No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBRISA DEL MAR_EIR_GPA 83-1D1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Brisa Del ME talaricoonvaonmental Impact analysis dmlopmentproceaing c0mmunityplannln0 ramumeandproject SCREENCHECR SUBMITTED: November 15, 1984 DRAFT EIR SUBMITTED: FINAL EIR CERTIFIED: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BRISA DEL MAR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA 83-1D NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA SCH EIR PREPARED FOR: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P.O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-3884 EIR PREPARED BY: SANCHEZ TALARICO ASSOCIATES 359 SAN MIGUEL DRIVE, SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 359 san miguel dr. suite 200 newport beach ca 92660 714 640-1700 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ' GENERAL SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................. v SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT .............................. vi INTRODUCTION........................................................ 1 Environmental Procedures ........................................ 1 Project Sponsors and Contact Persons ............................ 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................. 3 Project Location ....................... 0... 0....... 0...... 0..... 3 ' Project Characteristics ......................................... Proposed Actions ................................. 0.... 0......... 3 5 LOCAL AND REGIONAL SETTING .......... . .................... ............ 23 ' Existing Onsite and Surrounding Adjacent Land Uses .............. 23 Local Setting ................................................... 23 Regional Setting ................................................. 25 ' ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION ..................... 32 Land Use and Aesthetics ......................................... 33 Transportation/Circulation...................................... 48 Noise........................................................... 56 Air quality ..................................................... 64 Earth Resources............................0.0.................. 69 Water Resources ................................................. 72 Biological Resources ............................................ 75 I Cultural Resources • ............................................. 77 Public Services and Utilities ................................... 80 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................ 87 No Development .................................................. 87 No Project....................................................... 87 One Hundred Percent Affordable .................................. 87 One Hundred Percent Senior ...................:.................. 88 Increased Density: All Seniors/All Affordable .................. 88 ' THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ..... 90 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS ............................................. 91 CUMULATIVE AND INCREMENTAL IMPACTS .................................. 92 SUMMARY OF UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IFTHE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED ................................... 93 I I I iii SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOUND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT ........................ 94 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS .................. 95 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................... 96 PREPARERS OF AND TO THE REPORT ......................... 97 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED DURING PREPARATION OF THE REPORT ..... ........................ .... 98 REFERENCES.......................................................... 99 APPENDICES Appendix A - Public Participation and Review Appendix B - Transportation Analysis Appendix C - Noise Assessment Appendix D - Air Quality Analysis Appendix E - Geotechnical Report Appendix F - Hydrology Report Appendix G - Biology Report Appendix H - Archaeological Assessment Appendix I - Paleontological Assessment Appendix J - Correspondence Appendix K - Planned Community District Regulations II C 17 Ii II iv LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Regional Location .............................. 7 Exhibit 2 - Vicinity Map ...................... 0.0.......... 8 Exhibit 3 - Regional Aerial Photo ................... 0...... 9 Exhibit 4 - Preliminary Site Plan .......................... 10 Exhibit 5 - Tentative Tract Map ...... ........ :.......... ... 12 Exhibit 6 - Landscape Plan ................................. 13 Exhibit 7 - Typical Cross -Sections ......................... 14 Exhibit 8 - Grading Plan ................................... 15 Exhibit 9a-c - Elevations ..................................... 16 Exhibit lOa-b - -Typical Floor Plans ............................ 19 Exhibit 11 - Planned Community Development Plan ............. 22 Exhibit 12 - Local Aerial Photo ............................. 24 Exhibit 13 - Local Projects ................................. 26 Exhibit 14 - Committed, Approved, and Proposed Projects ..... 31 Exhibit 15 - Existing General Plan .......................... 34 Exhibit 16 - Master Bikeways System ...........•.............. 36 Exhibit 17 - Existing Zoning ................................ 39 Exhibit 18 - Site Photos/View Analysis ...................... 44 Exhibit 19 - Existing Daily Volumes & ICU Values ............ 49 Exhibit 20 - Directional Distribution ....................... 51 Exhibit 21 - Project Daily Volumes .......................... 52 Exhibit 22 - Future CNEL Noise Contours ..................... 62 TABLES Table A - Project Statistics ............................. 11 Table B - Proposed Residential Development Standards ..... 21 Table C - Trip Generation ................................ 50 Table D - Apartment Parking Survey Summary ............... 54 Table E - Existing Noise Levels .......................... 58 Table F - Ultimate Traffic Volumes ....................... 59 Table G - Future Noise Levels ............................ 61 L] C 1 C I I I 1 r 1 1 I i- v GENERAL SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE DRAFT EIR) vi SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT I (TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE DRAFT EIR) j� 1 1 I'1 1=1 I I1 I1 hi P�1 1 I`m1 1 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses potential environmental impacts of the proposed 96-dwelling unit Brisa del Mar project. The project is located near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway in the Corona del Mar area of the City of Newport Beach, California. The applicants have requested the approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA), an amendment to establish a Planned Community District Development Plan and Development Standards, Tentative Tract Map, and grading permit by the City of Newport Beach. Compliance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) is also being requested. The City of Newport Beach has principal responsibility for the project's approval and supervision. Consequently, the City is the Lead Agency for preparation of this EIR. The material contained in this EIR is intended to serve as an information document for decisions to be made by the City of Newport Beach and' other responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES ' This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Quality Act of 1970, as amended (California Administrative Code, Section 15000, et seq.). This report also complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act adopted by the City of Newport Beach. This EIR is one of three environmental documents being processed concurrently for projects in the Corona del Mar area of the City of Newport Beach. This report discusses both the direct impacts of this project as ,.� well as cumulative impacts associated with the three proposed projects. 11 i 1 I I� PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS The Lead Agency in preparing this Environmental Impact Report is the City of Newport Beach. The environmental consultant to the City is Sanchez Talarico Associates of Newport Beach, California. The project sponsor for this .project is Irvine Pacific Development Corporation. The landowner is The Irvine Company. The project is being managed for the sponsor and property owner by Urban Assist, Inc. Preparers of and contributors to this report are listed on Page 97. Key contact persons are as follows: I1 2 City of Newport Beach: Ms. Pat Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3884 (714) 644-3225 Consultant: Ms. Annette Sanchez Principal Sanchez Talarico Associates 359 San Miguel Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 640-1700 Irvine Pacific: Mr. Bruce Martin Project Manager 610 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 720-2838 The Irvine Company: Mr. Bernard Maniscalco Project Manager 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 720-2722 Urban Assist, Inc.: Mr. David Neish Principal 3151 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 556-9890 ' 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT LOCATION ' The proposed project is located on a 6.6-acre site in southeast Newport Beach near the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway ' in the Corona del Mar area. The project site is shown in its regional and local perspectives on Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. The site is bordered on the east by Goldenrod Avenue, on the north by Sea Lane, on the west by ' MacArthur Boulevard, and on the south by Fifth Avenue, East Coast Highway, and a Mobil service station (Exhibit 3). PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS PROPOSED PROJECT ' The proposed project site is 6.6 gross acres. The project is proposed to be developed as a multi -family apartment complex comprised of 96 apartment ' units (16.02 units per buildable acre) and a private recreation complex. The project will contain 58 one -bedroom apartments (650 sq.ft.) and. 38 two -bedroom apartments (975 sq. ft.). The recreation area will include a recreation building, leasing office, pool, and spa. Access to the project is proposed from two driveways along Fifth Avenue and four driveways along Sea Lane. No access will be provided directly onto ' MacArthur Boulevard, East Coast Highway, or Goldenrod Avenue. A total. of 192 parking spaces are proposed with 96 provided in covered' stalls. ' Exhibit 4 illustrates the site plan. Table A provides project statistics. Exhibit 5 illustrates the proposed tentative tract map. Exhibit 6 depicts the landscape plan and is followed by Exhibit 7 which presents cross - sections through three segments of the site. Exhibit 8 illustrates the grading plan. Exhibits 9a-c depict elevations of various typical apartment buildings. Exhibits lOa-b illustrate proposed floor plans. The applicant desires to meet the City of Newport Beach's affordable ' housing requirement onsite. The project is also expected to meet the affordable housing requirements for the Jasmine Park (GPA 83-1a) and Corona del Mar Cottage Homes (GPA 83-1c) projects. The applicant is that 60 of the 96 units are to be affordable units. proposing The project applicant proposes to provide preference to senior citizens (age 55 years and older) by limiting rental of 50% of units to residents who are 55 years or older for an initial 90-day lease period. After the first 90-days, preference would be given to senior citizens as vacant units become available for re -renting. No permanent commitment to a specific number of units being reserved exclusively for senior citizens is proposed by the applicant. II 1 4 The applicant is proposing site development standards and design features ' to increase the desirability of the apartment complex to senior renters. The proposed design features are as follows: ' Handrails provided at all stairways of more than one riser Common recreation facility with meeting room, pool, and jacuzzi Small patio or deck for each unit ' Central mail box facility Interior doors will be 32" minimum in width (HUD standard for the handicapped) Grab -bars in all tub and shower locations ' Non-skid floors in kitchen and baths Adequate night lighting Smoke alarm system ' Dead -bolt locks Peep holes Full size parking•stalls - no compact spaces ' Outside storage provided at each individual unit instead of carport Parking convenient to each unit GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ' The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to the Land Use Element (LUE) and Residential Growth Element (RGE) of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The GPA will be amended to allow a maximum of t 96 dwelling units (16.02 units per buildable acre) to be constructed on the project site. The existing land use designation for the site is "Low - Density Residential" allowing a maximum of 24 dwelling units (four or less ' dwelling units per buildable acre). The GPA would amend the LUE designation to "Multi -Family Residential." This designation does not identify a specific density range. However, the proposed GPA also has a provision to place a maximum ceiling of 96 units on the project site. This ' is consistent with the proposed planned community district regulations and site plan. The Residential Growth Element is to be amended to allow greater than four dwelling units per buildable acre. ADOPTION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT PLAN AND REGULATIONS ' The site is zoned PC (Planned Community). The applicant has requested approval of an amendment to adopt a Planned Community District Plan and regulations. Table B summarizes the proposed development standards and ' regulations. II Ii 5 The proposed Planned Community Development Standards for the proposed 6.6-acre residential site would permit the following uses: Apartments Condominiums Recreational facilities Temporary model complex and appurtenant uses Uses appurtenant to apartments and condominiums Signs The Planned Community Development Standards would allow 96 residential dwelling units. The Planned Community Development Plan is depicted on Exhibit 11. Table B provides a brief summary of the proposed development guidelines for residential uses. ' TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IF Exhibit 5 illustrates the proposed Tentative Map of Tract No. 12209 which delineates the property boundaries of the single lot, existing infra- structure and easements, and proposed easements. The property is proposed to be subdivided into one lot designated for planned community. ' PROJECT PHASING ' Startup of construction is proposed for late Spring of 1985 with completion and occupancy of units scheduled for Spring of 1986. The project will be constructed in one phase. I1 PROPOSED ACTIONS ' Implementation of the proposed project will require the following discretionary actions. ' 1. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report. Acceptance of an environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with the ' California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guide- lines, City Policy R--3, and certification that the data were considered in final decisions on the project. ' 2. General Plan Amendment. The project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The amendment will change the ' designation of the site from Low -Density Residential (four or less dwelling units to the buildable acre) to Multi -Family Residential with a maximum ceiling of 96 dwelling units. General Plan Amendment ' procedures are outlined in Article VI, Section 65350 of the California Government Codes and City Policy Q21. I� I II 'J 1, I 11 3. Approval of Amendment. Request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for the development of the Brisa del Mar Planned Community District. Amendment procedures are discussed in Section 20.51.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. Approval of Tentative Tract Map #12209. Approval of the Tract Map of Tentative Tract 12209 is in accordance with Section 19.12.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Subdivision Code and the State Sub- division Map Act to create one parcel. 5. Traffic •PhaffgD—O-r-d-finance. Acceptance of a traffic study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-10 and approval of the project based on• data contained therein for the ultimate purpose of issuance of building and grading permits. 6. Grading Permit. The project will require approval of a grading permit in conformance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. 1 los angeles county ' I Rlwami . Fwy s ' Anaheim / t Santa Ana S'n Huntington N Costa Beach Mesa Newport Beach pacific ocean Irvinet 1 Project REGIONAL LOCATION BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach san bernardino county riverside county T San Jupn Capistrano San Clemente" / san diego county Sanchez talarico associates a ' I mom nnnc l���tnnr►nnnnnn� nnnnnnnnnnI II II VICINITY MAP BRISA DEL MAR " GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach n v-Ln sanchez talarico assadatesB00 d II Id I REGIONAL AERIAL BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach sanchez talarico associates r SITE COVERAGE TYPE ACREAGE DU/AC GROSS ACREAGE 6.63 14A NET ACREAGE 5.99 16.0 BUILDABLE ACREAGE 8.99 16.0 UNIT TABULATION UNITS BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 TOTALS PLAN BEDROOMS AREA PLAN BLDGS TOTAL PLAN BLDGS TOTAL NO. AREAS A 1 860af 2 28 6 30 58 37.700 14 5 ( B 2 975sf 2 + 28 2 10 38 1 37.050 TOTALS 4 56 8 40 98 1 74.750s' '0 `\ m \\ v � O Q \ 'P U \ C \\� Coast y'YwaY SITE PLAN ' BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach PARKING TABULATION TYPE NO. COYE:iED STALLS 96 OPEN, STALLS e6 TOTAL 192 '0 O C O 0 Sanchez talarico associates 90 11 TABLE A PROJECT STATISTICS Area Summary Total Site Area: Gross Acres 6.63 Net Acres 5.99 Buildable Acres 5.99 Project Characteristics Number of Total Units .96 One -bedroom units Building Type 1 28 Building Type 2 28 Two -bedroom units Building Type 1 30 Building Type 2 10 Parking Spaces 192 Covered stalls 96 Open stalls 96 Parking Ratio (space/unit) •2.0 TRAM 154 L--,j PTN. OF 1RVI NE BLOCK S3 6 z, TRA{;T 47,0 TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS j 42, � 62_�l� I •0 za ?O �=- I-- 1.14+IItGlff�llll I MAG ARTHUR BLVD SEA LANE 5 M AVENUE TENTATIVE TRACT 12209 BRISA DEL.MAR GPA 8361D City of Newport Beach � I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I wvcmcrvl FlfNRE RIND • I EAa. �j • PARK W bp' a:N GOLDENROD AVENUE LAND AREA EXISTING PARCEL 6.63 ACRES GROSS PROPOSED PARCEL 5.99r ACRES NET ASSESSOR'S PARCEL 452-642-090 T� III 11 HATER: CITY OF NEHPOFT BEACH 21 GAS. OUTHERN CALIFORNL1 GAS C04PANY 41 GAS. H) TELEPHONE, SOACIFICOUTHER TELEPHONE 9) ELECTRECITY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 70MING. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH-LANNED CON114NITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION IS RESIDENTIAL sanchez talarico associates 300 m lL t LANDSCAPE PLAN BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach PLANT LEGEND OMAGNOLIA GUANDIFWRA - SOUTTIENN MAGNOLIA ERYTHRWA HUMANIANA- DWARF CORAL THEE {.- --j PPVS MJWHBIS-ALETgD PPff V`lO+y FICUS BENJAMWA - 'STANDARD' rONEAUM OLEANDER - OMANDER HIBISCUS ROSA-SIMISIS —STANDARD' .UT.". WASISNGTONA FLLIFFM-CAI IdA FAN PALM A EUCALYPTUS FICF04A- �OWERWO GUM MEIALEUCA LEUCADENWU- CAJEPUT TREE r ,V, FICUS BENIAMWA- WEEPWG CHINESE BANYAN (SHRUB FORM) �l SHRUB SELECTIONS CARISSA GRANDIFLORA ABELIA ORANDIMOM UGUSTRUMJAPOWCA HAPHIOLEPIS=I" HBISCUS ROSA-SWENRSIS AGAPANTMS AFRICANUS PITTOSPORUM'WHEELETiF ASPAMGUS'SPflENGERI' 0 GRourrocovER sELEcnoxs DELASPWMA ALGA FGTEMRLA VFRNA FRAOARIA CHILOENSIS ® BWGAINVILLA SPP. Sanchez talanco associates o ro IL 11 I i 1 1 1 1 �E7(ISTIN13 STRUCTURE iFIFTH AVE SECTION SITE CROSS SECTIONS 1 BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach MacARTHUR BLVD. SECTION QA MacARTHUR BLVD Sanchez talarico associates 2D d LL \ L «,ea pot 1 I 1 ; \ \ i ixg• Pro- 176o \ 1---- i ^ - -- - •t \� 3AT � < arc � k / \ — — L t 1 I ' GRADING CONCEPT 'BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach ikl— EARTHWORk QUAUTITIES CUT 6000c. JOHN6.60ETTEN = c.,+urc wn bdw 1, FILL • W..000 cY OW542-761 PAI-N East O,nr Anm _LM T s 5,000 Cy- z„L A.. eau,ta, 9215 ) ) m =l FILL 3: n P.o,%A." , w CUT 'ONC GRAQING —�.i).84436 '� t 10.2584 - E ' sanchea talarico assocJates eo v LL ii' ";mWl i����I. 1 SIDE ELEVATION UNIT B 1 I' 1 1 1 1 1 REAR ELEVATION ELEVATIONS 'BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach _ It SIDE ELEVATION UNIT A FRONT ELEVATION BUILDING TYPE 1 Sanchez talarico as�ciates it 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ELEVATIONS 1 BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach i FRONT ELEVATION BUILDING TYPE 2 FLAT ROOF TILES TYP. METAL WINDOWS TYP. STUCCO METAL RAILING TYP. 0 I Sanchez talarico associater%m s '4:q SIDE ELEVATION m PLATE 40 N _ b FIN. FLR. FIN. GRD. IMETAL SLIDING DOOR TYP E•� _I E Id 'r REAR ELEVATION i ELEVATIONS iBRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach i BUILDING TYPE 2 Sanchez talanco associates i i FL, BRI City 106'-9' le DECK � IsSWOrR=H�FF• I — Y6j71VEIaN9I� — �II —�I�9N.—K -- - DEMwI� Y I WoF,H LVN99;w PEP srDEGI� II E.VF _IJNIN-G u_0EMU] 66DPCUm 49-WVIN9 -py -a -NK WGMN -a F0 cEnd I O M O nr ss 0 INING tfi O6rGr- JINBN N 0 Q WING P- m r fm 51re� l-IN. I F�DP�M A 00 Fw 6 FY 171NINE !I o —MF F'�`N6E T/�. O Dress. I; KrTONeN I Uhl _ IT 711 I UNIT A 650 sf UNIT B 975 sf UNIT A 650 sf UNIT Ar 650 sf SECOND FLOOR. PLAN BUILDING TYPE 2 Sanchez talarico FLOOR PLAN ( Ground Floor Similar) I a BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1 D City of Newport Beach a 21 TABLE B PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Proposed ' Standard Multi —Family Residential Maximum Building Heig�t 32 feet Setbacks from Streets MacArthur Boulevard 20 feet East Coast Highway Not Proposed Fifth Avenue 15 feet ' Goldenrod Avenue 15 feet Sea Lane 15, feet ' Setbacks from Property Lines Between structures on adjacent lots 10 feet Between structures same lot 10 feet Between carport and property line 0 feet Fences, hedges, and walls — maximum height 6 fe2t Parking (spaces per unit) 1.5 Site area coverage Not Proposed ' SOURCE: Proposed Planned Community Development Regulations, City of Newport Beach Zoning Code 1 Setbacks measured from back of sidewalk. Open parking to be permitted in setback area. 1 2 A minimum of one parking spaces per unit shall be covered. L I I Y. IMulti Family Residential Se Lang PC DEVELOPMENT PLAN BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach sanchez talarico associates r 23 LOCAL AND REGIONAL SETTING EXISTING ONSITE AND SURROUNDING ADJACENT LAND USES ' The 6.3-acre vacant parcel is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard to the west, Sea Lane to the north, Goldenrod Avenue to the east and Fifth Avenue and East Coast Highway to the south. The site, presently undeveloped, slopes gently to the south, with a small cluster of trees and undergrowth covering an easement (Metropolitan Water District) located in line with Fernleaf Avenue. Exhibit 12 presents an aerial view of the project site and the surrounding land uses. ' Residential land uses border the site on the north, southeast and south. These uses include the Sea Lane Apartments to the north along Sea Lane and a mix of attached and detached units in the neighborhood to the south and southeast. To the east of Goldenrod Avenue lies Harbor View Elementary ' School and Youth Community Center and Grant Howald Park. A service station lies to the southwest on the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway. To the west of MacArthur Boulevard is Newport Center. ' LOCAL SETTING The project site is located in a residential neighborhood along the western edge of the Corona del Mar area in Newport Beach. The surrounding area is characterized by a mix of older and modern homes including single-family detached and attached units as well as multi -family ' units. An established commercial area fronts onto East Coast Highway through Corona del Mar south and southeast of the project site. Recreational opportunities in the area consist of the Grant Howald Park, Begonia Park, Corona del Mar State Beach, and the bluff walk above it. Development potential in the Corona del Mar area is limited to redevelopment of older residential and commercial lots and development of the few vacant parcels remaining in the area. Currently, within the vicinity there are several proposals for development under review by the City which could affect the project neighborhood. These include the following: ° GPA 83-1A - Jasmine Park (Fifth and Marguerite) ° GPA 83-1B - Cottage Homes (Fifths Parcel) ° GPA 83-1C - Buck Gully ° GPA 83-1D - Brisa del Mar (Fifth and MacArthur) ° Corona del Mar Homes (under construction) ° Corona del Mar Specific Area Plan I° 2600 East Coast Highway Redevelopment I 1 I 25 There are also several planning and transportation studies which involve the area which includes the Corona del Mar Specific Area Plan and the widening of Coast Highway west 'of MacArthur Boulevard. ' Exhibit 13 depicts the location of each project site or planning area. GPA 83-1D is the subject of this EIR. The other three General Plan Amendments are the focus of other environmental documentation under preparation by the ' City of Newport Beach. The GPAs are briefly described below. The Jasmine Park project (GPA 83-1A) is bounded by Harbor View Drive to the north, Marguerite Avenue to the east, Grant Howald Park to the south, and ' Jasmine Creek/Harbor View Elementary School to the west. The project involves. development of 9.6 acres into a gated residential. community, comprised of 47 attached single-family units and a private recreation area. ' The project would include a General Plan Amendment (GPA), amending the Land Use, Residential Growth, and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan. The GPA would entail a change in General Plan designation ' from Low -density Residential (4 or less dwelling units per buildable acre) to Medium -density Residential (4.1 to 10.0 d.u. per buildable acre) with a maximum ceiling of 47 units. ' The Fifth Avenue Parcel (GPA 83-1B) includes 13.2 gross acres bounded by the Oasis Senior Center, Marguerite Avenue, Harbor View residential tract, Buck Gully and Fifth Avenue. The GPA consists of a General Plan redesignation from Low -density Residential to Medium -density Residential, allowing a maximum of 100 units. The Buck Gully site (GPA 83-1C) consists of 55 gross acres. The site is a relatively narrow drainage swale extending along the eastern boundary of the City from Fifth Avenue to San Joaquin Hills Road. The western edge of Buck Gully is formed by the Harbor View residential tract. The area would change under the General Plan from Recreational and Environmental Open ' Space with an alternate use of Low -density Residential to Recreational and Environmental Open Space with no alternate use. H I I I F The Corona del Mar Homes (Gfeller) project involves 40 single-family and duplex -residential units south of Pacific Coast Highway. The project is committed and currently under construction. A commercial redevelopment is proposed at the corner of East Coast Highway and Dahlia Avenue. This proposed project at 2600 E. Coast Highway includes 22,000 square feet of commercial office development which would replace small businesses on this corner lot. REGIONAL SETTING The City of Newport Beach General Plan. and zoning regulations as they pertain to the project area are fully discussed in the Land Use section of this EIR (pages 33 through 47). However, from a city-wide and regional perspective, other planning programs have been developed to guide and 'dY ' 26 EXHIBIT 13 LOCAL PROJECTS t t (TO BE PRODIDED WITH DRAFT EIR) I 27 control future development in the City the following paragraphs. COMMITTED PROJECTS These programs are discussed in The City requires that all projects in excess of 10,000 square feet of gross floor area or ten units comply with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Once a project has received all necessary approvals, including TPO approval, it is considered a "committed" project for purposes of projecting traffic generation related to future development. Projects within Newport Beach which are committed, but not yet fully constructed and occupied, are listed below and shown in Exhibit 14. The traffic analysis contained in tlie• Traffic and Circulation section of ' this EIR is based upon consideration of the proposed project as well as committed projects listed. COMMITTED PROJECTS - OCTOBER 1984 Name Use Quantity 1. Hoag Hospital Hospital 268 beds ' 2. Pacesetter Homes Office 500000 sq. ft. 3. Aeronutronic Ford Residential 300 units 4. Back Bay Office Office 69,720 sq. ft. ' 5. Civic Plaza Office 152,894 sq. ft. Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. Theater 20,000 sq. ft. Art Museum 10,000 sq. ft. Library 14,000 sq. ft. 6. Corporate Plaza Office 101,150 sq. ft. 7. Koll Center - Newport Office 325,934 sq. ft. Hotel 440 rooms 8. Campus/MacArthur Office 358,000 sq. ft. 9. National Education Office (Revised) Office 41,250 sq. ft. 10, Sheraton Hotel Expansion Hotel 119 rooms 11. Pacific Mutual Plaza Office 245,000 sq. ft. ' 12. Newport Place Office 194,411 sq. ft. 13. Shokrian Office 24,000 sq. ft. 14. Sea Island Residential 132 units 15. Baywood Apartments Residential 68 units 16. Harbor Point Homes Residential 21 units 17. Rudy Baron Office 8,500 sq. ft. Retail 7,500 sq. ft. ' 18. Martha's Vineyard Office 15,831 sq. ft. Restaurant 2,920 sq. ft. 19. 3101 W. Coast Highway Office 41,494 sq. ft. ' H I F i h I I I 20. Coast Business Center 21. Koll Center Newport and No. 1 TPP 22. Ford Aeronutronic 23. 1511 S 1252 Superior 24. GPA 81-1, Banning Ranch 25. Hughes 26. Park Lido 27. Heritage Bank 28. Flagship Convalescent 29. Big Canyon 10 30. Balboa Marina Fun Zone 31. GPA 81-3, Marriott Hotel Expansion 32. St. Andrews Church Expansion 33. YMCA (Expansion) 34. Allred Condos 35. Seashore Townhomes 36. Four Seasons Hotel 37. University Athletic Club 38. Block 400 Medical (GPA 81-2) 39. North Ford (GPA 82-1) 40. MacArthur Court/Roll M. Office Office Industrial Medical Office Residential Industrial Office Industrial Medical Office Office Hospital Residential Commercial Office Restaurant Hotel Church Recreational Residential Residential Hotel Office Medical Office Residential Park Commercial Center Newport "Block C" Office 41. Belcourt Area 8 (Revised) Residential 42. Carver Office Office 43. Corona del Mar Homes Residential 44. Big Canyon Villa Apts. Residential 45. 1400 Dove Street Office 46.• 1100 Quail Street Office 47. Superior Avenue Medical Medical Office 48. Auer Office Office 49. Villa Point Apartments Residential 50. Rosan Industries Redevelopment Restaurant Retail Office Boatyard 51. Newport Aquatic Center Recreational TOTAL COMMITTED PROJECTS: Office Medical Office Commercial/Retail Restaurants 37,000 sq. ft. 7,650 sq. ft. 120,000 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft. 406 units 164,400 sq. ft. 235,600 sq. ft. 110,000 sq. ft. 65,269 sq. ft. 36,888 sq. ft. 68 beds 33 units 16,165 sq. ft. 26,320 sq. ft. 6,866 sq. ft. 234 rooms 1,400 person cap. 45,000 sq. ft. 50 units 17 units 325 rooms 516 sq. ft. 80,000 sq. ft. 880 units 12 acres 50,000 sq. ft. 295,000 sq. ft. 130 units 15,000 sq. ft. 40 units 80 units 16,154 sq. ft. 1,091 sq. ft. 43,470 sq. ft. 23,500 sq. ft. 154 units 7,828 sq. ft. 6,303 sq. ft. 30,564 sq. ft. 70950 sq. ft. 18,228 sq. ft. 2,353,467 sq. ft. 213,739 sq. ft. 79,968 sq. ft. 25,614 sq. ft. I IJ I F1 11 I I 29 Industrial Theater Art Museum Library Hospital Residential Hotel, Church Recreational Park Boatyard APPROVED BUT NOT COMMITTED PROJECTS 394,400 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 14,000 sq. ft. 336 beds 2,311 units 1,118 rooms 1,400 persons cap. 63,228 sq. ft. 12 acres 7,950 sq. ft. The following projects have received approval by the City Council, but have not yet complied with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Consequently, they are not considered committed projects. A. GPA 81-2 1. Caltrans West 2. Office/Industrial B. Newport Center Residential PROPOSED PROJECTS Residential 143 units Office/Industrial 439,000 sq. ft. Residential 307 units In addition to committed and approved (but not committed projects), several other projects and plans are in the planning process. These projects and plans require additional approvals by the City and/or other governmental agencies and are listed below and shown in Exhibit 14. Statistics for specific area plans indicate additional allowable development based upon existing zoning. C. 2600 E. Coast Highway Office 22,000 sq. ft. D. Campus/MacArthur Redevelopment Office 50,000 sq. ft. (additional) E. GPA 83-1(b) 1. Marguerite Avenue Parcel Residential 47 units 2. Fifth Avenue Parcel Residential 84 units ' 3. Buck Gully Parcel F. GPA 83-1(d) Open Space -- Fifth Avenue/MacArthur Blvd. Residential 96 units G. Specific Area Plans (not currently in progress) 1. Central Balboa (6/82) Commercial 621,730 sq. ft. 2. West Newport Study Area Commercial 2,915,140 sq. ft. (6/82) 3. Mariners Mile (1976) Commercial 302,011 sq. ft. 4. Corona del Mar (6/82) Commercial 1,283,933 sq. ft. Residential 273 units U i 1 30 H. Cannery Village/McFadden Commercial 2,840,076 sq. ft. Square Specific Plan (2/77) Industrial 722,309 sq. ft. I. Newport Dunes Hotel 250 rooms J. Other GPAs Proposed 1 1. U.S. Post Office Commercial 60,000 sq. ft. (North Ford Area 2) (estimate) ' TOTAL PROPOSED PROJECTS: Industrial 722,309 sq. ft. Office 72,000 sq. ft. Commercial Residential 8,022,890 500 sq. ft. units Hotel 250 rooms 1 ' OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Planning and circulation issues pertaining to the project should be evaluated not only in the context of other developments, General Plan Amendments and Specific Area Plans (as discussed above), but also should be considered in light of other road and transit -improvement plans. The City of Newport Beach has been conducting studies analyzing such plans. The City and State of California are participating in studies to widen Pacific Coast 1 Highway from MacArthur Boulevard to Newport Boulevard. The County of Orange and State of California are also presently participating in studies for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. These plans and studies 1 may eventually affect the transportation system in the City and region and may also ultimately affect growth in the region. 1 1 d 1 I 1 1 rw - i s� `� ��1 ��" �D//vj��//q�� ®ate E� ����' ;� >> ! •a"';:: - e �� � � —�_,, ''� r ' � ' i .LJ� ✓' . ) 1 -21 I ����•�� eaaz "" oar,, l{T��IIt' `••' �Q ` O4^ul� ✓ m 14,s?'4„'j.,,Y`�yS\"« ;""2% _-i :.0 a��,,/l _ ,•J t\-\\ zr l' iFl tU'pl�.b.•L �a'k , „� �ij�t' ..�, �� • C,.y ♦ SlY � O m 'mac �•,. i,. ,4 -s�a.r.s' \ •"• z ;;%• /d \�J\•cl d �® J\ y •� �® C'>' V� /®-� Ll� +n2� i 1_ S 3~.l ,m�� .. •`+44ts \\ �� dQ`\7' Vy ""'. ftt , ''^"usa�'l �l 'r \t 0'+Ja\1.+, .t ✓Givn4^'^=�' "4w.����r. `ti,♦.,•`, . ♦ \ \ ® a '-+ L� 1'. 1�;,�, ` �t �..r �.•�: ..>>i •i..ytl'4. ,r "�.-.�'.. ��w-. _• jds1j ♦ Y ®O �� }rite. r _ ♦. e; 6/' F -{ II " �,_ p rD�, I \ „/ �` Q� �� sp Da�OOO���•;1. ,.� Ill { ``� �•36 .-.9 ii. ``="--+�7�>'.,;,1..' \--1--_`%• t� c� � o o,t, om � ���� ;;�..-• a:�:.��1�•..�" . t • ; �n Ca �O 1� 49�0�}:a} J �.s" \� \ "�'._48 r.� � ���, •.; (0bJe ��'�"—<i',�5 � If��'�t�'aE I�• � :� I� �;� ��n 14381 ��y,` 4s-.....y�'\�"�� ♦. "�=- /� "' -c � D � �0��!^�',B�,rJ a �=a-, !a/"� `""%''' �",` to .�14r 3� '._� �J-1 tE • i!`��' � . �t`"' `„�;;.' � \`-�• '�'' a n,a sssa°' \ � I `�1 r• O ./ -G 'y}� — X ,� � 1 � M1' �j�ci``�-'.i �Sh,. 't (�-�t c t° a:- t ! ��i' _'J�- G 1 a.,r. t ;�...... `°"' 'r.,�• B 42\ � \ �'^';7 � �+�dc! ��•• � � � �e mod, .�J 6; • " = �.'�r :. � ��71"% m✓ 24 �1 Q43�r®�� 1 t u SsNne .• c ,_c���",�'r9E9 f� cni ti A' _2 r � f✓� n L�� ti. riv r,�er "t ° ' ♦ • doer �„o�O ..� � t�� F3'j �4V��I �,.�C7f�CaEJ '�• ...� xz r% a r.,e„ ;. k•a,;' '4js `Q 13� � `i�;:l',^�:'••::r.�a ©ty,�WF.�� b�j,�a ..,. ' 0� n ai a. an/1 y.• � � A - __ -__ ....._.., `a�rr�'rl a '��_ .�"" L�CI�©��'��� C�a� ;,.� � y4� pA����T �G�f O '•� `T`��t�. jjrlfp�1 J 28 _ pp�l)tll�{111�.+ vnaF' ^- •s" � 6=•3id:SE e• a- au(wn 1-�gx•__. _ � �wrrNn � v. •... ¢aar: rtorx r.�_+ +u..,-. .3 "bad a � r�-}'� •-'t^'Y oO������Etk1��IJkQ�iLI�Q�I �1� "�/ 11 - -'O� t�sl � f.i dl.. �- i♦y_ - t �s� �` J OG �.e....d _r ��' s� d�4er,r���- •�_ �rdd? �e _ �rPj�d3 ____.-<.�._ ve oeellgq!'rara,>a�C ��� O °��oLC�9�p ac �� •-; i' . f li ..., o �`��='::�e�r e�; Eris ,i v:�-:�. �.`S �'��U�7(7 �lif�hh ��o �e ..> ➢mom � °i(,f�jl �V�,Uc � ���� i � 1 ram, . S : S S S . S : i i %S a_ 0 4• � l' � �•� ' a''..r ,:,a--= r• � �e��� �. i :tta7;� 000 ��Op ..� 'hya`�' ""i ti:_-a-"_ �G•�� °r ..«r_ .�:� a : .. -� f •.'?iav ofJ�G%`OO® �.. O; rr'fi'"-_ r���c4" �ie!` {•__ �'-~ -��-a..e ` ...._. "�.+ �l=_--.-�1 A ,ir V©/Q.� O �wt!oo�rs �O��vv�°' ��Y,-•r �,,,,,wu ____.� •°a I COMMITTED APPR VED AND J `_.�e�_,�— SOURCE:CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH sanchez talarico O ates j PROPOSED PROJECTS c 'f k=,= o C E '� v I assoc BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1 D City of Newport Beach I I 11 I I I I I 1 u I u I I I h I 32 MITTUTIM i 33 LAND USE AND AESTHETICS SETTING Existing Land Use The 6.63-acre project site is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard to the west, Sea Lane to,the north, Goldenrod Avenue to the east, and Fifth Avenue and East Coast Highway to the south. The site is undeveloped and slopes gently to the south. A small cluster of trees and undergrowth cover the Mesa Water District easement located in line with Fernleaf Avenue. Residential land uses border the site on the north, southeast, and south. These uses include The Sea Lane Apartments to the north and mixed attached and detached units to the south and southeast. East of Goldenrod Avenue are Harborview Elementary School, Youth Community Center, and Grant Howald Park. A service station lies to the southwest on the corner of East Coast Highway and Dahlia Avenue. West of the site is MacArthur Boulevard with Newport Center further west. Small commercial businesses align East Coast Highway south and southeast of the site. ' Existing Land Use Plans General Plan Land Use Element The City' s Land Use Element proposes that the City build on its existing "grouping of villages" theme and character and, where possible, strengthen ' both the physical identity and functional efficiency of the village theme. The project site is designated Low -Density Residential on the Land Use Plan. Low density is defined by the City as separate or attached residences constructed on individual lots with densities up to a maximum of four units per buildable acre. Surrounding areas are designated on the Land Use Plan as depicted in 1 Exhibit 15. Generally, the site is situated on the western edge of a residential area of Corona del Mar. Surrounding land use designations are varied. A Multi -Family Residential designation is immediately north along Sea Lane, with Low -density Residential to the northeast. Governmental, Educational/Institutional, and Recreational Environmental Open Space are shown on the Land Use Plan to the east. They reflect the existing Harbor View Elementary School and Grant Howald Park. Two -Family Residential is designated to the south. Alternate use of Retail Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial are designated to the southwest and further south along East Coast Highway. Retail and Service Commercial and Multi -Family Residential is the prevalent land use designation west of MacArthur Boulevard. I r I LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL RETAIL & SERVICE COMMERCIAL EXISTING GENERAL PLAN BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D .City of Newport Beach & NSTIMIONAL FACILITIESNA`t RECREATIONAL & ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE AREAS WITH ALTERNATE USES PER LAND USE ELEMENT tcaarico 35 General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element 1 The City's Recreation and Open Space Element provides a program for preservation, acquisition, development, and maintenance of recreational and open space resources throughout the community. The nearest open -space area is Grant Howald Park, east of Harbor View Elementary School. According to the Element, recreational needs in the project area are presently being met by existing facilities. The Element recommended extension of Grant Howald ' Park easterly to Marguerite Avenue. This expansion- has recently been completed by the City. The Recreation Element designates major and secondary bikeway •and pedestrian paths in the City. Fifth Avenue is a secondary bikeway on the City Master Plan of Bikeways. Exhibit 16 illustrates bikeways in the vicinity. General Plan Housing Element The City's Housing Element identifies goals and objectives for alleviating potential housing problems. The Element contains a number of Program and Performance Objectives. Those which relate to the Brisa del Mar project include: ' Applicable Program Objectives Objective 1: To promote and facilitate the improved capability of the pri- vate housing industry to produce and provide housing for the population of the City. Objective 3: To promote the development of an increased level of new hous- ing production, consistent with sound planning and environ- mental standards. Objective 5: To achieve an appropriate balance between employment and housing. ' Objective 6: To encourage the housing development industry to respond to the housing needs of the community as well as the demand for housing as perceived by the industry. Objective 7: To promote and assist in the development of housing for low and moderate -income households. Objective 10: To promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color. ' Objective 11: To promote a greater choice in housing opportunities for eld- erly residents of the .community. i 37 Objective 12: To provide for the development of a variety of housing types Iand products for all income levels of the community. Applicable Performance Objectives ° To produce 2,648 new units including 973 affordable to City very - low, low, and moderate income families. ° Increase housing production from the current average of 260 units per year to 525 units per year. ° Process necessary General Plan Amendments for Fifth Avenue/Mac- Arthur Boulevard, Marguerite Avenue, and Fifth Avenue parcels. ' To provide new housing opportunities for low- and moderate -income households, wherever possible, and to encourage the industry to allocate at least 10% of the annual production goal to affordable housing for low- and moderate -income households. General Plan Residential Growth Element The subject site lies within Statistical Division M of the Residential ' Growth Plan. The potential of residential growth in this area is primarily the result of building -out of approved residential planned communities and infill development of some small vacant lots. The subject parcel is Iallowed a maximum of four dwelling units per buildable acre. ' General Plan Circulation Element The Circulation Element designates MacArthur Boulevard and Coast Highway west of MacArthur Boulevard as major six -lane divided roadways. Coast Highway east of MacArthur is designated as a primary four -lane divided road. Improvements to portions of these roads are planned as future street projects. Fifth Avenue and other streets surrounding the parcel are local roads and are not outlined on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. No additional improvements to local streets are necessary for implementation of the Brisa del Mar project. ' General Plan Noise Element ' This Element of the General Plan assesses the area's current noise environment and contributors of the increasing noise problem in the City's growing urban environment. The Element's "noise control program" includes all practicable City actions towards reduction of noise from motor, aircraft, and stationary sources, and mitigation of its adverse effects. A full discussion of noise sources, control, and mitigation is included in 1 the noise section of this EIR. S' I • 38 General Plan Conservation and Natural Resources Element The City discusses existing resources, current programs for conservation, and actions to be taken to assure conservation of natural resources of the City. The Element is intended to satisfy the State requirements and includes six sections: Bay and Ocean Water Quality, Air Quality, Beach Erosion Control, Mineral Resources, Archaeological and 'Paleontological Resources, and Energy Conservation. Analyses of the above mentioned categories, where applicable, are provided in appropriate sections of this EIR. Contact with State and local agencies, documented in Appendix A, has ' allowed a full review of City policies, resource conservation, and impacts. General Plan Public Safety Element Public safety involves potential natural physical hazards, disaster planning, and risk reduction. Hazards of specific concern in Newport Beach ' are geologic, flood, and fire hazards. The subject site is located within Category 1 Fire Hazard Area of the Newport Beach Public Safety Element, characterized by fast propagating natural areas with very dry, natural foliage, and rugged terrain. Flood and geologic hazard analyses have been executed by professionals for the proposed project in accordance with policies of the City under this Element of the General Plan, and are fully discussed in the Water Quality and Earth Resources sections of this report. City of Newport Beach Zoning ' The project site is currently zoned Planned Community under the City Municipal Code, although a Planned Community Development Text has not yet been adopted by the City. Most of the surrounding areas to the north, east, and south are under residential zoning, although -the area to the south along East Coast Highway is under Commercial zoning and the majority of Newport Center immediately to the west is zoned either planned community or commercial. Existing zoning of the area is graphically illustrated in Exhibit 17. IMPACTS ' Existing Land Uses and Land Use Plans The project site will be converted from vacant land to residential use. The uses are not incompatible with surrounding land uses which are ' predominantly residential in character. The density of the project is similar to that of the multi -family uses north of Sea Lane and slightly greater than the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood further north, northeast, and southeast. The following is a list of existing or proposed development in the area which provides a density comparison with the proposed project. LEGEND RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL R ICI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING ZONING BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach COMMERCIAL OFFICE PC PLANNED COMMUNITY ;;%;:C} •• OPEN SPACE i I Sanchez talarico associatesoo i I d 1 11 I 40 proposed Project Sea Lane Proposed Cottage Homes (GPA 83-1b) Proposed Jasmine Park (GPA 83-1a) Carnation School Site (Gfeller) 16.02 du/buildable acre du/buildable acre 10.00 du/buildable acre 6.91 du/buildable acre 12.73 du/buildable acre The project will not produce significant levels of light/glare, traffic, noise, or air pollutants which could degrade the living environment in the surrounding neighborhood. The project requires an amendment to two elements of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. These elements are the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements. The Land Use Element would be amended to designate the site for multi -family residential. The Residential Growth Element would be amended to allow greater than four dwelling units per buildable acre on the project site. A majority of the land in the City is developed and the existing General Plan is reflective of that development. In terms of future allowable development, the City of Newport Beach General Plan and zoning establish that a majority of the vacant land in the City will be developed for residential development or preserved for recreation and environmental open space uses. Future allowable higher density residential development will be in the older areas in the community or located in close proximity to major commercial and transportation centers. The majority of the future additional allowable development will be as incremental increases, occurring as presently -developed properties recycle. The proposed project, if approved, would appear to be consistent with this overall development pattern. The proposed densities are consistent with adjacent properties and the conceptual design of the complex is compatible with the adjacent land uses. The proposed density (16.02 units per buildable acre) appears compatible with adjacent residential and commercial areas. The neighborhood of the project site is developed with single-family dwellings, duplexes, and apartments. The only recent change to the General Plan in old Corona del Mar was the approval of the GPA 83-2A (Gfeller) project in March 1984. The current Recreation and Open Space Element review, initiated in 1983, was precipitated in part by a need to restudy the park provisions in the City, particularly in the Corona del Mar area. Corona del Mar has a small area of undeveloped land remaining. Therefore, each development or redevelopment proposal needs to be closely reviewed by the City to establish its relationship to park needs within the area. The closest park to the project site is the Grant Howald Park. Begonia Park is located at First Avenue and Begonia Avenue south of East Coast Highway. A public view park is proposed as part of the Jasmine Park project (GPA 83-1a). This park would be located at the corner of Marguerite Avenue and Harbor View Drive. 1 41 The proposed project is subject to the Park Dedication Ordinance (PDO). The tentative subdivision or parcel map is the triggering measure for the application of the PDO (Section 19.50 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code). The project applicant proposes to meet the park dedication requirement ' through payment of in -lieu fees or offsite park dedication. Initial estimates are that about 1.07 acres of park or $478,477.36 in in -lieu fees are required. Housing Affordable Housing The project applicant proposes that 60 of the 96 apartment units will be ' rented in the affordable range. For the purpose of estimating the required number of affordable units in accordance with the Implementation Plan for Housing Element Objective #6, the following assumption have been made: ' 1. A total of 96 units will be developed on the Brisa del Mar site. 2. A total of 127 units will be developed on the Jasmine Park and Corona del Mar Cottage•homes sites. 3. All affordable housing requirements for the three sites are to be met on the Brisa del Mar site. The housing implementation plan states that "residential developments with development incentives and without government financial assistance that provide low- and moderate -income rental units shall provide 10-30% of the total project units in the following proportions for a minimum of 10 years. ' 70-100% affordable to City low income 0-30% affordable to County low income ' The Jasmine Park and Corona del Mar Cottage homes sites are proposed to receive a 100% increase in density. The City's initial estimates for percent of affordable housing is based on this density increase is 20% of ' the 127 units proposed for the two sites. This would total 25 units. The Brisa del Mar site is proposed to receive a 300% increase in density. The City's initial estimate for the percent of affordable housing is based on this density increase is 30 % of 96 units. This would total 29 units. Together, all three project will required a total of 54 affordable units. ' A recent General Plan Amendment for Newport Center (GPA 83-1E) included a transfer provision that would allow the construction of 60 market rate units in Newport Center if 60 affordable units are built on the Brisa del ' Mar site. If the property owner chooses to construct the Newport Center (60 market rate units) residential project, a total of 104 units would be' required at the Brisa del Mar site which is eight more units than currently proposed. I 42 This analysis does not take into account that, as part of GPA 83-1d, the City proposes to remove the alternate designation of residential from the Buck Gully site. If the City decides to transfer residential development rights from the Buck Gully site and retain it as open space, the number of affordable units required of the other sites should be reduced. ' Senior Housing The project applicant proposes to provide preference to senior citizens ' (age 55 years and older) by limiting rental of 50% of units to residents 55 years or older for an initial 90-day lease period. After the first 90-days, preference would be given to senior citizens as vacant units become available for re -renting.• Page 4 of the project description lists the site development and design features which the applicaht is proposing to increase the desirability of the apartment complex to senior citizen renters. The initial senior citizen rental policy during the 90-day lease period will result in a higher than average percentage of senior to non -senior ' renters among first-time occupants. The proposed design features will provide amenities which are attractive to senior renters. Also, about 60% of the units will be affordable which will make them desirable to fixed - income senior renters. However, there is no permanent commitment on the part of the applicant to provide senior housing opportunities on the site. Practically speaking, ' the "preference" policy for re -rents will be difficult to enforce and monitor. Although, the apartment complex will be more desirable than most for senior renters, there is no guarantee as to what percentage of the ' tenants will be seniors. According to information provided by the Irvine Pacific Development Company, the Irvine Pacific Development Company apartments in Newport Beach experience different rates of senior rentals (renters 62 years and older). The rates are as follows: Promontory Point 10% Bayview 5% Baywood Expansion 13% Baywood 20% Bayport 36% Mariner's Square 56% ' Description of the Project/Views from Surrounding Usea Exhibit 4 (page 10) illustrates the proposed site plan. The project consists of a series of building "pods" spread over the relatively flat site. A centrally located recreational area is sited at the main entrance to the site off of Sea Lane. A pedestrian corridor is planned to meander 1 43 through the center of the site between the pods. Landscaped pedestrian walkways adjacent roadways are located on Sea Lane and Fifth Avenue. Entrances to driveways will be paved with an accent material. I I i I I I I Portions of the site can been seen from all surrounding roadways and properties. A view analysis was prepared for the applicant by J.L. Webb and Associates. A portion of this analysis is reproduced on Exhibit 18. There are no views of the site or the proposed buildings from homes along Pebble Drive and Setting Sun Drive. Homes along Harbor View Drive, east of Goldenrod Avenue, have minor views of the site interrupted by existing houses and vegetation at lower levels. Residents will have isolated views of the tops of buildings and the northwestern edge *of the site. The• project will not block views of the ocean or Corona del Mar. The project, will essentially blend into the existing visual environment below. Existing views of the site from the rear yards of homes along Harbor View Drive (west of Goldenrod Avenue) and Goldenrod Avenue (south of Harbor View Drive) are also limited. Views of the site are blocked by the existing Sea Lane apartment complex and mature vegetation on the slopes below the houses. Only a few view corridors of the site are available. Through these corridors, residents will glimpses the upper story of the apartment buildings. Views of 'the ocean and Corona del Mar will not be blocked. Within the Sea Lane apartment complex, only those apartments facing onto Sea Lane have views of the site. The second story units view the site, Corona del Mar residential and commercial areas, and have glimpses of the ocean in the distance above treeline. The project will block all views of residential and commercial uses along Fifth Avenue and East Coast Highways. It will also block the limited views of the horizon/ocean. Exhibits 9a-c (pages 16-18) illustrate renderings of several typical architectural styles proposed for the project. Exhibit 6 (page 13) depicts the proposed landscape plan. Exhibit 7 illustrates site cross -sections which depict the edge treatment along MacArthur Boulevard and Fifth Avenue. The edge treatment along MacArthur Boulevard consists of a 20 foot setback area. In some areas this landscaped setback area is as wide as 30 feet. The setback area is predominantly comprised of a landscaped 2:1 slope leading up to the proposed grade of the project site which is 3 to 7 feet above the existing grade of MacArthur Boulevard. At the top of slope will be a mixture of aleppo pine and ficus benjamina which will partially screen the driveway and parking area. A low ground - cover of flowering and non -flowering plants will be planted down the slope. A series of narrow planter terraces will cascade down a portion of the slope at the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway. i, 1 44 , EXHIBIT 18 1 VIEW ANALYSIS Ie 1 1 1 ' 1� 1 ' 1 . 1, 1 i 1 1 1 1 ' 45 ' Landscaping will not be sufficient to completely screen views of the driveway, on -driveway parking, and the carports from motorists on MacArthur Boulevard. The effect will be similar to that of the recent Baywood Expansion. Especially, in the first few years of the project before ' vegetation has matured, motorists will be subjected to light and glare from onsite cars and views of the back of a proposed carport. Given the visual prominence of this site at the major intersection of East Coast Highway and ' MacArthur Boulevard and its proximity to Newport Center, this treatment is not adequate. If not redesigned to block views of onsite parking areas, this effect would be considered an adverse impact. ' Residences along Fifth Avenue which face onto Fifth Avenue will have views primarily of carports, two buildings, and driveways. Slope of varying height (two feet to four feet, 8 inches) will be graded along the project ' edge and will be planted with aleppo pines and dwarf coral trees. The pedestrian accessway will be planted with fan palm. Design of the carports was not available to determine if a solid wall is proposed for the back of ' carport to block headlights from shining across Fifth Avenue. If the carports are not designed to block headlights, this would be a significant adverse impact. ' Building Height Maximum building height as proposed by the P-C Text will be 32 feet. Signing and Fencing ' The proposed P-C Text proposes that "One double or single face ground sign per street frontage shall be allowed. Said sign shall not exceed a height ' of four feet nor an area of forty-five square feet per face. Said signs may be internally or externally lighted and may list only the name of the project, apartment or apartment complex, and a one or two word statement as to whether or not the project contains vacancies. The P-C Text proposes that fences are to be limited to a maximum height of six feet. The P-C Text does not limit fencing to specific locations. The ' proposed site plan does not provide a clear indication regarding the location of proposed fencing. Landscaping The landscape plan is illustrated in Exhibit 6 (Page 13). As proposed, all slope areas, walkways, common areas, internal private streets, and ' entrances, would be landscaped with a variety of vegetation. This would include southern magnolia, dwarf coral tree, aleppo pine, ficus benjamina, oleander, hibiscus, California fan palm, red -flowering gum, cajeput tree, ' weeping chinese banyan, and various shrubs, groundcovers, and bougainvilleas. 1 ! 46 EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS ! The following measures will be required in accordance with existing City policy and requirements. ! A. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan will be subject to approval by ! the Planning Department, the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, and the Public Works Department. B. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls ! the use of fertilizers and pesticides. C. The landscape plan shall place emphasis on the use of drought -resist- ant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid ! surface runoff and overwatering. D. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved ! plot plan, floorplans, elevations, and sections. E. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage ! onto adjacent properties. ! MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning ! Department and the Public Works Department. 2. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded and screened from view by architectural features. ! 3. A plan depicting the exact location, height, and type of material for all walls separating the project from adjacent uses shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the approval of ! any grading and/or building permits. The plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. ! 4. No parking shall be allowed within setback areas. ! 5. The landscape plan shall contain a maintenance program that controls the height of all trees, shrubs, and groundcover to not exceed any ridge of the units adjacent to Marguerite Avenue. ! 6. The back walls of all carports located along the edge of the project shall be solid to prevent headlights from shining into the public streets and onto adjacent public property. ' 7. A berm shall be constructed along the driveway running parallel to MacArthur Boulevard which is of sufficient height to block views of ! parked cars from motorists -on MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast 47 Highway. The berm should be a minimum of 3-1/2 feet in height measured from the project side of the berm. 8. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the Brisa del Mar site, an agreement shall be entered into by the applicant, landowner, and City establishing that a minimum of 29 units of affordable housing be constructed onsite. ' 9. An additional 25 units of affordable housing shall be provided on the Brisa del Mar site if the Jasmine Park and Corona del Mar Cottage projects are approved as proposed. 10. Should additional market -rate units be constructed in Newport Center (per GPA 83-1E) an equal number of affordable units shall be provided on the Brisa del Mar project site in a manner approved by the Planning Department and City Attorney's office. 11. Prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permits for the Brisa del Mar site, a mandatory program for senior citizens guaranteeing a minimum of 50% seniors for a 10 year. period shall be approved by the Planning Department and City Attorney's office. 12. Prior to the issuance of any building and/or grading permit for the Brisa del Mar site, an agreement shall be entered into between the property owner and the City of Newport Beach if development rights are ' to be transferred from the Buck Gully site to the three other 83-1 sites. This agreement will establish, on the -basis of an accurate survey, the number of buildable acres and units allocated on the Buck Gully site. Based on this agreement, the affordable housing requirement shall be modified to reflect that the increase in units on the GPA 83-1 sites is a result of a density transfer and not only a density increase. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of these measures will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. I I I I 48 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION SETTING I . A traffic analysis was prepared for the Brisa del Mar project by Weston Pringle Associates in October, 1984. The study is based upon information provided by the City of Newport Beach and previous studies in the area and has been performed to satisfy the requirements of the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The following section is a summary of that report which is contained in Appendix B. A total of 96 apartment units are indicated on the site plan and this number has been used as the basis for analysis for the traffic report. A total of 197 off-street parking spaces are indicated on the site plan with vehicular access proposed on Fifth Avenue and Sea Lane. Sea Lane and Fifth Avenue are currently both two-lane facilities with on -street parking permitted. Sea Lane extends northeasterly to Harbor View Drive and MacArthur Boulevard; Fifth Avenue provides connections to north -south streets which extend to Coast Highway. Goldenrod Avenue extends in this north -south direction from Coast Highway to Harbor View Drive. The intersection of Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue is signalized. Exhibit 19 illustrates 1984 ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) values at major intersections nearby, and existing daily traffic volumes. IMPACTS Traffic Characteristics In order to examine potential traffic impacts of the project, trips generated by the project were estimated. Rates utilized in this study are listed in Table C. These rates are accepted by the City Traffic Engineer and are rates that have been used in Orange County for similar projects. As indicated in Table C, the 96 dwelling units would generate an estimated 670 daily trip ends with 70 occurring during the P.M. peak period. Estimated project trips from Table C were assigned to the street system to provide trip distribution. These patterns, illustrated in Exhibit 20, were based upon regional land use and circulation patterns and previous studies. Project trip distribution was also utilized to assign project traffic to intersections used in the analysis. Exhibit 21 shows estimated project daily traffic at selected locations. Traffic Phasing Ordinance The potential traffic impact analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of nine intersections (listed in Appendix B, Table 3) were identified by the City Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the study. The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is identified as I A LEGEND 44• DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN THOUSANDS fSO57s ICU VALUES F- w R w 4 � N W m Il Z � 2 g e0NITA C'�N:ro Oq v �4 n J 11 SPi PA1.11 I(. 1. i EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach 1 .7147 1754 7515 Sanchez tctlarico associates r 50 TABLE C TRIP GENERATION BRISA DEL MAR APARTMENTS Trip Ends Per Generated) Time Period Dwelling Unit Trip Ends Daily 7.0 670 2.5 Hour Peak In 1.0 95 Out 0.4 40 P.M. Peak Hour In 0.5 50 Out 0.2 20 1 For 96 dwelling units. r U � e RIS 1 c )f ti► NO ©F'ISTOL S 0 Ni eONVI [TAM C�N�....-. J D m ` n yG9 * 0 F c 5PN -~Q�/N o v~i a S J 9 on: ¢JAJ 10% 50 <n 3 In z i �. 15%l; ,n 5% a 20% n COAST HK'Y g PA�CIf IC 9 9 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach a 10% sanchez talarico associates m 4J � S cz 2 HRIg1if m NU JHISTUL ST. 4 JA, Sp,N rn o X n n 1 100 r' coNST B� J f„ I << VAC,tcr F .I f11 n� PROPOSED DAILY VOLUMES BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach a sanchez talarico associates 1 53 critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of existing, plus committed project, plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an intersection during the 2.5 hour peak period. ' Results of the One Percent test (documented in Appendix B) indicate that three of the intersections do not pass the test and are therefore critical in terms of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. These intersections are Coast ' Highway and MacArthur Boulevard, Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue, and San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Additional analyses, consisting of ICU calculations for each intersection, were completed for the three critical intersections. These ICU analyses included consideration of existing, committed projects, and regional growth traffic as well as project traffic. ' Results of the ICU analyses (Table 4, Appendix B) indicate that two intersections would have ICU values less than 0.90 in 1987 and one would have no change (with existing plus committed projects, plus regional I growth, plus project traffic, and with no intersection improvements). Consequently, the project would not have a traffic impact as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, since all intersections examined either passed the One Percent Test, had ICU values less than 0.90, or remained ' unchanged with the project and no improvements. Site Access and Parking Site access and parking were also addressed in the circulation study. The site plan indicates two access driveways on Fifth Avenue and four on Sea Lane, with each driveway serving a specific number of units and no provision made for vehicle circulation between parking areas onsite. Projected driveway volumes range from 80 to 160 daily trips. ' Two potential traffic operational and safety problems have been identified in regard to access to Fifth Avenue. First, the proximity of the easterly driveway on Fifth Avenue to Goldenrod Avenue results in potential traffic operational and safety problems. This may be avoided by relocation of the east driveway to align with the existing alley on the south side of Fifth Avenue. Second, the same potential problems exist on the westerly driveway, but may be avoided by relocating this driveway to align with the existing alley between Dahlia and Fernleaf Avenues. Driveways on Sea Lane do not present any traffic operational or safety problems. The site plan shows a total of 192 off-street parking spaces to serve 96 dwelling units or a ratio of 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit. Previous field studies of parking demands, conducted by Weston Pringle Associates, I indicate that the maximum observed was 1.38 parking vehicles per dwelling unit in residential complexes similar to the proposed project (Table D). The 2.0 ratio proposed appears to be an adequate parking ratio and is supportable by the field studies. 54 TABLE D APARTMENT PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY Location Date Day Time Vehicles Parked Legal Illegal Total Parked Vehicles Per D.U. Promontory Point 8/13 Saturday 8:30 pm 554 5 559 1.08 (520 D.U.) 8/14 Sunday 6:30 am 626 6 632 1.22 8/16 Tuesday 8:15 pm 542 5 547 1.05 8/17 Wednesday 6:00 am 610 3 613 1.18 Baywood 8/13 Saturday 8:55 pm 346 16 362 1.13 (320 D.U.) 8/14 Sunday 6:50 am 420 21 441 1.38 8/16 Tuesday 8:45 pm 321 8 329 1.03 8/17 Wednesday 6:25 am 395 13 408 1.28 Turtle Rock 8/13 Saturday 9:15 pm 293 6 299 1.19 (252 D.U.) 8/14 Sunday 7:20 am 320 5 325 1.29 8/16 Tuesday 9:05 pm 294 3 297 1.18 8/17 Wednesday 6:45 am 335 5 340 1.35 D.U. = dwelling unit. 55 Cumulative Traffic Impacts (Currently under preparation) EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS The following measure is required in accordance with existing City policy. F. The project shall be required to contribute a sum equal to its "fair share" of future circulation system improvements as shown on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and in any other mitigation measures as may be required. MITIGATION MEASURES 13. The easterly driveway on Fifth Avenue shall be relocated to align with the alley on the south side of Fifth Avenue. 14. The westerly driveway on Fifth Avenue shall be relocated to align with the alley between Dahlia and Fern Leaf Avenues. LEVEL OF AFTER MITIGATION Compliance with the above measures mitigates project specific traffic and circulation impacts to a level of insignificance. However, on a cumulative basis, this project, in -conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will incrementally contribute to increased traffic volumes on the local circulation system. 56 1 NOISE SETTING A noise assessment was prepared by Mestre Greve Associates in October 1984, for the Brisa Del Mar project. The following section is a summary of that report which is contained in Appendix C. Currently, noise in the project vicinity is derived from vehicular traffic. The roadways impacting the project site include MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway. The site is not impacted by aircraft or railroad sources of noise. One predominant rating scale in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is a 24-hour, time -weighted annual average noise level. Time -weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dB, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 ' a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dB. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's sensitivity to noise as a function of activity. I 1 I 1 I The Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach establishes outdoor and indoor noise limits for residential land uses. The outdoor noise noise standard for exterior living areas is 65 CNEL. The indoor noise standard is 45 CNEL. The highway noise level projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. For the roadway analysis, worst -case assumptions about future motor vehicle traffic and noise have been made and were incorporated in the modeling effort, specifically, no reductions in motor vehicle noise have been assumed in spite of legislation requiring quieter vehicles at the time of manufacture. Existing traffic volumes and estimated speeds (Appendix C) were used with the FHWA Model to estimate existing noise levels in terms of CNEL. Traffic volumes were obtained from the traffic study prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates for Brisa Del Mar (October 1984). 1 II II II II II II II 57 The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the project are given in Table E. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that the values given do not account for the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. IMPACTS Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups: temporary and long term. Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long term impacts are further divided into impacts on surrounding land uses generated by the project and those impacts which occur at the project site. Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators, and may reach high levels. The greatest potential for problems exists at the residential areas near the project site. This can best be controlled by limiting the hours of construction to weekdays and daytime hours. Commonly, construction noise is controlled by a City's noise ordinance. The Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance (Section 10-28) constrains construction hours within the City. Through the City environmental review process, this construction activity is further limited as a Standard City Policy (City Policy I on page 62 of this section. Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses The Brisa Del Mar Development will generate traffic and, as a result, may alter noise levels in surrounding areas. To assess the potential impact of the proposed project on land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the project, the increases in roadway noise along these streets was determined. All roadways were modeled for which existing traffic data and project traffic data had been supplied. These roadways were modeled for existing traffic conditions and existing traffic conditions plus the project. The traffic data (speeds, time distribution, and traffic mix), taken from the traffic study for the project, were assumed to remain the same as used for existing conditions. No increases in noise levels on Marguerite Avenue greater than 0.1 dBA were projected for the Brisa Del Mar project. Impacts on the Project Site Ultimate traffic volumes supplied by the City Traffic Engineer were used with the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Model to project future unmitigated noise levels that would impact the project site. The traffic volumes used are presented in Table F. II m TABLE E EXISTING NOISE LEVELS Distance to CNEL Contour From Marguerite Avenue Harbor Avenue to Fifth Avenue 21 46 99 MacArthur Boulevard North of Coast Highway 64 139 299 Pacific Coast Highway MacArthur to Goldenrod 76 164 352 59 TABLE F ULTIMATE TRAFFIC VOLUMES Roadway ADT Marguerite Avenue Harbor Avenue to Fifth Avenue 10,000 MacArthur Boulevard with Couplet North of Coast Highway 21,500 MacArthur Boulevard without Couplet North of Coast Highway 39,000 Pacific Coast Highway MacArthur Boulevard to Goldenrod Avenue 57,000 M In the analysis of noise impacts from MacArthur Boulevard, two scenarios were necessary. One analysis depicted MacArthur Boulevard as a two-way major arterial, while the other assumed MacArthur Boulevard as a one-way roadway going inland from Pacific Coast Highway and Avocado Street acting similarly as a couplet extending in the opposite direction from San Joaquin Hills Road to Coast Highway. The City of Newport Beach General Plan currently designates the latter "couplet" concept as the ultimate traffic improvement for MacArthur Boulevard. The two scenarios were used in analysis of this project to calculate daily traffic numbers on MacArthur Boulevard for the two alternative road configurations. The modeling results are reported in Table G in the form of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These projections do not take into account noise barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels. The data presented (graphically depicted in Exhibit 22) indicate that portions of the Brisa del Mar site will experience noise levels greater than 65 CNEL without mitigation under both road improvement scenarios. Noise levels are higher onsite if the couplet is not constructed. Measures will be necessary to ensure that private outdoor living areas (patios and balconies) planned along MacArthur Boulevard and near East Coast Highway will experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL, and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. With the couplet, it appears that very few, if any, private outdoor living areas would experience noise levels greater than 65 CNEL without mitigation. Without the couplet, approximately the first row of buildings facing MacArthur Boulevard would experience noise levels greater than 65 CNEL in patio and balcony areas if they have any view of MacArthur Boulevard. Patio and balcony areas on the opposite side of the building from the roadway would be shielded by the building and would experience noise levels less than 65 CNEL. EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS The following measures are required in accordance with existing City policy. G. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each of the planned units, an acoustical engineering study shall be performed based on actual pad, property, and roadway grades, and building locations and orientations to assure that the exterior building shells of each structure will be sufficient to reduce existing and future noise levels to an acceptable intensity. H. Prior to occupancy of any unit, a qualified acoustical engineer shall be retained by the City at the applicant's expense to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that noise impacts do not exceed 65 CNEL for outside living areas and active recreation areas and 45 CNEL for interior living areas. I 61 TABLE G FUTURE NOISE LEVELS Roadway Distance to Centerline 70 CNEL 65 CNEL Contour From of Roadway (Feet) CNEL 60 CNEL MacArthur Boulevard with Couplet North of Coast Highway 60 129 277 MacArthur Boulevard without Couplet North of Coast Highway 89 192 413 Pacific Coast Highway MacArthur Boulevard to Goldenrod Avenue 96 207 446 1 1 1 1 0 0 c m v 0 ULTIMATE NOISE CONTOURS BRISA DEL MAR GPA 83-1D City of Newport Beach Sanchez talarico associates 10 IL ' 63 I. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 1 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. H I J. Any mechanical equipment and screened from view and shall be 55 dBA at the property line. MITIGATION MEASURES emergency power generators will be sound -attenuated so as not to exceed 15. As a condition of project approval, the units which are located inside the 65 CNEL contour and have any partial view of the impacting roadways (Pacific Coast Highway or MacArthur Boulevard) shall be mitigated to experience outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. Specific provisions shall be determined prior to obtaining any grading permit and shall be installed in accordance with alternative design methods and recommendations outlined in the noise report for the Brisa del Mar project. LEVEL OF AFTER MITIGATION ' On a cumulative basis, this project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will contribute to an adverse impact on the noise environment on roads in the vicinity. E E R H I n C L� C' 64 AIR QUALITY An analysis of air quality was prepared by Mr. Hans Giroux, consulting meteorologist, in October 1984. The following discussion is a summary of the analysis, which is included in Appendix D of this EIR. SETTING Meteorological conditions of the area surrounding the project site are discussed in detail in Appendix D. In assessing the air quality impact of development —related air pollutant emissions, the generation of new pollutants must by examined with reference to existing Ambient Air Quality Standard (AAQS). These standards, listed in Appendix D, Table 1, are the levels of air quality considered necessary to protect the public health and welfare. There are no routine measurements of air quality distributions made in Newport Beach by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the agency responsible for air quality planning, monitoring, and enforcement in Southern California. However, a number of special studies have been performed that suggest air quality in the area is generally very good. Data taken by Caltrans near Newport Center showed that the only pollutant to ever exceed the applicable AAQS was ozone, the primary ingredient in photochemical smog. Only three out of one thousand hours monitored exceeded the Federal ozone standard, with only one hour reaching the South Coast Air Basin first stage smog alert level. Another study commissioned by the City of Newport Beach to measure carbon monoxide (CO) exposure directly adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) at Bayside Drive also found low air pollution levels, even within a few feet of stagnant traffic at the PCH/Bayside traffic signal. The low ozone values of summer and the low CO levels in winter both confirm that Newport Beach, especially the southeast side near Newport Center and Corona del Mar, has better air quality than most other areas of Southern California. Although baseline air quality levels around Newport Beach are quite good, the area is not immune from the occasional intrusion of polluted air from other source areas. Air quality monitoring data at the nearest AQMD monitoring station in Costa Mesa indicates that summer airflow from developed regions of the Los Angeles Basin and winter drainage winds down the Santa Ana River Valley may create air quality levels that are unhealthful for sensitive people. Table 2 of Appendix D summarizes the pollutant levels measured at the Costa Mesa station for the previous six years. While the concentration of some pollutants trend toward lower readings, in other categories such as ozone, there is only a very small improvement trend with little prospect of meeting clean air standards in the foreseeable future. r C� n E I1 11 II IJ 65 Since air quality trends of the South Coast Air Basin, as a whole, do not appear to be improving to meet the 1987 'standards, the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) has been formulated to permit continued but regulated rapid growth while still achieving clean air standards. In land development, requirements for growth consistent 'with the AQMP are not based on any single project. Instead, overall regional traffic generation is considered during planning, and local regulatory agencies may amend their General Plans to accommodate changing conditions, so long as standards are met. IMPACTS Residential development potentially impacts air quality primarily through the traffic and associated mobile source emissions generated by project residents. Any single project, particularly a limited residential development such as the proposed Brisa del Mar project, does not, of itself, create emissions in sufficient quantity to threaten air quality standards. However, while the individual impact of any single project is incrementally small, the cumulative impact of all such small sources ultimately leads to the Los Angeles Basin's inability to meet clean air standards. Construction Impacts Clearing, grading, utility excavation, and vehicular movement on unpaved surfaces will generate large volumes of loose dust that will be blown northeastward toward Newport Center by prevailing daytime onshore winds. Because dust is chemically inert and the particles are of a large diameter that are readily filtered by human breathing passages, it does not represent a significant health concern. But, it may create a soiling nuissance as the particles settle out on nearby parked cars, foliage, and other surfaces unless aggressive dust control measures are applied. The EPA estimates that each acre of soil disturbed during residential construction may add about seven tons of dust to ,the air. Consequently, the rules of the SCAQMD require that dust control measures must be employed to prevent the formation of a visible dust cloud or the creation of a dust settling nuissance beyond the project property line. Measures such as regular watering, early paving, and preventing soil spillage on traveled roadways can reduce dust generation by 50-75%, effectively mitigating dust nuissance potential. Construction activities also generate considerable combustion emissions from onsite heavy equipment and offsite trucks hauling dirt and building materials. While these emission levels may be substantial, they are temporary and the mobile nature of the sources will not cause exposure to a single receptor for very long. Any noticeable effects on the surrounding community will constitute a minor potential nuissance rather than any adverse health impact. I I I t M. Vehicular Emissions Impacts The greatest project -related air quality concern from this project, as with most Southern California growth, is from additional traffic generated by the project. With trip generation rate of 7.0 daily trips per dwelling unit and an average residential trip length of just under 6.0 miles per trip, the project will generate 670 trips and add just over 4000 vehicle - miles -traveled (VMT) to the regional VMT burden. Compared to the almost 40 million VMT driven per day in Orange County, the regional impacts of the project VMT in terms of air quality would thus be almost undetectable. Project -related air pollutant emissions generated from vehicular sources are shown in Appendix D, Table 3. These emissions as compared to regional totals are shown in Appendix D, Table 4. As expected, the project's share of countywide emissions is miniscule, in the range of 0.001 to 0.006%. A proposed project such as the Brisa del Mar development relates to the AQMP through the automobile emissions that will be generated by project residents. The AQMP has anticipated a certain level of development for the parcel based on its intended use according to the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, projects consistent with the General Plan designation constitute acceptable regional air quality impacts. To the extent that the project generates emissions in excess of those anticipated due to a higher density of development, -the proposed project is inconsistent with the AQMP. It should be noted, however, that the availability of more housing units will not upset regional air quality due to the fact that unmet housing demand will create development elsewhere in the basin to accommodate the need. Thus, while the project may be technically inconsistent with the AQMP until the AQMP is updated to reflect changing patterns of land use, such inconsistency must be evaluated on a regional basis rather than for any single project. Recent research has demonstrated that gaseous oxides can be converted to acid mist through atmospheric chemical reactions, In industrial sections of the United States with extensive coal-fired heavy industry, sulfur dioxide (SO2) converts to sulfuric acid and subsequently acidifies lakes and streams when the acid is washed out of the air by rainfall. In Southern California, rainfall is both infrequent and there are few SO2 sources. Measurements of the pH (acidity level) of fog, however, have frequently shown very acid fog droplets that can damage plant tissues on contact. The probable source of such acid formation is the nitrogen oxide emissions derived primarily from automotive fuel combustion. Nitric acid formation was thought to be too slow a process to be an important environmental concern, but the long residence recirculation ("slosh") is apparently conducive to significant atmospheric acidification. Any impact on acid fog formation related to the project is proportional to the total volume of regional NO emissions attributable to the project. Table 4 in Appendix D demonstrates that project -related emissions at buildout will be only .006% of County -wide emissions. This is considered 11 1 U I 67 an insignificant proportion and will not significantly aggravate the potential for acid fog formation. Miscellaneous Air Quality Impacts Residential development introduces a number of small additional sources of air emissions that are very small on an individual basis but which become more substantial when considered cumulatively. Many are so small as to not be allocatable to any single development, but, nevertheless, represent a non -negligible portion of the air basin pollution inventory. Some sources include (see Appendix D for additional sources): Residential electrical consumption requiring combustion of fuel oil in basin power plants. At an estimated consumption rate of about 600 kwh per dwelling per 'year, the project will consume about 600,000 kwh per year. If most of that electricity is generated from oil, about one-half ton of NO and SO (and smaller amounts of CO, THC, and particulates) will be release into t9e atmosphere in Southern California. Residential natural gas combustion is used for heating_, hot water, drying clothes and other uses. Natural gas is a "clean" fuel and emission levels are small from these sources. Dust and fumes are generated in mineral processing to make sand, gravel, aggregates, concrete, and other building materials. Landscape utility equipment combustion emissions (mowers, edgers, blowers, etc.) and organic vehicles in pesticides and herbicides are used for landscape maintenance. On a daily basis, most of these emissions are too small to even measure, but they all point out that more people mean more air pollution from a variety of sources. EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS ' There are no applicable policies of requirements. ' MITIGATION 16. Fugitive dust emissions during construction shall be minimized by watering the site for dust control, containing excavated soil onsite ' until it is hauled away, and periodically washing adjacent streets to remove accumulated materials. 17. Parking areas shall be paved early during construction. I 11 1 11 18. Major grading will occur during the non -rainy season. ' 19. Carry out major soil disturbance between 8 A.M. and 4 P.M. when winds are stronger to reduce the amount of dust settling out on nearby receptors and to obtain better areawide dispersion of any fugitive dust. ' 20. Adequate dust suppressants (i.e., water and early revegetation) shall be used. 21. Openable windows shall be used to allow cooling by normal breezes. ' 22. Solar assisted water heating systems for rooms, spas, and pools shall be used. ' 23. A lighting plan, which describes how energy conservation has been incorporated into the lighting scheme, shall be submitted for approval ' by the Planning Department. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION ' On a cumulative basis, this project will, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development, will result in an incremental degradation of regional air quality. d 1 J I 1 69 EARTH RESOURCES SETTING A preliminary geological report was prepared by Geosoils, Inc., in June ' 1984, for the project site. The following is a summary of that report, which is contained in its entirety in Appendix E. ' Topography The subject property is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard to the west, Sea Lane to the north, Goldenrod Avenue to the east, and Fifth Avenue and East Coast Highway to the South. The site descends gently to the south with elevations ranging from approximately 115 feet to 145 feet above mean sea ' level. No surface structures are presently onsite. Miscellaneous trash, debris, and dump fill are found on various portions of the site. Seismicity The geologic structure of the San Joaquin Hills is bounded on the southwest by the Newport -Inglewood Fault system offshore approximately 5 miles from Newport Beach and on the northeast by the Whittier -Elsinore fault approximately 20 miles inland. While no active faults on or adjacent to the property are known to exist, a number of faults in Southern California are considered active. The Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone is the closest active fault, and the San Jacinto Fault Zone is the most consistently active zone within a 100-mile radius of the parcel. Soils ' Fill materials, consisting of slightly clayey sands of a dry and loose -to - medium dense character, exist throughout the site with depths varying from two to four feet. Terrace deposits are found at depths ranging from two to twelve feet. These soils are moist and dense clayey sands, sufficiently ' consolidated to support fill loads. The site is underlain by bedrock of the Monterey Foundation, consisting of ' interbedded sandstones and siltstones. The bedrock materials tend to be stiff/dense in the upper weathered zone and hard below. The siltstones are interlayered with thin, but well cemented, siliceous material. Although no ' hard sandstone or conglomerates were encountered during excavation, the area is known to have more non -weathered bedrock material at increased depths. Moisture content of the soils varies from damp to wet. Results of expansion tests (measuring percent swell of soil when contacted with water) show that both fill and terrace material are of a moderately expansive nature. Classification (according to the Unified Soil Classification System) and testing of soils onsite•are documented in Appendix E. I I 70 IMPACTS Grading of the site will involve 20,000 cubic yards of fill and 15,000 cubic yards of cut resulting in a net import of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of fill for development of the project. Generally, the northern portions of the site will receive fill while the southern part of the site will be cut. This will make essentially a flat site at similar grade to the surrounding area (Exhibit 8, page 15). Topographic alteration is not considered significant. ' Seismicity i LJ I I I I I Statistical analysis of historical California earthquake data indicate that the probability of ground acceleration onsite may be generally similar to the probability for the Southern California region as a whole. Results of analysis show that during a 50 year life, a structure at .the site would be subjected to an earthquake of at least a Richter magnitude of 6.0. Horizontal accelerations during earthquakes may affect structures or embankments on the property. Potential for ground cracking in response to a major earthquake exists throughout the region. Danger of liquefaction onsite is lacking due. to the cohesive nature of the soils. Soils The proposed development involves cut -and -fill grading for building pads to support two-story, wood frame, multi -family apartment units. Column loads are expected to be light. Based on field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, the project site is found to be suited for the proposed apartment complex from a soils engineering viewpoint. Groundwater and caving were not encountered during excavation and are consequently not expected to be a factor in the development. However, minor seepage along the contact between strata (fill/terrace/bedrock) may be experienced. Based on analyses, the existing fill materials are anticipated to shrink in the order of 12-17 percent when removed. Recompaction of the soil would obtain 91-93 percent relative compaction. A general subsidence of 0.10 to 0.15 may be expected as a result of site grading. EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS The following measures are required in accordance with City policy. R. All buildings will conform to the Uniform Building Code and the City's seismic design standards. L. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 1 1 71 M. Local and CAL -OSHA safety codes shall be adhered to during all subsurface construction. N. The grading plan, if desired by the City of Newport Beach, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. ' 0. The grading permit, if desired by the City of Newport Beach, shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, and a ' watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. P. Erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed, slopes within 30 days after grading or as approved by the grading engineer. Q. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a ' civil engineer and based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of a comprehensive soils and geologic investigation of the project site. Permanent ' reproducible copies of "Approved -as -Built" grading plans on standard - size sheets shall be furnished to the City of Newport Beach Building Department. ' MITIGATION MEASURES ' 24. Prior to approval of the final grading plan, recommendations of the geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the design and engineering of the project. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION ' Implementation of the above measure reduces all impacts to a level of ' insignificance. No cumulative impacts have been identified. 1 D 72 WATER RESOURCES ' SETTING ' A hydrology report was prepared for the Brisa del Mar Apartments in October 1984 by John G. Goetten Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. The report was prepared to determine the project's drainage characteristics and its effect ' on existing storm drain facilities and the local drainage system. The report also included analysis of a 1983 hydrological study for the Fernleaf Avenue Storm Drain (downstream of the project site), designed to improve the storm drain system capacity. The following section is a summary of the t 1984 report (documented in Appendix F), which includes recommendations from both the 1983 Fernleaf Study and 1984 Brisa del Mar Hydrology Report. The six -acre project site is bordered by MacArthur Boulevard, Sea Lane, Goldenrod Avenue, Fifth Avenue, and East Coast Highway. Current drainage from adjacent lots located to the northeast of the site is collected by a ' pair of existing 8-foot catch basins in Sea Lane. These basins discharge water through a 21-inch storm drain to an existing drainage swale at the center of the parcel. The swale traverses the site and discharges into the street at Fifth Avenue and Fernleaf Avenue. This discharge and runoff from ' the site drains to Coast Highway, Dahlia Avenue, Fernleaf Avenue, Goldenrod Avenue, and Fifth Avenue. The runoff then converges in a sump in Coast Highway and enters the Fernleaf Storm Drain southwesterly across Coast ' Highway. The system transmits flows in Fernleaf to Second Avenue, to Dahlia Avenue, to First Avenue, and ultimately to Lower Newport Bay. I Z 1 I In order to increase the limited capacity of the Fernleaf Storm Drain, in 1983 the City of Newport Beach conducted a design study for the system. Recommendations included increasing the size of the existing storm drain at critical locations and extending the Fernleaf Avenue Storm Drain to Fifth Avenue when additional development of vacant land occurs. The proposed extension consists of a 30-inch storm drain in Fifth Avenue and Fernleaf Avenue (Coast Highway to Fifth Avenue) with a series of catch basins in Fifth Avenue. IMPACTS Development of the proposed project will result in increased impervious surfaces which will incrementally increase the amount of storm runoff from the site and decrease silt. Hydrological analysis indicates that the project will result in an approximate 157, onsite increase in runoff from existing flows. The project will result in an increase in urban runoff to Newport Bay, adding to the degradation of water quality of Lower Newport Bay. Hydrology calculations for determination of project peak flow rates were performed in accordance with the 'Rational Method' as outlined in the Orange County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual. The 25-year frequency storm, used in the calculations, is the design criteria specified by the OCFCD Hydrology Manual for similar developments. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 73 Onsite flows will be collected and discharged into the City's proposed extension of the Fernleaf Storm Drain in order to minimize runoff to adjacent streets and the near overloaded Pacific Coast Highway storm drain inlet system. The low level sump condition of the majority of the site necessitates an onsite collection system. The main storm drain through the project site will be a 24-inch RCP which will connect the existing catch basins in Sea Lane to the City's proposed 30-inch RCP in Fifth/Fernleaf Avenues. The northeast section of the site will drain to the 24-inch RCP as it crosses the site, adding only minimal flowrate volumes. Northwest portions of the site will be collected in a small onsite system discharging to the 30-inch RCP in Fifth Avenue near Dahlia Avenue. Installation of a catch basin is recommended to collect street drainage and runoff from the southern portion of the site to minimize runoff to the Pacific Coast Highway inlet system. offsite, the proposed 30-inch RCP in Fifth Avenue will connect to the 24-inch onsite system near Fernleaf Avenue. It is recommended that two catch basins at Fernleaf Avenue and Fifth Avenue be constructed to collect drainage from Goldenrod Avenue, Fifth Avenue, and portions of the project site. These basins would connect to the 30-inch RCP in Fernleaf Avenue. Provided recommendations and mitigation measures listed below are implemented, runoff from the subject site will be adequately handled. No significant drainage impacts are foreseen at this time. The City's extension of the Fernleaf Storm Drain System, the system of catch basins in Fifth Avenue and the extension of the 24-inch RCP in Sea Lane are anticipated to ensure adequate and safe drainage of the proposed Brisa del Mar development and existing adjacent flows. The Hydrology Plan shown in Appendix F should be used as a basis of the onsite drainage patterns in the final design of the Fernleaf Storm Drain. EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS The following measures are required by existing City of Newport Beach policies and requirements. In addition, please refer to City Policies and Requirements N, 0, and P on page 71 of the Earth Resources section of this EIR which serve to mitigate water quality impacts as well as geologic impacts. R. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan, if desired by the City of Newport Beach, shall be submitted and be subject to approval by the Building Department, and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, for review. S. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of project design. I 74 T. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall ' review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not 'increase erosion immediately downstream of. the system. This shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and 1 Building Departments. U. All proposed development shall provide for vacuum -sweeping of parking I areas. MITIGATION MEASURES 25. The applicant shall provide for all onsite storm drains and catch basins as recommended in the hydrology study and delineated on the tentative map. 26. The applicant shall provide for the 30-inch RCP on Fifth'Avenue from Dahlia Avenue to Fernleaf Avenue; the two recommended catch basins at Fernleaf Avenue and Fifth Avenue; and, the storm drains connecting the two catch basins to the proposed 30-inch RCP Fernleaf Avenue storm drain. ' 27. The 30-inch RCP storm drain proposed for Fifth Avenue/Fernleaf Avenue will be constructed prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the project. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the City's standard policies and requirements and the above mitigation measures assures that no adverse impacts related to hydrology will occur. Implementation of these policies and measures also partially mitigate the impacts of the project on water quality. However, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, this project will cumulatively add to the amount of urban pollutants reaching Newport Bay. !, I I H I I I I I I I I I I i__! U I I I I! I W BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING The following section is based on a biological resources assessment of the project site, consisting of a literature review and field investigation in August, 1984. The entire project site is severely disturbed and, by all indications, has been for some time. Based on the soil surface condition, the site appears to be disced annually, possibly for purposes of weed control. In addition, piles of refuse indicate the site has been used for dumping in the recent past. As a result of past and present disturbances, the site supports ruderal, or disturbed vegetation over its entire area. This is the vegetation type which follows frequent habitat alterations. Onsite, this vegetation is sparse and comprised of non—native species. Dominant plants onsite at the time of the field visit included red brome (Bromus rubeus), wild radish (Raphanus satirus), slender wild oats (Avena fatua), and Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata). Other common or occasionally observed species include bermuda grass, field charlock, telegraph weed, soft chess, Russian thistle, curly dock, and cheeseweed. Additionally, several ornamental tree and shrub species were found onsite. No native flora was observed. Ruderal vegetation represents very poor habitat for wildlife. Only a few wildlife species were observed on the parcel. These included beechey ground squirrel, bottal pocket gopher, mourning dove and house finch. Although several other wildlife species are expected to be present, wildlife populations onsite are few and low in diversity. Further, no endangered or threatened species of plants or wildlife occur on the subject parcel. IMPACTS From the evidence discussed above, it is apparent that the site has extremely low biological value. Therefore, development of the site will not have an adverse biological impact. EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS No adverse biological impacts have been identified. Consequently, no policies or requirements are considered necessary. MITIGATION MEASURES Due to the lack of significant biological impacts associated with the project, mitigation measures are not necessary. I 76 Level of Significance After Mitigation No project —related or cumulative impacts to biological resources have been identified. CULTURAL RESOURCES SETTING Cultural resources for paleontological report archaeological records Breece, archaeological assessments, which are Archaeology 77 the project site were assessed in June 1984. A was prepared by RMW Paleo Associates and an search and survey were conducted by William H. consultant. The following is a summary of those contained in Appendices H and I. The records check performed by William H. Breece (June 1984) indicated that an archaeological survey had been carried out earlier on a parcel that included the project parcel, and that no sites were recorded within the parcel. Paleontological Resources A review of geologic maps of the area show Quaternary age marine terrace deposits (generally considered to be less than 130,000 years old in the vicinity) exposed within the study area. These deposits have produced abundant remains of "Ice Age" land animals and marine invertebrates at several localities in the Newport Mesa area, most notably at East Bluff and Dover Shores. The locality files of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County reveal a fossil locality in the immediate vicinity. The remains of the extinct diving duck, Chendytes, were located immediately to the west of the study area across from MacArthur Boulevard in terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are considered to have a moderate potential for the discovery of significant fossils based on the past abundance of fossils in the Newport Mesa area. A walkover survey of the site revealed two areas where invertebrate materials were present. Several of the invertebrates present were similar to those found in the terrace deposits at other localities in the area. These two occurrences appear to be the result of dumping of debris rather than natural exposures. However, due to the disturbed nature of the site, it was not possible to positively identify the remains as either natural exposure or the results of dumping. Fossil materials were located during the survey. IIMPACTS I I Archaeological Resources The proposed Brisa del Mar project will not impact known archaeological sites. However, buried archaeological remains can generally go undetected during a surface survey and, due to the known archaeological sites in the general vicinity, there is a possibility that subsurface archaeological remains exist. Appropriate monitoring during excavation and grading is therefore recommended. I in Paleontological Resources Site development could adversely affect paleontological resources. Due to the proximity of the Chendytes locality and the existence of fossils in the local vicinity, the project site has a moderate potential for containing significant fossils. Rapid development of the Newport Mesa in recent years has resulted in the loss of several of the larger fossil occurrences and terrace deposits available for scientific study. The few remaining areas of exposed deposits should therefore be given careful consideration. City Policies and Mitigation Measures designed to reduce the potential impact of project development on paleontological resources onsite are given below. EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS City Council Policies K-5 and K-6 outline the City's requirements with respect to archaeological and paleontological resources. The following specific measures are recommended in conformance with Policies K-5 and K-6. V. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractors of the results of the I study. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the finds. W. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a recovery program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer. X. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and/or developer to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. Y. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant 1 shall waive the provisions of AB 952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts, in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. ' MITIGATION MEASURES 28. Any fossils collected during grading or excavation shall be offered ' to an institution with an interest in them such as the Natural History Foundation of Orange County or the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. I II II II 79 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the above measures will mitigate all impacts to a level of insignificance. J I I C II ILI i PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES SETTING The project will by serviced by several agencies. These agencies were contacted for information regarding current service levels and anticipated constraints on providing service to the proposed project. Appendix J of this report contains correspondence from applicable agencies. Fire Protection Services The project site lies within fire and emergency medical service boundaries of the Newport Beach Fire Department. First responding units are from the Corona del Mar station with three firefighters, located at 410 Marigold Avenue, approximately one mile from the site. A supporting company responding from the Fashion Island Station, 868 Santa Barbara Drive, will provide an engine company with three men, a ladder company with four men, a paramedic unit with two men, and a Battalion Chief with an aide for a total of fourteen personnel on a first alarm fire response. Five men are available to provide medical aid. Law Enforcement Services The City of Newport Beach Police Department provides police service to the project area from it's facility at 870 Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center. Distance from the facility to the project site is approximately two miles. Response times are 21.19 minutes to non -emergency calls, 4.34 minutes to alarm calls, and 3.4 minutes to emergency calls. 1 Gas I The project site is within the service territory of Southern California Gas Company. Gas is currently provided to the area from existing mains along Fifth Avenue and Goldenrod Avenue. Electricity Southern California Edison Company currently services the project area. Adequate facilities to provide electricity in the vicinity exist. Solid Waste ' The Orange County General Services Agency Waste Management Program coordinates solid waste services in communities of south-cent=al Orange County. The nearest facility to the project site is the Coyote Canyon ' Landfill located off Bonita Canyon Road in Irvine. This facility, which handles Class II-2 wastes (residential, commercial, and no liquid or hazardous wastes), is expected to operate until October 1988. At that L J i L I I IJ I I I-E time the initiation of operations to a suitable replacement site is expected. Water The' Utilities Department of the City of Newport Beach provides water service to the project area. The department's facilities currently service the area sufficiently. The Department foresees no need for expansion to service future projects. Sewer/Wastewater The Orange County Sanitation Districts provide sewer and wastewater treatment service for the project area. District No. 5 operates and maintains the main sewer trunk lines that service the project site. However, the local sewer lines, which run from the project into the main trunk lines, are maintained by the City of Newport Beach Utilities Department. The Orange County Sanitation Districts operate two treatment plants (Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley) for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. Flows from this project will be treated at one of these plants. ITransit P I I i The Orange County Transit District currently provides transit service to the project area. Two local lines service the area (Route 1 and Route 57). Library The project area is served by the Newport Center and Corona del Mar branches of the Newport Beach Public Library. The Newport Center branch specializes in business and art materials while the Corona Del Mar branch specializes in travel and antiques. Future plans may include expansion of the Corona del Mar branch, should it become necessary. Hospital Hoag Memorial Hospital serves the project site offering acute care with a capacity of 471 beds. Hoag is located about 10 minutes from the site under emergency response conditions. Future plans for expansion include increasing the number of operating rooms and critical care beds. ISchools I I The proposed project is within.the boundaries of the Newport Mesa Unified School District. Schools serving the site are Harbor View Elementary School, 900 Goldenrod Avenue, Corona del Mar (adjacent to the site) and Corona del Mar High School, 21011 East Bluff Drive, Newport Beach (3.5 miles from the site). I II ' sz IMPACTS Fire Protection Services ' The Newport Beach Fire Department states that it will be able to adequately serve the project from existing facilities with existing manpower. However, they indicate that the project will contribute to the cumulative need for additional manpower and equipment due to increased responses and the likelihood of simultaneous and greater alarm incidents. Impacts will be felt in the City's Fire Prevention Inspection Bureau due to the extra time required for plan checks and the annual maintenance inspection. Due to the density of the project, extra protection may be required in the form of built-in protection and fire access lanes. ' Law Enforcement Services The Newport Beach Police Department anticipates no adverse impacts to police service from the proposed project. However, using Standard Factors to estimate costs for policing specific locations and based on an approximate annual cost of $130.17 per unit, an additional cost of $12,496.32 will be incurred by the City annually. In addition, with the ' proposed 96 units and a standard occupancy rate of 2.2 persons per unit, the City will need to increase staffing by .42 officer. The Department indicated a concern over potential traffic -related problems at the East Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard area. Department concerns involved whether direct vehicular access to MacArthur Boulevard or East Coast Highway would be allowed. The Department feels such access would be detrimental, therefore an ingress/egress should be limited to Sea Lane and Goldenrod Avenue, combined .with traffic control devices and adequate sight distances for driveways. Furthermore, should the community be gated, access for public service personnel and vehicles must be provided. The project is not proposed to take ingress or egress from MacArthur Boulevard or East Coast Highway and will not be gated. Gas Southern California Gas Company expects to provide gas service to the project from an existing main without significant impact on the environment. The ability to provide gas service in the future is based upon conditions of energy supply and policies set by the California Public Utilities Commission. Changes in service will be in accordance with such conditions. ' Electricity The proposed project can be serviced by Southern California ' anticipated problems. Total system demand is expected increase annually; however, Southern California Edison electricity resources will be adequate through the 1980s. Edison with no to continually states that 1 83 Solid Waste The Orange County Waste Management Program assesses service demand based on a solid waste generation rate of 8.5 pounds per capita per day. Based on ' this factor, the project would generate 1,794 pounds per day of solid waste. The Waste Management Program of the County of Orange General Services Agency does not expect the project to have any adverse impacts on its ability to provide solid waste services. The City of Newport Beach provides refuse pick—up service for all residential uses. ' Water The City of Newport Beach Utility Department assesses water service based on a peak —hour consumption rate of 10 gallons per minute per gross acre. ' Based upon this factor, the proposed project would generate a demand for approximately 63 gallons per minute. Further, the Utilities Department indicates that the site would be required to maintain a fireflow of 6,000 gallons per minute. No adverse impacts to water service are anticipated. Sewer/Wastewater ' Initial estimates of sewage flow for the proposed project, approximately 2,550 gallons per day per acre (with a total of 16,906.5 gallons per day), exceed Orange County Sanitation District's master —planned flow estimates of ' 1,550 gallons per day per acre. The district's facilities have available capacity for the proposed project but the cumulative impact of such density increases throughout the district will eventually overtax the district's facilities. Transit Orange County Transit District has determined that this project will have no direct impact to the provision of transit service. ' Library Newport Beach Public Library foresees no problem servicing the residents of ' this project. However, should residential growth in the Corona del Mar area continue, the Corona del Mar facility may become affected. ' Hospital Hoag Memorial Presbyterian Hospital does not anticipate that this project will have any impact on the level of service it presently provides. ' Schools The project is estimated to generate 19 new students (.2 students per ' residential unit). Newport Mesa Unified School District is currently experiencing declining enrollment, therefore no adverse impacts are ' expected. 1 A, 84 ' EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIEEMENTS The following measures will be required by existing City policy. ' Fire Services Protection Z. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall ' review the proposed plans and may require automatic fire sprinkler protection. ' AA. Any cul-de-sac, building address, and street name shall comply with City standards and shall be approved by the Fire Department. BB. The Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department. CC. All buildings on the project site shall be equipped with fire suppres- sion systems approved by the Fire Department. DD. All access to the buildings shall be approved by the Fire Department. ' EE. All onsite fire protection (hydrants and Fire Department connections) shall be approved by the Fire and Public Works Department. FF. Fire vehicle access, including the proposed planter islands, shall be approved by the Fire Department. Law Enforcement Services There are no applicable policies or requirements. Gas/Electricity There are no applicable policies or requirements. iSolid Waste ' There are no applicable policies or requirements. Water/Sewer/Wastewater GG. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. ' HH. Prior to the occupancy of any building, the applicants shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation Districts that ' adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. ' ss ' Transit There are no applicable policies or requirements. ' Library There are no applicable policies or requirements. ' Hospital There are no applicable policies or requirements. Schools ' There are no applicable policies or requirements. ' MITIGATION MEASURES Fire Protection Services No further mitigation is necessary since impacts associated with fire services have been mitigated by standard City Policies. ' Law Enforcement Services No mitigation is necessary since no adverse impacts associated with police ' services have been identified. Gas/Electricity No mitigation is necessary since no adverse impacts associated with gas or electricity services have been identified. Solid Waste No mitigation is necessary since no adverse impacts, associated with solid 1 waste services have been identified. Transit No mitigation is necessary since no adverse impacts associated with transit services have been identified. Library No mitigation is necessary since no adverse impacts associated with library services have been identified. I I m Hospital No mitigation is necessary since no adverse impacts associated with hospital services have been identified. Water/Sewer/Wastewater No further mitigation is necessary since impacts related to water and.sewer services have been mitigated by standard City Policies. Schools No mitigation is necessary since no adverse impacts associated with school services have been identified. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION On a cumulative basis, this project, in concert with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, will contribute to an increased demand for public services. i ' 87 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The following discussion describes alternatives ' to the proposed project. To provide a comparative analysis of each alternative, a tabular format is provided on pages - - of this document to permit a review of the range of alternatives and their estimated respective impacts. n 1 1 I n I C' The paragraphs below provide a description of each alternative and a discussion as to whether it has been rejected from further consideration. The intent of this section is to evaluate alternatives which may be capable of eliminating or reducing to a' level of insignificance any significant adverse impacts associated with the project. NO DEVELOPMENT The no development alternative would retain the site in its existing condition and assumes no further development of the site. This alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project and will remain under consideration during the review process. However, since the parcel is planned for residential development by the City, should the project not be built, a delay may be experienced in the objective of providing an adequate supply of housing and an increase in affordable housing within the City. NO PROJECT This alternative assumes development under the existing General Plan. The Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan currently designates the site low density residential, which allows up to a maximum density of four dwelling units per buildable acre resulting in 24 units on the project site (72 less than the proposed project). This alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project and will remain under consideration at this time. However, this alternative would not provide as great an increase in housing opportunities. Also, it would be more difficult to provided affordable housing onsite because of the lower density. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AFFORDABLE This alternative would assume all the basic characteristics of the proposed project with the exception that all the 96 proposed units would be affordable as opposed to only 60 units. Impacts would not differ from those of the proposed project, consequently this alternative would not be environmentally superior. However., since it would provide an increase in affordable housing opportunities in the City, it should remain under consideration at this time. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SENIOR the This alternative would assume all the basic characteristics of proposed project with the exception that the rental policy of the complex would restrict renting of units to senior citizens 55 years or older. Impacts ' would not differ significantly from those of the proposed project. Consequently, this alternative would not be environmentally superior. However, since it would provide an increase in senior citizen housing opportunities in the City, it should remain under consideration at this time. ' INCREASED DENSITY: ALL SENIORS/ALL AFFORDABLE ' This alternative would consist of a senior citizen housing complex at a density of 45 units per gross acre. This would result in about 300 units of an average 600 square feet in size. Site design could vary, but it is ' most likely that it would consist of two to four buildings varying in height from three to five stories. Parking (provided at 1.5 spaces per units) would total 450 spaces. Subterranean or two-story parking structure might be necessary to provide parking which is convenient to the buildings. The complex could contain a common eating area and kitchens, meeting/social areas on each floor, a central recreational/social complex, laundry rooms ' in each building, elevators, garbage chutes, emergency call system in each units, and other design and safety features. ' Housing for senior citizens can take on several forms. Traditional zoning regulations have 'provided for homes for the aged, rest homes, nursing, homes, retirement homes and convalescent homes. Often the definitions ' overlap and the only differentiation is the degree of ability to take care of one's self. Generally these all have an institutional appearance and operation as opposed to residential. These facilities also have a common characteristic in that facilities for preparing food are seldom allowed in ' a "unit." The 'elderly have begun to favor housing which is non -institutional, offered at reasonable rates, and provides independent living without the care and upkeep of a home. As a result, the senior citizen housing project has become popular. Some of these projects provide housing on a month to ' month rental, others provide a lifetime contract. Many of these projects are government supported through various housing acts and resulting rental assistance programs, and others are privately financed and operated. ' These new projects, particularly the market rate projects, usually include a small kitchen. Although the project usually includes a common dining room and kitchen. ' Typical senior citizen housing projects range in density from about 35 units/gross acre to over 100 units/gross acre. Senior citizen housing ' 89 . projects offering "affordable" units tend to be greater than 45 units per ' gross acre. A comparison of impacts of this alternative to those of the proposed ' project are summarized on pages — . The project would not be environmentally superior to the proposed project. It would provide significant new affordable housing opportunities for senior citizens. ' However, depending on design and, intensity, the alternative could be a significant departure from development which has occurred in the surrounding Corona del Mar area. ' Only one project of a similar nature exists in the Newport Beach area east of the Newport Bay. This is the Seaview Lutheran project which is three stories in height and 101 units. The units average 600 square feet. ' Parking is provided at .63 spaces per unit.. The site is 2.12 acres resulting in a density of 47.6 units per acre. This project was assisted with Federal funding and sponsored by the Lutheran church. rl L_ 1 P In d 90 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ' Implementation of the project represents a long—term commitment of the site to urban use. Approval of the currently proposed project is the first step prior to development of the site. Specific approvals needed are listed on ' pages 5 and 6 of this EIR. Development of the site would result in long—term impacts in contributing ' to degradation of local water and will increase the demand for public services and resources. The project will also contribute to increased traffic generation and noise levels. ' Short—term impacts of development due to construction activities include localized increases in noise, dust, and vehicular emissions associated with construction vehicles and an increase in erosion and sedimentation to ' Jasmine Creek. The only immediate short—term benefit of the project would be construction — related employment. A long—term benefit includes provision of additional housing to meet City goals as set forth in the adopted Housing Element of the City's General Plan. Also, the project will dedicate property for a view park for use by the general public. 0 I I� I 1 I 1 I I I 11 LJ I 91 GROWTH —INDUCING IMPACTS Development of the site will transform currently undeveloped land into an urbanized environment. Most of the surrounding area has been developed. The few other vacant parcels in the area are proposed for development and currently are under review by the City. The City of Newport Beach General Plan and zoning call for urban residential development of the project site. Short—term employment opportunities would be made available by contruction of the project. The project will assist in meeting the area's housing demands by providing additional housing opportunities. Project completion would result in increased demands for utilities and community services. No new extension of services or utilities is required. Due to the small size and infill nature of the project, it is not expected to increase development pressures on undeveloped parcels in the surrounding region or the local area. ' 92 CUMIATIVE AND INCUMENTAL UTACTS t ' This section will be provided in the Draft EIR and will be based upon data contained in the three Draft EIRs. II II I 1 Ll I F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t '-1 1 1 93 SUMMARY OF UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED (TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE DRAFT EIR) I I 94 1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS FOUND TO BE INSIGNIFICANT 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 i n n i 1 1 i I I 1 95 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i J 1 1 1 (TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE DRAFT EIR) 0 J W I j I L 1 1 1 1 I I 0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES (TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE DRAFT EIR) 97 PREPARERS OF AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THE REPORT PREPARERS Sanchez Talarico Associates Transportation Analysis Noise Assessment Air quality Assessment Geotechnical Report Hyrdrology Report Biological Analysis Archaeological Resources Assessment Paleontological Assessment Graphics Technician View Analysis Annette M. Sanchez Fred Talarico Rarlee Nevil Debra Dixon Weston Pringle, Weston Pringle &'Associates Fred Greve, Mestre Greve Associates Hans Giroux, Consulting Meteorologist GeoSoils, Inc. John G. Goetten, Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. Steven G. Nelson, Biological consultant William H. Breece, Archaeological consultant Rod Raschke, RMW Paleo Associates Denise Ashton Larry Webb, J.L. Webb & Associates, Inc. 98 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED ' DURING PREPARATION OF THE EIR City of Newport Beach ' Planning Department Patricia Temple Robert Lenard Chris Gustin tBret Bernard Public Works Department Rich Edmonston Don Webb Fire Department Thomas C. Dailey ' Police Department Randy Nakashima Public Library Judy Clark ' Utilities Department Joe Devlin The Irvine Company Dave Dmohowski ' Bernard Maniscalco Irvine Pacific Development Company Bruce Martin ' Urban Assist, Inc. Dave Neish John G. Goetten, Rich Moore ' Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc. ' Southern California Gas Co. W.L. Blake Southern California Edison Co. C.V. Wright ' Orange County Waste Management Program Mike Luke Orange County Transit District Dick Hsu ' Hoag Memorial Hospital Peter M. Foulke Orange County Sanitation District Thomas M. Dawes Newport Mesa Unified School District Dale C. Wooley ' Culbertson, Adams and Associates Andi Adams Kevin Culbertson I 11 m REFERENCES Breece, William H., 1984. Prepared for Sanchez Tal Culbertson —Adams & Associates, 1983. Impact Report Oasis Park Grading. GeoSoils, Inc., 1984. Preliminary Avenue Apartments. Prepared for Newport Beach, CA. Survey for Brisa del Mar. Newport Beach, CA. Certified Final Focus Environmental Newport Beach, CA. Proposed Fifth pment Company, Giroux, Hans, 1984. Brisa del Mar' Air Quality Impact Analysis. Prepared for Sanchez Talarico Associates, Newport Beach, CA. John G. Goetten Consulting Civil Engineers, Inc., 1984. Hydrology Report for TT12209, Brisa del Mar Aprtments. Prepared for Irvine Pacific Development Company, Newport Beach, CA. Leighton and Associates, 1981. Preliminary Investigation, Fifth Avenue Corridor, Corona del Mar, City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach, CA. LSA, Inc., 1983. Certified Environmental Impact R4 Hotel General Plan Amendment 82-2. Newport Beach, t — Four Seasons LSA, Inc., 1984. Draft EIR — Villa Point Planned Community District. Newport Beach, CA. Mestre Greve Associates, 1984. Noise Assessment for Brisa del Mar Residential Community. Prepared for Sanchez Talarico Associates, Newport Beach, CA. Nelson, Steven G., 1984. Biological Assessment for Brisa del Mar Residential Community. Prepared for Sanchez Talarico Associates., Newport Beach, CA. Newport Beach, City of, 1973a. Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Newport Beach, CA. Ibid., 1973b. Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Newport Beach, CA. Ibid., 1974a. Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Newport Beach, CA. Ibid., 1974b. Conservation of Natural Resources Beach General Plan. Newport Beach, CA. ant of the New Ibid., 1975a. Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Newport Beach, CA. ■.I 100 Ibid., 1975b. Residential Growth Element, of the Newport Beach General Plan. Newport Beach, CA. Ibid., 1977. Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan. Newport Beach, CA. Ibid., 1984a. Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Newport Beach, CA. Ibid., 1984b. Zoning Code of the City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach, CA. Ibid., 1984c. City of Newport Beach Long Range Plann. Regarding Senior Citizen Housing. Newport Beach, Q Phillips, Brandt, Reddick, Inc., 1982. Environmental General Plan Amendment 81-2, City of Newport Beach. RMW Paleo Associates, 1984. Paleontol< Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Parcel Associates, Newport Beach, CA. The Irvine Company, 1984. Draft Planned Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Bouleva: Committee: Memo Impact Report for Newport Beach, CA. Assessment of the Sanchez Talarico for ch, Weston Pringle Associates, 1984. Traffic Report for Brisa del Mar Residen- tial Community. Newport Beach, CA. APPEkf(tS APPENDIX A ' PUBLIC PARTICIPATION &YD tVIEW II II 71, NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR FROM: Planning Departm::nt City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTICE WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY: June 15, 1984 PROJECT NAME: GPA 83-11)Fifth Avenue -and Mpp-A-rt-hur Tzllrrl Bounded on the west by MacArthur Blvd., on the south by PROJECT LOCATION a - 00 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT & MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: north by Sea Lane. O z i�ii w • See attached. O O ' w j m F- ]CONTACT PERSON: Patricia Temple, Env. Coordinator PHONE: (714) 640-2197 LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NECESSARY): c� wz �w N t7 W ,S W ww zm �, Cn to Y Z' m O R C W W J CY C O ' O J w a IF A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY, DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT: O ,-y ro z CONTACT PERSON: PHONE: DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY: May 16, 1984 DATE RECEIVED BY INTERESTED INDIVIDUAL OR RESPONSIBLE FL ATE RESPONSE RECEIVED BY D AGE NCY: ENCY: STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govalnot DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES - 2151 BERKELEY WAY BERKELEY, CA 94704 416/540-2665 June 13, 1984 Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach's NOP for GPA 83-11), Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard - SCH #84052306 The Department has reyiewed the subject environmental document and offers the following comments. Enclosed for your information is a document prepared by the Noise Control Program entitled, "Guidelines for Noise Study Reports ...", which provides some general guidelines as to what this office considers important in EIRs. if you have any questions or need further information concerning these com- ments, please contact Dr. Jerome Lukas of the Noise Control Program, Office of Local Environmental Health Programs, at 2151 Berkeley Way, Room No. 613, Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665. Stuart E. Richardson, Jr., R.S., Chief Office of Local Environmental Health Programs rame S. as, Ph.D. Senior Psychoacoustician'- NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM Enclosure cc: Environmental Health Division q State Clearinghouse t ti GaOA a��y8�� los angeles county 1 c.m.n uro.. i 1 � Hun Be, pacific ocean ._.:1 1S.. REGIONAL LOCATION GPA 83-1a City of Newport Beach san Bernardino county San Clemente riverside county san diego county sanchez talarico associates E9 7U73M, EXHIBIT rC�C C� C3511.7 VICINITY MAP GPA 83.1a City of Newport Beach sanchez talarioo associates , EXHIBIT 'STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMFJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 2151 BERKELEY WAY = Is< BERKELEY, CA 94704 415/540-2665 II June 13, 1984 'f Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 t SUBJECT: City of Newport Beach's NOP for GPA 83-11), Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard - SCH #84052306 ' The Department has reviewed the subject environmental document and offers the following comments. Enclosed for your information is a document prepared by the Noise Control Program entitled, "Guidelines for Noise Study Reports ...11, which provides ' some general guidelines as to what this office considers important in EIRs. If you have any questions or need further information concerning these com- ments, please contact Dr. Jerome Lukas of the. Noise Control Program, Office of Local Environmental Health Programs, at 2151 Berkeley Way, Room No. 613, Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665. 1 Stuart.E. Richardson, Jr., R.S., Chief Office of Local Environmental Health Programs 1 , rome S. Lukas, Senior. Psychoacoustician• NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM Enclosure cc: Environmental Health Division State Clearinghouse � `�G;y P'�,�� P _y r r ' Guidelines for Noise Study Reports its Put of Environmental - Impact Reports CoOrnia office ofNoin Control r California Department of Health Services 2151 Berkeley Way Berkeley, California 94704 May 1982 I r Because complaints about environmental noise are so frequent, the Office of Noise Control recommends that every project with a potential for increasing environmental noise levels or ' which may be affected by existing or future noise sources should have a Noise Study Report, This report assesses how noise levels associated with the project may affect people, The infor- mation contained in the Noise Study Report should be summarized in the Environmental Impact Report or Environmental Impact Statement, and kept on file by the lead agency for review by those with a specific interest in noise. The attached is designed to help those who prepare Noise Study Reports and Environmental Impact Reports and reviewers of Environmental Impact Reports. Because there are so many ' different combinations of noise sources and receivers (people impacted by those sources), it is virtually impossible to develop guidelines that cover all situations. Nevertheless, the guid mental documents. elines should help to bring some consistency to the way noise Information is presented in environ- r L1 r r u III. 1 1 1 F I I i IV. I.1 SuggesContents of a Noise ted Study Report A brief description of the project in terms of its effect on the noise environment and a description of the existing noise environment and its impact upon the project (homes near a freeway, for example). Two scale maps -- one showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses, receptors, and noise sources identified, and the second map showing the future condition (use a time span of no less than 10 years, unless the project's life span is less) with the proposed project and proposed land uses, receptors, and noise sources identified. A detailed survey of the existing noise environment. A. The noise survey should encompass the proposed project area and must include any noise sensitive receptors, both near and far.' The survey should establish the exist- ing ambient noise level which may then be used to evaluate compliance of the pro- posed project with applicable noise standards. The standards should be local (city, county) but in their absence state or federal standards may be used The rationale for the selection of noise survey sites should be included in the report. B. The survey should cover the time periods when the noise environment may be affected by the proposed project. C. The survey should encompass enough days to be representative of the existing "nor- mal" noise environment. Discussion of the similarity or dissimilarity of the noise environment during the survey period with that during other times of the year should be included. D. For the time periods measured, the reported noise data should include the L�q, Lt, Lto, Lso, Lyn, and identification of typical noise levels emitted by existing sources. If day and night measurements are made, report the Ld„ also. Ldn is approximately equal to CNEL; either descriptor may be used. It is imperative that the descriptor conform to that used in the appropriate standard. E. Summarize the present environment by providing a noise contour map showing lines of equal noise level in 5 dB steps, extending down to Lda — 60. In quiet areas lower contours should be shown also. F. Identify the noise measurement equipment used in the survey by manufacturer, type, and date of last calibration. A description of the future noise environment for each project alternative. The scope of the analysis and the metrics used will depend on the type of project, but as a minimum the following information must be provided: A. Discussion of the type of noise sources and their proximity to potentially impacted areas. B. Operations/activity data: 1. Average daily level of activity (traffic volume, flights per day. hours on per day, etc.). 2. Distribution of activity over day and nighttime periods, days of the week, and seasonal variations. 3. Composition of noise sources (% trucks, aircraft fleet mix, machinery type, etc.). 1 ONC 5/82 11 C. D. -2- 4. Frequency spectrum of sources (1/3 octave band data are preferable). 5. Any unusual characteristics of the sources (impulsiveness, tonality, etc.). Method used to predict future levels. 1. Reference to the prediction model used, if standard (e.g., FHWA-RD47-108, eta). 2. If corrections to a standard model are made or empirical modeling is used, state the procedure in detaH. 3. Show typical levels (e.g., Lt, Lto, etc.) at the receptors. 4. Give any other data yielded by the model you used. Contours of future levels should be included (down to Lft 55 where applicable), and superimposed over projected population (receptor) densities. V. Impact A, Quantifyanticipated changes in the noise environment by comparing ambient infor- mation with estimated source emissions. Evaluate the changes in light of applicable standards. H. Discuss how this project relates to the N61se Element of the applicable general plan. C. Discuss the anticipated effects of increased noise levels (speech interference, sleep disturbance, disruption of wildlife habitat, etc.). VT. Mitigation A. Discuss how adverse noise Impacts can be mitigated, suggesting alternative tech- niques for mitigation, their relative effectiveness, and feasibility of implementation. Provide a table listing the most and least effective techniques. For this table, effectiveness should be defined in terms of the number of people being exposed to noise at some given level. B. Responsibility for effectuating the mitigation measures should be assigned. C. Discuss any noise Impacts that cannot be mitigated, and why mitigation is not feasi- ble. it 11 ONC 5/82 Summarization of Noise Study Reports in Environmental Impact Reports or Statements Information included in the Environmental Impact Report or Statement should be a summary of the noise study. The following information must be included: ✓ ' A. Maps showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses and noise sources identified. Pertinent distances should be noted. B. A description of the existing noise environment. 1C. The change in the noise environment for each project alternative. —D. A discussion of the impacts for the alternatives. Y' E. A discussion of the compatibility of the project with the applicable Noise Element of the General Plan or the most applicable noise laws or ordinances. F. A discussion of mitigation measures, clearly identifying the locations and number of ' people affected when mitigation is not feasible. G G. Statements of: (1) where to obtain a copy of the Noise Study Report from which the information was taken (or the Noise Study Report may be' included as an appen- dix, and (2) the name of the consultant who conducted the Noise Study if it was not conducted by the author of the Environmental Impact Report. L I I U I .1 " Is ONC 5/82 J II STATE OF CAUFORN1A--RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, Gowffw DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS 1629 S STREET s SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) A45-6281 June 8, 1984 Ms. Patricia Temple Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple: ?,. GPA 83-lD, Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Blvd The Department of Boating and Waterways is not a regulatory agency and thereforadoes not issue permits of any kind. However, we do review and may comment upon U.S. Corps of Engineer public notices for proposed projects which are subject to that federal agency's jurisdiction. We review and may comment on environmental documents which are submitted to us by the State Clearinghouse. For review purposes on both environmental documents and Corps public notices, the Department's interests lie in the following areas: 1. Potential for navigation hazards - to what 'extent might the proposed project affect safe navigation in California's waterways? 2. Beach erosion - to what extent might the proposed project affect the stability of coastal as well as inland beaches? 3. Boating and boating facilities - to what extent might the proposed project affect existing or planned small craft harbors, launching facilities, and other boating facilities? To what extent might recreational boating activities be affected? If you have further questions concerning our role in project review processes, please contact Barbara Kierbow of our Environmental Unit at (916) 323-9488. Sincerely, wILwm H. nMRS Director cc: State Clearinghouse ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES P.O. Box 6598 LOSANGELES 90055 JUN 1 3 1984 City of Newport Beach Post Office Boa 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attention: Patricia Temple R EPlanr� �t Cepastrt- Qof � N4p( BEACH CALIF' (� The Department of Water Resources' recommendations on the subject docu— ment dated May 21, 1984, are attached. The recommendations are related to water conservation and flood damage prevention. Consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water. For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at (213) 620-3951. Sincerely, 4r�,, A ' Robert Y. D. Chun, Chief Planning Branch Southern District cc + Attachments: office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 I Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Water Conservation and Water Reclamation To reduce water demand, the following water conservation measures should be Implemented: Required by law• 1. Low -flush toilets (see Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code). 2. Low -flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F). 3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations). Recommendations to be implemented where applicable: Interior: 1. Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure -reducing valve. 2. Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per flush. 3. Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self -closing valves. 4.- Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulated to provide hot water faster with less water waste and to keep hot pipes from heating cold water pipes. 5. Hotel rooms: recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and rest rooms.* Recommend thermostatically -controlled mixing valve for bath/shower. 6. Laundry facilities: recommend use of water -conserving models of washers. 7. Restaurants: recommend use of water -conserving models of dishwashers or retrofitting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request only.* Exterior: 1. Landscape with low water -consuming plants wherever feasible'. 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing fields. *The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in developing these materials. 4 I I I 1 I U 1 II 3. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water -holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. 4. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. 5. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. 6. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in ground water recharge. 7. Grading of slopes should minimize surface water runoff. 8. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or household grey water for irrigation. 9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This would aid in ground water recharge. 11. Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground water recharge should be preserved as open space. -2- Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Flood Damage Prevention In flood -prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a proposed development should be based on the following guidelines: 1. All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood. It is the State's policy to conserve water. Any potential loss to ground water should be mitigated. 2. In.those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or a Flood Boundary and Fioodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 100-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown on the Environmental Impact Report. 3. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be available during a 100-year flood. 4. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for all hillside developments. 5. Revegetation of the slopes should be done as soon as possible. 6. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be assessed -and mitigated as required. 7. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated with sediment transport during construction. IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRI(.'T P.O. Box Dd • 18802 Bardeen Ave. a Irvine, CA 92716.6025 • (714) 833-1223 May 23, 1984 0091SM5/84 OR 3.10 PL 26.3 Ms. Pat Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO NOTICES OF PREPARATION Dear Ms. Temple: The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has reviewed the Notices of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for the following projects: 1. GPA 83-1A: Fifth Avenue 6 Marguerite Avenue 2. GPA 83-10: Fifth Avenue & MacArthur Boulevard These proposed residential developments are not within ,IRWO's service area; therefore, we.are not a Responsible Agency as defined by CEQA for these projects and have no comments to make regarding the EIR's. REY/SLM:so 1 Sincerely, !R-6 RAN Di WATER DISTRICT and Planning K. I NONSTATUiORY AOVISEYEfiT File No. To: From: Planning Department Whom it may cone City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newoort A 92 38- PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTI!E WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY June 18, 1984 i PROJECT TITLE: GPA 83-11), Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Blvd. Bounded on she west by MacArthur Blvd., on south by East Coast Highway, on the east by Grant Howald Park, and on the north by Sea See attached. Contact Persons'Patricia Tempple, Environmental Coordinator (714) W-2197 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONTACT PERSON TITLE DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF'EAPERTISE, LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN; prijeot. o nab' AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT PAGES AS NECESSARY): 9 A EC EIY ED Fuca lz Isea PHONE DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RES 01 DATE RECEIVED BY GATE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGEIICY HNERE APPLICABLE IN1�R;yjIj�OIIyljS' RELY May 18, 1984 jrp`( 25 1984 NONSTATUTORY ADVISEMEN File Na. To: From: Planning Department Whom it may conce City of [Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newoort Beach CA 92658- i3 J PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTL:E WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY June 18, 1984 i I PROJECT TITLE: GPA 83-11), Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Blvd. PROJECT LOCATION: Bounded on the west by MacArthur -Blvd., bn the south by East Coast Highway, on the east by. u Grant Howald Park, and on the north by Sea Lane. 4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES a `.See attached. .i Contact Person:'Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator (714) 640-2197 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT ' ,6n9 iLi d LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: .(USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS Al 9 REC EIY EO q Piyinlnx W w u v o DOB t CITY OF NOVORT 5EACH. //: CONTACT PERSON TITLE PH LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY May 18, 1984 ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): PERSON TITLE PHONE DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE 1NTERESTED PARTY DATE RESPONSE `I RECEIVED BY T: LEAD AGENCY NONSTATUTORY AOVISEMENT File No. To: From: Planning Deparcmenc , Whom it may concd= City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92R a PLEASE RETURN THIS NOTI!.E WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY June 18. 1984 OPA 83-11), Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Blvd. PROJECT LOCATION: Bounded on the west by MacArthur Blvd., on the , south by East Coast Highway, oh the eaot by Grant HowaId Park, and an the north by Sea Lane. s DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES o See attached. ' Contact Person,'Patrieia Temple, Environmental Coordinator (714) 640-2197 ,Mtn DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT $o`J ��(�% �jY&'tlttra l� i {^CL� C,': >`>`C�:4�ti c C i': • .K T w.o LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS! (USEATRTITIDIFAL PAGES AS NECESSARY) -lol.t�e;tc:^...' C[!L<� <ticr ci.C•G!.' .-krL�C4[: ec.'s.t.c:--�trE�e� . `� °J o a L'!:l 0:.?.41�000: a <'L' st•: .. �G-.LtC G" /^ � '�. e..,n etKC..e':Cc.`/ .!�.� • •�.E: „ <tc� � •�<eC(��re� GE'e4 ` S ` g }� /''C-t'�i U�' Cam•[.. 7/�C�t/, s'J'cet�-..cCe.� r(/�'fe'/�„lc i s'� o G..4:: ei..,/.•/�'S="':.. 1,�.�%.tl/GCse�L� L'J['<. S, (�E �.G'C<„f j;�'LCye�S'y y�'� � u KL•C <ta,�"/CCf•tc.(s,.rj —�tG� L7 tc �G?= Gc' _c • • •<Ga-. ^? . !`,(:_t ct.� W O C Y m ►. N ,• v, CONTACT PERSON. TI•TLE PHONE /az t2i�cc' �/c��ll'L•<o•"'�r CrCs�: �,� � a . �,..' .7,,---1� �`�'/c;° DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF•EXPERTISE/INTEREST: w ' LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS m: MAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): W •, 12 5 1�v i CONTACT PERSON TI O PHONE w N DATE MAILED BY DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON- DATE RECEIVED BY DATE RESPONSE LEAD AGENCY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY' RECEIVED BY T. May 18, 1984 LEAD AGENCY r u W a a W J l fi1 C m- t NONSTFTUTORY ADVISEMENT ' Fite Na. To: Fran: Planning Department Whom it may concs= City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658- PLEASE RETURN THIS NOT15E WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY June 18, 1984 PROJECT TITLE: 'GPA 83-ID, Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Blvd. PROJECT LOCATION: Bounded on the west by MacArthur -Blvd., on the south by East Coast Highway, on the east by Grant Howald Park, and on the north by Sea Lane. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND MAJOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES See attached. Contact Personc Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator (714) 640-2197 DESCRIBE SPECIFIC PERMIT AUTHORITY OF YOUR AGENCY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT LIST SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: .(USE AI)DITMNAL PAGES AS NECESSARY): CONTACT PERSON TITLE PHONE DESCRIBE SPECIFIC AREA OF 'EXPERTISE/ INTEREST: Our primary..cancerg. is the. Lmportant trend and cummulative effects of this project'on'the quality tapg bA}shgq,' y�Ag$t#gAaneigKborhoad and the emulative effects, traffic, aesthetic hereby request notice of all meeting which this project will be discussed iaens Environmental Quality Comm., P. tinge: City Cclinalf study.sessions & h the city in;the planning stages to igation measures: Thank you for thi earns. 1 DATE MAILED BY LEAD AGENCY May 18, 1984 PAanH h'ou &ES tRslnd. re open to the public, ing but not limited to, Comm —study sessions & s. ..We wish to wopt : input;:i•ntn the -projec-t unity'to express bur %-9-Land use'TBLning UCr) (714) 6M Harborview Hills Comm. Assn. 1021 Flhita DATE RECEIVED BY RESPON_ DATE RECEIVED BY SIBLE AGENCY WHERE APPLICABLE INTERESTED PARTY' DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED BY T: CiN I;VIC',i. NEilPORT r 1 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING October 30, 1964 Ms. Annette Sanchez Sanchez Talarico Associates 359 San Miguel Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Sanchez: This letter summarizes our review of traffic and parking factors related to the Bris A 4el Mar apartment project in the City of Newport Beach. The study is ased upon information provided by you and the City of Newport Beach and previous studies in the area. This study has been prepared to provide traffic analyses for an EIR on the project and to satisfy the re- quirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The project is located between Sea Lane and Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard and Goldenrod Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. A total of 96 apartment.units are indicated on the site plan; however, for traffic impact analyses purposes, 120 dwelling units have been utilized as a maximum condition. A total of 197 off-street parking spaces are indi- cated on the site plan. Vehicular access is proposed on Fifth Avenue and Sea Lane. EXISTING CONDITIONS Sea Lane and Fifth Avenue are both two lane facilities with on -street parking permitted. Sea Lane extends northeasterly to Harbor View Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. Fifth Avenue provides connections to north - south streets which extend to Coast Highway. Goldenrod Avenue extends in a north -south direction from Coast Highway to Harbor View Drive. The intersection of Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue is signalized. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 + FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 APMbfl B TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING October 30, 1984 Ms. Annette Sanchez Sanchez-Talarico Associates 359 San Miguel Drive, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Sanchez: This letter summarizes our review of traffic and parking factors related to the Brisas del Mar apartment project in the City of Newport Beach. The study is based upon information provided by you and the City of Newport - Beach and previous studies in the area. This study has been prepared to provide traffic analyses for an EIR on the project and to satisfy the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The project is located between Sea Lane and MacArthur Boulevard and Golden- rod Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. A total of 96 apartment units are indicated on the site plan with 197 off-street parking spaces. Vehi- cular access is proposed on both Fifth Avenue and Sea Lane. EXISTING CONDITIONS Sea Lane and Fifth Avenue are both two lane facilities with on -street parking permitted. Sea Lane extends northeasterly to Harbor View Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. Fifth Avenue provides connections to north - south streets which extend from Coast Highway to Harbor View Drive. The intersection of Coast Highway and Goldenrod is signalized. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 -2- Existing daily traffic volumes are illustrated on Figure 1. Also indicated on Figure 1 are 1984 ICU values at major intersections throughout the City. TRIP GENERATION In order to examine the potential traffic impacts, it is necessary to esti- mate the number of trips that would be generated by the project. Studies have been conducted by government agencies and consultants to determine trip generation characteristics of various land uses. The rates utilized in this study are listed in Table 1 and are rates that have been utilized in Newport Beach for similar uses. •In addition, the City Traffic Engineer has indicated his acceptance of these rates. As indicated in Table 1, the 96 dwelling units would generate an estimated 670 daily trip ends with 70 occurring during the PM peak hour., Table 1 TRIP GENERATION Brisa del Mar Apartments TIME PERIOD TRIP ENDS PER DWELLING UNIT Daily 7.0 2.5 Hour Peak In 1.0 Out 0.4 PM Peak Hour In 0.5 Out 0.2 (1) For 96 dwelling units. GENERATED TRIP ENDS(1) 670 95 40 •'1 +. IT ' LEGEND 44• DAILY TRAFFIC' ' VOLUMES IN THOUSANDS .8057■ ICU VALUES o v~i a g> J ,.)W QONI TA C%04' v ll m "t S a G�KD. w FORD B� LQ s JOgo�/N M -.75i5 9519 t.tn�1 w, ' I fill tlnc.tl tr. 6232 .7 �}' T 6594 yr !p > 1 :it I .tit EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES .1 'WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES a r•t 1Q> O }7 7754 FIGURE -3- 11 TRIP ASSIGNMENT In order to assign project traffic to the street system, it was necessary to develop a trip distribution pattern. The trip distribution for the site is Illustrated on Figure 2 and is based upon regional land use and circulation patterns and previous studies. Estimated project trips from Table 1 were assigned to the street system in conformance with this distribution. Figure 3 illustrates estimated project daily traffic at selected locations. In addition, this distribution was utilized to assign project traffic to inter- sections utilized in the analysis. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The potential traffic impact has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of nine intersections were identified by the City Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analyses. The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of existing plus committed project plus re- gional growth,traffic on any approach to an intersection during the 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and these projects are listed in Table 2. Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1986, the .analyses were completed for 1987 as required by the Ordinance. Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the nine inter- sections analyzed and the results are summarized in Table 3. Review of Table 3 indicates that thm, of the intersections fail the "One Percent" test and are critical in terms of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. These inter- sections are: Coast Highway and Goldenrod Avenue Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road Addi-tional analyses were completed for the th" critical intersections, These additional analyses consisted of ICU calculations for each intersection. The 11 11 11 11 L Chi I I I I I! i I 17 11 IS U/!lu e !R`c 11,rl 1 N 0 9PN V AQ'�"N 10% 5 5% 20% COAST HWY � ancrFlG H TA CYN� � lcs�—f .W70 ,n, 5 ui ' DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES a 10% FIGURE 2 . HRI!; WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES I bR, All ` I 801VI TA CY4..-!!woo. J n J s m s in W D. FORD A� ' 6Q 5PN J04Q ' RD. q. 3$ in 2m 130 C,()AST Hwy. w 'ACif IC. NTH AI! 65 �A PROJECT GAILY VOLUMES Fioupts 3 -4- Table 2 COMMITTED PROJECTS Brisa del Mar Apartments Hoag Hospital Flagship Hospital Pacesetter Homes Big Canyon 10 Aeronutronic Ford Fun Zone Back Bay Office Marriott Hotel Civic Plaza St. Andrew's Church Corporate Plaza YMCA Koll Center Newport Allred Condos Mac Arthur Court Morgan Development National Education Office 'Four Seasons Hotel North Ford Block 400 Medical Newport Place Sheraton Expansion Shokrian Mac Arthur Court, Amend. No. 1 Sea Island National Education (RVSD) Baywood Apartments Ford Aeronutronic, Amend. No. 2 Harbor Point Homes Carver Granville Office Rudy Baron Corona del Mar Homes Martha's Vineyard Big Canyon Villa Apts. Valdez 1400 Dove Street Coast Business Center 1100 Quail Street Koll Center Npt. No. 1 Heltzer Medical Office Ross Mollard Koll Center, Amend. No. 4A Banning/Newport Ranch Ford Aeronutronic Amend. No. 1 Park Lido North Ford, Amend. No. 1 Heritage Bank Table 3 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Brisa del Mar Apartments - 1987 LOCATION Coast Highway & Dover Drive Coast Highway & Bayside Drive Coast Highway & Jamboree Road Coast Highway & Newport Center Drive Coast Highway & Avocado Avenue Coast Highway & MacArthur Boulevard Coast Highway & Goldenrod Avenue Coast Highway & Marguerite Avenue MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road INTERSECTION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES ' 0.2 0.3 0.1 - 0.3 0.1 - - 0.4 0.2 ' - 0.2 0.5 0.3 - - 0.6 0.3 ' - 0.9 • 1.3 0.5 - 3.0 0.8 0.3 - - 0.1 0.3 1.2 1.2 - - Table 4 ICU SUMMARY - 1987 Brisa del Mar Apartments Coast Highway & MacArthur Boulevard Coast Highway & Goldenrod Avenue MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road Existing (1984) Existing Committed + Regional 0.7147 0.8566 0.7754 0.9263 0.7515 0.8836 Existing ' Committed + Regional + Project 0.8634 ' 0.9263 0.8929 ' It' i11 I -6- ICU analyses included consideration of existing, committed project and re- gional growth traffic as well as project traffic. Table 4 summarizes the results of the ICU analyses which are contained in Appendix B. Review of Table 4 indicates that two intersections would have ICU values less than 0.90 in 1987 and one would have no change with existing plus committed project plus regional growth plus project traffic and with no intersection improvements. In summary, the project would not have a traffic impact as.defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. All intersections examined either passed the "One Percent" test or had ICU vales less than 0.90 or unchanged with the project and no improvements. SITE ACCESS AND PARKING . The site plan indicates two access driveways on Fifth Avenue and four on Sea Lane. Each driveway serves a specific number of units and no provision is made for vehicle circulation between parking areas on -site. Projected driveway volumes range from 80 to 160 daily trips. The driveways on Sea Lane do not present any unusual traffic operational or safety problems. On Fifth Avenue, it is recommended that the easterly driveway be relocated to align with the existing alley on the,south side of Fifth Avenue. At present, the proximity of this driveway to Goldenrod Avenue results in potential traffic operational and safety problems. On the same basis, it Is recommended that the westerly driveway be aligned with the existing alley between Dahlia and Fern Leaf Avenues. The site plan indicates a total of 197 off-street parking spaces to serve 96 dwelling units or a ratio of 2.1 spaces per dwelling unit. Field studies were conducted previously by Weston Pringle & Associates to determine parking demands for apartment developments. These studies included Promon- tory Point and Baywood in Newport Beach and Turtle Rock in Irvine. Studies were conducted in the evening on Saturday and Tuesday•and early morning -on Sunday and Wednesday. The evening studies were conducted to include visitor vehicles and early morning to include resident vehicles. Table 5 summarizes the result of these field studies. 1 1 LOCATION Promontory Point (520 D.U.) BayWood (320 D.U:) Turtle Rock (252 D.U.) Table 5 APARTMENT PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY DATE 8/13 8/14 8/16 8/17 8/13 8/14 8/16 8/17 8/13 8/14 8/16 8/17 PARKED , VEHICLES DAY TIME VEHICLES PARKED PER _ al omega Total DU Saturday 8:30 PM 564 5 659 1.08 Sunday 6:30 AM 626 6 632 1.22 Tuesday 8:15 PM 542 5 547 1.05 Wednesday 6:00 AM 610 3 613 1.18 ' ,Saturday 8:55 PM 346 16 362 1.13 ' Sunday 6:50 AM 420 21 441 IA8 Tuesday 8:45 PM 321 8 329 1.03 Wednesday 6:25 AM 395 13 408 1.28 ' Saturday 9:15 PM 293 6 299 1.19 Sunday , 7:20 AM 320 5 325 1.29 Tuesday 9:05 PM 294 3 297 1.18 , Wednesday 6:45 AM 335 5 340 1.35 I. -8- I a :1 r C� Review of Table 5 indicates that the maximum.observed was 1.38 parked vehicles per dwelling unit. This demand includes vehicles,parked in areas not speci- fically designated for vehicle parking (illegal). ,The 2.1 ratio proposed would appear to be adequate and supportable by the field studies. SUMMARY This study has examined traffic factors realted to the proposed Brisas del Mar apartment project in the City of Newport Beach. The study of potential traffic impacts is based upon a maximum of 96 dwelling units. The analysis was completed to conform to the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and on this basis, no traffic impacts were identified. Site access and parking provisions were also examined and found to be satis- factory with the recommended mitigation measures. The following are the principal findings of the study. 1. The project would generate an estimated 670 daily trip ends with 70 occurring during the PM peak hour. 2. Of the nine intersections identified for examination by the City ' Traffic Engineer, six passed the "One Percent" test of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. ' 3. The three intersections failing the "One Percent" test had•ICU values less than 0.90 or unchanged with existing, committed', re- gional growth and project traffic and no intersection improvements. ' 4. Site access was reviewed and found to be adequate with the recom- mended mitigation measures. !' 5. Proposed parking was reviewed and found to be adequate based upon previous studies of apartment parking requirements. I I MITIGATION MEASURES The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential traffic impacts. 1. The easterly driveway on Fifth Avenue should be relocated to align with the alley on the south side. 2. The westerly driveway on Fifth Avenue should be relocated to align with the alley between Dahlia and Fern Leaf Avenues. ,r 7; We trust that this study will be of assistance to you in the preparation of an EIR for the project. If you have'any questions or require additional information, please contact us. .Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:bas #84520 a _=A I L h I I 11 • 1. 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 ' Intersection Coast Highway @ Dover Dr./Qayshore Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 191 i Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Exfsgn9 Regional Projects Projected 1S, of ProjectedProject 1 'r Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2g Hdur Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour i Peak 24 Hour Volume Voluee Volume Volume Voluaat Yotua� I' Northbound 213 ' V� , Q S i Southbound Q 91; 1594 i' Eastbound946 I009 4486 i SU tS 1 --Westbound © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 1 Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%'of Projected [] Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 i DATE: I-a£7 PROJECT: i OZISIO' 179L- M44L A4PM. FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / Bayside Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ Approach I Existing Direction Peak 2y Hour Volume Northbound fit Southbound ' Eastbound Westbound 1481 155 5312 Peak 2$ Hour Regional Growth Volume Approved Projects Peak 211 Hour Volume Projected Peak 211 Hour Volume o IS I¢99 0 o ' l55 2L 983 G321 3o s8u _ ro9G¢ 1% of Projected + Project Peak 2y Hour ' Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume 1 Z O iCf G7i � 20 ; • 3� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2)l Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to, be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume: Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.B.U'.) Analysis is required. DATE • 1'� S -7 PROJECT: f9wv lam-. M4wX A?rS. FORM 0 I • I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway @ Jamboree Rd. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage Winter/Spring 19 SM, Peak 2y Hour Approved Approacn Direction Existing 2h Hour Regional Growth Projects Peak 24 Hour Projected Peak 2y Hour 1% of Projected of Peak 24 Hour i P 2 volume Volume volume Volume Volume all Northbound 942 0 2 9+4 9 � d southbound 4680 7 49$ 5180. 52 q Eastbound let _ 5440 9i4 ' Westbound 4932 G2 540 5554 54 fd ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected (] Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: C;rAlte. PEL.. 1- i parrs. I C 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hwy. / Newport Ctr. Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19TIF Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Direction Existing Peak 2h Hour Regional Growth Projects Peak 2h Hour Projected Peak 2h Hour 11t of Projected Project Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume Northbound ,..__ O O O O O northbound 2181 O 255 243` 24 5 Eastbound 3585 4283 43 1D w:wound 2855 36 411 8302 33 �O 0 L' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greaterthan 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume;. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _ DATE: P�OJECT:�pJ�lso. D� N�oi't A.pl-s, R FORM i r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway @ Avocado Av. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 84 3 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ' a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than lx'of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: ---t 1.T7....�..__. 1 PROJECT: fgj.. NWz .44* S . FORM I ' Peek 2h Hour Approved Approach Direction Exfsting. tttttt Peak 2h Hour Regional Growth Projects Peek 2h Hour Projected Peak A Hour 10 of Projected Project Peek 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Yalu" Volume Volume Volume Northbound 442 O 125 g`' Southbound 35 0 48 6S I p Eastbound 35234'f 4t, 41 ifs Westbound r5 3z 394 _ 29+68 30 to 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway @ MacArthur B1. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring gL Peak 2� Hour Approved 1 Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected ' Project Direction i Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 215 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound Southbound 13 493 Z75S is ZS E.sebound 1 3143 40 6'S7 3Bf0 38 �o Westbound 3224 1. ,1. 1 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume.. Intersection.Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis -is required. — - -DATE: PROJECT: 13Rtsv VOL MoR 3prs FORM I C '1 i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coast Highway @ Goldenrod AV. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winteipring gg Approach Direction Existing Peak 2y Hour Volume Peek 2y Hour Regional Growth Volume Approved Projects Peak 2y Hour Voluk Projected Peak 2y Hour Vol um 1% of Projected Project Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Northbound 231 O 21 .45Z 3 O Southbound 166 id �O 1 (GG 2 Eastbound westbound AjQO ,, 73 854 y� 5077 fO 1 II Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume ' © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume.. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. AT : 1927 ' PROJECT: S 1 h�{t QS, ' FORM I I II II I1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway @ Marguerite Av. (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average inter prjng 19q4 Approach Existing Peek 25 Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected I!'.of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour i Peak 21ff Hour I{ Volume Volume Volume Volume — - Volume Volume Northbound 724 3 1% 7 17 O Southbound 704 4 8 712 7 O Eastbound 4463 • . %8 I — -- — 823 y3(.4 i 54 s 'I 1 Westbound 3000 53 5311 1 5590 © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23ti Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater -than 1% of Projected [] Peak'2� Hour Traffic Volume. IntersectionZapacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _.— . - -DATE:•----I-9-s 7--�..,..�_— PROJECT: /5?rs. ,' _ FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MacArthur Bl. @ San Joaquin Hills Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pang g4.. , Approach Direction Existing peek 2y Hour Peek 2h Hour Regional Growth Approved Projects Peak 2h Hour Projected Peak 24 Hour 1:; of Projected I Project Peak 24 Hour i Peak 2h H Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1932 11. 467 Z41O 9 Southbound 3862 14. 741 ¢4415 41 55 I Eastbound 1887 I p 4% 23 Q Westbound 861 Q 93 go i0 O L- 07 e Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 21% Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE.• 1927 PROJECT: FORM I APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' 11114.1".1.1 114111 I-Mi At'lluur Bl . 0 '..u1 do.uiuln lit I k HJ. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Uase., on Average Daily traffic Winter/Spring 1984) M4.wvet SenNs Cap. naULanvIt cap. P, I lt'.i, Nr,II. Vn{. lent Y/L Ratio xl Llugltf Volu ft Yoltnf• nYWll 11 l Yulune ValowI PHUIl11111 Y/I. NA 41n w/o Project Vo{uec I'k0.41I VOLM I'Ri1J141 Y/C Ratio NL 1600 40* .0250 * 10 .03I,; ovs NT 13200 811 .2556 5 W; 7 10 .3306 NR J7 SL 3200 399 .1247 4.13 A97 •1397 ST 3200 1319 .4122 * g Z39 4791 * 50 .R N.S. 190 -- 137 EL 3200 481 .1503 * 198 .199'1 .1997 I•T 14000 ,110 1 .0/113 1 36. o) 898 1.081611 EN 5 66 1 j WL 1600 19 .0119 .011g .0119 WT 4800 161 1 .0640 * 1�i .073 T 071,1 WR 146 s I YELLOWTIME .1000 * { Qryp ( �� i j { INPROYEMENTS L.C.U. 5836 i .IOnO "�` EXISLING.INIERSECIION CAPACITY U111ILATION ,/y1.5 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH WIPROPOSED EXIST!NG'PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. L .$ ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' r ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 , ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be , less than or equal to 0.90 ----- -------------- ------------------ Description of system improvement: _ BP-15A DEL MAe •APTS DATE: 1987 PROJECT FORM II I1 4'1 I1 I" 1 W [Nit N-ACIION CAVACIIY III It IIAI ION ANALY'd's _. Intersection Coast Highway @ Goldenrod Av. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1984) Notrwryent PROPOSED EXIST. PKJOIEXISTING EXIST. REGIONAL GROWTH COMIITTED PROJECTED VIC Ratio PROJECT PROJECT tnntl% CAP. tAnes Cap. Vol.Vnl. AttVIC IIAUu Yohttat• VofPROJ :i Volunn W10 Project Vo1UZ Ya I Un VIC RAtto NL 64 7 NT 11600 18 .0613 * •C6S�o ,065� NR J 16 SL 41 2. S7 11600 5 .0450 SR 26 EL 1600 23 .0144 .0 (44. to • 02.69 ET 3200 1877 .5991 * IS¢I S 3 •743 ER J 40 15 WL 1600 24 .0150 * 3 .O Gc .01e9 WT 3200 1025 t.3225 17 11.4 7 •4-1 ,s •4153 WR 7 5 YELLOWTIME .1000 * ,1000 I 1, EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH WlPROPOSED INPROVENENTS I.C.U.1, EXISTTNG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS -REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. I•926 3 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0:90 t Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ,OKMk 1Jtt, MAIL AP7S DATE: /997 PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intvr••.ta I unt (.u,v,l lit, bwaY 0 Ab(Arlhtu• Ill. ( W sting traffic Vulwues Bases on Averdtie Udily Ird►fit, Winter/Spring 1984) 1AMP', r, I nnw, Cau. YNrnm,to Lanes f.au. I Rt•,t. YLIIk. Yu 1. Ii Pr1, Y/L ka fao R161MAI r,Rlnrw Yolttw• 10"IIllit Yuuu" Yulur, I'Nall nlu VIC Rain. R/d Pruuct Yolutwr 1'N1IJILI VOW* PRoAtI v,. >;att,r NL -- NT NR - SL 3200 791 .2472 * 4 198 •3103" IS ST SR N. S. 237 50 EL 1600 202 .1263 91 8`9 5 19QQ ET 3200 II/6 ,.Ib/b k 15 234 44 5g`6' 10 ER -- WL -- WT 4800 873 .1819 15 158 ,2179 5 .2190 WR N. S. 446 8 129 S YELLONtIME .1000 * ; r j ,Fr • r .1000 I •8554 � #r IoOb EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION •7147 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH H/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS S.C.U. EXIS71NG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. •t'!�3 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 r ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C,U. with systems improvement will be' less than or equal to 0.90 c Description of system improvement: 9215A DEL MA42 Ap-rs. DATE: 1987 PROJECT FORM II i� 1 APPENDIX C NOIS$ ASSESSMENT 1 1 . 1 NOISE ASSESSMENT FOR THE. FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS THE BRISA AND JASMINE PARK RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 . 1 1 Prepared By ' Fred Greve, P.E. MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES 2.00 Newport Center Drive Suite 213 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 760-0891 1 1 1 . 1 • October 30, 1984 ' (Revised November 1, 1984) i 1 i N07SE ASSESSMENT FOR THE FIFTH AVF,NUE PARCELS THE BRISA AIM JASNIVE PAFK RES7PFNTIAL DEVELOPMENTS CITY OF NPWPORT BEACH 1.0 EXISTING NOISE The noise impacting the project site consists of vehicular traffic. The roadways impacting the Dries site include MacArthur Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. Marguerite Avenue is the only major roadway impacting the Jasmine Park site. The sites are not impacted by aircraft or railroad sources of noise. 1.1 Noise Criteria Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for. (1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, (2) the variety of noises found in the environment, (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and (4) the variations associated with the time of day. The predominant rating scales now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment are the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day Night Noise Level (tda). Both scales are time -weighted annual average noise levels based on the A -weighted decibel. A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. CNEL is a 24-hour, time -weighted annual average noise level. Time -weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizea noises by 5 dB, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dB. The Ldn scale is similar to CNEL except that it has no evening weighting factor. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's sensitivity to noise as a function of activity. The Noise Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach establishes outdoor and indoor noise limits for residential land uses. The outdoor noise standard for exterior living areas is 65 CNEL. The indoor noise standard is 45 CNEL. 1.2 The Highway Noise Model The highway noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FRWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL Cl 11 contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. For the roadway analysis, ' worst —case assumptions about future motor vehicle traffic and noise levels have been made and were incorporated in the modeling effort, specifically, no reductions in motor vehicle noise have been assuned in spite of legislation ' requiring quieter vehicles at the time of,manufacture. 1.3 Existing Traffic Noise Levels ' Existing traffic volumes and estimated speeds (Table 1) were used with the FHWA Model to estimate existing noise levels in terms of CNEL. Traffic ' volumes were obtained from the traffic study for the project by Wes Pringle and Associates (October 1984). ' TABLE 1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES, SPEFDS AND ROADWAY GRADES ROADWAY . ADT SPEED -------------------------------------------- MARGUERITE AVENUE Harbor Avenue to 5th 8,000 40 ' MACARTHUR BOULEVARD North of Coast Hwy. 24,000 50 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MacArthur to Goldenrod 40,000 45 The traffic mix and time distribution are presented in Table 2. These data were developed by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency and are considered typical for roadways throughout Southern California. The distributions are based on traffic data obtained at 31 sample intersections located throughout the County. TABLE 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION (IN PERCENT) - Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 —2— L The distances to the CNEL contours for the•roadways in the vicinity of the project sites are given in Table 3. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 3 do not• take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. TABLE 3 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS rrwrrr-wwrrrrrrrrrr-rr-rwrr-rrrr-w-rrrrrr-rrrrrrrrr DISTANCE TO CNEL CONTOUR FROM CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY (FEET) ROADWAY 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL rr-rr--rrrrrr-__rr_rrr-rr-r------------r-r-ry---- _r--- MARGUERITE AVENUE Harbor Avenue to 5th 21 46 99 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD North of Coast Hwy. 64 139 299 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MacArthur to Goldenrod 76 164 352 L I L L L I I 1 L 1 L —3- L 2.0 POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS ' Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups; temporary and long term. Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long term impacts are further divided into ' impacts on surrounding land uses generated by the project and those impacts which occur at the project site. 1 H C C 1 2.1 Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. The greatest potential for problems exist at the residential areas near the project site. This can best be controlled by limiting the hours of construction to weekdays and daytime hours. Commonly, construction noise is controlled via a City'.s noise ordinance. The City of Newport Beach has not adopted a noise ordinance. 2.2 Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses The proposed development of the Fifth Avenue Parcels will generate traffic, and as a result may alter noise levels in surrounding areas. To assess the impact of the proposed residential project on land uses adjacent to streets that will -serve the project, the increases in roadway noise along these streets was determined. All roadways were modeled for which existing traffic data and project traffic data had been supplied. These roadways were modeled for existing traffic conditions and existing traffic conditions plus the project. Traffic data used for these projections were taken from the traffic study for the project. Traffic speeds, time distributions and traffic mix were assumed to remain the same as used for existing conditions. No increases in noise levels greater than 0.1 dBA were projected for the Brisa project. The projected increases in the CNEL noise levels due to the Jasmine Park project are presented in Table 4. Traffic noise increases less than 0.1 dBA were not listed in Table 4. TABLE 4 INCREASE IN CNEL NOISE LEVELS DUE TO THE JASMINE PARK PROJECT ------------------------------------ .`-__. ----------------------- INCREASE —IN NOISE LEVEL (dBA) MARGUERITE AVENUE Harbor View'to Sandcastle 0.1 Sandcastle to 5th Avenue 0.1 5th Avenue to Coast Hwy. 0.1 In community noise assessment changes in noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernable to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dBA residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. No scientific —4— , evidence is available to support the use of 3 dBA as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 dBA. However, in a community noise situation the noise exposure is over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at wbich changes in community ' noise levels become discernable is likely to be some value greater than 1 dBA, and 3 dBA appears to be appropriate for most people. The data indicate that the noise levels will not increase substantially over existing levels ' due to the proposed projects. The increases of 0.1 dBA or less that are projected will not be discernable to local residents. 2.3 Noise Levels at the Project Sites Before Mitigation ' Ultimate traffic volumes reported in the traffic study were.used with the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Model to project future unmitigated noise ' levels that would impact the project site. The traffic volumes used are presented in Table 5. MacArthur Boulevard was modeled both with and without the Avocado Couplet. ' TABLE 5 , ULTIMATE TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------..--- ROADWAY ADT -- ----------- --- ' MARGUERITE AVENUE Harbor Avenue to 5th 101000 ' MACARTHUR BOULEVARD WITH COUPLET North of Coast Hwy. 21,500 , MACARTHUR BOULEVARD WITHOUT COUPLET North of Coast Hwy. 399000 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY MacArthur to Goldenrod 570000 --------------------------------------------- ' The modeling results are reported in Table 6 in the form of distances to ' the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These projections do not take into account any barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels. I —5 ' TABLE 6 FUTURE NOISE LEVELS FOR FIFTH AVENUE PARCELS PROJECT --------------------------------------------------- DISTANCE TO CNEL C014TOUR FROM CENTERLINE OF ROADWAY (FEET) — —— ROADWAY 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL ----------------------------------------- --- JASMINE PARK SITE MARGUERITE AVENUE Harbor Avenue to 5th 25 53 115 RRISA SITE ' MACARTHUR BOULEVARD WITH COUPLET North of Coast Hwy. 6Q 129 277 ' MACARTHUR BOULEVARD WITHOUT COUPLET North of Coast Hwy. 89 192 413 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY — MacArthur to Goldenrod 96 207 446 -------------------------------------------- The data presented in Table 6 indicate that portions of the Brisa site proposed for residential use will experience noise levels greater than 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation both with and without the couplet. This ' is graphically presented in Exhibit 1. Measures will be necessary to ensure that private outdoor living areas (e.g., patio and balcony areas) planned along MacArthur Boulevard and near Pacific Coast Highway will experience ' outdoor noise levels less than 65 CNEL, and indoor noise levels less than 45 CNEL. With the couplet it appears that very few, if any, private outdoor living areas would experience noise levels greater than 65 CNEL without mitigation. Without the couplet approximately the first row of buildings ' facing MacArthur would experience noise levels greater than 65 CNEL in patio and balcony areas if they have a view of MacArthur Boulevard (i.e., even a partial view). Patio and balcony areas on the opposite of the building from the roadway would be shielded by the building and would experience noise levels less than 65 CNEL. ' All outdoor living areas for the Jasmine Park site will experience noise levels less than 65 CNEL without mitigation (Exhibit 2). The row of buildings along Marguerite Avenue will experience noise levels between 60 CNEL and 65 ' CNEL, and will require mitigation for indoor noise. 1 —6— �t0) f o �► - qo cA MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 1 CONSKMI ENCINEENt i i ! m p 1 � ' r un i -� �Y / I INliwnu �wrt nm�n�mn�m�ngv�pmnnru�imwm' py„ � ••• ' `.� - ' Y n N r •Y �- r,._ .- amnu mnnmummmummm m � � ____ � - ` mmumnm 60 CNEL:�;Ii'w 65CNEL .. " . - ---- -- - nura�erde a b a MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Exhibit 2 CONSULTING ENGINEERS 3.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures are needed to reduce noise levels in outdoor and indoor residential areas for portions of the Brisa project, and indoor areas for portions of the Ja--mine Park development. The measures below are presented to demonstrate feasibility, and should not be interpreted as design specifications. A more detailed noise analysis will be warranted prior to the issuance of building permits. 3.1 Exterior Noise Levels Exterior noise mitigation will only be needed for the Brisa development, and the extent of mitigation depends on the development of the couplet. The current site plan shows patio and balcony areas inside the 65 CNEL noise contour without the couplet. No patio or balcony areas are currently indicated on the site plan which would be inside the 65 CNEL contour with the couplet. However, it is possible that this situation could change as the plans become more defined. In most cases the private outdoor living areas are located on the opposite side of the building from the impacting roadway (i.e., Pacific Coast Highway and/or MacArthur Boulevard). For these cases the building will act as a noise barrier and no additional mitigation will be necessary. For those units inside the 65 CNEL contour, and with a view (even a partial view) of the impacting roadways mitigation will be necessary. The most direct mitigation approach is to construct a noise barrier around the individual patio and balcony areas of concern. The noise barrier will need to extend 5.5 feet above the patio or balcony floor. The noise barrier should not contain holes or gaps, and should be constructed of slumpstone or other masonry material. Other suitable materials include 1/4 inch plate glass, 5/8 inch Texan, stucco covered walls (must have 7/8 inch of stucco), and wood walls. Wood walls must be specially designed and include between 1-1/2 to 2 inches (thickness) of wood. Options other than individual noise barriers do exist. They include conptruction of a noise barrier at the property along MacArthur Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. This barrier would only protect the lower floor patio areas, and individual barriers would be needed for balconies. Modifications to the site plan may be possible which would eliminate the need for noise barriers. The final noise barrier requirements should be determined when final grading plans are developed that show lot locations, house setbacks, and precise pad elevations. 3.2 Indoor Noise Mitigation Typically buildings with open windows only provide 12 dBA outdoor to indoor noise reduction. In areas where the noise level exceeds 57 CNEL the City of Newport Beach interior standard of 45 CNEL will not be achieved without additional measures. Specifically, for the Brisa project the first row of buildings along MacArthur Boulevard and those with a direct view of Pacific Coast Highway will be exposed to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL. For the Jasmine Park development the first row of homes along Marguerite Avenue will experience noise levels greater than 57 CNEL. (The second row buildings is shielded from the roadways by the first row of buildings, and will not require mitigation.) These houses will be required to have closeable windows and mechanical ventilation must be provided to replace the lost of —7— ' natural ventilation when windows are closed. Mechanical ventilation or a "summer switch" system as it is commonly refered to, allows the use of the heater fan to circulate the room air with fresh air. A fresh air duct running directly from the outside is required for the fresh air supply. I H I _I r, I i I I 11 —8— APPSNDI% D ---....---••----- AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ' Setting Meteorology/Climate The climate of the Brisa del Mar project site, as with all of Southern ' California, is largely controlled by the strength and position of the semi —permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean. The high pressure ' ridge over the West Coast creates a repetitive pattern of frequent early morning cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, clean daytime onshore breezes and little temperature change throughout the year. Limited rainfall occurs in winter when the high center is weakest and farthest south as the fringes of ' mid —latitude storms occasionally move through the area. Summers are often completely dry with an average of 12 inches of rain falling each year from November to early April. Unfortunately, the same atmospheric conditions that ' create a desirable living climate combine to severely limit the ability of the atmosphere to disperse the air pollution generated by the large population ' attracted by the climate. The onshore winds across the coastline diminish quickly in inland valleys of the basin and the sinking air within the offshore ' high pressure system forms a massive temperature inversion that traps all air pollutants near the ground. The resulting horizontal and vertical stagnation, ' in conjunction with ample sunshine, cause a number of reactive pollutants to undergo photochemical reactions and form smog that degrades visibility and irritates tear ducts and nasal membranes. Because Newport Beach is ventilated ' by fresh breezes and is also away from the main path of basin air pollution when the winds reverse and drift seaward, it does not experience the same air ' pollution problems found in many areas of the Los Angeles Basin. The .trajectory of air pollutants is such, however, that Newport Beach is a source ' area for air pollution problems in inland communities. Emissions in Newport Beach may, therefore, create an incremental air quality effect far from their ' source. u Air Quality Setting Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS): In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed residential project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. The initial attainment deadline of 1977 has since been extended to 1987 for national AAQS, and may require further extension in air quality problem areas like Southern California. Because California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in Californai are shown in Table 1. Baseline Air Quality: There are no routine measurements of air quality distributions made in Newport Beach by the South Coast Air Quality Managemewnt District (SCAQMD), the agency responsible for air quality planning, monitoring and enforcement in Southern California. A number of special studies have been performed, however, that suggest air quality in the area is generally very good. Data taken by CalTrans near Newport Center showed that the only pollutant to ever exceed the applicable AAQS was ozone, the primary ingredient in photochemical smog. Three hours out of about 1000 hours monitored exceeded I F I E F F 1 1 n Table 1 - AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS California Standards National Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Method Primary Secondary • Method Oxidant 1 hour 0.10 ppm Ultraviolet — — — (200 ug/ms) Photometry Ozone 1 hour _ 6.12 ppm (236 ug/ms) Same as Primary Standard Ethylene Chemiluminescence Carbon Monoxide 8 hour 9.0 ppm Non•Dispersive Infrared 10 mg/m, Same Primary Primary Non•D arersive Infrared 110 mg/mt) Spectroscopy (9 ppm) Standards Spectroscopy • (NDIR) (NDIR) 1 hour 20 ppm 40 mg/ml (23 mg/m3) (35 ppm) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average — Gas Phase 100 u /m3 (0.06 ppm) ' Slte�' Same as Primary •Standard Chemilum nescence 1 hour 0.25�ppm scence nascence ' (470 ug/mr) ' .Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average •• — 80 ug/ms (0.03 ppm) 24 hour 0.05 ppm 365 ug/m3 (131 ug/m3) Ultraviolet (0.14 ppm) Pararosaniline • Fluorescence " 3 hour — — 130D ug/ms (0,5 ppm) 1 hour 0.5 ppm — — (1310 ug/mr) _ Suspended* Annual Geometric60 ug/ms 76 ug/m�' 60 ug/ms Particulate Mean High Volume High Volume 24 hour tOD ug/m , 260 u /ms 9 _ 150 u /m3 9 Matter Sampling sampling Sulfates 24 hour 25 ug/m3 Turbidimetric — — —' Barium Sulfate Lead 30 day 1.5 ug/ms Atomic Absorption Average Calendar* — — 1.5 ug/ms• Some as Pri• Atomic ouarter mary Standard Absorption ' Hydrogen.,• '1 hour• 3ppm°)••. Cade dmiumHydnx- ' (0. STF Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.010 ppm (26 ug/mz) Tedlar Bag Collection, Gas _ (Chloroethene) Chromatography _ Visibility 1 observation .In sufficient amount to reduce the prevailing visibility . Reducing Particles to less than 10 miles when the relative humidity is less than 70% - ��rwaar�alvtr�ta�ru�tr_a:��r_uri�_71- - Carbon Monoxide 8 hour NDIR — — _ (76 mg/ppmm3) Visibility I observation In ucecient the amoufng visibility Reducing Panicles to less than 30 miles when the relative humidity is lass than 70% ' A new standard for respirable particulate matter (10 micron diameter) has been promulgated iii California and proposed nationally, but no approved ' measurement method has yet been developed to monitor such particulates. 11 the federal ozone standard with one hour reaching the South Coast Air Basin First Stage Smog Alert Level. A separate study commissioned by the City of Newport Beach to measure carbon monoxide (CO) exposure directly adjacent to PCN at Bayside Drive also found low air pollution levels, even within a few feet of stagnant traffic at the PCH/Bayside traffic signal. The low ozone values of summer and the low CO levels in winter both confirm that Newport Beach, especially the southeast side near Newport Center and Corona del Mar, has better air quality than most other areas of Southern California. Although baseline air quality levels around Newport Beach are quite good, the area is not immune from the occasional intrusion of polluted air from other source areas. Air quality monitoring data at the nearest,AQMD monitoring station in Costa Mesa indicate that summer airflow from developed regions of the Los Angeles Basin and winter drainage winds down the Santa Ana River Valley both may create air quality levels that are unhealthful for sensitive people. Table 2 summarizes the last six complete years of monitoring data from the Costa Mesa station. Progress toward cleaner air is seen in almost every pollution category. For a pollutant such as lead, dramatic changes were observed as leaded gasoline utilization was sharply reduced. In other categories such as ozone, there is only a very small improvement trend with little prospect of meeting clean air standards in the foreseeable future. Air Quality Planning: Any small, positive improvement trends in local ozone air quality are too slow to create ozone levels that meet the federal standard by 1987 as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. The Act requires that an attainment plan be prepared for all areas of the country that exceed the federal standards that outlines the tactics and programs through which attainment will be reached by the specified deadline. In Southern California, the plan is known as the South Coast Air Basin (SOCAB) Air Quality Management Platt (AQMP) which was prepared jointly by the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The AQMP in its initial issuance in 1979 predicted attainment by 1987 if a wide variety of measures were implemented. In its 1982 update of the plan, the same agencies recognized that attainment in "clean" areas such as Newport Beach will not happen by 1987, much less in the polluted inland valleys of the basin. 11 !I L Table 2 - Costa Mesa/Newport Beach Air Quality Monitoring Summary (days standards were exceeded and maximum observed concentrations) Pollutant/Standard 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 OZONE One -Hour > 0.10 ppm. 52 26 20 28 25 41 One -Hour > 0.12 ppm. 25 16 5 6 6 15 One -Hour > 0.20 ppm. 3 1 0 1 0 2 Max. 1-Hour Cone. (ppm.) 0.22 0.21 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.25 CARBON MONOXIDE One -Hour Z 20 ppm. 0 2 0 0 1 0 Eight -Hours > 9 ppm. 8 15 6 5• 5 1 Max. 1-Hour Cone. (ppm.) 18. 21. 17. 15. 21. 14. Max. 8-Hour Cone. (ppm.) 12.8 15.9 13.9 11.7 10.4 10.6 NITROGEN DIOXIDE One -Hour > 0.25 ppm. 4 4 2 2 0 1 Max. 1-Hour Cone. (ppm.) 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.29 0.23 0.27 TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES One -Day > 100 ug/m 10/61 26/61 6/20 - - - One -Day > 260 ug/m 0/61 0/61 0/20 - - - Max. 24-Hour Cone. (ug/m ) 175. 252. 125. - - - One -Month > 1.5 ug/m 4/12 2/12 0/4 Max. 1-Month Cone. (ua/m ) 3.11 1.90 0.82 PARTICULATE SULFATE One -Day Z 25 ug/m 2/61 0/61 0/20 - - - Max. 24-Hour Cone. (ug/ms) 27.2 24.2 13.5 - - - Source: SCAQMD and California Air Resources Board (ARB) - = particulate monitoring discontinued A proposed project such as the Brisa del Mar development relates to the AQMP through the automobile emissions that will be generated by project residents. If the AQMP has anticipated a certain level of development for the parcel based on its intended use as per the Newport Beach General Plan, then it will not create any unacceptable regional air quality impacts. To the extent that the project generates a portion of the traffic and its related emissions anticipated for future Newport Center residential growth, it does not create any significant regional air pollution levels. Because the proposed project and permit actions do not involve any changes in the General Plan that would change the anticipated levels of vehicular emissions, the project therefore is expected to be consistent with air quality planning goals of the AQMP. I Air Quality Impact Residential development potentially impacts air quality through the traffic and associated mobile source emissions generated by project residents. Any single project, particularly a limited residential development such as the proposed Brisa del Mar project, does not of itself create emissions in sufficient quantity to threaten air quality standards. Rather, the emissions ' from this project will mix with those of thousands of similar projects throughout Southern California. While the individual impact of any single ' project is incrementally small, the cumulative impact of all such small sources ultimately leads to the basins inability to meet clean air standards. Locally, project traffic will be added to surrounding roadways and create ' microscale impacts on receptors adjacent to traveled roadways. Continued -growth not only contributes vehicular emissions of itself, but often creates a ' slowing of all other cars to less pollution efficient speeds as roadways"reach their capacity. As on a regional scale, the 670 trips generated by the ' project, when spread over space and time, will have a minimal local impact when compared to the existing levels of traffic on Newport Beach roadway ' systems. In addition to automobiles as the primary source of growth —related air emissions, a number of small secondary sources may contribute pollutants to the regional burden. Such sources include temporary construction activity ' emissions, off —site or non —basin emissions from power plants supplying electricity, and numerous very small local sources such as natural gas combustion in the home, vapor losses at gas stations or landscape utility equipment in the yard or common areas. The imprecise or poorly defined nature of many of these miscellaneous sources makes it difficult to accurately inventory them, but it nevertheless points out that continued population growth means continued air pollution emissions that will make it difficult for Southern California to achieve completely clean air in the near future. Construction Activity Impacts: Clearing, grading, utility excavation and vehicle movement on unpaved surfaces will generate large volumes of loose dust that will be blown northeastward toward Newport'Center by prevailing daytime onshore winds. The EPA estimates that each acre of soil disturbed during residential construction may add about seven tons of dust to the air unless vigorous dust control measures are employed. The rules of the SCAQMD require that dust control measures must be employed that prevent the formation of a visible dust cloud or the creation of a dust settling nuisance beyond the project property line. Measures such as regular watering, early paving and preventing soil spillage on traveled roadways can reduce dust generation by 50-75 percent such that dust nuisance potential can be well mitigated. Such dust is further chemically inert and of a large diameter particle that is readily filtered.by human breathing passages. It therefore does not represent a significant health concern, but it may create a soiling nuisance as these large particles settle out on nearby parked carat foliage and other surfaces unless aggressive dust control measures are applied. Construction activities also generate considerable combustion emissions from on -site heavy equipment and off -site trucks hauling dirt, concrete, wood, and other building materials. While such emission levels may be substantial, they are spread over a wide area (especially the off -site trucks) and they occur over many days of activity. No single receptor is exposed to any significant portion of these emissions. Any perceptible impacts will be confined to an occasional "whiff" of diesel exhaust near the equipment itself. As with the fugitive particulates, construction equipment impacts thus constitute a minor potential nuisance rather than any adverse Health impact. Vehicular Emissions Impacts: By far, the greatest project -related air quality concern from this project, as with most Southern California growth, is from the additional traffic that the project will generate. For a trip generation rate of 7.0 daily trips per dwelling unit and an average residential trip length of just under 6.0 miles per trip, the project will generate 670 trips and add just over 4000 vehicle -miles -traveled (VMT) to the regional VMT burden. Compared to the almost 40 million VMT driven each day in Orange County, the regional impacts of the project VMT in terms of air quality would thus be almost I I I I undetectable. Project —related air pollution emissions generation can be readily estimated by combining information on trip and VMT generation with vehicular emissions characteristics. The California ARB has developed an urban emissions model that allows for a ready estimate of total emissions generation from vehicular sources as shown in Table 3. These data show project —related emissions comparisons for future years to indicate the effects of continued emissions reductions in the county automotive fleet. Emission levels range from a few pounds per day of particulates and sulfur dioxides, tens of pounds of nitrogen oxides (MOx) and total hydrocarbons (THC), and a few hundred of pounds of carbon monoxide (CO). For all species with significant emission rates, future emissions decline steadily in response to continued retirement of older, more polluting vehicles. The data in Table 3 does not take into ' account the mandatory inspection and maintenance program that will soon begin in Southern California. This program will make the project mobile source contribution even lower than indicated. A measure of the significance of the mobile source emissions burden can be gained by comparing project emissions to regional totals as shown in Table 4. As expected, the project's share of county —wide emissions is miniscule in the range of 0.001 to 0.006 percent. As previously noted, however, it is not the size of the incremental impact, but whether such impacts have been properly anticipated in the regional air quality planning process that determines the potential significance of a project's air quality impact. Since the residential units planned for the Brisa del Mar development are part of an anticipated growth by virtue of the project's consistency with the General Plan designation for the parcel, these emissions have been properly incorporated into the regional air quality plan, and the proposed development will not interfere with regional air quality attainment. Miscellaneous Air Quality Impacts: Residential development introduces a number of small additional sources of air emissions that are very small on an individual basis, but which become significant when considered cumulatively. Many of them are so small as to not Table 3 — Regional Project —related Air Pollution Emissions Generation Pollutant Species Carbon Monoxide Reactive Hydrocarbons Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Dioxide Total Particulates Daily Emissions Generation (pounds/day) Project Year 1985 1987 1990 1995 2000 194 177 158 141 123 22 18 16 14 12 13 11 10 9 8 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Source: URBEMIS#1 Computer Program, California ARB, -1983 Table 4 — Emissions Comparison of Project versus County Total Pollutant Species Countywide Project —related Project Emissions Emissions Share (tons/day) (tons/day) Carbon Monox: Reactive Hyri Nitrogen Oxi, Sulfur Dioxi, Particulates Source: Worl I be allocatable to any single development, but they nevertheless represent a non -negligible portion of the air basin pollution inventory. Such sources include: Residential electrical consumption requiring combustion of fuel oil in basin power plants. At an estimated consumption rate of about 6000 OR per dwelling per year, the project will consume about 600,000 KWH per year. If most of that electricity is generated from oil, about one-half ton of NOx and S02 and smaller amounts of CO, THC and particulates will be released into the atmosphere in Southern California Residential natural gas combustion for heating, hot water, drying clothes and other uses. Natural gas is a 'clean" fuel and emission levels are thus small from these sources. Evaporative emissions from gasoline production, transport, storage and dispensing to meet residential vehicle fuel needs. Evaporative emissions from paints, thinners, solvents and cleaning products using in construction, building maintenance and housecleaning. Dry cleaning. Asphalt evaporative emissions. Dust and fumes generated in mineral processing to make sand, gravel, aggregates, concrete and other building materials. Structural, recreational, and outdoor cooking fires. Landscape utility equipment combustion emissions (mowers, edgers, blowers, etc.) and organic vehicles in pesticides and herbicides used for landscape maintenance. Increased pleasure craft use in Newport Bay by project residents and increased travel demand at John Wayne Airport. J I 1 1 I I r I J iJ ' from Particulate generation at roadway edges vehicular turbulence and from microscopic abrasion of vehicle tire compounds. ' On a daily basis, most of these emissions are too small to even measure, but they all point out that more people mean more air pollution from a variety of sources. r I Mitigation Since much of the project -related air quality impact derives from automotive sources beyond the control of project sponsors or local regulatory agencies, there is little potential for effective mitigation. Further given the fact that the project represents anticipated growth consistent with input assumptions in the AQMP and the fact that any local impacts are well within the local airshed's capacity to accommodate such small impacts, there is little compelling need to develop extraordinary mitigation measures. Although there are no unacceptable air quality impacts from the proposed project as presently conceived, there are nevertheless a number of "standard" mitigation measures that should be considered in project planning that further minimize any potential for unacceptable air quality impacts. Such measures include: Construction - Implement aggressive dust control measures as required by local ordinance and AQMD Rules and Regulations - Perform 'major grading in spring when soil moisture is high to minimize fugitive dust generation - Carry out major soil disturbance between 8 AM and 4 PM when winds are stronger to reduce the amount of dust settling out on nearby receptors and to obtain better areawide dispersion of any fugitive dust Automobiles - Encourage alternate modes of transportation through sidewalks, bike paths and transit to reduce the dependence on the car as the sole.means of transportation Conservation - Incorporate energy conservation building design into the project dwellings beyond the minimum Title 24 Conservation Standards. Conservation measures should stress abundantly available sunshine to replace fossil -fuel heating and the use of the cooling sea breeze to minimize any air conditioning i 1 1 1 i 1 i 11 U i L� 1 1 C 1 1 11 requirements. Implementation of these measures does not generate a significant reduction in project —related emissions, but it serves to increase everybody's awareness to the part they play in contributing to the overall air quality problems of Southern California. APP$NDIR E 6EOT$CHNICAL' RItF&T PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION PROPOSED 5TH AVENUE APARTMENTS, EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND EAST COAST HIGHWAY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA -FOR IRVINE PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT W.O. 1108-OC JUNE 12, 1984 Geo&oils, Inc. Evil Soil Mechanics • Geology a Foundation Engineering 15801 RocMeld Boulevard, Suite Co Irvine, California 92714,(714) 859.4599 June 12, 1984 W.O. 1108-OC ' Irvine Pacific Development 610 Irvine Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92658-8904 Attention: Mr. Bruce Martin Subject: Preliminary Soils Investigation, Proposed Sth Avenue Apartments, East of the Intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and East Coast Highway, City of Newport Beach, California. Gentlemen: This report presents the results of our preliminary soils engineering investigation of the subject property. The purpose of this study was to determine the nature of the materials underlying the site relative to the feasibility of constructing the proposed apartment complex. Our field investigation was performed on May 25, 1984. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site is bound by MacArthur Boulevard on the west, Sea Lane on the north, Golden Rod Avenue on the east, and 5th Avenue and East Coast Highway on the south, in the'City of Newport Beach, California. A precise location of the site is shown on the attached Site Location Map, Figure I. �,foeMie4eO/lla•aaSOvanNariDoulevard,vanNuY2,CalUotnla➢110f•(2f2),BJQ1S5 San Dle2ooffice•o20aCheeapeakeDd,e• Suite S•SanDle2o,Caillomla02123-1010)!1 O112r , .Coney J �,°„ :,'• .ti._ , e 1 I f ; amen - _ `��7 Hrp ~':.♦' .+_��, ` • <�•��j *i•. `. • • '%r J. �vz`. :� `__ �,�\ _-�`_•BM -�rT MW4Y f if a Coact=/' i '• �--- i• �n+,.� 7�.�'1`;` ' - \ �a Country U, I ; y� \^i'�� g w� f =-11,7 -Beacom ,'-_Ba'v__-_ µr.l, -a �f `• -.� R i[\(�\'—c•\co•P?,I• f'l. \✓✓ `Subs 96 \ U i:� �"• •I '� .96 - �i3 "• I tlk-�.ryTi r �. `\ �I21:-1J�1��-+�'���� iIrL�L, — �I,I II1 I^1 /( � ♦ t� 1�••.,•@`\�+• i,� ,� :� '� P• i It I��i 'I •� i �l , 0 \\\r411a deUgtjt L`bZar. ::_� `'• •: �?'' ; �,^\\• 4 rr'-rd�:'mrF.%+rrr 7.:`• \\\>lr `�Q t n%. „Balboa �,a:bo Ivtm NE P30 �' Park. �''.-;r°-. rf ILLII JnUnmUnlJllltll.ii iU ,?`o zL Re Lj - --- . — Coronae :9 —� �, z .• dei Mar- . a .ate. 79 `�� �•. +` .� < t- 'Light " rQ Arch Rack29 : o . • .ZZH :';. —`may, ; >' it 1. .ft�..�,�r- i ��/•f �/' IIZIJ _� y t", J�:®oL®B6� `�1i^ t"�• DATE W.O. NO.&OfCzJC- gY P7: Soil �•- _a -.-_' ��✓ aim^ Mechanics •Geology •Foundation Engineering Irvine Pacific Development Page 2 ' June 12, 1984 } W.O. 1108-OC Light vegetation covers the entire site, with the exception of the area within the Metropolitan Water District easement, ' where there is a heavy accumulation of bushes and trees. :.. The site descends gently to the south. Four local areas of miscellaneous trash, debris and dumped fill are located on s the site. Presently, no surface structures are located on ' the property. ,At least two subsurface structures, an M.W.D. L ;i water main and a sewer line, are located on the subject site. ' I' PROPOSED SITE DEV9LOPMENT The proposed site development would consist of two story, wood frame, multi -family apartment units. Column loads are expected ' to be light. FIELD EXPLORATION ' Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating eight test pits at the approximate locations shown on the enclosed Plot Plan, Plate I. The test pits were excavated with a backhoe. ' The excavating of the test pits was supervised by our field s; engineer who obtained 2.365 inch diameter undisturbed samples for testing in our laboratory., Bulk samples of soils were also collected to establish characteristics of typical materials when used as compacted fill. The soils brought out by excavation of the test pits were examined and logged. , SOIL CONDITIONS ' Fill a Fill materials were encountered in all eight test pits, with depths ' varying from 2 to 4 feet. These materials generally are slightly _t clayey sands which were dry and loose to medium dense. ' GeoSoiis, Znc. 1 Irvine Pacific Development Page 3 June 12, 1984 W.O. 1108-OC Terrace Deposits Terrace materials were encountered in each of the eight borings at depths ranging from 2 to 12 feet. Terrace soils consisted of clayey sands, reddish -brown in color, which were moist and dense. These soils generally appear sufficiently consolidated to support anticipated fill load's. The upper portions of the terrace deposits may be subject to processing in fill areas. Bedrock The site is underlain by bedrock of the Monterey Formation. These materials consist of interbedded sandstones and silt - stones. The siltstones were generally clayey and sometimes diatomaceous with thin siliceous interlayers that were well cemented and jointed. Colors ranged from light browns in the sandstones to mottled grayish -browns in the siltstones. The bedrock materials encountered in test pits tended to be very stiff/dense in the upper weathered zone and hard below. Moisture content varied from damp to wet. GROUNDWATER AND CAVING Groundwater and caving were not encountered in the test pits. SEISMICITY While there are no active faults within or immediately adjacent to the property, a number of faults in Southern California are considered active. These faults could affect the site in the form of ground shaking, should they generate an earthquake. Figure 2 shows the approximate locations of active faults in Southern California and the relative location of the site. Geo5olls; Inc. Modified after Friedman and Others, 1976 UPCOCOUSS, Kim FAULT MAP OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TE S• _ W.O. NO.l d$-Gc.. I BY f- r Soil Mechanics • Geology • Foundation Engineering �i e. a it ini ii' iir ram' i iii�- ' t�r' it awaii�4 f� if r� �i%� TABLE 1 'MAJOR EARTHQUAKES WITHIN 100 MILES RADIUS (1) (2) (4) APPROXIMATE ESTIMATED MAXI CAUSATIVE RICHTER DISTANCE FROM BEDROCK ACCELERAT DATE LOCATION FAULT SYSTEM MAGNITUDE SITE (MILES) SITE (g) (3 4-21718 Hemet San Jacinto 6.8 60 (E) 0.02 Riverside County 4-23-23 Box Spring Moun= San Jacinto 6.3 50(NE) 0.02 tains-Riverside County 3-11-33 Huntington Beach Newport- 6.3 2 (W) 0.63 Orange County Inglewood 3-25-37 Clark Lake San Jacinto 6.0 80(SE) 0.01 Riverside County, 12-4-48 Thousand Palms San.Andreas 6.5 90 (E) 0.01 Riverside County 2-9-71 San Fernando San Fernando 6.5 65 (NW) 0.03 LOs Angeles County 2-21-73 . Point Mugu Malibu Coast 6.0 75 (NW) 0.02 Ventura County (1) Bulletin, #116-2, 1964 (2) Hileman, 197,3 and Friedman, 1976 (3) Schnabel and Seed, 1973 (4) Real, Toppozada and Parke, 1978 C I Irvine Pacific Development Page 4 June 12, 1984 W.O. 1108-OC n u Numerous earthquakes have occurred in Southern California. Many of these are historical in nature and lack adequate records. Documentation is available, however, for 20 Southern California earthquakes which have occurred since 1912, and had a magnitude 'J greater than six on the Richter scale. The closest of these `i are listed on Table 1, along with estimated bedrock accelerations based on work by Schnabel and Seed (1973). The most consistently active zone within a 100 mile radius of the subject parcel seems to be the San Jacinto Fault Zone. This zone is also one of the largest fault zones in California. The Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone is the closest active fault. The probability of ground acceleration at the site may be con- sidered as approximately similar to the probability for the Southern California region as a whole. Table 21 therefore, presents the results of a statistical analysis of Southern California earthquake data with respect to a 100 year life (after Housner). Additionally, the proximity of other major faults and their estimated seismicity within 100 miles is presented in Table 3. TABLE 2 PROBABILITY OF GROUND ACCELERATION Probability of One Acceleration of Gravity Occurrence Per 100 Years 0.5 95% 0.10 88% 0.15 64% 0.20 49% 0.25 22% 0.35 4% I Geo5oils, Ine. ' IPAULT ZONE Newport -Ingle- wood Whittier- I;lsinore San Jacinto San Andreas TABLE 3 ESTIMATED SITE SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS (1) (21 (3) (4) (2) (2) (3) (4) (2) w a w x w x • .; H 0 w .. H Uz 0 - Uz a to H O W U H to H O W U H w zw as w P w zt as w Ea. N w a a A cn O A. U) O z .. H M\ v £ E-1 M\ A z -- a. ri A Ei a aH �D s O ' z"D 0 z H fn EN U z HU x E+ D u: Iz D tx £O H Ax O (4 x D Ri Hx C7 (4 H0 H W O %-� U� a 0 z XH, Xw w z XEi X a (n °a w a z 0 a z A..zO H ww w En Hw w H Ei z ww om w H z our A x x H A a A H < EF 00 A E-F < w w a a w w� ' z z a w W� z z 0C9 U H D HN Ei H 00 O pLn Ef H A. � a a O a O H 4 a D4 .\I E4 E+ H Cti rl U E-4 W E+. X N fx. EH U [A[a Ln E+ 9 Ei W u� H Lo AFC \ W0 WU a Dx \ ' cn0• '!+� to a Dx A W c W rt w w W 4 P+ A to r1 W W Q W A Un 2 50+ 6.3 25 7.0 .69 .32 24 10. 6.5 .65 .24 18 21 150+ 5.5 75 7.5 .27 .35 30 30 7.2 .23 .32 26 47 200+ 6.8 00 7,7 .13 .45 32 40 7.3 .08 ,42 '28 53 500+ 8.3 50 8.5 .16 .54 37 125 8.3 .14 .53 36 Maximum Parameters (Maximum Credible) (1) PR 13 & PR15 (2) Housner, 1970 (3) Schnabel and Seed, 1973 (4) Seed, et. al., 1968 Function Parameters (Maximum Probable) Irvine Pacific Development Page 5 June 12, 1984 W.O. 1108-OC Based on the above information, it is reasonable to assume that during a 50 year life, a structure at the subject site would be subjected to an earthquake of at least a Richter magnitude of 6.0. Horizontal accelerations induced by an earthquake may affect structures and/or earth embankments. Wood frame structures generally perform well when constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code requirements for earthquakes. Potential for ground cracking in response to a major earthquake is present throughout much of Southern California. Ground cracking should not, however, be confused with ground displacement along an active fault. The potential for liquefaction is lacking, due to the cohesive content of the soils. LABORATORY TESTING Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The soil classifications are shown on the Test Pit Logs, Table 4. Moisture -Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each undisturbed sample of the soils encountered in the borings. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. The results of these tests are shown on the test pit logs. { Geo&oils, Inc. Irvine Pacific Development Laboratory Standard Page 6 June 12, 1984 W.O. 1108-OC The maximum density and optimum moisture content of the major soil types encountered in the test pits. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557-70. Moisture -density relationships obtained for these soils are shown below: Soil Type Location A - Slightly Clayey Sand TP-3 @ 1.0 (Fill) B - Clayey Sand (Terrace) TP-4 @ 5.0 Shear Test Maximum Dry optimum Moisture Density,pcf Content,$ 127.0 10.0 130.5 9.5 A shear test was performed in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. The rate of deformation is approximately 0.05 inches per minute. The sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters; angle of internal friction and cohesion. This test was performed on se- lected remolded samples in an inundated condition. The shear test result is presented on Plate B. Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples. The consolidation apparatus is designed to receive a one inch high soil -filled brass ring. Loads are applied in several increments in a geometric progression and the resulting deformations are recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are placed in contact with the top and bottom of each specimen to permit addition of and release of pore fluid. Inundation of the samples was performed at a load of two kips/sq. ft. and the test results are shown on Plate C-1 to C-2. GeoSoils, Inc. Irvine Pacific Development Page 7 June 12, 1984 W.O. 1108-OC Expansion Tests Expansion tests were performed on remolded samples prepared at below the shrinkage limit and 90 percent of the maximum density. Samples were placed under a 60 lb./sq. ft. surcharge for 24 hours after allowing water to contact the samples. The percent swell was recorded as the amount of vertical rise compared to the original one -inch sample height. The results are presented below: Depth Soil Type (ft.) A - Slightly Clayey Sand TP-3 @1.0 (Fill) B - Clayey Sand(Terrace) TO-4 @5.0 Percent Swell 4.8 4.4 11 11 11 11 Expansive Nature Moderately Expan t MOderately txpa+ Swell tests were also performed for the typical soil types according ' to UBC Standard #29-2 as outlined in Section 2904(b) of the Uniform Building Code. The results of the tests are as follows: Soil Type A - Slightly Clayey Sand B - Clayey Sand Sulfates Expansion_ Index 26 21 UBC _ Classification ' Low Low A sample of the site materials was analyzed for sulfate content and the test result is as follows: Soluble Sulfates Soil Type.A Soil Type B (% Dry Weight). 0.079 0.026 Based on the test results, Type II cement may be used in construction. GeoSoils, Ina. A M Irvine Pacific Development CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Page 8 June 12, 1984 W.O. 1108-OC 1. Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and our engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the project site 4 is suited for the proposed multi -family apartment complex, from a soils engineering viewpoint. The recommendations presented below should be incorporated into the design, grading and construction considerations. 2. Groundwater is not expected to be a factor in the development of the site. However, minor seepage along the contact between C•Gr� strata (fill/terrace/bedrock) may be experienced. Demolition 1. The existing trees, shrubs, bushes and stockpiles of 'miscellaneous debris and trash should be removed from the site. 2. Light surficial grasses and weeds may be_disced and incorporated into the site materials, provided that no major concentrations of vegetable matter remain. 3. Moderate and heavy vegetation should be stripped and hauled offsite. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All existing fill', as represented in the test pit logs, should - be removed. The approximate depth of removal over the entire site may be determined by referencing the depth of fill at each .test pit, as -follows: GeoSoiis, Inc. Irvine Pacific Development Location TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 TP-4 TP-5 TP-6 Page 9 June 12, 1984 W.O. 1108-OC Depth of Fill (ft.) TP-7 TP-8 Depths may vary between test pits. 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 2. Removal adjacent to the MM line and existing sewer line should be made with consideration of the respective lines and the proposed superjacent structures. Actual removals should be reevaluated upon review of the grading plans and/or in the field at the time of removal. Existing backfill materials within each line should also be r LA evaluated with respect to the materials ability to support superjacent structures. 3. Subsequent to the above removals, the exposed subsoils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 4. Building pad areas, where the proposed cut'removes the existing fill and exposes terrace subsoils, should be inspected and verified by the soils engineer to be competent materials prior to any additional removals or pad finishing. GeoSoits, Inc. I Irvine Pacific Development Page 10 June 12, 1984 W.O. 1108-OC 5. An attempt should be made to locate the test pits, re - excavate the loose backfill materials and replace them with compacted fill. , 6. The materials excavated by the above removals may be reused as compacted fill, provided that major concentrations of vegetation and miscellaneous trash and debris are removed. Fill Placement 1. Fills should be placed in thin 6 to 8 inch lifts, brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 2. Oversized materials (cobbles or fragments greater than 6 inches in diameter) should not be placed within the upper 3 feet of the building pads or within 5 feet of the lowest utility line. Placement of all oversized material should be under the in- spection of the soils engineer. 3. Any import materials should be inspected and approved by the project soils engineer prior to placement on site. Hard Rock Difficulties Although no "hard rock" difficulties were encountered during our investigation, the area has been known to have local, well cemented, siliceous sandstone layers and conglomerate beds. Our test pits .varied in depth from 11 to 15 feet without encountering either the hard sandstone or conglomerates; however, excavations below 15 feet may expose these materials. The increased excavation depth would expose a more non -weathered bedrock material. GeoSoils, Inc. Irvine Pacific,Development Page 11 June 12, 1984 W.O. 1108-OC EMBANKMENT FACTORS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and visual observations, it is anticipated that the existing fill materials would shrink in the order of 12-17 percent when removed and re - compacted to obtain 91-93 percent relative compaction. A general subsidence .of 0.10 to 0.15 may be expected as a result of the site grading. FOUNbATION DESIGN Bearing Valise An allowable bearing value of 1500 lbs./sq. ft. may be used for the design of continuous and column footings. The above bearing value may be increased by one-third when considering short duration loading conditions, such as seismic or wind loads. Lateral Pressure Values and Retaining Wall Design The active earth pressure to be utilized for retaining wall design may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 30 pounds per cubic foot when the slope of the backfill behind the wall is level. Where the slope of the backfill is 2:1, an equivalent fluid pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot may be used. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 200 pounds per cubic foot, with a maximum earth pressure of 1500 pounds per square foot. GeoSoits, Inc. Irvine Pacific,Development Page 12 June 12, 1984 i W.O. 1108-OC. 3. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of O.A may be used with the dead load forces. 4. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION 1. Exterior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. Interior ' footings may be founded at a depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. All footings should have one No. 4 reinforcing bar placed at the top and bottom of the footing. -, 2. Any garage entrances should be provided with a grade beam 12 inches by 12 inches across the garage entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings. 3. Concrete slabs, except in garage areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of 6 mil polyvinyl chloride membrane with all laps sealed. This membrane should be covered with a minimum of one inch of sand to aid in uni- form curing of the concrete. 4. Concrete slabs should be reinforced with 6 inch by 6•inch, No. 10 by No. 10 welded wire mesh. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper positioning during placement of concrete. 5. Presaturation is recommended for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be greater than optimum moisture to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade in the slab areas. GeoSoils, Inc. Irvine Pacific Development Page 13 June 12, 1984 POST GRADING CRITERIA ' Trench Backfill 1. All utility trench backfill should be placed to the ' following standards: 90 percent of the laboratory s standard. ' 2. Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill should not be allowed , in these trench backfill areas. Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. ' 3. All trench excavations should conform to CAL -OSHA and local ' safety codes. ,i INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the subject site and utilized in our ' t.: laboratory investigation are believed representative of the total area; however, soil and bedrock materials may vary in characteristics , between test pit locations. :a GeoSoilst tnc. Irvine Pacific Development Page 14 June 12. 1984 W.O. 1108-OC Since our investigation is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the con - conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. This opportunity to be of continued service is sincerely appreciated and if you have any questions pertaining to this report, please call. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Reviewed by: by: by: Albert R. Kleist, RCE 13651 Civil Engineer / PT/ARK/JAS/lh Encl: Test Pit Logs - Table 4 Shear Test Data -Plate B Consolidation Test Data - Plates C-1 to C-2 Plot Plan - Plate I Dist: (6) Addressee A.� t GeoSoils, Inc. L - t' ., i_..i L.: i, i a s l L. .`,+ 3 i' a :`_.1 1 L_.i l _) TABLE 4 W.O. 1108-OC TEST PIT LOGS DRY ,TEST U.S.C.S. SAMPLE DENSITY nTm N nynmti Ivro 1 nDMID QvMnAT_ nVDmtt MnTGTFiRF. (nnfl DESCRIPTION TP-1 0-3.5 SC/SP 1 4.3 109.3 FILL: Slightly clayey sand, gray- 3 1.8 111.9 brown, loose 0-11, medium dense 1-3.5', dry, interlayered with sand, 011) yellow brown, medium dense, dry. ` 3.5-12' SC 5 7.1 100.4 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Clayey sand, 7 9.2 118.3 reddish brown, dense, damp. 10 5.5 106.4 12-14' SP 12' 13.1 ,.BEDROCK: Weathered sandstone, poo cemented, medium brown, dense, da clay pods at 131. 14-16' SP 15 Weathered sandstone, (poorly cemented, light brown, very dry, wet sand pods @ 151. [ TOTAL DEPTH 16' i NO WATER NO CAVING sr � w � w` iw= ■f > w - w� i -- iF-° ai�= w - �!b-. �!!bs-!!r w w TABLE 5 TEST PIT LOGS DRY TEST U.S.C.S. SAMPLE % DENSITY PTT A nr..PTH 1FT_1 npnnp SYMBOT. nF..PTH MOISTURE (Acf) DESCRIPTION TP-2 0-4' SC 2 2.7 104.2 FILL: Slightly clayey sand, gray- 4 3.3 96.7 brown, loose 0-l' medium dense 1- dry 0-4', interlayered with sand, j (@l') yellow brown medium dense, • i dry, porous throughout. 4-9' SC 8 8.1 117.4 TERRACE DEPOSIT: Clayey sand, med brown, very dense, dry 4-5', damp 5-9'. i9-11, SC Clayey sand, red -brown, dense, da large cobbles (to l' diameter). 11-12' ML 10 10.0 101.7 '-BED$OGK: Weathered siltstone, thi i bedded; gray, stiff, damp with in terbeds of diatomaccous clay, whi firm, damp, porous. 12-15' SP 14 11.2 Weathered sandstone, poorly cement t light brown, very dense, damp. TOTAL DEPTH 15' NO WATER 1 NO CAVING TABLE 5 W.O. 1108-Od. TEST PIT LOGS DRY TEST U.S.C.S. SAMPLE % DENSITY PIT 4 DEPTH /FT.) GROUP SYMBOL DEPTH MOISTURE (pef) _ DESCRIPTION TP-3 0-3.5 Sc 1 3.2 101.5 •FILL: Slicthtly clayey sand, gray- 3 6.7 106.9 brown, medium dense, dry inter - layered with sand, (@21) yellow brown, dense, dry. t 3.5-12' SC 7 9.6 127.6 TERRACE DEPOSIT: Clayey sand, media 9 12.0 116.4 brown changing to reddish brown @ 69, very dense, damp. 12-13' ML BEDROCK.- Weathered siltstone, thin bedded; gray, stiff, damp, with interbeds of diatomaccous clay, white, firm, damp, porous. 13-15' SP Weathered sandstone, light to media brown, very dense, damp. TOTAL DEPTH 15' NO WATER NO CAVING TABLE I W.O. 1108-0C TEST PIT LOGS DRY TEST U.S.C.S. SAMPLE % DENSITY n7m A nvmmu !Pm 1 nVnTTn CVMRnT. nP.UrPT4 MnTG'PTTRT?. (nefl DESCRIPTION TP-4 0-3' SC 2 3.7 109.0 FILL: Slightly -clayey sand, gray - brown, medium dense, dry, porous. 3-8' SC 4 5.9 125.2 TERRACE DEPOSIT: Clayey sand, med 6 10.1 122.7 brown, very dense, dry to damp. 8•-11' SC 10 10.4 110.8 Clayey sand, dark brown, very den damp, moist clav pods @91. TOTAL DEPTH 11' NO WATER NO CAVING O.L.. TABLE 4 TEST PIT LOGS { - DRY Ij TEST U.S-.C.S. SAMPLE % DENSITY PTT 4 nRPTH (FT_) GROUP SYMBOL DEPTH MOISTURE (Paf) TP-5 0-2' SC 1 3.3 105.2 FILL: Slightly clayey sand, light brown, loose, dry, porous. 2-4' SC 3 5.3 128.9 TERRACE DEPOSIT: Clayey sand, medi brown, very dense, dry. 4-11' 5 9.8 122.3 Clayev sand, medium to dark brown, vety dense, damp. SC 9 12.0 121.3 TOTAL DEPTH 11' NO WATER NO CAVING ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TEST PIT $ DEPTH (FT.) TABLE 4 TEST PIT LOGS DRY U.S.C.S. SAMPLE % DENSITY GROUP SYMBOL DEPTH MOISTURE (ncf) DESCRIPTION TP-6 0-2' SC FILL: Slightly clayey sand, gray - brown, medium dense, dry, porous. 2-9' SC 6 12.3 123.5 �TERRAEE�DEPOSITS: Clayey sand, me ium Brown, very dense, damp. 9-11' ML 10 24.8 92.7 BEDROCK: Weathered siltstone, thi bedded, gray, stiff, damp. 11-14' SP 12 23.8' Weathered sandstone, light brown, poorly cemented, very dense, damp, interbedded with siltstone, thin - bedded, gray, very'stiff, damp. TOTAL DEPTH 14' NO WATER NO CAVING W.O.- IlVt3--HOC ) TABLE I TEST'PIT LOGS DRY PEST` U.S.C.S. SAMPLE % DENSITY uim li nrnmu /cm 1 cnnttD QVMnnT. nVDmW Mr)TRTi7RF. tnnfI DESCRIPTION TP-7 0-3' SC 3 6.2 101.8 FILL: Slightly clayey sand, brown, • medium dense, dry-interlayers with sand, (@11) yellow -brown, dense, dry, porous throughout. 3-6' SC 6 19.4 107.9 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Clayey sand, reddish brown, very dense, damp. 6-8' SC Clayey sand, dark brown, firm, damp. 8-11' ML/CL 9 25.3• 87.2 'BEDROCK: Weathered siltstone, gray thy -bedded, stiff, damp with diatomaccous clay interbeds, white firm, damp. TOTAL DEPTH 11' NO WATER NO CAVING TABLE 4 TEST PTT 4 DEPTH (FT_) TEST PIT LOGS DRY U.S.C.S. SAMPLE % DENSITY GROUP SYMBOL DEPTH MOISTURE (Dcf) DESCRIPTION TP-8 0-2.5 ' SC 1 26.5 88.3 FILL: Slightly clayey sand, light brown, loose to medium dense, dam 2.5-5' SC 5 15.2 112.0 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Clayey sand, da brown, very dense, damp. 5-8' SC Slightly clayey sand, medium brow very dense, damp. ... . ..... 8-10, ML/CL 9 25.9 80.2 BEDROCK: Weathered siltstone, gra thinbedded, stiff, damp with in- terbeds of diatomaccous clay, whi firm; damp, porous. 10-14' SP 13 28.5 86.9 Weathered sandstone, poorly cemen light brown, very dense, damp. TOTAL DEPTH 14' NO WATER NO CAVING C L I E N T PROJECT sue" A"J45- '�"•�+ UNDISTURBED ❑ REMOLDED ly NAT. MOIST. O SATURATED 0 SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM W.O. JIn6-a DATE LOCATION DEPTH _.__'V....-FT. I XPPkilbIi F IiYDROOGY'REPOkT 11 I I � t: II HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12209 BRISA DEL MAR APARTMENTS 5TH AND MAC ARTHUR NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA IRVINE PACIFIC I1 HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12209 BRZSA DEL MAR APARTMENTS 5TH AND MAC ARTHUR NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 29, 1984 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes results of a hydrological study of 'rainfall runoff and hydraulic review of the storm drain systems at the proposed Brisa Del Mar Apartments at 5th Street and MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach. These apartments will be located on a six acre site which currently drains to Pacific Coast Highway, Dahlia, Fernleaf, Golden Rod, and 5th Street. The proposed site drainage flows will be collected and discharged to the Fernleaf Avenue storm drain system. The purpose of this report, therefore, is to review this drainage diversion and its affect on existing storm drain facilities. DISCUSSION The proposed Brisa Del Mar apartment project i5 located on a six acre lot bordered by MacArthur Boulevard, Sea Lane, Golden Rod, and 5th Street as shown on.Exhibit_"A". A pair of existing 8-foot catch basins in Sea Lane collect street and adjacent lot drainage to the northeast of this project. These basins discharge through a 21-inch storm drain to an existing drainage swale at the center of the apartment project. The swale traverses the site and discharges into the street at 5th Street and Fernleaf. J 1 Runoff from the undeveloped 6 acre lot currently drains to Pacific Coast Highway, Dahlia, Fern Leaf, Golden Rod and 5th Street. This•runoff then converges on a sump in Pacific Coast Highway and enters,the Fern Leaf Storm Drain southwesterly across Pacific.Coast Highway from a series of catch basins in the ' street. The storm drain system transmits flows in Fern Leaf, to Second Avenue, to Dahlia, to First Avenue and ultimately to Newport Bay. ' The City of Newport Beach has experienced problems over the ' years with the capacity of the Fern Leaf Storm Drain. The City retained ASL Consulting Engineers in 1983 to develop the Fern Leaf Avenue Storm Drain Design Study (partial copy attached ' to this report) and recommend methods of increasing system capacity. These recommendations included increasing the size ' of the existing storm drain at critical locations. After final approval of this report the City completed the recommended downstream storm drain improvements. The Design Study also recommends extension of the Fern Leaf Avenue Storm Drain to 5th Street when additional development of the open space occurs. The proposed extension consists of a 30-inch storm drain in 5th Street and Fern Leaf (Coast ' Highway to 5th Street) with a series of catch basins in 5th street. The development of the 6 acre lot and its associated drainage system will be designed to connect to this system when this extension occurs. indicates the onsite drainage patterns and areas of the proposed project. Catch basin -and storm drain'sizing are shown based on a preliminary analysis. Although some modifi- cations may occur in the grading during final design, the overall drainage concept should remain generally the same. The proposed drainage pattern is to collect most onsite flows and discharge them into :the city's extension of the Fern Leai Storm Drain. This will minimize runoff to adjacent streets which eventually flow to Pacific Coast Highway. The Pacific Coast Highway storm drain inlet system appears overloaded and reduction of flows will minimize this problem. Most sub areas are in a sump condition requiring an onsite collection system with a 25-year frequency analysis as required by the Orange County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual. Only sub areas G and H surface drain directly to 5th Street. The main storm drain through the project will be a 24-inch RCP which connects the existing catch basins (CB#1 and CB#2) in Sea Lane with the proposed 30-inch RCP in 5th Street (per the Design Study). Sub areas E and F will be connected to this 24-inch RCP as it crosses the site adding only small flowrate I' 1 F] I '' 1_ 1 Sub area A, B, C, and D drainage is collected in a small onsite system discharging to'the 30-inch RCP in 5th Street near Dahlia. At this point a 7-foot catch basin is recommended to collect street drainage and runoff from Area G. Installation of a basin at this point will minimize the amount of runoff flowing to Pacific Coast Highway with its overloaded 'inlet system. The 30-inch RCP in 5th Street flows southwesterly and connects to the 24-inch onsite system at Fern Leaf. At Fern Leaf a'nd 5th Street, two catch basins should be constructed to collect drainage flows from Golden Rod, 5th Street, and ons,ite sub area H. These basins would connect to the 30-inch RCP in Fern Leaf. With the City's extension of the Fern Leaf Storm Drain, the system of catch basins in 5th Street, and the extension of the 24-inch RCP to Sea Lane, it appears that drainage at this Site can be handled satisfactorily. Exhibit "A" should'be used as a basis of the onsite drainage patterns in the final design of the Fern Leaf Storm Drain. I HYDROLOGY Hydrology calculations for the determination of peak flow rates were made in accordance with the Rational Method as outlined in the "Orange County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual". -4- The basic formula is Q=CIS where: Q = Flow rate (in cfs) for the peak of a 25-year frequency storm. C = Coefficient of runoff corresponding to hydrologic soil type And land use type and to the intensity of rainfall. I = Intensity of rainfall (in inches per hour) for a 25-year frequency storm corresponding to the time of peak flow concentration. A = Area (in acres). The coefficient of runoff (C) is determined by the type of land development (underdeveloped, commercial, etc.), the type of soil in the area, and the intensity of rainfall,. The intensity of rainfall is determined by utilizing graphs published in the OCFCD Hydrology Manual for a specific time of concentration+ frequency, and storm pattern for the region. The area is measured as the actual contributing runoff acreage at the point where a flow rate is to be determined. The site is within the V-zone (valley) intensity area and soils in the study area are predominantly Type D. The time of concentra- tion for the site is assumed to be 10 minutes. The 25-year frequency storm is the design criteria specified by the OCFCD Hydrology Manual for similar developments in a sump condition. -5- RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Construct onsite storm drain system as shown on Exhibit "All. 2) Connect two existing catch basins in Sea Lane to the onsite system. 3) Construct an additional catch basin on 5th Street near Dahlia and connect to the onsite system. 4) Connect the onsite system to the proposed extension of the Fern Leaf Storm Drain System and add two catch basins at Fern Leaf and 5th Street. 5) Utilize Exhibit "A" as a basis for final design of the Fern Leaf Storm Drain System. -6- HYDROLOGY MAP (OVERSIZED HYDROLOGY MAP IS ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT) 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FERNLEAF AVENUE STORM DRAIN DESIGN STUDY a Prepared, by: ASL Consulting Engineers 1201 East Warner Avenue Santa Ana, California 92.705 R.C.E. 15920 'R.C.E.31452 APRIL 29, 1983 Introduction The drainage area.which is tributary to the Fernleaf Avenue Storm Drain consists of 95 acres and is located in the coastal slopes of the San Joaquin Hills lying northerly of . Jasmine Gully'and southerly, of the intersection of Mac Arthur Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. (See Plate 1.) The drainage area is bounded by Carnation Avenue, Harbor View. Drive, Heliotrope -Avenue and Bayside Drive. (See Plate 2,) Elevations range from sea level at the ocean outfall to the Newport Harbor entrance channel to approximately 205.feet mean sea level (msl) at the intersection of Harbor View Drive and Goldenrod•Avenue. Land. use is predominantly single family with the exceptions of a strip of commercial along,Pacific Coast Highway and a few small areas of multiple family. The drainage area is completely urbanized with the exceptions of 15 acres of undeveloped land northeast of Pacific.Coast Highway. This area contributes the majority of the silt and debris found in the storm drain system. The single family developments downstream of Fifth Avenue are characterized by small lots, narrow streets and old undersized drainage facilities, some of which were constructed in 1926. The first storm drain improvements were constructed by the ,City in 1926 as part of the original Corona Del Mar sub- division. These plans are available in the City files under Plan No. 326 (otherwise known as A-4955-S). The 1926 improve- ments included an ocean outlet and mainline running from Newport Bay to the intersection of First Avenue'and Carnation. The storm drain was placed in the invert of the existing natural channel. The 1926 improvement also included five (5) culverts located where the residential streets crossed the existing natural channel. one of -the culverts was an 18" CMP that crossed Pacific Coast Highway. The storm drain improvements were part of an assessment district shown on Plot'327. Both Plan No. 326 and Plot No. 327 were adopted by the Trustees of the City through Resolution Nos.•369 and 370 in March, 1926. After the initial installation and until 1954, the storm `drain system -evolved and was linked together av private citizens installed various sizes and types of pipe in the invert of the existing'natural channel prior•to filling the area far development. Records of these installations are I u I -1 not available from City records, nor'were easerirents granted to the City and the responsibility for maintenance and/or repair was not borne by the City. Many of the residences were built over the natural drainage course. The majority of the work was completed between 1945 and 1954. In 1954 the City and the State of -California installed a 42- inch RCP culvert across Pacific Coast Highway and -a 24-inch RCP from the 42-inch'to the 36-inch RCP located in Lot 9 of Block 532. This system was designed to convey flows up to 90 cfs. Flow in excess of 90 cfs "burped" through an 18" R.C.P. and catch basin located near Fernl.eaf Avenue and Third Street. • The excess flow traveled down Fernleaf Avenue to.the sump in Fernleaf between Second and Third.Streets. As of 1954, the storm drain was continuous'- from Pacific, ' Coast Highway.to Newport Bay with the exception of a small retention basin located in Lots 13 and 15 of Block 431. ' In 1968 the City constructed a 42-inch RCP drain in Dahlia, Second Street and Fernleaf (see City Plan D-5039-5)- The ' drain was designed to pick up flow from the 24-inch ,RCP in Fernleaf installed in 1954 and to discharge flow to the 36- inch RCP in Dahlia which outletted,to the small retention ' basin- The 36-inch RCP that traversed through Block 532 was abandoned in place. Also in 1968, Lots 13, 15 and 17 of Block 431 were developed and the existing retention basin was filled. A 36-inch RCP was constructed to connect the 36-inch RCP in Dahlia with' the 30-inch RCP near Alley 21-B which was installed in 1945. ' The City currently does not have an easement for the 30=inch RCP. The storm drain was now continuous from Pacific Coast Highway to Newport Bay. The plans for these improvements are on file at the City under Plan No. D-5057-S. In 1971 the City constructed a 42-in8h RCP storm drain from Bayside Drive to the existing 36-inch drain.in Alley 21-B These .plans are on file at the City under P}an No. D-5076-S. ' The final improvements to the system were made in 1975 which included replacing the then existing storm drain from the ocean outlet to the junction structure in Carnation Avenue. These plans are,Plan Number D-5076-S'. The existing system is as shown on Plates 3 and 4.- Hydrology - The hydrologic analysis performed for the Fernleaf Avenue Storm Drain Report follows procedures described in the 1973 Orange County Hydrology Mahpal. Aerial orthophoto topo- . graphic mapping at a scale of 1" = 200' with a 5 foot con- tour interval was used to prepare a detailed drainage area, map which reflects present as well as ultimate land use. The drainage area boundary and flow patterns within were verified in the field. (See Plate 2.) The design storm frequency of 25 years was chosen due to the sump conditions which exist along the majority of the exist- ing storm drain alignment. The mainline hydrology for the 10 year and 25 year design frequencies are given in Appendix A. A summary of the design flows for each reach is given in Table 1 Hydraulic Analysis of the Existing System The capacity of the existing system was determined and is summarized in Table 1. The hydraulic calculations are given in Appendix C. The existing system is inadequate due to a constriction created by the 36-inch RCP that traverses lots 13, 15 and 17 of Block 431_(nodes 11 and 12 of area A9 - Plate 2). The existing system is also inadequate due to a constriction created by the existing 24-inch RCP in Fernleaf Avenue between Pacific Coast Highway and Second Avenue. The existing system upstream of Pacific Coast Highway (see Plate 5) is not adequate io accept and transmit the flows. It. should be noted, however, that the flows not accepted by the upstream works are carried in the street to the sump located at the intersection of Fernleaf Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. The flow enters the storm drain system at the sump catch basin. Calculations showing the hydraulic grade line of the existing system and the existing system capacity are given in Appendix,C. Recommended Improvements t The immediate improvements required to correct the :'system deficiencies are as follows: J 1 I existing , I 'I 3 1 Construct. 433 lineal feet, of 42-inch R.C.P. in -'First Avenue from Alley 21-B to:Dahlia Avenue and 'in'Dahl.ia Avenue from First -Avenue to the junction' structure south of Second Avenue.- See Plate 5. 2. Construct 350 lineal feet of 36" R.C.P. in Fernleaf Avenue between Second Avenue and Pacific Coast See Plate 6. The future needs of the system will depend upon the develop- ment of the open space area northeast of Pacific Coast Highway. The flows from the. open. space area are tabled to be accepted .by the Fernleaf Avenue Storm Drain northeast of Pacific at Coast Highway.-_ Currently these -flows ePter the system If develop -.. sump inlet --basin in Pacific Coast Highway. ment occurs, a drain system should be extended in Fernleaf .Avenue from Pacific Gast Highway to Fifth Avenue. Flows from the proposed development should be collected at the intersection of Fernleaf Avenue and Fifth Avenue and' not allowed to sheet flow down Pacific Coast Highway. (See Plate 7). This proposed system should be sized and aligned once . detailed development plans are submitted. 'Preliminary size, and alignment concepts are given on Plate S. Estimated Costs of Recommended Improvements The total construction cost including engineering and admin- istration for the improvements shown on Plates 6 and 7 is $152,500. See Tables 2 and 3. The cost for -the improvements northeast of Pacific -Coast Highway shown on Plate 8 cannot be ascertained exactly, but is estimated to be $116,500. See Table 4. Schedule of Improvements The storm drain reach between First Avenue and Dahlia Street creates a critical restriction in the conveyance capacity of the existing storm drain system. The improvements shown on Plate 6 should be included in the first phase improvements to the Fernleaf Avenue storm drain system. The storm drain reach in Fernleaf Avenue between Second Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway as shown in Plate 7 is less critical than the above described reach and would be assigned a second priority- i I 'The storm drain improvements upstream of Pacific Coast Highway as shown in Plate 8 would not be necessary until development upstream of Fifth Avenue occurs. I I t I i L7 APPENDI% G BIOLOGY REPORT August 28, 1984 Ms. Annette Sanchez Sanchez Talarico Associates 359 San Miguel Dr., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA, 92660 SUBJECT: FIFTH AVENUE/MAC ARTHUR BOULEVARD PARCEL Dear Annette: I am happy to provide you with a biological assessment of the subject site. My report is based on a combination of literature review, field investigation and personal experience gained from similar assessments completed in the site vicinity. Following are my findings. EXISTING CONDITIONS The entire site is severely disturbed and by all indications has been for some time. Based on the soil surface conditions the site appears to be disced annually. In addition, piles of refuse indicate the -site's use for illegal dumping in the recent past. ' As a result of past and on -going disturbances, the site supports ruderal vegetption over its entire area. This is the vegetation type which follows frequent habitat alterations. On -site, and typically, this vegetation is ' sparse and comprised of non-native species. Dominant plants on -site at the time of the field visit were red brome (Bromus rubens)and Australian wild radish (Raphanus sativus), slender wild oats (Avena fatua), saltbuah Atriplex semibaccata). Other common to occasional species ' included bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), field charlock (Brassica geniculata), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), soft chess (Bromus mollis), Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and cheeseweed (Malva parriflora). Additionally, several escaped ornamental tree and shrub species were found on -site. No native flora was observed. I1 !I Ruderal vegetation represents very poor habitat for wildlife. Only a few wildlife species were observed on -site, including beechey ground squirrel, bottal pocket gopher, mourning dove and house finch. Although several other wildlife species are expected, wildlife populations on -site are extremely depauperate and low in diversity. No rare, endangered or threatened species of plants or wildlife occur on -site. PROJECT IMPACTS From the evidence discussed above it is concluded that the site has extremely low biological value. Therefore, development of the site will not have an adverse biological impact. 2 11 MITIGATION MEASURES r In the absence of biological impacts, no mitigation measures are recommended. I hope this assessment meets your needs. if you, or any reviewer has any questions, please feel free to contact me. ' I Sincerely, Steve Nelson r� P EPPENbfX H ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 44 l i P.O.3ox 348 3alboa Island, ")a.y_oi2 21 June, 1984 3anche? Talarico Associates Suite 140 P.O.Box 1500 Corona del blar, Ca 92625 Dear Annette; On 12 June I conducted the record search at the UCLA Clearinghouse to determine if any archaeological sites were on, or near, your project area at 5th and MacArt:rar in Corona del Mar. The results of the record check indicated that an archaeological survey had been carried out earlier on a parcel that include your present project area. ITo sites were recored within your parcel at that time. Unfortunately, the report was not available describing the survey, nor could the date of the investigation be determined. In light of this information, I feel that it is not necessary to duplicate the earlier effort. Thank -you for contacting me and I hope that we will have the opportunity to work together again in the near future. I have enclosed an invoice that includes my time and that charge required by UCLA for m cess to their files. S' cerel, y o , iam XBreece Archaeological Consultant II I , PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT I 1-14 Ir II WPALQO ASSOCIATES ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL CONSULTING 18 June 1984 Ms. Dana C. Privitt Sanchez Talarico Associates Suite 140 P. 0. Box 1500 Corona del Mar, California 92625 Paleontological Resources Assessment of the Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Parcel, Corona del Mar, California Dear Ms. Privitt: As requested RMW Paleo Associates has prepared the following evaluation of the known and potential paleontological resources within the Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Parcel, Corona del Mar, California. The study area is locate.d northeast of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard (Figure 1). This evaluation is based on a review of published and unpublished geo-logic and paleontologic literature pertaining to the area, a review of the locality records of the Natural History - Museum of Los Angeles County, and a walkover survey of the.site. STRATIGRAPHY AND PALEONTOLOGY ' Published geologic maps of the area show Quate.rna•ry age marine terrace deposits exposed within the study area. These ' deposits are generally considered -to be less than 130,000 years old i.n the Newport Bay area. These deposits have produced abundant remains of "Ice Age" land animals and marine invertebrates at several localities in the Newport Mesa area, most notably at East Bluff and Dover Shores. The locality files of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County revealed a fossil locality in the immediate vicinity of the study area. The ' remains of the extinct diving duck Chendytes were located immediately to the west of the study area across MacArthur 91 25108 MARGUERITE PKVY SUITE B -149, MISSION VIQO. CA 92692 (714) 770-8042 (213) 435-1557 RIMWASSOCIATC-S Figure 1 Fifth Avenue and ,MacArthur Boulevard Parcel Paleontological Resources Assessment I 1 r 1 i 1 1 1 M 1 I 11 Boulevard tn terrace deposits. The terrace deposits are considered to have a Moderate potential for the discovery of significant fossils based on the past abundance of fossils in the ' Newport Mesa area. WALKOVER SURVEY A walkover survey of the site was conducted in early June ' 1984. The site was covered with low grass and several debris piles. The walkover revealed two areas within the site where' invertebrate materials were present. Several of the invertebrates present were similar to those found in the terrace deposits at other localities. However, these two occurrences appear to the result of the dumping of debris rather than natural exposures. It was not possible to determine if the isolated occurrences of invertebrates were also related to dumping due to the disturbed nature of the study area. No unquestionably fossil materials were ' located during the survey. CONCLUSIONS ' The proximity of the Chendytes•locality and the history of significant fossil production in the area of the Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Parcel suggest that like the rest of the terrace deposits on Newport Mesa those at the study area have a Moderate Potential for the production of significant fossils. The rapid development of the Newport Mesa in recent years has resulted in the destruction or loss of several of the larger fossil ' occurrences (ex. East Bluff) and the reduction of the amount of exposed terrace deposits available for scientific study. This only serves to increase the importance -of the few remaining areas of exposed terrace deposits. Therefore, the following mitigation ' measures are recommended to reduce the potential impact of development on the paleontological resources of the Newport Mesa area. F 1. A Certified paleontologist should be retained to make periodic inspections of any excavations into the terrace deposits. 2. In the event fossils are discovered the paleontologist should be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of the fossils to facilitate salvage. 3. Any fossils collected should be donated to an institution s with an interest in them such as the Natural History Foundation of Orange County or the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. If you have any questions or if we can be of service in implementing the mitigation measures do not hesitate to contact US. Respectful) , od Raschke Certified Pal-eontologist I i I I I I LJ I I I I I 1 I i 1 ..PPSNDI% J CORRESPONDENCE NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 1768 - 475 32nd Street Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 (714) 644-3603 June 20, 1984 Debra Dixon, Research Analyst Sanchez Talarico Associates P. 0. Box 1500, Suite 140 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 SUBJECT: GPA 83-1D, FIFTH AVENUE/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD PARCEL James At. Reed Fire Chiel Ms. Dixon: The following are responses to the questionnaire on the above noted project: 1. We provide fire suppression and emergency medical services to the area in question. 2. Two Newport fire stations serve the site. First responder is our Corona del Mar station located at 410 Marigold. There are three firefighters assigned to that unit. The station is approximately one mile from the site. The second responding units are from our Fashion Island station, 868 Santa Barbara Drive. Responding from that station will be an engine company with three men, a ladder company with four men, a paramedic unit with two men and a Battalion Chief with an aid for a total of fourteen personnel on a first alarm fire response. 3. Fourteen men on a first response for fires, five men on medical aids. 4. No, it by itself does not greatly impact the emergency services we provide but it does impact our fire prevention inspection bureau. It impacts us in two areas, one, plan check time on the project and two, at the time of our annual maintenance inspection. 5. At this time there are no plans for expansion of our facilities. 6. No. this project will not create a need for expansion of our facilities. i 11 Debra Dixon June 20, 1984 Page 2 7. N/A 8. There are several standard factors used to determine service demand, all based on population and number of calls per year. 9. This is a difficult question to answer as I have not seen conceptual plans on this project. Because of density of the project, additional built-in protection may be required. There may have to be dedicated fire lane access and the distribution of hydrants may be an issue. 10. The dwellings should comply to all provisions of the City Municipal Code, Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code. Sincerely, T. C. DAILEY Fire Marshal TCD:rw 11 I 11 11 1 i 11 u I 11 11 11 NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 7000, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CHARLES R. GROSS (714) 644-3654 Chief of Police June 15, 1984 Debra Dixon Sanchez Talarico Associates ' Suite 140, P.O. Box 1500 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 SUBJECT: GPA 83-1D, FIFTH AVENUE/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD PARCEL Dear Miss Dixon, 1 The proposed project is contained within our reporting district #47. This district is bordered on the north by San Joaquin Hills Road, on the east by Marguerite Ave., on the west by Macarthur Blvd., and on the south by Fifth avenue. ' #1. The Newport Beach Police Department provides full police service to the area. #2. The Newport Beach Police Department is housed in a single facility located at ' 870 Santa Barbara Drive. The approximate distance to the proposed project is tdo miles. Average response times to calls in the area are: ' Non -emergency 21.19 minutes Emergency 3.40 minutes Alarm 4.34 minutes #3. As stated previously, full police protection is provided to the area of concern at the present time. #4. No. #5. None. #6. There are no current plans to expand our facilities in anticipation of the the proposed project. If the 120 unit proposal is accepted and using a standard occupancy rate of 2.2 persons per unit, the City will realize a population increase of 264. In order to maintain the current ratio of sworn police officers to City population, our staffing will need to be increased by .58 officers. V. N/A 870 Santa Barbara Drive, Newport Beach EIR 83-10, FIFTH AVENUE/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD PARCEL Page 2 #8. The Department determines service demands by utilizing information which in- cludes, but is not limited to, calls for services, workload indicators, crime patterns, etc. The Department also uses standard factors to estimate costs for servicing specific locations (based on a 1982 study for the City by Ralph Anderson and Associates. The annual cost to service one unit of a new residential develop ment is $130.17. With 120 units being planned, the total annual cost for ser- vice will be approximately $15,620.40. #9. Approximately 10.2% of all crime reported in Newport Beach in 1983 originated from activity and/or persons associated with apartments and multi -dwelling residential units. The size of the project indicates there will be a corres- ponding increase in calls for police service. The proposed project could compound traffic related problems in a currently congested area. The intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Blvd. has historically been one of the City's highest accident rate intersections. Additional vehicular access to the intersection would be detrimental. #10. Due to the location and nature of the project, the following factors must be considered: * Maintain the current ratio of sworn police officers to City population to adequately provide the present level of service. * Traffic impact may be minimized if the project ingress/egress is limited to Sea Lane and Goldenrod Avenue, coupled with effective traffic control devices. * Provide adequate "sight distances" for driveways. * If the project is a gated community, there must be allowances to permit access for public service personnel and vehicles. If there are additional questions, please advise. Sincerely, Charles R. Gross Chief of Police ep. Ado Randy Nakashima, Officer Planning and Research Attachment B C wa IC SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ES COMPANY , ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P. O. BOX 33M. ANAHEIM, CALIF. OM , June 13, 1984 ' Sanchez Talarico ' P.O. Bcx 1500, Ste. 140 Corona del Year, CA 92625 Attn: Debra Dixon ' Subject: Availability of Natural Gas for Project at 5th & , tdacArthur This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual conmi.tment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas-Canpany has facilities in the area where the above -named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided from an existing main as , shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Canpany's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public ' Utilities Canmission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Canpany is under the jurisdiction of the California Public utilities Cormission. We can also be affected by actions of gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will to provided in accordance with revised conditions. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on , an individual basis and are obtained from cur Market Services Staff by calling (714) 634-3173. . iNe have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, , W.L. Blake Technical Supervisor DA/du ' attach. I I Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box 2069 7333 SOLSA AVE. WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683.1269 July 13, 1984 Sanchez Talarico Associates P.O. Box 1500 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Attention: Debra Dixon Subject: E.I.R. - Fifth Avenue/MacArthur Blvd. Gentlemen: This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates, and provided that there are no unexpected out- ages to major sources of electrical supply, we expect to meet our electrical requirements for the next several years. Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; however, excluding any unforeseen problems, our plans for new generation resources indicate that our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods will be adequate during the decade of the '80s. ' Current conservation efforts on the part of Edison's customers have resulted in energy savings. Optimization of conservation measures in this project will contribute to the overall energy savings goal. ' Ve'ry/ truly yours, C. V. Wr ht25Z�� Service Planner , ' CVW:da DISTRICT OFFICE SERVING. CORONA DEL MAR -COSTA MESA . FOUNTAIN VALLEY . HUNTINGTON BEACH MIDWAY CITY 0 NEWPORT BEACH . ROSSMOO R . SEAL BEACH -SUNSET BEACH . WESTMINSTER 4s^5 �OUNTY OF RANOF. R. A, scot � mneer� a `� GENERAL SERVICES AGENCY RAY MAo� Crt WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM r 1300 SOUTH GRAND AVL. SANTA ANA,CALWORNIA 92705 )714) $34.3595 June 28, 1984 , Sanchez Talarico Associates , Suite 140 P. 0. Box 1500 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ' Attention: Debra Dixon Subject: GPA 83-1D, Fifth Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard Parcel Dear Ms. Dixon: Transmitted herewith is the response sheet for the project showing our replies to your questions. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please call Bryce Howard at (714)834-6825. Sincerely, A-04 1 Mike Luke, Assistant Chief Engineer , BH:ner Enclosure Mr. Mike Luke Fifth Avenue/MacArthur Blvd. County of orange, Waste Management Program 1. What types of services'do you provide? The Waste Management Program provides refuse disposal facilities for Orange County. 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their distance from the site, their capacity, the level at which they are presently operating, and class of the facility. Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill is the facility serving this parcel and it is located off Bonita Canyon Road in the City of Irvine. Life expectancy is October 1988 and the level of operation is 4,500 tons/day. This is a Class II-2 landfill site. 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at this time? Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill accepts Group 2 and 3 solid waste. No liquids or hazardous wastes are accepted. 4. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? No. z 5. What are the current plane for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? Include any of these which may serve the project site. The life expectancy of Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill has been projected to be October 1968 at which time the initiation of disposal operations in a suitable replacement site is expected. 11 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated , needs. No. ' J 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? Not applicable. I 8. Please explain bow you determine service demands (i.e. standard con- sumption/generation rates, etc.). The solid waste generation rate for Orange County is estimated to be 8.5 pounds per capita per day. 1 1 3 9. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. None. 10. What. measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? ' Project design should consider means of reducing the amount of waste material generated both during construction and when the project is in use. ', I I ©c� ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT OISTRICT June 21, 1984 Ms. Debra Dixon Research Analyst Sanchez Talarico Associates Suite 140 P.O. Box 1500 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Ms. Dixon: SUBJECT: GPA 83-1D, FIFTH AVENUE/MACARTHUR BOULEVARD Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your project for the City of Newport Beach. We have two routes serving in the vicinity of the project as shown in the attached map. However, we have determined that the project will have no direct impact on transit. If you have questions please feel free to contact me or Deb Marpert at 971-6410. Sincerely, (0'i , / -, Dick Hsu, Section Chief Development Planning DH:DMVA Enclosure 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. SOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE (714) 971.6200 r I L .rrtwimr - ;� ur ,mew-- AP E4 _ r . ur N mil, "PA, % 1 ' •. �F r°// re-4- i d Y 0 _ �L r IN f a a ` 1rytA Y` 'I. I F, z3.1 -MAR v^ % r I 7 1 I Ms. Judy Clark Fifth Avenue/MacArthur Blvd. Newport Beach Public Library 1. What types of services do you provide? See attached brochure. New services added since the publication of the brochure include a rental collection of videocassettes (VHS) for a nominal fee, audio -cassettes. 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their , distance from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently operating. Attached brochure shows location of Newport Center and Coronoa del Mar Branches., The site is approximately lh miles from either branch. Newport Center Branch is larger and has more to offer than the Corona del Mar Branch. Both operate with same service hours. 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at , this time? Two Branches provide full service to this area. 4. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? No, not with 120 residential dwellings. 5. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? Include any of these which may serve the project site. Is there a library master plan for ' the community? No current plans for expansion of either facility. The Library Board of ' Trustees is in the process of developing a lonq-range (5 year) plan of service that may address the expansion of Corona del Mar. The "Master Plan" at the present time, is to have the four -existing branches. ' r 3 6. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. No expansion of facilities or additional staff will be needed as a result of this one project. If residential development south of Corona del Mar continues, then the Corona del Mar facility would be impacted by future growth in the area more than the Newport Center faciltiy. 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such ,an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? No - no expansion is currently planned for either facility. 8. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. No particular problem. The population of the project (pre-school or school age children, teenagers, adults, older adults)'wi'll determine which services will be used most heavily. 9. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? We welcome new library users and would appreciate having our library materials given or made available to prospective residents. HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN 301 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BOXY • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 • PHONE (714) 645.8600 June 19, 1984 Ms, Debra Dixon Research Analyst Sanchez Talarico Associates P. 0. Box 1500 Corona del Mar, CA 92'625 Dear Ms, Dixon: Attached is the questionnaire you requested we complete for the Environmental impact Report for the proposed development of the Fifth Avenue/MacArthur Boulevard parcel, if you have any questions or need further information, please call me. Sincerely, Peter M. Foulke Director of Finance PMF:sas enclosure A NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ACCREDITED NY THE JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HOSPITALS Mr. Michael Stephens Fifth Avenue/MacArthur Blvd. Hoag Memorial Presbyterian Hospital 1. What types of services does the hospital provide (eg. general or acute care). Acute care 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their distance from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently operating. Hoag Hospital and Newport outpatient Surgery 3. How many beds does your hospital have. 471 beds. 4. What is your average occupancy rate? 68% S. Is the proposed project within the hospital's service area? What is the distance from the site and emergency response time? Yes. 5 minutes. 10 minutes. 2 r 6. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? r No r I r 7. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include purpose, location, capacities, number of beds, and completion dates)? Indicate any of these which may serve the project site. Increase number of operating rooms and critical care beds. 8. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? if so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. No 9. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? Contributions, and tax exempt financing. 3 10. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. None 11. What m may be i No negat Mr. Joe Devlin Utilities Dept., City of Newport Beach 1. What types of services do you provide? J 2. List the names and locations of the facilities serving the site, their distance from the site, their capacity, and the level at which they are presently operating. 3. What level of service, if any, do you provide to the project area at this time? SD2. a4�.,r{'ot! 4. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you presently provide? No a S. What are the current .plans for expansion of your facilities (include use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? Include any of these which may serve the project site. b. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. ti0 7. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? 8. Please explain how you determine service demands (i.e. standard con— sumption/generation rates, etc.). 3 9. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. \yc,C(E, 10. What measures can you recommend for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? 11. Identify location of present lines and/or proposed lines either on the enclosed site map or provide your own map. I COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9272B-8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF -RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) July 2, 1984 ' Sanchez Talarico Associates ' Post office Box 1500, Suite 140 Corona del Mar, California 92625 Attention: Debra Dixon, Research Analyst TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 S40-2910 962.2411 ' subject: Notice of Preparation for GPA 83-ID, Fifth Avenue/Mac Arthur Blvd. The District has reviewed the information supplied regarding the development of 120 residential dwellings on 6.25 acres of land bounded by Mac Arthur Boulevard ' on the west and East Coast Highway on the south. This area was planned by the District for low density residential development with an anticipated flow generation of 1,550 gallons per day per acre. The Environmental BrIpact Report should compare this amount with the amount expected to be generated from this ' higher density. If you have any questions, please contact Mrs. Hilary Baker. Thomas M. Dawes ' Deputy Chief Engineer ' UID/jm To.1013/EIR cc: City of Newport Beach I Debra Dixon ' Research Analyst Sanchez Talarico Associates , P.O. Box 1500, Suite 140 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Mr. Dale C. Woolley Fifth Avenue/MacArthur Blvd. Newport Mesa Unified School District ' 1. List the names and locations of the District's schools serving the site, their capacity, current enrollment, and their distance from the site. Capacity 1984-85 Prediction Harbor View Elementary School (K-6) 744 627 900 Goldenrod Ave., Corona del Mar .3 mile Corona del Mar High School (7-12) 01 astbluff Dr., Newport Beach mi �es 2. State the school generation factors at secondary levels. 2746 2106 ' the elementary, intermediate, and ' Generation factor for the District is approximately .20 11 11 11 3. Will the proposed land use adversely impact the level of service you , presently provide? , No 4. What are the current plans for expansion of your facilities (include , use, location, capacities, and completion dates)? include any of these which may serve the project site. None. We are at present a declining enrollment district. ' 11 11 2 5. Will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or the addition of staff? If so, give a brief description of anticipated needs. No 6. Is there revenue budgeted for such an expansion? If not, what methods would be used to secure capital revenue? No 7. Does your school district implement any development fees? If so, how are these fees determined (eg. per housing unit) and what is their cost? No 8. What problems do you foresee in servicing this project? Identify any particular concerns. None 3 i 9. What measures can you recommend• for mitigating project impacts that may be incorporated into the project? , 0 I I I i I 1 0 I Apk9tbfi k Ptmigkb'ddifbDNitY bistkidt REGULATIONS � t ,1 1 Fifth Avenue & MacArthur Site NEWPORT BEACH ' Planned Community District Regulations 1" GRD226 6/20/84 Planned Community Development Standards for Fifth Avenue & MacArthur Site Ordinance No. Adopted by the City of Newport Beach City Council on , 1984 Fifth Avenue & MacArthur - Newport Beach Planned Community District Regulations Irvine Pacific GRD226 6/20/84 Introduction Section I Section II Section III Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Section IV Subsection A Subsection B Subsection C Subsection D Subsection E Subsection F Subsection G Section V TABLE'OF CONTENTS Statistical Analysis General Notes Definitions Buildable Acreage Streets - Dedicated and Private Multiple Family Residential Permitted Uses Maximum Building Height Setbacks from Streets Setbacks from Property Lines Parking Signs Fences, Hedges and Walls Signs Page 1 2 3 5 ri 0 GRD226 6/20/84 I INTRODUCTION ' The Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Planned Community District for the City of Newport Beach has been developed in accordance with the Newport Beach General Plan. The purpose of this Planned Community (PC) District is to provide a method ' whereby property may be classified and developed for multiple family residential uses. The specifications of this district are intended to provide land use and development standards contained herein while insuring compliance with the intent ' of all applicable regulatory codes. Whenever the regulations contained herein conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained herein shall take prece- , dence. The Municipal Code shall regulate this development when such regulations , are not provided within these district regulations. All development within the Planned Community boundaries shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform , Building Code and various mechanical codes related thereto. 1 I 1 11 1 r u -1- GRD226 6/20/84 SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS (For Analysis Purposes Only) Grassi Buildable2 Maximum Land Use Acres Acres DU's Residential Units 6.3 6.0 120 OU's 1. Defined as area within property boundaries. 2. Defined as the entire site within the project boundary excluding streets, park dedication areas with existing slopes greater than 2:1, and natural floodplain. Density Dwelling Units per Gross Acre: 19 Dwelling Units per Buildable Acre: 20 Percentage of Net Site Coverage 1. Parking Areas: Acres 2. Landscape and Pedestrian Circulation: Acres 3. Building Footprints: Acres GRD226 u SECTION II. GENERAL NOTES 1. Project Description The Planned Community District encompasses 6.0 gross acres and has been developed for multiple family residential. 2. Park Standards Park requirements shall be in accordance with the Park Dedication Ordinance. 3. Water Service Water within the Planned Community will be furnished by the City of Newport Beach. 4. Sewage Disposal Sewage disposal facilities within the Planned Community will be provided by Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits it shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the plan- ning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available. Prior to the occupancy of any structure it shall be further demonstrated that ade- quate sewer facilities exist. 5. Grading and Erosion Grading and erosion control shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance and shall be sub- ject to permits issued by the Building and Planning Departments. a. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and perMa- nent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. b. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of the haul operation. c. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and approved by the Building Department. d. An erosion and siltation control plan, if required, shall be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. e. The velocity of concentrated runoff from any project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. f. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engin- eering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geological investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. P I L! =il 11 E I -3- GRD226 6/20/84 11 6. Archeological/Paleontological Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the site shall be examined to determine the existence and extent of archeological and paleontological resources in accordance with adopted City Policies. 7. Landscaping All landscaping shall be installed in accordance with landscape plans, sub- ject to the review and approval of the Planning Department and Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department. B. Any fire equipment access shall be approved by the Fire Department. 9. The final design of onsite pedestrian and bicycle circulation in any tract shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Plan- ning Department. 10. Prior to the approval of the final tract map for residential development, applicant shall reach agreement with the City for compliance with California Government Code 65590, regarding housing requirements. 11. Residential areas shall be designed to encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel. 12. All buildings shall meet Title 24 requirements. Design of buildings -shall take into account the location of building air intake to maximize ventila- tion efficiency, the incorporation of natural ventilation, and implementa- tion of energy conserving heating and lighting systems. 13. Water conservation design features shall be incorporated into building con- struction. 14. Exposed slopes, if any, shall be stabilized as soon as possible to reduce erosion. -4- ' GRD226 6/20/84 11 SECTION III. DEFINITIONS The following definitions refer to the permitted uses in the development stan- dards contained in this Ordinance. 1. Buildable Acreage Buildable Acreage shall mean the entire site area within the project bound- ary excluding streets, park dedication, areas with existing natural slopes greater than 2:1, and natural flood plains. 2. Streets - Dedicated Reference to all streets or rights of way within this ordinance shall mean dedicated vehicular rights of way. 0 -5- GR0226 6/20/84 SECTION IV. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL The following uses and development standards apply. A. Permitted Uses 1. Apartments 2. Condominiums 3. Recreational facilities 4. Uses appurtenant to 1 and 2 above 5. Temporary model complex and appurtenant uses (subject to Planning Director and Public Works Director approval). 6. Signs (as provided in Section V of this Planned Community text). B. Maximum Building Height All buildings shall comply with the height restrictions established by the City for this area and shall not exceed thirty-two (32) feet. Chim- neys and vents shall be permitted as set forth in Section 20.02.060 of the Municipal Code. C. Setbacks from Streets The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all structures (not to include garden walls or fences) adjacent to streets. Said setbacks shall be measured from the back of sidewalk. Open parking shall be permitted in setback area. Street MacArthur Boulevard Fifth Avenue Sea Lane 15' Goldenrod 15' ,) Setback from Ultimate Right of Way Line 20' 15' n -6 GRD226 6/20/84 0. Setbacks from Property Lines There shall be at least ten (10) feet between structures on adjacent lots and no dwelling or main residential structure shall be closer than ten (10) feet to any other dwelling or main residential structure on the same lot. Detached garage or carports may be located on a property line and need not provide the required ten (10) feet between garage or carport structures on an adjacent lot. E. Parkin _ Off-street parking shall be provided a 1.5 paces •per unit. 7 A minimum of one (1) parking space -.per unit shall be covered. Where a frac- tional figure is found as a remainder in computations made to determine the number of required off-street parking spaces, said fraction shall be rounded upward. F. Signs One (1) double or single face ground sign per street frontage shall be allowed. Said sign shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet nor an area of thirty-five (35) square feet per face. Said signs may be internally or externally lighted and may list only the name of the project, apartment or apartment complex, and a one (1) or two (2) word statement as to whether or not the project contains vacancies. G. Fences, Hedges and Walls Fences shall be limited to a maximum height of six (6) feet. GRD226 6/20/84 1 SECTION V. SIGNS Future facilities signs of the type shown in the following exhibit shall be per- mitted. 0 ' GR0226 am 6/20/84 11 I I SIGN TYPE (G) , FUTURE FACILITY SIGN: A sign which informs the viewer, through symbol and verbal , reinforcement, of the type of facility planned for a community. , POLICY: The sign shall identify facilities which are planned as a part of a planned community and are to be constructed in the immediate future. General symbols, designed to identify and not to advertise, will represent the same type ' of facilities in each of the Irvine communities. May be double faced if required. LOCATION: Always installed on the site of the facility and oriented to the near- ' est street. One sign to be utilized for each street fronting on the site. LONGEVITY: From the time the site has been zoned for the facility until con- struction and/or leasing is completed. SIGN SURFACE AREA: 96 square feet maximum (including 4 "rider" panels). 1. i 1 11 -9- GRD226 6/20/84 t