Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNEWPORT BOULEVARD CROSSING NEWPORT ISLAND CHANNEL• October 6, 1986 TO: ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: BICYCLE BRIDGE ACROSS THE NEWPORT CHANNEL Attached for the Committee's review and comment are drafts of the Notice of Determination, the E.I.R. Negative Declaration and the Environmental Fact Sheet for the subject improvements. The Public Works Department will supply the Committee with any additional information which may be required to make findings and recommendations in this matter. 1 Irwin Miller Administrative Assistant IM:jb Att. 7 RECEIVED Devattntra out 6 1986oF NopogrB ACN cmg. h) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BICYCLE BRIDGE ACROSS THE NEWPORT ISLAND CHANNEL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW --NOTICE OF DETERMINATION A preliminary environmental review of the project for the Bicycle Bridge Across The Newport Island Channel has been per- formed. The review was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, the State "Guide- lines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970," and the City's "Policies and Procedures for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act." The environmental statement has been reviewed and was approved. by the City's Environmental Affairs Committee. As a result of the preliminary review, it has been determined that: 1. The project is approved. 2. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An environmental impact report has not been prepared. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached hereto. Ani402rnur,,,; t Benjamin B. Nolan a Public Works Director AIM:jb 10-06-86 • • BICYCLE BRIDGE ACROSS THE NEWPORT ISLAND CHANNEL NEGATIVE DECLARATION BY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed bridge will be located adjacent to and easterly of the existing Newport Boulevard bridge crossing of the Newport Island Channel. Connecting sidewalk improvements are within the Newport Boulevard right-of-way northerly of Via Lido and within the State Highway right-of-way for the interchange between Newport Boulevard and West Coast Highway. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 10-foot-wide prefabricated steel truss bridge will be constructed across the Newport Island Channel for use by bicyclists and pedestrians. The bridge will be supported with abutments and a pier, all of which will be located landward of the existing bulkhead line. A single wood pile supporting bent will be located in the channel in line with one of the existing piers for the adjacent vehicular bridge and thus not reduce the clear channel width that presently exists. A new 12-foot-wide sidewalk will be constructed between the southerly end of the proposed bridge and Via Lido. The northerly end of the sidewalk will be supported with a timber retaining wall. A painted crosswalk will be placed across Via Lido on the southerly extension of the sidewalk. Interfering portions of the raised median islands will be modified. At the northerly end of the proposed bridge, a new 10-foot-wide sidewalk with a metal handrailing will be constructed adjacent to the existing off - ramp curb to replace the existing 5-foot-wide walk. 3. PROJECT GOALS: The proposed project will provide a separated facility pri- marily for bicyclists to cross the channel- which will allow them to bypass the existing narrow Newport Boulevard bridge (4.5-foot sidewalk and 10-foot travel lanes). This route is heavily used by children going to and from school and to the beaches. The prefabricated steel truss bridge will be designed to be removable so that if and when the adjacent vehicular bridge is improved, the bicycle bridge can be reinstalled at another location. 4. EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT: There will be no significant long-term irrever- sible or irretrievable effects on the environment. There will be minimal, acceptable short-term disturbances caused by construction activity. • • Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director DS:jw 9/16/86 Negative Declaration Re: Bicycle Bridge Across the Newport Island Channel Page 2 5. BASIS FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION: This project is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach and could not have a significant effect on the environment. 6. INITIAL STUDY: The Public Works Department of the City of Newport Beach has prepared the Negative Declaration and its Initial Study in accordance with Article 7, Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Copies of the Initial Study may be obtained from the Public Works Department during normal business hours. 66 72 d BICYCLE BRIDGE ACROSS THE NEWPORT ISLAND CHANNEL INITIAL STUDY BY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A. CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN This project is consistent with the environmental plans and goals as established by the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. B. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM An Environmental Checklist Form (attached) has been completed as a portion of this study. The following statements, referenced to questions presented on the checklist, explain all "yes" and "maybe" answers: II.1.b.&c. Earth fills will be placed on both bridge approaches to allow for the widening of the existing sidewalks. Prior to placement of the fill, some existing ground cover and shrubs will be removed. The new fill slopes will be revegetated. II.13.d. The proposed bridge will provide bicyclists and pedestrians a separated facility which will allow them to bypass the existing narrow Newport Boulevard bridge. II.14.e. The proposed bridge will require periodic maintenance, painting and sweeping. II.18. The prefabricated steel truss bridge will partially obstruct the view of the existing bridge from viewing points located easterly. The steel truss may not be as aesthetically pleasing as the existing bridge. Benjafiin B. Nolan Public Works Director DS:jw 9/16/86 I. Background 1. Name, of Proponent ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CiTy/ at .4/624.,,cter cN 2. Address and Phone Number of,Proponent 3. Date of Checklist Submission 4. 'Agency Requiring Checklist 5. Title of Project flcycze d.Qiaa ,Qce.rs THe ,i/azu,G>er II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and '"maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ✓ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? • YES MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earth- quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ✓ e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? �� 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? YES MAYBE NO 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? YES MAYBE NO 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas; - • • YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, ✓ including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new 'sources of �. energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? V • • • 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of•existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long- term impacts•will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource•is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES MAYBE NO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FACT SHEET NEWPORT ISLAND CHANNEL BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE 1. Project Description The proposed project will construct a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across the Newport Island Channel approximately 90 feet east of the existing Newport Boulevard crossing. The bridge would be a glulam beam wooden structure supported by three concrete pile bents. Each bent contains two concrete piles and a concrete pile cap. The bridge approaches will be brick con- struction with a concrete deck. Lighting for the bridge will be provided with a sodium vapor luminaire at each end of the bridge. Navigation lights will be installed on the bridge as required by the United States Coast Guard. The southerly end of the bridge terminates in the public street right of way for Central Avenue and the adjacent City owned public parking lot. This area has been paved with concrete and has several planters. There is approximately 116 feet of publicly owned bulkhead or access to the bay at this point. The proposed bridge will take up 10 feet of this bulkhead area at the westerly edge of the right of way. The area adjacent to the southerly side of the channel easterly of Newport Boulevard is zoned for commercial uses and is developed with a large variety of commercial uses including specialty shops, offices, restaurants, a bank, theater, market, and an Elk's Club. The area is referred to as Lido Village. The northerly end of the bridge lands on property owned by the California Department of Transportation. This area is an area originally acquired from the City for expansion of the Newport Boulevard -Coast Highway interchange. To the east of the State parcel is a parcel jointly owned by the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange. The property is leased to the Newport- -1- • • Arches Marina. An asphalt bicycle trail through the State right of way will connect the northerly end of the proposed bridge to Coast Highway both easterly and westerly of Newport Boulevard. The Newport Island Channel westerly of the bridge site is crossed by an existing highway bridge for Newport Boulevard. This bridge has one navigable span (center span) with a horizontal clearance of 42 feet and an average height of 16.27 MLLW (13.54 MSL). At some tides the northerly span is used and it has a horizontal clearance of 42 feet and an average height of 17.96 MLLW (15.23 MSL). The channel under the Newport Boulevard bridge is the only access to Newport Bay for boats moored westerly of Newport Boulevard. A survey of boats moored westerly of Newport Boulevard indicated 310 recreational boats, 14 feet and over in length (see attached boat survey). Of these 26 were sailboats. 15 to 20 of the power boats had height greater than 13 to 14 feet above water line. Boat traffic under the proposed bridge is estimated to be 25 trips per day on a winter time weekday and 250 trips per day on a summertime holiday weekend day. The channel area adjacent to the proposed bridge site is used primarily for ingress and egress. An occasional fisherman will try his luck from one or the other of the bulkheads during the summer but beside this occasional activity the site is not used for recreational purposes. The construction of a bicycle bridge at this location is in conformance with the Master Plan of Bikeways (copy attached) which is part of the Recrea- tion and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed bridge is not specifically called out on the plan, but is considered to be an alternate for the route shown on Newport Boulevard since it provides a bikeway separated from vehicular traffic. 2. Purpose of Project To provide an alternate way for bicyclists to cross the Newport Island Channel. 2 4• • • The existing Newport Boulevard bridge has four 10.5 foot wide traffic lanes and 4.5 foot wide sidewalks. This does not provide room for the bicyclist in either the roadway or the sidewalk. Last summer 640 bicyclists were counted in one day using the easterly sidewalk of the Newport Boulevard bridge. At least 300 students a day use this route to go to and from high school and junior high school (see attached bicycle counts). The proposed bridge will be constructed 90'± easterly of Newport Boulevard and will allow bicyclists to utilize lightly traveled Central Avenue between Via Lido and the channel on the southerly side. 0n the northerly side the bicyclist will be able to cross a planted area and join a sidewalk bicycle trail along Coast Highway. 3. Probable Impacts A. Air Quality: The proposed bridge will encourage the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation with a resulting reduction in the use of the automobile. However this reduction in automobile use will be very small in comparison to the total use. The project should have no appreciable effect on the air quality in the area. B. Water Quality (1) Long Term: There should be no long term effect on the water quality since there will be no excavation or fill in the channel area and graded areas will be replanted. The proposed installa- tion won't change the current patterns or tidal flooding. Storm water runoff from the area should not be affected. Bicycles and pedestrians will not contribute to detritus loading entering the bay. The Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region has indicated that based on the plans submitted to them the project will be controlled to prevent water quality problems. (2) Short Term: Six concrete piles will be jetted into the channel 3 • • bottom. Sediment disturbance will result for approximately 90 minutes for each pile. This will dissipate rapidly so that within one to two hours there would be no noticeable effects. The only grading resulting from the proposed project will be excavation for the brick abutment walls and the removal of ice plant to pave the northerly approach. Areas exposed by grading on this project will be replanted with ice plant. C. Fish and Wildlife (1) Long Term: Since the area surrounding the proposed bridge site is extensively developed the natural wildlife has been previously disturbed and has moved to other areas. Fish and marine life should not be affected over the long term. (2) Short Term: Jetting of the piles for the bridge will disturb the marine growth in three areas over a 2 to 3 day period. Noise produced during the construction of the structure will possibly disturb the fish and wild life. The construction process should last only about 30 days. D. Noise: The proposed project will not affect noise levels in the area except during construction. This noise will be limited to the daylight - weekday hours and will exist only during the construction (approximately 30 days)of the project. This does not represent a long term noise source nor one that would intrude on the surrounding community during the evening, nightime or weekend periods. E. Land Use (1) Channel: The channel is presently used as a transportation corridor for the boats moored in the channels around Newport Island. The horizontal and vertical clearance is presently restricted by the existing Newport Boulevard bridge. The pro- posed bridge will also similarly restrict vertical and -4- horizontal clearance. Sometime in the future (probably 15 to 20 years) the Newport Boulevard bridge may be replaced. Because of geometric constraints on the roadway design it is unlikely that the channel clearance would be significantly changed. (2) Northerly Abutment and Approaches: The proposed bridge will cross 8' above the bulkhead, allowing a bicycle trail -walkway under the bridge. This will allow full access to the bay along the bulkhead. The trails leading to the bridge allow bicyclists to bypass two vehicular off -ramps and two vehicular on -ramps on the southerly side of Coast Highway. The lessee of the City -County property adjacent and easterly of the State property and the proposed bridge has expressed concern over the bridge construction. The concern is that with the bridge, some people may try to park cars in the lessee's parking lot and walk across the bridge to the com- mercial area on the southerly side of the channel. A fence around the parking lot could be installed if this proved to be a real problem. (3) Southerly Abutment and Approach: a. 10 feet of bulkhead frontage on the bay will be occupied by the bridge. This is 8.6% of the length available to the public. b. The existing landscaping between the end of Central and the Bay will be disturbed, with some being removed. Benches will be removed and incorporated into the bridge structure. (4) Aesthetics: The bridge structure will be painted in the same color scheme as the adjoining Lido Village development. The 5 brick abutments also will blend well with the brick used in surrounding buildings and streets. F. Natural Resources and Energy Supply The quantity and type of materials used to construct the bridge should not appreciably affect either sources or supplies in the area. The lighting for the bridge will consist of two 150 sodium vapor luminaires and use approximately 0.3 KW per hour. These lights would be controlled with a photo electric switch to limit their use to the hours of darkness. 4. Alternates 1. No Project: This alternate would force pedestrians and bicyclists to continue to use the existing narrow sidewalk area along Newport Boulevard. This creates greater inconvenience for all parties involved, 2. Widen the Newport Boulevard Bridge: The motor vehicular traffic on Newport Boulevard can now justify the widening of the bridge to provide at least one more lane for automobiles. A project of this nature cannot be funded at this time. A modification of the existing structure to provide solely for bicycles would also be more expensive than the proposed bridge and would have to be financed solely by public agencies. The proposed bridge is being financed primarily by a private donation. 5. Probable Adverse Environmental Impacts The proposed bridge should have no probable adverse environmental impact on air or water quality, land use patterns, life systems, traffic congestion, or provide any threats to health. The presence of another bridge in the Newport Island Channel will require boaters to navigate through an additional structure. The horizontal and 6 • • vertical clearances are equal to or greater than those of the Newport Boulevard bridge. The proposed bridge should not restrict the use of the channel. 6. Relationship between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity The proposed bridge will provide a route for bicyclists and pedestrians between Coast Highway and Via Lido which is separate from the heavily traveled Newport Boulevard. While the separation is not much more than a hundred feet, the exhaust fumes and noise will have diffused and lessened so as to reduce their harmful effects on the pedestrians and bicyclists. This should be a long term benefit to the users of the bridge and trail system. The public use of the land area around the proposed bridge will most probably be increased since access to this section of the Newport Bay will be improved. The short term inconveniences created during offset by the long term benefits to the public. 7. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Other than the labor, construction materials, and use for the lighting of the structure, there appears to be no construction should be of electrical power significant irre- versible and irretrievable commitment of resources. The channel has already been crossed by a bridge 90± feet westerly of the proposed site. The bridge construction will not precipitate land development, the exploitation of resources, increase motor vehicle travel or curtail the use of the adjoining public areas. 8. The Impact on Properties and Sites of Historic and Cultural Significance The proposed bridge site has no known historical or cultural significance which would be affected by the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge. When the Newport Boulevard Bridge was completed in 1937, a low level bridge crossing the Newport Island channel on the extension of Central Avenue was removed. The bridge that was removed was then the major access route to the Balboa Peninsula. The construction of a bicycle/pedestrian bridge at -7- this location will provide a major access route to the Balboa Peninsula for a significant segment of the non -motorized travelers. 9. Comments and Coordination During the design• process for the bridge it was pointed out that the boaters using the Newport Island channel frequently cross through the northerly span of the Newport Boulevard bridge because of the higher vertical clearance. The proposed bridge was designed to have equal or greater clearance than both the center span and the northerly span of the Newport Boulevard bridge. On June 2, 1975 the California Coastal Zone - South Coast Regional Commission voted to issue a permit for the proposed bridge subject to the plans being revised to substitute sodium vapor lights for those originally proposed. This change has been made. 10. Attachments A. Survey of Boats Moored Upstream of the Newport Boulevard Bridge over the Newport Island Channel - January 8, 1975. B. Master Plan of Bikeways - A section from the adopted Recreation and Open Space Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. C. Bicycle Counts at The Arches Interchange - August 1, 1974. Prepared by: Don Webb Project Manager 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SURVEY OF BOATS MOORED UPSTREAM OF THE NEWPORT BOULEVARD BRIDGE OVER THE NEWPORT ISLAND CHANNEL Performed by: Don Webb and Glen Weldon Date & Time: January 8, 1975 at 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. Sailboats Power Boats Under 20' Over 20' 14' and over 26 (Maximum length 30') 216 68 Total 310 Boats Approximately 15 to 20 of the power boats appeared to require a clearance of greater than 13'. The largest boat appeared to be Miss Bee IV owned by Mr. Jim Edwards. LOA = 55' Beam = 14' Draft = 4' Ht. above WL. = 13' Mr. Edwards indicates he can get through the northerly span at a +4 tide. Attachment A �—� BIKEWAY (TWO WAY) --. PEDESTRIAN ROUTE n n O n CROSS WALK GRADE SEPARATION OR BRIDGE • 7 • !lf i. ... 1[...•. "1 actitLE Cocsrs C H CONSTRUCT BIKEWAY UNDER BRIDGE • Sh� CONSTRUCT INDEPENDENT. BRIDGE q • Cc^go4 tS Stt.l _ t3 914 4.) cx.wt C tD s '\ CbC7 � \ s oi3T D t` 5..� • 4•. BLVD. ;vcx3�+ Gw•-• • i• 14 no 1 • PROPOSE D TWO WAY BIKEWAY TO RIVERSIDE AVE. OPTION °A°- INDEPENDENT GRADE SE_- _ OPTION °B°-CROSS WALK__ WITH SIGIJ • • 100 0 CITY OF NEi/MORT SEACN a v "l \nil LDCAT/DN MAP Sao SCALE OF FEET 100 hi N h-i ciry of • / COSIX M6f.641 Z • • c MCCAW SR7EGE Age h470 OC6A V/C/NI,TY MAP ' NAur,cAt dace • FROM U. B. C.4' A. e. OVAC NO, J/42 E 6 Cr Ci14, go O 33.37, Of 04A0N RO•VA 06t MAR N07E: finear6o ConweOCT/ON mg Mr O/M/N/SN EX/ST/NO NAY/447/ONA4 CLEI.C4A/CECNORItONTAL AC VEtT/CAO. AD Atift6/AG /3 PROPOSED. PROH2ri0 //CYCLE/PtDESTR.44N de/Oct DYER THE NsWftter /tLANP CHANNEL, Cirr Or NEWMRr LEACH, ORANas couwrt CALiritei /A. AL7ucAr/ON tY C/TY Of Atwitter AVON •MVfET / Art • a ltat*'/t- • • /59' 0 PROPOSED B/CYCLE 0 0 PEDE5TR/AN BR/iVE 0 O 0 0 O n_5" II II Il x°y M.c.c.w. fl 0.00 II 'Qa\ • A ER/CAMP 44'-a" — 0 BOTTOM OF GX/BT. N/6HWA/ BR/O6c-AMWAVAr 6LV0. 44'-0" EL EYA7/DA/ B/CYCLE/PEDE$TR/AA/ BR/OGE\ iI i Sias— PIA, SCALES Of FEET 6 O VERrlc4t EIHH f 1 I Nog/ronr4hSO 30 60 t I .SOUND/NGJ 4si ELEYAT/ONS ARE /N FEET g` REFER TO MEAN LOWER LOW WATER. MEAN LOWER LOW WATER CORRESPONDS TO 2.70 FEET BELOW MSS Ea LEVEL. w 44 0 'O" EX/ST. -.JI 6l1iCKHE4o , I tl 1 ii I ri II 1- II JI 1.4 11 ,o/EE/KNIIP ;kr ;fr1I 441 • PROPOSED B/CYCLE/PEOESTR/AN BR/,AGE DYER THE NEWPORT /SCAMP CHANNEL, wry' at-NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CAL/PORN/A. APPL/OAT/ON BY THE C/TY Of NEWPORT BEACH SWEET 2 OF 2 DATE -DUNE /970