No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS041_FASHION ISLAND IIIIIIII IIII I� IIIII II�III IIIII IIII01111III IIII t INITIAL STUDY for The Newporter Inn Expansion 1107 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, CA ' July 29, 1985 Prepared for: The City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 644-3225 ' Prepared by: Marie E. Gilliam/Associates 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 645-0939 I, 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Page 1 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . ... .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 Location. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 3 Project Characteristics. . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of the Proposed Project to Development 1 Standards and the General Plan. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Committed Projects. . . . . . . . . . 13 PermitsRequired. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ArchaeologicalResources. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1 Drainage/Water Quality. . . . . . . 17 Visual/Aesthetic Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Traffic and Circulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1 Public Services and Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 1 REFERENCES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 APPENDICES 1 Appendix A - Environmental Checklist Appendix B - Summary of Applicable Standard City Policies and Requirements 1 Appendix C - Committed Projects Appendix D - Archaeological Report Appendix E - Drainage Analysis Appendix F - Water Quality Analysis Appendix G - Water Quality Tests Appendix H - Traffic Analysis Appendix I - Parking Management Plan 1 1 1 1 � 1 � 1 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES 1 - Regional Location. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .... ... .... .. . 4 2 - Vicinity Map... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . . . . . . . • 5 3 - Site Plan.. . . . ... .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... .. . ..... . . ... . . 6 ' 4 - Overall Elevation. . . . .. . . . . 8 5 - Typical Floor Plan - New Room Addition. . 9 6 - Elevations - New Room Addition. . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . 10 7 - Elevation - Plaza Ballroom Pre-function Area. . .. . .. . . .. . . 11 8 - Site Photo Index. . 21 9A & B - Site Photos... .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . 22, 23 ' l0A & B _ Panorama Views. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 25 11 Existing Traffic Volumes and ICU Values. . 28 12 - Project Daily Traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 13 - Peak Parking Capacity. . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... .. ... . . . .. ... . .. . . . 33 ' TABLES ' A _ Statistical Summary Newporter Inn Expansion. . . . ... . . . . . . . 7 B Traffic Generation. . 29 C - ICU Summary. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . 30 ' INTRODUCTION ' This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State EIR Guidelines and procedures of the City of Newport Beach for the implementation of CEQA. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether or not the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment, either ' on an individual or a cumulative basis, and to identify any feasible miti- gation measures. This Initial Study focuses on areas of potentially significant environmental 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 identification 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 environmental 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 37. City of Newport Beach Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach (714) 644-3225 ' 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 Westgroup Inc. 523 W. Sixth St. , Suite 330 Los Angeles, CA 90014 t1 1 Applicant's Project Consultant Mitchell K. Brown, AICP Urban Assist, Inc. 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite A-2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 556-9890 ' 2 ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Location The project address is 1107 Jamboree Rd. in Newport Beach. Backbay Drive ' adjoins the property to the south. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate project location within a regional and local setting respectively. ' Project Characteristics The project site is 25.7 acres in size and is occupied by the existing Newporter Inn, which has a total of 311 guest rooms, three restaurants, a bar and related facilities. Recreational facilities provided by the hotel include a 9 hole golf course and 2 swimming pools. A total of 747 parking spaces exist on-site in several lots. Building heights of existing structures vary from one to three stories. The project applicant proposes a series of modifications to the existing structures to unify architectural elements. Modifications to the La Palme restaurant, the Bistro and the Library lounge are also planned. While ' the proposed changes will expand seating areas, they primarily involve the reallocation of interior spaces. Among architectural features proposed is a 50 ft. cupola to be constructed to incorporate the existing elevator tower (37 feet) in the main building lobby area. (This cupola is proposed to be lighted• at night.) The applicant also proposes to construct a new wing of 106 guest rooms in a 2 story building to be located in what is presently a valet parking area. Figure 3 illustrates the Site Plan and calls out items subject to discretionary approval . Table A provides a statistical summary of existing features and lists all the modifications proposed. The proposed room addition will displace a small golf shop, a practice putting green and will require some modification to another green. In addition, the green located adjacent to Backbay Drive, where a fire access road is planned, will be affected by the project. Lower parking areas in front of the hotel will also be modified. A total of 728 parking spaces will be provided. Detailed comment on parking is contained in the Traffic/- Circulation chapter. Figures 4-7 illustrate building elevations and typical floor plans for additions to the hotel . The primary focus of this Initial Study will be the proposed room addition and cupola feature. Other elements of the proposal do not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. III 3 1 1 ilos angeles county �• �— —• — san bernardino county 1 • Riverside FwY IJ•`. 1 a 44� s s > 1 �•. O •� Anaheim ° LL I Orange •• l Garden Gr"a Fw riverside county 1 f Tustin o Santa O Ana \. 4 ` 1 San National 1 1 Beach Hunt gton Mesa sta � roject Site I^ .n Irvineot Newport , ......////// Beach a c� pacific ocean 1 Laguna Beach Orv693 1 San Juan Capistrano San Clemente san diego county REGIONAL LOCATION Figure 1 THE NEWPORTER - Westgroup, Inc. AE i r c�.xxy! 1 TT]s g „�._._�� oar qy IT,y . _.. J L tl t,e ` �' ` Icy � •^ ' \�� SA Nj i • _+.r,}. i .ai ; 'y,,•ti,,,��� +9••.S \a) 1 NEWODR7 CENTER ULD ..4._ '`.��'�mr�"�,�4i �'• '•� ' ) ' `\ , •mil I � .....: • `` J Up VIP 10 ve ve I 1 t4' 1�._n.%• � n[ '�� � � ` ,• � Obi. 'i 1a ri6wns •. ?,,;: .., i f^��y, ,,..,,a"^:c• erg'.°._ �,� ' a ` 6� `+ ^! Sb✓"�.. �c_3aanlC_I�ial'd_ o\� -n�J•° '._lo�s� .\� ,•!+ a + I r .. ��e , 1. nd6• i1.5 0+ �¢J.?/�•—... � 4' •'odJl' ,��Vy) !�� 11 °4• 9p � i � ) , ,r�av+'�..g.00ct`• )• PROJECT VICINITY Figure 2 THE NEWPORTER - Westgroup, Inc. ��E I 1 — •fl ��_- -+.-�1 GOLF COURSE �PPfG ea -�/ --// ,Y.. , ffxr`t gyp\ / •j. / lI / _ 11 GOP " XIST.CABANA - \ �GOLF COURSE y. 1 ` ��// ii •-/�� - \ EAST.SPA 563 SPACED 'Jpf#y5-� �'� 1 W pEs` OU� TOOOq OINNIO } 1 U - p LIY(F OF EXIST. RELOCATE GREEN NEW LANE ^ PARKING LOL i m - : Items Subject To Use Permit Guest Room Addition i • {�fFEEYNOOSEA-10- _ EXIST. JOHN WAYNE TENNIS CLUB 60 SPACES —�{--�-,-- t I • � 2- Plaza Ballroom Pre-Function Area MEETING ROOMS _ _ - 3-Cupola -- -- - - - - — - — - - ^� — "— 4- LaPalme/Garden Terrace Dining 1 -- JAMBOREE ROAD 5—LeBistro Outdoor Dining 1 - SITE PLAN Figure 3 THE NEWPORTER - Westgroup, Inc. Source:The Landau Partnership, Inc.Santa Monica, CA 1 1 � TABLE A 1 STATISTICAL SUMMARY NEWP RTER INN EXPANSION I i 1 IMOORTER INN HOTEL j Statisti cal Summary iApproved Use Existing Use Proposed Use Net Change �i or Use Number or Size Number or Size Number or Size Number or Size 1 HOTEL ROOMS 323 311 417 +106 rooms VILLAS 4 4 4 — 1 MEETING ROOMS: - Plaza Ballroom 7,000 sf (465 occ.) 6,720 sf (448 occ.) 6,720 sf (448 occ.) 2 — i (Mcnte Carlo) - Patio Room 3,300 sf (220 occ.) 2,800 sf (185 occ.) 2,800 sf (185 occ.) (Empire) 1 - Terrace Room 2,800 sf (185 occ.) 2,735 sf (182 occ.) 2,735 sf (182 occ.) - (Carousel) - 8 Small Roans 2,250 sf (150 occ.) 6,018 sf (401 occ.)1 7,258 sf (484 occ.) +1240 sf 1 REST_A�S: - IA PAINE 250 seats 2,150 s£ (Marine Dining) 7,600 sf 6 +1400 sf i - LIBRARY LOUNGE 250 seats 31650 sf (Lido lounge) 3 - BISTRO 80 seats 1,450 sf 2,650 sf +1,200 sf wQII�S�L� 20 seats 660 sf 1 660 sf - SHOPS 3,000 sf 2,180 sf 2,180 sf - 1 OFFICES 4,000 sf 4,565 sf 4,565 sf - Required Parking: 602 spares 632 spares 722 spaces 1 Proposed Parking: 728 spaces 1. 0he Garden Roan was formerly part of +J-,e Marine Dining R>o SYnall meeting rows in the Teizace Building ule foin-e ,cyst roans. i 2. Does not include proposal to cover the existing pre-function area. 3. Does not include the existing outdoor eating area. 4. The CHE S�a BAR occupied the space that is now the gift shop. 5. The WINE CELLAR was formerly part of the Marine Dining Roan. 1 6. LTA PA ME Restaurant and the LIBRARY LOUNGE- are being combined to form one space with outdoor eating area in the garden. 1240 sf fran LA PAIME is being added to the Garden Roan, 1300 sf from the LIBRARY is being added to the Lobby. 1 Source: The Landau Partnership 7/85 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 r.'1-ii-I-r�"" M�olo 1 1 ♦ v OVERALL ELEVATION Flgare� t. THE NEWPORTER - WestgrouP, . ♦ �. ;,' soiwer n»una.0 r.ivnr.nw.Ino. a.n4 Moetca CA, 1 POOL AREA � - - I i I 0-6 S To ' 1 _- - --- - OF I - - _. 1 r I I _ - I SUITE 1 In I I BEDRDa'1 Uvlwv K —�4 �M 1 r'- � SZ KOONY� °'� ! I ! I I I t 1 i i I I I I I I i , I I I I I TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN (1 ST FLOOR) — NEW ROOM ADDITION Figure 5 THE NEWPORTER — Westgroup, Inc. Source: The Landau Partnership, Inc. Santa Monica, CA 1 ' __.....II 6� IT A= 0 SOUTH ELEVATION (End of Wing) (West Elev. Similar, Stair Reversed) itm WMI NORTH ELEVAT10N (East Similar) SOUTH ELEVATION (At Pool) ELEVATIONS NEW ROOM ADDITION Figurd 6 Source:The Landau Partnership, Inc.Santa Monica, CA 'THE NEWPORTER - Westgroup, Inc. A E EA"er" UNIT a Arty, •p� MEVIUM PQOfltl-1 paAm �, p �t.k>LE GUZEfl. C.itJ2 TLR-`cUC. Lh.1F1--S�/ SfflJDIAI� 9CMA 9`SZTLIA Q N' I I � � , i i I i i r i m)<ra s &""L IHOugkG ¢- i 6W-VA ri-S" MCA I 1 //1 MCfCL F?XdF.� ELEVATION - PLAZA BALLROOM PRE-FUNCTION AREA Figure 7 THE NEWPORTER - Westgroup, Inc. Source: TM Landau Partnonhip, Inc. Santa Monaco. CA IA Comparison of the Proposed Project to the General Plan, Planning Programs and Development Standards The proposed project must be developed within the framework of applicable planning programs and ordinances, which are examined below. ' General Plan Land Use Element_ The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project site for Recreational and Marine the uses. This category allows hotels, motels, restaurants, specialty shops and office uses ancillary to the primary use. As such, the existing and proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. ' Circulation Element. The Circulation Element of the General Plan designates Jamboree Road as a Major Roadway (6 lane divided highway) . Jamboree Road is improved to City standards adjacent to the project site although it is not presently striped for six travel lanes. ' Other' Elements. Consultation with the Newport Beach Planning Department indicates that the proposed project is in compliance with all other relevant elements of the General Plan. ' Local Coastal Program (LCP) The property is located within the Coastal Zone. The land use component of the Local Coastal Program has been certified by the State Coastal Com- mission. The City is presently in the process of developing an implementation plan which, when approved by the state, will allow the reversion of permitting ' authority to the City of Newport Beach. At the present time, however, the proposed project requires State Coastal Commission approval . The Land Use Plan of the LCP designates the project site for "Recreational and Marine Commercial" use, consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The LCP states that the intent of the designation is to promote the continuation of hotel uses on-site. All uses proposed are ' allowed within the LCP land use designation. Zoning The project site is located in a "U" - Unclassified District. The "UII classification permits all uses not otherwise prohibited by law, provided a Use Permit is approved for all features proposed. Needless to say, there are no specific development standards for the "U" zone. Consequently, the most informative comparison is between the existing and the proposed use. Table A, page 7, provides the majority of this information. 12 The only significant feature not noted in Table A is building height. As noted in the project description, the maximum height of existing structures ' is 3 stories, or 27.5 feet. The new guest room addition is proposed to be 2 stories in height (22 ft.) . Proposed modifications to the hotel, as previously noted, also include a 50 ft. cupola feature in the main lobby area. This structure is proposed to be constructed above the existing 37 ft. elevator shaft. Although the project site is located in an Unclassified District, it is ' also within the Shoreline Height Limitation District. This district allows structures to a height of 26 feet, or to 35 feet upon review and approval of a Use Permit. Certain provisions of the Municipal Code may, however, allow approval of architectural features in excess of the 35 ft. maximum. Specifically Section 20.02.061 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that features such as cupolas, weathervanes, wrought iron railings and other decorative rooftop features of an open nature in excess of height ' limits may be approved by the Planning Commission. Due to the non-functional and ornamental nature of the proposed cupola it appears this feature may be appropriate for such consideration. Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Committed Projects The proposed project is also subject to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance `(TPO) and Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the TPO. All projects involving 10,000 sq.ft. or more are subject to TPO provisions. 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 C to this report. The traffic analysis contained in the Traffic and Circulation section of this report is based upon considera- tion of the proposed project as well as committed projects listed. Permits Required The proposed project will require the following discretionary approvals. Approvals by other agencies are also listed. City of Newport Beach.. Permits required by the City are as follows: 1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . The acceptance of this environmental document and approval of a Negative Declaration (or preparation and acceptance of an EIR) is required. 2. Use Permit. Due to the fact that the project site is located in the"U" - Unclassified Zone all major features of the plan ' require approval of a Use Permit. These are listed below: 104 guest room addition. ' . Additions to the seating areas of the La Palme and Le Bistro Restaurants. . Modifications to the elevator shaft (including the cupola feature) and to the Plaza Ballroom (pre-function area) . ' . Valet parking operations and parking design layout. . Approval of compact and tandem parking spaces. 13 ' 3. Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A traffic study, as noted above, is requir ed to ascertain the impacts of project generated traffic on the local circulation system. (This study is contained in Appendix H.) Other Agencies. Permits required from other agencies are as follows: 1. State Coastal Commission. The proposed project will require a oastal Development Permit. I I ' 14 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES r 15 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Introduction The following discussion of archaeological resources pertaining to the ' expansion of the Newporter Inn is based on information prepared by Mr. Bill Breece, consulting archaeologist. Appendix D contains the complete report. Existing Conditions According to archaeological survey records maintained at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) , two sites have been recorded in the immediate area of the Newporter Inn. One site has been recorded on the hotel property while the other is located outside project boundaries. ' The archaeological site located within the hotel property is referred to as CA-Ora-99A. While the precise location of this site is somewhat unclear, records suggest that a portion of the site may lie under the parking lot where new construction is proposed. At the time of the original hotel construction, Ora-99A was truncated by the golf course located adjacent to the new guest wing. Records for Ora-99A indicate that the portion ' of the site closest to Jamboree Road contained the highest densities of artifactual materials (primarily marine shells) and that these resources were largely displaced by earth-moving operations. ' The other archaeological site noted, Ora-50, is located off the project site to the north. tPotential Impacts ' Because the existing Newporter Inn was constructed on property containing a previously recorded archaeological site (CA-Ora-99A) and because records regarding the disposition of cultural resources within the site are inade- quate, it is possible that cultural resources may still exist under portions of the parking lot area planned for new construction. Development activities may, therefore, impact remaining cultural resources related to CA-Ora-99A. Mitigation Measures ' City Council Policies K-5 and K-6 outline the City's requirements with respect to archaeological and paleontological resources. These measures are contained in Appendix B to this report. No other mitigation measures are considered necessary. Significance of Impacts Including Mitigation Measures The potential impacts to cultural resources from the proposed project are considered insignificant. 16 ' DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY Introduction Analyses of drainage and water quality concerns relative to the proposed project have been conducted by the firms of Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren and Short of Santa Ana and Kennedy/Jenks Engineers of Irvine. This 'chapter highlights their technical reviews which are contained in Appendices E and F to this report. �I Existing Conditions On-site Drainage. ' The south parking lot of The Newporter is located in a low-lying region. Surface water runoff currently discharges onto the south parking lot from the Sea Island development via two 36-inch-diameter drain pipes which run east to west under Jamboree Road. Prior to development, these drains carried runoff from approximately three-fourths of the Sea Island site plus a tributary area within the Irvine Coast Country Club Golf Course. During the Sea Island development, new grading altered surface runoff, ' allowing only two-thirds of the drainage to reach these drain pipes. Runoff from this area is continuous, with low volume flows year-round. ' A second drainage course runs east-west across the northerly portion of the Sea Island site and terminates at 36-inch and 48-inch CMP culverts which are located under Jamboree Road. Originally collecting one-fourth of the surface run-off of the Sea Island site, changes in grading now allow one-third of the surface runoff to reach these drains. Storm flows are also conveyed through both of these pipes and a 10-foot wide sidewalk underdrain located about 45 feet north of the two 36-inch pipes on Jamboree Road. ' Flow from the sidewalk underdrain channels the discharge from Jamboree Road and the hotel site runoff onto the south parking lot. Sheet flows, estimated at approximately 90 CFS, prevail across the parking lot during storm conditions. Sheet flow includes most of the runoff from the hotel 's drain spouts and from the uphill parking areas. Existing sediment loads do not currently pose a problem at the site. Some ponding of run-off occurs at the northeast corner of the lower lot, however, contributing to algae growth at various locations and a generally unsightly and potentially unsafe condition. Water from the two 36-inch-diameter drain pipes is channeled through the parking lot by an open concrete valley drain system. A series of small ' "bridges" currently provide pedestrian access across this drain system. The runoff proceeds northwesterly into a concrete channel immediately offsite which runs parallel to Backbay Drive before crossing under the street in two culverts, and discharging into Upper Newport Bay at Newport ' Dunes Aquatic Park through an existing subsurface 60-inch-diameter pipe. 17 Water Quality. The Orange County Environmental Health Department has been conducting routine water quality sampling in the project area since 1981. Samples have been tested for total and fecal coliform (TC and FC) at the Backbay Drive drain adjacent to the project site. In general, the data has shown ' elevated coliform concentrations which could pose a public health problem. This condition is not, however, an impact from the proposed project. Potential Impacts State and local regulatory agencies were contacted to identify possible water quality requirements relative to urban run-off. Due to the difficulties in controlling and treating urban runoff, however, there are no specific water quality criteria governing its discharge in the Santa ' Ana River Basin. Within the context of water quality standards, urban run-off from the proposed project is not considered a major concern. (Agencies contacted are listed in Appendix F.) Due to the high coliform levels shown in samples taken in nearby off-site areas by the County, however, four water quality samples were taken on the project site at various locations to determine the coliform content of ' existing hotel run-off. Laboratory results from these tests indicate fecal coliform contamination from on-site run-off. The source of the contamination is not known and will require investigation. While this is an existing ' condition, its mitigation is necessary to eliminate potential public health risks. Consequently, a mitigation measure is included to address this problem. Appendix 6 contains the results of on-site water quality sampling recently conducted. The proposed expansion of hotel facilities will not significantly alter existing drainage patterns or the velocity of run-off generated on-site ' after the construction phase. Sediment loads could increase during the construction phase depending on the time of year. The site is presently paved and the anticipated expansion will not increase the area of impervious surfaces. Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren and Short has, however, recommended modifications be made to the drainage facilities in the lower parking lot area in order ' to diminish ponding, prevent sand and debris build-up in the parking lot and to assist in dissipating heavy storm flows. Drainage improvements will also reduce potential safety problems by eliminating or reducing algae growth in the open drainage system which presently exists. A desilting structure is recommended at the northeasterly corner of the ' lower parking lot and a 12 inch diameter pipe is suggested to convey low flows and nuisance water across the lot. During storm conditions, run-off would continue to sheet flow through the parking lot. ' Any further construction in adjacent areas which causes changes in the tributary watershed area will continue to impact the project site and may affect onsite water quality, increase sediment loads and storm ' runoff. The continued sheet flow of storm run-off across the lower lot 18 could potentially pose a public safety risk with the proposed project due to the anticipated increases in use of this lot. Consequently, during storm conditions, increased use of parking management measures is suggested. Mitigation Measures ' Existing city policies and Standard Conditions of Approval (contained in Appendix B) require review and approval of all on-site drainage by the ' Public Works Department and submittal of a grading plan addressing erosion and siltation concerns. Additional mitigation measures recommended are outlined below: 1. Drainage improvements to minimize safety hazards and to channel low flows in the lower parking lot, as recommended by the project applicant's engineer, shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. ' 2. On-site investigations should be conducted to determine the source ' of existing coliform contamination and the problem corrected to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. 3. During storm conditions, parking management measures such as increased valet operations and directional signing should be utilized. These measures shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Significance of Impacts Including Mitigation Measures ' The potential drainage and water quality impacts of the project are not considered significant, either on an individual or cumulative basis. i 1 ' 19 ' VISUAL/AESTHETIC IMPACTS ' Existing Conditions The project site is developed with the existing hotel complex as outlined in the Project Description section of this report. Figure 2 - Vicinity Map illustrates the site's proximity to Newport Center, Newport Bay, and Pacific Coast Highway. ' The area surrounding the subject site is only partially developed. Sites immediately adjacent to the hotel complex to the north and south are vacant and are presently under review by the City of Newport Beach for General Plan Amendments requested by The Irvine Company. A residential development called Sea Island occupies the site immediately east of the Newporter across Jamboree Road. This project is only partly completed at present ' but additional future construction is planned. An apartment complex is also planned on the currently vacant site located at the northeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. ' The existing hotel complex, which is visible from these adjacent residential areas, is low-rise in character (2-3 stories in height) and is heavily screened by landscaping along Jamboree Road. The main buildings are also set back a considerable distance from Jamboree Road, giving the existing complex an unobtrusive profile from adjacent areas. The hotel has been remodeled and expanded a number of times in the past, resulting in a mix ' of architectural styles throughout the complex. Figures 8, 9A and 9B provide photographs of existing on-site condtions and areas that would be modified with project implementation. ' Potential Impacts ' As was noted in the Project Description, the proposed expansion is consistent with the General Plan, and is considered compatible with surrounding land use (both existing and designated) . Environmental analyses under preparation ' for proposed General Plan Amendments on nearby properties will assess the compatibility of those proposals with the Newporter Inn and other existing development. ' The primary issue concerning the proposed hotel expansion is the visual/- aesthetic impact on nearby residential development. Figures 10A and B provide panorama views of the existing hotel from the Sea Island development ' across Jamboree Road. As illustrated, landscaping on the project site and deep building setbacks tend to screen and diminish the visibility of existing structures. The dark color scheme of the complex also minimizes its visibility. The view from the lower levels of the Sea Island development is more densely screened by landscaping than upper levels due to sight lines from these higher elevations. I� ' 20 5' i •5 Y. F yr a'S## • tl�b���� �r'G-5'R�{ �Tl� ��.��.J. �,)J 15.t eat.�:M1C— .i:r Y ai RIM p♦ v Ala- lira •5 :sue '; :4 �• - �r�F-� -�*•uT/"'YY^`f fit.• -_ '. -Y...� - JON .�� flit • � F T � - ` ':i � Ie. '. 1 :. '� j}-�'��y icy .:1,. S �. +" ' �n(�, ;q R � 1 1 -.s.., � �r, /�, t. �,� . � � .... u � _ _ 1 is a�F �• 1 , ;� -� �� _ A� r ` � ..3 � �� . �� ♦ � _ '^�� ' ''e_�• � � — _ p it — _ rr. B y� �,.- ter* -"ati.�,� ci' � �x +� 2�"^''� �" � � " � �-- -t _. t �;. � .,. _�F���_ �; _ I . _ .v ._ . -- :,.� _. fY' � � � � �/ / / r � � • • • ' � ' • • • �F. __ mac_ _ ._+. _ '_• _tt _ _ PANORAMA VIEWS Figure 10 a THE O' • • • K �r a �} -£ •-T��. y�� a s , I PANORAMA Figure 1 • • • • ' As was noted in the project description, the new guest wing will be 2 stories (22 feet) in height and will be sited. in front of an existing wing which is 3 stories (27.5 feet) in height. The architectural style of the facades of the wings are similar in concept as well . Consequently, the new addition will not be visually distinct from existing structures at a distance. The proposed project also includes construction of a 50 ft. cupola over the main lobby area which is to be lighted at night. At present a 37 ' ft. high elevator shaft rises above the main lobby, displaying the Newporter logo (see Figure 9B) . This structure is indirectly illuminated at night by roof lights. The project applicant has not specifically stated how the proposed 50 ft. cupola will be lighted, but it can be assumed that it will be more visible in adjacent areas than the present structure simply due to the increase in height. The degree of impact will also vary with the type of lighting used. In order to minimize the potential visual impacts from the cupola and other proposed additions and modifications, it is recommended that a lighting design plan be developed by the project applicant and reviewed by the Planning Department prior to project approval . Landscape plans should also consider visual impacts on surrounding development, although potential t impacts from the proposed cupola will obviously not be significantly altered by landscape measures. ' Mitigation Measures Existing city policies and Standard Conditions of Approval (contained ' in Appendix B) 'require preparation of landscaping plans which will partially address visual impacts. The following mitigation measures are recommended in addition : ' 1. The project applicant shall develop a unified design theme which considers such elements as rooflines and exterior color, and which incorporates signing of a similar design throughout the complex. 2. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with the proposed project design and architectural style. 3. A lighting design plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Planning Director. 4. Lighting shall be designed so as to minimize light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. tSignificance of Impacts 'Including Mitigation Measures With appropriate mitigation, visual and aesthetic impacts should not be significant. i 26 'I ' TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ' Introduction ' A traffic, circulation and parking analysis has been conducted by the firm of Weston Pringle & Associates to assess potential impacts of the proposed project on the existing circulation system. This analysis also examines the adequacy of the parking supply and parking operations. The following discussion summarizes the conclusions of the analysis, which is contained in Appendix H to this report. ' Existing Conditions The project site and the surrounding street system are illustrated in Figure 2 - Vicinity Map. Principal vehicular access to the project site is provided from Jamboree Road, with secondary access points on Backbay Drive. Jamboree Road is designated as a Major Roadway on the Circulation ' Element of the General Plan and is improved to 5 lanes with left turn channelization in the vicinity of the project site. Backbay Drive is a 2 lane road providing access to the Upper Newport Bay area. Neither the Jamboree Road/Backbay Drive intersection or the entrance to the Newporter Inn is presently signalized. Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway provide access to the project area. Major improvements are currently under construction on the Corona del Mar Freeway which intersects Jamboree Road (estimated 1986 completion) . Future improvements are also planned to Pacific Coast Highway. For purposes of this analysis, the City Traffic Engineer identified 19 intersections as potentially impacted by project implementation, and provided M estimated volumes of existing daily traffic and intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values for roadways in the project vicinity. Figure 11 illustrates existing daily traffic volumes and ICU values. All inter- sections analyzed are identified in Appendix H to this report. The existing hotel provides a total of 747 parking spaces according. to an on-site survey, at a ratio of 2.4 spaces per guest room. Both valet and self-park facilities are provided. The proposed project will provide a total .of 728 parking spaces. Parking for the John Wayne Tennis Club, which is located adjacent to the hotel complex, is essentially separate from hotel parking although it is accessed through the hotel site. Scheduling of major tournaments and other special functions is coordinated between The Newporter and the tennis club to prevent conflicts and over-use of hotel parking areas. 27 DR. 0,9186 a I _ 0 CVoe BRISTOL S m Co � • _ 0.9115 5 BRISTOL ST- �ST NORTH 0.8515 1.0629 OQ• 0.6041 v J w � 0.6614 s, LEGEND in M �RD• 43 = DAILY TRAFFIC, VOLUME, fORO IN THOUSANDS ' p� L - 0.7194 0 0.6614 - ICU VALUE 0.6667 J04 a 5PN N QL1N M o u�i 0.7257 Hi�C s RD. ir, g 3 J cn Ir N Q Q Q m O Li Z w m n p o OD 6 1.2694 a M 0.7331 30 0.8500 2 w a 51 3AC0PST Hw o (D o 48 456 0.997 7 PACIFIC 1.0401 90 �' c a ep � 1.0235 � 340 ',2 5 �1� 1.1300� 4> 340.9 EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES & ICU VALUES Figure 11 THE NEWPORTER — Westgroup, Inc. Somm Weston Pringle i Associates Potential Impacts ' Traffic Generation. In order to determine potential traffic impacts, estimates of hotel trip generation extracted from previous studies of similar projects in the City of Newport Beach were utilized. Trip generation is based upon the number of guest rooms and assumes a 100% occupancy rate. While a 100% occupancy rate is considered high, use of this factor compensates for ' the consideration of other ancillary elements such as restaurants, meeting rooms, ballrooms, etc. which are generally associated with hotels like the Newporter. Only nominal expansion of such facilities is incorporated in the proposed project, thus the estimate of traffic generation is considered conservative. By applying generation rates to the planned 106 room expansion, estimates ' of daily, 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour trips were calculated. Table B illustrates generation rates and trip ends estimated to result from the proposed project. As Table B indicates, an increase .of 1,270 daily trips is expected as a result of the expansion, with 170 trips occurring during ' the 2.5 hour peak and 85 trips during the PM peak hour. ' TABLE B TRAFFIC­�RATION The Newporter Inn Expansion ' PERIOD RATE M TRIP ENDS(2) ' Daily 12.0 1270 2.5 Hour Peak In 1.0 105 ' Out 0.6 65 PM Peak Hour In. 0.5 55 Out 0.3 30 ' 1 - Trip ends per room. ' 2 - Based upon 106 rooms. Source: Weston Pringle and Associates 29 1 ' Based upon interviews conducted by the traffic engineer at the Newporter during previous environmental analysis of the Four Seasons Hotel in Newport ' Center, a geographic trip distribution pattern was developed. Figure 12 illustrates increases in daily traffic projected to occur on the sur- rounding roadways as a result of the proposed project utilizing the distri- bution pattern noted. PM peak hour and 2.5 hour peak project trips were also assigned to the circulation system in conformance with this distribution. Appendix H illustrates the distribution pattern derived for the Newporter. ' Finally, an analysis to identify intersections which could be potentially impacted by the project was conducted based upon criteria contained in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . This analysis indicated that ' five of the nineteen intersections identified by the City Traffic Engineer would not pass the "one percent" test. These intersections are listed in Table C, which' also summarizes the analysis of intersection capacity utilization for each. As Table C illustrates, all five intersections ' would have ICU values of less than .0.90 with the proposed project and other traffic. Based upon the terms of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project would therefore have no significant traffic impacts. ' TABLE C ICU SQF199Y - 1987 ' The Newporter Inn xpansion 1985 EXISTING EXISTING ' EXISTING +REGIONAL +REGIONAL ICU +COMMITTED +COMMITTED INTERSECTION +PROJECT ' Jamboree Road & Santa Barbara Drive 0.7257 0.8184 0.8325 ' Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.6867 0.8670 0.8795 Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive/Ford Road, 0.7194 0.8091 0.8175 Jamboree Road & Bison Avenue 0.6614 0.7537 0.7589 Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive N. 0.6041 0.7308 0.7350 ' Source: Weston Pringle & Associates On-site Circulation The traffic engineering consultant also conducted a review of the project entrance with respect to traffic operations and safety. The proposed site plan indicates that the entrance will remain as it presently exists (30 foot width; no turn channelization) . Plans do indicate, however, that the entrance will be signalized. The Sea Island project was required to contribute 50% of the cost of this signalization with the remainder to be borne by future development of the Newporter Inn or other sources. 30 in 5\ 510 BRISTO inP ��-►-�_�� NORTH BRISTOL ST �30 510 CP ON � n J p J a m tiG M 0 �RD. A to ul m FORD e�L O JOAQU! Q C m N N y�<CS RQ LU 60 3 J m O W Y H O Q u� Z m 0 a N 60 Li j a Ir 1.50 0 190 j90 6OA57 Hw 60 p ¢ CL PACIFIC c�J 60 60 N09 � O PROJECT DAILY VOLUMES Figure 12 THE NEWPORTER — Westgroup, Mtc. Source.Weston Pr[001* i Auoa4ha ' The traffic consultant indicates that, in conjunction with signalization, it would be desirable to modify the entrance to a 40 foot width with two ' outbound lanes to facilitate traffic flow and safety. It is also recommended that a review of sight distance at the intersection be conducted by a traffic engineer prior to issuance of building permits. ' Parking. In order to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed parking supply and parking operations, the traffic engineering consultant conducted a series of field ' surveys on-site to determine existing parking characteristics. Observations were made of the number of vehicles parked in various locations on an hourly basis from 10 AM to 10 PM on two separate days (one weekend day ' and one weekday) . For study purposes, the parking areas were designated by number from 1 to 5 as illustrated in Figure 13. The peak parking demand in all areas surveyed on both days is also-shown. The detailed results of the parking survey are contained in Appendix H to this report•. Review of the data indicates an overall peak parking demand of 74% of available spaces on Saturday at 9 PM. Areas 1 and 3 showed the heaviest use on Saturday, and at times exceeded parking capacity slightly (see Table 5, Appendix H) . On the Saturday surveyed 211 of the ' 311 guest rooms (or 68%) were occupied and several major special events were staged including 2 weddings, an anniversary party and a high school prom, totalling 1060 guests. On the Tuesday survey, the overall peak parking demand was 20% of available ' spaces, observed at several times throughout the day (10 AM, 1 PM, 3 PM) . No individual area was observed to be over 37% occupied at any time. ' No special activities were scheduled, and 152 of the 311 guest rooms (49%) were occupied on the Tuesday surveyed. ' It is estimated that the planned 106 guest room addition will increase parking demand by 102-276 spaces, based upon parking demand ratios extracted from survey results. Since increased parking demand will primarily result from the additional guest rooms, ratios typical of a weekday are considered most applicable to the proposed project. Maximum additional demand for a weekday is estimated at 198 spaces, assuming full occupancy of the hotel . If this additional demand generated by guest room expansion is added to ' peak weekend demand (which includes special events traffic described above) , a maximum demand of 748 parking spaces is obtained. Based on the assumptions noted, this estimate is considered to represent a worst case. ' Project plans indicate a supply of 728 parking spaces or 20 less than estimated peak weekend demand. Since this peak demand represents an infre- quent condition with several special events and 100% occupancy occurring ' simultaneously and the shortfall of parking spaces is minor, use of valet operations for special events traffic is suggested to accommodate projected " peak demand. The project applicant has indicated that parking management ' measures will be increased on-site. A brief description of proposed parking operations provided by the project applicant's consultant is contained in Appendix I . 32 5 3 T 0 215 SPA ES Q NEWPORTE O LEGEND 3 O - PARKING AREA O 10 NUMBER w 31% - PEAK 87 /° S 94 AC OCCUPANCY o O 3 % ' I S - SATURDAY } 27r SP CE GO% S 105% S d T - TUESDAY Y IO% n 311% � m 131 SPACES JAMBOREE ROAD PEAK PARKING OCCUPANCIES Figure 13 THE NEWPORTER — Westgroup, Inc. soaoe:Weston Pringle a Associates tUse of compact and tandem spaces in conjunction with' the restriping of the lower parking lot will also act to increase parking capacity although no estimate of the number of spaces which might be gained is presently available. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended in addition to existing City policies and Standard Conditions of Approval. 1. The entrance to the project site on Jamboree Road should be widened to 40 feet to accommodate two outbound lanes and one lane inbound. 2. Sight distance at the project entrance on Jamboree Road should be reviewed by a traffic engineer prior to issuance of building permits. ' 3. Use of the lower parking lots should be encouraged through improved lighting, directional signing and similar measures. ' 4. During periods of high activity, valet parking use of the lower lots should be increased. ' 5'. A minimum of 25 spaces shall be' maintained in self-parking areas in the upper lot to provide parking for hotel guests and patrons of retail , restaurant and service uses. ' 6. Valet and parking management operations shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning and Public Works Departments. ' 7. A total of 748 parking spaces shall be provided on-site through redesign of existing parking lots. The layout and composition of such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning and Public Works Departments. Significance of Impacts Including Mitigation Measures ' The potential traffic, 'circulation and parking impacts of the project are not considered significant either on an individual or cumulative basis. The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, which examines traffic generated by existing development, regional growth, committed projects and the proposed project, determined that the project would have no significant traffic impacts on the circulation system. 1 ' 34 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ' Existing Conditions Fire Protection. Ttie Newport Beach Fire Department provides fire suppression and rescue services to the project site. The closest fire station is located at Santa Barbara Dr. and Jamboree Road. Response time for emergency calls is estimated to be 2-3 minutes, and less than 5 minutes for non- emergency calls. 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. Response times to the project site are estimated at 2-3 minutes for emergency calls and 3-5 minutes for non-emergency calls. ' Wastewater. The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides local sewer service to the project site. Wastewater is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District 'at its treatment facility in Huntington Beach. Water. The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department provides domestic water service to the site. A 10 inch water line is located in Jamboree Road adjacent to the project site. ' Potential Impacts Fire Protection. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department currently anticipates no difficulty providing emergency medical or fire suppression services to the project site. The proposed hotel expansion will not adversely impact present service level capabilities and will not necessitate additional fire protection personnel . Project plans provide for additional emergency access to the site from Backbay Drive (see Figure 3) . Police Services. The project will not adversely impact current police protection services or require additional personnel . Wastewater. The City's Utilities Department does not foresee any need to expancTits 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. On-site modifi- cations to existing sewerage systems may, however, be required. ' Water. The Newport Beach Utilities Department foresees no problem in supplying domestic water service to the proposed project. The existing 10" main in Jamboree Road is considered adequate- to accommodate the hotel expansion. On-site modifications to the existing water system may, however, be required. ' 35 ' 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 public service and utility impacts of the proposed project ' are considered insignificant. ' 36 PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED ' City of Newport Beach Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator William Ward, Current Planning ' Don Webb, City Engineer Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Joe Devlin, Utilities Dept. Captain Topping, Fire Dept. ' Tom Little, Police Dept. -County of Orange Environmental Management Agency General Services Agency Orange County Transit District ' Project Applicant's Fred Talarico Consultants Sanchez Talarico Associates Mitchell K. Brown, AICP Urban Assist, Inc. David Hibbert The Landau Partnership ' 37 REFERENCES iBill Breece, June 1985. Archaeological Review for the Expansion of the Newporter Inn. Prepared for Marie E. Gilliam, AICP, Newport Beach, CA. Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren and Short, June 1985. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Analysis for the Expansion of The Newporter Inn. Prepared for ' The Westgroup, Inc. , Los Angeles, CA. Kennedy/Jenks Engineers, July 1985. Water Quality Review for the Expansion of The Newporter Inn. Prepared for Marie E. Gilliam, AICP, Newport ' Beach, CA. LSA, Inc., 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Marriott Hotel Expansion. ' Prepared for the City of Newport Beach. LSA, Inc. , 1983. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Four Seasons Hotel . Prepared for the City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach, City of General Plan: Land Use Element Circulation Element Zoning Code: "U" Unclassified District, and other sections of the Municipal Code Pringle, 'Weston and Associates, June, 1985. Traffic Circulation and Parking Analysis for the Expansion of The Newporter In_n. Prepared for Marie E. ' Gilliam, AICP, Newport Beach, CA. I � ' 1 38 1 ' Appendix A Sample Environmental Checklist 1 t 1 t `• ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background ' I. Name of Proponent The Westgroup Inc. 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 523 W. Sixth St. , Suite 330 ' Los Angeles, CA 90014 3, bate of Checklist Submitted ' 4. Agency Requiring Checklist ' 5. Name of Proposal, If applicable Newporter Inn Expansion, 11. Environmental Impacts 1 (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maw No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result In: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? >G ' b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _ c. Change in topography or ground surface ' relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? , e, Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? yc. f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach s , 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? 113 ' Yes Maw No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, — mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? �G 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? �G b. The creation of objectionable odors? �C c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, — either locally or regionally? -X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? �G ' b., Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? >C c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? ' d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? >G, ' e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, ' dissolved oxygen or turbidity? >c f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? �c ' g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of on ' aquifer by cuts or excavations? �G h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water ' supplies? J� i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? �- Yes M�a t e No ' 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? >G 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? X- ' d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the result in: proposal a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shelifisht benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? �^ I c. Introduction of new species of animals Into an area, or result in a barrier to the _ migration or movement of animals? x d. Deterioration to existing I fish or wildlife habitat? X- , 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? >G ' 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? Ael� , 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural , resources? >G 117 ' 1 Yes Maw 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 not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or 1 upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation — plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, ' distribution, density, or growth rate of the — human population of an area? �G 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? �G _ ' b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? �G c. Substantial in-pact upon existing transpor- tation systems? G d. Alterations to present patterns of circulo- Lion or movement of people and/or goods? �G e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? >G f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ' 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? x _ ' b. Police protection? — c. Schools? >c_ ' 118 Yes Maw No ' d. Parks or other recreational facilities? C e. Maintenance of public facilities, including , roads? G f. Other governmental services? - G 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? 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? )e , d. Sewer or septic tanks? >G 1 e. Storm water drainage? >C_ f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: , a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? < ' b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X. 19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the i obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result f 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? l 119 , 1 Yes Maw 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? X- d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious ' or sacred uses within the potential impact — area? �- 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, ' substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, case a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a ' plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? G 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.) �G 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 ' each resource is relatively small, but w — where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) �G ' d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? JG ' 111. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation 1V. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 1 • 120 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. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect In this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have _ 1 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 Signature For (Note: This is only a suggested form. Pubic agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) 1 ( 1 M 1 1 1 4 121 . i t ' Appendix B Summary of Applicable Standard City Policies and Requirements 1 l APPENDIX B w SUMMARY Or MUM STANDARD CITY POLICIESAND REQUIREMENTS The eAy wpor er inn A. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, and elevations. B. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public ' streets, alleys, or adjoining properties. C. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Police Department, as appropriate. D. 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 com- mercial 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. E. The project sponsors will comply with California energy conservation standards for non-residential buildings Title 24 Administraive Code) . F. Development of the site will be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. G. 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. H. 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. ' APPENDIX B continue 1 I . An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan, shall be submitted and be subject to approval by the Building Department. ' J. 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 comprehensive ' soils and geologic investigation of the site to. be prepared prior to issuance of bdilding permits. • Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard-size sheets shall ' be furnished to the Building Department. K. The Fire Department shall review design plans to ensure adequate access and emergency exits. ' L. The provision of adequate fire flow shall be reviewed by the Fire Department. ' M. Structures shall be equipped with fire suppression systems as required by code. N. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for lavatories and other water-using facilities. 0. 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. P. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department. The quantity and design of such spaces shall comply with all city codes. Q. All onsite drainage shall be approved by the City Public Works Depart- ment. R. All parking and other on-site paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum- ' swept and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system. S. All buildings will conform to the Uniform Building Code and the City's ' seismic design standards. T. 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 Department and approval of the Planning Department. U. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls ' the use of fertilizers and pesticides, places emphasis upon the use of drought-resistant native vegetation, and minimizes water consumption for irrigation purposes. 1 r APPENDIX B 1 continue Y. Any mechanical equipment or emergency power generators shall be screened 1 from view and noise associated with said structures shall be sound-attenu- ated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at property lines. 1 W. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using facilities. ' X. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from the public streets and adjoining properties. Y. That the project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare of adjacent uses. All parking lot lighting shall be subject to the approval of the .Planning Department. 1 Z. Prior to construction of any project, the applicant shall provide written verification that adequate sewer water and wastewater treatment 1 capacity is available to serve the project, AA. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during any asphalt, turf 1 or landscape plant removal to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeol- ogist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of 1 the finds. BB. If the archaeologist determines that the subject resources warrant testing, he/she shall have the authority to halt construction long enough to complete such testing and, if necessary, salvage the resources. 1 M 1 1 1 I 1 1 Appendix C ' Committed Projects II 1 OCCUPIED pyrmw 9/04^ 00 el 82 83 04 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 04 ty_r'••0_••cMreraft finhlstrial) 11,000eq,ft. 100% r_%•3Sel ital (rrt-unity fce!]tty/ 269 Podu at 0 J.Lir .t '.�^(ens nr.•i two fotftec) IJ.WOvq.f t. loot 0 .I._i.••.r_t•_r t*r Ns In CfSer/ fq,000sq.h. at 0 -irny rr u,c I01.1 Qvnldentlntl 300 unfrs 201 O (eq 25 units occu !ed (38 Unit= in 863 f_�•1 vi'F,q n!fir^ (office) 59.720aq-ft. 401 i..-.:• Y.+ntr.+•rang (office) t0.000.^q,ft. IOOt 0PI ma 10frice) I. tni�.un•i L,n Park lofttec) lU,lOosq.t G. IOOI _ ' _t ll.l,ry 0 _'•_a^` 81.812sq.ft. loot 0 i :r• ' r.ug 10,000sU.it. Ot 0 7•,•.annc O.Geosq.ft. Ol 0 Offic•. 154 804sn.ft. Ul 0 ly^, cr 2n,00g. E. of 0 7n,F•.y 0s or•rn Por.a fa.ffen) - /rrtP 39,026t4.tt. IOOi D 101.150sg.tt. of 0 '. IL. II CCntcr t.t.TOrt frl:rtc, irdr-rinl) 1"n•1 440 11 a at O 225.198so.7t. Ot 0 ICO.736sq.ft. at 0 - L Ccurt !office) ^[h'r 300,0005a.ft. 100% 0 15,1.000sq.ft. at 0 ' � r•rfate 21,60oeq.ft. 100% 1__• ^rrinr: r.fico (office) 7O,000ca.ft. 100t ta. i inr � .nt,n1 PG.s - �__' 245.OnOsa.ft. loot 0 r.`^'•vaant 5,o00tq.ft. 100% 0 It,_ r._C•i Iirrh r.(fivr (n(fice) 14.264;a.ft. . 1061 11T. f gIrt_!lac0 (Office) i"•Jr (Office) 206.269sq.ft. I001 1•v Urm-1 P.nnT (Officnl fi1.000iq.tt. 1001 _ �r rnli f. (bff i CC) 40,951rg.ft. at Y••'�Irnn (Crfi CC) 87,019nq.ft. nt •:I I0(hrcl 97.P1sq.tt. 0% 0 i, oL'c31ntG� 9VAIJITY 9AM 80 01 82 83 84 05 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 11. !I••.1 rinn (n EEice) 2.1,000...g.ft. 60% 0 in-`i_•ui. r! Cr.a .�• fof`irr.l 300% '� _I•-y_3d• f n,ntg lo[Esc) 3.1,A)Osr,.ft. 100% a. 5.., 1 1:nd <rrnldo.unll 13lmits 51 ]l. _.I hrattr:nts (ronidential) Gu:ndts all 0 >•i_il ttrr Pou12 P-rCS (resiPcntlal) 21units 01 0 _ ,,r Oa r..cr... I(I erclal) As submitted Inns >r•. invi, Wlhcran Plara (restdential) 300 units 100% 0 _i:v7i farm (etftccl _ Irta:I 7,500sq.Et. Oa 0 11,500sq.ft. Oa 0 28. {nSil ip_mr.- r•rntet Wface) 1),000sq.ft. 1001 :9_ •t ( •=c..Lrl nlvd. (otflcc) 11.00Osg.ft, 100% _i iicr_ I;N lsg.tt. 01 O T 0: .ad, - 1101 W. Coast i..•Y.(Offlec) 41,491so.ft. Ol 0 u-1_::e rn••!srrc cenur(nfficc) y,Onosw fe. Oa o d -•: (' ntrr ..c.P^•... and No. 1 TPP -i4 fire 7,65ocn.ft. of 0 f ice _ (-7.6AnsR.fe.l 0 ..o. 1 lord Aero TPP - _ I!;.1.1_•t:al 15,000.-q.Et. 1001 I;,.b1•.."l n1 121,000sn.ft. 100% ._, 1. !"!trtrial J00,0o0+^q.Et. ]011a 0 rlal 7(I,000sq.ft. Ot 0 --"im'ust2711.1 - 451.uusq.Et. Ua _tndurtrinl 2S,OCOrq.ft. OL 0 1_•. i •.: "ollnld - 1511 6 1253 Superior 25,000ag.ft. Oa 0 �(: �'o.•ion/..c.rnt- 9mch ri :cc 235,600smft, of 0 Fr!ustrtal _ 16A•.00sq-=t. Oa 0 is idrnri.o A06uni[s O1 0 Lo<h d'ed[e.] fCflec) 65,269sq.f[. OL 0 a,, pnN�nn (Lrt!us[r[ell(rfy 9/8/03) i10,000sq.ft. 1001 0 :11 i'•• I tngc nant = 1`.Wt G,l00sq.f[. Ot 0 n:roI Office 17,AGSsq.ft. nt 0 �__•� lir,1 Pt tn,._ L3,323sq.1[. 0i 0 t. OCCUP10o pnxllTr :VF14 so B1 02 03 04 85 0o 87 OB C9 90 91 92 93 94 .ir, Fi-r•1•p_ft.cri t•1 - fvi badx Ot 0 i t iC 4'er^.•• i0 21 units OL 0 i n^r_ 4`•Ciw 26.165 sq•ft. Ot 0 Ifi,lo5 fq.Ct. Ot O t••e .umac b.dL6 sq.tt. OL 0 • •�•f, [girt[ 1•utn) 234 roC s at 0 -!rt.s Churrit 1.4do eaDarity 01 p it, •':t.•lE 45-Mu F.1'. Ot 0 —.tlr•A Cord 50 unit= at 0 4;r;-_•rrna Pr:ciclrrn[ - 17 units at 0 a'•. Itat 5t.t,ms 325 ro,�s Ot 0 r•xtV. Ath. Club TPP 4 l?4-AY 516 rq.ft. loot !1. flrt .M Pcdleal 00,000 sq.fG. at O 4•••raron _tei 119 rgoss at ❑ 0 7• . •rth Frrd (ta••rd Fo.1 TPP) -Lit t_.t i:•1 300 units of 0 0 i••.1_!rlatal 450 units at 0 —4drntlai t Fark 130 unit= at 0 i.x t:•rr.Col _ 50.000 sq.ft. at 0 ;•i. htdr.O•ire .1occ C _ '`•ft". 295.000 so.ft. Ot p •-l•ut f�_uco Hon Pevi cell (office) •11,250 sq.ft. Ot O ••' __rd tm. 2 Fnrd Acre TPP Ivelcourt) 130 units 0s 0 —•'J.-Wr Vat t)cel 15.CC0 ag.Et. Ot 0 or• a tcl t.ar Itc•.rr 2% units Ot p '11.1,10 r•.,n7Cn Vill Ants. 00 units o- 0 �-�.14" tr•.0 St It (nfrirc)(WP A 07 16.154 sg.ft. at 0 4/ 1Irl 0uuii ftrcet (office) 1.091 t+q.ft. Ot - l. i lctc o0 ticJl•n_. tenter-Aun[(Offfrn) 23,550 sg.ft. at p �— � r+ l 7PP A-._rd s4 -a- at 0 4r.: :ter frr rt-A to OS-B Iu,l)i Otfic- , 5.000 rest• 10.000 retail _• r:. 5•:r••ri.•r tt:enur;!0iral (office) 43,470 ".ft. 0% 0 ( f••"ill, 1•oira (rnstdrntiet) 154 unit= at 0 000prim oUINITP P/84 80 81 02 83 84 85 86 87 68 89 90 91 92 93 94 fT.==- fc•..:o rrn`•rt•,• laixedl ^_,i1 6,303 sq.ft. 0% 0 23,3UU tr.ft, of 0 -i.••r.ur--. Igres-1 7,820 �q.Fr. 03 0 _ t..ur:art (netl ;..197U sq.ft. 0i 0 7rY Amend 0 -q- of 0 t,.I•fer '_en rr-4 to 098-5 4,130 sq.ft. , f:. I:W rc It i^gatle Cneter (Recreation) 18.228 sa.ft. 0% 0 f clnb•`C: P- i:ed 9/20/P.4 1 Ap�endi x D Archaeological Study 1 , I P.O. Box 348 ' Balboa Island, Ca. 92662 ' 9 June, 1985 Me. Marie Gilliam ' 1825 Westcliff #177 Newport Beach, Ca, 92660 is. Gilliam: In response to our conversation of 28 May 1985 I have conducted the archaeological record' search and field check on the Newporter Porject Area located in Newport Beach. This procedure was implemented in order to determine if any cultural resources were present that ' could be adversely impacted as a result of the proposed project. The record search entailed reviewing those pertinent site reports available at the Regional Archaeological Clearinghouse at the University of ' California, Los Angeles, while the field check involved a visit to the proposed project area by myself. The latter was completed on ' 5 June, 1985. The purpose of the record search is to determine if the subject , property has been subjected to an archaeological survey in the past, and if it has# were any cultural resources identified at that time. t The results of the current review of the Newporter property indicated that there are two previously recorded cultural resource areas, Ora-50 and Ora-99A, immediately adjacent to the project area. One of these, Ora-50, will not be impacted during the proposed modifications, but the status of Ora-99A is at this point unclear. This site, which ' lies immediately northwest of the project area, was truncated by the construction of the golf course and it may as well have continued ' into the area of the adjacent parking lot. The vagueness surrounding g this site entails attempting to discern if a portion of the site may still lie under the parking lot that is presently part of the proposed project area. ' The field check consisted of my walking that area that has been ' designated as the fire access road. For the most part this area is currently paved, although one portion of the proposed road does cross the existing golf course on the southern edge. The walkover of the golf course sector• indicated that no cultural resources were present, ' nor were they expected due to the, extent of modification to the existing landscape. ' In light of' the record search and the results of the field check the following recommendations are being made: 1 - At that time when the initial grading begins in the ' parking lot an archaeologist currently on the Orange County Certified Archaeological Consultant List should ' be present. for monitoring. The presence of this individual will protect any cultural resources that may ' be associated with any remaining portion of the south- eastern extension of Ora-99A. If cultural material is ' encountered during the initial grading phase the archaeologist should be permitted to analyze and remove ' the material. 2 - Monitoring is not recommended for any other portion of the proposed project area because of the lack of evidence for existing cultural material. ' Sincerely yours, t illiam H. Breece Archaeological Consultant I I 19.q Call? Cl.,Ar6- .i p1a� Sca�c c '� r t:° �^a �`,re..a: /�rw�ee�i.e /!/o.r t�//�e�t.:�•fY ` 0 Y� d> .:,• ` ��.�� ?cr�.�� b» �C`..,-�e.� ja�fn.. r m 1 Newporter North Archaeology Draft Report on Limited Testing March, 1977 84 "The site record for Ora-99A indicates that the southeastern extension of this resource (that part of the site located toward Jamboree Road) contained the highest densities of marine shell and other artifactual materials, but this portion of the resource was almost completely ' destroyed by earth moving operations during the construction of the Newporter Inn Golf Course." 1 � III 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 Appendix E ' Drainage Study i INMDUCTION The Newporter Inn is a resort hotel in the City of Newport Beach located north of Pacific Coast Highway on the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay ' Drive. The owners of the hotel have decided to expand their facilities. Part of the expansion work will be to modify the existing drainage along the lower parking lot south of the main building. -EXISTING CONDITION The south or lower parking lot receives water run-qff from an existing sidewalk underdrain, approximately 10-feet wide, and from two 36-inch diameter pipes all located in the north east corner of the lot by Jamboree Road. A majority of , the water canes from a residential development east of the project site, called Sea Island Development. Based on the hydrology for this tract (Tract 9676) approximately 80 cubic feet per second (CFS) is discharged from the existing ' 36-inch diameter pipes during a 25 year storm. The sidewalk underdrain brings in street water run-off of about 10 CFS. From these drainage structures, the ' water then surface flows westerly through the parking lot via concrete valley gutters into a concrete channel which is parallel to the westerly boundary (Back Bay Drive) of the parking lot. The water then proceeds northerly in this , channel before crossing under Back Bay Drive via an existing 60-inch diameter pipe which finally discharges into the lagoon located within Newport Dunes ' Aquatic Park. 297AO1 .29701 ' w mQ ��> I DN NO SCALE CY �� NEWF'ORT U{JNlS � �� . ' KriUATIC w� ,P 1 NEWPORTER INN I PACIFIC CGAST HIGHWAY ' Sol N.r. rDr.•1%hrM T V u sd A cry6,.,.+�u705 �L �.0 Ana,mc� hJ+Jss-ass I PROJECT LOCATION &SHOM MCrvirWu,-L rd ti,mr, ' 297.01 A The area immediately downstream of the two 36-inch diameter pipes at the northeast corner of the parking lot is the point of discharge for the sea Island Development and a portion of Jamboree Road. During a storm, the force of the water, (approximately 90 CFS), is enough that its flow is not impeded. , However, during low flows such as when residents wash their cars, water their lawns or during a light storm, the water ponds at this point of discharge. In addition, the concrete gutters within the parking lot remain wet and algae has formed at various locations, presenting the possibility of pedestrian 'injuries. The Newporter Inn has attempted to solve this nuisance by , constructing walk `bridges" across the concrete gutters. However, unsightliness of the discharge area and the potential hazard to guests of the Newporter Inn remain as problems. RECOMMENDATION ' It is recommended that the Newporter Inn install drainage facilities to accommodate the low flow water discharge. This system would consist of a desilting structure at the upstream (northeasterly) end of the parking lot approximately 6' length 6' wide 3' high in size. Such a structure would prevent sand and debris build-up in the parking lot and will also act as an ' energy dissipator during heavy storms. Also, a 12-inch diameter pipeline is suggested to convey the low flows and nuisance water across the parking lot. , This drainage system would diminish the water ponding in the discharge area as ' well as reduce the frequency of the wet concrete gutter thus eliminating algae growth. It will also improve water quality by eliminating algae growth and ' reducing the contribution of pollutants form the parking area. During a storm, water would sheetflow through the parking lot as it has since the hotel was built. M-0263 297.01A 1 1 \ NO SCALE LAGOON - rx RcP� J I `Z 4 NEWPORTER ? INN I Q _ k1: p c"SUA CE I Q � 1.REA ' m � EXIST1N�a 91txwAf-!c ENDER t7RAIN �E%73TiNCT Ox'Qt6lE ' m 2 I wC w ==� Q Z W zW I m to O ' souTH -' ASPHALT QONCKETE Q rkr-KIN(2 LOT cn a SCHEMATIC DRAWING -FUUSCOEUAt �,N.rart¢rnkrfa •8Lkr 10, uc Sa 1.Ana•C 4&rxk 81705 (711)8J6.1155 OF EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN &SHMN pelf EnOtneen•1.oxdSivoeYors ' ' 297.o1 A i Appendix F ' Water Quality Analysis I Kennedy/Jenks Engineers 17,110 Red Hill Avenuo. Solo 220 Irvnre, cohlonua 92714 ' 714 261.1577 25 July 1985 Ms. Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Drive , Suite 177 Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Final Report Surface Water Quality Runoff Study t K/J 5438 Dear Ms. Gilliam: ' In accordance with our Agreement dated 30 May 1985 and our telephone conversation of 25 July 1985,'Kennedy/Jenks Engineers is pleased to submit { herein two (2) copies of the Final Report of the Surface Water Runoff Study I for the Newporter Resort Expansion. It has been a pleasure working with you on this important study. We look for— t ward to assisting you with future projects. Please contact us if you have any questions or need additional information. i jVery truly yours, ' KENNEDY/JENKS ENGINEERS Timothy P. Landis , Regional Manager of Environmental and Energy Services TPL/VAS:jae ' Encs. l i Honolulu . Irvmo . Palo Alto. S;rtr.ununta . S.ur I ranciscu . twolim ' Kennedy-Jenks Engineers SURFACE WATER RUNOFF STUDY FOR THE NEWPORTER RESORT EXPANSION K/J 5438 ' INTRODUCTION This initial study assesses the water quality impacts of The Newporter ' expansion project as requested by Ms. Marie Gilliam. The objectives of this report are to: • Address the existing drainage and water quality conditions. • Identify water quality issues affecting the downstream areas. • Address the water quality concerns of various public and regula- tory agencies. ' • Describe potential impacts and possible mitigation measures of the identified runoff impacts. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Newporter project is located at 1107 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California. The proposed plan is to refurbish and upgrade the hotel and construct a new two-story hotel wing (1). The new wing would eliminate one of the upper parking lots, thereby increasing the use of the southern parking lot. The southern most parking lot is bordered by Jamboree Road and Backbay Drive. Modification to the existing drainage system in this parking lot has been proposed as a part of the hotel expansion program. A drainage study was conducted by Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgen & Short (FWLS) which included a recommendation to mitigate the nuisance water problem currently existing at the south parking lot" (2). This recommendation includes the installation of a desalting structure at the outfall of two existing 36-inch-diameter drains where the major offsite runoff enters the project site. In addition, a 12-irich-diameter pipeline is recommended to convey low flows to the ' downstream storm channel. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ' The south parking lot at The Newporter is located in a low-lying region. Existing parking lot topography ranges in elevation from 14 to 25 feet. The southern most hotel buildings are at an elevation of 40 feet (3). Existing drainage conditions are described in the FWLS Letter Report ' (see Appendix A) and summarized here as follows. Surface water runoff currently discharges onto the south parking lot from the Sea Island -1 1 KennedyJenks Engineers ' development, via two 36-inch-diameter drain pipes which run east to west under Jamboree Road. Prior to development, these drains carried runoff from approximately three-fourths of the drainage from the Sea Island site plus a tributary area within the Irvine Coast Country Club Golf Course (4). During the Sea Island development, the grading configura- tion was to alter surface runoff allowing only two-thirds of the drain- ' age to reach these two 36-pinch drain pipes (5). Runoff from this region is continuous with low volume flows year-round. A second drainage course is east-west across the northerly portion of the Sea Island site ; and terminates at 36-inch and 48-inch CMP culverts which are under Jamboree Road (4). Originally collecting one-fourth of the surface run- off of the Sea Island site, the new grading allows for one-third of the surface runoff to reach these drains (5). Storm flows are also conveyed through both these -pipes and a 10-foot-wide sidewalk underdrain located about 45 feet north of the two 36-inch pipes on Jamboree Road. The storm drain at Jamboree Road discharges onto the parking lot at a ground ' elevation of approximately 28 feet (3). Plow from the sidewalk underdrain channels the discharge from Jamboree ' Road and the hotel site runoff onto the south parking lot. Sheet flow prevails across the parking lot during storm conditions. Sheet flow includes most of the runoff from the hotel's drain spouts and from the uphill parking areas. Existing sediment loads do not currently pose a problem at the site. Water from the two 36-inch-diameter drain pipes is channeled through the parking lot by a valley drain which is concrete in some reaches. The runoff proceeds at a northwest direction and runs into a concrete chan- nel immediately off the lot boundary. This channel then runs parallel to Backbay Drive for approximately 180 feet before crossing under Backbay Drive in two culverts. Ultimately the runoff discharges into Upper Newport Bay at Newport Dunes Aquatic Park through an existing ' subsurface 60-inch-diameter pipe. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK State and local regulatory agencies were contacted during this study to ' identify possible governing authorities with requirements relative to the urban runoff for the project. This is especially important for this , project due to the project's close proximity to, and with the surface water runoff ultimately discharging into, the Upper Newport Bay. The following agencies were contacted: • City of Newport Beach • Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region • Orange County Environmental Health • Orange County Environmental Management Agency • Mitch Brown - liason with the Coastal Commission -2- , ' Kennedy,.Jenks Engineers The City of Newport Beach, Public Works Departments is responsible for reviewing design plans for new storm drains. The City has no objection to the proposed installation of a low flow devise to convey runoff across the southern parking lot at The Newporter (6). The surface water in the project area is primarily urban runoff. Due to difficulties in controlling or treating urban runoff, there are presently no specific water quality criteria governing its discharge in ' the Santa Ana River Basin (7). The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) does not monitor in the project area. The RWQCB, in conjunction with California State Fish and Game, does monitor fresh water streams under the Toxic Substance Monitoring Program and mussels under the State Mussel Watch Program (8). Orange County Environmental Health has been conducting routine sampling for total and fecal coliform in the concrete channel parallel to Backbay Drive and at selected sites in the Bay since October 1981 (9). Coliform sampling is also conducted at three sites in the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park's swimming area. 4 The Water Quality Control Policy for the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of ' California adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on May 16, 1974 does not apply to land runoff ( 10), nor does the Ocean Water Con— tact Sports (OWCS) Act apply to the runoff from the Newporter project ' (11). The bacteriological water quality of The Newport Dunes is governed by the OWCS Act. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA), Water Quality group samples and monitors major tributaries to the Bay, of which none exist within the project area (11). The OCEMA Water Pollution group is interested in point source discharge not urban runoff (12). ' Regulations on water quality are not clearly defined for urban runoff. Because of this, water quality of the project runoff should not be a major factor. However, due to the high coliform results shown in the Orange County Health data, on July 9, 1985, four water samples were taken at various locations of runoff, both upstream and downstream of the southern parking lot under the direction of Mitchell K. Brown (13) , in an attempt to identify the extent of the problem and to further identify any potential hazards or nuisance to hotel guests and employees. Bacteriological water quality data are discussed under Existing Conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS ' Orange County Environmental Health, Water Quality Control Section has been sampling and testing for total and fecal coliform (TC & FC) at the Backbay Drive Drain since October 1981. In general, the data show ele— vated concentrations of TC and PC which could pose a public health —3— Kennedy Jenks engineers problem. This is not a condition that is an impact from the proposed project; however, it is an identified existing condition and, as such, ' is discussed in this section only. The sampling point is downstream from the parking lot discharge, just prior to entering the drain pipes under Backbay Drive. Total and fecal coliform concentrations in the concrete channel waters exceed the bacteriological water quality objec— tives adopted by the RWQCB. However, as described in the regulatory framework discussion, these policies do not apply to urban runoff. Laboratory results from the July 9th water sampling indicate fecal coli— , form contamination from onsite runoff. The contamination may possibly be due to a leaking sewer line in the hotel's collection system (14). POTENTIAL RUNOFF IMPACTS The local water quality is currently impacted by the existing water sources, including storm water runoff from both onsite and offsite flows. This section addresses only onsite and downstream impacts. Off— site flows are discussed under the Cumulative Impacts section below. ' The proposed building site for the addition to The Newporter is cur - rentiy a paved parking lot and the golf course practice putting green. This project should not alter water quantity nor water quality of storm , runoff after the construction phase. Sediment loads could increase dur— ing the construction phase depending on the time of year. The primary benefit of the drainage facilities proposed by FWLS is to eliminate low flows and nuisance water crossing the southern parking lot surface. This would improve the aesthetics of the area as well. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Xhe major portion of surface water runoff, both low flow and storm ' water, originates offsite. The major low flow contributor is the Sea Island Development. Runoff from Sea Island, as well as drainage from Jamboree Road, will continue to impact the project site. Any further ' construction at Sea Island or at any adjacent lands causing changes in the offsite watershed may have cumulative impacts on the onsite water quality and could increase the sediment loads. In addition, further construction may cause long—tem increases in the quantity of storm run- off that enters the project area due to the construction of paved and other impervious surfaces. storm flows running across the surface of the southern parking lot will continue as in the past. It is felt that ' this condition could pose a safety problem during storms and could potentially pose a greater risk due to increased use of the southern parking lot. —4— ' MITIGATION MEASURES KennedKennedy/Jenks Engineers ' Except for the FWLS report, no previous studies were found that identi— fied water quality mitigation options for the site. ' Installation of a desilting structure and a 12—inch—diameter pipeline to collect and convey low flows, as proposed by FWLS, are feasible mitiga— tion measures. However, these measures do not address the cumulative ' impact from offsite surface water runoff during storm conditions. During storm conditions, limited use of the parking lot is recommended. it ' —5— Kennedy Jenks Engineers ' REFERENCES 1. THE NEWPORTER RESORT EXPANSION, Preliminary Project Description, May ' 15, 1985. The Newporter, 1107 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, CA. 2. Letter Report by Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren & Short to WESTGROUP Inc., Santa Monica, CA, July 1, 1985. 3. Existing Site Plan, May 14, 1985. The Landau Partnership, Inc. , Santa Monica, CA. 4. Draft Environmental Impact Evaluation, Newporter Apts. Site, March i 1973. 5. Addendum EIR, Sea Island Townhouse Project, Newport Beach, CA. ' October 1978. 6. Personal Communication. City of Newport,Beach, Public Works. ' July 12, 1985. 7. Personal Communication. Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana ' Region, July 11, 1985. 8. Personal Communication. Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana t Region, July 31 1985. 9. Personal Communication. Orange County Environmental Health, July 2, 1985, 10. Water Quality Control Plan Report, Santa Ana River Basin. April 17, 1975, Page 4-3, ' 11. Personal Communication. Orange County Environmental Management Agency, July 10 1985. 12. Personal Communication. Orange County Environmental Management Agency, July 2, 1985. 13. Site Visit. Kennedy/Jenks Engineers, Urban Assist, Inc., and ' Truesdail Laboratories, Inc. representatives, July 9, 1985. 14. Personal Communication. Mitchell K. Brown, Urban Assist, Inc. , July 15, 1985. -6- ' 1 ' I ' KennedyJenks Engineers ATTACHMENT ' LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS tName: Timothy P. Landis ' Affiliation: Kennedy/Jenks Engineers Responsibility: Project Manager and Hydrologist ' Experience: 17 years ' Technical Specialty: Surface Water Hydrology and Sediment Transport Name: Vicki A. Strickler ' Affiliation: Kennedy/Jenks Engineers ' Responsibility: Site Engineering Experience: 6 years ' Technical Specialty: Surface Water Quality and Environmental Engineering 1 Appendix G ' Water Quality Tests 1 t I I 1 1 REPORT TRUESDAIL LABORATORIES, INC. 142D1 FRANKLIN AVENUE CHEMISTS - MICROBIOLOGISTS - ENGINEERS u�a TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 730- RESEARCH — DEVELOPMENT •- TESTING ® AREA CODE AREA CODE 213 • 26 Il714 • 225-lafi9 , 64 C A a L E : T R U E L A a 6 Urban Assist Inc. CLIENT DATE July 18, 19$5 3151 Airway Ave. Bldg. A-2 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RECEIVED July 9, 1985 ' ATTN: Mitch Brown SAMPLE 4 waters LABORATORY NO. 08723 , INVESTIGATION Coli,form and Fecal Coliform Determinations (APiiA, 15th Ed. , 1980) , Four water samples were taken from the area of the Newporter Inn on July 9, 1985 at approximately 3:15 PM. The surface waters were tested for coliform and fecal ' coliform bacteria using the most probable number method. The results are given below: MUM,-at Probable No /100 ml , Sample Description Coliform Group Fecal Coliform 'Bacteria ' 1 Outlet in Newporter Inn 1,500 460 parking lot from under , Jamboree 2 Flow from Back Day Drive, Z24,000 -424,000 from street, flows into drain ' 3 6 inch drain from Newporrer 11,000 750 Inn, flows into drain ' 4. From drain, flows under Z24,000 Z24,000 Back Bay Drive ' The results indicate that the major source of fecal coliform bacteria is the flow in the gutter of Back Bay Drive. The flow from the drain under Jamboree that goes across the Newporter Inn parking lot and the six inch drain from the Newporter Inn have moderate levels of fecal coliforms. Respectfully Submitted, ' TRUESDAIL LABORATORIES, INC, ' 4io Karl W. Schiller, M•S. Chief Microbiologist M'Ibis applies only the sµople, or samples, inveaipted and Is not necessarily Indicative of the quality or condition of apparently lia! n to suruiar products. As a mutual protection to clients, the public and these Lboatodts, this report is submitted and accepted for the exclusive use of the client to whom it is addressed and upon die condition that It is not to be used, in whole or In pact, in any adveMtain• nr N,Mhtin matter withnnt Print wr;n,o a,lthori+canna farm thr IaMntn,;n ' Traffic Appendix H Analys is t >f . f, �Td% Y A Weofa PVgk and Aooa iaW TRAFFIC 6 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING June 27, 1985 Ms. Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Dr., Suite 177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Dear Ms. Gilliam: This letter summarizes our review of traffic and parking factors related to N the proposed expansion of the Newporter Resort in the City of Newport Beach. This study is based upon-information porivded by you, City Staff, the owners' , representatives, as well as previous studies and field studies by our staff. _ 'The facility is located on the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Backbay Drive. At present, the facility includes 311 guest rooms with restaurants, retail and service shops and meeting room/ballrooms. A total of 747 off-street parking spaces are currently provided including both valet and self park faci- lities. The principal vehicular access is from Jamboree Road with secondary access points on Backbay Drive. The proposed expansion plan consists of an additional 106 guest rooms and modi- fications to dining and ballroom facilities. As a part of the modification plan, parking will be redesigned to provide a total of 748 off-street parking spaces. ' EXISTING CIRCULATION CONDITIONS Jamboree" Road is a north-south arterial which is developed with three lanes in each direction plus left turn channelization adjacent to the site. Backbay ' Drive is a two lane facility that provides access to Newport Bay and other facilities along the back bay. Backbay Drive does not extend easterly of ' Jamboree Road at this time; however, plans for this extension have been pro- posed. Neither the Jamboree Road/Backbay Drive or Jamboree Road/Newporter Driveway intersections are currently signalized. ' 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE 9 SUITE 111) • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA DMI • (714) 871-S31 ' ' -2- Existing daily volumes and ICU values Were provided by the City of Newport ' Beach and are illustrated on Figure 1. ' TRIP GENERATION Estimates of hotel trip generation are based upon the number of guest rooms. tStudies have been conducted by various government agencies and consultants to determine appropriate trip generation rates for various land uses. The ' rates utilized in this study are listed in Table 1 and are based upon previous studies in the City of NeWport Beach including the Marriott which is similar ' to the Newporter. By applying the rates listed in Table 1 to the planned 106 room expansion, an ••estimate of daily, 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour trip generation was obtained. The estimated trip generation is also indicated in Table 1 and shows an increase ' of 1,270 daily trip ends as a result of the expansion. Of this total , 170 are anticipated to occur during the 2.5 hour peak and 85 during the PM peak, hour. ' Although the trip generation factor is based upon the number of rooms, it also ' contains consideration of restaurant and other uses. These rates are based upon studies of existing hotels which have similar facilities. Since the proposed ' expansion of non-guest room facilities is nominal , the use of these trip gene- ration rates would tend to be high or conservative. TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ' As a part of the traffic study for the Four Seasons Hotel , interviews were conducted at the Newporter. These interviews provided information relative to origins and destinations of trips to the facility during the 3:30 to 6:00 PM period. A geographic trip distribution pattern was developed based upon these data and is illustrated on Figure 2. This distribution had previously ' been reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. ' Applying these trip distribution data to the estimated project trips provides a method of assigning project traffic to the circulation system. The daily project traffic assignment is illustrated on Figure 3. PM peak hour and 2.5 .; I LEGEND ' 43-DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME, IN THOUSANDS bR. 09186 0.6614 • ICU VALUE 0 U � m BRISTOI ST m ` '�. 0.9115 KRIS p 1 NORTH 0,8515 1.0629 y n '�o � ` ` SJrT„�..�• 4oQ' 0.6041 A Z� m J, r 0.6614 yG , n 9` a M dab. � W , FORD 6 0.7194. a 0.6667 ' a a a JOaQ SPNU�N h 0.7257ir w On � ts RD. a Z m >_ O > to Q a d $ d 1.2694 a 0.7331 80 boo ir w a 48 450 59 51 ,�gCOAST HMY, 0.8500 2 aQ 90a. ' �p w 0. a. 9977 PACIFIC 1.0401 9p '� a 1,1300 1.0235 :E 30 25 �Q 34 0.9760 ' 4P EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES ' [STOW PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 15% 109'0 ' DR. J x a 40% u _ir -ii OQ. BRISrOL ST. co y. 10% • WORT BR'STO -•.... L Sr �- ' � n n a 9 G�41D. FORD 6� 75% J0 y a SpN AOL�N Q O V~1 59'. AU (S R0. ai W m w m 5% a Z 0 15% ui �o COAST Hwy. t= a 5% w PACIFI a a a 5% DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION NEWPORTER INN EXPANSION JESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIOUAE 2 OR. ro , j :1°, eRlsro� sr N P� ' BRISTOL- JN,JE 510 �30 ox 40 �k n ' Wto m yG�RD FORD 69 a SPA toJO�Q��N 60 4S RD. 2 _ m 0 w a 0. 1308 190 a cv, 60 w a Q 190 OOAST HWY s 4; �� o Y w PgCIFIC 0 4 Q a ' 60 Z 60 Qp PROJECT DAILY VOLUMES ' NEWPORTER INN EXPANSION WESTON PRINCIE AND ASSOCIATES olloupE 3 ' • -3- ' Table 1 TRIP GENERATION Newporter Resort Expansion PERIOD RATE(') TRIP ENDS(2) ' Daily 12.0 1270 2.5 Hour Peak In 1.0 105 ' Out 0.6 65 PM Peak Hour ' In 0.5 55 Out 0.3 30 ' (1) Trip ends per room. ' (2) Based upon 106 rooms. ' hour peak project trips were also assigned to the circulation system in confor- mance with this distribution. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ' The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of 19 intersections were identified by the City Traffic Engineer for this analysis. •The first ' step in the analysis was the "One Percent" test. Any intersection where the project traffic exceeds one percent of the existing plus committed project plus ' regional growth traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period is defined as critical by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A list of committed projects and the traffic from each project was provided by the City. The committed projects are listed in Table 2. Since the project is proposed for completion in 1986, the analyses ' were completed for 1987 as required by the Ordinance. -4 Table 2 COMMITTED PROJECTS Newporter Resort Expansion Hoag Hospital Flagship Hospital Pacesetter Homes Big Canyon 10 , Aeronutronic Ford Fun Zone Back Bay Office Marriott Hotel Civic Plaza St. Andrew's Church Corporate Plaza . YMCA Koll Center Newport Allred Condos Mac Arthur Court Morgan Development Four Seasons hotel North Ford Block 400 Medical Newport Place Sheraton Expansion Shokrian Mac Arthur Court, Amend. No. 1 Sea Island Baywood Apartments Ford Aeronutronic, Amend. No. 2 ' Harbor Point Homes Carver Granville Office Rudy Baron Corna del Mar Homes Martha's Vineyard Big Canyon Villa Apts. Valdez 1400 Dove Street ' Coast Business Center 1100 Quail Street Koll Center Npt. No. 1 Heltzer Medical Office Ross Mollard Koll Center, Amend. No. 4A Banning/Newport Ranch Ford Aeronutronic, Amend. No. 1 Park Lido North Ford, Amend. No. 1 Villa Point Rosan's Development Heritage Bank Block 500 Newport Center 'Project Newport Aquatics Center 2600 E. Coast Highway e1'+P 9 9 Y National Education Office National Education Office (Rvsd) • i ' The "One Percent" analysis sheets are contained in Appendix•A and summarized in ' Table 3. Review of Table 3 indicates that five of the 19 intersections failed the "One Percent" test. These critical intersections are on Jamboree Road at ' Santa Barbara Drive, San Joaquin Hills Road, Eastbluff Drive/Ford Road, Bison Avenue and Eastbluff Drive North. ' The next step in the analysis consisted of completing ICU analyses for the five intersections that failed the "One Percent" test. Appendix B contains ' the ICU analysis sheets for each intersection and the results are summarized in Table 4. These analyses included consideration of existing, committed project ' and regional growth traffic as well as project traffic. • Review of Table 4 indi- cates that all five intersections would have ICU values less than 0.90 with the ' project and other traffic. Based upon the terms of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project would have no traffic impacts. ' The intersection of Jamboree Road and the project entrance was also reviewed with respect to traffic operations and safety. Based upon the site plan, the ' current entrance is 30 feet in width. As a part of the project, this intersection will be signalized. With this signalization, it would be desirable to have two outbound lanes so that vehicles waiting to make left turns would not block right turning vehicles. With the 30 foot width, this would result in three 10 foot ' lanes which is not desirable from an operational or safety viewpoint. In order to provide an improved condition, it is recommended that a 40 feet width be provided. This would allow a 10 foot left turn lane, a 14 foot right turn lane and a 15 foot inbound lane. It is also recommended that the redesign of this ' intersection include a review of sight distance by a traffic engineer. PARKING ' In order to determine existing parking characteristics for the Newporter, field studies were conducted on Saturday, June 0 and Tuesday, June 11, 19B5. Observations ' were made of the number of vehicles parked in various locations within the complex on an hourly basis from 10 AM to 10 PM on both days. For this study, the compex ' was divided into. five areas as illustrated on Figure 4. Areas 2 and 3 are valet parking only while the other three areas are for self parking. 1 -6- Table 3 ' CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Newporter Resort Expansion 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGE - 1987 ' INTERSECTION fb NB SB EB WB Coast Highway & Riverside Avenue - - 0.2 0.1 Coast Highway & Dover Drive - 0.2 0.2 0.2 Coast Highway & Bayside Drive - - 0.2 0.1 ' Coast Highway & Jamboree.Road - 0.3 0.3 0.1 Coast Highway & Newport Center Drive - - 0.1 0.1 Coast Highway & Avocado Avenue - - 0.1 0.2 Coast Highway & Mac Arthur Boulevard - - 0.1 0.1 Coast Highway & Goldenrod Avenue - - 0.1 0.1 , Coast Highway & Marguerite Avenue - - 0.1 0.1 Coast Highway & Poppy Avenue - - 0.1 0.2 Jamboree Road & Santa Barbara Drive 1.8 1.8 - 0.2 Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road 1.2 1.4 - - ' Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive/Ford Road 0.9 1.7 - - Jamboree Road & Bison Avenu 0.9 1.5 - - ' Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive North 0.8 1.1 - 18.5 Jamboree Road & Bristol Street 0.6 0.9 0.4 - ' Jamboree Road & Bristol Street North 0.6 0.4 - - Jamboree Road & Mac Arthur Boulevard - 0.4 0.7 0.3 Jamboree Road & Campus Drive 0.2 0.4 - - i 1 Z NO SCALE ( �� 5 3 T 0 215 SPA ES Q NEWPORTE o LEGEND 3 % S O - PARKING AREA O 10_ I _ 4 NUMBER w O �� 31% - PEAK > 94 AC OCCUPANCY p 87 /o S 3 % T0 i LiS - SATURDAY } 2 SP CE �pyS S 1059'o S a T ■ TUESDAY m 71 n 3n19'o n mIJ 131 SPACES JAMBOREE ROAD PEAK PARKING OCCUPANCIES VESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FJOURE 4 -7- ' Table 4 ' ICU SUMMARY - 1987 ' Newporter Resort Expansion 1985 EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING +REGIONAL +REGIONAL ' ICU +COMMITTED +COMMITTED INTERSECTION +PROJECT Jamboree Road & Santa Barbara Drive 0.7257 0.8184 0.8325 ' Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road 0.6867 0.8670 , 0.8795 Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive/Ford Road 0.7194 0.8091 0.8175 ' Jamboree Road & Bison Avenue 0.6614 0.7537 0.7589 Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive N. 0.6041 0.7308 0.7350 , The results of the field studies are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. Review of the data in these tables indicates the maximum overall parking demand at 9:00 PM ,• on Saturday when 550 vehicles occupied 74 percent of the available spaces. This Was also the peak demand period for Areas 1 and 5. Area 4 had a peak demand at t 8:00 PM and Areas 2 and 3 experience peak demands at 10,00 PM. The Tuesday results indicate a maximum accumulation at 1:00 and 3:00 PM when 146 vehicles ' occupied 20 percent of the spaces. No area was observed to be over 37 percent occupied on Tuesday. Data relative to hotel activity and usage on these two Study days were also , obtained. On Saturday June 8, 1985, 211 of the 311 guest rooms were occupied. In addition, the following special activities took puce. , - Noon to 5 PM, Wedding, Garden Room 120 guests , - 5:30 PM to Midnight, Wedding, Terrace Room, 220 guests - 5 PM to Midnight, Anniversary Party, Garden Room, 50 guests ' - 7 PM to Midnight, High School Prom, Plaza Ballroom, 670 guests. ' Table 5 PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY - SATURDAY Newporter Resort Expansion ' TIME PARKING AREA 1 2 3 4 5 Total ' 131 , 30 94 277 215 747 10:00 AM 83/63 13/43 44/47 57/21 22/10 219/29 11:00 93/69 14/47 43/46 78/28 24/11 250/33 Noon 110/84 11/37 43/46 86/31 25/12 275/37 ' 1:00 PM 131/100 . 12/40 64/88 87/31 .34/16 328/44 2:00 135/103 12/40 58/62 89/32 37/17 331/44 ' 3:00 116/88 12/40 69/73 91/33 36/17 324/43 4:00 115/88 12/40 62/66 87/31 32/15 308/41 5:00 100/76 12/40 57/61 90/32 24/11 283/38 ' 6:00 137/105 13/43 64/68 11/40 53/25 378/51 7:00 138/105 15/50 72/76 196/71 65/30 486/65 8:00 133/102 9/30 77/82 240/87 73/34 532/71 9:00 138/105 11/37 91/97 231/84 79/37 550/74 ' 10:00 130/99 18/60 95/101 199/72 55/26 497/67 ' Note: (131) = Available Spaces; 83/63 = parked vehicles/percent occupied spaces. Date of Study: June 8, 1985. I , Table 6 PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY - TUESDAY Newporter Resort Expansion TIME PARKING AREA 131 30 94 277 215 T747 ' 10:00 AM 23/18 0/0 21/22 96/35 6/3 146/20 11:00 22/17 0/0 17/18 100/36 5/2 144/19 Noon 26/20 0/0 22/23 93/34 4/1 145/19 ' 1:00 PM 26/20 0/0 23/24 94/34 3/1 146/20 2,00 23/18 113 22/23 92/33 4/1 142/19 , 3:00 25/19 2/7 21/22 92/33 613 146/20 4:00 28/ / 5/ 135 2 21 3 10 21/22 78/28 / i 18 5:00 37/28 3/10 23/24 65/23 5/2 133/18 6:00 35/27 2/7 21/22 40/14 6/3 •104/14 7:00 31/24 3/10 21/22 29/10 5/2 89/12 8:00 35/27 2/7 22/23 25/9 4/1 88/12 9:00 35/27 1/3 21/22 24/9 5/2 86/12 t 10:00 41/31 1/3 32/34 23/8 311 100/13 Note: (131) = Available Spaces; 23/18 = parked vehicles/percent occupied, spaces. ' Date of Study: June 11, 1985. ' ' -10- tThis represents a very active time at the facility and can be considered a peak condition. During the evening hours, there were 940 persons in attendance at special events in addition to restaurant patrons and hotel guests. wOn Tuesday, June 11, 1985, 152 of the 311 guest rooms were occupied and no outside events occurred. The data'for this day provide parking data for day-to- day operations with no special activities. Based upon the data in Tables 5 and 6, the maximum parking demand ratio was 2.6 parked vehicles per'occupied room on Saturday and 0.96 on Tuesday. The addition of 106 guest rooms would increase the parking demand from a maximum of 2V spaces to a minimum of 102 spaces. Since the proposed expansion is ' related primarily to additional guest rooms, the "Tuesday" factor would best represent increased parking needs. If we apply the "Tuesday" factor to the proposed additional guest rooms (106) and the vacant rooms on Saturday (100) , a parking demand of 198 is obtained for the additional 206 guest rooms. By adding this increased demand of 198 spaces to to maximum demand of 550 on ' Saturday, a theoretical demand for 748 parking spaces is obtained. ' The proposed plan indicates a supply of 728 parking spaces which is 20 spaces short of the theoretical demand for 748 spaces. Since this peak demand would ' not occur on a regular basis, it is not recommended that additional parking be provided, but parking operations should be closely controlled. The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential parkipg problems. - Use of the lower parking area and especially the west end of the area should be encouraged. This should include improved directional signing, lighting, and general appearance. - During periods of high outside activity, increased valet parking should be located in the lower lots and some tandem parking can be utilized to provide for increased demands. ' - Some self parking area should be maintained on the upper level for patrons and guests of the hotel and facilities that do not want the valet parking service. SUMMARY ' This study has examined traffic and parking factors related to the proposed ' expansion of the Newporter Resort. The expansion would add 106 guest rooms, modify other facilities and the parking supply and operation. Estimates were ' made of increased trips to be generated by the project and these trips analyzed in conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. On this basis, no traffic , impacts were identified. Modification of the access to 'Jamboree Road is recom- mended to improve traffic operations and safety. The proposed parking plan was also found to be adequate with the recommended mitigation measures. The following are the principal findings of the study. ' 1. The project is estimated to generate 1,270 daily trip ends with 170 , occurring during the 2.5 hour peak and 85 during the PM peak hour. 2. A total of 19 intersections were examined and five did not pass the "One Percent" test. 3. ICU analyses of the five critical intersections indicated values less than 0.90 with existing, committed project, regional growth and project traffic considered. ' 4. Potential traffic operational and safety problems were identified at the Jamboree Road access and mitigation measures have been recommended. , 5. Field studies indicates a maximum parking demand of 550 parked vehicles ' with 211 of the 311 guest rooms occupied and special activities at the various meeting/ballrooms. ' 1 6. A parking ratio of 0.96 spaces per room was found on a "normal" day with no. outside activities. 7. Based upon the field studies and planned expansion, a theoretical , parking demand for 748 spaces was developed. -12- 8. While there is an apparent deficiency of 20 parking spaces, this can ' be overcome with the recommended mitigation. MITIGATION MEASURES The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential traffic and parking impacts. 1. Widen the Jamboree Road access to 40 feet and provide two lanes out- bound and one lane inbound. ' 2. Encourage the use of the lower parking level with improved directional signing, lighting and general appearance. ' 3. During periods of high outside activity, increase valet parking in the ' lower lot. ' 4. Some self parking should be maintained on the upper level for patrons and guests of the hotel . ' We trust that thi's 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 & ASSSOOCl/ATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. ' Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:bas N85121 4 t APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT ANALYSES ' 1 1 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection i oa-r4 /9/�v @ 181 ver:i elP 4v e- (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 Bs Peek 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 � of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2ti Hour • Peak 2� Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound b� 60 ! 0 _ southbound /Z 2 S 33 12-58 13 - Q tEtbound .5Y�-8 1 19 /04-7 &24- 65 /0;bound 6L 4 8 22 /olZ 7282 73 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 4 Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I..C.U.) Analysis is required. ;JewpOQ-rEt2 wAI ExpAAlslOAJ -- 1987 DATE: 6/8S PROJECT: � I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coa!4 gwaz hover- byl3ayshwe Dr(Existing Traffic Volumes based on vera`ge winter/Spring fi) Peek A Hour Approved j Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I Direction , Peak 2b Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak A Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 293 7 300 3 ! ` Southbound Z 8 43 957 Z9381 Z9 5 Eastbound So/b 3o /037 6083 61 to Westbound 5.28'2 /8 /0/¢ 631¢ 63 /0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2k 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. 1 me jPoyrere wN ExPAMSlou — l987 DATE: ' 6185, PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection Coo 9w I (Z 30 S' r (Existing Traffic. Volumes based on AVerage Winter/Spring _ Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 25 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume volume volume' volume volume VOW* Northbound /6�q 18 1707 7 ! I -- Southbound Z O Z �Z Z O ' Eastbound 61 S'Y /0/1 7118�7 72 1S d23'o Mestbound t ( C1�8 Z3 //4 7TV5- 75' Q l'Ia 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersectiop Capacity Utilization (ItC.U.) Analysis is required. t 1 1 m6wpovrae INN EXPAM51OM — 1987 DATE:- 6185 ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Co o.s f f/w @ Jaw,6 o rQ e 2d 1 (Existing Traffic.Volumes se on verage Winteri5pring S Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak A Hour ( ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound p^ 3 ( O [;Eastbound thbo... 5� 26 6 496 S927 S9 /S o . l/ 710 17. /029 S83(o 5$ lS' gel. s,bound , s792 s2 574 6418 ' s b•�9. ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' ❑ Peak 2k. Hour Traffic VoluW. Intersection Capacity Pti)ization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required, t u Poe-ree. WM EXPAMS40M — 1987 DATE U85' ' PROJECT: I'� ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coas� f/uir� @ /IJPavpof- ' Ce�4er br (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage Winter/Spring 19 8 Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k-Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 28 96 1 0 uthbound Z-7-7q 258 3032- 1 30 0 — Eastbound 3 9 6 1 40 661 5097 5I S al% Westbound 1 3 2-21 29 4-56 3706 37 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 4 Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. t . _MEttJPQP-Tf:e 1WJ 6XPAMS10M — 1967 DATE: 6LBS ' PROJECT: 1 1: Traffic Vplume Analysis ' Intersection Coas4 lqwLi ip Avocado .4ve (Existing Traffic Volumes PaSep on vergge rater pring Approach Eaistln leek 2y Hour Approved t 9 Regional Projects Projected I: of Projected Protect Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Pak ly Hour Peakk "r Peak 2y Hour ! Peak 2y Hour eolume ,volume Volume Yotume Volume ' Noru�""' `l qo I zs 6l S 6 0 Southbound z$ 48 73 0 -- Eastbound g112, 3.7 595 474¢ 47 ; 5- ` uestbouna t 2 97? 26 L 408 3326 33 S a290 'Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected stim , © Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization , (I.C.U.) Analysis is reg4ired, i . 1 Al i, Pn —re=P ►►.►u QWAUslOkl -- /9f3.7 GATE 6/BS PROJECT. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis' Intersection COaS4 ywy @ Mek c Ar-I-A ur .9/ / (Existing Traffic. Volumes based on AVerage inter pring 9 45) Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regiorul Projects Projected 10 of Projected Project Direction Peak A Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Yalu" Yol"I Volume - Volume Volume Volume Northbound — °t"'oand Z 9 499 3493 1 357 D _ Eastbound 3 9 7`1 � 36. M2— 4697 � 47 : S pl90 ►+<stbound t 3 S 19 44 ses 4/Z¢ 41 s e.1% Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 _uEWa QeTE2 !J N F—VAN'S104 — 1987 --DATE: 6185 ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection CooST Yw @ Goldenrod 4ve , (Existing Traffic Vol-um—e—s-Msed on Average Winter/spring RS Peek 2h Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Protects Protected 1". of Projected Project Direction Pak A Hour Growth Peek 2h Hour Peak A Hour Peak 24 Hour Pak 21% Hour Volume volume volume Volume Volume ( Volume Northbound ?,?, 7 36 373 t} D — LWettbound ound 2 q 7 236 2 . O ound $ 914 74 863 6856 69 5 0.1q 351 42 5¢D 3941 39 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I:C.U.) Analysis is required. ' � I AIE-itPn2TF9,1NM 19137 DATE:' PROJECT: 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' •Intersection (oa _4 #VJ J GJ /nct i a uei;i e {'vp (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Wverage Winter/Spring z Peak 2h Hour Approved I Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected N of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume volume Volume Volume volume Voluft Northbound 671 3 674 uthbound '71 qt 8 8O7 8 57 a � O 7 S I Eastbound 7 � � 60• 83O �r—b9� I � 'O.l�fo Westbound t 2 2 40 64-1 3 2- 38 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume 9 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 K1EQJP1)P-7E2- I KIA1 EXPAAIStoN — /987 GATE: 6/85 ' PROJECT: . � II 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Cores- ! W A PoaaK• ka- (Existing Traffic Volumes se on verage InilteWipring 'M S)'• Pak 2h-Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected is of Projected Project l Direction Pak 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Pak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour I ' volme voluee volume voluee voluee volune Northbound 225 Z2� '� 1 O southbound 4V5 435 4 D Eastbound 4531J 57 8Z0 * 5407 54 wesuwund 2248 2817 28 ' 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. Volu»,u es+;Im4cd w bad upc' 4-ha uolui»cs 0.4 Coa4 AiShway Hargucr;+e. 1 �.lLl QK1E2 IMN EXPAMS100 — 1987 DATE• PROJECT: 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection J.:t'rAbarPP-- d(� -2tP i 9Arb:ir4 6r (Existing Traffic Vol—umi—s -ga—sed on Average Winterlspring—T9T Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1:, of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 25 hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound Ztf33 Z 422 26S7 29 + 50 il.137a i southbownd 3 2-1 ¢ SSo 1 44O5- 1 44- 60 1167. ItWaest Eastboundnd t 2 025 - - - - 2s6 228r 23 5 �O.2$ 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h. Hour Traffic Volyple Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ® Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume, intersection Capacity Utilization `T (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I , 1 _AInpPOPlec 104 a4PAMS10A.1 DATE 6185 ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection _J4. "Lore.e ,Qd @ S'ak JoQ (A;t, (Existing Traffic. Volumes based on Average inter prig 19e5 Peak 2ti Hour Approved , Approach (Xisting Regional Projects Projected 1G of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2m Hour Peak 2$ Hour Ptak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour ' Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3665 ¢ 517 4/86 42 5D ;1.29. Southbound 5000 E; 80 : 1.Q.7o ' Eastbound 4 7 q 47 SZ6 S ' Westbound t Z 55 440 6bS 7 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 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I..C.U.) Analysis is required. . , I IJ 1LJPp2TEtZ 4-1ht EXPAA151DI1! — 1987 DATE: 6/85' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection JavKLoree Pd Q 44�4 ��ford Od (Existing Traffic.Volumes se on Average Winter/Spring l9�— Peak 2h Hour Approved FApExisting Regional Projects Projected 1". of Projected Protect I eak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume f .SOZO 5 8S3 5�78 S� Sa �6.970 3975 4• 83Z4�81 48 ev 1•7ga 6 9z 870O I -7 — 970 /0 o Project Traffic is estimated to be less than. 1% of Projected Peak 2h. Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (j.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 MI PQATIE2 F,1269s'aw —1987 DATE 6JBS PROJECT: • r . r •1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jaw,6oree Road @ l%rO" 4ui-. ' (Existing Traffic Volumes Med on verage inter pring Peek 2k Hour Approved � r Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1'. of Projected Project m� Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peek 2m Hour Peak A Hour Peak 24 Hour r Volume Volume Volume Volume volume , Volume i northbound 4 3 7S 4 835 S237 52 SO ;A99� '.f southbound y� 55 ¢ . (998 535 54- 80 jGSO/I r IEastbound Z ob I 72 Z78 3 0 Westbound 0 Z 258 1060 f( 1 O I r Q 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. • rl r ' r � r u EQP 2-1GP— 1 kLk1 BePA A1510u — 1967 . � DATE. 6/85 ' PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis j ' Intersection _ a n bore e kd 6D Ea! b lkT7' br N. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19,�.c)� Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1". of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2g Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2ti Hour Pcak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound So92 S 873 5970 60 Sb I DU/i Southbound 5147 S 1012 62/¢ 6 2 70 ' ` .4-0 Eastbound' Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ■ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 �► oR rE2 INkI 2TANS121 — 1987 DATE: 6/d5 ' PROJECT: i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection JOLM Z 001 e Rdil (0 Br;Baal S� (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/spring 19e E) , Peek 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1"" of Projected Project ( , Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peek 2�, Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume 9 Volume Voluiae /vo/lume Volume � Volumc Northbound S7.SL 6 699 6657 67 ! Q0 IQ6% Southbound z�190 2 Q22 Z9/4• 29 2S o.9z Eastbound V/5/ 7.3 957 9181 92- 40 Westbound ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization 1 (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1JEctjApl2TEt2 mi EX PAQSIM — 1967 DATE: 61e5' PROJECT: S .z 1% Traffip Volume analysis ' D c�Intersection _JawL4rpe G Pa i* ri-r-It1 (Existing Traffic.Volumes se on Verage Winter pring 19 ECT — •a Pak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project irection Pak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2$ Hour. Peak 2h Hour i Peak 2y Hour i Volume toluene Volume • Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6 y 23 6 899 7328 73 ! 40 ;0.6% uthbound ,SS70 s 42¢ S7L99 57 ZS 10.41, astbound• — $ stbound t CloSece 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 • CYPAMSIO.0 — 1987 DATE: 6/B5" PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JaYALorPc Rd as 4ar4rfku,- AAd ' (Existing Traffic.Volumes based on Average winterispring S Pak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 29 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3 O g o 8 4; 3563 36 D -- southbound 3 tf 71 3 • 702 1 4176 1 4.2 /S 04% Eastbound )7ql2 3232a66 21 lS Westbound 1 30,53 8 247 3308 33 /O 0.3°le 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. �1ELtIprxTE12 1A1AL FXPAAI51Qk1 - 1967 DA ,_6�BS PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JayhL efpe Roo c o7 Caw k;RooDr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter pring Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1: of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Volume j Northbound 5398 /3 8¢0 6251 63 /O :0.ZT, Iouthbound 2 -7 Q-7 7. 1 S83 3387 34- /S 10.41, Eastbound 2. 3 2 31 41• 1 3 2 75 Z739 7 O — Westbound t ZL/ 30 87 1841 /8 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 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 . it MEU: pO -rc—IZ INN EXPANSIDAI — 1987 DATE ' 618 5- PROJFCT: • 1 APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES 1 11 M 1 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersectioniaw,�oree 2j G 2-a.rL4ro- t 4r •, ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19LS5) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMITTED PROJECTED ol Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/o Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume V Protect Yolune V/C Ratio olume NL ' NT y800 S3 . 1777 1 / 1 0. 21S6 25 0.2208 NR /600 /0 / . 06 3/ 30 0.0819 0 0:0819 ' SL 3200 /Sy .0gf7 '56 0.0672- CL06 Z ST 3zo0 5 z 6 , 1F767,r 2- 233 0.5503 40 O.S1,28 SR EL ET ER WL o.1681 S o.1697 WT WR 3Z•oo I/zo '1313 67 0.1522- 0. 1522 ' YELLOWTIME , /000 D./D00 i 0.1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,-72.57 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.M.8784 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. / •8 Co krk'S2(T On�/ON21 /fr1-'— �t<fvl 1'�Ne ♦.s /00 �O OCC G�i P� 6y IPT��Tufn i./ ifJ'� '' ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ❑ P J P P J Y P ' less_than or_equal_to0.90_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Description of system improvement: 1 OEWP02TEP— IMAM FXPAAI5100 — 1987 DATE: PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' Intersection JaJMbaC*e Rd @ S4K Jaa�ut'h ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19? EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COVIITTLD PROJECTED ' Movement EXISTING PROPOSED MHR. VIC GROWTH PROJECT VIC Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lines Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Yoluee Yoluae w/o Project YolLm VIC Ratio Volume NL /600 /0 tf , 06�50 2 0.066 Q NT q 00 )307 . 2723 U6 0,5126 ZS 0- NR /60b /II . 669y 1 24 0.08441 ' SL 3206 q pz , /S0.l, 1 140 0. 1941 Q ST - 3zoo /SZ3 ,g759 2 7-6Z 0.sS80 40 O.S709 * , SR /600 236 , lN75 /8 0. 0.I568 EL 0900 7Z ,0211?* •18 70.0Z92 0.Oz 2 * ' ET SD ER YV.S . 3 WL 1;960 1 61 ,020i( ZS Oz?-S6 WT P 30 •WR ' . 1600 — _ 18( 0. 11310 0. 1131 YELLOWTINE , * :a 1000*1 t 0.1000 .* • /D00 ' EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 6 6'h 7 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH WIPROPOSED INPROYENENTS I.C.U. 0, EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 10.8S ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I,C.U. will be greater than 0,90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , Description of system improvement: ' WEluP00-TE2 1K1Kf EXPAM:5109 — 1967 DATE: 095 III PROJECT PORM II , INTERSECTI04 CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 Intersection Jav„L0(?e acaa) Easl/au f r ,0rl,Cva ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19A) EXIST. EXIST.' REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED Movement EXISTING PROPOSED pX,HR. Y/C GROWTH PROJECT v/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap• Yol. Ratio Yo1ux volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Yotune NL 3 000 3M . 698e* s 0•1003 0.1003 ' NT g800 /6 -7Q .377F Z 410 0. 2 6*¢7ZI NR 19Q 8 SL /600 76 . 6V75- 4 6,0c�D0 0.0sw ' ST 4.800 /6 9/ , 35Z3* '2 411 0. 43834 40 0.4467 SR /600 33 . OZD6 6.0206 10.0206 ' EL /600 -7 , ooVL� 0. Loa0•L17 ET 1 3ZOO 7� , 070 . 2 ' ER • 230 I WL 000 Z66 1673.1 15 ao746 wT 6 I WR 1600 . 0299 1 2. 6.o U 0.0300 IYELLOWTIME , :0.1D00I i0,(000 I i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION >719/D00�F 1 1 M ' EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROKTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0•S 6- ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 t ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: ' AI WP02TE=1Z IUAJ E XPA►,iSIOM — 1987 DATE: 6�8� PROJECT FORM Ii INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Ja»,6oree Road G Biso>% 4ve ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Vases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19�M ' EXIST. EXIST, REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED Movement EXISTING PROPOSED PK.NR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Laws cap. tire, CAP. Vol. Ratio VOILM vo)Iwe W/o Project Yo)ume Y/C Ratio Yolvae /600 2 ' NL 37 mOZ�,1 0.023 0.0231 NT I V&D 4-800 /6 2 ,307* 2 5 o.41z 1 25' 1 3 �` NR /600 !`�4 59 0. 09001 0.0900 ' SL 32oo 82 6.05634 0. ST 4800 /715 , 3573 '7- 366 o.4340 40 o.4423 SR /boa 79 • 0Ygq 0.049¢ o. 9 EL 2 '7 ET /600 4 3 T,D 55�1 36 0.077 0.07 ,k ER « a it wL yb o 7 .3260 73 . IoZI 49 O.lo 0.1078 � WT /600 of7 ,054Y 36 J1 WR 3200 ! 2-2 , 0 q0D 1 44 o.osge 0.0538 YELLOWTIME 0./000 I 10./000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION N ,6614 1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTI.C.U.JQ-75.37 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 58 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less thanorequalto0.90- - - _ _ _ _ - - ` _ _ _ - - - _ ' _ - _ - - - - _ _ ' Description of system improvement: ' 1• Add hor4hbou►,d r►5h4 �urm laMe. (a) Z. COhverf LRsS ouI4d 44irMh lane 4o optional 4hrou9H Plus -turd la vie. (o) M64)PNL'rea IMM EXPAM:i1nA1 -- 1987 DATE: 6Igs- PROJECT FORM I1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS IIntersection igmLoree Rd 0 &: I, fu-�-F hr N• ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1925) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COaHITIED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Ibrement PK.NR. V/C GROffTN PROTECT w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volumo NL /600 /2- . 0075 0•W7S 0.OD75 ' NT 46W Z. )oS , 4365,�- 2 426 a6z-W 20 o. 53/9 NR 1600 8 0.0050• 5 .0081 SL 1600 ZD .0125* 60 0.0500 0.0500 ST Ypo )941 , 1/o4Y 2 44s- 0. . IS 39- SR 1600 .339 , 21 19 • 0. 2 9 0.211 EL 3200 / 70 , OS31* 0.0531 0.0531 ' ET `—ER •/v• _ WL ;, t / 3 0. 0019 S o. 695z) ' WT / — — _ .WR u.s. 24 1 — -- YELLOWTIME , , /ODD7f :0.1000* i l0. 1000 1 1 � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ,604 1 1 1 1 ' EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH N/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U.10.79QR I1 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 0.7350 '® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 '❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: ' 1160M7--E,? INN EyAmsie)M ^ 19,97 DATE: 6/BS PROJECT FORM II 1 Appendix I ' Parking Management Plan 1 The Newporter Resort Parking Plan Currently a quest at the Newporter Resort has the option *of I complimentary valet parking or self parking. If the guests choose to park their own cars they may use either the upper or lower lot depending on..the proximity to their room. Most guests using the terrace section rooms are directed to the lower lot. During times of unusually heavy vehicular traffic, a ' security officer is stationed in the driveway to direct traffic to the appropriate lot which is closest to their , function or guest room. On occasion, a second valet opera- tion is set up at the Plaza Ballroom to valet the cars for that room separately. In these instances the lower lot is utilized for the their valet parking. , At present the configuration for parking allows 125 valet t spots and 125 self spots in the upper lot along with 503 for self parking in the lower lot. The revised parking plan will allow 66 valet spots and 94 ' self spots in the upper lot. Space for 84 valet cars and self parking for 484 cars will be provided in the lower lot. The area immediately adjacent to the main entrance drive , will be used as a shuttle pool for valet cars. Guests valeting at the front door will have their cars taken to this area when the upper valet lot is full. From this holding area, a second runner will take the cars to the lower lot. The valet staff will be stationed both at the front door and ' in the lower lot. They will call for cars by radio and have them delivered to the front door. In addition, a shuttle system utilizing the hotel carts will be in operation to provide transportation for guests to and from the lower lot. 1 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT D July 16, 1985 TO: Environmental Affairs Committee Rich Edmonston Bob Lenard Tony Melum Sheri Vander Dussen Don Webb FROM: Patty Temple SUBJECT: EAC Meeting for the Newporter Inn Expansion A meeting of the Environmental Affairs Committee has been scheduled to review the Newporter Inn Expansion. IThe meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 24, 1985, at 9:00 a.m. in the Planning/Building Conference Room. If you are leaving on vacation, it would be helpful if an alternate could be assigned to review the Initial Study, or if comments could be noted and returned to me by July 22. Thanks. 4d'� PATTY TE PIT:jm PLT2 Attachment IvIITCHELL K. BROWN,Pnncipal 6/5/85 Wes Pringle: Attached is the parking management plan for the Newporter for use in the initial study. Please call me if you have any questions. Mitch cc: Marie Gilliam Pat Temple URBAN ASSIST,INC. 3151 Airway Avenue Bldg. A-2, Costa Mesa, Californm 92626,(714) 556-9890 Qeqaa p 1985 O b JUG ppRT gFA�' 1/ N CPl1F• N � The Newporter Resort Parking Plan Currently a guest at the Newporter Resort has the option of complimentary valet parking or self parking. If the guests choose to park their own cars they may use either the upper or lower lot depending on the proximity to their room. Most guests using the terrace section rooms are directed to the lower lot. During times of unusually heavy vehicular traffic, a security officer is stationed in the driveway to direct traffic to the appropriate lot which is closest to their function or guest room. On occasion, a second valet opera- tion is set up at the Plaza Ballroom to valet the cars for that room separately. In these instances the lower lot is utilized for the their valet parking . At present the configuration for parking allows 125 valet spots and 125 self spots in the upper lot along with 503 for self parking in the lower lot. The revised parking plan will allow 66 valet spots and 94 self spots in the upper lot. Space for 84 valet cars and self parking for 484 cars will be provided in the lower lot. The area immediately adjacent to the main entrance drive will be used as a shuttle pool for valet cars. Guests valeting at the front door will have their cars taken to this area when the upper valet lot is full. From this holding area, a second runner will take the cars to the lower lot. The valet staff will be stationed both at the front door and in the lower lot. They will call for cars by radio and have them delivered to the front door. In addition, a shuttle system utilizing the hotel carts will be in operation to provide transportation for guests to and from the lower lot. The Landau Parhnele,Ine. Architecture and Planning � �• � �• 1520 Second Street Santa Monica, California 90401 Telephone 213 394 7888 MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: NEWPORTER INN HOTEL TLP Project No. 8506 DATE May 15, 1985 LOCATION: City of Newport of Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 • THOSE PRESENT: WESTGROUP, INC. Joe Woodard CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Pat Temple URBAN ASSIST. INC. Mitch Brown THE LANDAU PARTNERSHIP. INC. David Hibbert PURPOSE: Use Permit Submittal 1. 0 Items Discussed: 1. 1 Schedule: -May 20 Begin Initial Study -July 8 Initial Study Draft Finished -July 12 Formal Submittal to Planning Commission -August 8 Planning Commission Hearing -August 22 Planning Commission Hearing, if necessary. -September 9 City Council Hearing, if appealed. -October 22-25 Coastal Commission Hearing in Los Angeles. -November 1 Coastal Permit (assuming no additional conditions) . 1.2 Additional Exhibits for Planning Commission Hearing: - Perspective of entry area including arcade - and addition. NEWPORTER INN HOTEL Statistical Summary roved Use Existin Use Proposed Use Net Change Room or Use N or Size N r or Size Number or Size Number or Size HOTEL %JOMS 323 311 417 +106 rooms TSAR 4 4 4 - MEETING ROQS.S: - Plaza Ballroan 7,000 sf (465 occ.) 6,720 sf (448 occ.) 6,720 sf (448 occ.)2 - ftnte Carlo) • - Patio Roan 3,300 sf (220 occ.) 2,800 sf (185 ooc.) 2,800 sf (185 occ.) - (Empire) - Terrace Roam 2,800 sf (185 occ.) 2,735 sf (182 occ.) 2,735 sf (182 occ.) - (Carousel) - 8 Small Roams 2,250 sf (150 occ.) 6,018 sf (401 occ.)l 61018 sf (401 occ.) - RESTAURANTS: - LA PALME 250 seats 2,150 sf 2,550 sf +400 sf (Marine Dining) - LIBRARY LOUNGE 250 seats 3,650 sf 3,650 sf - (Liao Lounge) - BISTRO 80 seats 1,450 sf 2,650 sf +1,200 sf - (HEi SEA RAR4- 20 seats - - WINE CELLAR 660 sf 660 sf - SHOPS 3,000 sf 2,180 sf 2,180 sf - OFFICES 4,000 sf 4,565 sf 4,565 sf - Required Parking: 602 spaces 632 spaces 722 spaces Proposed Parking: 728 spaces 1. The Garden Road was fon erly part of the Marine Dining Roan. Small meeting roams in the Terrace Building were formerly guest rocns. 2. Does not include proposal to cover the existing pre-function area. 3. Does not include the existing outdoor eating area. 4. The CHE SFA BAR occupied the space that Is now the gift shop. 5. The WINE CELLAR was formerly part of the Marine Dining Room. The Landau Partners'sne. �y� YY17�-�-r�� �y �[� n Q"p A d 1 Architecture and Planning Trans111iftc-d ,R.�.Nc1'„-�A� 1520 Second Street Santa Monica,California 90401 Telephone 213 394 7888 To Pat Temple Company CITY OF NEWPOlZr-BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663-2884 Project NEWPORTER INN HOTEL Address Newporb Beach, CA Date 5/22/85 Job Number 8506 We are transmitting: For your ❑ Per your request ❑ Prints ❑ Approval ® Enclosed ❑ Transparencies ❑ Review and comment ❑ Under separate cover ❑ Specifications R1 Use ® Via McSSenger ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Distribution ❑ (0 Other ❑ Information/Files Copies Date Rev.No. Description 1 Statistical Surrmary Remarks Issued by David Hibbert Copies to Mitch Brown Fred Talarico morie e, gil Ham, a icp urban plannin 1325 westcliff rive, suite177 newport beach, ca. 92660 714-645-0939 May 29, 1985 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Revised Proposal for Initial Study Newporter Inn Expansion Dear Pat: Attached is a revised proposal for the above project per our conversation of May 17. Mr. Bill Breece will perform the archaeo- logical analysis and a preliminary drainage analysis will be provided by the applicant and reviewed by Kennedy/Jenks Engineers. In addition to these changes, I have reduced the estimated expenses slightly to reflect fewer copies to be printed as you noted in our meeting. You will also notice that the total for my service has increased by $400. When I rechecked my figures, I realized that time allocated for hearings had not been included in the total inadvertently. The revised budget total is $15,175.00. I hope these changes meet with your approval . Please call if you have any other questions or concerns. Sincerely, dt.c.w Marie E. Gilliam, AICP MEG/jf Attachment • • I PROPOSAL FOR NEWPORTER INW EXPANSION INITIAL STUDY May 29, 1985 Introduction The following scope of work has been formulated to determine if any potentially significant environmental impacts are likely to occur as a result of the proposed project. The report will be prepared in accordance with all the requirements of the City of Newport Beach and the State of California. Scope of Services Marie E. Gilliam will prepare an Initial Study which will contain the following information and will explore the following environmental issues with regard to the proposed project: 1. Project Description: A description of the proposed project including location, project characteristics, description of the project's relationship to relevant plans, regulations and ordinances and a listing of permits and required approvals will be prepared. 2. Identification of the Existing Environmental Setting: In each area of environmental concern, a brief description of existing conditions will be prepared. 3. Identification of Potential Environmental Effects and Measures to Mitigate Impacts: The Initial Study will explore the following issues based on the City's identification of potential impacts and will outline measures to mitigate adverse impacts to an acceptable level . A. Archaeology. An archaeological records search and literature review of the Newporter Inn site will be conducted by Mr. Bill Breece, an independent archaeological consultant. The impact analysis will discuss the potential for finding prehistoric remains on the project site, and will identify appropriate mitigation measures. B. H drolo /Drains e. An assessment of current drainage patterns and on-site systems will be conducted by the project applicant's civil engineer. This analysis will be reviewed by the firm of Kennedy/Jenks Engineers for adequacy and will be summarized in the impact analysis. Appropriate mitigation measures will be identified. 0 C. Water Quality. The firm of Kennedy/Jenks will briefly review existing water quality and run-off conditions and will assess potential water quality impacts of the proposed project. This chapter will include other recently approved projects in the area. (A copy of Kennedy/Jenks scope of work is attached.) D. Land Use/Aesthetics. The proposed project will be examined in terms of compatibility with surrounding uses. Aesthetic concerns such as signing, edge conditions, the height of proposed structures and light/glare will be considered. E. Traffic/Circulation. A traffic and parking analysis will be conducted by Weston Pringle & Associates. This section will address project-related traffic generation, on-site calculation (particularly emergency access provisions), parking supply, and the adequacy of proposed valet operations. (A copy of Weston Pringle & Associates scope of work is attached.) F. Public Services and Utilities: The Initial Study will include air quality, noise, soils and geology, plant and animal life, depletion of non-renewable natural resources, housing, population, energy, human health, hazardous wastes, and recreation are not considered to be potential environ- mental issues due to the nature and/or limited scale of the proposed project. A checklist of these items will be included in the Initial Study. Project Budget The Initial Study will be prepared on a time and material basis for an estimated maximum of $15,175.00. This fee will include the following services: Screencheck and Draft Initial Study* $ 4,275.00 Traffic Consultant* 5,700.00 Archaeologist* 300.00 Water Quality Consultant/Civil Engineer 4,100.00 Estimated expenses** 800.00 Project Total $15,175.00 Project Schedule The preparation of the Screencheck will be- completed five weeks from the date of authorization provided that the project does not undergo any significant changes during the course of the study and that all necessary *Includes public hearing time in addition to analysis. **Expenses include the estimated cost of printing and binding approximately 50 copies of the Initial Study (Screencheck and Draft) and the cost of clerical services. • • information is obtained from the project applicant and any other source in a timely manner. The Draft Initial Study will be completed within two weeks after receipt of revisions to the screencheck, barring unfore- seen circumstances. Acceptance of Proposal The preceding Scope of Work, budget and schedule are accepted and initiation of work authorized as of the date indicated below. Signature - Title Date for the City of Newport Beach marie e. gil liam, aicp urban plannin 1325 westcliff drive, suite 177 newport beach, ca. 92660 714-645-0939 May 8, 1985 Ms. Pat Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Proposal for Initial Study Newporter Inn Expansion Dear Pat: I am pleased to submit this proposal to prepare an Initial Study for environmental review of a proposed 100 room addition to the Newporter Inn. The attached scope of work will determine whether any potentially significant environmental impacts could result from the proposed project. Analysis will address concerns with archaeology, hydrology/drainage, water quality, land use/aesthetics, traffic/parking/circulation, and public services and utilities. The proposed scope includes attendance at public hearings by myself and Weston Pringle, who will conduct the traffic analysis. If attendance at public hearings is required by other consultants, these will be con- sidered extra cost items. Services will be billed on an hourly basis, not to exceed the total budget estimate without prior notification and approval by the City. Expenses will be billed at cost. I hope this proposal responds adequately to your concerns regarding the proposed project. Your signature on the attached Scope of Work will act as an authorization to initiate work. If you have any questions, please give me a call . Sincerely, G�.f.Gc. laLytiJ Marie E. G lliam, AI MEG/jf Enclosure PROPOSAL FOR NEWPORTER INN EXPANSION INITIAL STUDY May 5, 1985 Introduction The following scope of work has been formulated to determine if any potentially significant environmental impacts are likely to occur as a result of the proposed project. The report will be prepared in accordance with all the requirements of the City of Newport Beach and the State of California. Scope of Services Marie E. Gilliam will prepare an Initial Study which will contain the following information and will explore the following environmental issues with regard to the proposed project: 1. Project Description: A description of the proposed project including location, project characteristics, description of the project's relationship to relevant plans, regulations and ordinances and a listing of permits and required approvals will be prepared. 2. Identification of the Existing Environmental Setting: In each area of environ ntal concern, a brief description of existing conditions will be prepared. 3. Identification of Potential Environmental Effects and Measures to Mitigate Impacts: The Initial Study will explore the following issues based on the City's identification of potential impacts and will outline measures to mitigate adverse impacts to an acceptable level . A. Archaeology. An archaeological records search and literature review of the Newporter Inn site will be conducted by the Cultural Resource Division of LSA, Inc. The impact analysis will discuss the potential for finding prehistoric remains on the project site. (A copy of LSA's scope of work is attached. ) B. Hydrology/Drainage. An assessment of current drainage patterns and on-site systems will be conducted by the firm of Fuscoe, Williams, Lindgren & Short (FWLS) . Potential changes in present drainage patterns and volumes will be identified with appropriate mitigation measures. Contributory drainage from surrounding development will also be considered. (A copy of the FWLS scope of work is attached.) C. Water Quality. The firm of Kennedy-Jenks will briefly review existing water quality and run-off conditions and will assess potential water quality impacts of the proposed project. This chapter will include other recently approved projects in the area. (A copy of Kennedy-Jenks scope of work is attached.) D. Land Use/Aesthetics. The proposed project will be examined in terms of compatibility with surrounding uses. Aesthetic concerns such as signing, edge conditions, the height of proposed structures and light/glare will be considered. E. Traffic/Circulation. A traffic and parking analysis will be conducted by Weston Pringle & Associates. This section will address project-related traffic generation, on-site calculation (particularly emergency access provisions) , parking supply, and the adequacy of proposed valet operations. (A copy of Weston Pringle & Associates scope of work is attached.) F. Public Services and Utilities: The Initial Study will include a brief identification of any potentially adverse impacts on public services and utilities. Other environmental concerns contained in the CEQA Guidelines include air quality, noise, soils and geology, plant and animal life, depletion of non-renewable natural resources, housing, population, energy, human health, hazardous wastes, and recreation are not considered to be potential r and/or limited scale of the proposed environmental issues due to the naturep p project. A checklist of these items will be included in the Initial Study. Project Budget J 9 The Initial Study will be prepared on a time and material basis for an estimated maximum of $17,475.00. This fee will include the following services: Screencheck and Draft Initial Study $ 3,875.00 Civil Engineer 3,100.00 Traffic Consultant 5,700.00 Archaeologist 750.00 Water Quality Consultant 3,200.00 Estimated expenses* 850.00 Project Total $17,475.00 Project Schedule The preparation of the screencheck will be completed five weeks from the date of authorization provided that the project does not undergo any significant changes during the course of the study and that all necessary *Expenses include the estimated cost of printing and binding approximately 60 copies of the Initial Study (Screencheck and Draft) and the cost of clerical services. information is obtained from the project applicant and any other source in a timely manner. The Draft Initial Study will be completed within two weeks after receipt of revisions to the screencheck, barring unfore- seen circumstances. Acceptance of Proposal The preceding Scope of Work, budget and schedule are accepted and initiation of work authorized as of the date indicated below. Signature - Title Date for the City of Newport Beach 4 • Natural Resource Management Transportation Engineering Lsa Environmental Assessment Community Planning April 17, 1985 I Ms: Marie Gilliam Urban Planning 1825 Westcliff 'Drive #177 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORDS SEARCH FOR THE NEWPORTER INN ADDITION Dear Marie: The Cultural Resource Division of LSA is -pleased to submit the following 'letter proposal to conduct an archaeological records and literature review for the above-referenced project. Based upon a review of the project plans and our past experience with similar projects, we have formulated .a scope of services that will provide archaeological background and information for the project site. I understand that the project involves removing part of the existing parking lot and building an addition to the hotel at this location. The scope of services to adequately identify the project-related impacts to any cultural resources involves: 1 ) a records search conducted •at the UCLA Archaeological Survey, the State-recognized clearinghouse for archaeological resources in Orange County, 2) a review of literature on the prehistory of the area; and 3 ) the preparation of a final report.. The final report will discuss the potential for finding prehistoric remains as well as provide background concerning archaeological resources for the project area. LSA is prepared to provide the above services for a not-to- exceed fee of $750 . Our rate schedule attached to this proposal describes the terms and conditions under which this proposal is offered. I have included word processing and graphic preparation time in my proposal. Thank you for requesting a scope of services from LSA for the Newporter Inn Addition project. If this proposal meets with your approval, please sign and return a copy of this letter to me. I am prepared to begin the work immediately upon written or ❑ 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 555 • Newport Beach, California 92660 • )714) 640-6363 0 2606 Eighth Street• Berkeley, California 94710• )415) 841-6840 Lsa verbal authorization. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact -me at (714)• 640-6363 . AUTHORIZATION Sincerely, Name: JT • Title: Beth Padon Staff Archaeologist Date: Cultural Resource Division BP/jmr i 2 LSa SCHEDULE OF STANDARD CONTRACT PROVISIONS FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Fixed-Fee Contracts. If a fixed-fee proposal , the professional ser- vices described in t e Scope of Services section of the attached proposal shall be provided for the fixed fee noted in the • Compensation and Terms sec- tion of the proposal . All other professional services are considered extra 'services. Extra services shall be provided on a time-and-expenses basis at the same rates specified for hourly contracts unless other arrangements are made in advance. Hourly_Co_n�trac�ts. If an hourly-plus-expenses proposal , the profes- siona�services 3escribed in the Scope of Services section of the attached proposal shall be provided on a time basis at current hourly rates. Out-of-pocket expenses shall be reimbursed at cost and are not included in the hourly fee for professional services. Out-of-pocket expenses include, buts are not limited to, costs of; 1) reproduction of, reports and graphics furnished or prepared in connection with the work of the contract, 2) long- distance telephone and telegraph charges, .3) laboratory services, 4) automo- bile travel at 25�/mile, 5) other travel , subsistence, vehicle rental ,. and lodging in connection with the work of the contract, and 6) fees of special- ized consultants retained with the approval of the client. The total estimated amount of time and expenses noted in the Compensation and Terms section of this proposal will serve as a control on the services to be provided. The specified amount will not be exceeded without prior approval of the client. FREQUENCY OF BILLING Monthly invoices• .shall be submitted for progress payment based on work completed to date. Out-of-pocket expenses, shall be billed on the same month- ly invoice and shall be .identified as a separate item. PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS Accounts are due and payable upon receipt of invoice. A service. charge of 1-1/2% of the invoice amount (18% annual rate) may be applied to all accounts not paid within 30 days of invoice date. 2 Up TERMINATION OF SERVICES These services may be terminated upon 10 days written notice for good reason by either party. In this event, payment for all service's and expenses incurred prior to the date of termination shall be due and payable upon receipt of final invoice in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing section. REVOCATION The proposal to 'which this Schedule of Standard Contract Provisions is attached shall be considered revoked if acceptance is not received within 90 days of the date thereof. ARBITRATION Any controversy_ or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in Newport Beach, Cali- fornia, in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS It is mutually understood and agreed that this agreement shall be binding upon the client and its successors and assigns and upon Larry Seeman. Associ- ates, Inc. and its successors and assigns. Neither party shall assign or transfer its interest in this agreement or. any part thereof without the writ- ten consent of the other party. Lsa HOURLY BILLING RATES JULY 984 Job Classification Hourly Ratel Principal $75.00-90.00 55.00 Transportation Planner $00.55 Associate/Project Manager $50 40-55.00 .00 Assistant Project Manager $40.40 Principal Investigator $35.00-40.00 Environmental Analyst/Assistant Planner $35.00 Field Director (Archaeology/Paleontology) $30.00 Graphics Technician $32.00 Word Processing $ .00 Field Crew $15.00 1The hourly rate for work involving actual expenses in court, giving deposi- tions, or similar expert testimony will be billed at $100 per hour regardless of job classification. Preparation leading to such testimony, however, is at the normal hourly•rate. FUSCOE WILLUUYIS LINDGREN & SHORT Civil Engineers•Land Sarveyon 601 N Parkcenter Drive•Suite 104 Santa Ana.Ca6jbrma 92705 ' 71418364455 May 2, 1985 Marie Gilliam 1825 West Cliff Suite 177 Newport Beacki, CA 92660 Re: Newporter EIR Dear Marie: After talking to Don Webb and Dick Hofsfadt at the City of Newport Beach I propose the following scope of services for FWLS. 1. Review Existing Records to determine previously approved drainage patterns, quantities, etc. 2. Conduct Site- Investigation to determine extent and size of existing facilities and verify drainage patterns. 3. Analyze Existing Conditions to determine if deficiences exist. Review Grading Concept of proposed expansion to determine conformance with previously approved drainage concepts. 5. Prepare Report of findings and recommendations for inclusion in your EIR. I propose that we preform our services on a fixed fee basis with "reimbursables added as extras. This would seem to me to be the fairest for all concerned since the scope of our services are well defined. Our fee schedule would be as follows: 1. Review Existing Records $ 660.00 2. Conduct Site Investigation $ 520.00 3. Analyze Existing Conditions $ 590.00 4 --Revie sr- rft3itig 60n68r k n n n nn 5. Prepare Report $1,020.00 Total Fixed Fee Items = Estimated Reimbursables = $ 500.00 Total Fee Estimate = $3—,738.O& B-O Sincerely, . Don R. Lindgren Principal P-0197• Kennedy/Jenks Engineers 2041 Business Center Drive,Suite 207 Irvine,California 92715 714-752-5555 7 May 1985 Ms. Marie E. Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Drive Suite 177 Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Proposal for Environmental Services Surface Water Quality Study for the' Newporter Initial Study Dear Ms. Gilliam: i In •response to your request for a proposal in a recent meeting with,Timothy Landis and ,Jon Ziegler of our staff, Kennedy/Jenks Engineers is pleased to , offer our services to assess the water quality impacts of the Newporter project. OBJECTIVES The objective of this proposal is to prepare a study that assesses the water quality impacts of the Newporter project. In addition, the study will: • Be written to conform with the City of Newport Beach EIR guidelines and CEQA requirements. • Address the existing water quality conditions of the drainage, ' proposed impacts and possible mitigation measures to these impacts. • Have a draft letter report completed within three weeks upon authorization to proceed. It is our intent that the information in this .study can, be included in the initial study for the Newporter project, and will address the water quality concerns of various public and regulatory agencies. The mitigation measures described in our report will also be aimed at addressing community and regulatory concerns about the proposed project. To meet the above objectives,. Kennedy/Jenks Engineers has developed the following tasks for this study: 1. Review available literature, land use, and drainage plans relevant to the study. Honolulu•Irvine•Palo Alto• Sacramento•San Francisco•Tacoma KennedVJenks Engineers Ms. Marie E. Gilliam 7 May 1985 Page 2 2. Describe the existing water• quality conditions of the project area drainage. 3. Describe the applicable regulatory requirements. 4. Describe the project water quality impacts of the drainage, including any cumulative area impacts. 5. Describe possible measures to mitigate the impacts identified in Task 4. 6. Prepare the Water Quality Study Letter Report. Details of each of those tasks are described below. SCOPE OF WORK Task 1 — Review Available Literature, Land Use, and Drainage Plans Relevant to the Study This review will evaluate available reference documentslcovering the following areas: 1. • Regional and site specific land use plans. 2. Special studies done for the bay and wetland areas downstream from the project. 3. The site drainage plans and alternatives prepared by project's civil engineer. This material will be used in describing potential mitigation measures and to•identify important water quality issues affecting the surrounding and downstream areas. Task 2 — Describe the Existing Water Quality Conditions of the Project Area Drainage The current regional and site drainage conditions will be described including these specific areas: • Newport Dunes project • Changing drainage patterns on and adjacent to the project site • Sea Island Kennedy/Jenks Engineers Ms. Marie E. Gilliam 7 May 1985 Page 3 Water quality of storm runoff upstream and downstream from the project site will be evaluated based on any available data. Upstream and downstream , sediment loads will also'be discussed using existing regional information. Task 3 — Descibe the Applicable Regulatory Requirements Agency regulations will play an important part in this study due to the varied land uses in the project region. Although the study's objectives •are primarily concerned with the water quality impacts of the drainage area, relevant regulations will be assessed from the following State and local agencies: • City of Newport Beach • Orange County Environmental Management Agency • California Coastal Commission • Regional Water Quality Control Board — Region 8 • California Department of Fish and Game Task 4 — Describe the Project Water Quality Impacts of the Drainage Including Any Cumulative Area Impacts The potential water quality impacts for the project region and site will be described. These• potential impacts will be determined using water quality information from Task 2. Cumulative impacts will also be addressed by studying adjacent and downstream runoff conditions near the project development area that might be affected. Task 5 — Describe Possible Mitigation Measures to Impacts Identified in Task 4 Many of the water quality mitigation options have already been addressed in previous studies. Those descriptions will be updated and summarized for the current development plans. Additional mitigation alternatives will be described, if appropriate, after a thorough review of the water quality data, regulatory requirements, and the• hydrologic techniques available. to lessen the impacts of construction and land use changes. Task 6 — Prepare the-Water Quality Study Letter Report Kennedy/Jenks Engineers will organize the letter report into three main sections: 1. Environmental Setting (Task 2) 2. Environmental Impacts (Task 4) 3. Mitigation Measures (Task 5)' Kennedy/Jenks Engineers Ms. Marie E. Gilliam 7 May 1985 Page 4 Each section above will contain subsections as appropriate. Five copies of the Draft Report will be furnished for review. After receiving comments, Kennedy/Jenks Engineers will make revisions and finalize the report. At this time, Kennedy/Jenks Engineers will consider the report final, even though it will then be included with the Public Draft EIR: This task .does not respond to subsequent public comments on the Draft EIR. SCHEDULE OF WORK Kennedy/Jenks Engineers will be available to begin this project within three days of authorization of this proposal and will complete the draft report within four weeks of the receipt of all of the documents to be used. We suggest that the project be initiated by a meeting with represen— tatives of Kennedy/Jenks Engineers and appropriate persons of project staff to discuss specific details of the study and compile a list of documents to be reviewed. CHARGES FOR SERVICES On the basis of the Scope and Schedule of Work set forth herein, we propose that compensation for consulting services by Kennedy/Jenks Engineers be on a lump sum basis with a proposed budget of $3,200. It is important to note that this Scope of Work and resulting charges do not include response to comments on public Draft EIR, public meetings, coordination with regulatory agencies, or laboratory water quality testing on site. To assure a clear understanding of all matters related to our mutual responsibilities, the attached Standard Conditions are made a part of our Agreement. We have found these to be appropriate for use with such agree— ments for the provision of engineering services, and accordingly, should any conflict exist between the attached terms and the form of purchase order or confirmation issued, the terms of this proposal and the attached Standard Conditions• shall prevail in the absence of our express written agreement. AUTHORIZATION If this proposal meets with your approval, please sign where noted on the following page and return a copy to our office to serve' as your written authorization for this project. Kennedy/Jenks Engineers Ms. Marie E. Gilliam 7 May 1985 Page 5 We look forward to working with you on this very important study. Please contact us if you have any questions or need additional information. Very truly yours, KENNEDY/JENKS ENGINEERS, INC. AUTHORIZATION: MARIE E. GILLIAM �ftiLynn M. Takaichi By Vice President _ ✓� Title Date 4T, P. La Regional Mana of Environmental and Energy Services LMT/TPL:lmb Attachment i IIL • WF • • P A Webhm ?Vqk Auld AbbeC all TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING April 9, 1985 Ms. Marie Gilliam 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 Newport. Beach, CA 92660 Dear Ms. Gilliam: We are pleased to submit this' proposal to provide professional traffic engi- , neering services for a study of the Newporter expansion in the City of Newport Beach. This proposal is based upon information provided by you and City Staff, . previous studies and our understanding of the needs of the study. In general , the work would consist of analyzing potential traffic and parking impacts as required for an environmental assessment. The traffic impact analysis would be completed to conform to the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach. Potential problem areas would be identified and mitigation measures recommended, as may be required. We would coordinate our work with you and City Staff. A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and recommendations. We would envision the following specific tasks to be, regbired for this study. TASK 1 - DATA COLLECTION We would assemble all available data pertinent to the study. This would include expansion plans, previous studies, committed project traffic, existing traffic and similar data. It is anticipated that existing, committed project and regional growth data would be provided by the City. We would meet with you and City Staff to obtain data and specific concerns. It is proposed that parking demand field studies by conducted from 10 AM to 10 PM at one hour intervals on a weekday and Saturday. These-studies woul.d identify the number of vehicles, location and type of parking area. General observation of existing parking facilities and operations would also be noted. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 -2 TASK 2 - TRIP GENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT Estimates would be made of trips to be generated by the expansion program. These estimates would include daily, 2.5 hour peak and PM peak hour periods and be based upon trip generation rates acceptable to the City. A geographic trip distribution pattern would be developed for the pro- ject based upon data previously collected for the Newporter. Estimated project traffic would be assigned to the street system in conformance with the distribution pattern. TASK 3 - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic analysis would be completed to conform to the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A list of intersections to be included in the study would be obtained from the City Traffic Engineer. A "One Percent" analysis would be completed for these intersections. Additional ICU analyses would be completed for any intersecti-ons not passing the "One Percent" test. These additional analysis would be utilized to identify any problem intersections and potential mitigation measures. Consideration would be given to currently planned and previously required circulation improvements. TASK 4 - PARKING ANALYSIS The results of the parking demand studies would be compared to other hotel parking data to develop a parking ratio for the Newporter. A total parking need for the site would be determined based upon these factors. It is understood that a parking operations plan will be pre- pared by the applicant for review. The parking plan would be examined with respect to adequacy of supply and operational program. Potential problem areas would be identified and mitigation measures recommended. The parking analysis would also include an examination of on-site circulation provisions. TASK 5 - REPORT AND MEETINGS A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and recommendations. The report would contain the required supportive data and be'suitable for submission to the City'. We would meet with you, City Staff and others as required during the course of the study. Attendance at four (4) public hearings is included as a part of this proposal . We would be prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization. It is anticipated that approximately four (4) weeks would be required to com- plete the study. This schedule assumes no delays in obtaining data for the ' study. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case would the total fee exceed $5,700.00 without prior approval from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time required for addi- tional meetings and/or presentations concerning this project not mentioned in this proposal , our staff would be available with the fee based upon our Rate Schedule in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional work shall be conduted when requested by you or your representative. Statements shall be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of the work at our option. As may be noted in the Rate Schedule, statements are payable within 30 days after submission; after 60 days, 6npaid invoices shall have a 1.5 percent per month service charge added. We shall have the option of halting work on your project when statements are unpaid and overdue unless mutual agreement is achieved. This proposal may be considered as effective for six months from the date of this letter. If the project is not completed within six months after the . scheduled completion date (due to no fault of Weston Pringle & Associates) additional reimbursement may be required due to increased costs. If required, such additional reimbursement will be the subject of negotiation and mutual agreement between both parties. -4- This letter can serve as a memorandum of agreement and our authorization to proceed. Please sign one copy and return it to us for our files. We are looking forward to serving you on this most interesting project. Respectfully submitted, WEESSTTOON PRINGGLLLEE & ASSOCIATES Weston So :Pringle, P.E. WSP:bas CONTRACT APPROVAL Approved by: Title: Firm: Date: r I , I W { P A WWI" PtLhgQE aid Abbae uW TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE Effective August 1 , 1984 Professional Staff Hourly Rates Firm Principal $ 70.00 Senior Engineer 60.00 Associate Engineer 35.00 Assistant Engineer 25.00 Support Staff Engineering Draftsman $ 25.00 Field Supervisor 15.00 Secretary 10.00 Clerical , Field Enumerator 10.00 General 1 . Travel , reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. 2. Hourly rates apply to travel in addition to work time. 3. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of receipt. Any invoices unpaid after 45 days shall have a service charge added at a rate of 1 .5 percent per month (or maximum permitted by law) on the.unpaid balance. 4. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of client to receive payment from other parties. Any contro- versy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration. in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgement upon the reward rendered by the arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 5. These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Manual on Engineering Practice Number 45. WSP:bas 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871.2931 CALIF, ro r MEMORANDUM To: Pat Temple, City of Newport Beach From: Beth PadonsR Subject: NEWPORTER INN EXPANSION AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Date: July 11, 1984 This memo briefly outlines the archaeological information for the project area known as the Newporter Inn. This information is based upon LSA's records and report library and does not constitute a formal records review. However, LSA has conducted recently both record search and field survey for the Back Bay area which includes the present project area and feels this information is adequate for a preliminary assessment for future needed archaeological inves- tigation at the project site. Three archaeological sites are located within the project area, CA-Ora- 50, -99A and -99B. It appears, however, that one archaeological site, CA-Ora- 99B lies outside the proposed boundaries of the project as indicated on the Newporter, Plan C map, dated May 30, 1984. The two archaeological sites, CA-Ora-99A and -50 lie directly within the proposed project area. CA-Ora-99A ARI (1977) conducted a limited testing at CA-Ora-99A in 1976. They con- ducted a 25% surface collection and excavated two 1.5 x 1.5 meter units at this site. They also determined the undisturbed subsurface deposit for the site by conducting a series of trenches around the site boundaries. Theo Mabry in 1972 also had investigated this site and had excavated thirteen units (1 x i meter) during a field school excavation. These investigations found CA-Ora-99A to have an extensive intact midden area which reached 100 cm in depth. They estimated the intact midden area to be 1.2-acres. This site dates to 2060 B.C. to 1900 B.C. They outlined several recommendations for development which have been considered in this assignment. f • 2 CA-Ora-99B Theo Mabry also conducted an archaeological field school excavation at CA-Ora-99B. This work was subsequently incorporated into the ARI report (1977) . From this 1977 report, Mabry excavated 12 units (1 x 1 meter) and found mostly marine shell and few stone tools. The site dates from A.D. 100 to A.D. 225. CA-Ora-50 Briggs in 1949 originally reported this small shell midden site. "The western portion of the resources has been partially destroyed by the construc- tion of Back Bay Drive" (ARI, 1977:36) . However, a portion of the site remains upslope from the Drive. ARI in 1976 placed a concrete field marker in the ground at this site. No additional archaeological work has been conducted at this site, so little information about this site is known except for its general location. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Relocate the boundaries of the three archaeological sites and determine exactly whether the project would impact only CA-Ora- 99A and CA-Ora-50. A field investigation prior to the final design of the project would be advised. 2. Prior to any subsurface archaeological work, an archaeological coastal permit would be required. This permit requires the archaeologist to develop a research design for the archaeologi- cal investigation. This research design then is submitted to the Coastal Commission for review. This process can take 2 to 3 months to complete. 3. Test-level investigation for CA-Ora-50: The following procedures are suggested as test-level investigation: a. A qualified archaeologist should conduct the investigation. b . First-stage investigation should include complete site map- ping and controlled surface collection of artifacts. c. This site should be tested for subsurface deposit through controlled program of auger holes and test pits. Excavation of at least two 1 x 1 meter test units is recommended for each site. 3 d . Complete laboratory analysis should be conducted on recov- ered archaeological resources. e. An attempt should be made to date the site and to determine the horizontal and vertical extent of each and its rela- tionship to other known sites in the region. f. Information gathered during this test would be made avail- able in detail in writing to the Regional Office of the State of Archaeological Site Survey at the UCLA Archaeolog- ical Survey. g. Upon completion of the test-level work, it will be deter- mined if additional salvage work is needed at CA-Ora-50. 4. Salvage Excavation for CA-Ora-99A: At least a 5% representa- tion excavated sample is recommended for the remaining intact midden at this site and a 25% surface reconnaissance for the remaining site area. It is assumed that the previous datum used by ARI can be relocated to determine the site area for further investigation. Procedures outlined for CA-Ora-50 would be followed with the added step of a research design. BUDGET This budget assumes that CA-Ora-99B will be preserved in-situ and will not need additional field work. However, a salvage excavation of this site may be necessary if project plans directly impact this site as well . The fol- lowing budget is an estimate of the direct time and materials required to com- plete the above scope of services. Task 1 Review and Relocate Archaeological $ 1,040 Sites P.E. Field Director Time Task 2 Prepare Research Design Permit for 1,400 Coastal Commission Task 3 CA-Ora-50: Field and Lab Work 3,080 Task 4 Ca-Ora-99A: Salvage Field and Lab 34,360 Task 5 Analysis Expenditures: Soil Analy- 3,450 sis, Radiocarbon, etc. 4 Task 6 Report Preparation (Both Sites) $ 6,888 Total $50,218 The above budget does not include field crew per diem which would be con- sidered in a final budget. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. REFERENCES Archaeological Research Incorporated 1977 Newporter North Archaeology: Draft Report on Limited Testing 64 and 99A. On file at UCLA Archaeological Survey, EIR# 0-350. BP/gam f �soyl 02-219- GI' /4IBiUr°O�TE/L 1&-AYPr9NS/DA/ Tf�s41-5 44 .�vr +'' NAME PHONE W APPLICANT: 67(, ROUF Jos 'plN lycoo qa. ) n/ �1�- A` 39-- Dil l NInr1+ gfoloW^ Ur&N A�v 7- `11y - 56&- 9 x90 DAign lli=er- LA,vn+t( a/ - 3 g41-7?99 CONSULTANTS: / '�/�R/� lj'/(�/fa/�/ ��G� COI✓`^^ D9 DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE 5- DO oo / 000, O �S /5/7 0 1/ o?, 50 �_la 533, SU I C/ A/?,00 7- (a&92. So �-a� y �so. aa g99/. 5b 91L� q,79 ?v 2a-75.co jjj dEwPOkr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT p NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 14219 G4FOPNP l DATE / RECEIVI D FROM FOR• F ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT ! Q94A4104 i M DEPARTMENT BY .j..�..r.w'�..w.r.r�!Tit.w.ww....'.r.rr..w.�....�....r...+.� �� +w.r.�..�.. 1 t +t+` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date September 24, 1985 Demand of: Marie E. Gilliam Address: 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 Newport Beach California 92660 In the amount of $ 479.80 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT •rofessional services rendered re Newport Initial Stud Invoice No. 85-4 (NWP) 02-219-27' TOTAL $479.80 Approved For Payment: Department Hea Ind Approved: Finance Director mane e. gilliam, aicp APPROVED FOR PAYMENT' 4f2bcan plannin ay ,�5 westcliff nve, suite177 - newport beach, ca. 92660 Ian`;Rg p3rea r 714-645-0939 acc UNT NO.: oa- /` 2 -September 20, 1985 Mr. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Invoice No. 85-4 (NWP) Newporter Inn Initial Study Dear Pat: • This constitutes the final invoice on the above project. Charges outlined were accrued during the month of August 1985. Professional Services Hours Charges Project Manager 6.0 $240.00 Traffic Engineer 3.0 210.00 Graphic Artist 1.0 20.00 sub-total $470.00 Expenses Mileage sub-total $ 9.80 TOTAL DUE :$479.80 Please call if there are any questions regarding these charges. Sin erely, �o RECEIVEC ` Planni:t .q� Departrrwnt b Marie.E. Gilliam, AICP _ SEp241985 �4 OF NE�NPORT MEG/if EficH, z CALIF. • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date August 23, 1985 Demand of: Marie E. Gilliam Urban Planning Address: 7R s w st ]jff nxiva. sni�n 177 Newport Beach, California 92660 In the amount of $7,436.70 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT rofessional services rendered re Newporter Inn Initial Study Invoice No. 85-3 (NWP) 02-219-27 TOTAL $7,436.70 Approved For Payment: I Department Head A -te and Approved: Finance Director marie e. gilliam, aicp APPROVED FOR PAYMENT- rban planning BY W325 westcliff drive, suite177 - newport beach cc, 92660 Pia; nin., Dir 714-645-0939 AG0 NT Noor .: g -a�9-a� August 9, 1985 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Invoice No. 85-3 (NWP) Newporter Inn Initial Study Dear Pat: The following charges have accrued to the above project in the completion of the screencheck draft and the final draft report during the month of • July 1985. Professional 'Services Hours Charges Project Manager 43.5 $1,740.00 Research Assistant 1.4.0 100.00 Graphic Artist 11.0 220.00 sub-total $2,060.00 Expenses Water Quality/Hydrology $4,100.00 l i Etigineer ;•� ,•. Clerical Services 508.00 Printing & Graphics 747.70 Miscellaneous other costs 21.00 sub-total $5,376.70 �t 93 TOTAL DUE: $7,436.70 Eo Please call if there are any questions regarding these charges.; o���,<•sc� Sincerely, :•b�f P� t`���- FAA+ Marie E. Gi liam, AICP MEG/if . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date July 22, 1985 Demand of: Marie E. Gilliam Address: 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 Newport Beach, California 92660 In the amount of $ 4,650.00 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT 1-o fessional services rendered re Newporter Inn Initial Study Invoice No. 85-2 (NWP) 02-219-27 TOTAL $4,650.00 Approved For Payment: Department a J' .)eand Approved: Finance Director APPROVED FOR PAYMENT marie e. gilIiam, aicp By ban planni 0Trive 25 westcliff , suite177 newport beach, ca. 92660 Pi nnin Director ACC NT NJ.:� C1oZ-o� 714-645-0939 July 2, 1985 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Invoice No. 85-2 (NWP) x Newporter Inn Initial Study Dear Pat: The following charges have accrued tb the above project in the preparation • of the screencheck draft during the month of June 1985. Professional Services Hours Charges Project Manager 12.0 $ 480.00 Research Assistant 2.0 50.00 Graphic Artist 16.0 320.00 sub-total $ 850.00 Expenses Archaeological Consultant $ 300.00 Traffic Analysis 13,500.00 sub-total $3,800.00 Total Due: $4,650.00 Please call if there are any questions regarding these charges. Sincerely, Marie E. Gilliam, AICP MEG/if JUt eoa" g t • d . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Date June 10, 1985 Demand of: Marie E. Gilliam Address: 1825 Westcliff Drive, Suite 177 Newport Beach, California- 92660 In the amount of $ 533.50 ITEM OF EXPENDITURE BUDGET # AMOUNT essional services rendered re Newporter Inn nitial Study Invoice No. 85-1 (NWP) 02-219-27 TOTAL $533.50 Approved For Payment: Department ea ' jnd Approved: Finance Director ~ ; _ APPROVED FOR PAYMENT marie e. gil liam, aicp ban planning — 25 westcliff drive, suite177 -- � newport beach, ca. W660 Iann' g Director 714-645-0939 AC NT June 4, 1985 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Invoice No. 85-1 (NWP) - Newporter Inn Initial Study . Dear. Pat: The following hours have been charged to the above project in the preparation of the screencheck Initial Study up to May 31, 1985. Professional Services Hours Charges Project Manager 8.0 .,$320.00 Research Assistant 8.0 :'200.00 sub-total $520.00 Expenses Clerical Services $ 13.50 sub-total $ 13.50 TOTAL DUE • $533.50 Please call if there are any questions with regard to these charges. Sfncerely, Marie E. Gil iam, AICP S RECEIV1 g Plana;r:= Depart MEG/jf b 198 _ JUNu 1985 K1 CITY OF NEYJPORT BEACN; J� CALIF.