Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS034_PROPOSED EXPANSION OF 1100 QUAIL ST III�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �IIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIII@IIII 13034 marie e. giI Iiam, aicp urban planninc 1825 westcliff drive, suite177 newport beach, ca, 92660 INITIAL STUDY For the Proposed Expansion of 1100 Quail Street, Newport Beach, CA t ' January 25, 1984 Prepared for City of Newport Beach ' Planning Department 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2197 ' Prepared by Marie E. Gilliam & Associates 1825 Westcliff Dr. , Suite 177 ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 645-0939 t ' TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' Project Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Comparison of Proposed Project to Development Standards and the General Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' Permits Required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : . . . . . . . . . . 12 Land Use. . 13 Traffic and Circulation. . 23 AirQuality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 ' Acoustics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Public Services and Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 ' REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 ' APPENDIX Appendix A - Sample Environmental Checklist Appendix B - Standard City Conditions of Approval ' Appendix C - Text of Proposed PC Amendment Appendix D - TPP Development Phasing, Newport Place Appendix E - Committed Projects, January 1984 ' Appendix F - Traffic and Parking Analysis 1 LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES ' FIGURES ' 1 _ Regional Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 Vicinity Map. . 5 3 - Site Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ' 4a & b Elevation Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 - 5 Newport Place PC, Remaining Development. . 14 6 - Newport Place, Redevelopment Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ' 7 - Newport Place, Expansion Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8 - Existing Traffic Volumes and ICU Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ' TABLES A - Comparison of the Proposed Project to Development ' Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - B Statistical Summary: Newport Place PC District, Remaining Allowable Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 t C - City of Newport Beach, Major Projects in the Vicinity of Newport Place. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D - Potential for Project Influenced Expansion - - Newport Place. . 21 E Trip Generation, 1100 Quail Street. . 25 F Parking Utilization Survey. . 27 1 1 1 1 ' INTRODUCTION This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , State EIR Guidelines ' and City of Newport Beach procedures for the implementation of CEQA. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether or not the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, either indi- vidually or cumulatively, and to identify any feasible mitigation measures. ' This Initial Study focuses on areas of potentially significant environ- mental concern as identified by the City of Newport Beach. (A complete Environmental Checklist of all CEQA concerns is contained in Appendix A to this report. ) Analysis includes a review of the proposed project ' in relation to applicable development standards and plans and identifi- cation of necessary project approvals. Evaluation of impacts summarizes existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures which ' may be required above and beyond standard City Conditions of Approval , which are contained in Appendix B for reference. If, based upon information presented in this study, it is determined ' that the project will not have any significant impacts or that such impacts can be mitigated, a Negative Declaration may be issued. If it is determined that the proposed project will have significant environ- mental impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated, the City will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. ' The lead agency in preparing this environmental assessment is the City of Newport Beach. The project applicant and the applicants project consultant are listed below with other key contact persons. Other con- tributors to this report are listed on Page 32. City of Newport Beach Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator ' City of Newport Beach (714) 640-2197 ' Planning/Environmental Consultant Marie E. Gilliam, AICP 1825 Westcliff Drive, #177 Newport Beach, CA (714) 645-0939 ' Traffic Consultant Weston Pringle & Associates 2651 E. Chapman Ave. ' Fullerton, CA (714) 871-2931 ' -1- Project Applicant Steve Muller Quail Street Properties ' 1100 Quail Street Newport Beach, CA (714) 476-0177 ' Applicant's Project Consultant Dave Neish Urban Assist, Inc. 3151 Airway Ave. Costa Mesa, CA (714) 556-9890 I 1 1 -2- ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Location ' The project address is 1100 Quail Street in Newport Beach. The site is located within Newport Place Planned Community, which is bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Bristol Street and Birch Street. Figures 1 ' and 2 illustrate project location within a regional and local setting respectively. ' Project Characteristics The project site is 1.15 ac. in size and is currently developed with ' a two story office building which is 20,284 square feet in size. Ninety- two (92) surface parking spaces are provided on-site. The current use does not utilize any compact parking spaces. ' The proposed project involves a request to expand the existing structure by a total of 6588 net square feet for a total of 26,872 net square feet in building area. The expansion would be accomplished by the con- struction of a second story addition at the rear of the existing structure with surface parking underneath. Figures 3, 4a & b illustrate the Site Plan and Elevation Plans of the proposed construction. The existing ' parking lot would be restriped to increase the number of total parking spaces to 95, including the use of compact spaces. ' Comparison of the Proposed Project to Development Standards and the General Plan ' The proposed project must be developed within the framework of applicable City planning programs and ordinances, which are examined below. ' General Plan. Consultation with the Advance Planning Division of the City of Newport Beach Planning Department indicates that the proposed project is in compliance with all relevant Elements of the General Plan. ' These include the Land Use Element, Public Safety Element, Parks and Recreation, and the Noise Element. The site is designated for Adminis- trative/Professional Commercial use in the Land Use Element. The Public Safety Element indicates that no significant seismic hazards are known ' to exist on the site. The issues of potential noise and public service impacts will be addressed in separate chapters of this report. ' Zoning Code. As noted earlier, the project site is located within the ewpo�Tace PC (Planned Community) District which was initially approved by the City of Newport Beach in December, 1970. The Newport Place Planned ' Community District regulations establish development standards for this specific area. Subsequent to 1970, numerous individual amendments to this PC text have occurred. ' -3- ' REGIONAL LOCATION FIGURE 1 los angeles county ` 1. ' i— •—•• •— san bernardino county ' r Powr.IG. Fw / Anaheim O . Orange F, l riverside county J 1 ' SAna anta San DI•Do � •• Huntington Costa ' Beach Mesa Irvine / Beachort • SITE �.. Pacific ocean -: Be Una chea Bch San Juan ' Capistrano San Clemente san diego county VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 rrCn1 S -. ti rw �S I y I - § Q'� •�p �:• 4An •OST.y4 Q° FWYt II R SAN DIEGO x slNx S DIE O Y �[ •! S of � -- -• � .n.srw:wrG fu. ' °•�r[I[w( k 3�3 x'-'v°it I N R/Yy �`�•.,,r♦ uo ' b : r : a13I.. ?��?'�. 4`' § •�� �9p""P�'L,LL r[ 5..�,xxA Nv - ; � y I \•"., 5 run � ,n c W •: •;- i; 3 •'Gar.P. ♦ � " / I ':uJ t5 ' E E� °� '•'r II z ,N. I°"' n,uwr •�: ']• ' " a 13(Y NL Lxf..•!�� � •wliµ V _ AV KER .'I [� s - 3 `,'n •as ` �eJeAK —BAER% •°f 'mu I b .o s . sw I 9t'S wsr I'Ro' I n C • s!• an sS� m4 ' __t _ ._-wc__-•�-- �s7r-i.Ia�7 e-.s+"r• •� .�., •i',ss�%a lax�n+ i W„W°�.W..�, � � ;F n„ a_• y � .'.I' •&���� [xc s /�. + w ." v •v v�mr , Y ° O s 4 W� s[raNNo w /{{ m a 'p`� •lj I " �'� o� rs tun�ru �• - _— a, fL ?� d Y q'F'y 4y. ?`uNb �r w. 9qs °q °r °r I P'[ " L I 4�W JL^rf ••• !�7'�IL7 I t JJ • .) [[ n o rqv E• ey1" kdr � �uj..•. •.• .•.[s"- � I 9Juso-o 3J�� w �`. ov I Jrp ,(! ,3 � G + �. • + srvnu t Lmsu°r ) / O [ t n.rw e Q KSI •. .♦°♦ � ■ scuxcmx f b Si o..6;A.:,.. \ S, ♦ I by G° � � L[ �gMH6F coLNsry [NNGAIXwOJ, I A �., dOS 4„ y I s rein• �P� i� sarm mnu� ��• : ,� S4YlA AHA .: �,J 'L sanr�.lm a•1° k s;°•/�t I+ ��+I� $N[ d ORk ' ;.j•- •, .: 2 •,'covxrxr ays •••;•.P�p ax° ♦ t, I I,. 'A¢W ',::••• .?• • GOIi CIXfflS[' TmW I Sa ef� � •- NR ,- 15. .. 2tP �s..' ' « gYF1 '"` axin,•LaNluwh° �t1" ago- n: J mindlI e��wu�stl yIp _� r'xrnJON/, \ Lw o i s u h�L •,xr 1 � ry!.ss3, •/1 Y i Odt P r O ♦ f1 O u[Yi•� y. °'vwvi. Wr /y vnLNxwN� _w�M:'ems'+•I °Lyr t °yy r°e titp osi &' ,y'f•'Ptr°���::'..; �� K o8S rnur•a � ,�,am Y•5•,/I v"•a 4„ 4 (<, 41. J f?� Je tPri � �`���[,.". "+ i '�e �$ y su¢ ..�... •CI,. :�i�� �1,�y"ta.W .g .N avix r / k q F,>.'� )RI E a Ro sx,A a` +ti�yd. a Y 4,. ;...1 g ,q e°,r A• sro s MN msxN � ¢ TYr � �°�,°'�O`� •�,�,'�«< ��.;;; ,:;;•;��` Y�8 Av q��9,,yt s ° �; l 6 6 ¢ «� �� r ?ro ap ?P h• Jv e k "\ k P° YA ` ` '%'T °°r 4r• ��` I O Wl0 lllf ' y ¢ 9 ■(a .L J° - ° wtu(. �Ip 0. %yiM1 \1 4 R t P.+tamC .tn N�•� C, `,,•~ �. AYOCAUO$ 3 Xii� ' , L q jw,°.i p@ Qg YP °E+i Ii °•lam^ W°Y -� u � '°tz �Y • • .�•�-nM14*i\\•�N 1 9 1.0,� f \ II•' '4 VICTOR14 ST "riRn � a 4t?J^Y v e v+4 ,. -_'1Y: / .efj`o n wx �wiwi �' Nu+'a S E �las1 v c dJ r5 .. rit �. .��— •+.e_.. _ �': _ - �1� orzeo L g o v t d <d✓ P7RVt P Q?' ;�*gi f, °f[I MYA UPPER •,* `_ $ mY E� `// �o`l' r ° J�o" 'y 6 s• y'f•'� O NEYYPORI ,t'[1..� .`L� ' J.a ••q++i ___•. fry r',�pq,. �y R- R\ea`i\' .6 Vv. n _ .�.::•i.'dtsfevr_j'';Jb:.' :: W I 4�' e '�4 `Lf�00 <ro F��Ji �4 / /!w.�" «aouur / t+'I,_i.t,*,. +?�4..i•.��,:'i•�1:�... � ofFf/I ' �'—a`'�' J„a'sr.Y{M boy�q <y d+ y ti'o-0P / .. usave "•_.`:(.,::i r ': •P ITxoA'� I o. ' / P, ` Pax fir/�!tn-ti 4'M1 c ;h yx p1• }° �^1 x g"•:' Y•' �p fir. `� v\ R O y re+•[v 'J & � �' '�'�` f'��: � :"L;h��R'4'•:.W�.., /rv^�•3,I..••_=�'1 . �'• °ra VI 1 // .Ayrsiy (Yobpa .. A•,J" .aF�f` :�S'pf,. 'y �4� .r "v'lP.r`Pf X�rs //m a� / NTd Ty ��Or °� dit♦ � b � sluwu� n b� f,• LOd 4�7°P f•T4 _ iJ y �lv�'•.� � .d�\M ,.I �t`• `Y5°„Ac A _.cc•-�'�--�- s„ � h Nr a •A r� .� L° o�.,A �•)•�/ •flp j.fti•,,L,SY}jSq,J'�cy,y �,9 ',°j4'� '�" r �,rqa p ,L� ° ° s J n r. .� �a• K,�.x-1•L.3 . •Cao�''lUy; �\\ 4trW' lF�,. ° I 'tor. sr �• r:f`': L, -Y �` `�� ."•'���+2:ti•nor�{ �LL�s •� ap id ` YaX•1 �. .p �• d r� ''•� + f.*.'i'� /. '� ;CS;� 21 syCi };o�x�E��s ",�. ♦!1 tr T��.sK�:i�' ���2Lay sr r. �+� �y J"7R.say. �"���t � ) l�.'Y •, 4 8^ ° "••O'L.ri > ' °9J r \ v°'>lY`St�°4�4 e • ' I\�\JI ' I .Y��;:'ii . 9pllixs e �R yr A'oa /� 4rW"i+ls .•yd syy} .E9•` 4 1 /� �� d:'rt7q y. fb # y�,{•' ,t S °, S�bf�'Y '•k •.ly p ES E1[E NI1�lN .AJ�' 1 I / F` 3 .-.\ �('`"/�'�� _ .. . JY: l\'•.`,4 ♦V Is �) f$" //�. / _ ' ,e"kyd__ °9a - i — Y- > S. `�'`'�'gs ST •°'R. L° SAY � [+� �,Y I�u a"h. roFOfl - %`°�'Ce .�°q.5.. N�4..�. kA we N+°,x. a E✓7u'...' \n. :'.. �i`:'�r4ii�ti';��;:+'�:.n�°°f^' .. °b ._ $ n i i - SITE PLAN FIGURE 3 -61 IN -0 O it i v •O. t i �, nr u qi s s: 1 r .�r ;;lONPIGT 4R9 66 B-0 _ PAVpGP te_ i coup roue caHP .qp IN SK15TI1i6 OFri(G: \.' eact')WG ITS o 0 a IN .\\ F T :ELMIN I JIdIP�Ef 4CiC DO , PROfl�SFA 4P�ITION� I •Q 2ND FAR 0.0 r BrOVWGi 2tL5 E 6.0 ____ E_/pw 0 eo_ � 114P yMP Z Mp ;040. (DNC -p MP :pW µkPu_P• I y.iP I:p4o p FXI4TIN6 TFJOH T.r.+L'o6UR£ To KEL1g1N Source: J. Richard Pavlovsky ' BUILDING ELEVATIONS FIGURE 4A i VEW :AN5T2UGTIOti1 C ' EAST ELEVATION } 1 1 ' - FXIbTING O?FIJB BUILDING TO GEVA:N -------- --- - VEW CONSTRUCTION ---- i f 111111111111 IT TIMM I � P C r ® I 7 -- --_— __ 1 ' EM- 6OU-rH ELEVATION - Source: J. Richard Pavlovsky, f I ' BUILDING ELEVATIONS FIGURE 4B ' �. NFJ.1 iON5T�ULTIGtN F 16TIN6 OFFICE BUILDING TO CGNAIN I _ 1 I I ' i I � I WEST ELEVATIOW 111s! LOV87FUL71 OUILDIA A r-EN41N J 4 1 e ' NORTH ELEVATION ' Source: J. Richard Pavlovsky ' The PC text established an allocation of uses and square footage which were permitted within Newport Place. In order to expand any structure ' or build a structure larger than the allocated maximum square footage would require either an amendment to the Newport Place PC District regu- lations (as the applicant has requested) , or the transfer of develop- ment rights from another property. This project application represents ' the first request to increase square footage allocated to a site in Newport Place. The complete text of the applicant's proposed amendment to the Newport Place PC is contained in Appendix C to this report. ' Table A provides a comparison of the proposed project to Newport Place PC development standards. ' Traffic Phasing Plan. On November 27, 1978, the City Council adopted an amen ment to the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations which required the preparation of a Traffic Phasing Plan (TPP) consistent ' with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The requirement applied to all future allowable development in the Newport Place P-C District beyond 30% of the total future allowable development. In order for ' the City to approve a TPP, it must be found to be consistent with the P-C development plan, the provisions of the amendment to P-C district regulations mentioned above, and the City's definition of "reasonable- ness". The City approved a TPP for Newport Place on March 12, 1979 which phased construction within the P-C District with roadway improvements. This ' original traffic phasing plan addressed then vacant properties owned by Emkay, Bear Brand Ranch, Air California, and Ketchum. The remaining development allowed in the Newport Place P-C District was described ' as expansion space and subject to future amendments to the TPP. (Develop- ment phasing approved in the TPP is contained in Appendix D to this report. ) ' The City Council resolution amending the Newport Place P-C District to require a TPP placed specific requirements and permitted square feet of future allowable development on individual parcels within Newport Place-. Due to the fact that the proposed project has no future allowable development allocated to the site, both an amendment to the Newport Place Planned Community District regulations and a TPP amendment are required. Since the proposed project represents an increase in the development permitted in the Newport Place PC District, it is also subject to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the TPO. ' Permits Required t The proposed project will require the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach; 1. CEQA. The acceptance of this environmental document and approval a Negative Declaration (or preparation and acceptance of an EIR) . -9- TABLE A 1100 QUAIL STREET, NEWPORT PLACE ' COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO P-C DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ' REQUIREMENT NEWPORT PLACE P-C EXISTING USE PROPOSED PROJECT Building site Established for 1.15 Ac. 1.15 Ac. area individual sites ' Gross floor area - 23,200 sq.ft. 28,543 sq.ft. Net floor area - 20,284 sq.ft. 26,872 sq.ft. ' Intensity of Use - 0.5:1.0 0.6:1.0 ' Building Height Varies from 2-10 2 stories 2 stories stories (33-611) (331611) Setbacks Front - 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. ' Side - none 45 ft. 45 ft. Rear - none 45 ft. 3 ft. (stairwell to second floor ' addition) ' Parking 1 space per 225 net 92 spaces 95 spaces, of sq.ft. ; 1 space per (1 space per which 24 are 250 net sq.ft. with 220 net sq. ft. ) proposed to be Modification 81 spaces compacts (25%) ' approval required @ (1 space per 1 space/250 net •283 net sq.ft. ) sq. ft. 107 spaces required ' 90 spaces @ 1 space per 250 required @ net sq.ft. 1 space/225 net 119 spaces required sq.ft. @ 1 space per 225 net sq.ft. 1 - Ratio of gross floor area to buildable site area. ' Sources: J. R. Pavlovsky & Associates; City of Newport Beach Planning Department ' -10- ' 2. Amendment No. 6 to the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan. The acceptance of a traffic study prepared pursuant to the ' City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1) and approval of an amendment to the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan to allow additional traffic generation associated with the project. 3. Amendment No. 16 to the Newport Place PC District Regulations. The amendment of Planned Community Development Standards for Newport Place in order to allow additional square footage to be constructed on the subject site. ' 4. Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow a modification to the zoning code to approve parking at a ratio of 1 space per 283 net sq.ft. of office space based upon a parking analysis described in the Traffic/Circulation ' chapter of this report. The approval of compact car parking spaces is also requested. ' Committed Projects The City requires that all projects in excess of 10,000 square feet ' (gross floor area) 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 estimating traffic ' generation. Projects within Newport Beach which are considered committed are listed in Appendix D to this report. The traffic analysis contained in the Traffic and Circulation section of this report is based upon ' consideration of the proposed project as well as committed projects listed. I 1 ' -11_ I ' DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1 ' �t -12 i ' LAND USE Existing Conditions ' The project site is currently developed with a two story office building and is surrounded by similar commercial development. Figure 2 - Vicinity Map, illustrates the project's proximity to the John Wayne Airport and Newport Bay. Primary access to the area is provided by Bristol Street (future extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway) and MacArthur Boulevard. As noted in the Project Description, the site is part of the Emkay Develop- ment project known as Newport Place. In 1970 this planned community development was approved to allow a variety of commercial , office, and industrial uses. Allowable development in the Newport Place P-C District ' was originally established by District Regulations and later by Traffic Phasing Plan requirements. Figure 5 and Table B indicate future remaining allowable development in the Newport Place P-C District. Figures 6 ' and 7 provide a general listing of all existing uses in Newport Place. Land use issues surrounding the proposed project must be considered ' within the context of on-going development trends in the general vicinity. Within the City of Newport Beach, a number of large scale commercial office projects have been approved recently in the vicinity of Newport Place, several of which are under construction at the present time. ' These projects are listed in Table C. Since 1980, this area of Newport Beach has experienced an expansion in office space of approximately 437,000 sq.ft, in addition to those major projects listed in Table C. ' The City of Newport Beach has also recently approved a General Plan Amendment for all areas between Birch Street and Campus Drive from Bristol Street to MacArthur Boulevard (not part of the Newport Place PC District) . ' The Birch Street GPA will allow an increase in the allowable intensity of use from .5 x buildable to 1 x buildable, if traffic generation com- plies with the City' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . (Zoning to imple- ment this General Plan Amendment has not been adopted, however. ) Development within the City of Irvine in the Irvine Industrial Complex- West surrounding the airport has also intensified in recent years. Approximately 6.7 million sq.ft. of office space has been recently approved in this area or is under review. In addition, a total of 2050 hotel rooms have been approved or are under review. (Several of these projects ' are under construction or partially occupied at present. ) Development trends in the vicinity of Newport Place will also be influ- enced by planned circulation improvements in the area, most prominently the future extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway. Proximity to the John Wayne Airport has also contributed to the desirability of the area ' for commercial office development. -13- NEWPORT PLACE P-C REMAINING DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 5 I ' GO ' NN 00 PP LL MM AE BB LOU A 55 C'$ S� TT VV V ' YY ww CC AA Y `y zz 0° z AC ZZ D /\ AD AB FF Be Z W ✓yry 11 OG F C U PP HH KK JJ G E ' 9y T x t p O x A 5 B O L B M K J I MacArthur Blvtl Source:City of Hewport Beach =re a 9illzxn,oicp 0 250 $00� ' U"E plorn�rx� 1825 v estdff ckne an1e177 newMt beoctt&925t0 Feel i ' TABLE B STATISTICAL SUMMARY - NEWPORT PLACE P-C DISTRICT. REMAINING ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT ' Site ' Locationl Portion Rem. Dev.2 TPP3 Year Amount 30% 70% Type4 A - 0 - HB lA-lB ' B 0 = - - HB 1.4-16 C 1 0 Yes RC-2 D 1 -330 Yes SS-1 E _ 0 - - - - - RC-1 1 F - 0 - - - - - RC-1 G 0 RC-1 H - 0 - - - - - P&B-7 ' I 6 0 _ P&B-6 - - - - J 6 0 P&B-6 K _ 0 - - - - - RS-1 ' L - 0 - - - - - RS-1 �q p RS-1 N Yes 87,019 Yes 1979 87,019 - - P&B-5 ' 0 - - - - = P&B-5 P 4 4,111 1,233 2,879 P&B-4 Q - 12,000 Yes 1981 12,000 P&B-4 ' R - 0 RS- a S 3a 37,463 11,238 26,225 IS-3a T p - - - - - ACS-15 U - -5,050 - - - - - GC-1 ' V 4 32,734 _ _ _ 580 22,914 16-4 &2 d 0 & x _ 0 - - - - - P&B-1&2 ' Y 0 - - - - - P&B-1&2 Z 0 °&B-1&2 AA - 2,809 Yes 1981 2,809 - - P&8-1&2 ' BB 0 P&3-1&2 - - - - - - CC 0 P&B-1&2 OD - 0 - - - - - P&B-1&2 ' EE 0 - P&8-1&2 FF 0 P&B-1&2 GG - 0 - - - - P&B-1&2 HH = 0 - = - - - P&B-1&2 II 0 P&B-1&2 JJ 0 P&B-1&2 KK - 0 - - - - - P&B-1&2 LL 3a 0 _ _ _ _ _ IS-3a MM 3a 0 IS-3a NN 3a 0 Yes - - - - IS-3a 1 TABLE B ' STATISTICAL SUMMARY - NEWPORT PLACE P-C DISTRICT, REMAINING ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT Site Locations Portion Rem. Dev.2 TPP3 Year Amount 30% 70% Type4 ' 00 3a 40,951 Yes 1980 40,951 - - IS-3A PP 3a 14,265 Yes - - 4,280 9,985 IS-3A ' QQ 3a 0 = _ _ - _ IS-3A RR 3a 0 IS-3A SS 3a 12,000 Yes 1981 12,000 - - IS-3A ' TT 3a 0 _ _ _ _ _ IS-3A UU 3a 0 IS-3A VV 4 4,130 - - - 1,239 3,071 GC-4 WW 2B 35,063 - - - 8,885 26,179 IS-2B XX IA 0 Yes 1981 17,000 IS-lA YY 3 3,474 - - - 1,042 2,432 GC-3 ' ZZ 1A 17,130 - - - 5,139 11,991 IS-lA AB 0 0 ACS-2A AC 3 3,474 1,042 2,432 GC-3 AD 2 6,850 - - - 2,055 4, 795 GC-2 ' AE 3A 0 - - - - - IS-3A TOTAL 308,093 171,779 36,733 112,903 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Department. ' 1Per Figure 5, page 13. 2Remaining future allowable development of office, retail , and ' industrial uses in square feet. 3Traffic Phasing Plan. ' 4Refer to Newport Place Planned Community District Text for definition. 1 a -16- I i 1 ' TABLE C CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAJOR PROJECTS IN THE VICINITY OF NEWPORT PLACE ' Name Use Size ' 1. North Ford Residential 888 units Commercial 50,000 sq.ft. Office 345,000 sq.ft. ' 2. Koll Center - Newport Hotel 440 rooms Office 325,934 sq.ft. ' 3. MacArthur Court Office 558,400 sq.ft. 4. Sheraton Hotel Hotel 119 room expansion ' TOTAL 888 residential units 559 hotel rooms ' 1,229,334 sq.ft. office space 50,000 sq.ft. commercial space ' Source: City of Newport Beach 1 • 1 I ill ' -17- ' Potential Impacts ' The primary purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the potential impact of the expansion proposed on the project site as a precedent to other surrounding developed properties to seek similar consideration. The project involves a 6588 net sq.ft. expansion to an existing 20,,284 net ' sq.ft. building, or a 32% increase in gross floor area. It is considered unlikely, as an individual project, that any significant environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project. On a cumulative basis, ' however, it is necessary to examine the potential in Newport Place for similar expansion. Information presented in the preceding section serves to demonstrate the intensity of development pressures which exist in the area surrounding the proposed project. While it is improbable that all approved develop- ment will be built in the near future because of present market condi- tions, it can be assumed that the area will undergo significant growth in office and related commercial space. ' In order to explore the potential for expansion or redevelopment of surrounding properties which might be influenced by approval of the proposed project, a survey was conducted of the Newport Place PC District. ' Factors which were considered in assessing a property's potential for expansion or redevelopment included the intensity and compatibility of the existing use relative to surrounding uses, ownership patterns and parcelization, and unusual external influences such as high visual ' exposure and access to the future Corona del Mar Freeway. Based upon these factors, properties which might potentially be influenced to expand as a result of the proposed project were identified. Figures 6 and ' 7 illustrate the results of this survey and conceptually depict Redevelop- ment Potential and Expansion Potential , respectively. ' As Figure 6 illustrates, it was determined that no other properties within Newport Place were likely to be influenced to redevelop as a result of project approval . This assessment was made based upon the relatively small scale of the proposed project, and the consideration ' that other factors such as development trends in the surrounding area and anticipated circulation system improvements outlined in the intro- duction to this chapter form much stronger pressures for such large-scale ' building activity. Consequently, the remainder of the impact analysis will focus only upon other potentially project-related expansion. Several properties were initially identified as cases where approval of the proposed project might influence a decision to seek similar treat- ment by the City. These are identified on Figure 7. Each of these seven properties were selected because they shared similar characteristics ' to the proposed project (similar uses, intensity of development) and were in close proximity to the project site. ' Properties selected were evaluated on a more detailed basis to estimate expansion potential based upon characteristics of the existing development and available parking area. It was assumed that all parking would be ' surface parking, that compact spaces would be used on all sites, and that no significant structural alteration of buildings would occur (e.g. construction of additional stories, etc. which would constitute redevelop- ment) . Table D illustrates the range of expansion potential estimated ' for each property based on these factors . -18- i NEWPORT PLACE P—C FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FIGURE 6 1 Existing Use - Newport Place Other Influences Black No. Block No. ' A - Sheraton Hotel AA - 8 story office building on * Project Site B - Sheraton Hotel Quail St.; 6 story office C - Restaurant building on Dove St. (Bank Cal ) D - Car Wash AS - Car dealership (Howard Chevrolet) �E Retail Commercial Center AC - Retail Commercial Center (Newport F (Mac Arthur Square) Plaza) 00 G AD - Retail Commercial Center (Newport H - 4 story office building Plaza) ' I - 2 story savings & loan AE - 2 story building (athletic club) J - 2 story building BB - 10 story office building (Mitsui NN I - Restaurant Manufacturers) 00 L - Restaurant CC - 2 story office building ' PP LL M - Restaurant DD - 2 story office building AE MM $< N - 3 story office buildings i EE - 2 story office building RR : '_:. 0 - 2 story bank (Bank of America) *FF - 2 story office building P - 3-5 story office building GG - 6 story office building (Commerce UU . ; : ',°• �^ (Daon Centre) Bank) Q - 3 story office building HH - 2 story office building 4 (Far West Savings) II - 2 story office building S'f R - Restaurant JJ - 2 story office building S - 2 story office buildings KK - 2 storyoffice building T - car dealership (Datsun) (LL 2 story office building U - 2 story building (athletic club) MM (Auto Club) __: AA V - 1 & 2 story offices (Commerce MN - 2 story office building (Air Cal) ww y Plaza) 00 - Vacant parcel W - 2 story office building PP - 1 & 2 story office buildings ? :' 2 story office building XX X g QQ - 1 story office building ::`:: AC•: :'•:.. .:., Commerce Center I - .::::: ' ( ) RR 2 story office building Y - 2 story office building SS - 2 story office building (Boyle Engr.) BB Z D (CommerceCenter Ce t !I - 1 story offs buildingF TT officeRB ' > w Z - 2 story office building UU - 2 story office building GG C VV - 2 story building (Center Club) WW - Car dealership (J. Slemons Mercedes- 'cv Benz) e XX.#lti :?' - 2 story office condominium _ G E YY - Retail commercial center (Newport Plaza) Dove t.... P o N I ZZ - Car dealership (Howard Chevrolet) A M K J I B MacArthur Blvd ' Source: City of Newport Beach marieegiIham,aicp o 250 500 urban plannI reWPOrt beacTrl� ' iII25 westcllff dime•suite 177 h, Ca 92660 Feet L11111111111111[ ' II i 1 NEWPORT PLACE P-C FUTURE EXPANSION POTENTIAL FIGURE T i . i 1 Existing Use - Newpm•t Place Project Influences Block No; ; Block No. iA - Sheraton Hotel AA - 8 story office building on Other Influences B - Sheraton Hotel Quail St.; 6 story office C - Restaurant building on Dove St. (Bank Cal ) Car Wash AB - Car dealership (Howard Chevrolet) 1 Retail Commercial Center AC - Retail Commercial Center (Newport * Project Site �� (Mac Arthur Square) Plaza) 00 A AD - Retail Commercial Center (Newport H - 4 story office building Plaza) 1 I - 2 story savings A loan AE - 2 story building (athletic club) J - 2 story building BB - 10 story office building (Mitsui NN K - Restaurant Manufacturers) 00 L - Restaurant cc - 2 story office building 1 PP LL M - Restaurant OD - 2 story office building MM S� N - 3 story office buildings EE - 2 story office building RR 0 - 2 story bank (Bank of America) >ieFF - 2 story office building pV P - 3-5 story office building GG - 6 story office building (Commerce i UU _ O Mon Centre) Bank) SS '^p� Q - 3 story office building HH - 2 story office building (Far West Savings) II - 2 story office building " Sf 'R - Restaurant JJ - 2 story office building YV TT =-=:=',_ S - 2 story office buildingqs KK - 2 story office building T - car dealership (Uatsun) LL 2 story office building 1 -_ .. Y U - 2 story building (athletic club) (M, (Auto Club) V - 16 2 story offices (C6moerc,e MN - 2 story office building (Air Cal) Plaza) 00 office building PP - 1 & 2istorye W-- 2 office buildings i XX .........' = _�"�': _ ~ ``' X - 2 story office building QQ - I story office building AC Z :' '•`:= ;_:__ ;:-;:: = (Commerce Center I) RR - 2 story office building Z ,,,4�e + "' `" Y - 2 story office building\ -{,'_i`:.':•:;:;� `==��=; Y 9 SS - 2 story office building (Boyce Engr.) 1 l _ Bg __ Z 0 (Commerce Center II) TT = 1 story office building (RBF) d3 _ w Z - 2 story office building UU - 2 story office building AB 71-.`" GG c VY - 2 story building (Center Club) 60. U F WW - Car dealership (J. Slemons Mercedes- Benz) e 1 eXX - 2 story office condominium YY - Retail commercial center (Newport 'fly T _ N G E - Plaza) P tP, I : s N ZZ - Car dealership (Howard Chevrolet) i S R 0 L M M 1 MacArthur Blvd Source: City of Newport Beach imarie e gillom,oicp 0 250 500 urban planni 1 1825 wastcliff rive suitel77 i neNpOrt beach ca 92660.1 71e.1'" i ' TABLE D POTENTIAL FOR PROJECT INFLUENCED EXPANSION -_NEWPORT PLACE (1100 QUAIL STREET EXPANSION) Expansion Potential Block Existing Existing 10% Net Ratio 10% Net Ratio 15% Net Ratio 15% Net Ratio Address Number Gross SF Parking @ 225 SF/space @ 250 SF/space @ 225 SF/space @ 250 SF/space Quail Street 1000 II 24,899 110 4725 SF (19%) 7750 SF (31%) 6075 SF (24%) 9000 SF (36%) 1200 EE 17,668 74 2250 SF (13%) 4250 SF (24%) 3150 SF (18%) 5250 SF (30%) 1300 DO 30,190 127 4050 SF (13%) 7500 SF (25%) 5625 SF (19%) 9000 SF (31%) 1400 CC 29,000 104 -0- 2500 SF (9%) 900 SF (3%) 3750 SF (13%) Dove St. ' 901 KK 27,750 107 1350 SF (5%) 4250 SF (15%) 2700 SF (10%) 5500 SF (20%) 1001 JJ 36,930 109 -0- 2000 SF (6%)• 450 SF (1%) 3500 SF (11%) 1101 HH 29,000 112 1575 SF (5%) 4500 SF (16%) 2925 SF (10%) 6000 SF (21%) TOTAL 189,437 SF 13,950 SF (7%) 32,750 SF (17%) 21,825 SF (12%) 42,000 SF- (22%) Probable Expansion Potential -0- 15,250 SF (8%) 6,075 SF (3%) 24,000 SF (13%) 1Expansion potential estimated by calculating number of required parking spaces based upon either a 10% or 15% reduction from gross to net square footage, in comparison with PC parking standards at either 225 sq.ft. or 250 sq.ft. (with Modification approval ) , and allowance for a 10% increase in parking through restriping for compact cars in all cases. Source: Marie E. Gilliam, AICP and the City of Newport Beach Beach Planning Department As Table D demonstrates, a total range of approximately 13,950 sq.ft. ' to 42,000 sq.ft. in expansion might potentially be realized under existing development standards if all properties examined were to request and be granted approvals similar to the proposed project. The high end ' of the range represents the maximum which could be expected only if all expansion requests were granted parking modifications to allow a ratio of 1 space per 250 net square feet. The total maximum expansion potential of 42,000 sq.ft. would roughly approximate two structures the size of the proposed project. Several external factors might also act to diminish the likelihood of ' such expansion occurring. Among these are practical considerations such as the disruption of on-going operations and economic factors (develop- ment costs, market conditions, etc. ) which cannot be predicted in this ' analysis. A number of the properties examined appear to have a limited potential for expansion based upon development standards. In combination with ' other factors, it would consequently seem improbable that any expansion would occur on these sites. For purposes of this estimate, it has been assumed that no building expansion of less than 6000 sq.ft. would be ' feasible under current conditions. This assumption is derived from the parameters of the proposed project. Taking this limitation into consideration, Table D indicates that a probable range of 6,075 sq.ft. , to 24,000 sq.ft. of expansion could be potentially influenced by the approval of the proposed project. Within the context of approved development in the surrounding area, ' as well as estimated expansion and redevelopment potential within Newport Place from other influences (not project related) , the probable expansion ' potential described is not considered significant. It must also be cautioned that it is not possible to draw a definitive causal relationship between expansion which might be approved on the project site and develop- ment or expansion which might subsequently occur in the vicinity. Mitigation ' The project will be required to comply with all existing City policies and standard conditions of approval as contained in Appendix B. ' Significance of Impact of the Project including Mitigation Measures The potential land use impacts of this project as proposed are not con- , sidered significant, either on an individual or cumulative basis. -22- TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ' Introduction ' A Traffic and Parking Analysis was conducted by the firm of Weston Pringle and Associates to assess potential impacts of the project expansion on ' the existing circulation system. Demand for parking was also explored. The discussion below summarizes the conclusions of the study, which is contained in Appendix F to this report. ' Existing Conditions ' The project site and the surrounding street system are illustrated in Figure 2 - Vicinity Map. The road system is fully developed immediately adjacent to the project site. Quail Street provides two lanes of travel ' in each direction with on-street parking prohibited. In the area surrounding the project site, major future improvements are , anticipated to the circulation system. The most significant of these are the future extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway (Route 73) to MacArthur Boulevard, construction of the San Joaquin Hills transportation ' corridor, improvements to Jamboree Road from north of MacArthur Blvd. to Campus Drive, and improvements to MacArthur Boulevard from Jamboree Road to Pacific Coast Highway. This improved and expanded road system will facilitate access to the project area and significantly increase circulation ' capacities. For purposes of this analysis, the City Traffic Engineer identified 11 inter- ' sections as potentially impacted by development in the project area, and provided estimated volumes of existing daily traffic and ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) values for the roadway system in the project vicinity ' (Figure 8) . Potential Impacts Traffic Generation. In order to determine potential traffic impacts from the project, standard trip generation rates for office uses established ' by the City Traffic Engineer were utilized. By applying these rates to the proposed use, estimates of daily, 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour trips to be generated by the project were calculated. Table E illustrates ' generation rates and trip ends estimated to result from the proposed project. As indicated, the project is estimated to generate 85 daily trip ends, with 30 occurring during the 2.5 hour peak and 15 during the PM peak hour. ' -23- ' 1 EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES FIGURE 8 11 (.8044� 1 (.6310) C DR. 1,(.7132) 2 T. (1.1673 44 BRIS_TOL ST 8973) .6360) 42 P5\ 1.�,� NORTH JN�vE SRISTOL ST (.8773 (7797 1 (.8116 BONITA C04.-.="D� 1 LEGEND 44 = DAILY TRAFFIC A VOLUMES IN `o i THOUSANDS c I(.6607) �A�D (.6310)=ICU VALUES W - -1.7760) 1 (.9225 FORO �<L � 1 (.6823 JOq (.4431 u' �> 5pN M (.3819 O �N 5(.7090) 1 o w w v w i o o r (.4920 y�<<S RO. w(1.1141 j g > o Q• a Z m �(7731 w 9364) coa c a _ w a O F. 31 28 45 g 59 '> 34 .7490) B o 51 COAS HWy w w .7092) PACIFIC (•6232 40 a C7950 (.8929 90 <p (.8013 (.5767 40 2 34 1 .7697) .8678) Source: 1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES 1 1 1 TABLE E ' Trip Generation, 1100 Quail Street PERIOD RATE1 TRIP ENDS ' Daily 13 85 ' 2.5 Hour Peak In 1.2 8 , Out 3.4 22 Total 30 , PM Peak Hour In 0.6 4 Out 1.7 11 Total 15 ' 1 - Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet. , 2 - Based upon 6,588 Square Feet. 1 Source: Weston Pringle and Associates, January 1984 Utilizing established trip distribution patterns for the area, project- ' related trip generation was assigned to the street system. Finally, an analysis to identify intersections which could potentially be impacted by the project was conducted based upon criteria contained in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . In addition to project-related traffic generation, this analysis included committed project traffic and regional ' growth traffic as required. This analysis indicated that none of the 11 intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer would be impacted by the proposed project. As a result, no detailed intersection analyses ' are required. As noted in the preceding chapter regarding Land Use, however, the potential ' cumulative effect of a series of similar small projects in the area is a concern to the City of Newport Beach. Traffic analysis conducted for this report demonstrates that an expansion of two or three times the size of could potentially also ass TPO requirements. Recent the proposed project c Y P P p P J P studies in the area have identified traffic operational problems at several intersections. Until major improvements of the roadway system mentioned under Existing Conditions are implemented, such small projects submitted ' on an individual basis could potentially result in cumulative traffic impacts. As noted in the preceding Land Use section, however, it should be stressed that this statement does not suggest that one project may , actually "trigger" another similar project and thereby cause additional traffic generation. -25- The Traffic Phasing Plan (TPP) for Newport Place requires that all , projects, regardless of size, be included in the "Committed Projects" file for inclusion in future traffic analyses. As a result, the cumulative ' impact of small individual projects in Newport Place are considered in circulation system planning. Parking Demand. In addition to traffic impacts, the firm of Weston ' Pringle and Associates performed a field study of existing parking utilization on the project site in order to evaluate parking demand relative to the proposed expansion. Two adjacent office properties on , either side of the proposed project were also surveyed for comparative purposes. Parking utilization was recorded at these three sites over a 2 day period during both AM and PM hours. Table F illustrates the results ' of this survey. As Table F illustrates, current utilization of parking on-site ranges from a ratio of 2. 1 spaces per 1000 net square feet to 2.6 spaces per 1000 net ' square feet. (The average ratio for all three buildings is 2.9 spaces per 1000 net square feet. ) The project site demonstrates a lower parking demand than surveyed at either of the adjacent buildings. At the present time, a 94% occupancy rate is estimated within the existing structure. Representatives of the project applicant indicate that this is a typical occupancy rate for the building. ' The Newport Place P-C District regulations require a ratio of 4.4 spaces per 1000 sq.ft. (1 space/225 net square feet) . A ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1000 (1 space per 250 net sq.ft. ) is allowable with approval of a Modification ' Permit. The project applicant is requesting approval of a parking ratio of 3.5 spaces per 1000 net square feet (1 space per 283 net sq.ft. ) through a Conditional Use Permit. ' This proposed parking ratio is above the average utilization ratio for the area but less than the observed peak of the properties surveyed in ' Table F. According to the traffic engineer, the proposed parking supply will be adequate to accommodate the project expansion. Mitigation Measures ' No mitigation measures beyond those required by City policies and standard , Conditions of Approval are considered necessary. Significance of Impact, including Mitigation Measures ' The potential traffic impacts of the project as proposed are not considered significant, either on an individual or cumulative basis. , -26- ' TABLE F 1100 QUAIL STREET PARKING UTILIZATION SURVEY 1000 Quail St. 1100 Quail St. 1200 Quail St. Date Ratio/1000 Ratio/1000 Ratio/1000 Surveyed Time Vehicles Net Sq.Ft. Vehicles Net Sq.Ft. Vehicles Net Sq.Ft. 12/12/83 2:15 PM 91 3.9 52 2.6 46 2.8 12/13/83 10:05 AM 77 3.3 53 2.6 47 2.8 12/13/83 3:10 PM 83 3.5 43 2.1 41 2.5 12/14/83 10:00 AM 81 3.5 53 2.6 55 3.3 1 - Parking utilization ratio based upon a 6% conversion of gross square footage to net. This is the ratio established by the proposed project (1100 Quail Street). SOURCES: Weston Pringle & Associates, December 19, 1983 Marie E. Gilliam, AICP, January 1984 AIR QUALITY Existing Conditions ' Ambient air quality near the project site, as determined by long-term ' monitoring by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) at its Costa Mesa Station, indicates a small number of violations of almost all air quality standards with the exception of sulfur dioxide. Improvements in the control of vehicular emissions and increased area ' growth appear to have offset each other in the region within which the project site is located, resulting in the frequency of pollutant violations remaining relatively constant over the past several years. ' The primary generators of air pollutants in the vicinity of the project are the airport and vehicular emissions. ' Potential Impacts Traffic generation is the primary source of project-related air pollutants. 1 At an estimated trip length of eight miles per trip-end, approximately 680 vehicle miles travelled (VMT) will be added to the regional traffic ' burden. In comparison to existing regional traffic volumes, estimated at 200 million VMT, the project related increase is insignificant. With increased peak hour traffic congestion on surrounding roadways, ' localized air pollution levels may contribute to the creation of "hot spot" formation near major arterials. Project-related peak hour traffic generation is considered negligible, however, and will not contribute ' significantly to this potential problem. Stationary sources emissions (from increased energy demands, combustion ' of fuels , etc. ) and emissions from temporary construction activities are considered minimal . The anticipated construction period will probably not'exceed 3-4 months. ' Mitigation No mitigation measures beyond those required by existing City policies and standard Conditions of Approval are considered necessary. 1 Significance of Impact of the Project, including Mitigation Measures The potential air quality impacts of the project as proposed are not , considered significant, either on an individual or cumulative basis. -28- ' ACOUSTICS ' Existing Conditions ' Noise sources presently impacting the project site result from vehicular traffic on surrounding roadways and aircraft operations at the nearby ' John Wayne Airport. Major roadways include MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Bristol Street. Vehicular noise levels modeled for MacArthur Boulevard, which were con- ' tained in an Environmental Impact Report prepared for the expansion of the Sheraton Hotel by LSA, Inc. (July 1983) , indicate that the 65 CNEL noise ' contour on this roadway segment would be located approximately 110 feet from the roadway centerline. No similar estimate is available for Bristol Street. The project site, however, is more than 110 feet from the center- line of MacArthur Boulevard and as great a distance from Bristol Street. , Current plans for John Wayne Airport will result in noise levels remaining the same or decreasing in future years. Although jet aircraft ' do not overfly the site, sideline noise from operations is audible at the project site. Potential Impacts ' The proposed project will generate a small amount of additional traffic ' which will have a negligible impact on land uses adjacent to streets serving the project site. Construction noise generated by equipment can occasionally reach high noise levels, but is not anticipated to represent ' a significant problem due to both the type of construction and short construction period planned. The type of use existing on the project site is not considered particularly , noise sensitive, thus the combined noise exposure from traffic and aircraft noise is considered acceptable with appropriate indoor noise attenuation. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures beyond those required by existing City policies ' and standard Conditions of Approval are considered necessary. Significance of Impact of the Project, including Mitigation Measures , The potential noise impacts from, and to, the proposed project are , considered insignificant. -29- , PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' Existing Conditions ' Fire Protection. The Newport Beach Fire Department provides fire suppression and rescue services to the project area through a contract , with the County of Orange. Station 27, located at John Wayne Airport at the intersection of Campus Drive and Quail Street, provides a staffing level of three firefighters. Other companies responding in the project area provide backup assistance as necessary. Current response time is ' estimated at approximately 3 minutes. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is currently pursuing a location for a new fire station to be ' located within the recently approved North Ford project in the vicinity of Jamboree Road and University Drive. Police Protection. The Newport Beach Police Department provides full ' police service to the project area from its facility on Santa Barbara Drive in Fashion Island. Distance from the facility to the project location is approximately 3 miles. Response times to the area are ' approximately 18 minutes for non-emergency calls, 5 minutes for alarm calls and 3z minutes for emergency calls. Transit. The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) provides transit ' service to the project area with two bus routes. Route 61, from Santa Ana to Fashion Island, provides service on MacArthur Boulevard and ' operates Monday through Friday. Route 71 which operates along Dove Street, originates in the city of Orange and terminates in Irvine. Both of these routes provide 30 minute service during peak periods and service at 1 hour intervals at other times. ' Wastewater. The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides local sewer service to the project site. Wastewater is treated by the , Orange County Sanitation District at its treatment facility in Huntington Beach. Water. The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides domestic ' water service to the site. Potential Impacts ' Fire Protection. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department currently , anticipates no difficulty providing emergency medical or fire suppression services to the project site. The proposed project expansion will not adversely impact present service level capabilities and will not necessitate ' additional fire protection services. The provision of a new fire station in the North Ford area, as mentioned above, will also supplement existing fire protection capabilities in the area of the project site. Police Services. The project will not adversely impact current police ' protection services or require any additional personnel . The Police Department encourages the use of burglar alarm systems and use of , architectural design making all building exits visible from the street in addition to the provision of adequate exterior lighting to minimize break-ins. Other features such as louvered windows are discouraged. -30- Transit. The Orange County Transit District indicates that existing ' bus routes have more than sufficient capacity to accommodate any additional ridership which might be generated by the proposed project. Wastewater. The City' s Utilities Department does not foresee any need to expand its facilities as a result of the proposed project. Similarly, . the Orange County Sanitation District has adequate capacity in existing ' treatment facilities to accommodate the proposed project. Water. The Newport Beach Utilities Department foresees no problem in , providing domestic water service to the proposed project. Mitigation Measures ' No mitigation measures beyond those required by existing City policies and standard Conditions of Approval are considered necessary. t Significance of Impacts of the Project, including Mitigation Measures ' The potential public service and utility impacts of the proposed project are considered insignificant. ' -31- ' PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED , City of Irvine Victor Carneglia, Planning Department ' City of Newport Beach Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator Chris Gustin, Current Planning Patricia Temple, Advance Planning ' Don Webb, City Engineer Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Thomas C. Dailey, Fire Marshal ' Joe Devlin, Utilities Department Kent Stoddard, Police Department Ron Whitley, Parks, Beaches and ' Recreation Department Tony Melum, Marine Safety Director Orange County Transit District Mike McKnight, Transit Planner ' Orange County General Services Agency (Solid Waste Management) ' -32- ' REFERENCES ' LSA, Inc. , 1983. Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report, Sheraton-Newport ' Hotel Expansion. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach. LSA, Inc. , 1983. Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report; North Ford/San ' Diego Creek Sites - General Plan Amendment 82-1. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach, City of, ' Planned Community Development Standards for Newport Place - Ordinance No. 6639. Adopted December 21, 1970. ' General Plan of the City of Newport Beach Land Use Element Public Safety Element Parks and Recreation Element ' Noise Element Pringle, Weston and Associates, 1983. ' Traffic Analysis for 110AI0 Quail Street, Newport Place. Prepared Tor Marie E. Gilliam, UP, Newport Beach, CA. Parking Demand Survey for 1100 Quail Street, Newport Place. Prepared ' for Marie E. Gilliam, AICP, Newport Beach, CA. . 1 -33- ' 1 ' APPENDIX A Environmental Checklist Form (This checklist is included for reference purposes only in outlining areas of poten- tially significant environmental concern identified by the City of Newport Beach. It is extracted from CEQA Guidelines . ) t 1 t t ' I ' I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ' I. Background , I. Name of Proponent c'+i.Ua.IL ST-eE�" f"PA�'u�-.5� t fC- JE—= MJL�J 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 1100 QVA-1 IL GTS"1 tj E+.UFlo P-"- A- 3. Date of Checklist Submitted , 4. Agency Requiring Checklist _ 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Imports (Ex of all " required on attached sheets.) (Explanations Yes" and "maybe"Y answers are eq Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes , in geologic substructures? >4 b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction ' or overcovering' of the soil? k c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features'. ' d. The destruction, covering or modification ' of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? �c ' f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or ' erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? >K i Yes Maabe No ' g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, ' mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? x ' b. The creation of objectionable odors? x c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? S! c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in . any water body? x ' e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, ' dissolved oxygen or turbidity? k f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters'. ' g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? c i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? s'6 Yes Maybe No ' 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including ' trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b, Reduction of the numbers of any unique, , rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into ' an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of. the numbers of any unique, ' rare or endangered species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into on area, or result in a barrier to the ' migration or movement of animals? �C d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife ' habitat? X o. Noise. Will the proposal result in: o. Increases in existing raise levels'. X , o. Exposure of people to severe ^oise levels? ' 7, Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? �e 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- ' stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? k ' Yes Maybe No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? ' 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: ' a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or ' upset conditions? k b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? x 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, ' distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X ' b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X ' c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? ' d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic'. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? h 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental ,services in any of the following areas: _ a. Fire protection? yc b. Police protection? a� c. Schools? Z Yes Maybe No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ]t ' e. Maintenance of public facilities, including ' roads? x f. Other governmental services? .c 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: t a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ' b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to ' the following utilities: a. Power at natural gas? b. Communications systems? x c. Water? >c d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? >� ' f. Solid waste and disposal? �c _ 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? k ' 5. Exposure of people to potential iealth hazards'. x 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the ' creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? y4 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an , impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? �X 20. Cultural Resources. ' a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or , historic archaeological site? On the basis of this initial evaluation: ' I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect =I on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ' I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ' I find the proposed project MAY have a'significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. —i ' D ate ignature For t (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) 1 b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical Yes Maw No ' or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? yc ' c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect �G unique ethnic cultural values? ' d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact , area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to , degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, case a fish or wild- , life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the ' number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods ' of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of ' long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive ' period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited. but cumulatively con- siaeraDle' A project ^nay irroact on two 3r more separate resources where `he `moact an each -esource •s relatively small, but .vhere the effect of the total of those irrpacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Ill. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) t ' APPENDIX 6 City of Newport Beach Standard Conditions of Approval II APPENDIX B ' SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS A. The architectural character and landscape design established within ' the existing P-C district shall be maintained. B. ' Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved ' site plan, floor plans, and elevations. C. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from t public streets , alleys, or adjoining properties. D. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning ' Department. E. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's ' policy regarding John Wayne Airport shall be included in all leases or subleases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded ' against the property. I Disclosure Statement ' The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors, and assigns acknowledge that: a) John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phaseout of jet service may occur at John Wayne Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansion at John Wayne Airport; d Lessee his heirs successors, and assigns will not actively ' , , 9 Y oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at John Wayne Airport. ' F. The project sponsors will comply with California energy conservation standards for non-residential buildings (Title 24, Administrative Code) . ' G. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall deposit ' with the City Finance Director a sum proportionate to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project 1nthe subject area to be used for construction of a wall on the westerly side of ' Jamboree Road between East Bluff Drive and Ford Road, and along the southerly side of Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to Irvine Terrace and in West Newport. H. Development of the site may be subject to a grading permit to be , approved by the Building and Planning Departments. APPENDIX B (continued) I. A grading plan may include a complete plan for temporary and ' permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants . J. The grading permit may include, if required, a description of haul routes , access points to the site, and watering and sweeping programs designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. K. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan, if desired by the City, shall be submitted and be subject to approval by the Building Department and a copy will be forwarded to the California Regional ' Water Quality Control Board, 'Santa Ana Region. L. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a ' civil engineer and based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to completion of a compre- hensive soils and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent ' reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard-size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. M. The Fire Department shall review design plans to ensure adequate ' access and emergency exits. N. The provision of adequate fire flow shall be reviewed by the Fire ' Department. 0. Structures shall be equipped with fire suppression systems as required by code. P. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation ' of water-saving devices for lavatories and other water-using facilities . Q. Prior to the issuance of any building permits , a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. R. The final layout and composition of surface parking shall be subject ' to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. ' S. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. The quantity and design of such spaces shall comply with all city codes. T. Parking arrangements during the construction period shall be approved by the City Planning Department and the Traffic Engineer prior to ' the issuance of any grading and/or building permits. U. All onsite drainage shall be approved by the City Public Works ' Department. U. .The project shall contribute a sum equal to its "fair share" of future circulation system improvements , as shown on the City' s Master Plan of Streets and Highways . ' APPENDIX C PROPOSED AMEND14ENT TO NEWPORT PLACE P-C DISTRICT REGULATIONS M1 APPENDIX C ' The project applicant, Quail Street Partners , Inc. , propose to make the following amendment to the Newport Place P-C District Regulations : , 1) ADD to list of amendments : Amendment No. 16 1984 by Resolution No. A - Approved 1984. ' 2) CHANGE Paragraph B, page 5 to read: B. Building Area ' Site 1 & 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739,999 square feet (5,14,16) Site 3A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115,530 square feet(5) ' Site 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201,180 square feet Site 5.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,480 square feet Site 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . 1 42,420 square feet Site 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,860 square feet. . . . . . . . . .1,32U,469 square 3) ADD to page 38: ' (16) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 16 dated , 19849 incorporating the following change: ' a. Increase of allowable building area in Office Sites 1 & 2 by 6588 square feet. NOTE: The following pages excerpted from the Newport Place P-C District ' regulations illustrate the incorporation of this amendment into the PC text. Amendment No_ 16- - - - - - - - - - - - -,-1984 by Resolution No. - - - - - - A - - Approved 1984 - - - - - - -,- 1 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ' PART It. COMMERCIAOROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES A. Building Sites Site 1 & 2.... 38.3 acres , Site 3A........5.2 acres(5) .Site 4......... 9.0 acres Site 5.........7.4 acres Site-6 ........ 1.9 acres Site 7 ........ 2.5 acres ................................ ... 64.5 acres B. Building Area 730.999 ' *Site 1 & 2 . . .;gp,Wsquare feet(5) (14) Llf) Site 3A . . . . . 115,530 square feet(5) Site 4 . . i . . . 201,180 square feet , Site 5 . . . . . . 165,480 square feet Site 6 . . . . . . 42,420 square feet Z, `21:1,469 Site 7 . . . . . . 55,860 square feet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YX3 3,W square feet The following statistics are for Information only. Development may include but ' shall not be limited to the following. C. Building Area t Story heights shown are on average building height. The buildings ' within each parcel may vary within these ranges. Site 1 & 2 . . . . . . . . . 733,411 square feet(5)(14) a. Two Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.42 acres b. Three Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.61 acres C. Four Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.21 acres ' d. Five Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.37 acres e. Six Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.81 acres Site 3A . . . . . . . . . . . 115,530 square feet(5) ' a. Two Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.33 acres ' b. Three Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 acres C. Four Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 acres d. Five Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 acres e. Six Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 acres ' I. Seven Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 acres g. Eight Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 acres *Commercial/Professional and Business Office Site 1 and 2 have been reduced by 86,119 feet with the reduction allocated to the allowed building area for Parcels 1 & 2 of Resubdivislon 585. The allowable building area for Parcel , 1 & 2 of ResubdiVlSlon 585 is now 272,711 square feet. (14) ' Planned Community Development Standards for Newport Place - Ordinance No. 1369 adopted by the City of Newport Beach on December 21, 1970. ' Amendment No. 1 December 13, 1971 by Resolution No. 7572 A-305 Approved November 18, 1971 ' Amendment No. 2 June 12, 1972 by Resolution No. 7706 A-325 Approved June 1, 1972 ' Amendment No. 3 October 24, 1972 by Resolution No: 7846 A-341 Approved September 21, 1972 Amendment No. 4 January 8, 1973 by Resolution No. 7901 ' A-349 Approved December 14, 1972 Amendment No. 5 July 23, 1973 by Resolution No. 8054 ' A-369 Approved April 5, 1973 Amendment No. 6 June 10, 1974 by . Resolution No. 8262 tA-429 Approved May 16, 1974 Amendment No. 7 September 8, 1975 by Resolution No. 8588 tA-450 Approved August 21, 1975 Amendment No. 8 February 9, 1976 by Resolution No. 8693 A-462 Approved January 15, 1976 Amendment No. 9 April 11, 1977 by Resolution No. 9050 ' A-488 Approved March 17, 1977 Amendment No. 10 May 23, 1977 by Resolution No. 9091 ' A-490 Approved May 5, 1977 ' Amendment No. 11 April 10, 1978 by Resolution No. 1003 A-504 Approved March 16, 1978 ' Amendment No. 12 July 11, 1978 by Resolution No. 9393 A-510 Approved by June 15, 1978 ' Amendment No. 13 November 27, 1978 by Resolution No. 9472 A-514 Approved October 5, 1978 Amendment No. 14 June 11, 1979 by Resolution No. 9563 A-530 Approved May 10, 1979 ' Amendment No. 15 March 23, 1982 by Resolution No. 10003 A-560 Approved February 19, 1981 FOOTNOTES (Cont.) ' (15) Planned Community Text Amendment No. 15, dated March 23, 19811 Incorporating the following changes: , a. Specification of a maximum building height of seven (7) stories on Parcel No. 2 of Resubdivislon No. 585. ' (16) PZanned Community Text Amendment No. 16, dated 1984, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - incorporatin§ the foZZowing changer , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A. Increase of allamable building area in Office Sites 1 and 2 w J - by- - -8 - square feet_ , i 1 APPENDIX D TPP Development Phasing, Newport Place 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX D IPP D(,Y gient Pfias ng- Newport Place RMAMING MR FOR FOR FOR FOR ALLOWED n,UVAlh'Y UL'CUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OWNER SQ.FT. 1719-SQ.kT. 1980-SQ.FT. 1981-50.FT. 1982-SQ.FT. 1983-SQ.FT. 1985-.SQ.FT. Undeveloped Parcels: F.mhay 292,388 -0- 206,269 66,442 -0_ _p_ -0- Bear Brand Ranch 61,000 61,000 _0_ _0_ -U_ Air California 40,951 -0- 40,951 _p_ _p_ _O- -0- Ketchum 87,019 U'/,0t9 _0_ -0- -0- -0- -0- Boyle Engineering (Amend. No. 1) 12,000 -U -O- 12,000 -0- _0_ -0- Lucas Development Co, (Amend. No. 2) 17,000 -U- -0- 17,000 _0_ _0- -0- Far West S G L (Amend. No. 3) 17,000 -0- -0- -0- 17,000 -0- -0- University Athletic Club (Amend. No. 4) 5161 -0- -0- -0- -0- 516 -0- Sheraton hotel Expansion (Amend. No. 5) 119 (Rooms)2 -U- _0_ _0_ -0_ _0- 119 (Rooms) 1 proposed conference room sq.ft. 2 proposed hotel I APPENDIX E Committed Projects, January 1984 1 II -, W pm r, �, r, ter, �; �; �■ �, APPENDIX E COMMITTED PROJECTS xtinr�❑ QUANITY_ 5/R3 B0 Ri� n: nl— IIIn5 PC. n7— OR 89 90 91 92 g3 94 1 ltughes Aircraft (industrial) 13 000sq.ft. 100a - 2. Hoag )ros_PIE (cosminit facilit ) 268 Beds Oa 0 ----.- 3. Far Hest Savin s and Loan (office) 17.000s .ft. 10us 0 4. Pacesetter Itoaes (office) 50,000s .ft. Oa . - (ne)25 units occupied (38 units in 86) S. Aeronutronic Ford (residential) 300 units 01 " O -- - 6 ]tack Bay Office (office) 69 720sg.ft. 7 Boyle Engineering (office) 12,000sq.ft. _ 100a B. Cal Canadian Bank (office) 10,100s .ft. 100a 9. Civic Plaza (office) 0 " Libra - Dffice 81,812 .ft. 100% O 30 000sq.ft. Oa Art Museum — 0 Restaurant 8 OOOsq.£t. _ Oa -- Office 152 894sg.m. Theater — 10. Corporate Plaza (office) Office 39,026s .ft. 100% O Office 101 150eq.ft. 0! 0 .-- 11. Koll Center Newport (office, industrial) 440Rooms 0! 0 Hotel :- Office 225,198s .ft. Oa 0 --- Office 100,736s .ft. O! n- -- -- 12. MacArthur Court (office) Office 300 OOOsg.ft. 75! 0 Office 258 OOOsg.ft. 0! 0 —--- Office 21.600s - 14. North Ford (industrial) " Industrial/Office 295 OOOaq.ft. Oa _ 0 15. orchard office (office) 000,01 100! 16. Pacific mutual Plaza 75a O " Office 245 OOOsg.ft. Restaurant 5,000sq.ft. 100% 0 _.__ ._ •— 17 3701 Birch Office (Office) 19 264sg.ft. "- 18. Newport Place (office) " EMKAY (office) 206 269sg.ft. 100! _-- _ Bear Brand Ranch (Office) 61 OOOag.ft. 100a -- nir Calif (Office) 40 951sg.ft. 0! Ketchum (Office) 87 019sg.ft. Oa _ - --- F11Y.AY (Office) 66,4415q.ft. 0! 0 - ---- APPENDIX E COMMITTED PROJECTS _ N a•CUNED QUANITY 5/83 80 81 82 03 84 115 86 67 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 19. Shokrian (office) 24,000sq.ft. Oe 0 * — 20 Bank of New OKC (office) 100% " 21 Bayside Squ re (office) 34 300sg.ft_ 1008 ' 22. Sea Island (residential) 132units Oe • _ 23 Baywood Apartments (residential) 68units 09 0 " _ 24. Harbor Point Names (residential) 21units 0% 0 25. Roger's Gardens (commercial) As submitted 100% 26. Seaview Lutheran Plaza (residential) 300 units 1008 0 27. Rudy Baron (office) Retail 7,500s .ft. 0% 0 " Office 8 5005q.1 1 . Oe 0 28_ Quail Business Center (office) 17,000s .ft. 100% " 29. 441 Newport Blvd. (office) 11,000s .ft. 100% 30. Martha's Vineyard Restaurant 2 920sq.ft. 06 0 Office 15 831sq.ft. O% 0 31. Valdez - 3101 M. Coast Hw .(Office) 91,4945 .ft. 09 0 32. Coast Business center(Office) 37,000s .ft. Oa 0 " 33. Koll Center Newport and No. 1 TPP Office 7,6505 q.ft. Oa 0 Office (-7,640sq.ft.1 0 ` 34. Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero TPP Industrial 15,0005 .ft. 100% " Industrial 123,000sq.ft. 100% " — industrial 300,000s .ft. 100% 0 " industrial 70,000sq.ft. 06 0 " Industrial 25,000sq.ft. 0% " Industrial 25,000sq.ft. 0% 0 " 35. Ross Mallard - 1511 i 1252 Superior (Med. O) 25,000sq.ft. 08 ' 0 36. Banning/Newport Ranch Office 235 600sq.ft. 08 O " Industrial 164,400sq.ft. OR 0 Residential 406units 08 O ' 38 Hughes (Industrial)(REV 9/8/83) 110 OOOsq.ft. 08 0 ' - 39. Park Lido (Medical Office) 65,269sq.ft. V% 0 40 Heritage Bank _ --- --- — —----- Bank 6,100sq.ft. 0% 0 " --- General Office 17,465sq.ft. 08 0 ' Medical Office 13,323 sq:ft. Oa __0 APPENDIX E COMMITTED PROJECTS � I IxY'10`1 F'U ' UAIIITY 5/81 80 81 82 83 114 1V, 86 87 80 89 90 91 92 93 94 41. Flagship Hospital __ 68 beds _ 01 O •, ._,______` ______ 42. eig Canyon 30 33 units 9_ 43. Fun Zone Office 26,320 sq.ft. _ Ol 0 • '.. Retail 16,165 sq.ft_ Ot O _ Restaurant 6,866 sq.ft. Ot 0 • _ ___ 44. Marriott Hotel 234 coons Ot O 45. St- Andrews Church 1,400 capacity Ot 0 46. YMCA (Expansion) 45,000 sq.ft_ Ot O " 47. Allred Condos 50 units Ot 0_ • ',, 48 Human Development - 17 units Ot 0 ` 49. Four Seasons 325 roams Ot 0 50. Univ. Ath. Club TPP 4 EHKAY 516 sq.ft. Ot 0 • - S1. Block 400 Medical 80,000 sq-ft. Ot 0 52. Sheraton Hotel 119 rooms Ot 53. North Ford (Arend No.l TPP) - Residential 300 units Ot 0 Residential 450 units Ot 0 Residential i Park 138 units Ot 0 Commercial 50,000 sq-ft. Ot 0 " 54. MacArthur/Court 'Block C^ ( Amend No 1 TPP) 21.600 sq.ft. 100% 0 Office 100,000 sq.ft. 75% O • �_ - . Office 258,000 sq.ft. 021 O Office 295,000 sq.ft. Ot 55. National Education Revised (office) 41,250 sg.ft._ Ot • __ 56. Arend No. 2 Ford Aero TPP (Belcourt) 130 units 07% 0 57. Carver (office) 15,000 sq.ft. Ot 0 • ___ PRO3EIT8 FRFp2 Revised 1-25-84 - 1 APPENDIX F Traffic and Parking Analysis I + 6b P A Weofa P►c qfe aid Aamialeo TRAFFIC 3 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING October 24, 1983 Ms. Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Gilliam: This letter summarizes our review of traffic factors relative to the proposed office expansion at 1100 Quail in Newport Beach. The study has been completed ' to provide environmental impact information and to satisfy the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City. Information and data have been provided by you, City Staff and previous studies. PROJECT DESCRIPTION , The project consists of the addition of 4,928 square feet of building area to ' an existing office building at 1100 Quail in the City of Newport Beach. All vehicular access would remain on Quail and the use would remain similar to 'atine ures ^n "a EXISTING CONDITIONS , The road system in the area of the project is basically fully developed. Quail , Street adjacent to the site is fully improved and provides one lane of travel in each direction. On-street parking is prohibited on Quail Street. Figure 1 illustrates the most recent daily traffic volumes on the major street and ICU values at principal intersections. The area surrounding the site is devel- oped with a few empty facilities at this time. ' TRIP GENERATION ' Trip generation rates for office uses have been established by the City Traffic Engineer and are listed in Table 1 . By applying these rates to the proposed use, ' estimates of daily, 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour trips to be generated by the 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871.2931 ' ( 8044� (.6310) OR. �.{ 7132) S T (1,1673 U BRISTOL S ST 8973) m (•6360) NORTH -4-7743) 42 BRIS S. (.8773 (7797 (.8116 &ONITA LEGEND I 110 44 = DAILY TRAFFIC i a VOLUMFS IN S Fro ' THOU`.iANU i y It.bbOl) 3�N0. ( 6310)= ICU VALUES fit^ "I RO 1.7760) fO (.9225 O w (.6823 UO4 Q(.4431)� `n ' a Q 5 AN IN (38I9. ���/J �(.7090) o � ^ w w (.4920)� \ y��Gg RO. W (I 1141), �j QW' 31 a ;� Z m �(7731hw ( 9364) - a p �8 45 59 34 7490) _�� w B 51 GODS HW lij ■ .7092) pACIf1G (6232 0 40 c�o (.8929. B N,8013 (.5767 40 34 a .7697) m O� �(.8678) ' EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES �ESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE -2- Table 1 , TRIP GLNL14AI RIN 1100 quail ' PERIOD RATE(') TRIP ENDS(2) Daily 13 65 ' 2.5 Hour Peak In 1 .2 6 Out 3.4 17 ' Total 23 AM Peak Hour In 0.6 3 ' Out 1 .7 8 Total 11 ' (1 ) Trip Ends per 1 ,000 Square Feet. ' (2) Based upon 4,928 Square Feet. ' -3 ' project were obtained. The estimated trip generation is also listed in Table 1 . As indicated in Table 1 , the project is estimated to generate 65 daily trip ends ' with 23 occurring during the 2.5 hour peak and 11 occurring during the PM peak hour. TRIP ASSIGNMENT ' Previous traffic studies for projects in this area have developed trip distribution patterns. The distribution pattern from these studies has been utilized in this ' study and is illustrated on Figure 2. This distribution is for outbound traffic from the site. Inbound traffic would be the same percentages in the opposite ' direction. By applying the distribution percentages to the trip generation estimates , project traffic can be assigned to the street system. CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION ' The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be impacted by the project based upon the critieria in the Traffic Phasing Ordi- nance. As a starting point, the City Traffic Engineer identified 11 intersec- tions for inclusion in the analysis. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance defines an intersection as critical when, during the 2.5 hour peak, the project traffic ' exceeds one percent of the existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach. ' Committed project traffic data were provided by the City and regional growth ' traffic was calculated utilizing the City' s established formula. Projects included in the analysis as Committed are listed in Table 2. The "One Percent ' Analysis" sheets for each intersection are contained in Appendix A and sum- marized in Table 3. Based upon information provided by the developers ' repre- sentative, it was assumed that the project would be completed in 1984. In . conformance with the Ordinance, the analysis were completed for one year after completion or 19135. As indicated in Table 3, all intersections passed the "One ' Percent" Lest. Based upon Lhe criLerid oP the Irdt'H C Phasing Ordinance, the project would not have a traffic impact. 30% ' 12% 1 DR. ,Jy 40 % �BRIS °� m � I- ST, N0, Pd �/O BRIS TpTO � ST. SITE o , 3 /° 3 % BONI TA CYN"RO A J M ao ,y WGIRD. , FORD 6� , 3 % ,� 12% , dp 5PN QQUIN o ' 3 % a COAST HWy , PACIFIC 12% ' DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 -4- ' Table 2 COMMITTED PROJECTS�1 � ' 1100 Quail ' Hoag Hospital Coast Business Center Pacesetter Homes Koll Center Newport No. 1 +PP ' Aeronutronic Ford Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero BacK Bay Office Ross Mollard ' Civic Plaza Banning/Newport Ranch Corporate Plaza Park Lido ' Koll Center Newport Hughes Aircraft #2 Campus/MacArthur Heritage Bank National Education Office Flagship Hospital North Ford Big Canyon 10 Pacific Mutual Plaza Fun Zone Newport Place Marriott Hotel Shokrian St. Andrews Church ' Sea Island YMCA Baywood Apartments Allred Condos ' Harbor Point Homes Morgan Development Rudy Baron Four Seasons Hotel ' Martha's Vineyard Block 400 Medical Valdez Sheraton Hotel (1 ) Projects with 100'.' occupancy were not listed. Table 3 , CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION 1100 Quail ' LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES - 1985 , Bristol Street N. & Campus Drive 0.02 0.06 Bristol Street N. & Birch Street 0.13 - - 0.09 , Bristol Street N. & Jamboree oad - 0.03 - 0.05 Bristol Street & Campus - Irvine - 0.04 0.02 - Bristol Street & 'Birch Street - - 0.02 Bristol Street & Jamboree Road - - - - Jamboree Blvd. & MacArthur Blvd, - 0.11 - 0.03 ' Jamboree Blvd. & Birch Street 0.07 0.04 - - Jamboree Road& Campus Drive 0.06 0,,03 - - MacArthur Blvd. & Birch Street - 0.07 0.26 MacArthur Blvd. & Campus Drive 0.14 0.06 t ' I I ' ANALYSIS ' Based upon the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project would not have an impact and no detailed intersection analyses are required. Con- cern has been expressed for the potential cumulative impact of similar small ' projects in the area. The potential for this type of expansion and redevelop- ment is discussed in the EIR for this study. . Potential traffic impacts are ' reviewed below. ' Projects of up to approximately 10,000 square feet could be proposed and would pass the "One Percent" test of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As indicated in ' Table 3, this project of approximately 5,000 square feet had a maximum of 2.5 hour,percentage of 0.26. This would allow for an expansion of two or three ' times the size of the proposal to also pass the "One Percent" test. If these small projects were submitted on an individual basis, they could result :in a cumulative impact. Recent studies in the area of the project have identified traffic operational problems at several intersections. Some of these will be mitigated by the extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway. As a part of, the North Ford project, t improvement of the MacArthur Boulevard/ Campus Drive intersection was recom- mended. The future completion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor ' is also anticipated to have a positive impact upon traffic operations in the area. ' While current policies and ordinances would permit these minor projects , their overall cumulative impact can be considered. This can be accomplished by ' including these in the committed project file for inclusion in future studies. As an individual project, the increased taffic would not be significant at most intersections; however, by including these minor projects as committed project traffic, the cumulative impacts can be identified and circulation ' system improvements planned to meet these needs. SUMMARY The potential traffic impacts of the proposed expansion of office use at 1100 ' Quail in Newport Beach has been evaluated. This analysis was based upon the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City. The project was ' found to have no traffic impact based upon the Traffic Phasing Ordinance cri- teria. Potential cumulative impacts due to minor developments in the area ' were also reviewed. The following are the principal findings of the study. ' 1 . The expansion would generate 65 daily trip ends with 11 occurring during the PM peak hour. 2. All intersections would pass the. "One Percent" test of the Traffic ' Phasing Ordinance which indicates no traffic impacts. 3. Other minor development could also pass the Traffic Phasing Ordinance ' and result in a potential cumulative traffic impact. ' MITIGATION MEASURES ' While there arr " specific mitigation measures ° :his the following is recommended. 1 . Minor projects should be maintained as committed project traffic to , insure a monitoring of the cumulative impacts. 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 contact us. , Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE &' ASSOCIATES , Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer , State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:bas #83400 ' APPENDIX A ' ONE PERCENT ANALYSES I I% (raffle Volume Analysis ' Intersection Bristol st. N. Campus Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on AVerage winter/Spring 19 83 ' Peak 2� Hour i Approved - — - twroacn EAlsting Regional Projects I Projected f 1'• of Projectea Project , :+retnerr, PeaK 2i nour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour , Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Nornoound 2215 S9 j I15 Z369 Z¢ ,i Soutnbound 3857 I 68 � Ism 4075 4 f Eastbound .t MNSId000d.-.-... - ..-.9I51 j 8� i 1951 II 2-.- .. ._ =•—O.Ok7/� © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume , Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected , Cj Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: /100 C� UAt L ' 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol St. N. / Birch St. 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter— pring 19 LJ r Peak 2h Hour Approved i Approach Existin� Regional Projects Projected I 1'. of Projected Project Girection Peek 2h Hour I Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2, Hour Peek 21-, Hour Volume Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume 1 hortnbouna 1043 1 0 i S36 /S79 1 /6 Z o/3Y $outhbound + 2680 0 /062 3742- 37 1, Eastbound — :estoouna ~-- 6963 63 9214 795-0 i — 80 - -7 Project Traffic: is rtil imatvd to In' lrv.s than -1% of I'r•uJVCted Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. i 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATE: 1985� 1 �Qo�Ec-: 11 00 CuUA1 L FcR:A 1% Iraffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Bristol St. N. Jamboree Rd. (Existing Traffic .Volumes ase on Average Winter/Spring 19 _) ' �—�� Peak 2y Hour Approved _ _ ` t� Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected �v1'. of Projected Project Cirectlon Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2y Hour 1 Peak 2y Hour Peax 2� hour ' Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume volune I I , Northbound i 5705 ( 194 ( SOS 6S O , Southbound 2707 I 3 27 f 2981 30 Eastbound westbound r 1�31 /849 le I ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than M of Projected , Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.. t DATE• �98� PROJECTI II 00 QUA L ' FIRM ` ' iX Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol St. Cam us Dr. — Irvine Ave. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes base on verage inter pring 19 — .r- Peak 2S Hour Approved — DDroacn --F—•—•—•---'- Existing i Regional Projects Projected 1'. of Projected Project ll Direction Peak 2y Hour I Grow Peak 2y Hour Peak 25 Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 25 Hour I Volume 1 Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Nortnoaund 1980 ! ZQ 1 192- 2,19Z 2 2 O southbound i 2559 45 1 l82 Z786 28 Eastbound I i m 8577 77 1 /23S 9889 99 2 aoa,, - - — --. . , - — - - T-- -- -� — --- - ----- ----- :esteouna r Project Traffic is estimated to he less than 1% of Projected ■■�J Peak 2%2 Hour Traffic Volume r Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than, 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. t 1 i ' DATE: I98S ' P4ojECT; // 0 0 Q UA/L I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis , Intersection Bristol St. / Birch St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19q.3 , Peak 26 Hour Approved Gpproacn existing 1 Regional Projects Projected I': of Projected Project cieection ,Peek 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21, Hour , Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Volume aortnbound 358 O southboupe 1 991 _ 7 _ 998 /O O Eastbound - 7225 6S �Z9¢ 8S8Ci< 86- —_--Z ^-007 o Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I 'DATE: PROJECT: 1/00 QUA/L , FCRM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol St. / Jamboree Rd. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 83 ) _ Peek 2y Hour Approved ' 'ipproacn Existing I Reg tonal Projects Projected I 1'; of Projected Project Cirection Peak 2y Hour Growth Peek 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Volune Fhorthoound 5362 ! 794- 6161 _T 6 Z 0 ,L Southbound I 1703 I 2. 2-67 - 1977, i z(J _-_- Eastbound •, 5499 1SO 1 '76Q 6.313 .estDound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% •of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2% Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. t 1 ' OATE: 985' ' PROJECT: /100 QUAI L FORMS I 1X Ira IIic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree B1 . / MacArthur B1 . (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pang _ � Peak 25 Hour T Approved = -' ADProacn i Existing r— kegionel Projects Projected 1', of Protected Project Cirection Peak 2y Hour I Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour I Peak 211 Hour Peak 25 Hour Volume ! Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume nortnbound 1632 4- 379 2011 ZO O ' Southbound 3086 I 3 516 3605 36 4 0/117, ` Eastbound ` 1895 2 i 22 S Z/22 .es toouad —� 3320 8 _ �62 3490 3S- . ._ / �•0.039� Project Traffic is estimated, to be less than 1% of Projected , 7 Peak 21, flour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is et,truwted to be greater than i% of Projected ' Peak 21.2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization O.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 1985 ' PROJECT: //00 QUAIL ' c�a�q t 1 1 . 1 17, Iraffic VuIume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Bl . / Birch St. 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 ,_ Peak 21 Hour I Approved pproacn Existing I Regional I Projects Projected I 1'. of Projected Project 1 :irection Peak 2h Hour Growth j Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 25 Hour Volume Volume I Volume I Volume Volume Volume ornoound 2719 7 22¢ Z9S0 T 30 2 0.07% SoUthbound 2357 i 6 _ 393 2756 _ 2- 6 o.o4% Eastxund 867 i 0 394 I /26/ /3 O Project. Traffic i•, r'.I imatvd to be lr'.'; than 1% of ProjeCted Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2=; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 ' I 1 1 1 1 � 1 • 1 DATE: 19P 1 PROjEC7: / 00 G�UAI FORM I 1% traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Jimljor•ee Rd. / Campus Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 83) ' Peak 2k Hour T Approved — Approacn Existing Regional Projects _ Projected—... —� I of Projected Project ' :Irection Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 21J hour Peak 2t ncur Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volu^e .,,.^r:rpo.no . ..-2995 7 6/8 3Z60 _ r 33_. __........Z 0.06 _ sour„und 2442 6 464 I 29/Z T 29� i o,vs�e 32 33G 1 2173 2.2 O ' �es"oauno 1484 26 -- 72 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume . Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' [] Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 198T ' PROJECT: J 1Q0 UA/L ' ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur B1 . ./ Birch St. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 13 �- Peak 21s Hour Approved Volume Volume i Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected ' Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 25 Hour Peak 2y Hour me Volume Volume Volume Vol um Northbound 2373 Z 3/6 2691 27 0 southbound 2530 3 468 300/ 30 2 d o79, Eastbound 1352 0 605 / 957 2.0 5 o Z69, Wes Mound 1130 0 IZZO 2350 Z4 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 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I , I� I� 1 DATE: I ' PROJECT: //DO QUAIL FORM I 1% Traffic Volume -Analysis , Intersection MacArthur Bl . / Campus Dr. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 $1) ' Peek 2S Approved Hour- 1 - - ' II 4proacn EAisting Regional I Projects Projected I': of Protected Protect G�rection Peak 2S Hour j Growth j Peak 211 Hour Peak 2S Hour Peak 21, hour Pea& 2. ecpr Volume Volume i Volume Volume Volume Volure hortnoouna 2881 .9 1 717 360/ 1 36 S o•14•-1 soutnbouna 3044 3 I 5�4 35S! 36 2 o.oGq Eastoound 1730 30 98 /8s8 19 C nesroound i. 1976 .- -1 35" © Project Traffic is estimated to he less than 1% of Projected ' Pedk 212 Hour Traffic VoNme ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1X of Projected ' Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' I 1 DATE: I g8S PRojEcr: lIGO Gz GA/ L ' ?' W oW P► m& and AoaadO a TRAFFIC h TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ' January 25, 1984 ' Ms. Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 ' Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Dear Ms. Gilliam: This letter is a supplement to our letter report of October 24, 1983, relative ' to the 1100 Quail project in Newport Beach. The original study was based upon an addition of 4,928 square feet and this supplement addresses that change. Table IA sulrmarizes the estimated trip generation for the revised project. Comparison of Table IA with Table 1 of the previous report indicates an in- crease of twenty daily, seven 2.5 hour peak, and four PM peak hour trip ends. These changes are not significant and would not change the results indicated in the previous report. All intersections in the previous report passed the "One Percent" test by a margin greater than the increases indicated in Table ]A. 111 ' We trust that this supplemental information will be of assistance to you. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. ' Respectfully submitted, ' WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES ' Wst.un Pringle, P.L. WSP:bas ' #83400 1 1 ' 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 FULLERTON. CALIFORNIA 92631 • (114) 871-2931 _2.. 1 Table IA , TRIP GENERATION 1100 Quail ' PERIOD DATE (l) TRIP ENDS(') Daily 13 85 ' 2.5 Hour Peak ' In 1 .2 8 Out 3.4 22 , Total 30 PM Peak Hour ' In 0.6 4 ' Out 1 .7 11 Total 15 , (1 ) Trip ends per 1000 square feet , (2) Based upon 6,588 square feet � 1 � 1 ' W I + ,.+* " P A Weal" P►c qee and Anadsi a TRAFFIC 8 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ' December 19, 1983 ' Ms. Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff, Suite 177 tNewport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Gilliam: ' In response to your request, we have reviewed parking requirements for the ' 1100 Quail Street proposal in the City of Newport Beach. The review was completed to assist in evaluating parking needs for the expansion of the existing office building. ' The existing building at 1100 Quail contains 23,300 gross square feet and ' has parking provisions for 94 vehicles. This parking supply includes one handicapped space and no sanlll car spaces. The proposed expansion would add 5,243 gross square feet to the existing building; -however, no additional ' parking is proposed. ' In order to determine existing parking demands , field studies were conductea on two morning periods and two afternoon periods. These field studies in- cluded thello0 Quail building and the two adjacent buildings. The results of the field studies are summarized in Table 1 . For comparison purposes , ratios of parking demand per 1 ,000 square feet of gross building area were calculated and are included in Table 1 . While building occupancy data are ' not available, it was noted that the 1200 Quail building did not have an advertisement for available space. ' Review of Table 1 indicates that current parking demand ratios vary from 1 .8 to 3.7 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross building area. The average ratio t was 2.7 for all three buildings. Current parking demands for the 1100 Quail building were also found' to be lower than either of the adjacent buildings. 1 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 a 1714) 871.2931 -2_ Table 1 ' PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY , 1100 Quail 1000 uail �(1 ) 110o QQuail (2) 1200 Quail O ' DATE TIME a is- es atio Ve is es�atio a is es Ratio 3 , 12/12/83 2:15 PM 91 3.7 52 2.2 46 2.6 12/13/83 10:05 AM 77 3.2 53 2.3 47 2.7 ' 12/13/83 3:10 PM 83 3.4 43 1 .8 41 2.3 , 12/14/83 10:00 AM 81 3.3 53 2.3 55 3.1 (1 ) Based upon 24,899 square feet. (2) Based upon 23,300 square feet. (3) Based upon 17,668 square feet. ' 1 -3- ' The proposed expansion of the 1100 Quail building would increase the gross building area to 28,543 square feet. If the 94 parking spaces remain to serve the expanded building, a ratio of 3.3 spaces per 1 ,000 feet of gross ' building area would exist. This ratio is above the current observed average and below the observed-peak. These comparisons would indicate that the ' existing parking supply will be adequate to accommodate the expanded faci- lity. It is recommended that consideration be given to providing some ' small car spaces to increase the supply. This would allow for fluctuations in demands due to various tenants over a period of time. In summary, the proposed parking ratio for the expanded 1100 Quail building would be above the average found for the area and less than the observe peak ' ratio. Since there are no small car spaces at present, it is recommended that the existing layout be reviewed for the potential of increasing the parking supply with small cdr spaces. An incrodse would provido for poton- 1 ' tial increases and demand fluctuations due to varying building occupants. We trust tnat this review will be of assistance to you. If you have any questions or require O.aese contact us. ' Respectfully submitted, . ' WESTOON PRINGLE & A SOCIATES all" ' Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer ' State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:bas ' ;83400