HomeMy WebLinkAbout848-888 DOVE _AVISPlanning Commission Meeting Tune 22,1995
Agenda Item No. 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT:' Proposed administrative offices and automobile maintenance facility
for AvWs rental fleet.
SUMMARY: The applicant requests the approval of a Use Permit to allow the
establishment of an Avis administrative and maintenance facility
which would allow clerical offices and automobile maintenance
services including tune-ups, oil changes, engine repair, brake service
and body work for Avis s rental automobiles.
ACTION: If desired, approve Use Permit No. 3558
APPLICANT: Robert H. Lee Associates
OWNER: Nikko Capital Corporation
Proposed Project and Surrounding Land Use
The subject property is the former site of the Newport Datsun and Beach Imports
Automobile sales and service facilities and is currently not occupied. The site is located at
848 and 888 Dove street (see Vicinity Map). There are three single -story structures on the
site that will be renovated for the proposed use. The site is a part of Block J, Statistical Area
T -4, located within the Newport Place Planned Community District. To the west of the
property, across Dove Street is the Fletcher Jones Automobile Dealership and Plaza
Newport, a retail commercial center; to the north is Park MacArthur, a professional office
complex; to the south is a retail commercial center; and to the east, across jamboree Road is
a vacant parcel of land. The subject property is approximately 3 acres in size.
i
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 1 (Existing
Facilities).
Conformance with the General Plan and Zoning
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site for retail and service
commercial uses. The proposed use is permitted under the General Plan guidelines. The
Zoning of the property is regulated by the provisions contained in the Newport Place
Planned Community District which designates the subject property for automobile related
commercial and support services, subject to approval of a use permit The proposed project
is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning requirements.
Use Permit Analysis
The applicant is requesting to establish an Avis administrative service facility which would
include clerical offices and automobile maintenance area. Avis employees will return
rental automobiles from John Wayne Airport to the subject site for repair and regular
maintenance. Maintenance services will include oil -change, tire and brake service, engine
repair, electrical work, and any other similar services or repair that may be necessary for
the maintenance of Avis's rental fleet The applicant has indicated that there will be no
fueling of vehicles on -site.
The existing improvements consist of a 2,640 sq.ft structure and a 1,425 sq.ft building
which` will be renovated and used as clerical offices. A third structure that contains
approximately 5,530 sq.ft is designated for mechanical bays, managers' offices, break room,
lockers and a storage room. The attached site plan indicates that a minimum or
insignificant level of alteration would occur to the existing physical improvement
Parking: The applicant has indicated that there will be a total of 25 full-time
employees working at this location. The site will also provide parking for the 40 employees
of Avis that shuttle rental cars between John Wayne airport and Avis rental storage located
at 4201 Birch Street The applicant has indicated that there will be no customer service at
the subject site. There are no provisions in the Newport Place Planned Community District
Regulation's that indicate specific parking requirements for automobile rental operations.
The proposed site plan indicates a total of 37 parking spaces designated for employees.
Staff anticipates that some employees may use car-pooling for transportation. The area is
lacking adequate public transit Therefore, based on Avis s 65 full time employees and
additional visitors parking needs, the 37 parking spacesprovidedmay not be sufficient to
serve the proposed use. The following mitigation measure would ensure that any adverse
parking impact would not be significant
?
VICINITY MAP
Use Permit No. 3558
Attachment
k
MC.IO Rr /lAC[ OR
s�
D
n
y
4 G9jC
5
.ors/ert oe
C
STP�
T
/SToC
SITE
'A
o....
N
,
.L0
.... ...
�P�
o
Planning Department
June 13, 1995
TO: Planning Commission - I
Mitigation #1
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
demonstrate to the Planning Department with a letter from the City's Traffic
Engineer that, in his or her opinion, the proposed use has sufficient on -site
parking and meets the parking requirements.
The site plan does not show any location or description of any 'identification -or business
sign on the premises. When a sign plan is submitted, staff will review the application to
ensure the consistency and conformity of any proposed signage with the Newport Planned
Community District sign requirements.
Environmental Concerns
The proposed site is a developed parcel with physical improvements including
underground and surface storm drain, public sidewalk, lighting, sewer and water services
and landscaping. No sensitive land uses are located adjacent to or in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The existing public or governmental services would be sufficient to serve
the proposed use. It is anticipated that the increased daily traffic in the area would not
cause any significant impact on the City's street network. The proposed project would
generate a minor increase in employment, however it would not result in significant
population increase and no adverse impact on housing.
Fiscal Impacts
The City Council's Economic Development Policy F-17 states "the City's ability.to,deliver
quality municipal services is dependent upon adequate tax revenues derived' primarily
from the property and businesses located .within the City.... The City Council seeks to
promote economic activity within the City to increase the revenue available to provide
municipal services". Currently the site is not occupied and the property tax contributed, to
the County of Orange, was in the amount of $33,776.34 for the tax year 1995. The City's
portion of the total property tax was $5,753 in 1995. The proposed site plan indicates
insignificant alterations to the site, therefore the site's projected property tax is, anticipated
to result in little or no .change. If the proposed use permit approval is granted, the City's
Business License Fees will be $100.00 plus a $10,fee per -each employee. The 25 employees,
as indicated by the applicant, will generate an annual revenue of $ MOM in addition to the,
property tax. Based on .the operational characteristics of the proposed use the subject
commercial site would not generate any significant sales tax.
Site's Revenue taxes Without Project With Proposed Project
1. Property Tax $33,776.34 •$33,776.34
2. Business License 0 350.00
3. Sales Tax 0 0
Total Revenue $33,776.34 $34,126.34
TO: Planning Commission - 4.
DevelopmentFees: Since the proposed use of automobile maintenance/storage is similar
to the former uses on the subject property, the City's Traffic Fair Share Fee would not be
applicable.
Additional Considerations
The project site is within the Newport Place Planned Community, a master -planned business and
professional office area. The designation of the project site and other surrounding properties to
"auto center" occurred after the original adoption of the plan, and was intended to accommodate
new -car dealers who wished to relocate to Newport Beach from Harbor Boulevard in Costa
Mesa. Auto dealers did occupy the area for many years. About three years ago, the two dealers
which occupied the project site closed, and the buildings have been vacant since that time.
Over the past year the City has been dealing with a number of issues related to auto dealers in the
City. The remaining dealership in the Newport Place area, Fletcher Jones Mercedes Benz
(FJMB), is currently working with the City to relocate to another site in the City. According to
FJMB, the current site is not acceptable as a long-term location for the dealership due to its small
size, fragmented configuration and lack of arterial roadway access and visibility. This information
could result in a conclusion that there is little likelihood that any of these sites will be reoccupied
by new car dealerships. The remaining permitted uses in the automobile center classification are
limited to tire shops, automobile repair, automobile washing facilities and service stations.
If the existing zoning is left in place, the City could expect additional facilities of a similar nature
to come into this area. It is the opinion of staff the zoning for this area is obsolete and should be
studied for possible change.
The maintenance and repair facility is a service support use for the rental car operation occurring
at John Wayne Airport. While it can be argued that rental car operations are generally supportive
of the dominant office use of the area (business travelers often use rental cars), the Planning
Commission may wish to consider the desirability of a major auto repair facility located on the
corner of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. While the proposed use is not anticipated
to be detrimental to the environmental goals of the City, the use of this site for the proposed
automobile storage and maintenance facility will preclude the use of the site by a use which may
provide more direct economic benefits to the City. Additionally, the new car dealers anticipated
by the existing zoning typically provide a higher level of property maintenance as well as better
landscaping and architectural treatments than may be expected from a secondary maintenance
facility. Therefore, approval of the proposed project could be considered adverse to the general
welfare of the City, since it may affect character of the area and the ability of the City to maintain
and deliver quality municipal services to the area.
TO: Planning Commission - 5.
Conclusions and Specific Findings
In order to approve a Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the establishment of
the use 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, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood
or the general welfare of the City. Should the Planning Commission desire to approve the
proposed project, findings for approval are provided in Exhibit "A". Findings for denial have
been provided in Exhibit `B".
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TAMES D. •NEWICKER, Director
i
TO: Planning Commission - 6.
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
USE PERMIT NO.3558
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed application is a secondary use iri nature which may be
considered as a support service allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element
and the proposed project, under the circumstances of the particular use, would
not be detrimental to the general welfare of the City.
2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property
within the proposed development.
3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060
of the Municipal Code.
CONDITIONS:
1. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
2. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to
record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
3. That the existing storm drain and water easements be shown on the site plan.
4. That sight distance be provided at the drive entrances in accordance with the
City's sight distance standard 110-L unless otherwise approved by the Public
Works Department.
5. That all vehicular access rights to Jamboree Road be released and relinquished to
the City of Newport Beach prior to occupancy.
6. That the on -site drainage be collected and conveyed to the public storm drain or
street as approved by the Public Works Department.
7. Disruption caused by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by
proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. There shall be no
TO: Planning Commission - 7.
construction storage or delivery of materials within the Jamboree Road right-of-
way.
8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest
appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code
unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is
unreasonable or impractical.
9. Prior to the issuance of a business license or building permit, a detailed landscaping
and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or landscape
contractor shall be submitted to be reviewed by the Planning and Building
Departments. The plan shall include appropriate,plant materials of sufficient size to
partially obscure the retaining wall and other fencing from view. Prior to issuance
of a certificate of occupancy, landscaping -and irrigation shall be -installed according
to the approved plan.
TO: . Planning Commission - 8.
EXHIBIT "B"
FINDINGS OF DENIAL FOR
USE PERMIT NO.3558
1. That the granting of a permit for such an operation is not necessary to protect a
substantial property right, and it will be contrary to the purpose of Section 20.80
of the Municipal Code, and will be detrimental to the property, neighborhood
and to the general welfare of the City.
2. The approval of Use Permit No. 3558 will, under the proposed circumstances, be
in conflict to the City's Economic Development Policy.
Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1995
Agenda Item No. 1
(Supplement Item)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 3558
The revenue table on page 3 of the Planning Commission Staff Report may inadvertently be
misleading in that the table does not reflect the fact that the City's portion of the property tax
revenue is in the amount of $5,753.00. The following revised table is provided for the
information of the Planning Commission.
Site's Revenue taxes
County of Orange
Newport Beach
County of Orange
Newport Beach
WithoutProiect
Without Proiect
WithProiect
WithProiect
Property Tax
$33,776.34
$5,753
$33,776.34
$5,753
Business License
0
0
0
350
Sales Tax
0
0
0
0
Total Revenue
33,776.34
5,753
33,776.34
6,103
PLANNING DEPAB
JAMES D. BEWICE
BY IN -
Aziz M.Aslami
Associate Planner
f.Aaziz\=pmdup3558su
T:-'.-%;:T LED lilti:_9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
91
<iZC
RM7 PARCEL I
OGA AMU
�60tAt
4
Ht- I
%61D Lu
me
aa -
Z<sr
AqR7 u it
I ThM, mm Sim OK
of. - 41N rx. - An
z
MID,
M71
C)
z
3=r
0 1,-"- w
DOVE L StgEE
cc
z
q 37f3L �2
snap an
9-20-1995 11:40AM FROM RHL PETALUMA 7SES82G
P. 1
Post -it* Fax Note 7671
natal 2E i
1490610
To �,,f fi�i5 •7i�p lJE'
From Puf n,,giih-re N
CoJDept. �Lr �l/N6 do`�T
" 4 e4,
Phone#
Phono#
Fax#7! — &a ..J?iJS�
Fax#
September 20, 1995
Ms. Christy D. Teague
Associate Planner
Planning Department
3300 Newport Blvd.
City of Newport Beach, California
92695-1768
RE: AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC.
Quick Turn Around Fheility
4201 Birch Street, Newport'Beach
Permit Number 1255-95
Dear Ms. Teague:
This letter is in response to your Correction sheets dated 8-28-95.
Avis, the owner of the project has the intention to comply with the Conditior!
of Approval for Use Permits Nos. 3557, 3558, and Traffic Study No. 105.
The applicant, Avis, shall work with the Revenue Division of the City and
provide best efforts to establish Newport Beach as a point of sale for the
purposes of accruing sales tax associated with car rentals. This is in response to
Condition 10 added by the City Council. -,
Per condition No. 9 Nl
by Landscape Architect
of the retaining wall.,
Respectfully,
AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC.
Angelo Volanokis
Senior Project Manager
3557, the Landscape Plan was prepared
and does include partially obscured v:.sw
cc: Bill Tobiasson, Robert H. Lee Associates
e 1�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915
AVIS QUICK TURNAROUND FACILITY
4201 BIRCH STREET
FAIR SHARE FEE CALCULATIONS
FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT
Per Traffic Study daily trip generation:
615 Trips X $124.05 = $76,290.75 Total Fee
Less credit for buildings to be demolished:
Building A Office 9,600 sq ft
Building B Office 5,025 sq ft
Building C Office 9307.5 sq ft
Total Office Credits 23,932.5 X $ 1.613 = $ 38,603.12 Total Credit
$76,290.75 Fee
Less 38,603.12 Credit
$379687.63 FAIR SHARE FEE DUE AT PERMIT ISSUANCE
Make check payable to City of Newport Beach for $ 37,687.63 for Fair Share fees due at
permit issuance. Contact Permit Counter at (714) 644-3288 for complete information on
total fees due in conjunction with building permits.
if you have any questions, please call me at (714) 644-3207.
Christy D. Teague
Associate Planner
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach
INBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
AVIS -QTA FACILITY TRAFFIC STUDY
ort Newport Beach; California
EXHIBIT C
Robert Kahn, John Kain
11 & Associates, Inc.
/31
OUTBOUND PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION
AVIS QTA FACILITY TRAFFIC STUDY
°rt Newport Beach, California
EXHI13IT D
Robert Kahn, John Kain'
be Associates, Inc. ,
tiI
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section of the report discusses- the- impact of project traffic determined in the
previous report section. Project impacts are assessed one year after the project is
estimated for completion so that the project traffic has the opportunity to stabilize at
its projected value. Because the overall level of traffic which will occur at that time
is made up of different components, each traffic component is estimated separately
and then combined to forecast the total level of traffic at each study intersection.
Traffic Phasing Ordinance Committed Projects
One of the components of future traffic is committed projects traffic. Committed
projects are prdjects which have been approved by the City of Newport Beach under
the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Because these projects are potentially under
construction or are in their one-year maturity period, they are either not currently or
are only partially generating traffic. As such, their traffic impacts are not reflected in
the peak hour intersection traffic counts provided by the City.
To account for this traffic component, the City maintains a database which tracks the
committed projects traffic at each City intersection. The City then provides this
committed projects traffic for the analysis year of the proposed project to the traffic
consultant preparing the report. The projects comprising the committed projects list,
along wjth their degree of occupancy are listed in Table'3. The committed projects
traffic volume'is tabulated separately on each analysis worksheet.
13
TABLE 3
COMMITTED PROJECTS LIST
PROJECT
NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PERCENT OF
OCCUPANCY
009
Civic Plaza
96% Occupancy
010
Corporate Plaza
30% Occupancy
018
Newport Place
96% Occupancy
031
Valdez
40% Occupancy
033
Koll Center Npt No, 1 TPP
00% Occupancy
034
See Projects 340 to 343
00% Occupancy
OS3
Sae Projects 530 to 533
00% Occupancy
060
1400 Dove Street
80% Occupancy
063
Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A
00% Occupancy
065
Roun's Development
65% Occupancy
100
Fashion Island X2
00% Occupancy
111
28th St. Marina Project
50% Occupancy
120
Pacific Bell Site
00% Occupancy
121
Newp rt Village
00% Occupancy
122
Castaways Marina
00% Occupancy
123
Koll Center Carl's Jr.
96% Occupancy
124
Civic Plaza
00% Occupancy
125
Corporate Plaza & West
00% Occupancy
129
Hoeg Hospital Extension
00% Occupancy
130
Corporate -Plaza West 8
00% Occupancy
134
Interpretive Center
00% Occupancy
135
Pacific Mutual 1601 Avoca
00% Occupancy
136
Newport Diagnostic #85
00% Occupancy
139
Pao Tel Mini Storage
00% Occupancy
140
Four Seasons Addition
00% Occupancy
141
Family Fitness Center
00% Occupancy
341
Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero
00% Occupancy
342
Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero
00% Occupancy
343
Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero
00% Occupancy
555
CIOSA - Irvine Project
00% Occupancy
910
Newport Dunne
00% Occupancy
920
Bayvisw
00% Occupancy
930
City of Irvine Dev.
00% Occupancy
I
L9
Regional Traffic Growth
Another component of future traffic which must be determined for the traffic analysis
is the amount of traffic which occurs due to regional growth. The regional traffic
component 'represents traffic which essentially passes through the city on roadways
within the City of Newport Beach.
This traffic component maintains a growth trend which is not related to project
approvals by the City of Newport Beach. The amount of annual growth is identified
by the City for segments of roadways which carry regional traffic and is expressed as
a percentage of the total traffic which was counted. The regional growth amounts
are shown in Table 4.
Study Intersections
Because the Traffic Phasing Ordinance focuses on the impacts to intersections during
peak periods, the study intersections define the specific analysis locations within the
city circulation system. The four intersections which are analyzed for this report are
shown on Exhibit E. These intersections have been designated by the City Traffic
Engineer and are:
1. Birch Street and Dove Street
2. Birch Street and Quail Street
3. Campus Drive and Airport Way
4. Campus Drive and Dove Street
15
30
{f
TABLE 4
REGIONAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL GROWTH RATES'
PERCENT
ROADWAY SEGMENT
ANNUAL
GROWTH
COAST HIGHWAY
East city limit to MacArthur Boulevard
2
MacArthur Boulevard to Jamboree Road
2
Jamboree Road to Newport Boulevard
2
Newport Boulevard to west city limit
4
IRVINE AVENUE
All
2
,JAMBOREE ROD
Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road
3
San Joaquin Hills Road to Bison
2
Bison to Bristol
1
Bristol to Campus
1
MACARTHUR BOULEVARD
Coast Highway to San Joaquin Hills Road
6
San Joaquin Hills Road to north city limit
3
NEWPORT BOULEVARD
Coast Highway to north city limit
1
Street segments not listed are assumed to have 0% regional growth.
16
31
STUDY INTERSECTIONS
AVIS QTA FACILITY TRAFFIC STUDY
°t Newport Beach, California
EXHIBIT E'
Robert Kahn, John Kain
do Associates, Inc.
N/
Determination of Impacted Intersections
The first assessment of the project's traffic is made to determine if the project
significantly impacts an intersection. This is accomplished by analyzing intersection
leg approach volumes at study intersections during the AM and PM two and one-half
hour peak traffic periods. This assessment is referred to as the "One Percent Test".
During these peak periods, the total traffic volume, estimated to occur in the traffic
analysis year, on each leg of each study intersection is determined. The project's
traffic contribution to the intersection leg is also identified and is compared to the
total non -project traffic volume. If the project's contribution on each leg is less than
one percent of the non -project total, the analysis for that intersection for that time
period is conclgded and no further analysis is required. However, if the one percent
threshold is equaled or exceeded, the intersection is said to be impacted by the
project, and a peak hour analysis for that time period must be performed to determine
the level of capacity utilization at the intersection. k
The results of the One Percent Test are shown in Table 5. Analysis worksheets for
each intersection are included in Appendix "A". The results of the analysis indicate
that project volumes will exceed the one percent threshold at all intersections for both
AM and PM peak periods except for the intersection of Birch Street/Dove Street in the
PM peak hour. All intersections will require further analysis during peak hours except
for the one intersection noted in the PM peak hour.
m
33
TABLE 5
ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
FF
INTERSECTION
PROJECT VOLUME GREATER
THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE PERCENT
OF 2.5 HOUR PROJECTED VOLUME
AM
PM
Birch St./Dove St.
Yes
No
Birch St./Quail St.
Yes
Yes
Campus Dr./Airport WY.
Yes
Yes
Campus Dr./Dove St.
Yes
Yes
19
3'�
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
This section of the report presents the peak hour Intersection analysis for the
intersections which exceeded the one percent threshold. The Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) methodology is utilized for this analysis as required by the Traffic
Phasing Ordinance.
The ICU methodology expresses intersection performance in terms of the degree of
capacity utilization for critical lane groups of an intersection. Capacity utilization is
expressed as a volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio in decimal percent for each approach
lane group. Critical lane groups, whose movements conflict with each other (i.e.,
must move independently under the control of a unique signal phase) and have the
highest V/C ratios, are then identified. The sum of V/C ratios for the critical lane
groups constitutes the ICU value for the intersection. ICU calculations assume a lane
capacity value of 1600 vehicles per hour of green time for both through and turndanes
and do not include a factor for yellow clearance time. ICU calculations are presented
rounded to two decimal places.
To operate an acceptable level of service, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance generally
requires the ICU value for an intersection to be less than 0.90 with the contribution
of project traffic. In situations where the ICU will exceed 0.90, the project must
propose an improvement which will restore an acceptable level of service.
The results of the ICU calculations for the study intersections are presented in Table
6. The ICU worksheets are included in Appendix "B". As shown in Table 6, the ICU
for all intersections in the analysis year with project traffic will not exceed 0.90.
Consequently, no further ICU analysis is required for this project.
Fie:
36
TABLE 6
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
ICUz
NORTH-
SOUTH-
EAST-
WEST-
WITHOUT
WITH
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
PROJECT
PROJECT
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
L
T
R
AM
PM
AM
PM
INTERSECTION
Airport Wy. (NS) at:
1
2
0
0
3
0
0.44
0.58
0.45
0.61
• Campus Dr. (EW)
0
0
0
0
0
2
Campus Dr. INS) at:
1
1
0
0
1
0
0.55
0.67
0.56
0.67
• Dove St. (EW)
1
3
0
1
3
0
Birch St. MS) at:
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0.49
0.58
0.49
0.58
• Dove St.
1
1
2
2
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1 0.54
1 0.63
1 0.54
L1.63
• Quail St.
When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be,striped or,unstri_ ped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient
width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L - Left; T - Through; R = Right
2 Intersection Capacity Utilization in Year 1995 with regional growth and committed projects traffic.
21
�L'
SITE ACCESS AND ON -SITE ISSUES
This section of the report presents a discussion of issues related to vehicle movement
at the site including site access and on -site circulation.
Site Access
As shown on the site plan (Exhibit B), the project parcel spans almost the entire end
of the block on Dove Street between Birch Street and Campus Drive. Access to the
site will be from a single, mid -block, one-way only entrance from Dove Street and a
single one-way only exit to Campus Drive.
There will be np significant problems related to site access. Vehicles will enter the
site from a low -volume street with a painted median through a driveway Incorporating
a non -motorized traffic controller which is set 20 feet back from the inner edge of the
sidewalk.
Vehicles entering the site from eastbound Dove Street will turn from the median and
will not interfere with left -turning traffic at the intersection of Birch Street/Dove
Street. Vehicles entering the site from westbound Dove Street will turn from the
single westbound lane well past the Intersection. The opening of the entrance with
the non -motorized traffic controller is approximately 12 feet wide and is channeled by
the perimeter concrete block wall. The entrance would be improved if the block wall
on the right side of the entrance is angled at a 45 degree slant to reduce conflicts
with right -turning traffic.
Vehicles will exit the site through a gate with motorized arm. The driveway length
past the gate is approximately 15 feet and would be improved if the gate was moved
22
{5
31
back to provide a driveway length of at least ZO feet behind the sidewalk. This would
allow the exiting vehicles to clear thegate and stop behind the sidewalk before
entering the flow of traffic on Campus Drive. The perimeter block wall is setback far
enough from the street that sight distance is not impaired.
An emergency -only access is provided through a chain link gate on Birch Street. This
access should not be used for normal site ingress/egress because of turning conflicts
with the southbound left turn pocket at the intersection of Birch Street/Dove Street.
On -Site Circulation
Circulation within the site should be adequate for the use proposed. Vehicles will
.essentially flowlin a one-way movement through the site as they are processed. They
are parked in the staging area leading to the service islands prior to servicing and in
the storage area past the car wash after servicing.
Vehicles will be moved only by Avis employees which will permit bumper -to -bumper
parking and fairly narrow parking lanes. Access lanes which must be kept open for
emergency response purposes should be clearly marked with painted designations and
should be at least 15 feet wide.
It should be noted that a portion of the site along the north wall (but outside the
service area) will be reserved as an easement for an exit lane from the parking area
of the existing building to the north. The existing parking stalls in this area will be
removed and will no longer be available for the employees and patrons of the retail
establishments in the building. The adequacy of parking at the adjacent building
should be reviewed and is beyond the scope of this study.
23,
Summary
The proposed Avis Quick Turnaround Facility in Newport Beach is a service facility to
provide light maintenance and cleaning of rental vehicles in the rental fleet at John
Wayne Airport. The project is located at the intersection of Birch Street and Dove
Street adjacent to the airport.
The site will contain a maximum of 265 vehicles at any one time and will generate 61
A.M. peak hour trips, 64 P.M. peak hour trips and 615 daily trips. During the two and
one-half hour peak A.M. and P.M. periods all study area intersections are impacted by
project traffic with a project impact of greater than one percent except for the
intersection of Birch Street/Dove Street in the P.M. peak hour. All study intersections
will operate with an acceptable level of service (Intersection Capacity Utilization of
below 0.90) for both A.M. and P.M. peak hours.
Site access and on -site circulation are generally adequate as proposed. Minor
Improvements are recommended to the entrance and exit gates to improve turn
movements and queuing. Emergency response travel lanes within the site should be
clearly striped so that vehicles are not parked in those areas.
24
31(
APPENDIX A
ONE PERCENT VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
qo
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BIRCx/DOVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase on AVerage toter pr ng _
Peak 2h Hour
Approved
Approach
Existing
Regional
Projects
Projected
1% of Projected Project
Direction
Peak 24 Hour
Growth
Peak 2k Hour
Peak 2Q Hour
Peak 2h Hour Peak 21s Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
volume Volume
Northbound
0
28
1381
' I '
4i
t
southbound
916
Eastbound
527
0
0
0
Westbound
272
0
16
288
3 7
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume
® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 21� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacit§ Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE: PROJECT: // 1
MOM T
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection BIRCH/DOVE
(Existing Traffic Volumes basedon verage inter pring _
Peak 2k Hour
Regional
Approved
Projects
Projected
1% of Projected Project
Existing
Peak 2k Hour
gional
Growth
Peak 2� Hour
Peak 2� Hour
Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour
Direction
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume Volume
Northbound
1073
0
12
1085
11 ! 0
Southbound
2099
0
12
2111
21 0
Eastbound
324
0
4
328
3 i 0
ilestbound
1120
0
52
1172
12 7
Project:Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
® Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak 22 Hour Traffic. -Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: MOM T
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection QUAIL/BIRCH
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 92)AM
Peak 24 Hour
Approved
Approach
Existing
Regional
Projects
Projected
1% of Projected
Project
Direction
Peak 2h Hour
Growth
Peak 2h Hour
Peak 2k Hour
Peak 2k Hour
Peak 2k Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Northbound
2201
0
34
2235
22
I
0
Southbound
719
0
66
785
8
0
Eastbound
325
0
0
325
3
i 7
Westbound
246
0
10
256
3 0
--
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 11 of Projected
® Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: qJ
rnom 7
1%-Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection, QUAIL/BIRCH
(Existing Traffic Volumes ase, on Average Winter/Spring 19 9 PM
Peak 211 Hour
Approved
Approach
Existing '
Regional
Projects
Projected
1% of Projected Project
Direction
Peak 26 Hour
Growth
Peak 21g Hour
Peak 2k Hour
Peak 2g Hour Peak 2y Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume i Volume
Northbound
1054
0
12
1066
I
1 1 0
southbound
0
62
i I
Eastbound
266
0
0
Westbound
847
0
10
857
9 0
i
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 23-2. Hour Traffic Volume
® Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Peak•21i Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilisation
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1
PROJECT: FnRn+ r "�
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersect
(Existing Traffic
WAY
FM
Approach
Existing
Peak 2k Hour
Regional
Approved
Projects
Projected
1% of Projected
Project
Direction
Peak 24 Hour
Growth
Peak 2y Hour
Peak 24 Hour
Peak 24 Hour
Peak 2k Hour
volume
volume
volume
Volume
volume
Volume
Northbound
_0_0
0
Southbound
440
0
16
456
5 i 68
Eastbound
2750
0
46
2796
28 i 54
Westbound
1210
0
6
1216
,
12 L 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
®
Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
NOTE: AIRPORT WAY IS NORTH/SOUTH ORIENTATION.
DATE: /
PROJECT: /�
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection CAMPUS DRIVE/AIRPORT WAY
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 95 PM
Existing
Peak 211 Hour
Regional
Approved
Projects
Projected
10. of Projected Project
Approach
Direction
Peak 2k Hour
Growth
Peak 2h Hour
Peak 2k Hour
Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour
Volume Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Northbound
—0—
0
0
0
1
0 0
Southbound
640
0
10
650
6 68
Eastbound
1806
0
0
1806
18 i 64 I
i
Westbound
4168
0
76
4244
42 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
❑Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than % of Projected
x Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capac ty Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
NOTE: AIRPORT WAY IS NORTH/SOUTH ORIENTATION.
PROJECT: q &
t
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection CAMPUS DRIVE/DOVE STREET
(Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average n er. pr ng 1995 AM
Peak 2h Hour
Approved
Approach
EXisting
Regional
Project$
Projected
10m of Projected Project
Direction
Peak 2k Hour
Growth
Peak 2y Hour
Peak 2k Hour
Peak 2k Hour Peak 24 Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
volume Volume
Northbound
3142
0
40
3182
f
32 0
Southbound
1866
0
1 10
1 1876
19 68
Eastbound
14
0
0
14
0 i 0
Westbound
273
0
6
279
i
3 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected
Q Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: - tit
FnDM t
i
1% Traffic Volume Analysis
Intersection CAMPUS DRIVE/DOVE STREET
(Existing 'Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/spring 19 95 ) PM
Approach
Existing
Peak 231 Hour
Regional
Approved
Projects
Projected
1% of Projected
Project
Direction
Peak 24 Hour
Growth
Peak 22 Hour
Peak 2k Hour
Peak 22 Hour
Peak 22 Hour
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume
i volume
Northbound
2026
0
0
2026
I
20 0 I
Southbound
413-2
0
24
4136
I
41 68
Eastbound
25
i
' Westbound
673
0
40
713
7 0
Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected
❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume
Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than % of Projected -
Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capac ty Utilization
(I.C.U.) Analysis is required.
DATE:
PROJECT: q0
FnaM r
APPENDIX B
ICU WORKSHEETS
qj
W225AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION -ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: BIRCH i DOVE 4225
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC
WINTER/SPRING--------------1992
AM
.
.............•...•........._...............__..................._......
IIEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI
PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C
I GROWTH I PROJECT I
V/C Ratio IVolume
I V/C
I
i ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio
I Volume I Volume 1w/V `rectl
I Ratio
1
I I t I
I I
I
I
I
I
--I
NL 1 1600 1 1 17 1 '0.01
1 01
41
0.01 1
-------
010.011
----I
4-- . ------
I•------0---------4----0.
21
*
of 0
--- ---. ) 0.20
I- --) 3200 •-------------
•-.-.--••-••----------••----- •---•----•------I
1 1 I 228
--------
-------------�
------
01
..."-I
1
------------
I SL 1 1600 1 1 Ila 1 0.07
* 01
01
0.07* 1
01 0.071*
------------------------
ST I 1 300
----------------------------------------------1
I 01
251
0.11._�
010.111
---
-------
--------
01
I
1a
1 01
- .• 0�.•_..______
_____
_.--••
.._EL __� ..__._.i_ 1 45 )
1 01
01
1
01
I
I
----•--•---------
ET 00 1 1 235 ) 0.18
---•--••---------•-
* 01
01
0.18* 1
01 0.186
.......
ER i---_.___I_.___.__
-
-------------------------------------
01
0
°
I _..-• ..-...'-• --'--
-L I 6 1 I 46 I0.03
* 01
-__---------------_....--------
81
0.03*I
0I0.03Ib
----
1 Wr 1 1600 1 1 38 1 0.02
1 01
d._
0.02 I
31 0.031
1
I---------------------------------------------•-----------------
WR 1 1600 I I 44 1 0.03
- ----
1 DI
__..----------•'
01..0.03__�_
0 1 0.03
..----•--•--------------•-i
EXISTING
I
--- - '------------------------------•--_---.•-----------
1 EXIST + 1. . . EG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
I.C.U. 1
0 . 491
I
I
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.--•---•_-•_______________
------------------•----------•---•-----..-----•---•----_
---------•--•-------------•--------
__I 0.491
._-•.
I3Q Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems Improvement will be
Less than or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
............................................................
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT FORM II
BI422SAK
814225PN �` 1
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: BIRCH R DOVE 4225
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM
.............................................................................................
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXIST:NGIREGIOHALICONNITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECT I PROJECT I
11(oveaentl Lanes I Lanes I PK OR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio IVolune I V/C I
I (CapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/0 Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
INL -1 1600+1 - - 1 -•- 17 i...o.G1.*......01 ... 0� 0.01* I . OL0.011
.............................. -355------- •................ ..-6E-0.13..................101 0.131
1--------) 3200 ..................) 0.13...............................................I
I NR 1 1 64 _ 1 01 01 1 01 1
j--- - -- ---- �_.----------•--- i-. ------•--_-01--•-•-- -- -0.03 .i...-...... 03
- --- -•----------•--••----------- ---- .......0.....................................f.30*I .30)
1........ ) 3200 •.................) 0.30..............................................I
I SR 1 1 J8 I 01 01 1 01 1
....••--•••-•••--•-•....---•••---••.....................................••------
1 1 27 ) 1 01 01 1 01
.................................................................
It
1 I 81 ) 0.08 * 01 01 0.09* I 01 0.09
/ .................. .............. -.........
1 I 27 ) I 01 21 1 01 .....
1600 1
Wr I 1600 i
..................
WR I 1600 i
EXISTING+-• -
................................... .............. ...... .....
..
1 275 1 0.17 a 01 101 0.18 * 1 010.18
...........................................................• _....
.�. 160 l 0.10 I 01 151..11 1.....I�.4.,1l
...-•-•••-. - --- ••• .... -•-
1 142 1 0.09 1 01 11 0.0. 1 010.09
............................................ ........................
1 0.56 1
I------------------------ .........._.. ----- •... ••-•........ ........
1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0. 5.8 1 I
I------------ *1 --------------- •-•------- •-------------- ...._........................ ...........................
1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ••..-.-•.._.._.1 0 .5 81
..................................................................... ....
I)Q Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
Less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic T.C.U. with project inprovements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
.........................................................................................
Description of system Improvement:
PROJECT FORM it
814225PM
61
U
B14200AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION:
QUAIL 6 BIRCH 4-200
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC
WINTER/SPRING
1992 AM
-•------------------•..---...--...--••-•-----_...-.--••----•---------•-----••-----..--...--..
I (EXISTING( PROPOSED (EXISTING 1EXISTINGIREGIONAL(COMMITTED(
PROJECTED I PROJECT(PROJECT(
IMovementl Lanes
I Lanes I PK MR I V/C
I*GROWTH I'PROJECT I
V/C Ratio (Volume
I V/C I
I ICapecitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio
I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl
I Ratio I
I I
I I I
I I
I
Volume I
I
I
I----------------------------•-----------------------
I NL 1 16001
1 14 l 0.01
--------------••-------------•-•----•I
1 Of
01
0.01__,-_-_-OIO.9A
-- -
I----••-------------------
I NT
-•---------------I----------------•-
1 1 696
I f
0
i
12_
*
0.33_ I
-
Of 0.33fk
---------- - - -----
350
I 01
51........._.1
-----------•---I
01
1
I SL 1 1600
----------------------------------•----------
1 1 84 1 0.05
* 01
-. -
,0�
_ -----
0.05*�_•__-0�
.......
0_.O5
I---•-----------•---------------------------------
I ST
1 1 277
1 01
33�
0.10 I
I --------
--) 3200
------------------) 0.09
....................................
.
• I
I SR
75
I
01
1
1
1
I EL )
1 1 21)
............................
1 01
01
.............................
----....._.....I
1
01
1
I
I--------
I ET ) 1600
..................
1 1 133 ) 0.11
..................
* 01
01
0 . 11 * 1
31 0.11k
I--------
I ER )
..................
I I .15 )
..............................................I
1 01
Of
1_ ---•---•------I
01
1
I•-------••--------------------•-----•------•-----••-------•-•--.-----
I WL 1 1600
1 1 72 1 0.05
* 01
51
0.(�5*I
- ---------------I
01 0.05f
1-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I - WT 1 1600
1 1 42 1 0.03
1 01
01
0.0 3 1
01 0.0
31
I
I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wR 1 16001
. 1 401 0.031
01
-.................................
-•01
0.03 1
010.031
.....I
---------------------------------------------------
1 0.54
•-•••--I- ----
f
-_.--...••--------------••---•••---•••--•--•--1
1EXISTING
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED w/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I:C.U.
1
0. 5 4 1
1
I
I
1.....-•-------•----------••--------------•---•---•----•------•--_----------------------•---
(EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.•
----------------------------
•__'----------
-----
-1 0
--------
.541
Ixl Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90
I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/sysiems improvement wilt be
less than or -equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project laprovements wilt
be less than I.C.U. without project
---------------------------------------•..•--.....-._..•-._.......--..-•..._-..--••------
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT FORM II
61420OAK
014200PA
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: QUAIL i BIRCH 4200
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM
............................................................................................
EXISTINGIPROPOSED EXISTING EXISTING REGIONAL COMMI TIED PROJECTED PROJECTI PROJECT
MovementICspeciLaneatylCapecityl Volxume Ratio Volumee V/C GROWTH I Volume o Project�Voluna Ratio
.NL ( 160o ........L• - � .`......0 0 0.01*
i.......I- .L._.
23 10.010 10.0
+ ....... ......._._..........
-.._.........6....�..,...IQ....1
3200 ..................0.12 ........ *............?...._...I...
Nit ils Q.L.Q.L»'.Q.L
St. 1600 3310.02.-._...1....Q_IO._ 1..................................................
IST
.......) 3200 .................] 0.37 i._... I._.
SR I I 28 I 01 51 1 0 1
- -----------------------------------------:.............-•-.._...................--••-
EL ] I 1 23 ] i 01 0 L_.........L.._Q.L_.....
_.•_.... ......... ......... ......._.1....•..
ET ) 1600 I 1 49 ) 0.07 • 01 0 1 0.07* 1 3 1 0. 0
ER ) 1 1 32 ) I 0 .. 1 .....Q I ........... ... Q.!.......I
............ ---
---••-----•...._.._..
WL 1 1600 I I 257 ( 0.16 • 0_.( 14
1--•---..--•---- -- .----- 0.04 •...................
1 70
,........I. 1.................. 1 0...._20I..:off L...Q.!.Q. o
1600 1. 0-04.1...... 1.
WR 1 1600 1 1 73 1 0.05 I 01 010.0 I 0 1__0_, o
EXISTING 1 '0.61 I --••- -•
..............-------
..........................................................
EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I G. 63 1 1
......... .-.... ..............................>_..,.............._.....__........
EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10 .63
_--..--•........•....................•........................................_.........._...
1 Projected + project traffic will be Less than or equal to 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/system:s Improvement Will be
Less than or equal to 0.90
I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
............•....._......•......•........................•...............................
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT FORM it
81420OPH
0
CA9301AN
INTERSECTION CAPACITY, UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: CAMPUS AND AIRPORT WAY
9301
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED.ON AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING
1995-AM
.............................................................................................
[EXISTING IEXI STING
IREGIONAL ICOMMITTED I
PROJECTED
I PROJECT, I PROJECT[
I 1EXISTING[PROPOSED
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR -1 V/C
I GROWTH I PROJECT I
V/C Ratio
IVolume 1, V/C [,
I [Capacitylcapacityl Volume. I Ratio
I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio [
I I I I I
I I I
---------------------
Volume
.._....-----------------
I I I
I
1---------------------------------------------
I NL I I I I
_______________________________________________
I I I
'------
I I I
' -------------I
I HT I I i I
-------------------------------------'
-.-1
I I I
------------------
I I I
.._._.. ------I
1. •NR l I I
_____________________________________________________________'---------I
I I I
I 4 I
SL I I I. I
____ _____________•-------------------------
I I I-_______...I_._..._1_
I
ST I I I I
I I I
-----------
- ---
I I
-- - -
I--------------------------------------------
I SR 1 3200 1 1 220 1 0.07
----------------
• 01 8 1
0.07*
1 35 10.08A
I
--------------------------------------"---'----.....--------'-----'---.
I EL 1 16001 1 2051 0.131
01 01
0.13
1 27 10.151
........___I
1 -----------i---------------------------------------•-----------•---'-----.
ET 7170
1 01 23 1
0.37*
1 0 10.371
___
-------•-----••---------------'•--
IER I 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 1
_
___________________________________________________________________________
W1. I I I I
I I I
_______�.
__________•I
I I I
------ I
_________________________________________________
WT 1 1 560
1 01 0 1
0.13
1 0 10.13 I
i
-------------------------
01
i WR I I .45
1 01 31
1 I
IE%[STING ..........................i- 0.44
1
----------------------•------
I
I
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMHITTED.W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1
0.44
1 1 I
_--- __--- _---- _ 1
________________ -----------
[EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.
........................................................................................
______------
10.45 1
..
134•Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic.I'.C.U., will be greater than 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems•iaprovement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic•[.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
.........................................................................................
Description of system improvement;
PROJECT
CA9301AM
FORM II
6q
CA93DIPM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: CAMPUS AND AIRPORT WAY 9301
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1995 PM
.............................................................................................
I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXtSTIMGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI
IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK OR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio (Volume I V/C I
I lCapacitylCapecityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I I I I I I I Volume I I I
I........................................................................................ .I
I NL I I I I I I I I I I
I......................................................................................... I
I NT I I I I I I I I I I
I.........................................................................................I
I OR I I I I I I I I I I
I.................................................................................... — I
I St. I I I I I I I I I I
I.........................................................................................I
I ST I I I I I I I I I I
I.........................................................................................1
I SR 1 3200 1 1 320 1 0.10 R 01 51 0.10* 1 351 0.11tk
I...........t....................................................I............. ------ •.... I
I EL 1 r 1600 1 1 69 1 0.04'1 01 01 0.04* 1 321 0.06r
I......................................................................................... I
I ET 1 1 834 1 01 01 0.26 1 010.261
1........ ) 3200 ..................) 0.26---............................................I
I ER I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
I........................................................................................... I
I WL I I I I I I I I I I I
I.........................................................................................I
I WT I I im 1 01 101 0.44* 1 01 0.441k
I........3 4800 ------------------3 0.43+....................................-----.....I
I WR 1 1 312 1 01 281 I 01 1
I........................................................................................... I
1EXISTING 1 0.51 1
I.........................................................................................I
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.58 1 1 I
I........................................................................................ I
[EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10,611
.............................................................................................
1� Projected + project traffic wilt be toss then or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. gilt be greater then 0.90
I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wilt be
Less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
He less than I.C.U. without project
.........................................
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT FORM 11
CA9301PM
CA4220AM
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION:
CAMPUS AND DOVE
4220
EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
WINTER/SPRING-
1995AM
.............................................................................................
I [EXISTING[PROPOSED [EXISTING[EXISTING IREGIONAL[COMMITTED I
PROJECTED
1PROJECT [PROJECT I
[Movement) Lanes
I Lanes I PK MR I
V/C I GROWTH I
PROJECT I
V/C Ratio
lVolume I V/C I
I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I
Ratio [ Volume I
Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I
I I
I I I
I I
I
Volume
I I I
I----•-----•------------------•---------•--•-----------------•---------------------------.--
i NL 1 i 1600
1 1 24 1
0.02 1 01
01
_--•-------------------------------
0.02
I
1 010.021
I
NT -
1 1 1304
01
201
0. 34
1 0 10. 34t
-------- -------------------
-------
28s
I. 01
01
1 01 1
-I------•-----•-------------
1 SL 1 1600
_.......
1 1 200 1
-----•---•---•--••-------------------•.___---
0.13 * 01
-----------••--.------•-----•-----_------•-•
01
0.13*
1 3110.14
I
I ST
I - 1 618
1 01
51
0.13
1 310.131
----------------
------
1SR
1 1 7
1 01
01
I 0 1 1
...........•••--•--•-••-•-'•
EL 1 1600
.............•--•-••-"-'•-.....•---.....--•-•-•----•••••_...•I
1 1 1 1
0. 011* 01
01
•------------------------------
0 .01 *
1 010.01 �
I
1 ET
I 1 0
.--•.------•.
1 01
01
0.01
1 010.011.
I - --) 1600
U.Oli"____•- • --------------------------- I
IER
i•---__..i__._._7)
O1
01
1 01 I
I
__.
u`__.'.____._.1
--_-----_••-.--_.-.-•___---_•----------------------------------•---•-••
1 45 )
1 01
01
.....
l
1 01 1
I
i----------------------------------------------------------------
I WT ) 1600
1 1 1 )
0.07 * 01
01
0.07*
1 010.07f
...........................................................................................
'WR ) '
1 1 70 )
11 01
---'•-••-•--------•••-----•----•--••-•----•-••I
31
1 01 1
---•--------------•-•••-------
I EXISTING
. 5--
..-_....
•..................
..1
1EXIST + REG GROWTH.+ COMMITTED W/PROPOSED. IMPROVEMENTS.
I.C.U.' 1
0.55
1 1 I
I
1....... .... ----- •--•-•------•-------------------•----------•---------•--------------•------
[EXISTING +•COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH +'PROJECT I.C.U.
--------------------------------•-----•_-----------•---•--___---•-_----__--••--___..
10.671 :
I)q Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic I.c.U. will be greater than 0.90
I_I Projected + project traffic i:C.U. w/systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less than I.C.U. without project
Description of system improvement:
PROJECT FORM It
CA4220AM
0
CA422OPH
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
INTERSECTION: CAMPUS AND DOVE 4220
EXISTIRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAiLY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1995 PM
.............................................................................................
IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTiNGIEXIST INGIREGIONAL ICOMMITIED I PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI
JMovementl Lanes I Lanea I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH i PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVOILrw I V/C I
ICapacitylCapacityl Volume l Ratio I Volume l Volume Iw/o Projeotl I Ratio i
I I I I I I I I Volume I 1 I
1...,---•--•--•
I WL 1
................'-•--'•-......................,..._...
1600 l l 40 0.03 + 01 01 0.03* 1
--I
01 0.031*
...............I.........._' ............................... ... 18 i.......... 18I
NT
.......)
4800 .................. ) 0.18 ............................................... I
01 0 01
1
.....
-1
j SL I
1600 1 120 i 0.08 01 01 0.08 1
311 0.091
1........................................................................................... I
l ST
1 1 1970 1 Or 121 0.41* 1
31 0.411e
........)
4600 ..................) 0.41...............................................I
I SR
1 1 2 1 01 01 1
01 1
(....,
...................................................... I ...................... ,..I
EL
�.....__. �.,....;. �.. 0.01 1
*......
01
..............
... ._.... ....... ...... . 1
I
0.01
I I i i I I
0
010.011
........)
1600 ..................) 0.00
ER
i........i.....................................I
3 0 01 1
..................I
01 1
I•---••-•-••-••
I WL )
...........................................................
I I 193 ) I 01 201
1
01
I......•• .............
.....
............. .......
.......I
l WT )
1600 1 1 3 ) 0.21 * 01 01 0.22*1
01 0.221
_.......... I
...•..................................
I WR )
•--......................................
1 1 133 ) I of 01 1
01 1
.......I
I------• ...
..................
(EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.67 1
I I
1............
........•................•.-.-.,-_........................,.......-............1
(EXISTING +
COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.
• 1 0.671
.............................................................................................
I )q Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90
Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be
less than or equal to 0.90
1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will
be less then I.C.U. without project
i........................................................................• ............
Description of system improvement:
PROJECTFORM 11
CA422OPH
61
Intersection: Airport Wy. (NS) / Campus•Dr. (EW),
Project: Avis QTA Facility Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Traffic Condition: Existing. Conditions (1995)
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM Intersection-C-apaeity Analysis
V/C
Move Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio
--=-- ----- -------- -------------
NL 0.0 0 0 0.00
NT 0.0 0 0 0.00
NR 0.0 0 0 0.00
SL 0.0 0 0 0.00
ST 0.0 0 0 0.00
SR 2.0 3200 220 0.07*
EL 1.0 1600 205 0.13
ET 2.0 3200 1170 0.37*
ER 0.0 0 0 0.00
WL 0.0 0 0 0.00*
WT 3.0 4800 560 0.13
/ WR 0.0 1600 45 _0_03--
Sum of Critical Movements = 0.44 A
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V/C
Move Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio
------ ------------- ---- -----
NL 0.0 0 0--0.00--
NT 0.0 0 0 0.00
NR 0.0 0 0 0.00
SL 0.0 0 0 0.00
ST 0.0 0 0 0.00
SR 2.0 3200 320 0.10*
EL 1.0 1600 69 0.04*
ET 2.0 3200 834 0.26
ER 0.0 0 0 0.00
WL 0.0 0 0 0.00
WT 3.0 4800 1772 0.43*
WR 0.0 1600 312 0.20
Sum of Critical Movements = 0.57 A
* denotes critical movement
{
Intersection: Campus Dr. (NS) / Dove St. (EW)
Project: Avis QTA Facility Newport Beach Traffic Phasing ordinance
Traffic Condition: Existing Conditions (1995)
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V/C
Move Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio
------ ------------- -------------
NL 1.0 1600 24 0.02
NT 3.0 4800 1304 0.33*
NR 0.0 1600 285 0.18
SL 1.0 1600 200 0.13*
ST 3.0 4800 618 0.13
SR 0.0 1600 7 0.01
EL 1.0 1600 1 0.01*
ET 1.0 1600 0 0.01
ER 0.0 1600 7 0.01
WL 0.0 1600 45 0.03
WT 1.0 1600 1 0.07*
/ WR 0.0 1600 70-0_04--
Sum of Critical Movements = 0.54r A
PM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V/C
Move Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio
NL 1.0 1600 40 ( 0.03
NT 3.0 4800 769 0.18
NR 0.0 1600 77 0.05
SL 1.0 1600 120 0.08
ST 3.0 4800 1970 0.41*
SR 0.0 1600 2 0.01
EL 1.0 1600 1 0.01*
ET 1.0 1600 1 0.01
ER 0.0 1600 3 0.01
WL 0.0 1600 193 0.12
WT 1.0 1600 3 0.21*
WR 0.0 1600 133 0.08
Sum of Critical Movements 0.66~ B
* denotes critical movement
6q
.
Intersection: Birch St. (NS) / Dove St. (EW)
'Project: Avis QTA Facility Newport Beach Traffic Phasing ordinance
Traffic Condition: Existing Conditions •(1995)
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
------
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
17
0.01
NT
2.0
3200
418
0.20*
NR
0.0
1600
228
0.14
SL
1.0
1600
118
0.07*
ST
2.0
3200
300
0.10
SR
0.0
1600
18
0.01
EL
0.0
1600
45
0.03
ET
1.0
1600
235
0.18*
ER
0.0
1600
9
0.01
WL
1.0
1600
46
0.03*
WT
1.0
1600
38
0.02
WR
1.0
1600
44
0.03
/
Sum of
Critical Movements =
0.48 A
PM Intersection
Capacity Analysis
V/ C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
---
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
---
17 (
0.01*
NT
2.0
3200
355
0.13
NR
0.0
1600
64
0.04
SL
1.0
1600
41
0.03
ST
2.0
3200
922
0.30*
SR
0.0
1600
38
0.02
EL
0.0
1600
27
0.02
ET
1.0
1600
81
0.08*
ER
0.0
1600
27
0.02
WL
1.0
1600
275
0.17*
WT
1.0
1600
160
0.10
WR
1.0
1600
142
0.09
Sum of Critical Movements = 0.56 A
* denotes critical movement
6o
Intersection: Birch St. (NS) / Quail St. (EW)
Project: Avis QTA Facility Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Traffic Condition: Existing Conditions (1995)
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V/C
Move
Lanes
,Capacity
Volume
------
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
14
0.01
NT
2.0
3200
696
0.33*
NR
0.0
1600
350
0.22
SL
1.0
1600
84
0.05*
ST
2.0
3200
277
0.09
SR
0.0
1600
15
0.01
EL
0.0
1600
21
0.01
ET
1.0
1600
133
0.11*
ER
0.0
1600
15
0.01
WL
1.0
1600
72
0.05*
WT
1.0
1600
42
0.03
WR
1.0
1600
40
0.03
/
Sum of
Critical Movements =
0.54 A
PM Intersection
Capacity Analysis
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Volume
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
--- ---
23
0.01*
NT
2.0
3200
268
0.12
NR
0.0
1600
118
0.07
SL
1.0
1600
33
0.02
ST
2.0
3200
1171
0.37*
SR
0.0
1600
28
0.02
EL
0.0
1600
23
0.01
ET
1.0
1600
49
0.07*
ER
0.0
1600
32
0*02
WL
1.0
1600
257
0.16*
WT
1.0
1600
70'
0.04
WR
1.0
1600
73
0.05
--- 7
Sum of
Critical Movements
0.61 B
* denotes critical
movement
61
(,
Intersection: Airport WY.
(NS)'/ Campus Dr. (EW)
Project:
Avis'QTA Facility
Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Traffic
Condition: Existing + Committed'Projects
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
V O L U
M E S
----------------------------------
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background Project
-------
Other
-----
Total
-------
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
0.0
--------
0
----------
0 0
0
0
0.00
NT
0.0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
NR
0.0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
SL
0.0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
ST
0.0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
SR
2.0
3200
220 0
8
228
0.07*
EL
1.0
1600
205 0
0
205
0.13
ET
2.0
3200
1170 0
23
1193
0.37*
ER
0.0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
WL
0.0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00*
WT
3.0 /
4800
560 0
0
560
0.13
WR
0.0
1600
45 0
3
48
0.03
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.44 A
PM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
V-
M--L-�- 5-------
O- L- U-
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
-------
Background Project
-other
Total-
Ratio
-
-
NL
0.0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
NT
0.0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
NR
0.0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
SL
00
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
ST
0..0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
SR
2.0
3200
320 0
5
325
0.10*
EL
1.0
1600
69 0
0
69
0.04*
ET
2.0
3200
834 0
0
834
0.26
ER
0.0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
WL
0.0
0
0 0
0
0
0.00
WT
3.0
4800
1772 0
10
1782
0.44*
WR
0.0
1600
312 0
28
340
0.21
Sum of Critical
Movements
=
0.58Y A
* denotes critical movement
0-
Intersection:
Campus Dr.
(NS) / Dove
St. (EW)
Project:
Avis QTA Facility Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Traffic
Condition: Existing
+ Committed -Projects
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
V
0 L U
M E S
------- -------------------------
V C
Move
Lanes
Capacity.
Background
Project
-------
Other Total
------------
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
----------
24
0
0
24
0.02
NT
3.0
4800
1304
0
20
1324
0.34*
NR
0.0
1600
285
0
0
285
0.18
SL
1.0
1600
200
0
0
200
0.13*
ST
3.0
4800
618
0
5
623
0.13
SR
0.0
1600
7
0
0
7
0.01
EL
1.0
1600
1
0
0
1
0.01*
ET
1.0
1600
0
0
0
0
0.01
ER
0.0
1600
7
0
0
7
0.01
WL
0.0
1600
45
0
0
45
0.03
WT
1.0
1600
1
0
0
1
0.07*
WR
0.0
/ 1600
70
0
3
73
0.05
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.55 A
PM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
V-
L- U-
M- E� S-------
-------
--
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background Project
Other
-----
Total
-------
Ratio
---i-_..
------
NL
-----
1.0
----__-�•
1600
----------
40
-------
0
0
40
0.03*
NT
3.0
4800
769
0
0
769
0.18
NR
0.0
1600
77
0
0
77
0.05
SL
1.0
1600
120
0
0
120
0.08
ST
3.0
4800
1970
0
12
1982
0.41*
SR
0.0
1600
2
0
0
2
0.01
EL
1.0
1600
1
0
0
1
0.01*
ET
1.0
1600
1
0
0
1
0.01
ER
0.0
1600
3
0
0
3
0.01
WL
0.0
1600
193
0
20
213
0.13
WT
1.0
1600
3
0
0
3
0.22*
WR
0.0
1600
133
0
0
133
0.08
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.67 B
* denotes critical movement
0
Intersection: Birch St. (NS)
/'Dove:St.-(EW)•
Project:
Avis QTA Facility Newpbrt'Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Traffic
Condition: Existing
+ Committed•,Projects
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM Intersection•Capacity
Analysis
V
O L U
M E S
---------------------------
-------
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity Background
Project
-------
other
--- --
Total
-------
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
---------------
1600
---
17
0
4
21
0.01
NT
2.0
3200
418
0
4
422
0.21*
NR
0.0
1600
228
0
6
234
0.15
SL
1.0
1600
118
0
0
118
0.07*
ST
2.0
3200•
300
0
25
325
0.11
SR
0.0
1600
18
0
0
18
0.01
EL
0.0
1600
45
0
0
45
0.03
ET
1.0
1600
235
0
0
235
0.18*
ER
0.0
1600
9
0
0
9
0.01
WL
10
1600
46
0
8
54
0.03*
WT
1..0 /
1600
38
0
0
38
0.02
WR
1.0
1600
44
0
0
44
0.03
.Sum of Critical Movements =
0.49 A
PM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
V
0 L U
M i S
-------
-------------------------
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity Background Project
Other
-----
Total
-------
Ratio
-------
NL
-----
1.0
--------------------------
1600
17
0
0
17
0.01*
NT
2.0
3200
355
10
6
361
0.13
NR
0.0
1600
64
0
0
64
0.04
SL
1.0
1600
41
0
0
41
0.03
ST
2.0
3200
922
0
6
928
0.30*
SR
0.0
1600
38
0
0
38
0.02
EL
0.0
1600
27
0
0
0 ..
0,
27
81
0.02
0.09*
ET
ER
1.0
0.0
1600
1600
81
27
0
2
29
0.02
WL
1.0
1600
275
0
10
285
0.18*
WT
1.0
1600
160
0
15
175
0.11
WR
1.0
1600
142
0
1
143
0.09
Sum of Critical Movements
=
0.58 A
* denotes critical movement
0
Intersection: Birch St. (NS) / Quail,.St..(EW)
Project: Avis�QTA Facility Newport Beach.Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Traffic Condition: Existing + Committed:Projects
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM Intersection Capacity -Analysis
V
O L U
M E S
------- -------------------------
V C
Move
Lanes.
Capacity
Background
Project
Other
-------
Total
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
----------
14
-------
0
-----
0
14
0.01
NT
2*0
3200
696
0
12
708
0.33*
NR
0.0
1600
350
0
5
355
0.22
SL
1.0
1600
84
0
0
84
0.05*
ST
2.0
3200
277
0
33
310
0.10
SR
0.0
1600
15
0
0
15
0.01
EL
0.0
1600
21
0
0
21
0.01
ET
1.0
1600
133
0
0
133
0.11*
ER
0.0
1600
15
0
0
15
0.01
WL
1.0
1600
72
0
5
77
0.05*
WT
1.0
1600
42
0
0
42
0.03
WR
1.0
1600
40
0
0.
40
0.03
Sum of Critical Movements =
-0.54 A
PM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
v-
L- U-
M-
-------
--
---------
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background
Project
Other
Total
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
----------
23
-------
0
-----
0
-------
23
0.01*
NT
2.0
3200
268
0
6
274
0.12
NR
0.0
1600
118
0
0
118
0.07
SL
1.0
1600
33
0
0
33
0.02
ST
2.0
3200
1171
0
26
1197
0.38*
SR
0.0
1600
28
0
5
33
0.02
EL
0.0
1600
23
0
0
23
0.01
ET
1.0
1600
49
0
0
49
0.07*
_
ER
0.0
1600
32
0
0
32
0.02
WL
1.0
1600
257
0
14
271
0.17*
WT
1.0
1600
70
0
20
90
0.06
WR
1.0
1600
73
0
0
73
0.05
Sum of Critical Movements =
Y0.63 B
* denotes critical movement
66
Intersection: Airport Wy. (NS) '% Campus Dr. (EW)' _
Project: Avis QTA'Facility Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Traffic Condition: Existing +"Project•+ Committed Projects
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM-Intersection'Capacity Analysis
V
0 L U
M E S
---------
------------------------
V/C
Move-
Lanes
Capacity
Background
Project
-------
Other
----- -------
Total
Ratio
-------
-----
NL
---
0.0
--------
0
----------
0
0
0
0
0.00
NT
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
NR
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
SL
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
ST
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
SR
2.0
3200
220
34
8
262
0.08*
EL
1.0
1600
205
27
0
232
0.15
ET
2.0
3200
1170
0
23
1193
0.37*
ER
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
WL
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00*
WT
3.0
4800
560
0
0
560
0.13
WR
0.0
1600
45
0
3
48
0.03
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.45 A
PM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
O L U
M Fj S
--_-------
=----------------
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background
Project
Other
Total-
Ratio
-
-
NL
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
NT
0.0,:-
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
NR
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
SL
0.0;,
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
ST
0.0'
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
SR
2.0
3200
320
34
5
359
0.11*
EL
1.0
1600
69
32
0
101
0.06*
ET
2.0
3200
834
0
0
834
0.26
ER
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
WL
0.0;
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
1782
0.00
0.44*
WT
WR
3.0'
0.0
4800
1600
1772
-312
0
28
340
0.21
- - Sum of Critical Movements =
0.61 B
* denotes critical movement
rlf
Intersection: Campus Dr. (NS) / Dove St. (EW)
Project: Avis QTA Facility Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Traffic Condition: Existing +.Project +'Committed Projects
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM Intersection Capacity Analysis
L- U-
M--E- 5�-------
--------V--�-
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background
Project
Other
-----
Total
-------
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
----------
24
-------
0
0
24
0.02
NT
3.0
4800
1304
0
20
1324
0.34*
NR
0.0
1600
285
0
0
285
0.18
SL
1.0
1600
200
31
0
231
0.14*
ST
3.0
4800
618
3
5
626
0.13
SR
0.0
1600
7
0
0
7
0.01
EL
1.0
1600
1
0
0
1
0.01*
ET
1.0
1600
0
0
0
0
0.01
ER
0.0
1600
7
0
0
7
0.01
WL
0.0
1600
45
0
0
45
0.03
WT
1.0 !
1600
1
0
0
1
0.07*
WR
0.0
1600
70
0
3
73
0.05
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.56 A
PM Intersection Capacity
Analysis
V
0 L U
M A S
-'---- I------
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background
Project
Other
Total
Ratio
-------
------
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
----- -----
40
-------
0
-----
0
-------
40
0.03*
NT
3.0
4800
769
0
0
769
0.18
NR
0.0
1600
77
0
0
77
0.05
SL
1.0
1600
120
31
0
151
0.09
ST
3.0
4800
1970
3
12
1985
0.41*
SR
0.0
1600
2
0
0
2
0.01
EL
1.0
1600
1
0
0
1
0.01*
ET
1.0
1600
1
0
0
1
0.01
ER
0.0
1600
3
0
0
3
0.01
WL
0.0
1600
193
0
20
213
0.13
WT
1.0
1600
3
0
0
3
0.22*
WR
0.0
1600
133
0
0
133
0.08
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.67� B
* denotes critical movement
61
N �J`
r.Intersection: Birch St. (NS) V/'Dove"St. (EW)
Project:=Avis,QTA Facillty'Newpo'rt Beach Traffic -Phasing Ordinance
Traffic Condition: Existing +.Project + Committed Projects
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM Intersection Capacity Analysis
V
O L U
M E S
----------------------------------
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background
'----------
Project.
-------
Other
-----
Total
-------
Ratio
-------
-----
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
17
0
4
21
0.01
NT
2.0
3200
418
0
4
422
0.21*
NR
0.0
1600
228
0
6
234
0.15
SL
1.0
1600
118
0
0
118
0.07*
ST
2.0
3200
300
0
25
325
0.11
SR
0.0
1600
18
0
0
18
0.01
EL
0.0
1600
45
0
0
45
0.03
ET
1.0
1600
235
0
0
235
0.18*
ER
0.0
1600
9
0
0
19
0.01
WL
1.0
1600
46
0
8
54
0.03*
WT
10
1600
38
3
0
41
0.03
WR
1..0
1600
44
0
0
44
0.03
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.49 A
PM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
O--L- U-
M- E- 5-------
------- V-
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background
Project
Other
-----
Total
-------
Ratio
-------
-----
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
----------
17
-------
0
0
17
0.01*
NT
2.0
3200
355
0
6
361
0.13
NR
0.0
1600
64
0
0
64
0.04
SL
1.0.,1600
41
0
0
41
0.03
ST
2.0
3200
922
0
6
928
0.30*
SR
0.0
1600
38
0
0
38
0.02
EL
0.0
1600
27
0
0
27
0.02
ET
1.0
1600
81
0
0
81
0.09*
ER
0.0,
1600
27
0.
2
29
0.02
WL
1.0
1600
�275
0
10
285
0.18*
WT
1.0,
1600
160
3
15
178
0.11
WR
1.0
1600
142
0
1
143
0.09
Sum of Critical Movements
=
0.58 A
* denotes critical movement
0
Intersection: Birch St. (NS) / Quail St. (EW)
Project: Avis QTA Facility Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Traffic Condition: Existing + Project +•Committed Projects
Lane Configuration: Initial
AM Intersection Capacity Analysis
L- U-
M- E- 5-------
------- V-
--
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background
Project
-------
Other
------------
Total
Ratio
-------
--_---
NL
-----
1.0
--------
1600
----------
14
0
0
14
0.01
NT
2.0
3200
696
0
12
708
0.33*
NR
0.0
1600
350
0
5
355
0.22
SL
1.0
1600
84
0
0
84
0.05*
ST
2.0
3200
277
0
33
310
0.10
SR
0.0
1600
15
0
0
15
0.01
EL
0.0
1600
21
0
0
21
0.01
ET
1.0
1600
133
3
0
136
0.11*
ER
0.0
1600
15
0
0
15
0.01
WL
1.0
1600
72
0
5
77
0.05*
WT
1.0
1600
42
0
0
42
0.03
WR
1.0 /
1600
40
0
0
40
0.03
Sum of Critical Movements =
0.54- A
PM Intersection
Capacity
Analysis
u-
M
-
------V---
--
--
---------
V/C
Move
Lanes
Capacity
Background
Project
Other
Total-
Ratio
-
-
NL
--�---
1.0
--------
1600
----------
23
-------
0
0
23
0.01*
NT
2.0
3200
268
0
6
274
0.12
NR
0.0
1600
118
0
0
118
0.07
SL
1.0
1600
33
0
0
33
0.02
ST
2.0
3200
1171
0
26
1197
0.38*
SR
0.0
1600
28
0
5
33
0.02
EL
0.0
1600
23
0
0
23
0.01
ET
1.0
1600
49
3
0
52
0.07*
ER
0.0
1600
32
0
0
32
0.02
WL
1.0
1600
257
0
14
271
0.17*
WT
1.0
1600
70
0
20
90
0.06
WR
1.0
1600
73
0
0
73
0.05
-0.63
Sum of Critical
Movements
=
B
* denotes critical movement
0
848-888 DOVE ST.
USE PERMIT 3558
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Condition Department
1. Improvements construc d Public Works
2. Guarantee improvements Public Works
3. Storm Dr/Water easements shownPublic Works
4. Sight distance Traffic
5. Jamboree access rights released Public Works
6. Drainage to public storm drain Public Works
7. Const vehicles minimized Traffic
8. Utilities undergrounded
Public Works
* 9. Landscape plan/Ret Wall screen
Planning
10. Jamboree signage eliminated
Planning
1). `Fo,�'4 �
4201 Birch St.
USE PERMIT 3557/TRAFFIC STUDY 105
CONDITIONS APPROVAL
y.OdAF'
/ /�
� VY��/ W • "�1 �4I 4.
�y .w /� �J
X44l�
1. Improvements constructed
Public Works
2. On -site parking,circulation
Traffic
3. Sight distance 35 mph
Traffic
4. Control gate design
Fire
Public Works
5.
Drive approaches replaced
Public Works
6.
On -site drainage
Public Works
Building /Grading
7.
Const traffic minimized
Traffic
�t 8.
Landscape plan/Ret wall screen
Planning
yr 9.
Rental vehicles with large trucks
prohibited on surrounding streets
Planning
10. Pot\M-- of -60tlt of
pe've'KI've
av)�i CGt.rs,
Action
Plan Review
Plan Review/Bond
Plan Review
Plan Review
Plan Review
Plan Review
Plan Review
Plan Review
Plan Review
Plan Review/Letter
44w)cl oiRt4a)
bp- -55 O f fil fe4 z
Plan Review
Plan Review
Plan Review
Plan Review
Plan Review
Encroachment Permit
Plan Review
Plan Review
Plan Review
Plan Review 41-0I Avn Fnna 1.
Plan Review/Letter
�sutss �/eta-�
- V.'41 LOB- LM.e "Jwoj-w + 1-e-C4 f-C& d
4201 Birch St.
USE PERMIT 3557/TRAFFIC STUDY 105
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Condition
Department
Action
1.
Improvements constructed
Public Works
Plan Review
2.
Guarantee improvements
Public Works
Plan Review/Bond
3.
Storm Dr/Water easements shownPublic Works
Plan Review
4.
Sight distance
Traffic
Plan Review
5.
Jamboree access rights released
Public Works
Plan Review
6.
Drainage to public storm drain
Public Works
Plan Review
7.
Const vehicles minimized
Traffic
Plan Review
8.
Utilities undergrounded
Public Works
Plan Review
9.
Landscape plan/Ret Wall screen
'Planning
Plan Review
10.
Jamboree signage eliminated
Planning
Plan Review/Letter
of Sale
I� �Y"-
848-888 D VE ST.
USE PERNIIT 3558
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Improvements constructed
Public Works
Plan Review
2. On -site parking,circulation
Traffic
Plan Review
3. Sight distance 35 mph
Traffic
Plan Review
4. Control gate design
Fire
Plan Review
Public Works
Plan Review
5. Drive approaches replaced
Public Works
Encroachment Permit
6. On -site drainage
Public Works
Plan Review
Building /Grading
Plan Review
7. Const traffic minimized
Traffic
Plan Review
8. Landscape plan/Ret wall screen
Planning
Plan Review
9. Rental vehicles with large trucks
prohibited on surrounding streets
Planning
Plan Review/Letter
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission Meeting Tune 211995
Agenda Item No. 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission
Planning Department
Proposed administrative offices and automobile maintenance facility
for Avis s rental fleeL
SUMMARY: The applicant requests the approval of a Use Permit to allow the
establishment of an Avis administrative and maintenance facility
which would allow clerical offices and automobile maintenance
services including tune-ups, oil changes, engine repair, brake service
and body work for Avis s rental automobiles.
ACTION: If desired, approve Use Permit No. 3558
APPLICANT: Robert H. Lee Associates
OWNER: Nikko Capital Corporation
ProRosed Project and Surrounding Land Use
The •subject property is the former site of the Newport Datsun and Beach Imports
Automobile sales and service facilities and is currently not occupied. The site is located at
848 and 888 Dove street (see Vicinity Map). There are three single -story structures on the
site that will be renovated for the proposed use. The site is a part of Block J, Statistical Area
L-4, located within the Newport Place Planned Community District To the west of the
property, across Dove Street is the Fletcher Jones Automobile Dealership and Plaza
Newport, a retail commercial center; to the north is Park MacArthur, a professional office
complex; to the south is a retail commercial center; and to the east, across Jamboree Road is
a vacant parcel of land. The subject property is approximately 3 acres in size.
M �
t ' Attachment
VICINITY MAP
Use Permit No. 3558
MCM/0�! PI/CC IR
�.A
A
p
5
..wl.,l..
C
F�
i
SITE
'A
do
.......
�0
�P�
o
Cant
Planning Department
June 13, 1995
k
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 1 (Existing
Facilities).
Conformance with the General Plan and Zoning
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site for retail and service
commercial uses. The proposed use is permitted under the General Plan guidelines. The
Zoning of the property is regulated by the provisions contained in the Newport Place
Planned Community District which designates the subject property for automobile related
commercial and support services, subject to approval of a use permit The proposed project
is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning requirements.
Use Permit Analysis
The applicant is requesting to establish an Avis administrative service facility which would
include clerical offices and automobile maintenance area. Avis employees will return
rental automobiles from John Wayne Airport to the subject site for repair and regular
maintenance. Maintenance services will include oil -change, tire and brake service, engine
repair, electrical work, and any other similar services or repair that may be necessary for
the maintenance of Avis's rental fleet The applicant has indicated that there will be no
fueling of vehicles on -site.
The existing improvements consist of a 2,640 sq.ft structure and a 1,425 sq.ft building
which` will be renovated and used as clerical offices. A third structure that contains
approximately 5,530 sq.ft is designated for mechanical bays, managers' offices, break room,
lockers and a storage room. The attached site plan indicates that a minimum or
insignificant level of alteration would occur to the existing physical improvement
Parkin The applicant has indicated that there will be a total of 25 full-time
employees working at this location. The site will also provide parking for the 40 employees
of Avis that shuttle rental cars between John Wayne airport and Avis rental storage located
at 4201 Birch, Street The applicant has indicated that there will be no customer service at
the subject site. There are no provisions in the Newport Place Planned Community District
Regulations that indicate specific parking requirements for automobile rental operations.
The proposed site plan indicates a total of 37 parking spaces designated for employees.
Staff anticipates that some employees may use car-pooling for transportation. The area is
lacking adequate public transit Therefore, based on Avis s 65 full time employees and
additional visitors parking needs, the 37 parking spaces provided may not be sufficient to
serve the proposed use. The following mitigation measure would ensure that any adverse
parking impact would not be significant
TO: Planning Commission - 3.
Mitigation #1
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall
demonstrate to the Planning Department with a letter from the City's Traffic
Engineer that, in his or her opinion, the proposed use has sufficient on -site
parking and meets the parking requirements.
The site plan does not show any location or description of any identification or business
sign on the premises. When a sign plan is submitted, staff will review the application to
ensure the consistency and conformity of any proposed signage with the Newport Planned
Community District sign requirements.
Environmental Concerns
The proposed site is a developed parcel with physical improvements including
underground and surface storm drain, public sidewalk, lighting, sewer and water services
and landscaping. No sensitive land uses are located adjacent to or in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The existing public or governmental services would be sufficient to serve
the proposed use. It is anticipated that the increased daily traffic in the area would not
cause any significant impact on the City s street network. The proposed project would
generate a minor increase in employment however it would not result in significant
population increase and no adverse impact on housing.
Fiscal Impacts
The City CoundYs Economic Development Policy F-17 states "the City's ability to.deliver
quality municipal services is dependent upon adequate tax revenues derived primarily
from the property and businesses located within the City.... The City Council seeks to
promote economic activity within the City to increase the revenue available to provide
municipal services". Currently the site is not occupied and the property tax contributed, to
the County of Orange, was in the amount of $33,776.34 for the tax year 1995. The City's
portion of the total property tax was $5,753 in 1995. The proposed site plan indicates
insignificant alterations to the site, therefore the site's projected property tax is anticipated
to result in little or no .change. If the proposed use permit approval is granted, the City's
Business License Fees will be $100.00 plus a $1tl fee per each employee. The 25 employees,
as indicated by the applicant, will generate an annual revenue of $ 350.00 in addition to the
property tax. Based on the operational characteristics of the proposed use the subject
commercial site would not generate any significant sales tax.
Site's Revenue taxes Without Project With Proposed Prooject
1. Property Tax $33,776.34 $33,776.34
2. Business License 0 350.00
3. Sales Tax 0 0
Total Revenue $33,776.34 $34,126.34
TO: Planning Commission - 4.
DeyelopmentFees: Since the proposed use of automobile maintenance/storage is similar
to the former uses on the subject property, the City's Traffic Fair Share Fee would not be
applicable.
Additional Considerations
The project site is within the Newport Place Planned Community, a master -planned business and
professional office area. The designation of the project site and other surrounding properties to
"auto center" occurred after the original adoption of the plan, and was intended to accommodate
new -car dealers who wished to relocate to Newport Beach from Harbor Boulevard in Costa
Mesa. Auto dealers did occupy the area for many years. About three years ago, the two dealers
which occupied the project site closed, and the buildings have been vacant since that time.
Over the past year the City has been dealing with a number of issues related to auto dealers in the
City. The remaining dealership in the Newport Place area, Fletcher Jones Mercedes Benz
(FJMB), is currently working with the City to relocate to another site in the City. According to
FJMB, the current site is not acceptable as a long-term location for the dealership due to its small
size, fragmented configuration and lack of arterial roadway access and visibility. This information
could result in a conclusion that there is little likelihood that any of these sites will be reoccupied
by new car dealerships. The remaining permitted uses in the automobile center classification are
limited to tire shops, automobile repair, automobile washing facilities and service stations.
If the existing zoning is left in place, the City could expect additional facilities of a similar nature
to come into this area. It is the opinion of staff the zoning for this area is obsolete and should be
studied for possible change.
The maintenance and repair facility is a service support use for the rental car operation occurring
at John Wayne Airport. While it can be argued that rental car operations are generally supportive
of the dominant office use of the area (business travelers often use rental cars), the Planning
Commission may wish to consider the desirability of a major auto repair facility located on the
corner of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. While the proposed use is not anticipated
to be detrimental to the environmdntal goals of the City, the use of this site for the proposed
automobile storage and maintenance facility will preclude the use of the site by a use which may
provide more direct economic benefits to the City. Additionally, the new car dealers anticipated
by the existing zoning typically provide a higher level of property maintenance as well as better
landscaping and architectural treatments than may be expected from a secondary maintenance
facility. Therefore, approval of the proposed project could be considered adverse to the general
welfare of the City, since it may affect character of the area and the ability of the City to maintain
and deliver quality municipal services to the area.
t #
TO: Planning Commission - 5.
Conclusions and Specific Findings
In order to approve a Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the establishment of
the use 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, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood
or the general welfare of the City. Should the Planning Commission desire to approve the
proposed project, findings for approval are provided in Exhibit "A Findings for denial have
been provided in Exhibit "B".
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
YStslamiB
Associate Planner
f_\Jkr1z\weprml\up3sU%t
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Exhibit "A"
3. Exhibit "B"
TO: Planning Commission - 6.
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
USE PERMIT NO.3558
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed application is a secondary use in nature which may be
considered as a support service allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element
and the proposed project, under the circumstances of the particular use, would
not be detrimental to the general welfare of the City.
2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property
within the proposed development.
3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060
of the Municipal Code.
CONDITIONS:
1. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
2. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to
record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
3. That the existing storm drain and water easements be shown on the site plan.
4. That sight distance be provided at the drive entrances in accordance with the
City's sight distance standard 110-L unless otherwise approved by the Public
Works Department.
5. That all vehicular access rights to jamboree Road be released and relinquished to
the City of Newport Beach prior to occupancy.
6. That the on -site drainage be collected and conveyed to the public storm drain or
street as approved by the Public Works Department.
7. Disruption caused by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by
proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. There shall be no
TO: Planning Commission - 7.
construction storage or deliveryof materials within the jamboree Road right -of -
Way.
8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest
appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code
unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is
unreasonable or impractical.
9. Prior to the issuance of a business license or building permit, a detailed landscaping
and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or landscape
contractor shall be submitted to be reviewed by the Planning and Building
Departments. The plan shall include appropriate plant materials of sufficient size to
partially obscure the retaining wall and other fencing from view. Prior to issuance
of a certificate of occupancy, landscaping and irrigation shall be installed according
to the approved plan.
TO: . Planning Commission - 8.
EXHIBrr "B"
FINDINGS OF DENIAL FOR
USE PERMrr NO.3558
FINDINGS:
1. That the granting of a permit for such an operation is not necessary to protect a
substantial property right, and it will be contrary to the purpose of Section 20.80
of the Municipal Code, and will be detrimental to the property, neighborhood
and to the general welfare of the City.
2. The approval of Use Permit No. 3558 will, under the proposed circumstances, be
in conflict to the City's Economic Development Policy.
4,
M
Planning Commission Meeting June 22, 1995
Agenda Item No. 1
(Supplement Item)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 3558
The revenue table on page 3 of the Planning Commission Staff Report may inadvertently be
misleading in that the table does not reflect the fact that the City's portion of the property tax
revenue is in the amount of $5,753.00. The following revised table is provided for the
information of the Planning Commission.
Site's Revenue taxes
County of orange
Newport Bead,
County of orange
Newport Beach
WithoutProiect
WithoutProied
WithProiect
With Project
Property Tax
$33,776.34
A753
$33,776.34
$5,753
Business License
0
0
0
350
Sales Tax
0
0
0
0
Total Revenue
33,776.34
5,753
33,776.34
6,103
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By
Q. ' IN . W04--l-
Aziz M.Aslami
Associate Planner
E.laziz\umpmAap3558w
IAW
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
KI NCB;TE S
ROLL
CALL
U)
3QwWOJZ
0
>-
W
:c
U
w
U
H
o
August 14, 1995
INDEX
,
"An application to add outdoor dining may
denied or approval of an application ma e
revoked or modified by the Planning D ctor,
subject to call up by the Planning Com ssion or
City Council for referral to th Planning
Commission within fourteen (14) ys upon a
finding of the failure to co ply with the
conditions in this Section and all other
applicable conditions and r ulations."
Council Member Glov indicated she was
opposed to including a above amendment in
her motion.
In response to ouncil inquiry, the City Attorney
stated that in is opinion, the Planning Commission
has the fin authority with respect to the subject
Ordinan . The City Council can call up an
applic ion, but only to refer it to the Planning
Cc ission, and that there would be no
c tinuing review beyond that.
x'
The amendment made by Council Member
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
Edwards was voted on and FAILED.
Noes
The motion made by Council Member Glover was
Ayes
x
x
x
x
x
x
voted on and carried.
Noes
x
45. Mayor Hedges opened the public hearing on the
U/P 3557/
application of ROBERT H. LEE ASSOCIATES for USE
Trfc Stdy 10`.
PERMIT NO. 3557 AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 105 on
4201 Birch S1
property located at 4201 Birch Street - Request to
(8 8) '
permit the establishment of on automobile storage
facility for Avis automobile rental fleet on property
located in the M-1-A District. The proposal includes
washing, vacuuming and fueling services of the
automobiles; and the approval of a traffic study for
the proposed development. Also included in the
application is a modification to the Zoning Code to
allow a 6 foot high concrete block wall to encroach
5 feet into the required 15 foot street side setback,
along Dove Street;
AND
USE PERMIT NO. 3558, on property located at 848
U/P 3558 Jr
888 Dove Street - Request to permit the
848/888 DOV21
establishment of administrative and clerical offices
St (8 8 )
and automobile maintenance facilities for Avis
automobile rental fleet on property located in the
Newport Place Planned Community.
Report from Planning Department.
Volume 49 - Page 355
k
-CITY 4F NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL
CALL
u•,
a:
3
w3Q=UC70
w
w
o
>
Jo
w
%
August 14, 1995
I'NDEX
Mr. Delino referenced the Site Map depicting the
/P 3557/3558
location of the two proposed uses, and stated the
Planning Commission reviewed these two
applications in tandem. He noted that an
emergency ordinance has also been,prepared for
Council consideration which would adopt a
moratorium on the establishment of certain auto
service facilities within certain zoning and planned
community districts. The two applications in
question were approved by the Planning
Commission, but called up by the City Council.
The Birch Street project includes the demolition of
an existing office building (approximately 23,500
square feet) to establish a quick turnaround facility
for a 265 car rental fleet which will be shuttled to
and from John Wayne Airport. The Dove Street
project is a reuse of an unoccupied site of a former
new car dealership for a major vehicle
maintenance facility. These two projects together
will support Avis Rental Car counter and services
located at John Wayne Airport. Currently, Avis
provides these services from a location in Santa
Ana along the 55 Freeway. Relocation of these
facilities nearer to the airport will substantially
reduce operating costs for Avis. He discussed the
arguments supporting approval as well as the
arguments for denial as enumerated in the staff
report.
i
Mr. Delino stated that if the above applications are
approved, he would recommend that the Council
approve the following additional Finding and
Condition as set forth in Exhibit A:
Finding - That the proposed project(s)-will tend
to decrease the property and sales taxes which
accrue to the City."
Condition - "The applicant shall work with the
Revenue Division of the City and provide best
efforts to establish Newport Beach as a point of
sale for the purpose of accruing sales tax
associated with car rentals."
Mayor Pro Tern Debay reported that she had
viewed the projects in question, and that the
applicant has dutifully pursued the entitlements for
the intended uses. In response to her question
regarding the need for landscaping in front of the
two sites, Mr. Delino advised that conditions have
been imposed so that both developments satisfy
this concern.
Volume 49 - Page 356
I
4
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL
'CALL
U,
3�
W
Cr-AmcurUo
}
M
W
g
X
w
O
H
Z
August 14, 1995
INDEX
Motion
x
Council Member Glover stated the reason she
/P 3557/3558
called these two projects up for -public hearing was
to review the area inasmuch as a number of
properties have changed hands over the years.
She stated she has visited the area and has had
discussions with representatives of Avis as well as
the Finance Department, and as a result, feels
these two projects are not only good uses, but
could generate some income for the City.
Therefore, she moved to sustain the decision of
the Planning Commission and approve Use Permit
No. 3557, Traffic Study No. 105 and Use Permit No.
3558, including the added Condition and Finding
described in Exhibit A of the staff report.
Gary Semling, Architect with Robert H. Lee &
Associates, representing the applicant, addressed
the Council and stated they have been working
with the Planning and Traffic Engineering
Departments on their •projects, and feel they have
taken into consideration all concerns, including
the issue expressed by Mayor Pro Tern Debay
regarding landscaping in front of their
developments. There will also not be any signage
on the Birch Street site and very minimal signage at
the Dove Street location. They feel their projects
will be beneficial to the City as well as John Wayne
Airport and urged approval.
Dolores Otting, 17 Hillsborough Drive, addressed
the Council and indicated the City should try and
work with the County Board of Supervisors to
discuss a fee being paid to the City of Newport
Beach for car rentals since the City of Brea has
negotiated a fee on the imported trash that will be
put into the Brea landfill. She noted that the City
of Newport Beach does not receive any revenue
from car rental transactions conducted at John
Wayne Airport.
Barry West, owner of property adjacent to Avis on
Birch Street, addressed the Council and stated that
he had only one concern with the proposed
development, and that is the 12,000 gallon
underground gasoline storage tank which is about
50 feet from his building. Also, behind his property
is National Car Rental and they, too, have a 12,000
gallon underground gasoline storage tank. He,
stated his concern is that there is the potential of
an "accident waiting,to happen." He also has an
egress easement over the Avis properly which he,
purchased at the same time j he bought his;
property from The Irvine Company. '
u Volume 49 - Page 357
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL
CALL
X
8
a
>-
EJ
ra
w
=
-03
u
w
u
H
?
o
August 14, 1995
INDEX
The Public Works Director advised that he talked
tJ/P 3557/3558
with Mr. West during the Council recess, and that
the City's subdivision engineer as well as the Fire
Marshal will meet with Mr. West regarding his
concerns, and make modifications as necessary.
There being no others wishing to address the
Council, the public hearing was closed.
All Ayes
The motion made earlier by Council Member
Glover was voted on and carried.
There being no objections, the staff was directed
to undertake a "quick fix" on the Zoning
Ordinance clarifying the language as to uses that
are ancillary to or supportive of the primary uses
for this area, and return to the City Council in
approximately 60 days.
Motion
x
In the interim, Mayor Hedges moved to adopt an
Emergency Ordinance ADOPTING A
MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OR EXPANSION Of CERTAIN AUTO
SERVICE FACILITIES WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING AND
PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS (Report from the
Assistant City Manager).
Council Member Cox spoke in opposition to the
moratorium, indicating the Council does not know
what the impact will be once this action has been
taken, nor does it know how many applications of
this nature are in the process, and until the City has
a better handle on this Issue, he does not think
enacting the proposed moratorium is the answer.
Council Member O'Neil pointed out that if the
Emergency Ordinance is adopted, it is only in
effect for 45 days, and therefore, he does not see
the need for it until further information Is brought
back to the Council.
Ayes
x
x
The motion made by Mayor Hedges was voted on
Noes
x
x
x
x
x
and FAILED.
Mo n
_.
Jr
----At—the- recommendation—of—the-017v Altome��
motion was made by Council Memb�kstitifo
Vs95
-`99"
adopt Resolution No. 95- %,de'cId1r ng intention to
Planned
Initiate amend 1[0 a Newport Place
'g,ommunitrext.
I i �
t
Valuple 49- Page 358
Mot
Aye
Abs
?i P
COMMISSIONERS
9A6-c'i p� \
Oc,������90
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL
0
INDEX
CALL
ion
*:hearding
otion was made and voted on unendment No. 826 for public
s
*
*
*
*
*
at the P ommission meeting of July 20, 1995.
ent
*
D.
Use Permit No 3558 (EublicHeadng)
Agenda Iten
No. 1
UP No.3558
Request to permit the establishment of administrative and clerical
offices and automobile maintenance facilities for Avis's rental fleet on
property located in the Newport Place Planned Community.
Approved
LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 64-25 (Resubdivision No.
462) located at 848-888 Dove Street, on the
southeasterly side of Dove Street between Bristol
Street North and Quail Street, in the Newport
Place Planned Community.
ZONE: P-C
APPLICANT: Robert H. Lee Associates, Petaluma
OWNER: Nikko Capital, Newport Beach
AND
A. Use Permit No 3557(PublicHearing)
Agenda Ite
No. 2
Request to permit the establishment of an automobile storage facility
for Avis's automobile rental fleet on property located in the M-1-A
UP No. 355'
District. The proposal includes washing, vacuuming and fueling
and
services of the automobiles. Also included in the application is a
modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a 6 foot high masonry
wall to encroach 5 feet into the required 15 foot street side setback
along Dove Street.
-8-
Mo
Ay.
Ab
COMMISSIONERS
cF�1v2'�o 9
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
nn innc
ROLL
INDEX
CALL
AND
B. Traffic Study No 105 (Public Hearing)
Ts No. 105
Request to permit a traffic study so as to allow an automobile storage
Approved
facility.
LOCATION: Lot 24, Tract No. 3201 and Parcel 1, Parcel Map
94-142, located at 4201 Birch Street, on the
northerly comer of Birch Street and Dove Street,
across Birch Street from the Newport Place
Planned Community.
ZONE: M-1-A
APPLICANT: Robert H. Lee Associates, Petaluma
0
OWNER: Donald R. Lawrenz, Newport Beach
James Hewicker, Planning Director, suggested that inasmuch as Item Nos.
1 and 2 -have the same applicant and the applications are similar that the
public hearing be held simultaneously. He stated that a letter was received
by the Planning Department from Mr. Frank Lawrence representing Mr.
Frank Malik dated June 22, 1995, objecting to Use Permit No. 3557 and
Traffic Study No. 165. Mr. Malik received approval on November 10,
1994, for a parcel at 3543 Campus Drive that encompasses the Campus
Drive frontage of Item No. 2, for an automobile repair facility. Acting
Chairman Ridgeway pointed out that the objection stated in the letter is a
civil matter and it is beyond the authority of the Planning Commission. In
response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr.
Hewicker replied that the property owner, Donald R. Lawrenz, initialed
the use permit application to grant the applicant authority to apply for the
permits.
*
Motion was made and voted on that Item Nos. 1 and 2 will be heard in
tion
as
*
*
*
tandem. MOTION CARRIED.
sent
-9-
COMMISSIONERS
�\ 10010000ir"M
A
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL
CALL
Re
INDEX
Don Webb, Public Works Director, referred to Supplement Agenda Item
No. 2, and the request to add an additional condition to Traffic Study No.
105, stating that Removal or delivery of the rental vehicles (using large
trucks) shall be prohibited on the public streets surrounding the subject
site. I& Webb explained that previously vehicles were being delivered by
truck and parking in the center of the street to off-load the vehicles. In
response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Webb
explained that the gates on Campus Drive may need to be modified
inasmuch as the gates appear to be narrow. He pointed out that the
circulation planwill be reviewed by staff during plan check.
Commissioner Adams asked if noise from the vacuums would have a
potential impact on the adjoining land uses. He addressed the proposed
hours of operation between 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, and the cut outs
in the fence on Jamboree Road for an automobile display. Commissioner
Brown stated that the plans indicate that a new concrete block wall would
be built to match the existing block wall that would remain on the site.
In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway concerning
the Fiscal Impact analysis that was included in the staff report, Mr.
Hewicker replied that a transition of what is being included in the staff
report is occurring. He explained the history of the zoning in the subject
area, and the fact that the Newport Place Planned Community was
established at a time when the City was attempting to attract new
automobile dealerships. In recent years some of the automobile dealerships
moved out of the area and the zoning that existed on the property had
outlived its usefulness, but the only types of uses that were permitted in the
areas formerly occupied by new automobile dealerships were rental car
facilities, repair facilities, etc. that were subject to a use permit. However,
there may be other uses in the future that the City could' attract to the
subject area that may generate more revenue than the support facilities for
the airport. Mr. Hewicker stated that there is a Council Policy that requires
the staff to provide an economic analysis to `major projects' that will be
coming before the City. He could not determine if the Planning
Commission would consider the subject applications to be `major projects'.
-10-
COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ROLL
CALL
e
INDEX
The purpose for the economic analysis in the staff report may have been to
give the Planning Commission a point of departure as to what the property
may currently generate in terms of revenue and what it might generate with
the proposed uses. Commissioner Pomeroy questioned the amount of
time that it takes staff to provide an economic analysis for a difference of a
few hundred dollars.
In further response to Acting Chapman Ridgeway's question, Patty
Temple, Advance Planning Manager, stated that staff made a determination
to provide the Planning Commission the option and appropriate findings to
deny the projects if they so chose. In order to develop adequate findings
for denial it is necessary to have information within the public record. To
consider a potential denial of the use permits, it was necessary to go back
to the very basis of why zoning exists, and that is the general welfare of the
community as a whole. As a result, the subject information was important
to support the finding that the project was detrimental to the general
welfare in order to provide a legal basis for denial.
Commissioner Brown pointed out that when an automobile is rented at the
airport that the point of collection of the sales tax is the County of Orange.
He explained how the applicant has the ability to provide additional
revenue to the City. Acting Chairman Ridgeway and Commissioner Brown
discussed the aforementioned comments. Acting Chairman Ridgeway
commented that it is possible that the City will be servicing the airport, and
the fact that the City accepts the servicing of the airport there should be a
Fair Share Revenue source from the County to the City. Commissioner
Brown pointed out that the plan for the Dove Street facility indicates a new
rental counter.
In response to comments by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Ms. Clauson
stated that the City Manager, staff, and City Council are the parties that
would consider the Fair Share Revenue for the subject applications. Acting
Chairman Ridgeway stated that the staff report includes a Fiscal Analysis
Report, and there is a loss of retail automobile sales from automobile
agencies which are not going to locate on the site. He said that if the Fiscal
Report had not been presented to the Planning Commission he would not
-11-
COMMISSIONERS
9°c99ti�p9� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL
CALL
INDEX
have asked the question. Mr. Hewicker explained why the County of
Orange has taken a strong position with respect to how they would share
revenue with the City. Acting Chairman Ridgeway suggested that the City
Manager address the issue inasmuch as there is a land use change occurring
in the airport area. There will be more support uses that we are servicing
and not receiving benefits from, but we are burdened with their problem.
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Gary
Sending, representing the applicant and Avis Rent-A-Car, appeared before
the Planning Commission. He explained that the applicant has been
wonting with the City concerning the traffic problems. Mr. Sending
the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", Item Nos. 1 and
concurred with
2, including the added condition as stated by Mr. Webb. He said that off-
loading of vehicles would be done on -site. The subject sites are critical to
support the airport and the services are beneficial to the City, the airport,
and to Avis Rent-A-Car. The Fair Share Assessment Fee is associated with
the quick turnaround project. The administrative facility is a small
improvement, but if there are 310 automobiles going through the site
creating 620 trips then it would be $121 per automobile or $71,000. In
response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr.
Hewicker explained that it is a one time fee that would be collected when
the permit is issued.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Sending
replied that Avis Rent-A-Car operations are currently located in Santa Ana.
Mr. Sending stated that the City Traffic Engineer pointed out that the
distance from the subject site to the airport would be shorter and quicker
than from Santa Ana.
Commissioner Di Sano stated that an automobile rental facility uses
Campus Drive as an "air dry mode" of a car wash to the airport. He
suggested that the Police Department be informed of the drivers going
north on Campus Drive at high speed with just washed automobiles to the
airport. Commissioner Di Sano commented that the subject site is an
appropriate site for the subject use. '
-12-
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
T...,e 00 1 OOC
ROLL
CALL
INDEX
Mr. Semling stated that the Dove Street facility will include the corporate
sales office consisting of the Regional Vice President, the District Manager,
and staff; and it is not just an automobile repair facility. He said that
because Avis is concerned with their image that they will maintain the
landscaping and they are remodeling the buildings. The employee parking
area can be increased. Avis may consider customer sales on the site some
time in the future. The majority of the rental car companies are doing
business at the airport, and to bus a customer to the site to rent an
automobile would be a disadvantage to their business. A six foot high
screen wall is proposed at the quick turnaround facility on Dove Street.
The wall would be constructed of split face masonry block and there would
be some articulation in design. There would be an encroachment of a 5
foot setback to make the site usable. The subject uses are permitted at the
subject sites, and they are automobile related supporting the airport.
In response to questions posed by Mr. Hewicker, Mr. Semling explained
that the direction of the enclosed car wash is to enter the premises towards
the airport and exits on to Campus Drive. The blowers are located at the
exit of the car wash. Mr. Semling further replied that the majority of the
car washing will be done during the day and he questioned if the noise
would be noticeable based on the airport noise.
In response to a question posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr.
Semling replied that large trucks that would be delivering automobiles
could go to the 848 Dove Street site where the truck could do a
turnaround. Mr. Semling concurred that the driveway would have to be
increased to allow for the trucks, and the applicant would agree with the
landscape material and size that would be recommended by the City.
Commissioner Brown asked if the applicant would agree to finishing two
walls with stucco as opposed to split faced block, and only have signage on
Dove Street and not on Jamboree Road. Acting Chairman Ridgeway
suggested that the Planning Commission not design review the wall, and
there is not an application for a sign to review. Commissioner Brown
responded that it is in the Planning Commission's purview to discuss
landscaping, walls, lighting, signage, given the sensitivity of the use.
-13-
COMMISSIONERS
9� �cck90 �O
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
M_u�ii�l�1w11
ROLL
CALL
INDEX
Commissioner Adams concurred that the material and frontage of the uses
is within the Planning Commission's purview.
Mr. Jeff Konen, Senior Project Manager representing Avis Rent-A-Car,
Garden City, New York, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr.
Konen stated that the applicant will work with the staff and the Planning
Commission on the aesthetic issues concerning the landscaping, wall, and
signage. He stated that the applicant would agree to either a stucco finish
or a split face block finish wall, and the existing wood fence could be
replaced in a manner that would be acceptable to everyone. The applicant
could comply with the request not to have signage on Jamboree Road, and
there would be minimal signage on Dove Street. Mr. Konen stated that the
car wash is very quiet and the noise level outside the car wash bay would
be acceptable. He said that the vacuums would be enclosed in a storage
building. Mr. Konen concluded that inasmuch as there is a concern
regarding the noise level on the site for their employees that the noise levels
are mitigated from the car wash.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, I& Hewicker
explained that the sales counter could be used by Avis at their own
discretion provided there was not a condition on the permit that would
prohibit the customers from coming to the facility. Commissioner Adams
and Mr. Hewicker pointed out that there are conflicting concerns between
the traffic that would be generated by Avis, and requesting Avis to use the
subject property as a,pointof sale to generate revenue. Ms. Temple stated
that the Dove Street property did not require a traffic study because it is a
similar or lessor use than the previous use. She agreed that compared to
the proposed facility that the use may increase the traffic generation but
overall the use would be far less than the previous use. Comnissioner
Adams concurred, and he said that there would not be a significant
negative impact.
Mr. Charles Sweigart, Avis Rent-A-Car, 4101 South Main Street, Santa
Ana, appeared before the Planning Commission as an Operations Manager.
In response to questions posed by Acting Chairman Ridgeway, Mr.
Sweigart replied that Avis is only considering a counter at the Dove Street
-14-
COMMISSIONERS
%
2'`0 •v
�y9c' 92
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL
CALL
�—
INDEX
site; that the automobiles are parked in Santa Ana; and that automobiles are
serviced in Santa Ana and driven to a parking garage at the airport. Mr.
Sweigart stated that a shuttle service is not being considered by Avis.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Hewicker
replied that the applicant would not have to come to the City for a sign
permit so long as the signage did not exceed the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Stan Hassan, attorney representing Donald R. Lawrence, property
owner of 4201 Birch Street, appeared before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hassan stated that Mr. Lawrence supports the Avis Rent-A-Car
facility. In response to the aforementioned letter from Mr. Frank Lawrenz,
Mr. Hassan concurred that the issue is a civil matter. The property
immediately to the north of the subject property has been approved by a
use permit to National Car Rental and they are constructing a chain link
fence between the properties. He questioned if there is a need for a wall
against the chain link fence.
In response to questions posed by Commissioner Kranzley with respect to
the Fair Share Fee, Mr. Webb explained that ten years ago the City did a
survey of what it would cost to complete the City's Circulation Element
buildout. The study was to consider the funding sources to determine if
public funds would be adequate to complete the system. It was concluded
that the City could only complete approximately 60 percent with projected
City funding, funding from the State, Measure M, etc. The City Council
determined that future development which would, contribute to the major
arterials around the community should also contribute towards the
completion of the system. Staff determined how much money the City was
they the number of trips for new development. The
short, and projected
two figures were divided and the result was approximately $121.00 per
trip. The specific use of the revenue is for construction of roads.
Commissioner Kranzley suggested that the Fair Share Fee be included in
the staffreports, and Ms. Temple concurred. Mr. Hewicker emphasized
that the Planning Commission has no authority to modify the fees.
-15-
Mot:
Aye:
Abs:
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
T.90 1ooQ
ROLL
CALL
INDEX
Acting Chairman Ridgeway commented that Fiscal Analysis should only be
done pursuant to Policy F-17 which addresses major projects, and he
suggested that it be limited to major projects.
There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing
was closed at this time.
*
Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3558 subject
Lon
a
*
*
*
*
to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including added Condition
ant
*
No. 10 that the sign be eliminated on Jamboree Road. The motion further
states that the applicant shall install mature landscaping and an aesthetically
pleasing wall. MOTION CARRIED
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed application is a secondary use in nature
which may be considered as a support service allowed by the
General Plan Land Use Element and the proposed project,
under the circumstances of the particular use, would not be
detrimental to the general welfare of the City.
2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict
with any easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed development.
3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per
Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code.
CONDITIONS:
1. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance
and the Public Works Department.
2. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department
in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public
-16-
COMMISSIONERS
Mr. $ NO* 0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
11) ioo5
ROLL
CALL
INDEX
improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a
building permit prior to completion of the public improvements.
3. That the existing storm drain and water easements be
shown on the site plan.
4. That sight distance be provided at the drive entrances in
accordance with the City's sight distance standard 110-L unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Department.
-
5. That all vehicular access rights to Jamboree Road be released
and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach prior to
occupancy.
6. That the on -site drainage be collected and conveyed to the
public storm drain or street as approved by the Public Works
Department.
7. Disruption caused by movement of construction vehicles shall
be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and
flagmen. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of
materials within the Jamboree Road right-of-way.
8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the
nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140
of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City
Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or
impractical.
9. Prior to the issuance of a business license or building permit, a
detailed landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed
landscape architect or landscape contractor shall be submitted to be
reviewed by the Planning and Building Departments. The plan
shall include appropriate plant materials of sufficient size to
partially obscure the retaining wall and other fencing from view.
17-
f i
4
COMMISSIONERS
Mo
Ay
Ab
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
e 22 19n,:
ROLL
CALL
INDEX
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, landscaping and
irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plan.
10. That signage shall be eliminated at Jamboree Road.
Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3557 and
tion
*
*
*
*
Traffic Study No. 105, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit
es
sent
*
"A", including added Condition No. 9 as previously stated. MOTION
CARRIED.
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed application is a secondary use in nature
which may be considered as a support service allowed by the
General Plan Land Use Element and the proposed project,
under the circumstances of the particular use, would not be
detrimental to the general welfare of the City
2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict
with any easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed development.
3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per
Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code.
CONDITIONS:
1. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance
and the Public Works Department.
-18-
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL
CALL
INDEX
2. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic
Engineer.
3. That the intersection of the private drives and streets be
designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per
hour in accordance with the City's Sight Distance Standard
110-L. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-
critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer.
4. That the design the control gate at the entrance on Dove Street
be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and
Fire Department. That the driveways be designed to handle fuel
delivery vehicles.
5. That all unused drive approaches be removed and replaced with
curb, gutter and sidewalk and that all work be completed under
an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works
Department.
6. That the design of the on -site drainage be reviewed and
approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of
any grading or building permits.
7. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by
movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper
use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control
and transportation of equipment and materials shall be
conducted in accordance with state and local requirements.
8. Prior to the issuance of a business license or building permit, a
detailed landscaping and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed
landscape architect or landscape contractor shall be submitted to be
reviewed by the Planning and Building Departments. The plan
shall include appropriate plant materials of sufficient size to
partially obscure the retaining wall and other fencing from view.
-19-
COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MINUTES
ROLL
INDEX
CALL
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, landscaping and
irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plan.
9. Removal or delivery of the rental vehicles (using large trucks) shall
be prohibited on the public streets surrounding the subject site.
Use Permit No. 1905 Amended ublic Hearin
Agenda Item
3
No.
UP No. 1905
Req st to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted
the est lishment of George's Camelot Restaurant with on -sale beer
and wine d an outdoor eating area on property located in the RSC-H
Approved
District. Th roposed amendment involves a request to change the
operational cha cteristics of the restaurant so as to allow the
establishment of a let parking service on the Via Oporto right-of-way
in conjunction with th xisting restaurant use.
LOCATION: Parce of Parcel Map 59-17 (Resubdivision No.
416), to ted at 3420 Via Oporto, on the
northeaster ide of Via Oporto, between Central
Avenue and i ido, in Lido Marina Village.
ZONE: RSC-H
APPLICANT: Walter Heim (George's Ca lot Restaurant),
Newport Beach
OWNER: Lido Marina Village, Newport Beach
The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. The being
no one to appear on behalf of the applicant, the public hearing was c ed
at this time.
-20-
• k
N .
1'
FINAL
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
USE PERMIT NO.3557 AND
TRAFFIC STUDY NO.105
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed application is a secondary use in nature which may be
considered as a support service allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element
and the proposed project, under the circumstances of the particular use, would
not be detrimental to the general welfare of the City
2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property
within the proposed development.
3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060
of the Municipal Code.
4. That the proposed project will tend to decrease the property and sales taxes
which Lcrue to the City.
1. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
2. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems
be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer.
3. That the intersection of the private drives and streets be designed to provide
sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour in accordance with the City's
Sight Distance Standard 110-L. The sight distance requirement may be modified
at non -critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer.
4. That the design the control gate at the entrance on Dove Street be reviewed and
approved by the Public Works Department and Fire Department. That the
driveways be designed to handle fuel delivery vehicles.
5. That all unused drive approaches be removed and replaced with curb, gutter
and sidewalk and that all work be completed under an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department.
6. That the design of the on -site drainage be reviewed and approved by the Public
Works Department prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
0
J
7. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of
construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and
materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements.
S. Prior to the issuance of a business license or building permit, -a detailed landscaping
and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or landscape
contractor shall be submitted to be reviewed by the Planning and Building
Departments. The plan shall include appropriate plant materials of sufficient size to
partially obscure the retaining wall and other fencing from view. Prior to issuance
of a certificate of occupancy, landscaping and irrigation shall be installed according
to the approved plan.
9. Removal or delivery of the rental vehicles (using large trucks) shall be prohibited on the
public streets surrounding the subject site.
10.
The applicant shall I
establish Newport E
with car rentals.
FINAL
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
USE PERMIT NO.3558
FINDINGS:
1. That the proposed application is a secondary use in nature which may be
considered as a support service allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element
and the proposed project, under the circumstances of the particular use, would
not be detrimental to the general welfare of the City.
2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property
within the proposed development
3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060
of the Municipal Code.
4. That the proposed project(s) will tend to decrease the property and sales taxes
which accrue to the City.
CONDITIONS:
1. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department
2. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to
record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
3. That the existing storm drain and water easements be shown on the site plan.
4. That sight distance be provided at the drive entrances in accordance with the
City's sight distance standard 110-L unless otherwise approved, by the Public
Works Department
5. That all velucular access rights to Jamboree Road be released and relinquished to
the City of Newport Beach prior to occupancy.
6. That the on -site drainage be collected and conveyed to the public storm drain or
street as approved by the Public Works Department
7. Disruption caused by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by
proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. There shall be no
construction storage or delivery of materials within the Jamboree Road right-of-
way.
8. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest
appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code
unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is
unreasonable or impractical.
9. Prior to the issuance of a business license or building permit, a detailed landscaping
and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect or landscape
contractor shall be submitted to be reviewed by the Planning and Building
Departments. The plan shall include appropriate plant materials of sufficient size to
partially obscure the retaining wall and other fencing from view. Prior to issuance
of a certificate of occupancy, landscaping and irrigation shall be installed according
to the approved plan.
10. That signage shall be eliminated at jamboree Road.
11. The applicant shall work with the Revenue Division of the City and provide best
efforts to establish Newport Beach as a point of sale for the purpose of accruing
sales tax associated with car rentals.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ZONING CORRECTIONS ) ,
Telephone: (7141 644-3200 Plan Check No.: 'lilt 0
By:Genia Garcia, Associate Planner :•Christy -Teague, Associate Planner
By:Marc Myers Associate Planner �1 By:
Date:_ 'T-2" �' / 57 � ,Address: 7� g"1 $ 1 QJje. '�77
Districting Map No. "-'• -Land Use Element. Page No..
Corrections Required:
Legal Description: Lot / Block 60 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 72, -7-79: RRe4W (2 �l &i, Aden h gid,
Zone, APE'.. "el-Mali
lm-dL� �U
Proposed Use 5 �V(G< IiCCVe g/d�j'
Ac4m�ni5�1' Mai�nnaviGG �acl
•• Reguired'•Setbacks - ^' •/
A t- Front -
Rear
Right Side
Left Side
FAR WOE R� .. «. .
Lot area (site area s.ft.)- sq.ft.
g
Base Development Allocation (BDA): comm•sq.ft.•
[0.5 x site area sq.ft., unless otherwise specifie& in Land Use.Element]
FAR permitted, without variance: (A) comm. res okg
Square footage permitted: comm res nkg sq.ft..
[(A) x site area sq.ft.] r
Maximum FAR allowed with variance: (B) Comm res vka.l:."t,;:•;
Maximum square footage allowed: comm res sq.ft.
[(B) x site area sq.ft.] _.. _.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: . j ' - • f-•' '? - "' ,
(C) Base FAR use sq.ft.' - sq.ft.
(D) Reduced FAR, use sq':tt. sq.ft.
(E) Maximum FAR use sq.ft. sq.ft. '^'• !
(F) TOTAL SQ.FT. [C+D+E] sq.ft..
. PROPOSED FAR: . _.. ,[ F' + site area
PROPOSED WEIGHTED DEVELOPMENT: --. ...
FAR.Use Category Weighting Factor Weighted.Sq.Ft.__ _.
(G)' (H) ( G x H )
sq.ft. Base % 1.00 'sq.ft.
sq.ft. Reduced X 1.67 sq.ft.
sq.ft. Maximum X 0.50"
TOTAL WEIGHTED SQ.FT.(May not exceed BDA)
Provide tissue overlay of calculations to verify provided square footage.
( 4 A6quired^PakingO �'blivi l�✓1 ..-
a.
' (9� 'Proposed parking (Indicate nu`mbei�'•'bf st l'Ys'provided)
Total on -Site Parking
Standard Compact
In -lieu Parking
v Dimension building height as measured from natural grade to a era a-anp maximum
W1•,, roof height _
0
i) % Show natural grade line on all elevations
Show all rooftop mechanical equipment and dimension from grade directly below.
�taliT Indicate location of trash containers on site plan.
Number of Stories
Floor Plan fully dimensioned showing all room uses.
_L. Plot Plan fully dimensioned showing location of all buildings, fences, etc. in
relation to the property line.
"l a San
Jofquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee
Please indicate any discretionary approval numbers on the plans and incorporate
the attacheds excerpt of minutes and list of findings and
conditiona into the blueline drawings
approval letter into the blueline drawings
Modifications Committees Indicate Approval No. on Slueline■
Modification required for
A
Planning Commission/City
nds pwr,nitr
Councils
No.
Variances
No.
Resubdivision/Tracts
No.
Site Plan Reviews
No.
Amendments
No.
other
Public Worker
Easement/Encroachment Permit
subdivision Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Approval of Landscape Plans
Suna Departments
Grading Engineer
Parke 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 Dates
Waiver/Exemptions No.
Effective dates
ON
M/3102
E6FUWKdtW1MA .Aa I I'
F L�
N d -6 as
WON
�w r a w✓u iv� Sa l�s �-n-�c 'Gt 55 ou��a-fed
VO 1/'iO4-0-t
NOTE: it to 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 me at (714) 644-
200,
3( t►•�1a4-C co, -)6t ��""►fW 365$
FCRMB�oOMN-Z N.0 9l�ls �� 6e, p1�G✓1�e(( 101
I.si.vtdsG, V Ge A .%►+ eck . P�etiSG Sc}r�-w1Q 5�d s"dv 1raHc
r-S Gunder A4 .