Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO058_NEWPORT IMPORTS RESTAURANT IIII811IIII III IIIII MIIIII IIIII Illnl IIII III IIh rroosa FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 58 AND USE PERMIT NO. 3229 (AMENDED) APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 30, 1989 A. Traffic Stuff No. 58: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary-modified', or 'primary' street. B. Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended): Approve the use permit, making the following findings and with the following conditions: Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking exists to serve the subject restaurant. 4. The off-site parking areas are located so as to be useful to the proposed restaurant use. 5. Parking on such off-site parking areas will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 6. That the restaurant site and the off-site parking areas are in the same ownership. 7. That the requested security lighting adjacent to Avon Street will be operated so as not be objectional to residential properties on Cliff Drive and from the public view park on the same street. 8. That the subject project increases traffic on Avon Street which may result in the need to provide a traffic signal in the future. i 9. The waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls and parking lot illumination will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties. 10. The approval of Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) under the circumstances of this case will not 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. 11. That the applicant's intended use of the property located at 2912 West Coast Highway for off-site parking in conjunction with the proposed restaurant will nullify the previous approval of Site Plan Review No. 49, Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 and Traffic Study No. 48 (Revised) inasmuch as there is insufficient parking on said property to satisfy the parking requirements of both projects. CONDITIONS: 1. That the subject project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and restaurant floor plan. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3229 shall be fulfilled and shall remain in effect. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from view. 4. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odor and smoke to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 5. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 6. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 7. That all restaurant employees shall park their vehicles in the off-site parking areas. 8. That a minimum of one parking space shall be provided for. each 40 sq.ft. of "net public area" (33 spaces) in the proposed restaurant facility. 9. That the hours of operation of the restaurant use shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. 10. That a trash compactor shall be installed in the restaurant facility. 11. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 12. That the service of alcoholic beverages shall be incidental to the primary food service operation. 13. That all signs shall conform with Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code unless a sign exception is approved. That no signs shall be erected until permittee has complied with Conditions No. 7, 14, 15, 20, and 21. 14. The applicant shall record a covenant, guaranteeing that the subject parcels used for off-site parking for the restaurant shall remain in the same ownership as the property on which the restaurant is located. 15. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the off-site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 16. That the on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 17. That prior to the issuance of any building permits or implementation of this Use Permit, the applicant shall dedicate to the City for street and highway purposes, the applicant's interest in the strip of land (varies in width between 15.4 feet and 16 feet) adjacent to West Coast Highway and across the West Coast Highway frontage. The strip is to be used in the future for the widening of West Coast Highway. That portion of the existing structure at the southeasterly corner of the property that is in the dedication area may remain until West Coast Highway is widened. The public agency doing the roadway widening will perform the modifications to remove interfering portions. 18. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 19. That a standard Subdivision Agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 20. That the intersection of Avon Street and the driveway shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty � J -four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 21. That the existing median island in West Coast Highway shall be extended 35 feet westerly and that vehicular access to West Coast Highway be limited to right turn in and out and signs be posted to indicated this restriction. 22. That the sidewalk be reconstructed to a 12 foot width and the existing drive depression be removed and replaced by a drive conforming to City Standard 166-L along the West Coast Highway frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 23. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be approved by the Public Works, Planning, and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the prepared plans. 24. That 25 percent of the cost of a traffic signal at Riverside Avenue and Avon Street be bonded for in case traffic signal warrants are met within 5 years after a certificate of occupancy is issued for the development. 25. That site drainage flowing toward West Coast Highway be collected in a drain and conveyed to the existing storm drain in the highway. 26. That the development standards pertaining to walls and parking lot illumination are hereby waived. 27. That the overhead utility lines serving the off-site parking areas shall be placed underground and the poles removed. 28. The applicant shall make all required alterations to that portion of the building used for restaurant purposes which may be determined to be necessary by the Building and Fire Departments. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for all such alterations. 29. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building permits or opening of the restaurant. 30. That Condition No. 13 of Use Permit No. 3229, approved by the City Council on March 23, 1987, is amended to read as follows: "That the illumination of automobile display areas shall be maintained in such a manner so as to eliminate direct light and glare on adjoining properties northerly of Avon Street and on West Coast Highway. All lighting facing toward the bluff at the rear of the site, except for approved security lighting, shall be turned off by a timer at 10:00 p.m. each night. The five existing security lights at the rear of the building, shall be maintained and operated in a manner so as not to be objectional to the adjoining residential properties on the bluff side of Cliff Drive." 31. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 32. Implementation of Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) as approved by the Planning Commission on September 7, 1989, shall nullify the previous approval of Site Plan Review No. 49, Vesting Resubdivision No. 876, and Traffic Study No. 48 (Revised.) 33. The applicant shall immediately cease operating the facility as a public restaurant, and that this application shall be reviewed by the City Council on January 8, 1990, to enable the City Council to ensure that the applicant has complied with all aspects of this use permit, specifically Finding No. 6, and Condition of Approval No. 14. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES C, Sy N� S 0O '� Zso2 G�3 9p9-P t0 October 30, 1989 ROLL CALL INDEX 6. Sustain the action of the U/P 3361 Planning Commission and approve Site Plan Review No. 52, Use Permit No. 3361, Traffic Study No. 59 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 18, with added Conditions No. 11 and 12 on Use Permit No. 3361 prohibiting charter boat operations on the site and requiring the commercial and marina parking to be provided at no charge; and 7. Property owner shall provide on—site receptacles that will permit residents to recycle aluminum, glass, and newspaper, and arrange for pickup of recyclables on a timely basis. Council Member Watt emphasized her desire to have the Council consider, at some point in time, the issue of employee transportation in general, and participation in the Transportation Resource Center. Mayor Strauss commented that he felt this project was "well done;" however, he is concerned about the height of the structure and does not want this project to set a precedent for future projects on the waterfront. The staff reviewed again the proposed view corridor, noting the minimum width of 100 feet on the ground level with a minimum of 50 feet on the second and third floors. It was also pointed out that the parking structure is all subterranean. All Ayes There being no further comments, the motion was voted on and carried. 5. Mayor Strauss opened the public hearing U/P 3329(A and City Council review of an APPEAL by (88) JAL' D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. , from the approval by the Planning Commission on September 7, 1989, of TRAFFIC STUDY NO. Trfc Stdy 58 AND USE PERMIT NO. 3229 (AMENDED) , 58 requests of Lee West, Newport Beach, to convert an approved employees' cafeteria into a restaurant facility, with on—sale beer and wine, which will operate in conjunction with an auto dealership located at 3000 West Coast Highway, on Volume 43 — Page 419 CITY OF NEWPORT BtACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CALL V9 �tp October 30, 1989 INDEX the northerly side of West Coast Highway U/P 3329(A) between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue in Mariners Mile; zoned SP-5. Report from the Planning Department. Appeal application of Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D. The City Clerk reported that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received from the appellant, Dr. James D. Vandersloot regarding his appeal. A letter was also received from Mariners Mile Business and Resident Beautifi- cation Association in support of Lee West's project. In reviewing the Planning Commission recommendation, it was noted that at its meeting of September 7, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended the approval of Traffic Study No. 58 and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) to convert an approved employees' cafeteria of an existing auto dealership into a restaurant facility with on-sale beer and wine, with the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval as indicated in the excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes. It was the determination of a majority of the Planning Commissioners that the project conformed with the requirements of the General Plan and the Zoning Code, and that there were no Findings to deny the applicant's request. The approval also included Condition of Approval No. 32 on Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) that nullifies the previous approval of Site Plan Review No. 49, Vesting Resubdivi- sion No. 876 and Traffic Study No. 48 (Revised) that permitted the construction of a retail-office building on the adjoining property to the east. Said property is now being purchased by the applicant as an off-site parking lot for the restaurant use in the auto dealership facility. A modification to the original use permit is also being proposed which would permit security lighting to remain on all night. Presently, the security lighting is turned off at 10:00 p.m. , and as a result, some vandalism has occurred on the property. Dr. Jan D. Vandersloot, appellant, 2221 16th Street, addressed the Council and reviewed some of the background Volume 43 - Page 420 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \LL '�� 4P -JV�0 G�j► 9 9�ROLL � Z� 3O'A GIN October 30, 1989 INDEX connected with the opening of the Jaguar U/P 3329(A) Diner which, he stated, has been operating illegally since last Spring. A lawsuit was filed by the City, but not pursued into court. In the meantime, the dealership commissioned its own traffic study (No. 58) which split off the diner from the dealership. The Planning Commission then accepted said traffic study and approved the project. In view of the Commission's action, he would like the Council to request a new traffic study which includes both the dealership and the diner. He stated that his main objection to the subject use permit is that the traffic study approved by the Commission is inaccurate and incomplete. In addition, the applicant Lee West, is getting off "scot=free" while violating his use permit. Dr. Vandersloot explained the reasons he felt that Traffic Study No. 58 was not acceptable as enumerated in his letter to the City Council dated October 30, 1989. He also pointed out that Traffic Study No. 49 done in July, 1988 by DKS Associates for the City, included both dealership and diner, and concluded that traffic from both entities tripped the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the PM peak hour at Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue, and as a result, the addition of the diner to the dealership was denied. He stated that in comparing both traffic studies, No. 49 vs. No. 58, there are large differences which he summarized. In conclusion, Dr. Vandersloot requested the following: 1. An independent traffic study done for the City, not for Newport Imports, because of the inherent conflict of interest posed by the consultant hired by the dealership. 2. The study should include both diner and dealership since both were built together. Project volumes should be dealership and diner. 3. An explanation from staff why regional growth volumes decreased by 50% while existing traffic volumes decreased by only 5% for the critical WT movement. Volume 43 - Page 421 CITY OF N•EWPO.RT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES .o m� y � 4 Gyy�y�o� �Gyy�O� y� ?� F F October 30, 1989 ROLL CALL 9 �' INDEX 4. An explanation from staff why IU/P 3329(A) committed project volumes have been reduced by 17% while For Lease signs still show less than full occupancy at buildings such as the Chart House and John Dominis building on Mariners Mile. 5. If existing traffic is down, if regional growth traffic is down, and if committed project traffic is down, all according to traffic study No. 58, should we conclude that our traffic problems on Mariners Mile are over? 6. A procedure whereby independent traffic studies done for the City of Newport Beach are required for the TPO. 7. A procedure whereby projects are not allowed to be split up when doing traffic studies for the TPO. S. Occupancy rates of committed projects be confirmed other than simple telephone calls to the leasing agent. 9. Substantial fines to be levied against violators of Use Permits to prevent scofflaws from going scot—free when violating the permit procedure such as the current case. 10. Restrict the hours of operation so as to avoid the PM peak hour at Coast Highway and Riverside, as suggested by Ruby's last year. 11. That the City pursue the acquisition of parking spaces available on the Shokrian property from the off—street parking fund in order to secure parking permanently. Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer, addressed the Council and stated that the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Council Policy S-1, which are administrative guidelines, are very specific as to how traffic studies are to be carried out in terms of land uses, Volume 43 — Page 422 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \LL 0`�'Oy G'l� October 30, 1989 ROLL F FP N INDEX trip generation and trip distribution, U/P 3329(A) as well as the method of calculation in evaluating traffic impacts of a particular project. While Traffic Study No. 58 was not done by a consultant hired by the City, it is a consultant who the City has hired in the past. He advised that his office reviewed the traffic study in detail to be sure that the assumptions and calculations in the study were reasonably accurate. As a result of that review, he has no questions as to its validity of the method used. In response to some of the comments made by Dr. Vandersloot, he stated' he concurs in the recommendation that an independent consultant should be hired by the City to conduct traffic studies in the future, and it is a proposal to be considered by the Council at their next study session as a revision to Policy S-1. With regard to the recommendation that the diner and the dealership be considered as a package in the traffic study, he stated that in the 1988 traffic study, the two issues were combined into one. However, in the recent traffic study, the diner and the dealership were split due to the dealership being open prior to the diner. Another proposed revision to Council Policy S-1 is that traffic generated by both existing and proposed land uses shall be evaluated for any project proposed subsequent to, and within the time frame for analysis used by (one year subsequent to the anticipated date of occupancy) , a previously approved traffic study. Pertaining to decreases in regional volume which was reduced by 50%, he stated the reason for this decrease was that the earlier traffic study looked at a two-year time frame from the time the study was done to one year beyond completion, whereas in the second traffic study, the facility was essentially in place and only analyzed as a one-year time frame. Existing traffic volumes also decreased when in-field traffic counts were completed this past Spring. The numbers at the intersection of Riverside and Coast Highway were lower than the previous year, and were counted twice for accuracy. With regard to committed traffic volumes, these are traffic volumes from all the projects approved by the City which have not yet been fully occupied. Volume 43 - Page 423 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES �� s PO G� �Z Z4 r0 ROLL CALL Z� � October 30, 1989 N INDEX In response to Council inquiry, Mr. U/P 3329(A) Edmonston stated that if this project was being considered on a first—time basis, both the diner and the dealership would be studied together in the traffic study. With regard to the Shokrian property being considered as a committed project, he stated that when his office reviewed the traffic study, the property was counted as a committed project initially, but has been eliminated and recalculated and the ICU for the PM peak hour is now .88. During discussion among the Council the City Attorney pointed out for the benefit of those in the audience as well as television viewers, that the project being considered at this time is not the same project that was before the Council two years ago. The matter under consideration this evening involves acquisition of the site adjacent to the dealership, the provision of parking, and the removal of the old China Palace. It was also brought out that when the original use permit was denied for this project because it failed to meet the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the applicant pursued the acquisition of the Shokrian property for parking purposes, and hired Mr. Darnell to perform a new traffic study to determine if that study would reduce it below the .90 which was required by the TPO, prior to actually purchasing the property, and was the reason the City did not perform the traffic study. However, the basic data that was used for that study was obtained from the City Traffic Engineer. Council Member Watt indicated she had some reservations as to how staff uses the TPO and the method in which it is "almost manipulated" in some cases. She also discussed the way in which committed projects are calculated, and stated she felt Council Policy S-1 should be revised to "go beyond what has already been set forth." Dick Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive, addressed the Council in support of the appeal and the request for a new traffic study. He stated he supported the applicant's original plan two years ago when the restaurant was to be an employees' diner and not open to the public. He also Volume 43 — Page 424 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \LL9�gy�0�ROLL 4N October 30, 1989 INDEX stated that he. had no objection to the U/P 3229(A) differ being open to the public, but he did strongly object to the manner in which it was converted. He questioned if the applicant has actually purchased the Shokrian property as referenced earlier, and if so, will the proposed off-site parking agreement expire in five years? Regarding the request to allow the security lighting to remain on all night, he stated he had no objections, providing the lighting is adjusted downward due to the glare. The City Attorney responded that the provision of parking off-site on the parcel other than where the restaurant is located, requires the development of an off-site parking agreement between the owner of the property and the City, and provides that if parking is lost for any reason the restaurant operator has two options, i.e., to close the operation or restrict it so that it conforms to the code in terms of parking, or provide substitute parking. The off-site parking agreement is recorded so that subsequent purchasers of the off-site lot are on notice that their use of the property is restricted by the agreement. He also referenced Condition No. 14, which states: "The applicant shall record a covenant, guaranteeing that the subject parcels used for off-site parking for the restaurant shall remain in the same ownership as the property on which the restaurant is located." In addition, Finding No. 6 reads: "That the restaurant site and the off-site parking areas are in the same ownership." Janine Gault, 406 San Bernardino Avenue, representing the Board of Directors of the Newport Heights Community Association, addressed the Council and stated the Board of Directors were very disturbed over the fact that the City, in their opinion, has allowed Lee West to operate a public diner illegally without the benefit of approved permits. They are also concerned as to why the applicant has not been fined, or punished for violation of his use permit, and felt the City Attorney should have pursued the lawsuit against Mr. West. Volume 43 - Page 425 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES Z G 9Z�Zi1+O G,L4 tf+� October 30, 1989 INDEX ROLL CALL �� In response to the above comments, Mayor IU/P 3229(A) Strauss informed Ms. Gault that the staff is now in the process of preparing some type of document which will fine violators of future use permits. The City Attorney also reported, for the record, that he had written a letter to the Newport Heights Community Association explaining his reasons for not pursuing the lawsuit against Mr. West. Richard Dear, One Wilshire Blvd. , Los Angeles, representing the applicant Lee West, addressed the Council and advised that Mr. West has purchased the Shokrian property adjacent to Newport Imports and said property is in escrow. Mr. West presently has the "right of possession," which means that Mr. West has the right to enter onto the property and demolish the existing old China Palace, providing necessary permits are obtained. He stated it is his understanding that the subject property will be used for dealership and restaurant parking. He is hopeful escrow will close prior to the end of this year. David Purves, 532 Vista Grande, owner of Quality One—Hour Photo at 149 Riverside Avenue, addressed the Council in support of Mr. West's project. He stated he felt the traffic study was valid and that Newport Imports should be allowed to continue its operation of a public diner. Marian Rayl, 426 San Bernardino, addressed the Council in support of Dr. Vandersloot's appeal. She discussed increased traffic on Riverside Avenue; felt more traffic will be generated as a result of the diner which will exit and enter on Avon Street; does not want to see Mariners Mile overbuilt; and felt a portion of the Shokrian property will eventually be developed which could mean a traffic light at Avon and Riverside Avenues. Pat Hollander, 213 Via Dijon, addressed the Council in support of the appeal. She stated that Mr. West is presently "breaking the law," and questioned what will stop him from continuing to violate City regulations if this project is approved. She read a prepared statement Volume 43 — Page 426 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES G \ON �A S �p 4c �,y f�N October 30, 1989ROLL CALL �P INDEX regarding legality and upholding the U/P 3229(A) law, and stated she felt every individual should be accountable to the law. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, addressed the Council neither for nor against the appeal. He indicated he felt that sometimes the law is unjust, and asked questions regarding the Shokrian property. Dr. Vandersloot addressed the Council again, and stated that the, Shokrian property does not really impact the current traffic study; a restaurant cannot be build on the old China Palace property; committed project traffic should account for both dealership and the restaurant in the traffic study; and the independent traffic study consultant is critical because he is the one who determines the distribution of the traffic. Bill Darnell, Traffic Engineer who prepared the current traffic study, addressed the Council and stated that in the committed projects traffic, 98% of the Newport Imports was included, even though it was calculated six months after Mr. West had opened. He stated that he basically tried not to change any of the parameters of generation rates that were used in the previous traffic study, and obtained all of the background information, existing counts, etc., from the City's Traffic Division. 'He also discussed some technical aspects of the traffic study as referenced by Dr. Vandersloot. Robert Blake, 633 Lido Park Drive, addressed the Council and stated that Mr. West has shown a "blatant disregard for public policy," and if he is allowed to continue to violate City regulations, it could set a precedent. Jim Evans, Manager of Mariners Mile Marine Center, addressed the Council in support of Mr. West's project. He stated he felt Mr. West was in compliance with all aspects of the project and should be permitted to continue his operation, based on the merits of the current traffic study,. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Volume 43 — Page 427 C`fTY OF NEWPORT BkACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES �� s o 4 15 N OL October 30, 1989 ROLL CALL �� INDEX Council Member Sansone indicated he felt U/P 3229(A) the Council had been "lied to" by Mr. West, initially regarding the employees cafeteria, which is actually a public restaurant, and questioned the City Attorney if the Council had to "stick by" that decision since Mr. West violated the conditions of his use permit. The City Attorney reminded the Council that the project under consideration at this time is not identical to the project approved by the Council two years ago, when the Jaguar dealership first came before the Council. What is on the agenda for approval this evening is a use permit involving the ownership of adjacent property and a provision of parking on said adjacent parcel. He stated that he agrees with Council Member Sansone regarding the representations made by Mr. West at the time the Jaguar dealership was approved; however, he was unsure as to what legally can be done about that at this time, inasmuch as Mr. .West has acquired property for parking purposes which now satisfies the requirements of the use permit, as well as the TPO. Motion x Council Member Sansone stated that he did not 'know how the Council could act on the subject use permit due to the past history of Mr. West and misrepresentation of the diner. He added that inasmuch as the Shokrian property has not yet closed escrow, he is "leery" of approving anything at this time, and therefore moved to delay action on, this issue until escrow has actually closed on the Shokrian property. It was indicated by the City Attorney that inasmuch as there are no grounds for denial of the subject use permit, the Council may wish to approve the application with the provision that Mr. West cease operation of the diner as a public restaurant until the close of escrow on the Shokrian property. The Planning Director explained the reasons Condition No. 14 was worded in such a manner, noting that when the amended use permit was submitted to the Planning Commission, it was represented to the City that Mr. West already owned the Shokrian property. The fact that the Shokrian property was a parcel Volume 43 — Page 428 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \LLo \"xP n0 9� 7�Gt0October 30, 1989 ROLL O INDEX separate from the original parcel 'upon U/P 3229(A) which Mr. West built the automobile agency, instead of requiring Mr. West to enter into an off-site parking agreement which would be a three-way agreement between the owner of the off-site lot, the owner of the parcel where the restaurant was going to be developed, and the City, a condition was formulated requiringthe owner to record the covenant guaranteeing to the City that Mr. West would hold the two parcels as a single building site, or as in this case, one ,parcel for parking and one parcel for a restaurant. He stated that the fact the Planning Commission approved the project didn't necessarily hinge on Whether or not Mr. West owned the Shokrian property, leased the property, or had a right to occupy the property. Council Member Watt stated' she felt the City Council should begin to .clarify the future of the Mariners Mile, and "stop acting as if the City may or may not widen Coast Highway." It is her belief that the City's goal in Mariners Mile is to retain it as a destination area with ,a village that works for the people. She felt the City Council wants to retain landscaped parking lots throughout the area; they don't want the widening of Pacific Coast Highway because it would increase the speedway; the streetscape, sidewalk and bikeways would be lost. She also felt there were findings for denial in that the traffic study is not adequate. She stated she concurs with Council Member Sansone that this item could be delayed until the escrow closes on the Shokrian property, but at that time there are mitigating things that have to happen to make the condition meet City goals. She felt the Shokrian property should be retained for parking and not developed for a two year period. She stated she would like to promote the provision for bicycles along Mariners Mile and participation in the Transportation Resource Center so that the City can eliminate some of the need for traffic and parking; and further, she would like the staff to review the method of traffic analysis (TPO) once again, taking into consideration all the points which have been brought up, including the consultant's letter which came in after Dr. Vandersloot's package, Volume 43 - Page 429 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES Gay \0% 0\PAP0\ 9� October 30, 1989ROLL CALLINDEX and that a process should begin that U/P 3229(A) would review the entire Coast Highway issue as to its widening. Council Member Hart stated that Council Member Watt's comments are worthy of consideration, as they have been in the past regarding Mariners Mile. However, the City Council continues to go on record as not favoring the widening of Coast Highway in Mariners Mile, but advised that it is an issue being analyzed again by the Mariners Mile business people. The City has had a history of not condemning property, and she felt this was also not the time or place to do it. She stated that according to the Planning Commission's review, and for all intents and purposes of the law, the applicant has complied with the requirements of the General Plan and the Zoning Code, and therefore, she does not see how the City Council can deny this project, particularly since there are no findings for denial. Also, she felt the ,amount of traffic this project generates seems to be mitigated by the number of conditions of approval imposed by the City staff and Planning Commissiop. The City Attorney reiterated again that because of a very complicated history connected with this issue during the past 8 to 12 months, this item has become very compl$x and as a result, it is not an easy decision for the City Council. The fa# that the applicant opened a public restaurant contrary to the Council's expressed decision is clouding the issue. He recognizes the fact that the Council, as well as a number of residents, are upset that Mr. West has continued to operate the public diner, and therefore, he suggested that the Council impoee a condition whereby there shall' be no-further operation of a public restaurant until the conditions of the use permit have been satisfied, which could at lefst put a stop to what Mr. West has con4nued to do which has caused such anger, He stated that he has talked with toe Traffic Engineer and other staff membets about this project, and cannot come uj with findings for denial, and with tll due respect to Council Member Wait, he felt the City Council cannot deny this project on the basis that it so*how has an incremental Volume 43 - page 430 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES G� y�fG;�\4PO\ 13'AcROLL CALL � �P October 30, 1989 INDEX effect on the traffic on Pacific Coast U/P 3229(A) Highway and may induce some widening. The City's Master Plan calls for six lanes on Pacific Coast Highway through Mariners Mile, and the existing use permit is conditioned upon the property owner's dedication of additional right- of-way to widen Pacific Coast Highway, and is conditioned in that manner because the use permit has to be consistent with the City's General Plan. The City Council also cannot, in his opinion, restrict the use of the property adjacent to the dealership for a period of time in an effort to try to force the property owner to come to the City and enter into some agreement about the use of those additional parking spaces that are shown on the site plan. In conclusion, he recommended that the Council look at this project as it has been submitted, given the conditions of approval, and assuming those conditions of approval will be satisfied. Motion x 4 Following discussion, a substitute motion was made to sustain the decision of the Planning Commission; with the addition of Condition of Approval No. 33, which states that "the applicant shall immediately cease operating the facility as a public restaurant, and that this application shall be reviewed by the City Council on January 8, 1990, to enable the City Council to ensure that the applicant has complied with all aspects of this use permit, specifically Finding No. 6, and Condition of Approval No. 14." Mr. Dear, representing Lee West, applicant, addressed the Council after conferring with his client, and advised that Mr. West will not agree to the additional condition as stated by Council Member Turner, inasmuch as he feels he has met the requirements of the City to operate a public restaurant. in essence, Mr. West is not going to close down the diner nor cease what he is doing at •the present .time. s In view of the foregoing comments, 1f Council Member Turner withdrew his substitute motion. ggg� Volume 43 - Page 431 I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES 9 A�f A ROLL L � Z J� October 30, 1989 INDEX CALZ � �� Discussion ensued, wherein the City U/P 3229(A) Attorney suggested that the City Council approve the use permit, subject to the provisions set forth in the foregoing by Council Member Turner, even though Mr. West has stated through his attorney he will not comply with the condition to cease operation of the public restaurant. Following consideration, Council Member Turner asked the City Attorney if he resubmitted his substitute motion as stated above, would the City Attorney feel comfortable going into court to get an injunction against Mr. West. The City Attorney responded that the subject use permit does not become effective until conditions of approval are satisfied, and he felt that under the circumstances, and inasmuch as the Council has directed there be no operation of a public restaurant, he could pursue the case in court. Motion x In view of the above, Council Member All Ayes Turner resubmitted his substitute motion as set forth in the foregoing, which motion carried. E. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. F. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following actions were taken as All Ayes indicated, except for those items removed. 1. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - Schedule for public hearing on November 13, 1989: (a) Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 89-33, Ord 89-33 being, Zoning (94) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 9 TO PLACE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE R-3 DISTRICT OF THE CANNERY VILLAGE/MCFADDEN SQUARE SPECIFIC ,PLAN (SP-6) DISTRICT [PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 686] . (Report from the Planning Department) Volume 43 - Page 432 City Council Meeting October 30, 1989 Agenda Item No. D-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Traffic Study No. 58 A request to accept a traffic study so as to permit the conversion of an approved employees' cafeteria, with a restaurant facility with on-sale beer and wine, which will operate in conjunction with the existing Newport Imports automobile dealership. AND B. Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) A request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of an automobile dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Height Limitation District, on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment includes a request to convert an approved employees' cafeteria into a restaurant facility, with on-sale beer and wine, which will operate in conjunction with the auto dealership. The proposal also includes a request to permit a portion of the required restaurant parking on an adjoining parcel which is in the same ownership as the subject property; and a request to delete or modify Condition of Approval No. 13 of Use Permit No. 3229, so as to allow all night security lighting at the rear of the building, adjacent to Avon Street, whereas said lighting is currently required to be turned off at 10:00 p.m. LOCATION: Restaurant Site: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map no. 87-106 (Resub- division No. 840) , located at 3000 West Coast Highway; Off- Site Parking Site: A portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2922 - 2940 West Coast Highway; both sites being on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANT: Lee West, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as Applicant . APPELLANT: Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D. , Newport Beach TO; City Council - 2. Applications These applications involve a request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of an automobile dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Height Limitation District, on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment includes a request to convert an approved employees' cafeteria into a restaurant facility with on-sale beer and wine which will operate in conjunction with the auto dealership. The proposal also includes a request to permit a portion of the required restaurant parking on adjoining parcels which are in the same ownership as the restaurant site; the approval of a traffic study; and a request to delete or modify Condition of Approval No. 13 of Use Permit No. 3229, so as to allow all night security lighting at the rear of the building, adjacent to Avon Street, whereas said lighting is current required to be turned off at 10;00 p.m. In accordance with Section 20.62.050 of the Municipal Code, restaurants are a permitted use in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code and Traffic Study procedures are found in Chapter 15.40. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of September 7, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended the approval (6 Ayes, 1 No) of Traffic Study No. 58 and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) to convert an approved employees' cafeteria of an existing auto dealership into a restaurant facility with on-sale beer and wine, with the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval as indicated in, the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes. It was the determination of a majority of the Planning Commissioners that the project conformed with the requirements of the General Plan and the Zoning Code, and that there were no Findings to deny the applicant's request. The approval also included Condition of Approval No. 32 on Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) that nullifies the previous approval of Site Plan Review No. 49, Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 and Traffic Study No. 48 (Revised) that permitted the construction of a retail-office building on the adjoining property to the east. Said property is now being purchased by the applicant as an off-site parking lot for the restaurant use in the auto dealership facility (see the attached addendum to the Planning Commission staff report). City Council Action and Subsequent Apveal On September 25, 1989, the, City Council reviewed this matter to consider scheduling a public hearing regarding the action taken by the Planning Commission. However, the Council voted not to schedule a public hearing on these items. The appellant subsequently appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The Planning Commission staff report, which describes the details of the project, and an excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes, are attached for Council review. 1 1 TO: City Council - 3. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by IC WILLIAM R. LAYCOCK Current Planning Manager WRL/kk TS58UP3229.1030 Attachments for City' Council Only: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/7/89, with attachments Addendum to Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/7/89, with attachments Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated 9/7/89 Excerpt of the City Council Minutes dated 9/25/89 Site Plan and Auto Dealership Ground Floor Plan Letters of Opposition Letter from City Attorney to Newport Heights Residents dated 9/19/89 Planning Commission Meeting September 7. 1989 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. 'Traffic Study No. 58 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to accept a traffic study so as to permit the conversion of an approved employees' cafeteria with a restaurant facility with on- sale beer and wine which will operate in conjunction with the existing Newport Imports Automobile dealership. AND B. Use Permit No. 3229 ( ended)(Continued Public Hearing) A request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of an automobile dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Height Limitation District, on property located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment includes a request to convert an approved employees' cafeteria into a restaurant facility with on-sale beer and wine Which will operate in conjunction with the auto dealership. The proposal also includes: a request to permit a portion of the' required restaurant parking on an adjoining parcel which is in the same ownership as the subject property; and a request to delete or modify Condition of Approval No. 13 of Use Permit No. 3229, so as to allow all night security lighting at the rear of the building, adjacent to Avon Street, whereas said lighting is currently required to be turned off at 10:00 p.m. LOCATION: Restaurant Site: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 87-106 (Resubdivision No. 840), located at 3000 West Coast Highway; Off-Site Parking Site: a portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2922 - 2940 West Coast Highway; both sites being on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANT: Lee West, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant e TO: Planning Commission -2. Applications These applications involve a request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of an automobile dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Height Limitation District, on property located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment includes a request to convert an approved employees' cafeteria into a restaurant facility with on-sale beer and wine which will operate in conjunction with the auto dealership. The proposal also includes: a request to permit a portion of the required restaurant parking on adjoining parcels which are in the same ownership as the restaurant site; the approval of a traffic study; and a request to delete or modify Condition of Approval No. 13 of Use Permit No. 3229, so as to allow all night security lighting at the rear of the building, adjacent to Avon Street, whereas said lighting is currently required to be turned off at 10:00 p.m In accordance with Section 20.62.050 of the Municipal Code, restaurants are a permitted use in the Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code and traffic study procedures are found in Chapter 15.40. Environmental_ Significance This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Subject PMeM and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is currently the site of the new Newport Imports automobile dealership with a related service department and retail sales of automobile parts and accessories. To the north, across Avon Street, is the undeveloped slope area of Cliff Drive Park and the residential lots which front on Cliff Drive; to the east is the original China Palace Restaurant (now vacant) and a retail facility which specializes in automobile and boat stereos, telephones and security equipment; to the south, across West Coast Highway, is the John Domims Restaurant and office complex and the Lancer's Landing Office project; and to the west is the original Newport Imports automobile sales and service facility. Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Pro,am Land Use Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for 'Retail and Service Commercial" uses. The subject restaurant is a permitted use within this designation. The project is located within the boundary of Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area which permits a variable Floor Area Ratio of .5/35. In accordance with the recently adopted FAR Ordinance, variable floor area 'd I TO: Planning Commission -3. ratios are prorated according to type of use. The base development allocation (0.5 in this case) shall not be exceeded by the sum of the weighted square footage of each use. The weighted square footage is determined by multiplying the gross floor area of a given use by the weighted factors indicated below. Weighted Use Category Square Footage Weig i]ing Factor Development Base FAR use which is 29,180 sq.ft x 1.0 = 29,180 sq.ft. the gross floor area devoted to the auto dealership excluding the area devoted to the subject restaurant, and covered parldng Reduced'FAR use which is the 3,268 sq.fL x 1.67 = 5,457 sqft. gross floor area devoted to the restaurant use. Total Weighted Development 34,637 sq.ft. Weighted FAR 0:389 As shown in the above table, the total weighted development (0.389 FAR) does not exceed the base development allocation of 0.5 FAR; therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the development limitations as established in the Newport Beach General Plan. Inasmuch as the subject property is located in the Coastal Zone, a Coastal Permit will be required prior to the subject use permit being effective. Backgmund it At its meeting of January 22, 1987, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3229 and related traffic study which permitted the construction of an automobile dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Height Limitation District, on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. Said action of the Planning Commission also included the approval of Resubdivision No. 840 which involved the establishment of a single building site where,three parcels previously existed. The action of the Planning Commission was subject to the findings and conditions of approval as set forth in the attached excerpts of the Planning Commission minutes dated January 22, 1987. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's approval, the City Council considered the above applications at its meeting of February 23, 1987, and March 23, 1981. At that time the Council approved each of the applications subject to the findings and modified conditions set forth in the attached list of final findings and conditions of approval. Also attached, are excerpts of the City Council minutes dated February 23, 1987,•and March 23, 1987. `f' TO: Planning Commission -4. At its meeting of September 8, 1988, the Planning Commission denied Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) which involved the same request to convert the employees' cafeteria into a restaurant facility. Said action also included the denial of Traffic Study No. 49 which also included a request to override the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The action of the Planning Commission was taken with the findings set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes dated September 8, 1988. At its meetings of October 10, 1988 and October 24, 1988, the City Council considered the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. On October 24, 1988, the City Council sustained the action of the Planning Commission. Attached for the Planning Commission's information are excerpts of the City Council minutes for October 10, 1988 and October 24, 1988; the latter including findings supportive of the City Council's action. Analysis As discussed in the previous sections, the original use permit application included a request to construct a new automobile sales and service facility with related offices and retail sales of automobile parts and accessories. In addition, the applicant has improved portions of the building for a related "employees' cafeteria" which he has recently converted to a public restaurant without the required approval of the Planning Commission. Having become aware of the illegal conversion, the City notified the applicant on May 8, 1989; (letter attached), that he was in violation of the Newport Beach Muniapal Code and that the operation of the restaurant was subject to the approval of a use permit. The applicant is now proposing to amend the previously approved use permit so as to allow the operation of a full service restaurant with on- sale beer and wine, in that portion of the building previously identified as an employees' cafeteria. Based on the attached plans, the proposed restaurant will occupy approximately 3,300t gross square feet of the automobile dealership and will include approximately 1,290t square m. daily and the a will be approximately blic area." The t 16 enmpl yees on duty durinn from g peak hours am. to of operation. Off-Street Parkin¢ In accordance with the original Use Permit No. 3229, the off-street parking requirement for the automobile dealership and related activities was established at 98 parking spaces. Said requirement was based on one parking space for each employee on duty during peak hours of operation, plus one parking space for each 250 sgft. of floor area in the office and showroom areas. Based on the current restaurant parking requirement of one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area," the proposed restaurant will require 33 parking spaces TO: Planning Commission -5. (1,290 sq.ft./40 sgft. = 32.25 or 33 spaces). The Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 20.30.035 B(4) of the Municipal Code, may .also increase or decrease the parking requirement of a restaurant within a range of one parking space for each 30 square feet of "net public area" (43 parking spaces) and one parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public area" (26 parking spaces), depending on the operational characteristics of the restaurant. Staff is of the opinion that a standard of one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area" would be appropriate in this case. Based on such a requirement, the combined off-street parking requirement for the proposed restaurant and the automobile dealership will be 131 parking spaces. Existing Off-Street Parkin¢ There are 191 existing on-site parking spaces provided in conjunction with the automobile dealership. The following table indicates the location and number of the existing parking spaces within the project: Ground Floor Parking for Customers: Front Parking Area: 16 spaces Service Area: 8 spaces Handicapped Spaces in Display Area: 2 spaces Total 26 spaces Second Level New Car Display Area: 23 spaces Third Level Service Parking: Area No. 1 (West Side of Bldg.) 87 spaces Area No. 2 (East Side of Bldg.) 55 spaces Grand Total 191 spaces Note: 4 of the 191 spaces are for handicapped parking. It should be further noted that due to the design of the access ramps to the second and third levels of the parking structure, the City Traffic Engineer has indicated that the parking spaces located on the second and third level of the parking structure are not available to customers of the automobile dealership. Therefore, the only parking spaces available to the customers of the automobile dealership are the 26 ground floor parking spaces, in the locations noted above. It should be further noted that there is a stacking area at the entrance of the service area which will accommodate 8 to 10 additional g r , TO: Planning Commission -6. parking spaces for service customers only; however these parking spaces have not been included in the above parking tabulations. Proposed Off-Street Parift In addition to the existing on-site parking spaces, the applicant has recently purchased the two adjoining properties which are currently the site of the original China Palace Restaurant and Alpha Electronics. The applicant intends to demolish the China Palace Restaurant building and clear the undeveloped portion of the Alpha Electronics site, in order to construct 86 additional parking spaces as shown on the attached site plan. Said parking area will have direct access from West Coast Highway and Avon Street, as well as access from the. existing p irldng area in front of the automobile dealership. The applicant intends to use 33 of the proposed parking spaces in order to satisfy the parking requirement for the proposed restaurant. It should also be' noted that because the proposed parking spaces are located on separate parcels from the restaurant site, it'will be necessary for the applicant to record a covenant against the properties agreeing to hold said parcels in the same ownership as the restaurant site. Traffic Study In accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the applicant is required to obtain the approval of a traffic study for the establishment of the subject restaurant. Said traffic study has been prepared and is attached for the Planning Commission's review. Inasmuch as the project is operational in 1989, analyses were therefore completed for 1990. The City Traffic Engineer has identified five (5) intersections which could be affected by the project at full occupancy. Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road Newport Boulevard and Via Lido I West Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue West Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue West Coast Highway and Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% Traffic Volume Analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth and the traffic of previously committed projects. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, the project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of the projected morning and afternoon peak two and one-half hour volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is required. The results of the one percent test indicate that the project traffic exceeds 1% at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and West Coast Highway during the A.M. and P.M. peak periods. Therefore, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis*was performed for this intersection which indicates that the additional project related traffic TO: Planning Commission -7. results in no change in the A.M. and P.M. ICU. Therefore, no farther analysis is required. A copy of the Traffic Study is attached for the Planning Commission s information. Parkine Access anct Circulation From West Coast Highway As shown on the attached parking plan, the applicant has provided direct on-site access between the auto dealership property and the off-site parking areas. Such a design will' allow easy movement of vehicles between the properties without having to enter West Coast Highway. West Coast Highway is designated a .Major Arterial (6 lane divided) in the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The existing roadway has five lanes in the vicinity of this development. Widening of West Coast Highway will occur on the northerly side of the roadway. To provide room for the additional lane of traffic as well as a second left turn lane at Riverside Avenue and West Coast Highway, a strip of right- of-way is required that varies in width from 15.4 feet at the westerly side of the new expanded parking area to approximately 16 feet at the easterly side of the parking area. Section 13.05.010 'of the Municipal Code .requires that dedications be made to provide the right-of-way necessary to construct Master Plan streets when a building permit is issued for work on a parcel adjacent to the Master Plan Street. The plan submitted by the applicant for the expansion of the parking area provides for this dedication. The applicant also dedicated the necessary right-of-way across the frontage of the new Jaguar dealership when it was constructed. The restaurant use will increase traffic in and out of the site and contribute to the need for widening West Coast Highway. The existing building at the south easterly corner of the site will remain in use. A portion of this building is in the dedication area. The dedication condition provides for this building to remain in place until the road is widened. If the building is still in place when West Coast Highway is widened, the public agency doing the widening will provide for removing the portion of the building in the right-of-way. The plans for the expanded parking area provide for the drive entrance to be widened and reconstructed. The new drive will allow for vehicles to make right turns into and out of the site. Left turns will be prohibited'because the drive is too close to Riverside Avenue and the left turn moves would conflict, with the highway left turn lane. To insure that patrons of the site do not make left turns from the new drive, the existing median island will need to be extended approximately 35 feet westerly. Based on the description of the restaurant, it is anticipated that part of the clientele will walk to the site. To improve pedestrian access to the site, a sidewalk of similar width to the one constructed in front of the Jaguar dealership is recommended. 1 , ' TO: Planning Commission -8. Restaurant Development Standards Chapter 20.72 of the Municipal Code contains development standards for restaurants to ensure that any proposed development will be compatible with adjoining properties and streets. Said development standards include specific requirements for building setbacks, parking and traffic circulation, walls surrounding the restaurant site, landscaping, exterior illumination, signing, underground utilities, and storage. Section 20.72.130 of the Municipal Code states that any of the above mentioned development standards for restaurants may be modified or waived if such modification or waiver will achieve substantially the same results and will in no way be more detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements than will the strict compliance with the standards. Staff is of the opinion that the on-site development standards as they apply to walls, and parking lot illumination, should be waived if the Planning Commission approves this application because of the existing developed nature of the site. It should .be further i noted that the Public Works Department is recommending that the existing overhead utility service on the off-site parking areas be placed underground and'the existing poles removed from the site. RegUested Security LightW In accordance with Condition of Approval No. 13 of the original Use Permit No. 3229, illumination of automobile display areas is to be maintained in such a manner so as to eliminate direct light and glare on adjoining properties on Avon Street and West Coast Highway. Said condition also required all lights facing toward the bluff at the rear of the site, to be turned off by a timer at 10:00 p.m. each night. Since the automobile dealership opened, there have been five security lights operating past 10:00 p.m on the rear of the building adjacent to Avon Street. Said lighting was installed specifically 'fdr security purposes and it is the applicant's desire to have the lights on all night for that purpose. It should also be noted that staff has received no complaints from the property owners on the bluff side of Cliff Drive concerning the subject security lights. It is staffs opinion that security lighting acts as a deterrent to vandalism and illegal dumping that has occurred in the past along this secluded portion of Avon Street. Staff has no objections to the applicant's request to keep the security lights on all night, provided the lights are operated in a manner so as not to be objectional to the property owners on the bluff side of Cliff Drive. S„necific Fini dinar Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the �1 TO: Planning Commission -9. general welfare of the City. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve these applications the findings and conditions contained in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Staff has not included an exhibit for denial inasmuch as the subject project conforms with the requirements of the General Plan and Zoning.Code. However, there may be additional information presented at the public hearing which may provide grounds for denial of the use permit. ! PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director B Ward Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes dated January 22, 1987 Excerpts of the City Council Minutes dated February 23, 1987 and March 23, 1987 City Council Final Findings and Conditions for Use Permit No. 3229 Excerpts of the Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 1988 for Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) Excerpts of the City Council Minutes of October 10, 1988 and October 24, 1988 for Use Permit 3229 (Amended) Letter of Violation Traffic Study Restaurant Floor Plan Site Plan and Auto Dealership Ground Floor Plan t � I TO: Planning Commission -10. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 58, USE PERMIT NO. 3229 (AMENDED) September 7, 1989 A. Traffic Study No. 58: Approve the Traffic Study, malting the findings listed below: Findings 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15AO of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary-modified', or 'primary' street. B. Use Permit No 3229 (Amen": Approve the use permit, malting the following findings and with the following conditions: Findings 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking exists to serve the subject restaurant. 4. The off-site parking areas are located so as to be useful to the proposed restaurant use. 5. Parking on such off-site parldng areas will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 6. That the restaurant site and the off-site parking areas are in the same ownership. 13 ti ? TO: Planning Commission -11. 7. That the requested security lighting adjacent to Avon Street will be operated so as not be objectional to residential properties on Cliff Drive and from the public view park on the same street. 8. That the subject project'increases traffic on Avon Street which may result in the need to provide a traffic signal in the future. 9. The waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls and parking lot illumination will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties. 10. The approval of Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) under the circumstances of this case will not 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That the subject project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and restaurant floor plan. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3229 shall be fulfilled and shall remain in effect. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from view. 4. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odor and smoke to the satisfaction of the Building Department. S. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 6. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant faci lity where be introduced into the grease may drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless •otherwise approved by the Building Department. i i TO: Planning Commission -12. 7. That all restaurant employees shall park their vehicles in the off-site parking areas. 8. That a minimum of one parking space shall be provided for each 40 sq ft. of "net public area" (33 spaces) in the proposed restaurant facility. 9. That the hours of operation of the restaurant use shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. 10. That a trash compactor shall be installed in the restaurant facility. 11. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 12. That the service of alcoholic beverages shall be incidental to the primary food service operation. 13. That all signs shall conform with Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code unless a sign exception is i approved. 14. The applicant shall record a covenant, guaranteeing that the subject parcels used for off-site parking for the restaurant shall remain in the same ownership as the property on which the restaurant is located. i 15. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the off-site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 16. That the on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 17. That prior to the issuance of any building permits or implementation of this Use Permit, the applicant shall dedicate to the City for street and highway purposes, the applicant's interest in the strip of land (varies in width between 15.4 feet and 16 feet) adjacent to West Coast Highway and across the West Coast Highway frontage. The strip is to be used in the i � I TO: Planning Commission -13. future for the widening of West Coast Highway. That portion of the existing, structure at the southeasterly corner of the property that is in the dedication area may remain until West Coast Highway is widened. The public agency doing the s ,i roadway widening will perform the modifications to remove interfering portions. 18. That all improvements be constructed as required by G Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 19. That a. standard Subdivision Agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory i completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public F improvements. 20. That the intersection of Avon Street and the driveway shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at ` non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 21. That the existing median island in West Coast Highway shall be extended 35 feet westerly and that vehicular access to West Coast Highway be limited to right turn in and out and signs be posted to indicated this restriction. 22. That the sidewalk be reconstructed to a 12 foot width and the existing drive depression be removed and replaced by a drive conforming to City Standard 166-L along the West Coast Highway frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 23. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be approved by the Public Works, Planning, and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments. The landscaping shall be ; installed in accordance with the prepared plans. i 24. That 25 percent of the cost of a traffic signal at Riverside Avenue and Avon Street be bonded for in case traffic signal warrants are met within 5 years after a certificate of occupancy is issued for the development. . 1 TO: Planning Commission -14. 25. That site drainage flowing toward West Coast Highway be collected in a drain and conveyed to the existing storm drain in the highway. 26. That the development standards pertaining to walls and parking lot illumination are hereby waived. 27. That the overhead utility lines serving the off-site parking areas shall be placed underground and the poles removed. 28. The applicant shall make all required alterations to that portion of the building used for restaurant purposes which may be determined to be necessary by the Building and Fire Departments. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for all such alterations. 29. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building permits or opening of the restaurant. 30. That Condition No. 13 of Use Permit No. 3229, approved by the City Council on March 23, 1987, is amended to read as follows: "That the illumination of automobile display areas shall be maintained in such a manner so as to eliminate direct light and glare on adjoining properties northerly of Avon Street and on West Coast Highway. All lighting facing toward the bluff at the rear of the site, except for approved security lighting, shall be turned off by a timer at 10:00 p.m. each night. The five existing security lights at the rear of the building, shall be maintained and operated in a manner so as not to be objectional to the adjoining residential properties on the bluff side of Cliff Drive:' 31. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. V141A11.77)e, *V. X,r,f HAP NO.X CLIFF offive R-1 PARK A-I R-i SP.S SP-S AW D]I 0 cv. "py 0-tv C-1 fp + C-1-H J7wsffr Its% DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. MULTIPLE,RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C-1 LMT COMMERCIAL DUPLEX 09610EN I TIAL C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL FEET REST'll MMIPU ONLY RESIDENTIAL M-1 NAMUNRCTURING ORD.Ma ASS CONSININi DISTRICTS UNCLASSIFIED Cga 26,19§0 MAP 0 0 SET BACR HOWN*TH"' I lmycm PAUUPRCIAL ---No Tf; le, IjDf 04 15b ' L C , C0MMiSS10NER3 C� MINUTES 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX L CALL A use Permit No 3229 (Public Hearing) Item No-2 Request to permit the construction of an automobile UP3229 sales and service facility on property located in the"Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile TS Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes a request to allow the use of roof top parking; and the R840 acceptance of an environmental document. Approved AND B Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with the construction of an automobile sales and service facility on property located in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. AND C. Res ubdivisiori No 840 (Public Hearing) Request the approval of a resubdivision to create a single parcel of land where three parcels currently exist. LOCATION; Portions of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 3000 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANT; Harris Architects, Newport Beach OWNER: Lee West, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, described a landscape planter treatment that staff had observed in !Coll Center Irvine that was on the upper deck of a parking structure for the purpose of improving the appearance of the parking area from an adjacent office % building. Mr. Hewicker suggested that if the Planning Commission should recommend the landscape planter treatment for the purpose of enhancing the view from the view park and adjacent properties open dstlookhat ing down w on the parking rkin structure, then-7 �� coMMISSIONERS ` MINUTES ✓ January 22, 1987 �` �`'y; CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX OLL CALL recommend that a landscape architect prepare a plan for landscaping the roof top parking area prior to the preparation of working drawings subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that the planter irrigation and drainage system would be, connected to the public sewer. He indicated that the cost to the applicant could add an additional five percent to the coat of the parking structure. Mr. Hewicker referred to the following revised Condition No. 4 as suggested by staff if the Planning Commission should request a landscape plan as presented, "That the applicant ahall prepare a landscape plan which identifies the size, type and location of all plant material and the design and location of a Permanant irrigation system. In addition to the landscaping e along west Coast Highway, said landscaping plan shall include a plan for landscaping of the roof top parking area. Said plan shall be prepared prior to the preparation of working drawings and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission." In response to a question posed by Chairman Person regarding the concrete columns as described by Mr. Hewicket in the landscape plan, Mr. Hewicker replied that the columns would only be used to support the landscape planters. Mr. James Harris, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant, and he stated that the applicants have met with adjacent property owners to assure them that the applicants intend to remain within the required height limit, including the landscaping so as not to obstruct 'any views. Mr. Harris commented that the applicants concur With the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A"t y however, the applicants request that the revised Condition No. 4 to Use Permit No. 3229 indicate that the landscape plan be subject to the approval of the Planning Department instead of the Planning Commission. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, referred to Condition No. 22, Use Permit No. 3229, and corrected the condition to state "..this use permit, or recommend,.." deleting the words "for the restaurant use"; and Condition No. 5, Resubdivision No. 840, to be amended to state "..the sight distance requirement may be modified..", deleting the word "approximately". 0'0 i 1.• I c MINUTES , r ' CQ,MMISSIONERS January 22, 1987 y4G �`►?� 7 Oie S^Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX L CALL t= In response to questions posed by Commissioner Koppelman, Mr. Harris replied that the for svehiclesof the iupper deck parking area will be used only Mr. Harris further servicing and for employee parking. replied that the applicants are not considering parking within the parking structure for the restaurants in the Mariner's Mile area. Commissioner Koppelman suggested a condition that would restrict the upper deck of the parking structure to Newpgrt Imports uses only. Mr. Hewicker commented that a permit is not under discussion to permit off-site parking in the subject facility, and that only parking being requested would be permitted unless the subject permitrufoir another vuseeinlMariner''s Mile amend a use Discussion ensued between Chairman Person and. Mr. Hewicker regarding restrictions of ingress and egress from roof top parking, and the hours for permitted use on the roof deck. commissioner Koppelman contended that there are informal parking agreements within Mariner's Mile the because of the lack of parking a spaces Condition that restaurant uses, and she suggested would state that if it would be the desire of a restaurant in the area to use the subject pa the restaurant would have to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hewicker suggested acondition that would indicate that the on-site Pak ties shall only be used for Newport imports. Mr. Harris requested that the applicants not be restricted from off-loading vehicles within the parking structure. Mr. Hewicker stated that the parking facilities on the subject ssi o te would be for nly Newport rlthe usewof Newport Imports meaning n will occupy the subject site, but also the sites to the west that•are also owned by the property owner of the subject property. Mr. Harris confirmed that Newport Imports does not occupy any sites further to the east. Chairman Person concluded that two additional conditions have been discussed: (1) the ingress and egress to the roof top parking, and (2) use ofthe parking on-site will be restricted to the applicants. : .CO•MMISSIONERS r `,. MINUTES' January 22, 1987 CITY OF, NEWPORT BEACH L CALL INDEX' Mr. Allan seek, 1945 Sherington Place, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposition to the Traffic Study and to the proposed buildable area. Mr. Seek reported that the Traffic Study states that no impacted intersection will be made worse because West Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue will not be affected by the project. .He contended that left turns cannot be prohibited except by Cal Trans installing a. raised median on West Coast Highway, and the+ until the median is installed to make left turns impossible, the Traffic Study is not applicable to the project and the Planning Commission cannot approve the project. Mr. Beek opined y that the project appears to be too large a building for the site, and that the building appears to be excessively bulky for the, Mariner's Mile area and for the surrounding neighborhood. In, reference to the characteristics of the project as stated in the staff report, Mr. Beek pointed out that .5 times "buildable area" would be 42,036 square feet, the proposed gross floor area excluding the 'parking structure would be 32,448 square feet; however, he calculated ' that the storage of 60 automobiles stored on-site times 350 square feet per automobile, would add an additional 21,000 square feet to the parking structure, totalling 53,000 square feet or .635 Floor Area Ratio. Mr. Beek contended that to be consistent with the intent of Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan including the required storage area' for automobiles, the Floor Area Ratio should be reduced to .50 times "buildable area". Mrs. Marian Rayl, President of the Newport Heights Homeowner''a Association, appeared before the Planning " Commission to state the homeowners' concerns after they met with the applicants and reviewed a proposed project: that the subject roof-top parking s cture could set a precedentq that other roof-top pa rking structures may not have landscaping; that 158 roof-top parking spaces is an enormous number of parking spaces for the business; the ingress/egress noises automobile and parking structure lights shining into homes; and that the parking structure would be constructed below a view park that is currently being developed. i Ms. Corinne Spence appeared before the Planning Commission expressing her concerns regarding the build-up of Mariner's Mile: that the area will become an area similar to Harbor Boulevard in Costa Mesa; roof-top parkings roof-top lights; and, the aesthetics of the Mariner's Mile area. `10" ,2'Z L ` . MINUTES COMMISSIONERS January 22, 1987 r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX L CALL There being no others to address the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman questioned if there is a precedent that has been nandtifetheFlooing r Area Ratio is storage of automobiles on property ces. pg., Hewioker considered for automobile parking spa responded that in the commercial and industrial zones of the City and some of the residential zones, surface and structure parking are not included in the Floor Area Ratio. Mr. Hewicker advised that the Planning Commission and the City Council have the option to initiate studies in that direction. Mr' ker by discussed a compromise plan that has been approved the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association and the Mariner's Mile property owners, that will be coming before the City Council on February 9, 1987, regarding amendments to the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan. In reference to Mr. Beek's testimony regarding automobile storage, Mr. HeWicl of etheYeplied that the ect parking intermediate parking structure is labeled for the storage of new automobiles, and the upper deck is labeled for storage of vehicles that are to he serviced and for employee parking. He said that if the storage of automobiles would be counted on the intermediate level, then the Floor Area Ratio would go above the .39 times buildable area but if the storage of automobiles were Plloyee the roof, and the vehicles for servicing or vehicles were placed on the intermediate woul deck, exceed under the Zoning Code, the development the Floor Area Ratio. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Don Webb, City Engineer, replied that Avon Street improvement would terminate at the westerly property line unless the applicant had a desire to extend r. Wthe improvement to the adjacent facility. ebb indicated that the Traffic Study Shows gth t there would ated by the be an additional 600 trips per day proposed use compared to the existing use. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Webb replied that staff would have no objection to a condition prohibiting left turns from the subject property onto West Coast Highway. , -11- �3 t COMIMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1997 7 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH L CALL INDEX—' Harris reappeared before the Planning Commission and stated that the applicant would have no objection to no left turns onto West Coast Highway. The public hearing was reopened at this time. Ms. Karen Harrington, 441 Santa Ana Avenue, appeared before the. Planning Commission regarding the proposed amendment to the Mariner's Mile Specific Area Plan, and commented that the said plan does not address the subject of roof-top parking. In response to a concern that she had regarding the compromise plan,, Chairman Person replied that the Planning Commission will have a public hearing regarding said plan sometime in the e future. The public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Koppelman addressed the concerns of the homeowners regarding roof-top parking. She explained that by proper conditioning of the use permit, a roof-top landscape plan could be implemented and would be acceptable, and the adjacent residents would not be disturbed at night by the automobiles on the roof-top. Commissioner Koppelman pointed out that the proposed facility is within the Floor Area Ratio of the Zoning Code. Motion 31 Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3229, Traffic Study, Resubdivision No. 840 and related Environmental Document subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including the following added Conditions to Use Permit No. 3229: No. 24 "that the parking structure only be used by Newport Imports"; No. 25 " "that the egress/ingress to. the roof top parking area shall be confined to the business hours of Newport Imports"; No. 26 "that a left turn from the driveway of Newport Imports onto West Coast Highway shall be prohibited"; revise aforementioned Use Permit No. 3229, Condition No. 4 as recommended by staff; modify aforementioned Condition No. 22, and Resubdivision No. 840 Condition No. 5 as ,requested by staff. In response to a question posed by Mr. Harris, applicant, Commissioner Koppelman replied that revised Condition No. 4 would require that the applicant bring back the landscape plans to the Planning Commission for approval prior to the preparation of the working drawings. ��JJ -12- O� a' MINUTtS COMMISSIONERS sanuary 22, 1487 Gay `�y°�'sY�s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX OLL CALL Chairman Person asked the maker of the motion to amend Use Permit No. 3229, Condition No. 14, which would bring the lighting and illumination plan for the roof-top back to the Planning Commission for approval at the same time the applicant brought back the landscape plan. The maker of the motion accepted amended Condition No. 14. Discussion ensued pertaining to the proposed Condition No. 25 "that the egress/ingress to the roof top parking area be confined to the business hours of Newport Imports", and Chairman Person suggested that the hours be specific so that the City would have control. The planning Commission concluded that the Condition would state "that there shall be no ingress/egress to the roof top parking area between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily." Motion voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3229, Traffic Study; Resubdivision No. 840 and Related Environmental Document "subject to the hen ings and conditions in following aforementioned Exhibit "A", including t additions and modifications: Use Permit No. 3229: Revised Condition No. 41 Amended Condition No. 14; Modified Condition No. 22; Added Conditions No. 24, No. 25, No. 26; Resubdivision No. 840: Modified Condition All Ayes No. S. MOTION CARRIED• A, ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document. making the following findings: BINDINGS: 1. That the environmental it is complete a has been prepared in compliance with the Califor nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy- the tal nt 2. That the have been contents of in the nvarious nd decisions this project- 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project; 4. That the mitigation measures identi d e into the the Initial Study have been incorporate proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval; -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX OLL CALL s. That based upon the information contained in th u Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. B. ' USE PERMIT No. 3229: FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the development or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposedp- mant. 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems from the proposed operation. i 4. The proposed use of roof top parking will not, i under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City- S. The project will comply with all applicable City { and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. a 6. That the City of Newport Beach has tentative plans to widen and/or restripe West Coast Highway which maX result in loss of on-street parking and the applicant's proposed development adequately addresses anticipated parking needs for the permitted use. -14- �G COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX u 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3229 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental 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. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from West Coast Highway, Avon Street, and adjoining properties. 3. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an exception permit is approved by the City. Said signs shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 4. That the applicant shall prepare a landscape plan which identifies the size, type and location of all plant material and the design and location of a permanent irrigation system. In addition to the landscaping along West Coast Highway, said landscaping plan shall include a plan for landscaping of the roof top parking area. Said plan shall be prepared prior to the preparation of working drawings and shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. S. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 6. That the applicant shall be required to work with the City so as to provide additional landscaping within the Cliff Drive Park so as to screen the view of the roof top parking area from the public view areas adjacent to Cliff Drive. Said land- scaping shall be trimmed by the City so as to 1 J 11 C'OMMIISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a . OLL CALL INDEX maintain public views to the bay and ocean. Said off-site landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 7. That a minimum of 98 parking spaces shall be maintained on the site for employees and custom- ere. S. That all employees shall b0 required to park on-site. 9. That the final design of on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the Public works Department and the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 10. Handicap parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 11. The layout of the surface and structure parking shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking shall be designed so that all customer parking is a minimum 9 ft. wide and all employee parking is a minimum 8 ft. 6 in. wide with 26 wide aisles. 12. That all automobile servicing, repair, washing and detailing shall be conducted within the building. 13. That all wash water shall drain into the sanitary sewer system and that grease traps shall be -provided in all drains where petroleum residues may enter the sewer system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 14. That the illumination of any open automobile display area or roof top parking area shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to eliminate direct light and glare on adjoining properties on Avon Street and Nest Coast Highway. A timing device shall turn off any light facing towards the bluff at the rear of the site at 10:00 p.m. every night. Said design features shall be incorporated into a lighting, plan prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer) with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his a -16- j! `.. C MINUTtS COMMISSIONERS January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX L CALL opinion, these requirements have been met. That the lighting and illumination plan for the roof top parking area shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 15. That the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved areas and drives including the roof top parking area. 16. That all parking areas shall be striped with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 17. That no vehicle waiting for service shall be parked outside of the building for a period longer than twenty-four hours unless it is in the process of being serviced. No vehicle shall be considered to be in the process of being serviced for a period longer than one (1) week. 18. That the floor surface of the automobile service area, structured parking areas, and roof top parking area shall be treated so as to eliminate tire squealing of automobiles. 19. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 20. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 840 shall be fulfilled. 21. That the applicant shall redesign the customer parking area and vehicle display area so as to eliminate any encroachment into the required front yard setback area adjacent to West Coast Highway. 22. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit use, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, -or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 23. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within * 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -17- �� CO,M,MISSkONERS �` ( MINUTES , • ' January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLL CALL INDEX 24. That the parking structure only be used by Newport Imports. 25. That there shall be no ingress/egress to the roof top parking are between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily. 26. That a left turn from the driveway of Newport Imports onto Rest Coast Highway shall be prohibited. C. TRAFFIC STUDY LPMINGS: 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- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary-modified', or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of one critical intersection, but will not add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at the critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization-of .90 or less. D. RESUBDIVISION NO. 840 FINDINGS: 1. That the parcel map meats 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 sat- isfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. l MINUTES cdMMISSIONERS January za, 1987 �G9 A'�99f`ty f�y CITY OF NEWPORT REACH INDEX OLL CALL 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivi- sion. 4. That the applicant is on notice that in the future, a raised median may be installed on West Coast Highway and that left turns in and out of the site may be prohibited across thn frontage of the property for future restriping or widening of West Poast Highway. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard Subdivision Agreement and accompa- nying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That a 10 foot wide public utility easement be granted' to the City between West Coast Highway and Avon Stieet prior to issuance of any building permits. That the location of the easement shall be approved by the Public Works Department and that the developer shall construct the equivalent of a 36 inch RCP or ACP storm drain within the easement as approved by the Public Works Depart- ment. Structures may be constructed over this easement as long as a minimum 16 foot vertical clearance is maintained. e 5. That the intersection of the drive and West Coast Highway be designed to provide a sight distance for a speed of 40 miles per hour. Slopes, land- scaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. �f COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLL CALL INDEX I 6. That street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 7. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and atom drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to j issuance of any grading or building permits. Any i. 'modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. I 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. That prior to the issuance of any building permits or implementation of the use permit, the owner shall dedicate to the -City for street and highway purposes, a strip of land adjacent to West Coast Highway and across the West Coast Highway front- age. The strip 'of land is to be 12 feet in the westerly portion and tapers from 12 feet td 15 " feet in width in the easterly 100 feet of the parcel. This strip is to be used for the future widening of West Coast Highway. Said dedicated strip shall not be included as part of the required landscape area for the site and shall be paved with concrete unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments for landscaped treatment. 10. That Avon Street be improved with curb, gutter, 36 feet width of pavement, and 5 foot wide sidewalk in parkway along the project frontage. A minimum of 24 foot width of pavement within the Avon Street right-of-way shall be provided from the easterly project boundary easterly to existing A. C. pavement and as approved by the Public Works Department. That developers adjoining the constructed the applicant t will be improvements cons; PP impro by required to reimburse the applicant for frontage Improvements if development occurs within 5 years of completion of said improvements. 11. That the existing drive, aprons along the West Coast Highway frontage be removed and replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk; that all proposed drive aprons located along the West Coast Highway -20- �' MINUTES II CQ,MMISSIONERS January 22, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX L CALL frontage be reconstructed per City Standard 166-L; that any deteriorated portions of sidewalk along the West Coast Highway frontage be reconstructed; and that all work within the West Coast Highway right-of-way be completed under encroachment permits issued by the California Department of Transportation and the City of Newport Beach. 12. That no vehicle delivery trucks shall load or off-load within the West Coast Highway right-of-way. 13. That the site shall be designed and laid out to allow vehicle delivery truck Street to . from West Coast Highway through 14. That the West Coast Highway entrance drive shall line up with the Lancers Landing drive. 15. That in the future, should owner desire tt O have on-street parking, agrees parking bay on West Coast Highway outside the dedication area to provide for said parking. ' Dedication as necessary to provide for the pa rking bay shall be provided. expire if ap 16. hastnotthis been srueeordedo within l3 ye e years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Item No.3 Reques permit the construction of a two unit UP3247 residential aminium development and related garages and carports on p ty located in the R-2 District. R839 � Approved B Resubdivision No 839 (Public Hearin e Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a see parcel of land for residential condominium purpo -21- C O,.i Y OF NEWPO'RT BE.( ., IANUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS co* February 23, 1987 INDEX ROLL ' Motlos vu made to a cept_ttl withdrawal x Notion of the appeal, as requested. All Ayes 3, public hearing and City Council review of r tlSg PUMIT go. 3229 s request of DIP 3229 q�,�ye•- 8, Nswposr Duch, CO Harrispermit the construction of an automobile Architects gglas and pe service facility on prorty (BB) lased at 3000 Wut_„pC W I9bX47., in the Marina'a llile,Specifit Plan Area. The proposal also Includesrequst to the allow the use of rooftop parking e acceptance of an Inviroamental Document; AND T&AFFIC STUDY - A request of HARRIS Trfc Study T000-S-71awpatt Beach, in compaction with the construction of an automobile sales and service facility on property located at 3000 West Coast Highway, in the Mariner's Nile Specific Mae Area; — AND gg'gUBDIVISION N0. SNawpott request B b 840 Beach. to (S4) sppro4s a resubdivisfon to crests a single parcel of land where throe parcels currently exit. uport from the Planning Department, was presented. J&mssWattle, architect, addressed the Council, and displayed a drawing of the . rooftop area and the'landscape plan, which be stated caries out the requirement of the Planning Commission. _ Discussion ensued, wherein it was noted that as approved by the a t the application ?lsaaIng Commission, requires landscape treatment of the roof, and that the landscape treatment be reviewed by the Planning Cammission. However, the Hamming before the Planning Commission and the City Council was not advertised to include any part of the structure in &%case of the 26'. and, therefore, it was lecosmended the City Council consider the publicnly the heatingiatttthisvtime,w r and that the landscape plan be referred back to the Planning Commission. volume 41 - Paso 80 c,,-:Y OF NEWPORT 86 ti MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS Ob rebrusri 23, 1987 ROLL In response to questions raised by DIP 3229 Council Member Sansone regarding improvements to Avon Street, the Public Works Director at Avon will be improved with the htheco conventional maphaltic-type concrete (McAdam) pavement. The structural section would be designed to engineering standards for the loads anticipated, wh1th include large trucks. With regard to the bluff aide of Avon Street, he stated thatlous of the conditions of approval requires a forlat3611diameteristoreidroln' The • City has started the first phase of the store drain amptying into the Bay. and crossing Pacific Coast Highway, which Canconnectto h constructed in connection with o be this project. This should correct the long-standing problem of drainage on Avon Street. It was also pointed out that pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 241 the Packing structure can only be used by Newport Imports. GaltheeCounncil andlstated Cliff sheiwas concerned witheh all statedeshe waanalso conc cernedwith the enforcement of the conditiocks ac .fthe approval imposed with this prodt noise that could be geaarated from the rooftop packing. and maintanaaec of the landscaping Councilto roof. the consider this development carefully. Allan Beek, 1945 Sherington Place. addressed the Council and stated that, in his opinion, the proposed structure is a much larger building than to appropriate or anticipated by the meneral stat dlen thatnthehe Specific Arms buil Plan' building made look such smaller than it really is because the store room floor area is not counted in computing floor area ratio. and the parking provided is made to look , such larger than it is because the room for storing stock and trade is counted as part of the parking. He stated he felt the staff should be directed to recompute the building with the stock and trade (the automobiles) being counted as part of the floor area of the building. volume 41 - Page gl 3� `.,TY OF NEWPORT 6.•,A S MINUTES j COUNCIL MEMKFIS ? February 27. 190 ROLL CALL Harlan gayl. President of the Newport Hosu6229 Heights Community Assotiati0n. addressed 840 the Council and stated that they are not opposad to the proposed development, but are against the tocftop parking. They understand there will be 96 service vehicles and asked what types of vehicles these would be and when they would be moved on and off the roof top• .If the rooftop parking Si approved, they would like to request the Council place a limit on the hours the service vehicles can be moved. They would also like assurance that same type of nonskid surface will ba required on the rooftop to prevent the ssquaaliags of automobile tires, brakes. etc. The planing Director, in response to some of the foregoing commante. stated that with respect to a nonskid surface. this has already bean made a condition of approval, With regard to the hours. the planning Commission limited the *gross and ingress to the parking deck from 9t0o P.M. to 6300 A.M. the following day to conform with the hours of operation of the agency Pertaining to service vehicles, he stated that these ate the automobiles sold by the agency to be serviced. With respect to the computstioa of the building, he stated that this question was raised at the planning Commission hearing and was responded to as enumerated in the minutes of that meeting. Mr. Harris addressed the Council again ' and stated that their hours of operation to service the facility will tbe from 7t00 a.m. to S:00 p. only people leaving after that time up to 9300 p.m. would be sales staff. . l4yor Pro Tea Hart said that when she attended tha homeowners association h meeting regarding this issue, she understood that either Mr. Marria or another representative of this protect, stated that the City was requesting more parking than what Was actually needed, and questioned Mr. Harris if this was true. Mr. Harris repllad that he thought theta , was some conversation curly on" regarding the use of their rooftop parking for restaurant parking in the area, but he does not think it is the intent of the owner at this time. He Volume 41 - Page 82 Y L rY OF NEWPORT BL.Ace, W(iuiEs , CouNCu. MEMBERS °o a � hbrmary 23, 1967 LL U/P 3229 stated that they are aware of the Resub 840 condition of approval which requires that the perking etruetuce can only be used by Newport Isparta. Dick Demmer. 2812 Cliff Drive, addressed the Council and stated that f the ele it ' rooftop parking is approved, would set a "bad" procedqnt for future developments. He also felt that if the landscape treatment (trellis) has to acme under a separate use permit and'so before the Planning Commission. the Council should War action and consider the entire package at the sane time. Hosting Council n others i addresssbing to the public hearing WAS closed. Turner directed a quest on to Mr.rein Council Headier • Barris, and therefore, the hearing was reopened. In response to question raised regarding • the feasibility of underground parking. Mr. Mstcis replied that the subJect was 1nrSatiBated; however, when they • received their soils report It caused them to look to another direction because of cost and dewstering problSas. Be stated that the cost of a 100 automobile parking structure below grade. under a portion of the wales area and the main parking structure. exceeded the cost of raising the level up to the high roof and putting rooftop parking over the entire service area. Following further consideration, motion Motion x was made to eont aua thii•'heating"to All Ayes 'March 23. 1987, and to,request the applicant to investigate tha feasibility of underground parking at ono level below surface; and further, to continue Rosubdivision No. 840 to Said time as coaSanted to by the applicant. PUBLIC COMMMS: no. F. CON CALENDAR: The following actors; were taken ea Notion x indicated, exec for those items removed. 1. ORDINANCES FOR NMODUCTION: None. volume 41 — page 83 . �1 al Y OF NEWPORT B6ACH WNUTES CONCIL MEMKO REGU;.AR COUNCIL MELTING P+ PLACEt Council Chamber$ TL!dt 7s30 P.M. } DAT'Rs March 23, 1987 INDEX Rl)L Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Motion x S. The reading of the MS¢ucas of the All Alas Meeting of March 9, 1987, was waived, approved to written, and ordered filed. C. The reading in full of all otdi¢ances Motion x and risolueioas u¢dar consideration vas All Ayes maiwd, and thm City Clerk vas dinated to read by cities Daly D. REAAlms: 1. Mayor Cox opened the'contlnued public hearing and City Council review oft nee rnwtr xo=_3229 - A request of /P 3229 SARRIS ARCg1TEM, Newport Such, to 88) paQit the eogt+ttptptioa of an automobile Sales and iacvice facility an PCOP$rty located at jOOO Vast Coast'Migbway, in the "tstall and Service Commercial" area of the Meriner,s'Mlle Spaeific Plan At". The proposal, in addition to the acceptance of an zoviiannantai includes the following Proposal a¢ alternatives theratos i (a) Rooftop parking on the entire roof of the proSect and the installation of an open landscape trellis system which exceeds the 26 ft. basic height limit in the 26/35 Pact Height Limitation Zoae1 or (b) Rooftop parking with open landscape trellis only on that • portion of the roof located northwesterly of the service and repair area; or ' th en (c) Rooftop parking landscape trallisi p Only On the 'front portion of the structure directly over the main showroom driveway sattsnce, and enclosed parking on the balance of the structure located northwesterly of the service and repair area with A use permit to allow the enclosed parking to exceed the 26 ft. basic height limit; or (d) Completely enclosed parking with a use permit to allow a Portion of the structure to exceed the 26 ft. basic height limit; and Volume 41 - Page 117 ,3 f A � 1 T OF NEWPORT B`,ACH ..... Y WruTes COMC11. MEMKM A wreb 23, 1987 ROL TRAFFIC STUDY - A request of HANRIS Trf Study Navport Ruch, in conjunction with the construction of so property located at3000 West service Coast on propperty gighwey, In the Mariner's Nile Specific plan Area; and MUBDIVISIDN N0, 840 - A request of b 840 BAR= ARCHITECTS, Newport Daaeh, to approve a resubdivisia to create a single parcel of lad where three parcels currently exist; and VARIANCE No. 1140 - A request to permit at 1140 to conseractlon of the proposed automobile sales and service facility u ich exceeds 0enclosed n5wtimesar stheage a ) which . buildable area of the site. Report from the Planning Department: was presented. The City Manager pointed out that the City Council bad continued this hearing from February 23, 1987. to permit the applicant additional time to invastigate , the feasibility of including one level of underground parking within the proposed project, and in response to that request• the applicant has indi spotential d that a cost constructionof problw aseociated god he with davatering. make such a proposal entirely infeasible. However, the applicant did indicate that the cost of constructing a toot over all or a portion of the rooftop parking areas feasible.would be In light of ch a P po al, staff's discussio u n with applicant identified the four alternatives set forth in the foregolog. Lee Nest• applicant, addressed the the cil homeacid ownersstated association to the h area who favor enclosing the entire rooftop. He stated that he has no objections to completely enclosed parking; however. i[ Alternative (d) is approved, he like to change the restricted hours for rooftop parking as set forth in the staff report, inasmuch As the area will now be enclosed. It was noted that in conjunction with the Planning commission's considerations of the subject applications, Condition No. 24 was added to Use Permit No. 3229• which restricted the use of on-site Volume 41 - Page 118 ` b-rTY OF NEWPORT p"CH MYMIMS CO(N C L MEMKPtS �+ March 23, 1987 ROLL i structure parkin{ to Newport ImPOrts H/P 3229/ Only. Said Condition was imposed In Trf Stdy/ response to would E used said Vat 1140/ facilitate future expansion of the nighttime restaurant activities in Merinar's Nile. However, should the City Council wish to permit existing restaurants and other nighttime cowercial activitiea within the vicinity of the project site to use the applicant's parking for nourequired Parkin. the revised Isar"ge for Condditicsf ��Nolas auggesteedi 24. That the proposed parkin{ structure aball be used by Newport Imports only except that any excess parking spaces say be shared with other commercial uses-in the aces for nosrequired parking only. ?At. Hest Indicated he was in agreement with the revised language are ststsd: Marian gayl, President, Newport Heights Community Association, addressed the Council and expressed apprsciatiOO to the applicant for meeting with their association; resolving- the concern they hey had with respect to rooftop parking; stated that they are in support of Alternative (d). It was pointed out to Ms. Hayl that pursuant to revised Coadition.No. 24, Newport Imports may share excess Parking spaces with other eowetcial uses in the area for nonrequtrmd parking, such es a spacial avant in the area. Council Member Turner stated that it was hie ouggestion,to revise the subject • condition in order to allow the applicant to "halp in any situation which might come mina{." He stated it is also specifically stated in the condition that the applicant Cannot use the excess parking for an adjoining property Owner to last their required In-liou parking spaces. However, should some businesses in the area find that they are running out of parking spaces because they have not met the legal parking requirements of the City, they could leads some of those excess spaces moontth-toP-month, orort t long-term s on a ybasiida.Y� volume 41 - Page L19 �O � , i V(TY OF NEWPORT BeACH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS V 4 March 23. 1987 ROLL Richard A. Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive. U/P 3229/ addressed the Council and spoke in favor Trf StdY of Alternative (d). He stated he felt Resub 840/ that enclosing the entire rooftop was in Vat 1140 the best interest of everyone. No also stated he felt the dsvelopmant would be good for the area. Nearing no others wishing to address the Couacil, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made to uadify_the decision Notion x of thi Punning Co=iision by selecting Alternative (d) of Use Parsit.No, 3229- with appropriate finding& and conditions as set forth in the staff report approve orapp daignsted a Exhibli "D," Sraffic Study and Aesubdivision No. $40, as approved by the Planning Cowissiow1 and disallow Variance No. 1140 as not required. Council Member Turner suggested the , maker of the motion consider deleting , Condition No. 9, that requires a 12-foot i dedication of land adjacent to Nest Cast Highway to be used for rho future widening of Nast Cast Highway. which he feels may or may not occr for soma time. Discussion ensued with regard to the future widening of pacific Coast Highway, wherein the Public Works Direc at there is no programed at rat this ed htim -'hh�ver• theisct Master Plan does provide'for future sid p d be does believe ianlet an ethat ethe lY City's Subdivision Ordinance Map Act would require that the dedication be made unless a ,pacific set of findings• and procedures is observed to allow that requirement to be waived. He stated that this was not as exceptional requirement. Following consideration, Mayor Pro Tea Hart stated that she would not steep! deletionthe Councilition Member oTurner. suggested by All Ayes 'flu motion on the *or woo voted on and - All d. -Mr Mayor Cox openedrev the public hearing and U/P 3250 City E OUBINA. ALPA ELECouncil review of OTRONICSa1Sen Juan (�) Cap ano, frog the decision f th1987. T ITO. Plaanim mmieeion OD Jmuary uaaniwa eaylag USE PBl1HI250, Volume 41 - a 120 000,0. 41 � l f �. FIA,r FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPI,r•fru FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3229 [ALTERNATIVE (d)) , TRAFFIC STUDY, RESUBDIVISION NO. 840 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been consi- dered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed projects 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approvals S. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. B. USE PERMIT NO. 3229: FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the development or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program; Land Use Plan, and, is compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems from the proposed operation. 4. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building appli- cable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 5. That the City of Newport Beach has tentative plans to widen j and/or restripe West Coast Highway which may result in loss of on-street parking and the applicant's proposed development adequately addresses anticipated parking needs for the permitted use. 6. The increased building height will result in increased public visual open space and views than would result from compliance with the basic height limit. 7. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area within the general theme of a marine environment. 8. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. 9. exceedinga the ifl floor area permitted bys Section 20all n no cae result =. floor 62.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 10. The approval of Use Permit No. 3229 will not, under the circum- stances 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- CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans_, elevations and sections, except as noted below. 2. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from West Coast Highway, Avon Street, and adjoining properties. 3. That all proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provi- sions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an exception permit is approved by the City. Said signs shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located ad- jacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 4. That the applicantshall prepare a landscape and permanent irriga- tion plan for the Coast Highway frontage. Said plan shall be prepared prior to the issuance of Building Permits and shall be approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 5. That the applicant shall be required to work with the City so as to provide additional landscaping within the Cliff Drive Park so as to screen the view of the roof top parking area from the public view areas adjacent to Cliff Drive. Said landscaping shall be trimmed by the City so as to maintain public views to 'f' the bay and ocean. Said off-site landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department. 6. That a minimum of 98 parking spaces shall be maintained on the site for employees and customers. 7. That all employees shall be required to park on-site. S. That the final design of on-site vehicular and pedestrian circu- lation shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Depart- ment and the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 9. Handicap parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 10. The layout of the surface and structure parking shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Said parking shall be designed so that all customer parking is a minimum 9 ft. wide and all employee parking is a minimum 8 ft. 6 in. wide with 26 wide aisles. 11. 1 That all automobile servicing, repair, washing and detailing shall be conducted within the building. 12. That all wash water shall drain into the sanitary sewer system and that grease traps shall be provided in all drains where petroleum residues may enter the sewer system, unless otherwise approved bk the Building Department. 13. That the ' illumination of any open automobile display area shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to eliminate direct light and glare on adjoining properties on Avon Street and West Coast Highway. A timing device shall turn off any light facing towards the bluff at the rear of the site at 30:00 p.m. every night. Said design features shall be incorporated into a lighting plan prepared and signed by a Licensed Electrical Engineer= with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, these requirements have been met. That the lighting and illumination plan for the roof top parking area shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. 14. That the applicant shall provide for weekly vacuum sweeping of all paved areas and drives. 15. That all parking areas shall be striped with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 16. That no vehicle waiting for service shall be parked outside of the building for a period longer than twenty-four hours unless it is in the process of being serviced. No vehicle shall be con- sidered to be in the process of being serviced for a period longer than one (1) week. 17. That the floor surface of the automobile service area and struc- tured parking areas shall be treated so as to eliminate tire squealing of automobiles. 18. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 19. That all conditions of ResubdivisioA No. 840 shall be fulfilled. 20. That the applicant shall redesign the customer parking area and vehicle display area so as to eliminate any encroachment into the required front yard setback area adjacent to West Coast Highway. 21. That the Planning,Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit use, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 22. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 23. That the proposed parking structure shall be used by Newport Imports only except that• any excess parking spaces may be shared with other commercial uses in the area for non-required parking only. 24. That a left turn from the driveway of Newport Imports onto West Coast Highway shall be prohibited. 25. That no roof-top parking shall be permitted. C. TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major' , 'primary-modified' , or 'primary' street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of one critical intersection, but will not add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at the critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of .90 or less. •• • • • f r D. RESUBDIVISION NO. 840 FINDINGS: 1. That the parcel 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 satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 4. That the applicant is on notice that in the future, a raised median may be installed on West Coast Highway and that left turns in and out of the site may be prohibited across the frontage of the property for future restriping or widening of West Coast Highway. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Plann- ing Departments. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard Subdivision Agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That a 10 foot wide public utility easement be granted to the City between West Coast Highway and Avon Street prior to issuance of any building permits. That the location of the easement shall be approved by the Public Works Department and that the developer shall construct the equivalent of a 36 inch RCP or ACP storm drain within the easement as approved by the Public Works Depart- ment. Structures may be constructed over this easement as long as a minimum 16 foot vertical clearance is maintained. S. That the intersection of the drive and West Coast Highway be designed to provide a sight distance for a speed of 40 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches .in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 6. That street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 7. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 8. That •County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. That prior to the issuance of any building permits or implementa- tion of the use permit, the owner shall dedicate to the City for street and highway purposes, a strip of land adjacent to West Coast Highway and across the West Coast Highway frontage. The strip of land is to be 12 feet in the westerly portion and tapers from 12 feet to 15 feet in width in the easterly 100 feet of the parcel. This strip is to be used for the future widening of West Coast Highway. Said dedicated strip shall not be included as part of the required landscape area for the site and shall be paved with concrete unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments for landscaped treatment. 10. That Avon Street be improved with curb, gutter, 36 feet width of pavement, and 5 foot wide sidewalk in parkway along the project frontage. A minimum of 24 foot width of pavement within the Avon Street right-of-way shall be provided from the easterly project boundary easterly to existing A. C. pavement and as approved by the Public Works Department. That developers adjoining the improvements constructed by the applicant will be required to reimburse the applicant for frontage improvements if development occurs within 5 years of completion of said improvements. 11. That the existing drive aprons along the West Coast Highway i frontage be removed and replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk; that all proposed drive aprons located along the West Coast, Highway frontage be reconstructed per City Standard 166-L; that any deteriorated portions of sidewalk along the West Coast Highway frontage be reconstructed; and that all work within the West Coast Highway right-of-way be completed under, encroachment permits issued by the California Department of Transportation and the City of Newport Beach. 12. That no vehicle delivery trucks shall load or off-load within the West Coast Highway right-of-way. 13. That the site shall be designed and laid out to allow vehicle delivery trucks to drive from West Coast Highway through to Avon Street. 14. That the West Coast Highway entrance drive shall line up with the Lancer's Landing drive. 15. That in the future, should the owner desire to have on-street ,parking, he agrees to construct a parking bay on West Coast Highway outside the dedication area to provide for said parking. Dedication as necessary to provide for the parking bay shall be provided. 16. 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. t `. MINUTES COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 .0�'(.� ysG yM yy' yov� CITY -OF NEWPORT BEACH F ROLL CALL the Building Department for its use under the camas roof. 9, at the canvas roof and siding in the patio area s 11 be flame retardant with a maximum flame spr d of 25 as required in Chapter 42 of the Unifo Building Code. 10. That the auras roof shall be retractable, unless otherwise a roved by the Building Department. 11. That Coastal Cc ission approval shall be obtained. 12. That the Planning mmission may add to or modify conditions of appro 1 to this use permit, or . recommend to the Ci Council the revocation of this use permit upon determination that the operation which is the su act of this amendment causes injury, or is detr ntal to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 13. That all conditions of appro 1 shall be implemented within 60 days from the a ective ,date of this application, unless other arran ments are made with the Planning Department. 14. That this use permit shall expire unless exer sad within 24 months from the date of approval s specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newpor Ztem No.7 Traffic Traffic Study No 49 (Continued Public Nearine) Study Request to accept a revised traffic study so as to No. 49 permit the establishment of a restaurant in conjunction 0P3229A with the approved auto dealership located on property within the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Denied Mariner's Mile Specific Plan which includes a request to override the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND -28- l \ MINUTES COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL. �,• Usa Peres* No 3229 (gmendad)fContinued Public Hearin ) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of an automobile dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Height Limitation District, on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment includes a requeat to permit the establisbment of a restaurant facility with on-sale beer and wine in a portion of the auto dealership. LOCATION: Parcel 1 0£ Parcel Map No. 87-106 (Resubdivision No. 840), located at 3000 vast Coast Highway, on the northerly aide of West Coast Highway between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE; SP-5 APPLICANT; Lee West, Newport Beach OWNER; Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Lee- West, applicantp appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. West stated that he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" with the following exceptions. In reference to Condition No: 11 requiring a trash compactor, Mr. West stated that he has a daily trash pickup. In response to a question,posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. West stated that he wouid•agree to a modified condition that would require a trash compactor or daily trash pickup. In reference to Mr. blast's concerns regarding Coastal Commission approval as required in Condition No. 18; William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that all discretionary items require Coastal Commission approval if the project is in the coastal zone, and the subject application is a separate use permit application for a new restaurant. Mr. West, Chairman Pers6n, and Mr. Laycock discussed the differences between an employee cafeteria and a restaurant. Mr. West stated that the Traffic Study failed because the Traffic Study was only taken during peak traffic hours, and he maintained that the restaurant's peak operating hours are after the peak traffic hours. Mr. -29- �� MINUTES COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROIL CALL West further stated that he has previously contributed $125,000.00 for road improvements. Chairman PersSn stated that the Traffic Study is only analyzed during peak traffic hours in accordance with the Traffic 'Phasing Ordinance. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. West stated that the proposed restaurant's' operating hours will be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 P-m the same operating hours as the automobile dealership, and that the restaurant would be open when the ICU would be affected. Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, concurred-that it is a State Law that discretionary action requires the approval said fCoastal Commissionbm modified by the applicable, action cannot Planning Commission. Mrs. Donna Colombero, 1003 East Balboa Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Balboa Point Peninsula Association to oppose the subject application. She stated that the Association's 'Concerns are that the third level of the parking structure cannot accommodate customer parking, and the traffic generated by the restaurant. Mr. Sid Sofer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Mesa, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sofer suggested an additional condition that would require a review of the application after a specific time period to reevaluate the traffic impact. Dr. Jan VanderSloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission ,in opposition to the application based on the traffic that the restaurant would generate, specifically at the Riverside Drive/West Coast Highway intersection. He stated that the roof of the building has blocked out the Newport Heights residents view of the automobiles and the bay. Dr. VanderSloot further maintained that the applicant has requested higher intensity of use because they have excess parking. Mrs. Jeanine Gault, 406 San Bernadino Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Newport Heights Community Association, to state their opposition to the project on the basis of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. -30- ' COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, -the public hearing was closed at this time. The Planning Comission and staff discussed the floor area ratio of the building. Motion * Motion was made to deny Traffic Study No. 49 and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) subject to the findings in Exhibit "B". Commissioner Di Sano stated that 'no would support the motion on the basis of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Chairman Persdn stated that he would support the motion inasmuch as the Planning commission cannot approve the project unless there is evidence given which would the planning Commission to create' findings for approval to override the 'Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and he said that no evidence was given to override the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Comissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion hexed on the operating hours bf the restaurant and the ICU. 'Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the restaurant is not an inappropriate use; however, he said that he would not override the Traffic Phasing Ordinance to "worsen" a bad problem. Motion was voted on to deny Traffic Study No. 49 and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) subject• io the findings in All Ayes Exhibit "B". MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is not consistent with the General Plan, and, the adopted Local Coastal 'Program, Land Use Plan inasmuch as the proposed project requires an exception to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. s 2. 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. 3. That the project generated traffic makes worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at the •31- �,, +' MINUTES COMMISSIONERS September 8, 1988 tP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX RML CALL intersection Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue.' 4, That the only available traffic improvement which would result in compliance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is clearly beyond the scope of this project, 'and is not anticipated to be constructed within 48 months. -5. That the project does not include any trip generation reductions• which will allow an exception.to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) will, , 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• and be" detii- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare.•of the City • inasmuch as the proposed .project requires an exception to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Item_NO.8 R uest to approve a traffic' study so as to permit the TS No.51. dons ction of an 85;170 sq.ft. medical. office UP3279 build in on property located in the A-P District. &R oved AND B. Use Permit N Request to permit the co truction of a 85,170 sq.ft. medical office building on oparty located in the A-P District which exceeds the be c height limit in the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Di ict. The proposal also includes a modification to the oning Code so as to allow the use of compact size park spaces for a portion of the required off-street parkin LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2, ne's Subdivision, located at 351 Hospital oad, on the northeasterly corner of Hospital d and Placentia Avenue, across from Hoa Memorial Hospital. -32- ✓ ... ,Cry OF NEWPORT B�4CH ' COUNCIL MEMEEIIS MINUTES C JAIN October 100. 1988 INQEX 3. Mayor•Cox•oplued the public hearing and U/P 3229(A) City Council review of an ippeol by (88) LiLA1at B.. iiEST, Newport Beach, from the uniilmoui denial by the Planning Commission an September 8, 1988, oft A. TRAYPIC STUDY No. 49 - Raquest to We Stdy 49 eraffic study so as to permit the establishment of a restaurant in conjunction with the approved auto'dealarabip located on property within the "Retail Service Commercial" area of ihrMariners' Mile Specific Plan which includes a requast•to override the requirements of the Tiaffie Phasing Ordinance; and the accaptanca of an Environmental Document; E.,t• UBj PERMIT NO. 3229CAmended - '''f�quastt to mend.a priously approved tt permit which permitted the construction of an automobile dealarabip.whieh exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Haight Limitation District, an property located at 3000 pest Coast Highway; in mariners' Milo. t The proposed amendment includes a request to permit, the establishment of a restaurant facility-with , . on-sale beer ind wine in a portion of the auto dealership. Report from the Planning Departmmat, was presented. Appeal application w/map from Laland H. Vast, was presented. Motion Motion was made to,continue the qubject , All Ayes ivarin to•6t00 p.m., October 24, 1988. PUBLIC COMMINTSt 1. • salia A. Role, 950 Poppy Lane, Planning rested the Council regarding property (68) • ab nd bar husband purchased from the ' bran pany known as The Terraces. She satad t after purchasing the &its, their fro yard was converted into three park &paces without their can east. She add the ban discussed this matter wit staff, and the Bran , Volume 42 - Pala 4 OF NEWPORT &L-ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ADJOURNED/REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Co PLACES Council Chambers TIME: 6:00 P.H. L DATE: October 24, 1988 INDEXi _CAA Mayo Cox presented the following Procl tions ragardings White ane Safety Day world d Day/Orange County Hunger Week United Na one Day Mayor Cox indicate that the presentation by the members of the ' ei say No" Club of Newport Elementary So 1 would take place a little later on in the a eada, as some of the students bad not yet arri d. Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Motion x 8. Reading of Minutes of Meet1¢ of October All Ayes 10, 1988, were waived, approve as written, and ordered filed. Motion x C. He in full of all ordinances an All Ayae resoldtdons under consideration, was waived, and City Clerk was directed to read'by titles only. _•,_ • •.,, D. 'HEARINGSs 1. Mayor Cox opened the continued public D/P 3229(A) hurdng•and City Council review of an Leland APPEAL BY LELAND H. WEST, Newport Beach,, West from the unanimous denial by the (88) planning Commission-on September 8, 1988 of s A. TRAPPIC STUDY No. 49•_ ,_ Tfc Stdy#49 Request to accept a revised traffic study so as to,parmit.tho.establ�shmsnt of a raataurant in conjunction with the approved auto dealerahip located on property within the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariners Mile Specific Plan which includes a request tw override the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and the acceptance of'an Environmental Document; AND B. USE PERMIT NO. 3229 (AMENDED) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of an automobile dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height Halt In the 26/35 Height Limitation District, on property located at 3000 Wste! Coast Highwa i y, n Mariners' Mile. The proposed amendment includes a request to permit the establishment of a volume 42 - Page 420 • O • • ♦f S J 6tTY OF NEWPORT B6ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES LL CAL October 24, 1988 restaurant facility with,ca-male bear U/P 3229(A) and wins.in a portion of the auto deµarphip. Recycled report from Planning Department, dated October 10, 1988, with appeal application from Leland Best, was presented. _ Copy of letter to Planning commission Chairman from Gail Dammer, President of Newport Reights,Cossunity Association, requesting denial of subject use permit, was presented. Assistant City Clark advised that after the agenda was printed, a letter from Dr. Jan D. Vandarsloot was received requesting denial of Newport Imports to establish a Ruby's Restaurant in their building, based on the Traffic Phasing ordinance. Ken Delino, Executive Assistant to the City Manager, suemmrisad the project as a request to amend a use permit to enable a previously approved employees cafeteria area to be converted to a full-service restaurant with beer and wine takeout service. He further stated that in the denial, the Planning Commission noted there was adequate parking, but the project did not most the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. In addition, he stated, the . applicant has offered to close the restaurant during the psak hours, but the opinion of staff is that This would be difficult to enforce. Bob Burnham, City Attorney, stated that copies of his memorandum regarding the subject use permit and related traffic study, have been given to the applicant, the staff (to be included in the .� record), and to the City Council, which attempts to answer some questions as to whether the applicant can, under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), close the restaurant and therefore, comply with the TPO, and yiadinge for Denial of Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended). He stated he indicated in his memorandum, that since the TPO uses the California Environaental Qesldty Act (CEQA) definition of "project," and CEQA,allows a project to modify its proposal, the Council can consider this project satisfying the TPO, with the imposition Volume 42 - 421 Y OF NEWPORT B •.:NCH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS NVOW, ` LL October 24, 1988 of conditions that require the U/P 3229(A) restaurant to close during the peak hour periods. Further, the City Attorney stated that it is his opinion this type of condition will be difficult to enforce, as it may not be consistent with the spirit of•tha TPO. He added that at to his memorandum are two exhibits; the Findings for Approval of Traffic Study No. 49 (there were no Findings for Approval with the report that went to the Planning Commission); and Findings for Denial of Use Permit No. 3229 [Amended] (in the attachment to the Planning Commission, there were no Finding for Denial of the use permit). In aummary, he stated that the Council has three options as they relate to the TPO'. 1) find that no traffic study is required because the project has been modified; 2) override the TPO; 3) or deny the traffic study on the basis that the conditions the applicant is offering to abide by are difficult, or impossible to enforce. He stated that Council also has the option of approving, or denying the use permit, and findings for denial are with the material that was submitted to the Council, which is an action that Council can take independent of the decision on the traffic study and the TPO. He stated that the findings for denial of the use permit are predicated on two things: 1) the proposed project requires valet parking for restaurant customers and there is the potential for traffic congestion occurring in the west bound lanes of Pacific Coast Highway in the event valets cannot adequately accommodate the demand for their ser6icss; and 2) the intersection at Riversida and Pacific Coast Highway experiences heavy congestion during the . 1100 a.m. to 1300 p.m. ,periods, and the , incremental increase in congestion resulting from the restaurant use will adversely affect service at that intersection. The Planning Director stated that he felt the Council was due an explanation from the staff as follows' When this project was presented to the Planning Commission, it was specifically designated as an employee cafeteria. Shortly after the applicant started construction of the project, it came to the attention of staff that it was the applicant's intent to put a Ruby's Restaurant in this location. Staff volume 42 - Page 422 bdTY OF NEWPORT dUACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL JLN co+ October 24, 1988 INDEX contacted the applicant and informed him D/P 3229(h) that at thi time this project had been originally approved by the City, there was no restaurant approved as a part of the application, but the proposed space was strictly for the use of the employes. The applicant than applied for an amendment to the use permit. .In . the sanction, as construction progressed, it was noted,by the Building Department that the type of equipment being installed, in terms of sinks. vents, refrigeration, ,cooking, etc., was the same that would be used foie a commercial restaurant. When the City brought this to the applicant's attention, and suggested that something on a smaller scale would be more appropriate for an amployeas cafeteria, it was very strongly indicated to staff, that regardless of whether the space was, to be used as a commercial,restauranis or an employees cafeteria, the identical equipment, floor plan, and facility was going to go into that space, and for that reason no "red tags," to the but of the Planning Director's knowledge, wari issued while allowing than to proceed with that space. ' , Doug Cavanaugh, owner of Ruby'sDiner, Tat., reprununting the applicant. Hr. W Nast, presented a graph which deucribas the different business hours of operation and,how thu traffic flow come", into the proposed Festaurant. He stated that Ruby's Dinar,. Inc., currently owns '• and operates six restaurant" in the greater Orange County area, three of which are in Newport Beach. He continued that shortly after the first use permit was issued to Newport Imports, he participated in the design Of the facility, and added that the structure will be a limited partnership and Ruby's Diner, Inc. being the gsneral partner with 50% equity. He stated that he fully recognise$ the traffic problems on Pacific Coast Highway and Riverside Drive, and does not want to add to those problems. He is confident that there arc ways to condition and mitigate the impact this project might have, and stated that theta are several positive features that the facility will have an the traffic in the eras, one of which is to provide a medium priced restaurant for the volume 42 - Page 423 .n :t..r TY OF NEWPORT St.ACH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS � October 24. 1988 INDEX business and residential community U/P 3229(A) surrounding the dealership. There are currently 110 employees working in Newport Imports now, and he felt that those people would be more inclined:to stay on-site with a full-sexviee restaurant. He presented a petition signed by 125 local residents indicating their support for the project. He added that he would like to propose the following conditions of operation to mitigate the traffic impacts, and that would be to not open the facility to the public until 8:30 a.m., and close the •. facility between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m., to miss the afternoon rush. He stated that these suggested hours of operation were derived by their traffic engineer, Bill Darnell, and asked him to address the Council on this issue. Bill Darnell, Basmaciyan, Darnall, Inc., 3190 Airport Loop Drive, Costa Nee&, addressed the Council, stating that'hie firm was asked to evaluate the project and advise the applicant and Mr. Cavanaugh on what kind of mitigation measures could be developed that would Satisfy the TPO. He'stated that they went over the peak hour counts that the City generates for the TPO, and all the cumulative projects, and developed ICU'a on 15 minute increments, going from 7:00 a.m., to 9.15 a.m., and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 plm., using the background and existing traffic. They found that up to 8:00-9:00 a.m. the ICU remains over .90; and from 8:15-9:15 a.m., it starts diminishing drastically and comes down to an ICU of .90 which would satisfy the TPO. In the afternoons at 3:30-4:30 p.m. the ICU's were acceptable at .90; and at 3:45-4:45 p.m. acceptable at .90.- Be added that at 4:00 p.m. the ICU starts to break down and exceeds the .90 requirement of the TPO. Mr. Cavanaugh addressed the Council again, giving the following information with regard to enforceability of the restaurant hours of operation: Primarily, proper signage on the facility would educate the public as to i the time the restaurant was in operation, and after some time, there should be no problem. The results from a graph of his designer restaurants volume 42 - Page 424 • T ' . VTY OF •NEWPORT &dACH 1 COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES co Pal I ? � October 24, 1986 INDEX shows that the lowest demand time hours U1P 3229(A) are from 7s30-800 a.m., and from 4s30-5$30 p.m., and therefore, usage of the facility at these times would not present a significant traffic problem. The valet parking system would be of benefit because the valets could be educated to inform the public as to the hours of operation for the restaurant. They would like to have a trial period to sea if they could be successful, and if no. they would like to try it for a longer period, but that if the,results were negative, they would accept the conlaquences. ' Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive. representing the Newport Heights Community Association; addressed the Council, stating that there are many citizens in Newport Heights that have something to say about the proposed use parmit tonight, and asked for permission to speak on their behalf, with the following testimonyt Recently at a public forum Mo. Dommor attended, she picked up a Nowpoit Harbor Chamber of Commarce magazine, and referred to an article written by the Government Affairs Division in regard to the TPO, which states, "the City currently has a Traffic Phasing Ordinance adopted in 1978, which evaluates the traffic impact by now development, and requires traffic Improvements to be in place prior to the occupancy of the new development....the existing TPO is one of the most ., .,stringent ordinances of its type in the State of California, and this TPO has been affective in regulating local development and in providing needed road Improvements at no cost�to the taxpayers...we don't need any other initiatives, or ordinances when we have this very fine TPO in the City,-.-the way to regulate and deal with complicated and costly traffic solutions is through the existing TPO.." Ms. Demmer added that it is very interesting to note-that the Prosident of the Government Affairs Division has never bean a member of the Newport Heights Community Association, and the Associationcannot agree more thoroughly with what the business community, has to say about the TPO. Therefore, the Newport Haight$ Community Association asks that the Council support the findings for denial of volume 42 - Page 425 OF NEW-PORT 'Bti�CH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS INDEX '0 October 24, 1988 ROLL Traffic Study No. 49, and Use Permit No. U/P 3229(A) 3229 (Amended), as the project does not moat the TPo requirements, and the • traffic generated onto Riverside Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway will increase the already intense traffic situation that presently exists: She also stated chat, in the traffic study findings prasantad to the.Council at the March 23, 1987 maeting,'the staff report, on - page 44; Item No. 2, states that the traffic study indicates the projact-generated traffic with neither ' cause, nor make worsa.an unsatisfactory rylevel of traffic on any major, p i modified, or primary street.' She stated that they believe-the traffic generated, onto Riverside Avenue and Avon Street iri11 most iirtainly be affected at an unsatisfactory Laval, and on Page 46. Itam No. '3, it stataa•the site shall-be designed and laid but to allow vehicle ' delivery trueks to drive from West Coast Highway through to Avon Strait. At the rims of the issuance of the original use permit, the association believed that the improvements on Avon were just for that'intended purpose, including their - employee traffic, but today we are realising a very major and very popular well-known restaurant will exit all its traffic from Avon Street. This is in violation of what the association perceives the intended usage of this street, and are of the opinion that this kind of traffic generation will require a double lefthand lane turn from Riverside south onto Pacific Coast Highway, and an intersection that is already in.need of a double lefthand turn possibility from Padific Coast Highway going north onto Rivaraide Avenue. They also believe that the protection and safety of spending bicycles, primarily from Ensign;Junior High school and Harbor High School will necessitate a light at Avon Street and Riverjide and they Councis support- ofstaf 'eindinge and conclusions. recommended to the Planning Commission and supported by the Commission, that -trip reduction methods do not appear redsonable.for the proposad•project. It is.the opinion of ' their 'C6mmunity Association -that , •restrictions in the bouts of operation in peek traffic hours would be 1mpoesible to regulate and enforce. They are aware that they have many fine i • restaurants on Nerinars Mile, and who ats not Balling automobiles. They are Volume 42 -,page 426 ' I 'kdTY OF NEWPORT df ACM COUNCIL MEMKFL4 MINUTES October 24, 1988 INDEX also concerned that this entrepreneur U/P 3229(A) has already built a restaurant, and it was built for public usage, it is in fact, completely installed, decorated and electrically wired to meet State compliance for public restaurant operation, and far exceeds, at this Particular point, employee lunch room requirements. This, including a retail clothing store, has been built without permit in the Newport Imports structure. What estate here, is a restaurant, . completely built without permit, and with no way to control the usage, traffic, or the patronage. Chan Lafebvre, 2112 B. Balboa Boulevard; member of the Hoard of Directors of the. Balboa Pannineula Point Association, addressed the Council, stating that for all of thi reason given by Ns. Demmer previously, they too ato opposed to the proposed application, and urge the council's denial. Winn Rayl, 426 Ben Bernardino, Newport Heights, addressed the Council, stating that the residents were not aware that the neighborhood was being canvassed for signatures regarding the traffic in the area of the post office off of Riverside Avenue. She added that the traffic going to and out all day at the post office is affecting the small businesses in that area. 'She also stated that she is mainly concerned what will happen to the traffic situation if the restaurant, .which started out to'be an employees cafeteria, loss in, not to station the clothing store, and amphaslead that the public, along with the City, has been ' deceived. The Planning Director addressed the Council regarding the "boutique" clothing store, stating that the original plans that were approved did include a retail clothing store on the Premises, and the applicant, had a aimilar type of operation in another location with an automobile dealership and the sale of sportswear. Nike Nooslin, 621 Powell Place, Newport Heights, addressed the Council, stating that be has lived in the area for 'Volume 42 — Pala 427 CITY OF NEWPORT St:ACH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS oOL •• � o+ `ph October 24, 1988 INDEX— approximately 14 years. Be added,that be /P 3229(A) hss•saan the City approve close to a million feet of office space on Coast Highway, and the people that work in those offices get into their care and drive to a place to eat lunch. Be emphasized that the traffic is being created by the additional office space of the large businesses and banks, and not by the proposed small diner. Be stated, that to have a restaurant across the street has got to alleviate some of that traffic, and to have an opportunity where a small local businessman, who has done an outstanding job for the City, coma in with a diner where the public can spend $4 or $5, rather than $12, $15, or $20. without'going out of the City and alleviate traffic, seems to him a '4rin-win" situation. Be added that there are not enough inexpensive places to sat in the area, and that Buby's is a local business who is trying to help our City, vs. an out-of-stata chain type of operation, and ve should support our , local businessman. Dr. Jan D. Vdnderaloot, 2221 16th Street, addressed the Council, stating that he disputes the intentions that guby's will reduce traffic, and questions the results of the applicant's toahiscreadingtoftthesstudy, theAccording ITO would still be tripped from 4:00-5s45 p.m., even with the restaurant being closed. According to the applicant's consultant's own study, from 4500-5:00 p.m., the TPO goes up from .88 to .93, and anything over 90 tripe the TPO. goes up from914to0.9530andmfr m 049�5945 .95 Therefore Tin tPO he o hetwo hoursthat thn•sy are closed, the traffic which is generaiad because ca'ra come to and•frm the restaurant svaa before it opens, we have the TPO ordinance being tripped, and for this reason he recommends that the Council oppose the protect. • Zachary.Pedicini, 102 Scholz plaza, addressed applicant,eLae he CWest,1has therm at the most an rtt and beautiful west coast, that he hip eis aagood citizen and a credit to the community. Bill Darnell, Basmaciyan, Darnall, Inc., addressed the Council again, stating that he wanted to clarify, that what is Volume 42 - page 428 b1TY OF NE-WPORT CigACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES LL JANN �t October 24, 1986 ' INDEX ehova in Table I of his report regarding /P 3229W Impacting-the TPO requirements, and what is shorn in the table is full implementation of the restaurant during those hours, so that they could use the figures as a tool to find out wharf the traffic might be a problem. 'The City Attorney directed a question to Mr. Darnall, as to whether he bad'an opinion if the TPO might be tripped booed upon Roby's employees coming and leaving work other than when the restaurant is closed, to wbich'Mr. Darpall stated that the graph submitted to Council does not reflect this, and he did not believe this to be true based upon statistics they have gathered from other restaurant operations. Mr. Darnell stated, the analysis they did above that what trips the TPO is the traffic leaving the project site going out to Avon anUtrying to coma down to Riverside, but the employees are only Into the project site, and they would, not be impacting traffic, but the movement might exceed lg. He added that morning eastbound direction traffic using the "0-turn," and full use of the restaurant would not•trip the TPO even, with traffic from employees and in the afternoon, with the lx volume at 63 and the total project at 48, the TPO would not be tripped greater than 12 by the employees. Council Member Strauss asked Mr. Cavanaugh•when did the project take shape, es it wasn't originally a restaurant, and what made it come about. Mr. Cavanaugh stated,that he was contacted wall after the first use permit was approved, and it was Mr. Rast's intention that he wanted it first-class facility, no matter wbat, and in the avant it would notbe , ' approved, it could serve as a first-claw cafeteria. Council Member Strauss inquired as to how many people can the facility serve, either as a cafeteria or as a restaurant, to which Mr. Cavanaugh replied, sooting for 94. Mr. Cavanaugh added that for clarification, if the facility opened at , 800 a.a., the employees would arrive at approximately 700 a.m., and the second shift would be arriving sometime around 400 p.m. Volume 42 - Page 429 COUNCIL MEMBERS Aw TY OF NEWPORT BtbACH Nis � N NWO\ October 24. 1988 INDEX Hearing no one alas wishing to address U/P 3229(A) the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion z After Council discuseion,_motion was All Ayes made to sustain,tha deeision_of the Plaaning Commission for denial; to include the City Attol;n}y!s_odditional findings for denial•of Dse, Permit No. 3229 (Amended); and to add_aJinding.No. 7 to the Findings for Denial of Traffic study No. 49, and'subject• use permit, as followat "City Attornt Is Findineat The proposed restaurant use will be detrimental to the health, Peace, safety, morals and comfort of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and to the general welfare of.the City in that: 1) the proposed project requires valet parking for'restauraut customers and there is the potential for traffic congestion occurring in the vest bound lanes of Pacific Coast ' Highway in the event valets cannot adequately accommodsts the demand for their services; and 2) the intersection at Riverside and. Pacific Coast Highway experiences heavy congestion during the 11:30 a.m. to 1:0o p.m. periods, and the incremental increase in congestion resulting from the restaurant use will adversely affect service at that intersection." "Findinxs for Denial of Traffic Stud No. 49 and Use Permit No. 3229 Amand,d t 1. That the proposed development is not consistent with the General Plan, and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. inasmuch as the proposed project requires an exception to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 2. That a Traffic Study has been • prepared which analyses 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.Poliey S-1. Volume 42 - Page 430 11.� �TY OF�',NEWPORT 'B 'ACH MINUTES COUNCIL MEM[IERS • L October 24, 1988 INDEX %. 3. That the project generated UP 3229(A) traffic makan worse an uneatisfactory,level of I traffic'iervice at the intirsactioa of Coast Highway' and Riverside Avenue. 4. ble traffic-improvaa ement which would result in compliance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is olairly�bayond the scope of ; this project, and Se'not anticipated to be constructed' within 48 months. , 3. That the project does not' include any trip ginarstion reductions which will allow An exception to the Traffic Pbasing,Ordinanca. 6. The approval of Use Panic No. 3229 (Amended) will, under the Circumstances of this cosa,bi detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of parsons residing and working in the neighborhood and be, detrimental to the health, safety, pence, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood and be dettiiantal, or injurious to property and improvements in' the naigbborbood and the general welfare of the City, insesuch ae the proposed project requires an exception to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 7. Conditions on the project, such as closure between the hour, of 7so0-900 a.m., and' 3s30-600;p.a., or other hours, which may cause the project to comply with the TPO are difficult, if not impossible to enforce." A this time, Mayor Cox asked the Newport El* racy school students to come forward with t r presentation of the "Just Say Noe Club to c braia "Red Ribbon Weak;" wherein students of d remarks, and presented the City Council wl red ribbon pins. Volume 42 - P 431 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V z P.O.BOX•1768.NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915 c�<rFpa�%r PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3215 May 8, 1989 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Leland H. West 3000 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: The Jaguar Diner, 3000 West Coast Hwy. , Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. West: It has come to the attention of this department that you are in the process of operating a restaurant open to the public from your subject property and that you are doing business under the name of the Jaguar Diner. The application for this use, which had previously been applied for in conjunction with Traffic Study No. 49 and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended), was denied at the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 1988. After that denial, the matter was reheard by the City Council on October 24, 1988 and the decision was made to sustain the action of the Planning Commission for denial of Traffic Study No. 49 and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) . Therefore, without any further notification, you are to immediately cease and desist any further restaurant operations involving the coming and going of the public from the subject property location. Should you choose 'to ignore this request, . this item will immediately be referred to the Office of the City Attorney for appropriate action. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in helping us to resolve this matter in an amicable fashion. To discuss this letter, you should contact Jim Sinasek between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m. or 4:00 and 4:30 p.m. at the above phone number. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director r J Jj' By /�/ / /I L.•4 . m SinaAk ode Enforcement Officer JS: xc: William Laycock, Current Planning Manager Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach I I i I 1 • TRAFFIC STUDY FOR NEWPORT IMPORTS RESTAURANT Prepared for: `9 NEWPORT IMPORTS 1 I IPrepared by: 1 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 17701 Mitchell North Suite 101 Irvine, CA 92714 J (714) 474-1131 J August, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . 1 1 . . . 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS. Roadway Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Intersection Capacity. . PROJECT.RELATED TRAFFIC. . . . . . . . 3 Trip Generation. 3 Project Trip Distribution. • . . . . 3 I 7 IMPACT ANALYSIS. Regional Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Approved Projects. . . . • • • • • • . • • • • . . . . . . 10 One Percent Analysis . . . . . . 10 Intersection Capacity Analysis 10 iSUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . 14 1 APPENDIX A - ICU WORKSHEETS - EXISTING CONDITIONS APPENDIX B - ADJUSTMENT OF APPROVED PROJECT TRAFFIC APPENDIX C - ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX D - ICU WORKSHEETS - CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT I1 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR RESTAURANT SITE ON COAST HIGHWAY J IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' INTRODUCTION Newport Imports proposes the utilization of 31300 square feet of existing employee restaurant space within Newport Imports located on the north side of Coast Highway, west of Riverside Avenue the City of Newport Beach. The project is proposed to provide approximately So seats and operate between 9 AM - and 9 PM. The restaurant is to be located inside the Newport Jaguar Auto Deal- ership building, and is proposed to take access from one driveway each on Coast Highway and Avon Street. The project vicinity is .,� shown on Figure I. Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI) has been retained to prepare a traffic impact study addressing the traf- fic-related impacts of the project. This study' is intended to satisfy the requirements of the City Of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . ] EXISTING CONDITIONS �j The project site is located in the southwest portion of the City J of Newport Beach. Regional access to the area is provided by Coast Highway (State Route 1) and Newport Boulevard (State Route 55) . Local access is provided• by Coast Highway. The project 1 site is currently occupied by Newport Jaguar Auto Dealership. Land uses in the vicinity of the project include commercial office space, restaurants, and marine-related uses. ry Roadway Characteristics J �Qast H�,ghwS,Y (State Route 1 ► extends from Northern California :.� southerly along the coast to- San Clemente, where it becomes E1 Camino Real. In the vicinity of the project, Coast Highway is a lour-lane divided primary arterial with a center -turn lane and left-turn pockets at intersections. The Newport Imports exit on Coast Highway is posted, withsigns restricting left turns out. Left turns into the site are allowed from Coast Highway. j Riverside Avenue extends north from Coast Highway to 15th Street. J Between Coast Highway and Avon street, Riverside Avenue is a .lour-lane undivided roadway, narrowing to a two-lane undivided roadway north of Avon Street. Avon Street is a two-lane local roadway extending west from ., Riverside Avenue to the project and also extending east to Tustin Avenue. i I A16 f 1 • 11 ,a P P HOSPITALRD ' „1 PROJECT W1Dgon J � SITE rr.lrt? ffrri:r:•� 1 y ,, I Wct �ID4 0 �Rr • _�\NfL A I� .J 00 F,9 � Z .'] \ FIGURE 1 OASMACIYAN•DARNELL,INC. VICINITY MAP I . IPARK hour Traffic Volumes and Tntersection Capacity Five intersections in the vicinity of the project have been identified by the City Traffic Engineer as requiring impact analysis. The five intersections are: o Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road o Newport Boulevard and Via Lido o Pacific Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue o Pacific Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue o Pacific Coast Highwayarid Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive Figure 2 -presents the Ali/PM turning movements at each of the critical intersections. Each of the intersections are currently signalized, and have keen .analyzed by the City to determine the existing operating conditions, using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections. The results of the intersection analyses are shown in Table 1: Review of Tabled shows that all intersections analyzed are W rksh etsaare evel of Service "d" or contained in Appendix Abto this 'rep ies of the ICU report. PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC Trio Generation Tripmaking levels for the proposed project have been estimated, using trip generation rates published in the Institute of Trans- portation Engineers Trip Generation Manual 'and approved by the City of Newport Beach. When calculating the anticipated "trip generation levels from the proposed project, it is assumed that a portion of the restaurant clientele will be comprised of the Jemployees and patrons of the Newport Jaguar Dealership, and J pedestrian traffic from surrounding retail uses along Coast Highway. Therefore, a 20% reduction in vehicle ,trips has been taken to account for this non-vehicle traffic. Trip generation rites resulting trip are summarized on table generationproposed 3,300 square feet of restaurant use Review of Table 2 shows that the project is anticipated to generate 528• vehicles trips per day, with 50 in the morning peak hour, and 53 in the evening peak hour. The Cityl:s TPO analysis process also requires analysis of the /2 hour Generally,eak period for both the morning and the evening periods. hour peak period trip generation equals two times the peak hour :••' volumes. These 2-1/2 hour peak period volumes are also summa- rized on Table 2. Project Trir Distribution Trip distribution assumptions for project traffic are based on j anticipated origins and destinations of potential clientele for -3- ?�. Lau HOSPITAL RD �7974 IV 1511m ¢ s/nz9�5—�Air PROJECT y .�'� AIrON ¢ t O FF'•^w � o i:: 's:. co a Fi. ^ � A1'a^ i ( O PACIFIC COAST J/1l HWY �30.9 t 6 8 4' ro 1 6 sae ISOr/� u amps l: o R-u ,0 R---384AS5 95199-� 2142„543...... +r •25n9� e�Z' VIA LIDO t �m 2 LEGEND a XX1YY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES S FIGURE 2 �` MSMACIYA"ARNELL,ING EXISTING PEAK HOURLY TURNING MOVEMENTS TABLE 1 1 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AM Peak PM Peak Intersection ICU- LOS ICU -LOS ------------ 1 NEWPORT BOULEVARD at: Hospital Road .57 A .73 C Via Lido .53 A .56 A PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY at: Riverside Avenue �67 B .61 B Tustin Avenue Dover Dr./Bayshore Dr. •73 C .72 C J �l .J TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES AND PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip Generation Rates --------------------- ----------------------------------------------- AM Peak AM PM Peak PM 2-1/2 Hour(a) Peak Hour(a) 2-1/2 Hour(a) Peak Hour(a) ------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ Land Use Units Daily(a) In out In Out In Out In out -------- -------- -7--- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -- High-Turnover Restaurant 1,000 SF 200 21.20 17.00 10.60 8.50 21.20 18.60 10.60 9.30 i Project Trip Generation --------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak AM PM Peak PM 2-1/2 Hour Peak Hour 2_ -12 Hour - Peak Hour - - Land Use Units-- . Daily -In-- Out- - - - In Out In_- Out-- In-- out Restaurant 3.3 KSF 660 70 56 35 28 70 61 35 31 20% Reduction for Non-Vehicle Traffic 132 14 11 7 6 14 12 --7- 6 --- ---- ---- ---- --- --- Vehicle Trip Generation 528 56 45 28 22 56 49 28 25 ' (a) Vehicles Per Thousand Square Feet (KSF) . 1 the restaurant, and the nature of the circulation systemfor vehicular travel. distriution _ project available t traffic is shown on Figure 3h andrisBcted generally as follows o South on Coast Highway 30% o North on Coast Highway 30% o East (Inland) of Coast Hwy 1 o West of Coast Highway When the assumed distribution characteristics of project traffic are applied to the project-related trips, the resulting assign ment of peak hour traffic and peak hour volumes at intersections .� are shown on Figure 4. IMPACT ANALYSIS The city of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing ordinance requires project traffic impacts to be analyzed for both morning and evening peak conditions at critical intersections within the City as identified by the City's Traffic Engineer. The City Traffic Engineer has identified five (5) critical intersections. The five (5) - intersections were previously identified in the existing conditions section of this report. The process involves the evaluation of traffic conditions one year after opening of the. project. For purposes of this analysis, the year 1990 was uti- lized for the impact analysis. The analysis process includes regional traffic growth, approved projects traffic and project- related traffic. The evaluation process starts with the peak 2-1/2 hour intersec- tion analysis. This analysis utilizes the cumulative traffic morning and evening peak 2-1/2 hour analyses to -determine if the .l project's peak 2-1/2 hour volume exceeds 1% of the cumulative J peak period volume for any of the approaches to the critical intersection. If the project volume exceeds one percent (irk) , J Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analyses are performed. If the ICU analysis identifies that the project causes the ICU to exceed 0.90 or makes worse an ICU value greater than 0.90, addi- tional analysis is required to develop specific mitigation meas- ures. The following sections discuss Regional Growth, Approved Projects, One Percent (1%) Analysis, and Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis. ,•J Regional Growth ' The City has developed estimates of annual growth rates along major arterials within the City. These growth rates represent increases in traffic from growth and development in the surround- ing areas. Within these study area of the project the following growth rates were used: -7- 1 • �O 13% Pv HOVITALIID 1% 1%I `r'I 15% Y3 ..� VEpE1DE p11 . PROJECT SITE ►►_ VON 16% 30% f 16% 5:;. � b .� ti. ,• � tr sox t`1`•::: 38X 50% a ,fit ky tr \ 4% MW 36% 30% IV A '4c% I� i 1 LEGEND �F.9 XX% TRIP DISTRIBUTION y • PERCENTAGE %N B% FIGURE 3 PROJECT-RELATED BASMACIYAN•DARNELL,INC. TRIP DISTRIBUTION �� AAt LRIJ HOSPITAL RD�Qm —Qm wo SITE PROJECT o 303 0 N W 2 rV4 •1 V0 ¢` �1h w w IN C PACIFIC COAST rh U/1I' 70 - ,o f q�p-y o VIA LIDO 8 D 3 K N LEGEND 9 m - XX/YY-AM/PM PEAK HOUR p TRAFFICVOLUMES FIGURE 4 � MSMAOYANAARNELt,IHC PROJECT-RELATED PEAK HOURLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ',, o Coast Highway: - Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road - 1.0% - Newport Boulevard to West City Limits - 2.5% o Newport Boulevard - Coast Highway to North City Limits - 1.0% 1 These rates are used in the one percent (1%) analysis, and ICU analysis at each of the critical intersections. The resulting volumes are included in the one percent (1%) analysis and ICU .� worksheets contained in Appendix B. ARinrov^ ed Projects The City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer provides cumulative traffic volumes for each of -the critical intersections. These cumulative volumes include traffic from all approved projects that are not yet constructed and 1008 occupied. Table 3 lists the approved projects that are included for the cumulative analy- sis. The approved projects volumes were adjusted to reflect the loss of 30300 square feet -of auto dealership with the approval of the restaurant use. ' A diagram documenting this reduction in approved project trips is provided in Appendix B. tzr One Percent Anal-ysis JJ The project's morning and evening peak 2-1/2. hour volumes were assigned to each- of the five (5) critical intersections and compared to the cumulative 1990 volume to determine if the project's volume would exceed one percent (1%) of the existing, 1 regional growth and approved projects traffic at any of the l approaches to each critical intersection. Table 4 summarizes the results of these analyses. Review -of Table 4 identifies the Coast Highway and "Riverside Avenue intersection as the only intersection where project peak 2-1/2 hour volume exceeds 1% of cumulative volumes. A copy of the one percent analysis work- sheets are contained in Appendix C. , Intersection Cgpacity Analysis { The next step in the analysis process involves ICU analyses at J eacli of the critical intersections that project peak 2-1/2 hour traffic exceeds 1.%. Based on the analyses performed, only the intersection of Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue needs to have i ICU analyses performed. The analysis requires that ICU's be performed for existing condi- tions, 1990- Base conditions (Existing plus regional growth plus J approved projects) and 1990 Base Conditions plus project. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 5. Review of Table 5 shows that the Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue inter- section is presently operating with an• AH ICU - 0.77 and a PM ICU - 0:77. For 1990 Base Conditions the AH ICU - 0.90 and the PH - 0.90. The addition' of project traffic to the 1990 Base Condi- -10- s t. TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF APPROVED PROJECTS I 3UNBETTED NEWPORT IMPORTS NEWPORT PLACE TOWER AERONUTRONIC FORD FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE CIVIC PLAZA CORPORATE PLAZA MARINER$' MILE MARINE CTR CORPORATE COURT SEASIDE APARTMENTS III MACARTHURNATIONAL EDUCATION OFFICE NET BAY RETIREMENT INN NORTH FORD NEWPORT CLASSIC INN N NORTH PLACE MARINERS CHURCH EXPANSION EA ISLAND MCLACHLAN-NEWPORT PL SEA OOD ISLAND APARTMENTS 1501 SUPERIOR MEDICAL HARBOR POINT HOMES FASHION ISLAND T BAYWOOD -APARTMENTS TACO BELL RESORT EXPAND. J VALDEZ S VINEYARD NEWPORT LIDO MED CENTER VALDEZ COAST BUSINESS CENTER VILLA POINT SHOKRIAN KOLL CENTER NPT N0. 1 TPF 15TH ST APT ROBS ROCKWEL EXPANSION FLAGSHHIPIP HOSPITAL .ANDREW RESTAURANT BIG CANYON 10 BALBOA/WASHINGTON YMCA AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AFRO SHERATON 'EXPANSION AMEND MO. 1 MACARTHUR COURT AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD "AERO BIG CANYON VILLA APTS. AMENDMENT MO. 1 FORD AERO 14,00 DOVE STREET AMENDMENT NO 1 NORTH FORD 1100 QUAIL STREET NEWPORT DUNES KOLL CENTER TPP AMEND. dA BAYVIEW ROSANIS DEVELOPMENT CITY "OF .IRVINE DEV. NEWPORT AQUATICS CENTER 2600 E. COAST HIGHWAY FASHION IN RENAISSANCE RIVERSIDE RETAIL BUILDING 20TH ST. BED/BREAKFAST BUILDING 3800 CAMPUS DR- (M-STORAGE) HOAG CANCER CENTER EDWARDS NEWPORT CENTER 3760 CAMPUS DR- (M-STORAGE) ,J TABLE 4 ] SUMMARY OF ONE• PERCENT (1%) ANALYSIS Does Project Traffic Represent More Than 1% of Peak 2-1/2 Hour Volume (a)-- Critical Intersection AM Peak PM Peak . --------------------- ------- ------- COAST HIGHWAY at: Dover Dr./Bayshor@ Dr. No No Tustin Avenue No No :) Riverside Avenue Yes Yes NEWPORT BOULEVARD at: Via Lido No NO Hospital Road No No (a) Peak 2-1/2 Hour Volume is cumulative traffic - Existing plus Growth plus Approved Projects. :1 �l -12- ' r I 1 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF 1990 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSES FOR COAST HIGHWAY AT RIVERSIDE AVENUE Existing Conditions ICU- AM Peak 0.77 'I PM Peak 0.77 i 1990 Base Conditions(a) AM Peak 0.90 , PM Peak 0.90 1990 Base Conditions ' Plus Project ( AM Peak 0.90 PM Peak 0.90 1 (a) Cumulative traffic - Existing plus Growth plus Approved Projects. .J . .1 J -13- chan thoens vaonldu a ICU al s in no h a ng a in the AM and PM ICU- Both 0. In summary it can be concluded that the proposed Newport Imports Restaurant project satisfies the requirements of the City of Newport Traffic Phasing Ordinance wherein the project traffic + does not exceed 1% of peak 2-1/2 hour traffic and/or the project does not cause a critical intersection AM or PM ICU to -exceed 1 0.90 or' make the ICU worse. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS o The proposed project is to consist of opening an existing 3,300 suare feet of restaurant JJ ace approved for use for employees to serve patrons and provide full service restau- rant operations: o The restaurant use is estimated to generate 528 daily vehi- cle trips. In the AM peak there will be 28. vehicles enter- ing the project site and 22 vehicles exiting the site. The PM peak is expected to have 28 vehicles entering and 25 vehicles exiting the project site. o One percent (1%) analyses was performed for five (5) criti- cal intersections in the vicinity of the project, .as identi- fied by 'the city's Traffic Engineer. Project Peak '2-1/2 Hour traffic is estimated to exceed 1% at Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue. At all other intersections the project peak 2-1/2 hour traffic is less than 1% of Base 1990 traffic 1 volumes. o For Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue the ICU analyses found that for Base 1990 conditions the AM and PM peak hour •ICU's equal 0.90 and the addition of project traffic does not make the ICU worsefic Conditions the. project AM With and PMICU s bothfequal added0. to Ba$e 1990 0, J o The project has been evaluated for conformance to the City dinance (TPO mof eets wand was found rto satisfy taffic hoserrequirements.) require- 1 ..l J • -14- 1 1 l . APPENDIX A ICU WORKSHEETS - EXISTING CONDITIONS . Q 'g 1 ' ) NE24M M INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ,1 INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD i HOSPITAL ROAD 2450 EXIST TRAfFIC VOLUMES RASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING -------------1989 AM _ ....... 1 I.. - -••IEXISTINOIPROPOSEDIEXISTIMCIEXISTINOIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMoveAnntI Lanes i Lanes I FIX MR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT i VIC Ratio IVoluae i WC I IICopacitYI apuIty, Yolua Ratio Volume Vo►ua I o Pro ecti Ratio I I I I I I I I I I values I I i �- -ML •--•i 1 167- i---.....i---- ---0.10 ' ......................----•.•--•—•.-•--- -I II 1...........................•--................ MY 1237 I ... 4000 !--------I-.---- I........!.........I...........!...... !• ... .I i MR -) 1 1 ) 0.28 , ................!...........!.... -I..... .I ... ...sL..i...;6bO .......i..... i...26 o.02 �.. I I 1 I I •"; ... ...........i........i................................................................1 768 I I I I I I sT .......3 4800 ................... 0.21 .................. ........................... I SRzte I I , i I -- EL- I 1600 I 151 I 0.09 I F 1 I 1 I .......................................................... I 0.1x 1 1 1 1 r. I ET ( 1600 I 196 I i .............................................I Eli1 ( 1600 I I ... I ..... * .....-I................................... .I •--�--- --'1600 i........i---•119 i-- o.07 1 1 I I 1 I. .WR .3 3200 ................. . .....!... 16 '..O. !........!.........!...........I.......I..... .I IEXiSTIN6 .............. I 0.57 I.................._............ I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS-I C.U...�...........I............. .� I...•............................................. (EXISTING + CONNiTTED :REGIONAL GROWTH :PROJECT-I.C.0.............................I........ 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will b lass than or egwl to 0.90 J (_( Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_( Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Wsystaes iRTX oveannt WILL be ; toss than or equal to 0.90 I_( Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project isprcvemtnts wilt be less than I.C.U. without project ....a.................................................................................... Deacriptian of systaa isprovaasnt: PROJECT FOH It XE2400PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONI NEIFORT BOULEVARD 6 NOSPITAL ROAD 2400 III EXIST TRAFFIC I . ON AEADE1LYiRAfFIC UIMTESPRING . . .. ... .... ............ .......... ........1.9.0.9..P.M. IE%ISTINSIPAOPOD1ENISTINGlEN15TIODIRDiONALICO iTIE01 PROJECTED PROJECTPAOJECT .I ( ( DAILY CWN I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoluae I V/C " I ICapecitYlCMacityl Values I Ratio 1 Volume I Volume IWO Projectl I Ratio,[ ' ...............!........! .......... ................ I voluw 1 I I 11 I, ... ......I Vat......I..............., I NL 1 1600 1 I tee 1 0.12 . 'I I 1 I I i................. ................. .......................................................I NT , 1 1313 . I I 1 I I 1 ,.......3 4800 ...............5.. 0.23 .............----..............1 i....... i . I I I I I 1 ....................................................................................... .1 i SL lama I 211 0.011 I I 1 I .................1...........---............................................ -- ._ST... 1 1 1362 1 1' 1 • I I I 4e00 ..................) 0.32 ............................................... 1 1 19s :•� i ....................!........!.........!...........!.......!......., . .E`.. ... 600 i...... 1 z00 1 0.13 1 I I 1 I 1 ..................:....... ................................................................. 1 •er I 16001 I 1501 0.091 1 I i I i ..... ..�... .�.......�...�i...O... ...............................................I J I I I I 1 i UL , 1600 I 1 174 I 0.11 • I I I I I . .................................................. . I 1 1 . I ..: 32M ;.................3 0.07 ............................................... 1e ..-.......1 I 1 J I ......D .........................�...O... i..... E ............... ............. .I..... .. .................................................................... +IENIST REG GROWTH + COMMITTED WPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I ...........................................................................................i IENISTIND : COMMITTED + REGIONAL CROWN + PROJECT I.C.U. i I ....................................................................:........... I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be lam than or equal to 0.90 1_I projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Greater than 0.90 T 1-1 Projected + project traf,fia 1.0.0. Wsritae teprovem nt will be Jlase then or equal to 0.90 I_I Projectd.+ project traffic I.C.U. with project I provemants will be It" LhaJ1.1=C.u. without project...................................................... Daertptian of syeta iaprovaenti PROJECT FORM It NE1415AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD S VIA LIDO 1415 ' -EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES SAID ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989'AM ............................................................................................. l I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXI$TINGE%ISTINGIREGIONALICOMNITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI INovesentl Lams I Lanes I PK MR I WC I DROWN I PROJECT I•V/C Ratio (Volans I WC I I ICapaoitr1Capaa1ty1 Volume I Ratio I Values I Values Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 I-•------------------------ ---•-----'--------'----:..............__...._...._..._--I NL .....................!....... 1 I NT 1 3200 1 ' 1. 1255 1 0.40 • i I . I I I ... ............................ ......................I MR..i... . N.B. I........i.....19 I I I I I I I I................................................... . -'I ". i sL i 3200 I 1 392 I 0.12 • I I I i .J ,.......................................................................... ...-----•--...... I ST . 1 32DO 1 1 755 1 0.24 1 1 1 1 1 1 .............::::::::::: :::::.. .....:::::::: ::::.. • --::::--.----...---.-------- .I C I I I i zi �i 1 I EL I I I I I I I I I 1 ...............................•................. ...---.....---.............................I m ........I I .......... I I I I i I I I ER I I I I I I I I I I .� ................. ..........................................1� is ( . ' e .............................. 01 ........i........i........'_.......i........i........i....._..............................., Wr I-.............�.............o.............................................................� I . (EXISTING 1 0.53 1 I f............................................................:............... IEXIIT + REG GRDWTN + COMMITTED WPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 1 I..................:..................:..................................................... IEXISTINO + COMMITTED + REGIONAL OWN + PROJECT I.C.U_ ___________________________I WT I 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 lI—f Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/syshes iaprovement will be _ Less than or equal to 0.'90 11 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project . ........................................ Descrtptlon of systewt faprovement: PROJECT FORM 1I • t 1' + INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONS NEWPORT BOULEVARD B VIA LIDO 1415 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRINO 1959 PM ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPAOPOMIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREBIMLIC@WITTED) PROJECTED IPIIOJECTIPRWECTI' Inov.m.otl Lama I Lams I PK MR I V/C I'GROWTM I PROJECT I WC Ratio IVolum I V/C I I ICapaaitylCopacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I Voles I' 1 I ....................................:............................ '...................I I ML I I 1 II. . ( _ I 1 I . ......ii'..... BT132°° i , 1052 0.33 + i ......ii .......i ........... . ........1 ....._ .. ...... . ............................................)I 1 MR I M.S. 1 1 681 1 1 1 1 1 I I•it 1 ..................................... . . 11 ... . .. . . . � . ... ...... ............. ..... .......... ...... . ........... ............... . i.. I 'ST 1 3200 1 1 1457 1 0.47 1 i 1 1 1 i .I 1................ ................ .... ............ ....................................64 i I... ..... 41 ... I I I - I IEL I ....... i ..... i ...................................... . ................................... . .................. .................I I i I ................1 I ET t. .1 I I I I I <. . ................................................................................. ...... .I ul I tsoG I I 54 i 0.03 • I I i...........................................................................................I I UT I I I I I I I I I j ...............:..........:................................................................1. 1 WR 1 3200 .1 1 355 1 0.11 1 1 1 1 1 I ............ . IEXISTINO...........................!...0.56.I............................... l 1EXIST + AEG OWN + COMMITTED WPROPOW IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I 1EXISTING .COMMITTED :REGIONAL GROWTH :PROJECT 1.C.U.••••••.•••••••••••••••.•••••I•.•.••• ..................... ............................................. . 1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be loss than or Squat to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Wsystam Iaprovwnt will be less than or equal to 0.90 1:1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Improvements will be•less.thad.t.C.U, without project......................................... ......... Do$ 1ption of System isprovemantt PROJECT FORN'II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONS MEWORT BOULEVARD & VIA'LIDO 1415 i/ g EXIST TRAFFIC WAIMEA BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC -•. WINTER/SPRING. 1959 PM 7� ...................................................... ..................... •1 CH2635AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONS COAST HIGHWAY i TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 1989 AM •,•� EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES RASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WtNTER/SPRINO _ ......................................................i.......�......i . I ._.....IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGEEXISTINGIREGIOIMICDMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI lm mentl Lem" I Lines i PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio VolurA RatiV/Co I I ICapaeta►Capeeityl volume I Ratio I Values I volume Iwo Projectl I I I I I i I I values I I I ............................. )--------�. ......�. •--•�—-----•--.........----- •I ' - NT • ) 1600 1................... I o ) o.00 ...............................................1 ... ..) I I o ) I I ............ 1 j w . ..St. ..� I I 3a ) I I i I I -• ST • 1600 i I o ) 0.03 • I I i 1 -----•----......9 .........-.........-r-•........................i ...SR..; I I ) I I I I i ...EL...i...... 1600 1 . .. .i.....27 i...0.02 1........I........I........--I---•-..I.......I 0.59 ........... ..................) ................................... _..ER..) 320o I 1 0 I i I I I ......................i............. 1 ...WL..i........i........i....... .i........i........ .....................................I j... ..i... i........i...IJ45 1 ...0.24 I 1 I 1 1 1 wr "DOl .... ............ ........•---..................----......--•-•..........---•1 ........i....... 1 3t1 o.oz WR160o I, I 1....--•• ..................................... I: .... 1EXISTINo 0.62 IEXIST + REG GROWTN + COMMITTED WPROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I._...__.__L_.____'.______ ............................I................................................. (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.--•----........................ _ ........................................................ 1_1 projected + project traffic Wilt be teas then or equal to 0.90 LI projected + project traffic I.C.u. wilt be greater then 0.90 projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systess improveamt wilt be teas than or epwl to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements mitt ; be It" than I.C.U. without project ............... ............ ........................................ ...................... Description of system IW*veawnts FORM 1! PROJECT �Q CN2635AM �f' CN2635PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS, INTERSECTIONt COAST HIONNAY i TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 i EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC NINTER/sPRINa ••---••-•••• 1969 PM j ................................................................. ..... -•---• IEXISTINGIPRWOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINOIREGIDNALICMITTEDI PROJECTED ItROJECTIPROJECTI IMovesmtl Lanes I Lnes I I% NR I VIC I GRONTN I PROJECT I VIC Ratio Ivotuse I VIC . I I ICapscity1capacityl Must I Ratio I Volume I Volume IWO Projectl I Ratio 1 1 I volume I 1 I ' ----------------i........i..----o i........ .......i.........i.................-......... • ' WL ........) 1600 !.......!..... 0 3 0.00 !........!... ••-•-'•....-.....................•I ..� ..� I I-- NR I _ I I I • . I I I • I I 72 SL ..� .. . .. ..... .................... ST 1600 I I 0 0.07 1. ....--3 ............. f6 0-1*... ........�.... .1.........�......... ..................i I EL I 160D 1 I 65 I 0.04 e I I I I I - _ ,..-....•.............................................I I. •ET ...........t .......i...1450 - I........) 3200 r .... ..3 0.45 ................................. I ER 0 ...r..........) i• ......1 _... I 1 i I I I •-... . .......... ... .I I i ( ............................................ Ut 48M ........... .. I 2405 1 0:50 * 1 1 I 1 I ......................................................I uR 1600 I to I 0.07 1 1 6 I I 1 I .---•--- ..........................i o.61 1... ..-- 1EXISTINa -•-------.......... •; (EXIST + RED GROWTH +,COMMITTED w/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U- I ........................ EXISTING + CCMMITTED REGIONAL GROWN + PROJECT I.C.U. .,-I I Projected + project traffic wilt be less then or gust to 0.90, 1_1 projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systte iBprovesmt witt be Less than or aguat to 0.90 J I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project isprovesents wiLL be lass than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Deseription of system loprovassnt: PROJECT FORM 11 nnn�iill CMZ635PM O . CM3G60AM 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST NIGMUAY i POWER DRIVE/BAYSMORE DRIVE 3060 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED OR AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VINTER/SPRING 1989 AM ............................................................................................. I I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICQMNITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI INoveaientI Lanes I Lanes I PN MR I V/C I GROWIN I PROJECT I WC Ratio IVOLLM I WC I I lCapacitylCepeityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Im/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume 1 •1 •1 ......................................O.Ot.i......................I...............'_... _ I..................... •...................0...................._...._............................................................I. _l I NT 1 1 103 1 1 1 • I I - I J I........) 3200 ..................) 0.05 e.............................................. I IMR 1 1 47 I 1 1 1 1 I 1...........................................................................................I I --------- 1 . .------------ ----- .- ...................................................... I • ST ( 1600 I I 30 I 0.02 1 1 I I I � ISR n05I -- --- ------------------..... ...... .............................................. EL I 3200 I 1- 95 1 0.03 1 . I I I I I ......................................... I ET 1. 1 2142 1 1 1 1 1 I i t�u , ►. I ER 1 1 25 I 1 1 1 1 1 ....................................................... ........ } I UL 1 1600 1 1 30 1 0.02 • I I I I I 1...........................................................................................I i NY 1 4800 1 1 1456 1 0.30 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 , I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NM I N.S. 1 1 7501 1 I 1 1 1 1 .....:.....................................................................................1 (EXISTING 1 0.73 1 •� --(EXIST + REG GROUTN + COMMITTED V/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. �•------y---� I. .............................. • ..................................................... .I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWN + PROJECT I.C.U. I i I_I Projected + project. traffic I.C.U.-mitt•be lass than or equal to 0.90 ................... 1 I.I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater than 0.90 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systeu improvement wilt be J _ tsea then or pual to 0.90 I.I Projected +project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements mitt be less than I.C.U. without project ...................^---------------.-----........--.------.............................. 0 scrIptfon of system•improvement: PROJECT FORM It • ql CN3060PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS' INTERSECTION: COAST NIGRUAY i DOVER DRIVEHAYSNORE DRIVE 3060 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC wINTER/BPRING 1989 PH .. .......................................................................................... i IEXISTINCIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI (Now entl Lame I Lama I PK MR i WC I GRdRN I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVotuaa I WC I I ICapocitr1chwityl Values I Ratio I Volume i Volume IWO Projectl I Ratio I 1 I I I I I I I I VOluae I I I I...........................................................................................I I ML 1 1600 1 1 23 1 0.01 1 1 1 1 1 • •1 I................... I- ... .) 3200 .................) 0.02 ................. ..............,............................I I a I 1 31 , I I I' I I I i........................................................................................... I SL I 45W I i 1143 I 0.24 + I 1' ' I • ' I i ...........................................................................................I I ST 1 1600 I I 79 I 0.05 i I i 1 11 I I...:.................... 1 ............._...........,..............:............... SR I t 1600 1 ( 147 I 0.09 . 1 1 I 1 1 1 I............................... ........................................................1 EL 1 3200 I 98 1 0.03 ' I ( 1 t 1 1543 I-- --) 4800 - ..) 0.33 .. I ER I I 19 I I I I I I I...........................................................................................I I NL 1 1600 1 1 22 1 O.OI I I I I I I i...........................................................................................i i UT 1 4800 1 1 2153 1 0.45 a i b I I I 1.......................................................................................... i I MJB I N.S. 1 1 12601 1 1 I' 1 1 I . ...... ...........................•__0... f------..........•.........................•_--I I . I...........................................................................1 1 1EXIST + REG OWN + COMMITTED U/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1, 1 1 I..........................................................................................I In (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL OROWTM + PROJECT-I.0 I.C.U. ....................................... .............._..................... I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be lees than•or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. wilt be Greater than 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Weyetm Improvement will Is tote than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project ImprovamtB will be loss than I.C.U. without project Doseripticn of syataM taproveaMnts PROJECT FORM 11 q CO2630AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS I INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY i RIVERSIDE AVENUE ZOO EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989 AM j ...........................................................................................�. I I IEXISTINGIPROPC$EDIEXISTINGIEXISTING(REGICNALICONNITTEDI PROJECTED (PROJECTIPROJECT( IMovementl Laws ( Laws ( PK MR i V/C ( GROWTH I PROJECT ( V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I I ICopaeitylCapscity( Volume I Ratio I Volume I Votuae IW/o Project( I Ratio I I I I I J I I I Volume . I I I --------------------------------------- ---------------------------- I NL I 1 D 1 1 1 1 1 i I........) ................... .............................................. I NT 16N I. 1 0 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 •� i. .Na. :) ................. i........i.........i......................... • I SL I I . 1 711 1 - I I I I I I. .... .) 1600 ..................1 0.05 +.............................................. I ST I 1 1 41 1 1 1 I I 1 . .SR_..-...; i.------I-------------- 0.14.I. .._...i................................... . 600 1 222 ..... ................................. I EL I 16W 1 1 309 1 0.19 1 .1 _ 1 1. 1 1 I. ......................................................................................... i ET 1 1 2260 1 1 1 . 1 -1 - 1 I- ...._.) 3200 ..................) 0.71 r.............................................. I I _ ER I I D 1 I I I I 1 I. ......................................................................................... I ( WL 1 1600 1 1 11 1 0.01 • I I I I I 1...........................................................................................I I 1 I UT ( 4WD ( ( 1127 ( 0.23 1 I ( I I. ....................................................................................... .1 l 1 ......�...160................ ..1...0.02.1......................................._.... 1• --I 1EXISTING 1 0.77 1 I 1EXIST :AEG.GROWTH : COMMITTED W/PRO'OSED•1MPROVEMENTS.I�C.U.-.(---..--...•1 .�_ ...__. ( ! I.. •-I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 . I ............................................................................................ I—_ I Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equat to 0.90 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be loss than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 C82630AN 13 , ICH263OPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 1 INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY i RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 , EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC MIMTER/SPRINO 1989 PM ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPRCPOSEDIEXISTiNGIEXISTINGIREGIOMALICOWITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI I IMovementl Lines I Lam I PK MR I WC I GROUTN I PROJECT I WC Ratio IVoluse I WC I I ICapacitylCapaeityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I 1 I i I I I I I votum I I I ..........................................................................................., NL • 1 1 3 1 1 1 • 1 1 I ........) .................., ...............................................I MY 1600 1 1 2 0.01 1 .1 1 1 1 I --------) i--.........:....., ............................... ........ .............. MR .••- 5 ..... ...........I......... .........i........�.........i...........�......i.......I 1 ........) 16M ..................) 0.06 i.............................................. sT a ................ ........................................................... --I I SR 1 1600 1 1 389 1 0.24 1 I. 1 1 1 1......:..........................................................., ................I 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 350 1 0.22 I 1 I I I ..........................i..............0.............0...................i.......i.......1 ET1933,. ......, .... ....... 0.61 ............................................... ............... .) I ER I i . is i. I I I i I I....................................................................I................ :.----I a ML I 1600I I 36I 0.02I ................. • . i........i...2339 i...0.49 ............. .................i.. ..i....... 1 ON ....................................................:...................6.................. , I 1 UR 1 1600 1 1 40 1 0.03 I 1 • I I I I ........................................................................................... , 1EXISTINO 1 0.77 1 i I....................................................:....................... 1 (EXIST + REG GROWER + COWITTED N/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I.................................................................................I........., 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWN + PROJECT I.C.U. . I J I_I projected + project traffic wilt be lass than or egwl to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Greater then 0.90 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systess iaprovemtnt will be lose.than or "At to 0.90 1_1 projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wilt be less then I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... r Description of systau taprOMMt: PROJECT FORM 11 CM2630PM I . 1 APPENDIX B ADJUSTMENT OF APPROVED PROJECT TRAFFIC TO REFLECT LOSS OF 3.3 KSF OF AUTO DEALERSHIP BASMACIYAN - DARNELL, INC. Project No. Date 8—/S-09 By -5•&.R. Chocked Project DescNptkm Approved lPzjcct Trafkc. 7 � X F z4q/etas W 1 y C317 �413�F ?� � T l► 3/M 'y c Traffic. P.. 3.3 KSP Awo 'Dea:krsh►p m JApproved Pryer Tro.Wc, Minus 3.3 KsF /judo Dea.lersh;P 94 d � y .G- 3h .a141' � I ' q� 1 - 1 :1 APPENDIX C JONE PERCENT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT HL/HOSPITAL IUD (Existing Traffic Volumes based onAverage n er pr ng _) Am Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lfi of Projected Project Direction Peak 2$ Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 24.Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Vol Lao Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3532 jqU (djg 37 southbound 2447 a Eastbound 1259 O13, Mestbound i' 935 q JProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected , Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume " ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 'lx of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume., Intersection Capacity Utilization . (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. c :l • AtF iAlPr7�'T l lit A()2""� tiF �T�11 f�'11� iT DATE: JG(L *1 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic, Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL HOSPITAL RD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage winter/Spring 19 89 ) PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected P( of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour 'Peak 2y Hour, Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume- Volume Volume Northbound. 3592 D o1(alf ISK& Sti ••� 'Southbound 4041 1 1/05 Eastbound 1484 3l0'� I l ND Mestbound 1013 ID7 a10 _ i D Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 21s Hour Traffic Volume 7 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected �7 ❑ Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. .J 1 ' .l • _11I✓WpotZT Sb1?ne'f5 DATE: JCIL.Y /0, /0n''9 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 19EL9 AM Peek 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak'2k Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2948 p , 3007 &0 i 6L Southbound 2579 Q i Eastbound Westbound . 995 rJ /O O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2)% Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2$ Hour Traffic Volume.- Intersection Capacity•Utilization ' 1 (I.C.U.) Analysis is required., a 1 Airweng7- tA4ea .7"S Trrirwtul?AAir . DATE: /(/G"11ioi�� PROJECT: G 1 _ FORM I J " 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO M (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter _Winter/Spring 9 Peak 211 Hour Approved ject Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Pro Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 2719 Sorthbound 4698 0 'qq 0797 Eastbound Nestbound O 1071 ' �ry Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected �I Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23S Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 .I Al -W•Prla7' im PnPr t'r 7'nt tAt1A 17— DATE: dULV 1Q1lgrq PROJECT: FORM I t 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AV _ (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er pr ng Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 29 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2)sHour, Volume Volume Volume Voluae Volume Volume Northbound 2 © UPd Southbound I Eastbound . Westbound 2896 —_ Zvi Project Traffic is estimated to 'be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. i Al>�ulPoh'r' inr�oRzS 7�rr7'AURtIn1T" DATE PROJECT: �D�•-- FnRM i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ;intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AV — PM (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average nter pr ng 1 Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Projeet Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour. Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume -Volume Volume Volume Northbound 0•, O �� Southbound 307 0 01,2 1 qc,- Eastbound 3601 9)4) 733 7o l_ Westbound 86,0 u Project Traffic- is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume :.� Project' Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. _1 � 1 A/oldf�n'T /!IPllti'T� l�T�7"�lllh'�V)T DATE: ./1/1VIQ# /IR4 PROJECT: 103 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/DOVER DR—HAYSHORE DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average -Winter/Spring 19 _ 1 Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1X Peak Protected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak ?!- tour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 371 D O Southbound 2547 5S 01 D.5 cab •'� Eastbound 4665 Westbound 4999 ,1r�O Sic 5 Project Traffic -is estimated to be- less than 1% of Projected Peak & Hour Traffic Volume 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 24 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization O.C.U.) Analysis is required. I J .IFWAo er itii-paRne ref 4r,414i2Atilr DATE: JUI V io, /9P9 PROJECT: FnRM T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/DOVER DR—BAYSHORE DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 89 PM 1 Peak 24 Hour Approved . I Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projects ]ec,,lDirection Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2$ Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume VolumeNorthbound 278Soutfibound 3062 0 Eastbound 4159 691.Westbound7581 !P p� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 4N Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I . /,u.Pnkrrs 9" 7-,,1 1 r,r.NnlT' DATE.• IttLV /O, /9,i 9__ PROJECT: FORM I (04, •� II ' a III 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection COAST HxG x/RTVERS1DE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage n er pr ng 19 — NIM Pak 2ns four Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects Pr0.legted_ 1% of Projected Protect Direction Pak 2h Hour Growth Pak ens Hour Pak 2% Four Peak 2$ Hour Pak 2n hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volt" Yotuee ' Northbound 0 ^� <� southbound .735 D —Al 1 g t� Eastbound 5463 55 SZ- b3oo !03 0 ,.l eastbound 2901— 30 50tp 3b23 35 2?i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than W of •Projected (71 Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. .r J DATE: �D PROJECT: I � 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection • COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ng 19q9 PM Peak 2$ Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected S of Projected Project Direction Peak 21i Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2% Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak lumeour Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 37 O ' O lsouthbound, 1164 O L37- 2d Eastbound g692 4to• 8O4 54g7 . 1 55 O III Westbound 5632 51A 8?U 10 5to btp i 2Z 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than•-1% of Projected . Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 .l • DATE: w PROJECT: FORM I (o l APPENDIX D ICU WORKSHEETS - CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT g 1 CO2630M INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY i RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2650 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUNES RASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989 AM ...................................................................................I. ..r... IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI Lanes IHovewntl Las I Lanes I PC MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lyotuse I V/C I lCapacity1capmeltyl Votume I Ratio I Volume I volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I I Up l' I I.......................•-•-•--••--••••-=--••--••-•.......••---•--•........._.............:.1 I RL I 1 0 1 . 0 I I i t I I 11 ^I I. .NT• -T 1600 0 ? 0.00 (�........!..... _) ............................................... wit I 1 0 II 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1---------------------:.............................................................._.... =•1 I SL I I I r 1 • 10 1 I U i I I 6 1 q5 10b y --------) 1600 ------------...... 0.05 +.............................................. I ST I I 4 1 1 0 I I 15 _is I sit ---- I I --- ---- I p I 21 12 1-- - . ►I I ..4... • 151 EL I 1600 1 1 309 1 0.19 1 3 r i I LS231,Ull 1'32-3 1 .7,01 . :Er:...........11 .. • I Z3I3'1112Wo01•.........................12tPioDl 63_=•l • ..) 3200 ................2260..) 0.71 +• -- •_ ...8m.. ........I I ER I 1 0 10 1 3 1 .2 1 X1 1 3 1 --......--•-••--------------------------------- j • UL --i---;�i-------•I 11 1 0.01 + I 1 1 1 Z I.a j1 ......I l2-i .00-t ..............................•.......--.-..............---------- -....I'll•-- --I .......... I UT I 48W I 1 1127 1 0.23 111 1 Z4q 113611,2 61 10 11391.1 I . 291 --- 1------------------------•-----------------•• --------•-----------------•... •---......... i WR 1 1600 1 1 36 1 0.02 1 0 1 3 139 1.0241 1i 40_. I I .025 ------------ --------- . ...........'--.........--............_....._...._..._._ - _ _: ------ I SEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I biro i ' I......................---------..-------.....------.....---------------.................... I . .� 1EXISTINO + COINIITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I_ I a,•• R0 I I�ZI Projected + project traffic wttl be toss than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systoms lsprovemont Witt be _ less than or squat to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvasents wilt be toss than I.C.U. without project .................................................-------------------------- .............. Descrtptton of systaa improvement: PROJECT FORM It CH2630M . 4 � -� CN2630►M • INTERSECTIOM.CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTIONS COAST HIGHWAY i RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES SASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRIMO 1909 PM .......................s.... IEXISTiH01PROPOSE0IEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI (Moysarntl Lana I Lars I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH ( PROJECT 1 VIC Ratio IVoluaa I VIC I I- i it Volume Ratio Yoluae Yoluae Wo Pro7ectl I Rstio� I IGawa tylcepec YI I I 1 I Volume I . .� 1 ... 1 ....: ........!........!........!..... .....................1 ..........I l:.1 MT 1600 I 3 '..0 • 1 • NL • i 1 1 .... ........... 0.01 ....... .!.. �....,! 3 �.00?I.......!. I .00� -• wR -.� I- I ........................... ................ ....................... -10 °...................! I .. ..;...; i--•-....i....600 M9 I 0.24 1 0 .�Z..14�I (�z64a.......i401.1.250 J. ...................... .......................:•--......................... . .-I • EL I 1600 I I 350 I - 0.22 �...h.3R_.138uu�.zllol ' 139q I.Z►l0y ..... ..... .. ...:f......................1 �.. er.... .�.... I 1933 I I CI 13b1p 1�3o8I I' I zaCB 1........� 3200 .................:2 0.61 -- -. ..i 2-• :3t�i.......i. 1 ............!........!....10......:...!..�...!...�?....... . .I 3 _uL, 16ao I I 36 I o.ozaZ51 I ' WT I 4500 ( I 2339 I 0.49 + 23 1 11'ks Itvikeo !0 1279! 1.se 1EXISTING 1 0." i j 11XIST + RIG OROWfN .COMNITTEO WPROPOSED•IMPROVEMENTS I.C.Uw.•i....ssq�l............. .� I.............. IEx/STIMO + CMITTED 1 = REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 90H .... ..............•----..................................... �J 1:1 projected + project traffic will be lass than or 4"t to 0.90 +i 'ICI,Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will Ix greater than 0.90 J I_) Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Wsriner Improvement will be •� _ Isea than or equal to 0.90 <Jj I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project foprovwnts will be lea than I.C.U. without project •� ......................................................................................... JDacriptfsn of $Yet" taprovaarntt PROJECT FORM it CN263OPN Q • li " ;m1 � . .. .u. � � I i i all Ir - I_ I i - " ��ORRImiYY6F-- w 1 L�wnG.ry M ��IIOO�iA1.I - -�RRI!{ti�R 111iR�aWO Y�� / - RR si�a�e�mi� � • •�M��Ait�R�Rf. _ �p1�RtRi�lf lltiM •- - R.a�+.aw�vvwc�: Planning Commission Meeting September 7. 1989 r Agenda Item No. 5 Addendum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Traffic Study No. 58 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to accept a. traffic study so as to permit the conversion of an approved employees' cafeteria with a restaurant facility with on- sale beer and wine which will operate in conjunction with the existing Newport Imports Automobile dealership. AND B. Use Permit No 3229 m nd Continued Public Hearing) A request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the construction of an automobile dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Height Limitation District, on ,property located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment includes a request to convert an approved employees' cafeteria into a restaurant facility with on-sale beer and wine which will operate in conjunction with the auto dealership. The proposal also includes: a request to permit a portion of the required restaurant parking on an adjoining parcel which is in the same ownership as the subject property; and a request to delete or modify Condition of Approval No. 13 of Use Permit No. 3229, so as to allow all night security lighting at the rear bf the building, adjacent to Avon Street, whereas said lighting is currently required to be turned off at 10:00 p.m. LOCATION: Restaurant Site: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 87-106 (Resubdivision No. 840), located at 3000 West Coast Highway; Off-Site Parking Site: a portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2922 - 2940 West Coast Highway; both sites being on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between North Newport 'Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANT: Lee West, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant TO: Planning Commission -2. Considerations of Previous P=pjeet AAj2proval at 2912 Nest Coact Highway (i a Pr000sed Site of Restaurant Parking Spaces) On August 18, 1988, the Planning Commission addressed Traffic Study No. 48, including a request to override the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Vesting Resubdivision No. 876, a request to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into a single parcel for commercial development, and Use Permit No. 3317, which was a request to permit the construction of a 23,593± sq.ft, retail-office building with a gross structural area in excess of 0.5 times the buildable area of the site, a request to exceed the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone, and a request for a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking on the subject property. The requests were unanimously denied by the Planning Commission. On September 26, 1988 and October 24, 1988, the City Council addressed the applications on the appeal of the applicant, at which time the applicant presented revised plans which eliminated the need for a use permit to exceed the permitted height or allowable gross structural area and which conformed to the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. On October 24, 1988, the City Council voted unanimously to approve the applications with the findings and subject to the conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" from the October 24, 1988 City Council staff report. Although said approval is still in effect and could be implemented by the applicant, it should be noted that said project provides only enough parking spaces to meet its own parking requirement (65 spaces provided, 63 spaces required); therefore, it is not possible to implement the previously approved project and still use the site for off-site parking in conjunction with the proposed restaurant. In light of such circumstances, should the Planning Commission approve the current applications for the subject restaurant, said action will render the previous approvals for Site Plan Review 49, Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 and Traffic Study No. 48 (Revised) null and void. Staff is also suggesting the following additional finding and condition of approval: B. Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) Finding: 11. That the applicant's intended use of the property located at 2912 West Coast Highway for off-site parking in conjunction with the proposed restaurant, will nullify the previous approval of Site Plan Review No. 49, Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 and Traffic Study No. 48 (Revised) inasmuch as there is insufficient parking on said property to satisfy the parking requirements of both projects. Condition: 32. Implementation of Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended), as approved by the Planning Commission on September 7, 1989 shall nullify the previous approval of Site Plan Review No. 49, Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 and Traffic Study No. 48 (Revised). ��3 1 L TO: Planning Commission -3. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director B WA. , ilh Ward Senior Planner W W W:11 ' Attachments:Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated August 18, 1988 Excerpt of City Council Minutes dated September 26, 1988 and October 24, 1988 Copy of Exhibit "A" from City Council Staff Report dated October 24, 1988 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS' August 18, 1988 'y y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f===TDEXm No.4ROLL CALLp, Traffic Study No 48 (PublicHea TS N0.48 Request the acceptance of a traffic study so as tretailW the construction of a 23,593_ sq.ft. (gross) office building in the "Retail Service Commercial" area 3317 of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan which includes a Vesting request to override the requirement of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The proposal also includes the Resub•876 acceptance of an environmental document. Denied AND B Use Permit No 3317L (Public Hearing) Permit the construction of a 23,593# square foot retail- -office building on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposal includes: a request to exceed the allowable gross structural area of .5 times the buildable area of the site; a request to exceed the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District; and a request for a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking. AND C Vastin¢ Resubdivision No' 876 (Public Hearin¢1 Request to approve a vesting resubdivision so as to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into a single parcel for commercial development on property located in the "Retail Servico Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. LOCATION: Portions of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2912 and 2930 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West Coast highway, between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue in the mariner's Mile Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANT: Said Shokrian, Corona del Mar OWNER: Same as applicant 12- ( MINUTES ' COMMISSIONERS--. August 18, 1988 ys 9� o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL In response to a request by James Hewicker, Planning Director, so as to explain how Vesting Resubdivision Maps differ from Subdivision Maps, Carol Korade, Assistant City Attorney, referred to Chapter 19.1/� of the Newport beach Municipal Coda. Ms. Korade stated that the Vesting Tentative Map Ordinance was passed by State statute in 1986; it addressed- concerns of developers who would obtain approval for a project and then thb applicable city would change the rules for development. The said Ordinance established rules for development procedure that would be set at the time of the final approval of a vested subdivision map. In reference to the subject application, Ms. Korade stated that th¢ approval by the Planning Comission would give the applicant the right to proceed in accordance with tha plans that were submitted and the conditions that t`te Planning commission approved. She said that future requirements for zoning, development fees, etc. could not be changed. Mr. Newicker stated that the vesting tentative map ordinance insures that any change to the General Plan, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or any new traffic management initiatives will not have an affect on the proposed project. The vesting does not obligate the City to approve the project, but he said that once the project has been completed for filing, then the applicant has the right within the timeframe to proceed with the project. In response to questions posed by Chairman Persdn, Ms. Korade replied that the vesting right at the time of development would he subject to the current rules of the City. Ms. Korade stated that an applicant has three years to obtain approval of a final map with a two year possible extension, and the applicant has the vested' right of one year following the approval of the final map, with a one year possible extension. Therefore, the applicant could have up to seven years to complete the project under the current rules of development to complete the project. Ms. Korade further replied that the vesting map does not affect the use permit inasmuch as a use permit regulates the use of She project. She said that the applicant may have the right to build a project but they may have to reapply for a use. permit, should the project construction not be begun within 24 months and diligently pursued to completion. -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 00 August 18, 1988 �y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Hewicker replied that if the applicant pulled a building permit to start construction, they have started to exercise their use permit; however, if they did not pursue construction diligently then there could be a problem regarding the building permit. Mr. Hewicker. asked if a vesting resubdivision map was approved, the applicant allowed the use permit to expire, and the traffic study was denied, can the applicant proceed with a project that is reduced in size which does not require a traffic study but could proceed under the current Traffic Phasing Ordinance as opposed to any hew traffic management initiative that might be passed? Ms. Korade replied that if the applicant has received vesting approval then there is the right to develo? in accordance with the terms of the vesting approval. If the Traffic Study was denied, then the applicant could develop in accordance with the vesting resubdivision providing that it was consistent with the terms of the approval of the vesting resubdivision. Ms. Korade explained that Condition No. 2 in Exhibit "A" states "that the floor area of the project shall be reduced by an amount necessary to meet the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance." , which means that the project would be able to proceed with a reduction as long as it did not violate the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance as it exists today without complying with any future initiative revisions. Discussion ensued regarding the Traffic Phasing Ordinance between Commissioner Pomeroy and staff. In response to a quLation posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Ms. Korade replied that the vesting map could be denied when and if the applicant came back to the Planning Commission to request an extension of the application. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding a vesting tentative map as opposed to a tentative map, Mr. Hewicker replied that the applicant is required, to submit information for a vesting map that he would not normally be required to file in conjunction with a tentative map. He said that the purpose of the vesting map is to protect the developer when he has invested a large sum of money in the. preparation of plans to develop a project. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the vesting resubdivision application, Mr. Hewicker and Ms. Korade replied that Planning Commission -14- _ COMMISSIONERS ( MINUTES ` August 18. 1988 JG 4 9,p� 1y7� CITY OF NEWPORT $EACH rINDEX ROLL CALL approval of the vesting resubdivision map would allow the applicant to proceed with a project with no further discretionary approvals. Hr. Hewicker stated that under the existing Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) the existing uses on the property generate 214 average daily trips (ADT), and the applicant would be able to add an additional 130 ADT without having to go through the City's TPO. Hr. Hewicker further explained the type and intensity of development which might be built on the site; some of which would not necessarily require a use permit to exceed the height limit, a use permit to exceed the .5 FAR as established by the Specific Area Plan, or the approval of a TPO override. In referunce to the staff report, Hr. Hewicker explained that thei Planning Commission approved the following projects to exceed .5 FAR which would require marine oriented uses: Use Permit No, 3086, 2901 West Coast Highway, of the total project's 16.253 square feet the required marine oriented use of 1,353 square feet, 8 percent, has been leased; Use Permit No. 2051, 2081 West Coast Highway, of the total proyeet's 8,682 square feet the required marine oriented use of 1,780 square feet, 21 percent, has been leased. Hr. Hewicker stated that if the floor area ratio of the subject project included the 46,405 square f6ot parking structure as part of the floor area ratio, the floor area ratio would be increased from .69 FAR to 1.36 FAR. Discussion ensued between Hs. Korade and Commissioner Debay regarding .action 19.14.030, the approval or conditional approval of a vesting tentative map. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Hr. Said Shokrian, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He submitted four letters of approval from the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association and adjacent property owner$. Hr, Shokrian stated that he and his architect, Hr. Brion Jeannette, have met with the Board of Directors of the Newport Heights Homeowner's Association so ,as to address their concerns; the project • is an aesthetically attractive building; that the project will enhance the Mariner's Mile area; that they attempted to accommodatethe City of the needs and issues that are important Y -15- �I `, 1 .. COMMISSIONERS ( MINUTES p August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH •ROLL CALL : INDEX the homeowners; that the project has been designed to create a village-type atmosphere and to increase more pedestrian traffic and a service oriented mall for the residents; that the project is small in size and density compared to adjacent projects in the area; that the building will not result in an abrupt change in scale from the surrounding buildings; the proposed building is 34 feet high -and is set back from West Coast Highway; that the building is ' designed and set back so as to preserve views; that the landscaping and open space will be aesthetically pleasing; that the building area over .5 FAR which will be used for marine oriented uses includes only 4,500 square feet of the total building space; that the applicant would not be creating traffic problems; and he concluded that he perceives problems if a project is not developed on the site by 1990. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n concerning the project contributing traffic congestion, and Mr. Shokrian'a foregoing statement regarding the TPO, Mr. Shokrian replied that he does not deny the existence of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Winburn regarding Mr. Shokrian's foregoing statement that the marine-oriented use would constitute 4,500 square feet, Mr. Shokrian explained -how said square footage was calculated inasmuch as the staff report states 6,400 square feet of buildable area would require incentive use. Mr. Hewicker explained that the buildable area is arrived at by multiplying 34,191 square feet times .19 FAR. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n, Mr. Shokrian replied that some of the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" are acceptable to him, and that Mr. Jeannette would completely respond to the question. In reference to the pending China Palace Restaurant lawsuit, Mr. Shokrian explained for clarification that he has been informed by the Court of Appeal that during the month of September there would be a decision on the hearing. He stated that if the decision would be in -his favor that the China Palace Restaurant would operate on a monthly basis including one month's notice to vacate. If the decision would be against him, Mr. Shokrian explained that he would have to wait until the China Palace Restaurant lease expires in September, 1991. -16- r19 • t ' COMMISSIONERS ( MINUTES y4 et^sP �ep�o August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX . Mr. Brien Jeannette, Architect, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the applicant is requesting a modification to allow 22 percent compact parking spaces; that the maximum height is proposed to be 34 feet; and that the floor area ratio exceeds .5 FAR. Mr. Jeannette stated that the intent is to create a nautical theme in the Mariner's Mile area that will enhance the destination point concept of a village area. Mr. Jeannette presented a slide show of the proposed project depicting the area that would be demolished so as to construct the project; he compared the 34 foot height of the proposed project to the height of the adjacent,.and nearby developments on West Coast Highway; the view from the surrounding areas and the affect that the-proposed project would have on the adjacent sites; the architectural desigi: of the proposed building; the setbacks to West Coast F.ighway; the proposed landscaped , area; the parking area; and that if West Coast Highway is widened the proposed landscaping and structure would continue to enhance the village=type atmosphere. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Jeannette replied that the views from Cliff Drive to the bay that were shown on the slides were in direct proportion to the buildings surrounding the area. In reference to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Mr. Jeannette objected that the proposed project should be penalized for the traffic problems that have been created in the area from previous developments, and he emphasized that the development would enhance the area. Mr. Jeannette stated that he had conferred with DKS Traffic Consultants, who had spoken to staff, and that the consultants had suggested mitigation measures. Discussion ensued between Chairman Person and Mr. Jeannette regarding the information that Mr. Jeannette was considering to submit to the Planning Commission regarding issues which might mitigate the TPO. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that if mhd building would be used for office the project would W'able to pass the TPO. He said that if the project provided access to West Coast Highway it would relieve the congestion at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Riverside Drive, that may allow a change in the ratio back towards more retail and less office. Mr. Hewicker stated that by providing access on West Coast Highway and -17- nn I - / MINUTES COMMISSIONERS C 9fp� o�7�Gv� August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL eliminating the China Palace Restaurant, it would destroy a major justification for approving the proposed building height in excess of 26 feet. In response to a question posed by Mr. Jeannette regarding if a building exceeding 10,000 square feet would .not automatically be subject to a TPO, Mr. Hawicker explained that by giving credit for. the China Palace Restaurant and the adjacent radio shop which are currently located on the site and will be removed, staff has given credit for 214 AD1 and the TPO allows an additional 130 ADT. Mr. Jeannette stated that a building could be redesigned but he was not certain if the building would meet the needs of the residents in the area inasmuch as the development would provide loc.tl mixed uses. Discussion ensued between Mr. Jeannette and Commissioner Debay regarding the need for additional marine-oriented uses in the area based on the foregoing statement by Mr. Hewicker regarding the vacancy rate in the Mariner's Mile area. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at: 9:25 p.m. In reference to the foregoing Condition No. 2, Mr. Jeannette and Chairman Persdn discussed the applicant's consideration to redesign the project so as to meet the TPO standards. Chairman Persdn explained that the Planning Commission is required to approve only the project that has ')eon applied for, and Mr. Jeannette stated that based on that conclusion the applicant would request that the foregoing Condition No. 2 be deleted and the Planning Commission override the TPO. In reference to Condition No. 6 which states "that no building permit shall be issued prior to the demolition of all• buildings currently on the -site.", Mr. Jeannette requested that the condition be modified to state that the applicant could not occupy the building until the China Palace Restaurant has been demolished. Discussion ensued. between Mr. Jeannette, Planning Commission, and staff regarding the construction of -the project so as to not impact said restaurant, and the location of the required restaurant parking until the restaurant building has been demolished. In reference to Condition No. 23 which states that "this use permit shall expire _18_ MINUTE$ ' COMMISSIONERS C August 18, 1988 Gay '�,9Q� yo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL unless exercised' within 24 months. .", Mr. Jeannette concluded that the applicant may request that the use permit be extended one year so as to expire in 1991 when .the China Palace Restaurant lease would be terminated. Mr. Jeannette commented that the construction could commence on the site prior to October 24, 1991, when the lease expires so as to activists the use permit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Merrill regarding equipment on the roof of the proposed project, Mr. Jeannette replied that the only equipment that would be penetrating would be plumbing vents. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay regarding the parking structure, Mr. Jeannette described the two level parking structure. He stated that the lower floor is subterranean by four feet and the upper floor is ten feet above the natural grade. Mr. James O'Brian, 611 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, Attorney for Mr. Shokrian, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. O'Brian discussed the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the provisions of the Ordinance. He said that his review of the Ordinance was to determine if the Ordinance would be subject to challenge and he concluded that it is not, that it is well drafted, and that the City' Attorney's Office .did an able job. Mr. O'Briatt stated that he studied the Ordinance as it applies to ! the particular factual situation, and he commented that the staff report indicates that there are ways to mitigate the application of the Ordinance but that none of them apply to the subject project. He said that one of the mitigating mans would be to contribute to a fund, where there was a proposal to do some alterations to the offending intersection within 48 months and it is acknowledged that is not a feasible possibility in this case. Mr. O'Brian referred to' page 9 of the staff report, and he stated that staff is of the view that there must be a finding set forth by the Planning Commission the reasons that the benefits of the project ;;including trip generation reduction outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transporation facilities. He said that the staff report refers to Section 15.40.030(D) of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the staff reads that the benefits of the project "shall" include trip owever, he said that he reads it generation reductions; h , g that the benefits of the project "May" include trip -19- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL generation reductions. Mr. O'Brian commented that if it is "may", then the Planning Commission may consider all aspects of the project in considering whether to override the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mr. O'Brian suggested that from a casual reading of the Ordinance as well as a careful reading of the Ordinance that it is not mandatory that there be trip generation reduction only that it is one of the elements that may be considered. He said that if that criteria is used and the Planning Commission considers all of the aspects that have been presented that speak favorably to the project, then the Planning Commission has the authority to indicate that the benefits outweigh the negative impact to override that Ordinance. Mrs. Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drivs, President before Newport Heights Community Association, appeared the Planning Commission. Mrs. Dedaner stated that the proposed project is an exemplary example of the design principles which enhances the village atmosphere of Mariner's Mile. She stated that said Association supports the large setbacks that will provide substantial landscaping, and the available parking spaces for the patrons and employees. She said that said Association has concerns regarding the preservation of public views from the public parks; that the project shall exceed .5 FAR; that said Association challenges marine-oriented use to compromise the height and density in Mariner's Mile; that the view corridors be maintained; that there be no mitigation on Avon Street; that Cliff Drive Park and Avon Street are the only buffers in the intense commercial development that have continued to progress beyond .5 FAR; that the residents oppose commercial parking and traffic through their neighborhood; that the residents oppose ingress/egress on Avon Street; that they object to no curb cuts at the subject location on West Coast Highway; and that said Association supports the foregoing Condition No. 2 and Condition No. 5 regarding preservation of views. Ms. Korade referred to page 9 and Section 15.40.030(D) and Mr. O'Brian's statement, and the Jpterpretation of the sentence that states that the benefits of the project, including trip generation reductions, outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. .". She stated that if the parenthetical statement "including trip generation reduction", is removed, the intent of the section is to require an analysis of whether "the benefits of the -20- /�J • I t COMMISSIONERS ( - MINUTES August 18, 1988 6 OD yi y s. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX project outweigh the project's anticipated negative impacts on transportation facilities". She said the primary section is the balancing analysis of benefits vs. negatives and examination of the impact on transportation 'facilities. Ms. Korade stated that the torn "including trip generation reduction", requires an analysis if it is of benefit, and indicates an intent that the benefits should be transportation related. This could include an analysis of benefits other than trip generation reduction but the benefits of the project should be transportation related and the detriment should be transportation related. What this Section requires is a weighing of transportation benefits,against transportation negatives. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Ms. Korade replied that the correct word would be "that the benefits of the project 'should' Include an analysis of trip generation reductions", but that "trip generation reduction" alone is not necessarily required. Mr. Don Williams, 2936 Cliff Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams referred to Mr. Jeannette's slide presentation, and he addressed the loss of view from the park to the bay; he contradicted the height of the Newport Import building; that the traffic on Avon Street would require that the street be completed to Newport Boulevard; the loss of view corridors; and that post office employees are parking on residential streets. Mr. Hewicker stated that he was informed that the post office employees would park in an area that would be more accessible to them, if available; however. until then they consider parking on Avon Street, Riverside Drive, and Cliff Drive as public , parking areas. In response to a concern posed by Mr. Williams regarding marine-oriented uses, Mr. Hewicker replied that there are marine related uses that do not require that they 'be on the waterfront. Mr. Williams objected to the precedent relating to height and density that has been set on Mariner's Mile. Mr. Don Webb, .City Engineer, referred to Mr. Williams' concerns regarding Avon 'Street, and he`,said that there are no construction plans for the extension of Avon Street. He stated that the City Council is currently considering additional- parking spaces on Avon Street that would include a cul-de-sac behind Newport Imports, it would -preclude the extension, but 'it would not require the extension. Mr. Webb stated that Avon Street -21- COMMISSIONERS ( MINUTES yq �4 �p �►�"B August 18. 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL is not on a Master Plan of Circulation, it is a local street right-of-way, and to remove the street would be to abandon the street right-of-way. Mr. Webb stated that Avon Street connection would not be directly to Old Newport Boulevard but it would connect to Santa Ana Avenue. Mr. Dennis Harwood, 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Jack Mau, owners and operators of the China Palace Restaurant. Mr. Harwood requested that the Planning Commission take no action to prejudice the rights of his clients. He said that the Court has determined that the lease runs until 1991, that Mr. Shokrian has appealed that decision, and that the argument on the appeal will be heard in September. He stated that the China Palace Restaurant end the parking area are in the possession of Mr. and !ors. Mau until 1991. He suggested that it should be based on those facts that the Planning Commission should reach their determination. Mr. Harwood stated that Mr. Mau has an approved parking agreement insuring that 20 parking spaces will be provided adjoining the restaurant's site which would be the area that the proposed project would be developed, and he addressed concerns regarding the impact of future traffic congestion in the area. Ms. Korade referred to Mr. Harwood's statement requesting that the Planning Commission abstain or base their decision on the existing litigation between the property owner and lessee. Ms. Korade stated that it is the position of the City Attorney's Office that the action of the Planning Commission does not affect the existing disputed property rights. If the Planning Commission granted any type of use permit, approve a traffic study, recommend the vesting resubdivision, this would not give the applicant any right to contravene another party's existing property rights. I In response to a question posed by Chairman Pers6n regarding the foregoing Condition No. 6 requiring the demolition of all buildings currently ,on the site, Mr. i Hewicker replied that the City did not want to get into a position where a building permit would be issued for the new building, allow the construction of that building to proceed, and then a point would be reached where the City could not issue an Occupancy Permit and then have the applicant demand or sue the City. -22- ra� COMMISSIONERS ( "-( MINUTES co August 18. 1988 4M 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH " ROLL CALL INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be beard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Notion was made to deny Traffic Study No. 48, Use Permit Motion NO. 3290, and Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 subject to the findings in Exhibit "8". Commissioner Winburn stated that she would support the motion. She explained that she would not override the z Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and that. the Planning Commission cannot consider a redesign of the proposed project as suggested by Hr. Jeannette, without seeing the plan. 'Commissioner Winburn indicated an interest in seeing the traffic mitigation for the exit on West Coast Highway as opposed to ingress/egress on Avon Street. She addressed the project's •bulk; that the marine- oriented uses designated for the two developments on West Coast Highway are presntly not as successful as was anticipated. Commissioner Winburn stated that she approves the design of the building and the project. Ms. Korade suggested an additional sentence be added to Finding No. 4, Traffic Study, so as to address previous discussions: "that the benefits of the project do not outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities." Ms. Korade explained that said sentence would clarify concerns regarding "may" and "shall", that the finding would migate any objection of said distinction. The maker of the motion concurred with the suggested amendment to Condition No. 4. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he would support the motion. He said ti.at the project would improve what is presently on the site; however, he supported the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would not consider overriding the Traffic Phasing Ordinance under the circumstances. He explained that the residents are concerned with traffic ancl congestion, that he likes the project, that if the application included a use that would generate an acceptable level of !traffic, then he would not have a problem with the request. .23. MINUTES 'co4MISSIONERS August 18, 1988 �o C8 Y ®gq OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Motion was voted on to deny Traffic Study No. 48, Use All Ayes P©rmit No. 3317, and Vesting Resubdivision No. 876, subject to the findings in Exhibit "B", including amudod Finding No. 4, Traffic study, as previously stated. NOTIGN CARRIED. bmfic Study 1. That a Traffic study a been prepare owhich analyzes the impact the proposed P project n 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 project generated traffic makes worse an , unsatisfactory level of traffic service at the intersection Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue. 3. That the only available, traffic improvement which would result in compliance with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is clearly beyond the scope of this project, and is not anticipated to be constructed within 48 months. 4. That the project does not include any trip generation reductions which will allow an exception to the.Traffic Phasing Qrdinance. That the benefits of the project do not outweigh the project's anticipated negative impact on transportation facilities. Use Permit No. 3317 1. That, due to its size, the proposed project will result in traffic in excess of that permitted under the CIty's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 2. That the project is not consistent with the requirements of the General Plan which places the subject property and adjacent properties in a specific plan area'in order "to resolve problems of traffic conflicts, parking, and access. . .". 3. That the request' for incseaeed building height could result in the impairment of 'views from the lower sidewalk at Cliff Drive View Park. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3317 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the .24. X7 ` MINUTES COMMISSIONERS August 18, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or r vem ent imintatheoneighborh od or to property and imp the general welfare of the City. Vestins Resubdivision No. 876 1. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with ap;licable general. and specific plans in that it increases problems of traffic conflicts. 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the density of davelopment inasmuch as the proposed project does not meet the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. That the approval of Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 will, under the circumstances of this case,moral e detrimental to the health, safety, peace. comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, orbed ein ltor injurious to 'propertyimprovements he neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. Item NO-5 Ts No. Re at to accept a revised traffic study so as to 49— permi ha astabl�shment of a restaurant in conjunction Op3229A ' with the proved auto dealership located on property within the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Continued Mariner's Mile scific Plan which includes a request to to override the re irements of the Traffic Phasing 9_8_88 Ordinance. The prop 1 also includes the acceptance of an environmental docume AND a. Use Perm rinr.1 Request to amend a previously approved permit which permitted the construction of an automobil dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height lim in the 26%35 Meigbt Limitation District, on property loca 'd in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of e Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment .25- TY OF NEWPORT B ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES 6 ROLL CALL � September 26, 1988 WDEX vid Neigh of Urban Assist, Inc., Resub 880 ra asenting The Irvin* Company, adds sad the Council in support o£ the Plan! Commission's recommendation to approve air request. He stated this project was pproved soma years ago, but never eomplet . It is now their intention to co late the development and vast the tents ve map to insure that the project cam s compinead with all of the canditlons approvals that were previously required. Hearing no others wishing to drags the Council, the public hearing was osed. Motion x Motion was made to approve vesting' All Ayes Resubdivisiou No; 880, incorporating b reference the Findings and Conditions recommended by the Planing Commission. — 4, Mayor Cox opened the public hearing and U/P 3317 City Council review of an aa"@peal by SAID (88) SHORRIAN, Corona dad.'Mar;from•eh'e .•• uuan ous denial by the Planning Commission on August 18, 1988, of - p, TRAFFIC STUDY No. 48 Trfc Stdy . ._.. 048 Request the acceptance of a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a 23,593t sq. ft. (gross) retail-office building in the "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariners' Mile Specific plan which includes a request to override the requirement of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an Environmental Document; AND . B. USE PERMIT No. 3317 Permit the construction of•a 23, g t. retailffice bu n0g on property 1-0 jid !n the Retaal and Service Commercial" area of the Mariners' Milo Specific Plan. The proposal includes a request to exceed the allowable gross structural area of .5 times the buildable area of the site; a request to exceed the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District; and a request for a modification to• the Volume 42 - Page 361 CITY OF 'NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS � { MINUTES OL CALL R L �.�*\Q September 26, 1988 INDEX Zoning Cope to as to allow the use of compact•parking= AND C. VRSTINO RBSCBDIVISION NO, 876_ Resub 876 Request to approve a vesting resubdivision so as to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into a single parcel for commercial development on oroperty locnred at Win end 293 Ns6rvice Commercial" !a the 'ReeaiLBervlce Commercial" area of the Mariners' Mile Specific Plan. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. Appeal application from Said Shokrian,' was presented. Latta]; from the Balboa Day Club Prasidant, Thomas C. Deemer, in support of the subject project, was presented. Letter from The Irvine Company in •• suppor6 of the Planning Commission recommendation, and the Villa Point + Apartments project, was presented. The City Hanger advised that subsequent to the denial by the Planning Commission, this project has been significantly modified, and presented three options for consideration: 1) Review the revised plan at this time( 2) Continue the public hearing to another data= or . . 3) Refer the item back to the Planing Commission to conduct Site Plan Review, Brian Jeannette, architect for the appolimt, addressed the Council and stated it is their request that this hearing be continued to October 24 in order to clarify soma of the Ccuncil's concerns. He briefly outlined the revised project and stated that the structure now meets the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance Volume 42 — Page 362 , . / 3a TY OF NEWPORT 8� ACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES A y P ROLL CALL? September 26, 1988 INDEX— Discussion ensued, wherein the Planning Director advieed that if the revised project is referred back to the Planning CMission, it will not be necessary for the development to be approved by the City Council unless it is appealed, or called up for public hearing by the Council. Brion Jeannette stated that he had no object bo_ o n`e tiaWgifbee :the Plannia5•Commissions,,,ovever, it would be his desire tobring the sevieed plan to the City Council;"inasmucb'as the deciiicn'o_f-ttie'-Fleaning Coomtission could bi �ppaelad. Motion x Hearing no others wishing to•address,the All Ayes Council, motion was made to continue this.gutilic lieering[o '&obir 24,„188,Q. 5. Mayor Cox opened 'the public hearing and U!P 1942(A) City Council review of an appeal of (88) GRACE RESTAURANT COMPANY, •Irvine, from the unanimous approval by the Planning \commission on August 40 1988 of USE PERMIT NO. 1942 (AMENDED) being a request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted a change in operational characteristics of an existing COCQ'S RESTAURANT located at 2305 East Coast Highway, Corona del Her, so as to Add the incidental service of on-sale bear and wine. The proposed amendment include a request to change the facility to a 24 hour coffee shop, whereas t a existing use permit limits the hours f operation from 7:00 a.m, to 11:00 p.m. ily; request to delete the previous Con tion No. 1, which required a recorded of -site parking agreement be approved by th City Council: guaranteeing th t a minimum of 23 parking spaces b provided for the restaurant use on roperty•locatad at 2239-2247 East Coo t Highway; and ' including exceptio to the Sign Code so as to permit an-off- to restaurant idsatification sign o a parking lot site located at 2239-2 47 Bait Coast Highway; together with wo roof signs. The application would no propose to increase the "not public rem" of the restaurant. Report from the Planning Dep rtment, was presented, , Appeal Application from Grace R staurant Company, was presented. Volume 42 - Page 363 � 3� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CA ? September 26, 1988iNDEX— Latta, from David 0. Dill in opposition O/P 1942(A) to tba subject r stauriAt's appeal for ehanp of hours of operation, was presented. The City Clark advised that after the a anda was printed, a letter was aceived from the applicant requesting thdrawal of their appeal, and stating is their intention to proceed with t sir development in compliance with the e ditione of approval imposed by the P1 ing Commission on August 4, 1988. Con it Member Sinsone stated that it was' is intention to call this item up befo the Council, but later learned it had a ready been appealed by Grace Beaten ant. He stated thatthe major object ns of the residents in Corona del tar to the•,proposed use are as followat 1) Approval of the sign variance; 2) uka-Box music in each dividual booth; 3) I reseed traffic on Acacia Av nus; 4) Lac of an agreement for off- its parking. Council Member ansons stated that in view of these a terns, he would suggest -the applicant met with the residents in the area in hopes of working out s compromisep parts ularly since the use Permit is'subject o review by the City at anytime. Motion x Motion was made to cept the letter of All Ayes withdrawal from•Grac Restaurant dated September 26, 1988. 6. Mayor Cox opened the p blic hearing CDBC/Grnts regarding COMMONITY DR tOPMENT BLOCK Prfmc Apt CRANT PROGRAM GRANTEE P ORMANCE PY187/88 REPORT - PY 1987- 9 E. (87) ,• Report from the Planning apartment, was presented. The City Manager advised t t the purpose of this hearing is o confirm the amount of entitlement f da that wera spent in 1987-88 for ho sing, social services, fair housin and administration. volumo 42 - Page 364 I CvYY OF NEWPORT BEtivZH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS cif � ? �, October 24, 1988 I OEX ROLL CALL 3•, Mayor Cox opened the continued public Resub 876/ hearing and City Council review of an Site Pln APPEAL BY SAID SHORRIAN, Corona del Her, RvP 49/ som t e uaan mous ainial by the Shokrian 49 Planning Commission on (84) August 18, 1988 off A TRAFFIC STUDY N0. 48 (REVISED) Request the acceptance of a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a 1550t sq. ft. retail-office building in td "Rotail Service Commercial" area of the prgposala also rincl Specifics Mile includes theacceptanctOf I an Environmental DOtllmentl AND H. SITE PLAN REVIEW No. 49 Request to permit the construction of a 15,9501 sq. ft, combined office-retail • commercial building on property located in thi "Retail Service Commercial" area of the Mariners Nile Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes a ' modification to the zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces for a portion of the requited off-street parkingt AND C. VESTING NF.SUBDIVISIOH NO. 876 Request to approve a vesting resubdivision so as to resubdivide two existing parcels of land into a single parcel for commercial development on property located at 2912 and 2030 West Coast Ui "Retail Service Commercial"aar area ofhthe Mariners Mile Specific Plan. Report from the Planning Department, was presented. Recycled Appeal application from Said Shokrian, dated August 24, 1988, was presented. Lotter') Jan D. Vandersloots, H1.D.,•din favor and of the pro3ect, were presented. Volume 42 - Page 465 133 C,.fY OF NEWPORT Mt ZOH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES October 24,'1988 ROLL CIALAVOMMA INDEX The Assistant City Clark advised that, Resbb 876 the following letters were received Shokrian after phe agenda was printed from Atporney'Staphaa A. Ellis, Uarwood, Adkinson 6 Maindl, mepraienting Mr. and Mrs. Jack Mau, owners of China Palace, in favor of denial; and Dr. Jan D. Vanderaloot regarding the subject project's effect on'the Lancer's view corridor from Cliff Drive Park. The Executive Assistant to the City Manager stated that this project comes 'under the heading of an appeal, but actually it is a new project. He added that the project started out with over 23,000 sq. .ft. that exceeded the basic blight limit, and also triggered the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), and the 'project has been modified so that it is now leas than 16,000 sq. ft., within the basic height limit, and also masts the TPO. ' The Planning Director commsaced that the Traffic Study, which was prepared for the project, represents an attempt to analyze what can be built on the property, but it is not necessarily 15,950 square feet of development, as it is divided into two ussal retail of 6,750 square feet; and office use of 9, 200 square feat. Us stated that this particular development his a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of.7; where the preceding development had an FAR of .69; 93 parking space$, vs. 65, and both projects take their access to Avon. 'He further stated that, although staff bat suggested in ths,Coaditions of Approval a time limit of four years, the Council may wish to change that (unless there is a different time limit specified, that* would only be,a 24 month, or•two-year time limit on the approval of the Site Plan Review). He also added that in reviewing the Conditions of Approval, if it is not already covered under one of the existing conditions, staff recommends that &'condition be added which would address the issue of the screaning,of the roof top mechanical equipment, so that it would not be visible from the park or future residential projects. Volume 42 - Page 466 . I3 d'rfY OF NEWPORT BE'-ACH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS aG�� a C% 'A `a October 24, 1988 INDEX ROLL CALL Brion i9annatte, architect for the Resub 876 applicant, addreased the Council, Shokrian stating that there would be no problem with the scrseniag requirement, and accepted the condition, He referred to two items on page 7 of the staff report, stating that there should be some way to alsit the traffic engineering Staff when there are certain. kinds of projects that might trip the TPO before the applicant starts the projict; and this fact that the traffic created by this project (15,950 sq. ft.) will be 50Z of the traffic on Avon, thus establishing a dollar item of $15,000 to help create widening of Avon. He questioned the , fact that the 1% traffic the project would be creating at the intersection, really is 50% of the traffic on AVan. In response to Mayor Pro Tam Hart, Brion Jeannette addressed the issue of 24-month continuance vs. 4 years,. wherein he stated that there presently is litigation between Mr. Hsu and Mr. Shokrian that maintains the ability for Hr. Mau to occupy the building on the old China Palace site, which disallows the applicant from demolishing it and going forward, and this does not run out until 1991, which is just 2 years away. He added that the applicant could certainly accept a 3-year time period if this would be acceptable to Council.' Disegeeion ensued, wherein the Planning Director, in response to Council inquiry, regarding the foregoing time limit request, stated thi'' particular application is a vesting map along with a site plan review, which means that when the project is approved, it 1s approved subject to the plan and all of the ordinances, etc., that are in ' existence at the time the approval is given. He added that when their approval runs out, say in 2 years, they would not be allowed to proceed under the Same regulations, but would have to satisfy the ordinances, policies and plans-in effect at the time. Gail Demme, representing the Newport Heights Community Association, Stating that they did review the plan in its original conception and drawing, and recommended the Plowing Commission deny the project due to the fact that it was tripping the TPO, a third story, and was Volume 42 - Page 467 � � I (.,N OF NEWPORT BEa..CH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CA October 24, 1988 obstruacing partial view., She added Ruub 876 that they are very,grateful that these Shoktion items have bun mitigated, and although they have not sesn'tbi planes,however their association is Concerned about Avon Street, its growth and its destination. She further stated that they have conearce about the agrees and ingress of Avon Street. Dr. Jan D. Vandereloot, 2221 16th street, addressed the Council referring to his lest letter in which he requested his comments for qualified support of tbe.revised project be modified: He stated that after looking at the blueprints it is clear the letter's view corridor from Cliff Drive Park could be totally obliterated from the right-hand corner of the park above the first flight of stairs into the park, and -proceeded to illustrate his findings on the wall diagram, Ho,offerad a solution, stating that by providing a view corridor by way of v curb cut on Coast Highway along the entry to the Shoktion property, 4he,Lancer's view corridor will b4 maintiined, He added that ono curb cut there would still allow removal of two existing curb cute, and access here could take pressure off Avon Street and Riverside Avenue so that a traffic signal may not be'required. He concluded by stating that more analyaia of the issues should be made, as bpti the Planning Commies}on•and the Newport Hsighta Community Association have pot reviewed the blueprints of this modified project. Attar hearing no one else wishing to address.the Council., the public hearing was cloud. Motion x Dieeuuion aneued wherein motion w s ., made y Coun member Turner tot (a) Overrule the decision of the Flann�ng-Cemission•and'-__ approve ifii 4iatid`Map of usubdivision No. 876j and (b) Ap rove the Revised Traffic u y o. i and._ Volume 42 - Pages 468, O,-fY OF NEWPORT E#eACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES JALA\ t �G ��20LL $ October 24, 1988 INDEX (a) Approve Site Plan Review No. 49, with the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval, as set forth in the staff report, with the exception that Page 14, Item No. 25 be changed to read "..24 months..." The City Attorney offered information to the affect that the Vesting Tentative Map Ordinance gives the individual three years to file the final map, and one year to build the project once that final map is filed, and it also allows a one-year extension, so the applicant has up to five years, under.the ordinance, to proceed with the project if the Planning Commission, or Council grants that one year. All Ayes. Discussion ensued, wherein action (c) in the foregoing motion was revised to leave it as is stated in the staff report (48 months). yor Cox opened the public hearing ' regarding PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 88-39, Ord•88-39 being, Second- Family Unit AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PCA 669 THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING (94) TITLE 20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ROEIBITING THE CREATION OF SECOND LY UNITS IN SINGLE-FAMILY OR I-FAMILY DISTRICTS [PLANNING CO SION AMENDMENT NO. 6691, 1.% .I T was presents for second reading with L` Er report from t Planning Department. B M, "10 -1 The Executive As stant to the City Manager very brie y summarized that Y' �• State law provides, a a matter of r, right, the establis ut of I second-family units in all residential districts. A second-f ly unit is distinguished from a gran unit in that second-family units can be n any residential diaerict and wi no age restriction; whereas, a gran unit is only in R-1 Districts, and the ccupants have to be over 60 years of age. Volume 42 - Page 469 cnc.c-/�r—i i%ur. rl r I •�T�/—T�CJ �•/r v��/Vr r/Cr , STAFF AERCAw-7-. TO: CC' _ Council - 10 \ EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 48 (REVISED) SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.49 VESTING RESUBDIVISION NO. 876 AND ACCEPTANCE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. Environmental Document Findines• 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 Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the 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 generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of the critical intersections, but will not add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any critical intersection which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of greater than .90. C. Site Plan Review No. 46 Findings 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, and the Mariner's Mile j 3`� TO: Ci( Council Specific Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation will be provided. 3. The proposed development is a high-quality proposal and will not adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. 4. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from the expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of street and public facilities within the area. 5. The proposed development will not preclude the attainment of the Specific Area Plan objectives stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 6, The proposed development promotes the maintenance of superior site location characteristics adjoining major thoroughfares of City-wide importance. 7. That the effects of the proposed development on the portion of the view corridor between the John Dominis building and Lancer Landing as seen from the lower portion of Cliff - Drive Park are not considered significant. 8. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 9. That improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code. 10. That the approval of a modification to the Zoning Code, so as to allow the use of compact parking spaces will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. � 39 TO: Ci,, Council - 12 11. That the approval of Site Plan Review No. 49 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 to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That a maximum of sixteen (16) compact spaces shall be permitted on-site. 3. That all employees shall park on-site. 4. That the required ' number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on-site parking area. Said parking spaces shall be accessible to the handicapped at all times and shall be a minimum width of 14 feet. One handicapped sign on a post shall be required for ' each handicapped space. 5. That all signs shall conform to Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 9. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is TO: Ci. Council - 13 l desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 10. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 11. That Resubdivision No. 876 shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 12. That development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 13. That the grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 14. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize the impact of haul operations. 15. That 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. 16. That the fill, grading and recompaction of the site shall be conducted 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. 17. That 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 construction schedule. Prior to the occupancy of the structure, the licensed architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan. • f f TO: U Council - 14 18. That the landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department and the approval of the Planning and Public Works Departments. 19. That landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 20. That any mechanical equipment or trash containers shall be screened from view from Cliff Drive, West Coast Highway, and adjoining properties. 21. That the proposed development shall provide a minimum of one parking space for each 250 sq. ft. of floor area (63 spaces) . 22. That all conditions of approval of Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 shall be fulfilled. 23. That Parking Space No. 66 shall be eliminated. 24. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained. 25. This site plan review shall expire unless exercised within 48 months from the date of approval. Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the subdivision 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 a Negative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the proposed vesting resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 5. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.1020 of the Municipal TO: Ci( Council - 15 Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. 6. This development increases traffic on Avon Street which results in the need to widen the street and may result in the need to provide a traffic signal in the future. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. That the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That the intersection of Avon Street and the drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 5. That the developer reimburse the City for the cost of constructing street improvements along the Avon Street frontage. Improvement costs shall include curb, gutter, sidewalks and a 24 foot width of street paving, prior to issuance of a grading permit. 6. That all vehicular access to West Coast Highway be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 7. That the sidewalk be reconstructed to a 12 foot width and the existing drive depression removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the West Coast Highway frontage under �an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. �� 3 • F � f TO: C Council - 16 l B. That the hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and. storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements ,prior to issuance of grading permit. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the review shall be the responsibility of the developer. 9. That variable width right-of-way be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes along the West Coast Highway frontage. The additional width of right-of-way shall be approximately 15.40 feet at the westerly property line and approximately 16.00 feet at the easterly property line. This dedication shall be completed prior to issuance of any grading or building permits ,unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. I ' 11. That the 'Edison transformer serving the site be located outside the sight distance planes as described'in City Standard 110-L. 12. The vesting tentative map be modified to reflect existing dedications on West Coast Highway. 13. 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. 14. Site drain use will not be allowed to flow across the Avon Street parkway, and drains going this direction shall be connected to the Avon Street storm drain. 15. That the developer contribute to the City 50% of the cost of widening Avon Street to provide for two-way traffic between the easterly property line and Riverside Avenue. The curb-to-curb width of widening will vary from 24 feet to 40 feet. 16. That 25% of the cost of a traffic signal at Riverside Avenue and Avon Street be bonded for in case traffic signal warrants are met within 5 years after a certificate of occupancy is issued for the development. Y ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Gemp \,Mthh cock, Current Planning Manager, stated that staff has at this item be continued to the October 5, 1989, mmission meeting so as to allow staff time to meet pplicant to resolve issues which have arisen. in with the proposed application Motion * de and voted on to continue Modification No. Ayes * * * * * e ctober 5, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Absent * D. erm 0. se Permit No. 3009 . mended) (Public Hearing) Item No.4 Request to amend a p viously approved use permit that' UP3009A permitted the service of be and wine in conjunction with an Removed restaurant in the -O-Z District. The proposed amendment involves a request t expand the "net public area" of fromCalendar the restaurant by enclosing an e g covered patio entry. The proposal also includes a request o waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of P cel Map 6939-90, 91 (Resubdivision No. 17 located at 2931 East Coast Highway, on the uthwesterly side of East Coast Highway be n Iris avenue and Heliotrope Avenue, in Cor a del Mar. ZONE: C-O-Z APPLICANT: Ardeshir Bahar, Architect, Laguna s OWNER: J. Ray Property Management, Irvine William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that applicant has requested that this time be removed from calendar. A• Traffic Study No 8 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to accept a traffic study so as to permit the conversion TS No. 58 of an approved employees' cafeteria in the Newport Imports Automobile dealership to a restaurant facility. -11- lT S I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES , o� September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL ffB INDEX B. Use Permit No. 3229 ( m nd Continued Public Hearing) UP3229A A request to amend a previously approved use permit which Approved permitted the construction of an automobile dealership which exceeded the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Height Limitation District, on property located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Mariner's Mile Specific Plan. The proposed amendment includes a request to convert an approved employees' cafeteria into a restaurant facility with on- sale beer and wine which will operate in conjunction with the auto dealership. The proposal also includes: a request to, permit a portion of the required restaurant parldng on an adjoining parcel which is in the same ownership as the subject property; and a request to delete or modify Condition of Approval No. 13 of Use Permit No. 3229, so as to allow all' f night security lighting at the rear of the building, adjacent to i Avon Street, whereas said lighting is currently required to be ! turned off at 10:00 p.m. LOCATION: Restaurant Site: Parcel 1 of'Parcel Map No. 87-166 (Resubdivision No. 840), located at 3000 West Coast Highway; Off-Site Parking Site: a portion of Lot F, Tract No. 919, located at 2922 - 2940 West Coast Highway; both sites being on the northerly side of West Coast Highway between North Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue, in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP-5 APPLICANT: Lee West, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant Commissioner Debay requested a clarification of the results of the I.C.U. traffic analysis at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and West Coast Highway. Don Webb, City Engineer, stated that the analysis at that intersection is 0.904 which is slightly greater than 0.90; however, staff, in accordance with Traffic Phasing Ordinance guidelines, rounded the figure off to two decimal points to 0.90. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay with respect to the traffic count, Mr. Webb explained that the traffic fluctuates from year to year- and during the past -12- ,/ r 4P COMMISSIONERS MINUTES o September 7, 1989 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Highway. He stated that several previous project approvals that were used as committed traffic in the area in previous traffic studies have sunsetted and were not included; therefore, the projected number of trips were less. Mr. Webb further explained that in the project's previous study, 3,300 square feet of floor area was counted twice, once as a restaurant and once as a portion of the car dealership. Commissioner Merrill suggested that the traffic counts may have been reduced because of the construction activity on West Coast Highway. Mr. Webb stated that the traffic counts were monitored in May, 1989. Commissioner Pers6n asked why the projects traffic study was not done at the intersection of Superior Avenue and West Coast Highway. Mr. Webb explained that the restaurant did not provide 1% or greater traffic at said intersection. ' In response to questions posed by Commissioner Merrill, Mr. Webb explained that staff analyzes the square footage of a restaurant and does not consider the success of a restaurant. Commissioner Pers6n asked if the traffic analysis considered the Planning Commission removing the use permit and rights granted for the original China Palace as well as the project proposed at 2912 and 2930 West Coast Highway. Mr. Webb stated that the I.C.U. would be reduced from 0.904 to 0.903, if they were removed. ' Commissioner Debay asked if the Planning Commission should be concerned that the applicant is currently operating the requested restaurant without a use permit? Robert Burnham, City Attorney, replied "no". He explained that the only important factor relates to the likelihood -that the applicant will comply with the conditions of approval of the items before the Planning Commission. He stated that it would be difficult for the Planning Commission to take action on the assumption that the applicant may not comply in the future with the approval because the City has the ability to enforce the conditions through revocation or court action. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Richard Dear, attorney for the applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dear stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions in Exhibit W. Mr. Dear -13- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ' o September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX customers, 93 percent were Newport Import employees, and 7 percent were customers who were in the establishment having their automobiles repaired or the general public. Mr. Dear maintained that the applicant has complied with Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) that has been granted. He explained that the applicants have not advertised that the restaurant is open to the general public. Mrs. Janine Gault, 406 San Bernadino Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission as a representative of the Newport Heights Community Association. She stated that the Board of Directors do not object to a small restaurant in the area; however, the Board does object to a restaurant that has the potential to force traffic in the residential neighborhood and to necessitate a traffic signal at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Avon Street or the continuation of Avon Street to Santa Ana Avenue. Mrs. Gault explained that after the Board of Directors studied the traffic study regarding the intersection of Riverside Avenue and West Coast Highway, it was concluded that there has to be a reason why the I.C.U. was reduced temporarily. Mrs. Gault questioned the traffic study's statement with respect to a 20 percent reduction in vehicle trips due to pedestrian traffic, and she said that the 20 percent assumption could have a bearing on the TPO. Mr. Webb explained that the 20 percent reduction was based on the number of walk-in persons in the area, and the percentage is not unusual for a restaurant. Mrs. Gault stated that the Newport Heights Community Association is consistent with its concerns regarding Avon Street, inadequate parking.in Mariner's Mile, and increased traffic in the area. She asked what project is .proposed for the property at 2912 and 2930 West Coast Highway? In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mrs. Gault replied that the Newport Heights Community Association is not requesting denial; however, they are concerned with the proposal. Lee West, applicant, and Mr. Dear appeared before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Pers6n asked if, Mr. Dear and W. West had the opportunity to review the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", in the staff report and the addendum to the staff report? Mr. Dear stated that they had met and conferred. Mr. West stated that he would abide by the conditions of approval. Commissioner Pers6n referred to the condition with respect to nullifying the previous development rights of the proposed office -14- C' �d '"COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ,r o�,� September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. West if that would be an acceptable condition. Mr. West replied that it is an acceptable condition because he will not be developing that project; however, he said that he has plans to develop a project on the property in the future. Mr. West stated that it was his understanding that Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended), Finding No. it and Condition No. 32 nullified Site Plan Review No. 49, Vesting Resubdivision No. 876, and Traffic Study No. 48 (Revised) because he intends to use the site for parking spaces for the restaurant. Commissioner Merrill referred to Finding'No. 6 of Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) which states 'That the restaurant site and' the off-site parking areas are in the same ownership". Mr. West explained that the property is in escrow until the owner locates another piece of property; however, he has approval to use the location from the property owner. Mr. Dear explained that Mr. West has an agreement with Mr. Shokrian to use the property. Mr. West stated that the original China Palace Restaurant will be demolished immediately. Commissioner Pers6n stated in the event the Planning Commission approves the subject project, that the action was not based on stories in the newspapers that state that Mr. West has an intention of.suing the City. Mr. West stated that no further action has been taken with respect to the pending lawsuit. Commissioner Pers6n stated that he would not condone violations to the Newport Beach Municipal Code by approving anything that the applicant, may desire if the Planning Commission should approve the project. Mr. West stated that he would accept Commissioner Pers6n's statement. Commissioner Debay stated that the Planning Commission has the revocation of a use permit as a weapon if a project is violated, and she asked what kind of a threat that is to an applicant that operates a restaurant without a use permit? Mr. Burnham explained that the City Attorney's office filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the applicant's.operation of a restaurant in the absence of a use permit. He said that it would be his opinion that in the absence of the applicant's application for a use permit the City would have been successful in its lawsuit. He said that the City would be able to enforce through the revocation process or through an independent action in Superior Court any conditions of approval that the Planning Commission is imposing on the project. -15- ��9 ' 'COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ISeptember 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mrs. Gail Demmer, 2812 Cliff Drive, represented herself and as a member of the Newport Heights Community Association before the Planning,Commission. She said that the Association cannot deny the .application. Mrs. Demmer stated that the Association is concerned with the growth surrounding Avon Street, that they do not want to see ingress and egress on Avon Street, and the overflow of traffic from West Coast Highway mitigated to Avon Street into the residential community. Mrs. Demmer stated that when the adopted General Plan was initiated, the intent was that development shall not generate more traffic than the ultimate circulation system could accommodate and that the commercial and residential areas,sball' be compatible and serve each others interests. Mrs. Demmer questioned' the need for a restaurant at the subject site, and the impact the project will have on the community and the traffic on West Coast Highway and Avon Street. I& Burnham stated that the adopted General Plan intended to lower permitted intensities of development throughout the City. Mr. Burnham referred to the staff report, and he addressed how the subject project adheres to the 0.5 FAR and the flexible floor area ratios adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council for uses that generate traffic. He explained that the floor area ratio of the subject area is 0.5, the weighted floor area ratio, including the restaurant and the automobile uses on- site, is 0.389; therefore, the use is consistent with the General Plan and a use that is permitted under the General Plan. Dr. Jan VanderSloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission. Dr. VanderSloot referred to his letter to the Planning Commission dated September 7, 1989, and he requested that the Planning Commission deny the subject traffic study and use permit. He stated that the Newport Heights Community Association did vote to deny the use permit. He addressed his concerns with respect to the proposed traffic circulation off of Avon Street and West Coast Highway; that the 3,300 square feet that was deleted from the dealership because of the restaurant tilted the TPO to .906; the assumption that 20 percent of the customers relate directly to the dealership should be included in the 3,300 square feet; recalculate the traffic study involving 2912 and 2930 West Coast Highway based on the 20 percent walk-in traffic; that to give 20 percent allowances demeans traffic studies as far as a TPO is concerned and it makes for arbitrary decisions; security lighting at the rear of the property is not turned off as required in Condition No. 13 of -16- /FO "COMMISSIONERS MINUTES N\\\ ;eSeptember 7, 1989 NEWPORT BEACH CITY OF ROLL CALL INDEX LCLWU the lights do not turn up into the residential area; and he concluded his presentation by stating that the applicant was flouting the laws and getting away with it. In response to a questions posed by Chairman Pomeroy with respect to what affect the deletion of 3,300 square feet and the 20 percent walk-in would have on the TPO, Mr. Webb replied that he did not believe the deletion of 3,300 square feet would "tip" the TPO; however, he said that the 20 percent walk-in may affect the TPO. In response to a question posed by Chairman Pomeroy with' respect to Condition No. 13 concerning the lighting, William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, stated that the applicant has not turned the lights off at 10:00 p.m. as required in the original use permit. However, the applicant has now requested to delete or modify that condition of approval. He explained that Finding No. 7 has been added to the subject use permit which states "That the requested security lighting adjacent to Avon Street will be operated so as not to be objectional to residential properties on Cliff Drive and from the public view park• on the same street.". Commissioner Pers6n asked if the City Engineer and the City Traffic Engineer are satisfied that the traffic study represents an accurate view of the situation that the Planning Commission can make an intelligent decision from? Mr. Webb responded "yes". Dr. VanderSloot explained that a traffic calculation that he tabulated with the City Traffic Engineer diverting to Tustin Avenue was .905, and he said that to direct two automobiles to Tustin Avenue and Riverside Avenue would be .906. Mr. Burnham explained that the 3,300 square feet proposed as a restaurant will generate traffic at a certain rate, and that rate would be greater than if the 3,300 square feet would be a part of the dealership. Dr. VanderSloot and Mr. Burnham discussed the auto dealership use of the 3,300 square feet. Mr. Burnham stated that the traffic generation characteristics that are counted on auto dealerships are based on.gross square footage of the structure without regard to what area within that structure is going to have more activity than other areas. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m. =17- `sI • COMMISSIONERS MINUTES A o September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mrs. Karen Harrington, 441 Santa Ana Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to request that the Planning Commission deny the project on the basis that a projected 600 automobiles on Avon Street would have an impact on the area, and she asked what the future plans are to expand Avon Street. Mr, Webb explained that the current plans do not provide for the extension of Avon Street beyond what is presently under construction, and there is no funding to extend Avon Street. Mrs. Harrington stated her concern that Avon Street would be eventually extended to Santa Ana Avenue so as to alleviate the traffic impact on Riverside Avenue and West Coast Highway. She commented that the encroachment of commercial business' in the area has an impact on the residential area. Commissioner Pers6n asked if the project at 2912 and 2930 West Coast Highway, as proposed, would be deleted and the subject project approved, what would be the difference in the number of trips on Avon Street? Mr. Webb explained that a retail office is 13 trips per 1,000 square feet which would be 300 trips. He said that with respect to the restaurant, based on 50 percent of the trips using Avon Street, instead of'S28 trips, there would be 260 trips. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mrs. Harrington indicated that she did not know how many Newport Heights neighbors have been using the restaurant. She said that Ruby's Restaurant is well-known and more residents will be walling and driving to-the facility. Chairman'Pomeroy explained that the TPO calculations consider all of the approved projects even if said projects have not been built, and the traffic count does not represent the traffic condition that would occur based solely on the subject use permit. W. Burnham stated that the TPO analyzes the traffic impact of a project as a .worse case possible based on the existing projects in addition to the committed projects that have not been built, resulting in an I.C.U., and added to the I.C.U. is project traffic. Commissioner Debay commented that approval would be based on the escrow closing and the additional parking provided, and the applicant's word that parking would be provided. W. Burnham stated that if the transaction is not consummated, the applicant would not be able to satisfy a condition and cannot complete the project. Mr. Burnham stated that the applicant is -18. COMMISSIONERS IMINUTES o September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX area to be used for parking as 'long as the restaurant is in operation; however, he said that before the covenant can be recorded, the applicant needs control of the property. Mr. Burnham stated that typically Off-Site Parking Agreements are 5 years. Mr. Laycock stated that the property owner, Mr. Shokrian, confirmed that the property located at 2912 and 2930 West Coast Highway is in escrow and in the event the applicant does not purchase said property, the-applicant has a 5 year lease that would allow the applicant to do whatever he wants to with that property during the 5 years. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay, Mr: Laycock stated that the applicant would be required to apply for a sign permit. Mrs. Marian Rayl, 426 San Bernadino Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Rayl addressed her concerns with respect to the traffic circulation at Avon Street; the reduction in the traffic count on West Coast Highway; the 20 percent walk-in traffic; that there is every reason to believe that Ruby's Restaurant will be successful and there will be an increase in traffic on Avon Street; that Mariner's Center is a traffic hazard; that post office .employees park in the Newport Heights residential area; the number of businesses in Mariner's Center that have in-lieu parking; that the Municipal Parking Lot is not being used by the local businesses; that Newport Heights is being surveyed to see if the residents want to add traffic signs to their parking signs-to alleviate the business parking in the neighborhood; that the traffic from a future project located at 2912 and 2930 West Coast Highway will be circulating off of Avon Street in addition to the 30 parking spaces that are proposed in conjunction with the subject restaurant; that the lights from the subject dealership are disturbing the adjacent residents; that a traffic signal is•proposed at Mariner's Center; the applicants do not have a good track record inasmuch as they have violated conditions of the use permits; and the Planning Commission has discretionary powers to deny the project inasmuch as the proposal would not be good for the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover with respect to the 20 percent walk-in, Mr. Webb explained that staff looks at projects individually. He said that with respect'to the subject proposal, there is a chance that there will be walk-in traffic on-site as well as from the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that there is no way to determine'what the walk-in rate .19- ' �s3 COMMISSIONERS MINOTES' ,o September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX question with respect to why automobiles are not proposed to ingress and egress from West Coast Highway, Mr. Webb explained that Newport Imports was proposed to ingress and egress off of Avon Street and West Coast Highway. He said that staff attempted to distribute traffic and there was a need to .eliminate left turns out of the dealership on West Coast Highway. Commissioner Glover commented that Avon Street is considered a residential street in Newport Heights and the restaurant traffic should be from West Coast Highway and should not encroach into the residential neighborhood. Mr. Webb explained that Avon Street is a service access road at the rear of the property for Newport Imports and the adjacent' properties. Commissioner Glover and Mr. Webb discussed the reasons for diverting West Coast Highway traffic to Avon Street. Mr. Webb commented that ingress and egress on West Coast Highway for the restaurant would lower the I.C.U. at Riverside Avenue because it would take trips off of Riverside Avenue. Mrs. Rayl commented that the median would be extended westward on West Coast Highway so it would be impossible to make a left turn into the restaurant. 'Mr. Webb confirmed that the median will be extended, and left turns are restricted out of Newport Imports by a previous condition. He said that the new driveway at 2912 West Coast Highway will be protected so no left turns can, be made into the driveway. However, left turns into the site from West Coast Highway can be made at the main entrance to the auto dealership. Mrs. Rayl and Mr. Webb discussed the traffic circulation on West Coast Highway at the subject site. Mrs. Rayl concluded that if everything does not go right with the subject project, then the TPO could be tipped by the project. Mr. Chris Hansen, 22 Encore Court, appeared before the Planning Commission. 'Mr. Hanson commented on the traffic congestion created by the, post office. In response to Mr. Hanson's concerns, Mr. Webb explained the circulation pattern at the post office until construction on Avon Street is completed. Mr. Hansen and Mr. Webb discussed the businesses that will be using Avon Street from Mariner's Center. There being no others desiring to•appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Edwards and Mr. Webb discussed the variable traffic counts on West Coast Highway and what the automobile -2Q- ( 5"T COMMISSIONERS , MINUTES September 7 1989 ,off p CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Burnham requested an amendment to Condition No. 13 as approved by Mr. Dear and Mr. West. He stated that some of the problems created at•the subject location have not surfaced because it is not common knowledge that the restaurant is operating and open to the public. He said that to allow the restaurant to install signs upon approval of the subject application and then satisfy the wnditions of approval to the use permit could create problems. He proposed that Condition No. 13 of Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) be amended to state "that no signs shall be erected until permfttee has complied with Conditions No. 7, 14, 15, 20, and 21" He explained that said conditions are relevant to the parking and traffic and access concerns that the residents and Planning Commission have raised. Mr. Dear concurred that the conditions would be acceptable. Commissioner Di Sano stated that the Planning Commission's discretionary powers are limited to when the Planning Commission can make findings. Mr. Burnham concurred, and he added, when the facts are present to support the findings. Motion Motion was made to approve Traffic Study No. 58,. and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended), subject to •the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including the foregoing Condition No. 13 as amended by Mr. Burnham, and added Finding No. 11 and Condition No. 32 as suggested by staff in the addendum to the staff report with respect to the applicant's use for off-site parking at property located at 2912 West Coast Highway. Commissioner Pers6n stated that in order for the Planning Commission to come up with findings to deny the application there has to be a factual basis, and he explained there are no facts to create findings for denial. Commissioner Pers6n stated that Mr. West agreed to the conditions of approval making the use permit contractual in nature, and said conditions are.expected to be abided by. He commented that he has a concern with respect to Condition No. 12 regarding the service of alcoholic beverages and that said condition may need to be modified at a future date if there are any further problems. Commissioner Pers6n stated that the entitlement to property located at 2912 West Coast Highway will be deleted and the entitlement to the existing China Palace Restaurant will be deleted, concluding that the subject project I' will have less impact than the foregoing establishments. Commissioner Debay supported the motion. She said that because of the technical information given to the Planning -21- lS�. 1 J COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 1"k,CITY September 7, 1989 OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Substitute Commissioner Glover made a substitute motion to approve'Use Motion * Permit No. 3229 (Amended), and Traffic Study No. 58, including modified Condition No. 13, added Finding No. 11 and Condition No. 32. Commissioner Glover requested that Finding No. 8, Condition No. 20, and Condition No. 24 be deleted so as to force the ingress and egress off of West Coast Highway and off of Avon Street. Commissioner Debay stated that she would not support the substitute motion because there is no way to make a left turn onto West Coast Highway from the establishment. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Commissioner Pers6n explained that there is no evidence to not allow alcoholic beverages. Commissioner Edwards stated that he had a concern with respect to alcoholic beverages and automobiles. Commissioner Glover stated that the proposed project will have an impact on the residential neighborhood. Ayes * The foregoing substitute motion was voted on, MOTION Noes * * * * * DENIED. Chairman Pomeroy commented that the information contained in the Traffic Study as it relates to walk-in traffic is not adequate to make a proper decision, and he requested a continuance so Substitute as to be given further information concerning the impact of Motion walk-in traffic. He commented that it is a legitimate: concern inasmuch as the percentage is arbitrary and it is necessary to find out if it would tip the TPO. Mr. Burnham addressed the responsibilities that the City Council delegates to the Traffic Engineer as described in Council Policy S-1. Withdrawn The substitute motion was withdrawn at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Debay with respect to a change in the traffic counts in 1990, Mr. Burnham explained that .the Planning Commission has the power under the use permit to modify conditions of approval to address changes and circumstances. He said that if the change in traffic manifests itself and some problems ' occur, the Planning -22- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT • BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX that the problem is resolved. In reference to the Traffic Engineer's responsibility, Mr. Burnham explained that, if the Traffic Engineer could be persuaded to decrease the amount of walk-in traffic for a particular establishment, it would have a great affect on the validity of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. In response to Commissioner Edwards' question with respect to revoking the application, Mr. Burnham explained that revocation has to be based on violations of the conditions of approval as opposed to change in circumstances. In response to Commissioner Edwards' question with respect to Condition No. 31 regarding the Planning Commission's rights to modify the use permit, Mr. Burnham stated that the intent of the condition is to put the applicant on notice that if there is a violation that the Planning Commission has the right to recommend revocation. Motion was voted on to approve Traffic!Study No. 58, and Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including added Finding No. 11, Ayes * * * * * * modified• Condition No. 13, and added Condition No. 32 as No * previously stated. MOTION CARRIED. A. Traffic Study No, 58: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: Fin in 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project- generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary-modified', or 'primary' street. B. Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended): Approve the use permit, making the following findings and with the following conditions: -23- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES' 3� �a��,.o� September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environ- mental impact. 3. That adequate ,parking exists to serve the subject restaurant. 4. The off-site parking areas are located so as to be useful to the proposed restaurant use. 5. Parking on such off-site parking areas will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 6.. That the restaurant site and the off-site parking areas are in the same ownership. 7. That the requested security lighting adjacent to Avon Street will be operated so as .not be objectional to residential properties on Cliff Drive and from the public view park on the same street. 8. That the subject project increases traffic on Avon Street which may result in the need to provide a traffic signal in the future. 9. The waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls and parking lot illumination will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties. 10. The approval of Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) under the circumstances of this case will not 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. -24 . leg COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September '7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 1 INDEX located at 2912 West Coast Highway for off-site parking in conjunction with the proposed restaurant will nullify the previous approval of Site Plan Review No. 49, Vesting Resubdivision No. 876 and Traffic Study No. 48 (Revised) inasmuch as there is insufficient parking on said property to satisfy the parking requirements of both projects. CONDITIONS: 1. That the subject project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and' restaurant floor plan. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3229 shall be fulfilled and shall remain in effect. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from view. 4.- That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control odor and smoke to the satisfaction of the Building Department. S. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 6. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant facility where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 7. That all restaurant employees shall park their vehicles in the off-site parking areas. 8. That a minimum of one parking space shall be provided for each 40 sgft. of "net public area" (33 spaces) in the proposed restaurant facility. COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Vk'CITY September 7, 1989 OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 9. Thar Me hours of operadan Of the Testauran't use INDEX shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. 10. That a trash compactor shall be installed in the restaurant facility. 11. That no live entertainment or dancing shall be permitted unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 12. That the service of alcoholic beverages shall be incidental to the primary food service operation. 13. That all signs shall conform with Chapter 20.06.of the Newport Beach Municipal Code unless a sign exception is approved. That no signs shall be erected until permittee has complied with Conditions No. 7, 14, 15, 20, and 21. 14. The applicant shall record a covenant, guaranteeing that the subject parcels used for off-site parking for the restaurant shall remain in the sane ownership as the property on which the restaurant is located. 15. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the off-site parking area and shall be used solely for hand- icapped self parking. One handicapped sign on a post and- one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 16. That the on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 17. That prior to .the issuance of any building permits or implementation of this Use Permit, the applicant shall dedicate to the City for street and highway purposes, the applicant's interest in the strip of land (varies in width between 15.4 feet and 16 feet) adjacent to West Coast Highway and across the West Coast Highway frontage. The strip is to be used in the future for the widening of West Coast Highway. That portion of the existing structure at the .southeasterly comer of the property that is in the dedication area may remain until West Coast -26- I COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH -;Zq ROLL CALL ROLL ffighway 15 WMenod. TAIlle Pmft agu;m roadway widening will perform the modifications to remove interfering portions. 18. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 19. That a standard Subdivision Agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 20. That the intersection of Avon Street and the driveway shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 25 miles per hour. Landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 21. That the existing median island in West Coast Highway shall be extended 35 feet westerly and that vehicular access to West Coast Highway be limited to right turn in and out and signs be posted to indicated this restriction. 22. That the sidewalk be reconstructed to a 12 foot width and the existing drive depression be removed and replaced by a drive conforming to City Standard 166-L along the West • Coast Highway frontage under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 23. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be approved by the Public Works, Planning, and Parks, Beaches and Recreation Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the prepared plans. 24. That 25 percent of the cost of a traffic signal at Riverside Avenue and Avon Street be bonded for -27- / 4. F COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 7, 1989 \\ 'CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX years after a certificate of occupancy is issued for the development. 25. That site drainage flowing toward West Coast Highway be collected in a drain and conveyed to the existing storm drain in the highway. 26. That the,development standards pertaining to walls and parking lot illumination are hereby waived. 27. That the overhead utility lines serving the off-site parking areas shall be placed underground and the poles removed. 28. The applicant shall make all required alterations to that portion of the building used for restaurant purposes which may be determined to be necessary by the Building and Fire Departments. The applicant shall obtain a building permit for all such alterations. 29. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building permits or opening of the restaurant. 30. That Condition No. 13 of Use Permit No. 3229, approved by the City Council on March 23, 1987, is amended to read as follows: "That the illumination of automobile display areas shall be maintained in such a manner so as to eliminate direct light and glare on adjoining properties northerly of Avon Street and on West Coast Highway. All lighting facing toward the bluff at the rear of the site, except for approved security lighting, shall be turned off by a timer at 10:00 p.m. each night. The five existing security lights at the rear of the building, shall • be maintained and operated in a manner so as not to be objectionai to the adjoining residential properties on the bluff side of Cliff Drive." 31. That the Planning Commission may add to or -2 - /�z� COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 7, 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OLL CALL modify conditions Of—rr--- Iuse FUT11ft VA INDEX recommend to the City Council the revocation.of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 32. Implementation of Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) as approved by the Planning Commission on September 7, 1989, shall nullify the previous approval of Site Plan Review No. 49, Vesting Resubdivision No. 876, and Traffic Study- No. 48 (Revised.) %UsePe No. 1421 Am n e lic Hearin Headno Item No.6 Request to nd a previously approved use permit: which uP1421A permitted the a ion of the existing Hoag Hospital facility on property located in e A-P-H and Unclassified Districts. The Approved proposed amendment a request to establish an employee child care facility and relate arking to be located on the lower southwesterly portion of th pus, adjacent to the future Hoag Hospital Cancer Center in a Unclassified District; ,and the acceptance of an environment ocument. LOCATION: A portion of t 172, Block 1, Irvine's Subdivision, .locate at 4050 West Coast Highway, on the erly side of West Coast Highway, betwee ewport Boulevard and Superior Avenue, on operty known as Cal Trans East. ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Hoag Memorial Hospital Presb 'an, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant -29- i c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES y �G '�� y ? �A ��3F September 25, 1989 INDEX R0LL,CALL .33 i \ITEKS , $30,000 - Circulation and ortation Fund. , $60,559.75 - Building. Tax Fund, , $768,199.14 - Water Fund. ED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Letter from ty Attorney to Orange /C-John County Airpor Manager concerning City sync Aces of Newport Base comments on ataff In/Ph II recommendations r PHASE II OF THE JOHN (54) WAYNE AIRPORT ACC PLAN. Council Member Turner Member of the City'a Aviation Commit e, stated that the Committee is monito ng the Access Plan very closely togetho with the City Attorney, and are coordlna ng the Plan' with some interested citizen groupa, and if there are any other Cho es, the Committee would like the opport ity to review those changes and bring th m back to the Ad Hoc Airport Committee fo approval. Comments pre required to a submitted to the County by October 4, ' and the Aviation Committee ie meeting October 3. Motion x Motion was made to approve the subject All Ayes letter and authorize its transmittal to Orange Couhty Airport Manager. Report to'City Manager regerdin�ACTI0N8 Planning TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMM 94IQN RL_ , (68) S'LPTEKER'I-989. Motion x Motion was made to schedule public• hear ng_ori Trnffic• No. 58_and Use PermiC No, 3229 of•Newport 'Imports for October 9,..19t9:"""""••- Council Member Hart advised that she has spent a considerable amount of time meeting with various people, including City staff, regarding the diner at Newport Imports, and felt that the Parking issue has now bean satisfied, traffic has been analyzed, and therefore, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements have been met. Also, additional property has been acquired for parking purposes as a result of the purchase of two sites adjacent to the Newport Imports, and consequently, the overall appearance of the area will be greatly improved. Volume 43 - Page 386 I' I n CITY OF NEWP,ORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES 9y9��0 ' ROLL CALL �9 Gas September 25, 1989 INDEX 1• 1 Mayor Pro Tem Plummer stated she will Planning not be supporting the motion, inasmuch as she felt the time.spent reviewing this issue again could be put to more productive use. Council Member Turner commented that he f also will not be supporting the motion t� due to the fact that there are no findings for denial. However, he did feel that an ordinance should be considered to prevent this type of issue from reoccurring again, and/or stronger i enforcement regulations of use permits. Council Member Sansone stated he would like the public to be aware of the reasons the subject application now satisfies City Code regulations, and pointed out again that the applicant has purchased two sites adjacent to Newport Imports to be used for parking. There are structures existing on the parcels with the former China Palace proposed for demolition. Mayor Strauss stated he was in support of the motion to schedule this item for 6 public hearing, as he feltlthere should be a public explanation of "what is , going on" relative to the diner and parking at Newport Imports. He also Indicated he had not seen sufficient evidence in order for the Council to vote for, or against this matter. He further felt that the request by Council Member Watt to review this item should i be honored, as the majority of other requests of this nature by council members have been granted in the past. He also agreed that an ordinance should be enacted relative to increasing the enforcement of use permit applications. , x Council Member Turner indicated he felt >E the Council had received sufficient material to warrant not reviewing this issue again at a public hearing. Ayes x x x There being no further comments, the Noes x x x x motion made by Council Member Watt was v�S•i en and F�L$1,. In view of the for oin • aq ,there, bein,.g. n�o ob ec#ion, „4jie,e�ypj�cti„Scp,9FF. wae_.TSgoJy£d an'd Volume 43 - Page 387 g g ,� ` a ` � i , - � � � � � � ' � _ � I i i � i � � •_ / / � � i � � � i, i ��� � / .� � � i � ! i � � i / / ..i / / �� , , i / � � ii � � �' ,� /, ,, f i ' / � / / i / � � � I / /• � i � � / s / / / / � �* � / e � � ' JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. �, A ' DIPLOMATE AMEnICAN DOAnD OF DEnMATOLODY �•/ 2221 16th street 8101 NEWMAN. SUITE C Newport Beach, CA 92663 (7 14)848 0770 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 02647 September 7, 1989 9 � Chairman Pomeroy, and R EM V E D Planning Commissioners Er+ Planning 3300 Newport Blvd. Da,7Ee"Memt Newport Beach, CA 92663 SEPO 710IM a. Re: Planning Commission Meeting of September 7, 1989 b N OTY C, 71 EWPORT LEACH Agenda Item #5: CAW. Traffic Study No. 58 Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) �ti� ( Newport Imports Restaurant Dear Chairman Pomeroy and Planning Commissioners, I would like to request that you do not approve Traffic Study No. 58, and that you deny Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) . The traffic study appears to be flawed because: 1. The initial traffic counts for the study may be too low, showing less traffic on Coast Highway than last year. This is probably an artifact due to the construction activity on Coast Highway this past year at Bayside Drive and vicinity, and in Matiner's Mile, temporarily lowering traffic counts at,Riverside and PCH. The traffic study should be re-done using more realistic traffic counts. In general, traffic has been increasing on PCH at approximately 8% a year. 2. The study assumes a 20% reduction in traffic generated by the project because of walk-in customers, such as employees of the car dealership. However, the restaurant is supposed to be a "converted" employee cafeteria, distinct from the dealership, and the study shows 3,300 square feet subtracted from the dealership because of the restaurant. If employees are going to use the restaurant .as a cafeteria after all, then the traffic study should include the entire dealership plus restaurant. The study should be re-done without the 20% allowance, since this estimate is designed to avoid tipping the TPO. 3. The traffic study assumes that 2% of the traffic coming westbound on Coast Highway will make a complicated series of turns to reach the restaurant from the rear rather than going through Riverside And PCH to reach the restaurant from the front. A car supposedly will turn up Tustin Ave. from PCH, then turn left on the west leg of Avon Street, then turn right on Riverside Ave. , then turn left on the east leg of Avon Street, then turn left into the restaurant. (see p. 74 of the staff report) . In reality, rather than these contortions, a car will simply pass through the Riverside intersection at PCH and make a simple turn right into the restaurant.shortly after the Riverside intersection. Similarly, westbound cars are not likely to turn up Riverside at PCH, then turn left onto Avon, then turn left into the restaurant, when the cars can simply pass straight through Riverside and make a single right turn into the restaurant. Again, the apparent reason for these traffic contortions seem to be to avoid tipping the TPO. The study should be re-done without these detours to reflect more accurate traffic patterns. 4. The study assumes a reduction in car dealership traffic because 3,300 square feet of dealership will be subtracted (see p. 93) . This is a sham. Not one square foot of car dealership will be removed. Not one block of concrete will be removed. The traffic to and from the- dea-lership will remain the same, because the restaurant was built into the dealership from the beginning, falsely claiming to be an employee snack bar. The study should not be allowed to remove 3,300 square feet of I� JHI1 LJ. VMIILJr_n-2L.VV 1 , IVI.W. DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD Of DERMATOLOGY 8101'NEWMAN,SUITE C Planning Commission HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 Newport Imports Restaurant (714y948�0770 September 7, 1989 Page 2 dealership in ordsr• £o'•'avoid .ripping•the TPO:' The applicant has flouted the law in establishing the restaurant without permits, and he has also flouted the Condition #13 of the original Use Permit concerning the lighting in the back of the dealership-. The lights have never been turned off at 1OPM as per Condition 13•. I brought this matter to the attention of the Planning Director on June 14, 1989, and he wrote a letter to the applicant on June 21 (see enclosed copies) pointing out non-compliance with this condition. Despite this correspondence, no action has been taken by the applicant to turn off the lights. Instead, he is now before you asking you to legalize his non- compliance with Condition 13. Since the current all-night lighting throws glare half-way up the view park on the west side of Cliff Drive Park and negatively impacts wildlife values in the wetlands at the base of the park, I request that Condition 13 as originally required be cor4ied with, or that the lights be directed downwards so as not to impact the view park or the wetlands. In this respect Finding No. 7, page 11 should be confirmed by adding language to condition No. 30 to protect the view park and wetlands. Linkage with the Shokrian project should be further examined. Does Mr. West now own the property? If not, this permit request should be delayed until he in fact owns it. In the hearings before the City last year concerning the Shokrian project, staff repeatedly pointed out the inadvisability of having curb cuts so close to the Riverside intersection for safety reasons, but now curb cuts are being approved without even discussing the matter. Is the Shokrian property now reduced in entitlement due to the parking assigned to the restaurant or is this development in addition to the other? The plans for the Shokrian project should be considered at the same time as this project because the same Land space is involved. As private citizens, we have a right to expect that government and business will act in good faith, and that proper procedures, permits, and conditions for approval of development will be followed. We lose respect for government when we see someone flouting the laws of Newport Beach and getting away with it, cooking the traffic studies, deceiving you by calling a restaurant an "employee's cafeteria", and not obeying conditions for approval even when asked to do so by the City. You have the discretionary powers to deny this amended permit application and to require a realistic and proper traffic study, and I hope you will do so. Thank you. Sincerely, �, Gd Jan D. Vanderaloot MD Attached: Letters of June 14 and June 21 L JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. „ DIPLOMAT[ AAICnICA"DOAnD OF DEnMATOIOGY 8101 NEWMAN.SUITE C 2221 E1 6 Street 171418484770 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 Newport Beach, CA June 14, 1989 Mr. Jim Hewicker Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport ,Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Use Permit No. 3229 Newport Imports Building, 3000 West Coast Highway, Owner: LeeWest Lights being left on too long at night Dear Mr. Hewicker, As I mentioned to you a few months ago, I would like to request that a condition for approval of Use Permit No. 3229 be complied with, namely condition No. 13 (see attached) . Condition No. 13 states, in part, that: "A timing device shall turn off any light facing towards the bluff at the rear of the site at 10:00 PM every night". Presently the lights are on well after this time, in violation of this condition, creating light and glare on nearby properties. I would request that the owner comply with this condition by installing a timing device to turn off the lights at 10:00 PM. Thank you for your help and your reply. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot MD Attached: , Condition No. 13 from Use Permit 3229, February 23, 1987 Q�gW FpRr � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V Z P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915 -1FOa r PLANNING DEPARTMENT - (714) 644-3222 June 21, 1989 Registered Mail Return Receipt Requested Mr. Lee West, Newport Imports 3000 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Use Permit No. 3229 Dear Mr. West: It has come to our attention that the lights at the rear of your Jaguar Dealership are remaining on beyond 10:00 p.m, nightly. Given your cooperation and acceptance of the Conditions of Approval on October 15, 1987, and the certification of your electrical engineers dated September 23, 1987 (see attached letters) , we are positive that this must be an oversight. Your assistance in having the timer adjusted or taking whatever other steps are required to comply with Condition No. 13 are appreciated. Very truly yours, JAMES HEWICKER, Planni Director JDH/kk UP3229 Attachments cc: Councilmember Hart City Manager City Attorney Planning Commission bcc: Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D. 2221 East 16th Street, N.B. N 3300 Newport Boulevard, ewport Beach IL P°R o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �• �j' OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY V Z P.O. BOX 1768,NEwPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 "41FOFL (714)644-3131 September 19, 1989 Ms. Gail Demmer Mrs. Marian Rayl 2812 Cliff Drive 426 San Bernardino Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA•. 92663 Mrs. Janine Gault Jan Vandersloot, M.D. 406 San Bernardino Avenue 2221 16th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: * Jaguar Diner Use Permit No. 3229 (Amended) Dear Concerned Citizens: i This letter is an attempt to explain the reasons behind certain staff opinions and conclusions regarding Lee West's application for a use permit to operate the Jaguar Diner. You should know that City staff did not appreciate the "in your face" decision of . Mr. West to operate a restaurant without- a use permit. However, we try to evaluate all projects . without regard to personal feelings about the applicant. Before we talk about the project '. itself, I - should explain why this office did not try to obtain a court order enjoining operation of the restaurant after we filed the lawsuit. First, to obtain a Rreliminary injunction, the City must establish two things. We must prove the City is likely to prevail (no problem) and that continued operation would hurt the City more than a preliminary injunction would hurt the defendant (the problem) . The City did not have a strong argument that continued operation of the Jaguar Diner, without public advertising, hurt the City or its citizens. Moreover, our experience with this type of case suggests that courts are extremely reluctant to tell people to stop operating a business, even when operating illegally, if there is a solution other than a court order. For example, in the early 801s, the court did not grant an injunction against the late night operation at A. T. Leo's in spite of numerous declarations about noise, trash, traffic, and public urination. When we filed the lawsuit, the traffic consultant for Mr. West had already talked with our Traffic Engineer about a new traffic study and we were aware that traffic counts on PCH were lower such that the project might pass the Traffic Phasing Ordinance decisions doP suggest lthe possibility, of recent orange legal chall r Court enge to the L 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 7/ Ms. Gail Demmer Mrs. Janine Gault Mrs. Marian Rayl Jan Vandersloot, M.D. September 19, 1989 Page 2 TPO and the Jaguar Diner project (,small traffic impact-extremely expensive roadway improvements) represents fertile ground for such a challenge. The City's Traffic Engineer determined that a 20% "trip reduction credit" was appropriate. The credit for walk-in traffic is appropriate because the restaurant is surrounded •by an auto dealership employing many people and in an area where many people walk to lunch. Most Orange County cities make adjustments for mixed• use projects. Newport Beach has given trip reduction credits up to So% for certain developments and the Shokrian Project was assigned a 15&- credit based on all commercial and retail space. Newport Heights residents also questioned the trip .distribution scenario and trip generation rates developed by the Traffic Engineer. The City uses trip generation rates specified in the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual. The rate selected for the Jaguar 'Diner,' is equivalent to a high turnover restaurant like Denny's. The City cannot legally vary trip generation rates for any land use based upon • suspicions the enterprise may be successful and/or profitable. The trip distribution scenario "assumed a total of 5% of the westbound PCH trips with a restaurant destination would proceed up Riverside or Tustin and enter the restaurant from the rear. This is essentially the same trip distribution used for the restaurant on prior occasions and no ICU's change if all restaurant patrons enter off of PCH. Newport Heights residents expressed a concern that the project may create the need for a traffic signal at Avon and Riverside. The Planning Commission required Mr. West to agree to pay 25t of the cost of an Avon/Riverside signal if warrants were met. This is the same condition that was imposed upon the Shokrian Project which would be invalidated by approval of the Jaguar Diner Use Permit. Public Works and Traffic Engineering. staff do not believe the additional traffic on Avon will warrant installation of the signal unless an accident picture or other unforeseen circumstances develop. Approval of the Jaguar Diner project will not increase the likelihood of extending Avon through to Santa Ana. Ms. Gail Demmer Mrs. Janine Gault Mrs. Marian Rayl Jan Vandersloot, M.D. September 190 1989 Page 3 While the Jaguar Diner is a small project, the issues raised by the application and the illegal restaurant operation 'are complex. I hope this letter provides additional information about the project and City staff would be happy t onal questions or provide more information. ver truly yours, o . Burnham GCity Attorney RHB:jg cc: Newport Beach City Council r7� ' \� BASMACIYAN-DARN-ELL, INC. ENGINEERING AND PLANNING ' Transportation, Traffic, Municipal, Transit 17701 Mitchell North,Suite 101 Irvine, California 92714 (714)474.1131 ' August 22, 1989 Mr. Lee West ' Newport Imports BDI Ref No: 881204 3000 W. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92660 ' Subject: Traffic Study for Newport Imports Restaurant Project Dear Mr. West: ' Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI) has revised the subject report for your proposed restaurant use within the Newport Imports project to respond to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer's com- ments on the report. Copies of the revised report have been transmitted to Mr. Richard ' Edmonston and Patricia Temple at the City of Newport Beach. Please call me if you have any questions. ' Sincerely, BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ' Bill E. Darnell, P.E. 1204Nwpt.Ltr/#88-12 1 t 1 i ' TRAFFIC STUDY FOR ' NEWPORT IMPORTS RESTAURANT ' Prepared for: NEWPORT IMPORTS 1 1 ' Prepared by: ' BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. 17701 Mitchell North Suite 101 Irvine, CA 92714 ' (714) 474-1131 1 August, 1989 1 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' EXISTING CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Roadway Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ' Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Intersection Capacity. . . . 3 PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' Trip Generation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Project Trip Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' IMPACT ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Regional Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ' Approved Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 One Percent Analysis 10 Intersection Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ' SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ' APPENDIX A - ICU WORKSHEETS - EXISTING CONDITIONS ' APPENDIX B - ADJUSTMENT OF APPROVED PROJECT TRAFFIC APPENDIX C - ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS ' APPENDIX D - ICU WORKSHEETS - CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT 1 1 1 , LIST OF TABLES ' Page TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ' ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . 5 TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES AND PROJECT TRIP GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ' TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF APPROVED PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ' TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT (1%) ANALYSIS . . . . . . . 12 TABLE 5 - SUMMARY OF 1990 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES (ICU) FOR COAST HIGHWAY AT RIVERSIDE ' AVENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1 I ' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR RESTAURANT SITE ' ON COAST HIGHWAY IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INTRODUCTION Newport Imports proposes the utilization of 3,300 square feet of ' existing employee restaurant space within Newport Imports located on the north side of Coast Highway, west of Riverside Avenue in , the City of Newport Beach. The project is proposed to provide ' approximately 80 seats and operate between 7 AM and 9 PM. The restaurant is to be located inside the Newport Jaguar Auto Deal- ership building, and is proposed to take access from one driveway each on Coast Highway and Avon Street. The project vicinity is shown on Figure 1 . Basmaciyan-Darnell , Inc . (BDI ) has been retained to prepare a traffic impact study addressing the traf- fic-related impacts of the project. This study is intended to ' satisfy the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . ' EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is located in the southwest portion of the City of Newport Beach. Regional access to the area is provided by Coast Highway (State Route 1) and Newport Boulevard (State Route 55 ) . Local access is provided by Coast Highway. The project ' site is currently occupied by Newport Jaguar Auto Dealership. Land uses in the vicinity of the project include commercial office space, restaurants, and marine-related uses. ' Roadway Characteristics Coast Highway ( State Route 11 extends from Northern California southerly along the coast to San Clemente, where it becomes E1 Camino Real. In the vicinity of the project, Coast Highway is a four-lane divided primary arterial with a center turn lane and ' left-turn pockets at intersections. The Newport Imports exit on Coast Highway is posted with signs restricting left turns out. Left turns into the site are allowed from Coast Highway. ' Riverside Avenue extends north from Coast Highway to 15th Street. Between Coast Highway and Avon Street , Riverside Avenue is a four-lane undivided roadway, narrowing to a two-lane undivided roadway north of Avon Street. Avon Street is a two-lane local roadway extending west from Riverside Avenue to the project and also extending east to Tustin Avenue. -1- Jo 0� a�`'¢pP� DP PJe t PP P� HOSPITAL AD a1P ' SP ' PROJECT pNEP51DE DR SITE ' --- AVDN• J*, dP �Q Op THW Y ' `m7 CNANhF< m / ` t/Op jSLe m�rmHpH ``o \ cHgNNE` A �� ' 0� �9 2 \ FIGURE 1 ' BASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC. VICINITY MAP -2- tPeak Hour Traffic Volumes and Intersection capacity ' Five intersections in the vicinity of the project have been identified by the City Traffic Engineer as requiring impact analysis. The five intersections are: o Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road o Newport Boulevard and Via Lido o Pacific Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue ' o Pacific Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue o Pacific Coast Highway and Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive ' Figure 2 presents the AM/PM turning movements at each of the critical intersections. Each of the intersections are currently signalized, and have been analyzed by the City to determine the ' existing operating conditions, using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for signalized intersections. The results of the intersection analyses are shown in Table 1 . Review of Table 1 shows that all intersections analyzed are ' operating at Level of Service "C" or better. Copies of the ICU Worksheets are contained in Appendix A to this report. ' PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC Trip Generation Tripmaking levels for the proposed project have been estimated, using trip generation rates published in the Institute of Trans- portation Engineers Trip Generation Manual and approved by the City of Newport Beach. When calculating the anticipated trip generation levels from the proposed project, it is assumed that a ' portion of the restaurant clientele will be comprised of the employees and patrons of the Newport Jaguar Dealership, and pedestrian traffic from surrounding retail uses along Coast Highway. Therefore, a 20% reduction in vehicle trips has been ' taken to account for this non-vehicle traffic. Trip generation rates and resulting trip generation for the proposed 3,300 square feet of restaurant use are summarized on Table 2. ' Review of Table 2 shows that the project is anticipated to generate 528 vehicles trips per day, with 50 in the morning peak hour, and 53 in the evening peak hour. The City's TPO analysis process also requires analysis of the 2-1/2 hour peak period for both the morning and the evening periods. Generally, the 2-1/2 hour peak period trip generation equals two times the peak hour ' volumes. These 2-1/2 hour peak period volumes are also summa- rized on Table 2. ' Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution assumptions for project traffic are based on anticipated origins and destinations of potential clientele for 1 ' -3- N mM NmN tv nl fv° �_16/16 80/201 HOSPITAL RD A -1119/174 a 151/200-1 196/150--►- )i 1 r 4: _ 265/296-4. mi,� PROJECT ��N � Lu SITE o z m m Ago y c r; < 1 ¢s¢t:EEses�� o !;ifEpEFSFF:'3 , tFFeFicfFEFF•' - o r ;rttssrt� m Dc PACIFIC COAST 7 HWY 309 ♦ r�T �gO 9 -Z26O/I 353p, t��77 3)j233g IDCN 0/1 1 6 �T a env o0o IgOj T40 27Z �T7p 5j?40S �: o I �-750/1260 `�m j —W/222159 N ty �O �364/355 95/99—� � t I— 15/54 2142/154= M V I VIA LIDO 25/19-4� �$ea GA K N H^ LEGEND O XX/YY=PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES m O a FIGURE 2 9ASMACIYAN•DARNELL,INC EXISTING PEAK HOURLY TURNING MOVEMENTS TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS ' AM-Peak- -PM-Peak- Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ------------ --- --- NEWPORT BOULEVARD at: Hospital Road .57 A .73 C Via Lido .53 A .56 A ' PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY at: Riverside Avenue .77 C .77 C ' Tustin Avenue .62 B .61 B Dover Dr./Bayshore Dr. .73 C .72 C 1 1 ' t -5- TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES AND PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip Generation Rates --------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak AM PM Peak PM 2-1/2 Hour(a) Peak Hour(a) 2-1/2 Hour(a) Peak Hour(a) ------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ Land Use Units Daily(a) In Out In Out In Out In Out -------- -------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- High-Turnover Restaurant 1 ,000 SF 200 21 .20 17.00 10.60 8.50 21.20 18.60 10.60 9.30 i rn Project Trip Generation --------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak AM PM Peak PM 2-1/2 Hour Peak Hour 2-1/2 Hour Peak Hour ------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ Land Use Units Daily In Out In Out In Out In Out -------- -------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- High-Turnover Restaurant 3.9 KSF 660 70 56 35 28 70 61 35 31 20% Reduction for Non-Vehicle Traffic 132 14 11 7 6 14 12 7 6 ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- Vehicle Trip Generation 528 56 45 28 22 56 49 28 25 (a) Vehicles Per Thousand Square Feet (KSF) . 1 i ' the restaurant , and the nature of the circulation system available for vehicular travel. The projected distribution of ' project traffic is shown on Figure 3 and is generally as follows: o South on Coast Highway 30% o North on Coast Highway 30% o East (Inland•) of Coast Hwy 30% o West of Coast Highway 10% When the assumed distribution characteristics of project traffic are applied to the project-related trips, the resulting assign- ment of peak hour traffic and peak hour volumes at intersections ' are shown on Figure 4. ' IMPACT ANALYSIS The City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires project traffic impacts to be analyzed for both morning and evening peak conditions at critical intersections within the City as identified by the City ' s Traffic Engineer. The .City Traffic Engineer has identified five (5 ) critical intersections . The ' five' (5) intersections were previously identified in the existing conditions section of this report. The process involves the evaluation of traffic conditions one year after opening of the project. For purposes of this analysis, the year 1990 was uti- lized for the impact analysis . The analysis process includes regional traffic growth, approved projects traffic and project- related traffic. tThe evaluation process starts with the peak 2-1/2 hour intersec- tion analysis . This analysis utilizes the cumulative traffic ' morning and evening peak 2-1/2 hour analyses to determine if the project ' s peak 2-1/2 hour volume exceeds 1% of the cumulative peak period volume for any of the approaches to the critical intersection. If the project volume exceeds one percent (1%) , ' Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) analyses are performed. If the ICU analysis identifies that the project causes the ICU to exceed 0.90 or makes worse an ICU value greater than 0.90, addi- tional analysis is required to develop specific mitigation meas- ures . The following sections discuss Regional Growth, Approved Projects , One Percent (1%) Analysis , and Intersection Capacity ' Utilization Analysis. Regional Growth ' The City has developed estimates of annual growth rates along major arterials within the City. These growth rates represent increases in traffic from growth and development in the surround- ing areas. Within these study area of the project the following growth rates were used: ' -7- �V �e 13% d rr ' 110SPITALPD i% 1%• r4r 6r 15% PROJECT PIVEPSIDE OP SITE 10 •1 �a / 0 1` A L,^ rNWY 36% 4% 30% 41aO egrs 1% I I ` O o ry ONT ••\ 9 A \ cN^IV ' 0 LEGEND 0� y2 XX%=TRIP DISTRIBUTION _ PERCENTAGE ' \ FIGURE 3 ' PROJECT*—RELATED ©ASMACIYAN•DARNELL, INC.INc. TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1 W W A 1A HOSPITAL RD+O/0 f .4-0/0 a 0/0-4k ) i r PROJECT ¢ ouo SITE o owo L' O vJ Z p-4/4 a zi 9V0 / e A V-3l4 OG �- 7!8 f; 'zd f m 9 8/9 1 PACIFICCOAST 8/8 14/14`a(� 70/70 HWY 8/8"" �qiq' o O 1 /o 1 t-8/V 4- 7/8---a 7%8 1 VIA LIDO m D K rn LEGEND p m XX/YY=AM/PM PEAK HOUR m O TRAFFIC VOLUMES � \ FIGURE 4 RASMACIYAN-DARNELL,INC PROJECT-RELATED PEAK HOURLY TRAFFIC' VOLUMES ' o Coast Highway: , - Newport Boulevard to Jamboree Road - 1.0% - Newport Boulevard to West City Limits - 2.5% ' o Newport Boulevard - Coast Highway to North City Limits - 1 .0% ' These rates are used in the one percent (1%) analysis, and ICU analysis at each of the critical intersections. The resulting volumes are included in the one percent (1% ) analysis and ICU ' worksheets contained in Appendix B. Approved Projects ' The City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer provides cumulative traffic volumes for each of the critical intersections . These ' cumulative volumes include traffic from all approved projects that are not yet constructed and 100% occupied. Table 3 lists the approved projects that are included for the cumulative analy- sis. The approved projects volumes were adjusted to reflect the loss of 3,300 square feet of auto dealership with the approval of the restaurant use . A diagram documenting this reduction in approved project trips is provided in Appendix B. One Percent Analysis The project's morning and evening peak 2-1/2 hour volumes were assigned to each of the five ( 5 ) critical intersections and compared to the cumulative 1990 volume to determine if the project's volume would exceed one percent (It) of the existing, regional growth and approved projects traffic at any of the approaches to each critical intersection. Table 4 summarizes the results of these analyses . Review of Table 4 identifies the ' Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue intersection as the only intersection where project peak 2-1/2 hour volume exceeds 1% of cumulative volumes . A copy of the one percent analysis work- sheets are contained in Appendix C. ' Intersection Capacity Analysis The next step in the analysis process involves ICU analyses at each of the critical intersections that project ,peak 2-1/2 hour traffic exceeds 1%. Based on the analyses performed, only the t intersection of Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue needs to have ICU analyses performed. The analysis requires that ICU's be performed for existing condi- tions, 1990 Base conditions (Existing plus regional growth plus approved projects) and 1990 Base Conditions plus project. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 5. Review of ' Table 5 shows that the Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue inter- section is presently operating with an AM ICU = 0.77 and a PM ICU = 0 .77 . For 1990 Base Conditions the AM ICU = 0.90 and the PM = ' 0.90. The addition of project traffic to the 1990 Base Condi- t -10- i ' TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF ' APPROVED PROJECTS SUNSETTED NEWPORT IMPORTS AERONUTRONIC FORD NEWPORT PLACE TOWER CIVIC PLAZA FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE ' CORPORATE PLAZA MARINERS ' MILE MARINE CTR MACARTHUR COURT SEASIDE APARTMENTS III NATIONAL EDUCATION OFFICE NPT BAY RETIREMENT INN NORTH FORD NEWPORT CLASSIC INN ' NEWPORT PLACE MARINERS CHURCH EXPANSION SEA ISLAND MCLACHLAN-NEWPORT PL BAYWOOD APARTMENTS 1501 SUPERIOR MEDICAL ' HARBOR POINT HOMES FASHION ISLAND #2 BAYWOOD APARTMENTS NEWPORTER RESORT EXPAND. MARTHA' S VINEYARD TACO BELL VALDEZ NEWPORT LIDO MED CENTER ' COAST BUSINESS CENTER VILLA POINT KOLL CENTER NPT NO. 1 TPF SHOKRIAN ROSS MOLLARD 15TH ST APTS ' FLAGSHIP HOSPITAL ROCKWELL EXPANSION BIG CANYON 10 ANDREW RESTAURANT YMCA BALBOA/WASHINGTON SHERATON EXPANSION AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AERO AMEND NO. 1 MACARTHUR COURT AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AERO BIG CANYON VILLA APTS. AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AERO 1400 DOVE STREET AMENDMENT NO 1 NORTH FORD ' 1100 QUAIL STREET NEWPORT DUNES KOLL CENTER TPP AMEND. 4A BAYVIEW ROSAN'S DEVELOPMENT CITY OF IRVINE DEV. NEWPORT AQUATICS CENTER 2600 E. COAST HIGHWAY FASHION IN RENAISSANCE RIVERSIDE RETAIL BUILDING ' 20TH ST. BED/BREAKFAST BUILDING 3800 CAMPUS DR. (M-STORAGE•) HOAG CANCER CENTER ' EDWARDS NEWPORT CENTER 3760 CAMPUS DR. (M-STORAGE) ' -11- i ' TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT (1%) ANALYSIS ' Does- - -- Project Traffic Represent More Than 1% of Peak 2-1/2 Hour Volume (a) ' Critical- - - Intersection AM Peak PM Peak COAST HIGHWAY at: ' Dover Dr./Bayshore Dr. No No Tustin Avenue No No ' Riverside Avenue Yes Yes NEWPORT BOULEVARD at: Via Lido No No Hospital Road No No ' (a) Peak 2-1/2 Hour Volume is cumulative traffic - Existing plus ' Growth plus Approved Projects. ' -12- 1 � TABLE 5 1 SUMMARY OF 1990 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSES 1 FOR COAST HIGHWAY AT RIVERSIDE AVENUE 1 Existing Conditions -ICU- AM Peak 0•77 1 PM Peak 0•77 1 1990 Base Conditions(a) AM Peak 0.90 PM Peak 0.90 1 1990 Base Conditions 1 Plus Project AM Peak 0.90 1 PM Peak 0.90 (a) Cumulative traffic - Existing plus Growth plus Approved 1 Projects. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -13- tions volumes results in no change in the AM and PM ICU. Both ' the AM and PM ICU's remain at 0.90. In summary it can be concluded that the proposed Newport Imports Restaurant project satisfies the requirements of the City of Newport Traffic Phasing Ordinance wherein the project traffic ' does not exceed 1% of peak 2-1/2 hour traffic and/or the project does not cause a critical intersection AM or PM ICU to exceed 0.90 or make the ICU worse. ' SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS o The proposed project is to consist of opening an existing 3,300 square feet of restaurant space approved for use for employees to serve patrons and provide full service restau- rant operations : o The restaurant use is estimated to generate 528 daily vehi- cle trips. In the AM peak there will be 28 vehicles enter- ing the project site and 22 vehicles exiting the site. The PM peak is expected to have 28 vehicles entering and 25 vehicles exiting the project site. ' o One percent (1%) analyses was performed for five (5) criti- cal intersections in the vicinity of the project, as identi- fied by -the City 's Traffic Engineer . Project Peak 2-1/2 Hour traffic is estimated to exceed 1% at Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue. At all other intersections the project peak 2-1/2 hour traffic is less than 1% of Base 1990 traffic ' volumes. o For Coast Highway at Riverside Avenue the ICU analyses found that for Base 1990 conditions the AM and PM peak hour ICU's equal 0.90 and the addition of project traffic does not make the ICU worse. With project traffic added to Base 1990 Conditions the AM and PM ICU's both equal 0.90. o The project has been evaluated for conformance to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) require- ments and was found to satisfy those requirements. 1 ' -14- i i 1 1 APPENDIX A ' ICU WORKSHEETS - EXISTING CONDITIONS r tNE2480AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989 AM .............."-....._.............--..._._...._._......_........._......................... ' I IEXI STING I PROPOSED IEXI STING IEXISTI NO I REGIONAL ICOMMITTED I PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoLume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I ------ I I I I NL 1 1600 1 1 167 1 0.10 * I I I I I ' I----•-----.--•----------•---------•--_-------•-----" -•--------------------------- -------I NT --1237- i i I _HR._ 1 1 83 1 1 1 1 1 1 I -•--•-•...................-----•---•••--•........._.......-----•--------"'-----._..--. .I ' I SL 1 16001 1 261 0.021 1 1 1 1 1 I-------------- --•-•---------------------- --------------------------- ---- ST 768 I I--------) 4800 --•---------------- 0.21 ...............................................I ' I SR 1 1 216 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 -------------- ----------------------------------------------------- I EL 1 1600 1 1 151 1 0.09 1 1 1 1 1 I ' I............................................."'..._.------.-..--.-..._..------------...... I ET 1 1600 1 1 196 1 0.12 1 1 1 1 1 I -------------------------------------------- .__._......•_.._._......................._ .I ER 1 1600 1 1 265 1 •0.17 * I I I I I 1-....--•-------------•---------------.._..........----------.•----------'_----•-----._..-•-I WL 1 16001 1 1191 0.071 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------------------•-------•----------------•---------------------.----------------••- -I i WT 1 1 280 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1--------) 3200 ------------------) 0.09 ----------------------------------------------I I WR 1 1 16 I 1 1 1 1 1 I ------------------'•-••-----•--•-----...-•••••"--------------------------------------- -I 1EXISTING 1 0.57 1 1 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I- ----------------------------------------------"'-._..---..--.----..--------•----.-.... . 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH +1 PROJECT I.C.U.............................I I........................................................ . . ....... 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will ' be less than I.C.U. without project ....................................... . . .. . . Description of system improvement: i I PROJECT FORM 11 ' NE248OPH ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD L HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989 PH ............................................................................................. IEXISTINGIPROPOSE0IEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGI09ALICOMHITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I I Icapacityleapacityl Volume I Ratio I Votumn I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I...---•....................................................................................1 I HL 1 1600 1 1 168 1 0.12 • '1 1 1 I I _..-•----.............__.............................................._.....4............. ' I NT 1 1 1313 1 1 1 1 1 I --------) 4800 ------------------) 0.28 .........i.........._.......................... MR 51 I•---------•----------•----------•------••-•------•-------•-• •----•-------•---•- SL 1 1600 1 1 21 1 0.01 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I---•------•-------------I--•---------•--•-'---------------------•---•----i•------- ST i..-----') 4800 ------------------) 0.32 ........................_.....i....._.i....... SR 195 I 1 I ►--------------------------------------------------------------------------- •----•-------- ' I EL 1 1600 1 1 200 1 0.13 1 1 1 i 1 1 .............................I ET 1 1600 1 1 ISO 1 0.09 1 1 1 1 1 1 I-----------••--•-----•-----•----••----•-•-•---•----••-•••-------- ••---•••-I ' I ER 1 1600 1 ' 1 286 1 0.16 ► I I I I I I-•••--------------------•----•-•-•----•------•-••-------•----•-••-•- •••-------I WL 1 1600 1 1 174 1 0.11 + I I I I I t .................i...._.........._......._.. ..._.... ................._... .__-___--•___- WT i i i--- •-••---•) 3200 i..._....i....---•) 0.07 i........i....---••i-----••----i------•i---••-- uR 18 ........ •..................................i........_......................... I ............I 1EXISTING . I 1............................................................................ 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I.............................................................................•---_.--.••..- 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U..-----••••--•-••---•••---_._I_ I ........................................................ ._..._. ' I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will t be less than I.C.U. without project ----- .---------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 NE141SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS . ' INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & VIA LIDO 1415 ' -EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY,TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989'AM ............................................................................................. I 1EXI STING IPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXI STING IREGIONALI COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoLume I V/C I I Icapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I HL I I I I I I I I I I I_ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _I I UT 1 3200 I 1 1285 1 0.40 * I 1 11 I I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NR I H.S. I 1 191 I I I I I I I_ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _I ' I SL 1 3200 I 1 392 1 0.12 * I I I I I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ST 1 32001 1 7551 0.241 1 1 1 1 1 I --••-•--••---•-•••••-•••••••--•••--•••-••••••••••-•---•••-•--••----••-••-•-••••••••-•- •I ' 1 SR I I I 2 1 I I II I i ---•--•-•• I EL I I I I I I I I I I I ET I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ER I I I I I I I I I I I I••--•••••-••••••-•••••••••-•--•--•••-_______-••••••••••---•••••-••••••-••--•-••••-••-•-•-••1 I WL 1 1600 1 1 15 1 0.01 * I I I I I I _______________________•-••-•••--•-••-____._.___...•-----••--•--••-----•--••-•-•._.___. _I I WT I I I I I I I I I I 1 •••••••••___. •••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••• I WR 1 3200 1 1 354 1 0.12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --•••-••-••-•••_._•••-•••••-•••--••••-•-••__..^__________________•-•••--••----•-••---• •I 1EXISTING 1 0.53 1 1 I----______-•---•••••••••-•••-•••--•••••••••••••^••••-•-••••---•--••-•___-••• I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I. ______•••-••••••••••______________________••._____._._____.._______.____••••••••••____. _1 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.------------------' I 1 _____________•_•___•_•_••••••••••'•______••••••••••••••• ____•••-'••"•••••• 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater then 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be _ Less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be leas than I.C.U. without project ••-••_-___ __ ------ •-••_'..... ......... Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & VIA LIDO 1415 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989 PM ------------------------------•-••_____--------___•_-----__-------•---------------•---------- IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI I IGa I I I___...._I...__.._I...____._I_ VoLune _I._._.._I..___..I Movement Lanes Lanes PK MR V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio VOLune WC I I pacitylCapacityl Volume Ratio Volume Volune w/o Project Ratio I I I I ------ I I I I I I I I NL I I I I I . I I I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NT 1 3200 1 1 1052 1 0.33 * I I I I I I_ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _I I WR I N.S. I I a I I I I I I I ' I----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------I I SL 1 3200 1 1 625 1 0.20 * I I I I I I ------------•---•-•--------------•---------•••-••--•-•--___----•--•-----•-----•••••-•- _I I ST 1 3200 1 1 1457 1 0.47 1 1 1 1 1 1 I--•-----•------------------•-•---•---•-----•-•---•----------•------•---•---•------------•--I SR I 1 1 411 1 1 1 1 1 1 I -------------------------•••---•------------------------------•---•-••-•---------- I I EL I I I I I I I I I I ' 1-•-••-•----------------------•---•--••---•---•-•------------•--------••••--•-•------•------I ET I I I I I I I I I I I -----------------•--------•---•--------•---------------•--•---------•---------•---•--- -I I ER I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WL 1 1600 1 1 54 1 0.03 * I I I I I I -------------•--------------- ------------------------------ -I ' I -1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I.....................• I I WR 1 3200 1 1 355 1 0.11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I_ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _I ' (EXISTING 1 0.56 1 1 1____________________________________________________________________________ I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I ' I-------•----------------------•--•---------•---•----••----••---------•--•--•-•-------------I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.--.--------•--.-•----•------I I ........................................................ ....._.. 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. WILL be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems inprovement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project ------ -------------------- _----- _---------- ....---------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: 1 PROJECT FORM 11 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & VIA LIDO 1415 ' EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989.PM- 1 •• � ri ' CH263SAM i' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS , INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 ' -EXIST-TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY-TRAFFIC-'-- WINTER/SPRING 1989 AM ._.•--.--_.--. . IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I t I IcapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume [Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I volume I I I .................................. .......I •-- ----•------i I. 1 ). I I I I I I --------- ................... ................... ..................1 NT ) 1600 l I 0 ) 0.00 I I I ........... I I Na ) i__. I .........�............I........I I I s ) I I 38 l > I I I I I I I 1600 ST ) 0 ) 0.03 I I I I I ' I I I ................... .......... I. . '� SR ) I I 9 ) I I I I I I --------- _---- i-•-•_...-•--•........••--•.._............................_........__.-_._I 02 1 ....... 2. I ....... I I I I I I jET ._. I. 1 1901 I 1 I I I 1 3200 ) 0.59 x--------------- ------------------------------------------------------1----------1--------------------1-------I I WL I I I I I I I I I I I .........................I ' I WT I 4800 I I 1145 I 0.24 I I I I I ----.._......_!.--------------I WR I 1600I I 38I 0.021 I I I 1 --.--•---.••.............. ''" �--...._....__ --- ____......_1 ------------- (EXISTING I0.62 I I ..-__-o....... (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I -------•------------------•-I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U...............•-__--_--_-__.I. I ........................................................ ....... ' I_I Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 t I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: tPROJECT FORM I1 CH2635AM 1 • � r I iu ' CH2635PM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS, INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989 PM __------- ----------------------------------- •------------------------ ----------------- IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK Hit I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolume I V/C I 1 Ieapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Voluma Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I ••-----•---•--------------------•---••-••---•-•---•------------••••---•-•-------•--•-- -I I NL I 1 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 NT 16001 1 0 0.001 1 1 1 1 1 I NR I I I I I I I I I -•_-_..._•----------------------------- SL 1 1 72 I_ ____ _] ________________ _] .._._._.._......___.....___......_._....___.. _I ST 1600 I 1 0 0.07 + I I I I I ........] i---•----i------•-] i--------I-------'•I-'••-•-----i-------i.......I SR 46 I ----------------------•-----•------•-•-•-•---••------•----•------•-•------------------ -I l EL 1 1600 1 I 68 1. 0.04 " I I I I I -- ---------------•-•------•-__-------------------------0-•----•------------• I ET 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -- ---- ' I ER I I 0 I I I --------__----- I I I WL I I I I I I 1 11 . I I I -••---------------•-•-•--•-----------•-•----------------•---___._--------------------- -I I WT 1 4800 1 1 2405 1 0.50 * I I I I I 1•-----•-----------------•---------•------•---•--------------•----------•-------------------I I WR 1 1600 1 1 111 1 0.07 1 1 1 1 I 1 1_ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _I ' IEXISTING I 0.61 1 1 I......-•-------------------'••------•----•----------_-----------------•----- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I 1-------------------------------------------------------------•----••---------------•-•-----I IEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ............................................................................................: 1_1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: 1 ' PROJECT FORM 11 CH2635PN i u ' CH3060AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVE/BAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989 AM ..................................................:.......................................... ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIDNALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI lMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I --Lune I I I I NL 1 1600 1 1 20 1 0.01 I • I I I I I I ••--------•-----------"---•---•--•---------------•--••-__.______-------•--•--------•- -I NY 1 1 103 ' --------) 3200 ------------------) 0.05 I--------I'--.....-------------!---------------I I MR 1 1 47 I 1 1 I I I ' I SL 1 4800 1 1 1024 1 0.21 * I I I I I I----•-----------•-------------------------•--•-•-._-----_._--_._..__-------------•-•---''- 1 ST 1 16001 1 381 0.021 I I 1 I I ' 1-------•-----------------------------'•------•-----•----.._..-------------------•----------I I SR 1 16001 1 771 0.051 1 1 I I I I--------------------•-------------------•--------------------•----------- •-------I 1 EL 1 32001 1 951 0.031 1 1 1 1 1 ---•---"••______---"'-•--------•--'•'--------------i._____-----------•••-------•--•-•---- ET --------) 4800 I--------i' -----) 0.45 I--------------------------------------I-------1 r iI ER 25 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I WL 1 1600 1 1 30 1 0.02 * I I I I I _____________•---------'_-__-__------...__----•--•------ •---•--•----I I WT 1 4800 1 1 1456 1 0.30 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 ' 1___________________________________________________________________________________________I I WR I N.S. 1 1 750I I I 1-------.-----------------------------------------------------•-- ________._ _---•-----____-I (EXISTING 1 0.73 1 1 ' 1____________________________________________________________________________ (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I 1 -------------'--------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ............................................................................................. 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. witl be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be _ Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 ' CH306OPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER DRIVE/BAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989 PH ............................................................................................. ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I ICspacitylCapacityl VOlume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I i NL I 1600 1 I 23 1 0.01 1 I I I 1 1 I •--•••-••-----------••----••---••-----•--•------•-•--•--••-__---•-••-•••---••__--•••-- •I 1 ' --------3, 3200 i--------i------;-) 0.02 i----••--------------------------•------------- MR i •-••--•---••---•-•---••----•--------••---••••----•-•--•-_---••-------------------•-_-_ •► ' I SL 1 4800 I I 1143 1 0.24 * I I I I 1 ___________________________________________________________________________________________I i sT 1 1600 I 1 79 I 0.05 1 1 . I I I I I........................................................................................... I ' I SR 1 1600 1 1 147 1 0.09 I I 1 �1 I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 i EL 1 3200 I 1 98 1 0.03-* 1 1 1 I i -._ __----• -----•------------------•-••••••----•---•------ I ' � ET_.__..__..._i...___.-i---1543__ _I I I I I' I 1--------3 4800 •-----------------) 0.33 -----------------------------------------------I I ER I 1 19 1 1 I I 1 I --•-----------------------------------------------------•-------------• I WL 1 1600I 1 221 0.011 I I 1 1 I I --•-------•-------------------------------------------------------••------------------ -I I WT 1 4800 1• 1 2158 I 0.45 * I I I I I ' I-•-------••----•-•--•-•-----------------•---------••------------•----•--•------------------I I WR I N.S. 1 I 1260 1 1 1 1 1 1 .......................... - --•--- ••------------------_.__._..._ •-••--------•- I lEX[STING 1 0.72 1 I III ' I----------•-•-••-•----••-•----------------•--_-------•---••-•--•----••-----• I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ..................... .__.... I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements Will be less than I.C.U. without project •______ --•------------------------------•_-___•-•-•__-•----------•-•------------------- Oescription of system improvement: ' PROJECT FORM 11 C112630AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY $ RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1909 AM ......................•--....._.............._..._...._._..._......__.....•..........._..._.1. ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSCDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoluiw I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl VOLWIC I Ratio I VOLume I VO(uvh: IW/o Project) I Ratio I, I. I I I I I I I I VOLune I I I ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 I --------) .................. ............................................... HT 1600 1 1 0' 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 I I•-------3 -•................J ............................................... I NR I I 0 I I I I I I I•-•-•-----••--------------•----------•------•-••---•••-•-•--..---------_-------------------I SL I--------i 1600 ..................i 0.05 ------------------I-----------I I I I ST 1 1 A I I I 1 1 1 I --•-----------------•-----i---- -------- 1 -------------------------------------•-------I SR 1600 z-z I 1 1 1 1 1 I----------------•----•-------•----------------- --••----- EL I 1600 I 1 309 1 0.19 1 I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ET 1 1 2260 ' i--------) 3200 ------------------J 0.71 -----------------------------------------------I ER I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 I I--•------••--._.------•----•-•-------•••-----••------•----•-----•------------•-------------1 ' I WL 1 1600 I 1 11 1 0.01 * I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I WT 1 4000 I I 1127 1 0.23 1 1 1 I 1 1 I-------------•------------•---------•------•-----------••--------•--------------•-------•--I ' I WR 1 16001 1 361 0.021 1 1 1 1 1 I-•••------•-•-------•----•---•----- --------i- I------•--------------•--------------•--------- (EXISTING 0.77 1 I---------------•------.-._.--•-•---.---_-----------•----.----.-•-•--••--•--- I EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I-----•-------•--------------------------------------------•-----•--•---_------------------- )EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ... ........................................................................................ I_I-Projected + project traffic Will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems improvement Will be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. With project improvements Will be Less than I.C.U. Without project ....--••-..•.--...•.............•.•............................._..........._............ ' Description Of systein improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 ' C112630AN ' CH2630P.. INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST 111CHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989 PM ..............................................................••..._.._---.......___--------- ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTED'I PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVoluae I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I voluhe I Voluw 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I NL 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 I I .-- .) --------------• -) ............................................... 1 NT 1600 1 1 2 0.01 1 1 1 1 1 I I MR I 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 I I ----•------•••--•-•-----------•------•--------------•----•----------•----------------- -I SL 1 1 93 I ST I I 8 I I 1 1 I I ' I----------------------------------------------------•-------------------------•------------I 1 SR 1 16001 1 3891 0.241 1 1 1 1 I I----•-••-•-•--------•-------------•---•----------------------------------------------------I 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 350 1 0.22 w I I I I I ' ----------•---•----•----•---- -----•---•-----••--•-----•---•-----------•--------•------1 ET 1 1 1933 I ER I 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 I I•------•--------------------------•--------------•-----------•-----------------------------I 1 WL 1 16001 1 361 0.021 1 1 1 1 I _. - 1 _. _. _. _ _ _1 i WT 1 4800 1 1 2339 1 0.49 + I I I I 1 _••----•-------•---------------- _ 1 1•--WR...1• 1600.1....---'I-----40-1 -0.03 1......._i..... 1 I I I I ------••-•--•----•-•-------------•---------------•-•----•----------•-----------•--•___. •I 1EXISTING I O•n I • I ' I--------------•--•------------------•--------------------------------------- I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I----•----------------------------------•-----------------------------------•---------------I ' 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I - •---------'....................•__....._....__......._.....__......----...._•.-----._.._... 1_1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project Description of system ,improvement: 1 ' PROJECT FORM 11 CH263OPM 1 1 1 1 ' II APPENDIX B ADJUSTMENT OF APPROVED PROJECT TRAFFIC TO REFLECT LOSS OF 3.3 KSF OF AUTO DEALERSHIP 1 BASMACIYAN - DARNELL, INC. 1 ' Project No. Date 8—/8 —$9 By S £ R • Checked Project Description iApproU4 i rafft� W/34 --I" E, T � 3-17/364 -• F -, O 3/h -W l I TraFflc. Prom I3. 3 KSF ALao 'Deajershlp Im 3/4- .Ti I ' Approved Prcjecr Tra{f c, Mmus BG KSF AWv Dealev-Ship r ,f- 3/-►I 9a3 u/3oal {� 9` � 3i7/3 54 --) 3/4 y I J a 1 I 1 1 i 1 1 1 APPENDIX C ' ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS t t ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection NEWPORT BL/HOSPITAL RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 1989 AM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1`' of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k. Hour Peak 21� Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I I Northbound 3532 jq(e ,3eo,7$ 3`1 ' Southbound 2447 �, A4?) I —� Eastbound 1259 Q gq 11418 1 iw ■ I Westbound 935 a 9 (P,J O /u/� D 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 ' Air-w:po&,-1' I&tPnl' I'S Ti'F=1'-11Jie/-iA- T DATE: JL(LV /0 j2a PROJECT: FORM I ' 1% Traffic, Volume Analysis ' Intersection NEWPORT BL HOSPITAL RD (Existing Traffic Volumes base on Verage Winter Spring 1g 89 PM ' Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1' of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2+ Hour Peak 2� Hour of 21; Hour Peak 2� Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3592 O a(yt+ 9861P 3 17 ' Southbound 4041 go 150 [Westbound astbound 1484 Q 3(0'� I I / I NO 1613 q 107 /lao �! -Ao Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [] Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. ' Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 D '7" 5 I!./P'1tilT DATE: !D ' PROJECT: FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 1969 AM ' Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1" of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2i Hour Peak 2� Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2948 A 59 -5007 30 � ' Southbound 2579 p 5 Eastbound . T „per i ' Westbound 995 b a 995 1 /0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' AIFW-P,0,42 ' Jn-/B2R7s f?r--S7tic1kAAir DATE: .ILIL',/ /n-� PROJECT: FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 _ PM ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1'; of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2i Hour Peak 214 Hour Peak 2� Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2719 d rf(p 5 I ' SouMound 4698 479 Eastbound + I i r Westbound 1071 0 0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 ' A)FiA)oPnP-T /M PORTS PF=,Tni_�K�an 17" DATE: dL4LV /O, /?Pq PROJECT: FORM I 1 1• 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AV ' (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter Spring 19 _ AM ' Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2; Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2 © I Q b ' South bound 192 t7 4 d Eastbound - 5 ' Westbound 2896 - -- -- g/ NVT ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2�z Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 ' •t �l�I��POh7' /A /�anx5 i�c�TAII�NnIT" DATE: -/l.eLV PROJECT: � � FORM I I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 9)PM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2., Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 0 D 11 b Southbound 307 0 a� 8 3 tO ' Eastbound 3601 _ 64P *733 7044 ' Westbound 5441 _ 64 8�00 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2�2 Hour Traffic Volume ' Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' t ' 1Ut ivPner DATE: JuLV log /r/A�i ' PROJECT: FORM I 22 I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/DOVER DR—BAYSHORE DR (Existing Traffic Volum—esbased on Average inter Spring 19AM ' Peak 2; Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1' of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 21, Hour Peak 2),2 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 371 Q O 3-7) /Vo ' South bound 2547 'SQ b,5 I a Eastbound 4665 78 ' Westbound 4999 _ 50 5/0 5561, SCo_ ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. lr' )PPD97 1L/-PO27'� ?U- erjUlZAitlT DATE: JL1LV /O, IgF91 ' PROJECT: FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/DOVER DR—BAYSHORE DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 19 89 PM ' Peak 23� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected' Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2; Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 278 0 D 9P 78 a A)O ' South bound 3062 Q .3 1 3 Eastbound 4159 0- i/P9a i o1 ' Westbound 7581 _ 0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. AA�'I1)-lP0,eT 1,0,q)kC /i,:: 7;114 fM/7 ' DATE: 141LV /O, 1-7.rl tPROJECT: FORM I I it 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' 'Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Winter/Spring 19 _ AM Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2+z Hour Growth Peak 2), Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound O. 0 y !{ t�� ' South bound 735 0 -1 ell o Ito Eastbound 5463 _ 55 -1 g'L (0300 &3 � ' westbound 2987 30 0; ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' DATE: PROJECT: ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 1989 ) PM ' Peak n Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I" of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour I Peak 2, Hour Peak 2h Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 37 p 4 Q Q Southbound 1164 O ' Eastbound 4642 Ito goy aWQZ 455 0 Westbound 5632 Jr�O g7�P �oCJLo leaµ, ' ZZ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' DATE: PROJECT: ' FORM I APPENDIX D ' ICU WORKSHEETS - CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT I CH2630AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC UINTER/SPRING 1989 AM ................•••••...._.....__.....-••..__......... ^_ ' I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio 1Voluiw I V/C _1-7 i ICapacityleapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volune 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I volume I I C�Lt VDL—. I i NL I I D 10 1 I I ► I I I l l --------) .................. ...............................................I I NT 16001 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 1 0 1 .0011 ........) ..................) ...............................................I i NR I I D l o l l �.!__....._................I SL I 1 1 71 1 1 0 1 1 tp I g1 1 I $ 1 q5 I i-•••---- 1600 -----------•--•---) 0.05 *-----••••••------•-••------- ••---- - - ---I.Ob Z I sT 1 1 4 1 1 0 1 1 1 5 I 7� 1 5 I I---•-------------------••----•--------------I------•---•-----•-•---------•-----------------I ' I SR 1600 1 1 222 0.14 1 I) 1 2.1 12H31.15 I I 1�•1{3 1• i51 I-------------------•----------------•-----'•--••----------•-------••-••-•-- I I EL 1 1600 1 1 309 1 0.19 1 3 1 1 1 0;7. 1.201I 13'L3 •401 _______---'•'__--___-••---•-•-_____•_________•_•______________________ I ET I I 2260 1 'G3 13-11 lawo1 I 1ZtnlcOi _._, • I--------) 3200 -••-•--------•-•-•) 0.71 --•-•------ ------•_-----•-1 •$O 1 s3ti ER I 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 3 1 tr I 1 3 I _____________________________•-----•••-------------' •-. ........... I WL 1 16001 1 u 1 0.01 * 0 1 1 1 1 2, 1•0011 1 12 I ,oaI'� I--•-----------•---•-----------------------•-------•-------------------•------------• ------I I WT 1 4800 1 1 1127 1 0.23 1 11 1 24q I1.sa l I,m&i 10 1 l3911 . 291 I----------••--•-----------------------------•--•-------••----------•-----------------------I WR I 1600 I I 36 1 0.02 1 p 1 3 15q I,02�1 I I L�0 1 .025 1................................--------------------•-----------------._.....-------------- EXISTING ' 1-------- I ---- I I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 .�LI�I -.-. .-__--.j __________________________________________________________ __ 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I s qO ............................................................................................. 1�I Projected + project traffic will be less then or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.W. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II CH2630AM ' CH2630PA ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY $ RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1989 PH ................••.......................•.................................................. . 1 IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTiNGIEXiSTiNGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVotume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio�lj I I 1 Volume EMI------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' r I I i I I I I Ycl__ I HL 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 q I I 1 i ------- ..................) ................................---............I ' 1 NT 1600 1 1 2 0 ............................................... 1...............................................I I NR I 1 5 I l"j l 0 i I 15 I ........ -... i 9 i 21 I - ' I SL 1 1 93 1 0 1 2d 1113( 1 Z I-------- 1600 ..................3 0.06 •-----•--•------------- ----••--•-•----I.08Z I ST I I B 1 0 1 7. 110 oii I to I -----•---•••••••-•--••---•-•--•-•-•-•-------------------------•--•-- I SR I 1600 1 1 389 1 0.24 1 0 1 1 Z 14011.2501 14c)/ 1 ,250 I••..............................•---•--------.--:.._._........._.._.......i----------------I EL 1 1600I I 3501 0.22 • L( 1 30••L684I:74U1•__.•..13ro'q•.I .24o*� •-•--•-•-••••••----•--•----••--- .•_.__ ET 1 1933 --------) 3200 ---------1-------- 0.61 I 1 q 135.. 123081 .. I- 12,5081 I 72 g I ER I I is i 0 i (p I2'} '7T-81 12.4 1 ' I-•-----------------•---•--•--••--••---•-•---.......... •-----.._..- -------------------I 1 WL I 1600I I 361 0.021 1 5141 ,os5I 141 I .oz5 I------------------------------------------------!2........................................ I i WT 1 4800 I 1 2339 I 0.49 WI 23 1 If-46 L0611.580I io 1• Se,2.?F ' I•----------------------•------.._..._...._..•------•-•---•-.....--_------•-----------------1 ...WR...1...1600.1- 1 40 I- 0.03 1• 0 1 B 1 qS I,030I••I• 1 49.i •030 .......•...... ••••.. .................... .... ..... ' 1EXISTING I 0.77 1 I I--------------•.--•--.---.----..--•••-------.---..---------------.---.-.-.-- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I �I?jq I I I ---.-----.•-----------------------•---..---.-•-•----.-•---.------•-._..7....---•----- •I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 1 0 9Oq ...................•...................•...•......••..•.•••.................................. 1_1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 11. Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be toss than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ................................................... ------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 CH263OPH