HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO062_15TH ST. CONDOS (ZONTA CLUB) TP0062
FINAL FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
FOR GPA 89-2(F), TRAFFIC STUDY No. 62,
AMENDMENT NO. 700, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14186
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 54
AS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
ON FEBRUARY 12, 1990
A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Findings:
1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City policy.
2. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the project
is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared.
3. That the information contained in the environmental document has been
considered in the decision on the project.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved
by the Building and Planning Departments.
2. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and
permanent drainage facilities, to minimize impacts from silt, debris and
other water pollutants.
3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points
to the site, watering and sweeping program designed to minimize the impact
of haul operations.
4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject
to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
5. The grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be 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.
6. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation, prepared for the
project by EJN Geotechnical dated October 25, 1989, shall be complied
with as required by the Newport Beach Building Department.
Final Findings and Conditions
James White, Lawrence Campeau & Wayne Fraser
2101 15th Street
Page 2
7. 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 any structure, the licensed landscape architect
shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been
installed in accordance with the prepared plan.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Excavation of the subterranean parking structure shall be limited to the
hours of operation between 8:am and 4:pm, Monday through Saturday.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-2(F) Adopt Resolution No. 1210,
recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 89-2(F) to the City Council.
C. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 62.
Findings:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the
proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and
circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1.
2. That the project does not create traffic which exceeds 1% on any approach
leg of potentially affected intersections in the vicinity of the project.
3. That the traffic study indicates that the project will neither cause nor make
worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any major, primary-modified, or
primary street.
D. AMENDMENT NO. 700. Recommend approval of Amendment No. 700 to the
City Council, an amendment to a portion of Districting Map No. 21 rezoning the
site from R-3 to R-3 (2,178) - SPR and to establish a 20 foot front yard setback
on 15th Street, with the following findings:
Final Findings and Conditions
James White, Lawrence Campeau & Wayne Fraser
2101 15th Street
Page 3
1. That the amendment is necessary to implement the provisions of the
Newport Beach General Plan.
2. That the proposed project cannot be implemented without the proposed
amendment.
E. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 14186
Findings:
1. 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 design of the
subdivision.
2. That the proposed subdivision 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 public improvements may be required of the developer per Section
19.08.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Conditions:
1. That a final map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. That
the final 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 tract map or obtain a building permit prior to
completion of the public improvements.
4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and
sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Department.
Final Findings and Conditions
James White, Lawrence Campeau & Wayne Fraser
2101 15th Street
Page 4
5. That the intersection of Irvine Avenue with 15th Street and Irvine Avenue
with the adjacent alley be designed to provide sight distance for a speed
of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscapes, walls and other obstruction shall
be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping and structures
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.
6. That the proposed wall along Irvine Avenue be set back to provide for
landscaping and sight distance as approved by Public Works Department.
7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
8. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley.
9. That the existing 4 foot sidewalk be widened to 8 foot along 15th Street
and Irvine Avenue. Deteriorated and displaced sections of the existing
sidewalk shall be replaced. The curb return shall be constructed on a 25
foot radius. The sidewalk access ramp be constructed at the southeast
corner of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue and at the intersection of Irvine
Avenue and the alley. The deteriorated portion of the alley be
reconstructed. All work shall be constructed under an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department.
10. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard
improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer.
11. That a 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 recording the tract map. 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.
12. That the overhead utility lines on 15th Street and Irvine Avenue be
underground.
13. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid.
14. That the developer, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, shall submit
a construction operation plan to the Building and Public Works
Departments for approval. The plan is to discuss the construction scheduling
for the various phases of the project and show how the operations have
been planned to minimize the noise and earth moving impacts on the high
school operations. The plan shall include considerations of the safety of
the students walking, riding bicycles and driving to and from the high school
Final Findings and Conditions
James White, Lawrence Campeau & Wayne Fraser
2101 15th Street
Page 5
and Horace Ensign Intermediate school. Deliveries, earth hauling and
concrete placement should be scheduled to occur at non peak traffic hours
or school holidays. Peak traffic periods are 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m, and 2:00
p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The plan is also to include a parking proposal that shows
where construction workers will park without using on street parking except
adjacent to the site.
15. That a minimum 4 feet wide paved walkway separated from traffic be
maintained along the Irvine Avenue frontage at all times during the
construction period and there be no parking or storing of materials along
Irvine Avenue.
16. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement
of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment
and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local
requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Public Works Department. No construction storage or delivery of materials
shall occur within the State right-of-way. Prior to issuance of any grading
permits, a parking plan for workers must be submitted and approved by the
Public Works Department.
17. That in-lieu park fees shall be paid pursuant to Section 19.50 of the
Municipal Code.
F. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 54.
Findings:
1. That the project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Adequate off-street parking is being provided in conjunction with the
proposed development.
3. 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, except those items requested in conjunction
with the proposed modifications.
4. 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.
i
5. 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
Final Findings and Conditions
James White, Lawrence Campeau & Wayne Fraser
2101 15th Street
Page 6
property within the proposed development.
6. That a density bonus of three units is consistent with the provisions of the
Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.
Conditions:
1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as may be noted below.
2. The design and layout of subterranean parking and ramp shall be subject
to further review and approval of the Traffic Engineer.
3. A construction parking plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of any
building or grading permit.
4. That the ramp to the subterranean parking structure be designed to city
standards and the driveway ramp not exceed 2% slope within the alley
setback area.
5. That a minimum of two parking spaces for each dwelling unit plus one-
half guest parking space for each dwelling unit be provided on-site.
6. That guest parking spaces be independently accessible and be identified as
guest parking in a manner acceptable to the Traffic Engineer.
7. That all parking areas shall be striped with approved traffic markers or
painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide.
8. Parking areas shall have a maximum 5% slope.
9. That the final design of on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
10. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from
adjoining properties.
11. 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. Said landscape plan shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department,
Public Works Department and the Planning Department.
12. That all conditions of Tentative Map of Tract No. 14186 shall be fulfilled.
Final Findings and Conditions
James White, Lawrence Campeau & Wayne Fraser
2101 15th Street
Page 7
13. That a siltation, dust, and debris control plan shall be submitted and be
subject to approval by the Building Department and a copy shall be
forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa
Ana Region. This shall be a complete plan for temporary and permanent
facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water
pollutants.
14. That the siltation, dust, and debris control plan shall include a description
of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program
designed to minimize impact of haul operations.
15. The applicant shall enter into an affordable housing agreement, form and
content of which is acceptable to the Planning Department and the City
Attorney's Office, agreeing to the provision of three affordable units in the
project. The affordable to moderate income families if the units are for
sale or to low income families at fair market rent if the units are rented
by the applicant or successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions
of the Newport Beach Housing Element.
16. The term of affordability shall be thirty years.
17. This site plan review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from
the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 J of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code.
0 •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beach,CA 92659.1768
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
To: Office of Planning and Research From:' City of Newport Beach
El
1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department
Sacramento,CA Roo 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768
Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768
County Clerk,County of Orange (Orange County)
Public Services Division
ED P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR:
Santa Ana,CA 92702
Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the
Public Resources Code.
Name of Project. General.Plan Amendment 89-2(F)
State Clearinghouse Number. Lead Agency Contact Person: TelephoneNo.:
Patricia Temple 714 / 644-3225
Project location: Irvine Avenue and 15th Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
Project Description: Demolition of a private club building and construction of a
15-unit condominium project including 3 affordable dwelling units.
This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on February 12. 1990
and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (Date)
1. The project❑will ® will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures vQ were❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations❑was ®was not adopted for this project.
5. Findings® were❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the
General Public at the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach,3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
CA 92659-1768;714/644-3225
At-; e� February 14, 1990 Principal Planner
Sigrtantre Patricia T ple Date Title
CIYY OF NEWPORT BEXCH
COUNCIL MEMBERS • MINUTES
to top
ROLL CALL February 12, 1990 INDEX
signs are currently located as
indicated on the site plan submitted
with this application.
Dave Dmohowski of The Irvine Company
addressed the Council, and stated they
agree with the findings and
recommendation of the Planning
Commission and that he was available for
questions.
Hearing no others wishing to address the
Council, the public hearing was closed.
Motion x Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 90-7
All Ayes 90-7 amending the Fashion Island Planned
Community Development Plan to allow
seven entry marker signs.
3. Public hearing regarding GENERAL PLAN GPA 89-2(F)
AMENDMENT NO. 89-2(F) - A request of (45)
JAMES G. WHITE, JR. , AND LAWRENCE M.
CAMPEAU to amend the Land Use Element of
the GSneral Plan so as to change the
land use designation of property located
at 2001 and 2101 15th Street, Cliff
Haven from "Governmental, Educational
and Institutional Facilities" to "Single
Family Attached" with a density of one
unit for each 2,178 square feet of land
area; and the acceptance of an
Environmental Document;
AND
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 62 - Request to Trfc Stdy
approve a Traffic Study so as to permit 62
the construction of a 15 unit
residential condominium development on
the subject property;
AND
Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 90-2, being, Ord 90-2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF
DISTRICTING MAP NO. 21 SO AS TO
RECLASSIFY SAID PROPERTY FROM THE
R-3 DISTRICT TO THE MFR (2,178) SPR
DISTRICT (PLANNING COMMISSION PCA 700
AMENDMENT NO. 700); (94)
AND
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 14186 - Tract 1418
Request to subdivide two existing lots
into a single lot for a 15 unit
residential condominium development
located at 2001 and 2101 15th Street;
AND
Volume 44 - Page 37
."a
' r ,
�TY OF NEWPORTACH MIN
COUNCIL MEMBERS I
�G ► yti+ Co
'Py y� G INDE
February 12, 1990
ROLL CALL
SITE PLAN REVIEW N0. 54 - Request to Site PlnR� 54
approve a site plan review for the
purpose of permitting a residential
density bonus of 3 units within a 15
unit residential condominium
development
e elopmeation t
and request to approve
the Zoning Code so as to allow the
construction of twYostairs
20nfoot front two y
decks within the p Pose
yard setback which
exceeds threeinclu feet in
height. The prop Code de as to
modification to the Zoninginto
permit a three foot encroachment
setback the required 16 foot side yard
se se line.
adjacent to the easterly property
Report from the Planning Department.
The City Manager outlined the subject
report.
Larry Campeau, applicant, addressed the
Council in support of his project. He
stated all parking will be underground
and off the alley; the structure will be
mediterranean in architecture to be
compatible with the school across the
street; they have met with Cliff Haven
and Newport Heights Homeowners have no
Associations and unerndandethe
objections to the project)
project will include three affordable t
for-sale oodtfor ths. ee neighborhood elt the aopmen
nd
will be g urged its approval.
In response to question raisedc ndition
Council Member Hart ate$heding
intersection
No. 5 (landscap g
of Irvine Avenue and 15th street) , Mre
corners awa
Campeau advised thatt he wasverywith
of the sensitivity Of the
regard to sight distance requirements*
and stated they will be installing a
new
8 foot-wide sidewalk along theand that two
re
perimeter of the property,
additional feet beyond the sidewalk will
be landscaped with only turf.
During course of discusseoaffawhich
correction was noted by units
changes the number of dwelling
allocated for the CliifOe d en area from
555 to 554 in the p P
on
amending the Land Use Element of the
General Plan for the Zonta Club Site in
Cliff Haven.
In response to Council Member Strauss's
suggestion to change the affordable
period from 20 to 30 years, Mr. Campeau
stated that he had no objections,
Volume 44 - Page 38
i Y OF NEWPORT BL*ACN ;
COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES J
�G,AZ :ry9��GN�f i
A
ROLL CALL�� February 12, 1990 INDEX
providing this is what is being done by GPA 89-2(F)
other builders in the City, and that it
would not be detrimental to his
financing. ' `
it was also brought out that the
applicant would be subject to
approximately $90,000 for in-lieu park
fees.
Hearing no others wishing to address the
Council, the public hearing was closed.
Motion x Motion was made to:
(a) Approve the project as
recommended by the Planning
Commission and:
1. Adopt Resolution No. Res 90-8
adopting General
Plan Amendment No.
,89-2(F), and accepting
the Environmental
Document; and
2. Adopt-ORDINANCE NO. 90-2;
3. Approve Tentative Map of
Tract No. 14186 subject
to the findings and
conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission;
4. Sustain the action of the
Planning Commission and
approve Traffic Study No. 62
and Site Plan Review No. 54;
with the revised finding and
condition suggested in the
staff report;
5. Condition No. 16 be
revised to change the
affordable period from 20
to "30 years;"
6. Add Condition No. 17 to
read: " That in-lieu park
.fees shall be paid
pursuant to Section 19.50 ,
of the Municipal Code."
7. Staff investigate the
feasibility of acquiring
vacant lot (including
appraisal) across from
the small City park in
Cliff Haven using the
proceeds received from
this project from in-lieu
park fees.
Volume 44 - Page 39
IVITY OF NEWPORT VACH
COUNC L MEMBERS MINUTES
ROLL CALL February 12, 1990 INDEX
Council Member Cox stated he will
support the motion, but that he was
opposed to changing the affordable
period from 20 to 30 years.
All Ayes The motion was voted on and carried.
4. Mayor Plummer opened the public hearing Tract 14162
regarding TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO.
14162 - A request of CARNATION COVE to
subdivide portions of four existing lots
and a portion of an abandoned street
(Carnation Avenue), located at 2500
Seaview Avenue into a single lot for a
6-unit residential condominium
development on property located in the
R-3 District.
Report from the Planning Department.
The City Manager summarized the subject
report.
David Diem, applicant, addressed the
Council and stated that he was in
agreement with the findings and
conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission.
In response to comment made by Mayor Pro
Tem Sansone, Mr.. Diem advised that the
name "Carnation Cove" is the name of the
partnership which owns the property, and
that the name of the project will not
have any reference to Carnation Cove.
Nearing no others wishing to address the
Council, the public hearing was closed.
Motion x Motion was made to approve the Tentative
All Ayes Map of Tract No. 14162, subject to the
findings and conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission.
5. Mayor Plummer opened the public hearing Cannery Vlg
concerning ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 58 Imprvms/
(CANNERY STREET IMPROVAE14ENTS (CONTRACT N VILLAGE26999) C-2699 58
to hear comments or protests from (38)
citizens concerning the "Engineer's
Report," and the establishment of the
proposed district.
Report from the Public Works Department.
Letter of inquiry from Mr. and Mrs.
Clarence Staaf.
The Public Works Director outlined the
proposed boundaries for the Assessment
District and the proposed improvements.
Bids were received on January 23, 1990,
for said improvements, with the low bid
Volume 44 - Page 40
City Council Meeting February 12, 1990
Agenda Item No.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: City Council
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A. General Plan Amendment No. 89 2(F)
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so
as to redesignate the subject property. from "Governmental;
Educational and Institutional Facilities" to "Single Family Attached"
with a density of one dwelling unit for each 2,178 sq. ft. of buildable
lot area; and the acceptance of an environmental document.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
AND
B. Traffic Study No. 62
Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction
of a 15 unit residential condominium development on the subject
property.
AND
C. Ordinance No. 90-2 (Planning Commission Amendment No. 700)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH AMENDMING A PORTION OF . -
DISTRICTING MAP NO. 21 SO AS TO
RECLASSIFY SAID PROPERTY FROM THE R-3
DISTRICT' TO THE MFR (2,178) SPR DISTRICT
(Planning Commission Amendment No. 700)
AND
D. Tentative Man of Tract No. 14186
Request to subdivide two existing lots into a single lot for a 15 unit
residential condominium development.
AND
TO: Planning Commission - 2.
r
E. Site Plan Review No. 54 (Public Hearing)
Request to approve a site plan review for the purpose of permitting
a residential density bonus of 3 units within a 15 unit residential
condominium development and a request to approve R modification
to the Zoning Code so as to allow the construction of two stairs and
two entry decks within the proposed 20 foot front yard setback
which exceed three feet in height. The proposal also includes a
modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit a three foot
encroachment into the required 16 foot side yard setback adjacent
to the easterly property line.
LOCATION: Lot 1 and lot 2 of Tract No. 1718, located at 2001 and 2101 15th
Street, on the southeasterly corner of 15th Street and Irvine Avenu6
in Cliff Haven.
ZONE: R-3
APPLICANT: James G. White, Jr. and Lawrence M. Campeau, Costa Mesa
OWNER: Zonta Club of Newport Harbor Foundation, Newport Beach
ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers & Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa
Applications
The applications described above will, if approved, allow construction of a fifteen unit
condominium project. The ,proposal includes a density bonus of three unii`s as part of
an affordable housing agreement. The requested General Plan density is now one unit
for each 2,178 sq. & of buildable lot area. General Plan Amendment procedures are
in City Council Policy Q-1; Amendment procedures are contained in Chapter 20.84,
Tentative Tract Map procedures are in Chapter 19.12, and Site Plan Review Procedures
are in Chapter.20.01 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Suggested Action
Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired,
A. Approve the project as recommended by the Planning Commission and
1. Adopt Resolution No. , adopting General Plan Amendment 89 2(F),
and accepting the environmental document, and
2. Adopt Ordinance No. 90-2, being
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 21 SO
t +
TO: Planning Commission - 3.
AS TO RECLASSIFY SAID PROPERTY FROM THE R-3
DISTRICT TO THE MFR (2,178) SPR DISTRICT(AMENDMENT
NO. 700), and
3. Approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 14186 subject to the findings and
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and 0
4. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Traffic Study
No. 62 and Site Plan Review No. 54, with the revised finding and
condition suggested in the staff report.
or
B. Overrule the recommendations and actions of the Planning Commission and deny
the project.
or
C. Continue the public hearing to February 22, 1990.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At its meeting of January 4, 1990, the Planning Commission voted (6 Ayes, i Absent)
to recommend approval of a General Plan Amendment, a Traffic Study, A zone change
Amendment, a Tentaitive Tract Map and a Site Plan Review for the proposed project.
The Planning Commission Resolution, an excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes
and a copy of the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission have been
attached for the information of the City Council.
Discussion
Subsequent to the action of the Planning Commission of thse items, staff was made
aware of changes to State Planning law as it relates to the provisions of affordable
housing. These change necessitiate a minor change to Finding No. 6 of Site Plan
Review No. 54. The finding should be revived to read as follows:
116. That a density bonus of three units is consistent with�the
provisions of the Housing Element of the Newport Beach
General Plan."
Additionally, Condition No. 15 of Site Plan Review No. 54 should be revised to read as
follows:
"15. The applicant shall enter into an affordable housing
agreement, form and content of which is acceptable to the
Planning Department and the City Attorneys Office, agreeing
to the provision of three affordable units in the project. The
affordable to moderate income families if the units are for
TO: Planning Commission - 4.
sale or to low income families at fair market rent if the units
are rented by the applicant or successors in interest, in
accordance with the provisions of the Newport Beach Housing
Element."
Respectfully submitted, '
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By . �-
PatriciaTemple
Principal Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft City Council Resolution
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1210
3. Excerpt of the Planning Commission Minutes of January 4, 1990
4. Planning Commission Staff Report
PLT/WP50
CC\GPA89 2RSR1
sTA +Y;
RESOLUTION NO. M
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH GENERAL PLAN FOR THE ZONTA CLUB SITE
IN CLIFF HAVEN [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
89-2(F)l S`.•t-
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the
Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, • ,.,};;: ;,
supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; andy^i;;
WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan designates the general
distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities �: o
in a number of was including residential land use categories and population projections,
Y � g 8 P P P J � wi.••,
'd
the floor area ratio ordinances; and ""A.
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as ,
;;,a
required by California planning law; and
WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation •
Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair
Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport r .
Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain •%• x
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, and -
recommended approval of this amendment to the City Council; and
N
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on
this amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan; anda /
WHEREAS, the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses , •,. ,„. J`
in Cliff Haven; and
WHEREAS, the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the
proposed project; and :i
WHEREAS, the proposed residential land use is compatible with the :`• > ` `>>;
1 :..1 •1:,f:
• YZ,f .. Hr'-^ .cam
ISg•gZ•68VcTD\ZIZV
/2�:1`Ylj•
v`^i nY a i
iIO.CVw
3•.itH.thS+.y' '.
` '066I `—;o ,SUP — sngl QB.I dOQV
asn puul ul aguugo oqi wor3 1lnsai gongm saBuUgo IUauspis oql loogai
` # of popuawu oslu on luawalg asn purl aql ,{o Ls puu 'gS 'ZS sa8ud uo slrngo otly
A,.,, . ,•• ;yi •earn lUi1ua Isa SIpug-pinn oql un Uarn loi algttPiing
¢¢ fife F jo 'lybs SLi'Z gouo so; pamollu sl llun ouo ptm suarn luuuaplsag Alnwug
oA\L ul luawdolanap xoldnp Jo; pannbw sn von lol olqupllnq jo lybs 0001Z
jo wnwlulw V •shun 8ulliaMp M W poluaopu sl non aqy 'pamollu
sl shun Sulilomp luuoIllPPu ul llnsal film galgm uolslnlpgns off asn puUl
Islluoplsag Allwug•IllnN ao luuuaplsag Aipuug oml,to} umogs seam awos
/ii ;= tulm 'luawdolanap pagaulap Alpusg olBulS xo; Apusulwopasd palUuSnsap
.7 sl van agy 'AumgSIH lsaoo lsa& pus anuq JanoQ '10011S glgl `onuanV
y,I ' oulAit Aq popunoq puul jut uoplsaz Ip; sopnloun uoic slily uaAto Igo
'c .l. :lS aBUg
:smopgl su 'llounoo Alio oql of
t lunoiddu toj popuatttwoow sl uuld luaauaO oql 01 luawpuawr, uu lugl gouag liodmoN jo
:N Alto atu to llounoo 4110 oql Aq Q$A'IOS2g.LI gff lauctimisHi'MON
Uufd leiauaO
/• ,sl;"' ". ;" gosoa hodmoN atll do luawalg asn pinn oql of luowpuouts posodatd otu uo suolsloop
" llagi SunKuw ul woutnoop IUluatuuoalAua oql ul poumluoo uonstu.:ojq oql pataplsuoo
puU pamalAa,t aAUq flounoo 1710 pus uolsslunuoo SuluuUld agl 'SVaiia M
putt :soullopinO Va3o amIS oql Putt (VOHo) 1oV AlnlsnO luluaw
•uomug uluio3lluo oql gllm oouulldwoo ul loofad oql jo; Apn1S lunlul 8uuioddns gum
uopurnloap anpsSaN it pasdoid gouoff liodmoN jo Allo aril `SVStd3. 11M
/f;••: t pur. 7Allunwwoa Sulpunomm
1y•/yge
s
RESOLUTION NO, ,„p_ : .:•`•• %
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT is y
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH GENERAL PLAN FOR THE ZONTA CLUB SITE
IN CLIFF HAVEN'[GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89- '
2 (F)j
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the
Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and ;
WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, `CP;
supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan designates the general
distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities , " f
in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections,
the floor area ratio ordinances; and "
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as
required by California planning law; and "5
WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Y"
Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair. ,,• ,_,�jf^,
Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport - u:?�' R• :`"_ /_
sYy,lr,:
Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses ' .\
in Cliff Haven; and
WHEREAS, the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the
proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residential land use is compatible with the 1
surrounding community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration {+ '
t ivvi..:•"
n .
,May
ISH,gZ•68VdO\ZIZV
,: : :• SegaQ •V aawep
n;i• �
^, `,y•n
NVL� HD
" ;:•._.
Sotawod Sm
IlIi: ;,"�, •
.1�
Aff
I `f\j
,LNaSffV
S30N
F.,••(. 5
I.Y..L.•— j• ."� JL1l1Y
%C 1�1aa
y Sn-t�4 R� if#
r•; ' ?p :iim of lojoA 8ulmogo; ayi Sq 0661 3o SEP — s!qi CISMOQV
•asn puul ul a8uuga oql wot; iinsw galgm sa8urgo leallstluls oql loallat
wz k.:- of popuawu oslc arc Iuowola osfl Pu'I oqi 3o L8 Put: 198 IZS solid no sltego ayy
'•xT". ', ter 41 ^s
In= p:lluopisag Sj!wc3 tilnY4 ayI
ul rate jai olgePllnq;o i;bs gLI Z yara jo; pamolir si itun auo pun srair Iriluapisag
Slnuu3 oA\, ui ;uawdolanap xoldnp io; ponnbat si vom lol algupunq 3o 'jibs OOOIZ
< ;o wnwiuiw V shun 8niiiamp 0 gy5 polmollu si vain aqy •pamolie si shun Buiiiamp
lcuoplppe ul ilnsat ifim galgm uolslnlpgns oN •asn puui pclluopisag Slpuud-PinYY to
l P �I 1 3 M L 3 q q I P P q P i 3 t S cgua lsa S lwe o to umo s seats owos lrm yuawdo ana a oela S lwc a Sul
to;Sllueupuopwd poludisop sl care *ILLSemgEiH MOD lsam pnB anuQ Mod lams
• F '"ri gi9i lanuoAV oumil Sq papunoq puui lupuoplsat lle sopniouc rain slgy uaAeH 3JgD
:IS *and
2�: i'•'' :smopo; su Illouno0 SI!O oq; of lenoidde
Asa• ,., to; papuawwoaat sl ucld letauan ayi of luawpuawe uc iegl yosag ItodmaN;o SilO ayl
X . ;o uolsslwwo0 8uluuuld aql Sq QaA'IOSax LI aff'axOdElUaRL`mON
!' •unld intaua0 goeog iiodmoN agi ;o luowolg asn puuZ ayl of luawpuowe posodwd
agl no uolslaap s1i 8upluw ul ivawwop p;;uauwotlnuo oql ul pouieiuoa uopewto;ul
oql pataplsuoo pun pomolnat suq uolsslwwoo 8uiuuuld oqi ISVa2iaHm
,Jr an Isar a n a c a ur o S
:;;•5:.: ;. P Il P! O VOaO l lS ql P (VOaO) 3 V gicna lrtuaw
%� % t'• ' uomug uluto;llu0 oqi gllm aauulldwoo ul Ioofatd alga to; Apn1S Irryiui 9uiltoddns yllm
•
COMMISSIONERS January 4, 1990
MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
perpetuity so as to limit the occupancy of the` second
dwelling unit to one or two adults 60 years of age or
and committing the permittee and successors to co ly
with current ordinances regarding Granny Units. Said
covenant shall also contain all conditions of proval
imposed by the Planning Commission or the Ci Council.
4. Commencing with the final inspection of Granny Unit
by a City Building Inspector and on an ual basis every ,
year thereafter, the property owner all submit to the
Planning Director the names and W h dates of any and
all occupants of the Granny Unit onstructed pursuant to
this approval to verify occupan by a person or persons
60 years of age or older. U on any change of tenants,
the property owner shall no ' the City immediately. This
information shall be sub 'tted in writing and contain a '
statement signed by property owner certifying under
penalty of perjury t all of the information is true and
correct.
5. That the p ' residence or the Granny Unit shall be
continuousl occupied by at,least one person having an
ownershi interest in the property.
6. That ne inoependently accessible garage space shall be
pr ded for ;he Granny Unit at all times.
7. at this use permit shall expire unless exercised within
24 months from the date of approval as specified in
Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -
A General Plan Amendment No 89-2M(Public Hearing) Item Mo.12
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan GPA 89-2F
so as to change the land use designation of the subject property
from "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" to TS 62
"Single Family Attached" with a density of one unit for each A700 b -
2,178 square feet of land area; and the acceptance of an
environmental document. TTMI4186
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach SPR 54
AND
-46-
4
COMMISSIONERS January 4, 1990MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROIL CALL I I INDEX
Li Traffic Study. No 62 (Public Hearing) • Approved
Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the
construction of a 15 unit residential condominium development
on the subject property.
AND
C. Amendment No 700 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend portions of Districting Map No. 21 so as to
reclassify the subject property from the R-3 District to the MFR
(2178) SPR District and to establish a 20 foot front yard setback
along the 15th Street frontage of the subject property.
AND
D. Tentative Map of Tract No 14186 (Public Hearing)
Request to subdivide two existing lots into a single lot for a 15
unit residential condominium development.
AND
E. Site Plan Review No 54 (Public Hearing)
Request to approve a site plan review for the purpose of
permitting a residential density bonus of 3 units within a 15 unit
residential condominium development and a request to approve
a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the
construction two stairs and two entry decks with handrails within
the proposed 20 foot front yard setback which exceed three feet
in height. The proposal also includes a modification to the
Zoning Code so as to permit a 3 foot encroachment into the
required 16 foot side yard setback adjacent to the easterly
property line.
LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Tract No. 1718, located at
2001 and 2101 15th Street, on the
southeasterly comer of 15th Street and Irvine -
Avenue, in Cliff Haven.
ZONE: R-3
-47-
/c�
• January 4, 1990MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
` 1\ ? -
�-\ A\� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL I INDEX
APPLICANTS: James G. White Jr. and Lawrbnce M.
Campeau, Costa Mesa
OWNER: Zonta Club of Newport Harbor Foundation,
Newport Beach
ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers and Associates, Inc., Costa
Mesa
James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred tothe Addendum
to the staff report containing more specific information regarding
open space and the FAR of the project. He explained that the
open space required under the MFR Standard is 92,838 cubic
feet and the proposed project maintains 160,000 cubic feet; the
location of open space contiguous to the front yard setback
would require 23,210 cubic feet, the project is proposing 34,496
cubic feet; contiguous to the rear yard setback would require
23,210 cubic feet and the project is proposing 44,464 cubic feet;
open on two sides and to the sky would require 46,420 cubic feet
and the project is proposing 78,960 cubic feet; the FAR in the
MFR District allows 34,229 square feet of floor area and the
project is proposing 25,000 square feet without the subterranean
parking 'and 34,074 square feet of floor area including the
parking structure; and the FAR requires 1.75 and the project is
proposing 1.74 FAR. Mr. Hewicker stated that the /MFR
standard building height is 28 feet and the ridge height of 33
feet, and the project has an average roof height of 25 feet with
a ridge height of 29 feet.
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr. Larry Campeau, applicant, appeared before the Planning
Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and
conditions in Exhibit "A".
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr.
Campeau explained that the six stairs located in the front yard
setback rise three feet and the stairs do not start at the curb.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr.
Campeau stated that there is currently a 4 foot wide sidewalk
that will be increased to a width of 8 feet and an additional 2
feet to the front property line along the 15th Street frontage,
before the subject property begins, and the development is 20
feet from that point; therefore, the project is 30 feet from back
of curb and 4 feet back from the existing apartments along 15th
-48-
}
COMMISSIONERS + 0 .
January,4, 1990MINUTES
,o
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
Street. Commissioner Glover supported the residentiaj project;
however, she stated her concerns with regard to visibility and
traffic at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street
inasmuch as there are three schools located in the vicinity. Don
Webb, City Engineer, explained that the applicants Were required
to shift the project so as to create the desired setback for the
wall which is proposed to be 6 feet from the property line or 16
feet from back of curb along the Irvine Avenue frontage of the
site, which would meet the sight line requirements for the speeds
in the area.
Mr. Bill Dunlap, 400 Snug Harbor, appeared before the Planning
Commission on behalf of the Cliff Haven Homeowners
Association wherein he stated that the Association supports the
project. He stated that there is a concem with regard to the
traffic in the area at the time the project is under construction.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr.
Dunlap supported the projeces design concept which blends with
the adjacent high school's architecture. Discussion ensued
regarding the Site Plan Review that requires the applicant to
adhere to the design plans that are submitted with the
application.
Dr. Jan VanderSloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the
Planning Commission, Dr. VanderSloot addressed the statistical
profile as stated in the foregoing addendum to the staff report
as opposed to the figures that were provided in the staff report.
Mr.Hewicker stated that the calculations differ because when the
buildable area was calculated and the required setbacks were
subtracted from the gross area of the plan, the comers were
counted twice in error. Dr. VanderSloot and Mr. Hewicker
discussed the open space that is in the middle of the project.
Dr. VanderSloot stated that the ,project is built out to the
maximum requirements and the three affordable units cause the
project to be more dense than what is allowed. Chairman
Pomeroy stated that the State of California requires any
jurisdiction to grant up to a minimum 25 percent density bonus
when the applicant agrees to make at least 25 percent the
dwelling units in the project affordable. He stated that it is the
City's housing policy to grant the adjustments whenever a
developer is willing to build the affordable units.
Mr. Jerry Nininger, 411 - 15th Street, appeared before the
Planning Commission. He supported the project with the
following exceptions: that the residential development may
-49-
/oZ
January 4, 1990
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
increase the traffic congestion at the intersection bf Irvine
Avenue and 15th Street, and the residents may park illegally in
the alley and not in the subterranean parking structure. Mr.
Webb explained that there is a 2 1/2 foot setback on each side
of the alley so the alley between the garage doors maintains a
width of 25 feet, which is adequate.
Mr. Mike Taylor, Cliff Haven Homeowners Association, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Taylor addressed the
white curb that is used for loading and unloading students that
currently exists in front of the proposed 'development and he
requested a continuity of the required sidewalks on other
properties at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street.
Mr. Webb stated that the white curb may have been installed
because of the Zonta Club, and the Traffic Affairs Committee
and the Traffic Engineer will make the decision if the white curb
remains. Mr. Webb further stated that it is the responsibility of
the property owners to initially construct curb, gutter, and
sidewalks or the City Council could budget funds for the
improvements at the comer of the subject intersection.
Commissioner Pers6n stated that the Planning Commission does
not have jurisdiction over the color of the curb.
Mr. Campeau reappeared before the Planning Commission to
state that a resident would be more likely to park an automobile
.in the guest parking space than in the alley inasmuch as the
access from a dwelling unit to the alley is not convenient.
There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the
public hearing was closed at this time.
Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve General Plan
Ayes * * * * * * Amendment No. 89-2(F) (Resolution No. 1210),Traffic Study No.
Absent * 62, Amendment No. 700, Tentative Map of Tract No. 14186, and
Site Plan Review No. 54, subject to the findings and conditions
in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Findings:
1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the
project - in compliance with the California
Environmdntal Quality Act (CEQA), the State
CEQA Guidelines and City policy.
-50-
COMMISSIONERS January 4, 1990MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
2. That based upon the information contained in the
Initial Study, the project is not anticipated to have
a significant effect on the environment. A Negative
Declaration has, therefore, been prepared.
3. That the information contained in the
environmental document has been considered in the
decision on the project.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Development of the site shall be subject to a
grading permit to be approved by the Building and
Planning Departments.
2. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for
temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to
minimize impacts from silt, debris and other water
pollutants.
3.. The grading permit shall include a description of
haul routes, access points to the site, watering and
sweeping program designed to minimize the impact
of haul operations.
4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be
submitted and be subject to the approval of the
Building Department and a copy forwarded to the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Sanfa Ana Region.
5. The grading, excavation 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.
6. The recommendations of the geotechnical
investigation, prepared for the project by EJN
-51-
' • January 4, 1990
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
Geotechnical dated October 25, 1989, .shall be
complied with as required by the Newport Beach
Building Department.
7. 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 tq the occupancy of
any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall
certify to the Planning Department- that the
landscaping has been installed in accordance with
the prepared plan.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Excavation of the subterranean parking structure
shall be limited to the hours of operation between
8:am and 4:pm, Monday through Saturday.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-2(F) Adopt
Resolution No. 1210, recommending approval of General
Plan Amendment 89-2(F) to the City Council.
-, TRAFFIC STUDY NO, 62,
Findings:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which
analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the
morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and
circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15AO
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City
Council Policy S-1.
-52-
i
. January 4, 1990MINUTEEP
COMMISSIONERS
A VO O O� i
OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
2. That the project does not create traffic which
exceeds 1% on any approach leg of potentially
affected intersections in the vicinity of the project.
3. That the traffic study indicates that the project will
neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory
level of service on any major, primary-modified, or
primary street.
j� AMENDMENT NO. 700. 'Recommend approval of
Amendment No. 700 to the City Council, an amendment
to a portion of Districting Map No. 21 rezoning the site
from R-3 to R-3 (2,178) - SPR and to establish a 20 foot
front yard setback on 15th Street, with the following
findings:
1. That the Lamendment is necessary to implement the
provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan.
2. That the proposed project cannot be implemented
without the proposed amendment.
TENTATIVE MAP OF tRAt'r NO 14186
Findings:
1. 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 design of the subdivision.
2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems
from a planning standpoint.
3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements will not confliict with any easements
acquired by the public at large for access through
or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
4. That public improvements may be required of the
developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
-53-
' • January 4, 1990
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
p� Dd d,dd
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
Conditions: '
1. That a final map be recorded prior to issuance of
building permits. That the final 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 tract map
or obtain a building permit prior to completion of
the public improvements.
4. That each dwelling unit be served with an
individual water service and sewer lateral
connection to the public water and sewer systems
unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Department.
5.' That the intersection of Irvine Avenue with 15th
Street and Irvine Avenue with the adjacent alley be
designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 30
miles per hour. Slopes, landscapes, walls and other
obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance
requirements. Landscaping and structures 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.
6. That the proposed wall along Irvine Avenue be set
back to provide for landscaping and sight distance
as approved by Public Works Department.
7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior
to the issuance of any building permits.
8. That all vehicular access to the property be from
the adjacent alley.
-54-
I
COMMISSIONERS • • January 4, 1990MINUTE64
,o �oo•o� �
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
9. That the existing 4 foot sidewalk be widened to 8
foot along 15th Street and Irvine Avenue.
Deteriorated and displaced sections of the existing
sidewalk shall be replaced. The curb return shall be
constructed on a 25 foot radius. The sidewalk access
ramp be constructed at the southeast comer of 15th
Street and Irvine Avenue and at the intersection of
Irvine Avenue and the alley. -The deteriorated
portion of the alley be reconstructed. All work shall
be constructed under an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department.
10. That street, drainage and utility improvements be
shown on standard improvement plans prepared by
a licensed civil engineer.
11. That a 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 recording the tract map.
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.
12. That the overhead utility lines on 15th Street and
Irvine Avenue be underground.
13. That the Public Works Department,plan check and
inspection fee be paid.
14. That the developer, prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, shall submit a construction
operation plan to the Building and Public Works
Departments for approval. The plan is to discuss
the construction scheduling for the various phases
of the project and show how the operations have
been planned to minimize the noise and earth
moving impacts on the high school operations. The
plan shall include considerations of the safety of
the students walking, riding bicycles and driving to
-55-
COMMISSIONERS January 4, 1990MINUTES
0 �d��,'3 i
01 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
and from the high school and Horace Ensign
Intermediate school. Deliveries, earth hauling and
concrete placement should be scheduled to occur at
non peak traffic hours or school holidays. Peak
traffic periods are 7:30 am. to 8:30 a.m. and 2:00
p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The plan is also to include a
parking proposal that shows where construction
workers will park without using on street parking
except adjacent to the site. .
15. That a minimum 4 feet wide paved walkway
separated from traffic be maintained along the
Irvine Avenue frontage at all times during the
construction period and there be no parking or
storing of materials along Irvine Avenue.
16. Disruption caused by construction work along
roadways and by movement of construction vehicles
shall be min9mized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and
transportation of equipment and materials shall be
conducted in accordance with state and local
requirements. A traffic control plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. No construction storage or delivery of
materials shall occur within the State right-of-way.
Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a parking
plan for workers must be submitted and approved
by the Public Works Department.
F SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, 54,
Findings:
1. That the project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Adequate off-street parking is being provided in
conjunction with the proposed development.
3. The project will comply with all applicable City and
State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for
-56-
! •
COMMISSIONERS January 4, 1990MIIVU7E�S
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
new building applicable to the district in which the
proposed project pis located, except those items
requested in conjunction with the proposed
modifications.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. That a density bonus of three units is consistent
with the ,requirements of Section 65915 of the
California Government Code.
Conditions:
1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plans, and elevatiSns, except as may be noted
below.
2. The design and layout of subterranean parking and
ramp shall be subject to further review and
approval of the Traffic Engineer.
3. A construction parking plan shall be approved prior
to the issuance of any building or grading permit.
4. That the ramp to the subterranean parking structure
be designed to city standards and the driveway
ramp not exceed 29o' slope within the alley setback
area.
5. That a minimum of two parking spaces for each
dwelling unit plus'bne-half guest parking space for
each dwelling unit be provided on-site.
-57-
. R I Y 0 r
COMMISSIONERS January 4, 1990MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
r
6. That guest parking spaces be independently
accessible and be identified as guest parking in a
manner acceptable to the Traffic Engineer.
7. That all parking areas shall be striped with '
approved traffic markers or painted white lines not
less than 4 inches wide.
8. Parking areas shall have a maximum 5% slope.
9. That the final design of on-site parking, vehicular
circulation and pedestrian circulation shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
10. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall
be screened from adjoining properties.
11. 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. Said landscape plan
shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, Public
Works Department and the Planning Department.
12. That all conditions of Tentative Map of Tract No.
14186 shall be fulfilled.
13. That a siltation, dust, and debris control plan shall
be submitted and be subject to approval by the
Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded
to the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Santa Ana Region. This shall be a
complete plan for temporary and permanent
facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt,
debris, and other water pollutants.
14. That the siltation, dust, and debris control plan
shall include a description of haul routes, access
points to the site, watering, and sweeping program
designed to minimize impact of haul operations.
-58-
I`
COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES
o.o �ao� o� January 4, 1990
\ CITYOF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
15. The project shall provide 3 affordable units. The
affordable units provided shall be affordable to
moderate income families if the units are for sale
or to low income families at fair market rent if the
units are rented by the applicant or successors in
interest, in accordance with the provisions of the
Newport Beach Housing Element.
16. The term of affordability shall be twenty years.
17. This site plan review shall expire unless exercised
within 24 months from the date of approval as
specified in Section 20.01.070 J of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code.
• t R
A General Plan Amendment No 89-3( (Public Hearing) Item No.13
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Gener Ian GPA 89-3E
so as to increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio of a Our
Lady Queen of Angels Church from 0.15 to 0.16 ; and the TS61
acceptance of an environmental document. UP991A
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport B ch Cont'd to
1-18-90
AND
B. Traffic Stu N (Publicme
Ll
Request • to .approve •a ' tc study . so as '-to. permit the.
construction of a 23,534 square foot addition to the'Our Lady
Queen of Angels Ch• ch.
AND
it N li n
Re st to amend a previously approved use permit which
wed the establishment of the existing Our Lady Queen of
Angels Church. The proposed amendment involves a request to i
-59-
I
/ ...
Planning Commission Meeting January 4. 1990
Agenda Item No. 12
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment No 89-2(F) (Public Hearingl
i Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so
as to redesignate the subject property from "Govemmenta4
Educational and Institutional Facilities" to "Single Family Attached"
with a density of one dwelling unit for each 2,178 sq. ft. of buildable
lot area; and the acceptance of an environmental document.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
AND
B. Traffic Study. No. 62 (Public Hearing)
Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction
of a 15 unit residential condominium development on the subject
property.
AND
c C. Amendment No. 700 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend portions of Districting Map No. 21 so as to
reclassify the subject property from the R-3 District to the MFR
(2,178) SPR District and to establish a 20 foot front yard setback
along the 15th Street frontage of the subject property.
AND
D. Tentative Map of Tract No. 14186 ((Public Hearing)
Request to subdivide two existing lots into a single lot for a 15 unit
•,: residential condominium development.
AND
'n 02 3
TO: Punning Commission - 2.
E. Site Plan Review No. 54 (Public Hearinp)
Request to approve a site plan review for the purpose of permitting
a residential density bonus f)f 3 units within a 15 unit residential
condominium development and a request to approve a modification
to the Zoning Code sp as to allow the construction of two stairs and
two entrydecks within the r osed 20 foot front and setback which
P k�PY
exceed three feet in height. The proposal also includes a
modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit a three foot
encroachment into the required 16 foot side yard setback adjacent
to the easterly property line.
LOCATION: Lot 1 and lot 2 of Tract No. 1718, located at 2001 and 2101 15th
Street, on the southeasterly comer of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue
in Cliff Haven.
ZONE: R-3
APPLICANT: James G. White, Jr. and Lawrence M. Campeau, Costa Mesa
OWNER: Zonta Club of Newport Harbor Foundation, Newport Beach
ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers & Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa
Applications
a
The applications described above will, if approved, allow construction of a fifteen unit
condominium project. The .proposal includes a density bonus of three units as part of
an affordable housing agreement. The requested General Plan density is now one unit
for each 2,178 sq. ft. of buildable lot area. General Plan Amendment procedures are
in City Council Policy Q-1; Amendment procedures are contained in Chapter 20.84,
Tentative Tract Map procedures are in Chapter 19.12, and Site Plan Review Procedures
are in Chapter 20.01 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Environmental Significance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City Policy, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based
upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been, determined that the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration
has, therefore, been prepared for the consideration of the Planning Commission.
.Conformance with the General Plan
a '
r The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for
Governnieni!4 Educational and Institutional Facilities. This category allows uses including
governmental facilities such as police stations, fire stations, utility yards, postal service
TO: Planning Commission - 3.
facilities, and libraries; educational uses such as schools, and day care centers; and
institutional facilities such as hospitals, churches, utility stations, museums, social and
educational clubs, and senior citizen housing facilities. The land use designation does
not allow for residential land uses, which are considered an appropriate use in areas
designated for Multi-Family Residential or Single Family Attached. The p;oposed project
is located in Cliff Haven (Statistical Division 113). This area is allocated a total of 542
dwelling units. Presently there are 519 dwelling units.
The proposed residential development is not consistent with the uses allowed in the
Govemmenta4 Educational and Institutional Facilities land use designation. A General
Plan Amendment is required to change the land use designation to Single Family
Attached with a specific density of one dwelling unit for each 2,178 sq.ft. of buildable lot
area in order to approve the project. Additionally, the projected development for the
Cliff Haven area must be amended to provide for the increased dwelling units in the
area. The project is outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and approval of a Coastal
Development Permit is not required.
Subject Proper and Surrounding Land Use
The subject property is developed with a 5,797 sq.ft single story building (Zonta Club).
To the west of the property, across Irvine Avenue, is single family detached residential.
To the north across 15th Street, is Newport Harbor High School. To the east and south
is multi-family residential development.
Statistical SummM
Standard Proposed Project MFR (2,178) Standard
Dwelling units 15 12
Gross land area 27,750 sq.ft. 6,000 sq.ft.
Building area 23,236 sq.ft. 27,077 sq.ft.
a FAR 0.84 1.75
Parking spaces 38 23
Parking per unit 2.5 2.5
Analysis
A series of approvals is necessary to allow construction of the proposed project. Each
approval is discussed separately.
General Plan Amendment 89-2(F). An amendment to the General Plan Land Use
Element is necessary to allow construction of the project. The amendment will revise the
total allocation of dwelling units allowed for the Cliff Haven area (page 51) as follows:
a
Cliff Haven. This area includes all residential land bounded by Irvine
Avenue, 16th Street, Dover Drive and West Coast Highway. The area is
designated predominantly for Single Family Detached development, with
�S
TO: Panning Commission - 4.
some areas shown for Two-Family Residential or Multi-Family Residential
,. land use. No subdivision which will result in additional dwelling units is
allowed. The area is allocated 542 #S! dwelling units. A minimum of
2,000 sq.ft. of buildable lot area is required for duplex development in Two
Family Residential areas, and one unit is allowed for each 2,178,s qft. of
buildable lot area in the Multi-Family Residential areas."
The charts on pages 52, 86, and 87 of the Land Use Element will also be amended to
reflect the statistical changes which result from the change in land use.
There are two primary issues associated. with the change.of the site to Multi-Family .
Residential: the compatibility of the use with the area and the increased building bulk
which will result from residential development.
Compatibility of Land Use. The project site is located on 15th Street at Irvine Avenue.
The requested density of 2,178 sq.ft. of buildable lot area is consistent with the density
allowed in the Cliff Haven area, which is one unit for each 2,118 sgft. of buildable lot
area. Additionally, the residential development proposed by this amendment will reduce
the amount of traffic generated by the existing use of the site.
Prior to the adoption of the revised General Plan Land Use Element in October, 1988,
this site was designated for Multi-Family Residential land use. Staff suggested the change
to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities due to the long standing
institutional development of the site. The site is still zoned for residential development.
It is the opinion of staff that the location of the property at the southeasterly comer of
15th Street and Irvine Avenue, surrounded by residential development from three sides
and Newport Harbor High School to the north, makes the property appropriate for
residential development.
Building Bulk. The change from Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities
to residential land use designation will significantly increase the permitted floor area and
building bulk on the site. , The subject property is presently occupied with a single story
building that contains 5,797 sq.ft. (per building permit records), representing a floor area
ratio of 0.37.. This project is proposed to be constructed at 1.5 times the buildable area
of the site, or 23,236 sq.ft. The Multi-Family Reside,ttial (MM) District allows
residential development at 1.75 times the buildable lot area, which would allow 27,071
sq.ft.
Traffic Study No. 59. A traffic study has been prepared for the proposed project in
conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The
proposed project is expected to be completed in 1990. Analyses were, therefore,
completed for 1991. The City Traffic Engineer identified ten (10) intersections which
could be affected by the project at full occupancy.
Iq The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% traffic volume analysis,
taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic.
For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater
�6
TO: Planning Commission - 5.
a
than 1% of the projected peak 21/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon,
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is required.
The 1% volume analysis indicated that no intersections exceeded the one percent criteria.
Further ICU analysis is not required. The project meets the criteria of the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance. '
Amendment No. 700. It is proposed to rezone the subject property from R-3 to MFR
(2,178) - SPR. Also requested is the establishment of a 20 foot front yard setback on
15th Street. This zoning designation will set the maximum density for the site consistent
with the General Plan, and designate the site for Site Plan, Review. Site Plan Review
will allow the Planning Commission to review the specifics of the site plan given the
constraints of the property and the concerns of the neighborhood. The twenty foot
setback proposed for 15th Street is typical of setbacks established on Districting Map 21
for multi-family residential in the Cliff Haven area. It is important to note, however,
that the 20 foot front yard setback is being applied to the wider side of the property.
Under usual circumstances, the front yard of the property would be Irvine Avenue. The
establishment of the front yard on Irvine Avenue also results in wider side yard setbacks
than would otherwise have been required, since the MFR District requires the side yard
to be 89o' of the lot width, and this will now be calculated from the widest property
' dimension. Staff has no objections to this request.
Tentative Map of Tract No. 14028. In order to construct the condominium project,
approval of a Tentative Tract Map is required. Lot 1 contains 0.637 acre (27.750 sq.ft.)
and meets the standards contained in the Subdivision Code. Staff has no objections to
the request.
Site Plan Review No. 54. Amendment No. 700 places the project in the SPR - Site Plan
Review District. Additionally, Site Plan Review is required in conjunction with the
approval of a Residential Density Bonus. The review of site plans have specific
standards of review as established in Section 20.01.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code. Many of the standards of judgemenx for the review of site plans relate to sites
which have unique environmental or scenic'resources, which do not apply to this site.
These are Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12. ' The remaining standards are listed below,
with a brief discussion of the project as it relates to each.
f
2. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and
surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious
development of the surroundings and:of the City: The project site is immediately
adjacent to multi-family residential land uses. This project is similar in density to
these apartment projects. The project is also considered to be compatible with
the single-family homes across Irvine Avenue.
7. Site plan and layout of buildings, pnrkdng areas, pedestrian and vehicular access
ways, and other site features 'shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of
site development: The quality of the site plan is greatly influenced by the
placement of all parking in a subterranean parking structure. This reduces the
overall building mass and bulk, and minimizes the effect of the additional units
TO: P•lanning Commission - 6. h
requested via density bonus. Separate, independent access to each unit is provided
from the parking structure, as well as at grade level. Each unit has a private
{= patio or yard. The site plan makes specific provision for adequate sight distance,
both from the parking structure to the alley and from the alley to Irvine Avenue.
The latter is particularly important, since pedestrian and bicycle traffic associated
with the high school occurs on Irvine Avenue.
8. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable Specific
Area Plan policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those
policies and objectives. As discussed in the General Plan Compliance section, the
proposed-project is consistent with the General Plan.
10. When feasiblg electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage
areas shall be concealed. The trash enclosure for the project is located at the
alley, which is typical for residential projects in the area.
t
Setbacks. The project requested to establish a 20 foot front yard setback along 15th
Street frontage of the subject property. The site has a width of greater than fifty feet
and would require a side yard setback of 8% or a distance of 16.16 ft. for each side of
i the project. The lot is adjacent to a 20 foot wide alley and requires a rear setback of
2.5 feet. A modification to the Zoning Code has been requested to allow two stairs and
entry decks with handrails within the 20 foot front yard setback which exceed three feet
in height. Staff has no objections to this request. Also requested is a modification to
allow the building to encroach 3.16 feet into the required 16.16 foot setback on the
interior side property line. This encroachment is necessary in order to provide adequate
sight distance on the Irvine Avenue side of the property. Staff has no objection to this
request because a sufficient setback of 13 feet is being maintained, and the choice of the
proponent to establish the front yard on the 15th Street frontage results in wider side
yard setback requirement than usual.
Density Bonus, Section 65915 of the California Government Code requires cities to
grant a density bonus over the otherwise allowable maximum residential density under
the applicable Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance when the
developer agrees to construct at least 25 percent of the units in the project not including
bonus units for persons and families of low or moderate income as defined by state
standards. The developer has agreed to provide the 3 density bonus units as affordable
consistent with the provisions of the Newport Beach Housing Element.
Conclusions and Specific Findings
The adoption and amendment of the General Plan is considered a legislative act on the
part of the City, and State Planning Law does not set forth any required findings for
either approval or denial of a General Plan Amendment. Section 19.12.020 (D) provides
,G that the Commission shall make specific findings in order to .approve a tract map.
Should the Planning Commission desire to approve this proposal, a series of Resolutions
must be adopted, and Findings and Conditions of Approval established. Exhibit "A"
TO: Planning Commission - 7.
defines the various actions for approval. The site plan of the project does not pose any
problems upon which to base findings for denial. If public testimony raises specific areas
of concern, they can form the basis of findings for denial.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By
z W. Aslami
Associate Planner '
AZIZ\GPA89-2F.104
Attachments:
1. Exhibit 'W'
2. Draft Resolution No.
3. Vicinity Map
4. Negative Declaration
5. Traffic Study
6. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
7. Tentative Tract Map
r
TO: fuung Commission - 8
EXHIBIT "A"
ACTIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-2 (F)
AMENDMENT NO. 700
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 54
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 14186
A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Findings:
1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with
.; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City policy.
2. That based upon.the information contained in the Initial Study, the project
is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared.
3. That the information contained in the environmental document has been
considered in the decision on the project.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved
by the Building and' Planning Departments.
2. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and
permanent drainage facilities, to minimize impacts from silt, debris and
y other water pollutants.
`2 3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes,, access points
'to the site, watering and sweeping,program designed to numml e the impact
of haul operations.
4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject
to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
5. The grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be 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.
TO: Planning Commission - 9
6. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation, prepared for the
project by EJN Geotechnical dated October 25, 1989, shall be complied
with as required by the Newport Beach Building Department.
7. 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 any structure, the licensed landscape architect
shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been
installed in accordance with the prepared plan.
8. 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: I
9. 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.
10. Excavation of the subterranean parking structure shall be limited to the
hours of operation between 8:am and 4:pm, Monday through Saturday.
g GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-2(F) Adopt Resolution No. ,
recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 89-2(F) to the City Council.
C. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 62
Findings:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the
proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and
circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1.
2. That the project does not create traffic which exceeds 1% on any approach
leg of potentially affected intersections in the vicinity of the project.
3. That the traffic study indicates that the project will neither cause nor make
worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any major, primary-modified, or
primary street.
AMENDMENT NO. 700. Recommend approval of Amendment No. 700 to the
City Council, an amendment to a portion of Districting Map No. 21 rezoning the
site from R-3 to R-3 (2,178) - SPR and to establish a 20 foot front yard setback
,, on 15th Street, with the following findings:
TO: Onning Commission - 10
It
if 1. That the amendment is necessary to implement the provisions of the
Newport Beach General Plan.
G:
2. That the proposed project cannot be implemented without the proposed
amendment.
E TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 14186 ,
Findings:
1. 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 design of the
subdivision. -
,: 2. That the proposed subdivision 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 public improvements may be required of the developer per Section
19.08.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Conditions:
1. That a final map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. That
the final map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a
basis of bearing.
us 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 tract map or obtain a building permit prior to
completion of the public improvements.
4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and
sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Department.
5. That the intersection of Irvine Avenue with 15th Street and Irvine Avenue
with the adjacent alley be designed to provide sight distance for a speed
of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscapes, walls and other obstruction shall
be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping and structures
3a
.,., +.. ... ... .......... mot. .. . .. ..6. . �? ... ,
TO: Planning Commission - 11
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.
6. That the proposed wall along Irvine Avenue be set back Ito provide for
landscaping and sight distance as approved by Public Works Department.
7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
8. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley.
9. That the existing 4 foot sidewalk be widened to 8 foot along 15th Street
and Irvine Avenue. Deteriorated and displaced `sections of the existing
sidewalk shall be replaced. The curb return shall be constructed on a 25
foot radius. The sidewalk access ramp be constructed at the southeast
comer of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue and at the intersection of Irvine
Avenue and the alley. The deteriorated portion of the alley be
reconstructed. All work shall be constructed under an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department.
10. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard
improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer.
11. That a 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 recording the tract map. 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.
12. That the overhead utility lines on 15th Street and Irvine Avenue be
underground.
13. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid.
14. That the developer, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, shall submit
a construction operation plan to the Building and Public Works
Departments for approval. The plan is to discuss the construction scheduling
for the various phases of the project and show how the operations have
been planned to minimize the noise and earth moving impacts on the high
school operations. The plan shall include considerations of the safety of the
students walking, riding bicycles and driving to and from the high school
and Horace Ensign Intermediate school. Deliveries, earth hauling and
concrete placement should be scheduled to occur at non peak traffic hours
or school holidays. Peak traffic periods are 7:30 am. to 8:30 am. and 2:00
p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The plan is also to include a parking proposal that shows
where construction workers will park without using on street parking except
adjacent to the site.
TO: Plannin g Commission - 12
15. That a minimum 4 feet wide paved walkway separated from traffic be
maintained along the Irvine Avenue frontage at all times during the
construction period and there be no parking or storing of materials along
Irvine Avenue.
16. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement
of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment
and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local
requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Public Works Department. No construction storage or delivery of materials
shall occur within the State right-of-way. Prior to issuance of any grading
permits, a parking plan for workers must be submitted and approved by the
Public Works Department. `
E SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, 54,
Findings:
1. That the project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Adequate off-street parking is being provided in conjunction with the
proposed development.
3. 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, except those items requested in conjunction
with the proposed modifications.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. That a density bonus of three units is consistent with the requirements of
Section 65915 of the California Government Code.
Conditions:
1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as may be noted below.
2. The design and layout of subterranean parking and ramp shall be subject
to further review and approval of the Traffic Engineer.
r
TO: Planning Commission - 13
i
3. A construction parking plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of any
building or grading permit.
4. That the ramp to the subterranean parking structure be designed to city
standards and the driveway ramp not exceed 2% slope Nyithin the alley
setback area.
5. That a minimum of two parking spaces for each dwelling unit plus one-
half guest parking space for each dwelling unit be provided on-site.
6. That guest parking spaces be independently accessible and be identified as
guest parking in a manner acceptable to the Traffic Engineer.
7. That all parking areas shall be striped with approved traffic markers or
painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide.
8. Parking areas shall have a maximum 5% slope.
9. That the final design of on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
10. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from
adjoining properties.
11. 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. Said landscape plan shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department,
Public Works Department and the Planning Department.
12. That all conditions of Tentative Map of Tract No. 14186 shall be fulfilled.
13. That a siltation, dust, and debris control plan shall be submitted and be
subject to approval by the Building Department and a copy shall be
forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa
Ana Region. This shall be a complete plan for temporary and permanent
facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water
pollutants.
14. That the siltation, dust, and debris control plan shall include a description
of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program
designed to minimize impact of haul operations.
15. The project shall provide 3 affordable units. The affordable units provided
shall be affordable to moderate income families if the units are for sale
or to low income families at fair market rent if the units are rented by the
applicant or successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of the
Newport Beach Housing Element.
TO: Cng Commission - 14
r
4+F
16. The term of affordability shall be twenty years.
17. This site plan review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from
the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 J of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code.
ZV
IG
iF
AZIZ\GPA89-2F.F&C
, ..,J..Y•...a•.i...•.•.•. •...•.✓•nw ♦ .. . . .. J•_.JJ. ••..•.qJ••.tll.YVTJtY•YS.:X>St4{i:)t2t]v:431ai1••(••)..rtµi4'•Vi ah.a•n...•Y S44t)hl.S•• aVl••.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH GENERAL PLAN FOR THE ZONTA CLUB SITE
IN CLIFF HAVEN [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-
2 (F)]
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the
R
I
Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and i
WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives,
supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan designates the general
distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities ,
in a number of ways,including residential land use categories and population projections,
the floor area ratio ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as
required by California planning law; and
WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair
Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport
Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and
WHEREAS,the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses
in Cliff Haven; and
WHEREAS,the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the
proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residential land use is compatible with the
surrounding community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration
i
' !S
with supporting Initial'Study for the project in compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the environmental document in making its decision on the
proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach Genera?Plan.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED'by the Planning Commission of
the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the General Plan is recommended for
approval to the City Council, as follows:
Page 51:
Cliff Haven. This area includes all residential land bounded by Irvine Avenue, 16th
Street,Dover Drive and West Coast Highway. The area is designated predominantly for
' Single Family detached development,with some areas shown for Two Family Residential
or Multi-Family Residential land use. No subdivision which will result in additional
` dwelling units is allowed. The area is allocated 5e M-dwelling units. A minimum of
2,000 sq.ft. of'buildable lot area is required for duplex development in Two Family
Residential areas and one unit is allowed for each 2,178 sgft. of buildable lot area in
the Multi-Family Residential area.
The charts on pages 52, 86, and 87 of the Land Use Element are also amended to
reflect the statistical changes which result from the change in land use.
ADOPTED this _day of__, 1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
b
BY
Gary
AMIAD eroy
CH
BY
Janice A.. a ay
SECRETARY
�l
AZIZ\GPA89-2RRS1
2
/b
VICINITY MAP
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80 - 2 (F)
AMENDMENT NO . 700
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO . 54
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO . 14186
tic
OJECT LOCATION
+ k
• SEW PART • •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
o�. J,
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: , Planning Department
1 Q 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 City of Newport Beach
Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
County Clerk of the CountyInj '
of Orange
P.O. Box 838
Santa Ana, CA492702
NAME OF PROJECT:
6neno4l 4A,
,-J eoukoc � //g L - �[ /) e�/�Q
PROJECT LOCATION: 1"114Q fi 4"01aAl l��eep,1�{9404(`J�F.L,I 0 e TF'i/(�.7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Da"OkAot Q¢ it p/�A41C 44� AWAI/l? JW
40116 f iftfaft 04 a 1�=u�f>< lOn�to�tirriuln �Ornj`ct tn[Midi q 3 atl�
dNlelk' un,=k�
�A FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to
- procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project
and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
N MITIGATION MEASURES: i .
gvywd
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: ^,I
INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 NGewwapoorrlt`Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA
. .
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING:
Environmental Coordinnatorp p
DATE:�OU�.U--07 /QC/
i
R 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
W
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM a
i
I. Background !�
1. Name of Proponent Il��ft 17Q{2/ODr7?2irf t'D/1�DDf1l1
�- Q ^-
2. rdr sand Php umbe�rg�� Proponent T. 0. &OX
i a9-
3. Date Checklist Submitted �1�qq{��lT7UQl� 81/9If9
4. Agency Requiring Checklist L l4 �d lllL/t
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable 50'n1A Ouh S//e
'� �anQomla�uns D¢�/aanpoLjrrf
II. Environmental Impacts v,wem` /Qa&
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures? _
a
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? _
ti
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? _
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
Soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic,,
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, v
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
- 1 -
Yes Maybe No
i
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors? _
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or-regionally? _
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
$ surface runoff? X
c. Alterations to the course or flow of x
flood waters? — —
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body? —
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature, 4
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
i
f. Alteration of .the direction or rate of X
flow of ground water? —
.a
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an v
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public X
water supplies?
,i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal V
waves? _— 3
f�
2 -
Yes Maybe No
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
ber of any species of plants (including trees, k
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? —
b. Reduction of the'numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants? A-
C. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal X
replenishment of existing species? —
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? - X
S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: l
a. Change -in the diversity of species, or num-
bers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms or insects)? —
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, X
rare or endangered species of animals? — —
C. Introduction of new species of animals into
sn area, or result in a barrier to the migra-
tion or movement of animals? —
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat? — —
6.' Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? —
7.. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? —
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area?
3 -
't3
1r Yes Maybe, No
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. 'Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? —
r
10. Risk of IIpset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions? _
b. Possible interference with an emergency '
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? — —
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human v
population of an area? _ L
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing v
or create a demand for additional housing? _ l�
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Ceneration'of substantial additional
m X' vehicular movement? —
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or `,
demand for new parking? _ _
C. Substantial impact upon existing trans-
portation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of ct.rcula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods? _
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?_
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov-
ernmental services in any of the following areas:
- 4 -
A '1 1 • •
Yes Maybe No
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection? —
C. Schools? —r 3
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ L�
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? — v
f. Other governmental services? L�
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
ti a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources or energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
I —
16. Utilites. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems,, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems? —
C. Water? �(
d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ vC
e. Storm water drainage? �4(
f. Solid waste and disposal? ^—
17. • Human Health. Will the proposal result in?
a. Creation of any healthfp?azard or potential
health heazard (excluding mental health)? _
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards? —
- 5 -
Yes Maybe No
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open X
to public view? — —
r
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
• recreational opportunities?
` 20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? X .
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? _
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect X
unique ethnic cultural values? _.
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses with the potential impact v
area? 1—►
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population
w to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
r` to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of u
California history or prehistory? _ J—►
- 6 -
Yes Maybe No
i
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) —
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two or
more separate resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on
the environment is significant.) "
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?—
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
IV. Determination
N
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a s'_lgnificant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signif-
icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect 'in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. L�—a
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q
Date Signature
C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For
- 7 -
•
°!I PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposed requires and amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan, as
well as the approval of a Tentative Tract Map, a Traffic Study, and an amendment to
the Zoning. If approved, these applications will allow construction of a 15 unit
condominium project with subterranean parking. Vehicular access to jhe site will be
taken from the adjacent alley.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Construction of the proposed project will require excavation and compaction of
the soil, and will change to topography of the site, in order to construct the
subterranean parking structure. The parking structure will then provide the
foundation for the dwelling units above. Potential signifigant environmental effects
which may result from this construction will be reduced to a level of insignificance
by the mitigation measures attached as conditions of approval to the project.
3. Construction of the proposed project has the potential to alter absorption rates
and drainage patterns on the site. Effects which may result from these changes
can be reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation -measures attached as
conditions of approval to the project.
6. The excavation and construction of the subterranean parking structure will result
in significant short term noise levels in the vicinity of the site. This effect is
important to consider, since the project site is adjacent to existing residential
development on three sides. This effect will be reduced to a level of
insignificance by a, mitigation measure limiting the hours of operation for
excavation.
` 7. Construction of the residential project will produce additional light and glare in
'the vicinity of the project. The light produced will be similar in nature to that
of the surrounding land uses, and this is, therefore, considered to be an
insignificant adverse impact.
i
8. The proposed residential development is inconsistent with the provisions of the
Newport Beach General Plan, which designates the site for Governmenta4
Educational and Institutional Facilities. The approvals requested for the project
include an amendment to the General Plan to redesignate the site to Multi-Family
Residential, which is the same as adjacent properties to the south and east. No
adverse environmental effects are anticipated to result from the change in land use
designation.
I Y� z c
:r MITIGATION MEASURES
1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by
the Building and Planning Departments.
2. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent
drainage facilities, to minimize impacts from silt, debris and other Water pollutants.
3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the
site, watering and sweeping program designed to min;mi the impact of haul
operations.
4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to
the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
5. The grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be 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.
6. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation prepared for the project
by EJN Geotechnical dated October 25, 1989 shall be complied with as required
the Newport Beach Building Department.
7. 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 any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the
Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with
the prepared plan.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Excavation of the subterranean parking structure shall be limited to the hours of
8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Saturday.
�- I
0 •
MITIGATION MONITORING
Mitigation measures 1-8 shall be verified for compliance prior to the issuance of the
grading permit by the City of Newport Beach. Measure 9 shall be verified for
compliance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Newport
Beach. Measure 10 shall be monitored by the Newport Beach Building Department.
ill
r
t
Draft
15th/IRVINE AVENUE TOWNHOMES
Prepared for.
City of Newport Bench
Prepared by.-
Austin-Foust Associates
1450 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 108
Santa Ana, California 92701
December 29, 1989
Yl
to CONTENTS
Pa a Ili
r i
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
TRIP GENERATION AND ,DISTRIBUTION i
TRAFFIC WACTS 4
CONCLUSIONS 19
c
f,
PROTECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of 15 townhomes to be located on the southeast comer of
15th Street and Irvine Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed townhomes are to
replace an existing senior citizen recreation center. Figure 1 illustrates the project site, and
Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. Access to the proposed residential development will be
via an existing alley off of Irvine Avenue.
Coast Highway is a regional east-west arterial through the•City of Newport Beach. North-
south regional access to the study area is from Newport Boulevard (SR-55), which connects to
several freeways to the north providing access to Orange County and beyond. South of Coast
Highway, Newport Boulevard enters the Balboa area where the highway terminates at Balboa
Boulevard.
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from the City of
Newport Beach peak hour rates for attached medium density residences. An average inbound rate
of.2 trips/DU and an outbound rate of.4 trips/DU for a total of.6 trips/DU were utilized for the
peak one hour AM period For the peak one hour PM period, the average rates are .5 trips/DU
inbound and .3 trips/DU outbound, for a total of.8 tri.)s/DU. These rates and the resulting project
trip generation are summarized in Table 1.
•Tabte 1, .
TRIP.GENERATION SUMMARY ..
L: USE •=8 • a OB •• TOTAL '.lg 0*8 ' : TOTAL ,
','TbiruBomes x5 bU .
Trip:6enerattoa 3' •4 12"•'
As this summary indicates, the pProPosed project will generate nine trips in the AM peak
hour and 12 trips in the PM peak hour. The trip generation was factored to obtain a peak 2.5
hour volume for the AM and PM peak periods. The peak 2.5 hour volumes were based on an
BRISTOL
J
N
a
N Z
� D t
a
Z
D,
MESA
DEL MAR UNIVERSITY]
6F.
50�
m 22ND
z
m m
0
j m
9p m
B
a �P T
TH
17TH
I, A� 0
9
0 �9 PROJECT LOCATION 6A��pE
m
0 15TH y
X
1y 5 z COAST
tiF
i
Figure 1
PROJECT LOCATION
®�AUSTIWFOUST A380CIATE3, INC.
1 a
15 TH STREET
,
r h
tlt� -- -• 202•SO -
b•
• �d g
W
>� olio;• \�� .`\\.�'•, ,�\ \`. _'•\\�\\j��
1�\\ \\' � � •``� off � _ \•�\• 1 1 I
-- 202 SO - tY
2 0' %L L E Y, N
IY•4: 16 -0' IY--W
Ux YU I1D
Figure 2
,�AYSTIN-FOYST ASSOCIATES, INC. SITE PLAN
estimated factor of 2.0 to account for the extension of the usual one-hour peak period. Traffic
generated by existing uses at the project site is generally subtracted from the trip generation of the
proposed project. However, observation of the existing senior citizen recreation center during the
PM peak period revealed very little activity. Therefore, credit for existing peak period traffic
generated by the project site is not given to the proposed project.
Distribution of project-generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns in the
vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the
location of the proposed project. The general trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 3. An
estimated 40 percent of project traffic is assumed to travel north along Irvine Avenue. Along Coast
Highway, 20 percent of project traffic is assumed to travel west out of the study area, and 30
percent is expected to travel east out of the study area. The remaining 10 percent is assumed to
1`
travel south out of the study area along Newport Boulevard.
t TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The City of Newport Beach identified 10 intersections,for analysis to determine the impact
of the proposed development These intersections are:
Coast Hwy/Riverside Ave IrvineAve/SantiagoDr-22ndSt
Cot st HwpTustin Ave Irvine Ave/University Dr
Coast Hwy/Dover Dr-Bayshore Dr Irvine Ave/Mesa Dr
Irvine Ave/Westcliff Dr-17th St Bristol SUCampusDr-Irvine Ave
Irvine Ave/Dover Dr-19th St Bristol St N/Campus Dr
The 1989 peak 2.5 hour volumes were provided for each intersection by the city staff. Since
the project is expected to be completed by 1991, the ambient growth rate of one percent was added
to all volumes along Coast Highway east of Newport Boulevard. A factor of 1.5 percent was added
to all volumes along Irvine Avenue.
The peak 2.5 hour volumes of all approved projects, also provided by the city, were added
to the peak 2.5 hour volumes. The resulting volumes represent the projected peak 2.5 hour
volumes prior to the addition of project traffic. A list of approved projects is given in Table 2.
5% BRISTOL
57 'u")
z i
ai
i to
<
z
MESA
-'DEL MAR 57--1,
^IND
z
w
0
19TH
z
<
17T1,10%
)t
ON
<p
15T
H
Ld AA
z
V)
COAST
LEGEND
XX%--O-=DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE 3
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES. INC.
t ° Table 2
,.1
APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY
APPROVED PROJECTS PERCENTAGE COMPLETED
Hughes Aircraft N1 100% Occupancy s
Far West Savings and Lan 100%Occupancy
Aetonutroulc Ford 100%Occupancy
Bads Bay Olga 100%Occupancy
Boyle Engineering 100%Occupancy
Cal Canadian Bank 100%Occupancy
Civic Plan 8996 Occupancy
Corpomtc'Plm 30%Occupancy
Ko0 Center Newport 100% Occupancy
MacArthur Court 100%Occupancy
Orchard Office 100% Occupancy
Pacific Mutual Plan 1009q Occupancy
3701 Birds Office 10096 Occupancy
Newport Place 86%Occupancy
Bank of Newport 100%Occupancy
Bayside Square 100%Occupancy
Sea Island 100% Occupancy
Baywood Apartments 100% Occupancy
Harbor Point Homes 100%Occupancy
Rogees Gardeas 100% Occupancy
Seaview,Lutheran Plana 100%Occupancy
Rudy Baron 100% Occupancy
Quail Business Center 100%Occupancy
441 Newport Blvd 100%Occupancy
Martha's Vineyard 100%Occupancy
Coast Business Center 100%Occupancy
Ross MOilard 100% Occupancy
Hughes Aircraft k2 100% Occupancy
Flagship Hospital 100%Occupancy
Big Canyon 10 29%Occupancy
Fun Zone 100%Occupancy
Marriott Hotel 100% Occupancy
St.Andrew's Church 100% Occupancy/
Allred Condos 100%Occupancy
Morgan Development 100% Occupancy.
Four Seasons Hotel 100% Occupancy
Univ.Ash Club TPP 4 EMKAY 100% Occupancy
Block 400 Medical • 100%Occupancy
iK Amendment*1 MacArthur Court 52%Occupancy
Amendment *2 Ford Aero 10096 Occupancy
Carver Granville OfBx 100% Occupaapy
Corona Del Mar Homes 100% Occupancy
Raan's Development 90%Occupancy
Block 500 Npt Center Project 100% Occupancy
Newport Aquatics Center 45% Occupancy
2600 IL Coast Hwy 100% Occupancy
Jasmine Park 100% Occupancy
Newporter Inn Expansion 106% Occupancy
Fashbn island Renaissance 100% Occupancy
CDM Senior Project 100% Occupancy
Point Del Mar 100% Occupancy
Pacific Club 100%Occupancy
Newport Seaarst Apts. 100%Occupancy
Seulde Apt&(Mesa 10 10090 Occupancy
Victoria Station(Office) 300%Occupancy
a Newport imports 100%Occupancy
Mariner's Mile Marine Center 100%Occupancy
15th St.Apt& 100%Occupancy
Sesside Apts.III 100%Occupancy
S ° 36
.: .... . ... .. ,. .:.anon:.,:. .nne ...
Table 2(con[.)
APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY
APPROVED PROJECTS PERCENTAGE COMPLETED
Amendment#1 Ford Acm 100%Occupancy
Amendment#1 North Ford 100%Occupancy r
Amendment#1 North Ford 100% Occupancy
Amendment #1 North Ford 100% Occupancy
r
379
.� A
� I
r:
eF One percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes of each approach of each intersection
was compared with the peak 2.5 hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary
of this comparison is shown in Table 3.
Tsbk3 '
46MMMy'oV"oNE•PERCENT ANALYSIS
AM.PROtECI'REA1C
2smou 'volt m L SS'r?3AP(196 OF 1991.
tNTERSttCI rOf4 NB 'tw LB WI3• PLr.AK 2 S HbtiR'VOI tTM6S. `
Coin H%yAUVeWde 0 3 1 R Yea
!G Cout Aygnwtin 0 1 0 ' - 0 Yes
CookHwyMdhfBA*0t+ 0' 3 0 2 Ya .
ltyih4Weifelifr171h '5 2 1 '4' Yts
�tvindOaNer-Y9tir 4 2 V, 0 Yea
ltvlpelSantis�oll2od 4 •2 10= 0. IralivirieJdtOvenrtp •4 • 2 0 0 Yea
livine/Mesa 3 . 2 0• 0 YEr
HltltnUCautptta trvtno 3 1 0.• Yes
Hriatai N1Cimpiu 3 ' 1 0 0 Yes
RM;PitO?{~dI'' F1ttC
25 HOrif+ZOL L9S§'MiAN MOF IM
INt M CPtON NB' •§B.. t D WB •• ,,., PLAK*2S HOUR VOL'UMt.+S
-Mut t!"YtR kmide' ,T 2 4 0, .Yes .
Co4i tiwyl1lu"6 . 0'. I. 1 0 Ya.- -
Cout.Hwyx6ci:nayahore 0 2 0 Yes.
IMttelWeuclt(f•191h• 3' 5' 2. 0: • Yes
rtYfnelDavet-19th ' 2t' S• :.. 0 0
hvia4§antri6a22od.. .2— 'S Q 0 yes
ItvGieNaivet>Fiy 2. 4 1 10 `Yo
Itvtndhteaa 2' 4 0 0 .Yes' .
Y♦rHtoi)Camptthltvitxr 2 3 L 0 Yes '
htistht t/Gmpu� 2 0 k. Ya
If one percent of the 1992 peak 2.5 hour volumes of each approach was larger than the
peak 2.5 hour project volumes,no further analyses were required. If project peak 2.5 hour volumes
were higher than one percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes on any approach of any
intersection,the intersection was analyzed using-the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) method.
Comparison of the one percent of the peak 2.5 hour volumes with the project peak 2.5 hour
volumes resulted in each intersection analyzed passing the one percent analysis and requiring no
further analysis. The one percent analysis sheets are included in the appendix
3�
........ .. ..... .,n, ..., . . a ..., .-n:,,.. ,l..;..e,n•p�.a •;:•,.; .!. ..:;:;�:
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed residential project would generate 18 trips during the AM peak 2.5 hour
period and 24 trips during the PM peak 2.5 hour period. Ten intersections were checked to
determine the marginal impact of project traffic on the street system. All 10 intersections passed
the one percent analysis; therefore, the proposed project has no marginal impact on the study
intersections.
F
4 �t
y
APPENDIX
h
li Traffic Volume Analvsis
Intersection: Coast Hwy 8 Riverside Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 11 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Browth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peaty 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 0 0 3 3 0 0
Southbound 735 0 59 794 8 3
Eastbound 5463 87 616 6166 62^ 1 "
Westbound 2987 48 433 3468 35 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1X of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos -FULL UrCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
11 Traffic Volume Analysis ;
Intersection: Coast Hwy B Riverside Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 11 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peek 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 37 0 8 45 0 0
Southbound 1164 0 30 1194 12 2
Eastbound 4642 74 626 5342 53 4
Westbound 5632 90 727 6449 64 0
_=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 11 of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 11 of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
x•
s
i' PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos _-_ FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 199114
Y�______M_____ N
�.
C• t . •
lY Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy E Tustin Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume VolumeVolume
Northbound 2 0 0 2 0 0
Southbound 192 0 13 205 2 1
Eastbound 3909 63 624 4596 46 0
t
Westbound 2896 46 432 3374 34 0
—> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 (o
• • t . t ,
11 Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy 8 Tustin Av
' Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PN
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 11 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Pelk 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Southbound 307 0 4 311 3 1
Eastbound 3601 58 627 4286 43 1
Westbound 5441 87 712 6240 62 0
Project Traffic is estimated to he less than 11 of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 11 of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
vx
+ I
4
)t
P+ PAO7ECT: 15th''9t/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEARS 1991
-------- ---- ---—------—--------------------____—_---_------------------------------------ �'
li Traffic Volume Analysis
i
.Intersection: Coast Hwy 8 Dover Dr/Bayshore Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1.12 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 'Volume
Northbound 371 0 8 379 4 0
Southbound 2547 0 45 2592 26 3
Eastbound 4665 75 577 5317 53' 0
Westbound 4997 80 429 5508 55 2
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume,
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 6 i
• � t f
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
0
Intersection: Coast Hwy ! Dover Dr/Bayshore Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 Ph
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 d/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 278 0 20 298 3 0
Southbound 3062 0 47 3109 31 2
Eastbound 4157 67 555 4781 40 0
Westbound 7581 121 652 0354 84 5
_=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than ii of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(1,C.U.) Analysis is required.
r '
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos -- = FULL OCCUPANCY YEARS 1991
(� --------------------------------------__.----------- --------------------------------------------- 410
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
r
Intersection: Irvine Av B 17th/Westcliff
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Minter/Spring B9 AM
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1856 45 169 2070 21 5
Southbound 1880 45 171 2096 21 2
Eastbound 1995 0 171 2166 22 " 1
Westbound 1027 0 11 1038 SO 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 �f
------—------------------------------ - ---------- ---------------------------------------------
It Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av B d7th/Wmstcliff
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Rromth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peek 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1572 38 100 1710 17 3
Southbound 2973 71 344 3300 34 5
Eastbound 2642 0 103 2745 27 2
tR
Westbound 1876 0 8 1884 19 0
=_> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
is (I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEARS 199D
7� -------------------------------------------
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av E Dover Dr/19th St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 69 AN
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
➢irection Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2693 65 349 3107 31 4
Southbound 2164 52 177 2393 24 2
Eastbound 769 0 6 775 8 0
Westbound '825 0 9 834 8 0
_=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
c '
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Aw Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
--- - --- -- -
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
s
Intersections Irvine Av ! Boyer Dr/19th'St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2'Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Heur Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 'Volume
Northbound 2213 53 209 2475 25 2
Southbound 4092 98 347 4537 45 5
Eastbound 595 0 3 598 6' 0
Westbound 1363 0 7 1370 14 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos .---� PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
-------------�---.»-------------»-----.. -----»----•-----»-------.__w.»» t0
li Traffic Volume Analysis
i
Intersection: Irvine Av ! Santiago Br/22nd St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour 8rarth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peik 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volute Volume Volume
Northbound 3735 90 355 4180 42 4
Southbound 1817 44 ISO 2041 20 2
Eastbound 657 0 4 661 7 0
Westbound 467 0 3 470 5 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than It of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volute.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis is required.
r
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 ` 73
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av I Santiago Dr/22nd St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic-Minter/Spring of PH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
t Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
t
Northbound 2490 60 212 2762 28 2
Southbound 4494 108 351 4953 5o 5
Eastbound 404 0 0 404 4 0 '
Vr:
Westbound 241 0 3 244 2 0
—> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
r
Project traffic is estimated to be greater than iS of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
•
PROJECT: dfh St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCyr YEAR: 1971
ii Traffic Volume Analysis
r
)' Intersection: Irvine Av E University Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 69 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 'Volume
Northbound 4467 107 377 4951 50 4
Southbound 1519 36 226 1781 18 2
Eastbound 695 0 91 786 8" 0
Westbound 60 0 44 104 1 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 7S,
---------------=------------------ ------------ ------------------------------
�e;,,.
It Traffic Volume Analysis
y Intersection: Irvine Av ! University Dr
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of'Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Browth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volute ' Volume
I; Northbound 2509 60 227 2796 28 2
Southbound 4872 117 445 5434 54 4
Eastbound 751 0 59 BID B 1
Nestboupd 199 0 40 239 2 0
H�
-> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis is required.
i
n
R
PROJECT: 156 St/irvine•Ave Condos FULL'OCCUPANCf•.YEAR: 1991
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av ! Mesa Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 'Volume
Northbound 5663' 136 443 6242 62 3
Southbound 1727 41 221 1989 20 2
Eastbound 377 0 0 377 0
Westbound 217 0 0 217 2 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
-- - -- -- - -- --- ---------- --- -------------------—---—----— ��
lY Traffic Volume Analysis
W Intersection: Irvine Av ! Mesa Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Minter/Spring 69 PM
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Maur Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2422 SB 266 2746 27 2
Southbound 4577 110 441 5128 51 4
Eastbound 467 0 0 467 S 0
r•
Westbound 491 0 0 481 5 0
I�
—> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
'M
,,III
13'
' PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
k ' r r' • •
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
i
Intersection: Bristol St ! Campus Or/Irvine Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Brerth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 4027 97 449 4573 46 3
Southbound 987 0 218 1205 12 1
Eastbound 7271 0 791 8062 81- 1
Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than i% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
---—--------------- - -__ ------ - --- ----- -- ------
• 1% Traffic Volume Analysis •
Intersection: Bristol St ! Campus Or/Irvine Ay
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Minter/Spring 89 PH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume .Volume
Northbound 2203 53 265 2521 25 2
Southbound 3196 0 445 3641 36 3
Eastbound 5341 0 544 5895 59- 1
westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
M
i
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEARS 1991
• 11 Traffic Volume Analysis •
Intersection: Bristol St N E Campus Dr
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected SI of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 i/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 5293 0 154 5447 54 2
Southbound 1462 0 55 1517 15 1
Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound 3238 0 604 3842 38 0
—) Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.O.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
-------------------------------- --------------------- ---K-`-------' !
1% Traffic Volume Analysis •
Ise � i
!! f Intersection: Bristol St N ! Campus Dr
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 Ph
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 M Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 3190 0 74 3264 33 2
Southbound 3629 0 255 4084 41 2
Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0. 0
Westbound 7378 0 1398 0776 88 1
4
_) Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
t
+ PROJECT: 15th St/lrvine Ave Condos FULL.000UPANCY YEAR: 1991
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
January 4, 1990
TO: James D. Hewicker, Director i
FROM: Aziz M. Aslami, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment No. 89-2(Fl
This is to inform you that Mr. Vandersloot contacted me on January 3, 1990, regarding
the Zonta Club site located on 15th Street at Irvine Ave. His concern was the
conformity of the 15-unit condominium development with respect to the open space
requirements of the MFR District. The following information maybe helpful to answer
questions regarding the project's open space and floor area requirements.
Standard R-3 (2,178) Standard Proposed Project
Open Space 92,838 cu.ft. +160,000 cu.ft.
Location of Open Space:
1. contiguous to the
front yard setback 23,210 cu.ft. (25%) + 34,496 cu.ft.
2. contiguous to the I
rear yard setback 23,210 cu.ft. (25%) + 44,464 cu.ft.
3. open on two sides
and to the sky 46,420 cu.ft. (50%) + 78,960 cu.ft.
Floor Area 27,077 sq.ft. 22,236 sq.ft.
(without parking structure)
29,377 sq.ft.
(with parking structure)
Floor Area Ratio 1.75 times the buildable 1.90 times the buildable
area plus 200 sq.ft. per area of the site including
parking space subter. parking spaces.
In recalculating the Floor Area Ratio,. it has been discovered that the project is
approximately 2,300 sq.ft. over the allowed floor area. An additional condition should be
added to the Site Plan Review, as follows:
"18. That the project should be reduced in floor area as necessary
to conform with the Floor Area Ratio limitations of 1.75
times the buildable area of the site as set forth in the MFR
District."
• • January 4, 1990
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL 1 INDEX
perpetuity so as to limit the occupancy of the second
dwelling unit to one or two adults 60 years of age or ove ,
and committing the permittee and successors to co ly
with current ordinances regarding Granny Units. Said
covenant shall also contain all conditions of proval
imposed by the Planning Commission or the Ci Council.
4. Commencing with the final inspection of t Granny Unit
by a City Building Inspector and on an a ual basis every
year thereafter, the property owner all submit to the
Planning Director the names and b' h dates of any and
all occupants of the Granny Unit nstructed pursuant to
this approval to verify occupan by a person or persons
60 years of age or older. U on any change of tenants,
the property owner shall no ' the City immediately. This
information shall be sub 'tted in writing and contain a '
statement signed by t property owner certifying under
penalty of perjury t all of the information is true and
correct.
5. That the pri residence or the Granny Unit shall be
continuousl occupied by at least one person having an
ownershi interest in the property.
6. That ne independently accessible garage space shall be
pr 'ded for the Granny Unit at all times.
7. at this use permit shall expire unless exercised within
24 months from the date of approval as specified in
Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
A General Plan Amendment No 89-2(F)(Public Hearinel Item No.12
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan GPA 89-2F
so as to change the land use designation of the subject property
from "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" to TS 62
"Single Family Attached" with a density of one unit for each A700
2,178 square feet of land area; and the acceptance of an
environmental document. TTM14186
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach SPR 54
AND
-46-
I
+ • January 4, 1990
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
o"0 'pO d�,,dca
.Poi '�� \
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
B. Traffic Study No 62 (Pgblic Hearing) Approved
Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the
construction of a 15 unit residential condominium development
on the subject property.
AND
C Amendment No 700 (Public Hearing)
Request to amend portions of Districting Map No. 21 so as to
reclassify the subject property from the R-3 District to the MFR
(2178) SIR District and to establish a 20 foot front yard setback
along the 15th Street frontage of the subject property.
AND
D. Tentative Map of Tract No 14186 (Public Hearing)
Request to subdivide two existing lots into a single lot for a 15
unit residential condominium development.
AND
E. Site Plan Review No 54 (Public Hearing)
Request to approve a site plan review for the purpose of
permitting a residential density bonus of 3 units within a 15 unit
residential condominium development and a request to approve
a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the
construction two stairs and two entry decks with handrails within
the proposed 20 foot front yard setback which exceed three feet
in height. The proposal also includes a modification to the
Zoning Code so as to permit a 3 foot encroachment into the
required 16 foot side yard setback adjacent to the easterly
property line.
LOCATION: Lots 1 and 2, Tract No. 1718, located at
2001 and 2101 15th Street, on the
southeasterly comer of 15th Street and Irvine
Avenue, in Cliff Haven.
ZONE: R-3
-47-
• . January 4, 1990MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS
Im
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
APPLICANTS: James G. White Jr. and Lawrence M.
Campeau, Costa Mesa
OWNER: Zonta Club of Newport Harbor Foundation,
Newport Beach
ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers and Associates, Inc., Costa
Mesa
James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the Addendum
to the staff report containing more specific information regarding
open space and the FAR of the project. He explained that the
open space required under the MFR Standard is 92,838 cubic
feet and the proposed project maintains 160,000 cubic feet; the
location of open space contiguous to the front yard setback
would require 23,210 cubic feet, the project is proposing 34,496
cubic feet; contiguous to the rear yard setback would require
23,210 cubic feet and the project is proposing 44,464 cubic feet;
open on two sides and to the sky would require 46,420 cubic feet
and the project is proposing 78,960 cubic feet; the FAR in the
MFR District allows 34,229 square feet of floor area and the
project is proposing 25,000 square feet without the subterranean
parking and 34,074 square feet of floor area including the
parking structure; and the FAR requires 1.75 and the project is
proposing 1.74 FAR. Mr. Hewicker stated that the MFR
standard building height is 28 feet and the ridge height of 33
feet, and the project has an average roof height of 25 feet with
a ridge height of 29 feet.
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and
Mr. Larry Campeau, applicant, appeared before the Planning
Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and
conditions in Exhibit "A".
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n, Mr.
Campeau explained that the six stairs located in the front yard
setback rise three feet and the stairs do not start at the curb.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr.
Campeau stated that there is currently a 4 foot wide sidewalk
that will be increased to a width of 8 feet and an additional 2
feet to the front property line along the 15th Street frontage,
before the subject property begins, and the development is 20
feet from that point; therefore, the project is 30 feet from back
of curb and 4 feet back from the existing apartments along 15th
-48-
• .
January 4, 1990
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
Street. Commissioner Glover supported the residential project;
however, she stated her concerns with regard to visibility and
traffic at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street
inasmuch as there are three schools located in the vicinity. Don
Webb, City Engineer, explained that the applicants were required
to shift the project so as to create the desired setback for the
wall which is proposed to be 6 feet from the property line or 16
feet from back of curb along the Irvine Avenue frontage of the
site, which would meet the sight line requirements for the speeds
in the area.
Mr. Bill Dunlap, 400 Snug Harbor, appeared before the Planning
Commission on behalf of the Cliff Haven Homeowners
Association wherein he stated that the Association supports the
project. He stated that there is a concern with regard to the
traffic in the area at the time the project is under construction.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr.
Dunlap supported the project's design concept which blends with
the adjacent high school's architecture. Discussion ensued
regarding the Site Plan Review that requires the applicant to
adhere to the design plans that are submitted with the
application.
Dr. Jan VanderSloot, 2221 - 16th Street, appeared before the
Planning Commission. Dr. VanderSloot addressed the statistical
profile as stated in the foregoing addendum to the staff report
as opposed to the figures that were provided in the staff report.
Mr. Hewicker stated that the calculations differ because when the
buildable area was calculated and the required setbacks were
subtracted from the gross area of the plan, the comers were
counted twice in error. Dr. VanderSloot and Mr. Hewicker
discussed the open space that is in the middle of the project.
Dr. VanderSloot stated that the project is built out to the
maximum requirements and the three affordable units cause the
project to be more dense than what is allowed. Chairman
Pomeroy stated that the State of California requires any
jurisdiction to grant up to a minimum 25 percent density bonus
when the applicant agrees to make at least 25 percent the
dwelling units in the project affordable. He stated that it is the
City's housing policy to grant the adjustments whenever a
developer is willing to build the affordable units.
Mr. Jerry Nininger, 411 - 15th Street, appeared before the
Planning Commission. He supported the project with the
following exceptions: that the residential development may
-49-
•
January 4, 1990
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
.o .A �d
md�.dc11-\ n
�v .
Qo \ CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
increase the traffic congestion at the intersection of Irvine
Avenue and 15th Street, and the residents may park illegally in
the alley and not in the subterranean parking structure. Mr.
Webb explained that there is a 2 1/2 foot setback on each side
of the alley so. the alley between the garage doors maintains a
width of 25 feet, which is adequate.
Mr. Mike Taylor, Cliff Haven Homeowners Association, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Taylor addressed the
white curb that is used for loading and unloading students that
currently exists in front of the proposed development and he
requested a continuity of the required sidewalks on other
properties at the intersection of Irvine Avenue and 15th Street.
Mr. Webb stated that the white curb may have been installed
because of the Zonta Club, and the Traffic Affairs Committee
and the Traffic Engineer will make the decision if the white curb '
remains. Mr. Webb further stated that it is the responsibility of
the property owners to initially construct curb, gutter, and
sidewalks or the City Council could budget funds for the
improvements at the comer of the subject intersection.
Commissioner Pers6n stated that the Planning Commission does
not have jurisdiction over the color of the curb.
Mr. Campeau reappeared before the Planning Commission to
state that a resident would be more likely to park an automobile
in the guest parking space than in the alley inasmuch as the
access from a dwelling unit to the alley is not convenient.
There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the
public hearing was closed at this time.
Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve General Plan
Ayes * * * * * Amendment No. 89-2(F) (Resolution No. 1210), Traffic Study No.
Absent * 62, Amendment No. 700, Tentative Map of Tract No. 14186, and
Site Plan Review No. 54, subject to the findings and conditions
in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED.
A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Findings:
1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the
project in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State
CEQA Guidelines and City policy.
-50-
PI J. . •
January 4, 1990
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
\ CITYOF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
2. That based upon the information contained in the
Initial Study, the project is not anticipated to have
a significant effect on the environment. A Negative
Declaration has, therefore, been prepared.
3. That the information contained in the
environmental document has been considered in the
decision on the project.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Development of the site shall be subject to a
grading permit to be approved by the Building and
Planning Departments.
2. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for
temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to
minimize impacts from silt, debris and other water
pollutants.
3. The grading permit shall include a description of
haul routes, access points to the site, watering and
sweeping program designed to minimize the impact
of haul operations.
4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be
submitted and be subject to the approval of the
Building Department and a copy forwarded to the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Santa Ana Region.
5. The grading, excavation and recompaction of the
site shall be 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.
6. The recommendations of the geotechnical
investigation, prepared for the project by EJN
-51-
�. • •
January 4, 1990
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
Geotechnical dated October 25, 1989, shall be
complied with as required by the Newport Beach
Building Department.
7. 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
any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall
certify to the Planning Department that the
landscaping has been installed in accordance with
the prepared plan.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Excavation of the subterranean parking structure
shall be limited to the hours of operation between
8:am and 4:pm, Monday through Saturday.
B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-2(F) Adopt
Resolution No. 1210, recommending approval of General
Plan Amendment 89-2(F) to the City Council.
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 62,
Findings:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which
analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the
morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and
circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City
Council Policy S-1.
-52-
•
January 4, 1990
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
2. That the project does not create traffic which
exceeds 1% on any approach leg of potentially
affected intersections in the vicinity of the project.
3. That the traffic study indicates that the project will
neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory
level of service on any major, primary-modified, or
primary street.
D. AMENDMENT NO, 700, Recommend approval of
Amendment No. 700 to the City Council, an amendment
to a portion of Districting Map No. 21 rezoning the site
from R-3 to R-3 (2,178) - SPR and to establish a 20 foot
front yard setback on 15th Street, with the following
findings:
1. That the amendment is necessary to implement the
provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan.
2. That the proposed project cannot be implemented
without the proposed amendment.
E TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO, 14M
Findings:
1. 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 design of the subdivision.
;
2. That the proposed subdivision 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 public improvements may be required of the
developer per Section 19.08.020 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
-53-
• • January 4, 1990
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
Conditions:
1. That a final map be recorded prior to issuance of
building permits. That the final 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 tract map
or obtain a building permit prior to completion of
the public improvements.
4. That each dwelling unit be served with an
individual water service and sewer lateral
connection to the public water and sewer systems
unless otherwise approved by the Public Works
Department.
5. That the intersection of Irvine Avenue with 15th
Street and Irvine Avenue with the adjacent alley be
designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 30
miles per hour. Slopes, landscapes, walls and other
obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance
requirements. Landscaping and structures 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.
6. That the proposed wall along Irvine Avenue be set
back to provide for landscaping and sight distance
as approved by Public Works Department.
7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior
to the issuance of any building permits.
8. That all vehicular access to the property be from
the adjacent alley.
-54-
COMMISSIONERS January 4, 1990MINUTES
o'd d
� ��'pp•p�
\ CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
9. That the existing 4 foot sidewalk be widened to S
foot along 15th Street and Irvine Avenue.
Deteriorated and displaced sections of the existing
sidewalk shall be replaced. The curb return shall be
constructed on a 25 foot radius. The sidewalk access
ramp be constructed at the southeast corner of 15th
Street and Irvine Avenue and at the intersection of
Irvine Avenue and the alley. The deteriorated
portion of the alley be reconstructed. All work shall
be constructed under an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department.
10. That street, drainage and utility improvements be
shown on standard improvement plans prepared by
a licensed civil engineer.
11. That a 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 recording the tract map.
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.
12. That the overhead utility lines on 15th Street and
Irvine Avenue be underground.
13. That the Public Works Department plan check and
inspection fee be paid.
14. That the developer, prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, shall submit a construction
operation plan to the Building and Public Works
Departments for approval. The plan is to discuss
the construction scheduling for the various phases
of the project and show how the operations have
been planned to minimize the noise and earth
moving impacts on the high school operations. The
plan shall include considerations of the safety of
the students walking, riding bicycles and driving to
-55-
COMMISSIONERS • • January 4, 1990MINUTES
0"0 �pd•
� p p�e,
�o \ CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
and from the high school and Horace Ensign
Intermediate school. Deliveries, earth hauling and
concrete placement should be scheduled to occur at
non peak traffic hours or school holidays. Peak
traffic periods are 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 2:00
p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The plan is also to include a
parking proposal that shows where construction
workers will park without using on street parking
except adjacent to the site.
15. That a minimum 4 feet wide paved walkway
separated from traffic be maintained along the
Irvine Avenue frontage at all times during the
construction period and there be no parking or
storing of materials along Irvine Avenue.
16. Disruption caused by construction work along
roadways and by movement of construction vehicles
shall be nu*nim;zed by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and
transportation of equipment and materials shall be
conducted in accordance with state and local
requirements. A traffic control plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. No construction storage or delivery of
materials shall occur within the State right-of-way.
Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a parking
plan for workers must be submitted and approved
by the Public Works Department.
F SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 54,
Findings:
1. That the project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Adequate off-street parking is being provided in
conjunction with the proposed development.
3. The project will comply with all applicable City and
State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for
-56-
COMMISSIONERS • January 4, 1990MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
new building applicable to the district in which the
proposed project is located, except those items
requested in conjunction with the proposed
modifications.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. That a density bonus of three units is consistent
with the requirements of Section 65915 of the
California Government Code.
Conditions:
1. That development shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved plot plan, floor
plans, and elevations, except as may be noted
below.
2. The design and layout of subterranean parking and
ramp shall be subject to further review and
approval of the Traffic Engineer.
3. A construction parking plan shall be approved prior
to the issuance of any building or grading permit.
4. That the ramp to the subterranean parking structure
be designed to city standards and the driveway
ramp not exceed 2010 slope within the alley setback
area.
5. That a minimum of two parking spaces for each
dwelling unit plus one-half guest parking space for
each dwelling unit be provided on-site.
-57-
+COMMISSIONERS 0 • January 4, 1990MINUTES
OA �QQ•Q�A '
� � \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
EX
ROLL CALL IND
6. That guest parking spaces be independently
accessible and be identified as guest parking in a
manner acceptable to the Traffic Engineer.
7. That all parking areas shall be striped with
approved traffic markers or painted white lines not
less than 4 inches wide.
8. Parking areas shall have a maximum 5% slope.
9. That the final design of on-site parking, vehicular
circulation and pedestrian circulation shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
10. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall
be screened from adjoining properties.
11. 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. Said landscape plan
shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department, Public
Works Department and the Planning Department.
12. That all conditions of Tentative Map of Tract No.
14186 shall be fulfilled.
13. That a siltation, dust, and debris control plan shall
be submitted and be subject to approval by the
Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded
to the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Santa Ana Region. This shall be a
complete plan for temporary and permanent
facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt,
debris, and other water pollutants.
14. That the siltation, dust, and debris control plan
shall include a description of haul routes, access
points to the site, watering, and sweeping program
designed to minimize impact of haul operations.
-58-
COMMISSIONERS January 4, 1990MINUTES
O A I
\
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL CALL INDEX
15. The project shall provide 3 affordable units. The
affordable units provided shall be affordable to
moderate income families if the units are for sale
or to low income families at fair market rent if the
units are rented by the applicant or successors in
interest, in accordance with the provisions of the
Newport Beach Housing Element.
16. The term of affordability shall be twenty years.
17. This site plan review shall expire unless exercised
within 24 months from the date of approval as
specified in Section 20.01.070 J of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code.
A General Plan Amendment No 89-3(E)(Public Hearing) Item No.13
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Gener Ian GPA 89-3E
so as to increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio of a Our ms61
Lady Queen of Angels Church from 0.15 to 0.16 ; and the —
acceptance of an environmental document. UP991A
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport B ch Cont'd to
1-16-90
AND
B. Traffic Stud N 61 Pu lic earin
Request to approve a ffic study so as to permit the
construction of a 23,534 square foot addition to the Our Lady
Queen of Angels Ch ch.
AND
C. Use P mit No. 991 Amended Pu lic Hearin
Re st to amend a previously approved use permit which
wed the establishment of the existing Our Lady Queen of
Angels Church. The proposed amendment involves a request to
-59-
Planning Commission Meeting January 4. 1990
Agenda Item No. 12
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment No 89-2(F) (Public Hearing)
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan so
as to redesignate the subject property from "Governmental,
Educational and Institutional Facilities" to "Single Family Attached"
with a density of one dwelling unit for each 2,178 sq. ft. of buildable
lot area; and the acceptance of an environmental document.
INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach
AND
B. Traffic Study No. 62 (Public Hearing)
Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to permit the construction
of a 15 unit residential condominium development on the subject
property.
AND
C. Amendment No. 700 (Public Hearine)
Request to amend portions of Districting Map No. 21 so as to
reclassify the subject property from the R-3 District to the MFR
(2,178) SPR District and to establish a 20 foot front yard setback
along the 15th Street frontage of the subject property.
AND
D. Tentative Map of Tract No 14186 (Public Hearing)
Request to subdivide two existing lots into a single lot for a 15 unit
residential condominium development.
AND
TO: Planning Commission - 2.
E. Site Plan Review No. 54 (Public Hearine)
Request to approve a site plan review for the purpose of permitting
a residential density bonus r)f 3 units within a 15 unit residential
condominium development and a request to approve a modification
to the Zoning Code sp as to allow the construction of two stairs and
two entry decks within the prpposed 20 foot front yard setback which
exceed three feet in height. The proposal also includes a
modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit a three foot
encroachment into the required 16 foot side yard setback adjacent
to the easterly property line.
LOCATION: Lot 1 and lot 2 of Tract No. 1718, located at 2001 and 2101 15th
Street, on the southeasterly corner of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue
in Cliff Maven.
ZONE: R-3
APPLICANT: James G. White, Jr. and Lawrence M. Campeau, Costa Mesa
OWNER: Zonta Club of Newport Harbor Foundation, Newport Beach
ENGINEER: Robin B. Hamers & Associates, Inc., Costa Mesa
Applications
The applications described above will, if approved, allow construction of a fifteen unit
condominium project. The proposal includes a density bonus of three units as part of
an affordable housing agreement. The requested General Plan density is now one unit
for each 2,178 sq. ft. of buildable lot area. General Plan Amendment procedures are
in City Council Policy Q-1; Amendment procedures are contained in Chapter 20.84,
Tentative Tract Map procedures are in Chapter 19.12, and Site Plan Review Procedures
are in Chapter 20.01 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Environmental Significance
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City Policy, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based
upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the
project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration
has, therefore, been prepared for the consideration of the Planning Commission.
Conformance with the General -Plan
The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for
Govemmenta4 Educational and Institutional Facilities. This category allows uses including
governmental facilities such as police stations, fire stations, utility yards, postal service
TO: Planning Commission - 3.
facilities, and libraries; educational uses such as schools, and day care centers; and
institutional facilities such as hospitals, churches, utility stations, museums, social and
educational clubs, and senior citizen housing facilities. The land use designation does
not allow for residential land uses, which are considered an appropriate use in areas
designated for Multi-Family Residential or Single Family Attached. The proposed project
is located in Cliff Haven (Statistical Division H3). This area is allocated a total of 542
dwelling units. Presently there are 519 dwelling units.
The proposed residential development is not consistent with the uses allowed in the
Governmentall. Educational and Institutional Facilities land use designation. A General
Plan Amendment is required to change the land use designation to Single Family
Attached with a specific density of one dwelling unit for each 2,178 sq.ft. of buildable lot
area in order to approve the project. Additionally, the projected development for the
Cliff Haven area must be amended to provide for the increased dwelling units in the
area. .The project is outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and approval of a Coastal
Development Permit is not required.
Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use
The subject property is developed with a 5,797 sq.ft single story building (Zonta Club).
To the west of the property, across Irvine Avenue, is single family detached residential.
To the north across 15th Street, is Newport Harbor High School. To the east and south
is multi-family residential development.
Statistical Summary
Standard Proposed Project MFR (2 178) Standard
Dwelling units 15 12
Gross land area 27,750 sq.ft. 6,000 sq.ft.
Building area 23,236 sq.ft. 27,077 sq.ft.
FAR 0.84 1.75
Parking spaces 38 23
Parking per unit 2.5 2.5
Analysis
A series of approvals is necessary to allow construction of the proposed project. Each
approval is discussed separately.
General Plan Amendment 89-2(F). An amendment to the General Plan Land Use
Element is necessary to allow construction of the project. The amendment will revise the
total allocation of dwelling units allowed for the Cliff Haven area (page 51) as follows:
"Cliff Haven. This area includes all residential land bounded by Irvine
Avenue, 16th Street, Dover Drive and West Coast Highway. The area is
designated predominantly for Single Family Detached development, with
Y t �
TO: Planmng Commission - 4.
some areas shown for Two-Family Residential or Multi-Family Residential
land use. No subdivision which will ir�esult in additional dwelling units is
allowed. The area is allocated 542 ,Al. dwelling units. A minimum of
2,000 sq.ft, of buildable lot area is required for duplex development in'IWo
Family Residential areas, and one unit is allowed for each 2,178 sq.ft. of
buildable lot area in the Multi-Family Residential areas."
The charts on pages 52, 86, and 87 of the Land Use Element will also be amended to
reflect the statistical changes which result from the change in land use.
There are two primary issues associated with the change of the site to Multi-Family
Residential: the compatibility of the use with the area and the increased building bulk
which will result from residential development.
Compatibility of Land Use. The project site is located on 15th Street at Irvine Avenue.
The requested density of 2,178 sq.ft. of buildable lot area is consistent with the density
allowed in the Cliff Haven area, which is one unit for each 2,178 sq.ft. of buildable lot
area. Additionally, the residential development proposed by this amendment will reduce
the amount of traffic generated by the existing use of the site.
Prior to the adoption of the revised General Plan Land Use Element in October, 1988,
this site was designated for Multi-Family ,Residential land use. Staff suggested the change
to Government, Educational and Institutional Facilities due to the long standing
institutional development of the site. The site is still zoned for residential development.
it is the opinion of staff that the location of the property at the southeasterly corner of
15th Street and Irvine Avenue, surrounded by residential development from three sides
and Newport Harbor High School to the north, makes the property appropriate for
residential development.
Building Bulk. The change from Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities
to residential land use designation will significantly increase the permitted floor area and
building bulk on the site. The subject property is presently occupied with a single story
building that contains 5,797 sq.ft. (per building permit records), representing a floor area
ratio of 0.37. This project is proposed to be constructed at 1.5 times the buildable area
of the site, or 23,236 sq.ft. The Multi-Family Residential (MFR) District allows
residential development at 1.75 times the buildable lot area, which would allow 27,077
sq.ft.
Traffic Study No. 59. A traffic study has been prepared for the proposed project in
conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy 'S-1. The
proposed project is expected to be completed in 1990, Analyses were, therefore,
completed for 1991. The City Traffic Engineer identified ten (10) intersections which
could be affected by the project at full occupancy.
The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% traffic volume analysis,
taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic.
For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater
A � /
TO: Planning Commission - 5.
than 1% of the projected peak 21/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon,
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is required.
The 1% volume analysis indicated that no intersections exceeded the one percent criteria.
Further ICU analysis is not required. The project meets the criteria of the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance.
Amendment No. 700. It is proposed to rezone the subject property from R-3 to MFR
(2,178) - SPR. Also requested is the establishment of a 20 foot front yard setback on
15th Street. This zoning designation will set the maximum density for the site consistent
with the General Plan, and designate the site for Site Plan Review. Site Plan Review
will allow the Planning Commission to review the specifics of the site plan given the
constraints of the property and the concerns of the neighborhood. The twenty foot
setback proposed for 15th Street is typical of setbacks established on Districting Map 21
for multi-family residential in the Cliff Haven area. It is important to note, however,
that the 20 foot front yard setback is being applied to the wider side of the property.
Under usual circumstances, the front yard of the property would be Irvine Avenue. The
establishment of the front yard on Irvine Avenue also results in wider side yard setbacks
than would otherwise have been required, since the MFR District requires the side yard
to be 8% of the lot width, and this will now be calculated from the widest property
' dimension. Staff has no objections to this request.
Tentative Map of Tract No. 14028. In order to construct the condominium project,
approval of a Tentative Tract Map is required. Lot 1 contains 0.637 acre (27.750 sq.ft.)
and meets the standards contained in the Subdivision Code. Staff has no objections to
the request.
Site Plan Review No. 54. Amendment No. 700 places the project in the SPR - Site Plan
Review District. Additionally, Site Plan Review is required in conjunction with the
approval of a Residential Density Bonus. The review of site plans have specific
standards of review as established in Section 20.01.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code. Many of the standards of judgement for the review of site plans relate to sites
which have unique environmental or scenic resources, which do not apply to this site.
These are Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 12. The remaining standards are listed below,
with a brief discussion of the project as it relates to each.
2. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and
surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious
development of the surroundings and of the City: The project site is immediately
adjacent to multi-family residential land uses. This project is similar in density to
these apartment projects. The project is also considered to be compatible with
the single-family homes across Irvine Avenue.
7. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access
ways, and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of
site development: The quality of the site plan is greatly influenced by the
placement of all parking in a subterranean parking structure. This reduces the
overall building mass and bulk, and minimizes the effect of the additional units
TO: Planning Commission - 6. t
requested via density bonus. Separate, independent access to each unit is provided
from the parking structure, as well as at grade level. Each unit has a private
patio or yard. The site plan makes specific provision for adequate sight distance,
both from the parking structure to the alley and from the alley to Irvine Avenue.
The latter is particularly important, since pedestrian and bicycle traffic associated
with the high school occurs on Irvine Avenue.
8. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable Specific
Area Plan policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those
policies and objectives: As discussed in the General Plan Compliance section, the
proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
10. When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage
areas shall be concealed. The trash enclosure for the project is located at the
alley, which is typical for residential projects in the area.
Setbacks. The project requested to establish a 20 foot front yard setback along 15th
Street frontage of the subject property. The site has a width of greater than fifty feet
and would require a side yard setback of 8% or a distance of 16.16 ft. for each side of
the project. The lot is adjacent to a 20 foot wide alley and requires a rear setback of
2.5 feet. A modification to the Zoning Code has been requested to allow two stairs and
entry decks with handrails within the 20 foot front yard' setback which exceed three feet
in height. Staff has no objections to this request. Also requested is a modification to
allow the building to encroach 3.16 feet into the required 16.16 foot setback on the
interior side property line. This encroachment is necessary in order to provide adequate
sight distance on the 'Irvine Avenue side of the property. Staff'has no objection to this
request because a sufficient setback of 13 feet is being maintained, and the choice of the
proponent to establish the front yard on the 15th Street frontage results in wider side
yard setback requirement than usual.
Densi , Bonus. Section 65915 of the California Government Code requires cities to
grant a density bonus over the otherwise allowable maximum residential density under
the applicable Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance when the
developer agrees to construct at least 25 percent of the units in the project not including
bonus units for persons and families of low or moderate income as defined by state
standards. The developer has agreed to provide the 3 density bonus units as affordable
consistent with the provisions of the Newport Beach Housing Element.
Conclusions and Specific Findings
The adoption and amendment of the General Plan is considered a legislative act on the
part of the City, and State Planning Law does not set forth any required findings for
either approval or denial of a General Plan Amendment. Section 19.12.020 (D) provides
that the Commission shall make specific findings in order to approve a tract map.
Should the Planning Commission desire to approve this proposal, a series of Resolutions
must be adopted, and Findings and Conditions of Approval established. Exhibit "A"
A ` .
TO: Planning Commission - 7.
defines the various actions for approval. The site plan of the project does not pose any
problems upon which to base findings for denial. If public testimony raises specific areas
of concern, they can form the basis of findings for denial.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By z W. Aslami
Associate Planner
AZIZ\GPA89-2F.104
Attachments:
1. Exhibit "A'
2. Draft Resolution No.
3. Vicinity Map
4. Negative Declaration
5. Traffic Study
6. Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations
7. Tentative Tract Map
10
TO: Planning Commission - 8
EXHIBIT "A"
ACTIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-2 (F)
AMENDMENT NO. 700
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 54
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 14186
A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Findings:
1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City policy.
2. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the project
is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared.
3. That the information contained in the environmental document has been
considered in the decision on the project.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved
by the Building and Planning Departments.
2. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and
permanent drainage facilities, to minimize impacts from silt, debris and
other water pollutants.
3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points
to the site, watering and sweeping program designed to minimize the impact
of haul operations.
4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject
to the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
5. The grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be 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.
• TO: Planning Commission - 9
6. The recommendations of the geotechnical investigation, prepared for the
project by EJN Geotechnical dated October 25, 1989, shall be complied
with as required by the Newport Beach Building Department.
7. 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 any structure, the licensed landscape architect
shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been
installed in accordance with the prepared plan.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Excavation of the subterranean parking structure shall be limited to the
hours of operation between 8:am and 4:pm, Monday through Saturday.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-2(F) Adopt Resolution No. ,
recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 89-2(F) to the City Council.
C. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 62.
Findings:
1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the
proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and
circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1.
2. That the project does not create traffic which exceeds 1% on any approach
leg of potentially affected intersections in the vicinity of the project.
3. That the traffic study indicates that the project will neither cause nor make
worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any major, primary-modified, or
primary street.
D AMENDMENT NO. 700. Recommend approval of Amendment No. 700 to the
City Council, an amendment to a portion of Districting Map No. 21 rezoning the
site from R-3 to R-3 (2,178) - SPR and to establish a 20 foot front yard setback
on 15th Street, with the following findings:
TO: Planning Commission - 10 • y
1. That the amendment is necessary to implement the provisions of the
Newport Beach General Plan.
2. That the proposed project cannot be implemented without the proposed
amendment.
E. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO, 14186
Findings:
1. 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 design of the
subdivision.
2. That the proposed subdivision 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 public improvements may be required of the developer per Section
19.08.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Conditions:
1. That a final map be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. That
.the final 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 tract map or obtain a building permit prior to
completion of the public improvements.
4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and
sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Department.
5. That the intersection of Irvine Avenue with 15th Street and Irvine Avenue
with the adjacent alley be designed to provide sight distance for a speed
of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscapes, walls and other obstruction shall
be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping and structures
• TO. Planning Commission - 11 •
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.
6. That the proposed wall along Irvine Avenue be set back to provide for
landscaping and sight distance as approved by Public Works Department.
7. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
8. That all vehicular access to the property be from the adjacent alley.
9. That the existing 4 foot sidewalk be widened to 8 foot along 15th Street
and Irvine Avenue. Deteriorated and displaced sections of the existing
sidewalk shall be replaced. The curb return shall be constructed on a 25
foot radius. The sidewalk access ramp be constructed at the southeast
corner of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue and at the intersection of Irvine
Avenue and the alley. The deteriorated portion of the alley be
reconstructed. All work shall be constructed under an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department.
10. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard
improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer.
11. That a 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 recording the tract map. 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.
12. That the overhead utility lines on 15th Street and Irvine Avenue be
underground.
13. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid.
14. That the developer, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, shall submit
a construction operation plan to the Building and Public Works
Departments for approval. The plan is to discuss the construction scheduling
for the various phases of the project and show how the operations have
been planned to minimize the noise and earth moving impacts on the high
school operations. The plan shall include considerations of the safety of the
students walking, riding bicycles and driving to and from the high school
and Horace Ensign Intermediate school. Deliveries, earth hauling and
concrete placement should be scheduled to occur at non peak traffic hours
or school holidays. Peak traffic periods are 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 2:00
p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The plan is also to include a parking proposal that shows
where construction workers will park without using on street parking except
adjacent to the site.
TO: Planning Commission - 12 •
15. That a minimum 4 feet wide paved walkway separated from traffic be
maintained along the Irvine Avenue frontage at all times during the
construction period and there be no parking or storing of materials along
Irvine Avenue.
16. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement
of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment
and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local
requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Public Works Department. No construction storage or delivery of materials
shall occur within the State right-of-way. Prior to issuance of any grading
permits, a parking plan for workers must be submitted and approved by the
Public Works Department.
F SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, 54,
Findings:
1. That the project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Adequate off-street parking is being provided in conjunction with the
proposed development.
3. 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, except those items requested in conjunction
with the proposed modifications.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. That a density bonus of three units is consistent with the requirements of
Section 65915 of the California Government Code.
Conditions:
1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved
plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except 'as may be noted below.
2. The design and layout of subterranean parking and ramp shall be subject
to further review and approval of the Traffic Engineer.
TO: Planning Commission - 13
3. A construction parking plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of any
building or grading permit.
4. That the ramp to the subterranean parking structure be designed to city
standards and the driveway ramp not exceed 2% slope within the alley
setback area.
'S. That a minimum of two parking spaces for each dwelling unit plus one-
half guest parking space for each dwelling unit be provided on-site.
6. That guest parking spaces be independently accessible and be identified as
guest parking in a manner acceptable to the Traffic Engineer.
7. That all parking areas shall be striped with approved traffic markers or
painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide.
8. Parking areas shall have a maximum 5% slope.
9. That the final design of on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
10. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from
adjoining properties.
11. 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. Said landscape plan shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department,
Public Works Department and the Planning Department.
12. That all conditions of Tentative Map of Tract No. 14186 shall be fulfilled.
13. That a siltation, dust, and debris control plan shall be submitted and be
subject to approval by the Building Department and a copy shall be
forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa
Ana Region. This shall be a complete plan for temporary and permanent
facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water
pollutants.
14. That the siltation, dust, and debris control plan shall include a description
of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping program
designed to minimize impact of haul operations.
15. The project shall provide 3 affordable units. The affordable units provided
shall be affordable to moderate income families if the units are for sale
or to low income families at fair market rent if the units are rented by the
applicant or successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of the
Newport Beach Housing Element.
0
TO: Planning Commission - 14
16. The term of affordability shall be twenty years.
17. This site plan review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from
the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 J of the Newport
Beach Municipal Cade.
AZIZ\GP,A89-21~.F&C
1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH GENERAL PLAN FOR THE Z.ONTA CLUB SITE
IN CLIFF HAVEN [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-
2 (F)l
i
i
WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the
Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets,forth objectives,
supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and
WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan designates the general
distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities
in a number of ways,including residential land use categories and population projections,
the floor area ratio ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as ;
required by California planning law; and
WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation
Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair
Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport
Beach, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain
amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and
WHEREAS,the proposed project is compatible with the existing land uses
in Cliff Haven; and
WHEREAS, the circulation system will not be significantly impacted by the
proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residential land use is compatible with the
surrounding community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration
1
IS
with supporting Initial Study for the project in compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the environmental document in making its decision on the
proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE rr RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the General Plan is recommended for
approval to the City Council, as follows:
Page 51:
Cliff Haven. This area includes all residential land bounded by Irvine Avenue, 16th
Street, Dover Drive and West Coast Highway. The area is designated predominantly for
Single Family detached development,with some areas shown for Two Family Residential
or Multi-Family Residential land use. No subdivision which will result in additional
dwelling units is allowed. The area is allocated 542 ffl,dwelling units. A minimum of
2,000 sgft. of buildable lot area is required for duplex development in Two Family
Residential areas and one unit is allowed for each Z178 sq.ft. of buildable lot area in
the Multi-Family Residential area.
The charts on pages 52, 86, and 87 of the Land Use Element are also amended to
reflect the statistical changes which result from the change In land use.
ADOPTED this _ day of_, 1990, by the following vote, to Wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
BY
Gary W. Pomeroy
CHAIRMAN
BY
Janice A. De ay
SECRETARY
AZIZ\GPA89-2F.RS1
2
la
VIl CIINII T Y MAP
GENERAL PLAN .AMENDMENT 8 9 — 2 (F)
AMENDMENT NO . 700
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO e 54
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO e 14186
R, 4y
4
r ati
P OJECT LOCATION
r'
O
op �
p� S
�y T
sT
'0r
S4�
I�
�gW Pp�,r • `
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
V P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768
c-14F oft
r
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: Planning Department
! Q 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 City of Newport Beach
Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768
®
County Clerk of the County
of Orange
P.O. Box 838
Santa Ana, CA,,92702
NAME OF PROJECT: 6"en,&-4! K ��1yK/�J( �[ //g ". ( //� /� ��/�Q
PROJECT LOCATION: Ij/1me Alec � aI l;✓i/( vee �, 1^{gwlvt,*b44,, (/7 �g7pO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ,a�»�o�l fjpK d- l'147C L`4rh �ly�.o aiW
WA f�-aaft o� a �6=U,11< Iai &WAiA, prtj4d,1Ac"�y
d�P/W' , un,'•15
FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to
procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project
and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect
on the environment.
MITIGATION MEASURES:64W al 5&4
,
INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: Cif , f 1WR0(
I
INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 33'0`f 0 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA
DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING:
Environmental Coordinator
DATE
DATE
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
I
e
ENVIROMCWTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I
I. Background ��
1. Name of Proponent Rev .DLJY2fOLnewt �'�/l1De1 e
2. Address and Pho umb;.�� Proponent � 0.
9 �� ;79
C"Di J/1 1 h �b Q
3. Date Checklist Submitted Afor& 2i1- Mll ff
4. Agency Requiring Checklist <LU /�/�� J/e��
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable O'nt t Nuh k
(annJOINinia)nDQ�/vim
II. Environmental Impacts &C a/ ola& AMZ*d/1&W V—XF,
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
C. Change in topography or ground surface —
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? _
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
Soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, X
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _
- 1 -
! -
Yes Maybe No
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X
of ambient air quality? — —
b. The creation of objectionable odors? _
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or,reg£onally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? — 3
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of X
surface runoff? —
c. Alterations to the course or flow of y,
flood waters? —
d. Change in the amount of surface water V
in any water body? — J�
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature, Y
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of X
flow of ground water? —
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an X
aquifer by cuts or excavations? — —
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public X
water supplies? — —
,i. Exposure 'of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or tidal v
waves? 3
- 2 -
�'1'
Yes Maybe No
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
ber of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the•numbers of any unique, rare v
or endangered species of plants?
C. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal X
replenishment of existing species? —
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ X
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
bers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shell- X
fish, benthic organisms or insects)? —
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, X
rare or endangered species of animals? _
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the migra-
tion or movement of animals? — —
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife v
habitat? — 3
6: Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? —
7., light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? —
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area? —
3 -
0 • _
Yes. Maybe No
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or V
upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation k
plan? —
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing v
or create a demand for additional housing? — T
13. Transportation/circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional v
- vehicular movement? — 1�
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? — J—►
C. Substantial impact upon existing trans-
portation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods? —
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?—
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians? — —
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov-
ernmental services in any of the following areas:
- 4 -
lZ
Yes Maybe No
a. Fire protection? — YN
b. Police protection? v
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services? — �^
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? —
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources or energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy? —
16.• Utilites. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? — X
b. Communications systems? —
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? —
e. Storm water drainage? —
f. Solid waste and disposal? —
17. • Human Health. Will the proposal result in?
a. Creation of any healthl�bazard or potential
health heazard (excluding mental health)? —
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
5 -
`1 3
0 0 �
Yes Maybe No
S
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open X
to public view? —
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing v
recreational opportunities?
' 20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or v
historic archaeological site? — VA
historic
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? _
C. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? 7►—
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses with the potential impact
area? —
21. Handatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, „
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? — —
- 6 -
�1
Yes Maybe No
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is, one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
C. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two or
more separate resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on v
the environment is significant.) _ t!
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?_ _
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
IV. Determination
on the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED.
Z find that although the proposed project could have a signif-
icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on. an attached sheet have been added to the project. cc
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q
�,c�rrr►lau, ly r�$9 ���—���—
Date Signature
C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For
- 7 -
i
y�
• r►
PROTECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposed requires and amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan, as
well as the approval of a Tentative Tract Map, a Traffic Study, and an amendment to
the Zoning. If approved, these applications will allow construction of a 15 unit
condominium project with subterranean parking. Vehicular access to the site will be
taken from the adjacent alley.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1. Construction of the proposed project will require excavation and compaction of
the soil, and will change to topography of the site, in order to construct the
subterranean parking structure. The parking structure will then provide the
foundation for the dwelling units above. Potential significant environmental effects
which may result from this construction will be reduced to a level of insignificance
by the mitigation measures attached as conditions of approval to the project.
3. Construction of the proposed project has the potential to alter absorption rates
and drainage patterns on the site. Effects which may result from these changes
can be reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures attached as
conditions of approval to the project.
6. The excavation and construction of the subterranean parking structure will result
in significant short term noise levels in the vicinity of the site. This effect is
important to consider, since the project site is adjacent to existing residential
development on three sides. This effect will be reduced to a level of
insignificance by a mitigation measure limiting the hours of operation for
excavation.
7. Construction of the residential project will produce additional light and glare in
'the vicinity of the project. The light produced will be similar in nature to that
of the surrounding land uses, and this is, therefore, considered to be an
insignificant adverse impact.
8. The proposed residential development is inconsistent with the provisions of the
Newport Beach General Plan, which designates the site for Governmenta4,
Educational and Institutional Facilities. The approvals requested for the project
include an amendment to the General Plan to redesignate the site to Multi-Family
Residential, which is the same as adjacent properties to the south and east. No
adverse environmental effects are anticipated to result from the change in land use
designation.
2G
MITIGATION MEASURES
1. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by
the Building and Planning Departments.
2. The grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent
drainage facilities, to minimize impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants.
3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the
site, watering and sweeping program designed to minimize the impact of haul
operations.
4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to
the approval of the Building Department and a copy forwarded to the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
5. The grading, excavation and recompaction of the site shall be 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.
6. The recommendations of the geotecbnical investigation prepared for the project
by EJN Geotechnical dated October 25, 1989 shall be complied with as required
the Newport Beach Building Department.
7. 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 any structure, the licensed landscape architect shall certify to the
Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with
the prepared plan.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Excavation of the subterranean parking structure shall be limited to the hours of
8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Saturday.
Z1
MITIGATION MONITORING
Mitigation measures 1-8 shall be verified for compliance prior to the issuance of the
grading permit by the City of Newport Beach. Measure 9 shall be verified for
compliance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Newport
Beach. Measure 10 shall be monitored by the Newport Beach Building Department.
l�
III
Draft
15tWMVINE AVENUE TOWNHOMES
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Prepared by:
Austin-Foust Associates
1450 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 108
Santa Ana, California 92701
December 29, 1989
29
CONTENTS
Page
PROJECT DESCRHMON 1
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION 1
TRAFFIC WACIS 4
CONCLUSIONS 9
• •
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of 15 townhomes to be located on the southeast corner of
15th Street and Irvine Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed townhomes are to
replace an existing senior citizen recreation center. Figure 1 illustrates the project site, and
Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. Access to the proposed residential development will be
via an existing alley off of Irvine Avenue.
Coast Highway is a regional east-west arterial through the City of Newport Beach. North-
south regional access to the study area is from Newport Boulevard (SR-55), which connects to
several freeways to the north providing access to Orange County and beyond. South of Coast
Highway, Newport Boulevard enters the Balboa area where the highway terminates at Balboa
Boulevard.
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from the City of
Newport Beach peak hour rates for attached medium density residences. An average inbound rate
of.2 trips/DU and an outbound rate of.4 trips/DU for a total of .6 trips/DU were utilized for the
peak one hour AM period. For the peak one hour PM period, the average rates are .5 trips/DU
inbound and .3 trips/DU outbound, for a total of.8 trips/DU. These rates and the resulting project
trip generation are summarized in Table 1.
Tabte T .
TRIP GENERAl'tON SUMMARY
LAND USE SIZE tE Ott TOTAL rn M. TOTAL
'rbwithomes 13 DU
.. Trips/DU .2. A .6 S .3 .a
Trip Generation 'a
As this summary indicates, 'the proposed project will generate nine trips in the AM peak
hour and 12 trips in the P.M peak hour. The trip generation was factored to obtain a peak 2.5
hour volume for the AM and PM peak periods. The peak 2.5 hour volumes were based on an
31
BRISTOL
J.
h
a
� z
l D
L
Ln DZ
a
MESA
DEL MAR UNIVERSITY/
Fey
50�
z 22ND
m
SG�o�\P 5
m ca
0
n
y9� m
Fp 19TH
0
D
Z
m
m
17TH a
A O
`9cF��9 PROJECT LO ATION BpY$1DE
v
m
;v 15TH
�
a z co
�y
tiF
r
Figure 1
PROJECT LOCATION
4yr4F AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
3v
15 TH STREET
�d g
\Uj
�\ \
zl \\ \ `"•�` \ \ . \,��
N
1. `\\\ . \ \`•\ 1 IY.
,v
NZ
•• 202 30 i0
20' A 1L L E Y, N
Figure 2
�rAUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. SITE PLAN
33
estimated factor of 2.0 to account for the extension of the usual one-hour peak period. Traffic
generated by existing uses at the project site is generally subtracted from the trip generation of the
proposed project. However, observation of the existing senior citizen recreation center during the
PM peak period revealed very little activity. Therefore, credit for existing peak period traffic
generated by the project site is not given to the proposed project.
Distribution of project-generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns in the
vicinity of the project site as well as Prom locations and levels of development in relation to the
location of the proposed project. The general trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 3. An
estimated 40 percent of project traffic is assumed to travel north along Irvine Avenue. Along Coast
Highway, 20 percent of project traffic is assumed to travel west out of the study area, and 30
percent is expected to travel east out of the study area. The remaining 10 percent is assumed to
travel south out of the study area along Newport Boulevard.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The City of Newport Beach identified 10 intersections for analysis to determine the impact
of the proposed development. These intersections are:
Coast Hwy/Riverside Ave Irvine Ave/SantiagoDr-22ndSt
Coast HwyiTustin Ave Irvine Ave/University Dr
Coast Hwy/Dover Dr-Bayshore Dr Irvine Ave/Mesa Dr
Irvine Ave/Westcliff Dr-17th St Bristol St/Campus Dr-Irvine Ave
Irvine Ave/Dover Dr-19th St Bristol St N/Campus Dr
The 1989 peak 2.5 hour volumes were provided for each intersection by the city staff. Since
the project is expected to be completed by 1991, the ambient growth rate of one percent was added
to all volumes along Coast Highway east of Newport Boulevard. A factor of 1.5 percent was added
to all volumes along Irvine Avenue.
The peak 2.5 hour volumes of all approved 'projects, also provided by the city, were added
to the peak 2.5 hour volumes. The resulting volumes represent the projected peak 2.5 hour
volumes prior to the addition of project traffic. A list of approved projects is given in Table 2.
3�
�1
N_
� r57 BRISTOL
� I
i Q 5%-n, NN
¢ IA
NN
(V1. Ni j
I MESA N
\ N
i � i�UN1VE�Y
DEL MAR 5%Z)t
\ NN
i N
nX !
� I �
�o
Gr, i n
i` ND
`•.��:.',� z, w
w
i o
i M
y� I 19TH ,1
z b
% Z M
�k : � i 17_rlo%zht � ,
00
7
`YG �!� so ypl BA.{c10E
' w I 15TH
P
Ld
a z 1ti
"o> o N ST
5 COA
LEGEND
OpA XX%-►=DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE 3
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
®rAUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES. INC.
3`
Table 2
APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY
APPROVEDPROJECTS PERCENTAGE COMPLETED
Hughes Aircraft#1 300% Occupancy
Far West Savings and Loan 100%Occupancy
Aeronutronlc Ford 100%Occupancy
Back Bay Office 100%Occupancy
Boyle Engineering 100%Occupancy
Cal Canadian Bank 100%Occupancy
Civic Playa 89% Occupancy
Corporate Plea 30% Occupancy
Koli Center Newport 10096 Occupancy
MacArthur Court 100% Occupancy
Orchard Office 100% Occupancy
Pacific Mutual Plana 100%Occupancy
3701 Birch Office 100%Occupancy
Newport Place 86%Occupancy
Bank of Newport 1009b Occupancy
Bayside Square 100% Occupancy
Sea Island 100% Occupancy
Haywood Apartments I00% Occupancy
Harbor Point Homes 100%Occupancy
Rogees Gardens 100%Occupancy
Seaview Lutheran Place 100% Occupancy
Rudy Baron 100% Occupancy
Quail Business Center 100%Occupancy
441 Newport Blvd 100%Occupancy
Martha's Vineyard 100%Occupancy
Coast Business Center 100% Occupancy
Ross Mallard 100% Occupancy
Hughes Aircraft #2 100% Occupancy
Flagship Hospital 100%Occupancy
Big Canyon 10, 29%Occupancy
Fun Zone 100% Occupancy
Marriott Hotel 100%Occupancy
St.Andrew's Church 100% Occupancy
Allred Condos 10017� Occupancy
Morgan Development 100% Occupancy
Four Seasons Hotel 100% Occupancy
Univ.Ath Club TPP 4 EMKAY 100%Occupancy
Block 400 Medical 1001/0 Occupancy
Amendment#1 MacArthur Court 52% Occupancy
Amendment #2 Ford Aero 100% Occupancy
Carver Granville Office 100%Occupancy
Corona Del Mar Homes 100% Occupancy
Rosso's Development 90% Occupancy
Block 500 Npt Center Project 100% Occupancy
Newport Aquatics Center 4S%Occupancy
2600 E.Coast Hwy 100% Occupancy
Jasmine Park 100% Occupancy
Naworter Inn Expansion 100% Occupancy
Fashion island Renaluance 100%Occupancy
CDM Senior Project 100%Occupancy
Point Del Mar 100% Occupancy
Paclfio Club 100% Occupancy
Newport Seacrest Apt& 100%Occupancy
Seaside Apts.(Mesa 11) 100%-Occupancy
Victoria Station(Office) 100% Occupancy
Newport Imports 100% Occupancy
Mariner's Mile Marine Center 100%Occupancy
15th St.Apts. 100% Occupancy
Seaside Apts.111 100% Occupancy
�b
Table 2(cont.)
APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY
APPROVED PROJECTS PERCENTAGE COMPLETED
Amendment #1 Ford Aero jo0 occupancy
Amendment#1 North Ford 100%Occupancy
Amendment #1 North Ford 100% Occupancy
Amendment #1 North Ford 100% Occupancy
0
One percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes of each approach of each intersection
was compared with the peak 2.5 hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary
of this comparison is.shown in Table 3.
Table 3
SUMMARY''01F.ONE I'MCENT ANALYSIS
AM•PROJECDPE"
Z5 HOUR Vowhttm LESS"niW M OF1991
1NTSRSECTION NB SB- LB wt3 PEAK-zsmoUR VOLUMES
CositHwyovetside 0 3 1 0 Yes-
Coast1.lwylrustin 0 i 0 0 Ye
Coast F4%1/bover•Ealshoro '0 3 0 2 Yes
d aoweitcatYl7th ,S. 2 1 0 I Ya
WneMmer--19th 4 2 0 0 Y'a
i6vine/5a60sV42nd. 4 2 0 0 Yea
kv1neA1oh %ity 4 2 01 0 'Yes
ImneNesa 3 2 0 0 Yea
BtistoUCampw ltvtna 3 1 1 a 'Yes
Brlltol$ditopus 2 1 0 0
PM PROJEOT PEA$
%. HOUR VOLUMES Lt'SS THAN 1%Olt 1991,
IiJTGRSEC'1'tON NB SE' EB WS PEAK 25-T40UR VOLUMES
Coast HwyMtvetside 0 T 4 0: Yea
Coast H"Oustia 0 11 1 0 Yes.
Coaat.HwyMovq-Uayshore U 2 0 3 TO
Jtv7nelWeam1t4 ilih 3 , S •1 0 'Yes
ftYfnelDeverl9th 2 • S 0 0 Xes
ttvitid$anttago 22nd 2 5 U 0 Yea'
Itvine/17niveisity 2 4 2 0 tes.
Itvlaelhfeu 2 4 0 0 Yes
ErtatoVCamptta-ovine 2 3,' 1 01 Yts
Brtstot:NlCampua 2 ?� 0' 1' Yea
If one percent of the 1992 peak 2.5 hour volumes of each approach was larger than the
peak 2.5 hour project volumes, no further analyses were required. If project peak 2.5 hour volumes
were higher than one percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes on any approach of any
intersection,the intersection was analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)method.
the one percent of the ale 2.5 hour volumes with the project
peak
2.5 hour
Comparison of pe peak P J
volumes resulted in each intersection analyzed passing the one percent analysis and requiring no
further analysis. The one percent analysis sheets are included in the appendix.
3�
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed residential project would generate 18 trips during the AM peak 2.5 hour
period and 24 trips during the PM peak 2.5 hour period. Ten intersections were checked to
determine the marginal impact of project traffic on the street system. All 10 intersections passed
the one percent analysis; therefore, the proposed project has no marginal impact on the study
intersections.
I
t '
k
APPENDIX
qj
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy B Riverside Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average ➢aily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 11 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 0 0 3 3 0 0
Southbound 735 0 59 794 8 3
Eastbound 5463 87 616 6166 62 1
Westbound 2987 48 433 3468 35 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1'L of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR; 1991 )
12 Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy B Riverside Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PH
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Browth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 37 0 8 45 0 0
Southbound 1164 0 30 1194 12 2
Eastbound 4642 74 626 5342 53 4
Westbound 5632 90 727 6449 64 0
=_> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than l% of Projected
Peak 2 L12 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
---------------—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- N
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy 8 Tustin Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring B9 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2 0 0 2 0 0
Southbound 192 0 13 205 2 1
Eastbound 3909 63 624 4596 46 0
Westbound 2896 46 432 3374 34 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(i.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos ---------------- -------- FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
--------------------- 43
• 0 . ,
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy 8 Tustin Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 69 PH
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 11 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 1 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Southbound 307 0 4 311 3 1
Eastbound 3601 58 627 4286 43 1
Westbound 5441 87 712 6240 62 0
=_> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991- -
--------- -------------- ----- -----------------
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy ! Dover Dr/Bayshore ➢r
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Minter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected SS of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 371 0 8 379 4 0
Southbound 2547 0 45 2592 26 3
Eastbound 4665 75 577 5317 53 0
Westbound 4999 80 429 5508 55 2
_=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than i% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15 th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy d Dover Dr/Bayshore Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PN
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 278 0 20 298 3 0
Southbound 3062 0 47 3109 31 2
Eastbound 4159 67 555 4781 48 0
Westbound 7581 121 652 8354 84 5
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume,
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.O.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �b
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 2 17th/Westcliff
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 69 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth -Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1856 45 169 2070 21 5
Southbound 1880 45 171 2096 21 2
Eastbound 1995 0 171 2166 22 1
Westbound 1027 0 11 1038 10 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than lZ of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than SZ of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
I�
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H 1
i
i% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 8 17th/wastcliff
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average ➢aily Traffic Minter/Spring 89 PM
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1512 SB 100 1710 17 3
Sorthbound 2973 71 344 3388 34 5
Eastbound 2642 0 103 2745 27 2
westbound 1676 0 8 IB84 19 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than lZ of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than IZ of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
---—----—----------------------------------------------------------------—---------------------------------
I% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 8 Dover ➢r/19th St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2693 65 349 3107 31 4
Southbound 2164 52 177 2393 24 2
Eastbound 769 0 6 775 8 0
Westbound 825 0 9 834 8 0
=_> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ H
0 • S
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av I Dover Or/19th St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2213 53 209 2475 25 2
Southbound 4092 98 347 4537 45 5
Eastbound 595 0 3 598 6 0
Westbound 1363 0 7 1370 14 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos---------------------------- FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
---------------- --------------------- (0
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 8 Santiago Dr/22nd St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 1 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour 'Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 3735 90 355 41BO 42 4
Southbound 1817 44 ISO 2041 20 2
Eastbound 657 0 4 661 7 0
Westbound 467 0 3 470 5 0
==> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I
iS Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersections Irvine Av 8 Santiago Dr/22nd St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2490 60 212 2762 28 2
Southbound 4494 IDS 351 4953 50 5
Eastbound 404 0 0 404 4 0
Westbound 241 0 3 244 2 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
------—------—---------------------------------------------—-------------------------------—------------ y v
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 8 University Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 69 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 4467 107 377 4951 50 4
Southbound 1519 36 226 1701 18 2
Eastbound 695 0 91 706 8 0
Westbound 60 0 44 104 1 0
=_> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
- ------- -------------------------------
• s l
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 8 University Dr
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PM
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Haar Brooth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2509 60 227 2796 28 2
Southbaund 4872 117 445 5434 54 4
Eastbound 751 0 59 BID 8 1
Westbound 199 0 40 239 2 0
=_> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
---------- ----- ----- ---------^------------------------------------
------
-------------------
-
h
0 0
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av I Mesa Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AM
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour '6rowth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 5663 136 443 6242 62 3
Southbound 1727 41 221 1989 20 2
Eastbound 377 0 0 377 4 0
Westbound 217 0 0 217 2 0
=_> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
II.C.U.1 Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 5
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av @ Mesa Dr
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Minter/Spring 89 PM
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour 8romth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volute Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2422 5B 266 2746 21 2
Southbound 4577 110 441 5128 51 4
Eastbound 467 0 0 467 5 0
Westbound 401 0 0 481 5 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume,
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
----------------------------------------------------------------—---------------------------------------- hb
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Bristol St 4 Campus Or/Irvine Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average ➢aily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 4027 97 449 4573 46 3
Southbound 9B7 0 218 1205 12 1
Eastbound 7211 0 791 8062 81 1
Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
_-> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume., Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
0 0 o
11 Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersections Bristol St ! Campus Or/Irvine Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 69 PH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direc
tion Peak 2 1/2 Hour Browth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Yolume Volume Volume Volume volume
Northbound 2203 53 265 2521 25 2
Southbound 3196 0 445 3641 36 3
Eastbound 5341 0 544 5085 59 1
Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
_=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Yolume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Yolume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- l
11 Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Bristol St N E Campus Dr
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing. Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 i/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 5293 0 154 5447 54 2
Southbound 1462 0 55 1517 15 1
Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound 3238 0 604 3842 38 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (t
S 1
1% Traffic Yolume Analysis
Intersection: Bristol St N 8 Campus Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 09 PH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 13 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Mule Volume Volume
Northbound 3190 0 74 3264 33 2
Southbound 3829 0 255 4084 41 2
Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound 7378 0 1398 8776 Be I
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than lY of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 dour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization,
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- ��
Q SEW PORT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
u P.O. BOX 1768. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915
c'�'FoaN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
November 3, 1989
Jim White
Mesa Development Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 1974
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Subject: 15th Street/Irvine Avenue Condos Traffie Study
Dear Mr. White:
The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal to provide a Traffic Study from the
consultant firm of Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., for the 15-unit condominium development
proposed for the corner of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue. The proposal contains an
outline of the scope of work services required and an estimated budget for the
preparation of the study.
The fee requested has been reviewed by the City and the amount submitted for the tasks
required is considered appropriate and warranted. To proceed with the study, please
deposit the requested fees into your City account:
Traffic Study $1,500.00
City Fee (10%) 150.00
Total: $1,650.00
Please make your check payable to the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your
prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By
Patricia Temple
Principal Planner
JM\EIR-DOCS\MESA-DEV.11
Enclosure v,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
OroAUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
1450 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE SUITE 108 - SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA 92701 - TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496
FAX (714) 667-7952
October 31, 1989
City of Newport Beach, Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884
ATTENTION: Ms. Patty Temple
SUBJECT: PK0j-r0SAI.: i5T I S'iTtEi✓r/ W u-;E AVENUE CONDOS TO
Dear Patty:
Austin-Foust Associates is pleased to respond to your RFP to prepare a TPO study for the
15-unit condominium development proposed on the corner of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue. Since
you are familiar with our work, we shall forgo any promotional materials.
Upon review of the architect's building layout (we will need an actual site plan for the study
report), it appears that the scope of work is straight forward and does not involve any specific
considerations which complicate the trip generation distribution or assignment. Therefore we
propose a fixed fee of $1,500 for the first phase of the TPO study, i.e., the one percent analysis
and the calculation of ICUs where necessary.
ine report will follow the same format we have used in several other similar studies which
we have completed. If you have any questions, please call.
S
ince
c- 00
t, P.E.
9 g�CEtYtiOt _
,,s
twas1989 A'`
Cry
T AUT0,
Vim, 7
Draft
15th/IRVINE AVENUE TOWNHOMES
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Prepared by:
Austin-Foust Associates
1450 N. Tustin Avenue, Suite 108
Santa Ana, California 92701
December 29, 1989
S7
CONTENTS
Page
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION 1
TRAFFIC IMPACTS 4
CONCLUSIONS 9
i
PROTECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of 15 townhomes to be located on the southeast corner of
15th Street and Irvine Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed townhomes are to
replace an existing senior citizen recreation center. Figure 1 illustrates the project site, and
Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. Access to the proposed residential development will be
via an existing alley off of Irvine Avenue.
Coast Highway is a regional east-west arterial through the City of Newport Beach. North-
south regional access to the study area is from Newport Boulevard (SR-55), which connects to
several freeways to the north providing access to Orange County and beyond. South of Coast
Highway, Newport Boulevard enters the Balboa area where the highway terminates at Balboa
Boulevard.
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from the City of
Newport Beach peak hour rates for attached medium density residences. An average inbound rate
of.2 trips/DU and an outbound rate of.4 trips/DU for a total of.6 trips/DU were utilized for the
peak one hour AM period. For the peak one hour PM period, the average rates are .5 trips/DU
inbound and .3 trips/DU outbound, for a total of.8 trips/DU. These rates and the resulting project
trip generation are summarized in Table 1.
Tabte i
TRtp GENERATION SUMMARY'
I.AND USE St2E ffi OR TOTAL 18 •• OB. • TOTAL:
Twvnhomd 1S1iU. " .
Trips/DU 2 A 8 S. 3 S'
Trip Generation • S 6 •9 B 4 12
As this summary indicates, the proposed project will generate nine trips in the AM peak
hour and 12 trips in the PM peak hour. The trip generation was factored to obtain a peak 2.5
hour volume 'for the AM and PM peak periods. The peak 2.5 hour volumes were based on an
I3
L �
Ah
BRISTOL
J
D
� v
I D
(n a
z
D
MESA
DEL MAR UNIVERSITY/
z 22ND
m
z
z m
m a
61 m
1p� m
�p 19TH
0
D
z
c�
m
17TH
A p
`9cFti>jq En c PROJECT LOCATION S�pE
o gpY
m
0 15TH
�A,�
m Z OOpST
1
ti�
mop
T
Figure 1
PROJECT LOCATION
®�AUSTIN•FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
0 f, 3 y
� � I
15 TH STREET
1
zoz So ..
1
�d g
w ♦ .
2 a \ \\"•�\ ``\ •'\ n
�' �.�1\\ �\\\- \\ \•,�, Igo +:
rL
-- 20250
rL 20' LA IL L E Y.
I Y0.
Figure 2
,MAUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. SITE PLAN
rl
1
estimated'factor of 2.0 to account for the extension of the usual one-hour peak period. Traffic
generated by existing uses at the project site is generally subtracted from the trip generation of the
proposed project. However, observation of the existing senior citizen recreation center during the
PM peak period revealed very little activity. Therefore, credit for existing peak period traffic
generated by the project site is not given to the proposed project.
Distribution of project-generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns in the
vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the
location of the proposed project. The general trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 3. An
estimated 40 percent of project traffic is assumed to travel north along Irvine Avenue. Along Coast
Highway, 20 percent of project traffic is assumed to travel west out of the study area, and 30
percent is expected to travel east out of the study area. The remaining 10 percent is assumed to
travel south out of the study area along Newport Boulevard.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
The City of Newport Beach identified 10 intersections for analysis to determine the impact
of the proposed development. These intersections are:
Coast Hwy/Riverside Ave Irvine Ave/Santiago Dr-22nd St
Coast Hwy/Tustin Ave Irvine Ave/University Dr
Coast Hwy/Dover Dr-Bayshore Dr Irvine Ave/Mesa Dr
Irvine Ave/Westcliff Dr-17th St Bristol St/Campus Dr-Irvine Ave
Irvine Ave/Dover Dr-19th St Bristol St N/Campus Dr
The 1989 peak 2.5 hour volumes were provided for each intersection by the city staff. Since
the project is expected to be completed by 1991, the ambient growth rate of one percent was added
to all volumes along Coast Highway east of Newport Boulevard. A factor of 1.5 percent was added
to all volumes along Irvine Avenue.
The peak 2.5 hour volumes of all approved projects, also provided by the city, were added
to the peak 2.5 hour volumes. The resulting volumes represent the projected peak 2.5 hour
volumes prior to the addition of project traffic. A list of approved projects is given in Table 2.
I p-5% BRISTOL
Q 5i<�y Lou)
ai tP
In
on
�N a� N
NI + �
MESA N
\ vER TY
j � N UNI Si
\ DEL MAR 57Z t
��b 1
0
2^_ND
W
K
i \ O
y� \ 19TH
/ z o
X t7THt0%"'i'��
U
AG �' so 5pl BAySiDE
wj 15TH
�> `) S'f
J F co
i
LEGEND
XX% .. DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE 3
®rTRIP DISTRIBUTION
AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES. INC.
S�
Table 2
APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY
APPROVED PROJECTS PERCENTAGE COMPLETED
Hughes Aircraft #1 100%Occupancy
Far West Savings and Loan 100% Occupancy
Aeranutron(c Ford 100%Occupancy
Hack Bay Office 100% Occupancy
Boyle Engineering 100%Occupancy
Cal Canadian Bank 100% Occupancy
Civic Plain 89% Occupancy
Corporate Plaza 3D% Occupancy
Koll Center Newport 100% Occupancy
MacArthur Court 100% Occupancy
Orchard OlBoc 100%Occupancy
Pacific Mutual TIM 100016 Occupancy
3701 Bitch OMcc 100% Occupancy
Newport Place ,86%Occupancy
Bank of Newport 100%Occupancy
Bayside Square 100% Occupancy
Sea Island 10D% Occupancy
Haywood Apartments 100% Occupancy
Harbor Point Homes 100% Occupancy
Rogees Gardens 100% Occupancy
SwWcw Lutheran Plaza 100% Occupancy
Rudy Baran 100%Occupancy
Quail Business Center 100%Occupancy
441 Newport Blvd 100%Occupancy
Martha's Vineyard 100% Occupancy
Coast Business Center 100%Occupancy
Ross Mallard 100% Occupancy
Hughes Aircraft #2 100% Occupancy
Flagship Hospital 100%Occupancy
Big Canyon 10 29% Occupancy
Fun Zone 100% Occupancy
Marriott Hotel 100% Occupancy
St.Andrew's Church 100% Occupancy
Allred Condos 100% Occupancy
Morgan Development 100%Occupancy
Four Seasons Hotel 100%.Occupancy
Univ.Ath Club TPP 4 EMKAY 100% Occupancy
Block 400 Medical 100%Occupancy
Amendment#1 MacArthur Court 52%Occupancy
Amendment #2 Ford Am 100% Occupancy
Carver Granville Office 100% Occupancy
Corona Del Mar Homes 100%Occupancy
Resan's Development 90% Occupancy
Block 500 Npt Center Project 100% Occupancy
Newport Aquatics Center 45% Occupancy
2600 E.Coast Hwy 100% Occupancy
Jasmine Park 100%Occupancy
Newporter Inn Expansion 100% Occupancy
Fashion Island Renaissance 100% Occupancy
CDM Senior Project 100% Occupancy
Point Del Mar 100%Occupancy
Pacific Club 100% Occupancy
Newport Sescresl Apts. 100%Occupancy
Seaside Apts.(Meal IT) 100%Occupancy
Victoria Station(Office) 100% Occupancy
Newport Imports l0D% Occupancy
Matinees Mite'Marine Center 100%Occupancy
1Sth St.Apts. 100% Occupancy
Seaside Apta. TIT 100% Occupancy
J ° �6
Table Z(cont.)
APPROVED PROJECTS SUMMARY
APPROVED PROJECTS PERCENTAGE COMPLETED
Amendment#1 Ford Aero 100% Occupancy
Amendment #1 Noah Ford 10D% Occupancy
Amendment #1 North Ford 100% Occupancy
Amendment #1 North Ford 100% Occupancy
One percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes of each approach of each intersection
was compared with the peak 2.5 hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary
of this comparison is shown in Table 3.
T&W 3
SUMMARY O'F'ONE'PERCENT ANALYSIS
AM PROJEMPEAK
25 HOUR'YOLt1MPS LESS THAN 1%•0F.1991
TNTBRSEM64 NB sB .EB• w6- PEAK'25 HOUR VOLUMES
Coast H%y/RWMIde 0 3 1 0 Yea
Coot Hwy/riMda a 1 0 0 Ye
Coact J*/Dcyec Bayshorc 0 3 0 2 Yes
IMne/Weitotiff•17th 5 21 1 0 Yea
Itvi CM0=-19t1t 4 2 0. 10 Yea
TrAne/5andago.22nd 4. 2 ' 0 O Yes
Ir4ownivenity 4 2 0 O 1 Yea
ImIne/Mesa 3 2 0 Q 'Yet
Eriit0VCamput 1tvtna 3 1 1 0 ye
Drhtot N16Mput 2 .1 0 �O Yet
PM:PltO1EG1"PF.P1C'
23 HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN 196'0F 1991
.INTERsECrt0N Nt3 §B. Es wB PEAK 2sA6UR.VOLUMES
Coast Irwy/lttveoidi 0. 2 4' : 0' Yes
-cont'.Awylltiutln or 1 1 0 Yea
Coast.Hwy/DoverBayshore 0 ' 2, 0" S Yes
ltvint/�Vatctiff+l7th 3 S ' 2 0 Yes
irvtnc/Ocsnrl9th 2. S 0' 01 Yes
Irvine/Santtago 22nd 2 5 0 0 Yes'
Wt exnWusity 2 4 f 0 'Yes
ImnWesa 2 4 0 0 Yca
BdstoVCampus-wne 2 3 1 0' Yes
Brhtot N/Campus ' 2 2 0 1' Yes
If one percent of the 1992 peak 2.5 hour volumes of each approach was larger than the
peak 2.5 hour project volumes,no further analyses were required. If project peak 2.5 hour volumes
were higher than one percent of the projected peak 2.5 hour volumes on any approach of any
intersection,the intersection was analyzed-using the Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) method.
Comparison of the one percent of the peak 2.5 hour volumes with the project peak 2.5 hour
volumes resulted in each intersection analyzed passing the one percent analysis and requiring no
further analysis. The one percent analysis sheets are included in the appendix.
66 3k
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed residential project would generate 18 trips during the AM peak 2.5 hour
period and 24 trips during the PM peak 2.5 hour period. Ten intersections were checked to
determine the marginal impact of project traffic on the street system. All 10 intersections passed
the one percent analysis; therefore, the proposed project has no marginal impact on the study
intersections.
i
t
I
k
APPENDIX
1% Traffic Volume Analvsis
Intersection: Coast Hwy a Riverside Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 0 0 3 3 0 0
Southbound 735 0 59 794 8 3
Eastbound 5463 87 616 6166 62 1
Westbound 2987 48 433 3468 35 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: ---- St/Irvine Ave Condos
FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
•
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy 8 Riverside Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Minter/Spring 89 PH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 37 0 8 45 0 0
Southbound 1164 0 30 1194 12 2
Eastbound 4642 14 626 5342 53 4
Westbound 5632 90 727 6449 64 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
!��` -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy 2 Tustin Ay
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily-Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected i% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2 0 0 2 0 0
Southbound 192 0 13 205 2 1
Eastbound 3909 63 624 4596 46 0
Westbound 2896 46 432 3374 34 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos — FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 6 S-
- ---------------- ---------------------
0 • 1 .
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy 8 Tustin Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PH
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Southbound 307 0 4 311 3 1
Eastbound 3601 58 627 42B6 43 1
Westbound 5441 87 712 6240 62 0
==> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
�� PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 ��
l% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hwy 8 Dover Dr/Bayshore Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 12 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 371 0 8 379 4 0
Southbound 2547 0 45 2592 26 3
Eastbound 4665 75 577 5317 53 0
Westbound 4999 80 429 5508 55 2
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
•
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Coast Hoy B Dover Dr/Bayshore Dr
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 Ph
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Broeth Peak 2 i/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 278 10 20 298 3 0
Southbound 3062 0 47 3109 31 2
Eastbound 4159 67 555 4781 48 0
Westbound 7581 121 652 8354 84 5
==> Project Traffic is estimated to he less than it of Projected
Peak 2 1/2, Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos --- FULL DCCUPpNCY YEAR; 1991
fcg ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------- N�
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av E 17th/Westcliff
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volute Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1856 45 169 2070 21 5
Southbound IB80 45 171 2096 21 2
Eastbound 1995 0 171 2166 22 1
Westbound 1027 0 11 1038 10 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 12 of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volute. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT- 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos -- FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR- 1991 �p
------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
• • � r
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av ! 17th/Wastcliff
Existing Traffic Voluses Based on Average'Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour growth Peak 2 i/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 1572 38 100 1710 17 3
Southbound 2173 71 344' 338B 34 5
Eastbound 2642 0 iO3 2745 27 2
Westbound 1876 0 8 1894 19 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 12 of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
?p ------------------_------------------------------------------------------------------------------ N
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av ! Dover Dr/19th St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2693 65 349 3107 31 4
Southbound 2164 52 177 2393 24 2
Eastbound 769 0 6 775 8 0
Westbound 825 0 9 934 B 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 7
------------------------------- H T1--
12 Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 8 Dover 0019th St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
H
Direction Peak 2 1!2 Hour Growth Peak 1/2 2 our Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume
Volume
Volume
Northbound 2213 53 209 2475 25 2
Southbound 4092 98 347 4537 45 5
Eastbound 595 0 3 59B b 0
Westbound 1363 0 7 1370 14 0
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than i% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/lrvine Ave Condos---------------------------- FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR- 1991
---------- --------------------- �(�
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 8 Santiago ➢r/22nd St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 3735 90 355 41BO 42 4
Southbound 1817 44 ISO 2041 20 2
Eastbound 657 0 4 661 7 0
Westbound 467 0 3 470 5 0
_=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 73
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 51
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 8 Santiago Dr/22nd St
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on-Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PM
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volute Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2490 60 212 2762 28 2
Sorthbound 4494 108 351 4953 50 5
Eastbound 404 0 0 404 4 0
Westbound 241 0 3 244 2 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volute. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
--------------—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- y
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 2 University Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 4467 107 377 4951 50 4
Southbaund 1519 36 226 1781 18 2
Eastbound 695 0 91 796 8 0
Westbound 60 0 44 104 1 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 7S'
-------- ------------------------------- fj 3
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 8 University Dr
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Minter/Spring 89 Ph
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
➢irection Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 flour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2509 60 227 2796 28 2
Southbound 4872 117 445 5434 54 4
Eastbound 751 0 59 010 B i
Westbound 199 0 40 239 2 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than li of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
�� ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tiN
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av t Hasa Or
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour 'Orowth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 3663 136 443 6242 62 3
Southbound 1727 41 221 1989 20 2
Eastbound 377 0 0 377 4 0
Westbound 217 0 0 217 2 0
==> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
-------------------------------
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Irvine Av 8 Mesa Dr
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Minter/Spring 89 PM
Peak 2 112 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2422 5B 266 2746 27 2
Sauthbound 4577 110 441 5128 51 4
Eastbound 467 0 0 467 5 0
Westbound 481 0 0 481 5 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
,Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than Mot Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilizatian
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos -----PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
'T _------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- 6
li Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Bristol St 2 Campus Or/Irvine Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 4027 97 449 4573 46 3
Southbound 907 0 218 1205 12 1
Eastbound 7271 0 791 8062 81 1
Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 7 9r
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• • � '4 ' .
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Bristol St ! Campus Or/Irvine Av
Existing Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 89 PH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 112 Hour Growth Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 2203 53 265 2521 25 2
Sorthbound 3196 0 445 3641 36 3
Eastbound 5341 0 544 5885 59 1
Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Cendos FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �v
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection: Bristol St N E Campus Dr
Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring B9 AN
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 13 of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth• Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour
Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume
Northbound 5293 0 154 5447 54 2
Southbound 1462 0 55 1517 15 1
Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound 323B 0 604 3842 38 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos PULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991 fj'(
--------------------------------------------------------------
a
• ! «�
1% Traffic Volute Analysis
Intersection: Bristol St N 8 Campus Or
Existing Traffic Volutes Based on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 09 PH
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved
Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project
Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Sromth Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour.
Volute Volume Volume Volute Volume Volute
Northbound 3190 0 74 3264 33 2
Southbound 3829 0 255 4084 41 2
Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0
Westbound 7378 0 1398 8776 88 1
=> Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume.
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
PROJECT: 15th St/Irvine Ave Condos -------------------- FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 1991
-- -------------------------- (�!�
02-219- pl
TRAFFIC STUDIES -ff0e06-)-
•
APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS:
NAME: ' A/I/- :�7 -
PHONE: / ! q � /
PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION:
DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE
iiib,�9 / 650. 00 f5o.pa l500. oD
RECEIPT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4t
p� O NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 No. 43191
t }CS �/0✓ Ica
t
DATE
!
�4DOpN�f
,/ ��/•��+
RECEIVED FROM h 't -!+�- /���r•.�� SIC) ` D O t
1(111, FOR: t t A-
i ACCOUNT NO AMOUNT
t ,
DEPARTM
t BY
•
CITY CF �EWPORr
DEMAND FOR o� e
NEWPORT
PAYMENT BEACH
Demand of. Austin-Foust Assoc. Date: Tan- 17, 1 qqn
Address: 1450 No. Tustin Ave.
s,,;te ina
Santa Ana, CA 92701
In the amount of: $1 -aa7_Sn
Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount
Principal JEF 680.00
Transportation Eng. 585.00
Sr. Technical 122.50 2-219- 1
Total $1,387.50
Approved For Payment:
Department Head
Audited and Approved:
Finance Director
RECEIVED BY
® ±USTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
1450 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE SUITE 108 • SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA 92701 • TELEPI g�E�� 1fi-049 60 pM
7-ig'1`�i�l�l��i�r�i415i6
January 5, 1990
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, Calif. 92660
Attention: Pat Temple
INVOICE
Invoice No: 3926
Subject: 15th St./Irvine Avenue TPO
AFA Project No: 017.026
Period: December 1 — 31, 1989
CLASSIFICATION HOURS RATE AMOUNT
Principal (JEF) 8.00 $85.00 $680.00
Transportation Engineer 13.00 -$45.00 $586.00
Sr. Technical 3.50 $35.00 $122.50
SUBTOTAL 24.50 $1 ,387.50
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $1,387.50
Previously Invoiced $0.00
This Invoice $1,387.50
Total Invoiced to Date $1,387.50
Amount Paid $0.00
Amount Outstanding $1,387.50
APPROVEI-) FOR PAYMENT
• By -tit
Plan 'ng Director
ACCOUNT NO.:
®�AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
1450 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE SUITE 108 • SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496
FAX (714) 667.7952
October 31, 1989
City of Newport Beach, Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663-38M
ATTENTION: Ms. Patty Temple
SUBJECT- PROPOSAL;. J5TrF.STREFrt1�tVUKE A IENUr. CONDOS TPO
Dear Patty:
Austin-Foust Associates is pleased to respond to your RFP to prepare a TPO study for the
15-unit condominium development proposed on the corner of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue. Since
you are familiar with our work, we shall forgo any promotional materials.
• Upon review of the architect's building layout (we will need an actual site plan for the study
report), it appears that the scope of work is straight forward and does not involve any specific
considerations which complicate the trip generation distribution or assignment. Therefore we
propose a fixed fee of $1,500 for the first phase of the TPO study, i.e., the one percent analysis
and the calculation of ICUs where necessary.
The report will follow the same toiinaf we have used in sdveial other similar studies which
we have completed. If you have any questions, please call.
Since ly,
P. W
oe oust, P.E. '
9 g1vCm
)JF-F,Idmh R6Py. #wS
Cc1;
r
SEW POD,
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-89?5
c�
A<<FORN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
November 3, 1989
Jim White
Mesa Development Co., Inc.
2925 College Avenue, #A-3
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Subjects 15th Street/Irvine Avenue Condos Traffic Study
Dear Mr. White:
The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal to provide a Traffic Study from the
consultant firm of Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., for the 15-unit condominium development
proposed for the corner of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue. The proposal contains an
outline of the scope of work services required and an estimated budget for the
preparation of the study.
• The fee requested has been reviewed by the City and the amount submitted for the tasks
required is considered appropriate and warranted. To proceed with the study, please
deposit the requested fees into your City account:
Traffic Study $1,500.00
City Fee (10%) 150.00
Total: $1,650.00
Please make your check payable to the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your
prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By gancinaTePmple
Principal Planner
JM\EIR-DOCS\MESA-DEV.11
Enclosure
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
y
SEW Po
ls
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
V P.O. BOX 1766, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
C9QFOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225
November 3, 1989
Jim White
Mesa Development Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 1974
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Subject: 15th Street/Irvine Avenue Condos Traffic Study
Dear Mr. White:
The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal to provide a Traffic Study from the
consultant firm of Austin-Foust Associates, Iric., for the 15-unit condominium development
proposed for the corner of 15th Street and Irvine Avenue. The proposal contains an
outline of the scope of work services required and an estimated budget for the
preparation of the study.
. The fee requested has been reviewed by the City and the amount submitted for the tasks
required is considered appropriate and warranted. To proceed with the study, please
deposit the requested fees into your City account:
Traffic Study $1,500.00
City Fee (10%) 150.00
Total: $1,650.00
Please make your check payable to the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your
prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By
Patricia Temple
Principal Planner
JM\EIR-DOCS\MESA-DEV.11
. Enclosure r r
3300 Newport Boul
evard, Newport Beach