HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO023_NEWPORT PLACE (BOYLE ENG.) I IIIINII IIII III III IIIIIII IIIII II�II IIII III IIII
TP0023
Planning Commission Meeting May 8, 1980
Agenda Item No. 5
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
May ,2 , 1980
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Request to consider an amendment to the Newport
Place Planned community Traffic Phasinq Plan, and
t e accs tance of an Environmental Document Dis-
cussion
LOCATION: A portion of Industrial Site 3A of the Planne-d
Commu'nity of Newport Place, located at 1501 Quail
Street, on the southwesterly side of Quail Street
between Birch Street and Spruce Avenue .
ZONE: P-C
APPLICANT: Boyle Engineering Corporation , Newport Beach
OWNER: Same as Applicant
Request
The Boyle Engineering Corporation has requested a approval of
a Phasing Plan to comply with Resolution No . 9472 of the Newport
Beach City Council , Amendment No. 514 as it pertains to the Plan-
ned Community Development Plan for Newport Place , and City Coun-
cil actions in approving the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan .
Additionally, the applicant requests the acceptance of an Environ-
mental Document.
General Plan
Dhe proposed project is consistent with the various elements of
the Newport Beach General Plan .
Environmental Significance
The City of Newport Beach Environmental Affairs Committee has re-
viewed the proposed project and determined that although the pro-
i
TO: Planning Commission - 2
ject could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case if the mitigation
measures described in the attached Negative 'Declaration are incor-
porated into the project.
Proposed Project
The applicants propose to construct a 12',000 sq. ft. addition to
their existing facility. The proposed expansion would be an
elevated building over a portion of the existing parking area
and be available for occupancy in 1981. The proposed expansion
would be exclusively for the use of Boyle Engineering Corpora-
tion. Should the Planning Commission approve the Traffic Phas-
ing Plan Amendment, the applicant has indicated it is his inten-
tion to apply for a Modification to the parking standards which
would be required to allow for the construction of the expansion
space with at-grade parking .
Phasing Plan
The applicants have indicated that should the Phasing Plan be
approved, it is their intention to occupy the expansion space
in 1981.
Resolution No . 9472
Attached ,for the Planning Commission ' s copsideration is a copy of
the applicant's response to the Planning Commission guidelines
for reviewing the Phasing Plan , as modified by the City Council .
Traffic Report
A Traffic Report was prepared for the applicant by Weston Pringle
and Associates and is attached. The Traffic Report analyzed the
fifteen (15) cridical intersections identified for analysis by
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach. The
findings of the Traffic Report indicate that the project traf-
fic will not increase volumes on any approach to the potential
critical intersections by 2. 0% (0.4% was the highest) .
Staff Analysis
The proposed project consists of the expansion of an existing
buil-ding in the Newport 'Place Planned Community by 12 ,000 sq . ft.
the City Council in approving the Traffic Phasing Plan for New-
port Place, on March 12, 1979 , phased construction of deyel'opment
r �
TO: Planning Commission - 3
within the Planned Community, subject to the conditions as indicated
below. The proposed expansion would come from the 190,262 sq . ft.
of expansion space remaining after the development of the undevelop-
ed ,parcels .
DEVELOPMENT PHASING
REMAINING FOR FOR FOR
ALLOWED OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY
OWNER SQ. FT. 1979 1980 1981
Undeveloped Parcels:
Emkay 292,388 0 206,269 66,442
Bear Brand Ranch 61,000 61,000 0 0
Air California 40,951 0 40,951 0
Ketchum 87,019 87,019 0 0
— _7 1
Subtotal : 481,358 148,019 247,220 66,442 1
Expansion Space:
Various Parcels: 190•,262
TOTAL NEWPORT PLACE: 671,620
Conditions
1. Occupancy of the floor space considered for construction in
1979 shall not occur until a third lane is developed on Mac-
Arthur Boulevard in each direction at the Campus Drive in-
tersection and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection is made
to the west and the San Diego Freeway.
2. The occupancy of buildings shall not occur until the Mac-
Arthur/Ford improvements are completed.
3. The opening of the Von Karman overcrossing and the addition
of a northbound lane on Jamboree Road by the City of Irvine
shall be accomplished prior to occupancy of any buildings .
4. Future development in the Emkay-Newport Place Planned Com-
munity shall occur in accordance with the Phasing Plan.
5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall indicate in writing to the Department of Community
Development that he understands and agrees to Conditions
1 , 2 and 3 above and that the improvements indicated above
shall be as defined in the R. Crommelin & Associates ' report
and as approved by the Public Works Department.
x
a
TO: Planning Commission - 4
Suggested Action
If the Planning Commission desires to approve or modify and ap-
prove the project, staff would suggest that the Planning Commis-
sion accept the environmental document certifying it
and approve or modify and approve the Phasing Plan with the find-
ings and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR
By .,_. .�
Fred Talarico
Environmental Coordinator
FT/gs
ATTACHMENTS: Letter, Boyle Engineering Corp. , April 15 , 1980
Traffic Phasing Plan
Vicinity Map
Traffic Report, April 1 , 1980
Negative Declaration
I
TO : Planning Commission - 5
EXHIBIT "A"
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Environmental Document:
Findings :
1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been
prepared in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and that their contents have been considered
in the decisions on this project.
2. That based upon the information contained in the environ=
mental document, the proposed project will not have a sig-
nificant environmental impact, the project subject to the
conditions listed ,below incorporates sufficient mitigation
mesures so that any presently anticipated negative environ-
mental effects of the project would be eliminated.
Traffic Phasing Plan
Findings :
1. That environmental documentation on this proposed project
has been prepared in compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act and City Policy K-3 and that its contents
have been considered in decisions on this project.
2. That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the Newport Beach
General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan for
Newport Place.
3. That based on the Phasing Plan and supporting information
submitted therewith , there is a reasonable correlation between
projected traffic at time of completion and the capacity of
affected intersections .
•4. That the applicant has taken into consideration in the pre-
paration of his plan characteristics in the design of his
development which either reduce traffic generation or guide
traffic onto less impact arterials or through intersections
in the least congested direction .
Conditions :
1 . That the occupancy of the proposed expansion area shall not
occur prior to 1981 .
TO: Planning Commission - 6
2. That a maximum of 12,000 sq. ft. of additional construction
shall be permitted on the site.
3. That final design of the 12 ,000 sq . ft. of additional con-
struction shall provide for the incorporation of water-
saving devices for project lavatories and other water using
facilities .
4. Prior to the occupancy of the expansion area , a program for
the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes
for the site shall be developed and approved by the Planning
Department.
5. The applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all
parking areas .
6. The landscape plan of the existing site shall be reviewed
by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape
program shall be modified to include the concerns of Condi-
tions 7 and 8 below to the maximum extent practicable that
can maintain the character of the existing landscape pro-
gram of the site and the Newport Place Planned Community.
Any change(s ) in said existing program as a result of this
review shall be phased and incorporated as a portion of
existing Tandscape maintenance.
7. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which
controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides .
8. 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 over-watering .
9. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the
Parks., Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the
Planning Department.
1 • I
NEGATIVE DECLAP,ATIOI
TO: Secretary for Resources FP,O}l: Planning Department
1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach
Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard
tle:iport Beach, CA 92663
x Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors
P. 0. Box 687
ta Ana. CA
NAME OF PROJECT: Amendment Noel to the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan
PROJECT LOCATION: 1501 Quail Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
PROJECT DESCRIPTIO%e proposed project consists of a 12,000 sq.ft. expansion to an
existing office building in the Newport Place Planned Community.
FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to
procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project
and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
See attached -
MFlM�W4MAw.Ww lar,e,r�a N.»rs. w�..�...,,vws.w�MMWY,MV.wvn.w.w.,M/ • y
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach
INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 tewl-ort Elloulevard, Newport Beach, CA
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: inl�. / G✓�
Fred TaTarico
Environmental Coordinator
Date: April 21 , 1980
.«...—......—,.,..............+.,.........-..r�.....n.. .w....,.w..r......�..rwen.�w...,..a.....,rs...w.n...,..wc+,+wn.�.✓.•n+arC.:ru.e.Y•.,w..w..a,u:a:w.....+....wry.
. Mitigation Measures
1 . The applicant should provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all parking areas.
2. The final design of the expansion space should provide for the incorporation
of water-saving devices for any project lavatories and other water using
facilities.
3. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of
recyclable materials from other solid wastes should be developed.
4. Should any major changes be contemplated to the existing landscape
program during modifications to the parking lot design, they should
incorporate the following concepts:
(a) heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation
(b) irrigation via a system designed to avoid over-watering and
surface runoff.
(c) maintenance programs to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides.
5. Development and occupancy of the project should be in compliance with the
proposed phasing plan.
6. All development on the project site should provide parking in conformance
with City requirements. The possible approval of this project should not
negate the responsibility of the applicant to provide parking to the maximum
extent required by City ordinance, unless they can demonstrate through the
Modification procedures outlined in City Development Standards that reductions
in the number of on-site parking spaces are warrented.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AND PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach
will hold a public hearing on the application of
Boyle Engineering Corporation "
for an Amendment to the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan designated Amendment No. 1 .
on property located at 1501 Quail 'Stroet, 'Newport Beach
to permit the construction of 12,000•sq.ft. '6f additional office space with associated
parking, landscAping ''and other facilities in conjunction therewith.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the
City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It.is the
present intention of the City to adopt the Negative Declaration and supporting documents.
The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this
documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available
for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach,
3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (714) 640-2197.
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the
8th day of May 19 "8^ Or^, 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.
Debra Allen, Secretary
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
" NEGATIVE DECLARATION TPo-Wa-23
TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Planning Department
1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach
Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
x Clerk of the Board of 'i
Supervisors
P. 0. Box 687
Santa Ana, CA 92702
NAME OF PROJECT: , Amendment No. 1 to the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan .
PROJECT LOCATION: .1501 Quail Street, Newport Beach,' CA 92663
PROJECT DESCRIPTIO%e proposed project consists of a 12,000 sq.ft. expansion to an
existing office building in the Newport Place Planned Community.
FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to
procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project
and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
See attached - - --
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach
INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING:
J
Fred TaTarico��
Environmental Coordinator
Date: April 21 , 1980
0 Mitigati.on Measures *;
1 . The applicant should provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all parking areas.
2. The final design of the expansion space should provide for the incorporation
of water-saving devices for any project lavatories and other water using
facilities.
3. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of
recyclable materials from other solid wastes should be developed.
4. Should any major changes be contemplated to the existing landscape
program during modifications to the parking lot design, they should
incorporate the following concepts:
(a) heavy emphasis on the use of drought-resistant native vegetation
(b) irrigation via a system designed to avoid over-watering and
surface runoff.
(c) maintenance programs to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides.
5. Development and occupancy of the project should be in compliance with the
proposed phasing plan.
6. All development on the project site should provide parking in conformance
with City requirements. The possible approval of this project should not
negate the responsibility of the applicant to provide parking to the maximum
extent required by City ordinance, unless they can demonstrate through the
Modification procedures outlined in City Development Standards that reductions
in the number of on-site parking spaces are warrented.
�s
H1
APPENDIX H
Date Filed April 18, 1980
Environmental Information Form
(To be completed by. applicant)
GENERAL IINFORMATION
1. Namg and address of developer or project sponsor: BaylP__�
Engineering Corporation, P.O. Box 3030, Newport Beach, CA 92663'
2. Address of- project:
Assessor's Block and Lot Num eorl - -
3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted
concernin 'this project: Conrad Hohener Jr.
P.O. Box 3�30, Newport Beach - 0
' 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to
( which this form pertains: 1
5—. -ust and describe any o er related permits and other public
approvals required for this project, including those required by
city, regional, state and federal agencies: Newport Beach Planning
Commission Newport Beach Modification Commi_t_tpp• Bui-ldinp permit
6. Existing zoning district: P-C
7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed) :
EngineeringlA itecturalyiSPc
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
8. Site size. 96,485 s.f. (2.215 Ac)
9. Sqaare footage. 12,000 s.f. project
W. t%niber of floors of construction. 2
1) . ,. �.uit of off-street parking provided. 174
1-i'. Ar.lach plan:,. Not applicable
li. Proposed scheduling. Completion 1981
111 . Associated projects . None
Ir,.• Anticipated incremental development. None
I
a2
16. If residential, include the number -of units, schedule of
unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household
size expected. NA
17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city
+ or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading
facilities. NA
18d. If iindustrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift,
a 40 mploye facilities. Engineering/Architectural office building, one shift
19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated
employment per shift, estimated`oecupancy, loading facilities,
and community benefits to be derived from the project. NA
20. If the project Involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning
application, state this and indicate clearly why the application
is required. See attachment
Are the following items applicable to the project or•its`effects?
Discuss below all items checked yea (attach additional sheets as
necessary) .
Y88 NO
x 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands,
beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of
ground contours.
X 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing
` residential areas or public lands or roads.
x 23. Change in pattern; scale or character of general
area of project.
x 24, Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
x 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in
vicinity.
x 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water
` quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage
patterns.
x 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration
levels in the vicinity.
x 28. Site on filled land or on slope or 10 percent or More.,
x 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials,
such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives.
F13
YI_ ; NO
X 30. Substantial change .in demand for municipal services
(police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) .
X 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption
— (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc . ) .
X' 32. Relationship to a labger project or series of
_ projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project,
Including information on topography, soil stability, plants and
animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe
any te, and
Attachiphotographstofethen site.the siSnapshots horupola oidse of e t �
photos will
be accepted. See attachment
34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information
on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic
aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial,
ets.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops,
department stores, etc.) , and scale of development (height,
frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.) . Attach- photographs of the
vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. See attachment
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
aFo—ve —tld—in or
mationa required cfor tthis dinitial tevaluation s present tto thea he dat and f best of my
abiity, and that ion
arel
ltrue and correct etoB the�best tofemysknowledge and o and Lbelie presented
i
Date April 18, 1980 gna ure
For ----
{ APPENDIX I
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECYLIST FORM
Environmental Checklist form
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
1. Background
1. Name of oponent
2. Address and hone Number of Proponent
3. Date of Checklist Submission
4. Agency Requiring Ch klist
S. Name of Proposal, if a licable _
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and " be" answers are required on attached
sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
t 1. Earth. Will' the propo al result in.
a. Unstable earth onditions or in
changes in g ogic substructures? _
b: Disruptio , displacements, com—
paction overcovering of the soil? _
c. Chan in topography or ground
nor ace relief features? _
d. a destruction, covering or modi—
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or
lake?
73
•
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
ATTACHMENT
Item 20 If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning
application, state this and indicate clearly why the application
is required.
The project is contingent on an amendment of the Newport Place Traffic
Phasing Plan and contingent on the modification committee for required
offstreet parking.
Item 33 Describe the project site:
The proposed project site is comprised of approximately 12,000 square feet of
essentially flat land that has been paved with asphalt for use as a parking
lot. No natural habitat occurs on-site that is capable of supporting any
wildlife populations. No officially recognized rare, endangered, or threatened
plant or animal species have been observed, reported, or are expected to occur.
Similarly, no other unique or limited biological resources are present. No
cultural or historical resource items are found on-site. With the exception of
a number of landscaped concrete planters, there are no other structures on the
project site.
Item 34 Describe the surrounding properties:
Land abutting the northwest and southeast boundaries of the subject property are
currently in commercial use (i .e. , multi-level business offices). Bristol Street
(north) abuts the southwestern boundary and Quail Street abuts the northeastern
boundary. No native plant communities, wildlife populations, cultural , historical ,
or scenic resources have been observed or expected to occur.
113
NO
30. Substantial change .in demand for municipal rvlces
(police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) .
31. Substantially increase fossil fuel cons ption
(electricity, oil, natural gas, etc. ) .
32. Relationship to a larger project or eties of
rojects.
ENVIRONMENT SETTING
33. Describe he project site as it exists efore the project,
including infor ation on topography, soil ability, plants and
animals, and any cultural, historical or Genic aspects. Describe
any existing stru tures. on the site, an the use of the structures.
Attach photographs f the site. Snaps ots or polaroid photos will
be accepted.
34. Describe the sur unding pro rties, including information
on plants and animals a d any cu ural, historical or scenic
aspects. Indicate the t• e of 1 d use (residential, commercial,
cts.) , intensity of land se ne-family, apartment houses, shops,
department stores, etc.) , n scale of development (height,
vicinity. sSnapshots rear
py adoidtphotos Attach
bephotographs
acce of the
accepted.
CERTIFICATION: I her y certif that the statements furnished
am ove ancin the att hed exhibi presee,t the data and infor-
ation required for his initial aluation to the best or my
ability, and that he facts, state nts, and information presented
are trut: and cor ect to the best of y knowledge and belier.
Date gna ure
For
my
• � + - .� ram. V.
1
APPENDIX I
FNVIRONMENTAL CNECFLIST FORM
Environmental Checklist Form
(To Be Completed By Lead Agency)
T. Back7round R //
I. Name of Proponent T W,9%1jx'cC1N
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent
1501 Otj o�l 1J gdtAndk-r Cat .a• Q2&a S
3. Date of Checklist Submission '��L�(Sy
4. Agency Requiring Checklist v, Cfr tt ,>%,r
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable •b7 NC AA;�u"?Lau_c.
12. Environmental Impacts TC�IFFt( Si +
(Explanations of all "yea" and "maybe' answers are required on attached
sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in v
changes in geologic substructures? _
b. Disruptions, displacements, com—
paction or overcovering of the soil? _
c. Change in topography or ground (/
surface relief features? M _
d. The destruction, covering or modi—
fication of any unique geologic or V
physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or
lake? �— --- --
73
YES MAYBE NO
5 };. Expu• ure of people or property to
geological hazards such as oarth-
• quako%, landtilides, mudslirles, ground
tat lure, or :oimilar hazard-0 _ _ _.. __.___
2. _Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deteri-
oration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in /
climate, either locally or regionally? _
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements, in either v
marine or fresh waters? _
b. Changes in absorption rates,, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course of flow of
flood waters? —
d. Change in the amount of surface water �-
in any water body?
I e. Discharge into surface waters or in '
any alteration of surface water
quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity? _—
f. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters? _
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts ✓
or excavations? —
h. Substantial reduction in the amount -
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as 1 /
flooding or tidal waves?
74
• • ' Y 1i'
' i,vF.-7A:22
YES MAYBE tx)
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, —
crops, and aquatic plants)?
jb. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of �----
existing species?
t d. Reduction in acreage of any -
agricultural crop?
1 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals
_ (birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,
or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, ' C i
rare or endangered species of animals? _
c. Introduction of new species of ani-
mals into an area, or result in a
barrier to the migration or movement ( ��
of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat? ---
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
V
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise v
levels? --
7. Lirht and Clare. Will the proposal produce i
new light or glare? ---
B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
75
YFS MAYRF NO
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any /
natural resources? y
b. Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve
a risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or v
upset conditions?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an, area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing, or create a demand �-
for additional housing? —
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional /
vehicular movement? y
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking? v
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? v
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazardous to L/
motor vehicles , bicyclists or
pedestrians?
14. Public Serviceg. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
folio•wir'
76
8
YES HAYBE No
a. Fire protection? --
b. Police protection? [.
c. Schools? --
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Haidtenance of public facilities,
including roads? --
f. Other governmental services? v'
15. Energ Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or • lam
energy? ---
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of
energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
bo communications systems?
C. Water7
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal? v-
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding v
mental health)? _
b. Exposure of people to potential v-
health hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
71
I 9 YES MAYBE NO
( 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result
in an impact upon the quality or quantity /
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Archeological/Historical. Will tbv
proposal result in an alteration of a
significant archeological or historical
site, structure, object or building? _
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the. project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish ,
or wildlife population to drop below
self—sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal'community, I
reduce the number or restrict .the
range of a rare or endangered plant s
or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of �.
California history or prehistory?
( }
b. Does the project have the potential to
( achieve short—term, to the disadvantage
of long—term, environmental goals? (A
short—term impact on the environment is
one which occurs in a relatively brief
definitive period of time while long—
term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu—
latively considerable? (A project
may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each
resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is
significant.) _
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
Jadverse effects on 'humnn beings, /
either directly or indirectly? _
i[l. Discussion of Environmental EvaluartionQ
TV. Determination
See, tiCTP�eY>�1
(io be completed by the Lead Agency)
78
• •' ppe�2a:'Lb •
io
On the hasis of this initial evaluation: .
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant-effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I
• i
Ll
Date 7` / Signrtur�I � � I � ��LOI++ •.v4
o.�n'1�
For
i
II (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agenci re free to devise
their own format for initial studies.)
7 1 ,
I
79 /
.•mot •
- _ ' � �. _ \mac..- --(�ua�c�sec3,-Y�csarcc•.r _y�^oy- coNTiN��_`�O d�sc`,e�.c..
-- --I I-- - - SuC�t�cc. _ ec.lNt,�•w^_---0�--/�-- C1v_c�coh�ct.��
-
- - - --- I----- -- J`1�Tuoa1"1o1�__-�.n�cxsu�cc.� __�-,�.,c, bczr.� �cs��•Nr� �v as
------ - --- - --
- -
Vo'CCNT
- --- co�oseA--X?coe -
-- - -- - - ��c^�'`��_ e�TcN'C- - -�oNT�Nu•G ---P` - ��u,`mu�o_'C�uG_
----------- I �M�t7.C�_ ol�__�`-'C`l��- -�cSoW G�•S , J"1�"C\CnLa'CrON
- --= -- - - s^_cusuctS __n�.�c'R�� • - w Qcc _ cr�� _- - o �- - 'P-coc��.c�s- -
-
- -
-
-
- �I� - -L -t -8o�fCAFFt_C� cG�Crcc�—iM- oa1 1 0.PFlL --
�S�S'eptJ�Pc � �c� kksK..--•�----�1JCCX�`(�CX'Catc� _hccc�� � -- 2rcccN[-� _ �N4}.�cmreS--- ---
1\-r-kNG2� WL _T + R' tlN 1 �ol
- -- - 13�-- -':-tv--�cc7(���G-((�����T- •wt \1 c,cccxcc=-•0.
-- oN_s�tG -
• it- - ---- --fir - - -- - --- ' - - �-- --
-- - - - -- i���J__C�----- _�"�.,-_-�?ccl"F,�T —����ac_�-�_-�X�S��(N���•cr�ceN� - -__.
- - -- -- - --- 'i� ----- -- ---�C-�t_y���`l�f C�- �1•N��__�N�CCMC IJTca-X.- -W�—�--
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING •
AND PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach
will hold a public hearing on the application of
be,a�ka@wfte s Need hoc faT►oh)
AMC1JDMCjN7 CE 2• -'A -rh F' OGaet,
for ari Variance t •Rc=r-m i�3S6 myrdc-p1-y-S6j)F1AN
❑ Resubdivision ❑ Tentative Map Tract
1501 gaail ScftCr, (p
on property located at Newport Beach
M)OOO SGt.VT. OP PPvtTtoNA( .
to permit the construction of !R ' :tim=e--=rp 'T
OFFtGF. S1�A•CE wt'r11 At5s0Ct0t'Cr '7i.f 1t W, t44NGSC0.htN9
$wu ;r7va¢�ic�uClia��iacut�W.l 'h.'hEl>•t iEaz zaF '�H61 ��^- � >
rm 3
•f7i'S't.'Pai�l.'. p.� OT�neC F'PG�t_�Ttt� ltJ CnN3'U1NCTlOA1 Z
ThcfGw�
z
0
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the
City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above.
It is the present intention of the City to adopt the Negative Declaration and
supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review
and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and
supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning
Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
California, 92663, (714) - /60W-201.7-
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the
gh+ , day of 19 80 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.
Debra Allen, Secretary
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
=- e-..ex nse. is_n o• i.c c—is—paa a-
i
I
I
- --�-
i
I
1
I
1
------- --- ----- -
-- ---- --------- --- -- - - - - -- - - --------- -
•THE N EW PORT ENSIGN This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
A
STATE OF CJIFORNIA, its.
Notice
County of Orange,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the .Proof of Publication of
County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled Environmental Document
matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the
Newport Harbor Ensign newspaper of general circula-
tion, printed and published weekly in the city of
Newport Beach, County of Orange, and which news-
paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the Count of Or- Pullnc14 H
y NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING AND
ange, State of California, under the date of May 14, PBEPAPATI N'OF ENVIRONMENTAL {
ENT
1951, CASE NUMBER A-20178 that the notice, of Haucnle hereby given thetnhePhoto-
which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not mg comml.da4 of the city of Newport
Beech will hold a public hearing on the
smaller than nonpareil) has been published in each application of BOYLE ENGINEERING
regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in
CORPORATION)or an Amendment to
the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan
any supplement thereof on the following dates to-wit: designated Amendment No. 1 on pm-
Ratty located al 1601 Ouall SI,Newpoll
Beech to permit the comtucilon of
12,000 elf f0 of additional office space i
Published Apr.23 1980 with associated fa parking, landscaping,
f end 'other facllllloe In conjunction
lion NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER
GIVEN Iepa a byethe City
of few hat
bean papered ct Ilia with
al Newport
Beach In connection with We appBca• 1
•••••••••••••••••••' •' •" ••• •' "' flan noted above.it is the present Inten.
Lion of the City to adopt the Negative
Declamlidn and supporting documents.
The City encourages memben of the
general public to xevlew and comment
on this documentation. Captee of the
Negative Declaration and supporting
document tiro ave6able lot public
review and Impeceon at the Planning
Depedthenl, City of Newport Beach,
I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the { ort
Beech,,CI49G663(714)640.2197,Notice
foregoing is true an correct. Dated yy}} Newport Is hereby further given that said pgbllo
B alifornia,thisb day of Apr. 19250 hearing will be held on the 6th day of
May 198D,atthe hourol7:3D p.m.in the
CouncilChamber. of the Newport
Beach City Hell, at which it.. and
placo enyand ell person,Intaretlod may
a ppoarandbehoardihereon
Debra Alton, Secretary, Planning
Commission,City of Newport Beach. ,
PebWh. Apdi 23, IND In The
I�Newpod En,lgo. NE354
Signature N
f- fk
THE NEWPORT ENSIGN
APF� ' ��i°� 5
�Hr
2721 E Coast Hwy.,Corona del Mar,California 92625 6
PROOF OF PUBLICATION 7.409E-0
• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
AND PREPARATION OF'ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach
will hold a public hearing on the application of
Boyle En ineering'Corporation
for an Amendment to the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan designated Amendment No. 1
on property located at '1501 'Quail Street, Newport Beach
to permit the construction"of 12,000'sq.ft: of additional office space with associated
parking, landscapincg' `and other'facilities in conjunction therewith.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the
City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. • It is the
present intention of the City to adopt the Negative Declaration and supporting documents.
The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this
documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available
for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport -Beach,
3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (714) 640-2197.
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the
8th day of' ' May " ' 19" •80 at the hour of 7:36 P.M. in the
Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all
persons interested may appear and be heard thereon.
Debra Allen-, Secretary
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES
May 8 , 1980
N H City of Newport Be h
ROIL CALL INDEX
LOCATION: A portion of Block 93 o Irvine ' s APPROVED
Subdivision, located oiri the easter
ly, "s'ide of East CoasHighway, nor
-
1 of -Dahlia Av nue in Corona
del Mar.
ZONE: P-C
APPLICANT: Chevron , U . S . . , Inc. , La Habra
OWNER: The Irvine mpany, Newport Beach
AND
Request to reconstruct and expand an existing Item #7
Chevron automobile ses vice station.
USE PER-
LOCATION: Portter�ons of Lots 1 and 2 , and Lots MIT NO .
3 'hd 4, Block K, Tract No. 470 1938
a d a portion of Block 93 of Ir-
ine ' s Subdivision , located at APPROVED
2546 East Coast Highway , on the ONDI-
northeasterly corner of East Coast T ION LLY
Highway and Dahlia Avenue in Cor-
ona del Mar.
ZONES: C-1 and P-C
APPLIC T: Chevron , U. S .A. , Inc. , La Habra
OWNE The Irvine Company , Newport Beach
AND
equest to create one parcel of land for commer- Item #8
cial development where two lots , portions of two
other lots , and a portion of Block 93 of Irvine ' s RESUB-
Subdivision now exist. DIVISION
N0. 655
LOCATION: Portions of Lots 1 and 2, and Lots
3 and 4, Block K, Tract No. 470 APPROVED
and a portion of Block 93 of Ir- CONDI-
vine ' s Subdivision , located at TIONALLY
2546 East Coast Highway, on the
-12-
COMMISSIONERS • / • MINUTES
ray 8, 1980
� 8 � D ,
i N y I City 1 of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL- F I I I INDEX
k
City of Newport Beach ' s policy regarding the
Orange County Airport should be included
in all, leases or sub-leases for space in
the project and should be included in any
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
which may be recorded against any unde-
veloped site.
Disclosure Statement
The Lessee herein , his heirs , successors and
assigns , acknowledge that:
a. The Orange County Airport may not be
able to provide adequate air service
for business establishments which rely
on such service;
b. When an alternate air facility is
available , a complete phase out of
jet service may occur at the Orange
County Airport;
C. The City of Newport Beach may con-
tinue to oppose additional com-
mercial air service expansions at
the Orange County 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 Orange
County Airport.
e uest to amend a portion of Districting Map Item #6
Nos . and 32 from the P-C District to the C-1
District, the acceptance of an Environmental AMEND-
Document. MEt7T—ME
544 —
I
-11-
I
COMMISSIONERS • • MINU tES
_ May 8 , 1980
5.4 F UP- 1 City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
4. Prior to the occupancy of the expansion
area , a program for the sorting of recy-
clable material from other solid wastes
for the site shall be developed and ap-
proved by the Planning Department.
5. The applicant shall provide for weekly
vacuum sweeping of all parking areas .
6. The landscape plan of the existing site
shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape
architect. The existing landscape program
shall be modified to include the concerns
of Conditions 7 and 8 below to the maxi'mum
extent practicable that can maintain the
character of the existing landscape program
of the site and the Newport Place Planned
Community. 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 .
7. The landscape plan shall include a main-
tenance program which controls the use of
fertilizers and pesticides .
S. The landscape plan shall place heavy em-
phasis on the use of drought-resistant
native vegetation and be irrigated via a
system designed to avoid surface runoff
and over-watering .
9. The landscape plan shall be subject to
the review of the Parks , Beaches and Re-
creation Department and approval of the
Planning Department.
0. The following disclosure statement of the
i
-10-
COMMISSIONERS • to
May 8, 1980
� s
City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
anticipated negative environmental effects
of the project would be .eliminated.
3. That environmental documentation on this, pro
posed project has been prepared in compliant
with the California Environmental Quality
Act and City Policy K-3 and that its content
have been considered in decisions on this
project.
r4 That the Phasing Plan is consistent with the
Newport Beach •General Plan and the Planned
Community Development Plan for Newport Place:
5. That based on the Phasing Plan and supportin
information submitted therewith , there is a
reasonable correlation between projected
traffic at time of completion and the capa-
city of affected intersections .
6. That the applicant has taken into considera-
tion in the preparation of his plan char-
acteristics in the design of his development
which either reduce traffic generation or
guide traffic onto less impact arterials or
through intersections in the least congested
direction.
and approve the amendment to the Newport Place ,
Planned Community Traffic Phasing Plan , subject
to the following revised conditions :
1. That the occupancy of the proposed extension
area shall not occur prior to 1981.
2. That a maximum of 12 ,000 sq. ft. of addi -
tional construction shall be permitted on
the site .
3. That final design of the 12 ,000 sq . ft. of
additional construction shall provide for
the incorporation of water-saving devices
for project lavatories and other water using
facilities .
,r
COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES
� x
May 8, 1980
I ff y City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
currently they have a gross floor area of 35 ,910
sq . ft. and 155 full size parking spaces and pro-
posed is an additional 12 ,000 square foot gross
floor area , making a total of 47 ,910 sq . ft. and
an additional 22 compact parking spaces , making a
total of 177 parking spaces .
Mr. Hewicker explained that Amendment No. 514 did
not reduce the square footage of the site , but
established a figure of square footage which ex-
isted on August 1 , 1978 and established the amount
of square footage which could be built out and
would be subject to a traffic phasing plan .
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Allen , Mr. Boyle, Boyle Engineering Corporation ,
appeared before the Planning Commission and re-
plied that the staff does not all work during the
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ,. that there is
quite a -lot of staggering of work time and that '
the survey crew is on staggered hours .
Commissioner Allen commented on her observance of
the small amount of parking available on the site ,
to which Mr. Laycock replied that the Modifica-
tions Committee had observed that there were ap-
proximately 25 parking spaces available.
Commissioner McLaughlin stated her preference that
there be additional parking spaces required.
Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make
Ayes X x x x the following findings :
Abstain x
1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declara-
tion have been prepared in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act
and that their contents have been considered- ,
in. the decisions on this project.
2. That based upon the information contained in
the environmental document , the proposed pro-
ject will not have a significant environmen-
tal impact, the project subject to the con-
ditions listed below incorporates sufficient
mitigation measures so that any presently
-8-
COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES
• ''� May 8, 1980
I City of Newport Beach
ROLL CALL INDEX
Request to consider an amendment to the Newport Item #5
Place Planned Community Traffic Phasing Plan , and
the acceptance of an Environmental Document. TRAFFIC
PTA_SII VG
LOCATION: A- portion of Industrial Site 3A PAP H
of the Planned Community of New-
port Place , located at 1501 Quail APPROVED
Street, on the southwesterly side C N_Dl--
of Quail Street between Birch TTWLLY
Street and Spruce Avenue.
ZONE: P-C
APPLICANT: 'Boyle Engineering Corporation , New-
port Beach
OWNER: Same as Applicant
Commissioner Beek posed a question, to which James
Hewicker, Planning Director, replied that an air-
port disclosure would be permitted.
(Commissioner Haidinger then refrained from deli-
beration regarding this matter, as the applicant
was a client of his firm. )
In response to a question posed by Commissioner
Allen, Mr. Hewicker replied that the total square
footage was made up of smaller amounts of space
scattered throughout the Newport Place Planned
Community on developed parcels , where they hadn ' t
'developed to the maximum, as opposed to other
square footage figures .
Commissioner Allen posed a question regarding
parking, to which William Laycock , Current Plan-
ning Administrator, agreed that Modification No.
2535 was approved for the reduction of required
parking spaces and for compact spaces on the sub-
ject property.
.The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item
and in response to another question posed by Com-
missioner Allen , Conrad Homer, Applicant, appeared
before the Planning Commission and explained that
-7-
• H
'OFILE COPY
AO'NOT REMOVE
BOLlla EncjinOEUMl Corporation
1501 Quail Street cansultlnq enoneers I arcnRects
P.O. Box 3030
Newport Beach, California 92663 714/752.0505
Telex 68-6561
Planning Commission April 15, 1980
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH to
3300 Newport Boulevard S
Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED
n Planning
rl nDePartnent
Amendment of Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan £ 1 RI 1980&- 9
CITY
OF
2 NFNPRTgEACH, /0
CALIF..
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
Boyle Engineering Corporation has been a resident of Orange Coun ` or-over
35 years. In that time we have acquired an excellent reputation in the en-
gineering and architectural fields and have made a positive contribution to the
community as a whole.
We are the owner and exclusive occupant of the facility located at 1501 Quail
Street, Newport Beach. We need additional office space at our facility and
propose to construct a 12,000 sf, architecturally compatible, elevated building
over a portion of our parking area for occupancy in 1981 . The proposed building
would be for our exclusive use and, we feel, meet our needs for the foreseeable
future.
Our lot is located within "Newport Place Planned Community, " Site 3A. The
original P.C. standards for Site 3A allowed 316,208 sf of building area. How-
ever, without our knowledge, the standards were revised and 20,000 sf of
building area was deleted. We purchased this site with the knowledge that
it would accommodate expansion, as needs dictate.
The expansion of our facility is viewed as an economic necessity to our con-
tinued operation in this community. Due to the high land/occupancy cost in
Newport Beach we will probably be forced-to relocate our operation unless
we can fully utilize the existing site. A relocation would create economic
hardship to Boyle and, perhaps even more important, economic hardship to
the 200 employees based at the existing facility. Since the majority of these
employees live within a 10-mile radius of the existing facility, a Boyle relo-
cation would result in either long, energy-inefficient daily commuting, or a
relocation of personal residence closer to the new facility, or a change in
employer.
Planning Commission -2- April 15, 1980
City of Newport Beach
i
We fully realize all parking is to be offstreet existing The x s g parking area for
155 full-size vehicles is normally about 80 percent utilized, of which about
40 percent are compact cars. With minor modifications to the parking area
of primarily restriping for 25 percent compact usage and a lowering of the
parking requirement to one space for each 250 sf of net floor area, we will
continue to provide adequate offstreet parking.
Therefore, we would like to amend the Newport Place Traffic Phasing Plan
to allow our proposed project. A study conducted by Weston Pringle & As-
sociates concludes the project will not impact the circulation system. In
order to proceed with the project in accordance with the city's P.C. district
regulations, we are submitting the attached Traffic Phasing Plan for your
approval. City Council Resolution No. 9472 sets forth guidelines for the
"test of reasonableness" to be used in evaluating such projects. It is our
belief that the attached Traffic Phasing Plan has been prepared in compliance
with all applicable city regulations and, in fact, meets the criteria established
for the test of reasonableness.
Responses to the city's guidelines for Traffic Phasing approval are attached.
We hope that this letter, along with the attached Traffic Plan, will answer your
questions and concerns related to traffic impacts due to our project. Should
you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me
or our Traffic Consultant.
Sincerely,
Conrad Hohener, Jr. , PE 0
Regional Vice President
rem
A-B99-190-29
BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FILE COPY
TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN
DO NOT REMOVE
Item 1
Each project subject to the phasing requirement of Council Resolution No. 9472
shall be examined as to the extent of existing development and the amount of
development remaining to be completed.
The existing development on the landscaped 2.215-acre site is a two-story
engineering office building comprising 35,910 square feet. The proposed
development consists of the construction of a 12,000 square foot, architec-
turally compatible, elevated building over a portion of the existing parking
area.
Item 2
Information shall be submitted indicating the amount of traffic being gen-
erated by existing development, that projected for remaining development,
and traffic that will exist after completion of the project.
A study was conducted by Weston Pringle & Associates to evaluate the cir-
culation improvement phasing of the site. The total traffic to be generated
during the peak 3:30 to 6:00 p.m. period is as follows:
P.M. Peak Hours
In Out
Existing 35,910 sf building 30 103
Proposed 12,000 sf building 10 35
Total Traffic 40 138
Analysis of the study indicates 35 additional vehicles will be added to the
projected 175,000 vehicles already using the critical intersections. Realis-
tically, by any measure, 35 additional vehicles in relation to 175,000 vehicles
is an insignificant amount.
Item 3
An examination shall be made of the circulation system in the vicinity of the
project to determine what improvements remain to be completed, with parti-
cular consideration being given to those improvements which will directly
aid in moving traffic generated by the project. The area to be examined
shall extend to those intersections where traffic generated from the project
increases the traffic for any leg of the intersection during the peak two and
one-half hour period by 2 percent or more. tD N
RECEIVED
planning 9
Za DPpartment
AP '3. 1 0�' to
CITY OF
-1- NENpORT BEACH,
CALIF.
ti
The site is bounded by Quail Street, Bristol Street (North), Birch Street,
and Spruce Avenue. All roadways adjacent to the site have previously
been improved.
Fifteen critical intersections were examined for analysis under the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance for this area. Table 2 of the attached report summarizes
the analysis for critical intersection identification, with the backup calcula-
tion sheets included in Appendix A.
Item 4
Existing traffic at those intersections shall be shown prior to making any
projections.
Existinf traffic volumes for all critical intersections are shown in Appendix A
on the ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis" forms.
Item 5
The developer may include in his proposed traffic phasing plan completion
of or contribution to completion of needed improvements consistent with the
level of traffic generation and a reasonable proportion of the cost of these
improvements.
The project will not significantly impact the circulation system.
Item 6
The developer is also to take into consideration in the preparation of his
plan characteristics in the design of his development which either reduce
traffic generation or guide traffic onto less impacted arterials or through
intersections in the least congested direction.
The owner is actively encouraging and promoting employee car pooling and
mass transit use. The following measures have been completed:
1 . A survey has recently been taken and published of the various em-
ployee transportation modes.
2. A large wall map has been prominently posted that shows the
residence locations of all employees.
3. A bus route map with schedules for Orange County Transit
District is prominently posted.
The combination of these measures, with economic concerns, has put rea-
listic and tangible traffic reduction considerations into the minds of all
employees. We have reason to believe there has been a decrease in single
occupant vehicular use at Boyle Engineering Corporation.
-2-
Item 7
Upon receipt of the plan and information, the Commission will determine
whether there is a reasonable correlation between projected traffic at time
of project completion and capacity of affected intersections in considdring
the project for approval.
The attached study has found, by the terms of City Council Resolution No. 9472
and the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project will not impact the circulation
system. The analysis has indicated that the project traffic will not even ap-
proach the 2.0 percent level of impact on any leg of a critical intersection.
The worst impact encountered on any leg is 0.4 percent, with the average
impact being 0.03 percent.
Item 8
Mitigation proposed needs to indicate degree of permanence in order to meet
the test.
The roadway improvements identified as necessary for the approval of other
projects in the general area are considered as permanent improvements,
although additional modifications, such as restriping or traffic signal modi-
fications may also occur in the future.
rem
A-B99-190-29
-3-
ft qvia;4-1 Weabw Pt*& adAwdM a
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
April 1, 1980 FILE COPY
Ep _
FWO pant 9 DO NOT REMOVE
Mr. Conrad Holiener Jr.. , P.E. OPF�rtm aQa
Regional Vice President PpR15�g 10
Boyle Engineering Corporation Gt Q CH
P.O. Box 3030vt � .
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. kohener:
This letter summarizes our analysis of the traffic requirements of the expansion of
your Newport Beach facilities with respect to circulation improvement phasing. The
study was conducted to evaluate the circulation needs in response to the Newport
Beach City Council Resolution Number 9472 requiring an improvement phasing.plan for
this project.
The study was based upon current traffic characteristics and planned expansion of
your office facility. A study entitled "Newport Place Traffic Study Update" prepared
by Robert Crommelin and Assoc•tdttes, •Inc. .in January, 1978, was also uLiTized as a
reference. Current (1979) traffic volume data, regional traffic growth data and
committed projects were provided by the City of Newport Beach.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the construction of a 12,000 square, foot building on your
current property at 1501 Quail Street in Newport Beach. At present, the site
includes a 35,910 square foot building. The new building would have the same use
(engineering offices) as the current building.
TRIP GENERATION
Since the project consists of the expansion of an existing use, field studies were
conducted to determine trip generation factors. Vehicles entering and leaving the
facility were counted during the 3:30 to 6:00 PM period. The results and related
trip generation rates are summarized in Table 1. Utilizing these rates, estimates
were made of traffic that would be generated by the additional 1.2,000 square foot
building. These are also listed in Table 1.
2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 FULLERTON. CALIFORNIA 92631 (714) 871-2931
~• w. • -2-
Table I
TRIP GENERATION
TIME PERIOD EXISTING VOLUMES RATE W PROJECTED VOLUME
IN OUT IN OUT - IN OUT
3:30 to 6:00 PM 30 103 0.84 2.87 10 35
4:30 to 5:30 PM 16 70 0.45 1.95 5 25
(1) Trip ends per 1,000 square feet.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The geographical distribution of traffic generated by this development was developed
In the previous study of Newport Place. Figure 1 illustrates the traffic distribu-
tion that has been utilized for this study. The distribution is for outbound traffic
from the site. Inbound traffic would be the same percentages in the opposite
direction. By applying the distribution percentages to the trip generation data
in Table 1, estimates can be made of traffic volumes from the project at various
locations.
CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION -
The next step in the analysis was to identify those intersections that could be
Impacted by the project. As a starting point, the 1.5 intersections identified
for analysis under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for this area were examined.
For this examination; the "1% Traffic Volume Analysis" forms from the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance were utilized. Appendix A contains the data for the individual
intersections and the results are summarized in Table 2. The basis for comparison
included existing traffic, regional growth traffic and approved project traffic.
The criteria established by the City Council indicates that any intersection
where the project traffic during the 2.5 hour peak exceeds two percent of the
existing plus regional growth plus approved project traffic must be analyzed in
detail. Since none of the intersections would experience traffic increases of two
percent, there are• no critical intersections and the project would not have an
impact under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
The year 1982 was utlized for this comparison based upon completion of the project
in 1981. For this comparison, the following projects were Included ad "approved".
FIGURE 1
30%
12%
pR .
J�
T.
v a O�
40% �
Sr ca
No. Pd 12% Q5
QRISTOL Sr
SITE:
0
3 /0 30/40 $ONITA C04'R'D
J A'in
yG
d
FORD 49
3 % doq 12%
. SPN QV�ry
y�<<S RD.
• o
m
3% a
COAST HWY.
PACIFIC
12%
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES
Table 2
CRITICAL INTETSECTION IDENTIFICATION
LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES (1982)
NB SB EB WB
Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. - - - 0.2
Bristol St. N. & Birch St. 0.4 0 - 0.2
Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. - 0 - -
Bristol St. & Campus - 0 0.1 -
Bristol St. & Birch St. - 0 0.1 -
Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. - 0 - -
Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. 0.1 - - -
Jamboree Rd. & Mac Arthur. Blvd. - 0.1 - -
Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. - Ford Rd. - - - -
Jamboree Rd. & Sa❑ .Jonquiu 111-I1a Rd. - -
Coast Hwy. & Jamboree Rd. - - - -
Mac Arthur Blvd. & Campus Dr. 0.2 0.3. - -
Mac Arthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. - 0.3. - -
Mac Arthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. - 0.1 - -
Coast Hwy. & Mac Arthur Blvd. - 0.2 - -
Bac%bay Office 3701 Birch Offices
Orchard Office Newport Place
Corporate Plaza, 30 percent Seaview Lutheran Plaza
Koll Center Newport, Under Const.+30% Harbor Point Homes
Civic Plaza Baywood Apts.
North Ford Sea Island
Pacific Mutual Plaza Bayside Square
National Edueatlon Offices Bank of Newport
SUMMARY
The potential traffic impacts of the proposed expansion of the Boyle Engineering
facilities have been analyzed. The analysis has indicated that the project traffic
would not increase volumes on any approach to the potentially critical intersections
by two percent. By the terms of City Council Resolution Number 9422 and the
Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the project would not impact the circulation system.
We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport
Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
WESTON PR�y Ole.
ASSOCIATES
111141�
Weston S. Pringle, P.E.
Registered Professional Engineer
State of California Numbers C16828 and TR565
WSP:cd
#0240
L
APPENDIX A
2.5 HOUR INTERSECTION ANALYSES
Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol Street Nortl&us Drive
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average W5ferTpring 1979 )
jApproach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 2e}�+�°of Projected Project`
Direction — Peak 2h Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21$ Hour'
Volume Growth Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume
'Horthoound 1 1597 78._._. 172 (84? �37
'bvuwbbund 3286
._
' astbound ^ j
,c6ound 6012 /52 /8 BoSZ l61 15 o. z
Project Traffic is es07
timated to be less- than L% 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.
. .........
PROJECT: MIN 1
0', 'traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection j#ris of $ rtNorLhlQirh Street
(Existing Traffic Volumes based. on Average Winter/Spring 19)9 )
!Approach 1 Existing i Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected Zyc of Projected Project
Direction .Peak 25 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2ti Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21,Hour'
Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume
i Volume Volume
jhorthbound 733 SOZ /23S ZS• s �o"
"Iscuthbuund 1972 1/2Z 309 GZ• �11
' Easthound
l -
r - l44 /Dl� 6889 / 38 /S 0.2
`westbound I 57 i]
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 3 of Projected
❑ Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
',.,-Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis- is required.
PROJECT: FORM I
K Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection�j jc of �trePt Norih/dambarepBnad
{Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average Winter/Spring19
197�1
jApproech Existing t Peak.2y Hour Approved—,, Projected of Projected i Project
Direction Peak 2S Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour'
1 Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume ,
i 1 Volume Volume
Horcnbound 5477 _ IS /3/O 6f3o2 /36 O
_ *_
ISouthbound' ; 34 5_ I D 300 3755_ 75-
�Castbound
westbound_ I 975 �_25 Z2 Y' /22p Z�
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than }7-of Projected
Peak 2P2 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2)s Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: rORM I
Z!o
YA Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection sristol Street/Campus Drive :_ "
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average WinterJSpriny 1979 )
Approach Existing ; Peak 25 Hour Approved Projected Zr of Projected Project
101r,ctiul, Peak 2S Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2ti Hour'
i volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume volume Volume ,
— i volume volume '
1587 44 3 JZ 1,43 39 '
Northbound
southbouna Y ' 3548 174 4.0 386Z 77
IEastbound 1 . 3135 '7g 4•, a� (�? '[�'/�!D '.
�-
�lestbound '
Las Project Traffic is estimated to be less than k% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
" (I.C.U.) Analysis" is required.
PROJECT: FORM I
'•i 3
27 Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Verage nter/Spring 1979_)
lipproach Existing Peak 2b Hour Approved Projected Z�•c of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 21,Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour'.
Volume - Growth Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume ,
i Volume Volume
HarthboWnd _ _ 223Soy 307
Southbaund ; 1081 'LO2 /2� 24
pis%LDOYnd 1_ 3112 78 - 902 ¢092 82
.Westbound
I-Vt.
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than } of Projected
Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required:
PROJECT: . FORM I
k2 Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Bristol Street/Jamboree Road
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter%Spring 1979)
Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 071 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2S Hour Hegtonal Projects Peak A Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour'
' 1i Volume iVol Voo ume Peak2 Hour Volume Vol um volume ume
fHorthbound 5178 /326 0578 130
Isouthboond -- •--_2391_^
1 astbound 2987 — 75 644 '3706 7¢ i
' Nesthound �
- .Project Traffic is estimated to be less than Z} of Projected
'Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection capacity Utilization
O.C.U.) Analysis .is required.
PROJECT: FORM I
X1, Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Jamboree Blvd./Campus Drive
(Existing Traffic Voes Ga'sed on AveracjeliiiEciC5prin� 19�3
lum }
iApproach _ Existing Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected ZIA. of Projected Project�t
pirrction Peak 2y Hour- Regional Projects Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour'
Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume ,
7 • .•• _•,.--.-4 —_—. Volume Volume
4315 3d SB(o S23/ (OS S D.1°�
,Ndrthbeund
ISoathbound _ 25 SZb 4/ _ 84-
bstbound +
• •--�-•--1574 ---- _ 7' S�2 2/S3 43
F __. ._— ---.,
+Mestbaund l�ao g� 82 19 39 •
® ,. . Project Traffic is estimated to be less than X of Projected
Peak 2)-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.
PROJECT: FORM I
f
(U
}X Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Jamboree Blvd./MacArthur Blvd. (1)
_� _. _
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on ICverage Wmte7Sjlring Ig%g)
;Approach ! Existing — Peak 2S Hour Approved Projected y -M of Projected Project
•atrrttion : Peak 21r Hour + Regional Projects Peak 26 Hour Ileak 21S Hour Peak 21*Hour'
I Volume ' Growth Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume YOUR* ,
• Volume Volume
ihurthbound - 1943 ... __ I`t__._ 364
i5outhhound 3306 44Z 3801_
�easeeoydd ' _-2826 g 296 3130 63
AA i '
t esthound - 1 3502 2� 29'i' 381?1/ 76
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than Z of Projected
Peak 2►; Hour Traffic Volume
❑ .. • Project Traffic—is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 21A Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
('I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
(1) MacArthur Blvd, is North/South
PROJECT: FORM I
Traffic -Volume Analysis
Intersection Jamboree Road/EastBluff Dr. - Ford Road
(Existing Traffic Volumes based Lon Winter/Spring 1979 )
lApprua..h
Existing — Peak 21, Hour Approved Protected Z of Projected 1 ProJ' t
n,rertinn Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour eak 24 Hour ! PPak 2y Hour
Volume Growth Peak 25 Hour I Volume Volume Volume
Volume Volume
__. _—_
IHorthbound _ 5551 • ' - 1088 e,655
�suuthbound 8 626 3646 73 O
I• -- 30J0 _..-•� ---- -
Eastboundlonl3 ��83 ZZ O i
Nestbound
899 2 901 /S d
2%
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than k% of Projected
Peak 211 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.
JAIL:.
PROJECT: FORM I
14 Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection ��mboree R�nadLSa11 'Ina aWn..W13-s.Road
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on, Average Winter/Spring 1979)
ct
Approach f Existing Peak 2S Hour Approved peak 2S Nour 2 eakr ected t2yrHourted PeaProke2S flour'
Direction Peak 2S Hour GrowRegionth Peake2SSHour Volume Volume Volume
I ; Yoimne Volume Volu '
i. . ..___ l 280 5898 ?8 `
,Northbound 3608 f,
-- -- 0
IsouthDouna - 4112 _ I2 390 457/ 90
9 p
(Eastbound 423 {0 4�3 7 O j
westbound i 2536 `r30 2-966 79
® "Project Traffic is estimated to be less than k% of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume
0 .`'Protect Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
: : (I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: FORM I
-- --- - — r
Z`7.
j Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Coast Hwy./Jamboree Road
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197_)
jApproich '^ _ Existing^ ~- Peak 2S Hour Approved Projected Irof Projected _ Project _
Direction, Peak 2y Hour i Regional Projects Peak 21* Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour'
1 Volume I Grorth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume ,
Volume Volume
s2 9�a z9 . o
�korthlnund' : t 1411
Isouthbound j 2817 g 7D2) 3S'33 ?/ i
3937 39
¢286 e6 0
iEastauund 3/o
Kusesound. ' . i 4230 9/
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than �9 of Projected
Peak 2: Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysts is required.
PROJECT: pOKM I
E
1^
.. Z`7=
el Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MrArth1Lr_B .1Cam Drive,
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 197`�
jApproach' —' Existing V ' Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 2,K of Projected Project
H�rtction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour'
Volume Growth Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume ,
j I Volume Volume
' i d
jhorthboond ;,. 2758 B IsM 42270 85
._._.i.__.-_._..._-- ---..._...._
s r �
soutnonwnd 3347,,, -•--•---
IHesebounC i 2406 _ �g 37 b Zg�
• 2 0
® •:.Project Traffic is estimated to be less than of Projected
Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2rs Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: FORM I
1'% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection MacArthur Blvd./Ford Road
-°-•-(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1979 )
A ° � EzisLing 1 Peak 2S Hour Approved Projected 2{1 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2S Hour '! Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2S•Hour'
•, - Volume Growth Peak 2S Hour Volume Volume Volume ,
Volume no ume
�. ._. i �_._�•_ -_
iHortnhound + 3720 �_• Z6 • •586_ 435Z 67
ISouthbound^• 8865.•J• 27 SO R 89
�Easthound 1504 ` 2 Sbb 30
'.Yflesthound• -
3o
1291 32( 6
ff _ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than �X of Projected
® Peak 2�2 Hour Traffic Volume
[] "Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis-is required.
PROJECT: ' FORM I
21%
X% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection„ Macprthur• BlydLSan Joa uq in Hills Road
: (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AverYcic Winter/Spring 1979)
• JApproach i Existing Peak 2S Hour Approved Protected of Protected _ Protect ^
Direction Peak 2h Hour Regional Protects Peak 2S Hour Peak 2b Hour Peak 2y Hour'
•i Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume
y Volume
1775 , 2O 3S'a 2145 43
. . Northbound .. .,_.... _-....._ -- r
' iSoutobound - ; 3442
190 3C 387� ?6
Eastbound r I
• '{estbound-�
1180 34 /3/4 1(�
® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than >% of Projected
Peak 21,1 Hour Traffic Volume
Projhan 1%
❑ Projected
Peakect 2� HourfTrafficstimated Volumen.to be greater IntersectiontCapacityfUtilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. -
PROJECT* ' FORM I
'. 2 0
R Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection Coast Hwy./MacArthur Blvd,
(Existing Traffic Vo umes ased on Average Winter/.Spring 1979 )
Approach Existing Peak 2, Hour Approved Projected Z of Projected , Projects
-0,rettlun Peak 2N Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour
Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume I Volume ,
Volume volume_•
' ,Northbound_ _--.•,•, __ •--
].S thtwund �; 1995� 22 368_ 2385
;f Eastbound I 3431 66 401 8�
15.4 Z854 S7
"«estjwune '. 2609
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 0 of Projected
Peak 2, Hour Traffic. Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U. ) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: FORM I
YRr411ne10
MbNM1rl�OIa Cw14a{ �(•� IC@/
tt �� .w•r�m.mevi'�' �� c
� lwkw(I T Y40.Ov WTe C
- 3•an
IL
1 A�
NEM
zz / iH40
/
-�
Y
LAND USE
NEMORT PLACE
- e
NEWPORT REACH. CALIFORNIA �IO��MmfMR Rl11 cmw i
FOR -q
EMKAY DEVELOPMENT AND REALTY COMPANY ""Sly-- UNION a null -+