Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIS025_MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT Ig025 4 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 21, 1982 3 � r c � M m x y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Vice-Chairman King ruled that Items No. 11, 12 and 13 be heard after Item No. 3 on the Agenda. Staff advised the Commission of the following requested continuances, to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 18, 1982: Item No. 3 - Resubdivision No. 707; and, Item Nos. 17 and 18 - Use Permit No. 2649 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 11744. Motion X Motion was made to direct Item .Nos. 17 and 18 to CEQAC A11 Ayes X * X X X * X (Citizens Environmental. Quality Advisory Committee) , for their comments and recommendations, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed Item #3 65,000 sq. ft. medical office building. AND TRAFFIC STUD4— Request to construct a 65,000 sq. ft. ± medical office building that exceeds the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District, to permit roof parking, and to waive a portion of the required AND off-street parking spaces. Said application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of Item #4 the project's required off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2 of USE PERMIT Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 NO. 2021 Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. BOTH APPROVED ZONE: A-P CONDI- TIONALLY APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd.; Robert L. Wish, General Partner, Santa Ana OWNERS: Same as applicants Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. -2- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES z January 21, 1982 y 0 7c City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Kurlander stated that he has reviewed the previous Planning Commission minutes and staff reports relating to these items. The public hearing opened in connection with these items and Mr. Robert Wish, the applicant and owner, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Wish 'described to the Commission the proposed project changes. He stated that they have provided for more mature vegetation and designed a textured wall for the parking structure. He then presented photographs of the existing parking lot and building which depicted a lack of landscaping and an exposed garbage area. Mr. Wish further stated that the proposed project is in accordance with the Traffic Study. (Commissioner Balalis was present at 7:50 p.m.) Ms. Terry Watt, Planning Consultant, representing ROMOE (Residents Opposed to the Medical Office Expansion) , referred to her letter dated January 21, 1982 and stated that a number of significant effects were inadequately assessed in the initial Study including effects which will significantly change the character of the adjacent residential community, negative aesthetic effects, induce growth and concentration of people, increase in traffic, potential to degrade the environment, alterations to the present or planned land uses in the area,. create demands for housing, and a loss in visual open space. Ms. Watt urged that the Park Lido medical office expansion be included in a study of the West Newport area. Mr. Cecil Zaun, resident' of 409 Flagship Road, referred to his letter received January 19, 1982, and requested that an environmental impact report be prepared for the proposed project. He stated that concerns relating to impacts on the traffic and parking, intersection controls, noise and lighting effects, and impacts on the prevailing wind direction must be answered. Mr. Zaun stated that for over 30 years, he was the Director for Safety and Driver Education for the Los Angeles City School District. Mr. Ralph Gray, resident of 407 Evening Star Lane, and owner of five buildings which would overlook the proposed parking structure, distributed to the Commission a traffic and parking list which he had prepared. The list depicted the total number of cars -3- x COMMISSIONERS MINUTES . .. January 21, 1982 e x � r c w � m x y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX in and out per day of 2,910 cars in the area, and the deficient amount of on-street parking in the area. He expressed his concern that the proposed parking structure will generate light and noise impacts upon the adjacent apartment buildings. He further expressed his concerns relating to the increase in traffic and the nearby convalescent home, *and the problems that a woman may encounter in a parking structure during the evening hours. Ms. Suzanne McBrien, owner of property in the area, stated that the proposed project will be a detriment to the property values in the immediate area. She stated that the Traffic Study should address the traffic impacts on the private streets. She also expressed her concern that the proposed parking structure will take away the open space and will impact the quality of the air. Ms. McBrien asked if a geological survey has been considered for this project. Planning Director Hewicker stated that during the process of the building and grading permits, that geological reports will be required. Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, stated that private streets are not normally covered by a Traffic Study. Mr. Fred Firestone, tenant of the Park Lido Building, stated that the proposed parking requirements will not be sufficient. He stated that the parking lot is currently over capacity, because of the hospital overflow parking. He stated that the street parking in the area is already impacted. Ms. Rose Levinson stated that she represented the Park Lido Homeowner's Association at the AD-HOC Committee meeting. Ms. Levinson stated that the proposed project will destroy the character of the neighborhood and the current visual open space. She stated that 238 families in the immediate area will be affected by this proposed project. She added that no traffic studies will change the traffic problems in the area. Commissioner Beek stated that the applicant- can construct an alternate building and parking structure without the need for a discretionary use permit. He asked the speakers to comment on the conceptual alternative site plan, as well as the proposed plan, that the applicant has submitted. -4- .T r COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 21, 1982 w � m x w. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. .Cecil Zaun stated that the residents of the area are opposed to the proposed project. He added that the Planning Commission and the City Council has the authority to change any long range plan. Ms. Irene Louden, resident of 4227 Patrice Road, stated that she can understand that the applicant wants to improve his investment. However, she expressed concerns relating to the increase in traffic, air pollution and crime. She stated that the proposed project will create a detriment to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:30 p.m. so that the members of the audience could view the alternative conceptual site plan. The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Planning Director Hewicker presented background information relating to the requested traffic study and use permit. He stated that if the applicant were to construct a building within the height limit and the setbacks, discretionary approval for the use permit by the Planning Commission would not be required. He referred to the concern expressed by the residents of maintaining the open space of the existing parking lot, and stated that this is private property, and that the applicant can build upon it, with or without a discretionary use permit. In response to a question posed by Vice-Chairman King, Fred Talarico stated that an expanded Initial Study was prepared for the project and explained the procedures involved. Commissioner Allen stated that the applicant is requesting to exceed the basic height limit and asked if the Commission can consider questions pertaining to the open space relative to the proposed office building. Planning Director Hewicker concurred. -5- } COMMISSIONERS MINUTES • • January 21, 1982 c� A � r c m 0 m m y. > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Wish stated that the community is expanding and that change in inevitable. He stated that the staff report and the extended traffic study answers all of the concerns that have been expressed. He stated that the proposed parking structure will be for the private use of the project and will be regulated. Mr. Robert Kite, architect of the project, explained to the Commission the conceptual alternative site plan which could be constructed, in the event the proposed plan was not approved. He stated that the alternative plan would consist of a two story structure covering the majority of the site with a parking structure two levels underground. He stated that this would create the need to haul 43,000 cubic yards of dirt, which would have a negative impact upon the community. Vice-Chairman King referred to Condition of Approval No. 4 and asked Mr. Kite how the increased building height will result in more public visual open space than could be achieved by the basic height limit. Mr. Kite stated that the requested increased building height will allow for a higher building, but will also allow for more public visual open space, as opposed to the alternative plan which will spread out over the majority of the site. Commissioner Allen stated that the square footage and the total envelope size will remain about the same in each plan. Therefore, she stated that the parking requirements will remain the same, but that the parking structure will be underground in the alternate plan which will have less of a total visual impact. Mr. Kite stated that the visual impacts of the two plans will be about the same. Mr. Wish stated that the proposed and the alternate parking structure will be the same height above ground. He stated that if a two story office building is built, the parking structure would have to be built with one additional level below the ground. Mr. Talarico stated that the existing zoning regulations allow for 2 times the buildable area of the site. He stated that the proposed project is at .9 times the buildable area. -6- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 21, 1982 F F y. > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Dr. Edward Bechtel, tenant of the Park Lido Building, submitted to the Commission an excerpt from the Science News, which related to carbon monoxide poisoning from parking structures entering into high rise buildings. He also expressed a concern with photochemical smog created by high ultraviolet fluorescent bulbs and a low turnover of air. Dr. Bechtel stated that the parking in the surrounding community will be further impacted when the parking structure becomes monitored. Vice-Chairman King referred to a letter dated January 20, 1982, from WESTEC Services, which addresses the issues of localized air quality effects. Mr. Talarico stated that the consultant has determined that there will be no significant adverse environmental effects to the localized air quality relating to the proposed project. Vice-Chairman King added that the maximum hourly carbon monoxide concentrations at residences adjacent to the parking structure will be well below the federal standard. Ms. Elaine Cerf, resident of the area, stated that she will be losing a small view from her property, if the proposed parking structure is allowed to be built. r Mr. John. Applegate, resident of Costa Mesa and a member of the Board of Directors for Hoag Hospital, stated that to his knowledge, this subject application has never been brought before the Board of Directors. Planning Director Hewicker stated that Hoag Hospital was contacted about this project and that they had indicated that they intend to pursue a project of their own. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained the necessary City approvals which would be required for the removal of 43,000 cubic yards of dirt, such as grading permits and the approval of a haul route. Ms. McBrien stated that the residents in the Park Lido area are concerned with the final project, not with the construction periods. Commissioner Allen expressed her concern that if the Planning Commission were to grant the approval for the -7- : COMMISSIONERS MINUTES . January 21, 1982 3 x F y. F City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX requested use permit, a finding would have to be made that the project would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. She referred to Exhibit "B" of the staff report and stated that the findings for denial of the use permit outline her concerns. She stated, that the applicant still has development rights on the property. She stated that what the applicant has proposed will have a greater impact upon the community, than what could realistically be built without discretionary approval. Motion X Motion was made for approval of Exhibit "B'" subject to the findings and conditions of approval for the Traffic Study and findings of denial for Use Permit No. 2021. Vice-Chairman King stated that essentially, the alternate plan will have the same amount of square footage, only it will be spread over a larger area of -the site. He stated that the two plans will have the same amount of square footage and will generate the same amount of traffic. He further stated that the site plan of the four story building will allow for a larger landscaped area. Commissioner Allen stated that the parking structure is the most offensive part of the project. She stated that there would be less visual impact if the parking structure were to be constructed underground. Vice-Chairman King stated that the same visual amount of wall space of parking structure would still be exposed at the surface. Commissioner Balalis stated that the safety of an underground parking structure must be considered versus the proposed parking structure. He also stated that he would like to know how the applicant is proposing to vent the alternative underground parking structure. Commissioner Allen stated that an underground parking structure would not emit as much noise and light, as the proposed parking structure. Mr. Kite stated that the normal adverse problems of a parking structure have been mitigated by this project. n COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES � w m x y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Substitute Substitute motion was made for approval of Exhibit "A" Motion X and Exhibit "C" subject to the findings and conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 2021, with an added condition that would bind the applicant to the requested .9 times the buildable area of the site and that they not be allowed to construct additional office space at any future time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Planning Director Hewicker referred to the staff report and explained Conditions of Approval No. 42 and 48. He stated that Condition No. 48 was a suggestion of the Ad-Hoc Committee. He stated that staff has suggested that Condition No. 42 be deleted. Mr. Bob Burnham, Acting City Attorney, suggested that the Commission could impose a condition that the applicant record a covenant, of acceptable form to the City Attorney's Office, binding the applicant and its successors in interest, to a limitation of .9 times the buildable area. Vice-Chairman King stated that he would include this in his motion. Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition of Approval No. 46 and stated that the word "signs" should be included after the phrase, "That the applicant shall install". He then referred to Condition of Approval No. 2 and stated that it should read, "That all applicable conditions of the Traffic Study shall be fulfilled". Mr. Burnham referred to Finding No. 2 of Exhibit "A" for Use Permit No. 2021 and suggested that the words be added, "to a level of insignificance." Commissioner Balalis suggested that an additional finding be included which would state, "That as consideration for the limitation of development to .9 times the buildable area, the requested height is an appropriate change." Commissioner Beek stated that he is in support of the original motion for approval of the traffic study and denial of the use permit. He stated that he can not make the finding that the increased building height -9- ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES w •` m x y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building. He stated that the alternative site plan would be preferable. Amendments X Vice-Chairman King amended his Substitute Motion for approval of Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "C", to delete the original Condition No. 42 (i.e., restrict any pavement breaking and hauling to weekends and holidays only) ; to impose an additional condition that the applicant record a covenant, of acceptable form to the City Attorney's Office, binding the applicant and its successors in interest, to a limitation of .9 times the buildable area; to add the word "signs" to Condition No. 46; Condition No. 2 shall read, "That all applicable conditions of the Traffic Study shall be fulfilled"; to add the words "to a level of insignificance" to Finding No. 2; and, to add an additional finding, "That as consideration for the limitation of development to .9 times the buildable Ayes X , X X X area, the requested height is an appropriate change". Noes X X Substitute Motion was now voted on, which SUBSTITUTE Absent MOTION CARRIED as follows: FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space than could be achieved by the basic height limit. -10- III r COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 21, 1982 3 71 F y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 5. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and exist- ing developments or public spaces. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. 8. Adequate off-street parking and related vehic- ular circulation are being provided in con- junction with the proposed development. 9. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 10. That parapet walls will be constructed ad- jacent to the proposed roof parking area that will shield the parked automobiles from view from adjoining property and streets. 11. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or build- ing will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighbor- hood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifica- tion for the compact parking spaces is con- sistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 12. The approval of Use Permit No. 2021 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons resid- ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or im- provements in the neighborhood or the general welfare,of the City. -11- 2 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES . January 21, 1982 w m y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 13. That as consideration for the limitation of development to .9 times the buildable area, the requested height is an appropriate change. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections. 2. That all applicable conditions of the Traffic Study shall be �fulfilled. 3. A complete hydrology study and hydraulic an- alysis shall be performed to. address the amount of and manner in which all flows to and from the site are accommodated. 4. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 5. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access routes, access points to the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 7. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department.' S. Than an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. 9. The velocity of concentrated •runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. -12- COMMISSIONERS January u, 1982 MINUTES r c ro m 0 F N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 10. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive -soil and geologic investigation of the site. "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 11. That final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water using facilities. 12. Prior to occupancy of any building, the appli- cants shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 6 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 13. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said structures be sound attenuated so as to not exceed 55 dBA at the property lines. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Building Department. 14. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. 15. A landscape and irrigation plan for the pro- ject shall be prepared by a licensed land- scape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of land- scaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . -13- r COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January zl, 1982 3 � c Nr � m x y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 16. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 17. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 18. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. 19. The site's existing landscape plan shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program shall be modified to include the concerns of the conditions above to the maximum extent practicable. Any change(s) in said existing program as a result of this review shall be phased and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. 20. That the landscaping plans adjacent to the drive entrances be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation, for sight distance requirements. 21. That the proposed landscaping over the existing and proposed sewer easements shall be subject to further review by the Public Works Department. 22. The project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. All parking lot lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. 23. That should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. -14- r COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES A r a City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 24. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport should be included in all leases or subleases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. 25. That the final design of on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 26. Signing shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 27. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 28. The layout of the surface and structure parking shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. -15- i ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES KA r A x y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 29. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 30. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 31. That the existing sanitary sewer be relocated and that a 10-foot wide easement for sewer purposes be dedicated to the City prior to issuance of Building Permits, and that the design of the sewer be by a licensed engineer on the Public Works Department Standard Plan sheets. • 32. That the structures adjacent to the existing and proposed sewer main have deepened footings. The footings shall be designed so that the bottom of footing is intersected when a 1 to 1 slope is projected from the flow line of pipe to the bottom• of footing so that the footing is able to take lateral forces in the event of sewer main excavation. 33. That a concrete sidewalk be completed along the Flagship Road frontage and access ramps be constructed at the corners of Flagship Road and Patrice Road, and Flagship Road and Placential Avenue. 34. That prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department that adequate site distance has been provided at the Hospital Road entrance and at the northeasterly corner of the proposed medical building. 35. That prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Building Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 6. The -16- ? COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES � C S x w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction of any additional sewer facilities needed to serve the project. 36. That a traffic signal be designed and installed by the developer at the intersection of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue. A separate surety and agreement may be provided for this work. The developer's obligation for this signal shall be 50%. 37. That parking arrangement during the construction period shall be approved by the City's Planning Department and Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permit(s) . Persons that might be affected by the construction shall be notified in a manner approved by the Planning Department. 38. All on-site drainage shall be approved by the City Public Works Department. 39. A late afternoon and evening security program shall be designed and implemented prior to the occupancy of the project. Said program shall be approved by the Police and Planning Departments. 40. That prior to the issuance of any building permits authorized by the approval of this Use Permit, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director, a sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport area. 41. Quiet or hushed models of construction equipment suitable for use in hospital zones shall be used in the development of the proposed project. 42. That prior to the commencement of construction, the applicants shall provide all tenants of the existing office building -on-site with a schedule of construction activities. The applicants shall also provide said tenants with notification of any major changes to said schedule. -17- COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES � x m x w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 43. All concrete driving surfaces in the parking structure shall have a rough finish. 44. The final design of on-site pedestrian circulation shall be designed to direct pedestrian crossing of Hospital Road to its intersection with Placentia Avenue. 45. That 1 parking space shall be provided for each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area in the existing and proposed office buildings. 46. That the applicant shall install signs during the construction of the project that will limit parking time on-street in the vicinity of the project in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer and provide for their removal upon completion of the project. 47. A 24 hour security program for the site including the parking structure shall be designed and implemented prior to the occupancy of the project. Said program shall be approved by the Police and Planning Departments. 48. That two weeks (14 days) prior to the commencement of construction a notice that of start construction and proposed construction schedule shall be provided to all residents and property owners within 300 feet in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department. 49. That the office structure construction shall not commence until such time as the parking structure is complete and operational. 50. That the landscaping adjacent to the parking structure on Flagship Road and Patrice Road shall be completed within 30 days of the start of construction of the office building. -18= COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES � x I w � m x y. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 51. That the landscaping shall be accomplished in substantial conformance with Conceptual Landscape Plan "B". 52. That the visibility of cars and glare off of cars in the parking structure shall be screened from view from adjacent residential areas. 53. That all lighting on the top level of the parking structure shall be below the level of the parapet wall. 54. That the applicant record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and its successors in interest in perpetuity, to a limitation of .9 times the buildable area on the subject property. Motion x Motion was made for approval of the Traffic Study Ayes X X x X subject to the following findings and conditions, which Noes X X MOTION CARRIED: Absent FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed trip generation measures are acceptable and will be permanently implemented through the conditions of this approval and that of Use Permit NO. 2021. 2. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 3. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified' , or "primary" street. -19- COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES ix r x w > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX CONDITION: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to, the Circulation System Improvements described in the Initial Study Appendix A, page A20, Table 5 and these improvements shall have been made unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation System's Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:35 and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Request to create four parcels of land for single Item #3 family residential purposes where a portion of one lot presently exists, and the acceptance of an environmental document. L ATION: A portion of Lot 2, Newport Height RESUB- Tract, located at 2961 Cliff Drive, DIVISION constituting the entire easterly side of NO. 007 Santa Ana Avenue, between Cliff Drive and an unimproved portion of Avon Street in Newport Heights. ZONE: 1 Continued APPLICANT: Jeff A. Hartman Enterprises, Newport to February Beach 18, 1982 OWNER: Helen F. K etzkamp, Newport Beach Staff advised that this it be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of bruary 18, 1982, so as to allow additional time to in stigate alternative financing methods for the required treet improvements on Avon Avenue. Motion X Motion was made to continue this item to the Planning A11 Ayes X * X X X X X Commission Meeting of February 18, 1982, ich MOTION. CARRIED. -20- Y V �SEW ART e CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u r e. C44IFoi; PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2197 August 20, 1981 Bob Kite c/o The McMahon Partnership 501 Park Center Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Subject: Additional Fees: "I.S./T.P.O. 351 Hospital Rd. " Dear Bob: Attached please find a cost estimate prepared by the City's Consultant for the preparatioh of Phases 2 & 3 of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) . I have authorized WESTEC Services Inc. to prepare these studies based upon our last discussion with you and the property owner. Please provide the funds listed below at your earliest convenience. Consultant Fees 2,600 City Fees 260 TOTAL DUE Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director i By FRED I 0 Environmental Coordinator FT:nma Attachment City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 iEC Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 556-9350 2213-TCR2373 August 17, 1981 Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Proposed Medical Office Project Additional Cost Estimate Dear Fred: Kunzman & Associates has provided us with an estimate of the fee for conducting the Phase 2 and 3 portions of the traffic study for the proposed medical office building. We understand that we will carry through with the 'expanded initial study rather than provide an'EIR due to the reduction in the height of the proposed building to conform with the 32/50 height limitation imposed in that area. Our estimate of the cost of revisions to the existing work is itemized below: WESTEC Staff $ 530.00 Kunzman do Associates Phase 2 690.00 Phase 3 1,380.00 Total $2,600.00 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. \� Sincerely, Thomas C. Ryan Regional Manager co TCR:pc 'Y 411, lq µ WESTEC Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 556-9350 373 October 27, 1981 Mr. Fred Talarico City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Revised Cost Estimate for Newport Medical Office Project Dear Fred: This letter provides a revised cost estimate for environmental consulting services to prepare the Expanded Initial Study and subsequent studies for the Lido Medical Office Project. The costs contained herein are over and above the original contract budget value of $4,870.00. By letter of August 17, 1981, revised costs were presented to you for the following specific tasks. Task Amount 1. Conduct Phase 2 traffic study (Kunzman) $ 530.00 2. Conduct Phase 3 traffic study (Kunzman) 1,380.00 3. Revise project description and analysis based on reduced height of project (WESTEC) 530.00 Subtotal 1 $2,600.00 Since then, we have been requested to perform additional studies and prepare responses to comments as follows: Task Amount 4. Conduct study of pedestrian overpass demand (Kunzman) $ 920.00 5. Conduct noise sensitivity analysis for construction (Bixler) 980.00 . Mr. Fred Talarico October 27, 1981 Page 2 6. Prepare response to other PC hearing comments including research, word processing, attendance at planning department meetings, printing and transmittal of 30 copies of responses 19495.00 7. Attendance at Planning Commission meeting 115.00 Subtotal $3,510.00 Subtotal 1 $22600.00 Total Proposed Contract Augment $6,110.00 If you are in agreement with the proposed contract augment presented above, please authorize us to invoice the city of Newport Beach by signing both copies of this letter and returning one to us as soon as possible. I am always available to discuss details of the cost estimate. Resplelc_tfullly submitted, Accepted: 0 "e'" (f -1� Fred Talarico Thomas C. Ryan Regional Manager Title Date TCR:pc WESTEC Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 556-9350 kv 2169-TCR2373 ,�� w , July 23, 1981IN i� 5 w � Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Contract on Medical Office Project Expanded I.S. Dear Fred: Attached is the executed contract for the subject project. Unless I hear otherwise from you, it is assumed that WESTEC will submit a report to you on or before August 13, 1981 (21 days from today). We are presently well underway with the study. Sincerely, Thomas C. Ryan Regional Manager TCR:pc Attachment WESTEC Services, Inc. �q 118 Brookhollow Drive 8 G5-: Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 556.9350 2143-TCR900002 r 19�� July 8, 1981Gil V; ANN I m Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Proposal to Prepare Expanded Initial Study on Medical Office Project Dear Mr. Talarico: Thank you for asking WESTEC Services, Inc. to submit a cost estimate for accomplishing the work for the Expanded Initial Study. We propose a lump sum fee of $4,850.00, as itemized herein. The proposed fee includes submittal of seven (7) screencheck report copies and thirty (30) final report copies. No allowance has been made in the fee estimate for attendance at public hearings. Scope of Work The Expanded Initial Study will cover the topics shown in the following study outline. EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY OUTLINE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Location B. Project Description C. Permits Required II. SETTING/IMPACTS/MITIGATION A. Land Use and Zoning 1. General Plan 2. Zoning a. Use Permit (zoning comparison/use, etc.) (1) Height (discuss and city criteria) (2) Roof-top Parking b. Modification (1) Compact Parking 3. Surrounding Land Uses and Compatibility I B. CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION 1. Traffic Phasing Analysis a. Phase I Level Only 2. Parking a. Ingress/Egress (controlled parking) b. City Requirements C. Counts on Lots (existing on-site) d. Construction Schedule e. Handicapped and Compact Provisions C. Water Quality/Drainage 1. Brief Drainage Discussion D. Air Quality 1. Traffic - Selected Areas 2. Near Site Effects E. Noise 1. Traffic - Select Areas 2. Roof-top Equipment F. Aesthetics 1. View Impacts 2. Light/Shade 3. Signs/Lighting, etc. G. Climate 1. Wind Direction 2. Effect on Nearby Residential Areas H. Public Services and Utilities 1. Police 2. Fire 3. Sewer FEE BREAKDOWN A fee breakdown by major study item and task is given below: Task Proposed Fee Land Use $ 270.00 Circulation 17150.00 Water Quality/Drainage 100.00 Air Quality 650.00 Noise 580.00 Aesthetics 460.00 Climate 160.00 Public Services/Utilities 380.00 Project Description 100.00 Clerical 360.00 Graphics 180.00 Project Management 180.00 Printing 300.00 TOTAL CONTRACT COST $4,870.00 Staffing and Management WESTEC's project manager for the study is Mr. Thomas C. Ryan. Mr. Ryan will be responsible for contract administration, work scheduling, and work quality. Assisting Mr. Ryan, and serving as project analyst, will be Ms. Helen Molletta. WESTEC has arranged for Bill Kunzman of Kunzman and Associates to perform the traffic circulation and parking analyses for the Expanded Initial Study. Other specialists from WESTEC's Santa Ana office will be utilized as necessary to perform the required studies. Schedule WESTEC will complete the draft Expanded Initial Study within three (3) weeks after contract award. Upon receipt of all city comments on the draft, WESTEC will prepare and submit thirty (30) copies of the final Expanded Initial Study within seven (7) working days. We appreciate the opportunity to propose on this project and trust that this submittal provides adequate documentation of our approach and proposed fee. Please call if you wish to discuss this proposal. Respectfully submitted, CL12C ?,- Thomas C. Ryan Regional Manager TCR:pc INS& A G R E E M E N T THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this loth day of July, 1981 , by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , a municipal corporation , hereinafter referred to as "CITY" , and WESTEC SERVICES INC . , 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 Robert Kite for a Medical Office Project at 351 Hospital Road , in the City of Newport Beach , County of Orange , State of California; and WHEREAS , CONSULTANT has 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 Paragrah 2 of this Aggreement . 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 the document. 2 . SCOPE OF WORK The subject Initial Study will be prepared in accordance with the CONSULTANT' S proposal dated July 8, 1981 , which is attached to this Agreement marked as Exhibit "A" and be reference incorporated herein at this point as if fully set forth . -1 - 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 Eight Hundred and Seventy Dollars (,$4 ,870 . 00) . Partial payments shall be made by CITY to CONSULTANTupon 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 d1ligeot efforts to complete this contract within twenty-one ( 21 ) days after execution of this Agreement. The subject Inital Study must meet the approval of the Environmenal Affairs Committee of the City . In the event additional work is required due to input during the public hear- ings , 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 . APPROVED AS TO FORM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH aI t�4 By n Assistant City Attorney Jfir ctor U ing Department CITY WEST(ECC SERVICES INC . By Regional Manager -2- CONSULTANT < +E: Ti'i. b•.• r_ Ini. • EXHIBIT A llb E+•cx•kh..how Unve Santa Aria, CA. 92705 (714) 5569350 2143—TCR900002 July 8, 1981 KM", Mr. Fred Talarico Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Proposal to Prepare Expanded Initial Study on Medical Office Project Dear Mr. Talarico: Thank you for asking WESTEC Services, Inc. to submit a cost estimate for accomplishing the work for the Expanded Initial Study. We propose a lump sum fee of $4,850.00, as itemized herein. The proposed fee includes submittal of seven (7) screenebeek report copies and thirty (30) final report copies.. No allowance has been made in the fee estimate for attendance at public hearings. Scope of Work The Expanded Initial Study will cover the topics shown in the following study outline. EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY OUTLINE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Location B. Project Description C. Permits Required II. SETTING/IMPACTS/MITIGATION A. Land Use and Zoning 1. General Plan 2. Zoning a. Use Permit (zoning comparison/use, etc.) (1) Height (discuss and city criteria) (2) Roof-top Parking b. Modification (1) Compact Parking 3. Surrounding Land Uses and Compatibility + x .y tom-., ' • • B. CIR.CULATION/TRANSPORTATION 1. Traffic Phasing Analysis a. Phase I Level Only 2. Parking a. Ingress/Egress (controlled parking) b. City Requirements C. Counts on Lots (existing on-site) d. Construction Schedule e. Handicapped and Compact Provisions C. Water Quality/Drainage 1. Brief Drainage Discussion D. Air Quality 1. Traffic - Selected Areas 2. Near Site Effects E. Noise 1. Traffic - Select Areas 2. Roof-top Equipment F. Aesthetics 1. View Impacts 2. Light/Shade 3. Signs/Lighting, etc. G. Climate 1. Wind Direction 2. Effect on Nearby Residential Areas H. Public Services and Utilities 1. Police 2. Fire 3. Sewer FEE BREAKDOWN A fee breakdown by major study item and task is given below: Task Proposed Fee Land Use $ 270.00 Circulation 1,150.00 Water Quality/Drainage 100.00 Air Quality 650.00 Noise 580.00 Aesthetics 460.00 Climate 160.00 Public Services/Utilities 380.00 Project Description 100.00 Clerical 360.00 Graphics 180.00 Project Management 180.00 Printing 300.00 TOTAL CONTRACT COST $4,.870.00 Staffing and Management WESTEC's project manager for the study is Mr. Thomas C. Ryan. Mr. Ryan will be responsible for contract administration, work scheduling, and work quality. Assisting Mr. Ryan, and serving as project analyst, will be Ms. Helen Molletta. WESTEC has arranged for Bill Kunzman of Kunzman and Associates to perform the traffic circulation and parking analyses for the Expanded Initial Study. Other specialists from WESTEC's Santa Ana office will be utilized as necessary to perform the required studies. Schedule WESTEC will complete the draft Expanded Initial Study within three (3) weeks after contract award. Upon receipt of all city comments on the draft, WESTEC will prepare and submit thirty (30) copies of the final Expanded Initial Study within seven (7) working days. We appreciate the opportunity to propose on this project and trust that this submittal provides adequate documentation of our approach and proposed fee. Please call if you wish to discuss this proposal. Respectfully submitted, Thomas C. Ryan Regional Manager TCR:pc QJ 7a ��ie 5 0 States Government Bulkhead Line b Nos. 101 and 200; thenc West alo to the point of beginni , contai acres. Said parcel of land is shown on A purposes only and is not to be a ANA LTD. DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT ANA, CA THC TTPACHEO CHECK 18 IN FgyMENT OF ITEM6 OH90RIOED OL'LOW IF NOT CORRECT PLEASE NOTIFY UE PROMPTLY. NO gQUE OD.L.0 . DELUXE FORM WVC-3 V.2 TV DESCRIPTION AMOUNT )/81 CONTRACT COST $4850. 00 10% FEE $485. 00 FOR PREPARATION OF EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY OF 5335. 00 MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT }� _ - _� RECEIPT r!~� ,+M-p,WPO---~- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH N0. 1, g7H3 i NEWPORT EACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 i 00 �G OPN�P DATE RECEIVED FRO w i FOR: L ! I } 111 /C) i i i ACCOUNT NO ACCOUNT NO. C/�IV DEPARTMENT ^/✓��VO BY aEW Pp�,T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH e� Planning Department 640-2197 Cq�IFOF0.a�P Q��c�od� Q July 9 , 1981 JUL.' 101981 RONALD D. McWAHON B o b Kite Architect & Associates c/o The McMahon Partnership 501 Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana , CA 92705 SUBJECT: Initial Study-Medical Office Project Dear Mr. Kite : A copy of the proposed scope of services for the preparation of the abbve study has been transmitted to you. If you wish to pro- ceed, please provide me with a check payable to the City of Newport Beach in the following amount: CONSULTANT ; FEE : $ '4 ,870 .00 ( 10%) CITY FEE : 487 .00 TOTAL,: , $ 5 , 357.00 If I can be of any assistance please contact me at the above number. Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, irector ByFA Fred /111arico , Enviornmental Coordinator pL-219 - 7Z,. FT: to An. .-- City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 TRAFFIC STUDY APPLICATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT �e f�2^f' I ts, , I A PHONE 1 I4,17'�09 4 3 MAILING ADDRESS 1:j�I I�h1_ Z C 3Afi.1i t�s1a C,A PROPERTY OWNERPA21<L L100 LTb M2. 1zbMVIZf L. WISI11PHONE714- 5-5-6 bJ�ob MAILING ADDRESS 2232 S 1~ L S,20-� SAKITA .6-N ,\ CAI.. S?-71)7 ADDRESS OR LOCATION OF PROJECT -35'1 kIbSPITAL 1;f0A10 yr-\\/:0oC'T TKtrAcl-1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A= tSt' OX 7!7, 0060 (.� STOZY /ter bl c a L Qr=F'1 C 1=. -P-to I LD 10 ( � A N iq 4PAIZk 1 U (i rrlAd" 46fE Q� -r i+rr 1=X1s 1N G c ZF-AL'E VATZIZt 1J G , 4ZsA DEVELOPMENT PHASING: Beginning Construction Completion Project Initial Occupancy Total Occupancy J41 C I �)B 1983 J1lrC, I`(S Month/Year Month/Year Month/Year Month/Year MITIGATION MEASURES: Do Not Complete Application Below This Line Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No. City Traffic Engineer Approval Date Planning Commission Action Date City Council Action Date 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINI� Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a•public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd. for a(n) ❑ Variance Use Permit No. 2021 ❑ Resubdivision H Tentative Map Tract ❑ Amendment ❑X Other Traffic Study on property located at 351 Hospital Road Request to construct a 65,000 sq. ft. ± medical office building that exceeds the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District to permit roof. parking in conjunction with the construction of a parking structure, and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. Said application includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of the pro- ject's required off-street parking spaces.. - The proposal also -includes a request to consider a Traffic Study for the proposed development. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (714) 640-2197. ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Jmpact Report has been prepared in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 24th day of September _19 81 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Joan.Winburn, Sdcretary PUBLICATION DATE: Planning Commission Received for Publication City of Newport Beach BY - NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 1 � ♦ T NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd. for a(n) ❑ Variance � Use Permit NO. 2021 ❑ Resubdivision Tentative Map Tract ❑ Amendment D Other Traffic Study on property located at 351 Hospital Road Request to construct a 65,000 sq. ft. ± medical office building that exceeds the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District. Said application includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of the projects required off-street parking spaces. The F proposal also includes a request to consider a Traffic Study for the proposed development. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. ® NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (714) 640-2197. ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that ,an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the application i;dtexfOabove. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general publicito review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 24th day of September 19 81 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Joan Winburn, Sdcretary PUBLICATION DATE: Planning Commission Received for Publication City of Newport Beach By NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. - - - --- -- _------ - -- - - fir:---.y. -�4- - --- - "t PLANNING DEPARTMENT ! t=1FlM J•a y"' q' r � 1 } CITY HALL ; :I• :.Ir� r..r a,xLLc7 I nlel; r�l, IIU 3300 Newport Boulevard r� Pr Ora 9270 1 New rt Beach, callfornla 663 S F.ETV r Betty Hamilton P.O. Box 11114 ii Srncr , 'V Santa Ana, -CA --92711 41 .r r C4�, IMPORTANT r T PublicHeaingNotice NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd. for a(n) ❑ Variance V7 [ Al Use Permit NO. 2021 ❑ Resubdivision Tentative Map Tract T ❑ Amendment X❑ Other—Traffic Study on property located at 351 Hospital Road Request to construct a 65,000 sq. ft. ± medical office building that exceeds the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District. Said application includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of the projects required off-street parking spaces. The proposal also includes a request to consider a Traffic Study for the proposed development. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. ® NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (714) 640-2197. ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Environmental Impact R-eporfand supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 24th day of September 19 81 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Joan Winburn, Sdcretary PUBLICATION DATE: Planning Commission Received for Publication City of Newport Beach By NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. ^• � r 4�. PLANNING DEPARTMENT rn CITY HALL t'r,ortt rxrtrq r'uaoaN`r 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport BeaC4 California 9288F •A Elaguna ise Kauffmann a� 11 Beach,- 9265] IMPOR7A r ! Public Hearing Notice r November 13, 1981 n Ad Hoc Stud T0 : Planning Commissio y Committee FROM : Planning Department SUBJECT: Park Lido Medical Office Project This memorandum is to advise you that the first meeting of the Planning Commission Ad Hoc Study Committee will be held on Tuesday evening , November 24, 1981 , at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Annex Conference Room. The Annex Conference Room is located on the second floor above the Fire Department Administrative Offices, behind the main city hall building . Access to the Annex Conference Room is provided via the outside stairway from the parking lot. Attached is a copy of an agenda for the meeting which has been established by the Chairman with the assistance of Staff. Also attached is a roster of the Committee as appointed by the Chairman of the Planning Commission. The meetings of the Committee are open to the public, and friends and neighbors who may also have an interest in this project are welcome to attend. I look forward to meeting with you on Tuesday evening . If you have any questions regarding the Committee or the purpose of the meeting, I may be contacted at 640-2137 , or you may contact Fred Talarico at 640-2197 . M S D . HEWICKER Plan D . Director JDH/kk Attachments r I�K LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE PRO 0T PLANNING COMMISSION AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING * * * A G E N D A DATE: Tuesday, November 24 , 1981 TIME: 7 : 30 p.m. PLACE : Annex Conference Room i. Roll Call 2. Report of Chairman 3. Discussion : "REQUESTS FOR APPROVAL" a . Traffic Study b . Environmental Document c . Use Permit No . 2021 4. Discussion : "PROJECT ISSUES" a. Traffic b. Parking ( 1 ) Construction Phase (2) Operational Phase c . Noise ( 1 ) Construction Phase ( 2 ) Operational Phase d. Safety and Security e. Light and Glare f. Others (as deemed appropriate by members of the Committee) . 5 . Matters not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss . 6 . Adjournment PLANNING COMMISSION AD HOC STUDY 4CIMMITTEE PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT MEMBERS REPRESENTING Jerry King , Chairman / Planning Commission 979 Sandcastle V (h ) 644-5194 Corona del Mar 92625 (o ) 549-3765 Debra Allen / Planning Commission 1021 White Sails Way (h ) 644-9264 Corona del Mar 92625 Debbie Gray Newport Mediterranean Apts . 407 Evening Star Lane (h ) 646-6403 Newport Beach 92660 (o ) 556-1711 Rose Levinson Park Lido Association 415 Flagship Road r/ (h ) 548-7-817 Newport Beach 92663 Pat Strang Newport Heights Community Assoc . 351 Catalina Drive (h ) 646-8083 Newport Beach 92663 Dr. Edward Bechtel Park Lido Medical Bldg . . (Tenants ) 351 Hospital Road , Suite 210 (o) 548-6401 Newport Beach 92663 Robert W. Kite Park Lido , Ltd. (Applicant) The McMahon Partnership (o ) 973-0993 , 501 Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana 92705 ALTERNATE MEMBERS Suzanne I . McBrien Newport Mediterranean Apts . 1812 Antigua Circle (h ) 642-1276 Newport Beach 92660 @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3 s �411:0 `r November 13 , 1981' TO: Interested Citizens FROM: Planning' Department SUBJECT: Park Lido Medical Office Project This memorandum is to advise you that the first"meet- ing of the Planning Commission Ad Hoc Study Committee will be held on Tuesday evening., November 24 , 1981 , -at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Annex Conference Room. ,The Annex Con ference Room is located on the second floor above the Fire Department Administrative Offices behind the main city hall building. Acaes•s "to the Anne-x 'Co•nference 'Room is provided via the outside , sta:irway from the parking lot. This memorandum is .being sent, to you as a result of the interest which you have. 's,hown. in th4s 'project. The meetings of the Committee are open to the public , and friends and neighbors who may a.ls�o have an interest in this project are welcome to attend. If you have any questions regarding the Committee or the purpose of the meeting , I may be contacted at 640-2137, or you may contact Fred Talari•co at 640-2197. AM S D . HEWICKER Plan ing Director JDH/kk City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califomia 92663• PLANNING COMMISSION AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEE PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT INTEREST LIST Mrs . John Skinner (h ) 646-8635 1724 Highland Avenue Newport Beach 92660 Bill Wade (h ) 646-6588 326 Holmwood Drive (o ) 642-9103 Newport Beach 92663 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u s a ` _PLANNING DEPARTMENT <<FORN�r (714) 640-2137 December 10, 1981 TO: Interested Citizens FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Park Lido Medical , Office ,Project This memorandum is to advise you that the second meet- ing of the Planning Commission Ad Hoc Study Committee will be held on Tuesday 'evening, December T5, 1981 , at 7 : 30 p .m. in the Annex Conference Room. The Annex Con- ference Room is located on the s-econd floor above the Fire Department Administrative Offices behind the main City Hall building. Access to the Annex Conference Room is provided via the outside stairway from the parking lot. This memorandum is being sent to you as a result oT the interest which you have shown in this project. The meetings of the Committee are open to the public , and friends- and neighbors who may also have an interest i•n this project are welcome to attend . If you have any questions regarding the Committee or the purpose of the meeting, I may be contacted at 640-2137 , or you may contact Fred Talarico at 640-2197 . JA ES D . •HEWI KER P1a hing Director JDH/kk City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884 Maili�ng' Address - P .O .Box 1768 �EWP°Rr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u z -PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2137 - December 10, 1981 TO : Planning Commission Ad Hoc Study Comm1 ttee FROM : Planning Department SUBJECT: Park Lido 'Medi,cal Office Project This memorandum is to advise you that the second meeting of the Planning Commission Ad Hoc Study Committee, will be held on Tuesday evening , December 15,, 1.981 , at 7 :,30 p .m. in the Annex Conference Room: The; Annex Confere•nce' Ro.om is located on the second floor above the Fire Department Administrative -Offic-es behind the main, City Hall , build'ing. Access to the Annex Conference Room is provided via the outside stairway from the parking; lot. ,' Attached is a copy of 'an agenda for the meeting which has been established by the Chairma7n with 'the assistance of , Staff. The meetings of the Committee are open to the public, and friends and neighbors who may also have an interest in this project are welcome to attend . I' look forward to meeting with you on Tuesday evening . If you have any questions regarding the Committee or the purpose of the meeting, I may be contacted at 640-2137 , or you may contact Fred Talarico at 640-2197 . tUJ_AM D . •HEWICKER ing Director JDH/kk Attachment City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Califonia '92663 -3884 Mailing Address - P .O . Box 1768 0 PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT PLANNING. COMMISSION AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING * * * A G E N D A DATE : Tuesday , December 15 , 1981 TIME : 7 :30 p.m. PLACE : Annex Conference Room 1. : Roll Call 2., Report of Chairman 3. Continued Discussion : "PROJECT ISSUES" a. Traffic Study b. Streetscapes/ Landscaping c . Property Values d . Others (as deemed appropriate by members of the Committee) . 5. Matters not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss . 6. • Adjournment SEW PO T CITY OF• NEWPORT BEACH 3 i Planning Department 640-2197 4<lFO RN�P December 22, 1981 Rober W. Kite The McMahon Partnership 501 Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 SUBJECT Park Lido Medical Project, 351 Hospital Road, Newport Beach Mr. Kite: At the conclusion of the Ad-Hoc Park Lido Committee meeting of December 15, 1981, Planning Commissioner's Jerry King and Debbie Allen requested that the following information be submitted at the continued public hearing: 1. Landscaping: A reconsideration of the proposed landscape concept. This would include use of more mature vegetation and vegetation that might help to screen the view of cars in the parking structure from adjacent residential areas. 2. Site Plan: The provision for Commission consideration of an alternative design that would locate office space adjacent to Patrice Road and Flagship Road with the parking structure moved away from adjacent residential areas. ' 3. Elevations: They requested that the applicant provide for Commission consideration elevations from Flagship Road and Patrice Road that would eliminate views into the parking structure. Additionally, that variations in the setback from these roads be considered in the design of the parking structure. 4. Air Quality: The requested that staff reanalyze the impacts of the parking lot on localized air quality. Additionally, that information on prevailing wind patterns be supplied as they relate to air quality. It is my intention to request the Planning Commission to continue the Public Hearing (without taking any testimony) to their meeting of January 21, 1982. I will be asking WESTEC Services Inc. , to comment on item No. 4 above. and would appreciate a response to items No. 1 through 3 above from you, no later than Friday, January 8, 1982. If I can be of any assistance to you please fee free to contact me. I will be on vacation through January 4, 1982, but will be at home (714) 494-5482. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director BI'>b, /l Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 S' CITY Or r NEWPORT BEACH, vALIF. / Newport Beach City Council 4 'Newport Beach City Hall FEB, 1Q1982� _�® i FEg10�g vt 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 63I Y CLERK Febura y N,�r' �• i ido Medical Of • t Honorable Mayor Heather and Councilpersons , In January 1982, my wife and I sent a letter to each member of your Coucil and to each member of the Planning Commission. We expressed our deep concern over the proposed expansion on the site of the Park Lido Medical Building. I explained in that letter that both my wife and I had been involved for over 30 years in Traffic Safety with the Los Angeles City Schools. We stated that we were 'opposed to any additional buildings on the site that would increase traffic and on-street parking in the Park Lido and Mediterranean Village projects. In my presentation to the Planning Commission, I indicated that the -studies which had been made on behalf of the Project were made at Intersections which should be of concern to the City, but whicH were of little concern to the residents who must use Flagship Road or Dana Street as the only means of Ingress and egress to and from our community. The intersections of Flagship Road at._Placentiai Placentia at ps- pital Roadl and Dana at Superior are vital to us. There was no mention of any of these intersections in the Initial Study prepared b Westec Services "�� Y , Inc. or in the subsequent Response -to- Questions" , Section 2.1.2, paragraph 2, on page 9 of the Initial Study admits the "Land use impacts may or may not result from the location of the parking structure. . . ", We contend that it does not take a "professional to ascertain that great harm will be done to the.surround- _ing community. The section goes on to state, "while proximity to the residences is not the most desirable, -a generous set .back along the affected streets has been provided as well as a fairly lush land- scape scene and berms, " Curbside parking is inevitable andwill mean a great deal of pedes- trian traffic on Patrice and Flagship Road, next to the parking structure. Sidewalks should have been recommended or required as a part of the conditions under which the Planning Commission gave its approval of the project. No mention has been made of any plans which the City may have to ease the existing and future traffic problems a Flagship Road and Placentia or at Hospital Road and Placentia. C maQ � Iwo Cmchd 0..a:o �C 09000011000 - 2 - No suggestions have been put forward as to how the two intersections In such close proximity can be signalized to provide an orderly pro- cession of vehicles on the three streets. The Initial Study points out that the proposed parking structure will not contain the required number of parking stalls. (p14, 2.3.2) This means that the curbside parking referred to herein will definitely occur. In fact,, multi-level parking structures are avoided whenever possiblei it is therefore , .most likely that women will' choose to park at our curbs and walk to the buildings whenever they oan find space at a curb, Items "a" through "c" of Section 2.3.2, "Environmental Impacts", deal with three major alternatives of providing temporary parking during construction. Two of the proposals deal with the use of valet parking using lots . #1 and #2 on Superior and Coast Highway respectively. These suggestions cannot be taken seriously by anyone. It just is not going to happen until our community streets are overloaded. The use of curbside parking described in item "c", page 15, gives the most realistic picture of what will occur during construction and after completion of the project.,. The Study ignores the problems associated with the parking of con- struction workers , vehicles. These people will grab the closest ourbside Mpaces because they will arrive.-earliegt. This will force patients out into our entire community. We will suffer the pangs of ovgrparking even in prohibited areas. Any attempt to enforce parking laws will end up by giving tickets to home owners who cannot find a space for their second car in the village area. "Project Driveway Use" on page A-25 states that 55% of the daily project traffic will be oriented to Newport Blvd, and the heaviest driveway use is expected to be the Hospital Road access. No mention Is made of other access locations. However, 45,E is ex- pected to use other access locations that is obvious. This can only mean that Flagship Road and Dana Street will carry this 45% to their Juncture with Placentia and Superior respectively. We find no studies covering these intersections, and yet this structure will add at least 881 more trips that will be added to existing traffic. (25% of 1958) . The proposed 65,269 square foot building will generate 1938 trips daily according to the Study (see page k11) . The existing 77,000 square foot building which is 1.18 times the size of the proposed structure evidently generates 2310 trips daily, for a total of 4268 trips when all construction is finished. If the foregoing figures are reasonably accurate then the present 1040 cars which now use Flagship Road (45%) will be increased by 881 for a total of 1921 trips daily on Flagship Road. Thus, an 3 average of 240 cars per hour will be using Flagship Road plus the traffic generated within our communities by residents. There will be many "U-turns" and mid-block turnabouts by those who choose to park at our curbs. Accidents are inevitable. The "Project Traffic Distribution" shows that 25% (1069) of the 4268 daily trips will go northeast on Superior. Most of these drivers will use Flagship Road to Dana and turn right onto Superior. This they will do to avoid the traffic jams at Placentia and Flag- ship Roads and the signal at Placentia and Superior. The project study Indicates as stated previously that 55% will use Hospital Road accesses to reach Newport Boulevard. We seriously doubt this, because 55% of 4268 daily trips to both medical build- ings means that there will be 2347 potential left turns from mid- block accesses onto Hospital Road in an eight-hour period or' 293 such turns per hour. It is reasonable to assume that those drivers who will hesitate to turn left onto Hospital Road against traffic accelerating uphill or coasting downhill will choose to use Flagship Road. This can easily negate the assumption that 55% will use the Hospital Road accesses. It will also increase the volume on Flagship Road. We ask that you deny this permit and change the zoning to resident- ial. I close with one very important question, "Where is there a law that says that one property owner can profit at the expense of all within the community?" • We are sending this letter because we will be in San Francisco on a business trip at the time of your hearing on this project. Sincerely yours, Cecil G. an , Is 0. Zaun 409 Flagship Road (714) 646-8537 or (213) 682-2634 pO' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u�t ORN�PT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2137 January29 , 1'982 Cecil G . and Lois 0. Zaun 409 Flagship Road - Newport Beach , California 92663 Dear Mr. and Mrs . Zaun : Your letter addressed to the Newport Beach City Council and Planning Commission regarding the Park Lido Medical Project has been. referred to the -Plan- ning Department staff for reply. As you may or may not be aware, the Planning Commission action of January 21 , 1982 , approving the Park Lido Medical Project, has been called up for review and will be considered by the City Council at its meeting of February 22 , 1982. In addition , environmental docu- mentation for this project has also been prepared in the form of an Initial Study and a Negative Declaration which were considered and used by the Planning Commis- sion in arriving at its decision on the project. The concerns as set forth in your letter will be addres- sed in the staff report which will be prepared for the City Council meeting of February 22 , 1982 . Very truly yours , Aw— JAvrning D. FIEW CKER Pla Director JDH/kk City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 Mailing Address : P..O .Box 1768 OCTOBER 21, 1981 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: TRAFFIC IN THE VICINITY OF HOAG HOSPITAL Residents of the West 'Newport Area have raised the question of how much traffic will be added to the street system in the vi- cinity of Hoag Hospital by projects previously approved by the City. This question has most recently been raised in discussions of the proposed expansion of the Park Lido Medical Complex. Attached for your use are three exhibits showing the location of approved projects and traffic volumes for daily and peak hour periods. The exhibits show volumes for existing traffic, traffic from previously approved projects and the traffic that would be generated by the proposed Park Lido project. Richard M. Edmonston Traffic Engineer RME/jp z a J� H Z Z �� c 3 3 02 VICINITY MAP APPROVED PROJECTS PROPOSED 01 HOAG HOSPITAL (1735) 05 LIDO PARK MEDICAL (1958) Q2 HUGHES (2111) ( MOLLARD MEDICAL (750) ® 441 N. NEWPORT (143) NOTE: NUMBER TN PARENTHESIS IS DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC. y s 16,000 1735 490 513 0 15,000 2'v6 40,000 3 z 569 98 241 294 z z ti � 3 N.A. 655' 587 9,000 397 294 �oSQZgP 1342 1077 3,700 132 1 294 26,000 45,000 664 294 -_ , fi85 490 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ' KEY I EXISTING NOTE: ALL VOLUMES ARE TWO-WAY PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED APPROVED PARK LIDO PROJECTS MEDICAL 2708 217 70 0 3235 'mob a z ti 50 14 >o 2815 z z �� 1972 36 84 694 1249 28 42 �oSQZ�P 75 154 235 it 42 4545 3118 81 42 42 70 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC KEY 1EXISTING PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED APPROVED PARK LIDO PROJECT MEDICAL • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN* Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Park Lido, Ltd. for a(n) ❑ Variance X Use Permit No. 2021 ❑ Resubdivision Tentative Map Tract _ _ ❑ Amendment ❑X Other Traffic Study u on property located at 351 Hospital Road Request to construct a 65,000 sq.ft. # medical office building a that exceeds the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District, to permit roof parking in conjunction with with the construction of a parking structure, and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. Said application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of the project's required off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. ❑ This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act. X❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (714) 640-2197. ❑ NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that an Environmental Impact Report has been prep red in connection with the application noted above. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents. The ity encourages members of the general' public to review and comment on this docume ati01 Copies of the Environmental Impact Report and supporting documents are availa le for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Bea h, 3300 West Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 (714) 640-2197 Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on t e _ 29th _day of OCTOBER 19 81 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall , at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. Joan.Winburn, Sdcretary PUBLICATION DATE: Planning Commission Received for Publication City of Newport Beach By NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. Victor' A. Vernon • Maxmilian A. Bartosh William D. Evans 4.130 Spindreft, Way 405 Flagship Rd. • 4031 Patrice Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Karen L. Newcomb Arthur Kellman Louise E. Hall 4312 Spindrift Way P.O. Box 1746 406 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lahaina, HI 96761 Newport Beach, CA 92663 I 1 i . Helen D. Herrmann Lawrence R. Maurice Harold R. Nyholm 407 Orion Way 403 Bolero Way 404 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 Dorthy S. Dismukes Louis D. Mujica Jacqueline S. Cover 405 Orion Way I 405 Bolero Way 4307 Hilara Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Arthur L. Fountain Helen I. Morris H. Bruce Denton, Jr. 5281 St. George Rd. 600 E. Ocean Front #3F 437 Bolero Way Westminster, CA 92683 I Balboa; CA 92661 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 I Carole J. Westman Chester G. Northrup Melvin L. Hauge 3081 Klondike Ave. 530-7 Fairview Ave ( 440 Bolero Way Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Arcadia, CA 91006 I Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Arthur J. Williams, Jr. Billy .H. Thomas i Mevlin Olson 4218 Spindrift Way 22635 Spring Lake Ln 438 Bolero Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 i E1 Toro, CA 92630 i Newport Beach, CA 92663 f Gerald Murphy William S. Marshall I Michael T. Emrick 1580 Avonrea Rd. K112 Maui Ledorado Lahaina 151 Granada #C San Marino, CA 91108 Maui Hawaii 96761 Long Beach, CA 90803 Warren Gamble Mary H. Fagin Lynne R. Valentine P.O. Box 541 4309 Patrice Rd. 8 Pinehurst LA Northbrook, IL 60062 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Sandra V. Shambaugh Delores E. Eifler Jack S. Hubbard 4206 Spindrift Way 4307 Patrice Rd. 10122 Cynthia Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Huntington Beach, CA 9264E Elnora S. Fllis �Jqlames F. Corey. 8181 San Carlos Ave Newpor ice Ad 92663 ' South Gate, CA 90280 i �, Michael G. Cluff ! 407 Flagship Rd. Fred L. Hartley •; Irine L. Loudon Newport Beach, CA 92663 Union Oil Co. of Cal 4227 Patrice Rd. P.O. Box 7600 ! Newport Beach, CA 92663 Los Angeles, CA 90054 Lois O. Curtis" Jeri I. Lofland Catherine A. Viles 1380 Garfield Ave. 2536 Crestview Dr. 402 Orion Way San Marino, CA 91108 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Elaine A. Cerf Lynne A. Frantz Richard C. Pantzar 411 Flagship Rd. i 2021 Business Center Dr. 400 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Suite 112 Newport Beach, CA 92663 � Irvine, CA 92715 Harry S. Holley 1441 Fulbright Redlands, CA 92373 Leon H. Levinson Jack 0. Vance Irwin Manecke Jr. 415 Flagship Rd. 218 Morning Canyon Rd. 4308 Spindrift Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Crona Del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Harold H. Reitz ` 4207 Patrice Rd. Newport Beach; .CA 92663 r r Margaret A. Twombly 4209 Patrice Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 i , i Ralph J. Gray John C. Klose 407 Evening Star Ln. •4243 Hilaria Way • Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 i I Philip Heckendorn James D. Dodge 716 Fair Oaks Ave. 26982 Carranza Dr. Pasadena, CA 91105 Mission Viejo, CA 92675 i j j Park Lido Building Co. Kuo-Chen Hu 999 N. Sepulveda Blvd. 25902 Serenata Dr. Suite 610 ; Mission Viejo, CA 92671 E1 Segundo, CA 90245 i Errol F. Davidson T & T Investment Co. 2408 Cliff Dr. 15300 S. Western Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gardena, CA 90247 i Henry M. Ho 1 Jacob Nendel 3920 W. Redondo Beach Blvd.; P.O. Box 554 #47 i Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Torrance, CA 90504 pa�r�K��6�.ioo �-1 c1• Karen Alonso Hansel D. Benvenuti i�cw�Lt- L •(,L}1,O� 4243 Dana Rd. 27 Harbor Island aria S.E.•$7ti.p }t?2 *CR03 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 gyp .,` Ci yk ort ach Bhao Shu Fang:.Chai Ci 415 N. Newport Blvd. New ac CA 9 63 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Kilroy Shopping Centers,Inc Newport Beach City Employee 515 S. Flower St. Ste..2300 IFederal Credit Union Los Angeles, CA 90071 11425 N. Newport Blvd. Ste. D Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Michael E. Heberger ! Newport Harbor Costa Mesa 404 38th St. ; Board of Realtors j Newport Beach, CA 92663 401 N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Edward F. Heberger Robert E. Ellsworth 404 38th St. Ne Newport Blvd. Vewport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 f 3etty Hamilton Rosdevisw a.o. Box u114 y/5 �n, Santa Ana, CA 92711 �T(�p James B. Massey Alice Raii Bryson E. Hickman 979-C -W. Pine St. 434 Orion Way 2333 W. Coast Hwy Upland, CA 91786 •Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Corona Del Mar, CA 9262E Fulton Foster Beatrice A. Anderson Edward F. Sowers 418 Bolero Way 432 Orion Way 465 Bolero Way Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Milton J. Meehan Elisabeth A. Halsteen Peyton P. Callaway 2319 Margaret Dr. 430 Orion Way 467 Bolero Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Richard Nunez Charles G. Haskins Cecelia R. Clock 414 Bolero Way 4300 Patrice Rd. 4307 Dana Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 f Violet A. Clark Clarence Beveridge Donald E. Pugh 412 Bolero Way 4304 Patrice Rd. 4305 Dana Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 I G. Robert Hodson \ Leo Vortouni Denver N. Treadway P.O. Box 158 1 4308 Patrice Rd. f 4301 Dana Rd. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 i � I T.M. DePierro John E. Randall Joan M. Reynolds P.O. Box 1333 423 Bolero Way f 462 Orion Way . Tustin, CA 92680 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 i Eleanor 'B. ,Olis Frances D. O'meara Seidel Computer Assoc. ,Inc 4305 Hilaria Way 425 Bolero Way 458 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Harry D. Cleworth Edna M. Little Charles A. Delaney 1400 S. Catalina Ave. #104 427 Bolero Way 1808-A Newport Blvd. Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Norman L. Kreuder Alan R. Campagna Lloyd J. Hargreaves 435 Orion Way 429 Bolero Way 454 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Michael L. Gibellino 4300 Hilaria WaA Newport Beach, 92663 H 43U4 Hilaria Way 4S3 Bolero Way 301 N. Newport Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 i i Edward Carlick Anthony DeSousa American-Cal Medical Sery 4308 Hilaria Way 455 Bolero Way 1051 E. Ogden Ave. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Milwaukee, WI 53202 i William 0. Nix David L. Silin Frederick R. McBrien 4307 Hilaria Way 457 Bolero Way 1812 Antigua Cir. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 I Thomas Straza Forrest C. Baldwin I Denise Kauffmann 468 Bolero Way 461 Bolero Way 474 Mountain Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Laguna Beach, CA 92652'. Yandel E. Snell Henry L. Storti Suzanne McBrien 464 Bolero Way 463 Bolero Way 1812 Antiqua Cir. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Curtis L. Nelson Newport Medical Corp. I Delbert L. Stokesbary 351 Hospital Rd. Suite 414 307 Placentia Ave. , Ste.11l' 390 Calle Guaymas Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 Sam Clemente, CA 92672 I� Lauren G. Stomel First California Bank I Tykye G. Camaras 456 Bolero Way 396. Superior Ave. t 932 Sandcastle Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 f Crona Del Mar, CA 92652 i Mary M. Dyek Centennial Partners Ltd James T. Blandford 454 Bolero Way . Medical Plaza 4126 Hilaria Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 161 Fashion Ln. Ste. 212 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tustin, CA 92680 i Helen J. Hix Wayne R. Sims Eugene W. Lightner 452 Bolero Way First Americian Trust Co. 2201 S. Hillside St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 240 Nice Ln Wichita, KS 67211 Newport Beach, CA 92663 First American Trust Co. Donald Fiduccia c/o Newport Versalles Ralph Gray 14971 Rancho Cir. 550 Newport Center Dr. 44 N. Madison Ave. Irvine, CA 92714 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Pasadena, CA 91101 Wanda I. Schwaneke Villa Balboa Community Assn. 451 Bolero Way ATTN: Carol Grace Ralph Gray Newport Beach,CA 92663 First American Trust Co. 4500 Campus Dr. Ste. 101 900 Cagney Ln. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4f15 HILARIA WAY &115 HILARIA WAY • 4101 HILARIA WAY UNIT C UNIT D UNIT A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4101 HILARIA WAY 4101 HILARIA WAY 4101 HILARIA WAY UNIT B UNIT C UNIT D NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 I i I r OCCUPANT • OCCUPANT . OCCUPANT 415 Flagship Rd. 411 Flagship Rd 409 Flagship Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 OCCUPANT _ OCCUPANT 407 Flagship Rd. 405 Flagship Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 OCCUP�N Newport Beach, CA 92660 40 lagship Rd. 'Newport OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 403 Flagship Rd. 4206 Spindrift Way 4210 Spindrift Way Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4214 Spindrift Way 4218 Spindrift Way 400 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT i OCCUPANT 402 Orion Way 403 Orion Way 404 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 i Newport Beach, CA 92660 I I � OCCUPANT OCCUPANT I OCCUPANT 405 Orion Way 406 Orion Way 407 Orion Way Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I OCCUPANT OCCUPANT I OCCUPANT 4227 Patrice Rd. 1 4223 Patrice Rd. 4219 Patrice Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 i Newport Beach, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4215 Patrice Rd. 4211 Patrice Rd. 4209 Patrice Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 I OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4207 Patrice Rd. 4139 HILARIA WAY 4139 HILARIA WAY Newport Beach, CA 92660 UNIT C UNIT D NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 , NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4127 HILARIA WAY 4127 HILARIA WAY 4127 HILARIA WAY UNIT A UNIT B UNIT C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4127 HILARIA WAY 4115 HILARIA WAY 4115 HILARIA WAY UNIT D UNIT A UNIT B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4100 PATRICE ROAD �100 PATRICE ROAD • 4100 PATRICE ROAD UNIT A UNIT B UNIT C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT . 4100 PATRICE ROAD 4114 PATRICE ROAD 4114 PATRICE ROAD UNIT D UNIT A UNIT B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4114 PATRICE ROAD 4114 PATRICE ROAD 4126 PATRICE ROAD UNIT C UNIT D UNIT A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4126 PATRICE ROAD 4126 PATRICE ROAD 4126 PATRICE ROAD UNIT B UNIT C UNIT D NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4138 PATRICE ROAD 4138 PATRICE ROAD 4138 PATRICE ROAD UNIT A UNIT B UNIT C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 I OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4138 PATRICE ROAD 4150 PATRICE ROAD 4150 PATRICE ROAD UNIT D UNIT A UNIT B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT- 4150 PATRICE ROAD 4150 PATRICE ROAD 4200 PATRICE ROAD UNIT C UNIT D NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4206 PATRICE ROAD 4204 PATRICE ROAD 4202 PATRICE ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4208 PATRICE ROAD 4214 PATRICE ROAD 4212 PATRICE ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4210 PATRICE ROAD 4216 PATRICE ROAD 4222 PATRICE ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4220 PATRICE ROAD 4218 PATRICE ROAD 4224 PATRICE ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH , CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4,228 PATRICE ROAD •4230 PATRICE ROAD • 4232 PATRICE ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4234 PATRICE ROAD 4238 PATRICE ROAD 4240 PATRICE ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4242 PATRICE ROAD 4249 HILARIA WAY 4239 HILARIA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4247 HILARIA WAY 4235 HILARIA WAY 4245 HILARIA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 , OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4233 HILARIA WAY 4243 HILARIA WAY 4237 HILARIA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 � NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 I OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ( OCCUPANT 4229 HILARIA WAY 4227 HILARIA WAY 4225 HILARIA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH ,CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT i OCCUPANT- 4223 HILARIA WAY 4219 HILARIA WAY 4217 HILARIA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4215 HILARIA WAY 4211 HILARIA WAY 4207 HILARIA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 - NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 i OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4205 HILARIA WAY 4203 HILARIA WAY 4201 HILARIA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4151 HILARIA WAY 4151 HILARIA WAY 4151 HILARIA WAY UNIT A UNIT B UNIT C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 4151 HILARIA WAY 4139 HILARIA WAY 4139 HILARIA WAY UNIT D UNIT A UNIT B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 -PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( 714) 640-2137 - .December 10 , 1981 TO : Planning Commission Ad Hoc Study Committee FROM : Planning Department SUBJECT: Park Lido Medical Office Project This memorandum is to advise you that the second meeting of the Planning Commission Ad Hoc Study Committee will be held on Tuesday evening , December 15 , 1981 , at 7 :30 p .m. in the Annex Conference Room. The Annex Conference Room is located on the second floor above the Fire Department Administrative Offices behind the main City Hall building . Access to the Annex Conference Room is provided via the outside stairway from the parking lot. Attached is a copy of an agenda for the meeting which has been established by the Chairman with the assistance of Staff. The meetings of the Committee are open to the public, and friends and neighbors who may also have an interest in this project are welcome to attend . I look forward to meeting with you on Tuesday evening . If you have any questions regarding the Committee or the purpose of the meeting, I may be contacted at 640-2137 , or you may contact Fred Talarico at 640-2197 . Q. t D . HEWICCER ing Director JDH/kk Attachment -3884 Mailing Address - P .O .Box 1768 PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT PLANNING COMMISSION AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING * * * A G E N D A DATE : Tuesday , December 15, 1981 TIME : 7 :30 p .m. PLACE : Annex Conference Room 1 . Roll Call 2. Report of Chairman 3. Continued Discussion : "PROJECT ISSUES" a . Traffic Study b . Streetscapes/ Landscaping c . Property Values d . Others (as deemed appropriate by members of the Committee) . 5. Matters not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss . 6. . Adjournment lea. `1 -N•o-vemb•e•r--4-3•, 1981 TO : Planning Commission Ad Hoc Study Committee FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Park Lido Medical Office Project &-COMA This memorandum is to advise you that the #+rs-t meeting of the Planning Commission ��11d }}IIqc Study Committee will be held on Tuesday evening , IJa�i-4i`nb�.r._.24 , 1981 , at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Annex Conference Room. The Annex Conference Room is located on the second floor above the Fire Department Administrative Offices, behind the main city hall building . Access to the Annex Conference Room is provided via the outside stairway from the parking lot. Attached is a copy of an agenda for the meeting which has been established by the Chairman with the assistance of Staff. l-1 h•e—C-vmm+t tee-s a frp.o,i-n-t-e•d—b y—t*e—C-h-ah-rma-n—o-F—t-h•e—P-1-a-n n i ny—Eo-mmi ss i o n. The meetings of the Committee are open to the public, and friends and neighbors who may also have an interest in this project are welcome to attend. I look forward to meeting with you on Tuesday evening . If you have any questions regarding the Committee or the purpose of the meeting, I may be contacted at - 640-2137, or you may contact Fred Talarico at 640-2197 . c 4 L6 M S D . HEWICKER Plan ing Director JDH/kk Attachments ' PO LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE PROOT PLANNING COMMISSION AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING * * * A G E N D A DATE: Tuesday, 6,o-vemb===Ea 1981 TIME : 7 : 30 p.m. PLACE : Annex Conference Room 1. Roll Call 2 . Report of Chairman 4s--94-9-ft s-s-i•o•n.—"R•E WE-S T S-FOR-A•P-P•R 0•V-A L" ,an---T=r-& Fi-c=St-u-di .b..Tt---En=v=i=r-o-nme,n=ta 1=0o-c-ume-n=t • Govs+Nue� j` Discussion : "PROJECT ISSUES" a. Traffic $ � b. P•a•r•k+ng TRM,-r SCapeA�LA (•1)=Gan s-t ru c t i-o•n-Rh•a s e 4.2-)--O p e=r=a.t-i=an a-l--P-h awe• @. •Ne-i-s•e �o pcc V,4 to c o (-1)—Csorrs�=r ur t=i=an=P-h•a=se (�2-)—O p-e-r-a=t i-o-n a 1-P-h=a-s--e _ y . �. Others (as deemed appropriate by members of the Committee) . 5 . Matters not on the agenda which members may wish to discuss . 6 . Adjournment PLANNING COMMISSION AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEE PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT MEMBERS REPRESENTING Jerry King , Chairman Planning Commission 979 Sandcastle (h ) 644-5194 Corona del Mar 92625 (o ) 549-3765 Debra Allen Planning Commission 1021 White Sails Way (h ) 644-9264 Corona del Mar 92625 Debbie Gray Newport Mediterranean Apts . 407 Evening Star Lane ('h ) 646-6403 Newport Beach 92660 (o) 556-1711 Rose Levinson Park Lido Association 415 Flagship Road 1/ (h ) 548-7'817 Newport Beach 92663 Pat Strang Newport Heights Community Assoc . 351 Catalina Drive (h ) 646-8083 Newport Beach 92663 Dr. Edward Bechtel Park Lido Medical Bldg . . (Tenants ) 351 Hospital Road , Suite 210 (o) 548-6401 Newport Beach 92663 Robert W. Kite Park Lido , Ltd. (Applicant) The McMahon Partnership (o ) 973-0993 501 Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana 92705 ALTERNATE MEMBERS Suzanne I . McBrien Newport Mediterranean Apts . 1812 Antigua Circle V (h ) 642-1276 Newport Beach 92660 k�,FvvpORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u ,5, Z Planning Department c�<�xonN�r 6 40-2 218 June 11 , 1981 Robert W. Kite A. I .A. The McMahon Partnership 501 Park Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 SUBJECT: Proposed 48,000 sq . ft. structure , 351 Hospital Road Dear Mr. Kite : Pursuant to your request for the City of Newport Beach to begin the necessary Traffic and Environmental Studies for the proposed 50 ' high structure at 351 Hospital Road , the following outlines the sequence of events as well as our estimates of the time and costs involved in the processing of your applications . It will be necessary to submit to the City preliminary plot plans , floor plans , and elevations of existing and proposed condition's in order to assess the existing conditions and to assist in deter- mining the nature and extent of any environmental impacts resulting from the proposed development. From the date of submission of these plans , it will take approximately 1 week to 10 days to select a consultant to prepare the Initial Study and Traffic Study and to determine your costs . Should the Traffic Study indicate that the project is feasible, the Environmental Documentation and Traffic Study could eonceiveably be ready to be filed along with the Use Permit application to exceed the basic heiaht limit around ' the end of June or beginning of July . Planning Commission action would be approximately 28 after the applications are accepted . It is suggested that you beg in preparing the Use Permit application package forthwith . If timing is critical to your clients , then careful corrdination of the Traffic Study , Initial Study , and Use Permit application is necessary so that the entire package can be submitted to the Planning Commission at one time . Should you need any additional information please feel free to call me at the above number. Very truly yours , PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAI, WIC ER, Driector By_ �j- Chris Gustin , Assoicat�lanner City Ilall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 CG: tk it �c�`' '�� r i r ) 1 i McMahon Partnership Architecture / Planning June 8, 1981 Mr. Chris Gustin Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Gustin: Regarding our conversation in your office last week, we are hereby submitting a request for the City of Newport Beach to commission an outside engineering firm to make a traffic study for a new medical office building my client proposes to have constructed. The parcel is located at 351 Hospital Road in the City of Newport Beach and contains 3.607 acres. There is an exist- ing six story medical office building on the site with 296 parking spaces. We plan a 48, 000 square foot, fifty foot high medical office building just east of the existing building with a parking structure covering most of the northerly portion of the par- cel. We plan to provide 192 cars for the new facility plus replace- ment of 38 stalls taken by the new building. The total number of cars for both buildings when complete would be 488. 501 Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 (714)973.0993 Telex683408 * i Mr. Chris Gustin June 3, 1981 Page Two The legal description for the parcel is as follows : Lot 169, Block 2 of Irvine Subdivision, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, Map recorded in Book 1, page 88 of miscellaneous maps. As we are in a bit of a rush, if there is anything you can do to expedite the study we would be most appreciative. SMT Robert W. Kite, A.I.A. Partner RWK/ce Iris■■siloss■■■■■iiii■■■■ss■■■■■loom■■■■■■iisss■■s■■■■■m■■m■ss■mms■ ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Ili■■■■■■■sss■■■■s■s■i■■/■■■■■s■■i■■■■i■■si■i■siiss■■isssii■s■i■■i■ I■■//is■■■//■■■■■�■/■■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■■■■sss■■s■■s■■■s■//■■■/o//Doom■ IN loom■///■■■/■■1 ■o\ 1y Oil ism, 'I ■rlmm■ SEMI Il ■■► or/mi. 'm■mm■mm■mm■■m■m■ li I■■■■os■■■o/■■I ■■P' / J\ 10 u■•JI / 40■s■ Is■■ 11 ■■m 11 ■s■1 ■■is■■■■■■■■s■s■ liiiiss■■s■■■■■ssi mm/I " \■ .mull I► \■i■ Is■■ 11 ■■■ It '■■■I ■■■■■■■■/■s■ss■■ 1■m■mm/im■■o■■■mi ■■s' imsk •■ Ism 11 Ma,'mom I/o■ 11 ■■/�►��� .■/i■■i■■■■■■■■■■ If 7■■■ss■■■s■i■sL■■L.�■il.i.loomJLa■►�■■---JJL__.■■._,��■■■■■■i■■■■ii■■■ 11 l/■/o/■i■■//■siwi�l■■■■limo■i■■/s■■ism■■iIl■s■■i■■■■■■■■■■/■/i■■i■/■ IL.J■■/o■■■■■■s■■■o■ i■/ I .m=.I vmu\I Mr mm► ris'. \sl ■■■s■i■■i■■■■i■i■i■■s■ 1■■/■■■/■■■■■■■siii 1 INV / I Is■■ 1■■1 1 ■ boil[ I, I■i ■■■■■■■■■■■■/■■//■■si■ 1!7/0/■■■■■■■■■■■/■ 1k '■' 11 1 / 1■sl I I i■■is1 ■\ 91 ■■■s■■■■■/■■■■■■■i■■/■ IN 1■■■■■■■■■■■s■/■i I\ T II 1 !00■ 1■■/ / I. '■■/ /' .mm \i ■■is■■■■■i■■■!/■■■/■■■ it is■■m■■■■■/■moss■ In ./1 1 mmm"I .-III ■\gym'./ J■■, It In �..-■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■ 1■■■■■■■■■sss!■■` l■■list■sss/■■■i■ Ir I/■■si■■s■aim■■■■■■swi■�Ill�l■■I�■isirl■■■■■�■mmmm■■■■■■■/■///■■■■■■■■ 11 1■■ss■■/s■■■/■■■■ ■.k 1 ■■ 111■■I i.u\ 1 .'i■ � ... s■■i ..1■is■■i■■■■■■■■■■■■ IL Jos■■■■is■■■■■■■■ 'm'd ON i I I■■1 I■■ 1 1 L'I■ ( ��r�■■■iIJ■■/■■nisi■■iisiis■ I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 11111► I ■■ I I Iss1 I■i ■ I I\I r \r■ I■■■///ssis■■■s■■■■■■■■■■ i!7■s■■/■■■■■■/■■i■ '-i\��I i'�71 '-�� 11■\ Ih m: 1■■[��7■■i■■■■■/■■■■■■//■ 1■/■■■■■■■■■ss■loom■loom■ss■■■i■silosi■■■ssi■■i■■■■■si■■■■■■/■■■■■■ �11■■■■loomsi■■■■■■■■■■■■s■■l■■■■■■■■■■is■■■■i■■■ii■■■■■■■■■/o////■ Ili■■■■■■■■■loom■/■isi//■/■/■■///■■■■//■■s■■■■/■i■■■■o■/■■■■■■/■■■ Ir.,J/■■■///■■■/■/■■■■/■■sl■■■■■■loom■■■■■■■s■■i■■■/■/■■■■■■/l■s■■■■■ li7m■mom■■■■i■i■l■■ssi■■■■■■■■/■s■■■■■/moos■■■/■■■■s■■i■///■■■■■■/■ . . DEVELOPMENT NOT REMOVE • • CA. ' 92707. PartnershipMcMahon ' TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ' PREPARED BY WESTEC FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT SECTION TITLE PAGE ' A. Initial Study 1-37 ' B. Responses to questions 38-64 Raised at the City Planning Meeting of Sept.24, 1981 ' C. Hospital Road Medical, Building 65-103 Traffic Study D. Letter from Westec Services 104-109 II , - , INITIAL STUDY MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SEPTEMBER, 1981 Prepared For: Prepared by: The City of Newport Beach WESTEC SERVICES ' 3300 Newport Boulevard 118 Brookhollow Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Santa Ana, CA 92705 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title ' Pam 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Project Location 1 ' 1.3 Project Description 1 1.4 Permits Required 6 2.0 SETTING/IMPACTS/MITIGATION ' 7 2.1 Land Use and Zoning 7 2.2 Circulation/Transportation' 8 2.3 Parldng 2.4 Water Quality/Drainage 11 2.5 ' Air Quality 13 2.6 Noise 14 ' 2.7 Aesthetics 15 2.8 Climate 16 2.9 Public Services/Utilities 19 ' - 19 2.9.1 Fire.Protection Services 2.9.2 Police Services 20 ' 2.9A Sewer Facilities 20 21 2.10 General Conditions for Project' Approval 26 3.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 23 ' 4.0 PERSONS CONSULTED i 24 APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC STUDY A-1 ' APPENDIX B - CORRESPONDENCE B-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page 1 Regional Vicinity 2 ' 2 Local Vicinity 3 ' 3 Proposed Site Plan 4 4 Project Elevations 5 ' 5 Zoning 8 6 Traffic Distribution 12 7 View of Site from Surrounding Areas 20 ' LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 1 Zoning Consistency Chart 10 ' ii 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 1.1 INTRODUCTION ' This expanded initial study has been prepared in accordance with Section 15080 of the State Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. The environmental impacts of. a proposed four story medical offices building and ' an associated three story parking structure are addressed' herein. This document is designed to serve as a source of information that is necessary for a series of decisions that must be made by the appropriate public agencies. It provides an evaluation of the ' project's potential to! produce significant adverse effects on the environment. Incorporated into the' discussion are all associated permits and reasons for their requirement. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ' The proposed project site is regionally situated in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California (Figure 1). It is located approximately 1800 feet north of Pacific Coast Highway and 500 feet west of Newport Boulevard at 351 Hospital Road ' (Figure 2). Nearby landmarks include Hoag Memorial Hospital, Presbyterian which Is directly south of the project site and the existing Park Lido Medical Offices Tower on- site. The parcel is described by the County Recorder as a specific portion of "Lot 169 in block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision as per map recorded in book 1, Page 88 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of (Orange) County..." ' 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to construct an additional four story medical offices ' building to be located directly east and adjacent to the existing Park Lido Medical Offices Building (Figures 3 and 4). The offices will initially be offered on a rental basis but will be constructed in such a way as to allow future conversion to condominiums. ' Gross floor area for the proposed project amounts to 65,269 square feet and would provide space for approximately 65 medical offices. The building will be occupied by an estimated 65 doctors and 130 employed personnel. That portion of the site which is not presently occupied by the existing Park Lido building is paved and used for on-site parking purposes. The proposed building is to be constructed on the southeastern corner of the site, thus reducing the number of ' existing, available parking spaces. A parking structure, which will occupy the northern third of the site, is proposed as a component of this project to offset the loss of existing spaces and provide the additional amount required. The parking structure will consist ' of a continuous ramp, three stories tall. Access to the structure will be controlled. The applicant's objectives aie to obtain the necessary permits and approvals required to provide additional office space for doctors and staff in the vicinity of Hoag Hospital. The location of the project site is such that surgeons can walk rather than drive between their offices and the hospital. The development of additional office space would therefore provide an increased opportunity for physicians to locate in the ' area. AJ Los Angeles County � I i I San Bernardino County r ! I � 1 ' i 1 J � ! ' 1 I - Fullerton O � I r.r ei I ' i Anaheim Riverside County v anta ' Ana O Orange County co m Costa S t Mesa O Irvine " Newport Beach ' PROJ— ECT SITE = - '::r;:, O Mission Viejo Laguna Beach ' Dana r Point O is Regional Vicinity p� y � ' FIGURE ;V '�T� Fite Sta 7 ` A _ 1NDIANAPOLLS__ 't;' _.'I / !c l� 1 'Y ' FAIRVIEWF !7 - 5 _-___ -" -,D�.../:•'_- - �- 1, STATE HOSPITALi (J' }(may {�• _� - ' h ,.`'_a '-- 'r! l•l r> Cc1. Y•LJr�It.1 I''•—•<' __'_!t c_ t. =.I - _� iij+you/� 1 0 't `^•. '/�95� •-cT♦ j ll � `,��._ ,vl .ate.- _�_ ;;r .�!( j C ( � ^•` a r I Imo• ""'�. /:• I r. anyon l' •'`�' a s� le_SCeh [y �`� •' QI'1d E J.J_ ,e ": r /2 I /• qT i` 3'a _ - �- �' Sh000,A .7 Atf m J :J �„ r_ ' . Wtl n \ W i INC0 i_z�t�� �i I Iy Y (.-I•�,' /� i y �I i � pall a =I C '. _=-*-J il3.7 /_s ec• vie_ .. ..I' ` Sr I \ J n .r- '1''- vir a� IV ` �• LN., / ..L..r' •, Jr\ c .1It ,"Y t4, ��.�' ' ��"� >• i<> I• 1 > \ 11 Trailer if • - I .I/...yy iMAA, l :J �i l; k •\>' ' i l IYI' f .f T r r e id /i %%' �=,, Res r,.�.. � i ryli T li r� 2�,f3`ally _.IVpI. % I �a _ !i�c ry 'I.�i` �` r am— rI 9 J• rorw I I• ) , T, '/ oil M _�_.�'�•..P, e 'J/ y t ` �k//f♦ •�.'=� leer. � 1 _.J >` �_ !A , "�/) l rit fgN � o �ci 'c ri: i � 11••:Ir•' �1 + • V b �r ire ✓' J L//'����!!!�\ /Tr w,1� y�' •lnlT rr_ '� :.P i '. a �I ..• .a.�i, rl,. ,� � i l- „� i•• '� r 7 filer \/\\\/\':OG.J t bi T ' �``^ old �` �.,1. />• . r° \ 2 r iC'�r '1.�� v'/� = ,� I \,ot• Illr� ( es :I 4 r` 1�y{ - •Li Trailer : rr .�M i PO ♦ } � l ' y ���—_w �:-� � 4r a 'r(Park _ I � '• fs,1`` / tie r. 1 ram,' / ;h le x _ \ e / `• \ f 9j \'\° '�.�`-fj 6 J p`�1✓ /1 o i •.r,n taf TanMJ ks 11P� "C. r ` � �Q' �Ij LC�4y'V• ':I/A._ , i L^: S� 4 a; _ e pil' !% PROJECT SftE ' . •t `�. '`cam ��)'� e ''�e.lkar-"1t' ' �� Duo Local Vicinity ' FIGURE -\ ELEVATION ' - LANDSCAPE OE 1A \SUP S Y V R OF .3 PEO WA w ^Cy�Sn �T \ ,Y^��'�Y•(��`�`.�.'T _a0-0•- _LA°SHOAD I(�_ d'• r]�'�j rr. n------------------------ -----NOAR fl 00'NUT-0~:FSTNIELOED -- _ i 1• `\y V M— ��i ! —�— DNG GRID •\ \ �'; II TO GOWN SPOU RAIN AT PARKING ti TI It ARP I Al 0-1- I TO GRADE DECORATIVE LIGHT 1 I ♦\ 1 ` 77.000 sq.IL - STANDARDS 10 rytGN 1� al..' 0 N - ✓ )I ♦ \• F.F.ELEV.{7.0- Yl1 _ 5 R 0.SPILL ♦•\ A °' •.r L:' °.i �a P AT STAiR 0 r' 'r FROM LOWER LEVEL O v `P ER M.H. `y \ 25.000{4,1, \\ _ 1•WALL INTO.FL000 LIOHTS-4� •-- I' F.F.ELEV.97.0' '��Ex -LOCATION OF ♦- �6UMP DUMP AT LOWEST LEVEL p r QA-.I ♦`�� Y;�'I.1.1 14'019CNARGE PIPE FROM SUMP .01 e RELOCATED SEWE�EgEMEN �a SEWER MN. p �—.EXISTING DRIVEWAY TEXISTING----._-_—�� SHEET FLOW V-GUNITE DRAINAGE \\ ♦ ' �b•.� •�• OITCH 4'0EEP •WIOEa t'O•. 0•C.1.U.G FOR R.D. , , / ' `•/�./ --• _ _ ��. I AT NEW ftO TO EXIT`�� ' '�✓ Y• - • CURS FACED •,�/,� r Source: The McMahon Partnership, .c.1.:, :00' Proposed Site Plan 3 FIGURE fiiiiiiiii �Imiilimilumliiiuli�i�i�falN }iiil�iii�luiii� I �■�■� - nr VIEW FROM HObMIAL ROAD SECTION A PROPOSED BUILDING IEjl Iliil ii!!I,fih�ij(i lid Illij i�li i,lj illii ii ��, ! r _.••—:a- � _+- IIIII�I■ili■I■ili■Iliil■ili■I■ili■IIIII■ �■I■ VIEW FROM FLAGSHIP SECTION B �ROPOSFD BUILDING i f"I `Iil lifill liii llllii Iffi � ",II i�►— �Y 1 1.4 PERMITS REQUIRED 1 Several permits must be acquired by the applicant prior to project approval and construction. Three complete sets of plans must be submitted to the city to acquire a building permit. Also, a Use Permit must be acquired for the proposed height of both structures to exceed the Basic Height Limit of 32 feet as established in the zoning code. The medical office building is designed for a height of 50 feet, the maximum ' allowable in the area without a variance. The parking structure proposed is to reach 34 feet-6 inches. Four requirements must be met to justify exceeding the Height Limit prior to the issuance of a Use Permit. Briefly, the requirements are: ' 1. Increased structure height would result in more public visual open space and view than is required by the basic height limit. 2. Increased building height would allow more desirable architectural treat- ment of the building. 3. Increased building height would not result in undesirable scale relationships with surrounding land uses. 4. The structure would not have more floor area than could have been achieved without the Use Permit. Proposed projects of greater than 10,000 square feet of building space are subject to compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The basic requirement of this ordinance is the provision of a traffic study to determine if the amount of additional traffic to be generated by the proposed project will be acceptable within the standards established by the city. The proposed construction activities involve the excavation of e portion of the ' site to provide a subterranean level for mechanical equipment used in temperature level maintenance, elevator operation, etc. As'such, a grading permit will be required. As t of the rojects the inch sewer line whichpunderlies a section of the parking tcant o to relocate an Relocat on activities gare subject to the approval of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a requisite Encroachment Permit, ' The project site is not located within that area under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. III t 2.0 SETTING/IMPACTS/MITIGATION 2.1 LAND USE AND ZONING ' 2.1.1 Existing Conditions = The project site is designated on the Newport Beach Land Use Plan as Administrative-Professional and Financial Commercial. All surrounding parcels are within the same land use designation except for those properties to the north along a part of Flagship and Patrice Roads which are designated as Multiple-Family Residential (Figure 5). Zoning for the project site is Administrative-Professional (A-P). Uses permitted within the A-P district range from professional and business offices, ' pharmacies, and medical and diagnostic laboratories to social halls, lodges, clubs, and art studios and their accessory buildings. The proposed project is, therefore, within .the scope of allowable uses included in the A-P district. The project site is also within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. The basic height limit for any structure constructed within this zone shall. be 32 feet. Structures between 32 and 50 feet in height require a Use Permit. The proposed height of the parking structure, 34.5 feet, is significant enough to require the acquisition of a Use Permit. In addition, the office building will require similar treatment. Included in the request to permit the construction of this parking structure is a request to permit auto parking on its roof and a modification to the zoning requirements to allow the provision of compact spaces as a percentage of the total required parking to be provided. Building. Gros e site s s floor sp ace m occupied ace untst six-story o 77,000 squarefeet Lido Offices which supports over leased offices. The applicant intends a similar use for the proposed building, however, the offices will be designed for future individual sale. The remainder of the site which is not occupied by the edifice is paved for parking. Several mature eucalyptus trees provide shade and color from their location at the rear of the parking area. Surrounding land uses are characteristic of their respective zoning. A convalescent hospital is located directly east of the site which extends northward along the bluff above Newport Boulevard. Zoning for this parcel is A-P. Hoag Hospital is Iocated south of the site, across Hospital Road. Zoning is A-P-H. A Planned Community (P-C) designation is provided for the Versailles condominium development located to the west of Hoag Hospital. ' Land use to the west of Placentia Avenue consists of various medical offices and associated uses. A bank is located in the northern tip of this triangular- shaped parcel which is zoned A-P. A smaller scale business office development (associated with the hospital) occupies the northern corner of the Flagship,Road- Placentia Avenue intersection. This parcel is zoned A-P-H, identical to that of the ' hospital. North of the business offices, occupying approximately half of the Flagship Road frontage between Placentia Avenue and Patrice Road, are multiple family ' residential units. R-3 zoning extends to the north of the project site for two to three ' - 7 - M Mao M M M m M M. M Mae m M m m m No�62� 7pACT 1pPlae�AA IOMNGE 1 c aA Y a st ! ; fN F `1�~PL ` CwNry -b -�1 • ...yr ` PC M-i A `e.- d� AJ- g.1 ♦ tir ',.� ,y nn• ,....-�- 4 1F A-P � R-A AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL R-R MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL S •'r _ ••'i! ",•i. R-I SINGS[FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LIGHT CdWE11WAl µ ,'oAAII•• R-= DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C-t GENERAL COMMERCIAL Project ✓I0♦ R-J NEETh MUITIVIE!U!ILY RESIDENTIAL M-1 MANUFACTURING O,0 CONeININD DISTRICTS C� UNCLASSIFIED P'C Site kP-N f o • - - ... SCALE OF FEET � c, Zoning , 5 :F1URE ' blocks and incluaes land uses along Patrice Road. The residential area between Hospital and Dana Road embodied within such zoning is completely developed. ' 2.1.2 Environmental Impacts The project, as proposed, is generally consistent with both land use and zoning designations. The Zoning Consistency Chart (Table 1) illustrates the relationship between city. requirements and project compliance. It will serve in the same capacity as the existing Park Lido Building. It is anticipated, therefore, that no land use impacts will result from construction of the proposed medical building. Land use impacts may or may not result from the location of the parking structure directly opposite the residential units to the north of the project site. While proximity to the residences is not the most. desirable, a generous setback along the affected sides has been provided as well as a fairly lush landscape scene and berms. I2.1.3 Mitigation 1. The applicant will provide 18-foot and 19 foot-6 inch setbacks on the western and northern perimeter of the parking structure. Incorporated into the setback is a landscaped greenbelt consisting of berms and vegetative treatment which will serve to screen off-site views of the structure and buffer the marked difference between land use types in the respective zoning designations. 2.2 CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION The traffic study incorporated herein was conducted by Kunzman Associates and is provided in its entirety in Appendix A. 2.2.1 Existing Conditions rThe project site is primarily served by the immediately surrounding streets of Hospital Road, a secondary roadway, and Flagship Avenue, a residential street. Regional transportation and routes utilized by persons commuting to the site include the primary arterials of Superior Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway, and Newport Boulevard. All three roads are heavily used for local and visitor traffic, particularly during the summer months and on holidays. Traffic signals control the intersections of Hospital Road and Newport Boulevard, Hospital Road and Superior Avenue (recently installed), Placentia and Superior Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway and Superior. A four-way stop sign is located southeast of the project site at the intersection of Placentia Avenue and Hospital Road. Daily traffic at the Superior Avenue-Pacific Coast Highway intersection presently exceeds its 90 percent capacity allocation. Intersection improvements are I planned and city funds have been allocated for fiscal year 1981-1-982. Proposed city budget improvements encompass one southbound left turn lane, two southbound through lanes, and one southbound right turn lane on Superior. Additional revenues will be required to sufficiently improve intersection efficiency and render present utilization ' below the 90 percent capacity level. - 9 - 5 TABLE 1 ZONING CONSISTENCY CHART I Requirements A-P Project Minimum Setbacks: Front 15, , 26 ". 6 Rear 5' 18' and 1916" ' Side 0' 26'3" and 27' Gross Floor Area to Building Area Ratio: 2 to 1 .90 to 11 Height: Basic Height Limit 32' _ Maximum Height with 50, 50} (building) Use Permit 3416" (parking structure) Parking: Existing Building 308 required 296 provided rProject 260 required 260 provided ' Total Site 568 required 556 provided 2 (15% compact spaces) 1) both buildings II ' 2) applicant does not propose to make up for Present parking study incorporated in Section 2.3 ndProvidedgineits1eentirety base an n Appendix A. - 10 - The Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is currently operating at 86.69 percent of capacity. It is presently undergoing reconstruction which will greatly improve its operating capacity. 2.2.2 - Environmental Impacts _ The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropriate - trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are expressed in terms of trip ends per person, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, trip ends per dwelling, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor area. ' For this study, trip generation data was supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Based on actual traffic counts at a medical office building at Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, the city's study indicates 30 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area. ' Traffic distribution is based on the directional orientation of traffic, and then the traffic is assigned to specific roadways. It is based on the geographical location of residential concentrations along with commercial, business, and recreational opportunities. Project traffic was assigned to the surrounding roadways based upon city staff recommendations. Projected traffic distribution is illustrated in Figure 6. A Phase I level of analysis was performed on seven critical intersections identified by the city staff along the affected traffic corridors. The analysis, in compliance with the city's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, involved the study and determin- ation of one percent traffic volume of the following intersections: 1. Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue 2. Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road 3. Superior Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway 4. Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway 5. Orange Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway 6. Prospect Street and Pacific Coast Highway 7. Riverside Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway The purpose of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is to establish whether the project adds a volume that is greater than one percent of a critical intersection's approach volume. If less than one percent is added to all approaches of a critical intersection, then no further analysis is necessary as specified in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As part of one percent analysis, regional growth and' committed projects are included: Volume projections are made to a- point in time one year after project completion. This project's completion date is 1982, and traffic volumes are projected 1 to 1983. Regional traffic has been forecasted in accordance with city procedures, including committed project traffic. It has been determined from this analysis that the proposed project would I cause the one percent volume criteria to be exceeded at the first four intersections listed above. Therefore, a Second Phase analysis has been conducted. - 11 - 13 rl�l ilk m mom r m M • M. m m r i m r m m P� ro 15 5 Placentia 6o&l avid Orange 15 Prospect Dana Flagship`_ Slie Rooadla 15 Aa hi h Riverside wa Cjf �C Dover O d0 15 10 Legend 5 Percent of project traffic using route. Source: Kunzman Associates Traffic Distribution 6 FIGURE Information provided by subsequent analysis reveals that the resultant project effect on Superior and Placentia Avenue, and Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road intersections does not exceed 90 percent of their respective capacities, therefore, no mitigation is required. Superior-Coast Highway intersection utilization presently exceeds ninety percent capacity without the proposed project which dictates that mitigation be provided. The Dover Drive-Pacific Coast Highway intersection exceeds ' 90 percent utilization once the existing, growth, and committed traffic are calculated. However, improvements currently being made at the intersection will render its operation level somewhat below 90 percent of existing capacity. - On-site circulation concerns involve both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Heaviest pedestrian traffic will most likely occur between the proposed parking structure and the two office buildings. Special treatment has been given to designate the pathway across the interjacent area. Cars entering and exiting the site from Hospital Road will cross the pedestrian walkway. Because of the sharp right turn that ' must be negotiated into the garage immediately after crossing the pedestrian walkway, ' vehicles will be traveling slowly and can easily stop for pedestrians to cross. Pedestrian walkways are not provided along the north and east sides'of the proposed office building. It is anticipated that pedestrian traffic will be contained within the interior of the project site and along Hospital Road westerly of the proposed structure. The number of mid-block crossings from the site to Hoag Hospital is anticipated to be minimal because of recent hospital expansion which now provides an entrance close to the Placentia-Hospital Road intersection. Should mid-block crossings pose problems, the posting of signs prohibiting such actions and subsequent enforcement should be considered. With 55 percent of the daily project vehicular traffic being oriented to or from Newport Boulevard, the heaviest driveway use is expected to be the Hospital Road access. During the evening peak hour, 81 vehicles are expected to make a left turn from the project site to Hospital Road. This equates to one left turn every 45 seconds which should not be a problem. Should the city determine that an unsafe situation exists, then the project access on Hospital Road could be changed to right-turn ingress and egress only. For traffic entering the site from Hospital Road, the sharp right turn into the parking structure should have a minimum inside curb radius of 20 feet. This may require redesigning the planter on the south side of the garage entrance. 2.2.3 Mitigation 2. The same recommendations applied to a previous project are applicable here. The affected intersection, Superior Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, will require substantial improvements which include the addition of a third westbound through lane to Pacific Coast Highway and widening of Superior to include two southbound through lanes, two right turn lanes, and one left turn lane. In that the intersection affected by this project is also affected by other development projects and regional traffic, the responsibility for the improvements recommended should be apportioned in an equitable manner between government entities and local development projects. - 13 - 2.3 PARKING 2.3.1 Existing Conditions. ' The City of Newport Beach requires that medical office projects provide - one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. The, existing 77,000 square foot medical building provides 296 spaces while the code requires 308. Project - proponents contend that many spaces in the parking lot remain.empty. The existing parking lot contains 313 spaces of which 17 are covered by an easement for use by an an adjoining building. Although these 17 spaces are not signed "for use by the adjoining facility only," they were excluded from the parking survey and analysis. A detailed breakdown of parking space demand by the existing medical building is provided in Appendix A. It can be noted that the actual demand ranges from one space for each 313 to 330 square feet of gross floor area. 2.3.2 Environmental impacts Project design incorporates the provision of a total of 556 parking spaces on-site to accommodate a total gross area of both buildings amounting to 142,000 square feet. Thirty-three spaces are to be located on-grade with the balance in the parking structure. Total parking provided is twelve spaces short of satisfying the amount required by code. If gross square footage is divided by the 556 parking spaces proposed, the result is one space for every 255 square feet of floor area. Since the actual demand for parking spaces is at most one space for every 313 square feet, or 454 ' spaces, the parking being provided will meet both medical building parking demands but will be slightly short of city requirements. It should also be noted that the existing 17 easement parking spaces can be accommodated within the 556 parking spaces provided without infringing upon the parking demands of both the existing and proposed buildings. An issue of concern is the accommodation of the existing medical building's parking needs (approximately 260 spaces) while the new medical building and parking structure are under construction. A number of alternatives are available and are discussed below. Existing parking will be affected whether or not the parking structure is contracted before or in conjunction with the medical building. Of the total 313 parking spaces, 257 spaces would be lost if the parking structure were built first and 295 spaces would be lost if both the parking structure and medical building were constructed simultaneously. Three major alternatives of providing temporary parking accommodations exist. The following discussion describes each alternative and its effect on the surrounding area. a. Obtain an agreement to park on undeveloped parcels for the duration of construction and operate a valet parking service. Time inconvenience to patrons will be significantly greater using this option if an undeveloped parcel suitable for use as a temporary parking lot cannot be retained within a few blocks. A temporary increase in localized traffic will be realized as well as the possibility of a collision as the cars are shuttled between the site and the lot. ' - 14 - ' b. Obtain an agreement to use Hoag Hospital's parking fore the existing medical building's employees and doctors, and provide on-site valet parking for building patrons. The areas not affected by construction could be designed and utilized for valet parking with any spill-over being provided on the adjoining streets of Flagship, Spindrift, Patrice, Hilaria, and Dana. Should a significant amount of on-street parking be required, local resi- dents may-experience a parking shortage as well as increased traffic during regular business hours: Medical building employees may experience a•slight _ inconvenience due to the distance between Hoag's parking structure and the office building, particularly during the rainy season. C. Provide on-site valet parking for medical buildings employees, doctors, and patrons. The on-site areas not affected by std,ggered construction of the two proposed structures could be designed and utilized for valet parking with any spill-over being provided on the adjoining streets of ' Flagship, Spindrift, Patrice, Hilaria, and Dana. Depending on the amount of the project site undergoing construction at any one time, repercussions of this alternative may stem from unforeseen use of on-street parking ' subject to its availability. This alternative may be least favored by the project applicant as it would substantially increase building costs. Valet parking is a means of providing additional parking spaces within the same area of land by reducing the area required for each parking space. In general, self parking lots require approximately 360 square feet of parking area per parking space including drive aisles. Double stall ninety degree attendant parking requires approxi- mately 170 square feet of area per parking space. Of the alternatives noted, it would seem likely that any one could provide adequate parking to accommodate approximately 240 vehicles for the of construction period lasting approximately three months; however, each will produce certain impacts and require exact, city-approved plans of action. Valet service appears to be required for all alternatives. An agreement to utilize Hoag Hospital's parking is a must under alternatives a and b. City concurrence regarding on-street overflow parking is necessary under alternatives b and c. The possibility exists to design the proposed parking structure with ' designated compact car areas. It .is most effective when parking areas of equal desirability (such as equal distance from the building) are divided into partially compact and partially full size parldng spaces. An example of this would be to reserve one side of a parking aisle for compacts and the other side for full size cars. All compact spaces should not be segregated either in the most desirable or least desirable parking areas. - 15 - ' As for what proportion•of parking stalls can be reserved for compact cars, the current practice ranges from 25 to 50 percent. Car size is shrinking with time and ' this trend is assured to continue because of federally mandated minimum gas mileage standards. In the next few years, the average gas mileage of all new autos sold must equal 27 miles per gallon. Today the average is just over 20 miles per gallon. The proportion of compact cars on the road today cannot be precisely defined because the definition of sub-compact, compact, mid-size, intermediate, and so forth has changed over time. However, few cats on the road today are full size as defined just a few years ago. Most cars today are smaller than a five year old Chevrolet Caprice or Ford - ' LTD. The 50th percentile car on the road today is probably smaller than a Camaro in Iength, width, and weight. Any number of parking spaces up to 50 percent of the total can be justified today with 30 to 40 percent being probably a very reasonable amount. In five years, the preceeding percentages could be safely increased by 10 percent. The applicant proposes to include 15 percent of the parking spaces in the structure for compact cars. Impacts Iare believed to be negligable. 2.3.3 Mitigation 3. Temporary parking arrangements for the construction period should be finalized prior to commencement of the construction phase and shall be subject to city approval. Persons affected by the provision shall be notified by flier distribution, bulletin, or other approved method one month in advance. 2.4 WATER QUALITY/DRAINAGE 2.4.1 Existing Conditions The existing Park Lido development produces storm runoff and nuisance waters which cause degradation of local surface water sources. The paved portion of the site contributes an indiscernible amount of rubber and oil particles and miscel- laneous debris to water running off the site. Existing drainage on-site is comprised of sheet flows in a general easterly direction. Runoff is directed to a four-inch, V-gunite drainage ditch in the easternmost corner of the site. Currently, runoff is conveyed by surface flow along Hospital Road to Newport Boulevard where flow is diverted underground. Subsurface flow from the intersection is carried first in an 18-inch reinforced concrete pipe, then a five-foot by four-foot box along Newport Boulevard to its terminus at the Lido Turning Basin. ' 2.4.2 Environmental Impacts Additional runoff will not be created by project implementation due to previous site development. The quality of surface drainage, however, will be degraded by the introduction of additional vehicle traffic on-site. First flows from surface parking and the upper level of the parking structure will carry the most debris and pollutants. The pollutants carried in the runoff from the project site will vary from time to time in content, but would include such items as rubber, asbestos, hydrocarbons, and metal particles from circulation and parking areas, as well as insecticides and fertilizers used in the landscape maintenance program. Quantification of pollutant ' concentrations would be,conjecture at best due to the lack of available data and diffuse nature of the source. I , - 16 - 2.4.3 Mitigation While direct mitigation of the identified impacts is not feasible, indirect contributions to improved water quality running off the site can be achieved by implementation of the following city policies: ' A. An erosion, siltation, and dust control plan shall be prepared by the _ applicant and approved by the Building Department. A copy will be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa -Ana Region ten days prior to any construction. B. Existing on-site.drainage, facilities shall be improved or upgraded to the satisfaction of the city. C. All parking and other on-site paved surfaces shall be routinely vacuum- swept weekly and cleaned to reduce debris and pollutants carried into the drainage system. ' D. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect which includes a maintenance program that controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides, incorporates the use -drought resistant species, and utilizes a watering- program which avoids surface runoff and ' overwatering. E. Project shall incorporate water flow reduction measures wherever feasible. 4. Drainage facilities shall be properly maintained by the applicant and all subsequent owners/operators. 5. A new concrete swale will be constructed between the parking structure and the proposed office building to provide improved on-site drainage. 2.5 AIR QUALITY 2.5.1 Existing Conditions The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin. Regional air quality is determined by locally emitted pollutants, ambient air quality, and specific meteorological factors which influence dispersion and concentration. Monitoring of air ' quality parameters is carried out by the South Coast Air Quality Management District at various locations throughout the air basin. The most proximate station is located in Costa Mesa, northeast of the project site. Of all the major pollutant categories monitored, all but two (sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide) have exceeded state and federal standards between 1975 and 1979. Meteorological conditions along the coastline provide favorable effects on ' air quality in the vicinity of the project site. Daily onshore winds provide a supply of relatively improved air quality to the local area. Numerous sources of air pollution exist throughout the basin, however, mobile sources, particularly motor vehicles, most ' directly affect air quality on-site. - 17 - ' 2.5.2 Environmental Impacts Air quality impacts from traffic-intensive projects such as the proposed. medical office building are usually sufficiently spread out over space and time such that they do not of themselves threaten air quality standards. Rather, they act concurrently with a number of similar projects throughout the basin to produce southern California's ' characteristic air quality problems. Commercial projects generate three types of'emissions that may produce detrimental effects on air quality. These sources include: a. Temporary emissions of fugitive dust and heavy equipment emissions during construction which produce short-term effects. b. Mobile source emissions from cars and light duty trucks will add exhaust constituents to the local airstream daily. C. Stationary source emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in power plants which generate electricity for use by the project. These are not ' necessarily added in proximity to the site. 2.5.3 Mitigation Since much of the project's impact relates to the use of the automobile whose emission characteristics are beyond the control of the developers and local ' agencies, there is little potential for effective mitigation of the long-term air quality effects. Mitigation of short-term impacts generated by construction activities are addressed in mitigation A, Section 2.4.3. 2.6. NOISE 2.6.1 Existing Environment ' The dominant ambient noise in the project vicinity emanates from motor vehicles. Major arterials such as Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard are distant enough from the project site to produce minimal impacts at best. The project site lies within the 45-50 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) contours for Newport Boulevard as defined in the Noise Element of the Newport Beach General Plan.' Localized airport noise effects are insignificant relative to other areas of the city. ' 2.6.2 Environmental Impacts Noise impacts produced by the project will consist of two types. One type is vehicle noises emanating from the parldng structure, entranceways, and adjacent roads. Increased traffic utilization of adjacent roads and access points will incrementally increase existing noise levels. It is .believed, however, that minimal impacts on adjacent residents and other individuals will stem from this type of noise source. Parldng lot noise generation is associated with three activities: driving, door slamming, and engine starting. Residences north of the project site may experience an incremental increase in noise impacts emanating from -the parking structure during III business hours. •, - 18 - ' Construction noises, the second type associated with the project, may cause temporary impacts on adjacent residents, particularly those occupying the convalescent ho§pital east of the site. Construction activities are typically confined to daylight hours and are of a temporary nature. As such, they are normally considered an ' annoyance. However, persons in a convalescent state may be more sensitive to intermittent noises typically associated with heavy construction activities. Persons with a physical state which requires periods of sleep or rest during the hours to which _ construction activities are normally restricted may experience construction noise ' impacts 'to a greater degree than other residents in the area. Rooftop placement of vents, air conditioning, and other equipment is commonly associated with increased noise. Noise-producing equipment will be located in the basement of the proposed building, effectively eliminating the associated impacts. 2.6.3 Mitigation ' 6. Construction machinery should be maintained in proper mechanical condi- tion and equipped with noise reducing devices. F. The applicant shall contribute proportionally to a West Coast Highway Noise Wall Fund. 2.7 AESTHETICS ' 2.7.1 Existing Environment The project site consists of a near-level, odd-shaped parcel as illustrated in 1 Figures 3 and 7. Upper level offices in the existing Park Lido building enjoy views of the surrounding coastline, approximately one mile to the south, and most of Orange County to the north. ' The majority of the site is presently used to provide parking space for persons visiting and working in the building. Landscaping is primarily associated with the office structure, however, eucalyptus and other decorative trees are selectively located in the parking area. Surrounding residences and properties look directly onto the parking area, with views extending across to the existing building. Views across the site do not enjoy visual ocean contact due to both man-made obstructions and distance from the bluff upon which Hoag Hospital is situated. 2.7.2 Environmental Impacts ' The assessment of aesthetic values, and more explicitly impact, is not a simple task. Aesthetic values are inherent to each person and, therefore, vary ' tremendously. The visual character of the site will not be significantly altered because of the nature of present site development. A distinct increase in building density will, however, be evident should additional construction occur. - 19 - Views of the Site rom DDDpo :r - = Surrounding Areas FIGURE 51. d_ _� �.__ Y, _ice _ _ - s •` ..�w _.�� y`+. ' _ PARR ATDQ' 1- 1 Y _ _ e � '"�_y�,�� -_ •� - '""^"�',y�'-•� �£-1`�=.i ." �.•w'�-a-.i � � '.- mil.!_ � -,�_. __-_ n, -•'_ , r- 1- __ -�/l a�.`�" S _ r.. _ _ `!'_"t ,� �- _ d � �" -'?`Q'�i= `-_`- - ....^vm_3•-vim __ 4a�_y _ •Y'�[�Yc4�"- _ - 1 ��� ��_ > r�`ML��_ 'm, ��I�r- �Y4�i jP � _ _ �""'r�i-�".•_" C -.1 . .- =S` '_ _ "`_-__==%'0�� _� _ '•••"` :?VIA �9►aa, � > `_+' 1 C t-. Ril }} v R7• L � /f • ff t �1 ` r ' 1, The impacts arising from the location of the parking structure in proximity to the adjacent residences may be affected by several factors. Visual impacts may be Roads. a Said impactsdents wouldof the multi-family units be caused by the abruptness rof the three level parking on Patrice and Flagship structure. Increased building density is not anticipated to produce ill-effects on the _ site's visual character. The proposed structure will exhibit architectural styling that is both consistent in nature with the adjacent building and aesthetically' Predominate external building design will consist of tinted reflective-glass with a white marble base and vertical columns. ross pleasing. structural style and the size relationship of the t o buildinSection A-most accurately depicts buildings directly rather than at an oblique angle as the other sectio as ns view affronts both Glare impacts may be experienced building at certain times of the day b ut are nt cipatedsto besm, and south sides of the inimized by the use of ' treated glass as a major building material. The reflection caused by direct contact with sunlight whi hshas produced glar ptrobreduces lems in areas where reflective glass has been used as a primary building material. ' Shadows cast by the building may create minor impacts on residents of the adjacent convalescent hospital. Its east-side location makes it vulnerable to shadows cast by the setting sun. However, the existing office building, which is taller than the ' proposed structure, casts a similar shadow during late afternoon. The proposed project, therefore, may shade a portion of the adjacent earlier time each day. convalescent hospital at a slightly ' A street level sign, the design of which has not been finalized t provide identification of the new building to persons passingby. o date, will ' material will be metal. It is anticipated that no aesthetic impacts will be generated lon this sign. hting will mounted flood lights i by n the intermediate p primarily of decorative illumination, wall- the parking structure, and lighting within the parking structure. rarea between the imary buildings and utilization of the site will occur during the day. As such, glare impacts generated by night Iighting of ' the project site are not anticipated to be significant as a lower level of site lighting will suffice. 2.7.3 Mitigation Measures 7. Mechanical and other equipment that is often mounted on the roof of large buildings will be located in the basement of the proposed structure to ' reduce the visual and noise impacts created by equipment location and - operation. 8. The landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Department. 9• The applicant should provide a percentage of mature trees and 1 the onset of the landscaping phase. . The actual pants e ' determined by the Planning Department. Percentage shall be - 21 - _ ' 10. Landscaping should be installed in as early a phase as possible, not leaving ' planting for the final construction phase. 11. The project should be so designed as to reduce light and glare spillage onto adjacent uses. All external lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. G. A lighting plan shall be prepared by a qualified electrical engineer. H. Lighting shall be limited to uses on the property and public safety. I. Any construction on-site shall be in accordance with the city's height restriction regulations. Such restrictions apply to all landscape materials, signs, etc. as well as structures. ' J. Prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits, a signing program for the proposed construction,sales, and occupancy periods of the project shall be approved by the Planning Department. 2.8 CLIMATE '. 2.8.1 Existing Conditions Newport Beach enjoys a Mediterranean climate which is characterized by mild winters and dry hot summers. The Pacific Ocean produces a moderating effect on ' the local coastal climate, however, reducing annual temperature extremes. Fog occasionally shrouds the coast during the summer, particularly in the morning, while on- and off-shore breezes occur year round. Daily breezes typically follow a diurnal pattern unless precluded by sporadic storms which seasonally advance from the north and south. Generally, off- shore winds from 5 to 10 miles per hour flow at night and are replaced by on-shore breezes which are slightly stronger by mid-morning. Summer months usually include a northwesterly and southeasterly flow pattern superimposed upon the daily sea breeze. ' 2.8.2 Environmental Impacts ' The construction of an additional tower in close proximity to the existing six-story structure may create localized changes in the existing wind pattern. Wind currents deflected around the sides and over the tops of large buildings can be altered by induced velocity increases. The addition of an adjacent structure which also deflects the prevailing winds will create a stronger effect on the wind as the air flow channeled between the two buildings experiences accelerated velocity (the venturi effect). At times, the artificially created force can be quite strong. The positioning of the parking structure directly behind the newly created wind channel. combined with its relative openess will serve to slow and refract the artificially accelerated air flow. Therefore, it is believed that wind speed will return to an acceptable level before it reaches any ' surrounding land uses. - 22 - - 2.8.3 Mitigation ' No mitigation is proposed,as it is not anticipated that project implementa- tion will result in significant adverse climatic effects. ' 2.9 PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES ' Information provided in this section was obtained from the affected agencies. Correspondence is provided in Appendix B regarding the following issues. ' 2.9.1 Fire Protection Services 2.9.1.1 Existing Conditions Fire protection services within the city are provided by the Newport ' Beach Fire Department. Presently, it carries an Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating of three. Rating criteria are contingent upon various fire department characteristics with one being the highest attainable rating on a scale of 10. ' The Fire Department utilizes a height limitation of 55 feet in alliance with table 5C of the 1976 Uniform Building Code as a basis for project ' evaluation with respect to fire safety. The proposed project will be in compliance with this stipulation. Estimated fire flow for the proposed building is 3000 gallons per minute. ' The closest fire facility is the Lido Station, located near the corner of 32nd Street and Newport Boulevard, approximately one mile south of the project site. The average emergency response time is estimated to be two to three minutes. A first alarm response for a fire would draw personnel from three stations with the resultant attention of 13 engineers, paramedics, and other firefighters. ' 2.9.1.2 Impacts ' Correspondence received from Fire Marshal Dailey indicates that present manning levels are sufficient to cope with the intended development. However, site plan layout does not promote on-site building access by firefighting units. As such, off-street tactics utilized in addressing structural fires will have limited effectiveness. Low vertical clearance prohibits fire engine entrance into the pro- posed parking structure. While this does not preclude all firefighting efforts, it does ' restrict equipment access and increase the need for manpower should a fire occur within the structure. ' 2.9.1.3 Mitigation K. To compensate for the obstruction of Fire Department access into the parking structure, the applicant will be required to provide built-in fire protection measures. Stand pipes and hose cabinets shall be included in the - 23 - ' parking structure according to code. Fire protection measures specified in the Uniform Building Code for Type I construction shall be provided in the office building. An internal sprinkler system has been recommended for inclusion by the Fire Department as an additional fire protection measure. L. Plans for the proposed building and parking structure shall be reviewed by Fire Department officials to ensure that adequate fire prevention and suppression systems are provided. 2.9.2 Police Services 2.9.2.1 Existini Conditions ' Police protection within the city is provided by the Newport Beach Police Department. The project site is within Reporting District Number 24 which is composed of a mixture of residential and commerical uses. The Police Station is located at the intersection of Santa Barbara Drive ,and Jamboree Road, approximately 4.5 miles east. Emergency response time to the site is approximately 3 minutes. Crime levels within the area primarily consist of burglaries and thefts of autos and objects within them. ' Police staffing levels slightly exceed the recognized optimum ratio of 2 officers per 1,000 population. The Police Department presently employs 138 sworn officers compared to a permanent population of 65,750. 2.9.2.2 Impacts Impacts on police services should be negligible provided that the ' certain recommendations are incorporated into project design. 2.9.2.3 Mitigation Proposed mitigation is in alliance with recommendations provided by the Police Department. M. All doors and windows should be clearly visible from the street and/or parking area. . III , N. Exterior lighting should be utilized during darkness. O. The address should be painted on the roof in large block letters to facilitate aerial patrol. ' - 24 - ' 2.9.3 Sewer Facilities . ' 2.9.3.1 Existing Conditions The City of Newport Beach owns and operates the local collector ' system that serves the project site and surrounding area. Development between _ Superior, Dana, Hospital, and Newport streets is served by an 8-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) which occupies a ten-foot easement on the project site. The easement _ ' for this trunk line extends diagonally across the northeastern portion of the project site which is presently used for automobile parking. The applicant proposes to relocate the sewer and dedicate a new easement to allow for construction of the proposed parking structure above the existing sewer easement. From the site, sewage flows via 8-inch clay or cast iron pipes easterly along Hospital Road toward Newport Boulevard. At the intersection, the sewage ' is added to wastewater in a major conduit system flowing south through 15-and 16- inch pipe where it ties into the county's Pacific Coast Highway trunk system. Wastewater in this trunk is pumped to either of the Districts' two treatment facilities located along the Santa Ana River. The project site is located within County Sanitation District Number Five. The project area has been master-planned by the Districts as commercial. Using a flow coefficient of 3,230 gallons per acre per day, total site flow may add up to 11,628 gallons per day to the existing wastewater flow in the area without producing an impact on the Sanitation Districts' facilities. 1• 2.9.3.2 Environmental Impacts The project applicant is proposing to re-route the existing sewer easement in accordance with regulations which prohibit construction over an ' easement. It is intended that the existing sewer line and easement will be re- routed along Patrice Road to the extreme northeastern corner of the site. At that point, the proposed pipeline and easement will make a 90=degree juncture with the section proposed to extend along the eastern edge of the site near the convalescent hospital. The re-routed pipe will tie into the existing line near the proposed office building as illustrated in Figure 3. Manholes will be provided as indicated on the ' site plan. The Public Works Department has set forth specific requirements which must be complied with to provide an acceptable re-routing project. The major concerns within the requirements include: ' 1) Prior determination of adequate gradient for the re-routed line 2) Dedication of the new easement to the city 3) No construction or large vegetation will be permitted above the easement ' 4) Likely requirement of the provision of an additional manhole at the proposed conjuncture The Public Works Department has indicated that the proposed sewer line relocation would be a simple task provided that construction is in compliance with city guidelines. - 25 - 1 It is anticipated that expansion of the 8 inch sewer line will not be required as total wastewater flow from the proposed office building is estimated to 1 be approximately 4,800 gallons per day. Present operating capacity is believed to be sufficiently below ultimate capacity. Hence, existing facilities are not likely to be significantly affected by the addition of sewage generated by this project 1 (Maikemus, 1981). - Sanitation Districts facilities have been sized to handle master-planned _ flows. Project implementation is anticipated to increase existing wastewater flow 1 from the site by approximately 4,800 gallons per day based on eight hours of use per day. 1 2.9.3.3 Mitigation 1 Preliminary investigation indicates that the proposed project is not likely to produce significant effects on existing wastewater transmission and treatment facilities as the project will be in compliance with Title 24 of the 1 California Administrative Code. Title 24 requires that all buildings be equipped with water-saving fixtures such as flow restricting devices and water-saving toilets to reduce wastewater generation. However, two conditions must be met to minimize potential impacts on sewer facilities: P. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicant 1' shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Sewer capacity calculations shall be computed by a qualified archtectural engineer as evidence of a 1 determination. Q. Prior to occupancy of the building, the applicant shall provide written 1 verification from the Orange County Sanitation District No. 5 that adequate sewer and treatment plant capacity is available to serve the project. R. Project applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to sewer location construction. S. Sewer and easement relocation must meet all requirements and specifications of the city engineer and be approved by the Public Works 1 Department prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. 1 2.10 GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL 1 The proposed project must comply with the following general requirements stipulated by the city prior to council approval. .1 i '1 - 26 - _ CULTURAL RESOURCES ' T. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to ' completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K-6 and K-7. AIRPORT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT _ U. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's - policy Fegarding the Orange County Airport should be included in any - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. "The lessee herein, his heirs, successors, and assigns acknowledge that: a) The Orange County Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services. b) When an alternate air facility is availablp, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at Orange County Airport. c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the Orange County Airport. d) Lessee, his heirs; successors, and assigns will not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet service at Orange County Airport." ' SOLID WASTE Y. Final project design shall provide space for sorting and temporary storage of recyclable materials obtained from solid waste. GRADING W. Development of the site is subject to grading and demolition permits to ' be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. X. A grading plan should be prepared which includes a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. Y. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site, and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operations. Z. A Regional Water Quality permit must be obtained to allow any dewatering. WATER SUPPLY AA. Prior to project construction, the city must verify the availability of water and that capacity of exisiting lines is adequate to serve the proposed project. - 27 - 3.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports", South Coast Air Quality Management District, revised October 1980. "Draft Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment 81-11,, City of Newport Beach, March 1981. "Initial Study, Expansion of Hughes Aircraft Facilities," City of Newport Beach, no date. i "Initial Study and Project Report for Shokrian Retail/Office Building" City of Newport Beach, May 1980. Newport Beach General Plan "Land Use Plan as amended December 17, 1973. "Storm Drain Atlas" + "City Atlas" nal I� Community/Developmentmfor�the Impact K611Report, Aetna Property" WESTECt Services -July, 1980. ' - 28 - 4.0 PERSONS CONSULTED 1981 8-3 Baker, Hilary. Senior Engineering Aide. County Sanitation Districts. 9-4 (Telephone conversation and correspondence) 8-5 Dailey, T.C. Fire Marshal, •City of Newport Beach. (Telephone conversation and correspondence) 7-24 Devlin, Joe. Utilities Director, Newport Beach Utilities Department. (Telephone conversation and correspondence sent. No reply received as of 9/4/81) 7-22 Gomez, Gildarto. Utilities Superintendant, City of-Newport Beach. (Meeting) 7-22 Gustin, Chris. Associate Planner, City of Newport Beach. 1 (Numerous meeting and telephone conversations) 8-24 Hamilton, Richard. Captain, Commander of Administrative Division, • Newport Beach Police Department. (Correspondence) 7-22 Hoffstadt, Dick. City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. • 7-23 (Telephone conversations and meetings) 7-17 Kite, Robert. Partner, The McMahon Partnership. 7-20 (Numerous telephone conversations and meetings) 7-22 Lorman, Jim. Grading Engineer, City of Newport Beach. * (Meetings and discussed grading permit requirements). 8-3 Malkemus, Paul. Engineering Aide, City Newport Beach Water Department. (Telephone conversation) 7-15 Talarico, Fred. Environmental Planner, City of Newport Beach (Numerous meetings and telephone conversations). 7-17 Webb, Don City Engineer, City of Newport Beach (Telephone conversation) 7-13 Wish, Robert. Savemost Development, Inc. (Meeting) - 29 - APPENDIX A TRAFFIC STUDY ' A-1 c� uu� u� a � v4ssoc � ates � 0< Transportation Planning *Traffic Engineering September 14 , 1981 Mr. Thomas C. Ryan Westec Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 Dear Mr. Ryan: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis for the Hospital Road Medical Office Building. This analysis is in accordance with the requirements of the City of New- port Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This report also includds a discussion of medical building parking demands. We trust that this report will be of immediate as well as continuing value to the City of Newport Beach. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, �KUpNZ�M/AN ASSOCIATES William Kunzman, P.E. 4664 Sarranca Parkway * Irvine, CA 92714 * C7141 559-4231 A-2 "I`� ) l�, ,1�".('r. 1,�1 nf,A a�.- r tj 1, f. {�,Tf'jrr, r, ,J• � /r� �'� ,!�i. S `i% y{ �f 'f �r�r�.�• 7`i` P�11 -J' � . ) ��.11�f�,`,Y'�lt r// . C Ft!?��f �, h` YJit l�^,r4r .�:')ltr( f��,('r 1,�1. ,��irf' ,lf/1��ja�(ti.j.�,�'!I'J �/i �.c4*�•f,�� J .>;n; ✓11 r rl3c�r, r'� �r� ✓':! Jfrir {f. 1:;�}� r�/flt"•N-ti ,r, r� vS'�f �i'f,�p//} ��3 j5 �ry, /rr,rr� tfiyy},rr r� t�.Zv ��jr,�"V' r.r• �I,.' -ci y' Rf�` Jt ts,7i,(Y •fI.rt (rfl�"�I' ;+1 � l�l��t�+�• r��f' ' f,",}`'�':�•l 7.1,�� I >f-t�i . 10" ,,�, • f' {,: !' ••� r �` ' ! ri�r/ N/ lr,•, j+ .01'� �rlir' :l ",j Yv J.r?�'is�'��•.tilt,i�{1�1 •;}� 1'�,• r�'`ll i r ''` ,�� ���,I�'`,ti�,`�`�r 1`f? kk )(Yr�JYIl,✓�j�1w4 �yf�`/r'�, ;'!^i ,� t �f/S ES• }•t�� �r l 'N,'"�'fSt yi f7:1, rf,r r,/i')1 ,�'j•�V T I�,y'�t `.*, d`; j, ,�t' l�r/r�'.' '/'�i •f��'1 ��(�{!a}..r Jr!'j r ,((;+��'�'1 'iJ,j•<�'{' d��,,�� ft))r�1J{ 11r 5 rfv; 'ti`jj r1C. ;Lt/.�!J��;'V�',i�//j}}�1��.C�l,V1,���i �ff`/�yf'��(%rr L!!!/''/�:Y•:l•,'!Y �,' l!=`ri ��1lT i,_ • ) ,/,fir{h •' /i?r :}•,!� .0 1�i � ,i' ..%J: Hospital Road Medical Building Traffic Study �r , r�{[ Y`r{'r'f% � �'r� �.• f1 ,tC" �1}y`}��r; ;�5�' � , � 't7 fr Jf�),+�j•} , f�(`•�rti�, � r��j � �' r t.��t � t F�i?%�:1 Klf,F���1� /�'� . rl`,)! t'•!t L',���,j�t�,•r% ! �1�r ./ ' 11-.11 �,� �c•!/fill •.rJ(�rr � � jrFy r?�� � �1'i'f7 `). ��! ����,�'�yr�•'/f�'/�/./�.�X.�/,r �(���f✓�/�}f 1T' :'.Zr=? ;Cwl`, f.�.\�1�,/{7�•. l7.Sr�i:7fd f��✓�y j/�;��;`,., .1tC�}Fi��./' i/ �'��'.�,. �f�/� ',YI f a• •.�,I••�i1' .•�/ ,I r tit ; i~ F. i l t r t CL{✓. r• Jai %,� iY(,��,. f 1 C lr ' y�r�j'tJ. urn w ain (,knotates Transportation Planning .Traffic Engineering {TI tY r �, ' Y1•J Fr /S, /�•rrr/1..,/.r rrlrLrf''�'��(yi�f,/Y^�1���1%`���{��.�r/;:�'�•t�'l, ,��){i )'l�( �jY_C(S• T`")�. �l• {l%',�?�i���%F. %�i•'`C�;�`r'i�,7tYf;•f+��/';t'';T 3/;.j���f�($%���ijrl� ,t' �'/ •W�t` '1;'rt'•,)� ;i��• {�1 �J �'�f}/� t, �iZ.J�r�`r%l�ti�;;�'� t. �,r hi fi 3J j' i If '� •)�✓�;�e. �,37lrrr'��fJr �+�...r.it {y !r C•)(�i;- r����: ,/ :�t �l'�•/7i'�f r!• 7.1f�yy�r' r � r7 t! /�nt:Y,�•• 4 `) r A-3 Table of Contents Section Page No. I 1. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 6 . Project Related Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 7. Parking Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 8. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C - Project Related Improvements - ICU . Work Sheets i fi A-4 List of Figures Following Figure No. Title Page No. 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Project Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A-5 List of Tables Table No. Title Page No. 1 Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 One Percent Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Committed Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utiliza- tion for Critical Intersectioans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5 Project Related Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6 Parking Space Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 r� n A-6 1 Project Description Project Location The project is located at the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue across from Hoag Hospital. Proposed Development The project includes the construction of a 65, 269 square foot medical office building and a parking structure. The parking structure will serve the parking needs of an exist- ing 77,000 square foot medical building and the proposed medical: building. This traffic analysis also discusses : medical building parkina requirements, pedestrian circulation; driveway use, and surveys the existing medical building parking lot utilization. 1 1 A-7 Figure 1 VICINITY MAP _ %ice w` .� , '����/� � i ; •�, I lei si_ zx i / 4 �� .J• .. ITC... ,� I '•. .• nib0 It ) I r;'t. l � i • •� 't ��, x 6 5 / ytr w� •,w4 1��/�� .lam \v � er •I.. y' r n�rl- -•� _ �•k` p{/� 1 I j i4. p♦ • M^G 41. '\11 .,„S H .• yJ • .efi/'Z$+4 w >� 7 �i n�{y�.rlf r nary-�'•s�l�ct IN.,+� Zt•/ *Project Site dun man v4ssociates A-8 Figure 2 -� Site Plan -_ FLAGSHIP ROAD f _ •Y r / h _y if _�. {•i�•i / 1 (Parking Garage) Existing \` Building 77,000.A•It. Entrance F. ELEV.In.01 '. CO Y W alkway +ob\� �# 'Proposed i 11 11 Building .� 4E,000 m a• - 4 F.F.ELEV.fE.O' 1 r ' .� '/ �uh�tman c}�ssociates �'� 2. Project Traffic Generation _ � I The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an appropiate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are expressed in terms of trip ends per per- son, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, trip ends per dwelling, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor area. For this study, trip generation data was supplied by the City of Newport Beach. Based on actual traffic counts at a medical office building at Hospital Road and Placentia, the City's study indicates 30 trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area, r Table 1 provides trip generation information for the 65,269 square ' foot building. f �1 t A-10 ' Table 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Trip Generation Time Period Per 1000 Sq. Ft. of Trips Generated Gross Floor Area* By 65 ,269 Sq. Ft. Evening Peak Hour Inbound 1.9 124 Outbound 2.4 156 Total 4 . 3 280 Peak 2. 5 Hours Inbound 2.4 156 Outbound 4 . 5 294 Total 6 .9 450 Daily Two Way Traffic Total 30 .0 1 ,958 * Based upon City of Newport Beach Traffic Study for 1511-1525 Superior Avenue, dated July 15, 1981. A-11 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is based on the directional orientation of traffic, and then the traffic is assigned to specific roadways . , It is based on the geographical location of residential concentra- tions, along with commercial, business, and recreational opportu- nities. Traffic distribution and assignment was provided by City of Newport Beach staff. r fi A-12 r 1 Figure 3 project Traffic Distribution Gc� P, 25 15 5 rt Placentia � Bouiev and Orange Dana 1,5 Prospect Flagship-- Site Hospi la 15 Road Riverside A HI hwa Dover act*0 d' 15 Legend 5 Percent of project traffic using route. 1 'Yun3man (Anoctates A 13 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis Seven critical intersections were analyzed as identified by City staff. Table 2 lists the seven intersections,, and provides a summary of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis. Appendix A contains the calculation sheets. Four intersections have the one percent volume criteria exceeded: Superior and Placentia Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway The purpose of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is to extablish whether the project adds a volume that is greater than one percent of a critical intersection's approach volume. If less than one percent is added to all approaches of a critical intersection, then no further analysis is necessary as specified in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As part of the one percent analysis, regional growth and committed projects are included. Volume projections are made to a point in time one year after the project completion. This project's comple- tion date is 1982, and traffic volumes are projected to 1983. Regional traffic has been forecasted in accordance with City pro- cedures, and committed project traffic includes those projects listed in Table 3. A-14 Table 2 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersections 1% of Projected Project's 2.5 Over IAnalyzed 2 . 5 Hr. Peak Vol. Hour Peak Vol. 1% Placentia and Superior Northbound 11 88 Southbound 16 8 Yes Eastbound 16 23 Westbound 18 39 Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 18 0 Southbound 29 44 Yes Eastbound 38 23 Westbound 45 0 Newport and Hospital Northbound. 33 39 Southbound 35 23 Eastbound 17 162 Yes Westbound 10 23 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 3 0 Southbound 23 0 Yes Eastbound 40 44 Westbound 66 23 Orange and Pacific Coast Highway 1 Northbound 5 0 Southbound 2 0 No Eastbound 32 23 Westbound 62 44 Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 0 0 Southbound 3 0 No Eastbound 30 23 Westbound 59 4A Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound .2 0 Southbound 13 0 No Eastbound 48 44 Westbound 49 23 A-15 Table 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS PROJECT' NAME Aeronutronic Ford Backbay Office Bank of Newport Bayside Square Baywood Apartments 3701 Birch Office MacArthur Plaza Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Koll Center Newport National Education Office North Ford Orchard Office Pacific Mutual Plaza Sea Island Seaview Lutheran Plaza Cal Canadian Bank Boyal Engineering Shokrian Office Harbor Point Rogers Gardens Pacesetter Homes Ruddy Barns Far West Savings. Quail Business Center 441 Newport Avenue Hoag Hospital Hughes Expansion (13,000 sq.ft.) 1511-1525 Superior Avenue Medical Coast Business Center A-16 5 Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Of the four intersections exceeding the one percent criteria, Superior and Pacific Coast Highway, is operating at 1. 13 percent of capacity, and Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway is operat- ing at 89. 69 percent of capacity. Once the growth and committed traffic volumes are added to the current traffic volumes, the Superior and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is expected to be operating at 1. 37 percent of its estimated capacity. if the project traffic is added, it is anti- cipated to be operating at 1. 39 percent of its capacity. The pro- ject adds very little to this already heavily impacted intersection. When the growth and committed traffic is added to the Dover and Pacific Coast Highway intersection it will operate at 1.08 percent of capacity. Once the project traffic is added it will increase slightly. Appendix B contains the intersection capacity utilization work sheets. II � A-17 Table 4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONi FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS Intersection Capacity Utilization 1983 Exist 983 Exist + Nee Critical + Committ- Committed + Improve- Intersections Existing ed + Growth + ments Growth Project ,_ Superior and Pacific Coast Highway 1.1332 1.3718 1. 3900 Yes Dover. and Pacific Coast Highway 0 .8969 1.0825 1.0893' Yes Superior and Placentia' 0 . 6653 0 -66.5.3, 0 . 6677 No Newport and Hospital 0 .78.96 0 .8276 0.8653 No A-18 6 Project Related Improvements . III In that the Superior and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is impacted by other development projects and regional traffic, the responsibility for the improvements recommended should be appor- tioned in an equitable manner. in the City of Newport Beach' s 1981 - 1982 budget, the improve- ments of one southbound left lane, two southbound through lanes and one southbound right lane to the Superior/Pacific Coast High- way intersection have been included. It is anticipated that con- struction will begin this fiscal year. However, with these City improvements the intersection will operate over 90 percent of capacity. If this development proposal is pursued a request for an exemption could be made to the Planning Commission to permit the develop- ment to be built even though the Superior/Pacific Coast Highway intersection will operate above 90 percent of capacity after im- provements are completed . Further, the City may wish to establish some type of formula to obtain proportionate funds from developments impacting critical intersections operating above 90 percent of capacity. These funds could be used to pay for intersection improvements . The funds should be permitted to be submitted through actual cash, bonds or certificates of deposit. The Dover and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is currently being reconstructed. The proposed improvements include: ' three south- bound left lanes, one southbound right lane, and one southbound through; two eastbound left lanes, and three eastbound through lanes; one westbound right lane, one westbound left lane and three westbound through lanes . Once these improvements are completed; the interes•ection will operate below 90 percent of capacity. An early 1982 completion date for the Dover/Pacific Coast Highway interesection is an- ticipated. A- 19 Table 5 PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Intersection Improvements Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Add a third westbound through lane to Pacific Coast Highway;' : widen Superior to include two southbound through lanes, two- right turn lanes and one left turn lane. Recommended by a previous project. Some ; -of the above noted improve- ments are within the 1981-1982 City budget. Construction is scheduled for fiscal year 1981-1982 �• Dover and Pacific Coast Highway City-State highway project currently under construction. Completion is anticipated early part of 1982. A-20 7 Parking Analysis _- This section discusses parking requirements , actual parking use at the existing medical building, the parking situation during construction, and compact car spaces . Parking Requirements The City of Newport Beach requires medical office buildings to have one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. The existing 77, 000 square foot medical building provides 296 spaces while the code requires 308 . The project's proponents are contending that many spaces in the parking lot remain empty. Parking Lot Use - The existing parking lot contains 313 spaces of which 17 are covered by an easement for use by an adjoining building. Although these 17 spaces are not signed "for use by the adjoining facility only" , they were excluded from the parking survey and analysis . Table 4 provides a detailed breakdown of parking space demand by the existing medical building. It can be noted that the actual demand ranges from one space for each 313 to 330 square feet of gross floor area. The parking structure and lot are to have 556 spaces for 'both the existing 77, 000 square foot medical building and the proposed . 65 ,269 square foot medical building. The two buildings combined have a total of 142,269 square feet. If this gross sc_uare footage is divided by 556 parking spaces proposed, the result is one space for every 255 square feet of floor area (the City reauires one space for each 256 square feet of floor area) . Since the actual demand for parking spaces is at most one space for every 313 square feet, or 454 spaces, the parking being provided will meet both medi- cal building parking demands. It should also be noted that the existing 17 easement parking spaces can be accommodated within 556 parking spaces provided,.without infringing upon the parking• demand o{ the existing and proposed medical buildings . Parking During Construction This project involves the construction of a 65 ,269 square foot medical building and 556 parking spaces on a• site currently con- taining a 77 ,000 square foot medical building and a 313 space parking lot. This includes an easement for 17 parking spaces utilized by an adjacent building. A-21 An issue of concern is how to accomodate the existing medical building's parking needs (approximately 240 spaces) while the new medical building and parking structure are under construction, A number of alternatives are discussed below. Existing parking will be impacted whether or not the parking structure is construct- ed before or in conjunction with the medical building. Of the to- tal 313 parking spaces, 257 spaces would be lost if if the parking structure were built first and 295 spaces would be lost if both the parking structure and medical building were constructed simul- taneously. 1. Obtain an agreement to park on. undeveloped parcels for the duration of construction and operate a valet parking ser- vice. 2. Obtain an agreement to use Hoag Hospital 's parking for the existing medical building' s employees and doctors, and provide on-site valet parking for building patrons. The areas not affected by construction could be designed and utilized for valet parking with any spill-over being pro- vided on the adjoining streets of Flagship, Spindrift, Patrice, Hilaria, and Dana. 3. Provide on-site valet parking for medical building's employees, doctors and patrons . The areas not affected by construction could be designed and utilized for valet parking with any spill-over being provided on the adjoining streets of Flagship, 'Spindrift, Patrice, Hilaria, and Dara. Valet parking is a means of providing for additional parking spaces within the same area of land by reducing the area required for each parking space. In general, self parking lots require approximately 360 square feet of parking area per parking space including drive aisles . Double stall ninety degree attendant parking requires approximately 170, square feet of area per ,parking space. The above method for parking during construction are suggestions only. At the appropiate point in the project' s approval process, the City and applicant should agree upon an interim parking pro- gram. Compact Car Parking The possibility exists to design the proposed parking structure with designated compact car areas. It is most effective when parking areas of equal desirability (such as equal distance from' building) are divided into partially compact and partially full A-22 size parking spaces . An example of this would be to reserve one side of a parking aislr for compacts and the other side for full size cars . All compact spaces should not be segregated either in the most desirable or least desirable parking areas . This project is proposing that 15 percent 'of the parking stalls will be reserved for compact cars, the current practice ranges from 25 to 50 percent. Car size is shrinking with time and this trend is assured to continue because of Federally mandated mini- mum gas mileage standards. In the next few years, the average gas mileage of all new autos sold has to be 27 miles per gallon. Today the average is just over 20 miles per gallon. The propor- tion of compact cars on the road today cannot be precisely de- fined because the definition of sub-compact, compact, mid-size, intermediate, and so forth has changed over time. However, few cars on the road today are full-siz as defined just a few years ago. Most cars today are smaller than a five year old Chevrolet Caprice of Ford LTD. The 50th percentile car on the road today is probably smaller than a Camaro in length, width, and weight. Any amount up to 50 percent can be justified today with 30 to 40 percent being probably a very reasonable amount. The proposal to have 15 percent compact parking is well within the current compact parking percentages. 1 • . A-23 � I Table 6 PARKING,SPACE DEMAND Number Number Number Number Percent Demand of Time of Parking Spaces Spaces ,Illegally of Spaces One Space Survey Spaces Occupied Vacant Parked Occupied For Each* Monday July ,27, 1981 296 238 58 8 83 313 Sq.Ft. ' 10:40 AM Monday July 27, 1981 296 227 69 6 79 330 Sq.Ft. 2:45 PM Friday July 31, 1981 296 230 66 6 80 326 Sq.Ft. 10:21 AM Ili, * This calculation includes illegally parked vehicles. A-24 ■ 8. Other Traffic Considerations ' This section addresses pedestrian circulation and project drive- way use. Pedestrian Circulation The pedestrian path between the parking garage and medical. build- ings is very direct. It appears to have special pavement treat- ment to encourage pedestrian use. Cars entering and exiting the site from Hospital Road will cross the pedestrian walkway. 'Because of the sharp right turn that must be negotiated into the garage immediately after- crossing the pedestrian walkway, vehicles will be travelling slowly and can easily stop for pedestrians to cross. With Hoag Hospital' s access at Placentia . ana Hospital Road and with the topography becoming steeper east of the Placentia and 1 Hospital Road intersection, mid-block pedestrian crossings should be at a minimum. If the City has had pedestrian problems on Hospital Road between the Hoag Hospital site and the project site, consideration should be given to delete the stairway (lead- ing to the sidewalk) between the existing and new medical build- ings. 1 The project site' s sidewalk access at the Placentia and Hospital Road intersection is good. I£ the stairway between the new and existing building is deleted, then pedestrian access along the north side of the existing building needs to be improved. The improvement could include deletion of the landscape planter immediately adjacent the existing building and construct it as a pedestrian walkway.; Project Driveway Use With 55 percent of the daily project traffic being oriented to or from Newport Boulevard, the heaviest driveway use is expected to be the Hospital Road access. During the evening peak hour 81 ve- hicles are expected to make a left turn from the project site to Hospital Road. This equates to one left turn every 45 seconds which should not be a problem. If the City determines that an unsafe situation exists, then the project access on Hospital Road .could be changed to right-turn ingress and egress only. For traffic entering the site from Hospital Road and going to the II � parking structure, the sharp right turn into the site should have a minimum inside curb radius of 20 feet. This may require rede- signing the planter on the south side of the garage entrance. A-25 r . Appendices r Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C - Project Related Improvement ICU' ' Work Sheet r r• r • r . r • r A-26 �' I 1 1 1 APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORK SHEETS ' A-27 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2> Haur Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peek 2h Hour Volume Growth Peek 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1111 0 38 1149 11 88 Southbound 1620 0 36 1656 17 8 Eastbound 1552 0 15 1567 16 23 ,estboune 1767 0 26 1793 18 39 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: A-28 FORM I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa B1.-Superior Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes—based-on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Nour Regional Projects Peak 2> Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Growth Peak 21s Hour Volume Volume Volume —__ Volume Volume 1823 0 12 1843 18 0 Northbound — 2901 0 32 ' 2933 29 44 Southbcund 3311 29 414 3754 38 23 Eastbound westbound 3485 54 971 4510 45 0 ' El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than. 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: A-29 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road (Existing Traffic Volumes based. on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected IS of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume --_ _ Volume Volume 3229 0 33 3262 33 39 Northbound 34,82 0 34 3516 35 23 Southbound Eastbound 1527 0 146 16.73 17 162' ' 972 0 40 1012 10 23 :eatbaund i El Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. t 1 Hospital Road Medical office Building DATE: 7-30-81 r PROJECT: A-30 FORM I r1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hi hwa Dover Drive-Bayshore Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981 Approach Existing Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2§ Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Growth Peak 2y Hour VOlume Volume Volume —__ Volume Volume Northbound 278 0 7 28 3 0 Southbound 2273 0 81 2354 23 0 Eastbound 3401 30 571 4002 40 44 restbound 5473 1 48 1132 6653 66 23 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I � Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: A-31 FORM I r r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/orange Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2h Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 537 0 2 5.39 5 0 Southbound 153 0 1 154 2 0 Eastbound 2772 25 419 3216 32 23 'estbound 5159 46 978 6183 62 44 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%' of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated' to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (L.C.U. ) Analysis is required. "r r r r :r r: r Hospital Road Medical Office Buildin • 7-30-81 p a DATE. PROJECT: A-32 _ FORM I i r1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Prospect Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2$ Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 211 Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Growth Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume —__ ---- Volume Volume , Northbound southbound 260 2 262 3 0 Eastbound 2530 22 419 2971 30 23 estbound 4920 38 978 5936 59 44 ' ❑x Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection 'Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. III ' lilt ' Hospital Road Medical office Building DATE• 7-30-81 PROJECT: A-33 FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Growth Peak 28 Hour Volume Volume Volume _ Volume Volume Northbound 21 21 . 2 0 Southbound 1267 76 1343 13 0 ' Eastbound 4248 38 518 4804 48 44' :estbound 3752 33 1097 4882 49 23 � QX Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected r Peak 2? Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2.11 Hour Traffic Vblumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. r Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: A-34 FORM I 1 t 1 1 t 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 . APPENDIX B t INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORK SHEETS A-35 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Appendix B Intersection Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue ( Existing Traffic Volumes Oases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COWIITTED PROJECTEO Mo+e,-ent Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. PK.HR, V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V C Rat1 Volume NL 1600 32 .0400* .0400* .040A*. NT 3200 321 .1003 17. .1056 8 .1081 NR 16.00 34 .0425 .0425 37 .0443 SL 1600 6 .0038 . 0038 .0038 ST 1600 247 .1544*�' .1544 4 1568*01 SR 1600 418, ' .2613 5 .2643 .2643 EL 1600 244 .1'525* .1525* .1525 ET 3200 ' 1 297 - .0928 .0928 . 0929 ER 1600 22. .0138 .3 .0156 .0156 _ WL 1600 -46. . .0288 , 0288 20 .0412. WT 3200 699 .2184* .2184* .2184* WR 1600 5 0031 03 ,0031 YELLOWTIME 1000* i t 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .6653 j t EXISTING PLUS CO,'gIITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 6 EXISTING -PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .667 7 ® Projected plus project traffic I.-C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C,.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - - - - - - - - Description of system improvement: , Hospital Road Medical Building 8/13/81 DATE: PROJECT A-36 FORM II � ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Appendix B Intersection Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) FL1n ISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COKKITTEO VRCJECTED Ratio PROJECT PROJECT " Cap. Lanes Cap. PK.NR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 1600 220 .1375* 2 .1387* 14 .1475* NT 4800 1180 .2604 18 30 .2704 .2704 NR 70 SL 1600 50 .0313 . 0313 .0313 ST 1 gg 2833* 16 17 .2902* . 2960* SR 162 EL 1600 198 .1238 75 .1706* 52 .1925* ET 3200• 184 .1469* .1469 8 . 5562 - ER 286 . 22 WL I64�• 20 WT 3200 199 .1219* .1281 4 .1293* WR 27 YELLO:lTIME . 1000* .1000* 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .7896 j EXISTING PLUS COKQTTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOScD INPROVEKENTS I.C.U.11 EXISTING PLUS COK-4ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 865 3 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 8/13/81 � � •--• — ------ - • - ------ --- PROJECT FORM II A-37 - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS , Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave_. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) , EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL CDM17TED PROJECTED Moverent PX.NR• V/C GROWN PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap, lanes Lap. Vol. Ratio Volome Volume Protect Volume V/C Ratio Vol Volume NL 2400 421 . 1754* NT 2400 265 .1104 4 .1120 .1120 NR 1600 N.SJ 58 .0363 .0363 .0363 SL 146 ST 3200 473- .1934 10 .1965 .1965 SR 1600 708 .4425* 6 .4462* 22 .4600* EL 3200 244 .0763 2 .0768* 14 . 0812* ET 3200 82& .2588 22 205 .3296 .3296 ER 1600 N.S. 401 . .2506 .2506 .2506 WL 1600 -85.. • .0531 .0531 .0531 WT 3200 1329 .4153* 25 481 .5734* 5734* WR 1600 N.S 77 .0481 -----.0481 4 81 YELLOWTIME 1000* .1000 1 * i 1000 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 2 EXISTING PLUS cOM rrm PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.,U. 71 7 1 8 1 EXISTING PLUS COM9ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS' PROJECT I.C.U. 1.3900 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.G.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 , ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.0 U.P J with sy stems ystems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , Description of system improvement: , Hospital Road Medical Office-Building DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT - A-38 FORM II ,5 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS APPENDIX B Intersection Dover Dr.. /Coast Highway ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST.' EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED Moverxni PK.HR. V/C GROVTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. lanes Lap. Vol. Ratio Volume Vol une w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 1600 34 .0213 .0213 .0213 NT 1600 42 .0263* 4 * 027 NR 1600 30 •.0188 . 0188' .0188 SL 3200 786 .2456* . 2456* 2456* ST 1600 80 .0500 41 .0756 . .0756 SR 1600 131 .0819 . 0819 Oglq EL 1600 87 .0544*- .0544* .0544* ' ET 3200' 1 1310 .4094 1 15 286 • 5034 12 .5071 ER 1600 •30 .0188 . 0188 . 0188 WL 1600 •38 .0238 .0238 .0238 ' WT 3200 1506 •4706* 24 566 . 6550* 22 . 6618* , WR 1600 714 •4463 .4463 . 4463* rYELLOWTIME 1000* ..i000* .1000* i a i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY- UTILIZATION .8969 1 1 EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS 'REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1.0825 i EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .089.3 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0:90 ' ® Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will bey less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - Description of system improvement: Hospital Road Medical Building_ DATE• 9/14/81 ' PROJECT A-39 FORM II 1 � 1 ' 1 . r r i r r r APPENDIX C PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENT r ICU MORK SHEETS r A-40 1' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Appendix C Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ' ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 198J) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST.' EXIST. REGIONAL COMITTEO PROJECTED Move..ent PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Volume NL 2400 421 .1754* ,1754* .1754* ' ' NT 2400 265 . 1104 4 .1120 .1120 NR 1600 N.S. 58 .0363 1 1 .0363 . 0363 ' SL 1600 146 1 .0912 .0912 ST 3200 473 .1934 10 .1509 .1509 SR 1600 2720 708 .4425* 6 44 * 22 . 2705* EL 3200 244 .0763 2 .0768* 14 . 0812* ET 3200 828 .2588 22 205 . 3296 . 3296 ER 1600 N.S. 401 . .2506 1 .2506 .2506 WL 1600 -851. .0531 .0531 .0531 ' WT 3200 4320 1329 .4153* 25 481 .5734* .4247* WR 160D N.Sq 77 .0481 . 0481 . 0481 YELLOYITIME 1000* .1000* � . 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1. 1332 1 EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. '1. 371 8 i EXISTING PLUS COWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' Description of system improvement: Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT A-41 FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS APPENDIX C Intersection Dover Dr. /Coast Highway , ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 $I) EA ISTING PROPOSED Ell ST.• EAST. REGIONAL C"ITTEO PROJECTED Ho.er..epc PK.HR. VIC GROWTH PROJECT VIC Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. 'Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Vol une Volune w/o Project Vol uoe VIC Ra do Vol une NL 1600 34 .0213 .0213 .,0213 NT 1600 42 .0263* 4 .0275* . 0275* NR 1600 30 .0188 SL 3200 4800 786 .2456* .1637* .1637 ST 1600 80 .0500 41 .0756 .0756 SR 1600 131 .0819 .08 EL 1600 3200 87 .0544*. .02.71* .0271* ET 3200' 4800 1310 .4094 15 286 . 3418 12 . 3443 ER 1600 0 •30 .0188 - - WL 1600 •.38 .0238 .0238 .0238 WT3?004800 1506 •4706* 24 566 .A366* 22 . 4412* WR 1600 1 714 .4463 .4463 1 1. 4463 Y•ELLOWTIME I 1000* i .1000*. 000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION .8969 j 1 EXISTING PLUS COhFfITTED PLUS REGIONAL GR(YfTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I,L.U. ,75 4 9 EXISTING PLUS COWITTE0 PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. . 7595 • ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0:90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90- ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be ' less than or equal to 0.90 Description of system improvement: , City/State improvement project, permitted to use 100 percent of new lane capacity Hospital Road Medical Building 9/14/81 DATE: PROJECT A-42 FORM II E1 1 _ APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE 1 B-1 �� • �Ew Pp�rT ' T NEWPORT BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT ��• . = 475 32nd Strdet Newport Beach. California y2663 (714) 644-3603 lames N. Reed < Pp0. Fire Chief August 11 , 1981 Helen C. Molletta Environmental Analyst WESTEC Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 Helen: In answer to your questions regarding the project site at 351 Hospital Road. 1. The Newport Beach Fire Department is presently an ISO Rating of 3. 2. The City of Newport Beach at the present time does not utilize a maximum required fire flow for building construction. We use a 55 height requirement tied to table 5C of the 1976 UBC, 3, The fire flow requirement for the proposed building would be 3000 GPP1. 4. The parking structure poses several problems. We normally require a vertical clearance of 13'6" to gain access to areas. We would not be able to drive our fire engines into the parking structure. Therefore we require other built in fire protection be provided. An example of this would' be stand pipes and hose cabinets spaced according to code. The other problem is area access. If we have a major problem with either office buildings the parking structure limits our off street tatics due to the limited access. 5. All personnel employed by the Newport Beach Fire Department are full time. A first alarm response for a fire would include 1 Battalion Chief and 1 Fireman from our Fashion Island Station at 868 Santa Barbara, 1 Engine Company with 3 Firemen and 1 Para- medic unit with 2 men from our Lido Station at 475 32nd Street. In addition, 1 Engine Company with '3 Firemen from our Mariners Station. The total would be 1 Battalion Chief, 3 Captains, 3 Engineers, 2 Paramedics, and 4 Firemen. B-2 Helen C. Molletta 8/17781 Page 2 6.. The closest fire station is located at 475 32nd Street behind City,Hall . The average response would be 2 to 3 minutes. IL 7. A normal response procedure includes a structural assignment, explained above, upon receipt of either a vocal alarm or an automatic fire alarm. 8. At this time with dimension of the site plan shown it would appear we will have adequate access. 9. I am sure a planned use as anticipated will generate vehicle ■ access problems as well as a small increase in medical aid calls a and/or fire alarms. All I can say as to how they might be miti- gated is we cope with them. If you require any further information, please call me at 644-3610. Sincerely,,- T. C. Dailey Fire Marshal TCD:sg •� B-3 r ' C�, EI4'PORT BEACH FIRE DI;PAR"I 1ENT r 1n 475 32nd Street Newport Beach, California 92663 (714, 644-3603 James Y. Heed e"tip (.. Fire Chic,',�IFOPi' • a s September 8, 1981 Helen C. Molletta Westec Services 11.8 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 Helen: We require a minimum distance of 26 feet driveable area between structures for access. An. example of this would be between the proposed building and parking structure. We would require access to all sides of proposed build- ing. In addition to the above we would strongly recommend sprinklering the entire building. Sincerely, T. C. Dailey r Fire Marshal TCD:sg 1 f B-4 Expanded Initial Study for the Proposed Project at 351 Hospital Road Page 2 j 1 The site plan appears to indicate that the building entrance is located on the + northwest side, adjacent to the east end of the Park Lido Building. Care should be taken to insure that all doors and windows are clearly visible from - ' the street and/or parking area. Exterior lighting should be utilized during darkness, and the address should be painted on the roof in large block numbers. These steps will facilitate both our ground and aerial patrol . No problems are anticipated, and any impact on workload should be negligible if the aforementioned concerns are addressed. 1 If the Police Department can be of any further assistance, please contact Officer Kent Stoddard at 644-3668. Sincerely, Charles R. Gross tChief of Police Richard S. Hamilton, Captain Commander, Administrative Division TELE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS AREA C: '. OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 962-` P. ❑. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. BAN DIEGO FREEWAY) 1 ' September 3, 1981 ' WESTEC Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 Attention: Helen C. Molletta, Environmental Analyst Re: Expanded Initial Study Medical Facility at 351 Hospital Road City of Newport Beach This office has reviewed the proposed ro p p project on Hospital Road and finds the area to be master planned for commercial development. A flow coefficient of 3,230 gallons per day per acre is used by the Districts in computing the flow from a commercial project. If the discharge from the area exceeds that amount, flow reduction measures should be incorporated into the project. 1 The Districts ' treatment and collection facilities have been sized to handle the master planned flows,- therefore, no adverse impact from this project is expected. 1 . Ir Hilary J. Baker Sr. Engineering Aide 1 . HJB/jo 4� '� B- 7 4?�WPOR> NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT ° > P.O. BOX 7000, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 CHARLES R. GRC (714)1 644-3654 u `�a:".�'�i Chief of Police ' August 24, 1981 z 1 Helen C. Molletta Westec Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 SUBJECT: EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 351 HOSPITAL ROAD Dear Ms. Molletta: The proposed project lies within our Reporting District #24. The district is bordered on the south by Hospital Road, on the east by Newport Boulevard, on the north by approximately Sixteenth Street, and on the west by Monrovia Avenue. This area is composed of a mixture of residential and commercial locations. The Police Department is located at Santa Barbara and Jamboree, which is approxi- mately four and one-half miles east of Reporting District 24. The following crime statistics are for RD 24 during 1980: Homicide - 0 Rape - 0 Aggravated Assault - 1' Robbery - 0 Residential Burglary - 12 Commercial Burglary - 18 ' Garage Burglary - 3 Grand Theft - 45 Auto Theft - 10 Burglary from Auto - 12 Theft from Auto - 23 Vandalism - l0 These figures represent 8.8% of the total City crime for 1980. Response time to calls for service in this area averages 23.49 minutes for non- emergencies, 4.52 minutes for alarms, and 2.93 minutes for emergencies. Response time should not be adversely affected by the construction of the proposed building. The Newport Beach Police Department currently employees 138 sworn officers and with a year round population of 65,750, the ratio of officers to population is 2.1 per 1 ,000. The recognized optimum ratio is 2 officers per 1 ,000 population. B-5 �EWP�Rr NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT off, r' m P.O. BOX 7000, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 HARLES R. GROSS 1714) 644.3654 Chief of Police '1C,F0 Pt'y August 24, N 1 ' Helen C. Molletta Westec Services, Inc. ' 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana,• California 9 705 ' SUBJECT: EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PROPOS PROJECT AT 351 HOSPITAL ROAD Dear Ms. Molletta: ' The proposed project lies withi our Reporti g District #24. The district is bordered on the south by Hospital oad, on he east by Newport Boulevard, on the north by approximately Sixteenth S eet, d on the west by Monrovia Avenue. This area is composed of a mixture o re dential and commercial locations. The Police Department is located at Sa Barbara and Jamboree, which is approxi- ' mately four and one-half miles east of Re orting District 24. The following crime statistics are f r RD 2 during 1980: Homicide - 0 Rape - 0 Aggravated Assault - 1 Robbery - 0 Residential Burglary - 12 -� Commercial Burglary - 18 Garage Burglary - 3 Grand Theft - 45 Auto Theft - 10 Burglary from Auto - 12 Theft from Auto - 23 Vandalism - 10 These figures represen 8.8% of the total City crime for 1980 Response time to call for service in this area averages 23.49 inutes for non- emergencies, 4.52 mi tes for alarms, and 2.93 minutes for emerg ncies. Response time should not be a versely affected by the construction of the roposed building. The Newport Beach P ice Department currently employees 138 sworn officers and with a year round p pulation of 65,750, the ratio of officers to population is 2.1 per 1 ,000. The recognized optimum ratio is 2 officers per 1 ,000 population. B-5 870 Santa Barbara Drive, Newport Beach Expanded Initial Study for the Proposed Project at 351 Hospital Road Page 2 The site pl.an appears to indicate that the building entrance is located on the ' northwest side, adjacent to the east end of the Park Lido Building. Care should be taken to insure that all doors and windows are clearly visible from the street and/or parking area. Exterior lighting should be utilized during ' darkness, and the address should be painted on the roof in large block numbers. These steps will facilitate both our ground and ,aerial patrol . No problems are anticipated, and any impact on workload should be negligible ' if the aforementioned concerns are addressed. If the Police Department can be of any further assistance, please contact ; Officer Kent Stoddard at 644-3668. Sincerely., , Charles R. Gross Chief of Police 2'k" �, , ' Richard S. Hamilton, Captain r Commander, Administrative Division B- 6 , 1 dr unor e + TELEPHONES: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS $per �� AREA CODE 714 10 1 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ✓ 962-2-2411 o� ,1t 962 P. O. sox 5127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270s 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) 1 September 3, 1981 1 1 WESTEC Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 1 Attention: Helen C. Molletta, Environmental Analyst 1 Re: Expanded Initial Study Medical Facility at 351 Hospital Road City of Newport Beach 1 This office has reviewed the proposed project on Hospital Road ' and finds the area to be master planned for commercial development. A flow coefficient of 3,230 gallons per day per acre is used by the Districts in computing the flow from a commercial project. If 1 the discharge from the area exceeds that amount, flow reduction measures should be incorporated into the project. The Districts' treatment and collection facilities have been sized to handle the master planned flows, therefore, no adverse impact from this project is expected. 1 , Hilary J. Baker 1 Sr. Engineering Aide 1 HJB/jo i B_ 7 1 tl MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1981 ' Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714).640-2197 Prepared by: WESTEC Services, Inc. 118 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 556-9350 1 38 LIST OF FIGURES l Figure Title Page 1 Conceptual Alternative to Proposed Project 6 2 Conceptual Parking Alternative 7 3 Passible Interim Parking Alternatives 27 LIST OF TABLES Figure Title Page I I Existing Interior Noise Levels, Park Lido 15 Medical Building II Usage Factors of Equipment in Nonresidential 17 ` Construction Hospital Road Pedestrian Volumes 20 I , 2 39 E� 1. What is the proposed construction schedule? The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. First phase construction, requiring approximately three and one-half months to complete, involves the provision of on-site paring. Prior to excavation, the existing asphalt mast be broken with a back hoe or blade. Excavated depth will range between zero and three feet for the proposed parking structure. Asphalt and soil will be hauled, from the site during approximately the first 5 days of the construction phase. .� Sewer easement relocation will commence during emplacement of the foundation and underground utilities. Subsequent work will involve placement and cementing of pre-cast structural elements followed by placement of exterior spandrels, elevator installation, painting, electrical work, and landscaping. IMedical office building construction will comprise second phase activities lasting approximately eight months. Laying of the foundation will follow ground 1 breaking and excavation activities. Excavation of the 2,000 square foot basement will require a 20 foot depth. Steel framework erection will precede floor construction and exterior curtain wall installation. Mechanical and electrical installation will be conducted concurrently. Finishing features such as landscaping will be emplaced at the end of the construction period. Tenant improvements are not included in the time estimate. - 3 ' 40 t 2. What can be done related to the security problems identified by the tenants? Concern was raised pertaining to the possible occurrence of theft and t, personal assault in the parking structure. In particular reference to assault, opinions expressed that, should such incidents occur, It would most likely be' in the evening hours after 5:00 p.m. Certain mitigative actions have been incorporated into '-the project in this respect 'as conditions for its approval. Both on-site lighting and pedestrian' circulation patterns must be reviewed and approved by the city. Review shall include personal safety aspects of each system to assure that final design shall be the best and safest possible for the site. Also specified is a late afternoon and evening security program to be designed and implemented prior to occupancy of the proposed building. The program shall be reviewed by. both the Police and Planning Departments for adequacy of the safety measures. An additional safety precaution not provided for in the conditions for approval of the subject parking structure would include the provision of fencing in the open areas to preclude any tentrance or exit other than the stairs, elevator, or driving area. This would serve to limit unauthorized access. It is passible that operation of an escort service would not be practical during regular business hours due to the high turnover rate. Instead, a security officer should be available for patrol of the structure until 5:00 p.m. or such a time that unattended persons waiting for escort would rarely be inconvenienced by more than 1 a three or four minute wait. 41 3. What can be developed on the site without the issuance of a use permit for height and without any action by the Planning Commission? It is the intent of the applicant to provide additional office space in proximity to Hoag Hospital. Intensification of office availability on-site will require the provision of an associated parking structure. The height limit for both ' buildings under the set conditions would be 32 feet above ground level. Accommodation of a 65,450 square foot structure on-site without requiring Planning Commission approval or a use permit is possible; however, a major portion of the site must be utilized to prevent exceedence of the height limit. The conceptual figure illustrated by a preliminary sketch in Figure 1 consists of a long, low, two story structure. Mechanical equipment would be placed on the roof. An underpass would be provided in the central area to allow pedestrian access to the existing building from the.conceptual parking garage on the site's north side. While ' this plan provides more landscaped areas between the office buildings; it is done so ' at the expense of those persons requiring vehicular access to the existing office building and landscaping around the perimeter of the site. Per city requirements, the parking garage would supply about 570 spaces. To ' accommodate this requirement extensive excavation would be required. Portions of the two levels would be placed below grade while three levels would extend to approximately 32 feet above ground level. As illustrated in Figure 2, the rooftop parking would require a use permit to prevent excavation of three below grade levels. After extensive experimentation with site and structure characteristics, it 421 1 5 r ii r s s r • ail �■1"' ``r•-'`• y .�.—_ids-✓_>.. _ � � . mom / � 1 (Y19 a a \\\ r 9 D D MUG ► DDUCAL tea T**=(,r Cuu.grr�: '\y\\ �i � NOTrsr�c• x1,O5o.1 TOK: 0.450 f frtm�) Conceptual. Alternative ' to Proposed , Project FIGURE 44, CO I rp((r r Conceptual Parking Alternative 2 D FIGURE 46 was determined that the only feasible placement of the parking structure would be on the northern side of the site. Under this provision, vehicular access would be limited to the area between the two new structures and along the eastern property boundary, effectually eliminating the currently available passenger loading area at the, entrance to the existing Park Lido building. Further excavation of an additional parking level would eliminate the use permit 'requirement for roof-top parking and other parking-related requirements. Effects of this alternative to the proposed project would consist of, but not be limited to, the following: ' a. Extended time period for construction of parkng structure. Estimated -duration of construction would be five to six months. b. Longer haul period due to the amount of soil to be removed from ' parking structure excavation. The result would be lengthening of ' increased noise, traffic, and temporary parking impacts. e. The cast of parking structure construction would be increased by �1 approximately 25 percent while office building costs would remain approximately equal or slightly less than proposed. d. All deliveries to the existing building would require use of the stairs ' from Hospital Road or rear parking and subsequent use of the interjacent areas. ' e. Exterior location of roof-top mechanical equipment. r ' a 45 f. Deeper penetration of•Flagship Road by employee and patient vehicles to gain access to the parking structure. C• :r� g. interim parking could be provided on-site during construction. 4. What are Hoag HospItal's expansion plans and what is their status? Several steps must be taken prior to actual development of any structure. A brief summary of the procedures following a commitment to execute the proposed expansion begins at the city level. Hospital planners notified the City of Newport Beach early in 1979 of their intent to replace certain older structures on the * grounds in addition to constructing a 10-story tower to expand inpatient care services. An environmental impact report vas completed in May of 1979. Subsequently, a use permit was granted by the city. Expansion plans were then temporarily suspended pending completion of a study to determine the need for a community hospital in the city of Irvine. Results of this study should be available in mid-October 1981. Following the determination made by this study, the next step to be taken by Hoag planning staff would be submittal of plans to the Orange County Health Planning Council (OCHPC) for review. The OCHPC will make ' recommendations to the,California State Department of Health which will hold the hearings to determine approval or denial of the project. Hoag planners intend to apply to the county early in 1982 and continue with the deferred plans. j, Proposed construction will serve to modernize and expand certain facilities at the hospital. Included in the proposal are: 46 a.. Expansion of the first floor of the existing 1974 structure currently housing the radiology and laboratory departments and the emergency room; b. Construction of a ten-story tower housing medical/surgical patient care, labor and delivery rooms, and an emergency room-short stay unit resulting in a 228 bed expansion, much of which will serve .as a replacement function; . 1 c. Increase parking allowance proportional to needs by expansion of the ' main parking structure into the southern corner of the site; ' d. Demolition of the three-story north wing on the obstetrics building, replacement of the pediatric building with an outpatient parking area, and demolition of radiation therapy and the present hospital lobby ' subsequent to their relocation in the new expansion. ' In the environmental document it was estimated that completion of these ' facilities could be attained by 1984. ' 5. Will there be a spill-over parking problem during construction? An interim parking scheme must be developed and approved by the city Planning Department prior to implementation. The applicant has indicated that 47 negotiations for a valet parking service utilizing both on-site and off-site parking areas are presently underway. Ample parking will be provided in addition to a parking service; however, some persons may prefer not to use the valet service. It is assumed that the small percentage of persons objecting to use of a valet service will utilize legal o"treet areas or nearby lots for the purpose of parking their own vehicles and walk to the site. In this way it can be anticipated that an unknown percentage of persons may prefer to utilize available on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the project site during the construction period. It can be assumed that the number of such persons will be related to curb space availability In that they would utilize the valet service as an alternative to waiting for a space ' to become available should the on-street parking spaces be completely occupied. ' 6. How will the valet service handle odd-hours parking? ' Persons arriving to and departing from the site at irregular hours will be ' provided with appropriate parking service. Persons arriving in the early morning, prior to the scheduled hours of service, will undoubtedly find, a suitable off-site parking space at that time in the interim parking area or park on-site until the valets arrive. Most likely these persons will be physicians and others conducting medical practice in the existing Park Lido building. Should valet service be ' desired, these persons could leave their vehicles on site for the valets to park, or provide keys and information as to the location of the car at the time of departure. ' The valet would then provide the service at the next convenient moment. 48 Li Persons leaving after valet hours can easily be accommodated. Among the information obtained by the valets when receiving cars shall be the individual's destination and estimated length of stay. At the end of each day the valets will i bring all remaining vehicles to the site and park them in an orderly manner. Keys will be returned to persons within the building as indicated by the information supplied upon arrival. Should the valets be unable .to locate all owners, arrangements could be made for one valet to stay at the site until all keys have been returned. An alternative method would utilize a security officer as a central depository for the keys to be claimed by their owners. The success of this system would largely depend on the cooperation of tenants and communication between odd-hour users and the valets. Many restaurants and other ' service structures which use a similar system have proven it to work smoothly and efficiently. 7. 1s the proposed parking adequate? Were the counts low due•to vacations? ' The applicant has indicated that he will make up for the parking code deficiency by including the spaces in the proposed parking structure. 8. Can a reasonable effort be made to notify renters of adjacent properties as to the city's consideration of this project? i The applicant has provided a list of all renters within 300 feet of the project j ' site to the Planning Department. Notification of the associated public hearings for this project has been sent to persons on the list by the Planning Department. 12 49 j 9. How -much noise from tires can be anticipated-to emanate from the parking structure? The amount of noise created by tires on the cement surface of the parking structure is difficult to quantify because of the dubious nature. of persons operating P g vehicles in the structure. One factor does hold true in this respect, however. Tire noise can be greatly curtailed by the use of a rough or "broom" finish on the concrete driving surface. A rough finish is not conducive to tire spinning which produces the screeches associated with a polished surface. Therefore, as additional mitigation: 12. Rough finishing of all concrete driving surfaces shall be provided in the parking structure. 10. Would the applicant agree toe .92 limit of the intensity of development for the site? ' The applicant has indicated that the preclusion of further development on- site subsequent to the proposed action would be acceptable. •In effect, this would ' reduce the allowable building density to a .92 floor area to buildable area ratio ' from the currept city standard of two times the buildable area ratio. ' 11. What construction noise impacts will there be for this project? A preliminary assessment of the future temporary noise impacts from a ' proposed construction site adjacent to the Park Lido Medical Offices Building was conducted by Otto Baler, Consulting Acoustical Engineer. The purpose of this , ' 13 50 assessment was to determine the possible magnitude of intrusive construction noise levels inside of the existing tenant spaces and to compare them to the present interior levels (i.e., before start of construction). r� Three areas of investigation were pursued: a determination of construction noise levels (i.e., from equipment and processes); an evaluation of noise reductions provided by the existing building's exterior shell; and a determination of the existing background noise levels at the tenant space interiors. The following material examines each of these areas of investigation and leads to the conclusion that with proper care and planning the noise impacts can be minimized but that there may still be some impacts especially during parking lot removal unless alternate hours of operations are scheduled to avoid disturbance of regular weekday medical appointments. On 7 October 1981, two office suites were visited in the existing Park Lido building: a pediatrics and a dental practice. The measurements showed a wide variety of sources and levels between 52 and 70 dBA from sources interior to the ' •suites and intrusive traffic noise ranged from inaudible to 45 dBA (on the Hospital Road side of the building). A complete listing is provided in Table I. Without the use of sophisticated test methods and simultaneous monitoring of exterior and interior levels,a general set of average traffic peak traffic noise levels at the interior and exterior of the building was used to determine that ' the actual exterior shell attenuation (i.e., noise reductions of the outer building }' walls) is in the neghborhood of 30 dB. Therefore, typical construction noise will be j reduced similarly. 14 ' ' ' 511 TABLE I ' EXISTING INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS, PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 7 OCTOBER 1981 1 Location Noise Source Level, dBA Pediatrics Office Ord floor) Talking 50 - 60 Typing 58 - 60 Music 48 - 50 Adding Machine 55 - 58 Document Copier 53 Door Close/Slam 63 - 70 Closed Quiet Office 34- 35 ' (No Occupant Activity) ' Average 53 Dental Office Talldng 50 - 60 (4th floor) Amaigum Prep. 55 - 60 ' Drill/Polisher 52 - 58 (Measured in Hallway) Air Conditioning 39 (Closed Quiet Office) Music 41 ' Traffic Noise 42 - 45 (From Hospital Road) ' Average* 52 - 58 Outside At Entry Traffic 70 - 78 ' (On Hospital Road Side) 'Levels in operatory influenced by use of drill ' 15 5 =a I Proposed construction techniques for the proposed office building and parking structure are as follows: The parking structure is to be one half pre-cast concrete and one half cast in place. A crane will be used to place pre-cast parking structure ' elements which will be trucked to the site, and then concrete will be cast to mate the pre-formed elements. There will, therefore, be trucking, crane work, and ' cement truck (mobile mixer) activity as well as form construction and removal. Erections of the office building will be over a 15 foot deep excavated basement 3' with drilled caissons used for support for a welded steel framework. The exterior shell of the building will be an assembled curtain wall. The office will involve ' excavations, caisson drilling crane work, welding and concrete floor pouring. There ' will be steel and cement trucks (mobile mixers) visiting the site on a continuing basis. Both constructions are expected to involve about two days of site ' preparations involving asphalt parking lot removal by dozer and truck. Table 12 t shows typical equipment used in such a site developmentl, and shows the fractions of time each piece would be used. Subtracting 28 dB from the expected 50 foot ' exposure levels shows that intrusive construction noise levels at the interior of the nearest existing office suites could be expected to range from 46 dBA for ' pavement rollers to as high as 63 dBA%for truck noise. The EPA's estimate for ' truck noise would seem a little high since the site is already affected by truck ' 1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Noise From Construction Equipment and Operation, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," NTID 3001, 31 December 1971. 16 53 i Table H USAGE FACTORS OF EQUIPMENT IN NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION) Equip ment2 Construction Phase Exca- ' Clear) a vation Foundation Erection Finishing Air Compressor [811 1.0(2) 1.0(2) 1.0(2) .4(2) ' Backhoe • [851 .04 .16 .04 Concrete Mixer [851 .4 .04 .16 Concrete Pump [821 .4 .08 .08 Concrete Vibrator [761 .4 .1 .04 ' Crane, Derrick [881 .16 .04 Crane, Mobile [831 .16(2.) .04(2) Dozer [801 .16 .4 .16 Generator (781 A(2) 1.0(2) Grader [851 .08 .02 Jack Hammer [881 .1 .04 .04 .04 Loader [791 .16 .4 .16 Paver [891 .1 Pneumatic Tool [851 .04 .16(2) .04(2) Pump [761 1.0(2) . 1.0(2) .4 Roller [741 ' Saw (781 .04(3) 1.0(3) Scraper [881 .55 Shovel [821 .4 ; Truck [911 .16(2) .4 .16 1 Numbers in parentheses represent average number of-items In use, if that number is greater than one. Blanks indicate zero or very rare usage. 2 Number in brackets [ 1 represent average noise levels [db(A)l represent noise levels ` at 50 feet. 17 54 L' noise on Hospital Road and the impacts are 78 dBA outside and 45 dBA inside. However, even at the worst, the impacts from trucking are estimated to be somewhat over average existing interior levels but not exceeding peak existing interior levels. If trucing, concrete delivery and pumping activities, welding power genera- tion, and compressed air supplies are placed as far from the existing structure as possible, a 6 dB reduction of impacts may be realized (distance loss for moving from 50 feet to 100 feet from building). As much as 10 dB of quieting may be achieved by requiring the use of quiet or "hushed" models of construction ' equipment suitable for work in "hospital zones". During the initial pavement breaking and haulage it may be reasonable to perform the work on a weekend or ' before "office" hours, this would also help to relieve traffic congestion. It is expected that the construction project could be a reasonably quiet neighbor, however, this may be attained only by continuing effort and cooperation during all operations. Even with caution there may be some unforeseen noise intrusion but reference to the EPA documents suggests that, other than truck noise, there will be little impact above existing average levels. Also, conformance with the city's requirement that construction noise shall not exceed 55 dBA at the , ' property lines will effectually reduce noise intrusion into the existing building as well. Based on the noise analysis provided above, additional mitigation measures t ' shall be comprised of the following: 13. Only quieted or "hushed" models of construction equipment suitable for work in hospital zones shall be used. " ' 18 55 ■ 14. Pavement breaking and haulage shall be conducted on weekends only to avoid disturbance of existing on-site tenants by the noisiest construction activities. r • 15. Noise generating activities and equipment shall be located as far as practicable -from the existing tower to effectuate noise reduction achieved by distance. Affected activities include but are not limited to trucking, concrete delivery and pumping, welding power generation, and compressed air supplies. 16. All Park Lido tenants shall receive a schedule of construction activities prior to initial groundbreaking and notification of any major change to set schedule. 12. Is a pedestrian overpass necessary? 1 To determine the necessity for a midblock pedestrian overpass between Hoag i' Hospital and the project site, the existing volume of pedestrians crossing Hospital Road was observed. The.counts were made during normal working hours (8:00 a.m. ' to 5:00 p.m.) on Thursday, 8 October 1981 by Kunzman Associates, traffic engineers. Table III reflects the number of pedestrians currently crossing Hospital Road 1 at both the Placentia Avenue intersection and mid-block as well as future pedestrian crossings once the second medical building is completed. Of the 472 III' , 19 56 TABLE III HOSPITAL ROAD PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES r Intersection Midblock Crossings Crossings Existing Park Existing And Future Lido Medical Park Lido Medical Time1 Existing Future2 Building Building 8:00- 9:00 AM 24 49 4 7 ' 9:00-10:00 AM 39 72 7 13 10:00-11:00 AM 62 115 6 11 ' 11:00-12:00 PM 28 52 5 9 12:00- 1:00 PM 82 152 3 6 1:00- 2:00 PM 82 152 2 4 2:00- 3:00 PM 44 81 4 7 3:00- 4:00 PM 54 100 2 4 4:00- 5:00 PM 24 44 0 2 ' Total 439 808 33 63 1 Thursday, 8 October 1981 2 Assumes 80 percent o4 existing ' p g pedestrian crossings were between Park Lido Building and Hoag Hospital. i , ' 20 57 1 � existing pedestrian crossing recorded between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., 33 (or 7 percent) were midblock crossings. After the additional medical building is constructed, 63 midblock crossings per day are expected to occur. ' Pedestrians are involved in a significant percentage of urban traffic accidents. Allowing, pedestrians to cross streets uncontrolled poses a.serious traffic hazard. Even at intersections with crosswalks and traffic signals, there is ' significant hazard for the pedestrian because of the conflict with motor vehicles. S' To alleviate such hazards it is often desirable to erect physical barriers to control the movement of pedestrians across the street and sometimes to erect grade ' separations to separate physically the movement of vehicles and pedestrians. ' Two distinct types of barriers or controls may be used: (1) grade separation structures, either overpasses or underpasses that physically separate vehicles and pedestrians and (2) fences, chains, or other similar devices which, while allowing pedestrians to cross streets at grade, do control the locations at which such crossings may be made. When pedestrian grade separations are used, it is usually necessary to direct people to the facility so that they do not cross the street or highway at-grade. ' Whether to provide'a pedestrian overpass or underpass must be determined for each location. There are advantages and disadvantages for each. In any ' evaluation the following factors should be considered: (1) cost, (2) security, (3) ' vandalism, (4) aesthetics, (5) possible conflict with utilities, and (6) terrain condition. 21 58 Geographic conditions and presence of utilities, both above and below ground, are major factors in determining whether an overpass or underpass is more suitable. A particular problem with underpasses, especially at night, is personal safety. Unless they can be made secure from crime, underpasses should not be used. There are no adopted warrants for pedestrian overcrossings; however, several sources have made findings, which collectively are as close to a warrant as is 1• possible. Each finding listed below is footnoted to show the source. Pedestrian overcrossings should be considered when the following conditions exist: a. "Conventional Highways - It is economically impractical to separate all pedestrian vehicular conflicts, just as it is infeasible to separate physically all vehicular intersection conflicts. However, in those rare situations where pedestrian use is extensive, an overcrossing may be considered." (Highway Design Manual of Instructions, CalTrans, Section 7-105.29 "Pedestrian Grade Separations"). .1 b. "Warranted only for very high pedestrian and vehicular volumes at special locations, such as schools, factories, sports,arenas. Also used to ' provide pedestrian routes across freeways where alternate route via the nearest vehicular crossing is unacceptably long, and in rapid transit stations." (Fundamentals Of Traffic Engineering 7th Edition, Institute ' of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of Califronia, 1969). 22 59 C. If "within 660 feet of the proposed overcrossing location there is no traffic signal, stop sign control, or grade separated pedestrian overcrossing which provides pedestrians with acceptable crossing opportunities: then an overcrossing is justified. (Pedestrian Overcrossing -Criteria and Priorities, Institute of- Transportation Engineers Informational Report, October, 1972). d. if "the traffic volumes and pedestrian volumes are above those required to warrant the installation of pedestrian signal or a school signal as stated in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices," then an overcrossing is justified. Note: A pedestrian signal is warranted when there are at least 150 pedestrian crossings per hour for at least eight hours in a typical day. Pedestrian Overcrossing-Criteria and Priorities, Institute of Transporation Engineers Informational Report, October, 1972). !' The subject crossing is estimated to serve only 63 pedestrians between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. each day, once the additional medical building is constructed ' and occupied. Furthermore, there is a'controlled intersection less than 500 feet from the subject crossing location. Thus, characterized pedestrian crossings in front of the Park Lido Medical building do not meet the four criteria listed above ' needed to justify the construction of an overcrossing. There are nearby crossing alternatives and the pedestrian volumes are.but a small fraction of what would be required. 23 so It should also be pointed out that it is currently illegal to cross the street midblock at this location; it will remain illegal if existing conditions are not ' changed. The city should monitor future pedestrian movements,.and if a problem is perceived, additional police enforcement of jaywalking laws should be initiated. ' The two most important design considerations are convenience and making it physically impossible to crass the street at-grade. The most convenient i, overcrossings either connect two buildings or traverse a depressed roadway so that 'j pedestrians walk essentially on a level surface without climbing stairs. The most inconvenient overcrossings have stairs at each end. As the crossings become more ' inconvenient, pedestrians avoid the overcrossing and cross at street level.. To avoid this, it is important that a physical barrier such as a fence be erected to make it ' impossible to crass the street witfiout using the overcrossing. ' In researching pedestrian overcrossing information, actual warrants for installation are not to be found. There are warrants for pedestrian actuated signals 1 and crossing guards, but none for pedestrian grade separations. However, the criteria listed in this report can be' used to establish when a pedestrian crossing grade separation is justified. Given the number of existing midblock pedestrian crossings and the projected future number of midblock crossings, the construction of a pedestrian overcrossing between the Park Lido Medical Buildings and Hoag Hospital is unnecessary. i ' 24 61 A better approach would be to channel pedestrians toward the crosswalk at the existing Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue intersection. Such channelization- could be accomplished on-site by deletion of the pedestrian way located between the existing and proposed medical buildings, and through the installation of on-site landscape barriers along the perimeter, and on-site walkways directing pedestrians ' toward the Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue intersection. •y, 17. The above-mentioned on-site methods shall be used in any combination to defer pedestrian crossing of Hospital Road to its intersection with ' Placentia Avenue. 13. How do partially-handicapped people use the parking structure? Intrinsic design of the parking structure will accommodate handicapped and ' partially-handicapped persons utilizing the proposed parking structure. ' Incorporated design includes a centrally located elevator along with the necessary ramps and curb depressions. Also, a number of designated handicapped spaces will be located near the elevator on each level which will allow ample provison for persons who are temporarily disabled but do not possess a handicapped parking sticker/permit. It is believed that these 'provisions will sufficiently mitigate any parking inconveniences which might occur. 1 ' 25 " ' 62 14. Where are alternative sites for paridng during construction? Er t� Two lots for temporary parldng are presently under consideration. Both are located in the vicinity of the project site as illustrated in Figure 3. Preliminary discussion with the property owners indicate that adequate interim parldng during construction of the parldng structure is available. As stated in the initial study, temporary parldng arrangements shall be finalized prior to construction and are subject to city approval. Persons affected by the provision shall be notified prior to the action: , t 1 26 J ., :AL "�f P � . � • HOAG HOSPITAL Nit, h. /. � �T - PARK LIDO 0. MEDICAL n BUILDING 2 wutTrencNa '.c�iAT. nioK.v TYMl MTY1L[MMr�j �,�y� • ILf�1 MqL ii•l ,pI ` ' wT.i• nwoa. .»r Y OTn . . y ACM+I CAL 10, /M AtQm ' PHASE I OFF SITE PARKING �_kr D Possible Interim Parking Alternatives 3 LIGURE ,p . . r . Fj�t11ss,'��,(��'±'F`�;�;�,��;������y'• �4`,'(Y'J�J •{;�f�'; �': . �' t��✓+,1.. 41 t: t !J'Y,r.Lfr F1;77v"J�(� f,; 1dM1j �f;j1�r� r{r' jli �i ar�/`,l{ {J/� r.�},t/.�! ��t c TjY Y;;�rl� %r}• '�/f!I ?fjt :J=r�r rl},� � r1�i �'�i'7•r�r/�iY���j/�i ^��^,�!lli;'iy'ti��(�'/,p,�•�,•a�t ll�,/��V. + t{:Z�'q 31�, •i+'' �{,��',1',9rf�rr��'/{>tr�•:t,4�Y�>> };[f� �lr�l,�f(ij�"' /,t. ff�f :•G.r1�, �J�+'+�� Xl9lCCiI���lff r7' • r F �r'�' :ir? ll, g"}�� ~✓,tr ;� If�f JlI '• Jf{rl1 ; �' (r` � .` �S,N ! ,�lJr a f.I��.1{�,f !{,;�l{ •. .,r` , r, l�r{ c/y ,� �, , .` ,1J 1�+ ��tl�1�ll�,;ri r;''{,'(, A( ;I l'.{.fj� •);� ,j���•1 !//l I�'f 1 • Ir�'ff fl��JL•jr l 'fJ,/���j:a Vi� ���.+is'�iT/,�•.V�'•)r•/�•/'%T,{�7T��G'.J�fr��' G• J{ •.`f`f j �J'�/. S�,{ I•� f rs�if! )� /� <t.f/f• rr•� aTit•tf;1f .y�� Ir �i, r• ,•! .'NA_" i ;'lt�•tt7,•I/1'J��,'��f•''�( ;f" J�, �"Jri''�l{t ii�ct," � �{ •��•rjf/,ret �/•rw'%, , — S (?!�'t•"! I c f�:r1a` r ;� . _�`.+�q�r�:l!J�1•f>,;,7.•'.!♦• � `J, !" r(t '✓I,•.y%T Yi'Iy . ' 71'/f%fjI•�f ! i `•i4 ! dr�7. • ,}: S+Kf.1 �' �jti %ft 1 ,,>�I }Sr�f flt�%j��ffl�l�:/�'�'�,}�J j• �,//f•�;;!'�7lrrr5�, f�`"•r,� .Jt tL�s�i Hospital Road Medical Building f Traffic Study cll i i0rjr1 C��' �f ;ft1 +� � f• ., ,�n l �c�l'r:s;?,�•,�''j• tr,�� 1�, ��t,d.' -4: �,�✓' �'�;y,;Sl �r}c�r�"' f'/, �• 1����ft`���U ..�'tS!'�3 � r!•�'J�•�'� =. � `Y ,rr,. '• �� Fj, 11•II � r!� !'3 `'+1f+�J/•`ifl+ �':1� `1/�r� .�. c .• ly�'YJitf.��{F�1-+S7Sr� (' •/rr�% ,��:�'r f•(•./ji/.���.� /ice. .i�t r�L ��St. �i ,✓Ji f •fr ,�,i/�3Y••' '�' Jl;�?✓�'Y •�', �,,{','{✓.r�yil fj `li +f•;'I !zi r,<y��r .�•., . �.�r,rf�+r' �..j`r r1J's' r I�'/��j�.�� ,;✓///Pf -i f .�!� !• / �utn warn v4ssociafes Errs• .,,�,, r�• Transp or tation Planning*Traffic Engineering 'n�•�1.j+�i� � �Yrr•�•j9/]'^/ a�rf�'s � rr, r'A !� 'r •�j'.4 �{l�rl{�• �y(((y l �,I� ;��',�1r •tl.1�rdrJ`�It'�'� '�•{!�'"�Sr./3r,.t;l•;,J.kt.:_0 r,f' •�' t'— �l +'+ }1i ;`�Y JY "!r3•r r'�ffjlY!!/r , >'/f j r 'e 7'• f,,01 �• f 1 /ftj/!/1�' l�• �!1l•%�Y �"!'tjj£j1�,7 /• f' � Srerrl r v, ,r i�fi� `,�tiY,,r/I'i�yJ�t�f•'l lal .�t�'/'r�1�t�i�•.,'�t,��I'f��:��.✓,� ,�f Y.���l� w Table of Contents Section Page No. 1. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2. Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 ' 3. Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 . Project Related Improvements .10 7. Parking Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . .12 8. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization ■ Analysis Work Sheets # Appendix C - Project Related Improvements - ICU Work Sheets ..c i� List of Figures Following Figure No. Title Page No. i 1 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 Project Traffic Distribution . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4 < .r Al i List of Tables Table No. Title Page No. 1 Project Traffic Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 One Percent Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Committed Projects . . .•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 Intersection Capacity Utiliza- tion for Critical Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5 Project Related Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6 Parking Space Demand . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is 68 1 , Project Description Project Location The project is located at the northeast corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue across from Hoag Hospital. Proposed Development The project includes the construction of a 65,269 square foot medical office building and a parking structure. The parking structure will serve the parking needs of an exist- ing -77,000 square foot medical building and the proposed medical:: building. 1 This traffic analysis also discusses : medical building parking requirements, pedestrian circulation; -driveway use, and surveys the existing medical building parking lot utilization. 1 • I� _ Figure 1 1 VICINITY MAP �FAN- � .der•' r r ,� �,�•.; ..mow"'` '�s£ r yr'�'.vr .. � i`� • .•1yr '� •� _ •ice � +' ! cyaN *Project Site ��� �un man v4ssociates � - Figure 2 Site Plan f. nAaoMr eo►o _ !/ Garage) (Parking-G LLL _Exlslkg r � ��_L — 13u1k1ing Entrance Ll \ alkway - BU ( !�: 65.00 ft 4 .-f— `. F.F.cuv.or.o Cl rA r ` � `�Cun�man associates ', i 2. Project Traffic Generation The traffic generated by a site is determined by multiplying an _ appropiate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are expressed in terms of trip ends per per- son, trip ends per employee, trip ends per acre, trip ends per dwelling, or trip ends per thousand square feet of floor area. For this study, trip generation data was supplied by the City of Newport, Beach. Based on actual traffic counts at a medical office building at Hospital Road and Placentia, the City's study indicates 30 trips per 1, 000 square feet of floor area. Table 1 provides trip generation information for the 65,269 square foot building. 72 I � 2 Table 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION Trip Generation Time Period Per 1000 Sq. Ft. of Trips ,Generated Gross Floor Area* By 65,269 Sq. Ft. Evening Peak Hour Inbound 1.9 124 Outbound 2.4 • 156 Total 4. 3 280 Peak 2.5 Hours Inbound 2.4 156 Outbound 4.5 294 Total 6 .9 450 Daily Two Way Traffic Total 30.0 1,958 * • Based upon City of Newport Beach Traffic Study for La 1511-1525 Superior Avenue, dated July 15, 1981. J t .. 3 3. Project Traffic Distribution and: Assignment Traffic distribution is based on the directional orientation of traffic, and then the traffic is assigned to specific roadways . It. is based on the geographical location of residential concentra- tions, along with commercial, business, and recreational opportu- nities. Traffic distribution and assignment was provided by City of Newport Beach staff. 74 Figure 3 Project Traffic Distribution P ° i of25 u Piacentia i3w varrdOra , 155 ProspectDana Flagship to Hospi is 15 Road Riverside A M hwa •Dover ace'% O u ,o 1r Legend s Percent of project traffic using route. cKu1131-dan Agociafes 4. One Percent Intersection Analysis Seven critical intersections were analyzed as identified by City staff. Table 2 lists the seven intersections , and provides a summary of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis. Appendix A 1 contains the calculation sheets. Four intersections have the one percent volume criteria exceeded: Superior and Placentia ' Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Newport Boulevard •and Hospital Road Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway The purpose of the One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis is to extablish whether the project adds a volume that is greater than one percent of a critical intersection's approach volume. I£ less than one percent is added to all approaches of a critical intersection, then no further analysis is necessary as specified in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. As part of the one percent analysis, regional growth and committed projects are included. Volume projections are made to a point in time one year after the project completion. This project's comple- tion date is 1982, and traffic volumes are projected to 1983. Regional traffic has been forecasted in accordance with City pro- cedures, and committed project traffic includes those projects listed in Table 3. I. 761 I� � 5 Table 2 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersections 1% of Projected Project's 2.5 Over Analyzed 2 . 5 Hr. Peak Vol-. Hour Peak Vol. 1% Placentia and Superior Northbound 11 88 Southbound 16 8 Yes Eastbound 16 23 Westbound 18 39 Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 18 0 Southbound 29 44 Yes Eastbound 38 23 Westbound 45 0 Newport and Hospital ' Northbound 33 39 Southbound 35 23 Eastbound 17 162 Yes Westbound 10 23 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 3 0 Southbound 23 0 Yes Eastbound 40 44 Westbound 66 23 Orange and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 5 0 Southbound 2 0 No Eastbound 32 23 Westbound 62 44 Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 0 0 Southbound 3 0 No Eastbound 30 23 Westbound 59 44 Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound .2 0 Southbound 13 0 No Eastbound 48 44 Westbound 49 23 6 77 Table. 3 COMMITTED PROJECTS i • _ PROJECT' NAME _ Aeronutronic Ford Backbay Office Bank of Newport Bayside Square Baywood Apartments •3701 Birch Office MacArthur Plaza Civic Plaza Corporate Plaza Roll Center Newport National Education Office North Ford Orchard Office Pacific Mutual Plaza Sea Island Seaview Lutheran Plaza Cal Canadian Bank Boyal Engineering ' Shokrian Office Harbor Point Rogers Gardens Pacesetter Homes ' Ruddy Barns Far West Savings. Quail Business Center 44i Newport Avenue Hoag Hospital Hughes Expansion (13,000 sq.ft.) 1511-1525 Superior Avenue Medical Coast Business Center 7 78 5. Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Of the four intersections exceeding the one-percent criteria, _ Superior and Pacific Coast Highway, is operating at 1. 13 percent of capacity, and. Dover Drive and Pacific Coast Highway is operat- ing at 89. 69 percent of capacity. Once the growth and committed traffic volumes are •added to the current traffic volumes, the Superior and Pacific Coast Highway intersection ;is expected to be operating at 1.37 percent of its estimated capacity. If the project traffic is added, it is anti- cipated to be operating at 1. 39' percent of its capacity. The pro- ject adds very little to this already heavily impacted intersection. When the growth and committed traffic is added to the Dover and Pacific Coast Highway intersection it will dperate at 1.08 percent of capacity. Once the project traffic is added it will increase slightly. Appendix B contains the intersection capacity utilization work sheets. �I x - 8 7 ' Table 4 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS '- Intersection Capacity Utilization 83 Exist 1983 Exist + Nee Critical + Committ- Committed + -Improve- Intersections Existing ed + Growth + ments Growth Project Superior and Pacific Coast Highway 1.1332 1.3718 1.3900 Yes Dover. and Pacific ' Coast Highway 0.8969 1. 0825 1.0893 Yes Superior and Placentia 0 ..6653 0 .665.3 . 0 .6.677 No Newport and Hospital 0 .7896 . 0 .8276 0 . 8653 No 9 / 6. Project Related Improvements ■ In that the Superior and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is - impacted by other development projects and regional traffic, the responsibility for the improvements recommended should be appor- tioned in an equitable manner. In the City of Newport Beach' s 1981 - 1982 budget, the improve- ments of one southbound left lane, two southbound through lanes and one southbound right lane to the Superior/Pacific Coast High- way intersection have been included. It is anticipated that con- struction will begin this fiscal year. However, with these City improvements. the intersection will operate over 90 percent of capacity.. If this development proposal is pursued a request for an exemption could be made to the Planning Commission to permit the develop- ment to be built" even though. the Superior/Pacific Coast' Highway intersection will operate above 90 percent of capacity after im- provements are completed . Further, the City may wish to establish some type of formula to obtain proportionate funds from developments impacting critical intersections operating above 90 percent of capacity. These funds could be used to pay for intersection improvements . The funds should be permitted to be submitted through actual cash, bonds or certificates of deposit. The Dover and Pacific Coast Highway intersection is ,currently being reconstructed. The proposed improvements include: three south- bound left lanes, one southbound right lane,- and one southbound through; two eastbound left - lanes, and three eastbound through lanes; one westbound right lane, one westbound left lane; and three westbound through lanes. .. Once these improvements are completed; the interesectiori will operate below 90 percent of capacity. An early 1982 completion date for the Dover/Pacific Coast Highway interesection is an- ticipated. 10 80 Table 5 PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Intersection Improvements Superior and Pacific Coast Highway FAddthird westbound through o Pacific Coast Highway; i widen Superior to include. f two southbound through lanes, _ two right turn lanes and one left turn lane. Recommended by a previous project. Some -of the above noted improve- ments are within the 1981-1982 City budget. Construction is scheduled for fiscal year 1981-1982 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway City-State highway project currently ,under construction. Completion i•s anticipated early part of 1982. 81 7. Parking Analysis - This section discusses parking requirements, actual parking use I t the existing medical building, the parking situation during construction, and compact car spaces . Parking Requirements t The City of Newport Beach requires medical office buildings to have one parking space for each 250 square- feet of gross floor area. The existing 77,000 square foot medical building provides 296 spaces while the code requires 308. The project's proponents are contending that many spaces in the parking lot remain empty. Parking Lot Use _ The existing parking lot contains 313 spaces 'of which 17 are covered by an easement for use by an adjoining building. ' Although these 17 spaces are not signed "for use by the adjoining. facility ' only" , they were excluded from the parking survey and analysis . Table 4 provides a detailed breakdown of parking space demand by the existing medical building. It can be noted that the actual demand ranges from one space for each 313 to 330 square feet of gross floor area. The parking structure and lot are to have 556 spaces for both the ;existing 77, 000 square foot medical building and the proposed 65,269 square foot medical building. The two buildings combined have a total of 142,269 square feet. If this gross sc_uare footage ;is divided by 556 parking spaces proposed, the result is one space 'for every 255 square feet of floor area (the City requires one space for each 250 square feet of floor area) . Since the actual demand for parking spaces is at most one space for every 313 square feet, or 454 spaces, the parking being provided will meet both medi- cal building parking demands. It should also be noted that the existing 17 easement parking spaces can be accommodated within 556 parking spaces provided,.without infringing upon the parking• demand of the existing and proposed medical buildings. i Parking During Construction ' This project involves the construction of a 65,269 square foot medical building and 556 parking spaces on a• site currently con- taining a 77,000 square foot medical building and a 313 space parking lot. This includes an easement for 17 parking spaces utilized by an adjacent building. 12 82- 13 r An issue of concern is how to accomodate the existing medical building's parking needs (approximately 240 spaces) while the new medical building and parking structure are under construction, A number of alternatives are discussed below. Existing parking will be impacted whether or not the parking structure is construct ed before or in conjunction with the medical building. Of the to- tal 313 parking spaces, 257 spaces would be lost' if if the parkinT structure were built first and 295 spaces• would be lost if both• the parking structure and medical building were constructed simul- . taneously. 1. Obtain an agreement to park on, undeveloped parcels for the duration of construction and operate a valet parking ser- vice. 2. Obtain an agreement to use Hoag Hospital 's parking for the existing medical building's employees and doctors, and provide on-site valet parking for building patrons. The areas not affected by construction could be designed and utilized for valet parking with any spill-over being pro- vided on the adjoining streets of Flagship, Spindrift, Patrice, Hilaria, and Dana. 3. Provide on-site valet parking for medical building's employees, doctors and patrons. The areas not affected by construction could be designed and utilized for valet parking with any spill-over being provided on the adjoining streets of Flagship, Spindrift, Patrice, Hilaria, and Dara. Valet parking is a means of providing for additional parking spaces ' within the same area of land by reducing the area required for each parking space. In general, self parking lots require approximately 360 square feet of parking area per parking space including drive aisles . Double stall ninety degree attendant parking requires approximately 170 square feet of area per parking space. The above method for parking during construction are suggestions only. At the appropiate point in the project's approval process, the City and applicant should agree upon an interim parking pro- gram. Compact Car Parking The possibility exists to design the proposed parking structure with designated compact car areas. It is most effective when parking areas of equal desirability (such as . equal distance from' building) are divided into partially compact and partially full r . size parking spaces. An example of this would be to reserve one side of a parking aislr for compacts and the other side for full size cars. All compact spaces should not be segregated either in the most desirable or least desirable parking areas . This project is proposing that 15 percent •o£ the parking stalls will be reserved for compact cars, the current practice ranges from 25 to 50 percent. Car size is shrinking with time and this trend is assured to continue because of Federally mandated mini- mum. gas mileage standards. In the next few years, the average gas mileage of all new autos sold has to be 27 miles per gallon. Today the average is just over 20 miles per gallon. The propor- tion of compact cars on the road today cannot be precisely de- fined because the definition of sub-compact, compact, mid-size, intermediate, and so forth has changed over time. However, few cars on the road today are full-siz as defined just a few years ago. Most cars today are smaller than a five year old Chevrolet Caprice of Ford LTD. The 50th percentile car on the road today is probably smaller than a Camaro in length, width, and weight. Any amount up to 50 percent can be justified today with 30 to 40 percent being probably a very reasonable amount. The proposal to have 15 percent compact parking is well within the current compact parking percentages. � � 14 Table 6 PARKING SPACE DEMAND Number Number Number Number Percent Demand of Time of Parking Spaces Spaces Illegally of Spaces One Space Survey Spaces Occupied Vacant Parked Occupied For Each* Monday July •27, 1981 296 238 58 8 83 313 Sq.Ft. 10:40 AM Monday July 27, 1981 296 227 69 6 79 330 Sq.Ft. 2:45 PM Friday July 31, 1981 296 230 66 6 80 326 Sq.Ft. 10:21 AM * This calculation includes illegally parked vehicles. IJ 8. Other Traffic Considerations This section addresses pedestrian circulation and project drive- way use. Pedestrian Circulation The pedestrian path between the parking garage and medical: build- ings is very direct. It appears to have special pavement treat- ment to encourage pedestrian use. Cars entering and exiting the site from Hospital Road will cross the pedestrian walkway. Because of the sharp right turn that . must be negotiated into the garage immediately after. crossing the pedestrian walkway, vehicles will be travelling slowly and can easily stop for pedestrians to cross. , With Hoag Hospital ' s access at Placentia . and Hospital Road and with the topography becoming steeper east of the Placentia. and ' Hospital Road intersection, mid-block pedestrian crossings should be at a minimum. If the City has had pedestrian problems on Hospital Road between the Hoag Hospital site and the project site, consideration should be given to delete the stairway (lead- ing to the sidewalk) between the existing and new medical build- ings. The project site' s sidewalk access at the Placentia and Hospital Road intersection is good. If the stairway between the new and existing building is deleted, then pedestrian access along the north side of the existing building needs to be improved. The improvement could include deletion of the landscape planter immediately adjacent the existing building and construct it as a pedestrian walkway: Project Driveway Use With 55 percent of the daily project traffic being oriented to or from Newport Boulevard, the heaviest driveway use is expected to ' be the Hospital Road access. During the evening peak hour 81 ve- hicles are expected to make a left turn from the project site to Hospital Road. This equates to one left turn every 45 seconds which should not be a problem. If the City determines that an unsafe situation exists, then the project access on Hospital Road .could be changed to right-turn ingress and egress only. For traffic entering' the site from Hospital Road and going to the parking structure, the sharp right turn into the site should have a minimum inside curb radius of 20 feet. This may require rede- signing the planter on the south side of the garage entrance. 16 8 i 1 . Appendices Appendix A - One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis Work Sheets Appendix B - Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Work Sheets Appendix C - Project Related Improvement ICU _ Work Sheet a I >3 i f r APPENDIX A ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORK SHEETS s1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Placentia Avenue/superior Avenue z (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 2)s Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volune Growth Peak 2y Hour Volume• Voluaa! Volume Vol" Volume Hortnhound 1111 0 38 1149 11 88 southbound 1620 0 36 1656 17 8 _ astbound 1552 0 15 1567 16 23 'eschound 1767 0 26 1793 18 39 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. t • Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 ;PROJECT: it C 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa B1.-Superior Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1981) 4- Approach Existing Peak 212 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 21s Hour Volume Growth Peak 1h Hour Volume volune Volune Volume Volume 1823 0 12 1843 18 0 Northbound 2901 0 32 2933 29 44 _ Southbound 3311 29 414 3754 38 23 Eastbound 3485 54 971 4510 45 0 estbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ■ i � Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 _ PROJECTr 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road (Existing Traffic Vo umes based on Average Winter/spring 1981) - Approach Existing Peak 2a Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected ProJ act Direction Peak 2k Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour --— Volume Growth Peak e Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volum 3229 0 33 3262 33 39 Northbound 3482 '0 34 3516 35 23 _ Southbound astboune 1527 0 146 1673 17 162' ' 972 0 40 1012 10 23 'estbound Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; 'Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ri 1 Hospital Road Medical office Building DATE, 7-30-81 _ P_RfL1FST!- 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Hi hwa Dover Driv -Ba shore Drive (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1 Approach Existing Peak 211 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Regional Projects Peak 2y Hour Peak 2;1 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Growth Peak 2x Hour Volume Vol une Volume —__ Volume Vol Una Northbound 278 0 7 28 3 0 southboand 2273 0 81 2354 23 0 - astbound 3401 30 571 4002 40 44 _ 'estbound 5473 48 1132 6653 66 23 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume © Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2-� Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: a 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/orange Street (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 199 Approach Existing Peak 24 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Regional Projects Peak 21s Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 21s Hour Volume Growth Peak 211 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 537 0 2 539 5 0 Southbound 153 0 1 154 2 0 a astbound 2772 25 419 3216 32 23 estbound 5159 46 978 6183 62 44 ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is -estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 ' .PROJECT: 1 - 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1� Intersection Coast Highway/Prospect Street 1 (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring 19$1) Approach Existing Peak 21s Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Regional Projects Peak 21J Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour —_— Volume-- GrowthVolume Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Yol Lane iume Yolume Northbound 7__ southbound . 260 2 262 3 0' — Eastbound 2530 22 419 297,1 30 23 Westbound 4920 38 978 5936 59 44 [jX Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 212 Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C..U. ) Analysis is required. Hospital Road Medical office Building DATE: 7-30-81 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Coast Highway/Riverside Avenue (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter/Spring 1981) Approach Existing Peak 2y Hour Approved Projected li of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Regional Projects Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 21s Hour Volume Growth Peak 211 Hour Vol Lane Volume Voltage __— Volume Volume Northbound 2 1' 21 .2 0 9outhbound 1267 76 1343 13 0 astbound 4248 38 518 4804 48 ' 44 - 'estbound 3752 33 1097 4882 49 23 Qx Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2g Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volumen. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. I � Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 7-30-81 - �_ PR JECT: r i r APPENDIX B INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORK SHEETS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Appendix B Intersection Placentia Avenue/Superior Avenue ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL CONYI7TED PROJECTEDC Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Mo.euent P ol. V/C VolmeGROWTm PROJECT w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 1600 32 .0400* ,0400* ,0400* NT 3200 321 .1003 17 .1056 8 .10#1 NR 1600 34 .0425 .0425 37 .0443 SL 1600 6 .0 38 . 0038 .0038 ST 1600 247 .1544*'-*-* .1544 4 .1568* SR 1600 418 ' .2613 5 .2643 .2643 EL 1600 244 .1525* .1525* .1525* ET 3200 1 297 • .0928 .0928 .0929 ! 1 ER 1600 22. .0138 .3 .0156 .0156 WL 1600 -46. - .0288 .0288 20 .0412 . WT 3200 699 .2184* .2184* 2184* WR1 1600 1 5 .0031 -0033 0031 YELLOWTIME 1000* T i t EXISTING INT£RSECTIW CAPACITY UTILIZATION EXISTING PLUS MCITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 6 6 EXISTING PLUS CWITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. ■ ® Projected plus project traffic I-C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ii ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than orequalto 0.90 _ _ _ _ _ _ Description of system improvement: Hospital Road Medical Building DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT FORM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Appendix B Intersection Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road ( Existing-Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) CXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COK41TTED PROJECTED PK.HR. VA GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Vol une NL 1600 220 . 1375* 2 .1387* 14 .1475* NT 4800 1180 .2604 18 30 .2704 .270# NR 70 SL 1600 50 .0313 .0313 . 0313 IT4800 98 .2833* 16 17 .2902* . 2960* SR 162 EL 1600 198 .1238 75 .1706* 52 .1925* ET 3200' 184 . 1469* .1469 8 .1562 ER 286. 22 WL I64% '20 WT 3200 199 .1219* .1281 4 .1293* WR 27 YELLOATIME 1000* .1000* 11.1000* EXISTII43 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 7896 T EXISTING PLUS CO ITTED PLUS REGIOY.AL GROWTH N/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. EXISTING PLUS COMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROHTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. .8 6 53 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than orequalto 0.90 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ - Description of sys':am improvement: _ Hospital Road Medical Office Building _ — DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT FORM I 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) EXIST.' EXIST. REGIONAL COMMITTED PROJECTED EXISTING PROPOSED V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Movenent Vol.. Y/C GROWTH PROJECT w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume Volume NL 2400 421 .1754* * . 1754 NT 2400 265 .1104 4 . 1120 .1T0 NR 1600 N-S4 58 .0363 1 .0363 1. 0363 SL 146 ST 3200 473 :1934 10 .1965 . :1965 SR 1600 708 .4425* 6 .4462* 22 . 4600* EL 3200 244 .0763 2 .0768* 14 . 0812* ET 3200 82& .2588 -• 22 205 .3296 ;3296 ER 1600 N.S 401 . .2506 .2506 2506 WL 1600 85-. • .0531 .0531 0531 WT 3200 1329 .4153* 25 481 .5734* 5734* WR11600 N-SJ 1 77 .0481 . 4 YELLOWTIME 1000* : .1000* 1 k1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1,1332 j I EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1.3 71 8 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. 1. 3 900 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less_t- - or_equal-to - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ - - Description of system improvement: _Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS APPENDIX B Intersection Dover Dr. /Coast Highway / ( Ekisting Traffic-Volumes Bases on Average-Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST.' EXI S7. REGIONAL COTf11TTE0 PROJECTED Morerxnt PKAR V/C GROWTH PROJECT Y/C Ratio PROTECT PROJECT . Lanes tap. Lames Cap. w/o Project Volume V/C Ratio Vol. Ratio Volume Volta" Volu.e NL 1600 34 .0213 . 0213 .0213 NT 1600 42 .0263* * p *I NR 1600 30 .0188 .0188 A n SL 3200 786 .2456* .2456* .2456* ST 1600 80 .0500 41 .0756 . .0756 SR 1600 131 .0819 .0819 EL 1600 87 .0544*. .0544* . 0544* ET 3200' 1310 .4094 1 15 286 .5034 12 .5071 ER 1600 •30 .0188 . 0188 0 ' WL 1600 •38 .0238 .0238 .,0238 1506 .4706* 24 566 .6550* 22 .6618* WR• 1600 ' 714 .4463 .4463 .4463* •YELLOWTIME 1000* .,1000* .1000* I � i EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY• UTILIZATION t .8969 1I EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1.0 8 2 5 i EXISTING PLUS COMMITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. • ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 030 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. ,with systems improvement will be less than orequalto 0.90_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --- - _ - _ _ Description of system improvement: Hospital Road Medical Building DATE• 9/14/81 _ _ PROJECT ___ -- __--- FORM II I APPENDIX C PROJECT RELATED IMPROVEMENT ICU WORK SHEETS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Appendix C Intersection Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COITTED PROJECTED M7 EXISTING PROPOSED PK.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/o Ratio PROJECT PRO.IEat Mo rerent Lanes Cap Lanes Cap. Vol Project Vol une Y/C Ratio Vol. Ratio Volume Yolume Yolume NL 2400 421 .1754* .1754* .1754* NT 2400 265 .1104 -4 .1120 .1120_ NR 1600 N.S. 58 .0363 .0363 .0363: SL 1600 146 .0912 .0912 ST 3200 473 .1934 10 .1509 .1509 SR 1600 2720 708 .4425* 4 * 22 . 2705* ' EL 3200 244 .0763 2 .0768* 14 .0812* ET 3200 828 .2588 22 205 . 3296 . 3296 ER 1600 N.S. - 401 • .2506 .2506 .2506 WL 1600 85.. • .0531 4 .0531 .0531 WT 3200 4320 1329 .4153* 25 481 .5734* .4247* WR 1600 N.sl 77 .0481 .0481 .0481 _ YELLOWTIME 1000* .1000* I 1 . 1000* 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1,1332 I 1 1 EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH M/PROPOSED INPROYEMENTS I.C.U.1 1. 3718 t EXISTING PLUS COMITTEl PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. '970 6 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ❑ Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. with systems improvement will be less than orequalto 0.90 - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ Description of system improvement: _ Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE: 8/13/81 PROJECT FORM II INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS APPENDIX C Intersection Dover Dr. /Coast Highway ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 19 81) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST.' EXIST. REGIONAL CO"UTTED PROJECTED Mo.erent Pc.MR. V/C GROYIM PROJECT V/L Ratio PROJECTEPROJEC7Lanes Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Volume Volume w/o Project Vol uneVolumeNL 1600 34 .0213 .0213 NT 1600 42 .0263* 4 .0275* NR 1600 30 •.0188 C. SL 3200 48 )0 786 .2456* .1637* .1637 ST 1600 80 .0500 41 .0756 .0756 SR 1600 31 .0819 .0819 EL 1600 3200 87 .0544*. .0271* .0271* ET 3200' 4800 1310 .4094 i5. 286 .3418 12 . 3443 ER 1600 0 •30 .0188 WL 1600 •.38 .0238 .0238 .0238 WT 4800 1506 -4706* 24 566 ..4366* 22 . 4412* WR 1600 714 .4463 . 4463 1 .4463 YELLOWTIME 1000* i .1000*. 1000* EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY- UTILIZATION .8969 j EXISTING PLUS COKIITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH W/PROPOSED INPROVEKNTS I.C.U. * 75 4 9 i EXISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH PLUS PROJECT I.C.U. . 7595 ® Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Q Projected plus project traffic I .C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improveme t will be less than or equal to 0.90 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - -•- - - - - - Description of system improvement: City/State improvement project, permitted to use 100 percent of new lane capacity Hospital Road Medical Building 9/14/81 103 -----•-------- DATE: - -----DRO.IFCT -- --- FORM I ' 'NESTEC Services, Inc. 118 B=khollow Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 ' (714) 5569350 `,, January 20, 1 73 �� RECEIVED January 20, 1982 PLANNING ' DEPARTMENT a JAN201982s► 4 (� C�FE NEWACH, S Mr. Fred Talarieo City of Newport Beach .,., 3300 Newport Boulevard °� - Newport Beach, California 92663 Re: Proposed Medical Office Project. Dear Fred: . ' This letter is in response to the ad hoc committee question regarding localized air quality effects of the proposed 65,000 square-foot medical office building and associated parking structure to be constructed at 351 Hospital Road in Newport Beach. The following information has been extracted from various sources, including the expanded Initial Study conducted by WESTEC Services which was completed in late 1981. As described In that document, the local wind pattern is diurnal in nature. Generally, winds blow onshore from the south and west during the day and offshore from �'..: the east at night. The wind frequency distribution near the project area, as measured at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) monitoring station on % Harbor Boulevard in Costa Mesa, is shown in Figure 1. The diagram shows that westerly ;,,; winds occur approximately 30 percent of the time, but combined percentages indicate '. the occurrence of wind from the south, west, and southwest about 70 percent of the time. Air moving from these directions is generally of better quality in coastal areas f" =` due to the limited sources of offshore air pollution producing activities. As this air moves inland, it mixes With numerous sources of mobile and stationary air pollution. When the' winds shift, the project area is exposed to air flow out of urbanized and ,'Jindustrialized portions of the air basin, and Newport Beach becomes a receptor for •;•1• ,' ,^ upwind emissions rather than a source area for downwind air quality problems. In order to determine the significance of the air quality impact of a- proposed project, that impact, in conjunction with existing baseline air quality levels; must be compared to the applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). These standards are the levels of air quality considered to provide an adequate margin of safety in order to protect the public health and welfare. Standards are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress or "sensitive 'receptors" such as ' asthmatics, young children, elderly people, or hospital patients. 'Most.healthy adults can usually tolerate periodic exposures to somewhat higher air pollution levels that result mainly in temporary discomfort but do not cause perceptible long-range health damage. The state and federal clean air standards are summarized in Table I. In case of conflict between state and federal standards, the most stringent standard is to be enforced, but only the national AAQS have mandated attainment deadlines. Mr. Fred Talarico - January 20, 1982 ' Page 2 Y Table II presents an account of four years of data collected at the most proximate SCAQMD station. Of the five major pollutants included in the table, only two standards ' have not been exceeded since 1977 in Costa Mesa. It can be assumed that pollutant concentrations near the project area would be similar to those recorded at the Costa Mesa station due to proximity. However, air quality in Newport could be expected to be slightly better in general due to its upwind, coastal location. It is significant to note that air quality trends as depicted in Table II indicate a general improvement in overall '3�: air quality for the period shown. - c While the regional impact of project-related vehicular emissions may be small, localized concentrations of pollutants commonly referred to as "hot spots" may occur at the parking structure and other areas with high vehicle concentrations. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a commonly used indicator pollutant for determining localized air quality impacts. Using the Simplified Analysis Technique for Estimating CO Concentra- ; .' tions Near Highway Facilities (SCAQMD, 1980), project-related concentrations of CO were calculated for worst case peak-hour traffic useage of the parking structure { (actually the 2.5 hour peak level which was assumed'to occur within a one hour period). - ;''. Calculations were made for the project-related peak and the project-related peak plus the existing' Park Lido peak. A 2 ppm area-wide background CO concentration, measured by CalTrans during their Route 55 siting studies was also factored in. Table III '.•. provides the result of this analysis. ..f:'. ; • • . -'-As shown, maximum hourly CO concentrations at residences adjacent to the • V ' parking structure are well below the federal 35 ppni standard. Even when peak-hour CO concentrations from the project are added to the maximum concentration of CO measured at the Costa Mesa station '(21 ppm in 1979), the resulting maximum hourly concentrations would AM not exceed the CO standard. These data lead to the conclusion that project-related local air pollutant emissions will not create a significant adverse impact on air quality. Please advise me if you require additional information about project impacts. , • '.: Sincerely, ' Thomas C. Ryan f1 Regional Manager ' TCR:pc Enclosures z to*5' WESTEC Services,Inc. 0 1 30% 1 315 15% 45 1 20% 1 15S tox- 1 5z • . 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 a 225 135 1 � 1 • 180 1 s _ • Costa Mesa SCAQMD Station 1 FIGURE Annual Wind . Rose . i 1 106 ' TABLE I - AMBIENT AIR r)DALITY STANDARDS Are t olifornie Standards Sahonnl Stannards Time Pollutant Time Concentration 1'etnod Primary Secondary Method Ostdant I hour 0.10 ppm Ultraviolet — — (200 ig/m t) Photometry - Ozone I hour — — 240 t;/ms Same as Chemiluminesoent (0.12 ppm) Primary Method Standard Carbon 12 hour 10 ppm — ;.tonozide (11 mR/m s) 6 hour Non-Dlspenifre 10 mg/ms Same as Non-Dispers(va infrared (9 ppm) Primary Infrared Spectroscopy Standards Spectroscopy 1 hour 40 ppm 40 mg/ms ' (46 m=/m s) (33 ppm) Nitrogen. Annual 100 K/ms Dioslde Average (0.03 ppm) Gas Phase ' Saltzman Method Some as ChemllumWcence _ 1 hour 0.25 ppm Primary (470 tg/m 1) St+(ntlards Sulfur Annual — 6o tg/ms — ' Dloslde Average (0.03 ppm) — 24 hour 0.05 ppm 365 tg/ms (131 rR/m e) Conductlmetrie (0.14 ppm) Panosanillne 3 hmr Method Method — — 1300 4t/m s- ' — (O.S ppm) I Mote 0.5 ppm (1310 tR/m s) Suspended Annual Geometric 60 W/ms 73 w/ms 6o Lem, ' Particulate Mean High Volume High Volume !fatter sampling Samplinc 24 hour 100 tg/ms 260,1g/ms 130 tg/ms Sulfates 24 hour 2311I/ms ADIL Method — — ' No.62 — — — Lead 30 day Avenge 1.3 tt/ms AIHL Method Na.34 Atomic Calendar Quarter 1.5 tg/ms l.s tg/ms Absorption Hydrogen 1 hour 0.03 ppm v Cadmium Sulfide (42-.g/m s) Hydrogen Stracten ' - Method oc '- Hydrarben _t 3 hour 106 LC/Ms Same as Flame Ionization (Corrected (6-9 am) - (0.24 ppm) Primary Detection Using (far Methane) Standards Gas Chromatography VI"I Chloride 24 hour 0.010 ppm Gas Chromatography (Cmaroethene) us tg/m r) (ARB staff reoort 76-a-3) Sthy 3 hour 0.1 ppm I hour 0.3 ppm Vlsblllty 1 obaervatloo In suffle(ent amount to reduce _ ' = Reducing the prevailing visibility to less ? Particles than 16 miles when the relative humidity is Im than 70% APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR SASINr Carbon 6 tour 1 a ppm NDIR — — — Visibility I Observation In sufficient amount to reduce Reducing the prevailing visibility to lea Particle than 3o miles when the relative ' humidity is less then 70% ' TABLE 11 ' AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SUMMARY FOR COSTA MESA STATION ' Number of Days Exceeding Applicable Standard Maximum Concentration ' Pollutant 1977 1978 1979 1980 ' Carbon Monoxide' 20/0 9/0 52/0 6/0 CO (8 hr)/(1 hr) 18.0 ppm 18.0 ppm 21.0 ppm 17.0 ppm ' Nitrogen Dioxide 0 4 4 2 NOX (1 hr) .23 ppm .30 ppm .29 ppm .25 ppm ' Sulfur Dioxide 0 0 0 0 SO2 (24 hr) 0.034 ppm RR .018 ppm .015 ppm t Photochemical Oxidant 31 52 26 20 Ox (1 hr) . 88 ppm .22 ppm .21 ppm .05 ppm ' Particulates 13 16 26 6 (24 hr) 202 }i/cu.m. 175 u/cu.m. 252 µ/cu.m. 117 u/cu.m. ' Nr: not reported ' 1 The 1-hr CO standard was not exceeded at the Costa Mesa Station. 2 Based on 12-hr standard. 1 - . 1 , 1 • 108 TABLE III ' PEAK-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS EMANATING FROM PARKING STRUCTURE) 1 Total Site (Existing Total Site ' Distance from Center CO Contributed Park Lido Building Plus Existing Divider to Receptor by Projectl Plus Project)2 Background Level (feet) (ppm) (Ppm) (ppm) ' 0 (center line of 1.49 4.32 6.32 parking structure) 75 (northern site 0.84 2.43 4.43 perimeter) ' 115 (opposite roadway 0.74 2.16 4.16 edge) ' 130 (closest residence) 0.73 2.13 4.13 150 0.67 1.94 3.94 ' 200 0.64 1.86 3.86 1 ' 1 Based on 450 vehicles per hour. 2 Based on 981 vehicles per hour. 1 t ' 10 ■■■//■■■■■/■/////■■■■■//■////■■■■■■/■//■■■■//■■■/■/■■■■noon/■/■/■ STAFF • PLANNING • COMMISSION ■oo!//■o!!o■/I link 1r 011111 monk '1 IVAN Ina■ 11 ■!►\I Amok'\/oo■■ono//o■■o/ ■/■■/■00/■1■■I ■■y / IL 10 1■P'.Al / 40■■■ Ion■ 11 ■■1 11 i■/■I R//■/■1■■/■1■/■■ ■0/■OMEN/1■/nI mndF -- 10 ...I1 Ak \/10 1100 11 NEW II '/■■1 1■■/////■■1//1/■ on/■//■o■■■■■I ■■■' A■■k II In/ 11 ■\.•/// Ion■ If n■I AL\Mr.1/0■■/■■/n■■■■■■ 111/n/o■■■o■■//■o /■■ I ...-J s-�\I mr i■► \o'. I!1 ■■/■//■■1//no■n1/■nn// ■!!!■■/■■nl000■■ ► \■r 1 1 ■//■ look ■ ■ ANNIhMl L 101 Moo■■■lnnnon■//■■■■/■/ 11n■o■1!!o■n■■■/■ 1k `!'All I 1 11■1 1 m 1/o■■I Elk. 11 �!■l000■■/■/■1n!!!!!n■ I!■■nttn■■■!olnn■ 1\ 1 Al I loan Iln/ I I.. `009 /' AMM �-- \1 ■000■///Ann■■//■■■■■■■ -- 11n/oo■loonoln/■■ 1\ ,/1 1 7 ,-�/I I\mow. / Inns f ■l0000n■■■ ■■ ■ 11o■■non!■■/■onloln!■1/o!//■■/o1n■ltml/no■/!■■■/no//1ln1ln■/■■Moo■ 1■■■■■/■■mono■r - --------------------------------1n/!■■/■1o/nnnon■ Io!■■■■0■o1■mono\•■■w//•1.1.1■■I•■�■a■/w■/■■!w!■!■■■/!/!n/!n!n//■!■■■ I1o■o■o■too■■■on■ ■..•l ■■ I I I!!I k..e 1 . �■ r..:!■!■ ..�///■■■//00000000/■ I■!■!■■■■■!!!!/■■ '-'4I ■o 111■■I Inn 1 1 L41111 1 aw■n■■lrlJnlo■nn■■■ll000noo■ !/■■/n//■■■/!!nn■ 1■_m I ON I I to■I I■■ t I I\\ 1 ■r■ In■nr.I■1/■■■nonn000l/■■!■ ■o■■■■■■ono■\■■■ ' i\`WA I_ �I ' �■ 11/► 9:m: ■■■t'_7//■■■■■■/■■/!■■/■■ �n/■■o■■■■■Doom■■■ /o/moon■1■/nn/■■■//!oo■/■■■//■0000/n■■/■■/00■01 ■/■!!oo■■■■000000n/!■■■noon■■■00000■■■/■onoon■■■!!■■10■00■■////11 ■■■■■//■moon■■11o0///■■1!■n■/1■■■1/■///■■■■■!n■/■/■■■■■/■■/■n■■■i //!/noon■■//■tin//o■■■■moon■■■mono■■■■■■■■notion/■///■/■■!■n■o■/1nl ■/■■/■////■nnn■■■■■■■■//■■■■/■///■//■■■///n/■/■//■■mono■■//■/■nl ■■noo■■on//■■/■!■■///■■//■on//■//■■ono///■/■■■//■■onno///■■/■■nnl ■/■/!no■■■///!■■n/■■■!■o■■o■■■■■mono■■/■■nlonno/■//■///!1nlnn/■nl ■■■■■!n/■■/!/!oo■■■!■noon■■■■■■moon■■■■■■oon000no/■■^`��j]■!■■no!■/■1■ FILE.. { l �1i s . I • NOT y SAVE- MOST DEVELOPMENT . • • • • ! ♦ 1 CA.'* 92707. McMahon Partnership TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Dates Pages 1 1 January 21, 1982 1-19 2 January 7 , 1982 20 1 3 October 29, 1981 21-25 ' 4 September 24, 1981 26-34 B. Staff Reports Meeting Dates Pages 1 January 21, 1982 35-49 2 January 7 , 1982 50 ' 3 October 29, 1981 51-88 4 September 24 , 1981 89-133 L 1 .. i COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 . MINUTES • gym , W DRAFT 1 m X w 30 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ' ce-Chairman King ruled that Items No. 11, 12 and 13 be rd after ,Item No. 3 on the Agenda. Staff advised Commission of the following requested continuances, to a Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February , 1982: Item No. 3 - Resubdivision No. 707; and, em Nos. 17 and 18 - Use Permit No. 2049 and Tentative Ma f Tract No. 11744. Iotion X Motion was made to direct Item 'Nos. 17 18 to CEQAC 11 Ayes X * X X * X (Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory ittee) , for their comments and recommendations, which TION CARRIED. '. Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed Item #3 ' 65,000 sq. ft. medical office building. AND TRAFFIC STUDY Request to construct a 65,000 sq. ft. t medical office ' building that exceeds the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District, to permit roof parking, and to waive a portion of the required AND off-street parking spaces. Said application also ' includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of Item #4 the project's required off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2 of USE PERMI ' Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 N0.2 PI1 Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. BOTH AI P OVED ZONE: A-P CONDI- TIONALLY APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd.; Robert L. Wish, General Partner, Santa Ana 1 OWNERS: Same as applicants Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2 were heard concurrently due to ' their relationship. -2- T COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 21, 1982 � r DRAFT m m m x H City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX LIM Commissioner Kurlander stated that he has reviewed the previous Planning Commission minutes and staff reports relating to these items. The public hearing opened in connection with these ' items and Mr. Robert Wish, the applicant and owner, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Wish described to the Commission the proposed project changes. He stated that they have provided for more mature vegetation and designed a textured wall for the parking structure. He then presented photographs of the existing parking lot I and building which depicted a lack of landscaping and an exposed garbage area. Mr. Wish further stated that the proposed project is in accordance with the Traffic Study. (Commissioner Balalis was present at 7:50 p.m.) ' Ms. Terry Watt, Planning Consultant, representing ROMOE (Residents Opposed to the Medical Office Expansion) , referred to her letter dated January 21, 1982 and ' stated that a number' of significant effects were- inadequately assessed in the Initial Study including effects which will significantly change the character of the adjacent residential community, negative aesthetic effects, induce growth and concentration of people, increase in traffic, potential to degrade the environment, alterations to the present or planned Is uses in the area, create demands for housing, and a loss' in visual open space. Ms. Watt urged that the Park Lido medical offige expansion be included in a ' study of the West Newport area. Mr. Cecil Zaun, resident of 409 Flagship Road, referred ' to his letter received January 19, 1982, and requested that an environmental impact report be prepared for the proposed project. He stated that concerns relating to impacts on the traffic and parking, intersection controls, noise and lighting effects, and impacts on the prevailing wind direction must be answered. Mr. Zaun stated that for over 30 years, he was the Director ' for Safety and Driver Education for the, Los Angeles City School District. Mr. Ralph Gray, resident of 407 Evening Star Lane, and owner of five buildings which would overlook the proposed parking structure; distributed to the. Commission a traffic and parking list which he had ' prepared. The list depicted the total number of cars -3- 2 ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES X DRAFT m m m x w City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX in and out per day of 2,910 cars in the area, and the ' deficient amount of on-street parking in the area. He expressed his concern that the proposed parking structure will generate light and noise impacts upon ' the adjacent apartment buildings. He further expressed his concerns relating to the increase in traffic and the nearby convalescent home, and the problems that a woman may encounter in a parking structure during the evening hours. Ms. Suzanne McBrien, owner of property in the area, ' stated that the proposed project will be a detriment to the property values in the immediate area. She stated that the Traffic Study should address the traffic ' impacts on the private streets. She also expressed her concern that the proposed parking structure will take away the open space and will impact the quality of the air. Ms. McBrien asked if a geological survey has been considered for this project. Planning Director Hewicker stated that during the process of the building. and grading permits, that geological reports will be required. Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental ' Coordinator, stated that private streets are not normally covered by a Traffic Study. Mr. Fred Firestone, tenant of the Park Lido Building, ' stated that the proposed parking requirements will not be sufficient. He stated that the parking lot is currently over capacity, because of the hospital ' overflow parking. He stated that the street parking in the area is already impacted. Ms. Rose Levinson stated that she represented the Park Lido Homeowner's Association at the AD-HOC Committee meeting. Ms. Levinson stated that the proposed project will destroy the character of the neighborhood and the current visual open space. She stated that 238 families in the immediate area will be affected by this proposed project. She added that no traffic studies will change the traffic problems in the area. Commissioner Beek stated that the applicant can construct an alternate building and parking structure ' without the need for a discretionary use permit. He asked the speakers to comment on the conceptual, alternative site plan, as well as the proposed plan, that the applicant has submitted. -4- ' � 3 ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 21, 1982 m = DRAFT 1 m m F H City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ' Mr. Cecil Zaun stated that the, residents of the area are opposed to the proposed project. He added that the Planning Commission and the City Council has the authority to change any long range plan. Ms. Irene Louden, resident of 4227 Patrice Road, stated that she can understand that the applicant wants to improve his investment. However, she expressed concerns relating to the increase in traffic, air pollution and crime. She stated that the proposed project will create a detriment to the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:30 p.m. so that the members of the audience could view the alternative ' conceptual site plan. The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Planning Director Hewicker presented background ' information relating to the requested traffic study and use permit. He stated that if the applicant were to construct a building within the height limit and -the setbacks, discretionary approval for the use permit by ' the Planning Commission would not be required. He referred to the concern expressed by the residents of maintaining the open space of the existing parking lot, ' and stated that this is private property, and that the applicant can build upon it, with or without a discretionary use permit. In response to a question posed by Vice-Chairman King, Fred Talarico stated that an expanded Initial Study•was prepared for the project and explained the procedures ' involved. Commissioner Allen stated that the applicant is requesting to exceed the basic height limit and asked if the Commission can consider questions pertaining to the open space relative to the proposed office ' building. Planning Director Hewicker concurred. -5- 1 4 COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES m = m DRAFT x y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Wish stated that the community is expanding and that change in inevitable. He stated that the staff report and the extended traffic study answers all of the concerns that have been expressed. He stated that the proposed parking structure will be for the private use of the project and will be regulated. ' Mr. Robert Kite, architect of the project, explained to the Commission the conceptual alternative site plan which could be constructed, in the event the proposed 1 plan was not approved. He stated that the alternative plan would consist of a two story structure covering the majority of the site with a parking structure two levels underground. He stated that this would create the need to haul 43,000 cubic yards of dirt, which _ would have a negative impact upon the community. Vice-Chairman King referred to Condition of Approval. No. 4 and asked Mr. Kite how the increased building height will result in more public visual open space ' than could be achieved by the basic height limit. Mr. Kite stated that the requested increased building height will allow for a higher building, but will also ' allow for more public visual open space, as opposed to the alternative plan which will spread out over the majority of the site. Commissioner Allen stated that the square• footage and the total envelope size will remain about the same in each plan. • Therefore, she stated that the parking ' requirements will remain the same, but that the parking structure will be underground in the alternate plan which will have less of a total visual impact. Mr. Kite stated that the visual impacts of the two plans will be about the same. Mr. Wish stated that the proposed and the. alternate parking structure will be the same height above ground. He stated that if a two ' story office building is built, the parking structure would have to be built with one additional level below the ground. Mr. Talarico stated that the existing zoning regulations allow for 2 times the buildable area of the ' site. He stated that the proposed project is at .9 times the buildable area. -6- g ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES � mX DRAFT W a m F N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ' Dr. Edward Bechtel, tenant of the Park Lido Building, submitted to the Commission an excerpt from the Science News, which related to carbon monoxide poisoning from parking structures entering into high rise buildings. He also expressed a concern with photochemical smog created by high ultraviolet fluorescent bulbs and a low turnover of air. Dr. Bechtel stated that the parking ' in the surrounding community will be further impacted when the parking structure becomes monitored. Vice-Chairman King referred to a letter dated January 20, 1982, from WESTEC Services, which addresses the• issues of localized air quality effects. Mr. Talarico stated that the consultant has determined that there ' will be no significant adverse environmental effects to the localized air quality relating to the proposed project. Vice-Chairman King added that the maximum ' hourly carbon monoxide concentrations at residences adjacent to the parking structure will be well below the federal standard. ' Ms. Elaine Cerf, resident of the area, stated that she will be losing a small view from her property, if the ' proposed parking structure is allowed to be built. Mr. John Applegate, resident of Costa Mesa and a member of the Board of Directors for Hoag Hospital, stated ' that to his knowledge, this subject application has never been brought before the Board of Directors. Planning Director Hewicker stated that Hoag Hospital ' was contacted about this project and that they had indicated that they intend to pursue a project of their own. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained the necessary City approvals which would be required for the removal ' of 43,000 cubic yards of dirt, such as grading permits and the approval of a haul route. ' Ms. McBrien stated that the residents iri the Park Lido area are concerned with the final project, not with the construction periods. Commissioner Allen expressed her concern that if the Planning Commission were to grant the approval for the . ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES i DRAFT x y = City of Newport Beach c a m ROLL CALL INDEX requested use permit, a finding would have to be made that the project would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. She referred to Exhibit "B" of the staff ' report and stated that the findings for denial of the use permit outline her concerns. She stated that the applicant still has development rights on the property. She stated that what the applicant has proposed will have a greater impact upon the community, than what could realistically be built without discretionary approval. tion Motion was made for approval of Exhibit "B" subject to the findings and conditions of approval for the Traffic Study and findings of denial for Use Permit No. 2021. Vice-Chairman King stated that essentially, the alternate plan will have the same amount of square footage, only it will be spread over a larger area of the site. He stated that the two plans will have the same amount of -square footage and will generate the Sam e amount of traffic. He . further stated that the ' site plan of the four story building will allow for a larger landscaped area. Commissioner Allen stated that the parking structure is the most offensive part of the project. She stated that- there would be less visual impact if the parking structure were to be constructed underground. Vice-Chairman King stated that the same visual amount of wall space of parking structure would still be exposed at the surface. ' Commissioner Balalis stated that the' safety of an underground parking structure must be considered versus the proposed parking structure. He also stated that he ' would like to know how the applicant is proposing to vent the alternative underground parking structure. ' Commissioner Allen stated that an underground parking structure would not emit as much noise and light, as the proposed parking structure. Mr. Kite stated that the normal adverse problems of a parking structure have been mitigated by this project. -e- T ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES 3 = DRAFT x y City of Newport Beach i ROLL CALL INDEX bstitute Substitute motion was made for approval of Exhibit "A" ti0n X and Exhibit "C" subject to the findings and conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 2021, with an added condition that would bind the applicant to the requested .9 times the buildable area of the site and that they not be allowed to construct additional office space at any future time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Planning Director Hewicker referred to the staff report and explained Conditions of Approval No. 42 and 48. He stated that Condition No. 48 was a suggestion of the Ad-Hoc Committee. He stated that staff has suggested that Condition No. 42 be deleted. Mr. Bob Burnham,, Acting City Attorney, suggested that ' the Commission could impose a condition that the applicant record a covenant, of acceptable form to the City Attorney's office, binding the applicant and its successors in interest, to a limitation of .9 times the buildable area. Vice-Chairman King stated that he. would include this in his motion. ' Planning Director Hewicker referred to Condition of Approval No. 46 and stated that the word "signs" should be included after the phrase, "That the applicant shall ' install". He then referred to Condition of Approval No. 2 and stated that it should read, "That all applicable conditions of the Traffic Study shall be ' fulfilled". Mr. Burnham referred to Finding No. 2 of Exhibit "A" for Use Permit No. 202L and suggested that the words be added, "to a level of insignificance." Commissioner Balalis suggested that an additional finding be included which would state,. "That as consideration for the limitation of development to .9 times the buildable, area, the requested height is an ' appropriate change." Commissioner Beek stated that he is in support of the original motion for approval of the traffic study and denial of the use permit. He stated that he can not make the finding that the increased building height ' -9- 8 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 21, 1982 • gym ` m DRAFT H City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building. He stated that the alternative site plan would be preferable.. tendments X Vice-Chairman King amended his Substitute Motion for approval of Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "C", to delete the original Condition No. 42 (i.e. , restrict any pavement breaking and hauling to weekends and holidays only) ; to impose an additional condition that the .applicant record a covenant, of acceptable form to the City Attorney's Office, binding the applicant and its successors in interest, to a limitation of .9 times the buildable area; to add the word "signs" to Condition No. 46; Condition No. 2 shall read, "That all applicable conditions of the Traffic Study shall be fulfilled"; to add the words "to a level of ' insignificance" to Finding No. 2; and, to add an additional finding, "That as consideration for the limitation of development to .9 times the buildable es X X X X area, the requested height is an appropriate change". es X X Substitute Motion was now voted on, which SUBSTITUTE bsent MOTION CARRIED as follows: ' FINDINGS: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that 1 their contents have been considered in the decisions on this project. ' 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the ' General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 4. The increased building height will result in more . public visual open space than could be achieved by the basic height limit. -10- ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES d DRAFT F City of Newport Beach c a m m ROLL CALL INDEX 5. The increased building height will result in a ' - more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. ' 6. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships ' being created between the structure and exist- ing developments or public spaces. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. ' S. Adequate off-street parking and related vehic- ular circulation are being provided in con- junction with the proposed development. ' 9- The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 10. That parapet walls will be constructed ad- jacent to the proposed roof parking area that will shield the parked automobiles from view ' from adjoining property and streets. 11. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use- of the property or build- ing will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, ' safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighbor- hood of such proposed use or be detrimental ' or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifica- tion for the compact parking spaces is cosi- sistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. 12. The approval of Use Permit No. 2021 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons resid- ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or im- provements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. -ll- ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January 21, 1982 m DRAFT m m F City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX 13. That as consideration for the limitation of development to .9 times the buildable area, the requested height is an appropriate change. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections. 2. That all applicable conditions of the Traffic Study shall be fulfilled. ' 3. A complete hydrology study and hydraulic an- alysis shall be performed to address the amount of and manner in which all flows to and from the site are accommodated. ' 4. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 5. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access routes, access points to the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 7. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of ' the Building Department.' 8. Than an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - ,Santa Ana Region. ' 9, The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. . 11' ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES DRAFT a m F H City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ' 10. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer ' and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. ' 11. That final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water using ' facilities. 12. Prior to occupancy of any building, the appli- cants shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 6 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. • 13. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said structures be sound attenuated so as to not exceed 55 dBA at the .property lines. The latter shall be based ' upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Building Department. ' 14. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be ' developed and approved by the Planning Department. ' 15. A landscape and irrigation plan for the pro- ject shall be prepared by a licensed land-: scape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of land- scaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the ' Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . ' -13 1.2 ' COMMISSIONERS1 January 21, 1982 MINUTES gym = m DRAFT Cr m F = 0 City of Newport Beach e a w ROLL CALL INDEX ' 16. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. 17. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance Program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 18. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and overwatering. 19. The site's existing landscape plan shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. The ' existing landscape program shall be modified to include the concerns of the conditions above to the maximum extent practicable. Any change(s) in said existing program as a result of this review ' shall be phased and incorporated as a portion of existing landscape maintenance. ' 20. That the landscaping plans adjacent to the drive entrances be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation, for sight distance requirements. 21. That the proposed landscaping over the ' existing and proposed sewer easements shall be subject to further review by the Public Works Department. ' 22. The project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. All parking lot lighting shall, be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. 23. That should any resources be uncovered during ' construction, that a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluate the site prior' to completion of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. -14- 13 COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES m DRAFT O F w City of Newport Beach cLmml= S q A W ROLL CALL INDEX ' 24. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport should be included in all leases or subleases for space in the project and ' shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against ' the property. . Disclosure Statement ' The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: ' a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; ' b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; ' c) The City of Newport Beach may • continue to oppose additional commercial air service ' expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will ' not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. ' 25. That the final design of on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 26. Signing shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 27. Handicap* and compact parking spaces shall be ' designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. ' 28. The layout of the surface and structure parking shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 14 ' COMMISSIONERS MINUTES January. 21, 1982 DRAFTgym = m m F y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ' 29. That all improvements ' be constructed as, required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 30. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided if it is desired ' to obtain a building permit prior- to completion of ' the public improvements. 31. That the existing sanitary sewer be relocated and ' that a 10-foot wide easement for sewer purposes be dedicated to the City prior to issuance of .Building Permits, and that the design of the sewer t be by a licensed engineer on the Public Works Department Standard Plan sheets. ' 32. That the structures adjacent to the existing and proposed sewer main have deepened footings. The footings shall be designed so that the bottom of footing is intersected when a 1 to 1 slope is ' projected from the flow line of pipe to the bottom of footing so that the footing is able to take lateral forces in the event of sewer main ' excavation. 33. That a concrete sidewalk be completed along the Flagship Road frontage and access ramps be constructed at the corners of Flagship Road and Patrice Road, and Flagship Road and Placential Avenue. ' 34. That prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the ' satisfaction of the Public Works Department that adequate site distance has been ,provided at the Hospital Road entrance and at the northeasterly ' corner of the proposed medical building. 35. That prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Building Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such ' demonstration shall include verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 6. The ' -16- 15 ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES m D RAFT a F y City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction of any additional sewer facilities needed to serve the project. ' 36. That a traffic signal 'be designed and installed by the developer at the intersection of Hospital Road ' and Placentia Avenue. A separate surety .and agreement may be provided for this work. The developer's obligation for this signal shall be 50%. , 37. That parking arrangement during the construction period shall. be approved by the City's Planning ' Department and Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permit(s) . Persons that might be affected by the ' construction shall be notified in a manner; approved by the Planning Department. 38. All on-site drainage shall be approved by the City Public. Works Department. 39. A late afternoon and evening security program ' shall be designed and implemented prior to the occupancy of the project. Said program shall be approved by the•Police and Planning Departments. ' 40. That prior to the issuance of any building permits authorized by the approval of this Use Permit, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director, a sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport area. ' 41. Quiet or hushed models of construction equipment suitable for use in hospital zones shall be used ifi the development of the proposed project. ' 42.. That prior to the commencement of construction, the applicants shall provide all tenants of the ' existing office building on-site with a schedule of construction activities. The applicants shall also provide said tenants with notification of any major changes to said schedule. -17- 16 ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES � m � m DRAFT x y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 43. All concrete driving surfaces in the parking structure shall have a rough finish. ' 44.. The final design of on-site pedestrian circulation shall be designed to direct pedestrian crossing of Hospital Road to its intersection with Placentia Avenue. 45. That 1 parking space shall be provided for each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area in the existing and proposed office buildings. ' 46. That* the applicant shall install signs during the construction of the project that will limit t parking time on-street in the vicinity of the project in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer and provide .for their removal upon completion of the project. 47. A 24 hour security program for the site including the parking structure shall be designed and ' implemented prior to the occupancy of the project. Said program shall be approved by the Police and Planning Departments. ' 48. That two weeks (14 days) prior to the commencement of construction a notice that of start ' construction and proposed construction schedule shall' be provided to all residents and property owners within 300 feet in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department. 49. That the office structure construction shall not commence until such time as the parking structure is complete and operational. 50. That the landscaping adjacent to the parking ' structure on Flagship Road and Patiice' Road shall be completed within 30 days of the start of construction of the office building. 17 ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES i DRAFT F y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ' 51. That the landscaping shall be accomplished in substantial conformance with Conceptual Landscape Plan "B". 52. That the visibility of cars and glare off of cars ' in- the parking structure shall be screened from view from adjacent residential areas. 53. That all lighting on the top level of the parking structure shall be below the level of the parapet wall. ' 54. That the applicant record a Covenant, the form and content of which is acceptable to the City Attorney, binding the applicant and its successors in interest in perpetuity, to a limitation of .9 times the buildable area on the subject property. �tion Motion was made for approval of the Traffic Study Hyes X X K. X subject to the following findings and conditions, which eS X X MOTION CARRIED: sent FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed trip generation measures are acceptable and will be permanently implemented ' through the conditions of this approval and that of Use Permit NO. 2021. ' 2. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 3. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an ' unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified' , or "primary" street. -19- fit 1 ' 18 ' COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1982 MINUTES r r DRAFT � c m 1 a F N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ' CONDITION: 1. That prior to the occupancy of the proposed ' project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to, the Circulation System Improvements described in ' the Initial Study Appendix A, page A20, Table 5 and these improvements shall have been made .unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation System's Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:35 and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Request to create four parcels of land for single Item #3 ' family residential purposes where a portion of one lot Presently exists, and the acceptance of an nvironmental document. ' LO ION: A portion of Lot 2, Newport Height RESUB- Tract, located at 2961 Cliff Drive, DIVISION constituting the entire easterly side of N0. 007 Santa Ana Avenue, between Cliff Drive and an unimproved portion of Avon Street I Newport Heights. ' ZONE: R-1 Continued ' APPLICANT: Jeffery Hartman Enterprises, Newport t0 Februa Beach 18, 1982 OWNER: Helen F. Kruetz p, Newport Beach Staff advised that this item b continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of Febru 18, 1982, so as to allow additional time to investi to alternative financing methods for the required stree improvements on Avon Avenue. tion X Motion was made to continue this item to the anning 1 Ayes X * X X X X X Commission Meeting of February 18, 1982, which TION CARRIED. -20- I � 19 COMMISSIONERS January 7, 1982 MINUTES or City of Newport Beach ' ROLL CAL.L 1NDLX ' Item #1 Request to consider a Traffic Study, for a proposed 65,000 sq. ft. medical office building. . TRAFFIC STUDY AND AND ' Request to construct a 65,000 sq. ft. t medical office building that exceeds the basic height limit in the ' 32/50 Height Limitation District, to permit roof Item- #2 parking, and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. Said application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to ' allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of USE PERMIT the project's required off-street parking spaces, and N0. 2021 the acceptance of an environmental document. ' LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 Hospital Road on the northeasterly Continued corner of Hospital Road and Placentia to January Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. 211 ,1982 ' ZONE: A-P APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd.; Robert L. Wish, General ' Partner, Santa Ana OWNERS: Same as applicants ' Staff advised that the above subject items be continued to the Planning Commission meeting, of January 21, 1982, in order to allow the staff an opportunity to prepare ' the information requested by Commissioners King and Allen at the last AD-HOC Committee meeting. Motion X Motion was made to continue these items to the Planning A11 Ayes X * X Commission Meeting of January 21, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. -2- 4 I ' 20 COMMISSIONERS October 29, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX t Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed Item #3 65,000 sq. ft. medical office building. TRAFFIC ' AND STUDY Request to construct a 65,000 sq. ft. t medical office building that exceeds the basic height limit in the AND 32/50 Height Limitation District, to permit roof parking structure, and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. said application Item #4• also includes p modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a 'portion of the projects- required off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. USE PERMIT ' LOCATION: A portion of Lot 149, Block 2 of N0. 2021 Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 ' Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. Both Co—nti nued ZONE: A-P to Januar 98 APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd., Robert L. Wish, ' General Partner, Santa Ana OWNERS: Same as applicants ' Agenda Item Nos. 3 and 4 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. Chairman McLaughlin stated that the public hearing will be opened, but that it is the intent of the Commission to continue these items for further study. ' The public hearing opened in connection with these items. and Mr. Robert Kite, architect of the project, appeared before the Commission. ' Commissioner King suggested that an ad-hoc committee be appointed, consisting of two Commissioners, the ' developer or his representative, the staff, a member of the tenant association, and a representative of the residential neighborhood, . to resolve the critical problems of these items. Mr. Kite stated that this ' would appear to be a reasonable approach to the solution. Mr. Kite requested that these items• not be continued for more than a period of one month. -4- 21• COMMISSIONERS October 29, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX Planning Director Hewicker stated that it would be extremely difficult to resolve and reschedule these items for the meeting in December. He stated that there have been substantial concerns expressed by members of the community relating to traffic, circulation and parking. Mr. Kite stated that they ' would be agreeable to such a continuance. commissioner Bpek stated that a study, much broader than just this •project, should be undertaken to address the traffic prqblems in this area of the City. Ms. Jackie Culver, resident of the area, stated that the applicant will be depriving her of the life style that she is accustomed to living in this area. Ms. Suzanne McBrien, owner of 16 residential units in ' the area, described the residential character of the neighborhood. She expressed her concerns relating to traffic control, the aesthetics of a three-story parking structure, and the devaluation of property values in the area. Ms. Elisabeth Halstein, resident of the Park Lido area, ' urged the Commission to read the letters and petitions which have been submitted in opposition to this project. She also expressed her concerns with the traffic problems in the general area. Mr. Gerald Van Gemert, attorney representing Park Lido Homeowner's Association, referred to his letter dated October 7, 1981, which briefly outlines the concerns of the homeowners. He stated that the project as presently designed, does not take into consideration the legitimate concerns of the neighbors in this residential area. ' Ms. Vi Clark, resident of the Park Lido area, expressed her concerns with the traffic problems in the area. Ms. Pat Strang, representing the Newport Heights ' Community Association, reiterated their concerns relating to the traffic and the impact to the five point intersection of Westminster Avenue and Old Newport Boulevard. She also expressed their concerns relating to the noise which will be generated by this project. 22 COMMISSIONERS October 29, 1981 MINUTES g City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, - Ms. Strang stated that the road capacity in the area can not accommodate further intensification of development. Commissioner Thomas stated that perhaps the solution would be to amend the General Plan uses of the area, to balance with the traffic capacity. ' Mr. ,Bill Wade, resident of the Bluffs, stated that he has submitted petitions in opposition to this project, from residents 'of the area who will have a direct sight line of the prpject. He stated that the lights of the ' proposed threeTstory parking structure will be glaring into the surrounding residences during the evening. ' Mr. Carl Kmyla, a partner in this project, appeared before the Co�mi.ssion and stated that this item, has been continued: from the meeting of September 24th, to review and make responses to the concerns that were t expressed. He stated that he would be agreeable to a continuance of one month for the ad-hoc committee purpose. He requested that the Commission make their ' decision on a timely basis. Ms. Rose Levinson, resident of Park Lido, ' stated that ' the residents in the area of Flagship and Patrice Road, have not been contacted by the developer to discuss this proposal. She stated that their quality of life will be greatly affected by this proposed project. (Commissioner Balalis was present at 8:25 p.m.) Ms. Nancy Skinner, resident of 724 Highland Drive, stated that the Banning/Beeco project decision should also be considered by the ad-hoc committee. She stated that perhaps the current zoning is incorrect for the area and the traffic capacity. ,Motion X Motion was made that the public hearing be continued to Ayes X X X XK X January 7, 1982, in an effort to resolve the questions 'Abstain X that have arisen tonight and in past testimony, which MOTION CARRIED. Motion X Motion was made to formulate an ad-hoc committee to study this item, which would be composed of two members of the Commission and the Chairman, the applicant, the ' developer, and, a representative of the tenants association and the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the project. -6 ', ' 2 3 ' COMMISSIONERS October 29, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ' Commissioner Allen asked if the findings of the committee are intended to be only advisory, or if their findings would be binding. Commissioner King stated ' that the committee findings would only be advisory to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Allen stated that there is more than one homeowner's association which is directly concerned with this projgct. Commissioner King stated that three representative* from the adjoining residential neighborhoods Gould be appointed to this committee. Commissioner $alalis apologized for being late and ' stated that he would be abstaining from ' the vote tonight on this matter. However, he suggested that the actual ad-hoc committee be limited to a small number, but that all interested parties be invited to attend these meetings. He further suggested that the Traffic Engineer and City Engineer be included in these meetings. ' Commissioner King stated that the committee will be addressing major concerns related to the project. ' Commissioner Thomas stated that the problems of the area should also be considered, including the traffic. He stated that a project of this nature, can not be ' planned in a vacuum. Mr. Bob Burnham, Acting City Attorney, explained to the ' Commission, their powers in establishing an ad-hoc committee. Commissioner Allen referred to the map on the back of ' the staff report, and asked Commissioner King if the committee would be considering a smaller area, in terms of the project. Commissioner King responded no. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Commissioner King concurred that it would be • inappropriate to include the Banning property in the ' discussions, as the decisions upon it have not become final. Commissioner Beek asked if perimeters of the committee discussions will include' Old Newport Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. Commissioner King concurred. -7- ' 24 COMMISSIONERS October 29, 1981 MINUTES fir City of Newport Beach OI.L CALL INDEX 'Ayes X X X K X Motion by Commissioner King to formulate an ad-hoc Noes X committee, was now voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Abstain K _ ' Chairman McLaughlin stated that the ad-hoc committee shall consist of the following members: Commissioner King; Commissioner Allen; members of staff; the ' applicant; a Park Lido Association representative; the tenant association representative - Mr. Gerald Van Gemert; 'Mediterranean Apartment representative - Mrs. Gray, Newport ' Heights Community Association - Pat ' Strang; and, Ms. Suzanne McBrien as an alternate. Planning Director Hewicker stated that these people will be notified of their membership on the committee. He stated that staff will also notify the adjoining residential areas of the committee hearings. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and ' reconvened at 8:55 p.m. ' quest to permit the construction of a restaurant Item #5 fa Uity with on-sale alcoholic beverages located in ' the ecreational Marine Commercial area of the Mariner Mile Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes modification to the Zoning Code so as to USE PERMIT allow the u e of tandem and compact car spaces with ' valet service r a portion of the required restaurant parking spaces., d a request to pay an annual in-lieu fee to the City for a portion of the required restaurant parking s ces, to be located in a future APPROVED municipal parking lot. he proposal also includes the TONDI- acceptance of an environme al document. TIONALLY ' LOCATION: A portion of Lo , Tract 919, located at 2431 West C st Highway on the southerly side of st Coast Highway ' approximately 290 fe t easterly of Tustin Avenue. i ZONE: SP-5 1 -8- 2 5' ' COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport .Beach OLL CALL INDEX Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed Item #11 ' 65,000 sq. ft. medical office building. AND TRAFFIC ' Request to construct a 65,000 sq. ft. ± medical office - building that exceeds the basic height limit in the AND ' 32/50 Height Limitation District, to permit roof parking structure, and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. Said application. Item #12 also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of the project's required off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. USE PERMIT ' NO. 2021 LOCATION: A portion of Lot 149, Block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 Hospital Road on the northeasterly ' corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Both Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. Continued to ctober ZONE: A-P 22,1991 APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd., Robert L. Wish, General Partner, Santa Ana OWNERS: Same as applicants ' Agenda Item Nos. 11 and 12 were heard concurrently due to their relationship. The public hearing, opened in connection with these t items and Mr. Carl Kmyla, partner in this project, appeared before the Commission and stated that they concur with the staff recommendation for approval. He ' stated that there is a demonstrated need in Newport Beach for additional medical facilities, as evidenced in the market report. He •stated that it is important for a medical facility to be located as close to Hoag Hospital as possible. Mr. Rmyla addressed concerns expressed by the tenants, ' relating to parking, traffic and noise. He stated that these concerns can be mitigated and are related to short term construction problems. He stated that the short term parking problem will be mitigated by the use of a valet service. He stated that the project will be phased. He stated that the parking tower will be constructed first, so that it will be available prior to the construction of the- medical facility. -24- 26 ' COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981. MINUTES F � � � � � City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX ' Commissioner Beek asked if the report he is referring to, takes into account the new medical buildings which have already been approved for Placentia Avenue. Mr. ' Kmyla stated that the marketing studies took these medical buildings into account. ' Mr. Robert Kite, architect-of the project, presented to the Commission renderings of the proposed project which depicted the plot plan, elevations, parking structure, typical floor plans, circulation plan and t Phase I and Phase II. He also' explained the proposed parking structure operation and traffic circulation. Mr. Kite also addressed the concerns as expressed by the tenants. He stated that the construction noise should not be a problem because the patients would only be aware of it while they were at the front entrance of the building. He stated that this project will have very little effect on the traffic in the area. He explained that the usage of the valet parking service will be utilized during the construction of the parking structure. He stated that the patients would not have to pay for parking, only those who are parked in the structure illegally. ' Mr. Kite stated that the property is not being over- built, because under the existing Zoning Ordinance, ' twice the square footage could be built. He discussed the safety of a multi-story parking structure and the usage of an attendant. He stated that they are, also providing more than the required handicapped parking spaces. He also stated that they do not foresee any problems with the construction equipment interfering with any of the diagnostic equipment. ' Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Kite if they would be agreeable to a condition in which they would not be permitted to add any additional square footage to this ' development in the future. Mr. Kite stated that they would agree to a condition of this nature. ' Commissioner Allen asked who will be paying for the valet parking service. Mr. Kite stated that the owners will be paying for the parking, as a part of their construction costs. He also stated that once the ' parking structure is built, the ticket validation will be free to the patients. -25- ' 27 ' COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES g City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Allen, Mr. Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator, discussed interior noise levels. He explained the difference ' between a measured 24 hour period and a single event noise. Mr. Kite stated that they will be taking whatever actions are necessary to eliminate excessive ' construction noise. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mr. Kite explained the operation of the shuttle bus system and the off-site parking location. Planning Director Hewicker stated that at the time the existing building was constructed, the building height was fully conforming. Dr. Barbara Jessen, representing the Park Lido Tenant Association, appeared in opposition to this proposal. Dr. Jessen stated that the price of their rents have risen dramatically since July. She stated there is already 85,000 square feet of approved medical office space to be located within one-half mile of Hoag Hospital. She expressed their concerns relating to the ' affect of the valet parking service on the patients, construction noise, the proposed parking structure and the existing traffic problems in the area. ' Mr. Richard Karbo, resident of 4237 Hilaria Way, expressed his concerns relating to the traffic flow out of the parking structure onto the residential streets. Ms. Rose Levinson, resident of 415 Flagship Road, stated that this proposal will be a detriment to the quality of the life for the residents of the area. She also expressed her concerns relating to the construction noise levels. Mr. Edward Amyes, managing partner in the medical office building located at 320 Superior Avenue, stated that they provide free parking for their patients and employees. He stated that their parking lot is normally full during the business hours. He expressed his concern relating to, the proposed gated parking structure and requested that ' there be a condition imposed that there will be permanent free parking on the site. -26- ' 28 ' COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 . MINUTES 1 71 ! 1 City of Newport Beach ROt.L CALL INDEX ' Dr. Jack Warner, tentant of the Park Lido Building, expressed his concern relating to the noise that the parking structure will generate. He also questioned the capability of the parking structure. Mrs. Nancy Skinner, tenant of the Park Lido Building, ' expressed her concern with the security of the parking structure. She stated that a parking attendant will not be able to provide adequate security, especially during the evening hours. She requested that a condition be imposed to insure proper security. She stated that demands for parking vary during the year and requested that an-adequate number of parking spaces be required. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Beek, Mrs. Skinner stated that closed.circuit cameras in the ' parking structure would not solve the security problem. She also stated that limiting the number of floors in the parking structure would not make a difference. Mr. Terry Grant, Pharmacist in the Park Lido Building, stated that the construction of this project will cause a severe hardship on the patients. He stated that many ' of his customers will not want to use the valet parking only to refill a prescription. He .stated that the tenants will pay for the parking through their increased rents. He stated that his business can not survive during the construction of this project. Dr. Richard Jonas, tenant of the Park Lido Building, stated that the valet parking system will cause an extreme hardship for his pregnant patients. He also stated that the construction' noise will make it difficult to listen to the fetal heartbeats. Dr. Larry Vaughn, tenant -of the Park Lido Building, stated that a centralized medical community may not be in the best interest of the patients. He stated that many patients , are elderly and may want to utilize neighborhood medical facilities. ' Mr. Bill Wade, owner of The Medical Mart in the Park Lido Building, stated that the additional assessments ' and rent increases are making it difficult for him to service his customers at an affordable rate. in response to a question posed by Commissioner Winburn, Mr. Wade stated that the other closest medical supply ' company is located at Newport Center. _27_ 29 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES September 24, 1981 City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX ' Dr. John Miller, tenant of the Park Lido Building, expressed his concern with the existing traffic flow and the people who come to this area for emergency i medical care. He recommended that another traffic lane be added to Hospital Road before any more buildings are approved for this area. Mr. Ralph Gray, resident of 407 Evening Star Lane, stated that a parking problem in the area currently. exists. He stated that people will be parking on the 1 streets, if they do not want to park in the parking' -structure. He stated that in considering the number of doctors and patients that this project will generate, ' the number of proposed parking spaces may not be adequate. He also expressed concerns relating to the noise of a parking structure and the-additional traffic which will be introduced to the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner King, Mr. Gray stated that business owners in the area ' sharing the costs for a parking structure would not solve the problem, because there is no place to build another structure. Ms. Margo Skilling, resident of West Newport, questioned the .9 percent buildable area of this project. She referred to the parking structure and. stated that the parking spaces should be located within a reasonable distance from the medical offices. She expressed her concerns with additional drainage which will flow into the open trench on Coast Highway and the additional traffic which this project will generate. Ms. Skilling suggested that any development in this i area should be required to participate in the acquisition of the Cal Trans West property. she also suggested that the developer be required to pay a fine. if the construction is not completed within a specified time frame. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Thomas, ' Planning Director stated that the floor area ratio does not include the area devoted to parking. Dr. Jack Skinner, tenant of the Park Lido Building, asked for clarification on the costs of operating the parking structure. Mr. Kite explained that the cost of ' -28- COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach OLL CALI INDEX ' the parking structure is included in the rent rates or sales price for the building, but the patients will not be charged directly for its use. Dr. Skinner expressed 1 his concerns relating to the proposed gated parking structure and its operation costs. 1 Commissioner Balalis stated that the Commission can not resolve tenant/landlord relationships. - However, he stated that the Commission can address how this project relates to the neighborhood, construction noise levels, traffic generation and so on. Mrs. Louise Greeley, representing the Newport Crest Homeowner's Association, stated that they are concerned with the overall plans for West Newport, in this area particularly. She recommended that the .5 buildable formula be applied in this area, to ease the traffic ' problem. Planning' Director Hewicker stated that applying the .5 buildable formula in this case, would constitute a denial of the project. ' Commissioner Beek stated that this request is asking for an exception to the parking requirement. He asked if it would be appropriate to include a condition which ' would require that free parking and validation be provided to the patients, employees and tenants. Mr. Bob Burnham, Assistant City Attorney, stated that a ' condition of this nature would not be appropriate in that there is not a reasonable relationship between the suggested condition and the basis of the use permit ' request. Commissioner Thomas stated that it is evident that this proposal needs additional work. He suggested that a study committee be formed consisting of the developer, the tenant group, residents of the area and the staff. Dr. Krasch, tenant of the Park Lido Building, expressed his concerns relating to the noise that the parking structure will create. ' Dr. Edward Bechtel, tenant of the Park Lido Building questioned that there is a demonstrated need for additional medical office space in the area. He stated that this is. more likely a demonstrated convenience. He stated that a little open space should be left for the residents of the area. -29- 31 ' COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES City of Newport Beach OL.L CALL INDEX ' Commissioner Beek asked if it would be binding if the applicant were to make a commitment that the parking will be free. Mr. Burnham stated if the applicant 1 consents to such condition of the use permit, it can bind the applicant. ' In response to a question posed by Chairman McLaughlin, Mr. Burnham stated the 'conditions of the use permit would go with the land, but such a condition may be subject to attack in the event of new owners of the property. , Mr. Larry Smith, owner of the optical store in the Park ' Lido Building, stated that he will probably be forced out of the building and out of business during the construction of this project. Dr. Dennis Novak, tenant of the Park Lido Building, stated that this project constitutes an overdevelopment of land. He stated that the applicant is proposing to develop this piece of property to its fullest to maximize their profit and compared it to the housing market in Newport Beach. Ms. Robbi Olsen, employee of the Park Lido Building, expressed her concern with the hardship that the patients will incur during the construction of this project. Dr. Chris Floyd, tenant of the Park Lido Building, ' stated that this project will have an effect on the traffic in the area. He stated that it will be difficult for the disabled or wheelchair patients to utilize the valet parking service. He stated that'the 1 entire medical community concept in this area must be considered. ' In response to Commissioner Beek's question, Mr. Burnham stated that a no fee parking condition can be imposed during the construction phase, so that parking can be encouraged at that location. ' Dr. Norman Speck, tenant of the Park Lido Building, stated that the tenants have no confidence in the new owner and have doubts as to the validity of what is. being proposed. -30 32 ' COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES g City of Newport Beach LL CALL INDEX Mr. Kite stated that there has been a tremendous amount of misunderstanding between the tenants and the 1 applicant and concurred that new lines of communication must be established. He stated that the problems which have been discussed at tonight's meeting, such as the parking ' structure, security, traffic impact, and ' roadway improvements can be mitigated and resolved. He stated that this project will be an asset to the community and to the doctors. Commissioner Thomas stated that he would vote for a continuance on this matter so that a study committee can be formed to develop a proposal which will better ' serve the needs of the residents in the area. Commissioner King stated that the Commission can not resolve the tenant/landlord dispute. He stated that perhaps the applicant can work with the staff and any interested parties to mitigate and resolve these concerns. lotion X Motion was made to continue these items to the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 1981. Commissioner Allen requested that the following items be addressed in the next staff report: description of• what could be built in the parking lot without a use permit to exceed the basic height limit and what could be built without any discretionary permits; the parking spill-over problem; concerns of the community services located in the building; security issue, parking; and, the noise of the parking structure once it becomes operational. Commissioner Beek stated that the .5 times buildable guidance for this area should be followed. He stated that the site, as it currently exists, is being utilized appropriately. Therefore, he stated that he would not be voting for a continuance. Chairman McLaughlin stated that the following items ' should- be addressed: the alternate parking sites during construction; structure of the second Hoag tower and the traffic and parking ' problems that it will• create; and, for staff to make a reasonable effort to notify the renters of the residential areas. Commissioner Thomas requested that the completion ' schedule condition be considered, and the pedestrian -31- 33 COMMISSIONERS September 24, 1981 MINUTES ' 12 1 City of Newport Beach OLL CALL INDEX overpass and extended security issue be addressed in the next staff report. ' 'Ayes X K X X X X Motion to continue these items to the meeting of Noes X October 22, 1981, was now voted on, which MOTION ' CARRIED. Request to permit the .construction of a third level Item #13 deck on an existing single family structure, in a ' manner whereby the required guard rails (wood and glass) exceed the basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot USE PERMIT Height Limitation District. O. 2 224 LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 329, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 2320 Pacific Drive on the northeasterly side of Pacific Drive' APPROVED between Acacia Avenue and Begonia APPROVED Avenue, in Corona del Mar. T-I LLY ZONE: R-2 APPLICANT: John Loomis, Thirtieth Street Architects Newport Beach OWNER: J Davison, Corona del Mar The public hearing ened in connection with this item and Mr. John Loomis, epresenting the owner, appeared before the Commission d requested approval of this ' item. Mr. Loomis submit d to the Commission a letter dated September 22, 198 which contained twelve signatures from residents i the area in support •of this request. ' Commissioner Beek questioned wh her the Commission should hear this item at 12:30 a. ., because of the lateness of the hour. 'otion yes X X X X X X Motion was made to hear this item, hich. MOTION Abstain X CARRIED. Commissioner Thomas stated that he would be taining on a final vote on this matter, due to a p sible ' conflict of interest. -32- 34 Planning Commission Meeting January 21. 1982 Agenda Item No. 1 & 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) ' Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed 65,000 sq.ft. medical office building. AND Use Permit No. 2021 (Continued Public Hearing) ' Request to construct a 65,000 sq.ft. ± medical office building that exceeds the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District, to permit roof parking in conjunction with the construction of a parking structure, and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. Said application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for a portion of the project's required off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. ZONE: A-P ' APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd.; Robert L. Wish, General Partner, Santa Ana . OWNERS: Same as applicants Background 1 At the September 24, 1981, Planning Commission Meeting on the above, subject items, the public hearing was opened, testimony taken, and the items were continued to allow staff, the City's consultants, and the applicants an ' opportunity to- respond to questions raised. Based upon the testimony presented and information developed, staff suggested several additional conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 41 through 46 October 29, 1981, Staff Report page 2) . I'I ' At the October 29, 1981, Planning Commission meeting on the above subject items, the continued public hearing was opened, testimony taken and the items were continued to January 7, 1982. Additionally, the Commission formed an Ad-hoc Committee to study the project. At its meeting of January 7, 1982, the Planning Commission continued these items to the Commission meeting -of January 21, 1982 in order to allow staff an opportunity to prepare the information ' requested by said Ad-hoc Committee. 35 TO: Planning Commission -2. ' It would be appreciated if members of the Planning Commission could bring their copies of the September 24, 1981 and October 29, 1981, staff reports and back-up information to the meeting. Should any member of the Planning Commission wish an additional copy of any information previously transmitted please contact the Planning Department at 640-2197.. ' Ad-hoc Committee ' The Ad-hoc Committee was composed of two members of the Planning Commission and the Chairman, the applicant, the developer, a representative of the Tenants Association and a representative of the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the project. The Ad-hoc Committee, at its meeting of Tuesday, November 24, 1981, discussed the requests of the applicants (Traffic Study, Environmental Document and Use Permit) and the following issues; traffic, construction phase parking, operational phase parking, safety and security, ' light and glare, construction phase noise, and operational phase noise. At its meeting of Tuesday, December 15, 1981, the Ad-hoc Committee discussed the Traffic Study, street scapes/landscaping and property values. Commissioners King and Allen requested that the applicant provide additional information in the following areas for consideration the the continued public ' hearing: Landscapings/Elevations: The applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan to the Committee at the December 15, 1981 meeting. A copy of that plan is attached and marked as "Conceptual Landscape Plan". In accordance with- the request of Commissioner's King and Allen, the applicant has provided 'a revised plan ("Conceptual Landscape Plan "B") which is also attached. The applicant has in the revised plan ("B") provided for more mature vegetation. Additionally, he has changed the landscape materials to provide faster growing and fuller trees. It is the opinion of the applicant that this will soften the appearance of the proposed parking structure. The applicant has also provided elevations, (attached) of the proposed project from Flagship Road and Patrice Road. These elevations were prepared to scale with the proposed landscape materials. A perspective of the proposed project has also been provided (attached) which shows how additional screening materials can be added to the parking structure and some variation in setbacks for the structure could be accomplished. It is the opinion of the . applicant ' that the former plan would effectively eliminate views of the proposed parking structure from adjacent residential areas. Site Plan Attached is accordance with the two Planning Commissioners requests is a conceptual alternative site plan. The conceptual alternative site plan locates office space adjacent to the residential area. This is accomplished by providing for a two-story office building partially over a two level parking structure. Although staff cannot at this time due to the level of detail of the concept plan provide a complete review of the plan it would ' appear that it could be accomplished without discretionary review by the Planning Commission. 361 TO: Planning Commission -3. The applicant has indicated that the plan would be accomplished by the excavation of approximately 43,000 cubic yards of material and that this ' excavation would take approximately 34 working days. Air Quality ' Planning Commissioners King and Allen requested that staff reanalyze the impacts of the proposed parking structure on localized air quality and provide ' information on prevailing wind patterns in the project area. Staff has contacted WESTEC Service Inc. , the city's consultant on this project and they have indicated that they do not anticipate that the project will create a significant adverse effect on localized air quality. A letter report containing information on prevailing wind patterns will be transmitted to the Planning Commission under separate' cover prior to the continued public hearing. ' Condition of Approval No. 42 Condition of Approval No. 42 of Use Permit No. 2021 would restrict any ' pavement breaking and hauling to weekends and holidays, Based upon conversations with the City's Building Department, . staff no longer can recommend this condition. The Building Department has expressed concerns over ' a weekend operation due to potential problems that might arise that could not be readibly corrected. These problems include repair of equipment, dump closures, hauling during periods of heavy traffic and perceived higher noise levels during periods when the neighborhood would be generally quieter. Since this entire phase of the 'construction has been estimated to take only 2 days and conditions related to notice to the existing building tenants have been suggested, it does not appear unreasonable to eliminate this condition. Possible Action UP 2021 Attached for the Planning Commission consideration are suggested findings and conditions of approval for the Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 2021 (Exhibit "A") . Exhibit "A" incorporates the suggested conditions of approval from the ' staff report dated September 24, 1981 and October 29, 1981, but excludes the original Condition of Approval No. 42 (i.e. hauling and breaking pavement on weekends) discussed above. If the Planning Commission, based upon the testimony presented at the Public Hearing, desires to deny Use Permit No. 2021, staff has provided "Findings" for your consideration which are contained in Exhibit "B". Based upon the provision of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) and City Policy , S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") , staff does not presently have knowledge of any appropriate "Findings" for denial of the Traffic Study. This is important to note as approval of the Traffic Study will allow for the issuance of building and grading permits, if the project were to be modified to fulfill all other requirements of the Zoning Code. ' Additionally, staff has provided a list of possible additional conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 2021 for Planning Commission consideration that ' were discussed in part at one or both of the Ad-hoc Committee meetings. (Exhibit "C") . 37 ' TO: Planning Commission -4. Staff Recommendation ' Staff recommends approval of the project with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A" with the deletion of Condition No. 42 ' and such additional conditions from Exhibit "C" as the Planning Commission deems appropriate based upon the testimony presented at the continued public hearing. ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director Fred Talarico, Environmental Coordinator FT:tn Attachments:l. Exhibit"A"- January 21, 1982 2. Exhibit"B" 3. Exhibit"C" Conceptual Landscape Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan "B" Elevations Perspective Conceptual Alternative Site Plan ' 38 January 21, 1981 ' EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TRAFFIC STUDY AND USE PERMIT N0. 2021 ' TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: ' 1. That the proposed trip generation measures are acceptable and will be permanently implemented through the conditions of this approval and that of Use Permit NO. 2021. 2. . That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter ' 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. i 3. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an ' s unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any ' "major", "primary-modified' , or "primary" ' street. ' CONDITION: 1. That prioi to the occupancy of the proposed project the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to, the Circulation System Improvements described in the Initial Study Appendix A, page A20, Table 5 and these improvements shall have been made unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation ' System's Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. ' USE PERMIT NO. 2021 FINDINGS: ' 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that ' their contents have been considered in the de- cisions on this project. ' 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce ' potentially significant environmental impacts. 39 r ' Exhibit "A" Continued UP2021/Traffic Study ' 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and is compatible with surround- ing land uses. 4. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space than could be achieved by the basic height limit. 5. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. 6. The increased building height will not result ' in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and- exist- ing developments or public spaces. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. S. Adequate off-street parking and related vehic- ular circulation are being provided in con- junction with the proposed development. 9. The Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 10. That parapet walls will be constructed ad- jacent to the proposed roof parking area that ' will shield the parked automobiles from view from adjoining property and streets. ' 11. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or build- ing will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighbor- hood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modifica- tion for the compact parking spaces is con- sistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. ' 40 Exhibit "A" Continued UP2021/Traffic Study ' 12. The approval of Use Permit No. 2021 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, 1 comfort and general welfare of persons resid- ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or im- provements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. ' CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial con- formance with the approved plot plan, floor ' plans, elevations and sections. 2. That all applicable conditions of the Traffic 1 Study shall be fulfilled prior to the issuance of any building permit(s) for the'site. 1 3. A complete hydrology study and hydraulic an- alysis shall be performed to address the amount of and manner in which all flows to and from the site are accommodated. 4. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building ' and Planning Departments. 5. That a grading plan shall include a complete ' plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. ' 6. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access routes, access points to the site and watering and 1 sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 1 7. An erosion and dust control plan shall,be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. ' S. Than an erosion and siltation control plan, if required,:be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa 1 Ana Region. 9. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the 1 project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 1 41 Exhibit A Continued UP2021/Traffic Study t10. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. "Approved ' as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall -be furnished to the Building Department. ' 11. That final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices ' for project lavatories and other water using facilities. 12. Prior to occupancy of any building, the appli cants shall provide written verification from Orange County Sanitation District No. 6 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve ' the project. 13. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said structures be sound attenuated' so as to not exceed 55 dBA at the property lines. The latter shall be based ' upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Building Department. ' 14. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings,, a program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning Department. ' 15. A landscape and irrigation plan for the pro- ject shall be prepared by a licensed land- scape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of land- scaping with the proposed construction schedule. (Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . 16. The landscape plan shall be subjedt to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation ' Department and approval of the Planning Department. 17. The. landscape plan shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 42 Exhibit A Continued UP2021/Traffic Study, ' 18. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought resistant native ' vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over- watering. 19. The site's existing landscape plan shall be reviewed by a.licensed landscape architect. The existing landscape program shall be ' modified to include the concerns of the cond itions above to the maximum extend practic- able. Any change(s) in said existing program •, as a result of this review shall be phased and incorporated as a• portion of existing land- scape maintenance. 20. That the landscaping plans adjacent to the drive entrances be reviewed and approved by the Public Works• Department and the Department of Parks, Beaches and Recreation, for sight distance requirements. 21. That the proposed landscaping over the existing and proposed sewer easements shall be subject to further review by the Public Works Department. 22. The•project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. All parking lot lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. ' 23. That should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist or palenotologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and ' that all work on the site be done in accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. ' 24. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport should be included in all leases or - subleases for space in the project and shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against ' the property. 43 Ito Exhibit A Continued UP2021/Traffic Study ' Disclosure Statement ' The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: ' a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; ' b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the John Wayne Airport; ' c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d) Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will ' not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. ' 25. That the final design of on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and ' the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 26. Signing shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 27. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be ' designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. ' 28. The layout of the surface and structure parking shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. ' 29. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 30. That a standard use permit agreement and accompanying surety be provided if it is I ' desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 31. That the existing sanitary sewer be relocated ' and that a 10-foot wide easement for sewer purposes be dedicated to the City prior to issuance of Building Permits, and that the design ' of the sewer be by a licensed engineer on the Public Works Department Standard Plan sheets. 44 ' Exhibit A Continued UP2021/Traffic Study ' 32. That the structures adjacent to the existing and proposed sewer main have deepened ' footings. The footings shall be designed so that the bottom of footing is intersected when a 1 to 1 slope is projected from the flow line ' of pipe to the bottom of footing so that the footing is able to take lateral forces in the event of sewer main excavation. ' 33. That a concrete sidewalk lie completed along the Flagship Road frontage and access ramps be constructed at the corners of Flagship Road and ' Patrice Road, and Flagship Road and Placential Avenue. 34. That prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department that adequate site distance has been provided at the Hospital Road entrance and at the northeasterly corner of the proposed medical building. ' 35. That prior to issuance of any building permits for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate ' to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Building Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall ' include verification from Orange County Sanitation District No.6. The applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction ' of any additional sewer facilities needed to serve the project. ' 36. That a traffic signal be designed and installed by the developer at the intersection of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue. A separate surety and agreement may be provided for this work. The developer's obligation for this signal shall be 50%. ' 37. That parking arrangement during the construction period shall be approved by the City's Planning Department and Traffic ' Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permit(s) . Persons that might be affected by the construction shall be notified in a manner approved by the Planning ' Department. 38. All on-site drainage shall be approved by the ' City Public Works Department. 45 39. A late afternoon and evening security program t shall be designed and implemented prior to the occupancy of the project, said program shall be approved by the Police and Planning Departments. 40. That prior to the issuance of any building permits authorized by the approval of this Use Permit, the applicant shall deposit with the City Finance Director, a sum 'proportional to the, percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to ' be used for the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport.area. ' 41. Quiet or hushed models of construction equipment suitable , for use in hospital zones ' shall be used in the development of the proposed project. 42. That prior to the commencement of ' construction, the applicants shall provide all tenants of the existing office building on-site, with a schedule of construction ' activities. The applicants shall also provide said tenants with notification of any major changes to said schedule. ' 43. All concrete driving surfaces in the parking structure shall have a rough finish. ' 44. The final design of on-site pedestrian circulation shall be designed to direct pedestrian crossing of Hospital Road to its ' intersection With Placentia Avenue. 45. That 1 parking space shall be provided for ' each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area in the existing and proposed office buildings. 46 /3 EXHIBIT "B" ' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TRAFFIC STUDY AND DENIAL OF ' USE PERMIT NO. 2021 TRAFFIC STUDY ' FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed-trip generation measures are ' acceptable and will be permanently implemented through the conditions of this approval. ' 2.- That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy ' S-1. 3. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an ' unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified' , or "primary" street. CONDITION: ' 1. That prior to the occupancy of the development allowed by this approval the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the ' City to, the Circulation System Improvements described in the Initial Study Appendix A, page A20, Table 5 and these improvements shall have been made (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation System's Improvements shall be ' subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. USE PERMIT NO. 2021 ' FINDINGS: ' 1. That the proposed project will add to traffic congestion problems in the area that all ready suffers from legal non-conforming uses. ' 2. The increased building height will not result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building than could be accomplished by the basic height limit. 47 � ly ' Exhibit B Continued UP2021/Traffic Study 3. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or build- ing will under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of ' persons residing or working in the neighbor- hood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the ' City, and further that the proposed modifica- tion for the compact parking spaces is con- sistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the'Municipal Code. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 2021 will ' under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons resid- ing and working in the neighborhood or be ' detrimental or injurious to property or im- - provements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. t 48 � ►s ' EXHIBIT "C" ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ' FORM "AD-HOC" COMMITTEE MEETINGS CONDITIONS: ' 46. That the applicant shall install during the construction of the project that will limit ' parking time on- street in the vicinity of the project in a manner acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer and provide for their removal upon. completion of the project. 47. A 24 hour security program for. the site including the parking structure shall be ' designed and implemented prior to the occupancy of the project. Said program shall be approved by the Police and Planning ' Departments. 48. The Grading Permit shall provide that any pavement breaking and hauling shall be done on weekends, or holidays' beginning no earlier than 10:00 a.m. and ending no later than 4:00 p.m. ' 49. That two weeks (14 days) prior to the commencement of construction a notice that of ' start construction and proposed construction schedule shall be provided to all residents and property owners within 300 feet in a manner acceptable to the Planning Department. ' 50. That the office structure construction shall not commence until such time as the parking ' structure is complete and operational. 51. That *the landscaping adjacent to the parking ' structure on Flagship Road and Patrice Road shall be completed within 30 days of the start of construction of the office building. ' 52. That the landscaping shall be accomplished in substantial conformance with Conceptual Landscape Plan "B". ' 53. That the visibility of cars and glare off of cars in the parking structure shall be screened from view from adjacent residential areas. 54. That all lighting on the top level of the ' parking structure shall be below the level of the parapet wall. 49 ' Planning Commission Meeting January 7, 1982 Agenda Item No. 1 & 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department ' SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed 65,000 sq.ft. ' medical office building. AND ' Use Permit No. 2021 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to construct a 65,000 sq.ft, t medical office building ' that exceeds the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District, to permit roof parking in conjunction with the' construction of a parking structure, and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. Said application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of compact car spaces for* a portion of the project's required ' off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. ' LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. ' ZONE: A-P APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd.; Robert L. Wish, General Partner, Santa Ana ' OWNERS: Same as applicants ' Staff requests that the above subject items be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 21, 1982, in order to allow staff an opportunity to prepare the information requested by Commissioners King and Allen at the last AD-HOC Committee meeting. ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director BY Aytw Fred Talarico, w R t Environmental Coordinator I ' FT:tn • sa ' Planning Commission Meeting October 29, 1981 Agenda Item No. •3 & 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Traffic Study (Continued Public Hearing) ' Request to consider a Traffic Study for. a proposed 65,000 sq.ft. medical office building. . AND Use Permit No. 2021 (Continued Public Hearing) ' Request to construct a 65,000 sq.ft. t medical office building that exceeds the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height t Limitation District, to permit roof parking in conjunction with the construction of a parking structure, and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. Said application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use ' of compact car spaces for a portion of the project's required off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental document. ' LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. ZONE: A-P APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd.; Robert L. Wish, General Partner, Santa Ana OWNERS: Same as applicants ' Background At the September 24, 1981, Planning Commission Meeting on the above subject items, the public hearing was opened, testimony taken, and the items were continued to allow staff, the City's consultants, and the applicants an opportunity to respond to questions raised. Attached to this staff report is ' a copy of the responses. Based upon the testimony presented and information developed, staff has suggested several additional conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 41 thur 46 below for Planning Commission- consideration. If the Planning Commission,• based upon the testimony presented at the Public Hearing, desires to deny Use Permit No. 2021, staff has provided "Findings" for your consideration which are contained in Exhibit "B". Based upon the provision of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) and City Policy S-1 ("Administrative Guidelines for 51 ' TO: Planning Commission -2. ' Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") , staff does not pregently have knowledge of any appropriate "Findings" for denial of the Traffic Study. This is important to note as approval of the Traffic Study will allow for the issuance of building and grading permits, if the project could be modified to fulfill all other requirements of the Zoning Code. Should the Planning t Commission continued the Traffic Study until such time as the City Council take action on the "Newport-Banning" Ranch project, Staff is unable at this time to determine what would be the outcome of a new traffic report assuming that project as committed. The outcome could only be ddtermined at such time ' as the final land use and conditions of approval of the "Newport-Banning" Ranch Project are determined by the City Council. ' Please bring your copy of the September 24, 1981 Staff Report; Initial Study; Plot Plans, Floor Plans and Elevations; and other information related to this project to this meeting. Should you desire an additional copy of any of the ' information, please contact staff' at 640-2197. Staff Recommendation ' Staff recommends approval of the project with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A" to the September 24, 1981, Staff Report and the additional Conditions for Use Permit No. 2021 listed below: ' Additional Conditions of Approval UP2021 ' 41. Quiet or hushed models of construction equipment suitable for use in hospital zones shall be used in the development of the proposed project. ' 42. The Grading Permit shall provide that any pavement breaking and hauling shall be done on weekends, or holidays within the hours of operation established by the City Ordinances. 43. That prior to the commencement of construction, the applicants shall provide all tenants of the existing office building on-site with a schedule of construction activities. The applicants shall also provide said tenants with notification of any ' major changes to said schedule. 44. All concrete driving surfaces in the parking ' structure shall have a'rough finish. 45. The final design of on-site pedestrian circulation shall be designed to direct pedestrian crossing of Hospital Road to its intersection with Placentia Avenue. ' 46. The proposed project shall provide 1 parking space per 250 sq.-ft. of existing and proposed development. I ' 52 TO: Planning Commission -3. ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director "Fred Ta]aric0, Eiivironmental Coordinator ' FT:tn Attachments: Exhibit"B" ' Letters of Opposit+on ' Petition opposing project Responses to quest+ons raised at the Planning Commission Meeting of September 24, lial.. , � 53 ' EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TRAFFIC STUDY AND DENIAL OF USE PERMIT NO. 2021 . ' TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed trip generation measures. are acceptable and will be permanently implemented ' through the conditions of this approval. 2. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project ' has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of .the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. ' 3. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified' , or '•primary" street. ' CONDITION• ' 1. That prior to the occupancy of the development allowed by this approval the applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to, the Circulation System Improvements ' described in the Initial Study Appendix A, page A20, Table 5 and these improvements shall have been made (unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation System's Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic ' Engineer. USE PERMIT N0. 2021 ' FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed project will add to traffic congestion problems in the area that all ready suffers from illegal non-conforming uses. ' 2. The increased building height will not result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building than could be accomplished by the basic height limit. I 54 TO: Planning Commission -5. ' 3. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or build- ing will under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of ' persons residing or working in the neighbor- hood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in ' the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and fµrther that the proposed modifica- tion for the compact parking spaces is con- sistent with the legislative intent of Title ' 20 of the Municipal Code. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 2021 will under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons resid- ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or im- provements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. t ' 55 FELDSOTT, LEE tk VAN GEMERT ' A LAW CUHPUNATIUN I tu /y 1617 WESTCLIFF DRIVE. SUITE 204 J •TrDRNErs NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFOnNIA 92000 a,�L'O STANLEY FELGSOTT `! 11 ' 17141 64E-4468 MARTIN L. LEE G ERALD J. VAN GEM ERT October 7, 1981 OCi�9.�`o`:PrN. O Planning Commission ' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 RE: Application for Use Permit No. 2021 Park Lido, Ltd. ' Proposed Medical Office Building and Parking Structure Dear Members of the Planning Commission: ' We represent Park Lido Association , Ina. ,. whose members are the owners and residents of the ninety-eight ' townhomes in the Park Lido development. The southeastern boundary of Park Lido runs along Flagship Road directly adjacent to the site for the proposed medical office building ' and parking structure referenced above. The members of the Association are quite honestly and understandably concerned about the detrimental impact that this construction project will have upon themselves and their property, and have ' instructed us to convey these concerns to you in anticipation of the public hearing scheduled for October 22, 1981 . ' It can hardly be disputed that, in nearly doubling the size of the existing Park Lido Medical Building, there will be a substantial increase in traffic and congestion. Flagship Road, Dana Road, Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue are already heavily congested, and during peak traffic hours, it is extremely difficult for the residents of Park Lido to negotiate access to either of the major routes to Pacific Coast Highway. The predictable increase in traffic will also have its effect on the attendant parking problem, and it is submitted that the proposed parking• structure will, ' rather than resolving that problem, probably make it worse than it already is. Most of the present on-street parking along Flagship Road is more convenient to Park Lido Medical t Building than some of the farther spaces in the existing lot. As a consequence, it is usually difficult, at best, to find a 56 ' FELDSOTT, LEE & VAN GEMERT A LAW CORPORAnoN I'I Planning Commission ' City of Newport Beach Page Two October 7, 1981 vacant space on the street , and it is not uncommon f.or ' visitors to the medical building to block the private 'streets and driveways of Park Lido. The proposed parking structure would not only provide fewer than the required one parking ' space for each 250 square feet of office building, but it would be even farther f;om and less convenient to the building than most of the spaces in the present lot. Furthermore, fees would be charged for parking , and the incentive for visitors to park on the street or in the driveways of Park Lido would be drastically increased. In addition to the congestion that will undoubtedly result, more traffic and parking in this neighborhood will also mean more noise and more pollution for the residents. The Commission is urged to give serious consideration to these potential health hazards, as they are of vital concern to the members of Park Lido Association , and parking ,structures , such as the one proposed, always seem to ' concentrate the noise and pollution from automobiles. Both the proposed building and especially the parking structure would have a detrimental impact on the character of the neighborhood. The townhomes that face on Flagship Road, and which presently enjoy at least a modest view and a ' feeling of open space, would instead look upon a tremendous eyesore. At night, the residents of Park Lido would be subjected to the glare of flood lights, the very existence of which acknowledges the fact that parking structures as a rule ' tend to provide a haven where criminals can lurk about, waiting for their victims . Members of the Homeowners Association are, we submit, justifiably concerned about the possibility of' hey are also concerned t s that the resuch idential occurring.dents dentialcharacter Tof the entire neighborhood will be undermined with this addition of yet ' another commercial development. It is abundantly clear that the proposed project was conceived. with the legitimate interests and property values of the residents of Park Lido carelessly considered, if they were considered at all. ' 57 ' FELUSOTT, LEE & VAN GEMERT A 4AW CORPORATION Planning Commission ' City of Newport Beach Page Three October 7, 1981 We respectfully urge the individual . members of the Planning Commission to make at least a brief visit to the site before the hearing, on October 22 , 1981 , in order to better visualize the detrimental impact that • this proposed ' project will have on Parr Lido. Some of the members of Park Lido Association will attend that hearing, and a formal petition will be submittQd on behalf of the property owners in opposition to the granting of this Use Permit. We hope that this letter will provide a background and understanding with respect to the reasons for the petition. ' Respectfully Submitted, FELDSOTT, LEE & VAN GEMERT A Law Corporation � 4WI40 ' By: Gerald J. Van Gemert Attorneys for Park Lido Association, Inc. GVG/jy ' cc: Board of Directors Park Lido Association, Inc. ' ' 58 ' LAYMAN, Rw ry sON, JoNEs & Voss LAW OFFICES I CORPORATE PLAZA STAN LEY R.JONES RONOELL B. HAN50N NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 WILBUR D. LAYMAN TELEPHONE WILLIAM BRUCE VOSS (714) 640.SO50 ROEERT E. DYE' October 12 1981 FREDERICK B.SAINICK f IN REPLY REFER TO FILE NO. 1 STEVEN H.SUNSHINE ANNE E.KLOKOW ' City Planning Commissioner Newport Beach City Hall ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Californa 92663 ' Attn: Commissioner McLaughlin Dear Sir: I am the attorney representing the Park Lido Tenant Association and was present at the last•hering. We would appreciate advising the planning commission of our sincere desire to be involved in any of the study sessions or discussions which may affect the outcome of the planning commission's vote. We are.most anxious to assist the planning commission ' in its. decision and would be more than happy to attend any and all meetings. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation and assistance. ' Very truly yours, L YMAN AN N, JONES do VOSS ' ILLIAM BRUCE VOSS WBV:cs s ' I 59 to � ♦ f, C n GYV�G� r ' OGT8 " ' October 6, 1981 ' Newport Beach Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. . Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Re: Permit No. 2021, ' Park Lido, Ltd. Gentlemen: As residents of the Park Lido Condominium Assoc. , living at the corner of Flagship and Patrice, we ' are appalled to learn of the proposed plan for another medical building and a multi-level parking facility to be constructed directly opposite our residence. We oppose this construction for the following reasons: 1) The size of the parking structure will. change the character of the neighborhood from a residential to a commercial area. 2) The additional traffic burden will increase pollution, and the potential for fatal accidents. ' It will inhibit residents walking freely in the ' area, especially the elderly and children. 3) Construction will be lengthy and increase proliferation of noise and debris{ which is already burdening the area. ' 4) Most important, • our property will depreciate in value. According to a qualified appraiser thiss depreciation will amount to $15,000 (minimum) . 60, 1 page two ' 10/6/81 1 Isn' t it time the Newport Beach Planning Commission give us, the resident taxpayers of Newport Beach, the consideration of protecting our interests over the , profiteering of developers? We are determined to stop further commercialization 1 of the area surrounding our homes and property, Sincerely, Mrs. Rose Levinson ' 415 Flagship Road Newport Beach, Ca. 714/548 7817 1 1 1 ' 1 1 i 1 61 •-�f'�ct.ie..G«>e o-•/ .,C/.� J_'_iz_�✓x�c.�s .��Lj��s'.�e/ .�..lu���{ ':yr�� i!�/!��i�E�E-r aCf _ .:Yf.'Lt'•fi rs.l�£U .L•C•�C•�.� ..s•�-7-•� .�•C.X_Y�GGayCJ .�L-G.�jJ jyc..,li _..��rrJ•!�j IG.T��ILG�•C?°�Li. /" - / �s'�;2� c.�-�.c-�-t•y��t,rlci ;x r,�f� .�cc.,ia�c4-�£- �Gt-L:'•' G d�L'l-�•Cr'�Sts.fcrr� „�.[.�r�C� -����•ci✓ . �. .��.-c�' .dt�u.�uxa�L� t'��.� Vie-tee'. .--c��M•�'_>e'� �.-Pi .x'.z C,zlc�� �, !L! t�/�J-,�L�O-e.�[.a c..�+-cw� ��.G.oJ1e<✓aG� .-C.erGC% - Z.�/ e.tG�Gf`(-t/<¢-Cti ' .i�'`r�ci`�ryc•ri� , .c t�r�L-�J ..Gtc �'�.�•Zc 9r!•�'��c�i /" `�"—Lff i!'VG'YjJGGc`/� ��%iG .,GE%- Gilt-1-�2✓c'-� 11..t.-.' �'��-�':-t.� l,�� .x/w ✓'V..t•c� 4J •C�sl�'d¢CfYL �u2•L��.._.�JLs'•1 ....L'^L _y!„�G•J��zGCC�� Gk.,i •-2x� /i/'iffiLLGiJ?i �fit�Lf �� emu' •• c�.li•�•L�T✓�- �i`� lt.G�f� _.�f-•�'/�flc.��,n , .ice✓J'✓l/-•�`v'� •� �• . / -. �.c�c!i•y� L�-h<<-f•c/ ..-� �t CGS J•u-�J `.y .-rc.y��� �r ..fit:. lc..-a � ...s• UP � •ar�tJ '�•4/S ,P E 4'£•,y �\ 'C��_•G�riv2..G-C•-�✓/�✓.c.G�-�ic. DCT141c,,�1�•. 62 J. ERNEST RANDALL 423 BOLERO WAY i NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 714/642-1455 Oct 10,1g0 City planniri� Commission 1 City council Cnarnbers Praposcd rlaomedical BloV, 3300 Newport-Blvd. thal end aarlrir stractyre ' I�CWj�rt/3eael7 f 35l lMspilal /. Before casting a dote a� aEa�ve proposed prd�ecl;it seems fc me thateach member of the Commission should personally V15it. this area-the .surrounding fawn hoases aparttnent-bwidin s and cbnralescent homes to zee firs)`hanW the iaiklerable auto &agestion and parking situation tftere at present- The increased property values and rentals are noun so hieh in park Lido and )`rledlterratlean Village that in a surprising number of eases owners or occupants have fahen in roomeuc or boaders In order7b h&c In this area anc(natural/y each roomer Musk have a can i know of one case of a tuo bedrawrn apmmeni-curlti a two car/garage; there are five carsitivolved Kith arlt garage sfocFled fo ' Cel rnp wt#1 fUMMure andizink. 01jr Park lido 98 konhoases have priva)`e 25 foot-.rt�-emlS and these deWrate neqbborhovd car owners padrtheir lochrcf' edrs rnaur „isitor parlrinp areas-even ,n Police hesitate to tidref ot°a touiauk3y since i?s noivaie prrop �and usually showUp -ho later 71le alive new henry cunv1rachon WIN the increased part n$ of Wdekers cars,material storeoge, noise and !D llu fro# Wduld effect the ent,ie cornmun4/ an4 tnalre life rni' erable to everyone Co?xem d as well-as deprrGaie our Pr". For the sake of us,pleese Vote NO ON above. good Lord - the ' ktoecer tl?ere are enough dadb,.r, medical buiddihF and a/d�/lam homes 1 n 7tiir small area now OG�ti t��ALY1 Q 63 't 0 . ,�; •:� �Lti\• 1 �zs. e�xazlEa 3. eto�,� c4.;;- O Vic,... ��� 430% Dana o�oact Bead:, Bali foznia 92663 �1 YL n GL /ti t .Ll_GZ.i n cx v fiA L,J d..-yk ,e�6 ga �-Q ' 64 r�s N 42:37 11ilaria UaY ' New n.,rt Boach, CA n,2663 Soptember 29, 1981 1 l Planning -Commission �•;?J n u,°J4 Newport Ooach City Hall Newport 3each, California � _V a' rCommissioners : Play I add some thoughts to the comments I made at the ' Hearing on September 24th, concerning the Traffic Study• and proposed modieal 'building adjacent to tin: r:xi sting Park Lido Building? rFrom the standpoint of traffic, I believe thu •key inter- sections are the Hospital Road/11lacontia intersection, rand the Placentia/Flagship intersection. As things stand now, the difficulty of ontering Placen- tia from Flagshic; is caused by the Following factors : ' 1 . The distance on Placentia from Hospital Road to Flagship is very short . ' 2. This distance will accommodate approximately five south-bound autos before left-turn traffic off of Flagship is blocked. 3. Cross-walk traffic at the Placentia/Hospital Road' intersection impedes traffic turning off of Placentia (for all practical purposes, a rdead end) . 4. Because of the slow pace of clearing the Hospi- tal Road/Placentia intersection, Flagship is blocked a great deal of the time by south=bound traffic. S . Compounding this , about the tier, tho Flagship/ Placentia intersection clears, signal-controlled traffic from the Newport Blvd/Hosl:,ital ;Zoad in- tersection arrives, starts turning right onto r Placentia, and again prevents a left turn from Flagship. 6. Inevitably, when this traffic clears, the signal at Placentia and Superior has already released cars which are arriving at the Placentia/Hospital Road stop sign, once again blocking Flagship. r . r . r 65 horp of t;:n than ntit, during husinc:c:; huura t111:, stac:k— u;, of autuc.; waiting to turn unto f,lacontia from Flagship roaches cunsiderable numbers , As I mentioned' in my remar!cs at the Hearinqj Flagship/ I-'lacontia is an exciting intersection. Occasionally, the only recourse is to close one 's oyr.s, turn the wheel to the left, and "stand on it" , Now the developer want; to introduce, "minimal" additional traffic to Flagship from his barking structure. In view of the number of existing and approved medical buildings in the area, our neighborhood is being "minimalled" into an acute case of vehicular consti;':ation. Cn a related topic, although I don *t know where the de— veloper and his associatos/consultants live, I do wonder if their attitudes would be c!uite so cavalier if they ' were condemned to stare at a multi—story parking struc— turo across the street from their respective homes , inj ly, ?ichard S. I<arbo ' ' 66 i 4237 Hilaria Way Newport Beach, CA 92663 September 29, 1981 Planning Commission Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California Commissioners : I would like to respond to some of the remarks made by Mr. Kite on September 24th, regarding the medical build— ing/parking facility expansion of Park Lido. 1 . Mr. Kite 's marketing study indicates that more office space is needed in the vicinity of Hoag Hospital. In view of building and staff expan— sion restrictions at Hoag, along with nearby medical building permits already in existence, I question the validity and timeliness of this study. 1 2. Mr. Kite's traffic studies apparently dealt only with morning and evening hours . The midday traf— fic around Flagship/Placentia/Hospital Road is 1 extremely congested and dangerous. 3. fir. Kite remarked that many medical buildings have parking fee structures. I 'm sure that is true, in urban areas . Many of us live in Newport Beach to avoid urban living; we should not be subjected such urban pleasures as great expanses of concrete structures in a quiet, pedestrian neighborhood. 4. 1Mr. Kite offered valet parking service during the construction period, with a maximum wait of five minutes for onets car. I do not see how that guar— antee can be met over a period of time; we all know that employee numbers in that kind of position fluc— tuate constantly. I ask you to reject the petition to expand the Park Lido Medical Building, so that our neighborhood can continue to' maintain its present state. Sincerely. . Q / �E, f�yro 1 Beverlrl y Karbo $ N MP 67 � I b\ S RF-CEtVE OCT 15 1361-o- ' ql ' 68 ictober 11, 1981 Newport Beach City Planning Commission CityHall 3300 Newport blvd ' Newport beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Sirs: ' We strongly urge your denial of Lhe application for a new ' building by Fark Lido Medical building. We are owners and residents of Park Lido Townhouse Condominiums for over four years, having invested here as our residence because of ' it being a quiet, safe and peaceful residential area. ' Certainly permitting this new,large construction will substantially destroy this concept of a desirable living environment and also our ' investment. ' Most respectfully, . ,& Mrs. Edward Carlick ' 4308 Hilaria Way Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 RSCEIVF0 d i OCT 15 1981> z N 69 October 12, 1981 Planning Commission ' City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Re: Use Permit 2021 Dear Commissioners: As a home owner in the Park Lido Condominums, I strongly oppose the proposed medical building and parking structure at 351 Hospital Road in it's present parking lot. The traffic congestion at present has become hazardous. ' I live on Orion Way, a private street, which is posted as such (between Dana Road and Patrice Road). It is now being used as a thorough-fare by employees on all sides ' of our property. Besides the change of quality in our community there are numerous other detrimental issues to be considered, such as property devaluation, crime, exhaust fumes, noise, et cetera. It is obvious that the proposed new construction will degrade our present environment. ' Please give your sincere consideration to this request. Sincerely, ' Joan M. Reynolds U 462 Orion Way ' Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 s RF.CEIVCD OGT 15 1981� 1 � 70 436 �oiero sway ' Newporc Beach, CA 92663 October 14, 1981 ' City Planning Commissioners Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners: As a owner/occupant of a condominium in the Park Lido complex, I am writing to express my concern and objections regarding the planned expansion of the ' Park Lido Medical Building at 351 Hospital Road. With the recent approval allowing Hughes Solid State Division at 500 Superior Avenue to expand and add a parking structure, traffic and congestion will be ' bad enough. Currently, cars are illegally parked on Dana Read and are never ticketed or towed away. Likewise, employees park their cars on Superior Avenue, in front of Park Lido residences, and walk to Hughes. ' Parking and traffic demands on-Flagship Road have exceeded its capacity. The intersection of Flagship and Placentia is a dangerous mess already. On the ' other side of Placentia and on Superior, two relatively new medical buildings have been constructed. To my knowledge, the newest one is not fully occupied. Why build another? ' Additionally, the "Banning Property" proposed development would make traffic, safety, noise, and living conditions intolerable. Why dump all the develop- ment on the residents of West Newport? ' I will be happy to sign a petition against approving the Park Lido Medical Building expansion plans as well as against the current proposed "Banning ' Property" development. Sincerely yours, � R . �0 Melvin R. Olson n ' S RECEfYEp � OCT 1981�• �: - 71 Y ez ��ea CCCccc �•� GT ,9,•1�1���1 October 12, 1981 L 1 t so t` •'WT3J'I. Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Park Lido Medical Building Proposed Expansion, 351 Hospital Road Permit No. 2021, Park Lido, Ltd. . Dear Members of the Planning Commission: ' I implore you NOT to allow a 3-level parking structure to be built across the (45-50 foot) street from my condominium. I would lose my ocean breeze, mini-view, and relatively tranquil location. I would gain the noise, ' fumes, night lights, traffic (and probably dirt) inherent in such a change. In discussing planning, what justification can there be for approving my 3 bedroom/2 1-2 bath town home at this location 15 years ago ... and permitting a 3-level parking structure across the street today? I bought my property believing this immediate area was 100 percent developed. ' There were no empty lots. The single access street seemed adequate for existing traffic. ' Please help me and my neighbors retain the quality of our neighborhood. I would, also, like to bring another of our problems to your attention. This immediate area, convenient to bay and ocean beaches, has in the past ' attracted transients who parked on Flagship Road and lived and slept in their "motorhomes" (these have included a full-size bus, and an old bakery truck'-) . I'm afraid a large parking structure would provide an ' "anonymous" site alongside which such transient vehicles would be attracted to park during Newport outings. ' In other words, I am concerned about my safety. Again, I implore you to deny this application. I ask you, in this situation, to preserve the quality of enviornment in which Newport takes ' pride. I ask you to maintain the integrity of prior planning. Respectfully, Resident of Newport Beach for 25 years ' Elaine A. Cerf 411 Flagship Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 646-6602 (office 640-359i� 72 r >+. '.'F ti�J`A..7^: �•'M>t'h,1'l>:i�:/t�Jt •y ''j�� � I' .•• .psi �Yr :r r'nh .'� � h^� .� r ., ' w � is '•M1nu. }fi�F t�+ � .I w.��, .Ilrt Y f! r M1Ys ' r ��` 1>:. Yt�N?S.•v�`+vyh l} . �^•"�� 1t�'�. .,,y�+T�'�•��` Y , rJ "(3.}' SNry- .. �Jr� T.L_ '�. Y`•t ,jr Y F . . t F ;r. �M1..l Y.f •+7»'r ,K� nl'1 '.:.fr ....• "�%9fw��Al�''r' v RIP a y '..I il4s:. 1 /->r ti..,i7t�YL�f! Y.�'r � Yw,` �s f� �:4��"�'3 w.��'ti r r � Y.' '�i aa.^•�: '.� {�' r 1f. w{u .c� �'. ^fit .•ly t, + "h�h� k�� }x'{..,rAC''r� l l rtK; y�.. Y7�•r �.r .�'M, �, �'1 ;Ct' yyy •f �M1 Vi^. .r.'r�7k / ,l � ..r••� � •.ry wn.•tls\F x''ll.r r.°yj. ,t,+r�.Y^ +n f�: �Ny`LK r�:. V 'i'1`. lC�. .b � 'w .: �•. ..,, l3'+n �T S` ek .e pt,�{,�Y.,,U.n< T'J�t r.` r .r.7 t'.Y. � S`tY r14F At. n ��t/ Jev lu.l M1r? Tl4 _ �A^ �tf. `�,'Y 1.. . I i •its' Y•5�rli"J.; 9� h�AYv. :?ty t f >, ��.. F lry`'• �� � '.+ ai h,� r �,,,1 - • -ter _ / ' ` � j r s �r'•' =�{'`'•''u�7ir'�4;.rrk T �',y+�is T* .-.':,. -.^.,. i �—.. 1 �L� \�.� � w` � �r�=� �w`'�r�41'�x�' lr�•T.+;ryt °"'ls'>ty�w�"t�.+'ly`��_;.r , ...�.. .. Y.!•4�•'r'f M � ��y�yy� yti��1; f Y, A y t r r Mn-.. Jr• "� ^5 'Y t" !TY y; A't A 4 y 1 fy+.blM .}'. N N '�•Cy' t n r.. M1 .. JY y �r.�. .PGYt3.Y •w.h�y fH �.ib,s M1I y`�. s ` • 1.v. M. N' e!+^...+�' ' ^.r,tF.41 .:r '+Lr' '•T^^�.yy,J F•�` wt+/'In„ �•i` l• rM1 T L x C r A.• l I» 4: 1 ljt ♦ ,y�r y 3,; �T t ' r ^'�� � wh •�.��` .�µ�. Ir � �l rl �t „'�� �'YLNrk-ruf..rCyrl i* � xJ Yam'` G.�,rp� 1'� r . y:.. r:- � � ./ L + e lA2r' .�'. � �,L.r i •�rru _.,�ys'•'n��,�'� •L_J.J r � • -�l.-'• 8 'rl �t�.'klh evy..{ LJ FJ A . ♦_ �C t I ''. rs,a yR, s_ ''I'7�'r'^.1yF�- � Yr..,�,�,•.+�,,,x ry _ r } 1G '�i F 1• ^Y,W' �u. ♦ � `rj�T'�'� , �w l}t� iSn,,.�7Y'�L�,t 4 f+.;�� �r� i, 'Yi��,'�.f^ �",>w�r;/� . •f 4 1"W l�: 'T l""^*-r"'r{ r �'1nN�:;T � rs,�yr �t ,r, '.,`:. i * � , .f, -.,,��,� M :yw 4� f.M1�T"4ct�rl.�'� �'4•.h„ Grm ' -.j7w'�J,tvi.f.;^}�',yL� -'� �. - r;`r r j;,kajwT'1 rT.M1 yrw ,`., r(�. � R„YJ � ,4 ♦.. A Aiya t•�4#s 1 r.Jy `sfy . . _ : ,. �., ! ''Y^,wi'S/ r, rtI Y"�i• •.11.i,.Y 't' 'rY 3v', cJUewpont "-ViUa CWest �RESI DENT IA '� AtTt ' 393 HOSPITAL ROAD 'NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92663 PHONE (714) 631.3555 ' October 16, 1981 ' Newport Beach Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca, 92663 RE: Permit #2021 1 Park Lido Ltd. Dear Sirs : ' In reference to proposed permit #2021 , Park Lido Ltd. , I strongly urge you to consider the following items thoroughly prior to voting for said proposal. ' (a) The traffic impact including additional congestion and left turn problems at Hospital and Flagship Roads, and Placentia and Superior Avenues. (b) Additional Space Need Study with consideration for ' present vacancy factor in existing buildings in the immediate area of proposed building and parking facility. ' (a) Neighborhood impact study to include loss of open space : socio-economic impact for residential dwellings and residential facilities adjacent to proposed building. ' (d) Dangers connected with parking structure proposed: Potential increase of crime, noise, noxious fumes from increased auto usage; added physical danger to patients and residents of existing medical buildings, critical care hospital, two long term care nursing care facilities, two residential care facilities, and homes TAmerican-Cal Medical Services #1 Inc. 7 4° has � ' A ( yl � J • RESIDENTIAL CARE 393 HOSPITAL ROAD • NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92663 - PHONE (714) 631.3555 ' and condominiums in the area. ' (e) A current Environment Impact Study. (f) Study of future zoning changes that may be required ' due to this added construction in the area. I will appreciate your attention to these potential problems prior to granting this permit. ' Sincerely, Donna D. Swanson Administrator ' American-Cal Medical Services *1 Inc. 1�1 75 , �an � Supenion CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL 1445 SUPERIOR ' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 •PHONE (714) 642.2410 October 15, 1981 Newport Beach Plannin- Commissioners 330o Newport Blvd. :Newport Beach, CA 92663 itL: Permit 'i 2021 Park Lido Ltd. ' Dear Sirs: . In reference to proposed permit # 2021, Park. Lido Ltd., I strongly 1 urge you to consider the folloWi.ng items thoroughly prior to voting for said proposal. ' (a) The traffic impact including additional congestion and left turn problems at hospital. and Flarship Roads, and Placentia and Superior Avenues. ' (b) Additional Space :lend Study with consideration for present vacancy factor in existing buildins in the immediate area of proposed building and parking facility. 1 (c) Neighborhood impact study -to include 'loss of open space; socio-economic impact for residential dwellin;-s and residen- tial facilities adjacent to proposed building. (d) Dangers connected with larking structure proposed: Potential increase of crime, noise, noxious fumes iron increased auto usage; added physical danger to patients and residents of existinm medical buildinLs, critical care hospital, two lon.; term care nursing care facilities, two residential care facilities, and homes and condominiums in area. (e) A current ?nvironment Im_lact Study. ' (f) Study of future zoning changes that may be required due to this added construction in this area. I will appreciate your attention to these potential problems prior to -rantin.- this permit. ' Sincerely, v.p ' Uelsen G. Ford Administrator P`', + ' :'°� ��V TAmerican-Cal Medical Services #1 Inc. ' ..,•.., 76 1 N � 7 ' TOTAL NO. OF S(GNATURaS ON ?'ET rT ION — JOB _r E ,���N s ' October 22, 1981 ' RE: Application for Use Permit No. 2021 Park Lido, Ltd. Proposed Medical Office Building and Parking Structure ' We, the undersigned members of Park Lido Association, Inc. , being the owners and residents of townhomes in the Park ' Lido development of Newport Beach, respectfully petition for denial of the referenced Use Permit and related actions now being considered by the Pl-anning Commission. As more fully set forth in the accompanying letter from our attorneys, FELDSOTT, LEE & VAN GEMERT, A Law Corporation, we submit that the proposed construction of a 65,000 square foot medical office building and parking structure would have a serious ' and detrimental impact .to our health; safety, peace, comfort and general welfare and to the value of the roperty and improvements in our neighborhood. ' Dated: oCT tar 1931 , SiO�A*, ture Print Name L Address Dated: Q 1 71 7 Signature -7 Axj Z1 a. 14/a12A-2S ' Print Name yr ,o Q,� ' Address Dated: C7C to ' gignature Print Name. IL-1, . J (� fO 12, Address ' ' 77 lay TYPICAL PAGE OF 1'ETrTioN 1 . 1 Dated: Signature \,yi1)iux,,� 1 Print Name 41s t3cj �.� Q. Wcc jy)( WaC1,+L�rc,c'�� 1 Address ' Dated: 10d 1 / Signature e Print Name rh Address Dated: QC-T T" iggnature /- ----�— Print Name Address Dated: ia1 '16� ?GZC1 Signatur Print Name . ress Dated: lot 6 6 �.._ 1 Sign at re N 1 Print ffName(�, Address ti� 6 i i a,,, I� wo C' a,, ocr. r:,4r • j2 o--4 NfWrC411 �u � , 1 1 • 1 1 79 30 432 Cry on 1-ewporf; �,ea•,,ch, CA 92663 City :•lannind• Commissioners October 18, 19?1 t ,itv Council Piembers 3300 Fewport Boulevard. 21ewport Leach, CA 92663 Dear Commissioners : A-s an owner/resident; of a condomi.rdiim in the Farlf Lido complex' I am wrritinn to express my concern and objections re,pardinp• the planned expansion of the Park Lido Nedical Biiildinp• aL• 351 Eos,pitnI Road, ,The existinp; offices already have c:aYased: parki.n:r overflow on Flap•ship . and traffic danrfers at the intersection of Fl::,,,;ship and Fa6entia, 'I ura;e ,you to consider the number of medical offices 1-,hat now exist , compute the proposed 65,000-square foot, building• into the number of offices it will yield., multiply that fip•urra by three (a doctor, nurse t3rd receptionist for each office) and. subtract that figure from the ar•king; spaces that will remain on the lot plus the spaces to be provided in the proposed structure, .Chen I ask you to answer, Where sill the patients park?" also want to point out that streets in the Park Lit .o Condominium Icomplex are private. However, since the last expansior, at Fup;hes olid State Division at 500 Superior Avenue, employees have been zsirF Orion Way as a thorouphfare. Another expansion has just been approved which will add to the traffic on 'this private street . If In a he medical building is approved, it, too, will ad.d to public traffic area, private street and more parking; problems in an already impacted fnd, while the public uses olar private streets , there has been no rovision ordered by the city to restrict: use on these private streets , tnor has there been any financial aid for associations , such as Park ido, in ma.intaininp• private streets, m},ese expansions have resulted n added expenses to neivhhorinp resiOents. conclusion, I urp•e you to consider traffic and parking; problems hat will become intolerable if the planned medical building is approved, and I urge you to adhere to heip;ht. limits that have been set for the f'' tterment of the community. With these considerations , there is only e answer to the proposal -- denial. Sincerely, atrice A. Anderson 9 9 REGEIVfO b OCT2019810w Cifr OF ' NEWPokT BEACH. Il 1812 Antigua Circle Newport Beach , CA 92660 ' Newport Beach Nlanninrl Commissioners October 15 , 1981 33Q0 Newport Blvd . , Newport Beach, CA 92663 Deborah Allen Jerry King �/ RECEIVED Paul Balalis Helen Mc Laughlin fiat-r ;, 3 Allen Beek Hai Thomas ' r }•x,t Joan Winburn 01 0CT20 1981y ',y' Re: Permit No . 2021 �6rw7F Request for Environmental Impact Report for Permit 1NF,;rr�„;pEAChr I am the owner of sixteen residental units located in th ea``Arr`�efe ' to as Newport Mediterranean Apts , located at Flagship Rd . a , Hilaria Way and Dana Rd. My sixteen units are situated in four buildings ' at 4200 Patrice, 4127 Hilaria and 4151 Hil•aria , *•and 4223 Dana Rd. I strongly object to the proposed permit No 2021 pursuant to which the ' following new structures are to be added to the site now occupied by the Park Lido Medical Building and parking lot: 1 . .A new office' building of approximately 65 , 000 Ea. ft. which apparently will be approximately 84 of the size of the existing Park Lido filedical Building have about 77, 000 sq. ft. 2. A three or four level parking structure over 30 ft . high to be located at the corner of Flagship and Patrice to provide parking for both the existing and new building. This structure will be ' approximately the size of a football field. In my opinion the granting of permit No. 2021 would destroy the quality of the residential neighborhood of the Newport Mediterranean Apts. and the Park Lido Condominiums totaling 239 residences which have been located there for approximately 14 and 18 years respectively . To permit . ' an 84% expansion of office space and a huye parking structure over thirty feet high , would destroy the aesthetic quality of the residential - ' neighborhood , create noise , fumes , all day long traffic congestion and increased air pollution. Please note that a medical office building involves a continuing hourly or half hourly turnover of cars in the parking structure. In the past few years this residential area has been subject to increased traffic from the following: 1 . expansion ' of Hoag Hospital , 2. construction of Villa Balboa ,& 3 . construction of a large new medical building at Superior and Hospital Hd. The ' proposed new parking structure at Hughes Corporation on Dana Rd. will add further traffic to an overburdened area. My objections to Permit No. 2021 can be further detailed as follows: ` 1 . The 140 Newport Mediterranean Apts . constitute an Established r- Neighborhood in existence for about 14 years. All of these are deluxe two and three vedroom units with many amenities. There are thirty-five 8 1` Page Two Page Two Newport mad. fourplexes each having four deluxe units . Ten of these 1 fourplexes are located on Patrice Rd. which share ) a common border with the proposed 30 ft. high parking building , a height greater than the 1 two story fourplexes . The remaining apartment units are on Hilaria Way and Dana Rd . Of the total 140 apartments, one quarter (or 35) are spacious , two level , three bedroom, two bath townhomes with p;itios , fireplaces, separate dining rooms and laundry rooms. Another quarter (or 35) are upstairs, siggle level , two bedroom two bath apartments. 1 The remaining half or seventy apartments are spacious townhomes , two levels with two large bedrooms , 1J baths, laundry hookups , walled, 1 lower patios and upstairs balcolnies. 2.The 99 Park Lido Condominiums Constitute an Established Neighborhood 1 in existence for about 18 years. They are spacious units with many amenities and double garages, and were built before the Park Lido 1 Medical Bldg was constructed. Some of the Park Lido condominium owners anticipated that a park and teenis courts would be built on the site of the Park Lido medical Building. 3. Quality of Life Adversely Affected for the 239 Residential Units . The foregoing 239 households are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their homes. To add the proposed medical building and parking structure would destroy the quality of 'their homes and environment. The exisitng ' Park Lido parking lot which is not used in the evenings and weekends constitutes an area of open space and improves the air quality of the nrea.Some condominiums and apartments on Flagship and Patrice have mini ocean views from their second stories which will certainly be lost. ' 4. Devaluation of Property Values It is self evident that there would be a decline in property values for the owners of the condominiums 1 and apartments if an unsightly parking structure ! over 30 ft . high is built . It would destroy the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. 1 The noise , fumes and continual traffic would make the neighborhood far less desirable resulting in a decline in property values. 1 For all the foregoing reasons I am requesting that the permit be denied or that an Environmental Impact Report be submitted. Ila Suza'%e Illig me Brien 821 00 [l[IAt,oY uMDSGRF[ 1 Of 1 5DECRVLO EO SwALE +• / J, l ��__ o-o• •. tuoSMP ROAD 2.2 p ` , ti a Jo'"s T �� y.�ii, -I �. i , f 1 � ' v v � convict i•-�-•,y-q• - � ' f1 IS'HIGM EIGHT STANDARD . '1\ S O'L•.• ,.r ^ , ' 1 .� VT.SP'gUT.OFF SHIELDED, T ., + t �. .] •�' DRAM AT PARKING GRID , % TO DOWN SPOUT • -•`\ r - - �ILi STANDARD -D'x U'-0•I } 10 GRADE DECORATIVE LIGHT • STANDARDS IO'NIGH 1 t T I TE •' I Y n000.R D. I t� •\ ,�, F f.EL[V ST,O' (( � . TO SPILL GRADE :• ' `NN \ NN, to :... in •• •.•` / �.% -(� `I,- LSNOFT E1 STAIN fTTV��. , i - . O 2 ✓// IPOY LORlR LEVEL i .i � O •� �, ice ' •i :I . fee, • (boo\•\ • ^r`t*. 4+ �(ti�• o V �L •/ +• s 'F fEVEN U.N. • I L - WALL YID FLOOD LIGHTS. - \ F.F.FLEW.07.0' \\\i ' •- �D •••'1 L ,ETIER E' __ >✓_�' EOCATION OF +J_ • _ -ESLSE _ _-_ �•-I SUYF RUYF At LOWEST LEVEL `E `°e• 'O.- �;.y , s+w a•DISCHARGE FIv[FROYSUM, �•\ ,p'� - y- w R�LOCATEC SEWER EASEMENT _ PA �•\ - - /1EEWER IN ` - EXISTING EXISTING DRIVEWAT [}ISi1NG V-GUNITE DRAINAGE ,\ ' ,`• • "Pi. /�.! fKET FLOW - DITCH 4'0-WIDE&A V b• ;,/ DEEP S'CI Ua FORRD� ;. :,`:°i ;E •' - AT NEW SLOG.10*}IT CURE FACE .; - `' •I: • �\\\� / , - t - _. . III Source: The McMahon Partnership t Proposed Site Plan :: D�� . - FIGURE ' YQgS�ilp CONVALESCENT CENTER 466 FLAGSHIP ROAD . NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 PHONE (714 642.8044 ' October 190 1981 ' Newport Beach Planning Commissioners 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RES, Permit # 2021 ' Park Lido Ltd, Dear Sirs; ' In reference to proposed permit # 2021, Park Lido Ltd., I strongly urge you to consider the following items thoroughly prior to voting ' for said proposal. (a) The traffic impact including additional congestion and left -turn problems at Hospital and Flagship Roads, and Placentia ' and Superior Avenues. (b) Additional Space Need Study with consideration for, present ' vacancy factor in existing buildings in the immediate area of proposed building and parking facility. ' (c) Neighborhood impact study to include loss of open spacel socio-ecomonic impact for residential dwellings and residen- tial facilities adjacent to proposed building. ' (d) Dangers connected with parking structure proposed Potential increase of crime, noise# noxious fumes from increased auto usage; added physical danger to patients and residents of existing medical buildings, critical care hospital, two long term nursing care facilities, two residential care facilities, and homes and condominiums in area. ' (a) A current Environment Impact Study, (f) Study of future coning changes that may be required due to ' this added construction in this area. I will appreciate your attention to these potential problems prior ' g this permit. /S Re Sincerely, 400 &4p 0 Z� Robert H. Clark PoRT Administrator American-Cal Medical Services #1 Inc. 84 1 1 1 1 OCTOBER 21, 1981 1 . 1 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Traffic Engineer 1 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC IN THE VICINITY OF HOAG HOSPITAL i 1 Residents of the West Newport Area have raised the question of how much traffic will be added to the street system in the vi- cinity of Hoag Hospital by projects previously approved by the 1 City. This question has most recently been raised in discussions of the proposed expansion of the Park Lido Medical Complex. 1 Attached for your use are three exhibits showing the .location of approved projects and traffic volumes for daily and peak hour periods. The exhibits show volumes for existing traffic, traffic from previously approved projects and the traffic that 1 would be `y generated 7by the proposed Park Lido project. Richard M. Edmonston 1 Traffic Engineer 1 RME/jp 1 1 1 85 ' r . �Jb W c z 2 � N lJJ z a 3 ' 3 02 �OSQ1,�P�. OO VICINITY MAP ' APPROVED PROJECTS PROPOSED O1 HOAG HOSPITAL (1735) n5 , LIDO PARK MEDICAL (1958) ' 02 HUGHES (2111) 03 MOLLARD MEDICAL (750) ' ® 441 N. NEWPORT (143) ' NOTE: NUMBER IN PARENTHESIS IS DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC. t 86 I37 1 1 16,000 1735 490 1 � . 0 152000 "'va w 40,000 s i ti 569 98 241 294 a z H � 3 1 ' I N.A. 655' 587 I 9,000 397 294 15 �oSQZ�P 1342 1077 3,700 132 294 26,000 45,000 16641294 685 490 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES KEY EXISTING NOTE: ALL VOLUMES ARE TWO-WAY ' PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED ' APPROVED PARK LIDO PROJECTS MEDICAL 1 1 ' I 87 2708 ' 217 70 r ' 3235 50 14 �o j 2815 45 42 a � • ' 1972 36 84 ' 694 1249 28 42 ' �oSQS�P 75 154 235 ' 11 42 ' 4545 3118 81 42 42 70 ' PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ' KEY EXISTING ' PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED APPROVED PARK LIDO PROJECT MEDICAL 88 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 24 1981 ' Agenda Item Nos. 11 & 12 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department ' SUBJECT: Traffic Studv Request to consider a Traffic Study for a proposed 65,060 sq.ft. ' medical office building. AND ' Use Permit No. 2021 ' Request to construct a 65,000 sq.ft. t medical office building that exceeds the basic height limit in the 32/50 Height Limitation District, to permit roof parking structure, and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. Said application also ' includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use Of compact car spaces for a portion of the Project's required Off-street parking spaces, and the acceptance of an environmental ' document. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 169, Block 2 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 351 Hospital Road on the northeasterly corner of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue, opposite Hoag Memorial Hospital. ZONE: A-P ' APPLICANTS: Park Lido, Ltd. , Robert L. Wish, General Partner, Santa Ana OWNERS: Same as applicants 89 Applications The McMahon Partnership has proposed several applications which would allow tho construction of a medical office building and'a related parking structure. ' The several requests being made in order to accomplish -this are outlined below: 1. Acceptance of an environmental document as having been prepared in ' compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the "State EIR Guidelines" and City Policy K-3•, and certification that the data was considered in the final decisions on the ' project. 2. Acceptance of a Traffic Study prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy S-1 ("Ad4inistrative Guidelines for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") , and the approval of the project based on the data contained therein for the ultimate purposes of ' issuances of building and grading permits.. 3. A modification to the Zoning Code is requested inasmuch as a portion of. the required off-street parking spaces are compact spaces. Modification procedures are contained in Chapter 20.81 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.- ' 4. The approval of a use permit to permit roof parking, the construction of a medical office building that exceeds the basic height limit within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District and to waive a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. Use permit procedures are outlined in Chapter 20.80 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Project Description The applicants propose to construct an additional four story medical office building to be located directly east and adjacent to the existing Park Lido Medical Offices Building. The offices will initially be. offered on a rental ' basis but will be constructed in such a way as to allow future conversion to condominiums. Gross floor area for the proposed project amounts to 65,2699 square feet and would •provide space for approximately 65 medical offices. The ' building will be occupied• by an estimated 65 doctors and, 130 employed personnel. That portion• of the site which is. not presently occupied by the existing Park ' Lido building is paved and used for on-site parking purposes. The proposed building is to be constructed on the southeastern corner of the site, thus reducing the - number of existing, available parking spaces. A parking structure, ,which will occupy the' northern third of the site, is proposed as a component of this project to- offset the loss of existing spaces and provide the additional amount. required. The parking structure• will consist 'of a . continuous ramp, three stories- tall. Access to the structure will be ' controlled-. Environmental' Significance ' In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the "State SIR Guidelines" and City Policy R-3, an Initial Study was prepared for the City by the Planning Center. Based upon the contents of the Initial Study# the City's Environmental Affairs Committee has determined that while the project might have a significant effect on the ' environment, that if the mitigation measures described in the Initial. Study are incorporated into any ' project approval, it will not have an adverse effect. Copies of the Initial Study and Negative- Declaration are attached. ' General Plan The proposed project is consistept with the Newport Beach General Plan. The project site is designated op the Newport Beach Land Use Plan as Administrative-Professional and Financial Commercial. All surrounding parcels are within the same land use deTignation except for those properties to the north along a part of Flagship and Patrice Roads which are designated as Multiple-Family Residential. Zoning ' Zoning for the project site is Administrative-Professional (A-P) . Uses permitted within the A-P district range from professional and business offices, pharmacies, and medical and diagnostic laboratories to social halls, lodges, clubs, and art studios- and their accessory buildings. The proposed ' project is, therefore, within the scope of allowable uses included in the A-P district. ' The project site is also within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. The basic height limit for any structure constructed within this zone is 32 feet. The proposed height of the parking structure is 31'6"' (the Initial Study indicated a height of 34060, but the plans have been revised). The maximum ' height of the office structure is 50 feet. Included in the request to permit the construction of this parking structure is a .request to permit auto parking on its roof and a modification to, the zoning requirements to allow the ' provision of compact spaces as a percentage of the total required parking to ..be provided. A summary of the A-P zone requirements and the proposed -project*s conditions is presents in the comparison chart below: Requirements A-P Project Minimum Setbacks: Front 15' 18' - 22' (Hospital Road)•; I18' (Flagship Road); 1916" (Patrice Road) ' Gross Floor Area to Building Area Ratio: 2 to 1 .90 to II ' Height: ----- Basic Height Limit 32' Maximum Height with 50' 50' (building) ' Use Permit 3116" (parking structure) Parking: Existing Building 308 required 296 provided Project 260 required. 260 provided Total Site 568 required 557 provided 2 ' 1) both buildings. 2) See "Parking" sectior of this report. 92 Subject Property and surrounding Uses The site is presently occupied by the six-story Park Lido Medical Offices Building. Gross floor space amounts to 77,000 square feet which supports over ' 80 leased offices. The applicant intends a similar use for the proposed building, however, the offices will be designed for future individual sale. The remainder of the site which is not occupied by the office. is paved for parking. Several mature Eucalyptus trees are located at the rear of the ' parking ares. Surrounding land uses are characteristic of their respective zoning. A ' convalescent hospital is located directly east of the site which extends northward along the bluff above Newport Boulevard. Zoning for this parcel is A-P. Hoag Hospital is located south of the site, across Hospital Road. ' Zoning is A-P-H. A Planned Como)unity (P-C) designation is provided for the Versailles condominium development' located to the west of Hoag Hospital. Land use to the west of Placentia Avenue consists -of various medical offices ' and associated uses. A bank is located in the northern tip of this triangular-shaped parcel which is zoned 'A-P. A smaller scale business office development (associated with the hospital) occupies the northern corner of the Flagship Road-Placentia Avenue intersection. This parcel is zoned A-P-H•, identical to that of the hospital. ' North of the business offices, occupying approximately half of the Flagship Road frontage between Placentia Avenue and Patrice Road, are multiple family residential units. R-3 zoning .extends to the north of the project site for two to three blocks and includes land uses along. Patrice Road. The ' residential area between Hospital 'and, Dana Road is completely developed. Traffic Study The applicants have requested the Planning Commission's approval of a Traffic ' Study for the purposes of issuance of building and grading permits in conjunction with the construction of the project. The Traffic Study for the proposed development has been prepared in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("Traffic Phasing Ordinance") and City Policy s-1 ("Administrative Procedures for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance") . A copy is included• in the attached initial Study as Appendix A and is summarized on the following pages. Subsequent to the preparation of the attached Traffic Study (Initial Study Appendix A) the City Council approved the Hughes Aircraft Company expansion ' project. Attched for your review in consideration of the Traffic Study is a revised and corrected analysis of the Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd./Superior Avenue intersection. The revised information indicates that all critical intersections will be operating at less than .9000. Therefore, the Traffic Study. maybe approved with the Findings indicated in Exhibit "A". 93 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ' Intersections iR of Projected Project-Is 2.5 Over ' Analyzed 2.5' Hr. Peak-Volume Hour Peak Volume it Placentia and Superior Northbound 11 88 ' Southbound 16 8 yes Eastbound 16 23 Westbound 28 39 ' Superior and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 18 0 Southbound 29 44 yes Eastbound 38 23 ' westbound 45 0 Newport and Hospital Northbound 33 23 ' Southbound 35 55 yes Eastbound 17 162 Westbound 10 8 Orange and, Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 5 0 Southbound 2 0 no Eastbound 32 23 Westbound 62 44 Prospect and Pacific Coast Highway ' Northbound 0 0 Southbound 3 0 no Eastbound 30 23 Westbound 59 44 Riverside and Pacific Coast Highway ' Northbound .2 0 Southbound 13 0 no Eastbound 48 29 ' Westbound 49 16 Dover and Pacific Coast Highway Northbound 3 0 Southbound 23 0 no Eastbound 39 29 ' Westbound 65 16 94. I.C.U. 's FOR CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS 1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 1982 Exist 1983 Exist + Need Critical Existing+ + Committed Committed + Improve- Intersections + Growth Project ments Superior and Pacific Coast Highway 1.1332 1.3718 1.3900 yes ' Dover and Pacific Coast Highway 0.8969 1.0825 1.0893 yes ' Superior and Placentia 0.6650 0.6653 0.6677 no Newport and Hospital 0.7890 0.8276 0.8653 no PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Intersection ' Improvements Superior and Pacific Add a third westbound through lane Coast Highway to Pacific Coast Highway; widen ' Superior to include two southbound through lanes, two right turn lanes and one left turn lane. Recommended by a previous project. Some of the above noted improvements are within the 1981-82 City budget. Construc- tion is scheduled for fiscal year 1981-82. Dover and Pacific City-State highway project currently Coast Highway under construction. Completion is anticipated early part of 1982. Building Heights ' The applicants have requested the approval of a use permit to allow the construction of a medical•office building that exceeds the basic height limit within the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation District. The total height 'of the medical office building is 5010", measured from grade to the top of the structure. All mechanical equipment is to be located in the basement of the structure. 1 . Section 20.02.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code states that the Planning ' Commission, in granting any use permit for structures in excess of the basic height limit in any zone shall find that each of the following four points have been complied with: ' 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of ' the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the ' basic height limit in any zgne. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and ' existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. ' 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the Use Permit. ' Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development meets the criteria specified under Item Nos. 1 .and 4 in that without the use permit, the same amount of floor area could be contained in a lower building covering a larger area of the site. If this were to be done, the design 'would probably result in a less open space and landscaped areas and might result in a less visually- appealing development. All setbacks established by the zoning district will be maintained. With respect to Item No. 2 staff feels that the proposed design of the medical- office building will result in a more visually-appealing character than is required by the basic height limit, since the proposed development allows for increased setbacks than are required. The proposed project is similar in design and scale to existing development and will not be detrimental to adjoining property. With respect to Item No. 3, staff is also of the opinion that the proposed ' office structure will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structures and existing surrounding development. The existing structure on the site is 1 96'9" high. Hoag Hospital across ' Hospital Road has one existing tower of 120 feet and approval of a second tower of 150 feet. ' Compact Parking Spaces A modification to the zoning code is requested inasmuch as a portion of the required off-street parking spaces are compact spaces. A total of 557 spaces 96 are to be provided for both the existing 77,000 sq.ft. medical building and ' the proposed 65,269 sq.ft. new building. The following is a summary of the proposed number of parking spaces on-site: ' Proposed Project At Grade Structure Standard 33 408 Handicapped 6 -0- ' Compact -0- 110 ' Sub-TOTAL 39 518 TOTAL 557 ' As indicated above, 110 of the provided parking spaces (20%) will be compact. Staff and the City's consultants are of the opinion that this is appropriate. ' The Planning Commission has previously approved up to 25 percent of required parking spaces for compact automobiles in other projects in the City. i Waiver of Required Parking Spaces ' The applicants have also requested a waiver of a portion required off-street parking spaces. A total of 557 spaces are proposed on site where there are 570 spaces required. ' Required 570 spaces (1 per 250 sq.ft.) Required 557 spaces (1 per 255 sq.ft.) ' Requested waiver 13 spaces The Initial Study evaluated the parking space demand on-site and concluded that adequate parking is provided for the proposed project. (See Initial' Study, Appendix A, Pages A-21 through .A-24) . ' Parking During Construction An issue of concern is how to accommodate the existing medical building a parking needs while the new construction is taking place. Staff and the City's consultants believe the best way to accomplish this is through the provision of a valet parking service and have suggested that as a condition of ' approval for Planning Commission consideration. Roof Parking ' The application for the use permit also includes the request for the approval of roof parking in conjunction with the parking structure. As indicated in ' /the Initial Study and in the attached plans, the roof parking will be surrounded on all sides by parapet walls and will not be visible from any adjacent properties. Therefore, staff sees no problems with this request. ' 97 ju Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the project with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as indicated in Exhibit "A". 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' JAMES D. HEWICKER, D' ector By FRED T ICO Environmental Coordinator ' FT.nma ' Attachments: Exhibit "A". Negative Declaration. Letter from the project's architect. ' I.C.U. Coast Hwy./Balboa Blvd./Superior Ave. Letter from G. Christopher Davis, Economic Research Consultant. Letters of Opposition Initial Study. Plot Plans, Floor Plans, and Elevations. 98. EXHIBIT "A" ' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TRAFFIC STUDY AND ' USE PERMIT' NO. 2021 TRAFFIC STUDY ' FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed trip generation measures are ' acceptable and will be permanently implemented through the conditions of this approval and that of Use Permit'NO. 2021. 2. That a Traffic Study on the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with Chapter ' 15.40 of the Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 3. That based on that Traffic Study, the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service on any "major", "primary-modified', or "primary" ' street. . . I ' CONDITION: 1. That prior to the occupancy, of the proposed project the' applicant shall contribute his fair share as determined by the City to, the Circulation System Improvements described in the Initial Study Appendix A, page A20, Table 5 and these improvements shall have been made unless subsequent project approvals require modification thereto) . The Circulation ' System's Improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. USE PERMIT NO. 2021 ' FINDINGS: ' 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and that their contents have been considered in the de- cisions on this project. 2. That based on the information contained in the Negative Declaration, the project incorporates sufficient mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. ' 99 �L 3. That the proposed use is consistent with the ' General Plan and is compatible with surround ing land uses. ' 4. The increased building height will result in more public visual open space than could be achieved by the basic height limit. tS. The increased building height will result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing ' visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit. ' 6. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and exist ' ing developments or public spaces. 7. The structure will have no more floor area than could' have been achieved without the ' use permit. 8. Adequate off-street parking and related vehic ' ular circulation are being provided in con junction with the proposed development. 9. The Police Department has indicated that they ' do not contemplate any problems. 10. That parapet walls will be constructed ad ' jacent to the proposed roof parking area that will shield the parked automobiles from view from adjoining property and streets. ' 11. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or build ing will not, under the circumstances of the ' particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighbor ' hood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the ' City, and further that the proposed modifica- tion for the compact parking spaces is con sistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code.. 100 It 12. The approval of use Permit No. 2021 will not, ' under the circumstances of this case be detri mental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons resid- ing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or im- provements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. ' CONDITIONS: ' 1. That development shall be in substantial con formance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, elevations and sections. ' 2. That all applicable conditions of the Traffic Study shall be fulfilled prior to the issuance ' of any building permit(s)' for the site. 3. A complete hydrology study and hydraulic an alysis shall be performed to address the amount of and manner in which all flows to and from the site are accommodated. ' 4. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. ' S. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts, from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access routes, access points to the site and watering and sweeping program designed to minimize impacts of haul operation. 7. An erosion and dust control plan shall be submitted-and be subject to the approval of ' the Building Department. S. Than an erosion and siltation control plan, if ' required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region. ' 9. ' The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project ' design. ' 101 10. That grading, shall be conducted in accordance ' with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size ' sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 11. That final design of the project shall provide ' for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water using facilities: ' 12. Prior to occupancy of any building, the appli cants shall provide written verification from Orange Couq{ty Sanitation District No. 6 that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 13. That any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view and noise associated with said structures be ' sound attenuated so as to not exceed 55 dBA at the property lines. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified ' acoustical engineer, and be approved by the Building Department. 14. Prior to the occupancy of any buildings, a ' program for the sorting of recyclable material from other solid wastes shall be developed and approved by the Planning ' Department. 15. A landscape and irrigation plan for the pro ' ject shall be prepared by a licensed land scape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of land scaping with the proposed construction ' schedule. (Prior to occupancy, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the prepared plan) . 16. The landscape plan shall be subject to the review of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approval of the Planning Department. I ' 102 17. The landscape plan shall include a maintenance ' program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 18. The landscape plan shall place heavy emphasis on the use of drought resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over- watering. 19. The site's existing landscape plan shall be reviewed by a licensed landscape architect. . The existing landscape program shall be modified to include the concerns of the cond itions above to the maximum extend practic- able. Any Phange(s) in said existing program as a result of this review shall be phased and incorporated as a portion of existing land tscape maintenance. 20. That the landscaping plans adjacent to the ' drive entrances be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Department of Parks, $eaches and Recreation, for sight distance requirements. 21. That the proposed landscaping over the existing and proposed sewer easements shall be ' subject to further review by the Public Works Department. 22. The project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent uses. All parking lot lighting shall be subject to ' the approval of the Planning Department. 23. That should any resources be uncovered during construction, that a qualified archaeologist ' or palenotologist evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and that all work on the site be done in ' accordance with the City's Council Policies K-5 and K-6. 24. The following disclosure statement of the City of Newport Beach's policy regarding the John Wayne Airport should be included in all leases or subleases for space in the project and ' shall be included in any Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which may be recorded against the property. ', � 103 Disclosure Statement The Lessee herein, his heirs, successors and assigns acknowledge that: ' a) The John Wayne Airport may not be able to provide adequate air service for business establishments which rely on such services; b) When an alternate air facility is available, a complete phase out of jet service may occur at the ' John Wayne Airport; c) The City of Newport Beach may continue to ' oppose additional commercial air service expansions at the John Wayne Airport; d)- Lessee, his heirs, successors and assigns will ' not actively oppose any action taken by the City of Newport Beach to phase out or limit jet air service at the John Wayne Airport. ' 25. That the final design of on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. t 26. Signing shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. ' 27. Handicap and compact parking spaces shall be designated by a method approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 28. The layout of the surface and structure parking shall be subject to further review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 29. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works ' Department. 30. That a standard use permit agreement and ' accompanying surety be provided if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. ' 31. That the existing sanitary sewer be relocated and that a 10-foot wide easement for sewer purposes be dedicated to the City prior to issuance of Building Permits, and that the design of the sewer be by a licensed engineer on the Public Works Department Standard Plan sheets. 104 32. That the structures adjacent to the existing ' and proposed sewer main have deepened footings. The footings shall be designed so that the bottom of footing is intersected when a 1 to 1 slope is projected from the flow line of pipe to the bottom of footing so that the footing is able to take lateral forces in the ' event of sewer main excavation. 33. That a concrete sidewalk be completed along the Flagship Road frontage and access ramps be ' constructed at the corners of Flagship Road and Patrice Road, and Flagship Road and Placential Avenue. 34. That prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the ' satisfaction of the Public Works Department that adequate site distance has been provided at the Hospital Road entrance and at the 1 northeasterly corner of the proposed medical building. 35. That prior to issuance of any building permits ' for the site, the applicants shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Building Department that ' adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include' verification from Orange County - Sanitation District N0.6. The applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction of any additional sewer facilities needed to serve the project. 36. That a traffic signal be designed and installed by the developer at the intersection ' of Hospital Road and Placentia Avenue. A separate surety and agreement may be provided for this work. The developer's obligation for this signal shall be 50%. 37. That parking arrangement during the construction period shall be approved by the ' City's Planning Department and Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading and/or building permit(s) . Persons that might ' be affected by the construction shall be notified in a manner approved by the Planning Department. ' 105 38. All on-site drainage shall be approved by the City Public Works Department. 39. A late afternoon and evening security program ' shall be designed and implemented prior to the occupancy of the project. Said program shall be approved by the Police and Planning Departments. ' 40. That prior to the issuance of any building permits authorized by the approval of this Use Permit, the applicant shall deposit with the City ' Finance Director, a sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to ' be used for -the construction of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport area. 106 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' TO: Q Secretary for Resources FROM: ' Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street City of Newport Beach ' Sacramento, CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (JX Clerk of the Board of ' Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 NAME OF PROJECT: Park Lido Office - U . P . '2021 ' PROJECT LOCATION: 351 Hospital Road, Newport Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves the construction of ' a 65,000 sq . ft . medical office building with related parking structure, landscaping and associated facilities . FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality- Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See Attached Initial Study INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: Westect Services INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: a ar� co, Environmpnta Coordinator :10 7 Date: /� 1 1 ■■ McMahon Partnership Architecture / Planning September 4, 1981 ' Mr. Fred Talarico Newport Beach Planning Department ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California g2663 ' RE: NEW PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND PARKING GARAGE 351 Hospital Road, Newport Beach, California Request for fifty foot height "Use Permit" 1 ' ' The following is a response to the current• Newport Beach Zoning Code requirements as outlined in Chapter 20.02.040 Newport Beach Zoning Code: ' a. The project proposed does not result in blocking the view of any of the buildings around the perimeter or the existing on-site building. The total buildable area of the site is 157,120 sq. ft. The proposed new structure would cover 15,000 sq-. ft. and the existing medical building covers 12, 800 sq.ft. of ground area. Combined 1 they cover 27,800 sq. ft. or 17% of the buildable area of the site. The proposed building would occupy only 9% of the property. All setbacks for both the new and exist- ing structures, are greater than that which is required by the Code. If the 32 ' height limitation was required, it would result in a two-story building with a 30,000 sq. footprint which would result in; 1) impractical, over- sized, non-functional floor areas with a footprint of ' . approximately 300 by 125 feet, thus making the parking structure virtually impossible to design in order to meet ' parking requirements; 2) a long, low, unimpressive struc- ture blocking public open visual space. ' b. A building height of 50' results in an architecturally proper proportion of height to width and an-opportunity to design a more impressive structure in keeping with its superb location and importance to the community. 108 501 Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 (714)973.0993 Telex683408 c. The increased building height will result in helping the visual relationship with the existing 96 ' high existing medical building. If the basic height limit were used it would result in an overwhelming height differential between the two structures. d. The existing Zoning Code allows for building structures (exclusive of parking structures) to be two times the buildable area; therefpre, the formula is 157,120 sq.ft. of buildable area times two equals 314,2401allowable ' by Code. The combined square footage ft he existing and new structure is 142,000 square feet, leaving 173,240. sq.ft. of additional buildings that could be placed on ' the site within Code requirements. Sincerely, Robert W. Kit"AI.A. ' Partner RWK/pJ 1 109 McMahon Partnership Architecture / Planning NEW PARK LIDO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND PARKING GARAGE ' 351 Hospital Road, Newport Beach, California AREA AND PARKING CALCULATIONS ' 1. Lot Size From Parcel Map Area = 3,607 Acres x. 43,560 sq.f.t./acre . - 157,120. 9 sq.ft. 2. Existing Bldg. Gross Area 77,000 sq. ft. Footprint area = 60 x 203'. 5 + 17 x 26. 5 = 12,600 sq.ft. Maximum Height 96 '-9" 3. New Medical Building Gross Area--65, 000 sq. ft. ' First Floor (Footprint Area) 15,250 Typical floor Area (2) 15,250 4th Floor Area 17 ,250 Utility Basement 2,000 ' 65,000 Maximum Height - 50 '-0" Above Existing Grade Floor to Floor Height 12 '-4" Net Rentable Ground Floor = 11,521 2nd and 3rd Floor - 24,767 4th Floor 15,131 ' 51,419 4. Parking Structure Ground Floor (Footprint) 47,705 sq. ft. Total Gross Area 163,842 sq. ft. Maximum Height - 3910" Floor to Floor - 1116" ' 8 '-0" Clr. Parking for 514 cars - 110 compact and 404 standard Parking on grade-43 cars - 6 Handi & 37 Standard ' (Outside of Structure) i� 110 G. CHRISTCPHER CAVIS ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 22330 Hawthorne Blvd.,Suite 212,Torrance,CA 90505,(213)540.5010 ' August 19, 1981 Park Lido, Ltd. Mr. Robert L. Wish, General Partner 2232 S.E. Bristol , Suite 203 Santa Ana, California 92707 Dear Mr. Wish ' This letter summarizes an overview of the medical office market in the Newport Beach area near Hoag Memorial Hospital . Specific emphasis is placed upon a location next to the hospital upon which ' a medical office building is proposed., The market for medical office buildings located in close proximity to major hospitals has changed dramatically over the past several years. The rapidly escalating costs of hospitalization during this period has greatly increased the severity of the median patient in the hospital . This has resulted in the doctor having to make more ' trips to the hospital in the average day and thus increased the impor- tance in his office being located closeby. The impact of this circumstance on the market demand for a medical office building is obvious. This does not alter patients, only the location of doctors' offices. ' While the demographics do not indicate a significant upward movement in population levels, greatly increased home values do have an impact on demand for medical space. A result of these increased values is I an increase in median age which will increase medical demands without perceptable population growth. ' It is true that space in the new medical building will be substantially absorbed by doctors presently located in close proximity to Hoag. The space they vacate will be quickly absorbed by other doctors moving closer from more outlying areas. Overall occupancy figures indicate a low vacancy rate which is likely to continue given the circumstances highlighted in this letter. In ' Icy judgement, with approximately 525 doctors on staff at Hoag and fiery low vacancy rates within- walking distance to the hospital , this project could easily absorb 100 doctors and be quite successful. ' Respectfully Submitted, G. Christopher Davis ' Y1 ' G. CHRISTOPHER OAVIS ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION 22330 Hawthorne Blvd.,Suite 212,Torrance,CA 905t1,5,(213)540.5040 Utilizing his over thirteen years of experience in the field, Mr. Davis left a vice presidential position at Coldwell Bankerover five years ago to establish his own economic research and consultation firm. During this time he has completed a variety of assignments on virtually all types of land uses through- out the world. The major emphasis is on market demand and feasibility studies for the real estate industry. Recently he completed work on two high rise condominium projects in downtown redevelopment areas. One is a $90 million ' development in Long Beach where the private sector developer was the client. The other study was. conducted for the City of Inglewood on a proposed $30 million project. Both are now proceeding toward the start of construction ' and Mr. Davis continues as a consultant on each. Land uses for which Mr. Davis has completed economic research include: ' Residential Industrial Single-Family Detached Area Growth Projections Condominium Parks Office Hotel Low and High-Rise Urban Medical/Dental Resort Trade Centers(World and Specialty) Retail Commercial ' In his over thirteen years in the economic research field, Mr. Davis has been retained by many clients, a representative sample includes: ' Paramount Studios Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. Lewis Homes Immobiliare of California, Inc. Forest City Enterprises La Solana Corporation (Sumitomo) Pacific Design Center George W. Murphy (Molokai , Hawaii) ' Ohbayashi America Corporation Seibu Urban Development Overton, Moore and Assocaites Michael Cartier (Tahiti , French Polynesia) City of Inglewood City of Palm Springs Edgemar Farms Golden West Airlines The Bank of Tokyo Panama Canal Company Lionel Hampton Enterprises Nacional Financiera (Mexican Government) Mikimoto Pearl Company Joseph C. Canizaro Interests Great Lakes Properties The Irvine Company Land Resources Corporation Twentieth Century Fox Realty Stanford University Mitsukoshi Limited City of Santa Monica Marathon Development California His Highness the Aga Khan (Alisarda Airlines - Sardinia, Italy) ' Mr. Davis received both his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Management Science from the University of Southern California where he has appeared as a guest lecturer in the Urban Semester Program. He has also recently been a guest speaker for the Society of Real' Estate Appraisers. �. � 2 �OJ..!•.�•�•: ,, JOHN W.APPLEGATE.M.D. ARO SQUIRE J)"AS. M.D. FRITZC WESTERHOUT. JR. M.D s r F 1 •,�� IN Y C. NECULOOY •No OBSTETRICS O 19b.1 NEW PORT DRIVE • EP j 1 SUITE 701 701 NLW RT BEACN, CALIFORNIA 82560 Nf/r ;•,; % 714-644.2722 Ag e4 /ov II , 1 t3 ' Charles Sparku L D.D.S. SUITE SIB PARK LIDO BUILDING 351 HOSPITAL ROAD ' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 62663 TELEPHONE 646.9707 ' Chris Gustin September 9, 1981 Newport Beach City Hall . 3300 Newport Blvd. ' Newport Beach, Cal. 92663 Dear Mr. Gustin, 'Please consider my opposition to the possibility of ' a new structure at the Park Lido Building. The grounds now provide just enough parking .and will be over loaded during construption. It will be impossible to work rendering medical services with the tremendous noise that will occure. The traffic impact will also provide a new problem that will necessitate a signal at Hoag Hospital and Placentia. Sinclz y, „ 1 Char , D.D.Se • CS/dl �EP1.0 AW* �, '4.� •'C�rt ts��ii. 1� TAttF. R` DONALD A. KLOTZ, M.D., INC. 1 � a 1 , DIPLOMATE, AMERICAN BOARD OF INTERNAL MEDICINE /'�` INTERNAL MEDICINE AND GASTROENTEROLOGY '• {. p{� 961 HOSPITAL ROAD • SUITS 219 t • SE �7 ' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92005 `I:• c i ' 4 tli TE1610110RE 045.1720 1 September 8, 1981 City Planning Commissioners ' Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Attention: Mr. Chris Gustin Gentlemen: ' We understand that there is a proposal before the Newport Beach- Planning Commission to construct a 659000 square 1 foot medical building adjacent to the Park Lido Medical Building located at 351 Hospital Road. We do not know if you are aware of the detrimental impact this would have on the current tenants of the present building and would like to point out the following: 1 1. During construction of either the proposed building or parking structure the current tenants and their patients will not have access to parking. ' 2. This is not a commercial building in the usual sense of the word. The people who come to transact business are ill and the construction noise would have a devastating impact on them. It should also be noted that Hoag Hospital would be•affected by the noise as would the convalescent homes in the immediate area. 1 3. We would, due to construction, be limited to one entrance exit rather than the two now available and ' the traffic tie-up could make for a potentially serious and dangerous situation. We sincerely hope you give the above serious consideration 1 when making your decision on the proposal to construct the above mentioned building. Sincerely yours , Donald A. Klotz, 141 • 1 1.5. ' M. MICHAEL GASSEL, M.D., Ph.D. 351 Hospital Road, Suite 507 ' Newport Beach,California 92663 Telephone:(714)645.7083 i ' September 8, • 1981 ' City Planning Commissioners Newport Beach City Half. 3300 Newport Blvd. ' Newport Beach California 92663 ATTN: Mr, Chris Gustin ' Concernin the plans for construction of an a itiona building complex on the site of the ' Park Lido Building complex 351 Hospital Road, Newport Beach. ' Gentlemen : I am a tenant at the complex, leasing an office for the proctice• of neurology. I object to the proposed building. There will be aggravation of the already significant traffic flow problem, serious disruption to my medical practice, (in part with handicapped ' patients) by the noise and displacements, including parking at the building. - There is already congestion at the location. Yours truly, heel asse M.D. Ph.D. MMG/ig U�v P9 1991o^ .. 1 116 el F. JACK WARNER, M.D., INC. DIPLOMATE - AMERICAN BOARD OF PEDIATRICS FELLOW AMERICAN ACADEMY PEDIATRICS PEDIATRICS. YOUNG ADULTS 3 ALLERGY PARK LIDO BUILDING 351 HOSPITAL ROAD, SUITE 516 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92663 TELEPHONE 1714)642-7370 September 801981 City Planning Commissioners Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA- 92663 ' To Whom It May Concerns ' I am a tenant at the Park Lido Medical Building. It has been brought to my attention that a building 6500 square feet is going to be built next door to the existing building.. ' I would like to 'state here that I am very concerned abouts 1'. Lack of parking during construction of either the tower or the- parking structure. 2. The noise and inconvenience ' 3. The increase of traffic Please make my complaints known and keep me informed about this building. ' Sincerely, F. Jack Warner, M.D. SEP117 �p - , __ �0 1 JOHN PALMER MILLER„M. D. PARK LIDO PROFEB8IONAL BUILOINO 361 HOSPITAL ROAD - SUITE )IS ' NEWPORT BEACH, DALIFORNIA 99660 �L I Septz*er 11, 1981 lay° Mr. Chris Gustin City Planning commissioners office Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. ' Newport Beach, California 92663 RE: Proposed construction of Tower/Parking Structure at 351 Hospital Road, Newport Beach ' Dear Mr. Gustin: I am writing to you in regards to proposed =struction of tower/parking structure adjacent to Park Lido Medical Bldg. at 351 Hospital Road, Newport Beach. This property is under management of Park Lido, Ltd., 2232 S.E. Bristol, Suite 203, Santa Ana, California 92707. As a tenant/lessee of the Park Lido Medical Bldg., I am concerned about the impact of this proposed ccnstructi,cn on ' tenants, patrons and traffic of the existing structure: My concerns are as follows: ' (1) diminished and impeded parking during construction; (2) construction noise from work crews and ' equipment; (3) impeded Pedestrian/vehicle traffic impact on: ' (a) tenants and employees, (b) elderly and handicapped patients, (c) service/delivery personnel; ' (4) vehicle traffic impact on adjacent surface street. Your consideration of these concerns is greatly ' appreciated in your review of this proposed construction. �s, ! Jchn:,Palmer Miller, M.D. ' JPM:raTd 118 ' EDWARD J. BECHTEL, M.D. OPHTHALMOLOGY ' PARK LIDO PROFESSIONAL BLDG.. SUITE 210 ' 351 HOSPITAL ROAD NEWPORT•BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 6a6.6401 ' 8 September 1981 City Planninq Commissioners ' Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attn: Mr. Chris Gustin ' Dear Mr. Gustin I am a leaseholder in the Park Lido Medical building at 351 Hospital Rd. The building wee recently sold, and I understnand the new owners ' are planning to build another building of comparable size on the land adjoining the building. This morning the parking lot was completely full, and this afternoon it is nearly full. I am greatly ' concerned that construction of a new building in what is now our parking area, would cause a terrible amount of congestion, to say nothing of the decrease in parking spots available for patients. My lease does have a statement in it to the effect that the landlord has exclusive right without abotement'of rent, to construct another building complex, etc. My lease also states that the "tenant waives ' any claim for damages for any interference or inconvenience to tenants business." In spite of this waiver of my rights in- my lease, I feel that if either a building or a parking structure is constructed on the current parking lot, there would be a severe lack of parking available during construction. There also would be considerable noise and inconvenience during the construction, as well as adding ' greatly to the traffic congestion in the area. I would urge you to take these matters into consideration in your hearings, and to deny a permit for such construction. Sincerely yours, A n Edward J. Bechtel, M.D. ' EJ8/ib. :' fi r 73 -: SEP CAROL M. LELAND, M.D. DERMATOLOGY 351 HOSPITAL ROAD. SUITE 406 PARK LIDO PROFESSIONAL BUILDING NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 t (714) 646.2311 ' September 14, 1981 City Planning Commission Newport Beach, City Hall Attention: Mr. Chris Gustin 3300 Newport Blvd. ' Newport Beach, Calif. ) Dear Mister Gustin: Since I have learned of the plans of the Park Lido Building at 351 Hospital Road to build a new medical building adjacent ' to the Park Lido Building and a multistoried parking structure in our present parking lot, I along with many others who use this building, have been very concerned. ' I expect that there will be an acute shortage of parking space as well as much confusion and noise during the construction period. This could become very inconvenient for patients trying to see their doctors in the building. In the past it has often been difficult for our patients to park even when construction was occuring in nearby areas. . ' With the increasing congestion in this area and the apparant chronic shortage of beds at Hoag Hospital , I am not convinced ' that a new medical office building is needed or desirable in this area. I will appreciate your attention in this matter. Sincerely yours, Carol M. Leland, M.D. CML/jr 120 ' ALLEN D. UNVERT, M.D. OBSTETRICS AND IMYNECOL013Y OBt HOSP)TAL ROAD, SUITE 611 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92"0' September 9, 1981 City Planning Commissioner Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard ' Newport Beach, CA 92663' Attn: Chris Gustin ' ' Dear Sir: I am writing to you to express my complete and unalterable opposition to the pending ' application before the Planning Commission to enlarge and/or build another building by the Park Lido Professional Building-, 351 Hospital Road, Newport Beach. As a tenant of this building, I am concerned about the lack of parking as currently exists and the catastrophe that would result during construction if either the tower and/or the proposed parking structure were built. The spin-off effects from ' this decreased parking would affect not only our building and parking but also surrounding buildings including Hoag Memorial Hospital . The traffic congestion in this area is already one of saturation and simply will not tolerate further increase. The second reason is that of noise and inconvenience to my patients, many of whom are elderly and must depend- on adequate accessibility to the building for reasonable care. And, finally, the traffic impact again in the area is at a saturation point and would be made even worse by virtue of increased size of the Park Lido complex, along ' with decreased parking during, construction. The final concern is that all of this will lead to higher costs for the consumer,- which are already intolerably high in Newport Beach, all this for the sake of a developer who plans to buy, enlarge and condomiumize, and then split with the profits without thought to the long-term impact upon our lovely city and its health amenities. Your kind' attention to this very serious. matter is deeply appreciated. Vote NO on this application. Sincerely, Allen D. Unvert,M.D, ' ADU/bb 10 ' SEP 14 1981s� 121. v 1 BARBARA JE55EN, M. D. NEUROLOGIST 1 September 8th, 1981 I City Planning Commissioners, ' Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Blvd. , Newport Beach CA 92663 ' attn: Mr. Chris Gustin Dear Mr. Gustin, I am a tenant in Park Lido. I am appalled to consider what the proposed construction will do to my practice and what the future traffic will do to the area and Hoag Hospital. ' Convenient parking will be non existent during construction, noise, dust and construction traffic will severely impair my ability to practice quality medicine. The size of the project will significantly over- build the immediate area. I strongly appeal for denial of the permit. Sincerely yours, Barbara Jessen MD SEP 1119813w n 1 I AL II ' BARBARA JESSEN.M.Q.INC.•351 HOSPITAL ROAD-SUITE 316•NEVCPORT BEACH.CA 92883.17141 122 Kates, M.D. P"k Lido $uddmo ' 351 Nocpital Road, Suits 412 NnrpoA 2e wl,, California 92663 (714) 642-6677 1 September 11, 1981 I City Planning Commissioners Newport Beach City Hall ' 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Attnt Mr. Curtis Guatin Dear Mr. Gustins This is a letter of concern and protest regarding the construction of ' another building in the parking lot of the Park Lido Medical Building, 351 Hospital Bd., Newport Beach, Calif. ' My office is located in the Park Lido'Building, and I• feel that the construction of another building is going to cause a lack of parking during and after completion. The increased noise and inconvenience that this building will cause is a great concern to me. I hope that you will decide against the building of this structure. Sincerely, Harold Kates, M.D. ' HHK/lo Spp 14 *" ' I U � 123 ' JOHN W. APPLEGATE. M.D. 400 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE RiCHARD SQUIRE JONAS, M.D. SUITE 701 NEWPORT 61ACN. CALIFORNIA 22660 FRITZ C. WESTERHOUT. JR., M.D. 714-444.2722 INC GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS ' September 9, 1981 ' Mr. -Chris Dustin L City Planning Commission Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach , California 92663 Dear Gentlemen: ' I would like to urge you to, deny an application by the owners of the Park Lido Medical Building at 351 Hospital Road for an expansion of their facility. I feel that the parking availability ' to our patients is already inadequate and would be further com— promised by this construction process . I also feel that the traffic flow in and out of Hoag Hospital is becoming an increasing problem for our patients and that additional high rise office structures in that vicinity will only cause additional problems with that location. Thank you very much for your consideration. ' Sincerely, J e ate, M.D. JWA:bab 0 1 R!r'C�1•Ir�¢ 1" \ NENI,xy.; i 124 ' fMENU n. fIHSTow M. D. A MC61CAL CORPORATION ' THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY 351 HOSPITAL ROAD'NEWPORT 5EACH,CALIFORNIA 92ee3 TELEPHONE MR) 540.2264 ' September 10, 1981 ' City Planning Commissioner Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. , ' Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Dear Mr. Guston: ' The new owners of the Park Lido Medical Building at 351 Hospital Road, have today informed me of their intent to add a new medical office building to our present structure which will approximately double the number of square feet. They additionally plan to triple deck the parking lot. I strongly object to their plans because I feel they are not in the best interest of this city or citizens for the following reasons: . 1) ' Hoag Memorial Hospital - Presbyterian currently has a severe bed shortage and the hospital's application for adding an additional tower has been disapproved by the Health Service Agency. Further, the medical staff has been limited by a moratorium on new applications because o t is. The care and safety of my patients will both be in jeapardy during any such construction which of necessity must eliminate the 1 availability of a great deal of our existing parking spaces which are already substandard. 3) The intersection of Hospital Road and Placentia is already a dangerous crossing and any further increase in traffic in ' this area would make a costly stop light a necessity for the city. 4) I do not feel that the existing office space plus the already approved medical office building on Superior to be inadequate for ' projected growth of medical services in this immediate area. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ,' ,'%'ail rc�¢�G'- �.t��c••r ' Frederick N. Firestone,. M.D. 9 SEP 14 1981i► Ia FNF/em � '�''' -rs. !! �1;;1 > R 1- 2 5 ' JOHN W. APPLEGATE. M.D. 400 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 701 RICHARD SQUIRE JONAS, M.D. NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 FRITZ C. WESTERHOUT. JR.. M.D. 714.444.2722 INC. . GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS ti September 9, 1981 r FF !'� I "Its 9 wot ' SEP 14 19817A. ` I• . City Planning Commission " �' ' - -��• 1.1 ' Newport Beach, City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach., California 02663 Attention: Mr. Chris Gustip ' Dear Mr. Gustin: It has recently come to my attention that the new owners of ' the Park Lido Medical Building at 351 Hospital Road, Newport Beach , have planned to construct a new building of almost the same size as the existing one and to build a parking structure as well . I am vigorously opposed to the approval of these projects for the folllwing reasons . First, the lack of parking during construction time for either a parking structure or an office building would make' it extremely difficult for the patients trying to gain access to the medical buildings in the area or to Hoag Hospital or the surrounding convalescent homes. The area is already congested and there simply would be no adequate place to ' park cars without intolerable problem for the patients . Secondly, the noise and the inconvenience involving construction would make medical practice almost impossible in that area . On a longer term, I have grave concerns about the traffic impact that an additional ' large building would have on the area. The signal at Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road which is already difficult , would most certainly become intolerable and to meet even minimum safety ' standards a full signal would have to be placed at Hospital Road and Placentia.. The construction of this facility seems even more unnecessary since it is my Rnderstanding that there are two medical buildings which have already been approved to the area and that ' with their completion there certainly will be no necessity for Increased medical office space . ' It is my�ope that the Planning Commission will take these facts into consideration and' deny any application for proposed construction on this prop rt Thank you or yo r consideration: I ' Si r , ' r ' tz W s'terh t, Jr. , M.D . 126 L CURTIS L. NELSON. D. D. S. SUITE 414 331 HOSPITAL ROAD NEWPORT SEACH. CALIF. 92443 Aid Cwg 714 TvwwoSE►4►•►301 15 ,Sept. 181 I n Winburn, Sec. nning Commission Ity of Newport Beach r Sirs; Ilike to express my oposition to the construction a Medical Building by the Park Lido, Ltd. , at 351 Hospital Road. This proposed construction would te many-problems for the tenants and patients who located -in -the present building at 351 Hospital Road. Caould cause Parking, noise, andtraf£ic problems. The �1. involved is already overbuilt. am a o opNosed to any building which exceeds the basic Y Might limit or that modifies the Zoning Code for parking. �pectfu y, urt�s .+Nelson, DDS Suite 414 351 Hospital Rd. N Newport Beach, CA. o g Q4Lc VIP SOO" a� ■ ' 1--2 7 PLASTIC SURGERY MEDICAL CLINIC 1NC0RP0RATC0 HUGH H. CRAWPORD, M.D. 601 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE,SUITE 600 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 6270E JOHN O. STRONG,M.D. ' 17141 556-5224 September 9', 1981 261 HOSPITAL R0AO,SUITE 317 NEWPORT SCACN,CALIFORNIA 52660 17141 596-2724 The City Planning Commission ' Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 ' Attn: Mr. Chris Gustin Dear Mr. Gustin: ' It is my understanding that the current owners of 351 Hospital Road, otherwise known as the Park Lido Buildilig ' are planning to essentially double the size of the office' space. I am markedly concerned about this serious and major change which is proposed to this area. Traffic in this area is already quite heavy and ' difficult at times. To double the utilization in this area may make it, not only, extremely difficult for our patients but also the surrounding businesses to function properly. The contruction phase would be an extreme imposition on the current tenants of the building almost a precluding adequate rendering of services under such conditions. The noise and inconvenience, dust, dirt, and traffic impact would be cumulative to an unbearable situation. ' Sincerely yours, i �LL o sz��-o 0 N 0. STRONG, M. D/ F. A. C. S. S/eg e V� y Gy.•�6r ♦•r' 11 `S.P,�t.., .r�t.1 128 September 13, 1981 ' City of Newport Beach ' 3300 West Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Attention: Planning Department ' Re. : Use Permit 2021 Traffic, Study-Park Lidq, Ltd. ' Gentlemen: I object to additional construction in the area covered by the referenced permit. We ;elide in the area between Hughes Aircraft and the Hoe$ Hospital. Hughes has been granted a request to build. , All of this adds to are ' already overloaded parking and traffic problems. It is near impossible during business, hours to approach and enter Placentia from Flagship. Also the cars entering Flagship from the Park Lido building do fiot have clear vision from their left because of the cars parked all day on .both sides of the street, this also adds to our hazards. ' Sincerely, D Carrie glose 4243 Hilaria Way Newport Beach, Ca 92663 -; .� �,P 16 tell-'. , I ' 129 ' DENNIS R. NOVAK, M.D.. INC. �- PULMONARY Meo,e,Ne "• 361 HOSPITAL RD.. 6TE 604 G�Q� •', j� ' NEWPORT REACH, CA 92663 T7 /\ (714) 6464667 /ti September 14, 1981 ' The City Planning Commissioners Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 ATTN: Mr. Chris Gustin ' Dear Mr. Gustin: As you know, the Park Lido Medical Building has recently changed ownership and the new owners are planning to construct another high rise building adjacent to the current structure. As a practicing physician at Hoag Hospital specializing in pulmonary diseases I must object to the plans. ' I deal with chronically debilitated patients, many of whom are on continuous oxygen and require numerous medications simply to get by day by day. They have very little stamina or reserve to tolerate respiratory insults. Ongoing major construction at this facility would generate tremendous amounts of dusts and fumes and would pre-cipitate attacks of wheezing, shortness of breath and asthma in many of my patients. In fact, many patients may not continue their medical care simply for the fear of actually becoming worse by going to the ' doctor' s office. Another point, in •fact, is that a large population of my patients are unable to walk even moderate distances due to their severe lung disease. ' Some have a very difficult time simply walking from the elevator to my office. The proposed new construction would eliminate adequate con- venient parking and place a terrible strain on anyone but the healthiest of patients. Already I hear from my patients that there are not enough parking spaces for the disabled. ' Add to these problems the fact that patients will eventually be charged to park their cars and have the increased costs of the building construc- tion ultimately passed on to them. ' Add to all these problems the increased congestion in the area, which would adversely affect the surrounding medical buildings, nursing facili- ties, private residences and detract from the accessibility of medical ' care, including emergency services at Hoag Hospital directly across the street. ' 130 ' age 2 Mr. Chris Gustin September 14, 1981 ' All. the above detrimental effects would be suffered not for the benefit of the community but simply for the profit of a few business- men whose interests are not medical care, not serving the population, but developing a piece of property to its fullest to maximize their profit. We do know, and they have stated, that their plan is a short term money making investment with either a sale of the property or a forced condominiumization. Contrary to the the interests pf the present owners, the vast majority of physicians in the current P' rk Lido Building have been in practice ' and have served the community ;or many, many years. The standard of health care in Newport Beach has been exemplary. I can see no rationale for a change that would seriou¢ly and adversely affect the health care ' of the community simply for thg benefit of a few individuals. In fact, the precedent of the previous landlords- was a symbiotic relationship with the physicians. Apparently they saw no reason to milk the area for all that it was worth. Hoag Hospital is already overcrowded, frequently has waiting lists for patients who are acutely ill and need hospitalization that day and has ' a staff of physicians that outnumber the hospital beds. There is cer- tainly no need for another large office building to multiply the problems of overcrowding. In fact, if any building were to be approved, the need is not for office space it's for hospital beds. In closing, let me say that the decision to approve the building plans of the new landlords of Park Lido goes deeper than simply approving a construction project. Approval would establish the precedent that the profit motives of a• few greatly outweigh the health care needs of the entire community. I thank you for your careful consideration in maintaining the current excellent medical care at Hoag and surrounding area. ' S•ncerely, ` v ' Dennis R. Novak, M.D. DRN/lmm Ili 1:31 JOHN F. SKINNER, M. D. 341 HOSPITAL ROA O. SUITE 404 L I ti� j elf.�•' � i olPLowwrE Z•i 1r,,f' n'LT NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 AMERICAN §OAR0 Or INTERNAL NCOICINC ��i` f•%> ��V ! TELEPHONE 642.2121 ,' `�� f' `4 �`' ,r • '-r September 16, 1981 News ''$each Planning Commissioners ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Proposed Park Lido, Ltd. ' Use Permit No. 2021 Dear Commissioners: I am presently a tena.r}t in the Park Lido Building at 351 Hospital Road, and I ai} very concerned about the proposed construction of a second medical building and multi-level parking ' structure on our existing parking lot. I have no concerns abqut the new medical building itself other than the disruption to tenants during construction, but I am opposed to the building of the parking structure for two major reasons . ' First, I am told that the new owners plan to charge for the use of the parking structure, and I am certain that this will ' encourage many people to seek parking in free neighboring medical parking lots or overcrowd existing on-street parking. The result will be impaction of all lots and streets in the area with dis- ruption of many medical practices. ' Second, if the proposed parking structure were to be built, I am concerned about increased crime such as theft or molestation of employees or patients going to the structure after 5:00 .m. As you may know, Hoag Hospital has had to go to 24-hour security in their parking structure in order to prevent theft and incidents like the rape that occurred in the past. I urge you to deny the permit to build the proposed parking structure on the grounds that it would endanger the health, safety and welfare of tenants and patients, and be detrimental to the property of the neighboring office buildings and residents. How- ever, if the Planning Commission does not deny this permit, then I ' would like to suggest two important compromises that I feel should be met as a condition of granting the use permit. 1) It should be stipulated that no fee be charged' for the use of the parking struc- ture . I feel that this is of paramount importance to assure that ' tenants and patients of the Park Lido Buildings would use their own designated parking facilities and not the neighbors' free lots . 2) Provision should be made for the security of persons returning to their cars after hours. Major hours of concern are from 5 - 7 p.m. I hope you will give serious consideration to my proposals. I ' Sincerely, t 132 , INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS Intersection_ Coast Highway/Bal-boa Blvd.-Superior Ave. ( Existing Traffic Volumes Bases on Average-Daily Traffic Winter/Spring 1981) EXISTING PROPOSED EXIST. EXIST. REGIONAL COMSITTED PROJECUO o+ertnt PX.HR. V/C GROWTH PROJECT V/C Ratio PROJECT PROJECT Lines Cap. Lanes Cap. Vol. Ratio Voiwne Yolune r/o Project Volume Y/C 2a tiol Vol-z NL 2400 421 . 1754* .1754* .1754* NT 2400 265 . 1104 5 . 1125 .1120 NR 1600 N.S. 58 - - _ SL 1 1600 146 .0912 .0912 ST 313200 ' 3200 473 . 1934 15 . 1525* .1509* SR 1600 3200 708 .4425* 21 .2278 22 * EL 3200 244 .0763 3 .0771* 1 14 .0812* ET 3200 829 .2588 22 205 .32961 . 3296 ER 1600 N.S. 401 • - - WL 1600 85.. • .0431 .0531 .0531 W7 3200 4800 1329 .4153* 25 481 * ,3822 I WR 1600 N,S4 77 _ - LLOMT'IME . 1000* .1000* i i .,l000* ISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1. 1332 i T i ISTING PLUS c06BUTTED PLUS REGIONAL GROWTH M/PROPOSED INPROVEMENTS I.C.U. , ,88 72 i .:XISTING PLUS C"ITTED PLUS REGIONAL GRDWrH PLUS PROBECT I.C.U. Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 Projected plus project traffic I.C.U. with systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' Description of system improvement: 1. Add second southbound right-turn lane (others) ' 2. Add westbound through lane (others) & Hospital Road Medical Office Building DATE 8/13/81 1 JECT -_ '-A-39 FORM II ■■�/FOOL■ ■■■E■ENE■NNEENN■NNE■EEEENN■E■■■■■■■■E■■■■■■■■N■■/NNlEE■E■N■■ EENE■N■N!■/N■■■■/■■■■■■■■■/■■■Nli*/■■■■■ ■NNNN■■■■■■■NN■/■■Nf//■■■■■///■■■■N■■■■■■■■/N/ ■/■■■■■■■■N!■■■■/■//■■■■■i■■N■■■■■■■■ Miq���■!����������r����� ENSURE h�NN■ NN�NINNNM/HNN•■■p NN■�■�����������������BROWSERS so Bill ■/i■N■ON■■i■iE■■■■!■!■■N■N■E■■■■■■■■■NENN■■N!n■i■■■■N/■/■/!i//■■■//i■■■■■■■■■■Y■/N■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■ N■N//■/niq■■■/■■■/■■■■■■■/■/■■/■/■■/■H■N■■■■■/■■/■■■■//■■■■NNE■■/■■H■■■■■■■N■■■■■N■■■/■■■■■■iN//■■■■■■■■■i■■!■■■■■■■/ ///■NO■■/■/■■/■■/■■■■■■■■■ENnNE■EN■N■NtNE■■■EEEN■E■NEIODINE N■q■N/■■i■■Y■■■■■■N■■■■■■■■■■/■■■i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■ ■>r■M■N■NH■/■ni■■■■//////■■■■■■■N/■ni■■!■N■■■■■/■n■N■■■////N■/■■■/!■■■i■/■■■■//iN■■■Hn■/NY■■■q■■■■■■�■■■■■■■i n■■H■■■i■■■■■■■//■■N■■B■■■/■■■■H■■■■/■YN■■■�■■■N■/■■■■■//M■/■/■■■/■■/■n■N/YYH■H■■■■■■■■/■■■■■/■■ E■YEN■■E■■EN■■nNH■■■/N/■■■■■■■■■N■■■/ Nn■■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■■■ ■EN!■NN■■E■E■N ■E■■■!■■!■■H■■EY■EI AEI i' A, N Mai 11 ■►/i■■ IEEE 11 E■►\I AMU,7■■q■q■■■/■H■■■■!!■■■■■ nE■■■EEO■■■EEO■HnNq - ■■11 0 N TO I■M A I fN■■ I■■■ 11 ■/■ 1' Mai1/n■/■■■■■■■■■■■■■!i■■■/■ N■N■n■■■■ENiN■■//■■/■Hn■N■■/■■■■■■EHEHEEn■■EI mmdY N mmik11 AL \■■■ INE■ 11 ■■■ 1, NIE■1 1■■■/■■■■■■■■■/E■NE■ENNEEE /■■■qN■E■EE■N■EEEE/■EH■■■/■■■■■!■NHN■■■■NEHONEE■■I MEWANk y 1■N H E■.'NEE IN■■ 11 NOV �\!N'A■■■■■■■/■■■EH■■■H■■■■■■ ■■//■!■■■■■■■■■/■■■■■//NEEE■a■N■NE■■E■E■E■FEE■■E■NL// AsELLANE.JL■■►J■■___JJ!___J■■►�■■■■■■■■■■■■H■■■■■/■■■!■■ ■E■NN■N■EE■N■■E■■■EEEE/E■■■■■N■ENN■E■■■N■■■■EEENNNNNN\N■NI■■■■iN■iN■N■�■\■■INN/NN■NN■N/N■■■NN■■N■■■■■i!■N■NN ■N■■N■■■■■■■■■■E■■NN■NNE■N■N■■■N■N■■■N■■N■E■■■E■EEO ■M I .MMA ._Wr OFF A■. p' . NII ■EINN/NNNNIN■NNN■■■nNNN■■ii■N■NN NNENNN■■■NEN■E■EE■NENNYHH■E■■N■■N■■■■■N■ENE■N■EN■ ►•NI I ! NOON NIN1 ! ■ I■Nii/ I. MI ■NYiN■NNN■nN■■N■NN■HY!■NNN■ nE■■NN■E/■EEO■FEN■■■lNENE■E■■■EE■E■NE■EN■OEENNEE■ 1.V'u ■ ENN i 1 1■ENEI MIL WillNN■NEENENEN■H■tNEEa■■■NE■■n■ N■■■n■■■N■E■BEE■■NnEN■ENEN■N■■■N■■■■■■■NON■EN■E■E■■■ 1►1I1 I BOOM 1■EI 1 ! IEEE / . m 11 NNYEYNNEE■N■■■■N/■■■N■■■E■■ ENEN■■■EElON■■■■■■■FEE■■NE■■NN■■E■NE■N■NN■■■■■■■n■■■EN■■BEE IE ,NI 1 �7 '��/1 !►�••./ NN, `! ���/■■■NEENEY■E■H■■H■■E■■EN IEEE N■/■NY■NNENNN■E■■N■■■■NN■N■■■■■NN■N■■N■■NNN■N■■■■N■■■NNE■■NNN//■■■■■■■N■■qH■■■■■/■N■■■■Ni■■■■■EN/N■N■E■NN■N■■H!N■■N ■■NNNNN■E■E■NN■E■E■■E■■■EEENE■BEE■FEE■N■■N■■E■/■Ei■E■■■■■ENE■■N■/NAE\N■AMii■■■N■■■i■■■iiH■NNHNN■NNN■NNN■N■i■■■NONE Y■n■NE■N■■N■N■■■/N■W■NEENN■■■NN■■■NN■lENE■E■EENEHE �■�'1 Y I I H■I m.7 1111 .121111 /'�►'N■NN a7■■N■N■■■■N■■■n■■■N■■■■■NNE nngEE■■N■■NENEE■■HEE■EEEEE■E■NEEE■E■■■E■■NE■O■ENENN 'm'd N 1 1 S■I EI■ 1 1 1.110 / /1�■■HEiIJN/■■N■■■iN■NNNN■■!■f■■■■N■■ NE■NEON■■NNE■■■EEO■EHEHNE■■■EN■■NNN■■■■NEENEE■■EN■■ 1■1 i N 1 1 MOI NEI A I E►I \ Sky •NE►A■■N■■H■■NHN■NEH■NM■■■NNE qn■N■■NE■■EEE■■■■E!■■EN■N■■E■EN■Ni■■■■■■■■NNE■■N■■E'�:\��/A__71 �J I I■► N:W'. 1EE[ ■BEE/■■n■NEENE■■■Y■■ENE■ ggEEHEnN■NNEEEO■■EE■ENNE■nNEE■NE■N■ENNN■■N■E■■E■EN■EEEEHNEiN NEE■■NNNENNEE■E■n■E■ENE■■■NENEE■■E N■■HE■EEEEE■EHNNN EMBER EN■■■■■■■YENNE■■ENi ENENE■■YNEE■EYENYNgH■■■N!N■■NN NNE■■■■■■■HE■N■N■NnNEEEH■E■NEEEYHN■E■■NEn EE■■EENNN■NNE/■NHgH■EHNNIq■■EN■ NEq■■N■■■EBEY■ENWNq■■EEENNNNH■■NENENE!■ EENNNNE■■■NMINEN■n■■■■NN■■■EN■ ■EE■EN■NEn■EEYNn■NNEYN■E■■■■NN■■nEn■E■■E■EE■EENYlNE ■E■■NNE■■■NEE■N■■q■N■E■■N■NENNEE EENN■■EEONEE■E■■nH■■q■NNEN■■NNE■■/■EEgE■N■■ENNn■N■■■N■ENE■E■aNEN■■■■NEE■■N■■■■■■■■■■N■!■■NN■iE■H■N■■■■ Y■■n■NNE■/EEEENEE■■■■■■■■NNHN■N■■■N■■EN■NEE■n■/■NE■N■nN■nNEN■E■ENE■■■■E■■■NNE■■N■■NN■NEN■■■■■■N■iN■■N■■N 7EM I TABLE OF CONTENTS ' SECTION DATE PAGE ' Perspective 1 Site Plan 9/24,781 2 ' :Floor Plans 9/24/81 3 Parking Structure Plans 9/24/81 4 - Elevations 9/24/81 5 ' Conceptual Landscape Plan "A" 1/21/82 6 Conceptual Landscape Plan "B" 1/21/82 7 Elevations (Parking Structure) 1/21/82 8 Perspective 9 ' Conceptual Alternative Site Plan 10 ' Phase 1 Off Site Parking 9/24/81 11 Construction Phase 1 Circulation 9/24/81 12 ' Construction Phase 1 Circulation 9/24/81 13 Circulation Plan Phase 1 & 11 ' Completed 9/24/81 14 'I - �;�� I _ 'kq•tl I�kifiF� �� Tr�t�t�I.7F�� �_ •��II k- ""' �i ' � � � II��.,."±F �_� ,' '. � �'I'II �v �ra ' ��� `'�uaa .r•"s VA 14-t� NOPER AR i I��I;II �:� Ay� "-r�T�.t'. i ::r5•� �) k�I.Sap�l2/i✓" . qq� .'J i(R.4'Yi.. 1t �M.�� �p�(jl� +..-. � .r�:. I � - �.I(< 11� 11�� - .v,C�%i !�� 11- � .S -�� �.^>��` �!�I. �—Ilt^.�-�4.`:i .• 1Y`5 II I�a - - F'. -Z': `r •:�er� J '?m �.. f „ }:r ..,. ...'v .^s�•-._•YF- w ,y'+ _ K'fi`i i _ ate:., - ,�ns+��`•^'�`�R�:�: �fFA."��.+•c.r�`� T',�.'a+ir ..� � ���•...^. ..i - r.�. ^w!. 'n✓ :� o i ^1" +�`'�•'�4 . /I ••�1��� y.. 'I.�s �. __����. - � low._-..w1w' ..r.��wt•;z�_. I���; �;y�.�, i` j g ~���i 1 . 11.- �Ig I�'�i h i� p pT I ?1: ��' a�:sIrIP - -•,��!1'"' f',.,. - �5�1�� �.�--t(='.ARi��•. 1� ; Fia�� < '��I. III�� .19�E'�i i�l�I���IIY,::J .�nklk IIItIO��ulll��llt,r Illllilli I ���II :���III�'C �„ x — ,��� —— � l�y��=�� �" •�, ��►P -_ — � � -� II cu �j16 Illrl�,d r� I 1 3 I lid{� I�lll�ld c .-� <- Ili/, -v C� ti -- ���`i`�_ _�� I �i .�� '1.f' � yy,.• ir�,, I a •� - w.T,yf d'.� _ -.i/ i � �`�-� � __-. 1 ' �\���►�..� �"'-Y:f..,.a^�t��.�ylFiy���yG=���i ",7^r y, i. r �:.� j f��� ,_��-_�'*:' MEN - ��,} �v ��p:1� --� ��k' fL -=� ��������. "�=�-•�2' ��� Arm r_.I/►.jJ — - 41.. ' .. FLAGSHIP ROAD ip Qv 1 mamm 8 STORY Mmmm f HEW PAFM STRUCTURE -, _ , a PARK LIDO MEDICAL BUILDING 2 ♦ \ NEW 4 STORY BU.DNG SCALE 1-.20 IIVtM8110f1 1p SITE PLAN "°'"""" ...9/24/81m c r - r Ys i • i L �i DR:S SUITES N Q N N ' 176'-S' 3'4 29'-2' 1 2-7r iEr 29'-2' 29'-2' 29'-2' 32, 4 PENTHOUSE N _7 _ PARK LIDO MEDICAL BUILDING 2 N _ 1 � W + a DR.'S SUITES ____ DR.S SUITES a TYPICAL (2nd-3rd) GROLM SCALE 1/18' ANtMahon Ip FLOOR PLANS ' a 9/24/81m $ .� 25 COMPACT-SPACES TYpFIT! r { I 1 ' i ' II I III I PHYSICIAN PARKING EL as EL108 ON JDN N n im 4% I , � 4% � 4% NE R .YELSW U . 4.5% EL90' Upi 4.S% LIOW UP 4.5% EL110' ' NN TURN AROUND ' o 24' eo RN AROUND b UP ' - EL 80` I I 110' 105-0' 124'-0' 11 COMPACT ' 22 '-0- SPACES TYP PARKING LEVEL 1 PARKING LEVEL 2 PARKING LEVEL 3 ' / BASEMENT PARK LIDO MEDICAL BUILDING 2 DN ' PARKING STATISTICS PARKING STRUCTURE PHYSICIAN ' STANDARD 86 SPACES @ 9 x 18 i UP UP COMPACT 38 SPACES @ 7.5 x 15 NON-CONTROLLED STANDARD 312 SPACES @ 9 x 18 LEVEL 3 ' COMPACT 121 SPACES @ 7.5 x 15 ` LEVEL 2 SITE PARKING LEVEL 1 _BASEMENT PHYSICIANS 6 STAFF STANDARD 27 SPACES @ 9 x 18 HANDICAP 10 SPACES @ 12 x 18 ENTRY/EXIT EXISTING SITE GRADE ' TOTAL PARKING STANDARD 425 SPACES 76% COMPACT 121 SPACES 22% ' HANDICAP 10 SPACES 2% TOTAL SPACES 556 SCALE 1:30 REQURED SPACES 556 —� ■Nla`■■IWahon ' ISOMETRIC SCHEMATIC 9/24/81� ,4, ��w. ����I Imo■ uni�imgnuganqnm�miqum�nuyipuruu a ��iu� iiiii inn nm u!!i W!i�!!�ii pni niu mil lull !! 1!," '°"::4:::::: I::::::' I::■':::::II :•:,:::::C::::::::;; Inli INiI Nlll1(fJlllllily nIH INII Illil III{I igll II �.nm mm unm noon m 1 nuuuuwm n ELEV. TOP. 184*- IIIII 111111 111111 �::::::I ti ��::::::::::::::: : !Im ig�l nin pii� ini�inn ntti iirx iuM nm n f!, mill! PA _ + _'� _� .nmun.■.ml / ��INII�INII�IIIN�111 �2�IN�I1111�III1 1 =ls11i . n .non■nau.0 ..N ���II VIEW FROM FLAGSHIP ELEVATIONC PROPOSED BUILDING FLAGSHIP ROAD I:!� •�q -� II!ll�i�ll�,��II��i�i��1i�Ul1l�lilll�I�II�Ii�l��ll��!IIIIII liiiii i1SY.iL� '•u••nnu.r no.n' •.u... •.-O vov. +, ..+..n unm �nnn nnm nuw ..on ...v■ ..■... • u .■ t ■. aooi u.o on. o.n .um .uo ..o. •v.. . 'I!!lIIIIIIIIINIIIi11111I11II1lLIIIIr1111IAu11I11111I1u1I - ::� �::::: '::::� '� �� ��:' �-�'' ="■■' 1 . uw nui nm mu nm „m um uw uu o.� ion. .n■. �d�. _..�... �-_.. _ _ nuu mm .um •I- au.. ..n. .nm �a �� ■rlllr.■6u - r. - ■...n ..■., a...ii mil♦. � - ��1��� , LIDO RK VIEW FROM PATRICE MEDICAL ELEVATION TLl{t PROPOSED . . - . �IIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIII,111111111111��IIIIIIIIII,111111111111� 444 mn I �rl11��1�1��11�If1�1�1�11111�1�1 �� �IIIIIINII�IIN1��� �II���I�I��AI�A���I�A��II�I�NAAIww �ul�mn�m�l�r ....... ....... ,......,......• I�f1117 1�1�1��11l11��II�� !'---!• n.�.o I...a.a .�a�a�� lbo 71b VIEW FROM HOSPITA SCALE 1:20 ELEVATION A INtMahon ELEVATIONS �r��A�.��__—A_�' � aw.m-u•ua i•nviwsru .s.ra.cisuol:w. _ �!�� .e<.fas.a>a SIYv.Firlpz mtr_at..u�yu....I ice ' nc.+,%>;Y,:a.u_•.v.. t�-r...a!'n..�ul.o�A���I�1 � e��l�11_��...n..i.il lilt I i.11.ra.. -:csaz a t-•^•v.l: a i ip �4i • FLAGSHIP RD. �`e / / ' \ \ T-2 SIE3[ULM P..'Ei•Gh`O:_N. i QG2 � / • •• ' • vri �•' • • y � � \\ 24��LE'ikE: • I 4 G-211.w-Arw crr�vivc++sls 5-i TI TG24pA -"3 1 EIYALYPtt13 5 6:FILIFq1A t _ �'y � i56YJ fYO ft�wLTUY 0� \\ �� - 't 1 G-I ICLLYRhI'a WTAVW }• �I 5.a6l.NGY p D 1 � ' :� I n+ace,2oc..svrcraty rw-nFta+ 5-1 I IJ4yp,NA L ,�7rq x 1 i % ;K ---I y HEAVENLY °l Mi7 2Y � ttt tF ti• PARK LIDO tuMEDICAL �. .° % • ` ! ; a BUILDING 2 1 9° o � �p \ —" T-al Cl.TVLgHU^•I lA7.7L}cp 1 I cWtP.+oµ r,+r�. -- `\ =iLFr� Rude Nxa SCALE 1:20 Fla Ell CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN A ' � r�'.iW1a5 GROUND GWE� ...,m `•,s T-1 PN- W1ECitl•✓�.A ( YW-W FIGS Ta ars 'f?rJ5 Fi��.iti ammo Gur-� ,-UyM -rogpy r...—_... F. •eac C s-I Ins 24L ULIN- GI FFx;KPLA F+A7I,VIA ='Y.Ww;ND(" HY3RID T2 S1EaGtA/. P\'EF�IFOtV. (Boi"RcTRi..� T-1• �4i..•s+r-E FKH Aitt3 012 au sycrHN1 Ik•8X U P4 „ W`' � (�F'P}pt'fWFE� 5-2 hlWgaW CY.1•'I25TK.•. CFfvwa.ILY BViPm G4 '04ei _., , SRC 1NRV•M,`T�J'iEVCEN-6{N�RPLE-�KA.IIFY V...... G BEN..SIZE &`3a•Pc ,6 RTTc7W V �4i I ed T, FLAGSHIP RD. 4 TT1 'ri 601 t4�i�`e / at T�4r � at wruLNeu t. I Tad T Gvrn-E TREE Ty _ LIt.y.rPrL.MNfEVIDEISIs rib' I I• I N I'la I I• oc�c.'sto ari'+rM 1 �— —.5-1 -cGfz, lk9 TodM - 64L WfF£ti C.NRP I �♦ Q I I I � � ' '12 Map�oli IP'K Fl4 t _ ♦ TT - — Gr1Twlll o _ I t ii Ra'Pm I —' tz)— �FIW NEW�ENLY �rA ` 41 ' PARK LIDO T J - - W CAL MEDI a BUILDING 2 - — XsAI�'` � O " awl _ -- •r C - ♦ 4 O O � ' T 4L++UYlortu� �sJ•PLY7tA byll Q4'111�0(t-fRCE ♦ V.//� T-1�19?Y WAI9TIOGJ. $MALE 1:20 k< Mahm CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN B TFMS Grimlef 6QOlJtJD T-i nlX W10Yj1• J. (W>slYlar Fi) T-s I`1cu5111T1p♦ CMeKT°t'I P'K�y) S-1 PRR�SftMIS'I "iL'4R14 'MeaBa owwzl=' frl GWnA+i 64UNF.=•euru�uvr"rrrawD ,'V`-'� Fig1 1'tAT3 01y'L� N6GERED A1Tf4tN T2 bFncNYaftjor{ PnpI,JLHWM (foTTts TIV1) T-0• Qww•gM•1 G4•PWPh ((JYA47t'IPg) �-2 7 wLp%�s.EH��' CH6++�BJLY I3V'ICm� G2 LIh[pNA I' EV:DEIJ�6 "Ik/�IJMf IAFrt�1.U.� 7 I FIL.51$ O b'PG .5 tE1T�7 1 T-2 BRACHYCHRON POWL.NEEN e TWeb FA T- PROPOSED BUILDING t T-3 T- ,PATRICE ROAD ' VIEW FROM FLAGSHIP 9EE LANbSCAPE PLAN B FOR SHRUB AND CROUNDCOVER TYPES AND LOCATION$, PARK LIDO MEDICAL EXISTING BUILDING BUILDING 2 i ' PROPOSED BUILDING - / T- T-3 ' MUM FIG I T-2 • I i 1 FLAGSHIP ROAD ' VIEW FROM PATRICE SCALE 1:10 WE LANDSCAPE PLAN 8 FOR TREE SAES _ ApI�YtIYMa on ELEVATIONS - ''�' �u11�i!,� IIIIIIIIIIIIIII► -- Ala /i�!ri/iisr�'� ���1" 1111'lllllll'lll 'r. ''I"'�'I"'"III //- . Ili IIIII I � IIIII 'I""'III �� , /l/ /9/Or 4i.• -�—�i.................� % ,� ji i�i�% ■�.•% r/'OOi�D7/.�� '/, O/G'////i�'4u.,.'rl ,, . 1- :__► :y ��-/� � a.�/-//:_ - � �:IIIIIilllllllillllllll a�oiai�� YiuYiae/ ,n is ;- ��..,,,, `�,�iillll►.!iI I� .IIImi�.��I�l�,,a.�l��� �����IIi� . .1��hI6� Illlllli illli� 1. �`�,;:' 1�.•�Xi"1 E `��Y /'11�/�■`■■I//-/�I;l`o%bayaFa�9/x/� ��W►yY :II „ �� �- � �/!� ry r �' � � � � � II �ir,,.�,� �: ii�„ � .urll►...•. °:'r�' —�I 1 "1� �'sl. II �. f I' �',% �:�y4y .�.,:�sl��...r1.�._ ��::. /' �►. �I^ Ls��� ,./ 3f'"�• � -- _ _�.._��Ir� �-�� 94 �i FIR EMIs PRRK LIDOO MEDICAL � OO I' FIC � : Ul � DING aNIP AV 1 - lop \ 16 \ e PARK UDO 1Nx 4 - MEDICAL 1 � 1 � 1 10 1 - il 1 _PATRICE ROAD o ' CONVALESCENT 1 I I i HOSPITAL 1 C5 - ' • .1 IDO AL 1 --------- • �� '�' �j''� • I.OT#1 • • • s �� �� PRNAYFLY OWNED • • • • (.', cty 1 '----- ' `• • • ' HOAG HOSPITAL • 1 o PARK LIDO o MEDICAL BUILDING 2 VALET PARKING 1 / �rc/Ess�inc PROPEA11f TRAVEL DISTANCE(on*way) • > i i 1 LOT tt APROX. .22-mL LOT t2 APROX. .35 nil. i SLOT f2 a/ACANT CAL 1 TRANS PROPERTY \PROTY / i SCALE 1.100 hon 1 _ PHASE I OFF SITE PARKING -I 1 e 9/24/81� . 17 FLAGSHIP ROAD mn N -1 9 I -1 \ Z i yrl♦ � PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE PHASEI � r , Kam- ------------------------------------- � - 1 PARK LIDO - \ STAGING AREA ' a MEDICAL - i y :zz ��\ - ` BUILDING 2 � \\ GATEAd ac0 b/: I �••�5Q � I � sE'�s%' � c RELOCATED SEWER EASEMENT E ,o_- RELOCATE EXISTING 17 S CES OF THE CONVALESCENT HO PITAL 1 � / LEGENED 1 }` PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SCALE 1:20 \ VEHICULAR CIRCULATION —10'HIGH TEMPORARY PLYWOOD 1 CONSTRUCTION BARRIER AWMahon CONSTRUCTION PHASE I CIRCULATION ="! == 1 ~9/24/81 m 12 s _ FLAGSHIP ROAD � (PROPOSED PAR ING STRUCTURE EXISTING BLDG.1 `♦ - ! Oyu I yc, isT�- ON GATT • '.>� I I — _— � ' 1 7VV -- - - -- =I - PARK LIDO � , I j ,0'CONST. mc MEDI A t L \ " {C -.T N FENCE �\I CL BUILDING 2 1 -- -- �, / LIGHT STORAGE D IRRING PHASE It ♦ ` .Y� ,..� ` ': OyF� CONSTRUCTION 1 II •� PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 11 ♦♦ PHASE 11 1 0. `\ ♦ / I LEGENED Pr / PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SCALE 7:20 '. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION �10'HIGH TEMPORARY PLYWOOD CONSTRUCTION BARRIER MtIV1i3h0f1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE 11 CIRCULATION PLAN =Pariship 11 a 9,2.,8,E 13 _ - FLAGSHIP ROAD P RP ♦/ _ / 1 I (/-�' �/'\) /\/-'C`/,LANDSCAPED BEAM ED SWWRH �u= ♦ Yl �1 �J�J m \ V ANDSCAP �� / TM-nllllllll 1111771 rJ1 ,DIRECTION OF SHEET FLOW,— -- —fl DECORATIVE LIG p I R p0 E P fl IN S flU T R STANDARDS 70'Ii - _- I 'I I 4 I I EXISTING BLDG.1 F.F..ELEV.87.0' IT- 1 11111 IF , PARK� , � ® LIDO ' --�� I ¢ MEDICAL 1 %, s = - BUILDING 2 0% I90 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING 11 'I FLOOR—DRAINAGE_, - i ' 65,000 sq.ft. F.F.ELEVATION 87-0- EXISTING DRIVEWAY /1 SHE�ET FLOW m NEW CONC.SWALE 7` •'G//�\ SPACES FOR EXISTING LINE _ CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL TO STORM i LEGENED SCALE 1:20 PE kC DESTRIAN CIRCULATION VEHICULAR CIRCULATION --`-- ow AWMahm CIRCULATION PLAN 1 PHASE I & 11 COMPLETED 9/24/81 14