Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTPO014 AY OF NEWPORT BAH COUNCIL ME B RS MINUTES yG A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGy9�9(P PLACE: Council Chambers 0 P .M. DATE: May 24, 1982 ROLL CALLS J'cP �� INDEX Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of t eeting of May All Ayes 10, 1982, was waived, app as written and ordered filed. Motion x C. The read' of all ordinances and resolutions All Ayes un consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Heather opened the public hearing and City Park Lido/ Council review of a_ TRAFFIC STUDY REQUEST BY PARK Tfk Study LIDO, LTD. , ROBERT L.WISH, General Partner, Santa U/P 2021 Ana, approved by the Planning Commission on April (88) 22, 1982, for a proposed 65,269 sq. ft. medical office building to be ocated a�5 Hospital Road, on the iioitheasterl corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital; zoned A-P. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. Letter from Dennis O'Neil, of McDonough, Holland & Allen, representing the Applicants for approval of the traffic study, was presented. The City Clerk reported that after the printing of the agenda, a letter was received from Newport Villa West regarding the construction of the underground parking facility and its impact on their patients during said construction period. It was noted that the Traffic Study for the pro- posed development had been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal r Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) and Council Policy S-1 (Administrative Procedures for Imple- menting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance). Due to questions raised, discussion ensued regard- ing Council Policy S-1 and its relation to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Comments were also made with respect to traffic generation and park- ing requirements. It was noted by staff that if the Traffic Study were approved by Council, it would be with the assumption that the project met the density and height requirements, and all other zoning regula- tions. William Kunzman of Kunzman Associates, the City's Traffic Consultant who performed the traf- fic impact analysis for this project, addressed the Council and answered questions regarding the traffic study. He described how he calculated the traffic generating characteristics of the project, noting they used data that had been provided by Volume 36 - Page 161 : Ory OF NEWPORT BACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES \CALY ROLL �iP �'A May 24, 1982 INDEX the staff for the 307 Placentia medical office Park Lido/ building. He stated that typically one does not try Tfk Study to estimate traffic generation rates from the number of parking spaces. It is usually done independent of one another. N , Dennis O'Neil, Attorney representing the Applicant, 3200 Park Center Drive, Costa Mesa, stated that their position was set forth in their letter of May 17. He requested he be permitted to address the Council again following public testimony. Dick Hogan, representing the residential property owners in the area, stated that they have no objections to the development within the require- ments of the zoning Ordinance. However, their con- cern is traffic, but not the traffic covered by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He requested the Council consider: 1) closing access to Patrice Road in relation ,to the project, and 2) installing stop s signs on Placentia Avenue, which would allow traf- fic coming out of the project to get onto Placentia. He stated that the developer has offered to provide the latter and he urged the Council to accept the offer. Margot Skilliug, 6610 W. Ocean Pront, and Louise Greeley, 16 Swift Court, addressed the Council and urged denial of the project. Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Avenue, stated she was pleased to hear that the Planning Commission had commenced a study of the subject area as she was concerned with increased traffic. She asked questions of the staff regarding parking require- ments for the present Park Lido building. Mr. O'Neil addressed the Council again and stated that the Planning Commission did review the evidence regarding the Traffic Study and determined that the Traffic Study complied With Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and Council Policy S-1, implementing said study. The Commission further found that the project would neither cause, nor make worse, an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any major, primary modified or primary street. He felt that, in view of the data submitted and the recom- mendations of the staff, the project should be approved. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission. At the supgestioon of Council Member Strauss, the motion was amended to include that this item be brought back to�the Council for review, if ie is ined t determhat there is a deviation from the zon- ing regulations which ii- traffic telafed;anZ-which would impact: on the findings of the existing traf- fic z Tay. Ayes x x x x x x The motion was voted on and carried., Abstain x T Volume - Page 162 • CITY OR NEWPORT BACH C UNCIL ME B RS MINUTES i ROLL CALL �GS+ � April 26, 1982 INDEX The following persons addressed the Council and urged that the subject issue not be reopened: \Rme rt Cecka, 1401 Kings Road, Lori Miller,, 128 s Place, and Warren Howland, 311 Kings Road. Motion x ived and filed reports from Planning Depart-Ayes x x x x and City Attorney, and staff to notify Cliff Noes x ' Haven Homeowners Association of said action. It was dicated that if the Cliff Haven Home- owner As ciation was desirous of having the City Founc reconsider.this item, then -it should be,brought t the attenion of the Council. K. ADDITIONAL BUSI SS: 1. A report from Publ c Works regarding the ENCROACH- U/P 1717(A) MENT AGREEMENT AND CLARATION OF COVENANTS FOR (88) NONSTANDARD IMPROV TS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY ALONG MCFADDEN PLA , OCEAN FRONT, AND 21ST PLACE (USE PERMIT 1717 NDED), was presented. Motion x Motion was made to approve he Encroachment Agree- ment for nonstandard improve nts with Richard Lawrence, and authorize the Ma or and City Clerk to execute said agreement, with \een ision that the surety agreement entereon April 20, 1982, apply also to subject ments with a deadline of June 1 for sidewalvements on Oceanj Front and McFadden, and Jueadlinefor m�ll improvements on '21st Plthe alley.Richard Lawrence, Applicant, stat wasin agreement with the deadline dr cc le- tion, as recommended by the Cityey anDirector of Public Works. All Ayes The motion was voted on, and car Motion x 2. Scheduled the Park Lido Traffic Study for public Park Lido/ All Ayes hearing on May 24, 1982. Tfk Study. U/P 2021(88) Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. i Volume 36 '- Page 145 i CO MISSIONERS April 22, 1982 MINUTES . fms m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Balalis also suggested that specific 'gures be obtained from the applicant relating to the use f the facilities during the weekdays and weekends, which ay coincide with functions of the Newport Harbor Hi School. Chairman McLaughli expressed her concerns relating to the parking issue., Motion X Motion was made to continue th a items to the Planning A11 Ayes X X X X X X Commission Meeting of June 24, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m. d reconvened at 10:00 p.m. Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed Item #5 65,269 sq. ft. medical office building. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 TRAFFIC Hospital Road on the northeasterly STUDY— corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. ZONE: A-P APPROVED CONDI- APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd. , Robert Wish, TIONALLY General Partner, Santa Ana OWNERS: Same as applicants Planning Director Hewicker discussed the background information related to this item. He stated that this is a request for approval of a Traffic Study and that there is no way in which the Commission can legally bind the applicant, or a future owner of the property, -13- COMMISSIONERS • April 22, 1982 MINUTES � 3 = ` I m F y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX to a conceptual design or to a project plan which does not exist. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney concurred. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Dennis O'Neil, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. O'Neil stated that they have prepared a conceptual plan which- complies with the zoning. He stated that the structure will- be built within the height limit and will have subterranean parking which satisfies many of the concerns expressed by the surrounding property owners and residents. He stated that they are committed to the signalization at Placentia Avenue and Hospital Road and improvement of the traffic circulation through the use of signs. He stated that they concur with the recommendations of the staff report. Mr. Dick Hogan, representing the residential property owners of the area, which include 140 apartment units in Mediterranean Village and 99 condominiums in the Park Lido Association, appeared before the Commission. In addition, he stated that he is also representing Mr. Ralph Gray, who owns 44 of the apartment units. Mr. Hogan stated that they have viewed the conceptual plan which appears to be satisfactory and is certainly a substantial improvement over the original proposal. He referred to the Traffic Phasing Plan and expressed his concern that it does not cover the local traffic systems. He suggested that the traffic exit onto Flagship Road be controlled in such a way to prohibit right turns. He stated that this is a safety concern of the residents and the occupants of the convalescent homes. Mr. Hogan stated that the applicant is agreeable in providing a left turn requirement from the parking lot and that there be a stop sign on Placentia Avenue. He stated that the City's traffic consultant has indicated that because of the projected traffic on Placentia Avenue, this would be a reasonable consideration. -14- COMMISSIONERS . April 22, 1982 MINUTES x r e � m a m F w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Hogan if they are •asking for a signal or a stop sign. Mr. Hogan stated that they are requesting a stop sign in both directions at the intersection of Placentia Avenue and Flagship Road. Commissioner Allen stated that the Planning Commission f is only considering the request for the proposed Traffic Study, not the plans which have been shown by the applicant. She suggested that the Commission find a way in which to condition the project, which will satisfy the concerns of the surrounding residential area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Hogan stated that they prefer the parking structure as proposed, not an above ground parking structure. Mr. Hogan suggested that the Commission accept a copy of the applicant's plans, as informational plans, which will represent the intent of the applicant. Commissioner Allen suggested that perhaps a private solution could be considered between the applicant and the residents of the area. Mr. Hogan stated that they feel that the items which they have requested are consistent with the Traffic Phasing Plan. In response to a question posed by Commissioner King, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that he would not foresee a problem with the requested- left turn only sign on Flagship Road. Mr. William Kunzman of Kunzman Associates, the City's Traffic Consultant who performed the traffic impact analysis for this project, appeared before the Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Kunzman stated that Figure 2 of the report was utilized in determining the ingress and egress of the project. Mr. Fred •Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that Figure 2 shows the current, pre-existing driveways on the site. Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern that the traffic distribution of the existing project may be totally different than the traffic distribution of the proposed project, particularly if one of the driveways is eliminated. -15- COMMISSIONERS • April 22, 1982 • MINUTES � r c m m City of Newp ort Beach 5 e x w ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Don Webb stated that in this particular analysis, the intention of the City Traffic Engineer was that all of the existing driveways would be utilized and would have equal ability to handle the traffic. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that it is his understanding that questions of access do not have any impact upon the numbers of the traffic study. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the staff has not had the opportunity to view the conceptual plan as developed by the applicant. Commissioner Winburn asked why Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue were not involved in the Traffic Study. Mr. Kunzman stated that these intersections are not on the critical list. Mr. Talarico stated that the critical list specifically refers to signalized intersections. Commissioner King suggested that the project description contained on Page 1 of the Traffic Study should be accepted as identifying the proposed development. He stated that this description is what the Traffic Study addressed in its analysis of .the project. Mr. Burnham stated that this would not impose a requirement that the project be built in that manner. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Webb stated that Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue are secondary streets. Commissioner Beek stated that Figure 2 of the Traffic Study is irrelevant, because the project traffic distribution is based on Figure 3 which shows that all of the traffic will be exiting on Flagship Road and none of the traffic will be exiting on Hospital Road. ------------------------------------------------------- At this point, members of the staff took a recess to determine if this item could be resolved. ------------------------------------------------------- -16- COMMISSIONERS • April 22, 1982 MINUTES 3 � m m m F w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that the traffic distribution in the analysis of the Traffic Study is based upon the utilization of the driveways on Flagship Road and Hospital Road. He stated that the Commission does not have the authority to direct that there be right or left turns out of the driveways, or to close any of the driveways. Mr. Burnham concurred and stated that a private agreement as suggested by Commissioner Allen would not be feasible either. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Kunzman referred to Appendix C of the ICU - work sheets, Page 39, and explained how the figure .8929 was calculated. Ms. Nancy Skinner, resident of 724 Highland Drive, suggested that if the applicant were to design this building a few inches higher than the height limit, the application would then have to be approved by the Commission and these requirements could be legally imposed. Mr. Mike Johnson, resident of 220 Nice Lane, stated that this area is very congested with traffic. He expressed his concern that the cumulative affects of the traffic impacts for all of the developments in the West Newport area must be considered. He stated that if the Beeco/Banning Ranch proposal is approved by the voters, it will have a tremendous impact on the traffic and will change all of the traffic counts that have been presented. Commissioner King stated that the committed projects are included in the projections of the Traffic Study. He stated that the Beeco/Banning Ranch proposal is not a committed project because of the referendum. Planning Director Hewicker• explained the committed projects in the area: Mr. Webb stated that if the Beeco/Banning Ranch proposal were to be included as a committed project, the distribution would change substantially because it provides for an additional intersection which would cause a diversion of traffic off of Superior Avenue and lower the ICU, which would allow more capacity in the intersection. -17- COMMISSIONERS • April 22, 1982 • MINUTES � � c m � m City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Motion X Motion was made for approval of the Traffic Study, subject to the findings and conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Allen stated that she would be voting against this 'item because this particular area needs to . be studied in terms of the traffic. She stated that medical office buildings are big trip generators. She stated that the applicant has developed a project, which attempts to deal with the concerns of the doctors and the residents of the area. However, she stated that the Commission is considering the requested Traffic Study, not the conceptual plan of the project. ,, Commissioner Beek stated that he can not support the motion. He stated that the traffic distribution figures are indefinite because they have been rounded to 5 percent figures in every direction. He further stated that an indepth traffic study is needed for the entire County triangle area. Ayes X X X X X Commissioner King's motion for approval of the Traffic Noes X X Study, was now voted on as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: : 1. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-l. 2. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any I "major", "primary-modified"; or "primary" street. CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant - shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to the Circulation System Improvements for the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway described 'in the Traffic Study, Page 11, Table 5, -18- COMMISSIONERS • April 22, 1982 • MINUTES � r S m m a m F w 0 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 2. The Circulation System Improvement described in Condition 1 above and the City-State improvements to the intersection of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway described in the Traffic Study, Page 11, Table 5 shall have been made (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation System Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the •City Traffic Engineer. Request to delete Condition No. 9 of a previously Item #6 approved use permit that allowed a change in the operational characteristics of an existing restaurant to include the service of alcoholic beverages. Said condition presently restricts the service of -alcoholic beverages at a bar or bar type lounge in conjunction USE PERMIT with the restaurant operation. N0. 2005 • MENDED LOCA ON: Lots 74 and 75, Tract No. 1011, located at 4001 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard, adjacent to Balboa Coves. APPROVED _0NDI- ZONE: C -H TIONALLY APPLICANT: Royal hai Cuisine Inc. , Newport Beach OWNER: Mary Howa , Newport Beach The public hearing opened in c nection with this item and Mr. Sumet Tila, represen 'ng the Royal Thai Cuisine, appeared before the Comm sion and requested approval of this application. -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES • January 21, 1982 • J x ATTACHMENT N0. 7 r c m � m y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 13. That as consider for mitation of development to .9 ildable area, the requested is an appropria e. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections. 2. That all applicable conditions of the Traffic Study shall be -fulfilled. 3. A complete hydrology study and hydraulic an- alysis shall be performed to address the amount of and manner in which all flows to and from the site are accommodated. 4. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 5. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access routes,• access points to the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 7. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. B. Than an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. 9. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. -12- �5 BARBARA JESSEN, M, D. ATTACHMENT NO. 6 NEUROLOGIST April 20th, 1982 Newport Beach Planning Commission, Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express to you my continuing and increased concern of the impact on the traffic, particularly along Hospital road, but also along Placentia, which will be caused by the number of proposed new construction projects in our immediate area, including the Beeco project, Hoag second tower, Hughes Aircraft# Mallard Medical, the Heritage Bank Building and the Park Lido Medical Building. Despite the opinions of the Traffic Review Group, we have significant traffic problems at present and the increased traffic I am afraid will lead us to have many traffic jams and an increased number of accidents. I would encourage you to look at the total area, as I know you are, so that we may have an optimal development plan. Sincerely yours A-6 'D�i`� Barbara Jessen MD BJ:wmh f , ..J, r S-' �J 2 ca MILBARA JESSEN.M.D.,INC.•351 HOSPITAL ROAD•5UITE 316•NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663.17141642-1437 COMMISSIONERS • January zl, 1982 • MINUTES r c . a M m e N. 'City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 16. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 17. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 18. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. 19. The site's existing landscape plan shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program shall be modified to include the concerns of the conditions above to the maximum extent practicable. Any change(s) in said existing program as a result of this review shall be phased and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 20. That the landscaping plans adjacent to the drive entrances be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation, for sight distance requirements. 21. That the proposed landscaping over the existing and proposed sewer easements shall be subject to further review by the Public Works Department. 22. The project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. All parking lot lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. 23. That should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. -14- COMMISSIONERS • rY ,January 21 1982 MINUTES r c m � dt o F N City of Newport Beach � � v and ROLL CALL INDEX 10. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 11. That final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water hsing facilities. 12. Prior to occupancy of any building, the appli- cants shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 6 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 13. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said structures be sound attenuated so as to not exceed 55 dBA at the property lines. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Building Department. 14. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. 15. A landscape and irrigation, plan for the pro- ject shall be prepared by a licensed land- scape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of land- scaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the Prepared plan) . -13- �- U� COMMISSICINERS 0 January 21, 1982 MINUTES � x � r � m m m " ' City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 29. That all improvements be constructed' as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 30. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 31. That the existing sanitary sewer be relocated and that a 10-foot wide easement for sewer purposes be dedicated to the City prior to issuance of Building Permits, and that the design of the sewer be by a licensed engineer on the Public Works Department Standard Plan sheets. 32. That the structures adjacent to the existing and proposed sewer main have deepened footings. The footings shall be designed so that the bottom of footing is intersected when a 1 to 1 slope is projected from the flow line of pipe to the bottom of footing so that the footing is able to take lateral forces in the event of sewer main excavation. 33. That a concrete sidewalk be completed along the Flagship Road frontage and access ramps be constructed at the corners of Flagship Road and Patrice Road, and Flagship Road and Placential Avenue. 34. That prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department that adequate site distance has been provided at the Hospital Road entrance and at the northeasterly corner of the proposed medical building. 35. That prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Building Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 6. The -16- COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES � r � ro m u City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 24. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport should be included in all leases or subleases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose - additional commercial air service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 25. That the final design of on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 26. Signing shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 27. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 28. The layout of the surface and structure parking shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. -15- �I COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 • MINUTES � x � r � m " m W y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL - INDEX 43. All concrete driving surfaces in the parking structure shall have a rough finish. 44. The final design of on-site pedestrian circulation shall be designed to direct pedestrian crossing of Hospital Road to its intersection with Placentia Avenue. 45. That 1 parking space shall be provided for each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area in the existing and proposed office buildings. 46. That the applicant shall install signs during the construction of the project that will limit parking time on-street in the vicinity of the project in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer and provide for their removal upon completion of the project. 47. A 24 hour security program for the site including the parking structure shall be designed and implemented prior to the occupancy of the project. Said program shall be approved by .the Police and Planning Departments. 48. That two weeks (14 days) prior to the commencement of construction a notice that of start construction and proposed construction schedule shall be provided to all residents and property owners within 300 feet in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department. 49. That the office structure construction shall not commence until such time as the parking structure is complete and operational. 50. That the landscaping adjacent to the parking structure on Flagship Road and Patrice Road shall be completed within 30 days of the start of construction of the office building. -18- y COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES x m ^ m n � W 2 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction of any additional sewer facilities needed to serve the project. 36. That a traffic signal be designed and installed by the developer at the intersection of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue. A separate surety and agreement may be provided for this work. The developer's obligation for this signal shall be 50%. 37. That parking arrangement during the construction period shall be approved by the City's Planning Department and Traffic ' Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permit(s) . Persons that might be affected by the construction shall be notified in a manner approved by the Planning Department. 38. All on-site drainage shall be approved by the City Public Works Department. 39. A late afternoon and evening security program shall be designed and implemented prior to the occupancy of the project. Said program shall be approved by the Police and Planning Departments. 40. That prior to the issuance of ,any building permits authorized by the approval of this Use Permit, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director, a sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport area. 41. Quiet or hushed models of construction equipment suitable for use in hospital zones shall be used in the development of the proposed project. 42. That prior to the commencement of construction, the, applicants shall provide all tenants of the existing office building on-site with a schedule of construction activities. The applicants shall also provide said tenants with notification of any major changes to said schedule. -17- �3 COMMISSIONERS * January ,zl 1962 MINUTES . .. 0 x r < w m N. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX d CONDITION: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the -City to, the Circulation System Im revements described in the Initial Study Appendix A, page A20, Table 5 and these improvements shall have been made unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation System's Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. The Planning Commissioh, recessed at 9:35 and reconvene at 9:45 p.m. * * * Request to create four parcels of land fo single Item #3 family residential purposes where a portion one lot presently exists, and the acceptan of an environmental document,: LO TION: A portion of Lot 2, Ne ort Height RESUB- Tract,• located at 961 Cliff Drive, DIVISION constituting the a ire easterly side of N0. 007 Santa Ana Aven , between Cliff Drive and an unimpro d portion of Avon Street in Newport H ghts. ZONE: R Continued APPLICANT: Jeff A. Hartman Enterprises, Newport to February Be 18, 1982 OWNER: elen F. Kr tzkamp, Newport Beach Staff adv'sed that this it be continued to the Planning ommission Meeting of ruary 18, 1982, so as to al m, additional time to in stigate alternative fine ing methods for ,the required reet improvements on von Avenue. Motion X Motion was made to continue this item to he Planning A11 Ayes X * X X X X Commission Meeting of February 18, 1982, w 'ch MOTION CARRIED. -20- �(o COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES m W m m x u City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 51. That the landscaping shall p g a 1 be accomplished in substantial conformance with Conceptual Landscape Plan "B". 52. That the visibility of cars and glare off of cars in the parking structure shall be screened from view from adjacent residential areas. 53. That all lighting on the top level of the parking structure shall be below the level of the parapet wall. 54. That the applicant record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and its successors in interest in perpetuity., to a limitation of .9 times the buildable area on the subject property. Motion Motion was made for approval of the Traffic Study Ayes X X x X subject to the following findings and conditions, which Noes X X MOTION CARRIED: Absent FINDINGS• 1. That the proposed trip generation measures are acceptable and will be permanently implemented through the conditions of this approval and that of Use Permit NO. 2021. 2. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 3. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified' , or "primary" street. -19- -J ' I EXHIBIT 'W' FINDINGS and CONDITIONS of APPROVAL PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 22, 1982 TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS 1. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified", or "primary" street. CONDITIONS 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to the Circulation System Improvements for the intersection of Superior Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway described in the Traffic Study, Page 11, Table 5. 2. The Circulation System improvement described in Condition 1 above and the City-State improvement to the intersection of Dover and Pacific Coast Highway described in the Traffic Study, Page 11, Table 5 shall have been made (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation System Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. II IL ONO ■ LEm r/�•j) {/ •C.V� .J t.� ✓�]4,• ��r!%tjL��t�'. > 11 Y•,.j(fr• /.•/nJ(w ��1 ar 7- f.1/ffi�7,X. I ,•V` fI- ;1/!Alr�}y,`i r GO NOT )t ff•I,KJ��t �t f/' J��,�S' i*C,/rl•71,yl; r(,M y�Y��1,.n �;�,•.• tr ,t �` = >?• r{'fi f � c�tl^•�r , r ,S /Y'r r. �/, �) f)( yY:,�l' t'\:,)J�i'L!r 1� � (� +, .r."1'f, `/j[�1 1 / }jJ`•�•'i•,'/, jl, Q;/{•� l�i�!{'} .JY ,r�t,r�?!� /rp�Y�, Js• ! Y'/� ��%' � •r S ,f i��YJ,�S?yd�,j�,{{{''��jjj,J'{{{.�'''fij��/},u* �i�f:y9/v'r�jfr��J��'�y.)/)M,f�f(())' t'[)V y�r�Y��•'(jI},.`,' ��r r(,C�� 1'I7�If�l• ;�r��,�.%��r.��'�/f/if��,Y3)�Y� �r.Mt, [i ��j(I�� '.)'il 5F-�} {�,I r• ,j�. � rf!'r)�' .�r't•rYl.�;,• f,. ,��r / ,, {t,1%r / �[ ,,��. ,rl••�� t'ra1./, .d �, r /�)' Cy ,A1 )..,U ,•, , 1 ( `�, l . aC t' , r'{✓I) BSI ,�r; S;r1( �JJ / �i �/.��, .r..t lrjrj'.in V 'f 1r^:?'�1 %J� . ✓' i �. iJ G',�',;��/�!� 411., �'•P��"•. a1�rt, Ir1' •�f/ 1?i :, fa �,I tlrr:i',I '�r"f� j �ftl lFy, as �' �J ,�`� •�� f/L. . .t�j� l%. ')�Jyj�� 1,,•�Ir..1r#,i 'l,•V•% r �Lr r� i( 1'%[},� tl� i\.��'tt• v4. a/) ,�)) �r 1(Jt�,%1(J)J� lI 1• r� JT�%( �,�(/ .�• �••G lfr /� `I 'v-f�,(, , ;: �,Jt' .�Ij�1A/�•�•j•,��/J•�`,I'S JJ';•I,'�},JY�1� .rlr� ., .it/.?��y�f,,;�li��iC(,.v''il! �/��ifJ'1/ff1:�rrt �/[J(•i;•r.�•t��G/ I'.��'� '••t{i1 �ry'Jf�Jl I .fj yh , (r Hospital Road Medical Building Traffic Study U;CL4 Y t fr rl�f? �ii� �� %`•'rj!` i '� {',-+'•• y,� .'6/, J� r r} r� •)1� ^�:i.{'L :¢ Iti1{�� r{lrJ ?� :,(rj1 r". l�F� ) 1, ,ti,/r',,��f)t le J ,t.l -,t.�;�,,'.• � 4�rr fry>,>f. ,,),,, r,l: ( r'✓p}+ �%f,�w1 �lf;�?�`��.c�7,'• 1 j3� •�//rj�Js�t{„/�' i�� J``��t,,,`. � ,�. �•)iS ,;,+'! <Ir.'r��1fJ'r-rt�:,� f. r .�ti_ . ,i'�•.?`•:J: a 1 y J,/i. rj . 1 �,Y!i0, '� .t''F•lY1;rX' ,�1�J)ff/fir! iY i„�. :"'i.l't' ��?; 1� �l/i l� t .�i.I'/I%l,(: ;?`s r /,`,((,✓' ,.1� / Iji/�fr�( %/ r •�• '�iY �4( !.i '.ls� a, ,. !fr r r `�.rC.•''�Jj. /;�� I�Crr� 1 C, .. � ' �r1' Transportation Planning .Traffic Engineering • ,;��/try� s?' �,r,G> , J �'4 {{ f�r, � � .� ./>,E tC-.!.dr'JytvF '�,� 'r''�• ('':: 'a1 ' •. �l[,r ,�C 'f. j�I�,�1��jr�'�r�i�•y�t�;ci,�j�li�j[�,,�i'.�•�I:/lj�t^�`%�7'k (''��'�f j��,'✓ .:�� - ,��-,�� •Y..�/��:''.rY,r��S,"[�•�1;(r! �`,�'`i;^i,�i�f-; �', f��?y/ s.';,•;.r .,��t' r?`�,� •{ ;'•Yy~ ,{"Jhi��/riT�Y�J J:,t,'r .i(i�•,(��;tf�1C,f ,,��/..t�.l��•',��i 1' 'r .1`r., l� Ank � unaman (-Assouates CD Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering RECEIVED March 17; 1982 `�� PLAVidfIVG '-� DEPARTMENT �'ll 81982m =E'` Mr. Fred Talarico CITY OF Environmental Coordinator NEWPCR yencN, S i � cnu,�. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis for the Hospital Road Medical Office Building. This analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. We trust that this report will be of immediate as well as continuing value to the City of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, aa�I G��T0 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES DO NOT r[MOVE William Kunzman, P.E. 4664 Barranca Parkway * Irvine, CA 92714 * (714) 559-4231 ' Table of Contents Section Page No. 1. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Intersection 'Capacity Utilization Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Project'Related Improvements . . . . . . .10 Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix' s - Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C - Project Related Improvements - ICU Work Sheets List of Figures Fullowing Figure No. Title Page No. 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 3 Project Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 List of Tables Table No. Title Page No. 1 Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 One Percent Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Committed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utiliza- tion for Critical Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5 Project Related Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1 , Project Description Project Location The project is located at the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue across from Hoag Hospital. Proposed Development The project includes the construction of a 65,269 square foot two story medical office building with underground parking. The parking provided will serve the parking needs of an exist- ing 77, 000 square foot medical building and the proposed medical building. 1 11 Figure 1 VICINITY MAP u .R t % ;yt�" .r,.fAf�?;t% , s�•.__� It mAg 5 . Ap ' I•v i �I � n!�• ir1� —�� Vie.—•' •�• ,•, i'' F�r� t• � / . • r.' , f5i' AAM . y tt / /�} .: t♦ \L•.A7i�,�,a�frlt• '1.�i � "�"f�' -'.tai Irv- nR- 1,+(�i 1 � 34's�;F-�1.1 �.i' r �•! 'T'St�.:.i � on' „i'`i�tit�'"��'^'�1�! �`'-�S '^y�. /, r 4A •�/'�\, ,� .;;tiv 4 IIr �-w:�iT`� w,i:�•`i } LL4•' •'r 'f�S � �Y�f r•. / •'h! f�. RT `•L A f}'f`i'� t� �`,�• � ,f• ^ : yry ti`i•�i�'r � "': 01 -�,�l;t,/♦ `•• � �}I��, IIil11 Tom'•\'t I\ �' � Ir.At. ♦ .�i' r'• .1110 *Project Site 5 �Cun �nah �kssociates / � Figure 2 -� Site Plan FLAGSHIP ROAD Ir ' I �. ExLtmg \ fi a,iaing I \� l 77.000 eq.It. Two story office building and underground F.F ELEV.27.0' I parking to be located within this area. I 0 I 0 W ,\ U I L 1 I'L ` 1• r5Ca113111all associates '� 2. Project Traffic Generation The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropiate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are expressed in terms of trip ends per per- son, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, trip ends per dwelling, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor area. For this study, trip generation data was supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Based on actual traffic counts at a medical office building at Hospital Road and, Placentia, the City's study indicates 30 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Table 1 provides trip generation information for the 65,269 square foot building. a0 2 Table 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Trip Generation Time Period Per 1000 Sq. Ft. of Trips Generated Gross Floor Area* By 65,269 Sq. Ft. Evening Peak Hour Inbound 1.9 124 Outbound 2.4 156 Total 4. 3 280 Peak 2. 5 Hours Inbound 2.4 156 Outbound 4.5 294 Total 6.9 450 Daily Two way Traffic Total 30.0 1,958 * Based upon City of Newport Beach Traffic Study for 1511-1525 Superior Avenue, dated July 15, 1981. 3 �� 0 r 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is based on the directional orientation of traffic, and then the traffic is assigned to specific roadways . It is based on the aeographical location of residential concentra- tions, along with commercial, business, and recreational opportu- nities. Traffic distribution and assignment was provided by City of Newport Beach staff. 4 a y_ Figure 3 Project Traffic Distribution s© P, 15 5 h port Placentia Boukvard Ora x�e 15 Prospect Dana Flagship--. to Ro ida 15 Riverside A HI hwa Dover ac��c 0 10 Legend 5 Percent of project traffic using route. aullMlICI1 t.ASSOciateS i 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis Seven critical intersections were analyzed as identified by City staff. Table 2 lists the seven intersections, and provides a summary of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis . Appendix A contains the calculation sheets. Four intersections have the one percent volume criteria exceeded: Superior and Placentia Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway The purpose of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is to extablish whether the project adds a volume that is greater than one percent of a critical intersection's approach volume. if less than one percent is 'added to all approaches of a critical intersection, then no further analysis is necessary as specified in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As part of the one percent analysis, regional growth and committed projects are included. Volume projections are made to. a point in time one year after the project completion. This project's comple- tion date is 1983, and traffic volumes are projected to 1984 . Regional traffic has been forecasted in accordance with City pro- cedures, and committed project traffic includes those projects listed in Table 3. a� 5 i Table 2 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersections 1% of Projected Project's 2 . 5 Over Analyzed 2 .5 Hr. Peak Vol. Hour Peak Vol. 1% Placentia and Superior Northbound 12 88 Southbound 17 8 Yes Eastbound 16 23 Westbound 18 39 Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 19 0 Southbound 30 44 Yes Eastbound 38 23 Westbound 45 0 Newport and Hospital Northbound 33 39 Southbound 35 23 Eastbound 17 162 Yes Westbound 10 23 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 3 0 Southbound 24 0 Yes Eastbound 41 44 Westbound 67 23 Orange and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 5 0 Southbound 2 0 No Eastbound 33 23 Westbound 62 44 Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 0 0 Southbound 3 0 No Eastbound 31 23 1 Westbound 60 44 Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound .2 0 Southbound 13 0 No Eastbound 49 44 Westbound 49 23 6 a� Table 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS Project Name Aeronutronic Ford (residential) Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero TPP Back Bay Office (office) Bank of Newport (office) Bayside Square (office) Baywood Apartments (residential) Boyle Engineering (office) Cal Canadian Bank (office) Campus/MacArthur (office) Civic Plaza (office) Coast Business Center Corporate Plaza (office) Far West Savings and Loan (office) Harbor Point Homes (residential) Hoag Hospital (community facility) Hughes Aircraft (industrial) Koll Center Newport (officer industrial) Koll Center Newport and No. 1 TPP Martha's Vineyard National Education Office (office) Newport Place (office) North Ford (industrial) Orchard Office (office) Pacesetter Homes (office) Pacific Mutual Plaza (office) Quail Business Center (office) Roger's Gardens (commercial) Ross Mollard - 1511 and 1252 Superior Rudy Baron (office) Sea Island (residential) Seaview Lutheran Plaza (residential) Shokrian (office) Valdez - 3101 W. Coast Highway 441 Newport Blvd. - (office) 3701 Birch Office (office) 7 ,� 5. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Of the four intersections exceeding the one percent criteria, two are operating near or above 90 percent capacity. Superior and Pacific Coast Highway is operating at 113 percent of capacity, and Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway is operating at 89. 69 percent of capacity. Once the growth and committed traffic volumes are added to the current traffic volumes, • the Superior and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is expected to be operating at 139 percent of its estimated capacity. If the project traffic is added, it is anti- cipated to be operating at 141 percent of its capacity. The project adds very little to this already heavily impacted inter- section. When the growth and committed traffic is added to the Dover and Pacific Coast Highway intersection it will operate at 109 per- cent of capacity. Once the project traffic is added it will in- crease slightly. Appendix B contains the intersection capacity utilization work sheets . 8 Table 4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Intersection Capacity Utilization Critical Existing 1983 Exist 1983 Exist + Need Intersections + Committed 'Committed + Improve- + Growth Growth + ments Project Superior and Pacific Coast Highway 1.1332 1. 3876 1.4057 Yes Dover and Pacific Coast Highway 0. 8969 1.0906 1.0975 Yes Superior and Placentia 0. 6653 0 .6778 0 .6803 No Newport and Hospital 0.7896 0. 8375 0.8693 No 9 � � 6 Project Related Improvements In that the Superior and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is impacted by other development projects and regional traffic, the responsibility for the improvements recommended should be appor- tioned in an equitable manner. In the City of Newport Beach' s 1981 - 1982 budget, the improve- ments of one southbound left lane, two southbound through lanes and one southbound right lane to the Superior/Pacific Coast Highway intersection have been included. It is anticipated that construction will begin this fiscal year. Other projects have proposed the addition of one westbound through lane and one south- bound right lane. This project proposes the restripping of the 'northbound lanes to include three northbound through lanes . With these improvements, the intersection will operate at . 8929 . The Dover and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is currently being reconstructed. The proposed improvements include: three south- bound left lanes, one southbound right lane, and one southbound through; two eastbound left lanes, and three eastbound through lanes; one westbound right lane, one westbound left lane and three westbound through lanes. Once these improvements are completed, the intersection will operate at . 7650. 10 �� • • J 1 Table 5 PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Intersection Improvements Superior and Pacific City improvements will create Coast Highway one southbound left lane, two southbound through lanes and one southbound right lane. Other projects are committed to provide one southbound right turn lane and one westbound through lane. This project is proposing restripping the north- bound lanes to include three northbound through through lanes. Dover and Pacific City-State highway project to Coast Highway be completed in Spring of 1982. 11 3� Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C - Project Related Improvement ICU Work Sheet 1� APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORK SHEETS 3 .2 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2$ Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2S Hour Volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume volume volume volume northbound 1111 0 133 1244 1.2 88 Southbound 1620 0 77 1697 17 8 Eastbound 1552 0 15 1567 16 23 deschound 1767 0 51 1818 18 39 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Buildina DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa B1.—Superior Avenue (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Naur. Regional Projects Peak•2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Nortnbound 1823 0 37 1860 19 0 Southbcund 2901 0 64 2965 30 44 Eastbound 3311 29 504 3844 38 23 ,es cnound 3485 54 1009 4548 45 0 [( Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic 'Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building OAT • 7-30-81 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2ti Hour Volume Growth Peak 28 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 3229 0 84 3313 33 39 Northbound Sou[hbound 3482 0 50 3532 35 23 Eastbound 1527 0 154 1681 17 162 'estbound 972 0 40 1012 10 23 C1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hi hwa Dover Driv -Bayshore Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1 _ approacn Existing Peak 21a Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak A Hour Volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume eortnbound 278 0 7 28 3 0 southboUnd 2273 0 85 2358 24 0 Eastbound 3401 30 635 4066 41 44 .estbodnd 5473 48 1185 6706 67 23 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. , I Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE, 7-30-81 2 PROJECT: 3 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Orange Street (Existing, Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2� Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Vol une Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 537 • 0 2 539 5 0 southbound 153 0 1 154 2 0 Eastbound 2772 25 509 3306 33 23 escnound 5159 46 1040 6245 62 44 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project,Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Buildina GATE: 7-30-81 3� PROJECT: J FORM I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Prospect Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project II Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 21j Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Vol una Northbound southbound 260 2 262 3 0 Eastbound 2530 22 509 . 3061 31 23 •estnound 4920 38 1040 5998 60 44 ❑x Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hospital Road ,Medical office Building DAT • 7-30-81 2 ct PROJECT: 7 O FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 21g Hour Peak 2S Hour Volume Growth Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume northbound 21 21 .2 0 southbound 1267 82 1349 13 0 Eastbound 1 4248 38 600 4886 49 44 •estnound 3752 33 1 1158 4943 49 23 ❑x Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume ❑ , Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-817_ PROJECT: FORM I APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORK SHEETS INTERSI&ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY• Appendix B Intersection Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) Ex:STIMG PPOPOSEUj321 EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COWITTEUFPRDWJECTED K.MR. V/C Ratio PROJECTPROJECT Lanes Cap, Lanes Cap. Voi Ratio Vo�me VollumeT Project Volume 1/C Ratio me NL 1600 32 .0400* 0400* 0400 NT 3200 .1003 18 .1059 8 .1084 NR 1600 34 0425 .0425 37 .0443 SL 1600 6 .0038 5 . 0069 .0069 ST 1600 247 .1544* 20 , 1669* 4 * SR 1694 1600 418 .2613 5 .2643 .2643 EL 1600 244 .1525* .152,5* . 1525* ET 3200 ' 297 .0928 .0928 .0928 ER 1600 22. .0138 .3 .0156 .0156 WL �1'600 -46. . .0288 .0288 20 . 0412 WT 3200 699 .2184* .2184* .2184* WR 1600 5 .0031 25 . 0188 0188 YELLONTIME 1000* .1000* • 11000* EXISTING INTERSECTIOi! CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 .6653 EXlSTIhG PLUS COMiITTED PLUS REGIO;UIL GRIXJTH U/PROPOS,ED IHPROYERE('TS I,C.0.1 77 EXISTING PLUS C106Y1ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROUTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. . 6803 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to O.gO ❑ 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: Hospital Road Medical Building DATE: 8 13 81 --• ------••- - • • - •----- _ PROJECT V FORM II Appendix B INTER0 1ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL Intersection___Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road ( Existing Traffic volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) � . EXIST I AG PROPOSED EXIST. 7RV/EC REGION4L COkKITTED PROJECTED lanes Cap. lanes Cap. PK.NR. REGIN PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Vol. Volume Volume w/o Project 'Volume V, Ratio Volume !il 1600 220 . 1375* 15 .1469* 14 . 1556* riT 4800 1180 .2604 18 43 . 2731 .2731 NR 70 SL S 1600 50 .0313 .0313 . 0313 T SR J a 1198 .2833* 16 25 . 29'19* .2919* 162 EL 1600 198 . 1238 75 .1706* 52 .192, * ET 3200 184 .1469* :1481 8 ' 1675 ER J 286. q 22 WL 164'. 20 'dT 3200 199 . 1219* .1281* 4 .1293* WR 27 YELLNTINE 1000* .1000* �.1000* EXISTING INTERSECTIOJi CAPACITY UTILIZATIONI 1 .7896 (EXISTING PLUS COTJITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRUTH W/PROPOHED INPROVEREENTS I.C.U.( i 1. EXiSSIN5 PLUS CW.;ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. l .86�93� ® 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: _ Hospital Road Medical Office Building 8/13/81 -------._... . . . . .. ._. DATE: PROJECT ------- --- FARM II INTERSOON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY* Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED No rer.ent EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes G+D• lanes C+D• Vol. Ratio Volume, Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 2400 421 .1754* NT 2400 _ 265 .1104 5 . 1125 .1125 NR 1600. N.S. 58 1 .0363 1 .0363 1. 0363 SL 146 ST 3200 473 .1934 15 .1981 .1981 SR 1600 708 .4425* 21 .4556* 22 . 4694* EL 3200 244 .0763 3 .0772* ' 14 .0815* ET 3200 828 .2588 22 215 .3328 .3328 ER. 1600 N.S. 401 . .2506 .2506 .2506 WL 1600 -86•• .0531 .0531 .0531 WT 3200 1329 .4153* 25 500 . 5794 .-5794* - WR 1600 N.S 77 .0481 4 4 YELLOWTIME 1000* .1000* �.1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION W1,1332 j 1 EXISTING PLUS c"iTTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPR09EMENTS I.C.U. 1.3 8 7 6 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH, PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 11.4057 ❑ 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: �3 _Hospital Road Medical Office Building _ DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT FORM II INTERS10ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL* APPENDIX B , Intersection Dover Dr.. /Coast Highway ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily, Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL ,COMMITTED PROJECTED HO.er.,ent Lanes Cap. Lane$ Cap. PX.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Vol, Ratio Volune YOU" w/o Project Volune V/C Ratio Yolune NL 1600 34 .0213 0213 .0213 NT 1600 42 .0263* * 0 75* NR 1600 30 1 .0188 1 0108 .0188 SL 3200 786 .2456* .2456* .2456* ST 1600 80 .0500 41 .0756 .0756 SR 1600 3 .0819 2 , 0831 .'0831 EL 1600 87 .0544* .0544* .0544* ET 3200 1310 .4094 15 318 .5134 12 .5172 ER 1600 •30 ,0188 .0188 .0188 WL 1600 .38 .0238 .0238' .0238 WT 3200 1506 .4706* 24 592 6631* 22 , 6700* WR 1600 714 .4463 .4463 .4463* YELLOWTIME 1000* .1000* .l000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8969 j EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL•GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1.0 9 0 6 I EXISTING PLUS COMUTTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C:U. I .0975 ❑ 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 C3 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: Hospital Road Medical Building 9/14/81 -- - ------ DATE: PROJECT FORM II APPENDIX C PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENT ICU WORK SHEETS r �J 1NTERSECTf CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS� Appendix C Intersection_ Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on: Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) EA157IhG EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMITILU PROJECTED PROPOSED n%•bent PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Protect Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 2400 421 .1754* NT 2400 4800 265 .1104 5 . 1560* .1560* • NR 1600 N.S. . 58 .0363 SL 1600 146 . 0913 •0913 ST 3200 473 .1934 15 . 1525* .1525 SR 1600 3200 . 708 .4425* 21 2278 22 .2347* EL 13200 244 .0763 3 . 0772* 14 .0816 ET 3200 828 .2588 22 215 . 3328 3328 ER 1600 N.S. 401 . .2506 1 .2506 .2506 WL 1600 -85•. .0531 .0531 .0531 WT 3200 4800 1329 .4153* 25 500 . 4022* . 4022* WR 1600 N.S. 77 .0481 YELLOWTIME 1000* .l000* i . 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 , 1332 j I EXISTING PLUS C"1TTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYHMENTS I.C.U. .8 87 9 EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PRWECT I.C.U. 'w/proposed improve- .8929 men s ICU ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C..U. will bg less than or equal to 0.90 fl Projected plus ,project traffic I .C..U. will be greater than 0.90 ® Projected plus project ,traffic I.C.U. with sy3tems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: 1. Add third westbound through lane 2,. Eliminate southbound free right, and replace with two right turn lanes. -Hospital Read Medical Office Building _ _ DATE_ 8/13/81 � PROJECT -FORM 11 TO: Planning Wission - 3 • Staff Reco rendation Staff recomrends approval of the project with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A". PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. IIEWICKER, Director FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator- FP:nma Attachments: Exhibit "A" 1. Traffic Study - Kunzman Associates - March 17, 1982. 2. Letter from Suzanne McBrien - Dated April 14, 1982. 3. Letter from Suzanne McBrien - Dated October 15, 1981. 4. Letter from Cecil G. & Louis O. Zaun - Dated April 12, 1982. 5: Letter from Cecil G. & Louis O. Zaun - Dated February 7, 1982. 6. Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.40 "Traffic Phasing Ordinance". 7. City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for Irrplezrenting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") , T0: Planning ssion - 2 yt 4 applications were called up for review by the City Council. At the February 22, 1982 City Council meeting, the applicants withdrew all of the above described applications. Traffic Study The applicants have requested the Planning Cortnission's approval of a Traffic Study for the purposes of issuance of building and grading permits in conjunction with the construction of the project. The Traffic Study for the proposed development has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Procedures for Inplementing 'the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") . A copy is attached and is summarized below: Traffic Study Summary - I.C.U. 1983 1983 Existing + Camutted Existing + Committed 1% Existing + Regional Growth + Reg. Growth + Proj. Placentia/Superior yes .6653 .6778 .6803 Superior/W. Coast yes 1.1332 .88791 .89291 Newport/Hospital yes .7896 .83752 .86932 Dover/W. Coast yes .8969 .7604 .7650 Prospect/W. Coast no - - _ Riverside/W. Coast no Orange/W. Coast no The traffic analysis indicated that four (4) of the above intersections will have traffic volume increases of greater than 1% as a result of the proposed project development. In accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Policy S-1 an I.C.U. analysis was performed to determine if one year after the cacpletion of the project the intersections would be operating at acceptable levels. This analysis indicates that all affected interestions, one year after project oatpletion, will be operating at .9006 or less. 1. Assumes committed project improvements. 2. Assumes City/State Inprove ents. • �Iu-�aMr u C J� 1812 Antiyua Circle Newport uoach , CA 92660 April 14 , 1982 Newport beach Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd . Newport Beach , CA 92b63 Deborah Allen Jerry King 19,�. Paul Palalis Helen 111c Laughlinl AP Allen Beek Hal Thomas R 1 198'� Joan Winburn Re: Park Lido illedical Bldg. Expansion ; Request for Cc, NY nuance Dear Planning Commissioners: M. I have owned sixteen residental units in the above area fo'r--- "- r approximately twelve years. Please give your full consideration to the following requests: -1 . A review of the impact of the illedical Office expansion on a fully developed residential neighborhoend which has been in existence for at least sixteen or , seventeen years. The owners and r esidents of the area are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of th.eir properties and should no't be subject to having their properties devalued by probably doubled traffic and fumes . Please review my attach(:d letter of Oct . 15 , 1981 . 2 . Give the owners and residents in the area an opportunity to review the site plans and traffic studius for ingress and egress to the new development . T1ae staff has informed me those will nut be available until Fri . Apr . 16 for the meeting to beheld April 22 , 1982. 3. 8ecause of time limitations for residents to study tha project and formulate their positions ,I request that the matter be continued for at least two weeks and preferably four weeks . The residents ' group has been subject to hardship by the developer ' s withorawd of plans on the evening the residents were represented by an expert . 4 . The residents request that the entrance an.d exit to the parking facility should be located on Hospital Hd , tu prevent the residential streets of Flagship Rd and Dana lid from oucom.ing thoroughfares in the residential areas . For the same reason we request that if there is consideration of an exit from a parking bldg. onto Flagship , that no right turns onto Flagship be p.:r;nitted. Please consider the foregoing and give the residents an opportunity to study the traffic study and planning commission staff report. Thank you for your consideration . Very truly yours , Suzari'lie We Brien INTERSECT 0 CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSI� APPENDIX C Intersection Dover Dr. /Coast Highway ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) EM ST)NG PROPOSED EXIST., EXIST. REGIONAL COM111 TED PROJECTED Mo.e,u.t PR.NR. V/C GR04H PROJECT 'Y/C P+do PROJECT PROJECT L.nes GP. lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volune Vol une w/o Project Volune V/C Ratio Volune NL 1600 34 .0213 .0213 .0213 NT 1600 42 .,0263* 4 .0275'* .0275* NR 1600 30 .0188 SL 3200 4800 786 .2456* ,1637 .1637 * ST 1600 80 .0500 41 .0756 .0756 SR 1600 131 .0819 2 .0831 .0831 EL 1600 3200 87 .0544* .0271* .0271* " ET 3200 4800 1310 .4094 15 318 .3423 12 .3448 ER 1600 0 •30 .0188 - - WL 1600 ••38 .0238 .0238 .0238 WT 4800, 1506 .4706* 24 592 .4421* 22 .4467* WR 1600 714 .4463 .4463 .4463 YELLOWTiME 1000* 1 .1000*• 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 8969 i 1 EXISTING PLUS CaMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ,7 6 0.4 EXISTING PLUS COMIITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.76 50 ® 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 r Description of system improvement: City/State improvement project, permitted to use 100 percent of new lane capacity - Hospital Road Medical Building 9/14/81 �1 - -- ----_ _.._.__--- DATE: PROJECT 'FORM II Page Two fg%I f.,u Newport Med . fourpous each h,jvi ty four dul* units . Ten of these > foi,rplexes are locatud on Patrico Rd. which share a common border with the proposed 30 ft. high parking building , a height greater than the two story fourplexes . The remaining apartment units are on Hilaria way and Dana Rd . Of the total 140 apartments , one quarter ( or 35 are spacious , two level , three bedroouy two bath L'ut.if.:11,11 j ; ; , t..ios, fireplaces , separate dining rooms and laundry rooms. Another quarter ( or 35) are upstairs , single level , two bedroom two bath apartments. The remaining half or seventy apartments ari! spaciuue; townhomos , two levels with two large bedrooms , 14, baths , laundry hookups , walled lower patios and upstairs balcolnies. 2.The 9A Park Lida Condominiums Constitute an Established Neighborhood in existence for about 18 years. They are spaciuus units with many amenities and double garages, and were built before the Park Lido iuedical Bldg was constructed . Some of the Park Liclo cundominium owners anticipated that a park and teenis courts would be built on the site of the Park Lido D;edical Building. 3. Quality of Life Adversely Affected for the 236 rsesiuential Units . The foregoing 239 households are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their homes. To add the proposed medical building and parking structure would destroy the quality of their homes and environment. The exisitng Park Lido parking lot which is not used in the evenings 'and weekends constitutes an area of open space and improves the air quality of the nrea .Some condominiums and apartments on Flagship and Patrice have mini ocean views from their second stories which will certainly be lost . 4. Devaluation of Property values It is self evident• that there would be a decline in property values for the owners of tnu condominiums and apartments if an unsightly parking structure over 30 ft . high is built . It would destroy the aesthetic character• of the neiqhborhood. The noise , fumes and continual traffic would make the neighborhood far less desirable resulting in a declinu in propurty veilues. For all the foregoing reasons I am requesting that Lhu permit be denied or' that an Environmefftal Impact Report be submitted. Suzanne Illig n1�c Brien �o • lbwl,ort beach , CA 92660 w tolier 15 , 1981 Newport beach Plannintl Commissionnrs A� \_ 3 3300 Newport Blvd . , Newport Beach, CA 92663 #ncI-T Deborah Allen Jerry King Paul Salalis Helen Mc Laughlin Allen Seek Hal Thomas Joan Winburn Re: Permit No . 2021 Request for Environmental Impact Report for Pormit 2021 I am the owner of sixteen residental units located in the area referred to as 'Newpo-rt Mediterranean Apts. located at Flagship lid . and Patrice, Hilaria Way and Dana Rd . My sixteen units are situated in four buildings at 4200 Patrice, 4127 Hilaria and 4151 Hilaria , and 4223 Dana Rd. I strongly object to the proposed permit No 20'21 pursuant to which the following new structures are to be added to the site now occupied by the Park Lido medical building and parking lot: 1 . A new office building of approx mately b5 , 000 fie . ft . which apparently will be approximately 84 of the size of the existing Park Lido 11ledical Building have about 77 ,000 sq . ft . 2. A three or four level parking structure over 30 ft. high to be located at the corner of Flagship and Patrice tc provide parking for ' bo-th the existing and new building. This structure will be approximately the size of a football field . In my opinion the granting of permit [go. 2021 would destroy the quality of the residential neighborhood of the Newport Mediterranean Apts. and , the Park Lido Condominiums totaling, 239 residences which have been located there for approximately 14 and 18 years respectively . To permit an 84% expansiwn of office space and a huye parking structure over thirty feet high; would destroy the aesthetic quality of the residential neighborhood,, create noise , fumes , all day 1•onq traffic congestion and increased air pollution. Please note that a medical office building involves a continuing hourly or half hourly turnover of cars in the parking, structure. In the past few years this residential area has been subject to increased traffic from- the following: 1 . expansion of Hoag Hospital , 2. construction of Villa balboa ;' 3 . construction of a large new medical ouilding at Superior and Hospital lid. The proposed new parking structure at Hughes Corporation on Dana Rd. will add further traffic to an overburdened area. My objections to Permit No. 2021 can be further detailed as follows; 1 . The 140 Newport Mediterranean Apts . constitute an Established Neighborhood in existence for about 14 years. All of these are deluxe two and three vedroom units with many amenitios. •There are thirty-five Newport Beach City Council Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Feburary 7,1982 Res Park Lido Medical Office Project Honorable Mayor Heather and Councilpersons : In January 1982, my wife and I sent a letter to each member of ,your Coucil and to each member of the Planning Commission. We expressed our deep concern over the proposed expansion on the site of the Park Lido Medical Building. I explained in that letter that both my wife and I had been involved for over 30 years in Traffic Safety with the Los Angeles City Schools. We stated that we were opposed to any additional buildings' on the site that would increase traffic and on-street parking in the Park Lido and Mediterranean Village projects. In my presentation to the Planning Commission, I indicated that the studies which had been made on behalf of the Project were made at intersections which should be of concern to the City, but which were of little concern to the residents who must use Flagship Road or Dana Street as the only means of Ingress and egress to and from our community. The intersections of Flagship Road at-Placentia; Placentia at Hos- pital Roads and Dana at Superior are vital to us. There was no mention of any of these intersections in the Initial Study prepared by Westec Services, Inc. or in the subsequent "Response to Questions". Section 2 .1.2, paragraph 2, on page 9 of the Initial Study admits the "Land use impacts may or may not result from the location of the parking structure. . ". We contend that it does not take a professional to ascertain that great harm will be done to thesurround- ,is'ig community. The section goes on to state, "while proximity to the residences is not the most desirable, a generous set back along the affected streets has been provided as well as a fairly lush land- scape scene and berms. ,, Curbside parking is inevitable andwill mean a great deal of pedes- trian traffic on Patrice and Flagship Road, next to the parking structure. Sidewalks should have been recommended or required as a part of the conditions under which the Planning Commission gave its approval of the project. No mention has been made of any plans which the City may have to ease, the existing and future traffic problems at Flagship Road and Placentia or at Hospital Road and Placentia. �Z Planning Commision, Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 April 12, 1 ( 2 Re: Park Lido Medical Building Project Dear Planning Commission Members: On Feburary 7, 1982 my wife and I sent the attached letter to all members of the City Council stating our reasons for our objections to the addition of any more buildings to the Park Lido Medical Building site. We realize that the City Council rejected the prior application for stover height" construction. We now understand that the owner is having a traffic study prepared by a consulting firm. Should certain conditions prevail in that study it is our understanding that construction may proceed within the height limits. We have not received a single communication as the result of our letter of Feburary 701982. We are therefore attach- ing copies of that letter to again voice our concerns and objections to any additions that will increase the traffic volume on Flagship Road in the amounts stated in that letter. Any' traffic study which does not deal directly with the concerns expressed in our letter to the Council must be rejected as inadequate. the invironmental impact upon our community is too great to ignore. S*ncerely,you , Cecil G. an& Lois 0. Zaun 409 Flagship Road Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 9 `+ 1 . Z�19�2y, 1 11 ICI VP, ,•�}• r•,• E,1F`•4.P��t. '`•C�� i 1 N�. I a of 240 cars• - 3 average per hour will be using Flagship Road plus the traffic„generated within our communities by residents. There will be many "U-turns" and mid-block turnabouts by those who choose to park at our curbs. Accidents are inevitable. The "Project Traffic Distribution" shows that 25% (1069) of the 4268 daily trips will go northeast on Superior. Most of these drivers will use Flagship Road to Dana and turn right onto Superior. This they will do to avoid the traffic jams at Placentia and Flag- ship Road? and the signal at Placentia and Superior. The project study indicates as stated previously that 55% will use Hospital Road accesses to reach Newport Boulevard. We seriously doubt this, because 55% of 4268 daily trips to both medical build- ings means that there will be 2347 potential left turns from mid- block accesses onto Hospital Road in an eight-hour period or 293 such turns per hour. It is reasonable to assume that those drivers who will hesitate to turn left onto Hospital Road against traffic accelerating uphill or coasting downhill will choose to use Flagship Road. This can easily negate the assumption that 55% will use the Hospital Road accesses. It will also increase the volume on Flagship Road. We ask that you deny this permit and change the zoning to resident- ial. I close with one very important question, "Where is there a law that says that one property owner can profit at the expense of all within the community? We are sending this letter because we will be in San Francisco on a business trip at the time of your hearing on this project. Sineercly .yours,. Cecil G. an, Lois 0, Zaun 409 Flagship Road (714) 646-8537 or (213) 682-2634 i - 2 - No suggestions have been put forward as to how the two intersections In such close proximity can be signalized to provide an orderly pro- cession of vehicles on the three streets. The Initial Study points out that the proposed parking structure will not contain the required number of parking stalls. (pl4, 2.3,,2) This means that the curbside parking referred to herein will definitely occur. In fact, multi-level parking structures are avoided whenever possible; It is therefore , most likely that women will' choose to park at our curbs and walk to the buildings whenever they can find space at a curb. Items "a" through "e" of Section 2.3.2, "Environmental Impacts", deal with three major alternatixes of providing temporary parking during construction. Two of the proposals deal with the use of valet parking using lots #1 and #2 on Superior and Coast Highway respectively. These suggestions cannot be taken seriously by anyone. It just is not going to happen until our community streets are overloaded. The use of curbside parking described in item "c", page 15, gives the most realistic picture of what will occur during construction and after completion of the project . The Study ignores the problems associated with the parking of con- s-truction workers' vehicles. These people will grab the closest curbside Spaces because they will arriv.e 'earliest. This will force patients out into our entire community. We will suffer the pangs of overparking even in prohibited areas. Any attempt to enforce parking laws will and up by giving tickets to home owners who cannot find a space for their second car in the village r. area. "Project Driveway Use" on page A-25 states that 55% of the daily project traffic will be oriented to Newport Blvd. and the heaviest driveway use In expected to be the Hospital Road access. No mention is made of other access locations. However, 45% is ei- onemean that Flagship Roaddto use other access andStreetswillicarry this can to their Juncture with Placentia and Superior respectively. We find no studies covering these intersections, and yet this structure will add at least 881 more trips that will be added to existing traffic. (25% of 1958) 1 The proposed 65,269 square foot building will generate 1958 trips daily according to the Study .(see page All) . The existing 77,6o0 square foot building which is 1,18 times the size' of the proposed structure evidently generates 2310 trips daily, for a total of 4268 trips when all construction is finished. If the foregoing figures are reasonably accurate then the present 1040 cars which now use Flagship Road (45%) will be increased by 881 for a total of 1921 trips daily on Flagship Road. Thus, anj r 15.40.010-15.40.030 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION 15.40.070 Appeal. 15.40.080 Severability. 15.40.010 Finding. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that congestion of streets and intersections, traffic accidents, '•' sse �riia s3 aer; interference with emergency vehicles, and general overcrowding of existing neighborhoods have resulted, or will soon result, from inadequate phasing of commercial, industrial and residential growth, in relation to traffic capacity, which is harmful to the public health,safety and general welfare. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). 15.40.020 Purpose. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach declares that aggravation of these conditions can be avoided, eliminated or alleviated by enacting the following, designed to permit major development only in those areas of the City of Newport Beach where adequate transportation facilities exist, are being implemented, or will be installed in conjunction with the development which will accommodate the traffic generated by such development, or where other trip generation reductions are adopted which will alleviate traffic impacts. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). 15.40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation. (A) Limitation. No building or grading permit shall be issued, and no construction shall be commenced, for any project not exempt from this Chapter until the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach shall make a written finding that the proposed project: (i) will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary-modified" or"primary" street;or (iii) shall be excepted pursuant to subsection (D) of this section; provided, however, that such finding shall state the exception granted and the facts which justify the exception. (B) Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing, noticed in the manner provided in Section 20.80.050(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and shall make its written findings supported by the weight of the evidence. (C) Exemption. Any commercial or industrial-project which has a gross floor area equal to or less than 10,000 square feet,or any residential project of 10 dwelling units or less shall be exempt from the requiremr rats of this Chapter. (D) Exceptions. The Planning Commission shall except any project from the requirements of this Chapter: (i) if it shall find that the City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to the effective date of this Chapter and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change 1 (Newport Beach 4.15.79) 344-16 r . � eneut Ne• �p i • " t APPROVAL IN CONCEPT PERMIT 15,35.070-15.3-7,020 15.35.070 Penalties. (a) Anyone in violation of the provisions of this " Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall punishable as provided by the provisions of ,Section 1.04.010 of the N ort Beach Municipal Code. No sale or exchange of residential property shall be invalidated solely use of the failure of any person to comply with any provisions of this Chap unless such failure is an act or omission which would be a valid ground for r ission of such sale or exchange in the absence of this Chapter. (Ord. 1462 § 1 art), 1972). Chapter 15.37 APPRO L IN CONCEPT PERMIT Sections: 15.37.010 Intent. 15.37.020 Approval in Conc Permit. 15.37.010 Intent. In order to comp with the provisions of Division 18 of the California Public Resources Code, itled "California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission,' and the Southsnast Regional Commission's operating regulations, it is necessary for the\the of Newport Beach to approve in concept all projects in the Coastal ermit area prior to any action by the South Coast Regional Commisd. 1680 § 1 (part), 1976: Ord. 1621 § 1 (part), 1975). 15.37.020 Approval in Concept Permit. of Twen -Five Dollars >+rE w ($25.00) is hereby established for the issuancn Approva Concept Permit. However, a fee of Ten Dollars ($10. 11 be charged r minor applications, such as signs, swimming poolsacuzzis, patios, ecks, fences and any similar applications for projects would not increas he floor area or intensity of use. Said fee may dified in the future reflect changes in the economy or cost of livines by Resolution of theCity Council. (Ord. 1680 § 1 (part), 1976: Ord § 1 (part), 1975). Chapter 15.40 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 'Sections: 15.40.010 Finding. 15.40.020 Purpose. �— 15.40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation. 15.40.640 Definitions. 15.40.050 Procedure. 15.40.060 Fees. 344-15 (Newport Beach 4-15.79) 15.40.050-15.40.080 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION "MAJOR," "PRIMARY-MODIFIED" or "PRIMARY" street shall be defined by the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach, Circulation Element. ELIGIBLE TO VOTE shall mean all members lawfully holding office except those disqualified from voting due to a conflict of interest. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1777 § 2, 1978: Ord. 1765 § i (part), 1978). 15.40.050 Procedure. Subject to review by the Planning Commission, the City Traffic Engineer, exercising professional discretion,shall: (A) Determine traffic periods, streets and intersections which will be significantly affected by the proposed project, taking into account the type, character and location of the proposed project, as well as the character of the streets which will serve the project; (B) Determine if the project,when complete,will cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic services at any such street or intersection; (C)I. Establish.standard t3ip.generation figures of project; 2. Establish criteria for calculating trip generation reductions which may result from specific measures proposed by the applicant. The Planning Commission shall specifically find that any such measures can be adequately quantified and guaranteed to assure the long-term validity of such reductions prior to their inclusion in the traffic analysis; 3. Establish the bases for performing the traffic analysis at project completion; (D) Transmit these determinations to the Planning Commission with recommendations. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). 15.40.060 Fees. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council to defray the expense of administering this Chapter. (Ord. 1787 § I (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). IS.40.070 Appeal. (A) Any determination of the Planning Commission shall be final unless there shall be an appeal by the applicant or any other person pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such appeal shall be limited to evidence d presented before, and the findings of, the Planning Commission. (B) The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as limited above. (C) The City Council shall make its written finding in the same manner as set forth in Section 15.40.030 of this Chapter. (Ord. 1787 § I (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). 15.40,080 Severability. If any section or portion of this Chapter is declared invalid, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid. (Ord. 1787 § I (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). (Newport Beach 4.15.79) 344-18 !7�' ':<t +n'{•.l��l:YK•�,•i'M�•.�^.may 1 ' TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 15.40.040 causing a substantial_increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter; `. (ii) if it shall find that traffic during any 2.S hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection will be increased by less than 1%by traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period; (iii)if, by a vote of four-fifths (4/5ths)of the members eligible to vote, it shall make a decision, supported by a written finding setting forth its reasons therefor, that the benefits of the project, including trip generation reductions, outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. The City Council shall not grant the exception under this subsection (iii) on appeal or review until it shall have first made !l a findings required by this subsection supported by an affirmative vote of four-fifths (4/5ths)of its members eligible to vote. (E) Action, The application for any building, grading or other permit on a project, which is not exempt from this Chapter, shall be approved, conditionally approved or denied within one year from the date on which said application has been received and accepted as complete by the City. Any appeal to the City Council from an action by the Planning Commssion on an application or a determination by the City Council to review an application, shall be made within the time periods set out in Sections 20.80.070 and 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In the event action is not taken on an application within the 'time limits hereof, such failure shall be deemed approval of the project which otherwise is consistent with the ordinances and General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1777 § 1, 1978; Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). t, ;�,;•a6;; �y 13.40.040 Definitions. The following terms used in this Chapter shall have the meanings indicated below: UNSATISFACTORY LEVEL OF TRAFFIC SERVICE means peak period traffic service,which is worse than Level of Service 'D' for one hour determined according to standard traffic engineering practices. PROJECT shall be determined by reference to the California Environmental Quality Act [California Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.] and the administrative guidelines established thereunder. LEVEL OF SERVICE 'D' shall mean that level of traffic service set forth as "Level of Service `D " in She Highway Capacity Manual (1965) or any subsequent edition thereof, provided,however,that such level of service shall not exceed the most,appropriate of the following criteria, as applicable: (i) intersection capacity utilization of 0.90; (ii) other criteria selected by the City Traffic Engineer which are consistent with subsection (i), and which have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. CRITICAL INTERSECTION shalt mean any intersection operating at an unsatisfactory level of traffic service, either prior to or as a result of a project, on any "major," "primary-modified;' or"primary"street. 344-17 (Newport Beach 4.15-79) p ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURIOOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PIW' NG ORDINANCE - Page 2,, S-1, a. will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified", or "primary" street; or b. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more "major", "primary-modified", or "primary" streets; or c. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic ser- vice on one or more "major", "primary-modified", or "primary" streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated nega- tive impact on transportation facilities, for the following reasons: (specify) E. Approval of Applications: A simple majority vote by the Planning Commission, subject to City Council review or appeal, is required for finding D.1, D.2, D.3.a. , or D.3.b. A four-fifths majority vote by the Planning Commission (or by the City Council on appeal or review) is required for finding D.3.c. F. Appeals: 1. The determination of the P1annang Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The City Council shall-have a Right of Review as set forth in Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. II. OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES A. Designation of Impacted Intersections and Determination of Project Impact for 2.5 Hour Peak Period:- 1. The Traffic Engineer will determine which intersections will be affected by the proposed project according tb its size and geographic location. 2. An analysis will be done whereby it will be determined if one year after completion of the project, or portions of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed, the project (including those portions for which traffic analyses have been previously approved) will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volumes for each leg of each impacted intersection during that 2.5 hour peak period. If less than a one percent increase is demonstrated for each leg, then the analysis is concluded, and finding I.D.2. may be made. B. If the initial Traffic Study indicated the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being performed, one year after completion may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volumes on one or more legs of any impacted intersection, then the Traffic Engineer or a qualified consultant will analyze the intersection capacity utilization for the impacted intersection(s) : �a /�t't'1►C►1M�cNc YJc. � ii S-1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES A. General: These procedures apply to all commercial or industrial projects which have a gross floor area greater than 10„000 sq. ft. , and all residen- tial projects of more than ten dwelling units. B. Evaluating Projects: 1. The applicant files a request for consideration of the entire pro- ject, under the ,provisions of the Ordinance, with the Planning Department. The request must be accompanied by a project descrip- tion, project phasing schedule, site plan, and fees as set by the City Council. 2. A traffic analysis shall then be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer according, to the methodology approved by the City Council. C. Staff Recommendation: 1. The City's Traffic Engineer will review the report prepared by the consultant and transmit the findings and worksheet to the Planning Department for presentation to the Planning Commission. D. Planning Commission Review and Findings: The Planning Commission shall review the determination and recommends- tions of the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department, at a duly- noticed public hearing, and make one of the following findings: 1. The City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom such permit was issued has, in good faith and in reliance upon such permit, diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change, causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes, has been made in such project, except in accordance with .the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; or 2. The traffic projected one year after project completion, during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical inter- section, will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period; or 3. A traffic analysis has been performed and accepted. The traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis was performed. The traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the additional traffic generated by the project, or portion of the project, ^ including any approved trip generation reduction measures: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUROOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC *ING ORDINANCE - Page 4 S-1, For purposes of the traffic analysis, 70% of the incremental increase in intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour of green time for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon completion of the improvement, traffic volume counts shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future traffic analyses. C. Traffic Volumes 1. Traffic volumes shall be based on up-to-date estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after completion of the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis .is being performed. Such estimates shall include existing traffic as deter- mined by annual field counts plus traffic generated by previously approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist in the same time period plus estimated increases in regional traffic,. If the intersection configuration being analyzed is the ultimate configuration consistent with the Circulation Element or otherwise approved by the City Council, then the traffic volumes used in the analysis shall include total traffic expected to be generated from all previously approved projects even if they will not be completed at the time the subject project is completed. 2. The incremental regional traffic for the time period between the date of existing counts and one year after project completion will be estimated based on the rate projected by the traffic model or on a growth projection developed by the Traffic Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission. 3. For making the 1% test of II.A.2. , traffic volumes shall not be used which exceed the capacity of the circulation system specified in the General Plan. D. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the project shall be based on standard trip, generation values established by the .City Traffic Engineer with the approval of the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review. These trip generation figures may be modified only when the applicant proposes specific, permanent measures that will reduce traffic generated by the project, provided that: 1. The applicant describes in writing, in advance of the traffic analysis, the proposed measure, the estimated reduction in trip generation that will result, and the basis for the estimate. The estimate must be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review before the trip generation figures may be reduced. 2. The applicant provides the Planning Commission with a written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure will be permanently implemented, and agrees to make said permanent implementation a condition for project approval. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUR OR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC P*INC ORDINANCE - Page 3 S-i The report will indicate the following: 1. Existing traffic. 2. Projected increases in- regional traffic. 3. Projected traffic from committed projects that will be completed before one year after the completion date of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed. 4. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, without trip generation reduction measures. 5. Traffic 'generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. C. Where a full traffic analysis is performed under Section IIB,, the following I.C.U. calculations shall be performed for each impacted intersection: 1. The existing I.C.U. 2. The I.C.U. , with traffic system improvements that will be installed before one year after project completion. This I.C.U. calculation shall be based on all projected traffic sources except the proposed project. 3. The I.C.U., with traffic system improvements that will be installed before one year after project completion, based on all sources of traffic, including traffic generated by the proposed project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. III. DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS RESTRAINTS A. Traffic System Improvements Traffic system improvements may be included in the traffic analysis for a proposed project, provided that: 1. The improvement will be completed no more than one year after com- pletion of the project or project phase for which the traffic analysis is being performed; and 2. The improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined sufficiently therein to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed; or 3. The improvement design has been approved by the City Council, and is defined sufficiently to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed. B. Projected Capacity Increases from Traffic System Improvements 7-vr--/�C- study ATTACHMENT NO. 3 April 14, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Re: Park Lido Medical Building Espansion Use Permit 2021 Dear Commissioners: I am concerned not only as a homeowner but as a citizen that if this development and others are approved in Newport Beach, the streets will be filled with far more vehicles than they were designed to carry. This area is already congested and in my opinion and that of many others the City Council and Planning Commission have not projected the concern of the future of Newport Beach. Sincerely, /J oan •M Reynolds 462 Ori on Way Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 y� 9� ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUROOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PONC ORDINANCE - Page 5 S-1 E. Traffic Distribution Traffic distribution shall be based on thy traffic network expected to exist one year after project completion including those portions of the network associated with previously approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist at that time. F. Improvements or Modifications to the Circulation System If the applicant wishes to propose quantifiable improvements or changes to the circulation system, which may not appear to be strictly consis- tent with the Circulation Element, or special assumptions as a basis for the traffic analysis, he shall provide a description of such pro- posals in writing to the Planning Commission, along with supporting data justifying their use, in advance of the traffic analysis. Such proposals may then be. used in the traffic analysis if they are approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. IV. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS Permits may be issued for all or a portion of a project after an appropriate finding under I.D. has been made. A. Grading Permits Grading permits may be issued prior to performance of the .traffic analy- sis if vesting rights associated with grading are waived by applicant. B. Building Permits Where traffic system improvements have been included in the traffic analysis, building permits may be issued only after traffic system improvement timing has been confirmed as follows: 1. It has been budgeted and committed for development by the City; or 2. The State or County or other governmental agency making the improve- ment has accepted bids; or 3. The improvement is to be installed or guaranteed by the applicant in conjunction with the development project and is approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions. Adopted - February 26, 1979 Amended - November 23., 1981 �► i�2rri � 77-479/�C- S7'004y /�a•�K L,o% , Lid. JOHN F. SKINNER, M. D. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 351 HOSPITAL ROAD, SUITE 504 OIPLOMATE NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 AMERICAN BOARD 0s111,TERNAL MEDICINE TELEPHONE 642-2121 •• I,<.+ - April 20 , 1982 Newport City Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners : Quick access to Hoag hospital is important to all of us . Unfortunately not all vehicles bringing emergency patients to Hoag Hospital have the benefit of a siren to assist them. There is already traffic congestion during peak hours at two intersections adjacent to the hospital (Hospital Rd,. and Placentia Ave . ; Hospital Rd. and Newport Blvd. ) . Increasing congestion can be anticipated near the hospital entrance because of more automobile traffic from Costa Mesa using Placentia Ave . as a thoroughfare . Future construction of the second Hoag tower , the Heritage Bank building, the Hughes project, the Mollard Medi- cal Building and probably the Park Lido project have been allowed to proceed without measuring their impact on the intersection of Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . The Beeco project might generate more area traffic than planned if much of the 235 , 000 square feet designated as commercial in Area Two is utilized for medical offices . Although the proposed traffic signal at Hospital Rd . and Placentia Ave . might temporarily mitigate traffic problems , ultimately in the next five to ten years traffic will increasingly stifle access to Hoag Hospital . I believe that in the future it is important to require nearby projects to include traffic impact studies on the intersection at Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . Perhaps more stringent traffic requirements than those outlined in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance ' may be needed for intersections adjacent to the Hospital . Hoag Hospital will invariably increase in size and the surrounding surface streets will be increasingly congested. Unless an Area Plan addressing contingency plans for hospital access is considered now, there will be few options available for alleviating the problem in the future. Sincerely, 1 Ex-44 L✓.^✓nz �J �� o Ln F . 6kinner , M.D. T-1-em T�-tt11;41 M. MICHAEL CASSEL, M,D., Ph.D, 351 Hospital Road, Suite 507 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Newport Beach,California 92663 Telephone:(714)645.7083 April 16, 1982 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Gentlemen : The impact of the planned additional development of the Park Lido property on traffic movement and access to Hoag Hospital will surely be calamitous. Allow reason to prevail and deny the project. Yours truly r M e Ga-6sel, M.D. , Ph.D,. MMG/ig cc. Dr; J. Skinner r,4 I , 9 ; c WIg191982 9 PR cpUk Cr MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY May 19, 1982 Agenda Item No. D-1 To: -� Hon. Mayor & Members of the City Council From: Michael H. Miller - City Attorney Re: Park Lido Medical Building - Traffic Study The above item has been called up for review at the meeting of May 24, 1982. In that regard you have received correspondence from attorney Dennis O'Neill on behalf of the Applicant. In view of his correspondence, and certain questions which arose at the Planning Commission, I am forwarding this memorandum so that you are properly apprised as to the limitations on council review imposed by the traffic phasing ordinance. Section 15.40.070 of the Municipal Code relative to the traffic phasing ordinance provides that the City Council' s right of review is limited to the evidence presented before, and the findings of the Planning 'Commission. Further, there are no provisions in the traffic phasing ordinance authorizing the imposition Of conditions that normally could be imposed only upon a land use which was not consistent with the City' s land use regulations. Subject application is consistent. One rationale for allowing Council review albeit in a limited fashion as set forth in the ordinance could be for the consideration of "a change in circumstances" that may arise prior to the matter coming to the City Council. In this regard, pursuant to the administrative procedures for implementing the traffic phasing ordinance (council policy s-1) , the Banning- Newport Ranch project would not be a "committed project" and w r ti •F/ therefore its potential appl+lication cannot be considered as impacting on subject application. . CONCLUSION The City Council has little discretion to overrule the Planning Commission on this issue. The Council would have to determine that the findings of the Planning Commission were unsupported by the evidence. Based on the technical input of staff which comprises the evidence under the traffic phasing ordinance this would not be possible on this application. Further, conditions related to design and development cannot be imposed. Michael H. Miller MHM/pr M-2M-Lido 0 City Council •oting May 24, 1982 Agenda Item No . D- 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Study Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed 65 , 269 sq . ft, medical office building . LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169 , Block 2 of Irvine ' s Subdivision , located at 351 Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital . ZONE: A-P APPLICANTS : Park Lido , Ltd. , Robert L. Wish , General Partner, Santa Ana OWNERS : Same as Applicants Suggested Action Hold hearing ; close hearing; if desired, sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Recommendation At the April 22, 1982 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved the Traffic Study (5 Ayes , 2 Noes ) . Copies of the Planning Commission minutes and staff report are attached (Attachments No . 1 and 2 ) . Application The McMahon Partnership has requested approval of a Traffic Study which will allow the construction of a 65 ,269 sq .ft, medical office building. The request being made is outlined below : Acceptance of a Traffic Study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15. 40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) and City Policy S-1 ( "Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance " ) , and the approval of the project based on the data contained therein for the ultimate purposes of issuance of building and grading permits . T,O: City C*i 1 - 2 . Background The project is to be located at the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue across from Hoag Hospital . On January 22, 1982, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 2021 and a Traffic Study for the construction of a 65,000 sq. ft. ± medical office building that exceeded the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District and permitted roof parking. Said application also included a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of the project' s required off-street parking spaces , and the acceptance of an environmental document. Copies of the Planning Commission minutes , staff reports and other documentation related to Use Permit No. 2021 , if desired, are avail - able from the planning Department. ( Please contact Fred Talarico at 640-2197. ) The applications were called up for review by the City Council . At the February 22, 1982 City Council meeting, the appli - cants withdrew all of the above described applications . Traffic Study The applicants have requested approval of a Traffic Study for the purposes of issuance of building and grading permits in conjunction- with the construction of the project. The Traffic Study for the proposed development has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15 . 40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "Traffic Phasing Ordin- ance" ) and City Policy S-1 ( "Administrative Procedures for Imple- menting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance" ) . A copy is attached and is summarized below: TRAFFIC STUDY SUMMARY I.C.U. , 1983 1983 Existing + Committed Existing + Committed- Existing + Regional .Growth + Reg.Growth + Proj. Placentia/Superior Yes .6653 .6778 .6803 Superior/W.Coast Yes 1.1332 .88791 .89292 Newport/Hospital Yes .7896 .83752 .8693 Dover/W.Coast Yes .8969 .7604 .7650 Prospect/W.Coast No - - - Riverside/W.Coast No - - - Orange/W.Coast No - - A map indicating the location of the above intersections is provided on the follow- ing page. The traffic analysis indicated that four (4) of the above intersections will have traffic volume increases of greater than Was a result of the proposed project 1 Assumes committed project improvements 2 Assumes City/State improvements TO : City Oncil - 3. • PARK LIDO MEDICAL TRAFFIC STUDY INTERSECTIONS ANALYZED Z7 l 1 lacentia/Superior, 1 H! ewport/Hospital l�� u0 AovO i1NGE COUNTY cep y �✓ !l �.0 4`vr m —•+ � , A. .�POR!oo®'e "� Y1• ::. t )go pp, , f ,J PIP e n Orange/W. Coast ORES •;0�. f .v VD nava CO gs �� S{ \ JERf4°l/oy CpCr =Q WY, hd(D I� E°At ram. L/O SANS' BAL90A `�S URN/NCi BAS/A �R V^V ti� �,,f((••--��rvE •r vg" fVEa IV6 U �� N vE// X � If C, i ti-0� `ydQ�Q uCe o_r• ^ P / iverside/W-, Coast C �4�G 6, ' • : 3 a uperior/W. Coast �c 3yeo�' � rospect/W. Coast �p ' 0" .0°• A<5:, .;tea\�`I�/ �t►�,^_. r%.•� . _ e00 o �. C AST HWr I J c N 1 Oil vr7Ccn'. FOR nn a Ga hL.n c c \J VL,V� ' µpVEN over/W. Coast M � COAST \� - :XV HWY. P °eeov Ajjl,r,e i �i �d�(SLRNO i ( BASIN 0 3 < Q g < 3�e a<e 3 SpG <R p6---'--�--- _ LIDO ;'U if t n i i5 g �1Za.e s$'�'e— - -} _ �-_ %_ T g o R�°3 0 �a�T ug fL N � • "io ` LJ� P1" ! �•' ;�� ll��sv 1 a i� • • yg2°L \�� Oho � " � �---°f. Y '^< "n , v — rac ur �yf (1 `�C7C_�c RIM p'A QQ 11 UV" o� TO : Ci ty Coci 1 - 4. development. In accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Policy S-1, an I.C.U. analysis was performed to determine if one year after the com- pletion of the project the intersections would be operating at acceptable levels. This analysis indicates that all affected intersections, one year after project completion, will be operating at .9000 or less. Subsequent to the preparation of the Traffic Study , the Heritage Bank Traffic Study was approved by the City and has become a com- mitted project. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the Park Lido Traffic Study and found that approval of the Heritage Bank Traffic Study did not alter the conclusions of this study . All intersections will be operating at . 9000 or Tess . Staff Analysis At the Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed at length if the Traffic Study could be approved subject to a specific site plan or conditions similar to those that would have been imposed on Use Permit No. 2021 (Attachment No . 7) . The City Attorney has. indicated that only those conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, related to the Traffic Study are appropriate and that there is no way in which the City can legally bind the applicants , or a future owner of the property, to a conceptual design or a plan through this .appli - cation . The City previously has approved the following Traffic Studies without detailed site plans : Test of Reasonableness : Traffic Phasing Plans Amendment No. 1 Ford-Aeronutronics TPP Boyle Engineering TPP Cal Canadian Bank TPP Campus/MacArthur TPP Civic Plaza TPP Corporate Plaza TPP Far West Savings & Loan TPP Koll Center Newport (Office/Industrial ) TPP Koll Center Newport (Office/ Industrial ) Amend. No. 1 TPP Newport Place TPP Traffic Phasing Ordinance/City Policy S-1 Hughes Aircraft TPO (Initial small expansion) National Education TPO Orchard Office TPO Pacesetter Homes TPO 441 Newport Boulevard TPO 3701 Birch Office TPO TO: Ci ty COW 1 - 5. Approval of the Traffic Study will require the applicants to contri - bute their fair share as determined by the City to a circulation system improvement to the intersection of Superior Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway . As of this writing , the City has approved three traffic studies pursuant to the City ' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance which are all required to pay their "fair-share" of this improvement. Project Estimate Fundsi Heritage Bank $24,000 Hughes Aircraft 72,000 Banning/Newport Ranch 462 ,000 Park Lido Medical 42,000 TOTAL $600,000 1 Assumes City/State projects and R-O-W dedication from CalTrans . Should the Banning/Newport Ranch project not be constructed, the table below indicates an estimate of each remaining project' s "Fair- Share" of this improvement: Project Estimate Fundsi Heritage Bank $108,000 Hughes Aircraft ' 312 ,000 Park Lido Medical 180 ,000 TOTAL $600,000 1 Assumes City/State project and R-O-W dedication from CalTrans . Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D . HEWICKE , Director by FR TALARICO Environmental Coordinator FT/kk Attachments for City Council Only: T0: City C*cil - 6 . • 1 . Planning Commission Minutes - April 22, 1982 2 . Planning Commission Staff Report - April 22', 1982 (with below listed attachments ) Exhibit "A" 1 ) Traffic Study - Kunzman Associates - March 17, 1982 2 ) Letter from Suzanne McBrien - dated April 14, 1982 3) Letter from Suzanne McBrien - dated October 15 , 1981 4) Letter from Cecil G. & Louis 0. Zaun - dated April 12 , 1982 5 ) Letter from Cecil G. & Louis 0. Zaun - 'dated February 17, 1982 6 ) Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.40 "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" 7) City Policy S-1 "Administrative Guidelines for Implementing Traffic Phasing Ordinance" 3. Letter: Joan M. Reynolds - April 14, 1982 4. Letter: Dr. M. Michael Gassel - April 16 , 1982 5. Letter: Dr. John F. Skinner - April 20 , 1982 6 . Letter: Dr. Barbara Jessen - April 20, 1982 7. Planning Commission Minutes - January 21 , 1982, Conditions of Approval Use Permit No . 2021 - ATTACHMENT N0. 1 COMMISSIONERS April 22, 1982 • MINUTES DRAFT n City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commi ioner Balalis also suggested that sp ific figures obtained from the applicant relatin to the use of the acilities during the weekdays an eekehds, which may c 'ncide with functions of he Newport Harbor High Sch 1. Chairman McLaughlin ex essed h concerns relating to the parking issue.. ' Motion X Motion was made to cc nue these 'tems to the Planning A11 Ayes X X X X X X Commission Meeting of June 24, 82, which MOTION CARRIED. The lanning Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m. and r onvened at 10:00 p.m. Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed Item #5 65,269 sq. ft. medical office building. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2 of Irvine's subdivision, located at 351 TRAFFIC Hospital Road on the northeasterly STUD — corner of .Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. ZONE: A-P APPROVED CONDI- APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd. , Robert Wish, TIORALLY General Partner, Santa Ana OWNERS: Same as applicants Planning Director Hewicker discussed the background information related to this item. He stated that this is a request for approval of a Traffic Study and that there is no way in which the Commission can legally bind the applicant, or a future owner of the property, -13- II COMMISSIONERS • April 22, 1982 • MIN1117ES , n = m m Cityof Newport Beach DRAFT a O WAS ROLL CALL INDEX to a conceptual design or to a project plan which does not exist. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney rney concurred. The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Dennis O'Neil, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. O'Neil stated that they have prepared a conceptual plan which complies with •the zoning. He stated that the structure will be built within the height limit and will have subterranean parking which satisfies many of the concerns expressed by the surrounding property owners and residents. He stated that they are committed to the signalization at Placentia Avenue gnd Hospital Road and improvement of the traffic circulation through the use of signs. He stated that they concur with the recommendations of the staff report. Mr. Dick Hogan, representing the residential property owners of the area, which include 140 apartment units in Mediterranean Village and 99 condominiums in the Park Lido Association, appeared before the Commission. In addition, he stated that he is also representing Mr. Ralph Gray, who owns 44 of the apartment units. Mr. Hogan stated that they have viewed the conceptual plan which appears to be satisfactory and is certainly a substantial improvement over the original proposal. He referred to the Traffic Phasing Plan and expressed his concern that it does not cover the local traffic systems. He suggested that the traffic exit onto Flagship Road be controlled in such a way to prohibit right turns. He stated that this is a safety concern of the residents and the occupants of the convalescent homes. Mr. Hogan stated that the applicant is agreeable in providing a left turn requirement from the parking lot and that there be a stop sign on Placentia Avenue. He stated that the City's traffic consultant has indicated that because of the projected traffic on Placentia Avenue,' this would be a reasonable consideration. -14- COMMISSIONERS • April 22, 1982 • MINUTES OWNS ..m m m m Cityof New ort Beach DRAFT ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Beek asked Mr. Hogan if they are asking for a signal or a stop sign. Mr. Hogan stated that they are requesting a stop sign in both directions at the intersection of Placentia Avenue and Flagship Road. Commissioner Allen stated that the Planning Commission is only considering the request for the proposed Traffic Study, not the plans which have been shown by the applicant. She suggested that the Commission find a way in which to condition the project, which will satisfy the concerns of the surrounding residential area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Hogan stated that they prefer the parking structure as proposed, not an above ground parking structure. Mr. Hogan suggested that the Commission accept a copy of the applicant's plans, as informational plans, which will represent the intent of the applicant. Commissioner Allen suggested that perhaps a private solution could be considered between the applicant and the residents of the area. Mr. Hogan stated that .they feel that the items which they have requested are consistent with the Traffic Phasing Plan. In response to a question posed by Commissioner King, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that he would not foresee a problem with the requested- left turn only sign on Flagship Road. Mr. William Kunzman of Kunzman Associates, the City's Traffic Consultant who performed the traffic impact analysis for this project, appeared before the Commission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Kunzman stated that Figure 2 of the report was utilized in determining the ingress and egress of the project. Mr. Fred 'Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that Figure 2 shows the current, pre-existing driveways on the site. Commissioner Balalis expressed his concern that the traffic distribution of the existing project may be totally different than the traffic distribution of the proposed project, particularly if one of the driveways is eliminated. • -15- 3 COMMISSIONERS • April 22, 1982 • MINUTES' DRAFT m = m a N> > .. O" w q City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL H I INDEX Mr. Don Webb stated that in this particular analysis, the intention of the City Traffic Engineer was that all of the existing driveways would be utilized and would have equal ability to handle the traffic. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that it is his understanding that questions of access do not have any impact upon the numbers of the• traffic study. Planning Director Hewicker stated that the staff has not had the opportunity to view the conceptual .plan as developed' by the applicant. Commissioner Winburn asked why Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue were not involved in the Traffic Study. Mr. Kunzman stated that these intersections are not on the critical list. Mr. Talarico stated that the critical list specifically refers to signalized intersections. Commissioner .King suggested that the project description contained on Page 1 of the Traffic Study should be 'accepted as identifying the proposed development. He stated that this description is what the Traffic Study addressed in its analysis of the project. Mr. Burnham stated that this would not impose a requirement that the project be built in that manner. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Webb stated that Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue are secondary streets. Commissioner Beek stated that Figure 2 of the Traffic Study is irrelevant, because the project traffic distribution is based on Figure 3 which shows that all of the traffic will be exiting on Flagship Road and none of the traffic will be exiting on Hospital Road. At this point, members of the staff took a recess to determine if this item could be resolved. ------------------------------------------------------- -16- COMMISSIONERS a April 22, 1982 • MINUTES � d = W DRAFT n x City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that the traffic distribution in the analysis of the Traffic Study is based upon the utilization of the driveways on Plagship Road and Hospital Road. He stated that the Commission does not have the authority to direct that there be right or left turns out of the driveways, or to close any of the driveways. Mr. Burnham concurred and stated that a private agreement as suggested by Commissioner Allen would not be feasible either. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Kunzman referred to Appendix C of the ICU work sheets, Page 39, and explained how the figure .8929 was calculated. Ms. Nancy Skinner, resident of 724 Highland Drive, suggested that if the applicant were to design this building a few inches higher than the height limit, the application would then have to be approved by the Commission and these requirements could be legally imposed. Mr. Mike Johnson, resident of 220 Nice Lane, stated that this area is very congested with traffic. He expressed his concern that the cumulative affects of the traffic impacts for all of the developments in the West Newport area must be considered. He stated that if the Beeco/Banning Ranch proposal is approved by the voters, it will have a tremendous impact on the traffic and will change all of the traffic counts that have been presented. Commissioner King stated that the committed projects are included in the projections of the Traffic Study. He stated that the Beeco/Banning Ranch proposal is not a committed project because of the referendum. Planning Director Hewicker explained the committed projects in the area: Mr. Webb stated that if the Beeco/Banning Ranch proposal were to be included as a committed project, the distribution would change substantially because it provides for an additional intersection which would cause a diversion of traffic off of Superior Avenue and lower the ICU, which would allow more capacity in the intersection. -17- COMMISSIONERS • April 22, 1982 • MINUTES" Vim = m DRAFT F W = City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL - I INDEX Motion X Motion was made for approval of the Traffic Study, subject to the ,findings and conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Allen stated that she would be voting against this 'item-because this particular area needs to be studied in terms of the traffic. She stated that medical office buildings are big trip generators. She stated that the applicant has developed a project which attempts to deal with the concerns of the doctors and the residents of the area. However, she stated that the Commission is considering the requested Traffic Study, not the conceptual plan of the project. Commissioner Beek stated that he can not support the motion. He stated that the traffic distribution figures are indefinite because they have been rounded to 5 percent figures in every direction. He further stated that an indepth traffic study is needed for the entire County triangle area. Ayes X X X X X Commissioner King's motion for approval of the Traffic Noes X X Study, was now voted on as follows, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project 'has beep prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code -and City Policy S-1. 2. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on ' any "major", "primary-modified"; or "primary" street. CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to the Circulation System Improvements for the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway described "in the Traffic Study, Page 11, Table 5. -Is- COMMISSIONERS • April 22, 1982 • MINUTES r m ` m DRAFT x et of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 2. The Circulation System Improvement described in Condition 1 above and the City-State improvements to the intersection of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway described in the Traffic Study, Page 11, Table 5 shall have been made (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation System Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Re est to delete Condition No. 9 of a previously Item #6 appr ed use permit that allowed a change in the operat nal characteristics of an existing restaurant to incl a the service of alcoholic beverages. Said condition resently restricts the service of alcoholic beverages a a bar or bar type lounge in conjunction USE PERMIT with the rest rant operation. 90. 2005 MENDED LOCATION: Lot 74 and 75, Tract No. 1011, located at 4 1 West Coast Highway, on the souther side of West Coast Highway between ewport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard, djacent to Balboa Coves. APPROVED CONDI- zONE: C-1-H TIONALLY APPLICANT: Royal Thai Cuisin Inc. , Newport Beach OWNER: Mary Howard, Newport ach The public hearing opened in connection 'th this item and Mr. Sumet Tila, representing the oyal Thai Cuisine, appeared before the Commission and requested approval of this application. -19- • Planning Commission Meet April 22, ,1982 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ATTACHMENT NO. 2 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUB=: Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed 65,269 sq.ft. medical office building. LOCATION: A portion of .Lot 169, Block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. ZONE: A-P APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd. , Robert L. Wish, General Partner, Santa Ana OW[MtS: Same as applicants Application The McMahon Partnership has requested approval of a Traffic Study which will allow the construction of a 65,269 sq.ft, medical office building. The request being made is outlined below: Acceptance of a Traffic Study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") , and the approval of the project based on the data contained therein for the ultimate purposes of issuance of building and grading permits. Background The project is to be located at the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue across from Hoag Hospital. On January 22, 1982, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 2021 and a Traffic Study for the construction of a 65,000 sq.ft. ± medical office building that exceeded the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District, permitted roof parking, and waived a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. Said application pp also included a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of the project's required off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. Copies of the Planning Commission minutes, staff reports and other docmumntation related to Use Permit No. 2021 if desired are available from the Planning Department. (Please contact Fred Talarico at 640-2197) . The • Planning Commission Meetin. April 22, 1982 1! Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed 65,269 sq.ft. medical office building. LOCATION: A portion of Jot 169, Block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. ZONE: A-P APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd. , Robert L. Wish, General Partner, Santa Ana OWNERS: Same as applicants Application The McMahon Partnership has requested approval of a Traffic Study which will allow the construction of a 65,269 sq.ft. medical office building. The request being made is outlined below: Acceptance of a Traffic Study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic- Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") , and the approval of the project based on the data contained therein for the ultimate purposes of issuance of building and grading permits. Background The project is to be located at the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue across from Hoag Hospital. On January 22, 1982, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 2021 and- a Traffic Study for the construction of a 65,000 sq.ft. ± medical office building that exceeded the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District, permitted roof parking, and waived a portion of the required off-street parking spaces: Said application also included a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of cmipact car spaces for a portion of the project's required off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. Copies of the Planning Commission minutes, staff reports and other docmentation related to Use Permit No. 2021 if desired are available from the Planning Department. (Please contact Fred Talarico at 640-2197) . The R TO: Planning 91ission - 2 applications were called up for review by the City Council. At the February 22, 1982 City Council meeting, the applicants withdrew all of the above described applications. Traffic Study The applicants have requested the Planning Camdssion's approval of a Traffic Study for the purposes of issuance of building and grading permits in conjunction with the construction of the project. The Traffic Study for the proposed development has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic, Phasing, Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Procedures for krplementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") . A copy is attached and is summarized below: Traffic Study Summary I.C.U. 1983 1983 Existing + Caimitted Existing + Committed 1% Existing + Regional Growth + Reg. Growth + Proj. Placentia/Superior yes .6653 .6778 .6803 Superior/W. Coast yes 1.1332 .88791 .89291 Newport/Hospital yes .7896 .83752 :86932 Dover/W. Coast yes .8969 .7604 .7650 Prospect/W. Coast no - - - Riverside/W. Coast no - - - Orange/W. Coast no - - - The traffic analysis indicated that four (4) of the above intersections will have traffic volume increases of greater than 1% as a result of the proposed project development. in accordance' with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Policy S-1 an I.C.U. analysis was performed to determine if one year after the completion of the project the intersections would be operating at acceptable levels. This analysis indicates that all affected interestions, one year after project completion, will be operating at .9000 or less. 1. Assumes oonaitted project improvements. 2. Assumes City/State Improvements. II� TO: Planning Cession - 3 • Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the project with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A". PLANNING DEPARDENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator FP:nma Attachments: Exhibit "A" 1. Traffic Study - Kunzman Associates - March 17, 1982. 2. Letter from Suzanne McBrien - Dated April 14, 1982. 3. Letter from Suzanne McBrien - Dated October 15, 1981. 4. Letter from Cecil G. & Louis O. Zaun - Dated April 12, 1982. 5. Letter from Cecil G. & Louis O. Zaun - Dated February 7, 1982. 6. Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.40 "Traffic Phasing ordinance". 7. City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") • � . YL EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS and CONDITIONS of APPROVAL PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 22, 1982 TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS 1. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", ppiimary-modified", or "primary" street. CONDITIONS 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to the Circulation System Improvements for the intersection of Superior Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway described in the Traffic Study, Page 11, Table 5. 2. The Circulation System Improvement described in Condition 1 above and the City-State improvement to the intersection of Dover and Pacific Coast Highway described in the Traffic Study, Page 11, Table 5 shall have been made (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation System Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. y e+„♦t�iGL�C�,� Tom` 6 FILE 'tvor +� re. rgor r)l, *' r .,•�1 �, �`r'41, {� r ! , /( rp.,,�k•7•ar, Jri ,�,j `�) r tS ��''�''�i5' �, , �Jf;arl�"%ty, ��,tf;ti�.!'�fy�lrl'�'N'��•�i�%''r9��1 ��F��y��Y,y,� )•r�Y �� r�r�� {,ty��1,.'�}l�!�✓�('' ��)�rf f1r�4,J�yy��11•V'?�!r '�< �,f;4 �� > r : ti'7'ill;{' ' { /f i+�••{✓r) h; �; 5''�11�jl.;, VT 1�11.'1 r/, •.t/f:'l{/�j;i.rjfTt.•'£rjJ(,r�T�J.,;(r-, ? a r"r't> l• r� '� •Jay Sti r t r,{' 7(rS i .,��t, •:� r �+ . J,�' f •vv,��. 'r.+ rF�' r r. , ri�,l w . � ��j.yr• ,. 1��7J,I�Jrf'; ��r1' /��'��Z�i�f` r/rF�' � t�.j. ) l.:`/�� i r r r r�r 1 If ;%f�1rr;'( 'ir' 1� • }fn ,t v . Hospital Road Medical Building t- Traffic Study IN O. , Jt��` •^�'�1�`'itI��,(�`��,,,�'�•%��•, Ctrs: r ��JY'(!(�i! r' '1�i�J:�i� \f�/�r1y+,a�•rJu �t�.t/1;�Y)'f �'1 ��t'%/k' �tY '�' r 1 •,1/f� 1�' �n,�y�{Ir�i�f ,I�t�.Y•� Jf.. ��'lij'��?,�'r�•t'�;��J}'•�i',{j��' �"� t� �, .J� 'li:',}!,✓dj+if j�•f�.,l'� '' � Jr,, ''(� J''..r i;cc 1` i (" 1. /��A'* }.�f�::Jjr ,��+,iitii��' :, rtl, Y✓' I,:f�:,','!!r 1� / �r (Y' lr O<UA5P1latn v4ssociates F �.,� } Transportation Planning .Traffic Engineering }�'�rr•rJ��1�1{i( r'�I;fr�'�,,jCv-"l,,Jr ^jf�ff�`/' �fri�j f; •+�^Ia J rl ,1�� r'''J. J! 7 r�•1 f;�r ��/jr j��G•)�i;f t,jj`{}�tLlY��%��`irll'j\ili�f�1 1•`rl f; � ' I�srt:j!,'' �� tJj� . J ��r.r�,l�l .lt'7f .•fib ;�•,1.1.t i�Y/r\!�� ..r Ifr, '�t!`/f�ifl ��lr' ! e'•r•,� r � {j ,{'Jyi'y rr ai l'y'J�77.r!•r '7U�''('Ji'�1 � :. r7 1 r'n„(; �'' ' �; J low C D19K �KuRamalq v�ssoc � ates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering March 17, 1982 `�, RECEIV[D PLANNING DEPARTMENT z- NAR181982e-- -6 Mr. Fred Talarico NEPO Y Dti�ACH, J✓ Environmental Coordinator CALL;:. S' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. %v7 � y�-V Newport Beach, CA 92663 ~ Dear Mr. Talarico: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis for the Hospital Road Medical Office Building. This analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. We trust that this report will be of immediate as well as continuing value to the City of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, �L � }� KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES Ii Do NOT CGf••`.O7C /W VJL Aiwa William Kunzman, P.E. 4664 Barranca Parkway * Irvine. CA 22714 * (714) 559-4231 Table of Contents Section Page No. 1. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Intersection 'Capacity Utilization Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 . Project 'Related Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C - Project Related Improvements - ICU Work Sheets M List of Figures Following Figure No. Title Page No. 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Project Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 List of Tables Table No. Title Page No. 1 Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 One Percent Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Committed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utiliza- tion for Critical Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5 Project Related Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. Project Description Project Location The project is located at the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue across from Hoag Hospital. Proposed Development The project includes the construction of a 6,5,269 square foot two story medical office building with underground parking. The parking provided will serve the P parking needs g P p g of an exist- ing 77r000 square foot medical building and the proposed medical building.. t ICI 1 Figure 1 VICINITY MAP �✓' ' '.. � � '` }/ ems" `•f %`. L /p•�I �j t�' /S f Pam" � �a - /I •, M� «�Tpy}f�i! i J:'T' "•�•,�?r. •�.1..��•'T 4'r'{'Y.,r��kl��.!'fy.;v' '�a.+ +4. L.k� Y•r�i�_NrT`y"�Yir+��-,\'•%� , �n{! mid .T��t:/y/(•y�tti {.yv',.•..`_�•'�.y'+'i^j�.rc,ry�,�� L.:a,j• �� ve•1�j1�.'%::.e Yo Ife"f L--. S".�. ,,,f,...,, d' l�"Y• vim' 11 ,+^ IS:.'•...rW A�yni� 1 J ,�� ,< ��y� �d,...l'�7?c jri 5',t \ �•�, 't. r' '1j..''/t`IA.,A•+ i,s. ,�i. �tiA!^�•V��,.. l�k'r;�tlfih'R'✓Yl`• �r�r.. .•• 7 •'4�•...g�.p'i, .W_:.:-'bf "„ei� �`'fi : 4 f."f�%�\. ,� ;wt�4y�T�"'�:::t^y,.,.. K IU 7" •„•:?.�'.^s _.v, . "LMti."'JFY�4 is �,kl •. ,< /{. � .,'.Ii., t %F � r` ` �-' , A Y��/ " r i L�l' C `,\ , +~ �S�Iti..:% r ��1""'.•�t�1 a g� •,rl OSBAN Act',, ' Project Site �utn �,ta� c�ssociates 1 Figure 2 Site Plan FLAGSHIP ROAD _ !' 'Li ✓ / ' � ,f=xisting - ` \ Buildirg ` . .\ 77.000.a it. Two story office building and underground \ f.! Eu tl v. .0', ♦ ', �- parking to be located within this area. Ar it : I �w �ltU{t�i17QF1 t�SSOCIQfCS Y 13 • • 2. Project Traffic Generation The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropiate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are expressed in terms of trip ends per per- son, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, trip ends per dwelling, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor area. For this study, trip generation data was supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Based on actual traffic counts at a medical • office building at Hospital Road and Placentia, the City's study indicates 30 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Table i provides trip generation information for the 65,269 square foot building. 2 Table 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Trip Generation Time Period Per 1000 Sq. Ft, of Trips Generated Gross Floor Area* By 65,269 Sq. Ft. Evening Peak Hour Inbound 1.9 124 Outbound 2.4 156 Total 4. 3 280 Peak 2.5 Hours Inbound 2.4 156 Outbound 4 .5 294 Total 6.9' 450 Daily Two Way Traffic Total 30 .0 -1,958 -------------- * Based upon City of Newport Beach Traffic Study for 1511-1525 Superior Avenue, dated July 15, 1981. 3 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is based on the directional orientation of traffic, and then the traffic is assigned to specific roadways. ' It is based on the geographical location of residential concentra- tions, along with commercial, business , and recreational opportu- nities . Traffic distribution and assignment was provided by City of Newport 'Beach staff. 4 Figure 3 Project Traffic Distribution Q9 p, 25 15 5 Placentia Boukvat rd Orange 15 Prospect ana Flagship to Hospl ua 15 Road Riverside A�C'fchl hwa lover 0 15 ,o -Legend 5 Percent of project traffic using route. 'JCu-elan v4ssociaEes ,"7 • • 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis Seven critical intersections were analyzed as identified by City staff. Table 2 lists the seven intersections , and provides a summary of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis . Appendix A contains the calculation sheets. Four intersections have the one percent volume criteria exceeded: Superior and Placentia Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway The purpose of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is to extablish whether the project adds a volume that is greater than one percent of a critical intersection' s approach volume. If. less than one percent is added to all approaches of a critical intersection, then no further analysis is necessary as specified in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As part of the one percent analysis , regional growth and committed projects are included. Volume projections are made to. a point in time one year after the project completion. This project' s comple- tion date is 1983 , and traffic volumes are projected to 1984 . Regional traffic has been forecasted in accordance with City pro- cedures, and committed project traffic includes those projects listed in Table 3. 5 0 Table 2 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersections 1% of Projected Project's 2 . 5 Over Analyzed 2 .5 Hr. Peak Vol. Hour Peak Vol. 1% Placentia and Superior Northbound 12 88 Southbound 17 8 Yes Eastbound 16 23 Westbound 18 39 Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 19 0 Southbound 30 44 Yes Eastbound 38 23 Westbound 45 0 Newport and Hospital Northbound 33 39 Southbound 35 23 Eastbound 17 162 Xes Westbound 10 23 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 3 0 Southbound 24 0 Yes Eastbound 41 44 Westbound 67 23 Oranqe and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 5 0 Southbound 2 0 No Eastbound 33 23 Westbound 62 44 Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 0 0 Southbound 3 0 No Eastbound 31 23 Westbound 60 44 Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound . 2 0 Southbound 13 0 No Eastbound 49 44 Westbound 49 23 6 Table 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS Project Name Aeronutronic Ford (residential) Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero TPP Back Bay Office (office) Bank of Newport (office) Bayside Square (office) Baywood Apartments (residential) Boyle Engineering (office) Cal Canadian Bank (office) Campus/MacArthur (office) Civic Plaza (office) Coast Business Center Corporate Plaza (office) Far West Savings and Loan (office) Harbor Point Homes (residential) Hoag Hospital (community facility) Hughes Aircraft (industrial) Koll Center Newport (office, industrial) Koll Center Newport and No. 1 TPP Martha's Vineyard National Education Office (office) Newport Place (office) North Ford (industrial) Orchard Office (office) Pacesetter Homes (office) Pacific Mutual Plaza (office) Quail Business Center (office) Roger' s Gardens (commercial) Ross Mollard - 1511 and 1252 Superior Rudy Baron (office) Sea Island (residential) Seaview Lutheran Plaza (residential) Shokrian (office) Valdez - 3101 W. Coast Highway 441 Newport Blvd. - (office) 3701 Birch Office (office) 7 OR 5. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Of the four intersections exceeding the one percent criteria, two are operating near or above 90 percent capacity. Superior and Pacific Coast Highway is operating at 113 percent of capacity, and Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway is operating at 89. 69 percent of capacity. Once the growth and committed traffic volumes are added to the current traffic volumes, the Superior and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is expected to be operating at 139 percent of its estimated capacity. if the project traffic is added, it is anti- cipated to be operating at 141 percent of its capacity. The project adds very little to this already heavily impacted inter- section. When the growth and committed traffic is added to the Dover and Pacific Coast Highway intersection it will operate at 109 per- cent of capacity. Once the project traffic is added it will in- crease slightly. Appendix B contains the intersection capacity utilization work sheets . 8 Table 4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Intersection Capacity Utilization Critical Existing 1983 Exist 1983 Exist + Need Intersections + Committed Committed + Improve- + Growth Growth + ments Project Superior and Pacific Coast Highway 1. 1332 1. 3876 1. 4057 Yes Dover and Pacific Coast Highway 0. 8969 1. 0906 1. 0975 Yes Superior and Placentia 0. 6653 0 . 6778 0 . 6803 No Newport and Hospital 0 . 7896 0 . 8375 0 . 8693 No 9 6. Project Related Improvements In that the Superior and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is impacted by other development projects and regional traffic, the responsibility for the improvements recommended should be appor- tioned in an equitable manner. In the City of Newport Beach' s 1981 - 1982 budget, the improve- ments of one southbound left lane, two southbound through lanes and one southbound right lane to the Superior/Pacific Coast Highway intersection have been included. It is anticipated that construction will begin this fiscal year. other projects have proposed the addition of one westbound through lane and one south- bound right lane. This project proposes the restripping of the northbound lanes to include three northbound through lanes. With these improvements, the intersection will operate at .8929 . The Dover and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is currently being reconstructed. The proposed improvements include: three south- bound left lanes,, one southbound right lane, and one southbound through; two eastbound left lanes, and three eastbound through lanes; one westbound right lane, one westbound left Pane and three westbound through lanes. once these improvements are completed, the intersection will operate at . 7650. 10 Table 5 PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Intersection Improvements Superior and Pacific City improvements will create Coast Highway one southbound left lane, two southbound through lanes and one southbound right lane. Other projects are committed to provide one southbound right turn lane and one westbound through lane. This project is proposing restripping the north- bound lanes to include three northbound through through lanes. Dover and Pacific City-State highway project to Coast Highway be completed in Spring of 1982. 11 Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C - Project Related Improvement ICU Work Sheet APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORK SHEETS 00 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue (Existing Traffic Vo limes based on AVerage Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volune Volume Vol une Volume Northbound 1111 0 133 1244 12 88 9outhbound 1620 0 77 1697 17 8 Eastbound 1552 0 15 1567 16 23 desthound 1767 0 51 1818 18 39 [� 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. Hospital Road Medical Office Buildina DAT • 7-30-81 PROJECT: FORM I a� i • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa B1.-Superior Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1823 0 37 1860 19 0 Northbound _ 2901 0 64 2965 30 44 Southbound 3311 29 504 3844 38 23 Eastbound Westbound 3485 54 1009 4548 1 45 0 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 22 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 24 Hour ApftoVed Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2is Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2ti Hour Volume Growth Peak 29 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volme Vdlume Northbound 3229 10 84 3313 33 39 Southbeund— 3482 0 50 3532 35 23 Eastbound 1527 0 154 1681 17 162 972 0 40 1012 10 23 'estbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DAT • 7-30=81 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Dover Drive-Ba shore Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981 Approach Existing Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 21 Hour Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 278 0 7 28 3 0 Southbound 2273 0 85 2358 24 0 Eastbound 3401 1 30 635 4066 41 44 Westbound 5473 48 1185 6706 67 23 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is -required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: FORM I 30 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Orange Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Regional Projects eak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour olume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 537 0 2 539 5 0 • southbound 153 0 1 154 2 0 Eastbound 2772 i 25 509 3306 33 23 descbound 5159 46 1040 6245 62 44 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project•Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (t.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: FORM I 151 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Prospect Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 21s Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume _ Volume Volume Northbound Southbound 260 2 262 3 0 Eastbound 2530 22 509 3061 31 23 Hastbound 4920 38 1040 5998 60 44 r Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected L!JTraffic Peak 2 Z Hour T Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-1-2 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: FORM I rc 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue (Ex.isting. Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected I% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 21 21 '2 0 northbound 1267 82 1349 13 0 Eastbound 4248 38 600 4886 49 44 •esteound 3752 33 1158 4945 49 23 T� • Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: FORM I 53 ! ! i APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORK SHEETS 9- I14TEROION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL* Appendix B Intersection Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) Mo rere.2 EXISTING PROPOSEU EXIST. jRAtio T. jG ONAL COPMITTEU PROJECTED Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap, PX.NR. TN PROJECT V/C RatioPROJFCI PROJECT Vol. me Volume w/o Project Volume VIC Aatlo Volume NL 1600 32 * 0400*NT .04003200 321 3 18 .1059 8 .1084 NR 1600, 34 .0425 .0425 37 ,0443 SL 1600 6 .0038 5 .0069 ST .0069 1600 247 .1544* 20 .1669* 4 .1694* SR 1600 418 .2613 5 .2643 .2643 EL 1600 244 .1525* .1525* .,1525* ET 3200 " 297 .0928 .0928 .0928 ER 1600 22. .0138 ,3 .0156 .0156 WL 1600 -46. . 0288 .0288 20 .0412 WT 3200 699 .2184* .2184* .2184 WR 600 5 .0031 25 . 0188 .0188 YELLOWTIME 1000* .1000* 1 1.1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .6653 j EXISTING PLUS C(MITTED PLUS REGIMIAL GRMTH W/PROPOS.ED INPROVENEWTS I.C.U. 77 1 E%ISTING PLUS CCl�uMTTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. . 6803 ® 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: Hospital Road Medical Building 8/13/81 ---- -. . . ---- DATE PROJECT FORP1 11 S INTERSOON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY* Appendix B Intersection Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road _ ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) ,vo,e_e,t EAISTIIIG PROPOSED DEXIT EXIST. REGIONAL COJAXITTEO PROJEETEU Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Rat{o PROJECT PROJECT Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume 1/C Ratio Volume NL 1600 220 . 1375* 15 . 1469* 14 .1556* NT 4800 1180 .2604 18 43 .2731 .2731 NR 70 SL 1600 50 .0313 .0313 .0313 ST a 98 .2833* 16 25 . 2919* .2919* SR 162 EL 1600 198 . 1238 75 .1706* .52 .1925* ET 3200' 184 .1469* M12 ER 286 , 4 WL I'64% 20 WT 3200 199 . 1219* WR 27 YELL0TINE 1000* .1000* 1000* 1 EXISTIKG IITERSECTI0.L CAPA .7896 EXISTING PLUS C0','QTTED PLUS REGIORd'L GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEFS'cfiTS I.C.U.( 3 1 EXISTYNG PLUS COMNITTED PLUS REGIONAL GR%TH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ,',8 69 3� ® 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 sys,:em improvement: _ Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT FORM' II 36 INTER&ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAA Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED MovementPK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume W/o Project Volume ' V/C Ratio Vol( no NL 2400 421 .1754* NT 2400 265 .1104 5 .1125 .1125 NR 1600 N.S'.1 58 .0363 1 .0363 .0363 SL 146 ST 3200 473 .1934 15 .1981 .1981 SR 1600 708 .4425* 21 . 455.6* 22 .4694* EL 3200 244 .0763, 3 .0772* 14 .0815* ET 3200 828 .2588 22 215 .3328 .3328 ER 1600 N.S. 401 • .2506 .2506 .2506 _ WL 1600 -85• • .0531 .0531 .0531 WT 3200 1329 .4153* 25 500 .5794 .5794* WR 600 N s4 77 .0481 4 4 YELLOWTIME 1000* .1000* 1 11000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1.38 7 6 EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 77 57 ❑ 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: I _Hospital Road Medical Office Build* DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT _ FORM II -37 ' INTERSEON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS* APPENDIX B Intersection Dover Dr..- /Coast Highway ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMIITTED PROJECTED PRJECT Hoverent Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C RatioProJe YoOJECTlme Y/C,Rad o Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/oVolume NL 1600 34 .0213 .0213 .0213 NT 1600 42 .0263* 4 * 0275* NR 1600 1 30 .0188 .0188 .0188 SL 3200 786 .2456* .2456* 2456* ST 1600 80 .0500 41 .0756 .0756 SR 1600 131 •0819 2 . 0831 .0831 EL 1600 87 .0544* . 0544* . 0544* ET 3200' 1310 .4094 15 318 . 5134 12 .5172 ER 1600 •30 .0188 .0188 . 0188 WL 1600 38 .0238 .0238 .0238 WT3200 1506 •4706* 24 592 ,6631* 22 . 6700* WR 1600 714 .4463 1 1 .4463 1 .4463* YELLOWTIME : .1000* .1000* 1000* 1 1 i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8969 1 I I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMEMTS I.C.U. 1. 09 0 6 EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. IL.0 9 7 5 ❑ 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: Hospital Road Medical Building_ DATE• 9/14/81 PROJECT FORM II I 38 W APPENDIX C PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENT ICU WORK SHEETS INTERSECT 0 CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIO Appendix C 39 Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL CDNNITAEO PROJECTED Mo,ei,ent PK.MR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 2400 421 .1754* NT 2400 4800 265 . 1104 5 . 1560* .1560* NR 58 1600 N.S. .0363 SL 1600 146 . 0913 .0913 ST 3200 473 . 1934 15 . 1525* .1525 SR 1606 3200 , 708 .4425* 21 2278 22 .2347* EL 3200 244 .0763 3 . 0772* 14 . 0816 ET 13200 828 .2588 22 215 1 . 3328 3328 ER 1600 N.S. 401 • .2506 .2506 .2506 WL 1600 -85. .0531 .0531 . 0531 WT 3200 4800 1329 •4153* 25 500 .4022* . 4022* WR 1600 N•S 77 .0481 YELLOWTIME 1000*1 .1000* � . 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 332 I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVERENTS I.C.U. .$87 9 EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. w/proposed improve- -8929 men s ICU ❑ 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 sy3tems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: 1. Add third westbound through lane 2. Eliminate southbound free right, and replace with two right turn lanes. Hospital Read Medical Office Building DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT _ FORM II T , O INTERSECT& CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSO APPENDIX C Intersection Dover Dr. /Coast Highway ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring l9 81) NNGI EAI ST.' EIIST. REGIORAL C"ITTE0 PROJECTED Honer.;nt EXI ST1Ca PROPOSED pR•HR• V/C GROWTH PR0.IECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Vol me NL 1600 34 .0213 .0213 .0213 NT 1600 42 .M3* 4 .0275* .0275* NR 1600 30 .0188 SL 3200 4800 786 , .2456* ,1637* .1637 ST 1600 80 .0500 41 .0756 .0756 SR 1600 31 , .0819 2 .0831 0831 I EL 1600 3200 87 .0544*. .0271* .0271* ET 3200• 4800 1310 .4094 15 318 e3423 12 .3448 ER 1 1600 0 •30 .0188 1 - WL 1600 ••38 .023& .0238 .0238 WT 200 4800 1506 •4706* 24 592 .4421* 22 .4467* WR 1600 714 .4463 .4463 .4463 YELLOWTIME 1 ' 1000* i .1000*. 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8969 j I EXISTING PLUS CO-HITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U. ,7 6 0 4 i EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROFIiH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.7 6 50 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to O.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: City/State improvement project, permitted to use 100 percent of new lane capacity Hospital Road Medical Building 9/14/81 - _ _ -- - ----- DATE• PROJECT FORM II �/ • . kTvXC�IMVX)r JL 2 J 1812 Antigua Circle Newport Oedch , CA 92660 April 149 1982 Newport Beach Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach , CA 92b63 Allen Jerry King Deborah Helen g Paul Palalis ' I'ilc Laughlin Hal Thomas { APR 2 1 19 Allen Beek Joan Winburn \5 °E✓•f r_ & Re: Park Lido Medical Bldg. Expansion ; Request for Cr, nuanpe ' ' . Dear Planning Commissioners: I have owned sixteen residental units in the above area fo-f--- approximately twelve years . Please give your full consideration to the following requests: 1 . A review of the impact of the Medical Office expansion on a fully developed residential neighborhood which has been in existence- for at least sixteen or seventeen years. The owners and r esidents of the area are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their properties and should not be subject to having their properties devalued by probably doubled traffic and fumes . Please review my attachrsd letter of Oct . 152 1981 . 2. Give the owners and residents in the area an opportunity to review the site plans and traffic studies for ingress and egress to the new development . De staff has informed me those will not be available until Fri . Apr . 1b for the meeting to be held April 22 , 1982. 3. 8ecause of time limitations for residents to study tfia project and formulate their uositions ,I request that the matter be continued for at least two weeks and prefurably four weeks . The residents ' group has been subject to hardship by the developer' s withdrawal of plans on the evening the residents were represented by an expert . 4 . The residents request that the entrance anal exit to the parking facility should be located on Hospital Hd , to prevent the residential streets of- Flagship Rd and Oana lid from oecoming thoroughfares in the residential areas . For the same reason we request that if. there is consideration of an exit from a parking bldg. onto Flagship , that no right turns onto Flagship be permitted. Please consider the foregoing and give the residents an opportunity to study the traffic study and plarining commission staff report. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, 5uzarMe lilt Brien I • #w1ljort h I 1 1, 4 1,Ud 1.1 L U. =Beach , CA 92660 tuber 15, 1981 Newport Beach Planninrr Commissioners ASS, } 6.3 3300 Newport Blvd . , Newport Beach , CA 92663 �n<vT Deborah Allen Jerry King Paul Balalis Helen Mc Laughlin Allen Beek Hal Thomas Joan Winburn Re: Permit No . 2021 Request for Environmental Impact Report For Porwit 2021 I am the owner of sixteen residental units located in the area referred to as Newport Mediterranean Apts. located at Flagship lid. and Patrice , Hilaria Way and Dana Rd . My sixteen units ,are situated in four buildings at 4200 Patrice , 4127 Hilaria and 4151 Hilaria, and 4223 Dana Rd. I strongly object to the proposed permit No 2021 pursuant to which the following new structures are to be added to the site now occupied by the Park Lido Medical Building and parking lot: 1 . A new office building of approximate) sic b5 ,000 . ft. which apparently will be approximately 84 76 of the size of the existing Park Lido firedical Building have about 77 , 000 sq. ft. 2. A three or four level parking structure over 30 ft . high to be located at the corner of Flagship and Patrice to provide parking for ' both the existing and new building. This structure will be approximately the size of a football field. In my opinion the granting of permit No. 2021 would destroy the quality of the residential neighborhood of the Newport IYlediterrenean Apts. and the Park Lido Condominiums totaling 239 residences which have been located there for approximately 14 and 18 years respectively . To permit an 84% expansiun of office space and a huge parking structure over destroy the aesthetic quality of the residential thirty feet high; would de y q Y neighborhood , create noise , fumes , all day long traffic congestion and increased air pollution. Please note that a medical office building involves a continuing huurly or half hourly turnover of cars in the parking structure . In the past few years this residential area has been subject to increased traffic_ frorn the following: 1 . expansion of Hoag Hospital,, 2. construction of Villa Balboa ,u 3 . construction of a large new medical ouiiding at Superior and Hospital rid. Thy proposed new parking structure at Hughes Corporation on Dana Rd. will add further traffic to an overburdened area. My objections to Permit No . 2021 can be further detailed as follows: 1 . The 140 Newport Gediterranean Apts . constitute arr Established Neighborhood in ex Neig Y istence for about 14 ears. All of these are deluxe two and three vedroom units with many , amenities. There are thirty-five Page Two d g U Iwu Newport filed. fourpl*s each hijvi ig four duluxonits . Ten of these Y3 foi.rplexes are locatud on Patrice Rd. which share - a common border with the proposed 30 ft . high parking building , a height greater than the two story fourplexes . The remaining apartment units are on Hilaria way and Dana Rd. Of the total 140 apartments , one quarter ( or 35 ) are spacious , two level , three bedroom, two bath Li)wf ln,ii •:: •, ; , ,i L.ios , fireplaces , separate dining rooms and laundry rooms. Another quarter ( or 35) are upstairs , single level , two bedroom two bath apartments. The remaining half or seventy apartments aria spacious townhomos , two levels with two large bedrooms , 12 baths , laundry hookups , walled lower patios and upstairs balcolnies. 2 .The 9 Park Lido Condominiums Constitute an Established Neighborhood in existence for about 18 years . They are spacious units with many .amenities and double garages , and were built before the Park Lido medical Bldg was constructed . Some of the Park Lioo condominium owners anticipated that a park and teenis courts would be built on the site of the Park Lido 6ledical Building. 3. Quality of Life Adversely Affected for the 236 kesidontial Units . The foregoing 239 households are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their homes. To add the proposed medical building and parking structure would destroy the quality of their homes and environment . The exisitng Park Lido parking lot which is not used in the evenings and weekends constitutes an area of open space and improves the air quality of the nrea .Some condominiums and apartments on Flagship and Patrice have mini ocean views from their second stories which will certainly be lost. 4. Devaluation of Property Values It is self evident that there would be a decline in property values for the owners of the condominiums and apartments if an unsightly parking structure over 30 ft . high is built . It would destroy the aesthetic character- of the neighborhood. The noise , fumes and continual traffic would make the neighborhood Far less desirable resultinq in a decline in prupurty values. For all the foregoing reasons I am requesting that, the pormit be denied or• that an Environmental Impact Report be submitted. Suzanne I1lig Hic Brien Planning Commi•on ^ Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California. 92663 April 12, 1982 Re: Park Lido Medical Building Project Dear Planning Commission Members : On Feburary 7, 1982 my wife and I sent the attached letter to all members of the City Council stating our reasons for our objections to the addition of any more buildings to the Park Lido Medical Building site. We realize that the City Council rejected the prior application for "over height" construction. We now understand that the owner is having a traffic study prepared by a consulting firm. Should certain• conditions prevail in that study it is our understanding that construction may proceed within the height limits. We have not received a single communication as the result of our letter of Feburary 7,1982. We are therefore attach- ing copies of that letter to again voice our concerns and objections to any additions that will increase the traffic volume on Flagship Road in the amounts stated in that letter. Any' traffic study which does not deal directly with the concerns expressed in our letter to the Council must be rejected as inadequate: the invironmental impact upon our community is too great to ignore. S'ncerely,yo �L ((r�c.� •td Cecil G. an& Lois O. Zaun 409 Flagship Road Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 VC I I Lf L • • ��Z•�{-��rrc•N1�o. C + > Newport Beach City Council 'Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Feburary 7,1982 Res Park Lido Medical Office Project Honorable Mayor Heather and Councilpersonss In January 1982, my wife and I sent a letter to each member of your Coucil and to each member of the Planning Commission. We expressed our deep concern over the proposed expansion on the site of the Park Lido Medical Building. I explained in that letter that both my wife and I had been involved for over 30 years in Traffic Safety with the Los Angeles City Schools. We stated that we were opposed to any additional buildings` on the site that would increase traffic and on-street parking in the Park Lido and Mediterranean Village projects. In my presentation to the Planning Commission, I indicated that the Studies which had been made on behalf of the Project were made at Intersections which should be of concern to the City, but which were of little concern to the residents who must use Flagship Road or Dana Street as the only means of ingress. and egress to and from our community. The intersections of Flagship Road at-Placentia; Placentia at Hos- pital Roadt and Dana at Superior are vital to us . There was no mention of any of these intersections in the Initial Study prepared by Westec Services, Inc. or in the subsequent "Response to• qusationa . Section 2.1.2, paragraph 2, on page 9 of the Initial Study admits the "Land use impacts may or may not result from the location of the parking structure. ". We contend that it does not take a professional to ascertain that great harm will be done to tho64rround- pIrg community. The section goes on to state, "while proximity to the residences is not the most desirable, a generous set back along the affected streets has been provided as well as a fairly lush land- scape scene and berms. " Curbside parking is inevitable and will mean a great deal of pedes- trian traffic on Patrice and Flagship Road, next to the parking structure. Sidewalks should have been recommended or required as a part of the conditions under which the Planning Commission gave its approval of the project. No mention has been made of any plans which the City may have to ease the existing and future traffic problems at Flagship Road and Placentia or at Hospital Road and Placentia. y� ` - 2 - - . No suggestions have been put forward as to how the two intersections in such close proximity can be signalized to provide an orderly pro- cession of vehicles on the three streets. The Initial Study points out that the proposed parking structure will not contain the required number of parking stalls. (p14, 2,3,2) This means that the curbside parking referred to herein will definitely occur. In fact, multi-level parking structures are avoided whenever possible; it is therefore , most likely that women will choose to park at our curbs and walk to the buildings whenever they can find space at a curb, Items "a" through "c" of Section 2.3.20 "Environmental Impacts", deal with three major alternatives of providing temporary parking during construction. Two. of the proposals deal with the use of valet parking using lots #1 and ,#2 on Superior and Coast Highway respectively. ` These suggestions cannot be taken seriously by anyone. It just is not going to happen until our community streets are overloaded. The use of curbside parking described in item "c", page 15, gives the most realistic picture of what will occur during construction and after completion of the project . The Study ignores the problems associated with the parking of con- struction workers ' vehicles. These people will grab the closest ourbside Spaces because they will arrive earliest. This will force patients out into our entire community. We will suffer the pangs of overparking even in prohibited areas. Any attempt to enforce parking laws will end up by giving tickets to home owners who cannot find a space for their second oar in the village 1. area, "Project Driveway Use" on page A-25 states that 55% of the daily project traffic will be oriented to Newport Blvd, and the heaviest driveway use is expected to be the Hospital Road access. No mention is made of other access locations. However, 45% is ex- pected to use other access locations; that is obvious. This can only mean that Flagship Road and Dana Street will carry this 45% to their juncture with Placentia and Superior respectively. We find no studies covering these intersections, and yet this structure will add at least 881 more trips that will be added to existing traffic. (25% of 1958) . The proposed 651269 square foot building will generate 1958 trips daily according to the Study (see page All) . The existing 77,000 square foot building which Is 1.18 times the size of the proposed structure evidently generates 2310 trips daily, for a total of 4268 trips when all construction is finished. If the foregoing figures are reasonably accurate then the present 1040 cars which now use Flagship Road .(45%) will be increased by 881 for a total of 1921 trips daily on Flagship Road, Thus, an • - 3 - • 47 average of 240 cars per hour will be using Flagship Road plus the traffic„generated within our communities by residents. There will be many "U-turns" and mid-block turnabouts by those who choose to park at our curbs. Accidents are inevitable. The "Project Traffic Distribution" shows that 25% (1069) of the 4268 daily trips will go northeast on Superior. Most of these drivers will use Flagship Road to Dana and turn right onto Superior. This they will do to avoid the traffic jams at Placentia and Flag- ship Road- and the signal at Placentia and Superior. The project study indicates as stated previously that 55% will use Hospital Road accesses to reach Newport Boulevard. We seriously doubt this, because 55% of 4268 daily trips to both medical build- ings means that there will be 2347 potential left turns from mid- block accesses onto Hospital Road in an eight-hour period or 293 such turns per hour. It is reasonable to assume that those drivers who will hesitate to turn left onto Hospital Road against traffic accelerating uphill or coasting downhill will choose to use Flagship Road. This can easily negate the assumption that 55% will use the Hospital Road accesses. It will also increase the volume on Flagship Road. We ask that you deny this permit and change the zoning to resident- ial. I close with one very important question, "Where is there a law that says that one property owner can profit at the expense of all within the community?" We are sending this letter because we will be in San Francisco on a business trip at the time of your hearing on this project, Sincerely yours„ Cecil G. an Lois 0. zaun 409 Flagship Road (714) 646-8537 or (213) 682-2634 .I aa....�� `I T APPROVAL IN CONCEPT PERMIT 15.3S.070-15.37.020 15.35.070 Penalties. (a) Anyone in violation of the provisions of this " Chapter shall'be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall punishable as provided by the provisions of Section 1.04.010 of the N ort Beach Municipal Code. No sale or exchange of residential property shall be invalidated seAs: solely ause of the failure of any person to comply with any provisions of this Chap unless such failure is an act or omission which would be a valid ground for r ission of such sale or exchange in the absence of this Chapter. (Ord. 1462 § 1 art), 1572). _ Chapter 15.37 APPRO L IN CONCEPT PERMIT 4.' Sections: 15.37.010 Intent, 15.37,020 Approval in Conc Permit, 15.37.010 Intent. In order to comp with the provisions of Division 18 of the California Public Resources Code, itled "California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission," and the South ast Regional Commission's operating regulations, it is necessary for the ' y of Newport Beach to approve in concept all projects in the Coastal Zon emit area prior to any • C .• action by the South Coast Regional Commission. d. 1680 § 1 (part), 1976: Ord. 1621 § 1 (part), 1975). 15.37.020 Approval in Concept Permit. A fee of Twen -Five Dollars ($25.00) is hereby established for the issuance of an Approva ' Concept Permit. However, a fee of Ten D611ars ($10.00) will be charged r minor applications, such as signs, swimming pools and jacuzzis, patios, ecks, fences and any similar applications for projects which would not increas lie floor area or intensity of use. Said fee may be modified in the future reflect changes in the economy or cost of living indices by Resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 1680 § 1 (part), 1976: Ord. 1621 § I (part), 1975). Chapter 15.40 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Sections: 15.40.010 Finding. 15.40.020 Purpose. 15.40.030 Traffic impact Limitation. 15.40,040 Definitions. '15.40.050 Procedure. 15.40.060 Fees. 344-15 (Newport Beach 4.15.79) 43 15.40.010-15.40.030 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION 15.40.070 Appeal. 15.40.080 Severability. 15.40.010 Finding. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that congestion of streets and intersections, traffic accidents, interference with emergency vehicles, and general overcrowding of existing neighborhoods have resulted, or will soon result, from inadequate phasing of commercial, industrial and residential growth, in relation to traffic capacity, which is harmful to the public health,safety and general welfare. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). 15.40.020 Purpose. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach declares that aggravation of these conditions can be avoided, eliminated or alleviated by enacting the following, designed to permit major development only in those areas of the City of Newport Beach where adequate transportation facilities exist, are being implemented, or will be installed in conjunction with the development which will accommodate the traffic generated by such development, or where other trip generation reductions are adopted which will alleviate traffic impacts. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). 15.40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation. (A) Limitation. No building or grading permit shall be issued, and no construction shall be commenced, for any project not exempt from this Chapter until the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach shall make a written finding that the proposed project: (i) will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary-modified" or"primary" street;or • (ii) shall be excepted pursuant to subsection (D) of this section; provided, however, that such finding shall state the exception granted and the facts which justify the exception. . - (B) Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing, noticed in the manner provided in Section 20.80.050(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and shall make its written findings supported by the weight of the evidence. (C) Exemption. Any commercial or industrial project which has a gross floor area equal to or less than 10,000 square feet,or any residential project of 10 dwelling units or less shall be exempt from the requirements of this Chapter. (D) Exceptions. The Planning Commission shall except any project from the requirements of this Chapter: (i) if it shall find that the City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to the effective date of this Chapter and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such permit diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change (Newport Beach 4a5.79) 344-16 Y TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 15.40,040 Ccausing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter;(ii) if it shall find that traffic during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each le of each critical inter• g section will be increased b less than 1 a% b Y Y traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period; (iii)if, by a vote of four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members eligible to vote, it shall make a decision, supported by a written finding setting forth its reasons therefor, that the benefits of the project, including trip generation reductions, outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. The City Council shall not grant the exception under this subsection (fii) on appeal or review until it shall have first made the findings required by this subsection supported by an affirmative vote of four-fifths (4/Sths)of its members eligible to vote. (E) Action. The application for any building„grading or other permit on a project, which is not exempt from this Chapter, shall be approved, conditionally approved or denied within one year from the date on which said application has been received and accep ted as complete b the City. An appeal al to the P Y . Y PP City Council from an tY action b the Plan 'nui. Y ,g Commission . _ on an application or ad determination ation by City Council to re view an application, shall e ma de ade- PP within the time periods set out in• p t Sections 20 0.8 .070 and 20.8 0 0. 75 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In the event action is no t tak en on an application Within the time limits he reof, such failure shall be deemed approval of the a project which otherwise is consistent with the ordinances and General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1777 § 1, 1978. Ord. 1765 § I • (part),4978). 15.40.040 Definitions. The following terms used in this Chapter shall have the meanings indicated below: UNSATISFACTORY LEVEL OF TR-AFFIC SERVICE means peak period traffic service.which is worse than Level of Service 'D' for one hour determined according to standard traffic engineering practices. PROJECT shall be determined by reference to the California Environmental Quality Act [California Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the administrative uidelines establislie g d thereunder. LEVEL OF SERVICE `D' shall me an an that level of traffic • r service set « forth as Level of Service D, „ m the Highway Capacity Manual (1965) or any subsequent edition thereof, provided,however, that such level of service shall not exceed the most appropriate of tite following criteria,as applicable: (i) intersection capacity utilization of"0.90; (if) other criteria selected by the City Traffic Engineer which are consistent with subsection (i), and Which have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, CRITICAL INTERSECTION shall mean any intersection operating at an unsatisfactory level of traffic service, either prior to or as a result of a project, on any major," "primary-modified,„ or primary street. Y r .• r 1^4,`r 344-17 (Newport Beach 4.15,79) .'yt�J1H�ti 15.40.050-15.40.080 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION "MAJOR," "PRIMARY-MODIFIED" or "PRIMARY" street shall be defined by the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach, Circulation Element. ELIGIBLE TO VOTE shall mean all members lawfully holding office except those disqualified from voting due to a conflict of interest. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1777 § 2, 1978: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). 15.40.050 Procedure. Subject to review by the Planning Commission, the City Traffic Engineer, exercising professional discretion,shall: (A) Determine traffic periods, streets and intersections which will be significantly affected by the proposed project, taking into account the type, character and location of the proposed project, as well as the character of the streets which will serve the project; (B) Determine if the project,when complete,will cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic services at any such street or intersection; (C)1. Establish standard trip generation figures of project; 2. Establish criteria for calculating trip generation reductions which may result from specific measures proposed by the applicant. The Planning Commission shall specifically find that any such measures can be adequately quantified and guaranteed to assure the long-term validity of such reductions prior to their inclusion in the traffic analysis; 3. Establish the bases for performing the traffic analysis at project completion; c., (D) Transmit these determinations to the Planning Commission with recommendations. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). 15.40.060 Fees. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council to defray the expense of ,;.:ixr �.'n•;4" utrr=_e�'- ca,-+T administering this Chapter. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § I (part), 1978). 15.40.070 Appeal. (A) Any determination of the Planning Commission shall be final unless there shall be an appeal by the applicant or any other person pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such appeal shall be limited to evidence a presented before, and the findings of, the Planning Commission. (B) The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as limited above. (C) The City Council shall make its written finding in the same manner as set forth in Section 15.40.030 of this Chapter. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). 15.40.080 Severability. If any section or portion of this Chapter is declared invalid, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). (Newport Beach 4-15.79) 344-18 e4 MyJ Jt�y,4yp•y \^0�.,.j•1.� .:n4..�.SG4j: r 1•d•.-� uL 5,2 S-1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE. Z. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES A. General: These procedures apply to all commercial or industrial projects which have a gross floor area greater than 10,000 sq. ft. , and all residen- tial projects of more than ten dwelling units. B. Evaluating Projects: 1. The applicant files a request for consideration of the entire pro- ject, under the provisions of the Ordinance, with the Planning Department. The request must be accompanied by a project descrip- tion, project phasing schedule, site plan, and fees as set by the City Council. 2. A traffic analysis shall then be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer according to the methodology approved' by the City Council. C. Staff Recommendation: 1. The City's Traffic Engineer will review the report prepared by the consultant and transmit the findings and worksheet to the Planning C Department for presentation to the Planning Commission. D. Planning Commission Review and Findings: The Planning Commission shall review the determination and recommenda- tions of the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department, at a duly- noticed public hearing, and make one of the following findings: 1. The City has issued a building, or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom such permit was issued has, in good faith and in reliance upon such permit, diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change, causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes, has been made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; or 2. The traffic projected one year after project completion, during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical inter- section, will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period; or 3. A traffic analysis has. been performed and accepted. The traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis was performed. The traffic analysis has shown that, at that time, the additional traffic generated by the project, or portion of the project, including any approved trip generation reduction measures: •ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES*R IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHOG ORDINANCE - Page 2 S-1 a. will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified", or "primary" street; or b. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more "major", "primary-modified", or "primary" streets; or c. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic ser- vice on one or more "major", "primary-modified", or "primary" streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated nega- tive impact on transportation facilities, for the following reasons: (specify) E. •Approval of Applications: A simple majority vote by the Planning Commission, subject to City Council review or appeal, is required for finding D.1, D.2, D.3.a. , or D.3.b. A four-fifths majority vote by the Planning Commission (or by the City Council on appeal or review) is required for finding D.3.c. F. Appeals: 1. The determination of the-Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80..070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. II. OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES Designation of Impacted Intersections and Determination A. Desig of Project p , Impact for 2.5 Hour Peak Period:- 1. The Traffic Engineer will determine which intersections will be affected by the proposed project according to its size and geographic location. 2. An analysis will be done whereby it will be determined if one year after completion of the project, or portions of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed, the project (including those portions for which traffic analyses have been previously approved) will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volumes for each leg of each impacted intersection during that 2.5 hour peak period. If less than a one percent increase is demonstrated for each leg, then the analysis is concluded, and finding I.D.2. may be made. B. If the initial Traffic Study indicated the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being performed, one year after completion may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volumes on one or more legs of any impacted intersection, then the Traffic Engineer or a qualified consultant will analyze the intersection capacity utilization for the impacted intersection(s) : t f TOY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUROOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC KING ORDINANCE - Page 3 S-1 'h The report will indicate the following: C, 1. Existing traffic. 2. Projected increases in regional traffic. 3. Projected traffic from committed projects that will be completed before one year after the completion date of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed. 4. Traffic generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, without trip generation reduction measures. 5. Traf,fic 'generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. C. Where a full traffic analysis is performed under Section IIB, the following I.C.U. calculations shall be performed for each impacted intersection: 1. The existing I.C.U. 2. The I.C.U., with traffic system improvements that will be installed before one year after project completion. This Z.C.U. calculation shall be based on all projected traffic sources except the proposed project. C 3. The I.C.U. , with traffic system improvements that will be installed before one year after project completion, based on all sources of traffic, including traffic generated by the proposed project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. III. DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS RESTRAINTS A. Traffic System Improvements Traffic system improvements may be included in the traffic analysis for a proposed project, provided that: 1. The improvement will be completed no more than one year after com- pletion of the project or project phase for which the traffic analysis is being performed; and 2. The improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined sufficiently therein to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed; or 3. The improvement design has been approved by the City Council, and is defined sufficiently to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed. B. Projected Capacity Increases from Traffic System Improvements J Jr• ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUREOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PE&G ORDINANCE - Page 4 S-1 •J For purposes of the traffic analysis, 70% of the incremental increase in intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour of green time for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon C. completion of the improvement, traffic volume counts shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future traffic analyses. C. Traffic Volumes 1. Traffic volumes shall be based on up-to-date estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after completion of the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being performed. Such estimates shall include existing traffic as deter- mined by annual field counts plus traffic generated by previously approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist in the same time period plus estimated increases in regional traffic. If the intersection configuration 'being analyzed is the ultimate configuration consistent with the Circulation Element or otherwise approved by the City Council, then the traffic volumes used in the analysis shall include total traffic expected to be generated from all previously approved projects even if they will not be completed at the time the subject project is completed. 2. The incremental regional traffic for the time period between the i date of existing counts and one year after project completion will be estimated based on the rate projected by the traffic model or on a growth projection developed by the Traffic Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission. 3. For making the 1% test of II.A.2. , traffic volumes shall not be used which exceed the capacity of the circulation system specified in the General Plan. D. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the project shall be based on standard trip generation values established by the City Traffic Engineer with the approval of the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review. These trip generation figures may be modified only when the applicant proposes specific, permanent measures that will reduce traffic generated by the project, provided that: 1. The applicant describes in writing, in advance of the traffic analysis, the proposed measure, the estimated reduction in trip generation that will result, and the basis for the estimate. The estimate must be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review before the trip generation figures may be reduced. 2. The applicant provides the Planning Commission with a written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure will be permanently implemented, and agrees to make said permanent implementation a condition for project approval. S ti ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUR*-OR IMPLEMENTING THE 'TRAFFIC WNG ORDINANCE - Page 5 S-1 ' ^ E. Traffic Distribution CTraffic distribution shall be based on tha traffic network expected to exist one year after project completion including those portions of the network associated with previously approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist at that time. F. Improvements or Modifications to the Circulation System If the applicant wishes to propose quantifiable improvements or changes to the circulation system, which may not appear to be strictly consis- tent with the Circulation Element, or special assumptions as a basis for the traffic analysis, he shall provide a description of such pro- posals in writing to the Planning Commission, along with supporting data justifying their use, in advance of the ,traffic analysis. Such proposals may then be, used in the traffic analysis if they are approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. IV. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS Permits may be issued for all or a portion of a project after an appropriate finding under I.D. has been made. A. Grading Permits Grading permits may be issued prior to performance of the traffic analy- sis if vesting rights associated with grading are waived by applicant. B. Building Permits Where traffic system improvements have been included in the traffic analysis, building permits may be issued only after traffic system improvement timing has been confirmed as follows: 1. It has been budgeted and committed for development by the City,;, or 2. The State or County or other governmental agency making the improve- ment has accepted bids; or 3. The improvement is to be installed or guaranteed by the applicant in conjunction with the development project and is approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions. Adopted - February 26, 1979 Amended - November 23, 1981 Suzonne 1. IN'lc Brien 1812 Anliqua Circle Newporl Beach, Co. 92660 February 24 , 1982 Mr . James Hewicker, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd . Newport Beach , CA 92663 Re: Park Lido Medical Building Expansion Dear Mr. Newidker , I am a property owner of apartments in the area adjacent to the Park Lido Medical Building. I am aware that the applicant has withdrawn the original request for a Use Permit but has alternative plans for the expansion of the Park Lido Medical Building. Accordingly , I wish to be notified of meetings and conferences with respect to alternative proposals by the applicants and their lawyer , Dennis O ' Neill. At this time I wish to reiterate my request that your Planning Department review the entire West Newport area , particularly with respect to . 1 . traffic studies , and 2. density. I am especially interested in inquiring into the funding for proposed street improvements and land acquisitions therefor. Thank you for your attention to this request . Very truly yours , Suzanne I me Brien cc Planning Commission -•'rant 2619 62� b CiTy 1 NEWJF01{r Or ! 1 CALI F'.CAR MCDONOUGH, HOLL6ND & ALLEN MARTIN MCDONOUGH ALICE^.WOODYARD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ALFRED E.HOLtAND MICHAEL T.FOGARTY ATTORNEYS SACRAMEN40 OFFICE BRUCE F.ALLEN ANN G'CONNELL V.BARLOW GOFF HARRY E.HULL,JR. 3200 PARK CENTER DRIVE,SUITE 710 555 CAPITOL MALL,SUITE 050 JOSEPH E.COOMES,JR JEFFRY R.JONES SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 9581H WILLIAM G.HOLLIMAN,JR. ROBERT W.O'CONNOR COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626 (916) w-3000 DAVID J.SPOTTISWOOD BETSY S KIMBALL ELMER R.MALAKOFF WILLIAM F.EIPRICK (714) 650-1160 IN REPLY REFER TO: RICHARD W.NICHOLS WILSON B.HART DONALD C.POOLE SUSAN S.FRANCESCHI RICHARD W.OSEN SABINA O.GILBERT May 17 , 1982 77325-001 RICHARD E.BRANDT DAWN H.COLE GARY E LOVERIDGE JOHN M.TAYLOR DENNIS0. D.VNCILRD DENET NIS W.OC KVARME \ l DENNI D.OST DENNIS W.OI LUIR DAVID W.POST JOHN E.DI GIUSTO SUSAN K.EDLING JOHN L CARRIER BRUCEM900N000N CRAIG K.POWELL D.WILLIAM WILLIAM DWEN MARKJ.HU EBSCH DAV ID F.B DENYING SHARJOHN J. D.ROSEME JAMS F.DEATTY JOHN J.FLYNN IIf JAMES B.O NEALXt Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Q pG.c�Ga�y2 City Hall , ,�rePl1 City of Newport Beach � 4Zpt 3300 Newport Blvd. �^-�e.QA. t`� Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 P C0.AA AC�• PZ/F Re : Park Lido Medical Building - Traffic Study / Dear Mayor Heather and Members of the City Council : G� I represent Park Lido, Ltd. , applicants for approval of a traffic study relating to a proposed 65, 269 square foot medical office building to be located at the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue across from Hoag Hospital . A similar project requiring a use permit to exceed the basic height limit with an above-grade parking structure was previously before the City Council for review on February 22, 1982. At that time , the project was viewed by some as undesirable due to its design and perceived adverse traffic impacts on the surrounding streets. The use permit and traffic study relating to the project were with- drawn prior to submission to the Council for decision. This was done in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to examine a possible modification of the project design which would be more compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant has in fact succeeded in accomplishing such a redesign which is believed to overcome most of the concerns of those working and residing in the area. The new project contains approximately the same square footage as the old; however , it now will be limited in height to two stories with subterranean parking , thus eliminating the need for a use permit or other City discretionary approvals. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 17 , 1982 Page Two On April 22, 1982, the Planning Commission after review- ing the evidence and testimony presented at a public hearing, found that the traffic study had been prepared in accordance with chapter 15. 40 of the Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1 and further that the proposed project would neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major , " "primary-modified, " or "primary" street. Having made those findings, the Planning Commission approved the subject traffic study. The City Council has now once again called up for review the Park Lido Medical Building traffic study much to the bewilderment of the applicant in light of the Planning Commission's decision. I have researched the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance ("TPO" ) and the Administrative Procedures for implementing that ordinance. While it is clear from a read- ing of the ordinance and procedures that the Council has the right to review the action of the Planning Commission, it is equally clear that such review is "limited to evidence pre- sented before, and the findings of; the Planning Commission. " The point therefore is, if the Planning Commission found from the evidence that the subject traffic study satisfies the criteria of the TPO and Policy S-1, there seems to be no discretion but for the City Council to make similar findings and also approve the traffic study. This, of course, is the legal position of the applicant. It needs to be pointed out that the applicant has made every good faith effort to address and satisfy the concerns expressed by the medical community and the residents working and living near the project site. Besides a redesign of the building at considerable additional expense to the applicant which will result in limiting the height to two stories and providing underground parking , the applicant has made and continues to make the following commitments: 1. Full cooperation and financial assistance in the installation of any traffic safety or directional signing required by the City, including a traffic signal at Hospital Road and Placentia. The applicant will also pay the costs to install any new stop signs at the intersection of Placentia and Flagship deemed appropri- ate by the City. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 17 , 1982 Page Three 2. Installation of on-site directional and informational signs to discourage traffic exiting the medical building from using the surrounding residential surface streets. 3. No access to the project from Patrice. 4. Free parking for employees of the medical building to encourage on-site parking and discourage parking on the surrounding residential streets. 5 . Full 24-hour guarded security system to be maintained on the project site and within the under- ground parking structure, including controlled ingress and egress. 6. Compliance with applicable construction_ schedules, noise abatement measures, and other require- ments as set forth as conditions to the prior use per- mit relating to the former project. On behalf of the applicant, I am respectfully request- ing that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the traffic study with the same findings. To do otherwise , in my opinion, would be legally unjust in light of the express language contained in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and implementing policy and further would be morally unfair in view of the many conces- sions made by the applicant to alleviate the concerns of the surrounding community. Very truly yours, &44f Dennis D. O'Neil DDO:wd cc: City Attorney City Manager Planning Director Suzanne 1. ;Mcdrien 1812 Anliqua Circle Newparl Beach, Ca. 92660 February 24, 1982 Mr. James Hewicker , Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd . Newport Beach , CA 92663 Re: Park Lido Medical Building Expansion Dear Mr. Newidker, I am a property owner of apartments in the area. adjacent to the Park Lido Medical Building. I am aware that the applicant has withdrawn the original request for a Use Permit but has alternative plans for the expansion of the Park Lido Medical Building. Accordingly , I wish to be notified of meetings and conferences with respect to alternative proposals by the applicants and their lawyer , Dennis O ' Neill. At this time I wish to reiterate my request that your Planning Department review the entire West Newport area, particularly with respect to ; 1 . traffic studies, and 2. density . I am especially interested in inquiring into the funding for proposed street improvements and land acquisitions therefor. Thank you for your attention to this request . Very truly yours, Suzanne I me Brien cc Planning Commission 9 P_ Co V FEB26198,2 , CAUr�ACFYJ. ?tee-n �S`" 7ay'7r � �St�dy April 14, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Re: Park Lido Medical Building Espansion Use Permit 2021 Dear Commissioners: I am concerned not only as a homeowner but as a citizen that if this development and others are approved in Newport Beach, the streets will be filled with far more vehicles than they were designed to carry. This area is already congested and in my opinion and that of many others the City Council and Planning Commission have not projected the concern of the future of Newport Beach. Sincerely, t462 M. Reynolds rion Way prt Beach, Calif. 92663 9 ca ,CH, Z'f-ern - 7T0;14754 M. MICHAEL CASSEL, M.D., Ph.D. 351 Hospital Road, Suite 507 Newport Beach, California 92663 Telephone:(714)645.7083 , April 16 1982 P Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Gentlemen : The impact of the planned additional development of the Park Lido property on traffic movement and access to Hoag Hospital will surely be calamitous. Allow reason to prevail and deny the project. Yours truly FMhe- Gassel, M.D. , Ph .D. MMG/ig cc. Dr: J. Skinner ` cA <c2j 9 $kR . 9 ppR39 : %1&'77 - 774 752�?_ Sfv04;-1 A/?k L.ro% , JOHN F. SKINNER, M. D. 3SI HOSPITAL ROAD, SUITE 504 DIPLOMATE NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 AMERICAN OOARO OF N'ERN�AL MEDICINE TELEPHONE 642-2121 y 'v " April 20 , 1982 Newport City Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. �'q�Trli Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners : Quick access to Hoag Hospital is important to all of us . Unfortunately not all vehicles bringing emergency patients to Hoag Hospital have the benefit of a siren to assist them. There is already traffic congestion during peak hours at two intersections adjacent to the hospital (Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . ; Hospital Rd. and Newport Blvd.) . Increasing congestion can be anticipated near the hospital entrance because of more automobile traffic from Costa Me'sa using Placentia Ave . as a thoroughfare . Future construction of the second Hoag tower, the Heritage Bank building, the Hughes project, the Mollard Medi- cal Building and probably the Park Lido project have been allowed to proceed without measuring their impact on the intersection of Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . The Beeco project might generate more area traffic than planned if much of the 235 ,000 square feet designated as commercial I n Area Two is utilized for medical offices . Although the proposed traffic signal at Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . might temporarily mitigate traffic problems , ultimately in the next five to ten years traffic will increasingly stifle access to Hoag Hospital . I believe that in the future it is important to require nearby projects to include traffic impact studies on the intersection at Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . Perhaps more stringent traffic requirements than those outlined in the Traffic Phasing ordinanr.e= may be needed for intersections adjacent to the Hospital. . Hoag Hospital will invariably increase in size and the surrounding surface streets will be increasingly congested. Unless an Area Plan addressing contingency plans for hospital access is considered now, there will be few options available for alleviating the problem in the future . Sincerely, �tfc'�L f,L�,vrre� oin F . Skinner , M.D. 7'r4A/c -574C&4'1 BARBARA JESSEN, M. D. NEUROLOGIST April 20th, 1982 Newport Beach Planning Commission, Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express to you my continuing and increased concern of the impact on the traffic, particularly along Hospital road, but also along Placentia, which will be caused by the number of proposed new construction projects in our immediate area, including the Beeco projectf Hoag second tower, Hughes Aircraft, Mallard Medical, the Heritage Bank Building and the Park Lido Medical Building. Despite the opinions of the Traffic Review Group, we have significant traffic problems at present and the increased traffic I am afraid will lead us to have many traffic jams and an increased number of accidents. I would encourage you to look at the total area, as I know you are, so that we may have an optimal development plan. Sincerely your ALCI&P ✓v Barbara Tessen MD e i AQ�2 . 2 tiff 1 BARBARA JE55EN.M.D..INC.•351 HOSPITAL ROAD-SUITE 316.14EMRT BPACH.CA 92663.17141642-1437 0 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA °R!"ITED": .i... jewpont ' UV[ Ua Cwest RESIDENTIAL CARE 393 HOSPITAL ROAD ' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 • PHONE (714) 631.3555 May 24, 1982 Mayor Jacqueline Heather And Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Mayor Heather and City Council Members : RE: Permit #2021 Park Lido Ltd. Underground Parking"Facility In reference to construction of the Park Lido Ltd. Underground Parking Facility, I am..-bringing to your attention the follow- ing items: 1. Newport Villa West is adjacent to the Park Lido Ltd. Underground Facility and we have 100 permanent Geriatric Residents between the ages of 75 and 102 years . Many of these residents are prone to upper respiratory problems which could be greatly aggravated by the required excavation proceedures needed to construct the Parking Facility. We urge you to make certain, prior to construction start, that adequate steps are implemented to assure us that the dust and noise will be kept at a minimum. 2. Because of increased activity at this building•' site, we need assurance that the City of Newport Beach will provide adequate traffic control and safety measures so that at no time, during this construction, will. any of our residents be in undue jeopardy because of this increase of traffic, noise and dust. Thank you for your consideration in this most pressing and urgent problem confronting us because of the construction of this Parking Facility. Donna Swanson Administrator American-Cal Medical Services #1 Inc. April 14, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Re: Park Lido Medical Building Espansion Use Permit 2021 Dear Commissioners: I am concerned not only as a homeowner but as a citizen that if this development and others are approved in Newport Beach, the streets will be filled with far more vehicles than they were designed to carry. This area is already congested and in my opinion and that of many others the City Council and Planning Commission have not projected the concern of the future of Newport Beach. Sincerely, oan M. Reynolds 462 Orion Way Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 � rj Z'ferrl 5- 7-/-47;41 G S U- y M. MICHAEL GASSEL, M.D., Ph,D. 351 Hospital Road,Suite 507 Newport Beach,California 92663 Telephone:(714)645.7083 April 16, 1982 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Gentlemen : The impact of the planned additional development of the Park Lido property on traffic movement and, access to Hoag Hospital will surely be calamitous. Allow reason to prevail and deny the project. Yours truly �h ge, Gassel, M.D. , Ph .D. MMG/ig cc. Dr. J. Skinner 9 5 ppR ;;,p116• . �u _T� � - Tizr�ic St�dy ._IOHN F. SKINNER, M. D. 351 HOSPITAL ROAD, SUITE 504 DIPLOMATE NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 AMERICAN BOAR`, TOO1 RJy'LEANAL MEDICINE TELEPHONE 642-2I21 •�--I-�'�t•,..f April 20 , 1982 L Newport City Planning Commissioners `)� 3300 Newport Blvd. t1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners : Quick access to Hoag Hospital is important to all of us . Unfortunately not all vehicles bringing emergency patients to Hoag IIospital have the benefit of a siren to assist them. There is already traffic congestion during peak hours at two intersections adjacent to the hospital (Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . ; IIospital Rd. and Newport Blvd . ) . Increasing congestion can be anticipated near the hospital entrance because of more automobile traffic from Costa Mesa using Placentia Ave . as a thoroughfare . Future construction of the second Hoag tower , the Heritage Bank building, the Hughes project, the Mollard Medi- cal Building and probably the Park Lido project have been allowed to proceed without measuring their impact on• the intersection of Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . The Beeco project might generate more area traffic than planned if much of the 235 , 000 square feet designated as commercial in Area Two is utilized for medical offices . Although the proposed traffic signal at Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . might temporarily mitigate traffic problems , ultimately in the next five to ten years traffic will increasingly stifle access to Hoag Hospital . I believe that in the future it is important to require nearby projects to include traffic impact studies on the intersection at Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . Perhaps more stringent traffic . requirements than those outlined in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance ° may be needed for intersections adjacent to the Hospital. . Hoag Hospital will invariably increase in size and the surrounding surface streets will be increasingly congested. Unless an Area Plan addressing contingency plans for hospital access is considered now, there will be few options available for alleviating the problem in the future . Sincerely, I oin F. Skinner , M.D. Le(o, L-/Cl., BARBARA JESSEN, M. D. NEUROLOGIST April 20th, 1982 Newport Beach Planning Commission, Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express to you my continuing and increased concern of the impact on the traffic, particularly along Hospital road, but also along Placentia, which will be caused by the number of proposed new construction projects in our immediate area, including the Beeco project, Hoag second tower, Hughes Aircraft, Mollard Medical, the Heritage Bank Building and .the Park Lido Medical Building. Despite the opinions of the Traffic Review Group, we have significant traffic problems at present and the iricreased traffic I am afraid will lead us to have many traffic jams and an increased number of accidents. I would encourage you to look at the total area, as I know you are, so that we may have an optimal development plan. Sincerely yours Barbara Jessen MD 1gaZW, 41' i •"4•�; 1 i I BARBARA JESSEN.M.D..INC.•351 HOSPITAL ROAD-SUITE 316•NMORT BEACH,CA 92663.17141 64 2-1437 MCDONOIIGH, HOLLAND & AT-TEN MARTIN M<DONDUDH ALICE A WOODYARD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ALFRED C.HOLIAND MICHAEL T.FOGARTY ATTOBNEY S SACRAMENTO OFFICE BRUCC E ALLEN ANN O'CONNELL V.BARLOW DOFF HARRY E.HULL,JR. 3200 PARK CENTER DRIVE,SUITE 710 555 CAPITOL MALL.SURE 950 JOSEPH E COOMES.JR JEFFRY R.JONES SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814 WILLIAM O HOLLIMAN,JR. ROBERT W.O'CONNOR COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626 (916)954.0900 DAVID J.SPOTTISWOOD BUSY S.KIMBALL ELMER R.MALAKOFF WILLIAM F ZIPRICK (714) BSO-1180 IN REPLY REFER TO: RICHARD W NICHOLS WILSON B.HART DONALD C.POOLE SUSAN S.FRANCESCHI RICHARD W,OSEN SABINA D.OILSERT May 17 , 1982 77325-001 RICHARD E.BRANDT DAWN H.COLE GARY F LOVERIDOE JOHN M.TAYLOR 9.RICHARD BROWN JANLT NEELEY-KVARME DENNIS O.O'NEIL OENNIS W.DE CUIR DAVID W POST JOHN E.0101USTO SUSAN K.EDLING JOHN L.CARRIER a�iill BRUCE M.DON000H CRAIG K.POWELL y- WILLIAML.OWEN MARK) HUEBSCH D.WILUAM DENTING SHARON O.ROSEME (L DAVID F.BEATTY JOHN J.FLYNN R RECEIVED 1 JAMES B.UNEAL 8 Planning Department Honorable Mayor and L MAY 171982"B' ORT Members of the City Council CI TT } City Hall NEWPPq, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. .Q Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Re : Park Lido Medical Building - Traffic Study Dear Mayor Heather and Members of the City Council : I represent Park Lido, Ltd. , applicants for approval of a traffic study relating to a proposed 65 ,269 square foot medical office building to be located at the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue across from Hoag Hospital. A similar project requiring a use permit to exceed the basic height limit with an above-grade parking structure was previously before the City Council for review on February 22, 1982. At that time, the project was viewed by some as undesirable due to its design and perceived adverse traffic impacts on the surrounding streets. The use permit and traffic study relating to the project were with- drawn prior to submission to the Council for decision. This was done in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to examine a possible modification of the project design which would be more compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant has in fact succeeded in accomplishing such a redesign which is believed to overcome most of the concerns of those working and residing in the area. The new project contains approximately the same square footage as the old; however , it now will be limited in height to two stories with subterranean parking , thus eliminating the need for a use permit or other City discretionary approvals. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 17 , 1982 Page Two On April 22, 1982, the Planning Commission after review- ing the evidence and testimony presented at a public hearing , found that the traffic study had been prepared in accordance with chapter 15. 40 of the Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1 and further that the proposed project would neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major ," "primary-modified, " or "primary" street. Having made those findings, the Planning Commission approved the subject traffic study. The City Council has now once again called up for review the Park Lido Medical Building traffic study much to the bewilderment of the applicant in light of the Planning Commission' s decision. I have researched the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance ("TPO") and the Administrative Procedures for implementing that ordinance. While it is clear from a read- ing of the ordinance and procedures that the Council has the right to review the action of the Planning Commission, it is equally clear that such review is "limited to evidence pre- sented before, and the findings of, the Planning Commission. " The point therefore is, if the Planning Commission found from the evidence that the subject traffic study satisfies the criteria of the TPO and Policy S-1, there seems to be no discretion but for the City Council to make similar findings and also approve the traffic study. This, of course, is the legal position of the applicant. It needs to be pointed out that the applicant has made every good faith effort to address and satisfy the concerns expressed by the medical community and the residents working and living near the project site. Besides a redesign of the building at considerable additional expense to the applicant i ht to two stories and 1 result in limiting g which will 9 the he din underground parking , the applicant has made and providing g p 9 continues to make the following commitments: 1. Full cooperation and financial assistance in the installation of any traffic safety or directional signing required by the City, including a traffic signal at Hospital Road and Placentia. The applicant will also pay the costs to install any new stop signs at the intersection of Placentia and Flagship deemed appropri- ate by the City. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 17 , 1982 Page Three 2. Installation of on-site directional and informational signs to discourage traffic exiting the medical building from using the surrounding residential surface streets. 3. No access to the project from Patrice. 4 . Free parking for employees of the medical building to encourage on-site parking and discourage parking on the surrounding residential streets. 5 . Full 24-hour guarded security system to be maintained on the project site and within the under- ground parking structure, including controlled ingress and egress. 6. Compliance with applicable construction schedules, noise abatement measures, and other require- ments as set forth as conditions to the prior use per- mit relating to the former project. On behalf of the applicant, I am respectfully request- ing that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the traffic study with the same findings. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would be legally unjust in light of the express language contained in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and implementing policy and further would be morally unfair in view of the many conces- sions made by the applicant to alleviate the concerns of the surrounding community. Very truly yours, dww.�& &44-.,r Dennis D. O'Neil DDO:wd cc: City Attorney City Manager ✓Manning Director • Planning Commission Meetincjjllk April 22, 1982 Agenda Item No. 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Public Hearing) ' Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed 65,269 sq.ft. medical office building. LOCATION: A portion of .Lot 169, Block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. ZONE: A-P APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd. , Robert L. Wish, General Partner, Santa Ana OWNERS: Same as applicants Application The McMahon Partnership has requested approval of a Traffic Study which will allow the construction of a 65,269 sq.ft. medical office building. The request being made is outlined below: Acceptance of a Traffic Study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") , and the approval of the project based on the data contained therein for the ultimate purposes of issuance of building and grading permits. Background The project is to be located at the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue across from Hoag Hospital. On January 22, 1982, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 2021 and a Traffic Study for the construction of a 65,000 sq.ft. ± medical office building that exceeded the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District, permitted roof parking, and waived a portion of the required off-street parking spaces: Said application also included a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of the project's required off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. Copies of the Planning Commission minutes, staff reports and other documentation related to Use Permit No. 2021 if desired are available from the Planning Department. (Please contact Fred Talarico at 640-2197) . The TO: Planning Oni.ssion - 2 • ' applications were called up for review by the City Council. At the February 22, 1982 City Council meeting, the applicants withdrew all of the above described applications. Traffic Study The applicants have requested the Planning Commission's approval of a Traffic Study for the purposes of issuance of building and gradisig pen-Li in conjunction with the construction of the, project. The Traffic Study for the proposed development has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing ordinance") .and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Procedures for Inplementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") . A copy is attached and is summarized below: Traffic Study Summary S.C.U. 1983 1983 Existing + Conritted Existing + Committed 1% Existing + Regional Growth + Reg. Growth + Proj. Placentia/Superior yes .6653 .6778 .6803 Superior/W. Coast yes 1.1332 '.88791 .89291 Newport/Hospital yes .7896 .83752 .86932 Dover/W. Coast yes .8969 .7604 .7650 Prospect/W. Coast no - - - Riverside/W. Coast no - - - Orange/W. Coast no - - - The traffic analysis indicated that four (4) of the above intersections will have traffic volume increases of greater than 1% as a result of the proposed project development. In accordance with the Traffic Phasing ordinance and City Policy S-1 an I.C.U. analysis was performed to determine if one year after the conpletion of the project the intersections would be operating at acceptable levels. This analysis indicates that all affected interestions, one year after project completion, will be operating at .9000 or less. 1. Assumes comutted project improvements. 2. Assumes City/State Inprovements. I ` TO: Planning Cession - 3 Staff Recomiendation Staff recommends approval of the project with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A". PLANNING DEPARiMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director BY FRED TALARICO Environmental Coordinator- IT:nma Attachments: Exhibit "A" 1. Traffic Study - Kunzman Associates - March 17, 1982. 2. Letter from Suzanne McBrien - Dated April 14, 1982. 3. Letter from Suzanne McBrien - Dated October 15, 1981. 4. Letter from Cecil G. & Louis O. Zaun - Dated April 12, 1982. 5. Letter from Cecil G. & Louis O. Zaun - Dated February 7, 1982. 6. Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.40 "Traffic Phasing ordinance". 7. City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for Inplenenting the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") d EXHIBIT '"A" FINDINGS and CONDITIONS of APPROVAL PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE TRAFFIC STUDY APRIL 22, 1982 TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS proposed project has been prepared in 1. That a Traffic Stud on the ro p 7 . p pare Y P Po accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the MunicipalCity Policy Code and Cit ,PolicY S'-1. 2. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primvy-modified", Or Itprimary" street. CONDITIONS 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to the Circulation System Improvements for the intersection of Superior Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway described in the Traffic Study, Page 11, Table 5. 2. The Circulation System Inprovement described in Condition 1 above and the City-State improvement to the intersection of Dover and Pacific Coast Highway described in the Traffic Study, Page 11, Table 5 shall have been made (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation System Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the .City Traffic Engineer. I FILE % iyr'./'Y ,•1 'Af fir. , ' Siff r. k1' r ® �'•� `r• ! y112rf t�J + l �/ 7� '�I�/ ��ty'•�i�il.�l.+ /��$tl f�: '�o'(` .�/ „• G f �i r'J r�/ r.r�. {�� <r(,/�(j/�r�i� �f�Ir+'�.Y Y 1J�f �1t' r. ',� ',/17•'••�'•1 J! r ri ./ �,r S• •r r�•}J +r /JS� f•:i ;%C��j'Jk yA�;��/{�SY ,}��,!'.��v {�IJ�ti;��''� /'p�;'"r;�� '�`,rj_lr • r,�r fS1Pr�.yA� / � 4�C'� rtfl,{iy i;,Y.t1' ��;�j"q/X !J/�' �r�(` •'•>� r�:'�•y7- LS} , Y � �,�•f�� i re ..�i• .Tj rr1prjr1l' ' �fI.t( v� % �C; {• /'J't'";�I) r5 tlt�Srj it.. .�•�/ �j?i .'',7�• i!dry;Y:;% �]�pi�yr"'Sr' .; {>ft;��I/,, tFYl�/(��C1(S,' ,,,tjY�+ f/�(%=r � •Iy , J � ,(v ',*'yC�tr %f�.+?��;�(!•' �''.f.],rS�:.�''fJ." `%��rr 'fr� 4 t � �� r�1tF.'f, �`,4��. �' rS�iS}1�:�vi'i•��'�1f��3•'�iJ`��/��f/ j��,{ �I/i' �'��'I�ln,f�r� r r/ � , � r%Tjv'i�I1,��'�Ii'i rfji �+ �'(��„�.1//��+�(r)rS�+, J� f"�r.•�' �I��(�J•'• / r `,(�+ r,�•(>S'"t`/f{t1f `T.• �/ .� .lJ/'ri/,j•4�f .t�� +lfr(-t ,/y'1y 5ii•f• �`v-;',�(.,/t�rsa •t��'%��%/�/r�')ti�ltt4.t�iy!!{�l.•.� l�'f J'/;y-!!•,l'r rtrT l�rJ+:-�.:j..Il� �,,' �ii�' /,{..Jf J )�n JL y. i Hospital Road Medical Building %v f Traffic Study 'ad i T��✓!l'�rJ''''1'ftr', • �j;. ' J' s, t'if�rr 1�;�{. .i'„ y� � , ,f, :�r �.f(,Y rl��/J{�•/'J''J 4iri��,,r f , f � �✓��``}�� 1)I%f�,''�:1' 1 � ELT 3i�p�•"'y�// •45 �1yr ,ftr J/'C /•{ jr,.i• J' ,�'7,{tj/ tl� r't��t y.;Y4 ,�. :a: fie 1) %1. I✓��r}+,J}1�r'��J�,�1y\r��,l�/ . ?;NS17tTaty� iy�lJ/�,J� -� Y '• � � yr _r �•f}+.'"/J ,", k1 �2ItrJ' J�.r+�•J/il' '.•1/ , r ��'(n ! lY • tip s%. ,!'.t,F1'��r.! CS'/� } J j� f ((7r ^�»�'y '',� �(•r , •J', �•rt`,1 '(�llx•��,.�' 1✓��'•%1•j''�j'• k. /,,{{ '%tfr f�i�+�,7 fl,rrri,r� tt�}rrr/' . �/ /�'�r,,// �//�,i / :•�J��. r:%� '�tyy ;'r I. !f-r r t C�✓'C•r ri�r �'�_!r r'�CP;•+r ,�: y +C�'rZ+.• j iI" �' �.�• �u �n��Natn associates � r � i,��t ' Transportation Planning •Traffic Engineering /lrt�( > + •.J<..�d �/��F ;f,.t'�/`%t�,iy��,r,/ r;l•�,�., { ;� +. .y JJc ') ''i4; / }'J„ 7JII',�•,I� )� ?"+ rr�i;�I�i't•! 'J!I �1'yf'��I�j�rF�� fi7i'ti'r�� ,�i,{'J/� % lt'i �� S1 / i/� 1 r `r )� ��ff�Y�i£i� -.7 J f•' f f r; r �' IZ/�• �� r�r.� �+';"1�+r14•(�' Jj�tJ.lri Y/�u�t��rtf�f,•.r'�Z��IM1'�!��Ik�•: '' '' J uut � V� au� (,Assouates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering LO March 17, 1982 RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT a` NAR 181982m- Mr. Fred Talarico CITY OF Environmental Coordinator NEWPC tiZACM, � cnu;; 9 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis for the Hospital Road Medical Office Building. This analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. We trust that this report will be of immediate •,as well as continuing value to the City of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, (( �� KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES Ii DO NOT CGhtO'!E William Kunzman, P.E. 46B4 Barranca Parkway * Irvine, CA 92714 * (714) 559-4231 �� Table of Contents Section Page No. 1. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Intersection 'Capacity Utilization Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 . Project Related Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C - Project Related Improvements - ICU Work Sheets List of Figures Following Figure No. Title Page No. 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Project Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 List of Tables Table No. Title Page No. 1 Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 One Percent Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Committed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utiliza- tion for Critical Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5 Project Related Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1., Project Description Project Location The project is located at the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue across from Hoag Hospital. Proposed Development The project includes the construction of a 65,269 square foot two story medical office building with underground parking. The parking provided will serve the parking needs of an exist- ing 77, 000 square foot medical byild'incj and the proposed medical building. 1 i1 Figure 1 �I VICINITY MAP —119 =, �� 1+i�'`�i• - !`'. j 'f sP: !` � �i i--�'.�may. ✓�+11�;:�. Al ""�'� ,7�y. fin. 9 (; �,,•'7�'S„l. '.z.(i., t:'" . . `;k'�,"-.�3 _j's�„1-�,V et`�L,�t� `�;; '.�'..,,.. •tack: „y:+�'�•-. 15i"• pia= �' r;`4;ii�, .i. „ ✓+iG :;�-* �;{�'�h5.�`y"'�°"•C�=��44�:'ein<�r �,�51+�.d�1f 4Y.i{w�,",.'{�yff."� ti\v�'::'�''� ay'� �,� ,�'`:.i�.i'T��/{�y�qe��,.'t^s VV.T'l � I1� .' � {+16'�N1!'..,;".:�.•. t, 9%TV _.__r.lx4+.;�•Ay�i'I �'' �\ 1 !Nk r�•�1•//Z'/�n—.%may •� �,i 4l ;� ��G.S�'-��:�..Le."'�1�`� :P; � <'nar.;./�,e_'"'•ui �;'�`2 ti�4'.f{'4�, tir.:i ��s �S�.i'I ��'�• ! �'�wW:ySftl�` "u=.::.!'�{�.he.^! ..t� „r': �� ;.;�. ,r,��;�'"'�>"-`;;•.:.. •'� Jul. ...� ..<��, .s --�•: � ;=t;�+�F sa�� , *Project Site 5 �uN a�iaN v4ssociates � � Figure 2 Site Plan F"GSHIP ROAD r, + ExlSthV ' '� • Building '\ 77,000,.a•n• Two storyoffice building and underground ns1 ?. s.r 1"V.97.W r_ y parking to be located within this area. `�\ • W - -------- --- t - • ►,fir �� tJ�.U113F17a{l associates �'� I 2. Project Traffic Generation The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropiate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are expressed in terms of trip ends per per- son, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, trip ends per dwelling, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor area•. For this study, trip generation data was supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Based on actual traffic counts at a medical office building at Hospital Road and Placentia, the City's study indicates 30 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Table 1 provides trip generation information for the 65,269 square foot building. • �D 2 /f • Table 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Trip Generation i Time Period Per 1000 Sq. Ft. of Trips Generated Gross Floor Area* By 65,269 Sq. Ft. Evening Peak Hour Inbound 1.9 124 Outbound 2.4 156 Total 4. 3 280 Peak 2.5 Hours Inbound 2.4 156 Outbound 4.5 294 Total 6.9 450 Daily Two Way Traffic Total 30 .0 .1,958 * Based upon City of Newport Beach Traffic Study for 1511-1525 Superior Avenue, dated July 15, 1981. 3 �� 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is based on the directional orientation of traffic, and then the traffic is assigned to specific roadways . It is based on the geographical location of residential concentra- tions, along with commercial, business , and recreational opportu- nities. Traffic distribution and assignment was provided by City of Newport 'Beach staff. a� 4 Figure 3 Project Traffic Distribution 25 15 5 y� port Placentia Boulevard Ora5ye Prospect Dana Flagship-- te Hospi is 15 Road Riverside A�c'fc N� hwa Dover 15 10 -Legend 5 Percent of project traffic using route. ` <U11-111an �Associates 02 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis Seven critical intersections were analyzed as identified by City staff. Table 2 lists the seven intersections , and provides a summary of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis . Appendix A contains the calculation sheets . Four intersections have the one percent volume criteria exceeded: Superior and Placentia Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway The purpose of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is to extablish whether the project adds a volume that is greater than one percent of a critical intersection's approach volume. If. less than one percent is added to all approaches of a critical intersection, then no further analysis is necessary as specified in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As part of the one percent analysis , regional growth and committed projects are included. Volume projections are made to. a point in time one year after the project completion. This project' s comple- tion date is 1983 , and traffic volumes are projected to 1984 . Regional traffic has been forecasted in accordance with City pro- cedures, and committed project traffic includes those projects listed in Table 3. a � 5 Table 2 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersections 1% of Projected Project' s 2. 5 Over Analyzed 2 .5 Hr. Peak Vol. Hour Peak Vol. 1% Placentia and Superior Northbound 12 88 Southbound 17 8 Yes Eastbound 16 23 Westbound 18 39 Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 19 0 Southbound 30 44 Yes Eastbound 38 23 Westbound 45 0 Newport and Hospital Northbound 33 39 Southbound 35 23 Eastbound 17 162 yes Westbound 10 23 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 3 0 Southbound 24 0 Yes Eastbound 41 44 Westbound 67 23 Orange and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 5 0 Southbound 2 0 No Eastbound 33 23 Westbound 62 44 P.rospcct and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 0 0 Southbound 3 0 No Eastbound 31 23 Westbound 60 44 Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound ,2 0 Southbound 13 0 No Eastbound 49 44 Westbound 49 23 i Table 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS Project Name Aeronutronic Ford (residential) Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero TPP Back Bay Office (office) Bank of Newport (office) Bayside Square (office) Baywood Apartments (residential) Boyle Engineering (office) Cal Canadian Bank (office) Campus/MacArthur (office) Civic Plaza (office) Coast Business Center Corporate Plaza (office) Far West Savings and Loan (office) Harbor Point Homes (residential) Hoag Hospital (community facility) Hughes Aircraft (industrial) Koll Center Newport (office, industrial) Koll Center Newport and No. 1 TPP Martha's Vineyard National Education Office (office) Newport Place (office) North Ford (industrial) Orchard Office (office) Pacesetter Homes (office) Pacific Mutual Plaza (office) Quail Business Center (office) Roger' s Gardens (commercial) Ross Mollard - 1511 and 1252 Superior Rudy Baron (office) Sea Island (residential) Seaview Lutheran Plaza (residential) Shokrian (office) Valdez - 3101 W. Coast Highway 441 Newport Blvd. - (office) - 3701 Birch Office (office) 7 s2�0 7 5. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Of 'the four intersections exceeding the one percent criteria, two are operating near or above 90 percent capacity. Superior and Pacific Coast Highway is operating at 113 percent of capacity, and Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway is operating at 89. 69 percent of capacity. Once the growth and committed traffic volumes are added to the current traffic volumes, the Superior and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is expected to be operating at 139 percent of its estimated capacity. If the project traffic is added, it is anti- cipated to be operating at 141 percent of its capacity. the project adds very little to this already heavily impacted inter- section. When the growth and committed traffic is added to the Dover and Pacific Coast Highway intersection it will operate at 109 per- cent of capacity. Once the project traffic is added it will in- crease slightly. Appendix B contains the intersection capacity utilization work sheets . 8 • Table 4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Intersection Capacity Utilization Critical Existing 1983 Exist 1983 Exist + Need Intersections + Committed Committed + Improve- + Growth Growth + ments Project Superior and Pacific Coast Highway 1. 1332 1. 3876 1. 4057 Yes Dover and Pacific Coast Highway 0. 8969 1.0906 1. 0975 Yes Superior and Placentia 0. 6653 0 . 6778 0 .6803 No Newport and Hospital 0. 7896 0. 8375 0 . 8693 No 9 � D v 6. Project Related Improvements _ In that the Superior and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is impacted by other development projects and regional traffic, the responsibility for the improvements recommended should be appor- tioned in an equitable manner. In the City of Newport Beach' s 1981 - 1982 'budget, the improve- ments of one southbound left lane, two southbouna through lanes and one southbound right lane to the Superior/Pacific Coast Highway intersection have been included. it is anticipated that construction will begin this fiscal year. Other projects have proposed the addition of one westbound through lane and one south- bound right lane. This project proposes the restripping of the northbound lanes to include three northbound through lanes. With these improvements, the intersection will operate at . 8929 . The Dover and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is currently being reconstructed. The proposed improvements include: three south- bound left lanes, one southbound right lane, and one southbound through; two eastbound left lanes, and three eastbound through lanes; one westbound right lane, one westbound left lane and three westbound through lanes. Once these improvements are completed, the intersection will operate at . 7650. 10 �� Table 5 PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Intersection Improvements Superior and Pacific City improvements will create Coast Highway one southbound left lane, two southbound through lanes and one southbound right lane. Other projects are committed to provide one southbound right turn lane and one westbound through lane. This project is proposing restripping the north- bound lanes to include three northbound through through lanes . Dover .and Pacific City-State highway project to Coast Highway be completed in Spring of 1982. Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C - Project Related Improvement ICU Work Sheet APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORK SHEETS 3 z- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 198_) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direct on Peak n Hour Regional Projects Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1111 0 133 1244 12 88 southbound 1620 0 77 1697 17 8 Eastbound 1552 0 15 1567 16 23 ;estbodnd 1 1767 0 1 51 1818 18 39 [J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21-, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hospital Road_ Medical Office Building pAT . 7-30-81 3� PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa B1.-Superior Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Protect Direction Peak 2k Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 21s Hour 'Peak 21 Hour Volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1823 0 37 1860 19 0 Northbound _ 2901 0 64 2965 30 44 Southbound 3311 29 504 3844 38 23 Eastbound escbaund 3485 54 1009 4548 45 0 n Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Q 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. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 ! PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport 'Boulevard/Hospital Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak A Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2S Hour Volume Growth Peak 23s Hour Volume Volune Volume Velma Volume Northbound 3229 0 84 3313 33 39 3482 0 50 3532 35 23 Southbound Eastbound 1527 0 154 1681 17 162 972 0 40 1012 10 23 'estbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (.I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. i Hospital Road Medical Office Building OAT , 7-30-81 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Dover Drive-Bayshore Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981 Approach Existing Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2ti Hour Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 278 0 7 28 3 0 Southbound 2273 0 85 2358 24 0 eastbound 3401 30 635 4066 41 44 destbqund 5473 48 1185 6706 67 23 (l Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is -required. r Hospital Road Medical Office Building DAT 7-30-81 3 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Vol:ume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Orange Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average W nter Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 24 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Velma Volume Vol une Vol une Northbound 537 0 2 539 5 0 Southbound 153 0 1 154 2 0 Eastbound 1 2772 25 509 3306 33 23 estnound 5159 46 1040 6245 62 44 Q Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project-Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE• 7-30-81 3� PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Prospect Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) i Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2k Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2ti Hour Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound southbound 260 2 262 3 0 Eastbound 2530 22 509 3061 31 23 eastbound 4920 38 1040 5998 60 44 Qx Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2, Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 d PROJECT: O FORM I t.4 w • � , 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21, Hour Regional Projects Peak Zy Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 21% Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 21 21 •2 0 southbound 1267 82 1349 13 0 Eastbound 4248 38 600 4886 49 44 •escbound 3752 33 1158 49.43 49, 23 �]X Project Traffic is estimated to 'be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical —P cal Office Building D TE: 7 30 81 �p PROJECT: FORM I 1 t APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORK SHEETS �[O INTER*ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANAL Appendix B Intersection Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) Mo.e...e..t EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMY,ITTEO PROJECTED Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. PK.NR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o ProJett Volume %/C Ratio Volume NL 1600 32 .0400* 0400* 0400 NT 3200 321 .1003 18 .1059 8 ' .1084 NR 1600 34 .0425 .0425 37 .0443 SL 1600, 6 .0038 5 .0069 . 0069 ST 1600 247 .1544* SR 20 , 1669* 4 .1694* 1600 418 .2613 5 .2643 .2643 EL 1600 244 .1525* .1525* .1525* ET 3200 ' 297 .0928 .0928 ' .0928 ER 1600 22. .0138 .3 .0156 .6156 WL 1600 -46. .0288 .0288 20 .0412 WT 3200 699 .2184* .2184* .2184* WR 1600 5 .0031 25 . 0188 .0188 YELLOWIME 1000* .1000* 1 �.1000* EXISTING INTERSEGTIOi! CAPACITY UTILIZATION . 6653 I i EXISTING PLUS COIS41TTED PLUS REGIORAL GRO4(IH U/PROPOSED INPROYEM"cfTS I.C.0 I 1 77 I EXISTING PLUS Ctkti?iITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROIiTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .6803 ® 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. Hospital Road Medical Building 8/13/81 DATE: PROJECT FORt4 I I INTERS•ION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYID Appendix B Intersection Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) sae_,^,�t EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PR"JECTED Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Px.RR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ra[ao PROJECT PROJECT Vol. Ratio Volume Volume W/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume "1L 1600 220 . 1375* 15 . 1469* 14 .1556* NT 1 4800 1180 .2604 18 43 , 2731 1.2731 NR -3 70 SL 1600 50 .0313 0313U. 0313 ST SR a 98 .2833* 16 25 ,2919* 162 EL 1600 198 . 1238 75 ,1925* ET 3200' 184 .1469* i1481 8 : 1575 ER 286 , 4 2,2 WL I64•. 20 I WT 3200 199 .1219* 1281* 4 .1293* WR 27 YELLO'dTIME 1000* .1000* :.1000* L 1 EXISTIKG INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION Y .7896 EXISTING PLUS Ca,4ITTED PLUS REGIVML GRUTH W/PROPOSrcD INPROVEF'cfITS I.C.U. 3 ! 1 EXISTING PLUS COK„§ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ,8 6 ® Projected plus Project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than, or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT FORM If �` INTERSION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY10 Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic 'Winter/Spring 1981) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL CONMITTEO PROJECTEO Mover,.ent EXISTING PROPOSED PX.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol, Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume ' V/C Ratio Volume NL 2400 421 .1754* NT 2400 265 .1104 5 .1125 .1125 NR 1600 N.S.1 58 .0363 .0363 .0363 SL 146 ST 3200 473 .1934 15 .1981 .1981 SR 1600 708 .4425* 21 .4556* 22 .4694* EL 3200 244 .0763 3 .0772* 14 .0815* ET 3200 828 .2588 22 215 . 3328 .3328 ER 1600 N.S. 401 . .2506 .2506 1.2506 WL 1600 -86'. . .0531 .0531 .0531 WT 3200 1329 .4153* 25 500 .5794 .5794* WR 600 N.S. 77 .0481 48 YELLOWTIME 1000* .1000* I 1.1000* 1 1 � EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION i1 I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1.387 6 } EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U,. It.4657 ❑ 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: �3 _Hospital Road Medical Office Build_i_nq DATE: 8/13/81 'PROJECT �^ - FORM II INTERSEd*N CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYS! APPENDIX B Intersection Dover Dr. /Coast Highway ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) EXIST.' EXIST. REGIONAL COMtITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Morerer,t Lanes tap. Lanes Cap. PK.NR. V/CRatio GROWTHVolme PROJECT w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ra Lio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 34 .0213 . 0213 .0213 NT 1600 42 .0263* 4 * 0275* NR 1600 30 .0188 1 .0188 .0188 SL 3200 786 .2456* . 2456* 2456* ST 1600 80 .0500 41 .0756 . .0756 SR 1600 131 .0819 2 . 0831 . 0831 EL 1600 87 .0544* .0544* .0544* ET 3200 1310 .4094 15 318 . 5134 12 .5172 ER 1600 •30 .0188 . 0188 . 0 WL 1600 •38 .0238 .0238 .0238 WT3200 1 1 1506 .4706* 24 592 . 6631* 22 . 6700* WRf 1600 714 .4463 .4463 . 4463* YELLOWTIME .1000* i .1000* 1000* I i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1 .8969 EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1. 0 90 6 EXISTING PLUS COhMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .0975 ❑ 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: Hospital Road Medical Building - DATE: 9/14/81 PROJECT FORM II APPENDIX C PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENT ICU WORK SHEETS INTERSECT* CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSI• Appendix C Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL CDWITTEU PROJECTED no+e:art EXISTING PROPOSED lanes Cap. lanes Lap. PK. V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT V/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Vol vie V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 2400 421 . 1754* NT 2400 4800 265 . 1104 5 1560* .1560* NR 1600 N.S. 58 .0363 SL 1600 146 . 0913 •0913 ST 3200 473 . 1934 15 . 1525* .1525 SR 1600 3200 . 788 .4425* 21 2278 22 .2347* EL 3200 244 .0763 3 . 0772* 14 . 0816 ET 3200 828 .2588 22 1 215 . 3328 3328 ER 1600 N.S. 401 • .2506 .2506 f .2506 WL 1600 -85•. .0531 .0531 . 0531 WT 3200 4800 1329 .4153* 25 500 .4022* . 4022* WR 1600 N.S. 77 .0481 YELLOWTIME 1000* i .1000* i i . 1000* 1 i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 332 T t 1 EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 78 87 9 EXTSTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. w/proposed improve- -892,9 menrEs ICU ❑ 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 sy3tems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: 1. Add third westbound through lane 2. Eliminate southbound free right, and replace with two right turn lanes. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 8/13/81 ` PROJECT FORM II INTERSECI� CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSO APPENDIX C' Intersection Dover Dr. /Coast Highway ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) CAISTING PROPOSED ExI ST.' E%1ST. REGIOfrrAL MtAHTED V/CJEUED PROJECT PROJECT Morer,.ent Lanes Lap. Lanes Cap. PF.NR. V/C GROW7 PROJELi RatioVol. Ratio Volme Vol me w/o Project Vol me Y/C Ratio Volume NL 1600 34 .0213 .0213 .0213 NT 1600 42 .0263* 4 .0275* .0275* NR 1600 30 .0188 Lo. lAR SL 3200 4800 786 .2456* .1637* .1637 ST 1600 80 ' .0500 41 .0756 0756 SR 1600 31 .0819 2 .0831 .0831 EL 1600 3200 87 .0544* .0271* .0271* ET 3200 4800 1310 .4094 15 318 .3423 12 .3448 ER 1600 6 •3,0 .0188 - WL 1600 -•38 .0238 .6238 .0238 WT3200, 4800 1506 .4706* 24 592 .4421* 22 .4467* WR 1600 1 714 .4463 .4463 .4463 YELLOWTIME 1000* i .1000*. 1.1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8969 1 EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRV.TIH LI/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I,C.U. ,7604 EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1.76 50 ® 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I- - - - `. - Description of system improvement: City/State improvement project, permitted to use 100 percent of new lane capacity Hospital Road Medical Building 9/14/81 �1 -- --_-»._....------ DATE: PROJECT FORM II �MTur 130 z 1812 Antigua Circle Newport Oudch , CA 92660 April 14 , 1982 Newport Beach Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. �. Newport Beach , CA 92b63 Deborah Allen Jerry King ((I� Paul Palalis Helen Kc LaughlinAPR! Allen Beek Hal Thomas , � 198� Joan Winburn , ty Re: Park Lido Medical Bldg . Expansion ; Request for Ccn uan Dear Planning Commissioners: I have owned sixteen residental units in the above area fo'f--' approximately twelve years . Please give your full consideration to the following requests: 1 . A review of the impact of the fdedical Office expansion on a fully developed residential neighborhood which has been in existence for at least sixteen or seventeen years . The owners and r esidents of the area are entitled to the quiet enjoyment o'f their properties and should not be subject to having their properties devalued by probably doubled traffic and fumes . Please review my attachod letter of Oct . 15 , 1981 . 2. Give the owners and residents in the area an opportunity to review the site plans and traffic studies for ingress and egress to the new development . the staff has informed mo tliuse will not be available until Fri . Apr . 16 for the meeting to be held April 22 , 1982 . 3. 8ecause of time limitations for residents to study tha project and formulatu their positions , I request that the matter be continued for at least two weeks and preferably four weeks . The residents ' group has been subject to hardship by the developer ' s withdraud of plans on the evening the residents were represented by an expert . 4 . The residents request that the entrance an•d exit to the parking facility should be located on Hospital Rd , to prevent the residential streets of- Flagship Rd and Oana lid from oecom.ing thoroughfares in the residential areas . For the same reason we request that if there is consideration of an exit from a parking bldg. onto Flagship , that no right turns onto Flagship be p::rmitted. Please consider the foregoing and give the residents an opportunity to study the traffic study and planning commission staff report. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours , / aa11,� Buzan a lilc rian • *,w1 - nn 1. l4uG U. iU. C lrort Beach , CA 92660 tober 15 , 1981 Newport Beach Planni.nca Commissioners A l.)o Z 3300 Newport Blv.d . , Newport Beach, CA 92663 rncvr Deborah Allen Jerry King Paul Balalis Helen me Laughlin Allen Beek Hal Thomas Joan Winbu•rn Re: Permit Wo . 2021 Request for Environmental Impact Report for Permit 2021 I am the owner of sixteen residental units located in the area referred to as Newport Mediterranean Apts . located at Flagship lid . and Patrice , Hilaria Way and Dana Rd . My sixteen units are situated in four buildings at 4200 Patrice, 4127 Hilaria and 4151 Hilaria , and 4223 Dana Rd. I strongly object to the proposed permit No 2021 pursuant to which the following new structures are to be added to the site now occupied by the Park Lido uredical Building and parking lot: 1 . A new office buildinq of approximately bb , 000 sq. ft. which apparently will be approximately 84 `o of the size of the existing Park Lido f1redical Building have about 77 , 000 sq. ft. 2. A three or four level parking structure over 30 ft-. high to be located at the corner of Flagship and Patrice to provide parking for ' both the existing and new building. This structure will be approximately the size of a football field . In my opinion the granting of permit No. 2021 would destroy the quality of the residential neighborhood of the Newport lilediterranean Apts. and the Park Lido Condominiums totaling 239 residences which have been located there for approximately 14 and 18 years respectively . To permit an 84% expansion of office space and a huye parking structure over thirty feet high', would destroy the aesthetic quality of the residential neighborhood , create noise , fumes , all day long traffic congl:stion and increased air pollution. Please note that a medical office building involves a continuing hourly or half hourly turnover of cars in the parking structure . In the past few years this residential area has been subject to increased traffic- from the following: 1 . expansion of Hoag Hospital , 2 . construction of Villa Balboa ,u 3 . construction of a large new medical building at Superior and Hospital lid . Thy: proposed new parking structure at Hughes Corporatilln on Dana Rd. will add further traffic to an overburdened area. My objections to Permit No . 2021 can be further detailed as follows: 1 . The 140 Newport lilediterranean Apts . constitute an Established Neighborhood in existence for about 14 years. All of these are deluxe two and three ved,room units with many dmenitios. There are thirty-five Page Two 11dye I wu Newport filed . fourpl*s each hajvi iy four deluMunits . Ten of these for,rplexes are located on Patrico Rd. which sharer a common borde-r with the proposed 30 ft. high parking building , a height greater than the two story fourplexes. The remaining apartment units are on Hilaria way and Dana Rd . Of the total 140 apartments , one quarter ( or 35 ) are spacious , two level , three bedroom, two bar;h tnr,,r�tnlii •.; •, 1 , ,� Lios , fireplaces , separate dining rooms and laundry rooms. Another quarter ( or 35) are upstairs , single level , two bedroom two bath apartments. The remaining half or seventy apartments arr: spacious townhomos , two levels with two large bedrooms , 11� baths , laundry hookups , walled lower patios and upstairs balcolnies. 2.The 9 Pairk Lido Condominiums Constitute an Established Neighborhood in existence f'or about 18 years. They are spaciuus 'units with many amenities and double garages , and were built before the Park Lido iuedical Bldg was constructed. Some of the Park Lido condominium owners anticipated that a park and teenis courts would be built on the site of the Park Lido flisdical H,uilding. 3. Quality of Life Adversely Affected for the 23li kesidential Units . The foregoing 239 households are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their homes. To add the proposed medical building and parking structure would destroy the quality of their homes and environment . The exisitng Park Lido parking lot which is not used in the evenings and weekends constitutes an area of open space and improves the air quality of the nrea .Some condominiums and apartments on Flagship and Patrice have mini ocean views. from their second stories which will certainly be lost . 4 . Devaluation of Property values It is self evident that there would be a decline in property values for the owners of the condominiums and apartments if an unsightly parking structure over 30 ft . high is built . It would destroy the aesthetic character' of the neighborhood. The noise , fumes and continual traffic would make the neighborhood Far less desirable resultinq in a decline in prupurty values. For all the foregoing reasons I am requesting that the pormit be denied or' that an Environmental Impact Report be submitted . Suzanne Illig flit Brien �o Blanning Commit on Rewport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 April 12, 15- 2 Re: Park Lido Medical Building Project Dear Planning Commission Members : On Feburary 7, 1982 my wife and I sent the attached letter to all members of the City Council stating our reasons for our objections to the addition of any more buildings to the Park Lido Medical Building site. We realize that the City Council rejected the prior a-pplication for "over height" construction. We now understand that the owner is having a traffic study prepared by a consulting firm. Should certain conditions prevail in that study it is our understanding that construction may proceed within the height limits . We have not received a single communication as the result of our letter of Feburary 7,1982. We are therefore attach- ing copies of that letter to again voice our concerns and objections to any additions that will increase the traffic volume on Flagship Road in the amounts stated in that letter. Any' traffic study which does not deal directly with the concerns expressed in our letter to the Council must be rejected as inadequate., the ihvironmen.tal impact upon our community is too great to ignore. S ncerely you , , �e v Cecil G. and Lois 0. Zaun 409 Flagship Road Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 026- �11 , r 12 5 Ell rN• A ,�4 Newport Beach City Council 'Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Feburary 7,1982 Res Park Lido Medical Office Project Honorable Mayor Heather and Councilpersonss In January 1982, my wife and I sent a letter to each member of your Coucil and to each member of the Planning Commission. We expressed our deep concern over the proposed expansion on the site of the Park Lido Medical Building. I explained in that letter that both my wife and I had been involved for over 30 years in Traffic Safety with the Los Angeles City Schools, We stated that we were opposed to any additional buildings' on the site that would increase traffic and on-street parking in the Park Lido and Mediterranean Village projects. In my presentation to the Planning Commission, I indicated that the studies which had been made on behalf of the Project were made at intersections which should be of concern to the City, but which, were of little concern to the residents who must use Flagship Road or Dana Street as the only means of ingress and egress to and from our community. The intersections of Flagship Road at...Placentias Placentia at Hos- pital Roads and Dana at Superior are vital to us. 41 There was no mention of any of these intersections in the Initial Study prepared by Westec Services, Inc. or in the subsequent "Response to Queetione , Section 2.1.20 paragraph 2, on page 9 of the Initial Study admits the "Land use impacts may or may not result from the location of the parking structure, ". We contend that it does not take a professional to ascertain that great harm will be done to the sqrround- - ing community. The section goes on to state, "while proximity to the residences is not the most desirable, a generous set back along the affected streets has been provided as well as a fairly lush land- scape scene and berms , " Curbside parking is inevitable• andwill mean a great deal of pedes- trian traffic on Patrice and Flagship Road, next to the parking structure. Sidewalks should have been recommended or required as a part of the conditions under which the Planning Commission gave its approval of the project. No mention has been made of any plans which the City may have to ease the existing and future traffic problems at Flagship Road and Placentia or at Hospital Road and Placentia. • - 2 - • No suggestions have been put forward as to how the two intersections in such close proximity can be signalized to provide an orderly pro- cession of vehicles on the three streets. The Initial Study points out that the proposed parking structure will not contain the required number of parking stalls. (p14, 2.3;2) This means that the curbside parking referred to herein will definitely occur. In fact, multi-level parking structures are avoided whenever possible; it is therefore most likely that women will choose to park at our curbs and walk to the buildings whenever they can find space at a curb. Items "a" through "c" of Section 2.3.2; "Environmental Impacts" , deal with three major alternatives of providing temporary parking during construction. Two of the proposals deal with the use of valet parking using lots #1 and #2 on Superior and Coast Highway respectively. These suggestions cannot be taken seriously by anyone. It just is not going to happen until our community streets are overloaded. The use of curbside parking described in item "c", page 15, gives the most realistic picture of what will occur during construction and after completion of the project. . The Study ignores the problems associated with the parking of con- struction workers' vehicles. These people will grab the closest curbside /paces because they will arrive earliest. This will force patients out into our entire community. We will suffer t-he pangs of overparking even in prohibited areas. Any attempt to enforce parking laws will end up by giving tickets to home owners who cannot find a space for their second car in the village r..area. "Project Driveway Use" on page A-25 -states that 55% of the daily project traffic will be oriented to Newport Blvd. and the heaviest driveway use is expected to be the Hospital Road access. No mention is made of other access locations. However, 45% is ex- pected to use other access loeationst that is obvious. This can only mean that Flagship Road and Dana Street will carry this 45% to their Juncture with Placentia and Superior respectively. We find no studies covering these intersections, and yet this structure will add at least 881 more trips that will be added to existing traffic, (25% of 1958) . , The proposed 65,269 square foot building will generate 1958 trips daily according to the Study (see page All) . The existing 77,000 square foot building which is 1.18 times the size of the proposed structure evidently generates 2310 trips daily, for s total of 4268 trips when all construction is finished. If the foregoing figures are reasonably accurate then the present 1040 cars which now use Flagship Road (45%) will be increased by 881 for a total of 1921 trips daily on Flagship Road. Thus, anJ - 3 - • i average of 240 cars per hour will be using Flagship Road plus the traffic„generated within our communities by residents. There will be many "U-turns" and mid-block turnabouts by those who choose to park at our curbs. Accidents are inevitable. The "Project Traffic Distribution" shows that 25% (1069) of the 4268 daily trips will go northeast on Superior. Most of these drivers will use Flagship Road to Dana and turn right onto Superior,8 p rior. This they will do to avoid the traffic Jams at Placentia and Flag- ship Road and the signal at Placentia and Superior. The project study indicates as stated previously that 55% will use Hospital Road. accesses to reach Newport Boulevard. We seriously doubt this , because 55% of 4268 daily trips to both medical build- ings means that there will be 2347 potential left turns from mid- block accesses onto Hospital Road in an eight-hour period or 293 sych turns per hour. It is reasonable to assume that those drivers who will hesitate to turn left onto Hospital Road against traffic accelerating uphill or coasting downhill will choose to use Flagship Road. This can easily negate the assumption that 55% will use the Hospital Road accesses. It will also increase the volume on Flagship Road. We ask that you deny this permit and change the zoning to resident- lal. I close with one very important question, "Where is there a law that says that one property owner can profit at the expense of all within the community?" 01 We are sending this letter because we will be in San Francisco on a business trip at the time of your hearing on this project. Sineergly ,yours, �r Cecil G. an. TLois 0 Zau n 409 Flagship Road (714) 646-8537 or (213) 682-26 4 3 • �P.c�a+c►rc Isla• (p , APPROVAL IN CONCEPT PERMIT 15.35.070-15.37.020 15.35.070 Penalties. (a) Anyone in violation of the provisions of this " " C Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall punishable as provided by the provisions of Section 1.04,010 of the N ort Beach Municipal Code. .. :.'; No sale or exchange of residential property shall be invalidated solelyb ause of the failure of any y person to comply with any provisions of this Chap unless such failure is an act or omission which would be a valid ground for r ission of such sale or exchange in the absence of this Chapter. (Ord. 1462 § 1 art), 1972). Chapter 15.37 APPRO L IN CONCEPT PERMIT , , - Sections: 15.37.010 Intent. 15.37.020 Approval in Conc Permit. 15.37.010 Intent. In order to comp with the provisions of Division 18 of the California Public Resources,Code, itled "California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission," and the South ast Regional Commission's operating regulations, it is necessary for the y of Newport Beach to approve in concept all projects in the Coastal Zon ermit area prior to any C .. action by the South Coast Regional'Commission. d. 1680 § 1 (part), 1976: Ord. 1621 § 1 (part), 1975). 15.37.020 Approval in Concept Permit. A fee of Twen -Five Dollars C-` ;SaKfty �*c*iwl ?:t ($25.00) is hereby established for the issuance of an Approva ' Concept Permit. However, a fee of Ten D61lars ($10.00) will be charged r minor applications, such as signs, swimming pools and Jacuzzis, patios, ecks, fences and any similar applications for projects which would not increas he floor area or intensity of use. Said fee may be modified in the future reflect changes in the economy or cost of living indices•by Resolution of the City Council. (Ord. 1680 § 1 (part), 1976: Ord. 1621 § 1 (part), 1975). Chapter 15.40 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Sections: 15AU10 Finding. 15.40.020 Purpose. 15.40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation. 15.40.040 Definitions. 15.40.050 'Procedure. 15.40.060 Fees. 344-15 (Newport Beach 4-15.79) 15.40.010-15.40.030 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION 15.40.070 Appeal. 15.40.080 Severability. 15.40.010 Finding. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach finds that congestion of streets and intersections, traffic accidents, interference with emergency vehicles, and general overcrowding of existing neighborhoods have resulted, or will soon result, from inadequate phasing of commercial, industrial and residential growth, in relation to traffic capacity, which is harmful to the public health,safety and general welfare. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § I (part), 1978). 15.40.020 Purpose. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach declares that aggravation of these conditions can be avoided, eliminated or alleviated by enacting the following, designed to permit major development only in those areas of the City of Newport Beach where adequate transportation facilities exist, are being implemented, or will be installed in conjunction with the development which will accommodate the traffic - generated by such development, or where other trip generation reductions are adopted which will alleviate traffic impacts. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). 15.40.030 Traffic Impact Limitation. (A) Limitation. No building or grading permit shall be issued, and no construction shall be commenced, for any project not exempt from this Chapter until the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach shall make a written finding that the proposed project: (i) will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major," "primary-modified" or"primary" street;or (ii) shall be excepted pursuant to subsection (D) of this section; provided, however, that such finding shall state the exception granted and the facts which justify the exception. (B) Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing, noticed in the manner provided in Section 20.80.050(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and shall make its written findings supported by the weight of the evidence. (C) Exemption. Any commercial or industrial project which has a gross floor area equal to or less than 10,000 square feet,or any residential project of 10 dwelling units or less shall be exempt from the requiremtrlts of this Chapter. (D) Exceptions. The Planning Commission shall except any project from the requirements of this Chapter: W if it shall find that the City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to the effective date of this Chapter and that the person to whom such permit was issued has in good faith and in reliance upon such t permit diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change yyJf J y y�)`(�iJ .mot (Newport Beach 4.15-79) 344-16 V'i•n`CSi�'��Z��•Y.VS Nfr f'Mj`�leYw r'C • .. - t. �n.NJ( 7 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 15.40.040 causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes may be made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter; (ii) if it shall find that traffic during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection will be increased by less than I%by traffic generated from-the project during that 2.5 hour period; 3� iYc,i-a<vor�a (iii)if, by a vote of four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members eligible to vote, it shall make a decision, supported by a written finding setting forth its reasons therefor, that the benefits of the project, including trip generation reductions, outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. The City Council shall not grant the exception under this subsection (6i) on appeal or review until it shall have first made the findings required by this subsection supported by an affirmative vote of four-fifths (4/5ths)of its members eligible to vote. (E) Action. The application for any building, grading or other permit on a project, which is not exempt from this Chapter, shall be approved, conditionally approved or denied within one year from the date on which said application has been received and accepted as complete by the City. Any appeal to the City Council from an action by the Planning Comrrission on an application or a determination by the City Council to review an application, shall be made within the time periods set out in Sections 20.80.070 and 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. In the event action is not taken on an application within the time limits hereof, such failure shall be deemed approval of the project which otherwise is " consistent with the ordinances and General Plan of the City of Newport Beach. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1777 §, 1, 1978; Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). *.... . — ,;� ;°x Ri 15.40.040 Definitions. The following terms used in this Chapter shall have the meanings indicated below: UNSATISFACTORY LEVEL OF TRAFFIC SERVICE means peak period traffic service,which is worse than Level of Service 'D' for one hour determined according to standard traffic engineering practices. PROJECT shall be determined by reference to the California Environmental Quality Act [California Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.] and the administrative guidelines established thereunder. LEVEL OF SERVICE 'D' shall mean that level of traffic service set forth as "Level of Service 'D'" in the Highway Capacity Manual (1965) or any subsequent edition thereof, provided,however, that such level of service shall not exceed the most appropriate'of the following criteria,as applicable: (i) •intersection capacity utilization of 0.90; (ii) other criteria selected by the City Traffic Engineer which are consistent with subsection (i), and which have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. CRITICAL INTERSECTION shall mean any intersection operating at an unsatisfactory level of traffic service, either prior to or as a result of a project, on any "major," "primary-modified,"or"primary"street. 344-17 (Newport Beach 4-is-79) n 15.40.050-15.40.080 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION "MAJOR," "PRIMARY-MODIFIED" or "PRIMARY" street shall be defined by the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach, Circulation Element. ELIGIBLE TO VOTE shall mean all members lawfully holding office except those disqualified from voting due to a conflict of interest. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1777 § 2, 1978: Ord. 1765 § I (part), 1978). 15.40.050 Procedure. Subject to review by the Planning Commission, the City Traffic Engineer, exercising professional discretion,shall: (A) Determine traffic periods, streets and intersections which will be significantly affected by the proposed project, taking into account the type, character and location of the proposed project, as well as the character of the streets which will serve the project; (B) Determine if the project,when complete,will cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic services at any such street or intersection; (C)1. Establish standard trip generation figures of project; 2. Establish criteria for calculating trip generation reductions which may result from specific measures proposed by the applicant. The Planning Commission shall specifically find that any such measures can be adequately quantified and guaranteed to assure the long-term validity of such reductions prior to their inclusion in the traffic analysis; 3. Establish the bases for performing the traffic analysis at project completion; { (D) Transmit these determinations to the Planning Commission with recommendations. (Ord. 1787 § I (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). 15.40.060 Fees. The application shall be accompanied by a fee as established by resolution of the City Council to defray the expense of ii„sn9 =�?rya administering this Chapter. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). w 15.40.070 Appeal. (A) Any determination of the Planning Commission shall be final unless there shall be an appeal by the applicant or any other person pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such appeal shall be limited to evidence s presented before, and the findings of, the Planning Commission. (B) The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal'Code, as limited above. (C) The City Council shall make its written finding in the same manner as set forth in Section 15.40.030 of this Chapter. (Ord. 1787 § I (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § I (part), 1978). 15.40.080 Severability. If any section or portion of this Chapter is declared invalid, the remaining sections or portions are to be considered valid. (Ord. 1787 § 1 (part), 1979: Ord. 1765 § 1 (part), 1978). (Newport Beach 4-15.79) 344-I8 y ii11�.•1 '•y • • /��'t'ACti McNC �o. S-1 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES A. General: These procedures apply to all commercial or industrial projects which have a gross floor area greater than 10,000 sq. ft., and all residen- tial projects of more than ten dwelling units. B. Evaluating Projects: 1. The applicant files a request for consideration of the entire pro- ject, under the provisions of the Ordinance, with the Planning Department. The request must be accompanied by a project descrip- tion, project phasing schedule„ site plan, and fees as set by the City Council. 2. A traffic analysis shall then be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer according to the methodology approved by the City Council. C. Staff Recommendation: 1. The City's Traffic Engineer will review the report prepared by the consultant and transmit the findings and worksheet to the Planning Department for presentation to the Planning Commission. D. Planning Commission Review and Findings: The Planning Commission shall review the determination and recommenda- tions of the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department, at a duly- noticed public hearing, and make one of the following findings: 1. The City has issued a building or grading permit for the project prior to May 8, 1978, and that the person to whom such permit was issued has, in good faith and in reliance upon such permit, diligently commenced construction and performed and incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary therefor. No change, causing a substantial increase in traffic volumes, has been made in such project, except in accordance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; or 2. The traffic projected one year after project completion, during any 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical inter- section, will be increased less 'than 1% by traffic generated from the project during that 2.5 hour period; or 3. A traffic analysis has been performed and accepted. The traffic analysis was based on the projected street system and projected traffic volumes one year after completion of the project or portion of the ,project for which the traffic analysis was performed. The traffic analysis has s Y hewn ,that, at that time, 'the additional traffic generated by the project, or portion of the project, including any approved trip generation reduction measures: I� ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURESOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHOG ORDINANCE - Page 2 S-1 a. will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified", or "primary" street; or b. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on one or more "major", "primary-modified", or "primary" streets; or c. may cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic ser- vice on one or more "major", "primary-modified", or "primary" streets; however, the benefits outweigh the anticipated nega- tive impact on transportation facilities, for the following reasons: (specify) E. Approval of Applications: A simple majority vote by the Planning Commission, subject to City Council review or appeal, is required for finding D.1, D.2, D.3.a. , or D.3.b. A four-fifths majority vote by the Planning Commission (or by the City Council on appeal or review) is required for finding D.3.c. F. Appeals: ` 1. The determination of the-Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to the procedure set forth in Section 20.80.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The City Council shall have a Right of Review as set forth in Section 20.80.075 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. II. OUTLINE OF METHODOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES A. Designation of Impacted Intersections and Determination of Project Impact for 2.5 Hour Peak Period:' 1. The Traffic Engineer will determine which intersections will be affected by the proposed project according to its size and geographic location. 2. An analysis will be done whereby it will be determined if one year after completion of the project, or portions of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed, the project (including those portions for which traffic analyses have been previously approved) will generate one percent or more of the projected traffic volumes for each leg of each impacted intersection during that 2.5 hour peak period. If less than a one percent increase is demonstrated for each leg, then the analysis is concluded, and finding I.D.2. may be made. B. If the initial Traffic Study indicated the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis is being performed, one year after completion may generate one percent or more of projected traffic volumes on one or more legs of any impacted intersection, then the Traffic Engineer or a qualified consultant will analyze the intersection capacity utilization for the impacted intersection(s) : �a ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUROOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC *ING ORDINANCE - Page 3 The report will indicate the following: I. Existing traffic. 2. Projected increases in regional traffic. 3. Projected traffic from committed projects that will be'completed before one year after the completion date of the project or portion of the project for which the traffic analysis is being performed. 4. Traffic generated by the proposed .project, or portion of the project, without trip generation reduction measures. 5. Traffic 'generated by the proposed project, or portion of the project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. C. Where a full traffic analysis is performed under Section IIB, the following I.C.U. calculations shall be performed for each impacted intersection: 1. The existing IX.U. 2. The I.C.U. , with traffic system improvements that will be installed before one year after project completion. This I.C.U. calculation shall be based on all projected, traffic sources except the proposed project. 3. The I.C.U. , with traffic system improvements that will be installed before one year after project completion, based on all sources of traffic, including traffic generated by the proposed project, with approved trip generation reduction measures. III. DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS RESTRAINTS A. Traffic System Improvements Traffic system improvements may be included in the traffic analysis for a proposed project, provided that: 1. The improvement will be completed no more than one year after com- pletion of the project or project phase for which the traffic analysis is being performed; and 2. The improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined sufficiently therein to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed; or 3. The improvement design has been approved by the City Council, and is defined sufficiently to permit an I.C.U. analysis to be performed. j B. Projected Capacity Increases from Traffic System Improvements ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUR*OR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PING ORDINANCE - Page 5 S-1 E. Traffic Distribution Traffic distribution shall be based on the traffic network expected to exist one year after project completion including those portions of the network associated with previously approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist at that time. F. Improvements or Modifications to the Circulation System If the applicant wishes to propose quantifiable improvements or changes to the circulation system, which may not appear to be strictly consis- tent with the Circulation Element, or special assumptions as a basis for the traffic analysis, he shall provide a description of such pro- posals in writing to the Planning Commission, along with supporting data justifying their use, in advance of the traffic analysis. Such proposals may then be. used in the traffic analysis if they are approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. IV. ISSUANCE OF PERMITS Permits may be issued for all or a portion of a project after an appropriate finding under I.D. has been made. A. Grading Permits Grading permits may be issued prior to performance of the traffic analy- sis if vesting rights associated with grading are waived by applicant. B. Building Permits Where traffic system improvements have been included in the traffic analysis, building permits may be issued only after traffic system improvement timing has been confirmed as follows: 1. It has been budgeted and committed for development by the City; or 2. The State or County or other governmental agency making the improve- ment has accepted bids; or 3. The improvement is to be installed or guaranteed by the applicant in conjunction with the development project and is approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions. Adopted - February 26, 1979 Amended - November 23, 1981 i �3 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUROOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PONG ORDINANCE - Page 4 S-1 For purposes of the traffic analysis, 70X of the incremental increase in intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour of green time for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon completion of the improvement, traffic volume counts shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future traffic analyses. C. Traffic Volumes 1. Traffic volumes shall be based on up-to-date estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after completion of the project, or portion of the project, for which the traffic analysis .is being performed. Such estimates shall include existing traffic as deter- mined by annual field counts plus traffic generated by previously approved projects or portions of projects expected to exist in the same time period plus estimated increases in regional traffic. If the intersection configuration being analyzed is the ultimate configuration consistent with the Circulation Element or otherwise approved by the City Council, then the traffic volumes used in the analysis shall include total traffic expected to be generated from all previously approved projects even if they will not be completed at the time the subject project is completed. 2. The incremental regional traffic for the time period between the date of existing counts and one year after project completion will be estimated based on the rate projected by the traffic model or on a growth projection developed by the Traffic Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission. 3. For making the 1% test of II.A.2. , traffic volumes shall not be used which exceed the capacity of the circulation system specified in the General Plan. D. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the project shall be based on standard trip generation values established by the City Traffic Engineer with the approval of the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review. These trip generation figures may be modified only when the applicant proposes specific, permanent measures that will reduce traffic generated by the project, provided that: 1. The applicant describes in writing, in advance of the traffic analysis, the proposed measure, the estimated reduction in trip generation that will result, and the basis for the estimate. The estimate must be approved by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal or review before the trip generation figures may be reduced. 2. The applicant provides the Planning Commission with a written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure will be permanently implemented, and agrees to make said permanent implementation a condition for project approval. L _ Pde-74,'�o , Lfd. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 April 14, 1982 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Re: Park Lido Medical Building Espansion Use Permit 2021 Dear Commissioners: I am concerned not only as a homeowner but as a citizen that if this development and others are approved in Newport Beach, the streets will be filled with far more vehicles than they were designed to carry. This area is already congested and in my opinion and that of many others the City Council and Planning Commission have not projected the concern of the future of Newport Beach. Sincerely, oan M. Reynolds 462 Orion Way Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 � I S�-em d-5- 7;-47 ie, c SAu • pdk M. MICHAEL CASSEL, M.D., Ph.D. 351 Hospital Road, Suite 507 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Newport Beach, California 92663 Telephone:(714)645.7083 April 16, 1982 Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Gentlemen : The impact of the planned additional development of the Park Lido property on traffic movement and access to Hoag Hospital will surely be calamitous. Allow reason to prevail and deny the project. Yours truly ch el Gassel,, M.D. , Ph .D. MMG%ig cc. Dr. J. Skinner 9 � nr� ApR191�Z POO • i�„� �� 77��c. SfrJd�j JOHN F. SKINNER, M. D. ATTACHMENT 440. 5 351 HOSPITAL ROAD, SUITE SO4 DIPLOMATE NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 AMERICAN BOAR NAL MEDICINE TELEPHONE 642-2I21 •J Y11��i1 April 20 , 1982 R non Ya�:`nt tr ApR22198�` .Newport City 'Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 'Dear, Commissioners : Quick access to Hoag Hospital is important to all of us . Unfortunately not all vehicles bringing emergency patients to Hoag Hospital have the benefit of a siren to assist them. There is already traffic congestion during peak hours at two intersections adjacent ,to the hospital (Hospital Rd, and Placentia Ave: ; -Hospital Rd. and Newport Blvd.) . Increasing congestion can be anticipated near the hospital entrance because of more automobile traffic from Costa Mersa- using Placentia Ave . as a thoroughfare . Future construction of the second Hoag tower, the Heritage Bank building, the Hughes project, the Mollard Medi- cal Building and probably the Park Lido project have been allowed to proceed without measuring their impact on the intersection of Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . The Beeco project might generate more area traffic than planned if much of the 235, 000 square feet designated as commercial in Area Two is utilized for medical offices . , Although the proposed traffic signal at Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave. might temporarily mitigate traffic problems , ultimately, in the next five to ten years traffic will increasingly stifle -access to Hoag Hospital, . I Believe that in the future it is important to require nearby projects to include traffic impact studies on the intersection at Hospital Rd. and Placentia Ave . Perhaps more stringent traffic requirements than those outlined in the Traffic Phasing-'Ordinanrce= may be needed for interse.cti.ons adjacent to the Hospital . Hoag Hospital will invariably increase in size and the surrounding surface streets will be increasingly congested. Unless an Area Plan addressing contingency, plans for hospital access is coned dered now, there will, be few options available for alleviating the problem in the future . Sincerely, oftn F . Skinner, .D. ' S 7-i-475 te`/ BARBARA JESSEN, M. D. ATTACHMENT' NO. 6 NEUROLOGIST April 20th, 1982 Newport Beach Planning Commission, Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express to you my continuing and increased concern of the impact on the traffic, particularly along Hospital road, but also along Placentia, which will be caused by the number of proposed new construction projects in our immediate area, including the Beeco project, Hoag second tower, Hughes Aircraft, Mollard Medical, the Heritage Bank Building and the Park Lido Medical Building. Despite the opinions of the Traffic Review Group, we have significant traffic problems at present and the increased traffic I am afraid will lead us to have many traffic jams and an increased number of accidents. I would encourage you to look at the total area, as I know you are, so that we may have an optimal development plan. Sincerely yours, Barbara Jessen MD BJ:wmh l /fj BARBARA JESSEN.M.D..INC.•351 H05PITAL ROAD•5UITE 316•NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663.17141 64 2-1437 POgT PLANNING. DEPARTMENT 713T, n QTN' .I TALI: z 13 is 1��F00.N 3300 Newport Boulevard` 4903 IPBox 1768 Neq�ix , , Beach , CA 92663-388:4 n-. J ' 4 Q� J'' ) James T. Blandford n ( :1.00,7" IMPORTANT lilc:'TUI'ti! J(j SENil• f2 Public Hear i nq Notice �I(a'r r.>r:_i..:rv�r,nl:L_r r.L�r. hRD NGlc' OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby give that the Planning Comiuioh of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd., Robert L. Nish General Partner far Traffic Stud on ro rt locekcA aY 361 Hos ital AOe On the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue.. Request to cc aidsr a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of a 65,269 sq.ft. msdical office building. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be bald on the 22nd day of April 1982, at the -bur of 700 p.m. in the council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, at-which time anand place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Joan NSnburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach JAPE, The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. �aEa/PoRr PLANNING DEPARTf4Fj"r M' CITY f IAL[, ✓r7� —L'•. ,�� u S � "�kc:'X,' c>, - • 4•r��%. ;• ;� t+^� , is i �.14"- 300 Newport -��• 4 Box 1768 ) Ne40.ar.t Beach/ 1\10T is/2_ aof� ws cc Li Seidel Computer Assoc:- ?/i (` 458 Orion Way ram' Newport Beach, CA 92663 ' IMPORTANT Public Hearing Notice H6T10L OP PUBLIC HBARINC Notice is hereby give that the Planning Conmission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd., Robert L. Nish General Partner for Traffic stud on ro rt located at 351 Has ital Aoa, on the nox naterly corner o Ho ial Road and Placentia Avenue. Request to consider a Traffic study in conjunction with the construction of a 65,269 ag ft medical office building. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of April 19 , at the hour of 700 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beech c82i t y Hall, at which tisr And plaes any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Joan Minburn, seoratary �planning Comission ity of Newport Basch NOTE, The aspense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. , aEWaoR PLANNING DEPARTMENT ea CITY HAIL- j..;� are-aaz 133 r I' 4' L J: c94 Foa�`P 3300 Newport •• '��I aS�'•�{:! '�' -- - P . O. Box 176 ��- �'-�✓ wywport Bead` t)t.j:.'X.'V ro CO 12 CII2J�tf)fW ^() CO Victor A. Vernon (r r 4130 Spindrift Way Q z Newport Beach, CA 92663' P ) IMPORTANT Public -Hearing Notice NbTICB Or PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby give that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido Ltdobert L. Nish General Partner for Traftic stud on proper located At Al3 Hospital on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue. Bequest to consider a Traffic Stud in conjunction with the construction of a 65,269 Sg.lt. radical office building. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of April 1982, at the hour of 7130 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach Hall, at which tics—And place any, and all persons interested may appear and be heard the rsan. Joan Ninburn, secretary Planning Commission i of Newport Beach m The expense of this notice is paid troll a filing fee collected from the applicant. �EwaoRr PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY I-iALi CgGIFORN`P Qy 0 Newport urS � � -;-' es4Qn3 _ }% 0C Box 1768r Now 1;, eea•cV ,�'i p05 er < r " � � 7" �.�`�...,��/��tl�Ft� •t•C� t, �Ai'h�r�Ci7 , .,�. o, ` Sandra V. Shambaugh 4206 Spindrift WAY 92663 ��7 tw jrr' Newport Beach, IMPORTANT Public .Hearing Notice NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAVING Notice is hereby give that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd., Vobert L. Mien General Partner for Traffic Stud on ro rt locaked at 351 Hospital Boa on the northeaeteriy Corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue._ Nequest to consider a Traflic Study in conjunction with the construction of a 63,269 aq.ft. medical office building.. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of Acril 1982, at the hour of 700 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. loan Minburn, Secretary Planning Commission 0ity of Newport Beach NOTE, The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. Li PLANNING DEPARTMENT @s CITY HALf%vFs� r > r,Fa-eoz =�s1.;r,�� 13 ;s °gc,Faar" 3300 Newport Newport X rtBeac� �U7 v�L. gV'l;rUN-1v p`4iggr l: r �o �� F n L. Newcomb 1 q ., 2 Spindrift way rt Beach, CA 92663 IMFORT6N Public' Hearing Notice " NOPICC OP PUBLIC NEARING Notice is hereby give that the Planning Commission of the city of Newport beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd., Hobart L. Nish General Partnar for 'traffic stud oh property located at 351 Hospital Road, on the northeaeterlY corner o! Most tat Road and Placentia Avenue. Request to consider x Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of a 65,269 aq.ft. medical office building. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of Aril 1982, at the hour of 700 p.m, in the Council Chambers o! the Newport Beach City Nall, at which tiawind place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. .lean Ninburn, secretary Planning Commission of Newport Beach s The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fen collected from the applicant. aEwPORr PLANNING DEPARTMENT • Qr tr n R•"t CITY I W-1_ ` awe"a'az s °+4,FoaN" 3300 Newport Boulevard dS4403L • �* fl, 0 . Box 1768 � r N/e, \ rt Beach , CA 92663-388 � t1 t rc AN I PAOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS Ralph Gray 44 North Madison Avenue � { r Pasadena, CA 91101 IMPORTANT •lic Hearing Notice NCTIC6 or PUBLIC H6ARINo Notice is hereby give that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd., Robert L. wiah Oenaral Partner for Traffic Stud on ro rt located it 351 Hoa ital Roa on the northsUtsrly corner of Man, Read and Placentia AVenue. Regueat to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of a 69,469 ag.ft. erdical office building. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of APril 1-9-0, at the hour of 90 0 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport euoh City Hall, at which tine and place any and all pardons interested my appear and be heard thereon. Joan Ninburn, Secretary Planning Coemieaion city of Newport beach NCTL, The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. aE.wPoRT PLANNING DEPARTMENT n CITY HALL BALL 330d4'Newport Boulevard - P . O . Box 1768 1U_,_r Jport Beach,, CA 92663-3884 1 Alt. t+4. `"'en �O QQ {FS Zi Lido Building Co. a��North Sepulveda Blvd. ` R t e 610 E 48egundo, CA 90245 IMPORTANT Ois Hearing Notice ` NOTICE or PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby give that the Planning Cormission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of park Lido, Ltd., Hobert L. Nish Cenral Partner for Traffic Study on property located at 351 Hospital road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia avenue. Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of a 65,269 w.tt. medical office building. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be hold on the 22nd day of April 1982, at the hour of 7�r3o p.m. in the Council Chambgre of aha Newport Huoh City Nall, at which tim and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Joan Ninburn, Secretary Planning commission city of Newport Beach NoY'E, The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. r NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby give that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd. , Robert L. Wish, General Partner for Traffic Study on property located at 351 Hospital Road, on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue. Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of a 65,269 sq.ft. medical office building. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of April 1982, at the hour of 7:30 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. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby give that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd. , Robert L. Wish, General Partner for Traffic Study on property located at 351 Hospital Road, on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue. Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of a 65,269 sq.ft. medical office building. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of April 1982, at the hour of 7:30 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. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby give that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach , will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido Ltd., Robert L. Wish General Partner for Traffic Study on property located at 351 Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of a 65,26 sq ft medical office building. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of April 1982, at the hour of 7:30 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. i Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach ; NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby give that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd., Robert L. Wish General Partner for Traffic Study on property located at 351 Hospital i Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue. Request to consider a Traffic Study in conjunction with the construction of a 65,269 sq.ft. medical office building. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day of April 1982, at the hour of 7:30 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. Joan Winburn, Secretary Planning Commission 's City of Newport Beach i NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the I applicant. i , i i Mary M. Dyek Centennial Partners Ltd. ^'' James T. Blandford 454 Bolero Way Medical Plaza 4126 Hilaria Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 161 Fashion Lane, #212 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tustin,, CA 92680 Helen J. Hix Wayne R. Sims Eugene W. Lightner 452 Bolero Way First American Trust Co. 2201 South Hillside St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 240 Nice Lane Wichita, KS 67211 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Donald Fiduccia First American Trust Co. Ralph Gray 14971 Rancho Circle c/o Newport Versalles ' 44 North Madison Avenue Irvine, CA 92714 550 Newport Center Drive Pasadena, CA 91101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I Wanda I . Schwaneke Villa Balboa Comm. Assn. Ralph Gray 451 Bolero Way ATTN: Carol Grace 4500 Campus Drive, #101 Newport Beach, CA 92663 First American Trust Co. I Newport Beach, CA 92660 900 Cagney Lane Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ralph J.. Gray ,John C. Klose - Philip Heckendorn 407 Evening Star Lane 4243 Hilaria Way 716 Fair Oaks Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Pasadena, CA 91105 i James D. Dodge Park Lido Building Co. Kuo-Chen Hu 26982 Carranza Drive 999 North Sepulveda Blvd. 25902 Serenata Drive Mission Viejo, CA 92675 Suite 610 Mission Viejo, CA 92671 E1 Segundo, CA 90245 ' I Errol F. Davidson T & T Investment Co. Henry M. Ho 2408 Cliff Drive 15300 South Western Ave. 3920 W. Redondo Beach Blv Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gardena, CA 90247 #47 Torrance, CA 90504 I Jacob Nendel Karen Alonso Hansel D. Benvenuti P. 0. Box 554 4243 Dana Road 27 Harbor Island Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Ci of New t each Shao Shu Fang Chai Kilroy Shopping Centers City Ha 415 North Newport Blvd. 515 S . Flower St . , li2300 New t Bea CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Newport Beach City Emp. Michael E. Heberger Newport Harbor Costa Federal Credit Union 404 38th Street Mesa Board of Realtors 425 N. Newport B1vd.#D Newport Beach, CA 92663 401 N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Edward F. Heberger Robert E. Ellsworth Betty Hamilton 404 38th Street 419 Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 11114 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana, CA 92711 3/17/82 i John E. Randall Joan M. Reynolds • Eleanor B. Olis 432 Bolero Way 462 Orion Way 4305 Hilaria Way n Arthur'J. Williams, Jr. ,Billy H. Thomas Melvin Olson 42118 Spindrift Way 22635 Spring Lake Lane 438 Bolero Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 E1 Toro, CA 92630 Newport Beach, CA 92663 • 1 I Gerald Murphy William S. Marshall Michael T. Emrick 1580 Avonrea Road K112 Maui Ledorado Lahaina 151 Granada #C San Marino, CA 91108 Maui, HI 96761 Long Beach, CA 90803 Warren Gamble Mary H. Fagin Lynne R. Valentine P. 0. Box 541 4309 Patrice Road 8 Pinehurst Lane Northbrook, IL 60062 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ! Newport Beach, CA 92660 i - Sandra -V. Shambaugh Delores E. Eifler Jack S. Hubbard 4206 Spindrift Way 4307 Patrice Road 10122 Cynthia Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1 Elnora S. Ellis James F. Corey James B. Massey 8181 San Carlos Avenue 4305 Patrice Road 979-C West Pine Street South Gate, CA 90280 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Upland, CA 91786 Alice Rail Bryson E. Hickman Fulton Foster 434 Orion Way 2333 West Coast Highway 418 Bolero Way , Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona .del Mar, CA 92625 ! Newport Beach, CA 92660 Beatrice A. Anderson Edward F. Sowers Milton J. Meehan - 432 Orion Way 465 Bolero Way 2319 Margaret Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 I Elisabeth A. Halsteen Peyton P. Callaway I Richard Nunez•' A' 430 Orion Way 467 Bolero Way 414 Bolero Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Charles G. Haskins Cecelia R. Clock i Violet A. Clark 4300 Patrice Road 4307 Dana Road 412 Bolero Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach; CA 92663 ' I Clarence Beveridge Donald E. Pugh G. Robert Hodson - 4304 Patrice Road 4305 Dana Road P. 0. Box 158 Newport Beach; CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Costa Mesa, CA, 92627 . - Leo Vortouni Denver N. Treadway T. M. DePierro 4308 Patrice Road 4301 Dana Road P. 0. Box 1333 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tustin, CA 92680 3/17/82 • .`Y _...�... .<v .. : ... .. ... ...-:": .... waf-: :aio-l.py^.fY.'.".a+:..rS4i;inlS.kn�r�-.'y;�sYci':.` 1�.%`Wa. -,:..ya56�:^"�'"'-r^_-:!'Atav::1`".... i Mary`M. Dyek *Medical Partners Ltd. • James T. Blandford 4B4 Bolero Way Medical Plaza 4126 Hilaria Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 161 Fashion Lane, #212 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tustin,, CA 92680 Helen J. Hix Wayne R. Sims Eugene W. Lightner 452 Bolero Way First American Trust Co. 2201 South Hillside St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 240 Nice Lane Wichita, KS 67211 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Donald Fiduccia First American Trust Co. Ralph Gray 14971 Rancho Circle c/o Newport Versalles 44 North Madison Avenue Irvine, CA 92714 550 Newport Center Drive Pasadena, CA 91101 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Wanda I . Schwaneke Villa Balboa Comm. Assn. Ralph Gray 451 Bolero Way ATTN: Carol Grace 4500 Campus Drive, #101 Newport Beach, CA 92663 First American Trust Co. Newport Beach, CA 92660 900 Cagney Lane Newport Beach, CA 92663 I Ralph J. Gray I John C. Klose Philip Heckendorn 407 Evening Star Lane 4243 Hilaria Way 716 Fair Oaks Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 Pasadena, CA 91105 I James D. Dodge Park Lido Building Co. Kuo-Chen Hu 26982 Carranza Drive 999 North Sepulveda Blvd. : 25902 Serenata Drive Mission Viejo, CA 92675 Suite 610 Mission Viejo, CA 92671 El Segundo, CA 90245 i Errol F. Davidson T & T Investment Co. Henry M. Ho 2408 Cliff Drive 15300 South Western Ave'. 3920 W. Redondo Beach Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gardena, CA 90247 #47 Torrance, CA 90504 Jacob Nendel Karen Alonso Hansel D. Benvenuti P. OL Box 554 4243 Dana Road i 27 Harbor Island Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 City of Newport Beach Shao Shu Fang Chai Kilroy Shopping Centers City Hall 415 North Newport Blvd. 515 S. Flower St . , #2300 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Los Angeles, CA 90071 i Newport Beach City Emp. Michael E. Heberger Newport Harbor Costa Federal Credit Union 404 38th Street Mesa Board of Realtors 425 N.. Newport Blvd. #D Newport Beach, CA 92663 401 N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Edward F. Heberger Robert E. Ellsworth Betty Hamilton 404 38th Street 419 Newport Boulevard P. 0. Box 11114 'Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa- Ana, CA 92711 3/17/82 ry ' ._ - � _ :1.._...-ti• . .� _ .;.a» :�{..L:�:+hJ Kr.I^r".faWt�('7•".:a; .2' • l:ati,,fl'• $3.N•. 4% Michael G. Cluff Fred L. Hartley Irene L. Loudon 4Qq 'Flagship Road .Union Oil Co. of Calif. • 4227 Patrice Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 P. 0. Box 7600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Los Angeles, CA 90054 Lois 0. Curtis Jeri I . Lofland Catherine A. Viles 1380 Garfield Avenue 2536 Crestview Drive 402 Orion Way San Marino, CA 91108 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Elaine A. Cerf Lynne A. Frantz Richard C. Pantzar 411 Flagship Road 2021 Business Center Dr. 400 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Suite 112 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Irvine, CA 92715 Leon H..,Levinson Jack 0. Vance Harry S. Holley 415 Flagship Road 218 Morning Canyon Road 1441 Fulbright Newport Beach, CA 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625i Redlands, CA 92373 j Irwin Manecke, Jr. Harold H. Reitz Margaret A. Twombly 4308 Spindrift Way 4207 Patrice Road I 4209 Patrice Road Newport -Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Victor A. Vernon Maxmilian A. Bartosh II William D. Evans 4130 Spindrift Way 405 Flagship ,Road 1 4031 Patrice Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 . 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ! I � i I Karen L. Newcomb ! Arthur Kellman - Louise E. Hall 4312 Spindrift Way ! P. 0. Box 1746 406 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lahaina, HI 96761 i Newport Beach, CA 92663 j � I j Helen D. Herrmann , Lawrence R. Maurice Harold. R. Nyholm 407 Orion Way 403 Bolero Way 404 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 I Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Dorothy S. Dismukes Louis D. Mujica Jacqueline S. Cover 405 Orion Way 405 Bolero Way I 4307 Hilara Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach,- CA 92663 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 r I I Arthur L. Fountain Helen I . Morris H. Bruce ,Denton,• Jr. 5281 St. George Road 600 East Oceanfront N3F 437 Bolero Way Westminster,,, CA 92683 Balboa, CA 92661 Newport Beach,, CA 92663 Carole J. Westman Chester G. Northrup Melvin L. Hauge 3081 Klondike Avenue 530-7 Fairview Avenue 440 Bolero Way Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Arcadia, CA 91006 Newport Beach, CA 92663 3/17/82 _%. ..�C�w'SN rps—X ti:.i i+n'?.`:[ .'e`,J :rx _->t- ... _. . Tl. L/� A. tir-:• „f,;.l-:r G1::..'d'•,. w .. fH.. .",' .. .. .. - i :Sin.•'[s ... - n. !• t.ydp�/,.'SI"y .. _ .. • _ . .. _. - .- DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT PARK LI9O LTD. THE ATTACHED CHECK IS IN PAYMENT OF ITEMS OEECRIBED BF N TA'IA ~A. DA IF Ny' ARECT PLEASE NOTIFY UE PROMPTLY. NO RECEIP DE !r AIJ • DELUXE FORM WVC-3 V-2 DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2-25-82 For City of Newport Beach Traffic Study 1,980.00 � u �n �. u� a �n v4ssoe � ates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering am, February 26, 1982 �V�o�JS' 'ate xFr t� Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach to 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: The firm of Kunzman Associates is pleased to submit this proposed Agreement to provide professional engineering services for a traffic impact analysis of a revision to the Hospital Road Medical Building project. SCOPE OF WORK The traffic analysis will address all three phases of the City of Newport Beach' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance. TIME SCHEDULE It is estimated that the traffic study will take approxi- mately eight working days to complete from the date of authorization , and receipt of data essential for the study. COMPENSATION The fee for this revised traffic study shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in the Standard Compensation Schedule, a copy of which is attached and is incorporated into this Memorandum of Agreement in its entirety. However, in no case will the total fee for the specified services exceed $1.1800 without prior approval from you or your authorized representative. The fee does not include attendance or presentations at public hearings, or reanalysis which may occur after presentation at a public hearing. 4BB4 Barranca Parkway * Irvine, CA 92714 * (714) 559-4231 This letter can serve as a Memorandum of Agreement and our authorization to proceed. Please sign one copy and return it to us for our files. We are looking forward to assisting you on this project. Respectfully submitted, KUNZMA`N�A_SS-OCIATES Zw tivv`r J William Kunzman, P.E. CONTRACT APPROVAL Approved by: Title: Jurisdiction: Date: Place of Execution: .�o �C�. � �. w� a � v4ssoe � ates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering STANDARD COMPENSATION SCHEDULE (Effective July, 1981) Classification Hourly Rate Firm Principal $60.00 Associates $45.00 Engineering Technician $15.00 Secretary $15.00 General Provisions of Agreement 1. Travel, reproduction, and supply costs are billed at cost. 2. Hourly rates apply to worktime as well as travel time and waiting time which occur at public hearings, depositions, or court testimony. 3. For court testimony, the above rates are to be increased 50 percent. 4. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon com- pletion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of the state- ment date. Any invoice unpaid after 30 days shall be subject to interest at the maximum permitted by law. 5. Client hereby agrees that the balance in a billing statement is correct and binding unless the client notifies the consultant in writing within ten days of the date of billing and informs consultant of alleged in- correct item. 6. All documents produced as a result of this agreement shall remain the property of the consultant and may be used by the consultant without consent from the client. 7. The consultant makes no warranty as to his findings except that the work is performed using generally accepted methods. 8. The client agrees to limit the consultant's liability to the client, because of professional negligent acts, errors, or omissions by the consultant, to the consultant's fee. 9. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgement upon the award rendered by the arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 4B64 Barranca Parkway * Irvine, CA 92714 * (7141 559-4231 � u ►n �. u� au� v4ssoc � ates Transportation Planning *Traffic 9 9 � FfCEVVF '� i � 1'LnninF February 26, 1982 MAR1 1982a V i,; Mr. Fred Talarico ro Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: The firm of Kunzman Associates is pleased to submit this proposed Agreement to provide professional engineering services for a traffic impact analysis of a revision to the Hospital Road Medical Building project. SCOPE OF WORK The traffic analysis will address all three phases -of the City of Newport Beach' s Traffic Phasing Ordinance. TIME SCHEDULE It is estimated that the traffic study will take approxi- mately eight working days to complete from the date of authorization , and receipt of data essential for the study. COMPENSATION The fee for this revised traffic study shall be based upon personnel charges .plus direct expenses as indicated in the Standard Compensation Schedule, a copy of which is attached and is incorporated into this Memorandum of Agreement in its entirety. However, in no case will the total fee for the specified services exceed $1.,800 without prior approval from you or your authorized representative. The fee does not include attendance or presentations at public hearings, or reanalysis which may occur after presentation at a public hearing. 4BS4 Bgrpance Parkway * Irvine, CA 92714 * (714) 559-4231 This letter can serve as a Memorandum of Agreement and our authorization to proceed. Please sign one copy and return it to us for our files. We are looking forward to assisting you on this project. Respectfully submitted, KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES A) William Kunzman, P.E. CONTRACT APPROVAL Approved by: Title: Jurisdiction: Date: Place of Execution: M D9K �}Cutn u� au� v4ssoe � ates '�, Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering STANDARD COMPENSATION SCHEDULE (Effective July, 1981) Classification Hourly Rate Firm Principal $60.00 Associates $45.00 Engineering Technician $15.00 Secretary $15.00 General Provisions of Agreement 1. Travel, reproduction, and supply costs are billed at cost. 2. Hourly rates apply to worktime as well as travel time and waiting time which occur at public hearings, depositions, or court testimony. 3. For court testimony, the above rates are to be increased 50 percent. 4. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon com- pletion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of the state- ment date. Any invoice unpaid after 30 days shall be subject to interest at the maximum permitted by law. 5. Client hereby agrees that the balance in a billing statement is correct and binding unless the client notifies the consultant in writing within ten days of the date of billing and informs consultant of alleged in- correct item. 6. All documents produced as a result of this agreement shall remain the property of the consultant and may be used by the consultant without consent from the client. 7. The consultant makes no warranty as to his findings except that the work is performed using generally accepted methods. B. The client agrees to limit the consultant's liability to the client, because of professional negligent acts, errors, or omissions by the consultant, to the consultant's fee. 9. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgement upon the award rendered by the arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 46B4 Barranca Parkway * Irvine, CA 92714 * (7141 559-4231 USA20o uRpanssoc�ates •r CD Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering, N O Ago w Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ` _4664 Barranca Parkway * Irvine, CA 22714 *(7141 559-4231 C Cj< 9< (-AWUates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering co �SasCE,vEptAMG 1 March 17, 1982 P1ANTmE �819Ott 9 82�'" Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Talarico: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis for the Hospital Road Medical office Building. This analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. We trust that this report will be of immediate as well as continuing value to the City of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ^KU.N'ZM�A,(N ASSOC7IATES William Kunzman, P.E. 4664 Barranca Parkway * Irvine, CA 92714 * (714) 559-4231 6 Project Related Improvements In that the Superior and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is impacted by other development projects and regional traffic, the responsibility for the improvements recommended should be appor- tioned in an equitable manner. In the City of Newport Beach' s 1981 - 1982 budget, the improve- ments of one southbound left lane, two southbound through lanes and one southbound right lane to the Superior/Pacific Coast Highway intersection have been included. It is anticipated that construction will begin this fiscal year. Other projects have proposed the addition of one westbound through lane and one south- bound right lane. This project proposes the restripping of the northbound lanes to include three northbound through lanes . With these improvements, the intersection will 'operate at .8929 . The Dover and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is currently being reconstructed. The proposed improvements include: three south- bound left lanes, one southbound right Zane, and one southbound through; two eastbound left lanes, and three eastbound through lanes; one westbound right lane, one westbound left lane and three westbound through lanes. Once these improvements are completed, the intersection will operate at . 7650. 10 Table 5 PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Intersection Improvements Superior and Pacific City improvements will create Coast Highway one southbound left lane, two southbound through lanes and one southbound right lane. Other projects are committed to provide one southbound right turn lane and one westbound through lane. This project is proposing restripping the north- bound lanes to include three northbound through through lanes . Fo er and Pacific City-State highway project to oast Highway be completed in Spring of 1982. 11 1NTERSEC#ON CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALY# Appendix C Intersec on Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd.- uperior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) EXIST.- EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED VIC Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movement Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. P01 Ratio VIC Volume PROJECT who Project Volume VIC Ratio Yl. o Volume Volume Volume NL 2400 421 .1754* NT 2400 4800 265 .1104 5 . '15-60* .1560* NR , 1600 N.S. 58 .0363 SL 1600 146 . 0913 •0913 ST 3200 473 . 1934 15 . 1525* .1525 SR 1600 3200 , - 708 .4425* 21 2278 22 .2347* EL 3200 244 .0763 3 . 0772* 14 .0816- ET 3200 828 .2588 22 215 . 3328 1 . 3328 ER 1600 N.S. 401 - .2506 .2506 .2506 WL 1600 -851. - .0531 .0531 .0531 WT 3200 4800 1329 .4153* 25 500 .4022* . 4022* WR 1600 N.S. 77 .0481 YELLOWTIME 1000* .1000* i . 1000* I r i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 332 1 l EXISTING PLUS COPAIITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U.9 8 87 9 i EXISTING PLUS CWITTEO PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. w/proposed improve- ments ICU ❑ 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 sy3tems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: 1. Add third westbound through lane 2. - Eliminate southbound free right, and replace with two right turn lanes. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT FORM 11 We Are Pleased To Present The Accompanying Document. One Copy is Unbound To Facilitate Reproduction. V<unaman v4novwes