Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS016_BAYWOOD APT. EXPANSION IS016 � ❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, caiifornia 92660 phone (714) 640.6363 ❑ berk ne , callbury street, suite c Lisa berkeley, caiifornia 94703 phone (415) 841-6840 • LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. INITIAL STUDY FOR BAYWOOD APARTMENT EXPANSION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ! t} PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD • NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 640-2197 PREPARED BY • LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 525 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 640-6363 JULY 30, 1979 Lsa TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Purpose 1 Project Sponsor and Contact Persons 1 Project Objectives 1 Project Site History 2 Project Description 2 Phasing and Development Schedule 6 i ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 11 Earth Resources 11 Hydrology 13 Vegetation/Wildlife 20 Archaeology 22 Existing Land Use 22 Surrounding Land Uses 23 Relevant Planning Programs 24 Traffic and Circulation 26 Air Quality 33 Noise Analysis 41 Public Services and Utilities 53 Open Space and Aesthetics 54 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 58 APPENDICES Appendix A - Scope of Services Appendix B - Harbor View Hills PC District Regulations (Amendment 11 , Proposed) Appendix C - Biotic Resources Report 4V Appendix D - Archaeological Resources Assessment Appendix E - Traffic/Circulation Analysis Appendix F - Air Quality Analysis Appendix G - Acoustical Assessment I�I � Lsa LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES G Figure 1 - Regional Context 3 Figure 2 - Local Context 4 Figure 3 - Aerial Photo 5 Figure 4 - Proposed Land Use Plan, Harbor View Hills Planned Community 7 Figure 5 - Tentative Parcel Map (Parcel 1 ) 8 Figure 6 - Baywood Apartments Development Plan 9 Figure 7 - Onsite Hydrologic Analysis 17 Figure 8 - Existing Topography 18 Figure 9 - Conceptual Grading Plan 19 Figure 10 - Estimation of Project Trip Distribution 29 Figure 11 - Worst-Case Hourly CO Levels (PPM) Adjacent to the 'j MacArthur-San Joaquin Hills Road Intersection - 1978 Levels 39 Figure 12 - Worst-Case Hourly CO Levels (PPM) Adjacent to the MacArthur-San Joaquin Hills Road Intersection - 1990 Levels 40 Figure 13 - CNEL Levels for Traffic on MacArthur Boulevard 43 * Figure 14 - CNEL Levels for Traffic on San Joaquin Hills Road 44 Figure 15 - Acoustical Cross-Section Orientation Map 46 Figure 16 - Acoustical Cross-Sections A and B 47 Figure 17 - Acoustical Cross-Sections C and D 48 Figure 18 - Acoustical Cross-Sections E and F 49 Figure 19 - Acoustical Cross-Sections G and H 50 Figure 20 - Acoustical Cross-Sections I and J 51 Figure 21 - Acoustical Cross-Sections K and L 52 Figure 22 - Typical Berm Section 56 Figure 23 - Typical Berm Section 57 TABLES 40 Table A - Statistical Summary, Planning Area 8 10 Table B - Onsite Hydrologic Conditions 16 Table C - Estimation of Vehicle Trips Generated 28 Table D - 1% Analysis 31 Table E - Baywood ICU Analysis 32 Table F - Air Quality Summary - Newport Beach Area 35 r Table G - 1976-77 Orange County Emissions Inventory (Average Summer Weekday) 36 Table H - Baywood Apartment-Related Regional Vehicular Emissions 38 Table I - Operating Characteristics for Traffic on MacArthur Boulevard, San Joaquin Hills Road, and San Miguel Drive 42 • • 1 W INTRODUCTION PURPOSE • This Initial Study provides environmental data on the effects of the pro- posed expansion of the Baywood Apartment complex located in Newport Beach, CA.The content and format of this assessment are consistent with the City of New- port Beach Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , and the State of California EIR Guidelines. The intent of this Initial Study is to provide information of sufficient detail to enable decision-makers to determine whether there are potentially significant adverse environmental impacts associated with the project which have not been adequately mitigated by specific design features built into the project proposal . If the project is found to appropriately address the vari- ous implications inherent in the expansion project, the applicant/project •, sponsor has requested that a Declaration of Negative Impact be issued, predi- cated on a determination of "no significant effect," as provided in Section 15083 of the State EIR Guidelines. The scope of work for this Initial Study is pro- vided in Appendix A. PROJECT SPONSOR AND CONTACT PERSONS The applicant (project sponsor) for this development project is Irvine Pacific Development Company, Newport Beach, CA. The project sponsor's repre- sentative for this application is Mr. James Montgomery, Project Manager, Irvine Pacific Development Company, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92663, (714) 644-3554; the contact person for the City of Newport Beach is Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, City of Newport Beach, 3300 New- port Blvd. , Newport Beach, CA 92663, (714) 640-2197; the preparer of this Ini- tial Study is Mr. Bert Ashland, Project Director, Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. , 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 525, Newport Beach, CA, 92660, (714) 640-6363. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objective of the applicant is to expand the existing Baywood Apart- ment complex with an additional 140 one and two-bedroom apartment units. The expansion project, as perceived by the applicant, would provide similar faci- lities to those currently existing, utilizing compati.ble or identical archi- tectural criteria, and interior appointments. Landscaping would simply be • an extension of the established theme, using alder trees and groundcover consistent with the character of Baywood Apartments. • • 2 Up In order to implement this expansion project, City of Newport Beach ap- provals will be required in the form of a Planned Community zoning amendment (Harbor View Hills PC) , a revised subdivision map (tentative parcel map), grading permit, and building permit. PROJECT SITE HISTORY For approximately the past 15 years, the project study area has been held in reserve by The Irvine Company and the City of Newport Beach as part of a freeway reservation to be used for the future alignment of State Route 73, the Corona del Mar Freeway. The original decision to commit the parcel for free- way use was agreed upon in 1962-63. When the original Harbor View Hills Planned Community was adopted, this parcel , along with several others to the north, was specified as a freeway reserve parcel . However, since that time the Coastal Freeway has been officially deleted from the CalTrans Master Plan and the status of the Corona del Mar Freeway southerly of Bonita Canyon is uncer- tain. Plans currently under study by CalTrans, the City of Newport Beach, !• the County of Orange, and other agencies indicate that the Corona del Mar Free- way will connect directly to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and that the MacArthur Boulevard alignment will eventually be abandoned. Con- sequently, The Irvine Company has initiated in-house plans for the future use of this parcel and others previously included in the CalTrans planning. * This parcel and other undeveloped Irvine Company properties within Newport Beach were the subject of a special Task Force study commissioned by the City Council on September 27, 1976. In the Task Force's report, published in May of 1977, this 7.56-acre project site was identified for future expansion of the Baywood Apartments. Approximately 100 units were proposed. The report went on to suggest that The Irvine Company was contemplating a 1978 project processing schedule followed by occupancy in mid-1979. The project as presented in the following section (Project Description) identifies a proposal which is similar, but somewhat higher in density. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location. The Baywood Apartments are located between MacArthur Boulevard A and San Miguel Drive, east of San Joaquin Hills Road in the City of Newport Beach, CA. The proposed expansion area is located adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. For reference, the project area is shown in a regional setting in Figure 1 , in a local setting in Figure 2, and in an aerial view in Figure 3. More specifically, the site area is adjacent to Parcel 1 , Parcel Map 45/10, San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. PC Zoninq Amendment. The existing Baywood Apartments are located within Planning Area 8 of the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. The PC FIGURE 1 3 . 1 REGIONAL CONTEXT LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES ..cuuA/IN� UTA. ` l��9r'�l!U✓1! '\7 Ste. StudySite •�� . ..— _ 0 4'uuPnrfC+�� `°`jaiuw ,fwGfiur�{e * 'EmcW 1�twlir�heCrocw . A • • FIGURE 2 4 LOCAL CONTEXT Lsa cj — oll 1 eNTO ,r ; 5Y 1. i,.vir ;'A1• +�\ 4—� �\ T—tiT V,�i uy�\ipa •5°R4 '.l''. 'W�:ems'°� r fraVa d WP0 ✓ °a t - e . we •e•�^ ,_ -- PROJECT SITE . AIR` ✓°,j' ..•t0°ACP� � •a i! t I 1 1 T �. -k ynl"'Y�rrJ.y���} •V i i j•,x.C#L'�fi YyJ !,y "�i' —V! A,,ji ' ��K�■■�(�•i f �• )�N� 1 ��� i„ ix+ t,�y{y,T()1Mil �' •�: '� v y NOW ARM ::r �'t;` �' ,/rt /} ,�'f •'f / Y�-� � � .ro� '�M ��,-��iµ�,i��'�V •t _^'w _l S i 3r, per Aw t \ e a of loft IV C ■ WIN ly4 A �` is ,{�,tf y 3r r i '` Ay,. � •� :1 r :.,: a r S Y JIL.. • 6 LCM District Regulations show that Area 8 has a designation for medium/high-density residential uses . Area 8 presently contains 320 dwelling units of 12 du/ac. on a gross area of 26.7 acres. The proposed zoning amendment would increase the gross acreage included in Area 8 to 34.7 gross acres. The proposed PC amend- ment would require a change to the adopted PC land use plan. The proposed land use plan is illustrated in Figure 4, and the proposed PC District Regulations are included as Appendix B. Tentative Parcel Ma The purpose of this map is to combine an ex- isting undeve Tope parce with a portion of a larger parcel to form a new subdivision parcelization. The larger parcel is currently zoned PC, and the • existing use is catalogued as multi-family residential . Residential Development. The proposed development plan illustrated in Figure 4 shows a maximum of 140 high-density attached dwelling units developed as an expansion of the existing Baywood Apartment complex, The expansion area includes a maximum of 7.56 acres as depicted in Figure 6. Preliminary site plans for the project indicate that a total of 18 struc- tures will be required. There will be 12 eight-plex one-bedroom apartments, five eight-plex two-bedroom apartments, and one four-plex two-bedroom apart- ment. The net area allotted to each dwelling unit is 2,352 square feet, Project-related statistics are shown in Table A. • Open-Space Recreational and Park Uses. The project does not specifically include provisions for dedicated parkland; additional private recreational uses are included in the development plan in the form of a swimming pool to be available for the use of all Baywood Apartment residents and their guests. Open space will be provided as greenbelts around and adjacent to individual building pads. A natural open-space park is located adjacent to the northeast • perimeter of the site area. As proposed, the expansion project will not in- fringe on this natural area. PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Ultimate construction and build-out of the proposed expansion, while sub- ject to subsequent processing and review requirements not part of this appli- cation, will require approximately two years. Phasing of the project is not finalized at this juncture. A tentative schedule developed for this assess- ment is as follows: Phase I Rough grading and site improvements 1/1-2/28/80 • Phase II Construction 3/1-12/29/80 Phase III Landscaping and final grading 11/4/80-1/13/81 Phase IV Begin leasing 12/1/80 • FIGURE 4 7 PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN ARBOR VIEW HILLS PLANNED COMMUNITY Lsa " t C13: FOPD- _ ,,1f;�ir i+•- 3r,1';r,j''li�P; Iiv l'{ ' 'IhPi-' „r.d�'., ,L:I q,,•p�,', .c' i�nl., 'art Py` pl.;'•�''- .,,,yt ( il,�„I ;'�::�;?;�::... • ^;ni�;'!;i,1,'u P:",�i,�' ��,9 ili�,r1�. ''l I•:'°,b?:d'ni'� .dl•, i., i � �i,l iif:{i:: qy ii;;j}J� 'ftn� ''I,m:J''I''r',4,9ai ";liifnu�'r'' .'pf 11�, :i{ ,�v '�� P, •'Ind 'J9.'rv.i.l" yrxlt���ij. ry y 5 „�;'' �i r�'`n '`�`_ y ''i!7-� ,I'�',{4ii'�j{ � �h 4:J„I•, I • iir 5,d,J i!i 'a1Jr',r;'' 3 44,�,lPlp-r.;,1„'d`r it ml - 'i�� �'1�0.'li Y.7lI'11J C x - 9,,I' „I;�i i,,_ ',_ �•'1 ',,. ill,< (b!r,d7yl•,_I'� .'•'' •\W.,'ilu� ��v.'.Li_;7hi'i,',1 it ';. 1 l - - -s��•� r:•a WtlJOON :: w".Y V lil' PROJECT SITE t- UIN HILLS RD LEGEND 0 LOW MEDKIMANDHILLSIDE • LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 0 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ®COMMERCIAL O SCHOOL HARBOR VIEW HILLS Amendment N0611 ® PARK AND OPEN SPACE LAND USE PLAN RESERYGIq AMEA • • FIGURE 5 8 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP PARCEL 1 Lsa • (see next page) • • • • • • Source: Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Newport Beach, CA. • I N� • / •a � IL �=:SV\ 1{`..� � SCALE. I2 a0' • \\ 1 0 1 ✓ i . ..-� tl _T ti ff I o. •p o cr�' t \ NOTES �1 O 1 II• a / d r Y r-IJ !'•[ s •`I , •} I t _ ,:. I t:�.w.%nox us.woew¢a i [«sx�m+ wuL ( _ [ms+w6[Ox[t IG �• _ ten•_ ][r+inx6 Yfl�uYLl�It[rNxM1r x+9OlM4t l�rol •I - • ._ [_.( l� f 1 [Ysnxoomuwvw<ew r" wn¢s s 1 '� �1 �1 s• d na -{ _0 w7 '� snorwv w w lucs[. ...CP n uom[ wl srxo eneLv.m wnax <n[nvmrxuumwv I.mm 1}I I +_ � � •,_ ,'' - � If._.y�J :' '-ram �'`� 1 �' ') 1 s!ro[�x[norosrovnns }l i } ♦ �. � [: f� M t ....rh is ?ti% [��- - i', 1 _ .'I' "S� �i /L \ 6 �� !1 I\ _ O� f_�`J�.�a• J .!^ - ��':' dal 0 1 J •,l''F'>,.r�V 1+s.Y 1. I� I ` `5 ,I � ,(.,• „( � s �!.- . �.rr � I'I ,v / O 'T L.,..(i ..-..- [ - 'r'AR B �. } J' •�-'I 'G�/'- 1 r STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP C ' f }I C V ="�`c•�.y < 1-,1` -/��.!' o r{ _ ''Z ~ '1 _I ® � \ w.[n<uxv[uxwavmxeller unse u�v nw+[rx.r+.[ 'ze t .. n[w.xw o<n[nen[nco-.rnvxa nnuxlln[ n � II` '1 / "'—'.'s�/_ \gym„ �'J,r f � _1 v{„� •- �,� 'r•- .j,�l.c 1 [ \ v.f.,�v.xorxwr.•e x.Y[wux+romrxesuwlssu JI " I d _ 1 [*� - I ,�.- ' " �,.r _f _—� -a • i o.rwno�e..> .n • ' 1 1} ) _ ,} G « /a , '' I = r r 1`.� -� •'`I t• �•+I'f t \ I G_-S • I r ?J• �:^--:p . %�'•.,y��• , _ ��4��;= Q .i t �d.�v..- � 1 1 _ . .., III I• e -- ~i °�� ':`"i +J -j _ -o j THE IRVINE COMPANY I . A N 9r� f - •. +� Tentative Parcel Ma '61- 1 e _ •.�- - 4)iii- :r+r ( r � �% , - I- .';� C3 IN THE CITY OFNEWPoRTBEN]I,COUHTY OF ORANGE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA. - ,' ,'' I � �"••• _ � ~ _- `_ ;• :1 - 1•wl�? � w�mx[swsa.�fwuuss.xaw.xr•ru..m�.smsl.ru<ueru,m(u.Lvn..ua.vms<vmer --' J( :�..'��� - ;'r!�-r=-�� i _ . / Mi ... J��i�--.• '- _ J'��• r ` ..`O! wxa[m.rzwam�w —} _ .... '- _- .. .DYNJ vM[QUC6 ___ "' " ..�'�"RS2y� •:i-• - • • - � ar� --• _'-' - --••_ l •, v �s*e:ea-r.��sy __ l v !"i.,,y / '.�' 1 n� �". • • FIGURE 6 9 BAYWOOD APARTMENTS DEVELOPMENT PLAN Lsa • • (see next page) • • • • • • Source: SWA Group, Irvine, CA. I • 1, /ter 1 i r r' l , it it -i L I for Irvine Pacific Development Company ewa group rand Pla s July SM o=r+ • • TABLE A 10 STATISTICAL SUMMARY PLANNING AREA 8 • AREA Gross Acres Parcel Net Buildable Area • Existing 24.1 20.92 N/A Proposed 10.6 7.56 7.30 Total 34.7 28.48 N/A UNITS AND POPULATION Du Pop./Du Population • Existing 320 1 .921 614 Proposed 140 1 .652 231 Total 460 845 • DENSITY Gross Acres Parcel Net Buildable Area Existing 13.3 15.3 N/A Proposed 13.2 18.5 19.2 Total 13.3 16.2 N/A • lBased on existing mix of family and adult units. 2Based on existing adult units. • • • • • 11 L • I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EARTH RESOURCES Setting. The following discussion was compiled from existing data sources • prepared for residential and commercial developments which had been proposed for this site and its surrounding environs in 1969 by Robert Stone and Associates. In addition, a Moore and Taber geotechnica'l investigation on Tract 6385 was consulted. Because these assessments were prepared for other development pro- posals, and don't specifically address this project, the following discussion should be reviewed as a general conclusion, subject to verification by a qualified • soils engineer or geotechnical specialist. Site Description. The study area consists of approximately 7.56 acres of essentially undeveloped property located immediately south of existing MacArthur Boulevard and east of San Joaquin Hills Road. The site is for the most part in a natural state, representing part of a mesa of marine and non- marine sediments. Subsurface investigation has shown that the bedrock unit underlying the more recent deposits consists of Monterey Shale which exhibits extensive erosion at its contact with overlying terrace deposits. The terrace deposits tend to cover these irregularities, leaving an exposed surface that shows only slight local relief. The'only relief feature of note is a small drainage swale which crosses the site. • Geology/Soils, The project site is included in a mesa of both marine and non-marine sediments. Recent uplift and erosion have resulted in the devel- opment of steep canyons and ravines such as Big Canyon and the smaller tribu-. tary canyon immediately east of the study area. • Terrace Deposits (Qt)l. The terrace deposits exposed on the site con- sist of four to five feet of moderately firm and dense sand and silty sand which were found to be essentially non-compressible and non-expansive under the anticipated loads. Normal erosion has removed the terrace deposits from the northern corner of the site. • Monterey Shale (Tm). Monterey Shale is the rock unit which underlies the site and is exposed in existing excavations , natural outcrops, and ex- ploratory facings. The shale beds are typically thinly layered diatomaceous and are badly fractured and faulted. The sandstone interbedded with it varies in thickness from a few inches to about three feet and ranges from moderately soft due to poor cementation to very hard and well cemented, The shale varies from • slightly to highly expansive under slab loads, while the sandstone beds are non-compressible under fill loads. IMap symbol • • • 12 Lsa The contact between the terrace deposits and the underlying Monterey Shale was found to be nearly horizontal , except where erosional features (gullies, ravines, stream channels) had developed on the surface which was present immed- iately prior to deposition of terrace deposits. The Monterey Shale has • been extensively folded, fractured, and faulted prior to deposition of ter- race sediments. This can probably be attributed to the Pelican Hill Fault, a branch which passes close to the study area. No indications of faulting have been observed in the overlying terrace deposits. The study area is located approximately four miles northeast of the New- port-Inglewood Fault Zone. This fault was associated with the "Long Beach • Earthquake" of March 11 , 1933, the epicenter of which has been placed approxi- mately five miles southwest of the site. Recurring earthquake activity in the magnitude range of 4.0 to 4.51 has been associated with this fault zone. The study area is either on or adjacent to a branch of the Pelican Hill Fault. Some geologists consider this to be a branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault. However, since there is no evidence of movement on the Pelican Hill Fault with- in the last + 20,000 years, and there has been considerable seismic activity along the Newport-Inglewood Fault, the Pelican Hill Fault, for the purposes of this report, is considered to be separate and inactive. It is anticipated that movement along the Newport-Inglewood Fault system can be expected in the near future. it has been shown that stress relief occurs at a fairly consistent point of maximum strain, and future quakes should not be significantly stronger • than those experience in the past; i .e. , magnitude 6.3. During recurrence of activity in the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, our location in this portion of Southern California has about a 40 percent probability of experiencing ground acceleration of up to .20g2 during any 50 year period. Ground rupture is not considered to be a hazard because the Pelican Hill Fault is considered inactive. • The natural ground consists of three to six feet of dark brown, moist, firm, sandy clay. The clay is underlain by a tan, moist, firm, clayey, fine sand. The thickness of the sand varies from three to thirteen feet. The sand is in turn underlain by firm to stiff clay"shale and sandstone. Impacts. Soil conditions onsite are moderately to highly expansive and • may result in increased erosion as preliminary site preparation and grading are conducted. Grading on the project site will result in approximately 60,000 cubic yards of cut (approximately 7,800 cubic yards per acre) and 3,000 cubic yards of fill . Consequently, all the cut material will require transportation offsite. No specific destination or haul route has been identified at this time. • Richte magnitude. 21,9" is the acceleration due to gravity and is equal to 32 ft./sect. The above figure represents 20 percent of this acceleration. • 13 Lsa Mitigation Measures. The following measures are included as part of the project proposal or are otherwise required to offset potential adverse impacts. 1. A detailed geotechnicaZ report will be prepared by a quaZi- fied engineering geologist or soils engineer prior to sub- mittaZ of the final site plan. The report will be adequate to meet the requir4ments of the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Directors of Community Development and Public Works. The focus of the report will be foundation stability cri- teria, seismic considerations, and erosion control. 2. The applicant shall submit, as part of the application for a grading permit, a description of the haul route, proposed access points to the site, and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. HYDROLOGY Setting. Relationship of the Baywood Apartment Expansion to the Santa Ana Region- al Water Quality Control Plan and the Federal Clean Water Act "208" Planning Program. The Baywood project site is situated within the watershed of Big Canyon Creek, which drains directly into=Upper'Newport-Bay. This watershed is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Qualir ty Control Board and thus is subject to the policies and planning programs of this State agency. The Newport Bay and its watershed are also the focus of sub-regional water management planning being undertaken by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Newport�lrvine Water I � Management Planning Agency (NIWA) . These studies were prepared pursuant to Section "208" of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) under the auspices of the California Department of Water Resources, State Water Re- sources Control Board, and Federal Environmental Protection Agency. SCAG has recently submitted for EPA review a Draft 208 Plan. The basic emphasis of the plan is to: 1 ) provide maximum public involvement and afford local government the opportunity to establish area-wide environmental policy programs; 2) provide for restoration of impaired beneficial uses of waters and enhancement of water quality to meet the 1983 "fishable and swimmable" goal of the FWPCA, and establish a process to protect water quality; • • 14 Lsa 3) develop and implement waste treatment management programs for municipal and industrial wastes, residential wastes, and non-point source wastes; and • 4) establish a mechanism in which waste treatment and water quality management can be achieved consistent with growth policies and air quality management programs. 'SCAG/NIWA 208 Planning, Control of non-point pollution sources affect- ing Upper Newport Bay has been designated a priority issue in the SCAG/NIWA 208 • planning program. Initial phases of the 208 program identified siltation, high nutrient levels, and bacteria as principal pollution problems associated with the Upper Bay. Further studies of the Bay watershed indicate that the primary surface water quality problems are generation of high nutrient levels of run- off (primarily from agricultural fertil'ization) , erosion and sediment transport (from agricultural and urban construction activities) , and potential effects of levels of pesticides in irrigation return water. High bacterial counts (coli- • forms) are common in the Bay, but their cause has not been determined. It has been determined, however, that there is no evidence linking bacterial contamination of surface streams with the use of reclaimed water for irrigation of greenbelts. These factors are evaluated at length in the SCAG,NIWA 208 studies, specifically in the final reports on Tasks 2, 5, 6, and 7. • Current phases of the 208 study program are focusing on development of management strategies that establish preventive control programs for known non-point pollution problems and investigative problems to quantify waste- loads, their environmental impacts, and costs of mitigation. The SCAG-NIWA 208 study reports contain Draft 208 plan policies, recommended actions, proposed schedules for action implementation, responsible agencies, costs, and financing • alternatives. Ultimately, when the 208 planning program is completed and adopt- ed, its conclusions will be used to amend the beneficial uses and water quality objectives now contained in the Basin Plan. The Baywood site, by virtue of its undeveloped condition and proximity to Upper Newport Bay, plays a role as contributor to recognized water • quality degradation in the Upper Bay. Sheet flows and surface runoff into nat- ural and improved drainages contribute nutrients and sediment, each of which have been identified as problems of significance. Because of the undeveloped character of the site, and the subsequent periodic disking for weed control , the site functions as an undesirable source of sediment to Newport Bay. • Water Quality. The project site is situated within the watershed of Upper Newport Bay. Onsite runoff is by surface sheet flow into open culverts and subsurface storm drains. These existing drainage improvements direct the surface flow under MacArthur Boulevard and into the Big Canyon drainage complex. From there, waters are carried north through a combination of surface and subsurface systems, finally discharging into Upper Newport Bay. • • 15 Lsa • Onsite soil conditions should permit effective percolation of surface runoff. Due, however, to the expansive characteristics of these soils, they are moderately susceptible to erosion. Onsite Hydrology. The project site is presently divided into two • drainage areas. The first, encompassing approximately 1 .5 acres, is located at the easterly corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. This area currently generates 3 cfs of runoff during a 10-year storm. In ad- dition, 20 cfs enter this area from the southwesterly side of San Joaquin Hills Road. Thus, a total of 23 cfs enters the downstream drainage area of Big Canyon through the existing 30-inch CMP under MacArthur Boulevard approx- imately 400 feet northeasterly of San Joaquin Hills Road. The second drainage area, encompassing approximately 6.0 acres, drains to the north and northeast into an existing desilting basin and eventually into Big Canyon. This area generates approximately 10 cfs of runoff during a 10-year storm. In addition, 10 cfs enter the site from the southeast. Thus, • a total of 20 cfs leaves the site. Storm runoff from the project site is tributary to Upper Newport Bay through the Big Canyon drainage area. Preliminary estimates of 10, 25, and 100-year project storm discharges before and after site development are de- picted in Table B and illustrated in Figure 7. • Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will result in restruc- turing existing surface and subsurface drainage systems. Surface runoff will be diverted into new storm drains which will in turn direct flows into the Big Canyon drainage system via existing Baywood facilities plus direct project-related infrastructures. • As a result of the project' s implementation, surface runoff will be in- creased 7 cfs during the standard 25-year storm. The grading of the site for building pads, landscaping, and berming will result in short-term, construction-related increases in sedimentation and sil- tation. Grading improvements and paving will , however, result in a reduction • of onsite silt and sediment production. Existing topography and proposed grading and erosion control measures are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Construction activities will cause increased levels' of water pollutant species emanating from the site, This increase will be precipitated by the higher levels of mechanical and human activity within the project site. Sur- face runoff from the Baywood area will ultimately enter Upper Newport Bay Via Big Canyon. These entering waters will carry higher quantities of pol- lutants, including fertilizers from landscape management, petro-chemical com- i • • TABLE B 16 ONSITE HYDROLOGIC OONDITIONS Lsa i i Storm Frequency Existing 'Q' Ultimate Project 'Q' Net Increase • WESTERLY DRAINAGE AREA TRIBUTARY TO 30" CMP Onsite tributary area = 1.5 acres 10-Year 23 cfs 24 cfs 1 cfs 25-Year 30 cfs 31 cfs 1 cfs • 100-Year 39 cfs 41 cfs 2 cfs EASTERLY DRAINAGE AREA TRIBUTARY TO 18" RCP Onsite tributary area ±6 acres • 10-Year 20 cfs 24 cfs 4 cfs 25-Year 26 cfs 32 cfs 6 cfs 100-Year 34 cfs 41 cfs 7 cfs • • • • • FIGURE 7 17 ONSITE HYDROLOGTC ANALYSIS Lsa kL ,Y �•V�ij•F• �%�"`•'%i:i120Fi'� 9' 18" RCP 7- 3V.RCP ' 1,41 it Al fill � j � • z4"RCP. — •�. ��o% n�- � _L -rr � ; t•, ''.b <. -- Existing Storm Drains Direction of Runoff iIZC! Existing IO Yew Storm Runoff • Existing Desisting Basin In Cubic Feet/Second Baywood Apartments Expansion • FIGURE 8 18 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY Lsa • (see next page) M • i • � Z p �// �i� t _ j �" . , ' T�•,` =M r'xa.� zvi v_.^; _ _. `, axu a.{na - ;a— i� -/ . \ \ �` ��""- •+I'+str 'fi;rze+A r.'P a.a 1 '/ i � / , zx>, I P r v %-'- \ \'. \ .�Iwe a �� / •� 'wry" +• 9 o c m rxn �W xxs w •[[T / - + • 'I1I i ` >> � DATE OF FIIGK(: JAM.19.1979 . Existing Topography • • FIGURE 9 19 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN Lsa r' (see next page) A • • I'� d i Z o !\SILT A3T!7 `• ��-01 j "•4�e...+e... 2`4" P. R •1��\ %��l ♦.%too •'• - IYEBR#ScBA �\ `' »S =� ♦ \• \ 1 \ —41 •� _ � `.YfES1LTING BAST �� � ,� �•,� — \ic ���K',.R.1 // - 0" C'M. . \ 50'x5 EEP 3 \\\ \C C -= y J•_'i`' C'C �. )); R RI BASIN y .'�-✓ /' " ' / .. \ 40?,` :.Y. CAPACtTlY, EXIST. 30" C is'` .... ♦��� y \ F\ ��� � � �> 1\ "=/• �a PRELIMINARY QUANTITY ESTIMATE '/ � - �� � �:•\\�. � �,,,. '-� '�V �,• p� �� , ♦� Excavation 60,000 C.Y. Embankment 3,000 C.Y. Export 57,000 C.Y. •♦1 NOTE ESTIMATED OUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE - - \ ,<��• / ` ONLY AND ARE NOT ADJUSTED FOR SHRINKAGE 14/ OR SUBSIDENCE. •' \�� .. .. DATE OF FLIGHT: JAN.19.1979 Conceptual Grading Plan 1 • • 20 Lsa pounds from automobiles and trucks, pesticides, and heavy metals, Fuel and oil from parked cars will be transported to the drainage system during rain- fall periods. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are included as •, part of the project proposal or are otherwise required to .offset all poten- tial adverse impacts. Unless otherwise noted, these mitigation measures will be applied only to the new development. 3. The applicant will develop landscape guidelines for the ultimate development of the area consistent with the con- cept of the existing complex. These plans will utilize drought-resistant vegetation where possible. Use of this type of foliage will reduce both the amount of imported domestic water used by the project and the amount of runoff. 4. Where possible, the project landscaping will be irrigated . via a drip irrigation or similar system designed to avoid unnecessary surface runoff. 5. The project applicant will develop a desalting plan de- signed to prevent a significant amount of sediment, silt, and chemical pollutants escaping from the site. This plan should be reviewed and approved by the Directors of • Community Development and Public Works, and implemented prior to issuance of a grading permit. 6. Permanent grease traps or some other mechanism for poZ- Zutant control will be provided to effectuate long-term source control. Programs will be developed for long- 0 term maintenance of these facilities. The maintenance programs will be reviewed and approved by the Director of General Services. 7. All paved surfaces will be provided with weekly street- sweeping and vacuuming. 8. It is recommended that the desalting plan (when developed) be reviewed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Con- trol Board and the Department of Fish and Game. VEGETATION/WILDLIFE • Introduction. A biotic resource investigation was conducted on the Bay- wood site in December 1978 by Steve Nelson of EDAW and Karlin Marsh of PHR. i 0 • 21 lsa This report is summarized below and is included in Appendix C along with a comprehensive species list. Setting. The majority of the site has been recently disked for weed abatement and fire control . Therefore, the vegetative communities onsite •, consist of introduced annuals commonly considered to be old field and road- side weeds. They are dominated by alfalfa, wild oat, and meadow fescue, indi- cating an historic use for the area as pasture for livestock (as the common use for these species is fodder) . Similar species ,are found at the site margins which are somewhat less disturbed and where disking has not occurred. • Limited components of native plant communities occur at two locations on- site. Due to their small size and evident disruption of the area, as evidenced by the invasion of introduced species, neither represents a native plant com- munity as a distinct unit. Native riparian species were noted, including arroyo willow and Emory baccharis, which are found in the swale crossing the site, and remnant coastal sage scrub dominated by California sagebrush on the road bank along MacArthur Boulevard. Other vegetation was located on the extreme southern portion of the site, consisting of manicured turf grass and ornamental trees. The wildlife inventory is quite brief. Few avian and small terrestrial • mammals and a very limited number of reptiles and amphibia are expected to use the habitat to any significant degree. A special effort was made to locate Orange County Turkish rugging, a rare and endangered plant. None was observed nor expected onsite due to unsuitable soil conditions. • Impacts. The existing vegetation will be removed during grading for site improvements , which will, in turn force the dispersion of wildlife from the study area. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigations are included in the project or are otherwise required to offset potential adverse impacts. 9. Prior to approval of the subdivision, the appZicant wiZZ prepare comprehensive Zandscape guidelines. The Zand- scape paZZet wiZZ be subject to review by the Director of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation. • II • • • 22 LM • ARCHAEOLOGY Introduction. An archaeological survey was conducted on the project site in December 1978 by Archaeological Planning Collaborative (APC) . The APC study is summarized below and is included in Appendix D. • Setting. A records search was conducted at the District 14 Clearinghouse of the Society for California Archaeology, revealing that the site had been previously surveyed by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society. No sites were recorded within the site boundaries or within 1,000 feet of the study area. A complete reconnaissance survey was conducted onsite .to determine whether , • unrecorded sites exist, as the area lies within an extremely sensitive archaeo- logical region. No archaeological resources were located within the project area. Numerous shells were identified; however, no other midden indicators were present. The shells are--therefore part of_a natural paleontologic deposit. Impacts. No impacts.to known archaeological .resources are anticipated. Mitigation Measures. The following measures are included either as part of the proposed project or are required to offset potential adverse impacts. 10. in view of the archaeological sensitivity of the region, it • is possible that cultural resources could be unearthed during grading operations. If this occurs, grading activities will be hatted and a qualified archaeologist will be retained to assess the materials and make appropriate recommendations. 12. Because of the possibility of additional paleontologic re, ! sources being uncovered during site grading, a qualified paleontologic observor should be onszte during grading in the area of the sheZZ deposit in accordance with Council Policies K-6 and K-7. EXISTING LAND USE • Setting. The site is currently vacant, functioning primarily as a buffer between the existing Baywood Apartments and the two adjacent arterial roadways (MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road) . A drainage channel bisects the site in a north/south direction, extending from San Joaquin Hills Road diagonally across the site and eventually passing under MacArthur Boulevard. Additionally, the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) owns a 25-foot • easement which parallels the property line adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road, This easement encompasses utility poles and transmission lines. • • • 23 Up • Due to the project site's location adjacent to the existing Baywood Apart- ments, the landform surface is regularly disked to reduce the threat of grass and brush fires. Impacts. The existing open-space/buffer uses of the site will be com- pletely disrupted by the proposed development of 140 attached multi-family dwelling units. The existing open drainage system will be removed and re- aligned as an underground storm drain integrated with the drainage system for the proposed project. The development plan does not impact the SCE utility easement. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are proposed. SURROUNDING LAND USES Setting. Expansion of the Baywood Apartments may result in adverse impacts to some surrounding residential , commercial , and/or open space land uses. The following discussion provides an overview of the various land uses surrounding the study area. Baywood Apartments. The Baywood Apartments occupy 20.92 acres adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site. The apartment complex contains 320 attached multi-family units and is included as part of Parcel 1 , • a portion of Blocks 92 and 93 of Irvine's subdivision. Access to the Baywood Apartments is provided off of San Miguel Drive. Units abutting the project site are accessed via Baywood Drive, the Baywood Apartments' internal roadway. Roger's Gardens Nursery. Roger's Gardens occupies a 7.5-acre parcel at the southwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road (southwest of the project site) . Activities within the nursery are generally retail sales of nursery stock, including periodic landscape design and con- struction seminars. In the past, concern has been voiced regarding the park- ing arrangements provided tourist groups and their buses, the result being that neighboring residences are experiencing acoustical and air quality dis- turbances resulting from the frequent bus traffic to the nursery. • Current planning by Roger's Gardens includes proposed expansion of facilities and rearrangement of parking. Harbor View Nature Park. This nature park is located between San Miguel Drive and MacArthur Boulevard, directly east of the Baywood Apartments. This park provides 5 acres of natural open space designed for maximum reten- tion of the aesthetic appeal .of the area's undisturbed characteristics. The park provides recreation and natural areas which attract a diversity of wild- life and are available for nature study. • • 24 Up • Impacts. Development of 140 units as an expansion of the Baywood Apartments will result in numerous impacts to the existing Baywood Apartments and. its occupants. Specifically, the project will add more traffic to the internal road system, resulting in incrementally increased noise, air pollu- tion, and traffic. In providing parking for the new units, existing parking • areas will be redesigned or enlarged. Additionally, many of the existing units situated along the periphery of the development will be subject to short-term construction inconveniences and long-term impacts to the character of their housing environment. Harbor View Hills Nature Park may experience minor perceptual disturb- ances due to construction, particularly during site grading. Disturbances within this area may result in temporary wildlife dispersion; however, this condition is not expected to be long-term. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is provided as part of the project or is otherwise required to offset potential adverse im- pacts. 12. Grading and construction activities should be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the municipal code. RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS • Setting. The study area is located within the incorporated City of New- port Beach, and is thus subject to the land use policies and ordinances estab- lished by the City Council and Planning Commission. The following discussion Identifies those policies which influence or affect the land use proposal for the Harbor Point area. • Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This ordinance is a mechanism which enables the City of Newport Beach to recognize and deal with transportation and circulation problems resulting from residential and commercial/industrial growth within the City's sphere of influence. Guidelines set forth in the ordinance establish criteria from which incremental traffic impacts are • evaluated for each development proposal which comes before the Planning Commission. Specific elements of the required evaluation assess specified critical intersections which may be impacted by development, their respective capacity, and the percentage of capacity utilized before and after project implementation. Each project is considered relative to its contribution to peak a.m. and p.m. traffic volumes. Zoning Ordinance. The project site is presently zoned PC and is included within the boundaries of the Harbor View Hills Planned Com- munity, Planning Area 8. The site was previously being reserved for the Corona del Mar Freeway, hence its unusual shape. • • 25 LEM General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) . The LUE designates this site for multi-family residential uses. Uses within this designated area are regu- lated by provisions in the LUE. It should be noted, however, that the Land Use Element is only an expression of public policy, and does not signify ac- tual usage of the land. Rather, the LUE is a statement of long-range interest • implementable via the City Zoning Ordinance. The California Administrative Code, Section 65480, requires that adopted zoning be consistent with General Plan land uses. General Plan Circulation Element. The Circulation Element forms the foundation for local circulation and transportation planning. Together with the Land Use Element, it establishes the framework for implementing a comprehensive land use plan. The circulation plan shows MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road as six-lane highways adjacent to the site. The plan also indicates proposals which are subject to further review. One of these is connection of the Corona del Mar Freeway to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. In addition, the plan indicates the need to study • a one-way couplet system which would include MacArthur Boulevard and Avodado Road between San Joaquin Hills Road and Pacific Coast Highway. Current studies indicate that the one-way couplet will be needed and will probably extend north of San Joaquin Hills Road. General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element is a policy • statement intended to establish criteria and lend guidance to public and private sector interests to achieve a residential land use configuration which encourages the development of new housing opportunities for all present and future residents of the City, regardless of their respective income levels, thus accommodating a diversity of housing types. The element also establishes the preliminary guidelines for community amenities such as adequate landscap- ing, open space, parks, and recreation areas within all new residential areas. General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element. This element pro- vides policy guidelines for the preservation of and provisions for open space, parks, and recreation areas within the City of Newport Beach. No park sites are indicated within the project. The project will , however, include private recreation facilities. I • Impacts. The project proposes an amendment to the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. The amendment includes a revision to the PC land use map as shown in Figure 4 in the project description, plus an adjustment of the acreage distribution shown in the statistical analysis of the Harbor View Hills PC District Regulations (Page 2 of Appendix B) . A comparison of exist-ing statistics to proposed statistics is provided in Table A. • • • 26 LEM The map revisions include the deletion of the Corona del Mar Freeway right-of-way south of Ford Road, resulting in an increase in the usable area of Planning Areas 1 and 8. Additionally, the proposal amends the number of allowable dwelling units within Area 8 from 320 du to 460 du. This increase in permitted units is consistent with the allowable development intensity pre- scribed in the existing General Plan Land Use Element. Relative to the Circulation Element, the proposed PC Amendment is not inconsistent. The existing Master Plan shows MacArthur Boulevard as a major arterial rather than a freeway as it passes by the project study area. Mitigation Measures. None are proposed. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Introduction. A traffic analysis was prepared for this project by Mohle, Perry and Associates (MPA) in May, 1979. The scope of the study was consis- tent with the guidelines specified in the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance as amended (S-1 ) . The City Traffic Engineering Department provided the trip generation data plus the existing and future ADT data utilized in the MPA analysis. The findings of the traffic study are summarized in •the following discussion, while the complete text is provided in Appendix E. • Setting. The study area is located northeasterly of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. MacArthur Boulevard is designated as State Highway 73 and. San Joaquin Hills 'Road fri designated as a major arterial roadway. Average daily traffic volume for MacArthur Boulevard north of San Joaquin Hills Road is 22,745 VPD,_while San Joaquin Hills Road has an • �xistjng volume of 21,646 VPD. The other major streets in the vicinity include San Miguel Drive, Jamboree Road, Pacific Coast Highway, Marguerite Avenue, and Ford Road. For the purposes of this traffic analysis, the City Traffic Engineer • has identified six critical intersections which must be evaluated via the "lq" and "ICU" analyses as established by the City Council in 1978. These intersections are as follows: MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road San Joaquin Hills .Road and' San( Miguel Drive • Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road Pacific Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue • • • 27 Lsa • The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road is controlled by a multi-phase traffic signal with all left-turn movements protected by left-turn phasing. The existing intersection ICU is .7664 in the evening peak-hour period. The predominant traffic movements at this intersection in the evening peak hour are southbound left turn and straight • through, eastbound left turn and straight through. The intersection of San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive has an ICU of .4078 during the evening peak hour. The predominant traffic movements at this intersection are eastbound left turn and through during the evening peak hour. • The intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard has an_ICU of .77 during the evening peak hour. The predominant traffic movements _ at this intersection are eastbound straight through and westbound straight through, as well as southbound left turn to go east on Pacific Coast Highway. • The intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road has an existing ICU of 1.01. The predominant traffic movements at this intersection are southbound straight and left turn and northbound through traffic. On MacArthur Boulevard, the southbound approach to the intersection is striped for two lanes through, one lane left turn, and one lane right turn. • The intersection of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road has an existing evening peak-hour ICU of .64. The predominant traffic movements at this intersection during the evening peak-hour period are the north and southbound through movements, the southbound left turn, southbound right- turn movement, and the westbound right-turn movement. The intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and' Marguerite Avenue has an • existing ICU of .6798 in the evening peak hour. The predominant traffic movements at this intersection are eastbound through and westbound through, Impacts. The effects of the proposed change and reparcelization permit- ting an additional maximum of 140 multi-family dwelling units were analyzed according to City policy as stated in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as • amended to reflect City Council Policy S-1 . The following discussion identi- fies the impacts as discussed in the Mohle, Perry and Associates report. Table C provides trip generation data computed for the Baywood expansion project. As shown, the proposed development would generate 910 VPD and 168 vehicle trips during the evening peak 22-hour period. Figure 1.0 shows the projected trip distribution. These estimates show that 40 percent of the project traffic would be distributed northerly • • TABLE C • 28 ESTIMATION OF VEHICLE TRIPS GENERATED Lsa No. of Trip Generation Rate In Trips Generated Dwelling Trips Per Dwelling Unit P.M. Peak Units 24-Hour P.M. Peak Hour 24-Hour P.M. Peak Hour (22 Hours) • 140 6.5 0.6 910 84 168 (0.4 fn, 0.2 out) (56 in, 28 out) (112 in, 56 Out) Source: Mohle, Perry and Associates. • • • • • • • FIGURE 10 29 ESTIMATION OF PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Lsa Q NpRT►� row �3y • 30 • �PF'0 s ti6 �'�r • i . i ISO w�T� rs5y, 5Y. scs RtouRc 4 Fait rA#P ASS/6NMtur •bV c 09 toy • Ne so�lt Source: Mohle, Perry and Associates. • • • 30 LCO on MacArthur Boulevard, 25 percent southerly on MacArthur Boulevard, 26 per- cent westerly on San Joaquin Hills Road, 6 percent easterly on San Joaquin Hills Road, and 3 .percent on San Miguel Drive. Based on the estimation of future traffic volumes and capacities, it was • found that none of the critical intersections adjacent to the project study area would be adversely impacted by the proposed zoning amendments and parcel map. Specifically, the project would generate traffic volumes during the even- ing 22-hour period which exceed 1 percent of the forecast 1982 volumes at three intersections (see Table D) : • San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard Pacific Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses conducted for these three locations found that ICU's would not exceed .90 (Table E) . • The ICU analysis indicates that the highest ICU of 0.8698 is at the MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road intersection. Using the criteria established by the City of Newport Beach for analysis per the "S-1" procedures, the traffic generated by the Baywood Apartment expansion will not adversely affect the operating characteristics of the six study intersections. • Relative to the intersection of Baywood Drive, San Miguel Drive, and Pacific View (all the way into Baywood Apartments) , it is. estimated that traffic volumes in the evening peak hour would increase-by approximately 56 vehicles per hour. This incremental change is not sufficient to cause significant safety or congestion impact on the internal circulation • of the apartment complex. The internal circulation of the entire Baywood development will not be significantly altered or impacted. Peak-hour traffic flows will not create internal circulation problems. The new development area will contain suffic- ient additional parking. • No pedestrian circulation plan has been prepared. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is provided as part of the project or is otherwise required to offset potential adverse im- pacts. • 13. A complete pedestrian circulation system should be desiened to integrate the new development with the old. 0 • TABLE D 31 1% ANALYSIS Lsa • it During P.M. 22-Hour Peak Period, Does Project-Generated Traffic Intersection Exceed 1% Existing Volume? • 1 . MacArthur Boulevard & Yes San Joaquin Hills Road 2. San Joaquin Hills Road Yes & San Miguel Drive • 3. Pacific Coast Highway No & MacArthur Boulevard 4. MacArthur Boulevard No & Ford Road • 5. San Joaquin Hills Road No & Jamboree Road 6. Pacific Coast Highway Yes & Marguerite Avenue • i • • • • • TABLE E •32 BAYWOOD ICU ANALYSIS Lsa 1982 Intersection 1978 1979 1982 w/project • San Joaquin Hills Road &San Miguel Drive 0.4078 -- 0.4149 0.4317 MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road -- 0.7664 0.8660 0.8698 • Pacific Coast Highway & Marguerite Avenue 0.6798 -- 0.7357 0.7357 • • • • • 33 Lsa AIR QUALITY The following discussion provides a summary of an air quality assessment prepared for the Baywood project by Mr. Hans Giroux, a consulting associate of LSA, Inc. , specializing in meteorology and air quality. The text of the • technical analysis is contained in Appendix F. Setting. The climate of Southern California in general and Newport Beach in particular is controlled by a subtropical high-pressure system over the Pacific Ocean. It is responsible for the position of the mid-latitude storm track, the predominant land/sea breeze circulation, and the temperature • inversions which play a major role in determining regional air quality. The proximity of the ocean provides a moderating effect on local climatic con- ditions by heating and cooling more slowly the surrounding land masses. The Pacific Ocean is also responsible for the small fluctuation in the average annual temperature, and the comfortable relative humidity which prevents the coastal basin from becoming like the desert found 100 miles inland. • Typical winds around Newport Beach are usually favorable in maintaining excellent air quality. The average windspeed and direction of surface flow prevent stagnation of pollutants, while early morning onshore breezes carry accumulated pollutants inland. • Newport Beach air quality can be degraded by the effects of two types of temperature inversions which play a major role in coastal basin air pollution. The first type occurs when the sinking subtropical high pressure system warms the lower air by compression. This sinking air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air forming what is called a marine/sub- sidence inversion. This type of inversion is strongest in summer, causing • basinwide ozone problems. A second inversion forms when air near the cold ground is cooled on clear, calm nights, creating a radiation inversion. This inversion holds pollutants near low-level sources, creating "hot.-spots" (i .e. , near freeways or parking facilities) . The net result for Newport Beach is that pollutants are carried toward the ocean without any appreciable dispersion. • Analysis of air quality impact to a proposed development must be related to the applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). These standards were established by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 to protect public health and welfare from any known or potential adverse effects of air pollutants. The Env-ironmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set • standards for six pollutant species while allowing individual states the latitude for setting their own standards, with certain restrictions. Some diversity exists between California standards and those of the Federal Government due to California's unique climatological conditions and the fact that California's standards predate Federal ones. • 34 L Orange County emissions are almost completely dominated by vehicular or mobile sources. With the exception of sulfur dioxide, automobile sources comprise over half of the Countywide pollutant load, with over 99 percent of the CO, 83 percent of the NOx, 67 percent of the reactive hydrocarbons , and 52 percent of the particulates related to vehicular operation (Table p) . Improving vehicular exhaust emissions will then improve downwind air quality. This will bring a reduction in CO levels, but unfortunately NO and reactive hydrocarbon (RHC) levels will remain relatively constant as a result of con- tinued County growth. Improvement of Orange County air quality, as discussed in the recently released draft Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) , relies heavily on stationary source control in upwind areas (i ,e. , Los Angeles) for pollution reduction. This is a result of the lack of control over automobile emissions on the part of the local agencies. However, since Orange County emissions are almost completely controlled by mobile sources, the attain- ment of all AAQS by the mandated 1987 deadline may require additional measures specifically addressing control or reduction of mobile source emissions. The AQMD monitoring stations nearest the site are located at Costa Mesa and Laguna Beach. Both represent the general regional conditions found near Newport Beach. Available data indicate that AAQS for all pollutant species except sulfur dioxide may sometimes be exceeded in the area. The project site location exhibits the expected intermediate air quality levels extrapolated from the two monitoring stations. The study area may experience a range of pollution levels from well below to almost double the standard (Table G) . If the AQMP tactics are adopted and, in turn, adverse impacts result, oxidant levels will be reduced while particulate concentrations will continue at their present level . ` Impacts. The Baywood Apartment expansion, as with most residential and other vehicle-intensive projects, generally does not itself threaten ambient air quality standards. Rather, it acts in concert with innumerable similar developments throughout the basin to create the characteristic regional air quality degradation. Of greater concern than project impact is that the emissions along MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road may expose project residents to unhealthy pollutant levels. With traffic volumes pro- jected to reach 50,000 VPD on MacArthur Boulevard and 30,000 VPD on San Joaquin Hills Road, the proximity of the additional apartment units to the roadway intersection may be a valid concern. Air quality impacts from the proposed project will result from temporary emissions generated during construction and from project-related traffic and r minor additional stationary source emissions. Compared to present regional emission levels, the project-related totals are minimal and any project- related air quality impact will be indistinguishable from background pollutant levels beyond the immediate project boundaries. I � S' TABLE F 35- AIR QUALITY SUMMARY — NEWPORT BEACH AREA TARRY SEEMAN ASSOCUYES • Costa Mesa Laguna Beach 1975 1976 1977 1975 1975 1977 Oxidant 19 days 17 days 38 days - - - .08 ppm - i hr. 0.18 ppm 0.16 ppm 0.18 ppm - - - Oxidant 11 days 10 days 31 days - - - 0 ppm - 1 hr. 0.18 ppm 0.15 ppm 0.18 ppm - - Nitrogen Dioxide 3 days 8 days 0 days 2 days - - .25 ppm - 1 hr. 0.35 ppm 0.34 ppm 0.23 ppm 0.35 ppm - - " Carbon, Monoxide 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 35 ppm - 1 hr. 31 ppm 27 ppm 1S ppm 16 ppm 20 ppm 13 ppm Carbon Monoxide 40 days 57 days 20 days, 4 days 4 days 0 days 9 ppn - 8•hrs. 23 ppm - - 10 ppm - - Carbon Monoxide 31 days 24 days 5 days 2 days 0 days 0 days 10 ppm - 12 hrs. 20 ppm - - 10 PPm - Sulfur Dioxide - not - - - - 1, 3, 24, annual - exceed - - - - Total Suspended Part. 37-� 28% �10 150. 27% 70 ug/m3-24 hm 177 Pg/m3 - 202 ug/m3 164 ug/m3 - 159 pg/m3 Total Suspended Part. 60 pg/m3-AGM 74 pg/n3 73 Ng/m3 - 73 pg/m3 74 ,ug/m3 - — Data not observed or reported in•relevant summaries t' it TABLE G S 1976-77 ORANGE COUNTY 36 EMISSIONS INVENTORY AVERAGE SUMMER WEEKDAY) Lsa Emissions Source (Tons/Day) Stationary On-Road Off-Road Pollutant Species Man-Made Natural Mobile Vehicles Total fa Total hydrocarbons (THC) 91.7 250.2 187.1 17.7 546.7 Reactive hydrocarbons (RHC) 69.3 24.6 170.8 16.2 280.9 Carbon monoxide (CO) 9.1 -- 1451.5 99.5 1560.1 Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 32,7 135.5 24.3 192.5 Sulfur dioxide (S02) 22.8 7.1 6.2 36.1 Total particulates 20.7 18.3 415 43,5 41% s TABLE H 38 BAYWOOD APARTMENT-RELATED REGIONAL VEHICULAR EMISSIONS UZ • Emission Factor Emissions Emissions Pollutant (gm/mi ) (lbs/day) (tons/year) 1980 PROJECT COMPLETION Carbon monoxide 27.56 552.90 100.97 Hydrocarbons 2.34 46.94 8.57 i Oxides of nitrogen 3.10 62.19 11.36 Sulfur dioxide 0.15 3.01 0.55 Particulates 0.34 6.82 1.25 1985 PROJECT COMPLETION Carbon monoxide 18.24 365.93 66.83 Hydrocarbons 1.45 29.09 5.31 Oxides of nitrogen 2.18 43.73 7,99 Sulfur dioxide 0.15 3,01 0.55 Particulates 0.28 5,62 1.03 i. s • FIGURE 11 WORST-CASE HOURLY CO LEVELS PPM ADJACENT TO THE 39 MACARTHUR-SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD INTERSECTION - 1978 LEVELS Lsa Existing Baywood 20. Apartments v25. .. .. m 30. Q o' 35. 5. 4 0. 45. 10. ph• Ix hh, hp. qh, ry0. 1h. San Joaquin Hills Rd : • • FIGURE 12 WORST-CASE HOURLY CO LEVELS PPM ADJACENT TO THE 40 MACARTHUR-SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD INTERSECTION - 1990 LEVELS Lsa ry0• ,y. �O' y• Existing Baywood Apartments 25• L . Q 30. u a 35. San Joaquin Hills Rd. r f • 41 W3 f 2) excellent ventilation from strong, fresh sea breezes. Compared to other locations, Baywood has excellent ambient air quality and is a highly desirable location in terms of clean air. In light of these consid- erations, no mitigation measures are required. r NOISE ANALYSIS Setting. The following discussion is summarized from technical studies conducted by Mr. John Parnell for the Baywood Apartment expansion. Mr. Parnell 's analysis is contained in full in Appendix G. _. The existing acoustical environment within the study area is exclusively the product of the adjacent arterial roadways., The principal noise sources are from vehicle operation on MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The high traffic volumes and the 3.5 percent grade on MacArthur Boulevard con- tribute to the high noise levels currently experienced onsite. Aircraft noise • onsite is not a significant consideration. The noise from motor vehicle traffic may be described either in terms of maximum or peak sound levels for individual vehicles or as a longterm cumula- tive energy average. This latter descriptor is widely used for raodway noise in the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange, and is expressed as a f Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) value. This CNEL descriptor is also used in applicable State laws. The data used to compute the relevant CNEL contours for this area utilized data provided by the City traffic engineer and were supplImented through direct observations of traffic flow during the peak hours. The assumptions used for this noise discussion are shown in Table I . Utilizing the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) model for noise prediction, CNEL values were computed for each of the two adjoining arterial roadways. These are shown graphically in Figures 13 and 14. Inspection of these figures show that portions of the project study f area adjacent to MacArthur Boulevard, and to a -lesser degree along San Joaquin Hills Road, may be subject to noise levels of 62-70 CNEL. f Thesei observations involved the manual counting of truck traffic conducted by Mohle, Perry and Associates. Their calculations are contained in Appendix E, r • • TABLE I 42 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS FOR TRAFr FIC ON MAGARTHUR BOULEVARD, SAN JOAQUIN ROAD AND SAN TUQUE - DR&VE MacArthur San Joaquin Hills San_Mi %eel Current Future Current Future Current Future • Average daily traffic volume 22745 45000 21645 25000 4020 20000 Peak-hour traffic volume 2274 4455 2164 2500 402 2000 Vehicle speed (mph) 451 45 35 35 35 35 Number of traffic lanes 4 6 4 6 4 4 • Percentage trucks in ADT, 1% 1% 1.1% 1.1% - -- Roadway grade by property 2.5% 2.5% 0 0 0 0 1Radar measurements of speed on MacArthur were higher (57 moh) but were ob- tained from a high-speed segment of the roadway. The figure cited (45 mph) is judged to be a conservative estimate of the true speed by the property. • • • • FIGURE 13 4.3 CNEL LEVELS FOR TRAFFIC ON MACARTNUR BOULEVARD Lsa • LU W 80 U J W Or • W J T W W J J C w �•W MF oczr. PurURF . W H W W �^. rr W 6 _of f- `o U 20 40 60 . 100 200 Distance From Centerline of ?tear Traffic Lane (Feet) • • • • • FIGURE 14 44 CNEL LEVELS FOR TRAFFIC ON SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD L J W 80 Wuj • y W J d W J 70 Q C y w C Cru URRFNl • �� w F H :2; UrURF .l w of b >- t- z • f `o U 20 40 60 160 260 • Distance From Centerline of Near Traffic Lane (Feet) • • 45 Lsa Impacts . Because existing noise levels onsite have been found (in some cases to-exceed the allowable parameters established by the State of California for multi-family residences, acoustical considerations must be evaluated during the preliminary site planning stages of project development. Using the site plan as depicted in Figure 5 of the Project Description, the project was as- sessed for its compatibility with existing and future onsite noise exposures. Figure 15 shows the location of the various orientation points which were in- cluded in this evaluation. As indicated, each of the main building pads ad- jacent to MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road was analyzed. The individual oblique sections are shown in Figures 16 through 21 , Each of the elevation plots is referenced to the roadway grade elevation with the noise • point source located two feet above grade. The proposed berm heights are also shown along with the pad elevations. The effective barrier heights were com- puted to ascertain the attenuation properties of the proposed berm configuration. The noise reduction, assuming no modification of the grading plan or berm height, ranged from 0 at Section A-A' to 6 at C-C' , with the average section • providing 1-2 db (CNEL) of noise reduction. Given the existing exposure of 62-70 db (CNEL), 'depending on the exact location above the site, it is evident that additional attenuation will be required to achieve acceptable noise levels. An additional consideration for the Baywood units is the exposure of the second-floor levels for those structures closest to and facing MacArthur Boulevard • and San Joaquni Hills Road. The proposed berming is not adequate to attenuate noise levels at the second-floor receptor elevation. Consequently, additional architectural consideration will be required. Mitigation Pleasures. The following measures are provided as part of the ultimate project or are otherwise required to offset potential adverse impacts. 14. In accordance with the recommendations of the noise consultant, a two-foot wall will be constructed on top of the proposed berm acUacent to MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. With the addition of this masonry wall, an acceptable level of noise exposure can be achieved for the ground-floor units. 15. Where second-floor units propose inclusion of balconies or other exterior living areas, the building envelope will be modified or revised architectural designs will be provided which will accommodate the-requisite interior • noise level of 45 db (CNEL). Noise reduction of 15-20 db (CNEL) may be achieved through nomaZ construction procedure, Where the exposure is greater than 65 CNEL, additional attenuation will be required, utilizing special construction procedures on window and door openings, • • FIGURE 15 46 ACOUSTICAL CROSS-SECTION ORIENTATION MAP Lsa i �JJ�ip I a 111 c so 16 • �� ���i .���— ` ' =may • ` J ]]-r--YELL •; `. � 1 ^�' r-�i-t�Ltt � � L • w " � j it i 1-_ • • FIGURE 16 47 ACOUSTICAL CROSS-SECTIONS A AND B Lsa • S.eood 15' flppr Fl a t No;, SouAf n A floor 6 23a s0 70 60 60 40 00 20 10 Mac Arfhor • os' Slyd. PAD — 16 Elf�clfr• c6 I. Berri•r Dr � Nip hl Ruid.nc• S.cond • floor 15' f i r 11 Noin 5oarce B Flo 6 2998� Mac Arlhor 60 Blyd. . • PAD 00 Eflccllr• If Earrt.r Rauid.nc• Hciphl • III . • • • FIGURE 17 4$ ACOUSTICAL CROSS-SECTIONS C AND D Lsa Second • Floor First ise_� `-. Floor i,oSource 24 I —_ C 80 70 Pad 60 BO 40 2'0 MacArthur 30 20 10 Boulevard • Effective DB=35 Barrier OR%as Height Residence • Second Floor Noise Source D n z44 D' First ad MacArthur Floor Boulevard Effective • Pad 25 Barrier It Height as Residence • • • • • • FIGURE 18 49 ACOUSTICAL CROSS-SECTIONS E AND F L • Second Floor First n�sse Source E Floor 246 E- • RacArthur 80 10 Pad 60 so 40 30.r 20 10 10 Boulevard a¢ Effective Barrier Height • Second Floor Residence First Noise Source Floor 248 F' F ' • o MacArthur Pad Boulevard Effective +s Carrier Height 45 Residence • • • • FIGURE 19 59 ACOUSTICAL CROSS-SECTIONS G AND H Lsa Second • Floor First Noise Source Floor 253 G' 3.8 San Joaquin • Pad 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Hills Road 40 Effective Barrier so Height Residence • Second Floor First n Moise Source H Floor 254 W San Joaquin • a.a Hills Road Pad as Effective so Barrier Height Residence • • II • • • FIGURE 20 51 ACOUSTICAL CROSS-SECTIONS I AND J Lsa • Second Floor First Floor ioise Sourcc 254 I' 14 San Joaquin • 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Hills Road so Effective so Barrier Height Second • Floor First Floor Noise Source • Pad _ zo San Joaquin Hills Road t io Effective as Barrier Residence Height • • • • • FIGURE 21 52 ACOUSTICAL CROSS—SECTIONS K AND L Lsa Second • Floor First Floor A to ise Source K / 1 256 g' • mad San Joaquin 80 ` 70 60 Be 40 1•1 30 20 10 Hills Road -1- 40 Effective sa Residence Carrier Height • Second Floor First Noise Source L Floor 2 5 8 L� • Pad San Joaquin •0 Hills Road It 10 Effective o0 Barrier Residence Height • • • • • 53 Lsa 16. if it is determined by the appZicant that second-story baZconies or patios are a desirable amenity, it is recommended that individual baZconies be enveZoped with a gZass encZosure to create an atrium or greenhouse ef- fect. This procedure has been empZoyed previousZy in similar deveZopments within southern orange County. 17. At the buiZding plan review stage of project deveZopment, additional noise exposure anaZysis may be required to as- certain the exact exposure at individuaZ unit locations, and to ensure compliance with City and State requirements. • PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Setting. Public services and utilities are provided to the existing Baywood Apartment complex by the following agencies and/or quasi,-public service companies. • Service Purveyor/Agency Electricity Southern California Edison Company (Huntington Beach, CA) Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company • (Anaheim, CA) Telephone Pacific Telephone Company (Newport Beach, CA) Water City of Newport Beach Water Department • Wastewater service Orange County Sanitation District n5 (Fountain Valley, CA) Public education Newport-Mesa Unified School District • (Costa Mesa, CA) Fire protection Newport Beach Fire Department Police protection Newport Beach Police Department As noted above, public educational instruction is provided by the • Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Schools serving the project area are as follows: Elementary School : Harbor View Elementary 900 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar, CA • i ! 54 LCM Secondary School : Lincoln Middle School 3101 Pacific View Drive Corona del Mar, CA High School : Corona del Mar High School f 2101 Eastbluff Drive Newport Beach, CA Fire protection to the Baywood Apartments is provided by stations located in Corona del Mar at 410 Marigold, and at 868 Santa Barbara Drive • in Newport Center. The two stations have the following equipment and personnel to serve the site: 2 engines 1 ladder truck 1 paramedic unit 1 battalion chief ! The response times to the Baywood Apartments is estimated to be two to three minutes. Police services are provided from the department headquarters Santa Barbara Drive in Newport Center. Response to the Baywood area is • expected to be less than five minutes. Impacts. All services are available to the Baywood area. Utility connections are available from existing facilities within 100 feet of the study area boundaries. Additionally, the increased demand for services is well within the capacity or capability of the local community-based agencies. ! As a result, the proposed zone change will not result in any adverse impacts. Mitigation Measures, None are required. OPEN SPACE AND AESTHETICS �i Setting. At present the project site is vacant and undeveloped, Because of the juxtaposition of the study area with the surrounding roadway, the site provides a buffering effect to the adjoining Baywood Apartments. This relationship is effectively illustrated in the aerial photograph provided in Figure 3. • As an open-space resource, this parcel has only limited value, As noted in the biotic resource analysis, the site is not a highly pro- ductive wildlife environment and does not exhibit any highly developed vegetative communities. • i • 55 Up Impacts. The proposed project will contribute to redesign of the site's natural topographic character, resulting ultimately in the construction of a high-density residential community. If this should occur, the open-space/ buffering effect will be lost and the existing apartment units, which present- ly benefit from adjoining open space, will be subjected to the intrusion of ! the higher-intensity urban uses proposed. The perimeter berms will provide a visual as well as an acoustical bar- rier adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Figures 22 and 23 show typical sections. M Mitigation Measures. The following measure is provided as part of the project or is otherwise required to offset potential adverse impacts. 18. The architectural character and landscape design as estab- Zished in the existing Baywood complex will be carried over into the proposed expansion area. • b 1 • • • 1 • FIGURE 22 56 TYPICAL BERM SECTION Lsa r { r • R 5v D S�LTION E� ItOKN APP WALL WILL VARY IN�VCAWT FIGURE 23 57 TYPICAL BERM SECTION Lsa � r JY •�� r '✓ � Sou W Wt PhQWVL' hp�C.rIOU L Ko+C qt 4ERM AIJD tVAIJ-1ylU.YMY1N 11E1GN7 t • ! 58 L • ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Larry Seeman Associates , Inc. William Foley, AICP Principal,in-charge Bert Ashland Project director Hans Giroux Air quality analysis John Parnell Noise analysis Pat Hotra Environmental analysis Kristi Bressert Graphics Angela Flanagan Word processing Archaeological Planning Collaborative •- Theo Mabry Archaeology Mohle, Perry and Associates Hank Mohle, P.E. Traffic Steve Lau, P.E. Traffic r Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates -Robert- Carley Hydrology Doug Wood Hydrology . Phillips Brandt Reddick Steven G. Nelson Biology SWA Group Don Tompkins Planning • PERSONS CONSULTED City of Newport Beach Rich Edmundsen ! Jim Evans Jim Hewicker Dick Hogan • • • 59 Lsa City of Newport (Cont'd) Bob Lenard Fred Talarico Don Webb • Glen Welden Newport Beach Police Department Wayne Connolly • The Irvine Company Dave Dmohowski Keith Greer Dean Howell James Montgomery Joe Sarnecky Mike Somogyi State of California Jack Swing Department of Health Services Office of Noise Control Bruce Eliason Department of Fish and Game Marty Mercado Department of Boating and Waterways Southern California Association of Governments Mary Louie Southern California Gas Company D. C. Richardson • • • Lsa ! APPENDIX A SCOPE OF SERVICES ♦ • • • L ♦ O 50o newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, caiifornia 92660 phone (714) 640-6363 ❑ 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 san rafael, caiifornia 94903 LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES phone (415) 479-3370 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS October 24, 1978 Revised October 31 , 1978 Mr. Fred Talarico > Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: BAYWOOD APARTMENTS EXPANSION INITIAL STUDY Dear Fred: We are pleased to submit this, proposal for professional services in conjunction with the preparation of an Initial Study for the planned expansion of the Baywood apartment complex. We understand the elements of the project to be as follows: - construction of 140 rental apartments as an expansion of existing rental facilities, - primary access to be provided via the existing internal circulation system, - secondary access to be considered off of San Joaquin Hills Road, and - possible fire access from MacArthur Boulevard. Additionally, we understand the physical design of the 140 units to be identical to the original facilities in both exterior and interior con- figuration and appearance. 4 SCOPE OF SERVICES The following discussion provides an outline of the approach we feel is most appropriate in view of our understanding of the project components and discussions we have had with various project participants. General . We propose to prepare an Initial Study which focuses on the issues salient to the project's character and location. Those issues include: 1) hydrology and water quality, 2) circulation and • Mr. Fred Talarico October 31 , 1978 Page 2 LA}4y SEEMAN ASSOQATeS traffic, 3) acoustic environment, 4) biotic resources, and 5) cultural/ scientific resources. The study will focus on these issues, but will also address other topics normally considered in similar environmental documents. These other issues will be evaluated based upon existing published informa- tion available for the site and its surrounding vicinity. Key documents needed for this type of assessment are available in the reference library of Larry Seeman Associates (LSA) and/or are readily available from local sources. Organization of the report will be such that, if required, it will be easily expandable into an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should such a document be required at a later date. Geology/Soils/Seismicity. Utilizing data generated for surrounding developments, generic assumptions will be made as to the geologic struc- ' ture and composition of the project site area. Due to the preliminary nature of this analysis, geotechnical studies are not proposed. Should subsequent environmental, analysis be required, it is recommended that a professional geosoils engineer be commissioned to adequately evaluate the geologic engineering characteristics of the project site. Water Resources. Due to the study area's location within the drainage area of the Big Canyon siltation basin, hydrology and water quality implications may be a significant concern. Realizing this, drainage effects, especially the potentially deleterious implications of non-point pollutant sources as urban runoff and sedimentation, will be assessed. The long-term, cumulative effects of pollutant runoff are the focus of area-wide concerns in the 208 water quality programs. We will focus on identifying problems associated with this site and the development plan proposed. Mitigation measures will be proposed which are designed to offset or lessen impacts, should any be identified. In performing this task, we will draw upon our firm's research work in the field as well as the recent studies of NIWA performed in conjunction with the 208 planning studies. Biotic Resources. A biological survey of the study area will be conducted by Mr. Steven G. Nelson, a consulting terrestrial ecologist. Issues relevant to the study area include (among others) possible evi- 1, + dence of Orange County Turkish Rugging (Chorizanthae staticoides, chr - canthae) , a small annual floral species which is iste on the unofficial rare and endangered species list of the California Native Plant Society, and the close physical proximity of the site to a, local nature park which occupies the swale of a large riparian area north of the study area. Mr. Fred Talarico October 31, 1978 Page 3 1 TARRY see"N ASSOCIATES Archaeological Resources. An archaeological reconnaissance and • records survey wi 1 be conducted by Archaeological Planning Collabora- tive to determine if cultural resources are evident onsite. If resources ' -are discovered, mitigation measures will be proposed which are consistent with accepted Newport Beach policies. Land Use. To be addressed by providing a comprehensive analysis which summarizes the compatibility of the project proposal to the New- port Beach General Plan and zoning code. The analysis will incorporate both narrative and tabular format. Traffic Analysis. To be addressed by summarizing a traffic analysis to be prepare y o e, Perry and Associates, consulting traffic engi- • neers. Their scope of work will include an analysis of the existing con- ditions, impacts and recommended mitigation measures. Additionally, consistent with policies established in the City of Newport Beach traffic ordinance, the traffic study will quantify the overall traffic generation resulting from project implementation via a 1% analysis. Further, in- depth evaluation of the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) will be "i employed to determine the implications of the project upon local traffic congestion at specified critical intersections (identified by the City traffic engineerl). Air Quality. Air pollutant effects of traffic generated within the development as well as on the surrounding arterial roadways, and its • effect on surrounding residential uses, will be compiled and assessed utilizing a graphic solution to the CALINE-2 CO diffusion model . Pollut- ant centers calculated for the project will be compared with State and Federal criteria. Noise. Noise produced by traffic resulting from the apartment com- plex expansion will be analyzed through use of the National Highway Re- search Board Noise Model. Issues to be considered include (but are not limited to) noise produced by the project, impacts to existing apartments' ambient noise levels, local impacts to adjacent residential land uses, and implications to the new apartments resulting from periodic overflights by commercial and military helicopters. The results of this analysis will be compared to applicable noise criteria established by the City of Newport Beach. H at Marguerite, MacArthur at PCH, MacArthur at San Joaquin Hills, Mac- Arthur at Ford Road, MacArthur at Jamboree, Jamboree at San Joaquin Hills, and San Miguel at San Joaquin Hills. • Mr. Fred Talar7c October 31 , 9 • Page 4 La.MV SeWAN ASS00AXES ' verbal dis- • Services and Utilities. To be addressed nbyvd rg but Communit ertinent service agenciesfire, police, refuse cussions wit the varioastewater, gas, electricity,. not limited to water, .collection, and educational facilities. lications of the proposed views of the nearby residences, including • Aesthetics and Visual Anal sis. The llpex, V+ill be an important residentialarents withinnthe Baywood comp existing P proposed plan. issue. The potential for impacts tialbconflictsewith the by np 0p a sight- existing analysis which indicates p • PERSONNEL The Initial Study will be prepared under the direction of the Mr. Larry Seeman as Principal-in-Charge. Mr• Bells ACarollyn�Lobellll vanddMessrsro�� Resumes of all these personnel are on John Director and will be assisted by Department or are available John Parnell and Hans Giroux. ! file with the City °f SeemantAssochates�,nlnc- on request from Larry SCH�E project upon your author- We are prepared to initiate work on'this • ization. Completion of a screen-check draft of the Initial Study will take approximately plans to distribute a We understand that the City of Newport. Beach Notice of Preparation for this report. if upon receipt of writtenbe coin- , wishes to expand the scope 0f our report, it will a ments the City rate (consistent with the attached • pleased to do so at our normal billing schedule) . ' If a shorter time frame is required due no processing restrictions, LSA will make every effort a expedite project completion to meet any reasonable scheduling-demands. • 1 • Ua ! APPENDIX B HARBOR VIEW HILLS P.C. DISTRICT REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT 11 , PROPOSED) • • ! • 1 11 ri,•. •t: iJ '4' '' •_ .. �)':KR+�� ,r,i":1�,' � i.�. 'S'n�i' Irf it r,i,' Yr et-� •�•+1 �y }�' �;t„'. , ,'� Z ;ln •. ,} ' `„ ir ^ Ji:.l rb :.•'K + 1 ., ��'r 'V7 y`4 ;tt «.,ln�{i�� d•y•,1 r 't.':i-s ',�y. •rj'+•..;1ef, + r,` d �et1 "r" i.,'� Y ar t�' i. ..Sri rn - :,' �`�' � `¢r •,� C �� ;•I ',: j 4!:,i,Jiyr + i," V - ,Y .,r ,,'^ '.+ . " P.. .R. 'S, lyt' , t !:" �\i• 5 , � �i i ! • ,f>.1.,. a Y n .Ys• .l,` '.), ' H pr fl. ,� rA. .! ^)e I a'+ �� r• - -,r '. A i �'j,, - 'i - i' !y'' le _ .M , I,; .t7 -.. �f•r .." ^f , � ° J �c r;� t .r Yt .,y • '', off n' ` r .pi, � a, •' ' Y,_a: !'.d+ n11 , .A'+ - la rsl:,;Idr f•I . •!. y,41. •,t. ' ), ^I'a r,'• `"'t, 1 14 tI "ram.. tr :h •'J, "y'- a ,�1.i. 6 G .I,r ,, ` •• .•f 'f.' ` ,t7 .i:�1u•f` �I�. 'J,. 1 " 1:5' 'y't) •xi .rj,+. :,;• :yjr•:. , ' IV „ .t iSaJ • J,S� }" "' -✓. ' •A ",�; •a ! ' +,.J t - Y' S'1, f.5,,�,` '.r •', w - y• i i' i. ,i.'r,.^ 5' 'V' ,, i;;• - !^ :: ,.dr 1. .a. '-5�•„ ' ;' `y r' 1` `,�t, ",. ,r ri`, .,f 'r ."t., �a:( ,S� •E,�•r,'1S .+t_P .yt '`I :} 1':'-' ti '.r' {,`� ,i "o }rf,! i(, kn•, e.^P . .;I 1S'.,:;:';^`'r'•+.i, '"' n ` r•r `Y J ,:+ - :'; gyp- - f, 5i5•,. e. 7: f r `. . � ~ � . . } .rupf � � •'so-{,,5: •, +•�' ' .'i ,•I a•r ! .1 y•5.5 :d� �r r+ - + , �7!F ! .. .`. .a p•-�r" a' y•• { ' a ,+: .r. f".': ,.:r s'. i' .i� �,,,t �l',�"i HARBOR• •VIEW HILLS , 1. AMENDMENT N0.111 _ ' -: �► CITY OF NEWPORT, BEACH JUNE 1979 7w IR'VINE COMPANY . DEMCT ReaXAMM TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION I STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 2 SECTION II GENERAL 3 SECTION III DEFINITIONS 6 Paragraph 1 Cluster or Townhouse Development 6 Paragraph 2 Conventional Subdivision on a Planned Community Concept 6 SECTION IV LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 7 7 Sub—Section A Permitted uses 7 Sub—Section B Average Area Per Dwelling 7 i � Sub—Section C Maximum Building Height 7 Sub—Section D Setbacks from Streets 8 Sub—Section E Setback's from Property Lines 8 Sub—Section F Parking 9 Sub—Section G Maximum Site Area Coverage 9 Sub—Section H Architectural Features 9 �i SECTION V HILLSIDE LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA 9, 10, AND 12 10 Sub—Section A Permitted Uses 10 Sub—Section B Minimum Lot Size 10 Sub—Section C Maximum Building Height 11 Sub—Section D Setbacks from Streets 11 Sub—Section E Setbacks from Property Lines 11 Sub—Section F Fences, Hedges and Walls 12 Sub—Section G Trellis 12 Sub—Section H Parking 12 Sub—Section I Maximum Site Area Coverage 12 Sub—Section J Architectural Features 12 SECTION VI HILLSIDE LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA 11 . 13 Sub—Section A Permitted Uses 13 Sub—Section B Minimum Area Per Dwelling Unit 13 Sub—Section C Maximum Building Height 13 Sub—Section D Setbacks from Streets 14 Sub—Section E Setbacks from Property Lines 14 Sub—Section F Fences, Hedges and Walls 15 Sub—Section G Trellis 15 Sub—Section H Parking 15 Sub—Section I Maximum Site Area Coverage 15 Sub—Section J Architectural Features 15 SECTION VII MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS 8 AND 13 16 Sub—Section A Permitted Uses 16 Sub—Section B Minimum Lot Size 16 Sub—Section C Maximum Building Height 16 Sub—Section D Setbacks from Streets 16 Sub—Section E Setbacks from Property Lines 17 Sub—Section F Parking 17 Sub—Section G Maximum Site Area Coverage 18 Sub—Section H Signs 18 Sub—Section I Fences, Hedges, Walls 18 Page • SECTION VIII COMMERCIAL, AREA 14 19 Sub-Section A Permited Uses 19 Sub-Section B Minimum Site Area 19 Sub-Section C Maximum Building Height 19 Sub-Section D Setbacks 19 Sub-Section E Landscaping 19 Sub-Section F Parking 20 Sub-Section G Signs 20 Sub-Section H Sign Standards 21 SECTION IX COMMUNITY FACILITIES, ALL AREAS 22 Sub-Section A Permitted Uses 22 Sub-Section B Maximum Building Height 22 Sub-Section C Setbacks 22 Sub-Section D Landscaping 22 Sub-Section E Screening 23 Sub-Section F Parking 23 SECTION X SIGNS 24 s • INTROOUCTION The Harbor View Hills, Amendment 11 , PC (Planned Community) District for the City of Newport Beach has been developed in accordance with the proposals of the South Irvine Ranch General Plan. The area is considered appropriate for . residential development. The purpose of this PC (Planned Community) District is to provide a method whereby property may be classified and used for residential development, utili— zing a variety of housing types and densities, and other community facilities compatible therewith. The specifications of this district are intended to provide flexibility for both the land use and development standards in planned building groups. Except as expressly stated within the text of this PC (Planned Community) ordinance, all applicable provisions and requirements of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Law shall apply.. I r -1- • r` ( 13 12 GH 4 : c 10 f 7 7 9 p l? E� �H��DWN HILLS ND t • LEGEND Q LOW MEIMUM AND HILLSIDE LOW MEDEIM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 0 MEDAN HIGH DENSRY RESIDENTIAL ®COMMERCIAL O SCHOOL ® PARKAHOOPEN SPACE • RESERYDIR • f ee HUMOR VIEW HILLS Amendment N0.11 O LLAN AAIEA • SECTICN 1. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS • HARBOR VIEW HILLS RESIDENTIAL Type Area Acres Du./Ac. Du. Per/Du. Population • Low Medium 1* 28.1 4.1 115 3.6 414 Density 2* 78.1 4.0 317 3.6 1141 3* 32.4 3.5 114 3.6 410 4* 43.8 4.3 190 3.6 684 7* 79.3 4.3 340 3.6 1224 SUBTOTAL 261.7 1076 3873 Hillside Low 9* 51.5 2.6 133 3.6 479 Medium Density 10* 104.0 2.2 216 3.6 777 I � 11 132.5 2.4 372 3.6 1339 12* 40.0 3.0 119 3.6 428 SUBTOTAL 348.0 840 3023 ` Medium/High 8 34.7 13.3 460 2.0 920 •, Density 13* 10.7 5.9 64 2.0 128 SUBTOTAL 45.4 524 1048 SUPPORT FACILITIES • Commercial 14 8.6 Elementary 5 10.0 Park & Open 6 21.3 Space 15 41.0 Former Freeway Reservation 26.1 SUBTOTAL 107.2 GRAND TOTAL 762.3 2440 7944 •r For information purposes only. The statistics are based upon gross acreage and do not reflect the land area lost to street construction. Estimation of street areas cannot be accurately determined until preparation of • subdivision maps. * Portion of the adopted Harbor View PC (Planned Community) ordinance amended to reflect actual construction figures. • -2- • SECTION 11. GENERAL • An estimated population of 7,944 persons is anticipated for the total planning area. This figure has been used for estimating community faci— lities. Schools The community of Harbor View Hills presently falls within two (2) unified school districts. The area located west of San Miguel Drive, the Newport— Mesa Unified School District provides school facilities. The area east of San Miguel Drive, is served by the Irvine Unified School District and the • Newport—Mesa Unified School District. In an effort to anticipate the maximum number of school students to be generated by the total community, highest student per unit factor was applied. The following figures represent a project total student enrollment based upon actual numbers of dwelling units or anticipated number of dwelling units to be constructed based upon net acreage. AREA 1 NEWPORT—MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Students/ Dwelling Type Dwelling Unit Units Students Elementary (K-6) SFD .55 1,076 592 ME .08 460 37 SUB TOTAL 629 • Junior High (7-8) SFD .30 1,076 323 MF .04 460 18 SUB TOTAL 341 • Senior High (9-12) SFD .35 1,076 377 MP .08 460 37 { SUB TOTAL 414 These generation factors are based on actual attendance from these homes and multi—family projects. These numbers reflect actual construction figures. 1 � —3— • An estimated population of 7,944 persons is anticipated for the total planning area. This figure has been used for estimating community faci- lities. Schools The community of Harbor View Hills presently falls within two (2) unified school districts. The area located west of San Miguel Drive, the Newport- Mesa Unified School District provides school facilities. The area east of San Miguel Drive, is served by the Irvine Unified School District and the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. In an effort to anticipate the maximum number of school students to be generated by the total community, highest student per unit factor was applied. The following figures represent a project total student enrollment based upon actual numbers of dwelling units or anticipated number of dwelling units to be constructed based upon net acreage. { , AREA 1 NEUPORT-MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT o Students/ Dwelling Type Dwelling Unit Units Students Elementary (K-6) SFD .55 1,076 592 ME .08 460 37 SUB TOTAL 629 Junior High (7-8) SFD .30 1,076 323 ME .04 460 18 SUB TOTAL 341 Senior High (9-12) SFD .35 1,076 377 ME .08 460 37 SUB TOTAL 414 These generation factors are based on actual attendance from these homes and multi-family projects. These numbers reflect actual construction figures. -3- AREA 2 NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT and + IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NOTE: The table below is based on the Newport-Mesa Unified School District generation figures and class structure. Students/ Dwelling • Tyne Dwelling Unit Units Students Elementary (R-6) SFD .55 840 462 MF .51 64 33 SUB TOTAL 495 ! Junior High (7-8) SFD .30 840 252 MF .28 64 18 SUR TOTAL 270 Senior High (9-12) SFD .35 840 294 MF .30 64 19 SUB TOTAL 313 TOTAL - AREA 1 AND AREA 2 Elementary (R-6) 1,124 Junior High (7-8) 611 Senior High (9-12) 727 One (1) elementary school site exists within this community. Recreation Park and open space areas totaling approximately 62.5 acres serve the ! recreational needs of the residents of Harbor View Hills. This acreage figure does not include the facilities provided by the elementary school site. A total of 21.5 acres of park and open space has been provided to serve the residents in Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 and an additional 41.0 acres is proposed for residents in Areas 9, 10, 11 and 12. Additionally, private recreational facilities have been developed as a part of each apartment complex to satisfy the needs of persons living in said areas. Design of the recreational areas for the apartment complexes is subject to the review and approval of the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation of the City of Newport Beach. • -4- • • •, In accordance with the adopted City Council policy, maintenance of public facilities will be performed by the City of Newport Beach. All private open and recreational areas within the development boundaries will be maintained by a private community association established by and consisting of home owners within the subject development. • Commercial An 8.6 acre neighborhood shopping complex serves the residents of the Planned Community of Harbor View Hills. This center provides goods and services neces— sary to meet the requirements of the community. Uniform Building Code No portion of this text withstanding, all construction within this Planned Community shall comply with the regulations of the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Newport Beach. Nonconforming Structures Structures which were constructed prior to the adoption of Amendment No. 9 of this Planned Community (June 1976) and which become nonconforming because of the changes to the setback requirements may be altered, remodeled, or expanded without first securing a modification., provided that all ,new construction comply with the revised setback requirements. • 1 r • II —5— • SECTION ill. DEFINITIONS The following definitions refer to the permitted uses described in the Develop- ment Standards contained in this ordinance. 1. Cluster or Townhouse Development A combination or arrangement of attached or detached dwellings and their accessory structures on contiguous or related building sites where the yards and open spaces are combined into more desirable arrangements of 'open space and where the individual sites may have less area than the required average for the district but the density of the overall development meets the required standard. 2. Conventional Subdivision on a Planned Community Concept A conventional subdivision of detached dwellings and their accessory structures on individual lots where the lot size may be less than the . required average for the district but where the density for the entire subdivision meets the required standards and where open space areas are provided for the enhancement and utilization of the overall development. f -6- t • SECTION IV. LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS 13 2, 3,4, & 7 These' areas are intended to provide primarily for single family residential housing and related community facilities developed under generally level topographic conditions. A. Permitted Uses 1. Single family dwellings, detached and attached. 2. Conventional subdivisions and conventional subdivisions on a Planned Community concept. j 3. Cluster developments, subject to the approval of a Use Permit. 4. Parks , playgrounds, recreation or open space and green areas, riding, i hiking and bicycle trails and related facilities of a non—commerc.ial • nature. 5. Accessory buildings, structures and uses where related and incidental to a permitted use. 6. One (1) on—site unlighted sign, not exceeding two (2) square feet in area, to advertise the lease, rental or sale of the property upon which it is located. Such- sign may show only the name, address and telephone number of the owner, but shall not show the name, address, telephone number or any other description or identification of any person, firm or corporation other than the owner of said property. • 7. Community recreational facilities and structures , subject to the development standards contained in Section IX, Community Facilities, of this ordinance. B. Average Area Per Dwelling An average area of 7,000 square feet shall be provided for each dwelling unit in Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. For the purpose of this section, average area per dwelling shall mean the average of all developed areas (to include parks , recreational and permanent open space) exclusive of areas dedicated for vehicular rights—of—way divided by the total number of dwelling units. C. Maximum Building Height All buildings shall comply with the height restrictions established by the City for this area. If no height limits have been established for this area, then the maximum height of all buildings shall be thirty—five (35) feet and two (2) stories, and shall be measured in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. —7— D. Setbacks from Streets The following setbacks shall apply to all structures (not to include garden walls or fences) adjacent to dedicated vehicular rights-of-way. Said setbacks are to be measured from the ultimate right-of-way line. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a map shall be submitted to the Community Development Director indicating the setbacks of all structures proposed in the development. The Community Development Director shall review said map in view of setbacks listed in this ordinance and/or sound planning principles and shall either approve, modify, disapprove the setbacks shown, or refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a determination+ In the case of modification or disapproval, the applicant may appeal to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Setback from Ultimate Street Designation Right-of-Way Line Major Primary 10, Local Collector* 10, Local Collector 5' Local Street 5' * With center median E. Setbacks from Property Lines All setbacks listed under this section refer to all property lines not affected by the requirements of Sub-Section D above. _ 1. Side Yards r i There shall be a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet. 2. Rear Yards There shall be a minimum rear yard setback of ten (10) feet. » 3. Fences. Hedges and Walls Limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet, except for the area within five (3) feet of the front property line, where they shall be limited to three (3) feet. Wing walls, where an extension of a • residential or accessory structure may be eight (80 feet in height. At street intersections, no such appurtenance shall exceed thirty (30) inches in height above street pavement grade within the triangle bounded by the right-of-way lines and a connecting line drawn between points thirty (30) feet distant from the intersection of the right-of-way lines prolonged. -8- • � I • 4. Trellis open trellis and beam construction shall be permitted to attach the garage or carport to the dwelling and may also extend from the dwelling to within three (3) feet of the side or rear property line. In side yards, the maximum height shall be eight (8) feet. F. Parkin Parking for residential uses in Areas 1, 21 3, 4, and 7 shall be in the form of not less than two (2) garage spaces per family unit. G. Maximum Site Area Coverage �1 For aggregate building coverage, the maximum shall be 60 percent of any lot. H. Architectural Features • Architectural features, limited to cornices or eaves, may extend two and one—half (2-1/2) feet into any front, side or rear yard setback. —9— SECTION V. HILLSIDE LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS 9310s ,. '12 This area is intended to provide primarily for single family residential housing and related community facilities developed under hillside topographic conditions. A. Permitted Uses 1. Single family dwellings, detached and attached. 2. Conventional subdivisions and conventional subdivisions on a Planned Community concept. 3. Cluster developments, subject to the approval of a Use Permit. 4. Parks, playgrounds, recreation or open space and green areas, riding, hiking and bicycle trails and related facilities of a non-commercial nature. 5. Accessory buildings, structures and uses where related and incidental to a permitted use. 6.• One (1) on-site unlighted sign, not exceeding two (2) square feet in area, to advertise the lease, rental or sale of the property upon which it is located. Such sign may show only the name, address and telephone number of the owner,' but shall not show the name, address, telephone number or any other description or identification of any person, firm or corporation other than the owner of said property. 7. Community recreational facilities and structures, subject to the development standards contained in Section IX, Community Facilities, of r this ordinance. 8. Signs contained in Section X, Signs, of this ordinance, subject to the criteria contained in said section. B. Minimum Lot Size A minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet shall be provided. However, an average area of 7,000 square feet shall be provided for each dwelling unit. For the purpose of this section, average area per dwelling shall mean the average of all developed areas (to include parks, recreational and permanent open space) exclusive of areas dedicated for vehicular rights-of-way divided . by the total number of dwelling units. -10- • • • C. Maximum Building Height All buildings shall comply with the height restrictions established by the City for this area. If no height limits have been established for this area, then the maximum height of all buildings shall be thirty—five (35) feet and two (2) stories, and shall be measured in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. D. Setbacks from Streets 1 The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all dwelling structures (not to include garden walls or fences) adjacent to streets. Said setbacks are to be measured from the ultimate right—of—way line. However, the Community Development Director may, upon submittal of a tenta— tive subdivision map, review said map in view of setbacks listed in this ordinance and/or sound planning principles and shall either approve, modify, disapprove the setbacks shown, or refer the matter to the Planning Commis— sion for a determination. In the case of modification or disapproval, the applicant may appeal to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Setback from Ultimate Street Designation Right—of—Way Line Major and Primary 20' Local Collector 10, Local Street 10' Garage and carports shall conform to the building setback requirements above except that when the garage or carport faces the access street, a setback of five (3) feet or a minimum of twenty (20) feet shall be observed. • Said setback shall be measured from back of curb, or in the event sidewalks are constructed, from back of sidewalk. E. Setbacks from Property Lines All setbacks listed under this section refer to all property lines not affected by the requirements of Sub—Section D above. Dwellings may orient toward the streetside property line or the opposite property line in order to take advantage of view conditions. The minimum setbacks shall be: Rear or Front Yard ! Ten (10) feet. Side Yard Five (5) feet, provided that a minimum of ten (10) feet is provided between a structure on the immediately adjacent lot. ' —11— The above standards ,shall be required except that structures which abut a plaza, park, mall or other permanent open green space may abut the common • property line and have openings onto same, provided the open spaces are not publicly owned, F. Fences, Hedges and Walls Fences shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. Said fences are allowed in all setback areas, except in the view site setback where fences shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet and shall be open wrought iron or glass and further provides that no such appurtenance shall be placed closer than four (4) feet to any sidewalk or eight (8) feet from face of curb in the the event no sidewalk is provided. Where the fence is required to protect a swimming pool, the fence shall be constructed so as to meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code for pool safety. Wing walls, where an extension of a residential or accessory structure, may be eight (8) feet in height. At street intersections (to include driveway intersections with streets) , no such appurtenance shall exceed thirty (30) inches in height above street pavement grade within the triangle bounded by the right-of-way lines and a connecting line drawn between points thirty (30) • feet distant from the intersection of the right-of-way lines prolonged. G. Trellis Open trellis and beam construction shall be permitted to attach the garage or carport to the dwelling and may also extend from the dwelling to within three (3) feet of the side or rear property line. In side yards, the maximum height shall be eight (8) feet. These areas shall not be considered in calculating lot area coverage; however, trellis areas shall not exceed 20 percent of the remaining open space of a developed lot. Trellis and beam construction shall be so designed as to provide a minimum of 50 percent of the total trellis area as open space for the penetration of light and air to areas which it covers. H. Parkin Parking for residential uses in Areas 9, 10, and 12 shall be in the form of { not less than two (2) garage spaces per family unit. Guest parking in cluster developments shall be as required in a use permit. I. Maximum Site Area Coverage For aggregate building coverage, the maximum shall be 50 percent of any lot. For the purpose of this ordinance, coverage shall include all areas under • roof but shall not 'include trellis areas. J. Architectural Features Architectural features, limited to cornices or eaves, may extend two and one-half (2-1/2) feet into any front, side, or rear yard setback. � I -12- r SECTION V1. HILLSIDE LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA *11 This area is intended to provide primarily for single family residential housing and related community facilities developed under hillside topographic conditions. A. Permitted Uses 1. All those uses permitted in Section V of this text subject to the following development standards therein. 2. Cluster or townhouse developments subject to Development Plan review by Planning Commission. 3. Parks, playgrounds, recreation or open space and green areas, riding, hiking and bicycle trails and related facilities of a non—commercial nature. �� • 4. Accessory buildings, structures and uses where related and incidental to a permitted use. ' S. One (1) on—site unlighted sign, not exceeding two (2) square feet in area, to advertise the lease, rental or sale of the property upon which • it is located. Such sign may show only the name, address and telephone number of the owner, but shall not show the name, address, telephone number or any other description or identification of any person, firm or corporation other than the owner of said property. 6. Community recreational facilities and structures, subject to the devel— opment standards contained in Section IX, Community Facilities , of this ordinance. 7. Signs contained in Section X, Signs, of this ordinance, subject to the criteria contained in said section. B. Minimum Area Per Dwelling Unit A minimum lot of 1,500 square feet shall be provided. However, an average area of 4,000 square feet shall be provided for each dwelling unit. For the purpose of this section, average area per dwelling shall mean the average of all developed areas (to include parks, recreational and permanent open space) exclusive of areas dedicated for vehicular rights—of—way divided by the total number of dwelling units. C. Maximum �Building Height All buildings shall comply with the height restrictions established by the City for this area. If no height limits have been established for this area, then the maximum height of all buildings shall be thirty—five (35) feet and two (2) stories, and shall be measured in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. —13— i D. Setbacks from Streets • The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all dwelling structures (not to include garden walls or fences) adjacent to streets. Said setbacks are to be measured from the ultimate right-of-way line. However, the Community Development Director may, upon submittal of a tenta- tive subdivision map, review said map in view of setbacks listed in this • ordinance and/or sound planning principles and shall either approve, modify, disapprove the setbacks shown, or refer the matter to the Planning Commis- sion for a determination. In the case of modification or disapproval, the applicant may appeal to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Setback from Ultimate • Street Designation Right-of-Way Line Major and Primary 20' Local Collector . 5' Local Street 5' Garage and carports shall conform to the building setback requirements above • except that when the garage or carport faces the access street, a setback of five (5) feet or a minimum of twenty (20) feet shall be observed. Said setback shall be measured from back of curb, or in the event sidewalks are constructed, from back of sidewalk. E. Setbacks from Property Lines • All setbacks listed under this section refer to all property lines not affected by the requirements of Sub-Section D above. Dwellings may orient toward the streetside property line or the opposite property line in order to take advantage of view conditions. The minimum setbacks shall be: • Rear or Front Yard Five (5) feet. Side Yard • Five (5) feet, provided that a minimum of ten (10) feet is provided between a structure on the immediately adjacent lot. The above standards shall be required unless one of the following conditions prevails: 1. Structures which abut a plaza, park, mall or other permanent open space may abut the common property line and have openings onto same, provided the open spaces are not publicly owned. 2. Where there are no openings on a given side, that side may be placed on the property line and may abut a structure on an adjoining lot. • -14- • 3. An attached or detached structure, i.e. , garage, carport, etc. , may abut a side property line or another structure, provided no openings are located on the abutting surfaces. F. Fences, Hedges and Walls Fences shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. Said fences are allowed in all setback areas, except in the view site setback where fences shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet and shall be open wrought iron or glass, and further provides that no such appurtenance shall be placed closer than four (4) feet to any sidewalk or eight (8) feet from face of curb in the event no sidewalk is provided. Where the fence is required to protect a swimming pool, the fence shall be constructed so as to meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code for pool safety. Wing walls, where an extension of a residential or accessory structure, may be eight (8) feet in height. At street intersections (to include driveway intersections with streets) , no such appurtenance shall exceed thirty (30) inches in height above street pavement grade within the triangle bounded by • the right-of-way lines and a connecting line drawn between points thirty (30) feet distant from the intersection of the right-of-way lines prolonged. G. Trellis Open trellis and beam construction shall be permitted to attach the garage or carport to the dwelling and may also extend from the dwelling to within three (3) feet of the side or rear property line. In side yards, the maximum height shall be eight (8) feet. These areas shall not be considered in calculating lot area coverage; however, trellis areas shall not exceed 20 percent of the remaining open space of a developed Lot, Trellis and beam construction shall be so designed as to provide a minimum of 50 percent of the total trellis area as open space for the penetration of light and air' to areas which it covers. H. Parkin Parking for residential uses in Area 11 shall be in the form of not less than two (2) garage spaces per family unit. Guest parking in cluster developments shall be as required by the site plan. I. Maximum Site Area Coverage For aggregate building coverage, the maximum shall be 100 percent of any • lot. For the purpose of this ordinance, coverage shall include all areas under roof but shall not include trellis areas. J. Architectural Features Architectural features, Limited to cornices or eaves, may extend two and one-half (2-1/2) feet into any front, side, or rear yard setback. -15- • SECTION VII. MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS S & 13 These areas are intended to provide for multiple family residential housing and related community facilities developed under hillside topographic conditions. A. Permitted Uses 1. All uses listed in Section IV, Low Medium Density Residential, and Section V, Hillside Low Medium Density Residential, subject to the design standards listed in those sections. 2. Apartments, subject to the design standards listed in Sub—Section B • through H of this section. 3. Condominiums. B. Minimum Lot Size A minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet shall be required. However, to determine site density, a minimum average area of 1,200 square feet shall be provided for each dwelling unit in Area B and 1,500 square feet shall be provided for each dwelling unit in Area 13. For the purpose of this ordi— nance, average area per dwelling shall mean the average of all developed • areas on site (to include parks, recreational and permanent open space) , exclusive of areas designated as public streets divided by the total number of dwelling units. C. Maximum Building Height All buildings shall comply with the height restrictions established by the City for this area. If no height limits have been established for this area, then the maximum height of all buildings shall be thirty—five (35) feet and two (2) stories, and shall be measured in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. D. 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 ultimate right—of—way line. However, the Community Development Director may, upon submittal of a tenta— tive subdivision map or preliminary site plan, review said map or plan in view of setbacks listed in this ordinance and/or sound planning principles and shall either approve, modify, disapprove the setbacks shown, or refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a determination. In the case of modification or disapproval , the applicant may appeal to the Planning Commission for further consideration. —16— • • • Setback from Ultimate Street Designation Right-of-Way Line Major and Primary 20' Local Collector 15 , Local Street 10' • E. Setbacks from Property Lines All setbacks listed under this section refer to property lines not affected by the requirements of Sub-Section D above. The minimum setback shall be five (5) feet, except 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. The above standards shall be required unless one of the following conditions prevails. 1. Structures which abut a plaza, park, mall or other permanent open green space may abut the common property line and have openings onto •� same, provided the open spaces are not publicly owned. 2. Detached garage or ,carports may be located on a property line and need not provide the required ten (10) feet between garage or carport struc- tures on an adjacent lot. •' F. Parking Off-street parking for apartment uses in Areas 8 and 13 shall be provided as follows: One bedroom and efficiency - 1.5 spaces per apt. unit Two bedrooms - 1.75 spaces per apt. unit •' Three or more bedrooms - 2.0 spaces per apt. unit A minimum of one (1)• parking space per apartment unit shall be covered. Where a fractional 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. ' Within one (1) year following 75 percent initial occupancy of the entire project, the developer shall submit to the Department of Community Develop- ment a survey of the actual parking requirements experienced in the project. If the existing amount of on-site parking is insufficient, the Planning Commission, after public hearings, may require additional uncovered parking • provided the total of all on-site parking shall not exceed 2.0 spaces per apartment unit. If such additional on-site parking is required, the addi- tional spaces shall be provided in accordance with a plan to be presented to the City and subject to the approval of the Director of Community Develop- ment. • Parking meeting the minimum on-site requirements for each apartment unit shall be provided to the tenants at no extra cost. Ili • -17- G. Maximum Site Area Coverage The maximum site coverage permitted shall be 75 percent of the net site • area. For the purpose of this ordinance, site coverage shall mean to include all on-site developed areas (including driveways, parking areas, garages, patios, and dwellings) exclusive of on-site open areas or recreational facilities. H. Signs • One (1) double or single face ground sign per street frontage shall be allowed in Area 8 and Area 13. 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. I. Fences. Hedges and Walls Fences shall be limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. Said • fences are allowed in all setback areas, except in the view site setback where fences shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet and shall be open wrought iron or glass, and further provides that no such appurtenance shall be placed closer than four (4) feet to any sidewalk _ or eight (8) feet from face of curb in the event no sidewalk is pro- f vided. Where the fence is required to protect a swimming pool, the • fence shall be constructed so as to meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code for pool safety. Wing walls, where an extension of a residential or accessory structure, may be eight (8) feet in « height. At street intersections (to include driveway intersections with streets), no such appurtenance shall exceed thirty (30) inches in height above street pavement grade within the triangle bounded by the right-of-way lines and a connecting line drawn between points thirty • L (30) feet distant from the intersection of the right-of-way lines prolonged. • -18- • �• SECTION VI11. COMMERCIAL AREA 14 This area is intended primarily to provide for the retail, service, office, medical and dental and general commercial facilities necessary to support this community. A. Permitted Uses 1. Retail and service businesses. 2. Administrative and professional offices. 3. Automobile service stations , subject to the approval of a Use Permit. 4. Institutional governmental, civic, cultural and recreational activities. 5. Accessory structures and uses necessary and customarily incidental to permitted uses. 6. Signs contained in Section X, Signs, of this ordinance subject to the criteria contained in said section. B. Minimum Site Area t A minimum site area of six 16) acres shall be required of the total develop- ment in Area 14. C. Maximum Building Height • All buildings shall comply with the height restrictions established by the City for this area. If no height limits have been established for this area, then the maximum height of all buildings shall be thirty-five (35) feet and two (2) stories , and shall be measured in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. D. Setbacks A minimum ten (10) foot building setback shall be maintained from all property lines with the following exceptions: 1. If the subject site is adjacent to a commercially zoned parcel, no setback shall be required between said parcels. 2. No structure shall be located closer to a residential structure on an adjacent site than a distance equal to twice the height of the commercial structure. E. Landscaping 1. Streets A minimum ten (10) foot continuous landscape area shall be maintained adjacent to all street or highway rights-of-way except for any access III drive or pedestrian walkway. Said landscaping shall not exceed thirty (30) inches in height within twenty (20) feet of intersection or access drive. -19- r 2. Interior Property Lines A continous visual screen of a minimum width of ten (10) feet shall be maintained adjacent to all interior property lines which abut resi— dential lots. Screening may be provided by means of fences, walls, berms, changes in elevation or plant materials. Where such screening has been provided on the residential side of the property line, this . requirement is waived. 3. Parking Areas A minimum 5 percent of the total building site shall be devoted to landscaping, with a minimum 25 percent of that total to be located within the parking areas. F. Parking Parking shall be evaluated based on adopted City requirements in effect at time of development. G. Signs 1. Identification Sign Area: General Standard Only one (1 ) single or double—faced identification sign shal'1 be ( permitted per street frontage for each individual business. t No sign shall exceed an area equal to one and one—half (1-1/2) square feet of sign for each one (1) foot of lineal frontage of the building or store. However, no sign shall exceed 200 square feet in area per face. f a. Identification Ground Sign : An identification ground sign shall not exceed four (4) feet above grade invertical height. Also,- such ground signs in excess of 150 i square feet in area (single face) shall not be erected in the first ten (10) feet, as measured from the property line, of any streetside • setback. However, the above standards shall not apply to the Multi—Tenant Director Sign or the allowed signs listed in Section X, Signs, of this ordinance. b. Identification Wall Sign In no event shall an identification sign placed on a wall comprise more than 10 percent of the area of the elevation upon which the sign is located. Said signs shall be fixture signs. Signs painted directly on the surface of the wall shall not be permitted. 2. Pole Sign One (1) identification pole sign per site will be allowed for the following commercial businesses: —20— �+ a. Restaurant b. Cocktail lounge and/or bar c. Motel and Hotel d. Service stations { If a pole sign is utilized, it shall be in lieu of other identification signs allowed by ordinance. Pole signs shall be limited to a miximum height of twenty (20) feet and a maximum area of fifty (50) square feet per face, double—faced. 3. Multi—Tenant Director Sign r One (1) directory sign listing only the name of the firms or businesses on a site shall be allowed. Said sign shall be limited to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet. Panels identifying each individual store shall be no larger than one (1) " foot in width and five (5) feet in length. j 4. Real Estate Sign 4 A sign advertising the sale, lease , or hire of the total site shall, be permitted in addition to the other signs listed in this section. f; Said sign shall not exceed a maximum area of thirty—two (32) square feet and shall be a ground sign or window sign. 5. Additional Signs Additional signs, as listed in Section X, Signs , of this ordinance shall be permitted according to the criteria contained in said section. H. Sign Standards 1. Signs visible from the exterior of any building may be lighted, but no signs or any other contrivance shall be devised or constructed so as to rotate, gyrate, blink or move in any animated fashion. 2. Identification signs shall be restricted to advertising only the person, firms, company or corporation operating the use conducted on the site or the products produced or sold thereon. 3. A wall sign with the individual letters applied directly shall be measured by a rectangle around the outside of the lettering and/or the pictorial symbol and calculating the area enclosed by such line. 4. All signs attached to the building shall be flush mounted. i S; —21— SECTION IX. COMMUNITY FACILITIES ALL AREAS The following regulations apply to the development of public and private community facilities. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, plot plans, elevations and any other such documents deemed necessary by the Community Development Director shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. A. Permitted Uses ' The following uses, provided they are in conjunction with private community recreational facilities and not commercial in nature., shall be allowed. Similar uses of a commercial nature shall be allowed subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. 1. Schools, churches, libraries, community centers, civic or cultural facilities; such as art galleries, museums, music centers, etc. , and establishments for the care of pre—school children. ' 2. Parks , playgrounds, recreation or open green areas, riding, hiking and r bicycle trails and related facilities. 3. Accessory buildings, structures and uses related and incidental to a permitted use. 4. Signs identifying or giving directions to permitted uses and facilities. No sign shall exceed thirty—five (35) square feet in area. B. Maximum Building Height All buildings shall comply with the height restrictions established by the , City for this area. If no height limits have been established for this area, then the maximum height of all buildings shall be thirty—five (35) feet and two (2) stories, and shall be measured in accordance with the ( Newport Beach Municipal Code. i C. Setbacks Twenty—five (25) feet from all residential property lines, and ten (10) feet from any streetside property lines. No structure shall be located closer to a residential structure on an adjacent site than a distance equal to twice the height of the non—residential building. The height of the non—residential structure above the grade elevation of the residential site shall apply. Structures which abut a plaza, park, mall, greenbelt or other permanent open space may abut the common property lines. D. Landscaping Ten (10) percent of the building site shall be landscaped with a minimum of 10 percent of such landscaping to be located within the parking areas. —22— A R A minimum of ten (10) feet (depth) of continuous landscaping shall be maintained adjacent to all street or highway rights—of—way, except for perpendicular access driveways and pedestrian walkways. Landscaping shall not exceed thirty (30) inches in height within ten (10) feet of an inter— section or access drive. i E. Screening r A continuous visual screen, six (6) feet in height, shall be maintained adjacent to all interior property lines which abut residential lots. Screening may consist of fences, walls , berms , or lineal or group masses of trees and/or shrubbery. �1 F. Parkin Parking for community facilities shall conform to the parking requirements of the City of Newport Beach. The Community Development Director shall review said facilities and require the amount of off—street parking deemed appropriate, relative to the intended use and activities of such facilities. 0' II �! —23— A SECTION X. SIGNS The following material represents a portion of the sign program for The Irvine Company. It is the product of extensive technical research encompassing the psychological and physical characteristics of the visual communicative arts. It • is an endeavor to both identify and provide for the primary functions of any sign program; that of product identification; providing data about the product; l and informing prospective buyers how and where to purchase that product. ` The manual is not intended as a substitute for detailed engineering knowledge, jexperience or judgment. It is intended to provide a quick and graphic repre- sentation of those signs to be allowed on Irvine property and under what conditions said signs shall be allowed. It includes such pertinent data as justification for a particular sign, where the sign may be located, how long it may be erected, and fabrication specifications. It is intended that the following sign criteria be utilized as a policy guide- line regulating signs on a uniform basis for all company properties. • Sign type letters A, B and C shall be subject to a conditional use permit. Sign type letters D, E, F and G shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. C » ' C -24- • A A LEM APPENDIX C BIOTIC RESOURCES REPORT A • BIOTIC ASSESSMENT BAYWOOD APARTMENTS EXPANSION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Larry Seeman Associates S Prepared by Phillips Brandt Reddick 901 Dove Street, Suite 260 Newport Beach, CA 92660 • s ' i PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK BIOTIC ASSESSMENT BAYWOOD APARTMENTS EXPANSION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA This report presents the findings of a cursory field survey on the proposed project site on November 29, 1978. During the field investiga- tion, plant and wildlife species were inventoried and the ecological perspective of the site was examined. A special effort was made to assess the possibility of Orange County Turkish rugging (Chorizanthe staticoides spp. chrysacantha) occurring on the site. The majority of the site has been recently disked for weed control . Due to this periodic disturbance, the vegetation here consists of introduced I annuals commonly considered to be old field and roadside weeds. These are dominated by alfalfa (Medico o sativa) , wild cat (Avena fatua) and meadow fescue (Festuca arundinacea). T- ire common use of ti-Fese species as fodder indicates�istoric use of the area as a pasture for livestock. Addition- al "weedy" species are found at the margins of the site where disking does not occur and disturbances appear to be somewhat less intense. These 1 include telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), common sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), black mustard Brassica nigra) , cheeseweed (Malva parviflora and bermuda grass (Cynodon dacty on). Limited elements of native plant communities occur at two localities on-site. These consist of native riparian species, including arroyo 0 willow (Salix lasiole is) , Emory baccharis (Baccharis emor i), which are supportedin the swa a which crosses the site; and, remnant coastal sage scrub found on the road bank along MacArthur Boulevard, dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). Due to their small size and the invasion of intro uccT�ec species i'— nto 7ese areas, neither represents a native plant community as a distinct entity. Other vegetation consists of manicured turf grass and ornamental trees found in the extreme southern portion of the site. This ornamental association exhibits a park character. The wildlife value of the site is extremely limited. Wildlife species 0 expected to use the habitat to a significant degree include a relatively few birds, a few small mammals, and very limited number of reptiles and amphibians. Orange County Turkish rugging was not observed, nor is it expected to occur at the site due to unsuitable soil conditions. 0 Due to the existing disturbed conditions and the general lack of biologi- cal significance over the site, recommendations regarding the conservation or preservation of biological resources are not warranted. PLANNING-ARCHITECTURE-LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE-ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 901 DOVE STREET,SUITE 260•NEWPORT BEACH,CA 926W-(714)752.9223 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII • LEGEND FLORAL INVENTORY Vegetative Association Abundance DG - disturbed grassland D - dominant Rip/S - riparian/swale C - common CSS - coastal sage scrub 0 - occasional I - introduced ornamental U - uncommon FAUNAL INVENTORY r' Presence Status 0 - observed during November, 1978 Abundance E - expected to be found on-site during C - common a comprehensive year-long survey F - frequent U - uncommon Occurrence « R - year-round resident SV - summer visitor WV - winter visitor M - migrant f il� PLANTS DG RIP/S CSS I AIZOACEAE - CARPET-WEED FAMILY Carpobrotus ae uilaterus - sea-fig native - su s rub - - - C APIACEAE - CARROT FAMILY Foeniculum vul,are - sweet fennel i— n oc7—uc— perennial herb - weed 0 - - - r ASTERACEAE - SUNFLOWER FAMILY Artemisia californica - California sagebrush native - shrub - - D Aster exilis - Slender aster nat�v'e- annual - herb - O - Baccharis amorYi - Emory baccharis native - shrub - C - Baccharis glutinosa - mule fat native - shrub - 0 - Con za bonariensis - South American conyza ro uce - annual —weed 0 - 0 - I � Corethrogyne fi�laginif�olia - common corethrogyne native - perenn� herb - U 0 Grindelia robusta - gum plant native - perennial - herb 0 U 0 Haplopappus venetus - coastal goldenbush native - shrub— U - 0 - !i � Hemizonia fasciculata - fascicled tarweed native - annual— U - U - Heterotheca grandiflora - telegraph weed native - annual C - 0 - Osteot fruticosum - trailing African daisy intro uce - peal - groundcover - U - - Sonchus asper - prickly sow thistle introduced - herb - weed 0 - - Sonchus oleraceus - common sow thistle introduced - annual - weed C U - - BRASSICACEAE - MUSTARD FAMILY Brassica kaber - field charlock introduced - annual - weed 0 U - - Brassica ni rya - black mustard intro ud ced-- annual - weed C 0 - - Lobularia maritima - sweet alyssum introuce perennial - herb 0 0 - 0 S�is mbrium altissimum - tumble-mustard i—'ntn uce —annual - weed O - - Si_symbr�ium irio - London-rocket introcRR- annual - weed C - - - • • PLANTS DG RIP/S CSS I POACEAE - GRASS FAMILY Avena barbata - slender wild oat intro c�uTce - annual - grass - weed C 0 0 - Avena fatua - wild oat intro TTuced - annual - grass - weed D 0 - - Bromus diandrus - ripgutgrass introduced - annual - grass - weed 0 - - - Bromus mollis - soft chess intro—fcuced - annual - grass - weed C - 0 - Bromus rubens - red brome i ntro�cucee annual - grass - weed 0 0 0 - Cortaderia atacamensis - pampas grass i— nt oUu-55 - perennial - large grass 0 C - C nodon da�ctyl�on - bermudagrass intro uce ed—perennial - grass - weed C C - - ,Festuca arundinacea - meadow fescue intro uc3 ed -perennial - grass 0 D - - ON Festuca megalura - foxtail fescue native - annual - grass 0 - - - Hordeum leporinum - foxtail barley introduced - annual - grass - weed 0 - - - Lolium ,�eren�ne - Italian ryegrass —introduced perennial - grass 0 0 - - Pas alum dilatatum - dallas grass intro uR' -perennial - grass - C - - Pennisetum setaceum - fountain grass introduced�—perennial - grass - - - C Poa annua - wintergrass introduced - annual - grass - weed - 0 - - • Polo on mons eliensis - rabbit's foot grass in uce - annual - grass - weed - 0 - - POLYGONACEAE - BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Eriogonum fasciculatum - California buckwheat native - s u6— - - 0 - Rumex cris_ uus - curly dock i ntroduced - perennial - weed 0 C - - SALICACEAE - WILLOW FAMILY Salix hindsiana - sandbar willow nati v' e—sI rub - 0 - - Salix lasiole is - arroyo willow native - ree - 0 - - TYPHACEAE - CAT-TAIL FAMILY Typha lati� - cat-tail native - perennial - herb - 0 - - • L_ PLANTS DG RIP/S CSS I CARYOPHYLLACEAE - CHICKWEED FAMILY SSpergula�ria villosa - sand spurrey intro u ea=perennial - herb - U - - CHENOPODIACEAE - GOOSEFOOT FAMILY Atri'plex semibaccata - Australian saltbush Intro uce - perennial herb - weed C C U - (edge) Che m rosioides - Mexican-teanntooducebannua or perrenial - weed - 0 - - Salsola iberica - Russian thistle introduced - annual - weed 0 C U - (edge) CYPERACEAE - SEDGE FAMILY Cyperus sp. - C - - FABACEAE - PEA FAMILY Medicago sativa - alfalfa intro ucd eP:a perennial - forage crop D 0 - - Melilotus albus - sweet-clover introduced - perennial - herb - weed - 0 - - GERANIACEAE - GERANIUM FAMILY Erodium botr s - broad-lobed filaree —introduced - weed - annual 0 - - Erodium cicutarium - red-stemmed filaree introduced -annual - weed C - - - MALVACEAE - MALLOW FAMILY Malva parviflora - cheeseweed introduced - annual - weed C 0 - - PAPAVERACEAE - POPPY FAMILY Eschscholzia californica - California poppy native - annual to perennial - herb U U - - PLANTAGINACEAE - PLANTAIN FAMILY Plantago erecta - California plantain U - - - • a AMPHIBIANS Presence Status 0 BUFONIDAE - TRUE TOADS Bufo boreas - western toad E R/U HYLIDAE - TREEFROGS 46 Hyla regilla - pacific treefrog E R/U PLETHODONTIDAE - LUNGLESS SALAMANDERS B�atrach�oseps attenuatus - California slender salamander E R/U 1 atraB c o each cus- pacific slender salamander E R/U REPTILES ANGUIDAE - ALLIGATOR LIZARDS Gerrhonotus multicarinatus- southern alligator lizard E R/U COLUBRIDAE - COLUBRID SNAKES Pituophis melanoleucus - gopher snake E R/U IGUANIDAE - IGUANdD LIZARDS Sc�eloo orus occidentalis - western fence lizard E R/F aT1l Stans6ur�anT a—side-blotched lizard 0 R/F MAMMALS CRICETIDAE - RATS AND MICE Microtus californicus - California vole E R/U P_eromyscu�s maniculatus - deer mouse E R/F Reit- hrodontomys megalotis - western harvest mouse E R/U GEOMYIDAE - POCKET GOPHERS Thomomys bottae - Botta pocket gopher 0 R/F HETEROMYIDAE - KANGAROO RATS AND POCKET MICE Dipodomys agilis - pacific kangaroo rat E R/U LEPORIDAE - HARES AND RABBITS Sylvilagus audubonii - Audubon cottontail E R/U i i MAMMALS Presence Status • MURIDAE - OLD WORLD RATS AND MICE Mus musculus - house mouse E R/U SCIURIDAE - SQUIRRELS Spermophilus beeche i - California ground squirrel 0 R/C BIRDS ALAUDIDAE - LARKS • Eremophila alpestris - horned lark E R/U CHARADRIIDAE - PLOVERS Charadrius vociferus - killdeer E R/U • COLUMBIDAE - PIGEONS AND DOVES Columba livia - domestic pigeon E R/F t�topeTia chinensis - spotted dove E R/U • CORVIDAE - JAYS, MAGPIES, AND CROWS Corvus brachyrhynchos - common crow E R/U orvus corax - common raven E R/F FALCONIDAE - FALCONS • Falco sparverius - American kestrel 0 R/U FRINGILLIDAE - GROSBEAKS, SPARROWS, AND FINCHES Carpodacus mexicanus - house finch E R/U • Melos iza melodia - song sparrow E R/U i i o fuscus -Trown towhee E R/U onotri715 Teucophrys - white-crowned sparrow E WV/U ICTERIDAE - BLACKBIRDS AND ORIOLES Sturnella ne lecta - western meadowlark 0 R/U LANIIDAE - SHRIKES Lanius ludovicianus - loggerhead shrike 0 R/U MIMIDAE - MOCKIN GBIRDS AND THRASHERS • Mimus polyglottos - mockingbird 0 R/F • BIRDS Presence Status PARULIDAE - WOOD WARBLERS Dendroica cornata - yellow-rumped warbler 0 WV/U TROCHILIDAE - HUMMINGBIRDS Calypte anna - Anna's hummingbird 0 R/F TROGLODYTIDAE - WRENS TURDIDAE - THRUSHES, BLUEBIRDS, AND SOLITAIRES Turdus migratorius - American robin E WV/U lip TYRANNIDAE - FLYCATCHERS Sa ornis says - Say's phoebe 0 WV/U TYTONIDAE - BARN OWLS ' Tyto alba - barn owl E R/U i a � I jo • • • L52 • APPENDIX D ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT • • • • • CJ 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, california 92660 phone (714) 640-6743 n 1050 northgate drive, suite 554 san rafael, california 94903 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLANNING COLLABMATIVC- phone (415) 479-3370 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND REPORTING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH AND RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY BAYWOOD APARTMENTS EXPANSION NEWPORT BEACH, CA • 1 PREPARED BY THEO N. MABRY, M.A. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR V ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLANNING COLLABORATIVE 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 525 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 640-6743 DECEMBER 13, 1978 • 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLANNING CO AABORAnVe • ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH AND RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY BAYWOOD APARTMENTS EXPANSION NEW PORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION We are pleased to submit the following report in response to your request for an archaeological resources records search and reconnaissance survey for the +7-acre Baywood Apartments Expansion project area located at the confluence of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin -Hills Road in • Newport Beach, CA. The project area is owned by The Irvine Company and the proposed expansion is being developed by Irvine Pacific Development Company. The exact location on the USGS topographic series is Laguna Beach Quadrangle, 7.5 minute series, Township 6S, Range 9W, Section 93, SE Quadrant (Figure 1 ) . These tasks were performed at the request of Larry Seeman Associ- ates, Inc. of Newport Beach as part of an Initial Study for the City of Newport Beach in compliance with guidelines established for the imple- mentation of the California Environmental Quality Act. PERSONNEL • The records search and reconnaissance survey were performed by Theo Mabry, Principal Investigator for Archaeological Planning Collaborative. Ms. Mabry has a Master's Degree in Anthropology from California State University at Fullerton and is an associate professor at Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa. She has done numerous archaeological surveys and excavations in Southern California. RECORDS SEARCH A records search was made at the District 14 Clearinghouse for the Society for California Archaeology. The records search revealed that the project area is part of a larger region that has been surveyed in the past by the Pacific Coast Archaeological Society. There were no sites recorded within the boundaries of the project area. Although the Baywood Apartments area lies within an extremely sensitive archaeological region, no sites are recorded within 1 ,000 feet of the project area. • RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY To determine whether unrecorded sites exist, a complete reconnaissance survey was conducted within the boundaries of the project area.. FIGURE 1 2 • PROJECT AREA LOCATION MAP ARCHAEOLOGKAL PLANNING COLLABORATIVE ' • LAGUNA BEACH QUADRANGLE UNITED STATES CALIFORNIA—ORANGE CO. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) y- GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 11 T52'30" R.to w R 91.v 42 1 SiNrA awa£n:•ii r"' •421 'TIE 422 50' 6, .,J. �`: T'ResdrvbirD " r'o't. �• 1 .p� may K ,- ., /l'rr✓ fr t='•' vG :'�' iJ `/ " '_ �- �' \ "`y�y` ! '��i.` I �;s✓` SI ��vT �� �'�' ui�i�f"'..._� -�'v,`. �.\:._u+�-•, LEY.N471Y• ur2 �' s•'^4 n c'.`., t '. 4+ a:`. `v`-•- _. I I 1 - ,y; O .tss�.J`, Ft'r 0°.r1't.! '�`•�i-.�:T' +,� !; :a dha 4 Re _ eke\ 0I. •,i...._,+, 0 �Iar .:.,,s ri�,'� y0;. �r 1 l Sir"? y{`• Y ¢71.P00rf?t171 r �df; al . jj :�j _.�.,`•,' ('�`7'Oir• � „�;• N i PROJECT AREA s�i���';; ¢ t• �( X'.\�\P\'.Ir ni •4 y4 aLi-.�/ `Fi '�'�'E�, �� —Mncoir `a � �'�,yr j �� } f•� _� - - m �• ,1''$ t• i'Scb �•y`. }, I `Il MpJitl g ^`�v r4r''k• I` -. , _ •l`. \ QD �\'\_;r.,y,1� "p .,>° `., �•• ;h"p "`tti.:�:,• +\6`�.- R .�+ roar% ' f ._ le b tail" �� 71 `7:•�j��'al' r'/ � >N, � :%(, �.v+¢r R-4e1''.rt 'r:f •��D• .�.«.',� 'r •� J.``�A \ ><vl}J��•�, 'Ji �•'' D •• rY 1 �;,...1•,V iY!`� j '• P jam.: � �' 41 •/•`�I'�xdr_,yS •t•y.yr, :;73_ c>i T.6S. •' •=••h"�Y, a°>i'�\`••_ry rt f,'A :f •�.'i ice :,? � :=.: ynig ' >y..p 1. ` ,���I '`!�r 1.-s .•.,'� @ t`�a�l '.1_ � ) {SO , 3=`''..C>ks@ A:.. �a� i f, V � � 41••• �\ �/ $PfL{,WA1'r�' 'pf ,•% / e/ ti ajr c„y.� -• �/,,•p�� , •Hnrboil;'hwi`'� \E'LFEV Ibo . P \a' p' �1�•.,;._ -~"� , '�.�• �=�„.�:,. �� Q P CoRnb. Y Skl�t •7JJ �'•s`;�, si" `. r.4 !'I.r _,- / Y\ zm ,son d n�iN �VP13L �Ef�Qr ° ��' �l;.!�l , }, / +,4/'"�N'irbo7t� ``'l'.i'�r11 1, n:'. :•\ •c?"+\ xsii ��..y,� r. -\ �� B i f t l��:iJ'l �:iep .r 1_`,�,�•\•..'. ,. - r_`=�C,.� ��. ';,1;�• ;+ `\ 2-21 T.75. ♦ f' i ,�'y, ;� . -•.. L / BMFi.�, , �:•.i %Pelican l ! 3 ARC1iakoLOMAL PLANNING COLLABORAnVe • Site Description. The project area is roughly triangular in' shape with MacArthur Boulevard forming the northwestern boundary and San Joa- quin Hills Road forming the southwestern boundary. The curving eastern boundary is adjacent to the present Baywood Apartments development. The southern tip of the project area is landscaped and grading has altered ! the natural contours. A large drainage ditch is located in the north- western portion. The ground surface over much of the project area was visible because of recent disking. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • No archaeological resources were located within the project area. Numerous shells were located in the southeast section; however, no other midden indicators were present. The shells are apparently part of a natural deposit. Since no sites were discovered and since none are re- corded within 1 ,000 feet of the project area, no mitigation measures are required. However, in view of the archaeological sensitivity of the general area surrounding the site, as evidenced by the PCAS survey, it is possible that archaeological sites could be unearthed as the area is modified through grading. If this occurs, grading or related activities should be halted -within a 20-meter radius of the discovery, and a quali- fied archaeologist should be called in to assess the finds and make appropriate mitigation recommendations. ! 0 Lsa APPENDIX E TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION ANALYSIS ,r ! ! • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS • BAYWOOD APARTMENT EXPANSION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA • • MAY 30, 1979 REVISED JUNE 28, 1979 • PREPARED BY • MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES 2565 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE, SUITE 124 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 I • TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 ANALYSIS TIME PERIOD I PROJECT DESCRIPTION I TRAFFIC GENERATION 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT 5 ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS 5 "1% ANALYSIS" 7 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (I.C.U.) 'ANALYSIS 9 CONCLUSIONS 9 APPENDIX - 1% ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS I.C.U. ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS TABLE 1 - ESTIMATION OF VEHICLE TRIPS GENERATED FIGURE 1 - LOCATION MAP • FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN FIGURE 3 - TRIP DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 4 - TRIP ASSIGNMENT (SAN MIGUEL DRIVE CUL-DE-SACED) • INTRODUCTION • This report summarizes the findings of a traffic impact analysis for the proposed 140-unit addition to the existing Baywood Apartment complex in Newport Beach, California. • Specifically, the outline of this report is structured to meet the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. The 111% Analysis" and "I.C.U. (Intersection Capacity Utilization) Analysis" were made according to the • City Administrative Procedure S-1 and for the critical intersections in the area as identified by the City Traffic Engineer. • ANALYSIS TIME PERIOD Based on discussions with the developer, it was determined that the project is anticipated to be completed in 1981. Therefore, 1982 is the • year for which the "S-1" analysis was conducted. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The subject property is located on the east side of MacArthur Boule- vard westerly of San Miguel Drive and .northerly of San Joaquin Hills Road. • The proposed development is an expansion of the existing 320-unit Baywood Apartment complex. Approximately 140 units will be constructed adjoining the existing complex. figure 1 shows the location map of the subject property. One access point will be constructed to serve the subject development. It will be the entrance to the existing apartment complex from San Miguel Drive. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan for the new construction. • Two-hundred forty-four (244) parking spaces will be provided at a ratio of 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit. 1 • NoittH �y? o ro !RVN tl 1I�' PROJ6cT Loci-7NO ( Mom►t FIGURE 1. LOCATION MAP--BAYWOOD APARTMENT EXPANSION 2 R • TRAFFIC GENERATION • II In 1976, the City Traffic Engineer conducted traffic generation counts for the existing apartment complex. The study obtained useful trip genera- tion data, such as daily and peak hour generation rates. These rates are • used in this study. The trip generation rates and number of trips generated are summarized as follows: • TABLE 1. ESTIMATION OF VEHICLE TRIPS GENERATED No. of Trip Generation Rate In Trips Generated Dwelling Trips Per Dwelling Unit P.M. Peak • Units 24-Hour P.M. Peak Hour 24-Hour P.M. Peak Hour 22 Hrs. 140 6.5 0.6 910 84 168 (0.4 In, 0.2 Out) (56 In, 28 Out) (112In 56 0ut) The above shows that the proposed 140-unit expansion would generate 910 vehicle trips per day and 168 vehicle trips during the evening peak 22-hour period. The evening peak 22-hour traffic volume is found to be two times • the evening peak hour volume. • • 3 • �. / m n •' S � � i � � ti r f �roil 0 -• �. tr o O O D a oAM BUM for kWne PadfieDavokpmwd Con%erq a Wow rrd rlrmrn Q %fir=ts: • TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT • The project generated traffic volumes were distributed according to the anticipated travel orientation and patterns, site access and highway system in the vicinity of the subject property. • Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution. These estimates have been approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Generally, it was estimated that the generated traffic would be distributed 40 percent northerly on • MacArthur Boulevard, 25 percent southerly on MacArthur Boulevard, 26 percent westerly on San Joaquin Hills Road, 6 percent easterly on San Joaquin Hills Road and 3 percent northeasterly on San Miguel Drive. • The usage of alternate routes by future traffic is dependent upon many factors, such as capacities, congestion, travel times, turning movements permitted or protected, site location and location of access points, and, finally, the street network configuration. • ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS • It is anticipated that six critical intersections will be impacted by the proposed development. These intersections were identified by the City Traffic Engineer as follows: • 1. MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road 2. San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive 3. Pacific Coast Highway and MacArthur Boulevard 4. MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road • 5. San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road 6. Pacific Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue The "1% Analysis" was made for each of the critical intersections for • the evening peak 22-hour (3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. ) period. If the estimated incremental traffic volume exceeded 1% of forecasted 1982 traffic volume, I • 5 • Q NpRrH Forte S,lSXi 13y 3� S. utw Hills � ��Jews • f—► � x . i5• .' :sy sx sss F�auRc 4 fbR TRM AStf CNMRNT p ace o� �E 4f, �y w.0"14 • FIGURE 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION • 6 • then an "I.C.U. (Intersection Capacity Utilization) Analysis" was made for • that intersection per City of Newport Beach adopted procedure "S-1". The results of the "1% Analysis" and "I.C.U. Analysis" are summarized in the following sections. • "1% ANALYSIS" • The generated traffic volumes used in the "1% Analysis" were obtained by multiplying the total ingress and egress volumes for the 22-hour peak period (as shown in Table 1) and the percentage values shown in Figures 3 and 4. Worksheets can be found in the Appendix. • The results of the .111% Analysis" are as follows: ' During P.M. 22-hour peak period does project generated traffic • Intersection exceed 1% existing volume? 1. MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road Yes 2. San Joaquin Hills Road & • San Miguel Drive Yes 3. Pacific Coast Highway & MacArthur Boulevard No 4. MacArthur Boulevard & • Ford Road No 5. San Joaquin Hills Road & Jamboree Road No 6. Pacific Coast Highway & • Marguerite Avenue Yes • • 7 kpKTN a� fir! 3s�; • ~N'yj "Aix fit mobob ,4SITF yP"� �5 q. t1� �% • 15X i K P.M. FOAL^14 2*-04oWI. MR10D VaMIG1.1k -Mips I &OWND 11'j �'�'� • ourl►ouNta 56 --''1 No felt • FIGURE 4. TRIP ASSIGNMENT (SAN MIGUEL DRIVE CUL-DE-SACED) • 8 . • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION I .C .U. ) ANALYSIS • For the intersections at which the projected future traffic volumes exceed 1 percent of projected 1982 volumes, the "I.C.U. Analyses" were made. The results are summarized as follows: • 1982 Intersection 1978 1979 1982 w ro'ect San Joaquin Hills Road & • San Miguel Drive 0.4078 -- 0.4149 0.4317 MacArthur Boulevard & San Joaquin Hills Road -- 0.7664 0.8660 0.8698 Pacific Coast Highway & • Marguerite Avenue 0.6798 -- 0.7357 0.7357 CONCLUSIONS • Based upon the estimation of future traffic volumes and capacity analysis, it was found that none of the critical intersections adjacent to the proposed development would be adversely impacted. Specifically, the project generated traffic volumes during the evening peak 22-hour period • would exceed 1 percent of forecasted 1982 volumes at only three intersec- tions, namely, San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive, MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, and Pacific Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue. However, the I.C.U. analysis found that future inter- section I.C.U. 's would not exceed 0.90, thus mitigation measures would not be warranted. The I.C.U. analysis indicates that the highest I.C.U. of 0.8698 is at • the MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road intersection for the 1982 condition of San Miguel cul-de-saced and including the assigned gener- ated project traffic. The I.C.U. ratio calculation was based upon comple- tion of the Harbor Point Homes in 1981. (The Harbor Point Subdivision • project was approved by the City Council on May 14, 1979.) It is concluded • g. I per er the "S-1" procedures that that in accordance with the analysis traffic generated by the Baywood Apartment Expansion project will not • adversely affect the operating characteristics of the study intersections, which were determined for analysis by the City. The existing entrance to Baywood Apartments is located on San Miguel • Drive and directly aligned with Pacific View. It is estimated that in the evening peak hour traffic volume would increase by approximately 56 vehicles per hour. The estimated incremental traffic volume would not be great enough to cause significant safety or congestion impact on the internal circulation of the apartment complex. • • • • • • 10 • 1 • • • APPENDIX • 1% ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS • I .C. U. ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS • • • • • • • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHl1R- SANJOAQW4 HILLS (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/spring 1979) • Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction I Peak 26 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Vol" Volu Northbound 1 775 1+ ( 1 6 l907 '� 15 • Southbound 5442 17 598 4o67 41 4o astbound 3190 1 O 3100 54'10 3$ 50 astbound 1180 O 1 O(o 1 z8 6 15 4� • (� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization • (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • DATE, 5-50—79 PROJECT: !'SoYvvooa OPa,aZ-rM�NTS FORM I • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS • Intersection MAcART UR—$ANJ0A UIN (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on verage Inter Spring 1979 Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXISTrGROWTH COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap Lanes Cap PK H Ratio PROJECT V/C Ratio H/o Protectvolume Y/C Ratio • Vol. NL 1-1600 '85 •05313 •055oNT z-3=0 . 4q0 •1931 _ 51 7 •2131 — 2160 • NR I2-8 5 9 SL 1-32-00 7-82- •0991 83 • 11,41 20 Izo3 ST 2-3zoo qlq 217z 9 185 3478* — 3 78 SR N.S . 387 — 31 — — • EL 2-32.00 811 •253 86 •2803 — •zSo3 ET 3-4860 499 •1379 57 • 1513 15 544 —ERT 7 — WL I- 1"o 95 •0594 4 • 0619 •ob44 • WT 3-4 00 165 .o7x x3 •o z * 8 0 6 WR S1 26 to YELLOWTIME •10 •10 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 ( •I0 • EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 • 8 6 6 0 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. •$6 8 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal • to 0.90 rl Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 • Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Description of system improvement: • DATE: PROJECT: �"�' W`�`�D �''P'" TM6^► rs FORM 11 PROJECT: gi+•YwocnD A'P.o.RTMISlJTS _ • INiERSEC.TION:M/RCF �THUI,- 5AI`Q0AQQlN HILLS DATE:_rJ' Fen1•RH• MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1 1981 1982 1983 1984 NL • NT NR �1 SL zo » ST SR EL • ET 15 ER WL 4 • wr e WR ! • PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR • • • • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis IntersectionJAN.JaAQUIN µIQ— SR>\1 MICYUEL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) • 5Atl MIULLEL DR• roach Exist GLL1.—�E—.SA�Ea (Apping Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction I Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour I Voluae Growth Peak 24 Hour Muse Voluer Yotuawt Volume Volume _ c 2, o i • Northbound 120 3� I Jr I ISouthbound 684 — 10 7 8 Eastbound 618 22 51 23 86 • stbound I ► 9 6 —' 24 12 20 12 Zo 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume • © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • I • DATE: 5 30—79 • PROJECT: �'je.Ywee�p 4PA'Q'T"MENT'., FORM I PROJECT: g7AY W tx�D ��aF2TY►M1�^�TS • INTERSECTION: SANJOAC�UIN HILLS- SA�M!40EL DATE: 5- 2-741 SAN MIGLIEL cuL-aL-*^cFD • Rm.r.H• MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NL • NT NR SL 2 • ST SR 2 EL 43 • ET ER WL • WT 8 WR 2 • PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR • • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS sAN MiG?ueL Intersection SAN SOAQUIN HILLS — SAN MIGUEL C.QL—DE—SACED. (Existing Traffic Volumes Base on verage inter Spring 1978 • Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST REGIONAL COMNITTEO PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cep Lines Cap PK HR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio VOL. VOL. w/o Project Vol. NL I..I(000 Z+ •0150 // • oz38 •oz38 NT •00 1 •oo56 — •0056 • NR I—IbQQ to •0043 2 • oo75 * '- .007$ ae SL 1- IC,00 I Ib •0�=sj` • 072.5* 2 •0738' ST Z 2-3200 5 0 1 7 .0 72- — •0544 SR 141 4 T23 • EL 2-3200 9'}(, •13Q 13 • 143�h* 3 •156 ET 3-+Boo 2-5 • 369 •1369 ER 2 21 WL I— ll�oo 3 •oz69 3 o�gs — •02.8a • WT — 00 3$8 •08*' Q •091 S 3 .0935 WR 82 — 10 YELLOWTIME •J� .J0 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION •4078 �J p • EXISTING PLUS C"ITTEO PLUS REGIOW. GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 • ¢1 EXISTING PLUS COMnTTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ••1.3 I7 JcL]• Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal • to 0.90 [] Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 • Q Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Description of system improvement: DATE: 5-30-79 I', • PROJECT: po ta-rM�n1'r 5 FORM 11 I� w • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis IntersectionCOhST HiGoWA_Y—MAr-ARTHUR- (Existing Traffic VoTu—mes -based on AverageWinter/Spring 1978) SA►A M1CtliL AR. GYL—DS—Sr�iD • (Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Protected Protect Direction Peak 21s Hour Regional Protects Peak 28 Hour Peak 21% Hour Peak 21g Hour' I Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume INorthbound �—.. — — r • Southbound i -12.5$ 18 418 2.(61 2-7 8 Eastbound 32." 57 176 5+37 34 18 stbound 3432. 85 140 5657 J7 • ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected • Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • DATES-30-79 PROJECT: P�vYwona A P" a-'T^«^1Tip • FORM I • PROJECT: T5 INIERSECTION: GO!A,�r Hlr.HWAY- MAr-ARTHUlZ _ DATE: • J.aN MIGUGI-DR• CU4-DE-5.4GbD RM•P N• MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 • NL NT NR • SL ST SR 1} • EL �l ET ER • WL WT WR • PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR • • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis IntersectionMACA VuFz— FORD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter Spring 1978) • (Approach Existing Peek 24 Hour Approved, Projected j% of Projected Project !Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour' I Volume Growth Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume _ Vol uee Volume i I^ Ho I rthoound 3657 t8 �L92 M67 40 20 outhhound ; 403,2 20 +9Z 454 45 40 IEasthound t5 all- 4 t588 16 eschound Ioo7 ^ 30 1037 to - • Q 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 2h Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization • (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • DATE: r✓'30'79 PROJECT: p�AYwoon daP ..szTM�rJTS FORM • PROJECT: s INIERSFCTION: /�AG/�t(3�1{I�= FOfZD -- ----•- --- --_ DATE: 5 -2-7Q - • RM•R H• MOVEMENT 1979 19PO 1981 1982 1983 1984 • NL NT 10 NR • SL ST zo SR • EL ET ER • WL WT WR • PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR • • • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection SAM JOAQCIIN HILLS — JAMj>OICE'E' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter Spring 1978) • IAppro+ch Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected if of Projected Protect Direction Pak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 211 Hour Peak 21% Hour Peak A Hour' 1 Volume Growth Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Vol unc Volume i IHorthbound 25_81 506 30g2, 31 4 � SouthboOnd 41134 8 402, 4544 -}5 16 { ,E+stbound 385 — 6 ' t 44 � estbound l s6 a 689 z7 I C • © 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 211 Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • DATE: 5—3o—7q PROJECT: �4Ywooa �P�RTM�NTS FQRM I I� • PROJECT: Y w T5 LLS DATE: 5 -2-"7�{ INILRSECTION: JAMj3poKa:= SANJog(�uLlt _ • RM•R H. MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 • NL NT NR ,Z •; SL S ST SR EL ET ER • WL { WT WR • PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR • • • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis IntersectionCo^ST HIGHWAY— MARGUERITE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1978) 5^N M16LL6L .AR. "L—DE—SryG@D iApproach Existing Peak 21, Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2S Hour Regional Projects Peak 2)s Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour' I Volume Growth Peak 21& Hour Volume Volume Volume , Volume Volume No 613rthoound , Southbound ij 450 17-6 556 6 (Eastbound 60 510 315 35 _ estbound 2.40i1 46,0 10¢ �.565 2.6 la I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected S Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • irA • • DATE: 5—30—79 PROJECT: p�e.Ywooa o.P�riTnnENrb • FORM I - PROJECT: Y INTERSECTION:GQ{jS —Hi ..HwAY— MAP—r..d&j&-TP DATE: 5 - F -74 CASE 1. SAN MIGuE4 >P. CUL-DE-.S.�CED MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NL NT NR ! SL `} ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR M PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR ilk r • L • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS SAN M14U4L �, Intersection CoasT HIUHWAV MP.RGuEFUTE CALL-bb-SACED (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage nter Spring WE) Movement EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST EXIST COMMITTED PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT lanes Cap Lines Cap PYoIR M4go YJUR11MIOMAL L VOL.ECT V/C Ratio W10 Project Volw V/C Ratio Vol. NL 1—Iboo 83 e51q — •051 * •o5►41t NT I— 160o 98 7 .e oo — • 0100 •0 00 NR 46 — SL 1- 1600 87 •D544 3 '0563 •0 88 ST I-1600 73 .0 31 o * • oo6e SR r47, EL I-1600 •o',q — •0%.6 'bolET 2-32A0 •Hfi 153 •4344 344ER 1 -1600 •041 • 0.43 WL 1-1600 •04a — •o48b* •b4b8* WT 24-3zAo 850' 5 '}8 •R 88 .3016 WR 50 8 `I YELLOYTINE •I� •10 I EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GWH Y/PAOPOSED IMIPRWTIIENTS I.C.U,.78 A EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS IMEGIONRL GIIOYf'M PLUS PROECT I.C.U. •7357 QX Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 [� Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 [� Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvements 19 will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: 14 • DATE: PROJECT: '^IC>C::>r> fs•pa+ Ea-t'Mi FORM 11 N t MOHLE, PERRY&ASSOCIATES June 19, 1979 Mr. Bert Ashland Larry Seeman Associates 500 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Baywood Apartments Traffic Signal Warrants Intersection of San Miguel Drive and Baywood Drive Dear Bert:. This•is a followup to my letter to you dated June 15, 1979 concerning the subject intersection and the possible need for signalization. The attached traffic signal warrant sheet- shows that signalization is •' not warranted based on either Warrant 1 or 2. Even adding the traffic that will be generated from the proposed expansion does not add enough volume to meet the warrants. This analysis is intended to indicate that based on traffic volumes, signalization of the intersection will not be warranted as a result of the. proposed apartment project expansion. Please call me if you have any questions. 'Best regards, MOHLE,�PERRY & ASSOCIATES - , R. Henry Mohle Senior Vice President RHM:jh Attachment w MUNIGPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 2565 E.Gwpmon Ave.SuNe 124,Fullerton,CA 92631, (714)738-3471 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC RHM DATE 6/19/79 57 CO 97E RM CHK DATE Major St: San Miguel Drive Critical Approach Speed 45 mph Minor St: Pacific View Dr./Bavwood Dx.Critical Approach Speed 30 mph Critical speed of major street trafflc> 40 mph ............. In built up area of Isolated community of < 10,000 pop. -------- a RURAL (R) ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 — Minimum Vehicular Volume A MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 100% SATISFIED Yes ❑ No 100% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) 80% SATISFIED Yes ❑ No ❑ U R U I R APPROACH H S 2 or more 3-4 5-6 4-5 2-3 1-2 2-1 i-1 8-9 Hour Both Apprchs. 60o s50 SOD 420 Major street f4DOt 1250) (4w) 133a1 686 748 655 581 544 559 482 468 Highest Apprcb 160 106 f 1 200 140 177 92 143 161 168 135 125 129 (All W/B) Minor Street• (120) IB41 ISO) 112) NOTE:Heavier of left turn movement from Major Street Included When LT-phasing is proposed 42 48 63 43 53 52 58 123 (All E/B) WARRANT 2— Interruption of Continuous Traffic MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 100% SATISFIED Yes ❑ NO 12 IBOX SHOWN IN BRACKETS) u R u I R 80% SATISFIED Yes ❑ No A LOAC ANES H 1 2 or more 3-4 5-6 4-5 2-3 1-2 12-1 11-1 8-9 Hour Hi 750 S26 two 680 woo) f4201 720) (304) 686 748655 581 544559482 468 76 53 100 70 1601 142) fact 156) 177 921143 1 161 1 168 1 135 1 125 129 (All W/B) !� •NOTE:Heavier of left turn movement from Major Street Included When LT-phesfng Is proposed ❑ WARRANT 3— Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED Yes ❑ No ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED Yes 0 No ❑ 180% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U I R Hour Both Apprchs. No Median 600 420 Major street (400) (3361 Volume Raised 1000 700 Ian 500 (560 Peda'On Hlghesl Valume 150 106 X-Welk Xin Ma or Street 1120 Ia41 IF MIDBLOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED ❑ MIN, REQUIREMENT I DISTANCE TO NEAREST ESTABLISHED CRWLK, FULFILLED 150 Feet N/E ft S/W ft I Yes ❑ No ❑ WARRANT 4 — School Crossings Not Applicable ❑ See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑ TS.t0A NOTE: Counts taken by City of Newport Beach on November 30, 1978. r • Lsa • A BAYWOOD APARTMENTS EXPANSION AIR QUALITY IMPACT EVALUATION NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA • Ii • • • PREPARED BY HANS D. GIROUX CONSULTING ASSOCIATE LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 525 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 'PHONE (714) 640-6363 • JUNE 15, 1979 • • Lsa APPENDIX F AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS i It 1 Lsa INTRODUCTION This report presents an air quality impact analysis for construction and occupancy of 140 multiple family apartment units designed as an extension of the existing Baywood Apartment complex located at the intersection of Mac- Arthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road in the City of Newport Beach. Since air quality impact from residential developments is usually directly proportional to the number of dwelling units, the impact of the proposed Bay- wood expansion on ambient air quality is not expected to be significant. Of greater air quality concern is the emissions from traffic on MacArthur Boule- vard that may degrade ambient air quality for project residents. This report analyzes the impact of the project on ambient air quality as well as predict- ♦ ' ing the effects of existing and future traffic on adjacent project residents. METEOROLOGY/CLIMATOLOGY The climate of Newport Beach, as with all of Southern California, is con- trolled by the position and strength of the subtropical high pressure center • over the Pacific Ocean. It controls the position of the mid-latitude storm track, drives the predominant land/sea breeze circulation, and creates the temperature inversions that lead to degraded regional air quality. A thin layer of cool marine air in the warm, sinking air mass,of the high pressure cell moderates temperatures, maintains a comfortable relative humidity, and keeps the area from becoming more arid as is typical of more inland areas. The average annual temperature of 61OF is dominated by the oceanic marine air influence with only 14 degrees temperature difference between the coldest month (January - 540) and the warmest month (August - 680F), Temperatures in most years do not exceed 100OF or drop below freezing. Winds around Newport Beach, which control both the initial rate of dilution from pollutant sources and the ultimate regional (redistribution), are usually favorable in maintaining excellent air quality in Southern California coastal environs. Figure 1 shows that two dominant wind regimes, one parallel to the coastline from the SE-S and a second onshore component perpendicular to the coast from the SW-W, bring clean ocean air into Newport Beach and carry away r any locally generated pollutants. The average windspeed of 6.1 mph usually prevents any stagnation of pollutants. Winds become light at night and may blow offshore in bringing air from more polluted inland areas toward the coast, but the sea breeze usually sets in early every day and again carries these emis- sions inland. Although the onshore component weakens inalnd and allows for downwind pollution buildup, the ocean breezes keep Newport Beach extremely , "clean". • li FIGURE 1 IRVINE COASTAL AREA WIND 2 • DIRECTION FREQUENCY NEAR THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE PEV€LOPMENT AREA LARW SEEMAN ASSOCIATES LOCATION: NEWPORT BEACH (1900 Bayside Drive) August 1954 to December 1974 N • s MEAN SPEED = 5.2 mph • Source: "Winds in California," 1978. I 3 • I LCM In addition to weaker winds inland, two types of temperature inversions form in Southern California that contribute to any potential air quality prob- lems. When the warm sinking air in the offshore high-pressure center is un- dercut by a shallow layer of marine air, a marine/subsidence inversion is formed. These inversions are strongest and most persistent in summer when they cause basinwide ozone problems at all inland locations. A second inver- sion forms when air near the ground is cooled by contact with the cold ground on clear, calm nights, These radiation inversions lead to localized pollu- tion "hot spots" near low-level sources such as freeways or parking facilities. When combined with very light offshore winds during cool winter evenings, ra- diation inversions can lead to somewhat degraded air quality in Newport Beach as vehicular emissions from populated areas of Orange County are carried to- , ward the ocean without any appreciable dispersion, AIR QUALITY Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). In assessing the air quality impact of a proposed development, that impact, together with the existing baseline air quality levels, must be related to the applicable AAQS. These standards, an • outgrowth of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970, were established to protect the public health (primary standards) and the public welfare (secondard stan - dards) from any known or potential adverse effects of air pollutants. The En- vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated standards for six pollutant species with individual states retaining the option to establish their own standards as long as the most stringent standard for any pollutant over any AD averaging time was enforced. Since California had standards already in exis- tence before the Federal action, and has certain unique quality problems intro* duced by the extremely high inversion frequency, some diversity between Fed- eral and State standards exists. Table A summarizes AAQS currently applicable in California. Pollutant Emissions Inventory. In gauging the impact of a proposed devel- opment, it is instructive to compare project related emissions with existing and future regional emission levels. Since it is usually implicitly assumed that downwind regional air quality is proportional to upwind pollutant source strength, a comparison of the relative increase due to the project yields a general estimate of the corresponding ambient air quality impact. 46 Table B shows that Orange County emissions are almost completely dominated by vehicular sources. Except for sulfur dioxide, module sources comprise over half of the County pollutant burden with over 99 per cent of the CO, 83 per cent of the NOx, 67 per cent of the reactive hydrocarbons, and 52 per cent of the particulates related to vehicular operation. • TABLE A 4. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS APPLIC BLE IN CALIFORNIA I.ARRY SEl3N1AN ASSOCIATES California Averaging Standards Federal Standards Pollutant Time Concentration Primary Secondary Photochemical Samo as Oxidants 1 Hour 0.10 Pont1GO ug/m3 Primary (Measured as Ozone) - (200 ug/m3) (0.08 ppm) Standard Carbon Monoxide 12 Hours 10 ppm ..• (11 mg/m3) Same as ••• 8 Hours 10 mg/m3 Primary (9 ppm) 1 Hour 40 ppm 40 mg/m3 Standard (46 mg/m3) 135 ppm) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average ... 100 u9/m3 Same as (0.05 ppm) Primary Standard •1 Hour 0.25ppm .__ (470 ug/m3) .•• - Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average •,• 80 ug/m3 ,•• (0.03 ppm) 24 Hours .os ppm in comb.w/ 365 ug/m3 „• .10 ppm Ox or (0.14 ppm) 100 ug/m3 TSP 3 Hours ... •• ... m 1300 ug/ 3 (0.5 ppm) I our 0.5 ppm ••• ,•, (1310 u9/m3) ! - • Suspended Particulate Annual Geo- 60 ug/m3 75 ug1r 60 uq!m3 Matter metric Mean 24 Hours ( too ug/m3 j 200 ug/m3 150 ug/10 Lead(Particulate) 30-Day 1.5 ug/m3 ,•• Average Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm •.. ... 0 2 ug/m3) Hydrocarbons Same as (Corrected for Methane) 3 Hours ... 160 u9/m3 Primary (6-9 a.m.) (0.24 ppm) Standard Ethylene 8Hour 0.1 ppm •'- "' 1 Hour _0.5 ppm�— ••• Visibility-Reducing 1 observation In sufficient Particles amount to reduce tire prevailing visibility to 10 ••• ••- miles when the relative humidity is less than 70% Sulfate (particulates) 24 Hours 25ug/m3 -- ppm•Parts per million . pptm•Parts per ten million ' pphm•Parts per hundred million aq/m3•Micrograms per cubic meter , it TABLE B 5 1975-76 ORANGE COUNTY EMISSIONS INVENTORY AVERAGE SUMMER WEEKDAY) LARW SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Emissions Source (Tohs/Da Stationary On-Road Off-Road Pollutant Species Man-Made Natural Mobile Vehicles Total Total hydrocarbons (THC) 91 .7 250.2 187.1 17.7 546.7 Reactive hydrocarbons (RHC) 69.3 24.6 170.8 16.2 280.9 Carbon monoxide (CO) 9.1 - 1451 .5 99.5 1560.1 Oxides of. nitrogen (NOx) 32.7 - 135.5 24.3 192.5 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 22.8 - 7.1 6.2 36.1 Total particulates 20.7 - 18.3 4.5 43.5 ♦ • 6 Lsa Any future reductions in County pollutants, and by inference downwind air quality, therefore, rests with improving vehicular emission characteristics. Future automobile emission levels for carbon monoxide will drop sharply, such that CO levels should decrease in most areas of the County. Continued County growth, however, will offset slower reductions in vehicular NOx and RHC which • will cause those pollutant levels to remain relatively constant in the next few decades. The current draft Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for achiev- ing all AAQS, as required by law in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, con- centrates heavily on stationary source controls for pollutant reduction, Since automobile emission control is beyond the authority of local agencies, im- provement of Orange County air quality is dependent on stationary source air • quality control in upwind areas of Los Angeles County. There is little possi- bility of additional residential development such as the proposed project of generating any signjficant air pollutant mitigation because of this inability to control transportation-related pollutants short of land use plans to com- I pletely prohibit future growth. Unless the air quality management process develops additional tactics that can further reduce transportation-related pollutants, the attainment of AAWS by the mandated 1987 deadline may be diffi- cult to achieve. Newport Beach Ambient Air Quality, No longterm air quality measurements have been made near the proposed project site. The nearest Air Quality Manage- ment District (AQMD) monitoring stations are at Costa Mesa (near Harbor Boule- vard on Fairview State Hospital grounds) and in Laguna Beach (several blocks • from Pacific Coast Highway). Although neither station is necessarily identical to the local ambient air quality conditions near MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, they are both representative of the general regional condi- tions found near Newport Beach. Table C, a three.-year summary of available data, indicates that AAQS for all pollutant species except sulfur dioxide may sometimes be exceeded in the area. Laguna Beach air quality is somewhat bet- ter than in Costa Mesa because of a lower traffic density further south along the coast, but still not completely immune from degraded air quality. Given the location of the project site somewhat intermediate between Laguna Beach and Costa Mesa locations, one would expect similarly intermediate air quality levels. Although air quality near the project site is among the "cleanest" in the County, it may on occasion experience oxidant and particulate levels of • almost twice the standard, NO2 and CO levels very close to the standards, and S02 well below standards. Based on current air pollution controls , the ex- ceedances of the oxidant and particulate standards will continue well into the future. If the AQMP tactics are adopted and successful , then oxidant levels are forecast to drop to below standards while particulates, partly due to natural sources, will continue at their present levels. • � I TABLE C 7 AIR QUALITY SUMMARY — NEWPORT BEACH AREA LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES Costa Mesa Laguna 89ach 1975 1976 1977 1975 1976 1977 Oxidant 19 days 17 days 38 days - - - .08 ppm - i hr. 0.18 ppm 0.16 ppm 0.18 ppm - - - Oxidant 11 days 10 days 31 days .10 ppm - 1 hr, 0.18 ppm 0.15 ppm 0.18 ppm - - - Nitrogen Dioxide 3 days 8 days 0 days 2 days - .25 ppm - 1 hr. 0.35 ppm 0.34 ppm 0.23 ppm 0.35 ppm - - Carbon Monoxide 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 days 0 daLs 35 ppm - 1 hr. 31 ppm 27 ppm 18 ppm 16 ppm 20 ppm 13 ppm � I Carbon Monoxide 40 days 57 da s 20 days 4 days 4 days 0 da,L 9 ppm - 8 hrs. 23 ppm - - 10 ppm - - Carbon Monoxide 31 days 24 days 5 days 2 days 0 days 0 days 10 ppm - 12 hrs. 20 ppm - - 10 ppm - - Sulfur Dioxide - not - - - - - 1, 3, 24, annual - exceed - - - - - Total Suspended Part. 37% 28% 210 15% 270. 10 pg/m3-24 hrs. 177 pg/m3 - 262 pg/m3 164 pg/m3 - 159 pg/m3 Total Suspended Part, Ali 60 jug/m3-AGM 74 yg/m3 73 pg/m3 - 73 pg/m3 74 pg/m3 - Data not observed or reported in relevant summaries • B Lsa AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED BAYWOOD APARTMENTS DEVELOPMENT Insofar as the Baywood Apartments expansion involves only 140 units , com- pared to a countywide total of almost 650,000 housing units, the regional air quality degradation from the 910 vehicle trips generated by the additional • residents will be small . Similarly, localized impacts from a maximum of about 100 resident vehicle-trips per hour will be overshadowed by the high traffic volumes on MacArthur, San Joaquin Hills Road, and other nearby road- ways. Because of the proximity of the proposed units to the busy intersection at MacArthur and San Joaquin Hills Road, the exposure of the apartment residents to roadway generated pollutants is perhaps a greater concern than the impact generated by the residents themselves. Fortunately, the emission levels from I automobiles are decreasing faster than the rate of traffic growth in Newport Beach. Any pollutant levels near this intersection could therefore decrease i in the future. • i Pollutant sources from the Baywood Apartments expansion will result from fugitive dust generated during construction, from heavy-duty -construction vehicle emissions, from project related automobile exhaust emissions, and from power plant emissions to generate electricity for Baywood residents. While the impact of these sources is extremely small , the incremental degra- dation from this project will combine with countless similar air basin sources • to create the characteristic regional air quality problems of Southern Califor- nia. Construction Impacts. Fugitive dust sufficiently small to be entrained in- to the local airstream and carried downwind will be generated during site Iclearing, grading, and vehicular travel on unpaved portions of the site. Much • of this dust will settle back down near the site and may cause a temporary nuisance downwind on foliage, parked cars, etc. The EPA suggests an emission factor of 1 .2 tons of dust per month per acre of construction. Regular watering in accordance with AQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) can reduce this value by 50 per cent. Applying this factor to six months • of heavy construction activity on seven acres of land, the resulting annual fugitive dust lofting is estimated at 25.2 tons per year compared to a basin- wide total of 43.5 tons per L . Since much of this dust is contained within a large particle size range that is easily filtered by people's breathing pas- ! sages, the health related impact of construction emissions is usually small . • 9 Lsa Heavy-duty equipment emissions are difficult to quantify because equipment mixes vary from day to day. As the emission factors in Table D show, heavy- duty equipment emissions are a significant pollutant source and their regional air quality impact should be given serious consideration in determining the cumulative project air quality impact. Mobile Source Impacts. The project will generate 910 average daily trips (ADT) at an average trip length (ATL) of about 10 miles, The daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is thus about 9100 miles, compared to a 1976 basinwide estimate of 180,000,000 VMT. By applying the vehicular emission factors from the CalTrans EMFAC5 computerized emission factor routine at an average route speed of 35 mph, the resulting vehicular emissions are calculated as shown in Table E. If the apartments are completed in 1980, 660 pounds of pollutants will be added to the regional burden, By 1985, this total will drop by slight- ly over 400 pounds. Compared to about 10,000 tons of air pollutants emitted in the South Coast Air Basin, any regional project air quality impact will be negligibly small . In order•to predict the level of carbon monoxide exposure for Baywood resin dents, the CalTrans line source dispersion model called CALINE2 was merged with the emission factor model EMFAC5 under worst-case traffic and meteorolog- ical conditions. Average traffic speeds within the intersection were assumed to be 15 mph (including waiting time) and an approach speed of 25 mph was used beyond 100 feet from the intersection. The resulting carbon monoxide pattern . for current and 1990 traffic levels are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. In both cases, any potential exceedance of the hourly CO standard of 35 ppm is confined to a short distance from the intersection itself. As previously noted, the future increase of traffic on the two roadways is more than compensated by the continuing decrease in vehicular CO emissions, such that 1990 roadway CO levels are significantly lower than today. Since neither the most restrictive meteorology (Pasquill "F" stability, 2 mph winds parallel to MacArthur) nor maximum hourly traffic (10 per cent of ADT) persist for 8-12 hours, the longer period CO standards should correspondingly not be threatened either, Unless background CO levels approach the longer period standards, the well ventilated exposure of the Baywood Apartment site should allow for project development without exposing the residents to unhealthy air because of project proximity to the MacArthur/San Joaquin Hills intersection. Stationary Source Impacts. Generation of electricity and combustion of natural gas for cooking, heating and hot water will contribute minor additional amounts of pollutants. Based on an enerby consumption estimate of 440 kwh of electricity and 4830 cubic feet of natural gas per month and "standard" emis- sion factors from EPA s AP-42 publication, the resulting emissions are present- ed in Table F. Compared to the vehicular emissions in Table E, the stationary i TABLE D • HEAVY-DUTY EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS 10 PER 1000 GALLONS OF FUEL USED IN BAYWOOD APARTMENTS EXPANSION Lsa • EMISSIONS LBS./1000 GALLONS OF FUEL DIESEL EQUIPMENT GASOLINE POWERED EMISSIONS EMISSIONS • Carbon Monoxide 202.8 1016,3 • 1 Hydrocarbons 28<0 109,3 Oxides of Nitrogen 277.6 102.3 * Oxides of Sulfur 26.5 3.3 Particulates 15.4 8.8 • I . • • I - I TABLE E 11 • BAYWOOD APARTMENT-RELATED REGIONAL VEHICULAR EMISSIONS 1980 PROJECT COMPLETION: EMISSION FACTOR EMISSIONS EMISSIONS POLLUTANT m/mi lbs/da (tons ear) • Carbon Monoxide 27.56 552.90 100.97 Hydrocarbons 2.34 46,94 8.57 Oxides of Nitrogen 3.10 62.19 11 .36 Sulfur Dioxide 0.15 3.01 0.55 Particulates 0.34 6.82 1 .25 1985 PROJECT COMPLETION: • Carbon Monoxide 18.24 365.93 66.83 Hydrocarbons 1 .45 29.09 5.31 Oxides of Nitrogen 2.18 43.73 7.99 • Sulfur Dioxide 0.15 3.01 0.55 Particulates 0.28 5.62 1 .03 • • • • 12 LCM FIGURE 2 Worst-case hourly CO levels Existing (ppm) adjacent to the Mac- aoywood • Arthur-San Joaquin Hills 20' Apartments Road Intersection - 1978 Levels v 25. . m 30. a c 35. 40. 5. 45. • 10. San Joaquin Hills Rd . — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — • FIGURE 3 '\° rb 'Worst-case hourly CO levels (ppm) adjacent to the Mac- Existing Arthur-San Joaquin Hills Baywood • Road Intersection Apartments 1990 Levels ; ,,,, ,,, Co r 25. ♦ s. ............ a 30, a 35. ��• by ry°• may• ^° San Joaquin Hills Rd- a TABLE F 13 • STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS FROM BAYWOOD APARTMENT EXPANSION Lcm • ELECTRICITY NATURAL GAS GENERATION COMBUSTION TOTAL EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS (tons/year) tons ear (tons/year • Total Suspended Particulates 0.25 0.04 0.29 Sulfur Dioxide 1 .36 0.002 1 .36 • Carbon Monoxide 0.13 0.08 0.21 Oxides of Nitrogen 0.91 0.41 1 .32 • • • • • 14 • I lsa • source pollutants of about three tons per year are more tham an order of mag- nitude less. Any attendant incremental ambient air quality impact would be similarly negligible. MITIGATION • With only nominal project related emissions due mainly to vehicular emis- sions, there is little potential for mitigation since control of automobile emissions rests with state and federal agencies rather than developers or local regulatory bodies. In order to minimize the exposure of project resi- dents, it will be important to design the apartment complex with air pollution in mind. This includes maintaining maximum setback from the nearby intersec- tion, extensive landscaping, and the use of an earthen berm or a solid wall to introduce mechanical turbulence to prevent stagnation, and ensuring that the nearby roadway system maintains sufficient capacity to prevent vehicle congestion near the intersection. The benefits of project proximity to shopping, employment, schools, the beach, etc. , and the excellent ventilation mechanism of the ocean air, will minimize any adverse resident exposure or • project air quality impact on the local environs. • I II • I • iL i Lsa • APPENDIX G ACOUSTICAL ASSESSMENT • • • • • • • ❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, california 92660 • phone (714) 640.6363 ❑ berk l e bury, cali street, suite c Lsa, Berkeley, california 94703 phone (415) 841.6840 I]ARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. • BAYWOOD APARTMENTS EXPANSION ARTERIAL ROADWAY NOISE ANALYSIS • • II a • • PREPARED BY JOHN PARNELL NOISE SPECIALIST CONSULTING ASSOCIATE LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC, • 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 525 NEWPORT BEACH, .CA 92660 (714) 640-6363 JUNE 19, 1979 • • ! Lsa NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS FOR BAYWOOD DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION This report addresses the noise exposure issues associated with develop- ! ment of the proposed Baywood multi-family residential units at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. The principal source of intrusive noise which will affect the new units will be motor vehicles operat- ing on the aforementioned roadways. Aircraft noise events affecting this property will be normal for the region and do not constitute a significant environmental impact. There will be a short-term period of construction ! related noise which will affect the existing segment of the Baywood project. This noise will be regulated by allowable hours for construction activities and will not create a permanent intrusive noise source. MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road carry a sufficient volume of traffic to control the noise environment at the proposed development sites. ! This analysis is concerned with the levels of traffic noise projected for the residential property and mitigation measures required for compliance with local and state regulations. The property is also bounded by San Miguel Drive but the future maximum traffic volume projections and the distance from the roadway to the new units show noise level estimates which are below the criteria for acceptable levels of residentialproperty. The projected noise P P levels from traffic on San Miguel have been computed and are included in thi s report. CURRENT AND FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE CONDITIONS The noise from motor vehicle traffic may be described either in terms of ! maximum or peak sound levels for individual vehicles or as a long-term cumulative energy average. This latter descriptor is widely used for roadway noise analyses in the City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange and is expressed as a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) value. This CNEL descriptor is also used in relevant state laws. The first step in carrying out an analysis of traffic noise exposure is • to develop accurate estimates of the operating characteristics of motor vehicles on the subject roadways. These data were collected from the Traffic Engineer for the City of Newport Beach and supplemented through direct during peak hours. These assumptions, in the observations of traffic flow r g p p form used for the traffic noise prediction model , are shown in Table I. • TABLE I OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS FOR TRAFFIC ON MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD AND SAP! MIGUEL DRIVE LCM MacArthur San Joaquin Hills San Mi uel Current Future Current Future Current • Average Daily Traffic Volume 22745 45000 21645 25000 4020 20000 Peak Hour Traffic Volume 2274 4455 2164 2500 402 2000 • I Vehicle Speed (MPH) 45I 45 35 35 35 35 Number of Traffic Lanes 4 6 4 6 4 4 • Percentage Trucks in ADT 1% 1% 1.1% 1.1% -- Roadway Grade by Property 2.5% 2.5% 0 0 0 0 • IRadar measurements of speed on MacArthur were higher (57 MPH) but were ob- tained from high speed segment of the Roadway. The figure cited (45 MPH) is judged to be a conservative estimate of the true speed by the property. • I all • Lsa • One important assumption relates to the number of heavy trucks in the traffic mix. The estimate traditionally used by the City is 3.5 per cent for collector roadways. Since this seemed excessive, based on experience in the area, an actual traffic count was conducted on three separate days during peak traffic periods, 1530-1800 hours. These counts showed 1 per cent heavy trucks on the roadways and this estimate was used in the noise analysis. Y • The traffic noise exposure characteristics for each roadway were com- puted using the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) model for traffic noise prediction. This produced projections for the energy equivalent, or CNEL, levels for a 24 hour period. The distribution of traffic specified by the City Traffic Engineer was: • San Joaquin MacArthur Hills San Miguel Day 0700-1900 Hours 77.5% 77.3% 77.5% Evening 1900-2200 Hours 14.0% 13.2% 14.0% • Night 2200-0700 Hours 8.5% 9,3% 8.5% The CNEL levels, shown as a function of distance from the near traffic lane, are displayed in Figures 1-3. This format allows an estimate of CNEL levels at distances other than those specifically included in the computations, • 50 feet, 100 feet, and 200 feet. The verticle dashed lines on Figures 1 and 2 show the approximate distances from the near section of the residential units to the near traffic lane of the roadway in question. The horizontal dashed line indicates the 65 CNEL criterion level used as. a guideline for residential land use by the City Planning Department. Inspection of these figures shows that sections of those units closest to MacArthur may be • subject to noise levels of 69-70 CNEL. Comparable conditions adjacent to San Joaquin Hills Road show noise exposure levels of 62,69 CNEL. This requires up to 5 CNEL of noise reduction to achieve compliance with the City guidelines. NOISE MITIGATION • s through control of traffic operating conditions seed Reduction of noise t ro h n 1 p g speed, 9 location. The most useful volume etc. seems to show little potential for this1 , p approach will be through the introduction of barriers in the form of earth berms, masonry walls, or a combination of the two. An analysis of the require- ments for barrier heights was carried out by constructing cross section • • Ua elevation plots for each of the residential unit locations. More than one cross section was used for those structures with oblique orientation relative to the roadways. The locations of these cross sections is shown in Figure 4. The elevation plots are shown in Figures 5-10. Each of the elevation plots is referenced to the elevation of the roadway with the roadway located two feet above the roadway. The height of the existing earth berm barriers and the pad • elevations are also shown on the plots. These effective barrier heights were analyzed to determine the noise reduction properties of the proposed con- figuration. The noise reduction with no modification ranged from 0 at Section A-A' to 6 CNEL at C-C' with most sections showing 1,2 CNEL of noise reduction. The maximum addition to the proposed berm necessary for compliance • with the City guidelines was computed. The results showed that an incremental addition to the proposed berm of two feet would bring each of the locations into compliance with the 65 CNEL criterion. One additional noise control consideration for these units is the exposure of the second floor levels for those structures closest to and • facing the roadways. Control of the roadway noise exposure for the second floor level through the use of barriers is impractical . The alternative is modification of the building envelope to insure the requisite indoor noise levels. This criterion is specified under the State Noise Insulation Standardsl and requires that outdoor noise levels exceeding 60 CNEL must be reduced to 45 CNEL indoors. Noise reduction of 15-20 CNEL units may be achieved through • normal construction procedures. When this requirement exceeds 20 CNEL units , i .e. , outdoor levels exceed 65 CNEL, some special construction procedures must be utilized for window and door openings. These may be specified with respect to the archtectural characteristics of the structure and the specific noise reduction required. Part of the consideration of architectural noise control relates to the • use of exposed second floor patios. The only practical procedure is the introduction of glass enclosures to create a greenhouse environment while excluding the traffic noise. This procedure has been employed previously in the Woodbridge Village. • I • I •