The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutIS006_NEWPORT BLVD DUPLEX DEV IIIIIIII IIII III IINI NIIIII IIIII IINII IIII III ICI Isoos • INITIAL STUDY • 15-UNIT DUPLEX PROJECT NORTH NEWPORT BOULEVARD AT SANTA ANA STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA • • II • Prepared by Larry Seeman and Associates, Inc. 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 645 Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Phone 714/640-6363 October 3, 1977 • • U 500 newport center drive, suite 525 newport beach, california 92660 phone(714) 644-5900 • ❑ post office box 6339 san rafael, california 94903 LARRY SEEMAN INC. phone (415) 897-6363 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CONSULTANTS • October 3, 1977 • Ms. Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator Community Development Department -City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard • Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: INITIAL STUDY FOR 15-UNIT DUPLEX PROJECT NEWPORT BOULEVARD AT SANTA ANA STREET Dear Ms. Wood: • Transmitted herewith are 30 copies of an Initial Study prepared for the 15-unit Duplex project, pursuant to an agreement with the City of Newport Beach . The Initial Study focuses on the issues mutually identified as • having potential significance in development of the site. The analyses draws from site specific evaluation of the site as well as pertinent environmental documents and technical reports applicable to the general area. If you have any questions concerning this report or if you require • further analyses, please contact us at 714/640-6363. S'ncerely y urs, L RRY SEEM AND ASSOCIATES, INC. • Larry See a President LS:rkc • Enclosures 0 i • LARRY SEEMAN, INC • TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 PROJECT INFORMATION 2 • Introduction and Sponsor's Objective 2 Project Description 2 .ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 6 • Landforms/Geology/Soils 6 Climate/Air Quality 7 Hydrology/Water Quality 9 Vegetation/Wildlife 12 Archaeology/Paleontology/History 12 Land Use/Housing/Population 13 • Circulation Systems 16 Noise 17 Community Services/Utilities/Energy Conservation 18 Visual/Aesthetic Conditions 19 • ALTERNATIVES 22 BIBLIOGRAPHY 26 APPENDICES • Appendix A -- Geotechnical Evaluation Appendix B -- Traffic Report Appendix C -- Noise Report Appendix D -- Photographic Illustrations • II • • ii • LARRY SEEMAK INC • LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1 - Project Location 3 • Figure 2 - Proposed Site Plan 5 figure 3 - Topographic Site Study B Figure 4 - Before/After Site View 21 Figure 5 - Before/After Site View 21 Figure 6 - Alternative Site Plan for Motel Use 23 • TABLES Table A - Projected Pollutant Loading for Paved Surfaces 11 Table B - General Plan Policies Compatibility Evaluation 14 Table C - Traffic Impact on Existing Streets 16 Table D - Comparison of Residential and Motel Levels of Impact 24 • • • • • I� • • 1 • LARRY SEEMAN, INC- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The project sponsor proposes construction of 15 duplex units and one single family residence on a 30,176square foot site which fronts • North Newport Boulevard between Santa Ana Avenue and Catalina Drive in Newport Beach. The project conforms with the existing General Plan designation- and zoning for the property. Short-term impacts of the project involve construction equipment movement to and from the site,, grading activity, and equipment noise. These activities would be controlled by City Ordinance. Principal long-term impacts of the project involve minor increases in traffic volumes on adjoining streets, the commitment of currently vacant land to intensive urban use, alteration of the existing visual character of the site and partial blockage of views from one residence, • alteration of site drainage, a small but cumulative negative effect on regional air quality, unacceptable noise levels for resi- dential areas experienced across most of the site, and loss of the existing biotic resources on the site. Mitigation of these effects include such measures as providing adequate pedestrian access to the units from North Newport Boulevard, landscaping, conveying overload runoff across the site • in storm drains, and providing structural modification to units to achieve acceptable interior noise levels. The alternative of developing the site for a motel is also evaluated in detail . • • • 2 • TARRY SEEMAK INIC. • PROJECT INFORMATION The purpose of this chapter is to describe the location, objectives, and principal characteristics of the proposed project. Descriptive • information contained here was provided by the project sponsor or was obtained from the files of the City pertaining to the project site. INTRODUCTION AND SPONSOR'S OBJECTIVE This Initial Study evaluates the environmental effects of a residential • project proposed .by Mr. Dean Gilbert, 2472 Elden Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA at the northeast corner of the intersection of North Newport Boulevard and Santa Ana Street. The objective of the project sponsor is to develop seven (7) duplexes (14 units) and one (1 ) single family residence. In order to proceed, it • is necessary that City approvals be granted in the form of a site plan review ; a resubdivision and tract map will also be required if the site plan is accepted. The intent of this Initial Study is to provide sufficient information to enable decision makers to determine whether there are potentially • significant adverse effects associated with the proposed project that are not mitigated by the design features of the project. If there are none, then issuance of a Negative Declaration based on a determination of "no significant effect" as provided for by Section 15083 of the Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (the • Resources Agency, 1976) is permitted. An additional intent of this report is to compare the impacts of a residential use of the site with a possible alternative use as a motel site. The comparison is made in the Alternatives section of this .Initial Study. • PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location and size. The proposed project is located on a 30,176 square foot site at the northeast corner of the intersection of North Newport Boulevard and Santa Ana Street in Newport Beach . For reference, the site • is shown on Figure 1 . The site includes lots 20 through 28 in Tract 444, Block 19, Page 29 of the County Assessors records. • • 3 FIGURE 1 it PROJECT LOCATION LARRY SEEMAR INC. 85 bt PROJECT SITE •ti .vyY' V <� \y f,^�.'.'�+ �f y ' %�jY �T "" �� . l 1 5 j ' ,1 V 4� }//mac �\�� `�; r � �-(�� •� �� ^'�. _�... � o �' Epp o � `` ~��;•tt•' ` �i �cl c,r� f/,/�'��,� .�� 1 !': �•�^ \\•�\ui ��C �u ., . "•,�ryM1.FM`�1»...v•' Y +4M�o vv„-G�v: J�: 'I,�/ �'}I\I\aim..;,,',,_..,.. I. •\ \� •'' ` f,`..-, - "�:3a: ,�; A �i�'f 7�___U•'�•l';) . �3t�•'= -fir--=};, °°,,. -e- .�t /V'l i::_..u.3�.n+•• 01 *.. w•. :,; w` �);•t" c?i� •1.4f, , ,:/:�',i ,+} ,l • 4 TARRY SEEMAN. INC • Proposed Residential Use. Figure 2 shows the site plan for the proposed duplex use, along with an elevation of the residential buildings as viewed from Newport Boulevard. All of the buildings are proposed as two-story structures. Access to garage areas would be from North Newport Boulevard for eight duplex units, from Catalina Road for two duplex units, and from Santa Ana Avenue for four duplex units and the remaining single • family residence. The duplexes are projected to be 2 bedroom + studio units. Each lot would average about 2300 (1150 + 1150) square feet in area . The single family residence would be about a 1900 square foot unit. The project sponsor's preliminary estimates are that the average duplex will * be valued at about $140,000; the single family unit will be valued at about $100,000. Phasing and Development Schedule. If appropriate approvals can be obtained without unforeseen delay, the project sponsor proposes to begin construction of the first unit in about January, 1978. Construction would • begin at the northerly end of the site and proceed in a sourtherly direction, with three or four units under construction at any given time. The first unit could be ready for occupancy by about May, 1978 and a one-year buildout period is anticipated for the remaining units . ! • • I • I� FIGURE 2 5 r PROPOSED SITE PLAN RESIDENTIAL USE _ LARRY SEEMAR INC • 7 i f r 6 TARRY SEWAN. INC ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The purpose of this chapter is to present information concerning the environment of the project site and to describe the effects of the proposed 0 project on the environment. Similarly, environmental conditions affecting project design are assessed so that mitigation measures can be developed. This chapter focuses upon three issues: 1 ) traffic, 2) noise, and 3) soil stability . For these issues, specialist reports have been obtained that quantitatively assess the use proposal . The entire specialist reports are contained as appendices. Environmental issues identified as being less critical to the viability of the use proposal are also treated in the report, but generally in qualitative, rather than quantitative, terms. LANDFORMS/GEOLOGY/SOILS Setting. The site is located approximately 300 feet north of Pacific Coast Highway at the foot of a bluff at the southerly edge of the Newport Mesa. Site elevations range from 20 feet MSL at the eastern edge to 29 feet MSL at the western property line fronting North Newport Boulevard. A geotechnical investigation conducted by Leighton and Associates (1977) , which is contained in Appendix A of this report, indicates the site is Underlain by a horizontal capping of Quaternary Age terrace deposits. The terrace deposits, which are exposed in the bluffs above the east edge of the property, consist of beds of buff to tan and brown, silty fine sand and friable medium sand with scattered pebbles. Minor amounts of clayey silt and sand are found particulary in the upper weathered zone. Fossil remains (shell fragments) are commonly found in these deposits, however • none were observed in an inspection of the site. Surficial deposits consist primarily of silty sand, with some fill appearing on the west portion of the site. As the site was previously occupied by a motel , subsurface remnants of foundations or utility lines may be present. One of the main fault traces of the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone is located approximately 2000 feet southwest of the site; however, the site must be considered within a fault zone as the fault zone in the Newport- Costa Mesa area may be as much as three miles wide. 0 7 0 LARRY SEEMAN. INC. Although seismic hazards related to ground rupture are not expected to occur (Leighton and Associates, 1977) a potential exists for strong seismic shaking. The site is within a ground shaking category 2 on a severity scale of 1-4, as defined in the Newport Beach General Plan, Public Safety Element (1975). Impacts. The ground work proposed includes grading, importation of fill approximately three feet over the entire site) and construction of retaining walls. Cross-sections through the site showing the proposed topographic alteration are shown in Figure 3. Some cutting of the lower portion of the bluff would be required as shown and would steepen the bluff face. The geologic conditions for the stability of the existing slopes and proposed cuts are favorable from the standpoint of bedding orientation and formation composition (Leighton and Associates, 1977) . Moderate geologic hazards exist from potential ground shaking, liquefaction and differential composition or settlement; however, all potential geotechnical concerns are considered mitigatible. The soil , fill and alluvian deposits underlying the proposed building sites are expected to provide adequate support for the proposed fill and structures although near surface materials may require removal and recompaction. Based upon existing data, no unusual conditions or problems are expected. • Mitigation Measures. The following measure is proposed to be required to offset any potential adverse effects. 1. A detailed zoitz and geotog.ie ana2ys.ia w.iU be pnepviced by a ugi6teAed zo.i 2s eng.ineeA. Th.w anaty6is w.iU .ine.2ude • on-z ite eo.iC sampCing and tabonatoay tuting oU mateh iaZ6 to pxovtde detailed tecommendationz negmding grading, 6iU propvttie.6, 4oundatton4, retaining waU-6, ztkeetis, and utititiez. Owing to the zite'e proximity to .the bay, the potenti,a.0 6or tiquesaction wiU be alzezzed a3 part of .the . boundat i.on studies. CLIMATE/AIR QUALITY Setting. The climate of the Newport Beach area is characterized by climatologists as "Mediterranean" with warn dry summers and mild rainy winters. Air quality conditions are monitored by the Orange County Air Pollution Control District in Costa Mesa. Conditions in coastal areas I0 FIGURE 3 8 • TOPOGRAPHIC SITE STUDY TARRY SEEMAR INC • • ` '•��=—_--=��'�i .�fIJRIPNItI L rflif fisDY \� � (/ � ��^-y M nne•y er.wr�Cur(.ou orna��urtemnu Lum�ys • u..ew n..r .^w. / Tom.... L'"^'4 •c r cMr 1 1 x %L� '—��,r ly' Q 4•. .x�. ,rr x I' R 1 ( 1 f f 1 G R 1 Y I X • yr .. petLIAINIRY flpL —3fdDY (IR AR. Ddl! IL6f R( r . ;tote: Datum for contours is 100. �I • 9 1 LARRY SEEMAR INC. such as Newport Beach are, on the average, better than more inland and populous areas. The subject property, because of its location in relation to two main traffic arteries , could be expected to experience lower air quality levels than more isolated residential areas. ♦ IImpact. The project impact on air quality would "result primarily from the increased traffic generation. Although the project would not have a detectable influence on local air quality, it would be considered to have a, cumulative negative impact on regional air quality. ♦ During construction, grading and filling operations would be a source of dust. With a prevailing southwest wind in the daytime, dust generation could temporarily affect three or four surrounding residences if not properly controlled. Mitigation Measures. The following measure is included as part of the project to offset any potentially adverse impacts. 2. The standoAd du6t zuppke36.ion ptovi6 ions oU the DenaLtment o5 Community DeveCopment w.iU be compti.ed with. Tnc2uded ate ptov,i s.ionb to wet down the .bite dwLi"ng gaad ing to 6tab.i.P ize the 6uA5ace. ♦ HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Setting. The project site is within the Watershed of Newport Bay. Presently site runoff is by overland flow to two points, one on North Newport Boulevard and the other on Santa Ana Avenue where the runoff ♦ flows into the street towards storm drain inlets on North Newport Boulevard. Culverts transmit the water to a large open ditch west of North Newport Boulevard which eventually passes under Pacific Coast Highway and dis- charges the runoff into Newport Bay. Runoff collected on both La Jolla Drive and La Jolla Lane drain • across the site to the two site discharge points. The runoff from these streets is carried down the bluff in a pipe at the end of La Jolla Drive (refer to photographic portfolio in Appendix D) . Some erosion is occurring at the end of this concrete channel . Owing to the sandy soils and overland flow, the current condition 1 of the site promotes percolation of the runoff (although no retention A 10 TARRY SEEMAN. INC • occurs) and probably has a beneficial impact on reducing runoff pollutant loads to the Bay. There are no indications of seepage or shallow groundwater. The water table is most likely at or slightly above sea level (15 to 20 feet below the surface) . Impact. Implementation of the project would involve restructuring the surface drainage of the site. Drainage from La Jolla Drive above the site would be carried across the site in pipes to connect to existing storm drain facilities on North Newport Boulevard. A drainage easement would be dedicated to the City for this purpose between the duplexes ♦ located on lots 23 and 24. Similarly, drainage from La Jolla Lane would have to be diverted or placed in underground drainage facilities at least to where it would drain down the curb on Santa Ana Avenue as it presently does. With the proposed fill , the site would drain in a westerly manner to the street where the water would run into existing storm drains. The increase in impervious surface would increase runoff velocities, both from site source and upstream sources which now have some opportunity to percolate into the existing soils. Because of the small site size, the proportion of this increase relative to totaled flows to the Bay would be quite small . • Water quality impacts can be discussed in two phases: 1 ) the construc- tion period, and 2) the long-term effects extending over the life of the project. Construction period impacts would not be expected to be great owing to the small size of the site; however, considerable earth movement activities would occur (e.g. , from grading for retaining walls and from ♦ placement of fill) and erosion control measures would be required. Over the lifetime of the project, pollutants would be generated and accumulate on the drive and parking areas eventually to be carried by storm runoff into the Bay. Table A presents expected pollutant loading intensities for the project. As the drives and' parking areas are small • and private, it is assumed that regular sweeping activity would not be provided. Due to the very limited area of the property, the pollutant load would be quite small (actually less than from the area of street fronting the site). • In addition to the site-generated pollutants, the percolation effect the existing site has on runoff from La Jolla Drive and La Jolla Lane would • r TABLE A 11 PROJECTED POLLUTANT LOADING FOR PAVED SURFACES LARRY SEEMAN. INC Average Pollutant Loading Factor Loading for Project * Pollutant (Lbs/1000 Sq. Ft. )' Area (Pounds)2 BOD5 0.20 1 .4 COD 0.98 6.9 PO4 0.112 0.8 NO3 0.0042 0.03 N 0.026 0.2 Solids 16. 112. Cd 0.000032 0.0002 Ni 0.00064 0.005 • Pb 0.0074 0.05 Zn 0.012 0.08 Cu 0.0023 0.2 Cr 0.0013 0.009 Hg 0.00082 0.006 1Source of loading factor is Environmental Proection Agency, 1972. Loading period is two weeks and loading is assumed to be linear. 211epresents pollutants that are on pavement and available to runoff with storm drainage. Paving area assumed to be 7000 sq. ft. • 12 • TARRY SEEMAN. INC • be lost and pollutants in these sources would be carried directly to the storm drains. Mitigation Measures. The following measure would be included in the project to offset any potentially adverse effects. • 3. The gAading and dna,i,nage pZavw would be zubject to uview and appnovae by the City oU Neupont Beach and the Santa. Ana Reg.ionae water. QuaP.ity ContAo•e Boa&d (th.0 tatter. nev.iew would p&&wL ,ey be eoneeaned with .6ittati.on contho2) . VEGETATION/WILDLIFE • Setting. Vegetation on site consists of an ornamental succulant on the bluffs and around the base of the bluffs with common urban weeds and grasses occupying the greater portion of the site. One palm tree is located on the property adjacent to the northern property line (refer to Photographic Portfolio in Appendix D) . • Owing to the surrounding urban uses and previous site disturbance, the site has little or no wildlife value. There are no known rare or endangered plants or animals found on or near the proejct site. There are no know rare or endangered plants or animals found on or • near the project site. impact. Construction activity would remove all site vegetation. With the possible exception of increased tree planting, the project would have little impact on urban biotic resources. Mitigation Measures. The following measure would be included in the • project to offset potentially adverse effects. 4. Drought-hesis•tant plant matm.Lae wiU be uUUzed boa •eandheape ptantl-ng. Seeeetion o6 ptant mateA.ia 6 w.iU be made gnom tists {round .ia a .atudy ob dkought-nezi. Cant ptant matekiaZ6 by LanAy Seeman, Inc., t977a. ARCHAEOLOGY/PALEONTOLOGY/HISTORY Setting. Prior to ownership by the State, the property was the site of a motel . Therefore, extensive surface and subsurface disturbance has occurred and the potential for any archaeological or historical artifacts • being present is unlikely. The terrace deposits which form the bluffs have, however, commonly contained fossils. These are recent fossil forms and would be comparable to those found in recent beach deposits (Leighton and Associates, 1977) . 13 • LARRY SEEMAN, INC Impact There are not expected to be any direct impacts on archaeo- logical or historical resources. Mitigation Measures. The following measure is proposed to offset any potentially adverse impacts. S. Atthough thehe cute no known a nchaeo.tog.icat, pateontotogicae • an hd6.tonie %uouAce6 on the .s-ite, tW doea not pn.ectude the po.ab.ibte pneaenee o6 zuhsu 6ace a4ti.4act6. 14 any .such %ezouAce6 aae uneoveAed doting giradi.ng, wohh woued be tempaaAi?_y hatted .in. the .unmedi.ate cueea oU the Jind, and an aAchaeotogi6t wowed be eowsutted, as cat2ted jon by the City ob Newport Beach • Anchaeotog.icat GuideZineb (City Couna.Gt, 1975) . LAND USE/HOUSING/POPULATION Setting. The site is presently undeveloped, although it was previously the site of a motel . The area is noted in the Land Use Element of the • General Plan under the category 2-family residential (two dwelling units per lot) . The site is within Census Tract 634 for which data are available concerning population and housing. This information is compiled in the Housing Element of the General Plan. The site is bounded on the north and east by residences, on the south ! by a gas company substation, and on the west by North Newport Boulevard. The project is not within the coastal zone (i .e. , jurisdiction of the State Coastal Commission). Impact Implementation of the project would result in the construc- tion of 14 duplex units (7 buildings) and one single-family residence. Based upon the census tract median household sizes, the project would generate a population of 30-36 persons. This represents a 0.7 percent growth in population for the census tract. A general evaluation of the consistenty of the plan is provided in • Table B. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The view from one residence, however, could be adversely affedted by its proximity to the project property line and proximity to one of the proposed duplex units. The project is expected to generate very few school-age children. This is based upon the fact that the median household size in the Census Tract is quite low, 2.4 for owner-occupied units and 2.0 for renter occupied • units, and that the development has no recreation facilities and only a minor amount of open space (about 5 percent of the total area of the lot) . Mitigation Measures . None are proposed. N ' TABLE B 14 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES COMPATIBILITY EVALUATION LARRY SEEMAR INC. General Plan Element Comments • Land Use Element In two-family residential area; conforms; adjacent to multiple family and low density designated ' areas. Residential Growth Element Conforms with duplex housing type designation for this site. Housing Element Not in conflict with any policies. Housing projections indicate increase in percent of two-family units relative to total housing stock. Circulation Element Adjacent proposed (Priority B) • construction of new interchange at Newport Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. Noise Element Within existing and ultimate capacity 65 CNEL limit for • traffic on Newport Boulevard. Public Safety Element Seismic Ground Shaking Category 2; within slope stability category "ground slope of 25% or greater"; moderate to highly expansive soils • possible; potential risk for silta- tion not significant; Newport Blvd. designated evacuation route. Conservation Element Not ig conflict with any policies. • Recreation and Open Space Element Site adjacent to Santa Ana Avenue, a scenic drive. • Source: Review of General Plan Documents. • 15 s LARRY SEEMAN, INC CIRCULATION SYSTEMS Setting. The site is bounded on the west by North Newport Boulevard and lies between Santa Ana Avenue and, Catalina Drive. La Jolla Drive and La Jolla Lane both dead-end on the bluff above the property. The eleva- tion of the bluff prevents continuation of these streets. The site is about 300 feet north of Pacific Coast Highway and 300 feet east of Newport Boulevard. The traffic volume on North Newport Boulevard is currently 10,200 ADT; on Santa Ana Avenue, 1 ,600 ADT; on Catalina Drive, 1 ,200 ADT; on Pacific Coast Highway, 25,000 ADT northbound; and on Newport Boulevard, 24,000 ADT northbound. The Circulation Element of the General Plan indicates a specific proposal to construct a new interchange at Newport Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. If a single structure would be constructed as suggested, access and traffic volumes on North Newport Boulevard may be altered. This project is identified as a Class B priority in the City General Plan. (Class A priorities are those of most immediate concern; however, actual order of construction of projects will be affected by factors such as available funds, timing of land development,and coordination between projects. ) There are no existing bikeways within the project vicinity. Impact. A traffic analysis for the project was performed by Weston Pringle and Associates and is included in its entirety in Appendix B. Access to the property as shown on the proposed development plan (Figure 2) would be from a driveway on North Newport Boulevard serving eight duplex units, a driveway off of thb alley at the northern edge of the property serving two units, and by extension of a driveway off of Santa Ana Avenue serving four units and the single-family residence. As shown on the plan, the drive off of Santa Ana would be a 20-foot wide private drive. This would accommodate automobile and sanitation trucks, but is not wide enough for fire equipment. However, all dwelling units have immediate access from North Newport Boulevard. Traffic generated from the project is projected to be 150 ADT. Increases to existing street ADT's are shown in Table C. The largest increase would be a 2.5 percent increase on Santa Ana Avenue near its • intersection with North Newport Boulevard. Such an increae is minimal and would not have a significant impact on existing street capacities. 16 TABLE C TRAFFIC IMPACT ON EXISTING STREETS LARRY SEEMAR INC Additional % Increase Design Present ADT due to due to Street Capacity ADT Project Project North Newport Blvd. NB 101000- 7,800 40 0.5 15,000 North Newport Blvd. SB 101000- 2,400 40 1 .5 15,000 Santa Ana Avenue EB 10,000- 800 20 2.5 ♦ 15,000 Santa Ana Avenue WB 10,000- 800 20 2.5 15,000 Catalina Drive EB 10,000- 600 5 0.8 15,000 Catalina Drive WB 10,000- 600 5 0.8 15,000 On-ramp North Newport 10,000 6,000 25 0.4 • Blvd. to Newport Blvd. Off-ramp Newport Blvd. 10,000 6,000 25 0.4 to North Newport Blvd. Pacific Coast Hwy. NB 20,000-1 25,000 40 0.15 ♦ 30,000 Newport Boulevard NB 30,000-1 24,000 25 0.1 45,000 These figures represent total design capacity for both directions . Both Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard are carrying about 50,000 ADT, which is above the projected capacity for four- and six-lane roadways. These roads are presently considered to be at or near capacity. Source: Weston Pringle and Associates, 1977 (Appendix B) • • • 17 TARRY SEEMAN. INC Parking space for the units would be on site. Guest parking would be on North Newport Boulevard. The existing width of this street and the low traffic volumes do not prevent any constraints to this parking use. Adequate pedestrian access to the units would have to be provided from this direction. Mitigation Measures. The following measure is proposed to offset any potentially adverse impacts. 6. Pede6tLi.an access wLU be pnuv.ided to the un.it6 by mean oU a 6.ive-4aa.t wide a.idewatka ong North Newport Boutevand ao that guest panh.fng on North Newport Boueeva, d wiU have ! adequate 6a6e access to the dwe2Zings. NOISE Setting. A noise analysis of the site was prepared by John E. Parnell , acoustic consultant, and is included in this report as Appendix C. The existing noise levels on site were measured by the procedures outlined in Appendix C. The primary source of intrusive noise experienced on site results from traffic from North Newport Boulevard, Newport Boulevard, and Pacific Coast Highway. Santa Ana Avenue and Catalina Drive provide intermittent sources with vehicles accelerating and decelerating on the hills. A gas utility substation is also a source of low level , high frequency noise. Noise levels measured on site varied from an average range of 61-67 dBA along the west property line to 58-64 dBA at the northeastern and southeastern property line. Peak levels varied from 66-78 dBA across the west edge to 75-77 dBA at the central portion of the property near the bluff. Assuming diurnal traffic patterns similar to other areas in Newport Beach, a CNEL level of 70-71 dBA would be expected for the west segment of the property nearest the roadways . Impact. The primary noise resulting from implementation of the project would be produced by the vehicular traffic added to the existing traffic volumes. However, the traffic increases are so minor that the noise increases would not be detectable. Equipment noise during the grading and construction period will be noticeable to adjacent residents, notably the residence at the north end of the site. No unusual types of equipment would be required to implement this project (e.g. , pile drivers) . 18 1 LARRY SEEMAN. INC. The new residences would be exposed to the existing noise environment based on measured levels which would be considered unacceptable for residential uses. As noise shielding by any feasible barrier would produce only minor reductions at this particular site, due to the site configuration and the elevated roadway surface of Newport Boulevard, noise shielding would have to be incorporated in the desigm of the • structures themselves to achieve acceptable interior noise levels. Mitigation Measures. The following measures would be incorporated into the project to offset potential adverse effects. 7. Construction equipment operation wowed be eontirotted by e City ordinance, which tim.i6 the ho wcd o4 operation to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on any weekday, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, and between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday (City o4 Newport Beach, Cade o4 Ordinances 10.28) . 8. Existing City poticy required sound attenuation 4or those homed. Struetcuuet designs 4or the proposed un.i6 wile be reviewed by an acousttcat engineer and design mod.i4.ieation .uieorporated a6 requuced to bring .inteni.or noise teveed to aceeptabte teveed. The range o4 possi.bte design modi4i.cations .in presented ,in Appendix C. Some combination o4 these 4eatwee6 wiU result .in acceptable mitigation o4 noise. g, Existing State noise in6utatian standards requuee %ed.iden- tial buiedings Located withal annual exterior community no.i6e equi4aeent level contouia o4 60 dBA to require an aeoustteae anaty.6 .6 demonstrating an .inteni.or noise tevel not exceeding 45 dBA CNEL. This must be demon6trated at the time o4 the apptication Sor a buieding peAmit (California Admint6trati,ve Thee 25, Chapter. t, Subchapter 1, Artieee 4) . COMMUNITY SERVICES/UTILITIES/ENERGY CONSERVATION Setting. Utility services in the vicinity of the proposed project Include electricity (Southern California Edison Company, Huntington Beach) , telephone (Pacific Telephone Company, Newport Beach) , natural gas (Southern California Gas Company, Anaheim) , water (City of Newport Beach) , wastewater (Orange County Sanitation District, Santa Ana) , police and fire (City of Newport Beach) , and schools ('Newport-Mesa Unified School District) . Schools serving the site include Harbor High School , Ensign Junior High School , and Newport Heights School . w 19 LARRY SEEMAN. INC impact. Based upon the median household size for this census tract (k634 of 2.4 for owner-occupied units and 2.0 for renter-occupied units, the project should have little effect on school enrollment. Additional revenue for school support would be provided by the project. As all services are available near the site, no adverse effects are anticipated. The greatest amount of work would involve extension of a water main from the northern property line at North Newport Boulevard south along the street to the southern property line. A 6" to 8" A.C.P. extension would be provided unless the City decides to upsize the line to 12" The City would pay for incremental costs beyond an 8" pipe. (Bill Dye, City Engineering Office, 1977) . The City sewage maps show a 10" V.C.P. along North Newport Boulevard with existing laterals stubbed to each existing lot. Mitigation Measures. The following measures are included as part of the project to offset potential adverse effects. 10. The deveeapment woued be z ubjeet to mandatory State kawa conceAning energy eonse) vation which pnov.ide son modis.teation os exizt ng .inzueation .6tanda&d6, and ezta.bUzh addLUonat eneAgy eonbelrvati.on e.tandands bun re.6.identia.e ztucctunez ada ing to wate& heating, ct, ate eont)cot sy6.tem6, gtazing, and vapan bahnieu (CaZi&&ni,a Acbnin.i6.tAative Cade, T.itee 24, T 20-240 th)Lough T 20-t405) . Lafay Seeman, Inc. , .e977b, provides energy eonsenvati.on zugge6tiows app.Ucabte to the tocat area and w-itt be ae6med to during the phafeet deb ign proee.6.6. 11. An enc&oachment pvwii t would be nequveed shom Ca tAa.ns soh any atU ty wohh undeA Nanth Newport BouZeva&d. 12. The Newport Beach 'Department os PuMic Woh(6 woued nev,iew aU ut Uty ptans son consounance to City de62gn .dtandands. VISUAL/AESTHETIC CONDITIONS Setting. As noted in the Project Description, the site is currently vacant, except for the remnanta of retaining walls . Because of its key location, it is viewed by many motorists as they approach the Arches bridge r on Newport Boulevard. Ice plant and weedy vegetation is dominant at the site in addition to the bare sandy soil . The site is visible primarily from Newport Boulevard, North Newport Boulevard, and the hospital west of the site on the mesa. • 20 • LARRY SEEMAN. INC The photographic portfolio in Appendix D shows photos of existing site conditions and a view from the site to the Hospital to the west of Newport Boulevard. Figures 4 and 5 show motorist views of the site . Impact. Construction of the project housing would alter the existing visual character of the site. The new residences would, however, tie in with the housing surrounding the north and east sides of the property and would result in improvement to the visual appearance of the site itself which now presents a somewhat bleak appearance in its unmaintained condition. Figures 4 and 5 present before/after impressions of the visual impact of the project as it would be viewed by motorists approaching from north • and south of the project site on Newport Boulevard. The project would block the view to the south of one resi- dence situated adjacent to the northeast corner of the property. Mitigation Measures. The following measure is proposed to offset potential adverse impacts. 13. The ptopozed units would be tand6caped using p.2antt matev:at,6 .that wiU b.Cend in w.itA the. toea2 setting. • • • FIGURE 4 2IA SITE VIEWS BEFORE/AFTER APPROACHING M-NEWTOR71MLLVARD FROM IRL NORTH TARRY SEEMAN • 4 1 • ■ 1- • tilt ❑ I I II • FIGURE 5 21B SITE VIEWS BEFORE/AFTER APPROACHING ON NEWDt512T BOULDVARD FROMTHE SOUTH RCHES BRIDGE) TARRY SEEMAN `ter i • 23 . FIGURE 6 POSSIBLE MOTEL LAYOUT TARRY SEEMAN. INC • • • • • • 22 • TARRY SEEMAN. INC. ALTERNATIVES MOTEL • An alternative site plan has been developed by the project sponsor based upon use of the site prior to state ownership, and the concern of the City staff and Planning Commission that more than one alternative use should be considered for the site. Figure 6 shows the preliminary study of a possible layout of the site reverted to motel use. As shown in the plan, the motel units are laid out as three, two-story buildings • with the office and common area fronting North Newport Boulevard at the center of the site. A private one-way drive would cross the site with the entrance on North Newport Boulevard and the exit on Santa Ana Avenue. The motel would contain 30 (29 guest, 1 manager) . Because of the small site size, a limiting factor to motel use is the required one parking space per guest unit. The site plan shows 31 parking spaces, with 29 for the guest units and one for the manager, the plan would provide one more space than required. If the pool and common area area are considered essential , then the plan represents the maximum intensity of motel use possible on the site. • The impacts associated with a motel would vary from those incurred with residential use. In certain areas, such as geology and soils, biotic resources, hydrology, archaeology, and utility service, the impacts would not vary to any great extent from those associated with the proposed residential plan. Table D presents a comparision of residential and motel uses. However, a different level of impact would be experienced in terms of traffic generation, noise, and visual conditions. In the case of traffic, although the absolute magnitu�e of the difference is great (e.g. , 100% greater traffic generation ),the impacts are still considered minimal relative to the capacity of existing streets. Perhaps the greatest potentially adverse effect associated with a motel would be its incompatibility with residential uses bordering to the north and east of the site (more night activity) . A motel would, however, be compatible with the commercial activity on North Newport Boulevard. Motel development would require a General Plan amendment and as such, could not be implemented as rapidly as the residential proposal . 1 The 100 percent differential in traffic generation is conservative . Actual increases over residential type use may be as much as 200 percent depending on the type of use experienced. TABLE D 24 • COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL AND MOTEL LEVELS OF IMPACT TARRY SEEMAN. INC Issue Residential Motel Geology/Soils Similar Similar Hydrology Similar Similar Water Quality Generation of urban- Approximately associated runoff 100% greater pollutants. generation. Biotic Resources Similar Similar • Archaeology/History Similar Similar Land Use Compatible with General Plan existing policies. Amendment required. • Circulation Systems Generate 150 ADT. Generate 300 ADT. Maximum impact Maximum impact 2.5% increase on 5% increase on Santa Ana Avenue. Santa Ana Avenue. • Noise Architectural Architectural shielding required. shielding required. Night activity may affect adjoining uses. • Community Services/Utilities Similar Similar Visual/Aesthetic Conditions Two-story buildings Three to two-story extensive site buildings plus coverage. office and common area; less extensive • coverage but com- ercial in nature. • II • 25 LARRY SEEMAN. INC VARIATION OF RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN • Given the limited area of the site and its elongated, irregular shape, variations in site design are severely limited if the proposed project density is to be achieved. The possible objectives for varying the proposed site plan would be to improve pedestrian or traffic safety, to make noise reduction less costly, and to improve the interface of • the project with the residence adjacent to the northeast corner of the site. The primary variables within the plan as proposed are the extension of the drive off of Santa Ana Avenue and placement of the four duplex . units now set back off of North Newport Boulevard. Moving these struc- tures forward to front North Newport Boulevard would allow an extension of the rear drive thus providing access for most units off of Santa Ana Avenue. This would reduce any potential traffic conflicts between through traffic on North Newport Boulevard and vehicles using the mid-site site entrance. The same turning movements would, however, have to be made at Santa Ana Avenue. Movement of these structures would also reduce the potential view blockage problem between the project and an adjacent residence. This plan would, however, increase development costs (with extension of the rear access road) and reduce the structural variation on-site creating a "wall" of buildings (as viewed by motorists) fronting the North Newport Boulevard property line. • Such a building reorientation would probably not significantly reduce the structural mitigation costs required to reach acceptable interior noise levels. • I � 26 LARRY SEEMAN, INC BIBLIOGRAPHY City of Newport Beach, 1973-75. General Plan (all elements) , Newport Beach, CA. • John E. Purnell , 1977. Noise Exposure Analysis for Gilbert Property, Los Angeles, CA. Larry Seeman, Inc. , 1977a. Water Conservation Opportunities for New Developments of The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA. • Larry Seeman, Inc. , 1977b. Energy Conservation Opportunities for New Developments of The Irvine Company, Newport Beach, CA. Leighton and Associates , Inc. , 1977. Geotechnical Evaluation (Focused EIR) of Proposed Residential Development, Newport Boulevard at Santa Ana • Avenue, Irvine, CA. The Resources Agency, 1976. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Sacramento, CA. Weston Pringle and Associates, 1977. Letter Report on Traffic Impact of • Proposed Duplex Project, Placentia, CA. • • I • ! LARRY SEEMAN, INC APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION • ! 1 ! • • • I 77310-1 Sl'1'l-. MO GEOLOGIC INDEX MAT' LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES - ;.. -L EMENTA SCIENCEELRE ( ENVIRONMENTALGOIENCES.NSEAflCH PND GEOTECHNICALPIANNING d.. mxeax I .,h, fsevE ,y' •m xEznn �crab Wo H, ........1... .__....€--_.. ....__.._.. : P rJ'/ ak Irmo.c w•.mw 92714 TBI(71A1 a6a•1921 Gea•1g22 1707 slntnx •'• """ }.. SUL�aCACx� x[StuwSt[11 / SAWA September Zl, 1977 .___ ANA Project No. 77310-1 BW 1 i TO: Larry Seeman, Inc. \ 610 Newport Center Drive —y."a, Suite 645 •'yme .,.5, _ _ ::ewport Beach, California 92663 —111 aegis MCA, ESP I tip? Ca. SUBJECT: Geotechnical Evaluation (Focused EIR) of Proposed Residential Development, Newport Boulevard at Santa Ana Avenue, , _ rirM - -�-- -�- -- a Ne,port Beach, California r \tip' `.-"''•.� - �� i, BEABN, Introduction and Scope of Investigation In accordance with your request, we have completed a preliminary gcotedmieal •-fit—' ='; "�'�-1.` ---yam---••••• ••••- stud/ of the subject property to evaluate the geologic, seismic and soil factors \\\ `, f•.•,•`:}C• a which xill influence the proposed development. It is our understanding that the \ ......•{.;''•;:F•- •-- •• j -••--==�'P./ji Oi1-ht '; WNTRGT0.\ \ eei t S \ NCCOpPT UCSa\`�v1 (— primary concerns are related to slope stability, seismic hazards, and general eEA[ _mp.\ •• T�1C �-f1 soil conditions. This report presents the findings of our geotechnical environ- _W `- SUBJECT`'•:?� .`C7 "'�"-'11II i� COYISG Y >',ntai analysis of the Primary concerns (input for a focused fa R), as well as a �•'V_;t: J-' kES\ $ITEP"• a1r' geacral assessment of ail pertinent geotechnical factors which could affect theIT. A, cii.'l••^��. , project. Our report was prepared in accordance with guidelines for environmental a..r /'; r impact reports established by the California Division of Nines and Geology. 111 = 2 miles pC �.`` . i1}�-�\:✓-ram' Our investigation included a review of relevant published and unpublished geo- technical reports and naps (refer to Appendix A), study of vertical aerial photo- y --� \�.•.I graphs, a site reconnaissance, and a review of proposed site development plans.No borings or laboratory testing, were included or %are considered necessary in Modified from California Department of Water Resources Report, 1967 this preliminary investigation phase, Aceomranvin2 Illustrations, Tablcs and Appendices Note; Refer to P1. 2 of original report for map explanation. Figure 1. Site and Geologic Index NAP, Pago 2 Figare 2. Plot Plan, page < Table 1. Geotechnical Hazard Ratings and Mitigation Measures, Page 7 Appendix A. References Leighton&Associates s PLOT PI.W Figure 1z Y 77510-1 -�- Sk 3 j •� G7 1 i Proposed Development Preliminary site studies by David L. 11111or, A,1.A., dated 9/14/77, indicate - development of 16 residential units (8 dpplex structures), or alternatively, 29 motel units C4 structures] an the subject property. Access would be from `� ---I• ll �+ _�k Newport Boulevard and a private drive Stan Santa Ana Avenue. Refer to ''^ >'- k}c j• a ~j. - 7 Figure 2, which is a composite plot plan of the residential study and the topographic map (showing cross sections of the proposed Binding). `, �• + j w ' Ej `' :linimal grading, involving placement of up to approximately three feet of �, \ ;� iI a 71 re fill over most of the si , is proposed. A cut within the street easement of - _ La Jolla Drive will be necessary for the access drive from Santa Ana Avenue. 5 1- The cut slope indicated above a proposed three to four-foot high retaining \� 4.• I a }1, • ,-`,' _ .. 7 V1 � � -_ 1• _ wall at the toe of slope would have a maximum height of approximately 15 feet. •�' '. .' / ; >/ ,1. ; site Location and Regional Geologic Setting, it F The subject property includes Lots 20 through 28, inclusive, Black 19, Tract 444, i� •f yl - 1�_ and is located along the cast side of Newport Boulevard, between Santa Ana Avenue _.'i••,•/ ----- ! `f _v : y and Catalina Drive. Refer to Figure 1 for the general site location. The property - - _- is approximately 500 fcec norm of Pacific Corsi highway and overlooks the Now Fort gay marina area. Geologically, the site is at the southerly edge of Newport Nesa which is under- , >W " .g '�• xI. `; ` 1 lain by an essentially horizontal capping, of Quaternary-age terrace deposits. /1-1i� '• � � � /."- j p `- Older formations are present beneath the terrace deposits, and are exposed locally v w at the base of the bluffs to the cast and west of the site. They included sedi- ments of the Niguel, � _ o istrano and N.ontercy Formations, which range from Pliocene •/ \\ ,�I.1 ,a �i •) - to Miocene age. Alluvial, older stream deposits underlie the westerly and southerly £ i, l'•� edge of she site. '^' •• :�•`i J y r i _ s Leighton&Associates Leighton&Associates -4- 77510-1 77510-1 Altk..ough one of the main fault traces of the active Newport-Inglewood fault No indications of seepage or shallow groundwater were found on the site. zone is approx)mataly 2,000 flat suuthwe-,it of uw property, the si to generally 'Ile water table is most likely at or slightly above sea level slightly (approximately considered to be within the fault zone, which may be as wide as three miles 15 to 20 feet below the surface of the site). in the Newport-Lusta Mesa area. 11u major fault traces have been mapped closer to the site than 2,000 feet, ho..evar. Seismicity, Slope and Site Stability, Other Geotechnical Hazards other active or potentially active faults in the region capable of causing Seismic hazards related to ground rupture resulting from fault displacement significant seismic shaking at the site include the San Jacinto, San Andreas, are not expected to occur within or near the property, inasmuch as no faults Whittier-Elsinore and Sierra 'Madre faults. The Newport-Inglewood fault, how- are known to crass the site. Strong seismic shaking (with ground accelerations ever, is considered the controlling fault since it is the closest to the sub- possibly exceeding .25g), however, could occur and should be appropriately jeet property. evaluated in the design of structures. Further seismic analysis will be nec- essary in the next investigation stage. Site Geolory The geologic conditions underlying the bluff area are basically favorable for The terrace deposits, .hich are exposed in the bluffs just above the east edge stability from the standpoint of bedding orientation and formation composition. of the property, consist of horizontal beds of buff to tan and brown, silty The generally proposed grading will create cuts for the southerly access road fine sand and friable medium sand with scattered pebbles. Ifinor amounts of and will steepen the slopes along the base of the bluff. These cuts will be clayey silt and sand, particularly in the upper weathered zone, are present. partially supported by retaining walls (refer to cross sections on Plot Plan, Fossil remains of mollusks (mainly sea shall fragments) are commonly found in Figure 2). the terrace deposits; however, none was observed on the site. Such fossils, if found, would most likely not me considered a significant paleontologic Building site stability will be governed by the ability of the underlying soils locality, or resource. (fill and natural surficial deposits) to support structures. This will depend upon their density or degree of relative compaction and lateral stability. Surficial deposits (slope wash, colluvium and alluvium), consisting primarily Soil tests will be necessary to evaluate the existing conditions and proposed of silty sand derived from erosion of nearby slopes underlain by the terrace development. Liquefaction, a seismically related ground instmility hazard, deposits, cover most of the subject property. Sane fill, probably composed although probably a mu imal risk, should also be analyzed in future studies. of materials similar to the native soils, appears to be present along the west portion of the site. The relative degree of hazard or development constraint imposed by the afore. mentioned geologic problems, as well as less significant potential problems not We understand that the property was formerly occupied by a series of small specifically discussed, are indicated on Table 1. These ratings are based on bungalows or cottages, prior to their demolition by the State Department of an arbitrary scale, using the southern California region as a norm. Transportation. Remnants of foundations, utility lines or other substructures, consequently, ray be present. Ifinor amounts of trash and loose fill were noted in our site reconnaissance. - 6 - Leighton&Associates Leighton&Associates 77310 1 t 77310-1 1/{L(S• LNLLIL[.i pr r,V11LLI14n AL NA/ANL!NIO[VILIIf1AL NI fIG.M1l144 IILAlUNk1 (a]I[IFJ[NJ•f LEI':LADLE(6) t Summary of Environmental Impact Assessment, Conclusions LLLN{l 41 NALANU PISSIOLL NILIGLIDrI MEASURES Oi PaOILEN 1. Our geotuclLnical analysis of the site, and our assessment of the potential A:rrvtr/CILI O E ( $'d '7G environmental impacts posed by the proposed development (either for duplex w•'qt residential or motel units), have revealed no significantly serious geologic seismic, or soil constraints, hazards, or problems which would preclude Llexr,c:•+ % % % development or cause unavoidable adverse impacts. All potential geotecimical I % hazards are considered to be mitigable. V'i1KJUr ITIII:sL-Llxr X X X 2. Geologic conditions are favorable for stability of the existing slopes EA•.wE near.:—,l (Lurching) % X I (above the cast side of The site) and proposed curs. The soil, fill and :sv.n I % % alluvial deposits underlying the proposed building sites are expected to sums provide adequate support for proposed fills and structures; limever, near- nux:+c surface materials may require removal and recompaction, depending upon Liena LS u.n I.,.) X x - findings of field investigations and soil testing. Lc:a..rvss I X N.A. mzz or [•rs:n c:.rr{c v.wrp 5. While ground rupture Lizards from fault movement are considered to be x I kN.A. negligible, seismic slinking intensities at the site may be significantly X greater than oilier southern Califoriia sites, owing To its proximity to I,-:••e„a,u.71 the Nowport-Inglewood fault. Building design in conformance with the latest applicable Building Code, however, is expected to satisfactorily »:zLF^ X mitigate such seismic slialing, particularly For one-to two-story.i,00d- t'/E MA- V„{.Imi/4•+¢nn• frame Structures. [SC5]IrIGY ormr,.•..v,.ax-n•i X X 4. The Foregoing findings and conclusions are hosed on a preliminary analysis X I Y X and evaluation of available data. As such, they are subject to confir- '9'1OY" nxf•+a'+,•n..vz ( X X oration or modification as detailed geotechnical investigations of the uc:.arA• L.an;..,,•, ! property are made. T1'1' Of" I Respectfully submitted, c:JIY: n>d'm{:v rr.:n.:S:rGts % % �ii °A`t JLI o' .• % I N.A. Richard Lung w:'.IDME N;,•l nx .c ,.,,Lln X J X % Engineering Geologist EG Ill /ab/js rtlurt t .rIK x N.A. ,IN rA.L Distribution: (2) Addressee x N.n. "SL'nc lit C:.aLiE c.i:.vz u:.lala:an"QlU 9R n.]UGnm,a LYCIK rwUilva. _ 8 - 7 - Leighton&Associates L LEIGMN E ASSOCIATES • 0 0s 77310-i 77310-1 APPEND13 A REFERENCES Algermissen, Sylvester T., and others, 1973, A study of earthquake losses in the Los Angoles area: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, U. S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Research Laboratories, Report Stock No. 0319-00026, 331 pages. California Dept. of Water Resources, Southern District, 1967, Progress report on ground eater geology of the coastal plain of Orange County. Nileman, James A., Allen, Clarence R., and Nordquist, John M., 1973. Seismicity of the southern California region, 1 January 1952 to 31 APPENDIX A December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Tochnulugy, Pasadena, California, Contribution 23s5. Lamar, Donald, L., Merifield, Paul M.. and Proctor, Richard J., 1973, REFERENCES garthquaAc recurrence intervals on major faults in southern Cali- fornia, in Moran, Douglas E., Slosson, James E., Stone, Richard 0., and Yclverton, Charles A., editors, Geology, Seismicity, and Environmental Impact: Assoc. Engr. Geol., spec. publ. Morton, Paul K., Miller, Russell V.. and Fife, Donald L., 1973 Preliminary gco-cnvirmumntal maps of Orange County, California: California Division of lines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15. Orange County Flood Control District, 1973-1974 Season, Hydrologic data report: Orango County, California. Orange County Planning Department, in press, Seismic safety elenent for tho county general plan, Chapters 15-14, (preliminary copy). Schocllham�mor, J.E., and others, 1954, Geol. Map of the northern Santa Ana Hts., Orange and Riverside Counties (scale 1:24000): U.S. Gent. Survey OM154. Wachtell, John D., 1976, Soil survey of Orange and western part of River- side Counties, California: An interim report by the U.S. Dept, of Agriculture Soil Cons. Serv. and Forest Service, 168 p. Woodward-MUYei11 E Associates, 1972, Geologic/Seismic Study for the City of Newport Beach General Plan. A-i Leighton&Associates Leighton&Associates s • LARRY SEEMAN. INC APPENDIX B TRAFFIC REPORT ♦ • • • • • L -2- WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Nitigation Neaenres recommended as part of this traffic analysis are as follows: a. It tl+e dupivu•a are conuuucted. the PnuP.me.l fence t,bieh Will nun along North Newport Iloulrvard for moat of the length of the property should have September 22, 1977 breaks and walkways so that guests parking on North Newport Boulevard can access the dwellings. SVaLluu 6 of Lhlu report discusses parting and ex- plains why breaks in the fence are recov ended. . Larry Secran 2. Proposed Development Yr. Seicnce Consultant 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 645 Two development alternatives are proposed. One alternative consists of seven Newport Beach, California 92663 duplexes plus one single family unit for a total of 15 dwelling units. The second alternative is a 29 unit motel plus a managers unitv for a total of 30 units. Dear Nr. Seeman: we have prepared a traffic impact analysis for the two alternate development plans Both alternatives will take primary access from a driveway located on North ]iewport Boulevard, and secondary access from a driveway located on Santa Ana Avenue, proposed for the currently vacant parcel of land located on the east aide of North - Newport Boulevard (Old Newport Boulevard) between Santa Ana Avenue and Catalina ➢rive in the City of Nwport Brach. 3 T ffic Corin trd by Develmegnt The traffic analysis will contain the fallowing sections: The traffic Smoratod by each alternate land use has been calculated as shows in Table 1. Examination of the table shows cite motel alternative generates more 1. Conclusion and Mitigation Measures traffic than the duplex alternative. It will be show later that the a.O=t of 2. PmpnsaA D•-velopmenc traffic generated by either land use will have an undetectable impact on the tr3f- 3. Todfic Cen.rated by fie volunra of surrounding streets. 4. Traffic Impact S. Access to Development The traffic generation rates used in this study are based upon data collected by 6. Parking tic City of Newport Beach, County of Orange. CalTrans, and the firm of Weston Pringle and Associates. 1 Cmcluaicns and MICS:•atinn Moasuras 4 Traffic Tmnaet Conciusims reached in this traffic analysis are as follows: then possible to determine Once an estimate is made of the traffic generation, it is p a. The traffic impact of either a motel or duplexes is insignificant. Of the the traffic impact of the project. Since the motel land use alternative generates two land uses, a matt I Would generate more traffic. more traffic than the duplex land use, the traffic impact will be determined for the motel lan.l use. If the duplex land use is constructed instead, the anticipated traf- b. The maximum volume added to any of the surrounding streets is five percent fic impact will be approximately half Ghat of the motel land use. of its current volume. Figure L shows the estimated current daily traffic volumes and the estfaared daily to any of the heavily used streets 3n the vieinty traffic volumes which will be added to the surrounding streets if the motel is con- <. The maxirun vo lone addedstrutted. In addition. Figure 1 shows mile percentage increase in traffic volumes is less Than me percent of the current heavily volume. caused by time development. It is seen that the maximum increase in traffic volumes d. Access location and internal sic cLreu(a Ciao were reviewed and found is five percent, and this occurs only on the most lightly traveled roadways. For satisfactory for au cos, rnnitation trucks, and emergency reviewed and s. those roadway sections with significant traffic volumes, the increase is less than one percent. e. Parking provisions were reviewed and found satisfactory assuming mitigation The significance of a one or five percent increase in traffic volumes needs to measure "a" is implemtnttd. be put in perspective. An increase of this magnitude is undetectable because tlm variation in traffic voluw•a from one day of week to another is more than five percent; the variation in traffic volumes from one menth of the year to 1146 YORBA LINDA BLVD. PLACENTIA.CALIFORNIA 92670 (714)9934130 -3- .no•ber rvstb Iv m . tI,n, fie. (n re.nl; tbn or in itrm in [ruffle vol nmos due to a cS.ge of five degrees in atmosphere temperature is more than five percent; and ti,c variation In traffic counts made by two manual ur machine traffic counters Table, 1 si ttiny side by side- on the sano day is greater than five percent. Thus, the impact due to a change in traffic volumes of five percent or less is insignificant TRIP GENERATION zed undetectable. 5. Scaess to Develan-,�nC Duecrip tar Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Access to the property whether it is developed as duplexes or a motel, will be land Use Duplex .r'_-arily from a driveway on North Newport Boulevard and secondarily from a driveway on Santa Ana Avenuc. The driveway on Santa Ana Avenue will be only 20 Quantity of land Use 15 dwellings 30 units feet vide; however, this width is adequate to serve both automobile and sanita- tien trucks. Also provisions have been made for on-site truck turnaround or else or_ve through. Although 20 feet is not wide enough to satisfy fire equipment re- Trips Generated per Dwelling or Unit goirecenes, it should be remembered that all dwelling or motel units have immediateAT( Peak lour e:argcrey access from North Ncwpurt Boulevard. Thus fire trucks will have satisfae- In 0.3 0.2 wry access. Out 0.6 0.3 Total 0.9 0.5 6 Par• YM Peak Hour For the 30 unit motel there will be 31 on-site parking spaces provided which is In 0.6 0.4 satisfactory. For the 15 duplert dwellings, a total of 23 on-site garage spaces Out 0.4 0.3 will be prwiO,d, but no gucat parking spaces will be provided. All guest parking Total 1.0 0.7 will occur on ::orth Xcwpurt Boulevard, and the project fence adjacent North Newport Boulevard will need breaks to provide pedestrian access from vehicles parked on Daily (Twa-Way) 10 30 North Newport Boulevard to the dwellings. North Newport Boulevard has sufficient width and low enough traffic volumes so that on-street parking Is satisfactory from a traffic operations viwpo in t. Trips Generated AM Peal. Hour h Y Ye rt X In 5 6 out 9 9 Total 14 15 it has been a pleasurr preparing thin traffic analysis for you. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. PM Peak Hour In 9 12 ?espeetfully submitted, Out 6 9 Total 15 21 STON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES Daily (Two-Way) 150 300 .;estan S. Pringle, P.K. WSP:WKtvu -.7530 EXISTING AND PROJECT DAILY TRAFFIC VOLLLMFS FIGURE '1 0 0 0 0 9 00 f+ O O O vOi V- 4 x;0 lti'fM� 0 0 Ar' 66000 z o N + O b f 110 \ M 110 \ 4 \ LFCFMD xxx+yy (z7,) o is �hi00 \ u 6 70 \ Oneway n6 daily y traffic volume fic volume u tiS ac o a \✓1/ w` yy a Onu-way traffic volume added by rmtul v z Percent increase caused by devclopamnt traffic + c 8p0 a' �5ry.1 c o m T app�40 a pvecu n ► Pn Santo 1 t t- 25,000 + 80 (0.37.) Pacific Coast Highway WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES • • TARRY SEEMAN. INC. ♦ APPENDIX C NOISE REPORT • ♦ • ♦ ♦ INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an initial noise analysis conducted for the Gilbert property fronting on Old Newport Boulevard and bounded by Santa Ana Avenue, Catalina Road and existing residential development. The property is influenced primarily by noise exposures fron motor vehicle traffic on Old Newport Boulevard (0N6), New Newport Boulevard (NNB) and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Some motor vehicle noise is NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS produced by traffic on Santa Ana and Catalina. This latter condition for is characterized by infrequent passes of automobiles at speeds of 10-15 mph, accelerating uphill and declerating downhill. A gas utility sub- GILBERT PROPERTY station is located on the parcel and produces some relatively low+ level, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA high frequency noise exposure. The noise analysis was carried out by conducting on site sound level September 1977 measurements and through use of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) traffic noise prediction model. The noise levels pre- dicted by the NCHRP model are based on free flowing traffic conditions so that the interpretations have been modified to accomodate differences extant at the subject property. Traffic on each of the three major roadways is intermittent due to traffic signals and intersections adjacent to the property. Sound Level Measurements Sound levels on the property were measured using a Bruel and Kjaer (B&K) Prepared by Precision Sound Level Meter (Type 2209). A B&K one-inch condenser micro- phone (Type 4145) with windscreen was used and calibrations were performed John E. Parnell with a B&K Type 4220 Pistonphone. The measurement samples obtained were P. 0. Box 45811 Los Angeles, CA 90045 A-weighted sound pressure levels using the slow meter response mode. (213) 641-7230 A five minute sample of noise exposures was obtained at each of 7 measurement locations on the property. The levels recorded included 1 minicm value: at each location, the range of levels for free flowing Assuming a vehicle speed of 35 mph for all roadways and a truck mix of traffic conditions with no clearly identifiable single noise source and 2%, the NCHRP model predicts an LSD of 67.5 dBA and an LID of 72 dBA at the peak, levels attributable to specific sources. The locations of the the southwest corner of the property. As noted previously, these values measurement stations are shosm in the sketch in Exhibit I with a tabula- may be slightly high due to the intermittent nature of the traffic flow. tion of the measured sound levels. These data are consistent with the approximations provided by the on site measurements. The nomal range of sound levels from the composite traffic flow was 61-67 dBA across the west segment of the property with the highest Presuming that the traffic noise exposures on the property follow the range (66-67 dBA) measured at Station 5, adjacent to Catalina Road. same diurnal pattern as those shown for other locations near Newport The levels under the escarpment along the east section of the property Boulevard in the Noise Element of the City General Plan, a CNEL value were sarewhat lower, 58-64 dBA at Stations 1 and 6, but increasing to of approximately 70-71 dBA might be projected for the west segment of 63-67 dBA at Station 7. the property. The peak levels were between 66 and 78 dBA across the west section, Noise Exposures Generated by the Project 64-67 dBA at Stations 1 and 6 and 75-77 dBA at Station 7. Station 7 The noise resulting from implementation of the proposed project would was more clearly exposed to a line of sight to the entire roadway complex be produced by motor vehicle traffic added to existing traffic volumes than were Stations 1 and 6 at similar elevations. The measurements should and by construction activities at the site. The traffic volume incre- be evaluated carefully in that they were sequential rather than simrl- ments are insignificant in terms of contributions to the existing traffic tanaous and the traffic flow conditions were not continuous or precisely noise. Construction activities would produce intrusive noise exposures equal over all measurements. at adjacent residential parcels for the duration of the project. Con- struction noise is addressed in the City Noise Ordinance in terms of Predicted Traffic Noise Levels limits on daily work hours. A copy of the noise ordinance is attached Traffic volixme data for all roadways affecting the project were provided to this report. by Pringle Associates, a traffic engineering firm. Peak hour traffic volures were specified as 800 vehicles per hour (vph) on ONB, 4800 vph Standards and Regulations on N118 and 5000 vph on PCH. These data incorporated the presumption that Various criteria should be considered in evaluating this property. If the peak hour values were 10% of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and that FHA financing is involved, the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Criteria peak hours in both directions on PCH and NN8 occurred simultaneously. A for Clearly Acceptable or Normally Acceptable residential noise exposures five minute traffic count on ONG between 1313 and 1318 hours showed 56 will be applied by the HUD regional office. The most clearly applicable vehicles (2 way). This would be equivalent to 672 vph, closely approxi- standards are included in Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, mating the Pringle Associates data for that hour. Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4 entitled "Noise Insulation Standards.` 2 3 ♦ s ♦ • • • • • ♦ • • Section 1092(b) stipulates that the standards apply to new hotels, motels, Ceilings apartrent houses and dwellings other than detached single faudly dwellings. Joists/Coiling Material Insulation The criterion in Section 1092(e)(4) sets a limit of C11EL 60 dBA from Floors vehicular noise. Above this level, the interior CNEL must be reduced Material Openings to 45 dBA in any habitable room. Ventilation Mechanical Systems Gravity Vent Openings Noise Mitigation Methods Fan Specifications Duct Lining Some minor reductions in traffic noise from PCN and ONB could he effected Baffle Plates Fireplaces through the use of noise control barriers. The only practical approach Specification for each of these structural elements may be progressively to achieve compliance with the Noise Insultation Standards is to include n increased depending on o the noise reduction selected required fora specific noise control procedures in the design of the building envelope. location. The range of combination for selected NR values should be Even within the general procedure of building noise control, there are incorporated into the City/County building code and be subject to veri- gradations of treatment depending on proximity to the noise source. The fication when specified. This could be accomplished by setting forth a general planning procedures are outlined in this section. Each of the set of specifications, for example, for NR values of 25, 30 and 35 dBA. structural elements identified may be designed for varying amounts of The typical residential structure (without special noise control design) noise reduction (at varying costs) depending on the requirements of a will provide approximately 12-15 dBA of sound attenuation, which is not sufficient to bring the project into compliance with the referenced specific location. noise standard. Exterior Walls Surface Weight Interior Surface Depth Sheathing Finishing Insulation Windows Thickness/Multiple Sealants Weather Stripping Total Doors Strcuture/Thickness Glazing Sliding Door Specifications Perimeter Treatment Roofs Structure/Material Skylight Specifications Surface Weight 4 5 • 1'ra�r�+c o/W AARxy • • Minimum Typical Range Range of Peak Measurement Noise Level for Traffic Noise Noise Levels Station (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) • 1 54 58-62 64-65 2 57 61-64 70-75 3 ---- Gas substation: 66-67 @ 5 ft from doors ---- • 4 57 61-64 66-70 5 58 66-67 68-78 6 51 58-64 66-67 7 61 63-67 75-77 • • q October 1, 1974I . r California Administrative Code, Title 2-5 {•� . Chapter 1, Subcbapter 1 Article 4. Noise Insulation Standards47 ' 1092. Noise Insulation Standards. Noise insulation standards shall be in accordance with the applicable requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Division 725, Chapter 1, Subchapt+r 1, Article 4, Section T25-1092, which reads as follows: • T25-1092. Noisa Insulation Standards. (a) Purpose. The purpose of this article is to establish uniform Wnl^ ' noise insulation performance standards to protect per- sons wotels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached ithin new hotels, m ray the effects of excessive noise, including but not limited single-family dwellings f ,- . to hearing loss or impairment and persistent interference with speech and sleep. (b) Application and Scope. The provisions of this article relating to noise r. insulation performance standards apply Co new hotels, motels, apartment houses and .t dwellings other than detached single-family dwellings. ;•yQ ' These regulations shall apply to all applications for building permits made subsequent to the effective date of these regulations. These regulations shall be effective 6 mooths after the adoption by the Commission of Housing and Coam,nity Development. �H (c) Definitions. The following special definipions shall apply•to this article r as applicable: ( '`` (1) Impact Insulation, Class (IIC) - A single number rating for ceiling- P•''t. • floor construction that represents the ceiling- ability of the construction to isolate t••;:,t• impact noise, where measurement procedure is based on ASTH E492-73T and as defined .;�g in UBC Standard No. 35-2. ('tK (2) Sound Transmission Class (STC) - A single figure rating for floor- ''T. ceiling and interior wall Partition construction that represents the ability of lie the construc`_Son to isolate airborne noise, where measurement procedure is based on ASTH E90-70 or ASV E36c-71 and as defined in UBC Standard No. 35 •(3) Detached Single-Family Dwelling - Any -single-family dwelling which is % q;•:'+• separated from adjacent property lines by 3 feet or more or is separated from adjacent buildings by 6 feet or more. -' (d) Sound Transmission Control Between Dwelling Units. 11;Y (1) Nall and Floor-Ceiling Assemblies. Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units or guest rooms from each other and from public space , such as interior corridors and service areas shall provide airborne sound insula- .•, • tlon for walls, and both airborne and impact sound insulation for floor-ceiling assemblies. ..y`. (2) Airborne Sound lnsulatiun. All such separating walls and floor-ceiling assemblies shall provide an airborne sound insulation rqual to that required to ,a. meet a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 50 (45 if field tested) as defined in npM UBC Standard No. 35-1. :*'q Penetrations or openings in construction assemblies for piping, -electrical. :.yx devices, recessed cabinets, bathtubs, soffits, or heating, ventilatin3 or exhaust ;.x ducts shall be sealed, lined, insulated or otherwise treated to maintain the required ratings. Dwelling unit entrance doors from interior corridors together with their perimeter seals shall have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of nor less than 30 and such peri^.ecer seals shall l+a maintained In good operating condition. 1 (3) Impact Sound Insulation. All SaP..rating flour-•ceiling assemblies between units or gust -oats shall provide impact sound e insulation equal to that i';�-{; required to meet as Impact Insulation Class (IIC) of 50 (45 if field tested) as defined in UBC Standard 1,0. 35-2. Floor coverings may be included in the assembly to obtain the required rating, and muac be retained as a permansat Part of the the same assembly and may only be replaced by othar floor covering that providae f;•; 2,• sound insulation required above. -ceiling (4) Tested Assemblies. Field or laboratory tested wall or floor designs hiving an STC or I1C of 50 or more as determined by UBC Standard 35-1, i :` • when in the :•:) 35-2 or 35-3 may be used without any additional field testing ng Officials the laboratory tested design his not been opinion of the Buildi Official '•�: compromised by flanking paths. Tests may be required by the Building when evidence of compromi>ad separations is noted. when required, s):all be done under the sr` (5) Field Testing. FSe1S Costing, q supervision of a person experiencud in ct:a field of acoustical testing and engineering, who shall forward tout results to the Building Ofti tnl showing that the i.,imim pound insulation requirnmuots stated above have been a+t• S �zw? (6) Airborne sound Insulation Pieid Tests. when required, airborne sound insulation shall be determined according to the applicable Field Airborne Sound Transmission Loss Test procedures of U.B.C. Standard No. 35-3. All sound trans- ' witted from the source room to the receiving room shal•L be considered to be transmitted through the test partition. (7) Impact Sound Insulation Field Test. when required, impact sound • insulatiob shall be determined in accordance with U.B.C. Standard No. 35-2. Note: Excerpts from the 1973 U.B.C., Appendix Chapter 35. reproduced with permission Y of Inte=atlonal Conference of Building Officials, 5360 S. workman Mill Road, Whittler, California. (e) Noise Insulation from Exterior Sources. (1) Location and Orientation. Consistent with land use standards, resi- dential structures located in noise critical areas, such as proximity to select system of county roads and city streets (as specified in 186.4 of the Scatq of California Streets and Uighways Code), railroads, rapid transit lines, airports, or industrial areas shall be designed to prevent the intrusion of exterior noises beyond prescribed levels with all exterior doors and windows in the closed position. Proper design. shall include, but shall.not be limited to, orientation of Cbe reeidencial strut Cure, set-backs, shielding, and sound insulation of the building itself. (2) Interior Noise Levels. Interior community noise equivalent levels •� (CNEL) with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an manual CNW, of 45 dB in any habitable room. (3) Airport Noise Source. Residential structures to be located within an ' annual CNEL contour (as defined in Title 4, Subchapter 6, California Adminis- traciva Code) of 60 require an acoustical analysis showing that the structure '. has becu designed to licit intruding noise to the prescribed allowable levels. • C%Ws. shall be as determined by the local jurisdiction is accordance with its local general Plan. .(4) Vehicular and Industrial noise Sources. Residential buildings or structures to be located within annual exterior community noise equivalent level contours of 60 dB adjacent to the select system of county roads and city streets (as specified is Section 166.4 0£ the State of California Streets and Highways Code), freeways, state highways, railroads, rapid-transit lines and industrial noise sources shall require an acoustical aualysis shoving that the proposed building has been designed to Limit intruding noise to the allowable interior noise levels prescribed in Section T25-1092(e)(2). Exception: Railroads, where there are no nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) railway operations and where daytime (7s00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) railway operations • do not exceed four (4) per day. (f) Compliance. (1) Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building Pettit. -The report shall show topographical relationship of noise sources and dwelling site, identification of noise sources and their characteristics. predicted noise spectra • at the exterior of the proposed duelling structure considering present and future land usage, basis for the prediction (measured or obtained from published data), noise attentuation measures to be applied, and an analysis of the noise insulation effectiveness of the proposed construction showing that the prescribed interior noise level requirements are met. If interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be unopenable or closed, the design for the structure must also specify the means that will be employed to provide ventilation, and cooling if necessary, to provide a habitable interior environment. (2) Field Testing. Only when inspection indicates that the conbtruetion Is not in accordance with the approved design, field testing nay be required. Interior noise measurements shall be taken under conditions of typical maximum exterior noise levels within legal limits. A test report showing compliance or noncompliance with prescribed Interior allowable levels shall be submitted to the Building Official. Where a complaint as to noncompliance with this article requires a field • test to resolve the complaint, the complainant shall post a bond or adequate funds in escrow for the cost of said testing. Such costs shall be chargeable to the complainant when such field tests show that compliance with these ' regulations is is fact present. If such tests show uonuompliance, then such testing costs shall be' borne by the owner or builder. i 11 NOISE 10.28.010-10,28.050 1032.010-10 37 040 OFFENSES AND NUISANCES dnvharge of their dutica,to discharge or came to be diaharged within the •y7 YI ' mPorate limits of ti,e City of Newport Beach any One,shotgun, pistol, _41 Chapter 10.32 p ae+j:i t$ �G revolver or other 6rarm,Many niry;nn,air-pistol or ahrn0c,or any other n.fllt SOUND AMPLIFYING EQUIPMENT ' weapon which emits a projectile as result of pressure exerted at the breech, a('I ' unless the person or pawns have first obtained permission in svritin"So to ,''rig( Sections: } do from the Chief of Police.(Ord.614(part),1950: 1949 Code§4231), t�y'r 10.32.010 Definitions. ' t yi, 10.32.020 Commercial Advertising Use Prohibited. •' ' � •'I• 10.32030 Permit Required for Noncommercial Use. 10.32.&10 Application for femnit. Chapter 10.28 10.32 050 issuance of Permit. t0.32.055 Sound Amplification Equipment Prohibited NOISES on public,Reaches. Sections: 1032.060 Regulations for Use. 10.23.010 Unnecessary Noises Prohibited. 10.32.070 Possession and Display of Permit. 10.28.040 Noisy Construction and Excavation lYork—Hours 10.32.080 Revocation of Permit. Permitted. 1032.090 Exceptions. 10.28.050 Exceptions. 10.32-010 Definitions SOUND AMPLIFYING EQUIPMENT.The term 10-28.010 Unnecessary Noises Prohibited. No Persian shall make any "sound amplifying equipment"as used herein shall mean any machine or loud or unusual noise,din or clamor,or any loud or sensaless sound,on tho device for tire amplification of the lmm]n voice,music or any other sound. public streets,or in public or semi-public places in the City,(1949 Code§ Sound amplifying equipment shall not be construed to include standard 4208). radios or phonographs. high fidelity or sound .systems which am mod entirely within a building and are not designed or used to convey the human 10 28.040 Noisy Construction and Excavation Walk—flours Permitted. voice,mush;or any other Sound to an audience outside Stich budding,or l No person shall cnn5truLt,demolish,alter or repair any bolding,grade or standard automobile mdias when used and heard only by occupants of the excavate on any private or public property,or came or permit such work to vehicle in which installed or portable miios designed for PerSonal use. be done,the ptrOnmarim of which work is attended by any loud or unusual SOUND TRUCE.The term "sound truck"as used 11cmin shall mean noise or sound which interferes with or may reasonably be presumed to any vehicle having mounted thereon or attached thereto any sound interfere with the peace, comfort and repose of persons residing in tie unnplifying equipment.(Ord.1084(part),1964: 1949 Code§4500). neighborhood or general vicinity in which such work is being performed, Other than between the hours of 7 a in. and 6:30 P.M. on any weekday, 10.32.020 Commercial Advertising Use Prohibited. No person shall between the hours of 8 a.m.and 6 p.m.on Saturdays,and between the hours operate or muse to be operated any sound amplifying equipment or sound of 10 a in.and 6 p.m on Sundays and holidays,except that in cases of truck for the purpose of commercial advertising in the City. (Ord. 1084 urgent necessity or emergency the Building and Safety Director may grant a (part),1964: 1949 Code§4509). revocable Permit authorlring such work to be done at different hours (Ord, 1191 §1,1966). 10.32.030 Permit Required for Noncommercial Use.No person shall use .:iljry or muse to be used an Sound amplifyingequipment or sound track with its Jnt Y 10.28.050 Exceptions.The provisions of Section 10.28.040shall not be '; g:b Sound amplifying equipment in operation for noncommercial purposes in the construed to prohibit such work at different hours by or tinder the direction f City without first having applied for and obtained a permit from the City orally govemmentei agency in eazes of necessity oremergency.(Ord.1191§ Council or city manager as hereinafter provided.(Ord.1645§1,1975:Ord. y�'•. 1966). 'Ii: 1084(part),1964:1949 Code§4501 Fly 10.31.040 Application for Permit.Applications for permits for the use 'v'••k' ' of sound amplifying equipment or sound trucks shall be filed with the City �� s Cle-Y on farms supplied by the City. The application shall contain tine a,$ooxlanPL•'Ymd cqulPmenP$ce CTePur 10.3E Rihowing information: 173 01. yWl nah]asas) fnaryarWxh ba4t6) 174 SOUND AMPLIFYING EQUIPMENT 1032.C50 10.32.055-10.31070 OFFENSES AND NUISANCES 17 (a) Name and home address of the applicant. j 1 to Issue a m with an permit for event use of solved amplifying equipment in l (b) Brute application address of for the useO. "'s:)tis connection with any special event which will take Place in a commercial a5(il (e) if the application is for the use ofasound lnhek,it shall wnmmlhe •:.41,11 district when it is determined that die effects of such use will not ' races of the legal and registered owners of the sound truck,and tine year, =_{"r unreasonably disturb the health,safety,and welfare of any person or persons 'T rm're,and license number of llm truck. ''^j b nsiding within three hundred(300)feet of the area where(lie> EEN event fit" (d) The address or location where the sound amplifying equipment is st'r' is to tyke place.(Ord.1645§2,1975:Ord.1054(part),1964:1949 Code§ to be used; or, if the application is for a sound truck, then a general •y3flst 4504). statement as to the section or sections of the City in which the sound truck will be used, 10.32.055 Sound Amplification Equipment Prohibited on Public (c) The name and address of the person who will have direct charge of Beaches.A.Policy Statement. the operation of Elie sound amplifying equipment or sound truck. The City Council makes the following findings: (Q The purpose for which the sound amplifying equipment or sound (1) The public beaches adjacent to the waters of the Pact fic Ocean and truck will be used. Newport harbor am a unique recreational resource which the City holds in (2) The proposed hours of operation of the sound amplifying_system or trust under a legislative grant from the State of California. sound truck. (2) Three public beaches are inters hely used for swimming,surfing (It) The number of days of proposed operation of the sound amplifying and sunbathing by a diverse group of people which includes City residents, equipment or sound track. tourists and persona residing throughout Orange County and Southern 6) A gi.neral description of the sound amplifying equipment to be California. used (3)11te use of sound trucks and sound amplification Equipment by (1) The maximum sound producing power of the sound amplifying groups and organizations who wish to hold converts,mcetimys o.public equipment to be used,including. assemblies on or near these public beaches is disturbing to the vast majority 1. The wattage to be used. of[lie Pvnple using the beaches for recreation and to local residents whose C 2. The volume in decibels of the sound which shall be produced. homes am in close proximity,to the beaches. l 3. The approximate maximum distance sound will be projected from B. No permit shall be issued for and no pcison shall use any sound the sound amplifying equipment. (Ord. 1084(part), 1964: 1949 Code § track or sound amplification equipment on any public beach.(Ord.1691§ 4503). 1,1976:Ord.1361 §1,1970). 10.32.050 Issuance of Permit. A. CITY COUNCIL ACTION. Upon 10.32.060 Regulations for Use. The noncommercial use of sound reeving an application for a permit for the use of sound amplifying amplifying equipment and sound trucks in the City shall be subject to the equipment or a sound truck for noncommercial purposes, the City Clerk following regulations: shall place the matter on the agenda of the next regular meeting of tine City (a) The only sounds permitted am music and human speech. Council following the filing of the application for consideration and shall (b) Operations shall not be permitted on Sundays and legal holidays. notify the applicant of the data by registered mail,postage pripaid. (c) Sound shall not be emitted within 100 yards of hospitals,churches, B. ISSUANCE At the time of consideration, the City Council shall and the City Hall. grant the applicant a resomble,nontransfemble permit valid for a period not (it) The human speech and music amplified shall not be profane,lewd to exceed six(6)months,if it appears from the information contained in the f"` orslxnderatts. ii"application and such additional information as may be presented to the City }i;�; (c) 11ie volume of sound shall be controlled so that it will not be i Council that the proposed use of the sound amplifying equipment or sound ( "•jai audible for a distance in excess of 150 feet from die sound amplifying tmck is for a noncommercial purpose and that the proposed use will comply t •?y�A.• equipment or sound trek,and so that the volume is not unreasonably loud. with the regulations contained in Section 10.32.060. I •, ', mucous,jarring• disturbing or a nuisance to persons within the mRe of /- C, SPLCIFICATION OF YOURS. In granting well permit, the City, ;.7'W,y' audibility.(Ord.lOS4(part),1964:1949 Cade§4505). Council shall specify the hours during which the sound amplifying I ".n. equipment or sound track may be used after considering the needs of the 1032.070 Possession and Display of Permit.Any person operating the aPPlnant, the area or areas in which the sound will be Emitted,and Elie sohmd amplifying equipment or sound trick shall keep the permit granted in effects of such use on the public health,safety and welfare. D ISSUANCE BY CITY MANAGER.The City Manager is authorized 175 (N<'.' kxM1T]6](r) INe xyn,h rhpea TRbl6) 176 SOUND AMPLIFYING HQXIiPhWNT 10.33 050-10 32.090 bin pmscsian nt all limas while operating Ilia equipment or sound truck and shall promptly display the permit to any police officer of the City upon request(Ord.1084(part),1964:1949 Code§4506). 10it issued 0 Revocation t is Partner. The Cityoft Manager may invoke any permit issued pensound a to amplifying g equipment any oflhe sound track grounds: (a) The sound amplifying equipment or sound truck has been used �{ ' contrary to the regulations contained in Section 10.32.060 or the tunes of die permit (b) The applicant has made a misrepresentation of a material fact in 41 theapplication. (a) The sound amplifying equipment or sound truck is being used for the purpose ofcommerci it advertising. Notice of the nwocation shall be given to the permit holder in writing. If the notice is personally served upon the permit holder,it shall be effective immediately upon service.if the notice of revocation is delivered by mailing, it shall he effective on the third day following the deposit of the notice in the United States mad.Tile permit holder may appeal the action of the City Manager to the City Council by filing a notice ofappcal with the City Clerk whlum ten(10)days after the effective date of the revocation.If a notice of appeal is not filed within the ten-day period, the revocation shall become final.(Ord.1084(part),1964:1949 Code§4507). 10.32.090 Gceplions.The provisions of this Chaptershall not apply to the use of sound trucks or sound amplifying equipment in conducting ilia following activities: (a) Sporting and recreational activities conducted on public school property or in pnblie parks when authorized by the public agency hiving control of such public park or school property. (b) Water sport activities conducted or the waters of Newport Harbor which am conducted under lire authority of any applicable City or Orange County Harbor District regulations. ' (e) Activities conducted on property of churches or private clubs where the sound is confined within the boundaries of well property. (d) Licensed sightseeing or excursion vessels operating on the waters of Newport Harbor. (a) Public officials or employees while acting in the performance of A111,"i, their duties. a „1i (f) Activities conducted within the boundaries of City licensed amusement centers where the sound is confined within the boundaries of such amusement centers. (Ord. 1361 § 2, 1970: Ord. 1084(par.), 1964: 1949 Cade§4502). p4 ` }l 'l 176-1 (Navryert asath Fri'!b) • LARRY SEEMAN. INC. • APPENDIX D PHOTOGRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS • • • • • • • • PHOTOGRAPHIC PORTFOLIO EXISTING CURB CUT ON SANTA ANA FOR LA JOLLA DRIVE (TOP) • PALM TREE AT NORTHERN EDGE OF SITE BOTTOM LARRYSEEMAN Rt � a•' +� V C�. 'i•Sl .,Y` '<. i.il.♦ t'Y F .r}'- tti" ..`I:.( i.'+=.• �t t ��.ri}dXa'+�i^'6i+.,.tia�'2�.e; i .-ut+;cni.." �-a5;.. .i _ 1 G "^ r • het. 'fM"'".il): -Y. �•.,.+fww......: _ _. �. -�.iu: .......... ..,..ter. ...iw,,..>^ • PHOTOGRAPHIC PORTFOLIO • CONCRETE LINED DITCH CARRYING RUNOFF FROM LA JOLLA DRIVE (TOP) GAS SUBSTATION AT CORNER OF SANTA ANA AVENUE AND NEWPORT (BOTTOM) LARRY SEEMAN fill • u Y� •.ii�°•,�M1 ,. 'fJ �) M it r.•l r•i �'`.4 i��tw t��{ �l1'DY• 6•� _ Mt I 'i t PHOTOGRAPHIC PORTFOLIO VIEW OF SITE AND ADJACENT RESIDENCES FROM NEWPORT BOULEVARD (TOP)_ VIEW FROM'SITE TO HOSPITAL WEST OF NEWPORT BOULEVARD BOTTOM LARRY SEEMAN I i t • j •4An JI�dL..0 � p �, ti s�jxi�Li� JiY (y: • 4 1 . 1 " pry 1 'i ,IG • j��;eL).ZIO u3 J • ®imm�A7 q,> IRS."$A+t w,y}r, i,W :3 : ,.,n�,ly� _`,^5;`''"v.�'':vQ°r!;,_,•�- -•.•:ncwr Y 1 ^4�,: .''�,C^� M,,a,::�;x,- •:r:?.y la, ii wt` .✓�G7 L NOTICE OF DETERMINATION g _ Date November 4, 1977 9 �1 V 0i TO: ❑ Secretary for Resources FROM: Community D �opmen art 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of New po �i3 c� ,+ Sacramento, California 95814 3300 Newport Bo Newport Beach, Call 63 ® Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Orange P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 SUBJECT: Filing of• Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code PROJECT TITLE: Residential Development on Old Newport Boulevard STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (If submitted to State Clearinghouse) : CONTACT PERSON: R. V . Hogan , Director TELEPHONE NUMBER: Community Development Dept. ( 714) 640-2137 PROJECT LOCATION: Old Newport Boulevard between Santa Ana and Catalina , Newport Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of 6 duplexes and 1 single family residence . This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The project has been ® approved by the City of Newport Beach. ❑ disapproved 2. The project 0 will have a significant effect on the environment. [� will not 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Q A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the vi ns of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. TE EC . NG: NOV091977 JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk of the Bueid of 5uper.isors By —_.Deputy Beverly V. Wood, Environmental Coordinator P . T _ WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING September 22, 1977 Mr. Larry Seeman Environmental Science Consultant 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 645 Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Seeman: We have prepared a traffic impact analysis for the two alternate development plans proposed for the currently vacant parcel of land located on the east side of North Newport Boulevard (Old Newport Boulevard) between Santa Ana Avenue and Catalina Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The traffic analysis will contain the following sections: 1. Conclusions and Mitigation Measures 2. Proposed Development 3. Traffic Generated by Development 4. Traffic Impact 5. Access to Development 6. Parking 1 Conclusions and Mitigation Measures Conclusions reached in this traffic analysis are as follows: a. The traffic impact of either a motel or duplexes is insignificant. Of the two land uses, a motel would generate more traffic. b. The maximum volume added to any of the surrounding streets is five percent of its current volume. c. The maximum volume added to any of the heavily used streets in the vicinty is less than one percent of the current volume. d. Access location and internal site circulation were reviewed and found satisfactory for autos, sanitation trucks, and emergency vehicles. e. Parking provisions were reviewed and found satisfactory assuming mitigation measure "a" is implemented. 1146 YORBA LINDA BLVD. • PLACENTIA, CALIFORNIA 92670 • (714) 993-4130 '� -2- Mitigation Measures recommended as part of this traffic analysis are as follows: a. If the duplexes are constructed, the proposed fence which will run along North Newport Boulevard for most of the length of the property should have breaks and walkways so that guests parking on North Newport Boulevard can access the dwellings. Section 6 of this report discusses parking and ex- plains why breaks in the fence are recommended. 2. Proposed Development Two development alternatives are proposed. One alternative consists. of seven duplexes plus one single family unit for a total of 15 dwelling units. The second alternative is a 29 unit motel plus a manager's unit, for a total of 30 units. Both alternatives will take primary access from a driveway located on North Newport Boulevard, and secondary access from a driveway located on Santa Ana Avenue. Ilf 3 Traffic Generated by Development The traffic generated by each alternate land use has been calculated as shown in Table 1. Examination of the table shows the motel alternative generates more traffic than the duplex alternative. It will be shown later that the amount of a undetectable impact on the traf- fic generated by either land use will haven P volumes of surrounding streets. used this stud are based upon data collected by The traffic generation rates us in y P the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, CalTrans, and the firm of Weston Pringle and Associates. 4. Traffic Impact Once an estimate is made of the traffic generation, it is then possible to determine the traffic impact of the project. Since the motel land use alternative generates more traffic than the duplex land use, the traffic impact will be determined for the motel land use. If the duplex land use is constructed instead, the anticipated traf- fic impact will be approximately half that of the motel land use. Figure 1 shows the estimated current daily traffic volumes and the estimated daily traffic volumes which will be added to the surrounding streets if the motel is con- structed. In addition, Figure 1 shows the percentage increase in traffic volumes caused by the development. It is seen that the maximum increase in traffic volumes is five percent, and this occurs only on the most lightly traveled roadways. For those roadway sections with significant traffic volumes, the increase is less than one percent. The significance of a one or five percent increase in traffic volumes needs to be put in perspective. An increase of this magnitude is undetectable because the variation in traffic volumes from one day of week to another is more than five percent; the variation in traffic volumes from one month of the year to U -3- another month is more than five percent; the variation in traffic volumes due to a change of five degrees in atmosphere temperature is more than five percent; and the variation in traffic counts made by two manual or machine traffic counters sitting side by side on the same day is greater than five percent. Thus, the impact due to a change in traffic volumes of five percent or less is insignificant and undetectable. 5. Access to Development Access to the property whether it is developed as duplexes or a motel, will be primarily from a driveway on North Newport Boulevard and secondarily from a driveway on Santa Ana Avenue. The driveway on Santa Ana Avenue will be only 20 feet wide; however, this width is adequate to serve both automobile and sanita- tion trucks. Also provisions have been made for on-site truck turnaround or else drive through. Although 20 feet is not wide enough to satisfy fire equipment re- quirements, it should be remembered that all dwelling or motel units have immediate emergency access from North Newport Boulevard. Thus fire trucks will have satisfac- tory access. 6. Parking For the 30 unit motel there will be 31 on-site parking spaces provided which is satisfactory. For the 15 duplex dwellings, a total of 23 on-site garage spaces will be provided, but no guest parking spaces will be provided. All guest parking will occur on North Newport Boulevard, and the project fence adjacent North Newport Boulevard will need breaks to provide pedestrian access from vehicles parked on North Newport Boulevard to the dwellings. North Newport Boulevard has sufficient width and low enough traffic volumes so that on-street parking is satisfactory from a traffic operations viewpoint. It has been a pleasure preparing this traffic analysis for you. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, W13STON PRTNGLE AND ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. WSP:WK:ww #7530 Table 1 TRIP GENERATION Descriptor Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Land Use Duplex Motel Quantity of Land Use 15 dwellings 30 units Trips Generated per Dwelling or Unit AM Peak Hour In 0.3 0.2 Out 0.6 0.3 Total 0.9 0.5 PM Peak Hour In 0.6 0.4 Out 0.4 0.3 Total 1.0 0.7 Daily (Two-Way) 10 10 Trips Generated AM Peak Hour In 5 6 Out 9 9 Total 14 15 PM Peak Hour In 9 12 Out 6 9 Total 15 21 Daily (Two-Way) 150 300 EXISTING AND PROJECT DAILY.TRAFFIC VOLUMES I C O FIGURE 7 �. + o O CD O 'o O �S OCd + O D O N Ln Sae N �° o bpp 1p s o Epp k v z" O Ln Ar O I ,a LL♦-110 \ �► 110 \ 10 LEGEND xxx + yy (z%) s N \ xxx = One-way existing daily z o \ traffic volume Z yy = One-way traffic volume o m C o y \ added by motel z z = Percent increase caused + + �p Qg°�1 by development traffic O O ue lt ap0 A- Lip oa bVer cli t_ �► A SacGa t ae- N 4— 25,000 + 80 (0.3%) Pacific Coast Highway WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES D ENGINEERING,GEOLOGY 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES,RESEARCH AND GEOTECHNICAL PLANNING 17975 Sky Park Circle, Suite H, Irvine,California 92714 Tel:(714)556-1421 556.1422 September 21, 1977 - Project No. 77310-1 TO: Larry Seeman, Inc. 610 Newport Center Drive Suite 645 Newport Beach, California 92663 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Evaluation (Focused'EIR) of Proposed Residential Development, Newport Boulevard at Santa Ana Avenue, Newport Beach, California Introduction and Scope of Investigation In accordance with your request, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical study of the subject property to evaluate the geologic, seismic and soil factors which will influence the proposed development. It is our understanding that the primary concerns are related to slope stability, seismic hazards, and general soil conditions. This report presents the findings of our geotechnical environ- mental analysis of the primary concerns (input for a focused HIR) , as well as a general assessment of all pertinent geotechnical factors which could affect the project. Our report was prepared in accordance with guidelines for environmental impact reports established by the California Division of Mines and Geology. Our investigation included a review of relevant published and unpublished geo- technical reports and maps (refer to Appendix A) , study of vertical aerial photo- graphs, a site reconnaissance, and a review of proposed site development plans. No borings or laboratory testing were included or were considered necessary in this preliminary investigation phase. Accompanying Illustrations Tables and Appendices Figure 1. Site and Geologic Index Map, Page 2 Figure 2. Plot Plan, Page 4 Table 1. Geotechnical Hazard Ratings and Mitigation Measures, Page 7 Appendix A. References 77310-1 SITE AND GEOLOGIC INDEX MAP FiCure 1 W ORAI I9Gq�i ' I cT;?os � GARDEN f FREEWAY GARDEN ' GROVE JG L, GROVE 1 BIVD 6 u.s. NAVAL"- I WEAPONS __) • \80LSA .... i .... ..STATION WESTMINSTERSEAL BEACH Qa I SAN AVE. ANA —T Y • I BAY i V f U VS::•T ..m afflt�: I WARNER •� 00U CHICA; I °jFp L,Q' Qaf z ';), :I' ESP•. � ' �:.•, p pp• 'HUNTINGTON i \ '•r i i BEACH "S I =at MESA •ik LT— p ' .JS JI __ .z "•. $ Qtm Oat HUNTINGTO Oaf '•?Oy f1 '' NEWPORT � BEAC \` uL -N- SUBJECT " >_ aim % _:'e{::.. >.I.: "• MESA SI-I 1=)? aim I �. n �. JJ-aim aim 111 = 2 miles PEACH �A- L7s. Modified from California Department of Water Resources Report, 1967 Note: Refer to Pl. 2 of original report for map explanation. - 2 - Leighton & Associates 77310-1 Proposed Development Preliminary site studies by David E. Miller, A.I.A. , dated 9/14/77, indicate development of 16 residential units (8 duplex structures) , or alternatively, 29 motel units (4 structures) on the subject property. Access would be from Newport Boulevard and a private drive from Santa Ana Avenue. Refer to Figure 2, which is a composite plot plan of the residential study and the topographic map (showing cross sections of the proposed grading) . Minimal grading, involving placement of up to approximately three feet of fill over most of the site, is proposed. A cut within the street easement of La Jolla Drive will be necessary for the access drive from Santa Ana Avenue. The cut slope indicated above a proposed three to four-foot high retaining wall at the toe of slope would have a maximum height of approximately 15 feet. Site Location and Regional Geologic Setting The subject property includes Lots 20 through 28, inclusive, Block 19, Tract 444, and is located along the east side of Newport Boulevard, between Santa Ana Avenue and Catalina Drive. Refer to Figure 1 for the general site location. The property is approximately 300 feet north of Pacific Coast Highway and overlooks the New- port Bay marina area. Geologically, the site is at the southerly edge of Newport Mesa which is under- lain by an essentially horizontal capping of Quaternary-age terrace deposits. Older formations are present beneath the terrace deposits, and are exposed locally at the base of the bluffs to the east and west of the site. They included sedi- ments of the Niguel, Capistrano and Monterey Formations, which range from Pliocene to Miocene age. Alluvial, older stream deposits underlie the westerly and southerly edge of the site. - 3 - Leighton & Associates r •� �::.• / Da teX• .flu tEX• i ,_�\�' .`�; _::;; - �.•-;•- - • y,��Q � \ Pr 00vc o Iv.') too ✓ i O go y '- � . �� / :: i'' o¢i�ra< �•: -�' iP1:EX•' —l- o¢N< <`( is DgQ4E _': i _�• __ :• � . Cn lot • • O M L V .r IF IN, or CD :S: IS'1 R4 - 4.6nW N s'¢fTTM.ulna anN. enrnus Favor �! "mil%.anu/ 6a.•a •-��.• •wC Picoov �neppi ; at "e rpOY� /3'sywx�u�a.w _ I__,�Y ik�•"' r d rsralu..s r<a i� .M VC'. � � �8� e: �._� rt✓• GVR"O -i 10`} I {I•t N000 f9 ' ' ...i _..:lM'•�nM i __..�_ .�.< lx�- —_ :a IN ram..: y M• • da• ' YD f �..a-cif— - _.._r• Yi, -i do. 5, .. .. i a.• ao• 1 :Y's •a' 919 r r 77310-1 Although one of the main fault traces of the active Newport-Inglewood fault zone is approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the property, the site generally considered to be within the fault zone, which may be as wide as three miles in the Newport-Costa Mesa area. No major fault traces have been mapped closer to the site than 2,000 feet, however. Other active or potentially active faults in the region capable of causing significant seismic shaking at the site include the San Jacinto, San Andreas, Whittier-Elsinore and Sierra Madre faults. The Newport-Inglewood fault, how- ever, is considered the controlling fault since it is the closest to the sub- ject property. Site Geology The terrace deposits, which are exposed in the bluffs just above the east edge of the property, consist of horizontal beds of buff to tan and brown, silty fine sand and friable medium sand with scattered pebbles. Minor amounts of clayey silt and sand, particularly in the upper weathered zone, are present. Fossil remains of mollusks (mainly sea shell fragments) are commonly found in the terrace deposits; however, none was observed on the site. Such fossils, if found, would most likely not be considered a significant paleontologic locality, or resource. Surficial deposits (slope wash, colluvium and alluvium) , consisting primarily of silty sand derived from erosion of nearby slopes underlain by the terrace deposits, cover most of the subject property. Some fill, probably composed of materials similar to the native soils, appears to be present along the west portion of the site. We understand that the property was formerly occupied by a series of small bungalows or cottages, prior to their demolition by the State Department of Transportation. Remnants of foundations, utility lines or other substructures, consequently, may be present. Minor amounts of trash and loose fill were noted in our site reconnaissance. - S - Leighton & Associates 77310-1 No indications of seepage or shallow groundwater were found on the site. The water table is most likely at or slightly above sea level (approximately 15 to 20 feet below the surface of the site) . Seismicity, Slope and Site Stability, Other Geotechnical Hazards Seismic hazards related to ground rupture resulting from fault displacement are not expected to occur within or near the property, inasmuch as no faults are known to cross the site. Strong seismic shaking (with ground accelerations possibly exceeding .25g) , however, could occur and should be appropriately evaluated in the design of structures. Further seismic analysis will be nec- essary in the next investigation stage. The geologic conditions underlying the bluff area are basically favorable for stability from the standpoint of bedding orientation and formation composition. The generally proposed grading will create cuts for the southerly access road and will steepen the slopes along the base of the bluff. These cuts will be partially supported by retaining walls (refer to cross sections on Plot Plan, Figure 2) . Building site stability will be governed by the ability of the underlying soils (fill and natural surficial deposits) to support structures. This will depend upon their density or degree of relative compaction and lateral stability. Soil tests will be necessary to evaluate the existing conditions and proposed development. Liquefaction, a seismically related ground instability hazard, although probably a minimal risk, should also be analyzed in future studies. The relative degree of hazard or development constraint imposed by the afore- mentioned geologic problems, as well as less significant potential problems not specifically discussed, are indicated on Table 1. These ratings are based on an arbitrary scale, using the southern California region as a norm. - 6 - Leighton & Associates 77310-1 TABLE 1. CHECKLIST OF GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES (MODIFIED FROM CDMG NOTE 46) G E O L O G I C P R O B L E M S DEGREE OF HAZARD POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES OR PROBLEM ,y gg u BLa PROBLEM ACTIVITY CAUSING w Gl w "t 42- PROBLEM FAULT MOVEMENT X X X LIQUEFACTION X . X X LANDSLIDES X' DIFFERENTIAL COMPACTION/ EARTHQUAKE X X X SEISMIC SETTLEMENT DAMAGE GROUND RUPTURE (Lurching) X GROUND SHAKING X' X TSUNAMI X X SEICHES FLOODING (DAM OR LEVEE FAILURE) X X LOSS OF ACCESS X N.A. LOSS OF DEPOSITS COVERED BY CHANGED •MINERAL LAND USE _ X N.A.• RESOURCES zosmc REsrRlcrlous X N.A. HASTE CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER LEVEL X X DISPOSAL DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL PERCOLATION OF WASTE MATERIAL PROBLEMS X N.A. SLOPE AND/OR LANDSLIDES AND MIAWLOWs ' FOUNDATION UNSTABLE CUT AND FILL SLOPES X X COLLAPSIBLE AND EXPANSIVE SOIL X X INSTABILITY TRENCH-WALL STABILITY X X X EROSION, EROSION OF GRADED AREAS X X SEDIMENTA- ALTERATION OF RUNOFF TION, UNPROTECTED DRAINAGE WAYS FLOODING INCREASED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES X X EXTRACTION OF GROUNDWATlR, GAS, LAND X N.A. OIL, GEOTHERMAL CNFRCY SUBSIDENCE IrcOROrOMPACTION, PRAT OXIDATION X X X VOLCANIC LAVA I•ION X N.A. HAZARDS ASH FAIL X N.A. "SPECIAL VIORK" CAN INCLUDE AIWITIONAL INVESTIGATION, SPECIAL SITE PREPARATION, OR Si'L'CIAL FOUNDATIONS. - 7 - LEIGHTON' $ ASSOCIATES 4 77310-1 summary of Environmental Impact Assessment, Conclusions 1. Our geotechnical analysis of the site, and our assessment of the potential environmental impacts posed by the proposed' development (either for duplex residential or motel units) , have revealed no significantly serious geologic seismic, or soil constraints, hazards, or problems which would preclude development or cause unavoidable adverse impacts. All potential geotechnical hazards are considered to be mitigable. 2. Geologic conditions are favorable for stability of the existing slopes (above the east side of the site) and proposed cuts. The soil, fill and alluvial deposits underlying the proposed building sites are expected to provide adequate support for proposed fills and structures; however, near- surface materials may require removal and recompaction, depending upon the findings of field investigations and soil testing. 3. While ground rupture hazards from fault movement are considered to be negligible, seismic shaking intensities at the site may be significantly greater than other southern California sites, owing to its proximity to the Newport-Inglewood fault. Building design in conformance with the latest applicable Building Code, however, is expected to satisfactorily mitigate such seismic shaking, particularly for one-to two-story wood- frame structures. 4. The foregoing findings and conclusions are based on a preliminary analysis and evaluation of available data. As such, they are subject to confir- mation or modification as detailed geotechnical investigations of the property are made. Respectfully submitted, .. Richard Lung Engineering Geologist EG 111 /ab/js Distribution: (2) Addressee - B - Leighton & Associates 77310-1 APPENDIX A 'REFERENCES Leighton & Associates 77310-1 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Algermissen, Sylvester T. , and others, 1973, A study of earthquake losses in the Los Angeles area: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- tion, U. S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Research Laboratories, Report Stock No. 0319-00026, 331 pages. California Dept. of Water Resources, Southern District, 1967, Progress report on ground water geology of the coastal plain of Orange County. Hileman, James A. , Allen, Clarence R. , and Nordquist, John M. , 1973, Seismicity of the southern California region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, Contribution 2385. Lamar, Donald, L. , Merifield, Paul M., and Proctor, Richard J., 1973, Earthquake recurrence intervals on major faults in southern Cali- fornia, in Moran, Douglas E., Slosson, James E., Stone, Richard 0., and Yelverton, Charles A., editors, Geology, Seismicity, and Environmental Impact: Assoc. Engr. Geol., spec. publ. Morton, Paul K., Miller, Russell V., and Fife, Donald L., 1973 Preliminary geo-environmental maps of Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report IS. Orange County Flood Control District, 1973-1974 Season, Hydrologic data report: Orange County, California. Orange County Planning Department, in press, Seismic safety element for the county general plan, Chapters 13-14, (preliminary copy) . Schoellhammer, J.E., and others, 1954, Geol. Map of the northern Santa Ana Mts., Orange and Riverside Counties (scale 1:24000) : U.S. Geol. Survey OM154. Wachtell, John D. , 1976, Soil survey of Orange and western part of River- side Counties, California: An interim report by the U.S. Dppt. of Agriculture Soil Cons. Serv. and Forest Service, 168 p. Woodward-McNeill & Associates, 1972, Geologic/Seismic Study for the City of Newport Beach General Plan. A-i Leighton & Associates NOISE EXPOSURE ANALYSIS for GILBERT PROPERTY NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA September 1977 Prepared by John E. Parnell P. 0. Box 45811 Los Angeles, CA 90045 (213) 641-7230 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an initial noise analysis conducted for the Bilgert property fronting on Old Newport Boulevard and bounded by Santa Ana Avenue, Catalina Road and existing residential development. The property is influenced primarily by noise exposures from motor vehicle traffic on Old Newport Boulevard (ONB), New Newport Boulevard (NNB) and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Some motor vehicle noise is produced by traffic on Santa Ana and Catalina. This latter condition is characterized by infrequent passes of automobiles at speeds of 10-15 mph, accelerating uphill and declerating downhill . A gas utility sub- station is located on the parcel and produces some relatively low level , high frequency noise exposure. The noise analysis was carried out by conducting on site sound level measurements and through use of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) traffic noise prediction model . The noise levels pre- dicted by the NCHRP model are based on free flowing traffic conditions so that the interpretations have been modified to accommodate differences extant at the subject property. Traffic on each of the three major roadways is intermittent due to traffic signals and intersections adjacent to the property. Sound Level Measurements Sound levels on the property were measured using a Bruel and Kjaer (B&K) Precision Sound Level Meter (Type 2209). A B&K one-inch condenser micro- phone (Type 4145) with windscreen was used and calibrations were performed with a BE Type 4220 Pistonphone. The measurement samples obtained were A-weighted sound pressure levels using the slow meter response mode. A five minute sample of noise exposures was obtained at each of 7 measurement locations on the property. The levels recorded included 1 minimum values at each location, the range of levels for free flowing traffic conditions with no clearly identifiable single noise source and the peak levels attributable to specific sources. The locations of the measurement stations are shown in the sketch in Exhibit I with a tabula- tion of the measured sound levels. The normal range of sound levels from the composite traffic flow was 61-67 dBA across the west segment of the property with the highest range (66-67 dBA) measured at Station 5, adjacent to Catalina Road. The levels under the escarpment along the east section of the property were somewhat lower, 58-64 dBA at Stations 1 and 6, but increasing to 63-67 dBA at Station 7. The peak levels were between 66 and 78 dBA across the west section, 64-67 dBA at Stations 1 and 6 and 75-77 dBA at Station 7. Station 7 was more clearly exposed to a line of sight to the entire roadway complex than were Stations 1 and 6 at similar elevations. The measurements should be evaluated carefully in that they were sequential rather than simul- taneous and the traffic flow conditions were not continuous or precisely equal over all measurements. Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Traffic volume data for all roadways affecting the project were provided by Pringle Associates, a traffic engineering firm. Peak hour traffic volumes were specified as 800 vehicles per hour (vph) on ONB, 4800 vph on NNB and 5000 vph on PCH. These data incorporated the presumption that the peak hour values were 10% of the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and that peak hours in both directions on PCH and NNB occurred simultaneously. A five minute traffic count on ONB between 1313 and 1318 hours showed 56 vehicles (2 way). This wuld be equivalent to 672 vph, closely approxi- mating the Pringle Associates data for that hour. 2 Assuming a vehicle speed of 35 mph for all roadways and a truck mix of 2%, the NCHRP model predicts an L50 of 67.5 dBA and an L10 of 72 dBA at the southwest corner of the property. As noted previously, these values may be slightly high due to the intermittent nature of the traffic flow. These data are consistent with the approximations provided by the on site measurements. Presuming that the traffic noise exposures on the property follow the same diurnal pattern as those shown for other locations near Newport Boulevard in the Noise Element of the City General Plan, a CNEL value of approximately 70-71 dBA might be projected for the west segment of the property. Noise Exposures Generated by the Project The noise resulting from implementation of the proposed project would be produced by motor vehicle traffic added to existing traffic volumes and by construction activities at the site. The traffic volume incre- ments are insignificant in terms of contributions to the existing traffic noise. Construction activities would produce intrusive noise exposures at adjacent residential parcels for the duration of the project. Con- struction noise is addressed in the City Noise Ordinance in terms of limits on daily work hours. A copy of the noise ordinance is attached to this report. Standards and Regulations Various criteria should be considered in evaluating this property. If FHA financing is involved, the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Criteria for Clearly Acceptable or Normally Acceptable residential noise exposures will be applied by the HUD regional office. The most clearly applicable standards are included in Title 25 of the California Administrative Code, Chapter 1 , Subchapter 1 , Article 4 entitled "Noise Insulation Standards. " 3 Section 1092(b) stipulates that the standards apply to new hotels , motels, apartment houses and dwellings other than detached single family dwellings. The criterion in Section 1092(e) (4) sets a limit of CNEL 60 dBA from vehicular noise. Above this level , the interior CNEL must be reduced to 45 dBA in any habitable room. Noise Mitigation Methods Some minor reductions in traffic noise from PCH and ONB could be effected through the use of noise control barriers. The only practical approach to achieve compliance with the Noise Insultation Standards is to include noise control procedures in the design of the building envelope. Even within the general procedure of. building noise control , there are gradations of treatment depending on proximity to the noise source. The general planning procedures are outlined in this section. Each of the structural elements identified may be designed for varying amounts of noise reduction (at varying costs) depending on the requirements of a specific location. Exterior Walls Surface Weight Interior Surface Depth Sheathing Finishing Insulation Windows Thickness/Multiple Sealants Weather Stripping Total Doors Strcuture/Thickness Glazing Sliding Door Specifications Perimeter Treatment Roofs Structure/Material Skylight Specifications Surface Weight i 4 Ceilings Joists/Ceiling Material Insulation Floors Material Openings Ventilation Mechanical Systems Gravity Vent Openings Fan Specifications Duct Lining Baffle Plates Fireplaces Specification for each of these structural elements may be progressively increased depending on the noise reduction (NR) required for a specific location. The range of combination for selected NR values should be incorporated into the City/County building code and be subject to veri- fication when specified. This could be accomplished by setting forth a set of specifications, for example, for NR values of 25, 30 and 35 dBA. The typical residential structure (without special noise control design) will provide approximately 12-15 dBA of sound attenuation, which is't}6' sufficient to bring the project into compliance with the referenced noise standard. 5 rra��•s y, Nt�w N4ov rd d3h ok/Naw r��1vr� A sea/e Minimum Typical Range Range of Peak Measurement Noise Level for Traffic Noise Noise Levels Station (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 54 58-62 64-65 2 57 61-64 70-75 3 ---- Gas substation: 66-67 @ 5 ft from doors ---- 4 57 61-64 66-70 5 58 66-67 68-78 6 51 58-64 66-67 7 61 63-67 75-77 i f AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT , is made and entered into on this 12th day of September, 1977, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY , " and LARRY SEEMAN , INC . , ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CONSULTANTS, hereinafter referred to as " CONSULTANT . " W I T N 'E S S E T H WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that an Initial Study is necessary in conjunction with an application of Dean Gilbert for a Site Plan Review of a site on Old Newport Boulevard, in the City of Newport Beach , County of Orange , State of California ; and WHEREAS , CONSULTANT h.as submitted to CITY a proposal to prepare said Initial Study; and WHEREAS, CITY desires to accept said proposal . NOW , THEREFORE , in consideration of the foregoing , the parties hereto agree as follows : 1 . GENERAL CONSULTANT agrees to prepare the subject Initial Study in accordance with the requirements set forth in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement. CITY agrees to remit to CONSULTANT the amounts set forth in paragraph 3 of this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. 2 . SCOPE OF WORK The subject Initial Study will be prepared in accordance with the CONSULTANT ' S proposal dated September 9 , 1977 , which is attached to this Agreement marked as Exhibit "A" and by reference incorporated herein at this point as if fully set forth . 3. BILLING AND PAYMENT CONSULTANT shall be paid under this Agreement on a time and material basis and in no event shall the maximum amount of this Agreement exceed Four Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Dollars ( $4 ,450 . 00) . Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANT upon CONSULTANT' S presentation of statements verifying the time and material costs incurred by it in connection with this Agreement. 4. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall use diligent efforts to complete this contract within twenty-one (21 ) days after execution of this Agreement . The subject Initial, Study must meet the approval of the Environmental Affairs Committee of the City. In the event additional work is required due to input during the public hearings , said additional work shall be subject to a separate contract. 5 . TERMINATION This Agreement is subject to termination by the CITY at any time upon serving written notice to CONSULTANT . The CITY shall be thereafter liable to CONSULTANT only for fees and costs incurred as of the date CONSULTANT receives such notice of termination . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the .parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written . APPR V D AST F RM CITY OF NEWPOR,T�BEACH By ssi t Ci Attorney (A'ir ctor Co mmurrlty D opment Department CITY LARRY SEEMAN , INC . , ENVIRONMENT L SCI.ENCE CONSULTANTS By CONSULTANT 2 - i Planning Commission Meeting Nov. 3 , 1977 Item No. 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 26 , 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Site Plan Review No . 7 : Residential Development on Old Newport Boulevard between Catalina and Santa Ana . The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed residential development at their meeting on October 20 , 1977. The matter was continued to allow time for the applicant to refine the plans as presented, and to consider further alternative development plans for residential use. Since October 20th , the• applicant has worked with his consultants , and has developed two additional options for consideration by the Planning Commission . The intent of the options is to reduce the number of units , reduce traffic generated by the project and maximize the efficiency of the units by eliminating as many modifications as possible . The original site plan as proposed included seven ( 7) duplex units and one ( 1 ) single family unit for a total of 15 units on eight ( 8) individual lots . The two options are described below . 1 . The applicant has indicated a willingness to change the two (2 ) duplexes at ,the northern end of the site to two (2) single family units . This reduces the unit count to a total of five ( 5 ) duplexes and three ( 3) single family units or a total of 13 units . However, the lot coverage does not substantially change with this option . 2 . The applicant has also considered combining the two north- ernmost lots into a single building site and constructing a single duplex on the new lot. This would also reduce the unit count by two ( 2) units for a total of six ( 6) duplexes and ( 1 ) single family unit in the project. This alternative eliminates one structure from the original plan , and reduces the number of units with driveway access directly onto Old Newport Boulevard by two . At this writing , the drawings for the two residential options have not been finalized, but they will be available for review and discus- sion at the Planning Commission meeting on November 3 . Also , since each of the options represents a reduction in potential impacts analyzed in the Initial Study , no new environmental findings have been made , and the filing of a Negative Declaration is recommended . Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN, DIRECTOR BY 4 z Bever) D . Wood , --S;Z Envir nmental Coordinator BDW/sh Attachment : Staff Report dated October 14, T977 Item No . 2 IL • . y • 2. Planning Commission Meeting October 20 , 1977 Item No . 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 14, 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Site Plan Review No . 7 (Public Hearing) Request for site plan review of single family resi- dential and duplex development in a Specific Plan Area where a specific plan has not been adopted, and the acceptance of an environmental document. A modification to the Zoning Code is also requested since the proposed development has the following nonconforming features : 1 . ) Garages attached to two of the proposed duplexes encroach to within 4 feet of La Jolla Drive (where the Districting 'Map indicates a required 8 foot front yard) ; 2 . ) Two duplexes and related garages are proposed to be con- structed to the common side property line between two lots (Where the Ordinance requires 3 foot side yards on both lots) , and 3. ) Garages attached to two other duplexes encroach to side property lines (where the Code requires 3 foot side yards ) . LOCATION: Lots 20 through 28, Tract No . 444, located at 202-234 North Newport Boulevard, on the easterly side of North Newport Boulevard, northerly of Santa Ana Avenue, adjacent to Newport Heights . ZONE : R-2 APPLICANT: Dean E . and VaLois J . Gilbert OWNER: Same as Applicant Application This application is a request for site plan review and approval of certain s ecified modifications to allow construction of 7 duplexes (14 units and one single family residence in the Old Newport Boulevard Area . Section 20 .01 .070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires site plan review for new buildings in Specific Plan Areas where no specific plan has been adopted. The proposal includes a request for the following modifications : ( 1 ) To allow garages attached to two of the proposed duplexes to encroach within 4 feet of La Jolla Drive (where the Districting Map indicates a required 8 foot front yard) . (2) Two duplexes and related garages are proposed to be construct- ed to the common side property line between two lots (where the Ordinance requires 3 foot side yards on both lots . ( 3) Garages attached to two other duplexes encroach to the side property lines (where the Code requires 3 foot side yards ) . Environmental Significance_ An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project and reviewed by the staff. It was determined that this project will not have a significant environmental effect and a negative declaration has been prepared . Item 'No . 1 TO: Planning Commission - 2 . Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates this area for "Two-Family 'Residential " uses . The proposed duplex development is consistent with this land use designation . The area is also designated for a Specific Area Plan. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The subject property is vacant, although it was previously the site of a motel . The site is bounded on the north and east by residential uses , on the south by a gas company substation, and on the west by North Newport Boulevard . Project Description_ The proposed project is located on a 30 , 176 square foot site at the northeast corner of the intersection of North Newport Boulevard and Santa Ana Street in Newport Beach . All of the buildings are proposed as two-story structures . Access to garage areas would be from North Newport Boulevard for eight duplex units , from Catalina Road for two duplex units and from Santa Ana Avenue for four duplex units and the remaining single family residence . The duplexes are projected to be 2 bedroom plus studio units . The prinicpal features of the project are as follows : Proposed Allowed/Required Number of Units : 15 16 Setbacks : Front North Newport Blvd . 6 ' 5 ' La Jolla Drive 4 ' ( two duplexes ) 8 ' Side 0 ' to 4 ' 3 ' to 4 ' Rear 4 ' to 35 ' 8' to 10 ' Height: 24 ' 241 /28' Parking : 22 16 Background The Residential Growth Element of the General Plan , adopted in 1973, refers to the subject project under "Residential Zoning Policy for Statistical Division H" : The old Newport Boulevard area between Santa Ana and Catalina Drive should be considered for rezoning to a two-family district with appropriate development standards . A City initiated zone change brought the property ' s zoning into conformance with the General Plan in October, 1973 . Also in October, 1973, the Planning Commission requested that this area be designated a Specific Area Plan area and included in the Land Use Element as such . The General Plan amendment to designate this area for a Specific Area Plan was adopted by the City Council in May , 1975 . Analysis Proposed Land Use The basic land use is i,n general conformance with the zoning and Land Use Element designations .; Alternative Land Uses At the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant has investi - gated in some detail the alternative of a motel use on this site . The site plan for the motel -type development is attached, and a detailed Item No . 1 h ,y TO: Planning Commission - 3 . comparative analysis of the impacts anticipated from the residential development and the alternative motel -type development can be found on page 24 of the Initial Study. It is the staff' s opinion that the impacts on traffic , run-off and compatibility with adjoining land uses would be considerably greater with a commercial development. Further, a commercial development would not be consistent with the General Plan and would require a General Plan amendment. Project Design The intent of the Site Plan Review procedure is to encourage unique designs and development consistent with the anticipated Specific Area Plan for the area . The design problems in this particular case are related to providing safe and efficient access , reducing interior noise levels , and assuring compatibility with the surrounding uses . Section 20 .01 . 0,70 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which requires Site Plan Review, also requires that the following standards be applied when applicable : ( 1 ) To ensure that sites subject to Site Plan Review under the provisions of this chapter are graded and developed with due regard for .the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and landscape, and that trees and shrubs are not indiscriminately destroyed ; ( 2) To ensure that buildings , structures and signs are properly related to their sites and are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood amd surrounding sites and are not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of their surroundings and of the City; ( 3) To ensure that open spaces , parking areas , pedestrian walks , illumination and landscaping ( including sufficient irrigation facilities) are adequately related to the site and are arranged to achieve a safe , efficient and harmon- ious development, to accomplish the objectives at set forth in this Chapter; (4) To ensure that sites are developed to achieve a harmon- ious relationship with• exis•ting and proposed adjoining developments ; (5) To ensure , when feasible, effective concealment of electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas ; (6) The Site Plan Review process shall endeavor to ensure that proposed improvements will not impair the desir- ability of investment or occupancy nearby ; and origin- ality in site planning and landscaping shall not be suppressed; ( 7) To ensure that the site plan and layout of the buildings , parking areas , pedestrian and vehicular access ways , and other site features gives proper consideration to the functional aspects of the site development; (8) To ensure that the proposed development is in keeping with the desired character of the Specific Area Plan area as identified by the General Plan; (9) To ensure that the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan policies ; and (10) To ensure that the proposed development will not preclude the attainment of the Specific Area Plan objectives stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan . Item No . 1 . • �. TO : Planning Commission - 4 . Specific Findings and Recommendations The staff suggests that, if desired, the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review No . 7 and the negative declaration, and suggests that the following findings be made in conjunction with the applicant 's request: 1 . The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and will not preclude the attainment of the General Plan objectives and policies . 2 . That the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3 . The proposed development will not adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area . 4. The proposed development does not adversely affect the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvements and beautification of street and public facilities within the area . 5 . That the proposed site will be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain . 6 . That the proposed development will be compatible with surrounding development and with the character of the neighborhood, and is not detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of its surroundings and of the City. 7 . That the site plan and layout of the buildings , parking areas , pedestrian and vehicular access ways gives proper consideration to the functional aspects of the site development. Approval of Site Plan Review No . 7 is recommended subject to the following conditions : 1 . That a resubdivision be filed to create two parcels from Lots 25 , 26 and 271an^.( &K4rl, * P'n" CpC Ut2/1 2 . That the full width of the alley off Catalina Drive along the North side of Lot 20 be improved from Catalina Drive to 20 feet beyond the drive approach for the proposed duplex. 3 . That all access rights to North Newport Boulevard except for the private drive6 on Lot#. 7t and 23 be released and relinquished to the City. 4 . That sight distance for 45 MPH on North Newport Boulevard be provided for the private drive* on Lots 94 and 23 . Land- scaping, walls and any other physical obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements . Any land- scaping within the sight distance cones shall be less than 24 inches in height. 5 . That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 6 . That the developer be responsible for completing the remain- ing public improvements along North Newport Boulevard ( includ- ing curb and gutter, street pavement, street lights , and sidewalk) . 7 . That the existing curb inlet on the east side of North Newport Boulevard be reconstructed. 8. That any unused existing driveway approaches on North Newport Boulevard and Catalina Drive be closed up . Item No . 1 TO: Planning Commission - 5 . 9 . That a 5-foot wide easement for 'sidewalk and public utility purposes along the east side of North Newport Boulevard be dedicated to the City of Newport Beach and that additional "pocket" easements for street lights , fire hydrants , etc . be provided behind the sidewalk . 10 . That storm drain facilities be constructed and dedicated to the City, along with any necessary storm drain easements , to conduct the existing storm water from the easterly corner of Lots 22 and 23 to North Newport Boulevard . 11 . That La Jolla Drive be improved to a width of 20 feet as shown on the site plan , with curb and gutter along each side . Sidewalk will not be required . 12. That a 6-inch water main be constructed in New-port Boulevard from the existing main in Catalina Drive to the existing main in the alley northerly of Santa Ana Avenue . (Note : The size of this main may be enlarged by the City . If this occurs , the City will pay the developer for the additi'onal material cost for pipe, valves , and fittings) . 13 . That individual water and sewer services be provided to each dwelling unit, and that pressure regulators be installed on the water services . 14 . That all work within the street right-of-way for North Newport Boulevard be done under an encroachment permit obtained from the California Department of Transportation . 15 . That the street and alley improvements ; and the storm drain, sewer, and water facilities be shown on the City ' s Standard Plan Sheets , and prepared .by a licensed Civil Engineer. 16 . That the Standard Subdivision Plan checking and inspection fee be paid by the Developer . 17. That the research and the engineering needed to resolve the sewer, water supply, grading., drainage and street improvement problems associated with this development be the responsibilities of the Developer. 18. That a Standard Subdivision Agreement with accompanying security be provided if it is desired to obtain any building permits before the required public improvements are completed . 19 . Construction shall Conform to the Uniform Building Code - 1973 Edition . 20. A detailed soils and geologic analysis be prepared by a registered soils engineer and submitted to the City at the time of building permit request . All grading on the site will be done in accordance with plans approved by the City ' s Grading Engineer. 21 . Standard dust suppression practices normally required by the City of Newport Beach will be complied with during the construction of the project. 22. The developer shall submit the final grading and drainage plans for the review and approval of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 23 . Drought-resistant plant materials which will blend in with the local setting, will be utilized for landscape planting . The applicant shall submit a plan for the landscaping and fence treatment for the frontage along North Newport Boule- vard . This plan is subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development and the Director of Parks , Beaches and Recreation , and installation of improvement will be in substantial conformance with the approved plan. Item No . 1 I TO: Planning Commission - 6 . 24 . If any archaeological , paleontological or historic resources are uncovered during grading, work shall be halted and the appropriate authorities consulted in compliance with the City of Newport Beach Archaeological Guidelines . 25 . That the structural designs for the proposed units be reviewed by a qualified acoustical engineer and design modification incorporated as required to bring interior noise levels to acceptable levels . Compliance with state noise insulation standards must be demonstrated at the time of the building permit application . 26 . That the development comply with existing state laws which establish energy conservation standards for residential structur S . 2"b F xvlu. ti.rc�r�w�s,rrcn*�'.s, w t5 LZ,2S, 2sf DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . HOGAN , DIRECTOR By �---�— Beverl ood , Enviro mental Coordinator BW/sh Attachments : Vicinity Map Development Plan - Residential Development Plan - Motel use Initial Study and Negative Declaration Item No . 1 ' � x� own m uw r/Ae ^•/...v..:..- I.°..:".wOw me r/:� >./•rw..,::..:.i u.,•..av� 1 �� ,\\ tl I{O 1. .0.Cf. Nw�efy//;• �ry.�•�/!FI•Y KJ LA , S / �F!• \\ Ao.vx.I(4�;lA:o-it P.J.Y anv pe :i.R-i I K9 v fa.' .. a x 4i R ♦.� II t i \ / �` a.e.xApN �tmrx tan mfTt-0x a.i,.+.u,mc,rm iiw i 1 4 O 4 •aatOO. Jrw.aem n,».}ma.e,a..o.r•IP'6 �� R, h�L� ' \� ca vwniu a Ji wo It lLait fA.IL .r�io..a. ii- y 4'• 1.° 1Vr){1NIt.lII aaOlc.Mx x 1 • � DP+o Ci 9,, ,M1 la^awa.ua�ur+ar.A a'aom J A/ •� »e �"•`'{_• // a....e •. PNN rvaPUW/i.•ur/nY•l rr+..... !sd f LAP 9% i a as 4ab C• G, D °q/ , D � 6 c' � � �DANr✓ R.t ;D eb �o4's� ydq% /v. t �. I g/ 4-1\9 0 >•� o� 9. 4�ry ° 0 j o'R'2 DQ•y6 ` 0h 9a�oyP 9.,�,o p Ph PJ� q% �,°h '. 1 M fl 3 A R-1_. O• DRJVE " Q '�O f1.1 .D R•1 N b '� V AT R% $ �% �` /l'. .°Ifa iTR-1 �• 6' es� 9 R/7RK s Jh 2 \hD / R Pam,° ?✓ �� c^R-1 R-1 •j6� g OR/vE' •• 9/ QF.o- � �Q^D ,'�% ;�• . .s' RI yAA7K •_ ¢\O r1 T s � �. �� i j ANP A R-1 4n 0 as h4 c4 1 ''o. R-1 2O SI'�.>• .sa; 4 d- `(�' A N Z o � 566 1 a SZE MAP N0.4 DISTRICTING MAP NEWPO"RT BEACH - CALIFORNIA R=A AGAIGULTUpAL RESOENTYL R—p MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ' p-1 SNGLE FANR.Y pE510ENT1At I LIGHT CONYERCIAL !S ' I • R-2 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL 1 a FEET H-3 f✓ES{0.NULTIPLE RMLY RESDE.NTW. V-1 MANUFACTURING. ORD.w 63i 1■ 4 CDNDINING V% Pa TS UNCLASSIFIED OK%t$'O YAP NO. O Q�try (k SCALE ioo +�e wa Jaa root Ynrd D¢ lh In Feel- Sh¢wn n.cs vw- - ERA/ G/LBE�T � ?RCVIQVS �r - 00, 6)AA 6d's A 6 - '`• � � p U 1,-Eh {_. -- ---- — p IZ 1 'J IAA GARAGES ( / GARAGES d ' G t'-X.4.4( NAV 90?04P ik 2, t CA RECEIVE --OCT2 8 197,7ra \� ' / 3 JI5TIINC �. / , Du � FX I DU SEX i s u G >z c S G �V I � V 1 I 1 ��j J\ 'LLFw• i v Ewa er --Y- ~ GAP.ACU 5 r ' r N EWFOR1 0 vD pC-Aw NEw P Rr0posA4 is ES . 1D97NTi�4L ��, � • � . � 9 M�ym ,fit S OCT2 8 it `A � NEWpoki ti�� '•. �� l �� ` '__ ` V , �w 1 • � Y ram{ • �_ • 17 '� Nb2i N iVE�i�Ra� a.vD, Ii • , ; � , , ,f,�-,uo ro ,cry i _��_;�tt. ?�P!�P�J_/�y-�Lru/.� DLL .C�.�.�,��rrt.�2 ' � : � �D os►Ts 13G.�q -- --- ; ; , , �__ , -- 1_.._.__..__._.__._ _ r�� r r f r,r . _ r �.r.r--.t._.._ - CITY OF NEWPORT BEA& RECEIPT ` p4m� NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 926-•6'f3 No. 74444 DATE 1 +' RECEIVED FROM `"�✓�"�`•�1•— ,i 1 FOR: ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT 1 C),a- 'yOS�"'OC� .�Cc��.J�J DEPARTMENT [y�) ' BY�� y IIl�- � 8 -77 �w.w � y t - /�� tiq 4 \ i - - ----- ---- ----------- - t�,-- 7z,s--v �2 5v ❑ 500 newport center drive, suite 625 newport beach, california 92660 phone(714) 644-5900 ❑ post office box 6339 san rafael, california 94903 LARRY SEEMAN INC. phone(415) 897-6363 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CONSULTANTS September 9, 1977 77-008 1 S MS Beverly Wood Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECT: INITIAL STUDY/NEWPORT BOULEVARD-PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 15-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Dear Ms. Wood: Pursuant to our meeting of September 8, 1977, this letter will serve as our proposal for professional services in the preparation of an Initial Study for the proposed residential use at the northeast corner of the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. SCOPE OF SERVICES The concept of this report will be to address the issues normally covered in an environmental document in an organized framework that, depending on the findings of this study, permits the project sponsor's application to be processed accompanied either by an Initial Study/Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. In preparing the report, we propose to focus on those issues that have been identified as having the most important implications in development of the site. they include: 1 ) traffic (generation, distribution, access/ egress, and safety), 2) geology and soil stability of the bluff adjoining the site, 3) visual sensitivity as viewed from Newport Boulevard, 4) noise as it affects the design of the project, 5) alternate use of the site for a motel , and 6) effects of the alternate use of the site on views from adjacent properties and compatibility with adjacent residential land uses. Traffic implications of the project will be addressed by Weston Pringle and Associates, Inc. Geologic stability will be addressed by Leighton and Associates, Inc. Traffic noise implications on project design will be ad- dressed by John Parnell . Each of these consultants will be under subcontract to Larry Seeman, Inc. Ms. Beverly Wood Page 2 September 9, 1977 LARRY SEEMAR INC. SCHEDULE We are prepared to initiate work immediately and can complete the re- port by October 4th. COMPENSATION We propose to prepare the Initial Study report for a fee not to ex- ceed $4,450, including the services of the noted subcontractors. This is a not to exceed fee and includes delivery of twenty-five copies of the Initial Study report which will contain one or two colored xerox illustra- tions, acceptable in form and content to the City of Newport Beach. Not included in this not to exceed fee is attendance at public meetings sub- sequent to the delivery of the report, or preparation of supplements con- verting the report from an Initial Study to a Draft or Final EIR, if for some reason the report must be processed as an EIR. These services would be performed on an hourly basis at a rate of $30 per hour for Mr. Seeman as authorized and required. In the event additional subcontractor time is required, hourly charges for Leighton & Associates are $40 per hour, hourly charges for Weston Pringle & Associates are $40 per hour; and hourly charges for John Parnell are $30 per hour. CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES In order to perform the aforementioned services in the most expedi- tious manner, we would anticipate that the project sponsor would make available four blueprint copies each of the proposed and alternate land use scheme, one copy of each to be colored. In addition, a preliminary grading concept and topographic map of the site showing approximate cur- rent and proposed grades for the proposed land use (especially the rela- tionship of the proposed road improvement to the bluff) is necessary. AUTHORIZATION We are prepared to initiate work as soon as verbal authorization is re- ceived, followed by receipt of an appropriate contract. We look forward to working with you and the project sponsor in this interesting project. Sincerely yours, LARRY SEEMAN, INC. Larry Se an President LS:sw I� I� i � w - ��' I; � � - - ! - i I - �_- � - -