Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO076_BURGESS COMMERCIAL BLDG TP0076 COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991MINUTES IM : :n.:.js •Fib' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Jame Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the subject Amen ent is a follow-up request received for a General Plan Amendm t for the Towers Apartments on West Coast Highway in Mariner's ile. The Amendment to Section 20.62.030(B)7 of the Municipal ode has subsequently been modified to require that modifications to a building would not impact any public view,and if individual prope owners wanted to enclose balconies they could, but they could of create an additional dwelling unit within the existing dwelling u commissioner Glover suppo ed the foregoing modification on the basis there would not be an i act on the existing Specific Area Plan for Mariner's Mile. In response to a question posed b Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Towers co dominiums are the only residential units in Mariner's Mile, on that basis the Amendment would only apply to the Towers ondominiums. Commissioner Gross concurred with Commis 'oner Glover's foregoing comments. The public hcarinf; was opened in councction will) This coy and there being no one to appear before the Planning conunissi n, the public hearing was closed at this time. Notion Motion was made and voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1279, All Ayes recommending the approval of Amendment No. 747 to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. Y i i A Traffic No. 76 (Pu blic Hearin Item No.5 Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction TS No.76 of a 3,982± square foot retail commercial building; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND -12- COMMISSIONERS December 5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ff ROLL CALL B Site Plan Review No 61 (Public He Request to permit the construction of a 3,982± square foot commercial building on property located in the C-1 District in the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area,where a specific plan has not yet been adopted. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 5240 (Resubdivision No. 387), located at 3636 East Coast Highway, on the northwesterly comer of Poinsettia Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: The Burgess Co., Newport Beach OWNER: Dillon Cox, El Cajon The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bruce Arita, 858 Production Place, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" in the staff report with the exception of Condition No. 12, requiring the overhead utilities be undergrounded. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the requirement was inadvertently omitted from Site Plan Review No.42 when the application was approved by the Planning Commission at the March 19, 1987, public hearing. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Notion * Motion was made to approve Traffic Study No. 76 and Site Plan All Ayes Review No.61 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit"A". MOTION CARRIED. -13- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS December5, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Jame Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the subject Amen ent is a follow-up request received for a General Plan Amendm t for the Towers Apartments on West Coast Highway in Mariner's e. The Amendment to Section 20.62.030(B)7 of the Municipal ode has subsequently been modified to require-that modifications to a building would not impact any public view,and if individual prop e owners wanted to enclose balconies they could, but they could of create an additional dwelling unit within ,the existing dwelling u ('onunissioner Glovcr suppo ed the foregoing modification on the basis there would not be an i act on the existing Specific Area Plan for Mariner's We. In response to a question posed b Chairman Di Sano, Mr. Hewicker explained that the Towers co dominiums are the only residential units in Mariner's Mile, on that basis the Amendment would only apply to the Towers ondominiums. Commissioner Gross concurred with Commis 'oner Glover's foregoing comments. The public hearing was opened in connection Willi Ihis em, anti there being no one to appear before the Planning Cunuuiss) n, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made and voted on to adopt Resolution No. 1279, All Ayes recommending the approval of Amendment No. 747 to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. A. Traffic N (Public Hearin item No.5 Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction TS No.76 of a 3,982± square foot retail commercial building; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND -12- " r" � � • COMMISSIONERS December5, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL SPR No.61 B. Site Plan Review No 61 (Public Hearine) Approved Request to permit the construction of a 3,982± square foot commercial building on property located in the C-1 District in the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area,where a specifiic plan has not yet been adopted. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 52-40 (Resubdivision No. 387), located at 3636 East Coast Highway, on the northwesterly corner of Poinsettia Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: The Burgess Co., Newport Beach OWNER: Dillon Cox, El Cajon The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Bruce Arita, 858 Production Place, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A" in the staff report with the exception of Condition No. 12, requiring the overhead utilities be undergrounded. Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that the requirement was inadvertently omitted from Site Plan Review No.42 when the application was approved by the Planning Commission at the March 19, 1987, public hearing. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Traffic Study No. 76 and Site Plan All Ayes Review No.61 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit"A". MOn6N CARRIED. -13- COMMISSIONERS • December 5, 1991MINUTES po�•pC-,� ,° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings: Findings: 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the j California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. MITIGATION MEASURE; 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. That the plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer,with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. -14- i C•O,MMISSIONERS • • December5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH lrtu�.x ROLL CALL B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: Fin in 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. i 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major; 'primary-modified; or 'primary' street after the opening of Newport Coast Drive as listed in the traffic study. i 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on three of the four study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the fourth intersection, at the intersection of Poppy Avenue and East Coast Highway. indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90 can be obtained, with the opening of Newport Coast Drive. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, 61: Fin in 1. That development of the subject property will Inot preclude implementation of specific 6e1eral I'lan ur 'Specific Area Plan objectives and policies. 2. That the value of property is protected by preventing development in Specific Area Plan Areas characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. -15- COMMISSIONERS • December5, 1991MINUTES ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INOEx 3. That benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of the proposed development. 4. That unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the community may benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to preserve and stabilize the natural terrain, and to protect the environmental resources of the City. 5. That the site does not contain any unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. 6. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. 7. That there are no unique site characteristics or environmentally sensitive areas on-site which should be protected. 8. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 9. The development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 10. That there are no archeological or historical resources on- site. 11. That the proposed development has been designed so as to prevent any adverse effect on the adjoining residential property. 12. Thal the design of the proposed impruvemcnls will nut conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large -16- COMMISSIONERS • December 5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 13. That public improvements may be required of the applicant per Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code. 14. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 15. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review and approval of the Traffic Engineer. That the parking at the rear of the property be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the alley right-of-way and that any walls and landscaping not exceed two feet in height within 10 feet of the sidewalk adjacent to Poinsettia Avenue to provide adequate sight distance. 4. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the Public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That all vehicular access rights to East Coast Highway be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. -17- COMMISSIONERS • • December5, 1991MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 6. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning, Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 7. That the tree damaged sidewalk be reconstructed along the East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue frontages; that the unused drive aprons on East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk; and that the proposed drive approach on Poinsettia Avenue be constructed with the City's flared drive approach Standard 166-L. All work along the East Coast Highway frontage shall be completed under and encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department and the California Department of Transportation. 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. That the design of the proposed trash enclosure be approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That the site drainage be designed to flow into an on-site catch basin and into the street right-of-way through a private parkway drain. i 11. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimize6by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of' m:Ucrials within the state right-of-way. 12. That overhead utilities serving,the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. -1s- COMMISSIONERS • • December 5, 1991MINUTES .6 0�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 13. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code unless an exception permit is approved by the City. Said signs shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress to the site. 14. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from East Coast Highway, the alley and adjoining properties. 15. That one parking space for each 250 square feet of floor area shall be provided on-site, including one handicap parking space. 16. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 17. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on-site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self-parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 18. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 K of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:20 p.m.and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. • i '-19- Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 1991 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Traffic Study No 76 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a 3,982± square foot retail commercial building and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Site Plan Review No. 61 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a 3,982± square foot retail commercial building on property located in the C-1 District of the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area, where a specific plan has not yet been adopted. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 52-40 (Resubdivision No. 387),located at 3636 East Coast Highway, on the northwesterly corner of Poinsettia Avenue and East Coast Highway, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT. The Burgess Co., Newport Beach OWNER: Dillon Cox, El Cajon Application This application involves a request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a 3,982± square foot retail commercial building and the acceptance of an environmental document. Also included in this application is a request to approve a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a 3,982± square foot retail commercial building on property located in the C-1 District of the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area, where a specific plan has not yet been adopted. In accordance with Section 20.60.060 of the Municipal Code, developments in areas that are designated for Specific Area Plans for which a Specific Plan TO: Planning Commission - 2. has not been adopted, require the approval of a Site Plan Review in each case, Traffic study' procedures are set, forth in Chapter 15AO of the Municipal Code,, and Site Plan Review procedures are set forth in Section 20.01.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Environmental Significance This project has been reviewed; and a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in any significant effect on the environment,For the Planning Commission's information, staff has attached a copy of the environmental document. Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. The proposed retail commercial use is consistent with this designation. BackLyround At its meeting of March 19, 1987,the Planning Commission approved Site Plan Review No. 42, a request to construct two single story commercial buildings on the subject property. The proposal also included a modification to the Zoning Code to permit the following encroachments into the 10 foot alley setback adjacent to an alley: construction of a trash enclosure and landscaping and the retention of an existing block wall all of which encroached 10 feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setback and the construction of required off-street parking spaces which encroached 9 feet into said rear yard setback. Remediation of the soil contamination due to leakage of the underground tanks associated with the previous automobile service station on the site delayed the construction of the project, and the previous approval has subsequently expired. ,Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property was formerly occupiedby an automobile service station which has since been removed and the soil cleanup had been ongoing,since January, 1989. The soil cleanup has been completed to the satisfaction of the County of Orange Health Care Agency. As shown on the attached vicinity map, the subject property is located on the northwesterly corner of East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue. To the northeast, across a 14 foot j wide alley is a duplex;to the southeast, across Poinsettia Avenue, is the Honey Baked Ham retail store; .to the southwest, across East Coast Highway are retail stores; and to the northwest, are an automobile service station and the Corona del Mar Branch Post Office. TO: Planning Commission - 3. Analysis The applicant is proposing to construct two retail commercial buildings on the currently vacant site. The buildings will be joined by a common roof but are separated by a covered breezeway. The project characteristics are outlined in the following table. LOT AREA: 11,525 sq.ft. PERMITTED GROSS FLOOR AREA: 5,137.5 sq.ft. (0.5 x lot area) PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA: 3,982± sq.ft. (0.345 FAR) BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE: Bldg „A„ Bldg B" 1,379± sq.ft. 2,603± sq.ft. PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS: East Coast Highway setback Varies from 1 ft. Varies from 0 ft. to 10 ft. to 10 feet Poinsettia Avenue setback 79 ft. 0 ft. Alley Side Property Line 63 ft. 48 ft. Westerly Property Line 0 ft. 55 ft. Required Setbacks: 0 foot.front and side yard setbacks; 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to alley PROPOSED PARKING (1 space for each 250 sq.ft.): 16 on-site parking spaces BUILDING HEIGHT: Permitted: 32 ft. average, 37 ft. maximum Proposed: 19 ft. 6 in.± at the highest point As shown above, the project conforms with all requirements for development in the C-1 District. • . 4.- It TO: Planning Commission - 4. Off-Street Parking In accordance with the previous approval of Site Plan Review No. 42, the property was to provide 16 on-site parking spaces in conjunction with the proposed construction. The amount of construction has not changed appreciably since the approval of Site Plan Review No.42. The proposed development would require 16 parking spaces based on one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area (3,815 sq.ft. _ 250 = 15.3 or 16 spaces). Traffic Study No. 76 A Traffic Study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1992. Analyses were,therefore,completedfor 1991.The City Traffic Engineer identified four intersections which could be affected by the project at full occupancy. At the time the Traffic Study was prepared, Newport Coast Drive had not yet'opened to through traffic. Newport Coast Drive has since opened, on Friday, November 15, 1991 and is in full operation. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of the projected peak 2-1/2,hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. As indicated in the attached Traffic Study, it was determined.that for all but one of the four study, intersections, the project related traffic is expected to be less than one percent of the project A.M. and P.M.peak 2-1/2 hour traffic volumes. The intersection of Poppy Avenue and East Coast Highway did'not pass the 1%test-during the A.M.2-1/2 hour peak period on the southbound approach;therefore, an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis was performed for the A.M.peak hour. Table 3 on page 11 of the attached Traffic Study summarizes the results of the ICU analysis. As noted, the intersection would have an unacceptable ICU A.M. value of 1.00 and P.M. value of 1.07 without the opening of Newport Coast Drive and an acceptable ICU AM. value of 0.72 and P.M. value of 0.80 with the opening of Newport Coast Drive. Since three of the four identified intersections passed the 1%-test and the fourth intersection of Poppy Avenue and East Coast Highway has been mitigated to an acceptable level of service by the opening of Newport Coast Drive, no, significant increase in traffic is anticipated and this finding has been incorporated into the attached Exhibit "A". The City Traffic Engineer concurs that the intersection will be mitigated by the opening of Newport Coast Drive. ,l TO: Planning Commission - 5. ,5pPcific Standards for Development Section 20.60.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code "Specific Area Plan Areas - Site Plan Review provides procedures and standards for the evaluation of projects in Specific Area Plan (SAP) areas where the SAP has not been adopted. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.60.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the review of site plans have specificstandards of review as established in Section 20.01.070 of said Chapter and that those standards be applied when applicable. Each standard is listed below, with a brief discussion of the project as it relates to each. 1. Sites subject to Site Plan Review under the provisions of Chapter 20.01 shall be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and landscape,giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms such as coastal bluffs or other sloped areas; trees and shrubs shall not be . indiscriminately destroyed: The proposed project is located within the existing commercial strip of Corona del Mar which contains no unusual or sensitive land forms such as coastal bluffs or other slope areas nor are there any trees or shrubs on- site. 2. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City. The Corona del Mar commercial strip is developed with a mixture of office, retail and service related commercial development. Most of the development in the area is either one or two story construction. The-proposed retail commercial building is in keeping with the general character of the area. 3. Development shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views, with special consideration given to views from public parks and from roadways designated as Scenic Highways and Scenic Drives in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan: There are no view parks or roadways designated as a Scenic Highway or Drive in the vicinity of the project. 4. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. No structures or landform alteration shall be permitted in environmentally sensitive areas unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission or City Counci4 on review or appear; finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. There are no environmentally sensitive areas within the subject property. 5. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission or City Counci% on review or appeal; finds that the TO: Plan3fing Commission - 6. • L` 3` benefits outweigh the adverse impacts: The site is not located in an area of particular geologic hazard, other than the seismic hazards common to Southern California. 6. Residential development shall be permitted'in areas of subject to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL only where specific mitigation, measures will reduce noise levels in exterior areas to less than,65 CNEL and reduce noise levels in the interior of residences to 45 CNEL or less: The proposed project is commercial in nature and does not;include any residential units which:would be subject to these noise level requirements. 7. Site plan and layout of buildings,parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular, access ways, and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development: The subject property is rectangular in, shape and, is located on the corner of Poinsettia Avenue and has frontage on East Coast Highway. The vehicular access to the on-site parking area has been proposed to be from Poinsettia Avenue and the alley,to the rear alley. However, there are existing driveway aprons on East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue which have provided vehicular access to,the previous service station. The applicant intends to remove these vehicular accesses on East Coast Highway in conjunction with the proposed development as well as relocate the drive on Poinsettia Avenue. All other vehicular access to the site will be from the rear alley. 8. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable Specific Area Plan policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those policies and objectives: As discussed in the General Plan Compliance section, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. 9. Development shall be physically compatible with the development site, taking into consideration site characteristics including but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources: As indicated previously, the subject property does not have any unusual characteristics be protected, ristics or sensitive resources which must b p rotected. 10. When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash andstorage areas shall be concealed: The suggested conditions of approval include adequate provisions to insure the screening of electrical service and mechanical equipment. 11. Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible: There are no archeological or historical resources on-site. 12: Commercial development shall not have significant adverse effects on residences in an abutting residential district: As indicated previously, the .proposed project has been designed so as to minimize any adverse effect on the surrounding residential property by locating the proposed building so as to be a visual screen and a sound buffer to the existing duplex located on the property to the northeast. i1 a TO: Planning Commission - 7. The Newport Beach Municipal Code also provides that if all of the applicable standards noted above are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the development. Further, that conditions may be applied when the development does not comply with the applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Traffic Study No. 76, Site Plan Review No. 61 and accept the related environmental document, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Inasmuch as the project is in full conformance with the provisions of the General Plan and the C-1 District, staff has not included an exhibit for denial. However, the possibility remains that information may be provided at the public hearing which may provide adequate basis for denial of the project should the Planning Commission wish to take such an action. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Javier S. Gareft Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated March 19, 1987 Traffic Study Negative Declaration Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations and Landscape Plans TO: Planning Commission - 8. EXf iIBIT °A' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 76 'SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 61 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A, ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following,findings:, , Finding 1. That based upon the information contained in the•Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified, by mitigation measures 'identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore,the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. MIT[GAT'ION MEASURE• 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall .demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light .spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. That the plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer,with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. B. TRAFFIC STUDY: Approve the Traffic Study, making the findings listed below: Findings; 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which.analyzes the impact of the proposed TO: Planning Commission - 9. project on the,peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major; 'primary-modified; or 'primary' street after the opening of Newport Coast Drive as listed in the traffic study. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will not be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on three of the four study intersections and that the ICU analysis for the fourth intersection, at the intersection of Poppy Avenue and East Coast Highway. indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90 can be obtained, with the opening of Newport Coast Drive. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO, 61: Findings-, 1. That development of the subject property will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan or Specific Area Plan objectives and policies. 2. That the value of property is protected by preventing development in Specific Area Plan Areas characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. 3. That benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of the proposed development. 4. That unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the community may benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to preserve and stabilize the natural terrain, and to protect the environmental resources of the City. 5. That the site does not contain any unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. 6. That the development is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and will contribute to the orderly and harmonious development of surrounding properties and the City. TO: Planning Commission - 10. 7. That there are no unique site characteristics or environmentally sensitive areas on- site which should be protected. 8. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 9. The development is consistent with the Land•Use Element of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 10. That there are no archeological or historical resources on-site. 11. That the proposed development has been designed so as to prevent any adverse effect on the adjoining residential property. 12. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 13. That public improvements may be required of the applicant per Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code. 14. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located. 15. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review and approval of the Traffic Engineer. That the parking at the rear of the property be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the alley right-of-way and that any walls and landscaping not exceed two feet in height within.10 feet of the sidewalk adjacent to Poinsettia Avenue to provide adequate sight distance. TO: Pla•g Commission -.11. 4. That a standard agreement and accompanying surety be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the Public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That all vehicular access rights to East Coast Highway be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 6. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning, Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 7. That the tree damaged sidewalk be reconstructed along the East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue frontages; that the unused drive aprons on East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk; and that the proposed drive approach on Poinsettia Avenue be constructed with the City's flared drive approach Standard 166-L. All work along the East Coast Highway frontage shall be completed under and encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department and the California Department of Transportation. 8. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 9. That the design of the proposed trash enclosure be approved by the Public Works Department. 10. That the site drainage be designed to flow into an on-site catch basin and into the street right-of-way through a private parkway drain. 11. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the state right-of-way. 12. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code. 13. That all signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code unless an exception permit is approved by the City. Said signs shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress to the site. 14. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from East Coast Highway, the alley and adjoining properties. 15. That one parking space for each 250 square feet of floor area shall be provided on- site, including one handicap parking space. TO: Planning Commission - 12. • t` L 16. That all,employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 17. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on-site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self-parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 18. That this Site Plan Review shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in.Section20.01.070 K of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. /• R° y tICINITY OAP DIN , R iP T? Pt( rp •S• �. / ��. \^ •�P R., � .A hl2 0.` � Pao 92 +a y u c ° Ra/ o tall `•� '�^J C/ TEA ^/ ;�4 �/ 1�1 pti S to G w 100 9•T�71 — DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA E�' Ad AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL L'ILTIPLE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LIGHT CONIATRCIAL DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C—S GENERAL COMMERCIAL RCST'a MILTIPLE WAILY RESIDENTIAL U-1 j NANUFACTURINO ORD No C1G ET COMBINING DISTRICTS I � UNCLSSIFIED DAG Pa,1900 NAP NQ an+h In F¢n��Sho���n Thv�'•}'Ia� It a-KA_Q kr ic. 5T"o Y A/o . 7 r /3, GOMM'ISSIONERS "MINUTES March 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX eighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to p rty or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the eral welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall in substantial conformance with the approve lot plan and elevations. 2. That the applicant shall obtain a building pe t Site Plan Review No. 42 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to permit the construction of a one story SPR No.42 commercial building on property located in the C-1 District. The proposal also includes a modification to Approved the Zoning Code so as to allow the following encroach- ments into the 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley: construction of a trash enclosure and landscap- ing and the retention of an existing block wall all of which encroach 10 feet into the requited 10 foot rear yard setback and the construction of required off- street parking spaces which encroach 9 feet into said rear yard area. The proposal also includes the accept- ance of an environmental document. LOCATION: Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map 52-40 '(Resubdivision No. 387) , located at 3636 wa on the northwesterly East Coast Highway, Y corner of East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: C-1 APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita Architects, Newport Beach OWNER: Dillon R. Coxf E1 Cajon Chairman Person referred to the typographical error in Condition No. 17, Site Plan Review No. 41, and requested that the error be amended. -3- COMMISSIONERS •� • MINUTES o o�;�yGy°o March 19, 1987 mGy�ym 99� ,o yF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Susan Mutter appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicants. Ms. Mutter stated that the applicants concur with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion x Motion was made to approve Site Plan Review No. 42 and All Ayes related environmental document, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", including amended Condition No. 17. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: 1. That an Initial Study and Negative Declara- tion have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State CEQA Guidelines, and Council Policy K-3. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 3. That the project will not have any signifi- cant environmental impact. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 42: FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Adequate off-street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed development. 3. The proposed development is a high-quality pro- posal and will not adversely affect the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties within the area. 4. The proposed development does not adversely affect' the public benefits derived from the expenditures -4- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES, March 19, 1987 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX of public funds for improvement and beautification of street and public facilities within the area. 5. The proposed development will not preclude the attainment of the Specific Area Plan objectives stated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 6. The proposed development promotes the maintenance of superior site location characteristics ad- joining major thoroughfares of City-wide impor- tance. 7. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 8. That the establishment, maintenance of operation, or the use of the property or building 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 neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modi- fication to allow the encroachment of a wall, landscaping, a trash enclosure, and parking into the required rear yard setback is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the block wall at the rear property line shall not exceed three, feet in height within 10 feet of the sidewalk adjacent to Poinsettia Avenue. 3. That all improvements be constructed as requited by Ordinance and the PUblic''Works Department. 4. That a Standard Agreement and accompanying Surety, be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory -5' 'COMMISSIONERS MINUTES March 19, 1987 �y0 t� � G Oqn mG•i�9s,9y9! .o Z� 99° °yf9ZCyS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 6. That all vehicular access rights to East Coast Highway be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 7. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning, Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. Said landscape plan shall include landscape planters or pots in front of the proposed building adjacent to East Coast Highway. 8. The landscaping shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 9. That the tree damaged sidewalk be reconstructed along the East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue frontages; that the unused drive aprons on East Coast Highway be removed and replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk and that an access ramp be constructed per City Standard 181-L at the corner of Poinsettia Avenue and East Coast Highway. All work on the East Coast Highway frontage shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department and California Depart- ment of Transportation. 10. That applicable County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 11. That the proposed trash enclosure be redesigned so that the access gates do not open out onto the alley. The design shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 12. That the light system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licensed Elec- trical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer -6- COMMISSIONERS I MItUTE A,A March 19, 1987 `9mPpP��°A�yF myyo�y?�qo tyro CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 13. That the applicant shall comply with all County of Orange Health Department and City of Newport Beach Fire Department standards and regulations regard- ing the removal and disposal of the existing automobile service stationis storage tanks for petroleum products, by-products, or residues. 14. That one parking space per 290 sq.ft. of floor area shall be provided on-site, including two handicapped parking spaces. 15. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. 16. That all signs shall conform with Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 17. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Site Plan Review or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Site Plan Review, upon the determination that the operation which is the subject of this Site Plan Review causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 18. This Site Plan Review shall expire unless exer- cised within 29 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.01.070 J of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Item No.3 Reques , o permit the establishment of a restau- UP3258 rant/outdoo . staurant facility with on-sale beer and wine, on proper ocated in Office Site "B" of the Approved Koll Center Newport P ed Community. LOCATION: Parcel No. 5 of cel Map 181-13 (Resubdivision No. 73 ocated at 5000 Birch Street, on the south erly side of Birch Street, between VonZ rman Avenue and Jamboree Road, in the K Center Newport Planned Community. -7- Rock E. Miller & Associates ' Traffic & Transportation Engineers + .r d� I ft1 / �:'I'•'I:';y "114F Y.i { l l a 7'✓Y,rlJi''Gapl,7i4,;nl1,iy- :s,5 w..,y . -'y�i-L' i 1'vvl •l':I'.!Ii Y15. f'X '• W C 'lI1L �'�q':ir\" YTM11 'C:•Ifs.' dl.l Ylfa,;.liiilil 1' ICi• 1yI� �',. �N1�I� • ,�}•.� �;.j:'•y�.,.dL'�:t:l: ,' �'9�!`Pi,gn '� , ftr',1 r�.t�ji(�;W` .�t, .'i:�ES�r� '. 1 ; 1:4.r , � ,,f"h•'..,,���'+;��{ •:r:� . [ ';-i���� �'i' '.iwl(•: , ..•"Fi!'r'.r .. • . . 'P., ? � r' +pv. ,�.I!:"'' ���:`^7`i .a.' A'': • , ��.::._.t:. ,;[.,{,.' i :.: :!:. ii+lti :. :d.11 I�a.'vyn I,, h,ti' l,i�� �'p�`I ,,u r: r}i•, ... v- ...n' �. •�11 .!,�d[:! r 1''Ipl)�I� Iv,:;5yjl11NI:•.; � IL,F;:IN! s7,�'v.i.H October 31, 1991- Mr. John H. Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport.Beach Subject: Traffic ' Phasing' Ordinance :,:Studg ,flr': • a•I • poinsettia Developm ent at . Pacific'. Coast Hi hwa and;:,;, {L• ;:,;' Avenue s . !'•:' ' ,i:.1 ,. $il '}{,It :1� i;:.,� ;iV•l}} y I � I:I IIIII:.:3• ;�•.l;. i i;.,:i:i,�.^•�14 ,,1;.1,1",,{ Dear Mr. Douglas: ; `''•with'>.'your-.k- authorization' Rock.' ~E:,I;;;;;Miller,;,:' andl'! ,:•)'iiw'I"?+')) ; accordance' f o osed;:a i I ;;•�'^,. In m Teted; ;;'subject r'study' ; or Associates... has:'-.,cop . 's;'the> , t...,.;.;,.'; r' e port I" re or r,:, coAuperciaT: development;:in'r;the.::;Cityas(ofN yp. ;Beaal . ,y,,;{a.The;: p, ,,;�,;.,ff,.�,y,;i Traffic;hd';"' received:• from•• the., was,..revised.':according; ao;::the',tcomments.: ;I;.; ;;,ala.,•;,r%; „,ir:zwi.. •;f:•, 'tf:',r„,:14•:I' at-.thee City -,' 1�•,`y i ;i: Engineering' staff. •,;', •dr:i;h: ,i� :rr;.,•. ,;: ,:;;�y,; +.:;;. .I' ri.''`. '' ! i...,.I, ,:.Ij;!r ;S„: .:(,:•;' ,:;`Ci�;r,"'I:r,, ' estions;,,;;..::j [Y !;,Po' if;;;you;{Have, an 4ur. ; Ip'ar,,l, ra- Please'.contact:; aie. as• noon;.;as,;, „'It`,has; 1 i'.jr` about the report, or; if you';`peed; add tional' iiiforination:'::r.. . :I'>ti-:, a' the Cit of 'Newport; ;l,, i',,• t been: a re are;,a.this�;report„ for:, t:' ,,u:!1h.i: :iy"{'i':,,.9 'i;,i;:•: .,'tli:.;.i: ip ' pleasure.to;;p p, ; , .: ' ,, i. rea.�dl:l ii, 5i'��;t. '; 'o�.11i:I�:�ala;"�6;, ,•.i!'- .i§'I;,', y;,C[k. A.,d4 kf�,f.?•� '$�1 i1�.!' . bu„I ..l'•IJ.;II''411{'i,F.1 Beach. , _ %::•.'' ;• w'r.r••.i vor.• ." w�•.4�I„�•t!}'�uJ�In.,tt•:illif7. .i!'.•5'��i:{`' „�1• '.1'.i "•' ;,,::Lipiiyl{'��'. .!i I, J„. ',:4` 11[ �i'•�Ij :,1�.:6y.e�.p,1;11�`�':f.l.i!r';l:i I "y Li?n;'.' •��''I.i Y:;''` .,;,.i•�I'i.'.] .,4:1�' u't,�n Yy,I'•�F,!.'�i +Ii':\gJ f� •?`rYi',IA�PHI. i�.'' •�'-''LI,'' .lii•'. . •Ii'' yYi .�I�tl;,,t4 ri' ;;... ,i. �."i' '+;,•,{I[,�Pi,; •,I=. I '6�'dr�'•.Y.ii"I:I ,i' ,•,. :.. .•i ,' .' "r '"'i,lf•,1ri.''cio'I'+5.1••11,'Y'd.'j':',il'd dF1'71;'�iglfu;,.;.I:LGiJ,?4�r,["�.;i-� '�" f:n'P�' :^r�: `'`', ,.it•�r'�w�l y!',i5:n,,,•; Sincerely;' : . rx•'A7 �} ;s. •; •%I:!,;,.d, i•'.'. L;ii h,?t /Lp motif/ ��( •i'' Rock E. Miller, P.E. " Principal Pchpoint.stu\91048 gin'• 17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 707. Tustin,CA 92680 TEL C714)573 0317 ,FAX(714)573-9534 x. .i .. r ' I Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study for a commercial Development at Pacific Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue in the City of Newport Beach Prepared for City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92390 (714) 644-3344 l Prepared by Rock E. Miller and Associates 1785 2 East 17th Street, #107 'Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-0317 0 1 J 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS - 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 LOCATION MAP 3 SITE PLAN " 4 TRIP GENERATION 4 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 8 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AT POPPY AVENUE 10 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS 12 MITIGATION 12 SITE ANALYSIS 13 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Newport Beach has received an application from a private developer to construct a 3,982 square foot Commercial Development project in the Corona Del Mar neighborhood of Newport Beach. The project would be located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway, and Poinsettia Avenue. Pacific Coast Highway will form the south boundary for the proposed project, however there will be no direct access to this roadway. All site entry will be from Poinsettia Avenue. All exiting traffic will be onto an alley which runs north of and parallel to• Pacific Coast Highway. The site plan includes 16 parking stalls. Of these 5 stalls are located off the entry aisle, while 11 stalls are proposed as 90-degree parking using the existing alley as a parking aisle. The land for the proposed site is currently vacant. A gas station existed on the site preViously, but this use was discontinued over one year ago. The project is expected to be occupied by two or- more retail business shops, similar to the uses in the vicinity. The location of the proposed project and the local and regional circulation system are shown in Figure 1. A site plan for the project is shown on Figure 2. 1 ' 2�. 0D Jl � rr oQ 0 \t CeQs!yyy hoc Jet k th S Ave JQ' Cao° acJo � o rr cJ°' a a° Ave z .a y� tic Qo 2 .J Qo ' Project Site Pacific Ocean FIGURE ":`•'d�., �RiEM Vicinity Map 1 ; Rock E. Millar & A33060t05 : ........ ee nn.nr LEGAL DESCRIPTION - PY 052-40 PAR /Tract 323. a, shown on a Yap recorded in Book 14. Pages 40 oaddl of _ mbn9oneoue WoDs. records of O901190 County- C�ilomto. mepting the Dar0on. It any. indud,d in the Slols Highway. y ZONING C-1 i 3 LOT AREA (f X \\O f 11,525 Spuwe:Feel •--- lj) BUILDABLE AREA .�,.� �___ • -� - 10.275 Square Fact BLDG. $O.FT. ALLOWED • 5.137.5 square Feet (.S FAR ■Buidoble) O BLDG.SO FT PROPOSED ' . I AR!'AM a Neo B: ¢603 Sit rl Are* A: 1,374 Sq fl • TOTAL BuUNG SQUARE FET. 3.9112 SO FT SETBACKS REQUIRED • i Front, 0' -Roar. 10' Side: 0' SETBACKS•PROPOSED FIML V Rear. 0' Side: 0' .'. u...., jmGt rJWT,ALLOWED "' e.n •' ,32'fat MmOSR/37 feel modmam HEIGHT LMT PROPOSED • 17 feel,av rcga/ 19 tat maximum .PARKING SITE PLAN REVIEW NUMBER St to stalls RequYodl is Stan, provided - 3636 EAST COAST HIGHWAY -Cox Family Trust Corona dal Mar. California FIGURE c� PLAN�'I TL' �J - Rock E. Miller k Associates ei;- T TRIP GENERATION ics for typically occurring land uses Trip generation characterist are normally based on rates published in the Traffic Generation Manual, Fourth Edition, published by the Institute of Transpor- tation Engineers (ITE) . This manual indicates the probable traffic generation rates for various land uses based upon studies of existing developments a list ofrable generation lngs. The rates forCuse in tr Of affic Beach has p These rates are slightly different than studies within the City. the ITE rates, and are based in part upon studies of existing ist developments in Newport Beach. The h Cbestl d scribesity includes th a rate e prop sed General Retail, the category w project. Table 1 summarizes the traffic generation rates utilized for the project and presents the forecasted weekday traffic, plus the peak AM and PM one-hour and two-and-one-half-hour traffic levels to be generated by the project. TRIP DISTRIBUTION is the process of identifying the probable Trip distribution destinations, trafficct on potential interaction hbetw en the proposed by project employment oppor- land use and surrounding residential areas, tunities, services, and regional access routes are considered to istribute. identify the routes where the project traffic will d The anticipated trip making characteristics for the project are presented on Figure 3 . This figure is based upon an overall traffic distribution of 65% north along Pacific Coast Highway to the freeway System and various commercial and %etoo retail epresidential to the west, 25% south along Coast Highway, uses north of the project, and 5% to residential uses to the south. Figure 4 indicates forecasts of additional vehicular traffic on roadways in the study area for the peak weekday 2 1/2 hour study periods in the morning and in the evening. 4 Table 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Land Use General Retail Site Area, 3 ,982 square feet Total Unit of Measure Per KSF Trips Week day traffic 45.0 179 Generation Rate For Peak 2 1/2 Hour i 1.2 5 AM Peak In 1.0 4 AM Peak Out 2.2 9 AM Peak Total 3.8 16 PM Peak In 4.0 16 PH Peak Out 7 .8 32 PM' Peak Total For Peak one-Hour 0.6 2 AM Peak In 0.5 2 AM Peak Out 1.1 4 AM Peak Total 1.9 8 PM Peak In 2.0 8 PM Peak Out 3.9 16 PM Peak Total Notes: KSF = 1.,000 Square Feet 5 ,a m J P� o° Aocjfc � CEO sfH /ry •r h� North „ Pao i g o • c° ao cJ ms J yh o�a�` ?Sa, O e� "75X Sy ?SX h 2 LEGEND r o07. = Project—Related Q� trip distribution f FIGURE Traffic Distribution3 Rock E. MBler & Associaiea . __ .. a7• ppp`�c o° c�sr H wy \y 7 h North I o JbC o� P o° �c Boa � P � 'ham o'hp yrg 0 LEGEND r 00/00 = AM/PM Project— Q° Related Traffic Volumes r (0/0) = AM/PM Project— Related Traffic Volumes for Peak One—Hour -Traffic Assignment FIGURE Iff/R E A 2 112 Ito ur 4 Rock E. Miler k Associates AM & PM Peak Hour TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The traffic impact for the proposed project is evaluated by determining the percentage of traffic increase attributed to the project on roadways and intersections in the vicinity. If the proposed project will cause a 1$ increase ch to ane peak intersectiondwhere half hour traffic volume on any app traffic conditions are considered significant, then that intersection must be studied in depth to identify any need for mitigation. The one percent test above iropriate based upon intersections S t the appropriate including traffic redictions of future levels a considerations of existing traffic levels, regional traffic growth, traffic diverted onto new highway facilities, and traffic expected ch have not been fully constructed or from committed projects whi occupied. Existing traffic volumes at all sby the City. The sections are maintained and published annually by City also maintains a list of committed projects and a list of traffic growth factors for all significant arterial streets in the City. These were furnished to Rock E. Miller and Associates for this study. The one-percent test was applied to the following intersections, in consultation with the City regarding the potential area of impact for the project. The intersections studied are: Pacific Coast Highway at MacArthur Boulevard Pacific Coast Highway at Goldenrod Avenue Pacific Coast Highway at Marguerite Avenue Pacific Coast Highway at Poppy Avenue Future traffic conditions for these intersections were forecast for one year after the anticipated opening three years into the future, of the project. The resultant future traffic volumes for each intersection were compared with the forecasted level of traffic associated with the project shown on Figure 4. At those locations where the ratio of project traffic to forecasted future traffic is less than one- percent, the proposed project will not have a significant effect upon the intersection, and further analysis will not be necessary. Table 2 summarizes the most relevant one-percent forecasts for each of the intersections, and indicates that the proposed project will ocations not have a 1% impact at any of he 1completede forms xcept at forPacific Coast Highway and Poppy evaluation of the one percent test at all locations appear in the report appendix. 8 , Table 2 ONE PERCENT TEST Most Significant Approaches It of IDeak Approach 2 1/2 Ftour RVolumeect S c� i' and Time Va ume r plume ficant intersection Pacific Coast Hwy at: MacArthur B1 Southbound AM 20 2 No We: tbound PM 38 10 No Goldenrod Ave Eastbound AM 27 4 No38 10 No Westbound PM 25 4 No Marguerite Ave Eastbound AM Westbound PM 3i 10 yes Poppy Ave Southbound AM 73 1 No Westbound AM 6 g No Southbound PM 42 4 No Westbound PM Notes.: Pro7ggreateratham 1 of Pebe ak 21cant if 1/2 hour volume ect volume is t 9 ,�G. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AT POPPY AVENUE INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Pacific Coast Highway at Poppy Avenue is the only location where traffic increases of 1% or more are forecasted. An -Intersection Utilization (ICU) analysis was performed for the location, Capacity e for existing and future traffic volumes. The ICU measures the ratio between existing traffic and traffic capacity for a given set of traffic volumes and intersection geometry. The ICU allows for the determination - of the Level of Service (LOS) at the -inter- section. Lev_el of Service is a follows:report card scale evaluating performance, approximated A 0.00-0. 60 Excellent, Light Traffic B 0.60-0.70 Good, Light to Moderate Traffic C 0.70-0.80 Moderate Traffic with Insignificant Delay D 0.80-0.90 Heavy Traffic with Significant Delay E 0.90-1.00 Severe Congestion and Delay F 1.0 and Up Failed, Indicated Levels Cannot Be Handled Level of Service D is the customary maximum allowable "standard" Level of Service during peak hours at intersections. The City of Newport Beach has adopted this standard. Mitigation measures are considered for traffic at poorer levels. The existing traffic conditions are already near or over the 0.90 capacity level at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue. The addition of committed project traffic and future he ICUe 1.00 in the regional growth would result in teve Mi o 4 tion for this morning and 1.07 in the evening peak hoursroyal of the project location would not be required prior to app according to the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Mitigation is only required where traffic from the proposed project will increase an ICU condition from below to above 0.90 by 0.01 or more or above the future conditions with regional growth plus committed projects. An alternate highway route is currently being built to the east of the project area, Newport Coast Drive. Newport Coast Drive, formerly named Pelican Hill Road, will travel in a northwesterly direction toward Bonita Canyon Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. According to traffic modeling studies prepared by the City of Newport Beach, this i by oveent will approxim t ly 29%uce the in the peak (direction ic along Pacific Coast Highway by pp during peak hours. Table 3 summarizes the ICU calculations using the reduced traffic volumes due to the opening of and diversion of traffic to Newport Coast Drive. The forecasted ICU'S drops to 0.72 and 0.80 respectively for the AM and PM peak hours. The addition of project traffic for this scenario shows no significant increase to the intersection capacity utilization levels. 10 .3/, Table 3 INTERSECTIO14 CAPACITY UTILIZATION For Pacific Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue With and Without Newport Coast Drive Without Newport Coast Drive Future without Future with I-nter secti°n Existinc Proiect _ Proiect, - r Pacific Coast Hwy at Poppy Avenue 0.85 1.00 1.00 PM Peak Hour M Peak Hour 0.92 1.07 1.07 P With Newport Coast Dril ve Future without Future with Ex st ng Proiect Interim 1on — —� Pacific Coast Hwy at Poppy Avenue 0.85 0.72 0.72 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 0.92 0.80 0.80 " 11 j�C . MITIGATION Mitigation Measures. will not be required to remedy project related traffic impacts, because the proposed project will . not have a significant impact upon any intersections in the study area. SITE ANALYSIS This site analysis is based upon the tentative site plan furnished to Rock E. Miller and Associates and a field review of the site. No significant problems or flaws were noted in the site plan, as proposed. Due to the small size of the site, the site"circulation system is somewhat unusual, including parallel parking from a driveway aisle and head-in parking of an existing alley north of the project site. parallel parking is normally not preferred in parking lots, due to 1) inefficient use of space; 2) difficulty in maneuvering to park; and 3) exposure of vehicle sides to damage from other vehicles backing out. Since, no head_in parking is proposed in the area of the aisle where parallel parking is to occur, vehicle damage is not a factor. The site area is so small that inefficient usage of aisles is probably unavailable. Since, onthree of the 16 stalls the are proposed for parallel parking, proposed ls are justifiable. The aisle shown on the site plan in this area is proposed at eleven feet wide. A width of twelve feet is normally required for this condition. A handicapped stall and another stall are proposed in the project center aisle. These two stalls are oriented in an unusual manner, but they provide adequate area for ingress and egress from the central aisle, based upon the one-way traffic flow proposed. These stalls would be difficult to utilize if the aisle allowed two-way traffic. Thirteen stalls are proposed to take access from the alley adjacent .to the site. Use of the alley results in a parking aisle of adequate width and standard configuration. A normal concern with this configuration relates to the ability for motorists backing into the aisle to observe other traffic in the alley. Inspection of the site indicated that vision is not limited or obscured for vehicles approaching from the east or the west. Vehicles backing into the alley will have adequate vision of approaching vehicles in the alley. 12 svruMAxY p. commercial development i:: being proposed on the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Poinsettia Avenue in the City of Newport Beach.. The: proposed development will generate 179; new vehicle trips per day,. including 9, in the morning two-and-one-half hour peak, and 32 in. the evening two-and'-one-half peak. These trips will result in traffic increases on streets in the project vicinity'.. An analysis of this proposed development was performed, consistent with the procedures and guidelines of the Newport Beach Traffic sed Phasing ordinance. That analysis determined impact upon that hany ofothe Project will not have. a significant (l ) P e City except Pacific critical arterial intersections within th Coast Highway at Poppyv Conditions at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue are currently on `.:he verge of becoming unacceptable, and considerable future trafJ_ic growth is expected in the is nearly area. A is portion of Pacific Coast Highway completedute and will llbe pen to traffic by 1992. Resultant decreases in traffic along Pacific Coast Highway will produce improved and acceptable •conditions at the intersection of Coast Highway and poppy Street. Based upon the complet+on of Newport Coast Drive bypass to MacArthur, the proposed project will not have a significant impact upon any intersections in the City where traffic conditions are currently significant. 13 Appendix: - Peak 2 1/2 Hour Worksheets ICU Worksheets la Traffic iolume Analysis 'Intersection Coj'. ' H=GHWAy/MACARTHUR B� 1991 .AM (Exiitingi Traffic Volumes base � on verage� inter pang, Approved 1� of Projected Project Peak 2k Hou+ Protects Projected Peak 26 Hour Existing Regional Peak 2$Hour Volume Approach Growth, Peak 2�s Hour Peat Hour volume Direction i Peak 2k Hour volume Volume- s olume Volume 1 0 0 0 0 Northbound _0_ 0 2 j , � 286 1:99' 1'979' 2 0' Southbound 1494 I 27 2 b44 , 143 266,1: Eastbound t 2374 3 westbound 5565 341 639 ' 6'S45 65 i Project Traffic is esti;nated to be less than 1% of Projecte © Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Peokect Tra Hour ic is Traffic Vc; atea tlntersection Capacity 4Utilizati jected ' Q (LC.U..� Analysis is rEquired. i DATE: 1 ' PROJECT: Burgess Commercial Building Project FORM I 36. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes base on verage Wlnter pring 19 91 PM Peak 24 Hour Approved Projected 1% of'Projected, Project Regional Projects Peak 2h Hour I Peak 2h Hour Approach Existing Growth Peak 2R Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Direction Peak 2;1 Hour Volume Volume Volume i volume 0 0 0 Northbound _0— 0 0 661 453 4577 46 5 southbound 3463 45 5 Eastbound 3981 244 i 294 4519 ! Westbound 3210 196 4 379 3785 38 10 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 2 2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected iD Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. i DATE: 10/30/91 PROJECT: Burgess Commercial Building FORM I J 7, lA Traffic 'r:iume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/GOLDENROD AV 19 _ (Existing, Traffic Volumes base on ,rage Winter pring i Project _Peak 2h Hour APD ec Projected of Projected Peek 2h Hour I Existing i Regional Projects Peak Zh Hour r j Peak lumeour I Volume APDroacn Growth Peek 2h Hour volume Direction 1 Peak 2^ Hour 't volume volume Volume 0 p 311 3 Northbound ! 311 0 0 i 219 2 0 Southbound j 219 O i I 2665 i 27 4 t34 1 240 I Eastbound 2284 3 Westbound 5696 ? 9 . 669 6719 67 I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2-. Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffected ic is estimated to be greater than 1% 9�tpjgiation Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity (I.C.U.) Analysis is recUired'. i I DATE: 1 ? m e1c+4/ %e f FORM I f PROJECT: /,Jac/'f �AWMA 3a 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/GOLDENROD AV 14 (Existing Traffic Volumes baseO on AvuvdYU Winter pring 19 _ Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected low of Projected i Project ! Existing Regional Projects Peak volume Hour I Approach Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak lu Hour Peak lueour Volume i Direction Peak Volume Hour Volume Volume Volume � Volume 288 3 0 Northbound 288 0 0 0 I 0 0 237 2 Southbound 237 ; 702 6434 j 64 -10 330 j Eastbound 5402 '• i 3808 38 10 Westbound 3244 199 I ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ® Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected > Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 DATE- 10/3 0/9�__,_____ PROJ ECT• gl tr?eSS cp nt erc i a-j !'ro;ec f FOR14 1 -3 I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MARGUERITE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring' 9 _ 1 14 Peak Zh Hour Approved Project Approach Existing , Regional - Projects Projected 1%Peak Projected I Penk 2�y Hour Pent iy�aur Direction Penk 2y Hour I Growth Peak kolumeHour Peak Hour volume i i Volume IIVol ume 0 549 I 5 i 0 i Northbound 549 0 > 0 p 503 5 j 0 ! Southbound 503 ! Eastbound 132 i 238 2536• 25 i 4 2166 i 3 Westbound 5295 324 6.65 6284 63. Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak ?h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 � } I DATE: 10/30/91 I PROJECT: &t1e.5.5 C°�r1mUt;� / /�«f FORM 1 Y41. I, 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/MARGUERITE AV (Existing Traffic Volumes basea on Averaya W1, ter pring 1991 PM ` Peak 21, Hour Approved Ii of Projected Project �I Regional Projects Projected �11 Approach Existing I Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak Zy Hour P�4olume Hour Direction Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume , I i Northbound 666 I 0 0 666 7 0 0 0 973 10 0 South bound 973 � ! I 58 I 10 Eastbound 4849 i 297 , 686 5832 i t Westbound 33 09 203 353 3865 39 10 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 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: 10/30/91 PROJECT: � p1Ss GominplGi2� lib;of FOR14 I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/POPPY AV (Existing Traffic Volumes Dasea on jivclaje Inter pring 19 9 AM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing I Regional Protects Projected lR of Protected Project g 9 Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Pea Pea�o�kHour ,.• Volume Yoluae ; ume Volume Volume I 0 Northbound 141 0 0 141 1 l Southbound 130 0 0 130 Eastbound I 2139 132 i 241 2512 25 ' 0 i � �i Westbound 6207 380 669 ' 7256 73 1 i Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [fix Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. A DATE: 10/31 /91 PROJECT: G'u���s Cnmi»eiG / f�i�cf FORM I yz -raf' Volume Analysis Intersection 0)aST HIGHWAY/POPPY AV (Existing Traffic Volumes bass on verage inter pring 9 91 PM ' Peak 21, Hot r Approved 1� of Projected' Project Regional Projects Projected Peak 2y Hour Approach Existing Peak I Hour APP i 6rowch Peak volume Hour Peek Volume Hour Yotume Volume Direction Pea-fc 2�t `our volume , Yolua�e Volwne volume i 3 0 i i 0 268 i Northbound 26,8 I 0 i 606 6 4 0 0 i Southbound 606 0 Eastbound 4900 300 i 744 5944 j 59 R ' 44 403 _ 42 4 I westbound 3533 E 217 4153 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ® Peak 23-. Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% -of Projected El Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. GATE. ---- PROJECT: ��t1 j� (y, nefGi�a�� /Im FORM I y3 CH680DAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 8 POPPY AVENUE 6aOO ING 1991,AM EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER---- - (EXISTING PROPOSED E)USTtHGIEXISTiNG IREGRR�HL IcGWJECT I V/C Ratio lvotuae I Ratio I _ ----------------- - - - .. PROJECTED PROJECT PROJECT IMovementl Loves I Lanes I PK OR I WC I ' I Iw o Pr I Icapacitylcapaeleyi Volune i Ratio i Voltme I vo`a I `Votum I I I II f - - - - - ----------------- Ih --------------- ------- ___WL___.______.i_ 1 19 1 o 1 0 1 1 0 1 I _ _ I --- --) 1600 • -____— B o.o3l 0 f 0 1; 0.03 I 0 1 .0 - - - ----- -----................I I MR I 1 1 23 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 _ _ _ ---...--•-I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0 r . __________________) . I - ST -) 160o I I a o.03 * p l o f 0.03* l 0 ...03* ... I i ---............................ - - -- ..._. I I -SR- ) I I s 1 0 1 0 1 l o l I ____________________________•------------•---- ----------- ----- ---1 I E�--�- 1� I ( t1 I o.01 * 0 1 0 1 0.01* 1 0 10.01*'l ----- -- --- - ---- •------------•------------------- -•---- I -.ET -^. - 1 1 853 1 53 1 120/0 10.33 I 0 10.33 1 _ __ -------------------------- ----I 3200 > 0.27 I 0 I . I - ER I 1 17 0 1 _ ---------------I o I I I --W�_-� -1600 I I 19 I 0.01 I 0 1 0 10.01 1 , 0 10.01 ------------------------------------------------ - ---1 IWr - - �- 1 2267 1 138 1 339/ 1 0.68*---�---1 10.68* 1 320DI--------- ) 0.B1 *-------------• ---------- • 1 I 31B I 19 1 0/-1001 1 0 -------UR 1 I -------------•------- --- -------- - ------ IEXISTING -.--------•------------- - --------•1 --•-•--•--•--•---••-•-•--- 1 EXIST REG GROWTH COMMITTED N/PROPOS-- IMPROVEMENTS I.C.II. ............!__..__.____..__I I i______________ I 0.721 (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U-------------------------------------- ___ _______________________________________ 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 III 14 Projected + project traffic I_C_U. w/systems iaQrovw$ent will be • less than or equal to 0.90 I—I Projected * project traffic t.C.U. with project iaprovements will be-less than I.C.U. without project _ ---_ •_ ____ _____ ___ ____ d i CO3S� tEiW7§561 Cyn Rd------------------"-- ConstrllcE�oTr o� Newpo (a) Description of system improvement:ICM to MaCArthur Ell. represented by minus (—) trips. '/ / FORM It PROJECT /�K/�CSS G ayJilJp^Glrtl / •��'��• !�inlecf: CH6800AM �y- CH6800PM INTERSECTION CAP•C1:' iTIL12ATI0N ANALYSIS ' INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 8 PO�t: AVENUE 6a00 1991 PM EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVIRAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 17 IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTIHGI--XISTINGIREGGR�HLICOMMJE� I V/CRe io lyolltme iPROJ CCT IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR { Ratio 1 y I ICapacitylCapacityl volum. 1 Ratio 1 volume I Volume Iw/o Prolectl 1 1 1 I 1 { 1 1 (a) I volume I 1 1 - - - --------------------------------------------- ►----------------i 1 is i p l p I 0 1 i ------------------------------- ------- ---- I- NT --3 160o I 1 95 0.09 1 0 i 0 1 0509 1 0 10.091 t ------------------------=------------------ ---I __7 1 0 1 I -NR 7 1 1 97 1 0 1 0 i 1 -___.._____________ ____________________________________________1 ►----------------i - - 362 I , 1 I 10 1 I 1 0 -- -1.-- ------------------I sT--) 1600 i-- - -- --- 7 - ------ --- *1 5 oat * p I p 1 0.1 6* 1 0 0.16 1 I SR -7 I 3 I o 1 o--- ----------- ------ - I ---EL --1 ------ I a ( . o.01 1 p I p 1 0.01 1 0 10.01 ------------------S-1Nr --------- -------------- ---i 1 - NR -- I -- - 2,113 1129 1 -700 1-0:61* 1 O---IO_61*i I .---- - ----- ; --- 197 0.67 '--'O---I 0 -NR- 7 3200 i --- --_-- i 0 I j --- --I------- I c9 1 0.03 * 3 1 p 1 0.03*- 1. 0 b.03* I WIL I---NR-----------I------- •1352 183 203/010.52....I 2 10.52 I ---- ----- -------- - 3 )-------'> 3200 ---------� 36 1 1 p I ( WR 1 ---------- 0 1 0.92 (EXISTING 1 I--- _ IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 p.80 1 1 (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED _____________1 ___________________ 10.801 IEXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONIL GROWTH- _ + PROJECT I.C.U. __-________- _---_ _ I-1 Projected + project traffic: I_C-W- will be less than or equal to 0.90 I-I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 pf1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less then or equal to O.LO II.C.U. with project improvements will -I projected + project traffic be-less than I.C.U. without PProjact fTCT _______________________ _______ ---- - rt Coast Drive)BoFuta Cyn -- - Construction of NEwpo minus (-) trips. (a) Description of system imQrova�+wnt: pCy to pfaCArthUr B1. repreSented > r fORN I! PROJECT Burgess Colmtercial Building Project CH68COPH CIT?OF NEWPORT BEACiP FILED 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 NOV 15 1991 GARY 2LGPMANVIIL E,County Clerk NEGATIVE DECLARATION gy 'DEPUTY To: Office of Planning and Research Frons City of Newport Beach ❑ 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department Sacramento,CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 91659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange xX Public Services Division ---- - P.O.Box838 Date received for filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 The review period will close on: l p.f 5 Lv NameofProject: Burgess Commercial Building Project lOCat10n: 3636 East Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar (Newport Beach ) , California Project Description: Construction of a one-W story building for retail commercial uses in Corona Del Mar Commercial District. The proposed building contains approximately 3,995 square feet. 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: Please see attached analysis checklist. Initial Study Prepared By: Aziz M. Aslami ( Associate Planner ) and is available for review at: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport.Beach, CA i Signature: Title:Pricipal Planner Date: o n H. Douglas y4 . , . + re EIV , CEECKI'M FORTS I, Background 1. Name of Proponent p�A + Architects Inc. 858 Production place 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent Newport eac , 3. Date Checklist Submitted September 16,1991 City of Newport Beach 4. Agency Requiring Checklist ss Commercial Building 5. Name of Proposal, if appl icable Burge II. Euvironsental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1 Earth. Will the proposal result in: a, unstable earth conditions or in changes in X geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or _ overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface x relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification X of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of — X Soils, either on or Off the site? f, anndss, or changesges in deposition siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or _ any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? - 1 - Y7. co CO MU Ma ba Two j , 2. Air. Will the proposal-result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ X b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement,, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, X either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either v marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of X surface runoff? _ C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? p d. Change in the amount of surface water X in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, v dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? _ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal , waves? X i i 2 - I t CO es mnibbe ILoo 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity 'of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including- trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare X or endangered species of plants? — c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? — L S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- X fish, beuthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, v rare or endangered species of animals? —/� C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- Y tion or movement of animals? — — d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife V habitat? Ilk habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new x light or glare? — 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 3 - I'M Yes Mayle ILo 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate 'df' use of any natural v resources? — +1 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? — — b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation x plan? — — 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? — D 13. Transportation/Circulation. 'Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional X vehicular movement? — — b. Effects on existing parking facilities? or X demand for new parking? — C. Substantial impact upon existing trans- portation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? —!(� e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?— !� f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? — 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: - 4 - �v, Yes Mgybe No a. Fire protection? . — b. Police protection? — C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including X roads? — — f. other governmental services? — 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development v of new sources of energy? 16. Utilites. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? C. Water? `= d. Sewer or septic tanks? — e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? I 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in? . a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health heazard (excluding mental health)? — b. Exposure of people to potential health �l hazards? 5 - y�, Ce Yes HaAe oo 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista'or view .open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? — l� 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? -- — b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect y unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? — 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,' substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? — 6 _ 5y Yes a he II° ,t b. Does the project-have the'potential 'to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long=term, " - ` environmental goals? (A••short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on X the environment is significant.) _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects v on human beings, either directly or indirectly?_ III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) I IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that although the proposed project could have a signif- icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 t�oy. 14 , ���►I �3,'4f Date Signature C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For - 7 - C , ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Burgess Commercial Building Site Plan Review No. 61 jec+ Description The proposed site is located on the northwest comer of East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Ave in Corona Del Mar Commercial District (see Exhibit A). To the north of the property, across from an alley is residential duplexes. To the east,across from Poinsettia Ave. is a retail store; to the west is a Shell Automobile Service station; and to the south across East Coast Highway and south of the subject project are retail services. This parcel was occupied by an Arco.Service Station which demolished in 1987.The proposed project will involve construction of a one story commercial building that contains 3,990 square feet of retail space. The subject parcel is approximately 0.26 acre in size and currently remains undeveloped. Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed projeces environmental Impacts. 1. Earth The site will be altered to accommodate the proposed on-site improvement. The construction activities associated with the foundation of the project will result in little soil disruption or overcovering and may require excavation and compaction or soil displacement. Compliance with the City Excavation and grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140)would reduce the impacts to insignificant level. 2. Air During the course of construction some dust and objectionable odor from diesel exhaust and asphalt paving,may be created. However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by The City and Air Quality Management District regulations. Odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project. Therefore, the effect is insignificant. J r/ CO 3. Water The proposed development would result in a minor incremental increase in runoff. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code. The project is located outside flood hazard area Therefore, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 4. Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. 5. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. 6. Noise Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction time may be short due to the small scope of the project and. hours of operation are regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Ordinance(NBMC Chapter 10.28). The proposed site is surrounded by general retail and service commercial and residential uses. Other noise sensitive land uses are not located adjacent to the proposed project. Noise effects are not significant and shall be alleviated upon the completion of the project 7. Light and Glare If exterior lighting is required, the proposed project could produce light and glare that could adversely affect the residential duplexes located to the north across from the site. The following mitigation would ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that direct rays are confined to the site to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure #1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Sl. I �• co Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage.and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The.plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 8. Land Use The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial by the City's General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning designation,(C-1), permits light service commercial uses on the property. Although the site's Land Use category will not be altered and the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan provisions, a Use Permit will be required prior to commencement of construction. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and Coastal Permit is not required. 9. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. 10. Risk of Upset Since the site has undergone major demolition, soil cleanup, and removal of all underground gasoline storage tanks and other petroleum by-product material, there is no risk of any foreseeable hazard due to upset. The site has soil clearance from the County of Orange. 11. Population The proposed project would not cause any growth or reduction in the area's population. 12. Housing No additional housing demand would result from the project since minor employment increase is anticipated. 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parking Presently the subject parcel is vacant. Additional vehicular 5i<• c • �. • movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development. A traffic study has been conducted to evaluate the proposed project with respect to the Civs Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements. The traffic study for this project indicates that 179 new vehicle trips per day would be generated by the proposed retail development. The anticipated additional trips generated by the proposed development was tested for (one) 1% traffic increase to those intersections where traffic congestions are considered significant. The results are analyzed and determined that proposed development will not have a significant impact upon any of the critical intersections within the City except the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway at Poppy Ave. Traffic conditions at Pacific Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue are currently functioning at poor levels of service. Although the proposed project affects traffic congestion at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue, with the completion of Newport Coast Drive bypass to MacArthur much of the traffic would be diverted and traffic congestion would be improved and reduced to a level of insignificance. The existing on-site parking facilities will be affected as a result of the proposed development and use. The proposed retail building contains 3,995 sq.ft. and one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area is required. Therefore the retail building requires 16 parking spaces( 3,995 / 250 sq.ft = 15.98 or 16 parking spaces). The proposed development plan indicates that a total of 16 on-site parking spaces are provided therefore, the project would not have any adverse affect. 14. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create additional demand for these services. 15. Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. 16. Utilities and Service Systems The site has already been served by the utility System and no significant alteration or expansion of existing utility system is anticipated. S�. 17. Human Health The proposed project would not utilize hazardous materials on the site. All underground gasoline storage tanks have been removed and the site has undergone soil clean-up process therefore, no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. 18. Aesthetics " The project is located in a commercial district and by compliance with the provisions contained in the City's Zoning Code regarding the project's design, signs, landscaping and other aesthetic features of the site the effects shall be reduced to insignificant level. 19. Recreation The quality and quantity of recreational activities will not be impacted by the project. 20. Cultural Resources The parcel has been developed previously and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site. There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic structures. Mandato[y Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to,si nificantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings thin would be caused by the proposed project. y-3. r MITIGATION: ANTTORING AND REPORTD -&GRAM Burgess Commercial Building Negative Declaration No. SPR No. 61. I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. Il. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design,which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. F:\...\aziza\eir\MM-COVER. ATTACHMENT 1 MI IGAMON MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Burgess Commercial Building(SPR No.61) Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method of Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification Condition.of Approval Plan check Prior to the Issuance Of Planning department plan 1. Prior to the issuance of any building any building parnit checker permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the fight source and to minimize light spillage aad glare to - the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer,with a letter from the engineer stating that in his opinion,this requirement has been satisfied. F.\...\aziza\Burgess Comm.Bldg.\MM TABLE 1 i i •, 4 • • } __ _ _ 0\,a J` 4 North S!h AIe J2 Q� �m C J� oa ec °S! Aye o� •c Qo 2 a Q° Project Site Pacific Ocean Vicinity Map EXHIBIT "A" co 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 g/A + Architects Inc. for $jte Plan Review No 61 and Traffic Studv No. 76 on property located at 3636E Coast Highm Request to permit the construction of a one (I StOIV buildine for retail commercial uses in the Commercial District of Corona Del bla*.The proposed retJ budding would cnntam annroximatel� 3.995 square feet of development and on site improvement. 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. The Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. 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 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 5ft day of December 199I at the hour of 7-30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Norma Glover, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. �z CITY OF NEWPORYBEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box1768 DEC 101991 Ne"ort Beach,CA 92659.1768 (3ARY L. ,� VILL- ounty CIO* NOTICE OF DETERMINATION �r PUiY To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department ❑ 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P. .Box 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange (Orange County) Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Subject: Piling of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: BURGESS COMMERCIAL CENTER (SITE PLAN REVIEW # 61) State Clearinghouse Number. Lead Agency Contact Persom Telephone No.: N/A Aziz Aslami (Associate Planner) 714 t 644-3225 Project Location: 3636 East Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar(Newport Beach) ,California Construction-of a one •(1) story building for retail commercial ProjectDescrlption: uses that contains 3995 square.feet of floor area. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved th6 above described project on - • 12-5-1991 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project (Date) L The project❑will ® will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures El were❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations❑was ®was not adopted for this project. S. Findings® were❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The final EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment of the City of Newport Beach,3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768;714/644-3225 1 12-5-1991 Principal Planner Signal re l ' Date Title John H. Dbuglas (AICP) Rcviud 11.91 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: P/A + Arcbitects 858 Production Pl. Newport Beach, CA 92663 B. Project Descriptiont Construction of a one (1) story building for retail commercial uses that contains 3995 square feet of floor area. C. Project Location: 3636 East Coast Highway, Corona Del mar, California D. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the project's potential for adverse environmental impact, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained-in Section 7535(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Tllereftluare, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CC[?- E. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined iri Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. S CP Date o H. Douglas, onmental C dinator City of Newport Beach F:\wP51\PLANNING\AVZ-A\n1R\DFG-MC M. e r ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F ��;N�pEQORq BEp 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 NOV 15 1991 e NNOF NEW g2 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 GARY L,GRMV1LLE county Clerk 1g VAEGATIVE DECLARATION To: �Q� � � t eof Planning-and Research From: City of Newport Beach ❑ 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department Sacramento,CA 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 County Clerk,County of Orange xx Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 The review period will close on: Name of Project: Burgess Commercial Building Project Location: 3636 East Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar (Newport Beach ) , California Project Description: Construction of a one' (1) story 'building for retail commercial uses in Corona Del Mar Commercial District. The proposed building contains approximately 3,995 square feet. 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: Please see attached analysis checklist. Initial Study Prepared By: Aziz M. Aslami ( Associate Planner ) and is available for reviewaft: 3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach, CA Signature: `� d 4Title:Pricipal Planner Date: J n H. Douglas ' . • gM MNMENTAL CMCKLIST FORK Z. Background 1. Name of Proponent p�A + Architects Inc. g58' Production Place 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent Newpor Beac A 3. Date Checklist Submitted September 16,1991 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Newport Beach Commercial Building 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Burgess II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. unstable earth conditions or in changes in X geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or — overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface X relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification �[ of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of X Soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ - 1 - Yes MUbe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration X of ambient air quality? — b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, X either locally or regionally? — 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of v surface runoff? !—• C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water X in any water body? — — e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, v dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ —^ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an V aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? — i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal v waves? 2 - Yes ffee No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare X or endangered species of plants? — C. Introduction of now species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ L` 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- X fish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, X rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migra- tion or movement of animals? — d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife v habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new X light or glare? — — 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? _ - - 3 - Yes Maybe No 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural " resources? — ?� 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or V — upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation X plan? — 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional X vehicular movement? — b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or v demand for new parking? !� — C. Substantial impact upon existing trans- y� portation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? — £. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, v bicyclists, or pedestrians? — 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental services in any of the following areas: - 4 - • � I Yes a'b� �34 a. Fire protection? — b. Police protection? — C. Schools? — d. Parks or other recreational facilities? — X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including X roads? — f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — x b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development v of new sources of energy? 16. Utilites. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems; or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? — X b. Communications systems? — C. Water? — d, Sewer or septic tanks? L a. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? — 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in? . a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health heazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? — — - 5 - Yes Ngybe No 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista'or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? — 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? — b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? — C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect y unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses with the potential impact area? — — 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? — 6 - Yes ffUbe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the V future.) — \ C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on V the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects v on human beings, either directly or indirectly?_ X III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that although the proposed project could have a signif- icant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. (� , Nov, 14 Date Signature C\PLT\EIRLIST.FRM For ai�1u - 7 - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Burgess Commercial Building Site Plan Review No. 61 Project Description The proposed site is located on the northwest corner of East Coast Highway and Poinsettia Ave in Corona Del Mar Commercial District (see Exhibit A). To the north of the property, across from an alley is residential duplexes. To the east,across from Poinsettia Ave. is a retail store; to the west is a Shell Automobile Service station; and to the south across East Coast Highway and south of the subject project are retail services. This parcel was occupied by an Arco. Service Station which demolished in 1987.The proposed project will involve construction of a one story commercial building that contains 3,990 square feet of retail space. The subject parcel is approximately 0.26 acre in size and currently remains undeveloped. Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. 1. Earth The site will be altered to accommodate the proposed on-site improvement. The construction activities associated with the foundation of the project will result in little soil disruption or overcovering and may require excavation and compaction or soil displacement. Compliance with the City Excavation and grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140)would reduce the impacts to insignificant level. 2. Air During the course of construction some dust and objectionable odor from diesel exhaust and asphalt paving may be created. However, dust will be minimized as a result of site watering required by The City and Air Quality Management District regulations. Odor effects shall be eliminated upon the completion of the project. Therefore, the effect is insignificant. III 3. Water The proposed development would result in a minor incremental increase in runoff. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code. The project is located outside flood hazard area. Therefore, no significant impacts would be anticipated. 4. Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. 5. Animal Life The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. 6. Noise Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities. Construction time may be short due to the small scope of the project and hours of operation are regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Ordinance(NBMC Chapter 10.28). The proposed site is surrounded by general retail and service commercial and residential uses. Other noise sensitive land uses are not located' adjacent to the proposed project. Noise effects are not significant and shall be alleviated upon the completion of the project. 7. Light and Glare If exterior lighting is required, the proposed project could produce light and glare that could adversely affect the residential duplexes located to the north across from the site. The following mitigation would ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that direct rays are confined to the site to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure #1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The•plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 8. Land Use The site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial by the City's General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning designation,(C-1), permits light service commercial uses on the property. Although the site's Land Use category will not be altered and the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan provisions, a Use Permit will be required prior to commencement of construction. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and Coastal Permit is not required. 9. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. 10. Risk of Upset Since the site has undergone major demolition, soil clean-up, and removal of all underground gasoline storage tanks and other petroleum by-product material, there is no risk of any foreseeable hazard due to upset. The site has soil clearance from the County of Orange. 11. Population The proposed project would not cause any growth or reduction in the area's population. 12. Housing No additional housing demand would result from the project since minor employment increase is anticipated. 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parking Presently the subject parcel is vacant. Additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development. A traffic study has been conducted to evaluate the proposed project with respect to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requirements. The traffic study for this project indicates that 179 new vehicle trips per day would be generated by the proposed retail development. The anticipated additional trips generated by the proposed development was tested for (one) 1% traffic increase to those intersections where traffic congestions are considered significant. The results are analyzed and determined that proposed development will not have a significant impact upon any of the critical intersections within the City except the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway at Poppy Ave. Traffic conditions at Pacific Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue are currently functioning at poor levels of service. Although the proposed project affects traffic congestion at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Poppy Avenue, with the completion of Newport Coast Drive bypass to MacArthur much of the traffic would be diverted and traffic congestion would be improved and reduced to a level of insignificance. The existing on-site parking facilities will be affected as a result of the proposed development and use. The proposed retail building contains 3,995 sq.ft. and one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area is required. Therefore the retail building requires 16 parking spaces( 3,995 / 250 sq.ft = 15.98 or 16 parking spaces). The proposed development plan indicates that a total of 16 on-site parking spaces are provided therefore, the project would not have any adverse affect. 14. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create additional demand for these services. 15. Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. 16. Utilities and Service Systems The site has already been served by the utility System and no significant alteration or expansion of existing utility system is anticipated. 17. Human Health The proposed project would not utilize hazardous materials on the site. All underground gasoline storage tanks have been removed and the site has undergone soil clean-up process therefore, no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. 18. Aesthetics The project is located in a commercial district and by compliance with the provisions contained in the City's Zoning Code regarding the project's design, signs, landscaping and other aesthetic features of the site the effects shall be reduced to insignificant level. 19. Recreation The quality and quantity of recreational activities will not be impacted by the project. 20. Cultural Resources The parcel has been developed previously and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site. There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic structures. Mandates Findings of Significance 1. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 3. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. MITIGATI09ONI717ORING AND REPORMSPROGRAM Burgess Commercial Building Negative Declaration No. SPR No. 61. I. OVERVIEW This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. H. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be,placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards, or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. F.\...\aziza\eir\MM-COVER ATTACUMEW 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Burgess Commercial Building(SPR No.61) Mitigation Measure Implementing Action M e t h o d o f Thum' g of Verification Responsible Person Verification 1. Prior to the issuance of any building Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of Planning department plan permit the applicant shall any building permit checker demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and • maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer,with a letter from the engineer stating that in his opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. R\...\aziza\Burgess Comm.Bldg.\MM-TABLE • 1 ,a m� o� s P p ° 0 Coos � ``e pve �, �e� North Srh q ve e P e oa ,eCJ c�°aQecJ oS' 2�a q�e 00 .,a O� ee Co o,C Q 2 a Q° Project Site Pacific Ocean Vicinity Map EXHIBIT "A" 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 PEA + Architects Inc. for Site Plan Review No. 61 and Traffic Study No. 76 on property located at 3636 E. Coast Highway. Request to permit the construction of a one (1) story building for retail commercial uses in the Commercial District of Corona Del Mar. The proposed retail building would contain approximately 3,995 square feet of development and on site improvement. 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. The Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. 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 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 5th day of December 1991, at the hour of 7-30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Norma Glover, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. �aEW PORT e� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 191987 U e. P.O. BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 GAA U C lark cq<rFoaN`P NEGATIVE DECLARATION�yO/V tpun TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: Planning Department Q1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ® County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Burgess Retail Commercial Building--Site Plan Review No. 42 PROJECT LOCATION: 3636 East Pacific Coast Highway, Corona del Mar (Newport Beach) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a one (1) story, 3,995 sq.ft. commercial building on property located in the C-1 District of Corona del Mar, previously occupied by an Arco automobile service station. 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. ) ,Si1_ t. t MITIGATION MEASURES: EG 3 f0tAP ECEI inm;Please see the attached sheets. OLPertnrnt R2'71987, nITY riF 1 INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: CALIF• The City of Newport Beach 6+ INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport—Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator DATE: March 9, 1987 MAR 91987 GARY L. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach By UTY APPENDIX I ' ENVIRONMENTAL CNECFLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent Pulaski and Arita Architects 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 877 Production Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 650-3920 3. Date of Checklist Submission March 9. 1987 4. Agency Requiring Checklist The City of Newport Beard S.. Name of Proposal, if applicable Burgess Retail Commercial Building-- Site Plan Review No. 42 II. Environmental Impacts • (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? x b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? ' x c. Change in topography or ground ' surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modi- 'fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any• increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X•• f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 73 y YES MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earth— quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Z. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteri— oration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates•, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? I. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct addi— tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 74 5 J YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any 'species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? �L c. Introduction of new species of ani— mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ / _ 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 75 YF.S MAYRF NO 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? .10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? ,✓ 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Rousing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? �- 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _V d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of "people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? �L f. Increase in traffic hazardous to notor vehicles , bicyclists or pedestrians? j 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have .an �L effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered Aovernmental services in any of the foliowi.ng areas : / 76 PPE-2A:24 • • YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? b. . Police protection? c: Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, ' including roads? f. Other governmental services?• 15. Inargy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or _ energy? b. .Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of now sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or *natural gas? b, Communications systems? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? a. Storm water drainage? %/_ f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? / b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result -in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 8 77 > : • YES VAYBE ND 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will ton proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the• project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self—sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal'community, reduce the Aumber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—term, environmental goals? (A short—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long— term impacts will -endure well into the future.) c. Does the project -have impacts which , are 'individually limited, but cumu— latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. P.etermination (to be completed by the Lead Agency) 78 • On the basis of this initial evaluation: Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could .have a significant effect on the environments there will not be a significant-effect in this case because the mitigation measures -described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q I find the proposed project MAY have a significant -effect' on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. March 9, 1987 Date Signature For The City of Newport Beach II (Note: This is only a suggested fora. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) /D 79 Burgess Retail Commercial Building-- Site Plan Review No. 42 2b. The proposal may result in the creation of objectionable odors during the course of construction due to the construction mate- rials and methods. such effects shall be eliminated upon com- pletion of the project and are, therefore insignificant. 6a. Implementation of the proposal shall result• in temporary in- creases in existing noise levels during the course of con- struction. They shall be alleviated upon completion, and no significant effects are anticipated. 7. The proposed project may produce new light and glare, yet the effects shall not significantly effect neighboring residences upon compliance with mitigation measures incorporated into the project. 10. The proposal may involve a risk of the release of hazardous substances (including oil produces) during the redevelopment process in the event of an accident or upset conditions. The former site improvements included storage tanks for oil by-products in its, operation as an automobile service station and these will have to be removed. However, upon compliance with mitigation measures, these effects shall be rendered insignifi- cant. 13b. The proposed project shall create a demand for new parking. While parking spaces shall be located on-site, the proposal, as such, may create demand for parking on East Pacific Coast Highway and/or in other nearby off-site parking areas. However, this effect shall be reduced to a level of insignificance upon compli- ance with mitigation measures. 17b. Implementation of the proposal may result in the exposure of people to a potential health hazard should there be a release ;of- hazardous substances (including oil products) uses in the op- erations of the previous site improvement (an automobile service station) in the event of an accident or upset conditions. However, upon compliance with mitigation measures, these effects shall be rendered insignificant. EIR Mitigation Measures 1. 7. That the light system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a Licenses Electrical Engineer; with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. 2, 10,17. That the applicant shall meet and comply with all County of Orange Health Department and City of Newport Beach Fire Department standards and regulations regarding the removal and disposal of automobile service station oil products storage tanks. 3. 13b. That the number of parking spaces required by the off-street parking requirements of the City of Newport Beach (as provided by the Municipal Code, Title 20, Chapter 20.30) be provided on-site. 4. 13b. That all employees shall park their vehicles on-site. EIR r O�SEW POD' — - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 °gt�Foa��r PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 October 1, 1991 Rock E. Miller & Associates 17852 E. 17th St. Suite 107 Tustin, CA 92680 Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study for 3636 E. Coast Hwy. in Newport Beach ,ti TPO-076) Dear Mr. Miller: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation regarding your proposal for traffic study of Burgess Commercial Building at the northwest comer of E. Coast Hwy and Poinsettia Ave. in Newport Beach. At your convenience please contact Mr. Edmonton, the City's Traffic Engineer,at(714) 644-3344 for traffic data on the intersections that will be impacted as a result of the proposed development. Should you have any other question regarding the proposed project, please contact me at (714) 644-3225. Very truly yours, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By N-tN .5��- Aziz M. Aslami Associate planner 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach aoRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U2 P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 aK C'9C/FO RN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 September 26, 1991 Bruce Arita P/A + Architect Inc. 858 Production Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 - Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Stud v for 3636 East Coast Hwv. Site Plan Review #61 Dear Mr. Arita: Enclosed please find a copy of a proposal submitted by Rock E. Miller & Associate regarding Traffic Engineering Services required for traffic phasing analysis for the proposed development at the northwest corner of East Coast Hwy and Poinsettia Ave. The proposal contains an outline of the required work, schedule of time, and estimated fee required for preparation of the task. The requested Traffic Consultant fee has been reviewed by the City and are considered appropriate and warranted. The fees are as follows: Consultant Fees $ 2,900 City Fees (10%) $ 290 Total Request: $ 3,190 Please submit a check in the amount of $ 3,190 payable to the City of Newport Beach. Your prompt response in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. FIEWICKER, Director By Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed September 16. 1991 General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: P/A+ Architects, Inc. 858 Pmrinrl-inn T zr NeUnOrt Pearl - CA 996161 2. Address of project: 3636E Coast Highway Assessor's Block and Lot Number: 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concern- ing this project: grain- Arita 631 6200 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: Site Plan Review No 61 - 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: N/ 6. Existing zoning district: rl 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed) : Tzpi-Rii cnmrrercial a,,;i i ng Project Description 8. Site size. 11,525 sq. ft. 9. Square footage. 3,995 sq. ft. 10. Number of floors of construction. One Story 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 16 spaces 12. Attach plans. Yes 13. Proposed scheduling. N/A 14. Associated project. N/A 15. Anticipated incremental development. N/A 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. N/A - 1 - �w 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facili- ties. Neighborhood or city oriented; 3,995 sq. ft. 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. N/A 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly whey the application is required. N/A Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). Yes No 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, _ .X or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential _ X areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of _ project. 24. Significant amounts' of solid waste or litter. _ X, 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. X 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or _ X quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in _ X the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. X 29. Use of disposal of potentially, hazardous materials, such as _ X toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, _ X fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, _ X oil, natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. _ X - 2 - Environmental Setting 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing struc- tures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. See Attachnent 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land •use (residential, commercial, etc.) , intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.) . Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. See Attacbrwnt Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evalua- tion to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and informa- tion presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date nature For C\PLT\EIRFORM 3 - MMnMNK9rTAL CHECKLIST FORK I. Background 1. Name of Proponent PL + ,6R.C1417EGT$ INC . 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 858 PRODUCTION PLACE ReWPOILT SG&CN I CA g2(d63 ("I14) (o31 — -7154 3. Date Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist CITY of fop-WFW2T $EACH 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable $UR.GIESS ReTaIL COMMERCIAL 6uILDINq II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in X geologic substructures? _ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or X overcovering of the soil? — — C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? -- d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of X Soils, either on or off the site? _ — f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or X any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ y, - 1 - P/A+ architects, inc. Attachment # 33 Subject property is presently vacant, level parcel which was formerly the site of an ARCO service station. The site has undergone extensive soil clean-up by ARCO and has obtained County of Orange clearance regarding the soil condition. There are no permanent structures or significant vegetation on the site. Attachment #34 To the northeast of the subject property, across a 14 foot wide alley is a residential duplex; to the southeas , across Poinsettia Avenue, is the Honey Baked Hams retail s ore; to the southwest, across East Coast Highway are retail stores; and to the northwest are a service station and the Corona del Mar Branch Post Office. 858 Production Place Newport Beach,CA 92663 (714)631-6200 Fax(714)6317154 L PLC%NNING9 Glz^.)I TMIEN7 ^ � � '"dTY OF t+:E!'f�'(t!'i• 3EF+F;1•i Rock E. Miller & Associates SEP 2 0 1991 Traffic & Transportation Engineers APB Pi' Pi' September 18, 1991 Mr. John H. Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study for Residential Project In Newport Beach Dear Mr. Douglas: Rock E. Miller and Associates appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal for a proposed commercial development located on Pacific Coast Highway near Poinsettia in Coronal Del Mar. We have prepared this proposal based upon consultation with you regarding the scope of the project and discussion with Rich Edmonston in Traffic Engineering regarding the needs and requirements for this traffic study. Background The City of Newport Beach requires traffic studies to be done consistent with the requirements of the City's traffic phasing ordinance. The ordinance requires that the volume of traffic associated with the development be estimated for approximately 30 critical intersections in the city, to determine where committed traffic levels might be exceeded by 1%. At all such intersections, specific traffic impgcts are fully studied to determine whether unacceptable conditions might result from approval and construction of the project. SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1 - Data Collection It is anticipated that AM and PM peak hour traffic counts will be available from the City for all intersections subject to the 1% analysis study. No additional traffic counts will be required. Future peak hour volumes at all critical intersections within the City would be available from the city, and it is anticipated that three locations will be subject to detailed analysis beyond the 1% test. A traffic count may not be available at Poinsettia. Rock E. 77852 Eost Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680 FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (714)573-0317 = Rock E. Miller & Associates Troffic & Transportation Engineers Miller and Associates will utilize in-house staff to obtain AM and PM counts at this location, if required. Task 2 - Meetings and Coordination At the onset of the project, Rock E. Miller and Associates will meet in Newport Beach with the City Traffic Engineer or his designated staff to fully review the necessary scope of the project. Additional meetings or attendance at any Public Hearings can be arranged as extra-work, if necessary. Task 3 - Report Preparation The traffic study will be prepared for the subject development proposal. The study will include the following major sections: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS APPROVED OR CONCURRENT PROJECT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS PROJECT TRAFFIC GENERATION COMMERCIAL PASS-BY ANALYSIS ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS CRITICAL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS MITIGATION MEASURES, if required In the course of preparation of the traffic study, the study area will be reviewed in the field by the firm Principal to observe existing circulation conditions, trends, and operational traffic problems which are not apparent in traffic counts. Pass-by trips will be considered in the analysis, consistent with the guidelines published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Task 4 - Submittal and Review of Report The completed traffic study would be submitted to the City for your review and use. The City or other responsible parties may request revisions to the Traffic Study. Any reasonable revisions would be incorporated in the traffic study so that it can be ultimately found to be fully adequate to address the subject project. Reason- able revisions would include any corrections to the report within the general scope of work. 17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680 FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (714)573-0317 • Rock E. Miller & Associates Traffic & Transportation Engineers Task 5 - Other Services Rock E. Miller and Associates will answer any questions from the City or other responsible parties regarding traffic aspects of the project throughout the study process, as needed. SCHEDULE A schedule of three weeks is proposed for submittal of the first draft of the subject study, based upon receipt of specific traffic phasing information from the City. Revisions would normally be addressed in seven to ten days following receipt. This schedule allows for normal and timely completion of the study. PROPOSED FEE Our fee by Task for the proposed scope of work is indicated as follows: Task 1 Traffic Counts $0 Task 2 Meetings $300 Task 3 Report Preparation $2000 Task 4 Report Revisions $300 Printing and Expenses 100 SUBTOTAL 2700 Optional Task: Poinsettia Counts $200 TOTAL $2900 This fee would be invoiced on a not-to-exceed basis based on the attached billing schedule. The fee does not include meetings except as noted in Task 2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS I will be responsible for all professional level work on this project. I am acquainted with the engineering staff of the City of 77652 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 107, Tustin, CA 92680 FAX(774)573-9534 TEL. (714)573-0377 � Rock E. Miller & Associates Traffic & Transportation Engineers Newport Beach, and I am well qualified to perform the scope of Work proposed. Rock E. Miller and Associates has prepared a Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance study for the City previously, so we are familiar with the study process and possess start-up materials. I will be assisted at Rock E. Miller and Associates by Mr. Brent Hartley on this project. He will be responsible for preliminary traffic analysis and will be knowledgeable of the status of the report at all times. EXCLUSIONS The proposed fee for the scope of work does not include any night time public hearing attendance by Rock E. Miller and Associates personnel, however night meetings can be arranged on an extra work basis if necessary. Also, if the project description or size should change after the project is initiated, it may be necessary to renegotiate the proposed budget. CONCLUSION Rock E. Miller and Associates looks forward to working with the City of Newport Beach on the subject project. If we are selected to perform these services, I will be your project manager and contact person. If this proposal is acceptable, you may expedite our authorization by signing a copy of this proposal on the indicated line and returning it to our office. The proposal is valid for 90 days. Sincerely, We concur with the terms and conditions of this proposal and authorize Rock E. Miller and Associates to commence Rock Miller, P.E. work. Signature Print or Type Name & Title Date 77852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 707, Tustin, CA 92680 FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (714)573-0317 Rock E, Miller & Associates Traffic & Transportation Engineers BILLING RATE SUMMARY Effective January 1, 1991 Classification Rate Firm Principal $100/hour Senior Engineer $70/hour Associate Engineer $55/hour Assistant Engineer $40/hour Senior Technician/Designer $40/hour Technician $32/hour Aide\Messenger $25/hour Senior Planner $60/hour Transportation Planner $40/hour Assistant Planner $35/hour Administrative Assistant $30/hour Clerk Typist $30/hour General Provisions Mileage, Telephone, equipment, and FAX are included in above hourly costs. Direct expenses including printing, blueprinting, commercial CAD plotting, subconsultant expense, issuance of specially endorsed insurance certificate, and direct costs, are billed at cost plus 5% unless stated otherwise in the proposal. Public meetings and public hearings are normally excluded from any fixed fee or not-to-exceed proposal, but will be billed as extra work at the rates above. There is a four-hour minimum for night- time public hearings and for expert witness testimony in court or depositions. 77852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 707, Tustin, CA 92680 FAX(714)573-9534 TEL, (774)573-0317 aEwPO • .t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92659-1768 e+ cq.1FoFL PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 September 16, 1991 Mr. Rock Miller, P.E. Rock E. Miller & Associates 17852 E. 17th Street, Suite 107 Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Rock, This letter is a follow-up to our conversation regarding a proposed neighborhood commercial center at the comer of Pacific Coast Highway and Poinsettia in Corona del Mar (Site Plan Review No. 61). The City invites you to submit a proposal to prepare the Traffic Phasing Ordinance study for this project. If your firm is still interested in this project,please submit a proposal including tasks, budget, and timing at your earliest convenience. One set of plans is included for your review. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By . o H. Douglas, CP _Pncipal Planne F.\...\SPR-61\TPO-LTR.1 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach i 0 • September 9, 1991 Mr. Jay Garcia P/A+ City of Newport Beach architects, inc. 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Subject: 3636 East Coast Highway Site Plan Review#61 Dear Jay: Enclosed are twenty copies of the revised site plan for the above- referenced project. This revised plan conforms to the requirements of Don Webb regarding the alley width as well as R.L. Hoffstadt's review conducted in March of this year. The original mark-up by Mr. Hoffstadt as well as copies of that plan are re-submitted to you for proper recirculation. The revised ownership list will be completed this week, at which time I will forward it to you for your use. In speaking with John Douglas, I am hand-delivering one copy of the revised site plan to him directly to expedite the traffic report. This letter confirms that delivery. We are anxious to proceed to the public hearing for this project and remain available to answer any questions to make that happen in a timely manner. Sincerely, APIA+ Architects Inc. Bruce Arita enclosure(s) cc: Dillon Cox Wally Burgess Rolly Pulaski Tofffi Viuglas 858 Production Place Newport Beach.CA 92663 (714)631-6200 Fax(714)6317154 S 2 1234 BURGESS DEVELOPMENT TEL 714-72�815 LSaLIli'EL i i-'�il;l-.S!+ 7 har !1;, 1 1•� . 0' PJU . !1? JTOM URAM DIRECTOR LRE" SHUNO.M.O. ��/� HSAVM ol�caatVTY d1i= ((�vJ}) lu"( BIERT I-ME RR MAN,R O .MPH R08ERT E MLR DEPOT R.8.MPH C tlEPUYY OIqRCTOqMAILINI3 ADDRESS:P.O.BOX 335 RANG SANTA ANA.CA92702 HEALTH CARE AGENCY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION20D9I- EDINGER AVENUE2, 1991 SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92705 Gu�CL Z (114) 637.3700 C Joe Tully Arco Petroleum Products Co. P.O. Box 6411 Cerritos, CA 90201 Subject: Remedial Action At Arco Station, 3636 Pacific Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar. CA - O.C.H.C.A. Case N87UT40 Dear Mr. Tully; This letter confirms the Completion of site Investigation and remedial action at the above site. With the provision that the information provided to this Agency was accurate and representative of existing conditions, it is the position of this office that no further action is required at this time. Please be advised that this letter does not relieve you of any liability under the California Health and Safety Code or Water Code for past, present. or future operations at the site. Nor does it relieve you of the responsi- bility to clean up existing, additional or previously unidentified condi- tions at the site which cause or threaten to cause pollution or nuisance or otherwise pose a threat to water quality or public health. Additionally, be advised that changes in the present-or proposed use of the site may require further site characterization and mitigation activity. It is the property owner's responsibility to notify this Agency of any changes in report content, future contamination findings, or site usage. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact James C. 5trozier, REHS at (714) 667-3711. Very truly your-, William J. Diekmann, REHS, M.S. Program Manager Hazardous Materials Management Section, Environmental Health Division WJD:JGS:mc cc: Steve Overman, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Newport Beach Fire Department + TOM Ui- �� DIRECT 4 5 S O U "-rN, F RAN G E L. REX EHLING• 1.- �v HEALTH Orr,. 3 \ 1723 WEST I7TH STRi /HEALTH CARE AGENCY SANTAANA. CA 9. TELEPHONE. 71A(634•, (rJ MAILING AOORESSI P•O, nOX If SANTA ANA: CA 92 PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES ' ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH July 24, 1987 C.T. Fulkerson Arco Petroleum Products Company 17315 Studebaker Road Cerritos, CA 90701 Subject: Adequate Remedial Action Plan for 3636 Pacific Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar, CA dated July 22, 1987 Dear Mr. Fulkerson: Please be advised that this office has reviewed the above referenced plan. We have found the plan to be adequate to begin remediation of soil contam- ination at the subject site, provided the following considerations are addressed: 1. If contaminated soil is encountered during the drilling of any air injection well , that soil must be sampled to determine the nature of contaminate. It is this Agency's understanding that all injection wells must be located outside the contaminate plume. 2. Provide to this Agency on a quarterly basis an update of the cleanup +progress and air sampling results. 3. Upon completion of the remedial action soil sampling must be performed to verify remediation of soil contamination. Prior to final verification sampling, provide to this office the sampling protocol to be used for review. If you have any questions, please contact me at (714) 834-6648. Very truly yours, Brad Forslund Hazardous Waste Specialist Waste ltnagement Section Enviroanental Health BF:bw cc: Janes Reed, Newport Beach Fire Department Kurt Rerchtold . Santa Ana Rpoinnal Watpr n uality Control Board 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 The Burgess Co. for Traffic Study No 76 and Site Plan Review No. 61 on property located at 3636 East Coast Highway. Request to permit the construction of a 3 982+ square foot retail commercial building on nroneriv located in the C 1 District of the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area, where a specific plan has not yet been adopted The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic study. 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. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. 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 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92659-1768 (714) 644-3225. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 5th day of December 1991, at the hour of 7.30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (714) 644-3200. Norma Glover, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. 0 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date: November 18, 1991 X ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER DIRE DEPARTMENT PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. _BUILDING DEPARTMENT _PARKS & RECREATION _POLICE DEPARTMENT _MARINE SAFETY _GRADING APPLICATION OF: ' The Burgess Co. FOR: Traffic Study No. 76 DESCRIPTION: Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a 3,982± square foot retail commercial building on property located in the C-1 District of the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: 3636 East Coast Highway REPORT REQUESTED BY: November 25, 1991 COMMISSION REVIEW: December 5, 1991 COMMENTS: ate: Signature: — D / CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date: November 18. 1991 2LADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT �X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER _FIRE DEPARTMENT PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. _BUILDING DEPARTMENT _PARKS & RECREATION _POLICE DEPARTMENT _MARINE SAFETY GRADING APPLICATION OR ' The Burgess Co. FOR: Traffic Study No. 76 DESCRIPTION: Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a 3,982± square foot retail commercial building on property located in the C-1 District of the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an environmental document. LOCATION: 3636 East Coast Highway REPORT REQUESTED BY: November 25, 1991 COMMISSION REVIEW: December 5, 1991 COMMENTS: 1. TIVwas e�cc� � a i ev' c^�n et°fs G rj wrwie s o i'he, Sbiasi C7✓d� a cam. Si nature: Date: 0 • 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date: November 18. 1991 X_ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. _BUILDING DEPARTMENT _PARKS & RECREATION _POLICE DEPARTMENT _MARINE SAFETY GRADING APPLICATION OR ' The Burgess Co. FOR: Traffic Study No. 76 DESCRIPTION: Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a 3,982± square foot retail commercial building on property located in the C-1 District of the Corona del Mar Specific Plan Area. The proposal also includes the acceptance of an enviromnental document. LOCATION: 3636 East Coast Highway REPORT REQUESTED BY: November 25, 1991 COMMISSION REVIEW: December 5, 1991 COMMENTS-- Signature: Date: