Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1550 N BRISTOL ST_TUTOR TIME1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 *NEW FILE* 1550 N Bristol St 0 COLIA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS 177 Riverside Drive, #F Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714)960-7511 FAX (714) 960-6775 December 21, 1995 R5-140 INTERIOR ACOUSTICAL MFAUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS OF TUIOR TIME AT 1550 BRISAOL NORTH IN NEWPORT BEACH Prepared For: TUDOR TIME 4100 Newport Place, Suite 220 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared By: Fntical Aco Cc ultant MEMBER INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering • Acoustical Society of America INTERIOR ACOUSTICAL MEASUMU NTS AND ANALYSIS OF TUTOR TIME AT 1550 BRIS`TOL NORTH IN NEWPORT BEACH An acoustical analysis has been performed on the interior habitable areas of the new Tutor Time facility at 1550 Bristol North in Newport Beach. The project site is an existing building converted to the child care use. The project site is located near the northeast corner of Bristol North and Birch. The site is impacted by the take -off end of John Wayne Airport and landings to a lesser extent. This study was performed at interior areas in the building because of the potential noise impact from aircraft operations out of John Wayne Airport. The project is near the 63 CNEL aircraft noise contour. The aircraft impact is 62.4 CNEL based on -site measurements (Report R4-101) which shows excellent correlation with the CNEL contours for John Wayne Airport. The results of the analysis shows that the interior noise criteria of the can be met by using 1/4 inch glass on the north, south, east and west elevations in the vision glass of all windows. The interior noise measurements for this study indicate a CNEL of 34.4 dBA which meets the City requirement of 45 dBA. At the request of George A. Rendon, Colia Acoustical Consultants have prepared an acoustical analysis of the proposed Tutor Time facility at 1550 Bristol North in Newport Beach. The purpose of this report is to determine the potential interior noise impact to the site generated by aircraft operations out of John Wayne Airport. A condition of approval is that sound attenuation measures be provided to the proposed structures, where necessary, to meet the following intrusive interior noise criteria: Interior Uses General Office, Reception, Clas roams 45 77 R5-140 December 21, 1995 ANALYSIS Aircraft Exterior Noise Impact On -site noise interior measurements were made for the proposed Tutor Time - at 1550 Bristol North. The measurements were made in the multi -purpose room at the northwest building elevation that directy faces John Wayne Airport. Measurements were made at this location because it was the closest interior play area to the take -off end of the runway of the airport and had the largest window -to -wall area (600). See Figure 1 for interior measurement location. A total of 20 commercial jet carriers were measured taking off on December 21, 1995 from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM. The single event levels (SEE ) were taken from a Bruel & Kjaer 2230 Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter. The results are shown in Table 1. The average number of events per day were taken from the Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report. Using the average landing and takeoff operations for the quarter for the three aircraft types the following data was determined for day/evening/night periods. Average Number of Takeoffs Per Aircraft Type Jet carriers/Day Day 68.76 Evening 17.19 Night 5.75 Using this information and the average SEL values in Table 1 the CM impact was determined by the following equation. 10 Log ((10SELr-J x 68.76 + 1OSECrJ x 17.19 x 3 + 1OSECrJ x 10 x 5.75 / 86,400) = 34.4 dB CNEL Where; SEL-J = Single Event Level of Carrier Jets (J) = 61.2 dBA 3 = Weighting factor for evening periods 10 = Weighting factor for nighttime periods 86,400 = No. of seconds in one day -2- 1 i R5-140 December 21, 1995 As a worst case this CNEL value of 34.4 dBA will be used as the interior noise impact. For this study the worst -case CNEL for all interior play and building areas will be 34.4 dB. RESULTS The results of the calculations are listed in Table 3 for the "worst -case" interior office and other areas adjoining the exterior walls. A review of the table reveals that the calculated intrusive interior noise levels are within the City noise criteria. The interior play spaces which are not listed in the table will have an on -site measured noise level of 34.4 a4m or less. This value is less than the 45 cNEL exterior noise level for interior areas, and therefore is acceptable. The City noise standard of 45 CNEL is met by the interior measured CNEL value of 34.4 dBA. -3- TABLE 1 Results of On -site Noise Measurements, SEL Values commercial Jet carriers 58.0 64.0 64.1 59.8 59.7 64.0 60.6 60.1 61.4 60.5 60.7 59.3 55.7 59.7 59.6 61.1 61.8 61.3 62.8 59.3 energy average = 61.2 dBA takeoffs for 20 events 7 v�7 Calculated Intrusive Noise Levels For Interior Areas Bordering the Exterior Walls of the Building MSWMsa.w:w.v4ri.nnw�h1++W..unwwx4n«�+n+mwWka4'a�"^3`+rNl.uu.....- .- ��-.� �� r_.n•r,--F«++aN'-�.+s��.^/+.e. a!yGgWa-+.m. �a-mC.'uYN*�.w. ..� .. - � . . -.� a....... r wvrtlM�.+4wr.... FIGURE 1: Interior Site Measurement Location To: Building Department From: Planning Department A4U:U Re: Hold on Building Permit Final No Activity: In Plan Check: �/ ' Active Bldg Permit: Public Works Notified: Plan Checker Notified: Address *t�Z,Zjlan Check No. Planning Department Comments PRIOR TO RELEASE Of Building Permit Final: Park Dedication Fee in the Amount of $ Fairshare Fee in the Amount of $ S.J.H.T.C. Fee in the Amount of $ is DUE. is DUE. is DUE. [ ] Coastal Commission Approval of Resubdivision Must Be Obtained. [ ] Parcel Map Recordation: Resubdivision No. Record date (] Use Permit Conditions of Ap,proval: Use Permit No. Condition(s) No. ©%C [ ] After recordation of the map a building permit change must be processed with 6 the Building and Planning Departments, PRIOR TO FINAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, to change the description of the permit to reflect i condominium construction, the fee is nominal and payable at the time of the change. Proof of payment of the above mentioned fees may be required at that time if not collected at issuance of the original building or grading permits. Other:Al �Lj' �[ `] Other: Units Demolished Units Built date /(0 9 s • r Plafiffig Depar ent De CC: * � Code Enforcement _Plan Checker F:\WP50\JAY\MEM\BP-HOLD.MEM rev 4-5-90 r y� r {{tJJJ Y EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH -- OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF PARKING SPACES AND AISLES "An uB" licit "D" I "E" ANGLE WIDTH DEPTH OF SPACE WIDTH WIDTH OF SPACE OF OF PERPENDICULAR OF PARALLEL TO PARKING SPACE TO AISLE- AISLE AISLE 300 8'-6" 16' 10' 17' 450 8'-6" 18' 11' 12' 600 8'-6" 19, 18, 9'-10" 900 8'-6" 17' 26' 8'-6" 1. Parking spaces parallel to a property line shall be not less than 8'-0" by 22'-0" per vehicle. 2. Spaces„shall be marked with approved:traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4" wide. 3. Aisles and entrances intended for two -directional travel shall not be less than 24' wide. 4. Parking lots and areas shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or other street surfacing material of a permanent nature. 5. Parking lots and areas shall be graded and .improved so that surface water drains directly from the parking lot or area into a street, alley or approved drainage structure. 6. Parking lots shall be so designed that cars leaving the lot will not be permitted to back out on the portion of street right-of- way (excepting alleys) used for vehicular travel. 7. Direct access to parking spaces will be 'permitted from alleys providing not over 10 feet of the alley right-of-way is used for the rear portion of the required aisle width, and provided' the spaces are set back from the alley the minimum distances shown in the following table: Alley Width 15'-0" or less 15'-11' to 19'-11" 20'-0" or more Minimum Setback 5'-0" 3'-9" 2'-6" 8. Direct access to parking spaces will be permitted from streets providing the allowable curb opening is not exceeded and provided the space is set back a minimum of 2'-0" from right-of-way line. S l.?E,ET II sralloivEo,W pP oPG.�F_ PTYIUti'c'S ficj �"- 1 rll I z w 4 I S" _ high bumpers required on all exterior spaces except where a I wall or other physical barrier' prevents any encroachment beyond r? 5 property line. *Minimum setback unles otherwise specified in planning and zoning regulations. 11 CITY OF . NEWP©RT BEACH PUBLIC WaRKS DEPARTMENT -PARKING POT DRAWN DATE APPROVED R.E. NO. 1, Planning Commission Meeting December 8, 1994 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 3541 (Public Hearing,) Request to permit the establishment of a preschool child care center with open and covered play areas on property located in Industrial Site 3A of the Newport Place Planned Community. The proposal also includes modifications to the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to: allow an architectural awning to encroach 7± feet, and an automobile stacking lane to encroach 25 feet into the required 30 foot special landscape street setback adjacent to Bristol Street North which results in only a 5 foot landscape strip adjacent to the front property line. LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 50-45 (Resubdivision No. 371) located at 1550 Bristol Street North, on the northeasterly side of Bristol Street North, between Birch Street and Spruce Avenue, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: PC APPLICANT: Tutor Time, Newport Beach OWNER: Tsumura International, Irvine Application This application involves a request to permit the establishment of a preschool child care center with open and covered play areas on property located in Industrial Site 3A of the Newport Place Planned Community. The proposal also includes modifications to the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards so as to: allow an architectural awning to encroach 7± feet, and an automobile stacking lane to encroach 25 feet into the required 30 foot special landscape street setback adjacent to Bristol Street North which results in only a 5 foot landscape strip adjacent to the front property line. Inasmuch as the Newport Place Planned Community Ordinance does not specifically address an instructional facility as a permitted use subject to the approval of a use permit, Chapter 20.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code may be utilized as the governing text. In accordance with Section 20.40.020 of the Municipal Code, schools are permitted in any Industrial District of the City, subject to the approval of a use permit. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. Modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81. TO: Planning Commission - 2. Environmental Significance This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class I (Existing Facilities). Conformance with the General Plan This project is located within Statistical Area L4 and is designated for "Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial" uses. The subject project is 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 development allocation of 295,952 square feet for the area in which the subject property is located (area bounded by Bristol Street North, Birch Street, Quail Street and Spruce Street). Inasmuch as the proposed business will occupy an existing building and will not result in any additional floor area, the proposal is consistent with the General Plan. Analysis The applicant is proposing to convert an existing light industrial building into a pre-school child care facility which will provide child care services for 158 children ranging in age from 6 months to 5 years. The existing building contains approximately 12,426± square feet, 8,720 square feet of which will be used for the day care activities and 3,706± which will be used for covered play area. As shown on the attached plans, there will also be an exposed play area located at the rear of the property which contains 7,222± square feet. The hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except for holidays. Special weekend programs during the same hours will be offered based on the needs and demands of the local community. The total staffing of the facility will include 20 teachers, one secretary and one administrator, for a total of 22 people. Off -Street Parking and Vehicular Circulation Neither the Newport Place Planned Community Development Regulations nor the Municipal Code have a specific parking requirement for pre-schools or day care facilities. However, in the past the Planning Commission has required a minimum of one parking space for each staff person as a condition of the use permit which is required for this type of use. Based on this requirement, 22 parking spaces would be required for the proposed facility. As indicated on the attached site plan, 26 parking spaces will be provided in conjunction with the proposed project'. ' Based on information provided by the applicant, the number of cars visiting the site for the purpose of dropping off and picking up children will be 105± between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 ' The tabulation figures shown on the attached Site Plan incorrectly indicate that 25 off- street parking spaces will be provided. TO: Planning Commission - 3. a.m. and 105± between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. These figures are based on a full enrollment of 158 children and 1.5 children per a.m. and p.m. visit. Because of this large number of drop-off and pick-up vehicles in a brief two hour period, the applicant is proposing to include a 10 car stacking lane with a 25 foot radius turn around area at the rear of the property, so as to facilitate the quick drop-off and pick-up of children. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the expected drop-off and pick-up queues and has determined that there will sufficient space within the stacking lane so as to insure that cars will not stack into the public right-of-way of Bristol Street North. It is also noted that the width of the stacking lane located in front of the building is 17 feet wide so as to allow side by side stacking of automobiles which would provide stacking for 4 additional vehicles if necessary. Airoort Land Use_Commission Recommendation In accordance with Section 21676(b), Article 3.5 of the Public Utilities Code (PUC), the subject project is required to be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for their determination of Consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The purpose of such review is to insure the orderly development of the John Wayne Airport and surrounding area so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. The purpose of Article 3.5 of the PUC is, "to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." The Planning Department has been notified by ALUC, that it reviewed the subject project at its November 17, 1994 meeting, at which time it was determined that the project was inconsistent with the AELUP. As explained by the ALUC staff, the specific area of concern dealt with the high noise levels which the children will experience within the outdoor play area. It was also mentioned that the APLUC had received a letter from John Wayne Airport (copy attached), urging their opposition to the project based on noise concerns. In addition, it was noted that Section 3.2.2 of the AET,UP states that, "Institutional uses such as schools, churches, hospitals, libraries, and other noise sensitive uses are also normally unacceptable in this zone (High Noise Impact Zone; 65 CNEL and above)." It should be noted that if the project were outside of the High Noise Impact Zone (less than 65 CNEL), it would be an acceptable use, provided that the interior portions of the building could be sound attenuated to less than 45 dBA. In accordance with Section 21675.1(d) of the PUC, when the ALUC disapproves a project, the City may overrule the Commission, by a two-thirds vote of its governing body (Planning Commission in this case), if it makes specific findings that the project is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of the PUC. In light of the ALUC's disapproval, the applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to overrule their action and approve the proposed day care facility. After discussing this matter with the -applicant, staff has prepared the following information which, in our opinion should be considered in this matter. TO: Planning Commission - 4. 1. The noise contour map used by the APLUC, and which places the subject property within the 65 CNEL contour, was prepared in 1990 (copy attached). Since that time aircraft/engine manufactures have made great strides in reducing noise levels of their equipment and therefore, it is questionable as to whether the project is still experiencing noise in excess of 65 CNEL. In fact, an acoustical analysis has been prepared by Colia Acoustical Consultants, Newport Beach (copy attached), which shows the property experiencing 62.4 CNEL. This figure is consistent with the most recent John Wayne Airport CNEL Contour Map which is dated 1993 (copy attached). It is noted however, the 1993 contour map has not been officially adopted by the ALUC. 2. The decision of the ALUC is inconsistent with the Orange County Noise Ordinance inasmuch as schools (K through 12) and preschools are allowed within the 65 CNEL if interior noise levels can be mitigated to less than 45 dBA and exterior noise levels can be mitigated to less than 65 dBA. It is also important to note that the definition of "outdoor living area" as stated in the County's ordinance, usually excludes "outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with educational uses prone to adverse noise impacts (for example, school play yards areas)."2 As indicated in the attached acoustical analysis, interior portions of the subject building can be mitigated to less than 45 dBA by using 1/4 inch glass in the exterior windows on all sides of the building. The existing building currently utilizes 1/4 inch glass. 3. The action of the ALUC in this case, is inconsistent with a previous action which approved a private elementary school at 2300 University Drive (i.e. the YMCA property) on September 16, 1993. This facility was also within the 65 CNEL contour and was found to be consistent with the AELUP provided interior areas were sound attenuated to less than 45 dBA above, and that outdoor areas were limited to play activities only. 4. The applicant has indicated that the use of outdoor play areas is not the primary activity associated with their day care facility. The majority of the children's time will involve activities located inside the building. Therefore, it unreasonable to conclude that children will be harmed by excessive noise. Proposed Front Setback Encroachments In accordance with the provisions of the Newport Place Planned Community, the subject property is required to provide a 30 foot front yard setback adjacent to Bristol Street North. 2 Taken from the Explanation and Definitions of Table 4-1 Compatibility Matrix For Land Uses and Community Noise Equivalent Levels contained within the Orange County Noise Ordinance. Copies of Table 4-1 are attached for the Planning Commission's information. To.. Planning Commission - 5. In addition, Bristol Street North is designated as a special landscape street which requires all of the area between the building setback line and the curb to be landscaped with the exception of any access driveway in said area. The existing building maintains the required 30 foot front setback with landscaping; however, as indicated on the attached site plan, the applicant is proposing to construct a portion of the vehicle stacking lane within the 30 foot landscape area. Although it could be argued that the stacking lane is an access driveway, it is staffs opinion that the exception for access drives was intended for perpendicular driveways, not parallel driveways. In light of this interpretation, the applicant is requesting to be allowed to construct a portion of the stacking lane within the 30 front yard setback. The proposed front, landscape areas shown on the attached site plan, include approximately 2,240 square feet, which is 54.7 percent of the 30 foot front yard setback, minus the 30± foot access driveway. It is noted that an additional 400 square feet of landscaping could be provided if the stacking lane were reduced to 12 feet in width; however, as previously mentioned, the City Traffic Engineer prefers the 17 foot width so as to allow side -by -side stacking if the drop-off and pick-up queues are greater than expected. Should the Planning Commission wish to reduce the width of the stacking lane within the front yard setback, the following additional condition should be added to Exhibit "A": 11. That the proposed stacking lane located within the front yard setback shall be reduced to a width of 12 feet so as to provide 5 additional feet of landscaping (10 feet total) between the stacking lane and the front property line. The applicant is also proposing an architectural awning which encroaches 7± feet into the required 30 foot front yard setback. Said awning will be constructed of tube steel and will be open construction supported by two columns. The primary purpose for the awning is to provide an architectural variation for the front of the building which would otherwise be a flat facade. Specific Findings and Suggested Actions 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. In accordance with Section 21675.1(d) of the Public Utilities Code (PUC), in order for the Planning Commission to overrule the ALUC's disapproval of the subject project, it must determine by a 2/3rd majority vote, that the project is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of the PUC. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve this application and overrule the action of the ALUC, appropriate findings and conditions are set forth in the attached Exhibit "A". TO: Planning Commission - 6. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny this application the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit 'B" are suggested. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director /i�04,,Q W. William Ward Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Vicinity Map Letter from Applicant Letter of Opposition from John Use Commission Wayne Airport to the Airport Land Copy of the ALUC adopted 1990 CNEL Contour Map showing the project location Independent Acoustical Analysis prepared by Colia Acoustical Consultants, Newport Beach Copy of 1993 CNEL Contour Map showing the project location Excerpt of the Orange County Noise Ordinance including Table 4-1 Letter dated September 23, 1993 from the ALUC informing the City of its approval of the Bennett -Hicks Private School at 2300 University Drive TO: Planning Commission - 7. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR , USE PERMIT NO. 3541 FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed application is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate parking exists on -site for the proposed development on the subject property. , That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the purpose of Article 3.5 of the California Public Utilities Code which is to insure the orderly expansion of airports, and to minimize the publids exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, inasmuch as it has been adequately demonstrated that the'exterior play areas of the project are experiencing less than 65 CNEL and that the interior portions of the existing building can be sound attenuated to less than 45 dBA. Therefore, the project will not adversely effect the publids health, safety and welfare. 5. That the proposed project is consistent with the provisions of the Orange County Noise Ordinance. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3541 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 and further that the proposed front yard setback encroachment does not preclude the applicant from providing adequate landscaping adjacent to Bristol Street North and said encroachments are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. TO: Planning Commission - 8. 4. That the entrance drive be monitored in the peak drop-off and pick-up times by the applicants' representatives at the site. If back-ups occur out into Bristol Street North, the incoming patrons shall be directed to bypass the entrance. If a traffic congestion problem occurs on Bristol Street North that is not immediately corrected, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council revocation of this Use Permit. 5. That all employees shall park on -site at all times. 6. That the total number of students shall not exceed 158 persons. Any additional increase in the number of students shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this use permit. 7. That the interior areas of the building shall be sound attenuated to less than 45 dBA in accordance with the requirements of the Orange County Noise Ordinance. 8. That the outdoor play areas shall not be used for instructional purposes and shall be use for play purposes only. 9. That the Planning Commission may add 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. 10. 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. TO: Planning Commission - 9. EXHIBIT 'B" FINDING FOR DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 3541 1. That the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission has determined that the proposed project is inconsistent with the provisions of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan inasmuch as the subject property is located within the High Noise Impact Zone and that day care facilities are normally an unacceptable use within this zone. 2. That the subject property does not provide adequate on -site circulation which is necessary for the large number of patrons who will be dropping off and picking up children at the site. 3. That the proposed project includes the construction of a stacking lane within the 30 foot landscape area adjacent to Bristol Street North which substantially reduces the amount of landscaping which would otherwise be provided. 4. That the approval of the Use Permit No. 3541 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modifications to the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations are not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. VICIN iTY P-C N m R # � v b LOT I 71ml N0.1394 IL.9?A At. 3 00 P-C ' e 1 P- G I _ BR/5T0L LORONA. DEC eaisra s l� P-C P-C P-c S :Y /i- s P- a �r9a STREET NVATH MAR FREEWAY Q,A �ICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH —CALIFORNIA fl-A AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL C-I LIGHT COMMERCIAL I INTERMEDIATE PLANNING COMMISSION R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL U UNCLASSIFIED R-2 DUPLE% RESIDENTIAL R-3 RESTID MULTPTE FAMLY RESIDtTRNL M-1-A CONTROLLED MANUfAGTUtINC R-4 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL M-1 MANUFACTURING -e -H COMBINING DISTRICTS ORB. NO. 9,$9 DATE 7-//-40 MAP W. 'm F60m 17 �4D6 055d�) �D AMERICAN CHILD CARE SERVICES "IC. lone'Developer IWOR 9 E--�cHkoCARG•Lb1r IW1 CENTEFS September 91 1994 s Mr. Jay Garcia senior Planner/Planning Department' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 Re: 155o Bristol'North Dear Jay: Please find enclosed a summation of the proposed activities of the Tutor Time Child Care Learning Center at 155o Bristol North. We appreciate the comments and assistance that we have received from you and your staff. We will continue to solicit your departments input in the weeks ahead. We are looking forward to working with the staff and Planning Commission to achieve a timely approval of this needed pre-school for the city of Newport Beach. Thank you in advance for your time and If there is any additional information do not hesitate to contact'me.. Rendon American Child Care Services, Inc. cooperation. that you may need please I - PROPOSED TUTOR TIME CHILD CARE AND LEARNING CENTER 15s"o Eriotol street, Newport Heaoh, CA School Enrollment The proposed Tutor Time Child Care and Learning Center is designed to accommodate a total projected enrollment of 158 full time children. The school's official licensed capacity will be determined by the Department of Social Services during the formal licensing application process. Programs Proposed Following are the individual programs that are being proposed by this new Tutor Time Child Care and Learning Center: (1) Infant program: Designed for children between the ages of 6 weeks to 11 months. The enrollment in this:program will be approximately 8 children. (2) Toddler program: Designed for children between the ages of 12 months to 24 months. The enrollment in this program will be approximately 20 children. (3) Twaddler program: Designed for children between the ages of 25 months to 36 months. Is estimated that the enrollment in this program will be approximately 22 children. (4) Pre-school program: Designed for children between the ages of 3 years to 5+ years. Anticipated enrollment in this program will be approximately 96 children. (5) Kindergarten program: Designed for children 5 years of age and older. Anticipated enrollment in this program will be approximately 12 children. Hours of Operatioor The school will be•open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, year 'round, except for holidays. Subsequently, -special weekend programs will be offered based on the needs and demands of the local community. These special programs will be offered on Saturdays between the same operating hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Daily schedule Parents will bring their children to school in the morning between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and will pick up their children between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, Using an observed 3-5 minutes .each occurrence. Based on the projected 158 full time enrollment, there will be approximately 105 cars between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and the same 105 cars between 4:00 p.m. and 6:0 p.m. This is based on a pre-school age ratio of 1.5 students per car. Staffing The school will employ 20 teachers, a secretary, and the school administrator which ,brings the total count to 22 under full enrollment conditions. Teachers ................20 Secretary .............. 1 Administrator ........... 1 Total Staffing: 22 Note: The title school "Administrator" and "Director" are one and the same. ` i Staff parking: Staff parking will be at its maximum between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Before and after those hours, staff parking will be minimal. This is because the state requirement for teachers, which is based on a fixed ratio of students to teachers, decreases as.attendance decreases. Teachers are therefore, released from duty as children are picked up. This is a part of management policy for controlling hourly payroll expense for the school. offsite traffic: The most recent traffic counts for the streets in the area of the subject property were reported by CalTrans as: Bristol St. North (Property location): Nr Cars 24 hour daily count west of 17,000 Samboree and east of Rte. 73 offramp located west of property. (Daily traffic passing subject property.) 24 hour daily count west of 23,000 Rte. 73 offramp located west of property and east of Birch Street. `3 Bristol at, south (south of Rte. #73): Nr Cars 24 hour daily count west of 32,000 Jamboree and east of Rte. 73 offramp located west of property. 24 hour daily count west of 21,000 Rte. 73 offramp located . west of property and east•of Birch Street. e 1550Traf FROM JOHN JIRMKr lank! M Mittarnew A rd Director 3151 Airway Avenue K-101 Costa Mesa Womta 42620 Tel: 714(252.5171 Fax 714/252.5178 Post•Itm brand fax transmittal memo 7071 a er pepea - I P'll (t/a.t-l�. From M0., (A,snse;, .K r+-I - AMA co 0, 6. / L-U o. Dept. 0/�� D 164Uf— Phone 0Pj3 —5-378' Fax' 3,Z50 Fo xy 3rF-6/32. November 16, 1994 Mr. George Britton, executive officer orange County Airport Land Use Commission 300 N. Flower Street, Room 356 Santa Ana, California 92702-4048 Dear Mr. Britton: via tacstmile I appreciate receiving a copy of your staff report to the Airport Land Use . Commission which recommends a Use Permit for the proposed Tutor Time Child Care Center just south of John Wayne Airport. The report information shows this noise -sensitive project would be located inside the airport's 65 dB CNEL contour. Based on this fact, I do not believe it would be prudent for the Commission to support the proposed project. The staff report recommends that the Commission find the proposed project (Use permit) "consistent with the AELUP subject to the following conditions..." However, in the report's analysis of AELUP issues it explains that the project is within the "Noise Impact Zone T, High Noise Impact.. " The report accurately states that "uses such as schools and day care centers are normally unacceptable in this zone." The proposed outdoor play centers, play areas, and infant playground cannot be shielded to effectively reduce aircraft operation noise. These outdoor noise levels may block important developmental conversations between children and between teachers and their students. Parents may also object to a new child care center in this noise environment. While I recognize that, technically, the recommended conditions make the proposed child care center compatible with County standards, i have grave concems about the practical and precedent -setting implications of Commission support for the project. (I notice that an avigation easement has not been recommended as one of the conditions. County policies do require an avigation easement across property that is within a 60 dB CNEL noise contour for any airport.) Y. %4cia ,, ills6l94 5 FROM JOHN VAYNE AIRPORT 11,17,199 13136 N0, ti P, 3 t George Britton Orange County ALUC Page 2 Although aircraftlengine manufacturers have made great strides in reducing noise "from the source", Le. the alrcraft, there is growing consensus that noise reduction technology has reached its peak and, barring some major new, unexpected breakthrough, the burden of noise reduction and mitigation now rests with local land use authorities. In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration has dedicated significant energies to encouraging municipalities to engage in "responsible" land use planning as the best means of preventing and mitigating noise impacts associated with aircraft operations. in responding to the proposed Use Permit, the Commission has an opportunity to express its reservations regarding, and even opposition to, the construction of a highly noise -sensitive land use within JWA's 66 dB CNEL. Orange County has dealt with noise sensitive issues in the vicinity of JWA for too many years to discard the value of careful, conscientious, and forward -thinking land use planning. Sincerely, Janice M. Director Mittermeler cc: Richard Oviedo, County Counsel Nick Chrisos, County Counsel Juror Mod un7N Novenber 30, M4 of i 4 v foot•�c Y.193 COLIA ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS 2610 Awn 6troot. SdM B Newport Boach. CA 82663 (714)831-7315 FAX (714) 631-3824 Prepared For: JEFFM D. LlTrELL 18662 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92715 i 1 Prepared By: y1D 1' .'Y• I M R4-101 Ina0me of Noise Control Engineering • Ac sdcW Sociob ofAmedc• \ t unr YLd' . � Y\� �'J�• __ 1 D1'�'J CY•t. An acoustical analysis has been performed on the outdoor play area of the proposed Tudor Time at 1550 Bristol North in Newport Beach. The project site is an existing building with the proposed play area to the rear of the building in an existing parking area. The project site is located near the northeast corner of Bristol North and Birch. Tie site is iupacted by the take -off end of John Wayne Airport and landings to a lesser extent. This study was performed on the site and buildieig plans because of the potential noise impact from aircraft operations out of Jahn Wayne Airport. The vroieat is near the 63 CNM aircraft noise contour. The aircraft At the request of Jeffrey D. Littell, Colic Acoustical Consultants have prepared an acoustical analysis of the proposed Tudor Time Play Area at 155o Bristol North in Newport Beach. The purpose of this report is to determine the potential noise impact to the site generated by aircraft operations out of John Wayne Airport. In addition, the exterior -to - interior noise control performance of the building, as designed, was A condition of approval is that wind attenuation measures be provided to the proposed structixes, where necessary, to meet the following intrusive interior noise criteria: Uses am, dBA Play Area, exteri,C 65 General Office, Reoeptam, Classrooms 45 � •.•� i� ����... VJ .•1� rl'1 RJRI�M�'1�MLYRV Vr `/(lYi fO61 Y< N. b.7 R4-101 November 30, 1994 ANALYSIS Aircraft Exterior Noise Yrpact On -site noise measurements at the proposed northwest corner of proposed Tudor Time at 1550 Bristol North. Measurements were made at this location because this was the closest proposed play area to the take -off end of the runway of the airport (See Figure 2). A total of 30 cc mercial jet carriers were measured taking off on November 29, 1994 frcaa 6.55 AM to 9.30 AM. The single event levels (SECS) were taken fray a Bruel & Kjaer 2230 Precision Integrating Sound LeVel Meter, Noise levels from landings of air carriers were also recorded. The results are shaven in Table 1. The average number of events per day were taken from the most recent Noise Abatement Program Quarterly Report for July 1, 1993 through September 30, 1993. Using the average landing and takeoff operations for the quarter for the three aircraft types the following data was determined for day/evening/night periods. Average Number of Takeoffs Per Aircraft Type Jet Carriers/Day Day 68.76 Evening 17.19 Night 5.75 Using this information and the average SEI, values in Table 1 the OJEL impact was determined by the following equation. Cfi��+E 10 Log ((10SII"T x 68.76 + 10SEL-3 X 17.19 x 3 + 10SEL"T x 10 x 5.75 / 86,400) = 60.7 dB CHM r Where; SM-J = Single Event Level of Carrier Jets (J) 3 = Weighting factor for evening periods 10 = Weighting factor for nighttime periods 86,400 = No. of seconds in one day -2- D'V R4-101 November 30, 1994 In the same way the average SEL of 84.3 dBA for landing events was used in the equation to calculate the CNEL. The result is a CNEL of 57.5 dBA for landings. The Ombined impact for landings and takeoffs is 62.4 CRM As a worst case this value will be used as the exterior noise impact. For this study the cM for all play and building areas will be 62.4 M. Mis value shows excellent correlation with with the most recut contours for John Wayne Airport in their most recent Quarterly Report. the CNEL contour is between the 62 and 63 contour. Thus, this value of 62.4 dB will be used as the aircraft noise impact, POMOCOMOR501 •5. Anticipated Intrusive Interior Noise Devels The lease and office arms bordering the exterior wall represent a 1worst case's condition (as opposed to interior areas) because of the various amounts of window glazing which will comprise- portions of these exterior walls. Window glazing does not have the sound reduction capabilities of typical commercial exterior wall material, such as tilt -up concrete, oonerete block or wood stud and stucco, because of its lesser new and thicka�ess. Therefore the glazing will decrease the net sourri reduction of a wall in which it is a part by varying degrees, depending upon the ratio of the glazing area to the wall area, thickness atxl type of glazing used. Also, the amount of acoustical absorption in a room provided by such porous materials as ceiling tile, carpeting, draperies and upholstered furniture will also affect the perceived noise reduction of a sound attenuating exterior wall. The overall noise reduction of the exterior envelope of the proposed buildings was assessed by the use of published octave -band sound transmission loss data for each discontinuity in the building shell (e.g., walls, roof, windows and doors, etc.) in conjunction with the respective areas of each discontinuity and the use of aircraft spectral. data. 'The A -weighted sound transmission loss (TL) values associated with the main construction couponents used in the calculation of the ccuresite exterior building shell attenuation are shown below. -1/4 inch glass 27 dB -Exterior wall panels 45 dB -Built up roof 33 dB -Entry doors, 1/4 " glass 26 dB R4-101 November 30, 1994 The results of the calculations are listed in Table 3 for the "worst -case° office and other areas adjoining the exterior palls. A review of the table reveals that the calculated intrusive interior noise levels are within the noise criteria. The exterior play spaces -AAch are not listed in the table will have an on -site measured noise level of 62.4 aM. IhW value is less than the 65 CVM exterior noise level for exterior areas, and therefore is acceptable. However, the calculations were run based on the foliawing assumptions. All entry doors should be single acting and fit solid against a solid frame. the entire perimeter should be fully weatter-stripy Ttle gaps around the doors and frames should be no more than 1/16 inch. -4- I'L TABLE 1 gjsats of On -site Noise Meas, nts, SOL Values cmmroial Jet Carriers 86.5 85.2 86.3 85.7 86.6 85 86.2 91.7 88.4 90.4 89.6 88.1 84.9 85.8 85.7 88.9 87.2 85.4 87.5 85 88 86.7 87.3 87.5 86.1 91.5 87.9 84 87.2 86.2 energy average = 87.5 dBA takeoffs for 30 events average SM of 2 events for lana"s = 84.3 CM .. -.� rl•1 K�KVMY'1 l•HIgUK VUr -J (14"J (�t31 V< Y-b•J Calculated Intrusive Noise Levels For interior Areas Bordering the m&-erior Walls of the Building Area Omposite Glass nit. Noise Design Req- Building Ievel, dBA FavLor Std. Atten.,dB raq (12) office 27 1/4" 41.4 +6 45 u A 3� ✓ ��I .v�.�j p: AV 1: Site T=tion Map IJ V mv.. ,GOHN-WAYHE �haK AIR�yP11O1ARV+,MT /IJR .,I•(ttiYIS+IOrra.l . rSW�,� ri �• / •� •4. "� •/tom• a� K :Ft•IAF �- i e W .10W1f J�IFf 1 litp�l a:s- FIGURE 2: Site Measurement IDoation �, \ • �+ \ -" / !' lus7. : •` .<.., `• Figure 1 E AIRPORT \ r� \y' ` ./ i:,' s.� >•: JOHNS , �) K�. 4 \/\ \> ♦, ��'."ir,�; •' !- �Rl t :. j7 1. _ Orange County, California 01 I.0 am x ' .; 1j11 a�r„`sir 1993 CNEL CONTOURS 's\.•.,ZVl"s `�;f::•<�/'.>f.'+.\/.; ,.ter �/s l' 1�`•�. .Gs: .1'�t t[�.. ` , '' • �• .``♦♦.�/INS•, '•� a i . 1 .y. a.� `�� . 4, �� �)�%I \.A .� I: M ..p'Nr ".• •'" • ,ys;.•.s3 • m SC•I m q. jar jr :`r\Y\�\ A1�fr' � /' . r � �Ktl♦•.�• �,r+l f'i , •y �,,, \ . � II' I!.r•,,,;:,..r \ \. e/, \ �r . ♦ fig: !�< i . ).. Y-ilt \ '�,�/� ` r♦ y it e i sj^I •. er l,.-, t •r `� a •� 1/,� t•'' '(\\ \ '��i _: \. �;�i _�.i i. s :u.:• �'Pr^t dr.. ^`5,•..:...._..,a� r�.4:;."�.\;. .- e i/ .writ : af•. '�•., \ \ �`• .,, 'r :, • p ;•�.•�'I�ft7 at 4.'f .. i'• : '{L" . i' •b` ',J 4 j� `'r. `'• j�y' s'/ % '�:1e •...'i:, si.;. •..5 ic:; --� .' � •� � i)y"'":i`-'/ % •,i `♦n �Ajr . �,,: �.? �• y'11. � m � � �•�� •1•=:�'I •',:� % ua'.jl: "— e / \,, •+ i ` . -pv/ i� ,YYi [rill `'. t• •� �b T wt • L t ^{E /: . trey: �.r ',/ \ •-\ ,', 1�•1 \: "C• .--�. °'°�:.� �Jy� �..; !� ' ...' ( �•' ./•" so 'tJS,I �`�. ", i if a f"� • _ C 'i . ,� _ '-',—,rz-?+7.,.. _. r %:•/'\ .2 �i +'•' s;y.�'+y e �i�`�l .•,• _b' •`•1 `�.! 1Ir �r V,1 %`!r.'''v.t�•. r' ./// / /. _ .��� ,��.� f 1. l I f l a ry' i ' _ •1 ` I �' • ♦.; �.,•`�';�'t'.s• C'��^..� t/ 4\:.!`�� 1." • i •,P• �%% j.; �Y , �'` \ '� ' ' f' �.. ~3J-.:♦�Y�a,�.. y ••\' �(!/` `:`'j .. `t �...TCC.� 1!. ,yt ♦ \ r�.?• �/ �•:wN:t"M,�.%!?t• �. ...:- .j{i. f" :.ii 'J �ii. '♦ i\,,�: A ,�� jV(%i, �Y i'II,LC,.\/ %)'."", .��. •' , f r ` 1, � f r1 k .♦ + ` '\. h'. ` t 1S%`\ .`i"%(I•'i:♦�.%+:'r,.J ,.yr't..sY�";• i .... j.�;' t' FM 2,LLs e t.J` e5k1\ %r.. � \,' ',t ',rf�..�•a`+ }S ` •, r •r_ • J." ..<f.r ° /'1" • }32 y-.� •\\�•�t j yi:.: ••� RM 7r t�'� :.•l• - `t ?�.-i • t 'r ♦ '.,` ` , s. J< \\ +t\ i ' T -\ •` • ,;i er .. , n , Y �.i .-i •�•w • "N YT, : rt .(T, r `'<n •••'.--i nuv "S �9% ,%. /. lr,�• � ,r,.^ u v � _ . `i " - j ,, fgr'ti''''`,/t; .',y,.i ^ �A•�.'f _; t.o ..r .:i'/ ' , `' :'r .� �rJ ` <•- I'` t� \,�_�,_ i' i�i '`l. �' •_ �•: ��YA\3 '" r -.•..-\ �: ; . 1\": StF�`\ .i •i i` '\ :"` J _ . :,.t �.7R` >. e`' a+�1\ V\I i !,-':':._. sf \ J•� `!, :', .. O I �'♦ E i ,: r `.�" Yr^.�.�. ¢,i fir..',-.'. \„a:J') 3' , � fi.y .\., ,sr� t,;/ t^_* , 1 j'�/..in �yf. �,'�- d �;'a?r' ' f � Y �''�} ��«" i •` 1.. -7:: � \ r �,\ Y �:JI:.-Yi•"''I r.i'� .. _`/1:.. s.t 1.-\-.,".'_iiL.. t�J• ..,.... ...�h-1'. .aa S•.. t�: S.. �';\r i71�-'.f1J' ''l.^:,� :+�' .)' :� Yam\-••�'-�- •�;. '•..� . �• .�<• _,, a��.: . ;k � _�, e ♦/1 r:^\�\q, /•: .YL..� t :•-7 i i „'::: .. �i',-^-e' - :la!:. "+'\. �i .•.t• �' -,�.: 7.<., /"7 � 1I� � �j•Y;'�—'-.fit � „_ `M1 i, ., � I . 'Y\% ' ♦ ♦ ,; �/. .r _ _._ _ �'•i?_...1_.art- -t=, � i %a+t. , a •mot .111.E-! ri 41 �:� y�.•.!\ r \,. rz t .r �..,I _ is-i'_„�1"'iT �d-•s.,,' ys°jq�,-�h'�I.� �� t ;;• ` ; • �hialii Gr<vt fiSSOf�11a .\,•"`Cj/,�\\ :s •� i-�a', ..i.♦ 7 '. �.I..--.eRi!'♦"� �� 'R`� / ` ' ,D� CO, AUOISE ORD, TABLE 4-1 COMPATIBILITY MATRIX FOR LAND USES AND COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVELS (CNEL) 65+ decibels CNEL 60 to 65 decibels CNEL TYPE OF USE Residential 3a, b, a 2a, e Commercial 2c 2c Emploxment 2c 2c 022nSace Local 2c 2c Community 2c 2c Regional 2c 2c Educational Facilities Schools (X through 12) 2c,d, e, 2c, d, e, resc oo , co ege, other " ci d, a 2c, d, e Places of worship 2c, d, e, 2c, d, e Hospitals General 2a, c, d, a 2a, c, d, e Convalescent 2a, c, d, a 2a, c, d, e Group Quarters la, b, c, a 2a, c, e Hotels/Motels 2a, c 2a, c Accessory Uses Executive Apartments la, b, a 2a, e Caretakers la, b, c, a 2a, c, e Note: See Table 4-2 for definitions of the entries in this table. N-4-2 �� TABLE 4-2 — EXPLANATION AND DEFINITIONS ON TABLE 4-1 ACTION REQUIRED TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN LAND USE AND NOISE FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES 1 a Allowed if interior and exterior community noise levels can be mitigated. 2 • Allowed if interior levels can be mitigated. 1 - New residential uses are prohibited in areas within the 65-decibel LNEL contour from any airport or air station; allowed in other areas if Interior and exterior community noise levels Can be mitigated. The prohibition against new residential development excludes limited 'infill' development within an established neighborhood. STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR COMPATIBILITY OF LAND USE AND NOISE a • interior Standard: C7EL of less than 15 decibels that to ble rooms only). b a Exterior Standard: LNEL of less than 65 decibels in outdoor living areas. c • Interior Standard: Leq(h)•45 to 65 decibels interior noise level, depending on interior use. d • Exterior Standard: Leq(h) of less than 65 decibels in outdoor living areas. e a Interior Standard: As approved by the Board of Supervisors for sound events of short duration such as aircraft flyovers or individual passing railroad trains. KEY DEFINITIONS Habitable Room - Any room meeting the requirements of the Uniform Building Code or other applicable regulations which is intended to bt used for sleeping, living, cooking or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed spaces as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms and similar spaces. Interior - Spaces that ace covered and largely enclosed by walls. Leq(h) - The A -weighted equivalent sound level averaged over a period of 'h' hours- An example would be Leq(1�) where the equivalent sound level is the average over a specified 12-h1ur period (such as 7.00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). Typically, time period 'h' is defined to match the hours of operation of a given type of use. Outdoor Living Area - Outdoor living area is a term used by the County of Orange to define spaces that are associated with residential land uses typically used for passive recreational activities or other noise -sensitive uses. Such spaces include patio areas, barbecue areas, jacuzzi areas, etc, associated with residential uses; outdoor patient recovery or resting areas associated with hospitals, convalescent hospitals, or rest homes; outdoor areas associated with places of worship which have a significant role in services or other noise sensitive activitiesi and outdoor school facilities routinely used for educational purposes which may be adversely impacted by noise. Outdoor areas usual) not included in this dtion are: front yard areas, driveways, greenbelts, ma ntenance areas, an efinistorage areas associated with residential land uses; exterior areas at hospitals that are not used for patient activities; outdoor areas associated with places of worship and principally used for short- term social gatherings; and, outdoor areas associated with school facilities that are not typically associated with ucac ona uses prone to a verse no se imnactS Ifor examb e. School m aw Yard areas). 1�( N-4-3 0 AIRPOkT LAND USE" COMMISSION• FOR ORANGE COUNTY 300 N. Flower St. Rm.356. Santa Ana.Ca 92702-4048 Phone: (714) 834-5312 Mailing Address: P.0.13ox 4048. Santa Ana. Ca 92702-4048 Fax: (714) 834-6132 James D. Hewicker Director of Planning City of Newport Beach SEP 2 3 1993 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 3492, Elementary School on YMCA Property Dear Mr. Hewicker: During its regular meeting of September 16, 1993, the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County reviewed the subject project. Following discussion of the matter, the following action was duly moved, seconded, and carried by the Commission: That the Commission find the proposed Use Permit No. 3492, City of Newport Beach consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) subject to the following conditions: 1. All non-residential structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined impact of all present and projected noise from exterior noise sources to meet the interior noise criteria as specified in the AELUP and the Noise Standards used by the City of Newport Beach (which are County of Orange noise standards) 2. As specified in the Noise Standards for the City of Newport Beach (which are County of Orange noise standards), the applicant should be made aware that there are certain restrictions applied to the "outdoor livings areas" associated with schools that limit outdoor activities to play and that all educational activities must take place indoors. Should you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at 834-5312 or contact Lisa Cibellks directly. Lisa may be reached at 834-2089. LC:lc Attachment: County of Orange Noise Standards eorge B 'tton, Executive Officer OF NFWPORI AM SEP 3 0 1993 PM 718191101111121112131415 i 6 i 30 11 el,f, W�!, �;kc — gs- '-Jo COMMERCIAWINDUSTRIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS k CX/ Telephone:_ 7 4 644-3200 Plan Check Not By:Genia Garcia. Associate Planne By:Christy Teague, Associate Planner By:Marc Myers, Assistant Planner : Date: 9-2� Address: ! ( !✓ � /_ 2!% /—ZGLKJ Districting Map No. Land Use �EJlsemment Page No. Corrections Required: %O' ��� �j & Y0/ Legal Description: Lot „GGGG Block Section Tract Resubdivision required to combine lots or portions of lots when construction or alterations are in excess of $20,000. Covenant required. Please have owner's signature notarized on the attached document and return to me. Lot Size Zone �(�y Proposed Use Required Setba Rear Right Side 7l�! Left Side" FAR WORKSHEET p Lot area (site area ea.ft.): �'�oi1O C�i1rzJ _ sq.ft. Base Development Allocation (BDA)�: Comm sq.ft. [0.5 x site area sq.ft., unless otherwise specified in Land Use Element] FAR permitted, without variance: (Al comm res vka Square footage permitted: comm res vka sq.ft. [(A) x site area sq.ft.] Maximum FAR allowed with variance: (B) Comm res vka Maximum square footage allowed: Comm res sq.ft. [(B) x site area sq.ft.] PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: (C) Base FAR use sq.ft, sq.ft. (D) Reduced FAR use sq.ft. sq.ft. (E) Maximum FAR use sq.ft. sq.ft. (F) TOTAL SQ.FT. [C+D+E] sq.ft. PROPOSED FAR: [ F $ site area sq.ft. ] PROPOSED WEIGHTED DEVELOPMENT: FAR Use Category Weighting Factor Weighted Sq.Ft. (G) (H) ( G x H ) sq.ft. Base X 1.00 sq.ft. sq.ft. Reduced X 1.67 sq.ft. sq.ft. Maximum X 0.50 sq.ft iTA� GHTED SQ.FT.(May not exceed BDA) Provide it overlay of calculations to verify provided square footage." R quir d Parking /D(1�D/l1 ' Proposed parking (Indicate number of stalls provided) .A� Total On -Site Parking 1 Standard Compact In -lieu Parking Dimension building e' ht as m asured fro)n natur grade to average and roof height�l%ilJ�idl/JP Show natural grade line on all elevations �bl' I sow all rooftop mechanical equipment and dissension from era directly below. O _ L_ /�fy� indicate location of trash containers on site plan. ` Number of stories r` Floor Plan fully dimensioned showing all room uses. Plot Plan fully dimensioned showing location of all buildings, fences, *to. in relation to the property line. share Contribution d Ban Transportation Corridor F.e Please indicate any discretionary approval numbers on the plans and incorporate the attached= excerpt of minutes and list of findings and conditions into the blualins drawings approval letter into the blueline drawings Modifications Committees Indicate Approval No. on Sluelines Modification required foPlanning Commission/City Coun Use Permits No..�� Variances No. Resubdivision/Tracts No. Site Plan Reviews No. Amendment! No. Other Public Norkss Easement/Encroachment Permit' Subdivision Engineer + Traffic Engineer 6tr Approval of Landsoa arks U Huildina Departments. Grading Engineer Parks Departments Approval of Landscape Plans Coastal Development Permits: Approval In Concept (AIC) No. (Notes File 3 sets of planes site, floor, and elevations) Coastal Development Permits No. Effective Date:Waiver/Exemptions No. Effective dates J -7 NOTE: it is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plans and obtain the necessary approvals from the departments checked above# if you have questions regarding your application, please contact ae at (714) $44- 3200. FORMs\CGMM-EGN.COR Rev. 1/93 4 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ZONING CORRE Telephone: 714 644-3200 Plan Check No: By:Genia Garcia. Associate Planne By:Christy Teague, Associate Planner By:Marc Myers,, Assistant Planner Date: Address Districting Map No. Land Use Element Page No. Corrections Required: JCS?/%� '' _ Legal Description: Lot Block Section Tract Resubdivision required to combine lots or portions of lots when construction or alterations are in excess of $20,000. Covenant required. Please have owner's signature notarized on the attached document and return to me. Lot Size Zone Proposed Use Required Setba 4&l� Rear Right Side Left Side FAR WORKSHEET Lot area (site area sq.ft.): sq.ft. Base Development Allocation (BDA): comet sq.ft. [0.5 x site area sq.ft., unless otherwise specified in Land Use Element] FAR permitted, without variance: (A) comm res Dka Square footage permitted: Comm res nka sq.ft. [(A) x site area sq.ft.] Maximum FAR allowed with variance: (B) Comm res nka Maximum square footage allowed: comm res sq.ft. [(B) x site area sq.ft.] PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: (C) Base FAR use sq.ft. sq.ft. (D) Reduced FAR use sq.ft. sq.ft. (E) Maximum FAR use sq.ft. sq.ft. (F) TOTAL SQ.FT. [C+D+E] sq.ft. PROPOSED FAR: [ F $ site area sq.ft. J PROPOSED WEIGHTED DEVELOPMENT: FAR Use Category Weighting Factor Weighted Sq.Ft. (G) (H) f G x H 1 sq.ft. Base X 1.00 sq.ft. sq.ft. Reduced X 1.67 sq.ft. sq.ft. Maximum X 0.50 sq.ft. TOTAL WEIGHTED SQ.FT.(May not exceed BDA) Provide tissue overlay of calculations ssltoo verify provided square footage. Required Parking �� 4 /V ea&), Proposed parking (Indicate number of stalls provided) Total On -Site Parking, Standard Compact In -lieu Parking Dimension building e'ght as 'measured from natur grade to average and maximum roof height/f/✓l/ ��i�!i�i/ �^ Show natural grade line on all elevations �s A _ Show all rooftop mechanical equipment and dissension from gradoyJdi�� low. Indicate location of trash containers on site plan. '" sr Number of Stories e` Floor Plan fully dimensioned showing all room uses. Plot Plan fully dimensioned showing location of all buildings, fences, etc, in relation to the property line. F share Contribut}on� �� �GG�r�tir�LLrc San Jotl aquin Hills transportation Corridor Fee Please indicate any discretionary approval numbers on the plans and incorporate the attached excerpt of minutes and list of findings and conditions into the blueline drawings approval letter into the blueltne drawings Modifications Committees Indicate Approval No. on Bluelines Modification required for Use Permit: variances No. Rssubdivision/Tract: Noo Sits Plan Review: No. Amendments No. other L Publir. Workrs Easement/encroachment Permit 'JLG,ht Subdivision Engineer // - Traffic Engineer u pJr Approval of Landsca P an■ Buildino Departments Grading Engineer Parks Departments Approval of Landscape Plans coastal Development Permits$ Approval In Concept (AIC) No. (Notes File 3 sets of plans; site, floor, and elevations) Coastal Development Permits No. Effective Dates Waiver/Exemptions No. Effective dates r NOTE: it is the responsibility of the applicant to circulate their plans and obtain the necessary approvals from the departments checked above. If you have questions ragarding your application, please contact me at (714) 644- 3200. FORMS\CONN-ZON.COR Key* 1/93 E6 DATE: TO: FROM: FAIR SHARE FEE MEMO Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Genia Garcia, Associate Planner Please provide a Fair Share Fee for A Traffic Study No. Other approvals: _ located at was approvea on This project '! is _ is not in plan check. Other comments: 7 Hastings Partnership Architecture & Planning 5031 Birch Street Suite A Newport Beach, California 92660 Response to Building DATE: 3/28/95 Department Corrections PROJECT: Tutor Time Tenant Improvement 1550 N. Bristol St. Newport Beach, CA RESPONDENT: Scott B. Yarnall OWNER: Ken Ohori. CONTROL NO: 329-95 300 Lighting Way Secaucus New Jersey 07096 PLAN CHECKER: Gena Garcia, Planner ITEM RESPONSE •All Items From The Correction List Are Clouded And Listed As 1 'Building Dept. 3/28/95'. X. Required parking and proposed parking issue: Please see sheet A -4 tabulation. Show all roof top mechanical equipment and dimension from grade directly below: As per our phone conversation on March 20th we discussed that 6 units are to be taken off the roof and one unit to be moved to a new location where a unit previously sat. See sheet A-7. Fair Share Contribution: This issue is being discussed between Rich Edmonston and George Rendon (Tutor Time). (Public Works) Easement/Encroachment permit signature required on plans. I spoke with Dick Hofstadt on March 27th he will review drawings when they are resubmitted to the building department. ( 5! Traffic engineer signature of approval on parking plan. I met with Janet Divan at the City on March 17th, she reviewed parking plan (sheet A-4), gave her comments and will sign off on the plan when resubmitted to building department. (If comments were taken care of). Letter of compliance for conditions 5, 6, and 8: See letter of compliance included in this package. Show proof of attenuation requirements as stated in condition V. As per our phone conversation on March 20th. Your comment to me was that once Tutor Time occupied the building that they would have an accousticai test done then. I have forwarded this information on to George Rendon at Tutor Time. Page 31-10 FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND BUILDING BULK Chapter 20.07 General Light Manufacturing Heavy Industrial Laboratories Machine Shops Marine Industrial Marine Manufacturing Research Laboratories Wholesale Wholesale Sales Group 'Living Congregate Care Facilities Elderly Residential Dry Boat Storage Storage Mini -storage Storage (Ord. 89-35, Dec. 27, 1989; Ord. 89-19, Sept.13, 1989). Section 20.07.070 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY. The Planning Commission may, by use permit, provide for the transfer of development intensity from any one or more parcels to any other parcel or parcels, provided that the requirements of this section are met. A. DEFINITIONS. DECREASED SITE --a parcel of land from which development rights are transferred INCREASED SITE --a parcel of land to which development rights are transferred B. TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA. The total gross floor area permitted on the parcels involved in the transfer of development intensity shall not exceed the total floor area which would otherwise be permitted by this chapter, taking into account the types of uses to be developed. C. MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR AN INCREASED SITE. The gross floor area on any increased site shall not exceed one times the buildable area of the site or the gross floor area before the intensity transfer, whichever is greater. D. MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR A DECREASED SITE. The maximum gross floor area permitted on a decreased site shall be reduced by amount of the transfer of development intensity, taking into account the types of land use to be developed and calculated in accordance with Section 20.07.040. E. BUILDING BULK. As provided in Section 20.07.050, the total building bulk permitted on the parcels involved in the transfer of development intensity shall Page 31-11 FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND BUILDING BULK Chapter 20.07 not exceed the total permitted gross floor area plus 0.25 times the total lot area of the parcels. F. VARIABLE AND FIXED FLOOR AREA RATIOS. Transfer of development intensity shall not be permitted between a site having a fixed floor area ratio and a site having a variable floor area ratio. G. NONCONFORMING DEVELOPMENTS. Where a transfer of development intensity involves any parcel which does not conform to current intensity limits, the nonconforming condition shall be eliminated and the total gross floor area following the intensity transfer shall be as provided in Subsection B, above. H. DISTANCE BETWEEN TRANSFER SITES. The parcels between which development rights are to be transferred shall not be separated by a distance in excess of 1,000 feet unless the parcels are located within the same Planned Community District or a transfer of development intensity between specific sites is expressly provided under the General Plan. I. TRAFFIC STUDY. Depending upon the distance between parcels involved in a transfer of development intensity, a traffic study may be required in order to insure against a net negative effect on the circulation system. J. REQUIRED FINDINGS. When approving a use permit for a transfer of development intensity, the Planning Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal, shall make the following findings in addition to those required under Section 20.80.060 A: a. The transfer of development intensity will result in a more efficient use of land or an increase in public visual open space. b. The transfer of development intensity will result in a net benefit to the aesthetics of the area. C. The increased development on the site, including above grade covered parking, does not create abrupt changes in scale between the proposed development and development in the surrounding area. d. The proposed uses and structures, including above grade covered parking, are compatible with the surrounding area. e. The increased development on the increased site, including above grade covered parking, will not result in significant impairment of public views. Page 31-12 FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND BUILDING BULK Chapter 20.07 f. The increased site is physically suitable for the development, proposed, including above grade covered parking, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources. g. The transfer of development intensity will not result in a net negative impact on the circulation system. h. The projections of traffic to be generated utilize standard traffic generation rates generally applied to a use of the type proposed per City Council Policy S-1. i. The proposed uses and physical improvements are such that the approved projects would not readily lend themselves to conversion to higher traffic generating uses. K LEGAL ASSURANCES. A covenant or other suitable, legally binding agreement shall be recorded against the decreased site assuring that all of the above requirements will be met by the current and future property owners. (Ord. 90-16, May 23, 1990). To: Building Department From: Planning Department AwekJ Re: Hold on Building Permit Final No Activity: In Plan Check: Active Bldg Permit: Public Works Notified: Plan Checker Notified: Address -*-zW1 Ian Check No. 9z- &49-/ -9 Planning Department Comments PRIOR TO RELEASE Of Building Permit Final: [ ] Park Dedication Fee in the Amount of $ is DUE. [ ] Fairshare Fee in the Amount of $ is DUE. [ ] S.J.H.T.C. Fee in the Amount of $ is DUE. [ ] Coastal Commission Approval of Resubdivision Must Be Obtained. [ ] Parcel Map Recordation: Resubdivision No. Record date [ ] Use Permit Conditions of Approval: Use Permit No. Condition(s) No. [ ] After recordation of the map a building permit change must be processed with the Building and Planning Departments, PRIOR TO FINAL OF THE BUILDING PER to change the description of the permit to reflect condominium construction, the fee is nominal and payable at the time of the change. Proof of payment of the above mentioned fees may be required at that time if not collected at issuance of the original building or grading permits. �J �(f Other [ ] Other: Units Demolished Units Built B ! ' _date Plafimfig Deepar ent CC: ' 1/ Code Enforcement _Plan Checker F:\WP50\JAY\MEM\BP-HOLD.MEM rev 4-5-90 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 8 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX s eliminate the interior property line on whick- the existing restaurant building is currently constnidted. ,f' 0. That all improvements be constructed a$V'required by Ordinance and the Public Works Dement. F 1. That the on -site parking, vehic� ar circulation and pedestrian circulation systems 6e subject to further review by the City Traffic E meer. 2. That the Planning Codmission may add to or modify conditions of app rival to this use permit, or recommend to the�,City Council the revocation of this use permit, uppda determination that the operation which is the Vt MJect of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimgdal to the health, safety, peace, morals, comf general welfare of the community. rortrt�or 3. T114t 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,,� se Permit No. 3541 Public Hearin Item No.5 equest to permit the establishment of a preschool child care UP3541 enter with open and covered play areas on property located n Industrial Site 3A of the Newport Place Planned Approved ommunity. The proposal also includes modifications to the ewport Place Planned Community Development Standards o as to: allow an architectural awning to encroach 7± feet, nd an automobile stacking lane to encroach 25 feet into the equired 30 foot special landscape street setback adjacent to Bristol Street North which results in only a 5 foot landscape trip adjacent to the front property line. -17- COMMISSIONERS \\\ �c0 0- 0.yd 9', O� �O�O t9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES December 8 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 50-45 (Resubdivision No. 371) located at 1550 Bristol Street North, on the northeasterly side of Bristol Street North, between Birch Street and Spruce Avenue, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ONE: P-C PLICANT: Tutor Time, Newport Beach WNER: Tsumura International, Irvine ames Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that a letter from eorge Britton, Executive Officer of the Airport Land Use ommission for Orange County dated December 8, 1994, that as transmitted to the Planning Commission prior to the ublic hearing addresses their concerns regarding the subject equest. Mr. Hewicker pointed out that the subject request is imilar to a child care center established on the YMCA roperty that was previously approved by the Planning ommission. He said that because of the nature of State Law, nd the fact that the subject permit has been found by the rport Land Use Commission not to be in conformance with he adopted Airport Land Use Plan, that the Planning ommission is required to overrule the Airport Land Use ommission with a two-thirds vote if the Commission desires o approve this application. He stated that staff also has a oncern regarding the proposed encroachments into the equired 30 foot special landscape street setback adjacent to ristol Street North. hairman Gifford, Commissioner Ridgeway, Don Webb, blic Works Director, and Mr. Hewicker discussed andscaping adjacent to Bristol Street North and landscape equirements in the Newport Place Planned Community. -18- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH nAnAmhar A IQQA ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Webb discussed the maneuverability of vehicles in a 25 foot radius turn around area at the rear of the property, and the children's drop off area. ommissioner Adams questioned if parents would drive their ehicles into the site. He opined that the stacking lane would e used to drop the children off, and then the vehicles would ull out on to Bristol Street North without utilizing the turn round area at the rear of the site. The 17 foot width of the roposed stacking lane in front of the building is also very wkward. He opined that when the children are dropped off nd the children walk around to the back of the building, and hen there are two or three vehicles in front of the building nloading the children, the new vehicles would double up in he aisle and there would be two lines of automobiles in the 7 foot wide lane. e public hearing was opened in connection with this item, nd Mr. George Rendon, Zone Developer in Orange County or Tutor Time, 1301 Dove Street, appeared before the Tanning Commission. Mr. Rendon made a presentation oncerning the need for child care centers, and the positive nfluence that Tutor Time has on children's lives. Tutor Time s the largest franchisor of preschools in the United States, i.e. 3 schools throughout the United States. Mr. Rendon stated at the applicant considered the demographics within a three le radius of the subject property, and as a result the applicant concluded that the subject site is appropriate for a reschool. In response to the Airport Land Use Commission's omments in the aforementioned letter, Mr. Rendon replied hat the site is consistent with the noise ordinance of the range County Noise Ordinance. A contour report that the ohn Wayne Airport publishes indicates that the subject roperty is located between a 60 CNEL and a 65 CNEL ontour. If the report had been adopted the applicant would of have had to be approved by the Airport Land Use ommission; however, because they continue to use a 1990 -19- COMMISSIONERS ,O�r�� O601 �� 00 �, s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES December R. 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX ap, the applicant was required to go before the Commission. one concern that the ALUC had concerning the site was the Oise and the affect that it would have on the children in the layground. The concern was that there would be instruction utdoors and the children would not be able to hear; however, e informed the Commissioners that when the children are utdoors the one-half hour time is used for free play and there i no instruction and the academic activities are inside the school. i n response to a question posed by Chairman Gifford, Mr. Rendon concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit n response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, r. Rendon replied the only children's drop off area, as hown on the site plan, is at the corner of the building at the ear of the site where the entrance to the school is located. If e traffic backs up a monitor located at the front of the building will take the older children in to the school, and hen the smaller children arrive they will be taken from the parents and taken into the school. If there is no traffic then he parents could park and take the children into the school, and that action would take approximately three minutes. If here would be a stacking of automobiles on to Bristol Street North, the instructions are to the parents when they enroll the hildren in the school that a monitor would inform them to ircle the block. Mr. Rendon further explained that the additional doors throughout the school would be used for emergencies only, and not for drop off purposes. n response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, r. Ralph Hastings, Hastings Partnership Architects, 5031 irch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, and e explained the proposed plan for the child care center, the raffic circulation, and the 5 foot wide landscaped strip djacent to the front property line. Commissioner Ridgeway ommented that considering the 10 foot area at the rear of the -20- Mot COMMISSIONERS JO �,,d q �O C) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES narAMhar R IOQd ROLL CALL INDEX building, why was the vehicular circulation not designed around the building? Mr. Hastings explained that it would have been necessary to encroach into the rear area of the outdoor play area, and it would have brought automobiles all the way around the building in a one-way direction. He said that there is a width of only 10 feet between the property line fence and the building, and automobiles would be within inches of a school window. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Hastings regarding the foregoing comments. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams with respect to a parent dropping off a child in the front stacking lane and then drive immediately on to Bristol Street North as opposed to turning the vehicle around at the rear of the lot, Mr. Rendon stated that the parents are not permitted to drop off children in a stacking lane and walk into a school alone. Commissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Webb discussed the feasibility of a 10 foot wide vehicular lane to circle the building. Mr. Webb supported a minimum 12 foot to 14 foot wide vehicular lane if there would be a wall or a fence on both sides of the lane. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3541 subject to .ion the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Commissioner DiSano stated that he had a concern with a comment in the aforementioned letter from the Airport Land Use Commission, stating that ALUC will re-evaluate the TWA noise contours at such time as a comprehensive noise study is conducted. He concluded that the City would be held hostage to allowing for good land utilization in an area. The proposed child care center would provide balance for people who have to come to work and who have to find child care for their children. Staff gave consideration and appropriately answered -21- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES All CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH liecemoer a iyy,+ ROLL INDEX CALL he comments brought up by the Airport Land Use ommission. Commissioner Ridgeway concurred. He said that there is an nconsistency with the Airport Land Use Commission with the action that they took on the City's action regarding the child -are center on the YMCA property. The subject child care is ore mitigated by proximity to the airport than the YMCA roperty, and yet the Commission chose �o deny the request. I'here is a tremendous need in the City for child care acilities. hairman Gifford referred to the letter addressed to George ritton of the ALUC from Janice M. Mittermeier dated ovember 16, 1994, that is attached to the staff report. A tatement reads County policies do require an avigation asement across property that is within a 60 dB CNEL noise ontour for any airport. Mr. Jeffrey Littell, 18662 MacArthur oulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission oncerning the statement. In response to questions posed by Hewicker, Mr. Littell replied that he was not aware of the tatus of the avigation easement over the subject site; owever, if one has not been granted on the property that one ould be granted. He said that when the noise contours are e-evaluated and it was determined that they would not apply o the subject property that the easement be removed. Robin lauson, Assistant City Attorney, concluded that the letter Ayes addresses County policies and how the policies would affect he decision of the Airport Land Use Commission. She was of aware of any requirement, request, or direction to the City. Mr. Rendon reappeared before the Planning ommission and he pointed out that a letter to him from the rport Land Use Commission just prior to the public hearing id not mention the easement. qotion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. -22- CQMMISSIONERS , \O��� o �,qo \9,1, O,p " �*'\c9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES December 8. 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed application is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate parking exists on -site for the proposed development on the subject property. 3. That the proposed development', will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the purpose of Article 3.5 of the California Public Utilities Code which is to insure the orderly expansion of airports, and to minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards, inasmuch as it has been adequately demonstrated that the exterior play areas of the project are experiencing less than 65 CNEL and that the interior portions of the existing building can be sound attenuated to less than 45 DBA. Therefore, the project will not adversely effect the public's health, safety and welfare. 5. That the proposed project is consistent with the provisions of the Orange County Noise Ordinance. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 3541 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 and further that the proposed front yard setback encroachment does not preclude the applicant from providing adequate landscaping adjacent to Bristol Street North and said -23- QGMMISSIONERS OO O 0\1010000d %b\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES December 8, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX encroachments are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. That the entrance drive be monitored in the peak drop-off and pick-up times by the applicants' representatives at the site. If back-ups occur out into Bristol Street North, the incoming patrons shall be directed to bypass the entrance. If a traffic congestion problem occurs on Bristol Street North that is not immediately corrected, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council revocation of this Use Permit. That all employees shall park on -site at all times. 5. That the total number of students shall not exceed.158 persons. Any additional increase in the number of students shall be subject to the approval of an 1 1 amendment to this use permit. 7) That the interior areas of the building shall be sound V attenuated to less than 45 DBA in accordance with the ry1Y requirements of the Orange County Noise Ordinance. A -24- ( OMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 8, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 8. That the outdoor play areas shall not be used for instructional purposes and shall be use for play purposes only. 9. That the Planning Commission may add 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. 10. 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. Us ermit No. 3544 Public Hearin item No.6 Request t ermit the establishment of a take-out restaurant UP3544 with incident eating and on -sale beer and wine on property located in the R -H District. The proposal also includes a continued request to waive a i3o t� ion of the required off-street parking '� to 1/19/95 paces. OCATION: Parcel�2s f Parcel Map No. 35-1 (Resubdivist No. 284), located at 1614 San Miguel Dri on the northeasterly corner of San Miguel Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road, in'Sle Harbor View Commercial Center. ONE: RSC-H PLICANT: California Restaurant Ent., Newpor -25- April 12,1995 TO: GENIA GARCIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: REVISED FAIR SHARE FEES TUTOR TIME CHILD CARE/LEARNING FACILITY -1550 Bristol St. North The proposed project is a childcare/teaming facility designed to handle a maximum of 158 students and 22 employees. An existing building will be renovated and a covered play area will be constructed. The Fair Share fee for this project is $26,529.66 based upon the following information: 105 trips are generated by 158 students. (Assumed 1.5 students per vehicle with 1 trip in and 1 trip out for the morning and the same for the afternoon period.) 158 students/1.5 per vehicle =105 trips x 2 trips(am) x 2 trips(pm) = 420 trips Assuming a 25% reduction for passby/diverted trips: 420 trips x (1 - 0.25) = 315 trips 2. 66 trips are generated by the staff. (22 staff members) 22 staff members x 3 trips/person" = 66 trips "(ITE reference that takes into account noon trips, etc.) 3. Total trips for new facility = 315 + 66 = 381 trips 4. Total credit for existing office use=12,426 sq It bldg x 13 trips/T sq ft = 12.426 x 13 trips =162 trips 5. The total increase in daily trips = (381 -162) = 219 trips 4. Fair Share Fee = (219 trips x $121.14/trip) = $26,629.66 t 1 # Please contact me if you have any questions about the revised fee. Thank you. REC;EiVED BY Richard M. Edmonston Traffic Engineer PLAi<INING DEPARTMENT f '%f OF WriqPOpT REAP` AM APR 131995 PM 718t911U11iIVI-LIZ1314i5i6 F:\HOME\Divan\fairshar\tutrtim2 4.12.95 t� r March 17, 1995 TO: GENIA GARCIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: TRAFFI ENGINEER SUBJECT: FAIR SHA E FEES FOR TUTOR TIME CHILD CARE/LEARNING FACILITY 1660 Bristol St. North The proposed project is a childc re/learning facility designed to handle a maximum of 158 students and 22 employees. An isting building will be renovated and'a covered play area will be constructed. The Fair Share fee for this project is 9,249.36 based upon t 6 following information: 1. 105 trips are generated\ 158 students., Assumed 1.5 students per vehicle with 1 trip in a d 1 trip ou for the morning and the same for the afternoon period.) 158 students/1.5 per vehicle = 405 trips x 2 trips(am) x 2 tdps(pm) = 420 trips 2. 66 trips are generated 9 the staff (22 staff members) 22 staff members 3 trips/person* = 66 trips *(ITE reference that takes into accoun�noon trips, etc.) 3. Total topis = 420 + 66 = 486 trips 4. To{al credit for existing office use=12,426 sq,ft bldg x 13 trips/T sq ft = 12.426 x 13 trips = 162 trips The total increase in daily trips = (486 -162) = 324 trips 4. Fair Share Fee = (324 trips x $121.14/tdp) _ contact me if you have any questions about the fee. Thank you. �y Richard M. Edmonston Traffic Engineer F:\HOME\Divan\fairshar\tutortim 3.17.95 AMERICAN CHILD CARE SERVICES, INC. -a Zone Developer MUTOR , fir C== CHILD CARE - LEARNING CENTERS March 30, 1995 City of Newport Beach Re: Use Permit # 3541 1550 Bristol North To whom it may concern: Please be informed that Tutor Time is aware of the conditions that were imposed by, the planning commission for the development of its Child Care Learning Center in'the city of Newport Beach. We will abide by the all the conditions particularly the following: That all employees shall park on -site at all times. That the total number of students shall not exceed 158 persons. Any additional increase in the number of students shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to the use permit. That the interior area of the building shall be.sound attenuated to less than 45DBA in accordance with requirements of the Orange County Noise Ordinance. That'the outdoor play areas shall not be used for instructional purposes and shall be used for play purposes only.' Ve ru eorvae A. Rendon President/Zone Developer 1301 Dove Street • Suffe 390 • #1 Newport Place, Newport Beach, CA 92660 714/975-8150 800/995-88M 714/975-8142(FA)0 Centers Independently owned and operated Y FAIR SHARE APPEAL August 21, 1995 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACfI AM AUG 2 3 1995 7f81911001VIIA314i5 6 It SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TUTOR TIME CHILD CARE/LEARNING CENTER FAIR SHARE FEE BACKGROUND The Fair Share fees were initially estimated in March 1995 based on ITE standards for childcare center without a credit for pass -by or diverted trips. The fee was calculated to be $39,249.36 at that time. After obtaining additional information from the applicant, the Traffic Engineer revised the fees to include a credit of 25% for pass-by/diverted trips. This reduced the Fair Share fee to $26,529.66. The appeal of the Fair Share fees is based on two primary points: 1. Higher Pass -by trip credit 2. Lower number of staff -generated trips The appellant has submitted a letter discussing the preliminary marketing efforts and interest in childcare services in this area. A pass -by trip credit of 60 - 70% is proposed by Tutor Time. This is based on marketing focused on people already working in the airport area. A lower number of staff trips at noon is anticipated due to an on - site lunchroom and the close proximity of fast food restaurants within walking distance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Fair Share fee be reduced to $19,351.80 to reflect a higher percentage of pass- by/diverted trips. Staff supports using a 40% rate rather than the 60-70% proposed by Tutor Time. The reason for this is that the facility is located on a one-way street and can only be accessed by driving through some of the most impacted intersections in the City. Trips by parents working in the airport area will require travel on streets not normally used in their commute and will take them through one or more of the impacted intersections. Thus these trips will place an increased load on the street system even though they are secondary to the commute trip. Staff does not agree with the proposal to reduce the number of "staff" trips from two and one-half trips per employee. This rate was selected to represent not only actual employees but vendor deliveries and other miscellaneous trips as well. Since the credit for the existing office use has not been reduced to reflect nearby food outlets, it is not appropriate to make such reductions for the proposed use. The proposed Fair Share fee is calculated as follows: 1. 105 cars w/ 1.5 students per car equals 158 students. Each car makes four trips per day two coming and two returning home. 2. 22 staff members making 2.5 trips per day. 3. Credit for existing office of 162 trips based upon 12,426 sq ft and 13 trips per thousand sq ft. 4. Fair Share fee of $125.04 per trip 5. Trips are (105 X 4 X 60%) * (22 X 3) - 162 = 156 6. Fee is 156 X $124.05 = $19,351.80 Prepared by: )VZ4�4_z Richard X. Edmonston Traffic Engineer ri\home\divan\folrehar\memos\tutrtim Reviewed by: ' GI Dohaid L. Webb Public Works Director Appeal approved by: �Murp city Manager AMIDE IGAN CHILD CARE SERVICES, INC, Zone Developer ruTo R riME CHILD CARE • LEARNING CENTERS July 28, 1995 Mr. Richard Edmonston, P.E. City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California 92659 Re: Fair Share Fee - Tutor Time 1550 Bristol North Dear Rich: Please find enclosed Tutor Time's Appeal of the Fair Share Fee that has been assessed to our day care center on 1550 Bristol North. We have also enclosed a letter from the center's director in regards to the issues raised in our appeal. I have also enclosed a copy of a letter from the landlords agent in regards to our appeal. We feel that we have presented valid points in support of our appeal. Please call me if you should need anything from us. Thank you for your assistance and we will await the decision. very ly a r Fee A. Rendan resident 1301 Dove Street • Suite 390 • #1 Newport Place, Newport Beach, CA 92660 714/975-8150 800/995-8886 714/975-8142(FA)O Centers Independently owned and operated .n ` APPUCANi NAME George Rendon pNONE (714) 975-8150 EUSINESS NAME Tutor Time BUSINESS AOORESS 1550 Bristol North DESCRtP7tON OF BUSINESS: (number of emptoy+tes; number of clients sernd at your business each day, m&t nature of bustness, etc.) Tutor Time is child care center that will employ 22 people and will have a licensed capacity for 158 children from the age of six weeks to'S years of age. The school will be open five days a week. THIS APPEAL IS BASED UPON VE. FO OYnNCa REASONS; The appeal is based on the fact that we believe that Tutor Time received too small a reduction for passby/diverted trips and that the 66 trips estimated to be generated by the staff are too high. I am enclosing.a copy of the letter from the school director for this site which addresses these two points. Please note that Tutor Time will be targeting the -business community in the surrounding area'and that our school is located in a commercial area. Please note that to date 70V of our calls have come from this sector. This fits our original projections when we negotiated the lease for this site. As a result we feel that we should receive a higher credit for the passby/diverted trips. A 25* reduction is too low a number considering the number of parents who will be enrolling their children that are already working in this part of Newport Beach. The reduction should be clpser to 60t-70t. In regards to the employee trips we feel that the number should be 52 and not 66. Please note Ms. Massey's comments. Our original calculations based on discussions with the planning department prior" to signing the lease projected a substantially lower fee than the $26,529.66 that is being assessed. Thank you for your consideration. 0ATe 7-28-QS -EW-KID, INC. ownedoperator ruTo R riME® P-1 CHILD CARE/LEARNING CENTERS July 25, 1995 Mr. George Rendon Tutor Time Child Care/Learning Centers 1301 Dove Street Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Tutor Time Learning Center 1550 North Bristol Street Newport Beach, CA. 92660 Dear Mr. Rendon, Per our July 24th discussion regarding marketing and staff, I have documented the following for your reference. Jonathan Abelove, owner of Tutor Time Newport Beach, and myself have focused our marketing to commercial businesses in the surrounding area of 1550 N. Bristol. We project approximately 70% of our enrollment will come from families whose parents work in the immediate proximity. This figure is based on inquiry calls we have received to date. Tutor Time Newport Beach will be staffed with 22 employees, including administration. During my past 15 years as an early education director, it has been my experience that approximately 20% of staff will leave a school site during their lunch hour. Having many fast food restaurants across the street from Tutor Time Newport Beach, I project half of that 20% «rill walk to lunch, rather than drive. Tutor Time Newport Beach will be equipped with a staff lounge for the remaining 80% of staff who will bring their lunch from home. I hope that this information is helpful to you. Please feel free to call if any additional information is needed. Sincerely, Stacy L. Massey Director 1550 Bristol Street North • Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 955-2672 J i;i FREY D. LIMLL 1(SF(.7 MxArlhur 111vd , Ktdt� 2p] 1xvLv:, CA tr+.J' 15 US.A. (714)MS791n•PAX CG14)T671M July 29, 1995 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Reach, CA, 926SO-891$ Attn: Richard Edmonston, P.E. Dear Sir; 1 am the local agent for Tsumura Enterprises, Inc„ ,the owner of 1550 Bristol North. Our tenant Tutor Time Child Care has been obtaining various occupancy and tenant improvement permits over the better part of the past 12 months, My client fully supports Tutor Time Child Caro in their appeal of the Fair Share Fee being assessed to the occupancy of this particular tenant, The economics of being retroactively required to bring a 21 year old structure into compliance with the current Building Code is causing the tenant to have to pay substantially higher rents, which ultimately could cause this transaction to be terminated. Then, having to pay City trattic mitigation fees on top of the other myriad of fees being charged by the City on this project causes the tenant and my client to stxm ask if it is at all possible to conduct business in the City of Newport Beach. Your consideration and evaluation of the Fair Share Fees being assessed to this property is greatly appreciated. r D. LITTEI Agent and R.E. Broker 4 March 17,1996 TO: GENIA GARCIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: FAIR SHARE FEES FOR TUTOR TIME CHILD CARE/LEARNING FACILITY 1550 Bristol St. North The proposed project is a childcare/teaming facility designed to handle a maximum of 158 students and 22 employees. An existing building will be renovated and a covered play area will be constructed. The Fair Share fee for this project is $39,249.36 based upon the following information: 1. 105 trips are generated by 158 students. (Assumed 1.5 students per vehicle with 1 trip in and 1 trip out for the morning and the same for the afternoon period.) 158 students/1.5 per vehicle =105 trips x 2 tdps(am) x 2 tdps(pm) = 420 trips 2. 66 trips are generated by the staff. (22 staff members) 22 staff members x 3 trips/person• = 66 trips *(ITE reference that takes into account noon trips, etc.) 3. Total trips = 420 + 66 = 486 trips 4. Total credit for existing office use = 12,426 sq it bldg x 13 tripsfr sq it = 12.426 x 13 trips = 162 trips 5. The total increase in daily trips = (486 -162) = 324 trips 4. Fair Share Fee = (324 trips x $121.14/trip) = $39,249.36 Please contact me if you have any questions about the fee. Thank you. Richard M. Edmonston Traffic Engineer F:\HOME\Divan\fairshar\tutortim 3.17.95 M April 12, 1995 TO: GENIA GARCIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: REVISED FAIR SHARE FEES TUTOR TIME CHILD CARE/LEARNING FACILITY -1560 Bristol St. North The proposed project is a ehildcare/leaming facility designed to handle a maximum of 158 students and 22 employees. An existing building will be renovated and a covered play area will be constructed. The Fair Share fee for this project is $26,529.86 based upon the following information: 105 trips are generated by 158 students. (Assumed 1.5 students per vehicle with 1 trip in and 1 trip out forthe morning and the same for the afternoon pariod.) 158 students/1.5 per vehicle =105 trips x 2 trips(am) x 2 trips(pm) = 420 trips Assuming a 25% reduction for passby/diverted trips: 420 trips x (I -0.25) = 315 trips 2. 66 trips are generated by the staff. (22 staff members) 22 staff members x 3 trips/person` = 68 trips •(ITE reference that takes Into account noon trips, etc.) 3. Total trips for new facility = 315 + 66 = 381 trips 4. Total credit for existing office use=12,426 sq it bldg x 13 trips/T sq ft = 12.426 x 13 trips =162 trips 5. The total increase in daily trips s (381 -182) = 219 trips 4. Fair Share Fee = (219 trips X $121.14Arip) = 126629.66 Please contact me if you have any questions about the revised fee. Thank you. Richard M. Edmonston Traffic Engineer F:WOME1Divanlfairsharitutrtim2 4.12.95