No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO042_FIDELITY NAT'L. TITLE II � IIIII�RI% IIIIIINIII ", TP0042 Po�T F I L E D CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JAN 3 0 1987 O S P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 GARY L. GRAYVILI E, County Clerk Cq��O RN�P NEGATIVE DECLARATIONy�°EP°n TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: Planning Department Q 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 County Clerk of the County Q of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Fidelity National Title PROJECT LOCATION• 4361,4401,4423 & 4443 Birch Street, Newport Beach, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a new office building. 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: None INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: P V S T E D Patricia Teaple Environmental Coordinator +1 RECEIVED DATE: January 28, 1987 Ptannim'. Deoartn:cnt JAN 3 0 1981 — fdAR1119$7� cITY oP 4 GARY L. GRAWILLE, County Clark NEwPORT t?EACH, By2eDEPU'IY \ GAUP. 6 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach `" . Hl 1 li APPENDIX H Date Filed Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL JNFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: FIDELITY NATIotJA.� T►T►.E. - 2. Address of project: 4&P1 440( 2 RG SIVES• ' Assessor Ia Block and Lot lumber 4n77- ,!z,i - I t1_?y 11 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: e i ?3 PLAu1JW& AOL) ,>k2 R1Tr=GLLr-Z_: &19 SAJ 170¢ ' KEARt4C- tL. o S01 e SRtJ a1EL�o, CA. 97-11- 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to 1 which this form pertains: 1n• 4gFFIG S'7JD� ' s an escr a any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 6. Existing zoning district: �A-t-A 7. Proposed use of site (Project for .which this. form is filed) : fit-IGfi 'P.�VllR7T Ir.1C� — ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION t 8. Slte size. 40C� X 290 9. Square footage. 1 j Jpt 000 'SO.FT- C2 •��o RL� 1G. Number of floors of construction. 3 �� 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. Z.S4 Qv 12. Attach plans. SEtr ArAC4}ED 13. Proposed scheduling. ►J/A . 111 . Associated projecte. N/A 15. Anticipated incremental development. VA a2 16. If residential, include the number -of units, schedule of unit sizes,. range of Bale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. Nip 17. if commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. NlA 18. If industrial•, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. U/A 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities,and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A . •. 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. WIN Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary) . YES NO 21.• Change in existing•features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lauds or roads. X 23. Change in pattern; scale or character of general area of -project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. —� 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration ofexisting drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. - 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. H3 / YbS NO 30. Substantial change .in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) . 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) . %1 32. Relationship to a larger 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 existing structures..on the site, and the use of the' structures. Attach photographs- of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. S13E ATTAGNF_D STATEMEr4T 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 ATrA RSD STATRMENT CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished c a ov and in the attached exhibits presec.t the data and infor- mation required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are. true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Y Date 12-10- gna •ure For Of __ 33. The subject property is comprised of four subdivided lots which were previously developed with four buildings used for office and light industrial purposes. At present, there in only one office building located at the rear of the site. The site is flat and maintains some paving and landscaping which is remnant from the previous development of the site. 34. The subject property is in an urban setting and is surrounded by existing office developments to the northwest, northeast and southwest. To the southeast, across Birch Street, is the Shera- ton-Newport Hotel. APPENDIX I ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC[rLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background /' 1. Name of Proponent Fide//'fit 4 ,rjw Tile . 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent (3' N edvvlew 4:b :5 Ydr j /(al q j 6.q J_ aw LMnkOI- 3. Date of Checklist Submission aCe, nbeA- 4. Agency Requiring Checklist C, � Net4ayl ark " S.. Name of Proposal, if applicable' ' /� �i1 NQfj,ma I -Ahe 614/ II. Environmental Impacts • (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required bn attached sheets.) YES MAYBE No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? f b. Disruptions, displacements, com— paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The 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 YES MAYBE NO g. Exposuve of people or property to geological hazards such as earth— quakes, landslides, mudslides , ground / failure, or similar hazards? _✓ 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 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? • _✓ 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 flooding or tidal waves? A S ' • • ' LLu Lf•.4L • • YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any 'species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, / crops , and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 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)? y/ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, 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? t/ 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: / a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LiPht and Clare. Will the proposal produce / new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 75 i YRS MAYBE tie 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 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 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 +C— propoaal result in: a. Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, / or demand for new parking? ✓ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of -J�- circulation or movement of "people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles , bicyclists or / pedestrians? ✓ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an eff=ct upon, or result in a need for new or altered Rovernmental services in any of the following areas: /l 76 PPE-2A:24 • YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? b. " Police protection? c: Schools? JL/� d. Parks or other recreational facilities? t% e. Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energ Will the proposal result in: a. use of substantial amounts of fuel or / 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 alteration's to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? v b. Communications systems? Y c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human' Health. Will the proposal result in: • a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential / health hazards? — 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? 8 71 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 thre 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 serf—sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of / California history or prehistory? ✓ b. Does the project have the potential to, achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—term, environmental goals? (A abort—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 adverse effects on human Seings, either directly or indirectly? II1. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation It'. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ' 78 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [7 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. �$ata Signature For • • Y 86 II is only a suggested form. Public encies are free to devise Note: This . their own format for initial studies.) /D 79 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 6.a. During construction of the project, heavy machinery may be used. This may increase the ambient noise levels in the vicinity during the course of construction. The project site is, however, in a developed commercial area which is subject to both traffic and airport noise. The possible increase in noise levels is short term in nature and is considered insignificant. 13 .b. The proposed project will result in the construction of a new office building, which will create a demand for parking facilities. The project will however provide all of the parking required for the project on site, and no impacts are anticipated. COMMISSIONERS • ` MINUTES o o F�Z February 5, 1987 p Ay yO�y ��, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX velopment in Newport Center, take the lead. He ex p fined that the ad hoc committee is holding meetings every Wednesday morning with groups within the communi and that it is anticipated that the committee 'll complete their work at the end of March, at which me they will be able to make a recommendation t0 the City Council. Mr. Hewicker further stated t t the City Council ad hoc committee could make any reco endation to the City Council, and the City Council co finalize what this amendment would be, and he adde there would be a holding position for a General an Amendment for Newport Center. Mr. Hewicker further explained hat if the Newport Harbor Art Museum or the Library h e not come to any conclusions in April as to what the want, they may come back to the City in June or October. Motion x Motion was made to approve General Plan Ame ant No. 87-1 A., B. , C. , D., and E. Chairman Person em asized that GPA 87-1 C (Newport Center) does not refer any Ayes x x x x x site, any use, or any density other than the fact t t Absent x x it is within Newport Center. Motion voted on, MOTIO * z A. Traffic study (Public Hearing) Item No.3 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the TS construction of a 57,912 sq.ft. office building on property located in the M-1-A District. The proposal Waiver of also includes a modification to the zoning Code so as Parcel Map to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off-street parking. Approved AND B. Waiver of Parcel Map (Discussion) Request to waive the requirement of a parcel map for the combining of lots in conjunction with the con- struction of a new office building on property located in the M-1-A District. LOCATION: Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, Tract No. 5169, located at 4361, 4401, 4423 and 4443 Birch Street, on the northwesterly side of Birch Street, between Dove Street and MacArthur Boulevard, across from the Newport Place Planned Community. -8- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES o o f F February 5, 1987 0 �N�99�10'0'c�yF y �9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ZONE: M-1-A APPLICANT: Fidelity National Title, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Glen Lanker, GNF Architecture, San Diego, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In reference to the staff report regarding the floor area of the subject property, Mr. Lanker explained that there was a need to adjust the 58,000 square foot figure shown on the site plan to just under 57,000 square feet so as to clarify the definition of buildable area for the City. He explained that initially the applicant misinterpreted the allowable buildable area and based the design on .5 times the buildable area of the entire property, and not excluding the front yard setback area. He stated that he understands there is a provision in the Municipal Code that the allowable area can be increased up to 1.0 times the buildable area if there is no additional traffic impact. Mr. Lanker maintained that the traffic study showed there was no significant impact inasmuch as the maximum increase in traffic was about .3 percent. Mr. Lanker indicated that the traffic study was based on 52,000 square feet for the three previous buildings on-site, whereas the total square footage of the previous buildings was just under 60,000 square feet. Mr. Lanker requested that the Planning Commission allow the project to be built as proposed because there is less traffic impact and the previous three buildings will be consolidated into one building which will include one major primary tenant and less square footage is proposed than what was on the site previously. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Lanker replied that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the exception of the Floor Area Ratio not exceeding .5 times the buildable area of the site.' James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that there is a provision in the Municipal Code that would allow a developer to go up to 1.0 times the buildable area of the site on the basis that the project would not generate more traffic than if it had of been built at a .5 times the buildable area for an office use. He -9- M A . COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES February 5, 1987 ymoy F,yNF� y°oA�'y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX further explained that there would be no justification to exceed the ,.5 times the buildable area if the applicant is proposing to occupy the building at 100 percent office use unless the applicant applied for a variance and he added that there is no justification for approving a variance. Mr. Hewicker stated that the square footage that staff has given the applicant credit for is in the building that was burned down in 1985, and there is nothing in the Municipal Code that explains how long the building has to be gone before credit is stopped. In addition, he said that staff has been liberal in giving the applicant credit for the pre-existing building. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Hewicker replied that the actual gross square footage of the building is 57,912 square feet, but .5 times the buildable area of the site would allow a 55,000 square foot building. In response to Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Lanker advised that the 57,912 square feet includes elevator shafts, etc,; however, the actual gross floor area would be 56,800 square feet. In response to a question posed by Chairman Person, Mr. Lanker replied that the 15 foot front yard setback is being complied with, and that the allowable 58,000 square feet is half of the entire parcel. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Lanker replied that the previous two two-story buildings on the front of the lot were for office use and the existing one-story building in the rear is an office building. Commissioner Merrill asked if National Education had other types of facilities? Mr. Lanker replied that the lot was classified as office and the facility was used as a headquarters building. Mr. Hewicker explained that the building was initially occupied as a regular office building and National Education occupied the building for a period of time. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Winburn referred to the staff report's statement which states that "staff recommends that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance be amended to include -10- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES February 5, 1987 ZF9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX provisions for the granting of development credits", and requested the appropriate process. Mr. Hewicker recommended that the Planning Commission take action on the project and then the Planning Commission may give formal direction to staff. Motion x Motion was made to approve the Traffic Study, Request Ayes x x K K K for Parcel Map Waiver, Modification for compact spaces and Related Environmental Document, subject to the Absent x x findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", which would keep the building at .5 times buildable area or 55,000 square feet as stated in Condition No. 11 for the Waiver of the Parcel Map. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto the project will not have .a significant adverse impact on the environment. B. TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major' , 'primary-modified' , or 'primary' street. -11- { COMMISSIONERS • . MINUTES o o F February 5, 1987 00 my�a�y 110\0\10srl ; CITY OF N E W P 0 R T BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2� hour peak periods on any leg of the critical intersections. C. Waiver of Parcel Map FINDINGS: 1. That the entities proposing to use the site hold an estate in real property that is of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots which constitute the building site will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improve- ment to be placed on the site. 2. That this request complies with Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That all requirements of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code and Policies of the City of Newport Beach which would otherwise be accomplished by the combining of parcels can be met through the imposition of the conditions noted below. CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney in conjunction with the waiver of the parcel map. 2. Should those portions of the subject property which are in separate leaseholds ever be held under a single lease, this waiver shall become null and void and the property owner shall obtain the approval of a resubdivision. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. -12- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES .o .o ; F F February 5, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That the intersection of the public streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 7. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the the Parks, Beaches and Recre- ation Department and Public Works Department and that the one parkway tree be removed. 8. That unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk and that deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the Birch Street frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to issuance of any building permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. County Sanitation District Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 11. That the proposed project shall not exceed a Floor Area Ratio of 0.5 times the buildable area of the site. -13- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES y o q F } February 5, 1987 O'y9 yl p-o'o ny� �y9p py�vy f yy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX D. MODIFICATION FINDINGS: 1. The proposed number of compact car spaces is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applications. 2. The proposed use of compact car spaces will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space for each 225 sq.ft. of net floor area, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the location of the compact parking spaces shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 3. That compact parking shall not exceed 21% of the required number of on-site parking spaces. In reference to Commissioner Winburn's previous remarks regarding provisions for the granting of development credits in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, she asked how many buildings have been vacated that would demand putting a sunset clause into the Traffic Phasing Ordinance? Mr. Hewicker and Mr. Webb described situations including buildings that have been torn down and buildings under construction that would affect the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mr. Hewicker replied that provisions would not necessarily require an amendment to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; however, provisions could be included as an amendment to Council Policy designed to assist staff in the implementation of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. -14- COMMISSIONERS • . MINUTES �G Fo 0February 5, 1987 G�C`9 No�i�y F Fy * ors �`'y �� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Motion Motion was made to direct staff to report back to the Ayes x x K K K Planning Commission on February 19, 1987 as to whether Absent x x or not it would be more appropriate to amend the Traffic Phasing Ordinance or Council Policy S-1. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. *as! fBisettssimn) Item No.4 quest to extend Use Permit No. 1852 that permitted UP1852 t establishment of Hassan's Cafe with on-sale beer an ine in the C-1 District. Set Public Hearing LOCATI Portions of Lots 3 and 7 of Section 28, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino Meridian, located at 3325 Newport Boulevard, on the westerly side of Newport Boulevard between Finley venue and 32nd Street, in Central wport. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: Hassan ssan, La Habra OWNERS: John P. an Maxine Myers, Los Angeles James Hewicker, Planning Di ector, stated that since the staff report was dist. 'buted to the Planning Commission, staff has receive two checks from the applicant - the first check date February 4, 1987, in the amount of $800.00 and a second heck dated March 5, 1987, in the amount of $700.00 to applied to what the applicant owes the City for in-li parking permits inasmuch as the applicant is in arrear Mr. Hewicker explained that the balance owing the 'ty prior to receiving the two checks is $5,785.31. r. Hewicker stated that the purpose of the staff re rt is to provide an opportunity for the Planning Cc 'ssion to set this matter for a public hearing to be cc idered at a later date. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, stated that e applicant is on a payment schedule that was negotiat last year, and that he has made intermittent payment on the payment schedule. She advised that including the two checks, the applicant is $1,671.76 behind in -15- • 0 Planning Commission Meeting February 5, 1987 Agenda Item No. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO- Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 57,912 sq.ft. office building on property located in the M-1-A District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off-street parking. AND B. Waiver of Parcel Map (Discussion) Request to waive the requirement of a parcel map for the combining of lots in conjunction with the con- struction of a new office building on property located in the M-1-A District. LOCATION: Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, Tract No. 5169, located at 4361, 4401, 4423 and 4443 Birch Street, on the northwesterly side of Birch Street, between Dove Street and MacArthur Boulevard, across from the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: M-1-A APPLICANT: Fidelity National Title, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Applications These applications include a request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 57,912 sq.ft. office building on property located in the M-1-A District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off-street parking; and a request to waive the requirement of a parcel map for the combining of lots in conjunction with the proposed development. Traffic study provisions are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. Modification provisions are set forth in Chapter 20.81, and Parcel Map Waiver provisions are set forth in Section 20.87.090 B of the Munici- pal Code. TO: Pleing Commission -2. • Environmental Significance After an Initial Study it has been determined that this project will not have any significant environmental impact. A Negative Declaration has been prepared, and is attached for the Commission's review. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property was previously developed with three office buildings containing a combined floor area of 52,000 i sq.ft. (gross) . Because of a fire which occurred on the site in 1985, only one office building containing approximately 6,0001 sq.ft. remains on the site. Said office building will be removed in cnjunction with the proposed project. To the northeast is a two-story office building; to the southeast, across Birch Street, is the Sheraton Newport Hotel; to the southwest is a two story office building; and to the northwest is a light industrial building and three office buildings, each of which are on individual lots. Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designated the subject property for "Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial" uses. The proposed development is a permitted use within this desig- nation. In accordance with General Plan Amendment 81-2, the permitted intensi- ty of development for the subject property is 0.5 times the buildable area of the site (lot area minus required setback areas) . The buildable area of the subject property is 110,000 square feet which will allow 55,000 square feet of gross floor area. It should be further mentioned that General Plan Amendment 81-2 also includes language which allows an intensity of development up to 1.0 times the buildable area of the site if a finding can be made that the traffic and circulation system impacts are no greater than those generated by an office development of 0.5 times the buildable area. It is staff's opinion that such a finding can not be made in this case, inasmuch as the proposed project is for general office use which will maintain a trip generation equal to that of most office uses in the area. As indicated in the following section, the proposed project contains 57,912 sq.ft. of gross floor area which is a Floor Area Ratio of .526 times the buildable area. In light of the General Plan provisions discussed above, the gross floor area of the proposed project will have to be reduced by 2,9121 square feet. Analysis The applicant is proposing to construct a three story office building containing 57,912 square feet on the subject property. The following outline has been prepared which sets forth the major characteristics of the project. TO: Planning Commission -3. Land area: 116,000 sq.ft. Buildable area: 110,000 sq.ft. .5 x buildable area (permitted by the General Plan) 55,000 sq.ft. Proposed gross floor area: 57,912 sq.ft. Proposed Floor Area Ratio: .526 x buildable area Proposed net floor area: 56,241 sq.ft. Required off-street parking: (1) 237 spaces Proposed off-street parking: Employee (8.5 ft. x 18 ft.) 74 spaces Full size (9 ft. x 18 ft.) 123 spaces Handicap 6 spaces Compact (20.7% of required spaces) (2) 49 spaces TOTAL 252 spaces Building Setbacks Required Proposed Front (Birch Street) 15 ft. 15 ft. Northeasterly side 0 ft. 73.5± ft. Southwesterly side 0 ft. 73.5± ft. Rear 0 ft. 188.5± ft. Permitted Building Height: High rise 375 ft. Height Limitation District Proposed Building Height: 41 ft. 6 in. to top of parapet wall (1) The number of required parking spaces (one space/225 sq.ft. of net floor area) is based on a reduced net floor area of 53,329± sq.ft. Said reduction corresponds to the required reduction in the gross floor area required to comply with the 0.5 Floor Area Ratio. (2) The traffic study incorrectly states that the proposed number of compact parking spaces is 19, or 11 percent of the total parking. The plot plan also indicates that 48 compact spaces, and a total of 251 on-site parking spaces are proposed, where 49 compact spaces, and a total of 252 on-site spaces, are actually proposed. TO: Planing Commission -4. Traffic Study A traffic study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City"s Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1987. Analysis was, therefore, completed for 1988. The City Traffic Engineer identified twenty-seven (27) intersections which could be affected by the project at full occupancy. The proposed project has a gross floor area of 57,912 sq.ft. This new project is proposed for a site which was previously occupied by three buildings containing 52,0003 sq.ft. Two of these buildings were destroyed by fire in 1985. Consistent with previous actions, the project traffic has been prepared reflecting a credit for prior land uses. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of the projected peak 2;2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, Intersection Capactiy Utilization (ICU) is required. The 18 volume analysis identified no intersections where traffic exceeded the one percent criteria. The project meets the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Recommended Amendment to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance Since the adoption of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance in 1978, the City has allowed credit for land uses to be replaced as a part of the site redevelopment. This was appropriate since the traffic generated by the existing land uses would be included in the yearly traffic counts taken for Traffic Phasing Ordinance implementation. The situation presented by this project is one which would typically be granted credit for prior land uses, and the traffic analysis has been prepared consistent with previous actions. It is, however, a situation where the policy regarding credits should be clarified in the Ordinance and Council policy. The structures which previously occupied the site were destroyed by fire in 1985. The site has been substantially cleared and was leased as a vacant site to the current applicant (the site was previously leased by the National Education Corporation) . Staff recommends that the Traffic Phasing Ordinance be amended to include provisions for the granting of development credits. These provisions should include a time limit for vacant and demolished building credits and may also include provisions for the granting of credits where the applicant was not the owner of the project for which credit is being sought. Should the Planning Commission concur with staff, the Commission should direct staff to prepare a report to the City Council transmitting the recommended changes to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. i TO: Planning Commission -5. Waiver of Parcel Map At its meeting of April 10, 1980, the Planning Commission approved a request from the National Education Corporation (NEC) to waive the requirement of a parcel map on three of the four lots contained within this proposal. Said waiver was granted by the Planning Commission inasmuch as NEC maintained multiple leasehold interests on the property which prevented the combining of three lots (Lots 8, 9, and 10, Tract 5169) into a single building site. Inasmuch as the current applicant has purchased the same leasehold interests for Lots 8, 9, and 10 plus an additional lease for Lot 7 of the same tract, the applicant is requesting a further parcel map waiver which would include all four lots. In accordance with Section 20.87.090 B of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, when buildings are planned to be constructed over existing lot lines and where said building site is found to be under multiple ownerships or a combination of ownerships in fee, leasehold, or other estate in real property, the requirement for a resubdivision may be waived by the Planning Commission upon a finding that the estate in the real property is of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots or parcels which constitute the building site will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improvement to be placed on the site. The Planning Commission or City Council, on appeal, may impose such conditions as deemed necessary to secure the purpose of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office have reviewed the applicant's leases and have determined that the remaining 34 year terms of each lease is of sufficient length to guarantee that the property involved will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the proposed development. As a result, staff has no objections to the waiver of the parcel map in this case. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the subject traffic study, the request to waive the requirement for a parcel map, and the modification for compact spaces. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission take such action subject to the findings and conditions set forth in Exhibit "A". PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. H WICKER, Director By Wil iam Ward Senior Planner WWW/ll R5 Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Letter from Applicant's Representative Traffic Study Negative Declaration Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations and Sections TO- Planning Commission -6. EXHIBIT "A" Findings and Conditions of Approval for Traffic Study, Request for Parcel Map Waiver, Modification and Related ,Environmental Document A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. B. TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major' , 'primary-modified' , or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the proj- ect-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2h hour peak periods on any leg of the critical intersections. TO: Planning Commission -7. C. Waiver of Parcel Map FINDINGS: 1. That the entities proposing to use the site hold an estate in real property that is of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots which constitute the building site will be held as, a single entity for the economic duration of the building improve- ment to be placed on the site. 2. That this request complies with Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. That all requirements of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code and Policies of the City of Newport Beach which would otherwise be accomplished by the combining of parcels can be met through the imposition of the conditions noted below. CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City in a manner satisfactory to the City Attorney in conjunction with the waiver of the parcel map. 2. Should those portions of the subject property which are in separate leaseholds ever be held under a single lease, this waiver shall become null and void and the property owner shall obtain the approval of a resubdivision. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That the intersection of the public streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. TO: Pla•ng Commission -8. 7. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the the Parks, Beaches and Recre- ation Department and Public Works Department and that the one parkway tree be removed. S. That unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk and that deteriorated portions of curb, gutter and sidewalk be reconstructed along the Birch Street frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 9. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to issuance of any building permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. County Sanitation District Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 11. That the proposed project shall not exceed a Floor Area Ratio of 0.5 times the buildable area of the site. D. MODIFICATION FINDINGS: 1. The proposed number of compact car spaces is within limits generally accepted by the Planning Commission relative to previous similar applications. 2'. The proposed use of compact car spaces will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 0f this Code. TO: Planning Commission -9. CONDITIONS: 1. That parking shall be provided at a rate of one parking space for each 225 sq.ft. of net floor area, as defined by the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. That the location of the compact parking spaces shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 3. That compact parking shall not exceed 21% of the required number of on-site parking spaces. YIciMI r y MAP CAMPUS DRIVE tlOIn.CR IipL.(aLLlllYafla' e[e,M ll14 pW6[ iK'[JpN dlfa.r'ry ' �- "y+ P-C P.0 a n , A � , / K Y BIRCH STREET / K 1 , Ia I I ~ D 1[ v,P a. N 2. I[ T P-C �+y P-C C � v G r RRsue .315 9L >o [ P-C T' 1 a ,T co .,.n....� o `v [[ ) P•C [) [1R 1 O RW L RC -OOYE--9. ' —;;-� gyp•( IVAE711o•739-L F P•C LOT �! P-C ,I a _A.. ...... m 14.71M1 aG �1 P'r. G1QQ% [[[ YAR Ro. a• 14• Y pY� [ ��� �\4GV. 6• q DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT-0EACH--CALIFORNIA a-A WlC w& RLaCENTW. MKTIKE moWm RLANYN[ WYYWICR R-I aINOLE aWAS AWDWTIAL C-I LICNT WWICRCIAL R-! W0.ER R[[MLNTIAL C-) ACNERAL WYYLM WAN R-) R)[NICf[e IµiIpLC MYa.Y K DVMAL Y-I YARVfAC[ INY MAE feo Nve • _ �e ® WN[NINe OpTPoCa �� U Aaalmo Mo. 9)9 - - VAT. 7.//-40 ` ?Aff IC 5TLJ D1' and wAiv y. c PARCr-.L fAA F ENF/ELD CONSTRZICT/ON C601W ANY November 14, 1986 Mr. Bill Ward City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Bill: This is regarding the office building project proposed for lots 7-10 of tract 5169 on Birch Street. Pursuant to our discussion, we are requesting a waiver of the general requirement of the municipal code that there be a new plot map filed when the proposed construction of a building will span multiple lot lines. Our request for waiver is based on the provision for such waiver in the municipal code. We are purchasing the interests in 3 separate ground leases covering four lots. Each ground lease has distinct economic and factual terms. The Irvine Company owns the underlying fee interest and consents to each assignment on a lease-by-lease basis. The time remaining on the leases is approximately thirty-four years. It is our position that the facts and circumstances surrounding the leases meet the test for waiver of the plot map requirement. There is a multiplicity of ownership interests and the building site will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the contemplated improvement. We understand a similar waiver has previously been grante4 on this site under similar circumstances. We have forwarded copies of the subject leases to you for your review. Please contact me if you need additional information or if you have any additional questions. Respec fully submitted, THomas D. Belich TDB: jt CC: Ms. Carol Korade Assistant City Attorney 3444 Kearny Villa Rd., Suite 400 • San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 541-1757 Contractors License No. 498735 �� A weal" Pkinfe 1, g .CE%V �FFA FIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING January 23, 1987 q✓i J�N��19�� �t Ms. Pat Temple oN,�t:Ep�� Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach ✓, P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple: This letter summarizes our analysis of traffic factors related to the proposed Fidelity National Title development in the City of Newport Beach. The study has been conducted to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This study is based upon information provided by City Staff and previous studies. The project is located on the westerly side of Birch Street midway between Corinthian Way and Mac Arthur Boulevard. (See Figure 1) It would include an office building with a gross area of 57,519 square feet and 256 parking spaces of which 29 (11 percent) are compact. The parking is in the rear of the building with vehicular access from Birch Street in two locations. This project would replace two office buildings containing a total of 52,000 square feet which were previously destroyed by fire. EXISTING CONDITIONS Bi-rch Street provides access to adjacent development and is striped to provide two lanes of travel in each direction. At Mac Arthur Boulevard and Bristol Street North, additional turning lanes have been provided. On-street parking Is prohibited on the east side of the street and partially on the west side of the street. Mac Arthur Boulevard is a major arterial with three lanes of travel in each direction and special turning, lanes. To the south, the extension of the Route 73, Corona del Mar Freeway has been completed and access is provided via Bristol and Bristol North. Existing daily traffic volume are illustrated on Figure 2. Also indicated on Figure 2 are 1986 ICU values at major intersections throughout the City. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 PROJECT LOCATION SITE h i a do e,. °j °i RY 3 a ,ten �D Universi! Drive u Y .O E g NO SCALE b� �a WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIouAe /3 0 LEGEND 43 = DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME 0.63 (IN THOUSANDS) 0.93 0.63 _ AM PEAK HOUR ICU 0.46 0.64DR / 0.59 0.93 PM PEAK HOUR ICU 0.62 � 0.37 0.66 aJ T Q a 0.42 0.89 v u 0_65 4 ' u a /T0 BR 0.89 )s °� ` S NOk f H 0.97 SRISTOL S7 0.85 3 0.58 0066ZL. 0.59 0.80 0.86 0.83 0. 11 UNIVERSITY MESA 0.650.54 1.02 a62 /O D 0.93 0.56 J W D 0.61 m -� G ti 0.77 0.53 u� 0.80 0.85 ` m 0.90 KO NO SCALE ND FO 0.59 6� 1.00 0_63 0.66 3 0.70 0.66 a 0.6 0.72 0.921 0.62 JOA 0.70 N QG�N 0.90 0.56 'n c�Na , g Q 0.66 M CS RD. In > a a N Z m �" > 0 0.96 0.64 . .79 Li a a o 0.55 30 Q0o w a B� 48 45 0 59 5) 'fiCOAST H(y �_ 0 o w PACIFIC 0.53 p0 �o a 9 I:O7 � 0.73 �p 0.94 0.58 30 25 } F 0.73 34 91 1.05 0.80 �Jp 0.91 85 �; 0.96 1.00 0.97 0:94 0,95 EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES WESTON PRINCIE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 �� -2- TRIP GENERATION In order to evaluate the potential traffic impact of the project, it is necessary to estimate the number of trips that would be generated. Studies have been conducted by governmental agencies and consultants to determine trip generation characteristics of various land uses. From that body of information, the City Traffic Engineer has established trip generation rates applicable in the City of Newport Beach. These rates are listed in Table 1. By applying the trip generation rates in Table 1 to the planned land use, estimates of project trip generation were obtained. For this analysis the difference between the previous and proposed developments have been utilized as instructed by City Staff. These estimates are also listed in Table 1. As indicated in Table 1, the project is estimated to generate 25 trip ends during the AM 2.5 hour peak period and 25 during the PM 2.5 hour peak. AM peak hour trip generation is estimated to be 15 trip ends and the PM peak 'hour is estimated to be 15 trip ends. TRIP ASSIGNMENT In order to assign project trips to the street system, it is necessary to develop a trip distribution pattern. A review was made of land use and circulation system patterns in the area, as well as travel pattern survey data, and a trip distribution was assumed for the site. The distribution was reivewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. This distribution pattern is. illustrated on Figures 3 and 4. The estimated trips from Table 1 were then assigned to the street system in conformance with these distribution patterns. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of 27 intersections were identified by the City Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis. (See Figure 5) The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic i �s • -3- Table 1 TRIP GENERATION Fidelity National Title TIME RATE(1) TRIP GENERATION(2) 2.5 Hour Peak AM PM AM PM In 4.0 1.2 20 5 Out 0.8 3.4 5 20 Peak Hour In 2.0 0.6 10 5 Out 0.4 1.7 5 10 (1) Trip ends per 1,000 square feet. (2) 'Based upon 5,519 square feet (57,519 - 52,000). PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION MACARTHUH BLVD SUNFLOWER O,I ° SDunl < COASF / SAN DIEGO FWY. m PLAZA qla/N 4N N Qe C09090 PN�a0e BAKER 0O."A Je Y '7 ADAMS 30 ,02 6 OQ'yP MICHELSON DR a ORANGE COUNTY �P�Y 14 ,W W FAIRGHUUNDS P > 7 17 28 14 c o 5 yq re ha/ 2 5 c U . 3 9 vlcraRlA 2,/ aP s'/ > UNIVERSITY UPPER NEWPOR7 4 = / BAY ¢ UNIVERSI 7Y Oi CALIFORNIA IJTH ST / u IRVINE CAMPUS e BISON 9 UOeP 4 7 Oh OR ° yJaWa`ay° 4 4 2 I � FORD RO 0 � I W sqh w 6 COAST HWY lP 3 ' FASHION ptl✓<1p.9, t ° /SUNR yM �v1 �° O LOWER 3, NEWPORr BAY uO 3 SALBO >�• M gAAAOR NE E T ABLVO PIER NfWPORT BAY rq O9 z D ��f BALBOA PIER a a z a, WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 /1 PROJAW TRAFFIC DISTRIBUT& (DETAIL OF FIGURE 3 ) PROJECT 6 SITE 16 OOf c3' yam` 25 v 1 I 14 17 5 �Ur,r�rJUAII `F 28 14 E 37 G 13 Y 5 12 a e� 25 UJ a 5 iO'�jr v e R 3 v °i Mi 3 a I 9 4 c 5 Universal Drive 2 u E LEGEND I • 7 = Percentage of project traffic f � r O` a u 1� LA WESTON PRINGIE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4 II -_ IIERSECTIONS INCLUDED,*r IN STUDY MACAA I I IUR DL V U SUNELOWkx y N ElOry Soul" A COAST SAHOILGOFWY. m YLAIA h1y1N ♦/ O hi \ / P L'o9 m nnZ� fix\\_ 41 i YAAkH O m �� „Y hpN 44� W ♦ 1"4r.A 4N �y Jv Y f "9 P�0+ 2 4 .IIY u� �Y PF `T ADAMS ~ �1�pY� FY O?Y ,lye auCHEL50N DR O ,ORANGE COONTY °C EAINGNOUNOS r mm C > bO U Wr�/ Y j P �Y NIOSO P4. / P o VICTORIA ♦ by S/jy O P ?l � unIVEfl51TY. ufvf N a Nkwroxr = / tlAY ¢ UNIVERSIrYUECALWONNLA 19fM ST < MORE CAAWL4 OP a i 9lN>f PP Yp aWP A `y, u1SON 6 u aW /l/ `Pa Cyry Yo S OPY Nsi ryOR A A a0 5 0 FpgpxD a O AyLIa10 � JPWW ' ' �:YOL1 d LUAST HWY Y`T� lASHIUN rOVE 9 O�v, yFn $aAYO LOWER a a OhV ti $ NEwroN! : Eo �• Nth LEGEND MAY NkMWOM1 wILyOA YL Y YAY O tL I/EN "` , q, • = Intersection included MAY �� A 4 in study m r IALYOA O ,} ILEN Y ti 9 D 2 A M WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 /�1 • -4- exceeds one percent of existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and these projects are listed in Table 2. Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1987, the analyses were completed for 1988 as required by the Ordinance. Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the 27 intersections analyzed and the results are summarized in Table 3. Review of Table 3 indicates that all intersections passed the "One Percent" test and none are critical in terms of Traffic Phasing Ordinance. In summary, the project is not projected to impact any intersections under the terms of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. All, intersections investigated were found to pass the "One Percent" test. PARKING A review was also made of parking provisions for the project. The project plans indicate 256 ,parking spaces to serve the 57,519 square foot building which is a ratio of 4.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1 space per 227 square feet). This conforms to the City requirement of 1 space per 225 square feet. Previous studies by our firm of office uses at 1600 Dove, 1000 Quail , 1100 Quail and 1200 Quail have indicated a maximum demand of 3.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet. On this basis, a reduction to provide 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1 space per 250 square feet would be supportable.) SUMMARY This study has reviewed potential traffic impacts of the proposed Fidelity National Title development in the City of Newport Beach. These analyses have been completed to satisfy the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach. Consideration has been given to existing, committed project and regional growth traffic in addition to the project. Based upon these analyses, no intersections were found to be impacted by the project. Parking provisions were also reviewed and found to be adequate. iyA Table 2 COMMITTED PROJECTS Fidelity National Title Hoag Hospital Corona Del Mar Homes Aeronutornic Ford Big Canyon Villa Apts. Civic Plaza 1400 Dove Street Corporate Plaza 1100 Quail Street Mac Arthur Court Heltzer Medical Office Newport Place Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A Sea Island Villa Point Harbor Point, Homes Rosan's Development Martha's Vineyard Block 500, NPT. Ctr. Project Valdez Newport Aquatics Center Coast Business Center 2600 E. Coast Hwy. Koll Center NPT No. 1 Jasmine Park Ross Mollard Mac Arthur Associates Banning/Newport Ranch Newporter Inn Expansion Park Lido Newport Lido Med Center Heritage Bank Pacesetter Homes Big Canyon 10 Fashion Island Renaissance Fun Zone Crown House Marriott Hotel CDM Senior Project YMCA Point Del Mar Allred Condos 20th St. Bed/Breakfast Inn Four Seasons Hotel Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Block 400 Medical Amendment No. 1 North Ford Sharaton Expansion Newport Dunes Amendment No. 1 Mac Arthur Court Bayview National Education City of Irvine Development Carver Granville Office • -6- Table 3 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Fidelity National Title LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB WB AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Coast Hwy. & Mac Arthur - / - .06/.02 - / - .01/.02 MacArthur Blvd. & San Miguel Dr. .02/.03 .04/.02 - - MacArthur Blvd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. .03/.03 .03/.02 - - MacArthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. .02/.02 .021.01 - MacArthur Blvd. & Bison Ave. .01/.02 .01/.01 - - Jamboree Blvd. & MacArthur Blvd. .15/.03 .02/.08 .03/.03 - / - MacArthur Blvd. & Birch St. .12/.03 .09/.03 .15/.47 .37/.05 MacArthur Blvd. & Campus Dr. .04/.07 .06/.02 - / - - / - Coast Hwy. & Jamboree Rd. -/ - .05/.02 01/.01 - / - Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. .02/.03 .03/.02 - - Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Dr. .021.02 .021.02 - - Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff - Ford .02/.02 .02/.02 - - Jamboree Rd. & Bison St. .02/.02 .021.02 - - Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. N. .021.02 .021.02 - - Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. - / - .07/.03 .25/.17 - / - Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. .05/.07 .06/.04 .15/.05 .04/.06 Bristol St. & Campus Dr.-Irvine Ave. .02/.03 .08/.03 .11/.03 - / - Bristol St. & Birch St. .12/.22 .20/.07 .10/.01 - / - Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. .02/.02 .04/.04 .00/.20 - / - Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. .02/.04 , .06/.05 - / - .03/.06 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. .02/.07 .10/.14 - - Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. .021.01. .03/.02 - - Irvine Ave. & Westcliff Dr.-17th St. .05/.06 .06/.03 - - Irvine Ave. & Dover Dr. .03/.04 .06/.03 - - Irvine Ave. & Santiago Dr. .03/.04 .05/.02 - - Irvine Ave. & University .02/.04 .06/.02 - - Irvine Ave. & Mesa Dr. .04/.04 .08/.02 - / - .34/.13 �I �l • • -7- The following are principal findings of this study. 1. The project would generate 25 trip ends during AM 2.5 hour peak period and 25 during the PM 2.5 hour peak while the AM peak hour generation would be 15 trip ends and 15 during the PM peak hour. 2. Of the 27 intersections examined, all passed the "One Percent" test during both the AM or PM peak period. 3. The existing parking ratio of 4.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet meets City requirements, and exceeds the 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet ratio found for similar uses in the area. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are recommended for this project. We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTTOON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:bas #862010 � a� APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT ANALYSES Q SEW PpRr @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U T P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 cgti Fo ar�� NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: Planning Department a 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 oCounty Clerk of the County of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Fidelity National Title PROJECT LOCATION: 4361,4401,4423 & 4443 Birch Street, Newport Beach, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a new office building. 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: None INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: - Zzo� Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator DATR: January 28, 1987 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach a APPENDIX H Date Riled Environmental Information Form (To be completed by.applicant) GENERAL ZNFORMATION 1, Name and address of developer or project sponsor: _ FIDELITY NAT'IotJA�, 2. Address of project: 450 44D1 2 RG Assessor's Block and Lot um er 4eZ"7 -• 121 - L 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: G#_1, A 30W&AQ L >A9C41 E NO 54 PC* �JDtEG-d' CA• ZIZ3 4, Indicate number of the permit applies ion for the project to which this form pertains: 114JFFWG STJDY5. ' Liar, and de5crlua any o er related permits and other public approvals required -for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 6. Existing zoning district: K-t-A 7. Proposed use of site (Project for .which. this. form is filed) : PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. 400 X 29� 9, Square footage. J( lp,o0O 34'•Fr• 10. Number of floors of construction. 3 STDR 11 . Amount of off-street parking provided. 2ur1 g 12. Ar.tach plans. 9SS Ah".ACRED 13. Proposed scheduling. O/A . 111 . Associated projects , WIA 15. Anticipated lncre•nental development. O/. , r H2 16. If residential, include the nUmber •of units, schedule of unit sizes,. rangA of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. N 17. • If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. Nla 18. If industrial•, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. ll/� 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facili a, and community benefits to be derived from the project. hJ/ 20. If the•project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. N A Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary) . YES NO 21.. Change in existing.features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern; scale or character of general area of -project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. �S 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water. quality or quantity, or alteration of ,existing drainage patterns. u 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vlbc•aLion levels in the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. a� x3 YES NO 30. Substantial change.in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) . 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) . 32. Relationship to a larger 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 existing structures. on the site, and the use of the' structures. Attach photographs- of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. SEE ATrAGF4F-D STATBMST-4T 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,og frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc. ) . Attach photraphs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. ,QEE ATr,&rRS0 STATEMF-t4T CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and infor-. oration required for this initial .evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date gna ure For __ 33. The subject property is comprised of four subdivided lots which were previously developed with four buildings used for office and light industrial purposes. At present, there in only one office building located at the rear of the site. The site is flat and maintains some paving and landscaping which is remnant from the previous development of the site. 34. The subject property is in an urban setting and is surrounded by existing office developments to the northwest, northeast and southwest. To the southeast, across Birch Street, is the Shera- ton-Newport Hotel. APPENDIX I FNVIRONMENTAL CHECFLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background ,/ 1. Name of Proponent Fid l/`'1/ d!a-ht2y / The 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 6- /V Y dpl u LAY117 ki-qa A:U 3 ,_ Carr Dp 3. Date of Checklist Submission aarribzv- �Ij /flx(h 4. Agency Requiring Checklist i r N�ihpoY� L]P-i��f S.. Name of Proposal, if applicable /%� /� lVaAma 1 /1•& &z.Ving• Ii. Environmental Impacts • (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? �. c. change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction. covering or modi- *fication of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or crater erosion of Boils, 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 oZy 1 • YES HAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earth— quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground ✓ failure, or similar hazards? _ 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? 9. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of Water movements, in either 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? . 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 availaL•le for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 74 L' YES MAYBE NP 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)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, / or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? 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: / a. Increases in existing noise levels? ✓ _ b. Exposure of people to severe noise ' levels? 7. Lipht and Clare. Will the proposal produce / new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 75 �/ • e x YES MAYBE NO 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non— renewable natural resource? .10. _Risk o£ Rpaet. Does the proposal involve a risks 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 upset conditionst 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Rousing. Will the proposal affect ` existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? / 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the ,C— proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, / or demand for new parking? ✓ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? / d. Alterations to present patterns of —lam circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to notor vehicles , bicyclists or / pedestrians? ✓ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an eff_ct upon, or result in a need for new or altered Rovernmental services in any of the foliewi.nt areas: 76 PPE-2A:24 YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? -L- b. Police protection? c: Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? t� e. Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? f. other governmental services?• .L 15. 'Energ Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or 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? b. Communications systems? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? v e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? / b. Exposure of people to potential / Health hazards? sy 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? V17 3 YES MAYBE NO 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity / of existing recreational opportunities? -1L/ 20. Archeological/Historical. Ifill tl+r: 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 serf—sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal'community, reduce the guwber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—term. environmental goals? (A short—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long— / term impacts will endure well into the ✓ future.) c. Does the project have impacts which , are -individually limited, but 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 adverse effects on human beings, / either directly or indirectly? ✓ III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. P.etermination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 78 3� On the basis of this initial evaluation: Z, I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q I find that although the proposed project could .Have a significant affect *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. ata Signature !off I� (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public ancies are free to devise their own format for initial studies:) A9 79 25 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 6.a. During construction of the project, heavy machinery may be used. This may increase the ambient noise levels in the vicinity during the course of construction. The project site is, however, in a developed commercial area which is subject to both traffic and airport noise. The possible increase in noise levels is short term in nature and is considered insignificant. 13.b. The proposed project will result in the construction of a new office building, which will create a demand for parking facilities. The project will however provide all of the parking required for the project on site, and no impacts are anticipated. W 0 Y A We du Ngte aid 9 Ecc", FIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING January 23, 1987 R o, Ms. Pat Temple JAN°`R%,,Nal• Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Ms. Temple: This letter summarizes our analysis of traffic factors related to the proposed Fidelity National Title development in the City of Newport Beach. The study has been conducted to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This study is based upon information provided by City Staff and previous studies. The project is located on the westerly side of Birch Street midway between Corinthian Way and Mac Arthur Boulevard. (See Figure 1) It would include an office building with a gross area of 57,519 square feet and 256 parking spaces of which 29 (11 percent) are compact. The parking is in the rear of the building with vehicul r access from Birch Street in two locations. This project would replace office buildings containing a total of 52,000 square feet which were previously destroyed by fire. EXISTING CONDITIONS Birch Street provides access to adjacent development and is striped to provide two lanes of travel in each direction. At Mac Arthur Boulevard and Bristol Street North, additional turning lanes have been provided. On-street parking is prohibited on the east side of the street and partially on the west side of the street. Mac Arthur Boulevard is a major arterial with three lanes of travel in each direction and special turning lanes. To the south, the extension of the Route 73, Corona del Mar Freeway has been completed and access is provided via Bristol and Bristol North. Existing daily traffic volume are illustrated on Figure 2. Also indicated on Figure 2 are 1986 ICU values at major intersections throughout the City. 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 9 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 M PROJECT LOCATION SITE y�. ,y O GAF � o y o °i RY 3 a .ten Universit Drive u Y 8 E f 3 4 NO SCALE �O WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 1 Y LEGEND 43 = DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME 0.63 ON THOUSANDS) Q93 0.64 0.63 _ AM PEAK HOUR ICU 0.46 DR 0.59 ' 0. 33 - PM PEAK HOUR ICU 0.62 0.37 0.66 T L N 0.42 0.89 v u o 0_65 Q' u ¢ � BRISTOL S m 0.89 sr N 0.97 8 Ik S�7OL 0.66O' 0.85 0 J��S 0.58 0� 60 " 0.59 0.80 0.86 0.83 0.91 UNIVERSITY MESA 0.65 �p g�HTC 0.54 1.02 0.62 0.93 0.56 J w n 0.61 0.53 0.77 N 0 BO t N 0.85 W ro 0.90 �KD NO SCALE 0_63 fOfZO 0.59 e� 1.00 �p 0.63 0.70 0.66 0.66 (0 072 0.92 0.62 J04 0.70 Sp,N M v��N 0:90 0.56 0.66 y�f w u Q Ll o W <S Ra 0 g cr 0.79 o M 0.56 �' Q > a w 0° �' 0 0.96 0.64 �79 a Lia � 4 0:55 30 Qo r 48 45 0 59 51 ,�COAS7 HWY o�2 (D 0 w PACIf IG 1.07 0.53 FO �J < a �G �a` 0.94 0.58 30 25 p } 0.73 O� 0.63 34 1.05 O'80 �p 0.91 0:9 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.94 0.95 EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 -2- Y TRIP GENERATION In order to evaluate the potential traffic impact of the project, it is necessary to estimate the number of trips that would be generated. Studies have been conducted by governmental agencies and consultants to determine trip generation characteristics of various land uses. From that body of information, the City Traffic Engineer has established trip generation rates applicable in the City of Newport Beach. These rates are listed in Table 1. By applying the trip generation rates in Table 1 to the planned land use, estimates of project trip generation were obtained. For this analysis the difference between the previous and proposed developments have been utilized as instructed by City Staff. These estimates are also listed in Table 1. As indicated in Table 1, the project is estimated to generate 25 trip ends during the AM 2.5 hour peak period and 25 during the PM 2.5 hour peak. AM peak hour trip generation is estimated to be 15 trip ends and the PM peak hour is estimated to be 15 trip ends. TRIP ASSIGNMENT In order to assign project trips to the street system, it is necessary to develop a trip distribution pattern. A review was made of land use and circulation system patterns in the area, as well as travel pattern survey data, and a trip distribution was assumed for the site. The distribution was reiyewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. This distribution pattern is. illustrated on Figures 3. and 4. The estimated trips from Table 1 were then assigned to the street system in conformance with these distribution patterns. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of 27 intersections were identified by the City Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis. (See Figure 5) The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic ' • -3- ' Table 1 TRIP GENERATION Fidelity National Title TIME RATE(1) TRIP GENERATION(2) 2.5 Hour Peak AM PM AM PM In 4.0 1.2 20 5 Out 0.8 3.4 5 20 Peak Hour In 2.0 0.6 10 5 Out 0.4 1.7 5 10 (1) Trip ends per 1,000 square feet. (2) Based upon 5,519 square feet (57,519 - 52,000). y , PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 5 MACARTHUR BLVD SUNFLOWER N yt TO N SOUTH / < COAST / SAN DIEGO FWY. m PLAZA 41A1N 2 CO9 or Q4 X�� Q, BAKER 0y90F, m a \.'P0 pQ00i Qv0 Y 'UA/,V tiP `If, P00av ia�ODOai e�J E Pa ADAMS 30 �O 0 16y ,02 6 OQO MICMELSON OR 0 O ORANGE COUNTY �Pf 14 �W WFA/RGROUNOS p Y 7 17 28 co p s sq/ 4 e' s s LL ao Tod 5 T3q ie a/ tiP �/Yo 0 / a .S• 3 9 2 VICTORIA B D OP UNIVERSITY / ST UPPER 4 2 NEWPORT 2 1 / BAY ¢ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA I9TH ST // a IRVINE CAMPUS OP 9 a 9T a(yP BISON FAT `N CyR'Y D a OR, y`rT 4 7 NOq n yJQ�e 040 4 4 FORD RD 2 o 6 qC/F/0 > po- CDAST HWY Pd ' '<Cs Aot S.f 3 FASHION p00 q0 /\ IStANO 5iH o s OA� p� LOWER 3 NEWPORT BAY i NEWPORT BALBOA BLVD NfHPORT >I kNARNDR`FEh' PIER BAY p9 x D ��p a d BALBOA a PIER 4 �1 9 D 2 n ' WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3 PROJ& TRAFFIC DISTRIBUT�N (DETAIL OF FIGURE 3 ) PROJECT 6 SITE 16 25 11 14 17 5 ` r!l1 f11�An 28 14 37 13 x 5 12 25 .$"Q�s .� ��,e o° a 5 �Oyti v A 3 4 ku 5 Universit Drive 2 E LEGEND I • 7 ='Percentage of project traffic c O� a u A `J .O WESTON PRINGLE AND AS$OCIATES FIGURE 4 ISERSECTIONS INCLUDED IN STUDY MACARMUII OLVO SUNFLOWER 1n y(YO4 q SOUIH / A COASY / SANOILGOFWY, m PLAIA MAIN 2 c0. Or A M 9 rc yea° J'� O I" / OAKEN ry P P y. Nt Pao 4PL < b` Pilpaab va �Qd AOAMS fP OP F ,Od °aW .MICHELSON ON a O ORANGE COUNTY )W a FAIRGROUNDS f < O NFSrO Yt •� a1a� JW b NO u / ,LY OiL VICTOfl1A UNIVER51TY / Oar m UYvfR q / NEWPORT i MAY ¢ ONIVfRSIIr OI'CALIFONNU 19TH ST // Y IRVINE CA4WUS °P j 9l"& i r ,`rrvY UISON C °J OR . aaP a° 4JJ aN ti FOR D AO 4 O µ S• O CU4ST .Y C o�` F HWY � FASHION Futi"�q �� n I51"D C p y✓` `•`''IC 11 0 LOWER B . O�IN' MfMMURF SAY LEGEND YAItlpA H',nOAY Ift oily YLVD PIER NEAORT SAY 4 •= Intersection included FFh .'o in study YALYOA o }� vlfR i ti a z n m WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES FIGURE 5 Y • -4- exceeds one percent of existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and these projects are listed in Table 2. Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1987, the analyses were completed for 1988 as required by the Ordinance. Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the 27 intersections analyzed and the results are summarized in Table 3. Review of Table 3 indicates that all intersections passed the "One Percent" test and none are critical in terms of Traffic Phasing Ordinance. In summary, the project is not projected to impact any intersections under the terms of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. All intersections investigated were found to pass the "One Percent" test. PARKING A review was also made of parking provisions for the project. The project plans indicate 256 parking spaces to serve the 57,519 square foot building which is a ratio of 4.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1 space per 227 square feet). This conforms to the City requirement of 1 space per 225 square feet. Previous studies by our firm of office uses at 1600 Dove, 1000 Quail , 1100 Quail and 1200 Quail have indicated a maximum demand of 3.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet. On this basis, a reduction to provide 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1 space per 250 square feet would be supportable.) SUMMARY This study has reviewed potential traffic impacts of the proposed Fidelity National Title development in the City of Newport Beach. These analyses have been completed to satisfy the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the City of Newport Beach. Consideration has been given to existing, committed project and regional growth traffic in addition to the project. Based upon these analyses, no intersections were found to be impacted by the project. Parking provisions were also reviewed and found to be adequate. Table 2 COMMITTED PROJECTS Fidelity National Title Hoag Hospital Corona Del Mar Homes Aeronutornic Ford Big Canyon Villa Apts. Civic Plaza 1400 Dove Street Corporate Plaza 1100 Quail Street Mac Arthur Court Heltzer Medical Office Newport Place Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A Sea Island Villa Point Harbor Point, Homes Rosan's Development Martha's Vineyard Block 500, NPT. Ctr. Project Valdez Newport Aquatics Center Coast Business Center 2600 E. Coast Hwy. Koll Center NPT No. 1 Jasmine Park Ross Mollard Mac Arthur Associates Banning/Newport Ranch Newporter Inn Expansion Park Lido Newport Lido Med Center Heritage Bank Pacesetter Homes Big Canyon 10 Fashion Island Renaissance Fun Zone Crown House Marriott Hotel CDM Senior Project YMCA Point Del Mar Allred Condos 20th St. Bed/Breakfast Inn Four Seasons Hotel Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Block 400 Medical Amendment No. 1 North Ford Sharaton Expansion Newport Dunes Amendment No. 1 Mac Arthur Court Bayview National Education City of Irvine Development Carver Granville Office • • -6- Table 3 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Fidelity National Title LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB WB AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Coast Hwy. & Mac Arthur / - .06/.02 - / .01/.02 MacArthur Blvd. & San Miguel Dr. .02/.03 .04/.02 - / - - / - MacArthur Blvd. & San, Joaquin Hills Rd. .03/.03 .03/.02 - / - MacArthur Blvd. & Ford Rd. .021.02 .02/.01 - MacArthur Blvd. & Bison Ave. .01/.02 .01/.O1 - Jamboree Blvd. & MacArthur Blvd. .15/.03 .02/.08 .03/.03 MacArthur Blvd. & Birch St. .12/.03 .09/.03 .15/.47 .37/.05 MacArthur Blvd. & Campus Dr. .04/.07 .06/.02 - / - - / - Coast Hwy. & Jamboree Rd. -/ - .05/.02 .01/.O1 - / - Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. .02/.03 .03/.02 - - Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Dr. .02/.02 .02/.02 - Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff - Ford .021.02 .02/.02 - - Jamboree Rd. & Bison St. .02/.02 .02/.02 - - Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. N. .02/.02 .02/.02 - - Jamboree Rd. & Birch St. - / - .07/.03 .25/.17 - / - Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr. .05/.07 .06/.04 .15/.05 .04/.06 Bristol St. & Campus Dr.-Irvine Ave. .02/.03 .08/.03 .11/.03 - / - Bristol St. & Birch St. .12/.22 .20/.07 .10/.O1 - / - Bristol St. & Jamboree Rd. .02/.02 .04/.04 .00/.20 - / - Bristol St. N. & Campus Dr. .02/.04 .06/.05 - / - .03/.06 Bristol St. N. & Birch St. .02/.07 .10/.14 - - Bristol St. N. & Jamboree Rd. .021.01. .03/.02 - - Irvine Ave. & Westcliff Dr.-17th St. .05/.06 .06/.03 - - Irvine Ave. & Dover Dr. .03/.04 .06/.03 - - Irvine Ave. & Santiago Dr. .03/.04 .05/.02 - - Irvine Ave. & University .02/.04 .06/.02 - - Irvine Ave. & Mesa Dr. .04/.04 .08/.02 - / - .34/.13 The following are principal findings of this study. 1. The project would generate 25 trip ends during AM 2.5 hour peak period and 25 during the PM 2.5 hour peak while the AM peak hour generation would be 15 trip ends and 15 during the PM peak hour. 2. Of the 27 intersections examined, all passed the "One Percent" test during both the AM or PM peak period. 3. The existing parking ratio of 4.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet meets City requirements, and exceeds the 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet ratio found for similar uses in the area. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are recommended for this project. We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON/P•RIINGLE & ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:bas #862010 APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT ANALYSES 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST•HWY/MACARTHUR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 19 8 AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2+I Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound O Southbound 1451 Eastbound 22 1 Westbound 82 Z AZ— Project dU/� 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 21-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: ' FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY/MACARTHUR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Wi nter pring 19 86 PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2§ Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2s, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 0 Sou"bound 3480 Eastbound 4516 /�d 7! j✓2s 7�J ; —' Westbound 3870 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)i Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: ', �� FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL SAN MIGUEL DR (Existing Traffic Volumes base on Average Winter pring 19 86 AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2§ Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3915 Southbound 1991 Eastbound 346 Westbound 594 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: ' 3� FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL SAN MIGUEL DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pring 66 PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2378 1�6� j/�j7 ,o Southbound 3605 Eastbound 2061 Westbound 751 y 795 J _i 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 El Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I l3l 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring IFIE AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2c Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2c Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3477 3 38z6 3B 0.03°. Southbound 3023 JD O,o3' Eastbound d /,W30 /1> Westbound 2118 �-3 ZW ZZ 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 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: / 3� FORM I �I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes se on verage inter pring M _ Peek 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peek 2$ Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume // I Northbound 2608 Southbound 5751 4 � .o 7 o/1 Eastbound - — y77-2167 ?✓ Z t Westbound 1143 9/ Z✓2 Z r�5 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected LJ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected (l Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: / �� FORM I • � � it 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MA CA THUR BL FORD RD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Winter/Spring 19 86)AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6✓2�? : Z..j z I 0.02 4560 Southbound 3322 Eastbound 326 376 3 Westbound 1540 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 138 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/FORD RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 86 PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected t Direction Peak 2x, Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour j Pe Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 98B 5307 53 I 4308 Southbound Q.o Eastbound 1365 "— Westbound Z Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: �G FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average inter pring 19 86 M Peak 2� Hour Approved Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Existing Regional Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 23s Hour Peak peak 2e Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6126 Southboune 4706 l 9 D•t�� Eastbound 589 /9Z 78l II Westbound �t Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected L�1 Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes b sed on Average Winter/Spring 19 86 ) M Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1m. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 212 Hour Peak 2� Hour I Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume aVolume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 5195 13 Southbound 7145 a Eastbound 2019 -- 3z7 ZJ V-Z i Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: f L/y FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BL./MACARTHUR BL. (NORTH-SOUTH) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 86) AM Peak 21, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I— 1, of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 21 Hour Peak 21; Hour I Peak 21, Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volu"mee Volume Northbound 1060 Southbound ✓ 47 l p4119 Eastbound I 3017 _ S3� i 3�— ' -- — — Westbound I _1867 ---r ----- ✓ i6 z76U.—L _— -- — — --1 M7f Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected El- Peak 2=2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected �] Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BL./MACARTHUR BL. (NORTH-SOUTH) (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 19gT M Peak 2; Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected —� 1". of Projected Project " Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 21; Hour ; Peak 2:. nour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound _ 3169 'f///DO .J�.� ✓�6 -- (�,o�o South bound 3467 _ _ W1 38 Eastbound 2154—_ .•__Z__- I 79 Z b Westbound 3276 377 ✓�� ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected �] Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes as on Average Inter pring 86 M Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of ProjectedTP7eako'2 ect Direction Peak 21i Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2). Hour Peak 2k Hourk Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume lumeNorthbound1887 Z /2° LEb 2 83Uo9 947 647 S 80� 8J 3?JP 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I iSa 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR/BIRCH (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1986 PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour I Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2760 southbound 2542 3 52 Eastbound 1668 ZS / b, Westbound 1629 y7Z Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2j Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: / S% FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL /CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pring 86 AM Peak 2+ Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour i Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 2041 Z Z9S 055E 03 o 5outhbound 4323 ''// ���i✓ lye SS ;3 d d° Eastbound 2325 Y� Z78Z Westbound 1325 4 //.J? I.5 y �✓' 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 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: /S !� FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 BJ)PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lf, of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour j Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume /Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 3584 VIgZ yZ7d �/.3 3 O Southbound 3405 /�j A r Z° Eastbound 2586 7`J� ��J z Westbound 3042 5-3 7yyZ n}( Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected i� Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: /S6 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 85 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour j Peak 2y Hour j Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2001 — Southbound 1454 D Eastbound I 7570 Z6 /09Y 9 8 r d,oi•( Westbound 2733 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2.v, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 2 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HWY/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter prinj 19 _ M Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1: of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2+ Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour j Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume northbound 1117 Southbound ( /� ��� 6/ l 6 Eastbound 5678 719 I n [7.0/ � westbound f�1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected �# Peak 2-11 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SANTA BARBARA DR (Existing Traffi c Volumes based on verage Wi nter pring 9 B6) AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4311 Southbound 2671 Eastbound _ �— _ _ s Westbound -� 95 ILL- 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I � a 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SANTA BARBARA (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 _ PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Protect I Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour j Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2585 J B 7 5971� ✓� Southbound 3889 Eastbound Westbound 1833 V17 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be -greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I fc.3 A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1986M Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected L. of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peek 2t Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2ti Hour Peak 2+ hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I 3987 2. northbound 4205 yl 5 v OZ iEastbound 793 ' Westbound 414 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: ` FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumesbased on Average winter/Spring 1996"TPM, Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2;, Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound / 4235 az° Southbound Eastbound414 Y� — Westbound 657 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 7 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/EASTBLUFF-FORD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 86)AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 21-, Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume/ Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4682 �5'7 ls5/ 5�' i d Southbound 3132 /�✓� 07 3 Eastbound 1085 ._ fZ 11Z7 l� I Westbound 841 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 2? Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I /0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD EASTBLUFF-FORD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 86 PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1"' of Projected Project Direction Peak 2u, Hour Growth Peak 2), Hour Peak 2§ Hour Peak 2�, Hour j Peak 2� Hour Volume _ Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound / 9 4863 � elt Southbound 3965 b J��9 Z y dZ Eastbound 1316 _ ZO as �3 ' IiI Westbound 1070 L QB6 �/ '✓ 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BISON ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pring 1986 AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected i Project Direction Peak 2; Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4471 3 �338 `JJ °Zv southbound 3669 Eastbound 309 Westbound 636 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BISON ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage nter pring 19 B6 pM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected ! Project I Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour j Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4669 �j� /ZZ :1YO-5 1 I U2� Southbound 3574 02� Eastbound 212 Westbound Z/Z S16 �D l -i 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 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: ;�' FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/EASTBLUFF DR N (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on?average winter/Spring 86 AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2, Hour Peak 25 Hour j Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4278 L A✓ 5/17 So Southbound 4288 Eastbound 1092 Westbound 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/EASTBLUFF DR N (Existing Traffic Volumes Ea—sed on Average Winter/Spring ID 8 PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2+ Hour Growth Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 21 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume — I Northbound 5205 Southbound 3749 Eastbound 461 9 ✓ I Westbound 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 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BL/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 1 B6) AM Peak 21, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21 Hour I Growth Peak 2k, Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 2t Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 2163 Southbound 3511 87-p 0 Z Eastbound 354 Westbound �— 23 2 3 �— Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: a a FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BL/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter/Spring 1986) PM Peak 21, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1"1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2, Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour peak 2$ Hour Peak 21, Hour j Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2512 Southbound2560 j37� D3° Eastbound 1499 ��� y �/ 0'/7° 38 a 3r� Westbound 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 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: r a 2 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BL CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 19 86)AM Peak 2§ Hour Approved11 Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2�, Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour j Peak 2�, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume — j I Northbound b Southbound 3899 3 D Eastbound 9 O 6 6b,b Q,(S Westbound 2104 f ZZs Z3 �.0� t 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 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE BL/CAMPUS DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pring 19 _) PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2c Hour Growth Peak 2u Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2ti Hour j Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3440 8 '� Southbound 2015 6y� 26�� ZZ d Eastbound 1778 ✓� �3 Z/ jLZ Z (J /�' Westbound 1625 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected W Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I � �7 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET/CAMPUS DR.-IRVINE AV. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 198 M Peak 2; Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected It of Projected Project Direction Peak 2u Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2u Hour 1: Volume Volume Volume Volume volume i Volume li Northbound 3615 36 :5W -11140 -Z .01036 Z° Southbound �B l 2'Z l3 .9437 / i� Eastbound 1�f1 �� 66oS (� ; ° •I rh Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ICJ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/CAMPUS DR-IRVINE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 pM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2": Hour Growth Peak 2+ Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2780 307 ✓ Southbound 3295 57z Eastbound 6033 Inez Westbound 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)1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: Cf FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersectionme ST. BIRCH ST. (Existing Traffic Volus ased on Average inter Spring 19 6_ Peak 21i Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Peak 2> Hour Peak 2�- Hour Peek 21 Hour Peak 2§ Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 842 Southbound 412 — /9Y 7 �Zo Eastbound 3950 ,i ZU /9 1 SZ 1 5 Westbound _ i 11 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/BIRCH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Verage inter pring 1-9 6 P Peak D, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2u, Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2La Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Nour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume — _ I 1 korthbound 454 b Yz° Southbound j ✓z �� Eastbound 3877 3S �s7 � 9333 93 0 Westbound ' 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 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 12 a 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST./JAMBOREE BL. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 86 AM Peak 21, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 21� Hour Peak 21; Hour j Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5086 do36 [fib f o2�b Southbound 1653 Eastbound 4057 I 1 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak N. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST./JAMBOREE BL. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 86 PM Peak 21i Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2i, Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2; Hour I Peak 2� Hour Peak 212 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 4948 J 5 7 / O,oz0� Southbound 203 Z 7o,41Z7 z/ ��Orl fj Eastbound 4018 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2i Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST. N/CAMPUS DR. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 9 86. AM Peak 21; Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%: of Projected Project Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Peak 2, Hour Peak 2ia Hour Peak 2'2 Hour Peak 2; Hour Volume Volume Volume 'Volume volume i Volume Northbound 4375 Southbound �,04 0 Eastbound Westbound 3214 �'�_ �3 367 3 6L03tQ 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST. N/CAMPUS DR. - IRVINE AV. (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Winter/Spring 19 GT-PM Peak 2'i Hour Approved Approach Existing I Regional Projects Projected I N of Projected Project Direction Peak 21i hour Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 21; Hour Peak 21, Hour I Peak 2. Hour Volume I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound - Southbound 3717_il /�' �/� �� Eastbound —!�_ Westbound I /D , B • d Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2-z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST. N./BIRCH ST. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter Spring 19 1 AM Peak 21, Hour Approved —1 Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1". of Projected Project .� Direction Peak 2, Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 21, Hour j Peak 2ti, Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2612 c 3-Z/ Z 7., I c Southbound 757 97 /"o Eastbound Westbound I 2659 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21i Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST. N/BIRCH ST. (Existing Traffic Volumes ab se-a' on verage inter Spri—g 19t36FPM Peak 21, Hour Approved — Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I 1,. of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2c, flour Growth Peak 21, Hour Peak 2's flour Peak 21, hour I Peak 21, Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound _ 1255 _ _ d Southbound 3597 Eastbound i _ ! L -- Westbound 4735_—._ - T3/ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I e 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET N%JAMBOREE RD. (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 1919 S�AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project � Direction Peak 21, Hour I Growth Peak 2)-, Hour Peak 2�- Hour Peak 21, Hour i Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume //Volume Volume Volume Northbound 6124 Southbound 2284 Z 70�7 Eastbound Westbound 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: _ PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST. N/JAMBOREE RD. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage WMt—erTSpring 19 g-L—} pM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projuctea ! i' of Projected Project " Direction Peak 21 Hour Growth Peak 21 Hour Peak 2%, Hour ; Peak 21, Hour Peak 21, Hour III I Volume Volume— — Volume --Volume Volume Volume 11 Northbound 1 6308 /,i7 ---I---7---�------- Z /- I' SouSouthbound � Eastbound 3562 --I- _ i Westbound i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1`5 of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [� Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. _ DATE: PROJECT: --- FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IRVINE AV WESTCLIFF DR - 17TH ST (Existing Traffic Volumes 15-a—s-e-d on Average Winter/Spring 19 86 AM Peak 2t5 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1': of Projected Project Direction Peak 21, Hour I — Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2+- Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ! Northbound ! 1760 Z Southbound 1602 EdSLDDUnd ! 192,E I GQ zlGb I Z/ ' `i it Westbound i 999` 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: ;� FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IRVINE-PyD - 7TH (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon verage Inter pring 19 86 PM Peak 2� hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21,, Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2x Hour Peak 2t, Hour j Peak 2t, Hour Volume Volume Volume Voluumee Volume Volume Northbound 1648 Il lB D,o6�/,J SOuthbound 2769 ...J? y/7 ✓�/�' 3L �h o3° Eastbound I 2805 � _" /Z Westbound ZO (I I 1934 _ — 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IRVINE AV/DOVER DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average nter pring 9 86 AM Approach Peak 2-, Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2t Hour Peak 2� Hour peak 26 Hour j Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2583 //36 ,iDZZ 3o / Opp% ° Southbound 2055 Z 7 Z27 D o Eastbound 1 596 Westbound I 841 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�i Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity .Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: �� FORM I • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IR FR DR (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Winter pring 19 86 PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 11' of Projected Project Direction Peak 21, Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 21� Hour Peak 2� Hour j Peak 21t Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 2122 2 2354', Southbound 3651 07 l 02' Eastbound465 — /r Westbound — /� ��SZ l 1139 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: 'j FORM I F. y 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IRVINE AV/SANTIAGO- DR (Existing Traffic Volumes ased on Average winter/Spring 19 86) AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3541 W7, 5,& Southbound 1642 Z 040 1BS Eastbound 535 Westbound 401 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IRVINE AV/SANTIAGO DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 gL) pM Peak 2u Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected 'Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2s; Hour Peak 2u Hour j Peak 2ti Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume 2354 Northbound Southbound 4461 Eastbound 392 Westbound 241 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I `Y a � 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on yerage Winter7Spring 19 86) AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lf, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 25 Hour Volume Volume /Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 4802 J p o2 5outhbound 1499 2 Zy' Eastbound 854 _ 9/ 7 Westbound 77 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I w 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IRVINE UNI ERSITY (Existing Traffic Volumes base on verage Winter/Spring 86 PM Peak 2k Hour Approved TI Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 212 Hour Peak 21s Hour i Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2406 Southbound 5035 Eastbound 1 636 Westbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak N. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I DATE: PROJECT: FORM I • •. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IRVINE AV/MESA DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 19 _)AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour j Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4518 � Do' Southbound 1060 2 �Z7 Eastbound 619 I Y — Westbound 0, 7 �iJ 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 Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: y 8 FORM I OL 46 i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection IRVINE AV/MESA DR (Existing Traffic Volumes ase . on Average nter pring 19 86_ PM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2ti Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 25 Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2309 �� Southbound 9 y b2 Eastbound 648 Westbound -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected i Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. i i 4 DATE: PROJECT: 9 FORM I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date December 15, 1986 X_ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION XPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X__TRAFFIC ENGINEER XFIRE DEPARTMENT PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING X__PLAN REVIEW DIVISION _PARKS & RECREATION X_POLICE DEPARTMENT _MARINE SAFETY GRADING APPLICATION OF: Fidelity National Title FOR: Traffic Study REQUEST TO: Approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 57,912 sq.ft. office building on property located in the M-1-A District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off-street parking. LOCATION: 4361, 4401, 4423, and 4443 Birch Street REPORT REQUESTED BY: December 26, 1986 COMMISSION REVIEW: January 8, 1987 COMMENTS: Signature Date �EvvaoRT PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY I IALL 3300 Newport Boulevard P . O. Box 1768 Newport Beach , CA 926 �915 .' ' l 427-1ZI-14 rA "(E0(�PTE r►i�elb�lN IRUINE .;hUSTR7AL C(TMP'LEX , I ice, i� -4344 -8IRCf+ SS•r, 440-0 g NEWPORT BEA&,CALI FORNI �`f 92660 c`019a? ,• IMPORTANT p loubl i c Hearing Notice 4� N I,I �wvPoRr PLANNING DEPARTMENT t' ' - CITY HALL 3300 Newport Boulevard P . O. Box 1768 ' Newport Beach , CA 92658-8915 'IRVINE INDUSTRAIL'/�,v/p��0'�r^�j'' j 4.36 T BI-RCH ST NEOPORT BEACH CA,92660 y- 3p19a y �i It IMPORTANT ubl i c Heari nq Notice � N 1 - i ��'gv/soRr 'PLANNING DEPARTMENT ``,,t<< CITY HALL e..� �`+.�'•".11�-••';�h.i ; � t is 3300 Newport Boil evard P . O. Box 1768 Newport Beach , CA 92658-8915 427-121-09 �D IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX 4361 BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNI 92660, nA IMPORTANT JAN3 0 19 •Public Hearing Notice N�vForj'`' $, ti � I ��EW�Rr PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL - u z 4 14 °qc oa�`P 3300 Newport BoUlevart LI-N' 6 N171v ;.11 P . O . Box 1768 Newport Beach , CA 92658-891�a fpF- ^ _ - JAN301987 -- CITY OF 421-121-11 — _ 6PORT BEACH, 7! T;R-VI.NE .4-NDUST3L1' .CDMPL I CALIF. 2171 CAMPUS DR IRVINE CA�ISVRNI 95, r IMPORTANT .Public Hearing Notice - -- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Fidelity National Title for Traffic Study on property located at 4361, 4401, 4423 and 4443 Birch Street. Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 57,912 sq.ft. office building on property located in the M-1-A District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off-street parking. 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. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents,. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. 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 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658-8915 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 5th day of February, 1987, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. For information call (714) 644-3200. Pat Eichenhofer, 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 given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Fidelity National Title for Traffic Study on property located at 4361, 4401, 4423 and 4443 Birch Street. Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 57,912 sq.ft._ office building on property located in the M-1-A District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off-street parking. 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. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. it is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as- either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. 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 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658-8915 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 5th day of February, 1987, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. For information call (714) 644-3200. Pat Eichenhofer, 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 given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Fidelity National Title for Traffic Study on property located at 4361, 4401, 4423 and 4443 Birch Street. Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 57,912 sq.ft. office building on property located in the M-1-A District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces r a portion of the required off-street parking. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the ity of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative De aration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effe on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative De. ration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or deni� by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general publi to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and sun rting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658-8915 (7 i4 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be on the 22nd day of January, 1987, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, Inform t which/ me and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. For, info on call (714) 644-3200. Pat Eichenhofer, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Ne, t Beach i NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing £ collected from the applicant. NOTICE OF PUBLI, ARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commis of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Fidelit N tional Title for Traffic Study on property located at 4361, 4401, 4423 and 4443 Birch S r et. Request to approve a traffic study so s to permit the construction of a 57,912 s .ft. office building on property located i e M-1-A District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so s to allow the use of compact Parking spaces for a portion of the required off-streeVpaiking. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN t at a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection w"t the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject d e opment will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the pre ry intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. Thi �s not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject applicati The City encourages members of the general public to review pand comment on this documen aLon. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for pub is review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport oulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658-8915 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby urther given that said public hearing will be held on the 22nd day' of January, 1987, t' the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City wpXrt Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all Hall, 3300 tpersons intere"ted may appear and be heard thereon. For information call (714) 644-3200. Pat Eichenh0 er, 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 given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Fidelity National Title for Traffic Study on property located at 4361, 4401, 4423 and 4443 Birch Street. Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 57,912 sq.ft. office building on property located in the M-1-A District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off-street parking. 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. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. it is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and Supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. 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 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658-8915 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 8th day of January, 1987, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. For information call (714) 644-3200. Pat Eichenhofer, 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 given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Fidelity National Title for Traffic Study on property located at 4361, 4401, 4423 and 4443 Birch Street. Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 57,912 sq.ft. office building on property located in the M-1-A District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the required off-street parking. 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. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of- the subject application. 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 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658-8915 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 8th day of January, 1987, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. For information call (714) 644-3200. Pat Eichenhofer, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. IRVINE INDUSTRAIL CO _ - IRVINE INDUSTRAIL CO - -IRVINE INDUSTRAIL-CO - 1799.1 COWAN . 17991 .COWAN 179-91 COWAN IRVINE CA,92714 IRVINE -CA,92714 IRVINE- CA,927-14 IRVINE CO IRVINE CO IRVINE CO 4630 CAMPUS DR SUITE#100 4630 CAMPUS DR SUITE#100 4630 CAMPUS DR SUTTE0100 NEWPORT BEACH CA,92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA,92660- NEWPORT BEACH CA,92660 IRVINE INDUSTRAIL IRVINE INDUSTRAIL IRVINE'INDUSTRAIL *4361 BIRCH ST 4361 BIRCH ST 4361 -BIRCH ST NEWPORT BEACH CA,92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA;92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA,92660 IRVINE INDUSTRAIL IRVINE IhDUSTRAIL IRVINE INDUSTRAIL 2171 CAMPUS DR SUITE#100 2171 CAMPUS DR SUITE#100• ' 2171 CAMPUS DR SUITE#100 IRVINE CA,92715 -IRVINE CA, 92715 IRVINE CA,92715 IRVINE INDUSTRAIL- IRVINE INDUSTRAIL IRVINE INDUSTRAIL 4341 BIRCH ST SUTTE#100A 4341 BIRCH ST SUTTE#100 4341 BIRCH ST SUITE#100 NEWPORT BEACH CA,92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA,92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA, 92660 F E TROTTER INC F E TROTTER INC F E TROTTER INC 828 FORT STREET MALL 828 FORT STREET MALL 828 FORT STREET MALL HONOLULU,HAWA11,96813 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 CAMOUS } 1 1 TRACT I I I 1 , I ' f • r !c-u • I r. I 00 - 2 1 I I K I j V' 427-I2 I I I � Ab 320/ I i Al2 -VO/ I I zI n 16 2� Ie h !0 ml AM IN IJJ Je y 41 I) 1 III I / e n izJ I / / 1 AO 5/6-9 I : ' w ✓. IS-23 7 -.+. 1p e aJa 139 PIP 427-I I •I'✓ O PIN / u\ N99 4^ 2 O 7� = 6000 AC •' a D � 2 1 � P r. e0 rt.q 3 174 i'• .ow r' BLK 50 S. california —+ MASTER FILE H 16 �< .d real estate BY PARCEL NUMBER • �., . L` re ' --lregister inc. 7986-87 EDITION (714) 521 -1134 —Ire CITY ��.-JR ADDRESS / CARE PF EX-VST TYPE SO.FT.-F UNITS SITU$ ADDRESS CITY TFq ,,L ZIP PARCEL N0. Yf."R ROOM C7. DATE LAND YAL TFR YAL CYNER FULL VAL-YR HC/STS A P LO TSIZE DOCUMENT-% IMP VAL FULL VAL-YR _.- . JANES CM COSTA MESA, CA •2950 AIRWAY AVE SURE D92626 4 27— 16 4 — 18 1ND 9/01/76 56,547 PE PENDING ;P MO BOX 8580 44,987-F 1HOMP50N OTT 2! 4L,9S7-75 P M 108-01 PAR 18 129250081 $8.166 144,713-79 P M 061-09 PAR CM DUNN-SUITE INT520 ERNATIONAL -500•NEWPORT pORT BEACH, CAR DR CR 92660 4 27— 164—1 9 JAD VA'-LAND 8/31/78 SITU$ PENDING AUTOMOBILE C'.UE •SUITE -01 75,382-77 P M 108-01 PAR 19 •84 3.0 P 0 BO%P2890 1 _ P M OSG- 8 PAR CM IRVINE CO • R 6 H PROPERTY MINT 1N CH COMA 7986- 2902 RED HILL AV Cr SPECTRA RESEARC •P 0 BOX 7903 •NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 4 27— 165-0 1 1981 148,777 •p 0 BOX i219 38,252-75 1R 11033 LOT 1 _ _ _ _ _ 83-408981-L 598,958 747,735-84 P M 045 AR CM IRVI•431"E Co N BRAND BLVD STE 701•GLENDALE, CCHAZAN PROPERTIES 91203 4 2 7— 1 65—02 ,981 6632- 12/23/83 109.242PENDING *NI':ERR7 SSC 36,976-75 iR 11033 LOT 2 83-583247 511,751 620.993-84 He VP,RT BEACH, P M 075-39 PAR CM IRVINE CO PROPERTIES 91203 4 Z 7- 1 6 S-03 COMA S1TUS PENDING AIR CALIFORNIA t40,758-79 •431 N BRAND BLVD STE 101•GLENDALE, CA 1 109,242 •NEWPORT BEACH, 55 TR 11033 LOT_ 3 83-583247-L 511.751 620,993-84 P M 057-02 PAR 52,500M-F •SUITE 101 •GLE NDABEAN�ABL VD 91203 4 27—165-04 RES VAC-LAND S1TUS PENDING AIR CALIFORNIA Sc,863-75 7R 11033 LOT 4 1.1 •NE U086- B'_ACH, __ _ P M CALIFORNIA PAR CM •PX0 YBOXV2390MENT C *NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 4 2 7— 1 7 1—02-FT AL EACOMA 2/28/79 <200 240.060BIRCH $T 95,000-F I NB NEVPORTF BEACH, G 6,212-75 P M 045-25 PAR 1 1.2 130490378-U 246.217 486:277-75 _ P M 086-33 PAR rM -SUITEAKI LIMITED -LOS 9 CENTURY ANGELES, PARK EAST PT 90067 427— 1 7 1—03 � 6/29/77 1801 371,25;HIAN 320,000BF 1 C2,500-F • TSUMURA INTERNT 71,919-78 P M 045-25 PAR 2 14.0 122660711 658.017 11029.:68-79 P NEW 050-45RPAR CM MAC ARTHUR SQUARE •17631 F17CH PT CTR 4250� SCOTT PD NB MYERS C- HILL L 24,500-F •IRVINE, CA 0277L 4 27— 1 72—02 9/08/72 320.158 200 000-F -ONE UPPER NEVP 26,970-75 TR 7770 LOT 1 1.8 103160114 474,283 794:441-73 P M 139-32 PAR M MAC ARE, C SQUARE •17631 FI TCN PT COMA 4253 MARTINGALE OR NB MYERS 0 HILL LT 08.947-75 PInV053-13APAR 1 92716 4 27— 1 72—03 1.9 876,858 1,189,598-80 P1M RUE GRAND CM MAC ARTHUR SQUARE •ASSOCIATES PT COMA 4200 SCOTT DR NB MYERS-0 LT 165,000-F •17631 F1TCH AVE •IRVINE, C0. 92714 4 2 7— 1 72—05 177 700 +3 UPPER NEVPOR 166,300-85 P M 053-13 PAR 2 POR CF PAR 84-040536-L 217:251 3i4,951-84 P M 13c-32 PAP CM MAC ARTHUR SQUARE •17631 FITCH AYE PT COMA 4200 $COTT DR NB F.� : .. T 30,500-F •IRVINE, CA 92714 4 27— 1 72—06 67,781-77 P M 053-13 PAR 2 POR OF PAR L01,101 7 q 1.7 263:587 664,694-84 CM PSPERS 0 BOXR798LD Y •Vc STMINSTERV CALOAN AS592683 4 2 7— 1 f 3—0/ -_-C OM - ---� 4301--- -MARTINGALE DR NB M - - </27/73 348.409 835.000-F 45,308-75 P M 042-05 PAR 1 1.0 106650993 478.899 827:307-75 PSM ; CM F E iRO TTER INC TR •828 FORT STREET MALL EA t� Cqh 4545 MAC ARTHUR BL NET MYERS-O HILL LT 12L 000-F •SUITE 500 •HONOLULU, HI 96813 7-1 74—0 1 Y/ 5/26/83 10.681.78G 403.500-F •P 0 BOX 2500 233,048-84 P M 040-11 PAR 1 6.0 B3-223703 12:976,221 23.658,007-P4 P M 139-32 PAR california real estate MASTER FILE I 16 ca fe 15 BY PARCEL NUMBER = -1134 `\ register Inc. 1986-87 EDITION (714) 5 21 -11 re CITY OWNER ADDRESS / CARE OF EX-VST TYPE SO.FT.-F UNITS SITUS ADDRESS CITY �:: ZIP PARCEL N0. YEAR ROOM C7. DATE LAND YAe TfR VAL ._L I,L-YP HC/STS I A P LOTS12E DOCUMENT-X IMP VAL FULL VAL-YR B 15 california -- MASTER, FILE B 16 real estate BY PARCEL NUMBER F-p':E L _l71 4) 521 -11 34 register In C. 1986-87 EDITION _ (7� �+) Slt -t _ ADDRESS CITY OWNER ADDRESS / CARE OF EX-VSi TYPE SO.F i.-F UNITS S1 TUS ADDRE 55 CITY 7yN ER LAA'0 PAL YAL ZIP PARCEL N0. YfA.9 ROOPY CT. O? ND T£ LA VAL TfR VAL !MP VAL FULLLL YAL-YR HC/STS A P LOTSIZF. DOCUMENT-X IMP VAL FULL VAL-YR TUS TIN AV CM IN V!NF INDUSTRIAL CO • OLEN PROPERTIES (1)RP NO / OFF 434D CAMPUS DR NB WALLAC G5,955 79,500-L +17991 CLOT +l RYLIE CA 92714 4 2 7 7 l 7-0 7 65-128270-L . 692.58C 1,284;80-85 -COSTA 36,163 142,118-81 TR 320T "A 29 TR 607 IRVINE CO *COMMERCIAL i lNDUST ENT NO IND 4363 CAkrUS DR NB i5S01N AV 11,500"i •4630 CAMPUS DR SUITE T00•NEWPDRT 92660 4 2 7- 12 1-08 82 I5T 107,093 177,2G5-75 iR 807 28,477 43.488-75 TR 3201 LOT 30 075603 TIN AV 160 000-MF .436NE81R(HS;RIAL COMPLEX�NE WPCRTLBEACHAICAN COAP926CR 60 4 2 7-12 7-0 9 OFF 1/02/79 4400 1CAMPUS DR N8 VE1+ER 55,396 1G3,799-85 TR 3201 LOT 31 •LA807 80 tST 284,762 449,686-79 T JSTIN AV (M 1 IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX- KOLL-WELLS (PT) IL /� OFf 4500 CAMPUS DR NB IFI 07 8C3 160,OC•0-f 1 +4343 VON KARMAN AVE •NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9:060 4 27-12 1- IL/ 168,241 -COSTA 55,396 163,199-85 ,f TR 3201 l0T 32 289,357 457,598-75 -R 807 220T 7ST CM IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX- HAMILTON. ROBERT C CR INC 4443 BIRCH $T NB X;l6BER 24.288 49.535-75 TR1516971 ALLOTS 10R SURE 100•IRVINE, CA 92715 4 2 7-12 7- 7 7 <ONE 65-368996 7011225 108,318-75 'COSTA _ TR 807 1 RVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX• : A.MILTON, ROBERT C CR 42i- 12 1- 2 OFF i/Oz/79 4401 2B`RCH93ST NB 20TH $T CM GRIFFI -2037 44, 01 •2171 CAMPUS DR SUITE 100.1RV1 NE, CA 9271" +2031 44,401 74,149-75 TR 5769 LOT 8 AND LOT 9 1.4 85-368995 70.160 284,353-78 TR 307 CM 24 IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX- HAMILTON, ROBERT C CR 7 OFF 4361 BIRCH ST N9 PETTY 33:572ST 158,O99- •2171 CAMPUS DR SUITE 100•IRYINE, CA 92715 4 2 7-12 1- 1 1/02/79 107,093 +33,527 158,099-85 TR 5169 LOT 7 85-368994 5.076 112.169-75 1RU807 46,721ST CM •4341EBIRCHSSTIAL SUITEM100A•NEWPOMCNAUGHTON, YiULET NO 9;660 4 27- 12 1- 1 4 OFF 4341 BIRCH ST NB ENGLE 4/11/80 425,056 13187 46.721 81,201-75 tR 5769 LOT 6 81 1ST i25,056 678,690-87 TR BOZ 25�975TH ;T 2152 CM IRVINED INDUSTRIALUPONT COMPLEX-AIRPORT INVESTORS 9271CR 5 4 2 7- 7 2 7- 1 S IND - _ -_-- ---4321 107,093 BIRCH ST HE LOEFfU 34.619 60,594-75 TR 5169 LOT 5 81 1ST 211.736 318,829-75 NEWPOi LNALD NoL _ TR 807, 19T 283 MER ST 53,OOO:F -440N VIA OLIDO NORTH •NEWPORTDBEACH. CA 92660 4 2 7-12 1 - 7L5 OFF - - -_--- - - - - G301 10BIRCH 7.093ST NB MC DAN 51,270 70,553 15 TR 5169 LOT 4 82 IST 150.152 257,27;-50 COSTA 201H SI CM l9VINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX•KHATCHERIAN, ;EORGE Y NO IND 4263 BIRCH ST NB D8,828 208.909-F •4263 BIRCH ST •NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92660 4 21- 12 1- 1 7 12/18/78 107.093 VI AN B2.482 291,310-84 TR 5169 LOT 3 129660034-L 76.338 183,431-75 TR+I T.VINI •20TH $T CM IRVIF!E INDUSTRIAL -OMPLEX•LAMBERT, SAOBARA IL �+ p IAJ 4229 BIRCH 57 NB •41` 61 +11911 SW LAMBERT RD •SANTA ANA, CAL 92705 4 27-7 L' 1- 10 BLANCK :3,040 145.654-94 TR 5169 LOT 2 ALL -EX SWLY 50 FT- iG6 221 253 ,74-77 in 807; 2063 Si CM IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX•LAWRENZ, DONALD R TR NO IND 4211 BIRCH NB 38,632 •2001 TA.HUNA TER *CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 4 27- 12 1- 1 9 4B2,,45 RC1D JI i6.978 153.610-84 TR 5169 LOT 1 AND SWLY 50 FT LOT 2 <O NE 82 381G55-U 5,502 488,Z47-64 -COSTA _ __ TP .07: 201H Si CM IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPIE%•LAWRE A'Z, DON4LD R TR NO OFF 4201 BIRCH ST NB A i8,669 +2001 TAHUNA TER -CORONA DEL MAN, CA 92625 4 27- 72 1-20 531,020 ORANC! 1,_61 130,050-85 TR 3201 LOT 39 82-381455-U 299.180 830,200-84 iR 807: C 15 california MASTER FILE C 16 <� real estate BY PARCEL NUMBER L(7t4; 521 i134 register Inc. 19C6-87 EDITION 714} 52i 1134 IDDRESS CITY OWNER ADDRESS / CARE OF EX-VSi TYPE SOFT.-F UNITS SITUS ADDRESS CITY 44J FAC T!P !'AL ZIF PARCEL N0. YEAR ROOK C%. PATE LAND VA! TT9 YAL OWNER •� :AL FULL VAL-YR HC/STS f A P LOTSIZE DOCUMENT-X IMP VAL :ULL VAL-YR IN 54V1 LOT 36 2VL,VV9 4UU,UVL-0 TR 8328 LOT 1 IRVINE INDUSTRIAL USiRI AI COMPLEX• PACESETTER HOMES INC CR IND GS40 CAMPUS DR Na KDLL IRVINE COAMUNI iI 000nF •4540 CAMPUS DR •NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 4 27— 1 1 1—03 6/22181 126.796 I •P 0 BOX 4708 - 751-75 ITR 5169 LOT 18 141100605-L 237,625 364,421-75 ITR 8328 LOT 34 california MASTER FILE P 15 califo real estate real E register Inc. BY PARCEL NUMBER , ,'.E !4 1134 EDITION (714) 5. 34 re gist CITY OWNER ADDRESS / CARE OF EX-VST TYPE SOFT,-F UNITS SITUS ADDRE•S CITY OWNER YAL ZIP PARCEL N0. AFAR ROOM Cr. OA7f LAND JAL 7fP YAL VAL-YR HC/STS A P LDTSIZE DOCUMENT-X IMP VAL FULL VAL-YR 500MF IRVINE203 EI PEPPERHILLC DRPLEX-ET AL CA•ORANGE, CA 92667 427— 1 1 1—04 IND 9/18/81 4570 129M232 DR NB -COSTAAMESA. CA 702-75 TR 5169 LOT 17 141850606-H 147:724 276.976-75 TR 8072 LOT 1 CM IRVINE iNDUSTRIAL COMPLEX-FORTY SIX HUNDRED IL /27- 1 1 1—0J IND 460D CAMPUS DR NB CERVANTES FEIIP SR •4600 CAMPUS DR •NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 Y 135,439 -IRVINE. CA 038-85 TR 5169 LOT 16 304,096 439,535-75 TR 8072 LOT 2 L)0MF •11875 DUBLIN BLVD RA-155•DUBVINE Cf) "IN?ETA DEY CO 94568 4 27— 1 1 1—06 OFF 4630 CAMPUS DR NO *SUITE D ASSOCIATES 842-75 7/27/84 822,120 587,000-F *SUITE 180 TR 5169 LOT 15 •85 84-311288-L 1,115,880 1,938,000-85 TR 9072 LOT 3 000M-F •3350E WILSHIRE BLVD •LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 4 27—1 1 1—07 O *TAX DEPT CACOM 4678 495M2300 DR NB •COSTALEY R MESA, CICHARD A 249-75 TR 5169 LOT 19 q p 39,762 534,992-84 TR 8072 LOT 4 MESA 800MF IRVINE2611 LA PAZ RD •LAGJNAHER NIGUEL,FIC MIT CA 92677 427— 1 f 1—0 CO!1 <667 309.012THUR BL NB AIRWAY MESA CA 572-75 TR 5169 LOT 14 1.3 11061,257 1,370,269-75 iR 8072 LOT 5 CM IRVINE CO 500--F :SUITE 203E/OR MAC ARTHUR*23030 LAGUNALAKE HILLS, CAT OR PT 92653 4 2 7— 1 1 1—0 9 ND 7128177 4525 1 127RCH 6835T NB REID 3185H A J O " `IRWAY AVE 129-84 7R 5169 LOT 13 3.2 123160578 1:155:481 2.283,164-78 TR 8072 LOT 6 000MF •436N5 GLASSELLASTCOMPLEX-ORANGE,RCAERt f TR CA 92666 427— 1 1 1— 1 0 'Off 7/09/81 4$01 BI 932R492CH ST 13 *NB SANTAA ANA, CAM AL 399-85 TR 5169 LOT 12 141340320-L 720:261 1.652,743-82 14 8072 .07 7 CM IRVINE 0 BOXN0040R1AL COMPLE%-NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926 REEDCA 427— 1 1 1— 1 1 OFF 4463 634p088CH ST NO SKIN•cOS"ARMESA�ITA E 249-75 TR 5169 LOT 11 81 IST 996:469 1,530,557-81 TR 8072 LOT 8 CM IRVINE CO *CAMPUS ASSOCIATES LTD NO OiF 420D CAMPUS DR NB TEARY ARTHUR R 202-75 14200 A 3201ALOTS23R •NE VPORT BE ACM, CA 92685 4 2 7— q2 i—0 1 84-452690 425:000 1,063,ODO-85 13185 AIRWAY90LD CM .2001E TAHUNAT TERI COMPLEX-CORONAZ DELOMAP, CA 52625 4 2 7— 1 1—02 IND 10/31/83 4222 482�745 PUS DR NB .COSTA MESA. CA ARD 707-75 TR 3201 LOT 24 83-480161-L 202:382 685,127-84 TR 8072 LOT 10 500nf -SUITE 608 •L086ANOTLES�CCATE BLVD 9D0NO 4 2 7— 12 1—03 D" 4z42 CAMPUS DR NB [iRJAIA DALE [ <82.745 -COSTA MESA, CA 590-78 TR 3201 LOT 25 82 IST 113.284 596.029-84 TR 8072 LOT 11 CM IRVINE CO •11661 SAN VICENTE BLVD NO OFF 4262 CAMPUS DR NO BLANCK DANIEL E 1100-7S TR 3201 26 •lOS ANGELES. CA 9D0<9 4 2 7— 12 1—04( 82 IST 1188.195 600,940-84 TR 8072 12A OOOMF IRVINE INDUSTRIAL RAL CCMPLEX�NE WPORiTBEACHMECAI NC 92660 427— 12 1—03/OFF 4300 CAMPUS DR NO BWA INVESTMENT ONE t/02/79 226,368 -COSTA MESA, CA 847-84 TR 3201 LOT 27 85-315630 462,371 688.739-84 TR 8072 LOT 13 000NF :4320E CAMPUS DRASUITEP 100•NEWPORTSHAMROCK BUILDING CO 9266 4 2 7— 1 2 1 —06- °" 10/20/63 4320 6 ,CAMPUS DR NO MAR-ELHALL TORO,GC AA S 200-!5j ITR 32D1 LOT 28 83-462125-L 339,482 942,914-84 1 TR 8072 LOT 14 h california MASTER FILE 0 15 califo real estate [� real 1 BY PARCEL NUMBER "� 1134 register inc. 1986-87 EDITION (714) 521 -1134 regisi YAL 11` OWNER ADDRESS / CARE OF E%-=CPT. PAR''EL N0. YEAR ROOMTYP CYF DA7E$ SITUS LAND VAL lER YALITT OWNER VAL-YA ZIP A P LOTSIZE DOCUMENT-X IMP VAL FULL VAL-YR 500nF -NEWPORT-BEACH, CA •4343 VON KO ..,,AN AVE PT 92660 4 2 7—0L7 3—0S I'+D 12/14/73 3120 137R854 WAY AV CA SMIT 106,500MF .SANHSTAN DIEGO, CAL •022"80 1R 6956 LOT 2 2.4 110250949 530,551 66E,405-75 TR 8328 LOT 13 CM GUILDS LAKE INVEST CO • No 4 2 7—083—06 JN° 3/06/86 3130 AIRWAY 137,854 AV CA 1,750,000-F •SANHD STAN IEGO, CA ,808-76 ' NEV OWNER • SEE SITUS TA 6956 LOT 1 2.4 86-090366 328,712 466,566-75 1R 8328 LOT 12 CM LEE SANTA°RGE ANA,CCA TR •11101 YARMOUTH RD 92705 4 2 7—07 L —07 IND 9/24/81 330 91U718 EAST ACM :CORONA DEL NMARJR CAR ,475-75 TA 7076 LOT 10 1.4 142320365 121:290 213,008-75 TR 8328 LOT 1 CM 3170 REDHILL GENERAL -PARTNERSHIP PT IND 3170 RED HILL AV CM STEWART EDVAR D00-F •3186 -L AIRWAY AVE •COSTA MESA, CA 92626 4 27-0 9 1—0 9 12/24/85 630 000 666,000-L •1RV1NE CAL ,023-75 TR 7076 LOT 1 AND POR LOT 2 (P A 34-13 PAR 1) 1.4 85-514468 570:000 1,400,ODD-86 1R 8328�LOT 10 CM SEMICOA •333 P' CORMICK AVE CA IND 333 MC CORMICK AV CM HOVENSTINE JOHN E OOO,035-85 ,968 -COSTA MESA, CA TR 7076 LCT 2 POR OF LOT AND FOR LOT 3 (P M 34-13 1.2 84-252910 786,470 1.262,399-80 TR 8328 LOT 9 CM *LOSZ ANGELELD S,T CA •1550 GREENFIELD AVE 900EA 25 4 2 7-09 1—1 1 IND 345 81 255MC MICK AV CM ENDRIC ANA,KSEN CAANA K .024-75 TR 7076 LOT 3 FOR OF LOT AND POR LOT 4 (P M 34-13 1.2 86-086289-H 267:541 348,796-75 TR 8328 LOT 8 CM -NEWPORT BEACH,ICA •300 VIA LIDO NORD 92660 4 27—09 1— 12 7ND 9/03/82 3175 AIRWAY 93.583 AV CM -COSTA MESA, CA 000-86 lR 7076 07 4 FOR OF LOT (P M 34-13 PAR 4) 1.3 82-313176 300,867 394,450-75 TR 8328 LOT 7 CF MUNSON MESHY WTR •350 E PAULARINO AVE 9262NO 6 427-0 9 1—13 IND 350 PAULARINO AV CM LEIDER GUENTHER 048-84 10/15/75 2G2,996 -COSTA MESA, CA TR 7076 LOT 8 AND LOT 9 2.9 115391544 415,790 658,766-75CA 7R 8328 LOT 6 O00:F 6oN0 FIRBOxS7500?250RE OF OF �YOODLANDSNILIS,-CA 91360 4 27-0 92—0 1 IND 11/29/E3 3176 1,399R858 WAY AV CM :3188REGAJRVAY AVE 094-75 TR 7076 LOT 5 2.4 83-545173-6 1,565,281 2.965,139-84 1R 8328 LOT 5 CA RAAB 000-F -NEWPORTI1BEACH, CA •5 UPPER NE VPORT PLAZA D92660 4 2 7-0 92—02 IND 7111/77 3170 191.899 RWAY AV 295,500" +COSTA MESAF,E CAMTERS ,524-75 TR 7076 LOT 6 2.4 122840986 473.005 664:904-75 TR 8328 LOT 4 •500 ML *7411°AY LORGE ACIRS V TR *SUP•HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 4 2 7—0 92—03 RT 1A °Pf 9117784 3160 1,OOOF,000 WAY AV CM -1342AM3HNBELL AVE ,092-79 TR 7076 LOT 7 84-334475 1,960,000 2.960,000-84 TR 8328 LOT 3 lRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX- KOLL-WELLS (PT) IL M 4500 CAMPUS OR NB TEARY ARTHUR R :462-8 61343 VON KARMAN AVE •NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 4 2 7— 111—0 1-�° 321,340 -COSTA MESA, CA ,L62-84 TR 3201 LC'T 33 AND LOTS 34 E 35 }ND 2.0 768,895 1,090,235-76 TR 8328 LOT 2 CM IRVINE INDUSTRIAL :OMPLEX•NEWPO-WEBEACNPTCA 92660 4 2 7— 1 1 1—O2✓ 45G0 CAMPUS DR NB M P PROPERTIES •4343 VON KARMAN AVE 107,093 -SUITE J ,830-75 TR 3201 LOT 36 q q 292,999 400,092-75 7R 8328 LOT 1 .000-f 14540E CAMPUS IWOTDRAllAL COMPIE%-NEWPORT PAUI BEACH, CA 1NC 92660 4 27— 1 / / —03 IND 6/22/81 45G0 126M796 DR N8 :pl0 BOX1NE 4708°MMUNI7 Cm.751-7`- 7R 5169 LOT 18 141100605-L 237:625 364,421-75 TR 8328 LOT 34 california califo � MASTER FILE P 15 real estate real i BY PARCEL NUMBER F.-,2 .,. % register inc. 1986-87EDITION (714) 52' -1134 regisi ) lir ADDRESS / CARE OF EX-21P PARCEL N0. YEAR RDDA11 C7. PATES S1 TUS LANDE✓AL YER VAL ITY VAL-YR ' HC/STS A P LOTSIZE DOCUMENT-X IMP VAL FULL VAL-YR CAAWW .t's ' ref rn)> •� 1 1 - rRACr � I i 1 v r OO-PP 60 - z 3 1 v I S 427- 12 � I I ht7 3201 Alo 3� z H T6 1• ze h JD Niy l ! ♦ l6 1 Area, rer. I IJ I �I� I �r , e n O Q Q l�i2lr � lnAc t I AO 3/6-9 I : ' , � r ..� �.n o^• / / ppt via or I!9 PAN e 427-17 P O _ � PAR / /399 Ac z 0 = 6000 AC rJ n 2 err i Y. 40 Iu q 91K 50 ••' y° PON. for /l9 100412 IV !� � �XI�TING � (=X15T1N6 �nl�oCi `1AUt T 5121, N VAULT E ANn TEEFHONE ANn TEt,EpHorlE STATI 0 N10 fox - kTT Fall V 1YP TYP t, �i�'IN� � -ter aY � C�►ar�fe�IN� � � � o U� SITS AMP P t M �UII,VING _ � O Oct `"' � - - - A�1 - — 'h2� � � :�° I 12� g",�d h�� � — q�j� i �^ff' McuN1't;t� �i a: �Xfe7TING 25TOR of COMIvI�KMIAL E UJLVI {C if ANO TKAO �NCLWKI!o k TYV° A!. PARKNO t _ a �1tGNa � TAI,G 5TF p►rl 4 PROJECT� DATA' ION 1v �� �� Ss� /" _ - It '�i Pl-1� I�i ,�1�'�`J I�,4/h ►'f� � 'rJ l '�o.�.�i.. �,�.�� ;i, v, n .-.�—� � � r �r-��+> w' n ,� W'irr x ^' �,ti�+�t,7 . 'C lcn�'`�w�;. � I HIy�3,.f� f� V�i !.✓ /�'�% � I� I �� I� �� �ta.•'�#'. -. n�t� b� �`�_'?i'ei,::;'r„-yti+"^'� i�: � -'�.. a� fi e .,*+�'+1r� �ar +,�, .. 'e; �.. ,�`,,. 1 � r 1� / / / L," '� ,, i �' } � ,ry5 .,�� ,l( ,f1 .{ -.7R.�> .vWl�4 ,xy, �`M v��yc-(?� x �� P A�ii'•i.4nrl �[ B, > i w:- a 0, ( I• >'�:� ?,>C.o'..+ -�,it p.. ,5ai'4, . }r�d , s' `+,. .-.,y..,,. �. 14ti v�i,'M. �'�';•. n '.y !Y,4 s1f . �,h,.i.by. 1yTrt v r.; .i . ;, �,� �, 7 _`._-- 1�- . <i' -.v.,. f' 's,•. r 5 Y,� t �.� _ 'T,�. *M � M d .�P: ,e , v v. 'G"e K,R. r.' .y, Al ,[ 9 '^•Y �b" � � ' . rA. •5 ar I / / . �, ^i° ',:�� 'S ,'§' '1- ,. �_v"y� � ;'>. n,P': '�, "�R�1 s.. .v .fie�w'; <.,ti,.s-�', �1Y r�2,i M• be� tiy +`�Ne , -r t 'et, b. ..�a�1eY 6+R Y )k'M�1�h tr[ , > 5 x ��� r'4 '.41r-rr `t.".g., y�b> . -,'4.1. .A- rc ,:ir 1` •^a,ti .r, �S, �'� .'.�. - 5..� { "�.. G^. tq�. W.e��'r' y,�'". .�>, b �>j �N Yr 'kW I,a.4�' Y,. R'1,l .Y>_: -."4`., th' `SV•. 'f,' <<. •��,,;., '�4Ui �•:e�:t� �t�i'L."�,t 'r i ,m �! , � — �� s�,., .rx �d,N' t,4 yy , A:",,.,', .ay' � ^.�t' .1. . a1 .. '.i- `�.'°''*ai� � ,'� ah;,'ti •?,n .:b'c 4 4S?S. ,� �. �,<. ,•'S, .,�,*>"„h •, .,"i, t• $,: $,6;? , d`) 56 p TR Ya .e v ,- :=e^ _t �wb., a b „Y"+ •+ r - � s,'. gstY�: �.:T., ���> � .. i ^�,.. ..�M' ,Te � - s.a ' t�l "� °n��i��1. S �,.� �cw' r' ' it 1 .... .� � •,., 6:3t_ .ti<.ii. x 'q, ..0 � -.l ,t �' 'k'�' v�.� w,i+l'+ ��.� '1'q rf i �I ' - i �1 .c _ '=•<f' ��`+2' ',"`t tr, v'"+¢�, °k:` 4 _ - I� •,.,. s.> ,.ti " x•, �>. :., v.. '.a ,c 74s� -n�.z.x4 �,a. .'4 �j.��1. � "Y{:`4,'4i ) •t.�`.,}. >,,,t1.4�, �r .,y' �. Y,4 is .In �. �� � � �.7 \v '� L 4„ •x�4�" �r, 'k ° V� JL. �wU.. ..'%': , a _ v.. n _� .R•»9 �ni-.r .-�ry,� :�:.�,; � t,..✓, F.;', �n.� ..,�+. , ,y...: »=Y.�ci��y,?+v�f^:+r^.4r '-s ,N� _ ..—t-- - - - - - / �1 .r> c .'i .�i r. . .� .�.�- .�`,�,�4�?T. �':"i"l+'eq :m.�`Iq: „i�> , Cf ..,.'i- '�ry.�.a ::i , 1•,.>x ,(" .e - /� �J�y,,�'�,L�/I�Cr'r �^ � , .. a- vA � .1`a re .:-•a'f?h^:<' ,1�^.x`.-�"•` ��tt S�� n. .t; �I, x, th. ,g � ,,�, i ai:,,'t. TJ� T f' ----__—. "S ..�`s _ 4. n.lt, 4`''!,'' ,-Y< �� �d '.km 4; d'A -�. 'b �:+�� ,f' ,'� .�.V.•}.>•� I: - �'' k � -�:�.�.�2 .�'v }z tV.:La ..ti� ��., v`s. Y ', r•I ) .A_ a" s•. .� �4 i1':A `l d� I ,i ���4 -j��.. ,�%S�'� t.`:'c'.' i. e.�+.. �-c�' . v� 'a' a :�,w 1•. 1�• 'bs v'R' � .�-. :,� 't. :Ys'.z{',�� v?...h, c: - ,.,..�3�'. •'7� (> 4. �:�-,` 1p', V. _ 'R 'T� e •:v,'y,, '¢:r- v: .; >t. �1; r 11'� t` .�, x h<, "h;-; } •S` I�I] � r,'SrW .. S.� ' 44. t I -;vtih "SA.": r :.. � }4a�..-0' L - 4�>i n "tttth S� y. ..,.xi. � 'tJ: r i "1% ''�y t;;'.�' Y.,,. ':,.',. q a h'='� G G� �A �b`P: � Yr _ ram- , � t+ .•i,, i'. � �. ,S' �i7 .f'i` , J :11 A J °i�3r� tt `l Jim `6 x1 >/. ..<�`.�;n>� '4.�"> nos'i".S gs' 1, v4" *., n,i (".4i I7 '�'• pp e: :7 T �F k'J '1 I t"� w t+ H I -F� h ] P' I'3� I r• -_ y, ,y' ��) �i�n ram,. x� ''�. wd ..A.. air r >t• i wh 4' 4 .t �_- ' s (y �pptyy ". t, p.y� i i.-'y.,>._ ;vacs ?y;. ?U Y' .� }p..,( ��/J F I� v3'e )� ';.: ,"'�a .. 'i,' .n ",iu ' ,' �, '?, - (V 1��IK I ..M F '. r,4 1 ' ��f 9 ( y 4 ��'� wR �'r•\ $� 1 4 1: � 'dam+ fF.> ('tb' .V. .i` •�2 �, �.t" n�< .x ,d'^, `M1.`u..t l Tt a ? A so"i` uk i 1, S+ . "�a:.J� y1 , 'y ' -.>v-• )•. _ �'3. 4`f*j+-, 1 � � t :4 }'. 2C :A 4A � �.0 ->i� � I�t ��r� �y.. )L ��, `R •.- i ��r }: ,�, i `.j;� •i` -t e.g�.%.' f"�i ���.■■rl i. =e - R '�:S>k3,= `'Y '�, k„3.' -'� a> R.$ •'' t .e. . _ .�t', s" a t..a"Yh , k',l ;'x . IYv t{\' a-, „a c: !�!,� 4sk<l,-}' .:'�."`�h� •r� .�� ,.. S b.4; 1},� .. q , .�--.- -- }/� /] - x -�;� \ � ,s�x ,Hers g-'r- -" s4.th>i1.kir�' � ,�lF: 1>ty � `r rm� .Y � '� "4�a'• f L� I L� +r _ - - _ I ' .,.�•} 1' � �`' �=� I ARIlt� ARC�OW EL4 .�++ �wl Qo Mfg ,. �'r�bNrt%t Ike " LIU if �Ie� ' z �Fi Efj Bell BtueMint 10041E r i k, 1 . r . I!, W � 1 W °� o J " r 0 �U , Z RLU Olt r �.O ` CL Ilk V ` 1 —Tr / , � p ur �o �---- r 1 " Nzi PIZ 1 , lye. r i tF 1 f ST OF were _ 1 1 . J I++Y2 !, .) •f � . . � � � i . . - .�. �1 t� _ � � t. .lint.�. }} 4' FrY1..rr�n 1 . •� `4- a 'lr .� �. � .. _. .� � i. .. .. .. i .. ._.. 'i1 ' n � r 'r I, i - � � � t.. . r ._. . - .. .. - - . - - - .--- ._ . . .. - - '1 , . - — , . . . 100412 , . . ,, 1 ` I ' . , _ I . ' . _ I I - . I I l - , . . . - - I ` : 'I- I. b, . ..3 i - I 1S Fn�i.>' .fir �',. i Ili _ Y f , k ` I 'I , / 1 1 . {^ !, fry. .��" - , 3 v➢1 ti , J^�j/_� k - V , t N'. .. l _ �. � � z E,: r, F o ,. i V� . �C� ; ot,l�la. I� ,�% Ili t=>�'I (M) . ' TN1�ktN I� x� r li w I � I, _ j. I�'x, 2� 1 II IU CC Q,r/,�. �t fi , �I� jf ��I�'I011 2� 1'� II _ �� �aII wq %011 II �- -i� - I II II ���I----- - - , all I�I'III II.rjfll � : ), a _2 O 2q d 2 -0 2 - d 2� o ��611Ill ll� :, , t ) � „ 1. 0 I'! C _ vas �/ 2 � I I I I ! I to C l �, r _ // �.� _ _ - i. � x.P;ry'�� _A �' \ ;� .,v 5., ., w y. .r,r'- _ % ti , � 9::::— --.— _ _ I. — I - — ---- - 19 � 4 m --- ---- __ ___-- _— - -� — --__— — — J� !� J � . C� �` i 1. I 6 _o � lp — . �� - - - - l l�j � a-- I / i ,1��� �! A 4. , , t11 - 7r, hilOW , . - ��,; ) , f , f, ----(I------- —..._ _ . - ----- __ — . —_ _ . —.'-- -"-'---� —__ . _.- - it e I �u�� I _ �. A —^—�� �. i h' 4 Gvt�-I� If�d � -% _ �I� � � � _ — _ /— _ a� _ __ _ _ �,2 4 1% � � ZI era �' , , 11 �7 .. -- -� �rZ. 1. _ -- — � *,4 = '� -- �� :� _ - - I _ �, ar . I1 55,11: r51 : a. f _ _ - -_ ��' e> -o _� �' I I ` - / �• & - _ I _� K� ,a - - r . - - n - ` j1 i'i. ,,1 _ �• '.�� _' : , hJ - , , e - — t ��r�b i !,i A tl ! Al\ h Lf + - i °y _ , p � L I I .. c I I , 1 11 I L. I I � . I I . I T -. I �� . . , - - M ) i �' ,a . . I I � . E�) I . - �1 -. I _ { 'tfl,`1 1 _ �: fl" �% �f ) Alj - e _ L I' _ _ .-.— �_� VI'I ` �� r c I Ali ) I- ` i �i. -.--- __ -- - -r. ) - xhf Ik 1 I �� _ . I I -. @ ' - • - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - — --- - _ — E rt — : , — — -- — -- �� �` �" .1,�11? �. �INi�14^ f V THICz-! ' :� , �� �, �, 1�--* �I- s i'� -Iti' ,�� L,l �� . ' 'I � I—�.I I I I I I I T . I I I I ll �.L .. I Ill�ll 5: ff�. 4CF Y'• 11 , ,+, ! 11\\\'� 1 _ - ' _ , + lam _ 'If , I ,x ,l- ti � _ -, v-j, , , - L � l 4 L L I 'I � I L + I . I I." jil by J _ ' 1y 4 t,l I'' II I 11 i ! II I j1 . � t, ,x ;F T ,ir _? 11 ,, . r . , "'� 1�� qti !i. I l; f• i�, , .')' �. '�i,�' I IL/ = II,� _ x - - k Ix41 12 ., - _ �Ay- - 1'j . •� 1 . . _ 1; % t, f�! ) 1 . . _ - I f .14 IL I ,,.,�; i,�,, ,( �' ,� L i p .4 ;' �f �i 1 , 1. 1, Y 9� `� .-. - -4, - "��. , - a,.,,. ., �.r . " ., „ ...r e " . .. ) .�.- .. , , 1. • �.. , .. _ • 1 i. -- - >r J {�3 > h S l r e, 1 ..,, t ., s.,.. .,:.... , ";, ' „ , . ,,,.. -. --.. .. - ... >.,- . , ,,, - ...,w,•,. a .,. i _,.. . .. 1 v - - .. .. - a. I k �, ttt �p{ �y q.., le .� .. , .,'., ., y „n„ ., i. { ....w A' �p i h .f -(' - '(-' R.. V IL. ia:`: !b ,! n vn .. 1. .,,,., , y - ., 111i .,. y. ,, ., �..,C 'j' _ - j' -4 r, i. Y 'V t y. �:Cr' �, A d 1�' - _ (Y Sl •1 1 I' ry {C 1. ` l ' j , I I i II 4 9 4 100412 V UJ T. Lu i' J W f % 0 uj �l �-� 2 'lO � `OZ A1 11 . LU O IT, {G� '/O /��' /� 'f1'1 :'Q ���� '(i�l mac, L� �L/ `'I "� 'Li'f 'y� �• �� 'l��I /� I�/� 1 '� ' ���` ICI' G • ic` G ' I II II ip I 1 �r Q Go rA rA r d I� �uTU►� 1 - NIA, ��� ' I , © b - IL2 ` _ -- 0 ' L S 1, I 2�011 1210ll �j y s. IrwL[ 1 PEA , F r . S , r. r 1' �I 77I , 100419 WN JAW JI- Q o I I I Q I I / / ' / / / / i, /i TT/ /: / �'7,4 �?• �f '.+kKdz�xyn�a1K - ✓, v-d; Fs'�.A r r ,� Y n.n . �.•/, 3` .}'4c. .$1{} rx ✓" 1 '.4v� 9,y1'y ..v< .� ,,.q' IZt,., �' � ✓ , .�/ ..-J` rf ''ai•. - / v4 5°5 !• Yt/ jk14 1 ,. •{ J 41.+ / �'� r«�t a o,� �'S'1 �w.M it� ``� ,Isi'-+ ?' y �� •Ik 'c,i 3.. r +...>< ,/ ,/ ./ W Q s / xSE.. •3+./.. ,.,{ 1 .y�u`F` i`+�t vv ',i`�F, r p�;C�}vNT / . / --- --- — / F Z r .tea . LL r ... � (d. '. .. ' � �'�' ., S.l..'f.R .,,..5 � ' �\ :.N,f .$-'/si' -,�o,• ;VL/zY� ��.. 1 >�. ..;�,�In ..ry,.rntk.„ a. {, , (r - d ._ ::'� l r / � %; /-• � ' �;. , x �I-,. .S /"� � r/ 'E„i;�, ,,z,".� , i�`rt�'; :�.�:�` i:�' �,'"?�sY � 3='� x�t�3'.v �_�.�"P� ;.__ :/ '/ /� � O., y • 1 EAST . ELEVATION Z : pI I o �fT -lcyf� t'fNI�N f��(f oo �.cc Zj L, ft�N � i� I� 9I 4ipllL-L- i�io"N�Lr� TEEL 11 � �r `� � �' � /`�f.-'��-t�°"1'� G � .<}I-011 x �I,III WE`LL t✓?`N�%I-� �L�'I"� �`�.f'"'�-;�,,,�' "�"'I� �� y ,� � _�,.� �`� • ti �' , _,., 5 _u r' 2. Gig I?f✓ k� r'� �✓ y��4a"� IJ �-t, cz ; — �"�=.:I.IMIt,�'�f f N �PN . �� 1 y I�y� I� � f y/ y��y�� P_yM F./ ,� 1�,.y� p�.�,,�+�j. ..{� �y �# '�� 4 V{ P•1 r _ NORTH ELEVATION �(SOUT`H SIMILAR ' Z l Y 1 \' - t �i a.St° t YA i S l a v y •: N , .h - .�1. l.. S r v� ♦ , . rt. .{; s $ f1t 1. .•t V� }.:I V ,.'Oi ' 9. -S ♦✓' 1 Y°' p � ;Iri k•c �1 h r 9 . F y�^.y��y� Y k $- `'�I 1,. Sr 't� '�b, 1 \ �4J Al I n. 1 �• i I� I I 1 f 1 , 1 - , t( i' .Y *V ti l + 6• .Fay !- -ks 'a' 4 i A .r ' r• c v�a A`.� 15£ 1 $ a,,.rs "✓° a' 1 V � � i .I� I S Y •� t Y� v --r-- w 1 V c 44 51r WEST :E�EVA�"tON y� F4i6 r.;e I f r 100412 r T LU iLL W _ o H 116\ ❑ Ib �. ot LU r I J.C<+a�y 17 V cc CC IF. Ilk AF1 � � � A Ai� 1'l�t rY 5 13 A 'A'. .z/4 k, S�i �{l �r k'}}2lSi',rP•6,.5.)"�� hr� �'�e�{�I 4Ll A,.�• � ` .1 l' L �. � . r) ';;r 1'.�.,,�y�y.�,.,4 IV ry t _ BUILDING SECTION\ WNW LA �d TI�I�QII I 1 It r 11 �o 7� 1 rn. _ i )�V t f h n r! 5 ^k t ] 6 1 a F C•- r 1Ls h 1 t � x 1 4 \i 1•N — r., r E - r ' ;, FM . .-, A, r v -,:y.. •.. ,...,,i, ,<- :`-... ?,. •,ha;..• -�x-' ,- ,�,,.n ,.,}r„ < "wfi,a- _ r-,i •A, A i *t I, i' 3 1 f �1 :Y .Q I , a r i , r{ 4< I v, ..-. -i. - � n .. y Y.. ,��,n.A' y.., .. .. Y c�z t•(a Y., 'd F t.� ��,_. _OW ,. ?., . <,pi.r r-V n:vc< .- > .. r, . o .. .4. .-v . <�'�, '�.v, y. '.: I rI� ry•A' S _ J n"- �. IF Fl r t'�YI�IM'> , .. o. x v 4 ta, R e,e 1 5 :1•.,!m'' a . r Y J 1 �F r - - ' I fT A. r BVIL r r r ,+% r Wk LP ad EAST ELEVATION • Z9 a� z$ Z. SECTION NORTH ELEVATION (SOUTH SIMILAR) O z o _J Q � Z m 2 W 0 • F J U Q = O U O WEST ELEVATION ; o W LL Z