HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS028_MARTHAS VINEYARD *NEW FILE*
,soz.
rsoa8
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, INC., ENGINEERS
TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, PARKING, CIVIL ENGINEERING
2400 MICHELSON DRIVE, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 TELEPHONE 714-955-0260
August 21, 1978
Ms. Beverly D. Wood
Project Planner and Environmental Coordinator
Community Development Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant/Marine Oriented Offices
File No. 0-109
STATEMENT
Preparation of a 1% analysis for the proposed Nantucket Lobster Trap
Restaurant/Marine oriented offices at 2801 West Coast Highway in Newport.
Subsequent preparation of an Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis for
the West Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue Intersection. Submittal of a
letter report setting forth the findings of those analyses.
CONTRACT AMOUNT:
1% Analysis $200.00
ICU Analysis 75.00
'TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $275.00
s' b
s f2EC:EIVED
bevra�•,.ont
— AUG231978a2-h-. 10
NEWPOROF
T BEACH,
CAi.IF. fF.
HOME OFFICE: 8405 PERSHING DRIVE, PLAYA DEL REY, CALIFORNIA 90291 TELEPHONE 213-821-3457
z �-
�EWPp
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
u Z
aK
('g41FOR��P
March 12, 1979
Westec Services, Inc.
Applied Sciences
180 East Main Street
Tustin, CA 92680
Attn: Bill Foley
Dear Bill :
There has been an error in the billing and payments for the combined Initial
Study prepared by Westec Services on four projects in the Mariners ' Mile
Specific Plan Area.
The contract dated August 22, 1978, and the Westec proposal dated August 7, 1978,
call for fee not to exceed $3,800.00.
The City has received bills and made payments to Westec Services .in the following
amounts:
11/16/78 $2,078.47
11/16/78 879.54
12/15/78 240.00
1/17/79 1 ,367.00
Total - $4,565.01
The City has paid Westec $765.01 over the contract amount. Three of the projects
are going nowhere, and the fourth has already been approved by the City Council .
Because of this, and the fact that we only just recently discovered the over-
billing, I do not think the City could successfully bill these charges to the
four individual applicants. Please refund the $765.01 payable to the City of
Newport Beach. ,
Very truly yours, RECEIVED g
S community
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Oevelopmen
R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR Dept.
�J „_-1 /A-PR2 W9xm 10
MEWPORT BEACH, )�
By Robert P. Lenard 4 CALIF.
Senior Planner ti
RPL/dlt
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
WEBTEC SERVICES, INC. DETACH AND 'REPAIN THIS STATEMEN -
NE A7ACH60 CHECK IP IN PAYMENT OF ITEMS OC9CR1 GLOW.
BAN DIEOO, CALIF. NM CORRECT FLEASG NOTFC UH PROMRT
T LY. NO.RECEI EBIRCO
' DELUXE FORM WC-3- V-2
I
DATE -DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Repayment 60 overbilling paid, on Job #2212 �765. 01
V-S
NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT ����
F NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 03009
4 a
�<IFO PN�p 19
DATE
`j RECEIVED FROM �" A�'�p-�� s
1 FOR:
ACCOUNT NO ACCOUNT NO +�
' DEPARTMENTS`= '�-'-' +�L�iCJ
BY�Aj=�IYJ.Ai'i!
I -TT --- -- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH---------
RECEIPT
' t+EW°ORr
NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92.663 No. 02615
?ATE ) �/r
t� RECEIVEO FRO rt,tC '���tM yZV�-f�a 'k l 7'J ~� '
1 FOR I
1 /T
ACCOUNTT NO
ACCOUNT NO 1
DEPARTMENTJ(M40
BY
t —-
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
DEMAND FOR PAYMENT
Date January 26 , 1979
Demand of: Linscott, Law & Greenspan , Inc.
Address: 2400 Michelson Drive
Irvine, California 92715
In the amount of $ 2775 . 00
ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT
Professional services rendered re
Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant/Marine
Oriented Offices
File No. 0-109 02-219-34 $200 . 00
yf — CC®uNr' 02-219-38 75 .00
IS 78-005
TOTAL $275 .00
Approved For P! en ,
--- - i
j Depart fit Head
Audited and proved:
Finance Director
LlNSCOTT, LAl4` & GREENSPAN, INC., ENGINEERS //✓vtt_-�I�VJJ/��((//
TR'[NSPORTATION. TRAFFIC. PARK:'%G. CIVIL E 'GNNEERi:•:•3
24;0 MICHELSON DRIVE. IRVIi2E, C•:LIFORP:IA 92%3--5 TE-EPHONE 714-955.0260
August 21, 1975
Ms. Beverly D. Wood
Project Planner and Environmental Coordinator
Community Development Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant/Marine Oriented Offices
File No. 0-109
STATEMENT
Preparation of a 1% analysis for the proposed Nantucket Lobster Trap
Restaurant/Marine oriented offices at 2801 West Coast Highway in Newport.
Subsequent preparation of an Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis for
the West Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue Intersection. Submittal of a
letter report setting forth the findings of those analyses.
CONTRACT AMOUNT: } -
1% Analysis $200.00
tip ICU Analysis 75.00 -
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $275.00
oQ5
n g'
f
�W t'°Rr•
_01 @ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
lV e4x T 640-2197
August 29, 1978
Gordon Barienbrock
2122 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach , CA 92663
Subject : Traffic Analysis for Office/Restaurant , Pacific .
Coast Highway
Dear Mr. Barienbrock :
We have received the final billing from Linscott, Law & Greenspan ,
Inc . , Engineers for the traffic analysis of your proposed project
on Pacific Coast Highway. The total amount due is $275 . 00 , which
includes the first phase of the study to determine which intersections
were impacted by your project.
We currently have $200 . 00 on deposit for their services per one
original agreement, and we request that you deposit the remaining
$75 . 00 so that we can clear the billing through our channels . - You
may send a check, made out to the City of Newport Beach , to my
attention at the Department of Community Development.
Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.
Sincerely,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
R. V. HOGAN , DIRECTOR
By
Beverly/Wood
Enviro•Nmental Coordinator
BW/dt
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT {
No. 82800
Q
NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92663
0� C>aq- 19 �l�
C14. Y {
OP�
{ DATE {
RECEIVED FROM `t 'V 6t' '�^" v
FOR: "-
1 ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT I
DEPARTMENTBY
S
J
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, INC., ENGINEERSL��/
TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, PARKING, CIVIL ENGINEERING
8405 PERSHING DRIVE. PLAYA DEL REY, CALIFORNIA 90291 TELEPHONE 213-821-3457
ti CO
July 19, 1978 S ?God oetie ��1�� 10
O
�+o O�GSO�•
Ms. Beverly D. Woode cP
Project Planner and Environmental Coordinator
Community Development Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant/Marine Oriented Offices
2801 West Coast Highway
Dear Beverly:
Transmitted herewith are two copies of our 2J Hour Peak Traffic
Analysis for the subject project .
Briefly, we find that project traffic would exceed one percent of
existing volumes at only the West Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue
intersection when computed on a total intersection basis . Consideration
of individual intersection movements indicates a total of five movements
at the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection and three movements
at the Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection where project traffic
would exceed one percent of existing volumes .
Please contact us if you have any further questions . We are prepared
to meet with you and the applicant at your convenience to discuss our
findings .
Very truly yours,
Uv�
P. W. Wilkinson
Transportation Engineer
Encl.
2400 MICHELSON DRIVE, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 TELEPHONE 714-955-0260
•scott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Enginee•
2J HOUR PEAK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant/Marine-Oriented Offices
2801 West Coast Highway
Newport Beach, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION •
The proposed project would produce a three story structure
on the subject site. The ground floor would contain The Nantucket
Lobster Trap Restaurant . The restaurant would total 5808 square
feet with 3026 square feet of that amount devoted to public area
and the remainder consisting of kitchen and service areas.
The upper two floors (17,099 gross square feet) would
contain marine oriented offices such as yacht brokers , marine
insurance and marine manufacturer's representatives. The leasable
office area would total 14,099 square feet .
The project site is situated on the south side of Coast
Highway immediately west of the signalized Coast Highway/Riverside
Avenue intersection. The site currently contains a boat dealership
and is served via a right turn in/right turn out driveway from
West Coast Highway. Current plans call for the provision of access
to the site through the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue inter-
section by connecting the site's parking area with that of Pacifica
Marine, Inc. immediately east of the site. The Pacifica Marine
driveway forms the fourth leg of the Coast Highway/Riverside
Avenue intersection. This parking continuity would increase the
site 's daytime parking provision of 60 spaces to 72 spaces during
the evening hours . The proposed site plan also includes the
provision of a right turn in/right turn out driveway along Coast
Highway similar to that currently serving the site.
TRAFFIC GENERATION
Traffic generation forecasts have been prepared individually
for the restaurant and office portions of the project according to
generation rates compiled by the City Traffic Department with one
exception. A generation factor for the proposed restaurant during
the 3: 30 to 6PM period was estimated from a total of six studies
Cott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Enyinelo
of similar establishments which were conducted by Caltransl .
These forecasts on a 3 :30 to 6PM and 24-hour basis are presented
in Tables 1 and 2 .
Summation of the data presented in Tables 1 and 2
indicates that the combined restaurant/office project would-
generate a total of 670 vehicle trips per day evenly distributed
between inbound and outbound. The combined generation during the
3 :30 to 6PM period on a typical weekday would total 140 vehicle
trips with 55 of these arriving at the site and 85 vehicles departing
during this period.
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
Traffic has been distributed on a logic basis utilizing
a review of the site access characteristics and the. adjacent
street system. At the site, project traffic is expected to be
roughly evenly distributed to the east and west along Coast High-
way with a small percentage of this traffic added to Riverside
Avenue. Exhibit 1 presents the projected.,'-percentage distribution
of project traffic as well as anticipated project-related
volume assignments to area roadways . .
INTERSECTION EVALUATION
Four intersections have been identified for analysis
during the 3:30 to 6PM period. They are the Coast Highway inter-
sections with Riverside Avenue, Dover Drive and Balboa Boulevard-
Superior Avenue and the Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road intersection.
Analysis worksheets for the 2J hour peak traffic periods
were completed for each of these four intersections utilizing
Winter/Spring 1978 average traffic volumes and project traffic
volume assignments as identified in Exhibit 1. These worksheets
are included it the appendix.
1SOURCE: Based on machine and manual count data for the period 3:30
to 6PM as reported in Studies Number 155, 156, 194 , 251, 252 and
253; Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Progress Reports on Trip
Ends Generation Research Counts, Caltrans, District 4, San Francisco,
1973-76. These studies were of restaurants similar to that proposed.
2
Cott, Law& Greenspan, Inc., Engine*
TABLE 1
TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
The Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant
5808 Gross Square Feet/3026 Net Square Feet
24 HOUR 3 :30 - 6PM
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
Generation Factor
T.E. /1000 N.S.F. 1 75 75 1502 11 .33 7.73 19.03
Generated Vehicle
Trips 225 225 450 35 25 60
TABLE 2
TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
Marine Oriented Offices
17,099 Gross Square Feet/14,099 Leasable Square Feet
24 HOUR 3:30 - 6PM
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
Generation Factor
T.E. /1000 G.S.F.4 6. 52 6.52 13.02 1.22 3.42 4.62
Generated Vehicle
Trips 110 110 220 20 60 80
1Trip Ends per 1000 net square feet (public area) where a trip end
is a one-way vehicular movement either entering or departing the
generating land use.
2SOURCE: City of Newport Beach.
3SOURCE: Based on machine and manual count data for the period
3: 30 to 6PM as reported in Studies Number 155, 156, 194, 251, 252
and 253; Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Progress Reports on
Trip Ends Generation Research Counts, Caltrans, District 4, San
Francisco, 1973-76. These studies were of restaurants similar to
that proposed.
4Trip ends per 1000 square feet of gross area.
3
o"
hf �h
ti�h s�
J�Q
2
5J O a�Q
6 HosPita'1 ^aQ
ID qj
.
ss. o
r�
�0 A��
LOILO U-tL
°4'S� h, Dl iff Dry �,lJ
a � SITE w,y ve f
. 5% 1 t 40° East r 5
40 Coast Hwy 3S
150
PACIFIC 1
OCEAN �rDO rs�F
BAY
KEY
a D 00 _ 3:30 - 6PM Volume
00 24
NORTH Hour Volume
NO SCALE 00� _ Percent Distribution PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
I
4G Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc. " OFFICES/NANTUCKET LOBSTER TRAP RESTAURANT
Oscott, Law&'Greenspan, Inc., EngineeO
When evaluated on a total intersection basis, project
related traffic was found to represent less than one percent of
the total existing volume at all but the Coast •Highway/Riverside '
Avenue intersection. Project traffic at that location is estimated
at 1 .4 percent of the existing total intersection volume.
When analyzed on a movement - by movement basis, project
traffic would exceed one percent of the existing volume on five
movements at the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection. -
Project traffic would exceed one percent of the existing volume
on the southbound right turn, eastbound through• and eastbound
left turn at the Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection. Project
traffic at the other two intersections is not expected to exceed
one percent of existing volumes on any movement .
This analysis has considered project-related traffic as
totally additive to existing volumes and has not applied any
credit- for the quantity of traffic related to the existing use
on that site which would be removed from area roadways . In order
to determine the "net" addition of project traffic to key inter-
sections in the site area, manual traffic counts were conducted
for the site 's existing use during the hours of 3:30 to 6PM on
Thursday, July 13, 1978. Those counts revealed a total of three
entering and seven departing vehicles during that period with all
departing traffic passing in the eastbound direction through the
Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection. These seven vehicles
could therefore be appropriately credited to forecasted project
traffic volumes at this location in order to determine a net
traffic addition. An, investigation of "net" project traffic at
the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection indicates that
this assignment would still exceed one percent of the existing
volume after this credit was applied.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
When evaluated on a total intersection basis, project
traffic is estimated to exceed one percent of the existing 2a hour
peak traffic volume at only the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue
4
Cott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Enginee*
intersection and an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
analysis is required at that location. Computation on an
individual movement basis indicates that project traffic during
this period would exceed one percent of the existing volume on
five movements at the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection
and three movements at the Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection.
5
Cott, Law& Greenspan, Inc., Enginee
APPENDIX
2j HOUR PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSES :
Coast Highway/Riverside Ave
Coast Highway/Dover Drive
Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd-Superior Ave
Newport Blvd/Hospital Rd
Hr Peak Traffic Volume Analyo
Intersection GOAsc JIL1VGZ21•- QVU
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)
MOVEMENT EXISTING 22 HOUR PROJECT 22 HOUR
PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME °I6 OF �il, I��1ti
NT
NR
NL (S 4.0
ST
SR
SL 0
ET /ZD �O
ER tc) 0 O
EL Wo 0 O
Wf *3-145 0 0
WR 59 0 O
WL
TOTAL 4 Z 115 1 A 016
1% of Existing 22 Hour Peak Traffic Volume = g 5
❑ Project Traffic is Estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 22 Hour
Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% of Existing 22
Hour Peak Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)
LAJ Analysis is required. .
INTERSECTION / �IUE(Lytf?E /�1(�i
FORM I
PROJECT: t.!amVV•AKq �0�VrjCr,-t, ' 7,8a1 CbptgT
• 0 Hr Peak Traffic Volume Analy4e
Intersection WAyT lAtb�}WAM $T
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)
MOVEMENT EXISTING 22 HOUR PROJECT 22 HOUR w
PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME o OE t�►yt�Yu
NT O
NR y4 o Q
NL bo O d
S.T 1-13 o a
SR 2�Ar 5
SL VA3 C)
ET -w)3 35 1.1
ER D D
EL S 1•�
WT 34"15 2U 0„b
W 11M p o
WL �9r7 O b
TOTAL t 1 ,\0 0. (0
1% of Existing 22 Hour Peak Traffic Volume = Eli
(a1 Project Traffic is Estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 22 Hour
IL11 Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% of Exist in 22
Hour Peak Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)
Anal sis. is required.
Y
INTERSECTION
SAW N(;;,AWfA4A ( toIG\2 'm-• FORM I
--PROJECT: �j[kUr}4fV�( �17�1~15 ��}�1 CDA�t 11EJrZwR
•Hr Peak Traffic Volume Analys•
Intersection bA9T 9(6AWAAJ ht 311.13w-D-6,upmw2 AA/
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average winter/Spring 1978)
4 ihoaict�v�fE�L m a
MOVEMENT EXISTING 22 HOUR PROJECT 22 HOUR Ole, 0� �x�y}�Y
PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK- TRAFFIC-VOLUME
NT 3OZIn 1.5 D,tl'l
NR 21l 0 O
NL O O
ST I'0 0,
SR O O
SL O
ET V55 O
ER 210 O O
EL 160 O
wT Ib O
wR 1361 0 . o
wL
TOTAL
1% of Existing 22 Hour Peak Traffic Volume = 10(0
® Project Traffic is Estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 22 Hour
Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% of Existing 22
ElHour Peak Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)
Analysis is required.
? i foa5t Nl�nwa�� DMh1�JA4 ky MAr $aNWOL-5\0 —
` INTERSECTION 1
CG?Ry1 1�11�1�W t ' I VALY,73Pt tL,4 0— 'rjUFW- b1Z. W; FORM I
PROJECT: ft-,fjVAvZA-pAj 1Or-F1vGS t, 1501 CDNiT IAMAWrt�'
Hr Peak Traffic Volume Analys .
Intersection WUW bg-r $LV9/ NOWrCIJI/ VOAP
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)
MOVEMENT EXISTING 22 HOUR PROJECT 22 HOUR 'Taff v 0.5 a
PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME o�u 6F �l'►�tti�y
NT 2gbQ 10 0 13 10
NR 20� O O I
NL 3 O O
ST D A 4'/o
SR O
SL '(7. O O
ET O O
ER O O
EL .0 O
WT O O
WR 33 O 0
WL 454 O 0
TOTAL 9993 25 6 t->'jo
1% of Existing 23-2 Hour Peak Traffic Volume = F 99
f41 Project Traffic is Estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 21-2 Hour
LLN Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% of Existing 22
ElHour Peak Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)
Analysis is required.
INTERSECTION ti1�W�'p ;�p / NO�'?l(� �O(�p
FORM I
PROJECT: WTAUfZA-W-V / DV-Y►L64 2�O1 C.O/k�lC N�(�HWAvi
CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC - RECEIPT --`
NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92663 NO 77203
�I
�! u
+�rronM� 4 19 j
DATE
RECEIVE FROM
c
! FOR:—
ACCOUNT NO. AMO
Af
DEPARTMENT
BY —.j.
r tu PA ~S . �s
i
i
I
. f
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 22nd day
of August, 1978, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a
municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY" , and
Westec Services , Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT. "
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS , CONSULTANT has submitted to CITY a proposal to
prepare an Initial Study including four projects in the Mariner' s
Mile Specific Plan area .
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 an Initial Study on the four
projects in the Mariner' s Mile Specific Plan area 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 August 7 , 1978 , which is
attached to this Agreement marked as Exhibit "A" and by this
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 . In no event shall the maximum amount of this
Agreement exceed Three Thousand Eight Hundred and no/100 Dollars
($3 ,800) . 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 the
provisions within thirty (30) days after execution of this Agreement.
The subject Initial Study must meet the approval of the Environmental
Affairs Committee of the City.
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 UM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
By
s is t ity A tdrney ector
Commu 'ty D elopment Department
CITY
WESTEC SERVICES NCORPORATED
By e4A-�—
CONSULTANT
-2-
1 -
WESTEC Services,Inc.
Applied Sciences
180 East Main Street
Tustin,CA 92680
(714) 8384644
78-342MWW-510 . 02
August 7, 1978
Ms . Beverly Wood
Environmental Coordinator
Department of Community Development
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: Initial Studies for Projects
located in Mariner' s Mile
Dear Beverly:
In response to our recent discussions , WESTEC Services , Inc . is
pleased to submit this letter proposal to prepare the initial
studies for four separate but related projects located in Mariner' s
Mile . Mohle, Perry and Associates will assist WESTEC Services in
the preparation of these studies .
Scope of Services
The initial studies will be based on the Mariner' s Mile Specific
Plan and the Mariner' s Mile Specific Plan EIR. The studies will
determine the degree to which the four projects , individually and
cumulatively, are consistent with the Specific Plan. In addition,
the studies will determine whether the impacts of the proposed
projects are within the parameters established in the Specific Plan
EIR.
WESTEC Services and Mohle, Perry and Associates will prepare an
overview which will relate the four projects to the Specific
Plan, and then will prepare an individual analysis of each of the
four projects . The major issues to be considered are land use,
traffic, and parking. However, a "checklist" analysis will be
completed for the full range of potential impacts .
Management and Schedule
William Foley of WESTEC Services, and Henry Mohle of Mohle,
Perry and Associates will serve as project managers for these
studies . They will be assisted by qualified members of their
Page Two
Ms. Beverly Wood
City of Newport Beach
August 7, 1978
respective staffs . The studies will be completed within four weeks
of the date of the contract. This schedule assumes prompt provision
of site plans and other project data by each applicant, and further
assumes that no significant changes in the projects will occur
during the study.
Fees
WESTEC Services will prepare the initial studies for a fee of
$3, 800. 00 . This fee will include the submittal of thirty copies of
the overview and each individual initial study. Additional studies
required to prepare Conditional Negative Declarations or Environ-
mental Impact Reports will be subject to the negotiation of a subse-
quent contract. Representation at public hearings, if required by
the City of Newport Beach or requested by the applicant, will be
provided on a time and materials basis .
Acceptance
This proposal shall remain in effect for sixty days . Prior to
that time, you may authorize WESTEC Services , Inc . to proceed with
the assignment outlined herein by returning a signed copy of this
agreement for our files .
ii
spectfully submitted. Approved by:
chae1 W. Wright For
Regional Manager
Date
MWW/WRF: sc
02-219-
" I .S . /N .D . / Martha ' s Vineyard"
APPLICANT: William Blurock & Partners PHONE : ( 714 ) 673-0300 _
Dick Hogan 833-9054
Gordon Barreynbrock
CONSULTANT: Trisk Butler PHONE : ( 714 ) 1 -232-5g80
DATE DEPOSIT PAYMENT FEE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT
d NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No 20905
gaFDanr d" /f 19 0
DATE
f -WECEIVED FROM
FOR:
� /1'1�/ ae,Q,L : .�.J" N�• ,�1i4/Plllfl.(Y/ /1 /� v�`"' �
ACCOUNT NN_O..���� AMOUNT !
60
DEPARTMENT
BY-
-._.r._,_._.__.----- _._.._.-._._._._._---
h
/\
RUCEIvEa
r a. • it
AUG I p Iggi�, I�
Butler "e `"' ''Patricia A. GI
Environmental Planner '
1
1223 Rutland Road, Newport Beach, CA 9266 8-6062
505 Loma Santa Fe Drive,Solana Beach, CA 92075 (714) 481-5501
August 4, 1981
Mr. Fred Talarico
Environmental Coordinator
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Proposal for preparation of an Initial Study for the pro-
posed Martha' s Vineyard Restaurant and Office Complex
Dear Fred:
Thank you for this opportunity to present a proposal for preparation
of an expanded Initial Study for the proposed restaurant and office
complex in the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan area. Butler
Environmental planning would be pleased to assist the City of Newport
Beach with preparation of the initial environmental documentation
required by the State EIR Guidelines and the City' s respective
procedures. Based on the preliminary project information I received
from you last week, thisletter outlines the anticipated scope of work,
schedule and cost estimate for completion of the Initial Study.
According to this proposal, I estimate that the Initial Study can be
completed within three to four weeks, for a total fee not to exceed
four thousand nine hundred eighty-five dollars ($4,985. 00) .
Scope of Mork
The expanded Initial Study will include the basic information required
by the City' s adopted procedures for implementation of CEQA and the
State EIR Guidelines. The report will be organized to document the
following information:
1. Description of the proposed project, its location and related
committed and planned projects in the project area, especially
those within the Mariners' Mile Specific Plan area.
2. Identification of permits required for implementation of the
proposed project.
3. Adequate description of existing conditions and identification
of environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the follow-
ing areas of environmental concern:
Mr. Fred Talarico
August 4, 1981
page two
Primary Issues
a.Land use, zoning and consistency with applicable land use plans
b.Circulation and parking
c.Aesthetics and views
d.Water quality
Secondary Issues
e.Air quality
£.Noise
g.Public services and utilities
h.Geology and soils
4. Brief discussion of relevant development issues, such as a com-
parison of the intensity of the proposed development to adjacent
existing and planned developments, and determination if the pro-
posed uses qualify as, "incentive" uses to be developed under the
Local Coastal Program.
5. Supporting appendices and references
As shown above, it is anticipated that land use and zoning, circula-
tion and parking, water quality and aesthetics are likely the most
significant issues to be addressed by the Initial Study for the pro-
posed restaurant/office development. A preliminary identification
of the contents of the land use and zoning analysis includes examina-
tion of the consistency of the project with the Newport Beach General
Plan, the Mariners ' Mile Specific Area Plan, and the draft Land Use
Plan of the Local Coastal Program.
The circulation and parking analysis will include examination of the
project' s conformance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways
and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) , and analysis of access and
parking impacts. The TPO analysis will be conducted according to
the current City policy S-1, Administrative Procedures for Implement-
ing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. it is proposed that the traffic
phasing study will include the TPO one percent analysis and the re-
quired ICU analysis for the critical intersections identified by the
City Traffic Engineer. If further investigation or extensive facili-
ty design mitigations are required, it is understood that these would
become conditions of project approval to be undertaken by the devel-
oper, or are otherwise beyond the scope of the currently proposed
Initial Study.
0
Mr. Fred Talarico
August 4, 1981
page three
The water quality analysis will include consideration of mitigations
which may be necessary to eliminate runoff from the site into Newport
Harbor during construction and long-term operations. Aesthetic Con-
siderations will include the visual compatibility of the development
with the Mariners ' Mile area, maintenance of public views to the har-
bor, and consistency with the coastal view policies of the Local Coast-
al Program and the Specific Area Plan.
It is proposed that an initial project coordination meeting be held
with the Butler Environmental Planning project team and the City staff
to identify all committed and planned projects which should be con-
sidered in the identification of cumulative impacts. In view of the
current potential for significant development in the Mariners ' Mile
Specific Plan area, such a meeting would allow development of a valid
basis for analyzing projected cumulative effects for the- primary envi-
ronmental and development issues identified above. An agreement on
the assumptions to be included in the project impact analysis may be
established upon initiation of our work on the Initial Study.
Cost Estimate and Schedule
Having reviewed the preliminary project information and primary envi-
ronmental issues, I propose that a Screen Check document can be com-__
pleted within three weeks of an authorization to proceed and the pro-
posed coordination meeting described above. The project description
should be available in sufficient detail at that time to allow identi-
fication of environmental impacts and mitigation measures in the Initial
Study. Following review of the Screen Check document, the final Initial
Study can likely be completed within another week. Time needed for
printing the final Initial Study would be minimal.
The estimated cost for completion of the scope of work within this
time frame is four thousand nine hundred and eighty-five dollars
($4, 985.00) . This fee is proposed on a time and materials basis,with
the total estimated cost not to exceed $4, 985.00. Attachment A shows
the approximate distribution of estimated labor and non-labor costs.
The proposed fee includes delivery of five (5) copies of the screen
check Initial Study and twenty (20) copies of the final Initial Study
to your office. The camera-ready originals of the final Initial
Study could be made available to the City or the developer upon your
request.
Project Personnel
Butler Environmental Planning will prepare the Initial Study, with the
assistance of Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI) , who will be responsible
Mr. Fred Talarico
August 4 , 1981
page four
for the traffic study. I will personally supervise preparation of
the Initial Study and conduct the majority of the technical analyses.
Mr. Bill Darnell of BDI will conduct the traffic study. Butler
Environmental Planning has frequently associated with BDI to conduct
environmental and planning studies, and I can assure you of our
excellent working relationship. Ms. Beverly Schroeder, an assistant
planner with Butler Environmental Planning, will provide some tech-
nical and report production assistance, as reflected in the attach-
ment to this letter.
As you are familiar with Mr. Darnell's and my qualifications and
past performance, I have not included our resumes with this proposal.
However, resumes and references for the project team are available
upon request.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. I look forward
to completing the required Initial Study in a timely and cost effec-
tive manner. If you have any questions, please call me at (714) 232-
5980.
Yours truly,
Patricia A. Butler
Environmental Planner
PAB/pr
Attachment
e
�L
i6
Patricia A. Butler
Environmental Planner
1223 Rutland Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 548-6062
505 Loma Santa Fe Drive,Solana Beach, CA 92075 (714) 481-5501
October 15, 1981
Fred Talarico
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 W. Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Transmittal of Screen Check Initial Study for the proposed
Martha's Vineyard Restaurant/Office Complex
Dear Fred:
Enclosed are seven (7) copies of the Screen Check Initial Study for the
Martha's Vineyard project. I will be available to review the Screen
Check with you and the Environmental Affairs Committee at your earliest
convenience. Please let me know as soon as you would like to set up
a review meeting.
Yours truly,
Patricia A. Butler
Environmental Planner
PAS/tb
Enclosures
Mr. Fred Talarico
August 4 , 1981
ATTACHMENT
Cost Estimate
Direct Labor Amount
Senior Environmental Planner at $35. 00/hr. $ 3,500
- estimated 100 hours
Assistant Planner at $20. 00/hour 240
- estimated 12 hours
Traffic Engineer (Subconsultant) est. 11000
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR $ 4, 740
Reimbursables
Xerox/printing est. $ 85
- 5 copies of Screen Check;
20 copies of Final
Typing/report production 90
Photographs, maps, miscellaneous 70
TOTAL DIRECT NON-LABOR $ 245
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 4,985
Patricia A. Butler
Environmental Planner
1223 Rutland Road, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 548-6062
505 LomaSanta Fe Drive,Solana Beach, CA92075 (714) 481-5501
February 26 , 1981
Mr. Fred Talarico
Environmental Coordinator
Planning Department, City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Proposal for preparation of an Initial Study for the
proposed Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant and Marine
oriented offices at 2801 W. Coast Highway
Dear Mr. Talarico:
Thank you for this opportunity to present a proposal for prepara-
tion of an expanded Initial Study for the above referenced project.
I would be pleased to assist the City of Newport Beach with pre-
paration of the environmental documentation required by Section
15080 of the State EIR Guidelines and the City' s respective pro-
cedures. This letter outlines the anticipated scope of work, cost
estimate and schedule for conducting the Initial Study. According
to this proposal, I estimate that the Initial Study can be com-
pleted in approximately three weeks for a total fee not to exceed
Four Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Five Dollars ($4, 985. 00) .
Scope of Work
According to the City' s adopted procedures for implementation of
CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines, the required Initial Study will
basically include the following information:
1. Description of the proposed project, its location, and identi-
fication of the necessary permits for project implementation.
2. Adequate description of existing conditions and identification
of environmental impacts and mitigation measures, as necessary,
for the following areas of environmental concern:
- Land use and zoning
- Circulation and parking
- Air quality
- Noise
- Water quality
- Geology
- Aesthetics
- Public Services and Utilities
Mr. Fred Talaricole
February 26, 1981
Page Two
3. Supporting appendices and references
It is anticipated that land use and zoning, circulation and park-
ing, water quality and aesthetics are likely the most significant
issues to be addressed by the Initial Study for the proposed
restaurant/office development. In this context, a preliminary
identification of the contents of the land use and zoning analysis
includes examination of the consistency of the project with the
Newport Beach General Plan, the Mariners' Mile Specific Area Plan,
the draft Local Coastal Plan and the Coastal Act. The circulation
and parking analysis will include examination of the project' s con-
formance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and the Traf-
fic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) , and analysis of access and parking
impacts. The TPO analysis will be conducted according to the current
City policy S-1, Administrative Procedures for Implementing the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance. It is proposed that the traffic phasing
study will include the TPO one percent analysis and the required
ICU analysis for the critical intersections identified by the City
Traffic Engineer. If further investigation or extensive facility
design mitigations are required, it is understood that these would
become conditions of project approval to be undertaken by the devel-
oper, or are otherwise beyond the scope of the currently proposed
Initial Study.
The water quality analysis will include consideration of mitigations
to eliminate runoff from the site into Newport Harbor. Aesthetic
considerations will include the visual compatibility of the devel-
opment with the Mariners ' Mile area and maintenance of public views
to the harbor.
Cost Estimate and Schedule
Having reviewed the preliminary project information, and environmen-
tal issues, I am confident that a Screen Check document can be com-
pleted within about two weeks (e.g. , 14 to, 18 days) from receipt of
an authorization to proceed and provision of a definitive project
description. The project description should be available in suf-
ficient detail to allow identification of environmental impacts and
mitigation measures in the Initial Study. Following review of the
Screen Check document, I estimate that the final Initial Study can
be completed and delivered within another week.
The estimated cost for completion of the scope of work for the
Initial Study within this time frame is Four Thousand Nine Hundred
and Eighty-Five Dollars ($4 ,985.00) : This fee is proposed on a
time and materials basis, with the total estimated cost not to ex-
ceed $4,985; 00. Attachment A shows the approximate distribution
of estimated labor and non-labor costs. The proposed fee includes
delivery of five (5) copies of the Screen Check Initial Study and
twenty (20) copies of the final Initial Study to your office. The
camera-ready originals of the final Initial Study could be given
to the City or to the developer if so desired.
Mr. Fred Talarico
February 26, 1981
Page Three
Personnel
I will personally supervise preparation of the Initial Study and
conduct the majority of the technical analyses. I will be assist-
ed by Mr. Bill Darnell of Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. , Newport Beach,
who will conduct the traffic study. I frequently associate with
BDI as a project team for environmental and planning studies and
can assure you of our excellent working relationship. Ms . Beverly
Schroeder, an assistant planner who frequently assists me in tech-
nical and report production tasks, will provide some assistance in
this study as reflected in Attachment A. As you are familiar with
Mr. Darnell' s and my qualifications and past performance, I have
not included our resumes with this proposal. However, resumes and
references for the project team are available upon your request.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal. I look forward
to completing the required Initial Study in a timely and cost effec-
tive manner. If you have any questions, please call me at (714)
232-5980 .
Yours truly,
d &�
PATRICIA A. BUTLER
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER
Attachment
Mr:, Fred Talarico
Feb. 26, 1981
Attachment A
Cost Estimate
Direct Labor Amount
Senior Environmental Planner at $35. 00/hr.
- estimated 100 hours $ 3,500
Assistant Planner at $20. 00/hour
- estimated 12 hours 240
Traffic Engineer (Subconsultant) est. 1, 000
TOTAL DIRECT LABOR $ 4, 740
Reimbursables
Xerox/printing est.
- 5 copies of Screen Check;
20 copies of Final $ 85
Typing/report production 90
Photographs, maps, miscellaneous 70
TOTAL DIRECT NON-LABOR $ 245
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 4,985
Patricia A. ' Butler N
Environmental Planner
1221 Rutland R04d, \mpori 13,u It CA 42660 •n� ' '.'�"���_a.�.�-�+� ;��
301 Loma Santa Fe Dro e.Suite I60,Solana Reath CA 02:OS
Mr. Fred Talarico
Environmental Coordinator
1 City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
9 /TE 7_'4 G?A�0 F Q__ /1L-S�� +�Jp�$•uNr�2,_Th�A T_L•J i c C,_ -.,
-- ---
___--- >?O�ty? DRAiN SyS.T_G"_�/J ,—+M"��—iU_o�_ -T-h`-�P�f • -- ---
-fl�iJ-1�ctR.�b7A!�e'�1aAAFIOW^_
Fic [A�5 Go NGT_i--k-c- —
__-_-- orn-Ps��__it5 2��!_•ta_C.�1 ,ac f'oc��t�-G6 7� ��Si�y_-- --
vwu
�uGSq.2
_ - __--�. � -1,_t_c_c�tw�c_k t�.►�y_.S__—�!C_�M �,a o��y �FND
--_?. ElTIFFLt —f2 Crroyr" 67 ZSTtAj- jtk
---- p�S14�u�t�1Ca��'__�,o�_.T'o E�}c, 1� ►T_B-T_E —!�'S_—�tS.c• ------
c. D:scnarge into surface waters,or to any alterahon of sur.
CKLIST FORM — - '
NYIROHMEHTAL CHE face water quality,including but not)invited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _
1. BACKGROUND. f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _
1. 'Name of Proponent 'FlyRRb kammISe N g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through
2 Address and Phone Number of Proponent: direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an
343 Sw.+ /Ns r,0Zn ern. Xol& E aquifer by cuts or excavations? —
ltltwpews elE.eet, h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise f
7s+1_ tiiW available for public water supplies?
3. Date of Checklist Submitted i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
4. Agency Requiring Checklist such as flooding or tidal waves?
S. Name of Proposal,if applicable 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result In:
a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any spc-
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS cies of plants (including trees,shrubs,grass,crops,microflora /
(Explanations of all"yes'and"maybe'answers are required on attached sheets.) and aquatic plants)? _ Z/
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare or endan• /
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic sub- / gered species of plants? _ _ ✓
structures?" _ _/ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or In a —
barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ JL✓/
Is. Disruptions,displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ✓ . d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
/ --
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique / a. Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any spa.
geologic or physical features? _ _ ✓ cies of animals (birds,land animals including reptiles,fish and
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or shellfish,benthic organisms,insects or microfauna)?
off the site? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare or endan-
E Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or gered species of animals?
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or —
the channel of a river or stream or the.bed of the ocean or any / result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
bay,inlet or lake? V d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _✓
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such 6. Noise. Will-the proposal result in:
as earthquakes,landslides,mudslides,ground failure,or similar
hazards? a. Increases in existing noise levels?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in: b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air 1 7• Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or
quality? ✓ glare?
b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ — — S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration
c. Alteration of air movement,moisture or temperature,or of the present of planned land use of an area? —any change in climate,either locally or regionally? _ _ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ ✓�
a. Changes in currents,or the course or direction of water b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural re-
movements,in either marine or fresh waters? _ _ _ . source? — — _
b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns or the rate / 10, Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explo•
and amount of surface water runoff? _ _ v ston or the release of hazardous substances (including,'but not /
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? V limited to,oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation) in the event of
d. Change in the amountofsurfacewaterinanywaterbody? accident or upset conditions?
YES MAYBE NO _ - .-
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribu• YES MAYBE NO
lion,density,or g?owth rate of the human population of an area? _ 19. Recreation.' Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
It Housing. Willtheproposalaffectexisting'housing,orcreate I
a demand for additional housing? 20, Arehwtog est/Hlatorleal. Will the proposal result in an al• /
teration of a significant archeological or historical site,structure, v/
13. Trampartatlon/Clrculatlon. Will the proposal result in: object or building?
a. Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular movement? — 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Is. Effects on existing parking facilities,or demand for new ✓ (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the qual•
parking? fry of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat ofa fish
c. Substantial Impact upon existing transportation systems? V or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move- below self sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or
went of people andfor goods? _ — sL/ animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of
e. Alterations to waterbome,rall or air traffic? — ✓✓✓ a rare or endangared plant or animal or eliminate important
E Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or
examples of the major periods of California history or prehisto.
ry? _
pedestrians? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
14. Publle Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs inAV
of the following areas: a relatively brief, definitive period of H �etwhtle longterm
a. Fire protection? Impacts will endure well-into the future.s�
b. Police protection? — ✓ c. Does the project have impacts which are individually first.
iced,but cumWatively considerable?(A project may impact an
C. Schcois? two or more separate resources where the impact on each re-
d. Parks or other recreational facllides? — — ✓ source is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of
e. Maintenance of public facilities,Including roads? — those impacts on the environment is significant.) —
E Other governmental services? — d• Does the project have environmental effects which will /
/ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either di. /
15. Energy. Will the proposal result Im / rectly or indirectly? vvv
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ✓✓✓ III.DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
b. Substantial increase In demand upon existing sources of _
energy,or require the development of new sources of energy? IV. DETERMINATION -
16. Utuitiee. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, (To be completed by the-Lead Agency)
or substantial alterations to the following utilities: / On the basis of this Initial evaluation
a. Power or natural gas? p 1-find the proposed project COULD NOT have a signifteant-effact an the environ.
b. Communications systems? — ment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
c. Water? • - 17 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envi•
._ ronment,there will not be it significant effect in this case because the mitigation
d. Sewer or septic tanks? — measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project.A NECA-
e. Storm water drainage? TIVE DECLARATION WILL RE PREPARED.
E Solid waste and disposal? — E3 1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an
17. Human Health.. Wf11 the proposal result in:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
a. Creation of anyhealth hazard or potential health hazard Date
(excluding mental health)? — — / (Signature)
b. Exposure of people to potential health-hazards? — — — For
18, Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of NOTE:Authority cited:Sections 21033 and 21087,Public Resources Code.Reference-
any scenic vista or view open to the public,or will the proposal / Sections 2100041176,Public Resources Code.
result in the creation of an aesthetically Offensive site open to ✓ isto H
public view? ._ r} 1. New A ppeadix.I filed 10.8 76-,effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register
76,No.41).Note•.Order designated that compliance with this appendix is
authorized but not mandatory berorc 1.1.77.
i
<c�EWPO't'T
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
U do $ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�tlip: (714) 640-2197
f
July 26 , 1978
Mr. Gordon Barienbrock
2122 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach , CA 92663
Dear Mr . Barienbrock :
The Community Development Department has had several requests to review
land development and harbor activities permit applications in the
Mariners Mile area in the past few months . Your application is
one of these proposals , and the project has been evaluated by is,
staff for possible environmental impacts .
There are several issues that are raised in each of the projects ,
such as adequate parking , traffic generation and circulation ,
conversion of existing land uses to office/restaurant/parking lot
uses , water quality, and compliance with the Mariners Mile Specific
Area Plan . An Environmental Impact Report was prepared in conjunction
with the adoption of the Specific Area Plan , but each project must
be assessed to determine if any new impacts may result from the
specific proposals which were not addressed in the EIR. The City
presently does not have sufficient data on file to make this
determination . The proposed project must also be evaluated in
light of the recently-adopted Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
In order to comply with the requirements of the California Environmenta
Quality Act, and to make the mandatory findings regarding the
appropriate environmental documentation, we must prepare an Initial
Study. Since the information which you supplied to us and our own
evaluation did not provide sufficient data , our normal procedure
is to hire an environmental consultant to research the areas where
our data is •lacking , and then to prepare the appropriate documentation.
We have contacted Westec Services , Inc. to prepare the Initial
Study. I would suggest that we set up a meeting , at your convenience,
to discuss your project in depth with our staff and the consultant.
After this review, we will request a written cost estimate from
the consultant. You will be required to deposit this amount with
the City plus an administrative fee to initiate the work.
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663
Mr. Gordon Barienbrock
Page Two
July 26 , 1978
Thank you for your cooperation on this matter . Please call me at
640L2197 to arrange the meeting .
Yours very truly,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
R. V . Hogan , Director
By / Y`--
Beverly ood
Environmental Coordinator
s
BW: jmb
xc: Glen Weldon
Harbor Department
,fin
STEPHEN CHARLES FORDE nL� O '
}
AO'NIOT REMOVE
January 21, 1982
City Attorney
City of Newport Beach 0! 0an ; Ya
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663 N2
ra N PORT or
James Hewicker, Planning Director CA[ BBC
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard .
Newport Beach, California 92663
Gordon Barienbrock
2122 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
RE: (1) Use Permit Application UP 2003 by William
J. Clark, set for the Agenda of the Planning
Commission on January 21, 1982. 2751 West
Coast Highway (Pacifica Marine) .
(2) Use Permit Application UP 2051 by Gordon
Barienbrock, set for the agenda of the Planning
Commission on January 21, 1982 . 2801 West Coast
Highway.
Gentlemen:
You may recall at the January 7 Planning Commission that
Gary Taylor, attorney for William Clark, represented that the
result of the case was that Clark had the authority to proceed
with his application. Later in the evening I contradicted Mr.
Taylor' s assertion and the matter was put over for further study.
I am pleased to report that a few days ago we received a
certified copy of the court proceedings of January 5, 1982, which
contains the stipulation between the parties with respect to the
legal status of the restaurant. A copy is enclosed, and I direct
your attention to page three, lines 22-26 , and page four, lines
1-5 . It was quite clearly stipulated between the parties that
Mr. Clark ' s restaurant tenancy is only month to month. Hence
- 1
0 0
Page two January 21, 1982
Mr. Clark has no legal capability of entering into long term
agreements of any kind with respect to the restaurant.
One of the reasons Messrs. Clark and Carter were so angry
at the conclusion of the last commission hearing was that they
were well aware of the stipulation and knew full well that in
the intervening time period we would be able to obtain the
transcript and lay the matter to rest once and for all.
I do not consent to Mr. Clark' s application nor do I con-
sent to any change in the stipulation with respect to his
month to month tenancy.
Accordingly, there is no legal basis for the purported
long term agreements that Mr. Clark has incorporated into his
application.
The obvious question at this point is: Why are Messrs.
Clark and Carter going to all this effort when it is quite clear
that they have stipulated away their right to enter into long
term agreements? The answer is that the property is in fore-
closure with the 90 days on a notice of default having run, the
foreclosure sale is coming soon, and the restaurant application
is a last desperate attempt to "dress the property up" to get
as much as possible at the foreclosure sale. In this connec-
tion, please note the enclosed notice of default which was filed
on October 5 , 1981. Also, please note lines 16-26 on page three
of the stipulation, wherein Messrs. Clark and Carter were re-
quired to pay to the property account $68 ,800 in past due rent
plus legal fees paid to attorney Koerselman (approximating
$15, 000) , for a total cost of $83 ,800, all of which was to be
paid within ten days of the January 5 date. We are informed
that they have failed to pay, and the legal seriousness of this
default emphasizes the certainty-of the foreclosure. The
Commission should take note of this imminent change in owner-
ship because the new owner will not be bound by Clark' s agree-
ments except for the month' s notice needed to terminate them.
I will be attending the Planning Commission Meeting on
January 21 and will be available to answer questions regarding
the above matters.
Sincerely,
Stephen Forde
SF:rl
cc: William J. Clark
e J
Py
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
3
4 STEPHEN C. F•ORDE, )
5 PLaintiff, ) Case No. 35-33-36
6 VS . ) STIPULATION
)
7 JAIMES A. CARTER, et al . , )
)
6 Defandants . )
9
10 HONORABIX LI.OYD F. BI.ANPIED, JR. , JUDGE PRESIDING
11 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
12 JANUARY 5 , 1982
13
14 APPEARANCES OV COUNSEL:
16 FOR THE PLAINTIFF : ROLAND BYE
Attorney at Law
16
FOR THE CROSS-DEFENDANT,
17 ROI,I\ND BYE : DONN KEMBLE
Attorney at Law
18
FOR THE CROSS-DHFENDANTS : BERRY LAUBSCHER
19 Attorney at Law
20 FOR THE DEFENDANT AND
CROSS-COMPLAINANT, CLARK : GARY TAYLOR
21 Attorney at Law
22 FOR THE' bNPENDANT AND
CROSS-COMM,AiNANTS , CURT OWEN
23 Attornev at Law
24
25 KATHLEEN J . PIERSON , CSR #3210
Official Court Reporter
26
2
1 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 5, 1982
2
3 THE COURT: In the Fordo versus Carter, et al . matter.
4 Do you have a stipulation, Counsel?
5 MR. OWEN : Yes, we do, Your Honor .
6 THE COURT: Let' s have your appearances just for the
7 record, phase.
8 MR. TAYLOR: Gary Taylor for Mr . Clark .
9 MR. OVEN : Curt Owen for all Cross-Complainants
10 except Mr. Clark.
11 MR. BYE: Roland' Syc for the plaintiff. , Forde.
12 MR. LAUBSCHER: Barry Laubscher for the Cross-
13 Defendants, Forde and Hopper.
14 MR. KENBLE : Donald Kemble for Cross-Defendant,
is Roland Bye.
16 THE COUP.T: A1.1 right, thank vou. Mr. Owen, do you
17 want to read in the stipulation?
18 MR. OWEN : Yes , Your Honor. Par.agz ;iph One, this
19 stipulation is made by each party as a t:ompromise of
20 disputed matters and is not to be deemed or construed as
21 an admission in any regard or in any matter. ; this stinulatio
22 shall be binding on the parties , their respective
23 successors or assigns .
24 Pazragraph Two, plaintiff dismisses both causes
25 of action of plaintiff ' s supplemental Complaint as to all
26 matters accruing on or before December 31 , 1981 with
3
1 prejudice.
2 Paragraph Three, plaintiff expressly reserves
3 any and all claims he may have concerning management of the
4 property on or after January 1 , 1982, and specifically the
5 right to contend that William Clark should pay a, higher
6 rental rate on and after January 1 , 1982.
7 Paragraph Four. , Cross-Complainants dismiss
8 Causes of Action One through Four, inclusive, of the First
9 Amended Cross-Complaint filed herein with prejudice .
10 Para�jraph Five, each Cross-Defendant releases
11 Cross-Complainants and their agents and attorneys with
12 respect to any potential action for malicious prosecution
13 or any other claim arising out of this action or in any
14 way related hereto.
15 MR. TAYLOR: Hereby releases .
16 MR. OWEN: Paragraph Six , Cross-Complainants will
17 reimburse to Pacifica Marine bank account, Crocker Rank ,
18 Santa Ana Main Street, • account number. 355-124906 , all funds
19 paid or disbursed from said account to Pernard J . hoerselman,
20 Inc. , a professional corporation, within ten days of this
21 stipulation.
22 Paragraph Seven, Cross-Complad nants will bring
23 current the rental account of William Clark for rental st)ace
24 for proposed restaurant for the period May 1 , 1981 through
25 December 31 , 1981 in the total amount of $68 ,800 within ten
26 days following this stipulation.
` r
4
1 Paragraph Bight. It is stipulated that the
2 rental specified in Paragraph Seven is for a month to month
3 tenancy by William Clark only, William Clark as of this
4 date has the rights and obligations of a month to month
5 tenant holder.
8 Paragraph Nine. All parties will bear their
7 own costs and attorney fees with respect to ill Causes of
8 Action, whether litigated or dismissed herein.
9 Paragraph Ten. The Court reserves jurisdiction
t0 to mare any orders necessary or convenient to carry out the
11 purposes and intent of this stipulation.
12 THE COURT: Anything else now? Does that cover it?
13 MR. TAYI,OR: That covers it.
14 THE COURT: All right. Let' s go down the table and
15 get a representation by each counsel of whether or not they
18 are authorized on behalf of their clients and whether they
17 accent and enter the stinulation.
18 MR. TAYLOR: I am so authorized by Mr. Clark and we
19 accent and agree• to the stipulation .
20 MR. OWEN : I am so authorized by the remaining
21 Cross-Complainants and we accent and agree to the stipulation.
22 MR. BYE : I have authority on behalf of the plaintiff,
23 Mr. Forde, and I accept and agrcc to the stipulation.
24 MR. LAUBSCIIER: I have authority on behalf of the
25 Cross-Defendants Forde and Hopper and a-lree and accept the
26 stipulation.
1
5
1 MR. KEMBI.E: I have authority of the Cross-Defendant,
2 Roland Bye, to accept this settlement and hereby agree to it.
3 THE COURT: All right. The Court accepts the
4 stipulation. I think counsel have agreed that you wanted
5 to have an Order on that. Prepare .it in Order form and
6 have the ogoosinq side approve it as to form and content.
7 Who is going --
8 MR. 0WEN : L ' 11 hrcpare it, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Mr . Owen?
10 MR. OWEN: Yes, Sir.
11 THE COURT: You prepare it and we ' ll have Mr . Taylor
12 approve it as to form and content on behalf of his client,
13 and then Mr. Bye and Laubscher and Kemblc, each on behalf
14 of their clients .
15 Prepare the form on that basis . We will trail
16 the remaining matters to 1 :30 this afternoon in this
17 department.
18 MR. TAYI.OR: Thank you, Your Honer.
19 '
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6
1 REPORTER 'S CERTIFICATE
r
2
3
4 I , Kathleen J . Pierson, C.S .R. , do hereby certify
5 that the foregoing Reporter ' s Transcript, from page 2
6 through 5, inclusive, is a full , true and correct
7 transcript of my shorthand notes of the procee Mnqj",�d'
8 in said cause.
9
10 KATHLEEN J. PIERSON CSR #3210
Official Court Repo ter
11
12 DATED: January 12 , 1982
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
N j j._ a_ \ _ _ �L':..-ls�eala dll�.(Iywradr�AlaJ17r i�
4333 9h• T 4243Po 17
WHEN RECORDED MAIL To: ,
sa.QQ'
SOUTHERN CITIES ESCROW COMPANY
TRUST DEPARTMENT
1201 East Highland Avenue at w •c-.P a atr-"j as
San Bernardino, California 92464 „PIT tva• mU R& M
.a at.-or- as
tur"
Attn: :Beata Brad IOCAY C,:T b-ilfil
tr ti M♦nCN,r�Mit
NOTICE. OF DEFAULT AND ELECTION TO CAUSE
PROPERTY TO BE SOLD UNDER DEED OF TRUST
Number msm
IMPORTANT NOTICE
IF YOUR PROPERTY IS IN FORECLOSURE BECAUSE YOU ARE BEHIND
IN YOUR PAYMENTS, IT MAY BE SOLD WITHOUT ANY COURT ACTION
AND YOU MAY have,the legal right to bring your account in good standing
by paying all of your past due payments plus permitted costs and expenses
within three months from the date this notice of default was recorded.
This amount is $159 99 11— as of 10-5-81 and will Increase until
your account becomes current. You MAY not have to pay the entire unpaid
portion of your account, even though full payment was demanded, but you
must pay;the amount stated above. After three months from the date of
recordation of this document (which date of recordation appears hereon),
unless the obligation being foreclosed upon permits a longer period,you have
only the legal right to stop the foreclosure by paying the entire amount
demanded by your creditor.
To find out the amount you must pay, or to arrange for payment to stop the
foreclosure, or If your property is In foreclosure for any other reason, contact:
PAPTFTCA MARTNE
(name of Beneficiary) In Care Of:
SOUTHERN CITIES ESCROW COMPANY TRUST DEPT.
1201 East Highland Avenue -
San Bernardino, California 92404
Telephone: (714) 886.7811 X 280 3 287
If you have any questions, you should contact a lawyer or the government
agency which may have Insured your loan. i
Remember, YOU MAY LOSE LEGAL RIGHTS IF YOU DO NOT TAKE PROMPT
ACTION.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE HERE-
INAFTER MENTIONED PROPERTY OR WHOM THIS NOTICE MAY CONCERN,
that:
The undersigned Is the owner of the promissory note secured-by and Is the owner of and ►,
present Beneficiary under that certain deed o:trust which is dated arld recnrded In the office t'
of the County Recorder In the State of California, In the County,on'the recordation date, In ;t
In the Book•and at the page as Document number of Official Records as designated below.
• ' The dame of the Trustor(which term, as herein used, shall Include the plural as appro
. �• • prlate)under said deed of trust is designated below,and under said deed of trust said Trustor
transferred the property described therein, In trust, to secure payment of said promissory
note and the performance of other obligations mentioned In said deed of trust
I
SCAT 041 rrq.1 Y 3 MMY I
ex 14243Pe 1711
A beach of the obligation for ivhleh said dead of trust or tnnsfer in truer.Is security has oo•
' eurred,In that Installments of principal and Interest have become due on said not@ and stilt is.
main unpaid,and any other default designated below has occurred,and the entire unpaie ptin-
cipai amount of said note has been declared by the undersigned and Is now due and unpaid,and
default has bean mods In the payment thereof,and said defaults and each of them still continue. ;
* -HAE PARIIUMARLY DFSCIUBM BF7DW
By reason thereof,the undersigned has declared,and does hereby declare,all sums secured
by said deed of trust Immediately due and payable, and the undersigned has made and hereby `
makes demand upon the Trustee for the sale of said property,and has elected and does hereby
elect to cause all property conveyed under said dead of trust and now subject thereto to be sold e
to satisfy the objects of said trust. 4
The name of the Trustor and other data referred to above are as follows:
Trustor: WAITER H. GALE and FFAwm E. am, husband and wife, LfMS L. WRcn, JR., a
married mart JAM A. CARTER and SIWM A. CARTER, husband,ad wife, 1EWIS L. WRIIFr, JR.,
as Trusteeunder the will of Gloria A. Wright, deceased, DEWIS GAIF, an ttnanartied mat and
WI Date of UeddPJWruat� bq his sole and separate property.
February 23, 1981
Recorded:County ' Orange Book13967 Page 1493 -
Recordation Date: March 3, 1981 Docvment No. 3823
Other Default: *k*Lhpaid principal balance of $350,000.00 finch was all due and payable on
• August 1, 1981, plus interest cmPotaided frm 9-1-81 at a rate of 217. per minor to date
paid plus delinquent taxes if any, plus advances chat the beneficiary hereunder may be
obligated or authorized topay if any, plus interest on those advances at a rate of 7x
-per a,�Pi`�r ri uncle, ..es.
Date o September 18. 1981
PACIFICA F1UME ..
• �• • Po rt Gordan Iler, Presider
FLo!i4A C�/�7 (7���
• STATE OF t?hf H-OftNt4 ) �l /� %c, � �--•
• 'j, a wart pper, eSarv"
, 1
+ COU'NTY OF*$Ay 1
On iC�' a� berore me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for.sid State•per.
Ransil; appeared - Z akdwh A d='•) ,
i�
known to me to lie theper.on whose name subscribed to the withinInstru•
ment and acknowledged to me that executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
�, • • Signature
• uowr rYielt VA11011 RQUdA k AJ4 ••�• .f
Mr twMYiSSan 1ArIUS oic.is tin
3y';P. 7ata'Qr3DTmS—"2r .•nf'�� .. p
fThh urn for official mold wall
1. i t � '�•f itr
l►qs s ar towed :� ` ! '• ;
Kr•YI•YI••a ; II r�,
II ,j4 r! i•
x . . ` .•;11 .„ . t .t:i���4,fx:.��--=..+.ire. ��i
r
It
•
.FITF.Iu 1�°'+• } BK 14243Po 1712
IIN%TT IIF 60y _ _ ._.
SAFECO
1
Arm.Fro.wnl',1wxnwl•xu+n•xA M•.M(/1`r,�R.�Y�J�`I'�'• IOR NOTARY•[A{.OR STAMP
i 1•r.+nrllf .pp.rrr.l .i A+•+'Q•1x Q.•..•77,.•"i •
b.xx,.r Ix Ir IM
.Irwxx r r M Ir 1
/ Ilnor,q J IF.rrlrw.. IAA nna••I Jr
«iFm LnbnnrM,lr•n In v w b IM Lrs.xF.r.n.,.J Iti
• .n.o In•oxwnM wn Id.N.A rFi•"•r•"nr•+rbv�w wr•-nu
..1.•1 1. r P a ..�...rl..uw ....mA ,V
• •u.n•rN pmn•M r A•In W r .u.A+r•'•!1 ••'LwJ J 1
. xywnww,/ ocil
MIK lit
ROuaa AT t198
�J/,•. yh FaaI., ON wus oa.f� in1
uan a eAlaaRu �
!1
cwln of Oran&*.2! I 961 __ �.•
a•S.r ,RrrT Iwl•1 r W N ! ,••
Sat ..,r.d••xAa
• sft� LQ99 I}ar 11
•wwwrr r•.►•._�. Wv-.--sue* I
! �R.I...r,.,.-�. _ ._ >�..T.�'J..uN.�...•.rw.....,�rnx.,x� I. :r
1 W Inww N r w r ti I•rr•x•wx,••rrN Ai•.Ar � , •
i wxrwwl r b."J a.••�Irwx x'•'•r'*."A W U. {'� OFFICIAL SC ye 1
j br•.rdwA r r A.r oA wr.rw .+r• • •x .•�N" /n_ BEAM KA11MEYI�
ir•
t• ROIATr IUR.rC•C4M0•MIl
• wxxrM NrxIA M Ir•IR IM r•nr•4ww.1 r a•r•✓ ►,. O IN"WAM I
•1 r wr I/1,J!"
•n.xw
i
g WIIMFa r/MW W.R•y�
■ h I
WE
sea MI".10-yer
• -- ,.,.rt•••%r h.wM IM•.,•••r••Y W r+••IA•rrK
Tscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Enginee.
2Z HOUR PEAK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant/Marine-Oriented Offices
2801 west Coast Highway
Newport Beach, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would produce a three story structure
on the subject site. The ground floor would contain The Nantucket
Lobster Trap Restaurant . The restaurant would total 5808 square
feet with 3026 square feet of that amount devoted to public area
and the remainder consisting of kitchen and service areas.
The upper two floors (17 ,099 gross square feet) would
contain marine oriented offices such as yacht brokers , marine
insurance and marine manufacturer 's representatives . The leasable
office area would total 14,099 square feet .
The project site is situated on the south side of Coast
Highway immediately west of the signalized Coast Highway/Riverside
Avenue intersection. The site currently contains a boat dealership
and is served via a right turn in/right turn out driveway from
West Coast Highway. Current plans call for the provision of access
to the site through the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue inter-
section by connecting the site' s parking area with that of Pacifica
Marine, Inc. immediately east of the site. The Pacifica Marine
driveway forms the fourth leg of the Coast Highway/Riverside
Avenue intersection. This parking continuity would increase the
site's daytime parking provision of 60 spaces to 72 spaces during
the evening hours. The proposed site plan also includes the
provisio4 of a right turn in/right turn out driveway along Coast
Highway similar to that currently serving the site.
TRAFFIC GENERATION
Traffic generation forecasts have been prepared individually
for the restaurant and office portions of the project according to
generation rates compiled by the City Traffic Department with one
exception. A generation factor for the proposed restaurant during
the 3: 30 to 6PM period was estimated from a total of six studies
Cott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engine*
of similar establishment's which were -conducted b'y - Caltransl :
These forecasts on a 3 :30 to 6PM and 24-hour basis are presented
in Tables 1 and 2.
Summation of the data presented in Tables 1 and 2
indicates that the combined restaurant/office-project would-
generate a total of 670 vehicle trips per day evenly distributed
between inbound and outbound. The combined generation during the
3:30 to 6PM period on a typical weekday would total 140 vehicle
trips with 55 of these arriving at the site and 85 vehicles departing
during this period.
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
Traffic has been distributed on a logic basis utilizing
a review of the site access characteristics and the adjacent
street system. At the site, project traffic is expected to be
roughly evenly distributed to the east and west along Coast High-
way with a small percentage of this traffic added to Riverside
Avenue. Exhibit 1 presents the projected•percentage distribution
of project traffic as well as anticipated project-related
volume assignments to area roadways .
INTERSECTION EVALUATION
Four intersections have been identified for analysis
during the 3:30 to 6PM period. They are the Coast Highway inter-
sections with Riverside Avenue, Dover Drive and Balboa Boulevard-
Superior Avenue and the Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road intersection.
Analysis worksheets for the 2z hour peak traffic periods
were completed for each of these four intersections utilizing
Winter/Spring 1978 average traffic volumes and project traffic
volume assignments as identified in Exhibit 1 . These worksheets
are included in the appendix.
1SOURCE: Based, on machine and manual count data for the period 3:,30
to 6PM as reported in Studies Number 155, 156, 194, 251, 252 and
253; Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Progress Reports on Trip
Ends Generation Research Counts, Caltrans, District 4, San Francisco,
1973-76. These studies were of restaurants similar to that proposed.
2
Ocott, Law& Greenspan, Inc., Enginee*
TABLE 1
TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
The Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant
5808 Gross Square Feet/3026 Net Square Feet
24 HOUR 3 :30 - 6PM
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
Generation Factor
T.E. /1000 N.S.F. 1 75 75 1502 11 .33 7 .73 19.03
Generated Vehicle
Trips 225 225 450 35 25 60
TABLE 2
TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
Marine Oriented Offices
17, 099 Gross Square Feet/14,099 Leasable Square Feet
24 HOUR 3: 30 - 6PM
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
Generation Factor
T.E. /1000 G.S.F. 4 6.52 6.52 13 .02 1 .22 3.42 4.62
Generated Vehicle
Trips 110 110 220 20 60 80
1Trip Ends per 1000 net square feet (public area) where a trip end
is a one-way vehicular movement either entering or departing the
generating land use.
2SOURCE: City of Newport Beach.
3SOURCE: Based on machine and manual count data -for the period
3 : 30 to 6PM as reported in Studies Number 155, 156, 194, 251, 252
and 253; Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Progress Reports on
Trip Ends Generation Research Counts, Caltrans, District 4, San
Francisco, 1973-76. These studies were of restaurants similar to
that proposed.
4Trip ends per 1000 square feet of gross area.
3
ti�0
oh I>
� do
Q°
0-
6 , J
m
�J m J0c
xosp;t" a4
w
%. OJ
10 ?0 Road
= 40 ti y f tic §1.c
LO im d� LO �
od
y�,y Cliff Drive• �Jf�
..45% n? 40° East
w
40 Coast Hwy 36
150
�\ 13S.
PACIFIC r
OCEAN �zDO zs�F
\ NEWPORT
BAY
KEY
D 00 _ 3:30 - 6PM Volume
00 24 Hour Volume
NORTH N0SCALE o, o�r Percent Distribution PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTIO
4G Linscott Law & Greenspan, Inc. OFFICES/NANTUCKET LOBSTER TRAP RESTAURANT
0scott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engine*
When evaluated on a total intersection basis , project
related traffic was found to represent less than one percent of
the total existing volume at all but the Coast Highway/Riverside '
Avenue intersection. Project traffic at that location is estimated
at 1 .4 percent of the existing total intersection volume.
When analyzed on a movement . by movement basis, project
traffic would exceed one percent of the existing volume on five
movements at the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection.
Project traffic would exceed one percent of the existing volume
on the southbound right turn, eastbound through and eastbound
left turn at the Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection. Project
traffic at the other two intersections is not expected to exceed
one percent of existing volumes on. any. movement . _
This analysis has considered project-related traffic as
totally additive to existing volumes and has- not applied any
credit for the quantity of traffic related to the existing use
on that site which would be removed from area roadways . In order
to determine the "net" addition of project traffic to key inter-
sections in the site area, manual traffic counts were conducted
for the site 's existing use during the hours of 3:30 to 6PM on
Thursday, July 13, 1978 . Those counts revealed a total of three
entering and seven departing vehicles during that period with all
departing traffic passing in the eastbound direction through the
Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection. These seven vehicles
could therefore be appropriately credited to forecasted project
traffic volumes at this location in order to determine a net
traffic addition. An investigation of "net" project traffic at
the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection indicates that
this assignment would still exceed one percent of the existing
volume after this credit was applied.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
When evaluated on a total intersection basis , project
traffic is estimated to exceed one percent of the existing 2J hour
peak traffic volume at only the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue
4
Ocott, Law& Greenspan, Inc., EngineelP
intersection and an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
analysis is required at that location. Computation on an
individual movement basis indicates that project traffic during
this period would exceed one percent of the existing volume on
five movements at the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection
and three movements at the Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection.
5
II
Cott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engine
APPENDIX
22 HOUR PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSES :
Coast Highway/Riverside Ave
Coast Highway/Dover Drive
Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd-Superior Ave
Newport Blvd/Hospital Rd
Hr Peak Traffic Volume Analy-9
Intersection GDAyT ��1�I�WVwj IV 1bG' Qvr
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)
MOVEMENT EXISTING 212 HOUR PROJECT 22 HOUR YKu ���� L tAy a
PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME °�� OFlytli
NT
NR
NL (8 4.0 ZZZ.2
ST
SR
SL
ET 3D b9 ILp O. (p
ER (5 0 0
EL Wo p O
WT
wR S9 o O
WL 3 26 (05,
TOTAL B4 1-
, L
1% of Existing 212 Hour Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is Estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 22 Hour
Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% •of Existing 22
Hour Peak Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)
Analysis is required.
INTERSECTION C-OA471 RI(00%M" / VIUCMII?C; JAG'
_ FORM I
PROJECT: �rcel AV(LAINCC (D F1GG'�i ' �GSaI CDptgT 'NI�Nvul+y
Hr Peak Traffic Volume Analys
Intersection bDAW NbVwtw / -00\ie(L $T-
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)
MOVEMENT EXISTING 22 HOUR PROJECT 2z HOUR
PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME
NT j2•$ 0 O �Ia
NR 94 0 - O
NL 60 0 O
ST 113 O O
SR 2�Q 5 �•�
SL b o
ET 35 t•l _
ER Sq O D
EL ?j0 - 1.1
WT 34-71i 2U o„b
WRIT59 0
WL
TOTAL 1 ,\1 �O5 O. (0
1-% of Existing 22 Hour Peak Traffic Volume
(Q•I Project Traffic is Estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 22 Hour
I01 Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% of Existing 22
Hour Peak Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)
Analysis is required.
INTERSECTION
CUA12T N1oFlW Art, ( bc7.i6\2 FORM I
--PROJECT: jGf\U�it�1�1(
Hr Peak Traffic Volume Analy*
Intersection CbA T R16AWLI /OA43A.131-1r0-5UPM102 /A1v
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)
,� ih-obux-�vaf ESL a5 a
MOVEMENT EXISTING 22 HOUR PROJECT 22 HOUR
PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME
NT 30TO
NR 211 0
NL 113 O
ST
SR
SL (ail O O
ET to133 A O
ER 2l0 O
EL 'I60 O 0
wT 7110 0
wR 136► o . o
wL
TOTAL J1 0I2 Q
1% of Existing 22 Hour Peak Traffic Volume = Eo(0
® Project Traffic is Estimated to be 'less than 1% of Existing 22 Hour
Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% of Existin 22
Hour Peak Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)
Analysis is required.
1 Comi �t n4i�,� DMOJAej Q9 vluti�l� �In �i1 �11v� —
S�p en;c►. AvtMv U ay W F -w e11
INTERSECTION CZ1Wr 1f1(;7k4WtWJ IDP�uaop' vL4v— rwvM- A31& M6 FORM I
PROJECT: YQ0%A\j&vAj /b�FtLGS Zb01 CDAeY NW"W►aL
Hr Peak Traffic Volume Analyo
Intersection MEWRbgT ' LWP J NLY-7V7"1,.k1/ VOAP
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)
MOVEMENT EXISTING 22 HOUR PROJECT 22 HOUR o0 T�af�t� a5 0
PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME to GC �t' lv�s
NT 10 0 i3
NR•
NL p 4
ST 2 15 0,4 'lo
SR 3DCi O
SL .0
ET O 0
ER 51ti O O
EL lI rb 1 O 0
WT 404 0 0
WR 33 O 0
WL 45A O 0
TOTAL 9993 Z5 0 1110
1% of Existing 22 Hour Peak Traffic Volume = 99
t01 Project Traffic is Estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 22 Hour
LLl Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% of Existin 22
El Hour Peak Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization g(I.C.U.)
Analysis is required.
INTERSECTION N�WO(C7[ �� �Nc�y�al\ pP(p
FORM I
PROJECT: W-7VAU2r'\ J IZDk C',OAtA N\(-AHW"
a-
LINSCOTT, LAVV & GREENSPAN, INC., ENGINEERS
. r
TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, PARKING, CIVIL E NcsINEERING
84.;5 PERSHING DRIVE, PLAYA DEL REY CALIFORNIA 90291 TELEPHONE 213-821-3457
r-I Co
July 19, 1978 S, Repo„eoo�• \p ,�
pF�Pp
1,/� ��'• ���� 'v 11
Ms. Beverly D. Wood
Project Planner and Environmental Coordinator
• Community Development Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Subject: Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant/Marine Oriented Offices
2801 West Coast Highway
Dear Beverly: ,
Transmitted herewith are two copies of our 2J Hour Peak Traffic
Analysis for the subject project .
Briefly, we find that project traffic would exceed one percent of
existing volumes at only the Nest Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue
intersection when computed on a total intersection basis . Consideration
of individual intersection movements indicates a total of five movements
at the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection and three movements
at the Coast Highway/Dover. Drive intersection where project traffic
would exceed one percent of existing volumes.
Please contact us if you have any further questions . We are prepared
to meet with you and the applicant at your convenience to discuss our '
findings .
Very truly yours,
' P Jul
P. W. Wilkinson
Transportation Engineer
Encl.
aniruci cnr.: nc.-Olr_ MI Mc - r. Tr n�:-
r ,
y escott, law & Greenspan, Inc., Engino
2j HOUR PEAK TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant/Marine-Oriented Offices
2801 West Coast Highway
Newport Beach, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION -
The proposed project would produce a three story structure
on the subject site. The ground floor would contain The Nantucket
Lobster Trap Restaurant . The restaurant would total 5808 square-
feet with 3026 square feet of that amount devoted to public area
and the remainder consisting of kitchen and service areas.
The upper two floors (17,099 gross square feet) would
contain marine oriented offices such as yacht brokers , marine
insurance and marine manufacturer's representatives. The leasable
office area would total 14,099 square feet .
The project site is situated on the south side of Coas.
Highway immediately west of the signalized Coast Highway/Riverside
Avenue intersection: The site currently contains a boat dealership
and is served via a right turn in/right turn out driveway from.
West Coast Highway. Current plans call for the provision of access
to the site through the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue inter-
section by connecting the site's parking area with that of Pacifica
Marine, Inc, immediately east of the site. The Pacifica Marine
driveway forms the fourth leg of the Coast Highway/Riverside
Avenue intersection. This parking continuity would increase the
site 's daytime parking provision of 60 spaces to 72 spaces during
the evening hours . The proposed site plan also includes the
provision of a right turn in/right turn out driveway along Coast
Highway similar to that currently serving the site.
TRAFFIC GENERATION
Traffic generation forecasts have been prepared individually
for the restaurant and office portions of the project according to
generation rates compiled by the City Traffic Department with one
exception . A generation factor for the proposed restaurant during
the 3 : 30 to 6PM period was estimated from a total of six studies
•inscott, law & Greenspan, Inc., Engi
of similar establishments which were conducted by Caltransl .
These forecasts on a 3 : 30 to 6PM and 24-hour basis are presented
I in Tables 1 and 2.
Summation of the data presented in Tables 1 and 2
indicates- that the combined restaurant/office project would-
generate a total of 670 vehicle trips per day evenly distributed
between inbound and outbound. The combined generation during the
3 :30 to 6PM period on a typical weekday would total 140 vehicle
trips with 55 of these arriving at the site and 85 vehicles departing
during this period.
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
Traffic has been distributed on a logic basis utilizing
a review of the site access characteristics and the, adjacent
street system. At the site, project traffic is expected to be
roughly evenly distributed to the east and west along Coast High-
way with a small percentage of this traffic added to Riverside
Avenue. Exhibit 1 presents the projected%percentage distribution
of project traffic as well as anticipated project-related
volume assignments to area roadways .
INTERSECTION EVALUATION
. Four intersections have been identified for analysis
during the 3:30 to 6PM period. They are the Coast Highway inter-
sections with Riverside Avenue, Dover 'Drive and Balboa Boulevard-
Superior Avenue and the Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road intersection.
Analysis worksheets for the 2z hour peak traffic periods
were completed for each of these four intersections utilizing
Winter/Spring 1978 average traffic volumes and project traffic
volume assignments as identified in Exhibit 1. 'These worksheets
are included in the appendix.
1SOURCE: Based on machine and manual count data for the period 3:30
to 6PM as reported in Studies Number 155, 156, 194, 251, 252 and
253; Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Progress Reports on Trip
Ends Generation Research Counts, Caltrans, District 4, San Francisco,
1973-76. These studies were of restaurants similar to that proposed.
2
l
enscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engio
TABLE 1
TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
The Nantucket Lobster Trap Restaurant
5808 Gross Square Feet/3026 Net Square Feet
24 HOUR 3 .30 - 6PM
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
Generation Factor
T.E. /1000 N.S.F. 1 75 75 1502 11.33 7.73 19.03
Generated Vehicle
Trips 225 225 450 35 25 60
TABLE 2
TRAFFIC GENERATION FORECAST
Marine Oriented Offices
17,099 Gross Square Feet/14,099 Leasable Square Feet
24 HOUR 3:30 - 6PM
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
Generation Factor
.T.E. /1000 G.S.F.4 6.52 6.52 13.02 1.22 3.42 4.62
Generated Vehicle
Trips 110 110 220 20 60 80
1Trip Ends per 1000 net square feet (public area) where a trip end
is a one-way vehicular movement either entering or departing the
generating land use.
2SOURCE: City of Newport Beach.
3SOURCE: Based on machine and manual count data for the period
3:30 to 6PM as reported in Studies Number 155, 156, 194, 251, 252
and 253; Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Progress Reports on
Trip Ends Generation Research Counts, Caltrans, District 4, San
Francisco, 1973-76. These studies were of restaurants similar to
that proposed.
4Trip ends per 1000 square feet of gross area.
3
a�Q
�J m a�Q
S ' HosP4ta1 aQ .
Al
= 40 ti Hf tit ��
LOILC)
o
ds y4y c1fpf prlve.
.46yo 51 L� 40: East 1 5°
_40► Coast Hwy 3S
150 �\ 13S"
PACIFIC
OCEAN LjDO ts��
\ NEWPORT _
BAY
KEY
aD 00 3:30. - 5PM Volume '
NORTH 00 24 Hour Volume
NO SCALE 04 0% , Percent Distribution PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
-LMCTED TDAD DECTANDAM-L
s Onscott, Law & Greenspan, Inc., Engin*
When evaluated on a total intersection basis, project
related traffic was found to represent less than one percent of
1 the total existing volume at all but the Coast •Highway,/Riverside
Avenue intersection. Project traffic at that location is estimated
at 1 .4 percent of the existing total intersection volume.
f When analyzed on a movement . by movement basis, project
traffic would exceed one percent of the existing volume on five
u movements at the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection.
Project traffic would exceed one percent of the existing volume
' on the southbound right turn, eastbound through- and eastbound
left turn at the Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection. Project
„Mll traffic at the other two intersections is not expected to exceed
one percent of existing volumes on any movement.
This analysis has considered project-related traffic as
totally additive to existing volumes and has not applied any -
credittfor the quantity of traffic related to the existing use
on that site which would be removed from area roadways. In order j
to determine the "net" addition of project traffic co ey inter-
sections in the site area, manual traffic counts were conducted
for the site 's existing use during the hours of 3:30 to 6PM on
Thursday, July 13, 1978. Those counts revealed a total of three
entering and seven departing vehicles during that period with all
departing traffic passing in the eastbound direction through the
Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection. These seven vehicles
could therefore be appropriately credited to forecasted project
traffic volumes at this location in order to determine a net
traffic addition. An. investigation of "net" project traffic at
the Coast xs;r1P avenue intersection indicates that
this assignment would still exceed one percent of the existing
volume after this credit was applied.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
When evaluated on a total intersection basis, project
traffic is estimated to exceed one percent of the existing 2z hour
peak traffic volume at only the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue
4
Zinscott, Law & Creanspari, Inc., Engina .s
intersection and an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
analysis is required at that location. Computation on an
individual movement basis indicates that project traffic during '
this period would exceed one percent of the existing volume on
five movements at the Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue intersection
and three movements at the Coast Highway/Dover Drive intersection.
I
i,+ 5
�nscott, Law& Greenspan, Inc., Enginl
I ,
A
APPENDIX
2a HOUR PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSES:
Coast Highway/Riverside Ave
Coast Highway/Dover Drive
Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd-Superior Ave
Newport Blvd/Hospital Rd
�z Hr Peak Traffic Volume AnARE&VC-
s
In�"�rsection (intiV �161k�Nr1� � ANU
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)
i MOVEMENT EXISTING 2 z HOUR PROJECT 21-2 HOUR- WOO��aff►L ay ��'
PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME 16 OF WK ;Vk1
i NT
NR
NL 4p 2ZZ.,2
ST $-- 5 - - (2,S
SR 135 o O
SL 0
ET 40
ER 0 0
EL �4 O
WT 0 0
wR d9 0 0
WL 3�
TOTAL 4 Z I15 1.4 016
1% of Existing 22 Hour Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is Estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 2; Hour
Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% of Existing 22
Hour Peak Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)
Analysis is required. .
INTERSECTION C�Ay1 FI1(�N�NFTy �lvG(�ytr7e /11fG
FORM I
--PROJECT: te`r VR l\q �C)fir t2 ' 7•SOl bptV Aj(i}{V hf
�2 Hr Peak Traffic Volume Ana s
Intersection_ f cAtif Nb�-, rmpM I 0 eej $p
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)
i MOVEMENT EXISTING 22 HOUR PROJECT 22 HOUR
PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME
NT :12$ - 0 0 ��o
NR y4 0 0
NL 'D b
ST h3 0 O
SR 4 5
SL t(33 0 0
ET 30)8 35
ER S� • 0 t)
EL 302 X70 ICi •�
WT 3415 2t� O„b
WR 7j9 0 0
WL ? O 0
TOTAL t 1 ,\1 C 0• (0
1% of Existing 22 Hour Peak Traffic Volume = TT
r\-71 Project Traffic is Estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 2z Hour
V�1 Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% of' Existing 22
ElHour Peak Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)*
Analysis is required.
INTERSECTION UAW N14�t\WF1ti U�7.i6\2 U
r
i FORM I
PROJECT: G`�TAUfu NT �O��1 s Z�a1 C)PS-V VANbRWA•ti-J
�2 Hr Peak Traffic Volume Ana s
Intersection CbA(YT R16tAW A-i,11DfVZ3A.01-1rb•-5Upmfoz AA115
(Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)
MOVEMENTS EXISTING 22 HOUR PROJECT 22 HOUR p�o�Cck�v�4f�L 45 ov
PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME b1DX1�I��r4
i NT V9 o,t—v
NR 211 0 O
NL
ST
SR 0
SL 1041 O O
ET I 55 !�J O
ER 210 O O
EL 1 0 0
WT 711� O O
wR 1361 0 . O
WL 28� O 0.
TOTAL o l s-
1% of Existing 2z Hour Peak Traffic Volume = IOto
M Project Traffic is Estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 22 Hour
tom! Peak Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% of Existing 22
-1 Hour Peak Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)
Analysis is required. -
1 ,� Coayt N l�n w.� Grnh1 dan e.� a� v11n,}k- �'►rw�h � $al Ir,�.�1v& — .
5�pensv►. 'ANVA\Jej a9 eart -we1,-t , Gk� (a,�wu'c �e<-�,. -•
INTERSECTION
C.�r�yr �tl(�1�vv�l• 1$►a1�� �,w�— �u�.��z. Aye
FORM I
PROJECT: J �%Ay1:,A?41 10 (,S'�, 1531 CDAe T 1Wv"W
2z Hr Peak Traffic Volume Analysis
tersection W (bftr $LVq�I tT►y�, lf�j��
(Existing� �{
affic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 1978)
MOVEMENT EXISTING 2z HOUR PROJECT 22 HOUR TraiU o5
j PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME PEAK TRAFFIC VOLUME b�o 6� �,tl`Illtits
NT 2�7fo4 10 0 i3
NR 205 O p
NL 39 O
L--
SR
�3 O• O
��� O O
4�7 O O
4D4 O O
• . 33 O o
WL 4'4 O o
TOTAL 9993
1% of Existing 2z Hour Peak Traffic Volume = gq
rV1 Project Traffic is Estimated to be less than 1% of Existing 2Z Hour
LN Peak Traffic Volume
ElProject Traffic is estimated to be Greater than 1% of Existing 2z
Hour Peak Traffic •Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.)
Analysis is required.
INTERSECTION IN DIT FORM I
/NOy���
PROJE
CT: a ►1.55
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2801 West Coast Highway
Newport Beach, CA 92663
The proposed project is a combination restaurant and office building.
The ground floor restaurant will be The Nantucket Lobster Trap, a din-
ner house which will only be open in the evening. It will serve top qual-
ity fresh seafood and will not have dancing or major entertainment.
The upper two floors will be marine oriented offices. The offices
will be rented to yacht brokers, marine insurance, marine manufacturer's
reps, marine financing, and similar businesses. There will be no retail
sales and very little customer traffic. The office hours will tend to be
9:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday.
Rental office space 14, 099 square feet
Non rentable space 3, 000 square feet
Restaurant public area 3, 026 square feet
Kitchen and service areas 2, 782 square feet
Daytime parking 60
Nighttime parking 72
Developer: Gordon S. Barienbrock
2122 Newport Blvd
673-8511
Architect: William Biurock & Partners
2300 Newport Blvd
Newport Beach, CA 92663