Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
IS031_ST ANDREWS PRESBY. CHURCH 1 OF 3
13031 9 Initial Study for St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church • Master Plan of Facilities 0. ,• t • Lsa 0 • 0500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 525 Newport Beach, California 92660 phone (714) 640.6363 • 02606 Eighth Street Berkeley, California 94710 phone (415) 841.6840 Community Planning ❑ Natural Resource Management ❑ Environmental Assessment • • INITIAL STUDY FOR ST. ANDREW'S PRESBYTE N CHURCH MASTER N OF FACILITIES • PREPARED FOR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P.O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663-3884 (714) 640-2197 • PREPARED BY LARRY SEEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. • 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 525 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (714) 640-6363 0 •o APRIL 12, 1982 °1 r 0 , N • ii • Ua • TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 • Introduction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 5 PermitsRequired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Key Contact Persons . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 • DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND- USES AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO THIS PROJECT . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ExistingLand Uses .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Committed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 • Proposed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Transportation and Utility Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 • Land Use .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Viewsand Aesthetics . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Circulationand Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Earth Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Hydrology/Water Quality .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 AirQuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 • Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Public Services and Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 45 Standard City Conditions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 47 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 • APPENDIX - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS • • • Lsa • LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES • Figure 1 - Location Map . 2 Figure 2 - Existing Facilities . . . . • • . • • . . • . . . • • . . • . • .. 3 Figure 3 - Aerial Photo .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 4 - Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Figure 5 - Lower-Level Plan .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Figure 6 - First-Floor Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 • Figure 7 - Second-Floor Plan .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 8 - Floor Plans 3 through 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 9 - Longitudinal Section through Administration Building .. . . . 13 Figure 10 - Transverse Section through Sanctuary. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 11 - North Elevation .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 12 - South Elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 • Figure 13 - East Elevation .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 14 - West Elevation . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 15 - Quad One Plan .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 19 Figure16 - Parcel Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 17 - Committed and Proposed Projects .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 22 Figure 18 - Project Visibility (Tower) . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 29 • Figure 19 - Shadow Study Plan - Winter .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 20 - Shadow Study Plan - Summer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 21 - Directional Distribution .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 22 - On-Street Parking - December 20, 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 23 - On-Street Parking - January 10, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 • TABLES Table A - Project Statistics .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table B - Zoning Comparison Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 • • • • • 1 • UM • INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION INTRODUCTION In accordance with the provisions of State guidelines for implementation • of the California Environmental Quality Act, this Initial Study has been pre- pared in order to determine whether or not the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the Initial Study has been prepared to identify feasible mitigation measures which could be applied to potential impacts. If, • based on the information contained in this report, it is determined that the project will not have any significant impacts or that any such impacts can be adequately mitigated, the City may issue a Negative Declaration. If, on the other hand, it is determined that the project will have significant environmental impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated, the City will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. . LOCATION The project site is located between 15th Street, Clay Street, and St. Andrews Road in the City of Newport Beach. The site is located across the street from Newport Harbor High School . Figures 1, 2, and 3 indicate the location of the project. • BACKGROUND The first sanctuary of the church was built in the early 1950s . Class- rooms, offices, and the chapel were added in the 1950s . The transcepts (wings) on the sides of the sanctuary and Dierenfield Hall were added in the early 1960s. Carpenter Hall and classrooms were added in the middle 1970s. Present facilities are shown in Figure 2. The church currently has about 3,000 members. Three services and several youth school classes are offered on Sundays. Groups and programs associated with the church include: fellowship groups; college, single adult, and youth • groups; several choirs; ministry classes; vacation bible school; and ABC Hot- line. The church also offers preschool classes on weekdays. At the present time, the usage of church facilities meets or exceeds capacity. • 2 � 1 � Location Map lsa BLVD. O ST9S T m F .DE y1 sT CORONA yS�. DEL MAR Ht cD3v FlNY. ST r Nr.poa Bar T.y Sr JQPPOP OrO• 9F� e � 'sr WEST e P cogsr �,v, HwY, SIDE Ave Sr ANOREwa ROAD Pacific Ocean DRIVE xy r • • • 9 3 • 2 Existing Facilities U a • 9Jc�gr SANCTUARY ylpv r fl0 SC_ alB Y TEWAR PATIO • LOUNGE DIERENFDID . _ �k HALL - - �'sy — - FIRESIDE AAt��1 PATIO ROOM e .- FOUNTAIN _ ep AJ J r CHAPEL FIRST =m SECOND QUADRANGLE c o QUADRANGLE A OFFICE 0° LOB4 I CLASSROOMS HHALLN ROAll OMI ROOM t 9T. ANDREWS ROAD • • • s 3 Aerial Photo lsa +�. • High School �•S• ing+�o,4 PRO +� !" ';_ ���� Aw�'M'v'.i.''�y'"�l"i^`'8�0n°ro�"'•_:fir; � '=,y�s','�';c:'.,�d.. 1L Masonic Temple { Ex' n y; '� ,•r ---: p� St inn rews`�acilities L ILL i t • r �. G. • �°F 40 �' •+ . • • • 5 Wa • PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The existing church facilities are located between 15th Street, St. Andrews Road, and an alley. The proposed expansion area, between the alley and Clay Street, is occupied by 12 houses and duplexes. St. Andrews Church owns these homes on ten lots. Most of the homes have been owned by the church • for several years. The homes have been used by church employees or families being assisted by the church. The proposed project will result in removal of the 12 residences and some existing church buildings. New construction would include: a sanctuary/educa- tion/administration building, an education building, and two parking lots. * Project statistics are shown in Table A. A site plan, floor plans, eleva- tions, and a parcel map are shown in Figures 4 through 16. The new sanctuary/administration building will have seating for an aver- age of 1,100 persons, with maximum seating capacity for 1,400 persons. The • average seating is based on a seating area of 23.72 inches per person. Studies conducted by the church indicated that figure as the current seating density. The Building Code requirement is 18 inches per person, which would allow seating for 1,400 people. The sanctuary portion of the building will have a maximum height of 46 feet above ground level , approximately 4 stories tall . The administration/classroom portion of the building will be contained • in a tower with a height about 105 feet above ground level . One level of the building, about 13 feet tall , will be located below ground level . The youth rooms under the parking lot near 15th Street will also be located below ground level . The new education building will be similar in design to the existing education buildings. The new sanctuary will have a brick exterior painted an off-white/gray color to match the existing buildings. The roof will be tiled • to simulate wood shake. The 18 to 20-month construction period is expected to begin in the late spring of 1982. Building occupancy is scheduled for January 1984. PERMITS REQUIRED • The subject project includes the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: Acceptance of an environmental document and approval of a Nega- tive Declaration. • Approval of a use permit for a church in a residentially zoned area to exceed the maximum allowable church height of 35 feet and to waive a portion- of the required off-street parking. � I • 6 Lsa ! Abandonment of the alley. Resubdivision to create one building site and eliminate interior lot lines. Issuance of a grading permit. 49 KEY CONTACT PERSONS The following persons are available to provide additional information on this application: Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, City of Newport Beach, (714) 640-2197; Carollyn Lobell , Project Manager, LSA, (714) 640-6363; 41 Carl Irwin, AIA, President, Irwin & Associates, Architects, (714) 846-3319. • • ! • TABLE A 7 PROJECT STATISTICS (SQUARE FEET) Lsa Deduct Demo- Add New (N) lition (D) or Wnstructlon Reassigned or Reassigned Percent Building Use Present Area (R) Use (R) Use Total Area Increase ! Worship 7,4741 8002 24,5533 32,377 235.0 Sanctuary Narthex 1,0504(R) Choir Chapel 2,2005 Fellowship 8,8506 8,8507 10,642 10,642 20.0 Music 1,0008 • 1,000(D) 3,160 3,160 216.0 Administration 5,590 1,500(D) 11,288 12,9389 131.0 2,440(R) • Education 19,574 5,83010(D) 21 15311 37 911t2 94.0 3,01413 Mechanical 3 miscellaneous --- --- 5,098 5,098 _ Total 44,688 17,980(D) 75,418(N) 102,126� 128.5 3,490(R) 3,490(R) (Becomes new chapel and adult classroom. 211emove west transcept (wing). 31ncludes narthex, (entrance hall) and balcony. 4East transcept to education. 5Bccomes adult classroom. 61ncludes fireside room and kitchen. 7Dlerenfleid Hall. 8Plus use of Dierenfield Hall as rehearsal room. 9Choir director included In music. Youth minister and education director Included in education areas. Includes expansion space In new bulding. 100lerenfleld Hall. ilSanctuary building, new youth building, east transcept, N.W. administration building. 12PIus multiple use of new wedding chapel. 13New education building. ! • ar IMF► � � �,��o��� 'WOR WAN Q�\ O o � I�� ' •�.�, �� yr a 0°O� v a���' � O 173'-0" OVERALL 5 P Lower:Level Plan: CLRM (42) 25, -'.vi CLRM (42)\_ c INTERNS 22! X 27' CLRM (40) ROOM A (150} 11 " x 2 25' x 24' �+ 3 - x 48' CLRM (50) OFFI 26 x 27 r. 16' 1 r OFFI C KITCK(nN 0 12, x 11 28I Ixt 38' C N C 16' (Jilld o D BANQUET S_EA TIN OR 440 r«.r wY co ROOM B (150) „ ' ''" "' 55 tables of ,8 _ 34' x 48' 0 0 "� FELLOWSHIP ALL i \ T r ORGANIST \ems 9' x 12' s� OBBX: 1800'S.F. 4 6' -O MUSIC DIR. 0 '40'- ASS'T.12IR. �Q • e' LOWER LEVEL PLAN CHOIR REHEARSAL ROOM Summary of Areas 24' x 52' Fellowship & Lobby 10,642 SF (IOQ� w Education 5,544 M Music 3,160 - Mechanical & Misc. 5,098 TOTAL 24,444 SF hourcc: 2+wC� lee 9�. •:• •<. �:::� I•qr IIIIIIIIIIUw •' l�•.-�� I;::i�� fij � � �111111111111.. 1� IIIiI� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL ` • . IIIIIIiII 11 l I II I I16� IY 1 `1C • • • • • • • • • • • 173'-0" OVERALL 7 Second -Floor, Plan o CLRM (30) 22' x 18' 09 w �O 00 x 0 M CLRM O, ) 1r 19' x' 22 "• BALCONY 338 @ 22" 413- @ 18" CLRM (35) 20' x 22' �O� S LRM (35) 19' •x 22' CLRM (35 19= x'22' \` o O SECOND FLOOR PLAN w""" iDUCAT1ON DIR. Summary of Areas o' ASS'T. .DIR. . Worship (Balcony & Bridges) 6,155 SF ABC HELPLINE 12' x 14' . Education 3,682 CO 12= x 14' . Admin. & Circulation_ 1 ,594 TOTAL 11 ,431 SF . %Ltvice: tyw"h r`f gssacia{'a5 a MEETING ROOM/CHAPEL 20' x 291 Floor Plans LOBBY LCONY 3 through 6 . 15 x 12' \1.7 22' o EXIT BALC - Y 4'-6" • SIXTH FLOOR PLAN ®® T �p r SECRETARIES (3 Total Area ,555 SF 14' x 25' BALCO RECEPTION o ,'14' x 22' 2.5' X 12' SENIOR PASTOR 22' x 29' • FIFTH FLOOR PLAN ' M °O ASS'T. MIN. Total Area: 1 ,817 SF ®® s: °p O 12' x 13'-6" RECEPTION 4 0 �4'-6., 73� ; 159x 12 6 SECRETARIES (3) OFFICE 14' x 30' o 12' x 13'-6" BUS. 'ADMIN. • FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 12' x 131- Total Area: 2,183 SF ° BOOKKEEPER s ° 12' x 13'-6" RECEPTION ❑ p ASS'T. MIN. 12'_ x 17' ❑ 12' x:13'-6" OFFICE 12' x 13'-6" "CONFERENCE�10) IV x 13'-6" 5mme: TivA i. A-*xiA{'¢y. •THIRD FLOOR PLAN ' Total area: 2,416 SF Y-AXIS .e.- Longitudinalction, through Administration Building ,.� I MECHANI AL 6 MT . RM./CH PE i 5 SENIOR I AST OR w X-AXIS 4 ADMINIS RAT VE OFF CE HEIGHT LIMIT ADMINIS RAT VE OFFICE m - �LU cl �J CLASSRO MS 4 OFFIC S T"� F L IW cn 6,0 N GRADE 1 BOOKSTO E, CLASSROi)MS • CLASSRO MS, jFELLOW HIP HA 'L 1363 -4" 51 '-8" 9' 18'-0" 9'-0 " SouxcL: yrw�n E (whacial6s Min. Min. • • • • • • • • • • • W. to Transverse Section'; through Sanctuary: T T q OFFI ES I HEIGH I � o - - - - - — — — ( . cc LLJ 0 } '2 OFFICES •" � r M CD GRADE I FBOOKSTO NARTHEX SANCTUARY. " d PRINT ROOM LOBBY FELL HIP HALL 9owtli. Z+win + A55aufPh 18'-0" MIN. 27'-0" MIN. :11 ' North `Elevation ca C N 5 X .. .0 ct oaoononaHl C) OOODDDngIMir F— - _J annnnaaD00dad➢➢➢II � .2 _ CD GRADE . l _ Top of Cross �;IN 12 South Elevation ,Max. Bldg. Ht. rn 5 4 .- "` HEIGHT LI IT 3 2v�,c O p O nib -A- AT OM a.a ti I Z � .� j to � X GRADE `M f "' ¢ M 1 ..> --; i- - r- -i - -; � 6owme: f44rv% £. kvw4ke6 • • • • • • • • • • • _ 146:v'l 1 13 East Elevation Max. Bldg Ht.. _...,�..,w —T 14 M .�.• ., fflGFT LIMIT _ 4 3 - x - - x 0 0 0 CD 2 V' F M MQ NF cn GRADE I i , ` I III 1 1 j , ;____; , i i--_ i i 1LLLL_I.w_L�__ _____G__J_J___J__L__..__L__-J__1___�_____I_______L2 -�___________________ -' ' u- ------------- JUUYCLi'fXWIY\;. �flY�Iatt4 roTop of Cross_ 14 West Elevation , cp = 6 cv c m 4 � HEIGHT L MIT' ---� — ? �. 1d0MIQ_ Mfluf] flpn00D0aa ago CI o ~ z - cm Nf MQ V f 1 ,� GRADE yoarct; Sry11n t, J��ihecll�{'Gh II _ lO 28' x 21 ' 29' x 21 ' OpWL (30) (30) ."®WGTgV° MWGMt 15' x 20 15, ;x-- ---- -------------x----� w W� Quad One Plan 20' x. 20 QUAD. ONE ' y� ti 8'Yp„ Playground 1®x -' 15' x 20 ' H 5' x 201 . 2Im 9' X 19' ® �� (30 u.. ~~ '' 2('30 19' 32(35)19' ------ --- -- -------------------- 3 SUMMARY OF AREAS . Building 3 2,380 SF . Building 4 1 -900 SF hnurci. S✓Wlh . Building 10(new) 3,014 SF • 16 20 Parcel Map lsa Road 'fop— y, /,•� �.ii� ' '�'*w� ` �\4•• ' ��r•� {may„ �1.� rl�'' : .(t nKrraawr..cvn•Hxw,avavu'a pmu r mHm�arra•-m.w.ev „r.;:•,., '...... I m vnrrHn.,uHxnuc.we mvaapronc rtwraiax H.w�rox.n luvaaxwnsexa•,vranvreua aHHl wro ax av KvrH. �•\ ,,•!"•.t t_i �"^•.-V' '" ]� e Hxmr mur:a./ �cc uumr aaxrc '•rr - ovuHnHlu.,xr.aHa.Hx _ ✓ ,� _ .;', �(i nr, LSfreet r raWry4'V6 13I:KKS & rg-M- BARK •�J'l �icz._� i .vr"lu+Hr wrova+oxHvxxaysx � �`-"�A�- -• '/••. ar�v.vvar swK w.Fu/.'Jxvlxs -__ „ �, .1 rurcu nx wv rir mwwa wua>u l rcu I I 1W av a•n/uvrrron, 21 Lsa • DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND NTS • EXISTING LAND USES Existing uses on the project site consist of church facilities and resi- dential units. Adjacent land uses include: Newport Harbor High School to the north and northeast; residential (primarily duplexes) to the west; and single- family residential to the south and southeast. The project vicinity is • primarily a residential area. North of the project site is a strip of commercial area along 17th Street. South of the project site, along Pacific Coast Highway, the primary land use is retail commercial including marine-related uses. There is a vacant parcel (the Castaways site) less than a quarter of a mile east of the project site.. COMMITTED PROJECTS The City requires all projects in excess of 10,000 square feet of floor area to comply with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Once a project has received all necessary approvals, including TPO approval , it is considered a "committed" project for purposes of projecting future development. Projects • within Newport Beach which are committed, but not yet constructed, are shown in Figure 17 and listed below. 1. Hughes Aircraft (industrial ) 2. Hoag Hospital (community facility) 3. Far West Savings and Loan (office) • 4. Pacesetter Homes (office) 5. Aeronutronic Ford (residential) 6. Back Bay Office (office) 7. Boyle Engineering (office) 8. Cal Canadian Bank (office) 9. Civic Plaza (office) • 10. Corporate Plaza (office) 11. Koll Center Newport (office, industrial) 12. Campus/MacArthur (office) 13. National Education Office (office) 14. North Ford (industrial ) 15. Orchard Office (office) • 16. Pacific Mutual Plaza (office) 17. 3701 Birch Office (office) 18. Newport Place (office) • • 22 • 17 Committed and Proposed Projects lsa Zp iL f Tr of ♦a'��.�!' •7.r�'y\,�♦ ! � � ^/ , `I ` s I Y _.i 1!J��\/�J/� f;�r`t./F.,�. +�M.t. �� � •`. ♦ �' ¢ � y \ I _.mil _,C . •ems ,�•• ,bwf - •,b .'l�'�,Ct' ,,,;�• � _ -r c w :Proposed F • �,� .` a•�:• x Pro•ect: owl Ni 1 4000 • 23 Lsa • 19. Shokrian (office) 20. Bank of Newport (office) 21. Bayside Square (office) 22. Sea Island (residential ) 23. Baywood Apartments (residential ) 24. Harbor Point Homes (residential) • 25. Roger 's Gardens (commercial) 26. Seaview Lutheran Plaza (residential ) 27. Rudy Baron (office) 28. Quail Business Center (office) 29. 441 Newport Boulevard (office) • PROPOSED PROJECTS In addition to committed projects, several others are currently being planned. These projects require additional approvals by the City and/or other governmental agencies. These projects are also shown in Figure 17 and • include: 30. Castaways 31. General Plan Amendment 80-3 32. Koll Center Newport Amendment No. i TPP 33. Corona del Mar Specific Area Plan • 34. West Newport Triangle Specific Area Plan 35. West Coast Investment (212 E. Coast Highway) 36. General Plan Amendment 81-1 37. GPA 81-2 (5 sites) 38. Park Lido Medical Expansion (office) 39. Martha's Vineyard (restaurant/office) • 40. Fun Zone Project (retail/office) 41. Bayview Terrace (retail/office) 42. Heritage Bank (office) 43. St. Andrew's Church Master Plan (proposed project) 44. Sheraton-Newport (hotel) • TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Several major public works improvements are in the planning stage or under construction. These are listed below and included in Figure 17. A. Lane modification on Pacific Coast Highway and Orange Street • B. Lane modification on Pacific Coast Highway and Prospect Street C. Creation of intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and Balboa Boulevard extension 24 Lsa • D. Intersection modification at Pacific Coast Highway and Superior Avenue E. Modification (widening) of Pacific Coast Highway Back Bay Bridge and related lane modifications at Pacific Coast Highway, Dover Drive, and Bayside Drive • F. Lane modification on Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road G. Widening of Pacific Coast Highway between MacArthur Boulevard and Bayside Drive H. Corona del Mar Freeway extension I . Pacific Coast Highway from Route 55 to Golden West Street J . Jamboree Road widening from Ford Road to Eastbluff Drive • • • • • • 25 LCM • DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LAND USE • Setting. Existing Land Use. Existing uses on the project site consist of church face sties and residential units. Adjacent land uses include: Newport • Harbor High School to the north and northeast; Masonic temple and residential (primarily duplexes) to the west; and single-family residential to the south and southeast. General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan desig- nates the si e-as Tow-density residential (between 15th Street, St. Andrews • Road, and the alley) and two-family residential (between the alley and Clay Street) . Churches are a permitted use in residential areas. The proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan. zoning. The zoning code designates the site as R-1 and R-2 residentia istricts. Churches are a permitted use (with a use permit) in • the residential district. The proposed uses are consistent with the zoning designation, provided a use permit is obtained (Table B) . Impacts. The proposed project will change the land use on the proj- ect site, removing residential units and increasing church facilities. The residential units are already owned by the church and would not be available • for rent or sale. Removal of the residences will not have an adverse impact on the housing supply in Newport Beach. The proposed project will place church uses closer to residential units on Clay Street, St. Andrews Road, Pirate Road, Snug Harbor Road, and 15th Street. The Newport Beach General Plan and Zoning Code permit church facil- ities in residential areas. School activities conducted at the church include preschool , nursery school , and extended day-care. No additional school activities are proposed as part of the project. • The Newport Beach Zoning Code does not specifically list setback require- ments for public rights-of-way for church uses in a residential district. The precise setbacks for the proposed project will be established by the City • • TABLE B 26 • ZONING COMPARISON CHART W Zoning Code Item Existing Proposed Requirements User type Religious institution, Religious Conditional R-2 residential institution use permit Setbacks 20' from residential 20' from new con- Not specific units struction to Clay for institu- Street tional uses • Height 36' (existing sanc- 34' average - tuary) new sanctuary 105' (plus 40' cross) 35' tower in admini- • stration building Parking 0 onsite; use of 276 onsite, 280 at 18" street/alley park- 260 offsite in per seat (1 ing and school lot high school lot per 5 seats in sanctu- ary) • • • • • 27 Lsa • of Newport Beach through the use permit process. • The site plan for the proj- ect shows that five existing structures exceed the 20-foot setback required in that residential zone. 'All new construction will conform to the 20-foot set- back proposed by the applicant with the exception of surface parking, access ramps, and portions of the parking structure. • Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures listed in the Views and Aesthetics section also apply to land use impacts. Existing City Policies and Standards as Mitigation Measures. • a. No private school program for first grade and above will be allowed without a City permit. b. Required setbacks from public rights-of-way will be estab- lished by the City of Newport Beach through the use permit process. • Significance of Impact of the Project Including Mitigation Measures. The landuse impacts o the propose project are not consi erred significant. VIEWS AND AESTHETICS Setting. Structures on the existing church site are one and two sto- ries 577 —The existing sanctuary is 35 feet tall . The surrounding area is in a 24/28-foot height zone. There is mature landscaping within the site and also on the perimeter of the site along 15th Street and St. Andrews Road. Existing church facilities are separated from the residential (expansion) area by an alley. The residential area contains one-story homes with landscaping consisting of lawns, shrubs, and trees. The average height of buildings on Clay Street is 32 feet. With the exception of the high school , the surrounding area is residen- tial . The project site is visible from adjacent streets. Existing buildings on the site are not visible from distant points in the city. • Impacts. The most direct visual change will be loss of existing res- idences an7—construction of new buildings and parking lots. Existing mature trees on Clay Street will be preserved and incorporated into the site plan where feasible. The proposed project will not obscure any existing views; however, there will be impacts to existing views of the site from surrounding and distant areas. Due to the variation in height, the different elements of the project (education building, sanctuary building, and parking lots) will have different impacts. • 28 Lsa • The new education building will be similar in height and design to the existing education buildings. This building will not be highly visible from offsite due to its location and design. The parking lots will be visible from the surrounding streets and resi- dences. At some point in the future when additional parking is needed, one above-grade level will be added to the lot with access on St. Andrews Road. The project will incorporate landscaping and design features to minimize visu- al impacts of the parking lots. Light and glare impacts may also occur. The proposed new sanctuary will have a ridgeline height about 46 feet above existing grade, about four stories tall . The average height, including the narthex (entrance hall ) , is 32 feet. Without the narthex, the average height is 37 feet. This will be taller than all nearby structures except the high school tower. This building will visually impact nearby residences due to its height. Although the building may be visible from other locations in the vicinity,. this is not considered a significant impact. • The proposed tower will have a height about 105 feet above grade, approx- imately eight stories tall at its highest point. The only structure of equiv- alent height in the area is the tower at Newport Harbor High School which is somewhere between 93 and 97 feet tall . The church tower will also have a cross on it. With the 40-foot cross, the tower height will be 145 feet. The • aesthetic and view impacts of the church tower will be comparable to those created by the existing tower at the high school . The top of the tower would not be within the normal line of sight from adjacent residences; however, it could be viewed from these nearby areas if the viewer extended his line of sight upward. Whether or not the tower will be visible from a particular location will depend on distance from the tower, topography and landscaping at • the viewing location, and meteorological conditions. Using the high school tower as a representation, a field survey was con- ducted to determine what areas would view the proposed church tower. The results are shown in Figure 18. It is important to note that the tower would not be visible from every location; views could be obstructed by buildings or • landscaping. The tower would be visible from locations on Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway, over a mile southeast of the project site. The tower would also be visible within an approximate half-mile radius northwest, south, and east of the project site. The tower will be lit with low-level intensity from both the narthex roof • and the classroom area. These sources of light will not cause a glare or reflective condition in the surrounding area. The cross will be lighted on the tower. The project will be landscaped and building exteriors will be neu- tral colors. • �alIWIN NINM � _ffi, 9 lit 9QI®Tj 30 LSD • A shadow study of the new tower was conducted by Irwin .& Associates. As shown in Figure 19, the building shadow in winter (December 21) will remain primarily on the site. There will be a shadow for about an hour in the morn- ing along Haven Place. The shadow will also extend across St. Andrews Road for a short time in the morning. In the afternoon, there will be a shadow to • the northeast; however, this will impact primarily the high school parking lot. The summer (June 21) shadow is shown in Figure 20. During most of the day, the summer shadow will be limited to the site. For a short time (less than an hour) in the morning, the shadow will extend west across St. Andrews • Road and Clay Street. From five to six p.m. , the shadow will extend south- eastward from the site across Clay Street. This late-afternoon shadow will fall on four lots. One lot, near Signal Road and 15th Street, will be less affected than the others, with only a small portion of the lot being shaded. Existing City Policies and Standards -as Mitigation Measures. • c. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of land- scaping with the proposed construction schedule. The plan shall be subject to review by the Parks, Beaches, and • Recreation Department and approval by the Planning Department. d. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage onto adjacent uses. Any parking lot lighting shall be subject to approval by the Planning Department. e. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties. Mitigation Measures. • 1. Prior to obtaining building permits, the project will undergo site plan review by the appropriate authorities . Significance of Im act of the Project Includin iti-M ation Measures. The project will change a visual—ciarac eri—of tie si e. owever, the pro- • posed project will create a new visual image and will ,_ to some people, provide an interesting and attractive architectural focal point. Therefore, this change in character cannot be considered universally adverse. • 19 SAM Shadow Study Plan-Winter,` 4' Ira NEWPORT HARBOR HIGH SCHOOL - .. rys , BUNRISE 7105 9 S SUNSET 4.55 , e J �i{v'Ii Lip_F E SANCTUARY gQO� NORTH �u rto 4ac4w DECEMBER 21 3 .20 Shadow ,Study Plan=,.Summer �,• NEWPORT HARBOR HIGH SCHOOL �lo ph CF o� Q > SS t1 t 2 S 7 � 5 Qor9 EW SANCTUARYg 5PM y_- _- ------`.•y - COY STREET , SUNRISE 4.55 SUNSET 7.05 NORT n0 b a ¢ IL JUNE 21 � 33 Lsa • Although the project will create a new building of visual prominence, the project will not obstruct any existing views of scenic vistas such as the ocean or the mountains. There will be a summer shadow impact on four lots; however, this will • occur for only an hour a day and only during part of the year. CIRCULATION AND PARKING A traffic analysis of the proposed project has been prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates. The report is reproduced in the Appendix and is sum- marized below. Setting. The existing church facility has no off-street parking pro- visions Church attendees must park on-street or in the Newport Harbor High School parking lot across 15th Street. Streets in the area are residential , two-lane facilities with on-street parking permitted. • There are no traffic signals in the vicinity of the church. The 15th Street/Irvine Avenue intersection is controlled by a four-way stop, and streets entering 15th Street are controlled by stop signs. Since church use generally occurs at off-peak times, there is little conflict with peak traffic flows or high school activities. • Impacts. Tr i Generation and Distribution. Trip generation data were based on observations at the existing facility. Weekday trip generation character- istics of the existing facility are shown below. Trip-Ends Time Period In Out 3:30-6:00 p.m. 98 108 4:30-5:30 p.m. 34 33 • To provide a conservative estimate of future traffic, an increase of 30% was assumed. This is based on information from the applicant which indicates that there will be no significant increase in employees and expansion will provide new areas for uses and activities already occurring at the church. Due to the potential for increased membership and attendance with a new facil- ity, an increase in weekday trip generation should be anticipated. The increased weekday trip generation using a 30% increase is shown below. • 34 • Wa • Trip-Ends Time Period I n ut 3:30-6:00 p.m. 30 35 4:30-5:30 p.m. 10 10 • A trip distribution pattern was developed from membership information (Figure 21) . This distribution was then utilized to assign project traffic to the street system. External Traffic Ana�sis. The City of Newport Beach Traffic • Phasing Ordinance inc T des criteria for evaluating the traffic impact of the proposed project. The City traffic engineer has identified the following intersections that could be impacted by the proposed project: Pacific Coast Highway/Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive; Irvine Avenue/Westcliff Drive/17th Street; and Irvine Avenue/Dover Drive/19th Street. Under the established criteria, project traffic would not have an impact upon any of these intersections • unless it exceeded 1% of existing plus regional growth plus committed project traffic on any approach to any intersection identified by the City traffic engineer. The results of the traffic analysis indicate that in 1985 none of the intersections would experience 2.5-hour peak period traffic increases of more than 1% on any approach. Based on the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project would not impact the external street system. • Peak trip generation to the church would occur on Sunday mornings. As is discussed later in this report, on a normal Sunday 575 vehicles are antici- pated to attend the largest service. These vehicles would utilize the local street system with approximately 200 approaching from the north and west and 375 from the- south. Due to the location of the off-street parking facility at • Clay Street and St. Andrews Road, some minor congestion could be anticipated. Since it is anticipated that the 7:30 a.m. service would be combined with the 8:45 a.m. service, traffic on local streets would occur later in the day. Although it is not possible to quantify potential impacts, increased traffic can be anticipated on local streets such as Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. On peak Sundays, these traffic volumes could increase by up to 20%. • Pa�rki In order to determine parking characteristics of the existing c urch facility, field studies were conducted on two Sundays . The first study was done on December 20, 1981, which was the Sunday prior to Christmas and represented a peak condition. Sunday, January 10, 1982, was then surveyed for a normal condition. One observation was made at 6:30 a.m. • to determine nonchurch-related parking, and a second observation was made at 9:00 a.m. to measure church-related parking. The results of these studies are 35 • 21, Directional Distribution lsa • DR, sT. 9RISTOL m m - sr. >�oR1♦ • 9RISTOL srr a m c �NITA C(N. RD. • � IS% n _ • a y Ra FOR p = x larp sr SAM i - 20% Ls so. ITTK SST 10% l SITE LOCAL v� J 3076 25% • PACIFIC WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES • • • 36 • Wa • illustrated in Figures 22 and 23. To determine the amount of church-related parking, the number in brackets must be subtracted from the 9:00 a.m. value. The total church parking on December 20 was 505 and on January 10 was 436. The 9:00 a.m. time was selected because it represents the time of peak atten- dance. • Using church-related parking and church attendance figures, parking demand was calculated. The parking demand ratio on December 20 was 0.55 vehi- cle per attendee (1.8 persons per vehicle) and on January 10 was 0.64 vehicle per attendee (1.6 persons per vehicle) . With a code seating capacity of 1,400, the zoning code would require 280 parking spaces. Studies by the • church have indicated a maximum seating capacity of 1,095. If a seating capa- city of 1,100 is assumed, the parking requirement for a normal Sunday would be 704 spaces. With the new facility, the church plans to eliminate one service. If the January 10 attendance figures for the two early services are combined, and the 0.64 ratio applied, the parking demand would-be 575. • The site plan indicates provision for 276 additional off-street parking spaces with the expansion program. If this is combined with the high school lot which has 260 marked spaces, the total off-street supply would be 536 spaces. This indicates that 39 vehicles would be parked on-street during a normal Sunday and 168 for a full sanctuary condition. • The peak condition with 168 vehicles parked on-street is less than the December 20 observation when 228 vehicles were parked on-street. A condition with a full sanctuary (1,100 attendees) would not be antici- pated to occur on every Sunday and is not a realistic design condition. The normal parking demand would be somewhat greater than 575, assuming some growth in church attendance. This would result is some on-street parking, but at a reduction from current levels. The site plan includes a three-level parking structure at the Clay Street/St. Andrews corner. This structure would include a below-grade level with 77 spaces, an at-grade level with 75 spaces, and a future above-grade • level with 80 spaces. The total parking from the three levels has been util- ized in the above calculations. However, the third level will not be con- structed with the other parking; that level will be added when needed in the future. If the projected demands occur without this third level , the on- street parking on a normal Sunday would be 119 vehicles which is less than the 199 observed on January 10, 1982. I • Site Access. There are three vehicular access points indicated it on the site plan, one on 15th Street near Clay Street and one on St. Andrews • • • 37 22 On-Street Parking-December 20, 1981 lsa CARS IN HIGH SCHOOL LOT (10) SqL pp22 (0I • FZ (15} (2 y 29 ?at `rr 'Y (25) (0 0( (5) JAy{E. • 6 (io �°j' to (4) (11 1) (51 51 y� 121 (0) (Il 3� 44 (4) (� (0) (26) (0) 0 (0) (5) 18 • O LEGEND 34-PARKING AT 9:00 A.M. (101-PARKING AT 6t30 AM. • WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES • 38 23 On-Street Parking-January 10, 1982 lsa • (0) ®CARS IN HIGH SCHOOL LOT i 33 s�4 (15) (15 0 (0) tzz (o) 3 �C (2) (0) (3) ✓AME` 22ee q1" (4) 10 • ��,\�� ca (Z31 (2) t51 Ste h� V �9! 1(6) (4) s„ 3 (6) (j) 16) (2) (2) (0) • O U tI a a fa) (5) (4) r O O 10 . (1) (0) (4) (9) LEGEND 33 PARKING AT 5;00 AM (LS) PARKING AT 6130 AM • WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES • 39 LCM • Road near Clay Street, and one on Clay Street near St. Andrews Road. The access on 15th Street should not create traffic safety or operational prob- lems, especially with general off-peak church activities. Access on St. Andrews Road and Clay Street will bring increased traffic into a residential area. The proximity of these accesses to the St. Andrews Road/Clay Street intersection could result in some traffic safety and operational problems. • Observations of the existing facility indicated a number of vehicles which drop off or pick up children on weekdays. This currently results in double parking of vehicles along St. Andrews Road. The provision of an onsite area for pick-up and drop-off activity would reduce traffic congestion on St. • Andrews Road. The proposed site plan indicates that the sanctuary will be located adja- cent to Clay Street. This location will attract more on-street parkers to residential streets close to the sanctuary. • Existing City Policies and Standards as Mitigation Measures. f. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City traffic engineer. g. The layout of the surface and structure parking shall be • subject to further review and approval by the City traffic engineer. Mitigation Measures. 2. Phasing of the above-grade level of parking will be review- ed and approved by the City of Newport Beach. 3. An off-street pick-up/drop-off area will be provided onsite. Significance of Impact of the Project Inclu_d_i_ng M�iti ation Measures. The project wi not nave a sigmTicani-impac off is vo umes or on the level of service at any intersections. With the provision of adequate onsite parking, the project will not impact parking in the surrounding area. • • 40 Lsa • EARTH RESOURCES Setting. The following discussion summarizes the findings of the Geo- logica -Razrds section of the General Plan Public Safety Element. This ele- ment is available to the public from the City of Newport Beach Planning • Department. Topography. The project site is relatively flat. Geology/Soils. The project site displays geotechnical charac- teristics indicating a possibility of onsite soils which are moderately to • highly expansive. Erosion potential ranges from a slight to moderate risk. Seismicity. Several active geological faults lie within the Southern a i ornia region: the Newport-Inglewood fault, the Norwalk fault, the Raymond fault, the San Andreas fault, the San Fernando fault, and the San Jacinto fault. However, with the exception of the Newport-Inglewood fault, • there is no record of historical activity on any of these faults within the City of Newport Beach. The Newport-Inglewood fault, which is associated with the Long Beach earthquake of 1933, is responsible for recurring activity pro- ducing earthquakes with Richter magnitude ranges of 4.0 or greater. The Geologic Hazards section uses four zones to describe relative degrees • of groundshaking potential . Category 1 is the least severe and Category 4 is the most severe. The project site is within groundshaking Category 2. Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will require grading and excavation to allow buildings one floor below ground level . Earth materi- als excavated from the site will be exported offsite. • No severely limiting soils or geological constraints are indicated within the study area. The soil expansion potential suggests that special foundation reinforcements will be necessary on the building site. The proposed project structures will be subject to groundshaking from a • seismically induced event. However, there are no apparent unique seismic haz- ards which would restrict development. Existing City Policies and Standards as Mitigation Measures. h. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project appli- • cant shall prepare a geotechnical study including specific recommendations for foundation preparation for the proposed structures. 0 • 41 Lsa • i . Foundations on expansive soils will meet special reinforce- ment requirements as recommended by the consulting soils engineer and approved by the City engineer. j . Development of the site shall be subject to a grading per- mit to be approved by the Building and Planning Depart- ments. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, and watering and sweeping programs designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. k. A grading plan prepared for the project shall include a • complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facili- ties, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 1 . An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan, if desired by • the City, shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department. A copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. m. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans pre- pared by a civil engineer and based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of a comprehensive soils and geologic investiga- tion of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard-size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. n. All buildings will conform to the UBC and the City's seis- mic design standards. Significance of Impact of the Project Including Mitigation_ Measures. The project will not have a significanta- v-7 erse impact on earth resources . • • • 42 Lsa • HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Setting Stormwater runoff around the site is conveyed via an in-place drainage system within the local street network. Runoff is eventually dis- charged into Newport Bay. • Newport Bay receives runoff, including pollutants and sedimentation, from a variety of sources on a regional scale. Generally, urban development pro- duces storm runoff and nuisance waters which contain pollutants from paved surfaces (e.g. , rubber, oil , and metal particles) and landscaped areas (e.g., fertilizers and pesticides) . • Newport Bay is currently the subject of studies sponsored by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), with the assistance of partici- pating- agencies under the auspices of the Federal "208" planning program. Planning issues focus on reducing pollution of Newport Bay. The principal pollutants currently affecting the bay are siltation (associated with agricul- tural activities, urban construction, and natural erosion processes within the watershed) , high nutrient levels of runoff (primarily from agricultural fer- tilization) , and pesticides from irrigation runoff. High bacterial counts (coliforms) are common in the bay, but their origin has not been determined. Impacts. There would be a slight increase in the amount of storm • runo would enter the existing drainage system. Slight storm flow increases would result from conversion of existing landscaped areas in the residential portion of the site into paved surfaces which are less pervious to rainfall . This increase is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the drainage system in the area. Construction of the project will produce an incremental increase in run- off from increased paved areas which will contain pollutants such as oily sub- stances and heavy metals. -This incremental increase is not expected to cause a significant adverse impact on water quality. Construction of the project could produce a temporary increase in sedi- mentation during the construction period. This could have a temporary impact on water quality in Newport Bay. Existing Cif Policies and Standards as Mitigation Measures. The measures T•iste3-in a Earth Resources section o—ngrading, erosion, and silta- tion control will mitigate potential impacts to water quality. Si nificance of Impact of"the Project •Includin . Mitigation Measures. The project wi not nave a signs scant averse impact on y ro ogy or water quality. • 43 Lsa • AIR QUALITY Setting. Air pollutant emissions are presently occurring from project- relate�traffic and stationary sources related to the consumption of electri- city and natural gas. • Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project will result in a slight increase in air pollutant emissions. This will occur from increased project-related traffic and increased consumption of electricity and natural gas in the new buildings. The project contribution to the basinwide pollution burden is minute. Since almost every trip to the church is from the local • vicinity, the project-related traffic emissions are not considered signifi- cant. Development of the project will result in construction-related air qual- ity impacts. Construction equipment .will generate air pollutant emissions. Construction activities will disturb the soil and create dust. The EPA sug- gests a fugitive dust emission factor of 80 pounds per acre disturbed per day of construction. This amount can be reduced by about 50% through the use of dust control measures such as regular watering. Mitigation Measures. • 4. A dust control program will be implemented during construc- tion. Si nificance of Impact of the Project Including Mitigation Measures. The project will not nave a signl scant impact on air quality. • • • • 44 Lsa • NOISE Setting. Current noise sources associated with the project site inclu e�automobile noise from project-related traffic and intermittent and varied noise from onsite activities. The primary outdoor activity is children • playing in the yards. Impacts. There will be an increase in project-related traffic which will result in a slight increase in traffic noise at peak-use times. The increase in traffic noise is not considered significant. • Almost all church activities will be conducted inside the buildings. Any outside activities are not expected to create significant noise. Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment and construction activities can reach high levels. Construction noise associated with the proposed proj- ect could be disturbing to nearby residences and activities at the high school . Existing City Policies and Standards as Mitigation Measures. o. Construction activities will be conducted in accordance • with Newport Beach City Code which limits the hours of noisy construction and excavation work. p. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view .and noise associated with said structures shall be sound-attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property lines. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer and approved by the Building Department. Significance of Impact of the Project Including Mitti ation Measures. The project� will not nave a sigmTicant impact on noise—le e • • • 45 LM • PUBLIC SERVICES AND•UTILITIES Setting Services and utilities are presently provided to the site as follows: Water/sewer City of Newport Beach • Fire City of Newport Beach Electricity Southern California Edison Company Gas Southern California Gas Company Impacts. • Water/Sewer. The proposed project will result in vacating an alley in 077 water and sewer lines are located. According to Don Webb, New- port Beach Public Works Department, the City will probably require that these utility lines be relocated to a public street. Joe Devlin, Newport Beach Utilities Department, has indicated that no • problems are foreseen in servicing the proposed project. Fire. Chief Thomas Dailey, Newport Beach Fire Department, has indicated that the project will not adversely impact the level of service pro- vided. • Electricity/Gas. The proposed project will result in vacating an alley in Milch electric and gas lines are located. Robert Stowell , Irwin and Associates, has indicated that the utilities do not foresee any signifi- cant problems in relocating the utility lines. • Existing City Policies and Standards as Mitigation Measures. q. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Depart- ment shall review the proposed plans and may require auto- matic fire sprinkler protection. • r. Fire Department access shall be approved by the- Fire Department. s . Final design of the project shall provide for the incorpo- ration of water-saving devices for .project lavatories and other water-using facilities. • Mitigation Measures. 5. The project applicant will comply with Newport Beach and public utilities requirements for relocating facilities. • 46 LEM • Significance of Impact --of--the Project •Includin Mitigation Measures. The project wi I I not have a significant impact on public services�an utili- ties. • • • • • • 47 LSB ! STANDARD CITY*CONDITIONS In addition to the mitigation measures discussed above, the following standard City conditions will be applied to the project. t. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, a • qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and all work on the site shall be done in accordance with City Council Policies K-5 and K-6. • • • • • I • 48 LCM • ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED City of Newport Beach Planning Department Fred Talarico • Pat Temple Chris Gustin Public Works Don Webb Utilities Department Joe Devlin • Fire Department Thomas C. Dailey Irwin and Associates Carl Irwin Robert Stowell • C. Edward Ware Associates, Inc., Architects C. Edward Ware • • • • lsa • APPENDIX • TRAFFIC ANALYSIS • • • • • W + �, P,A Wow Tl & cod A►bbodaW TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING April 5, 1982 • Ms Carollyn Lobell Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 525 Newport Beach, CA 92660 •' Dear Los Lobell: This letter summarizes our traffic analysis of the proposed expansion of the St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in the City of Newport Beach. The study is based upon information provided by you, the church staff, the City staff and • field studies by our firm. The project is located on the southeast corner of 15th Street and St. Andrews Road in the City of Newport Beach. This is the current location of the church • which is planned to be expanded. The expansion will include a new sanctuary/ educatLon/administration huLlding, a new education building; and on-situ parking faciLities. With the ex utn::ion, the church tacilitien will vuver the triangular biock bounded by 1501 Street, St. Andrews Road and Clay Street. • EXISTING CONDITIONS The current church facil.Lty has no uff-:;LrecL parking provisions so thnt church attendees must park on-street or in the Newport Harbor High School parking lot • across 15th Street. Angle parking is provided on the south side of 15th Street from Clay Street to Irvine Avenue. All streets in the area are two lane facilities with on-street parking permitted and basically residential streets. An exception is 15th Street between Clay Street and Irvine Avenue which is • widened to allow angle parking with two lanes of traffic. There are no traffic signals in the vinicity of the church. The 15th Street/Irvine Avenue intersection is controlled by a four-way, STOP and streets entering; • 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE + SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 -2- 15th Street are controlled by STOP signs. Due to the general ,off-peak characteristic of church use there is little conflict with peak traffic flows or high school activities. Observations were made to determine existing parking conditions which are addressed later in this report. TRIP ORNERATLON In order to examine the potential traffic impacts of the project, it is necessary to estimate the number of trips that would be generated. While studies have been conducted to determine trip generation rates for various land uses, there is not a significant data source for churches especially during weekday peak hours. Observations were made of the existing facility on Wednesday, January 13, 1982, to determine trip generation data. This day included activities at the • church such as youth choir rehersals, meetings and dinner. Tice results are summarized in Table 1. The data in Table 1 indicate the trip generation characteristics of the existing • facility. Expansion of the facility will result in an increase in trip generation. To estimate this increase, the ratio of existing Solidity 'Ittendanev to proposed church capacity was utilized. Since the church plans to have two Sunday services in place of the existing three, the 7:30 MI and 8:45 attendance figures were combined for a total of 1160. The new sanctuary will have a capacity of 1400 which is a 21 percent increase. To provide a conservative estimate of future traffic an increase of 30 percent was assumed. This estimate is cspeclall.y conservative as the church plans no increase in empluyees and the expansion will provide new areas for existing uses and activities. Due to the potential for increased membership and attendance with a new facility, it was felt that an increase in weekday trip generation should be anticipated. Future weekday volumes based upon a 30 percent increase are listed in Table 2. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The next step in the analysis was to determine a geographic trip distribution pattern for the church. Information relative to the residence location of the membershLp was obtained from the church. The d'lslribution patLern developed for the church is illustrated on h'igure 1. This distribution was then utilized to assip project traffic to the street system. Project related traffic at critical intersec- tions is contained in Appendix A. -3- • Table 1 EXISTING WEEKDAY TRLP CENERA'I'LON TIME PERIOD TRIP ENDS IN OUT 3:30 - 4:00 PM 26 19 4:00 - 4:30 PM 21 11 4:30 - 5:00 PM 17 23 • 5:00 - 5:30 PM 17 10 5:30 - 6:00 PM 17 45 TOTALS 3:30 - 6:00 PM 98 108 • TOTALS 4:30 - 5:30 PM 34 33 'fable 2 • INCREASED TRIP WEEKDAY CENERAT ION FROM PROJECT TIME PERIOD TRIP ENDS IN OUT 3:30 - 6:00 PM 30 35 4:30 - 5:30 PM 10 10 • • • • , • OR, • co c' sr. Q u aaIsr0 sr m m � • stjl � Sr N0RTF{ U J J Q e�N/rA CYN. RO. • 15% A n yG • ti I RD. 41 FO B 19ry Sr a • gpN � 20% 17TR sr. 10% ! • LOCAL SITE 30% • PACIFIC DIRECTIONAL D/STRISUT/ON WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE • -4- • EXTERNAL. TRAFFIC ANAL.YS CS The Traffic Phasing ordivauce ut thu CLLy of NewporL Bauch includes erlLurla for evaluating the traffic impact of proposed project. As a first step, the City Traffic Engineer has identified four intersections that could be impacted by the • proposed project. Under the established criteria, the project traffic would not have an impact upon any of these intersections unless the project traffic exceeds one percent on any approach to any intersection identified by the City Traffic Engineer. • Table 3 lists the committed projects utilized in this study. Tills list- is based upon information provided by the City Planning Department. Projected traffic from each of these projects during the 2.5 hour peak was determined for each • of the four intersections as indicated in Appendix A. Regional growth traffic factors were n 'u) determined in accordance with the procedure ostublLshod by the City Traffic Engineer and regional growth traffic added to each of the four inter- sections. The calculation sheets for each intersection are contained in Appendix A • and summarized in Table 4. Review of Table 4 indicates that none of the intersections would experience 2.5 hour peak hour traffic increases of more than one percent on any approach. Based • upon the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project would not impact the external street system. Peak trip generation to the church would occur on Sunday mornings. As is discussed • later in this report, on a normal Sunday 575 vehicles are anticipated to attend the largest service. These vehicles would utilize the local street system with approximately 200 to approach from thu norUi and weSL and 375 from the south. Due to the location of the off-street parking facility aL Clay Street and St. • Andrews Road, some minor congestion could be anticipated. Since it is anticipated that the 7:30 AM service would be combined with 8:45 AM service, traffic on local streets will occur later in the day. Although it is not possible to quantify the potential impacts, increased traffic can be anticipated on local streets such as • Clay Street and St. Andrews Road. On peak Sundays, these traffic volumes could increase by up to 20 percent. • • -5- Table 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS Aeronutronic Ford Shokrian Office Backbay Office Harbor Point Bayside Square Rogers Gardens Baywood Apartments Pacesetter Homes 3701 Birch Office Rudy Baron • Mac Arthur Plaza Farwest Savings Civic Plaza Quail Business Center Corporate Plaza 441 Newport Avenue Koll Center Newport Hoag Hospital . National Education Office Hughes Expansion (13,000 SF) North Ford 1511 - 1525 Superior Avenue Medical Orchard Office Coast Business Center Pacific Mutual Plaza Iiighes Expansion (1,10,000 SF) Sea Island 3101 W. Coast Highway Seaview Lutheran Plaza Marriott Hotel Boyle Engineering Table 4 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION r LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES - 1985 NB SB EB WB Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - Bayshore Dr. - 0.4 - 0.2 Coast Highway & Riverside Ave. - 0.8 0.2 - Irvine Ave. Westcliff Dr. - 17th St. 0.6 0.2 0.2 - Irvine Ave. & Dover Dr. 19th St. 0.3 0.1 - - -6- • PAMINC In order to determine parking characteristics of the existing church facility, field studies were conducted on two Sundays. The first study was done on December • 20, 1981, which was the Sunday prior to Christmas and represented a peak condition. Sunday, January 10, 1982, was then surveyed for a normal condition. For both studies, observations were made at 6:30 AM to determine non-church related parking and a second observation made at 9:00 AM to measure church related packers. The • results of these two studies are illustrated on Figures 2 and 3. To determine the number of church related parkers the number in brackets must be subtracted from the 9:00 AM value. The total church parking on December 20 was 505 and on January 10 was 436. • The 9:00 AM time was selected as it represents the time of peak attendance. Table 5 indicates the attendance at each service on both survey days. These attendance data reflect only those at the church service and do not include Sunday School, • teachers, nursery attendants or other concurrent activities. Since the parking survey includes all church attendees, utilizing service attendance at a base would include the peripheral activities. The parklug demand on December 20 was 0.55 vehicles per attendee (1.8 persons per vehicle) and on January 19 was 0.64 • vehicles per attendee (1.6 persons per vehicle) . Table 5 CHURCH ATTENDANCE SERVICE STARTS ATTENDANCE • -December 20 J:au:.i:Z IU 7:30 AM 250 215 8:45 AM 9LO 683 10:15 AM 739 564 Based upon procedures in the City of Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance, the church would have a maximum seating capacity of 1400 and require 280 parking spaces. Studies by the church have indicated a maximum seating capacity of 1,095. If we • assume a seating capacity of 1,100, the parking requirement for a normal Sunday would be 704 spaces based upon existing parking demand ratios. With the new facility, the church plans to eliminate one service. If the January 10 attendance figures for the 7:30 AM and 8:45 AM are combined and the 0.64 ratio applied, the • parking demand would be 575. • • y�P 270� CARS IN HIGH SCHOOL LOT • �s (1o) • �� (o) Fy (15) 10 c2 29 1 `ram yy (25) (1 (2)0 30 • 27 ��-pj„ 151 JAMS (4) �I) (5) 5T �� (2) • N3) (7) (0) dl) (4) 8 6 S> 4 z (0) y (5) nyj (5) kb O • LEGEND 34 —PARKING AT 9:00 A.M. ON STREET PARK/NG—DECEMBER 20, 1981 (10)—PARKING AT 6:30A.M. • WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 • 1(0) ®CARS IN HIGH SCHOOL LOT 33 �s'4 (15) 4F2 23 (1) 13 (0) 10 • (22 (O1 30 (2) 4 (3) 1AMF • �Q,\� c�-P (23) (2) 95) y 6 �� ZO) I (6) (4) (0) (21 (1) 8 9 6 .S� 0 (2) (0) • � � O y - 1 (0 ) Z MY 4 n (4) 0 (41 (00 O • (1) (0) (4) (9) A • LEGEND ON STREET PARK/NG-JANUARY /O, /982 33 PARKING AT 9:00 AM (15) PARKING AT &30 AM • WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE I0 -7- • The site plan indicates provision for 276 additional off-street parking spaces with the expansion program. If this is combined with the high school lot • which has 260 marked spaces, the total off-street supply would be 536 spaces. This indicates that 39 vehicles would be parked on-street during a normal Sunday and 168 for a full sanctuary condition. The peak condition with 168 vehicles parked on-street is less than the December 20 observation when 228 vehicles were parked on-street (See Figure 2. • A condition with a full sanctuary (1100 attendees) would not be anticipated to occur on every Sunday and is not a realistic design condition. As a shopping center is not designed for the Christmas peak, the church parking cannot be designed • for peak conditions. The normal demand would be somewhat greater than the 575 assuming some growth in church attendance. This would result in some on-street parking but at a reduction from current Levels. • The site plan includes a three level parking structure at the Clay Street/St. Andrews Road corner. This structure would include a below-grade level with 77 spaces, an at-grade level with 75 spaces and a future above-grade level with 80 spaces. Although the total structure supply has been utilized in the above • calculations, it is recommended that the above-grade level be constructed after completion of the project and based upon observed conditions. If the projected demands occur without this third level, the on-street parking on a normal Sunday would be 119 vehicles which is less than the 199 observed on January 30, 1982. • In summary, the expanded facility will result in a reduction in on-street parking in the area of the church. With completion of all planned parking facilities, the on-street parking on peak Sundays would be reduced from 228 to 168 vehicles. • If the third level of parking is not provided, on peak Sundays, the on-street parking could increase from 228 to 248. Parking should be monitored after completion of the project to determine the need for the third level of the parking structure. • SITE ACCESS The site plan was also reviewed with respect to access and potential impacts upon the surrounding streets. There are three vehicular access points indicated on the • site site plan with one on 15th Street near Clay Street, and one on St. Andrews Road • near Clay Street and one on Clay Street near St. Andrews- Road. The access on 15th Street should not create traffic safety or operational problems especially with the general off-peak church activities. Access on St. Andrews Road and Clay Street will bring increased traffic into a residential area. The proximity of these accesses to the St. Andrews Road/Clay Street intersection could result in some traffic operational and safety problems. Observations of the existing facility indicated a number of vehicles which drop- off or pick-up children on weekdays. This currently results in double parking of vehicles along St. Andrews Road. It would be desirable to provide an on-site area for the pick-up and drop off activity to reduce traffic congestion on St. Andrews Road. • The proposed site plan indicates that the sanctuary will be located adjacent to Clay Street. This location will attract more on-street parkers to residential streets such as Pirate Road and Snug Harbor Road as they are more convenient • than 15th Street. SUMMARY This study has examined the traffic and parking facturs related to the prupusvd expansion of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in the CiLy ul Newport Beach. Observations • were made to determine existing traffic and parking characteristics and these utilized to analyze the potential traffic and parking impacts of the project. Based upon the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, an insignificant traffic impact was found; however, a potential parking deficiency was identified which could impact the surrounding • residential :irva. Principal findings of the study were the following: 1. The expanded facility is anticipated to generate an additional 65 trip ends during the weekday 2.5 hour peak and 20 trip ends during the PM peak hour. 2. The increased project traffic would not exceed one percent of the existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach to the III • intersections idenriftud by the City Traffic P:ngincer during the 2.5 peak period. 3. A peak parking ratio of 0.55 vehicles per sanctuary attendee was found on December 20, 1981, and a peak ratio of 0.64 on January 10, 1982. 4. A parking demand of 575 was estimated for a normal Sunday upon completion • of the project. • • t • 5. The on-street parking would be expected to be a minitaum of 39 vehicles upon completion of the project. 6. The proposed site plan would increase traffic in the residential areas surrounding the site. MITIGATION MEASURES The following weasuees are reconmicuded Lu mitigate putmtLirtl traffic and parking impacts of the project. 1. Parking conditions should be monitored to determine the need for a third level in the parking structure. 2. An off-street pick-up/drop-off area should be provided for parents with children at weekday activities. We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please cuntact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES •r Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 and TR565 WSP:cd #1580 • • APPENDIX A 2,5 HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS • • • • • • • tr 1% Traffic Volume Analysis - Intersection coast 1liU1,wdy/l1nvr'r Drive-liay:hor•I• Drive (Lxistinq 1rall is vulullim bilsvd oilAvor•nye Wit tf r7Sl)rinq T7 81 ) f; fool !', hour Appr uved ^PP'•oacn ! L+i:t f nr) I Hi,ginnnl Projects 11rujuc led ( I of ProIlected ProjeCt • Irecaon Peak 'L', flour Sb•owth I Peak. 21, hour Peak 21, flour Prak 21, Ifour r Peak 2', 6r.ur l'olume Volume ! volume nVolluutme i Volume volume 278 4 :r_uthbound j -2273 i 2('i 2299 23 _/0 ,k • r—• -Eastcaund i_3401 ` ! 4 sb 6estbourld i 1 .__5,473,_._._� 38 /080 659/ 1 _ 66 - J__. .. -- -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 2'•4 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • • —.-- ---- _. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 0 1" Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue - (Existing Traffic Volumes--based on gage 4—linter pring 19 81 �1I Prn�. T, Iluur Appr uvrd dp, rnJ,h l .lar,ting i Hnqumnl Prujec is VruJ et ted I 1 of Pr•n,le.ted I Prnp;Ct • „irection Peak 21, Hour i fruwth I 111-aA ?r, Hour Poak. 21, flour PraA ?', Hour Peak 't, nr,ur i tiolIslip Valwrk VolIslip Volume i Volwae -_--_ doIIslip — ',ortntound 21 f Z� southbound —•— ' -- ------4---126L - : _�_ ... 1267• - --- l3_ _ /.0 0.�3 • ,.,:t.-,und 47.4f1 SI 439 4738 . 4-7 - - /Q - b.Z ,,,,;rpound I 3752 ' 45 i 1018 48I5 48 • ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than la of Projected 71 Peak 21; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization • (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • - — _+DATE: PROJECT: • FORM I 1%t Traffic Volume Analysis - Intersec.tion Irvine Avenur/Wt'strliff Drivt, - 1 /1:h Strvet (existing traffic VoItimes based on Average Wintry'/spring '1S) Ui ) Peal !', Hour Approved ( �• Approach Existing ' kegional Projects Projected 1' of Projected Project . Direction, Peak 21. Hour I Growth Peak .', Hour Peak 71, Hour I Peak 21, Hour Peet 21, hour i Volume Z Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume f0rthtound I 1652 I 0i _ .outhbound f 2390_ O 0 vL• i ustbgdud 2016 0 0 2-0S ;estbound ' 1539 i 0 I 0 • © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than N of Projected Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization • (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: PROJECT: FORM 1 0 • ti 1' Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Irvine Ave./hover Dr. - 19th St. (Existing traffic. Vuluniv!. baseil un Avaregt' 41iriCr r/Spririy 1'] it1) P P eas , Hnur i Approved - .- :ppr„acn Existing keuional ! Projects Projec teal I i of Projected Project • :ire_cion Peat. 21, Hour Growth Peak 2', Hour I Peak 21; flour ; Peak 2', Hour Peak 2', hcur ^v_iolume — Volume Volume I Volume Volume Volu e . -'.Jrt nctund 1941 _� _ .. .. lgl-• _•_.�9..� nuthhaand34 50... O O 34b-0 i S S O•( • =ast•,ound 391 0O `f •eStnoued i j _ ._-- :l- .—L.- .- 831- . O _ €331 __. .- • Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be Treater than 1' of Projected Q Peak 2!z Hour- Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ( I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • DATE- PROJECT: FORM I •