Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO054_EMERALD ASSOCIATES TP0054 01TY OF NEWPORT B 2ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES .� o y n m ?� REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING G,p fG O� 9,y 9G PLACE: Council Chambers yF 9G yk TIME: 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL DATE: July 25, 1988 I X Mayor Cox presented Permaplaqued Certificates of Appreciation to former Civil Service Board Member Pat Krone and former Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner Sterling Wolfe. Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Motion x B. Reading of Minutes of Meeting of Ayes x x x x x x July 11, 1988, was waived, approved as Abstain x written, and ordered filed. Motion x C. Reading in full of all ordinances and All Ayes resolutions under consideration was waived, and City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: _ 6. Mayor Cox announced that the City Clerk U p 3 had received a letter from Wi liam M. Emerald Todd, President of Emerald Associates, Assoc. just prior to tonight's meeting, (88) withdrawing their application for Use PermitNo. 3312_on RTopprty located at 3901 E. Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. Motion x Motion was made to accept the subject All Ayes letter of withdrawal and receive and file same. 1. Mayor Cox opened the public hearing Towing/PD regarding consideration of a Certificate (70) of Convenience and Necessity, pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 5.13.060 for the following: Medlin's Towing 13642 Milton Way Westminster, CA California Towing 2202 West 5th St. Santa Ana, CA Pacific Towing 2209 Lyons Santa Ana, CA Report from Business License Supervisor, was presented. It was recommended by staff that the public hearing be continued, as the applicants have not yet satisfied the requirements of Section 5.13.040 of the Municipal Code. Motion x Motion was made to continue the public All Ayes hearing to August 8, 1988, as recommended. Volume 42 — Page 278 :ter :• , • .� .1- .y:-�':. ;: '� ,,y r: ,xd=:. �`. ( t. . l i •'.5•.\7q , y �\ +'• , r. r f�//�f:Y .F r)y(' � •i: � � ,V dyl'i:'rl,?.. �`' S:L.Y}, �f)P / ,r pJ V �rLtl: r• ;,'t J' f;. Y'(1"` r�J' f yjf/i l'1 ��/tJ•�)��l�( i �• i, .t ',f•.:: +.AF4.. .y, . ^'�f.�•'qf. ,lw {7� Jrr ,(11��ff '•r'}� y ��'rr�' '•[•F'''r C� l•`1�/! •''Y,"j I! ' ' i. e' S •`''�,c ,Y. ^t'rr�f'�.f,' ,�,tfl/rfj•<, "• 1. rr,'r���C�: C { o ��`fti'�rr�1111rw.fy'J�}?;'f���y `f ;1r. �%.lif�• "•5 r��•;f ' (Yh ��`, '' l r ,� ��iv1*�C Jl •t>'��l'�1.t{{��'',//,,����fr.V F�•t f),:�(�,5��r j��• � ' :f1 ,xs�.rt�'�1,�)S' fv f•�J � �!t�i{x`;t lrpr� ••3 ,J,�S'�Jr �ly� r P`f�f,yf •+ j)-fF,• 1 frGFf�' ;°<¢h ! ,^ '- ! , ij, 1 J/l r+{}• jt•�rr^ fT,vl:�. 7Y'1•t' ( flrr�i5: s;U./ ":r�r f,N����T '.•J7/ •„(4�,"q�i{.Y�3:K�'r f r•!ffi%r417a `1 '�� /}'i�r{F}� f J t If J`c� r r �, �t ' r '1/Yi�i�jr?�� y��• , ,• ) r •s•' r�111 ,'f, r•, ` ' ,/'1 •y�-;' ^,jar �! }f /{fyf. Jr;(�'=Jil1�r�NL 'r•.r :'�l ' r l /1, •l ! j f 1��'twr, +:r`•.A ' 'YYf APr; ! z�Ji;:a �i 1)YJ• �1 irr�1 fj.,7 J� �7•f," !••L rjt:�'l:lYrr{Yri•^ i �f' y4). ��t" r�/�. � ) 'yj�y�jl.fJ•',✓+!I/i��r.; /��f• t.�}�~ .:Lp r.r� r f f 4 1f,ti1 ! ��r��.•�•,+r fx'%! t•-r• 'rr�;t� }�t ./ ,;✓q�X• ' �,I ''if - '�r,r'�� i i� Jr�• flF7 tI r�•F.t,xJ'' ,! ,• F tt'��i�t}�!�:��r%'• �t, �• �)' 'r�'�h',1•slx'�I�'�:`aS�Irj;��t��[�',; ••r1-��;��' �r rl/,._.. ;,fi/ .i�.'' I • 'y r EMERALD VILLAGE PERSONAL CARE FACILITY TRAFFIC STUDY l Jv 'L f �:' >1✓ ' Jr yi , .r�1I, ,rn� y1 F f fr�(�r ���1, r:•. , rl:�,i5'�/%'i f�,r/i /. =`'' f' •'45'y;.S. •45 ��' r`'�JJr �Afrr ;t 1' 1�1''�{'.j rl�,�•r`jy, Y`, , '} !y �l tJ'7'w'7t7' , iy..• %71'�r r .. ` .l �t �t'1i` f:r��• ' 1I Y l ' }�'��r�y��r` xl:;ft(��;1y�ijli`�;lF����k��`rf �, r•.. ��,';t�'rr'�j'y/,'��r r..�f))+ +r"jrf„a/,' . lrj: l`•� . •�,j-1pi�,���+' IY ` �n<•xf�/r•'�"•' "I �At�•/".hiJ ft�r�T�l JS(J�.,3'��j�,�:,�� fi��I�.tr�'Y1✓• �'�''.rri�t; 'I)•)'t.(.� rrflf�,�+Y!„�t�,"�� .JF�ynf�y�, ,i�"�,�'��:r`il �✓rl�r/•4.rr/ �'' .�14,�1�'' ktl !z �I,/f Jy� ��•r/ `+. ;�r t�• ��(•1 �r'�J'n��.!;` r`�.Ct'�1F,T.: y Cr x�,, 'rf� urn �taai Agsooiates •'/ TrenaPorte7ion Planning•Traffic Engineering Jy .I�,•J+7 , �(. .�/rr/ri,��ytr'r�:i,f t(r��fi7�f�•� �'�JI• f� 'rf. ',r,�'r� �ff���j+r'`fkl��t�.�'t Y ..�TX. ��iYfrrjry�+;: '•(t?±�If{J"�fC.�`r�r��{ `{")r'i'r��Ct�/•ifflfi (- !.t%[`� J. fff,-�r3 l�,f, t�''Y�rit`(�ff��r'r� .Yr.�u.arr r�'.r t�1:�{�!�!}•y (, ' � w ✓ S(l { �'fy 1'��t� Y�y:1J:.�J.r 7r1! r.yir�.,/ •r.i> 1 � .t. � • �a NURPAaK v4ssociates Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering February 16, 1988 Ms. Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator .City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Ms. Temple: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis for the Emerald Village of Corona Del Mar Personal Care Facility. This analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing ordinance. In addition we have reviewed the parking requirements of the project. We trust that this report will be of immediate as well as continuing value to the City of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions , or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Lee Royalty, P.E. #808b 4664 Berrenca Parkway • Irvine, CA 92714 [714) 559-4231 �a� • t 5+lY Ir • '`'f{r(fy !T,!/IrfJ (,,5 . >(yf'�riYr { {r^fi S�rfri,�` �r.�y V , tj )) trJ'.f):.Ft�•,,CC,�r,v .� �' t/ �'r fj! } 't�• •�CR 1� ' ff fie � ' t�( ��,� fiUff•.`�{,r,J-•r� 'f�( r!. �� `,+lL��` i{rr ) 1�1 t� /1�,r f. 1 7Ir ,✓� / r;(ri ,C{ f�.`r,Il�.rljr.S�S''�/1'f��',/�i tt'/^.'`i'tn *r+r 's>*� `r r� O��,f���i Ifs,+ ,( ,F �•};•� 1�'f.!'r'\tlr�,%;f J ' 7 r`;k� 'Yh�"'S;{•,,% . ,�' ' '��•`/ ���^y') r'+J�Cj� t(:uv�' )=:,5�'')u:• 1� �� )y iS,{-r Jy +k5 y,J�, f• .r.< •¢�v! fi�• dry rr.(,',�I,P.1?,'�.r5 1T•'k�t(���;+r��l rl,,/-� ��f,.v�;,.,�1�, �`�:sr�f,�� � j�1}�<{i�ir,r)�i+:�.9/yt�}�'{��`.1• ',(,jJ�,`i' l+'"'! � )IC,Y ` �� � J',/ri. ' 11��4 ��')rGrY� n7' i ^ 'J�/ �:{ I�.y, F� ll. 7•r�( )•{ ` {,fu( riJ f � :(f ).4k1c r 1'4rt S47I' j" low+i �'.i r�! {i ilf��l ']'��Y�r't,�r�V,�=^I,�;�5'1?•��1•:�j:;��1.�.{ ,�f✓,';�;�r� fir} • .,'I',' 'r7,,��'� ^., a J•}�i':' i/,�]V�7Yrlt)'.,t•J'j(,-?'(r''+�{�'}(�5 fii�f�'�.`� � �r!'� ',{ "ji•��r: , � "r/: .`fr• f.;y,�r�'/,,t" l✓+j;.1�,r);r ,•V"�/.f_ r�,/�� r�(( ,�,r T �,1�; ({y�`�:`J1�ff'A �;�d+ YF`' �7•t ``t i'w.,y • �: t ri �,..,^a�'1 jr .1�•��_r /,i;�rli""�'��j•t�' �''•fJf,., + 4��'�, ��• �; ��.�.1 �f�]7 � ��,j�`�r,�,�+ 17'�y(xl ;r�:��>r r�,;-;��•' �,'�tf'1.;;},� ;,�;/•' h. �', , r'I,I '\�r �,�'} � r t)'+,�rl'�`�'� (i71��i�+l7)•:/`Y :�f�'rr l)!r!'J �;�,�l�f ,� - lt�� �• '' J� y EMERALD -VILLAGE 0 PERSONAL CARE FACILITY )• Jrl TRAFFIC STUDY ' t' y •' � ,ILav ;, r • . • ?jJ ,,'�+t' .iF 11:��yJ f• r�'Y 't`r Sl tf�:j�,�'r,r'.(r r�iJ r•",{ r frj•Yj{ J✓!fJ7 rt77. 1 '�:i r ( / y / . ���t}'+i �:r Jf j, �✓Jl)•r�}r,51 , �>jtSitTy��l�.)(i �1( !,��tn'x(/•r'' :•�� r•^ �1 •;�,'P�� y% �f�r71Y��1f:l ��• �•rlr;1. �J ,/yfn it, n ' ,r 1 ';}�(t'+;.`,)�'frr''������• ;r�C n ��.Ib�'�� i..} �'tU' ,,�' Vim,� � •�13t✓a r/ff`/ ��;.,�+ „r}l�, ,,F<n � �> I t ,''�i!:✓/1 '/ �r i . • f •jt�f •cf�:f,� !��'+. ;�;�"• �'Cf'ray�'i�]:f' �,�;'�z � •�` 'rw Cr E^ ff� . 1,14ill Ct/ f r� r� , �uln � u� aln c�ssociates U� Transportation Planning•Traffic Engineering �fyYe/(r•1,�, r //'J[.,'+J • `t�'ri rJi•)'t�� �rJw(.rr�lJ' ,'��,' .`7� � `f/ J, •t1�S�I t J` .tj� .rJ:}A f.�/ ��r� �{!' t'/I(I. �'�' � '•��1.Y�� )I� ////r}��+;l i�. ��.rdr+ fJ}��P ,�.7r�.1.•..fri`/l�f yN'r.(J.; F'r Fr;�•�;7,y(;•�a%�� 'i ✓fI ;�j'?r:{1`'•.�}t j'!%�(�''��fy1�'�/�(�.1�`/71./�Z•`(!��'�'�lS�f:Yrr r�l C•!(�f•,, ���ij�(%;•r !��-'! �: I J •t Table of Contents Page No. section 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 . Existing and Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 . Traffic Generation Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Parking Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6, other Traffic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 List of Figures Figure No. Title Page No. 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 project Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 List of Tables Table No. Title Page No. 1 Existing Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Traffic Generation Comparison 8 q Staffing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1 . Introduction v This report is an analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed Emerald Village of Corona Del Mar Personal Care Facility in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The project is proposed for a site which is currently serving another land use. The existing land use generates traffic which contributes to existing service levels within the circulation system. A primary objective of the report is to determine the project' s traffic impacts relative to this existing condition. As directed by City staff, the proposed project will only be liable for traffic impacts which would exceed those generated by the existing land use. 1 1, 2 Project Description Protect Location The project is located at the southeast corner of East Pacific Coast Highway and Hazel Drive in the Corona Del Mar district of Newport Beach (See Figure 1) . Proposed Development The project is described as a 130 unit personal care residence for senior citizens. The typical dwelling unit is approximately 400 square feet and consists of a single bedroom/bathroom and living room. A minority of the units will be 300 square feet studio apartments. Kitchens will not be provided in any of the units. As a personal care facility, resident services are described as being provided at a higher level than typically available at a congregate care facility while still not providing licensed nursing care. Project facilities include a common dining area for full daily meal service, a -•beauty/barber shop and linen/laundry services . As is common with senior residential complexes, services include a full time staff and transportation services. The average resident is described as 75 to so years of age, single, and no longer maintaining or driving an automobile . The resident is frail but still ambulatory and not requiring nursing care. Existing Land Use The project will be constructed on a site which is currently occupied by an existing 12, 430 square foot one-story structure with surrounding ground level parking. The existing structure has been partitioned to provide a mixture of uses. The largest single use is a restaurant of approximately 41930 square feet. The remaining 71500 square feet is divided among a variety of specialty retail uses. The mixed use floor plan represents the current land use of the site. 2 �30 Figure 1 Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways I�It ,..n•V,t..t R!I,, v • j ��' F Require 7}wt Further Goordnofion. I }•d7 �� yioy Rood (Four Lane Undivided). 7r,•y Rood (Four Lane Divided). © Mejor Road (5x Lane Divided). 1 I f Y f l:�r . 111�11 Primary Road Modified. • r ,_. °�'• ';•+�i• '••:;,••._..�.• -• • •: Ad ` y Adopted Freeway Roues.t t�l��f l ,) 'l d.;1..: r+ Y�G�Iy�• _ „•y9q C " ,� +'^""1' y f jll-�a��li -�� , j\ ?r/�` t.y31_$l;,a �e �•f.':\ Bridge. .�..(� •�ttti�.��; :��`•.{ `: r3rlj�nly.TrnM`•�� • ?� �j 3 _�,`.' �` _ � Ur- M. t�`;••L� ja y?�� .�Fl.~ •:f :� �L�ft l(`\-r•�.:. :r 3 �C.)•• ' 7f ,.'• -, �ir� �♦ .�.i q� \ � Ji.Zi A \< II^ �1� _ $�'• \II`�t I}1... ( s_ 1y�c�s► - �,,. �. y`- ♦ ,, • � •• \2/ �YY ilrt __ 4 :r, —'''= {+ % ♦ F _ .ti - Owl '/.�'� :� •l/ SN�•'••,�'Y Y,� : �{vY'nr���' Cl..+ i'{I r.311 "• I _ C.I� ` S• '����? �y� J �j .....saw/'.�•��)'%-•i !�'`<-' "N�`YJ`•. • �f i' i..:,...7.an' �:.$i�N.' ,�lli��T?x'v�`�+'_ ; , !' .�••�.:.�="� 'T:. . • j i 3 •:• � •�„ :�•'� a•,. '.li�.t=��-0,r;% ,�hgi�- '-�-:i' "^� .•.,ai,, 1�• ae•'•*f•':� --� � _ .�../ , ♦ ` .. � .4. ate. Ir_�. '>-'J(_jr_• .{ -=' L•?�S� . =,I, I� t( `r ..j"♦'�"+•�,.?`s lfiV'//il`17C j..�,tr :1--i rit._ Tom:' C-t tin i E l V Y t • '+`+1 •_.- .� `` ,, • i<g�J!r'Cl".61�i�t�JfI `�\\\ .'' � .._ ,"�,1 '\�t••' .�i,/!/ Cy l+1�,j{ ryt�t:•.I Yj.•.$�'� �wi".�r� S��>::1$.`t�•`���...'.:.-� in .. .^s. .__ � __ ..�.r�.0 � :> a �K7�_ilp aMs� '�.t• '+..uYJ ..�: t,,t\:.� ,{ .�. 1 In4+uvglHlYnmmlli J.3'" ,• .�"r_=•',�C1n7;iU.1 i f_ � ��nm MMmm�nnnl � _ �. t .• •--••� Pr•wr `�.••_-."�. `till {II{ 1 .1.•oi".... ') $ .`1`e•-:•rt it•i('rt�... % _:: \ ,�' •"��� �` _ r _ -I'It�l=nnnl _ 1•, A.IF ,Y-: , "'p li4r�1 L 7• '`�'� al(�{FILLFW.tlY 1,311 \✓• .{ ,{tt 11{ \. - �•/,•t -'t.S� ___ �t�`,i ;:lk" '�.tlii�.111'U7�' ^ 1 �{p�W, e,w_' t.:�cTv ••q-'',�.�.. ).=�. •.• •Stte \,.i..lrr:'+ .,,•+ t hr'''. ) ' r`' ,:_oa•uti _ r��4.' -'�� t.�_ -- (( .lL/'T,s7,iea. , 1'+..•I .: tom'_'.."�.:;i su_�•i '� � 1'. . �7� / /• r�+$ .fvlF'��•� F V tJt 03mafi v4SSOCiafeS / . C 1- 0 c ,l• 3. Existing and Project Traffic Generation The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are typically expressed in terms of trip ends per person, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, trip ends per dwelling, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor area. Table 1 provides trip generation information for the existing mixed retail gommercial and restaurant eneration information for then d use. Table 2 provides trip g project 30 unit retirement apartment building. 4 Table 1 EXSITING TRAFFIC GENERATION Trip Generation per 1000 Square Feet nips Generated rated Gross Floor Area 9 Uses Retail Retail Commercial Restaurant Time Period Commercial Restaurant 7500 Sq. Ft. 4930 Sq. Ft. Morning Peak Hour 5 Inbound 0.7 1.0 4 3 Outbound 0.5 0.5 Total 1.2 1.5 10 8 Evening Peak Hour 25 Inbound 1.5 5'0 11 15 Outbound 2.0 3.0 15 Total 3.5 8.0 26 40 it Morning 2.5 Peak Hour 10 Inbound 1.4 2.0 11 5 Outbound 1.0 1.0 Total 2.4 3.0 19 15 Evening 2.5 Peak Hour 49 Inbound 3.0 10.0 22 30 Outbound 4.0 6.0 30 Total 7.0 16.0 52 79 Daily,Two-Way Traffic Total 40.0 75.0 300 370 153 r ,1 ' r Table 2 PRWEGT TRAFFIC GENERATION Trips Generated Trips swGe Generated by 130 Dwelling Tim- Ti Period p t Units Morning Peak Hour 0.09 14 Outbound 0.03 Total 0.12 15 Evening Hour 0.07 Outbound 0.08 11 Total 0.15 20 Morning Peak 2.55 bound 0.18 28 0.06 Total 0.24 31 Evening Peak 2.5 HoursInbound 0.15 19 outbound 0.18 23 Total 0.33 42 is 4.taTOMI 2.6 338 6 3� 4. Traffic Generation Conclusions Table 3 presents a comparison of traffic generation for the existing land use and the proposed project for several time intervals . This comparison indicates that during all time periods, the project will generate less traffic than generated currently by the existing retail shops and restaurant. On a daily basis, the project will generate only half as much traffic as currently generated by the site. On the basis of. the above conclusion, the proposed project will not produce traffic impacts greater than those that currently exist for the site; they will in fact be reduced. The overall level of service for intersections in the vicinity of the project should not be impaired by the project. For this reason the one percent analysis was not performed for the intersections identified by city staff. 1 3s Table 3 TRAFFIC GENERATION COMPARISON EXISTING MIXED USE VS PROPOSED PRa ECT' USE Total Trips Generated Existing Mixed Proposed Prop Use Retail Single Use Ccmffercial And Retirement is Time Period Restaurant Apart�nen Morn3mg Peak lnbound Hour 1� 14 Outbound Total 18 15 Ev1�Peak Hour 36 9 Outbound 30 11 Total 66 20 nc j Peak 2Inbound 2 w. outbound 13 8 Total 34 31 Evening Peak 2.5 Hours 19 inbound 23 Outbound 60 Total 131 42 flay Traffic 670 338 8 f ( 'J f Parkin Analysis 5. g - Parking Parking for the project will be located in the basement area of the building. An analysis of the parking configuration and internal circulation for the site is not provided in this report because a site plan was not available at the time of project review. The project description does, however, specify that 41 parking spaces will be provided in an underground parking area and that two additional spaces will be provided adjacent to the front entrance. in addition, the project description includes a proposed staffing plan for a 24 hour period. This staffing plan is presented here as Table 4 . To determine the adequacy of on-site parking for this type of retirement housing, the parking for several existing facilities was studied. Data gathered for these facilities suggests there is a wide variation in the ratio of spaces per dwelling unit which provides adequate parking for a retirement fecility. Woodbridge Manor I in the City of 'Irvine is a retirement apartment complex which is representative of a facility for younger, more active seniors. The. complex consists of 100, 575 square foot, one bedroom dwelling units, each containing a kitchen. There is no meal service from a common dining area. The parking for this complex was surveyed by Kunzman Associates at four points in time. Two surveys were designed to determine the maximum parking required by persons living there by conducting them late at night or in the early morning. Two additional surveys were designed to determine the maximum guest parking by conducting them at mid-day Saturday and Sunday. The survey revealed the following: . 1. spaces available on-site: Assigned - 59 Guest - 4 Curb - 12 Total - 75 2. Minimum vehicles parked - 48 3 . Maximum vehicles parked - 56 4 . Maximum vehicles parked per dwelling - 0. 56 5. Maximum spaces per dwelling - 0.75 The management of Woodbridge Manor has stated that all residents desiring parking for vehicles have been accommodated and that residents are not restricted from having a vehicle on-site as a 9 137 condition of their rental . Further , the management has indicated that there has never been a parking problem. All dwelling units of the facility are occupied and there is no full-time bus service provided by the facility . Based on an extended period of successful operation at this facility, a parking to dwelling ratio of 0.75 appears to be very adequate. The parking demand at several other retirement apartment complexes was observed on a Sunday evening. The Newport Villa and Villa West Retirement Hotel is an established facility located in Newport Beach with a total of 173 units of various sizes. Services provided at this facility include full daily meal preparation, transportation service and an on-site beauty/barber shop. This site has a total of 85 parking spaces yielding a ratio of 0 . 50 spaces per unit. on the day that parking demand was observed, approximately 30 percent of the available par spaces were occupied resulting in a ratio of approximately 0I15 ccupied spaces per dwelling unit. Another seniors apartment complex is the Carmel Retirement Village located in Fountain Valley. This relatively new facility contains a total of 189 units ranging in size from 360 square feet to 500 square feet, the majority of ainits being 1 bedroom. Services provided at this facility include full daily meal preparation, on-site beauty/barber shop and transportation service. The 47 parking spaces at the site yield a- ratio of 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit. on the day that parking demand was observed, approximately 45 percent of the available s were occupied resulting in a ratio of approximately 0 .Al occupied spaces per dwelling unit. It should be noted tha rental units at this complex are approximately the same size as the Emerald Village project. The last complex which was observed is the Huntington Terrace Retirement Hotel located in Huntington Beach. The 170 rental units in this complex are approximately the same size, ranging from 300 square feet to 380 square feet. Services at this facility include full daily meal service and an on-site beauty/barber shop . All units have private baths and enettes. This site has a total of 30 spaces for a ratio of 0.18 ¢paces per rental unit. on the day that parking demand was ved, approximately 70 percent of the available parking spaces were occupied resulting in a ratio of 0 . 12 occupied spaces per dwelling unit. The rental units for the Huntington Terrace are also approximately the same size as Emerald Village. Based on the observations and data gathered for the four projects studied, the parking ratio which provides adequate ca-pacity for a given facility may vary widely and may be influenced by a variety of factors. The critical factors appear to be the age of the residents, the size of the dwelling units, and the availability of transportation and full meal services. Larger dwelling units with more active seniors require higher parking- ratios, typically 0.•6 to 0 .75, because they are more likely to maintain a car. Senior residential complexes which 10 I� I cater to a slightly older age group, have smaller dwelling units and provide a full spectrum of services , especially transportation and full meal preparation, require lower parking ratios, typically 0 . 2 to 0. 3 spaces per residential unit. The parking demand at these complexes is due as much or more to the staff parking as it is the resident parking. Because residents of the project are not expected to maintain cars, the demand for parking will be predominantly from staff and visitor parking. A review of the staffing plan, Table 4 , indicates that a maximum of 23 employees are at the facility during the day shift. Assuming that all employees es will arrive by car (which they may not) , P provided at the site will yield 20 spaces available for guest and/or resident parking. The 43 available spaces will result in an actual ratio of 0 . 33 spaces per dwelling unit which should be adequate for a personal care facility of this type. 11 �G 6. Other Traffic Considerations The distribution of traffic which might be expected from the site is as shown in Figure 2 . This distribution was specified by City staff for the purpose of analyzing traffic impacts generated by the project. of interest in the traffic distribution is that to percent of the traffic generated by the project would be expected to travel to and from the city operated oasis Senior Center located at Marguerite Avenue and 5th Avenue. Another 15 percent of the traffic would be distributed to the many shops and businesses distributed westerly along Pacific Coast Highway. Public transit service does exist along this route and trip diversion to this mode of travel is possible. The effect of this would be to reduce auto traffic to and from the site slightly. A very important aspect of the distribution shown is that 90 percent of the traffic generated by the site is oriented to the west of the site. As stated in the previous section, all outbound traffic cannot exit the site directly and proceed westerly due to the raised N: median directly in front of the site. Consistent with this, this traffic will be required to execute some type of U-turn movement on Pacific Coast Highway east of the site. A portion of the traffic would utilize the left turn pocket just to the east of the site while the remainder would utilize the left turn pocket at the signalized intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Cameo Shores Road. It should be noted that the volume of traffic making this U-turn movement will be reduced compared to the existing land use of the site. 13 1 [ Figure 2 Project Traffic Distribution 0 L 25 Boa ro yin d Httls Roa a 30 0� aefc ` Z arb u or �ro V%ey 10 Ori�e 15 (distributed) Soh ea a o OOASIS SENIOR CENTER soe P : �eo`e 10 Boa Olj e 0C .a1G 0 a Boc./e aro. �ro�J�' p iao •,a o Oto Seat' Ro QO ryo� and a Site Legend 15-Percent of Project Traffic PACIFIC 10 OCEAN `�<un3f11aj( v4ssociates 141 7. Conclusions 1. The proposed project will generate less daily and peak period traffic than the existing land use at the site. Traffic impacts will generally be reduced and project generated traffic at all intersections subject to review for the project will not exceed one percent of current volumes. 2 . U-turn movements along pacific Coast Highway from the site will be reduced from current numbers. A 3 . The proposed ratio of 0.33 parking spaces per dwelling unit is adequate for this project. ,k. 15 EMERALD VILLAGE OF CORONA DEL MAR AN ASSISTED CARE FACILITY STAFFING PLAN FOR 85 UNITS STAFFING CODE: Full Shift ' Overlap (1-21-Irs) " AM P M NIGHT Administration Manager Assist. Manager Charge Supervisor Activity Director/Driver Marketing Director(off-site) " Engineer/Driver Receptionist Receptionist Receptionist Trainee Staffing AM Housekeeping/Dining Housekeeping/Dining Housekeeping/Dining Resident Assist. Resident Assist. Resident Assist. Resident Assist. Doorman/Valet PM Housekeeping/Dining Housekeeping/Dining f R Resident Assist. Resident Assist. Doorman/Valet NIGHT Housekeeping/Dining Resident Assist. Resident Assist. KITCHEN Head Chef Cook Baker Cook Assist Cook Assist Dishwasher Dishwasher Total Adm./Staffing Main Shift 1 6 1 0 5 Overlap 2 5 2 1 �3 ` r i 520 De Anza Dr. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Feb. 27, 1989 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: I am writing to you in favor of the Retirement Hotel that the Emerald Associates are proposing to build in Corona del Mar. We have been residents of Corona Highlands for twenty five years and have seen the property at 3900 East Coast Highway go downhill until it is not compatible with the community. I have been to meetings where the developers have presented their plans and am satisfied that they have taken into account the traffic problems of our community and are, addressing this problem. The design of the hotel is very pleasing and I feel will be a real asset to our neighborhood. I feel that a retirement hotel would be an ideal use for this property. Sincerely, 6 QL 0 al"' - A Wesner 9 R ' Pa RID •.• , t7 NE41 "�{ a • �r Ice r � .�LF.d t o�T o t= c•/J �- I��. l 3 Y�c o nV G�co" /F - ""/]o r A5740N_.F ._ o.,oPV 1-JG ��- _J�4..��tl/J _Us•. _�.. �t/.,�dr� ThoJ �t ��' O�-Y wo ut�? . . G4!Zl�.. �(�F�/ . vV/v. .l,�Ioc�l.� �iii//< OF �t CArons t)4 M:,CA 92625 ' MM219M cGt1i',GF� i 0,VUs". O� Po e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U r P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915 NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: Planning Department Q 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 City of Newport Beach 1768 Sacramento, CA 95614 P.O. Box each Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 County Clerk of the County xx of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Emerald Village Use Permit No. PROJECT LOCATION: 3901 East Coast'Highway, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:. Construction of an 85 unit senior citizen personal care ; residence and related off street parking. FINDING: Pursuant to the pfovisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached Initial Study. INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE' RECEIVED FOR FILING: Patricia L Tem 1e Environmental (,Poordinator DATE:February 8, 19$9 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach - / ENVIRONMENTAL cilECKLIST FORM I. Background 1. Name of Proponent [:M"RALU A'560:287-65 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent � S /TEZOO 6W7U NEWR92T gE-AW CA 660 WO1l 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist e/ yarz 1Vka1A9AZ �«tCfl 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable -/ II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No " 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in — geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, 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? e, Any increase in wind or water erosion of Soils, either on or off the site? — f, Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or — any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, — mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ - 1 - Yes Maybe No 2- Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, _ either locally or regionally? 3- Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of / direction of water movements, in either t/ marine or fresh waters? — b. Changes inor the rate and amount ion rates, of ` patterns, surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Mi d, Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Disd'harge' into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground 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? ction in he amount h. water aotherwise ntial uavailable t f for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? - 2 - Yes Mavbe No t,_ plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, S/ shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? v c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? / d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? V 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land / animals including reptiles, fish and shell- _✓ fish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, z• i rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: ✓ a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ b, Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ 7. Light and glare. Will the proposal produce new / light or glare? g. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- _ stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 3 - Yes Maybe No 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 plan? 11, population. Will the proposal alter the location, / distribution, density, or g L� 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 cods?la- tion or movement of people /o g e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?_ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: - 4 - Yes Maybe No a- Fire protection? ✓ b, Police protection? C. Schools? d, Parks or other recreational facilities? — e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: / a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing / sources or energy, or require the development V of new sources of energy? 16. w cyst Wil result in l the new need new systems, or substantial alterations t following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. Water? d, Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? - f. Solid waste and disposal? 17, Human Health. Will the proposal result in? a. Creation of any healthjbazard or potential health heazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 5 - Yes Maybe No 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 Y 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? — ;q 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? 6 - Y=s Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the ✓ future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually pro cumulatively on tw000r siderable? (AA Pject may impact � more separate resources where the impact on - each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial either directly adverse effects on human beings, or indirectly?_ III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination on the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT Dhav�a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE PREPARED. I find that although the proposed project could have a signif- - icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a signifiiccaant effeRT is cequired. 0 t on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL si �--J �QQ� ��P,tll.�anAAAla'�Lo . Signature Date C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For - 7 - 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 3901 E. Coast Highway. The site is 1.54 acres in size, and is between Hazel Drive and Buck Cully on the southerly side of East Coast Highway. A portion of the site consists of engineered and natural slopes leading down to the gully. The proposed project would eliminate the existing on-site land uses (res- taurant and retail stores) and allow construction of, a new 85 room elderly personal care facility. The building would be constructed on five levels and would include 42 parking spaces in a subterranean parking structure. The applications necessary include the approval of a Use Permit to allow the elderly personal care facility, to establish the Planned Community develop- ment Standards for the property and to allow the building to exceed the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District. Also required is the approval of a Traffic Study and the acceptance and certification of this environmental document. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE This site has been the subject of prior environmental analysis for a project of a similar but more intense nature. A Negative D'eclaration'with support- ing Initial Study was previously certified on three occasions. .The techni- cal information prepared previously forms the basis of this initial study, and the previous initial study is hereby incorporated by reference into this P; document as if fully set forth. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Ia. The proposed project will require the excavation of the project site for construction of the elderly personal facility and related subter- ranean parking structure. In association with this grading, the City of Newport Beach will review and approve a detailed soils report. Based on previous studies conducted on the site, the bedrock underlying fill areas of the site is stable and suitable for support of multi- story structures. However, should any fill remain on the site after excavation, it should be recompacted, or replaced with compacted engineered fill. No impacts to the environment are expected since the City of Newport Beach will require a detailed soils report and the issuance of a grading permit prior to commencement of construction of the project, which will assure that the project meets the standards of current building codes. lb. The construction of the proposed project will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil, due to grading and the construction of the proposed building. The project area is, however, in a developed urban environment and no adverse impacts are anticipated (See discussion la above). lc. The project site is currently co vered with a retail building and due to the surface parking lot. There will be a change in topography excavation for the new building and parking structure. This effect is considered insignificant due to the fact that topographic changes will be noticeable only during early construction phases, and will be r r 5 eventually hidden by the new structure. The project site is in an urbanized area, and the surrounding development has similarly altered the topography. le. The project has the potential to increase wind and water erosion, both on and off site. Wind erosion may occur on site during construction. Site watering during excavation will reduce the adverse effect to a level of insignificance. Water erosion could occur as the result of the new construction by possible changes in the drainage patterns of the site, and may also occur during grading. This effect will be reduced to a level of insignificance by specific provisions of an erosion and siltation control plan which will be required as part of the grading permit. if. If soils erosion occurs, the resultant siltation could affect the stream course of Buck Gully. This effect will be reduced to a level of insignificance by specific provisions of an erosion and siltation control plan which will be required as part of the grading permit. IS. In the past, the portion of the property leading down to Buck Gully has experienced slope instability and failure. In the late. 1970's, the slope was completely re-engineered. Since that time the slope has been stable. No impacts to the environment are expected since -the City of Newport Beach will require a detailed soils report and the issuance of a grading permit prior to commencement of construction of the project, which will assure that the project meets the standards of current building codes. 2a,b.The preparation of the site for building construction will produce two types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust generated as a result of soil movement. Exhaust Emissions From Construction Eauivment - Exhaust emissions from construction activities include those associated with the transport of workers and machinery to the site as well as those produced on site as the equipment is used. Fugitive Dust Emissions - Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial temporary impact on local air quality. Emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, grading operations and construction of structures. Dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations and the prevailing weather. Based upon field measurements of suspended dust emissions from apartment and shopping center construction projects, an approximate emission factor for construction operations is 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of construction per month of activity (U.S. EPA, AP-42, 1977) . The emissions produced during grading and construction activities, although of short-term duration, could be troublesome to workers and adjacent developments, even though prescribed wetting procedures are followed. These emissions are not, however, expected to cause ambient air quality standards to be exceeded on site. II / • V l 3b. Development of the proposed project will have an impact on drainage and water quality conditions both during the construction period and on a long-term basis. An increase in the volume of runoff generated on site will be expected due to an increase in impermeable surfaces. The on site drainage pattern for the site is expected to be altered by the proposed new building and parking facility. On site drainage improve- ments will be required to drain the subterranean parking facility and divert storm flows to the appropriate facilities. As discussed previously, the potential for slope failure exists along the Buck Gully portion of the property if not mitigated properly. Therefore, it will be required that runoff from the site be diverted to Coast Highway or to the bottom of Buck Gully through a system of catch basins and pipelines to reduce the amount of water seepage or erosion affecting the slope. The quality of the surface runoff water from the site is expected to improve since less traffic will be generated by the proposed use than the existing, and no surface parking lots are included in the site plan. 6b. The construction and operation of the proposed project will result in short-term construction noise impacts. Additionally, traffic noise from Coast Highway will expose some of the Emerald Village units to adverse noise impacts, even though the project will not contribute to long term increases in the noise environment. The traffic projections for the area indicate that virtually all of the site will experience noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL (unmitigated) . As a result, all units which are exposed to Coast Highway will require sound attenua- tion. Interior units will receive mitigation by the shielding of exterior units. No adverse effects are expected from the project since all units will be sound attenuated to acceptable noise level standards. 7. Construction of the project will change the light and glare currently produced by the site from that of a commercial land use with surface parking to a residential-style use with subterranean parking. This change is not considerd significant. In order to assure that no adverse effect is engendered by the project; external lighting will be required to be designed to prevent light spillage on adjacent proper- ties. 8. Construction of the proposed project will result in a substantial change from the existing land use. The project is, however, consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the use is compatible with the surrounding properties. No adverse effects on the land use of the surrounding area are anticipated. 13a.. The project involves the demolition of an existing commercial building and the construction of a senior personal care facility. Two traffic studies have been completed on similar projects in the past. In each case the study showed that the change in land use would result in a reduction in the potential number of traffic trips from that which would be expected from the existing land uses. No impact is, therefore expected from the proposed project. 13b. The proposed use will generate the demand for parking to serve the residents, visitors and employees of the project. During the course of previous environmental review for similar projects, detailed analyses of the parking for specialized senior citizen housing were conducted. These studies document a parking demand substantially lower than required by regular residential or hotel type uses. This is due primarily to the fact that the market for senior citizen housing with enhanced care is among older and more frail persons who are unlikely to drive. The range of required parking projected for this type of land use ranges from .2 to .4 parking space per room. The proposed parking provision of .5 parking space per unit is considered adequate and no adverse effects on the environment due to parking are anticipated. 14. Conversion of the existing land use to senior citizen housing may change the characteristics of police and fire service provision to the site. There is, however, adequate ability of the City to serve this project and no adverse effects are anticipated. 18. The project involves the replacement of the existing structure on site. The existing structure is a single level and is approximately 2616" in height. The new structure will be five levels and is approximately 40 feet high at the highest point of the roof. The building presents a two to three story elevation from East Coast Highway and a -four story, split level elevation from Buck Gully. The project represents a significant intensification from the existing land use in terms of building mass and bulk. The assessment of the aesthetic impacts of the project flow from the setting of the building in relation to adjoining structures and uses. The site is at the easterly end of the Corona del Mar commercial strip, an area with an allowed floor area ratio of .5/.75. The project meets the floor area standard of .75 allowed for uses with particularly low traffic generating characteristics. The adjacent residential uses in the Corona del Mar area have an allowed floor area intensity of 1.5, which is substantially higher than the proposed project. The Shore- cliffs area across Buck Gully allows approximately 1.2 FAR. Many of the existing developments in the Corona del Mar commercial and residen- tial areas are developed at or above the currently allowed floor area ratios. The proposed building incorporates the use of wood and sloping roof angles, which is compatible with the nearby commercial and residential highway, since a "window" towards the ocean is being maintained along the Coast Highway elevation. The most significant change in the visual environment due to the proposed project is the view of the project from residential properties along Buck Gully. These residences will have a single story elevation replaced with a four story, split level eleva- tion, with the proximity of the building shifted closer to the edge of Buck Gully. The aesthetic trade-offs between the existing and proposed project are between the physical bulk of the building which is more "residential" in its aesthetic character and the existing commercial land use with lighted commercial parking areas, signage and commercial operational jS�I j characteristics. The proposed project incorporates into the design several amenities which enhance the visual character of the structure. The most important of these are the garden at grade level which is over the subterranean parking lot and the view corridor from the public sidewalk on East coast Highway to the ocean. It is important to note that there are no views from autos on the highway to the ocean in this area. The aesthetic impacts of the project are considered an insig- nificant adverse impact. i4 or. n:� MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 2. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering and sweeping program designed to minimize the impact of haul operations. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. The grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be con- ducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on the recommendations of a soil engineer or an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 6. 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 the landscaping with the proposed construc- tion schedule. Prior to the occupancy of any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan. 7 Beaches,dand Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning scape plan shall be subject to the review of the and Public Works Departments. B. All rooftop and other mechanical equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55 dBA at the property line, and that all mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. 9. All units shall be sound attenuated to a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL for interior living areas and 65 dBA CNEL for exterior living areas associated with individual units, as measured from the area expected to experience the highest sound levels. Measurement and certification of compliance with this condition shall be completed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by a registered engineer practicing in acoustics. 10. The lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. MITIGATION MONITORING Mitigation measures 1-5 shall be verified for compliance prior to the issuance of the grading permit by the City of Newport Beach. Measures 6 and 7 shall be verified for compliance prior to the issuance of the building permit by the City of Newport Beach. Measures 5-10 shall be verified for compliance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Newport Beach. D:\WP\ED\EM-TERR.IS ..0 c 1 �° UP33/y Table of Contents Page No. Section 1• Introduction y. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Existing and Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . q . Traffic Generation Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Parking Analysis (>• Other Traffic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, conclusions . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • " " " ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 I `l List of Figures giaure No. Title Paae No. 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . 3 2 Project Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • •14 .J J - ` I List of Tables Table No. Title Page No. 1 Existing Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 y Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Traffic Generation Comparison 8 q Staffing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 i13 1. Introduction This report is an analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed Emerald Village of Corona Del Mar Personal Care Facility n c Phasing accordance theord requirements of the City of Newport The project is proposed for a site which is currently serving another land use. The existing land use generates traffic whiion ch contributes to exis objective of the report is service levels n to determine the tthe system. A primary obj project's traffic impacts relative to this of ect nwillnonlyo he proposed probe As directed by City staff, t liable for traffic impacts which would exceed those generated by the existing land use. N 2. Pro ect Description �I Project Location The project is located at the southeast corner of East Pacific Coast Highway and Hazel Drive in the Corona Del Mar district of Newport Beach (See Figure 1) . Pro posed Development The project is described as a 130 unit personal care residence for senior citizens. The typical dwelling unit is approximately 400 square feet and consists of a single bedroom/bathroom and living room. A minority of the units will be 300 square feet studio apartments. Kitchens will not be provided in any of the units. As a personal care r ity, resident services are at a clhigher level than typically described as being provided available at a congregate care facility while still not providing licensed nursing care. Project facilities include a common dining area for full daily meal service, a beauty/barber shop and linen/laundry services. As is common with senior residential complexes, services include a full time staff and transportation services. The average resident is described as 75 to 80 years of age, single, and no longer maintaining or driving an ambulatory andunot requiringThe nur ing resident is frail but still care. Existing Land Use The project will be constructed on a site which is currently occupied by an existing 12,430 square foohe existing structure with surrounding ground level parking. has been partitioned to provide a mixture of uses. The largest single use is a restaurant of approximately 41930 square feet. Of specialty retail uses square l divided The mixedusefloor pl n representsythe current land use of the site. — 2 I fj Figure 1 Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways ..• pm TFot Woe Father Goadimhon. r 4 mndaty •' `+ se Rood (Far lase UndAdd} ` ° j?o t ....II ® pray Road (Far lase Divided)• _: (Six lane Divided Or Prinory Rood RM1odiFied• „ ,• + �+. w .. Adopted FteeMwy Rmles. r —• j f •�. V Iry st •• : . a t`. a 4 �xq , �y � ! ;y?`�x� 2 shy" ..J • I ••• �•�V�`� �V .. i f • ;�' _ � .� .. + Ti•�\p i ,V iit. \I t4. f[��.'.''ll •t %�t•yi4��r`�I t...,. Ti " • , • ` v^ "` a• �f r`�ff1 1!.tf+ �lF„ wl .. ✓ �� r• P ri �.1a` / •••• 'f++yy F'�!_�.S7n a` t•. r •: r +•ti 7 •`�. % '� r i �•'�_ y fy�jj/ t •aP" q % ►$� •����• y '3�%� f ✓.� yy.FP%'•.. • 1�• \. I y. i .I. `vt�=; s•- . - � -� •,S�•Y .r// �f Ij'.�• •d r,.- 1 .�:•uG . i:. j'�` �......: ... •. I.• t �.�-.. ` ,r C� A~� `� I1I1''jj 7� I'®i .1. 1•w • Ilr '..•1.•_ :'1' " -:t.i) R..- ..:ui t'� C'��1 'aV rf'.. ! :a �.+�•t—fFA ltF° ' r �•+•. SitC \. ''(Ih Ytf114 Vt:::.•. .. •'.:.' • �t1�`� �• .-•-r�• , t lS•�•i;�{•^i �y• - Klfn3mnn cSSO('tAfCS --- 3. Existing and Project Traffic Generation The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are typically expressed in terms of trip ends per person, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, trip ends per dwelling, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor area. Table 1 provides trip generation information for the existing mixed retail commercial and restaurant land use. Table 2 provides trip generation information for the project 130 unit retirement apartment building. 4 ii1 Table 1 MWITING TRAFFIC GENERATION I3 squarree Feeri --rationt Tr Use Gross Floor Area Retail Retail Cormnercial Restaurant Time Period = Restaurant 7500� 4930 Morning Peak Hour 0.7 1.0 6 5 Outba]t1d 0.5 0.5 4 3 Total 1.2 1.5 10 8 Evening Peak Hour Inboubd 1.5 5.0 11 25 0u 2.0 3.0 15 15 Total 3.5 8.0 26 40 a; Morning 2.5 Peak Hour 1.4 2.0 11 10 inbound outbound 1.0 1.0 a 5 2.4 3.0 19 15 Total �— Evening 2.5 Peak HI30 Inbound 3.0 10.0 22 49 Outbound 4.0 6.0 30 Total 7.0 16.0 52 79 Daily Two-Way40.0 75.0 300 370 Traffic Total ��g Table 2 p13a7DGT gRAMC GOURAMON Trips Generated by_130 Dwelling Time Period ppeer�D m1ling.Unit is Morning Peak Hour 0.09 11 nd 0.03 4 ,mil 0.12 15 Eveniig Peak Harz 0.07 9 InboCh-idOlt 0.08 11 Total 0.15 20 Peak 22..5 Hours 0.18 23 inbound td 0.06 8 \ Total0.24 31 f Peak ="Hours 0.15 19 0.1823 y 0.33 42 TraDail O-Wa ffic Total 2.6 338 6 -- q �� 1 4. Traffic Generation Conclusions Table 3 presents a comparison of traffic generation for the existing land use and the proposed project for several time intervals. This comparison indicates that during all time periods,, the project will generate less traffic than generated currently by the existing retail shops and restaurant. on a daily basis, the project will g the site. proposed only half as much traffic as currently generated On the basis of the above conclusion, the those proposed project will not Produce traffic they will in fact bects greater reduced haTheuoverall exist for the site; of the level of service for intersectionsthe Project- For thisreason project should not be impaired by the one percent analysis was not performed for the intersections identified by city staff. J 7 / ZO Table 3 TRAFFIC GEMMMON CCHPARISON EUSMr. MDW USE VS PROPOSED PRO= USE Total Trips Generated U m Mixed i single Use Cial And Retirement Time Period Restaurant r ninc Hour!hboufid11 14 Outbound 7 Total 18 15 Evening Peak Hour 36 9 Outd 30 11 Total 66 20 Morning Peak t' 2.5 Hours 23 gtd 13 8 Total 34 31 Peak 2IIn H� 23 Outbound 60 Total 131 42 :] Ig?Zay Traffic 670 338 g -- • � t F 5. Parking Analysis Parkin Parking for the project will be located in the basement area of the building. An analysis of the parking configuration and internal circulation for the site is not provided in this report becausct review. The project description doeslehowever, specify th at the time of at a site plan was not hat41 parking spaces will be provided in an underground parking area and that two additional spaces will be provided adjacent to the front entrance. In addition, the project description includes a proposed staffing plan for a 24 hour period. This staffing plan is presented here as Table 4. To determine the adequacyparkingnfortsev several parking existi'ng fa for this i ities Of retirement housing, the was studied. Data gathered for these facilities- suggests there variationis a wide ratio which providesadequate parkingforoa retirement facility.tf cility dwelling unit Woodbridge Manor I in the City of Irvine is a retirement apartment complex which is representative of a facility for nM1 younger, more active seniors. The complex consists of 1001 575 square foot, one bedroom dwelling units, each containing a kitchen. There is no meal service from a common dining area. The parking for this complex was surveyed by Kunzman Associates at four points in time. Two surveys were designed s iggnie to living there determine the maximum parking required by p by conducting them late at night or in the early morning. Two additional surveys were designed to determine the maximum guest parking by conducting them at mid-day Saturday and Sunday. The survey revealed the following: 1. Spaces available on-site: Assigned - 59 Guest - 4 Curb - 12 Total - 75 2. Minimum vehicles parked - 48 3. Maximum vehicles parked - 56 4. Maximum vehicles parked per dwelling - 0.56 5. Maximum spaces per dwelling - 0.75 The management of Woodbridge Manor has stated that all residents desiring parking for vehicles have been accommodated and that residents are not restricted from having a vehicle 'on-site as a 9 /�z condition of their rental . Further , the management has here has never been a parking problem. All indicated that t dwelling units of the facility arethe facility d Based on an full-time bus service provided by extended period of successful operaetio to be very at this facilit e. a parking to dwelling ratio of 0.75 appt ent apartment The parking demand at several other reti The Newport Villa complexes was observed on a Sunday evening. facility and Villa West Reirement Hotel is located in Newportt tBeach with a totalaofe173bunits of various facilitythis full daily sizes. Services provided ortation servi include service and an on-site meal preparation, beauty/barber shop. This site has a total of 85 parking spaces on the that yielding a ratio - of 0 . 50 spacceessrpe m nBly 30 percentaof the parking demand was observed, availaleed re approximately k0. 15 occupied spaces saces wereupi per dwelling nun t a ratio of Another seniors apartment complex is the Carmel Retirement Village located in Fountain Valley. This relatively new facility contains a total of 189 units ranging in size from 360 square feet to 500 square feet, the majority of units being 1 bedroom. Services provided at this facility barber shop and include full u lda transportation meal preparation, on-site beauty/ service. The 47 parking spaces at the site yield a ratio of s err spaces per dwelling unit. On the day that parking demand was observed, approximately 45 percent of the available approximately p0 . 11 were occupied resulting in a ratio of occupied spaces per dwelling unit• roximatelyit should btheosame that the eas rental units at this complex are app the Emerald Village project. Thelast tcomplex which was oHuntington Beach. Thet Terraceon 170rental Retirement units in this complex are approximately the same size, ranging s at this feet to 3are feet. from 300 square 80 squeal m serviceservi and can on-site facility include full daily l units have private baths and beauty/barber shop . Al kitchenettes. This site has a total of 3tataces for demand was _ 0. 18 spaces per rental unit. On the day h observed, approximately 70 percent of the available parking 2 occupied spaces were dwelling r unit.su Then rental unitso for the Huntington Of 0 - 1 spaces p Terrace are a3so approximately the same size as Emerald Village. Based on the observations and data gathered for the four projects studied, the parking ratio which provides adequate 1 vary widely and may be capacity for a given facility may y influenced by at variety of factors. The critical factors appear to be the age of the residents, the size and f of e dmeawe llservices. and the availability of transportation active seniors require higher Larger dwelling units with more are more parking ratios, typically 0. 6 to 0.75 , because they Senior residential complexes which likely to maintain a car. 10 - h� r cater to a slightly older age group, have smaller dwelling units and provide a full spectrum of services , especially ratios, typion and full meal ically 0.2 to 0 3 spaces per ,resid ntialirewunitarkThe ratios, typ parking demand at these complexes is due as much or more to the staff parking as it is the resident parking. " \ Because residents of the project are not expected to maintain cars, the demand for parking will be predominantly from staff and visitor parking. A review of the staffing plan, Table a , indicates that a maximum of 23 employees are at the facility during the day shift. Assumiththatpaall employees ng es will prov arrive by car (which they may not) , e 43 the site will yield 20 spaded at ces available for guest and/or aces will result in an The 43 available actualnratiokOfg0.33 spaces per dwelling unit which should be adequate for a personal care facility of this type. — 1l Table 4 • STAFFING PLAN amreld Village of Came Det Mar Staffing Plan F rP��l Care Facility Shift staff Description Deys/ k Hrs/Day Mi PM Night Office/Ad inistratim 5manager 8 Assiit. MwMar 5 8 *k Adnin. Assist./C wge SLpervisa 5 Hmsekeepirgl tstess S�S� 90r 5 S wk w Activity Drrecta/Driver Marketing Directs' (Off-site) 5 B Ergireer/Driver we Receptionist Receptionist wk Receptionist 5 8 Receptionist 5 8 Receptionist NcxAeepirgMinirg/Resid3t Assist: , HcksekeepiroM nirg 5 ,* Hoisekeepirg/Dinirg 8 Hosekeepirg/Dining 5 e HasekeepireMinirg w* HmsekeepingMining we Resident Assist 5 wR Resident Assist , Resident Assist Resident Assist wr Nas�ilrgminirg 5 s *sir HasekeepingMinirg 5 8wR Resident Assist. 5 ** Resident Assist. 5 wn ��ilrgMinirg 5 B wk Resident Assist. w* Resident Assist. 5 8 Kitchen: 4 10Head ** Cook Cook 4 10 w � Baker w* cock Assist 4 10 Cook Assist 3 10 Cock Assist ww Dishwasher 3 10 ** Dishwasher staff &Visits Parkirg schedule ** 3 Full Time 10 4 * overlap Tine 3 9 4 Average Gtest Visits Per Shift 10 12 3 Total Re4*um is (rote, not 33 31 11 (all enplvreas have car) _— 6. Other Traffic Considerations The distribution of traffic which might be expected from the site is as shown in Figure 2. This distribution was specified by City Staff for the purpose of analyzing traffic impacts generated by the project. of interest in the traffic distribution is that to percent of the traffic generated by the project would be expected to travel to and from the city operated oasis Senior Center located, at Marguerite Avenue and 5th Avenue. Another 15 percent of the traffic would be distributed to the many shops and businesses transit service Public does e along al along n distributed we this route d Highway.trip exist diversion tto o thisredu mode of travel is possible. o traffic to thThsite slightly. affect would be shown is 90 A ercent f the trafficcgener generated by the siten t is oriented to the west of the site. As stated in the previous section, all outbound traffic cannot exit the site directly and proceed westerly due to the raised median directly in front of the site. ConsistentewiofhUtturn this traffic will be required to execute some typ ^; movement on Pacific Coast Highway east of the site. A portion of the traffic would utilize the left turn pocket just to the east of the site while the remainder would utilize the left turn pocket at the signalized intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Cameo Shores Road. it should be noted that the volume of traffic making la d use u-turn the site.movement will be reduced compared to he ting - 13 Figure 2 Project Traffic Distribution h �D 25 boa Hills Road p30 Crf re , ar(p u Or ate f'iek 10 Orr�e 15 (distributed) S t� @d c OOASIS SENIOR CENTER S%ae p N �e 10 Boa Or%e �C �a Ocean P �e O� seeMa rtl Roa Qo tie` Site Legend 15•Percent of Project Traffic PACIFIC 10 OCEAN - - �J\II{tahlQli ��SSOCIQfCS -- 7. Conclusions 1. The proposed project will generate less daily and peak period traffic than the Traffic impacts will generally existinbe reducedland useaandhproject s subject review generated traffic will not exceedone percent of o for the projectcurrent volumes. cific coast 2. will be m reduced ntsfrom ncurrent numbers. Highway from the site 3. The proposed ratio of 0.33 parking spaces per dwelling unit is adequate for this project. _ 15