HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS036_NEWPORT PLACE EXPANSION INITIAL STUDY
for the Expansion of
1400 Dove Street, Newport Beach, CA
' February 17, 1984
' Prepared for the
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
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' INTRODUCTION.. .. . ...... .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . i
PROJECT DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 2
' Location. . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . .... . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2
ProjectCharacteristics. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2
Comparison of Proposed Project to Development Standards
' and the General Plan. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
PermitsRequired.. . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
' DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES.... . . .. . .. . .. .. .11
Land Use and Aesthetics... .. . .. . . . . . .12
Traffic and Circulation.. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .22
' Air Quality... . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Acoustics. . . . . . . . .. ... . .. .... . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Public Services and Utilities. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .29
' PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .31
' REFERENCES. . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
APPENDIX
Appendix A - 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 - Commited Projects, January 1984
Appendix F - Assessment of Project-related Expansion Potential
Appendix G - Traffic Analysis
t
' LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
' FIGURES
i - Regional Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 - Vicinity Map. ... .. .. .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 - Site Plan. . ... . . .. ... . . .. . . . . 5
4 - Elevation Plan - New Building... . . .. . . . .. . .. . . ... ... . ...... .. . 6
5 - AxonNewport
Sketch - New Buildingop.ent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6 - Newport Place PC, Remaining Development. . .13
7 - Newport Place, Expansion Potential . . . . . .18
8 - Newport Place, Redevelopment Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
' 9 - Existing Traffic Volumes and ICU Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
' TABLES
A - Comparison of the Proposed Project to Development Standards. . . 9
' B - Statistical Summary: Newport Place PC District, Remaining
Allowable Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 & 15
C - City of Newport Beach, Major Projects in the Vicinity of
NewportPlace. . . . . . . . . .. . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
' D - Trip Generation, 1400 Dove Street. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
E - Critical Intersection Identification. . .25
t
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 on
an individual basis or cumulatively, and to identify any feasible miti-
gation 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 applicant and project consultants are listed
below with other key contact persons. Other contributors to this report
' are listed on Page 31.
City of Newport Beach Mr. Chris Gustin
Current Planning
' City of Newport Beach
(714) 640-2218
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
' Project Applicant McLachlan Investment Co.
1400 Dove Street
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 553-1801
Applicant's Project Consultant Synder Langston , Inc.
17962 Cowan
' Irvine, CA 92714
(714) 863-9200
iPROJECT DESCRIPTION
' Location
The project address is 1400 Dove Street in Newport Beach. The site
t is located within the Newport Place Planned Community District 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, which is 1.38 acres in size, is currently developed
with a two story building of 10,659 gross square feet (10,396 net sq.ft.) .
' The building was formerly used as a bank and is now used for office
purposes. Sixty-three (63) striped surface parking spaces are provided
on-site. The remainder of the site is paved, but presently unutilized
' for• parking.
The proposed project involves a request to expand the existing structure
by a total of 3672 net square feet, for a total of 14,068 net square
feet, through interior modifications to the second story mezzanine floor
of the building. The building "footprint" would not be altered except
to provide for the relocation of the building entrance which presently
faces Dove Street to an entry off the parking lot facing north on the
project site. Exterior facade modifications are also proposed and are
described in the Land Use and Aesthetics section of this report. The
' project applicant has indicated that the proposed expansion of the existing
structure would be undertaken immediately after project approval .
In addition to expanding the square footage contained within the existing
' structure, the project applicant proposes to construct a second new
building on the site totalling 12,482 net square feet. This structure
would be located adjacent to the northerly boundary of the site. Con-
struction of the proposed new building is expected to occur within 1-2
years after project approval .
In order to accommodate the need for increased parking, the existing
lot would be restriped and tuck-under parking would be provided with
the new structure. According to project plans, a total of 118 parking
spaces would be provided on-site at the time of completion of the second
' structure. Additional comment on parking is contained in subsequent
sections of this report. Figures 3, 4 and 5 illustrate the proposed
site plan and building elevations.
-2-
i
' REGIONAL LOCATION FIGURE 1
los angeles county 1
' �— —•• — san bernardino county
an.r.id. Fry
s ,
O
' Anaheim O
Orange ••
ter°°^ crow Fw l riverside
erside county
' Santa O
Ana �\ I
\ y
6
Son \ National •`•.
Or°co `
' Huntington Costa R \>
Beach Mass 1Project'Site
4
Irvine ` I` /
Newport
' Beach •Q
pacific ocean
Laguna
' Beach
yy2
San Juan
Capistrano /
' T
.San Clemente san diego county
1
' VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2
w•. [nLlif n t 1� , •!N ni_ P OUr - I - e.y Q•V '•V rm
-oST CT
..._, i e� a•nN is ' a aAu �4 QO �, y,� :y4 =r rxxs �`
_ q HrN
FRWYWFdd SAN DIE60 5 _ DIEGO
.I .ullex:wm.`�. Yta�� PL �x,r4nr<.. I N t RH' /`� , •T�
' • Nrr d r n✓ fry=♦r 'r:°' �3 -Xu, ¢ uum.. O > / —
—4/l•xl o a .r`�I AV _P UNflI'O NYi qP i y4
y gyp`
• -'i g7 . ° 3 *"BAKER� —DAKER: ai,• ° e °4xxES °
4,
5 'S.FY .r ..i • IY= 1 s.xmnl wL"uwo'.w.,L v ;e SO P` I r
re A �. � vrd=s�ro p1 ,' + j„Lxroa w�'� y991 'bieq • .. I a 4 � Li�iinmr[�
'° »' 'f. f l 2 •� i 4 pvF'0 � b g� y q6 I P D �_'^ /' v`
Ilf..:.. .•...'p�� I ��.xt-Ml rt6Y0 M I � .. �._�A3f.{' S' °.4` —G.
aett`; -'il.:!♦`_t ■ •iPYf -.: ^:"°tlC 2'6,^•f.).. '�_ _ ���_._ f_ _. _ .—_
•.... •i/'�.���f"., n/rrSL r °.'.y�n"14�! .7 y O ,rv.= 1 mx+a1°v ° 4,�
' ;'.`.�!�;�1 �.t. uuxmox. :'U � . w:.s •}�, c /y1-�.- , � I � 14 �I n �`Cq`�' 0�@
b %.�4MhOf COVAII'' AVIIGROVMOS'. I' � 3i� r � e9 4, J' .I • R "` �'�• � Qa
nyyc wr �• ¢ nr0[L nra ' 0 e,'` ... .. Sr � • �A'gxw O'Im• )
`+ 1fr r .r .' :: }P (aQOAd',., . .:'e., •, °t °' v I � y r .t�
d nnmc If41'.1.
' 4[ a s! OHL4n �i�; i.'""°.we'.. „:�;:,<.• "..``'� L?.,.[UVNiflY 6U/ .:.:�•�P ... �., awL�' ♦ � r ` ' I �I� `_
L Lmc '"n.. ••iYl ;' caE counu';;i P a lat' acf i jb
S� �� Z .F�rr'd:w ru mvrluw,L } / 4 .t• I•.•"P�.+b ST t-0'Ogs °} � 1 •
-
$� nuxm • • w°.,,�:•u•;H. (sift 1. Pd�O3 :t.• �`'p'4 LY rry rd�,•Pa. S �;,. 'E l �' �/5F,_
Cl / / s t kx+A as r „!N
� °F�" �[x[t fim N > 4'� n[d✓i, � I .1 Oq i.
)x[ �G a'6 0 °o •l`-'� I e` '•'y S'9`• ya,p�
!00 1Nx45L i A C C
r // � .`PLP '
BI:� yL rNq J� �P«d' ° ,�6 i a�'ArV(p qeo` "4 `r4ya ` sr 1. i`mo �-;j k, ^LeuuiLive
kv qfr na(4y1Y} av n P J 4r S$ VtAFe .{s'•yc `` 1,
t AVOCA40t�
{ LL , ryI°r�r�- °j ,P� �1 Ty • L1dh4°4 "\ �°� � q t f ` I�• �_
IMON
VICTORIA ST n / ?�bP • °I ' _• rMMfq / ♦ 8 q •�„ x �_
SL°°0` Sao / 1 M14 Ct r >�c` .°r°4)•• I\nr urn -' / f�l,� I t
1 a3 X.w4 q 2pLO iY 'yy': �L OPffA Vy�
I4Y-.C +o` m J ' 't 4/♦♦° i NEWPORT )) Q ...P.°.xu L, •'�
.•l V C" � Aa- y.x 5 1 rL010t.IGL tJ 4r� !L Srf
qo
e` ro , • 5r \3 v q .a%°`f .G° v' �; '.r::to&.n�d<?re°i':::? ;,3 -c- W, I V .__
/ ry ?P k° "� {:na >;' a--.:'r `✓wy �I
q ° 4 ,.o • [[Ot°GFer /` t,.°e Y'.',."ViL�'ti•ry t
•k L, °? iY •. 4 ty A ex a.'ro2v' `, "•ausys l/ . �ru'i t�sr,`;.{. P 'wraP�
ff � P> 4•x0 aF'hE, nq'r tit�l0•�k', 1 .,fysw.�r.:.r •.;i,.';l yv '��! ¢ � °.,
011
�y/a q ram*l V •'! ,tY^ .w...... / ` f : 1{W4`f,e r.• tre VI 3dg t>' h b °,,°it , •"`': x. Ib'rr F.", ra:'r, rC,'fiy ♦ 'ro ��
�wfsr2• f�r.,P> 19f a•..;" y'>''�?°��''�'a4, (tn�,� A :!�..!�, ..,, y�,+„s�• 3 ,�,tr t 4
q � r0 r ' . • � � �"y \. ^�Y "W°`X;— -.•- awe.• f{�d m Lc R•� Wf \
"kv 9
9A e`O , > A o• 'I�+����)Y-//.Ff��"`-J•Pj ryY'�.J"° `6 �'°� �. \seH
f xVr P '✓.f . `yl /,' � 1'� e.d 1 wT"• "Cwi• '7_n '[ 4y
o I �3ar.`si ���` Y I qof�/_ .rfxi 'r�o`\y�-woY�tp W,y sr sf�y ly�/•�'� sM''slr�„� \rp r°f
!'. � � � .4rP�.°'yar ry yy: r f• 1 �:.. �^• r2.�`�'�f4 a =•au�' �'"1}.../T��kv+I ���(i,
° °' ♦ Sr s} NT 4:° .. 'L+ .�a�a_.i 5."hJ•• ./l °1 R m° wnwVAV
rH O 5� Sr vyt"^g3, •`�•' f ' ( {^;o .`L° CCuILa
o •y °q! � t'�'4° :p S,\e s " 3 '�.-�.. �P .se A.
` Et
^a R r°�r,°°"9pb qF 4.a• `rn.'��'r0 19� Id' �• �� 1 a e d;l4.i. } •IP = ` �v �
' R `d?9r S4 +!.;¢"� �• 1K low,
h' -8'. -^-..-- �'-
,�
6 a4` r.:'oo fr•.i: a wY x, ,, 2i:.�st:1:q:.n3sL..e!... '6 \"„_ � x
SITE PLAN FIGURE 3
Bo=o"
eRT OAGK
34=0' eee'-4••LS'-4 �me'-4'•Ts J&bti-254 4B 0'•4-+04=0' Goe r;.25=ox 4. 190'
1
' 1
O t
� N
P N
n '4• ,i'L' TA
08'•4•-
.�I IB' 24' 3DR'•4'+Ti4 25-4' 4� D40 I ly 54' 3=4'
�N I
.
a 10
N , I I N
In
q -= e6e-C ti Sce=o'+2S•CI eoe=4'.st-o' Lit `9
vw A
41 L 407-O'•3014 llw 80T=(o'n G0=0' L I
n
1
n
� ID
O a y
1
0 N IS _.._.•N I IS
' ro t I- to®e=4•.es:e•
o :
a
N I4• 4me4'•5f-o' 4 0 =4' sto'
L4_, 4®8
L 'f"'f4
Ir NG N4 14
N III
' � N
sxl�oNe EX19llN6 �lJil-DII Ft�7iPRINT' LLK 13 W T %
RC�MOVOONG PLHI'R O
- OIOCWtUt\
1
I ,(j I3�4' 1•
' rouet•4
( rotes
I/f' y /tw YrVvlh.� 7P0lTO memf D
`• ra(I6TIN4 LANDS• fYfY(M)(rpnl' �TLN61 K!�
GAPING TORRW��A r 10' - — IBG O
' .�+zGHTfEC�r )NG. 1571-ra �2+'-cn la'-d 1
NEwFnR-r PL.,44CS ORIV9 Ia1w6Day.I �-
w � _
SOON
.••.� �.:. mums c►
��iR®i!V'."�i11s�1�+�10���F 'iA;...•.• mac■--��.�_
/� •� /J!�ll.9J➢11/�1�1C?!!���`rdiltir�®!/i�►���i �G�..�•'+•.• .o��.l�y+�ii� ` �►
ws4'-�i�"f�-t��l.n.T—%jilYJ,i��'
n i .•
. a
i
/ ism
i
i
1 � .
1 AXONOMETRIC SKETCH - NEW BUILDING
FIGURE 5
1 AM
n
?I 000t9
1�
1
1
-
1 tit2cNfT�(�I lt.1G.
i
T 0 J
/ L
\e
' Comparison of the Proposed Project to Development Standards and the
General Plan
The proposed project must be developed within the framework of applicable
planning programs and ordinances, which are examined below.
General Plan. Consultation with the Advance Planning Division of the
ityi'of Newport Beach Planning Department indicates that the proposed
project is in compliance with all relevant Elements of the General Plan.
' Among these are the Land Use Element, Public Safety Element, and the
Noise Element. The site is designated for Administrative/Professional
Commercial use in the Land Use Element. No significant seismic safety
hazards are indicated on the site according to the Public Safety Element.
Potential noise and public service impacts will be addressed in separate
chapters of this report.
Zoning Code. As noted previously, the project site is located within
the Newport Place Planned Community (PC) District, which was initially
approved by the City of Newport Beach in December, 1970. The Newport
'. Place Planned Community District regulations established development
standards for this specific area. Subsequent to 1970, numerous indi-
vidual amendments to the PC text have been approved by the City Council .
The PC text established permitted uses and an allocation of square footage
allowed within Newport Place. In order to expand any structure or build
t a structure larger than the allocated maximum square footage would require
either an amendment to the Newport Place PC District regulations or
the transfer of development rights from another property. Because of
' the manner in which development rights to additional square footage
within Site 5 of the Newport Place tract were allocated, the applicant
is requesting a PC amendment to increase square footage allocated to
the project site in order to allow the proposed expansion. The com-
plete 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 and Traffic Phasing Ordinance. On November 27,
1978, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Newport Place Planned
Community District regulations which required the preparation of a Traffic
II, ' Phasing Plan (TPP) consistent with the Circulation Element of the General
Plan. The requirement applied to all future allowable development in
the Newport Place PC District beyond 30% of the total future allowable
' development. In order for the City Council to approve a Traffic Phasing
Plan it must be found to be consistent with the P-C Development Plan,
the provisions of the amendment to P-C District regulations outlined
' above, and the City's determination of "reasonableness".
' -8
TABLE A
COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
' TO DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS
1400 Dove Street, Newport Place
NEWPORT PLACE EXISTING PROPOSED
REQUIREMENT P-C USE PROJECT
Building Site Established for 1.38 Ac. 1.38 Ac.
Area individual sites
Gross floor area - 10,659 Sq.Ft. Expansion of existin
b-uildin : 14,0 q. t.
(total)-
' New building: Gross
square footage undeter-
mined
' Net floor area - 10,396 Sq.Ft. ExTa ns�i_o_nof existWn
building: q.Ft.
t.
total
New�Building: 12,482
q.F� t. _ _ __ _
Total Net Sq.Ft. : 26,550
' Intensity of Usel - 0.2:1.0 0.5:1.02
Building Height Varies from 2 stories EExxea_nsi�on of existing
' 2-10 stories (261011) building: 2 stories -
6'01'-
New buildin 2 stories -
' 7' to 41' above grade
depending on parking
design
' Setbacks Front - 30 ft. 3310" Expansion of existing
(Dove St. ) building: Same setbacks.
Side - none 3010" (New- eft w buildin g:
' port Place Dr.) ront 3010" (Dove St. )
Rear - none 4416" Side - 1210" (north PL)
Rear - 4610" (east PQ
Parking 1 space per 225 net 63 spaces 118 spaces to be pro-
sq.ft. ; 1 space per (1 space per vided with construction
250 net sq.ft. with 165 net of new building, of
' Modification sq.ft.) which 30 spaces are pro-
Approval . posed to be compacts
(25%) , and 3 spaces
' handicap.
R space per 225 net
sq.ft.)
' 1 - Ratio of gross floor area to buildable site area.
2 - Total of expansion to existing building and addition of new building.
' Sources: Ware & Malcomb Architects, Inc. , and City of Newport Beach
-9-
The City approved a TPP for Newport Place on March 12, 1979 which phased
construction within the PC District with roadway improvements. This
' original traffic phasing plan addressed then vacant properties owned
by Emkay Development, Bear Brand Ranch, Air California and Ketchum.
The remaining allowable development in the Newport Place PC District
' was described as expansion space subject to future amendments to the
TPP. (Appendix D illustrates development phasing approved in the 1979
TPP for Newport Place.)
' The City Council resolution amending the Newport Place PC District to
require a TPP altered specific requirements and permitted square feet
of future allowable development on many individual parcels within Newport
' Place. Although the allocation to the project site was not modified
in this action, an amendment to the TPP is required to accommodate the
increased development proposal .
' The proposed project is also subject to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordin-
ance (TPO) and Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the
TPO. All projects involving 10,000 sq.ft. or more are subject to TPO
' provisions. Project related traffic generation is analyzed in the Traffic
and Circulation Chapter of this report.
' Permits Required
The proposed project will require the following approvals from the City
' of Newport Beach:
1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The acceptance
' of this environmental ocumen and approval of a Negative Declar-
ation (or preparation and acceptance of an EIR) .
' 2. Amendment No. 7 to the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan.
The acceptance of a traffic stu y prepare pursuant o 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;
and
' 3. Amendment No. 17 to the Newport Place PC District. The approval
of amendment to Planned Community Uevelopment Standards for
Newport Place in order to allow additional square footage to
' be constructed on the subject site.
' 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 E to this report. The traffic analysis contained
in the Traffic and Circulation section of this report is based upon con-
sideration of the proposed project as well as committed projects listed.
' -10-
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS,
EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS$
N
MITIGATIO�MEASURES
t
' -11-
1
LAND USE AND AESTHETICS
' Existing Conditions
' Land Use. The project site is currently developed with a two story building
formerly utilized as a bank and now functioning as office space. Figure
2 : Vicinity Map, illustrates the project's proximity to the John Wayne
Airport and Newport Bay. Major access to the area is provided by MacArthur
' Boulevard and Bristol Street (future extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway) .
As noted in the Project Description, the site is part of the Emkay Development
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 modified by Traffic Phasing
Plan requirements. Figure 6 and Table B indicate future remaining allowable
development in the Newport Place P-C District. Figures 7 and 8 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, according to Committed Projects
listed in Appendix E of this report.
' The City of Newport Beach has also recently approved a General Plan Amend-
ment 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 complies
with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . (The zoning to implement
this General Plan Amendment has not been adopted as yet, however.)
Development within the City of Irvine in the Irvine Industrial Complex-West
' surrounding the aiprort 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 be influenced
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.
' -12-
NEWPORT PLACE P-C REMAINING DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 6
DD
NH
OD
PP ll
MM \
AE
flfl �a�\
' UU
55 c,J
S
TT
VV
V
YT ww CC AA Y
5 XX DO %
AC =Z EE
' D
AD FF DD Z
v w
e� AD n Dc C
do D F
De HM
' KK JJ 0 H D E
T v ! P H A
5 fl 0 L J D
01 M K
'' fAxArlhur Blvd
Source:City of Newport Beach
mo e e gdl%am,olcp o 250 Soo
urbc plmiro
11325 wesi0c fdrnesane1P
re =l bec ctl co 026!)0 Feel
' TABLE B
STATISTICAL SUMMARY - NEWPORT PLACE P-C DISTRICT,
REMAINING ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT
1 "
Site
Locationl Portion Rem. Dev.2 TPP3 Year Amount 30% 70% Type
4
A 0 HB IA-1B
B - 0 - - - - - HB IA-1B
' C 1 0 Yes - - - - RC-2
D 1 -330 Yes SS-1,
E - 0 - - - - - RC-1
' 0 RC-1
G - 0 - - - - - RCi-1
P&B-7
I 6 0 - - - - - P&B-6Y
B
�- a
J 6 0 P&'
K 0 RSS-1
L - 0 - - - - - RS-1
t M - - - ' 2 18- - RS-1
N T BSA Yes 1979 ,913 44,129 P&B-5
0 - 0 - - - - - P&B-5
' 0-1 - 0 - - - P&B;5
P 4 4,111 1,233 2,879 P&B-4
Q _ 0 _ _ P&B-4
R - 0 RS-2a
' S 3a 37,463 - - - 11,238 26,225 IS-3a
T 0 ACS-1B
U - -5,050 - - - - - GC-1
t V 4 23,494 - - - 580 22,914 I6-4%� a�
W 0 P&B-1&2
X _ 0 _ _ _ - - P&B-1&2 '
' Y - 0 - - - P&B-1&2
Z 0 - - P&B-1&2
AA - 2,809 Yes 1981 2,809 P&B-1&2
BB - 0 - - - - - P&B-1&2
' CC - 0 - - - - - P&B-1&2
DD 0 P&B-1&2
EE - 0 - - - - - P&B-1&2
' FF - - - - -0 - P&B-1&2
GG
GG 0 P&B-1&2
HH - 0 - - - - - P&B-1&2
0 - _ - _ - P&B-1&2
JJ 0 P&B-1&2 i
KK 0 P&B-1&2
LL 3a 0 - - - - - IS-3a
t MM 3a 0 - - - - - IS-3a
NN 3a 0 Yes IS-3a
' -14-
1
' TABLE B
STATISTICAL SUMMARY - NEWPORT PLACE P-C DISTRICT,
REMAINING ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT
' 1 2 3 Site4
Location Portion Rem. Dev. TPP Year Amount 30% 70% Type
00 3a j 40,951 Yes 1980 40,951 - - IS-3A
PP 3a 14,265 Yes - - 4,280 9,985 IS-3A
' RR 3a 0 - _ _ _ - IS-3A
RR 3a 0 IS-3A
SS 3a 0 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 A ;'
' XX 1A 0 _ _ _ - - IS-lA
YY 3 3,474 1,042 2,432 GC-3
ZZ 1A 17,130 - - - 5,139 11,991 IS-iA
' 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 217,159 106,802 55,646 157,032
' 1 - Per Figure 5, page 13.
2 - Remaining future allowable development of office, retail , and
industrial uses in square feet.
3 - Traffic Phasing Plan.
4 - Refer to Newport Place Planned Community District Text for definition.
' Source: City of Newport Beach Planning Deaprtment
' -15-
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
! -16-
' Aesthetics. The existing building on-site is two stories in height and
Ts characterized by a stucco facade with a glass entryway facing Dove
Street. As noted earlier, it was formerly a bank but is now used for
offices.
' The project site is surrounded by office buildings ranging from 2 stories
in height to 10 stories across Dove Street. A variety of facade treatments
exist within Newport Place including reflective glass, brick, stucco,
textured concrete and wood siding. The majority of structures in the
' area provide surface parking although several include tuck-under parking
such as proposed on the project site.
' Potential Impacts
Land Use. 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 total of 16,154 net sq.ft, of expansion (including
a new building of 12,482 net sq.ft.) on a site with an existing 10,396
net sq.ft, building, or a 64% increase in net floor area.
Within the context of Newport Place, it is considered unlikely that any
significant environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project.
(Other chapters of this Initial Study will outline potential environmental
concerns identified.) On a cumulative basis, however, it is necessary
to explore the potential for similar expansion in the vicinity of the
' project site within Newport Place.
Discussion under Existing Conditions in this chapter serves to demonstrate
' the intensity of development pressures which exist in the area surrounding
the proposed project. While it is improbable that all approved development
will be built in the near future, it can be assumed that the area will
continue to undergo significant growth in office and related commercial
' space.
In order to explore the potential for expansion or redevelopment of sur-
rounding properties which might be influenced by approval of the proposed
project, a field 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 of the existing use
relative to surrounding uses, ownership patterns and parcelization, and
unusual external influences such as high exposure and access to major
traffic arteries. Based upon these factors, properties which might poten-
tially be influenced to expand as a result of the proposed project were
identified. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the result of this survey and
conceptually depict Expansion Potential and Redevelopment Potential , respect-
ively.
As Figure 7 illustrates, only two other properties (Blocks J and N) in
' the vicinity of the project site could be considered _likely to be influenced
to expand by the implementation of the proposed project. (A complete
listing and description of properties examined in this assessment are
contained in Appendix F to this report.) Individual factors unique to
each of these properties, however, may also act to restrain potential
expansion as well .
' -17-
NEWPORT PLACE P-C FUTURE EXPANSION POTENTIAL FIGURE 7
EMProject Influences v
1 Other Influences Existing Use - Newport Place
Block
' Blockk RD.
. Block No.
1 * Project site A- Sheraton Hotel AA- B story office building an
B - Sheraton Hotel Quail St.; 6 story office
00 D- Car Washnt AB - Caraldin dealershipove(HowardSt. (Bank Chevrolet)
1 E - Retail Commercial Center AC - Retail Commercial Center (Newport
CF (MacArthur Square) Plaza)
G AD - Retail Commercial Center (Newport
NN H- 4 story office building Plaza)
OO I - 2 story savings 6 loan RE - 2 story building (athletic club)
J - 2 story building 0B - 10 story office building (Mitsui
1 PP LL K- Restaurant i Manufacturers)
M M L - Restaurant CC - 2 story office building
AE st :; M- Restaurant DD - 2 story office building
RR `\
1 N - 3 story office buildings EE - 2 story office buildino-"2 Q,a *0 story office building FF - 2 story office building
UU
O1- 2 story bank (Bank of America) i GG - 6 story office building (Commerce
SS +��p P - 3-5 story office building Bank)
(Dann Centre) HH - 2 story office building
Q - 3 story office building 11 - 2 story office building
TT • ' sl` (Far West Savings) JJ - 2 story office building
VV R- Restaurant KK - 2 story office building
1 .,• ;;.;,,.•�..••`••:;.;• S - 2 story office buildings fLL - 2 story office building
T - car dealership (Datsun) HK (Auto Club)
U - 2 story building (athletic club) HN - 2 story office building (Air Cal)
pt YY ww ;c '> _:::)1A�: :. �;; :.::• V - I a 2 story offices (Commerce 00 - Vacant parcel
t "1 !'• Plaza) PP - I & 2 story office buildings
try '• dC' "" W - 2 story office building QQ - 1 story office building
1 - 0 X - 2 story office building RR - 2 story office building
xx
AC (Commerce [enter I) SS - 2 story office building (Boyle Engr.)
ZZ ::;. Y - 2 story office building TT - I story office building (RBF)
(Commerce Center II) UU - 2 story office building
A0 - :"FF•, .: BB 0 I - 2 story office building VV - 2 story building ( Center Club)
1 > V. Z w WW - Car dealership (J. Slemons Mercedes-
0 AB :"' ,:'':..:�.. . GG C Benz)
XX
dominium
U F YY - Retailycofnmercialncenter (Newport
Plaza)
ZZ - Car dealership (Howard Chevrolet)
gyp, T _Ci. ?:: ::•: ?:::'•1::'ti: H G E
1 P
MacArthur Blvd
Source: City of Newport Beach
mane e gil liom,aicp 0 250 500
urban planning
1825 vvestchff Trlve suite177
neaport beach,60.92660 Feet _
1
I
' NEWPORT PLACE P-C FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL I FIGURE 8
1
t. 77
E ;:;:�:: .`.. •: :I Other Influences �
Existing Use - Newport Place
* Project Site Block No. Block No.
' A - Sheraton Hotel AA - B story office building on
B - Sheraton Hotel Quail St.; 6 story office
C - Restaurant building on Dove St. (Bank Cal)
OO D - Car Hash AB - Car dealership (Howard Chevrolet)
/E - Retail Commercial Center AC - Retail Commercial Center (Newport
' f F (MacArthur Square) Plaza)
G AD - Retail Commercial Center (Newport
NN H - 4 story office building Plaza)
I - 2 story savings 5 loan RE - 2 story building (athletic club)
00 J - 2 story building BB - 10 story office building (Mitsui
' PP L.L K- Restaurant Manufacturers)
MM L - Restaurant CC - 2 story office building
AE M - Restaurant DD - 2 story office bui Yding
RR \ N - 3 story office buildings EE - 2 story office building
QUal.;:, 7k 0 - 2 story office building FF - 2 story office building
' uu.�,�;:. OS- 2 story bank (Bank of America) GG - 6 story office building (Commerce
_�• P - 3-5 story office building Bank)
(Dann Centre) HH - 2 story office building
S Q - 3 story office building II - 2 story office building
(Far Hest Savings) JJ - 2 story office building
R - Restaurant KK - 2 story office building
`-Y.V.' - -' - S - 2 story office buildings LL - 2 story office building
�• y • ' T - car dealership (Datsun) %M (Auto Club)
U - 2 story building (athletic club) HN - 2 story office building (Air Cal)
- :;., AA Y - 1 E 2 story offices (Commerce 00 - Vacant parcel
KY:,;:.,_- WW y d'.•.,. Plaza) PP - 1 E 2 story office buildings
N- 2 story office building QQ - 1 story office building
X - 2 story office building RR - 2 story office building
XX X (Commrerce Center I) SS - 2 story office building (Boyle Engr.)
Y - 2 story office building TT - 1 story office building (RBF)
(Commerce Center II) UU - 2 story office building
Z R Z - 2 story office building VV - 2 story building ( Center Club)
W 1M - Car dealership `J. 5lemons Mercedes-
/ AS:..:::- .'(fi:?'.":' GG C Benz)
XX - 2 story office condominium
by "• U::� �: : F YY - Retail commercial center (Newport
Plaza)
ZZ - Car dealership (Howard Chevrolet)
' `: ':P: ?• :_Dove -t'..- P N
L
OI M K J I B
MacArthur Blvd
' Source: City of Newport Beach
mariee.gilliam,aicp 0 250 500
urban planning
1825 westcliffrl�e suite177
rem:xxt beach•ca.9266Q Feet
' _ J
' Block J, which is currently developed with a 2 story office building,
could potentially be expanded by 1125 to 5750 sq.ft. depending on the
' ratio of net floor area to parking. While this site is in close proximity
to the project and is similar in use and intensity, it has all tuck-under
parking in one subterranean level . Due to the physical design of the
structure, expansion would appear unlikely. A PC amendment to allow such
expansion would also be required.
The second site which might be influenced by the proposed project is Block
N, located immediately adjacent to the project site. Block N, which is
part of Site 5 in the Newport Place PC District, is developed with a 3
story 70,531 sq.ft. office building that is fairly new in age. The Newport
Place PC allocates a total of 165,480 sq.ft. to this block, in conjunction
with Blocks 01 and 0, which encompasses the proposed project. At the
present-time, the expansion potential allowed by the PC District on Site
5 is estimated at 63,042 square feet.
The distribution of this remaining expansion potential between Blocks
N and 0 and 0-1 is not clear, however. If the proposed PC amendment on
' the project site is approved, the allocation to Site 5 will be increased
by 16,154 sq.ft. in order to allow the development of Block 0. The remaining
63,042 sq.ft. allocation could be utilized by either Block N or the new
t Bank of America Building on Block 0-1. The age of the structures on Block
N as well as the new Bank of America is considered a factor likely to
restrain expansion on these sites in the near future.
As this discussion demonstrates, the proposed project can be concluded
to have a very limited influence on expansion potential in the surrounding
area. Aside from individual factors identified which could act to restrain
' expansion on specific sites, considerations such as economic factors (develop-
ment cost, market considerations, etc.) and the disruption of on-going
operations may also act to diminish the likelihood of expansion.
Other properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site (Blocks
E, F, G, K, L and M) were not examined for any expansion potential due
to the fact that they are developed in restaurant and other commercial
' uses.
As Figure 8 illustrates, it was determined that no other properties within
' Newport Place were likely to be influenced to redevelop as a result of
project implementation. This assessment was made based upon the relatively
small scale of the proposed project in comparison to surrounding structures,
and the consideration of external factors such as areawide development
trends and anticipated circulation systems improvements noted in the introduc-
tion to this chapter. These influences form much stronger pressures for
large-scale building and/or redevelopment activity than are generated
' by relatively minor incremental expansion such as 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 considered insignificant. It must also be cautioned
that it is not possible to make a definitive connection between expansion
' which might be approved on the project site and development or expansion
which might subsequently occur in the vicinity.
' -20-
' Aesthetics. The proposed expansion of the existing structure on-site
will involve primarily interior modifications. The existing stucco facade
' will, however, be upgraded to a combination of solar bronze glass with
stucco. The building entry will be relocated from Dove Street to the
parking lot, facing in a northerly direction. The building height (two
' stories) will not be altered.
The new structure proposed will also be 2 stories in height with a combination
glass and textured concrete facade. As illustrated in Figures 4 and 5,
' tuck-under parking is planned. Open patios on the first floor will be
landscaped with specimen trees and planter boxes.
' The architectural design and facade treatments proposed are considered
compatible with the character of surrounding office structures. Further
review of design details will take place during issuance of building permits.
1 .Mitigation Measures
' 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, including Mitigation Measures
The potential land use impacts of this project as proposed are not considered
tsignificant, either on an individual or cumulative basis.
1
1
t
-21-
L
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
' Introduction
A Traffic Analysis was conducted by the firm of Weston Pringle and Associates
' to assess potential impacts of the proposed project on the existing circu-
lation system. The following discussion summarizes the conclusions of
this study which is contained in Appendix G to this report.
tAnalysis of traffic impacts is based upon the addition of 19,000 gross
square feet of office space on the project site by the end of 1985. Project
' plans submitted indicate a total expansion of 16,154 net square feet.
As a result, traffic impacts identified can be assumed to represent a
very conservative or worst case estimate.
' 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. Both Dove Street and Newport Place Drive
t provide two lanes of travel in each direction with on-street parking pro-
hibited.
In the area surrounding the project site, major future improvements are
anticipated to the circulation system. The most significant of these
' are the extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway (Route 73) to MacArthur
Blvd. , construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportaion Corridor, improve-
ments 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 13
intersections 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 9) .
Potential Impacts
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 D illustrates generation rates .
and trip ends estimated to result from the proposed project. As indicated,
' the project is estimated to generate 250 daily trip ends, with 90 occurring
during the 2.5 hour peak and 45 during the PM peak hour.
' -22-
' EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES FIGURE 9'
' ( 8C14
(.6310) DR (t 7132)
a� S T
' (11673 c c2i
Q ir
44 BRISTOL 8973) m (.6360)
.�� S1' NORTH � 7743)
' 42 BRISTOL
(.8773 (7797
(.8116 BONITA C (N
' LEGEND J���a m
44 = DAILY TRAFFIC A
a
VOLUMES IN
THOUSANDS 1(.6607) PND.
(.6310)= ICU VALUES W -(.7760)
' (.9225 FORDJCL
O
(.6823
a C5) 819
w (3JpgQ�N31 5(.7090)
w X jrw (.4920 W y�<(S RO-
c� (1.1141 j R o' L Co
Q
a w m w(7731hw
0 y A v Q
a Z > />o .9364) z p H
31 28 45 59 '> 34 .7490) = w
m� 0 51 COFS Hw 40 p
(7950 O0 LU .7092) PACIFtG (6232 �� <
(.8929 B� �p (.8013 (.5767 40 34
CaOHO .7697) 8678)
Source:
' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES
TABLE D
TRIP GENERATION
44000-Dove treet
PERIOD RATEI TRIP ENDS2
' Daily 13.0 250
2.5 Hour Peak
In 1.2 25
Out 3.4 65
tTotal 90
PM Peak Hour
In 0.6 10
' Out 1.7 35
Total 45
1. 1 - Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet
' 2 - Based upon 19,000 Square Feet
Source: Weston Pringle and Associates, December 1983
' Utilizing established trip distribution patterns for the area, proj.ect-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, analysis
included committed project traffic and regional growth traffic as required.
This analysis indicated that none of the 13 intesections identified by
the City Traffic Engineer would be impacted by the proposed project.
As a result, no detailed intersection analyses are required. (Table E
' illustrates ICU analyses conducted. )
-24-
TABLE E
CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION
' 1400 Dove Street
' LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES - 1986
NB SB EB WB
' Bristol Street N. & Campus Drive - - - 0.2
Bristol Street N. & Birch Street 0.7 0.3 - 0.2
' Bristol Street N. & Jamboree Road 0.1 0.1 - -
Bristol Street & Campus Drive - Irvine Ave. 0.7 0.1 0.1 -
Bristol Street & Birch Street - - 0.1 -
' Bristol Street & Jamboree Road 0.1 0.1 - -
Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Dr. - Ford Rd. 0.1 0.1 - -
Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Dr. N. 0.1 0.1 -
Jamboree Road & MacArthur Blvd. 0.1 0.3 '0.1 -
Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 0.1 0.1 0.1 -
' MacArthur Blvd. & Ford Road 0.1 0.1 - -
MacArthur Blvd. & Bison Avenue 0.1 0.1
MacArthur Blvd. & Campus Avenue 0.1 0.2 - -
' -25-
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. Recent studies in the area have identified traffic operational
problems at several intesections. 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 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.
Mitigation Measures
' No traffic-related mitigation measures are considered necessary.
Significance of Impacts including Mitigation Measures
The potential impacts of the project are not considered significant, either
' on an individual or cumulative basis.
1
' -26-
' AIR QUALITY
tExisting 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. Improve-
ments 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.
At an estimated trip length of eight miles per trip-end, approximately
' 2,000 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.
Increased peak hour traffic congestion on surrounding roadways 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 source emissions (from increased energy demands, combustion
of fuels, etc.) and emissions from temporary construction activities are
considered minimal . The anticipated construction period for expansion
of the existing structure will probably not exceed 3-4 months. Construction
of the second building, which will not be undertaken immediately, may
consume up to 6-8 months.
' Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures beyond those required by existing City policies
and standard Conditions of Approval are considered necessary.
Significance of Impacts, including Mitigation Measures
' The potential air quality impacts of the project as proposed are not con-
sidered significant, either on an individual or cumulative basis.
-27-
' 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 contained
in an Environmental Impact Report prepared for the expansion of the Sheraton
' Hotel by LSA, Inc. in July, 1983, indicate that the existing 65 CNEL noise
contour on this roadway segment is located approximately 110 feet from
the roadway centerline.
' 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 commercial aircraft operations is
' audible at the project site.
' Potential Impacts
The proposed project will generate a small amount of additiondl traffic
' which will have a negligible impact on land uses adjacent to streets that
serve the project. Noise generated by construction equipment can occasionally
reach high levels, but is not anticipated to represent a significant problem
due to both the type of construction and the relatively short construction
' periods 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.
The project site is located beyond the estimated existing 65 CNEL noise
contour for MacArthur Boulevard.
Mitigation Measures
' No mitigation measures beyond those required by existing City policies
and standard Conditions of Approval are considered necessary.
Significance of Impacts, including Mitigation Measures
' The potential noise impacts from, and to, the proposed project are considered
insignificant.
-28-
' PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
' Existing Conditions
' Fire Protection. The Newport Beach Fire Department provides fire suppression
and rescub 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 fire-
fighters. 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 is currently in• the process of locating a new
fire station site 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 Newport Center. Distance from the facility is approximately
3 miles. Response times to the project area are approximately 3-5 minutes
for emergency and alarm calls, and 5-10 minutes for non-emergency calls
' depending on officer availability.
Transit. The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) provides transit service
to the project area with three bus routes. Route 61, from Santa Ana to
Newport Center,• provides service on MacArthur Boulevard at 30 minute intervals
during peak hours and 60 minute intervals during non-peak hours. Route
71, from the Mall of Orange to the John Wayne Airport area, provides service
' on Birch Street at 30 minute intervals during peak hours only. Route
76, from Huntington Beach to Saddleback College-North Campus, also provides
service on Birch Street at 25 minute intervals during peak hours and at
' 30 minute intervals during non-peak hours.
Wastewater. The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides local
sewer service to tNie 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 nono 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.
-29-
' Police Services. The project will not adversely impact current police
protection services or require any additional personnel . The Police Depart-
ment 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.
tTransit. 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 e— xp�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.
t 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.
' Significance of Impacts including I-litigation Measures
The potential public service and utility impacts of the proposed project
are considered insignificant.
' -30-
' 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 Sanitation District Hilary Baker
-31-
' 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. 1339. 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 for00 Dove Street, Newport Place.
Prepared for Marie E.14 Gil iam, AICP, Newport Beach, CA.
1 _
t
' -32-
1
' APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENT L CHECKLIST
1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Background '
I. Name of Proponent Hc1 L -G!{I. an 1 t►.!�/E�i`fl tEi tl' moo.
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent ,
1400 'rk=� lF—� r—
n1��Jt'7o1e;r" C12.ldPo '
3. Date of Checklist Submitted
4. Agency Requiring Checklist '
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable 14-z9s, -Pc+.LG STI�I;t i-
Il. Environmental Impacts '
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers ore required on attached sheets.) '
Yes Abe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures? 3�
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcoverireJ of the soil?
—
c. Change in topography or ground surface '
relief features? SG —
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?
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?
1
1 In Maw N°
1 g. Exposure of people or property to geolo-
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? >G
1 2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? >G
1 b. The creation of objectionable odors? G
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
1 temperature, or any change in climate, —
either locally or regionally? _)G.
1 3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of di-
rection of water movements, in either
1 marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat-
terns, or the rate and amount of surface
1 runoff? JG
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
1 waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in
any water body? �-
1 e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
1 dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
1 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
III 1 water otherwise available for public water —
supplies?
L Exposure of people or property to water re-
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
1
1
i Z
1
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, gross, crops, and aquatic
plants)?
'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? C
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds, '
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, '
rare or endangered species of animals? �G
c. Introduction of new species of animals into ,
an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? •
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife '
habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? _
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? -
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? .y=
1
�J
' Yes Maybe No
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
' natural resource? G
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
' a. A risk of an explosion or the release '
of hazardous substances (including, but riot
limited,to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or —
upset conditions? C
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
' plan? G
II. 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?
' b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? —
' c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems? x
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
ttraffic? yG
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? >Z_
' 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? }G —
' b. Police protection? ,G —
c. Schools?
t —
Yes Maw No ,
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? >�
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
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? �G•
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? '
b. Communications systems? — -�
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Ffealth. Will the proposal result In: t
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? �= '
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? '
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic visto or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the '
creation of on aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? •
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an '
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources. '
a, Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
— 1
t
' Yes May No
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
' or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or —
historic building, structure, or object? G
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect —
unique ethnic cultural values? G
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? ->C
' 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or 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-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
' on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
1
On the basis of this initial evaluation: '
i find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1 find that although the proposed project could hove a significant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described on on 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.
Date igrwture '
For '
(Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own
format for initial studies.) ,
APPENDIX B
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1
APPENDIX B '
SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE STANDARD
ITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS
1
A. The architectural character and landscape design established within
the existing P-C district shall be maintaiged.
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
public streets, alleys, or adjoining properties.
D. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning t Ili
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.
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
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 in the 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 will be subject to a grading permit to be
approved by the Building and Planning Departments.
t
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 to be prepared
prior to issuance of building permits. Permanent reproducible
copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard-size
sheets shall be furnished to the Building Deaprtment.
' 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 codas.
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.
APPENDIX B '
(continued) '
V. 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.
W. All buildings will conform to the Uniform Building Code and the '
City's seismic design standards.
X. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed
landscape architect and approved by the Parks, Beaches and '
Recreation Department, the Public Works Deaprtment and approval of
the Planning Department.
Y. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls '
the use of fertilizers and pesticides and which places emphasis upon
the use of drought-resistant native vegetation. '
Z. Any mechanical equipment or emergency power generators shall be screened
from view and noise associated with said structures shall be sound-
attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at property lines. '
i
1
' APPENDIX C
TEXT OF PR POSED PC AMENDMENT
III
1
Planned Ccmnunity 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
A-429 Approved May 16, 1974.
Amendment No. 7 September 8, 1975 by Resolution No. 8588 '
A-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 Resoltuibn 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 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.
*Amendment No. 16 ,1984 by Resolution No. ,
approved 8 1984.
*Project Amendment ,
' STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PART 11. CONM CIAL/PROFESSIONAL & BUSINESS OFFICES
' A. Building Sites
' Sites 1 & 2. .. ... ... .38.5 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
Site 1 & 2. ... ... .. . . 819,530 square feet (5)
' Site 3A. ... . ..... .. .. 115,530 square feet (5)
Site 4.. . 201,180 square feet
*Site 5. . 185,084 square feet (15)
Site 6. ... . ...... .... 42,420 square feet
' *Site 7.. ... .... .. . .. . 55,860 square feet.. .. ... .. .1,419,604 sq. ft.
' The following statistics are for information only. Development may
include but shall not be limited to the following:
' C. Building Area
Story heights shown are on average building height. The
buildings within each parcel may vary within these ranges.
' Site 1 & 2. . ..819,530 square feet (5)
a. Two Story. . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . 9.41 acres
' b. Three Story. :: : :: : :: :: : ::: 6.27 acres
c. Four Story. . 4.70 acres
d. Five Story. . .. ... . . . ... .. . 3.76 acres
e. Six Story. .... .. . ..... ... . 3.14 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. .. . : ::: :: : : : :: : .44 acres
e. Six Story..... . .44 acres
f. Seven Story.. . .37 acres
g. Eight Story. . . . . . . .. .. ... . .33 acres
*Project Amendment
1
FOOTNOTES (cont'd) '
(9) Planned Camunity Text Amendment No. 9, dated April 11, 1977
incorporating the following changes: '
a. Expand the permitted uses for General C=nercial.
b. Re-designate General Camercial Site 1-A and 2-B to '
General Cannercial Sites, 1,2, and 3.
c. Expand General Camr_rcial Site 3 to include one-half of '
industrial Site IA.
d. Convert Industrial Site 2A to General Camiercial Site 4. ,
e. Restrict the allowable building area and the permitted uses
for General Camr-rcial Sites 1,2, 3 and 4. '
(10) Planned Camiunity Text Amendment No. 10, dated May 23, 1977
incorporating the following change: '
a. Delete the provision added by Resolution No. 8261 adopted
by the City Council on June 10, 1974 from Section III, D,6.
(11) . Planned Camiunity Text Amendment No. 11, dated April 10, 1978 '
incorporating the following change:
a. Establish guidelines for an exception to the minimum site area. '
(12) . Planned Camunity Text Amendment No. 12, dated July 11, 1978
incorporating the following change: '
a. Revised the allowable building height for Parcel No. 1
of Re-subdivision No. 585. '
(13) . Planned Camwnity Text Amendment No. 13, dated November 27, 1978
incorporating the following changes:
a. Rest+;ramnt that a Phasing Plan be approved by the Planning '
Commission for seventy (70) percent of the undeveloped allowable
building area existing as of October 1, 1978.
(14) Planned C=mity Text Amendment No. 14, dated June 11, 1979
incorporating the following changes: '
a. Reduce the allowable building area of Industrial Site 3A
b, Reduce the allowable building area of Camiercial/Professional
and Business Office Site 1 and 2.
- 37 - '
' FOOTNOTES, (cont'd)
' *15. Planned Camninity Text Amendment No. incorporating
the following:
' a. Increase the allowable building area for Site 5.
1
1
' *Project Amendment
' — 37 — A
' APPENDIX D
TPP DEVELOPMENT PHASING, NEWPORT PLACE
1
i
APPENDIX D
TPP Developmen as g - Newport Place
RFNAINING FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR FOR
ALLOWED OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY
OWNER SQ.FT. 1979-SQ.FT. 1980-SQ.FT. 1981-SQ.YT. 1982-SQ.FT. 1983-SQ.FT. 1985-SQ.FT.
Undeveloped Parcels,
Emkay 292,388 -0- 206,269 66,442 -0_
Bear Brand Ranch 61,000 61,00D -0_ 'O' -0-
'0- -0- _0_ -a-
Air California 40,951 -0- 40,951 -0- -0- -0- _0_
Ketchum 87,019 87,019 -0- -0- -0- -0-
Boyle Engineering
(Arend. No. 1) 12,000 -0- -0- 12,000 -0_
Lucas Development Co.
(Amend. No. 2) 17,000 -0- -0- 27,000 _O- _0- -0-
Far West S 6 L
(Amend. No. 3) 17,000 -0- -0- -0- 17,000 -0- _0_
University Athletic Club
(Amend. No. 4) 5162 -0- -0_
. 'O' -0- 516 -0-
Sheraton Hotel Expansion
(Amend. No. 5) 119 (Rooms)2 -0- - -0- -0- '0- -0- 119 (Room)
I proposed conference room sq.ft.
2 proposed hotel
1
' APPENDIX E
COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST
JANUARY 1984
I
1
II
APPENDIX E
COMMITTED PROJECTS — JANUARY 1984
a
OCCUPIED
QUANITY 5/83 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
1 Hughes Aircraft (industrial) 13,000aq.ft. 100%
2. Hoag Hospital (community facility) 268 Beds Oa 0 '
3. Par Hest Savings and Loan (office) 17,000aq.ft, 200% 0
4 Pacesetter Homes (office) 50,0003q.ft. Oa 0 `
S. Aeronutronic Ford (residential) 300 units Oa 0 • (8a) 25 units occupied (38 units in 86)
6 Back Bay Office (office) 69,720sq.ft. Oa
7. Boyle Engineering (office) 12,000sq.ft. loos 0
e. Cal Canadian Bank (office) 18,100sq.ft. 100►
9. -Civic Plaza (office)
Library 0
Office 81,812sq.ft. 100% O
Art Museum 10,000sq.ft. Oa 0
Restaurant 8,000sq.ft. Oa 0
Office 152,894sq.ft. Oa 0
Theater 20,0009q.ft. 0% 0
10. Corporate Plaza (office)
Office 39,026sq.ft. loot 0
Office 101,150sq.ft. Oa O
11. )Coll Center Newport
(office, industrial)
Hotel 440po Oa O
Office 225,198sq.ft. Oa O
Office - 100,736sq.ft. Oa 0
12. MacArthur Court (office)
Office 100,000sq.ft. 75% O
Office - 258,000sq.ft. Oa 0
Office 21.600sq.ft. loot
14. North Ford (industrial)
Industri
15. O rcal'Of
fice 295,0009q.ft. Oa 0 +
hard Office (office) 70,000sq.ft. lOOi
16. Pacific Mutual Plaza
Office 245,000sq.ft. 75% 0
Restaurant S,000sq.ft. 100% O
17. 3701 Birch Office (office) 19,264sq.ft. 100%
18. Newport Place (office)
EMKAY (Office) 206,269sq.ft. 100%
Bear Brand Ranch (Office) 61,000sq.ft. 100%
Air Calif. (Office) 40,951sq.ft. Oa
Ketchum (Office) 87,019sq.ft. Oa
EHKAY (Office) 66 441sq.ft. 0% 0
i ion ! m m m i m
APPENDIX E
COMMITTED PROJECTS — JANUARY 1984
s
OCCUPIED
UANITY 5/63 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
19. shokrian (office) 24,000E .ft. 0s 0
20. Bank of Ne ort (office) 100E
21. Ba side S uare (office) 34,300E .ft. 100E
22. sea Island (residential) 132units Oa
23. Ba ood A artments (residential) 68units Os 0 "
24. Harbor Point Homes (residential) 2lunits Os 0
25. Roger's Gardens (commercial) As submitted 100%
26. Seaview Lutheran Plaza (residential) 300 units 100% 0
27. Rudy Baron (office)
Retail 7,500E .ft. Oa 0
Office 8,500E .ft. 0s 0 "
28. uail Business Center (office) 17,000E .ft. 100a
29. 441 Ne rt Blvd. (office) 11,000E .ft. 100% '
30. Martha's Vineyard
Restaurant 2,9205 .ft. Os 0
Office 15,831E .£t. Oa 0
31. Valdez - 3101 W. Coast Hw .(Office) 41,494sq.ft. Os 0
32. Coast Business Center(Office) 37,000E .ft. Os 0
33. Koll Center Newport and No. 1 TPP
office 7,650E .ft. Os 0
office [-7,640sq.ft.) 0
34. Amendment No. 1 Ford Aare TPP
Industrial 15,000E .ft. 100E
industrial 123,OOOsq.£t. 3008 "
Industrial 300,000E .ft. 100% 0
industrial 70,000E .ft. Oa 0
Industrial 25,000E .ft. Os * 0 "
Industrial 25,OOOsq.ft. 08
35. Ross Mollard - 1511 a 1252 Superior
(Med. O) 25,000E .ft. Os " 0
36. Banning/Newport Ranch
Office 235,600E .ft. Os 0
Industrial 164,400E .ft. Os 0 "
Residential 406units Os 0 "
38. Hughes (Industrial)(REV 9/e/83) 110,000E .ft. 0! 0
39. Park Lido (Medical Office) 65,269E .ft. Os 0
40. Heritage Bank
Bank 6,100E .ft. 0s 0
General Office 17,465sq.ft. Os 0
Medical Office 13,323E .ft. 0% 0 '
APPENDIX E
COMMITTED PR JE TS - JANUARY 1984
t
OCCUPIFW
4UANITY 5/62 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
41. Flagship Hospital 68 beds Ot 0
42. Big Canyon 10 33 units Ot 0
43. Fun Zone
Office 26,320 sq.ft. Ot 0
Retail 16,165 sq.ft. Ot 0
Restaurant 6,866 sq.ft. Ot 0 +
44. Marriott Hotel 234 rooms Oa 0
45. St. Andrews Church 1,400 capacity Ot 0
46. YMCA (Expansion) 45.000 sq.ft. Ot 0
47. Allred Condos 50 units Ot 0
48. Morgan Development 17 units as O +
49. Four Seasons 325 rooms Ot 0
50. Univ. Ath. Club TPP 4 EMKAY 516 sq.ft. Ot 0
51. _Block 400 Medical 80,000 sq.ft. 0% 0
52. Sheraton Hotel 119 rooms Ot
53. North Ford (Amend No.l TPP)
Residential 300 units Ot 0 +
Residential 450 units 0► O
Residential 6 Park 138 units Ot 0
Commercial 50,000 sq.ft. Ot - 0
54. MacArthur/Court "Block C^
Amend No.l TPP) 21,600 sq.ft. 100% O
Office 100,000 sq.ft. 75% 0 • _
Office 258,000 sq.ft. 02% O
Office 295,000 sq.ft. Ot 0
55. National Education Revised (office) 41,250 sq.ft. Ot +
56. Amend No. 2 Ford Aare TPP (Belcourt) 130 units 07% 0
57. Carver (office) 15,000 sq.ft. Ot 0 +
i
I
I
PROJECTS
FRED2
Revised 1-25-84
i
i
' APPENDIX f
PROJECT RELATED EXPANSION POTENTIAL - NEWPORT PLACE
APPENDIX F
1400 DOVE STREET
PROJECT-RELATED X N POTENTIAL
Existing Existing
Address Block Number Gross Sq.Ft. Parking Comment on Expansion Potential
Dove Street
1201 GG 82,800 349 These parcels are developed with high-rise structures
(6 stories) which represent a relatively high intensity of use.
They are not anticipated to be influenced by small
1301 BB 219,000 N.A.1 scale development such as the proposed project
(10 stories) (This assumption encompasses 1201 Dove St. - Biock
GG, 1301 Dove Street - Block BB, and 1401 Dove Street
1401 AA 77,260 N.A. - Block AA.)
(6 stories)
1600 H 60,675 223 1600 and 1601 Dove Street are also developed to a
(4 stories) fairly high intensity. Expansion potential with
existing parking is limited. (1250-4250 sq.ft. for
1601 W & Z 74,170 278 1600 Dove Street, 3000-6750 sq.ft. for 1601 Dove
(2 stories) Street depending on net sq.ft./parking ratio.)
MacArthur
Boulevard
4001 Q 33,075 146 4001 MacArthur Blvd. is a new development (Far West
(3 stories) Savings). Expansion potential with existing parking
could range from 3375 sq.ft. to 8500 sq.ft. depending
on net sq.ft./parking ratio. Expansion is not con-
sidered probable in the foreseeable future, however,
due to the age of the development.
1 - Information not available in Building Permit files.
2 - Expansion potential estimated based upon assumption of all surface parking, with compact spaces. Ratios of
_ , ardn nata netaft d I ce �r 250 fit.M a c'uTated based n 1M% r of� M net
APPENDIX F
1400 DOVE STREET
PROJECT-RELATED X N N POTENTIAL
Existing Existing
Address Block Number Gross Sq.Ft. Parking Comment on Expansion Potential
MacArthur
Boulevard
cont.
4041 P 149,815 668 Similar to 1201, 1301 and 1401 Dove Street, this
(3-5 stories) site is not anticipated to be influenced by small-scale
development projects in the area. The development
is also relatively new in age. Expansion potential
based upon existing parking is estimated at 16,650
sq.ft, to 43,250 sq.ft, however. (Daon building)
4101 0-1 21,511 N.A. The structure on-site is a new bank building occupied
(2 stories) by the Bank of America. No data on existing parking
was located, thus no estimate of expansion based
on parking is possible. The site, however, is part
of Site 5 of the Newport PC and shares an allocation
for future expansion with Block N (see below) . Based
on the age of the existing structure, no alteration
is expected in the near future.
4141 N 70,531 N.A. Based upon the Newport Place PC, Site 5 which Block
(3 stories) N is part of has a total of 165,480 sq.ft. allocated
to it for development. Expansion could be-.influenced
by the proposed project based on proximity and the
similarity of use. No data has been located on exist-
ing parking, thus it is not possible to estimate
expansion potential based on parking. An allocation
of approximately 63,042 sq.ft, could be available
according to PC District regulations, however. The
age of existing development is considerd a restrain-
ing factor on expansion in the near future.
APPENDIX F
140 D�V€ S'rIFEET
PROJECT-RE PROJECT-REATED EXPANSIOWPOTENTIAL
Existing Existing
Address Block Number Gross Sq.Ft. Parking Comment on Expansion Potential
MacArthur
Boulevard
con .
4299 J 27,608 115 The existing use is a 2 story office building with
(2 stories) all tuck-under parking. Expansion potential based
on existing parking is estimated at 1125-5750 sq.ft.
depending on net sq.ft./parking ratio. Expansion
on this site could be influenced by the proposed
project due to proximity and similarity of use although
a PC amendment would be required. Design of the
existing building also considered a restraining
factor on potential expansion.
4301 I 12,000 N.A. Data on existing parking not located in search of
(2 stories) records. Existing use is a Savings and Loan. Expan-
sion potential felt to be limited by current intensity
of use and small lot size,
' APPENDIX G
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
W+ AWOW Pniggk ad Aaaodain �
TRAFFIC R TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
December 14, 1983
Ms. Marie Gilliam '
1825 Westcliff, Suite 177
Newport Beach, CA 92660 '
Dear Ms. Gilliam:
This letter summarizes our analysis of the he traffic factors related to the '
proposed office development on the northeast corner of Newport Place Drive
and Dove Street in the City of Newport Beach. The study is based upon in-
formation provided by you, Me. William Langston and the City Staff. This
study has been conducted to conform to the requirements of the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach. '
PROJECT DESCRIPTION '
The project consists of the completion of the second floor of an existing
building to add 4,000 square feet of office use and the construction of a '
new, 15,000 square foot office building. The 4,000 square foot addition
is proposed for 1984 with the 150000 square foot building to be completed '
in 1985. A total of 19,000 square feet of office use is proposed to be
added to the site by 1985. Vehicular access to the site is provided from '
both Newport Place Drive and Dove Street.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The streets in the area of the project are fully developed. Newport Place '
Drive is a four lane street with raised median which terminates at Dove
Street. There are two lanes of travel in each direction on Dove Street with
no median. PdrkinU is prohibiLed on both sLreeLs.. The intersection of '
Newport Place Drive and Dove Street is controlled with STOP signs on all
approaches. Figure 1 illustrates recent daily traffic volumes on principal ,
streets in the City and existing ICU values for major intersections.
2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 6 (714) 871.2931 '
' (.8044
(.6310 DR. .7132)
t Jy
a T.
(1.1673 u
' 44 @RI of ST. 8973) m •6360)
42 BRIS NORTH A7743)%10
' T�i ST
(.8773 17797
BONITA
LEGEND ti Jo� a � A
44 = DAILY TRAFFIC O ��
VOLUMES IN S
' THOUSANDS ` c k2607) `1�RD
(6310)= ICU VALUES <^ (.7760)
(.922 FORD
' 5)' eCG
m O
v' (.6823 LaBOA (•4431 0
' a F SPN M (.3819 OU�N .7090)
o V)
,w c~i a o o (.4920 w y7<<S RO.
(1.1141 S > o
to uj z In >(.7731
Q
a 9364) v A
O
31 28 45 g 59 � 34 .7490) _0 w
d� Cl 51 COAS H►yY 40 a�
�O .7092) PACIFIC (6232} a
�950 (.8929 pcg` g (Pq 8013 (.5767 40 34
O m O .7697)
.8678)
' EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND
I C U VA LU ES
WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 1
1
-2
TRIP GENERATION '
In order to examine potential traffic impacts it is necessary to estimate '
the number of trips that would be generated. 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 extent of development,
estimates of daily, 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour trip generation were '
obtained and are also listed in Table 1. As indicated in Table 1, the
project is estimated to generate 250 daily trip ends with 90 occurring
during the 2.5 hour peak period and 45 during the PM peak hour.
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Previous studies of projects in the Newport Place area have developed trip
distribution patterns which are applicable to the project. The trip dis-
tribution utilized for this study is illustrated on Figure 2. This dis-
tribution is for outbound trips from the site. Inbound trips would be the
same percentages in the opposite direction. By applying these distribution
percentages to the estimated trip generation, project trips were assigned '
to the street system.
CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION '
The Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach includes criteria
to determine potential traffic impacts of projects. As a starting point,
the City Traffic Engineer identified 13 intersections for initial examination.
The Traffic Phasing Ordinance defines an intersection as critical when, during
the 2.5 hour .peak period, the project traffic exceeds one percent of existing
plus committed project
p p Ject plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an
intersection.
Committed project traffic data were provided b the City and regional growth
P Y Y 9
tra
ffic was calculated utili
zing izin the it s established Cformula, projects
9 YJ
included as Committed in this study are listed in Table 2. The "One Percent"
analysis sheets are contained in Appendix A and the results are summarized '
in Table 3, Based upon information provided it Was assumed that the project ,
would be completed in 1985. As required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance,
-3-
tI
Table 1
TRIP GENERATION
Newport Place/Dove
' PERIOD RATE(') TRIP ENDS(2)
Daily 13.0 250
2.5 Hour Peak
' In 1.2 25
Out 3.4 65
tTotal 90
t PM Peak Hour
In 0.6 10
Out 1.7 35
Total 45
' (1)Trip Ends per 1,000 Square Feet
(2)Based upon 19,000 Square Feet
1
II '
30% '
12%
1
DR,
Jy
Q U '
40%
�' -----�RISTOL Sr m 12% 5•
8RISrOL Sr IYQ VN�v�Q
SITE
3 % 3% \ BONITA CYN.RD
� a
J �
m �
i
d
� RD.
FORD 49 '
O
3 % �D 12%
Spc1 AQU�N '
<<S RD.
0
m
3% a
GOAST llwy.
PAW 1G '
I2% '
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION '
WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE Z ,
-4-
' Table 2
' COMMITTED PROJECTS M
Newport Place/Dove
Hoag Hospital Coast Business Center
Pacesetter Homes Koll Center Newport No. 1 TPP
Aeronutronic Ford Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero
' Back Bay Office Ross Mollard
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 Expansion
University Athletic Club a4 NorthFord Amend. No. 1
' MacArthur Court Amend. No. i y National Education Revised
Amendment No. 2 Ford Aero Banning/Newport Ranch
' Civic Plaza
' (')Projects with 100% occupancy were not listed.
-5- '
Table 3
CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION '
Newport Place/Dove
l
LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES - 1986
NB SB EB WB
Bristol Street N. & Campus Drive - - - 0.2 1
Bristol Street N. & Birch Street 0.7 0.3 - 0.2
Bristol Street N. & Jamboree Road 0.1 0.1 -
Bristol Street & Campus Drive - Irvine Ave. 0.7 0.1 0.1 -
Bristol Street & Birch Street - - 0.1
Bristol Street & Jamboree Road 0.1 O.1 - -
Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Dr. - Ford Rd. 0.1 0.1
Janlobree Road & Eastbluff Dr. N. 0.1 0.1 - -
Jamboree Road & MacArthur Blvd. 0.1 0.3 0.1 - 1
Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 0.1 0.1 0.2
MacArthur Blvd. & Ford Road 0.1 0.1 - -
MacArthur Blvd. & Bison Avenue 0.1 0.1
MacArthur Blvd. & Campus Avenue 0.1 0.2 - -
1
ICI
. 1
-6-
' the analysis- was then completed for one year after completion on 1986.
Review of Table 3 indicates that all intersections passed the "One Percent"
test. Based upon the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the pro-
ject would not have a traffic impact.
' SUMMARY
This study has examined traffic factors related to the proposed office ex-
pansion project at Newport Place Drive and Dove Street in the City of Newport
Beach. The study was conducted to conform to the requirements of the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance of the City. Based upon the conditions and criteria of the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project would not have a traffic impact.
The following are principal findings of the study.
' 1 . The project would generate 250 daily trip ends with 90 occurring
during the 2.5 hour peak period and 45 during the PM peak hour.
2. All intersections passed the "One Percent test of the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance which indicates no traffic impacts.
MITIGATION MEASURES
There are no mitigation measures required for this project with regard to
traffic 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 AND)ASSOCIATES
C C ••f•�r `<' C �
Weston S. Pringle, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565
WSP/lu
' H835M
1
APPENDIX A
2.5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
1986
t
I�
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol St. N. / Campus Dr. *
(Existing
�Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 19 83
Peak 2y Hour Approved _ _----_•••---- ---_
I Approacn Existing I Regional Projects Projected 1:: of Projected Project
' Nrection Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2L Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound j 2215 I r74' 2 24�57 25 t�
Southbound j 3857 4 `f`1 2
4-3g2 44 '
I; Eastbouno ---- I 1 — I
ii Westbound 9151 f rj ' 7 7 7 1 , 043T I t o Z8 o. 2�
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.
sill ,
DATE: I q 6
' PROJECT:
FORM I
1
• 1
1% Traffic Volume Analysis _
Intersection Bristol St. ,N. / Birch St. '
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1993T_
Peak 2y Hour —Approved
! Approacn I Existing � Regional Projects Projected I + 1'. of Projected ' Project
1 Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 21% Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2y Hour
i Volume Volume volum
e Volume Volume Volume
I; Northbound "
I loan
I 1 � ► I l 7
I
SOuthbound —
110 S¢
-••.•• 3 i Co 91
Eastbound — •' — I
il westbound 6963 7$
u
r P oject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
j
L�J
Pea
k k 2� Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater 'ter than 1% of Projected 9 J
❑ Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Ca a
(I.C.U.� Anal uired P city Utilization
ysis is re q
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
DATE: jg6 1
PROJECT:
t•ORM ,
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol St. N. Jamboree Rd.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr9ng _
' Peak 2y Hour Approved I(
ApD roacn� Existing Regional Projects Projected I� Y. of Projected Project
Cirection i Peak 2y Hour I Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour' i Peak 21, Hour PeaK 2y ocur Volume Volume Volume Volume _ Volume -- Volure
.� Horthbriund 5705 13 '7 7 2 64135 (0S I CQ.f��
' Southbound 2707 ! _ 3(O / 33 Of5Q Z_- Q.� �)
Eastbound _ — � — •---••—I --. _r—_. I ..•---�----
! Westbound—' _+ -- ._—•y
1531
1 -7
' 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.
1
1
I
1
t
tDATE: I �h
PROJECT:
' f3RM I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol St. Cam us Dr. - Irvine Ave.
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Verage Inter/spring 19 _
i�- i Peak 2� Hour_ Approved
Approach I Existing Regional Projects Projected 1'. of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2', Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume Volume Volume nVolume Volume Volume
I' Northbound I980 2q 2IIs Z210 � 2Z I (0.1
Sorthbound 2559 �o�_ 2 �4'S 2 $�00 2q 2 60. i °
' Eastbound 8577 _ I O�_— I slv 3 l L93 0
it Westbound �� r — — i «.— •
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume ,
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization '
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: '
fG?''t 1
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol St. / Birch St.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average
inter pring 983
Peak 2y Hour Approved
11 Approach Existing Regional I Projects Projected 1'� of Projected Project
;irection Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21, Hour Peax 2- ncur
Volume volume I Volume Volume Volume Volure
horthViund 358 I 3s 1 4
Southbound i I --�— 'j q
991 I—�— ---- G0----a—
' �; Eastbound 7225
is Westbound
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
' Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is cstfuwted to be greater than 1% of Projected
' Peak Z; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
1 '
DATE: Iq8'
PRW ECT:
' FORM I
17 Irailit: Volume Analy0 s
Intersection Bristol St. / Jamboree Rd.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _)
Peak 2y Hour � Approved '- -.�.._.»:� • �--��---:��-
II hpproacil I Existing Regional Projects Projected V. of Projected Project
I Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2ti Hour
I Volume I volume volume Volume � Volume
iNorthbound t i 5362 77 Z
i Southbound 1703 1 G 1 �3/5 207Q 2� Z /0• e tv (, o
Eastbound
5499 G 1 7S,1 63 �p"(
eestoound
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is est
imated to be Projected
rester than 1� of Pro '9
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
I.0.U. Analysis is required.
DATE: M6
PROJECT: '
FORM, I
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Jamboree Rd / Eastbluff Dr.-Ford Rd.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 8
1 r— Peek 2y Hour I Approved
Approach , Existing Regional 'Projects Projected 1': of Projected Project
Direction Peak 21i hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2% Hour Peak 21, Hour , Peak 25 Hour
1 Volume i Volume Volume Volume i Volume Volute
1i Northbound 4106 4417 4-9 I (0,�0�)
' southbound 3898 5q5 44 (� 45
-- -- 4----Eastbound o-
1213--4 — -- --- - ---�--- _.--._—. -- —
1' Westoound 796 I
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.
' - DATE•
PROJECT:
FORY. I
1
1% Traffic Volume Analysis '
Intersection Jamboree Rd. / Eastbluff Dr. N.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 83
Peek 2y Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects — Projected 1" of Projected Project
Direction i Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21A Hour Peak 25 Hour
:I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Volume
Nortnoound 1 4524 757 5Z67
SoutnDounE Soso 7 SGG 51'5-3 SR 2 Co,
Ear scb°°a° 468 ' i 4c6 5
a' —� --
Westbound ' �
Ef Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume
1
O 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
DATE: I 56 '
PROJECT. t
' J
1
' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Jamboree B1. / MacArthur Bl .
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring _
---•--�--- —r Peak 2y Hour T--APDroved ----!•- _ --• •_ ------
:;;roacn Existing Regional Projects Projected I I"• of P—•rojected Protect
:�recticn Peak 2, rour Growth I Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21, Hour Peax 21 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume Volume
hortnboune 1632 6 4-21 20,51 � 2I I f.,O)
Southbound 3086 I6,54 "3 I 4 ' S b
Eastbound
Westbound I 1895 ��5 2'�3 2 Z I �•t ��/
�I I 3320 _ J _ Z 2 10 '5542-
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
tPeak 2� Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
'G Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
1 '
' DATE:
' PRO,:ECT. FORM I
11 fraffic Volume Analysis
Jamboree Rd. Campus Dr. '
Intersection / p
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 83
1, Peak 2% Hour Approved
F
PProacn Existing Regional Projects — Projected 1 of Projected ^— Project
:.irection Peak 25 Hour ' Growth Peak 2% Hour Peak 21t, Hour Peak 21, hour i Peak 24 ncur '
Volume 1 Volume Volume Volume Volume Volure
n _
hortnoound 2995 IO S3I 3S34� 39 4 (o.l
Southbound l 2442,!_- q 5 7q 3o30 3o __ 4 Cot �,
Eastbound AA i 1
1806 , 13 2243 , 22 4 (�,2
.es toound 1484 D 1�O t�
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
u 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. Y 9 Analysis is required.
P Y
1
1
x
DATE: I"I 6 t
PROJECT:
FO^,f t
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
' Intersection MacArthur Bl . / Ford Rd.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average
inter pring 19 83
Peak 2, Hour APProved
fPproacn Existing �I '' Regional Projects Projected 1'. of Projected Project
' Cirection Peak 2, Hour — Growth Peak 2, Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 2), Hour Peak 2� Hour
Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Volume
Northbound 3086 I -7*jp 3-6Z7 -3/40
southbound 5045 1 I � 18 5�81 _C77� S Co, l /)
1' Eastbound ' 919 ; q Iq ; 0
1! Meatoound 1056 O y 1056
' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume
tProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
' [] Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
' DATE:
PROJECT:
' FORM 1
1% Traffic Volume Analysis '
Intersection MacArthur B1 . / Bison Ave.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 83
Peak 2y Hour Approved _ i
Fpproacn E (sting Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Lirection Peak 2y nour Growtn Peak 24 Hour Peak 2% Hour Peak 21 Hour
Volume ' Volume Volume Volume Volume PeaVolureCPr '
Nortnbound 4096 I` �4 �3o ` 4�o
;j Southbound 5400 � �-7G' _ G ($7 60 $ Co.t o
�i Eastbound ' 11
Westbound
gyp{ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
uuu Peak 24 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.
DATE:
FARM ;
' 1% traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MacArthur B1 . / Campus Dr.
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 83
'�--- •---• Peak 2k Hour Approved -- ---•— — ..—. _.—__•.—
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lfi of Projected Project
' I Direction i Peak 2k Hour I Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour 1 Peak 21, hour I Peak 2y hour
? I Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume Volume
Q �37 '3G2Z 36 20 (0.69-e Northbound 2881
!' Southbound I 3044 4 6�0 3ZZ�s I 3�, �5 0, 2l�
' Eastoound 1730 42 20Z �•
! O o
Westbound _ 1976 ; 44 _� 775� 2Zgq _j :Z 6 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 2= Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
' DATE: la
PROJECT:
Form I
_-