The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTPO064_NEWPORT BLVD 28TH ST TP0064 REI _Iu�I� BY CITY OF NEWPORT BEA H C PLANNING QEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 31 1990 AM11990 GARY L.u Lt,County Clerk )ap NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ey 0 1 To: I l IJU 111114 I I 1 to From: City of Newport Beach Office of Planning and Research Planning Department ElI"Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange (Orange County) ® Public Services Division 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. POSTED Name of Project: 'Traffic Study No. 64 AN 3 11 90 BARY L. GRA u By State Clearinghouse Number.• Lead Agency Contact Person Teleph one No.: William Ward, Sr. Planner 714 / 644-3200 Project Location: 2807 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Project Description: Demoliton of an existing commercial structure and construction of a mixed-use, commercial/residential development. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on 1-4-90 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 measuresfR 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, 92659-1768;714/644-3225 January 26, 1990 Principal Planner Signature Date Title r ' oPoR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ` V P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 f cc�oaH`P NEGATIVE DECLARATION T0: 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 i Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 © County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT:2 yyL �((d 0,, 6-'l / �,� /� ,��( Q�� / Q PROJECT LOCATION: 2D�7' /l?w1 oI-- !� dow d /114 4 RJ �1N4/ `� ?W1063 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: '04MOIj7l0/K+ an wG ,# j avilJn hMtt !-use, �'c�rsmQ,-cia!/risideu�ia/ 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: - fee INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: /f/ i 1. INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator /q DATEo''/ 1...:LfLy/M . �0lx / 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC UST FORM ; I. Background 1. Name of Proponent AIWI„ h yal/�/L3�mB/�7 LO/11�a111� 2. EMS d Number of Proponent (o 3. Date Checklist Submitted Nyi/,rmbQr 7 1989 4. Agency Requiring Checklist GI .�!d �� ,� 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable �G6kdg II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in - geologic substructures? — b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? — -� - — C. Change in topography or ground surface y relief features? 1► d. The destruction, covering or modification v of any unique geologic or physical features? _ A e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of Soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? �{ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ - 1 - Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? d v b. The creation of objectionable odors? R C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, v either locally or regionally? 3 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? — C. Alterations to the course or flow of E;k flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? 3 e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an 1 aquifer by cuts or excavations? — 3 h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? — i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 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 planrs (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare K or endangered species of plants? — i C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? J► d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 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- v fish, benthic organisms or insects)? Jy b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into i an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: i a. Increases in existing noise levels? — X � 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 - Yes Maybe No 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? — 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the. event of an accident or upset conditions? — b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? — 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? — 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? — 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional v vehicular movement? — J► — 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 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 - Yes Maybe No a. Fire protection? - k b. Police protection? n — C. Schools? — d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? — 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development v of new sources of energy? — A- 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? — e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in? a. Creation of any health4azard 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 v to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? — b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? — i I C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect J unique ethnic cultural values? — d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? — 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? — 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 X 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 x on human beings, either directly or indirectly?— III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) i IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: j I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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, then.: will not be a significant � effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 Date Signature C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For I - 7 - I MITIGATION MEASURES 1. All exterior living areas (e.g. balconies and patios) which lie within the 65 CNEL contour shall be constructed with' 6-foot high noise barriers. The noise barrier shall be continuous (no opening or gaps) and have a minimum density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. The walls may be stud walls with cement plaster exterior, 1.4 inch plate glass, 5.8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or any combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be used if specifically designed as noise barriers. 2. All units exposed to exterior noise levels higher than 65 CNEL shall be constructed so as to achieve interior noise levels no greater than 45 CNEL. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a qualified acoustical engineer shall review final architectural plans to determine what building upgrades will be necessary to achieve this standard. The City Engineer shall require that such upgrades be incorporated into the plans prior to issuance of the Building permit. Most likely the only building upgrade that will be required is higher rated windows such as 3.16 inch single pane glass for all windows that are exposed to Newport Boulevard. 3. All units that have a window exposed to Newport Boulevard, shall be required to install mechanical ventilation. Air conditioning is an acceptable substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as it meets the Uniform Building Code requirements. 4. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the City Engineer shall require that an acoustical analysis be conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer (at the .developer's expense,). This analysis shall determine if all noise mitigation has been installed as required and that noise levels will meet City standards. The noise measurements shall be taken at that point in the worst case unit where the highest noise levels are expected. If different noise attenuation methods are used for different units, then a worst case unit for each method shall be tested. 5. The lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical ,Engineer; with a letter stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. MITIGATION MONITORING The mitigation measures attached as conditions of approval to the project shall be verified for compliance at the time building permits are issued, with additional verification at the time of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy as appropriate, by the Building and Planning Departments. 1 PROTECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would result in the demolition of a small commercial building, and the construction of a mixed use, residential/commercial development. The project is located on the island formed by the one-way couplet of Newport Boulevard westerly of 28th Street on the Balboa Peninsula. The new development would include approximately 4,250 sq.ft. of retail commercial development, 4,500 sq.ft. of office development and four apartment units. All parldng is provided on-site. The dwelling units to be provided are intended to satisfy the affordable housing requirements of a project approved across Newport Boulevard and 28th Street. Additionally, the site will be used as a construction parking, staging and storage yard while a subterranean parking structure is constructed-across the street. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Lb. The project site is currently developed with a small commercial structure and a parking lot. Development of the project may, however, cause some disruption and compaction of the soil. This is not anticipated to result in any adverse environmental effects. 6.b. The project location is between the one way couplet of Newport Boulevard. This road is an arterial highway which carries a significant level of traffic. The location of residential units on site may expose the occupants to high levels of traffic noise. This potentially significant environmental effect will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the requirement of sound attenuate outdoor living areas to 65 dBA and interior living areas to 45 dBA attached as a condition of approval - to the project. 7. The development of the project will produce new light and glare from the new commercial and residential structures, and from the parking areas constructed to support the new development. While the light produced would be similar in nature to that associated with the development in the neighborhood, the proposal to include residential units as part of the project warrants particular sensitivity to the lighting of the project. A mitigation measure requiring that lighting be directed and shielded in such a manner as to minimize light spillage and glare into the on-site residential units will reduce any potential environmental effects to a level of insignificance. 13.a. The development of the proposed project will generate more traffic than that associated with the existing land uses. There is, however, adequate capacity in the circulation system to accommodate this growth, and no intersections are adversely impacted by the proposed development as defined by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The increase in traffic is considered an insignificant adverse effect of the project. 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 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: traffic Study No. 64 Stare Clearinghouse Number.• Lead Agency Contact Person: Telephone No.: William Ward, Sr. Planner 714 / 644-3200 Project Location: 2807 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Project Description: Demoliton of an existing commercial structure and construction of a mixed-use, commercial/residential development. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on 1-4-90 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 JD 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, 92659-1768;714/644-3225 January 26, 1990 Principal Planner Signature Date Title f_ COMMISSIONERS January 4, 1990MINUTES OA d'dd•d� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 16. That Fire Department access shall be approved by t Fire Department. 17. That any future development of the site be rinklered unless otherwise permitted by the Fire De ment. 18. The applicant shall record a covenant ich shall hold the subject property as a single buildi site if it is the desire of the applicant to obtain bui ing permits prior to the recordation of the final ma . 19. That all other previo applicable conditions of approval for Waiver of Co 'ring Requirement,Coastal Residential Development rmit No. 14 and related environmental document, proved by the Planning Commission on Septemb 21, 1989, shall be fulfilled. 20. this subdivision shall expire if the map has not been ecorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. A Traffic Study No 64 (Public Hearing) Item No.5 Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the TS 64 construction of 8,750± square feet of commercial space and 4 dwelling units on property located in the "Retail and Service R914 Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Approved Specific Plan; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Resubdivision No 914 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide a portion of one lot and four other lots into a single parcel of land for mixed commercial/residential development on property located in the "Retail and 'Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 10, and all of Lots 11-14, Block 227, Section A, Newport Beach, located at 2807-2815 Newport Boulevard, on -13- . • January 4, 1990 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES O� \ CITY �d d�r+� q� OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX the northerly side of 28th Street, in the Newport Boulevard Island, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Newcomb Development,Inc.,Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: K.W. Lawler and Associates, Inc., Tustin The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John Newcomb, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission wherein he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. Newcomb stated that the applicants intend to request that the City Council consider the waiver of the park dedication fee inasmuch as the four apartment units being proposed are intended to be low or moderate income units and the City Council has the discretion to waive said fee. Commissioner Glover referred to Mitigation Measure No. 1 in Exhibit "A" with regard to noise barriers, and she asked if the applicants intend to construct walls around the proposed development. Mr. Newcomb explained that the four residential units will not be walled; however, the construction of the units will comply with the 65 CNEL requirement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover with regard to trash, Mr. Newcomb explained that the enclosed trash area will be installed within the parking lot area that is proposed to be in the middle of the project. 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 Traffic Study No, 64, Ayes * * * * * * Resubdivision No. 914 and related environmental document Absent * subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. -14- ti • •COMMISSIONERS January 4, ""MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL 111 Jill I INDEX A. Environmental Document Findings: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That based on the information contained in the environmental document,the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Mitigation Measures: 1. All exterior living areas (e.g. balconies and patios) which lie within the 65 CNEL contour shall be constructed with 6-foot high noise barriers. The noise barrier shall be continuous (no opening or gaps) and have a minimum density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. The walls may be stud walls with cement plaster exterior, 1.4 inch plate glass, 5.8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or any combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be used if specifically designed as noise barriers. 2. All units exposed to exterior noise levels higher than 65 CNEL shall be constructed so as to achieve interior noise levels no greater than 45 CNEL. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a qualified engineer practicing in acoustics shall review final architectural plans to determine what building upgrades will be necessary to achieve this standard. The City Engineer shall require that such upgrades be incorporated into the plans prior to issuance of the building permit. Most likely the only building upgrade that will be required is higher rated windows such as 3.16 inch single pane glass for all windows that are exposed to Newport Boulevard. 3. All units that have a window exposed to Newport Boulevard, shall be required to install mechanical -15- 1 • • January 4, 1990MINUTES COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX ventilation. Air conditioning is an acceptable substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as it meets the Uniform Building Code requirements. 4. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the City Engineer shall require that an acoustical analysis be conducted by a qualified engineer practicing in acoustics (at the developer's expense). This analysis shall determine if all noise mitigation has been installed as required and that noise levels will meet City standards. The noise measurements shall be taken at that point in the worst case unit where the highest noise levels are expected. If different noise attenuation methods are used for different units, then a worst case unit for each method shall be tested. 5. The lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. B. Traffic Study No. 64: Findin : 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary-modified', or 'primary' street. C. Resubdivision No. 914: Findings: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of the property within the proposed resubdivision. -16- • • January 4, ""MINUTES COMMISSIONERS 16 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That Section 13.05.010 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires that public improvements be completed in commercial areas prior to the issuance of building permits for a new structure. 4. That the traffic congestion during the summer months (June 1 through September 15) and during Easter Vacation ( one week before and one week after Easter) is significant and any major truck haul operation during this time would further congest the traffic to an unacceptable level. 5. That this area has significant pedestrian traffic which require that sidewalks remain open during construction operations. 6. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. . 7. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits and that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each building and 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. -17- • • January 4, 1990 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 6. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 7. That a park dedication fee for four dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code unless otherwise waived by the City Council. 8. That the on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 9. That the intersection of the streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty- four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 10. That a 15 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (northbound) and at the comer of 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (southbound) shall be dedicated to the public. 11. That curb, gutter and full width sidewalk be reconstructed along the Newport Boulevard frontage (northbound); that the deteriorated and displaced sections of sidewalk and curb and gutter be reconstructed along the 28th Street frontage; that the curb returns at the intersection of 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (northbound) and the intersection of 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (southbound) be reconstructed to a 20 foot radius including curb access ramps per City Standard 181-L. The reconstruction of the curb return at 28th Street and -18- + COMMISSIONERS • • January 4, ""MINUTES o d'd�•dce CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL lNOEX Newport Boulevard (northbound) will require relocation of existing traffic signals. That the unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Newport Boulevard frontage (nouthbound); that street lights be constructed per current City standards along the 28th Street and Newport Boulevard frontages as required by the Public Works Department; and that all street, drainage and utility improvements plans be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 12. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 13. That the Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 14. That 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 be allowed within the Newport Boulevard right-of-way. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a parking plan showing how workers will be able to park without using on-street parking must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. 15. That no earthwork hauling operations, major concrete placement and other construction operations requiring more than 32 trips per day or 4 trips/hour by trucks with more than 3 axles be scheduled to occur between June 1 and September 15, and one week before and after Easter. 16. That any proposed underground building construction shall be setback from the sidewalk a sufficient distance to allow the sidewalk to remain in service during construction and that no tie backs or foundations be constructed in the public right-of-way. 17. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, -19- a •COMMISSIONERS • January 4, 1990MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX along with a master plan of'water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to recording of the parcel 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. 18. That an agreement for maintenance of non-standard improvements be executed by the developer if special textured sidewalk or other non-standard improvements are proposed to be constructed within the public right-of-way around the development. The design of all non-standard improvements shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 19. That a maximum of two driveways shall be permitted on each of the northbound and southbound frontages of Newport Boulevard and no driveways shall be permitted on 28th Street. 20. That all access and parking for the proposed development shall be subject to further review of the City Traffic Engineer. 21. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Use Permit No 1546 (Amended)(Public Hearing) Item No.6 Request to amend a previously approved use pe which UP1546(A) allowed the establishment of the Harbor Day Scho , on property located in the R-3-B District. The proposed dment involves roved a request to permit the construction of thr new classrooms, the expansion of two existing classrooms, a construction of a new storage room, the expansion of an sting storage room, and the construction of various mecha ' al rooms. LOCATION: P el No.2, Parcel Map 35-2(Resubdivision o. 287), located at 3443 Pacific View Drive on the southerly side of Pacific View Drive, easterly of Marguerite Avenue, in Corona del Mar. -20- Planning Commission Meeting January 4. 1990 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Traffic Study No 64 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to permit the construction of 8,750± square feet of commercial space and 4 dwelling units on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Resubdivision No 914 fthlic Hearing) Request to resubdivide a portion of one lot and four other lots into a single parcel of land for mixed commercial/residential development on property located in the "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 10, and all of Lots 11-14, Block 227, Section A, Newport Beach, located at 2807-2815 Newport Boulevard, on the northerly side of 28th Street, in the Newport Boulevard Island, in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Newcomb Development, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant ENGINEER: KW. Lawler and Associates, Inc., Tustin Application This application involves a request to approve a traffic study for a mixed commercial/residential development containing commercial uses on the ground floor and office and four low or moderate income apartments on the second floor. The proposal also includes a request to resubdivide four lots and a portion of a fifth lot into a single parcel of land for mixed commercial/residential development on property located in the I TO: Planning Commission - 2. "Retail and Service Commercial" area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. In accordance with Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, commercial, industrial and multiple residential properties which are comprised of more than one lot or parcel of land must be resubdivided into a single building site if a building is proposed to cross a property line. Resubdivision procedures are set forth in Section 19.12.040 of the Municipal Code. Traffic study procedures are set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K 3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project and is attached for the Planning Commission's information. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is currently developed with two commercial buildings and a related parking lot on the four northerly lots and a paved parking lot on the southerly lot. One of the commercial buildings is occupied by an upholstery shop and a florist shop, the other is vacant.. To the north, is a commercial building containing the Ocean Spa; to the east, across Newport Boulevard (northbound) is the El Ranchito Restaurant, a small residential structure, two commercial buildings and two mixed commercial/residential developments; to the south, across 28th Street is a motel; and to the west, across Newport Boulevard (southbound) is a Municipal Parking Lot. Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan and, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. The subject project is a permitted use within this designation. The Land Use Element specifies a land use intensity limit of 0.5/1.0 FAR, with mixed use commercial/residential development allowed up to a floor area limit of 1.25. The parking structure FAR allocation for mixed use is 0.35, so the mixed use building bulk limit is 1.60. One residential unit is allowed for each 2,375 sq.ft. of buildable lot area. The proposed project containing 4 dwelling units has 5,793 sq.ft. of buildable lot area per unit. The residential portion of the project containing 4,019± sq.ft. is 0.174 FAR. The '8,750 sq.ft of commercial development equals 0378 FAR. Above grade covered parking occupies 4,535± sq.ft., or 0.196 FAR. The total building bulk of the project is 0.748 FAR. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan as modified by the f TO: Planning Commission - 3. General Plan review process. In accordance with the provisions of the California Coastal Act, the subject application also requires the approval of the Coastal Commission. Background At its meeting of October 5, 1989, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a Tentative Map of Tract 14025 and approve Site Plan Review No. 52, Use Permit No. 3361, Traffic Study No. 59 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 18 for a mixed commercial/residential development at the southeasterly corner .of Newport Boulevard and 28th Street. Said project is commonly known as the 28th Street Marina Project. At its meeting of October 30, 1989, the City Council also approved the above referenced applications. It should be noted that the approval of Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 18, required the applicant to provide four affordable housing units either within the project or in an off-site location for a period of thirty years. The four residential units proposed in conjunction with the current application are for the purpose of satisfying the applicant's affordable housing requirement for his previous project. Analysis The subject property is comprised of four lots and a portion of a fifth lot previously subdivided in conjunction with the original subdivision of Section "A" of Newport Beach. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the five lots into a single parcel of land so as to create a legal building site for the development of a combined commercial/residential project on the site. As indicated on the attached parcel map, the subject property will contain .532 acres (23,174 square feet) and will maintain 219.16 feet of frontage on Newport Boulevard (northbound), 169.65 feet of frontage on Newport Boulevard (south- bound) and 130.07 feet of frontage on 28th Street. A plot plan and floor plans of the proposed development will be on display in the Council Chambers for Commission review. Traffic Study In accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the applicant is required to obtain the approval of a traffic study for the proposed commercial/residential development. Said traffic study has been prepared and is attached for the Planning Commission's review. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1990. Analyses were therefore completed for 1991. The City Traffic Engineer identified eight 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 the traffic of previously projects. For an intersection where on an approach leg, the project traffic committed p 1 y � Y PP TO: Planning Commission - 4. is estimated to be greater than 1% of the projected morning and afternoon peak two and one-half hour volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) is required. Results of the one percent test indicate that the project traffic did not exceed 1% of projected traffic on any approach leg of any of the intersections evaluated. Therefore no further analysis is required. Park Dedication Requirement In accordance with Section 19.50.020 of the Municipal Code, as a condition of approval of a parcel map, the subdivider is required to pay an in-lieu fee for each new dwelling unit to be created in conjunction with the parcel map. Inasmuch as the subject property is currently developed for commercial purposes and contains no residential units, the proposed development will., result in an increase of four dwelling units. Therefore, the applicant will, be required to satisfy the City's park dedication requirement through the payment of an in-lieu fee for four dwelling units prior to recordation of the parcel map. The current fee for one dwelling unit is $6,894.37; therefore, the total park dedication fee for the proposed project is $27,577.48. It should also be noted by the Planning Commission, that inasmuch as the four apartment units being proposed by the applicant are intended to be low or moderate income units, the Housing Element of the Newport Beach General Plan provides that the City Council has the discretion to waive the park dedication free in such a case. Therefore, the applicant has the opportunity to request such a waiver from the City Council. Specific Findings Section 19.12.020 (D) of the Municipal Code provides that in order to approve a resubdivision, the Planning Commission shall determine that it is satisfied with the plan of subdivision, that the map is in conformity with the requirements of Title 19, all ordinances of the City and all applicable general and specific plans. Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code also requires that the Planning Commission make certain findings in conjunction with its approval of a traffic study. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve this application, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. In accordance with Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, a legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable and general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision, is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. j J TO: Planning Commission - 5. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. It is staffs opinion that none of the above findings may reasonably be made in this case, and therefore no exhibit for denial has been provided. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director W.y William Ward Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Negative Declaration Traffic Study Tentative Parcel Map F:\WP50\BI11 W\RESUB\R914 y TO: Planning Commission - 6. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 64, RESUBDIVISION NO. 914 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. Environmental Document in in : 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That based on the information contained in the environmental document, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental effects, and that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. Mitigation Measures: 1. All exterior living areas (e:g. balconies and patios) which lie within the 65 CNEL contour shall be constructed with 6-foot high noise barriers. The noise barrier shall be continuous (no opening or gaps) and have a minimum density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. The walls may be stud walls with cement plaster exterior, 1.4 inch plate glass, 5.8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or any combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be used if specifically designed as noise barriers. 2. All units exposed to exterior noise levels higher than 65 CNEL shall be constructed so as to achieve interior noise levels no greater than 45 CNEL. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a qualified engineer practicing in acoustics shall review final architectural plans to determine what building upgrades, will be necessary to achieve this standard. The City Engineer shall require that such upgrades be incorporated into the plans prior to issuance of the building permit. Most likely the only building upgrade that will be required is higher rated windows such as 3.16 inch single.pane glass for all windows that are exposed to Newport Boulevard. TO: Planning Commission - 7. 3. All units t exposed that have a window a osed to Newport Boulevard, shall be required to install mechanical ventilation. Air conditioning is an acceptable substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as it meets the Uniform Building Code requirements. 4. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the City Engineer shall require that an acoustical analysis be conducted by a qualified engineer practicing in acoustics (at the developer's expense). This analysis shall determine if all noise mitigation has been installed as required and that noise levels will meet City standards. The noise measurements shall be taken at that point in the worst case unit where the highest noise levels are expected. If different noise attenuation methods are used for different units, then a worst case unit for each method shall be tested. 5. The lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. B. Traffic Study No, 64: Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major', 'primary-modified', or 'primary' street. C. Resubdivision No. 914: Findings: 1. That the design of the subdivision improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for E TO: Planning Commission - 8. access through or use of the property within the proposed resubdivision. 2. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That Section 13.05.010 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires that public improvements be completed in commercial areas prior to the issuance of building,permits for a new structure. 4. That the traffic congestion during the summer months (June 1 through September 15) and during Easter Vacation ( one week before and one week after Easter) is significant and any major truck haul operation during this time would further congest the traffic to an unacceptable level. 5. That this area has significant pedestrian traffic which require that sidewalks remain open during construction operations. 6. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 7. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.120 of the Municipal Code and Section 66415 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits and that the Parcel Map be prepared using the State Plane Coordinate System as a basis of bearing. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works,Department. 3. That each building and 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. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. ia TO: Planning Commission - 9. 5. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a parcel map prior to completion of the public improvements. 6. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the recordation of the parcel map. 7. That a park dedication fee for four dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.50 of the Municipal Code unless otherwise waived by the City Council. 8. That the on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation system be subject to further review by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 9. That the intersection of the streets and drives be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 10. That a 15 foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (northbound) and at the corner of 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (southbound) shall be dedicated to the public. 11. That curb, gutter and full width sidewalk be reconstructed along the Newport Boulevard frontage (northbound); that the deteriorated and displaced sections of sidewalk and curb and gutter be reconstructed along the 28th Street frontage; that the curb returns at the intersection of 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (northbound) and the intersection of 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (southbound) be reconstructed to a 20 foot radius including curb access ramps per City Standard 181-L. The reconstruction of the curb return at 28th Street and Newport Boulevard (northbound) will require relocation of existing traffic signals. That the unused drive aprons be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Newport Boulevard frontage (southbound); that street lights be constructed per current City standards along the 28th Street and Newport Boulevard frontages as TO: Planning Commission - 10. required by the Public Works Department; and that all street, drainage and utility improvements plans be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 12. That the Public Works Department plan check and inspection fee be paid. 13. That the Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 14. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be mimmized 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 be allowed within the Newport Boulevard right-of-way. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, a parking plan showing how workers will be able to park without using on-street parking must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. 15. That no earthwork hauling operations, major concrete placement and other construction operations requiring more than 32 trips per day or 4 trips/hour by trucks with more than 3 axles be scheduled to occur between June 1 and September 15, and one week before and after Easter. 16. That any proposed underground building construction shall be setback from the sidewalk a sufficient distance to allow the sidewalk to remain in service during construction and that no tie backs or foundations be constructed in the public right- of-way. 17. 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 of the parcel 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. TO: Planning Commission - 11. 18. That an agreement for maintenance of non-standard improvements be executed by the developer if special textured sidewalk or other non-standard improvements are proposed to be constructed within the public right-of-way around the development. The design of all non-standard improvements shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 19. That a maximum of two driveways shall be permitted on each of the northbound and southbound frontages of Newport Boulevard and no driveways shall be permitted on 28th Street. 20. That all access and parking for the proposed development shall be subject to further review of the City Traffic Engineer. 21. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. , L MAP NP A/o. 3 SEE MAP Ab. ¢ 4 SP-S 6P -G C-Z \\ \ I w yp-g SP-G .f Sp -6 ; SP-ga bAbp SP - G O V SP- G T P �0 /• 19 \�� B n QM1 9' v G• gT• 1�'^~ o \ IP a + ro u.w \v\ \�7L R (L Z 9 y .4• 0 49 �\ ai '� N 4 ELK gTN yY (P \\M \,\;t, \ �\•� P �� P"~ Sr w M � o 0 `` C ZB G ST.IrA9y 1 '� A\ 4•` O N i \\ v. ojto Ci tJuLM O \� °m " \\-NLTWP OR BAY MRYftQf IXYO �A \ \ Won. AYI N fAVIAr \ Lu�i9mar- i.�fS�+a.:vio. mn-�•a \ JCL' MAP Alo .9 Y wrA:YnN DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH - CALIFORNIA "'^'•�. R-A AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C_I LIGHT CONMEACIAL • R—= DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL 2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL FEET R_O RESYO.MULTIPLE MANLY RESIDENTIAL ME1 MANUFACTURING ORD,N0:933 A» gee �� -H WOWING DISTRICTS U UNCLASSIFIED DEC a,ISW MAP NO Front Yard De h In F f Sh9wn Thu►;-I TRAFFIC *MlP ' WVa 6 f aK 1fC5V5ro01514V A16a I # O�SEW Pp� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 cq<r Fp aN�P NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: Planning Department o1400 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:?rA 43�ud Q, 641 Q ,' /� Q 2 PROJECT LOCATION: z 90� Nw Qi-t lei dowel, Ago 04 ,[ 441 (4 ?-043 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 04emvllAox, an y#a4Av ane' (Oh�rllL�i4n rt �11lX -use, Ca�rrrra�-�ial�Ycsideu�ia/ 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: • �F� Ci��AC�t� dill�l�l/ .��. INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator DATE:gA*M&(' �Z'f'XV 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach j MmROL MiTAL C11EQaJST FORM I. Background 1. Name of Proponent 2, dress and Phone Number of roponent0� to�/ ` 3. Date Checklist Submitted N�yimn A&- 02 71 IXO 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable u II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? — — c. Change in topography or ground surface V relief features? — 1� d. The destruction, covering or modification X 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 inodi£y the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? — g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? - - 1 - L , 1 Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? v b. The creation of objectionable odors? — A- 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 L marine or fresh waters? — b b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, v dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — L f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? — h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? — J. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? — 2 - / S 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 x or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal v replenishment of existing species?. L _ y d Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? A- 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- hers 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, rare or endangered species of animals? _ C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? — b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? — S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 3 - l�0 Yes Maybe No 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural v resources? A 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the. event of an accident or upset conditions? — b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? — 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional X vehicular movement? — — b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — C. Substantial impact upon existing trans- v portation systems? L 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? -- {i- 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 Yes Maybe No a. Fire protection? - k b. Police protection? — C. Schools? -- d. Parks or other recreational facilities? — e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? — f. Other governmental services? — 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — b. substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development 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? — 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 health(.%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 v to public view? — — 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or X historic archaeological site? — — b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or v historic building, structure, or object? — 3 C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect v unique ethnic cultural values? — 1� d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 6 i 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 I 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 1 the environment is significant.) _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects X on human beings, either directly or indirectly?_ III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination II, 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. I find that although the proposed project could have a signif- icant effect on the environment, therw will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described II on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Q Date Signature C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For - 7 - CPO MITIGATION MEASURES 1. All exterior living areas (e.g. balconies and patios) which lie within the 65 CNEL contour shall be constructed with 6-foot_high noise barriers. The noise barrier shall be continuous (no opening or gaps) and have a minimum density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. The walls may be stud walls with cement plaster exterior, 1.4 inch plate glass, 5.8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or any combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be used if specifically designed as noise barriers. 2. All units exposed to exterior noise levels higher than 65 CNEL shall be constructed so as to achieve interior noise levels no greater than 45 CNEL. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a qualified acoustical engineer shall review final architectural plans to determine what building upgrades will be necessary to achieve this standard. The City Engineer shall require that such upgrades be incorporated into the plans prior to issuance of the Building permit. Most likely the only building upgrade that will be required is higher rated windows such as 3.16 inch single pane glass for all windows that are exposed to Newport Boulevard. 3. All units that have a window exposed to Newport Boulevard, shall be required to install mechanical ventilation. Air conditioning is an acceptable substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as it meets the Uniform Building Code requirements. 4. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the City Engineer shall require that an acoustical analysis be conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer (at the .developer's expense). This analysis shall determine if all noise mitigation has been installed as required and that noise levels will meet City standards. The noise measurements shall be taken at that point in the worst case unit where the highest noise levels are expected. If different noise attenuation methods are used for different units, then a worst case unit for each method shall be tested. 5. The lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. MITIGATION MONITORING The mitigation measures attached as conditions of approval to the project shall be verified for compliance at the time building permits are issued, with additional verification at the time of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy as appropriate, by the Building and Planning Departments. 9l r 1 PROTECT DESCRIPTION 'The proposed project would result,in the demolition of a small commercial building, and the construction of a mixed use, residential/commercial development. The project is located on the island formed by ,the one-way couplet of Newport Boulevard westerly of 28th Street on the Balboa Peninsula. The new development would include approximately 4,250 sq.ft. of retail commercial development, 4,500 sq.ft. of office development and four apartment units. All parking is provided on-site. The dwelling units to be provided are intended to satisfy the affordable housing requirements of a project approved across Newport Boulevard and 28th Street. Additionally, the site will be used as a construction parking, staging and storage yard while a subterranean parking structure is constructed•across the street. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1.b. The project site is currently developed with a small commercial structure and a parking lot. Development of the project may, however, cause some disruption and ' compaction of the soil. This is not anticipated to result in any adverse environmental effects. 6.b. The project location is between the one way couplet of Newport Boulevard. This road is an arterial highway which carries a significant level of traffic. The location of residential units on-site may expose the occupants to high levels of traffic noise. This potentially significant environmental effect will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the requirement of sound attenuate outdoor living areas to 65 dBA and interior living areas to 45 dBA attached as a condition of approval to the project. 7. The development of the project will produce new light and glare from the new commercial and residential structures, and from the parking areas constructed to support the new development. While the light produced would be similar in nature to that associated with,the developn,dnt in the neighborhood, the proposal to include residential units as part of the project warrants particular sensitivity to the lighting of the project. A mitigation measure requiring that lighting be directed and shielded in such a manner as to minimize light spillage and glare into the on-site residential units will reduce any potential environmental effects to a level of insignificance. 13.a. The development of the proposed project will generate more traffic than that associated with the existing land uses. There is, however, adequate capacity in the circulation system to accommodate this growth, and no intersections are adversely impacted by the proposed development as defined by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The increase,in traffic is considered an insignificant adverse effect of the project. as A Weston Pringle Associates TRAI'FIC & 'm.4`tipm?TATiUiJ ENGINEERING December 19, 1989 �p g R�NylNO ,/ Ms. Patricia Lee Temple 9 O�rS. 11 Planning Department 2 p1989 City of Newport Beach SEC' OF P.O. Box 1768 y uyOEIBFACH' 1? Newport Beach, CA 92 658-8915 '� >>Nti�' ptt_Sv J/` f Dear Ms. Temple: This letter summarizes our analysis of traffic factors related to the proposed Newport Boulevard and 28th Street development in the City of Newport Beach. The study has been conducted to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This study is based upon information provided by you, the developer, City Staff and previous studies. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located northerly of 28th Street and between the one-way couplet formed by Newport Boulevard. At present, the site contains 5,750 square feet (SF) of commercial uses and a vacant lot. Planned development includes 4,250 SF of commercial use, 4,000 SF of office use and four residential units. Table 1 summarizes existing and proposed site uses. Parking for 41 vehicles is also included on-site. Vehicular access is proposed on both segments of Newport Boulevard. Figure 1 illustrates the site location. EXISTING CONDITIONS Newport Boulevard is the southerly extension of the Route 55 Freeway. Adjacent to the site it becomes a one-way couplet with the southbound direction to the west of the site and northbound to the east. Both segments of Newport Boulevard have two lanes of traffic and on-street parking. The intersection of Newport Boulevard Northbound and 28th Street is signalized. 28th Street extends westerly to Balboa Boulevard and is a two-lane facility. The intersection of Newport Boulevard Southbound and 28th Street is controlled with STOP signs on 28th Street. p3 2651 Fast Chapman.Wenuc • Suite 110 • Fullerton, California 926711 • (714) 87 1.2J31 Table 1 LAND USE SUMMARY QUANTITY LAND USE Existing Proposdd Commercial 5,750 SF Commercial 4,250 SF Office 4,000 SF Residential 4 DU IOY DR j I a L BRISrot_ ST m BRlsro� s NORrH . r. 40� � n a s ti C+ �` a D. FORO 6� GQ a HOSPITAL SIN J04QUI a a' cn gr 43 RD. h jr W m �u cc z a LLJ COAST HWY. W2 � a. o VIA LIDO to PACIFIC �� Q o IT -SITE SITE LOCATION MAP WnTON PMCLE & ASSOCIATES FIGURE 1 25r Existing daily traffic volumes and 1988 ICU values at major intersections are illustrated on Figure 2. These data were provided by the City of Newport Beach. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation rates for various land uses have been developed from studies conducted by government agencies and consultants. The City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has recommended a rate for commercial, office and residential uses which would apply to this project. These rates are listed in'Table 2. The estimated 2.5 and peak hour trip generation for the existing and development are listed in Table 3. These estimates are based upon the quantities listed in Table 1. Since trips are currently being generated by the existing uses, these trips were deducted so that the actual increase in traffic could be estimated. The current trip generation from the site is included in the existing traffic data utilized for the traffic analysis later in this report. An estimated increase of 20 trips would be generated during the AM 2.5 hour peak and 10 during the PM 2.5 hour peak. During the AM peak hour, an increase estimated to be 10 trips would be generated and 5 during the PM peak hour. TRIP ASSIGNMENT In order to assign project traffic to the street system, it is necessary to develop a trip distribution pattern. A trip distribution pattern was developed based upon regional land use and circulation, previous studies and consideration of the proposed uses. This distribution is illustrated on Figure 3. The estimated trips to be generated by the project were assigned to the street system in conformance with this distribution. P-b y 37 .57/0.66 36 0.68/0.69 0.47/0.56 OR 14 y 0,58/0.92 r T. 0.49/0.49 0 1.02/0.90 I OQ' SRISTOL ST 15 0.54/0.62 �\ BRISTO NORTH 0.84/0.8��Q` S T. Q96/0.71� 29 48 LEGEND 0.95/0.59 0.87/0.68 56 = DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 g�HTC� IN THOUSANDS. 0.78/0.55 54 S `"' • Q77/0.66 = AM/PM ICU 0.89/0.73 ,Pv r 6 61 tic 9` 39 Q69/0.59 FORD 6 0.91/0.77 0.68/0.7650 �G co � ti t0 M 0.78/0.55 �0 51 o N apt/ a14 h 5P 3 N 17 0.65/0.82 0.57/0.73 8 L S R0. Lo W > u > Z C W m _� c~n �" m CENTER 071/0.87 Q W Q a 2 2 64 g 74 37a 47 43 28 �00 w a 0 0 60 COAST HwY �. 0 o W a PACIf IC m m g� 52 CRO a n 43 iL Q cnatt22 �- o 0 q O O O b.66/0.55 m co 0.56/0.59 EXISTING DAILY VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES WESTON MNGLE & ASSOCIATES FIGURE 2 '1 Table 2 • 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES Newport Boulevard/28th Street TRIP ENDS PER DESCRIPTOR LAND USE DESCRIPTOR Raily AM In AM Out PM In PM Out Commercial 1,000 SF 40.0 0.7 0.5 1.5 2.0 Office 1,000 SF 13.0 2.0 0.4 0.6 1.7 Residential Dwelling Unit 8.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 Table 3 TRIP GENERATION' Newport Boulevard/28th Street - TRIP ENDS LAND USE UQ ANTITY Daily AM In AM Out PM In PM Out Commercial 4,250 SF 170 3 2 6 8 Office 4,000 SF 50 8 2 2 7 Residential 4 DU 35 1 1 2 1 Subtotal Project 255 12 5 10 16 Existing Commercial 5,750 SF 230 4 3 9 12 NET INCREASE 25 8 2 1 4 2.5 Hour Peak Totals 16 4 2 8 Ad DR H a� r. c chi _Ir Off. BRISTOL sT m m 5` BRISTOL ST NORTH � D m � 9 to W FORD of L a �35% HOSPITAL SpN JO4Gv�h y� h bi g G `b' n 4, <<S RO. z c a 15% y z 3 J o Q a > °' �� cr ram- $ 25% moo° CL COAST Hwy. �,`� o VIA LIDO w PACIFIC c a 15% v 30% $ gP �p SITE 100/0 26 . DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION WWON rR NGU & ASSoaAWS FIGURE 3 �� -0- ' TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of eight intersections were identified by the City Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis. The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and these projects are listed in Table 4. Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1990, the analyses were completed for 1991 as required by the Ordinance. Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the eight intersections analyzed and the results are summarized in Table 5. Review of Table 5 indicates that all intersections passed the "One Percent" test. On this basis the project would not be defined as having an impact in conformance with the Ordinance. The general impact of the proposed project on traffic in the area was also reviewed. This review was directed toward the proposed uses and relationship to summer peak traffic periods. The office uses would be new to the area and generate minimal new trips as indicated in Table 3. In addition, offices do not generate trips on weekends or holidays which are peak beach traffic periods. While the residential uses are new, they would not be anticipated to add a significant number of new trips during peak times. The residents would tend to arrange travel patterns to avoid peak periods. In addition, as indicated in Table 3, the residential trip generation is minimal. Finally, the commercial use is a reduction from existing and would be expected to serve a local market area due to its size. Commercial uses of this size do not usually attract patrons from beyond the local area. On this basis, the commercial would ease travel by providing additional services in the area and reducing the need to go off the peninsula. In summary, the proposed uses would not be expected to contribute significant increases to summer peak traffic periods. .3� Table 4 COMMITTED PROJECTS Hoag Cancer Center Mariners Church Expansion Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Newport Place Valdez Koll Center NPT No. 1 1501 Superior Medical 15th Street Apts Newporter Resort Expansion Amendment No. 1 North Ford Newport Dunes City of Irvine Development Bayview Newport Imports Restaurant Shokrian 3800 Campus Drive Edwards Newport Center Big Canyon Villa Apts. 1400 Dove Street McLachlan - Newport Place 1100 Quail Street Knoll Center TPP Amend. 4A Villa Point Newport Aquantics Center Andrew Restaurant Newport Retirement Inn Balboa/Washington Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Rosen's Development Amendment No. 1 Mac Arthur Fashion Island #2 Newport Lido Med Center Newport Classic Inn Rockwell Expansion Taco Bell 28th Street Marina Big Canyon 10 3760 Campus Drive YMCA -10- Table 5 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Newport Boulevard/28th Street LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB WB AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Coast Highway & Orange St. - 0.1/0.0 0.1/0.1 Coast Highway & Balboa Blvd. - 0.1/0.1 0.2/0.0 0.1/0.0 - Superior Ave. Coast Highway & Riverside Ave. 0.1/0.1 0.1/0.1 Coast Highway & Tustin Ave. 0.1/0.1 0..1/0.1 Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - 0.1/0.1 0.1/0.1 Bayshore Dr. Newport Blvd. & 32nd Street 0.1/0.3 0.5/0.1 - Newport Blvd. & Via Lido 0.1/0.2 0.4/0.1 - - - Newport Blvd. & Hospital Rd. 0.1/0.1 0.2/0.1 - OTHER CONSIDERATIONS The site plan indicates two driveways on each side of the site with one being an entrance and one an exit. This will result in one-way, counter clockwise traffic flow on-site. It will also require use of Newport Boulevard on both sides of the site for completion of the loop. In other words, some drivers may be forced onto Newport Boulevard to reach the other half of the parking area. No parking is proposed on both sides of the site between the driveways to assist in this movement. While this type of design is not normally desirable, it is felt to be acceptable for this project. This is due to the low volume of traffic anticipated to complete this move and the elimination of parking to accommodate the move. A total of 40 parking spaces plus one handicapped space are indicated on the site plan. Utilizing a ratio of one space per 250 SF for commercial and office uses and two spaces per residential unit, a total of 40 spaces are required. On this basis, the parking would be adequate. SUMNARY This study has reviewed traffic factors related to the Newport Boulevard/28th Street development as required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Estimates were made of trips to be generated by the project and the impact of these trips evaluated in terms of the Ordinance. No intersections were found to be impacted by the project. Site access, on-site circulation and parking were revewed and found to be adequate. Principal findings of the study are the following: 1. The project will generate 10 AM peak hour and 5 PM peak hour trip ends over that generated by existing development. 2. Of the eight intersections evaluated, all passed the "One Percent" test required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. On an overall basis, the proposed uses are not expected to significantly increase traffic during peak summer periods. �3 MITIGATION' MEASURES No measures are recommended to mitigate potential traffic impacts of the proj ect. We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES �041�� Weston S. Pringle, P..E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:cm #891770 cc: Rich Edmonston APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT ANALYSES 3� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/ORANGE ST (Existing Traffic Volumes base on Average Winter/Spring 19 89 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour I Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Northbound 264 41, / ? southbound 168F Eastbound 4 8 0 1 ( '< j S ` 7� Westbound 2687 i _ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1p of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 3� PROJECT: y A FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection COAST HIGHWAY ORANGE ST (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average inter pring 89 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1�Pea 24 Hour Peak E Hour Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2LS Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak V lume volume Volume Volume Volume Volume olu Northbound 371 3 7 1 southbound 121 Eastbound 3474 Westbound 5853 S`. ES3 �� 5� 7G �(. G'i,• . i _. Project Traffic is estimated to be Tess than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM 1 ' `J G T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BL—SUPERIOR AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter pa ng 19 .•_)AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected i Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 21s Hour Peak 2y Hour Peek 211 Hour ! Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume i Northbound 1929 Southbound 12'16 Eastbound Westbound i 1816 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 2} Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume•. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: 3� PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAL'BOA BL—SUPERIOR AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 !2TPM Approved hoproach Existing Regional Projects Protected 1, of Projected Peak 24 Hour ?roject Gireetion Peak 2y hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour i Peak 2)1 Hour I Peak 2y how Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Volume Northbound 21797 Southhound 2900 Eastbound 4153 J i `�•� �� i Westbound 3 ? SS C 4623 i _._ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;j Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE- 3 q PROJECT: ' FORM I la Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ased on verage Winter pring 19 8) AM Peak 2$ Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected I", of Projected Project k Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak Z� Hour Peak 2!s Hour ! Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3 7 I C Southbound 735 Eastbound 5463 / Westbound 2987 w ��i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 100 of Projected ❑ Peak Zz Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I io A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 89 PM Peak 2$ Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1; of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2;j Hour Peak 2�'Hour I Peakalumeour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i ; Northbound 37 G �� Southbound 1164 Eastbound 4642 Westbound 5632 / 74) Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2�2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. i � DATE• PROJECT: FORM I IC c: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis dntersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average winter/Spring 19 7AM Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects I Projected 1ST of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 21,Hour ! Peak 2h Hcur Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2 ^ Southbound 192 `� l Eastbound /_ �r ! < ! i 73909 Westbound 2596 — 7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2& Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 114 of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: LA FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AV (Existing Traffic Volumes —based onon Average Winter pring 19 9 PM Peak 2y Hour T Approved Aoproach Existing Regional i Projects Projected se 1R of Projected Direction Peak 2k Hour I Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour i Peak 2k Hour Volume - Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume --t— I Northbound 0 Southbound 307 —I / I J Eastbound I ' - i I r• " 3601 - i westbound 5441 — - - Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2�, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2? Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: `r3 PROJECT: FnRM T f A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/ROVER DR—BAYSHORE DR ,(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 19 _)AM Peak 2y Hour Approved —�— Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour i Peak 2k Hc_ volume Volume Volume I Volume Volume Volume Northbound 371 , I � I Z 7 _ Southbound 2547 � J Eastbound - — S�,( 466.5 _ = i J — aesthound 4999 ( S-- 7=7 SC. y/ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1p of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Ltq DATE: PROJECT: I - A ----- — FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis i Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/DOVER DR—BAYSHORE DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 89) PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2+1 Hour Peak 231 Hour Peek 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • I • Northbound 278 ,:7 Southbound 3062 Eastbound 4159 z s I SSC _? ' � T�DYi; Westbound 7581 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: Y.3 PROJECT: , FORM I r lA Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/32ND ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 $g AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lf, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak i$SHour ! Peak Hour •' Volume Volume Volume Volume i, Northbound 2115 v . Southbound 2011 `� G Eastbound 795 Westbound 251 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2;j Hour Traffic Volume a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour. Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I ION Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/32ND ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ng 19 _) PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected of Projected Project I Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2% Hour Peak 2% Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I I Northbound 1772 Southbound 3494 / %9 7 Eastbound 698 G �C 9l i 7 I• Westbound 528 S I �` Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization • (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I SIC lA Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1989 AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects Projected Ion ofProjected Protect ; Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i volume I / ; Northbound 2948 C/1 I S Southbound 2579 Eastbound ' Westbound 995 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Z. Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: ZK PROJECT: ' FORM I 4 2to 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average WIN—ter/Spring _) PMpp Peak 2k Hour Approved [ Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 17, of Projected Project �t Direction Peak 2�t Hour Growth Peak 2+1 Hour Peak 2+s Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Northbound 2719 � � 79 r /7.r v2 9 i Southbound 4698 Eastbound C G ! G Westbound 1071 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected I ❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE• PROJECT: FORM I f _ I w . • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/HOSPIT.BL RA (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage Winter/spring 19TT.TM Approach Existing Peak 211 Hour Approved Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peek 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I ' Northbound 3532 i S /-YZY ✓ 7,7/ _71 < • ' . Southbound 2447 1 7S ^- Eastbound 1259 e7 T 7 Westbound 935 r— 7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: Sla PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL HOSPITAL RD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter) pring 9 89 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Pro�eeted 1 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h, Hour Growth Peak 2% Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak Hour Peak2l Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume i 1 i 1� Northbound 3592 i' Southbound 4041 /�i• s Z :%/, % 4/ Eastbound 1484 17 �l 1 �f l Westbound 1013 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: s� PROJECT: FORM I 43�- Weston Pringle Associates TRArru: ENGINEERING December 19, 1989 � I y R�CEIVED �i Ms. Patricia Lee Temple 9 Planning Department _ �19a9° City of Newport Beach Cix P.O. Box 1768 5 ypR gEpCH• �? Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 �� lNt` p41F Dear Ms. Temple: a \ This letter summarizes our analysis of traffic factors related to the proposed Newport Boulevard and 28th Street development in the City of Newport Beach. The study has been conducted to satisfy the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This study is based upon information provided by you, the developer, City Staff and previous studies. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located northerly of 28th Street and between the one-way couplet formed by Newport Boulevard. At present, the site contains 5,750 square feet (SF) of commercial uses and a vacant lot. Planned development includes 4,250 SF of commercial use, 4,000 SF of office use and four residential units. Table 1 summarizes existing and proposed site uses. Parking for 41 vehicles is also included on-site. Vehicular access is proposed on both segments of Newport Boulevard. Figure 1 illustrates the site location. EXISTING CONDITIONS Newport Boulevard is the southerly extension of the Route 55 Freeway. Adjacent to the site it becomes a one-way couplet with the southbound direction to the west of the site and northbound to the east. Both segments of Newport Boulevard have two lanes of traffic and on-street parking. The intersection of Newport Boulevard Northbound and 28th Street is signalized. 28th Street extends westerly to Balboa Boulevard and is a two-lane facility. The intersection of Newport Boulevard Southbound and 28th Street is controlled with STOP signs on 28th Street. 26 11 Ea,t Chapman .venue • Suite 110 • Fullerton. California St"_ti31 • (714) 871-29.91 Table 1 LAND USE SUMMARY QUANTITY LAND USE Existing Proposed Commercial 5,750 SF Commercial 4,250 SF Office 4,000 SF Residential 4 DU DR J a r. a BRISr0L sr aRisro� sr H JN��E n s � W FORO �< 6 O Q HOSPITAL 5FN JOgQcr v�N O vi w a > Z O k/<<S RO. y G h w m W N �O fr Y o cop Hµ�y �` M cr �2 VIA LIDO w PACIFIC � Q) a 9� "IV fn a _ O� cl -SITE SITE LOCATION MAP WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES FIGURE i Existing daily traffic volumes and 1988 ICU values at major intersections are illustrated on Figure 2. These data were provided by the City of Newport Beach. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation rates for various land uses have been developed from studies conducted by government agencies and consultants. The City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has recommended a rate for commercial, office and residential uses which would apply to this project. These rates are listed in'Table 2. The estimated 2.5 and peak hour trip generation for the existing and development are listed in Table 3. These estimates are based upon the quantities listed in Table 1. Since trips are currently being generated by the existing uses, these trips were deducted so that the actual increase in traffic could be estimated. The current trip generation from the site is included in the existing traffic data utilized for the traffic analysis later in this report. An estimated increase of 20 trips would be generated during the AM 2.5 hour peak and 10 during the PM 2.5 hour peak. During the AM peak hour, an increase estimated to be 10 trips would be generated and 5 during the PM peak hour. TRIP ASSIGNMENT In order to assign project traffic to the street system, it is necessary to develop a trip distribution pattern. A trip distribution pattern was developed based upon regional land use and circulation, previous studies and consideration of the proposed uses. This distribution is illustrated on Figure 3. The estimated trips to be generated by the project were assigned to the street system in conformance with this distribution. I 37 .57/0.66 36 0.68/0.69 0.47/0.56 OR 14 ti 0.58/0.92 T 0.49/0.49 1.02/0.90 u jLrQe BRJSTOL ST m 15 m 0.54/0.62 eR'S NORTH 0.84/0.8��EQ` 7pL S7' 48 v 0.96/0.71� 29 LEGEND 0.95/0.59 087/068 56 = DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 TC IN THOUSANDS. 0.78/0.55 R7 54 sue ' 077/0.66 = AM/PM ICU a 0.89/0.73 2� J 50 m \SpN a I 00 r 6 61 yG 9� a 39 µD. u� 0.69/0.59 FORD 6 0.91/0.77 0.68/0.76 �L �p O o 0.78/0.55 50 51 d PN 04Qjj' a m u�i ti 5 3 N 17 0.65/.0.82 8 y� a 0.57/0.73 CS R0. tia �' S > wIli Q � N 2 m _? N j m CENTER NEW 071/0.87 Q, W Q a 54 2 `� 64 � ~ $ 74 37a 47 43 28 �aa t r r, a 60 CpAST HwY �u2 o W c PACIFIC �, M 52 QO Q a m a1 (5 a (7 � 0 9 �` �9 d d o 43 tD p ° m GF °�' p mo c�^o r amo 0 0 d ~p d 0.66/0.55 m 0.56/0.59 d 0 EXISTI NG DAI LY VOLUMES AND ICU VALUES WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES FIQURE 2 • Table 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES Newport Boulevard/28th Street TRIP ENDS PER DESCRIPTOR LAND USE DESCRIPTOR Daily AM In AM Out PM In PM Out Commercial 1,000 SF 40.0 0.7 0.5 1.5 2.0 Office 1,000 SF 13.0 2.0 0.4 0.6 1.7 Residential Dwelling Unit 8.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 Table 3 TRIP GENERATION Newport Boulevard/28th Street , TRIP ENDS LAND USE UQ ANTITY Daily AM In AM Out PM In PM Out Commercial 4,250 SF 170 3 2 6 8 Office 4,000 SF 50 8 2 2 7 Residential 4 DU 35 1 1 2 1 Subtotal Project 255 12 5 10 16 Existing Commercial 5,750 SF 230 4 3 9 12 NET INCREASE 25 8 2 1 4 2.5 Hour Peak Totals 16 4 2 8 OR a� t 0 47 8R1ST0t. 8RIS7-OL sT NORTH ON\J�QS ��. S JV.w > Q J A m S� U) yG9 � W FORD �< L O 35% a HOSPITAL SPN JOAQ��h r' In +- 1' to ki w o _� W <<S RO. W 4 R > Z O a 15% y z m w W m Z Q > a 25% a 04 a `9� a COAST Hw,Y 4�2LLJ o E VIA LIDO w PACIFIC_. J cr i 15% 09� 30% ° SITE 2$�r 10% DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION WESTON PRINGLE 3 ASSOCIATES FIGURE 3 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of eight intersections were identified by the City Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis. The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and these projects are listed in Table 4. Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1990, the analyses were completed for 1991 as required by the Ordinance. Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the eight intersections analyzed and the results are summarized in Table 5. Review of Table 5 indicates that all intersections passed the "One Percent" test. On this basis the project would not be defined as having an impact in conformance with the Ordinance. The general impact of the proposed project on traffic in the area was also reviewed. This review was directed toward the proposed uses and relationship to summer peak traffic periods. The office uses would be new to the area and generate minimal new trips as indicated in Table 3. In addition, offices do not generate trips on weekends or holidays which are peak beach traffic periods. While the residential uses are new, they would not be anticipated to add a significant number of new trips during peak times. The residents would tend to arrange travel patterns to avoid peak periods. In addition, as indicated in Table 3, the residential trip generation is minimal. Finally, the commercial use is a reduction from existing and would be expected to serve a local market area due to its size. Commercial uses of this size do not usually attract patrons from beyond the local area. On this basis, the commercial would ease travel by providing additional services in the area and reducing the need to go off the peninsula. In summary, the proposed uses would not be expected to contribute significant increases to summer peak traffic periods. Table 4 COMMITTED PROJECTS Hoag Cancer Center Mariners Church Expansion Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Newport Place Valdez Koll Center NPT No. 1 1501 Superior Medical 15th Street Apts Newporter Resort Expansion Amendment No. 1 North Ford Newport Dunes City of Irvine Development Bay-view Newport Imports Restaurant Shokrian 3800 Campus Drive Edwards Newport Center Big Canyon Villa Apts. 1400 Dove Street McLachlan - Newport Place 1100 Quail Street Knoll Center TPP Amend. 4A Villa Point Newport Aquantics Center Andrew Restaurant Newport Retirement Inn Balboa/Washington Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Rosan's Development Amendment No. 1 Mac Arthur Fashion Island #2 Newport Lido Med Center Newport Classic Inn Rockwell Expansion Taco Bell 28th Street Marina Big Canyon 10 3760 Campus Drive YMCA Table 5 CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Newport Boulevard/28th Street LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB WB AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Coast Highway & Orange St. - 0.1/0.0 0.1/0.1 Coast Highway & Balboa Blvd. - 0.1/0.1 0.2/0.0 0.1/0.0 Superior Ave. Coast Highway & Riverside Ave. 0.1/0.1 0.1/0.1 Coast Highway & Tustin Ave. - 0.1/0.1 0.1/0.1 Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - 0.1/0.1 0.1/0.1 Bayshore Dr. Newport Blvd. & 32nd Street 0.1/0.3 0.5/0.1 - - Newport Blvd. & Via Lido 0.1/0.2 0.4/0.1 - - Newport Blvd. & Hospital Rd. 0.1/0.1 0.2/0.1 - • • -��- OTHER CONSIDERATIONS The site plan indicates two driveways on each side of the site with one being an entrance and one an exit. This will result in one-way,.-counter clockwise traffic flow on-site. It will also require use of Newport Boulevard on both sides of the site for completion of the loop. In other words, some drivers may be forced onto Newport Boulevard to reach the other half of the parking area. No parking is proposed on both sides of the site between the driveways to assist in this movement. While this type of design is not normally desirable, it is felt to be acceptable for this project. This is due to 'the low volume of traffic anticipated to complete this move and the elimination of it parking to accommodate the move. A total of 40 parking spaces plus one handicapped space are indicated on the site plan. Utilizing a ratio of one space per 250 SF for commercial and office uses and two spaces per residential unit, a total of 40 spaces are required. On this basis, the parking would be adequate. SUMMARY This study has reviewed traffic factors related to the Newport Boulevard/28th I Street development as required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Estimates were made of trips to be generated by the project and the impact of these trips evaluated in terms of the Ordinance. No intersections were found to be impacted by the project. Site access, on-site circulation and parking were revewed and found to be adequate. Principal findings of the study are the following: 1. The project will generate 10 AM peak hour and 5 PM peak hour trip ends over that generated by existing development. 2. Of the eight intersections evaluated, all passed the "One Percent" test required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. On an overall basis, the proposed uses are not expected to significantly increase traffic during peak summer periods. MITIGATION MEASURES No measures are recommended to mitigate potential traffic impacts of the project. We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES E& Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:cm #891770 cc: Rich Edmonston APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT ANALYSES 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection COAST HIGHWAY/ORANGE ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter pring 19 89 AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume I Volume ' IG� ' Northbound 264 I C � J Southbound 168 ^ / Eastbound 4801 ' j,: j I i 7: it Westbound 1 2687 J_:� _ i.S Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I DATE: PROJECT: LjA FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY ORANGE ST (Existing Traffic Volumes base on Average inter pring 19 89) PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected la of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour I Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 371 —r Z— —7 7/ I Southhound 121 Eastbound 3474 l westbound I 5853 j 4/ = 7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2x Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: '2 G FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BL—SUPERIOR AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 . ) AM Peek 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Prejectl Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2; Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2t; Hour I Peak 2y Hout Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume —� Northbound 1929 t Southbound 1216 —--- Eastbound I 5625 i Westbound 1816 i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 11A of Projected ❑ Peak 21k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. GATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BL-SUPERIOR AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 M - �--T Peak 21 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected 1•. of Projected Project ' Lirection Peak 2+y hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2> Hour Peak 21i Hour I Peak 2y Hou Volume 'Jolt Volume Volume Volume `!plume Northbound 2179 7 i Southbound 2900 Eastbound 4153 1 1 �J` " ' 1 i Westbound i 4623 j S S ' 7 SS I• -- — - - Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1L 1A Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic VolUm—esbased on Average Winter/Spring 1989 Aix Peak 2% Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1; of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2u Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Volume Volume l Northbound 0 Southbound 735 Eastbound 5463 Westbound 2987 r ----- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. GATE: PROJECT: FORM I to A 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 89 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1; of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2% Hour Peak 2�'Hour j Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume i Northbound 37 I Southbound 1164 Eastbound 4642 i i i/•- I ,��! - —' .. %�; u+ Westbound 5632 170 7" ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 104' of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume a Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than to of Projected Peak 21-,. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I IC . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage Winter/Spring 19 7TAM _ Peak 2y Hour Approved I �— Approach Existing Regional Projects I Projected 1:: of Projected j Project Direction Peak 2y Hour I Growth Peak 2 Hour Peak 2' Hour i Peak 21i Hour 1 Peak 2' Hc•.: Volume i Volume Volume i Volume Volume Volume Northbound I 2 i r Southbound IF 192 _ I 1- I '2— I ^ i Eastbound I ; i �` • % — -• i 73909 . �I Westbound I 2896 ' "% I _ i y /� �j ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1'A of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: MOM T iia 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage Winter/Spring 19 9 PM Peak 24 Hour j Approved �- Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1`; of Projected I Project Direction Peak 2y Hour I Growth { Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour j Peak 21i Hour Peak 2h Hotr Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I 0 i I C• I G southbound 307 Eastbound 1 3601.•_ Westbound I 5441 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than to of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than to of Projected Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: F1PM T ICI i 10M, Traffic Volume Analysis 4ntersection COAST HIGHWAY/DOVER DR—BAYSHORE DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 9)AM Peak 2k Hour Approve—Approach Existing Regional Projects I Projected ected 1" of Projected Projecc I Direction I Peak 2k Hour Growth Penk 2+; Hour Peak 2�S Hour i Peek 2; Hour I Peak 2k Nc: Volume I Volume Volume I Volume I Volume i 'lolume 1 ! Northbound 371 i I /7 �% i southbound 2547 Eastbound 4665 Westbound I 4999 72' I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 10 of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/DOVER DR—BAYSHORE DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 89) PM Peak 2�1 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1= of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 231 Hour I Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume _ n ! Northbound 278 I I ,.:�� , �7 Southbound 3062 Eastbound 4159 westbound 7581 ,= � ✓ �G S-" � �'�- i �S /( L'' , Project Traffic is estimated to be less than to of Projected Peak 21-, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than to of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/32ND ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring &2 AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2115 Southbound `�• :. I G =� i% - �• :. •••• 2011 Eastbound , 795 Westbound 251 ` Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour. Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/32ND ST (Existing Traffic Volumes Fa—sed on Average Winter/Spring 19 89) PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peek 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ij Northbound 1772 S f rWEasesu hbou d nd3494 % r '7 :� 9 7tbound 698tbound 528 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Sp-ring 1989 AM Peak 2$ Hour Approved Ali Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 231 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour i' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I i r Northbound 2948 G/s, �-�; - J1 a Southbound 2579 G C I -7 Z s 7 / I Eastbound I Westbound 995 y9 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 114 of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I I'm Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/VIA LIDO (Existing .Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19d_) M Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 7P;eak Projected Project II Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Yalume VolumeVolume Volume olume Volume i Northbound 2719 i Southbound 4698 I /�r �7i Eastbound Westbound 1071 U /%'' 7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2�2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/HOSPITAL RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pr ng 9 _ Am Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h. Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i i • Northbound 3532 /.' S /41J 7ZI i Southbound 2447 Zr I r=r = 7 7 Eastbound ] 259 I / 7 7-1 /- Westbound 7 G f 935 � Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 0 100 Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL/HOSPITAL RD (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average inter pring198 9 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Otrecttan Peak 2�S Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2$ Hour ! Peak 24 Hour �I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I l Northbound 3592 -Y %-/_ .3 i✓;•i southbound i ' ! 4 4 T / SZ �, i � 7 /i. U d I Eastbound 1484 S 7eli; Westbound 1013 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2' Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: p��gWPART � VVV CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 jyd�j 3 019$9 C'11.F00.N�P E,Gounry GtetK NEGATIVE DECLARATIOtt `C 100` T0: Office of Planning and Research FROM: , Planning Department Q 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659,1768 County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: A NJd O, 641 PROJECT LOCATION: 290;t NW Q/-'f &dowdf X14#AW &1d, 64 G, P43 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 0Qma/l#0X an GclS01 1p/yJ?iQiva/ `llG7u/L� a �oh�n�c�ion a. m�'x4d-use, Com�aar�iallr�s�deu�ia/ FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: )� / bft "t� Environmental Coordinator �� DATE:® RECE VED BY 9A*"baL, ;Z$', 1ry" F-MNING jrmRTMENT NOV g p 1989 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 83ARY L. cou pMc AM JAN 19 1990 PM DERBY 7 8�91001041i2�3�4�5�6 Wport Beach 33d0 I�ey�port ou evard, Ne ENVIRONMENTAL CHECEZZST FORK � t Z. Background 1. Name of Proponent l��LJl��ntM�J �a(/�/04mB/l7 LoC?/�y 2, 44dress and Phone Number of Proponent 2900 (p 3. Date Checklist Submitted /�,/yyPmfiQ/" ,�7, Ifff 4. Agency Requiring Checklist CEQ ' lV L 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Mavbe 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? _ X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of Soils, either on or off the site? _ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? — g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ - 1 - Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either 1, marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? — C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? — d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? — h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? — i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 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, v shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? L b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? — — c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? — 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or 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, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? -- 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? — -- b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? x - 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 - Yes Maybe No 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the. event of an accident or upset conditions? — b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? — 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? — 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? — — b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or v demand for new parking? 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 - Yes MaXbe No a. Fire protection? S b. Police protection? Y C. Schools? �vv d. Parks or other recreational facilities? 3 e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? — f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — b. substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development v of new sources of energy? — A- 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? — e. Storm water drainage? — f. Solid waste and disposal? — 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in? a. Creation of any health(lazard or potential health heazard (excluding mental health)? _ V b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? — 5 - Yes Maw 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? — — 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? — 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? — b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? — C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? — 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 6 - 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 v 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 i which will cause substantial adverse effects X i on human beings, either directly or indirectly?_ III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) I IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant I 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. EKI I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature y C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For ' - 7 - MITIGATION MEASURES 1. All exterior living areas (e.g. balconies and patios) which He within the 65 CNEL contour shall be constructed with 6-foot high noise barriers. The noise barrier shall be continuous (no opening or gaps) and have a minimum density of 3.5 pounds per square foot. The walls may be stud walls with cement plaster exterior, 1.4 inch plate glass, 5.8 inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or any combination of these materials. Wood and other materials may be used if specifically designed as noise barriers. 2. All units exposed to exterior noise levels higher than 65 CNEL shall be constructed so as to achieve interior noise levels no greater than 45 CNEL. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a qualified acoustical engineer shall review final architectural plans to determine what building upgrades will be necessary to achieve this standard. The City Engineer shall require that such upgrades be incorporated into the plans prior to issuance of the Building permit. Most likely the only building upgrade that will be required is higher rated windows such as 3.16 inch single pane glass for all windows that are exposed to Newport Boulevard. 3. All units that have a window exposed to Newport Boulevard, shall be required to install mechanical ventilation. Air conditioning is an acceptable substitute for mechanical ventilation as long as it meets the Uniform Building Code requirements. 4. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the City Engineer shall require that an acoustical analysis be conducted by a qualified acoustical engineer (at the developer's expense). This analysis shall determine if all noise mitigation has been installed as required and that noise levels will meet City standards. The noise measurements shall be taken at that point in the worst case unit where the highest noise levels are expected. If different noise attenuation methods are used for different units, then a worst case unit for each method shall be tested. 5. The lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimise light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential areas. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer; with a letter stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. MITIGATION MONITORING The mitigation measures attached as conditions of approval to the project shall be verified for compliance at the time building permits are issued, with additional verification at the time of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy as appropriate, by the Building and Planning Departments. PROTECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would result in the demolition of a small commercial building, and the construction of a mixed use, residential/commercial development. The project is located on the island formed by the one-way couplet of Newport Boulevard westerly of 28th Street on the Balboa Peninsula. The new development would include approximately 4,250 sq.ft. of retail commercial development, 4,500 sq.ft. of office development and four apartment units. All parking is provided on-site. The dwelling units to be provided are intended to satisfy the affordable housing requirements of a project approved across Newport Boulevard and 28th Street. Additionally, the site will be used as a construction parking, staging and storage yard while a subterranean parking structure is constructed across the street. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Lb. The project site is currently developed with a small commercial structure and a parking lot. Development of the project may, however, cause some disruption and compaction of the soil. This is not anticipated to result in any adverse environmental effects. 6.b. The project location is between the one way couplet of Newport Boulevard. This road is an arterial highway which carries a significant level of traffic. The location of residential units on site may expose the occupants to high levels of traffic noise. This potentially significant environmental effect will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the requirement of sound attenuate outdoor living areas to 65 dBA and interior living areas to 45 dBA attached as a condition of approval to the project. 7. The development of the project will produce new light and glare from the new commercial and residential structures, and from the parking areas constructed to support the new development. While the light produced would be similar in nature to that associated with the development in the neighborhood, the proposal to include residential units as part of the project warrants particular sensitivity to the lighting of the project. A mitigation measure requiring that lighting be directed and shielded in such a manner as to minimize light spillage and glare into the on-site residential units will reduce any potential environmental effects to a level of insignificance. 13.a. The development of the proposed project will generate more traffic than that associated with the existing land uses. There is, however, adequate capacity in the circulation system to accommodate this growth, and no intersections are adversely impacted by the proposed development as defined by the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The increase in traffic is considered an insignificant adverse effect of the project. WESTON PRINGLE & ASS•ATES I.Mrir[* oF `ommsoma`rU LL, 2651 E. Chapman Ave. Suite 110 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 DATE JOB NO. (714) 871-2931 FAX (714) 871.0389 ATTENTION^� J, � RE• TO -RECEIVED By 92 /769 PLANNING DE NElG�'DC`l�L/� 9ZGSB '8�J5� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WE ARE SENDING YOU �XAttached ❑ Under separate cover via tbrAV` nftM DEC A P,3i4,5i6 ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Sicifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION �/ �� • // 607 e • V THES ARE TRANSM ED as hecked b ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval 0 For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS 1jn" 10 i l BG/l'D COPY TO f�� / SIGNED: PROW242 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. -6- `' • Table 2 • TRIP GENERATION RATES Newport Boulevard/28th Street TRIP ENDS PER DESCRIPTOR LAND USE DESCRIPTOR Daily AM In AM Out PM In PM Out Commercial 1,000 SF 40.0 0.7 0.5 1.5 2.0 Office 1,000 SF 13.0 2.0 0.4 0.6 1.7 Residential Dwelling Unit 8.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 Table 3 TRIP GENERATION Newport Boulevard/28th Street , TRIP ENDS LAND USE UQ ANTITY Daily AM In AM Out PM In PM Out Commercial 4,250 SF 170 3 2 6 8 Office 4,000 SF 50 8 2 2 7 Residential 4 DU 35 1 1 2 1 Subtotal Project 255 12 5 10 16 Existing Commercial 5,750 SF 230 4 3 9 12 NET INCREASE 25 8 2 1 4 2.5 Hour Peak Totals 16 4 2 8 -8- TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of eight intersections were identified by the City Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis. The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach to an intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and these projects are listed in Table 4. Since the project is scheduled for completion in 1990, the analyses were completed for 1991 as required by the Ordinance. Appendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the eight intersections analyzed and the results are summarized in Table 5. Review of Table 5 indicates that all intersections passed the "One Percent" test. On this basis the project would not be defined as having an impact in conformance with the Ordinance. The general impact of the proposed project on traffic in the area was also reviewed. This review was directed toward the proposed uses and relationship to summer peak traffic periods. The office uses would be new to the area and generate minimal new trips as indicated in Table 3. In addition, offices do not generate trips on weekends or holidays which are peak beach traffic periods. While the residential uses are new, they would not be anticipated to add a significant number of new trips during peak times. The residents would tend to arrange travel patterns to avoid peak periods. In addition, as indicated in Table 3, the residential trip generation is minimal. Finally, the commercial use is a reduction from existing and would be expected to serve a local market area due to its size. Commercial uses of this size do not usually attract patrons from beyond the local area. On this basis, the commercial would ease travel by providing additional services in the area and reducing the need to go off the peninsula. In summary, the proposed uses would not be expected to contribute significant increases to summer peak traffic periods. &TICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Newcomb Development Inc for Resubdivision No. 914 and Traffic Study No. 64 on property located at 2807 - 2815 Newport Boulevard. Request to resubdivide five existing lots into a single parcel of land for mixed commercial/residential development on propeM located in the 'Retail and Service Commercial' area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. The proposal also includes a request to =rove a traffic study for the proposed development. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 4th day of Jannary 1990, at the hour of 7-30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Janice A. Debay, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 02-219- Oi TRAFFIC STUDIES APPLI/CANT: CONSULTANTS: NAME: ' PHONE: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION: DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE rI �1j zyD, G 390, AM 00 • _._,_.._ ---�._- _._. _...O-F ._._..W_._.,_._..B_._.._. H _. . .f_._.__ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIPT j ! CFaPOR@m NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92663 1 No. 43309 ! ! o v 2 D ,98-9- \ I DATE RECEIVED FROM �+ �`'V•� y s C) D Cl ! FOR: `{+ ACCOUNT NO AMOUNT ! I i 02.7 r)4-00 O 00 I DEPARTMENT ,"'y '� - "�` cj .�. .w..w.s.w.�..�...�....�..w.�..�..�..�..�. t III .�..r�..�..�..�. .rr..�.r.r.�..�...�..�.. • • CITY C-F �EWPO DEMAND FOR NEWPORT � m • PAYMENT BEACH rz 9G1F00.N Demand of: Weston Pringle & Assoc. Date: Jan. 15, 1990 Address: 2651 East Chapman Ave. #110 Fullerton, CA 92631 In the amount of: $1,389.00 Item of Expenditure Budget # Amount Professional Traffic Engineering N - i 1 l Total $1,389.00 Approved For Payment: l Department Head Audited and Approved: Finance Director W � 'd�'b RECEIVED BY _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A IWeston Pringle & Associates AM JAN 3 1990 PM January 2, 1990 TIZA1'F[C& TRANSP A' I N E G N 'h Ms. Patricia Temple, Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 REFERENCE: PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR Newport & 28th Street TPO, November thru December 1989 STATEMENT Personnel Charges Firm Principal 13.0 Hours @ $90.00 $1.170.00 .ssistant Engineer 4.0 Hours @ $35.00 Secretary $ 140.00 3.0 Hours @ $15.00 $ 45 . .....s TOTAL PERSONNEL CHARGES $1,355.00 Direct Expenses Printing $34.00 TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES $ 34.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE THIS STATEMENT $1,389 00 APPROVED FOR PA'YMIENT WSP:cm By #891770 _ Plan ing Director OUNT NO.: � 2 -7 . 2651 East Chapman Avenue • Suite 1IO • Fullerton.CflhfO c i SEW p°,QT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH m • 1;: n P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 I � Cq<�FORN`P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 November 20, 1989 John Newcomb Newcomb Development Co. 2800 Lafayette Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: New Boulevard and 28th Street Mixed Use Project Traffic Studv Dear Mr. Newcomb: The City of Newport Beach has received a proposal to provide a Traffic Study from the consultant firm of Weston Pringle and Associates, for the mixed use project proposed for Newport Boulevard and 28th Street. The proposal contains an outline of the scope of work services required, estimated time schedule, and 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 $3,900.00 City Fee (10%) 390.00 Total: $4,290.00 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\NEWCOMB.TPO Enclosure 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach W AWeston Pringle & Associates TRAFFIC&TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING GO February 1, 1989 9 itECE! 0 .p ' nt Ms. Patricia Lee Temple r,: \,..,•.__ QV1 Planning Department N �19ag City of Newport Beach P.O. Box .,- Newport Beach 92658-8915 'Gs �•r� � Dear Ms. Temple: We are pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional traffic engineering services for a traffic phasing study of the proposed mixed use project at Newport Boulevard and 28th Street in Newport Beach. This proposal is based upon information provided by you, previous work in the area and our understanding of the needs of the study. In general , the work would consist of preparing a traffic analysis as required to satisfy the requirement of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) as well as other traffic related concerns. The analysis would include consideration of existing, committed project, regional growth and project traffic as required by the TPO. Criteria and methodologies contained in the TPO would be utilized to identify potential. traffic impacts along with previous studies and development plans. Mitigation measures would be recommended as may be required. A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and recommendations. We would envision the following specific tasks to be required for this study. TASK i - DATA COLLECTION We would assemble all avialable data pertinent to the study. This would include development plans, existing traffic volumes, committed projects and traffic, regional growth factors, planned • circulation improvements, previous studies, and similar data. We would discuss the project with you and the City Traffic Engineer 265I East Chapman Avenue • Suite II0 • Fullerton, California 9263I • (7I4) 871-293I -2- to ensure our understanding of the project and the scope of • study. It is understood that the City would provide AM and PM traffic volumes data for existing conditions and for committed projects. A field review would be made to familiarize ourselves with existing conditions. TASK 2 - TRIP ENERATION AND ASSIGNMENT Estimates would be made of trips to be generated by the project during the AM and PM peak hours and 2.5 hours peak periods. These estimates would be based upon trip generation rates applicable to the specific uses and acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer. A geographic trip distribution pattern would be developed for the site. This distribution would be reviewed with the City Traffic Engineer. Estimated project traffic would be assigned to the street system in conformance with the distribution pattern. TASK 3 - ANALYSIS . The City Traffic Engineer has identified eight signalized intersections to be included in the study. The "One Percent" test would be conducted at each of these intersections to identify potential traffic impacts as required by the TPO. _ Any intersections that failed the "One Percent" test would be further evaluated with ICU analyses. (Both the "One Percent" and the ICU analyses would include existing, committed project and regional growth traffic as prescribed in the TPO) . Any intersections with ICU values greater than 0.90 would be analyzed to identify mitigation measures. Any potential deficiencies would be identified. Site access would also be exmained with respect to traffic operations and safety. This review would also consider on-site parking provisions and their adequacy. Mitigation measures would be recommended as may be required. Sketches of recommended mitigation measures would be included where applicable. • -3- TASK 4 - REPORT AND MEETINGS A report would be prepared summarizing our findings and recommendations. The report would contain the required supportive data and conform to the requirements of the TPO. We would meet with you, and other City Staff and others as may be required during the course of the studey. Attendance at two (2) public hearings is included as a part of this proposal . We would be prepared to begin work on this study upon receipt of authorization. It is anticipated that approximately four (4) weeks would be required to complete this study. This schedule assumes no delays in obtaining City supplied data. Our fee for the work outlined in this proposal shall be based upon personnel charges plus direct expenses as indicated in our Standard t Rate Schedule, a copy of which is attached and made a part hereto. In no case would the total fee exceed $3,900.00 without prior approval . from you or your representative. Since it is not possible at this time to estimate the time required for additional meetings and/or presentations concerning this project not mentioned in this proposal , our staff would be available with the fee based upon our Rate Schedule in addition to the previously stated maximum. The additional work shall be conducted when requested by you or your representatives. We appreciate having the opportunity of submitting this proposal and look forward to serving the City. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATED Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:hld Weston Pringle & Associates TRA TIC&TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE Effective October 1, 1988 Professional Staff Hourly Rates Firm Principal $90.00 Senior Engineer $70.00 Associate Engineer $50.00 Assistant Engineer $35.00 Support Staff Engineering Draftsman $35.00 Secretary $15.00 Clerical , Field Enumerator $25.00 General 1. Travel , reproduction, telephone, supplies, and other non-wage direct costs are billed at cost plus ten (10) percent. 2. Hourly rates apply to travel in addition to work time. 3. Statements will be submitted monthly for work in progress or upon completion of work. Statements are payable within 30 days of receipt. Any invoices unpaid after 45 days shall have a service charge added at a rate of 1.5 percent per month (or maximum permitted by law) on the unpaid balance. 4. Compensation for services performed will not be contingent upon the necessity of client to receive payment from other parties. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association and judgement upon the award rendered by the arbitration may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 5. These rates are based upon procedures and methods outlined in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Manual on Engineering Practice Number 45. 2651 East Chapman Avenue • Suite 110 • lUiertun, California 92631 • (714) 871.2931