Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
IS019_QUANDT APT. COMPLEX
IIIII III III I IIIII HI II III III II Y OF NEWPORT BCH C UN CIL MINUTES Z ROLL CALL sit' 'A November 10 1980 INDEX The Public Works Director stated that the resolu- tion ordering the vacation will accompany language to the effect that there shall also be reserved for the benefit of the property owners of Lots 1 - 9 and 27, in Block 33 of Newport Beach, cross- easements for ingress and egress. Motion Resolution No. 9916 was adopted ordering the vaca- R-9916 All Ayes \tion' and abandonment of the alley lying westerly of 107-33rd Street; and the City Clerk was directed to ave the resolution recorded by the Orange County Re rder. E. ORDINAN FOR ADOPTION: 1. Ordinance No. 70, being, Muni Code (53) AN ORDINANCE OF HE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0-1870 ADDING CHAPTER 20. TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGULA G ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES, Planning Commission Amendment No. 5 a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach consider an amendment to Chapter 20 of the Newport ach Municipal Code establishing land use regulat ��a pertaining to the operation and location of adult entertainment uses within the City of Newport Beach, was presented for second reading. Motion x Ordinance No. 1870 was adopted. All Ayes F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Planning Depart." Zone Amend ment regarding motor-vehicle noise impacts from a (94) proposed ramp on bedrooms of the ad3oining_dwell- ing located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar (Hubbs' residence) . Proposed six unit apart- ment complex and ramp to be constructed by Carl Quandt (Modification No. 2552) . Study required pursuant to City Council action of July 28, 1980. Albert Howard, representing the applicant, address- ed the Council requesting approval. Richard Millar, representing Mr. and Mrs. Hubbs and the adjacent property owners, addressed the Council, opposing the request. Mr. Millar introduced Gordon Bricken, noise con- sultant for his client, and Mr. Bricken addressed the Council regarding his report. Motion x The results of the applicant's consultant's noise Ayes x x x x x x report was accepted as fulfilling Condition No._2 Noes x as imposed by the City Council on July 28, 1980. Volume 34 - Page 273 COY OF NEWPORT BAH UNCIL MINUTES 9�� ROLL CALL sin 'P November 10 1980 INDEX 2. A report was presented from the Public Works Depart •St/Impvmt ment regarding Summit Street. (82) Motio x Action was postponed until November 24 to allow for All Ay further input by the residents. 3. A report dated October 14, 1980 was presented from Encroachmt the Public Works Department regarding application (65) of James and Sally Arnold to install a 2-foot 8- inch slump stone wall. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Arnold, addressed the Council presenting a petition bearing 41 signatures in support of their encroachment application. Motion x Councilman Maurer made a motion to approve the Ayes x x encroachment With the condition that the bricks Noes x x x x around .thq palm tree be removed, which motion failed. Motion x The encroachment application was denied. Ayes x x x x x x Noes x 4. A reported dated October 27 from the Planning Local 208 epartment and newspaper ads were presented regard- Plug Adv g the Local 208 Planning Advisory Group. Grp (51) May r Heather explained that a total of 16 people woul be appointed; half of the appointments to be made Mayor Art Anthony, City of Irvine, in each of the our categories. Motion x Confirmat on of the following appointments by the All Ayes City's App ntments Committee to the Local 208 Planning Ad sory Group were as follows: PRIVATE C TIZENS Robert Wise Brook Bentle REPRESENTATIVES OF PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS Jean Watt Bart Ellerbroek PUBLIC OFFICIALS Tim Haidinger Jeiry King ECONOMIC INTERESTS Robert Shelton Greg Boston Volume 34 - Page 274 �I City Council MeAing November 10, 1980 Agenda Item No . F- 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 10, 1980 TO: City Co,unci 1 FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Modification No . 2552 Report regarding motor-vehicle noise impacts from a proposed ramp on bedrooms of the adjoin- ing single-family residence located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. LOCATIOV: Parcel 2 of Resubdivision No . 274 , located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard, at the; most southerly corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Suggested Action If desi-red , accept the results of the consultant' s noise report as fulfilling Condition No . 2 as imposed by the City Council on July 28 ,- 1980. Background At the July 28 , 1980 City Council meeting, the City Council approved Modification No. 2552 , a request of Carl Quandt to permit the con- struction of a sidewalk and a portion of a driveway and wall to exceed the permitted six-foot height limit within a required four-foot side . yard setback to •a maximum height of twenty-three feet ± above grade , and to permit the driveway and a• wall to exceed the three-foot height limit within the required ten-foot front yard setback to a maximum height of sixteen feet ± above grade , in conjunction with. a proposed six-unit residential apartment complex to be developed on the site . The City Council ' s action included the five findings and 2 conditions as set forth below : FINDINGS : 1 . That the proposed development is a logical use of the property that would be precluded under the normal zoning requirements of the district. 2 . That the proposed development is a good design solution for the irregularly-shaped and steeply-sloped lot. TO: Cio Coun'ci 1 - 2. 3. That the design of the proposed driveway and walk will effec- tively shield the adjacent residence from vehicular lights and noise. 4. The proposed sidewalk , driveway and walls will not obstruct any views from the adjacent residential property. 5. That the proposed sidewalk, driveway and walls exceeding the permitted heights within the side and front yard setbacks will not be detrimental to the health , safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neigh- borhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS : 1 . That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan , sections and elevations . 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the pro- posed ,project, a qualified accoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant' s expense, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that the impact of ramp- associated noise will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in the interior of the bedroom of the residential structure at 2501 Ocean Boulevard with windows open. Further, that should on-site noise attenuation measures be required to achieve the afore- mentioned , that they be designed in such a manner so as to not substantially impact the views from the adjacent resi - dential unit. Noise Report In fulfillment of Condition No. 2 above, the Planning Department contracted with B.icacoustical Engineering Corporation of Santa -Ana, at the applicant' s expense , for the preparation of the noise report (attached) . The City' s consultant concluded., and the results of their analysis indicate, that the interior noise impacts from the proposed driveway associated sound levels are expected to fall well within the City Councils condition of approval . The consultant' s conclusions are based upon field measurements on an existing' roadway, expected driveway usage schedule, and analysis of building construction at the adjacent residence. The expected noise impacts were analyzed under four conditions And are summarized on Pages 12 and 14 of the attached noise report. Respectfully submitted, y T0 : AR Council - 3. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D✓�H.EWICKER ,, Director by lJ CJ✓// FROTRUARRO Environmental Coordinator FT/kk Attachments for City Council Only 1 ) City Council Minutes - July 28 , 1980 2 ) Noise Report - October 17, 1980 COUNCILMEN Oi,Y OF NEWPORT BE.,CH*REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: . 7:30 P.M. ROLL CINOFW AL $ Yp DAT$: July 28, 1980 Press x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Motion x B. 'The reading of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting All Ayes of July 14, 1980 was waived, and the Minutes were approved as written and ordered filed. Motion x C. The reading in full of aft ordinances and resolu- All Ayes tions under •consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: ' 1. Mayor Heather opened the continued public hearing Traffie/Pkg regarding proposed Ordinance No. 1856, being, Regulations AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0-1856 AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 OF THE (65) A NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT PERTAINS TO PARKING SPACE REQUIRElENTS,WITHIN RESI- DENTIAL DISTRICTS, arming Commission Amendment No. 535, a request i iated by the City of Newport Beach to con- aid an amendment to the,Newport Beach Municipal ' Code d the acceptance of an Environmental. Docume A report a presented from the Planning Depart- ment. 'Councilman Str use stated that the Lido Isle Community Assoc tion wished the ordinance amend- ed for Section !0 10.050 A (2) to read as follows: "Not lea than three parking spaces for any structure costa ing 2,000 square Feet or more, exclusive o£ or a devoted to parking and, open space, unless, (a) the structure is in an R-1 District, and (b) th structure contains less than 3,200 square feet of loor space, (c) is on a lot less than 35 feet in dth, and (d) does not have alley access. Allan Beek read a prepared stat ant which was Included in the records, and asks that the ordinance be amended to require tw parking spaces per dwelling unit. Motion x The Environmental Document was accepts and Ayes x x I x I x Ordinance No. 1856 was reintroduced as a nded'to Noes Include the language suggested by the Lido Isle Association and passed to second reading on • August 11, 1980. , t Volume 34 - Page 175 r I R y 60I rY OF NEWPORT BEA,;Ho " COUNCILMEN _ MINUTES A .LOLL CALL $� July 28, 1980 2. Mayor (leather opened the public hearing regard- Application Ing proposed Ordinance No. 1861, being, Expiration 0-1861 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Use Permits AMENDING SECTIONS 20.61.070, 20.80.090, (88) 20.81.090 and 20,82.000 OF THE NEWPORT Variances BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND THE HXPIRA- ,(91) TION DATES FDA USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, Zoning IPICA T TION, AND SITE PLAN,REVIEN APPLZ- (94) CA Planning CommisBio andment No. 547, a request initiated by the City o 'errport Beach and the } acceptance of an Environment Document. A report was presented from the Pia Depart- ment. Mayor Heather closed the public hearing. t Motion x The Environmental Document•was accepted, and All Ayes Ordinance No, 1861 was adopted. 3. Mayor Heather opened the public hearing regard- Modification ing Modification He. 2552, approved by the No. 2552 Planning Commission on July 10, 1980, and called (94) up for hearing by the City Council on July 28, 1980; being a request of Carl quandt, Newport Beach, to permit the construction of a sidewalk and a portion of a driveway and wall to exceed the permitted six-foot height limit.within a required four-foot side yard setback to a - maximum haight.of twenty-throe feet± above grade, and to permit the driveway and a wall to exceed the three-foot height limit within the required tan-foot front yard setback to a maximum height of sixteen feet + above grade, in conjunction with a six-unit reaidpntial apart- mant complex to be developed at 2501 Ocean Boulevard, at the most southerly termination of Carnet inn Avenue in Corona doi Hill ; tuned R-3. A roport wall propMllod I'rold the PluunlnR Depart- mvuL. Alvin F. Howard, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Council. Motion x Mayor Heather made a motion to grant Mr. Howard eight additional minutes for his presentation. Motion a Councilman Hummel made a substitute motion to 1 Ayes x x x x x x grant Mr. Howard, five additional minutes, which Noes x motion carried. Richard Miller, attorney representing the, Hubbs, owners of the single-family residence adjacent to. the property, addressed the Council and alleged that the nighttime noise levels would exceed City limits. Volume 34 - Page 176 (� 0I_ Y OF NEWPORT BE, , COUNCILMEN MINUTES � A ROLL CAL $f �' July 28' 1980 INDEX The Mayor declared a ten-minute recess to allow • staff to determine CNEL established by the City. , 4 The Council reconvened with all members present. Planning Director Jim Hewicker read for the record from Section 15.04,170 of the Municipal Code, "Interior Is Le . noise equivalent e Levels. Interior community levels (CNEL) with windows closed attributable to exterior sources shall not , exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room." The following people addressed the Council and opposed the project: Bill Edwards, Harold Welch, Peter O'Brien, Kent Moore and Michael Schulman. The following people addressed the Council in favor of the project: Ed Giddings, architect for applicant, who explained the driveway width; and Goldie Joseph. Mr. Howard addressed the Council again and stated that they were willing to accept a condition that before the building permit is granted, they must furnish to the Council, or such other agency or body as the Council may select, a report by an engineer to the effect that it is his opinion, ' based on his studies, such as they may be, that the CNEL noise level in the bedroom window of the ° Hubbs' residence with the windows open will not be above the 45 CNEL. ° Mayor Heather closed the public hearing. Motion x Councilman Hummel made a motion to deny Modifica- tion go. 2552, with a finding that the establish- . ment, ,maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the, health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification encroachments are not consistent with the legisla- Live intent of Title 20 of this Code. Mayor Pro 1dm Hart asked thnt tha m91:1011 bo amended to include a finding that the design of the proposed driveway and walk will not effec- tively shield the adjacent residences from vehicular lights and noise, which amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. Ay, x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Hummel's amended Nova x x x x motion, which oration fnilod. . Volume 34 - Page 177 - b r OF NEWPORT BEk,,.Ho COUNCILMEN MINUTES LL OA INDEX Motion x Councilman Cox made a motion ro sustain the decision of the Planning Commission with the findings and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, except that in Finding No. 3, the word "residences" is changed to the singular, "residence," and the following Condition No. 2 was substituted for Condition No. 2 imposed by the Planning Commission; That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed project, a qualified' ' accoustieal engineer, retained by the City at the applicadt'e expense, shall demovetrnt to the satisfaction of the City Council that the impact of ramp-associated noise will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in the interior of the bedroom.of the residential structure at 2501 Ocean Boulevard with windows open, Further, that should onbite noise attenuatio measures be required to achibve the afore- mentioned, that they be designed in such a manner so as to not substantially impact the views from the adjacent residential unit. Councilman Cox amended his.mation to condition measurement of the CNEL and approval by the Council before issuance of a building permit. Ayes x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Cox's amended Noes x x x notion, which motion carried. E. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION! 1. Ordinance No. 1658, being, Trash Compactors AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 04858 " ADDINO SECTION 6.04.085 TO THE NEWPORT (26) BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING THE INSTAL- LATION OF TRASH COMPACTORS IN ALL NEWLY- CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL UNITS, was prepented for second reading. report was presented from the Planning Depart- me Motion x The Nega ve Declaration was accepted, and ordi- Ayes x x x x x x nance No. 8 was adopted. yy Noes x F. CONTINUED BUSIN 1 Motion x 1. (District 1) Council Strauss' appointment of CAC Appt All Ayes Judith Shelton as a memb ' of the'Environmental (24) Quality Citizens Advisory ttee to complete the unexpired term of Doris B. chreiber ending December 310 1980 was confirmed, Volume 34 - Page 178 80/297 • EVALUATION OF MOTOR-VEHICLE NOISE IMPACT WITHIN THE EXISTING 2501 OCEAN BLVD. HUBBS RESIDENCE FROM THE NEARBY CARL QUANDT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ,. rn Prepared for: ? Newport Beach Community Development Department' Current Planning Division 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Prepared by: n S. Leye e enior gin Ter y 1. 17 October 1980 BIMMOUSTMAL ENGINEERINGCORR 833 East 17th Street,Suite 103 •Santa Ana,California92701 •714/547-5196 80/297 • d • TABLE OF CONTENTS ti REPORTSYNOPSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FROM DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC T HUBBS RESIDENCE INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE . . . . . . . . . 11 COMPARISON OF EXPECTED AND PERMITTED INTERIOR NOISE' EXPOSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 15 ' REFERENCELIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 V ' � v , V { I 1 • 11 1 G BIOACOrtCAL NEERINGCORP. 80/297 REPORT SYNOPSIS An evaluation has been made of the noise exposure expected within the Hubbs" residence bedrooms from motor-vehicle travel on the proposed access driveway for a nearby Carl Quandt development. Assessment of the expected noise emission from the proposed driveway was based upon field measurements of automobile pass-bys on an existing road. The results of these field measurements, and an expected drive- way useage schedule, were used to project the exterior Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) impact at each Hubbs' residence bedroom. An analysis of the Hubbs' residence building construc- tion was made to indicate the level of expected noise intrusion under four conditions. Calculations were performed to show 1) Noise intrusion with a_l exterior windows and doors closed; 2) Noise intrusion with'bnly windows open; 3) Noise intrusion , with only exterior doors open; and 4) Noise intrusion with all exterior windows and doors open. The results of this analysis indicates that the interior noise impacts from proposed driveway- associated sound levels are expected to fall well within the Newport Beach City Council 45 dB CNEL Conditions of Approval. iij V V V ENO . RR 80/297 EVALUATION OF MOTOR-VEHICLE NOISE IMPACT WITHIN THE EXISTING 2501.00EAN BLVD. HUBBS RESIDENCE FROM THE NEARBY CARL QUANDT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY INTRODUCTION BioAcoustical Engineering Corporation has been retained to perform an analysis of ,the expected noise exposure within the Hubbs' residence bedrooms from motor-vehicle travel on a nearby proposed driveway. The Hubbs residence is an existing single family dwelling at 2501 Ocean Boulevard. It is understood that a six-unit apartment complex is planned for construction down - the hill from the Hubbs residence. The driveway planned to access the proposed complex will' begin at the west side of the Hubbs residence and- proceed downward bending around the south ,side ; of the home. The. planned driveway is quite steep with •a proposed 16% grade. Figure 1 on the next page presents a plot plan of the Hubbs residence and the proposed driveway. The house foot- print and driveway shown in this figure is a copy of the plan prepared by Edward Giddings A.I.A. Architecture and Planning. The Newport Beach City Council has indicated that the noise exposure within the Hubbs residence, from •driveway associated noise levels, must not exceed a specified..limit. In particular the Council requires that . . .the impact of ramp-associated noise will not exceed 45 dBACNEL in the interior of the bedroom of the residential structure at 2501 Ocean Boulevard with windows open" . In the following discussion, analyses of the projected driveway noise emission and the anticipated interior noise ex- posure are presented. The expected interior noise exposure is compared, to the permitted 45 dBA CNEL limit to determine the noise impact acceptability. EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FROM DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC The driveway proposed to access the six-unit apartment complex has not yet been constructed. To determine the expected noise § wa field measure ments were made level form the future driveway, along an existing roadway of comparable grade. Data was collected for' a high performance sports car (1974 Datsun 240Z) and a late model luxury car (1977 Cadillac Sedan DeVille) traveling uphill and downhill. It was assumed that these automobile types are representative of the vehicle categories which will use the 0 . . Q 810A00051'ICAL o ENGINEERINGCORR 4 f • f i-„.L �•+, •/ f r / �n•• .' R/' /'L - l� , ` olau fir'•'•` /::'~•••` T/-•x)y. r. .... � �NTF - I/ a� � - 4k_• �\'- - y61 �V ���Cv .?%��� e• ' Y O i F r� l F iF a 1. - r'•.� / Oar=; ���` UM Loa - 41 - As I � • I,'T _ 'Js�Y. \ ,emu - :-'':' •� ' - '_- .B DRsTERin �t _ �-.--';r?--t-+-=.,-- i p ��� R S��ENCE : • it - - •;- • BED i •1 - w/pro _ . ,-,: . J • - ,• ._ •: °nw •,t ,sir ' r _ ^: � •� �f,�p, % RE 1: Hubbs Residence and Proposed Driveway Location - Shown above are the three Hubbs residence bedrooms, the locations of the french doors and operable windows and the relative position of the proposed--driveway.. ,— " I r t 80/297 • • 3 4 ' future driveway. 'The details of the motor-vehicle pass-by sound level measurements and analyses are presented below. Motor-vehicle pass-by sound level measurements were trade along A steep section of Park•Avenue in Laguna Beach. Figure 2 on the next page shows the section of Park Avenue used for pass-by measurements. Field inspection of the roadway indicated a grade of 16% to 201. During measurement of uphill and downhill travel the test motor-vehicles were operated normally for the grade being traveled. For uphill measurements the vehicles were driven at speeds of 18 to 25 MPH, For downhill measurements, travel i s: o speeds of 2q MPH were maintained. Motor-vehicle pass-by noise level values were recorded using a _Gruel and Kjaer model 2215, serial number 616608, precision sound level meter with. A-weighted slow response. The sound level meter output was connected to a Superscope model CD-320, serial number O1U060132,, professional tape recorder. The measurement position for automobile pass-by sound level recording was at a sideline distance of 34.5 feet from` the travel lane centerline. During the noise level mbasurements, the microphone was positioned five feet above existing grade and oriented for grazing sound field incidence. Figure 3 on the next page shows two photographs of the park Avenue measurement site and test cars •traveling downhill. Figures 4 and 5 on the following pages show representative time/ level strip charts of recorded high performance sports car and full size luxury car pass-bys, respectively. A number :of uphill And downhill pass-bys were recorded for each car type. 'The strip charts were produced by connecting the tape fecorder output to a Bruel and Kjaer model 2305, serial number 71768, graphic level recorder input and re-playing the recorded noise event. Following collletion of the field data collection, the' time/ ' level noise record for each motor-vehicle pass-by was analyzed to determine a Single Event Level (SEL) value for the event. The SEL value represents a time integrated A-Weighted noise level which is expressed by the level of an equivalent one second duration reference signal.2 That is, the SEL value represents a single noise level, one second in duration, which contains the same amount of acoustic energy as the motor-vehicle pass-by noise j emission that is many seconds in duration. The SEL value for 1 each time/level noise record was calculated using the following equation. ' n. SEL = '10 log E antilog (AL i/10) At i=1 BIOACO CRL • ENGINEERINGCORP. s � 80/297 . . q ' RANGc� COy _ NI � ty ( ,MINw♦ N I I e �` � P • O lira ! fit �U '0• ,�i �,e a s j d h r'E� dP ro. 1_.fir.�"' �F� 1_ ",;,• r ` •N :"'� •' e� °+ro v Ci7/`p� N FIGURF, 2: Road Noise Measurement Site The small circle shown above indicates the section '! of Park Avenue used for measurement of motor-vehicle uphill and downhill travel. BIOMUS ICRL ENGINEERINGCORR 80/297 • • Q : . C. 0815 4 A r _ yM • � a W a n FIGURE 3: Measurement Site Photographs Shown above are photographs of the Park Avenue site used for measurement of uphill and downhill car pass-bys. EiIML E MNEERI=CORR 80/297 • Chi\O6i f --- - - - - - - -- s a_'„" rev= 80 dBA • 80 dBA a 70 dBA W WW 70 dBA P W —'60 dBA 60 dBA 777 TIME (3mm/Sec) TIME (3mm/SeC) i FIGURE 4: 240Z Pass-by Noise Level Roadway i Shown above are two typical time/level strip charts of high performance sports car pass-by noise emissions. The ordinates represent sound level in increments of one decibel . The abscissas represent time in divisions of one second for each three millimeters. The sound level data presented was measured at 345 feet from the travel centerline. As noted, an SEL value of 78 .6 dB was computed for the downhill measurement and an SEL of 80.9 dB was measured for the uphill test. BIOACOUSMCAL ENGINEEMNGCORN t{ 80/297 •• • 7 � 7rATTR'1"1rT L /TIFrr/TTC V r,frl L—� a 70 dBA 70 dBA a V �j 60 dBA �7 60 dBA 0 50 dBA 50 dBA TIME (3mm/Sec)t TIME (3mm/Sec) FIGURE 5: Cadillac Sedan Deville Pass-by noise Level Recording Shown above are two typical time/level strip charts of full size luxury car pass-by noise emissions. The ordinates 'represent sound' level in increments of one decibel. The abscisas represent time in divisions of one second for each three millimeters. The sound level data presented was measured at 345 feet from the travel lane centerline. As noted, an SEL value of 64 dB was computed for the downhill measurement and an SEL of 75.8 dB was measured for the uphill test. 810A000S UL. ENGINEERINGCORP. • o. f ` ' 8 80/297 Where: AL i = the instaneous A-weighted sound level for the ith sample ' At = the time interval, In seconds, between samples n = the number of samples for which the sound level is at least 10 dB (A) below the maximum All r SEL values for several uphill and downhill runs were computed f for each vehicle type. Table I on the next page summarizes ! the SEL findings. Table I also indicates the energy average SEL value for each motor-vehicle type traveling in each direction. The results show that for the high performance sports car, average SEL values of 83.8 dB for uphill travel and 78.6 dB for downhill 1 travel were determined. For the full size luxury car, average { SEL values of 69.4 dB for downhill travel 75.3 dB for uphill travel were found. The 24-hour motor-vehicle Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) ' at the measurement point 34.5 feet from the travel lane centerline was calculated using the average SEL valuesfrom Table I and the average daily driveway useage scenario. Daily driveway useage information needed to compute a CNEL impact includes: the total number of car passbys each 24 hours; the typical sports car/luxury car mix ; and the daytime (7am-7pm)/evening (7pm-10pm)/Nighttime (10pm-7am) operation split. It is expected that each of the six proposed apartment units will generate roughly 8 one-way trips per day. Accordingly it is assumed that there will be a total of 6 x 8 = 48 one-way trips per day on the access driveway. For the purposes of this study it is also assumed that equal numbers of high performance sports cars and full size luxury cars will use the driveway. The following assumptions are made for the day/evening/nighttime operation splits It is assumed that most trips will occur in the daytime hours and that. very few motor-vehicles will typically use the driveway from lOpm to lam. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that 80% ° of all trips will occur in the daytime (7am-7pm) , 15% of all trips will occur in the evening (7pm-IOpm) , and 5% of all trips will occur in the nighttime (lOpm-7am) . Calculation of the CNEL value at the measurement site 34. 5 foot reference distance was performed using the average uphill and downhill SEL values from Table I, the useage information presented above and the following equation from reference 2: BIOACOL15rICRL Q ENGINEERINGCORR a a 80/297 9 TABLE I MOTOR-�IEHICLE PASS-BY SEL VALUES e High Performance Sports Car SEL Values: SEL for Uphill Travel SEL for Downhill Travel (18-25 MPH) (20 MPH) cs 85.5 dB 78.5 dB 80.9 dB 78.6 dB. Average: 83.8 dB Average: 78 .6 dB Full Size Luxury Car SEL Values: A SEL for Uphill Travel SEL for Downhill Travel (18-25 MPH) (20 MPH) 80' dB 68.6 dB 74.4 dB 69 dB 74.5 dB 70.3 dB 75.8 dB Average: 69.4 dB 76 dB 75.1 dB Average: 76.3 dB '1 r y i i • BIOACOLNSTICAL LENGIP E NGCORR 80/297 10 CNEL = (SEL 240Z, Uphill + '10 log(ND,240Z, Up + 3.16 NE240ZIUP + 1ONNj240Z,Up) - 49.4) + (SEL 240Z, Downhill + 10 log (ND,240Z,Dn + 3.16 NE, 240Z Dn + 10 Nn240Z, Dn) - 49.4) + (SEL Cad, Uphill + 10 log(ND,Cad, Up + 3.16 NE Cad,Up) + 10 NN, Cad, Up) - 49.4) t + (SEL Cad, Downhill + 10 log(ND,Cad, Dn + 3.16 NE,Cad, Dn) + 10 NN, Cad, Dn) - 49.4) dB Where: SEL 240Z, Uphill = the sports car average uphill SEL value SEL 240Z,. Downhill=the sports car average downhill SEL value SEL Cad, Uphill = the luxury cat average uphill SEL value SEL Cad, Downhill= the luxury car average downhill SEL value ND, 240Z, Up; NE, 240Z, Up; NN, 240 Z, Up = the number of sports car uphill pass-bys .per day, evening and night. ND 240Z, Dn; N,,240Z, Dn; NN, 24.OZ Dn = the number of sports car downhill pass-bys per day, evening and night ND,Cad, Up; NE,Cad, Up; NN, Cad, Up = the number of luxury car uphill, pass-ups per day, evening and night r ND,Cad, Dn; NE,Cad,Dn; NN,Cad, Dn the number of luxury ca� downhill , ass-b s per day, evening and night b Using the above equation, a measurement site noise impact value of 49.5 dB CNEL was calculated for the sideline distance of 34.5 feet from the travel lane centerline on the 16% to 20% grade road. BIO/r1 CAL t � ENGINEERINGCORP. F 80/297 u The motor-vehicle noise impact expected at each bedroom `exterior operable window and door in the Hubbs residence will vary with its distance from the driveway centerline. The hnticipdted impact at the exterior of each window and0door was calculated using the measurement point CNEL value, -the distance from each operable window and door to the driveway centerline, and the assumption that the noise from each motor-vehicle pass-by decreases like an ideal point source, at 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the noise source. The results of these calculations are shown in Table , II on the next page. Table II indicates an expected exterior noisel impact range of 45.4 dB CNEL to 51.3 dB CNEL at the exterior of the. three bedrooms. HUBBS RESIDENCE INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE The Newport Beach City Council conditions of approval require that the noise impact from toe proposed driveway, as measured within the Hubbs residence bedrooms with windows open•, should not .exceed 45 dB CNEL. To determinb the expected, interior noise exposure, an analysis has been made of the bedroom exterior wall sound control. The outside-to-inside sound control expected for each bedroom is a result of the composite attenuation provided by the overall wall itself, the window(s) , the exterior doors, ' and any openings in the exterior walls. The motor-vehicle noise which will impact the bedroom -walls has a broad spectral character which is strongest in the low frequency (•i..e. low pitched), region of the acoustic spectrum. 3 For design purposes the acoustic spectrum is often divided into groups of frequencies falled "octave bands". Each individual component in the exterior bedroom walls supplies a different amount of attenuation for each octave band. ; Calculations of the noise control on a band-by-band basis were performed to determine the CNEL exposure expected inside the Hubbs residence bedroom's. The noise control calculations were based upon the square footage of each wall.component and the octave band transmission loss provided by each wall component. The noise control calculations were based upon the method of analysis presented in reference 4. ti 2 To identify the components of exterior wall construction and determine their square footage, an on-site inspection was made of each Hubbs residence bedroom. The in-home inspection indicated that the master bedroom has double french doors without screens, fixed windows and a small aluminum frame& sliding window with screen. 8I0ACOU51'ICAL u ENGINEEMNGCORR 80/297 • • 12 TABLE II EXTERIOR DRfVEWAX NOISE IMPACT EXPECTED AT EACH 'OPERABLE WINDOW AND OUTSIDE DOOR IN BEDROOMS OF THE HUBBS RESIDENCE f Bedroom Operable Window Operable Door identification Exterior Noise Exterior Noise (See Figure 1) Impact Impact Master Bedroom 51.3 dB CNEL 50'.9 dB CNEL Bedroom #2 48.2 dB CNEL 50. 3 dB CNEL Bedroom #3 45.4 dB CNEL 45.4 dB CNEL • G . R 010ML MP& ENGINEERINGCGRR 4 80/297 , • �� • 13 r Bedroom #2 has a single french door without screen, fixed windows, And a casement window• Bedroom #3 has one french door without screen, fixed,) windows, and two casement windows. The octave band quieting (i.e. transmission loss) that the exterior building walls are expected to provide has been determined using a variation of the "Mass Law Calculation" . This calculation takes into account the noise reduction deficiencies imposed by low frequency wall resonance, high frequency coincidence dip, and solid-borne flanking paths. This method approximates the octave t' band noise reduction provided by multipanel walls. s , c The octave band transmission loss expected for the french doors, ' fixed windows, aluminum sliding windows and casement windows was determined from published information. 7 ' e , 9 , io Calculations of 'the expected outside-to-inside sound control were made under four conditions: 1) With all exterior doors' and operable windows closed; 2) With only operable windows open; 3) With only exterior doors open; 4) With operable doors and windows open. Thd net outside-to-inside attenuation ,expected' fdr each of these conditions was subtracted from the exterior noise impact in Table II to determine the expected interior noise exposure. Table III on the next page indicates the noise impact expected within each bedroom under each of the four conditions. Table III shows that with all windows and doors closed, bedroom noise impacts of 20 dB CNEL or less are expected from the access driveway traffic. With windows open, the interior exposure ranges from 31.1 dB CNEL to 35.2 dB CNEL. With doors open an interior sound exposure of 37ol dB CNEL to 41.8 dB CNEL is expected. With the windows and doors open in each bedroom, the interior noise impact is expected to range from 39.1 dB CNEL to 43 dB CNEL among the three bedrooms. o COMPARISON OF EXPECTED AND PERMITTED INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURES The Newport Beach City Council conditions of approval' require that the interior bedroom noise level from driveway motor-vehicle activity not exceed 45 dB CNEL with windows open. The noise i exposure findings shown in Table III indicate that with windows f open the interior exposure will be 35.2 dB" CNEL or less in each bedroom. This impact is well below the 45 dB CNEL limit and in full compliance with the City Council conditions. BIOACOLISTICRI. ENGINEERINGCORR F 80/297 • 14 TABLE III HUBBS RESIDENCE INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE EXPECTED FROM THE PROPOSED-DRIVEWAY SOUND LEVELS Bedroom ' Identification INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE CONDITIONS ' (See Figure 1) All Windows Windows Doors Windows and And Doors Only Only Doors Open , Shut Open Open Master Bedroom 20 dB 35.2 dB 41,8' dB 43 dB C= CNEL CNEL CNEL Bedroom #2 17.7 dB, 81.1 dB 38.6 dB 39.6 dB CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL Bedroom #3 14.6 dB 34.9 dB 37.1 dB 39.1 dB CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL ' 0 BIOACOUSfICRL ENGINEERINGCORP. A 80/297 • ` • 15 A comparison of the 45 dB CNEL limit and the "worst-case" condition v with all bedroom windows and doors open shows that even under this circumstance the expected interior exposure will be 43 dB CNEL or less. Accordingly, even under the most extreme conditions of exterior wall opening, the interior noise impact from driveway noise is expected to be in full compliance with the permitted limits. CONCLUSION An evaluation has been made of the Hubbs residence bedroom exposures from motor-vehicle traffic on the proposed Carl Quandt project driveway. The expected driveway noise impact was determined from field measurements of automobile pass-bys on an existing road of comparable grade. Measurements were made with a sports car and luxury car traveling uphill and downhill at typical driveway travel speeds. Using the results of these field measurements and an assumed useage scenario for the proposed. driveway, calculations were made of the exterior CNEL impact at each bedroom exterior. Following a determination of the exterior exposure, calculations of the bedroom wall transmission loss were made. A subtraction of the transmission loss from the exterior impact indicated the expected interior noise exposure. The interior exposure findings indicated that under all conditions of windows and doors oppen and closed, the interior impact is expected to be well within the tS dB exposure limit . y V • BIOA CAL v ENGIN NGCORR • • 16 80/297 REFERENCE LIST 1. Pearsons, Karl, et. , al. , Handbook of Noise Rat. s, NTIS U. S. Department of Commerce Document N74-23275,, prepared by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman under Contract #NAS1-111 839 Task 2 for National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration, April 1914, Pages 104 through 112. } 2. Pearsons, Karl, op. cit. , Pages 224 through 229. 3, Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment Powered 'by Interna3 Combustion Engines, prepared by Wyle Laboratories under contract 68-0 -0046 for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-1971, Page 109, Figure 2.4-8. 4. Harris, Cyril M. , Handbook of Noise Control, McGraw-Hill Book Co. ; New York, 1957 , pp. 20-13, 20- 4. 5. Beranek, Leo L. , Noise and Vibration Control, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1971 pp., 317-320. 6. Harris, Cyril M. , Handbook of Noise Control, McGraw-Hill Company, , San Francisco, 1957 , pp. 22-6 t rough 22-10. 7. Sabine, H.J. , et. al. , Acoustical and Thermal Performance of Exterior Residential Walls, Doors, and Windows, NBS Bui ding Science Series 77, U.S. Department of Commerce National 'Bureau of Standards, 1975, Pages 140 and 141, Test Number Wt90-71. 8. Libby-Owens-Ford, Table entitled Breaking the Sound Barrier. 9. J.J. Van 'Houteft & Associa'tes, 6 April 1976, Sound Transmission Loss Test Number 382-76 (7) . 10. Sabine, H.J. et. al. , op., cit. , Pages 140-141, Test Number W-88-77. e BIOACOLlSTICRL ENGINEERINGCORR • G 80/297 • • EVALUATION OF MOTOR-VEHICLE NOISE IMPACT WITHIN THE EXISTING 2501 OCEAN BLVD. HUBBS RESIDENCE • FROM THE NEARBY CARL QUANDT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CV v4 6 Prepared for: '� \ Newport Beach Community .Development Department • Current Planning Division 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Prepared by: qqhn S. Leye e • enior Engin er • 17 October 1980 • BIOACOUNICAL ENGINEERINGCORR • 1833 East 17th Street,Suite 103 -Santa Ana,California 92701 -714/547-5196 • 80/297 • TABLE OF CONTENTS • REPORTSYNOPSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 • EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FROM DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC . . . . . 1 HUBBS RESIDENCE INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE . . . . . . . . . 11 COMPARISON OF EXPECTED AND PERMITTED INTERIOR NOISE • EXPOSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 REFERENCELIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 • • • • ii • • BIOACOUSrICK • ENGINEERINGCORR 90/297 REPORT SYNOPSIS An evaluation has been made of the noise exposure expected within the Hubbs' residence bedrooms from motor-vehicle travel on the proposed access driveway for a nearby Carl Quandt development. Assessment of the expected noise emission from the proposed driveway was based upon field measurements of automobile pass-bys on an existing road. The results of these field measurements, and an expected drive- way useage schedule, were used to project the exterior Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), impact at each Hubbs' residence bedroom. An analysis of the Hubbs' residence building construc- tion was made to indicate the level of expected noise intrusion under four conditions. Calculations were performed to show 1) Noise intrusion with all exterior windows and doors closed; 2) Noise intrusion with 'only windows open; 3) Noise intrusion with only exterior doors open; and 4) Noise -intrusion with all exterior windows and doors open. The results of this analysis indicates that the interior noise impacts from proposed driveway- associated sound levels are expected to fall well within the Newport Beach City Council 45 dB CNEL Conditions of Approval. • I � B113ACOUSrICRL ENGINEERINGCGRP. • '" 80/297 0 EVALUATION OF MOTOR-VEHICLE NOISE • IMPACT WITHIN THE EXISTING 2501 OCEAN BLVD. HUBBS RESIDENCE FROM THE NEARBY CARL QUANDT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY • INTRODUCTION BioAcoustical Engineering Corporation has been retained to perform an analysis of the expected noise exposure within • the Hubbs' residence bedrooms from motor-vehicle travel on a nearby proposed driveway. The Hubbs residence is an existing single family dwelling at 2501. Ocean Boulevard. It is understood that a six-unit apartment complex is planned for construction down the hill from the Hubbs residence. The driveway planned to access the proposed complex will' begin at the west side of the Hubbs • residence and- proceed downward bending 'around the south side of the home. The planned driveway is .quite steep with a proposed 16% grade. Figure 1 on the next page presents a plot plan of the Hubbs residence and the proposed driveway. The house foot- print and driveway shown in this figure is a' copy of the plan prepared by Edward Giddings A.I.A. Architecture and Planning. • The Newport Beach City Council has indicated that the noise exposure within the Hubbs residence, from driveway associated noise levels, must not exceed a specified limit. In particular the Council requires that . . .the impact of ramp-associated noise will not exceed 45 dBACNEL in the interior of the bedroom • of the residential structure at 2501 Ocean Boulevard with windows open" . In the following discussion, analyses of the projected driveway noise emission and the anticipated interior noise ex- posure are presented. The expected interior noise exposure is compared to the permitted 45 dBA CNEL limit to determine the noise impact acceptability. • EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FROM DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC The driveway proposed to access the six-unit apartment complex has not yet been constructed. To determine the expected noise level form the future driveway, field measurements were made • along an existing roadway of comparable grade. Data was collected for a high performance sports car (1974 Datsun 240Z) and a late model luxury car (1977 Cadillac Sedan DeVille) traveling uphill and downhill. It was assumed that these automobile types are representative of the vehicle categories which will use the I • BIOACOUSICAL • ENGINEERINGCGRR a* -` reeCm• .. I' l .f� 1•- rc I CO i•� 5 _ iAr' .+_.._ ' r,i�titrJ �` r14� y, o�io►4 . i l •{�j l - - i/ /! -• a l�^�-�.� + :4y�`� I �rR+ V - � " : .ram -s ��� \ tt . i' /• • �i �m�rails•."�.� =,tern.`{ , r :/ - .• / :�'� ,dl¢.b.1A^: d ass ; o�R ESIpE CJE BfpP00 r s�tBED yr' . jl - '• - rl .. F�URE 1: Hubbs Residence and Proposed -Driyetray Location. _ Shown above are the three Hubbs residence bedrooms, the locations ' of the french doors and operable windows and the relative position of the proposed driveway. �) • 80/297 • • 3 future driveway. 'The details of the motor-vehicle pass-by sound level measurements and analyses are presented below. • Motor-vehic-le pass-by sound level measurements were.made along A steep section of Park Avenue in Laguna Beach. Figure 2 on the next page shows the section of Park Avenue used for pass-by measurements. Field inspection of the roadway indicated a grade of 16t to 2a%. During measurement of uphill and downhill travel • the test -motor-vehicles were operated normally for the grade being traveled. For uphill measurements the vehicles were driven - - at speeds of 18 to 25 MPJI. For downhill measurements, travel speeds of 20 MPH were -maintained. Motor-vehicle pass-Tay noise level values were recorded using a • _Bruel and Kjaer model 2215, serial number 615608 , precision sound level meter with A--weighted slow response. The sound level meter output was connected to a Superscope model CD-320,. serial number 01U060132, professional tape recorder. The measurement position for automobile pass-by sound level recording was at a sideline distance of 34.5 feet from the travel lane centerline. During • the noise level measurements, the microphone was positioned five feet above existing grade and oriented for grazing sound field incidence. Figure 3 on the next page shows two photographs of the Park Avenue measurement site and test cars traveling downhill. T'jures 4 and 5 on the following pages show representative time/ • level strip charts of recorded high performance sports car and full size luxury car pass-bys, respectively. . A number of uphill and downhill pass-bys Were -recorded -for each car type. 'The strip charts were produced by connecting the' tape recorder output to a Bruel and Kjaer model 23a5 , serial number 71768 , graphic level recorder input and re-playing the recorded, noise event. • Following completion of the field data collection, the time/ ' level noise record for- each-motor-vehicle pass-by was analyzed to determine a Single Event Level CSELI value for the event. The SEL value represents a time integrated A-weighted noise level which is expressed by the level of an equivalent one second • duration reference signal.2 That is, the SEL value represents a single noise level , one second in duration, which contains the same amount of acoustid energy as the motor-vehicle pass-by noise emission that is many seconds in duration. The SEL value for each time/level noise record was calculated using the following equation. ' • n, SEL = 10 log E antilog (AL i/10) ,At i=1 • OIOACOUSr CAL • ENGINEERINGCORP. -80/297 • 4 • • • I I � I •. I �- RANGES CO. I ff I b J h I I y� gP ,Nt �4N C'Cb � � I - wl�fi �7nwr•� .IL � • � i I Nrwlon rw� t I —own �. nC �4 h .�.ci•�.' 0 s • a SC Iny 4� rp• ,L �oP tt ♦'•��L� pP ��tox / IF y L �Q5 ra f V a •' 4r y, d. >;nw[ - • ��IA.� At e • MIN .10 Y' f o` ; 9 w�4 , •�� Y I � pN1Ul• � I,L .!ppe� ♦ A L L 4•�N`d t'Vt: ti4^ 4.• ^' �.- nw.nra'�nwr\nlr Al Ir, "r� Iurtiiu1111�d t I oivii•-i_[ � F � • FCG cip yI« I tora b{ �y11�` fY 'SJ a • FIGURR 2: Ro'ad' Noise Measurement: Site The small circle shown above indicates the section • of park Avenue used for measurement of motor-vehicle uphill and downhill travel. • BIOACOUSTICAL • ENGINEERINGCORR AI 1 MAIL. IV FIGURE 3: Measurement Site Photographs Shown above &re photographs of the Park Avenue site • for measurement of car •. BIGACOUSTICRL ENGINORINGCORR • 80/297 • 6 04 I 80 dBA • 80 dBA • w 70 dBA (� 70 dBA a • Q P — � 60 dBA N 60 dBA 0 • TIME C3mm/Sec) TIME C3mm/SeC) FIGURE 4: 240Z Pass-by Noise Level Roadway Shown above are two typical time/level strip charts of high performance sports car pass-by noise emissions. The • ordinates represent sound level in increments of one decibel . The abscissas represent time in divisions of one second for each three millimeters. The sound level data presented was measured at 34.5 feet from the travel centerline. As noted, an SEL value of 78 . 6 dB was computed for the downhill measurement and an SEL of 80.9 dB was measured for the uphill test. BIOACOUSTICRL • ENGINEERINGCORP. a • 80/297 • 7 • ter. iran— , 70 dBA 70 dRA- 60 dBA a 60 dBA zroc 0 50 dBA 50 dBA TIME (3mm/Sec) TIME (3mm/Sec) • FIGURE 5: Cadillac Sedan Deville Pass-by Noise Level Recording Shown above are two typical time/level strip charts of full size luxury car pass-by noise emissions. The ordinates represent sound level in increments of one • decibel. The abscisas represent time in divisions of one second for each three millimeters. The sound level data presented was measured at 345 feet from the travel lane centerline. As noted, an SEL value of 64 dB was computed for the downhill measurement and an SEL of 75. 8 dB was measured for the uphill test. BIOACOUSTICAL II'• ENGINEERINGCORP • . s so/297 , Where: • AL i = the instaneous A-weighted sound level for the ith sample At = the time interval, in seconds, between samples • n = the number of samples for which the sound level is at least 10 dB (A) below the maximum Ali SEL values for several uphill and downhill runs were computed for each vehicle type. Table I on the next page summarizes • the SEL findings. Table I also indicates the energy average SEL value for each motor-vehicle type traveling in each direction. The results show that for the high performance sports car, average SEL values of 83•.8 dB for uphill travel and 78 .6 dB for downhill travel were determined. For the full size luxury car, average SEL values of 69.4 dB for downhill travel 76. 3 dB for uphill • travel were found. The 24-hour motor-vehicle Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) at the measurement point 34.5 feet from the travel lane centerline was calculated using the average SEL valuesfrom Table I and the average daily driveway useage scenario. Daily driveway useage • information needed to compute a CNEL impact includes: the total number of car passbys each 24 hours; the typical sports car/luxury car mix-..; and the daytime (7am-7pm)/evening (7pm-10pm)/Nighttime (10pm-7am) operation split. It is expected that each of the six proposed' apartment units will • generate roughly 8 one-way trips per day. Accordingly it is assumed that there will be a total of 6 x 8 = 48 one-way trips per day on the access driveway. For the purposes of this study it is also assumed that equal numbers of high performance sports cars and full size luxury cars will use the driveway. The following assumptions are made for the day/evening/nighttime operation split. • It is assumed that most trips will occur in the daytime hours and that very few motor-vehicles will typically use the driveway from lOpm to lam. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that 80% of all trips will occur in the daytime (7am-7pm) , 15% of all trips will occur in the evening (7pm-10pm) , and 5% of all trips will occur in the nighttime (lopm-7am) . • Calculation of the CNEL value at the measurement site 34.5 foot reference distance was performed using the average uphill and downhill SEL values from Table I, the useage information presented above and the following equation from reference 2: i • BIOACOUSf ICAO • ENGINEERI ORP. • 80/297 • 9 TABLE I • MOTOR-VEHICLE PASS-BY SEL VALUES High Performance Sports Car SEL Values: • SEL for Uphill Travel SEL for Downhill Travel (18-25 MPH) (20 MPH) 85.5 dB 78 .5 dB 80.9 dB 78.6 dB • Average: 78 .6 dB Average: 83.8 dB • Full Size Luxury Car SEL Values: SEL for Uphill Travel SEL for Downhill Travel (18-25 MPH) (20 MPH) • 80 dB 68 .6 dB 74.4 dB 69 dB 74.5 dB 70.3 dB 75.8 dB Average: 69 .4 dB • 76 dB 75.1 dB Average: 76.3 dB • • • BIOACOUSTICK • ENGINEERINGCORR . • 10 • 80/297 CNEL = I (SEL 240Z, Uphill +•'10 log(ND,240ZI Up + 3 .16 NE240ZrUP • LLL + 1ONN,240Z,Up) - 49.4) + (SEL 240Z, Downhill + 10 log (ND,240ZrDff- + 3 .16 NE, 240Z Dn + 10 Nn240Z, Dn) 49.4) • + (SEL Cad, Uphill + 10 log (ND,Cad, Up + 3 .16 NE Cad,Up) + 10 NN, Cad, Up) - 49.4) + (SEL Cad, Downhill + 10 log (ND,Cad, Da + 3 .16 NE ,Cad, Dn) + 10 NN, Cad, Dn) - 49.4) J dB • .l Where: SEL 240Z, Uphill = the sports car average uphill SEL value • SEL 240Z,. Downhill=the sports car average downhill SEL value SEL Cad, Uphill = the luxury car average uphill SEL value SEL Cad, Downhill= the luxury car average downhill SEL value • ND, 240Z, Up; NE, 240Z, Up; NN, 240 Z, Up = the number of sports car uphill pass-bys per day, evening and night. • ND,240Z, Dn; NE,240Z, Dn; NN, 240Z Dn = the number of sports car downhill pass-bys per day, evening and night ND,Cad, Up; NE,Cad, Up; NN, Cad, Up = the number of luxury car • uphill, pass-ups per day, evening and night ND,Cad, Dn; NE,Cad,Dn; NN,Cad, Dn = the number of luxury car `downhill, Lass-b s per day, evening and nigh Using the above equation, a measurement site noise impact value of 49.5 dB CNEL was calculated for the sideline distance of 34 .5 feet from the travel lane centerline on the 16% to 20% grade road. • BIOACOURICRL • ENGINEERINGCORR 80/297 • The motor-vehicle noise impact expected .at each bedroom exterior operable window and door in the Hubbs residence will vary with its distance from the driveway centerline. The anticipated impact at the exterior of each window and door was calculated using the measurement point CNEL value, •the distance from each operable window and door to the driveway centerline, and the assumption • that the noise from each motor-vehicle pass-by decreases like an ideal point source at 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the noise source. The results of these calculations are shown in Table II on the next page. Table II indicates an expected exterior noise impact range of 45.4 dB CNEL to 51. 3 dB CNEL at •the exterior of the three bedrooms. • HUBBS RESIDENCE INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE The Newport Beach City Council conditions of approval require that the noise impact from the proposed driveway,. as measured within the Hubbs residence bedrooms with windows open, should not exceed 45 dB • CNEL. To determinb the expected interior noise exposure, an analysis has been made of the bedroom exterior wall sound control. The outside-to-inside sound control expected for each bedroom is a result of the composite attenuation provided by the overall wall itself, the window(s) , the exterior doors, and any openings in • the exterior walls. The motor-vehicle noise which will impact the bedroom walls has --a broad spectral character which is strongest in the low frequency (.Le. low pitched) region of the acoustic spectrum. 3 For design purposes the acoustic spectrum is often divided into groups of frequencies falled "octave bands" . Each individual component in the exterior bedroom walls supplies a • different amount of attenuation for each octave band. Calculations of the noise control on a band-by-band basis were performed to determine the CNEL exposure expected inside the Hubbs residence bedrooms. The noise control calculations were based upon the square footage of each wall component and the I • octave band transmission loss provided by each wall component. The noise control calculations were based upon the method of analysis presented in reference 4. To identify the components of exterior wall construction and determine their square footage, an on-site inspection was made I • of each Hubbs residence bedroom. The in-home inspection indicated that the master bedroom has double french doors without screens, fixed windows and a small aluminum framed sliding window with screen. BIGACGUSTICK • ENGINEERINGCGRR • 80/297 • • 12 TABLE II EXTERIOR DRIVEWAY NOISE IMPACT EXPECTED AT EACH 'OPERABLE WINDOW AND OUTSIDE DOOR IN BEDROOMS • OF 'THE HUBBS RESIDENCE • Bedroom Operable Window Operable Door Identification Exterior Noise Exterior Noise (See Figure 1) Impact Impact Master Bedroom 51.3 dB CNEL 50.9 dB CNEL Bedroom #2 48 .2 dB CNEL 50.3 dB CNEL Bedroom #3 45.4 dB CNEL 45.4 dB CNEL • • • • BIOACOWTICK • ENGINEERINGCORP. • 80/297 • 13 • Bedroom #2 has a single french door without screen, fixed windows, ,and a casement window# Bedroom #3 has one french door without screen, fixed windows, and two casement windows. The octave band quieting (i.e. transmission loss) that the exterior building walls are expected to provide has been determined using a variation of the "Mass Law Calculation". This calculation takes into account the noise reduction deficiencies imposed by low frequency wall resonance, high frequency coincidence dip, and solid-borne flanking paths. This method approximates the octave band noise reduction provided by multipanel walls. 5 . 6 The octave band transmission loss expected for the french doors, fixed windows, aluminum sliding windows and casement windows was determined from published information. 7 , 8 , 9 , i0 Calculations of the expected outside-to-inside sound control were made under four conditions: 1) With all exterior doors and operable windows closed; 2) With only operable windows open; 3) With only • exterior doors open; 4) With operable doors and windows open. The net outside-to-inside attenuation expected for each of these conditions was subtracted from the exterior noise impact in Table II to determine the expected interior noise exposure. Table III on the next page indicates the noise impact expected within each bedroom under each of the four conditions. • Table III shows that with all windows and doors closed, bedroom noise impacts of 20 dB CNEL or less are expected from- the access driveway traffic. With windows open, the interior exposure ranges from 31.1 dB CNEL to 35.2 dB CNEL. With doors open an interior sound exposure of 37 .1 dB CNEL to -41. 8 dB CNEL is expected. With • the windows and doors open in each bedroom, the interior noise impact is expected to range from 39.1 aB CNEL to 43 dB CNEL among the three bedrooms. COMPARISON OF EXPECTED AND PERMITTED INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURES • The Newport Beach City Council conditions of approval require that the interior bedroom noise- level from driveway motor-vehicle activity not exceed 45 dB CNEL with windows open. The noise exposure findings shown in Table III indicate that with windows open the interior exposure will be 35.2 dB CNEL or less in each bedroom. This impact is well below the 45 dB CNEL limit and in • full compliance with the C ti y Council conditions. III • BIOACOUSTICAL • ENGINEERINGCORP. • 80/297 • • 14 TABLE III HUBBS RESIDENCE INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE EXPECTED FROM THE PROPOSED-DRIVEWAY SOUND LEVELS • Bedroom INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE CONDITIONS Identification (See Figure 1) All Windows Windows Doors Windows and And Doors Only Only Doors Open Shut Open Open Master Bedroom 20 dB 35.2 dB 41.8 dB 43 dB CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL • Bedroom #2 17.7 dB 31.1 dB 38.6 dB 39 .6 dB CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL Bedroom #3 14.6 dB 34 . 9 dB 37.1 dB 39.1 dB CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL • • • i BIOACOUSTICAL � ENGINEERIN GCORP. • 80/297 • 15 A comparison of the 45 dB CNEL limit and the "worst-case" condition • with all bedroom windows and doors open• shows' that even under this circumstance the expected interior exposure will be 43 dB CNEL or less. Accordingly, even under the most extreme conditions of exterior wall opening, the interior noise impact from driveway noise is expected to be in full compliance with the permitted limits. • CONCLUSION - An evaluation has been made of the Hubbs residence bedroom exposures from motor-vehicle traffic on the proposed Carl Quandt project driveway. The expected driveway noise impact was determined from field measurements- of automobile pass-bys on an existing road of • comparable grade. Measurements were made with a sports car and . luxury car traveling uphill and downhill at typical driveway travel speeds. Using the results of these field measurements and an assumed useage scenario for the proposed driveway, calculations were made of the exterior CNEL impact at each bedroom exterior. Following a determination of the exterior exposure, calculations • of the bedroom wall transmission loss were made. A subtraction of the transmission loss from the exterior impact indicated the expected interior noise exposure. The interior exposure findings indicated that under all conditions of windows and doors open and closed, the interior impact is expected to be well within- the 45 dB exposure limit . • • BIOACOUSTICAL • EHGIHEERIHGCORP. • • . 16 80/297• REFERENCE LIST 1. Pearsons, Karl, et. , al. , Handbook of Noise Ra'tin s, NTIS U. S. Department of Commerce Document N74-23275, prepared • by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman under Contract #NAS1-11, 839 Task 2 for National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration, April 1974 , Pages 104 through 112. 2. Pearsons, Karl, op. cit. , Pages 224 through 229. • 3. Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment Powered by Interna Combustion En fines, prepared by Wyle Laboratories under contract . 68-04-0046 for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-1971, Page 109, Figure 2. 4-8. 4. Harris, Cyril M. , Handbook of Noise Control, McGraw-Hill • Book Co. , New York, 957 , pp. ?0- 3 , 20-14. 5. Beranek, Leo L. , Noise and Vibration Control, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1971 pp. 317-320. 6. Harris, Cyril M. , Handbook of Noise Control, McGraw-Hill • Company, San Francisco, 1957 , pp. 22-6 through 22-10. 7. Sabine, H.J. , et. al. , 'Acoustical and Thermal Performance of Exterior Residential Walls, Doors, and Windows, NBS Building Science Series 77 , U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards., 1975, Pages 140 and 141, Test • Number W-90-71. 8 . Libby-Owens-Ford, - Table entitled Breaking the Sound' Barrier. 9. J.J. Van Houten & Associates, 6 April 1976, Sound Transmission Loss Test Number 382-76 (7) . • 10. Sabine, 'H.J. et. al. , op. cit. , Pages 140-141, • Test Number W-88-77. • BIOACOUSrICAL ENGINEERINGCORR s HILLIARD & ERICKEN : John Hilliard • Consulting Acoustical Engineers. • Gordon Bricken July 28, 1980 Mr. Richard W. Millar Millar & Hodges 1300 Dove Street, Third Floor Newport Beacti, • California 92660 Subject:' Analysis of Noise Impact of Proposed 6 Unit Apartment Complex, City of Newport Beach. Dear Mr. Millar: At your request we have performed an analysis of the noise impact of the proposed apartment project on the existing house. 1. 0 Applicable Noise Criteria The City of Newport Beach has a Noise Ordinance. The Ordinance has several criteria which are most easily depicted in graphical form a's is done on Exhibit 1. In applying this criteria, measurements are considered to be taken five feet (51 ) above patio and four feet (4 ' ) above balcony or interior floor. Measurements are taken no closer than ten feet (10 ' ) from a wall on the outside. The Ordinance ' is based on occurances in any single hour. Thus, it is not critical how many autos use the site in a day, only how many are likely to use it in various hours of the day. Analysis, therefore, is based on the highest hour. 2. 0 Definition of Noise Levels The geometry of the site is complex and the driveway construction has a bearing on the conditions created. The driveway is on a 16$ grade. A total. of six (6) apartment units are proposed to be built.- Three (3) factors are critical to a proper noise definition; 1538 East Fourth Street ❑ Franklin Square ❑ Santa Ana,California 92701 ❑ (714)835.3728 Mr. Richard W. Millar July 28 , 1980 v Millar & Hodges • . page 2 a. The noise level of vehicles on a .1'6%: grade. b. The vehicle mix if there are differences in noise level. I !• C. The volume of operations in the highest hour. 3. 0 Noise Level of Vehicles To determine the vehicle noise level, measurements were made on three vehicle types on a 16% grade at constant speed (about 10 MPH) , in a low gear. All vehicles were equipped with auto- matic transmissions and represented typical 4, 6, and 8 cylinder vehicles. Measurements were on a driveway with no obstruction to either side•. The pass-by noise curves at fifteen feet (15 ' ) from the centerline of the auto and five feet (5 ' ) above the ground are shown in Exhibit 2. The 1978 Datsun was measured from both a runway start and a start on a hill. All vehicles registered maximum levels of 70-72 dBA. Duration would be at most a second at these levels. For design purposes the on-hill start curve .will be used as the design model. This curve may be characterized by the following; Table '3 Design -Noise Envelope of On-Hill Start.Curve_ . 1978 Datsun 4 Cylinder Automatic 72 max. _ 70 _ 1 sec. - 65 _ 3 sec._ 60 5 sec. 55 7 -sec. 50 - 8 sec. 4:0 Operational Volume There are six (6) units. Standard traffic analysis predicts eight (8) to twelve (12) trips per unit per day. Thus, there are a total of forty eight (48) to seventy two (72) trips a day. However,' as noted it is the distribution in the highest hour that must be considered. If it is assumed there are twelve (12) resident vehicles, and all leave in the same hour (to to go work for example) there would be twelve (12) outbound trips. Outbound trips are the critical factors since our measurements indicate inbound trips produce nearly 16 dBA less noise. It is predicted there could be twelve (12) outbound trips in the period 7 a.m. - - 10 p.m. (called daytime in the Ordinance) . In the period . ? a.m. . - 10 p.m. it would be expected Mr. Richard mill a July 28 , 1980 Millar & Hodges • Page 3 , that less trips would occur. For purposes of. discussion we will specify three (3) trips as a maximum. Using Table 3 we computed the model -of -cumulative noise in one hour in Table 4. Table 4 Cumulative One Hour Noise Levels in Seconds at 15 feet from Autos on 16% grade. i Day Night 72 max. . max. 70 12 3 -65 36 9 60 60 15 55 84 21 50 96 24 This is the basic reference noise data. 5. 0 Definition of Physical' Situation and Effect on Outside Noise Levels The project designer has provided elevation crossection on nine (9) locations along the driveway. Eight (8) of which affect the existing house. These elevation locations are noted on Exhibit 3. The elevation drawings themselves are illustrated on Exhibits 4 to 11 along with the line of sight from the reference listener to the motor vehicle virtual noise source (taken as two feet (21 ) above driveway) . Vehicles are assumed to be 8-10 feet from the wall. At each section there are different effects occuring. For ` example at Sections A-A, B-B, C-C, D-D, and E-E there is some shielding from the wall (which reduces noise) to the patio but little or none for the balcony. At Sections D-D and E-E, the driveway is bounded by a wall on both sides causing reflections which increase noise levels to both patio and balcony. For these reasons, it is necessary to define the noise level at each section for each level for each time of the day. Also listed are the permitted levels., TABLE 5 DAYTIME NOISE LEVELS AT EACH CROSSECTION Permitted - Duration A - A B - B D - D E '- E F-F G -G H-H Condition (.minutes) Patio o Bar Patio Bal 'Patio Bal Patio -Bal Patio,,. Patio .=Patio Maximum dBA 75 max. 62 69 65 71 65 71 65 71 69 - 69 69 Shown Varies in 70 1 - - - 4 - .1 - .1 - - - Minutes 65 5 - .3 - • . 4 • - .4 - .4 . 3 .3 .3 60 15 - 3 . 7 . 45 . 8 . 4 . 8 . 4 . 8 .7 .7 .7 55 30 . 6 1.1 . 80 - . 8 1.3 . 8 1. 3 1.1 1 .1 1. 1 Mr. Richard Milla • July 28 , 1980 Millar & Hodges Page 5 This table illustrates that it is the maximum dBA that is really the critical factor in assessing whether there is a violation, not the total number of cars. •• The• durations are always significantly less than permitted- durations at the lower noise levels. For this reason the remainder of the analysis will consider only maximum dBA •Values. The outdoor night levels can be depicted much more simply as .is done in Table 6. Table 6 Outdoor Nightime Noise Levels { at Crossection 'Locations Section Patio Balcony Permitted Noise Level A-A 62 69 '70 B-B 65 72 70 D-D 65 72' 70 E-E 65 72 70 F-F 69 * 70 G-G 69 * 70 H-H 69 * 70 * No balcony at these, crossections. Noise levels on, the balcony will exceed the Noise Ordinance. Noise levels on the patios will be just below the limit. Vehicles noisier than the design vehicle will violate the level. 6. 0 Indoor Noise Level The Noise Ordinance permits open windows for the nightime iriside measurement. Thus, outside noise reduction is 10 dBA (a standard value for 50% open windows) . The building setback is slightly more than patios or balcony locations. Also there is some added shielding from the perimeter wall. On average except at Section F-F and G-G, noise levels may be reduced 4 dBA at the 1st level and 2 dBA at the upstairs locations. At F-F and G-G, levels may be reduced 2 dBA. The adjusted interior noise levels are- those shown in Table 7. Mr. Richard Mill July 28 , 1980 Millar & Hodges • Page 6 Table 7 Indoor Noise Levels. - Section 1st Floor 2nd Floor Permitted Value A-A 48 56 55 B-B 51 59 55 D-D '• 51 59 55 E-E 51 59 • 55 F-F 57 60 55 G-G 57 60 55 Interior noise levels will exceed permitted values by up to 5 dBA for open windows. Mitigation - For mitigation to take place two (2) approaches may be considered; 1. Erect barrier wall higher. By adding about four feet (4 ' ) to the wall would lower both interior and exterior levels below Ordinance values. 2. Closed windows - this reduces interior noise levels but of course doesn't solve the outside noise at night. QROFESS10/41 Prepared by: A dIL Fy Gordon L. Bricken K. Hill , D.Sc. Vice President 9TE/dem OF CAA,\f � Enclosures: Exhibits 1-11 I : ...:'• _I :..•: : : . .. ! i r.. '�"I Q. litie'LEI �45k'J. .. . l �. ... � _.i. _. ._.._.•.i I_ .�. _ _. ._.r _ .�._.._j___.__.;._. _�.: _.. ._!...__-i. .. .. .. .I� . ...r� ;. .. _.. .._ _ i ....—. "• _ -I "I,::1•r•., r.. _ _• 1 !•i-• :_.._t .. ! _..r. •...2 . ...• .... ._. T•'� . . —.'�• _fit 1..1_.;�_..__— r ;: . ra►asiU!c,::nSbNJ.'E:.i i -ou•rstvz,_n;mµT"�' ] i . t .i. '.I" . . ... , I _ j. ;�I:;`�'i.:.,. ._., ; .. ,-. - ' ` :,• � I I, �Ot):YSiDYt'' QA.�' .r I , .; i .,.. .i -,i-t i• 9•� _.,. . J • I . • i ••� I.I ;•,.�i •:.• ' •,'. 1 '•• J. .. .. I � ,i r •'1 1 . _ _ ' �. ;..' '•. Fes. ... _t., i , .. _.L 7- I i .1.•.-•_�. 'f" •�.- I'__Li i 55 -i.: :1_ ..;..1.. _ _ I _ .._ .. . . ; ' r.i . I .. I. r ' ; it•1`•Ijl. •;' .r.��• 1 y T..4t �,�. s0. � -i .� : �+, ' � '_• ; .. '. ' � �. •� •I i I' 1-' I ..; . :i.... r I ;.I_l.j :.�_� � ,.i r' 1 is j.i. :1. .. _ f . t .. .., . . . I '• I .. I . I ' 1. .I .;• . .. '.,r I . ., .. .i-i-I. _ ;-: , �...I 1 .1• 1 .. _ _ 1 I '.. .. 1' ;. •I r•: -I I ''I.I: .�'�;� , . � .r-r• I i-� �. -1^ t . .t.a ...I ,. .. .. . .. . ... r o . I ..! ! . . '-'_r_ _J �. : . •�- I r . . : ��t_r _L.i_;.�r.l 1... :•. I I ., • L.b� L. I_}.:. •.I. i.i", I' :I.^ { j'I•t^!-r- ••�I I,. •:t•i . .t ,-1.1 _ . .... I ; • 1 .1. I - i' I- .,:1.. J..i:.r .l_.I i. ..... 't :.; . I. -iJ.._�_�. rt0• .,..!_ ,. _...�.il.,:I. � ._.. �_ r r .....'• ' I �:..1._ • _r. r_ _ ....:.i::' _• '�- - :-t .L'F.._I _i• •.r � .I.r• ' :.1.'; C •_ -.1. 1 .. I ..I� 9 '..1 L,I•'�_ i' LI. L.i (•' •'I•`-.S i-" .0 - Ir, L.L I r:T"I• - .I .,__L_ •; •. _ _ _ .. _I � .. . j i , I. , 1 ;. .1 -'! ! r..• i..i .J. _. _ :1.. _..... .r . ._I ;'�• •1 �:is 1 i. � �.:� i .. I .I-•' •.ri•'i. - ..r•: —..i.�.J�L_: 1 ._ _ .... _ L__{-.L.` ' _r.: __ .- i _.. _ .. .. i ••� - .r _ ..r. . _ _ i"'i -�.. TI_I..i t .: : —I__•_.. L.-..,_l.:I.1::: ..._+_I_!. i '.1-•_,_i .{ _. .. _L.I. i � .. _ � , �i..r. l r I ; L.: i.� 5• FF_�- -LI l i . 'I 1 _• -i•i' '• !If': '^ -I"'i_C`"1 _. .. � i.�..l•-.i.. .... :I..; .i. r t i f I •' t. I' I.1 _i_I .;. ! ..t � -I`y •i• . . I . . ..I ' +r I .. i" i I ..... . I..;..I..1.'.I_i . ..l I I _ :��::.,. 'r,ur 1� r_' •��. . .. .1.... .... .. ... ' '' • ... . i. _ .. I ... 1 .. 1 .j.l.' .I_.,. .� i• „iq:,i '_'.� l.!i:�..l.i.;�'L .,. ... ; . :.:. i .. I 't'� 1 I -.j..: , . .f.� ..I- ::'I. ..r. ,; ' ; .1• .� r r, _r_ `r:l -•i _• 'I I 'i ' .I •,... � . .. :.. .. ..F... I 1 I.• •i _I' - � I I �� 1:. .! ram',t'i.i- •i 'I � `f ', I•r : .i'.1. ..L.l.. 'I i 1. I i i �!.. .I. •1-I .�5. _. ..� _. . . _f.•.._:•i!r•_ .L�,. ... _ _ .. ..1 �_ '��' � I .1 .I.i I.I_j: .l.:.i 1 .. , :I• i t•1 � r .�::� !. .�•i•`_: y�����. r <IO 45' 50 55 60 b5 ' 70 --tAd I stt Lev !- m p _ y to • .• r. \`[pSLtl4 b1 40� 8 2L °J VAON 8!-bI OS 09 09 cc 09 p to OL : OG r+ m c OS 08 (D 06 06 MOTS :aSNoasau . aTpOS „K„ �9NISHOIaM ' Oas/unu£ •0 e GMTS l"dVH0 awil Nollivoorz :asea z gTaTuXa 50 '� .•3 OpE . .r-7cGC-T?•'- ".rr .e' aF�•r � � °;�' '/� '1'licui� �U'�.��• ')ra':- 'Yj` . i ' a' -��•^—,.. °r !' M to `� la '• J `' ^'ai�''�.� ,•^ ,.(D 4{ j. .._ d ..:_-?S - `rpm., _ •. . r .��'�1 1 �w� 4 .r `Le. �. •.r ' I .21 Y• T p n i O N , , N p ' T � ' I^ p N • Exhibit 4 Section A-A jti�ilijli:•• � L 2 Exhibit 5 Section B-B Exhibit 6 Section D-D Exhibit 7 Section E-E Of , I Exhibit 8 Section F-F dig ` T ' f'GL/����' 1O I 0 ?Af.-. . -o i _ - =. � �'c-•ter'-;��_ � Exhibit 9 Section G-G 10 i Exhibit 10 Section H-H l yi I ' i - ter , Exhibit 11 Section J-J I - I'd J f� � � — 4. ��EWP�RT ° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U x do ' <isoRN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2137 November 5 , 1980 Mr. William 0 . Hubbs 2501 Ocean Boulevard Corona del Mar, California 92625 Re : Modification No. 2552 of Carl Quandt Dear Mr. Hubbs : At the July 28 , 1980 City Council meeting, the City Council approved the Modification noted above with a Cond'ition No . 2 : "That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed project, a qualified accoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant' s expense , shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that the impact of ramp-associated noise will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in the interior of the bedroom of the resi - dential structure at 2501 Ocean Boulevard with windows open. Further, that should on-site noise attenuation. • measures be required to achieve the aforementioned , that they be designed in such a manner so as to not substan- tially impact the views from the adjacent residential unit. " This letter is to advise you that the City has contracted with Bioacoustical Engineering Corporation of Santa Ana for the _ required report, and the consultant has concluded that the interior noise impacts from the proposed driveway will fall well , within the City Council condition of approval . This matter will be considered by the City Council at its regu- lar meeting of November 10 , 1980. A copy of the consultant' s report is on file with the Planning Department and a copy of our report to the City Council will be available on or after Friday , November 7 , 1980 . If you have any questions regarding this item you may contact Fred Talarico at 640-2197 . Very truly yours , S D . HEWIC R, Planning Director JDH/kk ity Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 80/251 BIO�OV���E --ORp ENGIN a • 28 August 1980 b t _ g SFp• Mr. Fred Talarico Newport Beach Planning Dept. , 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661 Subject: Authorization of Acoustical Engineering Services for the Carl Quandt Proposed 6-Unit Apartment Complex at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona Del Mar. Dear Mr. Talarico: Bio Acoustical Engineering Corporation (BAEC) is pleased to submit this offer of acoustical engineering services for the above refer- enced development. The acoustical engineering study will be directed toward an eval- uation of the expected noise impact within the Hubbs ' residence bedroom(s) from motor-vehicle travel on the access driveway for the adjacent proposed apartment complex. The anticipated noise impact will be compared to the acoustical conditions of approval sepcified by the Newport Beach City Council. In the event that the expected noise impact exceeds the permitted criteria, recommend= ations will be made to reduce the exposure to within allowed limits. Determination of the expected noise impact from the proposed access driveway will be based upon field measurements of motor-vehicle travel on a roadway with comparable grade and speed. Data will be collected for expected typical motor-vehicle types traveling up and down the test ramp. The results of these measurements and the 24-hour driveway usage count will be used to compute the expected CNEL impact at an arbitrary reference distance. Cit is requested that information regarding the expected typical number of vehicles which travel to and from the proposed development during each hour in a 24-hour period be provided to BAEC) . Based upon the CNEL findings, calculations will be made to determine the CNEL expected at the bedroom exterior (s) . To determine the expected interior noise impact, calculations of the window-open outside-to-inside attenuation will be made. These calculations will be based upon a determination of the exterior wall and window dimensions, and a determination of the materials of construction. To determine the - i i 1833 East 17th Street,Suite 103 -Santa Ana,California92701 .714/547-5196 Vti WY 80/251 2 wall and window dimensions, it is requested that the Hubbs residence building plans, or interior access to the home,be permitted to BAEC. Following determination- of the expected interior noise impact, a comparison will be made with the 45 dB CNEL limit. If the find- ings indicate compliance with this limit, a report of the measure- ments and results will be issued. If the expected interior noise impact from motor•-vehicle travel on the access driveway is found to exceed 45 dB CNEL, the City Council conditions of approval require that the exposure be attenuated to below 45 dB CNEL. Where mitigation is needed, detailed noise control recommendations will be presented in report form. The fee for evaluation of the expected access driveway noise impact on the Hubbs ' bedroom interior (s) and a report which indicates compliance with the 45 dB CNEL limits, is quoted as not to exceed $690 . 00. It is expected that at least one public meeting of roughly three hours will be required for this project. This and all other meetings will be invoiced at $50 . 00 per hour. In the event noise control recommendations are needed to achieve compliance with the City Council conditions of approval, this service will be charged on a time and materials basis at $50 .00 per hour. Any additional work required for this project and not described above will be invoiced at $50. 00 per hour. Standard terms are presented below. Authorization to proceed with this study can be given by signing and returning a copy of this proposal. Written receipt of proposal acceptance is required before the final report is issued. Authorization of this evaluation is requested at your earliest convenience. BioAcoustical Engineering Corporation, with over 32 staff years of acoustical engineering experience, has prepared numerous planned community evaluations. This background insures a thorough analysis to meet state and city criteria without overdesign or delay. We look forward to our continuing work together, and will be glad to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely,, go SIGNED: e4 hn S. Leyerl PRINTED NAME: Senior Engineer JSL/mb TITLE: DATE: BIOACOUSTICAL ENGINEERINGCORR 80/251 STANDARD TERMS: Net 30 days, 1% service charge after 30 days. Accounts over 30 days must be negotiated prior to any work performance. Payment for work performed under this agreement is not contingent upon issuance of building permits, project approval by public bodies or officials, property sale, close of escrows, or any other provisions. Reasonable attorneys fees, as may be established by court, will be charged for collection of debt. Charges are strictly for time and materials pursuant to work described and in no way may be construed as payment for project feasibility, approvals, or results in general. BIOACOUSTICAL ENGINEERINGCORP. GcAcl QuamAr - -- rGdepborPMT' .SC,r��, lf8o � - - - •-� - - -- - --(oho— Lr! -- - -- -- ---- - -- ----------- --- t�----------- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �� RECEIPT -- —i a p NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 12891 � �pFOPP�P iiiSSfifi'" 1B�L7( J DATE 00 t RECEIVED FROM ,� Z�,,a enzll y- N42,0h Q;� `�' {{ FOR• 1 I e7ACCOVNT NO ACCOUNT O 2.p[il DEPARTMENT 80/251 BIOACOUSA EERINGCORP ENG�N 28 August 1980 g, REC.rn' SEP2 1980.?, 109 Mr. Fred Talarico N`�/F'�E�""/+ > tii CALL �7 Newport Beach Planning Dept. \� 3300 Newport Boulevard �+ Newport Beach, CA 92661 -- ' -' Subject: Authorization of Acoustical Engineering Services for the Carl Quandt Proposed 6-Unit Apartment Complex at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona Del Mar. Dear Mr. Talarico: Bic Acoustical Engineering Corporation (BAEO) is pleased to submit this offer of acoustical engineering services for the above refer- , enced development. The acoustical engineering study will be directed toward an eval- uation of the expected noise impact within the Hubbs ' residence bedroom(s) from motor-vehicle travel on the access driveway for the adjacent proposed apartment complex. The anticipated noise impact will be compared to the acoustical conditions of approval sepcified by the Newport Beach City Council. In the event that the expected noise impact exceeds the permitted criteria, recommend- ations will be made to reduce the exposure to within allowed limits. Determination of the expected noise impact from the proposed access driveway will be based upon field measurements of motor-vehicle travel on a roadway with comparable grade and speed. Data will be collected for expected typical motor-vehicle types traveling up and down the test ramp. The results of these measurements and the 24-hour driveway usage count will be used to compute the expected CNEL impact at an arbitrary reference distance. (It is requested that information regarding the expected typical number of vehicles which travel to and from the proposed development during each hour in a 24-hour period be provided to BAEC) . Based upon the CNEL findings, calculations will be made to determine the CNEL expected at the bedroom exterior (s) . To determine the expected interior noise impact, calculations of the window-open outside-to-inside attenuation will be made. These calculations will be based upon a determination of the exterior wall and window dimensions, and a determination of the materials of construction. To determine the I 1833 East 17th Street,Suite 103 -Santa Ana,California92701 •714/547-5196 i 80/251 • • 2 wall and window dimensions, it is requested that the Hubbs residence building plans, or interior access to the home,be permitted to BAEC. Following determination of the expected interior noise impact, a comparison will be made with the 45 dB CNEL limit. If the find- ings indicate compliance with this limit, a report of the measure- ments and results will be issued. If the expected interior noise impact from motor-vehicle travel on the access driveway is found to exceed 45 dB CNEL, the City Council conditions of approval require that the exposure be attenuated to below 45 dB CNEL. Where mitigation is needed, detailed noise control recommendations will be presented in report form. The fee for evaluation of the expected access driveway noise impact on the Hubbs ' bedroom interior (s) and a report which indicates compliance with the 45 dB CNEL limits, is quoted as not to exceed " $690. 00. It is expected that at least one public meeting of roughly three hours will be required for this project. This and all other meetings will be invoiced at $50. 00 per hour. In the event noise control recommendations are needed to achieve compliance with the City Council conditions of approval, this service will be charged on a time and materials basis at $50. 00 per hour. Any additional work required for this project and not described above will be invoiced at $50. 00 per hour. Standard terms are presented below. Authorization to proceed with this study can be given by signing and returning a copy of this proposal. Written receipt of proposal acceptance is required before the final report is issued. Authorization of this evaluation is requested at your earliest convenience. BioAcoustical Engineering Corporation, with over 32 staff years of acoustigal engineering experience, has prepared 'numerous planned community evaluations. This background insures a thorough analysis to meet state and city criteria without overdesign or work together, and will delay. We look Forward to our continuing g , be glad to answer any questions you -may have. Oohn erel , SIGNED: S. Ley rle PRINTED NAME: Senior Engineer JSL/mb TITLE: DATE: BIOACOUSTICK ENGINEERINGCORR Y80/251 • • STANDARD TERMS: Net 30 days, 1% service charge after 30 days. Accounts over 30 days must be negotiated prior to any work performance. Payment for work performed under this agreement is not contingent upon issuance of building permits, project approval by public bodies or officials, property sale, close of escrows, or any other provisions. Reasonable attorneys fees, as may be established by court, will be charged for collection of debt. Charges are strictly for time and materials pursuant to work described and in no way may be construed as payment for project feasibility, approvals, or results in general. BIOMOUSTICAL ENGINEERINGCORP. LL'_ CS.E.1� r l�pacTMrl�?c �onA�� , _ A�dc�ss 2 so OccaN A v s4-Z C �A\5)ls _Z5k10 r -- dino �Tr 7-Jz- J �EWPDR> CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT i @l NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 922/663 No. 09682 t� DATE 00 {i s3 RE#ED FROM 1j FOR: i ACCOUNT NO. y ACCOUN e3NO.VV i ,L -V- O"QUO �•/T DEPARTMENT JP- r AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 29th day of February, 1980, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and ASSOCIATED PLANNING GROUP, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that an Initial Study is necessary in conjunction with an application of Carl Quandt for a proposed project at 2501 Ocean Boulevard, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT has submitted to CITY a proposal to prepare said Initial Study; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to accept said proposal . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare the subject Initial Study in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 2 of this Agreement. CITY agrees to remit to CONSULTANT the amounts set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. 2. SCOPE OF WORK The subject Initial Study will be prepared in accordance with the CONSULTANT'S proposal dated February 18, 1980, which is attached to this Agreement marked as Exhibit "A" and by reference incorporated herein at this point as if fully set forth. 3. BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time and material basis and in no event shall the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) . Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT'S presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement. - 1 - 4. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete this contract within twenty-one (21 ) days after execution of this Agreement. The subject Initial Study must meet the approval of the Environmental Affairs Committee of the City. In the event additional work is required due to input during the public hearings, said additional work shall be subject to a separate contract. . 5. TERMINATION This Agreement is subject to termination by the CITY at any time upon serving written notice to CONSULTANT. The CITY shall be thereafter liable to CONSULTANT only for fees and costs incurred as of the date CONSULTANT receives such notice of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Assistant City Attorney By*Dicto r lan ing Department CITY ASSOCIATED PLANNING GROUP By CONSULTANT - 2 - �� M CEO IED FLA O G GROUT • 228 A South Cedros Avenue o Solana Beach, California 92075 o (714) 481-8441 February 18 , 1980 FECEIVED � Ptan:tiny, • j C�::,r?menC Fred Tal ari co ` FEB'2 11980>- g Environmental CoordinatorORT, crrYa� Community Development Department V11) N-wfiCALIF.c��t CHI, 9 3300 Newport Boulevard \ Newport Beach , California 92663 ti SUBJECT: Quandt Condominiums , Corona Del ,Mar Initial Study - Proposal for Professional Services Dear Mr. Talarico : It is 'our pleasure to submit this proposal for the preparation of an Initial Study for the Quandt Condomin- ium project located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona Del Ma,r. Per our discussion of this - project, it is my understand- ing that the Initial Study will be based on available information regarding the site, and that no independent technical analysis will be required. The issues that.., have been identified by the City include : Land use compatibility Grading, Geology, Soils Visual /Aesthetic quality rn order to address these issues adequately,' we will'• review the existing geotechnical reports , contact the City' s Advanced Planning Administrator , the LCP Coordin- ator, and the subdivision engineer, and discuss the project with the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff, The format of the Initial Study will be 'an expanded which will identify the potential sl nificant checklist w b y y P 9 environmental impacts , and summarize the proposed mitigation measures if appropriate . TALARICO Page Two 2/18/80 The City of Newport Beach will be billed upon completion of the I_nitial Study according to the schedule given• below: Principal Planner. . ... . . . . . . . . $32 . 50/hour Clerical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 .00/hour Mileage. . . . . 19/mile Duplicating. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . Cost + 10% Out-of-Pocket Expenses. . . . . . . Direct Cost Invoices are payable within fifteen (15) working days of the invoice date. APG. will prepare 10 copies -of the Initial Study ' to• be reviewed by the EAC, and attend one meeting of the Committee . Following the EAC meeting, APG will prepare two (2) final copies of the Initial Study for the City' s file . We estimate that these services will take approximately three ( 3) weeks to complete from the date of authoriza- tion to proceed, and will cost THREE THOUSAND ($•3,000 . 00) dollars. We would be willing to make that ' a ' not-to-;'- exceed' figure as long as' our agreement includes the understanding that any- additional services , not contained in this . letter, are' additional items and can be billed accordingly. It is a pleasure to work with you on this project. We _ are looking forward to initiating the study. If you have any questions , feel free to call me at 481 -8441 . Sincerely, ASSOCIATED PL NNING GROUP Beverly 0od o155OC10-17_�= PLANNING• OUP GROUP 228 A South Cedros Avenue • Solana Beach, California 92075 • (714) 481-8441 0 February 18 , 1980 RccEiukn � S'lannin�; f r�--rimr_nt Fred Tal ari co r = FEB211980a- 8 Environmental Coordinator a CITY Community Development Department NEW PORT ..-ACH, 3300 Newport Boulevard CALi=. \'9 Newport Beach , California 92663 SUBJECT: Quandt Condominiums , Corona Del Mar Initial Study - Proposal for Professional Services Dear Mr. Talarico : It is our pleasure to submit this proposal for the preparation of an Initial Study for the Quandt Condomin- ium project located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona Del Mar. Per our discussion of this project, it is my understand- ing that the Initial Study will be based on available information regarding the site , and that no independent technical analysis will be required. The issues that have been identified by the City include : Land use compatibility Grading, Geology, Soils Visual /Aesthetic quality In order to address these issues adequately, we will review the existing geotechnical reports , contact the City ' s Advanced Planning Administrator, the LCP Coordin- ator , and the subdivision engineer, and discuss the project with the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff. The format of the Initial Study will be an expanded checklist which will identify the potential significant environmental impacts , and summarize the proposed mitigation measures if appropriate . .mow TALARICO Page Two 2/18/80 The City of Newport Beach will be billed upon completion of the Initial Study according to the schedule given below: Principal Planner. . . . . . . . . . . .$32.50/hour Clerical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 .00/hour Mileage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19/mile Duplicating. . . . . . . . . . . . Cost + 10% Out-of-PocketExpenses . . . . . . . Direct Cost Invoices are payable within fifteen (15) working days of the invoice date . APG will prepare 10 copies of the Initial Study to be reviewed by the EAC, and attend one meeting of the Committee . Following the EAC meeting , APG will prepare two (2) final copies of the Initial Study for the City ' s file . We estimate that these services will take approximately three (3) weeks to complete from the date of authoriza- tion to proceed, and will cost THREE THOUSAND ($3 ,000 .00) dollars . We would be willing to make that a ' not-to- exceed' figure as long as our agreement includes the understanding that any additional services , not contained in this letter, are additional items and can be billed accordingly. It is a pleasure to work with you on this project. We are looking forward to initiating the study. If you have any questions , feel free to call me at 481 -8441 . Sincerely, ASSOCIATED PL NNING GROUP 1Ni Beverly ,wood X— 1' as gCl - mo PLAi&ING GROUP 228 A South Cedros Avenue • Solana Beach, California 92075 • (714) 481-8441 February 18 , 1980 Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach , California 92663 SUBJECT: Quandt Condominiums , Corona Del Mar Initial Study - Proposal for Professional Services Dear Mr. Talarico : It is our pleasure to submit this proposal for the preparation of an Initial Study for the Quandt Condomin- ium project located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona Del Mar. Per our discussion of this project, it is my understand- ing that the Initial Study will be based on available information regarding the site , and that no independent technical analysis will be required. The issues that- have been identified by the City include : Land use compatibility Grading, Geology, Soils Visual /Aesthetic quality In order to address these issues adequately, we will review the existing geotechnical reports , contact the City ' s Advanced Planning Administrator, the LCP Coordin- ator , and the subdivision engineer, and discuss the project with the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff. The format of the Initial Study will be an expanded checklist which will identify the potential significant environmental impacts , and summarize the proposed mitigation measures if appropriate . TALARICO Page Two 2/18/80 The City of Newport Beach will be billed upon completion of the Initial Study according to the schedule given below: Principal Planner. . . : . , . $32 .50/hour Clerical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 .00/hour Mileage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19/mile Duplicating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cost + 10% Out-of-pocketExpenses . . . . . . . Direct Cost Invoices are payable within fifteen (15) working days of the invoice date . APG will prepare 10 copies of the Initial Study to be reviewed by the EAC, and attend one meeting of the Committee. Following the EAC meeting , APG will prepare two ( 2) final copies of the Initial Study for the City' s file . We estimate that these services will take approximately three (3) weeks to complete from the date of authoriza- tion to proceed, and will cost THREE THOUSAND ($3 ,000 .00). dollars . We would be willing to make that a ' not-to- exceed.' figure as long as our agreement i-ncludes the understanding that any additional services , not contained in this letter, are additional items and can be billed accordingly. It is a pleasure to work with you on this project. We are looking forward to initiating the study. If you have any questions , feel free to call me at 481 -8441 . Sincerely , ASSOCIATED PLANNING GROUP Beverly Wood L LI I � I I ; t . a I NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ❑ Secretary for Resources FROM: " 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Bui"lding,Department City of Newport Beach ® Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 3300 Newport Boulevard County of Orange- Box 687 Newport Beach, CA 92663 A.Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE: Quandt Apartment Complex PROJECT LOCATION: 2501 Ocean B1Vd. , Corona del Mar PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a six unit apartment complex with parking facilities for sixteen cars. CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TELEPHONE NO. (714) 640-21.97 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER None This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project has been ❑ approved by the City of Newport Beach. ❑ disapproved 2. The project ❑ will have a significant effect on the environment. will not ' 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Gene ( is Actj-n'q!Jiui j di ng="Offti ael. Date May 23, 1980 I f fif NEGATIVE DECLARATIO?l TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard N X Clerk of. the Board of ewport Beach, CA 92663 Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 NAME OF PROJECT: Quandt Apartment Complex PROJECT LOCATION: 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Study INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA ' DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Fred lalarico Environmental Coordinator Date: Apri- 23, 1980 4r..-.....................�ww++.w.w.�+...w+.+•.r.Wt Y• +..�.,u nub ���_"..-.+Wa'v�raFw.v.....:+-:oca�`ly,ads.Mzwwu:�H�cYeslu.gwm:u+a....r.wr I ' I 4 } L O'TY OF NEWPORT 'B*ACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES \(fP \ �� May i2, 1980ROLL CALL (d) Claim of Katherine C. Van Deusen for property Van Deusen damage, alleging a tire was ruined when she \ could not avoid hitting a large piece of broken asphalt on the Newport Boulevard cros- sing over Pacific Coast Highway on Febru- ary 25, 1980. 6. SUMMONS AND COMPLAINTS For confirmation of City Clerk's referral to the insurance carrier: (a) Summons and Complaint of Mary J. Beck; Case Beck No. 33-15-42 in Orange County Superior Court. Personal Inj . The original claim was for personal injuries. \(b) n and Complaint of J. Harry Goff for Goff , Case No. -329165 in Orange County Property Loss r Court. The original claim was for y loss. and Complaintof Robert' Earl Savage Savage sonal injury and property damage, Personal Inj . . 333777 in Orange County Superior The original claim was for personal I allegedly received when he was rid- ing a bi cle and collided with a motor vehicle p ked in the bike lane on Bayside Drive. 7. REQUEST TO FILL PER NNEL VACANCIES - For Personnel , approval: (A report \Building the City Manager) Vacancies (a) One Parking Contfficer, Police Depart- ment, Co fill a position. (b) One Police Clerkoli Department, to fill a vacant po . (c) One Sprinkler SyTechnic n, park Department, to fvacant po tion. (d) One Groundsman-Gr I, Park Depa tment, to fill a vacant po . (e) One Building Insr II, Building Depa t- ment, to fill a t position as a resuof a position retion. (f.) One Associate Planner, Planning Department, position as the result of a reclassification of an Assistant Planner position. 8. REPORTS FROM STAFF - For Council information and fi13ng: (a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (b) A report from the Planning Department regard- Planning Dept. ing the intent of the Building Official to_ (68) is, a Negative the in conjunction with a request of Carl Quandt for a Grading Permit far a six—unit apartment project in Corona del Mar: property located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard. (Attached) Volume 34 - Page 115 i C# Y OF NEWPORT BACH " COUNCILMEN MINUTES .0 ROLL CAL � p May 12, 1980 IN DFX (d) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (e) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (f) Letters from William Frederickson addressed to Supervisor Riley and FAA officers in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. regarding Orange County/John Wayne Airport. (Attached) (g) Minutes of the Friends of Oasis Board Meeting of April 21, 1980. (h) Notice from Orange County Health Planning Council of a public hearing on Appropriatenea Review Hearing Procedures Manual. (i) A letter from the Fair Housing Council of Orange County asking for reaffirmation of the City's commitment to equal opportunity and access to housing for everyone in this county (j) Excerpt from Minutes of the Board of Super- visors meeting of April 22 regarding minimum annual rent adjustment for Newport Dunes. (Attached) (k) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (1) inutes of the Local Agency Formation Commis- • s on meeting of April 9, 1980. (m) Age da for Board of Supervisors meetings of Apri 29, 30, May 6 and 7, 1980. (n) A lett r from the Balboa Island Improvement Associa on urging approval of the plans for the Balb Island Park and Community Center Building. (Attached) 5. CLAIMS FOR DAMAG- - For denial and confirmation Claims of the City Clerk referral of claims to the (36) insurance carrier: (a) Claim of Richard P. Freeman alleging invasion Freeman of privacy, etc. t the Police Department on February 18, 1980 hen his request for a telephone, after hi ar\near st, was complied with by use of a "sp " telephone which allowed on-duty offito eavesdrop on the conversation with hiorney. (b) Claim of Jonathan Alor property damage Alacca When his parked car egedly struck by a City vehicle on Ap7, 1980 at Sea Gull Lane and Sherington . (c) Claim of Meghan Gall for ersonal in- Gallagher juries on January 160 when the vehicle in which she was a pger was invol'ved' in an accident on Ford near Ne ort Hills Drive West allegedlyed by a d ngerous road condition existue to main enance, design and care of the road during aN.pon- struction period. Volume 34 - Page 114 n 'a"; City Council Meeting May 12 , 1980 Agenda Item No . H-8( b) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 8, 1980 TO : City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Intent of the Building Official to issue a Negative Declaration in conjunction with a request of Carl Quandt for a Grading Permit for a proposed six-unit apartment project at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Background • The applicant is proposing to develop a six-unit apartment project on the lower portion of a coastal bluff which has already been altered by the construction of a single-family residence and the installation of retaining walls . A description .of the proposed project is contained on Pages 3 through 8 of the Initial Study , a copy of which is attached. In addition to a Coastal Development Permit and review and approval from the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission , Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game , and the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service , the applicant will also require from the City a Modification Permit, Building Permits and a Grading Permit. The first discretionary step in this process , in terms of environ- mental considerations , is an evaluation of the grading which is planned to occur and a review of existing topography, geology, soils and seismic conditions . Under this review, the Building Official may require plans and specifications to be modified in order to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental effects at proposed grading pro- jects and he may, under circumstances where significant adverse effects of a proposed grading project cannot be mitigated, deny the issuance of a grading permit. When a categorical exemption is not • appropriate fora site of proposed grading work the City shall cause to be prepared an initial study , which shall be submitted to the Building Official . If the initial study shows that no significant adverse environmental effects will result from the project, a nega- tive declaration may be issued. The Building Official shall cause the site to be posted and the members of the City Council notified regarding the issuance of the negative declaration . TO: City Council - 2 . The purpose of this report is to advise the City Council that an Initial Study has been prepared and the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and deter- mined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment if the mitigation measures as set forth in the Initial Study are followed. Based on this finding, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and the Building Official will make his final determination at 10 : 00 a .m. on Friday, May 23, 1980 . Prior to that date a notice will be placed in the Ensign newspaper, adjoining owners of property will be notified, and the site will be posted. Respectfully submitted, PLANNINGG DEPARTMENT fJAWJES l� D. HEWrUKER Pla Wing Director • JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Vicinity Map 2) Public Notice 3) Negative Declaration 4) Initial Study • i 'o4r. •a,l w �" I I � ^r � i. f V✓ •f '•_�t uw ��� •• �'---1I � :'� y k •:x "y Q 1 2 l.rl•�. ! .1 \tip%` ..I , ; � <:w".a•/N a<lf _'�...., •tip W .•,, r..rai J s. � BAYS/OE �r f �,•� PiG� � (1''J 1 �' r sr: a 'i ,^ �••.• ` -` '."JI r-• -' --- �--�-_ --------"._------ 1 •� I .•'••. r.�4. — � y ,ill Rf 9 A :. . : :i _� aJ . ,. -.b �1-Y O ;<•I cif+: `'� a '� s�+ir %0--�'• I'I ✓> L ,.,.-_ii�/�:a/ -� fe .I�SF' O "OSr; �y;� i \\t��� rL �::�=�•;'� 1.'-.:f':a _-__ -,^. .-ii`- ••. p/li�c , , • iii*i: i : • Yi. u1 I: —; IlV fJ•t I T'}, iI •1.1<''.'<':.1I} - it i,t /, • .T )„5'�µT•ii i•Q K t'( /i - - a. J of A;W ..,. ,.P .1/_�J:'r�r•1.;rr1 .I� TI .- •'Jr:l- .t• •t-tom 1 1 �< i � / r y ,f --.-- .-�- ! 9i. •;�QS.. Y4` j' -'�-r.���_ t. W y f1 1 1 „I / � ,zpi � "a i<arw• v! I i'a A •II .i�.• 1 ,y/`, 1 •1 }� J �i @ n_i_:•w. •. ,.•;r..± .{ir:'�rt\,3'i �.f >.... `1+e ::,r is i ! t • / •i h SEAY/EiY '� I t, �/ /Y a wa"fa•r us+ri,ra E-Ildre •j� .»*�•„-<- • -- 1. }�r / I I i Jrrr �,jI 1 I tle tI e ''�s ski ` r••r 11•ulww nt•«.rrN rrr.•...rr f.ul wlm j t CZ / ,ntlO?IT r•r r-I CT / •PQ ''` rjy` 'gyp\ 1� R 1. t, . .. , c tL Nss `r�,f F� �. �� , SSI y.• r;r M1y,s. R . . A0� •�(, ) \ \ '��. `; Sy��l< 1 rr C1,1I f i•w.!j , is " ` \ MI IX C.. is; ::IJI , 1' •7 • \ \ r i PO['•G/ PROJECT LOCATIOIJ FIGURE 1 PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Building Official oP thh City of Newport Beach is -considering the adoption oP a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the application of Carl Quandt r -7 (n) ❑ Variance_ _ L-_} Use Permit __ fesubdivision 'T i�`- Tentative hiap Tract__ C1 Amendment _ __— Other_ Grading Permit on property located at 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Marto permit grading for the construction of sii apartment units with parking facilities for sixteen cars. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663,,_ (714) 640-2216. - ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared , in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents:, The 'City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this, documentation. Copies of the Environmental' Impact Report and, supporting documents, are �avaihable for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of 'Newpor Beach,, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 Q14) , 640-2197 •Notice is hereby further given that the Building Official will make his determination- on the 23rd day of May 19 80 _-, at the hour of 10:00� A .N. in the Building Department of the Newport Beach City Hall . - 'Gene Cich . PUBLIJCATI-QN DATE: Acting Building Director golf i City of,New ort Beach Rec ved Publ i 'bn ��/4- j�v y p By_ , • Y. 4 • NEGATIVE DECLARATION • TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, CA 92663 X Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 ��� . .. . Santa NAME OF PROJECT: Quandt Apartment Complex PROJECT LOCATION: 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study. DING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MW MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Study ITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR 'REVIEN AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA s.. ...I T „.�. DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Fred talarico Environmental Coordinator Date: Apri- 23, 1980 �i�ww.mow..�.1..w..wn�w+.rrw�w..+A..w+w� Y .'M+.rwNY+YNiIYbWI.M'M WJ1TlMR/.4Xn.cv.+.LZ1NfiT.�16'.WE'Ni4.WH� pVOTJYJPhwi.Yw.oi�Y City Council Meeting May 12, 1980 Agenda Item No . H-8( b) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 8, 1980 TO : City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Intent of the Building Official to issue a Negative Declaration in conjunction with a request of Carl Quandt for a Grading Permit for a proposed six-unit apartment project at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Background The applicant is proposing to develop a six-unit apartment project on the lower portion of a coastal bluff which has already been altered by the construction of a single-family residence and the installation of retaining walls . A description .of the proposed project is contained on Pages 3 through 8 of the Initial Study, a copy of which is attached . In addition to a Coastal Development Permit and review and approval from the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission , Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game , and the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service , the applicant will also require from the City a Modification Permit, Building Permits and a Grading Permit. The first discretionary step in this process , in terms of environ- mental considerations , is an evaluation of the grading which is planned to occur and a review of existing topography, geology, soils and seismic conditions . Under this review, the Building Official may require plans and specifications to be modified in order to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental effects at proposed grading pro- jects and he may, under circumstances where significant adverse effects of a proposed grading project cannot be mitigated, deny the issuance of a grading permit. When a categorical exemption is not appropriate fora site of proposed grading work the City shall cause to be prepared an initial study, which shall be submitted to the Building Official . If the initial study shows that no significant adverse environmental effects will result from the project, a nega- tive declaration may be issued. The Building Official shall cause the site to be posted and the members of the city Council notified regarding the issuance of the negative declaration . l TO: City Council - 2 . The purpose of this report is to advise the City Council that an Initial Study has been prepared and the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and deter- mined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment if the mitigation measures as set forth in the Initial Study are followed. Based on this finding, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and the Building Official will make his final determination at 10 : 00 a .m. on Friday, May 23, 1980 . Prior to that date a notice will be placed in the Ensign newspaper, adjoining owners of property will be notified, and the site will be posted. Respectfully submitted, PLANNINGG DEPARTMENT l� J S D. HEWrCKER Pla Wing Director JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Vicinity Map 2) Public Notice 3 Negative Dedlaration 4) Initial Study 1J y e 17 i:•;J J :! � �2 :•ii�wa�e •:{ I .e �----' t-� __ O 'KI 1 ' 1• r- � + I V. i_-�-- ,I+A I r. / 'I .. �— ♦. / •� It..! •:?: ' "'• C at ra.;ey BAYS/OE .i sue% M !!:�'f�•T•Tj�:! .""e ,f te•/'i;__-�_.y v mot. r ,1 yr1 •_n pp�b<e,. ` It:fa:e 1 ` vl..ii /0 .—: :iSiF' i l •i .5' Al N.j• OEG .li./.t/, , i •`\ —2,5•'.1/��'J:'f q..l•�/C ri,�..•\i� .1 47 ��1:�� <�.etl</<nr'� I � .rC �•� —;.v..:y__.%� 4—_ . 'vim:' N•+.1;, e e ;. :._�l 1 1 1 ..� / Vv.C! p ��� >R� ieuir•w I i:/Cylc A .�1 �•.! S ;q 1 a, _ � IS '1 1 / / i v' �i\a, n_+/�: -�.. ;,(•r;� .fJiY$r::/e\3'?�'r'''"�i''�2w.T; --• �i •I t 1 ! % i p� /M D, r'•e>.e.<.rruw+ver) t;.0,- a /r e l , / G . r s z�/• e �7lL s�s JLt.! � .�� • � - , ,.. � 1 rM 1 i i� u \ ��:.c : V',3•� ... e,nr•-w ri11111117 Cr Iry 5 L 11 Lam\ ACT :in.,/ ; \ •�., A�Q,y\ e'i:~i �1V1� ,"+t.e�s� l i.. ,ef,`: + �'�%. IR St / • E'y\ Gff.. � 3 •w;,. a i, + � w PROJECT LOCATIO11 FIGURE 1 PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach is considering the adoption of a Negative Declaration in conJunction with the application of Carl Quandt ) Variance Use Permit fora(n _ _ L—i ❑ Resubdivis-ion ^� `�� Tentative Map Tract___ U Amendment _ L_xi Other_ Grading Permit _ on property located at 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar to permit grading for the construction of six apartment units with parking `Facilities for sixteen cars. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. R NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663,_ (714) 640-2216. _ ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared' in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the . ;. City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents;. The ;City encourages members of the general ,public to review and comment .on this. documentation. Copies of the Eovironmental' Impact Report and' supporting documents• a•`re` avaiTable' for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newp6f,% Beach_ , 3300' West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714). 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that the Building Official will make his determination. Y on the 23rd day of May 19 80 _ , at the hour of 10:00_ A .M. in the Building Department of the Newport Beach City Hall . - 'Gene Cich . PUBLIJCAT4�N DATE. Acting Building Director Rectoffved Publica �� v City of'Newport Beach 'Gn f' By_ w NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROti: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 X Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 t�.. Santa NAME OF PROJECT: Quandt Apartment Complex PROJECT LOCATION: 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Study INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA t DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: re a arico -- Environmental Coordinator Date: Apri- 23, 1980 4....�.rtwi+.��+�wn�wrMrw..�Mr4ww.'+�wM..MI / 'M.uMQI111WiLItlW+MM'h?'V)h1nY4V.w.4GWfLZ1YM1Nb'.iAYlN1.'fMW4C�MY4NViAiLVJMw�11.u4�Y City Council Meeting May 12, 1980 Agenda Item No . H-8( b) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 8, 1980 TO : City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Intent of the Building Official to issue a Negative Declaration in conjunction with a request of Carl Quandt for a Grading Permit for a proposed six-unit apartment project at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Background The applicant is proposing to develop a six-unit apartment project on the lower portion of a coastal bluff which has already been altered by the construction of a single-family residence and the installation of retaining walls . A description of the proposed project is contained on Pages 3 through 8 of the Initial Study , a copy of which is attached. In addition to a Coastal Development Permit and review and approval from the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission , Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game , and the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service , the applicant will also require from the City a Modification Permit, Building Permits and a Grading Permit. The first discretionary step in this process , in terms of environ- mental considerations , is an evaluation of the grading which is planned to occur and a review of existing topography, geology, soils and seismic conditions . Under this review, the Building Official may require plans and specifications to be modified in order to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental effects at proposed grading pro- jects and he may, under circumstances where significant adverse effects of a proposed grading project cannot be mitigated, deny the issuance of a grading permit. When a categorical exemption is not appropriate for .a site of proposed grading work the City shall cause to be prepared an initial study, which shall be submitted to the Building Official . If the initial study shows that no significant adverse environmental effects will result from the project, a nega- tive declaration may be issued. The Building Official shall cause the site to be posted and the members of the City Council notified regarding the issuance of the negative declaration .' TO: City Council - 2 . The purpose of this report is ,to advise the City Council that an Initial Study has been prepared and the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and deter- mined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment if the mitigation measures as set forth in the Initial Study are followed. Based on this finding, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and the Building Official will make his final determination at 10 : 00 a .m. on Friday, May 23, 1980 . Prior to that date a notice will be placed in the Ensign newspaper, adjoining owners of property will be notified, and the site will be posted. Respectfully submitted, PLANNINGG DEPARTMENT fJAWES D. HEWITKER Pla Wing Director JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Vicinity Map 2) Public Notice 3 Negative Dedlaration 4 Initial Study r •Y 1J qy I,h�- ; I i ;- ^.,J � %•' r v, 'f 1..�....1` •f.A ��i� .. � -• �� � i�:.l k Ix u I I oAv�-` f��t;y�'t ki BAYS/OE ,.•csf .:.�rrar! tt iNl ,w �••.. �Y •` t`• �; ^ 7___ --- ---_-------------------_- • •D- I ••,�, `'�• r nt :r• .I �f 'y + rS/p i�•'�IP % ate:..ii :D IrIr l ,I• =f +•af 1� Op -",f � l'` /L _1= T•: •-, � /�F r ,h_ .r�1�N �'•a s• � .r<:::.„ '.t�ON.� OG•< ,li./�/' •! nf '� Q£1/�,�' :','•!.; ' \ ?• �_ i• 1 rM�I J�;/•;•�' , ;Y'C _:farr:a•�it 4—•r vr:i.lJ'j14• _ ♦- • - _ .� 7i` 1 / C +` ♦ ? ;.,..w_ , It ey1< , .11 •t,.• s ;rl. 1 / / ! / � �\a ii•/. ^3^..e ,1/""•t�:lt��. ♦.t ?w.!,". %:.0 is �I tal te "•f(/,`,��!Q' f a y ; h /!/4 fOI M/ltfll.n(f SEAY/EW f.•r•w"yrG.YY i j i ti.O� i �/� ..r.' .i..w.17 ,` E fa ..: /T ' is . . ♦ i i .1 Lw.r_ a �' � / .^ice 1 '' ,�� : Q �/S fj /� i• !—f!2 /' i •2 /L ` ,i �Kt� y'< , C•,r 2 ft �4 _ t /e , 9 2: t !e . r i..*jar,.�'3: °__.�� •1 !C i /• __L ,,• Z d I7rG . G •! t�!` d71. Si;il�ttf/• .Z ,�� � �/ t� j V nu i!ur.. iruw..� u.r'rw n•r'•la.r./I.ar!cu ) f \ I/Ir1••M FACT t v ;->i� ♦� `, t \� \� }yam •s a•�y��'�•r 'lYle Q 5�•- e. eL NN t , C` ` \ \ esa•r w 340, 7/ sty PROJECT LDCATIOU FIGURE 1 b ct • • PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach is -considering the adoption of a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the application of Carl Quandt for a(n) ❑ Variance_____ _ ___— •__-,•-•__ L i Use Permit _- .__--_---__- _-_•_--.-•-_• ❑ Resubdivision _ iJ Tentative Map Tract_^_ El Amendment t Other_ Grading Permit on property located at 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Afar to permit grading for the construction of six apartment units with parking facilities for sixteen cars. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663,_ (114) 640-2216. _ ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been ,prepared in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the ' City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents,. The •city, encourages members of the general public to review and comment .on this. documentation, Copies of the Ehvirohmental• Impact Report and° supporting documents, a're%avail,able' for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300' West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that the Building Official will make his determination• on the 23rd day of May 19 80 _ , at the hour of 10:00_ A .M. in the Building Department of the Newport Beach City Hall . 'Gene Cich . PUBLUATiN DATE: Acting Building Director Rec ved Public n /may v City of'Newport Beach By_. 7 • NEGATIVE DECLARATION • rY..r rr..Ww/...ru1YMWMw.1 N.YYaaX v.a�.Mw..'.wY..Mw..e•4.✓MAMwIMN11 TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 X Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ww +� Santa0. Box 687 CA NAME OF PROJECT: Quandt Apartment Complex PROJECT LOCATION: 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Study M INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach w.mu.awn..»�►M.. INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW 'AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA { ' DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: '//` Hed laala'rico Environmental Coordinator Date: Apri- 23, 1980 I,.�.�......_......_.....�._._.......w............ a.-d.....a.,-......0 — ._...,�..��.,. s:._..:.z,»�.�wE',�v...waw+�.,...rxm:wx.........+.. City Council Meeting May 12, 1980 Agenda Item No . H-8( b) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 8 , 1980 TO : City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Intent of the Building Official to issue a Negative Declaration in conjunction with a request of Carl Quandt for a Grading Permit for a proposed six-unit apartment project at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Background The applicant is proposing to develop a six-unit apartment project on the lower portion of a coastal bluff which has already been altered by the construction of a single-family residence and the installation of retaining walls . A description .of the proposed project is contained on Pages 3 through 8 of the Initial Study , a copy of which is attached. In addition to a Coastal Development Permit and review and approval from the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission , Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game , and th•e U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service, the applicant will also require from the City a Modification Permit, Building Permits and a Grading Permit. The first discretionary step in this process , in terms of environ- mental considerations , is an evaluation of the grading which is planned to occur and a review of existing topography, geology, soils and seismic conditions . Under this review, the Building Official may require plans and specifications to be modified in order to mitigate' anticipated adverse environmental effects at proposed grading pro- jects and he may, under circumstances where significant adverse effects of a proposed grading project cannot be mitigated, deny the issuance of a grading permit. When a categorical exemption is not appropriate fora site of proposed grading work the City shall cause to be prepared an initial study , which shall be submitted to the If the initial stud Building Official . Y shows that no significant a nega- tive from the project, n adverse environmental effects will r p J 9 tive declaration may be issued. The Building Official shall cause the site to be posted and the members of the City Council notified regarding the issuance of the negative declaration . TO: City Council - 2 . The purpose of this report is to advise the City Council that an Initial Study has been prepared and the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and deter- mined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment if the mitigation measures as set forth in the Initial Study are followed. Based on this finding, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and the Building Official will make his final determination at 10 :00 a .m. on Friday, May 23, 1980 . Prior to that date a notice will be placed in the Ensign newspaper, adjoining owners of property will be notified, and the site will be posted. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT tn�ing- HEW Director JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Vicinity Map 2) Public Notice 3 Negative Declaration 4) Initial Study .Oy Ly,l yl ! i ;• ^- C /^ ^r �.1d. 1--�i •nn I I +i w �: =-_-1.rI_.—_-�L.1 I-_! •:J: ` w • ;...; pA``i rr<"� 1 �i BAYS/OE ------------------- •/^ •D. i ' '' • `+• .� n. +/ �rl �� a�i � ��J- :> � `,w:e 4�i7r�--_-_r-.t v :3 .. .S'/p r�•j�is• � v n 0 VI III r� T__i !ate �. 'I•L>1 O , Six; �'+/ i \\:��• /i 's•. '�•� l "••'I__n -' -J III iPij/F :rs:I: • 2�_ a ...C�- �1:r' : •� =u' J IJ <: ,.o• ---t- i 1 / / / 4� Q ♦ ♦ '3� �.. f', `;c z e icl. d i. .ice;-' I x`>, nti_w�. _ w3r..± ��ly"•t:/i�:`': �:;f 2.e•��:' ;:.u;y aj 'i I t�Y J -c •urw a m..�tmw SEAM/EiY Ja^r>•rucri>n ^r•.-�.."Jti. I j i al•m: a �/6 n- • '.w/7 °�'n'\r.• a' is��v ,i.: � ,� K _ /1 :• •i /L /3 LT /(' At - ` ,' )Sty y-^ Z �.4 �4 Z%C •9 2% t is . • i�:.'-i: ���—_ IN 41-1 f• ��� �� � ;,�_ d e Ii�c � e z�/• J 'z!s ss�slIr{/ t e J1� \ ` �/ J�, i Q nH i!o��. ivuaw.::ui rr.•!ue.rl.ia.n^lwwu •! J III11f1/lT f1 f II y,7 (� CT Y t \ y•, ti III •y � � • •. \ _. PROJECT i.00ATIOI FIGURE 1 1 • 'l 0 PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach is -considering the adoption of a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the application of Carl Quandt for a(n) ❑ Variance .T .--_-_.-r 7 Use Permit ❑ Resubdivision i`� Tentative Map Tract___ El Amendment Other_ Grading Permit — on property located at 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del filar to permit grading for the construction of six apartment units with parking facilities for sixteen cars. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. NOTICE IS HERESY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663,_ (714) 640-2216. _ ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been •prepared' in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the ' City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents,. The ,City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this. documentation. Copies of the Environmental' Impact Report and, supporting documents. are •available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, Cify of 'Newpgk^t Beach,. 3300' West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714)_ 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that the Building Official will make his determination• on the 23rd day of May 19 80 _-, at the hour of 10:00— A .M. in the Building Department of the Newport Beach City Hall . - Gene Cich . PUBLUATI N DATE: Acting Building Director Recgfved Public n City o'flNewport Beach By. 7_ NEGATIVE DECLARATION M TO: Secretary for Resources FROt•1: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 X Clerk of the Board of tl Supervisors H„ P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana. CA 927n2 NAME OF PROJECT: Quandt Apartment Complex PROJECT LOCATION: 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Study INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIE14 AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: r Hea lalarico Environmental Coordinator Date: Apri- 23, 1980 L<.�..-......�......�................«...,,,,........ a.-M......,..�.....unw..,.uwn..w.wc:.rr.-.r...,.....:...ncrn•a+oxi..nw.�..wwuenwv.Y.�Na...w.i«..0 City Council Meeting May 12, 1980 Agenda Item No . H-8( b) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 8 , 1980 TO : City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Intent of the Building Official to issue a Negative Declaration in conjunction with a request of Carl Quandt for a Grading Permit for a proposed six-unit apartment project at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Background The applicant is proposing to develop a six-unit apartment project on the lower portion of a coastal bluff- which has already been altered by the construction of a single-family residence and the installation of retaining walls . A description of the proposed project is contained on Pages 3 through 8 of the Initial Study, a copy of which is attached. In addition to a Coastal Development Permit and review and approval from the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission , Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game , and the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service , the applicant will also require from the City a Modification Permit, Building Permits and a Grading Permit. The first discretionary step in this process , in terms of environ- mental considerations , is an evaluation of the grading which is planned to occur and a review of existing topography, geology, soils and seismic conditions . Under this review, the Building Official may require plans and specifications to be modified in order to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental effects at proposed grading pro- jects and he may, under circumstances where significant adverse effects of a proposed grading project cannot be mitigated, deny the issuance of a grading permit. When a categorical exemption is not appropriate for a site of proposed grading work the City shall cause to be prepared an initial study , which shall be submitted to the Building Official . If the initial study shows that no significant adverse environmental effects will result from the project, a nega- tive declaration may be issued. The Building Official shall cause the site to be posted and the members of the City Council notified regarding the issuance of the negative declaration . •1 r • TO: City Council - 2. The purpose of this report is to advise the City Council that an Initial Study has been prepared and the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and deter- mined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment if the mitigation measures as set forth in the Initial Study are followed. Based on this finding, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and the Building Official will make his final determination at 10 : 00 a .m. on Friday, May 23, 1980 . Prior to that date a notice will be placed in the Ensign newspaper, adjoining owners of property will be notified, a.nd the site will be posted. Respectfully submitted, PLANNINGG DEPARTMENT 01*Ml� 4 - J S D. HEWITKER Pla Wing Director JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Vicinity Map 2) Public Notice 3) Negative Declaration 4) Initial Study J ,ON / 1'M.�,\� i i i- ^' Q •�• r �f C I '� •nw �3..�� � �, 2 1...: J �:� y F: ~ •'.'. ��/ '1! V vro♦ nrur _ r1 i ri r w i'•. �_` *•:1�; !•__�I- •-----� _------_---- -- /'S/p i w•:�i n `r. w :>1 a1:..w /D-�' i,I `ry r7 `•w:e ,j T.•/�,>♦ .. .� u M1r I♦yr 1 O , i d:Y; we/ f �\it�f.� /L �.Sl:�t�•:�V T.;,.•r•.a _... Ii I ••. O/(iF ' ' � irs:r. 2�. • , J< :�S/r'`:: .i -�. � i Ir ..2 ,',} ;t-- ww/v* Oc'< ./i./.e•J�... a zl_�J: fir•!. /C 1.3I- 5�_,i�'}\r2 2T; 11 f• i1 1J Ilj 1 � ••� � %/ �'Y�' 0 wv\��'� ediiw_�.�• * ��C\+}F A •1= �..i •t_ irl� 3_i• .;/t. ftJ ?i p n/_e'.r. '. r r,i .FJt:✓r /-♦.i- :j r _ J ♦•w>.a!<•wr.♦waver) I r ! � % ifa � •'1:s � uiu.a.eu♦u.re SEAY/EiY /. .. 'e+e•�.:+yl-y 1r4 % �/ <i A� 4 /Er .♦.� wu 17 .' ) /C u ? •'<• . J' i' 3 JQ-f!Z /' •i /S-- IG \ �•. - O r , If rJ! 1 �a'� �' � / a o re�IslG . JIJ z /• J �7IL sit 3'r�J .� a t' r rw rl�r ruaw.N rr.._...nr rWi r.elwlr.0 ) f : J>>�Il � 1 ••^• rlTrrrh i v � �^vy, 1 gj),I�,nl• >• J, L 1/!lp32 i 1 �jJ I t `t AVr.. Ja 14 11, ST y . 1 J IV•. � v �cr� St'r 1/ r ; •4 ' 1 PRI)JEGf LOCATIONIX! FIGURE PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach is considering the adoption of a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the application of Carl Quandt for a(n) ❑ Variance r � Use ❑ Resubdivision v^ i` Tentative Map Tract___ u Amendment _ G Other_ Grading Permit _ on property located at 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar to permit grading for the construction of six apartment units with parking facilities for sixteen cars. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. O NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663,_ (�14) 640-2216. _ ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared' in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the, ' City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting dbcuments..� The •City encourages members of the general public to review and comment .on this. documentation, Copies of the Environmental' Impact Report and' supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach,, 3300' West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 926,63 (794) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that the Building Official will make his determination- on the 23rd day of May 19 80 — , at the hour of 10:00_ A .M. in the Building Department of the Newport Beach City Hall . - 'Gene Cich . PUBLUATNN DATE: Acting Building Director ee�p" City of Newport Beach Rec ved Publ i n ��� Y BY NEGATIVE DECLARATION • TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 X Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa NAME OF PROJECT: Quandt Apartment Complex PROJECT LOCATION: 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Study - F AL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach AL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIE14 'AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: "Fred a aric Environmental Coordinator Date: Apri- 23, 1980 City Council Meeting May 12 , 1980 Agenda Item No . H-8( b) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 8, 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Intent of the Building Official to issue a Negative Declaration in conjunction with a request of Carl Quandt for a Grading Permit for a proposed six-unit apartment project at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Background The applicant is proposing to develop a six-unit apartment project on the lower portion of a coastal bluff which has already been altered by the construction of a single-family residence and the installation of retaining walls . A description _of the proposed project is contained on Pages 3 thro-ugh 8 of the Initial Study, a copy of which is attached. In addition to a Coastal Development Permit and review and approval from the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game , and the U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service , the applicant will also require from the City a Modification Permit, Building Permits and a Grading Permit. The first discretionary step in this process , in terms of environ- mental considerations , is an evaluation of the grading which is planned to occur and a review of existing topography, geology, soils andseismic conditions . Under this review, the Building Official may require plans and specifications to be modified in order to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental effects at proposed grading pro- jects and he may, under circumstances where significant adverse effects of a proposed grading project cannot be mitigated, deny the issuance of a grading permit. When a categorical exemption is not appropriate for a site of proposed grading work the City shall cause to be prepared an initial study , which shall be submitted to the Building Official . If the initial study shows that no significant adverse environmental effects will result from the project, a nega- tive declaration may be issued . The Building Official shall cause the site to be posted and the members of the City Council notified regarding the issuance of the negative declaration . 1 � TO : City Council - 2 . The purpose of this report is to advise the City Council that an Initial Study has been prepared and the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and deter- mined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment if the mitigation measures as set forth in the Initial Study are followed. Based on this finding, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and the Building Official will make his final determination at 10 : 00 a .m. on Friday, May 23, 1980 . Prior to that date a notice will be placed in the Ensign newspaper, adjoining owners of property will be notified, and the site will be posted. Respectfully submitted, PLANNINGG DEPARTMENT l� S D. HEWITKER Pla ning Director JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Vicinity Map 2) Public Notice 3) Negative Dedlarati-on 4) Initial Study \ A �J '•a ' .l 't a' l ' at er..»:•e�> Imo_ i a a Y • i,•,1 Q2�'`.. ¢i del ki BAYS/OE —sec r ..n.a•ert w i w .h �'• _-` [..:' �• — --_ —_-------------- ---- "-------- ' •D. ; -" '•/�A A>yl ^ e: _! : y_- iJ-� - --- •, r---_-- rS/Q t�•���>r: � 1� ate: � 1—�-1;1 ✓> r- - «a.j L� '>.1� •-.-� .: I{-- t , •-. /vF i s:r:r i• _ 1•• /2 1• ! .vj oEt ,.lire/r>•. `� L_,LZ7:?\� �.;/C Yjr-= a �i/r�Tj j 2[,�•-Q/-1. '[.._,t Y! t ! a / % 4 °. ----- --- 'Y`\-. .l t`!3.[4b E:;�'nri��'_ G -;1?° _7:• W r,�"F' s�— .f 1 ! I / / �' )4\�a, na_a•n. 3.. [-w3 r..± ISeA VIEW :�:'1 �.? >....,:., •'iY is _—. 11 I / r r !/>.LI L.IY p.rM)L>� •I ..U�,_ � l 1 I a S. rnru Ltu rrttr>Lw _ie is ' S�. +,r ',�.� 2 � � O t /C L •9 t% >x tG . , r..�.�-C :-Q•r!1 At LL ..w i. w. aYu.0 i OCEA'A/ \ \I,� �\�j�`•� � wna•..r � ,\ttt{[IlT ff i"I[ !T1 �.^�7y� �I 1. Il •�� Y j2 ^ '/f isul C'u• •,t .�.. ........ ie rri� __ _ � •-����i�.�wi • ` \ Na I.. J N 1 PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 1 PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach is -considering the adoption of a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the application of Carl Quandt for a(n) ❑ Variance Use ❑ Resubdivision '^ �� Tentative Map Fract___ u Amendment _ lxf Other_ Grading Permit on property located at 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar to permit grading for the construction of six apartment units with parking 'Facilities for sixteen cars. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. n NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663,_ (114) 640-2216. _ ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been .prepared' in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents,. The ,City encourages members of the general public to review and comment .on this. documentation. Copies of the Environmental' Impact Report and' su'pporting documents• are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newpol-t Beach, 3300, West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that the Building Official will make his determination• on the 23rd day of May 19 80 _ , at the hour of 10:00_ A .N. in the Building Department of the Newport Beach City Hall . - 'Gene Cich PUBLI,CAT1QN DATE: f Acting Building Director ee��fi Cityof'New ort Beach Rec ved Public n ��i° y p By NEGATIVE DECLAP,ATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 X Clerk of the Board of p Supervisors t„ P. 0. Box 687 s NAME OF PROJECT: Quandt Apartment Complex PROJECT LOCATION: 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Study INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach 9 INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Frea lalarico Environmental Coordinator Date: Apri- 23, 1980 ...-..�»..-......-...«,.—...�.-.........�.....,...w.ww. a+••.•»•+w+.,.,.�„u.•- _ _ .-..wswla:..w..•o:....ocv.,.v+a».wavxvawa+.aenau.rNwvwa►..w...arr 1 FILE COPY 1 ]DO NOT REMOVE 1 INITIAL STUDY 1 QUANDT APARTMENT COMPLEX 2501 OCEAN AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR S' RErFIVCn �r 1 '�l;roir^ � r APING 81980:, v, 1 PREPARED BY: ASSOCIATED PLAf•IVING GROUP 228 A SOUTH CEDROS AVENUE 1 SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92375 (714) 481-Al PREPARED FOR: CITY OF 0PORT BEACH ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 3300 NE VORT BOULEVARD 1 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 i 1 1 INITIAL STUDY ' QUANDT APARTMENT COMPLEX ' 2501 Ocean Avenue Corona del Mar California Prepared by: Associated Planning Group 228A South Cedros Avenue Solana Beach, California 92075 ' (714) 481-8441 i 1 i • TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 .1 LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 .2 OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 .3 REQUIRED APPROVALS AND PERMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ' 2.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS . . 20 2.1 .1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2:1 :2 Potential Environmental• Impacts . . . . . . . 23 2.1 .3 Proposed Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . 25 2.2 NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 ' 2.1.2 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.2.2 Potential Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . 27 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . 27 2.3 WATER QUALITY AND DRAINAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.3.2 Potential Environmental Impact . . . . . . . . 29 2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . 29 2.4 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 ' 2.4.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.4.2 Potential Environmental Impact . . . . . . . . 31 2:4.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . 32 ' 2.5 LAND USE AND CONFORMANCE WITH ADOPTED CITY AND STATE PLANS AND REGULATIONS . 32 2.5.1 Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.5.2 Potential Environmental Impact . 34 2.5.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . 34 r rLIST OF FIGURES 1 City of Newport Beach Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Level One Floor Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Level Two Floor Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ' 4 Level Four Floor Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 'Level Five Floor Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6 Elevations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 Preliminary Grading Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8 Construction Equipment Noise Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 9 30 10 Parking Level Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 1 , r r r r r r r II , jSUMMARY tThis Initial Study contains three major sections. The first is the project description and the environmental checklist. The second section contains supplemental information on geology, noise, water quality. and drainage, access and circulation, and land use. The last section is a soils and geologic investigation of the site prepared by Westland Associates Ltd. of California (23101 Terra Drive, Laguna Hills, California 92653) and excerpts from the California Coastal Act applicable to the project. The land use of the proposed project conforms to the general plan designation of multi-family residential and is consistent with R-3 zone. However, because the driveway will encroach into the required four foot sideyard setback, a modification must be granted to allow access to the property as proposed. The most significant environmental impacts that may result from the development of the site include increased noise levels due to construction equipment, transport of excavated materials through a residential neighborhood, and slight degradation of water quality from runoff. Unavoidable adverse effects of the project include alteration of the existing landform and removal of the existing vegetation. The California Coastal Act identifies coastal bluffs as unique natural resources, and as such should be preserved in their natural state where feasible. It appears in this case that the upper portion of the bluff has been previously altered by the construction of the single family residence and installation of retaining walls at both the mid-level and bay-level . The existing vegetation is primarily introduced landscaping and these species are neither rare nor endangered. There is no evidence to conclude that this site is a significant habitat area. Further review by the Coastal Commission is necessary to deter- mine compliance with the Coastal Act policies. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce potential en- vironmental impacts associated with geology, soils, grading, water quality and noise. ' 1 S 17 '' i 3 I I i3 »\C=.per � a.� t� V / I a:n.e.r na rJcl —�:•. . �`- 'V:��' fit• W ! I tvrr tluY 1,~, y • oQ``` r P°r��t �' BAYS/DE__-_____----r,..irccar___rat .f � i ...__.•+.'"•y+rr._..�' �.J."lrr •i :. � : :�__i. y--;-r_^l ; r. � r_____- S/O lr.�•Y• � 'V r _—�Itl- r _j_ a_JC_5+,( »r _ �1+.•+rF O idis; �.rJ i \`i���1 /G • ,.• _L/��•:SV r•.r.,• ..i�-- �.-•'�_ - /i 1 ' -� Q//j� . tliyJ/. ; \�-.1 t /� .�i ,L4.4CY r •� �. fI •�•�y y!T -:J pvfTv 71T RI j � i � i } :.i i•�{,\..��13•i4+ ;:v���»rE'�:' f.e_;;��' 7 i W d II/.i J�A'I-fi / f .t�,Q \�� _aP:ar�•ru�_�,\; L—' i yY, !/•lJl1�• � � G � F G. Q (�.�r 1 , I ..! / i v OS �\\\ � pP.rsw_ :>I I �.'CiCi2 A .1'I ir•i 3 ii .�3 -y• ,i/I,� 1 1 t ! / i �r ��m .._r_e•_e. '1 ri+3 r..t +I+ien %:�2'i• \•S 2....� :.:,.ri: :i 1�•� ! // / J j•� �Y�1t r+rr.w<.rr u.r+verri �+1C„rQ.' V.. ° k rrw'r.•/u.•rrrur,.� SEAY/EiY •P.r�•P•b.. i � i ti•mi' 9 �/E a.� r ..u./T >' /e ... n w•i: _ / �K, / Or' 2 � ♦ L /G 9 L: T !C /•rJdTi-t: --�/� 13 •vim .' • O - II - ' •1 ff r3J i14 f 413 zi / e 'TIG, sis13'ZI / E qq� a \• �Nq//� f.r•tw•.r. i•L irJ�WI6Y .I . t(1 ♦ � i V n nyn r - __�. OCEA'A/ \ I ,r n111P11Trr1-11-7r7 . y tit IdACT Ile • oF�� yG°�Of\ ` -�: rr/sir,;.. ; .;+ ...lc NN mop / \ a u+n^ __�`� _. 'r• �! J y is o PROJECT LOCATIO(l FIGURE 1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 .1 LOCATION The proposed six unit apartment complex is located at the inter- section of Ocean Avenue and Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar, California. The project is legally described as Parcel No. 1 and Lots C and D of Parcel No. 2, and fronts Newport Bay., The site is with- in the coastal zone as defined by the California Coastal Act of 1976 jand its amendments. 1 .2 OBJECTIVES The project proponents intend to construct six apartment units with parking facilities for sixteen cars. The apartment complex will contain five levels with pad elevations ranging from + 10.3 feet to + 45.5 feet. Table 1 contains an outline of unit sizes and square footages for each level of construction and Figures 2 through 5 are the floor plans. Table 1 Level• 1 Apt. . #1 - 3 bedroom 2,675 sq. ft. 1st floor 1 ,675 sq. ft. 2nd floor, 1 ,000 sq. ft. t Level 2 Apt. #2 - 3 bedroom 2,722 sq. ft. 1st floor 1 ,569 sq. ft. 2nd floor 1 ,153 sq. ft. Level 3 Parking Garage 16 spaces 10,200 sq. ft. Level 4 Apt. #3 - 2 bedrooms 850 sq. ft. Apt. #4 - 2 bedrooms 1 ,120 sq. ft. , Level 5 Apt. #5 - 2 bedroom 800 sq. ft. Apt. #6 - 1 bedroom 730 sq. ft. Total Apartment Area (not counting decks and ' parking structure) 8,897 sq. ft. 3 N CD LL WIY u1e �u / z31�Y.pl'f�pj�to � D dps(11D +(two m.J/A44.7.1-190 M.MIC _ FL.ry]rk ((((ooMiG fuiliii(sxfciawl /.-r,)!Y; •f f�' '•� r Q'vIt`~ �• to r did-raw uG�eL.zs' ;i�- t or :',:J:• � 0 .mow _ -. � Y' r tr _ r10r�cK1`(4N6 w 69Pf2'�.•}2' - _--- •-- �P� r � f 5: {+"t{ 14s) LG.yap adc pt. O -• V K 1•�,.:; - .. �krN� ( i - �r N+ M O wS h U' bpi LL Asi[1i[ q.S.1 Be QM� qS r _ r I � % � l i sea•6e'4o A 1449�__��._�-` yy • I KA Y, "�J M( ,M. !rl '� � �XT' �• r id: / ��y//''{w,.A I ���._���� I C ,i l-t ?W _ 1I rV� :M1Lr• I�.ifcc•" •' r +r r� r r r r w rr r� rr ass s r r �■ir r� a■� r ON� B'Y QN, pit N71 1 .r... �".✓ { i1 ,1 � \• �\ � -may�� 1 f m't••Nwi-3 'fWM wf S :. O G {r% z Q,� Qw i Q�1 y \ •%Y 1/ I I I ICI{L..u1..P I I1F11 6+6) LGJt1. IJG - E1.. 1U1 .F�• ram,.(p. e I The improvements will be built with a combination of conventional wood frame plus masonry and concrete as depicted in the elevations pro- vided by the architect (Figure 6). Apartments 1 and 2, closest to the bay- level , will be two stories. Units on levels 4 and 5 will be single story uni.ts. 1 .3 REQUIRED APPROVALS AND PERMITS The City of Newport Beach must approve a modification to allow the ' driveway to encroach into the four foot sideyard setback. A grading per- mit must be issued, and final working drawings must be approved by the ' Building Department. The project will require a coastal development permit. The South ' Coast Regional Coastal Commission staff has indicated that prior to its review, the project must also be reviewed by the following agencies: 1 . Regional Water Quality Control Board 2. Department of Fish and Game 3. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ' 4. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (if alteration of the shoreline is contemplated) . Reference: Meeting with R. Gordon Craig, applicant, and City representa- tives on April 8, 1980. ) 8 .e 4A zq Rd All,11f,2 lit 403 w c Q•• A Na re ELY V�.r10hI I/bl+t'el � . Y ISM' .. lol'Y'+.i•+T e>nro LLEV/.r10I 61i1 P� > 7( H1 ' APPENDIX H Date Filed Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL RNFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: _art Quandt. 2. Address of project: a n ' Assessor's Block and Lot um er 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Fdyysr� f i�itlin�gi arrfyjtcr�� 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: Li-stan escr a any o er related permitsthose other uiredlbc approvals required for this project, including mi y city, regional, state and federal agencies: Coastal Commission ' develo ment ermit 6. Existing zoning district: R-3 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. q.. Sgaare footage. 1(G. .;..::.fiber of floors of construction. of off-street parking provided. 17 . Ar.tach plans,. 15. Proposed scheduling. ' 14 . Associated projects . i;. Anticipated incremental development. 10 H2 lb. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of , unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sine expected. 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the project involves a variances conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application ' is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? ' Discuss below all items checked yea (attach additional sheets as necessary) . YES No X 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lauds or roads. X 23. Change in pattern; scale or character of general area of project. X 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. , X_ 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors 1n vicinity. X 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibraLlon levels In the vicinity. X 28. Site on filled land or on slope or 10 percent or mo,re.. X 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, -� r such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 113 NO X 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) . ' X 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc. ) . ' X 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe ' any.existing structures. on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, ets.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, ' department stores, etc. ) , and scale of development to(height,graphs the frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.) . Attach vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. ' CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished a ove an in the attached exhibits presei,t the data and infor- mation required for' this initial evaluation to the best or my ' areltrue and correct toathe� best statofemys knowledge oand 4beliu ion presented r Date (Signature) For 12 APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECFLIST FORM ' Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) ' i. 'Background 1. Name of Proponent Mr. Carl Quandt ' 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 21990 Highway 29, 714M ' 3. Date of Checklist Submission March 3L 1980 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Newport Beach 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Quandt Apartment Complex , II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yea" and "maybe" answers are required on attached ' sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X _ b. Disruptions, displacements, com— X ' paction or overcovering of the soil? _ c. Change in topography or ground X surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modi— fication of any unique geologic or X physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X ' f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify ' the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? —X— ' 13 ' YES MAYBE. NO y g. Cxpo••ure of people or propi•t t,v to geological hazards such as earth- , quake~ , Landslides, mudslidFs, ground _ X - - tailnrv, or :similar hazard•:? 1. _Air. Will the proposal result in: f a. _ � Substantial air emissions or deteri- oration of ambient air quality? X ' I b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in X climate, either locally or regionally? 9. Water. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either X ' marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates., drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X — c.. Alterations to the course of flow of X ' flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X ' e. Discharge into surface waters or in ' any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited ' to temperature, dissolved oxygen or — turbidity? X ' f. Alteration of the direction or rate X of flow of ground waters? ' I g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts X or excavations? — h. Substantial reduction in the amount — of water otherwise available for X public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? }X 14 � 1 I NPF.-2A:22 ' I YES MAYBE N7 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: i a. Change in the diversity of species, ' or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, X crops, and aquatic' plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species X of plants? c. Introduction of new species of r plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of X , existing species? i d. Reduction in acreage of any Iagricultural crop? -�-- , 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or ' numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, X ' or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of ani- mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement -X , of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or X wildlife habitat? --- 6. Noise. ,Will the proposal result in: ' a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise X , levels? 7. LiPht and Clare. Will the proposal produce �— new light or glare? , S. Land Une. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or X , planned land use of an area? 15 ' P I YFS MAYRF NO ' 9. Natural Resources, Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any ' natural resources? X b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? _X 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of ' hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or ' upset conditions? X 11. Population: Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth ' rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing, housing, or create a demand ' for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the .. ' proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X ' b.. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X ' c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X ' d- Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? : f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles , bicyclists or vpdestrians? X _ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effscr upon, or result in a need for new or altared governmental services in any of the ^ folic:+�n� area:, : _—' -- ' 16 x YES HAYBE NO ' a. Fire protection? —X b. Police protection? X c. Schools? X ' d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X ' e. Maintenance of public facilities, X including roads?. — f. Other governmental services? X ' 15. Energ Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or X ' energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon , existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Y -- , 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial , alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X , C. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? �r ' e. Storm water drainage? X --- ' f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding X mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential X health hazards? , 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obatruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will. the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically X offensive site open to public view? 17 o 1 � 4 YES MAYBE NO ( 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result 'i in an impact upon the quality or quantity X of existing recreational opportunities? _ ' 20. Archeological/Historical. Will thi• proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical X ' site, structure, object or building? _ 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance,. a- Does the, project have the potential to ' degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish ' or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal' community, 1 ' I reduce the number or restrict the range of a. rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of I ' California history or prehistory? I ' b. Does the project have the potential to ^ , ' ( achieve short-term, to the disadvantage f of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief ' definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) ' c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project ' may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of ' those impacts on the environment is — significant.) d: Does the project have environmental . effects which will cause substantial iadverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ ' M. Discussion of environmental Evaluation • TV. Determination (-to he completed by the Lead Agency) ' 18 pen-YA:Yb On the basis of this initial evaluation: l� I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect ' on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECIARATION will be prepared. ' Q I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant•effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached , sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ` 0' I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature Tor II (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) a 19 / ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 2.1 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS (Reference: Soil and Geologic Investigation, Westland Associates Ltd. , November, 1979: Appendix A)�— 2.1 .1 Environmental Setting ' The site is trapezoidal in shape, with approximate overall dimen- sions of 87 by 245 feet, in the east-west and north-south directions, ' respectively. The land has variable gradients, with a maximum relief of about 70 feet, and drains toward the bay. The front 50 percent of the subject property occupies a Pleistocene marine terrace which consists of three dominant features: (a) a modified seaward terrain about ± 25 feet high; (b) erosional bedrock platform separated from the underlying bedrock formed by wave erosion since up- lift; and (c) a cover of marine and non-marine terrace sediments that ' average 40 feet in thickness. ' A. Geologic Units Two mapped units underlie the property. These consist of sand- stones of the Monterey Formation of Miocene Age, which in turn are over- lain unconformably by terrace deposits, comprised primarily of sands and ' gravels. Bedrock exposed in the sea cliff is comprised of thick bedded grey white medium to coarse grained sandstones displaying well rounded fine to coarse grain sizes in the bedrock matrix. The upper sandstone ' units are underlain by a massive, coarse, pitted, dark green brown ex- tremely hard sandstones. Bedrock is moderately well cemented which allows the rock bluff to stand almost vertical . The terrace deposits are comprised of tan to brown, medium grained sand with a silty to clayey matrix and occasionally shell fragments. The basal portion, one to three feet thick, is comprised ' of well rounded pebbles and cobbles in a sand matrix. The terrace 20 I ' deposits are estimated to be approximately 40 feet thick in the front of the property. These materials are loose and soft on the surface, becoming firm and dense at depth. Loose and porous silty sands constituting slope wash sediments, admixed with gravels and rock fragments mantle the terrace deposits with the Monterey rocks. Their areal distribution is scattered and sporadic with thicknesses ranging from a few inches to as much as 30 inches. ' B. Geologic Structure Sandstone units within the Monterey formation are moderately well ' bedded with the conglomerates and breccias being poorly bedded to massive. Bedding attitudes in these units strike N 30 degrees to 35 degrees E and dip 12 degrees to 15 degrees N. Locally, the beds are poorly developed, thus decreasing the probability of a bedding plane type of failure. Primary joint attitudes (occasional open fissures) strike north- south and east-west parallel and normal to the cliff face and exhibit westerly to northerly dips of 80 degrees to nearly vertical (seaward). Occasional areas of minor rock fall due to fissured jointly has occurred in the past and this phenomena can• be expected to occur in the future. The seawave actions of the past have widened the joints to create fissures and shallow gorges along the seaward face of the property. Along the northwest- central limits of the property, near vertical cliff face exposing very hard sandstone rocks was noted. The bedrock-terrace contact, where noted in outcrops, is inclined seaward at 5 degrees or less. It is surmised that the contact inward from the cliff is essentially flat, with possibly a local irregular surface. The terrace deposits are essentially flat lying. Occasional poorly developed bedding planes exposed in the ravine banks are horizontal . Mass Wasting ' No large areas of mass movement occurs in the bedrock exposed on the sea cliff. However, minor rock fall does occur on the bedrock face ' 21 rand is joint controlled. This phenomena could accelerate resulting from possible seismic activity. A few erosional gullies underlain by soil slumps were noted within the confines of the northwestern half of the property. These will be re- moved during the grading and replaced with compacted fill . ' Coastal Geology The sandy beach and rock outcrops just offshore protect the sea ' cliff from wave attack because of shoaling of the waters. However, during seasonal periods of high tides or surf, the fronting beach is subject to erosion. Furthermore, waves may (and probably do) break at the toe of the sea cliff and possibly cause erosion along the fissured joints. Further erosion could conceivably affect the sea cliff. However, no field evidence exists that indicates this will happen in the foreseeable future, within the project life, due to the very dense nature of the seaward rocks. Seismicity Seismic conditions are reviewed i'n the soils report prepared for the subject project. The report concluded that this project could be expected to experience a seismic event of a magnitude of 6.0 or greater during the life of the proposed structures. ' The shallow depth of water and the near proximity of the Inglewood- Newport Fault to land appear to preclude the possibility of the site being effected by a tsunamis. Hurricane-Tide Floods Storm surge, which is the rise in water level above normal tide as the result of wind and inverted Barometric effects, that occurs during a hurricane, should not affect the terrace deposit exposed on the sea cliff, as its elevation is much higher than the storm surge would attack. Moreover, the durability of the local Monterey rocks, because they are dense and well-cemented, would preclude any degree of erosion from occurring except possibly in localized areas of fissured joints. 22 2.1 .2 Potential Environmental Impacts Geology, Topography, Soils Site grading will be required to provide for: (1) nearly level building pads and access ramps; (2) suitable foundation conditions to support the proposed improvements; (3) adequate surface gradients for control of water runoff; and (4) excavation into compacted fill and bedrock to accommodate the installation of foundations and utility systems. The preliminary grading plan (Figure 7) indicates that the site will be substantially altered as a result of this development. Pads will -be constructed at the following elevations: + 1.0.3, + 12.3, + 19.0, + 28.0 and + 45.5, as shown in Figure 7. Excavation and compaction will be done with jackhammers and a small bulldozer. The excavated material will be brought to street level and loaded onto trucks using a conveyor belt and a small crane. According to the project engineer, it will not be necessary to blast any of this material . Excavation can be accomplished with standard construction equipment. The amount of material to be excavated has been estimated by the project engineer and is shown in Table 2 below. Table 2 Amount of Material to be Excavated 1 ,604 cubic yards Amount of Material Retained On-Site 175 cubic yards Total Amount of Excavated Material to be Exported from Site 1 ,429 cubic yards The exported material will have to be transported by truck through residential areas to a suitable disposal site (the location has not been III determined to date) . It is presumed that the truck traffic will be in the area during daylight hours during the construction of the project. The size of the trucks and the number of trips has not been calculated. In order to provide structural support for the planned building floors, excavation through a thin soil veneer and into durable rock will 23 l r { t <. `. Is.st' sod`` � /. ♦� . .'".^. ' ;r ;, I sorer egos m to EX/ST. P rr•ron W � M y� scvr - r 3c � O `E �� 1 1<• r p ywr LEGEND ro a a s ti• L•w`�/ NSCrY s O PAD rASV,-lac LL A CPGEX ® rm cuv.—Iz.c o r APB 0 rsn c,.ay.-zco E7pg. C`I PAD r ® rc.,wnAwr s,.us .R1LIGfYCrMAC/G�,• 2 1 be necessary. Expected excavation depths will range from nominal or less than three feet to as much as nine feet to accommodate partial subterranean construction. These efforts will extend largely into weathered bedrock and into fresher rock at the deeper cuts. 2.1 .3 Proposed Mitigation Measures As proposed in the Soil and Geologic Investigation, the following mitigation measures should be included in the project: 1 . Caution should be exercised to prevent mixing of select native or imported materials with soils containing debris ' and/or organic matter. Organic matter may be stock- piled in limited quantities for landscaping purposes. However, excessive volumes, together with any deleterious substance, should be stripped and removed from the property. 2. All excavated soils with an organic content of less than three percent (by volume) may be blended with non-organic material in the construction of site fills, provided this procedure received PRIOR approval of the project' s soil engineer. All imported soils should be non-expansive, predominantly granular and approved by the project's soil engineer prior to use. 3. Any surface and subsurface grading obstruction (such as utility lines, loose fill , debris, trees with root systems, irrigation lines, and existing foundations) en- countered during grading should be brought immediately to the attention of the project's soil engineer, to assure proper exposure, removal and/or relocation as directed. No underground obstructions nor facilities should remain in any structural areas which will receive compacted fill , 1 building foundations, concrete slabs and pavements. 4. All structural fills constructed in areas of proposed build- ing pads and/or pavements should be densified to at least 90 percent relative compaction, by mechanical means only, in accordance with (ASTM) Test Designation D1557-70. The 25 I upper six inches of the subgrade exposed by stripping or 1 excavation should first be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary and properly compacted. 5. Depressions and/or cavities created as a result of grading obstruction removal , should be properly backfilled with suitable fill materials and compacted. 6. Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of slopes may be required, if depths exceed ten feet, .or if the presence of gravel pockets of adverse dipping beds cause severe localized ravelling. 7. All work associated with trench shoring must conform to the State of California Safety Cade and/or applicable OSHA regulations. 8. All grading and earthwork should be performed under the direction and inspection of a qualified soils engineer 1 to assure proper subgrade preparation, selection of satisfactory materials, placement and compaction of all structural fill . Recommendations for foundation design can be found in the Soil and Geologic Investigation on pages 9-12. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final plans for the building, strictly adhered to by the contractor, and supervised by a qualified soils engineer during construction. 2.2 NOISE 2.2.1 Environmental Setting The project site currently is not impacted by any major noise sources. There are no major roadways in the vicinity of the project, and John Wayne Airport is approximately 5.5 miles to the north. The 60 CNEL noise contour is 1 .3 miles away from the project site, and there- fore the site is not considered to be significantly impacted by the airport. 26 2.2.2 Potential Environmental Impacts The project plans include a roadway which services the parking garage and passes over the roof of one of the apartment units. This situ- ation has the potential for generating unacceptable interior noise levels in the apartment unit, and will require. special design considerations. The most significant noise impacts will occur during the construc- tion of the project; most notably during the grading and site preparation phases of the project. Because of the configuration of the site and the geologic composition, several types of equipment will be used to excavate the site, clear the excavated materials, and lay the foundations. Figure 8 contains a noise level chart for standard types of construction equip- ment. It can be anticipated that the noise level will exceed the 70 dBA li level for the type of equipment to be used on the project, and it could be as high as 95 dBA during some periods. The project engineer has indicated that the apartment complex will take approximately one year to construct. There has been no clear indication at this point as to how long the grading and foundation laying phases will take to complete. During the initial construction phase, the noise levels may be disruptive to the residents in the immediate rvicinity and the adjacent neighborhood due to the truck traffic, compres- sors, jackhammers, etc. , but the completed project will not generate significant noise levels. 2.2.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures It is recommended that an acoustical engineer be retained to insure that the interface between the roadway (driveway) and the apartment complex are properly designed and will result in acceptable interior noise levels. Construction noise may be somewhat mitigated by the fact that excavation will occur considerably below the street level , but noise impacts may still effect residences immediately adjacent to the pro- posed project. Construction activities should be confined to daylight hours, and truck routes should be approved by the City's traffic engineer to minimize the adverse impacts of transporting materials through a residential area. In the long term, the project will not result in un- acceptable noise levels. 27 1401SC LEVEL (dbA)AT 50 FT EO 70 SO 90 100 Ito COMPACTE".RS (ROLLERS) H F11 FRONT LOACERS �-- " - BACKHOES IW in IV. v x TRACTORS it I " SCRAPERS, GRADERS u I� PAVERS {� I I TRUCi<S I.. - I COkCRETE MIY,C;tS I � CONCRETE PUMPS H ~ CRA14ES (MOVABLE) C,RANES.(DERRICK). I—) t 1 PUMPS GENERATORS Ia n ( �� COMPRESSORS I z PNEUMATIC WRENCHES I—) �w W JACY. HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS �-----{ 0 w 44- PILE DRIVERS (PEAKS) e VIBRATOR s 0 0 SAWS Notes Based an Limited Available Data Samples # THIS TYPE OF EQUIPMENT WILL NOT BE USED TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED PROJECT (TELsCOM, J. HOIIERON. 4-2-80) #* COMPRESSOR WILL BE SILENCED TO 76 DBA 0,0RUCTION EQUIPOT NOISE LEVELS FIGURE 8 2.3 WATER QUALITY AND DRAINAGE 1 2.3.1 Environmental Setting Water seepage and/or stains indicate seasonal wetting occurs on the cliff face along fissured joints within the Monterey Formation. Seepage is also. expected to occur in places at the bedrock terrace interface due to percolation through the granular terrace cap overlying the bedrock. An existing 12 inch C.M.P.-delivers water to the ravine at the Inorth property corner from an upslope drainage area. Although some of the water does percolate into the terrace deposits, the amount is mini- mal and cannot by itself account for the cliff seeps. The 12 inch C.M.P. drains the residential area northeasterly of the property and discharges into the small ravine about 30 feet beyond the northwest property line. 2.3.2 Potential Environmental Impact Construction of the proposed project will increase the paved and hard surfaces on the site, and consequently increase the velocity and amount of run-off that will discharge directly into Newport Bay. Run- off from the driveway will contain urban pollutants such as oil , grease and particles of rubber. The total roofed area is 4,224 square feet and the paved area constitutes 5,435 square feet. As illustrated in Figure 9,, almost the entire site is covered by roof or paving. 2.3.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures Development of the site through gradients and pavements should assure positive surface and roof drainage conditions thus alleviating any percolating condition that may now exist. The following. mitigation measures are also recommended: 1 . Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to this multi-level building to direct surface water run- off away from structural foundations and toward suitable discharge facilities. 29 Fr°rasev fur;fdesf Gn7edsaJ i � trl;^ / � "�- F r`.c\-. /, ii - IU41I iID��J1�C 9..Zi`w i '✓ _ . /6T � nT�- rx a\.♦ sx°i ltq'�$ uu\a a. \A•Y°� .• / '� / /I.I�rwur�..o i„ r°f.^"b"'ff° ol ilil / p O r-a w+ J \ll 1"W'WI'ft°NF 44W4'F 1, � : ys •:'Y/s," -..\ I .� I'�I vvi f1 p/AV! 5{35 s f I (gib�p��Tr° i � �r� � :S-.� .,- , !•. '� t i _ 1 I ��\Mi1^Y"'�kT°{.r/w..w�... � ° --,'a•--Y�.«� ill. _` )�I •' , \ �\ - 1' ��-� ll-rw'°yrvf.r/r��rrtM„r n° a ,F�'�a_I. - ' � .., .-. 17 , .1^'.u' 1 �..\,\ J � w.l^,w gel�•rf�wMN nmf�cF{uNa- .aw,.,r Y.-err mw;-aerr_, .. _?v '. JP••;k.�'v• � !�s r A ss ar � A �■s � A !■� A A w �s r A �. 2. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed anywhere on the property. 3. The design of the project should incorporate the use of gutters and drain spouts, together with permanent drain outlets along those portions of the perimeter of this structure bordered by landscaping. Alternate drainage schemes should be subject to review by the soils engineer. 4. The use of planters without sealed bottoms in the im- mediate vicinity of structures, including pavements, should be discouraged. 5. Criteria for subsurface drainage systems, where deemed necessary, should be supplied by the consulting engineer. 6. All driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks should be swept regularly and maintained in a clean condition to re- duce pollutants in the runoff water. 7. Pollutant traps may be required upon final review of the plans. 8. Grading shall . conform to the requirements of the Newport Beach codes (UBC Chpater 70, Amended) . 2.4 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 2.4.1 Environmental Setting There is a curb cut for the existing residence on Ocean Avenue. Access to the lower portion of the property is limited, and there pre- sently is no vehicular access, except to the single family residence. 2.4.2 Potential Environmental Impact Access to the apartment complex will be provided by a driveway ramp that will begin at Ocean Avenue and will slope down to the third level of the complex (the parking level) . According to the architectural drawings, the driveway will maintain a 15.95 percent slope, curving to 31 the left and then to the right as one approaches the garage from the street level . The width of the driveway is 20 feet, except for the upper third of the ramp which narrows to 16 feet in order to stay within the property line. Sixteen parking spaces- are proposed to be ]coated on the third level of the structure. The proposed layout includes five tandem spaces and six single stalls. A minimum back-up space of 24 feet is provided. The parking level plan is. shown in Figure 10. 2.4.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures The configuration of the upper third of the ramp in combination with the proposed slope of the driveway could be hazardous. The plans have been reviewed by the City' s traffic engineer. Because this is an apartment complex, driveway standards apply instead of private street standards. Therefore, the 16 foot minimum width is acceptable and the 15.95 percent grade has been approved because of the site constraints.• However, it may be necessary to record these find- ings as a deed restriction and to install mirrors at critical points to ' assure adequate visibility as a safety precaution.' Final plans, including the parking layout, should be reveiwed by the City's traffic engineer. 2.5 ' LAND USE AND CONFORMANCE WITH ADOPTED CITY AND STATE PLANS AND REGULATIONS 2.5.1 Environmental Setting ' The properties on either side of the proposed project are de- veloped with multi-family structures. The condominiums to the east are located at the bay level , with parking at the street level above. Views to the east are limited by this structure. Directly to the west of the project site is a sandy beach at the bay level and a multi-family structure above at street level . 1 Views to the west and south are unobstructed from the project site. The project site itself was slightly altered at the time of the construction of the house on the bluff top. A retaining wall has been 32 I I 9 a� t1_ 13. Se� +!%� ,tl' �i-:yv''y�i.'�i 1^�ilw_.i/e / "'j � � ,�. (1/ /�• �r����� � �=1•Yli P y; ?,'� d/I/%ice l'A �'l'�;•!' ;' ��,.,,` � i ; 4+� �n / �� 5�..� ..��Oa rl � �La('e y • ' + Q-�(j./ ��� I 1 + '7i % '%�/d fh i i' 1 ' ' it / r,_,, .i � ':• ArArIf ra, _ _r'si.i^ — ~n ivy + ' ' •\`\ ' -.—' L4 r^"Isj-, 445'ar1 ksvFU i - a.. m.. IAI.'.p:.•. �/iJ, w w Mae " M M w w m oe em en M constructed just below the house. There are steps .leading down to a pri- vate dock at the bay level . When the dock was constructed, a retaining wall (seawall) was built and backfilled with sand to form the small , existing man-made beach at the head of the dock. There is presently no public access to the bay on the project site. Public access is provided to the peach west of the project site. ' 2.5.2 Potential Environmental Impacts The site is presently undeveloped except for the few man-made structures noted above. The use of the property is limited to aesthetic and private recreational purposes. The proposed project would result in its full utilization as a residential land use. No new public access is proposed. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan of the City of Newport Beach and the Proposed Local Coastal Program (F. Talarico,, P. Temple, Community Development Department, Newport 1 Beach). This project will be reviewed further by the South Coast Re- gional Coastal Commission. The policies of the Coastal Act which are applicable to this project are contained in Appendix B and include: siting of new development; protection of coastal bluffs, recreational and visitor serving facilities, access and view corridors, low/moderate 1 income housing opportunities (R. Gordon Craig, April 8, 1980) . 2.5.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures The following considerations have been made in the design of the project to minimize impacts on coastal resources: 1 . No construction is proposed beyond the high tide line. No additional seawall construction is required and the shoreline will remain intact. 2. As best as can be determined at this point, no views will be interrupted by the construction of the project. The project is sited below existing residences on Ocean Avenue, and the condominiums to the east extend further south toward the bay than the proposed project. 34 3. Access to the private dock will be fundamentally as it exists under present conditions. Construction of the Lproposed project will not curtail access to the sandy beach to the west of the project site. 4. The use of the complex as apartments will provide an opportunity for several tenants to utilize the site for a residence, both short term and long term. i 35 APPENDIX 1 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FOR APARTMENT COMPLEX OCEAN AVENUE AT CARNATION AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA PREPARED ' FOR MR. CARL QUANDT • PROJECT NO. 0992 NOVEMBER 6, 1979 1 ' ' TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I SCOPE I SITE DESCRIPTION 2 A. General Conditions 2 B. Subsurface Conditions 2 GEOLOGY 2 A. Geologic Units 2 B. Geologic Structure 3 MASS WASTING 3 COASTAL GEOLOGY 4 HYDROGEOLOGY 4 SEISMICITY 4 TABLE I : Major Earthquakes Within 100-Mile Radius 5 TABLE 11 : Maximum Credible and Functional Basis Earthquake 6 TSUNAMIS 7 HURRICANE-TIDE FLOODS 7 1 A. Grading and Earthwork 7 B. Foundation Design 9 C. S.1to Stability 12 LIMITATIONS 12 1 APPENDIX A A-1 GEOTECHNICAL PLAN Figure A-1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Figure A-2 ' APPENDIX B B-I COMPACTION TEST Figure B-I 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 (Continued) 1 COMPACTION TEST Figure B-2 EXPANSION TEST Figure B-3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Figure B-3-1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Figure B-3-2 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 III 1 SOIL E GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FOR APARTMENT COMPLEX ' CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Soil b Geologic Investigation for the proposed six-unit apartment complex to be located at the intersection of Ocean Avenue with Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar, California. The project, legally identified as Parcel No. 1 and Lots C E D of Parcel No. 2, is situated along the Newport Bay front. The purpose of this investi- gation is to evaluate the foundation materials and subsurface conditions underlying the parcels, and provide recommendations concerning the perti- nent geologic, soil and foundation engineering aspects of its development. The project plans have been developed by Architect Edward Giddings of Newport Beach, and are in their preliminary stages as of this, writing. These plans identify a stair stepped multi-level structure with provisions for parking at the roof level and beneath, utilizing a ramp system for access. The upper most floor level (near street) will be at Elevation 69.78 1 whereas the lowest floor will be at Elevation 9.5 (high tide at Elevation 7.0) . The improvements will be built of a combination of conventional wood frame (upper levels) plus masonry and concrete (low levels) construction. The structure will locally be bordered by both landscaping and permanent pavements. Typical wall loads have been assumed to be 2,500 to 3,500 pounds per lineal foot with column loads ranging from 15 kips to 50 kips , for engineering ana- lyses. SCOPE The scope of services performed in this investigation included a geologic site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineer- ing analyses of laboratory and field data, and the preparation of this re- port. The data obtained and the engineering plus geologic evaluations per- formed as part of this investigation , were for the primary purpose of pro- viding effective construction and design criteria for the following: 1 . Grading and Earthwork ' 2. Foundations 3. Site Stability ' SITE DESCRIPTION ' A. General Conditions At the time of our field investigation, the property was occupied by a wood frame residence at 2501 Ocean Avenue (Parcel No. 1) together with landscaping, a bay dock, local fill and other residential improve- ments. It is considered likely that other surface and/or subsurface obstructions are present, such as irrigation lines, utility lines and fill . During the initial phases of site grading, special efforts with the contractor's equipment will be made to verify their presence. The real estate is trapezoidal in shape, with approximate overall maximum dimensions of 87 feet by 245 feet, in the east-west and north- south directions, respectively. The land has variable gradients , with a maximum relief of about 70 feet, and drains toward the bay. B. Subsurface Conditions { The land is underlain by a variable thickness of soft soils overlying ' dense bedrock. These sediments are both cohesive and granular and confined essentially to the upper building footprint. Fill materials are locally expected to be present to a maximum depth of less than 4 feet near the upper 1 house and the water front dock. Due to restricted equipment access and thin several soil profile, several pits were hand excavated to determine the subsurface soil conditions at the site. Furthermore, the ample bedrock exposures on-site and nearby were mapped in detail . The results of these findings are discussed in detail under the Geology heading elsewhere in this report. GEOLOGY The front 50 percent of the subject property occupies a P1•eistocene marine terrace which consists of three dominant features: (a) a modified seaward terrain about 25 + feet high; (b) erosional bedrock platform separated from the underlying bedrock formed by wave erosion since uplift; and (c) a cover of marine and non-marine terrace sediments that average 40 feet in thickness. A. Geologic Units Two mapped units underlie the property, These consist of sandstones of the Monterey Formation of Miocene Age, which in turn are overlain unconform- ably by Terrace deposits, comprised primarily of sands and gravels. -2- Bedrock exposed in the sea cliff is comprised of thick bedded grey ' white medium to coarse grained sandstones displaying well rounded fine to coarse grain sizes in the bedrock matrix. The upper sandstone units are underlain by a massive, coarse, well pitted, dark green brown extre- mely hard sandstones. Bedrock is moderately well cemented which allows the rock bluff to stand almost vertical . Terrace deposits are comprised of tan to brown, medium grained sand with a silty to clayey matrix and occasionally shell fragments. The basal portion, 1 to 3 feet thick, is comprised of well rounded pebbles and 'cobbles in a sand matrix. The terrace deposits are estimated to be approximately 40 feet thick in the front of the property. These materials are loose and soft on the surface, becoming firm and dense-at depth. Loose and porous silty sands constituting slope, wash sediments (Qsw) , admixed with gravels and rock fragments mantle the terrace deposits and the Monterey rocks. Their areal distribution is scattered and sporadic with thicknesses ranging from few inches to as much as 30 inches. B. Geologic Structure Sandstone units within the Monterey formation are moderately well bedded with the conglomerates and breccias being poorly bedded to massive. Bedding attitudes in these units strike N 30 degrees to 35 degrees E and dip 12 degrees to 15 degrees N. Locally, the beds are poorly developed, ' thus decreasing the probability of a bedding plane type of failure. Primary joint attitudes (occasional open fissures) strike north- south and east-west parallel and normal to the cliff face and exhibit- westerly to northerly dips of 80 degrees to nearly vertical (seaward) . Occasional areas of minor rock fall due to fissured jointing has occur- red in the past and this phenomena can be expected to occur in the future. The seawave actions of the past have widened the joints to create fissures and shallow gorges along the seaward face of the property. Along the northwest central limits of the property, near vertical cliff face exposing very hard sandstone rocks was noted. The bedrock-terrace contact, where noted in outcrops, is inclined sea- ward at 5 degrees or less. It is surmised that the contact inward from the ' cliff is essentially flat, with possibly a local irregular surface. The terrace deposits are essentially flat lying. Occasional poorly developed bedding planes exposed in the ravine banks are horizontal . MASS WASTING , No large areas of mass movement occurs In the bedrock exposed on the sea cliff. However, minor rock fall does occur on the bedrock face and is joint controlled. This phenomena could accelerate resulting from possible seismic activity. ' -3- Few erosional gullies underlain by soil slumps were noted within the con- fines of the northwestern half of the property. These will be removed ' during the grading and replaced with compacted fill . COASTAL GEOLOGY ' The sandy beach and rock outcrops dust offshore protect the sea cliff from wave attack because of shoaling of the waters. However, during seasonal periods of high tides of surf, the fronting beach is subject to erosion. Furthermore, waves may (and probably do) break at the toe of the sea ,cliff and possibly cause erosion along the fissured joints. An impressive example of such erosion, which has occurred in the recent geologic past, is an 8 foot wide by 20 feet long off shore rock located in-part within the property at the' northwest corner. Although , this feature does not detrimentally affect the coastal stability of the subject property, further erosion , if it were to occur, could conceivably affect the sea cliff. It should be ' noted, however, that no field evidence exists that indicates this will happen in the foreseeable future, within the project life, due to the very dense nature of the seaward rocks. Maps of the coastal area are lacking in data to determine the rate of erosion on recession of the sea cliff. HYDROGEOLOGY Water seepage and/or stains indicating seasonal wetting occurs on the cliff ' face along fissured joints within the Monterey Formation. Seepage is also expected to occur in places at the bedrock terrace interface due to perco- lation through the granular terrace cap overlying the bedrock. l _ The existing 12 inch C.M.P. delivers water to the ravine at the north pro- perty corner from an upslope drainage area. Although some of the water does percolate into the terrace deposits , the amount is minimum and cannot by itself account for the cliff seeps. The 12 inch C.M.P. drains the resi- dential area northeasterly of the property and discharges into the small ravine about 30 feet beyond the northwest property line. ' Development of the site through gradients and pavements shall assure posi- tive surface and roof drainage conditions thus alleviating any percolating condition that may now exist. Moreover, positive drainage must include provisions for minimum sheet flow, drainage pipe line frame work, etc. , to carry areal and subsuri"ace waters away from structural limits towards suit- able discharge facilities. SEISMICITY The seismicity of Orange County is primarily related to several known faults (Figure A-1-1) . Since 1918, there have been seven major earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 6 (Richter Scale) , within a radius of 100 miles of the subject property. These earthquakes are noted in Table 1 . In addition to these, a M5.9 Richter Magnitude earthquake occurred near Santiago Peak on May 31 , 1938. This epicenter is approximately 18 miles from the subject property. ' -4- ' TA::!,r I ' 14AJOR EARTHQUAKES WITHIH !00 MILf rADII!s ' P rn rox i rya tc Causative Pichter Distance from Date Fault System Magnitude Site (miles) 4/21/18 San Jacinto 6,n 4i 7/23/23 San Jacinto 6,3 . 46 3/11/33 Newport-Inalewood G,3 3 3/25/37 San Jacinto " 6.o (hP 12/4/4E Snn Andreas ( .5 66 ' 3/19/54 San Jacinto (•.? 85 2/9/7) San Fernando 6,6 (R Although the prediction of occurrence, magnitude and location of future seisr,ic events cannot be accurately fnrotnld, a sufficient nur,her of seismic events of marnituc!+ 6,n or grunter :,a;e recurred ' ..ithin 1001-ilea of ttlr subject prenort,•. Tinrtf"err , ilnr eve-ts could "n exrectod duringo the life f t:r rcnr •c rrct+.r ; . Even .,ithout a detailed snecific sit(- spectral rcr.^ruse anal-ses , n rcncral ruir!c. to oround accclr,ratinn at rr near the sue iect lots r'a..' be eonsi6urerl lased on the SClhna:bcl .in(! Scel. drip!, nr r'axirum acceleration versus distance derivc-d fo: ! cdroc!. and Housner ( 1965) grarh of maximum aeeeleratlnn versus dititanec for deep firm alluvium. Those genoral values havr been ass!^ned on the followino basis: (A) t+aximum Credible F.arthcrual:e - I'axir,um probable induced nround rintinn which r:a" ever he expected at the build- ing sites within the knot riPoIngie fr.ii-eworl„ (B) Functional Basis F"arthnuahe - t'nxirrum probable induced ground -Intion which r.-ay he postulated with a reasonaLle confidence level within a 100 year period. The dntn aro shr'rn on Ta',ly 2 -5- TAULE 2 f'AXIMMI CREDIBLE EARTIMWAKE FUNCTIONAL BASIS EARTHQUAKE f1i lcs Fault* f rot i acceleration (f-) at site acceleration (9) at site systu.r Site man.'. `.chnahel E Seed ilnusner Mao. Schnahel b Seed Housner `an "t:c:•itn hi 7,5 0. 12 0.23 7.5 0. 12 0.22 S.r .Iuirt;, t;F. 7.5 0. 11 0.22 7.0' 0. 10 0. 17 ';c• 3 7.r) 0.33 0.31, 7.0 0.33 0.3h <,:, .ia nt 60 725 0.07 0. 10 7.0 0.05 0.01? SarGS 7.5 0.07 0. 10 7.5 0.07 0. 10 San cin[r t5 7.5 0.0r, 0.0£' 7.0 0.03 0.0E S-n Fr•rnarco 6C 7.0 0.715 0.02 7.0 0.05 0.08 See Table I 4 Based on raxirvr^ exFectrd bedrock accelerations, !' rroensfelder, 1073. 6 TSUNAMIS ' A tsunami or seismic sea wave (erroneously termed "tidal wave") is produced by a submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption. In some areas, such as the northeastern coast of Japan, they occur frequently. Most seismic sea waves travel considerable distances and any coastal instal- lation bordering the oceans, is subject to this threat. However, those that have recently formed off Hawaii and in the Gulf of Alaska (both ' areas display high seismicity) have not affected the southern California Coast to any degree. Although, it is possible that such a wave could form, depending upon the degree of seismicity of the off-shore Inglewood- Newport Fault; the shallow depth of water and the near proximity of the fault •to land appear to preclude this possibility. HURRICANE-TIDE FLOODS ' Recent hurricanes on 1976 and 1977 that have had landfall in Baja Califor- nia have produced flooding conditions in Southern California. However, coastal areas have not been affected, except for prolonged periods of pre- cipitation. A hurricane is a cyclonic tropical storm with winds of 75 m.p.h. or greater (Beauford Force 12 and above) that moves counterclock- wise around a low pressure center in the northern hemisphere. Those cyclonic storms, with lesser wind velocities, are termed tropical distur- bances. Whether Southern California and-in particular this site, will be subject to a hurricane is a moot question. It is entirely possible, however, for hurricanes that have had land fall in Baja California to move north. Storm surge, which is the rise in water level above normal tide as the result of wind and inverted Barometric effects, that occurs during a hurricane, should not affect the terrace deposit exposed on the sea cliff, as its elevation is much higher than the storm surge would attack. More- over, the durability of the local Monterey rocks, because they are dense ' and well-cemented, would preclude any degree of erosion from occurring except possibly in localized areas of fissured joints. 1 A. Grading and Earthwork Site grading will be required to provide for: (1) nearly level building pads and access ramps; (2) suitable foundation conditions to support the ' proposed improvements; (3) adequate surface gradients for control of water ` - runoff; and (4) excavation into compacted fill and bedrock to accommodate the installation of foundations and utility systems. It is anticipated that the required site fill will be obtained from planned cut operations. Caution should be exercised to prevent mixing of select native or imported materials with soils containing debris and/or organic matter. Organic matter may be stockpiled in limited quantities for landscaping purposes. However, excessive volumes , together with any deleterious substance, should be stripped and removed from the property. -7- All excavated soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent (by volume) may be blended with non-organic material in the construction of site fills , provided this procedure receives PRIOR approval of the Soil Engineer. All imported soils should be non-expansive, predominantly granular and approved by the Soil Engineer prior to use. In order to provide structural support for the planned building floors, excavation through a thin soil veneer and into durable rock will be necessary. Expected excavation depths will range from nominal or- less than 3 feet to as much as 9 feet to accommodate partial subterranean con- struction. These efforts will extend largely into weathered bedrock and into fresher rock at the deeper cuts. Consequently, substantial concen- trated* energy will be needed as discussed elsewhere in the report. ' Any surface and subsurface grading obstructions, such as utility lines, loose fill , debris , trees with root systems, irrigation lines, and existing foundations encountered during grading should be brought immediately to the attention of the Soil Engineer, to assure proper ex- posure, removal and/or relocation as directed. No underground obstruc- tions nor facilities should remain in any structural areas which will receive compacted fill , building foundations , concrete slabs and pave- ments. I All structural fills constructed in areas of proposed building pads and/or pavements should be densified to at least 90 percent relative compaction, by mechanical means only, in accordance with (ASTM) Test Designation D1557-70, modified to use 3 layers in lieu of 5. The upper 6 inches of the subgrade exposed by stripping or excavation should first be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary and properly compacted. Depressions and/or cavities created as a result of grading obstruc- tion removal , should be properly backfilled with suitable fill materials �1 and compacted. This requirement applies specifically to abandoned cess- pools, septic tanks and similar structures, which should be cleaned out then cut off to at least 6 feet below final pad grade and backfilled with select granular materials approved by the Soil Engineer. 1 . Excavating Conditions - Excavation of upper on-site materials should be accomplished largely with standard earthmoving or trenching equipment. However, below a depth of 4 feet, ripping with heavy-duty equipment is to be anticipated. The walls of temporary (bedrock) con- struction excavations should stand nearly vertical , provided the total depth does not exceed 10 feet. Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of slopes may be required, if greater depths are necessary, or if the presence of gravel pockets of adverse dipping beds cause severe localized ravelling. -8- f All work associated with trench shoring must conform to the State of California Safety Code and/or applicable OSHA regulations. Native soils may be utilized for trench backfill , provided the organic content does not exceed 3 percent. The use of bedrock fragments result- ing from cuts made for trench backfill , when in excess of 3 inches in maximum dimension, is not recommended. Rather, select granular materials shall be imported (sand and/or gravel ) for placement as bedding and to a minimum.depth of 12 inches above the pipe. Flooding of the trench back- fill is not considered suitable, and compaction should be accomplished entirely by mechanical means. Backfilling of all utility trenches should be performed as ■' directed by the supervising Soil Engineer. Shading and/or minimal pipe cover can be placed in the Soil Engineer's absence, provided the cover does not exceed 24 inches or one-half the trench depth, whichever is less, to permit adequate density testing prior to construction of struc- tural improvements including pavements. 2. Shrinkage,Swell and Subsidence - In planning the proposed grading operations, we recommend that a shrinkage and swell factor of about 12 and 6 percent be used, respectively, for soil and bedrock. That is, 1 . 12 and 0.94 cubic yards of in-place materials will be required to yield t cubic yard of properly densified fill , without wasting, at 90 percent relative compaction. However, no subsidence is to be expected. 3. Surface Drainage Provisions - Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to this multi-level building to direct surface water runoff away from structural foundations and towards suitable dis- charge facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed any- where on the property. We recommend the use of gutters and down spouts, together with permanent drain outlets along those portions of the peri- meter of this structure bordered by landscaping; alternate drainage schemes are subject to review by the Soil Engineer. The use of planters without sea led bottoms in the immediate vicinity of structural improvements, in- cluding pavements, should be discouraged unless approved by the Soil Engi- neer. Criteria for subsurface drainage systems , where deemed necessary, will be provided upon request. 4. Grading Control - All grading and earthwork should be performed under the inspection of a representative of this firm to assure proper subgrade preparation, selection of satisfactory materials, placement and compaction of all structural fill . Sufficient notification prior to stripping and earthwork construction is essential to make certain that the work will be adequately inspected. All earthwork should be performed in accordance with applicable grading codes. B. Foundation Design An evaluation of the in-place soil/bedrock characteristics when over- laid by this firm with the development plans as understood by this firm, determined that the proposed residential structure could be most economi- cally supported on shallow footings. 1 -9- c 1 i . Footings - The new improvements may be safely supported on conventional spread footings supported on approved native soils and/or compacted fill (upper levels) . These shallow footings may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 1 ,800 pounds per square foot. Support may also be secured at least 8 inches entirely into sound bedrock, using an increased bearing value of 3,500 p.s.f. These design values may be increased by one-third, if the Structural Engineer takes into consideration short duration structural loading conditions such as induced by wind or seismic forces. Continuous footings and isolated column pads may be used an within the soil medium, where feasible, and founded at least 15 inches (exterior) below lowest adjacent final grade or 12 inches (interior) below rough pad grade, whichever is deeper. Footing depths should be increased by 6 inches for two-story structures. Individual supports outside the slab areas (landscaping) may be seated into approved firm soils at an increased depth of 30 inches below exterior grade. All continuous foundations should be reinforced with at least two No. 4 bars , one at the to'p and one at the bottom, to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local subgrade irregularities. The minimum footing width should be 12 inches for one-story units , and 15 inches for two-story units. All visible cracks in the foundation excavations should be brought to the attention of the Soil Engineer to determine the need for pre-soaking prior to placement of the foundation concrete. �I 2. Bedrock Anchors - Where excavations for foundations extend into bedrock which is difficult to excavate as expected, effective use may be made of bedrock anchors. This system relies on the bedrock to provide suitable bearing at shallow penetration into sound rock, with lateral and moment resistance afforded largely by high tensile steel rods drilled into rock and grouted into place using polyester resin to bond the steel to the rock. The rock bolting concept has been successfully employed by this consultant at significant savings , where DYWIDAG thread bar post tensioning anchors are installed into a drilled hole and then filled with a premeasured amount of resin as manufactured by Celtite, Inc. Both the bedrock penetration and shaft diameter are designed to handle specific structural load applications. fj Actual details will be furnished upon request, when loads have been furnished to us, subject to field testing to verify capacity. 3. Slabs-on-Grade - Concrete floor slabs may be directly supported on the properly prepared subgrade; preparation shall be in accordance with the grading and earthwork recommendations , including proof-rolling just prior to construction to provide a firm unyielding subgrade. At that time, in any area where shrinkage cracks appear, these should be effectively sealed by pre-soaking prior to slab construction. Where moisture migration through concrete slabs is undesirable, particularly when slabs are to be covered with tile and/or carpeting, a 4 inch thick blanket of free draining "rounded" gravel should be placed �- beneath the pad grade and the floor slab , to provide a capillary break re- sulting in minimizing floor dampness. The success of this method requires that the concrete be placed with a maximum 3 inch slump, unless a 4 mil plastic sheet is placed over the gravel to protect it temporarily from con- crete infiltration. II Alternately, (without gravel) an impervious membrane (10 mil plastic or equal ) should be sandwiched between the floor slab and the supporting subgrade. A 1 inch to 2 inch thick layer of clean sand placed below and over the plastic is desired to permit the preparation of a more uniform subgrade and provide a cushioning effect; to prevent the sheeting from blowing away and assist in a more uniform curing of the slab. Proper precautions should be taken not to puncture or tear the membrane, and to wrap this plastic (Visqueen) tightly around the protruding pipelines. Other methods of slab construction, including post tensioning, are available but will be subject to close review by this firm prior to use. Native subgrade soils, on the basis of laboratory test data, are considered to be slightly to moderately expansive. In order to distribute tension stresses in the concrete floor slabs, because of non- uniform foundation material conditions, we recommend that minimal rein- forcement consist of 6x6 - #6/#6 W.W.F. The reinforcing should be ade- quately supported during the placement of concrete to assure its posi- tion near the center of the slab. The minimum stab thickness should be at least 4 inches. These requirements assume that site grading will occur as recommended; additional testing near the completion of earth- work may be necessary, resulting in modified recommendations. ' Structural slabs and floors "poured" directly onto bedrock, to be subjected to vehicular loads or heavy concentrated loads, should be especially designed to carry such accompanying stresses. The use of rigid concrete slabs or asphaltic concrete pavement sections should be determined by the Soil Engineer and/or Structural Engineer. 3. Settlements - Total settlements due to structural loads will be on the order of 0.32 to 0.67 inches; about 20 percent is expected to occur during the construction period. Associated differential settle- ments will range from 0. 19 inches to 0.33 inches as a result of variable structural loads. Where support is entirely into sound bedrock, these values may be reduced by 50 percent. In order to reduce differential settlement conditions, the cut area should be overexcavated to at least 12 inches below pad grade and replaced with properly compacted fill with- in the general building limits. i 4. Lateral Capacity - Lateral loads may be resisted by friction, between the floor slab or footings and the supporting subgrade. For the final grade conditions expected for this property, a friction coefficient of 0.35 is considered applicable. In addition, lateral resistance may be provided by passive pres- sures acting against the foundations. We recommend a passive capacity, in compacted fill equal to a hydrostatic pressure developed by an equiva- lent fluid with a density of 200 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. An increased value of 450 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used for foundations seated into sound bedrock. -11- Both native soils and compacted fill will exert lateral driving forces (active) against foundations and backfilled walls. The Structural Engineer's design considerations should include satisfactory drainage pro- visions and resist a long term lateral equivalent fluid pressure with a density of 35 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. The level backfill has been assumed to consist of clayey sand; however, reduced design values are possible When select (import) backfill is placed rather than native soils. This design value does not include temporary overloading conditions which could result during construction due to the use of heavy compaction equipment operating directly adjacent to such structures. C. SITE STABILITY The existing geotechnical features did not reveal expressions indicative of gross instability. The sandstone bedrock units exposed within the proper- ty is rather massive or thick-bedded, highly to moderately weathered, and dense to very dense. Along the seaward fall , the rocks have undergone deep weathering and have experienced surficial pitting due to 'chemical action. The joints within the bedrock are surficial and occasionally extend to 18 to 26 inches deep. Moderate to heavy resistance to excavation may be anticipated below three to four feet in depth. The upper zone of the terrace deposit strata are loose, porous and have potential for erosion particularly where void of vegetation. Along the western property limits deep erosional gully traversing approximately along a northwesterly bearing was noted. In addition, a surficial northwest directional slump involving the upper terrace zone was noted. Due to its limited extent and physiographic features the slide occurrence can be attributed to the heavy run-off and percolation the soil sediments have experienced in the past coupled with lack of enough vegetal cover. During grading the surficial slide debris, loose and porous upper soils shall be removed and replaced with compacted fill . Due to their scattered areal distribution utilization of the rocks for rock-cut-walls and pools in their natural state shall be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Where the rock surfaces expose joint or fissures, these openings can be utilized to provide as natural receptacles and walls. In summary, the site exhibits gross stability and will continue to enjoy that state with sufficient safety 'factor during its project life. For an economical and effective project progress and completion, the owner and/or contractor shall co-ordinage their efforts with this office for geotechnical control and consultation prior to and during grading. LIMITATIONS Between exploratory excavations, all subsurface deposits consequent of their anisotropic and heterogenous characteristics will vary in type, strength and many other important porperties. The results presented herein are based on the information gathered and generated by us , as well as our Interpretation of that data based on our construction experience and technical background. Hence, our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions about the pertinent soil and geologic paramenters which influence the site use as planned; therefore, no other warranty is' herein express or implied. -12- To a degree, the performance of any soil structure element is dependent upon construction procedures, quality of workmanship, and its intended use per the recommended geotechnical criteria. Hence, general fill placement and structural earthwork construction shall be carried out in conformance with applicable grading codes and observed by this firm to assure compliance by the contractor's field forces. More specifically, it is the responsibility of the owner to inform our personnel to be present during and after grading, in order- to test, watch and geotechnically evaluate for any changed sub- surface conditions different from those forming the basis for our recommendations. To curtail misunderstandings of the report recommendations , which oftentimes contai'n specialized technical terms and concepts , it is desirable that we review the latest project plans and specifications for general compliance with the recommendations. Yours very truly, WESTLAND ASSOCIATES LTD. OF CALIFORNIA By: Ri d D. er'M kCe By: Sampath V. Raghavan Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Engineer C.E.G. 469 R.C.E. 29619 SVR:RDM:jj -13- . I APPENDIX A FIELD RECONNAISSANCE/EXPLORATION The subject project area was visited by our Soil Engineer and Engineering Geologist to undertake a site reconnaissance mapping the geologic features. In order to assist in defining the subgrade conditions, two hand pits were excavated by means of auger to depths of three feet to four feet below existing grade. Each of the test pits, as well as other pertinent data, is identified on the attached plan, Figure P,-1 . The soils encountered in the excavations were continuously logged by our representative, and their identity classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System as described on Figure A-2; each exca- vation was subsequently backfilled. The bedrock features were recorded in detail by our Engineering Geologist. Selected samples of the exposed �i materials were collected for our inspection and laboratory testing. These included both bulk materials and relatively undisturbed specimens , secured by a driven tub sampler. Logs of the test pit walls were prepared in the field, identifying pertinent material characteristics to supplement the results of our laboratory testing program. Reference made to topographic information is approximate and relates to our interpretation of survey maps furnished us by others. Physical depth measurements of the test excavations reflect this elevation basis. Consequently, sample depths and the vertical location of changes in subsurface conditions are approximate only and laterally their extent is subject to interpretation by the writer. i - A-1 - 8.0•e5(18") S4N Epicenter with magnitude QUA QMGUwunoN and date: Aq��R O M >.7 ALE 1' 1,000.000 Fq s, O 7)M>5 0 K<5 F SAN e LOS ANGELES 9ERNARDINO 9� s �y�rT�Fq y0 6309 3)9y V • •k pq�(7' c/y TO OSANTA ANA O A, F 6e(1918) <r 7(1 965)(1934 055�938 <s/2 I 2.0 ) O 20((11934 63(1933) C`cc�L \ Zya O � o 2.0(1935) 00 u) 4.5(1969)1 9Ci� ➢G =y A,q 2.00937) SEISMIC VICINITY MAP &XGERPT FROM GDMCa — SR 127 1 WESTLAND ASSOCIATES APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES PROJ'Ecr ; Oc+ g7- 23011MOULTONPARRw6r UNIT 10. BUILDING B F L 6uitE ; Al-1—;k LAGUNA NIILS. CAL 92653 r MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP TYPICAL NAMES SYMBOLS tv GW well graded grovels, grbnl-sand mixtures. CLEAN sod;°Oc little or no fines. GRAVELS (Little or rm fines) .: a, Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, GRAVELS ro°so GP little or no fines. (More than 50%of coarse fraction is LARGER than the GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures. No.4 sieve sized GRAVELS WITH LSo7 7 e (Appreciable able amt COARSE of fines) GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand•cky mixtures. GRAINED SOILS (More than SO% of well graded sands, gravelly sands,little a material is LARGER SW no fines than No.200 sieve CLEAN SANDS size) (Ldtleyr no fines) ;; t SP Poorly graded sands a gravelly sands, little SANDS or no fines. (More than 50% of SMALLERR than is SMALLER the $M Silly sands, sand-sill mixtures. coarse •� No.4 sieve size) SANDS it WITH FINES -coal, 4. (Appreciable amt. of /Ines) SC Clayey sands, sand clay mixtures. Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour, ML silty or h clayey icity nits or clayey sins with slight Plast / SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic clays of low to medium plashaty, ^ CL gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean (Liquid limit LESS, than 50) clays. FINE OL Organic clry is and organic silty clays of low GRAINED SOILS (Mon than 50'6 of Inorganic silts, micaceous a dlotomaeaous material is SMALLER MH fine sandy or silty soils,elastic ants. than No.200 sieve size) SILTS AND CLAYS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays. (Liquid bmrt GREATER than 50) OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. t BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of group symbols. 1 P A R T I C L E S I Z E L I M I T S SAND GRAVEL ) i_ SILT OR CLAY I COBBLES 1 BOULDERS FINE NEOIUM CONS£ FINE COARSE I NO.200 N040 NO.10 NO.4 in. 3w. uzw U. S. S T A N 0 A R 0 S I E V E S 1 2 E UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Reference The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Technical Memorandum No.3.357, FIGURE (-2 Vol I, March,1953 (Revised April, 1960) APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM The laboratory testing program was implemented to provide additional data about existing, anticipated and modified field conditions. The supple- mentary data secured by testing representative specimens of site materials under similar and/or modified conditions, is used by the Engineer and/or Geologist to assist in his subsurface evaluation and permit effective foundation design analysis. The results of the testing program are iden- tified by tabular and/or graphical presentation. A brief description of each test procedure is also identified herewith. Field Moisture Content and Dry Density The field moisture content and dry density for several samples were deter- mined for the in-place materials. The results are indicative of existing (in-situ) site conditions, at the time of our investigation, and are presented on the accompanying field logs contained in Appendix A. Swell Potential Representative samples of the near surface soils were collected in the field. These bulk materials were remolded in our laboratory, in order to determine their swell potential (expansion) characteristics upon exposure to excess moisture. The degree of expansion potential is deter- mined from measured soil volume changes occurring during soil moisture alterations. Each test specimen is compacted into a 1 inch high metal ring, 4 inches in diameter, at 50 percent of its saturated moisture con- tent, and allowed to swell while submerged in water. A 144 pound per square foot normal load is applied to the sample during a minimum 24-hour time period. The subsequent volume change is recorded as the amount of change from the original sample height. The soil is then rated for expansion potential in accordance with the U.B.C. Swell Index (Standard 29-2) and the results of this test are presented in Table I and/or in Figure B-2'. Compaction Bulk soil samples were taken from the near surface soils which are most likely subject to the provisions outlined in ASTM Test Designation D1557-70, modified to use 3 layers in lieu of 5. This test procedure determines the compaction characteristics of the soil , namely its opti- mum moisture content and maximum dry density best shown in a graphical manner, per Figure B-1 . B-1 Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on selected soil samples to determine the strength characteristics of the supporting subgrade materials. A series of three (3) tests were performed on each sample with increasing normal loads being applied directly to the sample. During the test Interval , each sample may be submerged in a water bath to increase its moisture content to near saturation level and the shear force was measured as (controlled strain) displacment occurred within the sample. The amount of cohesion and the angle of internal friction for each sam- ple is presented in Table 11 -and/or on Figure D-3 respectively. A B-2 HIM NIII INNUMEROUS I ■ 1 111111111111111111111111 (0) FOOnNe uN/r Wr. = PSF I (W) SLAB UNIT WEIGHT • PSF ( H)OVERBUROEN LOAD = PSF G.W.S. DEPTH = Fr 2 0 MAX' PCF Ar 42Mr. �F/ELD1 PCF Ar ALC.FIELD 3 DEPTh FNP H Sm. WrAL LOAD PSF PSF PSF 9 I A B —E 5 C 5% /O% 15% 0 wo a20 om SWELL SWELL-FEET SAMPLE Q 144.c SURCHARGE P.S F. P.S.F. C P.S.F AKJ/STORE CONTENT AND DRY BEGIN AIR ENO BEGIN AIR END BEGIN AIR END DENSITY DETENNINAT/ON TEST DRY TIST TEST DRY . TEST TEST DRY TEST CAN NUMBER (NO) t1. -3 CAN wr + WET SOIL (GM) 200.a 40'0 CAN Wr -t DRY SOIL (GM) I CAN WEIGHT (GAi7 6 WATER WEIGHT (GM 3.y ro8.3 DRY SOIL WT. (GM) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) o1--I 120.(e SOIL+RING wr (GM) RING WEIGHT (GM) 205 0 Z0 .o NET WET SOIL WT. (GM) -mI.3 ,N 'WET DENSITY (PCF) IIB.(o 2 . MaSTURE CONTENT (%) 20 DRY DENSITY (PCF) 106.110ro7 INITIAL READING DATE IN/TIAL READING TIME ( M) FINAL READING DATE FINAL READING TIME ( M) 7:vo SOAKING TIME MRS)1 '24 INITIAL DIAL READING 3010 FINAL DIAL READING 2(044 DIAL READING DIFFERENCE pa�{ll EXPANSION (`VIINDEX r 51 MAX. ALLOWABLE SWELL: FEET(FOOTING); FEET (FLOOR c� S SOMP/e Description: -rF,- *Amv , r4�y1tA" To Fu l2, m*rniut+ lZen n¢emN i -TUZZ! OP COAr'G� "t- rPER URC STANDARD NO 29-2, AND TABLES 29-C AND 29-D Westland Assaclates EXPANSION TEST FIGURE Q haguna Hills, Calif. PROJECT I REPORT DA E I SHEET NO. 17141 78B•4466 NOD Noel. iq-iq I OFI B- 25 1 -£-B oN 3/n9/d 2 bb0 103/'OYd edo1enu3 /Dnpsay 1831 &Ms 1034YI0 9do/aAu3 afDu�l//n , �-�► ado/an113 )IDSU 0___O ,/s)/-p00/ /DWOU 09 O•L 09 0,9 O'b Of 07 . 07 O.O 00 =,C�d 00 0 0 o bZ = 3r 07 OY to 0 0"? 0*0 ad01a N� �ojvy hv` ti j 'O a O•£ 0 r O6 O6 0*9 OS r wn icia" d o u0//du9sap a/dulDs d "l=bnh 7 bZ=fir. r/ !sd pa J -y'DN 0 r 7 -Lb - C/-j' 01 S'ol /o�1.ro/ •DN 0 0S•//n {:/ adlf1 /sal of/qy pion uoi/D_/n/DS �l.IADJg 41sue0 .fi0 ajn/sio/y SURI U09 N/b{7B 1/d oiiioads -' -� on ow- •mill- �- so-, So- on_ *A- PITH BQ4/N Cax1i/ions Moisture .`JpeC/f/C Dry D8,7sity Gravity Saturation Void hbtio Test Type Utt No. Initial 10. 3 IO0_1 2. Cho - 154-7 C N 0PW* C fwf psf Depth Final Ir2.4 10,7,1 010 C uit psf A.lE G A c,47o/5F some18 dOSCriplion 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 y a� 3.0 3.0 i w �.ve>za, �NV�LopB y •2.0 ` 2.0 O y /.0 /.0 O.o A r--"4-740 p.,F 0.0 0.0 /.O 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 80 normal load-ksf O--O Hsak Envelope e Ultimate Envelope DIRECT SHEAR TEST Residua/ Envelope PROJECT pgg2 FIGURE NO. B-3-2 i APPENDIX 2 1 Cd NEWPORT BEACH _ w .0 For ease of interpretation, subareas have been included after the 0 general guidelines . The subareas are: I 34 Pavillion/Mid-Peninsula Area: The area between the mean high tide line an the ay, Adams Street and G Street; a portion of o Balboa Peninsula. a' J Bay Corona del Mar: The areas between Pacific Coast Highway, Avocado w venue, a ae Drive, Bayside Place, Shell Street, Ocean Boulevard, WI Poppy Avenue, Hazel Drive, and Pacific Coast Highway. of U U er Ne ort Bay : That portion of the coastal zone which lies �, n an o aci is Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Newport Q Center Drive. ao Mariners Mile : The area between the Arches Bridge, the bay, 0 Avon Street, and the 1800 block of Pacific Coast Highway. m 0 Santa Ana River Mouth: The area between the Santa Ana River, -A Hamilton Avenue/Victoria Street, the base of the bluff, and 0 the first row of houses on Canal Street. n Balboa Peninsula: That portion of the City of Newport between a the mean high tide line, the bay;- the harbor entrance, McFadden bi F Pier, McFadden Place, and 21st Street. ..4 Balboa Island: The area=between East Bay Front, South Bay Front, N and Northay Front. - Cannery Village: The area between 32nd Street, the Rhine Channel, 716t treet, and Newport Boulevard. General - For Community-Wide. Use: A. RESIDENTIAL 1:,2. Single-Family Dwellings , Multiple-Family Dwellings See Parking Appendix See S'tringline Appendix a. On lots of twenty four hundred (2400) square feet or less , T one a single-family dwelling should be permitted. On lots of greater than twenty four- hundred (2400) square feet, a duplex should be permitted. On lots of greater than thirty one hundred (3100) square feet , multiple-family dwellings to a maximum density of 28 dwelling units per acre net should be permitted. Development should not be at a density greater than that allowed by the local zoning. (30251) b. The maximum height of new development should be thirty- five (35) feet above the grade elevation specified in the attached Appendix, except in the case of single-family dwellings or duplex development on R-1, R-1B, R-1.5, R-2, R-3 or .R-4 lots where the city zoning height restrictions apply. For all other development refer to Measure-eaent of Height in the attached Appendix for grade reference points and method of calculation (30251,30252) � -5- 0 c. See Alteration of I.andform, Bluff Top Development , W hazardous and S ecial Area Develo ment Deed, Habitat 4. cce rotection, atera Access ,- -ertica- ss , anView- Cd• oint Provision Appendixes .`d. e minimum size of new lots should be four thousand (4000) square. feet. (30251) e. Parking may be allowed to encroach into one side yard setback when access is taken from the alley. (30Z51,30252) r4 B. COMMERCIAL C l: See ParkinF, Appendix. (30210,30252(4)) o 2. The maximum height of new development should be thirty-five (35) feet above the grade elevation specified in the attached Appendix. See Measurement of Height Appendix for grade o reference points an method o calculation. (30251,30252) 01 C. HAZARDOUS OR SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT The portion of Newport Beach at the Santa Ana River mouth contains of t many valuable coastal resources which should be protected. The "4 bluffs, aside from being major natural landform features , have +' also been designated as archaeological sites of national significance. ri The Santa Ana River plain at the base of the bluffs , both functioningto and- restorable-wetlands , provides habitat-for- many species. of flora. and- fauna including habitat suitable for_ Beldings Savanna Sparrow (a rare and endangered species) and other endangered species . 0 Subareas: _ N Pavillion/Mid Peninsula Area: _ `a 0 1. All of the above general guidelines for Newport Beach w should apply, except the maximum density. The maximum density in this subarea should be thirty (30) dwelling �+ units per acre-net, except in the -case- of development v of a duplex on lots of 2, 400 square feet or greater. e See Density Appendix. (30252) V J MCorona del Mar: Cd 1. All of the above general guidelines for Newport Beach A should apply, except the maximum density. In this subarea the maximum density should be twenty-five (25) dwelling units per acre net. See Density Appendix. (30252) Upper Newport Bay-:- - m 1. All of the above general guidelines for Newport Beach should apply, except the minimum bluff top setback. All development should be set back a minimum of forty . (40) v feet from the edge. of any bluff; where the Commission finds r4 advisable, a greater setback shall be required. 2. Drainage and storm water management plans may be required Cd as a part of new development in this area. (30251,30253 , 30240) Y • -6- s ALTERATION OF LANDFORM: Grading, cutting or filling that will alter natural landforms (bluffs , cliffs , ravines , etc. ) should be prohibited. In permitted development , landform alteration should be minimized by concentrating the development on level areas (except on ridgelines and hill tops) and designing hillside roads to be as narrow as possible and follow natural contours. (30251, 30253) In all cases grading should be minimized. New residential develop- ment should be sited and designed so that as a general rule, no ponds , creeks , or drainages are filled or cleared: clearance and scraping should be limited to the minimum necessary area for a house pad and the legally required brush clearance area for fire safety Road cuts and new subdivisions should not create lots requiring massive grading or extensive geological marks or cuts . (30251, 30253 , 30240) Cascading project design should be utilized in new developments along scenic routes or if visually obtrusive as methods to blend the pro- posal with the surrounding topography. (30251, 30253) BLUFF TOP DEVELOPMENT: Proposed development should be set back at least 25 feet from. the edge of any coastal bluff. (30251, 30253) Proposed development upon a canyon bluff top should be set back at least ten feet from the bluff-top edge, or set back in accordance with a string line (see. Strin¢ Line in this Appendix) connecting adjacent development, or set ac iom the primary vegetation line depending upon site characteristics as determined by a staff inspection of the site. (30251, 30253) DENSITY CALCULATIONS : Net (No of units) X (43 ,560 sq . ft. /ac .) = du/ac net. Density (Size of lot in square feet) Gross Density (No of units) X (43 ,560 sq. ft. /ac.) . du/ac gross . for Mid-Block (Size of lot in square feet) X (1.25) Lots Gross Density ti (N6' 6f- units)--X 43 ,560 -sa - ft. /ac;-)• a du/ac-gross.. . for Corner (Size of lot in square feet) X (1.5) Lots DEED: In cases where minor modification to a proposed structure might result in an additional dwelling unit or units , a legally recorded deed restriction which sets forth and limits the use of the structure to the specific number of dwelling units recorded on the permit shall be required. (30252) -2- , i HAZARDOUS AND' SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT: LATERAL ACCESS : All shoreline parcels whose seaward boundary is the mean high tide line should execute an irrevocable offer to dedicate a lateral access easement to a public a�_�-.cy or private nonprofit association approved by the Executive Director to allow the public to pass over and allow passive recreational use of a 25 foot wide strip of beach as measured inland from the high water line ; the high water line is understood by both parties to be ambulatory as will the 25 foot wide strip ; in no case shall the r:- " c be allowed to use the beach closer than ten feet to any structure. (30210, 30211, 30212) STRING LINE: In a developed area where new construction is generally infilling and is otherwise consistent with Coastal Act policies , no part of a pro- posed new structure, including decks , should be built further onto a beach front than a line drawn between the nearest adjacent corners of the adjacent structures . Enclosed living space in the new unit should not extend farther seaward than a second line drawn between the most seaward portions of the nearest corner of the enclosed living space of the adjacent structure. (30210, 30251, 30211, 30212) ' Existing Existing_ , • . . • r Deck ! Deck Existing SUBJECT Existing PARCEL Structur Structure e VERTICAL ACCESS :- All development on shoreline parcels whose seaward boundary inis form the mean high tide line should execute and record a document, and content approved by the Executive Director of the Commission, the irrevocably offering to dedicate to an agency approvedY Executive Director, an easement for public pedestrian access to the shoreline. The location and width of a vertical access easement should be determined in accord with the overall size of the parcel. continued. . . . '1 ' AICCICI.tS 1 do vilatunL with the basic goals set 1'orl.h lit aueLlon 3=11.5s and excopt as way be othorwise lampitAi. apeclrlcally provided In this division• the pollcles or Lila chapter ahall conaLlLuLe the utmwlnrds by which Lim adaluacy or locnl coastal `3ortlol) prugrains an provided In tlhaptar 6 (con•nencing with Sol: oil : )500)f .a►wl• the ponetsslblllty or 7galp, iLllclea as stnwlanls, p►•olmsed dovelulxnents subject to Cho provisloos of thin dtvlolon are determined. All la,bltc ° i agencles carrying out or supporting activities -� outside Lim coastal zone that could havo a direct • Impact on resources within the coastal zone shall cowslder Liu sl't'eut or such actions on coastal • zone resources lit order to assure that these lmlicla6 are achieved. 1 i 1 1 t l f 3P.1:. 30',10 AIITICLE 3 . III carrying out Lite requirewgnt of Section ft or PUBLIC ACCEi3 Article X of tile L e California Constitution$ waxmtw Because which shall be conspicuously poetede and recreational o;ywrtuniLiee shall be provided for safety needs o la consistent with public Y Section all Lite p and the need to protect publia rlgbtet rights of 30210. Access] recreational opporLuniLivai private property ownerat and natural resource areas iwstU,g, from overuse. „ 30211. 1levelupment not to interfere with access. `= 30212. New development projecLai provision 3EC 2 • for access; exceptions. 't Development, 30212.5. public facilitiea; diatrlbutloDevelopment, aliall rot interfere with the publicle r1h4lt of access to the sae where acquired through 30213. Development of facilities; low coat use or legislative authorizations including, but buuuing; prafurances. 3D'tl/t. public access policies; tultimenLatlon, not !lwitnd ter the use of l Bend and rocky coastal bell as to the first line of terrestrial veguLation. SF.C. 30212. La , Public access from the nearest public roadway to Lite aboreiine and along tole coast shall be provided In nuw development projects except where (1) it in inconsistent with public safety9 mtliLary aucurlLy neadst or the protection of fragile coastal rasourcese (2) adequate access exists nearbyO or (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dadlcated accessway shall twit be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. For purrx,ses of title section, new ta develotHnent'• ,k�es _L include: r �s +r tar � r r �r �r r � r r� r ar ■.r rl� r r IL;plocurrid. of ally structure nuranant. Lu SKa:, 'IM12.ti. the ur»vlsluus of Sul■Ilvlulon TAI of SueLlun Wherever appropriate stool feasibler pubitc iKt(1. � 1'acllitius, Including parking arras or File dtmxtlltlun a rwa and recoewLr .luu or a I fuctlltlea► shall be JteLrlbuted Lbroughuat atnitle-raniny residencei nruvldetl UlA Lho ago area no as Lo mltlgate against, Lite IngtacLue ru:enaLru :Led resldeuco alutll nol, exceekulul Lhur extclel still uLluerwlea, of overcrowding or Uns flour area, hrl •hL ot• bulk of Lie fmwer uvorrtae by the public of any single area. et1•tw:Luru by. utai►•n Llj_au to LereettL, uyd Unit. Lite rwt:un"I.r1":Led reoldottce "hall a al Led In Lite Si-mu lu.:uL)an J Lila tarfeuteil ptrupevLv ea Lite SE11, 'X)213. a foggier utntcLut•e, St1 M!jnycan"u1.e to m► atrucLu rn which du bowel• coal. vlalLor still recreational fac111Lles and Ixtusln u t trLu ittee for persons of low rat. chmt •e 1.1uu IrtLtutstUY of 1Le uses whlrit do ! B llol Pe ' smil. Lrturoaau eLUher Lite floor area, hulpJtU, or I mil aged utu lassie shell be prorovider mr .Y � _ ` rout a erl atoll where feeailde provided. buI k or Llw atutitctut e b more Lnun l0 uuruunL B ► ► r P witch cltt tat. blocic or 1tat Pella public access, and t Developments providing public recreational whleb do lia remnit In a seaward eucrvuclmuont oplturtwdtiee aree preferred. erred. New housing in ly Lite atnu:Luro, t Ilia coastal zu"u shall be developed in coo- folrlty wltb tilestandards, Imllctee, atoll M Au re tul or rwlutunrup:a acLl yj Ly for (,pain of local Imusing elements adopted In wittch Lite cceanlaslon has duLanulned, pun•auanL uccurdanen with Lite rexlulremenLe of subtlivislon Lu SecUlon i[) ,1 nL a coaaLul deyulupuuat6 0 , 1. (c) of Suct,luu 65302 of the Government Code. tonxlt will bo required unless Llue replotal lan ur c ccxpuniss Lhu atndsslou detmuduus 1•I�at such ac1.IvILy will hen an udverso Inn tue oat UFO, 30211t, lnLural uthltc across al7tng Une beach. As used lit Lhis aulxllvlulun, 'tlrnllt•' ateprls a 11te wli ilia access of el as of thla tui.ul iuLmlor enbtc cLtlu_nma as neaaureJ fr_;otr flan arLlula Shell bu Imule7ueuted in a manner that # = extertut• aurfuca of Lite aGveLure. Lukas IuLo account Lite need to rpulate Una I Llute, place, atwl mariner of utp the pecess ; jej 161.1slug lt► Uh s dtvtolu►t ahull rual.riel, Jutetmilli nn Lhe facto and eirmunsLancea public accaus nor alu►ll tt excuse Like purfur- In oven cuss 1nr.luJlnp, IauL tat limlLed t• o, malice of duLles and respuus1bl11LleS of puldle Lite fultowl'if t agurol:lus whleb are roqulrel by SauLlonta 661011.1 Los 60►7d.1111, Inclusive, of Use ['ovnrtstnpt Cudn 1 r 7131pugrsUhlc auxl go logic a1Le vital by SuoLlon It of Article X of the Gal If0l"Ita ►:hurarteriuLlca, CuusLltuLluu. (Anwrtaled by W. SLaLs. PY1911 2 ilia rapacity of the alto to sustain 919.) use still uL wl_h•uL level of inteusl6Y, I i • I '11te �mntpriateuoss of 11mlt1nu rut Id1c ' re2 -cess Lo the AdiL to pass aykl revana deljmNtlns JLU •1nc carte •a u� Lhn •LI L n-P t.lru natural Lsourcca In Wee urea aiml the pt.rxiwll.y of the rs .1a:SS am Lo cad acruL realderLlul uses, 'Ito ecr tau t t de f, or the m E!29Ment of acceaa arena sit as to P—E tect the triune of y cal scent p!'ttnt:l•ty owners awl to ,pntLert the A aesthetic clues of 1.11e urea l� ltroyldluti for i the coltertiou of 11II.Ler. ' b 1t i f tile int,mt of the I.el;IslaLure Mal; Ire ub11c access Inlicles of this article lou rum ed auL 1A a ■•eaaenubl a nal ruler that, uulsld.:ra Llig e�alties and that balances Lha it phi. r of the ludlylduul hnoltarty owner• with 1e mbt cts cjytsLittlLional riwlrt of uccess i'1t srr curt Lot it cLlen trot A Welt X of 1.110 Cr111forntu (nn1t11•ul.Ion, IL)L jy this aecLtn t i S'.1 ,fly jMn!rLnta j thereto shall bit ctui'A nted as Q lindta4ton IUI the rigrisLa 6ntaruutuu4 to the Mtl�l lc under iur.Llon 1L of At•Licle X oP Lite California (12115LI Leti eel. y carrvin� o�tL t re 1bl c accusa policies or this arLlrle. Lhe canmdsaion, rel:ln E ronmisaluus,_ urui au oLbu re:ntonslblu mbllc • a •enr. shall eunalder aril enrounthe the trL11121" Lint Of irttrtvuLive acee:,a martu aaft!itL Lechnlrlues. i rna udi cal;, h�1L t+ot 11111i teal to. ar;reunu:uts u1 LIt trlyuLu er• .wdzaLlons wlilcl wotlld adaimizo matl»pimei1L coats suet eu.:oura •e Lite u1u of tluaLerr Or�u;ruma, lidded by Matti. 1979t C11. 919. ARTICLE 3 15,asta) axons snlLed for water-orlenLed rcrreaLlumnl activities that carunut readily be provided at Intend water ireas ahall la I RIMEATICN proLectud for such lines. :SCeLlotl I :iF:l;, 7X)221, 3023). Protectlon► of cartaln water•orlenLed I Meanrron6 latd meltable for recreational sotivltlen. unto shall too protected for recreational tree A 30221. OceournmnL larnnli protecl,lon liar I and development, unless present and foretoeable recreaLlonanl line and duvololmnouL. ruLure dimianil for public or commercial 30222. PrivaLu landsi prtorlLy of dovelolrnuut rucreatlonnal acLivitien that could be aecovn- itnnririass, wiloted our Lite property ie already adetpmLely 30223. Upland areas. I pnovlded for io Lite area. t 3UC'24. llucreaLlonal boating usui mrauuragumenLi facilltiea. SEI;, -)0222, _ vie use or private lands suitable for vteiLor- r serving canrnerclal recreational faullitles i ! designed to enhance public opportunities for n ' coaeLal recreuLlon aball have priority over private rusldcuLlale general Industrial, or general conunurclal development, but rot over agriculture or coastal-dependent induaLry. Upland areas necessary to support, coastal r•ecroaLlotnal uuas shall be reserved for such linear uhura featolhle. I - . n Increased recreational boaLing use of cuastal wuLers shall be encouraged, in accor►luncu wlLh • thin divfslont by dewlopfog dry aLorage areaso f►lcressing public lbunchtng faclllLlast pro- vldlug addiLlonal berthing space in exluLing harbors, 11miLing non-waLer-dupcimfenL la►rf usus Lhat cougosL access corrliWrs aiwl proclude boaLing supporL faclllLlus► providing harbors of rull►ges a►rf by pmvtdtug 1'or new huaLing a faclItUas in naLural harbors► slow proLacLud water aroass aiYf In areas drodgawf from dry la►wl. 1 3 • y • I 7 � , +1• � i i i i � i � ' i i i i i i i i i 102r Ati1'ICLK 6 (a) New residential, comm al erci , or irdnetrial develop'nenL, except as otherwise provided in tills division, shall be located within, UlYE1dMtlEtfC contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing 'luvaloped Bross able to accomodate It or, where such areas are not able to • accollmodaLe IL, in other areas Witt' adequate SecLlun public services and where it will not have significant advarao eflecta, either individually 3025q. Location, generally. or cum'lativelyl• on coastal resources. In i 3p251, Scar'ic and visual qualities. addition, lard divi9lona, other than lessen for 3p252, Haiutanance aril aulmncwuenL or public I agricultural a pa, outside only where 5vpercent areas, r areas shall be pa'vdtLed only 30253, SafnLy, aLebllttyt pollution, energy of tl'e usable parcels inn the area have been conservation, visitors, developed and the created parcels would be no smaller then the average size of surrounding 30254„ Public works facilities. ' parcels. 30255, Priority of coastal-depurduut duvnlolraar'ta, (b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development el'a11 be located away from existing developed areas, ' (c) Viettor-nerving facilities that cannot feasibly be located in existing developed areas chat] be located in existing isolated develop- uanto or at ¢elected points of attraction for i visitors. fended by Cal. State, 19791 Ch. 1 09 •• � SKC 2 1 , 't ! .9he scenic and visual qualities of coastal area dhall be considered end protected as a resource �uf public Importance. Permitted development sips] '- be sited end designed to protect views to and i I atoug the ocean and scenic coastal areas, Ld n of naturallerun i i 11 lydnd ze Lhe ulLaretiod fod, { ..ba X►aually,&atlblewith-•Lhe •cl'aractet• of a �to-testa auranmdirng,areae, -and.- where•fessibl � z e �I '•ir �r r;-�r�' r� r r r r r r �r r� r r rl r - �iex: •M3� + • ' >ta1 esdl6lwu vlatlnl tplallly In visually +laglatlwi lastuiL sAlallt 4 Mcnl in 11IL411y acw11+: 51Ylos Wtsw t7uveiul w davulu C e. 1cr.L .dA atwa lxl, t<t Y n Lho 'Califvtuda -,tiska.a,o_,its .a ,P 1 ch as llluse duvatiolal i l� T1lfdmise 1 •art 'imn arts- � l,ra lmzan . a �tld a • etion a ' �(klrelllta: a'react•vuLlmt elttt llet.ro ,�• 911,g{s zuul,ubl.ew d,ltwdt llenstl by 'Lite IRperttttnllof 1'urka atlil Itw:roaLYo►+ ��ta. Alaaluw alai.+l•1ty-•etxl'.atructtaat-lntegt3kyt w111 by coral .govel,looeul ahall a>n •au{wriltseLe C.0 Agul •chmmctcrwf $ia aullatlg. I nr fl'Lbw aWtCIA st . 0 MouLrltluLe .elgnlflcaUAI o tlo u9,ogtc1. HLab�iltt,Ly,�_or ,daaltucLlonofarea .or �u up atoy..rmlul,no= ds1L111nllly .Aral 911e_ olun.autt •,,lI1U111sL•oft$cw davelolMluliL {Jll's. 1cmeslLs ;LhrQvtltl .by eslllutu111 m1t1 uuhmlce {alblit: eccoae to LiteLhe taldaL I$) 11b .uaualslLnuL tibbb aloqul.l 4ry"(•1) 'LIAO Ptuvlalt11 or sat+ortzlaltd•atilgg— tenttilt gltilg,dUtunta9dLiatl .distrLul .ar tba 91aLe �ltrqp 1 WC lraualt •acrvlcut rovldlnt; UWaounuaa tl'otiWnil llbaltd ma do ,eaab IP°r1Scular.dPMe� Vl1da w1t61•u or edJoltilnS ros111euLial •JuvtilulMntnlL tlnmiL. os,atd xaiQtale.sltlslA Wf• .111 oubur areas •that, lwlll allullnlze ,Lbe:use of ((il1)) tlltlllnllreo tonarff tonttw1gp111 va/adlal •uecess • ondgl '(3) provldiug-1113) t11.00411gi Wnevdted. '&I-culatton lil,LliL,i �Cbe•dovulol"Wilks 1(II sptuvtding )eclal .ctxWAUkk41 tadryuul.e .purk•lug •fac1.11L1as or.psYlvldl:ng:aubdU@turn � ((1�)) itllsune 1411111?tlPt °ttli 1Pt••ttoss d :q1 hseena•of acrv1 ug ttlw •duvelu{nnm!L �*il Cb :public +Lt•auu- a tallll alt!ltdh11tu11atuds tw111.d11t lhaaaune tart ,tbeUr mntl{ue AhA q/urtal1tn1/ i(5) •aemu•hlg Clio 1xibenlatd Wor 1ptdll,lu 'iadLutildUlags tans Ipgpulinr vKts4lar d1aeL1ile4Sau Ilxttutp iLrenall il-or•lilgh '.1t14euliILy•uaua •alldh ai►i�L�LIlu11•uu ISur utewtonlilutldl tuna¢. tiCFlcotlwipli1111ga aiid!by •(G) 'usamLIS' 11•aut•eaUluuell •Ikeeila•or Glow :restilmiLu Willil cur. -*W091- hueil hwarby•rootiLril treoreal Con-areas by :. 33Bi3 19{'�• s, r 1! 16110•a111uunl•dr•ilovo'lol�nelil, tiitch iloadl spnt!k tuutplldNUltm INow.ut •elipauded IpuULic .warko ICaetl,iLles al!a111 1bp +till•Ilavil{olsntutit.1111011°vAch[also 11irtwAd1tt°'til'tosuiNtn dicdhgited MIA IUl1 d Lost ito t ecabmmadale needs,geu4ratal trtluruddlutwll ti!udNl!NUNde IUo tautws Who ulew'ltotld141'"!u►u . Illy.IlavdlgiwnusiL.or tuaea;Pelvitted.eonstsLeliL lwlth O Iptuvldlona.ol'tLlbls.dLtrleingi 1Pruvdded� ihuweve►;1 %tba IfG 11a ctlm ItdLetd, or tthe 11.4gl4latilro .tbal:SLa4o!Illgh Ititnl6e ll All Ivitrdl.(areas tilt it-Ito taoeatel 9egsiB t1 eanASn.a tttttalils ltMSllulte avail. :jpaclal ,lU.atricto talialll 1ttAl! Ifululed for ttn{Iltnabail taxcq{tt.W11111 »tessessiv eltt Irgrt tatnl ilinimAkeloutdT,s Utlul °acatlaatwoultlttxlot►.tw into MA4 ii tMt111L litatos><11a1.e1►L N►1lh Will;allxvit II ' II � :tarry ti.+</eAM.`�JY'��)Va.Nn�\1fL.lrnN.r n+:.{MnY.i snS�?in/w 1.•is_r.aLLi)]L-r.r44(.:N.:�.4YV<J.ra.Y.:J'1'a a. a.w. n n e .�. � lr +■� r +■� r � r r r r i r r r r r �r r or planned public works racilil,lea cull accam)odaLe only a limited amuuuL of new development, ourvicoo to cuasLal dulio Bunt lard user essential public aervLces and l.aulc irdusLrles vital to the owlvAlic IlcalLll of Lite roglonr aLaLal or uaLionr public recreation# con+norutal recreation# airl viaLtor-aervlug Imul uses uhall not be Precluded by other devolopneni.. 4 • St7C. '1u255� Cioastaj-depenenl; developnunLa shall have pllorlty over ol.her davolupmenLa on or rear 1 Llie biiorollne. Except no provided eleewlsere I Sri this divlsiunI coastal-depmdenL devel�op- niBr)Ls aliall not be sited in a .weLlagd.i Wlleel pLimnrluLa, coastal-related duvo )rn ahoul� �ccon+nnduLcd wlLldn ruusanuble pruxlmlLy Lu au�xr�rL. Llic coastal-dolwndenL uses the Ameidoil by Cal . SLuLa. 1979s Cit. 1&)D.) it I 1, .I � r �� :'. rll"' j I r � 1• ' ,"i err - it I �' �4 r ' - ' `' _ .'r � ` ••,'r ,,�, •If ; • WESTLAND' ASSOCIATES LiD OF CAL•IFORNW APPLIED EARTN SCIENCES 1 23101 TERRA DRIVE,LAGUNA HILLS,CALIFORNIA 92653 [7141 768-4466 1 1 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FOR APARTMENT COMPLEX ' OCEAN AVENUE AT CARNATION AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 1 PREPARED t FOR 1 MR. CARL QUANDT 1 ' PROJECT NO. 0992 NOVEMBER 6, 1979 1� t ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' INTRODUCTION 1 ' SCOPE 1 SITE DESCRIPTION 2 ' A. General Conditions 2 B. Subsurface Conditions 2 ' GEOLOGY 2 A. Geologic Units 2 ' B. Geologic Structure 3 MASS WASTING 3 ' COASTAL GEOLOGY 4 ' HYDROGEOLOGY 4 SEISMICITY 4 ' TABLE I : Major Earthquakes Within 100-Mile Radius 5 TABLE II : Maximum Credible and Functional Basis Earthquake 6 ' TSUNAMIS 7 HURRICANE-TIDE FLOODS 7 A. Grading and Earthwork 7 B. Foundation Design 9 ' C. Site Stability 12 LIMITATIONS 12 APPENDIX A A-1 ' GEOTECHNICAL PLAN Figure A-1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Figure A-2 APPENDIX B B-1 COMPACTION TEST Figure B-1 I f TABLE OF CONTENTS ' (Continued) ' COMPACTION TEST Figure B-2 EXPANSION TEST Figure B-3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Figure B-3-1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Figure B-3-2 �1 1 1 t t is tSOIL & GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION 'FOR ' APARTMENT COMPLEX CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA ' INTRODUCTION t This report presents the results of our Soil & Geologic Investigation for the proposed six-unit apartment complex to be located at the intersection of Ocean Avenue with Carnation Avenue in Corona del Mar, California. The project, legally identified as Parcel No. 1 and Lots C & D of Parcel No. ' 2, is situated along the Newport Bay front. The purpose of this investi- gation is to evaluate the foundation materials and subsurface conditions underlying the parcels , and provide recommendations concerning the perti- nent geologic, soil and foundation engineering aspects of its development. The project plans have been developed by Architect Edward Giddings of ' Newport Beach, and are in their preliminary stages as of this writing. These plans identify a stair stepped multi-level structure with provisions for parking at the roof level and beneath, utilizing a ramp system for access. The upper most floor level (near street) will be at Elevation 69.78 ' whereas the lowest floor will be at Elevation 9.5 (high tide at Elevation 7.0) . The improvements will be built of a combination of conventional wood frame (upper levels) plus masonry and concrete (low levels) construction. The structure will locally be bordered by both landscaping and permanent pavements. Typical wall loads have been assumed to be 2,500 to 3,500 pounds per lineal foot with column loads ranging from 15 kips to 50 kips , for engineering ana- lyses. ' SCOPE The scope of services performed in this investigation included a geologic site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineer- ing analyses of laboratory and field data, and the preparation of this re- port. The data obtained and the engineering plus geologic evaluations per- formed as part of this investigation, were for the primary purpose of pro- viding effective construction and design criteria for the following: 1 -1- k 1 • • 1 1 . Grading and Earthwork 1 2. Foundations 3. Site Stability 1 SITE DESCRIPTION 1 A. General Conditions At the time of our field investigation, the property was occupied 1 by a wood frame residence at 2501 Ocean Avenue (Parcel No. 1) together with landscaping, a bay dock, local fill and.other residential improve- ments. It is considered likely that other surface and/or subsurface obstructions are present, such as irrigation lines , utility lines and 1 fill . During the initial phases of site grading, special efforts with _ the contractor's equipment will be made to- verify their presence. The real estate is trapezoidal in shape, with approximate overall 1 maximum dimensions of 87 feet by 245 feet, in the east-west and north- south directions, respectively. The land has variable gradients, with a maximum relief of about 70 feet, and drains toward the bay. 1 B. Subsurface Conditions 1 The land is underlain by a variable thickness of soft soils overlying dense bedrock. These sediments are both cohesive and granular and confined essentially to the upper building footprint. Fill materials are locally expected to be present to a maximum depth of less than 4 feet near the upper J 1 house and the water front dock. Due to restricted equipment access and thin several soil profile, 1 several pits were hand excavated to determine the subsurface soil conditions at the site. Furthermore, the ample bedrock exposures on-site and nearby were-mapped in detail . The results of these findings are discussed in detail under the Geology heading elsewhere in this report. 1 GEOLOGY 1 The front 50 percent of the subject property occupies a P•l,eistocene marine terrace which consists of three dominant features: (a) a modified seaward 1 terrain about 25 + feet high; (b) erosional bedrock platform separated from the underlying bedrock formed by wave erosion since uplift; and (c) a cover of marine and non-marine terrace sediments that average 40 feet in thickness. 1 A. Geologic Units Two mapped units underlie the property, These consist of sandstones of 1 the Monterey Formation of Miocene Age, which in turn are overlain unconform- ably by Terrace deposits , comprised primarily of sands and gravels. 1 1 -2- ' Bedrock exposed in the sea cliff is comprised of thick bedded grey ' white medium to coarse grained sandstones displaying well rounded fine to coarse grain sizes in the bedrock matrix. The upper sandstone units are underlain by a massive, coarse, well pitted, dark green brown extre- mely hard sandstones. Bedrock is moderately well cemented which allows the rock bluff to stand almost vertical . Terrace deposits are comprised of tan to brown, medium grained sand ' with a silty to clayey matrix and occasionally shell fragments. The basal portion, I to 3 feet thick, is comprised of well rounded pebbles and 'cobbles in a sand matrix. The terrace deposits are estimated to be approximately 40 feet thick in the front of the property. These materials are loose and soft on the surface, becoming firm and dense-at depth. Loose and porous silty sands constituting slope, wash sediments (Qsw) , admixed with gravels and rock fragments mantle the terrace deposits and _ the Monterey rocks. Their areal distribution is scattered and sporadic with thicknesses ranging from few inches to as much as 30 inches. B. Geologic Structure Sandstone units within the Monterey formation are moderately well bedded with the conglomerates and breccias being poorly bedded to massive. Bedding attitudes in these units strike N 30 degrees to 35 degrees E and dip 12 degrees to 15 degrees N. Locally, the beds are poorly developed, tthus decreasing the probability of a bedding plane type of failure. Primary joint attitudes (occasional open fissures) strike north- south and east-west parallel and normal to the cliff face and exhibit westerly to northerly dips of 80 degrees to nearly vertical (seaward) . Occasional areas of minor rock fall due to fissured jointing has occur- red in the past and this phenomena can be expected to occur in the future. ' The seawave actions of the past have widened the joints to create fissures and shallow gorges along the seaward face of the property. Along the northwest central limits of the property, near vertical cliff face exposing very hard sandstone rocks was noted. ' The bedrock-terrace contact,' where noted in outcrops , is inclined sea- ward at 5 degrees or less. It is surmised that the contact inward from the cliff is essentially flat, with possibly a local irregular surface. The terrace deposits are essentially flat lying. Occasional poorly ' developed bedding planes exposed in the ravine banks are horizontal . MASS WASTING ' No large areas of mass movement occurs in the bedrock exposed on the sea cliff. However, minor rock fall does occur on the bedrock face and is joint ' controlled. This phenomena could accelerate resulting from possible seismic activity. ' -3- 1 ' Few erosional gullies underlain by soil slumps were noted within the con- fines of the northwestern half of the property. These will be removed ' during the grading and replaced with compacted fill . COASTAL GEOLOGY ' The sandy beach and rock outcrops dust offshore protect the sea cliff from wave attack because of shoaling of the waters. However, during seasonal ' periods of high tides of surf, the fronting beach is subject to erosion. Furthermore, waves may (and probably do) break at the toe of the sea ,cliff and possibly cause erosion along the fissured joints. An impressive example of such erosion, which has occurred in the recent geologic past, is an 8 ' foot wide by 20 feet long off shore rock located in-part within the property at the' northwest corner. Although, this feafure does not detrimentally affect the coastal stability of the subject property, further erosion , if ' it were to occur, could conceivably affect the sea cliff. It should be noted, however, that no field evidence exists that indicates this will happen in the foreseeable future, within the project life, due to the very dense nature of the seaward rocks. ' Maps of the coastal area are lacking in data to determine the rate of erosion on recession of the sea cliff. ' HYDROGEOLOGY ' Water seepage and/or stains indicating seasonal wetting occurs on the cliff face along fissured joints within the Monterey Formation. Seepage is also expected to occur in places at the bedrock terrace interface due to perco- lation through the granular terrace cap overlying the bedrock. The existing 12 inch C.M.P. delivers water to the ravine at the north pro- perty corner from an upslope drainage area. Although some of the water ' does percolate into the terrace deposits , the amount is minimum and cannot by itself account for the cliff seeps. The 12 inch C.M.P. drains the resi- dential area northeasterly of the property and discharges into the small ravine about 30 feet beyond the northwest property line. Development of the site through gradients and pavements shall assure posi- tive surface and roof drainage conditions thus alleviating any percolating ' condition that may now exist. Moreover, positive drainage must include provisions for minimum sheet flow, drainage pipe line frame work, etc. , to carry areal and subsurface waters away from structural limits towards suit- able discharge facilities. SEISMICITY ' The seismicity of Orange County is primarily related to several known faults (Figure A-1-1) . Since 1918, there have been seven major earthquakes with a magnitude greater than 6 (Richter Scale) , within a radius of 100 miles of ' the subject property. These earthquakes are noted in Table 1 . In addition to these, a M5.9 Richter Magnitude earthquake occurred near Santiago Peak on May 31 , 1938. This epicenter is approximately 18 miles from the subject ' property. ' -4- TABLE I MAJOR EARTHQUAKES WITHIN 100 MILE RADIUS ' Approxir;ate Causative Richter Distance from ' Date Fault System Magnitude Site (miles) 4/21/18 San Jacinto 6.8 48 7/23/23 San Jacinto 6.3 • 46 3/11/33 Newport-Inglewood 6.3 3 3/25/37 San Jacinto 6.o 6n 12/4/48 San Andreas 6.5 66 ' 3/19/54 San Jacinto 6.2 85 2/9/71 San Fernando 6.6 68 ' Although the prediction of occurrence, magnitude and location of future seismic events cannot be accurately foretold, a sufficient number of seismic events of magnitude 6.0 or greater have occurred within 100 miles or the subject property. Therefore, similar events could be expected during the life of the proposed structures. ' Even without a detailed specific site spectral response analyses , a General guide to ground acceleration at or near the subject lots may be considered based on the Schnabcl and Sced ( 1972) graph of maximum acceleration versus distance derived for hedrocL and ' Ilousner ( 1965) graph of maximum acceleration versus distance for deep firm alluvium. These general values have been assigned on the followinn basis: (A) Maximum Credible Earthquake.' - maximum probable induced ground motion s•hieh may ever he expected at the build- ' inn sites within the known geolonic framcworl.. (Es) Functional Dasis Earthquake - "axinum probable induced ground motion rhich r;ay be postulated with a reasonable confidence level within a 100 year period. The data are sham on Table 2. —5— I M M M M M OEM M M i M TAL'LE 2 PAXINUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKE FUNCTIONAL BASIS EARTHQUAKE Miles Fault* fro:: acceleration at site acceleration (9) at site systcm site Me(I Schnahel & Seed Housner Man. Schnabel & Seed Nousner San Jacinto 48 7.5 0. 12 0.23 7.5 0. 12 0.22 Sal, Jacinto 46 7.5 0. 11 0.22 7.0 0.10 0. 17 3 7.0 0.33 0.3h 7.0 0.33 0.31: San .la^into 68 7.5 0.07 0. 10 7.0 0.05 0.08 Sal, %eas 68 7.5 0.C7 0. 10 7.5 0.07 0. 10 San Jacinto 85 7.5 0.05 0.0 . 7.0 0.03 0.06 S=_n Fernando 68 7.0 0.05 O.Op 7,0 0.05 0.08 See Table. I Based on maximum expected bedrock accelerations, Greensfelder, 1973. 6 t TSUNAMIS ' A tsunami or seismic sea wave (erroneously termed "tidal wave") is produced by a submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption. In some areas, such as the northeastern coast of Japan, they occur frequently. Most seismic sea waves travel considerable distances and any coastal instal- lation bordering the oceans , is subject to this threat. However, those that have recently formed off Hawaii and in the Gulf of Alaska (both ' areas display high seismicity) have not affected the Southern California Coast to any degree. Although, it is possible that such a wave coul'd form, depending upon the degree of seismicity of the off-shore Inglewood- Newport Fault; the shallow depth of water and the near proximity of the fault .to land appear to preclude this possibility. HURRICANE-TIDE FLOODS ' Recent hurricanes on 1976 and 1977 that have had landfall in Baja Califor- nia have produced flooding conditions in Southern California. However, coastal areas. have not been affected, except for prolonged periods of pre- cipitation. A hurricane is a cyclonic tropical storm with winds of 75 m.p.h. or greater (Beauford Force 12 and above) that moves counterclock- wise around a low pressure center in the northern hemisphere. Those cyclonic storms, with lesser wind velocities, are termed tropical distur- bances. Whether Southern California and-d n particular this, site, will be subject to a hurricane is a moot question. It is entirely possible, ' however, for hurricanes that have had land fall in Baja California to move north. ' Storm surge, which is the rise in water level above normal tide as the result of wind and inverted Barometric effects, that occurs during .a hurricane, should not affect the terrace deposit exposed on the sea cliff, as its elevation is much higher than the storm surge would attack. More- over, the durability of the local Monterey rocks, because they are dense and well-cemented, would preclude any degree of erosion from occurring except possibly in localized areas of fissured joints. ' A. Grading and Earthwork ' Site grading will be required to provide for: (1) nearly level building pads and access ramps; (2) suitable foundation conditions to support the proposed improvements; (3) adequate surface gradients for control of water runoff; and (4) excavation into compacted fill and bedrock to accommodate ' the installation of foundations and utility systems. It is anticipated that the required site fill will be obtained from ' planned cut operations. Caution should be exercised to prevent mixing of select native or imported materials with soils containing debris and/or organic matter. Organic matter may be stockpiled in limited quantities for landscaping purposes. However, excessive volumes, together with any deleterious substance, should be stripped and removed from the property. -7- 1 ' All excavated soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent (by volume) may be blended with non-organic material in the construction of site fills, provided this procedure receives PRIOR approval of the ' Soil Engineer. All imported soils should be non-expansive, predominantly granular and approved by the Soil Engineer prior to use. In order to provide structural support for the planned building ' floors, excavation through a thin soil veneer and into durable rock will be necessary. Expected excavation depths will range from nominal or' less than 3 feet to as much as 9 feet to accommodate partial subterranean con- struction. These efforts will extend largely into weathered bedrock and into fresher rock at the deeper cuts. Consequently, substantial concen- trated energy will be needed as discussed elsewhere in the report. ' Any surface and subsurface grading obstructions, such as utility lines, loose fill , debris, trees with root systems, irrigation lines, and existing foundations encountered during grading should be brought •' immediately to the attention of the Soil Engineer, to assure proper ex- posure, removal and/or relocation as directed. No underground obstruc- tions nor facilities should remain in any structural areas which will ' receive compacted fill , building foundations , concrete slabs and pave- ments. All structural fills constructed in areas of proposed building pads ' and/or pavements should be densified to at least 90 percent relative compaction, by mechanical means only, in accordance with (ASTM) Test -A Designation D1557-70, modified to use 3-4-eye•rs- in lieu of 5. The upper ' 6 inches of the subgrade exposed by stripping or excavation should first be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary and properly compacted. Depressions and/or cavities created as a result of grading obstruc- tion removal , should be properly backfilled with suitable fill materials and compacted. This requirement applies specifically to abandoned cess- a- pools, septic tanks and similar structures , which should be cleaned out /amks then cut off to at least 6 feet below final pad grade and backfilled with ' select granular materials approved by the Soil Engineer. ' 1 . Excavating Conditions - Excavation of upper on-site materials should be accomplished largely with standard earthmoving or trenching equipment. However, below a depth of 4 feet, ripping with heavy-duty equipment is to be anticipated. The walls of temporary (bedrock) con- struction excavations should stand nearly vertical , provided the total depth does not exceed 10 feet. Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of slopes may be required, if greater depths are necessary., or if the presence of gravel pockets of adverse dipping beds cause severe localized ravelling. 1 ' -8- . t All work associated with trench shoring must conform to the State of California Safety Code and/or applicable OSHA regulations. Native soils may be utilized for trench backfill , provided the organic content does not exceed 3 percent. The use of bedrock fragments result- ing from cuts made for trench backfill , when in excess of 3 inches in maximum dimension, is not recommended. Rather, select granular materials shall be imported (sand and/or gravel) for placement as bedding and to a ' minimum depth of 12 inches above the pipe. Flooding of the trench back- _ fill is not considered suitable, and compaction should be accomplished entirely by mechanical means. Backfilling of all utility trenches should be performed as directed by the supervising Soil Engineer. Shading and/or minimal pipe cover can be placed in the Soil Engineer's absence, provided the cover ' does not exceed 24 inches or one-half the trench depth, whichever is less, to permit adequate density testing prior to construction of struc- tural improvements including pavements. 2. Shrinkage,Swell and Subsidence - In planning the proposed grading operations, we recommend that a shrinkage and swell factor of about 12 and 6 percent be used, respectively, for soil and bedrock. That ' is, 1 . 12 and 0.94 cubic yards of in-place materials will be required to yield 1 cubic yard of properly densified fill , without wasting, at 90 percent relative compaction. However, no subsidence is to be expected. ' 3• Surface Drainage Provisions - Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to this multilevel building to direct surface water runoff away from structural foundations and towards suitable dis- charge facilities. Ponding of surface water should not be allowed any- where on the property. We recommend the use of gutters and down spouts, together with permanent drain outlets along those portions of the peri- meter of this structure bordered by landscaping; alternate drainage schemes are subject to review by the Soil Engineer. The use of planters without sealed bottoms in the immediate vicinity of structural improvements, in- cluding pavements, should be discouraged unless approved by the Soil Engi- neer. Criteria for subsurface drainage systems, where deemed necessary, will be provided upon request. ' 4. Grading Control - All grading and earthwork should be performed under the inspection of a representative of this firm to assure proper subgrade preparation, selection of satisfactory materials, placement and compaction of all structural fill . Sufficient notification prior to stripping and earthwork construction is essential to make certain that the work will be adequately inspected. All earthwork should be performed in ' accordance with applicable grading codes. B. Foundation Design ' An evaluation of the in-place soil/bedrock characteristics when over- laid by this firm with the development plans as understood by this firm, determined that the proposed residential structure could be most economi- cally supported on shallow footings. ' -9- 1 1 . Footings - The new improvements may be safely supported on ' conventional spread footings supported on approved native soils and/or compacted fill (upper levels) . These shallow footings may be designed Tc.� for an allowable bearing value of 1 ,800 pounds per square foot. Support ' may also be secured at least 8 inches entirely into sound bedrock, using an increased bearing value of 3,500 p.s.f. These design values may be increased' by one-third, if the Structural Engineer takes into consideration ' short duration structural loading conditions such as induced by wind or seismic forces. Continuous footings and isolated column pads may be used entirely ' within the soil medium, where feasible, and founded at least 15 inches (exterior) below lowest adjacent final grade or 12 inches (interior) below rough pad grade, whichever is deeper. Footing depths should be increased ' by 6 inches for two-story structures. Individual supports outside the slab areas (landscaping) may be seated into approved firm soils at an increased depth of 30 inches below exterior grade. All continuous foundations should be reinforced with at least two No. 4 bars , one at the top and one at the ' bottom, to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local subgrade irregularities. The minimum footing width should be 12 inches for one-story units, and 15 inches for two-story units. ' All visible cracks in the foundation excavations should be brought to the attention of the Soil Engineer to determine the need for pre-soaking ' prior to placement of the foundation concrete. 2. Bedrock Anchors - Where excavations for foundations extend into bedrock which is difficult to excavate as expected, effective use may be ' made of bedrock anchors. This system relies on the bedrock to provide suitable bearing at shallow penetration into sound rock, with lateral and moment resistance afforded largely by high tensile steel rods drilled into ' rock and grouted into place using polyester resin to bond the steel to the rock. The rock bolting concept has been successfully employed by this consultant at significant savings, where DYWiDAG thread bar post tensioning anchors are installed into a drilled hole and then filled with a premeasured ' amount of resin as manufactured by Celtite, Inc. Both the bedrock penetration and shaft diameter are designed to handle specific structural load applications. Actual details will be furnished upon request, when loads have been furnished to us, subject to field testing to verify capacity. 3. Slabs-on-Grade - Concrete floor slabs may be directly supported on the properly prepared subgrade; preparation shall be in accordance with ' the grading and earthwork recommendations, including proof-rolling just prior to construction to provide a firm unyielding subgrade. At that time, in any area where shrinkage cracks appear, these should be effectively ' sealed by pre-soaking prior to slab construction. Where moisture migration through concrete slabs is undesirable, ' particularly when slabs are to be covered with tile and/or carpeting, a 4 inch thick blanket of free draining "rounded" gravel should be placed beneath the pad grade and the floor slab, to provide a capillary break re- sulting in minimizing floor dampness. The success of this method requires that the concrete be placed with a maximum 3 inch slump, unless a 4 mil plastic sheet is placed over the gravel to protect it temporarily from con- crete infiltration. -10- i Alternately, (without gravel ) an impervious membrane (10 mil ' plastic or equal ) should be sandwiched between the floor slab and the supporting subgrade. A 1 inch to 2 inch thick layer of clean sand placed below and over the plastic is desired to permit the preparation ' of a more uniform subgrade and provide a cushioning effect; to prevent the sheeting from blowing away and assist in a more uniform curing of the slab. Proper precautions should be taken not to puncture or tear the membrane, and to wrap this plastic (Visqueen) tightly around the protruding pipelines. Other methods of slab construction, including post tensioning, are available but will be subject to close review by this firm prior to use. ' Native subgrade soils , on the basis of laboratory test data, are considered to be slightly to moderately expansive. In order to distribute tension stresses in the concrete floor slabs, because of non- uniform foundation material conditions, we recommend that minimal rein- forcement consist of 6x6 - AM W.W.F. The reinforcing should be ade- quately supported during the placement of concrete to assure its posi- tion near the center of the slab. The minimum slab thickness should be at least 4 inches. These requirements assume that site grading will occur as recommended; additional testing near the completion of earth- work may be necessary, resulting in modified recommendations. Structural slabs and floors "poured" directly onto bedrock, t to be subjected to vehicular loads or heavy concentrated loads , should be especially designed to carry such accompanying stresses. The use of rigid concrete slabs or asphaltic concrete pavement sections should be determined by the Soil Engineer and/or Structural Engineer. . 3. Settlements - Total settlements due to structural loads will 1 be on the order of 0.32 to 0.67 inches; about 20 percent is expected to occur during the construction period. Associated differential settle- ments will range from 0. 19 inches to 0.33 inches as a result of variable structural loads. Where support is entirely into sound bedrock, these values may be reduced by 50 percent. In order to reduce differential ' settlement conditions, the cut area should be overexcavated to at least _ 12 inches below pad grade and replaced with properly compacted fill with- in the general building limits. ' 4. Lateral Capacity - Lateral loads may be resisted by friction, between the floor slab or footings and the supporting subgrade. For the ' final grade conditions expected for this property, a friction coefficient of 0. 35 is considered applicable. In addition, lateral resistance may be provided by passive pres- sures acting against the foundations. We recommend a passive capacity, in compacted fill equal to a hydrostatic pressure developed by an equiva- lent fluid with a density of 200 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. ' An increased value of 450 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used for foundations seated into sound bedrock. -11- r ' Both native soils and compacted fill will exert lateral driving ' forces (active) against foundations and backfilled walls. The Structural Engineer's design considerations should include satisfactory drainage pro- visions and resist a long term lateral equivalent fluid pressure with a density of 35 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. The level backfill ' has been assumed to consist of clayey sand; however, reduced design values are possible when select (import) backfill is placed rather than native soils. This design value does not include temporary overloading conditions ' which could result during construction due to the use of heavy compaction equipment operating directly adjacent to such structures. ' C. SITE STABILITY The existing geotechnical features did not reveal expressions i_ndi,cative of gross instability. The sandstone bedrock units exposed within the proper- ty is rather massive or thick-bedded, highly to moderately weathered, and dense to very dense. Along the seaward fall , the rocks have undergone deep weathering and have experienced surficial pitting due to 'chemical action. ' The joints within the bedrock are surficial and occasionally extend to 18 to 26 inches deep. Moderate to heavy resistance to excavation may be anticipated below three to four feet in depth. The upper zone of the terrace deposit strata are loose, porous and have potential for erosion particularly where void of vegetation. Along the western property limits deep erosional gully traversing approximately along a t northwesterly bearing was noted. In addition, a surficial northwest directional slump involving the upper terrace zone was noted. Due to its limited exterrt and physiographic features the slide occurrence can be attributed to the ' heavy run-off and percolation the soil sediments have experienced in the past coupled with lack of enough vegetal cover. During grading the surficial slide debris, loose and porous upper soils ' shall be removed and replaced with compacted fill . Due to their scattered areal distribution utilization of •the rocks for rock-cut-walls and pools in their' natural state shall be determined in the field by the Geotechnical 9 Consultant during grading. Where the rock surfaces expose joint or fissures, ' these openings can be utilized to provide as natural receptacles and walls. ' In summary, the site exhibits gross stability and will continue to enjoy that state with sufficient safety factor during its project life. For an economical and effective project progress and completion, the owner and/or contractor shall co-ordinage their efforts with this office for geotechnical ' control and consultation prior to and during grading. LIMITATIONS ' Between exploratory excavations, all subsurface deposits consequent of their anisotropic and heterogenous characteristics will vary in type, strength and many other important porperties. The results presented herein are based on the information gathered and generated by us, as well as our interpretation of that data based on our construction experience and technical background. Hence, our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions about the pertinent soil and geologic paramenters which influence the site use as planned; therefore, no other warranty is herein express or implied. -12- 1 ' To a degree, the performance of any soil structure element is dependent upon construction procedures, quality of workmanship, and its intended use per the recommended geotechnical criteria. Hence, general fill placement and structural earthwork construction shall be carried out in conformance ' with applicable grading codes and observed by this firm to assure compliance by the contractor's field forces. More specifically, it is the responsibility of the owner to inform our personnel to be present during and after grading, in order to test, watch and geotechnically evaluate for any changed sub- surface conditions different from those forming the basis for our recommendations. To curtail misunderstandings of the report recommendations , which oftentimes contain specialized technical terms and concepts, it is desirable that we review the latest project plans and specifications for general compliance ' with the recommendations. Yours very truly, WESTLAND ASSOCIATES LTD. OF CALIFORNIA By: Ri' char:d er� By: Sampath V. Raghavan Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Engineer ' C.E.G. 469 R.C.E. 29619 SVR:RDM:jj ' -13- 1 APPENDIX A 1 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE/EXPLORATION 1 - . 1 The subject project area was visited by our Soil Engineer and Engineering Geologist to undertake a site reconnaissance mapping the geologic features. In order to assist in defining the subgrade conditions, two hand pits were excavated by means of auger to depths of three feet to four feet below 1 existing grade. Each of the test pits , as well as other pertinent data, is identified on the attached plan, Figure A-1 . 1 The soils encountered in the excavations were continuously logged by our representative, and their identity. classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System as described on Figure A-2; each exca- vation was subsequently backfilled. The bedrock features were recorded in 1 detail by our Engineering Geologist. Selected samples of the exposed materials were collected for our inspection and laboratory testing. These included both bulk materials and relatively undisturbed specimens , secured 1 by a driven tub sampler. Logs of the test pit walls were prepared in the field, identifying pertinent material characteristics to supplement the results of our laboratory testing program. Reference made to topographic 1 information is approximate and relates to our interpretation of survey maps furnished us by others. Physical depth measurements of the test excavations reflect this elevation basis. Consequently, sample depths and the vertical location of changes in subsurface conditions are approximate only and 1 laterally their extent is subject to interpretation by the writer. 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 - A-1 - 1 1 • � 1 &a.85 085/) - Ly u�F Epicenter with magnitude 1 44 OU.IORMCILEL=T10N and date: 1 4� oM �7 pR� �stALE 1: 1,000,000 46, 1 I 0 7>M>5 C M<5 1 F S9N. 4 V 4 �, S LOS ANGELES BERNARDINO "y�rr/FR y0 s.309'l3)�2 • N 6 4 F4U<T 'Y / •4U�T 2T0 F� lee OSANTA ANA A% .7(1965) 68 09918) G<T 1 20(1934) �55(1938 �S� ' i o 1 2.0(19 4 in— 63 0933) �� i 1 -A 3 F� o �` o 9� 2.01935) GO NN C 4.50969)1 qG 7 2.0(1937) SEISMIC VICINITY MAP EXCERPT FROM CDMG — sit IZ7 j 1 . WESTLAND 1 ASSOCIATES e 1 APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES PROTEC•r % o,+4•2 23011 MOULTON PARKWAY 1 UNIT 10, BUILDING 8 F I CURE % A-1 —1, LAGUNA HILLS, CAL 92653 1 . . 1 ' MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP TYPICAL NAMES SYMBOLS Well graded gravels, grbwl-sand mixtures. Rgb� GW CLEAN Ap°b',OA little or no lines. GRAVELS a avy (Little w no fines) •°.Ro. GP, Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, GRAVELS Iinb a no fine. (Mon than 50%of coarse fraction is LARGER than the GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, ' No.4 sieve size) GRAVELS Iy WITH FINES COARSE "'ra7' (Appreciable amt.of fines) GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures. GRAINED ' SOILS ::',.;; (More,e•than 50 of Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little a material is LARGER 'SW no fines than No.200 sieve CLEAN SANDS '`' `•• size) (Lillis yr no lines) £ poorly graded sands a gravelly vends, little SANDS 71' SP or no fines. (More than 50% of coarse fraction is SMALLER than the SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures. No.4 sieve size) SANDS I WITH FINES ' l•feu7o 4 (Appreciable amt. of fines) Nz SC Clayey vends, sand-cloy mixtures. ' Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour, ML silty or clayey fine sands a clayey silts with slight plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, CL gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean (Liquid limit LESS than 50) clays, ' Organic silts and organic silty clays of low FINE OL GRAINED plasticity• \ SOILS (More than 50%of Inorganic silts, micaceous or dlatamaceaus malarial is SMALLER MH tine sandy or silty soils,elastic slits. than No.200 sieve size) SILTS AND CLAYS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fol clays. (Liquid limit GREATER than 50) '- OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS pt Peat and other highly organic soib. i BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by 1 ' cambinatlons of group symbols. P A R T I C L E S I Z E L I M I T S SAND GRAVEL SILT OR CLAY COBBLES I BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE I No.ZOO w40 NO.10 NOA in, - 3h. UZW U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ' UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Reference The Unified Soil Classification System,Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Technical Memorandum No.3-357, FIGM A 2 Vol. I, March,1953. (Revised April, 1960) • P ' APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM The laboratory testing program was implemented to provide additional data ' about existing, anticipated and modified field conditions. The supple- mentary data secured by testing representative specimens of site materials under similar and/or modified conditions, is used by the Engineer and/or Geologist to assist in his subsurface evaluation and permit effective ' foundation design analysis. The results of the testing program are iden- tified by tabular and/or graphical presentation. A brief description of each test procedure is also identified herewith. ' Field Moisture Content and Dry Density ' The field moisture content and dry density for several samples were deter- mined for the in-place materials. The results are indicative of existing (in-situ) site conditions, at the time of our investigation, and are ' presented on the accompanying field logs contained in Appendix A. Swell Potential Representative samples of the near surface soils were collected in the field. These bulk materials were remolded in our laboratory, in order ' to determine their swell potential (expansion) characteristics upon exposure to excess moisture. The degree of expansion potential is deter- mined from measured soil volume changes occurring during soil moisture ' alterations. Each test specimen is compacted into a 1 inch high metal ring, 4 inches in diameter, at 50 percent of its saturated moisture con- tent and allowed to swell while submerged in water. A 144 pound per square foot normal load is applied to the sample during a minimum 24-hour time '- period. The subsequent volume change is recorded as the amount of change from the original sample height. The soil is then rated for expansion potential in accordance with the U.B,C. Swell Index (Standard 29-2) and ' the results of this test are presented in Table I and/or in Figure B-2. ' Compaction Bulk soil samples were taken from the near surface soils which are most likely subject to the provisions outlined in ASTM Test Designation D1557-70, modified to use 3 layers in lieu of 5. This test procedure determines the compaction characteristics of the soil , 'namely its opti- mum moisture content and maximum dry density best shown in a graphical ' manner, per Figure B-1 . t ' B-1 ' Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on selected soil samples to determine the strength characteristics of the supporting subgrade materials. A ' series of three (3) tests were performed on each sample with increasing 4 normal loads being applied directly to the sample. During the test interval , each sample may be submerged in a water bath to increase its moisture content to near saturation level and the shear force was measured as (controlled strain) displacment occurred within the sample. The amount of cohesion and the angle of internal friction for each sam- ple is presented in Table 11 -and/or on Figure B-3 respectively. 1 1 B-2 ■Wn■�u�um��i� �11►V`t►1 1 ����. INIIPbII►� ��� - r ' (0) FW77NG UNIT WT• = PSF I (W) SLAB UNIT WEIGHT = PSF ' ( H)OVERBURDEN LOAD = PSF . G.WS. DEPTH = Fr ' 2 Y 0 MAX' PCF AT ama = YFIELD= PCF AT me.FIELD = ig 3 M DE FEND. If • SM. TAL LOAD PSF.. PSF PSF 4 I A ' B11 C 5 ' o 5% IO% 15% O wo a20 a30 SWELL SWELL—FEET SAMPLE ' SURCHARGE 144'o P•S f. P.S.F MOISTURE CONTENT AND DM BEG/N AIR END BEGIN AIR END BEGIN AIR ENO DENSITY DETERMINATION TEST DRY TEST TEST DRY , TEST TEST DRY TEST CAN NUMBER (NO) CAN WT. + WET SO/L (GM) wo.c 400 ' CAN WT. s DRY SOIL (GM) 182.3 CAN WEIGHT WAV B WATER WEIGHT (GM) DRY SOIL WT. (GM) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) SOIL+RING WT. MM) I ' RING WEIGHT (GM) 'Lp6p ZO .o N£T WET SOIL WT. (GM) Mi.3 4p,Ip ,WET DENSITY (PCF jig.& I2 . MOISTURE CONTENT (%I 20.ro DRY DENSITY (PCF) 106,1I ACo NITIAL READING DATE p-1 III 1 INITIAL READING TIME ( M) :0 0 FINAL READING DATE 10.1 FINAL READING TIME ( M) 7:00 SOAKING TIME MRS) 24 INITIAL DIAL READING $pgy i ' FINAL DIAL READING 21044 DIAL READING DIFFERENCE p3gl EXPANSION (%)IINDEX Av MAX. ALLOWABLE SWELL: FEET(FOOTING); FEET (FLOOR S Sample Decscription:, M*011111 9b FINE MEh1uM gem ARAUNwI TiL�� PF COLIG�IDh••I *PEER uac STANDARD NO. 29-2, AMD TABLES 29-C AND 29-D Westland associates EXPANSION TEST FIGURE p haguna Hills, Calif., �0✓ECT [-�ETPORT DATE SHEET NO. 17141 709.44BG 1AV.e,+j-Z ����i I OF1 e- 3 L $pecIf!C P/T BQ4/N Conditiaos Maslure Dry Avnsitl Gravity Sofuraliav . Void hbtio Tesf Type It.�00 No. 1 Initial Io.r-� ID2- 3 Q.rrrj G 1 0 Fwk C Peok psf Depth -�L— Final 15 $ `CCn.$ 2.r2r;7 /alp (vGJ _ 0 Ult G Ult psf 46 of:29 C t�t7c *Orsr some/e description y►*+tn slEg,Mrctxum -ro FINE -m*+b v� ur f mevium ¢a .j , 5.0 o EM V) 109LA7Erg CsA.w PLZ 5.0 4.0 - 4.0 3.0 3.0 i C h 4v a� erl ewPe 2.0 2.0 0 y to to 0.0 �< 6o f 0.0 0.0 to 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 80 normal load-ksf 0--0 Peak Envelope �9' Ultimate Envelope DIRECT SHEAR TEST Residua/ Envelope PROJECT FIGURE NO. B-3- I M M M M M i M M M M M M M M M M M � M P/T BL14/N ca itions Mastons Dry Density 6proedfivity Saturation Void!ratio Test Type a Po.a{, U// No. _ tnd/a/ lo. �j Io8-�I 2.foo - 1547 -A-I G N 0 PW* C Poak psf Dep/h Final I r2-4 107.1 '1-60 0 !//t G U/t psf AYE=32 GnvE=47of5F description 5.0 sample 5.0 4.0 4.0 h � 3.0 3.0 i c s v�(�a r N>✓�O{ a H 2.0 2.0 O ` H /.0 /.0 - 0.0 ° 0.0 0..0 /.O 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 '7.0 8.0 normal load-ksf 0---0 Poole Envelope �! UN/mote Envetope DIRECT SHEAR TEST ! ! Restduat Envelope PROJECT pg ct2 FIGURE NO. B-3-f t±1.. , - . '"E .- ViICT1t/►6- JOINT. - .. �•'q'! , ,. r 6EOL0CeIG COIJTACT ' r , w.��.. GS01..061G GC>'•.ITPCf-'APPICG'KI HAATE' n ,.; , 'v••••• � 6£Q1ACo1G O7AIT/aC.TCOPIGrirAl.•EO / L ;;;"' . , LANpSL�vE (HAeHURF_oM�, /plotCpTFfiSCA.�. PRRbeKs -- �S � :: Z ` 4K{01A/ IIfL6GT�01J OF /.lCNR1.Ala.1T.� • y y' cour-sE C^=Rw.r Mows o.PppKEntT Kt.oW ) LlAff `" " Owl 3 Qsw 3lAVEwv6H-GtuA.rr-RtuAa.y , Qt TERIVCE 9Eno5T's— Q 'ERIr.IARY • / `-.-- FENCE ew,41V L/A/,C r 41e e*Ac"Sn.wl o•- mubap�aC (4.1�) ` • / - / 1 FENCE //J�C �'•`' Q�s I.oWosi.loE-Qua.Y / . y �S ( \� Tm , • - �` ` � is o tit�c \� - ie8r�/,e' n. -rrn F RN%A-nCWJ-•,Tff2Ttasr( (S^#4osrot4s:) 4fi�� (�b°hl HANG A�/6E2 Q P I"f, LOGrS10N (g �) A / c . .. a° q ' Gl / e) lMlh°° ewe. 1 a � ob1 D' R "• _ ` ,REI11 I'M-. l T '�G ' O�Key a, �I cx 'r f- ,' (s 7.) LA 41) :., ' . � , , _ / � 4 9.) � ,••� �^ b / � gam; x R ml Svc fill pb QS W cF u F- Qt Poe 7�� , (.d 1) Q�'e"�,; .e"`-"._,.'' •.' # .• l .�-.•r-' � rD �' /� IB�QAGMS� ( GAO Y TA Uy IIDOCIC el 14v� Aj i ' (io WEST161IND fi> IRS601r111TES ICok- ;.,% ',, ..`: . . • �� r ,. ' , ,. ,< , ca �A»oarMt3�fT- mHP�.BX• , a ¢ 066AJ.ANs. Aw am arlctl Avai: m PAp I�CT. ace. � ��agun•iWils,Ealit rnia,, obsa',.� nlovE�Mecit ->� �. . 1 l• •M' , l u`A i` * �v f A• P I.i� I . Y 4* a^ `t 1 t FI A 1• s' i f• i i c r'T '6• • t' . . �e' d:s. jai •fix' , , . s:m d" APPLICATION FOR "APPROVAL IN CONCEPT": No. �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Fee: ^ APPROVAL IN CONCEPT BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - As required for permit application to 4 o South Coast Regional Commission pursuant to California 'Administrative Code, Sections 13210 and 13211 . General Description of Proposed Development: I� eArz C22169V P o,perty Address: �L `l�f°�� 1 /� f�J ✓ � _ C 4es! ti o��Q '�/ (/(��� Zone : Lego 1 Applicant: Applicant's Mailing Address: licant's Telephone Number: ^ DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE I have reviewed the plans for the foregoing development including: 1 . The general site plan, including any roads and public access to the shoreline. 2. The grading plan, if any. 3. The general uses and intensity of use proposed for each part of the area covered in the application; and find o They comply with the current adopted City of Newport Beach. General Plan, Zoning .Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and any applicable specific or precise plans or o That a variance or exception has been approved and is final. -A copy of any variance, exception, conditional use permit, or other issued permit is at— tached together with all conditions of approval and all approved plans including approved tentative tract maps. On the basis of this finding, these plans are approved in concept, and said approval has been written upon said plans, signed, and dated. Should this City adopt an ordinance deleting, amending, or adding to the Zoning Ordinance or other regulations in any manner that would affect the use of the property or the design of a project located thereon, this approval in concept shall become null and void as of the effective date of this said ordinance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of .1970, and state and local guidelines adopted thereunder, this development: o Has been determined to be ministerial or categorically exempt. o Has received a final Exemption Declaration .or final Negative Declaration (copy attached) o Has received a final Environmental Impact Report (copy attached). All discretionary approvals legally required of this City prior to issuance of a building permit have been given and are final . The development is not subject to rejection in prin- cipal by this City unless a substantial change in it is proposed. This concept approval in no way excuses the applicant from complying with all applicable policies, ordinances, codes, and regulations of this City. Date: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director AALtachments : By NOTE : No building permit will be issued until approval is received from S .C . R.C . APPLICATION FOR "APPROVAL IN CONCEPT": No. - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Fee. _ c APPROVAL IN CONCEPT BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - As required for permit application to tht South Coast Regional Commission pursuant to California Administrative Code, Sections 13210 and 13211 . � O General Description of Proposed Development: ( !/ � n Property Address: L N Legal/ cription: a LCr � j///,- J '_� { tG T� Zone : �l . i Applicant: CPO ,tl ! Applicant's Mailing Address: lIcant's Telephone Number: /� �)y0" No n�rwr ws DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE T have reviewed the plans for the foregoing development including: i. The general site plan, including any roads and public access to the shoreline. 2. The grading plan, if any. 3. The general uses and intensity of use proposed for each part of the area covered In the application; and find o They comply with the current adopted City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning .Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and any applicable specific or precise plans or o That a variance or exception has been approved and is final. -A copy of any variance, exception, conditional use permit, or other issued permit is at- tached together with all conditions of approval and all approved plans including approved tentative tract maps. On the basis of this finding, these plans are approved in concept, and said approval has been written upon said plans, signed, and dated. Should this City adopt an ordinance deleting, amending, or adding to the Zoning Ordinance or other regulations in any manner that would affect the use of the property or the design of a project located thereon, this approval in concept shall become ,nyll and void as of the effective date of this said ordinance. Ih accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and state and local guidelines adopted thereunder, this development: o Has been determined to be ministerial or categorically exempt. o Has received a final Exemption Declaration or final Negative Declaration (copy attached) o Has received a final Environmental .Impact Report (copy attached). All discretionary approvals legally required of this City prior to issuance of a building permit have been given and are final. The development is not subject to rejection in prin- cipal by this City unless a substantial change in it is proposed. This concept approval in no excuses the applicant from complying with all applicable policies, ordinances, codes, and regulations of this City. Date: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director Attachments : By NOTE : No building permit will be issued until approval is received from - S .C .R.C . ti �• � AIICATiON FOR "'APPROVAL IN CONCEPT": Noa CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F ' Fee: APPROVAL IN CONCEPT BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. - As required for permit `application `to tf:o South Coast Regional Commission pursuant to California Administrative Code, Sections '13Z'l0 and 13211. General Description of .Proposed Development: ' ' froperp •A'ddress: { t ,} / , I \ f a sccrri'ition E r�C. /fir -� /n�- c.r �n� Zone : °applicant: , Applicant's Mailing Address: AaZ2 &6&A44 i�p - AC A liIccant's Telephone N umber: /jZf DO- NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE -I have reviewed the plans for the foregoing development including: 1. The general site plan, including any roads and public access to the shoreline. 2. The grading plan, if any. 3. The general uses and intensity of use proposed for each .part of the 'area covered z in the application; and find o They comply with the current adopted City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and any applicable specific or precise plans or o That a variance or exception has been approved and is final. _A copy of any variance, exception, conditional use permit, or other issued permit is at— tached together with all conditions of approval and all approved plans including approved tentative tract maps. On the basis of this finding, these plans are approved in concept, ;and said approval has been written upon said plans, signed, and dated. Should this City adopt an ordinance deleting, amending, or adding to the Zoning Ordinance . or othe+- regulations in any manner that would affect the use of the property or the design a project located thereon, this approval in concept shall become null and void as of e effective date of this said ordinance. Tp accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and state and local , guidelines adopted thereunder, this development: o Has been determined to be ministerial or categorically exempt. ' o Has received a final Exemption Declaration or final Negative Declaration (copy attached)' o Has received a final Environmental Impact Report (copy attached). All discretionary approvals legally required of this City prior to issuance of a building permit have been given and are final . The development is not subject to rejection in privn ,:cipal by this City unless a substantial change in it is proposed. ,•this concept approval in no way excuses the applicant from complying with all applicable policies, ordinances, cod& , and regulations ,of this City. Bate: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. R. V. HOGAN, Director Attachments: " By NOTE : No building permit will be issued until. approval is receive��' from ."S .C . R.C,.;_ _ � ZO � give w/c��i ?�✓ 2�v..1 ¢rv�� ,���� _ _ _ f 157 �. : CUv�1 CUt �h--_pGCG/2 S/c>� GJi"�-�%'�PQrL ��_�G�U�/✓E S _ __ are /_ �4yjZta �y-_ �rYioosst� ez�� �ov 907 //off_ a.// /979 Ikol - Gt very- -_ Lli2sai1_'L TizAFF/G . �n.MtvE�' �gW PpRr p� e NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT 475 32nd Street * Newport Beach,California 92663 J e„ s (714) 644-3603 > sow rates C141FO R NP Fire Chief August 15, 1979 1 . No structure or external portion thereof shall be more than 150' from a vehicular access way capable of accommodating fire department vehicle - 1970 UFC 13.208c. Distance of proposed plan is 1751 . 2. Access road does not meet fire department requirements - 1976 UFC 13.208. RECOMMENDATIONS: Apartment structure to be completely sprinklered regardless of _ construction type. l �- Redesign access road to meet fire department requirement. , A. J. WAGNER Fire Marshal r ;t • RESIDENTIAL • Zoning CorrectionsBy (� // Date t7- 11"7/`/ - --- --- - ----- -- ---- ----- --Tel-ephonei� 6? ,Z20 - - Needs on - - -Legal " -- Lot - -----B-1oc-k-_------Section • - ..-... - _Co.venant_._req.ui_r_e.d_ t.o_c-ombi-ne . portio-n,s--of l.ots .- _-__— Lot Size Zone -"� -_ Number of Units - Buildable Area Structural Area9( ( . •-L-i-vi•ng -- Open Space Area Setbacks n Front ���1 (/CpG(/lIJ ✓ Rear /dt Right Side - Left Side • Betwee-n-B•u�Ydim-g� -- Height (Measured from natural grade to average roof height Number of Stories Natural grade line on all elevations - P a-n.k_i•n.g-(.9'X_20 ' ; n s i-d.e-dim a ms i_o.n_e a -b_s.pac-e_�.,._-_____._____-_ Special Approval required through : Modification Committee — ~A Planning Commission : u -� - - -- -Use---P e r m it-- -------- -- - - ,,_ Variance Resubdi.v.ision - Tract ^� — y- -_ _Site- Plan. Revi_ew _.- Other - � . o �, - ' . PLAN' CHECK N0. 94-77 qPage 2. Needs Cor tion Fire Marine - Parks , Beach , & Recreation -3 copies of landscape -_irr.igation plans _P-ubli c_.Wor-ksrG" �7—� Subdivision Engineer_ _/NIA- ,Q.�itPQrL — Curb Cut Traffic Engineer Parking Layout _ 1Lisce-Ll ne9us 1 . Floor plan fully dimensioned showing all room uses . 2. Plot plan fully dimensioned showing location of all —l-r--- ---b-u-i-1'di-n g s ffe n-ce s-to—p r o p-e r ty—l-fn-e:- UV -- .0=t4e-r- U - ' Jl i Ate. � � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH treoaN�A PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2137 November 5 , 1980 Mr. William 0 . Hubbs 2501 Ocean Boulevard Corona del Mar , California 92625 Re : Modification No . 2552 of Carl Quandt Dear Mr. Hubbs : At the July 28 , 1980 City Council meeting, the City Council.' approved the Modification noted above with a Condition . No . 2 : "That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed project, a qualified accoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense , shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that the impact of ramp-associated noise will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in the interior of the bedroom of the resi - dential structure at 2501 Ocean Boulevard with windows open. Further, that should on-site -noise attenuation measures be required to achieve the aforementioned , that they be designed in such a manner so as to not substa.n- tially impact the views from the adjacent residential unit. " ` This letter is to advise you that the City has contracted with Bioacoustical Engineering Corporation of Santa Ana for the required report, and the consultant has concluded that the interior noise impacts from the proposed driveway will fall well , within the City Council condition of approval . This matter will be considered by the City Council at its regu- lar meeting of November 10 , 1980. A copy of the consultant' s report is on file with the Planning Department and a copy of our report to the City Council will be available on or after Friday , November 7 , 1980. If you have any questions regarding this item you may contact Fred Talarico at 640-2197. Very truly yours , a _OAK rND . HEWIC R, Planning Director JDH/kk ty Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 City Council Mting November 10, 1980 Agenda Item No . F-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 10 , 1980 TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Modification No . 2552 Report regarding motor-vehicle noise impacts from a proposed ramp on bedrooms of the adjoin- ing single-family residencd ;,located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona d'e,l Mar. LOCATIO;N: Parcel 2 of Resubdivision No. 274 , located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard, at thii= most southerly corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Suggested Action If desired , accept the results of the consultant' s noise report as fulfilling Condition No . 2 as imposed by the City Council on July 28 , 1980. Background At the July 28 , 1980 City Council meeting, the City Council approved Modification No. 2552 , a request of Carl Quandt to permit the con- struction of a sidewalk and a portion of a driveway and wall to exceed the permitted six-foot height limit within a required four foot side yard setback to •a maximum height of twenty-three feet ± above grade , and to permit the driveway and a wall to exceed the three-foot height, limit within the required ten-foot front yard setback to a- maximum height of sixteen feet ± a-bove grade , in conjunction with a proposed six-unit residential apartment complex to be developed on the site . The City Council ' s action included the five findings and 2 conditions as set forth below: FINDINGS : 1 . That the proposed development is a logical use of the property that would be precluded under the normal zoning requirements of the district.. 2. That the proposed development is a good design solution for the irregularly-shaped and steeply-sloped lot,. I TO: a Ci 0 Council - 2. 0 < 3. That the design of the proposed driveway and walk will effec- tively shield the adjacent residence from vehicular lights and noise . 4. The proposed sidewalk , drivew ay and walls will not obstruct any views from the adjacent residential property. 5 . That the proposed sidewalk, driveway and walls exceeding the permitted heights within the side and front yard setbacks will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace , comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neigh- borhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS : 1 . That development shall be in substantial. conformance with the approved plot plan , sections and elevations 2. That prior to the issuance of a building 'permit for the pro- posed project, a qualified accoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant' s expense, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that the impact of ramp- associated noise will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in the interior of the bedroom of the residential structure at 2501 Ocean Boulevard with windows open. Further, that should on-site noise attenuation measures be required to achieve the afore- mentioned , that they be designed in such a manner so a-s to not substantially impact the views from the adjacent resi - dential unit. Noise Report In fulfillment of Condition No. 2 abo-vet the Planning Department contracted with Bioacoustical Engineering Corporation of Santa Ana , at the applicant's expense , for the preparation of the noise report (attached ) . The City' s consultant concluded, and the results of their analysis indicate, that the interior noise impacts from the i proposed driveway associated sound levels are expected to fall 'well within the CityCo U ncil 1 ' s condition of approval . The consultant' s conclusions are based upon field measurements on an existing roadway, expected driveway usage schedule, and analysis of building construction at the adjacent residence. The expected noise impacts were analyzed under four conditions and are summarized on Pages 12 and 14 of the attached noise report. Respectfully submitted, TO : COY Council - 3. • PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES WICKER,, Director C /✓// by FRED A11CO Environmental Coordinator FT/kk Attachments for City Council Only 1 ) City Council Minutes - July •28 , 1980 2) Noise Report - October 17 , 1980 01 ,Y OF NEWPORT Ht_44 h* COUNCILMEN MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING '� PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: July 28, 1980 ROLL 3AL\LVA4 INDEX Prase x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting All Ayes of July 14, 1980 was waived, and the Minutes were approved as written and ordered filed. Motion x C. The reading in full of all ordinances and resolu-, All Ayes tions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to,read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Heather opened the continued public hearing Traffic/Pkg regarding proposed Ordinance No. 1856, being, Regulations AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 0-1856 AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 OF THE (85) NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT PERTAINS TO PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN RESI- DENTIAL DISTRICTS, anning Commission Amendment No. 535, a request in iated by the City of Newport Beach to con- aid an amendment to the Newport Beach Municipal Code d the acceptance of an Environmental Docume „ A report a presented from the Planning Depart- ment. Councilman Str uss stated that the Lido Isle Community Assoc tion wished the ordinance amend- ed for Section 10 10.050 A (2) to read as follows: "Not lea than three parking spaces for any structure costa ing 2,000 square feet or more, exclusive of ar a devoted to parking and open apace, unless, (a) the structure is in an R-1 District, and (b) th structure contains less than 3,200 square feet of loon-space, (c) is on a lot lees than 35 East in dth, and (d) does not have alley access. Allan Beek read a prepared stat ant which was included in the records, and asks that the ordinance be amended to require tw parking spaces per dwelling unit. Motion x The Environmental Document was accepts and Ayes x x x x Ordinance No. 1856 was reintroduced as a nded'to Noes include the language suggested by the Lido Isle Association and passed to second reading on ) August 11, 1980. Volume 34 - Page 175 I • (3 I&I r-Y OF NEWPORT BEA,; + COUNCILMEN MINUTES A ROLL CALL $f ` July 28, 1980 INDEX 2. Mayor (leather opened the public hearing regard- Application ing proposed Ordinance No. 1861, being, Expiration 0-1861 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Use Permits AMENDING SECTIONS 20.01.070, 20.80.090, (88) 20.81.090 and 20.82.090 OF THE HEWPORT Variances BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXTEND THE EXPIRA- (91) TION DATES FOR USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, Zoning IFICATION, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLI- (94) CAT Planning Commieeio endment Nd. 547, a request initiated by the City o awpart Beach and the acceptance of an Environmen Document. A report was presented from the Pla Depart- ment. Mayor Heather closed the public hearing. Motion x The Environmental Document was accepted, and All Ayes Ordinance No. 1861 was adopted. 3. Mayor Heather opened the public hearing regard- Modification ing Modification No. 2552, approved by the No. 2552 Planning Commission on July 10, 1980, and called (94) up for hearing by the City Council, on July 28, 1980, being a request of Carl Quandt, New Beach, to permit the construction of a sidewalk and a portion of a driveway and wall to exceed the permitted six-foot height limit within a required four-foot side yard setback to a maximum height of twenty-three feet ± above grade, and to permit the driveway and a wall to exceed the three-foot height limit within the required tan-foot front yard setback to a maximum height of sixteen feet +. above grade, in conjunction with a six-unit residential apart- ment complex to be developed at 2501 Ocean Boulevard, at the most noutherly termination of Carnation Avenue In Corona 10 Hill; xenod R-3. A rvpurl,was pl'ananlod Irani Iho I'innnluµ Dopid•t- moul. Alvin F. Howard, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Council. Motion x Mayor heather made a motion to grant Mr. Howard eight additional minutes for his prenentatipn. Motion It Councilman Hummel made a substitute motion to Ayes x x x.x x x grant Mr. Howard five additional minutes, which Noes x motion carried. Richard Millar, attorney representing the Hubbs. owners of the single-family residence adjacent to. the property, addressed the Council and alleged that the nighttime noise levels would exceed City limits. Volume 34 - Page 176 01.-Y OF NEWPORT 'BE. ,'Ho COUNCILMEN MINUTES A ROLL CAL\NL July 28, 1980 INDEX The Mayor declared a ten-minute recess to allow staff to determine CNEL established by the City. The Council reconvened with all members present. Planning Director Jim Hewicker read for the record from Section 15.04:170 of the Municipal Code, "Interior Noise Levels. Interior community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) with windows closed attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dB in any habitable room." I The following people addressed the Council and 1 opposed the project: Bill Edwards, Harold Welch, Peter O'Brien, Kent Moore and Michael Schulman. The following people addressed the Council in favor of the project: Ed Giddings, architect for applicant, who explained the driveway width; and Goldie Joseph. Mr. Howard addressed the Council again and stated that they were willing to accept a condition that before the building permit is granted, they most furnish to the'Council, or such other agency or body as the Council may select, a report by,an engineer to the effect that it is his opinion, based on his studies, such as they may be, that the CNEL noise level in the bedroom window of the Hubbs' residence with the windows open will not be above the 45 CNEL. Mayor Heather closed the public hearing. Motion x Councilman Hummel made a motion to deny Modifica- tion No. 2552, with a finding that the.establdsh- ment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be,detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persona residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification encroachments are not consistent with the legisla- tive intent of Title 20 of this Code. Mayor Pro Tom Hart nuked that the msL1011 be amended to include a finding that the design of the proposed driveway and walk will not effec- tively shield the adjacent residences from vehicular lights and noise, which amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. Ayou x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Hummcl's amended Nuns x x x x .motion, which motion failed. Volume 34 - Page 177 D 01 ,t OF NEWPORT BEL,.Ho COUNCILMEN MINUTES $� \ ROLL CALL July 28, 1980 INDEX Motion x Councilman Cox made a motion to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission With the findings and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, except that in Finding No. 3, the word "residences" is changed to the singular, .t "residenca," and the following Condition No. 2 was substituted for Condition No. 2 imposed by the Planning Commission: i That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed project, a qualified accoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applioant'a expense, shall demohatrat ,to the satisfaction of the City Council that the impact of ramp-associated noise will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in the interior of the bedroom of the residential structure at 2501 Ocean Boulevard with Windows open. Further, that should onsite noise attenuatio measures be required to achieve the afore- mentioned, that they be designed in such a manner so as to not substantially impact the , views from the adjacent residential unit. Councilman Cox amended his motion to condition measurement of the CNEL and approval by the Council before issuance of a building permit. Ayes x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Coats amended Noes x x x motion, which motion carried. E. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTIONI 1. Ordinance No. 1858, beings Trash Compactors AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NM&ORT BEACH 0-1858 ADDING SECTION 6,04.085 TO THE NENPORT Q6) BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING THE INSTAL- LATION OF TRASH COMPACTORS IN ALL NEWLY- CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL UNITS, was presented for second reading. report was presented from the Planning Depart- me Motion x Thu Nag- ve Declaration was accepted, and Ordi- Ayce x x x z x x Hance No. 8 was adopted. Noes x V. CONTINUED DUBIN Motion x L. (District 1) Council Strauss' appointment of CAC Appt All Ayes Judith Shelton as a memb of the Environmental (24) Quality Citizens Advisory ittee to complete the unexpired term of Doris B. chrefbor ending December 31, 1980 wan confirmed. e Volume 34 - Page 178 80/297 0 • • EVALUATION OF MOTOR-VEHICLE NOISE IMPACT WITHIN THE EXISTING 2501 OCEAN BLVD. HUBBS RESIDENCE FROM THE NEARBY CARL QUANDT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY t L% Prepared for: Newport Beach Community Development Department Current Planning Division 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Prepared by: Jqhn S: Leyeiffl.e enior Engin er 17 October 1980 BIOACOUSTICAL ENGINEERINGCORR 1833 East'17th Street,Suite 103 .Santa Ana,California 62701 •714/547-5196 „ 80/297 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORTSYNOPSIS _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FROM DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC ] HUBBS RESIDENCE INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE 11 COMPARISON OF EXPECTED AND PERMITTED INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 REFERENCELIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Y 10ACOL1511COLL ENGINEERINGCORP. 80/297 REPORT SYNOPSIS An evaluation has been made of the noise exposure expected within the Hubbs' residence bedrooms from motor-vehicle travel on the proposed access driveway for a nearby Carl Quandt development. Assessment of the expected noise emission from the proposed driveway was based upon field measurements of automobile pass-bys on an existing road. The results of these field measurements, and an expected drive- way useage schedule, were used to project the exterior Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) impact at each Hubbs" residence bedroom. An analysis of the Hubbs' residence building construc- tion was made to indicate the level of expected noise intrusion under four conditions. Calculations were performed to show 1) Noise intrusion with all exterior windows and doors closed; 2) Noise intrusion with"only windows open; 3) Noise intrusion , with only exterior doors open; and 4) Noise intrusion with all exterior windows and doors open. The results of this analysis indicates that the interior noise impacts from proposed driveway- associated sound levels are expected to fall well within the Newport Beach City Council 45 dB CNEL Conditions of Approval. EIUGI� CORR a i ,f t " 1 80/297 • • EVALUATION OF MOTOR-VEHICLE NOISE IMPACT WITHIN THE EXISTING 2501 OCEAN BLVD. HUBBS RESIDENCE FROM THE NEARBY CARL QUANDT PROPOSED DRIVEWAY INTRODUCTION BioAcoustical Engineering Corporation has been retained to perform an analysis of the expected noise exposure within the Hubbs' residence bedrooms from motor-vehicle travel on a nearby proposed driveway. The Hubbs residence is an existing single family dwelling at 2501 Ocean Boulevard. It is understood that a six-unit apartment complex is planned for construction down, the hill from the Hubbs residence. The driveway planned to access the proposed complex will' begin at the west side of the Hubbs residence and proceed downward bending around the south side of the home. The planned driveway is quite steep with .a proposed 16% grade. Figure 1 on the next page presents a plot plan of the Hubbs residence and the proposed driveway. The house foot- print and driveway shown in this figure is a copy of the plan prepared by Edward Giddings A.I.A. Architecture and Planning. The Newport Beach City Council has indicated that the noise exposure within the Hubbs residence, from driveway associated noise levels, must not exceed a specified-limit. In particular the Council requires that . . .the impact of ramp-associated noise will not exceed 45 dBACNEL in the interior of the bedroom of the residential structure at 2501 Ocean Boulevard with windows open" . In the following discussion, analyses of the projected driveway noise emission and the anticipated interior noise ex- posure are presented. The expected interior noise exposure is compared to the permitted 45 dBA CNEL limit to determine the noise impact acceptability. EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS FROM DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC The driveway proposed to access the six-unit apartment complex 1 has not yet been constructed. To determine the expected noise level form the future driveway, field measurements were made along an existing roadway of comparable grade. Data was collected for a high performance sports car (1974 Datsun 240Z) and a late model luxury car (1977 Cadillac Sedan DeVille) traveling uphill and downhill. It was assumed that these automobile types are representative of the vehicle categories which will use the 8I0ACOL15rICRL ENGINEERINGCORP. '^C �_y�_� a-� ^ �— ( • .✓ ^�� •) • N .' ��\! \.J. 'f ��4 - �• r /I J,:•� at(� r• a '.• ..'�' qQy 'av .Cf '`"` Y 60 00 ID AY'^_ '~> 7,/-.:ti 1x. / ...-•� yt: - r/ "o/ a. - 6r \��( ..f) -lffl •.,''ir�� // !f J +n7.� ..r = T -:i�.� �`,: _ .ar - - .i� '1 /— r is►F> j-� • /js _ r rr,,��r - �/ •in - �e :5 it II � /Y /ia. 7e a �I F�cfG, r �; � •IJ _ Jar' � ��''� ' •, � . '• 1141 i , Z `� tl }•' ♦yt Ji J' Tye e Zo 1• �f 14 1-,=/^` •� - ••.'-� r i` BCDRs ptB�L'Dp �� 1 - • • poll ji Si _ri7 bfusr� ti ` / t 'EL.�2re2 L'tt<,yCk (i5: (7ie1. • .(4�/ --J F�URE 1: Hubbs Residence and Proposed Driveway Locatior. Shown above are the three Hubbs residence bedrooms, the locations of the french doors and operable windows and the relative position N e of the proposed-driveway. � • s� 80/297 • • 3 future driveway. ' The details of the motor-vehicle pass-by sound level measurements and analyses are presented below. Motor-vehicle pass-by sound level measurements were made along a steep section of Park Avenue in Laguna Beach. Figure 2 on the next page shows the section of Park Avenue used for pass-by measurements. Field inspection of the roadway indicated a grade of 16% to 2a%. During measurement, of uphill and downhill travel the test motor-vehicles were operated normally for the grade being traveled. For uphill measurements the vehicles were driven at speeds of 18 to 25 MPH, For downhill measurements, travel speeds of 26 MPH were maintained, i Motor-vehicle pass-by noise level values were recorded using a _Gruel and Kjaer model 2215, serial number 615608, precision sound level meter with A-weighted slow response. The sound level meter output was connected to a Superscope model CD-320, serial number OlUg60132, professional tape recorder. The measurement posit4,on for automobile pass-by sound level recording was at a sideline distance of 34.5 feet from the travel lane centerline. During the noise level measurements, the microphone was positioned five feet above existing grade and oriented for grazing sound field incidence. Figure 3 on the next page shows two photographs of the Park Avenue measurement site and test cars ,traveling downhill. Figures 4 and 5 on the following pages show representative time/ level strip charts of recorded high performance sports car and full size luxury car pass-bys, respectively. A number "of uphill and downhill pass-bys were recorded for each car type. • 'The strip charts were produced by connecting the tape 'recorder output to a Bruel and Kjaer model 2305, serial number 71768, graphic level recorder input and re-playing the recorded- noise event. Following completion of the field data collection, the time/ ' level noise record for each motor-vehicle pass-by was analyzed to determine a Single Event Level (SEL) value for the event. The SEL value represents a time integrated A-weighted noise level which is expressed by the level of an equivalent one second duration reference signal.Z That is, the SEL value represents a single noise level, one second in duration, which contains the same amount of acoustic energy as the motor-vehicle pass-by noise emission that is many seconds in duration. The SEL value for each time/level noise record was calculated using 'the following equation. r n. SEL = 10 log I E antilog (AL i/10) Atl ll i=1 J BIOACOLIStICRL ENGINE NGCGRR 80/297 + . 4 e RANGE; CO. e I N..w»» • e� *N to .Y M � Off' . .• MQ� MA rS .s`. . ' �••F,f <�?�4. P d t+'S'".OiO tJ} .t 'gyp+o < E t,�m.�a •.r"° � •,. t R A oyo m. , 'Rt tCk t ---------------- ir FIGURE 2: Road Noise Measurement 'Site The small circle shown above indicates the section of Park Avenue used for measurement of motor-vehicle uphill and downhill travel. BIOACOusncft ENGINEERINGCORP, tc`'µ n•n •.Y Yq ., •.� - �, PPS; W...ti• 1 /( fir V � t >♦1. i l FIGURE 3: Measurement Site Photographs Shown above &re p4otographs of the Park Avenue site used for measurement of uphill and downhill car pass-bys. BIOMMCAL ENGIPr - 1 - 80/297 • h 6VO y 80 dBA • 80 dBA a, 70 dBA a __ (� 70 dBA - a N 060 dBA m 60 dBA TIME 3mm ( /Sec) TIME (3mm See) FIGURt 4: 2402 Pass-by Noise Level Roadway � Shown above are two typical time/level strip charts of high performance sports car pass-by noise emissions. The ordinates represent sound level in increments of one decibel . The abscissas represent time in divisions of one second for each three millimeters. The sound level data presented was measured at 345 feet from the travel centerline. As noted, an SEL value of 78'.6 dB was computed for the downhill measurement and an SEL of 80.9 dB was measured for the uphill test. BIOACOusnrAL ENGIA EERINGCGRR 80/297 • •: 7- 7 0 dBA 70 dBF� a a 60 dBA 60 dBA or 0 0 N 50 dBA N 50 dBA TIME(3mm/Sec) TIME (3mm/Sec) FIGURE 5: Cadillac Sedan Deville Pass-by Noise Level Recording Shown above are two typical time/level strip charts of full size luxury car pass-by noise emissions. The ordinates represent sound level in increments of one decibel. The abscisas represent time in divisions of one second for each three millimeters. The sound level data presented was measured at 34.5 feet from the travel lane centerline. As noted, an SEL value of 64 dB was computed for the downhill measurement and an SEL of 75.8 dB was measured for the uphill test. BIOACOtJSriCAL ENGINEERINGCORP. U 80/297 Where: ALi = the instaneous A-weighted sound level for the ith sample At = the time interval, in seconds, between samples n = the number of samples for which the sound level is at least 10 dB(A) below the maximum Ali SEL values for several uphill and downhill rung were computed for each vehicle type. Table I on the next page summarizes the SEL findings. Table I also indicates the energy average SEL value for each motor-vehicle type traveling in each direction. The results show that for the high performance sports car, average SEL values of 83.8 dB for uphill travel and 78.6 dB for downhill travel were determined. For the full size luxury car, average SEL values of 69.4 dB for downhill travel 76.3 dB for uphill travel were found. The 24-hour motor-vehicle Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) at the measurement point 34.5 feet from the travel lane centerline was calculated using the average SEL valuesfrom Table I and the average daily driveway useage scenario. Daily driveway useage information needed to compute a CNEL impact includes: the total number of car passbys each 24 hours; the typical sports car/luxury car mix ; and the daytime (7am-7pm)/evening (7pm--10pm)/Nighttime (10pm-7am) operation split. It is expected that each of the six proposed apartment units will generate roughly 8 one-way trips per day. Accordingly it is assumed that there will be a total of 6 x 8 = 48 one-way trips per day on the access driveway. For the purposes of this study it is also assumed that equal numbers of high performance sports cars and full size luxury cars will use the driveway. The following assumptions are made for the day/evening/nighttime operation split. It is assumed that most trips will occur in the daytime hours and that very few motor-vehicles will typically use the driveway from lOpm to lam. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that 80% of all trips will occur in the daytime (7am-7pm) , 15% of all trips will occur in the evening (7pm-10pm) , and 5% of all trips will, occur in the nighttime (10pm-7am) . Calculation of the CNEL value at the measurement site 34.5 foot reference distance was performed using the average uphill and downhill SEL values from Table I, the useage information presented above and the following equation from reference 2: BIOACOUSnCAL ENGINEERINGCORP. r 80/297 9 TABLE I :1 MOTOR-VEHICLE PASS-BY SEL VALUES High Performance Sports Car SEL Values: SEL for Uphill Travel SEL for Downhill Travel (18-25 MPH) (20 MPH) 85.5 dB 78.5 dB 80.9 dB 78.6 dB• Average: 83.8 dB Average: 78.6 dB Full Size Luxury Car SEL Values: SEL for Uphill Travel SEL for Downhill Travel (18-25 MPH) (20 MPH) 80 dB 68.6 dB 74.4 dB 69 dB 74.5 dB 70.3 dB 75.8 dB Average: 69.4 dB 76 dB 75.1 dB Average: 76.3 dB SIOACOMCAL ENGINEERINGCORR 80/297 10 CNEL = I (SEL 240Z, Uphill + '10 log (ND1240Z, Up + 3.16 NE240Z,Up LLL + 1ONN,24'OZtUp) - 49.4) + (SEL 240Z, Downhill + 10 log (ND,240Z,Dn + 3.16 NE, 240Z Dn + 10 Nn240Z., Dn) - 49.4) + (SEL Cad, Uphill + 10 log(ND,Cad, Up + 3.16 NE Cad,Up) + 10 NN, Cad, Up) - 49.4) + (SEL Cad, Downhill + 10 log(ND,Cad, Dr. + 3.16 NE,Cad, Dn) + 10 N., Cad, Dn) - 49.4) dB Where: SEL 240Z, Uphill = the sports car average uphill SEL value SEL 240Z,. Downhill=the sports car average downhill SEL value SEL Cad, Uphill = the luxury car average uphill SEL value SEL Cad, Downhill= the luxury car average downhill SEL value ND, 240Z, Up; NE, 240Z, Up; NN, 240 Z, Up = the number of sports car uphill pass-bys per day, evening and night. ND,24'OZ, Dn; NE,240Z, Dn; NN, 240Z Dn = the number of sports car downhill pass-bys per day, evening and night ND,Cad, Up; NE,Cad, Up; NN, Cad, Up = the number of luxury car uphill, pass-ups per day, evening and night ND,Cad, Dn; NE,Cad,Dn; NN,Cad, Dn = the number of luxury ca� do*ionhill , pass-b s per day, evening and nigh Using the above equation, a measurement site noise impact value of 49.5 dB CNEL was calculated for the sideline distance of 34.5 feet from the travel lane centerline on the 16% to 20% grade road. BIGACGUSfICRL ENGINEERINGCORP. 80/297 ' . 21 The motor-vehicle noise impact expected at each bedroom exterior operable window and door in the Hubbs residence will vary with its distance from the driveway centerline. The anticipated impact at the exterior of each window and door was calculated using the measurement point CNEL value, .the distance from each operable window and door to the driveway centerline, and the assumption that the noise from each motor-vehicle pass-by decreases like, an ideal point source at 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the noise source. The results of these calculations are shown in Table II on the next page. Table II indicates an expected exterior noise impact range of 45.4 dB CNEL to 51.3 dB CNEL at the exterior of they three bedrooms. HUBBS RESIDENCE INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE The Newport Beach City Council conditions of approval require that the noise impact from the proposed driveway, as measured within the Hubbs residence bedrooms with windows open, should not .exceed 45 dB CNEL. To determinb the expected interior noise exposure, an analysis has been made of the bedroom exterior wall sound control. The outside-to-inside sound control expected for each bedroom is a result of the composite attenuation provided by the overall wall itself, the window(s) , the exterior doors, and any openings in the exterior walls. The motor-vehicle noise which will' impact the bedroom' walls has -.a broad spectral character which is strongest in the low frequency (i..e. low pitched) region of the acoustic spectrum. 3 For design purposes the acoustic spectrum is often divided into groups of frequencies falled "octave bands". Each individual component in the exterior bedroom walls supplies a different amount of attenuation for each octave band. Calculations of the noise control on a band-by-band basis were performed to determine the CNEL exposure expected inside the Hubbs residence bedrooms. The noise control calculations were based upon the square footage of each wall .component and the octave band transmission loss provided by each wall component. The noise control calculations were based upon the method of analysis presented in reference 4. To identify the components of exterior wall construction and 4 determine their square footage, an on-site inspection was made of each Hubbs residence bedroom. The in-home inspection indicated . that the master bedroom has double french doors without screens, fixed windows and a small aluminum framed sliding window with screen. 8I0ACOI1'ICAL OGINMNGCORR 80/297 • 12 y , ' TABLE II EXTERIOR DRIVEWAY NOISE IMPACT EXPECTED AT EACH 'OPERABLE WINDOW AND OUTSIDE" DOOR IN BEDROOMS OF THE HUBBS RESIDENCE Bedroom Operable Window Operable Door Identification Exterior Noise Exterior Noise (See Figure 1) Impact Impact Master Bedroom 51.3 dB CNEL 50.9 dB CNEL Y Bedroom #2 48 .2 dB CNEL 50.3 dB CNEL Bedroom #3 45.4 dB CNEL 45.4 dB CNEL � 1 BIOACOU6nea ENGIM�1;&RINGCORR 80/297 • • 13 Bedroom #2 has a single french door without screen, fixed windows, And a casement window• Bedroom #3 has one french door without screen, fixed windows, and two casement windows. The octave band quieting (i.e. transmission loss) that the exterior building walls are expected to provide has been determined using a variation of the "Mass Law Calculation" . This calculation takes into account the noise reduction deficiencies imposed by low frequency wall resonance, high frequency coincidence dip, and solid-borne flanking paths. This method approximates theoctave band noise reduction provided by multipanel walls. The octave band transmission loss expected for the french doors, fixed windows, aluminum sliding windows and casement windows was determined from published information. 7 ' a . 9 . io Calculations of 'the expected outside-to-inside sound control were made under four conditions: 1) With all exterior doors and operable windows closed; 2) With only operable windows open; 3) With only exterior doors open; 4) With operable doors and windows open. The net outside-to-inside attenuation expected for each of these conditions was subtracted from the exterior noise impact in Table II to determine the expected interior noise exposure. Table III on the next page indicates the noise impact expected within each bedroom under each of the four conditions. Table III shows that with all -windows and doors closed, bedroom noise impacts of 20 dB CNEL or less are expected from the access driveway traffic. With windows, open, the interior exposure ranges from 31.1 dB CNEL to 35.2 dB CNEL. With doors, open an interior sound exposure of 37.1 dB CNEL to 41.8 dB ,CNEL is expected. With the windows and doors open in each bedroom, the interior noise impact is expected to range from 39.1 dB CNEL to 43 dB CNEL among the three bedrooms. COMPARISON OF EXPECTED AND PERMITTED INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURES The Newport Beach City Council conditions of approval require that the interior bedroom noise- level from driveway motor-vehicle activity not exceed 45 dB CNEL with windows open. The noise exposure findings shown in Table III indicate that with windows open the interior exposure will be 35.2 dB CNEL or less in each bedroom. This impact is well below the 45 dB CNEL limit and in full compliance with the City Council conditions. 8I0ACOL191 UL ENGINEERINGCORR 80/297 14 TABLE III HUBBS RESIDENCE INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE EXPECTED FROM THE PROPOSED-DRIVEWAY SOUND LEVELS Bedroom Identification INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE CONDITIONS (See Figure 1) All Windows Windows Doors Windows and I And Doors Only Only Doors Open Shut Open Open Master Bedroom 20 dB 35.2 dB 41.8 dB 43 dB CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL Bedroom #2 17.7 dB 31.1 dB 38-6 dB 39.6 dB CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL Bedroom #3 14.6 dB 34.9 dB 37.1 dB 39.1 dB CNEL CNEL CNEL CNEL BIOA=WCAL ENGINE NGCGRR 80/297 • 15 A comparison of the 45 dB CNEL limit and the "worst-case" condition with all bedroom windows and doors open shows that even under this circumstance the expected interior exposure will be 43 dB CNEL or less. Accordingly, even under the most extreme conditions of exterior wall opening, the interior noise impact from driveway noise is expected to be in full compliance with the permitted limits. CONCLUSION An evaluation has been made of the Hubbs residence bedroom exposures from motor-vehicle traffic on the proposed Carl Quandt project, driveway. The expected driveway noise impact was determined from field measurements of automobile pass-bys on an existing road of comparable grade. Measurements were made with a sports car and luxury car traveling uphill and downhill at typical driveway travel speeds. Using the results of these field measurements and an assumed useage scenario for the proposed driveway, calculations were made of the exterior CNEL impact at each bedroom exterior. Following a determination of the exterior exposure, calculations of the bedroom wall transmission loss were made. A subtraction of the transmission loss from the exterior impact indicated the expected interior noise exposure. The interior exposure findings indicated that under all conditions of windows and doors open and closed, the interior impact is expected to be well .within the 45 dB exposure limit . BIGA CAL ENGINEERINGCGRP. 0 • 16 80/297 REFERENCE LIST 1. Pearsons, Karl, et. , al. , Handbook of Noise Ratings, NTIS U. S. Department of Commerce Document N74-23275, prepared by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman under Contract #NAS1-11, 839 Task 2 for National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration, April 1914, Pages 104 through 112. 2. Pearsons, Karl, op. cit. , Pages 224 through 229. 3, Transportation Noise and Noise from Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion En Ines, prepared by Wyle Laboratories under contract 6 -04-0046 Tor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agendy-1971, Page 109, Figure 2.4-8. 4. Harris, Cyril M. , Handbook of Noise Control, McGraw-Hill _ Book Co. , New York, , pp. 20-13, 0- 4. 5. Beranek, Leo L. , Noise ,and Vibration Control, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1971 pp. 317-320. 6. Harris, Cyril M. , Handbook of Noise Control, McGraw-Hill Company, San Francisco, 1957, pp. -6 throixgh 22-10. 7. Sabine, H.J. , et. al. , Acoustical and Thermal Performance of Exterior Residential Walls, Doors, and Windows, NBS Building Science Series 77 , U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards, 1975, Pages 140 and 141, Test Number W-90-71. 8. Libby-Owens-Ford, Table entitled Breaking the Sound Barrier. 9. J.J. Van Houten & Associates, 6 April 1976, Sound Transmission Loss Test Number 382-76 (7) . 10. Sabine, H.J. et. al. , op. cit. , Pages 140-141, Test Number W-88-77. BIOACOUNICK ENGINEERINGCORP 9 0 � Jack G. Raub Company Engineering & Planning 116 9 9 9 � JV�'G\�,� July 15, 1980 N�eo00 V Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Carl Quandt Apartment Complex Effect of Driveway Grade on Predicted Noise Levels Dear Mr. Hewicker: In our report for the Carl Quandt Apartment Complex entitled, "Noise Impact on Adjacent Resident," no adjustments were made to the noise levels for the typical automobile traversing the driveway grade. We still feel that this is the appro- priate procedure for estimating the noise impact of the driveway traffic. As the driveway passes the adjacent resident's bedroom area the grade will be 16 percent. This stretch of driveway is in the middle of the total driveway, and therefore the automobiles on this stretch will be traveling at a fairly constant speed. Noise from accelerating and decelerating will, be minimal along this stretch of driveway. A speed of 15 miles per hour was assumed for automo- biles passing up and down the driveway. This speed is considered to be the upper limit of speeds that may be expected. The surface of the driveway will be smooth asphalt to minimize tire noise. This measure was initially designed to minimize the noise that might impact the Carl Quandt apartments, but has the added benefit of reducing the air-borne noise that will impact the adjacent resident' s bedroom. Our approach, as identified in our original report, is based on the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model ," U.S. Department of Transportation , Federal Highway Administration , FHWA-RD-77-1085 December 1978) . The FHWA Model is widely used throughout the United States and is considered by many to be the best model developed to date to predict highway noise. The methodology explicitly states that grade adjustments be made only for heavy trucks traveling uphill . Since it is doubtful that heavy trucks will use the driveway, especially during sleep hours, no adjustments were made for the traffic expected on the driveway servicing the apartment complex. We have since reviewed some of the previous noise studies upon which the FHWA Model is based, and other popular highway noise models, to confirm the validity of our approach. The FHWA Model 's approach to grade adjustment is based on the grade adjustment procedures identified in the Highway Research Board (HRB) report entitled, "Highway Noise - A Design Guide for Highway Engineers" (National Coop- erative Highway Research Program Report 117, 1971). The HRB 117 method is based on the noise data available in the literature at the time of the model development and states that, "no adjustment is believed to be necessary for automobile traffic." P.O. Box 5019 • 125 Baker Street • Costa Mesa • California 92626 (714) 751-2510 Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director 7-15-80 City of Newport Beach Planning Department Page 2 The HRB 117 model was later improved based on additional noise data and experience, and reported as "Highway Noise - Generation and Control" (National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 173, December 1976). In the updated model a re- vised truck adjustment factor was recommended, however it still stipulated that no grade corrections be made for automobiles. Another popular highway noise model , which is recommended by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) , is documented in a report entitled, "Noise Assessment Guidelines - Technical Background" (HUD Report No. TE/NA 172, 1971 ) . The HUD methodology is based on "considerable traffic noise data" and states, "The noise of trucks, but not of automobiles, increases on up-hill grades. . ." "The Evaluation of Noise from Freely Flowing Road Traffic," by D. R. Johnson and E. G. Saunders (Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1968) was one of the first reports to present data for varying roadway situations. They compared noise levels obtained from level roadways with those along roads with uphill grades ranging between 9 and 13 percent. When their results are extrapolated to a zero percent truck mix, the noise levels due solely to automobiles were 0.5 to 1.5 dBA higher for roads with grades than for level roadways. If these levels are added to the noise projected in our original report for the "typical" automobile, the resulting noise level in the adjacent resident's bedroom would be less than 39 dBA. This level is well below the 45 dBA level for which sleep disturbance may be expected to begin. It is recognized that the driveway servicing the Carl Quandt Apartment Complex is not the typical situation for which past traffic noise models and research has been designed. However, it does appear that current noise modeling method- ology and available l.iterature dictate that no, or at worst, a 1 .5 dBA grade adjustment factor should be applied when projecting noise levels for the "typical" automobile traversing a steep grade. All cars using the apartment complex driveway may not be typical . Some cars, most probably high performance models, may be significantly louder than normal due to the grade. For this reason , a "worst case" situation was provided in our original report. The proportion of cars approaching the worst case situation is expected to be very small . Based on the noise levels projected and the anticipated infrequency of automobile pass bys, our conclusion remains that the noise environment in the adjacent resident's bedroom will be acceptable. It should be noted that the noise environ- ment in the bedroom will not be that dissimilar from the noise environment in a bedroom facing any low volume residential street. Our conclusions that the bedroom noise environment will be acceptable is based on the assumption that the bedroom windows will be open. If the resident desires an even quieter environment, he does have the option of closing the windows all or part way. Closing the windows completely would result in reducing the noise levels of passing cars by 8 to 16 dBA, depending on the tightness of the fit of the doors and windows. Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director 7-15-80 City of Newport Beach Planning Department Page 3 If you have any further questions regarding the noise impact of the proposed Carl Quandt Apartment Complex, please do not hesitate to call me at the Jack G. Raub Company. Sincerely, JACK G. RAUB COMPANY :FFzL Fred Greve Manager of Air Quality, Noise and Energy Studies FG:mc cc: Joe Holleron Bob Kahn Carl Quandt, Carl Quandt Ranch Joe Valdez, Carl Quandt Ranch Al Howard, Horowitz and Howard 68-00-005 MILLAR 9 HODGES ATTORNEYS AT LAW KENNETH R. HODGES THIRD FLOOR DAON CENTER AREA CODE 714 RICHARD W. MILLAR, JR. 1300 DOVE STREET TELEPHONE 752-7722 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 May 16, 1980 lil S RgCEIVED g PLANNING James D. Hewicker VARTMENT Director MAY 2 01980 10 Planning Department CITY O, NEWPOt:1 -"AL" . City of Newport Beach �� cAl_r•. `/�, 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Quandt Apartment Complex Negative Declaration Determination set for May 23, 1980 Dear Mr. Hewicker: The purpose of this letter is to voice objection to the above project and to the issuance of any negative declaration in conjunction therewith. This office represents Mr. and Mrs. William O. Hubbs, owners of Parcel 1 of the affected property at 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar, and Robert and Norman Sprague, et al, owners of the immediately adjacent property. Although we have only had an opportunity to make a very cursory review of the city file, there is no question but that this project would impact severely upon the peaceable enjoyment of the Hubbs and Sprague properties and affect the views therefrom. It would also appear to adversely affect several of the units within the Channel Reef building. The nature and extent of access to the Quandt parcel appears particularly acute. Certain portions of the boundary lines of the proposed driveway are subject to current litigation (Quandt v. Hubbs, Orange County Superior Court No. 272 445) which litigation,as of this writing, is not fully and finally resolved. The proposed course of the driveway appears to pass directly by the Hubbs ' bedroom window and the noise and other traffic problems appear aggravated by the narrowness of the driveway and the density of the project as a whole. L MILLAR & HODGES • ATTORNEYS AT LAW Page two- Mr. Hewicker Re: Quandt Apartment Complex May 16, 1980 We also strongly suggest that it would be premature at this point to issue a grading permit in view of the question- able likelihood that the project will ever be approved by all agencies required to pass upon it. There is no present neces- sity for any grading work. Grading required for the project would be done only for the purposes of facilitating construct- ion. , In summary, it appears that the initial study prepared by Associated Planning Groups gives little attention to this project' s impact upon the neighbors beyond the construction phase. Since the Hubbs and Sprague properties are those which are most closely affected by the proposed project we would strongly hope that you would take their views into consideration. y. truly yours , ichard W. Millar, Jr. � RWM:pw cc: James Lorman Wm. 0. Hubbs Robert Sprague Dictated but not read S City Council Meeting May 12 , 1980 Agenda Item No . H-8( b) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH May 8 , 1980 TO : City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Intent of the Building Official to issue a Negative Declaration in conjunction with a request of Carl Quandt for a Grading Permit for a proposed six-unit apartment project at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Background The applicant is proposing to develop a six-unit apartment project on the lower portion of a coastal bluff which has already been altered by the construction of a single-family residence and the installation of retaining walls . A description of the proposed project is contained on Pages 3 through 8 of the Initial Study, a copy of which is attached. In addition to a Coastal Development Permit and review and approval from the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission , Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game , and the U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service , the applicant will also require from the City a Modification Permit, Building Permits and a Grading Permit. The first discretionary step in this process , in terms of environ- mental considerations , is an evaluation of the grading which is planned to occur and a review of existing topography, geology, soils andseismic conditions . Under this review, the Building Official may require plans and specifications to be modified in order to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental effects at proposed grading pro- jects and he may, under circumstances where significant adverse effects of a proposed grading project cannot be mitigated, deny the issuance of a grading permit. When a categorical exemption is not appropriate for a site of proposed grading work the City shall cause to be prepared an initial study , which shall be submitted to the Building Official . If the initial study shows that no significant adverse environmental effects will result from the project, a nega- tive declaration may be issued. The Building Official shall cause the site to be posted and the members of the City Council notified regarding the issuance of the negative declaration . + S TO: City Council - 2. The purpose of this report is +to advise the City Council that an Initial Study has been prepared and the City ' s Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and deter- mined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment if the mitigation measures as set forth in the Initial Study are followed. Based on this finding, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and the Building Official will make his final determination at 10 : 00 a .m. on Friday, May 23, 1980 . Prior to that date a notice will be placed in the Ensign newspaper, adjoining owners of property will be notified, and the site will be posted. Respectfully submitted, PLANNINGG DEPARTMENT �ftX� J S D. HEWPCKER Pla ning Director JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1 ) Vicinity Map 2) Public Notice 3) Negative Declaration 4) Initial Study t L y .S I.'j Q e >•., .1 a j ':^ � iil�,ra..� r�•n.. �. t •.� •:�: VI I t'rv! p uM U i w •w �•• t' ,`\�1~-..t�• t ------- ---r-�.-- - - - ,Irr•,rl O . Y:Y; �.l � �\:�T• /i �:._L_•;n V i :,.y• .o _-. P o e I : '+. /`mac• :<t>a. . 2�-_i s /I •� >k7r' °. I .`.I 1. � �r`t' ;j _ 1 j !r.:,r v � :i' L'•tT1/1 t�'�.., =,'.,�ti T.ii T� �..� 12 { j �/ e`•_. ..a: ro yr vde lilt/• . \ 1/=�: .j /c y 1/ F,: -•�rT F—_-�. i t_• 120, •IAA .I •i i.i S-.2•'1��! i i�. 1 '� � � � � tJ , �i\a, nr_r•.r. ,.;.r.i 1�'•C�::i.:': �:j Zw•.,�� %r.qc .j Ffq le It 141 r�•.�• lit,. / I I C •. i• .� J'G � lIl 2I/` di74 5�� l�'t�. .;•� \ - :-- A4 a / t j Q •Nr iIY.ww xwaw.rin rr.....,rr,+: tiarwu .! \ !:1 : 1�1'tf~•^ / "^I"` Intti�IlT rrt-fi nt 'T'h. f 'Ul,.`. : .t•: 4y\ i Ile, �� ,%�?jail tZu Li4nyS H , ./. Cj��. v \C Q e,.•�.r•• f ... i Sr 'sq �'@�,. / \ � w •S'''!��.•� a �! 1��• � �cr�.�33- t � r• ,� PROJECT LOCATIOq r FIGURE 1 s S • PUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach is considering the adoption of a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the application of Carl Qua ndt for a(n) 1-1 Variance L_i Us- Permit r❑ Resubdivis�ion I` Tentative Map Tract___ u Amendment Lxi Other_ Grading Permit -_ on property located at 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar to permit grading for the construction of six apartment units with parking facilities for sixteen cars. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. ON NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663,_ (714) 640-2216. ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been •prepared in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to .accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents,., Thd ,City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this. documentation. Copies of the Environmental' Impact Report and, supporting documents, are avaia'able' for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300' Nest Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that the Building Official will make his determination• on the turd day of May • 19 80 at the hour of 10:00 A .M. in the Building Department of the Newport Beach City Hall . • •Gene Cich , PUBLI ATIN DATE: Acting Building Director Rec ved Public n ���17 City of,Newport Beach > '.. 1 . J NEGATIVE DECLARATION • TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Ne:rport Beach, CA 92663 X Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa NAME OF PROJECT: Quandt Apartment Complex i.gll.l.q PROJECT LOCATION: 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Study INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: rW rea talarico - Environrental Coordinator Date: Apri- 23, 1980 4 ww.ww.wwrwnwwrrn..Mwwww.4µ W�KM+uwrNN�LGUYeM}MYM MGWMiWiM.6^v..y`L'LIXYTT18'.N.t'16N0.•MH4GI�0l.WVAY��A1Mw�Yw1eYIM I 45r1 Norman Sprague ,r3600 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2110 v Los Angeles, CA ,- 90010 U f• : Channel Reef Community Assoc. 2525 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 - ." C� William Hubbs. •. 2501 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 �l Carl Quandt I 21990 Highway 79 wJJ� San Jacinto, CA 92383 U V Kent S. Moore ' 205 Carnation Avenue Apt. 3 i Corona del Mar, CA 92625 C, S Christopher-0eam Ut � 1600 N. La Brea Avenue i Los Angeles, CA 90028 ' L Corona del Mar Civic Assn. Richard Succa, Pres. f 715 Marguerite Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ~ LJ`ry { 7--O t 3-- 13 ------- ------- - ---- -- - ------ ems ,—�-�-`�i ---- �---- -- gZ3a -- -At 52 •- 'J 02 So" �— P - h SEA VIEW tst sr PLACt•J ! AVENUERES h B os • I + , _ ld 17 ��.'' :15_--_—I141 iv II Q 1 121 13 I� 7 s412 so --_---J 03.1 ------' 7, moo' 6 5 it 1Q'4 32 / M MR rj7 14 R OCEAN ~ L SOUL EVARD r `-_ ;^ JI . .!/ y •-�. � � elf. '( �• ` ��� 111114 it ._• / % ` � ': '- �O � -' �.:�5�� -. - - i',.. .. 16 117 Is •• \ \--• - .✓).Yf l� \ ` !` ' 1 t � ". _ � _ sly , rl This spas for the County Clerk's Kling Stamp THE NEWI'OKT ENSIGN w PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) A STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Notice SS. County of Orange, Proof of Publication of Grading Permit I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Newport Harbor PUBLIC nonce Ensign newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub- --—1 Notica b hereby gives that the fished weekly in the city of Newport Beach, County of Or- i Building Official of the city of Now. an e, and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- ➢f-ort Beechts Deuteron,the adoption g pope ] g of a With the Application pplieav in comluarl paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the use with th. apn ea rmi al can � Quavdt for a Grading Pa[mll on prop. County of Orange, State of California, under the date of any located at 2501 ocean A,.., Caron del Mar,to permit grading for May 14, 1951, CASE NUMBER A-20178 that the notice, of the comtfumHm of.&apartment"to which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller with D°coma inn uu..far.ats.n ps) can, than nonpareil).has been published in each regular and en- Notice ts h...by further given that k Negative Declaration hit been pro. tire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement pared by th.City of N.wpan Beach In eodnsour.with the application rated thereof on the following dates to-wit: above.It is the present Intention of the City I..cc.Pi the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourage. ...be. of the 9.....I rep public to review and comment on Ihte Published May 7,198� documanl.6ot.Co'nw of the Negative ..................... .... ........... . Declared..and.up➢Daft,documents are available for public review and Iv.pacuae at the Planning Deparimevt, City of Newport Beech, 3300 wool •.•.• Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, .................................................. ... CA 9260,(714)640.2216. Nouc.is b.seby further given that • the Building Official will make his determination on the 23rd day of May, j1980,at the hour of 10:00 A.M.in the Building Department of the Newport Beach City Hall. Gene Club Acting Budding Director City of Newport Beach P.bB.h:May 7,IM in The Newport I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the cram. N8405 foregoing is true, and correct. Dated at Newport Beach, California, dayof May 19 80 ti .O inat • F0 Signature 7 F 1� ant MAY 8 1980? t� THE NEWPORT ENSIGN 2721 E. Coast Hwy., Corona del Mar, California 92625. s% f PROOF OF PUBLICATION - - - -- - - - - - - - PUBLIC NOTICE • Notice is hereby given that the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach is -considering the adoption of a Negative Declaration in conjunction with the application of Carl Quandt T r-: for a(n) ❑ Variance L-1 Use Permit_____ _ ❑ Resubdivision ❑�- Tentative Map Tract__ U Amendment FX Other Grading Permit on property located at 2501 Ocean Avenue, Corona del Mar to permit grading for the construction of six apartment units with parking facilities for sixteen cars. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663,_ (714) 640-2216. _ ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been .prepared in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental' Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that the Building Official will make his determination- on the 23rd day of May 19 80 at the hour of 10:00 A .M. in the Building Department of the Newport Beach City Hall . -Gene Cich . PUBLI AX�QN DATE: l Acting Building Director Re ved f ublic on S� y City ef'Newport Beach CJ B '-y Y ��♦JV F,Qrrf\\,,�1 t •l."•} fin; Daa)uF�3 0 Dave Da 0'Ir13aSii DATE : April 29, 1980 TO: Gene Cich, Acting Building Director FROM: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator SUBJECT:` Quandt Apartment Project Environmental Documentation 'The City' Building Director is allowed to make environmental determination in, -accordance with the provisions of the grading ordinance. Jim Lorman is familiar with the'above subject project and requirements of the grading ordinance related to environmental documents. Attached for your review is the following information: 1 . Initial Study 2. Negative Declaration 3. Public Notice a) to be published week of May 5th b) to be mailed to property owners within 100 feet of project week of May 5th c) to be. posted on property .week of May 5th The Building. Director is required to report to the City Council on his intention regarding environmental documents he will be acting upon. —You should 'place this item on the City C6uftil 'agenda,6f May 12, ,1980. You need to get agenda item to City Clerk by May 5, 1980 and your report to City Clerk by May 14, 1980. Jim Hewicker knows all about this project should you have any questions. If I can be of any assistance please contact me. _ Fre alarico FT/dt i • 2 ' r� z5("i immom(c/_ -.t-"-,_ - -- -- - - ---- i I i --- -- - --- - -- la� + .•s4l,CrW A, --- — — --- -- - ---- ------- -- - - ----- r - -------- - --- ----- - ------ —a,�j'"T -�C' �j/G/ R�G�.S ��'c'r�T/Ff✓ ��✓enf..... u � - -- ----- - - ------ -- -- - -- - --- - - -- - --- ----------------- -- ---- ----- - ore I - - va.fr,5- - -- - - - - - - ----- --- ---- ------- ----- ---------- -- - - �----' --!fir-/I/-�/j�-�/[-.{-/-/-I--- --- - ------- - - - - - - -- --- - -- ---i �I � ���i�1'_ ,V•�I��'tII -- ^V/ - - RII OF I i s I dwelt owersG7rT - �-' .�. ACC3&s � ( - - --- - --- --- --- -- - ---- ------ - ----- - -- --- 6=Va l `tF'_FS_-- - --- - --- lima - - -_ °tom-��-�' � --- ------- - -- - - -- - - Yi �3. Apr �' -,3 - �y�o�'-ram-- ��---�� ---- ----- - - - -- ------- i 7 - Ir l I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 2, 1980 TO : Bob Fowler, Jim Lo,rman, Bob Lenard, Fred Talarico , Rich Edmonston , Dave Harshberger, Bill Laycock "and Gordon Craig FROM: Jim Hewicker, Planning Director SUBJECT: Quandt Apartment Complex I would appreciate it if you would plan to attend a meeting on the Quandt Apartment Complex - DATE: Tuesday, April 8, 1980 . TIME: 4:00 p . m. _ "PLACE: Planning Department Conference Room The purpose of the meeting will be to review the proposed project with the- applicant and Coastal - Commission Staff. Please notify Kay Kamm (137) if you cannot attend. AME ' D. HEWIC Tanning Director JDH/kk CARL QUANDT RANCH August 23, 1979 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Mr Jim Hewicker Re: 2501 Ocean Blvd, Corona Del Mar - Architect Edward Giddings Owner - Carl H Quandt Gentlemen: It is agreeable with me to use an Engineer to perform the Environmental Reconnaissance for my development at 2501 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar. I understand you will select the organization to perform the study and I agree to pay for the study. If you will knidly obtain the organization of your choice for the proper report, negotiate the fee, advise, and "we will forward a check. I would like to advise that I have retained Jack G. Raub and Company of 125 Baker Street, Costa Mesa, Ca 92626 to perform and complete other tasks for my project including grading plans, survey, aerial topography of my project as well as on site topo work; Mr Joseph Holleron Senior Vice President, was project Engineer for this work. Their Job Number 99-00-156. It is my understanding that Jack G. Raub Company is also capable of the tasks you require for the study. Further I wish to advise I have asked for the service of Mr Leon Chaulet, R.C.E. of Westland Associates Ltd of California, 23101 Terra Drive, Laguna Hills, Ca 92653 to perform a soil and geologic investigation of my project (their project number: 0992) • Sincerely � N RECEIVED �• Comman1w Carl H Quandt �� De°Depi enc Owner _ AUG2 31919► 0� clr s BEacrb $� NENP�pLIF- ��a 6 C0 � 21990 HIGHWAY 79 SAN JACINTO. CALIFORNIA 92383 714 654-2691 4 � , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 1 , 1980 TO : Robert Burnham, Assistant City Attorney FROM: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator SUBJECT: Quandt Apartment Complex Pursuant to our discussion of March 31 , 1980 , I have attached for your review and approval the following: 1 ) "Screen Check" Initial Study (information only) 2) "Draft" - Newspaper publication 3) "Draft" - Negative Declaration 4) "Draft" - Notice of Determination 5) "Draft" - Memo to Building Official The "Screen Check" Initial Study was distributed to the City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee, Richard Edmonston , James Lorman , Robert Lenard, the applicant and James Hewicker on March 31 , 1980. This transmittal indicated that I would assume that the Committee feels the environmental document to be adequate - if they have not indicated otherwise to the Department by April 4, 1980 - A. M. If the Environmental Affairs Committee deems the document adequate , I will on Monday, April 7, 1980, file a copy of the Negative Dec- laration and "Screen Check" Initial Study with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors - County of Orange. Additionally I will publish the attached "Newspaper Publication" and advise the Build-' ing Official that he cannot accept the "Initial Study/Negative Declaration" as adequate for fifteen days subsequent to publication . It is my understanding of the "State EIR - Guidelines" that the above described procedures , in conjunction with the attached, fulfill the requirements of Section 15083(A) through ( F) . Please advise me prior to Friday , April 4, 1980 , should you require any of the procedures or documents to be expanded. FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator FT/kk .. 3 DRAFT NOTICE OF INTENT Notice is hereby given that the Building Official of the City of Newport Beach is considering and reviewing an Initial Study and Negative Declaration in connection with an application for a ❑ Variance ® Grading Permit ❑ Resubdivision ❑ Tentative Map Tract on property located at 2501 Ocean Avenue in Newport Beach , California , to permit the construction of a six unit apartment complex with associated parking, landscaping and construction activities . Notice is hereby further given that the Building Official intends to approve the Negative Declaration and accept the Initial Study . Copies of the aforementioned are available for public review, inspection and comment at the Planning _ Department, City of Newport Beach , 3300 West Newport Boule- vard, Newport Beach , California, 92663 - Phone ( 714) 640-2197. Additionally, notice is hereby further given that said action of the Building Official will be taken on the day of April , 1980 , at the hour of 8:00 a . m. in the Building Depart- ment of the Newport Beach City Hall . James D. Hewicker Planning Department Director PUBLICATION DATE : City of Newport Beach Received for Pub . by . d • NEGATIVE DECLARATION • DRAFT TO: ❑ Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 XQ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa AnQ. CA 92ZQ2 NAME OF PROJECT: UANDT APARTMENT COMPLEX Q � PROJECT LOCATION: 2501 Ocean Avenue, Newport Beach, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached "Screen Check Initial Study" FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached "Screen Check Initial Study" INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator Date: III • NOTICE OF DETERMINATION BO TO: ^ Secretary for Resources FROM: 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard lX� Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Newport Beach, CA 92663 County of Orange- Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE: QUANDT APARTMENT COMPLEX PROJECT LOCATION: 2501 Ocean Avenue, Newport Beach, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial 'Study CONTACT PERSON: Fred Talarico TELEPHONE NO. (714) 640-2197 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER N/A This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project has been ® approved by the City of Newport Beach. disapproved 2. The project ❑ will have a significant effect pn the environment. �1 will not 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. nX A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: onrdjn�tor Date • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • DRAFT PLANNING DEPARTMENT April TO : Bob Fowler, Building Director FROM: J. D: Hewicker, Planning Director SUBJECT: Quandt Apartment Complex On April 4, 1980 , the City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee accepted the Quandt Apartment Complex Initial Study as adequate and recommended you approve the Negative Declaration. The Notice of Publication will be published on Fifteen days subsequent to publication, you may , if you deem it appropriate , approve the Negative Declaration. Building and Grading Permits and/or Approval in Concept should not be issued on this project until such time as you have approved the Negative Declaration . JAMES D. HEWICKER Planning Director JDH/kk t DATE TO: ❑ MAYOR ❑ GEN. SERVICES ❑ COUNCIL ❑ LIBRARY ❑ MANAGER ❑ MARINE ❑ ADM IN. ASST. ❑ PARKS& REC. ❑ ATTORNEY ❑ PERSONNEL ❑ CITY CLERK ❑ POLICE 3KCOMM. DEV. ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ DATA PROC. ❑ PURCHASING ❑ FINANCE ❑ TRAFFIC ❑ FIRE ❑ UTILITIES FOR: Z ACTION & DISPOSITION ❑ FILE ❑ INFORMATION ❑ REVIEW& COMMENT ❑ RETURN REMARKS: Pon&, Olt ZNTCN r, Mfg oCL• N.s• /,tom 4 FROM' ISL ��coN+�cNTA. iFF PCs �Mr.+..TT'r hECG � �+� 717 `N �T/ !SsT� CJIS aT�uer '�c�ocaT�o� . "I�+ti NiTict� o� ub1 u w�tl b� �ub� 1.� aN jc. Ucc�rncO�TION �COSCCT' ��. S � 'RM (E� Pd0�-\ ZC`GICOCC . ---- 5---- ... vt y aN -------------- Mob y out �sGwssioa of A&AL. 3%_, 5q_O cc�cwla.�kt_E�-� 7�►J�-r/A�.. 5'���I� ,N�y Z w DMV.T, ).Cu as Papcc C>%&k`.caT�00 pnl c, Ov Ze Pmk%1J01 toll CJ aO�%ow /'Ic-S � S cctA!c4.ecac.t TN�•t'iA.1 ` M' ' 4sT ��ostice C � ,crO.lCVICO NMIcN C7°k� ASS �n�N•�•�Ttc� �i:�c.�ca(�►��L�?1J��tLN�—��� �_v� �Vic' aN Mae 3l ,�°►�0 l��'s •rratas,MtT�41 _ ,«��a► -mot z .�.,�� �uM,< ��. c �_�_ cs`s - cN��coNMGNTCI�.X c�racv�cJr W�S�� by pr_���1q � A•J�, __ �F�Nvi�McsYCK� �Fh�CS WMIM�T'CcG CAMS 4+�Mc�Cc�GZG W.``((,,0N ----- ---- teC_kQ6kCX ON Alt uN��l of E�cc��_ rno►J _, "3. w��� a►�aoTC c�+c.� Su�tvl5ccw3. �•1c�+�x��t 1—vet cc.,-. C�►__�_.1g of TtiC, ��S c�'c �1P► — _ , -c�.a -�c,u�c� c�acc��e $xoccdu�ccs i -t�,.c. C�cz1,v.�rcrticwTS Q� S�c'c�oN 15083 (fk� -r�hc� (f� . �� 6 lIsA%Ad - '�z • � � DRAFT �JTEtJ"C" , NOTICE OF 09160C MONEW ekW-0113o, oqrF\cGL- Notice is hereby given 'that the 1N 00,11g -00WqWMjw of the City is CdN51Derl;. A, C'Y2,U1lr"'W\N� /�N �S.N�TrA,S a of Newport Beach —" �.pp area eio�� o � /1NSJ,__�e�TI�� �c`Granoa �,>J�iCoNNec��01� w�T� Fa1J ,�pp,�ccaTtO.N For a ❑ variance t�S+ A�`entb9'tr�h*ZOC, \IJo cen\� ❑ Resubdivision ❑ Tentative Map Tract on property located at 2.50 k AornwolkEi , %x) to permit TIia cnQs UC—rto1� o� /4 six U.a�S ,x*Psc'CMI`INT" _�nQL>✓x �.,,;R �ssocta��C� �,6,r�W �, �a�oscap�u�_ . _ P��~a cc�Nsi cl►cTtO1J /�-'�t y►T'!�3 . r Tr ic\te !S ccG u \J dC� 'T�►c au&At t Q�lJ1YIJDS t -L„ _SC�ruc[2) �ootis aF - c a ace cN�t©1� ocr. c�.t �I Gb�G 'Foc "��.b\i� �o�awl�s.w�aS���C�c�� `� Co+.►.,�+.cNr �'C `�1�.c. N-C eACjAtzt Notice is hereby further given that said pie—kta �9 will be o anon the day of 1 19 at the hour of --3� M. in the a �s of the Newport Beach Ci ty iialI , ��i p l a era a n•• -Y Pf,k�s V• #Vc J%J. c 4/ Planning City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE : Received for Pub . BY. -- • � Y VIVO"C- (4O-2\( ,l . J • • DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 NAME OF PROJECT: QUON(71� J�(�atTMt�iTCoM�1CX PROJECT LOCATION: 250\ OrC-0-0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: u � FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: C7CG QTTU-C.�Cd �ScCGG.N L`�c�If_ �NtT/pl �tx�� INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator Date• d oatC _. •NOTICE OF DETERMINATION • DRAFT TO: ❑ Secretary for Resources FROM: 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Community Development Department City of Newport Beach ;®., Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 3300 Newport Boulevard County of Orange- Box 687 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Santa Ana, CA 92702 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE: ( A0x&r Apos'rrr%C0T (Aa•pkeX PROJECT LOCATION: 250 c.cckW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CONTACT PERSON: 1=lilEd TELEPHONE NO. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project has been approved by the City'of Newport Beach. ❑ disapproved 2. The project ❑ will have a significant effect on the environment. ¢5.,WiII not 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. TK A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the ' provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator Date d[ATG CARL, QUANDT RANCH _ C�i February 26, 1980 Y" -a 2 City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca Res 2501 Ocean Blvd - Quandt Project Gentlemen: Enclosed are the funds required for the report to be prepared on the above properties. It is our understanding that Associated Planning Group is in a position to promptly act to complete the work required. Sincerely 24 v � /lJ Carl H Quandt 21990 HIGHWAY 79 SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA 92383 714-654-2691 _°YK °�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH cg4FoaN�Pr March 21 , 1980 9 REct ta, a- n t+tzd� MAR Edward Giddings, A.I.A. Na� �iri 250 Newport Center Drive Suite 300 4' Newport Beach, CA. 92660 REF: Carl Quandt Ocean Avenue Apartment Complex Corona Del Mar, California Dear Mr. Giddings: A brief review of the preliminary plans has revealed some apparent problems which should be examined in closer detail . 1 . The drive-way does not provide the minimum requirements of 20 feet width for two drive-ways. 2. The drive-way exceeds the maximum permitted 15% grade. 3. Legal exits are not provided for the dwelling units . An exit is a continuous and uninterrupted means of egress. to a public way. You would not be permitted to exit through another occupancy (i.e. , parking garage) or the automobile � } drive-way. It also appears that two exits may be required , from the upper units. 4. Parking areas are tantum spaces and must be approved by the Planning Department. 5. The project appears to contain retaining walls- close to 40 feet in height without visible means of support. 6. Dwelling units apparently incorporate the living rock as part of the interior. This rock is of•a sand stone character which may conduct moisture into the dwelling units. 7. Structure appears to be tight up against property line with- out reference to setback. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 y, Mr. E. Giddings, A.I.A. March 21 , 1980 Page 2 8. The installation of proper holding tanks and sewage ejection pumps may pose a problem: 9. The window area appears to.exceed that allowed by the State Energy Code. In order to do a more complete review of the preliminary plans, we would need several cross sections through the building as well as elevations showing the relationship of the building to the natural grade at the property lines. We will be happy to discuss the project with you in greater detail . P.S. Preliminary plans may be picked up from Laverne Wood. Very truly yours, BUILDING DEPARTMENT Bob Fowler, Director BF:lww e a c: "Fred Talarico, Planning Dept. Gene Cich, Chief Plan Check Engineer Jim Lorman, Grading-Engineer . � m . _ 9 � Jack G. Raub Company 'Engineering •& Planning March 18, 1980 Associated Planning Group 228-A South Cedros Avenue Solana Beach, California 92705 Attention: Ms. Beverly Wood Dear Beverly: At our meeting with Fred. Talarico from the City of Newport Beach on Wednesday, March 5th, certain information Was requested for inclusion in the Initial Study of Mr. Carl Quandt's apartment project in Corona del Mar. We have assembled most of this information and I am trans- mitting it herewith. The following discussion deals with the various items in the order that we discussed them: Item 1: Duration of Construction: The project will require one year to complete. Item 2: Project Access: Access to the site will be from the street. An initial item of construction will be the driveway access to the parking garage. This will permit the necessary grading equipment access to the rest of the project. Item 3: Grading Equipment to be Used: The project will be graded by using the following: a) Excavation and compaction by jackhammers and a small bulldozer, b) The material will be conveyed and loaded onto trucks at the street level using a conveyor belt and a small crane. item 4: The Necessity of Blasting: Blasting for this project will not be necessary. Item 5: Foundation Design: We are working now with the project architect to provide a preliminary foundation design. This design will progress P.O. Box 5019' • 125 Baker Street • Costa Mesa • California 92626 (714) 751-2510 N • •l- Associated Planning Group March 18, 1980 Ms. Beverly Wood Page 2 as the architectural plans are developed. The concept of foundation design is shown on Item 16, below. Item 6: Import and Export of Graded Materials: The grading quantities for the project are summarized in the following table: Graded Quantities Cubic Yards Excavation 1604 C.Y. Embankment 19 C.Y. Structural Backfill 156 C.Y. TOTAL 175 C.Y. Total Material to be Removed from the Site 1429 C.Y. The total embankment quantity (175 C.Y. ) will be stockpiled on the site. The quantity of materials to be removed from the site is 1,429 C.Y. Item 7: A Site Plan Showing the Different Levels of Pad Grading: This colored wxhibit is being transmitted herewith. Item 8: Maps Showing Paved Areas and Areas under Roof: This colored exhibit is being transmitted herewith. Item 9: Driveway over Unit 1, Sound Attenuation: We are working with a consultant to analyze the acoustical and vibration aspects of this proposed construction work. He will recommend alternative methods of attenuation. The selection of alternatives will require further development of the architectural plans. Our analysis of overall site sound concerns is submitted herewith. Item 10: A Foundation Plan Exhibit: This colored 'exhibit is being transmitted herewith. Item 11: Resolution of the Problem of the "Offsite" Driveway: That portion of the driveway which extends beyond the property line will be narrowed from 20 feet to 16 feet. The architect has changed the plans accordingly. Associated Planning Group March 18, 1980 Ms. Beverly Wood Page 3 Item 12: A Three-Dimensional Model of the Project: The estimated cost of this model is quite high. Our client, Mr. Carl Quandt, does not feel that this cost is justified. He would, however, have colored renderings of the project prepared if you feel it necessary. I trust this information will answer the questions which you have regarding the Initial Study for the project. The information regarding Items 5 and 9, above, •will follow in a few days. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, JACK G. RAUB COMPANY Joseph Holleron, P.E. Senior Vice President JH:bp cc: Mr. Carl Quandt vMr. Fred Talarico, City of Newport Beach Mr. Edward Giddings, Architect M March i3s 1980 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 3300 Newprt Boulevard, Newport Beach. Ca 92663 Attentions, Mr Fred Talarico Res Apartment Complear 2501 Ocean Blvd Cormma Del X,ar " Certain questions arised' from the Meeting held at City of Newport Beach on March 3# 1980 regarding the environmental 'concerne of my projects followed by letter from '*Tack G Raub 'Company► -Mr Bob Strong► darted March 11•r 1980. I shall address your concerns as best as I cans a. Length of construction timer ' Ona Year b. Type of equipment to be used & noise lavelse A new low noise impact compresaor .and jack hammer ,will be used, for foundation construction. See attached literature. Just usual noise associated with conventional construction, typical of what is customarily heard iri' connection with the construction trades. o. Will blasting be useds if so, are there special blasting permits required?„ No blasting will be used. d. Where are bedrock anchors and conventional spread footings to be located► We .have instructed our engineer to design the desiredanchoring calculations for our footings and if we encounter a situation where additional anchors are necess-, cry we will comply. as Import and Export quantities► Engineer will furnish calculations on import or ,export. If any soil does not meet a compaction required, it shall be removed. Our Engineer will determine if that condition, existwo Removal shall be by a clam shell I bucket or crane and Dump Truck. Y. A model of the project would be very •usefulr My feelings are against the proposed model. We believethat a well prepared rendering emphasizing roof lines of neighboring" properties & BEyvYiew gill suffice this concern. 21990 HIGHWAY 79' SAN JACINT07 CALIFORNIA 92383 7 TZ � ,• " III ! N �#_�"il ly{ ,1. .1 , ri go Will construction equipment be brought in by xand or by Aargs from the Bay?i Cbnetruction equipment Will be 'brought by land as we propgse to build driveway first. Then the following trades or material distributors will be able to perform. Lumber trucks can drive to a.maximum of 25 per cent grade on . oonorets ramps. (Gsorgia Pacific rot. ) Concrete will be pumped. as we con attain a 2000 psi strength- with a 6} mix or if a required 3000 psi• our mien would be a ?.2 mix. he Color code pad elevation on our grading plans Our urohitect will provide this plans i. . Evaluate noise, level for unit under driveways . Our engineer In preparing, a nalse attonuati'on study and' specificationse j. Detefmins roof area and driveway area of project for evaluation of water runoof into bay. Architect will, bo instructed to provide this, Plane k. Will the driveway overhang onto adjacent property? No, I hope the above information provides you with the necesssxy answers in order to promptly'prgcede with the pieo$ebt. If desireds I can be available for any meeting you ,deem nicessary. . idt� J cc-r 10oerges �C�l Quan Hoilerbn NoDonough Maxwell Giddings ''Strong Woods 21990 HIGHWAY 79 . SAN JACINTO, OLWORRNIAI 92383 714-654-2691 0 - NOR 14 . 5 -XC 0RUS-ERIE HYDROCRANE® 14.5 TON HYDRAULIC TRUCK CRANE IIEEMI SPECIFICATIONS 8'•9" TAILSWING ,'KOTACTIOF4—� 8'-0" OVERALL WIDTH EQUALIZER BEAM RE PIVOT PIN 31, BOGIE ZLD s 0 o � o � ' 0 w „ ^ 47° A °V R A GLE _" C ^ o N z URE �" GROUND LINE ^ ULtY'R ACTED ULLY—EXTENDED 9'-7" �59"i 7 °/a" FRONT TRA K 8'-1 l%- 42" 246.85" WHEELBASE O TR GGER OUS NG REAR TRACK 38'-11%" OVERALL LENGTH (UPPER WORKS) _J • BOGIE 882896 HOIST DRUMS I Normal Range High Range Rope Capacity I Maximum Maximum Line Maximum Line Maximum With Without Type Layer Pitch Pull Line Pull Line Controlled Controlled Hoist of of Diameter in Speed in Speed Free Fall Free Fall Unit Drum Lagging Rope (Inches) Pounds (FPM) Pounds (FPM) (Feet) (Feet) 1 St. 11�/e 10,001 1,17 4,960 326 82 102 Standard 2 nd. 121/8 9,170 171 4,550 355 172 214 B-E Main 3 rd. 131/e 8,470 105 4,200 304 270 337 Model 1/2Inch 4 th, 141'A 7,870 199 3,900 413 376 470 10 Rope High 1 at. 171/2 6,350 246 31150 512 127 159 Speed 2 nd. 181/z 6,010 261 2,980 542 262 328 1 aL 111/s 10,000 157 _ _ 82 102 B-13Auxiliary Standard 2 nd. 121/e 9,170 171 172 214 Model (Runner) 3 rd. 131/s 8,470 185 — — 270 337 Model 1/2Inch 4 th, 141/s 7,670 199 — — 376 470 10 Rope Fh — gh 1st. 17 Fi 6,350 246 127 159 Speed 2 nd. 181/2 6,010 261 — — 262 328 ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS—UPPER Bore x Stroke Displacement Horsepower Max. Altitude • Make Model Type Cylinders (Inches) (Cubic Inches) S.A.E. Grosa (Feel) Detroit 453N Diesel 4 37/8,41/2 212 130 at 2600 RPM 4,000 Die el Cummins V-378C Dies V6 45/8 x 32/4 378 135 at 2600 RPM 6,000 Page 2 s (W.5.XC HYDROCRAtoo 14.5 TON HYDRAULIC TRUCK CRANE PCSA CLASS 12-88 • MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOADS-CRANE SERVICE- WEIGHT OF HOOKS, HOOK BLOCKS, SLINGS, JIBS, AND ALL OTHER LOAD HANDLING DEVICES, EXCEPT THE HOIST ROPE, SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE LOAD. BOOM LENGTH IN FEET 31.5 40 48 56 64 72 , BD OuL out. Out. Oul• Out. out• Out. Boom rigBoom riggers Boom riggers Boom dggon Boom riggers Hoom dggers Boom riggers Load JA Point Srat' Boom point Sat- Boom Paint Sat' Boom Point Sal' Boom Point Sol' Boom Point Sat' BOOM Point Set' l . Pin Lood Angle Pin Load Angle Pln Load Angle Pin Load Angle Pin Load Angle Pin Load Angle Flat Load InRalght In In Height in In Haight in In Halghl In In Haight In In Haight In IaHeight In Feat Ff:le.) Pounds Dag. (Flan.) Pounds Dog. (FlAn.) Pounds Dog. (Ff:ln,) Pounds Deg. Meta.) Pounds Deg. (Ft:In.) Pound. Dog. 07I:InJ Pounds 12 05 1 35.6 129.0001 71 44•9 29,000 74 53 2 E9,000 15 59 1 33.19 120.0001 66 43.0 29,000 71 52 2 20,000 74 Be.7 29.003 20 47 29.11 29,000 58 40.9 29.1790 64 So. 0 27.000 68 SO.9 24,000 72 67.4 22.700 74 7540 21.100 25 33 23-10 19.600 49 36.11 19,9DG 57 47. 0 20,105 63 56.4 70 m0 67 65•4 19.190 79 74 0 17,700 72 F 9 17.ID0 30 38 1 31.6 1 14.500 50 43.2 ,14.70D 57 53. 4 14.700, 62 62.9 14,00 66 11.9 14.1100 69 80-7 1420D 35 41 1 38.0 11,200 50 49.5 11,30W 58 59.6 11.400 61 69. 1 11.400 65 1 78 3 1 11400 40 30 30a10 6.600 43 44.6 8,900 Si 55.8 9.000 56 65.10 9.000 fill 75.5 9.000 45 34 38.0 7.200 44 50.10 7.300 51 61.11 7.300 56 72• I 7.300 50 25 28.7 5.800 38 44•lO 5.900' 46 57. 3 G.000 52 So 2 6,000 55 29 36-9 4,80D 40 Sl•6 4,900 47 63 6 4,900 60 18 24. 0 4.000 33 44.3 4.000 41 58.0 4AOD 65 24 34.2 3,100 35 St.3 3.305 70 28 42.6 2,700 75 19 29.9 2,200 CAUTION: BEFORE SWINGING UPPER OVER SIDE WITHOUT OUT. "'OUTRIGGERS SET" 750433 RIGGERS. MACHINE MUST BE LEVEL. TIRES PROPERLY INFLATED. Soo quadrant diagram"OUTRIGGM&SET'. Those are the Maximum Allowable Load.which BOOM FULLY RETRACTED WITHOUT)Ill ATTACHED TO BOOM POINT can be Idled Over the Side or Over the Roar. This maeMao must always be oporated with AND ELEVATED TO MINIMUM ANGLE OF 50 DEGREES.DO NOT 11FT the ouriggersdully attended and act to a distance of 2D feat between contorline.of the final LOADS OR EXTEND BOOM WITHOUT "OUTRIGGERS SET', connections with all tires clear of the ground. CAUTION: LONG CANTILEVER BOOMS CAN CREATE A TIPPING DO NOT hit or swing loads within the quadrant designated Over Front. CONDITION WHEN IN EXTENDED AND LOWERED POSITION WHERE NO LOAD IS SHOWN ON THE LOAD RATING CHART. AT A GIVEN Maximum Allowable Leads shown in shaded area limited by lemon other Than lipping. RADIUS, TIPPING CONDITIONS SHALL BE ASSUMED TO EXIST. Crane Leads donot exceed 95% of the tipping loads with the machine leveled and standing • on a firm,uniform supporting surface. "OFFSET., Angular offset from conlarlina of boom to mmorlino of jib. QUADRANT DIAGRAM MACHINE-"•OUTRIGGERS SET" MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOADS-20 FT. 7UCkAWAY JIB* 0vi4 sit, WEIGHT OF HOOKS, HOOK BLOCKS, SLINGS, JIBS, AND sit NOlt ALL OTHER LOAD HANDLING DEVICES, EXCEPT THE HOIST ROPE, SHALL BE CONSIDERED 'PART OF THE LOAD, OUTRIGGERS SET*-LOADS IN POUNDS I ..I to.l.sullomolt cs cis LOADS SHOWN ARE FOR All BOOM LENGTHS o ,• �. T w IaNaIlU01Wt ( W Boom 4 art Z utat.- c Angle o 1 1 I• �� f eoo.y o' a, In Oe 15` 30` Degrees Offset" Offset" Offset" I CIN119 OF 47 75 H.000 7,000 61000 f non' omiiccte` vr2 70 1,200 51900 51100 o.1.1 t 30 65 6.000 5,000 4130D 60 6.000 4,200 31700 On, 5,D1 55 3.400 31106 31000 NOTEt THESE LINES DETERMINE THE LIMITING POSITION OF ANY 50 2,600 3,500' 2,400 LOAD FOR OPERATION WITHIN WORKING AREAS INDICATED. 45 2.600 2,500 2,400 40 2. 0 2,000 1,900 35 1.600 1,600 11500 CRANE AND JIB SERVICE 30 1,300 1,200 1 1,200 Maximum Allowable Loads shown apply only to machines with all 750433 components In first class condition built or recommended by Bucyrus-Erie Company. Maximum Allowable Loads are based on freely suspended loads with the machine lovelod and standing on a firm, uniform supporting surface. Practical working loads depend on supporting ground, the offect of shock or aide loading, wind, and other factors affecting stability, WARNING: • hazardous surroundings, experience of personnel and proper handling, The information contained In this spocifica• all of,which must be taken into account by the operator. Ilon Is to be used only as a guide in evaluating the per. formanco of a machine.For operation of a machine always Maximum Allowable Loads are based on components and conditions refer to the capacity plate on the machine (since this shown under "LIMITATIONS" and "MACHINE EQUIPMENT". specification may apply to a different model or series). Maximum Allowable Loads are in accordanco with P.C.S.A.Standard#2. Load Radius is the horizontal distance from the code of rotation before loading to the center of the vertical hoist, line or tackle with load applied. Page 6 *5-XC HYDROCRAN& 14.5 TON HYDRAULIC TRUCK CRANE AXLE LOADS IN POUNDS • 246 INCH WHEELBASE CARRIER T T TOTAL 1 Machine (Including diesel engines in upper and carrier, It 1 full fuel, outriggers, 80 ft. boom, main hoist, and counterweight shell.) NOTE: Does not include operator. 16,619 31,400 48,019 2 Machine with Bucyrus-Erie Company Model #10 Auxiliary Hoist 16,479 32,780 49,259 3 Machine with 20 ft. Tuckaway Jib 17,625 31,339 48,964 4 Machine with 20.30 ft. Telescopic Tuckaway Jib 17,872 31,397 49,269 5 Machine with 50 ft. Lattice Jib 17,839 31,752 49,591 6 Machine with 20 ft. Tuckaway and 50 ft. Lattice Jib (1+3+5) 18,845 31,691 50,536 7 Machine with 20.30 ft. Telescopic Tuckaway and 50 ft. Lattice Jibs (1+4+5) 19,092 31,749 50,841 8 Machine with Auxiliary Hoist and 20 ft. Tuckaway Jib (1+2+3) 17,485 32,719 50,204 9 Machine with Auxiliary Hoist and 20-30 ft. Telescoping Tuckaway Jib (1+2+4) 17,732 32,777 50,509 • 10 Machine with Auxiliary Hoist and 50 ft. Lattice Jib (1+2+5) 17,699 33,132 50,831 11 Machine with Auxiliary Hoist, 20 ft. Tuckaway and 50 ft. Lattice Jibs (1+2+3+5) 18,705 33,071 51,776 12 Machine with Auxiliary Hoist, 20-30 ft. Telescoping Tuckaway and 50 ft. Lattice Jibs (1+2+4+5) 18,952 33,129 52,081 13 5 Ton Weighted Hook on Carrier Frame + 51 + 80 + 131 F 14 5 Ton Weighted Hook at Front Bumper + 144 - 13 + 131 15 10 Ton Single Sheave Block on Carrier Frame + 74 + 117 + 191 16 10 Ton Single Sheave Block at Front Bumper +219 - 28 + 191 17 15 Ton Two Sheave Block in Storage Box - 40 +310 +270 l 18 15 Ton Two Sheave Block at Front Bumper +335 - 65 +270 19 Optional 10 x 20-12 ply Rear Duals instead of Standard - +450 + 450 - BUCYRUS - ERIE COMPANY • BUCYRUS-ERIE General Offices: South Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A. 53172 d 19 © It 6 theeci policy of r design which In the to pinion o its is Company ny ... The rightwith is this to make drone's 4{ In specifications or design which in the opinion of this Company are in occerd wtli this policy, r e clo aro nacos,llated by tho onava i lability of materials The description herein Is for the purpose of Identifying tho type of machine, and does not limit or extend the express warranty provisions in any contract of sale. i Spec. No. 14.5.XC-280 2M.H8 Printed in U.S.A. Page 3 105.XC HYDR'OCRANIN 14.5 TON HYDRAULIC TRUCK CRANE • MACHINE EQUIPMENT LIMITATIONS Counterweight Main Hoist Unit: Hoist Tackle No counterweight ballast. Loads over 7,250 14,500 21,750 to 29,000 Parts of line 2 3 4 Carrier Aux. Hoist Unit: Hoist Tackle 246 in. W.B.-8 it. 0 in. wide FWD conventional cab carrier with Loads over 61500 13.000 19.600 to 26,000 hydraulic outriggers to 20 It. 0 In. spread. Parts of line 2 3 4 Boom Telescope Wire Rope Maximum Allowable Load which may be telescoped Is limited by Pe boom angle,hydraulic pressure, and boom lubrication. Main Hoist i4"dia., 6 x 25,Extra IPS,IWRC. 26.600 lbs, minimum breaking strength. Machine Weight Aux.Hoist 1h" dia., 8 x 19, Extra IPS, IWRC, 23,400 lbs. minimum Maximum Allowable Load ratings are based on a machine having breaking strength. a minimum front axle loading of 16,500 lbs. and a minimum rear axle loading of 31,500 lbs, with the boom In the boom rack. For complete wire rope specifications and reeving, refer to in- Jib Hoist Tackle struction manual for this machine. For loads over 6,500 pounds use 2 parts of line. Jibs (optional) LOAD RATING DEDUCT DATA Telescopic-Tuckaway Jib (20 Foot/30 Feet) Weight of hooks, hook blocks, slings, Jibs, and all other load Lattice Tubular Jib-11h Inch Diameter Chords handling devices, except the hoist rope, shall be considered part of the load. Jibs-Maximum Allowable Loads on main boom sheaves must MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOADS-TELESCOPIC TUCKAWAY JIB* be reduced as follows: Jibs-(when lifting over main boom with Jib attached) WEIGHT OF HOOKS, HOOK BLOCKS; SLINGS, JIBS, AND ALL OTHER LOAD HANDLING DEVICES, EXCEPT THE HOIST 20 1L Tuckaway Jib St ed ..Point ............1400 lbs. 20 R. Tuckaway Jib Stored .way J............. 420'Ibe. ROPE, SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE LOAD. 20 11:30 It. Telescopic Tuckaway Jib OUTRIGGERS SET*-LOADS IN POUNDS on Boom Point .............................2200 lbs. • LOADS SHOWN ARE FOR ALL BOOM LENGTHS 20 ft.-30 It. Telescopic Tuckaway Jib Stored.... 560 lbs. Lattice Jib on Boom Point Boom 20 Ft. Jib 30 Ft. Jib 20 FL ..........1006 lbs. 40 Ft...........1700 lbs. Angle 30 Ft. ..........1300 lbs. 50 Ft. ..........2150 lbs. In 00 150 300 0° 150 300 When hook block is suspended on boom point sheaves,the Degrees Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" load over the Jib point sheave must be reduced as follows: 75 9,000 7,000 6,000 6.000 4,800 4,000 20 FL Jlb........230 ]be. 40 Ft. Jib.......,190 ]be. 70 7,900 5,900 5,100 5.300 4,300 3.500 30 Ft. Jib ,,......210 lbs. 50 Ft. Jib'........175 lbs. 65 6.000 51000 41300 4.400 3,300 3.000 When Tuckaway Jib is in storage position on underside of 60 5,000 4,200 3,700 3,600 2,800 2,000 boom, the load over the jib point sheave must be reduced as follows: 55 9.200 3,600 31300 2,so0 2.400 2,300 TUCKAWAY JIB 50 31400 3,100 3,000 2.400 2,100 2,000 Lattice Jib 20 Ft. 20 Ft.-30 Ft. 45 2,600 2,500 2,400 1 2,000 1,800 1,800 Length Non-Telescopic Telescopic 40 2,100 2,000 1.900 1.600 1.500 11500 20 F1. Jib 125 lbs. 175 lbs. 35 1,600 1,600 1,500 1,300 1,300 1,200 30 Ft. Jib 115 lbs. 155 lbs. 30 1,300 1,200 1,200 1,000 1.000 1,000 q0 FL Jib 110 lbs. 145 lbs. 744346 50 Ft. Jib 100 the. 130 the. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOADS-LATTICE JIB* WEIGHT OF HOOKS, HOOK BLOCKS, SLINGS, JIBS, AND ALL OTHER LOAD HANDLING DEVICES, EXCEPT THE HOIST ROPE, SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE LOAD. OUTRIGGERS SET*-LOADS IN POUNDS LOADS SHOWN ARE FOR BOOM LENGTHS FROM 61 FT. TO 80 FT. Boom 20 Ft. Jib 30 Ft. Jib 40 Ft. Jib 50 Ft. Jib Angle In 0° 150 300 D. 150 300 0° 154 300 00 150 300 Degrees Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" Offset" 75 9.000 1 6,900 5,700 7,000 5,700 4,700 5,500 31700 3,200 4.000 21600 2,300 70 71100 5.600 51100 61500 51000 4,200 4,700 3.200 2,900 3,200 2,200 21000 65 51600 51100 4,800 51300 31800 31800 31500 2,700 2,500 2,400 1,800 1,700 60 4,900 4,200 3,800 4,200 3150D 3,200 21700 2.100 2,100 1,700 1,400 1,400 • 55 4,111 3,711 3,411 3,101 3,100 2,110 2,111 1,1011 1,910 1,110 1,111 1,111 50 3,500 3,200 31100 2,90D 2,600 1 2,500 1,700 1.600 11600 1.000 900 900 45 2,900 2700 2600 2,500 2,300 2,200 L400 1,400 1,400 750 700 700 40 2,30D 2,200 2,100 2000 1900 1800 1,300 1,200 1,200 600 550 550 35 1,900 1,800 1.800 1,600 1,500 1,500 1 1,100 1 1,100 1 1,100 1 480 450 450 30 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,300 1,200 1,200 1.000 900 900 350 350 350 LIMITATIONS 744347 Minimum length of boom for lattice Jib service is 61 foot. For operation of lattice jib, the upper boom section most be fully extended, hydraulically locked out of boom telescoping circuit, and mechanically locked with rear guy pendant pin. 14&XC HYDROCRANE* Page 4 14.5 TON HYDRAULIC TRUCK CRANE P HOOK BLOCKS Capacity Namher of y (Tons) Sheaves (Inches) / 15 2 41 r 10 1 32 5 36 :: _ I , . 135 130Lu� 125 y{t �Tj'rt i I lf1fil'h. }'•..r'I-..-.. �•1- 120 I I:.. �f. I„ 1� i �'Il i't ''I��t I } i t1 'ifJ 1.1 } _ lam•_ 115105 I' 100 95 �f. 30 90 8580 II�Ir�'� ,I �I ]� __ll;, �',i� !',� +k' i'� •fr,l i`o01- I;, „I. r''; I�� CI�'I� t ' �t I Z 75 i �r'i, .r, i� -�:. u-i -.f-L_.,. t.l T_."". ,:r y} � ]]1:11']_ I• -r� '�'rr C! 70 -: it TTr IT ( Ili ' 80 ' fl Q 65 I, it, J ,I '� ;, II;, ,:I r . �'I�'! •�80 I:,I II !-I �il }�;I]!t�l.,l ::: 1 rj.,; w 60 tIi _,.,1 m $$ �Irl�� ,l'- I' �_ 1' ' :�1' I__ 1 f: I'. = 5 tdtl�I '.41• it + ;��r''_ I: � j1t,5a i]l 11 ]4 Ih f '= 40>t1�'{�}i, ' _ ' I'! ] i 35- . , '�1t,^ {1�r1 ,,.�"1 -I �{u 1,1 ,, }'?'I• 3 jl { I, I--. . �{��. 'rl{ I � i., i,i tl:� i:-.0•,.+ t' ]� :1;) I i : I''-f.jTf. - �_' I 25 t , :Iiilrl� IA] f �JI IJ�I��} �I J •iJ�� -:-i I1, 11. :I}' a�' I :1- I_]-5o it I li '':I If }��';�I+r�+•"I,If t(lir�rt� fJl yf II II I Ir., 4 f I "t 1 I Oo ............... ,.t' l ' O O O r ],) ,I :I- -Ir rlrl'�7".P-fi H'r - le• r,t'•L -##F-1'-f{r. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 IOU 105 110-115 120 125 130 RADIUS FROM CENTER OF ROTATION IN FEET 833823 Pago 5 04.5-XC HYDROCRAOEG r 14.5 TON HYDRAULIC TRUCK CRANE UPPER WORKS Revolving Frame: hydraulic release. Maximum swing speed is with two position lock. Front window panel All welded, reinforced alloy steel plate can- 3.1 rpm. 1s hinged for opening. With front panel, and struction with all primary structural members glaroproof overhead panel hinged open; the boxed, for maximum rigidity. Swing Circle: operator has, unrestricted visibility. Bucket Precision hall bearing swing circle, designed seal and windshield wiper are standard. Engine: and built by Bucyrus-Erlo Company. Operator controls include hand and foot throttle Diesel engine with 12 volt electric starting and full length control levers. system and alternator. Fuel tank capacity 50 Counterweight: Main Holst Drum: gallon. Welded steel plate construction, sholl typo. Precision,high speed,planetary hoist units are Hydraulic Pumps: custom designed and built by Bucyrus-Erie Four,gear typo,tandem mounted,direct driven. Boom: Company. Hydraulic motor driven with power Total flow, 116 GPM at 2600 RPM. Master 31 ft, 6 In. to 80 ft. long, three sections full up and down. Integral automatic brake is clutch standard. power with synchronized, single lever, exlen- designed to prevent load mesp. Two spoed� Sion and retraction. Integral holding valves control is standard and on main drum. Can. Hydraulic Valves: on both telescoping cylinders. Boom extend trolled free fall optional, allows high speed Pressure compensating dual spool type, ape- and retract time is 60 seconds (minimum). lowering under full control of foot pedal cially designed by Bucyrus-Erfo Company for operated mechanical brake. smooth precision control of all functions. Boom Elevation: High speed lagging optional.Lagging fits over Hydraulic Reservoir: Twin double acting hydraulic cylinders with reeved drum, Line required for operation is Closed type, with integral baffles and return integral holding valve. Elevation from minus unspooled from top layers of drum. Lagging line diffuser. System capacity 140 gallons. 5 degrees to 75 degrees. Combination controlinstalled, then respect. Unused line Is stored lever provides for hand or foot operation, under high speed,lagging. Filler System: Boom elevation times are 37 seconds (mini- Return line type with replaceable 30 micron mum) raising and 56 seconds (minimum) low- Auxiliary Hoist Ilium: element and filter condition indicator. p1ing. A second hoist drum that mounts ahead of Swing Operator's Compartment: main drum is optional. It is a Bucyrus-Erie _2 P Company designed and built unit and in. Hydraulic vane typo motor driving a precision Independent of machinery cab with windows eludes name features as main drum. Con. double reduction planetary swing unit with on four aides and overhead for full visibility. trolled free fall and high speed lagging are integral disc brake. Brake Is spring set with Sliding left hand window and sliding door available as options. CARRIER Chassis: Rear: (Four) 15x22.5-16 highway tread Revered Specially designed and built to Bucyrne•Eria, standard. Custom extra grip tread Low —19.00:1 Company specifications. Equipment Includes optional. Inter. — 9:12:1 front and rear fenders, top frame decking, Dir. — 2.77:1 towing eyes at front and rear,steps, and grab Brakes: handles. A 60 gallon fuel tank Is mounted on Service Brakes: Air brakes on front and both aide of the frame. Standard carrier has 246 Cab: in. wheelbase and 8 ft. 0 in. overall width. roar axles. Front: 17 t/4 in.x4 in. Ono-man type offset to left side of carrier. Outriggors: Rear: 1614 in.x7 In. West Coast type mirrors standard. Hydraulically powered,double box type weld- Parking Brakes: Maxi spring loaded brake H Y y P YP chambers on both rear axlea with reserve ed'to frame, front and rear. Two stage tele. (emergency release) air lank. Instruments: scoping beams extend to 20 ft. contortion to Speedometer, voltmeter, tachometer, oil prea- contortine of vertical jacks and retract to 8 ft. Steering: sure indicator, fuel gauge, water temperature overall width.High strength alloy steel Is used throughout. Vertical cylinders are equipped Hydraulic power assist type Is standard, indicator, air pressure gauge, and low air with double lock valves designed to provost pressure warning device, drift either up or down. Alloy steel finale Power Plant: are self-storing when vertical cylinders are General Motors 6V-53N diesel engine, 6 cylin- retracted. Standard controls are located in dor, 318 cu. in, displacement is standard. Accessories: crane operators cab. Rating Is 210 HP (SAE groan) at 2800 RPM, Standard equipment includes: sealed boom 12 volt electric starting system. Cummins headlights, tall and stop lights, dome light, Axles: V-555 and VT-555 engines are optional. front and rear directional signals, clearance Front Axle: Non-driving type. 78n/4 in. track. lights and reflectors, electric horn, windshield Dynamic capacity Is 20,000 pounds. Clutch: washer and wiper, and heater and defroster, Rear Axles: Rockwell Standard SLHD with 13 In. diameter, two plate. Optional equipment Includes: Spare tire and Intercede differential. Dynamic capacity rim, air horn, hounnolor, low oil pressure of tandem, 34,000 pounds. 70 Inch track. Transmission: warning device, back-up alone, heavy duly 6167:1 ratio standard. Fuller RT-613 with 13 speeds forward and 3 cooling package, Jacobs engine brake, spot- reverse. Roadrangor typo with single shift light, and hook block storage box. Suspension: laver. Front: Spring suspension with shock absorbers. Ratios. Geared Speed: Rear: Tandem walking beams. Forward With standard engine at governed speed Wheels: let —18.00:1 8th — 3.29:1 (MPH): Maximum 56 Steel spoke type. 2nd —14.04:1 9lh — 2.62:1 3rd —10.96:1 loth — 2,05:1' 4th — 8.64:1 llth — 1.60:1 Miscellaneous: Tires: Sth — 6.74:1 12th — 1.24:1 GVW Rating (pounds) 52,000 Front: (Two) 15 x 22.5-16 ply,highway tread 61h — 5.26:1 13th — 1.00:1 Turning Radius 51 ft. standard. 16.5 x 22.5-16 ply optional. 7th — 4.09:1 Clearance Radius 53 ft. i y, $UPERTEX � I II S x _ 6 .f t :: - M Ai"MgL u .. All Super TEX 6 kers have one very important thing in common:RelaWly light weight in relation to their high impact energy—which guarantees that a minimum of lifting is involved in exploiting their large breaking capacity. The ratio between stroke and cylinder diameter has been selected to give the greatest possible impact energy with the least possible recoil. This results in increased output due to less fatigue. Experience and tests have supplied a good thumb-rule for choosing breakers: If the running time at each point is less than 5-10 seconds—choose a lighter breaker. If the running time is MEAN TO longer than 20-30 seconds —take a heavier one. But the last decisive factor CONCRETE, is still the combination impact force weight. ASPHALT e order it work most O effectively, it is very im- AN D ROCK portant stable to use the most,----* ost,- -* suitable tool for the job • even if it is only for a short 75 years in the compressed air busi- period. Changing tools on ness and over 50 years of manufac- a Super TEX breaker is a turing pneumatic breakers:Enough matter of seconds:Kick time for Atlas Copco to build up a down tool retainer, switch reputation as makers of high-quality tools, close retainer equipment combining high technolo again—that s all. with, wherever possible, simplicity of Effectively silenced breakers—regardless of make design. Enough experience to develop —sometimes have a very annoying"freezing problem". a series of modern, rugged breakers— When a breaker is silenced, the exhaust air reaches the new Super TEX. very low temperatures. Under certain conditions, { The Super TEX series ranges from the water content in the compressed air might freeze easy-handled pick hammers to power- before it can be dispersed into the surroundings. ful, heavy-duty breakers. So whatever Result:ice in the silencer. your special problem might be— The only effective solution to this problem is to concrete, asphalt, rock,or any other remove the water before the air gets into the breaker. material—there is always a Super That's why all silenced Super TEX breakers can be TEX for the job. used together with the new Atlas Copco water sepa- rator, which—working on the centrifugal principle — removes up to 98%of the water from the air. If you are a leader on silencing, you have got to be a leader ` on water separation. - �y a . . mw in Th Y 4 w i` -NNNW The D-shaped h�e on the lightest breaker, the Super TEX 11, is made of a new plastic which offers seve- ral advantages: It is lighter, it dampens high frequency vibrations, and it feels cooler in hot weather and war- mer in cold weather. I � The handles of the medium sized and the heavy breakers now have an ergonomically correct working KIND TO position:They point slightly upwards and to the rear from the center of the backhead—whichmakes work THE MAN much less fatiguing for the operator. The handles are vertically oval at their inner part to offer a good lifting WHO grip, and the outer part is horizontally oval offer a larger contact area for the operator when pressing ssing HANDLES IT. down the machine. Further, their special construction significantly reduces vibrations. No longer do contractors have to advertise for"muscle-men". Ergonomic L_ design—conceived by engineers and medical experts—has made pneumatic It is unavoidable that an unsilenced pneumatic breakers much easier to handle. Vi- breaker makes a lot of noise. This noise is produced by bration and recoil have been reduced. the mechanical parts, from the impact operation itself Noise, a major factor where both the and from the exhaust air. operators health and the environment Atlas Copco silencers reduce the low frequency are concerned, can now be minimized. exhaust air noise by 13—16 dB(A) and also muffle a large The new Super TEX series offers share of the mechanical parts noise. This minimizes the some further ergonomic improve- risk of damage to the hearing as well as stress and ment:The handles of all breaker types fatigue as high frequency noise from the operation are more comfortable and more itself can be avoided to a large extent by use of hearing effectively vibration damped, the silenced versions of the horizontally protection. used machines have a directable air ex- Super TEX breakers have smooth surface and haust, and the silencer has been stream- rounded corners so that they don't get caught up in lined. clothing.The smooth back of the breaker makes it easier to brace in vertical working position. While using the light breaker in horizontal position or in confined spaces, the exhaust air from a fixed outlet can be reflected by walls or other surfaces and cause considerable inconvenience to the operator. + The new silenced Super TEX 11S is provided with a swivel nozzle,which now allows the air to be blown in any desired direction. "C51 L . 4 , b� x � I ��1 1 ri+ � � 7 1 The front head o Super TEX breaker is designed so that the tool cow is supported during the entire impact. This gives perfect guiding and maximum impact energy is transmitted directly to the tool.Wear on the retainer is reduced, service life for the breaker and for the tools is increased. 0 BREAKING The reliability h the front head has been con- siderably improved through a new design of the tool retainer. A rugged construction comprising a rectan- W ITH O UT gular metal core which is rotated in a strong plastic buffer has replaced the former spring arrangement. BREAK_ This assures that the retainer will not open involun- tarily. DOWNS. When designing our new pneumatic breakers, the aim was to produce eco- nomical, reliable and easy to handle machines that could stand rough treat- ment without breaking down. The materials in the machine parts are specially selected to give the greatest possible strength combined r with the greatest possible resistance to wear. All Super TEX breakers are 100%tested;each part goes through a rigorous control during production. And after assembly each machine is run and checked for correct air con- One of the many advantages of the Super TEX sumption and number of blows per breakers is the idling safety. This means that effective minute. cushions of trapped compressed air are automatically formed on the upper and lower faces of the piston as it moves in the cylinder. These air cushions conse- quently contribute to less stress on the involved parts ,F and reduce spare parts consumption. y 4 s _ .,•,. a 4r SF 4 t r x e �.�►1P \i. R,.. 1 1 -M� �e THE TOOL The only care a Super TEX breaker asks for THAT DOESN'T besides 1/4 oz (2 ml)of lubrication oil poured into the hose(or the air inlet)every morning—is an occasio- N E E D nal check-up of the exhaust chamber for dirt, water or ice. The intermediate part of the silencer—called ATOO L BOX. the outer sleeve—is easily removable without stripp- ing the whole breaker:It is turned slightly, pushed down—and the exhaust chamber is laid open for Atlas Copco believe that for a breaker inspection. service life is all important:Service intervals should be long and the ser- vice itself should be fast. Based upon the results of an exten- sive research and development pro- gram the new Super TEX series has a very simplified design.The risks of break-downs are reduced and no ser- vice job takes more than a maximum of 2 hours, regardless of the repairs required and the model concerned. ru The upper and lower parts of the silencer can only be removed by dis-assembly of the whole breaker. ^..,,. But this is very easily done:A super TEX breaker can be taken apart and put together again with an ordi- nary torque wrench.Just two side bolts lock the whole hammer, and there are no additional clamps needed to fasten the silencers on the 21 S, 31 S or the 41 S. The Super TEX series is built up on a component system:A majority of parts fit more than one breaker. Thus, if a number of breakers are in use, spare parts stocking and hence costs can be kept down considerably. ' _. . ��:: }.]� . �' ,. �Y-.�- A pneumatic bre is only as good as its tools. A good toofWuld be hard in order to last and tough in order to resist bending. That's why Atlas Copco tools are forged of high-quality steel and care- fully hardened. g Super TEX breakers and a range of 11 tools are, THE TOOL specially made for each other:The tool shank is made THAT DOES according to international standard,and so is the hexa- ITALL o hole in the front head. The impact surface of the tool shank is ground Flat and bevelled in order to form a correct angle to the anvil. In this way, maximum impact energy is transmitted to the point of the tool No matter what you expect from a without unnecessary stress on the front head of the good pneumatic breaker—to demolis breaker. Super TEX breakers and tools are also tested brick or other constructions of hard together: An Atlas Copco guarantee for high capacity material, to break asphalt, concrete, and greatest effectiveness. loose rock formations or frozen The medium sized and ground, to excavate, to tamp, or even the heavy breakers can to drive sheeting piles—no problem, easily be converted into the Super TEX can do it all. It's a real Jack-of-all-Trades! sheeting drivers: Remove front head and anvil block, and the sheeting set can be fitted and screwed tight 44F with the nuts for the side 00 bolts. The sheeting driver assembly has handles to make the equipment easier to work with and the guide- system for the sheet piles is simple to adapt between 2"-3"(50 and 75 mm). By the way—the machine can also be purchased complete as a ready-to-use sheeting driver—which shows, once again, that a manufacturer with more than 75 years of exper- ience in his field can really make it easy for his clients. O Cho Cam- Cam; 0 0 0T.. ❑ ❑ ❑ I TEX I I OCS TEX Il TIC TEX LI OXS TEX I I OK TEX 111 TX D ❑ L� CCC��� ❑ D � TEX 21S TEX 21 TEX 31S TEX 31 TEX I 1 5 TEX 41 PISTON IMPACT AIR TOOLSHANK HOSE TYPE MASS LENGTH DIAMETER STROKE FREQUENCY REQUIREMENTS MM(IN) CONNECTION KG LB MM IN. MM IN. MM IN. N2 BLOM MIN. LS. M MIN CFM HEX ROUND MM IN. TEX II DC 94 20.5 600 23': 38 I'"i 135 5' 26.7 1600 22,4 1,3 OJ 22 P2,S l'x 3'nl Y25�JS 12 TEX ROCS IO.fi 23.5 fi00 23�5 38 1'/�� 195 5'//J 26,1 I600 22,4 1.3 4J 22 tl2,5 fix 3`Lu) 125-75 12 ��5x TEX II OXS 1/,5 Y5,6 590 33 38 1!$ 135 SYe 26,7 1600 22.4 1.3 47 22.82.51;;:9%1 12 t4 TEEIITK IT3 25.0 570 22'; 38 1'j 135 5' JI.: 26,1 1600 22.4 1.2 42 22 02,51'r 3' 12 TEX I I TKS 12.5 275 570 22�ON {{ 38 1'��jjj 135 5$$S. 26J 1600 22A 1.3 47 22.92.5I'e 3',i 12 $$p TEX 21 TEX 21S 22,8 58 850 25Jj 44 13{ 320 2 25,0 1500 2225 .1 1.3 4J 28�I60(11w.81 19 19 $ e TEX 31 260 57 110 28'a 52 211e 155 6'A IB.fl 1130 28,4 1,2 60 28 1601 ' 61 19 TE%31S 2B8 63 )10 28', 51 Y5" 155 6-e IB.tl 130 284 L7 60 OA 16011'.: 61 19 3' 8 TEX41 32.6 22 740 29 58 2�( 165 8 18.5 IIIO 38,8 2,3 82 28'I60 Ud6 61 Ig y@ TEX 41S 35.5 28 240 29 gg to 165 6 18.5 1110 39:8 25 82 0322 160111u 61 18 '• TEP 41 56 129 830 321 58 21, 165 6'2 165 1110 38.8 2,3 82 19 ^. TEP 41S 61 134 830 325 58 21, 165 61'p 18,5 1110 38.8 2.3 82 19 yS� 3 8 - SOLD AND SERVICED .IIIILtS COPEYI BYTHEWORLD-WIDE - ATLAS COPCO ORGANIZATION A 11063 Look at the extra benefits offered by the XAS-80 • Rugged girder chassis • Proved rotary compressor technique from the specialists in screw compressors—fewer . • Over-run and parking brakes moving parts; long life, low maintenance • Tough torsion-bar suspension for fast—or costs I rough towing • Continuous compressor throttling and -en- gine speed regulation govern air output in accordance with demand, another fuel canopies, built to last economy • New patented asymmetric rotor profile for • Large capacity fuel tanks for full-shift high efficiency, lower fuel costs operation Principal data: noise level at full load COMPRESSOR max.speed&norm.all working pressure max,elf,work.pressure bar 8.5 (at 7 m distance acc. dB(A) psi 123 IS02151) 76 norm.eff.work pressure bar 7 ENGINE psi 102 type F31_912 cooling system air speed,norm.&max.during load r/min 2500 no.of cylinders 3 speed,during no load act.free r/min 1400 cap of oil sump(approx) 8 air delivery" I/s 80 US.gal 21 m'/min 48 cap of fuel tank(approx) 1 120 clm 170 US.gal 31 7 fuel consumption USgal/h 262 no.of compression stages 1 1 cooling system oil ° lull load,max speed and normal working pressure at 9 Y following following inlet net. cap.air receiver(approx.) I 30 •abs mitt air pressure la 1 bar(1 02 kg/cml,14 6 psi) cu If 79 •inlet art temp.inlet coolant temp = 1 5-C(6(60°F) DIMENSIONS overall length(A) AFBt (over bumpers) 3730 mm 147 in overall width(B) 1650 mm 65 in e overall height(C) 1625 mm 64 in 0 Net mass A 1190 kg 26251b AWasCopon ...Atlas Copco Inc., 70 Demarest Drive, Wayne, N.J. 07470 (201) 696-0554 i XAS� 80 Silenced to 76 dB A An oil flooded screw silenced air compressor designed for jobs where noise must be kept to a minimum. Delivers 170 cfm free air up to 123 psi. 'r s • -1 *Jack- G: Raub C®ifpae .0 ,. Engineering & Planning ." Po Boc KR • 125 Bokn Sveet Coln Moso • GaHrn q2626 01,0 751-290 INTEROFFICE MEMO TO DISTRIBUT 3/11/80 FROM BOB STRONIO DATE SUBJECT APARTMENT COMPLEX, CORONA DEL MAR -- - - ----- - -- - - -- ---- ---- --- --- -- - -- - --- - - --- - --- - - ---- --- ----- -- - - -- - On March 5 , 1980 a meeting was held' at the City of Newport Beach to discuss the environmental concerns of the project. In attendance were : Fred Talarico - City Planning Beverly Wood - Associated Planning Group Ross Maxwell - Ed Giddings AIA Joe Holleron - Jack G . Raub Company Bob Strong - Jack G. Raub Company Items of Discussion: 1) . The following items of information were determined to be necessary for Beverly to prepare the initial draft study. a. Length of construction time , (earth work and building) . b. Type of equipment to be used and its noise level . C. Will blasting be used ; if so , are there special blasting permits required. d. Where are bedrock anchors and conventional spread footingsto be located. e. Import and export quantities . f. A model of the project would be very useful . g . Will construction equipment be brought in by land or by barge from the Bay. h. Color code pad elevations on our grading plan. i. Evaluate noise level for unit under driveway. j . Determine roof area and driveway area of project for evaluation of water runoff into the Bay. k. Will the driveway overhang onto adjacent property. r • J Distribution 3/11/80 Page 2 After the meeting Joe and I discussed the questions and decided to set up another meetin g with the project architect, soils engineer and Carl to discuss a plan of attack and answer as many questions as possible. RMS :dl Distribution: Fred Doerges Joe Holleron Denny McDonough Ross Maxwell Carl Quandt 68-00-004 EARL QUANOT RANCH March 13, 1980 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 3300 Newprt Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Attention: Mr Fred Talarico + Re: Apartment Complex, 2501 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar Certain questions arised from the meeting held at City of Newport Beach on March 5, 1980 regarding the environmental concerns of my project, followed by letter from Jack G Raub Company, Mr Bob Strong, dated March 11 , 1980 . I shall address your concernss as best as I can: a. Length of construction time: One Year b. Type of equipment to be used & noise levels: A new low noise impact compressor and jack hammer will be used for foundation construction. See attached literature . Just usual noise associated with conventional constructions typical of what is customarily heard in connection with the construction trades . c. Will blasting be used; if so, are there special blasting permits required? No blasting will be used. d. Where are bedrock anchors and conventional spread footings to be located: We have instructed our engineer to design the desired anchoring calculations for our footings and if we encounter a situation where additional anchors are necess- ary we will comply. e . Import and Export quantities: Engineer will furnish calculations on import or export. If any soil does not meet a compaction required, it shall be removed. Our Engineer will determine if that condition exists. Removal shall be by a clam shell bucket or crane and Dump Truck. f. A model of the project would be very useful: My feelings are against- the proposed model. We believe that a well prepared rendering emphasizing roof lines of neighboring properties & Bay' View will suffice this concern. 21990 HIGHWAY 79 SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA 92383 714- 654-2691 EARL QUANOT RANCH g. Will construction equipment be brought in by band or by Barge from the Bay?: Construction equipment will be brought by Land as we propose to build driveway first . Then the following trades or material distributors will be able to perform. Lumber trucks can drive to a maximum of 25 per cent grade on concrete ramps. (Georgia Pacific ref. ) Concrete will be pumped, as we can attain a 2000 psi strength with a 62 mix or if a required 3000 psi, our mix would be a 7.2 mix. ! h. Color code pad elevation on our grading plan: Our architect will provide this plan. I i. Evaluate noise level for unit under driveway: Our engineer is preparing a noise attenuation study and specifications . J . Determine roof area and driveway area of project for evaluation of water runoof into bay. Architect will be instructed to provide this plan. k. Will the driveway overhang onto adjacent property? No . I hope the above information provides you with the necessary answers in order to promptly procede with the project. If desired, I can be available for any meeting you deem necessary. Carl H Quandt cc: Doerges Holleron McDonough Maxwell Giddings Strong Woods 21990 HIGHWAY 79 SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA 92383 714-654-2691 XAS 80 Silenced to 76 dB CAS An oil flooded screw silenced air compressor designed for jobs where noise must be kept to a minimum. Delivers 170 cfm free air up to 123 psi. Look at the extra benefits offered by the XAS-80 • Rugged girder chassis • Proved rotary compressor technique from • Over-run and parking brakes the specialists in screw compressors—fewer moving parts; long life, low maintenance • Tough torsion-bar suspension for fast—or costs rough towing • Continuous compressor throttling and en- gine speed regulation govern air output in accordance with demand, another fuel canopies, built to last economy • New patented asymmetric rotor profile for • Large capacity fuel tanks for full-shift high efficiency, lower fuel costs operation Principal data: noise atload COMPRESSOR max.speeid&niorm elf max eff.work pressure bar 8,5 working pressure P (at 7 m distance ace. dB(A) psi 123 IS02151) 76 norm.eff.work.pressure bar 7 ENGINE psi 102 type F31_912 speed,norm.&max.during load r/min 2500 cooling system air P 9 no.of cylinders 3 speed,during no load act.free r/min 1400 cap.of oil sump(approx.) 1 8 air delivery' I/s 80 US.gal 2.1 m'/min 4.8 cap.of fuel tank(approx.) 1 120 ctm 170 US.gal 31.7 fuel consumption USgal/h 2.62 no.of compression stages 1 1 •at full load,max,speed and normal working pressure at cooling system oil following Inlet conditions cap.air receiver(approx.) I 30 .abs,Intel air pressure - 1 bar(1.02 kg/cml,14.5 psi) cu.ft. 7.9 .inlet air temp.inlet coolant temp. - 15°C(60'F). DIMENSIONS overalllength(A) (over bumpers) U 3730 mm 147 in overall width(B) 8 1650 mm 65 in overall height(C) 4 1625 mm 64 in 0 5 Net mass A 1190 kg 2625 Ito ,/ltlaslnpoo ...Atlas Copco Inc„ 70 Demarest Drive, Wayne, N.J. 07470 (201) 696-0554 i 7ET `) D �° n 3 MUM TEX 13 OC TEXIJOKS 6 TEX 110K TEX 11 TKS TEX11TK kl p 13 G n a O 13 n i I TEk 215 1w" - TEK315 I 7EX31 - 'TEX 412i TEX41 ppI5T0!I11 - IMPACT AIR T00II,,5NANK HdSE TYOE mAss LENGTH OIAMETER STROKE FREQUENCY RE0131ftEMENTS MMIINI CdNNECNON tt KG to MM PC MM IN 5t!d IN. 1Td BLGIVS," 1 Tb NJN & NEX�� fl0UN0 Mtd I}$N ( j rl. TEXII OCS 20TEXjjDC .6 23,5 G00 23 38 1� •135 5� 36,7 1600 T24 3.3 47 22Y11,5(Iiv3/.1 P.25 11 12 yi p Ai N TEX/ulI( 20,3 - n.t `30 231. JB 1'+ 135 S1 -20 -moo 22,4 /,3 d7 22+82.5114`3,'J IT +l TEX 110KS 1i5 25.5 590- 231. 38 11' 135 51+ .0.7 4000 .22.4 33 4] 22 82.4, 11 }i ' - TEX IITK 11.3 25,0 570 22Ni 38 _ 2 135 5}j 26,7 •1600 22,4 113 47 22.82,5[ +,31Ii) 12 F TEXIITKS J2,5 27,5 570 29 38 19 135 5$ 2617 160D 2T,4 ],3 4] 22..82,51n.3;4) 12 x 1 TTfEXX➢5 22;8 45 HSO 25„I 44 11 121 d'. 25,00 ISOD 22,'1 1,3 - 47 2E•160 A15`E) 13 ^ o S - 120 43/ 250 ]SD0 ^21' ,1,3 47 28 160(3I •B) 19 yia� ' X7_ _ - _.. — ' �$ y� ,E 28.1G0111�e G) 2. EXX 315 28.8 53 72D 28}/ 52 9. 155 6ya 15,8 1130 28,4 3.7 17 50 32 1 ml5 3i yM 16011,a•61 ^•TEX 41 3T,E 72 740 ^9 r SIR - '165' 561{ 18,5 ]110 3388 , 2.3 Sl e_�..��..a...1�.9 TEX 415 35.5 79 7100 .20 65 IBS 70 SG 0 2 E41 82AA uu1 . 2,3 t-T 5 61 234 830 32 5 165 85 1110 38,8 23 .� + BT .j�Y.drX4(743fJC,tC1 PYTHE%V,)RLG--WlDF 4 COPCO nq;ANItZATIGN CARL QUANDT RANCH March 13, 1980 City of Newport Beach Community Delopment Department 3300 Newprt Bevoulevard Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Attention: Mr Fred Talarico Re: Apartment Complex, 2501 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar Certain questions arised from the meeting held at City of Newport Beach on March 59 1980 regarding the environmental concerns of my project, followed by letter from Jack G Raub Company, Mr 'Bob Strong, dated March 119 1980 . I shall address your concernss as best as I can: a. Length of construction time: One Year b. Type of equipment to be used & noise levels: A new low noise impact compressor and jack hammer will be used for foundation construction. See attached literature . Just usual noise associated with conventional constructions typical of what is customarily heard in connection with the construction trades . c. Will blasting be used; if so, are there special blasting permits required? No blasting will be used. d. Where are bedrock anchors and conventional spread footings to be located: We have instructed our engineer to design the desired anchoring calculations for our footings and if we encounter a situation where additional anchors are necess- ary we will comply. e . Import and Export quantities: Engineer will furnish calculations on import or export. If any soil does not meet a compaction required, it shall be removed. Our Engineer will determine if that condition exists. Removal shall be by a clam shell bucket or crane and Dump Truck. f. A model of the, project would be very useful: My feelings are against the proposed model. We believe that a well prepared rendering emphasizing roof lines of neighboring properties & Bay% View will suffice this concern. 21990 HIGHWAY 79 SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA 92383 714-654-2691 CARL QUANN RANCH g. Will construction equipment be brought in by Land or by Barge from the Bay?: Construction equipment will be brought by Land as we propose to build driveway first. Then the following trades or material distributors will be able to perform. Lumber trucks can drive to a maximum of 25 per cent grade on concrete ramps. (Georgia Pacific ref. ) Concrete will be pumped, as we can attain a 2000 psi strength with a 62 mix or if a required 3000 psi, our mix would be a 7.2 mix. h. Color code pad elevation on our grading plan: Our architect will provide this plan. i. Evaluate noise level for unit under driveway: Our engineer is preparing a noise attenuation study and specifications. j . Determine roof area and driveway area of project for evaluation of water runoof into bay. Architect will be instructed to Provide this plan. k. Will the driveway overhang onto adjacent property? No . I hope the above information provides you with the necessary answers in order to promptly procede with the project. If desired, I can be available for any meeting you deem necessary. i t Carl H Quandt cc: Doerges Hoileron McDonough Maxwell Giddings Strong Woods 21990 HIGHWAY 79 SAN JACINTO, CALIFORNIA.92383 714-654-2691 XAS� 80 Silenced to 76 dB CAS An oil flooded screw silenced air compressor designed for jobs where noise must be kept to a minimum. Delivers 170 cfm free air up to 123 psi. Look at the extra benefits offered by the XAS-80 • Rugged girder chassis • Proved rotary compressor technique from • Over-run and parking brakes the specialists in screw compressors—fewer moving parts; long life, low maintenance • Tough torsion-bar suspension for fast—or costs rough towing • Continuous. compressor throttling and en- gine speed regulation govern air output in canopies, built to last econoaccomy with demand, another fuel Y • New patented asymmetric rotor profile for • Large capacity fuel tanks for full-shift high efficiency, lower fuel costs operation Principal data: noise level at lull load COMPRESSOR max.speed&norm,elf max,elf.work.pressure bar 8,5 working pressure psi 123 (at SO2151jtanceacc. dB(A) 76 norm elf.work.pressure bar 7 ENGINE psi 102 type F31_912 speed,norm.&max.during load r/min 2500 cooling system air P 9 no.of cylinders 3 speed,during no load act free r/min 1400 cap.of oil sump(approx.) I 8 air delivery' I/s 80 US.gal 2.1 m'/min 4.8 cap of fuel lank(approx.) 1 120 ctm 170 US gal 31.7 fuel consumption USgal/h 2.62 no.of compression stages 1 1 -at lull load,max.speed and normal working pressure at cooling system oil following Inlet conditions. cap air receiver(approx) 1 30 •abs.Inlet air pressure - 1 bar(1.02 kg/cm'.14.5 psi) cu.ft. 7.9 •Inlet air temp.Intel coolant temp — 15-C(60'F). DIMENSIONS Ill overalllength(A) o (over bumpers) 3730 min 147 in overall width(B) B 1650 mm 65 in overall height(C) 1625 mm 64 in 0 Net mass A 1190 kg 2625 Ib Jltl 06poo ...Atlas Copco Inc., 70 Demarest Drive, Wayne, N.J. 07470 (201) 696-0554 t jrtlWPERTEX I II I t .. 1� s- All Super TEX br"kers have one very important thing in common:ReMly light weight in relation to their high impact energy—which guarantees that a minimum of lifting is involved in exploiting their large breaking capacity. The ratio between stroke and cylinder diameter has been selected to give the greatest possible impact energy with the least possible recoil.This results in increased output due to less fatigue. Experience and tests have supplied a good thumb-rule for choosing breakers:If the running time at each point is less than 5-10 seconds—choose a lighter breaker. If the running time is MEAN TO longer than 20-30 seconds —take a heavier one. But the last decisive factor CONCRETE' is still the combination impact force weight. ASPHALT order it work most DO effee effectively,it is very im- portantAN D ROCK stable to use the most`-- suitable tool for the job=\\ even if it is only for a short 75 years in the compressed air busi- period. Changing tools on ness and over 50 years of manufac- a Super TEX breaker is a turing pneumatic breakers:Enough matter of seconds:Kick time for Atlas Copco to build up a down tool retainer,switch reputation as makers of high-quality tools, close retainer equipment combining high technology again—that's all. with, wherever possible, simplicity of Effectively silenced breakers—regardless of make design. Enough experience to develop —sometimeshave a very annoying"freezing problem': a series of modern, rugged breakers— When a breaker is silenced, the exhaust air reaches the new Super TEX. very low temperatures. Under certain conditions, The Super TEX series ranges from the water content in the compressed air might freeze easy-handled pick hammers to power- before it can be dispersed into the surroundings. ful, heavy-duty breakers. So whatever Result:ice in the silencer. your special problem might be— The only effective solution to this problem is to concrete, asphalt, rock, or any other remove the water before the air gets into the breaker. material—there is always a Super That's why all silenced Super TEX breakers can be TEX for the job. used together with the new Atlas Copco water sepa- rator, which—working/uing on the centrifugal principle — removes up to 98 of the water from the air. If you are a leader on silencing,you have got to be a leader on water separation. c q Me J- .��<_ ;�., --•. .�:.. ,' r s 1 — �� 1 �y. _,. � ti� l �' -� �- a VI a' may _ The D-shaped h�e on the lightest breaker, the Super TEX 11, is made of a new plastic which offers seve- ral advantages: It is lighter, it dampens high frequency vibrations, and it feels cooler in hot weather and war- mer in cold weather. d The handles of the medium sized and the heavy breakers now have an ergonomically correct working KI N D TO position:They point slightly upwards and to the rear from the center of the backhead—which makes work THE MAN much less fatiguing for the operator. The handles are vertically oval at their inner part to offer a good lifting WHO grip, and the outer part is horizontally oval offer a larger contact area for the operator when pressing ssing HANDLES IT. down the machine. Further, their special construction significantly reduces vibrations. No longer do contractors have to advertise for"muscle-men". Ergonomic design—conceived by engineers and medical experts—has made pneumatic It is unavoidable that an unsilenced pneumatic breakers much easier to handle. Vi- breaker makes a lot of noise. This noise is produced by bration and recoil have been reduced. the mechanical parts, from the impact operation itself Noise, a major factor where both the and from the exhaust air, operators health and the environment Atlas Copco silencers reduce the low frequency are concerned, can now be minimized. exhaust air noise by 13—16 dB(A) and also muffle a large The new Super TEX series offers share of the mechanical parts noise.This minimizes the some further ergonomic improve- risk of damage to the hearing as well as stress and ment:The handles of all breaker types fatigue as high frequency noise from the operation are more comfortable and more itself can be avoided to a large extent by use of hearing effectively vibration damped, the silenced versions of the horizontally protection. used machines have a directable air ex- Super TEX breakers have smooth surface and haunt, and the silencer has been stream- rounded corners so that they don't get caught up in lined. clothing. The smooth back of the breaker makes it easier to brace in vertical working position. While using the light breaker in horizontal position or in confined spaces, the exhaust air from a fixed outlet can be reflected by walls or other surfaces and cause considerable inconvenience to the operator. rr The new silenced Super 1 TEX 11S is provided with a swivel nozzle, which now allows the air to be blown in any desired direction. cox i The front head o�Super TEX breaker is designed so that the tool c is supported during the entire impact.This gives perfect guiding and maximum impact energy is transmitted directly to the tool. Wear on the retainer is reduced, service life for the breaker and for the tools is increased. BREAKING The reliability of the front head has been con- siderably improved through a new design of the tool retainer. A rugged construction comprising a rectan- W IT H O UT gular metal core which is rotated in a strong plastic buffer has replaced the former spring arrangement. BREAK_ This assures that the retainer will not open involun- tarily. DOWNS. When designing our new pneumatic breakers, the aim was to produce eco- nomical, reliable and easy to handle machines that could stand rough treat- ment without breaking down. The materials in the machine parts are specially selected to give the greatest possible strength combined with the greatest possible resistance to wear. All Super TEX breakers are 100170 tested;each part goes through a rigorous control during production. And after assembly each machine is run and checked for correct air con- One of the many advantages of the Super TEX sumption and number of blows per breakers is the idling safety. This means that effective minute. cushions of trapped compressed air are automatically formed on the upper and lower faces of the piston as it moves in the cylinder.These air cushions conse- quently contribute to less stress on the involved parts ti and reduce spare parts consumption. :I f: e AA ? � AS, "� ~ R�� THETOOL The only care a Super TEX breaker asks for — THAT DOESN'T besides 1/4 oz (2 ml)of lubrication oil poured into the hose (or the air inlet)every morning—is an occasio- NEED nal check-up of the exhaust chamber for dirt, water or ice.The intermediate part of the silencer—called A TOOL BOX. the outer sleeve a easily removable without stripp- ing the whole breaker: It is turned slightly, pushed down—and the exhaust chamber is laid open for Atlas Copco believe that for a breaker inspection. service life is all important:Service intervals should be long and the ser- vice itself should be fast. Based upon the results of an exten- sive research and development pro- gram the new Super TEX series has a very simplified design.The risks of break-downs are reduced and no ser- vice job takes more than a maximum of 2 hours, regardless of the repairs required and the model concerned. The upper and lower parts of the silencer can only be removed by dis-assembly of the whole breaker. a But this is very easily done:A super TEX breaker can be taken apart and put together again with an ordi- nary torque wrench.Just two side bolts lock the whole hammer, and there are no additional clamps needed to fasten the silencers on the 21 S, 31 S or the 41 S. The Super TEX series is built up on a component system:A majority of parts 6t more than one breaker. Thus, if a number of breakers are in use, spare parts stocking and hence costs can be kept down considerably. i A pneumatic bre is only as good as its tools. A good toollWuld be hard in order to last and tough in order to resist bending.That's why Atlas Copco tools are forged of high-quality steel and care- fully hardened. THE TOOL Super TEX breakers and a range of 11 tools are- THAT DOES specially made for each other:The tool shank is made according to international standard, and so is the hexa- gon hole in the front head. The impact surface of the ITALL. tool shank is ground flat and bevelled in order to form a correct angle to the anvil. In this way, maximum impact energy is transmitted to the point of the tool No matter what you expect from a without unnecessary stress on the front head of the good pneumatic breaker—to demolis breaker. Super TEX breakers and tools are also tested brick or other constructions of hard together:An Atlas Copco guarantee for high capacity material, to break asphalt, concrete, and greatest effectiveness. loose rock formations or frozen The medium sized and ground, to excavate, to tamp, or even the heavy breakers can to drive sheeting piles—no problem, the Super TEX can do it all. It's a real easily be converted into Jack-of-all-Trades! sheeting drivers:Remove front head and anvil block, and the sheeting set can be fitted and screwed tight 4�F with the nuts for the side bolts. The sheeting driver assembly has handles to make the equipment easier to work with and the guide- system for the sheet piles is simple to adapt between 2"-3"(50 and 75 mm). By the way—the machine can also be purchased complete as a ready-to-use sheeting driver—which shows, once again, that a manufacturer with more than 75 years of exper- ience in his field can really make it easy for his clients. i O, �o �o Ene 0 0 0TT.IT" J o ❑ ❑ TEX I I OCS TEX 11 DC TEX I I OXS TEX I DX TEX I 4 it �Ip�'Ir LtJ C1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i I TEX 21$ TEX 21 I TEX 31S TEX 31 TEX 41S TEX 41 1' PISTON IMPACT AIR TOOLSHANK HOSE TYPE MASS LENGTH DIAMETER STROXE FREQUENCY REQUIREMENTS MM(IN) CONNECTION KG LB MM IN. MM IN. MM IN. HE BLOWS MIN. L S. M MIN CFM HEX ROUND MM IN, TEX II OC 94 20.5 600 23'; 39 1-1 135 261 1600 224 1.3 47 22 925i,a 3J `25 75 12 �] TEX II DC$ 10.6 23,5 600 2P'i 38 I�}i5 135 5�^ 26,I 1600 22,4 1.3 47 22 825', l':1 .'25A5 12 XX7 TE%110K5 II9 5,5 590 2] 3H 1!4 135 5 26,1 1600 22.4 1.3 42 22 228251' 3'.1 12 TEXIIT% 11,3 25.0 570 22`@ 30 11j 135 5'a 26,7 1600 224 13 47 22 82,5 i.i 3'.�- 12 �Z TEX I I TXS 12.5 22,5 570 22'55 38 111 135 5, 267 1600 224 1,3 47 22 825(". 3141 12 v TEX 21 GSO TEX 21S 22.8 50 650 j5 44 1t 130 48i 25.0 I5M 22,1 1.3 O 20 1601Pe 61 19 )i TEX 31 260 52 720 28« 52 2'le 155 6�0 IB.A Ill0 28A I,2 60 28 160i V. 61 14 TEX 31S 286 63 ]20 28'4 52 2�r 155 6$:y 18,8 1130 29a 11 60 }2pOgggR 16Ui1'^ 61 19 1kp^ TEX 41S 35.5 28 240 29 58 25f 185 fife ]8.6 1 10 JB.B 2.X 82 ,�.I60(Ny 61 19 '• TEP 41 58 128 830 3Yp 58 Y^ 165 6; L8,5 1110 l86 2.3 82 ]9 TEP 41$ 61 134 830 J2'� 58 2�'i 165 61i 18,5 1110 .38.8 2.3 82 19 n 8 . B SOLD AND SERVICED CQPEA BY THE WORLD-WIDE fi ATLAS COPCO ORGANIZATION A 11063