The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About24 - Use Permit No 2003-043 and Traffic Study 2004-001CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 24 March 23, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 - 3219, gramirezftcitv.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Call for Review of Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001, approved by the Planning Commission on March 4, 2004 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard (PA2003 -232) APPLICANT: Robert Lawrence, TRP Development Services ISSUE: 49 Should the City Council uphold, revise or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001 to allow the construction of a new 11,750 square foot medical office building that exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio and building bulk and included approval of an off - street parking credit for two on- street parking spaces located on Old Newport Boulevard? DISCUSSION: Background: On March 4, 2004 the Planning Commission voted 6 -1 to approve Use Permit No. 2004- 043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001. This item was called for review to the City Council by Councilmembers Rosansky and Webb. The Commission's approval reduced the applicant's requested floor area of 12,500 square feet to 11,750 square feet and requested building bulk from 23,480 square feet to 21,980 square feet. Additionally, the approval included an off- street parking credit for two on- street parking spaces located on Old Newport Boulevard and denied the request for an off - street parking credit for three on- street spaces located on Orange Avenue. The traffic study prepared for the project found that no traffic related impacts would be created and therefore no traffic related mitigation measures are necessary. The Commission believed that the scale of the building was appropriate for this location and that the granting of the off - street parking credit for 592 u' re 2 d' O4 S¢ 2� 493 485 495 ! 481 1, r 4TTj-1.r 475 $. 471 Old Newport Office Medical Building March 23, 2004 Page 2 VICINITY MAP m 0 39 z O O 496 Y 5Ts 51p 706 495 3315 507 ,519 `• 517 j 511 / 519 /ST 515 _t ♦• \� f ! 3321 L 3309 494 _. .....__ 3307 411 3305 488 413 - 3301 ... _ 407 3303 409 3245 3262 .: 3256 3239 3231 3250 _ d® 3244 3244 3238 - 3232 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Studv 2004 -001 5 5101 Current Development: 3331 To the north: 1 506 ,`'•�. 3253 Residential 506 3251 0 r // K 480 331 W 504 3245 '- 3247 472 - - -. 1 3245 3262 .: 3256 3239 3231 3250 _ d® 3244 3244 3238 - 3232 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Studv 2004 -001 5 5101 Current Development: 3331 To the north: 1 506 ,`'•�. To the east: Residential 506 / ! To the west: 506 // 331 504 ✓� 334 33C 1 3312 I iy 3308 t 5{ t 3304 513 P 4 P 3304,.,. 1FY n v lwo i / 3245 3262 .: 3256 3239 3231 3250 _ d® 3244 3244 3238 - 3232 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Studv 2004 -001 5 5101 Current Development: Residential, vacant automotive repair, vacant retail To the north: Commercial Across Orange Avenue To the east: Residential To the south: Commercial to the southwest, Two Family Residential to the southeast To the west: Commercial Across Old Newport Boulevard 0 Old Newport Office Medical Building March 23, 2004 Page 3 the spaces on Old Newport Boulevard is consistent with Section 20.46.040 of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan. The on- street credit for the three spaces proposed on Orange Avenue was denied because Section 20.46.040 specifically identifies Old Newport Boulevard as the only street where on- street credit can be granted. The following chart breaks down the permitted, proposed, recommended and approved project details. " Figures based on the 18,418 square foot lot size, which includes the portion of the Orange Avenue right of way requested to be vacated. Staffs floor area recommendation of 11,359 square feet was based on applying two parking ratios. First, the standard 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area was applied to the 0.5 FAR (9,209 square feet) portion that could be built by right. This equates to 37 parking spaces (250/9,209). Second, the worst case parking ratio of 1 space per each 215 square feet that was discovered through a parking demand study conducted at two similar developments was used for the floor area over the permitted 0.5 FAR. Since the project design provides 47 parking spaces staff multiplied the 10 "surplus" spaces by 215 to arrive at the recommended 11,359 square foot building (9,209 + 2,150). The parking demand study is included as Exhibit 3 in the Planning Commission staff report. The Commission arrived at the approved square footage by using the current parking standard for medical office uses (1/250) and the avaibale parking spaces, which consist of 45 off - street spaces and the two on- street spaces for a total of 47. The Commssion believed that the review of the project was for an increased floor area ratio and building bulk and that the standard code required parking ratio was appropriate to use in this case since the findings for the increased FAR and building bulk could be made. Attached to this report is the Planning Commission Staff Report, which includes a detailed description and analysis of the proposed project, and copies of the Planning Commission Resolution and draft minutes from the March 3, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing. 0 Permitted by Right Maximum Permitted With Use Permit Approval Requested by Applicant Recommended by Staff Approved by Planning Commission Floor 0.5 FAR 0.75 FAR 0.678 FAR 0.621 FAR 0.637 FAR Area 9,209 sgft. 13,813 sgft. 12,500 sgft. 11,359 sgft. 11,750 sgft. Ratio (FAR) - and Square Footage Building 0.75 Unlimited 1.274 1.15 1.193 Bulk' 13,813 23,480 s ft. 2 1, 198 sgft. 21,980 s ft. " Figures based on the 18,418 square foot lot size, which includes the portion of the Orange Avenue right of way requested to be vacated. Staffs floor area recommendation of 11,359 square feet was based on applying two parking ratios. First, the standard 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area was applied to the 0.5 FAR (9,209 square feet) portion that could be built by right. This equates to 37 parking spaces (250/9,209). Second, the worst case parking ratio of 1 space per each 215 square feet that was discovered through a parking demand study conducted at two similar developments was used for the floor area over the permitted 0.5 FAR. Since the project design provides 47 parking spaces staff multiplied the 10 "surplus" spaces by 215 to arrive at the recommended 11,359 square foot building (9,209 + 2,150). The parking demand study is included as Exhibit 3 in the Planning Commission staff report. The Commission arrived at the approved square footage by using the current parking standard for medical office uses (1/250) and the avaibale parking spaces, which consist of 45 off - street spaces and the two on- street spaces for a total of 47. The Commssion believed that the review of the project was for an increased floor area ratio and building bulk and that the standard code required parking ratio was appropriate to use in this case since the findings for the increased FAR and building bulk could be made. Attached to this report is the Planning Commission Staff Report, which includes a detailed description and analysis of the proposed project, and copies of the Planning Commission Resolution and draft minutes from the March 3, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing. 0 Old Newport Office Medical Building March 23, 2004 Page 4 Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives: The Council has the following options: 1. The Council can uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. 2. The Council can modify the decision of the Planning Commission and approve a revised project. 3. The Council can approve the project as staff recommended to the Planning Commission by adopting the findings and conditions of approval included as Exhibit No. 1 in the attached Planning Commission staff report. 4. The Council can reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the project. Findings for denial are included as Attachment D. Prepared by: ,A, /s Gi-nt � Gregg B.'Rlamirez, Associat Planner Attachments: Submitted by: T Patricia L. Temple, Plarining Director A. Planning Commission Staff Report B. Planning Commission Resolution C. Draft Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of March 4, 2004 D. Findings for Denial E. Project Plans 9 0 ATTACHMENT A Planning Commission Staff Report I* 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 4 March 4, 2004 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 - 3219, gram irez (cilcity.newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: 4941496 Old Newport Boulevard, Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study 2004 -001 (Medical Office Building) (PA2003 -252) APPLICANT: Robert Lawrence, TRP Development Services INTRODUCTION: Request for approval of a Use Permit and Traffic Study to allow the construction of a new 12,500 square foot medical office building that exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio and building bulk. The applicant also requests approval of an off - street parking credit for proposed on- street parking spaces. DISCUSSION: Site Overview: The subject property is located at the southeasterly corner of Old Newport Boulevard and Orange Avenue. The site is comprised of two existing legal lots and a vacated portion of Old Newport Boulevard. The property is 18,418 square feet in size, of which 1,187 square feet is an approximate 10 -foot wide section of the Orange Avenue right -of- way currently being considered by the City for vacation. Existing structures on site consist of two commercial buildings, a covered automobile service bay, storage shed and two story residence all of which will be demolished should the project be approved. Project Overview: The applicant proposes the development of a 12,500 square foot, two -story medical office building. The first floor is dominated by partially covered parking and the second floor is the office space. The proposed project requires the approval of a Use Permit to exceed the base 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR) and the maximum building bulk. Vehicular access will be via a single driveway located off Old Newport Boulevard. The applicant also requests approval for an off - street parking credit to allow the use of two parking 11 0 0 0 920 0 9S2 A Old Newport Office Building March 4, 2004 Page 2 VICINITY MAP BJ 7 5a: 999 ..`_ • � i Q'' 3321 •\ i 997 ?337 311 � 5•:4 ___ s7•:1 °21 3315 3712 9S6 =p 0 493 33i•? 911 To the east: 4?9 To the south: 913 J 3C�1 qye 999 3309 90] 33• -•_ )XI J' 903 3 3•.3 935 0 991 3199 3294 3249 977 I- 3292 3239 Vi .� 3283 32_L 32`1 u 3239 qr 3232 . +� I 990 m 3233 7299 3231 3297 325- 322. 9] 1 472 p 1 m3; 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study 2004 -001 "1. eJ9 91_ °13 "2i Current Development: Residential, vacant automotive repair, vacant retail 33i•? 3309 To the east: Residential To the south: Commercial to the southwest, Two Family Residential to the southeast J 3C�1 37] 3309 33• -•_ )XI J' 3 3•.3 991 3199 3294 3249 977 I- 3292 3239 Vi .� 3283 32_L 32`1 u 3239 qr 3232 . +� I 990 m 3233 7299 3231 3297 325- 322. 9] 1 472 p 1 m3; 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study 2004 -001 "1. eJ9 91_ °13 "2i Current Development: Residential, vacant automotive repair, vacant retail To the north: Commercial Across Orange Avenue) To the east: Residential To the south: Commercial to the southwest, Two Family Residential to the southeast To the west: Commercial Across Old Newport Boulevard q Old Newport Office Building March 4, 2004 Page 3 spaces on Old Newport Boulevard and three parking spaces on Orange Avenue pursuant to the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan development regulations. The project provides 45 off - street parking spaces. Proposed Right of Way Vacation: This project has been reviewed and is being considered assuming the approval of the vacation of a portion of Orange Avenue that fronts the subject property. Any approval of this project is contingent on the pending Orange Avenue vacation which still must be approved by the City Council. The vacation involves an approximate 10 -foot wide (1,187 square foot) portion of the Orange Avenue right -of -way resulting in the 18,418 square foot project site. Public Works staff has indicated that they support the proposed street vacation. Should the vacation not be approved, the possible approval of this project would be null and void. A condition of approval (Condition No. 2) has been included in the draft resolution to address this matter. Lot Line Adjustment: As noted previously, the site is comprised of two adjacent lots and a portion of vacated public right of way. A lot line adjustment to combine Lots 7 and 8 of Block 6, Tract 27 and the vacated portion of Old Newport Boulevard was approved by the Modifications Committee on November 19, 2003. The lot line adjustment has been submitted to the County for review. A condition of approval has been included (Condition No. 11) requiring that the lot line adjustment be recorded prior the issuance of building permits. General Plan: The subject property is located in General Plan Statistical Area H1 and has a land use designation of Retail and Service Commercial. Medical offices are a permitted use within this land use designation. The General Plan permits a base floor area ratio of 0.5. However, the General Plan allows a floor area ratio of 0.75 for exclusively non- residential uses on existing lots that are consolidated into a single development site with the approval of a Use Permit. The applicant is proposing a floor area ratio of 0.68 (12,500 square feet) on the 18,418 square foot consolidated site. Zoning Code (Title 20): The subject property is located within the Specific Plan No. 9 (Old Newport Boulevard) and has a land use designation of Retail and Service Commercial. Medical office uses are permitted within the SP -9 (RSC) zoning district. The proposed project complies with all development regulations as specified by the Zoning Code except for floor area ratio, building bulk and off - street parking. The Zoning Code allows the Planning Director to review and render a decision for Use Permits on projects that exceed 0.5 FAR and the 0.75 building bulk standards. Additionally, the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan allows the Planning Director to grant an off - street parking credit for on- street parking spaces if the project meets certain development criteria. However, since a traffic study 0 Old Newport Office Building March 4, 2004 Page 4 requires the approval of the Planning Commission the Use Permit and off - street parking credit requests associated with the project are reviewed by the Planning Commission. The following table outlines applicable development regulations and indicates whether the proposed project is in compliance. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS M REQUIREMENT PROPOSED Site Area 5,000 square feet Complies. The subject property is 18,418 square feet (with the vacated Orange Avenue portion included Setbacks: Complies. Front (Old Newport): 0 Front (Old Newport): 5 Right Side: 5 feet Right Side: 13 -feet 10- inches Left Side (Orange): 0 Left Side (Orange): 15 feet Rear: 5 feet Rear: 5 -feet 3- inches Floor Area A 0.5 Floor Area Ratio is permitted by right, thus Use Permit Requested. The applicant requests Ratio permitting a maximum building size of 9,209 an FAR of 0.678 (12.500 square feet). Section square feet. 20.46.050(A)l. allows additional floor areas up to a 0.75 FAR subject to the approval of a use permit. Building Bulk A 0.75 Building Bulk ratio is permitted by right. Use Permit Requested. Section 20.63.060 allows additional building bulk subject to the approval of a use permit. The applicant requests a building bulk of 1.274. Building 32 feet Complies. The maximum proposed height is 32 Height feet. Required Wall On structures with floor area ratios of 0.65 and Complies. Articulation higher, front walls, and side or rear walls when The front wall is setback 6 -feet from the property the rear or side yard adjoins a residential and has a height of 28 feet. The 32 foot high roof district, shall be setback at least 1 foot for screen is setback 12 feet from the front property every foot in excess of 24 feet above grade. 20 line. percent of the length of the building facade may exceed the 24 foot height limit up to the The 28 foot high portion of the building is adjacent height limits specified in Chapter 20.65 in to a residential district on easterly (rear) property order to accommodate towers, spires, cupolas, line. The main portion of the building is setback a dormers, gables, chimneys or similar minimum of 13 feet 10 inches therefore exceeding architectural features. The Planning Director the minimum 9 -foot setback for a 28 -foot high may modify or waive this requirement for building. structures with unique design requirements or where development on abutting properties The 28 foot portion of the building is adjacent to a negates the benefits of this requirement or residential district on the southeasterly (right side) renders it unnecessary. (These Standards property line. The building is setback 13 feet 10 would not apply if a project with a FAR of less inches therefore exceeding the minimum 9 -foot than 0.65 was approved.) setback for a 28 -foot high building. The project includes a 32 -foot high by 21 -foot wide tower feature at the front property line that does not exceed 20% of the 105 -foot building facade. The project includes a 32 -foot high, 16 -foot 5 -inch- inch stair tower adjacent to the rear property line that adjoins a residential property. The tower maintains the required 5 -foot setback and does not exceed 20% of the 99 -foot 4 -inch building facade. M Old Newport Office Building March 4, 2004 Page 5 Floor Area Ratio and Building Bulk Floor Area Ratio The subject property is permitted a 0.5 FAR by right. Therefore, the 18,418 square foot site is permitted a maximum building size of 9,209 square feet. The applicant requests a FAR of 0.678 (12,500 square feet). Section 20.46.050(A)1 allows additional floor areas up to a 0.75 FAR subject to the approval of a Use Permit. Approval requires the City to make the standard Use Permit findings plus additional findings related to unified site design and traffic impacts. The findings are as follows: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed use of medical office is a permitted use within the Retail and Service Commercial land use designation of Specific Plan No. 9. Several medical office buildings currently exist within the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan district and given the proximity to Hoag Hospital, it is likely that medical office uses will continue within the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan. 9 �b REQUIREMENT PROPOSED Off -Street 1 off - street parking spaces per each 250 square Project does not comply. Parking: feet (gross) of building. 12,500250 = 50 spaces required 45 off - street spaces provided. On- street credit sought pursuant to Section 20.46.040(L) of Title 20 which allows the Planning Director to grant an off- street credit for developments which maintain a 50 foot (full curb height) separation between driveway approaches. See following discussion on page 8. Landscaping. 8% of entire site, minimum 1 tree for each 50 Conditioned to comply. The conceptual feet of street frontage (tree species shall be the landscape plan meets all the landscape standards same as the designated street tree species), 3- except that two of the proposed palms will have to foot wide perimeter landscape area adjacent to be replaced by one tipu tree (Old Newport public streets, 5 -foot wide perimeter landscape Boulevard) and one gold medallion tree (Orange area adjacent to residential district. Avenue) to match the designated street trees. A condition of approval has been included requiring approval of landscape plans prior to the issuance of building permits and a site inspection prior to final of building permits to verify landscaping was installed in conformance with approved plans. Screening of All exterior mechanical equipment, except Complies. The project includes a roof top Mechanical solar collectors shall be screened from view on mechanical screen and roof top mechanical Equipment all sides. Screening materials may have evenly equipment will not be visible. distributed openings or perforations averaging 50 percent. Refuse Refuse storage areas shall be screened on all Complies. The refuse storage area is located Storage Areas sides by a 6 foot solid wood or masonry wall, within the parking area and enclosed on all sides. or located within a building. Floor Area Ratio and Building Bulk Floor Area Ratio The subject property is permitted a 0.5 FAR by right. Therefore, the 18,418 square foot site is permitted a maximum building size of 9,209 square feet. The applicant requests a FAR of 0.678 (12,500 square feet). Section 20.46.050(A)1 allows additional floor areas up to a 0.75 FAR subject to the approval of a Use Permit. Approval requires the City to make the standard Use Permit findings plus additional findings related to unified site design and traffic impacts. The findings are as follows: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed use of medical office is a permitted use within the Retail and Service Commercial land use designation of Specific Plan No. 9. Several medical office buildings currently exist within the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan district and given the proximity to Hoag Hospital, it is likely that medical office uses will continue within the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan. 9 �b Old Newport Office Building March 4, 2004 Page 6 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. The proposed medical office use is consistent with the General Plan and has a commercial zoning designation. The proposed project meets or exceeds the required setbacks for commercial structures adjacent to residential districts and complies with the specified 32 -foot height limit. This finding can be made should it be found that adequate parking is provided. Parking is discussed later in this report. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The proposed project, as conditioned, complies with all development regulations of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan. This finding can be made should it • be found that the minimum code required parking is provided. Parking is discussed later in this report. 4. To qualify for the additional floor areas, the development shall be required to provide unified site design. The project through the approval of the lot line adjustment and Orange Avenue street vacation provides for a unified site design through the consolidation of lots. With regard to the pending Orange Avenue right of way vacation, vacated streets are typically not required to formally be consolidated for land development therefore, this finding can be made. 5. The Planning Commission must find that individually or cumulatively the project shall not cause significant traffic impacts to the adjacent streets and intersections. As part of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance study (discussion follows), a cumulative project traffic analysis was performed. Approved and reasonably foreseeable projects were included in the cumulative analysis. The study forecasts that the Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road intersection will continue to operate an unsatisfactory level of service (service level "E ") after the construction of the proposed project. However, the study determined that the proposed project alone . would not contribute a significant amount of traffic or make worse the level of service at this or any of the other seven (7) intersections included in the study. Therefore, this finding can be made. Old Newport Office Building March 4, 2004 Page 7 Building Bulk The use permit includes consideration of the building to exceed the permitted 0.75 (13,813 square feet) building bulk. The proposed building bulk is 1.274 (23,480 square feet). Building Bulk is defined by the Code as the "visual and physical mass of the building" and includes covered parking areas which are not included in the FAR calculation. The following findings must be made to approve an increased building bulk. 1. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, does not create abrupt changes in scale between the proposed development and development in the surrounding area. The property size and corner location of the subject property is adequate to support the proposed structure. The majority of the project provides greater than required setbacks at the right side and rear property lines where the project abuts residential developments . The project complies with applicable height limits and provides the building articulation specified by the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan for buildings adjacent to residential districts. Therefore, this finding can be made. 2. That the proposed use and structures, including above grade covered parking, are compatible with the surrounding area. • The proposed medical office building, including above grade covered parking, is compatible with the existing surrounding professional office and retail establishments located within the Old Newport Boulevard commercial district. Additionally, the design of the project provides greater than required setbacks where the site abuts residential properties to the east and southeast. 3. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, will not result in significant impairment of public views. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, will not result in significant impairment of public views since the building bulk is accommodated within the buildable envelope of the site and no increase in building height is sought. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the development proposed, including above grade covered parking, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources. The sloping condition of the property and the proposed finished floor elevations will assist in keeping the building as low as possible in relation to the adjacent residential uses. No submerged areas or sensitive resources exists on the site. • a- Old Newport Office Building March 4, 2004 Page 8 Although facts to support the increased FAR and building bulk are present, staff questions the amount of parking available. Parking The Zoning Code establishes a parking requirement for medical office uses at 1 parking space required per each 250 square feet of gross building area. Therefore, 50 spaces are required for the proposed 12,500 square foot building. The proposed project provides 45 off - street spaces and 5 on- street spaces. The Old Newport Specific Plan includes a provision that allows the Planning Director (or Planning Commission) to grant an off - street parking credit for on- street parking spaces available along the Old Newport Boulevard frontage provided the development maintains a 50 -foot (full curb height) separation between driveway approaches. The applicant requests that an off - street parking credit be granted for two (2) spaces along Old Newport Boulevard and three (3) spaces along Orange Avenue. Staff believes that the Zoning Code is clear and that an off - street parking credit can only be granted for spaces provided on the Old Newport Boulevard frontage. Staff does believe that since the subject property is a corner lot and the project maintains the 50 -foot minimum separation between the proposed driveway location and Orange Avenue (approximately 80 feet) that granting a credit for those two spaces meets the intent of the Code and can be supported. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the plans and has approved the location of the two off -site spaces along Old Newport Boulevard subject to a final review prior to building permit issuance. The 45 off - street spaces and 2 space credit results in a total of 47 parking spaces. Therefore, the maximum square footage of the development is 11,750 square feet (1/250) without a parking waiver. However, staff has been concerned for some time that the 1/250 parking space requirement may not be adequate for medical office developments, especially those with multiple tenants. Therefore, as part of the traffic study, a parking demand analysis was conducted to help determine if a 1/250 parking space ratio would be adequate for this development. It must be mentioned that should the applicant choose to construct a building that does not exceed the base 0.5 FAR the City could only apply the existing 1/250 parking standard. Since the applicant is seeking additional floor area in excess of the base 0.5 FAR, staff would want to ensure that adequate parking is provided based upon the true demand rather than a generic parking ratio that may be insufficient for the use. For the study, parking counts were taken at two existing medical office developments located at 415 and 455 Old Newport Boulevard. The Parking Demand Analysis begins on page #19 of the Traffic Impact Analysis. (Exhibit No. 3). E 1� Old Newport Office Building March 4, 2004 Page 9 1] Parking Demand Study Study Site Square Footage No. of Tenants Off -Street Parking Peak Demand Corresponding Ratio 415 Old 11,179 Square 5 58' 52 4.65 spaces per Newport Feet 1 space per each 258 square 1000 sq.ft. Boulevard 1 space per each 244 scluare feet (11215 square feet) 1 space 10,687 2 53 33 3.09 spaces per 455 Old (14,087) "Square 1000 sq.ft. Newport Feet (1/323 square feet) Boulevard Includes 12 off -site spaces leased exclusively for employee parking and assumed occupied during business hours. *' 455 Old Newport Boulevard includes a 3,400 square foot credit union. The counts used a "worst case" formula and assumed all cars were employeesipatrons of the 10,687 square foot medical office portion of the building. As shown in the chart, the study found that, in this particular case, the building with more tenants generated a higher parking demand while the building with fewer tenants • generated a lower parking demand. The study confirms that a wide variation of parking demand is possible. The study does not provide any information as to what the cause is which would require a larger, more sophisticated study. The study concluded that the average of the two counts was 3.87 spaces per 1000 square feet or approximately one space per 258 square feet (1/258). The Traffic Engineer provided staff with a copy of a parking demand study performed in 1987. Sixteen medical /dental /clinic sites were included in the study ranging from 1,550 square feet to 140,000 square feet. The study found that parking demand ranged from 2.22/100 to 9.67/1000. The study concluded that the average rate was 4.11/1000. Since the design of the building has provided the maximum number of spaces physically possible, forty -seven (47), the following table has been prepared to outline the various parking ratios and how large a building each would support. Parking Ratios Parking Ratio I Gross Floor Area Based on 47 Parking Spaces 1 space per each 250 square feet (City standard )7 11,750 square feet 1 space per each 323 square feet: 15,181 s uare feet 1 space per each 258 square feet: 12,126 square feet 1 space per each 244 scluare feet 11,468 square feet 1 space per each 215 square feet: 10,105 square feet \_J 1q Old Newport Office Building March 4, 2004 Page 10 Staff believes that using the worst case parking ratio (1/215) is appropriate for the portion of the project that exceeds the base 0.5 FAR and that the remaining area be parked at the city standard (1/250). Therefore, based on 47 parking spaces provided, a project with a maximum area of 11,374 square feet (0.62 FAR) would result. The resulting parking ratio would be 1 space per each 242 square feet. Traffic Study (TPO)/Traffic Impact Analysis: A traffic study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) when a project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). A copy of the TPO is attached as Exhibit No. 2. The City Traffic Engineer prepared a preliminary estimate of trips and concluded that a traffic study would be required. A traffic impact analysis was then prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines. The traffic analysis examined traffic generation and impacts and on -site circulation. The proposed 12,500 square foot medical office building was found to generate the following trip counts: 625 Average Daily Trips 38 AM Peak Hour Trips 63 PM Peak Hour Trips Eight (8) intersections were identified by the Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the study. The projected traffic was distributed to the road network in accordance with the TPO and sound traffic engineering principals. The timeframe used for the analysis is through the year 2006. Using this technique accounts for future increases in traffic due to committed projects and anticipated build out of the General Plan through 2006. Using this methodology two of the eight (8) study intersections were identified as exceeding the one - percent (1 %) traffic increase threshold and required further study in the form of an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis. The intersections identified were Newport BoulevardNVest Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road. 1. Newport BoulevardNVest Coast Highway The ICU analysis found that this intersection would not operate at worse than a Level of Service D during the peak hours. Therefore, pursuant to the TPO, no mitigation is required 2. Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road The ICU analysis found that the projected level of service for this intersection including the proposed project and approved projects that have not been completed is 'B" for the AM . peak hour and "E° for the PM peak hour. Although the PM peak hour exceeds the 0.90 ICU threshold, the proposed project does not increase the ICU by .01 or more at this intersection. 15 Old Newport Office Building March 4, 2004 Page 11 The conclusion of this analysis indicates that there will be a less than significant impact to • traffic circulation and that no mitigation is required pursuant to the TPO. The traffic study also performed a cumulative traffic analysis. Reasonably foreseeable projects and approved projects that are not included in the committed project list were added to project related traffic and evaluated. The conclusion of this analysis also indicates that there will be a less than significant impact to traffic circulation and that no mitigation is required. Environmental Review: 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 3 (New Construction or the Conversion of Small Structures). Under this exemption additions up to 10,000 square feet (net) are permitted if all public services and facilities are available and the site is not environmentally sensitive. The project qualifies for this exemption since approximately 4,600 square feet of existing structures will be demolished. The site is not environmentally sensitive, utilities are available to serve the project and the traffic increases have been confirmed to be less than significant. Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports an increase of FAR and corresponding building bulk only to the extent that an increased number of parking spaces can be provided above the 11250 standard for the FAR over 0.5 to help alleviate any future parking problems. Staff also supports the off - street parking credit for the two spaces located on the Old Newport Boulevard frontage but does not support the off - street credit for the three spaces proposed on the Orange Avenue frontage since the Code does not provide for parking credits on this street. The Traffic Impact Analysis concluded that the project would not create a significant traffic impact and no mitigation was required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Traffic Study No. 2004 -001 and Use Permit No. 2003 -252 for the development of a new medical office building with maximum FAR of 0.621 (11,359 square feet), maximum building bulk of 1.15 (21,198 square feet). Staff also recommends approval of an off - street parking credit for two parking spaces . provided on Old Newport Boulevard pursuant to Section 20.46.040(L). The project �6 0 E A 0 Old Newport Office Building March 4, 2004 Page 12 would be subject to the findings and conditions of approval contained in the attached draft Planning Commission resolution. Alternatives: The Planning Commission has several alternatives in addition to the recommended action: 1. The Commission may conclude that the project as requested by the applicant including the increased FAR and Building Bulk and the off - street parking credit for all five (5) on- street parking spaces meets the intent of the Code and approve the application as requested. 2. The Commission may determine that a different parking requirement should be used and adjust the size of the development accordingly. 3. The Commission may continue the item and request a re- design for a reduced intensity project. 4. The Commission may determine that the intensity of the project is too great, and deny the application. Prepared by: N Gregg amirez, Associate /Planner Exhibits: Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple, PI nning Director 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2003 -_; findings and conditions of approval 2. Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) 3. Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis 4. Correspondence from Applicant 5. Correspondence from the Public 6. Project Plans l/1 EXHIBIT NO. 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2004 - 1� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -043 AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2004 -001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4941496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD (PA2003 -252). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by Robert Lawrence, with respect to property located at 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard and legally described as Tract No. 27, Lots 7 and 8, that portion of Old Newport Boulevard abutting said lots vacated by resolution No. 99 -54 and a portion of the Orange Avenue right of way under consideration for vacation, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001 to authorize the development of a new 12,500 square foot medical office building that exceeds the permitted 0.5 Floor Area Ratio and the permitted building bulk on an 18,418 square foot commercial site lot. The application also requests approval of a traffic study pursuant to the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and approval of an off - street parking credit for parking spaces provided on- street pursuant to Section 20.46.040(L). Section 2. A public hearing was held on March 4, 2004 at the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for Retail and Service Commercial uses. Medical office buildings are permitted uses within this category. 2. The proposed location of the Use Permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: a. The project will be of similar nature to existing professional office uses on Old Newport Boulevard. Although the project abuts residential development to the east, the new structure maintains the required setbacks and does not exceed the maximum height limit. b. As indicated in the Traffic Study, the development will not individually or cumulatively cause significant traffic impacts to the adjacent streets or I intersections. r� �q J Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paoe 2 of 8 c. The development of a professional medical office building is consistent with the goals of the Old Newport Specific Plan commercial district. d. The 18,418 square foot project site is of adequate size to support the building and the scale of an 11,359 square foot building is appropriate for this location due to it's corner location and lower finished floor elevation than the adjoining residential properties. e. The increased FAR and building bulk, including above grade covered parking, will not result in significant impairment of public views since the additional building bulk and floor area are accommodated within the buildable envelope of the site and no increase in building height is sought in conjunction with the application. Additionally, there are no scenic public views through or across the property. f. The office development and design is superior to that of the existing auto repair retail and residential development currently existing on the site. g. As conditioned, the project meets all development standards, other than floor area ratio and building bulk, specified by the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan including setbacks, landscaping, building height and required parking. h. The City Traffic Engineer has determined that the site design provides adequate vehicular access and circulation. 3. A traffic study, entitled Traffic Impact Analysis for 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California (LSA Associates, February 18, 2004), was prepared for the project in compliance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). a. The traffic study determined that the project will contribute less than a 1% increase in traffic at six (6) of the eight (8) intersections examined and therefore no mitigation is required for those. b. The traffic study determined that the project will not cause the level of service to decline at the two (2) intersections where there will be an increase of more than I% in traffic volume and therefore no mitigation is required. 4. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, unless so modified by this Use Permit, including any specific conditions required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. 5. The project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA (New Construction or the Conversion of Small Structures) as the project will result in less than a 10,000 square foot (net) increase over what exists on the site, all public services and utilities are provided and the site is not environmentally sensitive. 0 �0 0- Planning Commission Resolution No. 3of8 Section 4. Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001 subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "A." Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4th DAY OF MARCH 2004. BY: .Earl McDaniel, Chairman BY: Michael Toerge, Secretary 0 AYES: NOES: Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 8 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -043 & TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2004 -001 Planning Department 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, roof plan, elevations and sections dated February 26, 2004, landscape plans dated February 10, 2004 and grading plans dated January 29, 2004 except as specified below: a. The maximum FAR permitted is 0.621 (11,359 gross square feet). b. The maximum building bulk permitted is 1.15 (21,198 square feet). C. An off - street parking credit is granted only for the two (2) on- street parking spaces located on Old Newport Boulevard. The three (3) on- street parking spaces shown along Orange Avenue are not included in the off - street parking credit approval. • 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, City Council approval of the pending Orange Avenue right of way vacation shall be received and the property conveyed to the property owners. Should the City Council not approve the proposed Orange Avenue street vacation this Use • Permit is null and void. 3. Use Permit No. 2003 -0043 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 4. The projects subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 5. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by the current owner or leasing company. 6. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements, including handicapped parking requirements. • A� Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paoe 5 of 8 . 8. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this permit. 9. The establishment shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, County and City water quality regulations for the life of this Use Permit. 10.All mechanical equipment including roof top mounted equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets. Also, the equipment shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 11. Prior to the issuance of buildinq permits Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -042 must be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the trash enclosure design shall be approved by the Planning Department. The trash enclosure shall be enclosed by three walls and have a self closing, self latching gate. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plans are required to fully comply with the development standards outlined in Section 20.46.040(L) of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Director and the General Services Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 14. Prior to the final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code Enforcement and Water Quality Division to confirm that all landscaping was installed in accordance with the approved plan. 15.Afl landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. The irrigation systems shall be positioned and adjusted in such a manner that no sidewalk will be oversprayed by landscape irrigation. 16. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on- site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare • are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. ,A5 4U Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Pape 6 of 8 "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off flxtu res. 17. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. 18. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of buildinMermits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement and Water Quality Division to confirm control of light and glare. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 19. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permits, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non - structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be • included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the format shown in "Attachment C" of the DAMP title "Water Quality Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and Public Works Department. 20.The on -site storm drain system shall be privately maintained in accordance with the approved Water Quality Management Plan for the duration of the approved use. 21. During the construction phase the project applicant shall exercise special care to prevent any offsite siltation. Project applicant shall properly maintain all temporary erosion and sediment control measures until the Building Department approves the removal of said measures. 22.Applicant shall ensure that all construction contractor and subcontractor personnel are made aware of the required best management practices and good housekeeping measures for the project site and any associated construction lay -down areas. No construction materials, debris, or waste shall be placed or stored where it may enter a storm drain or be subject to tidal erosion or dispersion. 23-All construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored, and secured to prevent transport into coastal waters by wind, rain, or tracking. 0 "l ` Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paae 7 of 8 Building Department 24.Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy permit, all improvements shall be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the Building Department. 25. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 26.The facility shall be designed to meet exiting and fire protection requirements as specified by the Uniform Building Code and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building Department and the Fire Department. 27.A geotechnical report will be required with the submittal of construction drawings for plan check. The project shall comply with any mitigation measures contained in said report and the requirements of the Newport Beach Building Department. Fire Department 28.A fire protection system, including automatic fire sprinklers and fire sprinkler monitoring, acceptable to the Fire Department is required. 29.A fire alarm is required if the use is classified as an "I" occupancy. 30. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the elevator size shall be approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department. The elevator shall be of sufficient size to accommodate a gurney. Public Works 31.All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 32. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street tress shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and Public Works Department. 33.Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to the completion of the public improvements. 34. Prior to the issuance of building permits the final landscaping plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer to verify the plantings will not impede vehicular sight distance. 35.Prior to the issuance of building permits Fair Share Traffic Fees shall be paid in 0 accordance with Chapter 15.38 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code �5 Planning Commission Resolution No, _ Page 8 of 8 36. Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid. 0 37.Any Edison transformers serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L 38. Overhead utilities serving the site shall 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. 39. 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. 40. Prior to the final of building permits, a minimum of four parking spaces (two on each side of the drive aisle) adjacent to the dead -end drive aisle east of the lobby area shall be striped and signed as reserved for the use of employees only as revised by conditions of approval. 41. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. The location, number and dimensions of the parking spaces shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan dated February 26, 2004 as revised by conditions of approval. 9 42.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final design of all approved off -site parking, shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. The location, number and dimensions of the parking spaces shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan dated February 26, 2004 as revised by conditions of approval. 43. Prior to the issuance of building permits the final landscaping plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer to verify the plantings will not impede vehicular sight distance. 0 '(P R-r 0 EXHIBIT NO. 2 Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) E 0 4�� Chapter 15.40 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE* Sections: 15.40.010 Findings. 15.40.020 Objectives. 15.40.030 Standards for Approval - Findings— Exemptions. 15.40.035 Expiration. 15.40.040 Definitions. 15.40.050 Procedures. 15.40.060 Hearings— Notice. 15.40.070 Appeal— Review. 15.40.075 Proportionality. 15.40.080 Severability. * Prior ordinance history: Ards. 1765, 1777, 1787, 85 -30, 8620 and 942. 15.40.010 Findings. A. The phasing of development with circulation system improvements to accommodate project -gen- erated traffic is important to maintaining the high quality of the residential and commercial neighbor- hoods in Newport Beach; B. Traffic congestion caused by inadequate phasing of circulation improvements and develop- ment is harmful to the public health, safety and general welfare due to the potential for delays in emergency response, air quality impacts and an overall reduction in the quality of life. C. While some development may be important to the continued vitality of the local economy, the City should continue to require mitigation of traffic impacts by project proponents to ensure the circula- tion system functions as planned; D. Circulation system improvements should not alter the character of neighborhoods or result in the construction of streets and highways which expand the capacity of the roadway system beyond levels proposed in the circulation element; E. This chapter is consistent with the authority of a public entity to ensure that project proponents make or fund improvements that increase the capaci- 15.40.010 ty of the circulation system to accommodate project - generated traffic. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) 15.40.020 Objectives. The City Council has adopted this chapter to achieve the following objectives: A. To provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and/or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period; B. To identify the specific and near -term impacts of project traffic as well as circulation system im- provements that will accommodate project traffic and ensure that development is phased with identi- fied circulation system improvements; C. To ensure that project proponents, as condi- tions of approval pursuant to this chapter, make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and D. To provide a mechanism for ensuring that a project proponent's cost of complying with traffic related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) 15.40.030 Standards for Approval - Findings— Exemptions. A. Standards for Approval. Unless a project is exempt as provided in subsection (C), no building, grading or related permit shall be issued for any project until the project has been approved pursuant to this chapter (approved). A project shall be ap- proved only if the Planning Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal, finds: 1. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Ap- pendix A; 2. That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) can be made; and 569 (Newport Beach 9 -99) 0 9 0 15.40.030 3. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contri- butions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all conditions of ap- proval. B. Findings for Approval. No project shall be approved pursuant to this chapter unless the Plan- ning Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal, finds that: 1. Construction of the project will be completed within sixty (60) months of project approval; and: a. The project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection, or b. The project including circulation improve- ments that the project proponent is required to make and/or fund, pursuant to a reimbursement program or otherwise, will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impact- ed primary intersection, or c. The project trips will cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at one or more impacted primary intersection(s) but the project proponent is required to construct and/or fund, pur- suant to a reimbursement program or otherwise, circulation improvements, or make contributions, such that: (1) The project trips will not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection for which there is a feasible improvement, and (2) The benefits resulting from circulation im- provements constructed or funded by, or contribu- tions to the preparation or implementation of a traffic mitigation study made by, the project pro- ponent outweigh the adverse impact of project trips at any impacted primary intersection for which there is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that would, if implemented, fully satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (13)(1)(b). In balancing the adverse im- pacts and benefits, only the following improvements and/or contributions shall be considered with the greatest weight accorded to the improvements and/or contributions described in subparagraphs (a) and (b) below: (Nmpm Beach 9-99) 570 (a) Contributions to the preparation of, and/or implementation of some or all of the recommenda- tions in, a traffic mitigation study related to an impacted primary intersection that is initiated or approved by the City Council, (b) Improvements, if any, that mitigate the im- pact of project trips at any impacted primary inter- section for which there is (are) no feasible improve - ment(s) that, if implemented, would satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030(B)(1)(b), (c) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any impacted primary intersection in the vicinity of the project, (d) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any impacted primary intersection operating, or projected to operate, at or above 0.80 ICU, or d. The project complies with (1)(b) upon the completion of one or more circulation improve- ments; and: (1) The time and/or funding necessary to com- plete the improvement(s) is (are) not roughly pro- portional to the impacts of project - generated trips, and (2) There is a strong likelihood the improve - ment(s) will be completed within forty -eight (48) months from the date the project and traffic study are considered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal. This fording shall not be made unless, on or before the date of approval, a conceptual plan for each improvement has been prepared in sufficient detail to permit estimation of cost and funding sources for the improvement(s); the improvement(s) is (are) consistent with the cir- culation element or appropriate amendments have been initiated; an account has been established to receive all funds and contributions necessary to construct the improvement(s) and the improvement is identified as one to be constructed pursuant to the five year capital improvement plan and as specified in Appendix A, and (3) The project proponent pays a fee to fund construction of the improvement(s). The fee shall be calculated by multiplying the estimated cost of the improvement(s) by a fraction. The fraction shall be t calculated by dividing the "effective capacity de- crease" in the impacted primary intersection attrib- utable to project trips by the "effective capacity increase" in the impacted primary intersection that is attributable to the improvement_ The terms "effec- tive capacity increase" and "effective capacity de- crease" shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Appendix A. Or: 2. The project is a Comprehensive Phased Land Use Development and Circulation System Improve- ment Plan with construction of all phases not antici- pated to be complete within sixty (60) months of project approval; and a. The project is subject to a development agreement which requires the construction of, or contributions to, circulation improvements early in the development phasing program, and b. The traffic study contains sufficient data and analysis to determine if that portion of the project reasonably expected to be constructed and ready for occupancy within sixty (60) months of project ap- proval satisfies the provisions of subsections (13)(1)(a) or (B)(1)(b), and c. The Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan are not made inconsistent by the impact of project trips (including circulation im- provements designed to mitigate the impacts of project trips) when added to the trips resulting from development anticipated to occur within the City based on the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and d. The project is required, during the sixty (60) month period immediately after approval, to con- struct circulation improvement(s) such that: (1) Project trips will not cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impact- ed primary intersection for which there is a feasible improvement, (2) The benefits resulting from circulation im- provements constructed or funded by, or contribu- tions to the preparation or implementation of a traffic mitigation study made by, the project pro- ponent outweigh the adverse impact of project trips at any impacted primary intersection for which there is (are) no feasible improvement(s) that would, if 571 15.40.030 implemented, fully satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (B)(1)(b). In balancing the adverse im- pacts and benefits, only the following improvements and/or contributions shall be considered with the greatest weight accorded to the improvements and/or contributions described in subparagraphs (a) or (b): (a) Contributions to the preparation of, and/or implementation of some or all of the recommenda- tions in, a traffic mitigation study related to an impacted primary intersection that is initiated or approved by the City Council, (b) Improvements, if any, that mitigate the im- pact of project trips at any impacted primary inter- section for which there is (are) no feasible improve - ment(s) that, if implemented, would fully satisfy the provisions of Section 15.40.030 (13)(1)(b), (c) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any impacted primary intersection in the vicinity of the project, (d) Improvements that mitigate the impacts of project trips on any impacted primary intersection operating, or projected to operate, at or above 0.80 ICU; and 3. The Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal finds, by the affirmative vote of five- sevenths (5/7) of the members eligible to vote, that this chapter is inapplicable to the project because the project will result in benefits that out- weigh the project's anticipated negative impact on the circulation system; C. Exemptions. The following projects are ex- empt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. Any project that generates no more than three hundred (300) average daily trips. This exception shall not apply to individual projects on the same parcel or parcels of property, such as changes in land use or increases in floor area, that in any twen- ty four (24) month period cumulatively generate more than three hundred (300) average daily trips; 2. Any project that, during any morning or evening peak hour period, does not increase trips by one percent or more on any leg of any primary intersection; 3. Any project that meets all of the following criteria: 0 (Newport Brach 11-99) 50 P 0 L_J 15.40.030 a. The project would be constructed on property within the sphere of influence of the City of New- port Beach and that is within the jurisdiction of the County of Orange or an adjacent city as of the effective date of this ordinance; and b. The project is subject to a vesting tentative or parcel map, development agreement, pre-annex- ation agreement and/or other legal document that vests the right of the property owner to construct the project in the County or adjacent city; and c. The property owner enters into a development agreement, pre- annexation agreement, or similar agreement with the City of Newport Beach: (1) That establishes the average daily trips gener- ated by the project ( "baseline "), (2) That requires the property owner to comply with this chapter prior to the issuance of any permit for development that would, in any twenty-four (24) month period, generate more than three hundred (300) average daily trips above the baseline for the project, and (3) That makes this chapter applicable to the project immediately upon annexation; d. The City Council determines, prior to annex- ation, that the environmental document prepared for the project fully complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) 15.40.035 Expiration. A. The Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, shall establish a specific date on which the approval of the project shall expire (expiration date). In no event shall the expiration date be less than twenty -four (24) months from the date of approval. The initial expiration date for projects other than those described in Section 15.40.030(B)(2) shall be no more than sixty (60) months from the date of approval unless subsequent approval is required from another public agency. In the event the project requires approval from another public agency subsequent to approval pursuant to this chapter, the date of approval shall be the date of the action taken by the last public agency to consider the project. Approval pursuant to this chapter shall terminate on the expiration date unless (Newport Beach 11 -99) 572 a building permit has been issued for the project and construction has commenced pursuant to that permit prior to the expiration date or the expiration date has been extended pursuant to subsection (C). B. Any project approved pursuant to this chapter shall be considered a "committed project" until the expiration date, if any, or until the final certificate of occupancy has been issued if construction has commenced on a portion or a phase of the project. All trips generated by each committed project shall be included in all subsequent traffic studies con- ducted pursuant to this chapter as provided in ap- pendix A. Committed projects shall be administered in accordance with Appendix A. C. The Planning Commission or City Council may, subsequent to the date of approval, extend the expiration date for any project. D. The Planning Director and Traffic Manager shall, at least annually, monitor the progress of each project to ensure compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) 15.40.040 Definitions. The following terms used in this chapter shall have the meaning indicated below: "Circulation element" means the Circulation Ele- ment of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach as amended from time to time. "Circulation improvement(s)" or "improve - ment(s)" means a modification to a primary intersec- tion (possibly including a related roadway link) that increases the capacity of the primary intersection. "Date of approval" means the date the project is approved, pursuant to this chapter, by the Planning Commission or City Council on review or appeal. "Feasible improvement" means a circulation improvement that: 1. Is not inconsistent with the Circulation Ele- ment at the date of approval and has not been iden- tified as infeasible by the City Council at a public hearing to initiate or approve a traffic mitigation study; or 2. Is not inconsistent with any amendment(s) to the Circulation Element initiated and approved in conjunction with the project and is required to be �,l completed by the project proponent and/or the City within the time frames required by this chapter. "ICU" means the intersection capacity utilization computed in accordance with standard traffic engi- neering principles and the procedures outlined in Appendix A. "Impacted primary intersection" means any pri- mary intersection where project trips increase the volume of traffic on any leg by one percent (1%) or more during any peak hour period. "Level of traffic service" means the letter as- signed to a range of ICUs in accordance with Ap- pendix A. "Members eligible to vote" means all members of the Planning Commission, or the City Council on review or appeal, lawfully holding office except those members disqualified from voting due to a conflict of interest. "NBTAM" means the most current City Council approved traffic analysis model for the City of New- port Beach. "Peak hour period" means the four consecutive fifteen (15) minute periods between seven a.m. and nine a.m. (morning) and the four consecutive fifteen (15) minute periods between four p.m. and six p.m. (evening) with the highest traffic volumes (for each primary intersection) as determined by the field counts required by Appendix A. "Primary intersection" means each intersection identified in Appendix B and, with respect to indi- vidual projects, any additional intersection selected by the Traffic Manager pursuant to Section 15.40.050(B)(1). "Project" means "project" as defined in the Cali - fomiaEnvironmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines, and relevant decisional law without regard to whether any environmental document is required for the project. The term "project" shall also mean any application for a building or grading permit for development that would generate more than three hundred (300) average daily trips. "Traffic engineer" means the traffic engineer retained by the City to prepare the traffic study. 15.40.040 "Traffic Manager" means the person employed by the City who occupies the position of Traffic and Development Services Manager or similar position. "Traffic mitigation study" means a study designed to evaluate and recommend a plan to mitigate the impact of an actual or potential unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any primary intersection on traffic volumes in any residential neighborhood in the vicinity of that primary intersection. "Traffic study" means the study prepared by the traffic engineer in strict compliance with this chapter including Appendix A. "Unsatisfactory level of service" means a level of service at a primary intersection, which is worse than level of service "D" (.90 ICU), during any morning or evening peak hour period as determined in accordance with Appendix A. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) 15.40.050 Procedures. A. The Planning Commission shall determine compliance with this chapter based on the traffic study for the project, information from staff and/or the traffic engineer, and the entire record of the proceedings conducted with regard to the project. The traffic study shall be prepared in compliance with Appendix A. B. Subject to review by the Planning Commis- sion, or City Council on review or appeal, the traffic manager, in the exercise of his/her professional discretion, shall: 1. Direct the preparation of each traffic study by a traffic engineer retained by the City and, in com- pliance with Appendix A, determine those primary intersections (or other intersections if the impact of project traffic on primary intersections may not be representative) that may be impacted by project trips; 2. Ensure that each traffic study is prepared in compliance with the methodology described in Ap- pendix A and independently evaluate the conclu- sions of the traffic engineer; 3. Make recommendations to the Planning Com- mission and/or City Council with respect to the criteria for evaluating trip reduction measures, the • 573 (Newport Beach 9 -99) 3 • • E 15.40.050 appropriate trip generation rates of land uses, and the criteria for distributing project trips to ensure that each traffic study reflects modem transportation engineering practice. C. Any finding or decision of the Planning Com- mission with respect to any project that also requires discretionary action on the part of the City Council, such as an amendment to the general plan or zoning ordinance, shall be deemed an advisory action. In such cases the City Council shall take any action required by this chapter at the same date and time that the City Council considers the other discretion- ary approvals required by the project. D. The application for any building, grading or other permit for any project subject to this chapter shall be approved, conditionally approved or denied within one year from the date on which the applica- tion is deemed complete. In the event action is not taken on an application within one year, the project shall be deemed approved provided it is consistent with the general plan and zoning ordinance of the City of Newport Beach. E. A fee as established by resolution of the City Council to defray the expenses of administering this chapter shall accompany the application for a traffic study. The application for a traffic study shall be submitted in compliance with Appendix A. F. The City Council shall conduct a noticed public hearing prior to initiating or approving any traffic mitigation study and identifying as infeasible any improvement at or near any primary intersec- tion; G. The City Council may establish reimburse- ment programs to ensure that multiple projects af- fecting the same primary intersection pay for im- provements in proportion to their respective impacts. The reimbursement programs shall be developed and administered in compliance with Appendix A. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) 15.40.060 Hearings— Notice. A. The Planning Commission, and the City Council on appeal or review, shall hold a public hearing on any project pursuant to this chapter. The public hearing on the traffic study may be consoli- (Newport Beach 9 -99) 574 dated with other hearings required by the project. The hearing shall be noticed in the manner provided in Section 20.91.030(C). of the Newport Beach Mu- nicipal Code or any successor provision. B. All findings required or provided for in this chapter shall be in writing and supported by the weight of the evidence in the entire administrative record for the project including the traffic study. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) 15.40.070 Appeal— Review. A. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any Planning Commission decision to approve a project shall be final unless there is an appeal by the project proponent or any interested person. The appeal shall be initiated and conducted pursuant to the procedures in Chapter 20.95 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or any successor provision; B. The City Council shall have a right of review as specified in Chapter 20.95 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or any successor provision; C. The City Council shall be subject to the same requirements as the Planning Commission relative to decisions and findings required by this chapter. (Ord. 99 -17 § l (part), 1999) 15.40.075 Proportionality. A. In no event shall the Planning Commission or City Council on review or appeal: 1. Impose any traffic related condition or condi- tions on the approval of a project that would require the project proponent to construct one or more cir- culation improvement(s) if the total cost of traffic related conditions and/or improvements is not roughly proportional to the impact of project trips; or 2. Impose any traffic related condition orcondi- tions on the approval of a project which would require the payment of fees or costs that are not roughly proportional to the impact of project trips. B. The provisions of this chapter are intended to address the specific and, in most cases, near term impacts of project trips on impacted primary inter- sections rather than the overall impact of project traffic on the circulation system. Chapter 15.38 of 15.40.075 the Newport Beach Municipal Code is intended to address the overall impact of development on the circulation system. Conditions or fees imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be in addition to fees required pursuant to Chapter 15.38 except as other- wise provided in Chapter 15.38. C. The provisions of this section shall not limit orrestrict the authority ofthe Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, to impose on any project all feasible mitigation measures pursuant to the provisions of applicable law, including CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. D. The provisions of this section shall not re- quire approval of any project if the Planning Com- mission, or City Council on review or appeal, is unable to make the findings required for approval pursuant to this chapter. E. The provisions of this section shall not re- quire approval of any project which the Planning Commission is authorized to deny or modify pursu- ant to any State law or City ordinance, resolution or plan. F. The provisions of this section shall not limit or restrict the authority of the Planning Commission, or City Council on review or appeal, to impose conditions, fees, exaction or dedications on a project pursuant to: 1. A development agreement; 2. A reimbursement agreement, a reimbursement program, or any agreement acceptable to the project proponent; 3. The consent of the project proponent; or 4. An amendment to the land use element or zoning ordinance of the City of Newport Beach that is required for approval of the project. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) 15.40.080 Severability. If all or a portion of any section or subsection of this chapter is declared invalid, all of the provisions of this chapter that have not been declared invalid shall be considered valid and in full force and ef- fect. (Ord. 99 -17 § 1 (part), 1999) 0 574 -1 (Newport Be.ch 9 -99) � • APPENDIX A ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 1. General. These Administrative Procedures (Procedures) apply to any Project for which Traffic Study is required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). 2. Application. a. The proponent of any Project subject to the TPO shall: i. file an application for a Traffic Study; ii. pay the required fees; and iii. sign an agreement to pay all costs related to the Traffic Study. b. The application shall be accompanied by the following information: i. A complete description of the Project including the total amount of floor area to be constructed • and the amount of floor area allocated to each proposed land use; ii. A Project site plan that depicts the location and intensity of proposed development, the location of points of ingress and egress, and the location of parking lots or structures; 0 iii. Any proposed Project phasing; iv. Any trip reduction measure proposed by the Project proponent; V. Any information, study or report that supports any request by the Project proponent to use trip generation rates that differ from those used in the NBTAM or the most current version of the ITE Manual or the SANDAG Manual; and vi. Any other information that, in the opinion of the Traffic Manager, is necessary to properly evaluate the traffic impacts of the Project or the Circulation System Improvements that could mitigate those traffic impacts. 3. Traffic Study Assumptions. a. The definitions in Section 15.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be applicable to these Procedures. (Newport Beach 9 -99) 574 -2 35 b. ICU calculations shall assume a lane capacity value of 1600 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for both through and turn lanes. No factor for yellow time shall be included in the lane capacity assumptions. ICU calculations shall be made by calculating the volume to capacity ratios for each movement to three decimal places, and then adding the critical movements to obtain an ICU with three decimal places. The increase in the ICU attributable to Project trips shall be calculated to three decimal places. The ICU shall then be rounded to two decimal places. For example, an ICU of .904 shall be rounded to .90 and an ICU of .905 shall be rounded to .91. c. Circulation System Improvements may be included in the Traffic Study for a Project provided that the Traffic Manager determines: i. The Improvement will be completed no more than one year after completion of the Project or Project phase for which the Traffic Study is being performed; and ii. The Improvement is included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, and is defined in sufficiently precise terms to allow the Traffic Engineer to conduct an ICU analysis; or iv. The design of the Improvement is consistent with standard City design criteria or has been approved by the City Council, or other public entity with jurisdiction over the Improvement, and is defined in sufficiently precise terms to allow the Traffic Engineer to conduct an ICU analysis. d. Traffic volumes shall be based on estimates of traffic volumes expected to exist one year after completion of the Project, or that portion of the Project for which the Traffic Study is being performed. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure use of the most accurate information to estimate traffic volumes one year after Project completion. Traffic volume estimates shall be based on: i. The most current field counts for each Primary Intersection with counts taken on weekdays during the morning and evening Peak Hour Period between February 1 and May 31; ii. Traffic generated by Committed Projects as determined in accordance with the TPO and these Procedures vi. Projects reasonably expected to be complete within the one year after Project completion and which are located in the City of Newport Beach or its sphere of influence; iv. Increases in regional traffic anticipated to occur within one year after Project completion as projected in the NBTAM or other accepted sources of future Orange County traffic growth; and V. Other information customarily used by Traffic Engineers to accurately estimate future traffic volumes. e. For purposes of the traffic analysis of Circulation System Improvements, seventy percent (70 %) of the incremental increase in intersection capacity (based on a capacity of 1600 vphg for each full traffic lane) shall be utilized. Upon completion of any Circulation System Improvement, traffic volume counts shall be updated, and any additional available capacity may then be utilized in future Traffic Studies. 574 -3 (Newpon B"Ch 9 -99) f. Trip generation rates for the land uses contemplated by the Project shall be based on standard trip generation values utilized in NBTAM except as provided in this Subsection. The Traffic Engineer may, with the concurrence of the Traffic Manager, use trip generation rates other than as specified in the NBTAM when NBTAM trip generation rates are based on limited information or study and there is a valid study of the trip generation rate of a similar land use that supports a different rate. g. The Traffic Engineer may, with the concurrence of the Traffic Manager, reduce trip generation rates for some or all of the land uses contemplated by the Project based on specific trip reduction measures when: i. The Project proponent proposes in writing and prior to commencement of the Traffic Study, specific and permanent measures that will reduce Peak Hour Period trips generated by the Project; and ii. The Traffic Manager and Traffic Engineer, in the exercise of their best professional judgment, each determine that the proposed measure(s) will reduce Peak Hour Period Project trips and the specific reduction in Project trips that can reasonably be expected; and iii. The Project proponent provides the City with written assurance that the proposed trip generation reduction measure(s) will be permanently implemented. The Project proponent must consent to make permanent implementation of the measure(s) a condition to the approval of the Project, and the measure(s) shall be made a condition of the Project by the Planning Commission or City Council on review or appeal. h. In determining Project trips, credit shall be given for existing uses on the Project site. Credit shall be given based on the trip generation rates in the NBTAM. In the alternative, the Traffic Manager tray, in the exercise of his/her professional judgment, authorize the use of trip generation rates in the ITE Manual, SANDAG Manual, or on the basis of actual site traffic counts. In the event the Project site has not been used for any purpose for a period of one (1) year prior to the filing of an application for a Traffic Study, credit shall be limited to trips generated by the last known land use, if any, that could be resumed with no discretionary approval. For any land use that is not active as of the date of the application for Traffic Study, the Project proponent shall have the burden of establishing that the use was in operation during the previous one (1) year period. i. The purpose of this Paragraph is to ensure that trips that would be generated upon completion of a Project approved pursuant to the TPO are incorporated into any subsequent Traffic Study conducted prior to completion of the Project and/or post- Project field counts specified in Section 3.d.i. A Committed Project is one that has been approved pursuant to the TPO, requires no further discretionary approval by the City, and has received, or is entitled to receive, a building or grading permit for construction of the Project or one or more phases of the Project. In preparing a Traffic Study, trips generated by Committed Projects shall be included subject to the following: i. All trips generated by each Committed Project or that portion or phase of the Committed Project for which no certificate of occupancy has been issued shall be included in any Traffic Study conducted prior to the Expiration Date of that Committed Project; (Newpon Bwcn 9 -99) 574-4 3�1 ii. In the event a final certificate of occupancy has been issued for one or more phases of a Committed Project, all trips shall be included in subsequent Traffic Studies until completion of the first field counts required by Subsection 3(d)(i) subsequent to the date on which the final certificate of occupancy was issued. Subsequent to completion of the field counts, those trips generated by phases of the Committed Project that have received a final certificate of occupancy shall no longer be included in subsequent Traffic Studies. iii. The Traffic Manager and Planning Director shall maintain a list of Committed Projects and, at least annually, update the list to reflect new Approvals pursuant to the TPO as well as completion of all or a portion of each Committed Project. A Committed Project shall not be removed from the Committed Project list until a final certificate of occupancy has been issued for all phases and the field counts required by Subsection 3(d)(i) have been taken subsequent to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. iv. The total trips generated by Committed Projects shall be reduced by twenty percent (20%) to account for the interaction of Committed Project trips. j. For purposes of Chapter 15.40 and these Procedures, the following Levels of Traffic Service ranges shall apply: A .00—.60 ICU B .61—.70 ICU C .71—.80 ICU D .81—.90 ICU E .91-1.00 ICU F Above 1.00 ICU 4. Initial Traffic Study Procedures. a. The Traffic Manager shall retain a qualified Traffic Engineer pursuant to contract with the City to prepare a Traffic Study for the Project in compliance with the TPO and the methodology specified in these Procedures. b. The Traffic Manager shall advise the Traffic Engineer of the methodology and assumptions required by these Procedures and provide the Traffic Engineer with a copy of the TPO and these Procedures. c. The Traffic Manager, in consultation with the Traffic Engineer and in accordance with accepted traffic engineering standards and principles, shall determine the most probable manner in which Project Trips will be distributed throughout the Circulation System. The determination of Project trip distribution shall be consistent with: i. the assumptions in NBTAM relative to the trip production and attraction characteristics of various land uses; and ii. previous trip distribution determinations for Projects of similar size and location; 574 -5 (Ne.pon Beach 9 -99) h �/ Trip distributions shall be in increments of 5% of Project Trips. In no event shall Project trips be removed from any roadway on which a Primary Intersection is located except at a signalized intersection with another roadway on which a Primary Intersection is located. The determination of Project trip distribution shall, in all cases, reflect the most probable movement of Project trips throughout the Circulation System. The Traffic Study shall clearly explain the rationale for the determination of Project trip distribution. d. The Traffic Engineer shall determine if Project trips will increase traffic on any leg of any Primary Intersection by one percent (1 %) or more during any Peak Hour Period one year after Project completion. e. In the event the Traffic Engineer determines that Project generated trips will not increase traffic by one percent (1%) or more on any leg of any Primary Intersection during any morning or evening Peak Hour Period one year after Project completion the analysis will be terminated. In such event the Traffic Study and worksheet shall be submitted to the Planning Commission with a recommendation that the Project be determined exempt from the TPO pursuant to Section 15.40.030 C.2. f. No mitigation shall be identified or required for any Primary Intersection unless Project trips increase traffic on one or more of the legs of the intersection by one percent (I %) or more during any morning or evening Peak Hour Period. 5. Traffic Study MethodoloiZy. a. The Traffic Engineer, in preparing the Traffic Study, shall evaluate the impact of Project trips generated from all proposed land uses based on the assumptions specified in Section 3 and the methodology specified in this Section. b. In the case of conversion of an existing structure to a more intense land use, the incremental increase in trips generated by the Project shall be evaluated. In the event the uses within the existing structure changed during the preceding twelve (12) months, the differential shall be calculated on the basis of the prior use or uses with the highest trip generation rates according to the NBTAM (or ITE Manual or SANDAG Manual as appropriate). c. Project trips shall be distributed in accordance with the determination specified in Subparagraph 4c. d. The following ICU calculations shall be performed for each Primary Intersection where, one year after Project completion, Project generated trips will increase traffic by one percent (1 %) or more on any leg of the Primary Intersection during any morning and/or evening Peak Hour Period: i. The existing ICU; ii. The ICU, with Circulation System Improvements that will be in place within one year after Project completion, based on all projected traffic including regional traffic increases and trips generated by Committed Projects excluding Project generated trips; and 0 iii. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips; (Newport Bn:h 9 -99) 574 -6 iv. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips and any trip reduction measures approved by the Traffic Manager; v. The ICU in (ii) with Project trips and any mitigation resulting from Improvements; vi. The ICU in (v) with trip reduction measures approved by the Traffic Manager. e. The Traffic Study shall, for each Impacted Primary Intersection with an Unsatisfactory Level of Service (ICU of .905 or more) that has been caused or made worse by Project generated trips, identify each Feasible Improvement that could mitigate some or all of the impacts of Project trips. The Traffic Study shall also determine the extent to which the Improvement provides additional capacity for critical movements at the Impacted Primary Intersection in excess of the Project trips and any other information relevant to the calculation of any fee required by the TPO. f. The Traffic Study shall, for each Improvement identified pursuant to Subsection e., estimate the cost of making the Improvement including the cost of property acquisition, design, and construction. The Traffic Engineer may perform the cost estimate or, with the approval of the Traffic Manager, retain a civil engineer or other qualified professional to prepare the cost estimates. g. The determination of "effective capacity increase" and "effective capacity decrease" as described in Section 15.40.030 B.l.d. shall be made as specified in this Subparagraph. In determining the "effective capacity increase" attributable to any Improvement to any Primary Intersection, the Traffic Engineer shall first calculate the ICU with existing, committed and regional trips (Future W/O Project ICU). Then the ICU shall be calculated with existing, committed and regional trips and the Improvement (Improved W/O Project ICU). The "effective capacity increase" shall be determined by subtracting the Improved W/O Project ICU from the Future W/O Project ICU. ii. In determining the "effective capacity decrease" attributable to Project trips the Traffic Engineer shall first calculate the ICU of the Primary Intersection with existing, committed and regional trips, Project trips and the Improvement (Improved With Project ICU). The "effective capacity decrease" shall be calculated by subtracting the Improved W/O Project ICU from the Improved With Project ICU. iii. For example, if the Future W/O Project ICU is .92 and the Improved W/O Project ICU is .82 the "effective capacity increase" is 10. If the Improved W/O Project ICU is .82 and the Improved ICU With Project ICU is .87 the "effective capacity decrease" is 5. Assuming the cost of the Improvement is $100,000 the contribution of the Project would be $50,000 ($100,000 multiplied by 5/10). h. The Traffic Study shall also provide the Planning Commission with any additional information relevant to the findings or analysis required by the TPO. 574 -7 0 (Newport BCZCh 9199) � /. 0 6. Staff Analysis. a. The Traffic Engineer shall transmit a draft Traffic Study to the Traffic Manager for review, comment and correction. The Traffic Manager shall review the draft Traffic Study and submit corrections to the Traffic Engineer within 15 days after receipt. The Traffic Engineer shall make the corrections within ten (10) days of receipt and transmit the final Traffic Study to the Traffic Manager. b. The Traffic Manager shall transmit the final Traffic Study to the Planning Department for presentation to the Planning Commission. 7. Issuance of Permits. The City shall not issue building, grading or other permits for a Project Approved pursuant to Section 15.40.030 B.1.b., 15.40.030 B.I.c., or 15.40.030 B.2. until each Improvement that has been assumed to be in place for purposes of Project Approval, or is to be constructed or funded as a condition to Project Approval, satisfies the following criteria: a. The Improvement has been budgeted and committed for construction by or on behalf of the City; or b. The State, County or other governmental agency making the Improvement has accepted bids for the Project; or . c. The Improvement has been approved by the appropriate governmental jurisdictions and is to be constructed by the Project proponent in conjunction with development of the Project or the Project proponent has guaranteed construction of the Improvement through the posting of bonds or other form of assurance. 8. Reimbursement Programs. a. The City Council may establish Reimbursement Programs to ensure Project conditions are roughly proportional to Project impacts and to facilitate the prompt construction of Improvements to mitigate the impact of Project trips. A Reimbursement Program may be proposed by the City Manager to the City Council whenever he /she becomes aware of the potential for multiple Projects to impact a Primary Intersection and a Feasible Improvement may be required of one or more of the Projects because of the impact of Project trips. b. A Reimbursement Program shall have the following components: Identification of the Feasible Improvement(s) including, without limitation, preliminary design and cost estimates and the estimated date of completion of the Feasible Improvement(s); Calculation of the "effective capacity increase" attributable to the Feasible Improvement(s); iii. The amount of the cost of the Feasible Improvement for which the City or Project Proponent shall • be entitled to reimbursement from subsequent or contemporaneous Projects; (Newport Beath 9AW 574_8 q I MAN iv. The duration of the period during which Reimbursement shall be required of subsequent or contemporaneous Projects. 9. Committed Improvements. In the case of Projects Approved pursuant to Section 15.40.030 B.I.d., the Improvement(s) assumed to be completed within forty -eight (48) months after Project Approval shall be listed in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City Council shall not remove the Improvement(s) from the CIP unless a different Improvement (Substitute Improvement) is identified and the Substitute Improvement will result in reductions in the ICU at the Impacted Primary Intersection that equal or exceed the reduction(s) in ICU at the Impacted Primary Intersection(s) that were assumed or projected when the Project was Approved. !1 • • 574_9 (Newport Beach 9.99) "� J E, EXHIBIT NO. 3 Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Analysis • q3 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA L S A February 18, 2004 • u� • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92659 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 553 -0666 LSA Project No. CNB333 LSA It February 18, 2004. 4z' TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................. ............................... 1 METHODOLOGY................................. ............................... 1 PROPOSED PROJECT ............................. ............................... 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................... ............................... 6 EXISTING PLUS BACKGROUND CONDITIONS TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................. 10 EXISTING PLUS BACKGROUND CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE ................... 13 EXISTING PLUS BACKGROUND PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS .................... 13 ON -SITE CIRCULATION ......................... ............................... 19 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS ................... ............................... 19 CONCLUSIONS ................................. ............................... 23 MITIGATION MEASURES ........................ ............................... 24 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Traffic Volumes from Approved Projects APPENDIX B: One - Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Worksheets APPENDIX C: Traffic Phasing Ordinance ICU Analysis Worksheets APPENDIX D: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects Location, Trip Generations and Distributions APPENDIX E: Existing plus Background plus Cumulative (without and with project) ICU Worksheets P:\ CNB333\ Tcafic_SNdy_Revised.wpd<2 /17/04> 1 0 • • 0 FIGURES FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1: Location of the Proposed Project and Study Area Locations ........................ 2 Figure 2: Site Plan ................................. ............................... 5 Figure 3: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ....... ............................... 7 Figure 4: AM & PM Peak Hour Project Trips ............ ............................... 8 Figure 5: Existing AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .. ............................... 9 Figure 6: Approved Projects AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................... 11 Figure 7: Existing plus Background Condition AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......... 12 Figure 8: Existing plus Background plus Project Condition AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................................ ............................... 14 Figure 9: Cumulative Projects AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................... 16 Figure 10: Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ......................... ............................... 17 0 Figure 11: Existing plus Background plus Cumulative plus Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................... ............................... 18 Figure 12: Turning Analysis for a Medium Passenger Car . ............................... 20 Figure 13: Turning Analysis for a Large Passenger Car ... ............................... 21 TABLES Table A: Project Trip Generation ...................... ............................... 4 Table B: Existing Level of Service Summary ............ ............................... 6 Table C: Existing Plus Background Plus Project Level of Service Comparison ................ 13 Table D: Existing Plus Background Plus Cumulative Projects Level of Service Comparison ..... 15 Table E: Parking Accumulation Survey Results ......... ............................... 22 PACN13333 \Traffic_study_Revise6 .wp&«1 l 7104 11 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. FEBRUARY 2004 INTRODUCTION TRAFFIC INPACTANALYSIS 4941496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to identify the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the development of a 12,500 - square -foot office building on the southeast corner of Old Newport Boulevard/Orange Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed project and the study area intersections analyzed in this report. This report presents a traffic analysis of near -term traffic conditions consistent with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Although the TPO does not require a cumulative projects analysis, this analysis was included to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Issues addressed in this analysis include off-site intersection impacts and internal circulation. A parking demand analysis is also included in this report. The traffic analysis for the proposed project will examine five scenarios: 1. Existing conditions 2. Existing plus background conditions 3. Existing plus background plus project conditions 4. Existing plus background conditions plus cumulative projects 5. Existing plus background plus cumulative projects plus project conditions METHODOLOGY This traffic impact analysis is prepared consistent with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The study area intersections analyzed in this report include the following: Study Area Intersections • Superior Avenue/Placentia Avenue • Superior Avenue/Hospital Road • Superior AvenuelWest Coast. Highway • Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road • Newport Boulevard/HospitalRoad • Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway • Newport BoulevardNia Lido • Riverside AvenuelWest Coast Highway Consistent with the TPO methodology, the eight study area intersections were evaluated to identify any locations where the project has the potential to increase traffic on any leg of the intersection by one percent or more in the existing plus background condition. Intersections where the project would not increase traffic on any leg by one percent or more would not require any further analysis. P: \ CNB333 \Tmffic_Swdy_Revised.wpd<V I7/04> 1] Ll L S A LEGEND FIGURE 1 4 50 - Study Area Intersection SCFff1A = -Norm Scams 1ACNB430%G6Study Ivts.cdr (2/16/04) ¢9¢ 1¢96 Old Newport Boulevard Project Location and Study Area Intersections 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACTANALYSIS FEBRUARY 2004 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORTBEACX. CALIFORNIA Intersection Level of Service Methodology. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology was used to determine levels of service (LOS) for the signalized study area intersections. This methodology compares the volume to capacity (vlc) ratios of conflicting turn movements at an intersection, sums up these critical conflicting vlc ratios for each intersection approach, and determines the overall ICU. The resulting ICU is expressed in terms of LOS, where LOS A represents free -flow activity, and LOS F represents overcapacity operation. The LOS criteria for signalized intersections using the ICU methodology are presented below. A No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic, and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are made easily, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. B This service level represents stable operation, where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are nearing full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles. C This level still represents stable operating conditions. Occasionally, drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. D This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period; however, enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive backups. E Capacity occurs at the upper end of this service level. It represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every signal cycle is attained no matter how great the demand. F This level describes forced flow operations at low speeds, where volumes exceed capacity. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time due to the congestion. In the extreme case, speed can drop to zero. The relationship between the ICU value (i.e., vlc ratio) and LOS is as follows: Level of Service Intersection Capacity Utilization A < 0.60 B 0.61 -0.70 C 0.71 -0.80 D 0.81 -0.90 E 0.91 -1.00 F > 1.00 The City of Newport Beach considers LOS D as the upper limit of satisfactory operations. Mitigation is required for any intersection where project traffic causes the intersection to deteriorate from LOS P:\ CNB333 \Tmffic_Smdy_Revised.wpdt:VI 7/04> 10 0 �t3 • `J LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. FEBRUARY 1006 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 996/496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA D to LOS E. If an intersection is operating at LOS E or worse in the baseline condition, project impact occurs when the project - generated traffic increases the ICU by 0.01 or more. PROPOSED PROJECT Project Description The project proposes the removal of the existing land use on the project site and replacement with a 12,500- square -foot medical office building with a 45 -space parking structure. The existing on -site land use consists of 1,094 square feet of retail sales, 1,955 square feet of auto repair, and a two -story single - family home. Figure 2 shows the site plan for the proposed project. Access to the project site will be provided via a full- access driveways off Old Newport Boulevard. Peak -hour trips for the existing land uses and the proposed project were generated using trip rates from the Newport Beach Transportation Analysis Model (NBTAM) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th edition). Vehicle trips associated with the existing land uses were subtracted from the project's trip generation to determine the new peak -hour trips generated by the site. The project trip generation analysis is presented in Table A. Table A: Project Trip Generation Notes: ADT – Average Daily Trips TSF – Thousand Square Feet DU– Dwelling Unit ' General Commercial– NBTAM– Newport Beach ADT and Peak Hour Trip Rate Summary 3 Daily trip rate from SANDAG trip rates; Peak hour trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7th Edition - Automobile Care Center (Land Use Code 942) ' Res -Low (SFDY NBTAM– Newport Beach ADT and Peak Hour Trip Rate Summary Medical Office– NBTAM– Newport Beach ADT and Peak Hour Trip Rate Summary P: \CNB333\ Traffic _Study_Revised.wpdC2 /17/04> �t AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size Units ADT In Out Total In Out Total Existing Land Use Retail 1.094 TSF Trip Rates' 45 0.60 0.50 1.10 1.90 2.00 3.90 Trip Generation 49 1 1 1 2 2 4 Auto Repair 1.955 TSF Trip Rates' 20 1.91 1.03 2.94 1.69 1.69 3.38 Trip Generation 39 4 2 6 3 3 6 Single - Family Residential 1 DU Trip Rates' 11 0.20 0.70 0.90 0.70 0.40 1.10 Trip Generation 11 0 1 1 1 0 1 Existing Trip Generation 99 5 3 8 6 6 11 Proposed Project Medical Office 12.500 TSF Trip Rates` 50 2.40 0.60 3.00 1.50 3.50 5.00 Project Trip Generation 625 30 8 38 19 44 63 Total Project Tri s ro osed— Existin 526 25 4 30_L 13 38 51 Notes: ADT – Average Daily Trips TSF – Thousand Square Feet DU– Dwelling Unit ' General Commercial– NBTAM– Newport Beach ADT and Peak Hour Trip Rate Summary 3 Daily trip rate from SANDAG trip rates; Peak hour trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7th Edition - Automobile Care Center (Land Use Code 942) ' Res -Low (SFDY NBTAM– Newport Beach ADT and Peak Hour Trip Rate Summary Medical Office– NBTAM– Newport Beach ADT and Peak Hour Trip Rate Summary P: \CNB333\ Traffic _Study_Revised.wpdC2 /17/04> �t L S A 0 15 50 F£ET SOURCE: WARE MALCOhB3 IACNB33M!S Plmx&(1113/04) FIGURE 2 r� U 0 0 ¢g¢ /¢g6 Old Newport Boulevard 5� Project Site Pla 0 L_� LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 2004 TRAFFIC IMPACTANALYSIS 494 /496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORTBEACH. CALIFORNIA As shown in Table A, the project is forecast to generate 526 new daily, 30 new a.m. peak hour and 51 new p.m. peak hour trips. The project trips were distributed to the surrounding roadways based on logical travel paths to and from the project site. The project trip distribution was reviewed and approved by City of Newport Beach staff and applied to the project trip generation to arrive at the project trip assignment. The project trip distribution is shown in Figure 3. The trip distribution percentages were multiplied by the project trip generation to arrive at project - generated trips at each intersection. The project trips are illustrated in Figure 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing peak hour traffic volumes at study area intersections were provided by the City of Newport Beach and are illustrated in Figure 5. The existing traffic volumes and ICU calculations are included in the TPO Analysis worksheets in Appendix C. Table B summarizes the results of the existing a.m. and p.m. peak -hour LOS analysis for the seven study area intersections. As discussed above, the LOS is determined using the ICU analysis methodology for the study area intersections. Table B: Existing Level of Service Summary As this table indicates, all study area intersections operate at satisfactory LOS D or better during both peak hours in the existing condition. P:\ CNB333\ Taffic_Study_Revised.wpdC2/17 /04s �3 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS I. Superior Avenue/Placentia Avenue 0.73 C 0.84 D 2. Superior Avenue/Hospital Road 0.67 B 0.45 A 3. Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway 0.68 B 0.61 A 4. Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road 0.34 A 0.40 A 5. Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road 0.60 A 0.85 D 6. Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway 0.82 D 0.63 B 7. Newport BouIevard/Via Lido 0.46 A 0.35 A 8. Riverside Avenue(West Coast Highway 0.71 1 C 1 0.79 C As this table indicates, all study area intersections operate at satisfactory LOS D or better during both peak hours in the existing condition. P:\ CNB333\ Taffic_Study_Revised.wpdC2/17 /04s �3 S A FIGURE 3 scHEMATfc - Norm scA 1ACNB430 \G\Tdp Discedr (2/16104) LEGEND 1$ - Regional Trip Distribution Percentage �--© - Inbound Percent —5 - Outbound Percent 4941496 Old Newport Boulevard Project Trip Distribution 7 111 1 / rim sr O d�LQP \ 'g 1 Superior Avenue/Placentia Avenue 2/ HOSPRAL S S• Ho 4 �• 3 PROJECT SITE 6 7• — W, r� 2 Superior Avenue/Hospilal Road t 1/9 o — L 0/2 .- 014 Fl .- 014 tj E 0/2 r 2115 1/1 ? 111 3/1 3/1 E2 3 Superior AvenueMest Coast Highway 4 Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road 5 Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road O O O 4 1 t 1/1 5/3 T 1/8 6 Newport BoulevardNMest Coast Highway 7 Newport BoulevardNia Lido 8 Riverside AvenueMesf Coast Highway L $ A LEGEND: 123/456 AM/PM Volumes PACNB3337zip_Assignmcmr& 2/17/04 FIGURE 4 49¢1496 Old Newport Boulevard � AM and PM Peak Hour Project Trips i VNSS 3 t 12/96 N N� 2431732 �O >> �j d L, ,` 61/101 415614 J h T • r- r 1085!954 e " m 21/64 Z m m a / • 4v0 N 1 Superior Avenue/Placentia Avenue 2 • HOSPRAL • S• '3: V PROJECT STTE r W COAST Hµy �a b T_ 55/88 Y 4 ,` 327448 T r' • a O O N O 7 o v o \ 2 Superior Avenue/Hospital Road m o m t 193/120 e o 1L. 3601368 0 N r t 18/49 e N �2 m .- 588/1628 ,., Q ,., .- 145/174 A ° ; f 264/179 Fl d 4 ,` 781182 .J d L, ,` 144/108 Fl d L, f' 68/151 993/311 J `1 T r' 61199 J T r' 194/471 T r' 19791984 -+ 2 2 264!206 -� a _� 1831152 -. < R tg 298277 Z m^ 4024 Z 239226 Z Q Q o N 3 Superior AvenueMest Coast Highway 4 Placentia AvenuetHospilal Road 5 Newport BoulevardlHospilal Road m r N Q m ° t 55/42 N Q t 340/479 ; Q t 311/372 12792256 " ,J L, E- 766/1765 4 L, ,` 1726 �j d L, .r 11144 2181/1222 T r' 294246 J h T r' 167/124 Z o 2066/1511 N �2 N m N 4/19 Z a? A N 6 Newport BoulevardWest Coast Highway 7 Newport Boulevard/03 Lido 8 Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway L S A LEGEND: 123/456 AM/PM Volumes P: \CNB393\Ezistioe.xls 2/19/04 FIGURE 5 44 9 4414 9 6 Old Newport Boulevard Existing AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 0 0 0 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. FEBRUARY 2004 TRAFFIC IMPACTANALYSIS 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA EXISTING PLUS BACKGROUND CONDITIONS TRAFFIC VOLUMES The existing plus background condition is developed by applying a growth rate to the existing traffic counts and adding trips from approved projects in the vicinity. A one - percent per year growth rate was added to all traffic volumes on Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard, consistent with the City's Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rate Table. The TPO requires that the project be analyzed one year after the project opening year. The project is anticipated to be opened in 2005, therefore an analysis year of 2006 was used in the application of the growth rate. Traffic from approved projects was also added to the existing plus regional growth traffic volumes. The following approved projects were included: • Balboa Bay Club Expansion • Fashion Island Expansion • Temple Bat Yahm Expansion • Ford Redevelopment • Cannery Lofts Village • Hoag Hospital Phase 11 CIOSA - Irvine Project Newport Dunes • Irvine Development 1999 • 1401 Dove Street • Newport Auto Center Expansion • Olsen Townhome Project Traffic volumes from approved projects were provided by the City of Newport Beach and are provided in Appendix A. The approved projects' traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 6. The existing plus background condition traffic volumes (existing traffic plus a growth rate plus approved projects) are illustrated in Figure 7. One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis The one - percent traffic volume analysis was prepared using the City of Newport Beach One - Percent Traffic Volume Analysis worksheets, provided in Appendix B. The purpose of the one - percent volume analysis is to identify any study area intersection where traffic from the proposed project will increase traffic on any leg by one percent or more. The existing plus background conditions were used as the baseline for the one - percent volume analysis. The following intersections were identified as having a project contribution of one - percent or more in the existing plus background condition. 1. Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road 2. Newport Boulevard/Coast Highway P:\ CNB333\ TratBc _Study_R"ised.wpd<2 /17/04A 10 J� DM ST O 10/6 m 1 Superior Avenue/Placentia Avenue 2• HOSPRAI RD 4 3 `5• PRO.iECT 4 COAST }rµ.Y rySITE 315 r .a 71 w C ; L 2 Superior Avenue/Hospital Road ` FL, .— 34/63 .J r 1/0 d r 108/56 ,J d •- 1f0. 4/4 ? h r 4/2 74/117 J "t ? 49/36 C o2 8/13 -1 o � a N 3 Superior AvenuelWesl Coast Highway 4 Placentia AvenuelHospilal Road 5 NewpW BoulevwdtHospital Road ro 0 m o ,J < 43/22 2/0 <— 6683 41/65 i 79/90 m 6 Newpod BculevarMVesl Coast Highway 7 Newport BoulevarcWia Lido 8 Riverside AvenueMest Coast Highway L S A LEGEND: 1231456 AM /PM Volumes P:ICNB333lAnnroved Proiects.xls2/17 /04 FIGURE 6 4941496 Old Newport Boukoard Approved Projects AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 0 E ILI a Nd,s W N L 12/98 o r '5 m .- 2481747 m s ,J d L, S 721109 423524 -T h ? r ors% 1107/973 o 21/65 � N / � N i'msT 1 Superior AvenuetPlacentia Avenue 2 ApSPII'At • �4 $• �• 3 PROJECT STCE m co e' COAST HAY 36/462 70 N ro f0 o m N - 2 Superior Avenue/Hospilal Road 3 C 2 197/122 r 3671375 a Q 2 1850 N 634/1724 148!177 2701183 <J d 4 S 61/186 EJ d 4 S 255/166 FJ 4 L, S 69/154 10171321 J-i T r> 62/101 J h T r' 272/597 J `, T r+ 2068/1040 N N N 269210 m e' 187/155 -> N N 304/283 Z 4 Z;7 r 45!26 ']. " n N 252/144 -1 „ rn N V r r ,� N N 3 Superior AvenueMest Coast Highway 4 Placentia AvenueNospital Road 5 Newport Boulevard/Hospilal Road o co � co v 1'_ 56/43 N a 2347/489 t 319(;79 as N m 13712364 �J Li F- 824/1822 d 4 S 1727 FJ 4 L. S 11/45 2266/1311 T r 300251 J I3 T r' 170/126 Z. r' 2166/1631 -> t:! N N N 4119 N 6 Newport Boulevard(West Coast Highway 7 Newport BoulevarVia Lido 6 Riverside AvenueMesl Coast Highway L S A LEGEND: 123/456 AM/PM Volumes P 2/17/04 FIGURE 7 4941496 Old Newport Boulevard Existing plus Background Condition AM and PM Peal; Hour Traffic Volumes ,q J LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 2001 69{ /{96 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD The existing plus background condition is the most conservative scenario for which to apply the 1 percent test; therefore, this test has not been applied to the existing plus background plus cumulative projects scenario. Because the baseline traffic would be greater in the existing plus background plus cumulative projects scenario, the project contribution would also have to be greater in order to contribute 1 percent to any leg of the intersection. As a result, the same two intersections are analyzed in both the existing plus background and existing plus background plus cumulative projects scenarios. For purposes of project impact analysis, the two intersections identified above will be considered the study area intersections. It is not necessary to analyze the other six intersections because the project will not increase the traffic on any leg of these intersections by 1 percent or more. EXISTING PLUS BACKGROUND CONDITION LEVEL OF SERVICE An existing plus background condition and existing plus background plus project condition level of service analysis was prepared for the two intersections with a project contribution of one percent or more. The existing plus background plus project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 8. The ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix C. Table C shows the existing plus background condition levels of service comparison for the two study area intersections identified in the one - percent traffic volume analysis. Table C: Existing Plus Background Plus Project Level of Service Comparison As shown in Table C, the intersection of Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service E during the p.m. peak hour. However, the project will not contribute a measurable amount of traffic to this intersection; therefore, the project traffic contribution would not be considered significant. The intersection of Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway is forecast to operate with satisfactory levels of service during both peak hours. EXISTING PLUS BACKGROUND PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Traffic from reasonably foreseeable projects within the City of Newport Beach was added to the Existing plus Background condition. This cumulative analysis is not called for as part of the TPO, but is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and was requested by the P:\ CNB333\ Tm ffic_Swdy_Revised.wpd«2/17 104» 13 Existing Plus Background Existing Plus Background Plus Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak i Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU LOS 1 ICU LOS ICU LOS , ICU LOS 1. Newport Blvd./Hospital Rd. 0.70 B 0.97 E 0.70 B 0.97 E 2. Newport Blvd./West Coast Hwy. 0.85 D 0.67 B 0.85 D 0.67 B As shown in Table C, the intersection of Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service E during the p.m. peak hour. However, the project will not contribute a measurable amount of traffic to this intersection; therefore, the project traffic contribution would not be considered significant. The intersection of Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway is forecast to operate with satisfactory levels of service during both peak hours. EXISTING PLUS BACKGROUND PLUS CUMULATIVE PROJECTS Traffic from reasonably foreseeable projects within the City of Newport Beach was added to the Existing plus Background condition. This cumulative analysis is not called for as part of the TPO, but is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and was requested by the P:\ CNB333\ Tm ffic_Swdy_Revised.wpd«2/17 104» 13 0 IMST p N m N �2 246/747 +J d 4 F 72/109 423/524 `1 T r- -T 11071973 21/65 O N Q % 1 Superior Avenue/Placentia Avenue 2• NOSPRAL • 5• RD 4 3 PROJECT srrE n m m w consr Nwr 56190 y 4 ,` 361464 N C` o 70 m m I`o �Ur HWy CC 2 Superior Avenue/Hospital Road 1971122 r r m t 3671377 ? t 19/59 63411728 148/179 270/187 .J d C' 81/186 ,J d C' 255/166 +1 d C' 71/169 101022 J `i T r 62/101 J h T r 272/597 T r 2071/1041 umi 270/211 190/15 uNi rn 3041283 Z. o Z4 45126 Z m N 2521244 Z. N ,� o N 3 Superior Avenue/West Coast Highway 4 Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road 5 Newpod Boulevard/Hospital Road .Q " v N `" t 56/43 N t 347/489 a t 3201380 N m F 13762367 824/1822 d F 1727 11/45 2266/1311 —> T r 300251 ? h T r 170/126 Z _ 2187/1639 �2 N N 4/19 Z. N a N 6 Newport Boulevar&west Coast Highway 7 Newpod BoulevarcMa Lido 8 Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway �` S ' LEGEND: 123/456 AM/PM Volumes FIGURE 8 4941496 Old Newpod Boulevard (p Existing plus Background plus Project Condition AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P:\ CN8333 \Ezistine+BackQound +Pmi.xls 2/19/04 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. FEBRUARY 2004 TRAFFIC IMPACTANALYSIS 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA City to address specific cumulative projects. The City of Newport Beach provided the trip generation and distribution for the following eight reasonable foreseeable projects: 1. South Coast Shipyard 2. Mormon Temple 3. St. Mark Presbyterian Church 4. St. Andrews Church S. Regent Newport Beach Resort 6. Newport Coast 7. Newport Ridge 8. Lower Bayview Senior Housing The project trip generation and distribution for each reasonably foreseeable project are provided in Appendix D. Trips from the cumulative projects are illustrated in Figure 9. Trips from these reasonably foreseeable projects were added.to the existing plus background condition and analyzed both without and with the proposed project. The existing plus background plus cumulative projects traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 10, while the existing plus background plus cumulative projects plus project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 11. The two study intersections are included in this analysis. The other six potential intersections are omitted as not satisfying the One Percent Test. Addition of the cumulative project would only diminish the project's contribution at these locations. A summary of the existing plus background plus cumulative projects levels of service both without and with the proposed project is provided in Table D. The Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Projects (without and with project ) ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix E. Table D. Existing Plus Background Plus Cumulative Projects Level of Service Comparison As shown in Table D, the intersection of Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service E during the p.m. peak hour. However, the project will not contribute a measurable amount of traffic to this intersection; therefore, the project traffic P:\ CNB333\ Trafc _Study_Revised.wpd<2 /17/04> 15 • • Existing Plus Background Plus Cumulative Projects Existing Plus Background Plus Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Newport Blvd./Hospital Rd. 0.70 B 0.97 E 0.70 B 0.97 E 2, Newport Blvd.lWest Coast Hwy. 0.90 D 0.75 C 0.90 D 0.75 C As shown in Table D, the intersection of Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road is forecast to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service E during the p.m. peak hour. However, the project will not contribute a measurable amount of traffic to this intersection; therefore, the project traffic P:\ CNB333\ Trafc _Study_Revised.wpd<2 /17/04> 15 • • • • IMST ER 2/4 .;,p 1 Superior Avenue/Placeniia Avenue �• HOSPTfAL • 5• RD 4 T Srl'E N m w 6 COAST Nwy N 70 0 m Y 2 Superior AvenuelHospital Road o �+ b f 153/116 d 99/174 ? m a 3 Superior AvenueMest Coast Highway 4 Placentia Avenue/Hospilel Road 5 Newport 8oulevardlHospitel Road N t 6/4 m r- 245/170 n o 16/16 y Fl f 2931218 14M69 T r-' T 113 J 10/11 -1 " e N 1731326 -� N I I 6 Newport SoulevardMest Coasl Highway 7 Newport BoulevardMa Lido 8 Riverside AvenuePNesl I Coast Highway • L c J FIGURE 9 LEGEND: 123 /456 AM/PM Volumes 4941496 Old Newport Boulevard 3 Cumulative Projects AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes M ST o e t 12/98 �2 E- 2501751 wP �j d 17 72/109 423624 n T • r v0 4P g 1111/977 -s m uNi o 2185 Z ire �msy, 1 Superior Avenue/Placentia Avenue 2 HOSPRAL • RD 4 $• '3 PROJECT srrE N O O D7 k' COAST Hwy e 2 56/30 l 4 36/462 T r �8 7• N fD ` O O N y Y� k CYiT N 2 Superior Avenue/Hospital Road m t 278/180 E2 t 3671375 rn t 18150 a 787/1840 ,:, f 148/177 0 - 270/183 81/186 F1 ,{ 4 .!- 255/166 Fl d 4 69/154 1017/321 J `1 T r 62/101 ,' `1 T r 272/597 J `1 T r 216711214 S v' 2 269/210 ,"'m C 4 167/155 -� N 3041283 45126 Z 2521244 Z N 3 Superior AvenueMesl Coast Highway 4 Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road 5 Newport BulevardMospital Road o e7 t 3531493 0 t 56/43 p nN' 1069/1992 t 319f379 166412602 �j d 4 IF 16/16 1 4 r 17127 FJ 1 4 11145 2414/1580 -. '1 T r T r 3011254 1 `1 T r 180/137 Z. s 2359/1957 `2 `2 4/19 -1 a a r N 6 Newport BoulevardMest Coast Highway 7 Newport Boulevard/Va Lido 8 Riverside AvenueMest Coast Highway L S A LEGEND: 123/456 AM/PM Volumes FIGURE 10 4941496 Old Newport Boulevard Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Conditions AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P' \CA*R333\ESiarinc 13ackernnnd +Cumulative.sle 2 /17/04 1 LJ 0 0 • a IM ST o L 12198 N [D 5 f 250(151 4 L, .` 72/109 423/524 J 'i T r' yT 1111 /977 m M o 21/65 -1 ^' n 'asr 1 Superior AvenuelPlacenfia Avenue 2• HOSPITAL • �J `5• 4 FROSEC T SPCE N O C W COAST xwl r` Q r 'L 56190 4 L, .F 36/464 T r �e N r o 70 WiYA t'ry� o io vii n �\ 2 Superior AvenuelHospital Road sao t 278/180 r n 367!377 N L 19159 N N f 788/1844 148/179 F 270/187 811186 .J d L, .F 255 /166 .J d 71/169 1018/322 -7 T r' 621101 1 '1 1 r' 272/597 -T T r' 2170/1215 - N N 270/211 -> L' e M 190/156 N M 304283 -1 o 45/26 Z m n 252/244 -1 N o 3 Superior AvenueMest Coast Highway 4 Placentia Avenue/Hospital Road 5 Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road N ,L 3531493 `V - 56/43 N v f 1069/1992 v L 320/380 N m f 16692605 .J d L, .` 16/16 d L, .f- 1727 .i d L, .0 11/45 • 2414/1580 - Ii T r' T f� 301254 -T 180/137 -. �2r e 2360/1964 4/19 N 6 Newport Boulevard/West Coast Highway 7 Newport BoulevardtVia Lido 1 8 Riverside AvenueNMest Coasl Highway !L S A LEGEND: FIGURE 11 723/456 AM/PM Volumes 4,941496 Old Newport Boulevard �05 Existing plus Background plus Cumulative plus Project Conditions AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Ar a. +rr n�: �m, gr; ,,�_A +rY,..mmd= (},mnlP�;cri ➢rn; 11e C /iyna LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. FEBRUARY 2004 TRAFFI C IMPACTANALYSIS 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORTBEACH. CALIFORNIA contribution would not be considered significant. The intersection of Newport Boulevard/West.Coast Highway is forecast to operate with satisfactory levels of service during both peak hours. ON -SITE CIRCULATION LSA has evaluated the on -site circulation of the proposed project using the standards set forth in Chapter 20.66 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance. As illustrated in the site plan (Figure 2), access to the proposed parking area will be provided off Old Newport Boulevard. The project has been designed such that the first floor of the development is the parking area, with medical offices making up the second floor. A lobby with stairs and elevators is provided along the Old Newport Boulevard frontage. Newport Beach City Standard STD- 805 -L -A and STD- 805 -L -B requires that a standard parking stall be 8'6 "x17'. The width of the parking spaces provided in the site plan varies from 8'6" to 9'0 ". Eighteen- foot -deep parking stalls are provided in the interior and 17- foot -deep parking stalls with a 1 -foot overhang are provided around the perimeter of the site. The proposed parking spaces meet or exceed the City's 8'6 "x17' standard. However, parking stalls that are located adjacent to a wall, column, or other obstruction should be six inches wider than the standard 8 "6 ". Twenty -four of the parking stalls shown on the site plan do not meet this standard. The site plan should be revised to provide a parking stall with a minimum width of 9 feet and a minimum depth of 18 feet adjacent to all walls, columns, and other obstructions. The parking lot circulation was analyzed using turn radius templates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers for a medium- and large -sized passenger car. The turning template analysis is illustrated in Figures 12 and 13. One area of concern is the dead -end drive aisle east of the lobby. The site plan provides an extra five -foot buffer at the end of this aisle to assist vehicles maneuvering into or out of the parking stalls adjacent to the dead -end. Using the turning templates, it was found that a medium -sized passenger car would experience little difficulty entering or exiting these parking stalls. However, a large passenger, car, such as a large sport utility vehicle, would be required to make several maneuvers to back out of these parking stalls. To minimize the number of parking maneuvers into and out of the parking stalls at the "dead -end" area, these stalls could be reserved for physicians or employees, thereby providing the more easily accessible parking stalls for patients and visitors. The trash enclosure will be accessed from inside the parking area. According to the applicant, the trash collector will use a pickup truck with a forklift attachment to remove the trash dumpsters from the enclosure. The parking area will not need to accommodate any vehicle larger than the large -sized passenger car. As a result, turning and maneuvering area on the site plan is forecast to be adequate. PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS The project will provide 50 parking spaces, including 5 on -street parking spaces. The Planning Department has requested that a parking demand analysis be conducted to document the actual parking demand that might be experienced by the project and to determine whether 50 parking spaces will be adequate to meet the forecasted demand. Parking accumulation surveys were conducted at two similar sites, 415 Old Newport Boulevard and. 455 Old Newport Boulevard. The parking P:\ CNB333\Tmffic_Swdy_Reviud.wpd,c2 /17/046 19 11 �t ORANGE AVENUE L S A 0 0 15 30 rerr SOURCE: WARE MALCOMB 1ACNB430 \GlTuming- Me&=.cdr (1/16/04) FIGURE 12 4941496 OldiVew¢ort Boulevard Vehicle Turning Analysis - Medium Passenger Car (21' Turning Radius) ORANGE AVENUE L S A 7 0 ]5 30 err SOURCE: WAREMALCOMB I: \CNB430 \O\Turrdng-L�ge.cdr (2116/04) FIGURE 13 0 0 4941496 Old Newport Boulevard Vehicle Turning Analysis - Large Passenger Car (24' Turning Radius) x 0 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FEBRUARY 5001 TRAFFIC IMPACTANALYSIS 191/196 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORTBEACH. CALIFORNIA accumulation surveys were conducted by Southland Car Counters on Wednesday, January 7, and Thursday, January 8, 2004, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Table E provides the results of the parking survey. Table E: Parking Accumulation Survey Results H/C— Handicapped Parking REG— Regular Parking The 415 Old Newport Boulevard site consists of a 11,179 - square -foot medical office building with 46 on -site parking spaces. In addition, 12 off -site spaces are used for employee parking. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the 12 off -site spaces are fully occupied during business hours, and 12 spaces are added to the peak observed parking demand. �Q P:1CNB333\Tmfric_Study_Re ised.wpdc2117 1043, 22 415 Old Newport Boulevard 455 Old Newport Boulevard Wed 117/04 Thurs 1 18104 Wed 1/7/04 Thurs 1/8/04 H/C REG Total H/C REG Total H/C REG Total H/C REG Total 7:00 AM 0 5 5 0 7 7 0 7 7 0 12 12 30 AM 0 5 5 0 8 8 0 10 10 0 13 13 8:00 AM 0 12 12 0 11 11 0 16 16 0 16 16 30 AM 0 14 14 0 9 9 0 16 16 0 18 18 9:00 AM 0 21 21 0 18 18 1 20 21 0 23 23 30 AM 1 26 1 27 0 23 23 0 23 23 0 23 23 10:00 AM 1 33 i 34 1 25 26 1 25 26 0 27 27 30 AM 2 38 4V 1 1 29 30 2 26 2& ^ =: 1 27 28 11:00 AM 2 35 37 0 28 28 2 25 27 1 2 29 31 30 AM 2 29 31 1 26 27 1 26 27 1 27 28 12:00 NOON 1 2 29 31 2 23 25 1 24 25 2 29 31 30 PM 2 26 28 2 23 1 25 1 0 23 23 2 30 32 1:00 PM 2 21 23 0 26 26 0 21 21 3 30 •;: 33..: 30 PM 2 27 29 0 24 24 1 22 23 3 29 32 2:00 PM 1 29 30 0 25 25 1 24 25 2 27 29 30 PM 1 27 1 28 1 0 29 29 1 24 25 0 23 23 3:00 PM 0 27 27 0 30 30 1 20 21 0 23 23 30 PM 1 21 22 2 31 31. 1 18 19 1 23 24 4:00 PM 0 20 20 0 31 31 1 14 15 1 18 1 19 30 PM 0 18 18 0 32 32 1 11 12 1 15 16 5:00 PM 0 18 18 0 27 27 1 9 10 0 10 10 30 PM 0 12 12 0 21 21 1 9 10 0 9 9 6:00 PM 0 7 7 1 0 14 14 0 5 5 0 7 7 30 PM 0 6 6 0 8 8 0 5 5 0 7 7 7:00 PM 0 6 6 0 8 8 0 4 4 0. 5 5 Off -Site S aces 0 12 :. 12 i =' 0 12 ° >''12!' =^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 28 1 ; H/C— Handicapped Parking REG— Regular Parking The 415 Old Newport Boulevard site consists of a 11,179 - square -foot medical office building with 46 on -site parking spaces. In addition, 12 off -site spaces are used for employee parking. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the 12 off -site spaces are fully occupied during business hours, and 12 spaces are added to the peak observed parking demand. �Q P:1CNB333\Tmfric_Study_Re ised.wpdc2117 1043, 22 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. FEBRUARY 2004 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA The 455 Old Newport Boulevard site consists of a 14,087 - square -foot building, of which 10,687 square feet is medical office. The City has requested that this site be included in the parking study, and all parked vehicles be attributed to the 10,687 square feet of medical office use. There are 53 on- site parking spaces at the 455 Old Newport Boulevard site. As shown in Table E, the highest observed parking demand at 415 Old Newport Boulevard was 52 vehicles on Wednesday and 45 vehicles on Thursday. Based on these results, LSA calculated the parking rate for the existing medical office building based on the existing square feet. Application of the peak parking demand of 52 spaces to the 11,179 - square -foot medical office building results in an observed existing parking demand of 4.65 spaces per thousand square feet. The highest observed parking demand at 455 Old Newport Boulevard was 28 spaces on Wednesday and 33 spaces on Thursday. Application of the peak parking demand of 33 spaces to the 10,687- square -foot medical office use results in an observed existing parking demand of 3.09 spaces per thousand square feet. To determine the peak parking demand of the proposed project, LSA averaged the two observed parking rates and applied the average observed parking rate of 3.87 spaces per thousand square feet to the proposed 12,500- square -foot medical office building, resulting in a forecast demand of 49 spaces. Based on this result, the parking demand is forecast to be less than the 50 spaces proposed for the project. As a result, adequate on -site parking has been provided in the project site plan. CONCLUSIONS Off -Site Circulation Potential impacts to the surrounding intersections were analyzed using the methodology required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The project is forecast to contribute one percent or more to the traffic volume at two intersections: Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard/Coast Highway. Baseline and plus project level of service analyses were conducted for these two intersections for the existing plus background and existing plus background plus cumulative projects scenarios. Based on these analyses, the project is not forecast to create a significant traffic impact at either intersection. Circulation/Parking Improvements On -Site LSA has evaluated the on -site circulation of the proposed project using the standards set forth in Chapter 20.66 of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance. The project meets the requirements for depth of parking stalls; however, 24 parking stalls do not meet the City's requirement for an extra six inches of width next to a wall or obstruction. The parking lot circulation was analyzed using turn radius templates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers for a medium -and large -sized passenger car. Turning and maneuvering area on the site plan is forecast to be adequate. However, it is recommended that the parking stalls at the K �l P: \CNB333 \Traffic_ Study_Revised.wpd<<2 /17/04» 23 • 0 • LSAASSOCIATES. INC. FEBRUARY 2004 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 191/196 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA "dead -end" area be reserved for physicians or employees, thereby limiting the number of parking maneuvers in the more constrained area. To document the actual parking demand that might be experienced by the project, parking accumulation surveys were conducted at a similar site. Based on the results of the survey, the peak parking demand of the proposed project, is forecast to be 44 spaces. Based on this result, the parking supply proposed for the project is expected to be greater than the forecast parking demand. MIGATION MEASURES No impacts are forecast at study area interactions; therefore, no circulation mitigation is required. The site plan should be revised to provide a parking stall with a minimum width of 9 feet and a minimum depth of 18 feet adjacent to all walls, columns, and other obstructions. Based on the parking demand analysis, the parking supply proposed for the project is expected to be greater than the forecast parking demand. Therefore, no parking mitigation is required. PACNB333 \TraEf c_smdy_Revised.wpd<<2 /17/04» 24 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JANUARY RUUI 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA S 1 W \1W TRAFFIC VOLUMES FROM APPROVED PROJECTS 0 P \CNB333 \71afrc_Study.wpd 0 I /19/04U 0 15- DEC -03 0 J Traffic Phasing Data Projects Less Than 100% Complete Project Number Project Name Percent 147 BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION 0% 148 FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION 36% 154 TEMPLE BAT YAHM EXPANSION 65% 157 FORD REDEVELOPMENT 95% 167 CANNERY LOFTS VILLAGE 0% 168 HOAG HOSPITAL PHASE II 0% 555 CIOSA- IRVINE PROJECT 91% 910 NEWPORT DUNES 0% 935 IRVINE DEVELOPMENT 1999 0% 936 1401 DOVE STREET 0% 937 NEWPORT AUTO CENTER EXPAN 0% 938 OLSEN TOW NHOME PROJECT (1 0% page: 1 0 tA- 0 J� ' X; X; X; X; H. CD co a J' O c co m W: w W. W. w Lo w' V o m o w' w` t to 7 s s s s y at4i a a�i a af6i a ac6i a V 01 2co. 0 co zcot 2co. co, 2co;rn to 7 G D O O. w; m w. w. w; �� CO > d O'er o O O co: J' co: � C CO •� W V � t y tll co m (Y. �; a X. IL .- Z, z, z, z, a c a 3 3 z co o 2 Z; = Z; Z; N M 7 Z ; ~ . H . O QUQ J' O J; , J; O tD CL a Z. o Z, Z. d Z, l Q w 0 a m x E,— E;o d.o E,� �o co m;m E,Z M: 0-1 m' 3 z,,3 m z.W m 3;� m Zio m: 3 C� CO N gym' Caw Z N gym' C,1 N '3m'Or'rn CAW m N f0m'Nmm W' H W; W' H W' .- s N m. s N m; s N CO ; s N m. a m, a CO: a CO: co a m, �; E,m . �; E.c°v m; E',coo E', oco o ZEN co: Z' Z,N .- Co. Z; Z Z' Z .- Z,M V U., W ., •, c N 0 J� ' Ll ma M U W 3� 3' o in W: W' J; W. N v EL N'N r Z',m M w Q Z� N Z W J' M LO Z. a_ E' Q m m; .,U) �:' N m' W' Y EL vm' a� E;� _ Z'N �Z'O COo C: EL as 3� J' M LO 3� W' W' J; W. N N EL z, L W J, EL z, y�J z;N 3 c0 CO. W'' o Y EL vm' E: _ E' rn Z; N Z, C. 22 as 3; J' 3� W. w,' V M W, A G1 EL m LO co J < N; O 07 J m Z: r N z. W a ' 0 Z; W EL J; :D z, 3 } E ',� m;�� C'O y V m W' Y Nm', M n EL U), E :ui ' Z; W Z, N N Z; C� n2 ¢a 3; J' W' W' J, W, Y t0 N EL = x; J� M H 0 x O Z' QJ,' > z, 0 J 67 E ' mlo m; z,;3 3, y _ Z R 0]' p W' Y N co: a U), E _ E', � Z;v co: ' C� n n ¢a 1 1 R G E 7 d N v d R t C O L O O. d � Q \ tm Q � co .0— L V N CL d L � o a _ R� Q. CL Q M U W 3� 3' o in W: W' J; W. N v EL N'N r Z',m M w Q Z� N Z W J' M LO Z. a_ E' Q m m; .,U) �:' N m' W' Y EL vm' a� E;� _ Z'N �Z'O COo C: EL as 3� J' M LO 3� W' W' J; W. N N EL z, L W J, EL z, y�J z;N 3 c0 CO. W'' o Y EL vm' E: _ E' rn Z; N Z, C. 22 as 3; J' 3� W. w,' V M W, A G1 EL m LO co J < N; O 07 J m Z: r N z. W a ' 0 Z; W EL J; :D z, 3 } E ',� m;�� C'O y V m W' Y Nm', M n EL U), E :ui ' Z; W Z, N N Z; C� n2 ¢a 3; J' W' W' J, W, Y t0 N EL = x; J� M H 0 x O Z' QJ,' > z, 0 J 67 E ' mlo m; z,;3 3, y _ Z R 0]' p W' Y N co: a U), E _ E', � Z;v co: ' C� n n ¢a 1 1 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. JANUARY 2004 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ONE - PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS 0 F P: \CNB333 \Tmfic_Study.wpd 01/19/04)) ' I 0 0 I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL ISIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA / SUPERIOR 1855 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 AAO APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAS: HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1 "/o OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 729 0 2 731 7 0 Southbound 568 0 3 571 6 0 Eastbound 3270 65 53 3388 34 4 Westbound 859 17 35 911 9 0 I X I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA / SUPERIOR 1855 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PM APPROACH DIRECTION EMSTING PEN: HOUR VOLUME I PEN: HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAR HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PE.SKHOUR I VOLU1,1E I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEN; HOUR VOLUME Northbound 618 0 2 620 6 0 Southbound 1I16 0 5 1121 11 2 Eastbound 1572 31 40 1643 16 2 Westbaund 1930 39 63 2032 20 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. r -� Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 4941496 Old Newport Blvd DATE: Jan 15, 2004 � ` M 1 % TRAFFIC VOL UMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION.• SUPERIOR AVE (E &V,) & PLACENTIA AVE (N &S) 2565 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 AAO F SEW PORT u � s c"9C/ ppRN�P APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I%n OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 346 0 16 362 4 0 Southbound 858 0 10 868 9 1 Eastbound 1521 0 0 1521 15 0 Westbound 316 0 10 326 3 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1 % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVE (E &V,) & PLAMTIT AVE (N &S) 2565 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PAO APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONALGROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 842 0 26 868 9 2 Swthbound 904 0 6 910 9 1 Eastbound 1532 .0 0 1532 15 0 Westbound 929 0 6 935 9 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection CapaM Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT. 4941496 Old Newport Blvd. 0 0 DATE. .tan. 15, 2004 9 1 % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL ROAD 2490 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003AAO APPROACH DIRECTION E ITING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVEDPROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1764 0 4 1768 18 1 Southbound 506 0 0 506 5 0 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 87 0 3 90 1 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 %of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION.• SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL ROAD 2490 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM APPROACH DIRECTION LU TING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUI.IE PROJECTED PEAT: HOUR VOLUME 10A OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 702 0 2 704 7 1 Southbound 873 0 0 873 9 0 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 536 0 5 541 5 2 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 11� PROJECT: 4941496 Old Newport Blvd DATE: Jan. 15, 2004. �f ` 4 SEW PO/tiT F l� I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION.• PLACENTTA/HOAG & HOSPITAL ROAD 2485 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM APPROACH DIRECTIONJ EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONALGROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 10/o OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 106 0 101 207 2 0 Southbound 383 0 22 405 4 I Eastbound 365 0 4 369 4 I Westbound 649 0 108 757 8 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIAMOAG & HOSPITAL ROAD 2485 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PAP APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUf-IF. VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I % OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 172 0 161 333 3 0 Southbound 407 0 11 418 4 1 Eastbound 329 0 2 331 3 I Westbound 650 0 56 706 7 4 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than t % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 4941496 Old Newport BNd 9 DATE., Jan. 15, 2004 10 0 I% TRAFFIC VOL UMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 AMJ APPROACH I DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONALGROWTII VOLUME I APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1%OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1736 35 36 1807 18 5 Southbound 1526 31 134 1691 17 6 Eastbound 616 0 82 698 7 3 Westbound 350 0 1 351 4 3 �x Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING I PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME I %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1443 29 40 1512 15 3 Southbound 1956 39 88 2083 21 3 Eastbound 849 0 130 979 10 1 Westbound 379 0 0 379 4 28 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Ox Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than t % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 4941496 old Newport Blvd DATE: Jan. 15, 20 �I w I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & VIA LIDO 1415 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003AM F SEW Po— O O c'sC/ F00.N�P APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME I APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME �10,'LOFPROIECTED� PEAR HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1538 0 18 1556 16 1 Southbound 1092 0 8 1100 11 0 Eastbound 0 Westbound 328 0 0 328 3 1 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 °h of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOL UME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION- NEWPORT BOULEVARD & VIA LIDO 1415 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Trafl7c 2003 PBS APPROACH DIRECTION E)USTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK. HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME I PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 926 0 6 932 9 1 Southbound 1779 0 33 1812 18 4 Eastbound 0 Westbound 398 0 2 400 4 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than t % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT. 4941496 Old Newport Blvd. • • DATE. Jan.15,20046-;_ I 0 0 u I % TRAFFIC VOL UME ANAL YSIS INTERSECTION.• COAST HIGHWAY & NEWPORT BLVD 2620 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AAO APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAR HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 Southbound 651 13 10 674 7 1 Eastbound 2348 47 41 2436 24 0 Westbound 1106 22 43 1171 12 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOL U211E ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & NEWPORT BLVD 2620 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME I PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 196 OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 0 Southbound 853 17 6 876 9 12 Eastbound 1346 27 65 1438 14 0 WeAbound 2244 45 22 2311 23 0 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT. 4941496 Old Newport Blvd DATE: Jan. 15, 2004 p 0 1% TRAFFIC VOL UMEANALYSIS INTERSECTION.• COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003AM F GW PORT O O • U A � ? �- P "9C /F00.N� APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME I PEAKHOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAT: HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 5 0 0 5 1 0 Southbound 355 0 0 355 4 0 Eastbound 2364 47 79 2490 25 1 Westbound 1345 27 66 1438 14 5 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TR4FFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM . APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR I REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME A PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME ll%OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 37 0 0 37 0 0 Southbound 384 0 0 354 4 0 Eastbound 1776 36 90 1902 19 8 Westbound 2342 47 53 2472 25 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: 4941496 Old Newport Blvd • DATE: .tan. 15, 2004 MOM 0 i LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JANUARY 1006 696/696 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA �1 ,_ TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ICU ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS P: \CNB333 \Tmffic_Swdympd ((1/19/04)) SU2565AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 0 INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVE(E &W) & PLACENTIA AVE(N &S) 2565 .te r FORS. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM .............................................................................................................................................. I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I ............................... PROJECT I PROJECT . I I Movement I Lanes Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I f Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I 1 Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ............................................................................................................................................ I NL 1 1 19 1 1 1 ............................... i ...............} ..... ..............................} . .................. . .................... } . .............. } I NT 3200 1 1 284 0.108 1 1 1 I ............... } .......................... ......} . .................. . .................... } . .............. } 1 I NR 1 1 43 1 1 1 I ............................................................................................................................................. I SL 1 1600 1 1 18 1 0.011 1 1 1 1 ............................... 1 I .............................. .... ST 1 1600 1 ............................... 1 556 ........................................................................... 1 0.348 * I I I ............................... I I 1 .............................. .... I SR 1 1600 1 ............................... 1 284 ........................................................................... 1 0.178 1 1 1 1 ............................... 1 I . ........................................................................................................................................... I EL 1 1600 1 1 415 1 0.259 1 1 1 1 ............................... 1 I ................. ET 1 ............... 1 1085 . .............. . .................. ......... ............................. 1 1 1 ............................... ............... } 3200 .... ............................... } 0.346 * ............................... ...... } ............... } I I ER 1 1 21 1 1 1 I ............................................................................................................................................ WL 1 1600 1 1 61 1 0.038 * I I I ............................... I I I......... . . . . .. ................... I WT 1 ............................... 1 243 . ........ . . . . .. ............................................................ 1 1 1 ............................... i............... } 3200 .... ............................... } 0.080 ......... ............................... } ............... } I 1 WR 1 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 1 12 1 1 1 ............................... I I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.732 1 1 4 ........................................................................................................ ............................... . .. I EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C,U. I I I 1 ............................................................................................................................................ ............................... I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I .............................................................................................................................................. ............................... . 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. 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: SU2565PM i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVE (E &W) & PLACENTIA AVE (N &S) 2565 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM ............................................................................................................................................ I EXISTING PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I ............................... PROJECTED . I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ........................................................................................................... ............................... i NL I 79 1 1 .............. 1 I ----------- - - - --) ... ) . ................ . ................... ) NT 3200 I I 573 0.263 ' I . .............. ) I I I I ................) . .................. . ............... ) . ................ . ................... ) I NR 1 1 190 1 1 . .............. ) I 1 .......................... ............................... ............................................... ............................... SL 1 1600 1 1 57 1 0.036 1 1 1 . ........ . . . . .. .............. 1 1 I.......... . . . . .. ............. . .................. . ............... ....................................... ............................... 1 ST 1 1600 1 1 349 1 0.218 1 1 1 . ........ . . . . .. .............. I 1 1 r.................................................................................................................................... 1 SR 1 1600 1 1 498 1 0.311 1 1 1 ............................... I 1 1 I ................ . .............. . .................. . ............... . .............. ... .............. . ------------------- .------- I EL 1 1600 1 1 514 1 0.321 " I I .--------- I.. .............. .............. I I I 1 .......................................................................................... ............................... j ET 1 1 954 1 1 .... ............................ .. 1 I .......) 3200 . .................. . ............... ) 0.318 ................. ....................) . .............. ) I 1 ER i I 64 I I I................ . .............. . .................. . ............... . .............. . ................ . ............ . ...... . I WL 1 1600 1 1 101 I 0.063 1 1 1 ................... . .............. .............. I 1 1 I I.................. .......................................................................... ............................... I WT 1 1 732 1 1 ... ............................... 1 I I--- ------- - - - - -- 3200 ..- ......--- ---- - -- - - - - - - -- -- - - ---) 0.259 ' ................ .... ................ ) ............... I WR 1 1 96 1 1 1 I ............................... . ............ ... . ........ ...... . .............. . .......... . . . . .. ............ ............... I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.843 1 ....... ... ..... . . . . .. ..... ... . . . .. i 1 .................................................. ............................... . .......... . ..... I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I I ............................................................... ............................... ......................... I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ..... ....................................................................................................................................... .... ....... ............................... . .. ...... .... .. . ....... . . . ... I I I . 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 _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 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project S� r> " SU2490AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL ROAD 2490 7r EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM ......................................................................................................................................................... I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED ............................... . I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I l I I I I I I I Volume I I I ...................................................................................................................................................... NL 1 16001 1 01 0.000 1 1 ............................... I 1 1 1 1 ....................................... ............................... ............................................................................... I NT 1 1 1390 1 1 ............ ................... 1 I 1 ................. ? 3200 ...... ............................... ? 0.551 * .................. ...................... I NR I 1 374 1 1 1 I ...... ............................................................................................................................................. SL 1 1600 1 1 72 1 0.045 * I ............................... I I I { ...................................................................................................................................................... I ST 1 1 434 1 1 ............................... I 1 I ................. ? 3200 ...... ............................... ? 0.136 ................... ...................... ? ................ ? { I SR I 1 0 1 1 1 I ...................................................................................................................................................... I EL I 1 0 ! ::.......? ............................... 1 1 l .................? ....... ..............................? . ........ . ......... . ............ ET 1600 1 1 0 0.000 1 1 . ............... ? I 1 I .................? . ................... . ................ ? . .................. . ..................... I ER I 1 0 1 1 ? . ............... ? I 1 I ...................................................................................................................................................... I WL 1 24001 1 321 0.013 1 1 ............................... 1 1 1 I ...................................................................................................................................................... I WT I 1 0 1 1 ............................... 1 I 1 ................. ? 800 . ................... . ................ ) 0.069 * .................. ...................... ................ ? ) I WR 1 1 55 1 1 1 I I...................................................................................................................................................... I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.665 1 ............................... I ................................................................................................ ............................... I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. ................... I I I ...................................................................................................................................................... I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ......................................................................................................................................................... ............................... I I I I ............................... . I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_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 ...................................................................... ............................... I ...... . ..................... Description of system improvement: P PROJECT FORM II SU2490AM C/ DP IBM SU2490PM 9 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS czvp. qCI INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL ROAD 2490 F00.c� EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM ............................................................................................................................................ I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I ............................... . PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement Lanes I Lanes I PK HR V/C GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity Volume I Ratio Volume I Volume I w/o Project I i Ratio I I I I I I 1 I Volume I I I ...... ............................... . ............................. ..:........... ................ ................... I NIL 1 16001 1 0 1 0.000 1 1 1 ............................... 1 ( 1 ................ . ------- ... ---- . ----------- ------ .--------------- - -------- - - ---- - ---------------- ----------- - - - - -- - I NT 1 1 600 1 1 ---- ------------ -- ............................. 1 I 1 ------- ----- -- ? 3200 .... ............................... ? 0.219 - ------- ---- -- - ------- ----- ------ ? ............... Z I I NR 1 1 102 1 1 1 I I. ......... .. .... ................ .................. . ............... . .......... .. . ................ .............. 1 SL 1 1600 1 1 76 1 0.048 * I I .......... ............................... I I I 1 ........ ........ .................................. . ............... . .......... ..... ............. ................. ST 1 1 797 1 1 -------------- .---- . .............. .............. 1 I 1 ................ ? 3200 .... ............................... ? 0.249 ................. .................... ? ............... Z I I SR I 1 0 1 1 1 I I............... ...... ..... ............................... . ----- --- ---- - --------- ---- -- .................... I EL I 1 D 1 1 .. . ........................... 1 1 I I................? ..... ..............................? ........... ....................? i ET 16001 .. 0.000 .... .......) I I I OR I 1 D 1 I ! I............... . .. ...... . . .... . .................................... .................................................. . WL 1 2400 1 1 448 1 0.187 * I I ................... . ... .......... ........... I I I ........................... .... ............................... . ............ .. ............ ........... ............................... I WT I 1 D 1 1 . ... ...... .... ............. 1 I 1 ................ ? 800 - ------ ---- ------ - ----- -------- ? 0.110 ................ .................... ? ............... Z I I WR 1 1 88 1 1 1 I ------ .--------- . ..... ......... ... --- ------------ . ---------- .---- . -------------- . ------------- . -- -- ------------- ------ - I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.454 1 ---- ----------- --- . .............. . ......... ... I I ---------------- . -------------- .------------------ - ------- - - - - - -- - -- ---------- - ---------- - - - - -- -- ------------------- i EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ................... I I I. ......... . . . . .. .... .......... ................ . ...... ................ .............................. 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I ....................................................................................................... ............................... ....... ------ ........ .............. I I I ...... ............................... . I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 j_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ................ ................ .................. ---- ............... .................. .... -- Description of system improvement: PROJECT 0 90P FORM 11 �t CHIS55AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 9 INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA / SUPERIOR 1855 `NVMA� EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM ..................................................................................................................................................... I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED ............................... . I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement Lanes Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ................ I ......................................................... NL 1 ............................... ......................... 1 199 1 1 ............................... ........... 1 1 1 1 I ................? . NT 4800 1 .................. . ................ ? .. ............................................................ 1 454 0.152 * I ..............................1 I I I I ................ ? ..... NR 1 ............................... ? ... ............................... ....................... 1 76 1 1 ............................... I 1 1 1 I ..... ............................... SL 1 ........................................... ............................... ........................... 1 193 1 1 ............................... 1 1 1 1 I ................ ? 4800 . .................. ................. ) 0.065 * ........ .......... . ..................... . ... ........ ........ . ............... . .............. ... I ST 1 1 121 i 1 1 1 1 I ...... ......................................................................................................................................... SR 1 3200 1 1 254 1 0.079 1 1 ............................... 1 1 1 1 I ...................................................... EL 1 32001 ............................... ........... ....................................... 1 9931 0.310 1 1 ............................... .... 1 1 1 1 I ........... ............................... ET 1 4800 1 ................. ......... ............................... ............................... 1 1 0.412 * I ..... ............................... 1 ! ! ER 1600 1 ................. ........1979 ................. ------............... 298 1 0.186 I I ................... ..---.......... ............� I I I ................ ............................... WL 1 1600 1 .............. ............................... ......................... 1 78 1 0.049 * I ....................... ............................... 1 I I I I ....................................................................................... WT 1 ............................... ......................... 1 588 1 1 ............................... 1 1 1 1 I ................ ? 6400 ..... ............................... ? 0.122 . .................. . ..................... . ................... . ............... .................. 1 WR 1 1 193 1 1 1 1 1 I ................ .......... ..................................................................................................................... EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.678 1 ............................... I ......................................................................... EXISTING + REGIONAL ............................... .......... ............................... GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I ............. ........... ....... EXISTING + COMMITTED .............. ............................... ........................ .............................. + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ............................... I I I ...................................................................................................................................................... Split Phase N/S Direction ............................... 1_I Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1 —I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w( systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................... ............................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH2855AM FORM II 40 ll" • • CH1855PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA / SUPERIOR 1855 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM ............................................................................................................................................ J I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL ............................... I COMMITTED I PROJECTED . I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume j w/o Project I I Ratio j I I I I I I I Volume I I 1 ................ NL I ................................. 1 ............................... 1 293 - ------- --- - - ---- 1 ................... ..... ...... . ............................... 1 1 1 1 1 ................ NT ? .... 4800 1 ............................... 1 270 ? ................. 0.129 * . ................... . ................... I I . .............. .............. I I .............. NR ? ..... 1 ...... .................. 1 55 ? ......................... 1 ......................... ............................... 1 1 i 1 1 1 .................................................. SL 1 ............................... 1 168 . .......... . . .... 1 .............. . ..... .............. . ............................... 1 1 1 1 1 I I---------- - - - - -- ? 4800 .... ............................... ? 0.104 * ................ . ------------- - - - --- .... ........... ............................... 1 i ST 1 1 330 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ......................................................... SR 1 3200 1 ............................... 1 618 ........................................ 1 0.193 1 ............................... 1 1 1 1 I .......................................................................................................................... I EL 1 3200 1 1 311 1 0.097 * ............................... I I . ... .... . . . . .. I I I 1 ...................... ET .......................... 1 4800 1 ........ ...... 1 984 . .............. . ....... ........ 1 0.205 1 . ................... ............ ............ 1 1 . ...... .. . . . . .. .............. 1 1 1 I .... ............................................................................................................................... j ER 1 1600 1 1 277 1 0.173 1 ............................... 1 1 1 1 1 I ......................................................................................... WL 1 1600 1 1 182 ........ ....................... 1 0.114 1 ............ ............................... 1 1 1 1 I ...................... I WT ........................ 1 ............................... 1 1628 ....... I-------- 1 ........ ............. ............................... 1 1 - ----- --- - - - -- 1 1 I ................ ? 6400 .... ............................... ? 0.273 ................. .................... . ................... ............... .............. I WR 1 1 120 1 1 1 1 1 I........ . . . . .. . . ............... ..... ......... .. ............ ..................................... ............................... I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.603 1 ............................ .. .............................. . ..... ... . . . . .. . I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 I I....................... ............................... ....... ..... ............................. ............................... I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ........................................................................................................ ............................... Split Phase N/S Direction 1_1 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 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ................. ........................................................................................................ ............................... Description of system improvement: Description of system improvement: Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH1855PM FORM II PL2485AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS \°� C'9C INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA /HOAG & HOSPITAL ROAD 2485 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM ......................................................................................................................................................... I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED ............................... . I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT j Movement j Lanes I Lanes I PK HR j V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT j V/C Ratio j Volume j V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I j Ratio I I I I. I I I I Volume I I j...................................................................................................................................................... NL 1 1 15 1 1 ............................... 1 1 1 1 ................. } 1600 ...... ............................... } 0.022 ................... ............................................. ............................... I NT 1 1 20 1 1 1 j................................................................................................ ............................... } ................ } NR 1 1600 1 1 71 1 0.044 1 1 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... j SL 1 1 311 1 1 ............................... 1 1 1 1 ................. } ...... ............................... } ................................................................ j ST 3200 1 1 41 0.120 " I ............................... I I I ................. } ...... ............................... } ................................................................ I SR 1 1 31 1 1 ............................... 1 1 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 61 1 0.038 " I ............................... I I I 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... I ET 1 1 264 1 1 ............................... 1 .....:........... } 3200 ...... ............................... } 0.095 ................... ...................... } ................ } { ER 1 1 40 1 1 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... WL 1 1600 1 1 1441 0.090 1 1 ............................... 1 1 1 j................. . ............... . ................... . ................ . .............. I ................... ............................................. I WT 1 1 145 1 1 ............................... 1 ----------------- } 3200 ...... ............................... } 0.158 * .................. ...................... } ................ } I WR 1 1 360 1 1 1 ..... ............................... .............................................................................................. j EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.338 1 ............................... I .... ............ ....................................... ............................... I ... I ........... ... ................ . ...... ............... 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ............................... I I I ........................................................................................................................................................ Split Phase N/S Direction ............................... . {_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI 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 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ............................................. ............................... Description of system Improvement: ...................................................... ............................... I ... . .................. ........................................ ............................... PROJECT FORM II PL2485AM 0 �y0 t1 °� PL2485PM E INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA /HOAG & HOSPITAL ROAD 2485 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM ............................................................................................................................................ I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL ............................... I COMMITTED I PROJECTED . I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity Capacity I Volume Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I Volume I I I ........................................ NIL 1 ............................... ...................................................... 1 27 1 ............................... 1 1 " I 1 1 I --------------- } 1600 ...................... .......... } 0.046 * ................ ................ ... ............................... - - ----- - - - - -- NT 1 1 47 1 1 1 ....... ............................... I NR 1 16001 ' .......... ............................... -' ...................... 1 981 0.061 1 } ................... 1 - -- ----- - - - - -- } ............ 1 .................................................. I SL 1 ............................... . ---------------- 1 307 1 - ------------------- .------------------- 1 1 ........................... 1 1 I 1 ................ } ST 3200 1 ' ............................ } .... ............................... 25 0.127 * ................... I I .......................... I I I ................ } I SR 1 "- .......................... } ....... ............................... 1 75 1 .......... 1 1 ' ................... I 1 1 I 1 ................ . ........ .. . . .. . I EL 1 1600 1 ..................................................... ............................... 1 99 1 0.062 * ' ........... I I ........................ ' I I I I ... ............................... ET 1 ' ............. ............... ...... ............................... l 206 1 ........... 1 ............... - ------- ------ I 1 I - -------- } 3200 . .................. ................ } 0.072 - - - -- --- ---- -- .................... } ................... - ------------- } ............. 1 I ER 1 1 24 1 1 1 ......................... . ..... I WL 1 1600 1 . ' ........................... .............. . ................ 1 108 1 0.068 1 ............... . ---------------- . ................. . . ................... 1 1 ......... ............................... . .............. - --- --- -- - - -- 1 1 I - ---- ------ - -- .............. f I WT 1 1 174 1 1 --------------- } 3200 ................... ............. } 0.169 * ................ - --------- --- -- - - -- } ............ I WR 1 1 366 1 1 --------------- . .............. . ............... ............... . .............. . ........... ..... ... .................. . .... ....... , I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.404 1 ................................................................... ............................... EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I ....................................................................... ............................... .. ......................... I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I ........................................................................................................ ............................... Split Phase N/S Direction I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. 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 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project -` ................ . .............. . .................. . ............... . .............. . ................ ..................... . -- --- Description of system improvement: --- ---- ------------ - -------- - - - - -- - -- -- ------ --- - -- - --------- - - ---- - -------- ------ - ------- --------- - ------------------- - -- - - - - -- OJECT 485PM -------------- .............. . FORM II "t 61 NE24SCAM • IX Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 D Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 C1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 j_j Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT NE2480AM FORM II vl� `J INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES q��p• INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING 1 REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 NIL I 1600 1 I 140 1 0.088 ' 3 I 10 1 0.100' 1 0 1 0.100-1 1 NT I 4800 I 1 1501 I 0.313 I 30 1 26 0.324 1 0 0.324 1 I NR 1 1600 1 1 95 1 0.059 1 2 1 0 0.061 I 5 0.064 1 1 SL I 1600 I 1 57 0.036 1 1 0 I 0.036 1 6 1 0.040 1 1 ST 1 1 1083 22 1 37 1 0 I 1 } 4800 - } 0.306 ' — } 0.340' - } 0.340' I 1 SR I I 386 1 8 1 97 I 0 1 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 194 1 0.121 0 1 74 1 0.168' 1 0 1 0.168-1 I ET I 1600 I 1 183 I 0.114 1 0 1 0 1 0.114 1 3 1 0.116 1 1 1 1600 I I 239 1 0.149 1 0 1 B I 0.154 1 O I 0.154 I�ER I WL 1 1600 I I 68 1 0.043 1 0 1 0 I 0.043 I 2 I 0.044 I I WT I 1 264 0 l 1 I 0 I 1 } 3200 - } 0.088 ' } 0.088' - } 0.089' 1 I WR 1. 1 18 0 1 0 I 1 1 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.603 I I 1 EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.696 I I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.7001 IX Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 D Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 C1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 j_j Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT NE2480AM FORM II vl� `J NE248OPM 0 I - EXISTING I.C.U. 0.853 I j EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.966 I I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.9701 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 L-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 II 048OPM f M' � INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c�5,t '1C/ FO RP INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED] EXISTING 1 EXISTING REGIONAL 1 COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED 1 PROJECT 1 PROJECTI j Movement 1 Lanes Lanes I PK HR 1 V/C 1 GROWTH 1 PROJECT 1 V/C Ratio I Volume 1 WC I I 1 Capacity 1 Capacity 1 Volume 1 Ratio 1 Volume I Volume I w/o Project I 1 Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NIL I 1600 1 1 143 I 0.089 ' 3 1 6 I 0.095' 1 0 1 0.095-1 I NT I 4800 1 1 1235 0.257 25 I 34 1 0.270 I 0 1 0.270 I I NR 1 1600 1 1 65 1 0.041 1 1 0 I 0.041 1 3 1 0.043 1 I SL 1 1600 1 43 1 0.027 1 1 0 I 0.028 1 3 1 0.029 I 1 ST I 1 1701 34 1 38 I I 0 I I I } 4800 - -- - ) 0.399 ' – • } 0.425' - } 0.425' 1 1 SR I 212 41 501 I 0l I I 1 EL 1 1600 I 1 471 1 0.294 ' 9 1 117 1 0.373' I 0 1 0.373' 1 I ET 1 1600 1 I 152 I 0.095 3 1 0 I 0.097 I 1 1 0.098 I j ER I 1600 I 226 1 0.141 5 1 13 1 0.153 1 0 1 0.153 1 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 151 I 0.094 3 1 0 1 0.096 I 15 1 0.106 1 I WT I 179 41 0l I 41 I 1 } 3200 - — } 0.071 — } 0.073' - } 0.077' 1 1 W R I I 49 1 1 0l I 91 I I - EXISTING I.C.U. 0.853 I j EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.966 I I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.9701 L1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1X1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 L-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 II 048OPM f M' � CH2620AM 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS gUFOR�� INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & NEWPORT BOULEVARD 2620 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I EXISTING I PROPOSED] EXISTING 1 EXISTING 1 REGIONAL I COMMITTED 1 PROJECTED 1 PROJECT I PROJECT I 1 Movement Lanes 1 Lanes I PK HR 1 V/C 1 GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity 1 Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio 1 Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL I I I I I I I I I I I NT I I I I I I I I I I I NR I I I I I I I I I I SL I 3200 1 436 1 0.136 ' 9 I 0 1 0.139 1 1 1 0.139 1 I ST I I I I I I I I I I 1 SR 1 1600 I I 215 I 0.134 1 4 1 10 1 0.143' 1 0 1 0.143-1 I EL I I I I I I I I I I 1 ET 3200 I I 2181 1 0.682 ' 44 1 41 1 0.708' 1 0 1 0.708-1 I 1 ER N.S. I 167 I I 3 1 0 I I 0 I I WL I I I I I I I I I I I WT I 4800 I 766 1 0.160 1 15 I 43 I 0.172 I 0 I 0.172 I I WR I N.S. 1 I 340 1 I 7 1 0 l I 0 I 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.818 I 1 I EXISTING +REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I 0.851 I I 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 1 0.851 1 IX1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 CI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 L-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 CI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH2620AM 3T:iIMA ' l 1 CH2620PM 0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS — FORM II c\��P A�rFO INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & NEWPORT BOULEVARD 2620 RN EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED] EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT 1 PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I NL I I I I I I I I I I I NT I I I I I I I I I NR I I I I I I I I I I I SL I 3200 I 1 457 1 0.143 1 9 1 0 1 0.146 I 8 1 0.148 1 I 8T I I I I I I I I I SR I 1600 1 I 396 I 0.248 8 1 6 I 0.256` I 4 0.259' I I EL I I I I I I I I I I ET I 3200 I 1 1222 1— 0.382 ' 24 65 I 0.410' I 0 1 0.410' I I I ER I N. S.1 1 124 I I 2 1 0 l I 0 I l I I WL I I I I I I I I I WT I 4800 1 1 1765 I 0.368 1 35 I 22 I 0.380 I 0 1 0.380 I 1 WR I N.S.1 1 479 I I 10 I 0 l I 0 l I EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.630 I I 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.666 I J EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.669 I IXl Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 LJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 L_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 . CH2620PM , "1n "I to NE1415AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS 0 INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & VIA LIDO 1415 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM ....................................................................................................................................................... I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I ............................... . PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement Lanes Lanes I PK HR V/C GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I Capacity Capacity Volume Ratio Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I Volume I I I ............... ............................... i NIL I I ............. ............................... I ............................................. I I I I I ............................... I I I ................. NT . ............... . 1 4800 1 .. ............... . ................ 1 1511 . ............... . ............ ..... 1 0.315 * . .................... ........................ I I I ............................... I I ................... 1 NR .......................... i N.S.1 ............................... 1 27 ............. 1 1 .............. 1 ... ............... . 1 1 ............... . ................. 1 1 1 .............................................................................................. SL , 3200 1 1 415 ............................ 1 0.130 * . .. I ................. ............................... I I I I 1 ............................................................................................ ST, 4800 1 1 677 ............................... 1 0.141 1 1 1 . .................. 1 ............................... 1 I................. SR . ............... . .................. . ......... ....... . ............... ................... . .. ............ . . . . .. ......... . ....... I ............................... I I ........................................... I EL I I ............................... I ............................. I I ..................................... I I I ............................... I I ......... ......................................................................................................... ET1 ER .................. . ................ . ............... . .................. ............................... . .................... . ................... . . . ......................... I ............... . I I I I I I I I 1 I .................................................................................................................................................... WL l 1600 1 1 17 1 0.011 * I I I ............................... I I .................................................................................................................................................... I WT 1 1 1 1 1 1 ............................... 1 I 1 .................................................................................................................................................... W 1 3200 1 1 311 1 0.097 1 1 1 1 ............................... 1 I 1 .................................................................................................................................................... EXISTING ......................................................................... I.C.U. I 0.456 I ............................... ............................... I I 1 I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I ..................................................................................................................... ............................... I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I... ............................... ................... ................. ................ ................... .................... ....................... I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I I_I 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 y FORM II NE2415AM •4 V NE1415PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c`P FO INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & VIA LIDO 1415 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM ............................................................................................................................................ ............................... 1 I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED . I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I .................... ............................... ............... . .............. ................. . I NL I I I I I I I I I I 1 ............. ............................ ................... . ..................... ............................... ' .......... ' NT 1 4800 1 1 891 1 0.186 * I I ............ - ------ ------ I I I '- ' -' .....................' .......................... ............................... .............. ..... . ............... NR I N.S.I 1 35 1 1 1 1 ............................ 1 1 1 .............. . .................................................. ............................ . .. ..................... ............... SL 1 3200 1 1 464 1 0.145 * I I I .......... - --- -.-- - - - - -- 1 1 .......... . . .. .. ................. .................... .................. ............ ........... ................. -- ................ ST 1 4800 1 1 1315 1 0.274 1 1 1 1 ........... 1 I ....................... ........ ............................... ..... ........ . ................ . ................... . . ..................... i SR I I I I I I I ................. I I I ................... ............................... ................... ' ................... .. ................ . ................... . EL I I I I I I I .............. . ............. I I I ........... .._.. ... ........... . .................. ........... ................. - - - -- - --- - - - - -- ........ ' .................... I ET I I I I I I I I ............. - ------ - - - - - -- I I ........... ............................... ' ........................................................... ............................... - I ER I I I I I I I ----- -- ------- .............. I I I ....... ............................... . ..................... ............................... . ........ ....... ................. .. . . . .. WL 1 1600 I 1 26 1 0.016 * I I . ..... ...... . .. ............ I I I I ................ . ... ........... . .................. . ............... . .............. . ................ . ------------------- .-------- ------ --- I WT I I I I I I I - -------- - - ---- .............. 1 I I I' ................... ............................... ................ .. ..... . ................ ......... ............................... . 1 WR 1 3200 1 1 372 1 0.116 1 1 1 1 .. ........ . . .. .............. I 1 I 1 ................ . ....... ....... ... ---------------- . --------------- . -------------- . -------- -- ---- .................... - ------------- - - - - -- . I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.347 1 ............ - ---- --------- I .................................................. ............................... ................. ................... EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I . I I ............. ' ............ -' .................. ................ - --- ------ - - - - -- -- - -- - ------ ---- -- ......------- -- ----- I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ................ . .............. . .................. . ............... . .............. . ... I ............ .. ............. ..... ' .................. ............................... - -------- - - - - -- - ----- ------- I I I i_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I I I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project I I ... ..... ............ .. ............... .. .................. ...` ................- --............ ................. .. ...................... .................... -- .. ............................... Description of system improvement: .... ---- ..............`.--------.........------..................................................... ............................... --------........... ............................... PROJECT FORM II NE2425PM �9 A4- I CH2630AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement Lanes Lanes I PK HR V/C 1 GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I Capacity Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I Volume I I I I---- ------ ----- NIL - --------------- - 1 --- --------------- - --------------- 1 2 - --------------- - ------------------ 1 - --------------------- - --------------- ---- - 1 1 -------- ------ - ---------- ---- -- I ----------------- 1 NT ? - 1600 1 ................... - -------- °----° 1 1 ? - - 0 -003 1 ---...--- - - I ..................... ? . 1 - -- --------- ? I i-- ---- --- ------- NR ? - 1 ................... - - ..... - -- 1 2 ? - ------------------ 1 - ..................... ? - 1 1 --------------- ? I ----------------- SL - ------ - ---- -- - 1 --- -------------- - - ----- --------- 1 79 - - ---- -- ------ - - 1 --- -------------- - ---------- -- -------- -------------- ----- - 1 1 ----- ° °------ - ---------------- ----- -- ---- -- -- ? 1600 - -------- -- ------- - ---- ----- ------ ? 0.053 - -- --- ---- ----- - -------- - --- -------- ? . °--- °-------- ? I ST 1 1 6 1 1 1 I----------------- SR - ------ - ---- -- - 1 1600 1 ------ - ° °------- - ..... --- ------- 1 270 - --------------- - ---- 1 0.169 1 ----- ---- ---- 1 - ------------ -- ------ - --------------- ---- - 1 1 ------ -- ---- - ----------------- 1 --------- -------- EL - ------- ------- - 1 1600 1 ------- -------- ---- - -------- -------- 1 294 . - -- -- -- ------ . - 1 0.184 1 ....------------- - ------ - -- - --. -- - - -- - -- .---------- - 1 1 1 --------------- - ---------------- 1 I I-- - - - - ------- 1 ET - --------------- - 1 -- ------------ ----- - ------ ----- --- --- 1 2066 -- -- -- -- ------ - - 1 ----------------- - ----- ------- ----- ---- - -- --------------- - 1 1 --------------- - ---------------- ----------------- ? 3200 - ---------- -------- - ---------------- ? 0 -647 - -- ----- -------- - -- - ----- - ------ - - ? - ? I ER 1 1 4 1 1 I 1 i----------- ---- I WL - - ------- ------ - 1 1600 1 ------------------- - ------------ - -- 1 11 - - ----- --------- - ------ 1 0 -007 . ----------- - -------------------- . - - --- --------------- - I I I --------------- - ----------------- ----------------- WT - -------------- - 1 4800 1 ---- - --------- --- - ------------- 1 1279 - --------------- - --- 1 0.266 1 - --- - ---- --- 1 - --------------------- - ------------------- - 1 1 --------- ----- - ---------------- 1 I I-------------- -- 1 WR - --------------- - 1 1600 1 ---- --------------- - -- -----------..- 1 55 - - ....---------- - - 1 0.034 1 --- -------------- 1 - -------- ------ ------- - ------ ------------- - 1 1 --------------- - ----- ------- ----- I 1 ---------------- - -- ------------- - -- ---------- ------- - -------------- --- ----------- - ---- ------------- - --------------------- - ------------------- - ------ --------- - ------ --------- 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.707 1 ------------ ----- - --- ------------ - --- ---------------- - ---------------- - ---- ----------- - -- - 1 EXISTING+ REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I----------------- - --- ----- ---- --- - ------------------- - ----- ----------- - --------------- - - - ------- - ------ ........ ----- .....---- - ----- - -------- --- - ----- ----- ---- - ----------------- 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I -C -U. I .................... - --------------- - ................... - ---------------- - ................ -------'---------' - ..................... .................... - ----- °'------- - .................. 1_1 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 I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: -- ---------- -'--'- - ............... . ................... . --"--- - -- -' - ------ - ----' - -'--"---'------- - ..................... .................... - ---"--------'- - -----..----- PROJECT FORM II CH2630AM `.J CH2630PM • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS c`p. AC /FO0.N INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM ............................................................................................................................................ ............................... . I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Volume I I I ......................................................................................................................................... ............................... I 1 NL 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 ................ } .... ............................... } ...... ............................... } ............... } I I NT 1600 1 1 13 0.023 I I I I ................ } .... ............................... } ...... ............................... } ............... } I NR 1 1 12 1 1 1 I 1 ........................................................................................................................................ ............................... I I SL I 1 110 1 1 1 1 1 ................ } 1600 .... ............................... } 0.072 ................. .................... } ............... } I I ST 1 1 5 1 1 1 I 1 ........................................................................................................................................ ............................... I I SR 1 1600 1 1 269 1 0.168 • I 1 I I I ........................................................................................................................................ ............................... I I EL 1 1600 1 1 246 1 0.154 * I I I I I ................ . .............. . .................. . ............... . .............. . ................ . ................... . ................... . .............. . ............. I ET 1 1 1511 1 1 1 1 . } 3200 .... ............................... } 0.478 ................. .................... } ............... } I I ER 1 1 19 1 1 1 I 1 ......................................................................................................... ............................... . ........ . . . . .. . ..... ...... I I WL 1 1600 1 1 44 1 0.028 1 1 1 1 1 1 ---------------- - -------------- - --- --------- - - - - -- - --- ------------- -------- - - - - -- - --- -- ----- ----- . ... ........................... ............................... I I WT 1 4800 1 1 2256 1 0.470 * I I I I I I................................... ............................... ...................... ............................... ..... - - ------ - - - - -- - ------- - - - - -- I I WR 1 1600 1 1 42 1 0.026 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....................................... ............................... . ................ ............................... ._... - ---- ------- - - -- --- -- I I EXISTING I.C.U. 0 1 0.792 1 I I----- ---- ------ - ------ -------- - ------------------ - ----- ------ ---- - -------- - - - - -- - --- ------------- - -------- --------- - ------------- - - - - -- - I EXISTING + REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I j ................................... ............................... ................ `. ``. . . ... ............... . .............. .............. j I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I ............................................................................................................................................ ............................... . "Assumes SBR as critical since > SBL + EBL (concurrent w /SBR) 1-1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_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 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ...................... — `----- ----. -- -----............... ............................... -- .. Description of system improvement: --- ----------------- -I ............... -- .................. .. ................ . . ............... ................... .. .................... .. .................... .. ............... .. .............. .. skJECT FORM II 630PM 1p I MIAO LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JANUARY 2004 494/496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA APPENDIX D REASONABLY FORESEEABLE PROJECTS- LOCATION, TRIP GENERATIONS AND DISTRIBUTIONS • lb� PACNB333 \TPafiic_Study.wpd «1/19/04)) ¢a mz O a u O r LO vndwtl } W O 1' G1 61 W F Q O W rJ Z a ~ L~ 'z 3' ZO N z N Wm♦- Z F F W F '^ N w V 0 O V> j Q O F W W Q LL ♦- W N d }J F y. OO O N W a Z Q V O Qa 7 J 1' V } O i y} a Z Vzw VmF F" Q FZw �ww Z� W Q�ZZ�s=O<aa �wwO'a W Z N K Q W L 2 K O, 1' N W I^ QOOF !�W OOQ XZWWQO WI z V V N J N O N w M V E W Q Z Z d J W- W n o u u u n u n u u u o 0 -' 00000000 0® OD® ©O o. 1 -2 O O I ril Jtt / �f V t t x O Z V u u V W K N ♦ ♦-d d x } O 2 2 2 V LL W W w V z V S Q 2 LL o. 1 -2 O O I ril Jtt / �f Z F- O m� =m x w� 1� a r a a T. H 1� a 0 u O � b I � I � V1NV5 3 -5 z; as m: �s I G a r I D z � Z � W� w a W G J I I r r e e 0 0 0J q Opt � C O d s m V e d — IS d d 0 r DC Jf4/ 2� — / N �I Q U a r W -- J C U U Q W ml 3I �6 TABLE 3 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITSZ PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Residential - Apartments DU 0.90 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 Commercial Retail TSF 0.60 0.50 1.90 2.00 45.00 General Office TSF 2.60 0.35 1.49 7.26 22.44 0 Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates, Institue of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997, Land Use Category 710 z DU = Dwelling Units 0TSF = Thousand Square Feet U: \UWobs \00536 \Exce11[00636- 02.xis]T 3 -1 3 -2 TABLE 3 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Existing Credits Commercial Retail 3.8 TSF 2 2 7 8 171 Commercial Office 10.4 TSF 27 4 15 76 233 TOTAL CREDITS 29 6 23 83 404 Proposed Project Residential - Apartments 28 DU 25 1 12 12 1 6 1 181 Commercial Retail 19.6 TSF 12 10 37 39 882 Commercial Office 10.4 TSF 27 4 15 76 233 TOTAL 64 26 1 —641 121 1,296 NET NEW TRIPS 35 20 1 41 1 38 892 DU = Dwelling Unit TSF = Thousand Square Feet U9UcJODS \00636 \Excel \(00636 -02.xISIT 3 -2 3 -3 9 1 QZ �O mP N S�aa a Q � o m � r � W p o r W 15 5 A.1A 5 � b W u 4 -5 W 0 G c6 C O CG 0 r- C z z� W W 6 W ° J o Ela ,01 ka TABLE 4 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' WEEKDAY CONDITIONS LAND USE PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES DAILY RATE AM I PM I IN OUT IN OUT Morman Temple Rates Based on: 1 3.12 1 2.99 44.11 Thousand Square Feet 1 1.12 0.28 0.93 0.56 1 23.46 WEEKEND CONDITIONS LAND USE PEAK HOUR TRIP DAILY RATE IN OUT Morman Temple Rates Based on: Thousand Square Feet 1 3.12 1 2.99 44.11 • Source: Empirical data collection/trip generation analysis conducted by Solaegui Engineers, LTD (September 15, 2001) U:1 UCJobs 1006361ExceN[00636- 02.xis1T4 -1 tDY 4 -2 • TABLE 4 -2 NEWPORT BEACH MORMON TEMPLE TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY LAND USE lQUANTI UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Mormon Temple �lj Thousand Square Feet 17.46 j TSF 1 54 52 770 Thousand Square Feet 1 17.46 1 TSF 20 5 16 10 1 410 WEEKEND LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT Mormon Temple �lj Thousand Square Feet 17.46 j TSF 1 54 52 770 ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet U: \UCJobs100535lExceA [00636- 02.XISIT4 -2 4 -3 `�9 LO v Z TWO E= m ' ui CQ Z � a I, as �a H E.. az V � 0 LU a co �z z N i LIJ 5 -5 r jb 0 o r z r Z, O u 0 z m W W ? � 0 0 W I ° J I FF i • m =Z L V m =gym a y Lo ' W LU a LU ck a.Z =0 E.. 0 Z H • 0 5 5 SAN Mu \ ♦ 30 D. Cl) 5 -6 N A 0 C 0 c LL is Z W �W 6 W ° J o JFf �I yYa� I �m z TABLE 5 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITSZ PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Church TSF 0.08 0.03 0.34 0.30 N /A3 Daycare TSF 1 6.90 1 6.12 1 6.40 1 7.22 1 79.26 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 N/A =Not Available U: \UcJobs \00636 \Excel \[00636- 02.xIS,TT 5-1 s -2 • • 0 TABLE 5 -2 PROJECTTRIP GENERATION LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Church 34.6 TSF 3 1 12 10 NIA 2 Da care 4720 TSF 33 29 30 34 374 TOTAL 36 30 1 42 1 44 1 NIA ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet 10= N/A = Not Available U: \UcJobs \00636 \Excer\[00636- 02,xls]T 5 -2 5 -3 �i3 r-upQ =Z �a` 5 � m: F ii w :l m _ 1M�/ W u w COAST Z o NJ O a i 5 0 s O1 AddDd 0 Z �YN 6 I" W w b1iN N 311N3nDHtlW a — \ 8 SAN MIGpEL 2 I11 Q ♦ R N 11AY J ° ♦ ,1 OHN3C ♦ 7 wOpDO AVE � S E � H QO (.PYi0'% 76 O m OZ Of d• 'Otl 33HOHWtlf S op OF N -Id N34AAtlB S O O 5 OE 2m SE Yd HDd WVJ Or '3A 3NIAHI m 25 SZ 0 3Atl NLL$n 0 � � c '3AV VNV V1NVS n N p ~ry m y -' 3Atl 39Ntlll0 u 55115 m 7H 1HOdM3N� 7H H01H3dn5 m Wes m Y Y YN PPPOpO Nye ' O n p�PS dpi /a0 �P ♦' Z IN Q V Q m H H Q d7 � 6 � 'riy SS V 606 OP�JpS< Q p0 m 0 H m W 7 -5 z l 9 0 TABLE 7 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 N/A = Not Available U:1Uciobs \00636\Excel \[00636- 02.xis]T 7 -1 7 -2 1 UNITSZ PEAK HOUR DAILY LAND USE AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Church TSF 0.080-03 0.34 0.30 N/A ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 N/A = Not Available U:1Uciobs \00636\Excel \[00636- 02.xis]T 7 -1 7 -2 1 TABLE 7 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Church TSF 3 1 11 10 N/A ' TSF = Thousand Square Feet Z N/A =Not Available U: \U W obs \00636 \Excel \[00636- 02.xls]T 7 -2 7 -3 9 0 0 11(D AA" ? =z 0'600 F-a- mm5 m Oy CL ... BoxO z2 �- pm z W L7 W 0 0 mm 111 ral TABLE 8 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN I OUT IN OUT Resort Hotel ROOMS 1 0.20 1 0.10 0.20 0.30 6.00 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates • • U:\ UcJobs \006361Exoell[00636-02.xls]T 4 -1 • 11� 8 -2 0 CJ • TABLE 8 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE IQUANTITYJ UNITS PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Resort Hotel 1 156 1 ROOMS 31 16 31 47 936 U: \UcJobs100 6636 \ExceNOD636- 02.x1s)T 4-1 HE 11 l ek- QTRLU XHa N D. Z 0 ag V m Lei. � y Or V 0 a 0 I � � o F,Iav cpI 0 m m i O iz -s N h W N rp�- � C � w i Q =d0 Q J F � Qo V O Z W Qi Z�4 V C O Jff � l �� m {/i o N � Z � a � MC I cL a I H a N Q SuN Z � dOy G °b CO aM JO cck 6 V � 0 YL 5 r H 5 N1LL 4 °Ss y Add WV 311a nut, B 5P N MIGUE� r, 2 / \ '3Ptl O ` O DOtlN30 I ` u \ VOCADD PV . m � NEB 0i °o b° m W °s 'GC 33a°ewtlf �f Jt o O � EPy4eQP' N O n ld ' M31Mtla O O h zo d I •u N�nla m ° 4 n vo anawn '3ntl 3mnal T:I io '3AY HWnl • V O A '3ntl tlNtl ViNtlS ° s z -J pOp' a c m 3Ptl 30NYtl0 v V o N is laOdµ3N 55'x5 55'x5 04 v m i'•�. ee0e '�, r P °'S a rd, off% 3 _ r O \eS Ob 60 \P N Q V Q C H > H ' Q rF ubOy eP° m JAI iz —s UMfa Wz En z W mN1= w �' a �o a_ zt; a L. r Y. H �O r� N � ar O 0 Za W z m 1z -7 e�JI I AtIc s 3LIa3 SAN MIGUEL 0 N \ m aoaN3a \ C1 N \ `c"o P N � m 0 m / N�a 0 O ^ai Od0 (iyj � 0 s 'e '0a 33a00Wtlf D D � M31Mtl0 O r i yE0. a gd a o xo LS HJaf9 0 x zo anaw.n 3Atl 3NIAUI '3Atl Nllanl a C '3Atl VNV V1 VS G x a z 3Atl 9Ntla0 lal:OAM3N N 55 a5 ss -as e QOGP ys� 30 �6 1z -7 e�JI I AtIc c�! W m O W a a �z zP a� V IW6 W y is N � V O a LU W z 0 0 i ♦ 1 tt N F- 1E 12 -8 N i� TABLE 12 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITSZ PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT Condominium/Townhouse DU 0.17 0.49 0.47 0.36 8.10 Multi Family Dwelling DU 0.90 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 Single Family Detached Residential DU 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.40 11.00 State Park (gross acres) AC 0.21 0.90 0.29 0.31 19.15 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates DU = Dwelling Units AC = Acres U: \UcJobs\00636 \Excel \[00636- 02.xls]T 12 -1 12 -2 0 0 0 1� T AK TABLE 12 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION r -I DU =Dwelling welling UNts � K�Xi n AC = Acres � U: \Ualobs \00636 \Exceh 100636- 02.xis1T 12 -2 - SINS �� lS E'!•<<- Tttx-� �a5 12 -3 -rv✓ TAZ PLANNING AREA LAND USE QUANTITY UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN OUT IN OUT 1A Condominium/Townhouse 121 DU 21 59 57 44 980 1B ISinqle Family Detached Residential 36 DU 7 25 25 14 396 1C Condominium/Townhouse 888 DU 151 435 417 320 7,193 1 2A Single Family Detached Residential 206 DU 41 144 144 82 2,266 13C Multi Family Dwelling 116 DU 104 49 50 23 751 13D Multi Family Dwelling 116 DU 104 49 50 23 751 13E Multi Family Dwelling 116 DU 104 49 50 23 751 TOTAL FOR TAZ 1 532 810 793 529 13,088 3A Single Family Detached Residential Single Family Detached Residential 347 DU 69 243 243 139 3,817 3B 450 DU 90 315 315 180 4,950 4B Single Family Detached Residential 587 DU 117 411 411 235 6,457 2 13A - Multi Family Dwelling 117 DU 105 49 50 23 757 13B Multi Family Dwelling 117 DU 105 49 50 23 757 14 Single Family Detached Residential 26 DU 5 18 18 10 286 17 State Park (gross acres) 2,807 AC 589 2,526 814 870 53,754 TOTAL FOR TAZ 2 1 1-1,080 1 3,611 1 1,901 1 1,480 70,778 3 2B Single Family Detached Residential 62 DU 12 43 43 25 682 4A Sin le Family Detached Residential 784 DU 157 549 549 1 314 8,624 TOTAL FOR TAZ 3 1 1 169 592 17592 339 9,306 2C Sin le Family Detached Residential 307 DU 61 215 215 123 3,377 4 5 Single Fa'nily Detached Residential 300 DU 60 210 210 120 3,300 6 Single Family Detached Residential 75 DU 15 53 53 30 825 8 Condominium/Townhouse 289 j DU 1 49 142 1 136 104 2,341 TOTAL FOR TAZ 4 185 620 614 377 9,843 —11TOTAL FOR ALL ZONES 1,966 5,633 3,900 2,725 103,015 DU =Dwelling welling UNts � K�Xi n AC = Acres � U: \Ualobs \00636 \Exceh 100636- 02.xis1T 12 -2 - SINS �� lS E'!•<<- Tttx-� �a5 12 -3 -rv✓ Qn'N Lu �Z� OLU r w N 4 N J Z O` r w� �N W CL O1-� O W Z 0 ♦Y__� btiNpB ♦ 1 I W.I.] 1[f OFF / D? rll \ c4104 _%\ / \ 60\ "Ar / / rkal PP °- \CIA ZC 13 -5 COAST — 0 a i z LL N Q r N ~ N QW f. Z W S HILL a Addoa W o ass J 0 1[f OFF / D? rll \ c4104 _%\ / \ 60\ "Ar / / rkal PP °- \CIA ZC 13 -5 c?NNf I W Z W r. wya H �0 a_ a� =� U6 Li. H W _ 0 F' _ W O E / " N N U Q I \ � o e ` �sI F ^R I y0 O � N zc andNm O viws 13 -6 All IX ■ — J [a,1 m N Q F- � � o os m 0 1d 'o o ° 13 -7 W JFf / rVaj 1' 0 0 • TABLE 13 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITSZ PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM I IN OUT IN OUT Multi Family Dwelling I DU 0.90 0.42 0.43 0.20 6.47 Single Family Detached Residential DU 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.40 11.00 Commercial TSF 1 0.60 1 0.50 1 1.90 1 2.00 1 45.00 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates 2 DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet U: \UcJobs \00636 \Excen[00636- 02.xls]T 13 -1 13 -2 TABLE 13 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FTAZ PLANNING AREA LAND USE QUANTITYJUNITS'11 PEAK HOUR AM PM IN I OUT I IN OUT 1A Single Family Detached Residential 93 DU 19 65 65 37 2 Single Family Data Residential 147 DU 29 103 103 59 3 Single Family Detached Residential 138 DU 28 97 97 55 4 Single Family Detached Residential 125 DU 25 88 88 50 5 Multi Family Dwelling 100 DU 90 42 43 20 1 7 Multi Famil Dwelling 63 DU 57 26 27 13 8 Multi Family Dwelling 112 DU 101 47 48 22 9 Multi Family Dwelling 112 DU 101 47 48 22 11 Single Fa mil Detached Residential 323 DU 65 226 226 129 12 Commercial 102.959 TSF 62 51 196 206 12 Single Family Detached Residential 200 DU 34 98 94 72 TOTAL FOR TAZ 1 1 611 890 1,035 685 21 Single Family Detached Residential 350 DU 70 245 245 140 2 22 Single Family Detached Residential 705 DU 1A1 494 494 282 TOTAL FOR TAZ 2 211 739 739 422 13 IMulti Family Dwellin 347 DU 312 146 149 69 3 14 Single Family Detached Residential 26 DU 5 18 18 10 15 Multi Famil Dwelling 547 DU 492 230 235 109 TOTAL FORTAZ3 809 394 402 188 TOTALFORALLZONES 1,631 2,023 1 2,176 1 1,295 — .�uy,�&E -7b'/. ' DU = Dwelling Units TSF = Thousand Square Feet U: \UcJobs \00636 \Excel \[00636- 02.x15]T 13 -2 OF P�SiltisitA�. 13 -3 0 y �) A-�-5 QQZ m » _m 0y min W Liz N i a m LU O Ll 0 i 15 -5 rka 0 a LL EiI Z ZIP W W a a W J o M I13► TABLE 15 -1 TRIP GENERATION RATES' LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY AM PM IN 1 0 U TEE IN OUT Elderly Residential I DU 0.10 0.30 1 0.30 0.10 4.00 ' Source: City of Newport Beach Trip Generation Rates ' DU = Dwelling Units 15 -2 0 0 0 10 0 TABLE 15 -2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE UNITS' PEAK HOUR DAILY I PM jAM IN OUT IN OUT Elderly Residential DU 15 45 45 15 600 ' DU = Dwelling Units U: \UCJobs \00636 \Excel \[00636- 02.xls[T 15 -2 15 -3 `33 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS JANUARY 1004 4941490 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 0 APPENDIX E EXISTING PLUS BACKGROUND PLUS CUMULATIVE (WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT ICU WORKSHEETS 0 � 3`� P: \CNB333 \TrBfC Study.Wpd(0 /19/00 0 0 0 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION NO.: 5 NORTIVSOUTH: NevvTort Boulevard EAST/WEST: Hospital Road Notes: VIC - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: P U F Protected right turn movement Unprotected right turn movement Free right turn lane LSA Associate, Im. 135 Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Projects plus Cumulative Projects plus Project Move- Volume V/C Ratio V/C Ratio ment Lane Ca ac' AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1,600 153 152 0.096 * 0.095 NBT 3 4,800 1,569 1,313 0.327 0.274 NBR 1 U 1,600 97 66 0.000 0.000 SBL 1 1,600 58 44 0.036 0.028 SBT 3 4,800 1,157 1,791 0.343 * 0.429 SBR 0 0 491 266 0.000 0.000 EBL 1 1,600 272 597 0.170 * 0.373 EBT 1 1,600 187 155 0.117 0.097 EBR 1 U 1,600 252 244 0.000 0.000 WBL 1 1,600 69 154 0.043 0.096 WBT 2 3 ,200 270 183 0.090 * 0.073 WBR 0 0 18 50 0.000 0.000 /S Critical Movements 0.000 /S Critical Movements 0.439 0.524 E/WCriticalMovements 0.524 Critical Movements 0.260 0.446 ' Right Turn Critical Movement 0.450 Right Tom Critical Movement 0.000 0.000 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval 0.000 0.000 CU CU 0.699 0.970 Level of Service (LOS) Level of Service (LOS) B E Notes: VIC - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: P U F Protected right turn movement Unprotected right turn movement Free right turn lane LSA Associate, Im. 135 Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Projects plus Project Move- Volume V/C Ratio meat Lane Capacity AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1,600 153 152 0.096 * 0.095 NBT 3 4,800 1,569 1,313 0.327 0.274 NBR 1 U 1,600 102 69 0.000 0.000 SBL 1 1,600 64 47 0.040 0.029 SBT 3 4,800 1,157 1,79I 0.343 * 0.429 SBR 0 0 491 266 0.000 0.000 EBL 1 1,600 272 597 0.170 * 0.373 EBT 1 1,600 190 156 0.118 0.098 EBR 1 U 1,600 252 244 0.000 0.000 WBL 1 1,600 71 169 0.044 0.106 WBT 2 3,200 270 187 0.090 * 0.077 WBR 0 0 19 59 0.000 0.000 /S Critical Movements 0.439 0.524 Critical Movements 0.260 0.450 Right Tom Critical Movement 0.000 0.000 Clearance Interval 0.000 0.000 CU 0.699 0.974 Level of Service (LOS) B E Notes: VIC - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Turn Conditions: P U F Protected right turn movement Unprotected right turn movement Free right turn lane LSA Associate, Im. 135 WTERSE CTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION INTERSECTION NO.: 6 NORTH/SOUTH: Newport Boulevard EAST/WEST: West Coast Highway Notes: WC - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Tom Conditions: P U F - Protected right turn movement - Unprotected right turn movement - Free right turn lane LSA Associate, Inc. 9 0 KVM Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Pro'ects Move- Move- Volume Volume V /CRatio merit Lane Capacity AM PM AM PM NBL 0 0 5 13 0.000 0.000 NBT 0 0 6 16 0.000 ` 01000 ' NBR 0 0 8 24 0.000 0.000 SBL 2 3,200 448 473 0.140 ' 0.148 " SBT 0 0 0 0 0.000 01000 SBR 1 U 1,600 229 410 0.003 • 0.109 ' EBL 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 EBT 2 3,200 2,414 1,580 0.754 ' 0.494 ' EBR 1 F 1,600 180 137 0.000 0.000 WBL 0 0 16 16 0.000 . 0.000 ' WBT 3 4,800 1,069 1,992 0.226 0.418 WBR 1 F 1,600 353 493 0.000 0.000 S Critical Movements IS Critical Movements 0.140 0.148 Critical Movements Critical Movements 0.754 0.494 Right Tom Critical Movement t Turn Critical Movement 0.003 0.109 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval 0.000 0.000 CU CU 0.897 0.751 Level of Service (LOS) eve] of Service (LOS) D C Notes: WC - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Tom Conditions: P U F - Protected right turn movement - Unprotected right turn movement - Free right turn lane LSA Associate, Inc. 9 0 KVM Existing plus Background plus Cumulative Projects plus Pro'ect Move- Volume V /CRatio ment Lane Cnacity AM PM AM PM NBL 0 0 5 13 0.000 0.000 NBT 0 0 6 16 0.000 ' 0.000 ' NBR 0 0 8 24 0.000 0.000 SBL 2 3,200 449 480 0.140 " 0.150 SBT 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 SBR 1 U 1,600 229 414 0.003 • 0.109 ' EBL 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 EBT 2 3,200 2,414 1,580 0.754 r 0.494 EBR 1 F 1,600 180 137 0.000 0.000 WBL 0 0 16 16 0.000 a 0.000 ' WBT 3 4,800 1,069 1,992 0.226 0.418 WBR 1 F 1,600 353 493 0.000 0.000 IS Critical Movements 0.140 0.150 Critical Movements 0.754 0.494 t Turn Critical Movement 0.003 0.109 Clearance Interval 0.000 0.000 CU 0.897 0.753 eve] of Service (LOS) D C Notes: WC - Volume to Capacity Ratio Right Tom Conditions: P U F - Protected right turn movement - Unprotected right turn movement - Free right turn lane LSA Associate, Inc. 9 0 KVM • EXHIBIT NO. 4 Correspondence from Applicant t�� TRPOFVELOPMENT SERVICES October 29, 2003 Ms. Patricia Terlple Planning Director City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: Use Permit Application Project Description and Justification 494 and 496 Old Newport Road Dear Ms. Temple: Incorporating comments from our Design Review Committee meeting on Thursday, October 9, 2003, we are providing you with our application for a Planning Directors Use Permit for the redevelopment of 494 and 496 Old Newport Road. As part of the application, the following is the Project Description and Justification for the project: Protect Description New 2 -Story, 12,000 Square Foot Medical Office Building to replace existing Auto Service Facility and Retail Store at the intersection of Old Newport Road and Orange Avenue. Proiect Justification In order to provide the required parking for the project, we are requesting a use permit for an increased FAR and Building Bulk. Our justifications are based on the following: FAR — Per Municipal Code Section 20.46.050.B, we are allowed to increase our FAR to .75 by providing unified site design. We are providing Unified Site Design by joining two adjacent lots by Lot Line Adjustment. The FAR of the proposed development is 0.657. Building Bulk — Per Municipal Code Section 20.46.050.8, Specific Plan 9, and Municipal Code Section 20.63.060, we are requesting an increase in building bulk from .75 to 1.23 for the following reasons: • The site is providing unified site design as mentioned above. • The increased development is compatible with other buildings in the surrounding area. • The new development does not create abrupt changes in scale with development in the surrounding area. 0 • 3151 Airway Avenue Suite F -203 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 7141662 -1132 7141662 -1204 fax TRPDEVELOPMENT SERVICES Additional Information Parkingt In order for us to comply with the 4 per 1000 square feet parking requirements of the proposed development, we are requesting that parking spaces along Old Newport Road and Orange Avenue be included in the total allowable parking per Municipal Code Section 20.46.040 L as indicated on the enclosed site plan. Proposed Street Vacation —As part of this proposed development we are obtaining a street vacation along Orange Avenue through the Public Works Department. This is compatible with the existing use of the property and allows for additional on -site parking. Please see the attached letter describing the conditions we will be complying with. Please call if you have any questions or comments 0 0 AIA Services, LLC 3151 Airway Avenue Suite F -203 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714/662 -1132 714/662 -1204 fax 3� EXHIBIT NO. 5 Correspondence from the Public 0 TRPDEVELOPMENT SERVICES reoruary -iz, zUu4 Mr. and Mrs. Dan and Blanch Hickman 611 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: 494/496 Old Newport Road Commercial Redevelopment Project Dear Dan and Blanch: Thank you for meeting with us at the above referenced property to review our proposal for a professional and medical office building. We appreciate you spending the time with us to review the drawings and discuss the various aspects of our project. We have taken your comments seriously and will incorporate them into our final design. Our intention is to be as sensitive to the scale and proximity of the surrounding residential neighborhood. In response to our meeting we ask that you find in favor of our project and show your support by signing this letter as indicated below. If you have any questions or additional comments, please don't hesitate to call. ** We are excited to be part of the neighborhood and look forward to completing this project. We thank you again for your time in this matter. ** OUR CONCERNS COVERED IN OUR MEETING, Since l„ 1. PRIVACY: DRAWINGS ON SHEET A4.1, SANDBLASTED Lawrence Services and Blafich Hickman WINDOWS EAST ELEVATION. 2. NOISE: LOCATION OF A /C'S WITH NIGHT TIME SET BACK. 3. TRASH CONTAINER LOCATION: MEDICAL WASTE & TRASH LOCATED AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL. 4. LANDSCAPE: MATURE TREES IN SET BACKS, CITY REQUIREMENT RESIDENTIAL 10 FOOT. 2/ z &/Oy CC: Steve Olson, Mariners Capital, Inc. . James Mathisrud, Mariners Capital, Inc. 3151 Airway Avenue Suite F -203 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714/662 -1132 7141662 -1204 fax 52/27/2004 11:35 345- 574 -2525 m [r`JJ T-. iEDEVELOPMENT SERVICES r��....__ . •n nnn� routuwy tc, cuvv Mr. Mark Mlanderson 611 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: 4"41496 vId Newport R!±M Commercial Redevelopment Project Dew Ma dc PAGE 52 i hank you for meeting with us at the above referenced property to review our proposal for a professional and medical office building. We appreciate you spending the time with us to review the drawings and discuss the various aspects of our project. We have taken your comments seriously and will incorporate them into our final design. Our intention is to be as sensitive to the scale and proximity of the surrounding residential neighborhood. In. response to our meeting we ask that you find in favor of our project and show your support by signing this letter as indicated below. If you have any questions or additional comments, please don't hesitate to call. We are excited to be part of the neighborhood and look forward to completing this project. We thank you again for your time in this matter. Services �' Mark Manderson CC: Steve Olson, Mariners Capital, Inc. James Mathisrud, Mariners Capital, Inc. 3151 Airway Avevue Suite F-203 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714/662 -1132 0 • 714/662 -1204 fax TRPDF \FL0 I'M ENT ShR\1(FS 0 February 12, 2004 Mr. Robert and Nancy Read 413 Bolsa Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: 4941496 Old Newport Road Commercial Redevelopment Project Dear Robert and Nancy: Thank you for meeting with us at the above referenced property to review our proposal for a professional and medical office building. We appreciate you spending the time with us to review the drawings and discuss the various aspects of our project. We have taken your comments seriously and will incorporate them into our final design. Our intention is to be as sensitive to the scale and proximity of the surrounding residential neighborhood. In response to our meeting we ask that you find in favor of our project and show your support by signing this letter as indicated below. If you have any questions or additional comments, please don't hesitate to call. We are excited to be part of the neighborhood and look forward to completing this project. We thank you again for your time in this matter- Since', ly, I ' Robert Lawrence TRP Development Services Robert and Nancy Read CC: Steve Olson, Mariners Capital, Inc. James Mathisrud, Mariners Capital, Inc. A.c;tuc Suitt 1 -203 Coq:i ?,)c.:!. CA 92020 1-4106, -113' Robert and Nancy Read 413 Bolsa Avenue Newport Beach, California 92663 February 22, 2004 Robert Lawrence TRP Development Services 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F -203 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Dear Robert: Thank you for meeting with us to present your preliminary drawings of the proposed medical building for 494/496 Old Newport Road. We appreciate your taking note of our concerns regarding privacy and noise. The following is a list of additional and /or more specific suggestions and concerns we have of your proposed medical structure: 1. Privacy: The original plans called out for an all glass building. During our meeting on February 2, 2004 your team proposed the use of glass block along our property instead of regular glass. 2. Noise: The location of air conditioners, generators, etc. near our bedroom window especially is critical. Also as the building is not a dwelling unit, we suggest a/c units be turned off when not occupied. 3. Softening of visual impact: We would like to see large vertical trees along the side of the building to soften the impact of a solid building. 4. Landscape buffer: In addition to large vertical trees, we would like to see a larger planter space between our property line wall and the parking lot. The current plans call out for a 2' planter. The overhang of a normal size car is typically 18 ". We are concerned of the structural integrity of our retaining wall and would like to see at least a 5' buffer. 5. Location of trash receptacles. Due to the amount of waste generated from a medical building, we request that the trash receptacles and other waste disposal not be located adjacent to our property. During your design process, we are hopeful you will be considerate of the above mentioned concerns. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Regards, Robert and Nancy Read 0 EXHIBIT NO. 6 Project Plans E i q 5 0 gNiO�IFL�I�2IVY1 ONminsnu=10 s,au €iey. 1HOdM3N al0 - �^ -�- - -= - : Om Fi;�:c Nv,e uoou as +, .s.: 3 �x o ❑ 4`.i r ?i �k S Yi+ W N :� W < x€ }6B -a .n o: vc €e i9c °!- 99 ❑.5 i. 9-P 9 f €¢e INiXI�p . w a a- gcl" €ePC i`79.ieed °° _ m z3. .:e u 1'.$Ba !' i I� �I t: I sa 1 P ,., E: r T ami e e e w a rt W 0� _ , si _ oow 11 R d O t gr =� : i� YX 8f E II vo 4079 I�d��N ONIMmB 3DUAO Lo lmdam,aax��3s IHOdAA3N (310 :la o- II n. Vo fil�tO�+IFYi�2iFM oNia�ineaoi�do ,auuewl iHOdM3N al0 L-1 �; lg i s ➢ Py HY f iyy ! § LP.- y z H i z ➢� PP i� i§ : 9 t�� P Pn 3ae °a H , 4� e6 � �; lg �I V_ �I \ 11� m 1 Ip a? I CI ' I z^ �E a, of KI i 0 9 gwoogvw TdvM l r8? g onf is i d!I I 1 I c li R A bb b s6 I I I i I S 9 fJ S n ZT OIL wi+ I �. II s;V II 1 III, �I 0 >II J pl wi �1 mS rcl o� ONimin8 301Ajo 'slaulieyj i-dOdM3N 010 e � E F S I� lm >�- i i I, a , I � III I II QI I I I I I I V I I I I I 1 I � 1 ` e. E S ti S 9 S S I i i[ O w w 0 I { I I i I I IJ I{` y� I I I I I al I tl I b9 S 9zS k' 1 i QI I I I I I I V I I I I I 1 I � 1 ` e. E S ti S 9 S S I i i[ O w w 0 I { I I i I I MoolvWT S�dvm ONfairs 3oijz(o 18OdM3N 010 Ja it a jl 'Zi I E3 � LJ 0 OR vo 77 -10 wi � ! . • |\ \� E§ ;!! !` |h!, § / $ ` - , gl.R!!d•/ Q � tt � ` §j� 'a» ; @) \ ;! • � )�� §(\\ N ) [[ § |b §© \d§bN 1 - ; - . . � �BA ! s• risep (�s ` g`o 0 i6 °igi��9gi�P °F 95ti.P'o iC B69 .I_ 3 = e�� l,Zt• @• a 'mi89�9?js LJ : �-- ------- ° 8i A. ' 2 Z J I i ..g "•� 4 B 'y 4-4 it ..'!t, a G A r 40 d�3N�� 070 0 all I R it I I It oi all Pg ------------- ... . ...... ... .... ... .. ATTACHMENT B Planning Commission Resolution 6-q 0 I* 0 RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -043 AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2004 -001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4941496 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD (PA2003 -252). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by Robert Lawrence, with respect to property located at 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard and legally described as Tract No. 27, Lots 7 and 8, that portion of Old Newport Boulevard abutting said lots vacated by resolution No. 99 -54 and a portion of the Orange Avenue right of way under consideration for vacation, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001 to authorize the development of a new 12,500 square foot medical office building that exceeds the permitted 0.5 Floor Area Ratio and the permitted building bulk on an 18,418 square foot commercial site lot. The application also requests approval of a traffic study pursuant to the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and approval of an off - street parking credit for parking spaces provided on- street pursuant to Section 20.46.040(L). Section 2. A public hearing was held on March 4, 2004 at the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for Retail and Service Commercial uses. Medical office buildings are permitted uses within this category. 2. The proposed location of the Use Permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: a. The project will be of similar nature to existing professional office uses on Old Newport Boulevard. Although the project abuts residential development to the east, the new structure maintains the required setbacks and does not exceed the maximum height limit. b. As indicated in the Traffic Study, the development will not individually or cumulatively cause significant traffic impacts to the adjacent streets or intersections. 0 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2 of 8 c. The development of a professional medical office building is consistent with the goals of the Old Newport Specific Plan commercial district. d. The 18,418 square foot project site is of adequate size to support the building and the scale of an 11,750 square foot building is appropriate for this location due to it's corner location and lower finished floor elevation than the adjoining residential properties. e. The increased FAR and building bulk, including above grade covered parking, will not result in significant impairment of public views since the additional building bulk and floor area are accommodated within the buildable envelope of the site and no increase in building height is sought in conjunction with the application. Additionally, there are no scenic public views through or across the property. f. The office development and design is superior to that of the existing auto repair retail and residential development currently existing on the site. g. As conditioned, the project meets all development standards, other than floor area ratio and building bulk, specified by the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan including setbacks, landscaping, building height and required parking. h. The City Traffic Engineer has determined that the site design provides adequate vehicular access and circulation. 3. A traffic study, entitled Traffic Impact Analysis for 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California (LSA Associates, February 18, 2004), was prepared for the project in compliance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). a. The traffic study determined that the project will contribute less than a 1 % increase in traffic at six (6) of the eight (8) intersections examined and therefore no mitigation is required for those. b. The traffic study determined that the project will not cause the level of service to decline at the two (2) intersections where there will be an increase of more than 1 % in traffic volume and therefore no mitigation is required. 4. The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, unless so modified by this Use Permit, including any specific conditions required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. 5. The project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA (New Construction or the Conversion of Small Structures) as the project will result in less than a 10,000 square foot (net) increase over what exists on the site, all public services and utilities are provided and the site is not environmentally sensitive. 0 L 5(° Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paae 3 of 8 Section 4. Based on the findings above, the Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001 subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "A." Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4t' DAY OF MARCH 2004. MIN Earl McDaniel, Chairman BY: Michael Toerge, Secretary _1 J AYES: NOES: i5, Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 8 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-043 & TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2004 -001 Planning Department 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, roof plan, elevations and sections dated February 26, 2004, landscape plans dated February 10, 2004 and grading plans dated January 29, 2004 except as specified below: a. The maximum FAR permitted is 0.637 (11,750 gross square feet). b. The maximum building bulk permitted is 1.193 (21,980 square feet). C. An off - street parking credit is granted only for the two (2) on- street parking spaces located on Old Newport Boulevard. The three (3) on- street parking spaces shown along Orange Avenue are not included in the off - street parking credit approval. 0 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, City Council approval of the pending Orange Avenue right of way vacation shall be received and the property conveyed to the property owners. Should the City Council not approve the proposed Orange Avenue street vacation this Use . Permit is null and void. 3. Use Permit No. 2003 -0043 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 4. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 5. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by the current owner or leasing company. 6. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements, including handicapped parking requirements. • 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paae 5 of 8 • 8. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this permit. 9. The establishment shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, County and City water quality regulations for the life of this Use Permit. 10.All mechanical equipment including roof top mounted equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets. Also, the equipment shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -042 must be recorded with the Orange County Recorders Office. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the trash enclosure design shall be approved by the Planning Department. The trash enclosure shall be enclosed by three walls and have a self closing, self latching gate. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plans are required to fully comply with the development standards outlined in Section 20.46.040(L) of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Director and the General Services Department, All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 14. Prior to the final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code Enforcement and Water Quality Division to confirm that all landscaping was installed in accordance with the approved plan. 15.All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. The irrigation systems shall be positioned and adjusted in such a manner that no sidewalk will be oversprayed by landscape irrigation. 16. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on- site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare . are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. i� I Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 8 "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures. 17.The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. 18. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement and Water Quality Division to confirm control of light and glare. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 19. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permits, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non - structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for New Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the format shown in "Attachment C" of the DAMP title "Water Quality Management Plan Outline" and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and Public Works Department. 20.The on -site storm drain system shall be privately maintained in accordance with the approved Water Quality Management Plan for the duration of the approved use. 21. During the construction phase the project applicant shall exercise special care to prevent any offsite siltation. Project applicant shall properly maintain all temporary erosion and sediment control measures until the Building Department approves the removal of said measures. 22.Applicant shall ensure that all construction contractor and subcontractor personnel are made aware of the required best management practices and good housekeeping measures for the project site and any associated construction lay -down areas. No construction materials, debris, or waste shall be placed or stored where it may enter a storm drain or be subject to tidal erosion or dispersion. 23.All construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris, and stockpiles of soil, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored, and secured to prevent transport into coastal waters by wind, rain, or tracking. i t eb Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 7 of 8 Building Department 24.Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy permit, all improvements shall be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the Building Department. 25. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. 26.The facility shall be designed to meet exiting and fire protection requirements as specified by the Uniform Building Code and shall be subject to review and approval by the Newport Beach Building Department and the Fire Department. 27.A geotechnical report will be required with the submittal of construction drawings for plan check. The project shall comply with any mitigation measures contained in said report and the requirements of the Newport Beach Building Department. Fire Department 28.A fire protection system, including automatic fire sprinklers and fire sprinkler monitoring, acceptable to the Fire Department is required. 29.A fire alarm is required if the use is classified as an "I" occupancy. 30. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the elevator size shall be approved by the Newport Beach Fire Department. The elevator shall be of sufficient size to accommodate a gumey. Public Works 31.All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 32. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street tress shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and Public Works Department. 33.Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to the completion of the public improvements. 34. Prior to the issuance of building permits the final landscaping plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer to verify the plantings will not impede vehicular sight distance. 35.Prior to the issuance of building permits, Fair Share Traffic Fees shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 15.38 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. �1 Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 8 of 8 36. Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid. 0 37.Any Edison transformers serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L 38. Overhead utilities serving the site shall 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. 39. 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. 40. Prior to the final of building permits, a minimum of four parking spaces (two on each side of the drive aisle) adjacent to the dead -end drive aisle east of the lobby area shall be striped and signed as reserved for the use of employees only as revised by conditions of approval. 41. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. The location, number and dimensions of the parking spaces shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan dated February 26, 2004 as revised by conditions of approval. . 42. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final design of all approved off -site parking, shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. The location, number and dimensions of the parking spaces shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan dated February 26, 2004 as revised by conditions of approval. 43. Prior to the issuance of buildinq permits, the final landscaping plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer to verify the plantings will not impede vehicular sight distance. • l�)- ATTACHMENT C Draft Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of March 4, 2004 0 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 Page 3 of 14 Ayes' Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, and Tucker Noes; None Absent: None Abstain' -,,Kiser SUBJECT:' New S rior Group, LLC (PA2003 -122) ITEM NO. 3 500 -540 eriorAvenue PA2003 -122 Traffic Study pursuant to the Tra Phasing Ordinance (TPO) for a possible Continued to increase in the amount of gene office uses within the Newport 04/08/2004 Technology Center. (Traffic Study No. 2 3 -001) Ms. Temple noted that staff is asking for a tinuance to April 8th for additional analysis of the traffic study, a also to notice an amendment to a necessary condition of approva n the original use permit. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to continue th item to April 8, 2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Noes: Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None None SUBJECT: TRP Development Services (PA2003 -252) ITEM NO. 4 494/496 Old Newport Blvd. PA2003 -252 Request for approval of a Use Permit and Traffic Study to allow the construction of a new 12,500 square foot medical office building that exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio and building bulk. The applicant also requests approval of an off - street parking credit for proposed on- street parking spaces. Mr. Ramirez, Associate Planner, clarified the following: • The square footage total of 11,359 square feet as noted in condition one, item 'A' is correct. The square footage noted on page 10 was rounded up and listed as 11,374 square feet and is also correct. • A total of 11,359 square feet based on 47 parking spaces available is staffs recommendation. We parked the permitted 0.5 FAR at a rate of 1 parking space per 250 gross floor area. file: //H: \Plancormn \2004 \0304.htm 03/12/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \03 04.htm Page 4 of 14 03/12/2004 I . The ten remaining parking spaces were parked at a rate of 1 parking space per each 215 square feet of gross floor area, which is the parking rate of the worst case scenario of the parking demand study that was done on the two sites that were studied forthis project. At Commissioner inquiry, staff noted: . The use permit is for a requested increase in floor area. The findings are the standard code findings along with additional ones. . The applicant is requesting to be allowed to construct a building that is larger than basic entitlement contained in the Code. . The findings regarding the increased floor area ratio are included in the staff report on pages 5 and 6. . Additionally, we need to find that the approval of the extra FAR will not be detrimental to the City or neighborhood in which the use is located. . To qualify for additional floor areas, the development is required to provide a unified site design. It is intended to require that the project involve consolidation of lots which would reduce the number of driveways on Old Newport Blvd. . The Commission must find that the project shall not cause significant traffic impacts to the adjacent streets and intersections. We find through the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis and the cumulative analysis that no traffic specific impacts would result from the proposed project. . The amount of potential conflict with traffic that may result from inadequate parking supply is able to be considered pursuant to Finding 2, which is that the project would not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. . The Commission could find that increased parking for that increment of development over .5 would not be detrimental and therefore approve the applicant's request. . The Commission has the ability to determine the meaning and intent of the Code, there is a possibility that the approval could be based with the three spaces on Orange. If this is done, the Commission would need to direct staff to come back with an amendment to the specific plan to identify side streets where this accommodation would also need to be granted so that we are clear when we deal with applicants. file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \03 04.htm Page 4 of 14 03/12/2004 I Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 . Staffs recommendation on the parking ratio that is anything over .5 should be parked at a higher rate. We could add the three spaces to the total to make it 50, but would still apply the one space per 215 square feet for the portion of the project over .5, unless the Commission determines that also is not required. Public comment was opened. Stacey Wise, resident of Broad Street presented photographs of Old Newport Blvd. The photos depict the parking that takes place and show that there is no additional parking available on the street. On Orange Avenue, one house was replaced with eight units. At that time, off site parking was allocated for those condo residents for those eight condos that were built. The same modification and argument is used consistently for reasons to allow over building in this area. She noted the Specific Area Plan that was worked on by local residents and business owners in the area almost three years to come up with an agreeable plan for the use and direction for this area. She asked that this item be denied. Mary Hannah, resident of Orange Avenue asked that this item be denied as the parking and additional traffic would be a hindrance to the neighborhood. Robert Reed, resident of Bolsa Avenue stated that putting more parking spaces inside the building area in the underneath parking would not allow much room for planting and landscaping to be used between his home and the complex. They have a two foot overhang in the parking structure, and our wall is about 15 feet tall that drops down to their land. With a two foot overhang, a larger SUV or vehicle parking could damage the retaining wall. He requested that the buffer zone be increased with additional landscape. James Mathersroud, one of the owners of 494/496 Old Newport Blvd., noted the following on the project: . The project is in the Old Newport Specific Plan area that encourages consolidation of existing parcels. . The street vacation is along Orange Avenue. . Current property uses are an automotive repair with a small residence, and a small retail slate shop. . The proposal is for a 12,500 square foot medical and professional office two story building with parking on grade. . The Specific Plan allows for up to .75 FAR when two or more file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \03 04. htm Page 5 of 14 03/12/2004 9 0 L. I ICU Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 file : //H: \P lancomm \2004 \03 04. hum Page 6 of 14 03/12/2004 i `°I adjacent lots are consolidated; we are asking for approval at .68 . FAR. • The portion of the property that we ask to be vacated is currently located within the fenced area of 496 Old Newport Blvd. The previous owner had requested permission from the City to fence this area in and it was not until the property was surveyed that it was revealed this portion of property was not part of our parcel. • Granting the street vacation will allow for additional on site parking for the project and provide improvement to the neighborhood as we plan to replace the sidewalk, curb gutter and landscape from the Newport Blvd. corner to Clay Street. • Improvements from the street vacation will enhance the aesthetic appearance on that block. • We have conducted both a parking and traffic study that show no significant adverse impact on the intersections studied, or negative impact to the area. • We have increased the rear setback; the rear exit from the property is within the minimum setback allowed; however, as . you move south down the rear property line, the average setback distance is greater than 20 feet. • The project complies with the height limits under the current Code. • The building mass is being reduced by cutting into the slope and using the lowest elevation on the lot as consideration for natural grade. • The project is in scale with the neighboring buildings. • The FAR meets the Specific Plan requirements and the building bulk meets the current Code criteria. • The parking study shows no adverse impact and supports the City's current code of 4 parking space per 1,000 square feet. • Parking on Orange Avenue falls within the spirit and direction of the Specific Plan. Orange Ave. is wide enough to support the parking and we have given special attention to assure that • these spaces would comply to all safety requirements for street parking. • Direct access from the building is allowed for these spaces and file : //H: \P lancomm \2004 \03 04. hum Page 6 of 14 03/12/2004 i `°I Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 these spaces are adjacent to this property. . The property is a unique location. The project is good for the community and will replace several older buildings badly in need of repair; and continues to meet and fill a need for hospital related uses. Commissioner Eaton asked if trees could be planted in a one foot area on the southerly property line with the overhang and retaining wall. Mike Schaefer, architect for the proposal noted that the tree specimen and size along the retaining wall on site are able to deal with the small planting area next to the retaining wall. Commissioner Cole noted that for medical office, the current code requires parking 4 per 1,000 square feet parking ratio. You are exceeding the .5 FAR, and the Planning Director has the ability to grant up to .75 assuming certain findings are found. What type of use other than the multi tenant nature or single tenant nature that might impact the concern staff has on the real parking used on the property? Mr. Mathersroud answered they are aware of staffs concern. The parking study justified the current code. Regarding the use, we can not speak specifically to that until we find out what the final product will be. We believe we will end up with a larger single unit tenant as there are discussions going on. There is a possibility that a third of this space is occupied by general office as we have a small mortgage company. We can't speak to the use or exact tenant, but we feel this study did support a four to one parking ratio. Continuing, he stated that there is a residence on the property currently. The tenant's current parking spaces on Orange Ave. will be used with tenant parking. With regards to the parking on Newport Blvd., our neighbor has been given access to park in our parking lot and in front of our building now as it is currently vacant. The pictures presented by the previous speaker would include parking in front of our project done with our permission. Public Works has supported the proposed street vacation and that will run from the corner of Old Newport Blvd. up to Clay Street. There will be some additional parking created during this process for the residential community behind our project. Doug Keisers, Broad Street resident noted he is not in support of this project due to lack of parking space in the area. Tom Billings, resident of West Newport, noted that a similar medical Page 7 of 14 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0304.htm 03/12/2004 � �o Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 center on Superior and Placentia is a high traffic project. He reported that they now have valet parking due to the high traffic volume. Patients come and go at these facilities and our concern is that there will be constraints to the residential community on parking. Commissioner Kiser noted the concerns raised by the previous speakers were concerns to the Commission and the City as well. That is why a parking study was done related to this particular project. Staff has looked at the traffic and parking impacts so that there is no degradation in the neighborhood. We want what is best for everyone in the neighborhood and the City as well. Commissioner Tucker noted the parking code requirement for a medical facility is 1 per 250 standard; and the parking on Orange Avenue is a Council policy matter. I favor the 1 per 250 with 47 parking spaces; which calculates to 11,750 square feet. Commissioner Selich noted he supports using the existing code, the 1 per 250 for the whole project, which means the building would be at 11,750 square feet. We do not have the authority in the Specific Plan' to allow use of parking on Orange Avenue. Commissioner Eaton noted that 1 per 250 does not work for a medical building. It will be a problem because eventually the employees will be parking in the residential streets. I think staffs recommendation should be the maximum allowed, which is 11,359' square feet. The code is there, but it has been questioned if it is adequate. The traffic report dealt with only two facilities and is not a wide enough study to base a conclusion on. Commissioner Kiser noted his support of the 11,750 square feet. The current code needs to be applied consistently. As far as the request to include the three spaces on Orange Avenue for approval, it appears that we can not do that. It is an attractive project that will be a plus for the neighborhood. Commissioner Toerge noted his support of 11,750 square feet. Discussion followed on future potential for parking in the center of Old Newport Boulevard, Commissioner Cole noted his concurrence to support the request at 11,750 square feet. If this project was leased to a single tenant, it would certainly alleviate the concerns because it does make a difference on how parking is used. • Chairperson McDaniel noted his support of 11,750 square feet. Commissioner Tucker noted he does not see a way for the file: //H: \Pl ancomm \2004 \03 04. htm Page 8 of 14 03/12/2004 0 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2.004 Commission to delve into the parking issue on this project and is therefore sticking to the current code. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit 2003 -043 and Traffic Study 2001 -001 (Medical Office Building) (PA2003 -252) subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Kiser clarified the motion with the revision of resolution in 2D change to 11,750 square feet; conditions of approval 1A change to 11,750 square feet; and change the building bulk accordingly. The maker of the motion agreed to the changes. Page 9 of 14 �J Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Eaton None None BJECT: Local Coastal Plan (PA2003 -098) ITEM NO. 5 City of Newport Beach PA2003- Chairpe on McDaniel noted this is the first meeting on this issue. Continued to There wil a no vote on this issue at this evenings meeting. 03/18/2004 Comments a questions are requested of members of the audience and they will b responded to either tonight or in a follow -up staff report. Public comment was o ned. Tom Billings, resident of We Newport made the following inquiries: • What residents were represepted on the LCP committee? • FAR's are not in concert with the General Plan in some areas, he presented the list to staff. • What comments have been received from the Coastal Commission to this point in terms of hat the City has submitted to date? • What mechanism has allowed staff to make hanges in density? Mr. Alford, Senior Planner noted: file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0304.htm 03/12/2004 0 ATTACHMENT D Findings for Denial 0 tl� Findings for Denial Use Permit No. 2003 -043 (PA2003 -252) The granting of a Use Permit to exceed the 0.5 Floor An because the proposed medical office project, specifically bL the intent of the Code and would be would be detrimental to increasing traffic and relying on on- street parking to requirements. :a Ratio is not warranted ilding size, does not meet surrounding properties by satisfy off - street parking The granting of a Use Permit to exceed the 0.75 building bulk is not warranted because the increased development, including the proposed above grade covered parking, would create abrupt changes in scale between the proposed development and the surrounding properties. 0 • �1)- 0 ATTACHMENT E Project Plans 0 0 v�'w�e uoawrr (( I Faw o 57 �7 3),v JNIOl1f793J1dd0 e..., a�.. o. �.....e.,. .�........,.m...,,.e..a...,.... 1TlOdM3N t310 rma aow ssaia i rma aus � y v i.e + iA`ea4iF� O it 15 z I o? zw - vS9 v F ��a:F!E ° iF R ° =:'6� §7 •5 z !} a 1! i8 ee a tlS ., N i w icy F �;:, ii - R • iiF: ar ?!. F_; z ;dS em) e• -' 5; �F' �a. Z o �F" p 3,S•s ' i. 6e5 S w eAB[iF S p o p g "y B y Vq ! d ai " . €€ i Q$ z ••r ggeFSv 4v' IM. �. S miQ:is U Fa a 3si iF? t..l air aF2 ¢=.lit? d yi .!a i0iii u� v. !• Ge• 4k fi vvi:v. ee '1 is Eftcni 1 i 30U- =O fiL�O�IFL�t 32Ivm i2JOdM3N (310 . e rmaaoov cn;n �J S P o �J w i t a i i f � � a @ftEFi i@ g� r•r ; @? . f. r5f�� !!F F Fi ;j z 00989()4 a �e$F�f 9� F@ iF r rrf i u r...F r@ F r4 i m tl]'V�eeB YoExa srauuevl �JNIQ m'3N0P990 1TJOdM3N 010 i • nrc+e roan w i t a i i f � � a @ftEFi i@ g� r•r ; @? . f. r5f�� !!F F Fi ;j z 00989()4 a �e$F�f 9� F@ iF r rrf i u r...F r@ F r4 i m • • C� J gn0� j j • 1_ � tl7WeeO YObxeN j J �JQ W l - ONIa11ns 3c)Iddo 12iOdM5N 010 ; e saourn�a sole p: i� L og; o� ii I I IF o z e g. ii OH o a 0 0 LLL 07 U i_ SlF Ot OI �< I <� I IPA, 9 Q IX I I I� I\ N 1 TITI pF a I I 1 g l g � A� F � a O 1 69 9F6 e• t6� 6� &19 6 ¢ I II fiI�iO I6 T� �?IE�M owa�lne 3oi��o1Je" Ilpr� 12JOdM3N al0 iL SNO= SONtnine 8 Gpg P 4 OJ l 1 - P IL tP s L)— a ¢ i a m m Y a 11 m r••i5p °.� r[[ � �5 BA fi� 1 � f ae a ¢ i a m m Y a 11 m • oNicrii na 3ioi=i do I2JOdM3N 010 B r j vo lip 11 WROM age C?Uii° iiii §�:e!¢s�iilf: €3s!'s 3E ^E�`�t" ears 9 k e i r K� i l� W I!; • w PON E 0 E B f i 6 :L Hil 11 44 FF s _ e.f 1 � 3 a t 1 $ ov.q�noe � !17 i 1 ls ea 7f:W ( $ Li it 1 ! •'ii ill` le i9 q ! gl�l�f'i y f 111 i It tg _ e.f 1 � 3 a t 1 $ ov.q�noe � !17 i 1 ls ea 7f:W $ Li S le i ut.lii� s q za gl�l�f'i y 111 �aoayyy u ; 1 S L E i Lia F !!Ilse j ll!,yiti.113 'ae�:i:llfi ief:� i€ 17 ileEiivlFililFlic {ii 1� i HINODIVW 3UVM lauijew 2 FC14 dAA3N 010 SNI(Pina aoi-mo Rm" ----------- ------ t7 J z I I1 d lo IN 0 n i,� A ----------- ------ t7 J z I I1 d lo ----------- ------ 070-m -_T 5 - ---__,o ---------- w t7 J 070-m -_T 5 - ---__,o ---------- w 11 '4 eae I.dma, gg liiOdM3N 0l0 ww— a ---. 0 6 � w9 1 w Efi8a4s as 6 pF 5 i s i 3�8ie�9:39 8 G3 ^Oudf:BNl�• y F g9L s Al a E9' 4¢e a ,5 5ii o l69 Egk 7 - I I I y I I` I I I I -r. ° -' —_' =rte _......._- •___.. - -i'- a— *—_ —.. _.._ ,. �— flL�[O3 ;F A 31I� 11 oNiai@ne 301JJo i23OdM3N Q10 I _ '� • - ° v Q Y T _ I I 'JI J �I 1� � I � I � QI I r � v S G 7 O C dp p z' t H 0 w H 8 z Fj�• @8� �� Hs; a 1� � �e +ei �i � �➢ �! ! St3 � 99 c 559g F Y T _ I I 'JI J �I 1� � I � I � QI I r � v S G ae I ,I i .i fy it ii Y T _ I I 'JI J �I 1� � I � I � QI I r � v S G 0 0 VO'YaeaB YONnaN • -', • �� -� � HWOO IVW 3NVAk — `JNimine 301dd0 'siaui�e 1210dM3N 010 SNOLLbAT 1.J \L%J ?I� p i op t 85 :- z @ ee g a' C:# 2 h i t" pp � d 6 0 R � C. -3 9Fi33338 •`�' 0 r m, 7 m z� of — - -- — of _, o e <r =7 olt a 0i 4 —hN _ o s! @ b I 3 r $ j wl rel O , g @ 1� •; Y I ¢• I I W 1�' I I ', �I 0 a l- I• i e s� i` i � l � � _� I j_ _ i I IS 6 8 6 9S SAS e5 Ll oy UM Z, mll i'dOdM3N 010 II 77 � U � ,moo / m, a _ m _»_ = � _N� , � — � &l§ ,... Bi § | ,m § |! ; | / ] $ (§ /)/ |E@!■GKy2... . !. . � _. .. |„! lie ( f ,.• |., ,.!!•.l��l�•! |! : , __ . ..�: $. \ , 0 i L J fl t it it Eie: a e ! ai 6! N e,. i i! a ;` 33a' s 6• i !a ' is" In t a it a! ; PP a �Ss: it , F N IN; Ifi- .ine a Ej Gt ¢ We i a ;i %:gt '�€ i ;t 1 E t i i 3 a 3 FG ije '! Ge ! !aN i 1i f it ! t : t i P�.• N:, t t¢ i !t ate a 3i 1 f. ¢ �. 36 t 3 FG` n Y it ti'.13 °. ! S ! l; 3 P °° :t €fit !it 3 tt ? iiafaa 1 ! jj i a g ,s is a . ): G Si E ? 3 . d i • +•[ i'I h : ! i gE 5.i3 aGa a Y. 1 a Gt'"i P iyya °t� ! a Ta.4i'a ?la�lG�3 B it a Kati rn a G 3 t z ¢ 4PlGaa t .fg i It i p 3�iiliGiiE3lolF:,Stt� A.......... 0 • ,I /1 u K aW F_ J �W N2 N2 WW �n �a �n _z J� QN W > W K 1, N s Pj NI Q N W Z U w LL K 2 W W K W I I i I FH Y K a Q Z w 0 �n w rc Y m 0 I { o > Z W O o Q w r W � W F N W Q � W Z O O J N s Pj NI Q N W Z U w LL K 2 W W K W I I i I FH Y K a Q Z w 0 �n w rc Y m 0 I { •z z a z o > F w o W > W J W W W = W Q Fa wl I o 0 0 • w r Cg �w NZ N� Ow r aN ZZ 5� N a w w • G r W W z w w t Y Y 1 a I w 0 y w rc Y w I. Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: March 13, 2004 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 13, 2004 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature NOME OF PUBLIC HFAMYIG ON Newport Medical Office Budding (PA2003 -252) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to review the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the applica- tion of TRP Development Services for Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic' Study No. 2004 -001 on property located at 494/1 496 Old Newport Blvd.' The property is located in the Specific Plan No. 9 Zoning District. Request for approval of a Use Permit and Traffic Study to allow the construction of new 12,500 square foot medical office building that exceeds the maxi- mum permitted floor area ratio and building bulk. The applicant also requests approval of an off- street parking credit for proposed on- street parking spaces. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Con- version of Small Struc- tures). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on March 23, 2004, of the hour of 7.00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the New- port Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boule- vard, Wwport Beach, California, at which time and placr any and all purons interested may appear and be heard thereon. if yob challenge this project in court. you :nay be limited to raising only those is sues you or someone else raised at the public h <zring 2 described in this notice or in written corre- spondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk, City of Newport Beach Published Newport Beach /Costa Mesa Daily Pilot March 13, 2004 Sa577 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Old Newport Medical Office Building (PA2003 -252) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to review the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the application of TRP Development Services for Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001 on property located at 494/496 Old Newport Blvd The property is located in the Specific Plan No. 9 Zoning District. Request for approval of a Use Permit and Traffic Study to allow the construction of new 12,500 square foot medical office building that exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio and building bulk The applicant also requests approval of an off - street parking credit for proposed on street parking spaces This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on March 23, 2004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach /Vo? NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Old Newport Medical Office Building (PA2003 -252) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to review the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the application of TRP Development Services for Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001 on property located at 494/496 Old Newport Blvd The property is located in the Specific Plan No. 9 Zoning District. Reguest for approval of a Use Permit and Traffic Study to allow the construction of new 12.500 square foot medical office building that exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio and building bulk The applicant also requests approval of an off - street parking credit for proposed on- street parking spaces This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on March 23. 2004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. '" l� LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach ')mootn reea Sneets- NEWPORT HTS COMMUNITY.ASSN C/O JANINE ALLEN 406 SAN BERNARDINO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN & ROSE MARIE PLACE 1243 ALPINE RD., STE. 103 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 TRP DEVELOPMENT SERVICES C/O ROBERT LAWRENCE 3151 AIRWAY AVE., STE, F203 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 PA2003 -252 for UP2003 -043 494 Old Newport Blvd. DATE OF MEETING: - Use template for 516nQ CRAIG & LOREE GASS 496 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 l' AVERY5 ddressla�e�s WERY0 ress La e s r `rl :)IIIUVUI reeu olieel5 `^ 425- 171 -01 City Of Newport Be/ N wpor- Beach, CA 92663 425- 271 -02 Sidney L Soffer 900 Karen Ave H110 Las Vegas, NV 89109 425 - 281 -04 Edwin & Helen Kraus 40335 Pebble Beach Cir Palm Desert, CA 92211 425 - 282 -01 Christopher R & Stephanie Ri: 6 Via Cordova Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 282 -05 2412 Holly Ln Newport Beach, CA 92663 425 - 282 -12 Laura Cappelletti 486 Old Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 283 -28 Brion S Jeannette 470 N Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 291 -01 Evan B & Lynn Thomas 522 N Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 291 -10 Linda T Martin 500 N Newport Blvd 202 Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 292 -03 John L Hart 49 Balboa Cv Newport Beach, CA 92663 425 - 181 -01 New Superior Gro'6p L L C no Newport' Beach, CA 9660 425- 271 -03 Roger T Schwenk 238 Tustin Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 281 -15 Renato & Papes Trotta *B* 6 Winged Foot Ln Newport Beach, CA 92660 425- 282 -02 Daniel T Hickman 1515 Santa Ana Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92627 425- 282 -07 Place 10 Creekledge Ct Danville, CA 94506 425- 282 -13 Christopher D Miller 488 N Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 283 -29 Joe T Muniz 1807 Tanager Dr Costa Mesa, CA Use uamptalc I:.; i _e ; 425- 271 -01 Sidney L Soffer 900 Karen Ave Halo Las Vegas, NV 89109 425- 271 -04 Gary N Rawlings 475 N Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 281 -17 Bruce K Cleworth PO Box 1421 Newport Beach, CA 92659 425- 282 -04 Vance P Collins 3216 Clay St Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 282 -08 Craig A & Loree Gass 25242 Staysail Dr Dana Point, CA 92629 425- 283 -03 Carl C & Elaine Carver 3239 Broad St Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 283 -33 John Carlton 1362 Galaxy Dr 92626 Newport Beach, CA 92660 425- 291 -02 Damir & Rebeckah Aujaghian 318 Jasmine Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 425- 292 -01 Richard H & Amy Allred 331 E 15Th St Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 292 -04 Yvonne T Des Voigne 504 Orange Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 425-291 -03 Onb 415 30Th St B Newport Beach, CA 92663 425 - 292 -02 Kirk Strodel 508 Orange Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 292 -05 Alice Lesnikoff 3312 Clay St Newport Beach, CA 92663 18AWFfW(W) AVdf@§§ User 5160 :DIII0001 I CCU Dheets, " 292 -06 Matthew K & Julie Clayto *M* 262 Walnut St Costa Mesa, CA 92627 425- 292 -09 William B Guiderc 342 62Nd St Newport Beach, CA 92663 475-'93 -02 437,P1 ceton Dr Cc, a Mesa, CA 92626 425- 293 -05 Christopher E Hobson 510 Bolas Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 293 -09 Erika Sims 3226 Clay St .q Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 331 -03 Woodco Investment Company Inc PO Box 2286 Newport Beach, CA 92659 425- 341 -03 George E Minney 1621 Kings Rd Newport Beach, CA 92663 930 -59 -044 John & Cheryl Hawley 3245 Clay St Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -007 Patricia Jorgensen 3227 Clay St Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 292 -07 William J Winter 1905 Fullerton Ave W Costa Mesa, CA 92627 425- 292 -10 Neil J Powers 3408 Marcus Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 293 -03 iiwS S1Ct�1 .. 514 Bo Ave ort Beach, CA 92663 425- 293 -07 T & Mary Carolan 2309 Fairhill Dr Newport Beach, CA 92660 425- 331 -01 Pearl Sze PO Box 2561 Newport Beach, CA 92659 425- 341 -01 Jack H Park *M* 789 Paularino Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92626 425- 352 -08 Margolin Prop 1922 E Chapman Ave Orange, CA 92867 930 -59 -045 John R & Yvonne Browning 3256 Broad St Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -008 Ian J Macgregor 3225 Clay St Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -062 937 -35 -083 Edward C & Jennie Reno Scott D & Patrice Peterson 3231 Clay St 424 W Crystal View Ave Newport /Beach, CA 9266{3 I Orange, CA 92865 fFVg 'C`© iF �2555�L 2s5 Use 425 - 292 -08 Diana D Springer *B* PO Box 1318 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 425- 292 -11 Neil Powers 3408 Marcus Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 425- 293 -04 s) Mar �" 51 C onado Pointe L guna Niguel, CA 52677 425- 293 -08 Jack B Bailey 22322 Harwich Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92646 425- 331 -02 Ralph P Morgan 206 E 15Th St Costa Mesa, CA 92627 425- 341 -02 Jack H Park *M* 789 Paularino Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92626 930 -59 -043 Frank L & Enna Doyle 3262 Broad St Newport Beach, CA 92663 930 -59 -046 Gregory M Adams 3239 Clay St Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -061 Robert L Brooks 3233 Clay St Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -084 Robert L Stockus 320 Ramona P1 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 -�ulvuuirtcu -�iieets 937 -35 -09'0 - 937- 35-097 J.. �' �� c 1290 �'bor Blvd AS 3253 BrJ ' St „ G.�n Grove, CA 92840 Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -099 Neal & Irma Dofelmier 3247 Broad St Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -108 Rusteen Rezai 507 Orange Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -111 Eva C Mauck 513 Orange Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 937- 3S -i14 Donna Muratalla 519 Orange Newport Beach, 937 - 35-102 Michael Benson 3235 Broad St Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -109 Mark B & Sheryl Hiromoto 509 Orange Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -112 Jim Madden 515 Orange Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -117 Lisa Fabian ..-p 3301 Clay St CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -119 Juan A & Hosanna Camacho 3305 Clay St Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -122 John E & Veronica Raidy 409 Bolsa Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 * ** 81 Printed * ** 425 293 02 Alan Baldwin 437 Princeton Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 937 -35 -120 David W Obbage 3307 Clay St 4 Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -123 Ronald Lopez 411 Bolsa Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 350 96 Lakeview Village Corp 12901 Harbor Blvd, #A5 Garden Grove, CA 92840 425 293 03 Ross McElfresh 514 Bolsa Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 JsJ Management Co New Superior Group LLC 51 Coronado Pointe 4001 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 100 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Newport Beach, CA 92660 937 -35 -098 J.11 ` n.�ll d::'v� 3245 Broad St Newport Beach, CA 92-663 937 -35 -103 Robert V Wise 3233 Broad St Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -110 Mary L Hanna 511 Orange Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -113 Mark Morton 517 Orange Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -118 Tr Hooten 14811 Saint Marys Ln 270 Houston, TX 77079 937 -35 -121 Douglas S Rabold 407 Bolsa Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 -35 -124 Robert Read 413 Bolsa Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 937 350 97 Henricus and Karen Schuit 3253 Broad Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 " 0Yh4Xv ,AQaress a6e s5 L ' Vireo NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Old Newport Medical Office Building (PA2003 -252) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to review the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the application of TRIP Development Services for Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001 on property located at 494/496 Old_Newport Blvd. The property is located in the Specific Plan No. 9 Zoning District. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on March 23. 2004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. A Al=,�, �- ,Le M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Old Newport Medical Office Building (PA2003 -252) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing to review the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the application of TRIP Development Services for Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001 on property located at 494/496 Old Newport Blvd The property is located in the Specific Plan No. 9 Zoning District. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on March 23. 2004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. flukless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING On /a , -?ay , 2004, I posted the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: Old Newport Medical Office Building (PA2003 -282) Date of Hearing: March 23, 2004 �p J Y.f .. FIB t;' i' v � a .a 0 u s4 o m o t a 0 m - o N O u L LO Y N W n ? v "V V "• M � G n. U z w V G �z �z xa G? :-1 a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT Agenda Item No. 24 March 23, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3219, gram irez(o)city. newport-beach.ca. us SUBJECT: Call for Review of Use Permit No. 2003 -043 and Traffic Study No. 2004 -001, approved by the Planning Commission on March 4, 2004 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard (PA2003 -232) APPLICANT: Robert Lawrence, TRP Development Services Attached is copy of the final minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 4, 2004 that reflect changes from the draft minutes included in the City Council Staff Report. Prepared by: 74 Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate fanner Attachments: Submitted by: P Patricia L. Temple, Plan ing Director A. Final Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of March 4, 2004 ATTACHMENT A Final Minutes from Planning Commission Meeting of March 4, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 Ayes:. Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, and Tucker e. None s: I use : None - - - -- stain:, Kiser SUBJECT: 50 Traffic Study pursuant to the possible increase in the an Newport Technology Center Group, LLC (PA2003 -122) riorAvenue ITEM NO.3 PA2003 -122 Phasing Ordinance (TPO) for a i Continued to general office uses within the 04/08/2004 ;Study No. 2003 -001) Ms. Temple noted that staff is asking for continuance to April 8th for additional analysis of the traffic study, nd also to notice an amendmentto a necessary condition of approvall 1 the original use j permit.,, Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to continue this item to April 8, 2004. . Ayes:i Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Noes:; McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Absent:; None Abstain:, None None SUBJECT: TRP Development Services (PA2003 -252) 494/496 Old Newport Blvd. Request for approval of a Use Permit and Traffic Study to allow the construction of a new 12,500 square foot medical office building that exceeds the maximum permitted floor area ratio and building bulk. The applicant also requests approval of an off - street parking credit for proposed on- street parking spaces. Mr. Ramirez, Associate Planner, clarified the following: • The square footage total of 11,359 square feet as noted in condition one, item W is correct. The square footage noted on page 10 was rounded up and listed as 11,374 square feet and; is also correct. • A total of 11.359 square feet based on 47 oarkina spaces Page 3 ITEM NO.4 PA2003 -252 Approved Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 available is staff's recommendation. We parked the permitted 0.5 FAR at a rate of 1 parking space per 250 gross floor area. • The ten remaining parking spaces were parked at a rate of 1 parking space per each 215 square feet of gross floor area,. which is the parking rate of the worst case scenario of the parking demand study that was done on the two sites that were studied for this project. j At Commissioner inquiry, staff noted: • The use permit is for a requested increase in floor area. The findings are the standard code findings along with additional ones. • The applicant is requesting to be allowed to construct a building that is larger than basic entitlement contained in the Code. • The findings regarding the increased floor area ratio are, included in the staff report on pages 5 and 6. • Additionally, we need to find that the approval of the extra FAR will not be detrimental to the City or neighborhood in which the use is located. • To qualify for additional floor areas, the development is! required to provide a unified site design. It is intended to require that the project involve consolidation of lots which' would reduce the number of driveways on Old Newport Blvd. • The Commission must find that the project shall not cause significant traffic impacts to the adjacent streets and intersections. We find through the Traffic Phasing Ordinance analysis and the cumulative analysis that no traffic specific impacts would result from the proposed project. • The amount of potential conflict with traffic that may result; from inadequate parking supply is able to be considered pursuant to Finding 2, which is that the project would not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. • The Commission could find that increased parking for that increment of development over .5 would not be detrimental and therefore approve the applicant's request. • The Commission has the ability to determine the meaning and intent of the Code, there is a possibility that the approval could be based with the three spaces on Orange. If this is done, the Commission would need to direct staff to come back with an amendment to the specific plan to identify side streets where this accommodation would also need to be granted so that we' are clear when we deal with applicants. • Staff's recommendation on the parking ratio that is anything over .5 should be parked at a higher rate. We could add the Page 4 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 uuee :SNacea w uie wiai w 11ldne a OV, UuiwUuiu gun dNNry uie one space per 215 square feet for the portion of the project over .5, unless the Commission determines that also is not required. Public comment was opened. Stacey Wise, resident of Broad Street presented photographs of Old Newport Blvd. The photos depict the parking that takes place and show that there is no additional parking available on the street. On Orange Avenue, one house was replaced with eight units. At that time, off site parking was allocated for those condo residents for those eight condos that were built. The same modification and argument is used consistently for reasons to allow over building in this area. She noted the Specific Area Plan that was worked on by local residents and business owners in the area almost three years to come up with an agreeable plan for the use and direction forthis area. She asked that this item be denied. Mary Hannah, resident of Orange Avenue asked that this item be denied as the parking and additional traffic would be a hindrance to the neighborhood. Robert Reed, resident of Bolsa Avenue stated that putting more parking spaces inside the building area in the underneath parking would not allow much room for planting and landscaping to be used between his home and the complex. They have a two foot overhang in the parking structure, and our wall is about 15 feet tall that drops down to their land. With a two foot overhang, a larger SUV or vehicle parking could damage the retaining wall. He; requested that the buffer zone be increased with additional landscape. i James Mathersroud, one of the owners of 494/496 Old Newport Blvd., noted the following on the project: • The project is in the Old Newport Specific Plan area that encourages consolidation of existing parcels. • The street vacation is along Orange Avenue. • Current property uses are an automotive repair with a small: residence, and a small retail slate shop. • The proposal is for a 12,500 square foot medical and professional office two story building with parking on grade. • The Specific Plan allows for up to .75 FAR when two or more adjacent lots are consolidated; we are asking for approval at' .68 FAR. • ThP nnrtinn of the nrnnPrtv that wP ask to hp vanatPrl is Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 currently located within the fenced area of 496 Old Newport Blvd. The previous owner had requested permission from the City to fence this area in and it was not until the property was: surveyed that it was revealed this portion of property was not part of our parcel. • Granting the street vacation will allow for additional on site parking for the project and provide improvement to the neighborhood as we plan to replace the sidewalk, curb gutter and landscape from the Newport Blvd. corner to Clay Street. • Improvements from the street vacation will enhance the aesthetic appearance on that block. • We have conducted both a parking and traffic study that show. no significant adverse impact on the intersections studied, or negative impact to the area. • We have increased the rear setback; the rear exit from the property is within the minimum setback allowed; however, as! you move south down the rear property line, the average setback distance is greater than 20 feet. • The project complies with the height limits under the current' Code. • The building mass is being reduced by cutting into the slope and using the lowest elevation on the lot as consideration for natural grade. • The project is in scale with the neighboring buildings. • The FAR meets the Specific Plan requirements and the building bulk meets the current Code criteria. • The parking study shows no adverse impact and supports the' City's current code of 4 parking space per 1,000 square feet. • Parking on Orange Avenue falls within the spirit and direction of the Specific Plan. Orange Ave. is wide enough to support the parking and we have given special attention to assure that. these spaces would comply to all safety requirements for street parking. • Direct access from the building is allowed for these spaces! and these spaces are adjacentto this property. • The property is a unique location. • The project is good forthe community and will replace several: older buildings badly in need of repair; and continues to meet, and fill a need for hospital related uses. j Commissioner Eaton asked if trees could be planted in a one foot area on the southerly property line with the overhang and retaining. wall. Mike Schaefer, architect for the proposal noted that the tree' specimen and size along the retaining wall on site are able to deal Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/004 wan me small pianung area next io me reiaining wail. Commissioner Cole noted that for medical office, the current code requires parking 4 per 1,000 square feet parking ratio. You are exceeding the .5 FAR, and the Planning Director has the ability to grant up to .75 assuming certain findings are found. What type of use other than the multi tenant nature or single tenant nature that might impact the concern staff has on the real parking used on the property? Mr. Mathersroud answered they are aware of staff's concern. Thel parking study justified the current code. Regarding the use, we can not speak specifically to that until we find outwhatthe final product will be. We believe we will end up with a larger single unit tenant as there are discussions going on. There is a possibility that a third of: this space is occupied by general office as we have a small mortgage company. We can't speak to the use or exact tenant, but we feel this study did support a fourto one parking ratio. I Continuing, he stated that there is a residence on the property: currently. The tenant's current parking spaces on Orange Ave. will be used with tenant parking. With regards to the parking on Newport Blvd., our neighbor has been given access to park in our! parking lot and in front of our building now as it is currently vacant. I The pictures presented by the previous speaker would include! parking in front of our project done with our permission. Public Works has supported the proposed street vacation and that will run I from the corner of Old Newport Blvd. up to Clay Street. There will be some additional parking created during this process for the: residential community behind our project. Doug Keisers, Broad Street resident noted he is not in support of this project due to lack of parking space in the area. Tom Billings, resident of West Newport, noted that a similar medical center on Superior and Placentia is a high traffic project. He reported that they now have valet parking due to the high traffic volume. Patients come and go at these facilities and our concern is that there will be constraints to the residential community on parking. Commissioner Kiser noted the concerns raised by the previous speakers were concerns to the Commission and the City as well. That is why a parking study was done related to this particular project. Staff has looked at the traffic and parking impacts so that there is no degradation in the neighborhood. We want what is best. fnr cxicmmnc in fhc ncinhhnrhnnrl �nrl fhc ('.itV �Q Xnicll Paee 7 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 Commissioner Tucker noted the parking code requirement for a medical facility is 1 per 250 standard; and the and the code does not allow for the applicant receiving credit for parking spaces on Orange Avenue,. I don't feel comfortable reading language into the code which is not there, although, as a policy matter, the Council may choose to do so. I favor the 1 per 250 with 47 parking spaces;; which calculates to 11,750 square feet. Commissioner Selich noted he supports using the existing code, the 1 per 250 for the whole project, which means the building would be at 11,750 square feet. We do not have the authority in the Specific Plan to allow use of parking on Orange Avenue. Commissioner Eaton noted that 1 per 250 does not work for a medical building. It will be a problem because eventually the employees will be parking in the residential streets. I think staff's recommendation should be the maximum allowed, which is 11,359 square feet. The code is there, but it has been questioned if it is adequate. The traffic report dealtwith only two facilities and is not a wide enough study to base a conclusion on. Commissioner Kiser noted his support of the 11,750 square feet. . The current code needs to be applied consistently. As far as the request to include the three spaces on Orange Avenue for approval, it appears that we can not do that. It is an attractive project that will be a plus for the neighborhood. Commissioner Toerge noted his support of 11,750 square feet. Discussion followed on future potential for parking in the center of Old Newport Boulevard. Commissioner Cole noted his concurrence to support the request at 11,750 square feet. If this project was leased to a single tenant, it would certainly alleviate the concerns because it does make a difference on how parking is used. Chairperson McDaniel noted his supportof 11,750 square feet. I Commissioner Tucker noted that he did not see where the; Commission needed to modify the parking requirements in order to. make the required finding that the added floor area will not cause significant traffic impacts to adjacent streets and intersections. The' addition of two parking spaces will cause no significant impact on traffic in the area. Page 8 Planning Commission Minutes 03/04/2004 Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit; 2003 -043 and Traffic Study 2001 -001 (Medical Office Building)', (PA2003 -252) subject to the findings and conditions in the staff: report. Commissioner Kiser clarified the motion with the revision of resolution in 2D change to 11,750 square feet; conditions of approval 1A change to 11,750 square feet; and change the building bulk accordingly. The maker of the motion agreed to the changes. Ayes: Noes:. Absent: Abstain:. Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Eaton None None Local Coastal Plan (PA2003 -098) City of Newport Beach Chairpe on McDaniel noted this is the first meeting on this issue There will \th ote on this issue at this evenings meeting. Comments estions are requested of members of the audience ill be responded to e ither tonight or in a follow - up staff re Public comment was op ed. Tom Billings, resident of 'lest Newport made the following! inquiries: • What residents were represents on the LCP committee? • FAR's are not in concert with the General Plan in some areas, he presented the list to staff. • What comments have been received from the Coastal Commission to this point in terms of What the City has submitted to date? • What mechanism has allowed staff to make,, changes in density? N,"s Mr. Alford, Senior Planner noted: • The Local Coastal Proaram certification committee Pace 9 ITEM NO. 5 PA2003- Continued to 03/18/2004 A &sfo a aft VS-A �Ll -ft, 3�tie•�v - tat �0 / Aix /ooki� wcs�. aur4e*01y PACO i A A/tsol Sidd . .w C�'•�Gl /t�+fC� �b� 711�M Lwtq IARse ^4we 4t VZ'tG'rtw, - . I 1.