Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO004_SEAVIEW LUTHERN IINIIII IIII III IIIII dlllll IIIII dllll nll III Ild TP0004 00 9 OFFICE MEMORANDUM • Date.__., william blurock & partners Nc• G� , Seaview Lutheran Plaza architects planners Re:_.. __._.._____._.._.._..._____....._.....__ N � To: —Fred Talerico _....---- Enclosed is a check in the maount of $200 . 00 . This is — in payment of "Traffic Impact Analysis - Step 2" on _.. — t h-e-,&b o_v_e_x_e f_er_nc_e.d__p_r_ _jec t--_ Would you please forward a receipt of the above for our records -. . Thank you for your continued assistance in this matter. John Trittipo From: —._--� — Copies to: Dr. Jack Larson 2300 newport blvd. / newport beach / california 92663 / telephone 673-0300 / area code 714 � t AW MOHLE, PERRY &ASSOCIATES October 8, 1979 :: Mr. Fred Talarico TI 792 . I_ Environmental Coordinator y NE<. 11YQ,' 1�9 Department of Community Development i p„U .CU City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Seaview Lutheran Plaza 1% Test & I.C.U. Analysis Dear Fred: The following report summarizes the work you authorized by the agreement dated October 2, 1979, for the subject project in conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The results of the "1% Test" and "I.C.U. Analysis" are summarized as follows: Intersection Capacity Utilization 1982 w/o 1982 with Intersection 1% Test 1979 Project Project 1. San Joaquin Hills/San Miguel :::z- 1% 0.3609 0.3669 0.3710 2. San Joaquin Hills/MacArthur 1% 0.7664 0.8599 0.8617 3. Pacific Coast Hwy/Marguerite 1% 0.7957 0.9044 0.9044 4. Pacific Coast Hwy/MacArthur C 1% -- -- -- 5. MacArthur/Ford C 1% -- -- -' The above table indicates that the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Marguerite has an I.C.U. above 0.9000. This level, as the table indicates, is not due to project traffic. Please call me if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, MPA, INC. R. Henry Moh President RHM:vps MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 2565 E.Chapman Ave.SuBe 124,Fullerton,CA 92631 (714)738.3471 s s `° B/V � �y 0p 1) ,n 4un/t�U r 9 SEAVIEW LUTHERAN PLAZA ;r.9 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ; ^Ewpo�raF1g/94, �0 oqU,a�Cy Project Description ^' The proposed Seaview Lutheran Plaza consists of 100 one- bedroom dwelling units for senior citizens, to be built on a 2. 25-acre site located on the north side of Pacific View Drive between San Miguel Drive and Marguerite Avenue, in the City of Newport Beach, California. Figure 1 shows the project location map. In addition to the dwelling units, 63 parking spaces would be provided on-site. Indoor and outdoor recreational areas would also be provided for the anticipated 120 senior citizens. Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan. Current plans call for the construction to begin in September, 1980 and completion by September, 1981. Full occu- pancy by December, 1981 is anticipated. 1 Traffic Generation The project generated traffic is estimated as follows: Number of Peak 2' -Hour Peak 2 i-Hour Dwelling Units Generation Rate* Generated Trips 100 In 0. 4 40 Out 0 . 4 40 Total 0. 8 80 *Trip generation rate is expressed in trips per dwelling unit. 1 w � t I V S� tt Va7 V ,r�bah aG�Zs `�J� pROJECT SIM ��. PACIFIC vlow zw. r a` Jt tl' �C 9� r No ScA z.a FIGURE 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP a 2 ii ICE 01, NMI �1 .. visa 0'°° ,moo">• �''a �A�a ��t 4 vWx IS ,po t > d�A•�v ] eat ♦ ,��� _ �Q1 AAA _ auk O7 ryo :. o Trip Distribution and Assignment Approximately 70 percent of the generated trips would be oriented westerly on Pacific View Drive from the site, and 30 percent easterly from the site. * Based upon these estimates, the consultant has made assumptions as to the distribution of generated traffic farther away from the site. The results are shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the assignment of generated trips for the peak 23j-hour period. The project generated peak traffic vol- umes are shown in Appendix A. Critical Intersections Analyzed Based upon discussions with the City staff, five intersec- tions were selected for traffic impact analysis. Projection of 1982 traffic was made from existing traffic volumes, potential growth of regional traffic traversing the general area surrounding the project site, and currently approved projects which would be completed by 1982. The pro- jected 1982 traffic volumes were compared with the estimated project generated traffic, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach "1% Analysis" procedure for each of the five intersections. The results are summarized as follows. Detailed work sheets are included in Appendix B. *Source: Memorandum from Traffic Engineer to Environmental Coordinator, City of Newport Beach, dated August 1976. 4 H �pR p v� bprtO �¢G J�v a ��r, nh yea y5� �•� �.� PgpPIc V/IW .4g. 0 5% h a �c �o 9S� y� r FIGURE 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION 5 to Ikp�p 10 "o �r ,s 8 � KaJr a 26 ab �°�cific Vaal l+s, ro �e r a ro Jt 10 PEAK 2z- HOUR r�/0 /N 40 VEX. �c dur 40 v6H. rOTAL 80 VOH, .y. t FIGURE A. TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 6 Is Project Generated Traffic Greater Than 1% of Projected 1982 Intersection Peak 2'h-Hour Traffic? 1. San Joaquin Hills/San Miguel Yes 2. San Joaquin Hills/MacArthur Yes 3. Pacific Coast Highway/Marguerite Yes 4. Pacific Coast Highway/MacArthur No 5. MacArthur/Ford No Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis According to the Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach, an I.C.U. analysis is required of an intersection when the project generated traffic exceeds 1% of the peak 2k-hour traffic projected to one year after the anticipated completion , of the proposed project. Therefore, I.C.U. analyses were car- ried out for the three intersections mentioned in the foregoing section. The detailed calculations are presented in Appendix C. Results are I summarized as follows: Projected Projected 1979 1982 I .C.U. 1982 I.C.U. Intersection I .C.U. w/o Project w/Project 1. San Joaquin Hills/ 0. 3609 0. 3669 0. 3710 San Miguel 2. San Joaquin Hills/ 0 . 7664 0. 8599 0. 8617 MacArthur 3 . Pacific Coast Hwy/ 0 . 7957 0 . 9044 0. 9044 Marguerite Conclusions The foregoing I .C.U. analysis showed that the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue would have an 7 I.C.U. of 0. 9044 by 1982 without the construction of the pro- posed project. Construction of the proposed project would not change the projected 1982 I.C.U. value at this intersection, since the project generated traffic would not impact the criti- cal traffic movements at this intersection. The increase of I.C.U. value from 0. 7957 in 1979 to a projected value of 0. 9044 in 1982 is completely attributable to the anticipated growth of regional traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and to the "com- mitted projects", namely, projects which have been approved thus far and would be constructed by the end of 1982. 1 8 APPENDIX A PROJECT GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 PROJECT: S4-At11BA1 ZarlHERAN PLAzA INIERSE.CTION: JRMfOAQU/N NiLL$- t5A1V 1DUEL DATE: MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NL NT NR SL ST SR 13 EL aJ ET ER WL WT WR PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR PROJECT: J6.4111R41 ZUrI 4N P44.ZA I N I I RSI CT ION: NI9c<t8Z_�41,k S JO 4iLbV_AaS_ DATE:` PH,vm�. MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NL NT NR SL $ ST SR EL ET ER WL WT lie WR .r PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR PROJECT: SEA1114 / 1-1-17114kAN P�AX�k INIERSECTION: DATE: Py.voi MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR PROJECT: SFA11/541 I-uTHERAN PLAZA I1IIk5tllf(1N: /{IACA/p !/R. - /' MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NL NT NR --- -- -- _ I SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR PROJECT: d5AV/EW LclryERAN PLAZA IWICkSECT10N: �GJ�CAIHU� - F©�ZD _ DATE: P. N.I/o/. MOVEMENT 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 NL NT $ NR SL ST mot' SR EL ET ER WL WT WR PROPOSED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS YEAR APPENDIX B "1%" ANALYSIS" WORKSHEETS 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAN,/OAQu/N 111Z4S— SAW /MIME (Existing Traffic- Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1977) . Approach Existing Peak 2� Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Oi rection I Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour ' Peak 2N Hour Volume Growth Peak 21, Hour Volume Volume Volume i Volume Volume I1Northbound �z7 l A 0 ! y., southbound 4639 0 Q/ D p 7J 96 'Les tbound .46Z 40 /0 ( 3 p �7 tbuund /00 / 0 /Q I tv /Q E] Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumeg. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 _ DATE: 10/317? PROJECT: &A 1116o) I_0r eR Al /bM ZA FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACAR7"1111R — S9IVJdgOU/N11/ZlS (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197,?) IApprum,h i Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Gi rectlon i Peak 211 Hour Regional Protects Peak 2�S Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hours j Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume C� Q } Northbound 1775 /0 117v 1 u !Q 7 17 outhbaund 602 44057 `�� 'Eastbound ,3/ 9d Q �JO8 3117QD .7 r�5 Q desk tbound Hgo (/ 07' IA-6q 43 .Z6 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ICU Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volumeg. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: PPOJECT: SSA111,cW L,urh'ER AI P4AZA FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection p e. h! — 1P1ARaa6,Q1r4 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1977) IAppi uach Existing Peak 2x Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Di recti on Peak 2k Hour Regional Projects Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour' Volume Growth Peak 2> Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound _( 1177 D V 05477 5 v Southbound ; 7007 0 /zo �/8-Z7 �[CP /0 1lti +Eastbound . 3 777 70 Z/zO %'z.0/ !westbound �77(0 5� //� a9yr,5 z9 /o 1 El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21-, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 _ DATE: /10131710 PROJECT: S,42,4VIE10 L.UT11eq 4N PZAZA FARM I (i • V 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection p C• H• — /11i9CRRTNUfZ (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1977) (Approach v Existing Peak 21, Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Oireotlon ; Peak 2§ Hour Regional Projects Peak 21, Hour Peak 2ls Hour Peak 21,l flour- I Volume Growth Peak Ds Hour Volume Volume Volume I Volume Volume Northbound f Southbound , /995 /z 396 -Z zzL 24Z 8 I'Eas tLound 35�3/ �L6j� /76 36563 379 wes[bound ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 DATE: 101,4179 PROJECT: U�&A wEx 4110SAAN PLAZA FORM I e Y 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection 1WAC,4R7'H1/R.— FORD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197,,7) IApproach Existing Peak 21y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project INrection Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour' I Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound-- 37zo 3zo ! ISoathbound 1 3 y 6/5 7/(0 //59.5 �6 /0 'Eastbound ./5oZ/ Hestbound /z9/ 0 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21-, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I DATE: /Ol3l79 PROJECT: (Se/at/lea) 1-1t77 S1Q,4 1 /04AZA FARM I . J . I"illlt',It IIiiN IAI'At I I Y UI11. IYAIION ANAIY ,IS I It It., t i,nl ',on Judyuin Ili I I,, kd/Sdn P1lyucl Ih•. I LxisL1119 IrddIli VuIulm-. Iid,e•, un Aver.dgu Deily Traffit. Winter/Spr ing 19/9) geld VA f NIol Jluu UMMII IIb 4 '•'•' ,1 .11•• •"' Pr ❑k Y/L 4kON1 '11!1 Rat 1'kbJUl ,'H4JItl "" ' "" "• '" w•b V,i.y.1 Vo 1 w04• uC Net L, N•I Ical iu Yalumu Vwlun° uLnm NL 160U 16 .0100 _ • 0/00 0/00 NI IbOU 5 .0031* •003 1003 NR 1boo 6 .0037 - 00-37 0.3 SL� 16UU _ Y 113 .0706* • 0700 p( ST 1200 4 .0481 .0 9 •053 SR 150 /3 t l 3200 324 .1012* /3 • Ion 3 • 0 E F 48U0 530 .1108 A 7 • // O 0 ER 2 A 1600 8 .0050 •DO 0 •005'0 WT 4800 351 .0860* 9 • 0 7 •OrQ79 WR 62 rELLOWTIME 1000* ,lc EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIlATION 3609 j •,��� •/DODO LXI)TING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH WI/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.Q. •3 6 IXIrT!N, PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. •3 7/0 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 ❑ Prujected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of System improvement: & Lu z S A vie GU TffE/e.,,w PZA A DATE: I'kUJI r I - -_--_ - _-^ - FOAM IPJII If' 11 I ION LAI'AC11Y Ill ILIZAI ION ANAI Vol!, I it terset I ion Ma( Arthur Blvd./Sdn .)udquin IIiIIs Road ( L Isling Irattlt, Volmilvs Bdses on Average Udily II'dffiL Winter/Spring 1979) t Ala LXI%l IILUIONNI uOR11I ILO 1'/1 katio +1 ,�1u•, P�Nn'U;IL V/I k3Uo 4NUJLl1 1'RUJLLY nu..•n I t_1, lai tul Pn.Nlt V/C Vo I un'I RRUdEfI w/o Pro)e.t Vulwne V/C Retlu Vul. Ra[10 Volume Volume Vo lunge Nl 1600 85 .0531* 3 •0$$0 0550 NT- V00 - _ 490 .1531 3 53 • /70(o •1706 Nk 1b0U 128 .0800 • 080D Ogg$ SL 3200 _ 282 .0881 % • 1175 .5 • 11 1 Si 3200 919 .2872* 3 176 •3 31 - SR N.S. 387 — EL 3200 811 0* •d8o3* •A803 ET 14800 499 .1379 sr/ • / 00 •%508 ER 3 163 7 WL 1600 95 .0594 0$ !< • 061T WT 4800 165 .0727* /9 . 0 S • 0JF33 WR 184 YELLOWTIME 1000* j 1/000 i •/D00 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7664 EXISTING PLUS COHMRTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. -95,79 I-XI;T:NG PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ® 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: ,'EAV1EU/ LUTMEkAN PLgZA - DATE: 101Y119 . P!;OJEI t FORM 11 IfTllk%II IION IAPALIIY Ill 111/AIION /lf111ilY', I' ' I11tv1 "r1 I run LoasL Nwy./Mdlyuel Ite { lnlll 1 1. Vt.I1mw, liwwt un Ave rdyu DdIly Irdttic Wit L(-r;`.pr1119 ly /1 JAI I LAI'.I hl•ulna., UIIILI I II I n I I ul. V/C IJIIINh rI1111r I 1Wt 111 Vll lullil YU 1•nl YIIYni • 11111 vul ....I 'i• ILIR) _0 .0419* _ 0 0/9 X, _ is I I c,I IU --- - - 60 0856 .0916 PLl6 rill' 77 _ "I 1guU 127 .0794 0JDz5" IoOU - 107 .1194 60 •/$ • S69 �R 84 LI 1b00 _ 44 .0275 00. 17, -0275" I 3200 1542 .4819* ao a 53/ • SS3/ Lit _ 1600 64 .0400 o V 13 • 0�/3 WL 1600 84 .0525* • 0372S� • o,sag WT 3200 960 .3234 /Q tIC s • 3 V Wlt 75 5 rtl t4dtrldtJ .1000* 11 •l000 ,/oov f><ISIfNG INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7957 IRI�,iING Pt US COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U.1t7O " '•a: Pt US COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. • 90�s ❑ Projected plus prloject traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 O Projected plus project trdtfic 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 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0e',cription of system improvement: &S AV16W LUTHERAN PLAZA - - - -- _ DATE: /Oby - - _ FORM I I r�° PDa, �ITY OF NEWPORT BEA RECEIPT 9 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 06796 E 19� DATEEj 0n E RECEIVED FROM ( ' � '-/_ n fC ) s t�/hJ�� ll FOR: ACCOUNT N`O.� ACCOUNT O �"/"/ DEPARTMENT c 41rc i/1 Pl'///• t �gWPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT i OHO i NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 06796 1 � I'� E 19 _ DATTEE ' 00 RECEIVED FROM . 2tael? s .V FOR: �a 1 7A- ACCOUNT NO P ACCOUNT DEPARTMENT �•�( { BY ENDORSEMENT OF THIS CHECK EVIDENCES PAY- MENT IN FULL OF ITEMS SET FORTH I"-VOUCHER DATE D[scalPrlox ' AMouxr - WILLIAM BLUROCK& PARTNERS - " 5379 ARCHITECTS + 2300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (714) 673.0300 90.119/1222 i _ NEWP T BEACH, CA 92663 _/ LL I{ - IORDP E — - .�GG�.�—���•+� F DOLLARS TOTAL PAYABLE _ MAIN OFFICE -V•^Y-- - 1 FARMERS 0 MERCHANTS BANK 1 SOw E PINK AVE. LONG D[ACH. CALI ORHIA 9081E oz-zi9-50 = WY5o, = i a dZ—?o,-/-arJ /Z$,=t: i 2 2 20 L 198I: 0 i 08 wl + � • ENO CUEEMENTOFTHISCHCCN EVIOENCCS FAY- • • 5379 NlNT IN FULL OF ITEMS SET FORTH IN VOUC MEa '!DATE DESGRIPTION AMOUNT WILLIAM BLUROCK&PARTNERS ARCHITECTS 2300 NEWFORT BOULEVARD (714) 673.0300 90.119/122 NEW T BEACH, CA 926 _19 7 f- PAY �� PAY TRZ ORDF , �DOLLA TOTAL FAYASL! �_ _ '• _�.� _ MAIN OFFICE _FARMERS B MERCHANTS BANK - - - - ~ 302 FIN[AVE J LONG,[[ACM=CAL17!O[MIA.30[li _ _ _• _ %z5; zoi19a1. o oa EWoa CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH nI RECEIPT NEW PORT BEgCH, CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 06796 l i t F 19 i u 1 , M / GATE � � ,/�j r/� 00 i RECEIVED FROM � �✓ '� �i,/j(oe9 /CJ $ t�/�i i I i FOR: 1 r iACCOUNT NO ACCOUNT O ,//� n t •�7-�/ t , X .1`✓ DEPARTMENT c /�•�0�1 P L s J i I IN*ATION SHEET - TRAFFIC STUDY It is recommended that the applicant discuss the proposed project with a member of the Community Development prior to filing. This discussion should cover in detail the proposal and the procedural steps required to comply with the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. APPLICATION FORM 1 . Please type or clearly prink in ink the name, mailing address and telephone number of the applicant and record owner of the property involved. 2. Give the address of the property involved. If it has no address, locate in relation to its front street and nearest cross street. 3. Each application must include a detailed description of the proposed project including: A. proposed use of the site. B. detailed plot plan (8 1/2" x 1111) plus elevations or other pertinent information you feel will help illustrate your proposal . C. proposed development phasing of the project including beginning construction, completion date, initial occupancy, total occupancy, and other pertinent information to describe the proposed project phasing. 4. A detaill:d description of any measures you propose to mitigate the potential traffic impacts of the project. r TRAFFIC STUDY APPLICATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT PHONE MAILING ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER PHONE MAILING ADDRESS ADDRESS OR LOCATION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: DEVELOPMENT PHASING; Beginning Construction Completion Project Initial Occupancy Total Occupancy Month/Year Month/Year Month/Year Month/Year MITIGATION MEASURES:, &15 Do Not Complete Application Below This Line Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No. City Traffic Engineer Approval Date Planning Commission-Action Date City Council Action Date PR0378=T : l u�•ec N 0TACTS b�3 -o 500 �o , --t -- -8OtH5 -- 02 - 704- 00 = I-L5, - - - - ' e� PA.-1 MEW A -' _ r.._.._.._.- � t mow _ _ �� � � � �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �� RECEIPT t�+ ,EwPogr i @ NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 No. G9 6 5 0 tJJ�t4F00.H�P �9� � III 1 LATE /� 00 RECEIVED FROM ���//� .i.tts� i FOR: ACCOUNT 140 ACCOUNT NO. DEPARTMENT BV t AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 2nd day of October, 1979, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Mdhle, Perry & Associates hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT." W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, City desires to have the CONSULTANT prepare a Traffic Study for the proposed Seaview Lutheran Project in the City of Newport Beach. WHEREAS, CONSULTANT desires to prepare said Traffic Study. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare a Traffic Study on the proposed Seaview Lutheran Project in the City of Newport Beach in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. 2. SCOPE OF WORK The subject Traffic Study will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer for the preparation of such studies, in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code of the City, and City Council Policy S-1 . 3. BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time and material basis . In no event shall the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($450.00) . Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT's presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement. - 1 - 1 4. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete the provisions within thirty (30) days after execution of this Agreement. The subject Traffic Study must meet the approval of the Environmental Coordinator and Traffic Engineer of the City. 5. TERMINATION This Agreement is subject to termination by the City at any time upon serving written notice to CONSULTANT. The CITY shall be thereafter liable to CONSULTANT only for fees and costs incurred as of the date CONSULTANT receives such notice of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. APPROVED A4Atn'— CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By cti Ci Di re Comm nity Velopment Department CITY By4ohkle, rry Associates CONSULTANT - 2 - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given 'that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Lutheran Church of the Master for a ❑ Variance ❑ use Permit ❑ Resubdivision ❑ -XWUXXkUXKWXKXA&V Traffic Study on property located at 2900 Pacific View Drive, Corona del Mar - to p:ersci=t consider a Traffic Study for the construction of 100 one-bedroom dwelling units for Senior Citizens on 2.25 acres. Notice is hereby further given that said ' public h.earing will be e y held on the 8th day of November 19 79 , at the hour of _ 7.:AO _P .M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon . Debra Allen , Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE : Received for Pub . by___ -- Note : The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant . r DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT w SEAVIEW LUTHERAN PLAZA Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Prepared by: WESTEC Services, Inc. 17632 Irvine Boulevard Suite N Tustin, California 92680 September 15, 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section page 1. 0 INTRODUCTION AND FINDINGS 1 2. 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 25 4. 0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 87 5. 0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 91 6. 0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 101 7. 0 ANY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN 'THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 103 8. 0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED 105 ACTION ' 9. 0 REFERENCES 107 Appendices A R-3 DISTRICT ZONING REGULATIONS A-1 B TRAFFIC ANALYSIS B-1 C SENIOR CITIZEN SURVEY INFORMATION C-1 - D ENERGY IMPACT REPORT D-1 V E AIR QUALITY DATA E-1 F CORRESPONDENCE F-1 i LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figures Page 2- 1 Regional Map 8 2- 2 Vicinity Map 9 2-3 Aerial Photo 10 — 2-4 Topographic Map 11 2- 5 Site Plan 13 2-6 Schematic Study (Aerial View) 15 2-7 Lobby Floor Plan/Building Cross Section 16 2- 8 First , Second and Third Story Floor Plan 17 — 2-9 Typical Unit Floor Plan/Site Elevation Study 18 . 2- 10 Schematic Landscape Study 21 3- 1 Helicopter and Aircraft Noise Contours 36 3- 2 Areal High Use Facilities 60 3- 3 Grading Study 74 - 5-1 Schematic Site Study 1 94 J 5- 2 Schematic Site Study 2 96 5-3 Schematic Site- Study 3 98 Tables 3- 1 Current Traffic and Roadway Data 39 3- 2 Demographic Data 62 3- 3 Housing Data 62 ii Tables Page 3-4 Percent Change in Population 64 3-5 Neighborhood Service Critical Distance 67 Recommendations 3-6 Earthquake Parameters 73 3- 7 Maximum Project Emissions as a Percentage 81 of 1974 County Emissions from all Sources iii • 1. 0 INTRODUCTION AND FINDINGS 1. 1 INTRODUCTION This draft environmental impact report addresses the proposed development of Seaview Lutheran Plaza, a 100-unit senior citizen apartment complex in the City of Newport Beach. It has been prepared by WESTEC Services , Inc. , in accordance with the State Y of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (with recent amendments) . This report has been written in such a way as to summarize — existing information where available and to generate original data for those issues which carry unique and/or project specific • impacts . This procedure seems to be consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as discussed in 2 the September 8, 1976 issue of the California EIR Monitor. W This environmental impact report is not intended to be used as an engineering document. Likewise, it does not relieve the project applicant or the City of Newport Beach of their responsibility to insure that engineering documents otherwise required for this project are prepared. • 1 • 1. 2 FINDINGS The proposed construction of Seaview Lutheran Plaza — will entail the construction of a 100-unit apartment complex designed for use by retired persons. Also to be provided will be sufficient living amenities and support facilities to adequately serve a predicted population generation of 120 senior citizens. The 3. 562-acre project site is located on the north side of Pacific View Drive approximately one- eighth mile east of San Miguel Drive in the City of Newport Beach. This development is scheduled for completion within approximately two years of approval . • 1. 2 . 1 Adverse •Impacts Which Cannot Be Wholly Avoided • Alteration of existing ground contours through grading operation. • Potential for seismically-induced ground failure. • Contribution to degradation of regional air and water quality. • The loss of approximately two acres of man-disturbed and scrub vegetation. • Dust, fumes, noise and erosion potential accompanying construction (temporary effects) . — • Conversion of two acres of landscaped, open area to apartment-type residential use. 2 • • Change in nature and appearance of property from an on-and off-site perspective. • Increased traffic levels and concomitant noise increases . • Exposure to noise generated by occasional heli- copter overflights . • Increased traffic volumes particularly along Pacific View Drive. • Increased demand for municipal services and public utilities . • Need for provision of several unique on-site services . • Short and long-term increase in energy consumption. • Increased demand for public recreation facilities. • Irreversible commitment of land and the consumption of resources . 1. 2. 2 Beneficial Impacts • Compatible with Newport Beach General Plan pro- visions and current property zoning. • Increased patronage of local commercial centers. • Provision of low-cost housing and living amenities specifically designed for use by senior citizens . • 3 • 1.. 2 . 3 Alternatives The following alternatives have been considered by the consultant : • No Project • Higher Density, Residential • Lower Density, Residential • Commercial or Industrial Land Use • Recreational Use • Design Alternatives • y J 4 I -- 1. 3 CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY The environmental information in this report has been compiled and analyzed from the sources and individuals indicated. To the best of our knowledge and belief, this information is accurate, correct and reflects our best professional opinion of the direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the proposed project: is ael right Project Principal • Doug. as Woo Project Manager This report was prepared by WESTEC Services, Inc. of Tustin, California. The individuals contributing to this report •and their areas of contribution are as follows: Principal Investigators Douglas Wood, M.S. Human Ecology Michael Wright, M. S. Geography Physical Environment Richard Carrico, M.A. History; B.A. Anthropology Stephen B. Lacy, M.S. Biology • 5 • Douglas Wood, M.S. Human Ecology — 'Michael Wright, M.S. Geography Human Environment Douglas Wood, M. S. Human Ecology Michael Wright, M. S. Geography • 6 2 . 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2. 1 Location The subject property is located at 2900 Pacific View Drive in Corona del Mar. It consists of 3. 562 acres immediately north of Pacific View Drive approximately one-eighth mile east of its intersection with San Miguel Drive. Figures 2-1 through 2-4 (Regional Map, Vicinity Map, Aerial Photo and Topographic Map) present the site in a variety of aspects and relationships.. 2 . 2 , Objectives • Seaview Lutheran Plaza, Inc. , a non-profit corporation, _ is proposing the construction of low cost apartment-type dwellings for retired persons to be known as Seaview Lutheran Plaza. It is their intent to not only provide living facilities with sufficient individual amenities but also have them accompanied by community-type recreational facilities as well. The sponsorship of this type of housing, for persons on fixed or inadequate incomes , is in keeping with the "social ministry" of the Lutheran Church of the Master, immediately adjacent to the proposed project. • FULLERTON — 55 ANAHEIM ORANGE — O 22 N ' • 1 SANTA ANA 405 • NEWPORT IRVINE BEACH — PROJECT SITE — CORONA DEL A MAR ae��c U OL,G LAGUNA dh BEACH 0 1 2 3 6 f miles J • FIGURE — 2 -1 REGIONAL MAP 8 WESTEC Services. Inc. U.of Ca. IRVINE ._ eO4�fa Qa m �' cn Rd m� ��p� fiord Ad ' 's a • Newport Center N � •� Big Canyon Reservoir • • • PROJECT SITE 0 5.7 miles . FIGURE 2 . 2 VICINITY MAP 9 Xto W k 'Nit 4 01,11,Mau", 1ERIAL PHOTO f f . f F f l I l . ( l I i F F E • F All r , 9io * G x * q--- V, f� S u� bb� -�� � C f - � . f- • � r I il ' g- FIGURE 2 - 4 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WMEC Services. !n" 2 . 3 Project Characteristics • The 3. 562-acre project site currently contains the _ sanctuary for the Lutheran Church of the Master with adjacent parking areas. Application for resubdivision has been made with the City of Newport Beach. in order to divide the property into two parcels as indicated in Figure 2-5 and to be hereby referred to as Parcel A (2 . 12 acres comprising the western portion of the site) and Parcel B (the eastern 1.442 acres) . Parcel A is proposed to contain 100 units of retirement housing. They will be one-bedroom apartments designed specifi- cally for use by persons 60 years of age and older. These units will be contained within a three-story apartment complex • connected by a common • lobby. This structure will contain 81,000 square feet of total floor space within a building "footprint" of 30, 000 square feet; individual units will contain approximately 600 square feet. . This building will be designed to be similar to and blend with architectural styles of adjacent housing. Materials utilized will predominantly be those which blend into natural earth tones and colors. Structural design will be aimed toward constructing a high quality, low maintenance 3 apartment structure. Parcel B (see Figure 2-5) contains the Lutheran Church of the Master sanctuary, a 5,800 square foot building which currently seats 185. The church has established a Master Plan 3 • of an ultimate sanctuary seating capacity of 300. Also part 12 :z z BMW sun X'MA .00 o _ �` � 'v' ' �� � � ���,� : 1..�: 'AID v��■� A r�■. ua• i • of the Master Plan is the construction of a 5 , 000 square foot, two-story Fellowship and Christian Education Building (see Figure 2- 5) . These actions are not considered part of the current project proposal, but are mentioned for the sake of — information. Figure 2-6 is a schematic study of the location of existing buildings in relation to the structures proposed. Figures 2-7, 2-8 and 2-9 present renderings of floor plans for the lobby, a partial building cross-section, floor plans for all three stories , and a typical unit floor plan. Each unit will be equipped with full kitchens ; additional space in the community area of the building will be available in order to — • develop central dining facilities, if deemed necessary in 4 the future. ' The occupancy of these proposed apartment units will be limited "to residents 60 years and older of which 50 percent must have an income that is less than 50 percent of the average income of persons presently employed in the Orange County' statistical area, while 30 percent of the residents must have an income within 30 percent of this average income level. Rents for these units will be established by the average of rents within the statistical area (through study of comparable housing) , however, in no case will monthly rent be greater than one-quarter the income of tenants of each 5 • dwelling unit. — 14 p r �� _ wtolm Or Kif�.'���IJti��i(�I'�p• / FC4 In 1 � // i .•raj%� . ll� �9�� vr... '`�rr � t ( -1�' ya _ �• �rn '�- a� 1�/���%' � � vi � T/. \iI/f '',}y/ , . v l ,�y�/p`,��,'il'C��j����'. `� ' �..�'' � �I`''/���� J � -. .• sue® ��`��� ��'� �x� e:..—•:—�—'—ram � �'�,r �•� - „^ � .`-�� � fig\ � � �•c .l nt�x r ...i..s :% 1131r1 ili WAW tl� I!r'/ I •iii� ':... - ' ri•!1a4 al�n1 .1 �dutltll - PC �:�... MAN Figure 2-7 �.:�.. L�,.xi, aQ,;WF,.*1_,.'�•�'11!•�k;.. :::. 'a;r n,� i f� .y lei E E 01 PLAN "AN 1 NT A A -Iona.:x�razc 'wat,-of c.rn Figure 2-8 �\� 't ° 4��, ��� '/.��.,t.; r '6 rY , {� �_• !� �i �. �r/i x,11. iFr.,t.'1 _ '�� __ - __ �.� r `�=' : i0 �� � ii ` is � �i : � i►1� -. .� - - Based upon surveys of similar senior citizen housing, the average age of future project residents will be 71 years with 75 percent of tenants being single women. The average number of persons per household is 1. 2, which translates into -~ 4 a resultant population generation of 120 residents . Application for construction funds and related costs is being made to both the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the California Housing Finance Agency; only one of these income sources will be utilized for this project. In addition to these proposed 100 apartment units, the following types of living amenities and support facilities will also be provided: • 1. Streets/Access. As indicated in Figure 2-5, the - primary access route will consist of the central thoroughfare leading to the main entrance of the apartment complex. This roadway will serve dual function for both pedestrain and automotive uses . It will lead to parking facilities on the northeast portion of the subject property, hence providing two access routes (albeit one of a more circuitous , less convenient nature) into the apartment complex area. Access into the property via this main road- way will be through an entry gate which will be situated directly off of Pacific View Drive. Also 19 • to be provided will be a drop-off point with covered walkway to the Main Lobby. Parcel A will contain 63 parking spaces for use by residents and guests. Parcel B will contain an additional 82 parking stalls which are designated for use by church parishioners. 2 . Landscaping. Figure 2-10represents a landscape plan for the proposed project. Extensive land- scaping will surround the apartment complex as well as a five-foot landscaped berm between the apart- _ ments and existing sanctuary. These features are designed to create a visual • and physical barrier between the proposed structures and external areas. Fire retardant vegetation will be planted in areas adjacent to the proposed structures . _. A small identification sign will be located on the front wall of the main parking area in Parcel A. It will conform to City standards and the architectural style of the project. 3. Lighting/Security. As indicated in Figure 2-5, exterior lighting will be provided in all parking _ lots and walkways in order to insure sufficient security. The northern and western portions of the • project site will also be lined by a six foot concrete — block wall in order to maintain internal privacy. 20 mim off '�1/. 8�w o V l.'r�� - s b do r, • The portion of Parcel A fronting Pacific View Drive will contain a 30-inch light stucco washed block wall. 4. Open Space/Recreation. Outdoor recreation facilities will include garden plots , shuffleboard, a recreation patio, a shade structure (gazebo) , in addition to the outdoor patios or balconies provided with each apartment unit. These outdoor recreational facilities will be primarily situated along the northwest project perimeter adjacent to the apartment building (see Figure 2-5) . A pedestrian walkway will encircle the entire apartment building which also provides a means of limited recreational activity. • Indoor recreational facilities within the apartment complex will be adjacent to the Main Lobby and will include a lounge with a fireplace, card room, library and crafts area. The library, lounge and lobby will surround a garden court. It should also be — acknowledged that current and proposed Church facili- ties will also serve as areas of indoor recreation and W social activities . In this regard, it can be anticipated that a good deal of social interaction and group activity between the residents of Seaview Lutheran - Plaza and Lutheran Church parishioners will take place. 22 • S. Public Utility Infrastructure. The public utility infrastructure which is to be installed during initial construction phases will include connection with off-site utility service lines all of which run directly adjacent to the subject property. 2 . 4 Timing Construction will not commence any sooner than seven months following project approval. (This is primarily due to time involved with processing of necessary government applications. ) Construction activities are anticipated to require approximately seven to nine months. The entire project is expected to be constructed in one increment; no further phases of development are anticipated. However, it must be noted that the existing parking areas (54 spaces -- are currently provided) will be expanded (to 145 spaces) well before project occupancy in order to minimize any inconvenience 3 to Lutheran Church parishioners . - It can therefore be anticipated that project occupancy will not occur prior to late 1977 with completion and occupancy likely to occur in early 1978 . 23 • 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 3. 1 LAND USE 3. 1. 1 Existing Conditions The site upon which the proposed project will be situated currently provides a minor support function as a landscaped area adjoining the Lutheran Church of the Master sanctuary. The project area also contains a 31-space parking lot (currently utilized for church-related activities) and a small patch of unattended weedy vegetation. The project is situated in an area of rapid residential growth. The variety of land uses surrounding the subject • property are indicative of this areal residential use. They include: the Canyon Crest Condominiums , Bayfront Apartments and Harbor View Center (a commercial area offering a super- market, bank, hardware and drug stores, and other support facilities) to the west; Lincoln Middle School to the south (directly across Pacific View Drive) ; and the City of Newport Beach, Big Canyon Reservoir to the north. Immediately east of the project site (Parcel A) is the existing Lutheran Church of the Master sanctuary (Parcel B) while farther east are W residential areas, several other churches and the Pacific View Memorial Park. These land uses are presented visually in Figure 2-3 (Aerial Photo) . The project site is currently zoned R-3-B (Multiple Family, Residential) ; adjacent areas are similarly zoned r 2 •5 • with the exception of Harbor View Center (zoned C-0) and Bayfront Apartments (zoned R-3) . The site is designated for use as Government , Educational or Institutional Facilities by the City of Newport Beach, Land Use Plan and is outside any areas designated for -future open space use (City Open Space Plan) . Areas to the east of the subject property are similarly designated while those to the west are designated for Multiple Family, Residential and Retail and Service Commercial (the area comprised by Harbor View Center) . 6, 7 3. 1 . 2 Impact Implementation of plans for construction of Seaview • Lutheran Plaza as currently envisioned would result in a reduction in the amount of open, landscaped area adjacent to _ the existing Lutheran Church of the Master and Canyon Crest Condominiums . From a land use perspective, this transition to an apartment-type residential land use will only be 'evident to a minor degree for two major reasons . First , much of the surrounding area currently contains several large structures or _ has already undergone residential development, and second, the small amount of land to be devoted to the proposed uses (2. 0 acres) is not considered highly significant. The greatest impact of this land use transition will be felt by residents of adjacent areas , particularly those _ residing in Canyon Crest Comdominiums , adjacent to the subject 26 . property. However, this impact is seen to be more visual in nature (to be discussed in the following section) and not representative of a large scale land use transition. While the subject property is currently zoned R-3-B, a use which permits multiple dwellings and apartment houses, -. recent amendments to Municipal Codes , will allow senior citizen housing of the type proposed to be situated in any residentally-zoned area through securing of use permits . "The following uses 'shall be permitted in residential district subject tb securing a use permit. . . Institutions , cemetaries, public buildings , including churches, schools, hospitals, parks, and playgrounds , yacht clubs , cemetaries of 20 acres (minimum) , mausoleums , crematories , public utilities, public and quasi-public buildings , senior • citizen housing facilities , (where residency is limited to elderly persons) , and municipally- operated parking lots .118 However, R-3 zoning regulations (a copy of which is included — as Appendix A) may be utilized as a basis for design review. The proposed land uses also conform with the Land Use Element of the City General Plan in that the proposed project 8 is viewed as an institutional facility. 3. 1. 3 Mitigation Land use impacts can be mitigated through a reduction in the scale or size of the project or through implementation of certain alternatives discussed in Section 5. 0. 27 • 3. 2 VISUAL QUALITY -" 3. 2. 1 Existing Conditions — The Seaview Lutheran Plaza project site comprises _ approximately 2 acres consisting primarily of landscaped t grounds (regularly maintained grassy areas interspersed with a few cultivated tree species) . Its •level terrain precludes it being part of any major visual feature of the community. .r Ground level views in all directions from the subject property are generally dominated by existing structures or support facilities . Views to the east, are punctuated by the Spanish style, earthen toned structures of the Canyon Crest • condominiums, while those to the south contain facilities _ related to the operations of Lincoln Middle School (fences, athletic fields, large light standards, etc. ) . Parcel B, immediately to the east contains the Lutheran Church of the Master sanctuary which has a visually dominant spire facing Pacific View Drive. Future plans of the Church call for the construction of a two-story Fellowship and Christian Education Building on this parcel which is also expected to be visually significant. Views to the north offer the sole visual avenue of undisturbed open space. While the most noticeable aesthetic features in this direction are the power lines, shrubs, and landscaped areas surrounding Big Canyon Reservoir, the partially developed hillsides in the distance offer a limited sense 28 • of visual relief from the ground level views of urbanized areas in all other directions. 3. 2. 2 Impact The nature and appearance of the Seaview Lutheran Plaza - site will be significantly and irreversibly altered as a result of full project implementation. Figure 2-6 presents a visual representation of the general appearance of the proposed M project at completion. It will have a varied effect upon existing views , due primarily to the limited size of the project site (2 . 0 acres) as well as the fully developed condition of much of the surrounding property. • Several design features will be integrated into the final project design in order to reduce the visual impacts associated with the proposed project. They include: 0 Use of materials (wood and stucco) and colors (natural earth tones) which are similar to those of structures in surrounding areas . This will serve to W mollify any contrasts between the project structures and those in the immediate vicinity. • Creation of a visual and physical buffer between the apartment complex and adjacent areas through the erection of a six-foot concrete wall to line the • 29 • northern and western project boundaries. In addition, the provision of on-site landscaping will include several eucalyptus and pine trees and a five-foot landscaped berm between the Church Sanctuary and the apartment complex. (This berm will be created utilizing excess fill dirt from initial grading activities. ) (See Figure 2-10. ) • Collection of rehabilitation fees will be structured into the project ' s operating budget (through payment schedules , developed by HUD. ) These fees are a loan requirement which are deposited monthly into a repair, replacement and reserve account to • be utilized for replacement and repair of interior carpets , drapes , etc. and exterior (landscaping, walkways, etc. ) features of the project. This action will insure that the project site will not appear in a run-down or neglected conditon due to 4 lack of on-going funding. From an off-site perspective, the primary visual impact created by the proposed project will be a disruption of eastward views for residents of the Canyon Crest Condominiums , due to the introduction of a three-story apartment complex adjacent to Y their property boundary. However, it must be noted that the impact of this view disruption is significantly reduced when • y 30 • considering that nearly all of these condominium units have their entryways and patios generally facing in the opposite direction, away from the project site. (This design feature -- was most likely provided in order to take full advantage of westward views of the ocean and shoreline in the opposite direction. ) As a result, the primary activities which take place in the area facing the proposed apartment complex are entry into garages and other related activities (car washing, etc. ) . These visual impacts will be further mollified by the construction of the six-foot concrete block wall anticipated to line the western and northern project boundaries (see Figure 2-5) . This design factor will not only serve to • shield off-site ground level views from the west and north but will also insure a means of maintaining privacy for both on and off-site residents . -. The primary direction from which the completed project will be most visually accessible will be from the south. However, the anticipated similarity in building heights and styles will insure an overall visual compatibility with adjacent areas. Figures 2-7 and 2-9 present cross-sectional view analyses in order to indicate the degree of visual disruption posed by the project. As can be seen, the developed areas immediately adjacent to the subject property will assist in shielding the apartment building from view at points of greater distance. 31 • 3. 2. 3 Mitigation The specific measures to be integrated into the ultimate project design, as previously listed, will serve to significantly reduce impacts related to visual quality. It is recommended that such design measures be made condi- tions of project development. • • 32 _ • 3. 3 NOISE 3. 3. 1 Existing Conditions The ambient noise environment of the site was investigated on June 2, 1976, with the aid of a General Radio 1565 Sound Level Meter (SLM) which meets the requirements listed in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard S1.4- 1971, "Sound Level Meters". The SLM was calibrated with a General Radio Type 1562-A Sound Level Calibrator and fitted with a windscreen. Measurements were taken approximately four feet above the ground to avoid ground reflection influences . The A-weighting network and slow response mode were used • on the SLM. The A-scale is used for residential noise assessment guidelines and most closely represents the response of the human ear. On the day the readings were made (Wednesday, 9: 30 - 10: 30 a.m. ) , the sky was clear and a slight breeze was blowing. Spot measurements throughout the site revealed the ambient noise level throughout the property to be in the range of 48 - 52 dB(A) . The ambient noise levels were at the high end of this range at the northern edge of the property (furthest from Pacific View Drive) due to noise influences from con- struction activities taking place to the north. An occasional helicopter overflight was also noted but these activities did not result in a significant variation from the above ambient • noise range. 33 • 3. 3. 2 Impact — 3. 3. 2. 1 Construction Noise Periodically during Construction activities associated with the proposed project, construction noise will exist . Noise levels which can be expected in conjunction with these activities will fall within the range of 81 to 88 dB(A) at a distance of - 50 feet. The construction function is predominantly a daytime activity; no associated noise impacts are expected outside normal working hours. The temporary annoyances due to construction activities will impact to the greatest degree the residential areas immed- iately adjacent to the west of the subject property, and to a lesser degree the middle school to the south. 3. 3. 2. 2 Aircraft and Helicopter Overflights The project site is within a relatively short distance of two air facilities , the Orange County Airport and the Marine Corps Air Station, both in Santa Ana. _ The primary aircraft-related noise impacting the site is from occasional overflights of police helicopters , _ small private aircraft, and Marine helicopters. The project site is well outside the CNEL contours which define the areas significantly impacted by operational noise from the Orange County Airport. The project site is, however, near the sole 34 route used by the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) which passes through Newport Beach (the Palisades Route) . The project site lies within the 60 dB CNEL contours for this flight path w.. (assuming a flight altitude of 1,000 feet above mean sea level) 9 (see Figure 3-1) . .. Maximum sound pressure levels that may be expected along this 60 dB CNEL contour will approximate 83 dB(A) . This may cause some annoyance, possibly leading to complaints . However, considering the low number and short duration of daily overflights, it is not considered a highly overriding considera- 9 tion. 3. 3. 2. 3 Traffic Noise • Development of the site will create an increase in traffic loads on the primary access street (Pacific View Drive) thus incrementally increasing noise levels . It is expected that noise levels along this roadway will increase by no more than two to three dB(A) , well below the required 65 Ldn level. ' 3. 3. 3 Mitigation •r Regulations should be established to limit hours of operation permitted for construction activities . Such limits should be directed toward maintaining quiet and relative tranquil#y during evening hours and weekends. In addition, 35 r. I' � t�'� - LfELlCOPTER ' r v rr f 1 � 1 60d,8 6od6 HELICOPTER NELICOPTE 4 65 Aircraft r � t HELICOPTER \, :, \'�MJ.•ham ... a y.' Pj` ff r� =�;;� �.�a�• ._sue 7 �:` °� I , l ' �. , _",_�' � '"��--'' ' "�Ju - `•�> ` PROJECT SITE '•/�• .�. Q 4 Aircraft q�pp C19C3G9 ��• ;'� — Aircraft Q� GEC C9isCgC�C3C ' "�� �1C2C7C7C7C7C7G7C7C1� �� L?� 7 C7C10 my .�. ))•j Y` >" 'in.K.n CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH figure 3- :� •`' OIIANOE COUNTY. CALII'OPNIA AIRCRAFT AND HELICOPTER — NOISE CONTOURS 36 construction equipment should be equipped with the most efficient muffling devices available. The desired interior noise levels of 45 dB(A) should be achieved with standard construction practices . However, if excessive levels are revealed subsequent to project completion, w landscaped berms, masonry walls, or additional insulation may be necessary. • r r it 37 • 3. 4 CIRCULATION — 3. 4. 1 Existing Conditions The project site currently provides 31 of the 54 total parking spaces which serve operations of the Lutheran Church of the Master. Beyond this support function, the project site, neither generates traffic nor accommodates internal circulation. Access to the project area is limited to Pacific View Drive; this east-west roadway leads directly to San Miguel Drive and Marguerite Avenue which ultimately lead to San Joaquin Hills Road, MacArthur Boulevard and Ford Road. The major traffic generators in the area consist of Lincoln Middle • School, located on Pacific View Drive and Harbor View Center, at San Joaquin Hills Road and San Miguel Drive . Additional traffic of a more sporadic nature is that associated with activities of Pacific View Mortuary, located at the northeastern terminus of Pacific View Drive . Table 3-1 presents current 10 traffic volumes as well as their respective roadway capacities . Little in the way of planned expansion is currently anticipated for any of these areal roadways . The only traffic- related problems which have occurred in the recent past within the project area have been those related to motorists on San Miguel Drive not being aware of school children crossing the street on their way to Lincoln Middle School. However, • 38 TABLE 3-1 CURRENT TRAFFIC AND ROADWAY DATA Number of Average Daily Current Lanes (One Traffic Roadway Roadway Direction) (ADT) Capacity Pacific View Drive 1 30900 79000 San Miguel Drive 2 (plus left 6,000 30,000 (south of Pacific turn median) View) (north of Pacific 2 (plus left 2,000 30,000 View) turn median) Marguerite Avenue 2 (plus left 82000 25,000 turn median) San Joaquin Hills 3 (plus left 150000 450000 Road turn divider) MacArthur Boulevard 2 (plus left 28,000 30,000 • turn median) �- Ford Road 1 42200 71000 39 • these complications have been solved through the provision of a crossing guard at that intersection in combination with • 11 _ active issuance of citations by law enforcement authorities . The closes public transit route is that along MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road provided by the Orange County Rapid Transit District at half-hour intervals . 3. 4. 2 Impact _ The following discussion of circulation and parking impacts as a result of development of Seaview Lutheran Plaza is based upon a Traffic Analysis prepared by the City of Newport Beach, Traffic Engineer specifically for inclusion in this analysis. It is included as Appendix B of this report • and should be referred to if further detail is desired. 10 Based upon a daily generation rate of 4. 0 vehicle trips per dwelling unit, the proposed project is estimated to — generate 400 vehicle trips per day. It is anticipated that 70 percent of this resultant generation (280 vehicles) will proceed west on Pacific View Drive while the remaining 30 — percent (120 vehicles) will proceed to the east. Exhibit I of Appendix B assigns traffic volumes generated by the project — to the surrounding roadway system as well as indicating the current volumes and capacities of areal roadways. As indicated _ therein, traffic from the site •will not create any significant 40 impacts upon the surrounding street system in that they possess adequate capacity to handle the additional project-related traffic. Since normal peak hour volume for senior citizen communities occurs between 10: 00 a.m. and noon, little in the way of conflict with normal a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic is foreseen. Much of this current peak hour traffic is related to W activities associated with operations •of Lincoln Middle School ,. across the street from the project site. Given the complementary nature of peak hour characteristics of the project and school , ` little difficulty is envisioned in relation to the interface of their respective operations. • • Parking Current project plans call for the provision of 63 parking spaces for the 100 dwelling units, a rate of 0. 63 . spaces per dwelling unit. While this ratio is below current r. City zoning requirements , an analysis was made of actual needs _. rather than conformance to current City codes . Observation of similar projects in Southern California indicated an average ratio of 0. 45 spaces per unit. This conclusion is underscored by data collected by the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment relating to automobile ownership and elderly housing (see r Appendix Q . This data indicates that for various regions throughout the United States, autos per dwelling unit averages 41 • between 0.102 to 0. 347. The highest single project ratio in — the Western United States was 0. 458 auto per dwelling unit observed on Phoenix, Arizona. Since the proposed project provides a parking ratio — of 0. 63 spaces per dwelling unit, it is felt that adequate off-street parking will be provided. • Public Transportation — While it is doubtful that the proposed project , in and of itself, will generate the need for public transit service, the future extension of San Joaquin Hills Road and future — development along the Pacific Coast would likely result in the • provision of feeder bus service along this thoroughfare to be — utilized by the community in the future. In addition, project sponsors anticipate the provision of private bus service for project residents to high use areas in the vicinity. — 3. 4. 3 Mitigation — Evaluation of the adequacy of the number of parking _ spaces to be provided soon after full occupancy would seem appropriate. Future measures aimed at alleviating any unforeseen — congestion of local roadways may include installation of stop signs, left turn lanes and traffic signals . • It is hoped that the provision of transit, both private and public -- particu- larly valuable to senior citizens -- would serve the project • residents at the first opportunity. 42 I 3. 5 URBAN SUPPORT SYSTEMS Urban support systems include those functions provided by local government and public service companies which allow a community to function in an efficient, progressive, safe, healthy and peaceful manner. Urban support systems considered for this project include: • Police Protection. • Fire Protection. • Health Care. • Public Utilities (natural gas , electricity, solid waste disposal, water, sewer, telephone) . • 3. 5. 1 Police Protection 3, 5. 1. 1 Existing Conditions Police protection in the project area is provided by the City of Newport Beach, Police Department. The project site lies within the Police Department' s Reporting District #49. Service to the area emanates from the Main Station located at 870 Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately one mile from the project site. Patrol of the area is accomplished via motor vehicle; no unusual or unique types of crime are committed in the area. Most police calls are related to the adjacent Lincoln Middle 11 School (bicycle theft, minor vandalism) . • 43 • 3. 5. 1. 2 Impact _ Ultimate development of the subject property, as currently envisioned, will create an incremental increase in the need for law enforcement in the area. Of ,particular concern to law enforcement authorities is the interface of school children entering and leaving Lincoln Middle School 11 with traffic generated by the proposed project. This concern is discussed in greater detail in Section 3. 4, Circulation. 3. 5. 1. 3 Mitigation Site and building design should be conducted with an eye toward crime prevention, a primary concern of senior • citizens . Several specific design measures include: • The provision of "defensible space" in areas of high use. This design technique attempts to _ maximize the number of individuals who could provide a surveillance function in highly-travelled areas without relying totally upon law enforcement _ authorities. In the case of this, project, high use areas would include the main entry road, parking lots , recreation areas and the main lobby. • A measure which would enhance this surveillance function would be the provision of adequate lighting • in the entry routes and parking lots. 44 • Windows placed well away from doors 'and the installation of deadbolt locks would serve to reduce the chances for unauthorized entry. • An electronic internal security system between individual living units and -the main desk would serve as a security as well as a safety function. • A 24-hour resident apartment manager would also serve to enhance security and surveillance functions. 3. 5. 2 Fire Protection • 3. 5. 2. 1 Existing Conditions Fire protection services to the project area is provided by the City of Newport Beach, Fire Department. The Y closest facilities are Station #3, the Newport Center Station at 868' Santa Barbara Drive, and Station #5, the Corona del Mar Station, at 410 Marigold Street. Each station is approximately one mile from the project site, which translates into a response time of one to two minutes, depending upon traffic conditions. Station #5 contains one engine company while Station #3 has three engines and a snorkel (aerial) unit for multi-story fires . The Newport Center Station (#3) also provides emergency paramedical 12 and ambulance services to the area. 45 • The Newport Beach, Fire Department is considering the -' provision of an additional station in the Harbor View Hills - San Joaquin Hills Road area in response to the rapid rate of _ 12 residential development currently underway. 3. 5. 2. 2 Impact rJ The proposed Seaview Lutheran Plaza will, as in the case of police protection, create an incremental increase in the demand for fire protection and a higher than usual demand for emergency paramedical services . The Newport Beach Fire Department does not anticipate any major problems in serving the project site (given adherence to City Standards relating • to building codes, the provision of fire hydrants, and street 12 widths which insure adequate turning radii) . As discussed in Section 2, two means of ingress and egress will be provided, a highly significant factor in fire fighting efforts . One additional burden which may occur in the event of a fire emer- gency would be the additional manpower required for resident evacuation. However, such a burden can be alleviated through _ implementation of certain measures listed in the following subsection. 3. 5. 2. 3 Mitigation — The following measures would not, only serve to ease _ burdens upon fire fighting authorities in the event of a fire • 46 episode but will also reduce the chance of its occurrence: • Implementation of plans for another fire station in the Harbor View Hills - San Joaquin Hills Road area. Provision of fire hydrants conforming to City Standards and interior streets wide enough to insure adequate turning radii. 0 Implementation of plans for the provision of buffer areas containing fire retardant vegetation. In addition, fire retardant roof materials should be utilized. • • Plans for hasty, yet orderly, evacuation pro- cedures should be promulgated and practiced regularly in order to reduce the necessity for outside assistance during a fire or any other emergency. • Construction should meet the requirements of the City Uniform Building Code. • 47 3. 5. 3 Health Care 3. 5. 3. 1 Existing Conditions — The closest hospital facilities (in terms of ambulance _ response time) is either Hoag Memorial Hospital at 301 Newport Boulevard in Newport Beach, or Costa Mesa Memorial Hospital at 301 _ Victoria Street, in Costa Mesa. Both hospitals provide treatment for acute disorders (as opposed to extended) with full emergency care centers. Costa Mesa Memorial has a 99-bed capacity with _ an average occupancy of 57 percent; while Hoag Memorial has 471 beds with an average occupancy of 67 percent. These facilities also offer a multitude of services that senior citizens typically • require; they include specialized treatment capabilities for 13 emphysema, arthritis and coronary care. _ 3. 5. 3. 2 Impacts Due to the advanced age of future Seaview Lutheran Plaza residents , it can be anticipated that a higher than normal proportion of health care demands will be created as — a result of the anticipated population generation of 120 senior citizens . Based upon current occupancy rates and capacities , these hospitals will be able to accommodate the additional patient loads created by the proposed project without signifi- 13 cant impacts upon their operation. 48 3. 5. 3. 3 Mitigation A viable system of numbering and identification for living units within the proposed apartment complex would assist health care , as well as police and fire authorities, all of whom must operate as quickly as possible. The aforementioned internal electronic security system (Section 3. 5. 1. 3) would also serve to speed emergency health care assistance. 3. 5. 4. Public Utilities 3. 5. 4. 1 Existing Conditions • 3 . 5. 4. 1. 1 Gas Natural gas service to the Newport Beach area is supplied by the Southern California Gas Company. Existing facilities include a 3-inch main on the north side of Pacific View Drive which provides natural gas service to areas to the 14 north of the roadway. 3. 5. 4. 1. 2 Electricity Electrical service to the project area is provided by the Southern California Edison Company. There is currently a 12 KV circuit on an aerial pole line running along the northern perimeter of the subject property. This line leads to under- ground distribution facilities running along the east side of 15 San Miguel Drive. 49 • 3. 5. 4. 1. 3 Water — Water service to the project area is provided by the City of Newport Beach via an 8-inch water main on Pacific View Drive. Their domestic water is purchased from the Metro- politan Water District whose primary source is the Colorado 16 River. 3. 5. 4. 1. 4 Sewers — Sewer service is also supplied by the City of Newport Beach; .existing facilities include an 8-inch sewer main which runs along Pacific View Drive. Sewage is transported to Orange County Sanitation District Facilities for primary • 16 treatment. 3. 5. 4. 1. 5 Solid Waste Disposal The project area is served by the City of Newport Beach, General Services Department for residential service while larger commercial, industrial or office facilities (which employ bin-type service) are taken by private contractors , primarily by Dewey' s Disposal Service of Costa Mesa. Resultant solid waste is transported to the Coyote Canyon Landfill, a Class 2 landfill (no liquids, no hazardous or toxic materials) with an — estimated lifespan to 1980. Following that, should other methods of disposing of solid waste still not exist, additional 18 • landfill areas will be necessary. — 50 3. 5. 4. 1. 6 Telephone The planning and provision of telephone service to the project area is the responsibility of Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company. Existing facilities include a 50-pair aerial feeder line directly north of the project perimeter which 19 leads to a primary feeder line along San Miguel Drive. 3. 5. 4. 2 Impact 3 . 5. 4. 2. 1 Gas W Based upon an annual usage rate of 95,000 cubic feet w per unit, the proposed Seaview Lutheran Plaza apartment complex • will consume approximately 9. 5 million cubic feet of gas per -- year. The Southern California Gas Company anticipates provision of natural gas service to the project without interruption or incurring significant impact. Service will emanate 14rom their 3-inch line on the north side of Pacific View Drive. 3. 5. 4. 2. 2 Electricity Assuming that the average apartment unit within Seaview Lutheran Plaza will consume 633 kilowatt hours of 20 electricity per month, an annual consumption of approximately 759,600 kilowatt hours of electricity will result. Service lines will connect with the 12 KV aerial pole line immediately 51 • north of the project site. The projected loads are well — within the parameters of growth that the Edison Company is 15 — planning to meet in the area. 3. 5. 4. 2. 3 Water Using an average daily consumption rate of 160 gallons per person, development of Seaview Lutheran Plaza as currently envisioned will result in the annual consumption of 7. 008 million gallons of water. _ It is anticipated that water service to the project site will emanate from an 8-inch water main running along Pacific View Drive. The City of Newport Beach, Utilities • Department does not foresee any unusual problems in providing water service (including adequate pressure for fire-fighting 16 purposes) to Seaview Lutheran Plaza, upon completion. 3. 5. 4. 2. 4 Sewers Based upon a generation factor of 100 gallons of sewage per person per day, the completed project will generate 4. 38 million gallons of sewage annually. The City of Newport Beach, Utilities Department does not anticipate any unusual — problems in providing sanitary sewer service to the subject property upon development. Sewage lines will connect into the 16 8-inch main on Pacific View Drive. 52 3. 5. 4 . 2. 5 Solid Waste At a rate of ten pounds per person per day, the proposed project will generate 219 tons per year of solid waste. It is anticipated that service will be provided through large capacity trash bins . Little difficulty if foreseen in terms of solid waste collection by the area' s franchised contractor (Dewey' s Disposal Service of Costa Mesa) ; however, such a generation will serve to incrementally decrease the projected 17 , 18 life8pan of the Coyote Canyon Landfill. 3. 5. 4. 2. 6 Telephone The Pacific Telephone Company will provide telephone • service to the proposed project upon completion without any foreseeable difficulty. Service will emanate from aerial feeder lines directly northloof the project site, all new facilities will be underground. 3. 5. 4. 3 Mitigation Due to the scarcity and rising cost of energy supplies, increases significance has been attached to energy conservation -. measures incorporated into the project design. The following measures have been proposed by the project architects to con- serve and pr20mote efficient use of energy supplies (see Appendix D) : 53 • The incorporation of insulation in all exterior — walls and roofs which is equal to or greater than required by the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, _ Article 5 , Energy Insulation Standards . • Installation of glass which is restricted to a type and area which is equal to or better than that required by the Energy Insulation Standards . (These considerations are especially relevant _ to the comfort of senior citizens . ) • Use of fluorescent lighting rather than in- candescent lighting where possible. • Utilization of overhangs and external wall protections to shade glass particularly on the west exposure . 0 Planting of deciduous trees that provide shade for southern exposures during the summer months and allow sunlight through in the winter months . _ • Use of individual meters for each apartment to encourage conservation of energy. • Provision of time control devices to limit _ energy used by house lighting, parking lighting, _ and community area heating and cooling equipment. • 54 0 Use of solar energy to heat domestic hot water supply to laundry. The following measures are suggested as further means of promoting efficient use and distribution of energy resources during the life of the project: • Measures for non-mechanical ventilation of structures should be implemented wherever feasible, thus conserving on the amount of energy devoted to interior heating and cooling. It would also seem advantageous to maximize the degree of design compatibility with prevailing climatologic • regimes . • Street, walkway, and recreation area lighting should be selected and situated with regard for minimizing energy consumption without sacrificing safety considerations . • Builders and architects should seek, within reason, appliances, interior lighting, insulation and space heating and cooling methods designed to minimize internal load factors . a Water saving devices, such as small reserve tank toilets and low pressure water lines should be installed in all bathrooms and kitchens. 55 • • The prudent use of water for irrigation purposes would also serve to reduce total water demands . — • Printed materials on energy saving techniques should be obtained from the utility companies and provided to all project residents . • All utilities should be notified well in advance of any construction in order to coordinate efforts in the provision of the on-site public _ utility infrastructure. • Any efforts aimed at the establishment of solid waste recycling programs , particularly for paper — • goods, aluminium, and glass, would not only serve to reduce solid waste generation but also slow the depletion rate of these non-renewable resources . • 56 3 . 6 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE 3. 6. 1 Existing Conditions The project site currently serves as visual open space for residents of Canyon Crest Condominiums and parishioners of the Lutheran Church of the Master. Its sole active recreation- al function is that of a site for occasional outdoor church activities . A variety of neighborhood or community parks and recreation areas exist in the Harbor View Hills - San 21 Joaquin Hills Road area. 1. Lincoln Middle School contains lighted ball • diamonds, track and soccer facilities situated between Pacific View Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road. 2 . San Joaquin Hills Park consists of 4. 5 acres immediately south of San Joaquin Hills Road. Facilities include four tennis courts • two lawn bowling greens and a Senior Citizen's Center which coordinates senior citizen activities for the entire Newport Beach area. 3 . Community Youth Center located at 5th and Iris Streets in Corona del Mar. It offers a variety 57 • of activities in conjunction with the Newport- Mesa Unified School District. Facilities include tennis courts, ball diamonds and a recreation building. 4. Corona del Mar State Beach Park not only offers an immense variety of beach-related activities but also a series of view parks offering spectacular ocean panoramas , including Inspiration and Lookout Points . 5. An additional view park is situated within the Spyglass Hill area. • 3. 6. 2 Impact The limited open space and recreation functions currently provided by the subject property will be eliminated as a result of implementation of the proposed project. However, such an impact, due to the minor importance of these functions is not viewed as being highly significant. _ It can be expected that a large portion of the recreational needs of the Seaview Lutheran Plaza residents will be satisfied by the on-site recreational facilities to be provided. These include garden plots , shuffleboard, a recreation patio and gazebo, walkways, lounges and cardrooms . In addition, many recreational activities will take place within and in • r 58 conjunction with Lutheran Church facilities and activities • li (see Section 2 . 3) . r. Development of the project site would, at worst , result in an incremental increase in demand upon the aforementioned recreational facilities of the area. However, the specialized nature of future residents ' recreational needs would tend to indicate that a large proportion of off-site recreational activity will take place at San Joaquin Hills Park. This -. facility not only provides lawn bowling greens but also a gathering place for senior citizens . The City of Newport Beach Senior Citizen Centers, which coordinates all senior citizen activities for the area • is also located there. Its close proximity to the project site would further encourage its use by project residents Figure 3- 2indicates the location and approximate distance of these and other high use areas expected to be utilized by project residents. 3. 6. 3 Mitigation While it is unlikely that on-site facilities will totally satisfy the recreational needs of further project residents , they' will serve to reduce demand upon recreational facilities in the immediate area. Coordination of efforts between the project and activities of the adjacent church will not only provide • 59 • 1 pond Rd. /2 mile north aD - m m a PROPOSED y+° PROJECT San a V Shopping _ gin Hips Complex �Paciflo V/eM• Fashion c, Island • �~ Son Par 3c Joaquink A d — 4 Edwards et,�e Clname MEDICAL gees Senior Citizens Center Project Irvine ��` SfA Ave. Terrace \ Park \ •• Sharman \ Corona Del Mar Foundation \ \\ / Library Port Theatre \ State `�� 1 Coast HW . Beach 11000 J� • � Corona Del My Shopping District • FIGURE 3.2 AREAL HIGH USE FACILITIES 60 WESTEC Services, Iic • recreational activities but will satisfy certain social needs as well. Provision of transit service to these aforementioned w off-site high use areas would tend to encourage their use by project residents. • 61 • 3. 7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS - 3. 7. 1 Existing Conditions — The Seaview Lutheran Plaza project site lies within _ Statistical Area M3, Census Tract 626. 03 and the City of Newport Beach. The following tables present pertinent demo- — mographic data regarding these statistical divisions : TABLE 3-2 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA % Increase 1975 Since Median Population 1970 $ 65+ Age Statistical Area M3 992 NA 8. 39 32 . Census Tract 626. 03 (l) 80697 147 3. 96 34 City of Newport Beach 63,101 27. 6 9. 89 34 TABLE 3-3 HOUSING DATA Increase Dwelling Since Persons/ _ Unit 1970 Vacant Household Statistical Area M3 530 NA 8. 30 2. 04 Census Tract 626. 03 (l) 22862 142 4. 23 3.17 City of Newport Beach 29,812 32. 6 10. 93 2. 36 (1) This designation does not include Statistical Areas F6 and F8 (Cameo Shores) . 62 These figures are indicative of the rapid trend of urbanization .underway in the San Joaquin-Harbor View Hills area of Newport ' Beach. Additional census data indicates that residents are predominantly white with an annual income well over $20,000. Many of the existing dwellings are either resident-owned or leased on a year-round basis. Statistical Area M3, within which the project site lies , has a higher number of dwelling units than the other four sub- areas (M1, M21 M40 M5) but at a lower overall density of 2.04 persons per unit (as compared to 3. 04 persons per unit '- for Census Tract 626. 03) . The majority of individuals residing in Census Tract 626. 03 are non-minority whites (roughly 90-95 • percent) while this proportion within Statistical Area M3 is .. 83 percent. 3. 7. 2 Impact Seaview Lutheran Plaza will at ultimate completion,- result in the addition of approximately 120 senior citizens to Census Tract 626. 03 and the City of Newport Beach. The percentage relationship of this addition to the senior citizen and overall population totals of these areas are presented below: 63 • TABLE 3-4 PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION ' Percent in Addition Senior Citizens Population (65+) Total Statistical Area M3 145 12. 1 Census Tract 626. 03 34. 8 1.4 City of Newport Beach 1. 9 . 19 W The introduction of 100 dwelling units represents a 18. 9 percent increase in the housing inventory of Statistical Area M3 while comprising a 3. 5 percent and . 34 percent increase in Census Tract 626. 03 and the City of Newport Beach, respectively. — • However, the nature of this addition of small apartment-type dwellings to house low to moderate income senior citizens represents a significant departure from the demographic character _ of the local area. As previously stated, census data for area M3 indicates a predominantly, middle-to upper-middle class neighborhood comprising residents who either own their homes or lease on a year-round basis. To completely understand the potential impacts of this project, it is important for decision-makers as well as project Sponsors to comprehend the key relationship between seniors housing and necessary services. To help provide this understanding, this socio-economic review has been expanded to review this • facility, its projected tenants and neighborhood setting. _ 64 The proposed project will produce a facility targeted for persons aged 70 and over, with a high predominance of single females with incomes less than $8,000 (based upon a 1975 Special Census) . These persons will be capable of self- maintenance and more mobile than other sectors of the Orange County seniors community. Previous studies would indicate that approximately 25 percent of the individuals attracted to the facility will be from outside the City of Newport Beach. Thus, roughly 90 of the project residents already reside in Newport Beach and exert 4 demands on City facilities and services . The fact that most residents are from within the area will help neighborhood • stability and hopefully reduce acclamation conflicts. These future residents will likely be attracted to the project. to the project for a variety of reasons some of which are listed below: a. Unit Size and' Type will have obvious implications on occupancy patterns. Apartments providing one bedroom and individual kitchens will primarily attract single persons who possess a relatively high degree of self-maintenance capabilities. The overall' project design and amenity package will also attract seniors desirous of a living environment requiring little in the way of main- tenance (gardener, repairs) and material amenities (automobiles , etc. ) . 65 • b. Rent Levels plus other eligibility requirements will insure that a majority of residents will have annual incomes at or below $7,000 to $8 ,000. Many of these seniors are currently being priced out of the increasingly costly housing market. C. On-Site Activity Areas and Programs will promote active recreational functions at well as a good deal of social interaction with Church parishioners. These programs will be particularly attractive to prospective residents who may have recently lost a spouse or companion. • The elderly resident likely to be attracted to the proposed housing facility will be generally neighborhood-based carrying out the normal routine of shopping and visiting within close proximity to their residence. Walking and public trans— portation are the expected common modes of travel. Proximity to convenient services and facilities is one of the more important criteria in considering the quality of a site for development of elderly housing , Table 3-5 illustrates ,a list of service radii previously identified as having a 22 "critical distance" between the housing and service location. At distances beyond the critical distance, older people make substantially less use of goods and services than when these _ services are closer. The table also compares the actual 66 1 t t k ! f t• t i f 1 4 ! 1 • i TABLE 3-5 NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE CRITICAL DISTANCE RECOMMENDATIONS Critical Actual Service Distance Distance Bus Stop on-site to 3 blocks 1/2 mile " Outdoor Area on-site to 3 blocks on-site Laundromat on-site on-site Supermarket 1 - 10 blocks 1 block Bank 1 - 10 blocks 1 block Post Office 1 - 3 blocks 1 mile Department Store 1 - 3 blocks 3/4 mile Cleaners 1 - 11 blocks 1 block Senior Center on-site 3 blocks Beauty/Barber Shops on-site to 10 blocks 1 block Physician or clinic 1 - 10 blocks 3/4 mile Public Library on-site to 10 blocks 1 mile Dentist 1 - 10 blocks 3/4 mile Eye Doctor 1 - 10 blocks 3/4 mile Foot Doctor indeterminate 3/4 mile Family Oriented Movies " indeterminate 3/4 - 1 mile Church/Synagogue indeterminate 2 - 3 blocks J • distance of several selected services in the project neighborhood with the critical distance standards . As can be seen from the actual distance column, most of the services are within the critical distance radii. Exceptions are close enough outside the critical distance range to produce little negative effect on the project's suitability. r ' Moreover, they are all reasonably accessible by motor vehicles. Public transportation services , in general, appear to provide good access to many points in Newport Beach. However, _ the distance between the subject property and the nearest bus stop, at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road (approximately one-quarter mile) merits • special mitigation. One such measure is the provision of project- sponsored mini-bus service. Such provision would not only provide a convenient connection with public transit routes but will also deliver project residents to areas of intensive use beyond convenient walking distances. Another potential problem specific to senior citizens is the interface of school children from Lincoln Middle School with project residents . While the actual incidence of verbal and physical abuse will likely be minimal, sufficient anxiety may be created if left uncontrolled. Evaluation of the interface between students and seniors undertaken immediately following project occupancy would serve to _ designate any need for increased. patrol of the area by suitable • authorities. 68 • A final project-specific necessity is the potential provision of maid service. Initially, this is probably not - needed in that the residents will be fairly mobile and capable _ of taking care of themselves . However, as the project tenants age and as an increasing proportion of them develop chronic - disabilities, such service may become necessary. However, no such services are planned as part of this project under the assumption that the County would serve these needs as part of their Seniors Citizens Program. However, since the demand for these services currently exceeds County capabilities , any future demand created by the proposed project may 'represent an 23 adverse impact. • 3. 7 . 3 Mitigation It is recommended that the project proponents continually evaluate the need for a phased program designed to provide housekeeping services . These services could be provided by the facility or in conjunction with existing County-wide programs. Previously discussed measures aimed at provision of private mini-bus service and evaluation of activities of school children is also highly recommended. 69• • 3. 8 GEOLOGIC/SOILS/SEISMIC 3. 8. 1 Existing Conditions — 3. 8. 1. 1 Geology/Landforms The project site is within the San Joaquin Hills , — which is a faulted, complex mixture of sedimentary and volcanic rocks. While the San Joaquin Hills area is physiographically distinct from other parts of the City, it is structurally similar in that is is underlain by a broad centerline structure 24 which is aligned in a general north-south direction. — There are a number of geologic units within the • boundary of the City; however, within the general project area, — 25 two are particularly dominant. Surrounding studies have indicated that the site is probably underlain by the Topanga and Monterey Formations which are in fault contact northeast of the project site. Other deposits known to occur in the area, and therefore with a high probability of occurrence on the site, are the Capistrano Formation and Marine Terrace Deposits . The only local structural feature of significance is the Pelican Hill Fault Zone which runs north of the site in a northwest to westerly trend, from roughly San Miguel to 25 Bay Cliff Circle. The fault uplifts the Topanga Formation — • 70 against the Monterey Formation and is poorly defined except by intense shearing in a 20 to 40-foot wide zone and associated bedrock shearing and folding for approximately 200 to 400 W feet. Bedding in both formations predominantly dips toward the north and northeast with a gradual steepening of the strata. 3. 8. 1. 2 Soils y • Expansive Soils The project is in Expansive Soil Zone II which indicates moderately to highly expansive soil • possibilities. • Erosion The project site is in an area with moderate erosion capabilities as defined by the Soil Conservation Service as found in the City' s 24 Seismic Element. • Mineral Resources 'There are no known mineral resources of significance on the site. 71 3. 8. 1. 3 Seismicity — The City' s Seismic Element has reviewed the potential hazard of three of the major active faults within the vicinity of the project: 0 Newport-Inglewood — • Whittier-Elsinore • San Andreas A summary of the earthquake characteristics of these faults is shown in Table 3-6. The parameters of the earthquakes in Table 3-6 were used to develop shear stress profiles which lead to the Seismic Hazard Zone Map, which reflects potential u • ground failure (liquefaction) as well as ground breakage and — ground shaking zones . This map indicates that the project falls within Zpne III which indicates some potential for liquefaction 24 ground failure during an earthquake. — 3. 8. 2 Impact 3 . 8. 2. 1 Geology/Landforms Although no engineering calculations have been made, it is anticipated that the existing landform would require some grading as indicated in Figure 3-3. This grading would result in several impacts : 72 • TABLE 3-6 EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS EARTHQUAKE DESIGNATION AND DESCRIPTION Close Moderate Local Moderate to Distant High Magnitude High Magnitude Magnitude Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake Postulated Controlling Newport- Whittier- San Andreas Causative Fault Inglewood Elsinore Distance to City of. < 5 24 60 Newport Beach (miles) Length Fault(s) 50 120 > 200 (miles) Estimated Maximum 7. 0 7. 6 8. 4 Probable Richter Magnitude • Estimate Period at 0. 35 0.35 O . SS Site Estimated Maximum 0. 24 0.18 0. 12 Bedrock Acceleration at the Site (g) Anticipated Duration 2S 60 100 (sec) • 73 .\ � ` ' �\ � �- _ - � - %( a r.� � �� ►��.e• ! I \ �� \�� � `�`_� -•lam / . . KEY: AN •/ c--- -_�r_1uu-t-l4Hc �azf�_#-�r ---.--,axai►-�rs Figure 3-3 • 6 Alteration of existing contours . _ • Temporary exposing of ground surfaces, free of vegetation, with a resulting potential for erosion due to surface runoff. • Such erosion, if uncontrolled could produce increased amounts of sediment to be transported off-site. 3. 8. 2. 2 Soils The expansive nature of the soils does not preclude development of the site but will require appropriate foundation • studies. 3. 8. 2. 3 Seismicity w Seismic induced ground failure is considered the principle concern and a potential hazard. Seismic hazards from ground shaking or rupture do not appear to be significant factors. However, a detailed seismicity analysis of the site by a certified engineering geologist should be completed prior to finalization of development plans. 3. 8. 3 Mitigation _ Through the development of appropriate engineering studies , grading or foundation impacts can be successfully 75 • mitigated. In addition, it is recommended that to reduce _ construction erosion impacts that grading and preliminary development occur during the dry season. • 76 • 3. 9 HYDROLOGY 3. 9. 1 Existing Conditions 3. 9. 1. 1 Groundwater The nearest available groundwater data on the site is from testing done for the Broadmoor Homes development. Those studies indicated that: "Groundwater is present beneath the Terrace deposits within the Monterey Formation. The major fault described earlier, acts as a water barrier preventing northward migration of the water, and tending to force water movement to the west. Over the past several years , this water has created a problem to the Harbor View Hills Homes development, requiring installation • of two major subdrains . Studies by others have been conducted to determine the source and eventual mitigation of this water problem. The depth of the groundwater varies from approximately 20 to 30 feet, although some hydrostatic pressure forces the water to as high as ten feet." 2'5 3. 9. 1. 2 Surface Water The project is not designated as a recommended flood study area nor considered to be sensitive to flooding. 3. 9. 2 Impact 3. 9. 2. 1 Groundwater No significant impacts on groundwater quality or • quantity would be anticipated due to construction of the 77 • facility. However, proper engineering should be performed to — insure that landscape irrigation does not antagonize any hydrology problems being experienced by areas southerly of the project site. _ 3. 9. 2. 2 Surface Water Construction of impervious surfaces on the site will result in small increases in peak runoff flows. Also increased urban runoff from the site will affect regional water quality. The increased peak runoff and water quality degradation will constitute minor environmental impacts . 3. 9. 3 Mitigation • As in the case with geologic and soils impacts , development of appropriate engineering studies would serve to mitigate any potential groundwater or hydrologic impacts . • 78 3. 10 AIR QUALITY 3. 10. 1 Existing Conditions The project area lies within the climatic regime generally described as "Mediterranean" a term descriptive of generally moderate temperatures, sea breezes , mild winters, warm summers and short rainy seasons. The project site is in the Nearshore ` 25 Zone of temperature classifications and is strongly influenced by the ocean. The average daily winter temperature is 61 degrees while the average summer temperature is 68 degrees. As is typical of the Mediterranean climate, most rain falls between December and March, averaging approximately 14 inches annually. • During the winter months and in the early summer (June and July) the project area is frequently subject to early morning fog and low clouds drifting inland from the ocean, but which 25 usually dissipates by midday. Daily wind flow data taken from the Division of Highways Monitoring Station (at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard y and Ford Road) approximately 1. 3 miles north of the project site indicates a prevailing daytime wind direction from the south-southwest with an average speed ranging from five to ten miles per hour. At night, the prevailing wind direction is from the southeast. The subject property is within the Southern Zone of the Southern California Air Pollution Control District. This Zone 79 • (comprising Orange County) maintains eight monitoring stations. It is felt that data from their Costa Mesa and Laguna Beach air quality monitoring stations is most indicative of ambient air quality on the site. This assumption is based upon the fact that these stations and the site are at similar distances from the coastline or experience similar atmospheric mixing behavior and prevailing wind conditions. Pertinent data from these two stations relating pollutant levels likely to exist at the project site is included in Appendix E of this analysis . The major source of pollutant emissions in the Newport Beach area is vehicular traffic from Pacific Coast Highway and other local roadways . • 3. 10. 2 Impact The quality of local and regional air cells will be incrementally (cumulatively) degraded as a result of ultimate development of the subject property. The sources which will contribute to this include construction activity; vehicular traffic; and the consumption of energy (electricity and natural gas) . The predominant localized impact on air quality the project will be the introduction of dust and particulate matter from the consturciton process. Grading activity, which will generate dust and fumes during road construction and the preparation of the building site, will be a major contributor. • 80 Additionally, the movement of construction vehicles , as well as any temporarily exposed graded areas., will create a further source of dust, albeit of a short-term nature. Regional air quality will be affected primarily through motor vehicle emissions . A detailed quantification of pollu- tant generation as a result of the proposed project is included as Appendix E of this analysis . The following comparison indicates the relationship of all pollutant emissions from the proposed development of the project site to the total 1974 emissions of all sources in Orange County. It should be noted that this project ,would constitute a very minor contribution to the degradation of the • regional air cell. It does however, represent an additional W source of pollutants and will contribute to the cumulative adverse effect on air quality of the region. TABLE 3-7 MAXIMUM PROJECT EMISSIONS AS A PERCENTAGE OF 1974 COUNTY EMISSIONS FROM ALL SOURCES As a Percent of 1974 Pollutant Emissions from all Sources Carbon Monoxide . 0040 Hydrocarbons . 004% ~ Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NOZ) . 005% Particulates . 004% Sulfur Oxides (S02) . 0510 81 • 3. 10. 3 Mitigation _ The following measures would serve to reduce the extent of air quality degradation due to implementation of the proposed project : • Modes of transportation other than the automobile should be encouraged and their availability given wide publicity. • Extension of existing public transit routes to W serve the subject property. • Residents should be informed as to methods of • reducing gas and electrical consumption. This can be accomplished through distribution of pamphlets discussing the efficient use of home energy supplies; such information is available from `r appropriate utility companies. • Dust palliatives such as watering graded surfaces , using sheepsfoot tampers , planting groundcover, etc. can effectively modify the scope and magnitude of adverse air quality impacts associated with the construction process. 82 • 3. 11 BIOLOGY 3. 11. 1 Existing Conditions The project site has been cleared of native scrub vegetation and is man-disturbed. It is currently covered by ruderal, weedy (adventitous) species such as brome grasses (Bromus spp. ) , wild mustards (Brassica sp. , Sisymbrium sp. ) , Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata) and sow thistle (Sonchus sp. ) . Other than those annual grasses and forbs, no other native large scrubs or trees are present on the project site except those associated with the church landscaping. Fauna on-site is expected to be limited consisting primarily of field rodents, cottontail rabbits , and urban-adapted bird species (house sparrow, house finch, mourning dove, etc. ) . 3. 11. 2 Impact The loss of approximately two acres of man-disturbed and scrub vegetation as well as the displacement of a limited number of faunal species will occur as a result of the proposed project. The faunal inhabitants will likely be displaced to landscaped and undeveloped areas adjoining Big Canyon Reservoir, north of the subject property. However, since none of these floral or faunal elements are considered rare or endangered, and much of the surrounding area is already urbanized, these anticipated biological impacts are not considered highly adverse nor particularly significant. 83 • 3. 11. 3 Mitigation Provision of on-site landscaping will serve to encourage _ urban-adapted species (similar to many of those currently on- site) to inhabit the area. _ 84 3. 12 ARCHAEOLOGIC PALEONTOLOGIC AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 3. 12. 1 Existing Conditions The entire 3. 562 acres comprising the proposed Seaview Lutheran Plaza project site and adjacent church grounds have undergone an intensive surface reconnaissance (including post hole excavation) 'in order to determine the existance of any significant archaeologic, paleontologic, or historical resources. M 3. 12. 1 . 1 Archaeology Results of the survey are that no surface indications of prehistoric use or resources were observed. Surveys con- ' 25 ducted in areas on the north side of Big Canyon Reservoir drew identical conclusions for an area of much larger size (50 ± acres) . These results would tend to indicate the lack of archaeological resources in the entire project — area. 3. 12. 1. 2 Paleontology Little in the way of paleontological resources were observed or are expected to exist within the project boundaries . This conclusion is not only based upon on-site survey efforts but also by the site' s landform and soil characteristics , both of which are not normally associated with the existance of 85 • fossil remains. The large scale surface disturbance which has occurred in the entire area (previous' grading activities) will have resulted in the permanent impairment of .any previously existing paleontological resources. 3. 12. 1. 3 Historical Resources Historic use ,of the area has been as grazing land, an activity which rarely produces historical resources. The Orange County Map of Historical Landmarks and the Federal Register indicate that nothing of historical significance 26, 27 exists within the project boundaries . 3. 12. 2 Impact • Given the dearth of on-site archaeological, paleontological or historical resources, the implementation of the proposed project will, therefore, in no way destroy, impair, or endanger any known resource of this nature. 3. 12. 3 Mitigation The absence of any known archaeological, paleontological, or historical resources precludes the necessity for any miti- gating measures or actions . 86 4. 0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS _. 4. 1 LAND USE • Approximately two acres of landscaped open area will be converted to an apartment-type residential land use. _ 4. 2 AESTHETICS • The nature, appearance and overall ambience of the subject property will be altered through construction -� activities and project operations . 4. 3 NOISE • • Localized noise impacts related to construction activities will occur on a short-term basis. -" • Traffic related noise will increase local acoustical levels . • Future residents will be exposed to noise created _ by occasional helicopter overflights. 4. 4 CIRCULATION • Traffic volumes in the area, primarily along Pacific View Drive, will increase as much as 400 motor vehicle trips per day. • Increased demand upon public transit services. 87 • 4. 5 URBAN SUPPORT SYSTEMS • Demand for municipal services and public utilities will increase. • Energy consumption will increase on both a temporary and long-term basis. 4. 6 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE • Demand for recreation facilities , particularly those _ specifically serving the needs of senior ciitzens, will be incrementally increased. 4. 7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS • 0 Seaview Lutheran Plaza will result in an incremental addition to the City' s population resulting in a cumulative demand upon public resources and services . The nature of this population generation, that being senior citizens, creates additional unavoidable adverse impacts including the need for provision of several unique on-site services. 4. 8 GEOLOGY/SOILS/SEISMICITY • Alteration of existing site contours and a temporary exposure of graded surfaces may- result. In addition, there exists the potential for seismically induced • ground failure. 88 • 4. 9 HYDROLOGY 0 Runoff containing a number of pollutants associated with urbanized land uses will tend to be incrementally w increased. 4. 10 AIR QUALITY • The quality of the regional air cell will be incrementally degraded. • Localized air quality will suffer temporary degradation due to construction activities . 4. 11 BIOLOGY • 0 Due to the lack of extensive vegetative cover, rare or endangered floral or faunal elements, and the presence of surrounding urbanization, no adverse or significant biological impacts are anticipated due to the proposed project. 4. 12 ARCHAEOLOGY/PALEONTOLOGY/HISTORY • The absence of on-site resources indicates that no unavoidable adverse impacts to existing archaeological, paleontological or historical resources will occur as a result of project implementation. 89 5. 0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION -- 5. 1 No Project ., This alternative would retain the project site in its present condition. The "no project" alternative would serve to eliminate many of the adverse impacts discussed in Section 3. These include the physical impacts associated with the- loss of biological resources and increases in urban runoff and air pollution as well as transportation, aesthetic and land use impacts . However, retention of the property in its present state would serve only a limited public benefit by providing a minor • support function for the adjacent Lutheran Church of the Master. 5. 2 Alternative Land Use Modes 5. 2. 1 Higher Density, Residential Higher density utilization of the property in terms of more intensive residential development is an alternative which could be implemented through increasing the number of stories or overall area of the proposed apartment units or through a reduction in the size of individual living units . Such an increase in density would not only appear to be incompatible with the — visual these of the project area but would also result in 91 • increased impacts specifically related to traffic, air quality r and certain urban support systems . _ Another method by which the project site may be subjected to higher density utilization would be the use of the proposed apartments for those other than senior citizens . The average, density for apartments (5 or more units) in the City of r 8 Newport Beach is 1. 5persons per dwelling unit. Therefore, use of the proposed apartments by the general citizenry rather than restricted use by seniors may result in an increased resultant population generation of approximately 30 residents. 5. 2. 2 Lower Density Residential • A lower density residential development would reduce, — but not eliminate many of the impacts discussed in Section 3. This reduction could likely be realized through a decrease in the number of units to be provided in the proposed apartment complex. However, such a decrease would reduce the beneficial _ aspects associated with the provision of senior citizen housing of the type proposed. 5. 2. 3 Commercial or Industrial A commercial or industrial land use for the project site is given very little consideration due to the obvious incom- patibilities with current land uses, zoning, and City land' use • 92 • plans . Given the amount of available acreage, the feasibility of implementation of these two alternatives seems remote. 5. 2. 4 Recreational The use of the subject property as a recreational area would preserve the land for utilization by the current floral _ and faunal inhabitants while maintaining its watershed capa- bilities. However, several recreational facilities are currently available in close proximity to the subject property and the value of the site to complement these existing facilities seems questionable. 1. 3 Design Alternatives Several alternate designs which. reached the rough sketch stage were considered but were rejected in favor of the final plan shown in Figure 2-5. Each design alternative' as well as its respective positive and negative attributes is presented below. This discussion not only serves to indicate the reasons '- for choosing the final project design but also presents the nature and degree of planning constraints within which the y proposed project was designed. Alternate #1 (Figure 5-1) . This plan contains the same number of units as the final plan, however the size of these living units is smaller (one-third were 550 square feet with the • 93 'fit \ �`�'• i1Q �`���+F •a � �I��✓3�� ��° �'� A� � . ,�.� �i , .,. Q � � s r r i IA to 1' SCHEMATIC SITE STUDY 1 �� LUTHERAN CHURCH TOIL MASTER remaining two-thirds being 400 square feet) than those currently proposed. Situating the apartment complex in the eastern corner of the subject property creates a large "buffer zonel" between it and existing residential development to the west. This initial design was rejected due to its close proximity to existing and proposed Church facilities. In addition, the location of seniors parking directly adjacent to the Church may result in confusion regarding use by congregation members. Finally, the proximity between existing and proposed facilities may create the external visual impression of one large mass . Alternate 2 (Figure 5-2) . This second design study • situates existing and future buildings away from the project perimeter 'in order to create a visual buffer with surrounding areas. Unlike the previous alternative, the respective parking areas are well separated. One significant negative aspect of this design alternative is that since the living units are situated immediately adjacent to Church facilities , they may lose any "separate identity". In addition, the apartment complex, as in Alternative 1, is close to Pacific View Drive which, when combined with the fact that it is situated on the highest on-site elevation, may result in a rather large visual profile for passers-by. 95 i► � ��'b.�� Fri:>Yi ,.. '��'�►i Ir ' tom:. ��R�+,�i�► uvua,F1l1► ice � ,tom i►:1``,,j�'3�� ��/'_�Y,�,� �� T'r.�Q"� �`-\v /�I '�►' �\t Jl��• .��► i� � ice. . -.. ., �i ,tip :�� ��-i� 0�►.+:� ., ■■�� , Lo \D• j�►t_I�e��,+..—....� .:.rani d�"w�p +S:•.+s1�!��."a� �1� IMM" AMA ❑ ✓ .]� F � 1Q- _ .III-- ors . ar to }i.� SAS+rY- j '� „Q �iii:iaiiS•�•w.�i t� __ at�•yJ \� q SCHEMATIC SITE STUDY 2 LUTHERAN CHURCH MASTER • This alternative as in the case of the first, contains no drive through access route for emergency vehicles. Alternative 3 (Figure 5-3) . In this design alternative, the apartment complex has been moved to the northwestern portion of the project site with parking located along the perimeter. This alternative provides a clearer separation between the Church and apartments with a heavily landscaped buffer shielding one from the other. Other positive aspects include the separation of parking areas, drive-through access to the entire site and a buffer between the apartments and residential areas to .the west. • However, this alternative does not provide a good sense of entry to the apartments. The main entry to the lobby, so necessary for seniors and their visitors, as well as any local bus service, is difficult to see from the street and is — inadequate in terms of it being in a central location. In addition, persons waiting to be picked-up will not have a pleasant view. It was also felt that the apartment complex was still too close to the Sanctuary despite the landscaped buffer zone separating them. Choice of the final project design is an attempt to incorporate the positive aspects of the previously discussed 97 Ycmm =0 •. i r ^ J s �J' Mir �� ��u�: vas �� � ��!% ^• , /='''\\\\y` -u.Jr^ -�A :+`aco'sbI}••�t� -• `tti�-.•,rs..:?�m.. r��� •,� ./�'!1 ,i `S."I`',te Z�l�^�M�fet'.�giu�f �1�� a'1�ui�arA �� '�� !e+ �'ij �1i4.'� .�i=' '�',*• ',f- � �;•fir ^'!/ ' ' ' •�'�; `� SCHEMATIC SITE STUDY 3 `�;-�_� LUTHERAN CHURCH 'y� MASTER design alternatives while minimizing the negative ones . A recapitulation of these positive aspects is provided below: 1. A clear separation (both visually and function- ally) between existing and proposed church buildings and the apartment complex. This idea of separation also extends to the provision of parking space for each building. 2 . Sufficient visual buffers and design techniques which minimize the visual disruption to surround- ing areas. 3. Drive-through access for the entire project site • thus providing two points of motor vehicle entry. 4. A centrally located, highly visible main entry to the apartment complex. • 99 • 6. 0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USE OF ENVIRONMENTH EMENT OF LONG-TERM PItODUCTIVITY The current short-term use of the subject property primarily consists of providing a support function to the _ adjoining Lutheran Church of the Master. The proposed project, if implemented, will create a variety of short and long-term impacts on both a local , and regional level . Short-term disruptions, such as impacts related to construction activities will affect surrounding residents as well as the limited number of floral and faunal inhabitants of the site. Yet, these disruptions are temporary and can be, to a large degree, mitigated. The long-term effects of the proposed project will be the conversion of approximately two acres to a multiple residential land use. Attendant with this process, the physical, biological and human environmental characteristics will be also impacted, as discussed in Section 3. Such impacts include increased traffic flows, a further degradation of the regional air cell, additional noise created by the residential nature of the project and an incremental increase in the demand for public services and utilities . W The long-term effects on productivity which are balanced against the adverse effects mentioned above include: positive economic effects reuslting from the increased patronage to 101 potential short and long-term - • local commercial centers and p g-term increases to the local labor force; and the long-term rewards of providing a good environmental in which people may live. The project applicant feels that the proposed project is justified in that facilities of this type are virtually non-existant within the City of Newport Beach. The range of alternatives for future use of the project site are relatively narrow. The proposed project would appear to provide for the long=term use of the site for beneficial human activities . 102 • 7. 0 ANY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT S OULD IT BE CEMENTED The irreversible environmental changes associated with -" this project include: • Commitment of the land to residential use for an indefinite and essentially permanent period — of time. • Physical alteration of the land contour. - • Removal of portions of the existing biological cover to accommodate the development of various • project elements. • Alteration of the human environment as a result of project development. • Increased requirements for public services and — utilities by future project residents . Such use represents a quasi-permanent commitment of these resources . 0 Utilization of various raw materials such as lumber, sand and gravel. Some of these materials will represent resources that are currently being depleted world-wide. 103 • 8. 0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Because much of the surrounding area is either already developed or not available for development (Big Canyon Reservoir, utility easements , etc. ) , the proposed Seaview Lutheran Plaza will have little impact with respect to prompting a continuation of development in the area. However, future project residents will create an incrementally increased demand on goods and services provided in the City of Newport Beach and, to a lesser extent, in other nearby cities . Likewise, this potential economic growth may generate demand for additional facilities nearby. Although major expansion of municipal service, public utility • or roadway facilities will not occur as a specific result of the proposed project, it will nevertheless place an increased load upon these services . 105 • 9. 0 REFERENCES The following references include not only published documents but also telephone and personal conversations that served as a basis for factual statements made within the report. It thus serves as both a bibliography and a list of persons consulted, in conformance with State Guidelines. 1. California Resources Agency, 1975, Guidelines for the Pre aration and Evaluation of Environmental- Impact eports under the California Environmental guality Act ot19 0�;December1970 (with recent amendments) . 2. State of California, Resources Agency of California, California EIR Monitor, Vol. 2, No. 18; September 18, 3. Trittipo, John, William Blurock and Partners, personal • conversations regarding project characteristics; various dates. 4. Cummings , Robert, Seaview Lutheran Plaza, Inc. , personal and telephone conversation regarding anticipated project characteristics and operations ; various dates . 5. U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Handbook 4571. 1; April 1976. _ 6. City of Newport, Land Use Plan, as amended; December 17, 1976. _ 7. City of Newport Beach, Open Space Plan. 8. Foley, William, City of Newport Community Development Division, telephone conversation regarding land use restrictions ; May 25, 1976. -- 9. City of Newport Beach, Noise Element to the General Plan; adopted October 15, 197 . 107 • 10. City of Newport Beach, Traffic Engineer, Traffic Analysis of the Seaview Luthern (sic) Plaza Development; August 11, 1976. 11. Connelly, Captain, City of Newport Beach Police Department, telephone conversation regarding police protection; May 19, 1976. 12. Morton, Inspector Art, City of Newport Beach Fire Department, telephone conversation regarding fire protection and emergency paramedical services ; May 19, 1976. 13. Gordon, Robert, Hoag Memorial Hospital, telephone con- versation regarding health care services ; May 20, 1976. 14. Perkins , W.R. , Southern California Gas Company, telephone conversation regarding natural gas service; May 20, 1976. r 15. Kirsch, L.N. , Southern California Edison Company, telephone conversation regarding electrical service; May 20 , 1976. 16. Malkemus , Paul, City of Newport Beach Utilities Department , telephone conversation regarding provision of water and sewer service; May 20 , 1976. _ • 17. Otting, Gene, Dewey' s Disposal Services, telephone conversation regarding solid waste service; May 20, 1976. 18. O'Brien, Tom, Orange County Road Department, telephone conversation regarding sanitary landfill availability; May 20, 1976. 19. Kellum, Al, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, telephone conversation regarding provision of telephone service; May 20, 1976. 20. Nack and Sunderland, Energy Impact Report for Lutheran Church of the Master, Senior Citizens Housing; May 24, 1976. 21. Whitley, Ron, Assistant Director, City of Newport Beach, Department of Parks , Beaches and Recreation, telephone conversation regarding off-site recreational facilities ; May 21, 1976. 108 22. Newcomer, R. , Group Housing for the Elderly, Defining Neighborhood Service Convenience for Public Housing and Section 202 Residents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California; 1975. 23. Lo, Paul, Senior Citizens Program, County of Orange, telephone conversation regarding County supportive services ; August 18 , 1976. 24. City of Newport Beach, Geology-Seismic StYM Phase I , Woodward-McNeill and Associates; October 1972. 25. City of Newport Beach, EIR for Broadmoor Homes Inc. and Pacific View Properties , the Reynolds Environmental Group; October 1975. 26. Orange County Planning Department, Orange County Map of Historical Landmarks . 27. Federal Register, National Register of Historic Places , Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D. C. ; 1976. — 28. USEPA, Supplement No. 2 for Compilation of Air Pollutant • Emission Factors (Second Edition) ; 1973. 109 APPENDIX A R-3 DISTRICT ZONING REGULATIONS A-1 Page 45 R-3 DISTRICT Chapter 20. 16 R - 3 D I S T R I C T Chapter 20.16 .R-3 DISTRICT Sections : _ 20.16. 010 Effect of Chapter. 20. 16.015 Uses Permitted . 20. 16.020 Uses Requiring Use Permit. 20. 16. 025 Accessory Uses. 20. 16. 030 Building Height and Floor Area Limit. 20. 16.035 Site Area . 20.16.040 Site Area Coverage. 20. 16.045 Yards. 20. 16.0.50 Extensions Into Yards. 20.16. 055 Accessory Buildings - Yards . 20. 16.060 Swimming Pools - Yards "- Equipment. • 20. 16. 065 Changes in Yard Requirements . 20. 16. 075 Automobile Storage or Parking Space. 20.16. 080 Parking Automobiles on Roofs. 20. 16. 010 EFFECT OF CHAPTER. The following regulations shall 'apply in all R-3 Districts , subject to the provisions of Chapter 20. 10. Residential districts in those areas of the City described generally as West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and — Corona del Mar are subject additionally to the provisions of Chapter 20. 11 . 20.16. 015 USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted in the R-3 Districts . (a ) Single-family dwellings and duplexes . (b) Multiple dwellings , apartment houses and dwelling groups . (c) , Temporary structures and uses . Regulations are as specified in Section 20. 10. 015 of General Controls - - Residential Districts . (d) Name or identification signs , each not exceeding 2 square feet in area and pertaining only to the property or the owner or occupant thereof upon which the sign is located. A-3 Page 46 R-3 DISTRICT - Chapter 20. 16 • (e) Unlighted signs , not over 2 square feet in area , to advertise the lease , rental or sale of the property upon which they are located. Such signs may show only the name address and telephone number of the owner, but shall not show the name , address , telephone number, or any other description or Identification of any person , firm or corporation other than the owner of said property. (f) Open house signs, each not exceeding 2 square feet ~ in' area , which invite the general public to inspect the premises for lease, rent or sale , shall be _ permitted to be displayed , provided that at the time said property is open for inspection and the open house signs are displayed, the owner, his tenant, or his agent is in attendance and present on said pro- perty to display any such house or building thereon. Said open house signs shall only be displayed on or from the property being leased , rented or. sold and shalt not show the name , address , telephone number, or any other description or identification of any person , firm or corporation other than the owner of such -- • property.. (Ord. 1172 § 4, August 89 1966 : prior — 1949 Code § 9103. 31 added by Ord. 635 ; December 12, 1950 as amended by Ord. 974; October 30, 1961 and by Ord. 1158 § 4; May 9, 1966) . 20. 16.020 USES REQUIRING USE PERMIT. The following uses shall be permitted , subject to the securing of a• use permit in each case : (a) Community centers , social halls , lodges , clubs , rest homes , and motels . (b) Recreational establishments , parking lots , institutions,- cemeteries, public buildings , removal of earthen materials , heliports and helistops , outdoor lighting may be permitted as specified more particularly in _ Section 20. 10. 020 of General Controls - Residential Districts . (c) ' Signs anylarger (1949 six Codesquare 9103 .32 added appurtenant by Ord . 635; _ December 12, 1950 as amended by Ord. 974; October 30, 1961 ) . 20. 16. 025 ' ACCESSORY USES . Accessory uses and buildings • normally incidental to any of the above shall be permitted . This_. shall not be construed as permitting any commercial uses or occupation other than those specifically listed , nor shall this be deemed to allow the manufacturing or processing of _ any substance or commodity for profit or the storage of vehicles , equipment or materials used in the conduct of any retail or wholesale business . A-4 _ Page 47 R-3 DISTRICT Chapter 20. 16 20. 16. 030 BUILDING HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA LIMIT. The total gross floor area contained in all buildings on a building site in an R-3 District shall not exceed three times the build- able area of the site; provided, however, that floor area devoted to 'parking within a building shall not be considered in determining the total floor area allowed ; and provided , further, that in no event shall any building exceed the height limit specified in Chapter 20. 02. For residential developments in those areas of the City known generally as West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, and Corona del Mar, -- building height and floor area limit regulations are as specified In Section 20.11 . 020 (b) of Residential Development Standards . _ 20. 16. 035 'SITE AREA. A. BUILDING OR GROUP OF BUILDINGS. For each building or group of buildings, there shall be a minimum of 5,000 square feet of area and a minimum width of 50 feet of area and a minimum width of 50 feet on r interior lots , with a minimum of 6,000 square feet and a minimum width of 60 feet on corner lots. B. EACH FAMILY UNIT. For each family unit in any building or • group of buildings , there shall be a minimum of twelve hundred square feet of land area. C. BUILDING SITE AREA• EXCEPTION. Any lot or parcel of land under one ownership and of record on August 2, 1943 may be used as a building site even when of less area or width than that required by the provisions of this Section . 20 .16.040 SITE AREA COVERAGE . For aggregate building coverage , the maximum site coverage permitted shall be full coverage , less required front, side and rear yards . (1949 Code § 9103. 36 added by Ord . 635; December 12, 1956) . 20. 16.045 YARDS . A. FRONT YARDS . The minimum width required for front yards shall be 20 feet and a maximum permitted shall be 35 feet , except as may be otherwise indi•cated. on the Districting Maps . Distances shown on the Districting Maps are to be measured from front property line. For residential developments in those areas of the City known generally as West Newport, Balboa Peninsula , and Corona del Mar, front yard open space requirements are as specified in Section 20. 11 . 040 of Residential Development Standards . B . SIDE YARDS . Each side yard shall not be less than 3 feet wide on building sites 40 feet wide or less , or 4 feet on lots wider. than• 40 feet ; provided, that the side yard on the rear 20 feet of the street side of a corner lot, where there is - reversed frontage, shall not be less than the front yard required or existing on the adjacent reversed frontage. A- 5 Page 48 R-3 DISTRICT Chapter 20 . 16 _ • C. REAR YARDS. The minimum width for rear yards shall be ]0 feet. D. SPECIAL YARD AND DISTANCES BETWEEN BUILDINGS . _ (1 ) Distance between buildings in any dwelling group shall _ be a minimum of 8 feet wide. (2) Side yards providing access to single row of dwelling _ group shall be a minimum of 12 feet wide. (3) Inner courts providing access to double row dwelling groups shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. (1949 Code § 9103.37 added by Ord. 635; December 12 , 1950) . 20.16.050 EXTENSIONS INTO YARDS . Regulations are as specified in Section 20, 10.025 of General Controls - Residential Districts . 20. 16.055 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS - YARDS. Regulations _ are as specified in Section 20 . 10.030 of General Controls - Residential Districts . • 20. 16. 060 SWIMMING POOLS '- YARDS* - EQUIPMENT. -. Regulations are as specified in Section 20.10.035 of General Controls - Residential Districts . 20.16.065 CHANGES . IN YARD REQUIREMENTS . The Planning Commission may approve changes in the yard setback requirements applicable to any subdivision having' five or more lots at the time that it approves the final tract map for said subdivision . The applicant shall submit with his application an exact .copy of the final tract map showing the proposed changes . The decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council and it may, approve , disapprove or modify said decision . If the City Council approves such changes , the districting map shall be revised accordinglyy. (1949 Code § 9105. 42, added by Ord. 1134; August 9, 1965) . 20.16 .075 • - AUTOMOBILE STORAGE OR PARKING SPACE . Accessible storage or parking •space for the parking of auto- mobiles off the street shall be provided in R-3 Districts as follows : (a ) Not less than two garage spaces for each single- _ family dwelling. • (b) Not less than one garage space for each family unit in any duplex , triplex, or dwelling group of -four or less family units . (c) Not less than one garage space for each two guest rooms in any rooming house. A-6 Page 49 _. R-3 DISTRICT Chapter 20 .16 (d) Not less than one parking space for each two guest rooms in any hotel . (e) Not less than one garage space for each of the first four family units, and two offstreet parking spaces , one of which must be a garage space , for each addi- tional family unit, in any dwelling group of more than four family units . (f) Not less than two garage spaces per family unit in any residential "B" District. Parking space required for other uses allowed in any R-3 District and not set forth above shall be determined by the Planning Commis'sion . For residential developments in those areas of the City known generally as West Newport, Balboa Peninsula ; and Corona del Mar, parking requirements are as specified in Section 20.11 .030 of Residential Development Standards , 20.16.080 PARKING AUTOMOBILES ON ROOFS . Parking of • automobiles on the roof of a building in any R-3 District is not permitted. A-7 Page 55 "-B" DISTRICT Chapter 20. 18 " - B " D I S T R I C T Chapter 20. 18 "-B" DISTRICT Sections : - 20. 18. 010 Effect of Chapter. 20. 18. 020 Site Area. _ 20. 18. 030 Uncovered Rear Yard Area. 20. 18. 040 Slope Ratio Approval Required. 20. 18. 050 Site Area. - 20. 18. 010 EFFECT OF CHAPTER. The following regula- tions shall apply in lieu of building site area, yard and lot • width requirements in the respective districts where such districts are combined with the "-B" District, and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 20. 10. All other . pro- visions of the respective districts shall apply. .( 1949 Code 9 . 9104. 1 added by Ord . 635; December 12, 1950 as amended by Ord. 845; April 14, 1958) . _ 20.18 .020 SITE AREA. The following minimum building site area , lot sizes and setbacks shall be required and the following maximum coverage shall be allowed in the respective _ "-B" Districts : COMBINING DESIGNATION B: Building site area 6000 square feet. Lot width 60 feet. Lot length 80 feet. Front yard 20 feet. Rear-yard 6 feet. Side yard 6 feet. Maximum coverage 60 percent. COMBINING DESIGNATION B-1 : Building site area 7500 square feet. • Lot width 75 feet. Lot length 90 feet. Front yard 15 feet. Rear yard 7 feet. Side yard 7 feet. Maximum coverage 60 percent. I A- 8 Page 56 "-B" DISTRICT Chapter 20.18 • COMBINING DESIGNATION B-2: — Building site area 109000 square feet. Lot width 90 feet. Lot length 100 feet. _ Front yard 15 feet. Rear yard 10 feet. Side yard 10 feet. Maximum coverage 60 percent. COMBINING DESIGNATION B-3: Building site area 209'000 square feet. Lot width 100 feet. 'Lot length 150 feet. Front yard 15 feet. Rear yard 10 feet. 'Side yard 10 feet. Maximum coverage 60 percent. COMBINING DESIGNATION B-4: As designated on zoning map; provided, that no requirements be less than B-3 regulations. -- All setbacks on the street side of a corner lot shall not • be less than that required on existing or adjacent reversed frontage when such exists. (1949 Code § 9104. 11 added by Ord. 635; December 12, 1950 as amended by Ord. 845; April — 149 1958) . 20. 18.030 UNCOVERED REAR YARD AREA. There shall be a minimum of 750 square feet or rear yard land area adjoining the main dwelling maintained uncovered. (1949 Code § 9104. 11 -1 added by Ord. 845; April 14, 1958) . 20. 18.040 SLOPE RATIO APPROVAL REQUIRED. Any banks graded or benched for building sites in "-B" Districts wherein cuts are required , leaving banks or slopes of a greater grade than a ratio of 3 to 1 , shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to obtaining a building permit. (1949 Code § 9104. 12 added by Ord. 635; December 12, 1950 as amended by Ord. 845; April 14, 1958) . 20.18 .050 SITE AREA. The following minimum building - site area shall be required for each family unit (maximum density permitted in R Districts where combined with "-B" District) : R-2 R-3 R-4 B 3000 sq. ft. 1500 sq. ft. 1250 sq. ft. B-1• 3000 sq. ft. 1500 sq. ft. 1250 sq. ft. B-2 3000 sq. ft. 2000 sq. ft. 1500 sq . ft. B-3 3000 sq. ft. 2000 sq. ft. 1500 sq. ft, ( 1949 Code § 9104. 13 added by Ord. 635; December 12, 1950 as amended .by Ord. 845; April 14. 1958) . A-9 APPENDIX B TRAFFIC ANALYSIS B-1 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT August 11, 1976 TO: ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR FROM: Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: TRAFFIC .ANALYSIS OF THE SEAVIEW LUTHERN PLAZA DEVELOPMENT The proposed project consists of 100-1 bedroom dwelling units on Pacific view Drive. The project will provide low cost housing for qualified senior citizens. The W characteristics and traffic needs of these senior citizens will be different than the normal 'apartment development. _ Vehicle Traffic Generation • To obtain apptopriate traffic generation we reviewed the Bethel Tower development on 19th Street in Costa Mesa and similar studies that have been conducted by Orange County and other studies in northern California. The various studies indicate that similar retirement communities have a trip generation rate between .2.8 and 4.1 trips per dwelling unit. For the purpose of this analysis we have used 4 .0 trips per dwelling unit. The higher rate has been used because of the proximity of the development to public transportation and shopping needs. The project is estimated to generate 400 vehicle trips per day. It is anticipated that 280 vehicles (70%) will use Pacific View Drive, west of the site and 120 vehicles (30%) will use Pacific View Drive, east of the site. The normal peak hour volume for retirement 'communities occurs between 10 A.M. and noon and would not conflict with the normal A.M. to P.M. peak hour demands: Traffic volumes on Pacific View Drive will increase. This increase in traffic will not exceed the capacity of the roadway. Exhibit I shows the surrounding street system capacities, existing volumes, and estimated site volumes. Public Transportation It is doubtful that this development would generate a need for transit service. The future extension of San B-3 Environmental Coordinator . RE: Traffic analysis of the -- Seaview Luthern Plaza Dev. -2- August 11, 1976 Joaquin Hills Road and proposed development down coast will create a need for feeder line bus service on San Joaquin Hills Road that could be used by the community in the future. Parking The project proposes to provide 63 offsite parking spaces for the 100 dwelling units. This provides a rate of 0. 63 spaces per dwelling unit. This ratio is below current Newport Beach zoning requirements. — The of£street parking requirements for the proposed project was then analyzed to determine actual needs rather than conformance to current city codes. Within the surround- ^� ing area, the Bethel Tower Senior Citizen development on 19th Street in Costa Mesa provided a similar development for comparative purposes. Bethel Tower has 270 units, provides 106 tenant parking spaces and 15 visitor spaces. Currently, 93 of the tenants own autos. This provides a ratio of 0.45 parking spaces per unit. Management for the Bethel Tower - • was contacted and indicated the parking spaces provided were adequate for tenant and visitor parking needs. Data collected by the Department of Housing and `- Urban Development on automobile ownership for elderly housing projects was evaluated to determine trends and similar needs. The data showed for the various regions in the United States that autos per dwelling unit averaged from 0.102 to 0.347. Within Region VI the highest ratio 0.458 autos per dwelling unit occurred in Phoenix, Arizona. The proposed project provides a parking ratio of 0.63 spaces per dwelling unit which is higher than the Bethel Tower project and similar projects in California. Therefore, — adequate off-street parking is being provided. Impacts VEHICULAR TRAFFIC The traffic generated from the site will not create any '- significant impacts on the surrounding street system. The surrounding street system has adequate capacity to handle the additional traffic. generated by the project. • PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION No impacts are anticipated. B-4 Environmental Coordinator RE: Traffic analysis of the Seaview Luthern Plaza Dev. -3- August 11, 1976 PARKING The proposed development is providing adequate off- street parking for the proposed project. Provisions should be made that parking requirements would be re-evaluated in the event that the project would change from housing for elderly citizens to a typical apartment development. Bill E. Darnell Traffic Engineer Attachment BED:bcd B-5 FD%2� M v t �•$ p0'P1'Sv�7bN � • . Q - 000 1r •80 eJ `�ti A1141.5 h oo,o00 EXisa�in9 AV. Cotl $ m a 00,o00 - E,rl3�in A.AV.T f ) 9 00o n 5i�e A. a T. — B-6 APPENDIX C SENIOR CITIZEN SURVEY INFORMATION y C-1 � l , I 1 i I 1• i 1 i { t � • DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT HOUSING ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION Data on Automobile Ownership - Units at Least 90% Occupied From December 1967 Thru December 1972 Section 202 and 236 Elderly Housing Projects' PROJECT LOCATION No. of No. .of No. of Autos % of Residents %,of Units Residents Units Owned by Res. with Autos with Autos REGION I Hartford Conn 63 54 27 42.8 50.0 Malden, Mass. 102 81 18 17.6 22. 2 uincy Mass. 249 216 %, 64 25.7. 29.6 New York N.Y. 68 50 1 1 .5 2.0 Far Rockaway N.Y. 330 256 20 6.0 7.8 Hemstead N.Y. 168 143 37 22.0 25.9 REGION 11 Baltimore Md. 162 149 15 9.2 10. 1 Silver Springs Md. 139 124 18 12.9 14. 5 Baltimore Md. 225 210 20 8.9 9.5 Trenton N. J 2 1 229 25 9.6 10.9 Atlantic City N.J. 291 208 25 8.6 12.0 Newark N J. 346 299 45 13.0 15. 1 Philadelphia Pa. 333 2 12 3.6 .2 Pittsburgh Pa. 114 . 108 5 4.4 4.6 REGION III Miami Fla. 344 272 156 45.3 57.4 Orlando Fla. 202 156 80 39.6 51 .3 Daytona Fla, 210 177 60 28.6 33.9 Jacksonville Fla. 278 251 53 19.0 21 .1 Miami Beach Fla 216 208 28 12.9 48.5 __ • • Page 2. • PROJECT LOCATION No. of No. of No, of.Autos % of Residents % of Units Residents Units Owned by Res, with Autos with Autos Atlanta Ga. 202 202 30 14.8 14.8 Atlanta Ga. 230 198 65 28.3 32.8 Nashville Tenn. 148 136 68 45.9 50.0 Johnson City Tenn. 81 72 9 11 . 1 12. 5 REGION 1V Chicago, Ill. 70 45 2 2.9 4.4 Evergreen Park Ill. 26 24 4 15.4 16.7 Peoria 11 ) . 53 50 2 3.8 4.o Chicage Ill 156 103 16 10.3 15.5 Oakbrook Ill . 128 110 45 35. 1 40.9 Breman Ind. 5 45 4 8.9 8.9 Columbus Ind. 11 10 2 18. 2 20.0 Eagle Grove Iowa 70 3 2 2.8 4.7 Denison Iowa 73 51 4 5. 5 7.8 n Rockwell Iowa 43 41 9 20.9 21 .9 -� Garner Iowa 83 76 13 15.7 17. 1 Detroit Mich. 102 70 24 23.5 34.3 Ann Arbor Mich. 150 141 32 21.3 22. 7 4lyendotte Mich. 177 160 47 26.6 29.4 Detroit Mich. 369 318 92 25. 5 28.9 Charlette Mich. 55 51 11 20.0 21 .6 Duluth Minn. 208 200 12 5. _0 Elk River Minn. 23 23 7 30.4 30.4 Austin Minn. 72 59 1 1.4 1 .7 Duluth Minn 80 65 21 26. 3 32. 3 Litchfield Minn. 38 . 38 4 10.5 10. 5 St Paul Minn. 98 82 13 13.3 15.9 St Paul Minn. . 171 159 16 9.4 10. 1 St Paul Minn_ 307 286 14 4.6 4.9 St Peter Minn. 24 20 6 25.0 30.0 Lincoln Neb. 66 55 12 18.2 21 .8 Fargo N. D. 65 55 1 1.5 1 .8 Garrison N. D. 56 48 5 8.9 10. 4 I i • f F � r E � t• l 1 I i Page j. • PROJECT LOCATION No. of No. of No. of Autos of Residents °,6 of Units Residents Units Owned by Res. with Autos with Autos Lakewood Ohio 180 16o 35 19.4 21.9 Cleveland Hts. Ohio 125 92 12 9.6 13.0 Parma Hts. Ohio 123 128 34 27.6 26.6 Dayton Ohio 321 264 91 28.3 34.5 Mayfield Hts. Ohio 295 239 103 34.9 48.4 Perrysburg Ohio 33 31 16 48.5 51 .6 Mitchell S. D. 50 7 14.0 15.9 Alcester S.D. 77 52 10 12.9 19. 2 REGION V Little Rock Ark. 150 136 43 28.7 31.6 Arvada Colo. 108 yy4 9 8. 3 9 6 Pueblo Colo. 54 48 16 29.6 33.3 y Grand Junction Colo. 61 45 14 22.9 31.1 Boulder Colo. 139 115 58 41 .7 50.4 Denver Colo. 209 156 90 43•. 1 57.7 Denver Colo. 180 144 99 55 0 68.7 Shreveport La. 62 62 42 67. 7 67. 7 Concordia Mo. 88 57 .5 7.0 St Louis Mo. 400 300 85 21:2 28. 3 Kansas City Mo. 137 121 30 21 .9 24.8 St Louis Mo. Igo 144 14 7.4 9. 7 Cordell Okla. 82 50 3 .3.6 6.0 Muskogee Okl-a. 108 94 60 55.5 63.8 Oklahoma City Okla. 223 215 79 35.4 36.7 Tulsa, Okla. 44 42 18 40.9 42.8 Dallas Tex. 11 log 15 12.9 13. Denton Tex. 49 49 9 18.4 18.4 • • Page 4, • fi PROJECT LOCATION No, of 140. of No, of Autos % of Residents % of Units Residents Units Owned by Res with Autos with' Autos REGION VI Phoenix Ariz. 211 153 70 33. 2 45.8 _ San Mateo Calif. 68 ' 56 12 17,6 21 .4 Santa Monica Calif, 168 150 17 10, 1 il•.3 Norwalk Calif, 53 47 12 22,6 25. 5 Berkeley Calif. 154 150 12 7.8 8. 0 San Diego Calif. 70 65 13 18.6 20.0 Compton Calif. 25 21 3 12.0 14. 3 San Diego Calif. 272 202 16 5.9 7,9 San Mateo Calif. 224 200 37 16. 5 18,5 San Francisco Calif. 35 32 3 8.8 9.4 Vallejo Calif. 82 75 15 18,3 20.0 Al,tapena Calif. 23 25 2 8.7 8.0 n Napa Calif. 108 100 21 19,4 21 .0 o Fresno Calif. 37 32 2 5.4 6.3 Long Beach Calif. 332 297 43 12,9 14.5 Pasadena Calif, _ 169 150 38 22.5 25.3 San Diego Calif. 91 80 12 13.2 15.0 San Diego Calif, 197 169 50 25,4 29,6 Los Angeles Calif, 112 112 52 46 (not elderly - deaf & dumb) Los Angeles Calif. 303 287 60 I�{,6 , 19 Santa Monica Calif. 301 162 35 Pasadena Calif. 150 1 31 .222 Los Angeles Calif. 56 11 `fir 0. Los Angeles Calif. 33 2 1 x' ,07 Los Angeles Calif. 43 10 t„ O Panorama City Calif. 64 4 3^y 0 • 24 North Hollywood- Calif. 64 20 (0•0 .04 ;I 31 L L I I i I I � + � i 1 I � E i • E 4 I I • t t � � I Page 5 PROJECT LOCATION No. of No. of No, of Autos % of Residents % of Units Residents Units Owned b Res. with Autos with Autos Salt Lake City. Utah 224 198 90 40 2 45.4 Plentywood Mont 32 31 11 34.4 35.5 Billings Mont. 124 117 6 4 8 5 1 Corvallis Ore Portland Ore. 328 300 67 20 4 29.8 Seattle Wash 224 112 2 .89 1.8 Vancouver Wash. 189 170 24 12.7 14 1 Seattle Wash. 155 144 10 6 4 6 9 TOTALS (By Region REGION n 5 Projects 980 800 167 17.0 20.9 REGION 11 8 Projects 1871 1615 165 8.8 10.2 REGION III 9 Projects 1911 1672 549 28.7 32.8 REGION IV 36 Projects 4023 3438 729 18. 1 21.2 REGION V 18 Projects 2400 1981 688 28.7 34. 7 REGION VI 35 Projects 4433 4131 838 18.9 PO 2. TOTALS (All Regions) 112 Projects 15618 13637 3136 20.03 (Avg.) 23.3 (Avg. ) i •i t ! t t t T* 2 1 1 t t i i ► lot RECENT APPROVED REQUESTS FOR PARKING• REDUCTION FOR SPECIFIED PROJECTS Units Normally Units Parking Spaces Case Alloviable Granted Required Provided Reduction 1. ZA 20153a 123 -2 eff 124 83 & 41 BZA 1980 120 lbr open areas 1918-24 Oxford Ave. 1 2br on site 2045-59 Hobart Blvd. 123 total 2. ZA 20090b 28 d.u. 110 eff 143 51 92• 4417-21 llth Ave , or 57 33 lbr 3300 W. Vernon Ave. guest- 143 total rooms 3. ZA 19837c c, 7019-97 So. Figueroa 141 96 eff 141 50 91 44 lbr 1 2br 141 total 4 . ZA 19520d 82 71 eff 117 41 76 4811-29 Central Ave. 45 lbr 1 2br 117 total a. Protestants ' appeal to: BZA denied. Landscaped open areas on site could be converted to additional parking if use changes . b. A similar project on this property was granted on appeal in ZA 18988; BZA 1785, and modified on appeal in ZA 19277 , BZA "1825. c. Previously granted under,ZA 19128, which lapsed, as did ZA 16775, which included 145 units plus 12 infirmary units. . d. Previous grant under ZA 19107 was allowed to lapse TABLE 3. MEW STRUCTURES LEASED BY THE cxry itc�u:iTNG AU'1'IiORYTY Parking Units- Parking Space Spaces Utilization Units leaned at,time of Eff. lbr total Provided No: Surye'l 4122 Glen Albyn Dr. , Highland Parts 1 55 56 56 11 " 19% 343 Avenue 52,. Highland Paris " , 2 - 31 33 33 2 - 7% 1030. Brittania Street, Boyle' Helghts - 43 43 =43 10•( 8 19%2 • 3.2 . 28"n - 8916 Willis Street, - Panorama City - 64 64 64 ' ' 4 ' 6% • •13149 Barbara Ann St . ,* North Hollywood 1 63 • 64 64 - '20 31%' Subtotal 4 256" '260 260 47 18% n Not fully occur-led at time of survey 5035 Navarro," El Serena 125 So. Ave . 53, Highland Park . 3 33 36 1556 Yosemite Dr. , Eagle `took 1.5 85 100 'Visual survey made 7--16-70. 7525 Simpson Ave. , North Hollywood - 48 - • 48 . 10050 Sepulveda "Bltrd. � Mishiorf Hills 1 50' 51 2Managar estimated that a maximum 2337 Wall St. , Central 3316 1•1. -6?rd St. , �.=gnat???r 2 i4 -14 of ter residents "own rr�rs: They 2Ei1i{ (ir i Fx'j.?1 (�yapein T,••'�+•�nol.,•�" iieib `�3 `^ -may -, 24 have .had a great deal tar trouble � with unauthorized parking genera- Suutotal - not "surveyed 22_ 299 ' n ted by -the adjacent L.A. County -- "USC Medical Center, ant."I at least Tot3i- units 3n structures of this " two of the cars . observact appeared . type 26 555 581 to be of this type. ' 1 " _� -•t . I t . . E ( 1. • :E [ •, �. - E l t E ""E I• I . [ • • rat•..�'`:..-.....�_'�1�._..=_.-y-t-• ..__L�j'!�r,T..lt��.i�-.��..v=,Uri,��''''._.�.^.,... ``. - • piZO?":CS.'S ?Mi:F?.,.' LOS nl;+';i=i�;;'•S [•IEMY.OPO+"_.i�°�i? AM' - No. o-� F2ri-i:]g Pa.:kdun;; ?:._tA.ue) VrIii,S_ ReCiLirC mr—t PP rovidodd Uzod Per Un.-',.t to AlF DUn)b • - 1201 So. Veraoat, L.A. 1-1-2 3i2 87 5 i46. 2. U!shire Christian Hanor = - - .t:i?s'r.`sro & Wo_mandie, L.A. 287 _?_87 96 642 .22 . - 3. _1?ectirs$er lOtJeP iZlu 7cii SC. 265 285 120 673 .2t1 t•. . Same. Monica- Ch-istian sos�ers�I ' 162 present = 72 preset : .' • ' , 1233 SixS b >Streei, 150 orig. 150 : . 150 orig. ;_. 35 :22 Sy1ta Mon?ea w >j. Ei,a Cioncowl :,• . 275 Corv'.ova' Si. 7.50 ilzu. 60 30 .20 '- PaSuden: z Manor 297 227• .:227 356 . 12 L: OZg t3:ac"e2 _ _ 3-Esl-4 mao bi., n,ara,rP6; .- A field -sheek of thd 16t: CnWJ.7f70, 3 p.m.•, igdic^a. 4ed 21 cars. , 2'Ii:is estimate ma•.e inc?7.des vlf :ito� per,?: se:zident iiti ization isA)p. c�1..-Lm.a.e.5 �C,,..o snacas. SoT lvr gal- res dG'fllt s. ha Ve Sold `vI?ei r cars ui liC T O T'L::� in.', _ 3D:?•:-a pro!i ra^C? bu iIl3I12�?i. So�±2 i'2IIident;s h?t'S di-posed of Cars :GinCe zovii?a•intro th ,�-••�, �.�iij i•C'dum—?f: twice b�,• po e-i.-,a3on as a imsult of Co1::i_.SteT2�t• SE'Vt�^ ;7nde.a e r•_.t '•T. .p .y n ••v r.j�.a. ^5 n�ti i_ '� ,•i. , apartments.is .i » '1_� nv' ;`i3sL-r Cd;w ,_1•.otions and uOn.l-' ztx_c CO:t:c.T''i . x �C LlGe'._.t i.BYIa o �ar�urj:;7w. ?tiS t C- Oc x 1 L.. , has hey mlmimal, : .;; • - ::_ ; ' , C:. A. �,1 ,•1 C• �. ..,T JI. O.` C: ` `• f latex ` ::-,; T Sia •;; S ac_a presently renter: to ilo;l-r6sid:ntS, and the L&i33pei' e34 �_a.�o �t � se;.0 M t 3y' C,'..161 be crbeor bMs by r ee denus if .9.�:wl�bl@• _ . : !Inn me-lj_i;ioz, to r es.% -nii3' Cn_,1s' ti+ere has been some ilisi .or• c'1�['L service -park 3t;g;r bm, the t__-_`a'z_t-- ird_. _ .;te! nay . )tat p�td ;t1- :ati iq )naC ' enst- _ let t='14 100E F i t � • t i i t i • 1 i i i t � t • Data on Automobile Ownership - Units at Least 90% Occupied From December 31. 1972 Thru December, 1972 Region Vi Elderly Housing Projects Project Location No. of No. of No. of.Autos % of Residents ;G of Units Residents Units Owned by Res. _ With_Antn_n vtth a„r.s _ Phoenix, Arizona 211 153 70 33.2 I15,8 San Mateo, California 68 56 12 17.6 21.4 Santa Monica, California 168 150 17 10. 1 11.3 Norwalk California 53 47 12 22.6 25.5 Berkeley, California 154 • 150 12 7.8 8,0 San Diego, California 70 65 13 18.6 20.0 Compton, California 25 ' 21 • 3 12-0 14.3 San Diego, California 272 202 16 5.9 7.9 .San Mateo. California 224 200 37 16.5 •18.5 San Francisco. California 35 32 3 8.8 9.4 Vallejo, California 82 75 15 18.3 20.0 Altadena, California 23 25 2 8.7 8,0 Napa, California 108 100 21 19.4 21.0 Fresno, California 37 32 2 5.4 6.3 Long Beach, California 332 297 43 12.9 14.5 Pasadena, California 169 150 38 22.5 25.3 San Diego, California 91 80 12 13.2 15.0 ? San Diego, California 197 169 50 25.4 29.6 N Salt Lake City, Utah 224 198 90 40.2 45,4 Plentywood, Montana 32 31 11 34.4 35.5 Billings, Montana 124 117 6 4.8 5. 1 Corvallis Oregon 89 84 25 28.1 29.8 Portland, Oregon 328 300 67 20.4 22.3 Seattle. Washington 224 112 2 .89 1.8 Vancouver. Washington 189 170 24 12.7 14.1 Seattle, Washington 155 144 10 6.4 TOTALS 3.684 3,160 613 • 16.6 19.4 1-7 5 26 Projects c • DATA Otl AUTOt•YJBIL•iNSRSHIP Ai.D tARY.ING • Section 202 Senior Citizens Projects No. of No. of Autos Parking Zone PROJECT LOCATION Residents Units Owned Spaces Reg1t Billings, Montana 112 119 8 32 None Seattle; Washington 106 309 22 232 232/3:4 Chicago; 111. 71 45 1 14 14/1:3 Chicago, Ill 172 104 22 37 37/1:3 Peoria, Ill. 47 50 5 25 None Eagle Grove, Iowa 62 42 7 30 None Denison, Iowa 66 51 2 25 None Detroit, Michigan 26 - 26 1 None 26 Austin, Minnesota 69 56 1 30 None Glenwood, Minnesota 26 66 2 15 None Thief River Falls, Minnesota 64 36 2 50 None Duluth, Minnesoaa 80 65 28 23 65/1:1 Duluth, Minnesota 113 200 2 19 66/1;3 St. Paul, Minnesota 96 82 6 50 82/1;1 Fargo, No. Dakota 31 55 2 20 55/1:1 n Lakewood, Ohio 180 160 40 84 150/1:1 Cleveloand Heights, Okio 124 92 12 40 40/1:2 N Alcester; So. Dakota 16 52 2 30 Clone Ha ufavd, Conn, 60 54 18 15 None Ft. Meyers, Florida 148 48 36 100 None San Mateo, Calif. 68 56 14 22 1.5 units per Menlo Park, Calif. 33 30 10 10 2 units /space San Diego, Calif. 72 65 15 24 2.5 units per space Berkeley, Calif. 163 150 23 39 150 Norwalk', Calif. 52 46 10 52 52 Compton, Calif. 14 21 3 21 1:1 Roswell, New Mexico 20 96 13 53 None Muskogee", Okla. 23 96 19 62 96/1:1 Shreveport, La. 67 62 30 62 6211:1 Cordell, Okla. 79 50 2 32 None Concordia, Okla. 8 56 1 100 None Dallas, Texas 114 105 14 120 120/6.5 Americus, Georgia 168 177 8 100 "None SOv7CE: Hcud ng & ?come Finance Agency t I 4 I I t ( I I t t 1 ! t t ! { I • DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING E URBAN DEVELOPMENT DATA ON AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND'PARKING Section 202 Senior Citizens Projects M California Project location No- of . No. of Zone Parking Parking No. Spaces % of 7 of Spa, ti and Name Units Residents Requirements Spaces used by Spaces used pe:• at time of Available Residents used resident Construction per (spaces) Unit Altadena (Quaker Retire- ment Center) 25 •23 25• 25 8 32% 35% Berkeley (Straw- berry Crack Lodge)150 165 150 38 21 14% 13% - Compt6a (St. Tim- othy's Manor) 21 22 21 32 3 14% 147. Menlo Park (Peninsula Volunteers) 30 33 10 10 3 10% 97 . Norwalk (Sorop- timist Village) 47 63 67 67 12 26% 19% San Diego (Luther Tower) 202 236 0• 28 18 97 87 San Diego (St. Paul's Manor) 65 72 24 24 35 237 21% San Francisco .(Jones Mazer- Lal Rome) 32 35 32 32 4 12}7 ,117. San Mateo (Park Towers) 200 240 65 50 50 25% 21% San Mateo (Pilgrim Plaza) 56 65 20 22 10 18% 15% Santa Cruz (Garfield Park Village) 48 54 48 50 18 37§7 33 1/3Z Santa Monica (Santa Monica Towers) ISO 168 150 ISO 60 407. 367 Totals 1026 1176 612 528 222 227. 19% C-13 DATA OII ADTOIDBILE CMMSICP 9M ViRrUTO Section 202 Senior Citizeta Projects _ li No. of No. of Autos Parking Zone PROTECT LOCATION Residents Units Owed Settle Reo't billings, Mantana 112 119 8 32 Most Seattle, Washington 106 309 22 232 23213:4 Chicago, I11. 71 45 1 14 14/1:3 • Chicago, I11 172 104 22 37 37/1:3 Paoria, 221. 47 50 3 25 None Eagle Crave, Iowa 62 42 7 30 None Denison. Iowa 66 51 2 25 None Detroit, Michigan 26 26 1 None 26 Austin, Minnesota 69 56 1 30 None Clanvood, Hinnecota 26 26 2 15 None Thief River Falls, Minnesota 64 36 2 50 Now Duluth, Minnesota 8o 65 28 23 65/1:1 -^ Duluth, Minnesota 213 200 2 19 66/1;3 St. Paul, Minnesota 96 82 6 50 $2/10 • Fargo, No. Dakota 31 55 2 20 55/1:1 Lakovood. Ohio 180 160 40 84 150/1:1 Claveloand Heights, Otio 224 92 12 40 4011:2 Alcester; So. Dakota 16 52 2 30 Dane Nergfaad, Count 60 54 1S 13 None Ft. Meyers, Florida 168 49 36 100 Itans San Matto, Calif. 63 56 14 22 1.5 units per Mealo,Park, Calif. 33 30 20 10 2 un:ta /cpace — San Diego, Calif. 72 65 15 24 2.5 units per space Derkeley. Calif. 263 ISO 23 39 150 Ndtrwalk, Calif. 52 46 10 32 52 Conptoa, Calif. 14 21 3 21 1:1 Roswell, Nsw Mexico 20 96 13 53 Bona — , Muskogee, Okla. 23 96 19 62 96/1:1 Shreveport, La. 67 62 30 62 62/1:1 Cordell, 021a. 79 50 2 32 None Concordia, Okla. 8 56 1 100 Now Dallas, Texas 214 105 14 120 12016.3 '•' Amricus, Georgia 1" 177 8 100 None SOL^.CS: P.aual ns O Haw Fiance Agency • • ONY Y•OU q9 YY ^4Y 60r^i r Y r0 Oq�l' 00 nA b�`,�•. YA • N i n n .�.„ a w a iC a a° a r a 92 �.� e^a w n a Q n �.0 •... ,S ••�� sing o ?V rY a O .^en ^Jr.'6 27a M Y tT ^,Y •�^I J N 6 O Y n 11 O h n n a Y D• f!n n Y n y V •Y n n fl n O n Y O n n n n ■ n • Y S�• G � v<a 'yt0 a < ^ C Y wV a Y O O-^ V6A s0 n0 vn ' O .ta r••. n ,+n n nA on Np pO N Y Y x' a N n n n O A_ Y Y Y Y v ., n n 0 a Y•OI V n n {1+r M n n n OT Vet O p VI^e n , o • V a N Yy,1 4a IT F. • w 0 n M y, N N M n N •^a ^n 0 • On a SY �. q yNM. M A w •RpV A O M ,a•.� C '• �•�• Y MnG A O w � �^ •• n w nc w non 1i• Y n� % c n a w = s A aq V e N Y N N N N W W qZ e — , O O O N O N A q V O N O M Y Y Y n y 11••jii a A O Gl 6 N •• N w Y � O V C N N v N N N N• M ^n Y9 N N N N N N n N n Y 0 rr a.n n^ W P YWi N N � r N N N N N H M N H N N N N w 0 N w6N C-14 nnw APPENDIX D ENERGY IMPACT REPORT • • D-1 Nack & Sunderland Asa Consulting Mechanical Engineers 7462 North Figueroa Street! ;L,Los Angeles,California 90041 ❑❑Telephone(213)254.6775 2218 tlewport Boulevard Newport Beach.California 92667❑❑Telephone(714)675.3050 May 24, 1976 Mr. John Trittipo, AIA William Blurock & Partners 2300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach,. California Dear John: -- Attached is a revised and corrected draft of.the • Energy Impact Report for the Lutheran Church of the Master - Senior Citizen Housing Project. If I can be of any further assistance, don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, NACK & SUNDERLLAANND Donald H. Nack Mechanical Engineer DHN:lmn Enclosure cc: Doug Wood Westec Services Donald H. Nack L] ❑ Blarne W. Goldman❑❑ Sprague A. Mayes ❑ ❑ C. Gary Nielson Clayton A.Lampman❑❑Charles C. Brooks❑ ❑ Rhoades L. Douglass❑ ❑ Kathryn T. Neck D-3 t • J -:..7 ENERGY IMPACT REPORT7-1 FOR LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE MASTER SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING ;';' 1•j ;• ' F • J 6�, �r•,n,n '� '' 5/19/76 D-4 ! ice- , ENERGY EXISTING CONDITIONS Electrical energy is supplied to the Newport Beach area by the Southeast Division of the Southern California Edison Company. The total electrical consumption for the southeast Division in 1975 was 9,802,966,827 kwh (kilowatt hours) . The electrical consumption during the same period for the _ Huntington• Beach District which is part of the Southeast Division and serves the Newport area was 2,498,561,588 kwh. The 1975 monthly average consumption rate of all electric • single family residences in this area was 1,138 kwh; and the average consumption rate for all single family residences was 555 kwh. The per unit average monthly consumption of all electric multiple single family apartment dwellings in this area was 599 kwh for the Huntington Beach District and was 611 kwh for the entire Division. Table I gives the 1971 average monthly electrical energy consumption rates for several different senior citizen apartment complexes. All of these senior citizen apartment complexes are similar in that they are all 3-story struc- tures and the size of each apartment unit is 550 square feet. Nack & Sunderland D-5 • TABLE I ENERGY CONSUMPTION RATES - SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING UNITS Average Consumption Per Apartment _ Address Units (kwh/Apt./Month) * 10050 Sepulveda Blvd. 51 532 _ San Fernando Valley, Ca. 1030 Brittania Street 56 364 Los Angeles , Ca. - 19430 Wyandotte 78 589 San Fernando Valley, Ca. 13149 Barbara Avenue 64 449 North Hollywood, Ca. _ 1560 Yosemite 100 440 Los Angeles , Ca. • 4122 Glenalbyn 56 452 Los Angeles, Ca. 8916 Willis 64 468 Los Angeles , Ca. The weighted average per unit consumption for all seven apartment developments listed in Table I is 472 kwh per - month. Using this consumption as a basis and increasing it proportionately for a 600 square foot apartment, Table II gives the projected energy use for this larger size _ apartment in the Newport area based on a 1% annual usage increase in 5-year increments through the year 1992. - *These energy consumption rates include the entire energy usage of complex as a pro rated portion of house meter charge is added to average individual meter reading per _ • unit. D-6 • TABLE II Electrical Consumption (kwh per Apartment Year per Month) 1977 545 1982 576 .M 1987 602 1992 633 The estimated annual energy consumption for this project W in 1992 is 759,600 kwh. Thus, in 1992 this development -- is estimated to consume approximately 0.0077% of the energy consumed in the Southeast Division for the year 1975. This - small fraction of a percent increase will create no signifi- cant impact. Our energy sources are not limitless and each incremental increase in consumption becomes, significant when cumulatively viewed. However, the degree of impact significance must be viewed in light of the already proven .. fact that the energy expected to be consumed by a senior citizen type apartment in the year 1987 will be less than that used in the 'average apartment served in the Southeast Division for the year 1975. D-7 • MITIGATION The project will not have a noticeable impact on the _ energy usage of the region; however, the past nationwide trend toward consuming larger amounts of energy is _ beginning to reappear. Therefore, the following measures _ are recommended for incorporation in the building plans wherever possible to lessen energy consumption rates: _ o The incorporation of insulation in all exterior walls and roofs which is equal to or greater than required by the California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, �- • Article 5, Energy Insulation Standards . _ o Installation of glass which is restricted to a type and area which is equal to or better than that required by the Energy Insulation Standards. (These considerations are especially relevant to the comfort of senior citizens.) o Use fluorescent lighting rather than incandescent lighting where possible. — o Utilize overhangs and external wall protections • to shade glass particularly on the west exposure. _ • D-8 • o Plant deciduous trees that provide shade for southern exposures during the summer months and allow sunlight through in the winter months . o Use individual meters for each apartment versus single meter for project to encourage conservation of energy. o Provide time control devices to limit energy used by house lighting, parking lighting, and community area heating and cooling equipment. o Use solar energy to heat domestic hot water supply to laundry. • APPENDIX E AIR QUALITY DATA • E-1 • AMBIENT AIR QUALITY Number of Days State Standard Exceeded (1975) California Air Costa Mesa Laguna Beach Pollutant Quality Standards a Station Station - Oxidant (Ozone) 0. 10 ppm Cl hr avg) lib NA Nitrogen Dioxide 0. 25 ppm (1 hr avg) 3c 2d (NO2)' Carbon Monoxide 40 ppm (1 hr avg) 3le Of (CO) Sulfur Dioxide . 50 ppm (1 hr avg) Ob NA - (S02) Particulate 100 µg/0 (24 hr avg) 37%c,g 15%fsg Matter Lead 1. 5 µg/m3 (30 day avg) 5c,h 4f,h a. Not danger levels ; these levels are required to protect public health within an adequate margin of safety. b. Based upon a 10-month sampling period. C. Based upon an 11-month sampling period. d. Based upon a 1-month sampling period. e. Based upot a 5-month sampling period. f. Based upon a 9-month sampling period. g. Percent of samples over standard h. Number of months State Standards exceeded. I • E-3 • The following data serves as a background for air — quality estimates : a. Trip Generation Factors 8 Resultant Daily B No. of Dwelling Units Generation Rate Trip Ends 100 4. 0 trips/du 400 b. Average number of miles per trip = 8 miles C. Total vehicle miles = 3, 200 miles/day 1,168,000 miles/year Applying the foregoing information to AP-42 methodology 28 and factors, the following pollutant emission rates were -- • calculated assuming full occupancy by 1978. _ TABLE F-1 POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES " Emission Rates — Pollutant pounds/year tons/year(') Carbon Monoxide 79,658 39. 83 Hydrocarbons 10,355 5. 18 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NOD 9,764 4. 88 Particulates 1,490 . 75 Sulfur Oxides (SO2) 514 . 26 • (1) Rounded to the nearest hundredth. ` E-4 Data provided by the Southern California Gas Company and project engineers regarding stationary sources results in the following emission factors : 20 a. Electricity: 633 kilowatt hours/dwelling unit/month 759, 600 kilowatt hours per year 14 b. Natural Gas : 95 , 000 cubic feet/dwelling unit/month 9, 500, 000 cubic feet per year C. 81. 4 percent of electrical power currently supplied by Southern California Edison is produced through 15 burning fossil fuels. These factors when applied to ultimate project characteristics . result in the following pollutant emissions : TABLE F-2 POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY. SOURCES Emission Rates (1) Pollutant pounds/year tons/year Carbon Monoxide 190 . 09 Hydrocarbons 76 . 04 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as NO2) 1,997 1. 00 Particulates 719 . 40 Sulfur Oxides (SO2) 40952 2 . 48 (1) Rounded to the nearest hundredth. E- 5 APPENDIX F CORRESPONDENCE F-1 • ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P O. BOX 3334, ANAHEIM. CALIF. 92803 June 7, 1976 Mr. Douglas Wood, Associate Westec Services, Inc. 17632 Irvine Boulevard Tustin, California 92680 Subject: Seaview Lutheran Plaza, Newport Beach This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to w notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above-named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements _ are made. • The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects - gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly Single Family 1080 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 630 Therms/year/dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 565 Therms/year/dwelling unit These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to the State's new insulation requirements and con- sumers' efforts toward energy conservation. F-3 - I We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, W. R. Perkins Distribution Planning Supervisor d Attach. F-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - POLICE DEPARTMENT March 16, 1976 La ii1A NE'w Ii' br TO: Community Development Department FROM: Captain D. F. Oyaas SUBJECT: Lutheran Church of the Master A review of the plans indicates 43 parking spaces for the 100 senior citizen units. This would be less than one-half space per unit. Due to the geographical W layout of our city and the limited public transportation in the area, the parking spaces as planned are totally inadequate. It is the opinion of the Police Depart- ment that an absolute minimum requirement would be one space per dwelling unit, in addition to the regular church parking. It should also be noted the plans do not show any outside lighting in the pro- posed senior citizen housing. This creates a hazardous situation. Outside lighting should be well planned for this type of project and the Police Department would like to review such plans prior to their approval . D. F. Oyaas, Captain Commander, Traffic Division F- 5 � • I g' Newport Center United Methodist Church 1601 Marguerite Avenue — Corona del Mar, California 92625 Church (714) 644-0745 • Pre-school (714) 644-0740 John R. Knox, Minister March 18, 1976 1 City of Newport Beacli Re: Lutheran Church of the Master's, Application for proposed retirement housing project. Gentlemen, We feel that this type of development is needed in our community. However, we do have reservations with respect to the initial and continuing funding for this project, and desireable restrictions and or limitation on residence. Cordially, )J. E. Russell, LayMember ram, v_ _ ''��• TM'�. �„� L' \\ _. F-6