No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1011 CAMELBACK_TEMPLE BAHT YAM*NEW FILE* 1011 Camelback I tli TOP DATE: 8-1-96 FILENAME: TBYAO01S.DWG XREF: TBYTMPLX.DWG : TBYCLI X.DWG : CHAPEL.DWG O QO � 14 j EXIST G U EXISTING PLANTING TO REMAIN � EXISTING DRIVEWAY APRON 141.5 FS (E) 132.6 B TC (E) EXISTING TREES TYPICAL I / _ NEW ENTRY STRUCTURE 6600. cc) s� FIN. FLR. (E) o Qom, �EXISTING Q = TEMPLE - �i o , . z`"- it LNG EUCALYPTUS CITRIODORA TYPICAL - f• ' j POTENTIAL ADDITION TO EXISTING TEMPLE / 839 SF ADD'L.- FIXED SEATS PHOENIX CANARIESIS NEW TURF TYPICAL ,` NEW CONC. TYPICAL / / \/ \j) / Q PAVING M CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA TY LIN `�� TOP (E EU YPTUS / RIODORA TYPICAL ° v � rell o• ' rrJ CUPANi01SIS C '�,= j U y ANACARDtO{DES TYPICAL t10�.. �/ -�__ NEW 6' HIGH r '� �' CHAIN LINK FENCE O ,fir N _ • � - CONTINUOUS ALONG F t.172.0 % PROPERTY LINE TOP E) ;., NEW • PROPERTY LINE 130 FIXED SEATS KOELRETERIA BIPINNATA TYPICAL KOELRETERIA PROJECT DATA TEMPLE EXISTING BUILDING SQ. FT. 31,150 , PROPOSED EXISTING BUILDING NEW SQ. FT. SANCTUARY A850 2ND FLOOR OVER SCHOOL. 9,337 ADMIN. SPACES (RABBI & 741 VOLUNTEERS) PROPOSED - TOTAL NEW SQ. FT. 130928. PROPOSED TOTAL 45,078 NEW CLASSROOM BUILDING PROPOSED NEW BUILDING SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR 91360 EXISTING DRIVEWAY SECOND FLOOR APRON 6,090 PROPOSED TOTAL 15;450 NEW ENCLOSED AREA NEW CHAPEL EXISTING SCHOOL PROPOSED NEW BUILDING SQ. FT. (10 EXISTING PRESHOOL CLASSROOMS) MISC. EXISTING SREMAIN TOTURF OUTSIDE. COVERED AREA & UPPER LEVEL BRIDGE (ESTIMATE/2) EXISTING DRIVE TO ACCES`. TEMPLE BAT YAHM PROPEf & FUTURE IRVINE COMPAN PARKING AREA / POTENTIAL FUTURE 2ND FLOOR CLASSROOMS RELOCATED 6' . HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE CONTINUOUS AROUND CHILD'S PLAY AREA TE DEVELO'FMENT PLAN V.P. DEVELOPMENT: MR. BERNIE ROME EXISTING DRIVEWAY APRON 129.9 TC (E) ADD'L. SO. FT. REQUEST 7,000 2�500 N.T.E. 400000 PARKING 170 LINEAL FT. NEW FIXED SANCTUARY SEATING 18" LINEAL FT. PER SEAT 113 ADD'L. FIXED SEATS (TEMPLE SANCTUARY) 3 SEATS PER 1 PARKING PACE REQ'D. = 38 ADD'L. PARKING -SPACES REQ'D. 1 0 ADD'L. FIXED SEATS (CHAPEL SEATS PER 1 PARKING SPA E REQ'D. = 43 ADD'L. PARKING SPACES REQ'D. 103 NEW PARKING SPACES 21 SPACES LOST = 82 ADD'L. PARKING SPACES +127 EXISTING PARKING SPACES = 209 TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED (208 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED) 120 Dow -douglu Architecture Planning Interior Design 3 Civic Plazd;Suite .230 Newpo)72-0720 rt Beach. CA 92660 (714LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 0 AND P L A N N I N G WITH 3151 AIRWAY AVENUE, SUITE 1.3 COSTA MESA, CAUfORNIA U.S. A. 92626.4640 _WmIft— FX:714.7a4.1346 PH:714.754.7311 �-Jeannette " and Associates, Inc. ARCHITECTURE 470 OM N"port Boulevard • Newport beach, CA 92663 Tel 714645.5854• rax i14.645.5983 ' MEMBERS AU & NCARS ENERGY EFFICIENT ARCHITECTURE , 1 X _t � _' ,.. _ , i ��.�.�r. u ; SKYLIGHT ROOF PATIO i y ' Q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: August 8, 1996 �OWPO,j„ p8 @� COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 1 �z PLANNING DEPARTMENT Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia "<,vpnP�r 3500 NEWPORT BOULEVARD 644-3206 i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (714) 644-3200; FAX (714) 644-3250 Referral to City Council: Automatic REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Temple Bat Yahm (Bernard Rome, applicant) 1011 CamelbackStreet PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: The applications will allow a 40,000 sq.ft. increase in entitlement to permit: the expansion of the existing sanctuary by 4,560 sq.ft. with a future second floor addition of 10 classrooms for religious classes (9,130 sq.ft.); 600 sq.ft. addition to the administration offices; the construction of a 15,450 sq.ft., two-story classroom building which will contain 10 pre-school classrooms and 10 religious education classrooms; and the construction of a 7,000 sq.ft. chapel. REQUIRED APPROVALS: Hold hearing; if desired, Adopt ResolutionsNo. 96- and No. (attached) recommending to the City Council the approval of: • General PlanAmendmentNo.96-1B, • AmendmentNo.,852, • Use PermitNo. 1892 (Amended), • Traffic Study No.109 • Acceptanceofan environmentaldocument LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcel No. 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 95-7 (ResubdivisionNo. 538), located on the southeasterly corner of Camelback Street and Jamboree Road in the North Ford Planned Community District. ZONE: PC (NewportNorth Planned Community) OWNERS: Temple Bat Yahm and The Irvine Company, Newport Beach Points and Authority Environmental Compliance (CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act) A Negative Declarationhas been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connectionwith the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that the subject development w VICINITY MAP TEMPLE BAT YAHM, I Subiect Pronerty and Surroundine Land Uses Current Development: The Temple Bat Yahm Synagogue facility and related parking area are now located on the site and a portion of the Cox Communication facility is located on the adjoining site which is to be added to the subject property. To the north: across Camelback Street, is the North Ford townhome condominiums. To the east: is the Irvine Company's Property Service complex with its related outdoor storage and parking, To the south: is the Toyota Motors facility. To the west: across Jamboree Road, are single family dwellings in Eastbluff. General Plan Amendment No. 96.1 i. Amendment No. $52. Use Penult No,1892 (Amended), and Ttafic Study No,109 Page 2 r Points and Authority (confd) 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. The Negative Declaration 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 attached to this report and are also available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department. • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" uses. The existing temple is considered an institutional use, a permitted use within this designation. The Land Use Element has also established area specific land use policies throughout the City. These "area" policies set a site -by -site floor area. The accompanying General Plan Amendment will allow for the proposed additional square footage. • In accordance with the Planned Community District Regulations and the Municipal Code Section 20.51.027, institutional uses, i.e. churches, are a permitted use in the PC District subject to the approval of a use permit. • Procedures for amendments to the General Plan and the Planned Community District are set forth in Council Policy K-1, Chapter 20.84, and Chapter 20.51 of the Municipal Code. • Application procedures (traffic study, lot line adjustment and use permit) are set forth in Titles 15,19 and 20 of the'Municipal Code and Council Policy L-18 (formerly S-1). Background At its meeting of January 4, 1979, the Planning Commission approved the existing synagogue and related facilities. Subsequently, at its meeting of July 21,1988, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), which permitted the addition of a day school in conjunction with the existing temple facility. Conditions of approval currently do not limit the number of classes or enrollment for the school. The facility has since added limited adult religious education to the curriculum; no problems have been observed in conjunction with the existing operation. COMBINING OF LOTS REQUIRED - Lot Line Adiustment Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that where a building site is comprised of more than one subdivided lot, or fraction thereof, a resubdivision is required when new construction or alterations to existing structures in excess of $20,000 is proposed in any one year period. The construction cost of the proposed facilities expansion will be considerably in excess of that limit and a portion of the chapel building will cross an existing interior lot line. General Plan Amendment No. 96-111, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), and Traffic Study No. 109 Page 3 Therefore a resubdivision or lot line adjustment is required to combine the parcels into a single building site. The applicant intends to file the appropriate application to reconfigure and establish one building site for the proposed religious facility, in order to convey the properties between the Temple and The Irvine Company. Staff has includedthe appropriate condition of approval into the attached,Exhibit "A," requiring the consolidation. DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Plans filed with the original application have been revised and the following description reflects those changes. The information in the Traffic Study is currently being revised to incorporate those changes and the revised traffic study and any substantial informational changes to this report will be forwarded to the Commission prior to the hearing. In conjunction with the project is the removal of an existing portable building which currently houses three pre-school classrooms. The proposed project will expand the existing temple facility by the addition of the following: 3,850 sq.ft. sanctuary expansion with a future second floor addition of 3 classrooms for religious classes (1,500 sq.ft.) and other support facilities; 600 sq.ft. addition to the administration offices; the construction of a 15,450 sq.ft. classroom building which will contain 12 classrooms for the pre-school/religiousschool2; and the construction of a 7,000 sq.ft chapel. The anticipated net increase is 40,000 sq.ft., with 36,380t sq.ft. currently programmed for development and the remaining 5,820t sq.ft. for future development. The proposal also includes the development of an unimproved area into a parking lot which will provide 103 parking spaces (parking is more thoroughly discussed in the body of this report). The proposed facility includes the following changes: Temple Building: The existing synagogue currently seats 397 members and is proposed to be expanded and altered to provide an additional 113 seats. The classroom wing which houses 12 existing classrooms will be altered to convert two ground floor classrooms into administrative offices and to provide a new second floor with three classrooms and support facilities (i.e., learning resource center, storage, adulttyouth lounge and conference rooms). The conversion and additional footage will expand existing offices and will not result in an increase in the number of administrators. Only minor changes to the existing kitchen facilities are proposed with no additional footage. Chapel: The new chapel will feature an adult education classroom, bride's room, toilet rooms, lobby and conference room. According to the applicant, the main function of the chapel is to accommodate small functions which are presently held within the synagogue. The adult education classroom provides a place for parents to meet while their children are in religious education. The proposal includes the addition of maintenance, storage and kitchen facilities. Classroom Building: The two-story classroom building will contain 15,450 sq.ft., which will house a ground floor with 6 classrooms for the pre-school and a second floor with 6 classrooms for the 2 It should be noted that the new building will replace the portable building (2,200 sq.ft.) which houses 7 existing classrooms. General Pion Amendment No. 96d13, Amendment No. 852. Use Permit No.1892 (Amended), and TmMo Study No. 109 Page 4 religious school. Additional support facilities will also be provided within this building, including a youth lounge, teacher's resource room, kitchen, school storage and restrooms. All proposed buildings conform with the development standards of the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations with regard to setbacks (30 feet from Camelback Street and 10 from interior property lines) and building height (32 foot height limit). The project is proposed to be a phased development with the highest priority project being the construction of the chapel building and the site improvements including the parking lot expansion. The second phase would be for the construction of the classroom building either all at once or possibly in two phases, dependent upon available funds or financing. The sanctuary expansion and second floor addition are later phases as yet to be determined. Use PermitNo. 1892 (Amended) The use permit for the existing facility is required for the proposed increase in the sanctuary facility, chapel construction and for the expansion of the pre-school and religious school. The approval is also required for the continued use of the proposed tandem configuration for the new parking area. The use of tandem parking was previously approved in conjunction with the existing facility. Proposed Amendments General Plan Amendment No. 96-1(13): The proposed amendment to the Land Use Element will increase the entitlement of the Synagogue Site to allow for an additional 40,000 sq.ft. for expansion of the religious facilities as proposed by the accompanying use permit application. The Land Use Element will be revised as follows: Land Use Element Pages 74-75: 2-2. NF Area 2. This area is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities, and General Industry. [GPA 90-1(G)] [GPA 93-3(B)]. The development allocation is as follows: Synagogue site: 3 1,150 sq. Utility Station: 1,000 sq.ft. 71,150 sq.ft. TIC Corp. Yard: 33,940 sq.ft. General Industry: 110,600 (Site 2a: Mini Storage Facility) sq.ft. Postal Facility: 55,200 sq.ft. General Plan Amendment No. 964B, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), and Traffic Study No. 109 Page 5 1;STIMATEA GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L3 Residential(in du's) Commercial(in sq.&) Existing Gen.Plan Projected Existing Gen.Plan Projected l/1/87 Projectio Growth 1/1187 Projection Growth 1-1. AF Area 1 50 50 -0- -0- .0- -0- 1-2.AFArea2 53 53 .0- -0- -0- -0- 1.4. AF Area 4 -0- 500 500 -0- -0- -0- 1-5. AF Area 5 39 39 -0- -0- .0- -0- 1-6 AFArea 6 54 54 -0- -0- -0- 10- 1-7. AF Area 7 59 59 -0- -0- -0- -0- 1-8. AF Area 8 168 168 -0- -0- -0- .0- 2-I.NF Areal -0- -0- -0- 74,692 148,041 73,349 2-2. NF Area2 -0- 1 1 100,930 246,44A 144,51 285,440 184,510 2-3. NF Area 3 -0- -0- -0- -0- 50,000 50,000 2-4.NFArea4 10- 300 300 -0- -0- -0- 2-5. NF Area 5 849 849 -0- -0- -0- -0- 2-6. NF Area 6 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 3. San Diego Creek -0- -0- -0- -0- 200,000 200,000 4. Jamboree/MacArthur -0- -0- -0. -0- 50,000 50,000 TOTAL 1,272 Z073 801 175,622 693;481 3o;839 733,481 557,959 Population 2.519 4,559 2,040 Revised081969f93 Land Use Man The proposed amendment also requires amendment to the Land Use Map of the General Plan to reflect the reconfiguration of the property lines proposed by the Lot Line Adjustment. This tequirementhas been incorporated into the attached Resolutionto the City Council by reference. AmendmentNo. 852: The proposed amendment will increase the entitlement of Area 2 to allow for an additional 40,000 sq.R. for expansion of the existing Synagogue Site. The North Ford Planned Community District Regulation will be revised as follows: General Plan AmendmentNo. 96dD, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No.1892 (Amended), and Traffic Study No.169 Page 6 North Ford Planned Community Text Page 2. SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS North Ford Approximate Gross Area Acres General Industry--GEIF General Industry--GEIF General Industry (mini -storage) Commercial Multi -family Residential Open Space Residential I TOTAL 1 2 2a 3 4 4a 5 6 TOTAL 16.7 22.7 2.8 5W 5.0 18.6 2.4 79.0 12.0 117.0 Additional Allowable sq.ft. -0- 40,000 -0- 110,600 150;600 118;600 50,000 undetermined -0- -0- 50,000 Additional Allowable DU's -0- -0- -1- -1- -0- 300 888 0-0 1,189 The above statistics are based on gross acreage and do not account for buildable area. In Area 2a, development is limited to mini -storage facility use with a maximum floor area of 110,600 sq.ft. Development may include one dwelling unit for an owner/manager including two garage spaces, provided that such residential use will be incidental to the mini -storage use and will not alter the character of the premises. In Area 2 the additional allowable square footage is allocated for the expansion of the Synagogue site. ANALYSIS KEYISSUE. Appropriateness of the Proposed Use and Expansion/Neighborhood Compatibility. Will the proposed expansion project be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods? The facility has not generated any complaints or problems since its establishment in 1979. The traffic study has identified that a majority of the additions will not increase the operational characteristics of the facility. General Plan Amendment No. 96-111, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), and Traffic Study No. 109 Page 7 Staff Opinion. It is anticipated that the proposed changes to the facility will increase the enrollment of the pre-school and the religious education, but will not have a significant effect on the surrounding area. The outdoor, fenced playground is not proposed to changed in conjunction with this approval and noise issues have not arisen from its previous operation. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed changes to the facility will not have a significant effect on the surrounding neighborhoods, since the pre-school and religious education are ancillary uses of the temple facility and since there is adequate parking provided on -site to accommodate the existing facility and the proposed expansion. Educational and religious facilities are often found in residential neighborhoods, but can cause conflicts if adequate parking is not provided or activities are conducted in extended hours of operation. In this case, the uses in closestproxitnity are industrial and quasi -industrial in nature. Residential uses are located across Camelback Street and are situated at a grade level significantly lower than the subject property; and are oriented away from access, parking and traffic patterns associated with the development. KEYISSUE. Traffic Impacts on Surrounding Neighborhoods and Off -Street Parking: Would the project create significant traffic or parking impacts on surrounding residential or commercial neighborhoods, and if so, what measures can be employed to reduce those impacts? As stated previously, the As identified in the traffic study, the facility would generate 313 additional trips for the facility, based on the proposed increase in classrooms and student enrollment. Therefore, a traffic study was prepared to address the impacts ofthe project generated traffic on the existing traffic circulation and off-streetparking. Traffic Impact Based upon information contained in the traffic study, the proposed project will have a nominal impact on the level of service at the key intersections identified; the project -generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any'major,"primary-modffied; or 'primary' street; and the ICU analysis of the two identified intersections will not exceed 0.90. Therefore, the project satisfies the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy L-18. The long range impacts of the project, based on the General Plan Traffic Analysis, show that five of the eight study intersections will have no significant impact from the project and that the remaining three intersections are impacted, although the impact does not warrant any improvements. The traffic study is discussed in detail in the attached Appendix. Staff Opinion. Staff is of the opinion that the issue of the impact of the project generated traffic has been adequately addressed by the traffic study. Based on the information contained in the traffic study, the City Traffic Engineer has reviewed and accepted the conclusions as presented; that traffic and circulation in the area will not be adversely affected by the implementation of the project. Off -Street Parkin The traffic study indicates that 103 new parking spaces will be provided on site and, with the replacement of the 21 spaces lost in the land swap transaction, will result in a net increase of 82 General Plan Amendment No. 96.111, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No.1892 (Amended), and Traffic Study No. 1D9 Page 8 parking spaces for total of 209 parking spaces provided on site. It is anticipated that the 209 parking spaces provided on site will be adequate to accommodate the temple patrons and the proposed school expansion. The parking analysis contained in the traffic study assessed the adequacy of the proposed parking in relation to the City Code for public assembly, as well as expected peak demand for various operational aspects of the project. In each case, the study indicated that the proposed on -site supply was adequate to serve the demand of the project. The analysis of the consulting engineer has also been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. It should be noted that the parking configuration utilizes a tandem parking configuration which has been previously approved in conjunction with the existing temple facility. The temple utilizes on -site personnel to direct the parking and circulation and will continue with the practice. Based on a Municipal Code requirement of one space for each 3 seats in the sanctuary,170 parking spaces would be required for the expanded sanctuary if constructed today. However, when the original sanctuary was•approved in 1979, the Municipal Code requirement was one space for each 5 sanctuary seats and no additional parking spaces required for the classrooms. Applying the previous requirement for the existing 397 seats and the current Code requirement for the proposed sanctuary expansion, would generate a requirement for 118 parking spaces. The chapel, based on the same requirement, would require 44 parking spaces. However, the traffic study has determined and staff concurs that the chapel and sanctuary will not operate concurrently and therefore the parking for the chapel has been discounted from the overall requirement. Thus, based on these assumptions the total parking requirement (118 spaces) is easily satisfied by the on site parking. Staff Opinion. Based on the assessment of parking adequacy contained in the traffic study, and the review and acceptance of the analysis by the City Traffic Engineer, staff is of the opinion that the proposed parking is adequate for all aspects of the expanded development. Snecifrc Findinss Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. This is supported by the information contained in the traffic study reviewed and accepted by the City Traffic Engineer with regard to traffic circulation and parking. Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend to the City Council the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96-113, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), Traffic Study No. 109 and accept the environmental document, the actions, findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Staff cannot reasonably conceive of findings for denial since the proposed expansion of the religious use, in this particular case, conforms to the requirements of the Title 20 of the Municipal Code and all applicable development standards of the North Ford Planned Community District, and does not appear to have any detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood. However, should General Plan Amendment No. 96-113, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), and Traffic Study No. 109 Page 9 information be presented at the public hearing which would warrant the denial of these applications, the Planning Commission may wish to take such action. Submittedby: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Attachments: Exhibit"A" Preparedby: JAVIER S. GARCIA, AICP SeniorPlanner taw Appendix Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated January 4,1979 and July 21,1988 Initial Program Statement from the Applicant Outlining the Project Plot Plan of Proposed Future Lot Line Adj ustment (Land Swap) Resolutionto the City Council Recommending Approval of GPA 96-1(B) Resolution to the City Council RecommendingApproval of AmendmentNo. 852 Negative Declaration Traffic Study No.109 Proposed Plot Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations F:\WPS I\PLANNING\IPUBNOT\PN960808\UP1892&DW General Plan Amendment No. 96d11, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No.1892 (Amended), and Traffic Study No.109 Page 10 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR General Plan Amendment No. 96-113, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), Traffic Study No.109 and the acceptance of an environmental document A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: Findings: That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned, could have a significant effect on the environment; therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was consideredprior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTNO. 96-1 B; Adopt ResolutionNo. 96- recommending to the City Council approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to allow for the proposed increase in the existing entitlement for the temple facility; and amendment to the Land Use Map of the General Plan to reflect the change in lot configuration. C. AMENDMENTNO.852; Adopt ResolutionNo.96- . recommending to the City Council approval of amendment to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations to allow for an increase in the entitlement for the existing temple facility. D. USE PERMIT NO. 1892 (AMENDED) Findings: That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, since a religious facility with ancillary educational uses is permitted in the Governmental, Educational and General Plan Amendment No. 96-19, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), and Traffic Study No. 109 Page 11 Institutional Facilities designation and this application includes an amendment to the General Plan to allow for the proposed additions to the facility. 2. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact, based on informationpresented and incorporated into the negative declaration. 3. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development, 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: The expanded religious and educational use of the site is compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding land uses because of the location at the corner of Jamboree Road and Camelback Street with no common access through any residential area. Additionally, no conflicts are anticipated with the adjoining land uses, since they are industrial or quasi -industrial in nature and are relatively low intensity uses. Adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed expansion of the existing use. No significant adverse traffic or circulation impacts are anticipated from the proposed expansion as determined by the project analysis of Traffic Study No.109. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval of Use permit No. 1892 and Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), dated January 4,1979 and July 21,1988, respectively. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide written certification acceptable to the City's Building Department signed by a licensed Engineerthat the area has undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contaminationhas been cleared. 4. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department and Fire Department that the project is in compliance with the County of Orange Health Department and the City's Fire Department Regulations. General Plan AmendmentNo. 96.113. Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No.1992 (Amended), and Traaie Study No.109 Page 12 5. That prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system is designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 6. That a Lot Line Adjustment or Resubdivision, combining the parcels into a single parcel or building site, shall be recorded and all conditions of approval shall be fulfilled, prior to issuance of any building permits. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 8. That the proposed facility and related parking lot shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 9. That the project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 10. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 11. That the design of the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 12. That the existing parking lot be restriped in accordance with City Standards and as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 13. That an easement for ingress and egress be provided for the benefit of the parcel to the east of the subject property, unless that easterly drive approach is removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk. All work within the public right-of-way shall be completed under an Encroachment Permit issued by the Public Works Department. 14. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways, and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of tragic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 15. That the new parking spaces shall be designed to conform to current City Standard 805- L-A, and 805-L-B. 16. That all employees and faculty shall park on site. 17. That an automatic fire sprinkler system and fire alarm system shall be provided for the proposed facility, as required and approved by the Fire Department. General Plan Amendment No. 964B, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), and Traffic Study No. 109 Page 13 18. That a Fire Lane with appropriate signage shall be installed as required and approved by the Fire Department. 19. That a knox box and private fire hydrant shall be required for this project. That the final placement shall be subject to the approval of the Fire Department. 20. That all trash areas shall be screened from view of adjoining properties and streets. 21. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 22. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. E. TRAFFIC STUDY NO.109 Findin¢s• 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak -hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L-18 (formerly S-1). 2. That the Traffic Study has been reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and found in compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. 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, based on the characteristics of the proposed development. 4. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour morning peak period on any study intersection and that therefore no further study of those intersections is warranted. 5. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour afternoon peak period on two of the study intersections and that further ICU analysis for both intersections indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90 is achieved. General Plan Amendment No. 96-113, Amendment No. $52, Use Permit No.1892 (Amended), and Trask Study No. 109 Page 14 APPENDIX Background At its meeting of January 4, 1979, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1892 which permitted the establishment of the Temple Bat Yahm religious facility. At its meeting of July 21, 1988, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), which allowed the establishment of a daycare facility in conjunction with the existing Temple Bat Yahm. Copies of the Planning Commission minutes of those meetings are attached for the Commission's information. Traffic Study No. 109 As identified in the Traffic Study, the facility would generate 313 additional trips, thereby triggering the requirement for a traffic study. The proposed project will have a nominal impact on the level of service at the key intersections identified the project-generatedtraffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary -modified,' or 'primary' street and the ICU analysis of the two identified intersections will not exceed 0.90. Therefore, the project satisfies the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy L-18. Vehicular Access and On -Site Circulation The proposed on -site circulation for the temple facility is illustrated on the Site Plan and will result in the loss of use of the easterly driveway by the subject property as a result of the land swap. The ingress/egress to the property will continue to be taken from Camelback Street. The plans submitted show that the easterly most driveway will be retained to serve both the subject property and the future Irvine Company parking lot by the recordation of an easement for ingress/egress which will be included with the lot line adjustment. Expanded Traffic Study Analysis The attached traffic study satisfies the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy L-18 (formerly S-1). The trip generation forecasts are set forth in Table 1, located on Page 8 of the attached traffic study. The City Traffic Engineer has identified the eight intersections which could be affected by the proposed project. These intersections are listed on Page 1 of the attached traffic study. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one percent traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersectionwhere, on any approach leg, proj ect traffic is estimated to be greater than one percent of the projected 2'/z hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. Based on an analysis of each of the eight intersections, the increase in traffic at each intersection leg exceeded 1 % of the projected 2-%Z hour afternoon peak traffic on two of the intersections (Jamboree General Plan Amendment No. 96.1% Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended), and Traffic Study No. 109 Page 15 Road @ Bison Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard @ Bison Avenue) and was less than 1% on the remainder of the intersections, as indicated on Table 2, located on Page 14 of the attached traffic study. Therefore, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was prepared for each of the above noted intersections. As indicated in the traffic study, the ICU values during the P.M. peak for these two intersections did not exceed 0.90. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the level of service at the key intersections and that the project is in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Long-range impacts: The traffic study determined that the project would have no significant long- range impacts based on full buildout of the project and the General Plan circulation system (General Plan Traffic Analysis, dated July 19, 1996). It is also the traffic consultant's opinion that the impact on three of the intersections will not result in the reyuirementof any mitigation measures since the impact does not make worse the level of service or increases the ICU above 0.90. General Plan Amendment No. 96-113, Amendment No. 852, Use Permit No.1892 (Amended), and Traffic Study No.109 Page 16 COMMISSIONERS 9cF vC OAF O� aF 0 C F yC •}, yS Om� Zc yG 2 ROLL CALL MINUTES City of Newport Beach January 4, 1979 INDEX pen spaces and parking areas will achieve the 5\.Officient and harmonious objectives set forth i�the standards for the Site Plan Review. and appr\e Site Plan Review No. 18, subject to the following conditions: 1. The deve),Qpment shal'1 be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and e'hevation, except as noted in Condition NoX2. Z 2. That the propose off-street'parking lot shall be revised to the%satisfaction of the Public Works Director as fo,11ows: a. That the proposed' -'wall be set back 5 feet from the adjacent alley right-of-way line. 3. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjaCV streets and properties. 4. That all signs shall meet the \reuirements of the Sign Code. ' 5. That all conditions of approval of 4subdivi- sion No. 591 be fulfilled. 6. That a landscape plan with per irrigatio system be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department and installed prior to building occupancy. Item #i6 Request to permit the construction of a synagogue USE and related facilities in the Planned Community of PERMIT NO. 189, North Ford, and the acceptance of an environmental document. APPROVE[ Location: Parcel Nos. 1 and 2, Parcel Map 95-7 CONDI- Resubdivision No. 538), located at IONALLY 1011 Camelback Street, on the south- easterly corner of Camelback Street and Jamboree Road in the North Ford Planned Community. -5- �_� COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach January 4, 1979 NOLL CALL INDEX Zone: P-C Applicant: Temple Bat Yahm, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant AND Item #7 Request to create one parcel of land where two par- cels now exist so as to permit the construction of a synagogue and related facilities on the property. RESUB- DIVIS TOh NO. 611 Location: Parcel Nos. 1 and 2, Parcel Map 95-7 APPROVEC (Resubdivision No. 638), located at CONDI- loll Camelback Street, on the south- easterly corner of Camelback Street and Jamboree Road in the North Ford TI NALLY Planned Community. Zone: P-C Applicant: Temple Bat Yahm, Newport Beach Owner: Same as Applicant Engineer: William G. Church, Newport Beach Staff recommended that Items #6 and #7 be heard together. The staff presented revised calculations n the maximum square footage which could be con- structed on the site based upon the site coverage requirement in the P-C District. ublic hearing was opened on this item. Bernard ome, Chairman of the Temple Bat Yahm Building Com- ittee, and Sid Eisenshtat, architect for the proj-• ct, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. ome stated that they agree with the staff report n Item #6 and all but Condition No. 6 of the staff eport on Item #7. Discussion between Mr. Rome and taf regarding this condition, that an 8 foot wide C.C. sidewalk be constructed immediately behind be curb along the Camelback Street frontage and -6- ',� COMMISSIONERS a oF,� cy 2 City of Newport Beach lanuary 4. 1979 MINUTES ROLL CALL along the curb return at Jamboree Road, covered th following points: 1) There are no sidewalks on any of the developed areas on Camelback Street at the present time. Staff stated that sidewalks will be put in as fund become available. Sidewalks could not be required of the Post Office on Camelback Street because the •City does not have control over a senior governmen tal agency. Mr. Rome offered to set aside funds for the sidewalk to be put in when the work is don on the rest of Camelback Street. 2) Staff stated that, in the interest of pedes- trian circulation, sidewalk adjacent to"the curb i warranted. Mr. Rome and Mr. Eisenshtat pointed ou that provision for loading and unloading passenger had been made in the design of the project. A sug gestion was made that sidewalk be installed betwee the most easterly and westerly driveway locations and the easterly and westerly property lines;, with the balance of the site usi-ng the proposed interio pedestrian circulation system. Mr. Rome -said that would be acceptable if no other sidewalk was required. 3) In answer to a Commissioner's question about the cost of putting in sidewalk, staff answered• that the cost would be little more than it would b to landscape and irrigate the area. Mr. Rome said that they planned to leave the land on Jamboree Road in its natural state, so no landscaping would be necessary on that street. Staff stated that ultimately Jamboree Road would be widened and ther will be curb, gutter and sidewalk on the east side of Jamboree Road. 4) A question from a member of the Planning Com- mission concerned the need for an 8 foot sidewalk adjacent to the curb. Staff stated that 8 foot seemed advisable to accomodate the pedestrian traffic, and having it adjacent to the curb would avoid having people walk through a planted area. Mr. Rome asked if a 5 foot wide sidewalk would be acceptable since they planned an elaborate loading area, and staff agreed that it would. -7- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach danuary d_ 1Q70 ROIL CALL There being no others desiring to be heard on this item, the public hearing was closed. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission make All Ayes the following findings: 1. That the proposed use does not conflict with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is Compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have any significant environmental impart. 3. That adequate parking spaces and related vehicular circulation will be provided in con junction with the proposed development with a revised plan to be approved by the City. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 1892 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons resid- ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or impro ments in the neighborhood or the general wel- fare of the City . And approve Use Permit No. 1892, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan, floor plan, and elevations, except as noted in Con- dition of Approval No. 2. 2. That Vehicular access, parking (including the proposed tandem spaces), and circulation shal be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That a minimum of one parking space. for each 5 seats in the main sanctuary shall be provid on the site in conjunction with each phase of development. Said parking lot layout and design shall be approved by the Department of Community Development and the City Traffic Engineer. -8- INDEX COMMISSIONERS 2 City ©f Newport Beach January 4, 1979 MINUTES ROLL CALL 4. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and public streets. 5. That all signs and landscaping shall meet the provisions of the North Ford Planned Communit Development Standards. 6. That approval of Use Permit No. 1892 be con- tingent upon approval of Resubdivision No. 61 and the filing of a parcel map (Parcel map must be recorded prior to issuance of buildin permit). 7. That all conditions of approval for Resubdivi sion No. 611 be fulfilled. Motion X Motion was made that the Planning Commission make All Ayes the following findings: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable genera or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. and approve Resubdivision No. 611, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as requi ed by ordinance and the Public Works Depart- ment. 3. That a subdivision agreement with accompanyin surety be provided if it is desired to record the parcel map before the required public improvements are completed. 4. That Condition of Approval No. 4 of Resubdivi sion No. 538 requiring extension of the exist ing sewer line in Camelback Street be made nu and void (this extension is not necessary if -9- INDEX COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beech January 4, 1979 ROIL CALL the two parcels created by Resubdivision No. 538 are combined into one parcel). 5. That Conditions of Approval.of Use Permit No. 1892 be fulfilled. 6. That a 5 foot wide P.C.C. sidewalk be con- structed immediately behind the curb along the Camelback Street frontage between the drive- way and the adjacent property on the east side and between the driveway and Jamboree Road on the west side. Reque.t to expand the existing Charlie's Cafe facili with its related on -sale beer and wine in the C-1 {i District, and the acceptance of an off - site park•ng agreement for a portion of the require offstreet-Aarking spaces. Location: tots 21 and 22, Block 9, Section 1, Bd;lboa Island, located at 501 Park Avenue, on the southeasterly corner of Park,;Avenue and Agate Avenue on Balboa Islan. Zone: C-1-H ' 'L 'd.bbaCharlie's Applicant: Don Dean, Cafe, Balboa Island Owner: William C. Har , Balboa Island Public hearing was opened oitem.. William \thys Hardesty, owner of the property,\4nd Don Dean, owner of Charlie's Cafe, appeared efore the Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Hardesty aske4, that Condition No. 7 be deleted, as redecorating wa planned but not remodeling in excess of $5,000, which would require approval of a Resubdivision. Staff had no objection to deleting this condition. 4.9arding Condition No. 4, Mr. Hardesty said that th-e off - site parking spaces could be designated "FoA, -10- INDEX Item #8 USE PERMIT NO. 189 APPROVE CONDI- T1TIIEL IINUTES 1, 1988 ROLL CALL INDEX That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 1804 shall be fulfilled. 3. t the applicant shall provide a minimum of one par 'ng space for each 40 square feet of "net publ area" (64 spaces) for the subject restaur t. 4. That the de lopment standards pertaining to walls sball be waive . 5. That all mechanics equipment and trash areas shall be screened from Ma rthur Boulevard, Birch Street and adjoining propert 6. That the Planning Commiss n may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Counci the revocation of this use permit, upon a date nation that the operation which is the subject of is use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or San al welfare of the community. 7. That this use permit shall expire unless exe ised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newpo Item No.4 Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended)(Public Hearing ) Request to amend a previously approved use permit which Temple Bat Yahm UP1892A permitted the establishment of the Synagogue on property located in the North Ford Planned Community. The proposed amendment includes a request to establish a day school for grades 1 through 3 within an existing structure located on the subject property. Approved LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 154-19 (Resubdivision No. 611), located at 1011 Camelback Street, on the southeasterly corner of Camelback Street and Jamboree Road in the North Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Temple Bat Yahm, Newport Beach -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 1 \104 fJuly 21, 1988 40.9f` �o.t ,rk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. David Zimberoff, 4527 Orrington Road, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Zimberoff concurred with the findings end conditions in Exhibit "A". Thera being no others to appear before the Planning Commission, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion ' Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. All Ayes 1892 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off-street parking is being provided in conjunction with the proposed use. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan and floor plan except as noted below. 2. That all applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No, 1892, as approved by the Planning Commission on January 4, 1979 shall remain in effect. 3. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare .12. A COMMISSIONERS MINUTES July 21, 1988 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ti INDEX ROLL CALL of the community. 4. That an on -site drop-off area acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer shall be designated for parents dropping-off/picking-up students. 5. That this amendment to Use Permit No. 1892 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Item No.S equest to amend a previously approved use permit which UP3005A p mitted the establishment of an automobile rental facility on property located in the C-1-H District. The Continues prop ed amendment involves a request to permit the sale to of bo s, boat trailers and similar watercraft, in 8-18-88 conjunction with the auto rental facility. LOCATION: Lots 1, 2, 3 and a portion of Lot 4, Ttact No. 1210, located at 200 West Coast ighway, on the northwesterly corner of D ver Drive and West Coast Highway, in the vicinity of the Newport Bay Bridge. ZONE: C-1-H APPLICANT: Dial Fun nter, Newport Beach OWNER: Horwin/Gordon Newport Beach William Laycock, Current Plann g Manager, referred to the addendum to the staff re rt regarding staff's recommendation to add Finding No. to Exhibit "A" and to add Exhibit "B", Findings for Den 1. Mr. Laycock stated that staff had via ed the subject site prior to the Planning Commission me e ing, and that two conditions of approval of the origins use permit have not been met. He referred to Condition . 10 which states "that ten (10) parking spaces shall be rovided for employee and customer parking and that sai spaces shall be clearly marked.", and he stated tha the parking spaces were marked, but there were two b ats stored either on the parking spaces or in the acc s area. In response to a question posed by Chairma Pers6n, Mr. Laycock, replied that there were seven -13- Program Statement INTRODUCTION Temple Bat Yahm is a Reform Jewish Congregation, founded in 1972, and serving Newport Beach and adjacent communities. We are the only Reform congregation and the only Synagogue located in Newport Beach at the present time. Temple Bat Yahm is located on Camelback Street, a site ideally situated for easy traffic access from Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and all of the freeways in the area. Our present site was purchased from the Irvine Company in 1974, and specifically selected because of its central location and easy accessibility. Soon after the agreement with the Irvine Company was signed, a small building approximately 2200 sq.ft., was located on the property to serve our immediate needs. In 1982 construction was begun on our present facility. At the time construction was completed one year later, our congregation had approximately 175 member families. The building was designed to accommodate 400 member families; we now have about 550 member families. Temple Bat Yahm's Synagogue is a 31,000 sq. ft. facility that includes a 397 seat sanctuary, a social hall, kitchen, offices, a library, religious school and pre-school. The building, located on an "L" shaped parcel, is tilt -up concrete and dry -wall finished on the inside. Presently,129 parking spaces are provided in the primary parking lot, and an additional 21 spaces are located in the small parking lot, for a total of 150 parking spaces. OPERATIONS Temple Bat Yahm has normal daily activities and operations similar to any religious organization of 550 families. Our normal operating personnel, (religious professionals, secretarial and maintenance personnel) number approximately 10. We also have a faculty of between 10 and 20 teachers when Religious school and pre-school are in session. Temple Bat Yahm has a pre-school of 144 children, which operates on weekday mornings. Our religious school meets two afternoons during the week, and on Sunday mornings. Our religious school presently has over 350 children enrolled in it. The social hall typically has luncheons during the week, and adult education and meetings two to three nights of the week. Friday night and Saturday are the Jewish Sabbath, and Services are held in the sanctuary on both Friday evenings and Saturday mornings. Our typical week often includes Bar or Bat Mitzvah celebrations, Weddings, and other life cycle events. Temple Bat Yahm has activities going on seven days a week. The operations of our congregation are consistent for most weeks of the year, with the exception of the Jewish High Holy Days, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. These Holy Days fall in September or October, depending on the Jewish Calendar, and the building use is quite different. There is no school or pre-school, and no business is conducted and there are no social activities. Services are held on the evening preceding the holiday and throughout the day. These are our two busiest days of the year, and the only days where traffic and parking are problematic. We have alleviated these problems by sharing parking with our neighbors, Mariners Church and the Post Office. We also provide a staff of security guards and traffic control personnel for these high peek occasions. PRESENT ACTION Temple Bat Yahm is faced with some serious problems at this time. We are out of physical space to accommodate our present membership and to welcome new Jewish families who will relocate here in the future. New classrooms, more office space, more storage area, and more meeting rooms are badly needed. Our Congregation also has serious concerns about the safety of our children, as it relates to traffic on Camelback Street, during the time our religious school and pre-school are in session. Camelback Street is a much busier throughway than it was 13 years ago when our present facility was built. While evaluating our needs and our present building and property, two things became very apparent. First, we could not simply remodel our present facility to fit our needs, but needed to build. Second, the shape of our property was not suitable for solving the traffic/safety problem for our children. Our representatives have negotiated a land swap/purchase agreement with the Irvine Company to acquire an additional .7 acres and also to square off our parcel so that we can better address our needs. Since the General Plan only accounts for our present facility, Temple Bat Yahm is requesting a General Plan Amendment to allow us to build an additional maximum of 40,000 square feet, and solve the above noted problems. The following detailed project program, outlines our description of present programmatic needs, and includes line items for future anticipated space requirements. / F � r t F "7 �.. �. f ,a EMM PAVED FAFXWQ ExurNo 2 - PAFiC� T \ UI PROPOSED \\ TRADED PROPERTY TO BE \\.\ PROPOSED LOT UNE PROPOSED NEW \ PARCg2 uqAr- PROPERTY ACOUtSlT*N \ N PNIca.T ca"M, ` \ FW91C71EM D70BAO: TEMPLE BAT YAHM ;::Y� PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT L—� RESOLUTION NO.96- _ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 96-I(B) AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN, TO INCREASE THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE SYNAGOGUE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT [GPA No. 96-1(B)] WHEREAS, as pan of the development and implementation of the City's General Plan, the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives and supporting policies which serve as a guide for future development of the City of Newport Beach; and f' WHEREAS, the Land Use Element designates the general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections, commercial floor area limitations, and the floor area ratio ordinances; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the above referenced element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration of the above referenced amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, a Negative Declarationhas been prepared which adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents. there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by conditions of approval, could have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the site is currently designated for "Governmental. Educational and Institutional Facilities;' that the existing religious facilities are a permitted use under this designation and the proposed expansion is a continuation of that use. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment I No. 96.1(B), to increase the entitlement of the synagogue site to 71,150 sq.ft. (to allow40,000 sq.ft. of future growth) is hereby approved for. That property located In the North Ford Planned Community, bounded by Jamboree Road, Bison Avenue and Camelback Street (Portion of Area 2). on the southerly side of Camelback Street (1011 Camelback Street). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-1(B) is hereby approved and that Statistical Area L-3, 2 2 (NF Area2) of the Land Use Element is amended to read as follows: Land Ilse F.lementPa Page 74-75: 2-2. NrArea 2. This area is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities. and General Industry. [OPA 90.1(0)] [GPA 93.3(B)]. The development allocation is as follo%xS: Sy nagogue site: 41,'T Wsti^^." Utility Station: 1.000sq.ft. 71,150 sa.ft. TIC Corp. Yard: 33,940sq.ft, General Industry: 110,600sq.ft. (Site 2a: MinI Storage Facility) Postal Facility: $5,200sq.ft. ESTIMATED GRO WTH FOR SfATISTICALAREA W Residential(indo's) Commercial (in sq,ft.) Existing Gen.Plan Projected Existing Gen.Plan Projected 1/1187 Projecteo Growth 1/1187 Projection Growth W.AFArcal 50 So .0- .0- •a- .0- 1.2.AFAres2 53 53 •0• •0- •0• -0- 1.4.APArea4 •0• Soo Soo •0• •0• •0- I•S.AFAreaS 39 39 •0• -0- -0- •0- 1.6 AFArea6 54 54 •0• •0• •0- •0- 1.7.AFArea 7 $9 59 •0• .0. •0• •0- I-LAFAreat 168 169 -0• 0• •0- •0- 2-1.NFAre&I 0- •0• 0• 74.692 149,041 73,349 2.2.NFArea 2 •0• 1 1 100.930 N5.41 ii4;;ct9 285,440 184Sl0 2.3.NFArea 3 -0• •0• •0• •0- 50,000 50,000 2.4.NFArea4 •0- 300 300 •0• •0. •0• 2•5.NFAreaS 849 849 •0. .0• -0• •0- 2.6.NFArea 6 .0• •0• •0• •0• •0. •0- 3. San Diego Creek •0- •a- •0• •0• 200,000 200,000 4, Jamboree'MacAnhur •a. -0- •01 •0- 50,000 50,000 707AL 1.272 Z073 301 1,5,622 60494 WAS 733,481 557,859 Population 2,519 4,559 2.040 Reviscd031969195 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 96-1(B) and that by reference, the Land Use Map of the General Plan shall also be amended to reflect the proposed change in the boundaries of the "Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities" designation and the "Industrial" designation. ADOPTED this _day of 1996, by the following vote, to wit: RESOLUTION NO.96- A RESOLUTION OF T1IE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AAILN'DNIENT TO THE NORTH FORD PLANNED CON51UNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, TO INCREASE THE ENTITLEMENT TO ALLOY THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO THE E%ISTING RELIGIOUS FACILITY. (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENTNO. 852) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementatonof the Ncwport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, Section 20.51.O45 of the Newport Beath Munielpal Code provides that amendments to establish or amend a Planned Community DevciopmeatPlan must be approved by a Resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth fullparticula.-s -: theamendment;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is of the of°rion that the proposed amendment to the North Ford Planned Community District Regula:ic_< is consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed diversification of permitted u�--s is consistent with the spirit, intent and provisions of Section 20.51.015 of the Municipal o;.:de, to provide for the classificationand development of parcels of land as coordinated, compmh,:nsive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large--ca.ecommunity planning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a : _blic hearing on August 8, 1996, at which time this amendment to amend the North Ford Pla=,:d Community District Regulations was discussed and determined to be in conformance with the Newport Beach General Plan, since the proposed amendment does not alter the institutional ch=c:-rof the subject proNrt) or the North Ford Planned Community District as a whole; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Municipal Code pro•.i&-. specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties wir =in the City of Newport Beach -,and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration c.- the above referenced amendntcntto the Land Use Element of the General Plan, a Negative Deciasationhas been prepared which adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the pr.?ect, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by conditions of approval, could have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the land use entitlement of the North Ford Planned Community District is necessary in order to allow an increase in the entitlement allocated to the subject property; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No. 852 to increase the entitlement of the subject property to allow for an additional 40,000 square feet for the construction of a chapel, additions to the pre-school and religious education classes and related support areas. Amending the North Ford Planned Community District to reflect that change; and that Section II, Area 2, of the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations be amended to add 40.000 sq.R. to the additional allowable entitlement: North Ford Planned CommunitvText Page 2: SECTION 1. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS North Ford Approximate Additional Additional Gross Alllowable Allowable Area Acres sq IL DU's General Industry-- 1 16.7 -0- -0. GEIF General Industry-- 2 22.7 40000.0- -0. GEIF General Industry 2a 2 8 110`600 4- (mini-storage) TOTAL 42.2 150,600 1-10,600 -1- Commercial 3 5.0 50,000 -0- Multi-family 4 13.6 undetermined 300 Residential Open Space 4a 2.4 Residential 5 79.0 -0. 888 Park 6 12.0 -0- 0.0 TOTAL 117.0 50,000 1,189 The above statistics are based on gross acreage and do not account for buildable area. In Area 2a, development is limited to mini -storage facility use with a maximum floor area of 110.600 sq.ft. 2 "1 � Development may include one dwelling unit for an owner'manager including tuo garage spaces, prm ided that such residential use will be Incidental to the mInktorage use and will nut alley the character of the premises. In Area 2 the addigonal at law able souare footage h allocaled for the exnanslon oft It Ss nayngue site. ADOPTED this_., day of ,1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY GAROLD B. ADAMS. CHAIRMAN BY ED SELICH, SECRETARY r+WPSItPLAt.'NtNG11PUa\gTJ'M196.E4YAas21'C.gFS P037ED JUL 1 1 igc1 GARY L. Gp VILLE, 0It< t0d0T DEPLITY By CITY OF NE`)TTORT BEACH 3t.W A'Mport Boulevard - P.O. Box 176E 1.•rxport Beach, CA WrMq491b (714) 644-322$ NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research El1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk, County of Orange X public Services Division P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FILED JUL i 1 1996 GARYL VILLE,Clerk-lleeOtdff BY__ ____ DEPUTY From: City of?dcwportBeach PI' Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Bcacb, CA 9265&S91S (Orange County) Date received for fling at OPR/County Clerk: PublicAUGUST 2, 1996 1 Maine of Project. TEMPLE BAT YAH14 (GPA 96-1B, Use Permit No. 1892A, Traffic Study 109 __J A___J___L 4- \L. C wa Dr1 ProjectLocalion: loll CA14ELBACK STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Project Description GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AMENDSENT TO THE NORTH FORD PC REGULATIONS use permit, traffic study and lot line adjustment for a 40,000 sq. expansion of:- pre-school, religious classr t construc4 a 12,80 sq.ft._chapel and associated su000rt area. ���miHea�in...AuI 8, 1, Finding: Pursuant to The provisions of city Council Policy K-3pertainingtoproceduresand guidchestoimplemeD1 the California Envvonmcntal Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee bas evaluated the proposed project and determined That the proposed project would not have a siguificant effect on the cmiroament. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is Q attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation mca_sures that would eliminate or reduce potential mironmcntal impacts. This document will be considered by the decision -makers) prior to final anion on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached Additional plans, studies andror exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, )•ou are invited To contact the undersigned. I f you wish to appeal the appropriate Dens or adequacy of this document, your comments sbould be submits ed in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should s-viceifically identij• what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mit g26on measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. 'here is no fee for this appeal If a public hearing wz71 be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. Ifyou bave y uestions or would h1c further information, plea_st contact the u=de11rsignejd�at (714) 6a-3206 Date Javier S. Ga cia, AICP Senior Planner hg Pe iud L95 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRON\MENTAL CHECKLIST FOR.N1 Project Title: Temple Bat Yahm 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier S. Garcia, AICP (714) 644-3206 4. Project Location: 1011 Camelback Street located on the southeasterly corner of Jamboree Road and Camelback Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Temple Bat Yahm loll Camelback Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation: Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities and General Industry 7. Zoning: PC- (,North Ford Planned Community District) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved. including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or of site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project involves the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Amendment to the ;forth Ford Planned Community District Regulations (Amendment No. 852), a use permit, a traffic study and a future lot line adjustment to allow for the construction of a 40,000 square foot expansion to the existing Temple Bat Yahm. The expansion Includes: the construction of a 12,720 sq.ft. chapel to accommodate smaller functions; the addition of three classrooms to the pre-school to accommodate 45 new students; the addition of 10 new religious classrooms to accommodate 150 new students; 600 sq.ft. addition to existing administrative offices; and miscellaneous storage and kitchen additions. The site is currently occupied by the Temple Bat Yahm facility which contains approximately 31,000 CHECEWST Tempk Bat YAM Page 1 sq.ft. - In accordance with Section 20.33 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code the approval of a use permit is required for such a use and for the proposed expansion. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: The project is located at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Camelback Street on the southeasterly corner and consists of a multi=building temple and school facility with related off-street parking. To the north and east: across Camelback Street, is residential development (a grade separation puts the residential neighborhood well below the level of the Temple facility. To the south: is Mariner's Church and the Calty Toyota Facility. To the west: across Jamboree Road, is residential development. lo. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) NONE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, invol%ing at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water ❑ Air Quality Q Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Public Seances ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation CNT_CKUST Tempk Bat Val= Page 2 DETERNID;ATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) 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 trill be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures -described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 3) has been addressed by mitigation, measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially sieniftcant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRO\:MENTAL WPACT REPORT is required, but it must anahze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect en the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because a l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EEK including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ July S.-1996 qS:nature Date Javier S. Garcia Printed Name F:1tP5l FLA_*,\ Cr IPlBSOWN960808 TEN tPLA-)DOC M ECKUSr Tanpk nrt Yahm Page 3 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?( ) b) Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? it. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?( ) Potentially Potentially less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Q' ❑ O ❑ E] ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ H CHECKLIST Tempic Bat Yahm Page 4 C b) Seismic ground shaking ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, inclWing liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? () e) Landslides or mudllows? ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) 1) Unique geologic or physical features? O IV. WATER.: Would the proposal resuh in: a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or props.. ty to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface wate-s or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, d:s olved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of sur`.ace water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the ccurse or direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of g`o:nd waters, either through direct additions orwilhdrawals, or '&sough interception of an aquifer ttiy nits or excavations or through subs�antial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) Potentially Potentlatty Lessthan No Significant Significant significant knpact knpact unless h"Cl Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ L! ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ C�! ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 cliEMIST Temple Bet YAM Page 5 r g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) impacts to groundwater quality? 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate?( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ), d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) Potentially Potentially Less than No Sign)ncant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e ❑ ❑ ❑ E1 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ E7 CHECKLIST Tempk Bat Yahm Page 6} ' 1 �11 1) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, walerbome or air traffic impacts?( ) VIL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in Impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) Vill. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict With adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? ( ) Potentially Potentially Lett than No Signifcant Significant Signirkant Impact Impact Unless knpact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ 0 Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ 0 ❑ H clffcwsT Tempt ad I.:= Page 7 Potentially significant Potentially Significant Less than Significant No Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ B release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil. pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an ❑ ❑ ❑ B emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ or potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ B sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ❑ ❑ ❑ H flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise ❑ ❑ ❑ Q levels? ( ) Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmenl services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ B b) Police protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ B c) Schools? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ B d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ B including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ❑ ❑ ❑ Q CIIClaisT Tunple Ex Yahm Page 8 L�.3 XII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a) power or natural gas? ( ) b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? { ) g) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would Lie proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) d) Affect a coastal bluff? ( ) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? () c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) Potentlally potennany Less than No significant significant significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ (7 H ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ H Q ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H cHECKUV Tnnple Pat Yatun Page 9 t kA I. I Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ B uses within the potential impact area?( ) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ H opportunities? ( ) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ B to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ H are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) CHECKLIST Tcmple U Yahm Page t10 'l S d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact knpacl Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. section 15063(c)(3)(0). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and slate where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. F tWPSi*,P ANNINGIIPUBNOTPN9aoeWaTEMPL•NO DOC CHECiaisT Temple au Yahtn Page 11 ENVIRO\11E\7AL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Temple Bat Yahm 1011 Camelback Street General Plan Amendment No. 96-1 (B), Amendment No. 852 (North Ford Planned Community Text), Use Permit No. 1892 (Amended) and Traffic Study No. 109 Project Description The project involves the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Amendment to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations, a use permit, a traffic study and a future lot line adjustment. The approval will allow for the construction of a 40,000 square foot expansion to the existing Temple Bat Yahm. The expansion includes: the construction of a 12,720 sq.ft. chapel to accommodate smaller functions; the addition of three classrooms to the pre-school to accommodate 45 new students; the addition of 10 new religious classrooms to accommodate 150 new students; 600 sq.ft. addition to existing administrative offices; and miscellaneous storage and kitchen additions. The site is currently occupied by the Temple Bat Yahm facility which contains approximately 31,000 sq.ft. In accordance with Section 20.33 of the Newport Beach Nlunicipal Code the approval of a use permit is required for such a use and for the proposed expansion. ANALYSIS The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Emzrontnental AnalNsis ChecUst regarding the, proposed project's environmental Impacts. I. Land Use and Planning The site is designated for Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities and for General Industry by the Cites General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning is PC (Planned Community). The North Ford Planned Community District designates the site for existing religious facility, subject to approval of a use permit. The existing religious facility is consistent N\ith the City's General Plan and Zoning requirements. The proposed General Plan Amendment vsill allow for the proposed expansion of the religious facility by a trade of land included in the lot line adjustment. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and a Coastal Permit is not required. The proximity of residential uses will not be significantly impacted by the traffic generated by the proposed use, since the proposed use does not share street frontage Nvith the residential development. �h IL Population and Housing Population The proposed project is non-residential and therefore will not cause any growth or reduction in the area's population. Housing Xo additional housing demand would result from the project since only a minor employment increase is anticipated. 13L Geologic Problems (Earth) The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. Soil contamination is discussed under Hazards (item no. W. Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (N`B1v1C Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. IN'. Water The proposed project would take place on a site that is already developed, therefore no drainage impacts would be anticipated. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code. The project is located outside flood hazard area. V. Air Quality D.uing the course of construction some dust and objectionable odor from diesel exhaust and asphalt paving maybe created. However, dust Hill be minimized as a result of site watering required by The City and Air Quality Management District regulations. Odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project. No additional stationary. equipment is proposed that could generate additional emission as part of the project. \•T. Transportation/Circulation/parking CurTendy the parcel is occupied by the existing religious facility with three access driveways which are proposed to be retained, no new access driveways are proposed. Additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that based on traffic data of published sources, trip generation rate for the proposed e\panded facility would generate an increase of approximately 313 trips per day. Therefore, a comprehensive traffic study was required since the traffic increase of the proposed development exceeds trip generation requirement (300 or more trips per day) of the City's Traffic cHEcr:.:sr LVL;.V.xnoxs Tea* a.0 )'.Fun Page 2 Phasing Ordinance. Although the increase in the vehicular trips may be potentially significant, the traffic study did not identify any significant traffic impacts associated with the proposed project Therefore, no mitigation measures have been recommended nor required in conjunction with the traffic study for the project. The project proposes to maintain the existing allotment of 150 parking spaces for the facility. There are 8 parking spaces proposed on the site plan and the project has satisfied the parking requirements and no adverse impact is anticipated. The study indicates that the parking provided is adequate to meet the demands of the proposed expanded religious facility. The study's analysis of the project access, idemi.°ed no significant problems associated with the proposed expansion. VII. Biological Resources (Plant and Animal Life) Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and, the project will not affect any natural vegetation. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the cconu nutity and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. VID Energy and Mineral Natural Resources Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipa:ed. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significa :}7 affected by this project. L\. Hazards The proposed project does not utilize hazardous materials on -site, no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. Risk of Upset cHtEcwsTEI tLASAnoxs Tempi- Bat Yahm Page 3 The proposal does not include the remo%yJ of any underground Gasoline storage tank. The former tan} s v+ere removed some time in 1988 and remediation was also cornp:eted at that time. X Noise Existing noise levels are antic.Fz:ed to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations M. MC Chapter 10.28). \L Public Services There are sufficient public or govemmental services that serve the area and the project would not create add:: onal demand for these services. XM Utilities and Service Systems The site has already been served by the utility System and no significant alteration or expansion of existing a lity system is anticipated. XM Aesthetics The site is located in a commercial zone, and the proposed religious facility would not result in a.-v significant aesthetic impacts as compared to other adjacent cornmtrdal uses Light and Glare if exterior lighting is required, the proposed project could produce light and glare that would adversely Oet the adjacent residential properties, if the project was not tucked in to v e base o. the existing slope and will not be visible to any neighboring residential properties. The use permit gill include standard conditions of atrroval to ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that direct rays are confined to the site to the greatest extent feasible. MV.. Cultural Resources The parcel has been developed previously and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to mist on this site. There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic structures. crrscxusr Wtavatloxs T=pItNi YsIon Page 4 m XV. Recreation Recreational activities and opportunities would not be affected by the project. XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. That there are no knovm substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. F: %MI PL-1.\1'ING I PL'BNOTP%*WSOSTL\iPLCKDOC CHECMJST F-%T"\'AnO\'S Templc Bat Yahm Page 5 C7 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City ofNewport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Temple Bat Yahm (Bernard Rome, applicant) for General Plan Amendment No. 96-IB, Amendment No 852 Use Permit No 1892 (Amended) TraMc Study \o. 109 and the acceptance of an environmental document on property located at 1011 Camelback Street. administrative offices: construction of ten new classrooms for religious instruction-, and the construction or 12,720 sg.ft. chapel - 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) 644-3200. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 8th day of August 1996, 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. Michael C. Kranzley, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 121 r; onlgornery F_a7 Suite 135 s^only Springs F'cvda 32714 -M- ?022 FAX :07869•9742 O'R0URKE ENGINEERING TEMPLE BAT YAHM EXPANSION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared For. Cit4' of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard NeµIport Beach. CA Prepared By. 04ROURKE ENGINEERING 2677 North Main Street, Suite 860 Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 541-9011 July 19, 1996 Cz'sbad .. _ . _ • <: = o CA. A%a—crle Spnrgs O'ROURKE ENGINEERING July 19, 1996 Mr. Jay Garcia City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA Dear Mt. Garcia: O'Rourke Engineering was retained to provide the traffic engineering services for the expansion of the Temple Bat Yahm. The first component of the traffic services was q?I '^'�- to provide the traffic impact analysis. The analysis showed that the project bad no Z",c Q, significant impact on the surrounding network given the limited trip generation. --- ` Since the proposed expansion represented a change in the City's General Plan, a Fe,, General Plan Traffic Analysis was conducted. The analysis was based on adding the trip generation developed in the traffic impact analysis to the baseline traffic volumes for the General Plan model run, year 2010. O'Rourke Engineering prodded the trip generation of 37 am trips, 207 pm trips and 313 daily trips to Austin -Foust the City's General Plan modeling consultant. Austin -Foust provided baseline projections and baseline plus Temple Bat Yahm trip projections for the study area intersections. The results show that the proposed expansion will easily be accommodated by the roadway network. No significant impacts are identified as a result of the Temple Expansion. Table 1 summarizes the vic ratios at the study area intersections with baseline and with the Temple added. Although the v/c ratio increases by 0.01 for the intersection of MacArthur/Bison during the A.1%1 peak hour and by 0.01 and 0.02 during the PM peak hour for the intersections of Jambotee/Eastbluff-University and Jamboree/ Bison, respectively, no improvements are necessary as a result of these minor increases. The model output provided by Austin -Foust is provided in Appendix A. It has been a pleasure working with you in this project. Please call if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, O'ROURKE ENGINEERING Susan E. O'Rourke, President •rPWtA9W33.0 2677 North Main Street, suite $60 Santa Ana, CA 92705 714'541.9011 TABLE 1 TEMPLE BAT YAHM PROJECT PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AM peak hour: 20 trips inbound. 17 trips outbound (total 37 new trips) PM peak hour: 143 trips inbound. 64 trips outbound (total 207 new trips) Average daily trips: 313 new trips 2010 ICU SUMN4ARY INTERSECTION 29. MacArthur & Jamboree 30. Jamboree & Bristol N 32. Jamboree & Bristol S 34. Jamboree & Eastbluff/University 35. Jamboree & Bison 37. 'MacArthur & Bison 38. Jamboree & Eastbluff/Ford 39. MacArthur & Ford * No significant impact by the project. BASELINE \°:PROJECT AM PM AM PM .89 1.00 1.43 1.24 .80 1.12 .60 .74 .61 .75 .68 .73 .68 .15 .65 .90 .66 .90 .83 .88 .51 .63 APPENDIX A 29. MacArthur E Jalboree NBTAM - 2010 Baseline AM PK HOUR PH PR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C HBL 1 1600 170 .11 300 .19* NBT 3 4800 1100 .25* 420 .10 NBR 0 0 90 70 SBL 1 1600 40 .03* 330 .21 SBT 3 4800 450 .09 1490 .31* SBR f 170 790 **4w EBL 2 3200 1520 .48* 4ri6 .21 EBT 3 4800 1290 .27 1040 .22* EBR f 140 10 WBL 2 3200 120 .04 890 .28* WBT 3 4800 600 .13* 990 .21 WBR f 380 50 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .89 1.00 30. Jaxboree i Bristol N HBTAM - 2010 Baseline AH PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C AX 137.1D KK.`4l HBL 2 3200 1610 .50* 4330 -.4:* NBT 3 4800 1870 .39„ .54 HBR 0 0 0 2s SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6400 590 .12* 1440 .30* SBR 0 0 430 .27 830 .52 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3200 920 .29* 990 .31* WBR 1 1600 1060 .66 320 .20 Right Turn Adjustment Hulti .52* SBR .22* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.43 -k:15' *%1.24 NO SIOHIFICAHT IMPACT BY THE PROJECT NO SICfIFICABT IMPACT '37 THE PROJECT dtk Adjusirn&llh re;leci' reductton % 4riq gene,ra,t1011 rzi- reflected In -the 1++0del 32. Jaaboree E Bristol S NBTAH - 2010 Baseline AN PK BOOR PH PK BOOR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 HBT 4 6400 2070 .33* 1420 .23 HBR 0 0 10 20 SBL 0 0 10 (.01)* 0 SOT 3 4900 740 .16 2020 42* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0.5 740 .46* 690 EBT 1.5 1200 470 .29 1560 .70* OR 2 3200 1380 .43 940 .29 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .80 1.12 34. JaWxree i Eastbluff/University NBTAN - 2010 Baseline AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 10 .01 20 .01 NBT 4 6400 1950 .30* 1870 .29* NBR 1 1600 430 .27 330 .21 SBL 2 3200 80 .03* 500 .16* SBT 4 6400 1360 .21 2010 .31 SBR 1 1600 250 .16 440 .28 EBL 1.5 430 290 EBT 0.5 3200 130 .18* 180 .15* EBR f 10 10 WBL 1.5 240 (.09)* 440 .14* WBT 1.5 4800 170 .09 190 .12 WBR f 760 480 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .60 NO SIONIFICANT IMPACT BY THE PROJECT NBTAX - 2010 Y/Project AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LAMES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL 7/C NBL 1 1600 10 .01 20 .01 NBT 4 $400 1960 .31* 1930 .30* NBR 1 1600 440 .28 340 .21 SBL 2 1200 80 .03* 500 .16* SST 4 6400 1350 .21 2060 .32 SBR 1 1600 250 .16 450 .28 EBL 1.5 430 290 EBT 0.5 3200 130 .18* 180 .15* EBR f 10 10 WBL 1.5 240 (.09)* 440 .14* WBT 1.5 4800 170 .09 190 .12 BBB f 760 490 .74 TOTAL CAPACITY OTILIZATIOH .61 .75 35. Jaiboree E Bison MAX - 2010 Baseline AH PR HOUR PH PR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .01 30 .02 NBT 4 6400 2310 .39* 2050 .35* NBR 0 0 180 170 SBL 2 3200 160 .05* 450 .14* SBT 3 4800 1630 .34 2180 .45 SBR 1 1600 30 .02 80 .05 ESL 0 0 70 30 EBT 1 1600 60 .10* 40 .05* EBR 0 0 30 10 WBL 1 1600 220 .14* 300 .19* WBT 1 1600 50 .03 80 .05 WBR 2 3200 520 .16 140 .04 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .68 .73 37. MacArthur i Bison NBTAH - 2010 Baseline AH PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VJC VOL V/C HBL 2 3200 120 .04 140 .04 HBT 4 6400 2180 .34* 1730 .27* HBR f 590 320 SBL 2 3200 90 .03* 740 .23* SBT 4 6400 1410 .22 2150 .34 SBR 1 1600 160 .10 100 .06 EBL 2 3200 70 .02* 10 .00 EBT 2 3200 280 .09 500 .16* EBR f 20 270 WBL 2 3200 320 .10 760 .24* WBT 2 3200 740 .23* 420 .13 WBR 1 1600 410 .26 180 .11 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .03* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 .90 NBTAN - 2010 W/Project AH PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITX VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .01 30 .02 HBT 4 6400 2330 .39* 2050 .35* HBR 0 0 180 170 SBL 2 3200 160 .05* 500 .16* SBT 3 4800 1610 .34 2180 .45 SBR 1 1600 30 .02 80 .05 EBL 0 0 70 30 EBT 1 1600 60 .10* 40 .05* EBR 0 0 30 10 WBL 1 1600 210 1.14* 310 .19* WBT 1 1600 50 .03 80 .05 WBR 2 3200 , 520 .16 150 .05 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .68 .75 NBTAH - 2010 V/Project M PK HOUR PH PE HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VJC VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 110 .03 140 .04 HBT 4 6400 2160 .34* 1750 .27* HBR f 590 310 SBL 2 3200 80 .03* 750 .23* SBT 4 6400 1420 .22 2130 .33 SBR 1 1600 170 .11 120 .08 EBL 2 3200 60 .02* 10 .00 EBT 2 3200 280 .09 520 .16* EBR f 20 290 WBL 2 3200 330 .10 760 .24* WBT 2 3200 740 .23* 470 .15 WBR 1 1600 430 .27 180 .11 Right Turn Adjustment MAR .04* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .66 .90 I 38: Jaswree i Nasbluff/ford WAX - 2010 Baseline AH FK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C MEL 2 3200 200 .06* 360 .11 UT 3 4900 1570 .33 2490 .56* 101 0 0 10 200 SBL 1 1600 20 .01 180 .11* SOT 3 4800 2130 .44* 1650 .34 SBR 1 1600 30 .02 100 .06 EBL 1 1600 250 .16* 60 .04 EBT 1 1600 90 .06 270 .17* EBR 1 1600 270 .17 240 .15 WBL 1.5 70 .04 110 (.04)* WBT 1.5 4800 530 .17* 90 .04 6'BR 1 1600 190 .12 30 .02 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .83 .98 39. MacArthur i Ford NBTAH - 2010 Baseline AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LAMES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 10 .00 40 .01 NBT 4 6400 2030 .32* 2010 .31* NBR f 180 410 SBL 2 3200 I5O .05* 550 .17* SHT 4 6400 1410 .22 2400 .38 SBR f 10 10 EBL 2 3200 10 .00 10 .00 EBT 2 3200 90 03* 360 Ilk EBR 1 1600 30 .02 10 .01 WBL 2 3200 360 .11* 140 .04* WBT 2 3200 270 .08 180 .06 WBR f 750 290 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .51 .63 NO SIOMIFICANT IMPACT BY TIE PROJECT NO SIC3IFICANT IMPACT BY TIE PMRCT Figure 1 2010 ADT VOLUMES (000s) — BASELINE 0 Figure 2 INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP 421 Y.-.tgornery -03: --'JQe'25 'Its :e:Prigs 22714 • _.:A022 '-X =? M-9752 O'ROURKE ENGINEERING July 19, 1996 Mr. Jay Garcia City of Newport Beach P.O. Boa 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 93658 Dear Mr. Garcia: The traffic impact analysis and parking analysis are complete for Temple Bat Yahm. The results of the analysis are contained herein. The analysis showed no significant impacts associated with the Temple expansion. If you have any questions or comments. please call. Very truly yours, O'ROURKE ENG x Susan E. O'Rourl President C TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Lane Geometrics/Traffic Control PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT TRIP GENERATION Pre -School Religious School Average Daily Trips Additional Expansion Plans TRIP DISTRIBLMON/ASSIGNME`T TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS COMMITTED PROJECTS Intersections To Be Analyzed 1% TEST ICU ANNALYSIS ON -SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING SITE ACCESS SUMMARY APPENDICES APPENDIX A Committed Projects APPENDIX B -- 1% Test Worksheets, ICU Analysis Worksheets 1 2 2 2 7 7 7 9 10 11 12 12 12 13 14 14 15 15 16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location 2 Figure 2: Site Layout 3 Figure 3: Existing Volumes - AIM Peak Hour 4 Figure 4: Existing Volumes - PM Peak Hour 5 Figure 5: Existing Geometrics 6 Figure 6: Project Traffic 13 LIST OF T.kBLES Table 1: Temple Bat Yahm Activities 8 Table 2: 1% Test Results 14 TEMPLE BAT YAHM INTRODUCTION O'Rourke Engineering was retained to provide the traffic impact analysis for the proposed expansion to Temple Bat Yahm located on Camel back in Newport Beach. The project location, shown in Figure 1, consists of 31,000 square feet of existing gathering space and ancillary uses. The proposed expansion is planned for the parcel immediately west of the existing site. Figure 2 shows the site layout. The proposed expansion is part of a long range master plan and construction is not planned in the near future. The expansion proposal is fueled in part by an opportunity for a land exchange with the Irvine Company. EXISTING CONDITIONS Based on recommendations by City staff, the initial study area was determined. Within the initial study area, the existing conditions were determined in terms of existing lane geometrics. traffic volumes and traffic control. The list of intersections included in the initial study area are identified below. Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Drive -Ford Road Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue Jamboree Road/Eastbluff Dtive-University Drive Jamboree Road/Bristol Street Jamboree Road/North Bristol Street Jamboree Road/ivfacArthur Boulevard MacArthur Boulevard/Bison Avenue MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road Traffic Volumes The existing traffic volumes were obtained from the City of Newport Beach for the A.M and PM weekday peak hours. The existing volumes are shown in Figures 3 and 4 for the Alf and P',vl peak hours respectively. The peak hours are defined as the highest hour between each of the peak periods defined as 7:00 am to 9:30 am and 3:30 t o 6:00 pm. Lane Geometrics/Traffic Control A field review of the initial study area was undertaken to determine the number of lanes and the traffic control on the network. The primary access to the site is off of Camelback --a two lane collector road and Jamboree -- a six lane divide primary arterial. The lane geometrics and traffic control at the initial study area intersections are illustrated in Figure S. 1 <P. �.��.. PAVE! PAFK210 ` » i ,, I X''? ! I I! I I ��' P'+CP r4iY 70 BE •• =, I� `�•� ��.. . • { � � � pRCP.'=o LOT t1NE \ • pnnTr rcs'W lcn rubs.: tsn� •.� p1IR^. -1 o3,a AG mr)cm.A a k saltm DOuOi mm R DDummIl7Y FIGURE 2 N A PROPOSED NTS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Tm O'ROURKE ENGINEERING s TEMPLE BAT YAH M (,oq i N A NTS AM O'ROURKE ENGINEERING 4p. �o siv DR. FIGURE 3 EXISTING VOLUMES A.M. PEAK HOUR 4 TEMPLE BAT YAHM �� u i N A NTS im O'ROURKE ENGINEERING 4p. 'o 5kv DR. FIGURE 4 EXISTING VOLUMES P.M. PEAK HOUR 5 1 TEMPLE BAT YAHM 1 N �A NTS TM 0'R6 li li 11 II PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT The project traffic impact for the Temple Bat Yahm was determined by developing the trip generation for the site, distributing the trips then assigning them to the study area network. Once these steps were undertaken, the intersections were analyzed using the CiVs 1% criteria. This 1% criteria will be discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis section of this report. The project trip generation, distribution and assignment are discussed in the following sections. TRIP GENERATION The trip generation for the expansion of Temple Bat Yahm was developed using project specific data. In order to develop the trip generation, the existing activities were reviewed at the site. This review identified those activities that occur during the weekday and during the peak hours. As noted previously, the City of Newport Beach defines the peak hours as 7:00 am to 9:30 am and 3:30 pm to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday. A summary of existing activities at the temple is provided in Table 1. After reviewing the summarized data, it was determined that the pre-school has an impact in the AIM peak hour and the religious education classes have an impact in the PM peak hour. i The next step was to determine what effect the expansion would have on these two 1 activities. Finally, the remaining expansion plats were addressed to determine if that expansion would create additional trip generation. The results of that review are summarized herein. Pre-school ' The expansion of the pre-school consists of a potential to create up to 10 total classrooms. The existing preschool has 7 classrooms and is licensed for up to 15 students per classroom; 105 students. The addition of 3 classrooms could potentially increase the enrollment to 150 students, allowing an additional 45 new students. Trips were generated for the pre-school based on the anticipated number of additional students using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates for a typical pre-school. The expansion of the pre-school does not consist of new square footage, but reallocating existing square footage to accommodate new enrollment. The proposed preschool will generate an additional 210 daily trips and 37 AM peak hour trips. Calculations are shown below. Proposed Pre-school Proposed New Enrollment: 10 classrooms x li students/classroom = 150 students Additional 45 students it � TABLE 1 TEMPLE BAT YAHM ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED PITH 31,000 SF FACILITY SUN NOR 1k VEO 1HUHS TRI SAT OFFICE/MAINTEMANCE 9 - Son RELIGIOUS SERVICE 1 8-1Opa (except 1st Fri. 6 - spa) RELIGIOUS SERV. 2 (once or twice per week, Sat or Sun) PRESCHOOL 98n - 12:4501 staff, teachers Nomny 3 ae/Psrent-toddler loan - 11:30am RELIGIOUS SCHOOL 1 Sea - 11:158m overlap 10:=5-11:15an RELIGIOUS SCHOOL 2 10:4Sam - 1:_003 RELIGIOUS SCHOOL 4-spn VARIOUS ME:EIlNGS 2 to 4 /month 6:30 - 10:300n I I AM Peak Hour: Average rM rate for Day Care: .82 trips / student 45 students x .82 trips / student = 37 new trips 54% in, 46% out 37 trips x .54 = 20 trips in 1 37 trips x A6 = 17 trips out Daily Trips: Average iTE rate for Day Care: 4.65 trips / student 45 students x 4.65 trips / student = 210 new trips 50% in, 50% out 210 trips x .50 = 105 trips in 210 trips x .50 = 105 trips out Religious School Currently, the religious school uses the preschool classrooms at alternate times. Potential expansion to provide future, second story classrooms above the existing classrooms willbe allotted for the religious education. An additional 10 classrooms are proposed with an anticipated 1;0 new students. The religious school will affect the PM peak hour, twice a week. Trip generation was based on one entering trip per student and teacher with a 30% student carpool rate. A faculty of 15 teachers was assumed. It was also assumed that half (50%) of the trips in were dropping students off, and returning to pick them up after the PM peak hour. The balance of the trips in remain on site for joint instruction or social gatherings. The proposed religious school will generate an additional 207 trips during the PM peak hour. The resultant trip generation is summarized below. Proposed Religious School Proposed New Enrollment: additional 150 students PM Peak Hour: 70%: 106 - single student in vehicle = 106 trips in 30:ya: 44 - two students in vehicle = 22 trips in Assume 15 faculty = 15 trips in Total trips in = 143 trips in 50% drop off students: (106 trips/2) + (22 trips/2) = 64 trips out 143 trips in + 64 trips out = 207 new trips Daily Trips: 143 trips in + 64 trips out + 64 trips in + 143 trips out = 414 new trips r Average Daily Trips The daily trips generated for the pre-school and religious education activities reflect the worst case scenario. The number of trips will not occur on a daily basis. To develop average daily trips over the five weekdays, the number of trips for each use was averaged. Students currently attend pre-school either five days a week, ,two days a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or three days a week on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays during the AM peak hour. The highest enrollment of pre-school students attend two days a week. Therefore, the average daily weekday trip generation was calculated as follows: Proposed Pre -School: 2 days a week when pre-school is at approximately 100% occupancy 3 days a week when pre-school is at approximately 50% occupancy (210 Daily Trips x 2 days) + (105 Daily Trips x 3 days) = 735 / 5 days = 147 average daily trips Religious School students attend mice a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays during the PM peak hour. (Refer to Table 1 for the current enrollment breakdown). The proposed religious school expansion would assume the same schedule. The results of the calculations are shown below. Proposed Religious School: 2 days a week when religious school is at approximately 100% occupancy 414 Daily Trips x 2 days = 828 / 5 days = 166 average daily trips Given these calculations the total weekday Average Daily Trips generated are: 147 + 166 = 313 Average Daily Trips 4 L_ 4 U El F1 Ll li Additional Expansion Plans The plans for expansion that are not related to the pre-school and religious school, that were discussed above, were reviewed to determine their trip making potential. The existing and proposed square footage for the various components of Temple Bat Xahm are summarized below. Existing New ( .ft ) (sq.ft.) Administration 3,136 600 12,720 Chapel (no existing chapel) 0 Synagogue 21,312 980 875 Maintenance/Kitchen School Pre -School 3000 0 Religious School 0 11,930 Support 2,572 13,765 Totals 31,000 39,890 (rounded) (40,000) Each use and its potential impacts are described below. Administration: Administration square footage consists of offices associated with the temple. The potential expansion of 600 square foot office includes expanding the existing staff offices into the outdoor garden. Therefore, this expansion will not create new trips, but will allow more space for the existing staff. Chapel: 12.720 square feet have been designated for a chapel. The chapel features an adult education classroom, bride's room, toilet rooms, lobby, and conference. The purpose of the chapel is to accommodate small functions which are presently within the Synagogue. The adult education classroom will provide a place for parents to meet while their children are in religious education. Since the vehicular trips are accounted for in the religious education trip generation. no new trips will be associated with this classroom. In fact, the trips may decrease since parents do not have to come back to pick up their children. The chapel will not create new activity nor trips, but will provide a more intimate setting for existing activities. Synagogue: The existing synagogue seats 397 members. No new seating is proposed in the future and, therefore, will not generate new trips. Maintenance,Xitchen: This expansion consists of the addition of a maintenance storage and potential expansion of the existing kitchen. Again, this will not create new trips, but will allow more space. 11 TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT From a review of the existing patterns at the temple and the likely patterns associated with the proposed expansion, the trip distribution was developed. By major geographical direction, the trip distribution was defined as: North - 42% South - 18% East - 18%' West - 22% Given the general distribution, the trips were assigned to the roadway network. Figure 6 illustrates the project trips for the AM and PM peak hours. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The traffic impact analysis consisted of the evaluation of existing conditions, the evaluation of existing plus committed projects, the 1% test and the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU test and analysis. Each component of the analysis is outlined below. COMMITTED PROJECTS The City of Newport Beach provided a list of committed projects that could affect the study area. The list of projects and the percent of the project that is constructed is provided in Appendix A. The City also provided the assignment of these projects to the study area roadway network. These assignment sheets are also provided in Appendix A. Intersections To Be Analyzed The list of intersections presented in the Existing Conditions were the starting point of the study. The existing traffic, the committed project traffic and the Temple Bat Yahm traffic were summed up at each of these intersections. This summary was then used to establish at which intersections the project traffic represented more than 1% of the intersection approach total volumes. 12 9� I N LEGEND Axx (xx) AM (PM) NTS Vo O'ROURKE ENGINEERING 13 .a skr( DR' Rp FIGURE 6 PROJECT TRAFFIC TEMPLE BAT YAHM 1% TEST The 1% test is an analysis to determine which intersections within the study area will require ICU analysis. The components of the traffic volumes were summarized in a series of worksbeets and the percent of project traffic at each intersection calculated. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 3. The indi,,idual worksheets are provided in Appendix B. TABLE 2: 1% TEST RESLLTS INTERSECTION Project Traffic Less Than 1%? If yes, no ICL: analysis required Alf PM JamboreeJEastbluff-Ford yes yes Jamboree•Bison ves no Jamboree.•Eastbluff-University yes yes Jamboree:Bristol yes I yes Jamboree;North Bristol yes I yes Jamboree MacArthur I yes I yes MacArthur/Bison yes no MacArthur!Ford ves yes As seen. oniv two intersections require additional analysis. The ICU analysis will be conducted for those intersections. ICU ANALYSIS The ICU analysis was conducted for the intersections of Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue and MacArthur BoulevardtBison Avenue. The analysis shows the existing, committed, regional growth plus project ICL' to be 0.'9 for Jamboree Road.Bison Avenue and 0.56 for MacArthur Boulevard; Bison Avenue. Relating the ICI; values to levels of service, the level of service at the intersections are D and B, respectively. It is desired to obtain an ICU of 0.90 or less, which is the minimum value required for level of service D. The analysis shows the project does not create the need for mitigation at the intersection. In fact, the impact is insignificant. The ICU analysis worksheets for the two intersections are also contained in Appendix B with the 1% test worksheets. 14 1�O ON-SrrE CIRCULATION AND PARKING The existing temple provides 21 parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the pre-school west of the building. Under the proposed scenario, these spaces will be relocated further west and just north of the existing lot. This relocation will provide improved access without having the conflicts of the shared driveway with adjacent office buildings. 129 parking spaces are provided for the Sanctuary at the Temple just north of the existing building. The parking code for the City of Newport Beach requires one parking space for each three seats where fixed seating is provided. The Sanctuary currently seats 397 members. Based on the number of seats, 120 parking spaces are required. The existing number of parking spaces can adequately support this requirement. The parking was analyzed to determine if there are enough existing spaces to support the future expansion. The parking demand for the sanctuary, the pre-school during the AM peak hour, and the religious school during the PM peak hour were studied. As noted in the Additional Expansion Plans section of this report, no new seating is proposed for the sanctuary in the future and, therefore, additional parking is not required. During the AXI peak hour, it was estimated that 150 students will be enrolled for the proposed pre-school. Assuming one teacher for every 15 students and 10 staff members, 25 parking spaces are needed. With the proposed relocation of the existing 21 spaces near the larger lot, the entire parking area,1M spaces, would be available for the pre-school teachers and staff to use. It was observed that students are dropped off for pre-school and some parking for these "drop offs" would be required. There is an adequate supply of spaces considering the entire supply available during the Ail peak hour. The religious school occurs during the PM peak hour. It was calculated that 143 vehicles would arrive for the religious school, including a faculty of 15 members. A 5047a drop off rate would result in 64 vehicles leaving the site and returning to pick up students. The 79 vehicles remaining on site would require a parking space. Again, there is enough parking to accommodate all of these vehicles during the PM peak hour. SITE ACCESS The existina site maintains access from several driveways along Camelback Street. There are three existing driveways on Camelback Street, two east and one west of the temple. Under future expansion, primary access will continue to be off of Camelback Street. Modifications to the driveways may be made to accommodate the future expansion. The intersection of Jamboree Road and Camelback Streethas restricted turning movements. Access to the site from Jamboree Road heading southbound is via Bison Avenue due to a no left turn movement directly onto Camelback Street. A westbound left turn out from Camelback Street onto Jamboree Road is also not permitted, and those wishing to turn left can also use Bison Avenue. is 7qI SUIN Y1ARY Temple Bat Yahm proposes to expand its current facilities to provide more efficient use of its site and allow enhanced service for its existing activities. While the proposed expansion includes 40,000 square feet of new building and support facilities, the actual increase in activities and trip generation is quite small. The small increase reflects the Temple's desire to enhance its existing facilities while providing for some growth opportunities. As identified herein, the temple expansion will result in 37 new AIM trips, 207 new PM trips and 313 new daily trips. These trips represent a minor impact on the roadway network. As identified throughout analysis, none of the intersections on the study area required mitigation. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the expansion as proposed can be accommodated N,dthout modification to the existing roadway network. Furthermore, additional parking is not required as a result of the expansion. Parking will simply need to be relocated when the parcels are exchanged. The parking will remain at 150 spaces. APPENDIX A CONIN91 TED PROJECTS Si 1 10-APR-96 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE REPORT ON APPROVED PROJECT VOLUMES - Less than 100% Cwpleted Newport Info Database Nudber Project Name Percent ....... -------- 009 ------------------------- CIVIC PLAZA 96 010 CORPORATE PLAZA 30 018 NEWPORT PLACE 96 031 VALDEZ 40 033 KOLL CENTER NPT NO. 1 TPP 0 034 SEE PROJECTS 340 TO 343 0 053 SEE PROJECTS 530 TO 533 0 060 1400 DOVE STREET 80 063 KOLL CENTER TPP AMEND. 4A 0 065 ROSANIS DEVELOPMENT 65 100 FASHION ISLAND #2 0 120 PACIFIC BELL SITE 0 121 NEWPORT VILLAGE 0 122 CASTAWAYS MARINA 0 124 CIVIC PLAZA 0 125 CORPORATE PLAZA 8 WEST 0 129 HOAG HOSPITAL EXTENSION 0 130 CORPORATE PLAZA WEST 11 0 134 INTERPRETIVE CENTER 0 135 PACIFIC MUTUAL 1601 AVCCA 0 136 NEWPORT DIAGNOSTIC 485 0 140 FOUR SEASONS ADDITICH 0 142 HOAG HOSPITAL EXPANSION 0 144 EDWARDS THEATERS EXPANSIO 0 145 NATIONAL CAR RENTAL 0 146 TACO BELL RESTAURANT 0 147 BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION 0 148 FASHION ISLAND EXPANS:CH 0 149 STAPLES OFFICE SUPPLY 0 150 TWIN PALMS RESTAURANT 0 151 AVIS OTA FACILITY 0 152 FLETCHER JCNES MERCEES 0 341 AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AERO 0 342 AMENDMENT 40. 1 FORD AERO 0 343 AMENDMENT NO. 1 FORD AFRO 0 555 CIOSA - IRVINE PROJECT 0 910 NEWPORT DUNES 0 920 BAYVIEW 0 930 CITY OF IRVINE DEV. 0 Page: 1 f 10-APR-96 TRAFFIC PHASINO ORDINANCE APPROVED PROJECTS VOLUMES SUMMARY Projects Lest Than iQO% Caaplettd City of Newport Beach SUMMARY REPORT PAGE. 1 Intersection-NR Intersection Name 4980 EASTSLUFF DR / FORD RD JAMBOREE AD 2.5-Mr Peak 1-Hr Peak NB SB EB NB NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER NL NY NR AN 1210 1303 162 162 13 631 12 0 655 0 1 10 70 21 10 50 PM 1856 1474 50 196 61 762 54 30 704 3 2 0 33 58 0 30 t 10-APR-96 PAGE: 1 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE APPROVED PROJECTS VOLUMES SUMMARY Projects Less Than 100% Completed City of Newport Beach ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY REPORT Intersection-NR Intersection Name 4870 JAMBOREE RD / BISON AVE 2.5-Hr Peak 1-Hr Peak NS SS EB WB HL NT HR SL ST SR EL ET ER Li WT WR AM JC99 1318 48 60 5 524 22 34 626 0 0 0 24 15 0 15 PM 1360 1257 26 160 17 637 25 9 620 0 0 0 13 3G 0 43 I r 10-APR-96 PACE. 1 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDiMARCE APPROVED PROJECTS VOLUMES StMRY Projects Less Thor 100% Caoteted City of Newport BeaCa ................................. ...................... .M................ SUMMARY REPORT intersection -MR intersection Name 4765 JAMBOREE RO / E010LUFF OR / UNIVERSITY DR 2.5-Hr Peek 1-Hr Peak NB $a EB WB NL NY MR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR AM 646 1195 126 94 2 312 9 4 572 Z: 55 0 8 42 0 5 PM 1172 958 39 40 19 $29 38 111 343 25 15 0 4 16 0 4 2 10-APR-96 PAGE: 1 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE APPROVED PROJECTS VOLUMES SUMMARY Projects Less Than 100% Completed City of Newport Beach -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY REPORT Intersection-NR Intersection Name 4170 JAMBOREE RD / BRISTOL ST 2.5-Hr Peak 1-Hr Peak NB SB EB WS NL NY NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT Wit AM 861 893 1428 0 0 430 0 0 447 0 340 201 325 0 0 0 PH 1253 707 1134 0 0 626 0 0 353 0 185 203 179 0 0 0 g6 10-APR-96 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE APPROVED PROJECTS VOLUMES SUMMARY Projects Less Than 100% Completed City of Newport Beach ...................................................... SUMMARY REPORT PAGE: 1 Intersection -MR Intersection Name 4190 JAMBOREE RD / BRISTOL ST N 2.5-Hr Peak 1-Hr Peak HS SB ES NB NL NT MR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL Yr MR AM 988 964 0 0 59 423 12 0 432 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM 1362 937 0 4 141 521 19 0 358 110 0 0 0 0 1 0 PAGE: 1 10-APR-96 TRAFFIC PHASING ORD tNANCE APPROVED PROJECTS VOLUMES SUMMARY Projects Less Than 100% Cocpleted City of Newport Beach SUMMARY REPORT intersection -MR Intersection Name 4275 JAMBOREE RD / MACARTHUR BLVD 2.5-Hr Peak 1-Hr Peak NB SS ES NB NL NT MR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT UR AM 412 1003 1150 775 5 164 38 110 307 86 148 408 20 48 331 10 PM 577 632 1023 908 20 224 45 15 217 84 169 338 5 57 352 45 10-APR-96 PACE: 1 TRAPPtC PHASING ORDINANCE APPROVED PROJECTS VOLUMES SUMMARY Projects Less Than 100% Completed City of Newport Beach SUMMARY REPORT Intersection-NR Intersection Nome 4995 BISON AVE / MACARTHUR BLVD 2.5•Hr Peak 1-Hr Peak NB SB EB NB NL NT NR St. ST SR EL ET ER NL SIT NR AM J84 712 63 92 40 53 0 0 258 98 12 14 5 18 15 14 PM 593 325 177 28 10 279 10 0 152 it 49 6 33 0 14 0 e e 10-APR-96 PAGE: 1 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE APPROVED PROJECTS VOLUMES SUMMARY Projects Less Then im Completed City of Newport Beach SUMMARY REPORT intersection -MR Intersection Name 4985 FORD RD / MACARTHUR BLVD 2.5-Hr Peak 1-Hr Peak NS SB EB 116 NL NT MR SL ST SR EL ET ER NL NT WR AM 547 664 20 152 0 275 0 5 327 0 0 10 0 20 0 56 PM 726 773 20 42 0 334 8 53 335 0 0 10 0 0 14 7 APPENDIX B 1% TEST WORKSHEETS 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd/Eastbluff'Dr—Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter Spring 19 _ At4 Approach Existing Peak 2k Hour Regional Approved Projects Prose=ted 1% of Projected Project Peak Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 7.1 Hour VD'.+re Peak 2y Hour 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4989 -0 ' 2tQ C 6 ! i 2 62 Southbound Q ( 308 ,G93 5} 2 4385 Eastbound1235 n Westbound 8O� i 640 - — Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1F of Projected ® Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater t::en 1F of Projected _ Peak 21-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection ca:acity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 ()AI DATE: S D4!1 trrT. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage n er pring 94) AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Extsting Regional Projecu Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4073 _0. 1099 5 52 Southbound 3063 .a. 1 3) $ 4 381 f 44 g Eastbound 356 -0. 4S 1i61A 14 1 Westbound 533 —0` 60 5q� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected IAJ Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected U Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. PROJECT: TEMPLE BAT YAFItA LxPAN510N FORM I �i3 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd/Eastbluff'Dr North —University Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Verage inter Spring 19 95) Am Approach Existing Peak 2k Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected Peak 2k Hour 1� of Projected Project Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Direction Peak 2k Hour Volume Growth Volume Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4879 -0- 646 SS2$ 55 Southbound 4434 -0 1195 5629 $6 S Eastbound 1068 Westbound i -0' 9'A 230 23 i 2214 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 104 of Projected Z Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than lA of Projected 0 Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 'cMPtE Li AT YAAM EK i5 to 5 r t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol St./Jamboree Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes base on Average inter pr ng 95 AM Peak 24 Hour Approred Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Groxth Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 21% Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume volume Volume Volume volume Volume Northbound 5455 _Q- $rot 41116 I + T Southbound I 1280 .0- 1 913 1 21 :j 3 Eastbound I 7112 14 n es 4o Westbound _Q_ _Q— WQ- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1m of Projected ® Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization (I,C.U.) Analysis is required. D^'1rCr-, TCN7%r }\N-r v8mm tYoAwjlh r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection s x (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pr ng Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Grovrth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 8198 -0- 989 q 96 92 southboune 1940 -0- 9b'i 2g04 29 i y Eastbound _0_ -0- i 0' Westbound 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than i% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 5/9 b PROJECT: 1� rnnu 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection E.w H N-s EVA D (Existing Traffic Volumes baseon verage n er pr ng 94 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2$ Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 21a Hour Peak h Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Yolume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2984 -0- y 12 3 39 6 3y 4 Southbound 978 -0^ 1 003 9 al 20 j Eastbound 3673 -0 Westbound 1791 "0- -44S 256b Z6 4 © Proaect Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 24 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. T1=MPtE bAT IMAM z-A?ANSlbti DATE: 5/96 PROJECT: 91 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average Winter/Spring 199M. Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects projected 1% &f Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2m Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4255 -O— Sys 4802 Southbound 4913 -0- 6 6 4 5 5 i 5 6 j 2- Eastbound 0_ 20 SO Westbound 2350 1 5Z_ 2soZ. 25 i 1 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 10 of Projected [] Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. TEMPLE BAT YA9M 'EXPANSION DATE: S/96 PROJECT: �� 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd/Bison Air (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 95 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 110 of Projected Prject Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hc"r Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Mume Northbound `0" 84 60$0 (01 'L 5896 Southbound 3159 '�- 12 3931 39 Eastbound 1137 100 � 17- Westbound I -U- 9 2 9 7- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Q Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than is of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. T YAHM i:X N 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd/Eastbluff Dr —Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter Spring 9 95 PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Pr-jected Project I Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volux Volume Northbound 6070 'Q' a56 792f6 I Southbound 5559 YO z 3 10 6 Eastbound `d 50 ? 90—t7- 1240 i Westbound t Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ® Peak 21-2. Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1EMPL: 9AT `4MAM PRn,1FrT. { J [ 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring L PM Approach Existing Peek Zk Hour Regional Approved Projects projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak Zh Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Yolume Volume Northbound 3696 —O- 1360 SO56 14 Southboud 3573 —�— 125j y83O L51 l� j 59 und rWeisun'd 216 —<]' 2.� 242 583 -0- 16a43 �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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 5/16 PROJECT: itKhrc 3A7 `0AhM X,9AN51O9 FORM 4 a ) 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd/Eastbluff Dr North —University Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 95)PM Approach Existing Peak 2k Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected Peak 2k Hour 17 of Projected Project ; Pea PeaYa;�ur Direction Peak 24 Hour Volume Growth Volume Peak 2k Hour Volume Vol ume �o�umHour ' Northbound 5160 ba 26 4788 d southboun6629 Eastbound 736 �Q I 39 44S $ -0- Westbound -� y� 34y 1304 -- Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ® Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 11A of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ti PRO'rrT. V) M 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Bristol 5t./Jamboree"Rd. (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average WIn er pring 195TPM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1' of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5088 -0- y1 b3 2.6 Southbound 2657 -0. 0} 3 3 44 3 y 30 Eastbound 6671 westbound -0- —Q ^ —Q -0 � _Q— ` ® 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 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required, E PonIcrT. TFMPIF RAT 4 A U m -t'vnANci P e, 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon verage inter pring 94 PM Peak 24 Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project 'Peak 2§ Hour Growth Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Peak 2k Hour 2h Hour Volume Volume FWApproachisting oluaK VolumeVolume 79 -0' 3 62 $'1'i { a`{ I 26g240 -Q" �?J� 51�� 52 30 Eastbound _0_ o" i Westbound _0_ ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected . Peak 2a Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2a Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. TEMPLE 9)1%-T IRMA ZOMA&ION DATE: 5/9 PROJECT: - `�� I k� 4 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection E R AD MACARTHU1t BOULEVARD (Existing Traffic Volumes se on verage n er pr ng 1994 ) PM Peak 21s Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak A Hour Peak n Hour Peak 21s Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1954 -0- S} 2531 25 , 13 Southbound 3117 (032 3141 31 i 32 Eastbound 2340 -0- 10-43 3 363 14 j 13 Westbound 4304 _0- 908 5111 5-4 28 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. TMPIE e)AT 4MM 1�XW4MoN DATE• SI°16 PROJECT: t ) s— 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BOULEVARD/FORD ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average toter pring _) PM Approach Existing Peak 231 Hour Regional Approved Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ! Volume Northbound 4091 -' 2 4811 y$ ! 11 Southbound 6052 -�' -413 682S 6g ; 8 Eastbound 663 20 653 } '0- Westbound 1189 Q_ 41 231 12 6 © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected EJ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. TEMPU 6AT 4AW t06tnlSwA DATE: SN PROJECT: r i. s 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd/Bison Av (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 +)PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Nour Peak 24 Hour Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3660 43 �- sout nbound 3'L5 4231 42 50 3906 Eastbound 918 -0- 1'}. 1095 11 30 Westbound«�— pp � f 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 ❑X Peak 2' Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. P 5 1A '+a H JA4870PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD i BISON STREET 4870 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/S?RING 1994 PH ...._....•.......................................................................7........... I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTIHGIEXISTINGIREGIONALIC"ITTEDI PROJECTED (PROJECT]PROJECT I IHovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume IW/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I........................................................................................... I I NL - 1 1600 1 1 21 1 0.01 1 -0- I I 10.01 1-0-1- -0- 1 --------------------------------------------------------------I NT 1 1 1754 1 -0- 1 63-1 p:14 ": 1 --------) 4800 ------------------) 0.37 '----------------- . NR 1 1 132 1 -0- 1 7-S ....-' I.. I . I_ --------------------------------------------------------------1 SL 1 3200 1 1 156 1 0.05 * -0- 1 9 1 -0- " 1 59 I .02� 1 ----------------•------•---------------.---.----------------------------------------------- I ST 1 4800 1 1 1910 1 0.40 1- 0- 1 6 20 1 0. 13 1-0- 1- 0- I I----••--------------------------------------------------------------------------- • ----2--- I I SR 1 1600 1 1 89 1 0.06 1 - 0 - 1 -0- 1 -0- 1 -0- I -Q- I I-----------------------------------•---------------------------------------------- ------I I EL 1 1 34 ► -0- I -0--Q—*---1--6---r-1 ,oi" I"" "'3 1600 ) 0.06 *..................... 2 .._..II ET 1 I 60 1 -0- 1 -0-..............I ......-"----'I I I .........•----------------------...._.._........---...--- ER I N.S. 1 1 15 6 1 •0- 1 13 1 1 6 1 I --------------------------------------------------•..------•----- WL 1 1600 1 1 160 1 0.10 + -0- 1 36 1 0.02* -----------I 1 -0- 1 -0-* 1 " ----------------------------------------------------•----•"--....................... WT 1 1600 1 1 90 1 0.06 1- 0- 1 -0- 1 -0- 1 3 1 -0- 1 -. ..................................................................................... WR 1 3200 1 1 56 1 0.02 1 -0- 1 41 10.01 1 -0- i 1 -0- 1 ---- --- I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EXISTING 0.60.1 ...........................! EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. .... 101 -+n I I ............................................................................. EXISTING + ............................................................................................ COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ----- --------- 10• 19 I 191 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.V. without project ............................................................••---..._ Description of system improvement: PROJECT TEMPLE OAT UtiM FORM I1 JA4870PM WV M499SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INIMUCTION., MACARTNUR BOULEVARD A BISON 4995 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES WED OM AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRIMG 1995 PM ........................................... .............................. ............... I.....,..IEXISTINGIPRO+OSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINOIREGIDNALICCMNITTE01 PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovamettl lanes I tones I PK MR I V/C I GAWIM I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I lCap"Ityleapecityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume IWO Project) I Ratio I I i_ I I I I I ......I_ volume I...... I .. I 1 ......... ..16001 .....1-- •2411---0.15* -0- 1 10 _..10 01 "-I It' I. O3* .................................................... 1631 0.54 1 -0- 1 2-f9 10; 06... .1.-0- -1 -00 1 .MR ............................... ...........to . !..........1 °:..!......1 1..Ei...1.--64wo 1,.......1-•-1951 I 0.30 * ,0— 1.15210. 02" -00" 1 1................................. IM.S.� 1........I--...........................................1I ...... .50.,I......1 1..EL ._1 ..3200 1- .1... Ito I 0.04'* -0- I• 49.,.1.0..02 ",I .............. I 1. ,ER ._I M.S..1.......1....346 1, ... 1 -0- 1 3 3 ..!.......__..!..a .._'......1 1.......!...............................................� y ................... O.=.I..... ( Irt I I I ( i..11....................•---...... •1 (EXiSt1NG..........................I0.49 .-'1............ 1 1........................................................................._. IEXIST + AEG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 10 . 5 4 1 1 I........................................................................................... IEXISTIMG + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT L.C.U. - _I 01% ..... I............................•........................--......_-...__. (XI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be lest than or equal to 0.90 (_( Projected + project traffic 1.C.U, will be Greater than 0." 1,I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems trprovegmt mitt be less than or t"t to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project teprovements wilt be less than I.C.U. without prefect ........ ............. I............ I...................................................... Description of system toproveoent: PROJECT TEM41.Q 4AT YANK FORM II KA4995PN