The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTPO047_PACIFIC HGTS. APTS. IIIINII IIII III IINI IIIIIII IIIII IIVII IIII Ih IIII TP0047 City Council Meeting September 12, 1988 Agenda Item No. D-3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. TRAFFIC STUDY No. 47 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construc- tion of a sixteen unit apartment complex on property located in the R-3 (2178) District. B. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS Request for a density bonus in accordance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code so as to construct an apartment complex with sixteen units of which some will be for affordable- to lower-income families. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to allow the new apartment building and a proposed carport to encroach ten feet into the required twenty foot front yard setback; to allow a two car carport to encroach four feet into the required four foot easterly side yard set- back; to allow covered parking spaces on the front one-half of the site, which are not fully enclosed with side walls and garage doors; and to permit a portion of the required open parking spaces to encroach ten feet into the required twenty foot front yard setback; and the acceptance of an environmental document. APPLICANT: Pacific Heights Apartments, Costa Mesa AND C. RESUBDIVISION NO. 877 Request to resubdivide property located at 883 West 15th Street, in the R-3 (2178) District, so as to create two parcels of land where only one parcel currently exists. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a parcel design which will allow two of the existing remaining structures on the property to encroach 3 feet 10� inches into the required four foot side yard setback areas adjacent to the new interior common property line. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 917, First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract, located at 883 West 15th Street, on the southeasterly corner of 15th Street and Monrovia Avenue, in the Northwest Newport area. I,T TO: City Council - 2. ZONE: R-3 (2178) APPLICANTS: City of Newport Beach and Pacific Heights Apartments, Costa Mesa OWNER: Newport Campus Church, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers & Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa Applications This proposal includes a request to approve a Traffic Study prepared in accord- ance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code for a 16 unit apartment complex on property located in the R-3 (2178) District. The proposal also includes a request for a density bonus in accordance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code for projects containing affordable- to lower-income units; a resubdivision so as to create two parcels of land where only one parcel currently exists; and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a parcel design which will cause two of the existing remaining structures to encroach 3 feet 1012 inches into the required 4 foot side yard setback areas adjacent to the new interior common property line. A modification is also requested so as to allow the new apartment building and a proposed carport to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback; to allow a two car carport to encroach 4 feet into the required 4 foot easterly side yard' setback; to allow covered parking spaces on the front one-half of the site which are not fully enclosed with side walls and garage doors; and to permit a portion of the required, open parking spaces to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback. Resubdivision procedures are set forth in Section 19.12.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal Code. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, 1) Adopt Resolution No. granting a Density Bonus in accordance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code, and accepting the Environmental Document, and 2) Approve the traffic study, the resubdivision and related modifica- tions for the 16 unit apartment complex at 883 West 15th Street, with the Findings and Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" of the Planning Commission staff report dated August 4, 1988 (attached) . City Council Action At its meeting of August 22, 1988, the City Council set this matter for public hearing on September 12, 1988. T0: City Council - 3. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of August 4, 1988, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the subject applications and accepted a related environmental document. Copies of the Planning Commission staff report and an excerpt of the minutes are attached. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by ANDRA L. GENIS Senior Planner SLG/kk CC24 Attachments for City Council Only: Council Resolution Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 4, 1988 Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes for August 4, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ,GRANTING APPROVAL OF A DENSITY BONUS AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has adopted a Housing Element as part of its General Plant and WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan has established policies pertaining to the provision of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the communityt and WHEREAS, these policies include providing incentives within the limitation of available resources; and WHEREAS, the development of rental housing affordable to lower income ' persons and families is a goal established in the Housing Element of the New- port Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 65915 of the California Government Code provides for approval of a density bonus for affordable housing developments; and WHEREAS, the Pacific Heights Apartments development provides seven unite as affordable units to lower income persons and families for a period of thirty years; and WHEREAS, the proposed seven units affordable to lower income persons and families will assist the City in achieving its goal of providing housing for all income segments of the community; and WHEREAS, .the number of units provided and the thirty year term of affordability justify the granting of 77% density bonus; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study is complete and has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-31 and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Initial Study in making its decision on the pro- posed development; and WHEREAS, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project as mitigated will not have a signifi- cant effect on the environment. - 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends to the City Council certification of the environmental document and approval of the density bonus subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations except as noted below. 2. That all Conditions of Approval for Resubdivision No. 877 shall be fulfilled. 3. That the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, guaranteeing that a minimum of seven (7) of the sixteen (16) units within the project shall be made available on a prefer- ential basis to persons and families possessing an "active" Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance Certificate or Voucher and shall be rented at or below the Section 8 Fair Market Rent (FMR) Schedule for Newport Beach. When a Section 8 tenant does not occupy a unit, the unit shall be rented to persons and families earning a maximum income of no more than 80 percent of the median income for Newport Beach as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at a rent which is no more than 30 percent of the maximum income. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of building permits. The term of this agreement shall be for no more than thirty (30) years. 4. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construe- • tion schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. S. That landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 6. That the light system for the project shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to control the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 7. That all trash enclosures shall be screened from adjacent properties. 8. That the waiver of the park dedication fee shall be subject to the City Council approval. ADOPTED this day of , 1988. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 2 sLG/kk CC24 J Planning Commission Meeting August 4. 1988 Agenda Item No. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Traffic Study No 47 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of a 16 unit apartment complex on property located in the R-3 (2178) District. AND B. Residential Density Bonus (Discussion) Request for a density bonus in accordance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code so as to construct an apartment complex with 16 units of which some will be for affordable to lower income families. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to allow: the new apartment building and a proposed carport to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback; to allow a two car carport to encroach 4 feet into the required 4 foot easterly side yard setback; to allow covered parking spaces on the front one-half of the site which are not fully enclosed with side walls and garage doors; and to permit a portion of the required open parking spaces to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback; and the acceptance of an environmental document. APPLICANT: Pacific Heights Apartments, Costa Mesa AND C. Resubdivision No 877 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide property located in the R-3 (2178) District so as to create two parcels of land where only one parcel currently exists. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a parcel design which will allow two of the existing remaining structures on the property to encroach 3 feet lOk inches into the required 4 foot side yard setback areas adjacent to the new interior common property line. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 917, First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract, located at 883 -West 15th Street, on the southeasterly corner TO: Planning Commission- of 15th Street and Monrovia Avenue, in the Northwest Newport area. ZONE: R-3 (2178) APPLICANTS: City of Newport Beach and Pacific Heights Apartments, Costa Mesa OWNER: Newport Campus Church, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers & Associates, Inc. , Costa Mesa Applications This proposal includes a request to approve a Traffic Study prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code for a 16 unit apartment complex on property located in the R-3 (2178) District. The proposal also includes: a request for a density bonus in accordance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code for projects containing affordable to lower income units; a resubdivision so as to create two parcels of land where only one parcel currently exists; and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a parcel design which will cause two of the existing remaining structures to encroach 3 feet 10 1/2 inches into the required 4 foot side yard setback areas adjacent to the new interior common property line. A modification is also requested so as to allow: the new apartment building and a proposed carport to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback; to allow a two car carport to encroach 4 feet into the required 4 foot easterly side yard setback; to allow covered parking spaces on the front one-half of the site which are not fully enclosed with side walls and garage doors; and to permit a portion of the required, open parking spaces to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback. Resubdivision procedures are set forth in Section 19.12.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal Code. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired: Approve the traffic study, the resubdivision• and related modifications for the 16 unit apartment complex at.883 West 15th"Street, with the findings, and conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "A"; and Adopt Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council the approval of a density bonus as provided for in Section 65915 of the California Government Code for the proposed .16 unit apartment complex and the acceptance of an environmental document. L TO: Planning Commission-3. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City. Council Policy K-3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, staff has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and is attached for the Planning Commission's information. Since the project includes funding from the Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program, it has also been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) . Subject ProRergy and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is currently developed with a two story building containing classrooms, administrative offices, a gymnasium and chapel which were previously used in conjunction with the Newport Beach Christian High School. To the north, across 15th Street is the Seacliff Mobilehome Park; to the east, is a small industrial complex; to the south is the Newport Knoll Condominium Development, two single family dwellings and a fourplex which front on Monrovia Avenue; and to the west, across Monrovia Avenue is the CBS Magazine Office Building. Background and Analysis At its April 25, 1988 meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a proposal to enter into a joint escrow for the acquisition of the private school at the southeast corner of 15th Street and Monrovia Avenue. The joint acquisition of this facility will provide a publicly owned Community Center and a privately developed affordable apartment project. The easterly portion of the subject property (Parcel 2) is developed with a gymnasium, school classrooms, and a parking lot. This portion of the property would be subdivided from the balance while in escrow and would become the City's property, to be used as a Community Center for northwest Newport Beach. The balance of the property (Parcel 1) , which is developed with a chapel, more classrooms, and grass field, will be redeveloped with the subject 16 unit apartment complex. Inasmuch as an existing building is located on both of the proposed parcels, the applicant will be physically separating his portion of the building, located on Parcel 1 from the City's portion, located on Parcel 2. The applicant is proposing to convert his portion of the existing remaining building into 8 apartments and at the same time demolish the existing chapel and construct a second building containing 8,apartments and 14 carports. In order to satisfy the minimum covered parking requirement, a second two' car carport is proposed along the easterly side property line of the applicant's parcel. - All of the apartments will contain two bedrooms and will range in size between 900 sq.ft. ' arid 980, sq.ft. The following outline has been prepared which sets forth the- major characteristics of the proposed apartment project. TO: Planning Commission-4. Lot Size: 21,612 ± sq.ft. .499 acres Number of Units: Permitted: 9 (1 du per 2,178 sq.ft:) Proposed: 16 (1 du per 1,358 sq.ft.) 77% density bonus Setbacks: Re ul ed Proposed Front (15th St) 20 ft. 10 ft. Sides: Easterly 4 ft. 0 ft. (see disc. below) Westerly 4 ft. 10 ft. for new bldg; 5 ft. for exist bldg. 6 ft.-6 in. for patio Rear 10 ft. 5 ft. for exist bldg. Buildable Area: (Lot area less setbacks) 16,395 ± sq.ft. Gross Structural Area: Permitted: 1 (3 X buildable area, excluding carports) 49,185± sq.ft. Proposed: (.92 X buildable area, excluding carports) 15,188 sq.ft. (1.18 X buildable area, including carports) 18,314 sq.ft. Parking: Required: 24 spaces (1.5 spaces per unit) Proposed 24 spaces (includes 16 covered spaces) Building Height: Maximum Average Permitted: 29 ft. front half of lot; 24 ft. on front half of lot 33 ft. rear half of lot 28 ft. on rear half of lot Proposed: 26 ft.- 6 in.2 22 ft.- 6 in. Number of Stories: 2 e 1 Section 20.16.045A of the Zoning Code requires a 20 foot setback unless otherwise indicated on the Districting Map. At the time this area was annexed into the City, no setbacks were established for this block. Front setbacks in other R-3 Districts in the City range from 0 ft. (Balboa Peninsula) to 20 ft. (Corona del Mar and Cliff Haven) . 2 The attached elevations indicate a maximum ridge height of 25 ft.- 6 in. ; however said dimension is taken from .finish floor rather than from existing grade. •-K TO: Planning Commission-5. The new building construction conforms to all applicable development standards for the R-3 (2178) District; except for the requested density and modifications which are discussed below. Density Bonus Section 65915 of the California Government Code requires cities to grant a density bonus over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element of the General Plan when a developer agrees to construct at least (1) 25 percent of the total units of a housing development for persons and families earning 120% or less of the area median income as established by a combined federal and state standard, or (2) 10 percent of the total units of a housing development at the federal lower income standard for Section 8 assisted housing, or (3) 50 percent of the total units for senior citizens. The Government Code does not permit a city to deny any request for a density bonus of up to 258 for those additional dwelling units that meet •at least one of the three criteria. Further, the Government Code permits a city to grant density bonuses in excess of 258 in instances where more than 258 of the units meet the prescribed affordability or age standards. In the case of the proposed development, the current R-3 (2178) zoning, permits one unit for each 2,178 sq.ft. of land area or 20 units per acre. Based upon 16 units and a .497 acre parcel, the applicant is requesting a density of 32 units per acre, or 1 dwelling unit for each ±1,350 sq.ft. of lot area. The project, as proposed, will provide a minimum of 7 units affordable to lower income households as established by the federal standard for a period of 30 years. The affordability standards and time period will be established in an affordable housing agreement and Grant Deed which will be recorded against the property. The proposed affordability criteria, and number of affordable units meets the State standards for granting a density bonus. Proposed Front and Side Yard Encroachments As shown on the attached plot plan, the applicant is proposing to construct a new apartment building and attached carport which encroach 9 and 10 feet into the required 20 '•foot front yard setback, • It is also proposed to have two of the required open parking spaces encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback. It is staff's opinion that the proposed front yard encroachments are reasonable and justified inasmuch as they occupy less than half of the parcel frontage along 15th Street and that the proposed setbacks are comparable to the setbacks permitted' in conjunction with the applicant's previous apartment projects at 827, 835, 843 and 847 15th Street. In addition,: the site plan has been laid out in such a manner that provides greater separation between structures than is required, thereby increasing the open spaces within the interior of the project. n 9 TO: Planning Commission-6. As. shown on the attached *site plan, the applicant is also proposing to construct a two car carport with side walls which encroaches 4 feet into the required 4 foot easterly side yard setback. Staff has no objections to such an encroachment inasmuch as it involves a nonhabitable' accessory structure which is located on a .portion of the site which is adjacent to an open parking area on the adjoining property to the west (Parcel 2 of the subject parcel map) . Proposed Parking on the Front One-Half of the Property In accordance with Section 20.87.260 of the Municipal Code, covered parking spaces, located on the front one-half of a lot, are required to have side walls and an operating garage door.' As shown on the attached plans, the applicant is proposing to locate 9 covered parking spaces on the front one- half of the property which do not have operating garage doors and side walls in every case. Staff has no objections to such a design inasmuch as the parking spaces are not highly visible from the public street. It is staff's further opinion that inasmuch as the subject project is an affordable housing project, the cost involved in providing garage doors and side walls on 9 of the 16 covered off-street parking spaces, is not justified by any increased visual appeal that might result from the installation of garage doors. Community Development Block Grant Funds This site has been identified by the City Council as a site for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) to provide additional affordable housing units in the City. The City Council, at its meeting of August 22, 1988, is expected to approve the allocation of 1.0-1.2 million dollars of CDBG funds for acquisition of this site. If CDBG funds are allocated to the apartment portion of the site, additional units in this development will be required to be affordable at no more than the HUD lower income standard. Requirements and conditions concerning the granting of CDBG funds will be established by the City Council and an affordable housing agreement and Grant Deed which will be recorded against the property. Use of Section 8 Certificate or Vouchers The applicant is also. proposing to preferentially rent all 7 of the affordable dwelling units in accordance with the Section 8 rental assistance program using the fair market rent schedule established by HUD. This preferential rent program will be incorporated in the requirements of the affordable housing agreement. Under this requirement, the 7 units will be preferentially rented to very low income tenants as established by federal standards. General Plan Housing Element The Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth the housing goals, policies and objectives -of the City. ' The City's established goals for housing are formulated around two concepts. First, the physical and visual- ' I . 3 •} ' TO: Planning Commission-7. character of the City's residential neighborhoods are the key to the provision of a quality living environment. Second, the City's housing stock must provide for the housing needs of all present and future residents of the City. In addition, Section 65302(c) of the California Government Code requires the Housing Element of all cities to ". make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community." The specific goals of the City regarding the provision of housing for all economic segments of the City's population that pertain -to the proposed development, as set forth in the Housing Element on page 142 are: 111. To provide a balanced community, with a variety �of housing types and designs and housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community: very low and low income as well as moderate and upper income households. 2. To preserve and increase affordability, through rental housing, for very low and low income households." The basic policies which describe -the City's role in the attainment of affordable housing are: "l. Enabling private industry to function more effectively, as a result of constraints being eliminated, wherever feasible, and allowable density being increased. 2. Providing incentives and direct assistance to industry, within the limitations of available resources, to facilitate the provision of housing for very low, low, and moderate income households." Various housing objectives were formulated and adopted to achieve the aforementioned goals in accordance with City housing policies. Implementation plans and target dates for these housing objectives are also set forth in the Housing Element. Housing objective No. 7 (page 158) is: "To promote and assist in the development of housing for low and moderate income households." The Implementation Plan for objective No. 7 is set forth on page 161 of the Housing Element. The specific activities of the Implementation Plan that pertain to this development proposal are as follows: "a. The City shall continue to apply for and use its .entitlement funds under the Community Development Block Grant program to facilitate the development and construction of housing for :low and moderate income households. To the extent that developers and landowners are willing to cooperate in this endeavor, thehighest priority for the use of these funds shall be for the development and construction of housing affordable to "very low income" households. This may be accomplished by using the City's- existing and future Community Development Block Grant funds for the acquisition of land for the development of housing for very low income households, or by "writing down" the cost of land for developers who have agreed to develop low and moderate income lcZ T0: Planning Commission-8. housing. In this regard, the Newport Beach Planning Department shall negotiate with the interested landowners and developers to determine the availability of appropriate vacant sites for potential acquisition as very low income housing sites." "c. The City shall continue to participate as a member of the OCHA Advisory Committee and work in cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority to provide Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance to residents of the community. . . ." "a. The City Council shall have the discretion to review and waive planning and park fees for developments, containing low and moderate income housing in proportion to the number of low and moderate income units in the entire project." "f. When a developer of housing agrees to construct at least 25 percent of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low and moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the City shall either (a) grant a density bonus or (b) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value, - in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65915, at seq. " These housing programs, as set forth in the Housing Element, are designed to address the regional housing needs, as defined in Section 65584 of the Government Code, and as established by the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Housing Allocation Model (SCAG-RHAM) . However, because of a wide variety of physical, environmental and fiscal constraints as described in the Housing Element, it is not possible for the City to satisfy all of its regional need. Section 65583(b) of the California Government Code recognizes that meeting these regional housing needs may exceed available resources and the City's ability to satisfy these housing needs, and State Law permits the City to establish the maximum number of housing unit that can be reasonably constructed, rehabilitated and conserved over a five-year period. Pursuant to Section 65583(b) of the Government Code, it is estimated that the City can provide 45 du's- in the very low income category, 125 du's in the low income category, 432 du's in the moderate income category, and 2,025 du's in the upper income category during the five-year period, July 1, 1984, through July 1, 1989, through the completion of major residential projects (page 178 of the Housing Element) . Approval, construction and occupancy of this development with 7 very low income units will contribute significantly towards meeting these established goals. Traffic Study Approval of a Traffic Study, prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1, is required inasmuch as the proposed project includes in excess of 10 dwelling units. TO: Planning Commission-9. The first step in preparing a Traffic' Study- is the identification of intersections which will be affected by the proposed development. The City Traffic Engineer has identified the following five intersections for analysis: West Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard and Superior Avenue West Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue West Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue Superior Avenue/Placentia Avenue Newport Boulevard/ Hospital Road An analysis was conducted to determine if one year from the completion of the project, the anticipated traffic volumes generated by the development, plus existing traffic volumes, anticipated regional growth and previously approved developments, would generate one percent- or more of the projected traffic volumes for each leg of those specific intersections during the 2.5 hour peak period. Based on the one percent analysis contained in the attached traffic study, it was found that the projected traffic is estimated to be less than one percent of the 2.5 peak hour period volumes at each of the five intersections. Therefore, further analysis is not required and no specific mitigation measures are necessary. Waiver of Fees Park Dedication Fees, In accordance with Section 19.50.020 of the Municipal Code, as a condition of approval of a parcel map, the subdivider is required to pay an in-lieu fee for each new dwelling unit to be created in conjunction with the parcel map. However, inasmuch as the only reason the applicant is required to pay a park dedication fee is that he has agreed to allow the City to participate in the establishment of a neighborhood community center on a portion of the property which in turn requires the filing of 'a parcel map. Notwithstgnding the City's participation in the project, the applicant would not have had to subdivide the property and therefore, would not have been suject to the park dedication fee requirement. It is staff's further opinion that the subject project represents a significant contribution to the affordable housing opportunities in the City and that the waiver of park dedication fees in this case will increase the feasibility of the subject project. It should also be noted that the applicant's willingness to work with the City has given the City an opportunity to obtain an excellent public recreational facility for the residents of_Newport Beach. Fair Share Contribution. In accordance with Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code, the credit for the existing school and chapel facilities is in excess oU the fee required for the 16 unit apartment; 'therefore, there is no Fair Share fee required for the proposed project. TO: , Planning Commission-10. PUNNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWIQKER, Director By W. William Ward Senior Planner Attachments: ' Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Resolution No. 'Traffic Study Negative Declaration NEPA Finding of No Significant Effect Site Plan of Existing Buildings Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations Tentative Parcel Map 5 . - i TO: Planning Commission-11. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY, RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUS, RESUBDIVISION NO. 877 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2, That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Traffic Study: Approve the Traffic Study, making the following 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 project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any major, primary-modified, or primary street. C. Residential Density Bonus: ' Approve the Residential Density Bonus and adopt Resolution No. , subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot' plan, floor plans, and elevations 'except -as noted below. 2. That all conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 877 "shall:be fulfilled. /67 TO: Planning Commission-12. 3. That the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, guaranteeing that a minimum of seven (7)* of the sixteen (16) units within the project shall be made available on a preferential basis to persons and families possessing an "active" Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance Certificate or Voucher and shall be rented at or below the Section 8 Fair Market Rent (FMR) Schedule for Newport Beach. When a Section 8 tenant does not occupy a unit, the unit shall be rented to persona and families earning a maximum income of no more than 80 percent of the median income for Newport Beach as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at a rent which is no more than 30 percent of the maximum income. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of building permits. The term of this agreement shall be for no more than thirty (30) years. 4. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 5. That landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 6. That the light system for the project shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to control the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the- Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 7'. That all trash enclosures shall be screened from adjacent- properties. 8.- That the waiver of the park dedication fee shall be subject to the City Council approval. • TO: Planning Commission-13. D. Resubdivision No 877 and Related Modification: Approve Resubdivision No. 877 and related modification, making the following findings and with the following conditions: Findings; 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. The approval of the requested modifications, so as to allow the front and side yard setback encroachments and to allow the use of open carports on the front one-half of the property will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • CONDITIONS; j 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits on Parcel 1, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and Planning, Department. 2. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That 'a curb access ramp be constructed at the corner of 15th. Street and Monrovia Avenue under an TO: Planning Commission-14. ' 2. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 3: That a curb access ramp be constructed at the corner of 15th Street and Monrovia Avenue under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. Work shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures on Parcel 1. 4. That the building connected along the. parcel boundary between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be physically separated. In addition, all water, sewer, electrical and gas utilities shall be separate for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. 5. That each,'building on Parcel 1 be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 6. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. C� C04PoPAT/ON YARP I R Z R•� .\ Ci?+ N NCr ur QC..C// 1 c W C_2 Q p FO e 1 L w/ • c P�1 p N ./ goy♦• I �,• Y o v ! , + i GA s L. `ry`,1g1 4 n• ANA e • A-P `..\ P n •w � E IIt� 'y . R-3 / �iA H/AY a 10 R-3 - •A-P R-3 R-3 '�- .11• 0 .e•. +' 0 I 1RE a q C.1 Q i A-P S h NOSP/T.TL A-P 11Pt A-P-H L• b • A.P P-c uasaaw+w -.•a Su. MAP No.22-A „ „e,/. ••-: %^•• �••._ DISTRICTING MAT P •[../.T „y." 1 aY i�HO y • y' •1 . ,„ ,�• ...... ,•,.. ..._., EW PORT BEACH CALIFORNIA y :r� . y„ ..w wnM /MI O F h.[[��• N1 Yi . .1, "IM M/MIfAY— A MYwN.I.M.NK.! gfll6• T•MM . ,,. /✓r P....r...n P AKiL1!M'A•IE PAp/(dfRLAY104S MULTPLE RESIDENTIAL !l.O7--R� ,y w' "' "^^/' /•M•/aW I LIGHT COMMERCIAL w"""': . 1"�'••� •.ur �"r n/o u•M Min prvao.ugl•� SINGLE FAMLY RESIDENTML m.iui .i/a•.ra m>i swwfin Mwc...rr� DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL � RESTID MULTIPLE SAMLYRSWITIAL MANUFACTURING row„u w1 yv{,�w aoe woe �„y P19 COMBINING DISTRICTS UNCLASSIFIED : i 'wg'.�i✓,, FRONT YARD DEPTH IN FEET SHOWN THUS: -10- I it rMOVIC sr41DY No. 47, i R5,T1A6VX1AL. � S,r ;goes . Av0 &S4apj)1s14U do, 977 'i RESOLUTION NO. 1159 A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION- OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DENSITY BONUS AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT - WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has adopted a Housing Element as part of its General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element df the Newport Beach General Plan has established policies pertaining to the provision of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community; and WHEREAS, these policies include providing incentives within the limitation of available resources; and WHEREAS, the development of rental housing affordable to lower income persons and families is a goal established in the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 65915 of the California Government Code provides for approval of a density bonus for affordable housing developments; and WHEREAS, the Pacific Heights Apartments development provides 7 units as affordable units to lower income persons and families for a period of thirty years; and WHEREAS, the proposed 7 units affordable to lower income persons and' families will assist the City in achieving its goal of providing housing for all income segments of the community; and WHEREAS, the number of units provided and :the 30 year term of: affordability justify the granting of 77% density bonus; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study is complete and has becn prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in' the Initial .Study -in making its decision on the proposed development; and p P WHEREAS, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project as mitigated will not have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends to the City Council certification of the ri environmental document and approval of the density bonus subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations it except as noted below. 2. That all conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 877 shall be fulfilled. 3. That the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, guaranteeing that a minimum of seven (7) of, the sixteen (16) units within the project shall be made available on a preferential basis to persons and families possessing "active"active Section 8 Existing Rental Assistance Certificate 'or Voucher and shall be rented at or below the Section 8 Fair Market Rent (FMR) Schedule for Newport Beach. When a Section 8 tenant does not occupy a unit, the unit shall be rented to persons and families earning a maximum income of no more than 80 percent of the median income for Newport Beach as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at a rent which -is no more than 30 percent of the maximum income. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded with � the Orange County Recorders Office prior to the .issuance of building permits. The term of this agreement shall be •£or no more than thirty (30) years. 4. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of . landscaping with the proposed I L construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed 'landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 5. That landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 6. That the light system for the project shall be designed, directed, and maintained 'in such a manner as to control the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 7. That all trash enclosures shall be screened from adjacent properties. 8. That the waiver of the park dedication fee shall be subject to the City Council approval. 15TH STREET APARTMENTS TPO Analysis Prepared for. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared by: Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1450 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 108 Santa Ana, California 92701 July 21, f988 15TH STREET APARTMENTS TPO Analysis PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed apartment site is located on the southeast corner of Monrovia Avenue and 15th Street. The site currently consists of a private high school. The proposed development will consist of 16 apartment units. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the .project site, and Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. Access to the proposed project will be provided by one entry/exit driveway located on Monrovia Avenue and one entry/exit driveway on 15th Street. Monrovia is a two-lane street with no left turn lanes. 15th Street has one thru lane in each direction with no •left turn lanes. Monrovia Avenue provides access to Newport Boulevard (SR-55) north of the project via 17th Street. 15th Street provides access to westbound Coast Highway via Superior and to eastbound Coast Highway via Placentia, Hospital Road, and Newport Boulevard. u TRIP GENERATION Appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed land use were obtained from the City of Newport Beach trip generation rates. These trip generation rates are summarized as follows: ....AM PEAK HOUR--- ...PM PEAK HOUR... LAND USE UNITS IB OB Total in OB Total Apartments 16 DU Trips/DU 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.6 Trip Generation 2 5 7 7 - 3 10 As the summary indicates, the proposed project will generate 7 trips in the AM peak hour and 10 trips in the PM peak hour. The trip generation was factored to obtain a peak 2.5 hour volume for the AM and PM peak hour periods. The peak 2.5 Your volumes were based on an estimated factor of 2.0 to account for the extension of the usual.one-hour peak period. o � o Z g 19TH 17TH 2 PROJECT LOCATION 151H ' a 0 2 N �A LIDO COAST Hwy �00? 32ND �P B 9 &ALIIDA Figure 1 - VICINITY MAP ,�AUfTIN-lOUfT AffOC1ATF1, INC. �-(� .9 a•� I 1 I I j 1 ' II 41 ' i Wucrdg3 , ' d, I' I I I r � I 12 71 I 1 is - Figure 2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN '�AUfTiN•FOUfT AffOCIATEf, INC. - - '. Credit for existing traffic generated at the project site was not necessary due to the low trip generation of the proposed project. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Distribution, of project generated traffic was derived from ,observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the location of the proposed project. Approximately 45 percent of traffic entering and exiting the site will be oriented towards the north and will have no impact on the intersections tested. The general trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 3. TRAFFIC IMPACTS The City of Newport Beach identified five intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed development. These intersections are. Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard-Superior Avenue Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue Superior Avenue/Placentia Avenue Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road The 1987 peak 2.5 hour volumes as discussed in the previous section were provided for each intersection by the City staff. Since the project is expected to be completed in 1991, the ambient growth rate for regional arterials was applied to the existing 1987 volumes to reflect 1991 traffic conditions. A growth rate of 2.5 percent was added to all volumes along Coast Highway west of Newport Blvd, A factor of one percent was added to all volumes along Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd and to Newport Boulevard north of Coast Highway. The peak 2.5 hour volumes of all approved piojects, also provided by the City of Newport Beach, were added to the 1991 peak 2.5 hour volumes. The resulting volumes represent the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes prior to the addition of project traffic. One percent of the projected peak 2.5-hour volumes at each approach of each interseciion was compared with the peak 2.5 hour distributed_ volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this comparison is shown in Table 1. ' H • E a N W F � W A�� U a a U M� n t� VIl ncq o � I M In VIlN30VId N `n 0pP VIAONNOVI ► N to � r 0 N N • W t O <! • � N� M N i • �0�d t SOJ � N d o s. N Jr _ O Nb�0 N i o e' N ' Table 1 SUMMARY OF 1% ANALYSIS AN PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN 1% OF INTERSECTION NB SE EB MR 1991 PK 2.5 MR VOLUME Coast Hwy/Balboa•Superior 0 2 1 0 Yes Coast Hwy/Riverside 0 0 3 1 Yes Coast Hwy/Tustin 0 0 3 1 Yes Superior/Placentia 1 6 1 0 Yes Newport/Hospital 1 0 4 0 Yes PM PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN 1% OF INTERSECTION NB SB EB wR 1991 PK 2.5 HR VOLUME Coast Hwy/Balboa•Superior 0 1 3 0 Yes Coast Hwy/Riverside 0 0 2 4 Yes Coast Hwy/Tustin 0 0 2 4 Yes Superior/Placentia 5 3 3 0 Yes Newport/Hospital 5 0 2 0 Yes t If the one percent of the 1991 peak 2.5 hour volumes of each approach were larger than the peak 2.5 hour project volumes, no further analyses were required.' If project peak 2.5-hour volumes were higher than one percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes at any approach of each intersection, the intersection was analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. Comparison of the one percent of the peak 2.5 hour volumes with the project peak 2.5 hour volumes resulted in all intersections passing the one percent analysis. Further analysis is not required. The one percent analysis sheets are included in the Appendix. CONCLUSIONS The proposed apartment development would generate 7 trips during the AM peak hour and 10 trips during the PM peak hour. Five intersections were checked to determine the marginal impact of project traffic on the street system. All intersections passed the one percent analysis and required no further analysis. Therefore, the proposed apartment development has no marginal impact on the ICU's of the study intersections. APPENDIX ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS 1% Traffic Volume Analysis , Intersection: Coast Highway @ Balboa Blvd/Superior Ave Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 AM Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects 'Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak volume 21/2 Hour Growth Volume PeakV2 1/e Hour PeakV2 112 Hour Peaky2 1/2ume Hour PeakV2112 Hour me Northbound 1877 0 13 1890 19 0 --- Southbound 1376 0 25 1401 14 2 ------------------------------ -------- Eastbound 6397 512 910 7619-�---- 7B—� 11--- -- Nestbound 1899� 152 W399 2450 24 0 -- __> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 11, of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than IX of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization (f.C.U.) Analysis is required, PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 -- --_- _ --------- ---- ---- - ---- -- - 3 3 . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Highway @ Balboa Blvd/Superior Ave Existing TraffjL Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 Ph Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects- Projected 1% of Projected. Project Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1861 0 50 1911 19 0 Soutbbound 3758 0 94 3852 39 1 Eastbound 4794 384 722 5900 59 3 Westbound w 4704 383 r 869 6035 60 0 > Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 17, of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Y Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis is required. ------- PROJECT. FULL OCCUPANCY 1EAk: 1991 ----------- -- --- -- -- ---- --- -- r ------ - - --- - - - ---- -= --- yl 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Highway. 8 Riverside Avenue Existing Traffic Volumes Based on-Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 AN Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Apprgach Existing Regional - Projects Projected !7, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour. Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound , 28 0 34 62 1 0 Southbound 891 0 ^` 60 + 951 10 0 Eastbound 5741 184 1070 6995 70 3 Westbound � 3351 r^ 107 612 4130 41 1 ==> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1Y of Projected a" Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization II.C.UJ Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY-YEAR: 1991 --- --- -------------------- --- -------.-------- -- -- -- -- --- �� l% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Highway A Riverside Avenue Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Hinter/Spring 87 PH Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional . Projects Projected 13 of Projected Project Direction PeakV2 1/2 Hour VGrowth olume Peak Volume Hour Peak Volume21/2 Volume Hour Peak2 112 Hour Peak V2112 Hour ume olume Northbound 61 0 0 61 1 0 Southbound 1247 0 64 1311� 13 0 Eastbound 5217 167 1050 6434 64 2 Westbound � 5836 187 1120� Y�1143 71 4 =1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic-Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJEM FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1491 -----------=----------- lX Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Highway @ Tustin Avenue . Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 AM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected IX of, Projected Project Direction Peak Volume 2112 Hour Growth Volume Peak y21/e Hour Peak V2 1/2ume Hour Peak V2lume 2 1/2 Hour Peak 412 21 Hour Northbound 7^ 0 14 21 0 0 Southbound �138 0 19 157 2 0 Eastbound 5134 164 1061 6299 63 3 Westbound 3105 99 .659 3863 39 i Project Traffic is estimated to to less than tX of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estioated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. t PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 ------ ----- - ------------------------------------------- ------- - -- -- 31 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Highway @ Tustin Avenue Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 PM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project. Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 21 0 11 32 ' 0 0 Sorthbound 305 0 26 331 3 0 Eastbound 4150 • 133 1024 5312 53 2 Westbound 5837 167 A 1113 7134 71 4 =_) Project Traffic is estimated to be less than ik of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 11 of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR:- -- ----- - 1441 ----------- --------------------------------- -- . 31 ! IX Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Superior Ave @ Placentia Ave Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average.Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 AN. Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach ' Existing Regional Projects - Projected 1% of Projected, Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak, 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak-2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 683 0 59 742 7 1 Southbound 1179 0 51 1230 12 6 Eastbound 3058 0 49 3107 31 1 Westbound ' 598 0 46 644 6 0 ==> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than IX of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 11 of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C,U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR; 1991 -,- --- -- - -- - -- ---------------------------- -------.------------------------------------------ - - 3 11 Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Superior Ave:e Placentia Ave Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring B7 PH Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 9B1 0 101 1092 11 5 Smuthbound 1715 0 54W Y 1774 18 3 Eastbound 1813 0 113 1926 r 19 3 Westbound 2002 0 BB 2090 21 0 ==> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than IY of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. L Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT, FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991- -----=------ --- --- ---- ------------ -- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Newport Blvd @ Hospital Rd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 AN Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional ' Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction PeakV2 112 Hour Growth Volume Peak Volume Hour Peak Volume Hour Peaky2 1/2ume Hour Peak y21/2 Hour ume Northbound 4045 127 — 141 4315 43 1 -------------- ------- ---------- Southbound 2495 80 256 2831 28 0 Eastbound — 1235 0 82 1317 13 4 ----- --------- ---------------- Westbound 895 0 13 908 9 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1X of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization II.C.U.1 Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 199r ------------------------------------------ _ PROJECT - - - -= -- -- --- -- - G� 12 Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Newport Blvd 8 Hospital'Rd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 PM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing. Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4430 142 294 4866 49 5 Southbound 3896 125 231 4252 43 0 Eastbound 2016 0 171 2197 22 2 Westbound 1045 M� 0 16 1061 1t 0 r => Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume, Project Traffic is estiaated to be greater than 11 of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required, PROJECT: ALL—OCCUPANCY YEARt 1991 ---- -------------- . :-- ----------- ---- --------------- /� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V ? P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915 NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: Planning Department Q1400 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 Dof Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: ' Mesa Development Apartments PROJECT LOCATION: Monrovia and 15th Street, Newport Beach, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of an apartment project. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 p=proposed procedures and guidelines to implement the California Eity Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated ctand determined that the proposed project will not have ect 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: Environmental Coordinator DATE: July 12, .1988 rt Beach . • - 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newpo EgVjRpdmmrAL caRC =ST PORK I. Badkground 1: Name of Proponent MehA I>yelburm _ - 2. Address and Phone Numbe2 of roponent J�cI Z5 Car�A� Sn4 �Q��w► 'r�r�, (A 91v2b� ��{ ON q7 3, Date Checklist Submitted :�� 94 g 4. Agency Requiring Checklist £ -�' 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Facts (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? _ !L b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? — c. Change in topography or ground surface / relief features? — d, The destruction, covering or modification / of any unique geologic or physical features? _ Y e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of / Soils, either on or off the site? — Y 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? g, Exposure of people or -property to geologic 'hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, / mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? L Yes a be 7No, 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration / of ambient air quality? — Y 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 of 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? — �L c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? — d. Change in the amount of surface water / in any water body? — JL e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, / dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — V— f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, 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? — �L - 2 - es Maybe ILO 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:• a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? • — — 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? — b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation planT — 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? — 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? _ 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. • Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — ✓ — C. Substantial impact upon existing trans- portation systems? — d. Alterations to present patterns of cirdula- r tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne,- rail or air :'traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vjhicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? — • Public Services. Will the proposal have an!effect 14. upon, or result in a need for new•or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: _ 4 _ Yew Sybe 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? — 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? — 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object?C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? — d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? — 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self 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? _ t 6 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONtO NTAL £VALUATION lb. Implementation of the project will result in the construction of residential structures which will cover soil. The structures proposed are similar in nature and intensity with the surrounding area, and this affect is considered insignificant. 7. •Addition of residential uses wil increase light and glare in the area. Since the project is. similar to adjacent land uses, the effect will be similar to to the •surrounding uses is not considered significant. B. The project will make use of a portion of an existing school site :which is a change from the existing land use. The project area is planned for residential uses, and the project will be an implementation of the plan. 13b. The project generate a need for additional parking, but includes the addition of parking spaces, which will offset the demand. This effect is considered insignificant. f: Statutory Checklist Checklist of Applicable Statutes and Regulations Project Name and Identification No. Northwest Community Center (Block Grant # B-88-MC-0546) Are aWactivities of this project exempt from NE PA procedures? ❑ Yes © No (if yes, this-Statutory Checklist need not be filled out.) Are activities of this project categorically excluded from NEPA procedures? ❑ Yes ® No (If yes, this Statutory Checklist and all required actions must be completed.) ` `. ,c Area of Statutory—Regulatory Compliance r o° �0 _ o •`� (Precise citations for applicable Aye 14° � F statutes and regulations are printed �,'� oo' '`P4 od Lp on the back of this Checklist. Full c .4� � F +^ ; Note Compliance Documentation C 3 C c� 0 4 c discussion of each is provided in �< Appendix B of this Guide.) = c r < < w R anning Depargmen i�n-I Historic Properties dicates no impact. X Floodplain Management On coastal plain, not within X Flood Plain re: Flood Ins. iMap Wetlands Protection INo wetlands observed. No X effect. Noise Project will conform with X HUD Noise Standards. No point sources identified. Air Quality Incremental increase is an- X ticipated. Region is cur- rentiv in violation of clean air standard Manmade Hazards Not Appplicable/None obsery-I X ed Thermal/Explosive Hazards X Not applicable Airport Clear Zones Water Quality Site is already committed to X urban use not within'a river Navigable Waters drainage. Site .size is insignificant I Aquifers X for recharge purposes. Solid Waste Disposal Incremental increase-not X significant. Local services now in lace. Coastal Areas o recta ect on the oas al Coastal X wi i'CoasrngcLone Prrograment Zone Maragement _ Craig Bluell City of Neidport Beach. Not Applicable Coastal X Barrier Resources Endangered Species The site has been committed X to urban use. No species ar present. No habitat' is pre- sent. *Attach evidence that required actions have been taken. ', Environmental Assessment Checklist page I Project Name and Identification No. Northwear Cnmmnni ry CPT rPTA and RPc{e1Pnt t;1 1' 2. -3' 4 5 6 7 _ •`co moo : Y� c �• � . �c c Source or Uooummtladon $ J• :•o J'•:_ :' e (Note dale of contact or page referencm o e'� �.t �S ��.� .� per .� additional material maybe Impact Categories 2 C C C C C attached. :•r Land Dovelopntent Conforntancelt'ilh X Consistent with Coastal Program, General C:0ntprchoO11t0 Plan and Zoning. Source: City of Newport Plans and Toning Beach General Plan, LCP and Zoning Code. Compatibility alit] On-site inspection (see comments attache ) L lbun hnpart X slop¢ X Negligible slope observed. Lrusiun X Fully urbanized. Site is currently devel- oped. suilSui(abilitY X Soils testing is required prior to build- ing permit issuance. Must comply with UBC and local codes. Hazards and X No hazards currently present. City Nuisances.Including building codes and safe construction Silesafen• methodology to be -followed. Eneri{t• Incremental onl Consumplion X y.:- Amount is insignificant. Noise Effects of Ambient Site visit indicates no effects on site ,Noise on Project and Contribution toCom- X from surrounding sources. (see attached munitv Noise'Levels iTicomments) *Block Grant Number B-88-MC-0546 Environmental Assessment Checklist •1conlinued.page 21 project Name and Identification Flo. Northwest Community Center and Residential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a CC yo �� Source or Documentation o` •a�� a (Vote date of contact or act O,Ica a �c� page reference) Z' tea+ o? �a n additional material may be Impact Categories a° �.• �eca e` o� attached. .fir Quality Effects orAmbientAir Region is currently in violation of Federal Quality onPrrojectand clean air act. However, project is consistent Contribution to Com• X munity Pollution Ltwels ith local and regional anticipated growth. En ironmental Design and Historic Values Visual Quality— Compatible with• surrounding deve opment. Coherenre.Divemih•. (see comments attached.) Compatible Use.and X Stale Histalic.Cuhual• No resources identified by Field observaticn andnrchaculogic:d R and records check with the City of Newpor Resources Beach Planning staff. Socioeconomic Demographic/ Urban Area. No significant change. Character Changes X Displacement None. X Employment and Insignificant incremental change due to lncomc Patterns % small size of _project. . Communifv'Facilides and Senices Educational Facilities Current school ;is relocating within the X area. No effect. Commercial Facilities X WA. No effect. Health Care - Increased services. Positive effect. X SocildSenices Increased .services. Positive effect. Environmental Assessment Checklist (continued,page 31 Project Name and Identification No. Northwest Community Center and Residential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ^ A. ^` e h R ♦ ,c Source or Uocwncnlation Mote date of contact or page reference) Additional material may be Impact Categories r attached. Communin•Facilitiex and Sertices:C:onlinued t SolidLtaste Incremental increase—ant c p_aMeZ norma % local growth. Services are present at the site. Source: City Public Works Dept lt'aslC ll'aler - X same as above SIe1Tt 1t'LICI' 4a X same as above ttalcrsupph• X same as above Public Safety-Police X same as above Fire X same as above Emergence• Medical X same as above Open Open Space Spaceand Recreation X same as above t i Recreation X same: as above Cultural Facilities, X same as above Transportation X same as above Environmental . Assessment Checklist wontinued.page J, ' m^ ' Project Name and Identification No. NnrrhmPcr Cream .. ry rA rar n,l Rncidnnrial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • a r a YZ �� CG �,'' Cyr� •. ``O J4 Fe C' �? � ; 7•C�o � ,: Source or Documentation Mote date of contact or page reference) .�r l� .�',•`C� ua� A` Additional material may be Impact Categories �a`� Co Cd C° attached. Valural Features 11 aler Resoulres , x visual observation—none present surface U utcr visual observation—none present tluudplains Flood Ins. Map # 0602270005B X Zone C—No impact Wolands x None observed Coastal Zone Consistent with LCP and City's General x Plan, Affordable housing and community services are consistent with local programs and pc Unique Natural licies Features and one observed Agricultural Lands X 1'egetaUon and 111ldlife X one observed Environmental Assessment Checklist :eoritinued.page 51 •-Summan,of Findings alid Conclusions: See attached comments summary of EnAronmental ::onditions: No nPnative impacts are anticipated Project Modifications. and Alternatives Considered: None required. i Environmental Assessment Checklist (continued.page 61 Additional Studies Performed(A�ttach Study or Summary) None required Mitigation Measures Needed: None required Environmental Assessment Checklist (continued,page71 3 1.Is project in compliance with applicable laws and- regulations? M Yes O No 2.Is an EIS required? ', O 1'es ®No 3.A Finding of No Significant Impact tFONSII can be made.Project will not significantly affect the quality of.the human environment. M Yes ' END Prepared by Title Robert Balen Associate Carollyn Lobell Principal LSA Associates, Inc.) _ Oe Senior Planner (City 4.f Newport Beach) w iS+ Date 7„0, R. 19RR • y. i -1) - I - _ '-/ .. • �h♦♦...... i 'i uii�T'T"iTi=.: ~'.p,• C;i;•5,•:;=^' ''l: \SRO i •/ [�; .l lb it1111i:iiii:iw:roF.• tc �{ -� .^ 13• "n+� Sls__"�"�' `~ '•5 .(. ''Tr:;i 7 �G� 1 =a��'" un o/xcwea:T rtI SERVICE AREA PROPOSED COMMUNM CENTER City Census Tract Low/Mod Persons Total Persons Newport Beach 636.01 176 558 Newport Beach 636.03(G1) 249 459 Newport Beach 636.03(G2) 681 1,694 Costa Mesa 636.02 3927. 5,431 Pareenc of Low/Nod - 5,033 — 8,14.2 - 61.8% 1 1 424-01 15 L�L6 1 I /STREET J F/FTEENTN w . .. .. a. ... m.r .. TRACT for at F/RSr •ADO TO rtar r•x �,, 3'S YJ 15 wr O[ y 'K O a 0 ratA a a 05 r 3 10 M.r NO./0272 A.Ot AC OF• • O t.x tot-:o car J for to P 0 01 I �N O by + - -------_--- A 7RACr la ' TRACT , ..• PAwtar or to ter [ Ad .,... N0./0849 'ryL NEWPoRT MESA )BAST op . P� -_-ta.un to SPIV O2 T MESA TRACT M.M. 6-6/ NOtE-A$5ES;OE•5 EIOCK t ASSESSOR'S MAP MARCH /97J F/SST ADO. 70 NEWPoR 'O )BAST Na I0 M.M.454-35,36 PARCEE NOMaEKS ROOK424PAGE01 TRACT Na /06I! AME•p I$2-..9.25 SHOWN In CIRCLES COUNT'Of ORANGE. . • •TBACr NO. //0/6 'r--- rea • o. �::'L„yam �I•%'•1.��w.i •,1 prS- 9 +>., �:.;.(,.i• � �:a7:4•r s^•'�C'Ny,Fr�ytio;Yt�✓r; •+�• r• r« �f l • •. '.y�I;k IL '1'~^g3 •'r' i J M i y� r �.• � ° i n i.t f..1L r'Tt�ti • y •i. /� _ ..�.. S . a' f. �I sf� i ¢�,Vie•:��'T�'r L: H. • - • U Y•lrr.t♦. y tf F •g' 4f �•X.r c'� � �i�-•Si••4C: ��a�" "S:* r � � � ,yc"+31�y��E':• 3: ♦ rT f.e �y,.@• a i iy� �tyrr+." i.'�..♦ .c ti:3jc ;i ,/h N ♦. �M. • a ^Pit 7 i F � 1. K� t..k !i+- YZ �•' s!v' ` i � �.r'k f ,,r f`��Y �7tL 1 r � .t L .S r .. 'F f;i :7 M .fi. ..Y,X _ } y w •�1t5i � ,vo 1• r?"i a .. IT �� Fr 1•i. � S .!.tyr y .l�� • '.!.� ' a "� Gty yid•. .'e3t+!•-ytrr:.-;.....:.:jai%`..., m.�T. 833 WEST 15TN STREET SITE VISIT BY LSA, 6-16-88 DESCRIPTION The subject property, Newport Christian School , is located on 1.3 acres at 833 West 15th Street. The property is located on the southeast corner of 15th Street and Monrovia Avenue. The subject property is surrounded by light industrial to the east, a mobile home park to the north, office and multi-family residential to the east and single family residential to the south. The school facility is a two story structure.With a gym to the southeast portion of the property, classrooms to the northwest portion of the property and a meeting hall structure fronting onto 15th Street. The parking is located to the east of the meeting hall structure, a playground and eating area are located to the west. Structure Condition The on-site structure building material is cement stucco with a redwood exterior. All of the classroom doors are fireproof. The structure is in good stable condition. There is no evidence of structure dilapidation or blight. The landscaping is well kept and is in good condition. There is no evidence of blight on the property, with the exception of solid waste- along the southern property line of the subject property. East There are two large light industrial buildings that are built adjacent to the subject property's eastern property line. The second light industrial abuts the on-site structure at the southeast section of the subject property. There is; a three foot block wall that connects the two light industrial buildings along the eastern property line. . All of the on-site parking is located on the north .and east sections of the property. All of the angled parking (31 spaces), which_ abuts the two light industrial buildings, is -designated and striped for two basketball courts. The basketball courts consist of four basketball backbbards ,and 'six LSd large halogen lights which surround' the two basketball 'courts. There is an entrance and exit through a six foot wrought iron gate into the first parking area, and an exit only, six foot wrought iron gate in the second parking area. The on-site facility has two stairways on the eastern section and one stairway on the southern section. There are three lunch tables and a weight room, enclosed by a six foot chain link fence, under the southeast portion of the second story of the facility. There is one glass double door to the south section of the facility and .eight fireproof classroom doors to the east of the facility (i .e. four doors on the first floor and four doors on the second floor) . There are eighteen glass windows on the eastern portion of the structure (i .e. nine on the first floor and nine on the second floor) . There are two foot by two foot planters, with shrubs and small trees along the eastern property line. There is a fire hydrant located in the 5 landscaped median strip which separates the two parking areas. West The subject property abuts Monrovia Avenue to the west. A six foot wrought iron fence and one six foot wrought iron gate are located along Monrovia Avenue. The two story on-site structure is set back approximately five feet from the western property line. North The subject fronts onto 15th. Street to the north. A portion of the on- site structure is set back approximately ten feet from the northern property line. This structure separates the parking on the east of the subject pro- perty from the playground and eating area of the property. A six foot wrought iron fence encloses the subject property to the north. A six foot wooden fence, which. is set back approximately ten feet 'from . the six foot wrought iron fence, encloses 'the playground area from .view of i 15th Street. There are four: classrooms with fireproof doors and one ladies' restroom on the first floor. -There are six classrooms with fireproof doors and one •men's restroom on the second floor. There%is one landscaped planter' and four wooden benches- on a cement slab in front of the classrooms. There is a patio cover with sixteen -picnic �0 3 aLSB st of Shrubs, trees cement and grass buffer adjacent tabi es on a buffr the classroomsefrom 15theStreet caged planter: South The on-site structure is set back approximately five feet from a six foot wooden fence which separates the on-site structure and a single family home to the south. Noise On June 16, 1988, LSA conducted an on-site walkover survey of the Newport Christian High School located at 833 West 15th Street. During the site walkover, LSA discovered two light industrial buildings adjacent to the east property line of the subject property. The noise generated from these buildings was minimal . The noise level from the surrounding area and road- x ways was also minimal . Flood Zone Flood Zone Map #060227005B (September 1, 1978) indicates that the prop- erty is not within a 100-year flood zone. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING General Plan Designation - Multi-Family Residential The project is -consistent with the residential designation and con- sistent with providing local recreational and community services to 'serve nearby residences. B. Zoning - R3 Multi-Family Residential The •residential project- is consistent with the zoning. The former school . is a legal non-conforming -use. Conversion of the -school to. a com- munity center will require a use permit issued by the City. 3 S/Te P44N MoNROV/A _ AVE: _ EX/ST. EX/STINS CURB�4•uTIi�R'� S/DFWAL K I I PIS " a I I n I/v40 77/"+y lot I -40' IN Iw II •�i I i 'COMMISSIONERS MINUTES August 4, 1988 91,9 .may f� o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 4. - That public improvements shall be required of a developer per Section 19.08.1020 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CO ITIONS: 1, at a parcel map may be recorded prior to o upancy unless otherwise approved by the Public Wor s and Planning Departments. The parcel map shal be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all mprovements be constructed as required by Ordinance d the Public Works Department. 3. That each dw lling be served with an individual water service nd sewer lateral connection to the public water a sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the P lic Works Department. 4. That deteriorated sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along a Marigold Avenue frontage , under an encroachment rmit issued by the Public Works Department. Work all be completed prior to occupancy. 5. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley. 6. That County Sanitation District es be paid prior to issuance of any building permit 7. That the Public Works Department p n check and inspection fee be paid. B. That a park dedication fee for one dwel ing unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter .50 of the Municipal Code. 9. That this resubdivision shall expire if 'the •map as not been recorded within 3 years of the date f approval, unless an extension is granted by th Item No.3 A Traffic Studt No. 47 (Public Hearing) -6- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o a p�p� August 4, 1988 Nm �y �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Request ' Traffic to approve a traffic study so as to.permit the Study construction of a 16 unit apartment complex on property, located in the R-3 (2178) District. RDB (R1180) ' AND B. Residential Density Bonus (Discussion) R877 Request for a density bonus in accordance with Section Approved 65915 of the California Government Code 'so as to construct an apartment complex with 16 units of which some will be for affordable to lower income families. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to allow: the new apartment building and a proposed carport to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback; to allow a two car carport to encroach 4 feet into the required 4 foot easterly side yard setback; to allow covered parking spaces on the front one-half of the site which are not fully enclosed with side walls and garage doors; and to permit a portion of the required open parking spaces to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front yard setback; and the acceptance of an environmental document. APPLICANT: Pacific Heights Apartments, Costa Mesa AND C. Resubdivision No 877 (Public Hearine) Request to resubdivide property located in the R-3 (2178) District so as to create two parcels of land where only one parcel currently exists. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow ' a parcel design which will allow two of the existing remaining structures on the property to encroach 3 feet lOk inches into the required 4 foot side yard setback areas adjacent to the new interior :common -property line. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 917', First Additson to Newport Mesa Tract, located at 883 West 15th Street, on the southeasterly ;corner of 15th Street and Monrovia Avenue, in the Northwest Newport area. ZONE: R-3 (2178) -7- 'COMMISSIONERS MINUTES August 4, 1988 A A�<f� OJ�OB ymG 96P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANTS: City of Newport Beach and Pacific Heights Apartments, Costa Mesa OWNER: Newport Campus Church, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers & Associates, Inc. , Costa Mesa James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the City is conducting programs in the gymnasium. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jim White, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he stated that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. Brad Schweitzer, 848 Halyard, Newport Knolls, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schweitzer stated that his concerns include the traffic at the intersection of 15th Street and Placentia Avenue; that the proposed carports will encroach into a landscaped setback area; that the developers should be required to complete the street improvements on the north side of 15th Street inasmuch as it is used by apartment residents for parking; and he addressed the use of the gymnasium. In response to Mr. Schweitzer's concerns, Mr. Hewicker replied that the gymnasium and the parking lot in front of the gymnasium will be purchased by the City and will be maintained as a community center; that the proposed residential development is where the chapel and the remaining classrooms of Newport Christian School are currently located; and the proposed setbacks will conform' with the existing setbacks of the residential developments currently located on the same side of the street. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained the City's requirements regarding street improvements, and he stated that a traffic signal at the intersection of.:15th Street and Placentia Avenue has been placed on the signal priority list. There being no others desiring to appear and be hoard, the public hearing was closed at this time. * Motion was made and voted on to approve :Traffic 'Study Motion No. 47, Residential Density Bonus (Resolution No, 1180) All' Ayes Resubdivision No. 877, and related ' Environmental Document as set forth in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. 8- r 60MMISSIONERS MINUTES August 4, 1988 • yy�py<< o. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX A. Environmental Document: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. B. Traffic Study: Approve the Traffic Study, making the following 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. i 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any major, primary-modified, or primary street. C. Residential Density Bonus: Approve the Residential Density Bonus and adopt Resolution No. 1180, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations except as noted below. 2. That all conditions of approval for Resubdivision No. 877 shall be fulfilled. V 3. That the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, guaranteeing that a minimum of seven (.7) of the sixteen (16) units within the project shall be made . available on a preferential basis to persons and families possessing an "active" Section 8 Existing -9- ` ' 60MMISSIONERS MINUTES p p August 4, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL- CALL INDEX Rental Assistance Certificate or Voucher and shall be rented at or below the Section 8 Fair Market Rent (FMR) Schedule for Newport Beach. When a Section 8 tenant does not occupy a unit, the unit shall be rented to persons and families earning a maximum income of no more than 80 percent of the median income for Newport Beach as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at a rent which is no more than 30 percent of the maximum income. Said Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of building permits. The term of this agreement shall be for no more than thirty (30) years. 4. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 5. That landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 6. That the light system for the project shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to control the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 7. That all trash enclosures shall be screened from adjacent properties. . 8. That the waiver of the park dedication fee shall be subject to the City Council approval. D. Resubdivision No. 877 and Related Modification: Approve Resubdivision No. 877 and related modification, making the following findings and with. the following conditions: -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES August 4, 1988 ' ZGG 9N�'9 9Z9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Findines: II i. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict 'with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of d the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. The approval of the requested modifications, so as to allow the front and side yard setback encroachments and to allow the use of open carports on the front one-half of the property will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits on Parcel 1, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and Planning Department. • 1 2. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That a curb access ramp be constructed at the corner of 15th Street and Monrovia Avenue under an encroachment permit issued by. the Public Works Department. Work shall , be completed prior to . -11- " ,I ;r- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS August 4, 1988 dG ��09,➢� 9y7y , . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX occupancy of the structures on Parcel 1. 4. That the building connected along the parcel boundary between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be physically separated. In addition, all water, sewer, electrical and gas utilities shall be separate for Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. 5. That each building on Parcel 1 be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 6. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Item NO.4 R uest to permit alterations and additions to an V1124 _ exi ing duplex which exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit n the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District, on Removed property located in the R-2 District. The proposed from constructi will be entirely below top of curb on Ocean Calendar Boulevard. LOCATION: Lo 2, Tract No. 1026, located at 3024 :j Brea rs Drive, on the northeasterly side of Bre ers Drive, just above the Corona i del Mar ate Beach, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-2 APPLICANT: Jack Larson, DDS, orona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, st ad that the subject variance has been removed from cale ar inasmuch as the variance was not -required. -12- R . 15TH STREET APARTMENTS TPO Analysis Prepared for. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared by. Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. 1450 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 108 Santa Ana, California 92701 f July 21, 1988 �.•e-c �k?IIh;?i�7•R:i§•tlPi.iiitffttitiitr'tf:tilFtH::ilFti{kitilitF itlti!?Iifi1FIF3?3'ifiAi?riP!?BRliitti?Fai?tRil�tiek:l ft"t.•teTEFh,aRtSR��a?ie7�'•�•ii��r�•;n'•:•.tt�.•t•"•••. •t�• 15TH STREET APARTMENTS TPO Analysis PROJECT DESCRIPTION, The proposed apartment site is located on the southeast corner of Monrovia Avenue and 15th Street. The 'site currently consists of a private high school. The proposed development will consist of 16 apartment units. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project site, and Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. Access to the proposed project will be provided by one entry/exit driveway located on Monrovia Avenue and one entry/exit driveway on 15th Street. Monrovia is a two-lane street with no left turn lanes. 15th Street has one thru lane in each direction with no left turn lanes. Monrovia Avenue provides access to Newport Boulevard (SR-55) north of the project via 17th Street. 15th Street provides access to westbound Coast'Highway via Superior and to eastbound Coast Highway via Placentia, Hospital Road, and Newport Boulevard. TRIP GENERATION Appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed land use were obtained from the City of Newport Beach trip generation rates. These trip generation rates are summarized as follows: ----AM PEAK HOUR--- ...PM PEAK HOUR... LAND USE UNITS IS OBE Total. IS OB Total i Apartments 16 DU Trips/DU 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.6 Trip Generation 2 5 7 7 3 10 As the summary indicates, the proposed project will generate 7 trips in the AM peak hour and 10 trips in the PM peak hour. The trip generation was factored to obtain a peak 2.5 hour volume for the AM and PM peak hour periods: The peak 2.5 hour,volumes were based on an estimated'factor of 2.0 to account for the extension of the usual one-hour.peak period. • ,• ?':,L, is r. i<:•r•,+ at;liii•1' 6•ti&•+�Bkirt:b c; ;I"tv., :(t!?f: nR{"4+iaa E:nzy;;:g+:.;::gA.,:;B•• + se,exrtt; , s+� ; ; • e. w m o � t BTH 177H � e°ems 2 PROJECT o� LOCATION 15TH a� y �A 4ul00 COAST Hwy 0oQ' iI 3yN0 'P`r i � 9A yS�OF a BACBOA i t 1 Figure 1 ®WAUSTIH- OUST ASSOCIATES, INC.- VICINITY MAP I ' � If` �`. 'e ��•.•, i _.. 2 Z'2 •.: ♦ tlli:'."�lY`{}�i(t`t}2`1�f�.`:is�:R:4••�t�:r[.1:M��^`itl:.:rv."•2•Ci:`]`Rt1Cnt}(fCC'�CCCr.C[f11CCfICCL`SRICC�CCC<`Cil<1C••`.C•1T.•�tft`II•••..'Ft••tC•'..�1`.'�'t^`r`-.r. ter. - - -- — I----- �*♦N 1 G . I ii } yli i 044AMM dl I M 1� I I � i 1. u - ----�- --------�--� - - Figure 2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN ®�AIISTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. • 3 i_•••R � t •r vt'^•SIf:ro Yi'MYpI`:P:C.'••1 :., •: •' } � 't.f. a y.. �:R ••.a•••t'••t}t-•p:}o•yR••tqa}R^Pt4}F.•t•gi1tKR;aN•.CLlH••M.W}••nRgt`..�RRcrvgl}aH•<rt(ttp^RttRRmt'ItN'tRWR'ttfltNti•V.H• '� Credit. for existing traffic generated at the project site was not necessary due to the low trip generation of the proposed project. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Distribution of project generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well.as from locations and levels of development in relation to the location of the proposed project. Approximately 45 percent of traffic enteritig and.exiting the site will be oriented towards the north and will have no impact on the intersections tested. The general trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 3. TRAFFIC IMPACTS The City of Newport Beach identified five intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed development. These intersections are: Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard-Superior Avenue Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue Coast Highway/Tustin Avenue Superior Avenue/Placentia Avenue Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road The 1987 peak 2.5 hour volumes as discussed in the previous section were provided for each intersection by the City staff. Since the project is expected to be completed in 1991, the ambient growth rate for regional arterials was applied to the existing 1987 volumes to reflect 1991 traffic conditions. A growth rate of 2.5 percent was added to all volumes along Coast Highway west of Newport Blvd. A factor of one percent was added to all volumes along Coast Highway east of Newport Blvd and to Newport Boulevard north of Coast Highway. The peak 2.5 hour volumes of all approved projects, also provided by the City of Newport Beach, were added to the 1991 peak 2.5 hour volumes. The resulting volumes -represent the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes prior to the addition of project traffic. One percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes at each approach of each intersection was compared with the peak 2.5:hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this comparison is shown in Table 1. qe h Y. S 17TH Q Q Q z 7> p J �� Al �Q tZ 457 45% !vim 20%,I 35% Q Y 0 2� 15TH Iz- 20� 20% Q� R 35% OO 0% \ �"_ 20% �\0% 35�Z /20% Q f/ 5% 30% �35% \� I 20% T 30% '\ 30% J� �91� �5% 30% 30%� �� I} 9 Vlq QOO COAST HWY z a Figure 3 ®,AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. PROJECT DISTRIBUTION Table 1 SUMMARY OF 1% ANALYSIS , AM•PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN 1% OF INTERSECTION NB SB EB NB 1991 PK 2.5 MR VOLUME Coast Hwy/Betboa-Superior _ 0 2 1 0 Yes Coast Hwy/Riverside 0 0 3 1 Yes Coast Hwy/Tustin 0 0 3 1 Yes Superior/Placentia 1 6 1 0 Yes Newport/Hospital 1 0 4 0 Yes PM PROJECT PEAK 2.5 HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN 1% OF INTERSECTION NB SB EB LIB 1991 PK 2.5 HR VOLUME Coast Hwy/Balboo-Superior 0 1 3 0 Yes Coast Hwy/Riverside 0 0 2 4 Yes Coast Hwy/Tustin 0 0 2 4 Yes Superior/Placentia 5 3 3 0 Yes Newport/Hospital 5 0 2 0 Yes io n4tn5.liftliNIB:aEitih`7tlilGteRditS`!ltRDi !"."'t flt'tf4it,fittL'NtitiSE::{dE;dllcd:d:eo ear t: on..•.p:,: <�•... `ew; , a:..:.. ,,g;.•v+e.p.eh :2o.,,i=,•go;;n.... ,n...... If the one percent of the 1991 peak 2.5 hour volumes of each approach were larger than the peak 2.5 hour project volumes, no further analyses were required. If project peak 2.5 hour volumes were higher than one percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes at any approach of each intersection, the intersection was analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method: Comparison of the one percent of the peak 2.5 hour volumes with the project peak 2.5 hour volumes resulted in all intersections passing the one percent analysis. Further analysis is not required. The one percent analysis sheets are included in the Appendix. CONCLUSIONS The proposed apartment development would generate 7 trips during the AM peak hour and 10 trips during the PM peak hour. Five intersections were checked to determine the marginal impact of project traffic on the street system. All intersections passed the one percent analysis and required no further analysis. Therefore, the proposed apartment development has no marginal impact on the ICU's of the study intersections. �;tn :•etv:iRo.z+i;itivrhti.ai<:�tSr.ttihrG'Bt:..e::.:Inti•.t4•:q':..Etlt.a..;:;a.: : ;kt::,.tt•.:.,.t• APPENDIX ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS •,:;•,.. ,.�:,•;=rs :.w.:•uitreo;�:::r.:a:ier•:,rr;.;a,:;o,;.;,=:;t..za�sa�a:n::•;n.;=r:=::�•s,:;<,;:u.,;:=:_,:,;.:;n,.. „ . . ,. ..,. , 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Highway @ Balboa Blvd/Superior Ave Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 AM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1877 .0 13 1890 19 0 Southbound 1376 — 0 25 1401 14 2 Eastbound 6397 512 910 7819 78 1 Westbound 1899 152 399 2450 24 0 ==> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 17 of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume, Project Traffic is estimated to he greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U,1 Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR:'1991 -------------------------=--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: •Coast Highway @ Balboa Blvd/Superior Ave Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 PH Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach _ Existing Regional Projects Projected 17 of Projected ' Project Direction • Peak 2 112 Hour Growth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2;Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 1861 0 50 1911 19 0 ------------------------------- — Southbound 3758 01 94 3952 39 f Eastbound 4794 384 722 5900 59 3 Westbound 4784 383 868 6035 60 0 --------------------------------------------------------------- ==> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization II.C.U.l Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- yF ,.i. ra.i(ta.r:E'in:altletatttjfEi t•Fint:.•a.•;;<ne.i;t5r?t•tilreei;•lj,.:o-,lar.T.;t(g+••c'ht rd3nFnn•ita a.ea.o-t.;, ;+.:.... .+•,r.., . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast�Highway @ Riverside Avenue Existing:Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 AM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Protect Direction_ Peak 2 1/2 Hour Browth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour 'Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour , Volume Volume Volume Volume 'Volume Volume Northbound 28 0 34 62 1 0 Southbound 891 0 60 951 10 0 - --- - - -------- ------- - Eastbound 5741 184 -- 1070 ------ 6995 70 ---3-- Westbound- 3351 107 - 672 4130— -- 41 - — 1 -- __> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1./, of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 --------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ---- ---------- - III +^ •. � �.•s•atcewb:a.ntvos;a Hitlln t 4t Fln<: f x;n to l:dFei ;nx;tQafMiifnr>:•aa:4ivrrtrtttc,bsta:aunt.:tnrbtseunu:•uRrtnanunnx?:Haw,o-:w:::ba,!`•:•:e•••. :a,•,•.,• �.. •,•. ...,. •, 2,. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Highway'@ Riverside Avenue Existing Traffic.Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 PH Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing , Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 :1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume. Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 61 0 0 61 1 0 Southbound 1247 0 64 1311 13 0 Eastbound 5217 167 1050 6434 64 2 Westbound 5836 107 1120 7143 71 4 _=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR:�1991 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------'-------------------------------= - IEIp°eT:•.Ir4EtuRhfil3f_F•"u__VEirbFAE .1VNl.t*ttl`YE t InnaLi:iB tfibb::u+:.h••ItH•�utlh..•.tid•t'nbM.4;:.t•,S:.an..;a•ir•^atAeie,rtp:::ne•.<+M^a�nu,v^t;at•.^a.0 �•trr.••,,n,a'.n.••a•.u. .^; ,. ,. 18 Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Highway @ Tustin Avenue Existing Traffic Volumes 9ased.on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 AN Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2'Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 7 0 14 21 0 0 Southbound 138 0 19 157 2 0 Eastbound, 5134 164 1001 6299 63 3 Westbound 3105 99 659 3863 39 1 =_> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 17, of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT:, FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .,•.,::,oc,:.a,:ctcanctnnartnnrntn;nuns;ntcasKtnqunIIaitcRn:S.ra,"nn: >,,, a••, : "n.,,. .. ..t,;,.,,•: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Coast Highway @ Tustin Avenue Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 PW Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 21 0 11 32 0 0 SouthbaundY 305 0 26 331 3 0 Eastbound 4150 133 1029 5312 53 2 Westbound T5839 187 1113 7139 71 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than ly. of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization fI.C.U•) Analysis is required. d-- FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 PROJECT: .tn,,. ,r,,,.o,,, ,non:unnesnnertrnpsmnnn•.mfnn:momar ::,:a,.xa^.o-,;.,.,,,,,,u. •c ..o• •..:m .,r,. .,;,:.annr•aar c,.�•o..., .. 17. Traffic Volume-Analysis Intersection: Superior Ave @ Placentia Ave Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic .Ninter/Spring 87 AN Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing' Regional Projectg Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume ' :Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 683 0 59 742 7 1 Southbound Y 1179 0 51 1230 12 6 Eastbound 3058 0 49 3107 31 1 ' Westbound 598 0 46 644 6 0 ==) Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume, Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991, ,00.,, a•ua•a;utaana¢ mnencmnrnnunm:e•mnnnr.:naa•,eo-n•c•n:�:m,,::m•.n:•tm+r.mr•rna•.��,:r,•.,�,.i, .••.. - :n , ,.�, a,.,•,.,,..,.• 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Superior Ave @ Placentia Ave Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 PM Peak 2.1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 L/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume -Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 981 .0 101 1062 11 5 Southbound 1715 0 59 1774 18 3 Eastbound 1813 0 113 1926 19 3 ----------------- Westbound 2002 0 BB 2090 21 0 ==1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- r..•,.p••'C A:'.• tgtll! 0nhi x i11Rtl IIp9il4MiRflQH1:GYanrc.:RtlRRs•ktfl:armogetttcv:mnn.nnr:•„on..�^,•....n-n.:.:•..n,a..... .:.......:..., a , r. ,•.,.. .,-.,.,.,-.•...,;,e,v-,,-,�•,—.n ,mm,mm�nrao 1X Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Newport Blvd @ Hospital Rd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 87 AN Peak 2 1/2-Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 172 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour. Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume ; Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4045 129 141 4315 43 1 ' Southbound 2495 80 255 2B31 28 0 Eastbound 1235 0 82 1317 13 4 Westbound 895 0 13 908 9 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than iX of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL•OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: Newport Blvd 2 Hospital Rd• Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring H7 PH Peak, 2'1/2 Hour • Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected - IX ,of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4430 142 294 4066 49 5 Southbound 3996 125 231 4252 43 0 Eastbound 2016 0 171 2197 22 2 Westbound 1045 0 16 1061 11 0 Project Traffic is estimated to he less than 1'/. of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 -----------------^---------------------------=------------------------------------------------------------------