather specifi- cally because we had to make appraisals on the property. Q - Why those particular lands and why those particular boundaries? What type of data did you use to chose those? Mott - Well, I think it is pretty obvious why we chose the.Moro Canyon. We need that for backup for parking and to use the beach area along there for maximum use, that is, to handle .o i I r• • • TICMAP Proceedings February 6, 1974 the largest number of people. The other canyon would provide another green area and also parking and access into the other beach areas. Basically, that is the reason we selected ihose two canyons. Q - Re: Relocation of Pacific Coast Highway - you indicated that you would prefer to see an arched bridge across Moro Canyon, you also indicated in an earlier statement that you support the total realignment of Pacific Coast Highway, due to the very nature of the narrow strip of land that you were going to acquire along the beach. Why do you see a need for relo- cating the Coast.Highway away from Moro Canyon, or do you see 'a need for it'? Mott - I am not sure that I follow the question exactly . . . Why do we want it relocated? We feel that in relocating the highway, it gives us the necessary lands that we need at the Moro Canyon area free of the highway, and that gives us the access as well as continuity between the upper lands of Moro Canyon and the ocean frontage. Q - If you had just an arched bridge, would that be sufficient? Mott - At Moro Canyon? Q - Yes. Mott -'Without the canyon land? •Q - To provide just,an arched bridge on Pacific Coast Highway. Mott - Just the present alignment? ••Q - Yes. Mott - I don't think that would be nearly as satisfactory as moving the highway, no. Because we would not have the - most of the land would be east of the highway alignment rather than under (westerly of) it. With the new proposal or the proposal of.moving the highway, most of the land is west of the highway. Q - The area of concern about highway relocation that you have'is exclusive to the Moro Canyon area, is that right? I mean you are not really concerned about Los Trancos or are you talking about a bridge there? Mott - No, that is not as important, but I think it is important to get -the highway back away from the coastal shelf basically throughout the entire area simply because it gives us a much better opportunity to develop a design that is more.in the public interest from the standpoint of views, from the standpoint of access to the beach, and without crowding the TICMAP Proceedings - 12 - February 6, 1974 coastal area. The present highway alignment crowds that area to the point where it really doesn't give you a chance to make a good design concept of the whole area. That is what we were really thinking in terms of. Q - You are only going to be acquiring 25 feet of the bluff so it would not really be crowding any development of the area would it? Mott - Well, I think you have to look at the total integrated plan. We for appraisal purposes set a distance back from the bluff. My recollection was it was more than 25 feet. It was our whole feeling that we had to have some definition for getting appraisal. The appraisors want an exact amount of land, but the understanding that we have as we get into the detailed planning this is that it will have nodes of open space and vista points and resting places along there. So it isn't going to be just a 25 foot strip, it's going to be in many cases more, it might be an acre of land in some locations instead of just a little strip of land across the entire bluff area. That has to be worked out in more detail. Q - Does your position depend on public use through the entire length of this shoreline? Mott - Yes. Q - There is a very high quality marine biological preserve offshore, could you address that? •Mott - Yes. When I talk about public use, I am talking about maybe no- intensive public use. We actually are looking at and have made studies of the offshore area with regards to devel- oping an underwater park. I am not sure of the exact detail because our biologists have been studying this with regards to making it an ecological preserve which would mean very limited use in connection with that. We have been talking with the Department of Fish and Game with regards to that so it would be a part of the total planning of our department. It would all be completely available to the public, but would be planned for controlled usage in connection with our planning program. So we are looking at both the terrestrial and the underwater areas and their preserves in connection with this. Q - You indicated your selection of the two canyons because of the need for parking. Do you intend to use those areas only for parking? Mott - Oh no. No, we have a policy now that differs from the one - in the old days. We use to buy beach frontage but did.not think in terms of any parking. This has created a lot of problems. Locally, the people park in people's driveways TICMAP Proceedings - 13 •- February 6,, 1974 in Santa Cruz and on the streets, and it just creates a lot of difficulty. Now we are saying that parking for beach use has to be in most cases easterly of the highways, of the coastal highway to avoid that kind of a situation. Or if the beach goers have to park some distance and be bussed in that is okay. We are now looking at areas in the Los Angeles area where they are going to be parking some• distance away and bussed down to the beach. So in this particular case, we said we would not be interested in just beach frontage and the area around'Moro Canyon. We wanted the parking and everything ,else to be further up the canyon so that the whole beach area and the whole beach environment .basically would be west of the highway. The relocated highway would become the inland part of the beach environment and the people would walk from the parking lot, which would be up the canyon, down into the beach 'environment. Thus you don't get the beach environment all cluttered up' with automobiles. Most of the canyons in our preliminary planning thinking would be kept in its very natural condition with trails, biking and equestrian trails and for interpretive nature work. We have a great deal of emphasis on this. Q - Is there any information about the canyon usage available? , Mott - Yes, we have some overall general concepts. We haven't made any detailed plans. Q - Are they available to us? Mott - Yes, I would think that you might want to have Lee Warren, who is chief of that particular portion of our planning, come and exp-lain to you what our concepts are with regard to planning. He can tell you what our planning process is. Ile don't really go'into a detailed accounting program until we have made an inventory of all the resources and management of those resources and then a general development plan. He can explain this process to you and tell you what our general concepts are at this•point.in time. it - t -- - --- _- - -----THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 February 28, 1974 To: Pacific Coast Highway Phase II Relocation Study Technical Committee From: Cordon B. Jones Subject: Questions and Criteria for Cal Trans Studies The formal minutes of the February 14 Technical Committee meeting are cur- rently being transcribed and will be mailed to you as soon as they become available. The "ideas and concerns" put forth at that meeting related to study of the Pacific Coast Highway are enclosed as Appendix A of this let- ter. Also included in the Appendix are several ideas and concerns raised by the general TICMAP Committee during a similar exercise at their February meeting. It should be noted that the considerations suggested by the Technical Committee (and the general TICMAP Committee) were often of a general nature. We have attempted to separate the items into basic functional, environmental and economic categories based on our interpretation of the underlying key thoughts. In order to obtain specific questions and criteria for Cal Trans studies, we have further broken the categorized comments down to specific questions which pertain to the key thoughts or issues. This second set of more specific questions is enclosed as Appendix B. Your response to these questions is requested in writing at the March 6 meeting. With this infornla- tion we should be able to achieve the following related objectives. 1. Identify irreducible PCH relocation study parameters. 2. Identify specific study goals and objectives. 3. Identify study constraints which tend to eliminate certain relocation alternatives and/or reduce specific study items. 4. Provide a basis for determining tradeoffs between category elements. 5. Suggest areas for further committee study. Receipt of written responses to the attached questions would be appreciated prior to or at the March 6,meeting. If your comments have not been docu- mented by meeting time due to time limitations, please come prepared to discuss your responses verbally with the written responses to follow. Sincerely, �GOr 011 B. "Jones Director of Engineering Plwining APPENDIX A Functional Considerations 1. What is the primary function of PCH? What are its secondary functions and, what are their relative importance? How would its primary and secondary functions relate to a Corona del Mar Freeway or alternate through route? What would be its function and relative importance with alternate land use? 2. If PCH through traffic is diverted inland, is it on a rerouted Corona del Mar Freeway? 3. If POI must be a primary through traffic carrier should it be further in- land (possibly San Joaquin Hills Road) with a feeder service road along the coast to serve destination resort (separate through and local traffic)? 4. What would be the consequence of moving PCH further inland? 5. If PCH is relocated inland on San Joaquin Hills Road, should public transit access to the coastline be emphasized? 6. Can PCII be eliminated from the arterial highway system (i.e., become a local road)? 7. Is a 65 mph design speed necessary and/or desirable in an urban area? 8. Should right-of-way accommodating other parallel functions be considered (i.e., transit?) . 9. Should bus stops be incorporated into the PCH design (i.e., eliminate fixed rail or exclusive bus lane considerations)? 10. iVhat is the practicality of inland arterials being built? What is their functional relationship toy PCH? 11. Should arterial and access connections with PCH be grade -separated? 12. Could the existing alignment be adequately modified to meet functional goals? APPENDIX A (cont'd) Environmental Considerations 1. What is the impact of Route 1 being on the State scenic highway system? 2. What is the impact of PCH being on the Orange County scenic highway system? What is scenic highway zoning? 3. Could the design speed of 65 mph be reduced to be more sensitive to the area? ! 4. What is the magnitude of negative impact of fill at the canyons? 5. Is grade separation of north and southbound roadways for scenic purposes desirable? 6. How should grading techniques be related to new potential? 7. Are vista points desired? What are their functions? How should they relate to land use? 8. To what degree should landscape be considered? Should it relate to view from the road? How can landscape continuity be utilized to minimize highway obtrusiveness? 9. To what degree should drainage, pedestrian bridges, public transit, wild- life, etc. crossings be considered in the PCI relocation study? 10. Could existing PCH be adequately modified to meet environmental goals? Economic Considerations 1. How likely is the bridge at Moro Canyon? Should bridges be ruled out at the other canyon crossings? 2. What are the implications of using special bridge ardhitectural treatments (e.g., arch bridge) relative to the achievement of environmental goals? 3. With respect to vista point desires, whose jurisdictional and financial responsibility should they be? 4. What would be the economic consequences of moving PCH further inland? APPENDIX B Questions for Technical Committee PO-1 Function 1. How should the following POI functions be rated in their order of relative importance as an objective for the future. ,a. element of a Statewide circulation system b. clement of a regional circulation system c. local service facility d. public access to coast e, other - Z. How should the above PCH functions be ranked assuming a Corona del Mar Free- way reroute or other inland facility for through traffic. 3. What impact would alternate land use concepts have on PCH functions and their relative importance? 4. To what degree would the fwnctions identified above be accomplished by a Route 1 location along San Joaquin Hills Road? Would PCH still be required? 5. Based on the PCH functions identified above, what would be considered a desirable design speed standard for each PCH function? 6. What would the desirable design speed be assuming a Corona del Mar Freeway reroute or other inland freeway? 7. Based on the PCH functions identified above, what would be considered a desirable degree of access control for each case? 8. What.would be the desirable degree of access control assuming a Corona del Mar Freeway reroute? 9. How would PCH be classified assuming a Corona del Mar Freeway reroute or other inland freeway? 10. What would be the disposition of Route 1 assuming that San Joaquin Hills Road could be developed into a major through trip accommodator? 11. How significant is travel time to the achievement of the prime PCH function? 12. Would a low speed, circuitous scenic drive aldng the coastal bluffs be desirable? 13. Could the need for a continuous PCI be eliminated by a Corona del Mar re- route? By anything less than a Corona del Mar Freeway reroute? APPENDIX B (cont'd) 14. Is there a need for a fixed rail or exclusive bus lane transit corridor through the coastal study area? 15. If PCH could be eliminated, what form of access should be provided to the coastline and from where? If public transit should be emphasized, where would stops be provided? 16. Does PCH accomplish its primary function in its existi.ng'condition? 17. Is POI on the State expressway system? What are the functional implica- tions? Environmental Considerations 1. Is Route 1 a State scenic highway? Is it classified as a primary or rural scenic highway? What are the significant environmental implications of such a classification? 2. Is PC11 identified in the Orange County General Plan Scenic Element? What is the scenic highway classification associated with PCH? What are the pertinent scenic highway standards associated with that classification? What are the implications to adjacent land use management? What are the implications to access control? 3. Should visual quality from the automobile be given greater significance than public access to and utilization of coastal beaches and parks? 4. Should studies address Pai relocation alignments which enhance visual quality and/or present opportunities to achieve environmental goals? 5. To what degree could a reduced design speed affect roadway geometries that would be sensitive to the terrain (i.e., cut/fill needs, grades, super - elevation, etc.)? 6. How is the driver's 'view cone' affected by design speed? Operating speed? 7. Should consideration be given to grading depressed sections of PCH roadway to 'daylight,' where such an action would improve visual quality? 8. Should a split roadway with the northbound lanes elevated over the south - bound lanes be considered where hillside cuts and fills and/or view poten- tial can be improved? 9. Should vista points be considered? What are the objectives of vista points? flow should they relate to land use? 10. Is scenic quality from the roadway more significant than scenic quality from vista points? 11. Should a landscape corridor be defined in the context of the County's scenic highways element? To what degree should landscaping be considered? Is median landscaping desirable? APPENDIX B (cont'd) 12. Should public access to the beach from the areas inland of the highway be considered (i.e., pedestrian overcrossings, bridges, tunnels, etc.) in the. context of the Phase II study? 13. Could the existing POI alignment be adequately modified to meet.environ- mental goals (i.e., view from the road, vista points, beach access, park enhancement)? Economic Considerations 1. Should roadway alignments and treatments which enhance visual quality or present opportunities to achieve environmental goals be identified and analyzed from a cost/benefit standpoint? How should environmental attri- butes be assessed? Are there long term economic benefits? 2. Is funding of special roadway treatments which enhance visual quality or driving experience available in the context of the OCGP Scenic Highways Element? In the context of the State's scenic highway system? 3. Does the State have authorization to expend public funds in the study of an inland PCH relocation (i.e., San Joaquin Hills Road)? Can funds from other public agencies be justified for such a study? 4. Would the State participate financially in a PCH relocation to San Joaquin Bills ridge? 5. Is a route other than along San Joaquin [sills ridge or the coastal shelf economically feasible for relocated PCH? Would such an alignment be con- sidered under a freeway designation? 6. What is the architectural treatment contemplated for the bridge at Moro Canyon? Is the bridge cost of primary significance with respect to bridge design? 7. Can the bridging of major canyons other than Moro Canyon be justified from an economic standpoint? B. Will the County assume responsibility for vista point construction and maintenance in the context of the scenic highways element? 9. Who shall be responsible for roadway landscaping and maintenance? 10. How would public transit facilities be financed (i.e., hardware, staging areas, operation; etc.)?