Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TS091
• CITY OF NEUORT BEAC4 COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CALL Fs ti� January 10, 1994 INDEX Mayor Turner informed Mr. Reynolds th once the environmental impact report s prepared for this project, pub c hearings will be held before he Planning Commission as well as the ity Council which will give ple opportunity for public input. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 16. Recycled memorandum from the Se shore- Ord 93-27 Oceanfront Comprehensive Plan E ecutive Municipal Steering Committee regarding roposed Compliance ORDINANCE NO. 93-27, being, Officer AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI COIINCIL (53) OF THE CITY OF NEWP RT BEACH PROVIDING FOR A MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE OFFICER. It was noted that the propo ed ordinance provides for a new employe designation which would allow the Ci y Manager to hire a Municipal Complia ce Officer on a contract basis who wou d be empowered to enforce all City c des. Such an individual could then evote attention to specific locati ns like the Seashore/Oceanfront pr ject area. Motion x Motion was made by C nail Member Debay All Ayes moved to adopt Ordin nee No. 93-27. Council Member De ay announced that another meeting o Community Pride in West Newport will a held on February 15 at the Newport E ementary School, and she is hopeful the new Compliance Officer will be n board by that time. 17. Report from Deputy City Manager Ord 93-28 regarding OC PIER REGULATIONS, Ocean Pier proposed Ordi ance No. 93-28, being, Regulation£ AN ORD NANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL (62) OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMEND NG CHAPTERS 11.08 AND 11.20 OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE 0 REGULATE ACTIVITY ON OCEAN PI It was ted by the City Manager that the sp cific issues this ordinance address s are 1) sleeping, 2) cleaning of the iers on a periodic basis, and 3) the c" osing of the piers for that clean ng. He stated that Council Member Hedge , prior to this meeting, advised him at there needs to be a correction in a Ordinance to reflect the motion he ade on December 13, 1993 relative to pe iodic closing of the beaches as well as the piers. uncil Member Hedges stated that ursuant to Municipal Code section 1.08.030 - Use of Beaches at Night - the City Manager has the authority to close the beaches periodically for public safety reasons, but not the piers, and that is what he requested be included in the subject Ordinance at the December 13, 1993 meeting. Volume 48 - Page 10 #ITY OF NE"ORT BEACH 41 COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CALL F January 10, 1994 INDEX (b) Adopt Resolution No. 94-3, Res 94-3 approving Amendment No. 790 so as to redesignate Site 2a of the North Ford Planned Community District from Light Industry- Office-Commercial/ Industrial to General Industry, to increase the additional allowable square footage from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq,.ft. , and to amend the District' s standards to incorporate appropriate language so as to accommodate provisions to regulate the proposed mini-storage facility; AND (c) Uphold the action of the Planning Commission and approve Traffic Study No. 91 and Site Plan Review No. 68 subject to the findings and conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. UBLIC COMMENTS 1. Sid Soffer, 900 Arbor Street, Costa Crime in Mesa, addressed the Council regarding General crime in general and stated he did not feel that additional police officers and dditional jails is the solution to c ime, but rather the teaching of morals in the schools and at home. In sponse to the above remarks, Counc Member Debay, also member of the Anti-Ga g Task Force Committee, reported that the are interested in reinstating the D.A. E, program into the junior high schoo and providing an officer on the campus the high schools, and she is hopeful f ds can be included in the 1994-95 budge for this purpose. 2. Delores Otting, 17 Hillsborough, and Solid Wastt ,representing 5 S r Rubbish, addressed etc. the Council and di cussed 1) the City's regulations for Sol d Waste Permits, 2) the General Sery es Department's request for proposals or refuse hauling dated December 28, ,1993 3) the proposal for Ambulance Service in the City, and 4) the State's abi ty to impose civil penalties on local g ernments for failure to implement a sou a reduction and recycling element or household hazardous waste element. 3. Grant Reynolds, 1301 Kings Road, Balboa Bay addressed the Council regardi the Club proposed renovation at the Balbo Bay Club which consists of 17 guest oms and 34,000 sq. ft. He stated the he represent&many other concerned prope y owners in his neighborhood, and they a in agreement that some of the existing buildings are in need of repair, but they are opposed to any increase in height and .want to have the opportunity to give their input and be involved in the planning process in the early - - --- - - stages. Volume 48 - .Page 9 • CITY OF NEUORT BEACb COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CRLL Fs oy� January 10, 1994 INDEX landscaping around the building, the GPA 93-3(B; Planning Director commented that it his PCA 790 intention to use the General Services Department Arborist to review the landscape plans for the project. Council Member Hart indicated she would like the landscape plans to come back to the City Council for final review. The Planning Director referenced the plans on display which depict the size, number and type of landscape material proposed to be used around the site. He stated there is already a heavily landscaped embankment on the south side of the property. Rush Hill, Architect, representing the Applicant,• addressed- the Council and commended the staff for their assistance with this project. With respect to landscape plans and Council Member Hart's concerns, he stated this has been addressed and a well-known landscape architect was retained to perform the landscape design, which has met the approval of The Irvine Company as well as the design of the buildings. The buildings will be of "Class A" construction; it is a good project on a very unique and hidden piece of property, and a good neighbor project because it is a low traffic generator with no noise and no external light. They have met with individuals in the neighborhood and shared with them the landscaped plans, hours of operations, etc. , and they have no objections. Council Member Debay commented that when the original general plan amendment was approved for the 20,000 sq. ft. building, she was part of a group of Newport/Mesa Board of Realtors who were looking at this particular site for their new Association office, and alot of the members were very disappointed when the project fell through. However, she felt the proposed use will be superior for the neighbors inasmuch as there would have been far more traffic generated if their Association relocated to this site. She also felt the mini- storage facility could be a good income- generator for the City. Hearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made by Council Member Cox to All Ayes approve the following: (a) Adopt Resolution No. 94-2, Res 94-2 amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to designate the subject property for a maximum of 110,600 sq.ft. of mini-storage facility use; AND Volume 48 - Page 8 TY OF NMORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CRLL January 10, 1994 IN➢EX B. Amendment No. 790 - Request to PCA 790 amend the North Ford Planned (94) Community District Regulations so as to redesignate Site 2a from Light Industry- Office - Commercial/Industrial to General Industry and increase the additional allowable square footage from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft. and to amend the District' s standards to incorporate appropriate language so as to accommodate provisions to regulate the proposed mini-storage facility in the North Ford Planned Community District; AND C. Traffic Study No. 91 - Request.to • approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction of a 110,600-square-foot mini-storage facility in the proposed General Industry Site 2a of the North Ford Planned Community; AND D. Site Plan Review No. 68 - Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction of a 110,600-square-foot mini-storage facility in the proposed General Industry Site 2a of the North Ford Planned Community. Report from Planning Department. A Supplemental Staff Report was distributed to the City Council on January 7, 1994. The Planning Director summarized the subject applications as enumerated in the above, advising that at its meeting of December 9, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed project with an additional condition requiring Site Plan Review. At the conclusion of the public hearing on the Site Plan Review on January 7, 1994, the Planning Commission approved the application, subject to findings and conditions with the following modification to Condition No. 17: 17. That the hours of operation of the mini-storage facility shall be limited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The Planning Director stated that the project includes 1,121 rental units in two buildings; a dwelling unit for on- site manager; the buildings are two- stgry configuration and are 22 ft. in height and access to the property is from the existing driveway. The development is enclosed with masonry walls and a chain link fence. In response to question raised by Council Member Hart regarding Volume 48 - Page 7 CITY OF NMORT BEAC* COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ROLL CALL January 10, 1994 INDEX mentioned by Mr. Kenny, and as a resul Underground many property owners are not yet aw a Utilities of the proposed cost. He noted t at there is only one propperty owner who is estimated to pay $ ; 00, and that the average cost for all other prope ies ranges from $1200 to $1800. Hearing no others wishing to addr s the Council, the public hearing was losed. Motion x Council Member Hart a ressed appreciation to the staff for 1 their efforts in this project, to the property owners who circulated the pe ition in support, and moved to adopt esolution Res 94-1 No. 94-1 establishing derground Utility District No. 13, and to approve the loan program for the C ty to lend the cost of reconnecti g service connections for . hardship cases, and—- further, to waive the $5 City permit fee required by each prop ty owner. Motion x Council Member Sansone tated he felt the Council was acting a little too hastily inasmuch as many of the property owners are not yet aware of the estimated cost since t at cost was not available until 6 p.m, his evening, and therefore, made a sub titute motion to defer this item to J uary 24, 1994. Charles Wilson, S uthern California Edison Company, ad ressed the Council and stated that t ere are some time constraints invol ed in the proposed project because of Caltrans plans to do some street wide ing and resurfacing work on PCH. How er, the suggested two week extension will not create a hardship, but th longer the City waits, prices do fl ate, and due to the economy, the s oner the City approves the project th better. In view of a foregoing discussion, Mayor Turne re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Kenny ddressed the Council again and stated a felt the estimates for the work are realistic and that the electrica bid does include the electrica panel. John 0' exey, 2631 Crestview Drive, address d the Council and stated that the tot 1 estimate for the 31 property owners that was just received this evenin is $40,506.00. The telephone work s proposed to cost between $85 to $275; excavation $200 to $2350, and repa rs $50 to $2250. He felt that some of a figures were somewhat high in cos . Th Public Works Director noted that the of ected property owners within the p oposed district are welcome to obtain bids from any number of electrical contractors. The City has an established list of qualified contractors that have done this type of Volume 48 - Page 5 11TY OF NMORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES f � , '��1AG�� January 10, 1994 INDEX ROLL rm I work in the past, and the list is Underground available in the Building Department. Utilities Hearing no others wishing to address e Council, the public hearing was clos d. Council Member Hart encouraged the Council to move ahead with this pr ject and not delay it any longer, and stated she will be voting against the m tion to defer this for two-weeks. Motion x The substitute motion made y Council Ayes x Member Sansone was voted on nd FAILED. Noes x x x x x x Mayor Turner asked if C uncil Member Hart would include in h r motion some type of provision that uld extend the amortization period to ossibly 10 years for the -pro erty oer who is estimated • -•-- to pay the MOO asswne sment. Council Member Har stated she has no objection to Mayor rner's suggestion, however, inasmuch as the staff will be working individu ly with all hardship cases, she felt his special case would be handled appr piiately. Motion x The motion we voted on and carried. .Ayes x x x x , x x Noes x 14. Mayor Turn r open the continued public Developmen, hearing r arding DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Agmt 5 NO. 5 - quest to approve an amendment Hoag Hosp to subje t development agreement for the C-2912 Hoag H spital Master Plan between the City o Newport Beach and Hoag Memorial (38) Hospi al Presbyterian; located at 4000 West Coast, Highway, on the northerly aid of West Coast Highway, between Ne ort Boulevard and Superior Avenue a 301 Newport Boulevard, on the uthwasterly corner of Hospital Road nd Newport Boulevard. Report from Planning Department. Motion x Motion was made by Mayor Turner to All Ayes continue this hearing to January 24, 1994 as recommended by staff in their 15. Mayor Turner opened the public hearing regarding: A. General Plan Amendment No. 93-3(B) GPA 93-3(B - Request to amend the Land Use (45) Element of the General Plan to redesignate the PacTel Site from a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to General Industry and increase the allowable development entitlement from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft. so as to allow development of a mini-storage facility in the North Ford Planned Community District, on property located at 1177 Camelback Street; AND Volume 48 - Page 6 City Council Meeting January 10. 1994 Agenda Item No. 15 (Supplemental Report) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment No. 93-3(B) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the PacTel Site from a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commer- cial to General Industry and increase the allowable development entitlement from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft. so as to allow develop- ment of a mini-storage facility in the North Ford Planned Community District. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND B. Ame ndment No. 790 Request to amend the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations so as to redesignate Site 2a from Light Industry-Office- Commercial/Industrial to General Industry and increase the additional allowable square footage from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft. and to amend the District's standards to incorporate appropriate language so as to accommodate provisions to regulate the proposed mini-storage facility in the North Ford Planned Community District. AND C. Traffic Study No. 91 Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction of a 110,600-square-foot mini-storage facility in the proposed General Industry Site 2a of the North Ford Planned Community. AND D. Site Plan Review No. 68 Request to approve a Site Plan Review so as to allow the construction of a 110,600-square-foot mini-storage facility in the proposed General Industry Site 2a of the North Ford Planned Community. � t . TO: City Colt., - 2. APPLICANT: Dahn Corporation, Irvine ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As noted in the original report for this item, Site Plan Review No. 68 was scheduled for hearing by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1994. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Commission unanimously approved the application subject to the findings and conditions contained in the attached Planning Commission report with the following modification to Condition No. 17: 17. That the hours of operation of the mini-storage facility shallbe limited between the hours of 7:00 MI.EHr a.m. and 8-00 tlit P.M. A copy of the draft Planning Commission minutes for this item are also attached for your information. Respectfully submitted, ,PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By: Jon . D as, AICP Pri cipal Planner/Environmental Coordinator Attachments 1. Planning Commission Staff Report of January 6, 1993. 2. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes of January 6, 1993. 1-\-.\PA6THL\C6RPT.3 Planning Commission Meeting January 6. 1994 Agenda Item No. 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Site Plan Review No 68 (Public Hearino Request to approve a Site Plan Review so as to allow the construction of a 110,600 square foot mini-storage facility and related dwelling unit for the owner/manager on property located in the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community. LOCATION: Lot 6, Tract No. 6680, located at 1177 Camelback Street, on the northwesterly comer of Camelback Street and Bison Avenue, in the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Dahn Corporation, Irvine OWNER: Belcourt Medical Partners, Laguna Hills Application This application involves a request to permit the construction of a 110,600 square foot mini- storage facility and related dwelling unit for the owner/manager on property located in the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community. In accordance with conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission on Amendment No.790, this site plan review application has been submitted for the Commission's review. Site Plan Review procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.01 of the Municipal Code. Background On March 11, 1991, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment 90-1(G) which designated the subject property, the PacTel site, for Re tail and Service Commercial uses with an alternate use for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial; Amendment No. 721 to the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community District Regulations which provided for a transfer of 13,550 sq.ft. of commercial development from the PacTel site to Fashion Island and allocated 20,000 sq.ft. of office/commercial development to the PacTel site; and approved Traffic Study No.70 which indicated that the project is in compliance with the City's requirements. In October 1991, the City, at the request of Resco Development, initiated General Plan Amendment 91-3(D) to amend the land use classification of the PacTel site from a mixture 3 TO: Planning Commission - 2. of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to Multi-Family Residential with a density of 30 dwelling units per acre for a senior-related residential development or 23 dwelling units per acre for a standard multi- family development with affordable housing.provisions. Since October 1991, staff has met with different applicants or their representatives to review various projects proposed'for the PacTel site;however,no specific project was actively pursued or:submitted for consideration pursuant to GPA 91-3(D). On October 25, 1993, at the request of Resco Development, the City Council initiated General Plan Amendment 93-3(B)to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the PacTel site land use designation from a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to General Industry so as to allow development of a mini-storage project. At its meeting of December 9, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the approval of the following applications in conjunction with the subject property: 1. General Plan Amendment No 93-3(B) (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the PacTel Site from a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to General Industry and increase the allowable development entitlement.from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft. so as to allow development of a mini-storage facility in the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community District. AND 2. Amendment No. 790 Request to amend the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community District Regulations so as to redesignate Site 2a from Light Industry-Office- Commercial/Industrial to General Industry and increase the Additional Allowable square footage from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft. and to amend the Planned Community standards to incorporate appropriate language so as to accommodate provisions to regulate the proposed mini-storage facility in the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community District. AND 3. Traffic Study No 91 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the proposed construction of 110,600 square feet of mini-storage facility in the proposed General Industry Site 2a, located in the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community. TO: Planning Commission - 3. The action of the Planning Commission was taken with the findings and subject tothe conditions of approval set forth in the Draft Planning Commission minutes dated December 9, 1993,which are included in the Planning Commission packets for review. As part of that action, the Commission recommended an additional condition to Amendment No. 790 requiring approval of a Site Plan Review for the proposed mini-storage facility. The City Council is scheduled to consider these items at its meeting of January 10, 1994. In order to expedite the processing of the project, the applicant has elected to submit this Site Plan Review application prior to final action by the City Council. It should be noted that final approval of this Site Plan Review is contingent upon final approval of GPA 93-3(B),Traffic Study No. 91, and Amendment No. 790 by the City Council. Conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Code The site is located in Statistical Area L4 and currently is undeveloped. The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan currently designates the site for Retail and Service Commercial with an alternate use of Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial with a development allocation of 20,000 sq.ft. As mentioned previously, General Plan Amendment No. 93-3(B),Traffic Study No.91 and Amendment No.790,were recommended to the City Council to change the PacTel site land use designation from a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to General Industry so as to allow development of a mini-storage warehouse project. The requested Site Plan Review is consistent with those recommended revisions to the General Plan and Zoning regulations. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The subject property is currently an undeveloped single parcel of land within the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community. To the west of the property is an electrical substation; to the north of the site is the Camelback Post Office; to the south, across Bison Avenue, is the Belcourt residential development; and to the east, across Camelback Street, is the North Ford Retail Center. Other nearby land uses include the Toyota Research Plant, two churches and a private school, and residential condominiums and apartments. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy K-3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that if the proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. As required by CEQA, certain findings must be adopted prior to a projeces approval. A Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and approved by the Planning Commission on December 9, 1993. A copy of the Negative Declaration will be available for the Commission's information at the hearing. TO: Planing Commission - 4. Analysis Inaccordance with the proposed General Plan Amendment No.93-3 B and Amendment'No. 790, the applicant is requesting the approval of a Site Plan Review for the construction of a mini-storage warehouse facility. The proposed manager's quarters contains 1,056 sq.ft.of living space on the second floor and consists of a master bedroom, a second bedroom,bath, living room/dining room and kitchen. The ground floor of the manager's unit contains 432 sq.ft. for an office/lobby area and a 400 sq.ft. two-car garage. The proposed hours of operation of the facility are from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily. The following outline sets forth the major characteristics of the subject project: Land Area: 121,445± sq.ft. Buildable Area: 121,445± sq.ft. Permitted Gross Structural Area: 110,595± sq.ft. Proposed Gross Structural Area: 110,595± sq.ft. Building 'M 64,131± gross sqft. Building "B": 46,464± gross sq.ft. Proposed Floor Area Ratio: 0.91 x Site Area Building Setbacks: Required Proposed Front: (Camelback Street) 30 ft. Varies between 115 ft. and 180± ft. for Bldg "A'; and between 45 ft. and 80 ft. for Bldg "B" Front: (Bison Avenue) 30 ft. Varies between 56 ft. and 72 ft. for Bldg "A'; and between. 42 ft. and 51 ft. for Bldg "B" Rear: (Northerly property line) 0 ft. 50 ft. Side: (Westerly property line) 10 ft. 25 ft. Distance between buildings: 0 ft. 25 ft. Off-Street Parking (per dwelling unit): 2 spaces 2 garage spaces for manager; and 4 parking spaces for customers, including 1 handicapped parking space Permitted Building Height: 32 ft. average roof height; 37 ft. maximum ridge height. Proposed Building Height: 22 ft. to the top of parapets, for both buildings. TO: Planning Commission - 5. Proposed Monument and Wall Sign The applicant has also proposed a double-faced, illuminated monument sign and an illuminated wall sign for identification of the facility from Camelback Street and Bison Avenue. The monument sign is located at the entry drive on Camelback Street. The sign measures 3 feet 6 inches to the highest point and 15 feet in length for an area of 53 sq.ft. per face. The North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community Development Regulations permits a 150 sq.ft. (per face) monument sign to be located within 20 feet of the front property line and limited to a maximum of 4 feet in height measured from natural grade. The sign as proposed is consistent with the development regulations. The City Traffic Engineer has also recommended that the monument sign be located in accordance with City Standard 110-L for sight distance. The appropriate conditions of approval have been incorporated into the attached Exhibit "A". The proposed illuminated wall sign is located on the easterly face of Building 'B" facing Camelback Street, is comprised of individual can letters and numbers and measures approximately 20 feet wide by 4 feet high (80 square feet). This wall sign is in compliance with the sign limitations as specified in the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community Development Regulations. Required Standards for Site Plan Review The review of site plans have specific standards of review as established in Section 20.01.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 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 Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code 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 plans as submitted seem to provide due regard to the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain and landscaping. In addition, no extensive grading is proposed on the subject property due to its existing grading as a parking and storage lot. 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 proposed development is in keeping with the existing development along Camelback Street and will not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surrounding 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 significant public views available from the upper portion TO: Planning Commission - 6. of Bison Avenue which looks over the subject property. Based on this information, it is staffs opinion that the proposed project has been sited so as to protect existing views from public parks and roadways and scenic drives. 4. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected No structures or landfonn 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 Council, on review or appear;finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts: The site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. 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 Counci4 on review or appeal,finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. The site is not located in an area of particular geologic hazard, other than the seismic hazards common to the Southern California area. 6. Residential development shall be permitted in areas 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 subject property is not located within an area subject to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. 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 applicant has designed the .project so as to provide vehicular access to the site from Camelback Street. Such a design is the only acceptable means of access to the site as recommended by the Public Works Department and the Planning Department. 8. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable SpecificArea Plan policies and objectives, and shall notpreclude the implementation of those policies and objectives: As discussed in the General Plan Compliance section,the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission in General Plan Amendment No. 93-3 B. If approved by the Planning Commission, this Site Plan Review will not become effective unless GPA 93-3(B) is approved by the City Council. 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, a large portion of the site is flat. 10. When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas shall be concealed: Conditions of approval have been imposed on the project which TO: Planning Commission - 7. will mandate the screening of electrical and mechanical equipment, and to conceal trash enclosures. 11. Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible. There are no known archeological or historical resources on-site. 12. Commercial development shall not have significant adverse effects on residences in an abutting residential district. Landscaping along the street frontages will provide adequate screening from the adjacent residential uses. Conclusions and Specific Findings Section 20.01.070(F) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code sets forth the standards by which the Commission is to evaluate Site Plan Reviews. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the subject project, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit"A" are suggested. The project will be full conformance with the provisions of the General Plan, and the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community Text if GPA 93-3(B), Traffic Study No. 91, and Amendment No. 790 are approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. Therefore, 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. In addition, this Site Plan Review is subject to final action by the City Council in conjunction with GPA 93-3(B), Traffic Study No. 91, and Amendment No. 790. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director Byc Lu ; Javier S. Gat Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Site Plan, Floor Plans, Landscape Plan and Elevations JAY-G\SR\SPR68.SR TO: Planning Commission - 8. • EXHIBIT "A" FINDING AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 68 Findings: 1. That the proposed action is part of the project evaluated in the Negative Declaration prepared for GPA 93-3(B)/Amendment No.790/Traffic•Study No. 91 and approved by the Planning Commission on December 9, 1993. That Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project,and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission and was reviewed and considered prior to recommending approval of the project. 2. That development of the subject property in the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community District will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan objectives and policies. 3. That the value of property is protected by preventing development 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. That the proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards for the North 'Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community District, as recommended for City Council approval by the Planning Commission in Amendment No. 790. 7. 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. 8. That the development has been designed to maximize protection of public views from Bison Avenue. fb TO. Planning Commission - 9. 9. That there are no known archeological or historical resources on-site. 10. That there are no environmentally sensitive areas on-site. 11. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 12. That the proposed project will meet City noise standards for residential development. 13. The site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas and pedestrian and vehicular access are functional in that the project has been designed so as to limit vehicular access to the site from Camelback Street: 14. The development is consistent with surrounding land uses and with the goals and policies of the General Plan as recommended for City Council approval by the Planning Commission in GPA 93-3(B). 15. Mechanical equipment and trash areas will be concealed from view. 16. 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. 17. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code. 18. The approval of the proposed project will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 19. That Site Plan Review No. 68 will not become effective unless and until General Plan Amendment 93-3(B), Traffic Study No. 91 and Amendment No. 790 are approved by the City Council. Conditions, 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. TO: Planning Commission - 10. • 4. That the on-site parking,vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the intersection of the private drive and Camelback Street be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape,walls,the monument sign and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line as defined by City Standard 110-L shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 6. That the security gate at the entrance shall be designed to provide a turnaround prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. 7. That-the displaced and cracked sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along the Bison Avenue and Camelback Street frontages; that the displaced curb access ramp at the corner of Camelback Street and Bison Avenue be reconstructed; and that the shrubs along the Bison Avenue frontage be trimmed back to two (2) feet behind the sidewalk unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit 'issued by the Public Works Department. 8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain,water and sewer systems shown to be required by the.study shall be thesesponsibility of the developer. 9. That the Water Capital Improvement fee be paid. 10. 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 Camelback Street or Bison Avenue rights-of-way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 11. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140, of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. I� 0 ! TO: Planning Commission - 11. 13. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designed 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. 14. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. Landscaping shall be provided along both street frontages to provide adequate screening from the adjacent residential uses. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the prepared plans. 15. That the project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent streets and uses. 16. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 17. That the hours of operation of the mini-storage facility shall be limited between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. 18. That all conditions of approval of Amendment No.790 and Traffic Study No. 91 and related mitigation measures of the environmental document shall be fulfilled. 19. 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. ]3 VICINITY MAP f ' CITY OF /AVIAE 9� JI P-C �P tJ�I op Q v Ir V •/•TR p . C£IBAP ' a o P-C u .I •s•p V Irb a n o 11 t7 u K R-!•R K 4 � m e' 11 ¢� Y• �,.It - ° flit ,n u34 yf Y}„ m s i cgnrEc� P-C OR 0 S •n �.s � I " •( 1Q 3J JI I/•�+ qw a A 'a ' rt • ` ^v q fr ' 7Facr doo PST• G INi !I . . 7f . n• 1 JY . N Ir. �. . ! �{ / y11 CA 5'E �D16 K• ~ YG•' jtCl! • p N Ir 'X 42 70 7 10 pi 7L' frllln , le+ ro' 'K ' •rD. �HOR "'� a w ; n Is VI m. 61SOAJ P-C R•4-6.2 14 74 y JIR I. ST'P•`0l IS IL 1 IKL r.r ra P•R•D Jfr MAP wo rf D JDortm er 10.103 ICTINO-- MAP-CITY-OF-NEWPORT-BEACH-CALIFORNI «�• KD.mIt Y•1 YMVMCIV111K1 DUTMOT REVISIONS QYDdtILL gfillltt NK YdKIDI1YDDD CDIYYDCML DIII1Utt ♦naK1 DATE C•0 IRD CDYY[KCIK•O'Llo"IDd LYtIK DIITYCT Y•1.11 CDKi10LL[D YLWIIACIMIM 041111R r x�• xIr M•Iruw�xrwx+ .++.r. D AL 0 LIY CDYIDIIKI DK'Y�DIIlI11CT r«• `•'•"•w""'••'�•'x•r r..i. ,"ALTKItt CAI LHM CDYYdCDY.DIJMICT •� r.d •w+.•R�• "'•�' "Wil XTIIIL K[YD[Y•.K C•! 1d[ML CDYKKtlK g1TKltt CZ J CDYIYIIKI M•I•YRKKT ~.ow F •'^`�rlxM rw1J •• /DD JD[YTIK Dim" 1-� IKni,,i[DI.T[ DI/111 T �V•L W4YIIro YC10M w N r Y VKCL.1/111[0 DYTIIICT I_ �� -+'fNfx.+ >t••Ij IY •/•DUTIIItt C_.7 •7e SITE PLAN ,REVIEW NO. . y COMMISSIONERS DPFT MINUTES cr���orr���o'Poso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \\ January6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX Site Plan Review No. 68 (Public Hearing) Item No.2 Request to approve a Site Plan Review so as to allow the SPR 68 construction of a 110,600 square foot mini-storage facility and Approved related dwelling unit for the owner/manager on property located in the North Ford Planned Community. LOCATION: Lot 6, Tract No. 6680, located at 1177 Camelback Street, on the northwesterly corner of Camelback Street and Bison Avenue, in the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Dahn Corporation, Irvine OWNER: Belcourt Medical Partners, Laguna Hills Commissioner Ridgeway addressed the Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 1993, and the discussion concerning the project during the General Plan Amendment No. 93-3(B), Amendment No. 790, and Traffic Study No. 91, public hearing. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Rush Hill, architect for the project, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Hill concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". He indicated that the applicant discussed Condition No.4,Exhibit"A", regarding the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation system, and Condition No. 6,Exhibit"A", regarding the security gate at the entrance, with the City Traffic Engineer and the Fire Department and it was determined that the proposed plan meets the required conditions. In reference to Condition No. 17, Exhibit "A", stating That the hours of operation of the mini-storage facility shall be limited between the hours of 7.•00 a.m. and 8.00 p.m., Mr. Hill indicated -2- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES p'Oo �'FolcJ.n��di CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX that the condition would restrict the operation during certain times of the year and the applicant has requested that the condition be modified for seasonal adjustments. He suggested that the condition be amended to state that the hours of operation shall be between.6:00 a.m.and 10:00 p.m.daily.Discussion ensued between the applicant, the Commission, and staff regarding the applicant's request to change the'hours of operation. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Gifford and Chairman Merrill with regard to the roofing material, Mr. Hill stated that the flat goof would be constructed with pea-gravel material to comply with The Irvine Company's requirement and that skylights would also be installed on the roof. Chairman Merrill and James Hewicker, Planning Director, discussed the traffic that would be generated by the project. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Mr. Hill replied that the access to the project would be on Camelback Street at the northern end of the property. I There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion * ( Motion was made and voted on to approve Site Plan Review No. All ayes 68 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A", and to modify Condition No. 17 stating that the hours of operation shall be between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the amended hours would allow maximum flexibility and the hours would not impact the community. MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed action is part of the project evaluated'in the Negative Declaration prepared for GPA 93- 3(B)/Amendment No. 790/Traffic Study No. 91 and approved by the Planning Commission on December 9, -3- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 1993. That Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission and was reviewed and considered prior to recommending approval of the project. 2. That development of the subject property in the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community District will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan objectives and policies. 3. That the value of property is protected by preventing development 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. That the proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards for the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community District,as recommended for City Council approval by the Planning Commission in Amendment No. 790. -4- / COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Janua 6 1994 ROLL CALL IIQDEX 7. 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. 8. That the development has been designed to maximize protection of public views from Bison Avenue. 9. That there are no known archeological or historical resources on-site. 10. That there are no environmentally sensitive areas on-site. 11. The property does not contain any areas of unique geologic hazards. 12. That the proposed project will meet City noise standards for residential development. 13. The site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas and pedestrian and vehicular access are functional in that the project has been designed so as to limit vehicular access to the site from Camelback Street. 14. The development is consistent with surrounding land uses and with the goals and policies of the General Plan as recommended for City Council approval by the Planning Commission in GPA 93-3(B). 15. Mechanical equipment and trash areas will be concealed from view. 16. 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. -5- r/ COMMISSIONERS MINUTES �d'0O '�tnn'IOr+tadq,��S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 17. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code. 18. The approval of the proposed project will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 19. That Site Plan Review No. 68 will not become effective unless and until General Plan Amendment 93-3(B), Traffic Study No. 91 and Amendment No. 790 are approved by the City Council. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial compliance with the approved site plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 4. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. That the intersection of the private drive and Camelback Street be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape,walls, the monument sign and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight -6- 1 COMMISSIONERS , ` MINUTES'. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX distance requirements.Landscaping within the sight line as defined by City Standard 110-L shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 6. That the security gate at the entrance shall be designed to provide a turnaround prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. 7. That the displaced and cracked sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along the Bison Avenue and Camelback Street frontages; that the displaced curb access ramp at the corner of Camelback Street and Bison Avenue be reconstructed; and that the shrubs along the Bison Avenue frontage be trimmed back to two (2) feet behind the sidewalk unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 8. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 9. That the Water Capital Improvement fee be paid. 10. 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 COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES �r�Ap �L,G'lOr�Ep�Gd�s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the Camelback Street or Bison Avenue rights-of-way unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 11. That overhead utilities serving the site be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 12. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 13. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designed 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. 14. That a landscape and irrigation plan for the site shall be approved by the Public Works and Planning Departments. Landscaping shall be provided along both street frontages to provide adequate screening from the adjacent residential uses. The landscaping shall be installed in accoidance with the prepared plans. 15. That the project shall be so designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent streets and uses. 16. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 17. That the hours of operation of the mini-storage facility shall be limited between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. -8- I Q COMMISSIONERS 0 MINUTES- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 6, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 18. That all conditions of approval of Amendment No. 790 and Traffic Study No. 91 and related mitigation measures of the environmental document shall be fulfilled: 19. 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. -9- .20 a . City Council Meog January 10, 1994 Agenda Item No. I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning Department ( 'k SUBJECT: A. General Plan Amendment No. 93-3(B) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the PacTel Site from a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commer- cial to General Industry and increase the allowable development entitlement from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft. so as to allow develop- ment of a mini-storage facility in the North Ford Planned .Community District. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND • B. Amendment No. 790 Request to amend the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations so as to redesignate Site 2a from Light Industry-Office- Commercial/Industrial to General Industry and increase the additional allowable square footage from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft. and to amend the District's standards to incorporate appropriate language.so as to accommodate provisions to regulate the proposed mini-storage facility in the North Ford Planned Community District. AND C. Traffic Study No. 91 Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction of a 110,600-square-foot mini-storage facility in the proposed General Industry Site 2a of the North Ford Planned Community. . AND D. Site Plan Review No. 68 Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the construction of a 110,600-square-foot mini-storage facility in the proposed General Industry Site 2a of the North Ford Planned Community. TO: City Cou* - 2. APPLICANT: Dahn Corporation, Irvine Applications The proposed applications,, if approved, would allow development of a 110,600-square-foot mini-storage facility on a 2.788-acre parcel of land on the northwest corner of Bison Avenue and Camelback Street in the North Ford Planned Community. The requests include an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the property (the former PacTel site) from Administrative, 'Professional and Financial Commercial (with an alternate land use of Retail and Service Commercial) to General Industry; an amendment to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations so as to reclassify Site 2a from Light Industrial-Office-Commercial/Industrial use to General Industry and increase the additional allowable square footage from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft. and establish mini- storage facilities as the exclusive permitted use; and to approve a Traffic Study in compliance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance to allow development of 110,600 sq.ft. of new mini-storage facilities. At its meeting of December 9, 1993 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed project with an additional condition requiring Site Plan Review. General Plan Amendment procedures are contained in City Council Policy Q-1,Amendment procedures are in Chapter 20.84,Planned Community procedures are in Chapter 20.51, and Traffic Study procedures are in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Procedures for Site Plan Review are contained in Section 20.01.070 of the Municipal Code. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, (a) Adopt Resolution No._, amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan so as to designate the subject property for amaximumof 110,600sq.ft.ofmini-storage facility use; and (b) Adopt Resolution No., approving Amendment No. 790 so as to redesignate Site 2a of the North Ford Planned Community District from Light Industry-Office- Commercial/Industrial to General Industry, to increase the additional allowable square footage from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft., and to amend the District's standards to incorporate appropriate language so as to accommodate provisions to regulate the proposed mini-storage facility; and (c) Uphold the action of the Planning Commission and approve Traffic Study No. 91 and Site Plan Review No. 68 subject to the findings and conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. TO: City Council Background A public hearing to consider these items was held by the Planning Commission on • December 9, 1993. At the conclusion of that hearing the Planning Commission adopted a motion (6 Ayes, 1 Absent) recommending City Council approval of the requested actions with the additional requirement for Site Plan Review approval. In recommending the requirement for Site Plan Review the Commission expressed concerns regarding the site plan and elevations of the proposed facility and its compatibility with the adjacent residential area to the south and the commercial center to the east. The Planning Commission noted that without the added Site Plan Review requirement the Commission would have no opportunity to review detailed plans for the project. In response to questions from the Commission, staff noted that there is currently no requirement for Site Plan Review in most portions of the North Ford PC(the only exception being the residential area north of University Drive). Staff also confirmed that without the Site Plan Review requirement the applicant would be free to alter the project plans that have been submitted so long as all site development standards were met (e.g.,height limit, setbacks, building floor area, etc.). Subsequent to the December 9 Planning Commission hearing, the project proponent • submitted a Site Plan Review application,which will be heard by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1994. If it is the desire of the Planning Commission to approve the Site Plan Review, it would not become effective until and unless the related items are approved by the City Council. The action of the Planning Commission will be reported to the Council at the Study Session of January 10. Copies of the minutes and staff report for the Planning Commission hearing will be transmitted to the City Council prior to the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWIICKER, Director By: t Jo n . Do as, AICP Prin pal Planner/Environmental Coordinator Attachments: • 1. Draft City Council Resolution No._ (GPA 93-3[B]). 2. Draft City Council Resolution No._ (Amendment No. 790). 3. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 1993. 4. Planning Commission Staff Report of December 9, 1993. r.\...\PAGTEL\cc-R".2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE'CITY • OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PAC TEL SITE IN THE NORTH FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY[GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-3(B)] WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the general distribution and location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in • a number of ways,including residential land use categories,population projections and floor area ratio limitations; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as required by California planning law; and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City-of Newport • Beach, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing and has GPA 93.3(B)-Dahn Mini-Storage I City Council Resolution 0 0 recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, the approval of the proposed project would preserve the consistency between the Land Use Element and the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations; and WHEREAS, Traffic Study No. 91 has demonstrated that the proposed amendment would not have a significant adverse impact on the circulation system; and WHEREAS, the proposed general industrial land use is compatible with the surrounding community; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act an Initial Study has been conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed • project. The Initial Study concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, the City Council finds that 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 hereby approved. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City Council and was reviewed and GPA 93.3(B)-Dahn Mini-Storage 2 City Council Resolution considered prior to approval of the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an amendment to the Land Use • Element of the General Plan as described in Exhibit "Xis hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all of the mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration are hereby adopted as conditions of approval for the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Sec. 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988) will be met through the design of.the project, required compliance with City building, grading, and other codes and ordinances, and required compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is attached to the Negative Declaration and incorporated herein by reference. • ADOPTED this _ day of , 1994. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit "A": Revised Land Use Element text and tables • h\...\JOHN-D\PAC-TEL\CGRPSO.GPA GPA 93.3(B)-Dahn Mini-Storage 3 City Council Resolution • Exhibit A 1-2. AFArea 2. This area is designated for Single Family Detached development and is allocated 53 dwelling units,which reflects the existing development. • 1-4. AFArea 4. This area is designated for General Industry and is allocated 1,331,000 sq.ft. of development, exclusive of parking. 1-5. AFArea S. This area is designated for Single Family Detached development and is allocated 39 dwelling units. No subdivision resulting in additional units in this area is allowed. 1-6. AFArea 6.This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 54 dwelling units,which reflects the existing development. 1-7. AFArea 7.This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 59 dwelling units,which reflects the existing development. 1-8. AFArea 8.This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 168 dwelling units,which reflects the existing development. 2. North Ford.This areais bounded by BisonAvenue,Jamboree Road,SanDiegoCreek and the City boundary.The area is identified as the North Ford Planned Community. • Areas described are numbered as on the Planned Community Text map.(see Map 6) All development limits exclude parking. 2-1. NFArea 1. This area is designated for Governmental, Education and Institutional Facilities with an allocation of 58,417 sq.ft. and for General Industry with an alloca- tion of 89,624 sq.ft. [GPA 88-2(B)] 2-2. NFArea 2. This area is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities and General Industry and Retail d SeMee Germnemi"'— Adfflwstra" Ffefessional d Fi , Ga ", as an alterna&*4and-use, [GPA 90- 1(G)].The development allocation is as follows: Synagogue site: 31,150 sq.ft Utility Station: 1,000 sq.ft. TIC Corp.Yard: 33,940 sq.ft. n '"^`" "' 2 0 " — Postal Facility: 55,200 sq.ft. General Ind115Jry 110.600 sa.ft. ,(Site 2a• Mini-Storag Facili 2-3. NFArea 3.This site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and is . allocated 50,000 sq.ft. of retail commercial development. 2-4. NF Area 4. This area is designated for Multi-Family Residential land use and is allocated 300 dwelling units. 20% of the units shall be affordable, with the affor- dability standards and term determined at the time of project approval. -72- NFArea 5.This area is designated for residential development in three types.The Single Family Detached area is allocated 159 dwelling units and no subdivision which will result in additional dwelling units is allowed.The Single Family Attached area is allocated 120 dwelling units which reflects the existing development.The Multi- • Family Residential area is allocated 570 dwelling,units and one unit is allowed for each 2,778 sq.ft.of buildable lot area. 2-6. NFArea 6.This site is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space for community park uses.This park site is intended to provide major facilities for the City's community recreation programs. 3. San Diego CreekNorth.This site is located on Jamboree Road easterly of the Bayview Planned Community. The site is designated for Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 112,000 sq.ft.A Fire Station reser- vation of 2.5 acres is also designated on the site. 4. JamboreelMackthur.This site is located southerly of the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. It is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial use,with a floor area ratio of 0.25. ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA L3 Residential(in du's) Commercial(in sq.ft.) • Existing Gen.Plan Projected Existing Gen.Plan Projected 1/1/87 Projection Growth US/87 Projection Growth 1-1.AF Area 1 50 50 -0- .0- .0- -0- 1-2.AF Area 2 53 53 -0- -0- -0- -0- 1-4.AF Area 4 .0- -0- .0- 1,227,488 1,331,000 103,512 1-5.AF Area 5 39 39 .0- .0- -0- .0- 1-6.AF Area 6 54 54 .0- -0- .0- 40- 1-7.AF Area 7 59 59 .0- -0- -0- .0- 1-8.AF Area 8 168 168 -0. .0- .0- .0- 2-1.NF Area 1 .0- -0- .0- 74,692 148,041 73,349 2-2.NFArea2 .0- -e-3 -e--1 100,930 164,840 55,M 245,440 144,510 2-3.NF Area 3 -0- -0- -0. -0- 50,000 50,000 2-4.NFArea 4 -0- 300 300 .0- -0- -0- 2-5.NF Area 5 849 849 .0- -0- -0- -0- 2-6.NFArea 6 -0- .0- .0- -0- -0- -0- 3.San Diego Creek North =0- -0- -0- -0- 112,000 11%000 4Jamboree/MacArthur -0- -0- .0- .0- 50,000 5%000 TOTAL 1,272 +,S .573 -0301 1,403,110 1,845,881 442,771 Population 2,519 31i43 5% -73- d 0 Citywide Growth Projections The programs and policies for the Land Use Element will result in additional development . with associated population increases within the City,as well as in the unincorporated areas within the City's planning area.This growth is summarized below. ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING AREA Residential(in du's) Commercial(in sq.ft.) Existing Gen.Plan Projected Existing Gen.Plan Projected 1/1/87 Projection Growth 1/1/87 Projection Growth DIVISIONA 2,597 5,610 3,013 2,118,930 4,211,410 2,092,480 DIVISION B 3,897 4,970 1,073 1,247,381 1,705,236 457,855 DIVISION C 901 1,168 267 -0- -0- -0- DIVISION D 2,891 3,490 599 323,393 420,355 96,962 DIVISION E 2,228 2,801 573 118,828 147,086 28,258 DIVISION F 4,454 5,224 770 700,332 983,047 282,715 DIVISION G 1,008 1,025 17 150,2% 262,583 112,325 DIVISION H 2,115 2,214 99 1,982,300 2,944,221 961,921 • DIVISION 4,552 4,612 60 1,613,946 3,134,839 1,520,893 DIVISIONK 3,647 3,965 318 853,204 1,749,168 686,964 1,830,768 977,564 DIVISION L 2,162 3;039 8% 14,119,949 16,077,251 1,957,402 1033 871 DIVISION M 4,199 4,329 130 608,721 777,035 168,314 DIVISIONN .0- 2,600 2,600 -0- 2,975,000 2,975,000 MISCAES. -0- 200 200 -0- -0- -0- CITY 34,209 3'},864 5,655 23,837,142 -rt "�"' 069 39,865 5,656 35,468,83111,631,699 SPHERE-OF- INFLUENCE 442 5,376 4,934 351,816 4,267,831 3,916,015 PLANNINGAREA TOTAL 34,651 45$f8 *,M9 24,188,9S8 39- • 45241 10.5590 39,736.66215,547,704 - 86- Revised 10/93 RESOLUTION NO. . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DIS- TRICT REGULATIONS [PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 7901 WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS,the NewportBeach Municipal Codes provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and • WHEREAS, an amendment to the North Ford Planned,Community District Regulations is necessary in order to maintain consistency between the Newport Beach General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance•, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act an Initial Study has been conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study concluded that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the information . contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, the City Amendment No.790 - Dahn Mini-Storage 1 City Council Resolution Council finds that 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 hereby approved. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City Council and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Amendment No. 790 to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations,as shown on Exhibit"A"attached hereto,is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all of the mitigation measures identified • in the Negative Declaration are hereby adopted as conditions of approval for the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the monitoring requirements of Public Resources Code Sec. 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988) will be met through the design of the project, required compliance with City building, grading, and other codes and ordinances, and required compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project is attached to the Negative Declaration and incorporated herein by reference. Amendment No.790 - Dahn Mini-Storage 2 City Council Resolution l/ • � r ADOPTED this _ day of 1994. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit "A": North Ford P-C revisions ft\...\JOIIN-D\rAC-TEL\CC-Rrso:zC • • Amendment No.790 - Dahn Mini-Storage 3 City Council Resolution SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS . North Ford Approx. Additional Additional Gross Allowable Allowable Area Acre Sq. Ft. D s _4gl [3. iierajIndustry-Of€ieeGE9 1 16.7 -0- -0- 774gM'GenerW Industry-Gffiee-GASH 2 294 -0- -0- PA v , `Generaltndust -(Mini-Stt�rage� 2a TOTAL 42.2 110,600 -0- Approx. Additional Additional Gross Allowable Allowable Area Acres _Sc. Ft, DU's • Commercial 3 5.0 50,000 -0- Multi-Family 4 18.6 Undetermined 300 Residential Open Space 4a 2.4 Residential 5 79.0 -0- 888 Park 6 12.0 -0- __0_ TOTAL 117.0 50,000 4488 9A The above statistics are based on gross acreage and do not account for buildable area. The elepineiA Amendine areas development so In Mreas 0 0 la 2a;ilevelOPMP71�is muted io ziiiiii-forage fic-9yuse wit,''a it=muM�foar area of'I I00 q ft, Deirelppment mad' ittclude one •dwelling unit for an:-pwnerjmanager includjng•#wt arage spaces,provided that such residential use will be incidental"to the Mini-storage use M xnm'nvmhMvn..xnwn xm+✓.nmvxmm..mm M'MxxMrv/nrrnn and will not alter the character of the prey SECTION V. LW44 -C$PNEl INDUSTRY, ;. . .,x , ..., , ,.AND EAMA4D�CIAI�'CJ�It�i��l�'t ,LI��C�"�(YIS A� 1�$ INS "Y`Y`CI1"fON211,"VA6UMS�AAREA 2,GENERA IN17E1S��'� �kRBA 2a(IvSiiil Stara&e Usej A n en It is the intent of this district to permit the location of a combination of light ener"""la Industrial anc� G"oventuezltl lductictnxandiisii�itx4rifacklities uses;• e tieriezal"Yndutri ,and TnsGttiiionai-uses tttaengaged'in the sales of products and services relating to and supporting the development plan, provided such uses are confined within a building or buildings, and do not contribute excess noise, dust; smoke, or vibration to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential due to the nature of the products, material or processes involved. ' ' • Gene"rat"Iii rt l use o£'Site a sTi" lT`c eestriete—d try freTo ration o£a tnini�sroxage acili #lZ„xu incidental dwellin$vuit for aawner f M a$ r oocupa Ancillary activities,i.e.,vehicle and bulk storage,associated with the above permitted uses may be located outside a structure provided screening requirements as set forth in this document are observed. B. Permitted Uses The following uses and other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Director are compatible shall be permitted: eneral industrial Uses primarily engaged in eemmereial in<tustii activities that involve some degree of on-site production, assemb y, repairr, maintenance, etc., of the product sold or products related to the service rendered, such as, but not limited to, the following list of examples: a. Appliance -a'e- inn; repair • b. Furniture sale-dal; repair e—=m� n d—I�lambirtg-sltep € Dmpery ale _and eler w 6 l@ Equipment rental centers • fpi. Nursery and garden stores Service aicd Ivtainteriance�>~acilities 2. Public and Quasi-Public Uses a. Post Office b. Public and quasi-public utility business office and related service facilities C. Utility substation d. Service and maintenance facilities '�chool�M- gm,... .. Chureh�S 3. nrr �(�'eTl jai Tndiisytream PeffrAtted efflee uses inelude t a , P t effiees, ee erete t a a :t:.: , t a: t ea ettCttll}tt)pn wliltiri $Ito 2a i for Owner/' , • ' Iiiiiitie "'t`a""'ziii siaxage isse" a t Tucz" enta c we li knit xrxatt ages cicctrpttilcy,. 7'he�ite gtau fox th'e�uiFi siti`a$e fa�ity.shalt be d�ssi"�rire �o as 'to lbeate the-offZca and caretakex*s,residence s fit t' M*6-elechiMl "substatidn" hrid :l�i�h=voltage sraas�zis��otz 7�iies a's is fe�st'�1e in,virile - initiltnizs`langte�tt expo§ure to elec�ta-magAe#ie,�elils . C. Building Site Area Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet minimum. D. Setbacks All setbacks shall be measured from the property line. For the purpose of this Ordinance, a streetside property line is that line created by the ultimate right-of-way line of the frontage street. 1. Street Frontage Yard Setback . Thirty (30) feet minimum, except that unsupported roofs or sunscreens may project six (6) feet into the setback area. 2. Interior Side Yard Setback Ten(10) feet,except that unsupported roofs and sunscreens may project three (3) feet into the setback area. P. 18 I. Parkin • Adequate off-street parking shall be provided to accommodate all parking needs for the site. The intent is to eliminate the need for.any on-street parking. Parking shall be provided for each building or development in accordance with the requirements set forth below based on the proportion of each type of use to the total building site. Required off-street parking shall be provided on the site of the use served,.or on a contiguous site or within 300 feet of the subject site. Where parking is provided on other than the site concerned, a recorded document shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Planning Department and signed by the owners of the alternate site stipulating to the permanent reservation of use of the site for said parking. Office One (1) space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. The parking requirement may be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 square feet of net floor area upon . review and approval of the modification committee. Manufacture Research and Assembly Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than three (3) spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Warehouse Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than one (1)space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet of gross floor area for the second 20,000 square feet; one (1) space for each 4,000 square feet of gross floor area for areas in excess of the initial 40,000 square feet of floor area of the building. The number of employees for parking purposes shall be determined by the largest number of employees present on the site at one time. In the event there is more • than one (1) shift, sufficient parking must be provided on-site to ,preclude the necessity for on-street parking at all hours of the day including work shift overlaps. ?TWO parking spaces far each shr fee ,(3)employees:I a0UIt10n, twn. 4)•gaagrq spaces sball'be provided•for .the bvruer� narta er an�ory dwelli"u unit. ean5#rum ctedj'M City of Irvine 9 v 9� 'q ....."` �4 ci 's € r �n may' i • : EiEi3i'': 3 'ii ' i'siie ii:;iiE GENERAL INDUSTRY ; 0 • F VERNM ENT, EDUCAT IO N & OXOSTITUiIONAL FACICITIES G y 00, GENERAL INDUSTRY(SI E ) i TiIiiiEiEiiiieiEi:::::::: l MINI-STORAGE USE &' ` "II`I-M'I'lll``'lix G III . 1 ; ' COMMERCIAL SPECIAL LANDSCAPED b STREET L� ' 1 RESIDENTIAL � gr PJ 'j�: ` PARK3rrx+s�j} B`SON i-' f .':` ;y;' OPEN SPACE • North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community NORTH LAND USE PLAN REVISED LAND USE PLAN : AMENDMENT NO, 790 August 24, 1992 // �/ COMMISSIONERS . MINUTES '�..,o' F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 9, 1993 ' INDE ROLL CALL qW s : s A General Plan Amendment No. 93-3(B) (Public Hearing) Item No.2 GPARequest to amend the Land Use Element o£the General Plan so [Re 91342 q [Res 1342: as to redesignate the subject property from a mixture of "Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial" and TS91 "Retail and Service Commercial" uses to "General .Industry' use; and the acceptance of an environmental document. A790 [Res 1343; INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Approved AND B. Traffic Study No 91 (Public Hearinel Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow an increase in • the development entitlement for the subject property from 20,000 square feet to 110,600 square feet to be used for a mini-storage facility. AND C. Amendment No 790 (Public Hearingl Request to amend the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community Development Regulations so as to reclassify the subject property from Light Industrial-Office- Commercial/Industrial to General Industrial and to increase the allowable development from 20,000 square feet to 110,600 square feet. LOCATION: Lot 6, Tract No. 6680, located at 1177 Camelback Street, on the northwesterly corner of Camelback Street and Bison • Avenue,in the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community. -6- �v I� COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES irk°ol Cl0f��ddrs CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 9 1993 ALL INDEX ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: The Dahn Corporation, Irvine OWNER: Belcourt Medical Partners, Laguna Hills The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Rush Hill, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Ridgeway and Chairman Merrill expressed concerns regarding the proposed elevation and site plan of the proposed project. Mr. Hill briefly described the project's proposed site plan. He indicated that the applicants met with the Fire and Traffic • Departments to address the Departments' concerns regarding the project, and the Departments have given the project a preliminary sign-off on the layout of the project as it relates to fire safety and traffic. He stated that a manager's unit would be provided on the site, and the site would be controlled by a security code access gate. The hours of operation would be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. He discussed the density of the proposed landscaping on Bison Avenue and Camelback Street, and that the second floor of the project would be the only portion that would be visible from the streets.The proposed raised letter sign would reflect off of the building, and a monument sign would be installed at the entrance to the property. No lights are proposed for the exterior of the building but an automobile would activate the lights within the roject from a sensor from the driveway. n response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford regarding the roofing material, Mr.Hill explained that the colored ea-gravel roof would blend with the clay tile that would be used • throughout the project. r. Hill and Chairman Merrill discussed the proposed use of the mini-storage facility. -7- i9 COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES - �y�o� t Roo 4oso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH \\ December 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDE There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway with ' respect to requiring a site plan review, John Douglas, Principal Planner,explained that the Planned Community regulationsfor the North Ford Planned Community do not require approval of a Site Plan Review for other permitted uses in the area. Motion Motion was made to approve General Plan Amendment No. 93- 3(B) [Resolution No. 1342],Amendment No.790 [Resolution No. 1343], and Traffic Study No. 91 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Substitute Commissioner Edwards made a substitute motion to approve Motion * General Plan Amendment No. 93-3(B),Amendment No.790, and Traffic Study No. 91 subject to the findings and conditions in Withdrawn Exhibit "A",, but added that there is nothing to prevent the applicants from developing a project under the guise of general industrial unless the applicants present a site plan wherein he suggested that the applicant be required to submit a site plan of the proposed development to the Planning Commission for review Amended at a later date. Commissioner Ridgeway amended the original Motion motion to add Condition No. 7 stating that the Planned Community text shall be revised to provide that the mini-storage facility and related dwelling unit shall be permitted in Area 2A, subject to the approval of a Site Plan Review. The substitute motion was withdrawn. Ayes * * * * Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Absent COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES {fdAp � Gl0r��d�LdfS t 0 Gl�.p P09iO O .��, �. s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 9, 1993 RQSKALL INDEX A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findings: 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. 2. 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 reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project. 3. 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. -9- OZ COMMISSIONERS 1 0 MINUTES < c dr O n s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEAlk Mitigation Measures: 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 properties. 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. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-3(B) Adopt Resolution No. 1342, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 93-3(B) to the City Council. C. AMENDMENT NO, 790, Adopt Resolution No. 1343, • recommending to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 790, an amendment to the North Ford Planned' Community District Regulations to rezone Commercial/Professional Office Site "2a" to General Industry land use limited to establishment,of a mini-storage facility with the following conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.08.020 of.the Municipal Code. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each building be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water • and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to -10- p�o� COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES " 0 G101�E p�G�rS c�'�y�o'll���a��0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 9 1993 R99WALL INDEX issuance of any building permits. 5. 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. There shall be no construction storage or unloading of materials within the Camelback Street and Bison Avenue right-of-way. 6. That the landscape plans be subject to the review and approval of the Parks,Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works and Planning Departments with sight distance provided in accordance with City Standard No. . 110-L. 7. That the North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community text shall be revised to provide that the mini-storage facility and related dwelling unit shall be permitted in Area 2A, subject to the approval of a Site Plan Review. E. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 91 FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1. 2. That the traffic projected one year after project completion, • during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection, will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour period. -11- a� COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES , C�Q��i' l O 09 09�0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 9, 1993 ROLL CALL IND CONDMONS: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation' systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. The pedestrian circulation system shall include walkways that connect the internal system to the sidewalk along the public streets. 2. That all vehicular access rights to Bison Avenue be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant or his successor shall comply with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 15.40) and • Traffic Study No. 91. Use Permit No. 3514 (Public Hearing) item No.3 Request to permit,the establishment of a take-out restaurant with UP3514 incidental seating within an existing market and delicatessen, on Approved property located in Area 3 of the North Ford Planned Community. The proposal also includes a request to waive a portion of the required off>street parking for the proposed facility. LOCATION: Lot 6, Tract No. 2309, located at 1280 Bison Avenue, on the northerly side of Bison Avenue, between Camelback Street and MacArthur Boulevard, in the North Ford Planned Community. ZONE: P-C • APPLICANT: A & F Stores Corp., Newport Beach -12- Planning Commission Meeting•December 9. 1993 Agenda Item No. 2 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A General Plan Amendment No 93-3(B) (Public Hearing) Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the PacTel Site from a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commer- cial to General Industry and increase the allowable development entitlement from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft. so as.to allow develop- ment of a mini-storage facility in the North Ford Planned Community District. • INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND B. Amendment No 790 (Public Hearing) Request to amend the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations so as to redesignate Site 2a from Light Industry-Office- Commercial/Industrial to General Industry and increase the Additional Allowable square footage from 20,000 sq.ft. to 110,600 sq.ft. and to amend the District's standards to incorporate appropriate language so as to accommodate provisions to regulate the proposed mini-storage facility in the North Ford Planned Community District. AND C. Traffic Study No 91 Public Hearing) • Request to approve a Traffic Study so as to allow the proposed construction of 110,600 square feet of mini-storage facility in the proposed General Industry Site 2a, located in the North Ford Planned Community. TO: Planning Commission - 2. LOCATION: Lot No. 6 of Tract No. 6680, located-at 1177 Camelback Street, on the northwesterly corner of Bison Avenue and Camelback Street, in the North Ford Planned Community District. • ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Dahn Corporation, Irvine, California OWNER: Belcourt Medical Partners L.P. ENGINEER: The Bill Partnership, Newport Beach Applications The proposed applications, if approved, would provide an entitlement for a maximum 1:10,600 square feet of General Industrial development on a 2.788-acre parcel of land on the northwest corner of Bison Avenue and Camelback Street(see attached Vicinity Map). The requests include an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesig- nate the former PacTel Site from Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial with an alternate land use of Retail and Service Commercial to General Industry; an amendment to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations so as to reclassify • the site referred to herein as "Site 2a" from Light Industrial-Office-Commercial/Industrial land uses to General Industry and increase the additional allowable square footage from 20,000 s .ft. to 110,600 s .ft. and establish mini-storage facilities as the only permitted use q q g Y under the proposed General Industry designation; and to approve a Traffic Study in compliance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance to allow the proposed 110,600 sq.ft. of new mini-storage development. General Plan Amendment procedures are contained in City Council.Policy Q-1,Amendment procedures are in Chapter 20.84,Planned Community procedures are in Chapter 20.51,, and Traffic Study procedures are in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy K-3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that if the proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, the project would not have a significant • effect on the environment. As required by CEQA, certain findings must be adopted prior to a projeces approval. A Negative Declaration has, therefore, been prepared for the project and a copy of it is attached for the Planning Commission's review. Background On March 11, 1991, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment 90-1(G) which designated the PacTel Site for Retail and Service Commercial with an alternate use for Administrative, Professional and'Financial Commercial; Amendment No. 721 to the North 0 TO: Planning Commission - 3. Ford Planned Community District Regulations which provided for a transfer of 13,550 sq.ft. of commercial development from the PacTel Site to Fashion Island and allocated 20,000 • sq.ft. of office/commercial development to the PacTel Site; and approved Traffic Study No. 70 which indicated that the project is in compliance with the City's requirements. In October 1991, the City, at the request of Resco Development initiated General Plan Amendment 91-3(D) to amend the land use classification of the PacTel Site from a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to Multi-Family Residential with a density of 30 dwelling units per acre for a senior-related residential development or 23 dwelling units per acre for a standard multi- family development with affordable housing provisions. Since October 1991, staff has met with different applicants or their representatives to review various projects proposed for the PacTel Site,however no specific project was actively pursued or submitted for consideration pursuant to GPA 91-3(D). On October 7, 1993, at the request of Resco Development, the City initiated General Plan Amendment 93-3(B) to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to change the PacTel Site land use designation from a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administra- tive,Professional and Financial Commercial to General Industry so as to allow development of a mini-storage project. At the time of the General Plan Amendment initiation,based on the conceptual discussions with the applicant, but without any specific development plans, • it was determined that an approximate building area of 106,000 sq.ft.would be sufficient for the proposed mini-storage facility. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the initiation of General Plan Amendment No. 93-3(B). Subsequently, the applicant has refined the development plan and proposes a total gross floor area of approximately 110,595 sq.ft. Therefore, staff s analysis is based on a proposed,development allocation of 110,600 sq.ft. Conformance with the General Plan and Zoning Code The site is located in Statistical Area L4 and currently is undeveloped. The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site for Retail and Service Commercial with an alternate use of Administrative,Professional and Financial Commercial with a development allocation of 20,000 sq.ft. The zoning is North Ford Planned Community, which only allows office development on this particular site, not to exceed 20,000 sq.ft. of floor area. A General Plan Amendment is required to change the current land use designation and to • increase the site's density allocation from 20,000 sq.ft.to 110,600 sq.ft.to allow the proposed mini-storage development. An amendment to the North Ford Planned Community, District Regulations is necessary so as to maintain consistency of land use classifications and permitted densities between the General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning Code. The project is located outside of the Coastal Zone Boundary and approval of a Coastal Development Permit is not required. o� 7 TO: Planning Commission - 4. Subject PropgM and Surrounding Land Use The subject property is currently an undeveloped single parcel of land within the North Ford . Planned Community. To the west of the property is an electrical substation; to the north of the site is the Camelback Post Office; to the south, across Bison Avenue, is the Belcourt residential development; and to the east is the North Ford Retail Center. Other nearby land uses include the Toyota Research Plant, two churches and a private school, and residential condominiums and apartments. ANALYSIS General Concerns As noted above, the application is a request to allow the construction of a mini-storage facility including an on-site management office and one dwelling unit to accommodate the living area for a 'full-time on-site manager. The proposed facility would consist of two structures, each a two-story building, containing a total of approximately 110,600 sgft of gross floor area. Staffs analysis is based on,general parameters of the site,surrounding land uses, and the existing requirements contained in the PC regulations. With this in mind,staff has identified the following concerns: . Land Use Com atn ibility: The proposed development is located adjacent to a Southern . California Edison electrical substation that serves power to the Newport Beach area and adjacent communities. High-voltage transmission lines serving the substation cross the subject site at the southwest comer of the parcel. Although these transmission lines have existed for many years and have not caused any known hazard to public safety,they may act as a deterrent to certain types of uses,.such as residential, mainly due to concerns regarding the potential health effects of long-term exposure to electro-magnetic fields ("ENW). Although some recent studies have suggested that there maybe a connection between EMF exposure and illness, there is currently no general consensus in the scientific community as to whether EMFs cause health problems, or what level of exposure is considered safe. The proposed mini-storage project is considered to be a type of use that would' be compatible with the adjacent substation since very few people would occupy the site for more than a short time. With regard to on-site employees, the applicant has submitted a proposed site plan showing the office.and caretaker's residence at the northeastern comer of the site. This location is the greatest distance from the substation and overhead high- voltage lines, therefore long-term EMF exposure would be minimized. Since the proposed site plan is not binding on the applicant as part of the proposed actions, staff suggests'that • the following requirement be incorporated into the PC Regulations: The site plan for the mini-storage facility shall be designed so as to locate the office and caretaker's residence as far from the electrical substation and high- voltage transmission lines as is feasible in order to minimize long-term exposure to electro-magnetic fields. TO: PlanninCommission - 5. • Development Intensity: The following table compares the intensity of the proposed project to that allowed under the current General Plan Land Use Element provisions. Existing General Plan Proposed Project Land area 121,445 sf 121,445 sf Building area 20,000 sf 110,559 sf Floor area ratio 0.16 0.91 As this table indicates, the proposed entitlement would allow a development of significantly, higher intensity than that permitted under present General Plan and zoning provisions. Under normal circumstances, such an increase in development intensity could result in adverse impacts to streets and intersections. However, the proposed mini' storage project is considered a low traffic generation use, therefore no significant circulation problems would be expected to result from this increase in development intensity (see detailed discussion in the Traffic Study section, below). The other major concern with respect to building intensity and floor area ratio is the project's potential aesthetic impact due to increased building bulk, which can be mitigated to some extent through building design and landscape screening. One concern is the view • of the project from the homes across Bison Avenue in the Belcourt development. Because of the difference in elevation between the homes and the project site, some residents may have a view of the rooftop of the mini-storage facility. This view is partially screened by the existing mature landscaping on the slope on the northerly side of Bison, and would also be mitigated by the requirement in the PC Regulations for mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops to be screened from view from adjacent public streets and buildings (PC General Note 9). The existing PC Regulations also require installation and maintenance of landscaping along all street rights-of-way according to a plan approved by the Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation. This landscaping will help to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed increase in building bulk. General Plan Amendment 93-3(B) An amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element is proposed to change the land use designation of the project from either Retail and Service Commercial or Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to General Industry/mini-storage and increase the site's development allocation from 20,000 square feet to 110,600 square feet. If this • proposal is approved, the following revisions to the existing language would be appropriate. "2-2. NF Area 2. This area is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities; cilia General ,Industry, and Retail emd SeMee TO: Planning Commission - 6. The revised development allocation would be as follows: Synagogue site: 31,150 sq,ft. Utility Station: 1,000 sq.ft. • TIC Corp. Yard: 33,940 sq:ft. Ann Postal Facility: 55,200 sq.ft. e1�0i'a, wl -F �ffaf1(I__ Site 2a,1MnPSt°ra0.e VaAl Revisions to the charts on pages 73 and 86 of the Land Use Element would also be required to reflect the statistical changes made by the proposed amendment in the Land Use Element. These revisions are attached to Exhibit A. Amendment No. 790 The proposed development application would also require an amendment to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations in order to preserve consistency between the Zoning Code and General Plan. The amendment would change the North Ford Planned Community District Land Use Plan to redesignate Site 2a from Office use to "General Industry/Mini-Storage';eliminate-the existing 20,000 sq.ft.development allocation;establish development entitlement for Site 2a to allow a maximum of 110,600 sq.ft.for a mini-storage facility; eliminate the commercial and office land use category and the permitted commercial and office uses allowed under the current zoning; and establish parking . standards for mini-storage facilities. If this proposal is approved, the appropriate revisions to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations are provided in Exhibit B. Traffic Study No. 91 Currently the site is undeveloped and vacant. Since the proposed development Would generate more than 130 average daily trips, a,traffic study was required for the proposed project in.conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Council'Policy S-1 to evaluate the consistency and conformity of the project with the City's Circulation Element. Traffic Impact Analysis: The City Traffic Engineer identified the following eight intersections for detailed evaluation in the traffic study. 1. Jamboree Road/Eastbluff- Ford Road 2. Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue 3. Jamboree Road/Eastbluff N. - University • 4. Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard 5. Jamboree Road/Bristol Street 6. Jamboree Road/Bristol Street N. 7. MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road 8. MacArthur Boulevard/Bison Avenue �p i TO: Planning Commission - 7. The first step in evaluating an intersection's traffic volume capacity is to conduct a 1010 traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and • committed projects with City approvals. If the project's traffic generation is less than one percent of the volume on all approach segments of the selected intersections during the morning or afternoon peak 2-1/2 hour periods,then the project's traffic impact is considered insignificant and in compliance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. In the event that project traffic would exceed the one percent threshold on any leg of any selected intersection, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. When the one percent traffic volume test was applied to the selected intersections it was determined that the projected traffic increase at each intersection would not exceed one percent of the projected 2 1/2 hour peak traffic volume, therefore ICU analysis was not required. Site Access and Circulation: The existing driveway, located to the northeast corner of the lot, provides access to the site from Camelback Street. The layout of the proposed facility site plan demonstrates that adequate internal circulation can be provided. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the site plan will be reviewed by the Traffic Engineer to ensure that all applicable design standards are met. • Parkin : There are currently no provisions in the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations to specify parking requirements for a mini-storage facility. The proposed project would provide a total of six parking spaces, which include three regular parking spaces, one handicapped parking space and two covered parking spaces for use by the resident managers. Since the mini-storage facility tenants would load and unload their vehicles in front of their individual storage space or near the elevators, the parking spaces provided on the proposed site plan are considered adequate. Specific parking requirements for the proposed mini-storage facility are included in the Attachment 5. Conclusions and Specific Findings With the existing requirements for landscaping and building design contained in the Planned Community Regulations, it is staffs opinion that the major land use compatibility concerns with the proposed project will be adequately addressed. It should be noted that there is no use permit or site plan review required for the proposed mini-storage project, therefore the Planning Commission will not review the specific development plan. The site plan that has been submitted should be considered as an example, and is not binding on the applicant. Modifications to the proposed plan may be proposed and approved so long as all design • criteria contained in the PC regulations are met. Should the Planning Commission desire to approve this proposal and recommend its adoption by the City Council,findings and conditions included in the attached Exhibit A are suggested.However, if other information is presented to the Commission indicating that the proposed development is inappropriate or would present land use conflicts, findings for denial are contained in Exhibit B. • 0 TO: Planning Commission - 8. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director • By Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner aza\gpa\GPA93-3B\pac-tkpc Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Exhibit A: Findings and Conditions for Approval 3. Exhibit B: Findings for Denial 4. Draft Resolution [GPA 93-3(B)] 5. Draft Resolution (North Ford P-C Amendment No. 790) 6. Negative Declaration 7. Traffic Study No. 91 • • �a� Attachment 1 VICINITY MAP General Plan Amendment 93-3(B) Amendment No. 790 Traffic Study No. 91 �O Site Location ` 1 SIii ( .Iu:rl E liii E:I � :...I;ailtli•. 3 = i f C N •Planning Department 11/3/93 133 0 Attachment 2 EXHIBIT "A" ACTIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOR • GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-3(B) AMENDMENT NO. 790 TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 91 A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Findings: . 1. That an Initial Study has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. 2. 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 reflects the independent judgement of the Planning Commission and was reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project. 3. 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. Mitigation Measures: 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 properties. 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. 1 keg B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-3(B) Adopt Resolution No. , recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 93-3(B) to the City Council. • C. AMENDMENT NO.790. Adopt Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 790, an amendment to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations to rezone Commercial/Professional Office Site"U' to General Industry land use limited to establishment of a mini-storage facility with the following conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19.0&020 of the Municipal Code. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each building 'be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. • 4. That County Sanitation District fees be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. 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. There shall be no construction storage or unloading of materials within the Camelback Street and Bison Avenue right-of-way. 6. That the landscape plans be subject to the review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works and Planning Departments with sight distance provided in accordance with City Standard No. 110-L. E. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 91 • FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1. 2. That,the traffic projected one year after project completion, during any.a.m. or p.m.2.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection, will be increased less than 1% by traffic generated from the project during • any a.m. or p.m. 2.5 hour period. CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. The pedestrian circulation system shall include walkways that connect the internal system to the sidewalk along the public streets. 2. That all vehicular access rights to Bison Avenue be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant or his successor shall comply with the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 15.40) and Traffic Study No. 91. • • 3 �3 6 �\ • Attachment 3 EXHIBIT "B" • FINDINGS FOR DENIAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-3(B) AMENDMENT NO. 790 TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 91 A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Finding: 1. That an environmental document is not needed for a project which is denied. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-3 (B) 1. That the site is not appropriate for the proposed 110,600 sq.ft. mini-storage use due to the building bulk and resulting aesthetic impacts upon adjacent properties. C. AMENDMENT NO. 790 1. That the proposed zone change to General Industry is not consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. D. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 91 1. That the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the site. • (� Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF • THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PAC TEL SITE IN THE NORTH FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93-3(B)] WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land"Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS,said element of the General Plan sets forth objectives,supporting policies and limitations for development in the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, said element of the General Plan designates the general • distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land and building intensities in a number of ways, including residential land use categories and population projections, the floor area ratio ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Circulation Elements are correlated as required by California planning law; and WHEREAS, the provisions and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are further implemented by the traffic analysis procedures of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the implementation programs of that Ordinance and the Fair Share Traffic Contribution Fee Ordinance; and • WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter of the City of Newport Beach,the Planning Commission has held a public hearing to consider a certain amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; and 'y� n WHEREAS, the approval of the proposed project would preserve the consistency between the Land Use Element and the North Ford Planned Community • District Regulations; and WHEREAS, Traffic Study No. 91 has demonstrated that the proposed amendment would not have a significant adverse impact on the circulation system; and WHEREAS, the proposed general industrial land use is compatible with the surrounding community; and WHEREAS,the City of Newport Beach prepared a Negative Declaration with supporting Initial Study for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the • information contained in the environmental document in making its decision on the proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach that an amendment to the General Plan as described in Exhibit "Xis recommended for approval to the City Council. • ADOPTED this 9th day of December. 1993, by the following vote, to wit: • AYES NOES ABSENT BY Harry O. Merrill CHAIRMAN • BY Anne Gifford SECRETARY AA\G PA\G PA93.3B\G PA-RES O.PC Attachments: Exhibit "A" Revised Land Use Element text and tables • W� 6 • Exhibit A 1-2. AFArea 2. This area is designated for Single Family Detached development and is allocated 53 dwelling units,which reflects the existing development. 1-4. AFArea 4. This area is designated for General Industry and is allocated 1,331,000 sq.ft. of development,exclusive of parking. 1-5. AFArea 5. This area is designated for Single Family Detached development and is allocated 39 dwelling units. No subdivision resulting in additional units in this area is allowed. 1-6. AFArea 6.This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 54 dwelling units,which reflects the existing development. 1-7. AFArea 7. This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 59 dwelling units,which reflects the existing development. 1-8. AFArea 8.This area is designated for Single Family Attached development and is allocated 168 dwelling units,which reflects the existing development. 2. North Ford.This areais boundedbyBisonAvenue,Jamboree Road,SanDiego Creek and the City boundary.The area is identified as the North Ford Planned Community. • Areas described are numbered as on the Planned Community Text map.(see Map 6) All development limits exclude parking. 2-1. NFArea 1. This area is designated for Governmental, Education and Institutional Facilities with an allocation of 58,417 sq.ft.and for General Industry with an alloca- tion of 89,624 sq.ft. [GPA 88-2(B)] 2-2. NF Area 2. This area is designated Governmental, Educational and Institutional Facilities and General Industry and Retail and Sen4ee "" -"0"' "'"''"'tea' n afessional d Fi l Ge _ al _an alternative land use. [GPA 90- 1(G)].The development allocation is as follows: Synagogue site: 31,150 sq.ft Utility Station: 1,000 sq.ft.- TIC Corp.Yard: 33,940 sq.ft. Retaii/E)fffe"29,099sq.ft. Postal Facility: 55,200 sq.ft. General IndustZL110 600 sa ft (Site 2a• Mini-Storage Facilitvl 2-3. NFArea 3.This site is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use and is • allocated 50;000 sq.ft. of retail commercial development. 2-4. NF Area 4. This area is designated for Multi-Family Residential land use and is allocated 300 dwelling units. 2017o of the units shall be affordable, with the affor- dability standards and term determined at the time of project approval. -72- I// NFArea 5.This area is designated for residential development in three types.The Single FamilyDetached area is allocated 159 dwellingunits and no subdivision which will result in additional dwelling units is allowed.The Single Family Attached area is allocated 120 dwelling units which reflects the existing development.The Multi- . Family Residential area is allocated 570 dwelling units and one unit is allowed for each 2,778 sq.ft.of buildable lot area. 2-6. NFArea 6. This site.is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space for community park uses.This park site is intended to provide major facilities for the City's community recreation programs. 3. San Diego CreekNorth.This site is located on Jamboree Road easterly of the Bayview Planned Community. The site is designated for Administrative Professional and Financial Commercial land use and is allocated 112,000 sq.ft.A Fire Station reser- vation of 2.5 acres is also designated on the site. 4. Jamboree/MacArthur.This site is located southerly of the intersection of Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. It is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial use,with a-floor area ratio of 0.25. ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR STATISTICAL AREA 13 Residential(in du's) Commercial(in sq.ft.) • Existing Gen.Plan Projected Existing Gen.Plan Projected 111/87 Projection Growth 1/1/87 Projection Growth 1-1.AF Area 1 50 50 -0- .0- .0- -0- 1-2.AF Area 2 53 53 -0- -0- -0- .0- 1-4.AF Area 4 -0- -0. -0- 1,227,489 1,331,000. 103,512 1-5.AF Area 5 39 39 .0- .0- .0- 0- 1-6.AF Area 6 54 54 -0- .0- .0- .0- 1-7.AF Area 7 59 59 -0- -0- -0- .0- 1-8.AF Area 8 168 168 .0- -0- .0- .0- 2-1.NF Area 1 -0- .0- -0- 74,692 148,041 73,349 2-2.NF Area 2 .0- -0.-I -0-_1 100,930 154,640 S-,910 245,440 144,510 2-3.NF Area 3 -0- -0- .0- .0- 50,000 50,000 2-4.NF Area 4 -0- 300 300 .0- .0- -0- 2-5.NF Area 5 849 849 .0- =0. .0- -0- 2-6.NF Area 6 .0- -0-' .0- .0- .0- .0- 3.San Diego Creek North -0- -0- -0- -0- 112,000 112,000 . 4Jamboree/MacArthur -0- -0- .0- .0- 50,000 50,000 TOTAL 1,272 3372LM 3BBL01 1,403,110 1,845,881 442,771 Population 2,519 3,+S 594 W -73- �a 1 Citywide Growth Projections The programs and policies for the Land Use Element will result in additional development • with associated population increases within the City,as well as in the unincorporated areas within the City's planning area.This growth is summarized below. ESTIMATED GROWTH FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING AREA Residential(in dWs) Commercial(in sq.ft.) Existing Gen.Plan Projected Existing Gen.Plan Projected 1/1/87 Projection Growth 1/1/87 Projection Growth DIVISION A 2,597 5,610 3,013 2,118,930 4;211,410 2,092,480 DIVISIONS 3,897 4,970 1,073 1,247,381 1,705,236 457,855 DIVISION C 901 1,168 267 -0- -0- -0- DIVISION D 2,891 3,490 599 323,393 420,355 96,962 DIVISION 2,228 2,801 573 118,828 147,086 28,258 DIVISION F 4,454 5,224 770 700,332 983,047 282,715 DIVISION G 1,008 1,025 17 150,258 262,583 112,325 DIVISIONH 2,115 2,214 99 1,982,300 2,944,221 961,921 • DIVISION J 4,552 4,612 60 1,613,946 3,134,839 1,520,893 DIVISION K 3,647 3,965 318 853,204 i 749,166 886-,964 1,830,768 977,564 DIVISIONL 2,162 'W2 8% 14,119,849 16,077,251 1,957,402 3y033 871 DIVISIONM 4,199 4,329 130 608,721 777,035 168,314 DIVISION N -0- 2,600 2,600 -0- 2,975,000 2,975,000 MISC,RES. -0- 200 200 -0- -0- -0- CITY 34,209 39,A64 5655 23,837,142 "^",�, 089 39,865 5,656 35,468,83111,631,689 SPHERE-OF- INFLUENCE 442 5,376 4,934 351,816 4,267,831 3,916,015 PLANNINGAREA TOTAL 34,651 45,zl 49;589 24,188,958 39,164 66R A5,"`r',10 • 45,241 10,590 39,736,66215,547,704 -86- Revised 10/93 -1 i Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH FORD PLANNED COMMUNITY DIS- TRICT REGULATIONS [PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 790] WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and; WHEREAS,the Newport Beach Municipal Codes provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of • Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations is necessary in order to maintain consistency between the Newport Beach General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS,the City of Newport Beach prepared aNegative Declaration with supporting Initial Study for the ,project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the environmental document in making its decision on the • proposed amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. 1 +� • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Planning Commission of the • City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council an amendment to the North Ford Planned Community District Regulations designated as Planning Commission Amendment No. 790 as shown on Exhibit "A" attached. ADOPTED this 9th day of December , 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT • BY Harry O. Merrill CHAIRMAN BY Anne Gifford SECRETARY AA\GPA\GPA93-313\ZON-RESO.PC Attachment: Exhibit "A" North Ford P-C revisions. • 2 SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS North Ford • Approx. Additional Additional Gross Allowable Allowable Area Acres -Sc . Ft= gig t �siex��alTndustry-9€€dO 1 16.7 -0- -0- Ligkt' enera Industry-Of€iee 2 254 -0- -0- 6exereialflndnstfiel eneral:Iiii#ustr � ttrage 2a TOTAL 42.2 110,600 -0- Approx. Additional Additional Gross Allowable Allowable Area Acre Sq. Ft. DU's Commercial 3 5.0 50,000 -0- • Multi-Family Residential 4 18.6 Undetermined 300 Open Space 4a 2.4 Residential 5 79.0 -0- 888 Park 6 12.0 2 Q TOTAL 117.0 50,000 OR The above statistics are based on gross acreage and,do not account for buildable area. -The • --!Ws sl-1,.-a.e feet ef additional aHewable-development is alleeated4e-Afea-Za 0 2a; velogxuen is liazr}ted f6 iy use wi'tli a riaa�onr=i floor azea of 110,60d • "q ft, Development array Include carte dwelling unit-for an. omerjmanager Inebiding bW garage spaces,provided tltat such residential,use will,be inddeptal to the lxti-sturago ass and will Trot alter the character of the premises: ,.,... —_ �,�.�...,. M.�m.... ._..�.. ..,. _ , SECTION V. L-1 G C EIMALINDUSTRY, AND� OVERIr Ai l✓DUCA Q INS'T'f'l'TPHONA :FACILITIES AREA 2; GENERAL INDUSZI2 AREA tat Sv6 Stara��Use)m ..... ._� m �m „M ... . .. A. Intent It is the intent of this district to permit the location of a combination of indtistr-ial uses, besifiess d r , -le —uses, and Ge fl l _ ", e2tGl 1� Industrial tEa Giivexntnental� Etlucati nal aiicT "TriStiTiitiurt FmOR. uses. ' i Genex Sbdustrial and Institutional uses M# engaged in the sales of products and services relating to addiiipporeQ the development plan, provided such uses are confined within a building or buildings, and do not contribute excess noise, dust, smoke, or vibration to the surrounding environment nor contain a high hazard potential due to the nature of the products, material or processes involved. € fi • G"eziexal'In'dus�ria�.'use a£'Sire�a,s'li- "b�resriicted tt�'�a ci�i xariuft o£a ml�l{stag Facility,with do incide?h dwelling Uhit for Ow�?�rJ?nattager• ac+cup9�C Ancillary activities,i.e.,vehicle and bulk storage,associated with the above permitted uses may be located outside a structure provided screening requirements as set forth in this document are observed. B. Permitted Uses The following uses and other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Director are compatible shall be permitted: 1. ganmneFe"eneralIndustrial Uses primarily engaged in eexmiereial iritliistriif activities that involve some degree of on-site production, assembly, repair, maintenance, etc., of the product sold or products related to the service rendered, such as, but not limited to, the following list of examples: • a. Appliance sales, rental, repair b. Furniture sales, rental, repair e—Leekswiith e. ��7 Equipment rental centers jR Nursery and garden stores e. 'l� auszng • i Service and Nfii at-ce acilitie 2. Public and Ouasi-Public Uses a. Post.Office b. Public and quasi-public utility business office and related service facilities C. Utility substation d. Service and maintenance facilities Schools ChttrehA 3. Q€Oee encra ndust Srelopmeit iitliin Si't"e 2 "i iirite fc tci muu staxage use an fZicFd clweltiixgtxit for owner)s�xau . Paget occupancy, 7 he site Matt for the shbe deas to9cte the office and'caretakeence as far fromtelecEriubstatiatEand �ig2 Votae �TI $ses as iS leasz�l¢ in ordek t(� ttinituie lgn �ternt exposure to slectrn tngtreld � C. Building Site Area Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet minimum. D. Setbacks All setbacks shall be measured from the property line. For the purpose of this Ordinance, a streetside propertydine is that line-created by the ultimate right-of-way line of the frontage street. 1. Street Frontage Yard Setback Thirty (30) feet minimum, except that unsupported roofs or sunscreens may • project six (6) feet into the setback area. 2. Interior Side Yard Setback Ten(10)feet,except that unsupported'roofs and sunscreens may project three (3) feet into the setback area. ��g P. 18 • I. Parkin Adequate off-street parking shall be provided to accommodate all parking needs for the site. The intent is to eliminate the need for any on-street parking. Parking shall be provided for each building or development in accordance with the requirements set forth below based on the proportion of each type of use to the total building site. Required off-street parking shall be provided on the site of the use served, or on a contiguous site or within 300 feet of the subject site. Where parking is provided on other than the site concerned, a recorded document shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Planning Department and signed by the owners of the alternate site stipulating to the permanent reservation of use of the site for said parking. Office One (1) space for each 225 square feet of net floor area. The parking requirement • may be lowered to one (1) space for each 250 square feet of net floor area upon review and approval of the modification committee. Manufacture Research and Assembly Two (2)parking spaces for each three (3) employees,but in no event less than three (3) spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Warehouse Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than one (1) space for each 1,060 square feet of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet of gross floor area for the second 20,000 square feet; one (1) space for each 4,000 square feet of gross floor area for areas in excess of the initial 40,000 square feet of floor area of the building. The number of employees for parking purposes shall be determined by the largest number of employees present on the site at one time. In the event there is more • than one (1) shift, sufficient parking must be provided on-site to preclude the necessity for on-street parking at all hours of the day including work shift overlaps. tilysto X'wo (2),parkFng spaces for ea�(3)izrip'dy"ei s:"Tii ,"spaces sitallAle irav d ccl fix the awaerJ a agexi f a acces5gXK.#1?T!LT 0 ixts lt-is cansti`ucted€ .............. . .. ._.....,..N . oo 9� City of Irvine v ..ii 9 Jay}. gay. ` € .............. d,G Im Wmm :♦ 0 GENERAL INDUSTRY � i:.� rpp VE NME NT EDUCATI ON & ymOIONAL FACILITIES ..................... G`��✓ GENERAL INDUSTRY(SIJE ZA )l MINI-STORAGE USE �� . ' ....•.. : COMMERCIAL o }, SPECIAL LANDSCAPED 3'0 STREET I IIII�y fi5-'•. RESIDENTIAL '�' II�i •• E RI PARK -a+hxrfl3 Al OPEN SPACE North Ford/San Diego Creek Planned Community NORTH LAND USE PLAN August 24, 1992 REVISED LAID- USE PLAN : AMENDMENT NO, 790 CI �F NEWPORT BEACT F 11 E D � Attachment 6 Lsa� I/ � 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 1,�fO y1 1 it 1993 `7 , Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 GARY L.GRANVILLE,County Clerk NEGATIVE DECLARATION By DEPUTY From: City of Newport Beach Once of Planning and Research Planning Department i 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 El Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange ❑ Public Services Division XX P.O.Box838 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public review period Nov. 24, 1993 - Dec. 24, 1993 Name of Project: Pac Tel Site Mini-Storage Facility Project Locado n: Noth West Corner of Bison Ave. & Camelback Stree ARYL.GP,ANViLLr,t;ceciy Clerk 1177 Camelbak Street, Newport Beach, California.�1� Construction of a new mini-storage facility that contains Project Description: 110,600 sq.ft. of development. 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 would not have a significant effect on the envitdnmenL A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project,a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans,studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. I Ifyou wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically,identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held,you are Iso invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned. -6"4 Date 1L 3 John H.PoJiglas,Al Environm tal Coor orator Revised 4192 L ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS DAHN CORPORATION (Pac Tel Site) General Plan Amendment No. 93-3(B) Traffic Study No. 91 • Amendment No. 790 Project Description The proposed site is known as the Pac Tel Site located on the northwest corner of Bison Avenue and Camelback Street in the North Ford Planned community District (see Exhibit A). Currently the site is vacant and previously it was used as a storage for the Pacific Telephone utility vehicles. The project is surrounded by a small retail Center, North Ford Residential, Belcourt Residential, Mariners Christian Church and School, a U.S. Post Office and an Edison transmission station. The proposed project will involve construction of a mini-storage facility that would allow 110,600 sq.ft. of development. The proposed development consist of two structure with a maximum height of 22 ft. above the grade elevation. The subject parcel is approximately 2.788 acre in size. 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 is paved with concrete and will be altered to accommodate the proposed on-site improvement. The construction activities associated with the completion of the project will result in some soil disruption or overcovering and may require excavation and compaction or soil displacement. No export or import of soil is anticipated. A geotechnical report has,been prepared-for the site indicating that the soil contents of the site have sufficient quality to sustain the proposed improvement. Compliance with the City Excavation and grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to insignificant level. • 1 0 2. Air Construction Impacts • 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. Operational Impacts The traffic study for the project estimates that the project would generate 236 average daily trips. This is below the threshold of significance as determined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. No other air quality impacts would be anticipated. 3. Water • The proposed site is largely paved with concrete and future on site improvement would not increase water 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 is expected to be short (6 to 7 months) due to the small scope of the anticipated project. The 2 applicant has indicated to limit the daily construction hours from 7 am to 5 pm six days per week. The hours of operation, regarding the constructioiinoi`se, are regulated by the.provisions contained in the City Noise Ordinance(NBMC Chapter 10.28) • which states that any construction tools or equipment that produce any loud noise that could disturb will be limited to weekdays between the hours of 7.00 am and 6.30 pm, Saturdays between 8.00 am and 6.00 pm, and operating any disturbing noise generating equipment would not be allowed on Sundays and Holidays. The North Ford, Belcourt and Eastbluff residential are considered noise sensitive land, use and are located adjacent to or in the vicinity of the proposed project. Although the project,at occupancy,would generate some traffic noise, it is not anticipated to have any adverse affect. Construction noise effects are not significant and shall, be alleviated upon the completion of the project. 7. Light and Glare The proposed project will use exterior mounted utility and security lighting. If exterior lighting is required, the proposed project could produce lightand glare that could adversely affect • adjacent properties. 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 properties. 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 with an alternate land use designation of Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial by the City's General 3 Plan Land Use Element. Under the current General Plan Land Use provisions, a maximum of 20,000 square feet of retail development would be allowed on the site. The Zoning is • Planned Community(PC) designating the site for a combination of Office-Commercial/Light Industrial uses. A General Plan amendment is proposed to change the land use designation of the site from Retail and Service Commercial with alternate Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to General Industry and increase the allowable density to 110,600 sq.ft. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and Coastal Permit is not required. If the proposed General Plan and PC amendments are approved, all conflicts with land use regulations would be eliminated. 9. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. 10. Risk of Upset • The applicant has indicated that the rental agreement will prohibit the storage of toxins, hazardous chemicals, explosive material and flammable fluids. Based on this requirement, the risk of any foreseeable hazard to public health and safety would be reduced below the level of significance. 11. Population The proposed project would employ one full time couple that would live on site and a part time manager. 12. Housing The proposed project would add one dwelling unit to the City's housing stock. 13. Transportation/Circulation/parking • Presently the subject site is vacant. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development therefore, a traffic study became necessary to evaluate the impact of the subject proposal on the 4 of J� City's existing circulation system. The Traffic Engineer selected eight intersections that would be affected by the proposed project, and a traffic study has.been prepared as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The one percent trafficwolume test • was applied to the selected intersections and none of the intersections exceeded the maximum one percent volume test therefore, further analysis of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) would not be required. The proposed project would not have any significant traffic impact on the City's circulation network. Site Access. There is an existing driveway, located to the northeast corner of the lot, which would provide access to the site from Camelback Street. Parking and Internal Circulation. The proposed project provides for a total of six(6)parking spaces which include three (3) regular parking spaces, one (1) handicapped parking space and two (2) covered'parking spaces. The mini-storage facility tenants would be required to load and unload their vehicles in front of their individual storage space or near the elevators. The parking spaces provided on the proposed site plan are considered adequately sufficient for the proposed use and • greater parking demand would not be anticipated. The layout of the proposed facility site plan indicates that adequate internal circulation will be provided. 14. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create a significant 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 5 r • The proposed project would not utilize hazardous materials on the site, per the restrictions proposed by the applicant, therefore, no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. • 18. Aesthetics The subject property is located in a topographically depressed area. The design of the proposed development would not impede or restrict the view of the adjacent properties. The construction materials used for the construction of the mini- storage buildings will incorporate earth tone precision and split face concrete block for the exterior walls. Based on the information submitted to the City 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 There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources existed in the area or expected to exist on this site. There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic structures. Mandator 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 cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. • 4. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6 ��7 �.NVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS C8EC9 XS cITR oP NEWPORT BEACH Z. BACKGROUND General Plan Amendment 93-3(B):, Traffic Study No. 91 1. Application Not • Pac Tel Site 14ini-Storage Facility 2. Project name: 1177 Camelback Street (NW Corner of Bison Ave./Camelback St. ) 3. project locations DARN CORPORATION, IRVINE 4. Applicants II. ENVIRONMENTAL 114PACTS (See attached explanations) Yee Maybe No 1. Eart Would the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? -- b. Disruptions, displacementa, compaction or 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? — e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the Bite? — 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, landelides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? — 2. Air. Would the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration 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? — 0 Environmental Analysis checklist - Page 2 Yes Maybe I7_0, 3. Hater. Would 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 surface runoff? C. Alterations to the course or 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? — 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 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? — 4. Plant Life. Would 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? -- -- �9 Environmental Analysis Chelkst - Page 3 • Yee Maybe ILO S. Animal Life. Would 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 shell-fish, benthic organisms, or insects).? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, \ ' rare or endangered species of animals? _. 77\L C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? — 6. Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels, or exposure of people to severe _ noise levels? _ 7. Light and Glare. Would the proposal produce new _ light or glare? g. Land use. Would the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area, or conflict with existing land use regulations or policies? s Would the proposal result in an g, Natural Resource P Po resources? natural reaour Y increase in the ra te of use of any 10. Risk of Accident. Would 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? -- 'XT b. Possible interference with an emergency response or ,evacuation plan? — 11. Population. Would the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area? — 12. Nousina. Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? — • • Environmental Analysis Check.ist - Page 4 Yes Maybe No 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parkins- Would 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? — d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation 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. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered • governmental services in any of the following areas: — 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? +� IS. Energy. Would the proposal result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy, a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? — 16. Utilites. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: �( a. Electricity or natural gas? — X7 b. Communications systems? XV C. Water or wastewater? --- X d. Storm water drainage? XX e. Solid waste and disposal? — — // Environmental Analysis check, Ur. - Page 5 ea Maybe NO 17. Human Health. Would the proposal result. in the creation of any health hazard or exposure of people to a potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? 18. Aesthetics. Would the proposal result in the • obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ 19. Recreation., Would the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Would the proposals a. Result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ C. Have the potential to cause a physical change • which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _ III. MANDATORY FINDINGS oF.SIGNIFICAHCS. 1. 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 .pro-history? 2. 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 endure well into the future.) _ — �b� 1 1� Environmental Analysis Chec' Page 6 • Yee Maybe NO 3. Does the project have impacts which are Individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may have an 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; or, a project may have incremental impacts that are individually minor, but are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other past, present, or probable future projects.) -- -— 4. Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? -- IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( J I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL HE PREPARED• • J J I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached pages have been incorporated into the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL HE PREPARED. ( J I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Aziz M. Aslami ( Associate Planner ) Date: 11-4-93 Prepared by: Signature: Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations • fA...\FORMS\CHECKLST. Revised 12/91 MITIGATOO1 AONITORING AND REPORTIN01ROGRAM Pac Tel Site Traffic Study No. 91 General Plan Amendment No. 93-3B Planned Community Amendment No. 790 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 co PP conformance with the approved project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. ordinances, through compliance B. Mitigation measures implemented with codes, g 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 eri ministerial permits, the,file will be checked to v fy n discretion or , all subsequent discretionary P with all that the requested permit is in complianceapplicable 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 w11 approve report,1 rove the re request additional information, or pursue enforcement s ill be laced in e vent of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports w P remedies in the e p the official file. F:\.,.\araa\traffic\tpo91\mm•cavec II�— • ATTACHMENT 1 MMGA71ON MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Pac Tel Site(General Plan Amendment No.93-3B),Traffic Study No.91 Mitigation Measure Implementing Action M e t h o d o f Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification 1. Prior to the issuance of a building Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Planning Department plan permit, the applicant shall building permit checker demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed,and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plan 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. R\».\aziza\gpa93-3(b)\mm-table 1 '�1 n Vl NOTICE OEMLIC HEARIN Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of DAHN Corporation for General Ian Amendment No. 9 ( ),Traffic Studv No. 91 and Amendment No. 790 on property located at 1177 Gamelba_ c Street. The application includes a renuest to amend the Land Use El nt of the general Plan to redesi ate the PacTel Site from a mixture f Adm�m trative Pr fe i signal and Finn 'alCommercial And Retail and Service �'n*nmercial to General..Indust,,, and to amend the N rrh Ford Planned ommum Dis ric Regulations to recl sstfy the Sub ect site from bt Commercial/Industrial to General Indu try and mcreas the additional allowabllg nna Pd Q f fice- 20 000 sd ft to 110 600 sp,ft. The nmpnsal alcn mcludPs request to a fn� from the proposed mmi st ra a development. ove a traffic study to a11oWr 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. Ibis 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 9th day of Aecemher 1903, at the hour of :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. Anne K. Gifford, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. • Attachment 7 REPORT ON : TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION STUDY FOR PROPOSED MINI STORAGE- BISON AVENUE & CAMELBACK STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA • Prepared For: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. John Douglas , Principal Planner 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Newport Beach , California i i Prepared By: Justin F. Farmer Transportation Engineers, Inc. • 223 E. Imperial Highway, Suite 155 Fullerton, California 92635 OUR FILE# F-1038 NOVEMBER 24 , 1993 REVISED Fj f • Exhibit A VICINITY MAP General Plan Amendment 93-3(B) • Amendment No. 790 Traffic Study No. 91 4 Site Location p Y YI•u• f. , 4 ( u.y • i 404 1 t ,''fOy � w i a p 4 a a t N 1.. y, 4' nI•gy fr Planning Department 11/3/93 . q-4- b� • TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2 - Project Site Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TRIP GENERATION STUDY/DATA COLLECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 1 - Summary Trip Generation Survey. . . : . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 2 - Summary Trip Generation Survey Trip Rates. . . 7 Figure 3A - Driveway Count/Santa Ana Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 3B - Driveway Count/Irvine Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 3C - Driveway Count/H.B. Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 • Figure 3D - Driveway.Count/Average.Three.Sites. . . . . . . . . . it TRIP GENERATION FORECAST. . 12 Table 3 Mini Storage�Facility. . 12 TRIP DISTRIBUTION. . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 4A - Project Trip Distribution - Peak 1 Hr. . . . . . . 14 Figure 4B - Project Trip Distribution - Peak 2-1/2 Hr. . . 15 Figure 4C - Project Trip Distribution - Peak 1 Hr. . . . . . . 16 I Figure 4D - Project Trip Distribution - Peak 2-1/2 Hr. . . 17 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 APPENDIX j JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION • At the present time the buildings at the northwest corner of the intersection Camelback/Bison in the City of Newport Beach are vacant. The buildings have formerly been occupied by Pactel Corporation. A proposal has .been made to utilize the subject building as a mini storage facility occupying approximately 110,600 square feet of gross floor area. Main access to the project will be onto Camelback Street through one driveway fo'r both entering and exiting traffic. At the project vicinity, Camelback Street is 2 'i lanes in each direction with 2 left-turn lanes at the intersection with Bison Avenue; Bison is 2 lanes in each direction at the immediate vicinity of the project. 'I Figure 1, on the following page, illustrates the project site vicinity map while Figure 2, Page 3, is* the project site plan. The purposes of this report are to: • (1) Conduct traffic count surveys at three comparable facilities to the one proposed herein and develop trip generation rates for daily trips and peak hour trips. (2) Forecast the amount .and distribution of traffic of the proposed land use and determine the net increase in traffic at the following intersections: I � - Jamboree Road at Ford Road - Jamboree Road at Bison Avenue - Jamboree Road at University Drive - Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard - Jamboree Road at Bristol - Jamboree Road at Bristol North - MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road - MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue (3) Assess the impact the project may have upon the adjacent street system, per the Cityts Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • Data pertaining to this project was obtained from the City of Newport Beach active files. This data houses peak hour traffic counts, peak 2-1/2 hour traffic counts, additional traffic as a result of cumulative projects and previous traffic analyses which were performed for the same parcel prior to construction. The data and the analysis is presented on the following pages. JUSTIN E FARMER 1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, IN ✓�� +✓f �40`�a � CWS[ o4c rfN� 'ti' 7 A�\ ✓ P �'j4..' N c � �• ;`/N°•f its!��a"a r:�1 a• °P d• \` W LDLIFE \ dr4rif$ ¢ f;4 �Ct• Prfs+ dJ4}�4'T°k Pf ' it +°S •° I fNP \� PRESERVE \`\\ f \ +``/ +✓ ��^ � [ i•: aer 3p;F 04[yaNi Diego \♦ SEW �' ': ',• ••^ .� � � 'O•�[y. / z UNIVE[SIIY I ECOIOGICAI '•°• ' - ���\\ /� " o` I J1 �t O{RESERVE- l:✓r sxM /'a�tma'fsPd" ' "wR i I I • Dc\ srA r 4 � +� ' pfh4 • + ff'w<I: �.5� Cfa�' f1,af 4 ! ` I Hlj� ♦ / Ynn a t a yT ♦ S \ 19 I i4' ��.``fASTSIUfF P pa Sl'F'b�l °LU / YPARK- O l + G < 1 S l^. .r.V l ryA ��yy>> a y`✓ 4 S/ A� u E O / 'M1StPEn;tOHA j WEl• HIGH DEL MAX M1• %41 Cr 'f\\\•.- - \\`' a i S[NOCL A n QyD eftAOU i f 'NE PORT "GD �+° •. Bonita. \ — AL Reservoir dALAKr_ `. BEACH u '714RK �'[. ;,�,. ♦\ 'y P � �\ \ 4 D+xx `roq U�PARKw� '• � 1/�. :.+�:'r.. ti 1 R p �4 ',� [D I r :, WRi G f IORr `•�VfR INTLT fA[ � � ,rly ♦♦ V� 1t iT,`�y _/ i � ro41 WESf1 Aey fN[f ry nR i � i [54. ME ,�C p��i ` 11GE0R4 TORT' °Ri 4AMS GA n I �•'"<•,— CHMIf ST&Nfwro Yfa'Of COM 0 lP°[ ASNI Y" i OIllS -ry t "pUSML Mf CE ` HART N CI JN aie .y L i tIRU G ProR7 Al p MpNI UR.MDSIUM J i •1•' H, y 4" PDRi ' ■ ■ Sao° � N \^° a 3 yS R rfP°n-�, R°�e+N re 4 WRSE UEMENTE DR r y�Qr. � .�f IRf51 'Y 1 bN•4µN r ftP�OCN 4f a' .7 ;= N y� � .P ♦�f+44 PF Y'f PNf „ H H �� TP' �' N�PoRr ! ' ur°j f f G RP f•E N'! r b° ¢ D`8 2 T° I 'f°4 oT ^�SAS VR' +rY ♦ / 4f�e > K N? + nQ FASHION0.�'� � 4frr pPl tY `<{• �♦,r dad' 4 C H \ NE pR •/!' 11 P I!2 ry. • i[ J - [\ m ISLAND p NICy !x NIFALO 8 ' `a Ni40 x• A 2' O,I ! t' 4f•Y h 0. !� °r ti f I� ♦ � ♦� ♦ *O I co I K'e ��SL Pam �. � ✓' lAICV� ♦ � 5, P A • f10U5[ P� � o> s7o Da o ^ ...kr. WTI :p a9 i� s°j °n � k�� +` �♦! les: 'i Map Source : Auto Club Of So. Cal. FIG SITE VICINITY MAP 1 JUSTIN F. FARMER 2 _'rRA.NSPURTA'rIUN ENGINEERS- I"(:. ! . I 11{ e ! • I � �' SJii•\ i I ICI ! • % ; ,tiv ! d // •JU nmmmntnnn mmmnnnmmtq t / I lilt E t ! ' 1 Y' , � S } ! Int,erttn Ilitin1111tlInI! rl 1 I! 1 � d FIG PROJECT SITE PLAN 2 TRIP GENERATION STUDY/DATA COLLECTION • Daily and peak hour trip generation for projects such as that being proposed here is normally expressed in terms of trip ends per 1, 000 square feet (KSF) of gross floor area. A trip is de- fined as a one-way vehicular journey either to or from the site, or it may be a journey totally within the site. The latter is usually referred to as an internal trip. Each trip will have two trip ends, one at the beginning and one at the end of the destination. Trip making characteristics for a variety of land use types have been collected from a number of field studies at actual projects, ' both in Southern California and elsewhere throughout the United States. The results of these studies have been reported upon by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) , San Diego Assoc- iation of Governments, Arizona Department of Transportation, and various published and unpublished private studies. A review of the data for development similar to that being j proposed indicates that the Institute of Transportation Engineers • rates would be most applicable for the site, however, a concern has been expressed by the developers of this project that the ITE rates may not reflect the actual operating characteristics for a mini storage located in the central Orange County area. The City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has therefore requested that trip generation data be collected at similar land uses within the site vicinity i.e. , in central Orange County. Research was conducted, and the following three locations were found to be similar to the proposed one at' Camelback and Bison intersection. *1) Mini Storage - Irvine 1 Burroughs Avenue i Site Area 169,762 Gross S.F. 100,720 Net Leasable = 88,093 *2) Mini Storage - Huntington Beach 7611 Talbert Avenue • Site Area 143,000 Gross S.F. 62,192192 Net Leasable = ** *3) Mini Storage - Santa Ana 4200 W. Westminster Avenue Site Area = ** Gross S.F. = 83,894 Net Leasable = 82,550 * Data provided by the Dahn Corporation /3 ** Data NOT available JUSTIN F. FARMER 4 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC The City Traffic Engineer has requested that trip generation data • be collected at those study locat}i.ons during the busiest weekday. Data were therefore collected farm the Dahn Corporation for the facilities in Irvine and in Huntington Beach. Their data includes actual entering and exiting log-in/log-out sheets for both facilities for several months. JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , has analyzed the busiest three months of the year for both mini storage facilities. These are June, July, and August 1993. We have analyzed weekday traffic volumes for the entire three months at both location and our analysis indicated that the busiest weekdays were Fridays and Tuesdays, followed by Mondays, Thursdays and then Wednesdays. Data collection and traffic counts were therefore collected at the above referenced three locations on Friday, october 22, 1993. Each of those locations have one driveway serving both entering and exiting traffic. For purposes of this analysis 24-hour machine traffic counts were, taken at the facility's single driveway. Actual count data is presented in Appendix A of this report and count summary is presented on the following pages as Table 1 and • Table 2. Table 1, Page 6, summarizes actual traffic count data for the three locations and averages the data for hourly and daily traffic. Table 2, Page 7, summarizes trip generation rates for the three locations and presents average hourly and daily trip rates. Additionally, traffic counts were, graphically illustrated on Pages 8 thru 11 as Figure 3A thru Figure 3D. Figure 3A - illustrates traffic hourly variations/driveway counts for Santa Ana site. Figure 3B - illustrates traffic hourly variations/driveway counts for Irvine site. Figure 3C - illustrates traffic hourly variations/driveway counts for Huntington Beach site. Figure 3D - illustrates average three sites. A close look at Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 3A thru 3D indicates that the three sites experience three peak periods, morning, • midday and evening. It also indicates that hourly variation throughout the day is quite comparable for all three sites, insofar as the overall magnitude of entering and existing volumes. Trip rates developed and presented on Table 2 were used to estimate the number of trips associated with the proposed mini storage. JUSTIN E FARMER 5 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC �' ;,7 0 TABLE 1 0 SUMMARY TRIP GENERATION•SUR EY MINI STORAGE FACILITIES NUMBER OF TRIPS -7N-TINGTON $ANTA::. IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT DIRECTION&- 12AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 1 o o o o 0 0 2 o o o 0 0 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 o o o 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 9 8 2 2 0 6 8 5 7 7 3 3 0 .......... .. ...... 10 7 8 5 5 4 1 11 9 7 5 6 10 10 12PM 7 8 13 14 4 3 a 8 16 2 5 a 4 5 11 12 7] 3 9 8 3 3 9 9 4 11 8 7 4 8 9 6 8 5 4 4 2 7 4 6 o o o o 8 2 1 0 0 o o i o 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 11 0 0 0 ...... ........ . ...... . .. .. ...... ...... 6 Or MIMI OF mt,IN sm OFF on, 0 mom MOMs NOME MEME KITIMM offer,.77m mror"r.30 IBM I ---------- ml gum SEEN WTV 7401 ---------- • FIGURE 3A DRIVEWAY COUNT/SANTA ANA SITE 12 10 .......................................................................................................................... ............................... ........ ..................................................................... a8 ........................................................................ ........................ ... ....... . ............t..... ......t.......... ... ...................................................... 6 ...................................................................... ........ ...... ......................._................. ..... .............................. ... ..... z 4 .................................................................... ................................................._......................_._................_.... ............... . .........._.. ....................... 2 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................: ................. 12ANM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10112PNM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 TIME BEGIN - �- ENTERING VEHICLES ........... EXITING VEHICLES • 77 e • FIGURE 313 DRIVEWAY COUNT/IRVINE SITE 20 1,8 ............................................__....................................... ........._..............._........._......._....................._........................................_ ._ _..., 16 ..........................._......._._....................._................... ............................... ........_........................ ....._....................._.__............__ IL P12 ..V......_........._.............................._................_...... . ..�.._._ __ __ ......... I ........ 0 1 p ................._..........._.........._...... t__.._._._ .._.._......: ._.._...... .... ........ ........ ........_......................................._._ oc = w , m8 ................_..............................................................., i___....... ._..........,...._._ ...._... ...._..._...._.... . ...... ..___..__.........._. Ze _.....__._......._._._.__.._........................_ ........ ' ................... .._..... .. ......._..... _.._........ ... 4. ................................. ....__............_... ..;� .. ........ _. _.....__._......_.__._ p12AMl 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10112PMI '2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 TIME BEGIN —�— ENTERING VEHICLES .....+..... EXITING VEHICLES • 9 • FIGURE 3C DRIVEWAY COUNT/H.B. SITE 12 10 .................... ....................................................................................... ..........._..........: ........._................................................................................_. 5 ..t...... a i _..................................................._...._8 . LL 6 ............................................................................................t_...... ....... ........ .. ...._........................... ......:............................................._...._...... m 4 .................................._.................................................... ............' .......... __...................._.............. - 2 ................................................................................ .................. .. ........................................._................................ .. .........................................._..... IF w 012AMI 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10112PNM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 TIME BEGIN -+f- ENTERING VEHICLES ........... EXITING VEHICLES • �9 10 • FIGURE 3D DRIVEWAY COUNT/AVERAGE THREE SITES 12 10 ......................................................_......._................._........ ............................. - _............................. _.._................_............... } CL i F 8 .._..........._................._...__._..,................................. ............ 1 ..._ �.... ..... ._............_.__.__.._.._...__ w 6 ...._........._....................._..._.._._...__......_.. _............. _ ....... ......................_.....,......................... ................................................... •. m 2 ...................................._..............._......... ........,_...................................,..........................................................__.... ............. W..._._. 0 .., 12AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10112PM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 TIME BEGIN -�- ENTERING VEHICLES ........... EXITING VEHICLES • 11 L • TRIP GENERATION FORECAST Traffic generation forecasts have been prepared for the proposed project based upon trip generation factors as compiled by JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , in the previous section of this report. Table 3 , below summarizes the trip generation forecasts. It indicates an increase in the number of trips during the morning peak hour and during the evening peak hour. TABLE 3 MINI STORAGE FACILITY BISON/CAMELBACK 110,600 SQUARE FEET TRIP DAILY RATE TRIPS HOURLY TRIPS PEAK 1 HR PEAR '2 1/2 HR • AM IN 0.059 NA 7 14 OUT 0.038 NA 4 8 PM IN 0.109 NA 12 24 OUT 0.117 NA 13 26 I DAILY IN 1.065 Ila NA NA j OUT 1.065 118 NA NA NOTE: - Peak 1 hour is 50% of peak 2 1/2 hours i • JUSTIN R FARMER 12 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC • TRIP DISTRIBUTION It is recognized that the distribution of project trips will vary considerably, depending upon the type of land use proposed, the day of 'the week and the time of the day. For an office development, as an example, the morning and evening peak hours are critical time periods. The predominant trip maker during both hours is the employee and the trip will be a home-work journey. As a consequence, the trip distribution is based, to a large degree, on the spatial location of residences in the service area of the site. Trip distribution patterns are, however, different for a mini storage facility building where trips are made predominantly by the facility renters. General trip length associated with such proposed mini storage building would be less than those associated with general office, i.e. , the mini storage is proposed to attract more trips from the surrounding vicinity than a general office would. t Based on familiarity with traffic patterns near the study area, the location of potential users and the observation of peak hour traffic, directional distribution patterns were determined and 1 were used to forecast the distribution of project trips. Inasmuch as Table 3 indicates an increase in trips during the AM peak and t PM peak hours. Trip distributiongwere made for both AM and PM peak hours for the following eight intersections. - Jamboree Road at Ford Road - Jamboree Road at Bison Avenue - Jamboree Road at university Drive - Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard I( - Jamboree Road at Bristol - Jamboree Road at Bristol North - MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road - MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue Figure 4A, Page 14, illustrates peak 1 hour trip distribution for the AM peak. Figure 4B, Page 15, illustrates peak 2 1/2 hour trip distribution • for the AM peak. Figure 4C, Page 16, illustrates peak 1 hour trip distribution for the PM peak. Figure 4D, Page 17, illustrates peak 2 1/2 hour trip distribution for the PM peak. JU3TIN F. FARMER 13 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC m s U Alk ry �. UNIVMSITY oR. pP• SACKSAY DR. Q m O cy < LLI � o ' 0Z r, LLI J y N /► BISq.�, A� J a c U 1 Q N i N `gam J a / fgPO RD N FIG PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4A PEAK 1 HOUR - AM PEAK JUSTIN F. FARMER 14 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. I h Iry ry h �. sln DR. ry BAGCBAY DR N 000 0 w Z_ C /� ersgy a N � 2 2 ry \ ~ a: IL r R { FIG PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4B PEAK 2.5 HOUR - AM PEAK JUSTIN F. FARMER 15 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. i_ m a U co 1 NNIVERS�TY DR. I K BACKBAY DR. f r I m Q � m y�vJch c3 0 , LLLJ ? �2 N J Y i C CY �S A� W a o 2-� d Lu a� M /N 0 y i a i r N RD a0 r FIG PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4C PEAK 1 HOUR - PM PEAK ] JUSTIN F. FARMER 16 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. F ro Q s� tip/' Q UNIVERSITY OR. 0 , BACKBAY oR. y�Wyy� co N Q • co m 43y�@' �tyo 8 0 N rm � z W �N 4 W �4 v J Y Bey AYE a o r i CL a CD 6 FIG PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Q b'6 PEAK 2.5 HOUR — PM PEAK n JUSTIN F, FARMER 1,7 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. +� ' • TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Inasmuch as the trip generation forecast presented in Table 1 indicates that there will be an increase in traffic volumes during the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour as a result of the project, both peak hours will be considered in the following section of this analysis. A. Cumulative Projects The City of Newport Beach's traffic engineering staff has completed a list of cumulative projects which may impact this portion of the City's street network. The list includes 134 projects, of which approximately 16% are not occupied, 78% are fully occupied, and 6% are partially occupied. B. Regional Growth The Newport Beach City Traffic Engineer has prepared a list • of specific regional annual growth rates which are associated with the study area and are summarized as follows: Jamboree Road Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard 1% MacArthur Boulevard Coast Highway to Jamboree Road 3% C. Intersections to be Analyzed City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has identified that the primary impact from project traffic will be on the site vicinity intersections of: - Jamboree Road at Ford Road - Jamboree Road at Bison Avenue - Jamboree Road at University Drive - Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard - Jamboree Road at Bristol - Jamboree Road at Bristol North • - MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road - MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue Figure 4A thru 4D, Pages 14 thru 17 illustrate the location of the above eight (8) study intersections. �7 JUSTIN E FARMER 18 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC D. "One Percent Test" • The methodology presented below is for the 1% traffic volume analysis per the City of Newport Beach's Transportation Phasing ordinance. - Volumes used are the 2 1/2 hour traffic volumes. - Volumes were extrapolated to the year 1994, 1 year hence. —Traffic volumes associated with, the cumulative projects were added to the extrapolated volumes and 1% of the pro- jected peak 2 1/2 hour volumes were determined. If project traffic exceeded 1% of the projected peak 2 1/2 hour volumes, intersection analyses were conducted for the impacted intersection. The 1 % test conducted at the eight study intersections indicated that the intersection of Jamboree at Bison and MacArthur at Bison meet the 1% test during the PM peak period while the remaining six intersections do not meet the 1% test during either peak period. Therefore, level of service analyses were conducted at . the subject two intersections using the Intersection Capacity I� Utilization (ICU) procedure. City data forms entitled 111% Traffic Volume Analysis" for the eight intersections are included in the Appendix attached hereto. Also enclosed are the ICU calculation '1 forms for two introspections. �tl TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF V/C & LOS AM PEAR PM PEAK CONDITION V/C RATIO LOS V/C RATIO LOS Jamboree Road & Bison Street Existing 0.57 A 0.55 A + Cumulatives 0.71 C 0.70 B + Cumulatives + Project 0.71 C 0.70 B MacArthur Blvd. & • Bison Street Existing 0.52 A 0.52 A + Cumulatives 0.60 A 0.61 B + Cumulatives + Project 0.60 A 0.61 B Table 5 suggest that the project will have no impact upon either intersection. The levels of service will continue to remain at acceptable conditions and the ICU will be less than 0.90 after PIP addition of cumulative projects and proposed project. Q,� JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC ,A 19 . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION o At the present time the buildings at the northwest corner of the intersection of Camelback/Bison in the City of Newport Beach is vacant. A proposal has been made to utilize the subject buildings as a mini storage facility containing approximately 110,600 square fee of gross floor area. o The City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized and information was collected regarding existing traffic volumes, cumulative projects traffic and growth factors. o For purposes of assessing the impact of the subject proposed mini storage upon the surrounding street network, the City Traffic Engineer has requested that the following eight intersection be analyzed: - Jamboree Road at Ford Road - Jamboree Road at Bison Avenue • - Jamboree Road at University Drive - Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard - Jamboree Road at Bristol - Jamboree Road at Bristol North - MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road - MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue o Entering and exiting log-in/log-out sheets were collected from the Dahn Corporation for the three busiest months of the year, June, July and August. The three months data were analyzed. Our analysis has indicated that the busiest weekdays are Friday and Tuesdays, followed by Mondays, Thursdays, and then Wednesdays. o In order to estimate daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed projects, 24-hour traffic count data were collected at three comparable mini storage facilities. These facilities are located in the City of Irvine, City of Huntington Beach and the City of Santa Ana. Data were collected during the busiest weekday, i.e. , Friday. • o A close look at the collected data indicates that the three sites experience three peak periods; morning, midday, and evening. It also indicates that hourly variation throughout the day is quite comparable for all three sites insofar as the magnitude of entering and exiting volumes. o Trip generation forecast for the proposed mini storage was developed using trip rates from our actual surveys. The forecast and the rates are summarized on the following page: JUSTIN E FARMER 20 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. �l� MINI STORAGE FACILITY - BISON/CAMELBACK 110,600 SQUARE FEET TRIP DAILY RATE TRIPS HOURLY TRIPS PEAK 1 MR PEAK 2 1/2 HR AM IN 0.059 NA 7 14 OUT 0.038 NA 4 8 PM IN 0.109 NA 12 24 OUT 0.117 NA 13 26 DAILY IN 1.065 118 NA INA OUT 1.065 118 NA NA NOTE: - Peak 1 hour is 50% of peak 2 1/2 hours o Project trips were distributed to the surrounding street system particularly to the above eight study intersections. o When the 1% test was conducted project peak 2 1/2 hour trips were found to be less than 1% of the projected 2 1/2 hour volumes for six of the eight intersections. o The intersection of Jamboree at Bison and MacArthur at Bison meet the 1% test during PM peak period only. Intersection Capacity Analysis were conducted at both peak hours. Summary of the ICU/LOS is presented below: . SUMMARY OF V/C & LOS AM.PEAK PM PEAK CONDITION V/C RATIO LOS V/C RATIO I5 Jamboree Road & Bison Street Existing 0.57 A 0.55 A + Cumulatives 0.71 C 0.70 B + Cumulatives + Project 0.71 C 0.70 B MacArthur Blvd. & Bison Street Existing 0.52 A 0.52' A + Cumulatives 0.60 A 0.61 B + Cumulatives + Project 0.60 A 0.61 B The ICU/LOS table presented above indicates that the project will have no impact upon both intersections. • Sincerely, o4ROFE$ 9Of JUSTIN 'F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. � Y GOB F�� � rn a iok #1684 z Shahir Gobran, P.E. * Exp.61'36'Pl Transportation Planning Manager �9r I�AFF �Q SG:dr FOFCAl�FO� 9� JUSTIN E FARMER 21 TRANSPORTATION ENG1 • APPENDIX I � I 1 • CITY OFNEWPORT BEACH MINI STORAGE TRAFFIC STUDY .................. ................_ .................. .................. .................. ..............--• .................. .................. JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING INC. • APPENDIX 1 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH• MINI STORAGE TRAFFIC 'STUDY .................. .................. ..._............. .................. .................. .................. ........_........ .................. JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING INC. Q F�� 71�"' 0 SITE CODE : Irvine 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS-BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: i FILE: D9310389 N-S Street: MINI STORAGE YARD E-N Street: TALBERT AVE. Client : JUSTIN FARMER DATE: 10/22/93 .................................................................................................................................. TIME ------- ENTER ------- ------- EXIT ------- ----- COMBINED ----- DAY: BEG AN PM AN PM AM PM .......................................•_--_._._.._..........__..___......._...__._.....-.__•_..-"-.._................ 12.012: 0 5 0 6 0 11 12:15 0 1 0 2 0 3 12:30 0 3 0 3 0 6 12:45 0 0 4 13 0 0 3 14 0 0 7 27 1:00 0 5 0 5 0 10 1:15 0 3 0 2 0 5 1:30 0 5 0 3 0 8 1,45 0 0 4 17 0 0 4 14 0 0 8 31 2:00 0 4 0 1 0 5 2:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:30 0 0 0 4 0 4 2:45 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 9 3:0D 0 3 0 3 0 6 3:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.45 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 0 1 0 2 0 3 4:30 0 3 0 0 0 3 4:45 0 0 3 7 0 0 2 4 0 0 5 11 5:00 0 2 0 1 0 3 5: 0 0 0 1 6 4 5: 0 6 0 4 0 10 5: 0 0 6 14 0 0 10 16 0 0 16 30 6:00 0 4 0 3 0 7 6:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 0 1 0 1 0 2 6:45 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 2 0 2 0 4 0 7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 8:00 3 0 2 0 5 0 8:15 1 0 0 0 1 0 8:30 3 0 1 0 4 0 8:45 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 10 0 0 9:00 3 0 5 0 8 0 9:15 4 0 4 0 8 0 9:30 4 0 5 0 9 0 9:45 5 16 0 0 6 20 0 0 11 36 0 0 10:00 1 0 2 0 3 0 10:15 1 0 1 0 2 0 10:30 0 0 2 0 2 0 10:45 3 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 7 14 0' 0 11:00 1 0 1 0 2 0 I1: 3 0 1 0 4 0 11: 0 0 1 0 1 0 11:45 1 5 0 0 3 6 0 0 4 11 0 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------__--_--_-_--_---------_--------------------------- 'OTALS 35 63 36 60 75 123 )AY TOTALS 98 96 198 SPLIT X 46.7 51.2 48.0 48.8 ,EAK HOUR 9:OD 12:45 9:00 5:15 9:00 5:15 10LUHE 16 17 20 18 36 34 P.N.F. 0.80 0.85 0.83 0.45 0.82 0.53 �� Huntington 40 SITE CODE : Beach 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS-BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 4 N-S Street: MINI STORAGE YARD FILE: 09310388 E-V Street: BURROUGH AYE. Client : JUSTIN FARMER GATE: 10/22/93 ........_'.....................................•_•...___________•_........___...._.._........•__........_.._____.........__....... TIME •..•••• ENTER -----•• •... EXIT __-_ PM AM -- COMBINED ----- DAY: PH AN PH BEGIN AM _______________ 12:00 0 1 0 1 0 2 12:15 0 1 0 2 0 3 12.30 0 2 0 0 0 2 12:45 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 7 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:15 0 2 0 2 0 4 1:30 0 2 0 4 0 6 1:45 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 7 0 0 2 12 2:00 0 2 0 2 0 4 2:15 0 4 0 2 0 6 2:30 0 2 0 1 0 3 2:45 0 0 3 11 0 0 7 12 0 0 10 23 3:00 0 2 0 3 0 5 3:15 0 3 0 1 0 4 3:30 0 0 0 2 0 2 3:45 0 0 4 9 0 0 3 9 0 0 7 18 4:00 0 3 0 2 0 5 4:15 0 0 0 4 0 4 4:30 0 3 0 1 0 4 4:45 0 0 2 8 0 0 2 9 0 0 4 17 5,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 0 3 0 3 0 6 5:30 0 2 0 6 0 8 5:45 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 14 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 0 3 0 1. 1. 0 . . ft; 4..,Co> 6:45 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 6 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 •0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 4:00 1 0 3 0 1 4 0 9:15 2 0 2 0 4 0 9:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 2 5 0 0 1 6 0 0 3 11 0 0 10:00 1 0 1 0 2 0 10:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:45 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 5 0 0 11:00 3 0 4 0 7 0 11:15 3 0. 2 0 5 0 • 11:3030 2 D 0 0 2 0 11:45 2 10 0 0 4 10, 0 0 6 20 0 0 ••••••••--........................................................................................................................ TOTALS 22 46 17 51 39 97 DATTOTALS 68 68 136 SPLIT % 56.4 47.4 43.6 52.6 PEAK HOUR 10:45 2:00 11:00 2:15 11:00 2:15 VOLUME 11 11' 6 13 20 24 P.N.F. 0.92 0.69 0.38 0.46 0.71 0.60 Q SITE CODE : Santa Ana 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS-BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 1 FILE: D9310390 N-S Street: MINI STORAGE YARD E-W Street: WESTMINSTER AVE. DATE: 10/22/93 Client : JUSTIN FARMER ------------------------• --•-------------__.._...._.----.-_--.._..._....._._.__......_.-----.COMB--....--.- DAY ------: EXIT ---•--- •--•- COMBINED ----• DAY: " TIME ------- ENTER ...-.__ I BEG AM AM PM AM PH..................................4.._......._...._..__. 12: 0 2 12:15 0 2 0 3 0 5 12:30 0 2 0 1 0 3 12:45 0 0 1 7 0 0 2 8 0 0 3 15 1:00 0 4 0 3 0 7 1:15 0 3 0 2 0 5 1:30 0 0 0 1 0 1 1:45 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 8 0 0 2 15 2:00 0 2 0 2 0 4 2.15 0 3 0 1 0 4 2:30 0 0 0 2 0 2 2:45 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 8 00 0 4 13 3:00 0 2 0 2 3:15 0 3 0 3 0 6 3:30 0 4 0 2 0 6 3:45 0 0 0 9 0 0 4 8 00 0 4 17 4:00 0 0 0 4:15 0 6 0 1 0 7 4:30 0 2 0 2 0 4 4:45 0 0 3 11 0 0 10 8 00 0 40 19 5:00 0 0 0 5:1 0 5 0 2 0 7 5 O 2 0 2 0 4 5 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 13 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 6:15 0 0 0 4 0 4 6:30 0 1 0 3 0 4 6:45 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 ' ^ °' 4 14 7:15 2 2 25 7:30 4 1 1 4 5 7:45 3 9 0 4 5 8 0 6 8 17 00 10 8:00 1 0 2 0 3 8:15 2 0 3 0 5 0 ' 8:30 1 2 1 1 2 3 8:45 1 5 0 2 1 7 0 1 2 12 00 3 9:00 1 0 2 0 3 9:15 0 0 1 O 1 0 9:30 2 0 1 0 3 0 j 9:45 3 6 0 0 2 6 0 0 5 12 U 0 10:00 0 0 1 0 1 10:15 2 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 10:30 1 0 i 10:45 4 7 0 0 4 8 0 0 8 15 U 0 11.00 0 0 2 0 2 1 4 0 2 0 6 { 1 2 0 1 0 3 11: 3 9 0 0 2 7 0 D 5 16 0 0 _-•-- '----------.------....-.-. ----- ..... • TOTALS 36 60 36 59 -- 119 DAY TOTALS 96 -- 191 SPLIT % $0.0 50.4 50.0 49.6 PEAK HOUR 7:15 4:15 7:30 2:30 7:30 2:75 VOLUME 10 11 11 10 21 0.19 P.H.F. 0.63 0.46 0.55 0.83 0.66 • APPENDIX 2 ONE PERCENT TEST CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINI STORAGE TRAFFIC STUDY • .................. ....._........... ..............._. ..._......_..... .................. .................. .._.............. ................. JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING INC. 9� • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/FORD—EASTBLUFF DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 1993:T-AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Paojects Projected 1% of' ProjecteddJ21 Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4161 4245" 1274 5519 55Southbound 3056 3117 980 4097 41fEastbound 937 937 162 1099 I 11 iWestbound 688 162 859 9- 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 2.1. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ,;:_ .•. , . i • Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 Gf// 6 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection Jamboree Rd Ford Rd Eastbluff (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 9 J3)PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 15 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4932 5031 1355 6386 64 4 Southbound 4614 4707 1372 6079 61 4 Eastbound 1097 1097 42 1139 11 0 { Westbound 449 449 166 615 6 0 I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected . 0 Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to 'be greater than 11% of Projected ,I Peak 21,-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 9g Mini Storage BisonfCamelback 'DATE: 11/12/93 ; PROJECT: . 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/BISON AVENUE (Existin%g Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 9 92 AM Peak 2' Hour Approved projected low of Projected I Project Regionel Projects Peak 2k Hour Peek 2y Hour F1 Approach Existing Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume i Volume Direction Peak 24. Hour Volume Volume Volume � Volume 2 Northbound 4228 4356 1013 3569 54 t Southbound 3504 3610 966 4576 46 6 397 4 0 Eastbound 349 349 48 i t 2 0 Hestbound 0 6 503 53 5 553 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 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (1.C.U.) An is required. r n99 Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE 11/12/93 t�✓' PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis . Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/BISON AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 92 )PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2y Hour FPeak 2$ Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound I 4735 4878 935 5813 58 ? 4 i Southbound 4613 4753 1031 5784 58 j 10 Eastbound 213 213 26 239 2 i 0 Westbound I 655 655 152 807 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 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. * Project traffic equals to 1% of projected peak 2 1/2 hour traffic volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) f analysis is required t I Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 i PROJECT: FORM T • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/EASTBLUFF DR N—UNIVERSITY DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring T9 21 AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour i Volume Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4428 4517 ' 705 5222 52 2 i i Southbound 3290 3390 1 858 4248 1 42 i 6 Eastbound 1045 1045 132 0 Nestbound 1189 1189 86 1275 13 ' 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ® ( • Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume I ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization r (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. f 1 t • Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 ` PROJECT: FORM T i 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection 'JAMBOREE RD/EASTBLUFF DR—UNIVERSITY DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 99,E) pM I Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour ! Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4757 4853' 824 5677 57 10 j r outhbound 5369 5477 914 6391 64 I 8 astbound 676 676 49 725 7 0 • Westbound 1219 1219 52 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected • 1 ® Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume o Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection,Capacity Utilization 1 (I.C.U.) Analysis is required: 1 Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 P3� PROJECT: • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE 'RD/MACARTHUR BLVD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 _ AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 2841 3132 ' 426 3558 36 + 2 SDuthbound 1166 1285 910 2195 22 4 t Eastbound 3257 3322 1173 4495 45 I� 2 Westbound 2014 2074 666 2740 27 f 2 I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ( ® Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis,,is,.required. .Y--• :t,:•r,. :c : 1 1 Mini Storage Bison CamelbackDATE.-11/12 93 PROJECT: FORM T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis •, Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BLVD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 3-) PM Peak 2+ Hour Approved LAa Existing Regional Projects Projected 1f of Projected Project Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour I Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1831 2019• 458 2477 25 4 2876 2933 6.32- 3565 36 ' ;,': : '.6 2208 2252 887 3139 31 6 3631 3704 856 4560 46 4 o 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 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required.* of • �p2`f Mini Storage Bison/Camelback/ DATE: 11/12/93 �3� PROJECT: FnDM T • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 93 AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 21s Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4961 506i 893 5954 60 ( 2 5outhbound 951 970 780 1750 18 i 4 Eastbound 5402 5402 1241 6643 66 i 2 Hestbound ,[: a Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. !tip6SF:3�Y,'�lYv.�SL+. i... -.. .r. .:•SYD�.kl. i Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection BRISTbL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average Winter spring 19 93 PM r I Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project 'Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume volume volume i Northbound 4677 4765 842 5607 56 8 I 5outhbound 1995 2025 709 2734 27 j ' ' 6 I r Eastbodnd 5952 5952 999 6951 70 I� 2 I Westbound ? I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume . IProject Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ! (I.C.U.) Analysis J s•required., I I 1 I r �o� Or Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/1.2/93 PROJECT: FORM 'I a Volume • i% Traffic Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (-Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Inter pring 9 _)AM Peak 2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected lon of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 8370 8624 1061 9685 97 4 Southbound 1810 1865. 851 2716 27 I 4 Eastbound Westbound —0— _p_ _p_ —0— —0— Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected •® Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.). Analysis is required. I I • I 1 Mini Storage Bison/Camelback ' DATE• 11/12/93 i PROJECT: FORM I 1p Traffic Volume Analysis • Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/J'AMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 92)PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional projects Projected 1% of Protected Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume volume Volume volume Northbound 67.16 6920 949,,• 786 79 Southbound4126 4251 939 1 5190 1 52 1 6 Eastbound Westbound © Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization I (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' ^ l 1 • I /D Mini Storage, Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 N i� f ` PROJECT: mou , • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Tverage Winter/Spring 19 93 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Projected 1� of Projected Project Approach Existing Regional Projects Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2)1 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ! Volume Northbound 3811 4202 523 4725 47- ! 4 southbound 4539 5004 374 5378 54 j 2 Eastbound • 454 454 20 474 5 0 L Westbound 2028 202$ 1 152 2180 22 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected x Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. <^ ^ 7 • Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: cnoM r 0 11 Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pang 19 93 PM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour . Grohth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 26 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4038 • 4451 323 4774 48 6 Southbound 5626 6203 616 6819 68 j 8 Eastbound 1 697 697 20 717 7 -0- t Nesthound 1335 1335 34 1369 14 ! -0- ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected • f Peak 2= Hour Traffic Volume o Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak D. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. h; kL;w 1 I Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: i • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 993 AM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2$ Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5276 5817 • 310 6127 61 ' 4 Southbound 4828 5323 438 5761 58 j 2 Eastbound 740 740 55 795 8 4 lHestbound _0— —0— —0— —0— —0— xt Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected El Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. A ors ;�,, �{• I I t Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I r 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUA BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage inter Spring 19 93) PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected 1� of Projected Protect Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour r Volume volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4029 4442• 236 4678 47 6 Southbound 4307 4748 318 5066 51 t 4 Eastbound 963 963 . 165•: 1128 11 '12 Westbound —0— —0— —0-a' —0-- — — Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected • Qx Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I' i i Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE; 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM T APPENDIX 3 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS i f • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINI STORAGE TRAFFIC STUDY .................. .................. .................. ................. .................. .................. .................. .................. JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING INC. 0 • JA4870AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS - INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD d BISON STREET 4870 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM • -••---•--------------------•--------•--------•-----------------------------•----------•-----' J IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDJEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVoLuao I V/C I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Votune I Volume IW/o Projectl I Ratio I votune I I I J 1 i 1 i I I --- --------- ---------I I ' MO. -1- 1600 1 1 23 1 0.01 1 24 I 5 1 0.02 1 10.02 _____________________________________________________________________________ I MT I I 11969 1 481 1 0.54*•I 10.54L 4800 ------------------) 0.42 •------ --------•----------"'-_---•-•-' I_—NR_---_-_--__-'-__--___-__-.98 ___--_-_!_1 9.1-1....??r__!....___.._.- -I.-! I SO. I' 3200 1 1 70 1 0.02 * 72 1 30 1 0.03* 1 3 10.03k ....--•---'---•-----------------------------'----__--------............... 1- _ - - 1407 0.29 I 1 1 I I ST 1 48001 1 I 11450 1 453 0.40 0.401 i SR 1 16001 1 221 0.011 23 1 0 1 0.01 1 10.01 I 71 1 71 1 0 1 0.08* I 10.081* 1600 ------------------) 0.08 *--_--- _--_--..__ ----.........._..._.l J Er I 1 62 .:'i_ 62 i 0 1 1 1 I _-_ ____________________ _______________ __-_-_. -------_ -___I i ER 1 N.S. 1 1 221 1 1 1 --- I I-----------------------------------'---...-'- -------- ! I I WL J 160 I I 78 o- • 78I 0.06* 1 1 10.O 6I* ---- -- --- _ _-- - ------ - -- • 1 Wr 1 1600 1 1 53 1 0-03 1 53 1 0 1 0:03..1_ 10.031 ---------------- I WR 1 3200 1 1 72 1 0.02I 72 I ---4:_03.-�-------1.0.123 I-------- ----------------- - ----I------ '••___-..__ .; ISTING I------------------------------------_-----__________________ JEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. J 0.71 J I ________________________________________________________________________________ (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I-C-U. --1-0.7 11 __________________________________________________________________________________ I>J Projected + pr6jeet traffic I.C.U. WILL be less than or equal, to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Will be greater than 0.90 J_J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems iaprovemant wilt be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_J Projected + project traffic I.C.W. with project improvements wiLl be less than I.C.U. without project .............................................................. Description of system improvement: • Mini Storage Bison/Camelback 11/19/93 PROJECT FORM II JA4870AH JA487OPH • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 6 BISON STREET 4870 • EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VINTER/SPRING 1992 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I (EXISTING I PROPOSED(EXISTING IEXI STING I REGIONAL(COMMITTED I PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH ( PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolume I V/C I I lCapacitylcapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volune I Volume 'lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1___________________________________________________________________________________________I I NL 1 1600 1 1 19 1 0-01 * 201 17 1 0.02* 1 10.02k ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------I HT 1 1707 117591 426 1 0.48 1 10.491 -------- 4800 __________________) 0.38 ------------------------------a----------------I i I 1 1 xR I I 114 I --117-- 25 1 2----------I SL 1 32001 1 1331 0.041 1371 3 1 0.04 -1 5 10.051 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ST 1 4800 1 1 .2018 1 0.42 * 20791 513 1 0.54* 1 1 0.541* -------------------------------------------II SR 1 1600 1 1 90 1 0.05 1 821 0 1 0.05 1 1 o.051 I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I EL 1 1 24 1 ' 241 0 1 0_04* 1 2 10.046 '--------) 160o ------------------) 0.04 '----------------------- -I---- --'-- -- 4-------- ---- I - - - ---- - - - ..... ' - -- - - -----------------------1 45 0 ER I N.S. • $ ------- I WL 1 16001 1 1251 0.08 * 1251 36 1 0. 10*1 10. Id* i1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Wr 1 1600 1 1 67 1 0.04 1 671 0 1 _ 0__04 I 1-o.---- Ogli 1---------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --- -- ( I WR 1 32001 1 771 0.021 771 39 1 0.04 1 10.'01 I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTING 1 0.55 1h4+ 1 I---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.70 1 I 1------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- - ----------------I !EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0.7d --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ixi Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 CI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will III be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I • Description of system improvement: Mini Storage Bison/Camelback 11/19/93 PROJECT FORM II { JA487OPH 1 i HA4995AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: HACARTHUR BOULEVARD L BISON 4995 • EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING •..-.-.-----_1993 AM . ...................................................................... ..... 1 IEXISTIHGIPROPOSEDIEXiSTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCHMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI [Hovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolune V/C I Capacity'Capacityl Votune i Ratio i Volume 1, Volume lw/o Projec i Ratio Volume ........................................................................................... NL 1 1600 J 1 192 1 0.12 i 2111 40 1 0. 16 1 2 1 0..161 i-------------------------------- i I HT I 4800 1 1 22n 1 Of • 24621 116-I-.0:54* I 1 0.541* Ii--------------------------------- -----------•------------- -......-----'----- I HR I I I -I I 1 0 I 1 1 1 i1-----.----------------------------------...................................................I I 1.............................:.....I........!......_.!_.....Q.!......._._.f_...._.!....... I f I ST J 64001 J 19031 0.301 20981 12 2. 1 0.95 1 10.3J -SR —U.S---I ......-!---SSO-!--------J...3091----98-1----.......1-1---, .... jEL 1 3200 j"' 1 160 J 0.05 • 1761 12 1 0.06*1 _1- I----- ------------- ---- ---- ------ ---- ----- - I ET i I. 1 I I I 101 1 I I ER I N.S. I 1 198 19�-- -5-- I------------•----------------------------------- -- ---...--------1-•---- ---- I VL I 1 I I I I I I I I • I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 Wr I I I I I I I I I I ( I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ! 1 HH I I I I I I 1 I 1 (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.60 1 I 1---------------------------------------------------------------....._.............._....... IEXISTIHG + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10. 601 --.......--••................................................................................ 61 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. Witt be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wilt be — less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will, be then 1 ......................without... Project Descristion af•s•Utemt .............................................................. !I p system Improvement: Mini Storage Bison/Camelback 11/19/93 PROJECT FORM II HA4995AN i MA499SPH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS • INTERSECTION: HACARTHUR BOULEVARD A BISON 4995 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PH -••-•----------------•••------•.---••--------------•---••-------------•------•--------------- IEXISTIHGiPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINOIREGIONALICOHHITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI lHovementI Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I ICaparityl Capacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I----•-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I HL 1 1600 1 1 198 1 0.12 * 2181 10 1 0.14* 1 3 10. 141 I------------------------------------ -------I ' I HT 1 4= 1 1 1834 1 0.38 12022 1 98 1 0.44 I I I--------------------------------------- --- -- ---------- --- ------ -- - --------9:44) I' HR I I I I I I - -- -- ----------�- I I I------------------------------------------------------- --------------I I I SL I I 1 I I I 0 l I 1 I I ------ * * I I � • I ST 1 64M 1 I z016 I o.3z 22231- 148 1 0.37 0.371 ------------------------------------------------------------ SR I H.S. 1 I 272 300 I 11 ( I...z-- -......I 4 EL 1 3200 I 1 252 I Of 2781 49 1 0. 10* 1 2 10. 10� I--------------------------------------------------------------- -- - - --------------------I I � I I I I I I -a---------------------- - I i ER I H.S. 1 1 2151 1 2151 33 1 1 4 1 I 1------------------------------------------------------------ I I uL I I I I I I I I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------f 1 Wr I I I I I I I I I I 1-------------------------- --- - --- - --------------------------------------------------- I WR i I. I 1 I I I I I I--------------------- - -- - - ---- ---- - - --- -- ----- --------------------------------1 (EXISTING l _I 0•'`'2 I---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.6 1 1 I 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ]EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10. 611 ---------------- -r- ------------------------•------------....-------------------.......... Ill Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or'equat to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wilt be Less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: Mini Storage Bison/Camelback 11/19/93 PROJECT FORM 11 MA4995PM rKENNETH G. OSBORNE&ASSOCIATES r KG - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION I Three Medical Office Buildings Northwesterly Corner Bison Avenue and Camelback Street (I Newport Beach, California w` I r^ Q} ,F Client: Resco Companies 3355 Via Lido, Suite 205 f Newport Beach, California 92660 r, t Attention: Michael D. Todd Partner Job No: 5413 f January 10, 1991 L 6 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 17141 MURPHY AVENUE IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 (714)474-2001 T • T TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. 0 INTRODUCTION--------------------------------- 1 2. 0 SITE DESCRIPTION----------------------------- 1 3 .0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK-------------------- 1 4. 0 INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING--------- 2 4 . 1 Field Exploration--------------- 2 4.2 Laboratory Testing---------------------- 2 4 . 3 Review of U.S. Geologic Survey Maps----- 3 5. 0 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS------------ 3 ;. 6. 0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS-------------------------- 3 6. 1 Site Analysis--------------------------- 3 6. 2 Foundation Design----------------------- 4 -� 6.2 . 1 Soil Bearing--------------------- 4 6.2 .2 Settlement----------------------- 4 6. 2 . 3 Lateral Soil Pressure------------ 4 -� 6.2 .4 Foundation Construction--________ 5 6. 2 . 5 Seismic Design--------- 5 6. 3 Retaining Wall Design------------------- 6 6.4 Expansive Soils------------------------- 6 6.5 Soluble Sulfates____________ 6 6. 6 Corrosion Potential--------------------- 7 6. 7 Utility Trench Backfill----------------- 7 r. f 6.8 Stability of Excavations---------------- 8 l 6. 9 Slope Stability------------------------- 8 6. 10 Construction Considerations------------- 9 6. 11 Concrete Slab Construction-------------- 9 u 6. 12 Pavement Design--------- ---------- 9 6. 13 Grading--------------------------------- 10 f 6.14 Site Design--------------- - 12 6. 14. 1 Shrinkage and Subsidence----- 12 6. 14.2 Drainage Design--------------- 12 6. 15 Hazardous Materials--------------------- 12 J6. 16 Observations During Construction-------- 12 V 7 . 0 CLOSURE--------------------------------------- 13 t, :F 1 J APPENDIX Laboratory Testing Procedures--------------------- A-B Grading Recommendations-General Provisions-------- C-E Boring Logs--------------------------------------- F-I -� Typical Details----------------------------------- J Pressure Consolidations--------------------------- K Direct Shear Summary------------------------------ L Fault and Seismicity Data------------------------- M 1 Boring Locations---------------------------------- Map I v t.: 4 s a r J 4 1 i j 5413 .gi age 1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION j This report presents the results of a geotechnical study i performed on the property located on the northwesterly corner of Bison Avenue and Camelback Street in the city of Newport 1 Beach, California. Planned for construction are three medical office buildings. It is expected that the structures will be supported on primarily continuous footings with slab-on-grade concrete first floors. l The exact structural loads for the buildings are not known at this time. However, for the purposes of analysis, it has been assumed that continuous footings will carry up to 1 1.8 kips per lineal foot and that pad footings will carry up to 20 kips. If it is found that the actual loads are substantially different from these assumed loads, this office should be notified so that the design and construction criteria presented below in this report can be reviewed and changed if needed. , It is anticipated that grading will consist of minor cuts 1 and fills. No significant change in the existing grade is ; 4 anticipated. y,. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site of the proposed medical office buildings is located on the northerly side of Bison Avenue and the } 1 westerly side of Camelback Street in the city of Newport t ; Beach, California. Northerly of the site is U.S. Post Office facility. While to the west is Southern California Edison ?` substation. _ -� Currently most of the site is relatively flat with descending slopes located adjacent to the two streets. Maximum height of the slope along Bison is on the order of 20 feet. Along Camelback Street the slope is only three to four feet in height. The existing slopes have an inclination of approximately two horizontal to one vertical. 3.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK -� The purposes of this investigation were to: (1) obtain information on the general regional geotechnical conditions f and specific subsurface conditions within the project area; l (2) perform an engineering evaluation of the collected data _l i 5413 .9i • Oage 2 and its influence on the project; and (3) provide geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed facilities. To accomplish these purposes, we: 1. Collected and reviewed project data available to US. 2 . Engaged a drilling contractor to excavate four test borings, and obtained representative bulk and "undisturbed" samples of the subsurface materials. l3. Performed laboratory tests on selected representative samples to establish engineering properties of the subsurface materials. 4. Analyzed the collected data and prepared this report of our geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. This investigation did not include an investigation into the stability of the existing slopes along Bison Avenue and Camelback, or into the presence or treatment of hazardous or toxic materials. 4.0 INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 1 4.1 Field Exploration 1 The field investigation consisted of excavating four exploratory borings to depths ranging from 13 to 16 feet. The 1 borings were drilled using an 18-inch bucket auger drilling } rig. Selected specimens of the in situ soils were obtained by ;y using a 2 .5 inch I. D. drive tube sampler equipped with liner rings. In addition to these relatively undisturbed specimens, 1 bulk samples of the soils were obtained for additional J laboratory analysis. These soil samples served as the basis , for the laboratory testing and the engineering conclusions j contained in this report. The logs of the borings and a plot J plan showing approximate boring locations are included with this report. 4.2 Laboratory Testing I` The laboratory testing consisted of performing strength, 1 settlement, "R" Value, soluble sulfate, corrosion, and expansion tests, determining the in-situ dry density and moisture content, and determining the moisture-density Irelationship of major soil types. I'll 1 5413 .gi 0 'Rage 3 Descriptions of the test standards used in this -� investigation in addition to other tests not used in this investigation are included in the Appendix of this report. The results of all laboratory tests are presented in the text below, in the Appendix, or on the boring logs. 4.3 Review of U.S. Geologic Survey Maps Review of the United States Geologic Survey Maps for the area indicate that original mass grading of the site was performed prior to 1965. It is believed that the pad area on the site was created by excavation. 5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface materials encountered during this investigation consisted primarily of silty fine sand terrace deposits. These sands are generally dusky yellow and yellow gray, moist and dense. Sandy siltstone bedrock of the Niguel Formation was encountered at a depth of 13 feet in the 1 southeasterly corner of the site (Boring B-2) . Paving for the existing parking lot that overlays the 1 native sand terrace deposits consists of three inches of Y: asphalt concrete over four to five inches of aggregate base. E Groundwater and/or significant caving was not encountered !- Iduring this investigation. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions V 1 are shown on the attached boring logs. lzi 1 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Site Analysis J It is the opinion of this office that the subject site is suitable for support of the proposed development without detrimental effects on the adjacent properties. The grading, i building construction, backfilling, and other construction 3 l supported by the earth materials should be conducted in ' accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C. ) , including Chapters 23 and 70, as adopted by the controlling agency. J 5413 .9i • age 4 1 6.2 Foundation Design ! 6.2 .1 Soil Bearing ! The soil materials on this site when properly prepared 1 are considered suitable for the support of the proposed structures using conventional shallow . continuous and/or pad- footings. i Footings may be designed using an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot for footings placed to a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth ' of 18 inches 1 below the lowest adj cent finished grade. An increase of 1/3 of the above bearing value is permissible for short duration wind or seismic loading. When footings are sized for seismic loading conditions in accordance with the above values differential settlements greater than those presented herein may result. This office should be notified and should review actual design loading conditions to determine if excessive differential settlement 1 may be expected. The above bearing values have been based on footings placed into approved natural soil, or compacted fill. These bearing values are considered to be net values and as a result the weight of the footings and/or backfill above the footings may be ignored in calculating the footing loads. 6.2.2 Settlement L� Based on the general settlement characteristics of the in situ soil types and the anticipated loading, it has been estimated that footings will settle less than 1/2 inch. Differential settlement is expected to be about 1/2 of ; the total settlement. It is anticipated that the majority of ; the settlement will occur during construction as the loads su are applied. 1 The above settlement estimates are based on the assumption that the grading will be performed in accordance ` with the grading recommendations presented elsewhere in this report and that representatives of this firm will observe or test the bearing conditions in the footing excavations. 6.2 .3 Lateral Soil Pressure _ I For purposes of resisting lateral forces, an allowable lateral soil pressure of 325 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used for the design. A coefficient of 5413 .gi gage 5 friction of 0.45 may be used for concrete placed directly on the natural soils or compacted fill. These values may be combined without reduction for resisting lateral forces. An increase of 1/3 of the above values may be used for short term wind or seismic loads. 1 The above values are based on footings placed directly against native soils, or previously compacted fill. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against --, footings should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density. 6.2 .4 Foundation Construction I All foundation excavations should be observed by the project soils engineer prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement, or concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level, and square. All loose, sloughed, or moisture softened soil should be removed prior to concrete placement. Excavated material from footing excavations should not be placed in slab-on-grade areas unless properly compacted and tested. 6.2.5 Seismic Design Seismic design of the structures should be performed using criteria presented herein and in the Uniform Building Code for Zone 4 seismic conditions. 1 No known active or potentially active fault traces across or projected toward the site. However, the site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of Southern 1 California. Thus, during its design life, the site is expected to experience significant ground motions from earthquakes occurring on regional and/or local faults. A review of data for earthquake faults located within 100 miles of the site indicates that the Newport-Inglewood Fault System approximately four miles from the site with its Y. assigned magnitude represents the worst case potential for ground shaking at the site. A listing of active faults located within 50 miles of the site and their appropriate seismic parameters are contained in the appendix of this report. Accelerations presented are accelerations expected at the site determined in accordance with the attenuation curves 1 by Campbell, 1987. Seismic accelerations have been modified by converting peak horizontal accelerations to repeatable high ground accelerations for all faults located within 20 miles of the site as recommended by Ploessel and Slosson (1974) and the Uniform Building Code (1988 Edition) . 5413 .gi age 6 Design of the structures should be based upon a probable repeatable high ground acceleration for the Newport-Inglewood Fault of 0. 204g. Secondary effects of seismic activity including subsidence, ground lurching, ground rupture and liquefaction are considered to have a low probability of occurrence. 6'.3 Retaining Wall Design Retaining walls may be designed using the following parameters: ' 1 Bearing - 2000 psf Active Earth Pressure Level Backfill - 30 psf/ft Backfill sloping at 2 to 1 - 50 psf/ft Passive Earth Pressure - 325 psf/ft Sliding Coefficient - 0.45 1 Sliding friction and passive resistance may be combined 1 without reduction in calculating the total lateral resistance. Passive pressures may be assumed to become constant at a value of 5 times the above values below a depth of 5 feet. All retaining wall backfill should consist of soil with an expansion index of 20 or less. It is our opinion that the soils existing on the site are suitable for use as retaining wall backfill. Retaining walls should be provided with adequate drainage to minimize hydrostatic pressures. L' 6.4 Expansive Soils l The results of tests indicate that the soils on the site possess very low expansion potential. The test results are as follows: Sample Expansion Location Index } B-2 @ 3 ' 3 As a result, no special design or construction is considered necessary for expansive soils on this project. Additional testing may be performed during grading and final recommendations will be presented in our Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading. It should be noted that slab, footing, and other construction details may change based on testing during grading. �, l 1 5413 .9i • ge 7 6.5 Soluble Sulfates The results of tests show that the on-site soils possess negligible concentrations of soluble sulfates. The test results are as follows: 1 Sample Soluble Location Sulfates ' B-2 @ 3 ' 0. 012 1 A soluble sulfate content less than 0. 10 percent is not considered detrimental to standard concrete mixes. As a 1 result, no special design or construction is considered necessary for soluble sulfates on this project. i6. 6 Corrosion Potential Representative soil samples have been tested to determine the potential for corrosion of metal pipes due to the soils on the site.. The test results indicate that the soils are corrosive. The test results are as follows: .1 Sample Soluble Minimum L J ocation PH Chlorides Resistivity B-2 @ 3 ' 7.49 311ppm 1780 ohm/cm If additional information is needed, a Corrosion Engineer should be consulted. ' J 6.7 Utility Trench Backfill Materials to be used for backfilling utility trenches ;a may consist of sand having a sand equivalent (SE) of 40 or g, more or excavated soil, at the contractor's option. w% Excavated soil used for backfill should be placed in thin lifts and each lift should be mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction and tested by the l soil engineer. This firm will give an opinion of the adequacy of the backfill of utility trenches only if the backfill operations are observed during the backfilling work and only if tests are obtained as the work progresses. If testing is performed after all backfilling is complete, without the benefit of observation of the work, only the test results can be reported by this firm. It should be noted that the City of Newport Beach requires that the compaction of all utility trench backfills be tested and commented on by the project soil engineer prior ' � to final completion of the project and issuance of a 5413 .9i • *age 8 l certificate of occupancy. In order to satisfy the City of Newport's requirements, a representative of this firm must if observe the work and perform tests as the backfill is placed. t 6.8 Stability of Excavations Even though no caving was experienced during the subsurface exploration, it can be expected that instability of utility trenches or other excavations will be experienced and, as a consequence, shoring or sloping excavation walls will be required to protect workers. The contractor should refer to the State of California, Division of Industrial l Safety for minimum safety standards. I No surcharge loads should be permitted above unshored or unretained excavations. This includes, but is not limited to vehicles carrying material or stockpiles of lumber, concrete block, or soil. Drainage above excavations must be directed away from the banks. Care must be taken to prevent saturation of the soils. 6.9 Slope Stability l All new or modified permanent slopes on this project f should be constructed at a slope ratio of two horizontal to i one vertical or flatter. J Detailed analysis of the stability of the existing slopes was not part of this investigation. However, a cursory visual e; review of the slope conditions was made by this engineer. 4' 1 During this review, no evidence of gross or deep seated distress or failure was noted. Evidence of shallow surficial instability were, however, noted at various locations. Based upon the sandy nature of the soils observed in the slope surface and in the borings, it is the opinion of this engineer that surficial instability and erosion of the slopes will continue unless the existing landscaping is modified or replaced so to provide a continuous ground cover of deep rooting drought resistant plants. The following l recommendations are presented for repair of the surficially J unstable areas and design and construction of suitable landscaping. 1. Existing trees and bushes should be removed or ; trimmed back to allow installation and growth of a more continuous plant ground cover. 2. Following the trimming and or removal of the trees and bushes and removal of existing dead leaves debris J and trash, areas of surficial instability can be identified by this firm. J 5413 .gi • 'Page 9 1 3 . All loose soils should be then removed and benches constructed into firm native soils as shown on the I attached detail. The slope face should then be I rebuilt using on-site soils, placed in thin horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to near 1 optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. To insure that the compaction is continued out to the finish slope face, the slope should be overbuilt and trimmed back to compacted material. 4. Landscaping of the slope should be initiated as soon as possible after completion of the surficial slope repairs. Plants should be drought resistant, deep rooting, fire resistant and provide as near continuous ground cover as possible. 5. Trees and shrubs should be planted as cuttings. Containerized plants requiring slope excavated planting wells should be avoided. 6. Irrigation systems including water supply service lines should be installed only on top of the ground surface. 7. Slope irrigation should be carefully controlled to maintain near optimum moisture conditions. Over-watering as well as underwatering should be avoided. 6. 10 Concrete Slab Construction It is our opinion that concrete floor slabs in areas to receive carpet, tile, or other moisture sensitive coverings should be constructed over a 6 mil plastic vapor barrier membrane. The plastic membrane should be properly lapped, sealed, and protected with at least a two inch thick layer of sand. The sand layer should be moistened just prior to placing concrete. It is cautioned that slabs in areas to receive ceramic 't tile or other rigid, crack sensitive floor coverings must be designed and constructed to minimize hairline cracking. Extra reinforcing and careful control of concrete slump to minimize concrete shrinkage are recommended. i•, J6.12 Pavement Design 1 The stability of the soil at the site has been determined by performing "R" Value tests in accordance with California Test Method 301G. The results of the tests are as follows: J 5413 .9i • Iage 10 Location "R" Value l B-2 @ 3 ' 68 Based on the test results and our estimate of traffic conditions, the following pavement sections have been computed in accordance with Orange County Road Department design procedures: Pavement Traffic Pavement Area Index - TI Section All Areas < 6. 0 2-1/2"AC/4"AB It is assumed in these designs that the subgrade soils immediately below the aggregate base will be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Unless otherwise specified by others, aggregate base should conform to either Processed Miscellaneous Base as per the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, " latest edition or Class II Aggregate Base as per Caltrans Specifications, latest edition. Aggregate base should be it compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density determined in accordance with California Test Method 216. Unless otherwise specified by others, asphaltic concrete (AC) should conform to Section 39 of the State of California, 1 Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition. Asphaltic 4 concrete should be Type B, 1/2 inch maximum size, medium graded. 1 Since this design is based on assumed traffic data, this office should be notified if definite information becomes available which warrants an alteration of the design s sections. It should be noted that grading of the project may alter the distribution of the subgrade soils and, as such, additional testing will be needed after grading to finalize the pavement designs. ;. This pavement design may be subject to approval by the governing agency who may have minimum sections in excess of those presented above. F 6.13 Grading The following special grading provisions are recommended i for the grading of this project in addition to the Grading Specifications, General Provisions included in the Appendix of this report. i 5413 .gi • Page it 1 1. The natural soils in areas to receive fill outside the building areas shall be scarified and compacted to a depth of eight inches below the existing surface after clearing and grubbing. 2 . All existing fill and soil disturbed during demolition shall be totally removed in' the building areas and the natural surface scarified to a depth of eight inches prior to placing new compacted fill. 3 . All scarification and removals specified herein shall extend to a distance of at least five feet beyond all footing edges unless property line or other constraints exist. Special recommendations will be presented during grading for grading in those areas where constraints are present. 4. Soil utilized for filling shall consist of approved on-site or imported soil. 5. Any imported soil shall be approved by the soil engineer for both expansive and strength qualities prior to importation to the project site. Final acceptance of any imported soil will be based on 1 observation of the soil actually delivered to the site. 6. All fill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent t;;• relative compaction. 7. The maximum density of all soils shall be determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test Method D-1557. The maximum density of aggregate base shall be determined in accordance with California Test J Method 216. f' 8. All fill shall be placed with a moisture content of l optimum or greater. J 9. Areas to receive pavement shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction to a depth of at least eight inches below final subgrade t= elevation. Final subgrade compaction shall be Performed just prior to placing aggregate base after J compaction and testing of all utility trench backfills. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be at approximately optimum to a depth of eight inches just prior to placing aggregate I base. I ' I 5413 .gi • tge 12 10. All grading plans shall be forwarded to the soil engineer for review and comment prior to the start of construction. 6. 14 site Design 6.14.1 shrinkage and subsidence It is estimated that shrinkage and subsidence on this project will be negligible. Please note that these estimates should be used with extreme caution. contingencies must be developed for balancing the earthwork quantities based on the 1 actual shrinkage and subsidence which occurs during grading. This firm assumes no responsibility for the use of these 1 earthwork factors or the balancing of earthwork quantities on this project. 6.14.2 Drainage Design This project should be designed and constructed with drainage devices at gradients adequate to insure proper 1 drainage after the completion of construction. ;• It is important that drainage patterns established 1 during finish grading of the site be maintained throughout the life of the structures. Property owners and building occupants should be aware that altering drainage patterns during landscaping or at any other time can effect the 1 performance of the structures and other site improvements. In addition, variations in irrigation and seasonal rainfall can also effect the performance of on site facilities. 6.15 Hazardous Materials ;~ It is understood that the evaluation of the site for hazardous materials has been or will be performed by others. ,. This investigation does not include any evaluation or assessment of hazardous or toxic materials which may or may not exist on the site. 6.16 Observations During construction The recommended bearing values presented in this report are based on the assumption that the footings will be supported directly on firm, competent native soil, or compacted fill. All footing excavations should be observed prior to placing steel or concrete to insure that the footings are founded on suitable material. _, All grading and fill compaction should be observed and/or i tested by this firm, including rough grading, installation of J 5413 .9i • loge 13 special drainage devices, retaining wall backfills, utility trench backfills, precise grading, and pavement subgrade and aggregate base, if applicable. It is the responsibility of the owner or his l representative to review the recommendations presented herein and to authorize the other design consultants and contractors to perform such work as necessary to comply with the -� recommendations as well as to inform this firm when necessary observations or testing are needed. i 7.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Resco Companies to assist the project design consultants and contractors in the design and construction of the proposed development. It is recommended that this firm be engaged to -� review the design drawings and specifications prior to construction to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and included in the design. If we do not .i perform this review, we can accept no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. Our findings and recommendations were obtained in accordance with generally accepted current professional principles and practice in geotechnical engineering. We make no other warranty, either expressed or implied. 1 It has been assumed, and it is expected, that the r.< geotechnical conditions which exist across the site are similar to those encountered in the test excavations. However, no warranty of such is implied in this report. The conclusions and opinions contained in this report are based on the results of the described geotechnical evaluations and represent our best professional judgment. The findings, conclusions, and opinions contained in this report 1 are to be considered tentative only, and subject to conformation by the undersigned during the construction process. Without this confirmation, this report is to be {; considered incomplete and this firm or the undersigned professionals assume no responsibility for its use. In J addition, this report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project 1 concept changes from that described herein. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ! I insure that interested parties have this information. �_1 5413 .9i • 'Page 14 This report is subject to review by the controlling i governing authorities for the subject project. Respectfully submitted, " KENNETH G. OSBORNE & ASSOCIATES j JSS:ed J. Stanley Schweitzer rric G.E. 758 1 - 1 4t: �i u F4' •L' 'A _l 1 V� EG GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 17141 MURPHY AVENUE IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92714 • (714)474.2001 LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES -1 SHEAR STRENGTH The shear strength of the soil is determined by performing direct shear tests and unconfined compression " I tests . Direct shear tests are performed on both undisturbed specimens and on samples remolded to various densities which represent anticipated conditions at the finished site. The samples are either tested at in situ moisture or are _ saturated to simulate the most severe field conditions anticipated . The relationship between normal stress and shear tests is shown on the attached Direct Shear Summary . The unconfined shear strength of selected undisturbed specimens is determined in accordance with A.S .T.M. Test y; Method D-2166 . The results of these tests are shown on the 1 Boring Logs . ?: EXPANSION `;rr Tests for volume change with moisture are performed on compacted soil in accordance with Uniform Building code Test Method 29-2 . I u kt, SETTLEMENT r S•; The settlement characteristics of the in situ soil are idetermined by performing consolidation tests on undisturbed ' or remolded specimens . The samples are tested in the original sample liner ring and the increment loads for consolidation are applied for periods of 12 or 24 hours by means of a single counterbalanced lever system. The pressure settlement curves are shown on the attached plates . r• IMOISTURE DENSITY The moisture-density relationship of the major soil type or types is determined in accordance with A.S .T.M. Test Method D-1557 . The test results are shown on the Boring Logs . I 7/87 Page A L . Y CLASSIFICATION The following test methods are used to aid in the classification of soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification system: 1 . A .S.T.M. Test Method D-422 2 . A.S .T.M. Test Method D-423 2. A.S.T.M. Test Method D-424 The results of grain size tests, when conducted , are shown on the Grading Analysis sheets . The results of consistency tests are shown on the Boring Logs or tabulated in the Appendix of this report . f RESISTANCE "R" VALUE The resistance "R" Value of soils to support pavement is determined by means of California Test Method No . 301 . SAND EQUIVALENT " The sand equivalent (S.E. ) of granular soils and fine aggregates is determined in accordance with A .S .T.M. Test Method D-2419 . ' SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT The concentration of soluble sulfates in the soils is ; l determined by A.S .T.M. Test Method D-516, Method A and is f expressed as a percentage by weight of the dry soil tested . 1 4 1 I Fir y ;t l �xF t.: a� l 7/87 ` Page B I, ) GRADING SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL PROVISIONS . 1 -, RESPONSIBILITY 1 . The soils engineer and engineering geologist are the owner ' s or builder ' s representative on the project . For the i purpose of these specifications , observation and testing by the soil engineer includes the observation and testing performed by any person or persons employed by , and responsible to , the licensed civil engineer signing the report . 2 . All clearing , site preparation, or earthwork performed on this project shall be conducted by the contractor under the observation of the soil engineer . 3. It is the contractor ' s responsibility to conform to the Grading Specifications for the project and the applicable grading ordinances for the jurisdiction in which the project is located . CLEARING 1 1 . The site shall be cleared of all vegetable growth including but not limited to trees , stumps , logs , trash , heavy weed growth , and organic deposits. 2 . All houses, barns , or other structures shall be removed from the site . 3. Unless otherwise approved , the foundation and slabs left from the demolition of structures shall be removed from K•'. the site. Included with the removal of foundations and slabs shall be the removal of basements , cellars , cisterns , septic tanks, paving , curbs , pipes , abandoned wells , both water and petroleum, or other deleterious materials . No cavity left + from demolition shall be backfilled until it has been a: observed by the soil engineer . ' n. 1 4. Unless otherwise specified , all cleared materials shall be removed from the boundaries of the project to an approved disposal site . _f 7/87 Page C L SITE PREPARATION l 1 . Loose soils within areas of fill shall be processed by either excavating and stockpiling the loose soil or by soil moisture content to the scarifying , adjusting the amount specified in this report , and compacting to the recommended relative compaction as determined by A.S .T.M. Test Method D-1557 . 2 . The soils within areas of fill placement shall be 1 processed to a depth adequate to insure the removal of major tree roots and pipe lines and the compaction of cavities left from tree removal . 3 . Excavations required for the removal of subsurface structures shall be cleared of any loose soil , the resulting surface moisture conditioned , and filled with compacted soil . The backfill of such excavations shall be compacted to the relative compaction recommended in this report. 4 . Cesspools shall be pumped of liquids and solids and backfilled with clean sand or pea gravel. The sand backfill , which shall be approved prior to use , may be flooded and jetted for obtaining compaction . Any unsuitable backfill of I cesspools shall be removed when found to be not in compliance with the recommendations contained in the 1 report(s) . The preparation of cesspools shall be observed by the soil engineer . Permits may be required by the local rr governmental agency for this project and their } specifications for abandonment , if any , should be considered . 5 . Abandonment of oil wells shall be in accordance with California State Law. The backfill of cavities resulting from the abandonment of oil wells shall be compacted in thin 1 . lifts under continuous observation of the soil engineer as l specified in "Site Preparation" , Item 3 above. 4 6. Unless otherwise specified , the tops of any abandoned J subsurface structure shall be removed to a depth of 5 feet f, below the finished grade in building areas and to a depth of Al 10 feet below finished grade in all other areas. The area f`4+ } when backfilling is required shall be performed in 1 accordance with "Site Preparation" , Items 3 and 5 above . _1 7/87 Page D l FILL PLACEMENT 1 . Unless otherwise approved and unless a specific rock disposal plan is shown on the plans in this report , no cobbles over 12 inches in diameter shall be accepted in any fill . 2. All on—site and imported soils to be used for an f engineered fill shall be subject to the approval of the soil engineer prior to placement. Preliminary approval of a source of imported soil shall not relieve the contractor of '+ delivering proper materials to the site. Final acceptance of imported soil will be based upon the material actually delivered to the site. 3 . The placement of fill shall conform to the "Special Grading Provisions" presented in the body of this report . `j ;j 4. Fill shall be placed in near horizontal lifts with a jl maximum placed thickness such that the required compaction can be achieved within the entire lift thickness. -�f F C. 7/87 Page E *UMMARY OF BOt1G P1IOACT NAME DATE Resco Medical Office Buildings 12/7/90 PROJECT NO DRILLING COMPANY 5413 r EOUIPMENT DRIVING WEIGHT I Bucket auger drill rig ' AVERAGE DROP HOLE DIAMETER ELEVATION EHOM/EER J.S. Schweitzer 18" oeaicouT 'Y AAap . . ?' f ,�U�. d�o� J~�L` Q� Qv``: �q`� � � SOIL / BEDROCK DESCRIPTION r Af Fill 3" AC over 4" AB t Qbn SM SAND; fine, slightly silty, dusky yellow, 1 92 17.5 B dense, moist, faint thin laminations �h ',3 r 92 25.0 B •x ` 'r v 5 94 27.5 B YID 2 inch thick silt layer I3 inch thick gravel layer 94 27.5 B silty, yellowish gray, dusky yellow and light olive brown 10 94 27.5 B l 1. L15 93 26.5 B Bottom of boring at 16' No groundwater No significant caving t BORING NO. 1 SHEET OF .. ' CMMARY OF BOAG ►IIO,*CT NAME DATE ( Resco Medical Office Buildings 12/7/90 PROJECT NO. DRILLMO COMPANY r_ 5413 1 EOUIPMENT DRIVING WEIGHT 1 Bucket auger drill rig AVERAGE DROP HOLE DIAMETERELEVATION ENOMa Z r 18" WOLOWT SOIL/ BEDROCK DESCRIPTION r Af Fill 3" AC over 4" AB Q SM SAND; fine, slightly silty, dusky 102 13.0 B yellow to light olive gray, dense, slightly moist to moist, faint laminations 98 116 84 20.0 B x 5 silty, light olive brown to light olive gray, slight oxidation ` 94 27.5 B t 91 29.0 B �0 t 10 95 26.0 B l ; San y, lignt olive gray, hard, slightly moist 15 Bottom of boring at 13' No groundwater No significant caving BORING NO. 2 SHEET 1 OF �' pAr= Kin G SIP .• %UMMARY OF BO G ►NPIECT NAME DATE f� Resco Medical Office Buildin s2/7/90 ►r"CT NO. DNE.LNG COMPANY 5413 EOW►h1E09 DWNG WEIGHT Bucket auger drill rig AVENAGE DMP HOLE MWETEA ELEVATION 9ww*EM ch zer r1811 GEOL00W SOIL/ BEDROCK DESCRIPTION r, Af Fill 3" AC over 5" AB i Qtm SM SAND; fine, slightly silty, medium 107 13.0 B yellow brawn, dense, moist 98 11 .0 B S 5 I 101 13.0 B (_ 4 inch thick silt layer t ( 97 14.5 B L_ L. 10 L 98 11 .0 1 B silty, yellow gray, trace of calcium 15 99 14.0 B Bottom of boring at 16' No groundwater No significant caving BORING NO. 3 SHEET 1 OF 1 va✓v.0 r�., 1YL A �-j!1 j UJ SUMMARY OF BO"➢ FfING PROJECT NAME DATE Resco Medical Office Buildings 12/7/90 ►rWECT NO. DRA.LNIG COWANV 5413 EOUWMENT DRmNG WEIGHT ( Bucket auger drill rig AVERAGE OROP HOLE DIAMETER ELEVATION EIgr+EE11 18" aeitzer CIEOLOGW SOIL / BEDROCK DESCRIPTION ;lM d' • f Af Fill 3' AC over 4" AB =' L 97 19.5 B 4tm SM SAND; fine, slightly silty, light olive brown, moist, dense, faint laminations C98 108 91 0.5 B ; } 5 thin gravel layer SILTY; yellow gray to dusky yellow, '+ r 98 18.5 B trace of calcium 10 `- 94 0.5 B l L15 100 22.5 B L.. Bottom of boring at 16' No groundwater No significant caving t BORING NO. 4 61 SHEET 1 OF li 1 f=� EXISTING GRADE 1 t = MAXIMUM THICKNESS OF FAILURE t` R: 24IN. FINAL GRADE 4 MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES r �4 24IN. SLOPE BACK > � OF 4% E� I 12' a �5 3 FT. OR 2 TIMES t r, J Z�F �f} SCALE.• 7 " _ .2' 'S" KENNETH G. OSBORNE a: 1 & ASSOCIATES t TYPICAL 1 SLOPE REPAIR DETAIL • ,oI NO o•TI I Da, 1. 5413 2-90 1 R.TANTON I J r PRESSURE — kips per ft.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 10.0 ,L II 0 L � 2 1 !r 1 2 r l c 3 d U tv i 4 - a Z � 5 G J 6 Z I ny L. 8 9 `+ 10 i, SAMPLE INFORMATION KENNETH G. OSBORNE Boring OR SampleNo.Depth: 51 & ASSOCIATES J PRESSURE ! CONSOLIDATION JOB NO. I DATE I ON1WN BY 2000 1600 71 U. t D2C9 3 G ap 1200 C7 Z 511 3r Q W 800 / : 1 400 t 0 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 NORMAL LOAD, P.S.F. � L SAMPLE INFORMATION KENNETH G. OSBORNE Boring No. A.S Sample Depth: as s/71oW/v & ASSOCIATES TEST INFORMATION DIRECT SHEAR ' ( L •Undisturbed O Remolded SUMMARY Moisture Content KSaturated ❑ Natural Joe No I DATE DRAWN BY Remolded Density P_490% of Max. 0 Natural 5y�3 y� TSS E L AI a:..a V � • • ( FAULT & SEISMICITY DATA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ; MAX . CREDIBLE EVENT; ;MAX. PROBABLE EVENT; APPROX. ; ------------------- ; ; ------------------- ; ABBREVIATED ! DISTANCE ; MAX. ; RHGA ; SITE ; ; MAX. ; RHGA ; SITE ; FAULT NAME ; mi (km) ; CRED. ; SITE ; INTENS ; ;PROB. ; SITE ; INTENS ; --- , -MAG_ 1ACC_-¢; --MM ; ; MAG. ;ACC. a! MM ; ' -------------------------- ' ------ --- ; ; ----- ; ------ ; - ; CASA LOMA-CLARK (S . Jacin. ) ; 50 ( 80) ; 7 . 50 ; 0. 081 ; VII ; ; 7 , 00 0 . 059 ; VI ; ( -------------------------- ; --------- ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; CHINO ; 21 ( 34) ; 7 . 00 ; 0 . 194 ; VIII ; ; 4 . 75 ; 0. 045 ; VI ; ; -------------------------- ; --------- ; ----- ; ------ ' ------ ' ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ' : CUCAMONGA 34 ( 54) ; 7 . 00 ; 0 . 123 VII ; ; 6 . 75 ; 0. 104 ; VII ; ------------------------- ; - ----- ' ----- ' ------ ' ----- " ----- ' ----- ' ----- ; ! ELSINORE ; 22 ( 35) ; 7 . 50 ; 0. 185 ; VIII ; ; 6 . 75 ; 0 . 117 ; VII ; ;GLN.HELEN-LYTLE CR-CLREMNT ; 44 ( 71) ; 7 . 50 ; 0. 092 ; VII ; ; 7 . 00 ; 0 . 067 ; VI ! ; -------------------------- ; --------- ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; MALIBU COAST ; 48 ( 78) ; 7 . 50 ; 0 . 115 ; VII ; ; 5 . 00 ; 0 . 022 ; IV -------------------------- ; --------- ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ !NEWPORT - INGLEWOOD ; 4 ( 6) ; 7 . 50 0 . 329 ; IX ; ; 6 . 50 0 . 204 VIII ; -------------------------- ' --------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ; ; OFFSHORE ZONE OF DEFORM. ; 8 ( 13) ; 7 . 50 ; 0. 254 ; IX ; ; 6 . 00 ; 0 . 113 ; VII ; ; -------------------------- ; --------- ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; PALOS VERDES HILLS ; 16 ( 25) ; 7 . 00 ; 0 . 122 ; VII ; ; 5 . 50 ; 0„. 048 ; VI ; ' -------------------------- --------- ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; ----- ; ------ ------ � ( ; RAYMOND136 ( 58 ) ; 7 . 50 ; 0 . 157 ; VIII ; ; 5 . 50 ; 0 . 042 ; VI ; -------------------------- - - ---- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- 1 ------ ; ------ ' ;ROSE CANYON ; 43 ( 70) ; 7 . 50 ; 0. 094 ; VII ; ; 6 . 25 ; 0 . 041 ; V [ -------------------------- ; - ----- ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; SAN ANDREAS (Southern) ; 49 ( 79) ; 8 . 00 ; 0 . 112 ; VII ; ; 7 . 25 ; 0 . 069 ; VI ; ' -------------------------- ; --------- ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; SAN GABRIEL ; 40 ( 64) ; 7 , 50 ; 0 . 103 ; VII ; ; 6 . 25 ; 0 . 046 ; VI ; -------------------------- ; - - ---- ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; ; SAN GORGONIO - BANNING ; 45 ( 73) ; 8 . 00 ; 0. 122 ; VII ; ; 7 . 00 ; 0 . 065 ; VI ; .Y 1 1 1 1 1 ' SANTA MONICA - HOLLYWOOD ; 39 ( 63 ) ; 7 . 50 : 0 . 143 ; VIII ; ; 6 . 00 ; 0 . 054 ; VI ; ; SIERRA MADRE-SAN FERNANDO ; 35 ( 56) ; 7 . 50 ; 0 . 162 ; VIII ; ; 6 . 50 ; 0 . 085 ; VII ; L ------------------------- ; - ------ ; ----- : ------ ; ------ ; ; ----- ; ------ ; ------ ; VERDUGO ; 37 ( 59) ; 7 . 00 ; 0 . 112 ; VII ; ; 4 . 50 ; 0 . 021 ; IV ; -------------------------- ' --------- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ ' ------ ' WHITTIER - NORTH ELSINORE ; 19 ( 30) ; 7 . 50 ; 0. 139 ; VIII ; ; 6 . 25 ; 0 . 065 ; VI ; - ' --- -- ' ----- ' ------ ' ------ " ----- ' ------ l ------ ' t JOB NO.5413 l JAN 91 ' � , Page M — - we -- �� I B3 's B4 f - w SCALE: m NONE W � ( U �B 1 I J i B2 i l B/SON AVENUE .. L KENNETH G. OSBORNE & ASSOCIATES BORING �B') LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION JOB W. °"" ° ""BY 5413 1/91 JSS RENTAL AGREEMENT � Contract No. Unit No. ti THIS RENTAL AGREEMENT, executed in duplicate in the City of Irvine, State of California,on this day of , 19 ,between AM-U-STORAGE(the "Lessor"), and ,(the"Lessee"). IT IS AGREED between the parties hereto, as follows: 1. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee, and Lessee hires from Lessor, upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Storage Unit No. in a building known as MINI-U-STORAGE, at#1 Burroughs in the City of Irvine, State of California, to be used solely for the purpose of storage of second-hand household goods and effects and business records. Lessee has examined the Premises and the Project and, by placing his INITIALS HERE acknowledges and agrees that the Premises and the common areas of the project are satisfactory for all purposes, including the safety and security thereof, for which Lessee shall use the Premises or the common area of the Project. Lessee shall have access to the Premises and the common areas of the Project only during such hours and days as are regularly posted at the Project. 2. TERMS. The terms of this Rental Agreement shall commence as of the date first above written and shall continue from the first day of the month immediately following on a month-to-month occupancy. 3. Lessee shall pay rent from the date first above written and shall thereafter pay rent monthly in advance at the rate of$ per month, payable on the first day of each and every month. Lessor and Lessee agree that partial tenders of rent shall not be acceptable as payment. 4. Lessee shall net make or suffer any alteration to the prenvses without written consent of Lessor. Lessee accepts the premises in good sanitary order, condition, and repair and Lessee shall keep the premises in such good sanitary order, condition and repair. 5. INSURANCE OBLIGATION OF LESSEE. Lessee shall at Lessee's sole expense obtain and maintain insurance on the prop- erty stored in, on, or about the premises to the extent of at least 100% of the full replacement value of such property covering loss or damage thereto caused by fire, water, burglary, theft, vandalism, improper sale, and non malicious conversion by Lessor extended coverage perils or any other risk of any kind or nature; such insurance shall be for the benefit of both Lessee and Lessor and its agents, and employees (hereinafter collectively referred to as Lessor's agents), and as between said parties, Lessee agrees to seek reimbursement for damages to or loss of said property solely from the proceeds of such insurance, and Lessor and its agents shall not be responsible for the theft of such property, or damage thereto caused by fire, water, sale or any other risk. Lessee further agrees to obtain a waiver of any and all inslrance carrier's right of subrogation against Lessor and Lessor's agents related to the coverage for such insurance. Lessee acknowledges Lessee has the obligation to obtain insurance and that rf Lessee does not obtain.insurance Lessee is not ful- filling Lessee's obligation and is "self insuring" Lessee's property stored in, on, or about the premises. To the extent that Lessee has "self insured," Lessee shall bear all risks of loss or damage. Lessee hereby releases Lessor and Lessors agents from any and all claims for damages or loss to the personal propel in, on, or about the prem- ises, that are caused by or result From peals that are or would be covered under the required insurance policy and hereby waives any and all rights of reuwcry against Lessor and Lessor's agents in connection with any damage which is or would be covered by any such insurance policy. While infor- mation may be made available to Lessee with respect to some, but not required insurance, Lessee understands and agrees that Lessor and Lessors agents are not insurers and do not assist and h,tve not assisted Lessee inthe explanation of coverage or possible lack of coverage or in the making of claims under any Insurance Plan and have made no representation except as set forth in this Agreement. Nothing in this paragraph shall limit or reduce the rights and benefits of Lessor under paragraph 6. By placing his INITIALS HERE Lessee acknowledges that be has read, understands and agrees to the provisions of this paragraph 5. 6 NON-LIA131LITY OF LESSOR FOR DAMAGES OR LOSS; LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. This Agreement is made on the express condi- tion and covenant that Lessee agrees to relieve Lessor and its agents from any and all liability for negligence causing loss or damage to the Lessees properly or injury to any persons including Lessee while in, upon, outside the premises or in any way connected with the premises during the term of this Agreement or any extension thereof or any occupancy hereunder. Lessee hereby agrees to save and hold Lessor and its agents harmless from any liability, loss, cost or obligation on account of or arising out of any such injuries or losses however occurring. This lease is made upon further express condition that, and Lessee agrees that Lessor's liability for any damages if any, not covered for any reason under other paragraphs of this Agreement shall be limited to the sum of $10000 7. LOCK. At the time this Agreement is executed, the Lessee shall furnish his lock and key for the premises at his sole ex- pense, and only one lock may be placed per door by Lessee. 8. LESSOR'S LIEN. If rent or other charges due under this Rental Agreement are delinquent 14 days after the due date, Lessor may terminate Lessee's right to use the Premises As authorized in Chapter 10 of Division 8 of California Business and Professions Code (commencing with Section 21700), Lessor may then send Lessee a Preliminary Lien Notice. Lessee's property in or on the Premises will be subject to a claim of lien in favor of Lessor, and the space may be entered by Lessor, the property within removed, the Lessee denied access, and the property may be sold by Lessor to sat- isfy the lien if the rent or other charges due remain and are not paid within 14 days after the mailing of the Preliminary Lien Notice. 9. Lessee shall not assign, lease or sublease the premises, or any portion thereof, without the written consent of Lessor. 10. USE OF PREMISES AND COMPLIANCE WITH LAW Lessee shall not store on the premises personal property in or to which any other person has any right, title or interest. Lessee shall not store any food or perishable goods, toxic or hazardous materials, flammable materials, explosives or other inherently dangerous material; any required removal of such material shall be Lessee's responsibility and Lessee promises to give written notice to Lessor in the event any said materials are stored or placed in the premises in violation of this Agreement. Lesser shall not store any personal property on the premises which would result in the violation of any law of any governmental* authority and Lessee shall comply with all laws, rules, regulations and ordinances of any and all governmental authorities concerning the premises or the use them. of. Lesser shall nut use the prenuses in any manner that will constitute waste, nuisance, or unreasonable annoyance to other occupants. Lessee acknowl- ed�es that the premises may be used for storage only, and that use of the premises for the conduct of business or human or animal habitation is spe. cifically prohibited. t 1. RIGHT TO RE-ENTER AND ABANDONDIENT. Time is of the essence of the payment of each and every payment upon rent herein co enanted to be paid and the performance of all covemnts and conditions by Lessee. If any rent shall he due and unpaid or if any default shall be made in any of the covenants herein contained, or in the event Lessee abandons the premises, the Lessor shall have the right to remove the lock and dispose of property left on the premises. Lessor shall have [he tight to enter into and upon the premises for lire purposes of inspecting the same or making such repairs alterations thereon as may be necessary For the safety and preservation thereof or determining whether Lessee has conformed to the terms and provisions of this Agree- ment and all laws applicable to the premises and the occupancy thereof, or permitting inspection by the representatives of governmental agencies upon such agencies' request with or without a search warrant. Lessee agrees witbin Eortyeight (48) hours of written notice from Lessor, to unlock and open the premises for inspection by Lessor, or any gote ernntental agency requesting such entry, and in the event of Lessees £adore or neglect to do sit, ur in the event of emergency or request for immediate entry by governmental agencies (and the forty-eight [481 hour notice for such reason is not given), Lessor or its agents shall have the right to remove the lock and enter into the premises for any of the purposes set forth in this Agreement However, after such entry by Lessor, or governmental authori- ties, unit will be secured with a lock and Lessor shall promptly remove the lock at the premises upon request of Lessee. 12. In the event of any legal action between the parties arising out of this Agreement the Lessee shall pay such legal fees incurred by Lessor. 13. Arbitration- Any dispute between the parties arising out of this Agreement or for damages for personal injury, injury of loss of goods of the Lessee or any other damages or matters arising between the parties shall be resolved by arbitration conducted by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, as then in effect, except as provided below. Any such arbitration shall be held and conducted in the county of the premises before an arbitrator who shall be selected by mutual agreement of the parties, if agreement is not reached on the selection of an arbitrator within ten (10) days, then such arbitrator shall be appointed by the presiding judge of the Superior Court of the County in which the arbitration is to be conducted. The provisions of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association shall apply and govern such arbitration, subject, how• ever, to the following: A. The abitrator must be a former or retired judge or attorney with at least 15 years experience in real property and commercial business matters B. Costs and fees of the arbitrator shall be borne equally. C. The award or decision of the arbitrator shall be final and judgment may be entered on it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction over the matter. D. Any applicable State Law permitting expanded discovery proceedings in conjunction with arbitration shall be applicable to all disputes which are arbitrated pursuant to this paragraph. 14. A service charge of$15.00 per month shall be charged on all accounts delinquent for ten (10) days or more as additional rent for the purpose of deferring expenses and costs of Lessor and additional record keeping,accounting,billing and other additional measures required to control and collect late payment. 15. All notices or mailings by Lessor under this Agreement shall be conclusively presumed to have been received by Lessee when Lessor has mailed such notices or mailings by regular United States mail, postage prepaid, to the address stated below, for Lessee, or to Lessees agent at his address stated below, or any either address or addresses furnished by Lessee to Lessor in writing, unless the law provides for a different specific type of notice. The failure or neglect of Lessee to inform Lessor of a new address for himself or his agent is and shall be the responsibility of Lessee and shall in no way affect the validity of any such notice or mailing by Lessor. 16. DISCLOSURE OF LIEN HOLDER: The following person or persons have an interest in or lien against personal property in this storage space: PERSON ADDRESS ITETz 17. CONDITION OF PREMISES UPON TERMINATION: Upon termination of this Rental Agreement, Lessee shall remove all Lessees per- sonal property from the prunises and shall immediately deliver possession of the premises to Lessor in the same condition as delivered to Lessee on the commencement date of this Rented Agreement, reasonable wear and tear excepted 18. In the event of the breach or default by Lessee of any of the covenants, conditions or terms of this Agreement, or desire of Lessor to termi. nate this Agreement, this Agreement shall be terminated upon seven (7) days' written notice to Lessee. 19. Any provision of this Agreement determined to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction shall in no way affect any other provision hereof. 20. All of the provisions hereof shall apply to, bind, and be obligatory upon the heirs, executors, administrators, representatives and successors of the parties hereto. 21. NO WARRANTIES. Lessor hereby disclaims any implied or express warranties, guarantees or representations of the nature, condition, safety or security of the premises and the storage complex and Lessee hereby acknowledges that Lessee has inspected the premises and hereby acknowledges and acrecs that Lessor does not represent or guarantee the safety or security of the premises or of any property stored therein. 22. THIS IS THE FNTIRE AGREEMENT There are no other promises except as stated herein, and Lessee agrees not to rely on any oral prom• ises of Lessor or its agents except if stated in writing, and further agrees not to rely on any signs or advertising inconsistent with this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. LESSOR: LESSEE,PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY MINI-U-STORAGE INSURANCE IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY DAHN CORPORATION,Managing Agent By LESSEE- Lessee grants access to: Address: Phone: Alternate Address: 75 9/ 1 ' 1 REPORT ON : 1 TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION STUDY FOR ' PROPOSED MINI STORAGE BISON AVENUE & CAMELBACK STREET 1 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1 Prepared For: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 Mr. John Douglas , Principal Planner 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD 1 Newport Beach , California 1 1 Prepared By: ' Justin F. Farmer Transportation Engineers, Inc. 223 E. Imperial Highway, Suite 155 1 Fullerton, California 92635 i 1 OUR FILE # F-1038 1 NOVEMBER 24 , 1993 REVISED ' TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map. . 2 Figure 2 Project Site Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TRIP GENERATION STUDY/DATA COLLECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ' Table 1 - Summary Trip Generation Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 2 - Summary Trip Generation Survey Trip Rates. . . 7 Figure 3A - Driveway Count/Santa Ana Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 3B _ Driveway Count/Irvine Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 3C Driveway Count/H.B. Site. . 10 Figure 3D - Driveway Count/Average Three Sites. . . . . . . . . . 11 TRIP GENERATION FORECAST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ' Table 3 - Mini StorageFacility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 TRIP DISTRIBUTION. . 13 Figure 4A - Project�Trip.Distribution -.Peak�I Hr. . . . . . . 14 ' Figure 4B - Project Trip Distribution - Peak 2-1/2 Hr. . . 15 Figure 4C - Project Trip Distribution - Peak 1 Hr. . . . . . . 16 Figure 4D - Project Trip Distribution - Peak 2-1/2 Hr. . . 17 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ' SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 APPENDIX II', ' JUSTIN R FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC ' INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' At the present time the buildings at the northwest corner of the intersection Camelback/Bison in the City of Newport Beach are vacant. The buildings have formerly been occupied by Pactel ' Corporation. A proposal has .been made to utilize the subject building as a mini storage facility occupying approximately 110,600 square feet ' of gross floor area. Main access to the project will be onto Camelback Street through one driveway for both entering and exiting traffic. At the project vicinity, Camelback Street is 2 ' lanes in each direction with 2 left-turn lanes at the intersection with Bison Avenue; Bison is 2 lanes in each direction at the immediate vicinity of the project. ' Figure 1, on the following page, illustrates the project site vicinity map while Figure 2, Page 3, is the project site plan. ' The purposes of this report are to: (1) Conduct traffic count surveys at three comparable facilities ' to the one proposed herein and develop trip generation rates for daily trips and peak hour trips. ' (2) Forecast the amount and distribution of traffic of the proposed land use and determine the net increase in traffic at the following intersections: ' - Jamboree Road at Ford Road - Jamboree Road at Bison Avenue - Jamboree Road at University Drive - Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard - Jamboree Road at Bristol - Jamboree Road at Bristol North - MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road ' - MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue (3) Assess the impact the project may have upon the adjacent ' street system, per the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Data pertaining to this project was obtained from the City of ' Newport Beach active files. This data houses peak hour traffic counts, peak 2-1/2 hour traffic counts, additional traffic as a result of cumulative projects and previous traffic analyses which were performed for the same parcel prior to construction. The ' data and the analysis is presented on the following pages. JUSTIN E FARMER 1 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. ' qrF I yJ-fo- W a' L.Y�WQYIWSE p9 7FM1tyh 41�• i / ! �. �/LT ER ' 4,p/p 3 4iyq �pJd /'4po yv 1O v ! •>� \\ Lih 9 w d9q �-� d or d W DLIFE \\ Wy ✓ � s � �iy`3 ram, �u� � � I \\� \\ PR RVEsall �\ Diego \\ ' ? R'• L p UHIVERSITY i N rT`iF'.:.ii{+`^t. . �,.�:• -.�n�I PAW;• _ s 1 '. RESER �/ T 1. E j ` VG arvM eg sp TE �W<r��i; S� oF a \ I NHS` FASTeLUfF $ oo- ♦.61•s� 4 ° PARK-, G yy4 9cOR u s.0 a 1�'•�F'/^I�. lw,i L/, Z�` T,� n�ik� LrTjr(i�tiy 4.y �'�F Si ���P I 7 LEES. O �[E y1e' `1LStPCORONA3 H C� \, � wn A 4 PL B4QRFNpfA cr 4 c NE PORT �40 M9py [ ° ° r i Bonita• . P\AI XY_ `• BEACH Reservoir R< G o t R 2 'z',�'N•\ N \ y P+`:•, ,4� Po' UFFALO HILLS�PARKRN i vi'eCbY ter.:'•" ,Y4 a Pr '>�S'- TA EYP PL =NPoAt RD—. � �-y.(,t.�y alb 1 R ♦ � W[LL O 0.0 � I PoR! iTF R ppRT AgY�, — 9IL. 3.- % Q• ♦$�7'JW q�o D�EG aFF / hryfS Tytp ; L P Ri 4RL p( Rt WEY- RIOILq PL POF r n a`IL.+ r '/O ti}y`- 1GFORG�' R-. ARM U ORi R i / POLI FSTA f1AE �0 PORT RA1lF a0A Pl pa 1 CHAMFER ST0.NFWPOR /N t ' 4PG� ASHL Y' . 1 OIELS iPl >' 'r O`'I0.UEE Of COMME CE ♦ HgRABrp RI Q� AT i1R11 p 7AL ° 4 aL PORT RSA.� � 1�0o- ,p, M S •';' R (^�J rf RD1Cgx fix � I ' rift OUASE m EMENTE DR a y�Qp ,f93Ra t T°,E A bs,F/MNi'r � JryNy(4` EPA �< BF 0 m NEWPp r . �Ro _ � QP 4.ir• 9' W_ Cp�Cq,L,8 Q 2 To oR O* '"2 SA�fi OR 'rP�kiy R- ref � rr 4 W� J�3 . o 1 < q FASHION p 0.05P 4p 41rbr �0.� F/y S �pd g m • iE $ ( ISLAND n NICK Sir v Pr PPjP* Abr) I P,TT yy / 'Y Oo-WW `Sy, µ MIGVEL ./Mpf+ �.� "1� • /� yVe, Sf ! Z °R r,�F. D r1 Sf y. U0. Cf•h PART: Ig IFIC VIEVV Ilr Q C� A DR � 5 I GATE v � y yJ�p^ Z� � l� •^ `•`' 1 CS.�1:1 �VA.�JnF o A"�rNt \- ' Map Source : Auto Club Of So. Cal. SITE VICINITY MAP FIG1 JUSTIN F. FARMER 2 TRAN'S1'0R,rAT1().N ENGINFERS. INC- !j E NO 1 _ ------------- -------- --- ---------- Ise ------_ _ --- •� 1 I i t / •E , �/ ii« t � 5g i I '�' ..I ::—• I I •�/ . s`S Dili` t fp urrmmn 1 �.mnmmrrrr..... 2 F E 4 Ir / � 4� ,iAlf�tUii(FivtA I,nil IAIIJA�ij�n E n mm�unmm�n nunmtrmnmm�l I •'�-•�/ = e i ` 0 gF ,r,,.•„•II II 11..,,r.r......IN fill 1 N.. ....•rir, f.... ......., s Y' w fir, ;;vaq 1! a t 1 i • 1 i nnnitltnl ammUmand it J 1 FIG PROJECT SITE PLAN 2 JUSTIN F. FARMER 3 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS.INC. ' TRIP GENERATION STUDY/DATA COLLECTION Daily and peak hour trip generation for projects such as that being proposed here is normally expressed in terms of trip ends per 1,000 square feet (KSF) of gross floor area. A trip is de- fined as a one-way vehicular journey either to or from the site, or it may be a journey totally within the site. The latter is usually referred to as an internal trip. Each trip will have two trip ends, one at the beginning and one at the end of the destination. Trip making characteristics for a variety of land use types have ' been collected from a number of field studies at actual projects, both in Southern California and elsewhere throughout the United States. The results of these studies have been reported upon by ' ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) , San Diego Assoc- iation of Governments, Arizona Department of Transportation, and various published and unpublished private studies. A review of the data for development similar to that being proposed indicates that the Institute of Transportation Engineers rates would be most applicable for the site, however, a concern ' has been expressed by the developers of this project that the ITE rates may not reflect the actual operating characteristics for a mini storage located in the central Orange County area. ' The City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has therefore requested that trip generation data be collected at similar land uses within the site vicinity i.e. , in central Orange County. ' Research was conducted, and the following three locations were found to be similar to the proposed one at Camelback and Bison ' intersection. *1) Mini Storage - Irvine 1 Burroughs Avenue ' Site Area = 169,762 Gross S.F. = 100,720 Net Leasable = 88,093 ' *2) Mini Storage - Huntington Beach 7611 Talbert Avenue ' Site Area 143 ,000 Gross S.F. 62,192 Net Leasable = ** ' *3) Mini Storage - Santa Ana 4200 W. Westminster Avenue Site Area = ** ' Gross S.F. = 83 ,894 Net Leasable = 82,550 * Data provided by the Dahn Corporation Data NOT available JUSTIN R FARMER 4 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. ' The City Traffic Engineer has requested that trip generation data be collected at those study locat}}'ons during the busiest weekday. Data were therefore collected fgYm the Dahn Corporation for the facilities in Irvine and in Huntiiiiiington Beach. Their data includes actual entering and exiting log-in/log-out sheets for both ' facilities for several months. JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , has analyzed the busiest three months of the year for both mini storage facilities. These are June, July, and August 1993 . We have analyzed weekday traffic volumes for the ' entire three months at both location and our analysis indicated that the busiest weekdays were Fridays and Tuesdays, followed by Mondays, Thursdays and then Wednesdays. Data collection and traffic counts were therefore collected at the above referenced three locations on Friday. October 22, 1993 . ' Each of those locations have one driveway serving both entering and exiting traffic. For purposes of this analysis 24-hour machine traffic counts were taken at the facility's single ' driveway. Actual count data is presented in Appendix A of this report and count summary is presented on the following pages as Table 1 and ' Table 2. Table 1, Page 6, summarizes actual traffic count data for the three locations and averages the data for hourly and daily ' traffic. Table 2, Page 7, summarizes trip generation rates for the three locations and presents average hourly and daily trip rates. Additionally, traffic counts were graphically illustrated on Pages 8 thru 11 as Figure 3A thru Figure 3D. ' Figure 3A - illustrates traffic hourly variations/driveway counts for Santa Ana site. ' Figure 3B - illustrates traffic hourly variations/driveway counts for Irvine site. Figure 3C - illustrates traffic hourly variations/driveway counts for Huntington Beach site. ' Figure 3D - illustrates average three sites. A close look at Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 3A thru 3D indicates that the three sites experience three peak periods, morning, ' midday and evening. It also indicates that hourly variation throughout the day is quite comparable for all three sites, insofar as the overall magnitude of entering and existing ' volumes. Trip rates developed and presented on Table 2 were used to estimate the number of trips associated with the proposed mini ' storage. JUSTIN E FARMER 5 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. TABLE 1 SUMMARY TRIP GENERATION SURVEY MINI STORAGE FACILITIES NUMBER OF TRIPS .......... ............ ...... .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. . . ... .... .. .. ..83, .. ............EX" :X IN OUT IN OUT IN][OUT IN OUT DIAEbTlb 12AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 o o o o o o 0 0 7 9 8 2 2 0 0 3 7 5 7 7 3 3 o 10 7 8 5 5 4 1 11 9 7 5 6 lo lo 12PM 7 8 13 14 4 3 .7 2 5 8 4 5 11 12 -8 15 3 9 8 1 3 3 9 9 4..... ...11.. 8 7 4 8 9 ;Xa: 6 6 13 5 4 4' 2 00 10 7 4 6 0 0 0 0 000 a 2 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 o o � ... ........ ... .... ........ .... ............. ... ............. TABLE 2 ' SUMMARY TRIP GENERATION SURVEY MINI STORAGE FACILITIES TRIP RATES :::'sANTA:::ANA:: : :;:; :;>:;:?: .:::: : :; :: •: :: : V$Ri4'GiB:... ::s:•:.. .. . ....BEA... ... .. ... ............. ... .. . .. .... ... yTFM 'i';i IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT TOTAL 12AM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Fo.000 Fo.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ' i 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3 E0.Kl F0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ' 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6 0.000 11 0.000 110.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 .0.000 0.000 ' s -00mil 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0 000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7 0.107 0.095 0.020 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.036 0.081 s 0.060 0.083 0.069 0.030 0.048 0.000 0.059 0.036 0.097 9::�:;:;: ;:;El'Sf7P � :��:072;:; : i?;158::: •:;:0:•,1.93:;: :::iF1'.1f8Q;:� :�X?096 :• : ;:;0't04;:; : ;: ; 0;1.72;:; : 0.226 10 0.083 0.095 0.050 0.050 0.064 0.016 0.066 0.054 0.119 11 0.107 0.083 0.050 To.060 o 1 el7Fo.161 0.106 0.101 0.207 12PM 0.083 0.095 0.129 0.139 0.064 0.048 0.092 0.094 0.186 s: ::fk93:;: ::6:05•:: b1$9: : p;:1.39':: :;:# �ti:: t#;193::: :: :b:ti:i:':::; :: :6;1'16:: ; 0.227 2 0.060 0.095 0.046 0.050 0.177 0.193 F 0.113 0.205 3 0.107 1 0.095 0.030 0.030 0.145 0.145 0.094 0.090 0.184 4 0.131 0.095 0.069 0.040 0.129 0.145 0.110 0.093 0.203 ::9;138:: 5�:: ::Qc}g.0. ;iz):1 :;: ::0'r149:: : :':.0:1:1 : : 0.226 6 0.072 0.095 0.050 FoO4O 0.064 0.032 0.062 0.056 0.118 7 0.048 _0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.024 0.040 s 0.024 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.012 9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11 0.000 0.000 0.0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ' TO 4L: :y:744:: •:':l:1.3^c:' :'[187� •0:95$': :':1':D93 : :;f:Q93:. .':1:07.0.' :' 1 060>'; .`•::2 i30 <: 7 I FIGURE 3A DRIVEWAY COUNT/SANTA ANA SITE 12 10 ........................................................................................................................................................... ........ .................................................................... ag ........................................................................ .........................,k.. ....... ._.......F......+.... ................ .... .................................................... m6 ...................................................................... ....... ....... '........................................... .... ......................i.......... .... .........................................cc z4 ................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ............... ........................................ 2 ................................................................. ............ ........................................................................................................................° ................................. ' 012AMI 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10112PM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 ' TIME BEGIN —�— ENTERING VEHICLES ........... EXITING VEHICLES t 1 a FIGURE 313 DRIVEWAY COUNTARVINE SITE 20 1$ .......................................................................................... . ............................................................................................................................................... 16 ..................................................................... ......................` ................ ........ ......... . .......... ......................... ............................................................... 14 ...................................................... a ' 12 ..............._............................................................ ............. ...... .....................'............. .............................. ... ............................................................. x10 ...................................................................................... .......... ................ `................ ........................... ................................................... mw ........... .............. _ .... ................................................. 8-.................................................................................... ............. .............:....... .... .... . 6 : ........ ............................................... z • 4 ........................................................................... ......................................................._..... . ..... ....,�............... .................................................... ' 0 2ANB 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 112PM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 1011 ' TIME BEGIN -�-- ENTERING VEHICLES ........... EXITING VEHICLES 1 I ' 9 ' FIGURE 3C ' DRIVEWAY COUNT/H.B. SITE 12 nN8 .............................................................................................................. .... ............... ..................... ....... ............................................................... 0 6 ....................................................................................................... ........ ......... .. ................................ ....°e............................................................ u W z 2 .............................................................................. ..................:.............................................................................. ......................................... ' 0 2AM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 112PMi 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 ' TIME BEGIN �ENTERING VEHICLES .....+"," EXITING VEHICLES 1 10 FIGURE 3D DRIVEWAY COUNT/AVERAGE THREE SITES 12 10 ........................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................... 1 ............... ... `............ . ..... . _}........ ......'...... ... a 8 ' LL = 04 0 6 .....................................................................................;............ .. ........................................................................ ........................................................ . w : 4 z 2 ..................................................................... ....................................................................................................................... ........................................... ,.., 012AMI 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10112PM1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 TIME BEGIN -�- ENTERING VEHICLES ........... EXITING VEHICLES 11 r r r ' TRIP GENERATION FORECAST Traffic generation forecasts have been prepared for the proposed project based upon trip generation factors as compiled by JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , in the previous section of this report. Table 3 , below summarizes the trip ' generation forecasts. It indicates an increase in the number of trips during the morning peak hour and during the evening peak hour. r TABLE 3 MINI STORAGE FACILITY BISON/CAMELBACK ' 110,600 SQUARE FEET TRIP DAILY RATE TRIPS HOURLY TRIPS PEAK 1 HR PEAK 2 1/2 HR AM IN 0.059 NA 7 14 OUT 0.038 NA 4 8 ' PM IN 0.109 NA 12 24 OUT 0.117 NA 13 26 DAILY IN 1.065 118 NA NA ' OUT 1.065 118 NA NA NOTE: - Peak 1 hour is 50% of peak 2 1/2 hours r bo- r J Olt J 10°0 S.F. Wo 00 ' JUSTIN E FARMER 12 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. RR2IP DISTRIBUTION It is recognized that the distribution of project trips will vary considerably, depending upon the type of land use proposed, the day of the week and the time of the day. For an office development, as an example, the morning and evening peak hours ' are critical time periods. The predominant trip maker during both hours is the employee and the trip will be a home-work journey. As a consequence, the trip distribution is based, to a ' large degree, on the spatial location of residences in the service area of the site. Trip distribution patterns are, however, different for a mini storage facility building where trips are made predominantly by the facility renters. General trip length associated with such proposed mini storage building would be less than those associated with general office, i.e. , the mini storage is proposed to attract more trips from the ' surrounding vicinity than a general office would. Based on familiarity with traffic patterns near the study area, ' the location of potential users and the observation of peak hour traffic, directional distribution patterns were determined and were used to forecast the distribution of project trips. Inasmuch as Table 3 indicates an increase in trips during the AM peak and ' PM peak hours. Trip distributiongwere made for both AM and PM peak hours for the following eight intersections. I - Jamboree Road at Ford Road - Jamboree Road at Bison Avenue - Jamboree Road at University Drive ' - Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard - Jamboree Road at Bristol - Jamboree Road at Bristol North - MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road ' - MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue Figure 4A, Page 14, illustrates peak 1 hour trip distribution ' for the AM peak. Figure 4B, Page 15, illustrates peak 2 1/2 hour trip distribution ' for the AM peak. Figure 4C, Page 16, illustrates peak 1 hour trip distribution for ' the PM peak. Figure 4D, Page 17, illustrates peak 2 1/2 hour trip distribution ' for the PM peak. JUSTIN E FARMER 13 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. m a U 6 UNIIvERS" OR. BACKBAY OR. TI I ' � m O ' O Ld .J y ' B1SON A� d Q ' Ld 0 N ' RD Q� N �0 �P ' FIG PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4A ' PEAK 1 HOUR - AM PEAK JUSTIN F. FARMER 14 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. h UNIVERSITY DR. ry OR. co ' BACKSAY DR. } N ♦- v :)p 00 7 z co LLJ 0 Z 1�2 a J A d CV 2 ' o U 2a. .h ' N FAD RD 00' d DQ' ' FIG PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4B ' PEAK 2.5 HOUR - AM PEAK JUS11N F. FARMER 15 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 1 1 UNIVERSITf DR. k ' 1 BACKBAY DR. 't 1 g � Q t m 3 � =o 1 0 ? N uj -i Y 1 BIg� W N AVE d 1 a 4� to N py i a. r 1 CY Fa2D RD 1 �a' M, P 1 FIG PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4C 1 PEAK 1 HOUR - PM PEAK JUSTIN F. FARMER 16 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. �. F z 6 V co IK 6 ' / UNIVERSITY DR. 0 , ' BACKBAY DR. OD M Q m 0� 6 ?o O N 0 � N 4 �4 - y a N uj I ' >� VL 0 1 � I a FQ2D D �0 ' FIG PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4D ' PEAK 2.5 HOUR - PM PEAK JUSl1N F. FARMER 17 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. ' TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Inasmuch as the trip generation forecast presented in Table 1 ' indicates that there will be an increase in traffic volumes during the morning peak hour and the evening peak hour as a result of the project, both peak hours will be considered in the following section of this analysis. ' A. Cumulative Proolects ' The City of Newport Beach's traffic engineering staff has completed a list of cumulative projects which may impact this portion of the City's street network. The list includes 134 projects, of which approximately 16% are not ' occupied, 78% are fully occupied, and 6% are partially occupied. B. Regional Growth The Newport Beach City Traffic Engineer has prepared a list of specific regional annual growth rates which are ' associated with the study area and are summarized as follows: Jamboree Road ' Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard 1% MacArthur Boulevard Coast Highway to Jamboree Road 3% C. Intersections to be Analyzed ' City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has identified that the primary impact from project traffic will be on the site vicinity intersections of: ' - Jamboree Road at Ford Road - Jamboree Road at Bison Avenue - Jamboree Road at University Drive - Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard - Jamboree Road at Bristol - Jamboree Road at Bristol North - MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road ' - MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue Figure 4A thru 4D, Pages 14 thru 17 illustrate the location of ' the above eight (8) study intersections. ' JUSTIN E FARMER 18 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC ' D. "One Percent Test" The methodology presented below is for the 1% traffic volume analysis per the City of Newport Beach's Transportation Phasing Ordinance. - Volumes used are the 2 1/2 hour traffic volumes. ' - Volumes were extrapolated to the year 1994, 1 year hence. - Traffic volumes associated with the cumulative projects were added to the extrapolated volumes and 1% of the pro- jected peak 2 1/2 hour volumes were determined. - If project traffic exceeded 1% of the projected peak 2 1/2 hour volumes, intersection analyses were conducted for the impacted intersection. The 1 % test conducted at the eight study intersections indicated that the intersection of Jamboree at Bison and MacArthur at Bison ' meet the 1% test during the PM peak period while the remaining six intersections do not meet the 1% test during either peak period. Therefore, level of service analyses were conducted at ' the subject two intersections using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) procedure. City data forms entitled "1'% Traffic Volume Analysis" for the eight intersections are included in the ' Appendix attached hereto. Also enclosed are the ICU calculation forms for two introspections. TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF V/C & LOS ' AM PEAK PM PEAK CONDITION V/C RATIO LOS V/C RATIO LOS Jamboree Road & Bison Street Existing 0.57 A 0.55 A + Cumulatives 0 .71 C 0.70 B + Cumulatives + Project 0.71 C 0.70 B ' MacArthur Blvd. & Bison Street Existing 0.52 A 0.52 A + Cumulatives 0 . 60 A 0. 61 B ' + Cumulatives + Project 0.60 A 0. 61 B Table 5 suggest that the project will have no impact upon either intersection. The levels of service will continue to remain at acceptable conditions and the ICU will be less than 0.90 after ' addition of cumulative projects and proposed project. JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. 19 ' SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION o At the present time the buildings at the northwest corner of the intersection of Camelback/Bison in the City of Newport ' Beach is vacant. A proposal has been made to utilize the subject buildings as a mini storage facility containing approximately 110,600 square fee of gross floor area. ' o The City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance was utilized and information was collected regarding existing traffic volumes, cumulative projects traffic and growth ' factors. o For purposes of assessing the impact of the subject proposed mini storage upon the surrounding street network, the City Traffic Engineer has requested that the following eight intersection be analyzed: - Jamboree Road at Ford Road - Jamboree Road at Bison Avenue - Jamboree Road at University Drive ' - Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard - Jamboree Road at Bristol - Jamboree Road at Bristol North ' - MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road - MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue o Entering and exiting log-in/log-out sheets were collected from the Dahn Corporation for the three busiest months of the year, June, July and August. The three months data were analyzed. ' Our analysis has indicated that the busiest weekdays are Friday and Tuesdays, followed by Mondays, Thursdays, and then Wednesdays. ' o In order to estimate daily and peak hour trip generation for the proposed projects, 24-hour traffic count data were collected at three comparable mini storage facilities. These facilities are located in the City of Irvine, City of Huntington Beach and the City of Santa Ana. Data were collected during the busiest weekday, i.e. , Friday. ' o A close look at the collected data indicates that the three sites experience three peak periods; morning, midday, and evening. It also indicates that hourly variation throughout the day is quite comparable for all three sites insofar as the magnitude of entering and exiting volumes. ' o Trip generation forecast for the proposed mini storage was developed using trip rates from our actual surveys. The forecast and the rates are summarized on the following page: ' JUSTIN E FARMER 20 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. MINI STORAGE FACILITY - BISON/CAMELBACK 110,600 SQUARE FEET TRIP DAILY RATE TRIPS HOURLY TRIPS PEAK 1 HR PEAK 2 1/2 HR ' AM IN 0.059 NA 7 14 OUT 0.038 NA 4 8 PM IN 0.109 NA 12 24 OUT 0.117 NA 13 26 ' DAILY IN 1.065 118 NA NA OUT 1.065 118 NA NA NOTE: - Peak 1 hour is 50% of peak 2 1/2 hours ' o Project trips were distributed to the surrounding street system particularly to the above eight study intersections. ' o When the 1% test was conducted project peak 2 1/2 hour trips were found to be less than 1% of the pr6jected 2 1/2 hour ' volumes for six of the eight intersections. o The intersection of Jamboree at Bison and MacArthur at Bison ' meet the 1% test during PM peak period only. Intersection Capacity Analysis were conducted at both peak hours. Summary of the ICU/LOS is presented below: ' SUMMARY OF V/C & LOS AM PEAK PM PEAK ' CONDITION V/C RATIO LOS V/C RATIO LOS Jamboree Road & Bison Street ' Existing 0.57 A 0.55 A + Cumulatives 0 .71 C 0.70 B + Cumulatives + Project 0. 71 C 0.70 B ' MacArthur Blvd. & ' Bison Street Existing 0.52 A 0.52 A + Cumulatives 0.60 A 0.61 B + Cumulatives ' + Project 0. 60 A 0 .61 B The ICU/LOS table presented above indicates that the project will have no impact upon both intersections. ' �ROFESS/pN Sincerely, Q q JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. Y GpB9F Co m C #1684 ' Shahir Gobran, P.E. * Exp. 10/-36'�l Transportation Planning Manager LP rRaFV�G \Q' ' SG:dr gTFOFCAi.1F0�� JUSTIN F. FARMER 21 TRANSPORTATION ENGI 1 1 1 ' APPENDIX ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINI STORAGE TRAFFIC STUDY JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING INC. ' APPENDIX 1 ' 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS t CITY OFNEWPORT BEACH MINI STORAGE TRAFFIC STUDY . ------------•• ------------ --------- -- - - ----------.... JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING INC. I SITE CODE : Irvine ne 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS-BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 1 S Street: MINI STORAGE YARD FILE: D9310389 -W Street: TALBERT AVE. CLient JUSTIN FARMER DATE: 10/22/93 __---------- -------- ----------------------------""'- TIME ------- ENTER ------- ------- EXIT ------- ----- COMBINED ----- DAY: ITEGIN AM PM AM PM AM PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '12:00 0 5 0 6 0 11 12:15 0 1 0 2 0 3 12:30 0 3 0 3 0 6 12:45 0 0 4 13 0 0 3 14 0 0 7 27 1:00 0 5 0 5 0 10 1:15 0 3 0 2 0 5 1:30 0 5 0 3 0 8 ' 7:45 0 0 4 17 0 0 4 14 0 0 8 31 2:00 0 4 0 1 0 5 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 2:30 0 0 0 4 0 4 2:45 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 9 3:00 0 3 0 3 0 6 3:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 3:45 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 0 1 0 2 0 3 4.30 0 3 0 0 0 3 4:45 0 0 3 7 0 0 2 4 0 0 5 11 5:00 0 2 0 1 0 3 5:15 0 0 0 1 0 1 5:30 0 6 0 4 0 10 5:45 0 0 6 14 0 0 10 16 0 0 16 30 6:00 0 4 0 3 0 7 6:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 0 1 0 1 0 2 ,6:45 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 2 0 2 0 4 0 7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 8:00 3 0 2 0 5 0 '8:15 1 0 0 0 1 0 8:30 3 0 1 0 4 0 8:45 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 10 0 0 9:00 3 0 5 0 8 0 9:15 4 0 4 0 8 0 9:30 4 0 5 0 9 0 9:45 5 16 0 0 6 20 0 0 11 36 0 0 10:00 1 0 2 0 3 0 0:15 1 0 1 0 2 0 0:30 0 0 2 0 2 0 0:45 3 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 7 14 0 0 11:00 1 0 1 0 2 0 '1:15 3 0 1 0 4 0 1:30 0 0 1 0 1 0 11:45 1 5 0 0 3 6 0 0 4 11 0 0 -----------------------""".-_.--.------------------ _--- .__----._------.-----------------"' lOTALS 35 63 36 60 75 123 AY TOTALS 98 96 198 SPLIT % 46.7 51.2 48.0 48.8 EAK HOUR 9:00 12:45 9:00 5:15 9:00 5:15 OLUME 16 17 20 18 36 34 P.H.F. 0.80 0.85 0.83 0.45 0.82 0.53 Huntington ,SITE CODE : Beach 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS•BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 1 FILE: D9310388 N-S Street: MINI STORAGE YARD E-W Street: BURROUGH AVE. DATE: 10/22/93 Client JUSTIN FARMER TIME ------- ENTER ... EXIT ------- ----- COMBINED ----- DAY: -........-..'..--....-_--'---------------------'._."--..-.--....--------__.__-.....-...--... 'BEGIN AM PM AM PH AN PM '12:00 0 1 0 1 0 2 12:15 0 1 0 2 0 3 12:30 0 2 0 0 0 2 12:45 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 ' 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1:15 0 2 0 2 0 4 1:30 0 2 0 4 0 6 1:45 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 7 0 0 2 12 2:00 0 2 0 2 0 4 2:15 0 4 0 2 0 6 2:30 0 2 0 1 0 3 2:45 0 0 3 11 0 0 7 12 0 0 10 23 , 3:00 0 2 0 3 0 5 3:15 0 3 0 1 0 4 3:30 0 0 0 2 0 2 3:45 0 0 4 9 0 0 3 9 0 0 7 18 4:00 0 3 0 2 0 5 4:15 0 0 0 4 0 4 4:30 0 3 0 1 0 4 ' 4:45 0 0 2 8 0 0 2 9 0 0 4 17 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:15 0 3 0 3 0 6 5:30 0 2 0 6 0 8 ' 5:45 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 14 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30 0 3 0 1 0 4 ' 6:45 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 6 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 9:00 1 0 3 0 4 0 9:15 2 0 2 0 4 0 9:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 9:45 2 5 0 0 1 6 0 0 3 11 0 0 10:00 1 0 1 0 2 0 10:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 10:45 3 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 5 0 0 11:00 3 0 4 0 7 0 '11:15 3 0 2 0 5 0 1:30 2 0 0 0 2 0 11:45 2 10 0 0 4 10 0 0 6 20 0 0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1OTALS 22 46 17 51 39 97 AY TOTALS 68 68 136 SPLIT X 56.4 47.4 43.6 52.6 EAK HOUR 10:45 2:00 11:00 2:15 11:00 2:15 OLUME 11 11 6 13 20 24 P.N.F. 0.92 0.69 0.38 0.46 0.71 0.60 r SITE CODE : Santa Ana 24 HOUR MACHINE COUNTS-BY TRAFFIC COUNTS PAGE: 1 'N-S Street: MINI STORAGE YARD FILE: D9310390 E-U Street: WESTMINSTER AVE. Client : JUSTIN FARMER---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GATE: 10/22/93 'TIME ------- ENTER ------- ....... EXIT ------- ----- COMBINED ----- DAY: BEGIN AM PM AM PH AM PM ___- ----------------"'-- 12:00 0 2 0 2 0 12:15 0 2 0 3 0 12:30 0 2 0 1 0 3 12:45 0 0 1 7 0 0 2 a 0 0 3 15 1:00 0 4 0 3 0 7 ' 1:15 0 3 0 2 0 5 1:30 0 0 0 1 0 1 1:45 0 0 0 7 0 0 2 8 0 0 2 15 ' 2:00 0 2 0 2 0 4 2:15 0 3 0 1 0 4 2:30 0 0 0 2 0 2 2:45 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 8 0 0 3 13 3:00 0 2 0 2 0 4 3:15 0 3 0 3 0 6 3:30 0 4 0 2 0 6 3:45 0 0 0 9 O 0 1 8 0 0 1 17 4:00 0 0 0 4 0 4 4:15 0 6 0 1 0 7 4:30 0 2 0 2 0 4 4:45 0 0 3 11 0 0 1 8 0 0 4 19 5:00 0 D D D O 0 5:15 0 5 0 2 0 7 5:30 0 2 0 2 0 4 ' 5:45 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 13 6:00 0 1 0 1 0 2 6:15 0 0 0 4 0 4 6:31 0 1 0 3 0 4 ' 6.45 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 4 14 7:00 0 1 0 0 0 1 7:15 2 2 2 2 4 4 7:30 4 1 1 4 5 5 ' 7:45 3 9 0 4 5 8 0 6 8 17 0 10 8:00 1 0 2 0 3 0 8:15 2 0 3 0 5 0 8:30 1 2 1 1 2 3 8:45 1 5 0 2 1 7 0 1 2 12 0 3 9:00 1 0 2 0 3 0 9:15 0 0 1 0 1 0 t9:30 2 0 1 0 3 0 9:45 3 6 0 0 2 6 0 0 5 12 0 0 10:00 0 0 1 0 1 0 10.15 2 0 1 0 3 0 110:30 1 0 2 0 3 0 0:45 4 7 0 0 4 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 11:00 0 0 2 0 2 0 11:15 4 0 2 0 6 0 1:30 2 0 1 0 3 0 1:45 3 9 0 0 2 7 0 0 5 16 0 0 TOTALS 36 60 36 59 72 119 AY TOTALS 96 95 191 SPLIT % 50.0 50.4 50.0 49.6 LEAK HOUR 7:15 4:15 7:30 2:30 7:30 2:45 LUME 10 11 11 10 21 19 P.H.F. 0.63 0.46 0.55 0.83 0.66 0.79 ' APPENDIX 2 ONE PERCENT TEST CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINI STORAGE TRAFFIC STUDY -.... - ------ -- ---- - - ---•------ ........... ... ............. . JU$TIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING INC. ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis . Intersection JAMBOREE RD/FORD—EASTBLUFF DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 1993TAM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2+ Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume VolwAe 'Northbound 4161 4245 1274 5519 55 I 2 ' Southbound 3056 3117 980 4097 41 I 2 Eastbound 937 937 162 1099 11 0 ' Westbound 688 162 859 9 , 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' O Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection Jamboree Rd Ford Rd Eastbluff Dr (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter Eqpt 9 93)PM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Protect Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 2�S Hour Peak 2 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4932 5031 1355 6386 64 4 ' ' Southbound 4614 4707 1372 6079 61 4 ' Eastbound 1097 1097 42 1139 11 I 0 i { Westbound 449 449 166 1 615 6 0 I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected M Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 23-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 ' Mini Storage BisonACamelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FARM T 1 I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/BISON AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage Inter pring 9 92 AM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved FApproachExisting Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Peak 2�, Hour Growth Peek 2�S Hour Peak 2�5 Hour Peak lu Hour PeaVolumeour Volume VolumeVolume VolumeVolume4228 4356 1013 3569 54 2 Southbound 3504 3610 966 4576 46 6 ' Eastbound 349 349 48 397 4 0 I Westbound 503 503 50 553 6 2 ' 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 24 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. ' Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I 1 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE ROAD/BISON AVENUE (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring g92 PM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1' of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 23, Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4735 4878 935 5813 58 i 4 ' L bound4613 4753 1031 5784 58 i 10 bound 213 213 26 239 2 i 0 bound ! I 655 655 152 0 8 8* ' 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 2a Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. * Pro}ect traffic equals to 1% of projected peak 2 1/2 hour traffic volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I .C.U. ) ' analysis is required 1 1 I ' Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/EASTBLUFF DR N—UNIVERSITY DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring � AM ' Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4428 4517 705 5222 52 j 2 ' Southbound 3290 3390 858 4248 42 i 6 Eastbound 1045 1045 132 0 Westbound 1189 1189 86 1275 13 0 ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. I� 1 ' Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/EASTBLUFF DR—UNIVERSITY DR (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9-L) pM ' Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4757 4853 824 5677 57 10 Southbound 5369 5477 914 6391 11 64 1 8 ' Eastbound 676 676 49 725 7 0 Westbound 1219 1219 52 13 ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 22-. Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 � i � ' Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BLVD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 _ AM Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 2841 3132 426 3558 36 2 ' southbound 1166 1285 910 2195 22 4 Eastbound 3257 3322 1173 4495 45 2 ' Westbound 2014 2074 666 1 2740 27 2 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 2Z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 ' Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE:11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BLVD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19DIPM ' Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 1h Hour Growth Peak 2� Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1831 2019- 458 2477 25 4 ' Southbound 2876 2933 632" 3565 36 �' 6 Eastbound 2208 2252 887 3139 31 6 ' Westbound 3631 3704 856 4560 46 4 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 ' Mini Storage Bison/Camelback/ DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 93 )AM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume Northbound 4961 5061 893 5954 60 ! 2 ' Southhound 951 970 780 1750 1 18 I 4 Eastbound 5402 5402 1241 6643 66 i 2 ' Westbound ' 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 21,. Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 ' PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL ST/JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter Spring 19 93 PM ' Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2J, Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h our Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 1 Northbound 4671'. 4765 842 5607 56 8 ' Southbound 1985 2025 709 2734 27 .j 6 Eastbound 5952 5952 999 6951 70 1 2 'I Westbound I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume ' ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 ' Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/1.2/93 PROJECT: FORM I 1 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 9 _ AM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound 8370 8624 1061 9685 97 I 4 Soutund1810 1865. 851 2716 27 I 4 Eastbound _ _ _ _ _ _ _0_ —0— i —0— ' Whboestbound _0_ _p_ —p— —0— —0— —0— 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 I 1 ' Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection BRISTOL STREET NORTH/JAMBOREE ROAD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 g2 PM Peak 231 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional 'Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 67.16 6920 949, 786 Southbound4126 4251 939 5190 1 52 I 6 Eastbound ' —0— —0— —0— —0— — — — — Westbound —0— —0— —0— Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected © Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected [� Peak 2, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. it 1 ' Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MacArthur Blvd / Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 93) AM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3811 4202 523 4725 47 14 ' Southbound 4539 5004 374 5378 54 j 2 Eastbound . 454 454 20 474 5 j 0 ' Nestbound 2028 2028 152 2180 22 0 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected M Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FnaM T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1 Intersection MacArthur Blvd / Ford Rd (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 9 93FPM ' Peak 2-. Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 10 of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4038 4451 323 4774 48 6 ' Southbound 5626 6203 616 6819 68 j 8 Eastbound 697 697 20 717 7 —0— Westbound 1335 1335 34 1369 14 ! —0— Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' ® Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 ' Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FnDM T 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 93 AM ' Peak 2h Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 231 Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour ' Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 5276 5817 310 6127 61 I 4 ' southbound 4828 1 5323 438 1 5761 58 2 ! Eastbound 740 740 55 795 8 4 Westbound —0— —0— —O— —0— —O— —0— ' ® Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume ' Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected E] Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection MACARTHUR BL/BISON AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 93) PM ' Peak 2� Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2� Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4029 4442 • 236 4678 47 I 6 ' Southbound 4307 4748 1 318 5066 51 I 4 Eastbound 963 963 165 1128 11 i 12 Westbound —0— —0— —0— —0— — — Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected []x Peak 2k Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 1 1 1 ' Mini Storage Bison/Camelback DATE: 11/12/93 PROJECT: FORM I 1 ' APPENDIX 3 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEETS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINI STORAGE TRAFFIC STUDY - --------------- ----- ------ ------------- -- --------------- - JUSTIN F.FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING INC. ' JA487DAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 8 BISON STREET 4870 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 AM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' I I EXISTING(PROPOSED(EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED( PROJECTED I PROJECT IPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Project[ I Ratio I ' j.-------i-----------------i---.-----_•_0.-----------i--------i---Volume O_.--i----.._10.021 HL 1600 1 23 I------------------------ - ---'- I NT I 1 1911 h969 1 481 1 0.54* 1 10. 541 *---------------------------------------------- ______________98---___--_ 1 1 0 1__�____Z Z__�___________�___�__�-_-_--_I I---- -- -- - - - SL 1 3200 1 1 70 1 0.02 * 72 1 30 1 0.03* 1 3 10. 03k ' I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I ST 1 48001 1 14071 0.2911450 1 453 1 0.40 I 10.401 i--------------------------------------------------------- - ---=---- ---- - I ' 1 SR 1 1600 1 1 22 1 0.01 I 23 I 0 1 0. 01 1 1 0. 011 I--------------------------------- -- - -- ------------------------------------I I EL 1 1 71 1 71 1 0 1 0.08* 1 1 0.06 I--------) 1600 ------------------) 0.08 *----------------------- -- - ---------------' 1 ET I [ 16 I 2 0 1 I I I I --ET - -- - --- - -- -- 1 - - " --- 1 I ER I N.S. 1 1 22 1 1 22 1 24 1 1 1 1 1-----------------------------------------------------------------__________ . --I ' I WL 1 1600 1 1 78 1 0.115 * 78 1 16 1 0.06* 1 1 1 0. 061* I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I Wr 1 16001 1 531 0.031 53 1 0 1 0.03 1 10.031 I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' 1 WR 1 32001 1 721 0.021 72 1 �4-1 1,43--1-------1-O.A3l 1---------------------------------------------------------- 1EXISTING 1 0.57 1 I ' 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0. 7 1 1 I 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I 0. 711 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 1gJ Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less then I.C.U. without project ---------------------------------------------------------- ' Description of system improvement: Mini Storage Bison/Camelback 11/19/93 PROJECT FORM II ' JA4870AM 1 tJA487OPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION! JAMBOREE ROAD & BISON STREET 4870 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1992 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MITTEDI Hovement Lanes ICLanes I VolHumeOIERV/C RGROWTHLICPROJECoLum IwV/CPRatio lVoLOu a IPRV/CoTI ' I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I ' I I NL 1 1600 1 I 19 1 0.01 * 20I 17 1 0.02* 1 10. 02k ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - I MT 1 1 1707 117591 426 I 0.48 1 10.491 ' 1--------) 4800 - ______) 0.38 -------------------- __________I I —s----I---32---I--------I--------I-----04-I---137�----23--I--�_04--I------10.051 ' I ST 1 4800 1 1 2018 1 0.42 * 20791 513 I 0. 54* 1 1 0.54I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I ' I SR 1 16001 1 801 0.051 821 0 I 0. 05 1 10.051 1 EL I I 24 1 241 0 1 0.04* 1 2 ( 0. 09�* I--------) 1600 ------------------) 0.04 *----- --•-•- -- ______ _______________ t I ET I I 45 I 451 o f I I I 1 - -- --- -- -- - •-- -- - - -- -- - -- I 1 ER I N.S. I I B I I I 1 1 1 I Q � 3_____ ' I-------------------------------------- WL 1 1600 1 1 125 1 0.08 * 1251 36 1 0. 10* 1 1 0. 101* i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I WT I 1600 1 1 67 1 0.04 1 671 O I _0_04__1_______1_0-- ' I WR 1 32001 1 771 0.021 771 39 I 0.041 10. 01 IIXISTING----- 1 0s5-I------------------------------- (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0-70 1 I 1-----•----•-------------•------•---------------•----------------•----------------•-------•-I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I O.7 d -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' lxi Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' J Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' Description of system improvement: Mini Storage Bison/Camelback 11/19/93 PROJECT FORM LI ' JA4870PM t ' MA499SAN ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS ` INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 8 BISON 4995 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 AM --------_•--------•-------------------------------------------------------------------------- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICDMNITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio !Volume I V/C I ICapecitylCapacityl VoLune I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I ' I I I I I I I I VoLune I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I NL 1 16001 1 1921 0.121 2111 40 1 0. 16 1 2 10. 161 1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- --I I NY 1 4800 1 1 2M 1 0.47 * 24621 116 1 0.54* 1 1 0.541* NR I I I I I 1 0 1 1--------------------------------------------------- - ---- --- --------------------------I I I 1 1 1 1--s-------------------- -I -- - -I- ---------------------9-----------------------------I ST i 6400 1 i 1903 1 0.30 1 20981 122, 1 0. 85 I 1 0.351 ' I ---------------------- SR ------- - -I i I N.S. 1 1 280I 1 3091 98 1 1 1 1 I I --- ------------------ - ----- -- ---- - - ---- -------------- ----------- -------I EL I 3200 1 1 160 I 0.05 * 1761 12 1 0.06*1 1 1 0.0�* I---------------------------------------- --- ---- --- ---- - ----- --- ----- -- I ET I I I I I I 101 1 I I 1------------------------------------- - -------- - ----- ---- - - -- - - -- -------I I ER I N.S. I 1 1981 1 1981 5 1 1 1 1 1 �---VL--I--______i________i________i________i________i _ ii ---i------- iiii-----___'__--_--_i-_---_-__iii____.__ WT -------i--------i--------I--------i--------i-------'i---------i----------'i-------i------- WR _____________________________________________________ !EXISTING 1. 0.52 I I I---------------------------------------- - ----- - ----- ------------- (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0. 60 1----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- --------------I ' !EXISTING + CCMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. --10. 601 _------------------------- 61 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wiLL be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be ' — Less than or squat to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less then I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: Mini Storage Bison/Camelback 11/19/93 PROJECT FORM II MA499SAM MA499SPH ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 3 BISON 4995 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1993 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEKISTINGIEKISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVOLume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I------------------ - - ----- - -- ------ - -- I NL 1 1600 1 1 198 1 a.12 * 2181 10 1 0. 14* 1 3 10. 14k� ' I----------------------------------------------------------- ----- ------ ------------- I UT 1 48001 1 18341 0.38120221 98 1 0.44 1 I I---------------------------- -- ----------- --- --------- - ----- ------ -------Q3 44 lNR I 1 ----------------------------------------p--�---- __--- -------�. I St. I I I I I I 0 1 I I I 1 .ST 1 6400 1 1 2016 1 0.32 * 2223 I 148 I 0. 37* I 10. 37l' I------------------------------------- ---- -- ---- - ----------- --- ----- - - --------I l SR I R.B. 1 I 272 1 I 300 1 11--�-----------�- -2-- -------1 i----------------------- ------ --- -- ---- --- --- ------ EL 1 3200 1 1 252 1 0.08 * 2781 49 1 0. 10* 1 2 10. 10� I-------'--------'-----------------'------ -i---- - -I----- ---i---- ----i- --i ------I I----- ------- --------- ----- --- -- ------ --- ----A------------------------------I ' l ER I H.B. I I --- I I 2151 33 I 14----------I ---ER- i------- --- - --i--- ----� ------1-- 2151 --33 i-- -- - -1 --- 1 1 WL I---- --------------------- --- ----- ------------------------------------------------------I ' I ur I I i I I I I I I I --------------- (EXISTING __________________________i_••0.52 '•______________ 1 I--------------------------- -- ----- ---- - - ----- -------------------- -EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0.6 1 1 I I------------------------------------------------------------- -----I ' (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. -_--_10. 611 --------------- - -r• ------------------------------------------------------- kI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wiLL be Less than or equal to 0.90 ' I_I Projected+ project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 ' i=l Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wilt be Less than I.C.U. without project -----------____------_____________ Description of system improvement: Mini Storage Bison/Camelback 11/19/93 PROJECT FORM II MA4995PM t a lt Dn APPLICANT: CONSULTANTS: NAME: ' PHONE: PROJECT NAME: DESCRIPTION: DATE DEPOSIT FEES PAYMENT REMAINING BALANCE S aEWPORr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 a P 30829 RECEIVED BY:CM CUSTOMER:DAHN CORP MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 01023000 MISC TRAFFIC STD 010-2300 $2,280. 00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 010-5010 $:'28. 00 TOTAL DUE2, 548. 04 CASH PAID CHECK: PAID C Ck. N•0. . TENDERED CHANGE .44 $2, 548.04 817�3' $2, 508.00 $: 00 \ w+ DATE — 10f20Y,s1 `� *�'. 155:c4b22 it' aoRr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Building Department i 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK NO. r FEE RECEIPTS -� Received Fro Job A dress Building Plan Check - Valuation S 010-5002'S Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..............................010-5002/5004 $ Special Inspection...........................................010-5008 $ Reinspection B E H P........ .............................010-5008 $ ; Temporary Electric..........................................010-4612 $ TemporaryGas...............................................010-4616 $ "Grease Interceptor..........................................010-4620 $ �plaihing Department Fees................................ ..010-5000 $ Sale of Maps &Publications.... .. .. .010-5812 S Other 0 �/11G �6 : 5 . 10 i RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEES $ NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days after application. FEE RECEIPT No. (4/92f\feercpt) J '.5 e P- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH p� a Building Department u z 3300 Newport Blvd. r �' P.O. Box 1768 CqG/FO RN`P Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK NO. FEE RECEIPTS�l -2 7 Received FroA Job Address Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..............................010-5002/5004 $ Special Inspection. .........................................010-5008 $ Reinspection B E H P................................... ..010-5008 $ Temporary Electric..........................................010-4612 $ Temporary Gas...............................................010-4616 $ Grease Interceptor..........................................010-4620 $ Planning Department Fees........... . . ................. . ...010-5000 $ Sale of Maps &Publications............ .................. .. .010-5812 $ Other a0i $ Dd RECEIVED BY: TO A F S $ �• 5 O�/j NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days "ro NOV 1993 pphLVMYRT BEACH FEE RECEIPT (4/92f\fe rcpt) �EWPpRT CITY�F NEWPORT: BEACH Building Department z 3300 Newport Blvd.P.O. Box 1768 C'9C,pp 0.N�P Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 (714) 644-3288/3289 PLAN CHECK NO. FEE RECEIPTS Received From Job Address Building Plan Check - Valuation $ 010-5002 $ Grading Plan Check - Cu. Yds. 010-5004 $ Overtime Plan Check - B G..............................010-5002/5004 $ Special Inspection.. ........................................010-5008 $ Reinspection B E H P. .......... ........................ . .010-5008 $ Temporary Electric........................................ ..010-4612 $ Temporary Gas...............................................010-4616 $ Grease Interceptor..........................................010-4620 $ 1 Planning Department Fees....... ..... . . . ... ...... ..........010-5000 $ Sale of Maps& Publications.... .................. ....... ....010-5812 $ Other '(r_Vfr,lc , Uzi I� G'll� ?�/JJS �7 RECEIVED BY: TOTAL FEES $ ; A D � V--7 NOTICE: Plan Check expires 180 days afwvartJil n. l (4/92f\feercpt) FEE RECEIPT NO. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH i �gW PORE 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CASH RECEIPT' . a s NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92663 s 31477 RECEIVED HY:CM C•USTOMER:DAHN CORP MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS 0102300 MIST_ TRAFFIC STD 010-2300 $2,535.00 ENVIRONMENTAL FEES 1177 CAMELBAC}•; 010-5010 $281 .00 li TOTAL DUE 41. ^� $2, S16. 00 CASH PAID CHECK PA167 CK NO TENDERED CHANGE $. 00 $2,816. 00 afbb6 <✓� '; $2,816. 00 $. 00 DATE — 11/0,�/,9).,""CT(°CE. .. ' 1 5.r..10: .�n '3 i JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 INVOICE City of Newport Beach November 19, 1993 3300 Newport Blvd . Newport Beach, Ca 92659 01 INVOICE #2003 OUR FILE SF1038 RE: Trip Generation Mini-Storage Facility Bison/Camelback PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Preparations for the above referenced protect and location in the City of Newport Beach FOR THE PERIOD OF: October 9, 1993 through November 12,, 1993 LUMP SUIT CONTRACT AMOUNT $4, 740. 00 100% COMPLETION BILLING $4, 740. 00 LESS PREVIOUSLY INVOICED: Amount Paid 0-30 Days 31-60 Days Over 60 Days . 00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE PER INVOICE $4, 740. 00 Please make checks payable to: STIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. T you, APPROVED FOIR Justin F. Farmer, President NET 30 DAYS py . .. - 1! - i „ „ ��t r� �• .sue ; /3z 95 ( I + _ t PURCPASE ORDER PAGE i O�aEWPpR@ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD u m P.O. BOX 1768 'P I F00.Nh' NEWPORT PHONE:BEACH, (714) 6444-31CALIFORNIA 82659-8915 �, ,,,, , ;;,,• ,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,;, ,,,, PURCH.ORDER DATE I DATE REQUIRED I REQUISITION NO. I VENDOR NO. DESCRIPTION 17/O1S/ }3 I 13I2 ATTIl SHAHIR GtORRAN VENDOR JUSTIN F. FARMER TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIY, STE . 155 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. FULLERTON CA 92635 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. 92663 CONFIRM. BLANKET FINAL PAYMENTTERMS FREIGHT !: is NET 30 DAYS QUANTITY UNIT OF MEASURE COMMODITY CODE UNIT PRICE EXTENSION TRAFFIC STUDY ANALYSIS FOR PACTEL SITE TRIP GENERATION STUDY FOR MINI-STORAGE FACILITY AT 1117 CUIELBACK STREET. TS# 91 TOTAL ",4 ,740.00 • REFER).NCI TOUT FRCIPO Al, DATLIO 11/05/93 C011TACT -j'JOHIZ__DOI.tOL,AS '� P]LIINt{IN�1't DEPA7tTUENT (714) 16 1:225 ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT PROJECT PROJECTACCOUNT AMOUNT 010 2300 4 .740.00 TOTAL PURCHASE ORDER 4,740.00 ACC°'-a ACcnpWncn ollhls ertlar bywllaNvendorwlll ba bYeti,mwledpomonlorbydeilverylnwholoorrn ponofthollamscalledlorherounder Bygtcgpunp lM,ardeb the soilnnvgndor wAnpwletl9es that ho has read and opmge to all termsantl eontll"ons lndudlne lheso pdnlgd on rho reveres �, s+,' y .Ido of this Cenir.nP...haso Did. only forma end eordib.h,thafwdl be apphCable to the lntomrofalionofthla C.hvadsro those lssood by Ma aty of; 5 dle.0 BY IMPORTANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. The Articles covered by this Purchase Order or Contract must o»nform to eppileablo Cal-OSHA Standards,and/or other appropriate laws,regulations,rules,and code of Federal Government and the State of California,Show as a separate item any retail sales tax,use tax or Federal tax applicable to this purchase.This order subject to California sales tax.All OUT-OF-STATE VENDORS:the CITY will pay any saleduso tax an all pumhocas shipped from out-of-stab.All purchases and lmnsporlation charges are exempt from Federal excise tax NOTE-All purchases are F.O,B destination unless otherwise authorized license may .Charges for shipments are to be freight prepaid and added to the Invoice(shown as a separate Item)whom so authorized.Do not Include Federal transportation tax.A Newport Beach busOR IGINATOR'S/ DEPARTMENTAL C IOPY rACHASE CITY of atiWpORT " REQUISITION NEWP BE°CRT H m • GuFoa��� P.O.No.: Date: .December 6. 1993_ (if Reserved) Dept: PLANNING Suggested Vendor: Ship To: JUSTIN F. FARMER _ PLANNING Transportation Engineers2 Inc. 293 Fact imperial Highway Suite 155 Fullerton, CA 92635 Attention: Phone No: Quantity Description of Articles or Services Required Unit Price Amount Budget I 1 TRAFFIC STUDY ANALYSIS .FOR PACTEL, SITE_ _. $4,74040 $4,740.00 010 2300 Tri eneration study for mini-storage facility at 1177 Camel-back St. TS#91 Comments: Sub Total Tax Total Date Required: i F.O.B. Terms Code Amount �\. ' APPROVED(Department Head or person authorized to execute requisitions) J PURCHASING MANAGER FINANCE DIRECTOR(Approval required for purchases exceeding$2,000) { l A rf r JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. -td, 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 November 5, 1993 Mr. John Douglas AM 1993 PM Principal Planner 7t8191101111121112131415P6 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Re: Proposal for Data Collection/Trip Generation Study & Traffic Circulation Study Mini Storage - Bison/Camelback Newport Beach, California Dear John: First let me thank you for selecting us to conduct the traffic study for the above referenced project. As you are aware, we have conducted a number of such studies in the City of Newport Beach and are therefore familiar with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. I have spoken with Mr. Rich Edmonston, the City • Traffic Engineer, and I believe I have an understanding of his concerns. We therefore offer the following scope of service. SCOPE OF SERVICES It is my understanding that the proposed mini storage will contain approximately 110,000 gross square feet and that the City Traffic Engineer has concerns regarding trip generation rates for such land uses. For purposes of determining the actual number of trips associated with mini storage facilities, JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , will collect 24 hour weekday data at two similar facilities. The specific weekday will be determined based on historical data to be provided by Dahn Corporation. We will visit the sites and inventory those street environmental features that will affect or be affected by the project. Specific attention will be directed to the location of driveways, at the proposed facility and the existing sites in Irvine and Huntington Beach. At this time we have surveyed the existing mini storage facilities located at 1) Burroughs Avenue in the City of Irvine • v , 2) 7611 Talbert, in the City of Huntington Beach and 3) 4200 Westminister Avenue, in the City of Santa Ana. The City Traffic Engineer requested that the traffic study includes the following intersections: 1. Jamboree Road/Eastbluff - Ford Road 2. Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue 3. Jamboree Road/Eastbluff N. - University 4. Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard 5. Jamobree Road/Bristol Street 6. Jamboree Road/Bristol Street N. 7. MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road 8. MacArthur Boulevard/Bison Avenue We will include the above eight intersections in our analysis, and a forecast will be made of the number and distribution of vehicles that would be generated by the project and would utilize the subject intersections. We will then utilize the City of Newport Beach traffic phasing ordinance, assess cumulative project, apply applicable regional growth, conduct the "one percent test" and perform ICU's analysis • if necessary. Data will be analyzed, ADT's will be determined, trip generation rates will be developed and a forecast will be made of the number of daily trips associated with the proposed mini storage facility. DELIVERABLES Our study and its findings will be summarized in a report with a format customarily used for traffic impact reports. Up to six copies will be prepared. TIME SCHEDULE We will deliver our report in two weeks after receipt of your signed notice to proceed or signature on this proposal. FEE PROPOSAL We propose a lump sum of `,$'v; 740 0O This fee considers our analysis of one site development plan. Should that plan be revised, or should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the fee will be amended to reflect only that amount of work which was necessitated by the revision. Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. • JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. G � • The fee assumes that traffic counts will be taken by JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , for both Huntington Beach and Irvine sites. It also assumes that particulars pertaining to square footages, site plans, etc. . will be provided by Dahn Corporation in a timely manner. The fee does not include attendance at public hearings. Should we be requested to attend meetings, we will invoice at our regular hourly rates for the ,person attending such meetings. The proposed fee includes all costs, overhead, and profit for performing those work efforts resulting in the printed report. If this proposal is acceptable, please so indicate by signing in the space provided on the following page and return a copy for our files. Thank you again for considering us for this work, as we look forward to working with you on this project. If there are ,any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. SA . Shahir Gobran, P.E. Manager of Transportation Planning SG:dk JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC • November 5, 1993 Mr. John Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Re: Proposal for Data Collection/Trip Generation Study & Traffic Circulation Study Mini Storage Bison/Camelback Newport Beach California THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED Companyqq ( Signa ure Title Date • Name (Please type ox' Print Clearly) 2 77 � N' JJ r�.K� I�IVCD � . IJ Address 4A 3 :y5 v Telephone Number FAX Number • JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC ��. Ra'� C ��4 f.Y '.:� .•' �q�J -. a.— +�i ' t r �y I 4 � t�.. �fnf ♦ , �. ��{ I 1 M e F t- � d n �. � t r x F ��'' x w . ;., � __ _ ` , /: . . _ a ' �4. �'. v I . : � _ _ � E° H r ... :`_ .. �' f _ .. . . � s ,. � ,_- .. � � � o .,� r x .�. ,, s •>Y.,; �a w. /� T 3T+� � {�: ..�� _�--- 4 r. 1 Y 4< _+.. .w.sNy. ......._.—. w V 4.. hAi i r� #. ,_ ; ., A _ .... �' DAIIN i rl r' ATIOX Dahn Corporation has over 20 years of real estate experience and a proven history of success. Dahn Corporation is a national real estate investment and Key factors to our success have been the quality and stabil- asset management company.We have built,managed and sold ity of our employees,a conservative approach to real estate approximately$150,000,000 in real estate.We currently man- investment and management and a commitment to thorough age 60 projects containing over 3,000,000 square feet. market research. Five Areas of Expertise Determine Our Success. ASSET/PROPER7YM4NAGEMENT—Our asset property port- all aspects of acquisition,including contract negotiations,pro- folio consists of a nationwide group of retail,industrial and self ject financing,site design,governmental processing,market storage properties. To manage these properly,we draw upon research and appraisal. our knowledge of leasing,marketing,tenant/broker relations, CONSTRUCTION--By developing numerous properties nation- financial controls and building maintenance. wide we have acquired an unique expertise in construction Everyday thousands of customers visit our self storage and maintenance.As a licensed general contractor,we have facilities. The daily demands placed on the management team the ability to oversee all phases of construction from budgets, bidding and supervision to scheduling and quality control. I MARKETING—Marketing is an integral component of real estate investment and property management. Long term success in the real estate industry depends upon being able to adjust to changing market conditions. Our knowledge of the competition,demographic trends and cus- ;a are substantial and require a thorough understanding of self _ storage operations.With 50 projects comprising over 26.000 units,we are uniquely qualified to manage this highly special- ized business. s ^+ _ Our diverse background enables us to provide clients with � �i! ,- the highest standards of retail,industrial and self storage asset/property management. INVESTMENT/DEVELOPMENT—Our philosophy is to invest and develop in the strongest markets throughout the nation. We are continually updating our market research and explor- ing new areas of opportunity. Once an investment is targeted,our staff is responsible for tourer needs, combined with twenty years of experience, enables us to select the most effective marketing program for a Ir specific asset. FINANCIAL CONTROLS—Our management portfolio collects over$18,000,000 each year from thousands of customers. Therefore,we place heavy emphasis on tight financial con- trols. Operating statements are prepared,reviewed and ana- lyzed monthly,cash flow and budget projections are prepared regularly and variances are acted upon promptly. We are proud of our success and look forward to an exciting future. We continue to be dedicated to the highest standards of performance necessary to maintain leadership in the real estate industry. .t Expanding nationwide to achieve market potential. . . CORPORATIONDAIIN PRQJECTSI CALIFORNIA LANCASTER UPLAND ILLINOIS ANAHEIM 43745 N. Sierra Hwy. 1571 W. Foothill Blvd. BLOOMINGDALE 1155 Fountain Way LOMPOC VALLEJO 240 W.Army Trail Rd. 1441 S. Manchester Ave. 517 N. 8th St. 1401 Marine World Pkwy. CRESTWOOD ATASCADERO MONTEREY PARK WESTMINSTER 4747 W. Calumet-Sag Rd. 9300 El Camino Real 404 Potrero Grande ELGIN 13260 Goldenwest St. AZUSA ORANGE 9311 Bolsa Ave. 1001 Toll Gate Rd. 1111 W. Gladstone St. 754 N. Batavia St. 9132 Bolsa Ave. ROMEOVILLE BAKERSFIELD PITTSBURG 6146 Garden Grove Blvd. 1302 Marquette Dr. 4600 N. Pierce Rd. 1417 Bobo Court 9311 Kramer Ave. MARYLAND BREA PLACENTIA WHITTIER FORESTVILLE 113 Viking Ave. 1120 E.Yorba Linda Blvd. 10231 S. Colima Rd. 4100 Forestville Rd. 777 W. Imperial Hwy. RIVERSIDE MICHIGAN CHICO 7211 Arlington Ave. COLORADO 3860 Benatar Way 6667 Van Buren Blvd. ARVADA STERLING HEIGHTS EL CENTRO SACRAMENTO 5980 Sheridan Blvd. 42557 Van Dyke Rd. D Y 2108Hi Highway 86 AURORA TROY gh Y 4250 Roseville Rd. 435 Buckley Rd. 262 E. Maple Rd. e FRESNO 6938 Franklin St. Y WARREN 2570 N. Clovis Ave. 625 N. 16th St. COLORADO SPRINGS 2 Groesbeck Hwy. FULLERTON SANTA ANA 3850 Airport Rd. 24623 623 Ryan Rd. 4200 N. Harbor Blvd. 2730 W. Fairview St. DENVER NEVADA HUNTINGTON BEACH 500 W. Dyer Rd. 7600 E. Iliff Ave. LAS VEGAS 7611 Talbert Ave. 4200 W.WestminsterAve. 8600 E. Mississippi Ave. IRVINE SANTA ROSA 3900 E. 45th Ave. 4850 Valley View Blvd. #1 Burroughs 3937 Santa Rosa Ave. 8920 Federal Blvd. NEW JERSEY 6401 Oak Canyon Ave. 3945 Santa Rosa Ave. FORT COLLINS EDGEWATER PARK LA HABRA STOCKTON 170 Kensington Dr. 2540 Rt. 130 South 580 E.Lambert Rd. 7760 Lorraine Ave. LITTLETON WASHINGTON LA VERNE SUISUN 3757 W. Norwood Dr. EVERETT 2234 Arrow Hwy. 2998 Rockville Rd. 1400 E. County Line Rd. 10919 Evergreen Way DAHN CORPORATION BRIAN A. DAHN ROBERT R. THOMAS J. JORDAN President BRADLEY, JR. Wee President Mr.Dahn has been with Dahn Executive NANCY K. NAEVE Corporation since 1976 and has Vice President Wee President extensive experience in con- Mr.Bradley has been with Dahn KATHLEEN N.WHITE struchon lending,equity Bnanc- Corporation since 1978,He is Vice President ing,financial analysis and real responsible for acquisition of KIMBERLEE DRENK estate development.He is a existing properties and develop- Asset Manager graduate of University of Florida,holds a Master's ment of new projects throughout the country.He RYAN T. ROGERS Degree from University of Michigan and is a has been involved in the development or acquisi- Asset Manager licensed real estate broker and licensed general tion of over 40 projects nationally.He has exten- JEFFREY L. SWANSON contractor.As president,he oversees the day-to- sive experience in project and financial analysis, Asset Manager day operation of the company,including site-selec- market research,governmental processing and lion,construction and property management.He project engineering.He also interfaces directly CHRISTOPHER WEBER has been directly involved in the development of with investors.lenders,property owners and bro- Asset Manager over 45 projects throughout the country. kers..A graduate of San Diego State University, MICHAEL D. BROWN Mr.Bradley has a California real estate license. Leasing Manager t. maid& D �ll i ' I t w AHN CORPORATION REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS & ASSET MANAGEMENT 18552 MacArthur Blvd., #495, Irvine, CA 92715 (714) 752-1282 Fax (714) 752-0301 ■ins ®®® Tit LETTER OF SOMEHILL PARTNERSHIP, INC. TRANSMITTAL A HILL SERVICE COMPANY TO: _ City of Newport Beach DATE: 11.4 slA3 Planning Department RE: ATTN: Azi'z Aslami WE ARE SENDING YOU: VIA: ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER ® ATTACHED ❑ MAIL M HAND ❑ ❑ FOR YOUR USE ❑ AS REQUESTED ❑ FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ APPROVED ❑ FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ FOR YOUR FILES ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ THE FOLLOWING: ❑ PRINTS ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ CALCULATIONS ❑ TRACINGS ❑ SAMPLES ❑ COPY OF LETTER ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ INFO SHEETS ❑ CONFERENCE REPORT COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 1 Lease Agreement 1 Soils Report REMARKS: •yl FROM: Rush Hill : OFNEWPO::+ L. . COPIES TO: kc AM I:C'J " 1993 FM 0 718191101DII2111213141516 O DENOTES WITH ATTACHMENT ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIOR DESIGN 115 TWENTY;SECOND STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 FAX: 714/675.4543 TELEPHONE 714/675.6442 P RT � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH s P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 eu� c,<iFOR �r PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 December 13, 1993 Robert R. Bradley DARN Corporation 18552 MacArthur Blvd. # 495 Irvine, CA 92715 Subject: Proposed Mini-Storage Facility at 1177 Camelback Street, Newport Beach (TPO # 91, Amendment # 790) Dear Mr. Bradley: Enclosed please find an application for a Site Plan Review which is required subsequent to the Planning Commission's conditional approval of the Pac Tel Site mini-storage facility on December 9, 1993. Please complete the site plan review application per the instructions provided with and submit it to the Planning Department at your earliest convenience. For questions regarding the Site Plan Review and Process please contact William Ward or Jay Garcia at (714) 644-3200. Should you have any other questions regarding this project, or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR By /1 - Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner r:\wrsi\...\Aziz•A\Tmrro\zro91\uc2 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ova+ Rm CITY OF 14EWPORT BEACH PPURCHASE ORDER NUMBER g gW PURIIIIIIIIII11OLIASE ORDER AGE Pp 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD " O s P.O. BOX 1768 d NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659-8915 C��rF00.HA' PHONE: (714) 644-3118 t PURCH.ORDER DATE I DATE REQUIRED REQUISITION NO. VENDOR NO. DESCRIPTION 1 ?/06/93 1:34`_' ATT`i SHAHIR GOBRAN VENDOR JUSTIN F. FARMER TOP CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 223 EAST IMPERIAL, HIY. STE . 155 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. FULLERTON CA 92635 NEWPORT BEACH. CALIF. 92663 CONFIRM.I BLANKET I FINAL PAYMENTTERMS FREIGHT _ N N NET . 0 DAYS QUANTITY UNITOFMEASURE COMMODITYb UNITPRICE EXTENSION TRAFFIC STUDY ANALYSIS FOR PACTEL SITE TRIP GENERATION STUDY FOR MINI-STORAGE FACILITY AT 1177 CAMELBACK STREET. TS# 91 TOTAL $4 . 740 . 00 REFERENCE )OUR PROPOSAI. DATED 11/05/93 CONTACT JOHN ,DOUGLAS -- PLANNING DEPAR..TMENT (714 ) 644-3225 ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT PROJECT PROJECT ACCOUNT AMOUNT 010 2300 4 . 740 . 00 TOTAL PURCHASE, ORDER 4 . 740 .00 ACCEPTANCE.Acceptance of Ortlar by sollOrNontlorwill be by acknowlatlpomentor bytlellvarylnwM1ole or In pap of the items called forharauntlar. iy accepting this order,the sellerNondarackoowlatlaaa that ha hu ieadand earea,to all to.,and...dmans including those pdnfad an the In.n. adaoflhis Contrast/Purchaso Order no only forms and conditions that will boappliceblela the interpretation of this Contract are those Issued by the — lry of Newport Beach. BY IMPORTANT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN. The Articles covered by this Purchase Order or Contract must Cardona to applicable Cal-OSHA Standards,and/or other appropriate laws,regulations,rules,and code of Federal Government and the State of California.Show as a separate Item any retail sales tax,use tax or Federal tax applicable to this purchase.This order subject to California sales tax,All OUT-OF-STATE VENDORS:the CITY will pay any salesfuse tax on all purchases shipped from dut•of•slnlo.All purchases and transportation charges are exempt from Federal excise tax.NOTE All purchases are F.O.B.destination unless otherwise authorized.Charges forshipments are to be freight prepaid and added to the invoice(shown as a separate Item)where so authorized.Do not Include Federal transpodal,on tax A Newport Beach business license may be required to conduct business in the City. STATE OF CAUFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH GAME r� 4. ENVIRONMEN AL IJG FEE CASH1 RECEIPT 28037 � OFG 753.5n(&91j Lead Agency: Dat • �y. _ County/State Age of Fllfng: _ 6,Document No,: G ✓ Project Title: Project Applicant Name: hone Number: Project Applicant Address: ✓ D Project Applicant(check appropriate box): Lo Public Agency ❑ * School District ❑ Other Special District FJ State Agency ❑ Private Entity ❑ CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ( ) Environmental Impact Report $850.00 $ ( ) Negative Declaration $1,260.00 $ ( ) Application Fee Water Diversion(State Water Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 $ O Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs $850.00 $ County Administrative Fee $25.00 $ /�— ( Project that is exempt fr fees 6 RE $ Signature and title o/person receiveve a me FIRST COPY-PROJECT APPLICANT SECONDPAS THIRD COPY-LEAD AGENCY FOURTH COPY-COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF RUNS CIe( OF NEWPORT BEACO FILED 330 563 9 4 0 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1761768 MIN 2 4 i993 i NEGATIVE DECLARATION GARYI,.GRANVILLE,Go*clerk To: From: City of Newport Beach Office of Planning and Research Planning Department El1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92659-1768 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange rX_X_1 Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public reviewperiod Nov. 24, 1993 - Dec. 24, 1993 Name of Project: Pac Tel Site Mini-Storage Facility Project Location: Noth West Corner of Bison Ave. & Camelback Street (�� 2 4 1993 1177 Camelbak Street, Newport Beach, California0,0 L.GgOILLE,COUntyClerk l EPUTY Construction of a new mini-storage facility that collxa4+r3- ,,,_. Project Description: 110,600 sq.ft. of development. Finding. Pursuant to the provisions of CityCouncil Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act,the Environmental Affairs Committee h4s evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is attached. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-makers) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project,a notice of the time and location is attached Additional plans,studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments shod be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held,you are also invited'to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information,please contact the undersigned. Date Il a4 93 John H. o glas,Al Environm tal Coor nator Revised 4/92 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS DAHN CORPORATION (Pac Tel Site) General Plan Amendment No. 93-3(B) Traffic Study No. 91 Amendment No. 790 Project Description The proposed site is known as the Pac Tel Site located on the northwest corner of Bison Avenue and Camelback Street in the North Ford Planned community District (see Exhibit A). Currently the site is vacant and previously it was used as a storage for the Pacific Telephone utility vehicles. The project is surrounded by a small retail Center, North Ford Residential, Belcourt Residential, Mariners Christian Church and School, a U.S. Post Office and an Edison transmission station. The proposed project will involve construction of a mini-storage facility that would allow 110,600 sq.ft. of development. The proposed development consist of two structure with a maximum height of 22 ft. above the grade elevation. The subject parcel is approximately 2.788 acre in size. 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 is paved with concrete and will be altered to accommodate the proposed on-site improvement. The construction activities associated with the completion of the project will result in some soil disruption or overcovering and may require excavation and compaction or soil displacement. No export or import of soil is anticipated. A geotechnical report has been prepared for the site indicating that the soil contents of the site have sufficient quality to sustain the proposed improvement. Compliance with the City Excavation and grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to insignificant level. 1 2. Air Construction Impacts 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. Operational Impacts The traffic study for the project estimates that the project would generate 236 average daily trips. This is below the threshold of significance as determined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. No other air quality impacts would be anticipated. 3. Water The proposed site is largely paved with concrete and future on site improvement would not increase water 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 is expected to be short (6 to 7 months) due to the small scope of the anticipated project. The 2 applicant has indicated to limit the daily construction hours from 7 am to 5 pm six days per week. The hours of operation, regarding the construction noise,are regulated by the provisions contained in the City Noise Ordinance(NBMC Chapter 10.28) which states that any construction tools or equipment that produce any loud noise that could disturb will be limited to weekdays between the hours of 7.00 am and 6.30 pm, Saturdays between 8.00 am and 6.00 pm, and operating any disturbing noise generating equipment would not be allowed on Sundays and Holidays. The North Ford, Belcourt and Eastbluff residential are considered noise sensitive land use and are located adjacent to or in the vicinity of the proposed project. Although the project, at occupancy,would generate some traffic noise, it is not anticipated to have any adverse affect. Construction noise effects are not significant and shall be alleviated upon the completion of the project. 7. Light and Glare The proposed project will use exterior mounted utility and security lighting. If exterior lighting is required, the proposed project could produce light and glare that could adversely affect adjacent properties. 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 properties. 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 with an alternate land use designation � of Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial by the City's General 3 Plan Land Use Element. Under the current General Plan Land Use provisions, a maximum of 20,000 square feet of retail development would be allowed on the site. The Zoning is Planned Community(PC) designating the site for a combination of Office-Commercial/Light Industrial uses. A General Plan amendment is proposed to change the land use designation of the site from Retail and Service Commercial with alternate Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial to General Industry and increase the allowable density to 110,600 sq.ft. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and Coastal Permit is not required. If the proposed General Plan and PC amendments are approved, all conflicts with land use regulations would be eliminated. 9. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. 10. Risk of Upset The applicant has indicated that the rental agreement will prohibit the storage of toxins, hazardous chemicals, explosive material and flammable fluids. Based on this requirement, the risk of any foreseeable hazard to public health and safety would be reduced below the level of significance. 11. Population The proposed project would employ one full time couple that would live on site and a part time manager. 12. Housing The proposed project would add one dwelling unit to the City's housing stock. 13. Transportation/Circulation/parking Presently the subject site is vacant. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development therefore, a traffic study became necessary to evaluate the impact of the subject proposal on the 4 City's existing circulation system. The Traffic Engineer selected eight intersections that would be affected by the proposed project, and a traffic study has been prepared as required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The one percent traffic volume test was applied to the selected intersections and none of the intersections exceeded the maximum one percent volume test therefore, further analysis of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)would not be required. The proposed project would not have any significant traffic impact on the City s circulation network. Site Access. There is an existing driveway, located to the northeast comer of the lot, which would provide access to the site from Camelback Street. Parking and Internal Circulation. The proposed project provides for a total of six (6)parking spaces which include three (3) regular parking spaces, one (1) handicapped parking space and two (2) covered parking spaces. The mini-storage facility tenants would be required to load and unload their vehicles in front of their individual storage space or near the elevators. The parking spaces provided on the proposed site plan are considered adequately sufficient for the proposed use and greater parking demand would not be anticipated. The layout of the proposed facility site plan indicates that adequate internal circulation will be provided. 14. Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create a significant 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 5 • The proposed project would not utilize hazardous materials on the site, per the restrictions proposed by the applicant, therefore, no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. 18. Aesthetics The subject property is located in a topographically depressed area. The design of the proposed development would not impede or restrict the view of the adjacent properties. The construction materials used for the construction of the mini- storage buildings will incorporate earth tone precision and split face concrete block for the exterior walls. Based on the information submitted to the City 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 There are no known archaeological or paleontological resources existed in the area or expected to exist on this site. There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic structures. Mandatory 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 cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 4. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. 6 OtVIRONNENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLISO j CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Z, BACKGROUND General Plan Amendment 93-3(B), Traffic Study No. 91 1. Application NO: Pac Tel Site Mini-Storage Facility 2. Project name: 1177 Camelback Street (NW Corner of Bison Ave./Camelback St. ) 3. Project location: DARN CORPORATION, IRVINE 4. Applicant, II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (See attached explanations) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Would the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or 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? — e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of 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? _. 2. Air. Would the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration 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? — Environmental Analysis Check•t - Page 2 • yen Maybe Lto, 3. Water. Would the proposal result ins a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either " marine or fresh waters? TXT b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? — C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — Q. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, 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 withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cute 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? — 4. Plant Life. Would 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? -- Environmental Analysis Checkolt - Page 3 • Yes Maybe 7o S. Animal Life. Would 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 shell-fish, benthic organisms, or insects)? YV b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? — C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? rXT d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 7X` 6. Noise. Would the proposal result in an increase in existing noise levels, or exposure of people to severe noise levels? — 7. Light and Glare. Would the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Would the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area, or conflict with existing land use regulations or policies? T�(c 9. Natural Resources. Would the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? — 10. Risk of Accident. Would 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? yXT b. Possible interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? — il. Po�lation. Would the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of the area? — 12. Rousing. Would the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? — 0 Environmental Analysis Checkfet - Page 4 Yee Maybe NO 13. Transportation/Circulation/Parkins. Would the proposal result ins 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? — d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation 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? y� 14. Public services. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areass a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? — C. Schools? 41 d. Parks or other recreational facilities? — e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? , f. other governmental services? — IS. Eneray. Would the proposal result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy, a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? — — 16. utilites. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Electricity or natural gas? b. Communications systems? — C. Water or wastewater? X d. Storm water drainage? X e. Solid waste and disposal? Environmental Analysis Checkli• - Page 5 • ea Maybe Imo 17. Human Health. Would the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard or exposure of people to a potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? 18. Aesthetics. Would the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? — 19. Recreation. Would the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal: a. Result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _ b. Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects on a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? — — C. Have the potential to cause a physical change / which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? HX d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? — _ III. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1. 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 pre-history? _ 2. 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 endure well into the future.) _ e i , Environmental Analysis Chest - Page 6 • Yes Maybe ILO 3. D6e9 the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may have an 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) or, a project may have incremental impacts that are individually minor, but are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of other past, present, or probable future projects.) Q 4. Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? — 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 AITS BE PREPARED. [ ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached pages have been incorporated into the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BILL BE, PREPARED. [ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONNSNTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: Aziz M. Aslami ( Associate Planner ) Dates 11-4-93 Signature: ^ Attachment: Environmental Analysis Checklist Explanations f:\...\FORMS\CNECKLST. Revised 12/91 MITIGATI(4MONITORING AND REPORTINWROGRAM Pac Tel Site Traffic Study No. 91 General Plan Amendment No. 93-313 Planned Community Amendment No. 790 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 and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the requirements, p g 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\traffic\tpo91\mm-cover. ATTACHMENT 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Pac Tel Site(General Plan Amendment No.93-3E),Traffic Study No.91 Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Method o f Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification 1. Prior to the issuance of a building Condition of Approval Plan check Prior to the issuance of a Planning Department plan permit, the applicant shall building permit checker demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system • shall be designed,and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent properties. The plan 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. F:\...\aziz-a\gpa93-3(b)\mm-table 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of DARN Corporation for General Plan Amendment No 93- (B), Traffic Study No. 91 and Amendment No. 790 on property located at 1117 Camelback Street. The application includes a reouect to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the PacTel Site from a mixture of Administrative.Professional and Financial Commerci 1 and Retail and Service Commercial to General Industry, and to amend the North Ford Planned ommunity District Regulations to rertamcify the subject site from Light I_ndustry Office ommercial/Industnal to general Industry and increase+hP aAd,'t;nnat anw able square footage from 1h000 poseft. to 110.600 soft. The proposal also includes a request to approve a traffic tudy to allow the proposed mini-storage development. 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 9tth day of December 1993. 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. Anne K Gifford, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. • • Exhibit A VICINITY MAP General Plan Amendment 93-3(B) Amendment No. 790 Traffic Study No. 91 i Site Location ..... ..... i•I a .€ J �H y�wy � � AVLMUd c � pjr € ymnr i r. ,t L Planning Department 11/3/93 I �EWPogT i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 CqG/FORN`P (714) 644-3311 November 15, 1993 Ms. Kathy Besnard Manager of Administrative Services Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Appeal of Corridor Fees by Dahn Corporation for a Mini Storage Facility in Newport Beach Dear Ms. Besnard, The Dahn Corporation has appealed the amount of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor fees for a Mini Storage facility in Newport Beach. The City has retained a traffic consultant to prepare a Traffic and Circulation Study for the 110,600 square foot facility. A copy of the portion of the study covering generation rates is enclosed. The study predicts that a mini storage facility of the type proposed will generate an estimated in and out trips of 2.13 trips per 1000 square feet of gross floor area. For the proposed 110,600 Square Foot facility this rate equates to 236 trips per day. A non- residential fee for Zone A of$3.78/sq. ft. for 110,600 sq. ft. is $418,068 or $1,771/trip. This fee appears to be excessive for the use and traffic generated. In considering this appeal, if you need more input or information from the City, please give me a call at 644-3311. Verb truly yours, Don Webb City Engineer RECEIVED'By Enclosure PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^rry OF NpWpORT 13EAC14 cc: Traffic Engineer Ni OV 17 1993 John Douglas, Environmental Coordinator AM PM Rush Hill 7t819t�►ll►u►1j2t3j4j5i6 Robert Bradley, Dahn Corp. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach REPORT ON : TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION STUDY FOR PROPOSED MINI STORAGE BISON AVENUE & CAMELBACK STREET NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mr. John Douglas , Principal Planner 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Newport Beach , California Prepared By: Justin F. Farmer Transportation Engineers, Inc. 223 E. Imperial Highway, Suite 155 Fullerton, California 92635 OUR-FILE # F-1038 NOVEMBER 12 , 1993 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the present time the buildings at the northwest corner of the intersection Camelback/Bison in the City of Newport Beach are vacant. The buildings have formerly been occupied by Pactel Corporation. A proposal has been made to utilize the subject building as a mini storage facility occupying approximately 110 ,600 square feet of gross floor area. Main access to the project will be onto I Camelback Street through one driveway for both entering and exiting traffic. At the project vicinity, Camelback Street is 2 lanes in each direction with 2 left-turn lanes at the intersection with Bison Avenue; Bison is 2 lanes in each 1 direction at the immediate vicinity of the project driveway. Figure 1 , on the following page, illustrates the project site vicinity map while Figure 2 , Page 3 , is the project site plan. 1 The purposes of this report are to: 1 (1) Conduct traffic count surveys at three comparable facilities J to the one proposed herein and develop trip generation rates for daily trips and peak hour trips. ( 2) Forecast the amount and distribution of traffic of the proposed land use and determine the net increase in traffic at the following intersections: - Jamboree Road at Ford Road - Jamboree Road at Bison Avenue - Jamboree Road at University Drive - Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard - Jamboree Road at Bristol - Jamboree Road at Bristol North - MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road - MacArthur Boulevard at Bison Avenue (3) Assess the impact the project may have upon the adjacent street system, per the city's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Data pertaining to this project was obtained from the City of Newport Beach active files. This data houses peak hour traffic counts , peak 2-1/2 hour traffic counts , additional traffic as a result of cumulative projects and previous traffic analyses which were performed for the same parcel prior to construction. The 1 data and the analysis is presented on the following pages. 'JUSTIN F. FARMER 1 TRANSPORTATION ENCINI?ERS, fNC •.! qE,F /'°t r« a5Y"°°' !y}yuft,,`o °a/ y qh' P / I i SfA ¢� TE� � (k ' W DLI�/FE \ PR ERVE \ v«r _ -•GPPER \ \ .SLLII �cI Diego \ ..I It R ;a,R I, ECOLOGICAL ^. ' ••.° 1 S/ 0 RESERVE �sY?E1 TNa'�e�'r `{rti4'rR�«may. /h`Fot°.4 FbbY i 1 r Q I V ITT4 ` • t 0.y ,,x` 3 4 SUERFF h C4 e W SN' O rvw :f'ti, y CF(a 4�F I Nu t s 1 u E �4°� J "'°e � as t• `l l F 1 � a EASFREE; llqA 1 ip -q•..Y PARK- o hht\gia4 u w < / / _ � s3 ? Sorort�o; • �" e [ TT RarA., (7 EFFs•� I � �q / s oqo P A Y r RO/ IIC OF'\ Nri y4 P tP(p[l SIRE WEY iN / \\ `(th CORW4s C D 'Cr C . DFL MAR C D R / e,E I '1 �� \ Ykp44N SCII� OR A �NOE4 CT f JI O yi n 1 � � _ �,\w°,g°wN SNE PORT {i�r rtH •pR �: � qo Bonita XY ReseBEACH rU UFFALO PACs~ Tar Po9 SPARK 'r+W 1 4 r JF aJ\IUEL 4 ' l VRi FY K .I� VRi ART •AR _ � »� ,�� % 4 `�o4J'\ O�O ,�lJp Fr 'r rtR[S 4,DP�p P Rim AROI q Pogf WEY FOR SET ER J PG A �'a ♦ % .Tqh ♦` 4 h w•�. 4F P00.i WF$TS ENa RIDOF h 9� fIRF 0(� h' PoRP- GAi K u" _ i CHAMR( �SFA.H(WPORffN � OF 4 n ASNI Y i _ � Of COMME CF NAREOP ,,yT�ta s>+ OIE[S ?a «. '.pU0.N � r \ •U6 MUSIUM J1• BIG I ,Lv,` �' C4 ityt/ NRTRT DR4 G ro'EF AILANT R p 'R EIAN ■ ■ $oa 4 rr 3 PD a rFPo ,�. 9DG,w •rA q, WASF CIEMENTE DR yF C b ST ( *r4` T .Tr P n't N rr Frr<F yF HF R H 9 APO ♦ AAD« a^ f'qr•Y 2 q c Gq rF Y FASHION p 0.osp p° S((EyM \Y PORT rey Fy j,T d«d '£�.s� G r � � m { E•' TE �\ A MCA w`br� H Qa .iF rr '4a d 82 rry. We r ISLAND h t \O 4 ` J\A• N _vr' T r Z f°Q a om&SN tlR ,Ha T rA4 It fAOHK VIM "• q y AT n ,� R' y�r,\ / v;; n n o f y, 'Z d \ Cn )'n I •�- '1' g : «.r OR 402; AH!( q•,'`%4 GAIT - .. 4Nn '✓J F(nu \ 1' tF'\n4 i'E O�, n T �e•Y. %%I a n0. O\P4 7 Map Source : Auto Club Of So. Cal. FIG SITE VICINITY MAP 1 J Y 1 � I K ' r I I IIi ! I a i I II I . M 6 •+Y[THE ---------------------------------------------- •.wwwu fOMwpAgiNER$NIP INC \ / FIG PROJECT SITE PLAN 2 TRIP GENERATION STUDY/DATA COLLECTION Daily and peak hour trip generation for projects such as that being proposed here is normally expressed in terms of trip ends per 1 ,000 square feet (KSF) of gross floor area. A trip is de- fined as a one-way vehicular journey either to or from the site, or it may be a journey totally within the site. The latter is usually referred to as an internal trip. Each trip will have two trip ends , one at the beginning and one at the end of the destination. + Trip making characteristics for a variety of land ' use types have been collected from a number of field studies at actual projects , both in Southern California and elsewhere throughout the United States. The results of these studies have been reported upon by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) , San Diego Assoc- iation of Governments, Arizona Department of Transportation, and various published and unpublished private studies-. A review of the data for development similar to that being proposed indicates that the Institute of Transportation Engineers rates would be most applicable for the site, however, a concern has been expressed by the developers of this project that the ITE rates may not reflect the actual operating characteristics for a mini storage located in such central Orange County area. The City of Newport Beach Traffic Engineer has therefore requested that trip generation data be collected at similar land uses within the site vicinity i.e. , in central Orange County. Research was conducted, and the following three locations were found to be similar to the proposed one at Camelback and Bison intersection. *1) Mini Storage - Irvine J 1 Burroughs Avenue J Site Area = 169 , 762 Gross S.F. = 100 , 720 7 Net Leasable = 88 , 093 *2) Mini Storage - Huntington Beach 7611 Talbert Avenue J Site Area 143 ,000 Gross S. F. 62 , 192 Net Leasable = ** ] *3) Mini Storage - Santa Ana 4200 W. Westminster Avenue Site Area = ** 1 Gross S. F. = 83 , 894 Net Leasable = 82 , 550 * Data provided by the Dahn Corporation ** Data NOT available 1 JUSTIN F. FARMER a i'R %V�PnWr.+i'rnv CNCin'GI:RC UNr' The City Traffic Engineer has requested that trip generation data be collected at those study locations during the busiest weekday. Data were therefore collected form the Dahn Corporation for the J facilities in Irvine and in Huntington Beach. Their data includes actual entering and exiting log-in/log-out sheets for both facilities for several months. JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , has analyzed the busiest three months of the year for both mini storage facilities . These are June, July, and August 1993. We have analyzed weekday traffic volumes for the entire three months at both location and our analysis indicated that the busiest weekdays were Fridays and Tuesdays, followed by Mondays, Thursdays and then Wednesdays . 7 Data collection and traffic counts were therefore collected at the above referenced three locations on Friday October 22 , 1993 . Each of those locations have one driveway serving both entering and exiting traffic. For purposes of this analysis 24-hour machine traffic counts were taken at the facility's single driveway. Actual count data is presented in Appendix A of this report and count summary is presented on the following pages as Table 1 and Table 2 . Table 1, Page 6 , summarizes actual traffic count data for the three locations and averages the data for hourly and daily traffic. Table 2 , Page 7, summarizes trip generation rates for the three locations and presents average hourly and daily trip rates. Additionally, traffic counts were graphically illustrated on Pages 8 thru 11 as Figure 3A thru Figure 3D. ] Figure 3A - illustrates traffic hourly variations/driveway counts for Santa Ana site. Figure 3B - illustrates traffic hourly variations/driveway counts 7 for Irvine site. Figure 3C - illustrates traffic hourly variations/driveway counts for Huntington Beach site. 7 Figure 3D - illustrates average three sites. A close look at Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 3A thru 3D indicates that the three sites experience three peak periods , morning, midday and evening. It also indicates that hourly variation throughout the day is quite comparable for all three sites , insofar as the overall magnitude of entering and existing volumes. 7 Trip rates developed and presented on Table 2 were used to estimate the number of trips associated with the proposed mini 7 storage. .TTfCTTN F FARMRR r TABLE 1 SUMMARY TRIP GENERATION SURVEY MINI STORAGE FACILITIES NUMBER OF TRIPS SA1dtA:; :'A *r V z9A*0'rm-- .... . ..... ........ . .... .. .. ...... IN —1 O UITE�UT IN OUT-] ❑❑:DIAEGTION$: 12AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 o o o o o 0 7 9 8 2 2 0 0 4 5 7 7 3 3 ...0. 5 8 26 6:- 10 7 8 5 5 4 1 5 10 11 9 7 5 6 10 10 8--] 12PM 7 8 13 14 4 3 8 a 16 2 5 8 4 5 11 12 7 8 15 3 9 8 3 3 9 9 F---7-7F- 7---IF -- 14 4 11 8 7 4 8 9 9 7 76 4 8 6 6 8 5 4 4 2 5 10 7 4 6 0 0 0 0 2 3 8 2 0 —0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 .1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 EoEll o g6. 7 7 • FM My 107011MIMO loss so., MUM MEMO= sell mill a a a TRIP GENERATION FORECAST Traffic generation forecasts have been prepared for the proposed project based upon trip generation factors as compiled by JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , in the previous section of this report. Table 3 , below summarizes the trip gerneration forecasts. It indicates a net increase in the number of trips during the morning peak hour during the evening peak a hour. TABLE 3 J MINI STORAGE FACILITY BISON/CAMELBACK 110 , 600 SQUARE FEET aTRIP DAILY RATE TRIPS HOURLY TRIPS PEAK 1 HR PEAK 2 1/2 HR AM IN 0.059 NA 7 14 OUT 0.038 NA 4 8 PM IN 0.109 NA 12 24 OUT 0.117 NA 13 26 DAILY IN 1.065 118 NA NA OUT 1.065 118 NA NA JNOTE: - Peak 1 hour is 50% of peak 2 1/2 hours a a a a a a ,! JUSTIN F. FARMER 12 MANSPOIZTATION ENGINEERS, INC PART CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U - P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 Cq</FORN�P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3225 November 9, 1993 Shahir Gobran Justin F Farmer Transportation Engineers Inc. 223 E. Imperial Hwy # 155 Fullerton, CA 92635 Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study for 1177 Camelback Street, Newport Beach (TPO # 91) Dear Mr. Gobran: Per our telephone conversation, I have enclosed a copy of the "Proposal Acceptance" and a site plan, for your file, regarding the mini-storage facility that would be constructed in the North Ford Planned Community District in the City of Newport Beach. For traffic data or technical questions please contact Rich Edmonston, the City's Traffic Engineer at (714) 644-3344. Should you have any other questions regarding this project, or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, PLANNING DIRECTOR JAMES D. HEWICKER, DIRECTOR B Y Aziz M. Aslami Associate Planner r:\wr51\...\Aziz-A\Tmmc\TP091\uu 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach 0 JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 `�-ANNWG Doz-r,IRTMENT November 5, 1993 I'Y OF NFWPORT REACH Mr. John Douglas AM NOV 0 1993 PM Principal Planner 7181911011111211121314 M City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Re: Proposal for Data Collection/Trip Generation Study & Traffic Circulation Study Mini Storage — Bison/Camelback Newport Beach, California Dear John: First let me thank you for selecting us to conduct the traffic study for the above referenced project. As you are aware, we have conducted a number of such studies in the City of Newport Beach and are therefore familiar with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. I have spoken with Mr. Rich Edmonston, the City Traffic Engineer, and I believe I have an understanding of his concerns. We therefore offer the following scope of service. SCOPE OF SERVICES It is my understanding that the proposed mini storage will contain approximately 110,000 gross square feet and that the City Traffic Engineer has concerns regarding trip generation rates for such land uses. For purposes of determining the actual number of trips associated with mini storage facilities, JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , will collect 24 hour weekday data at two similar facilities. The specific weekday will be determined based on historical data to be provided by Dahn Corporation. We will visit the sites and inventory those street environmental features that will affect or be affected by the project. Specific attention will be directed to the location of driveways, at the proposed facility and the existing sites in Irvine and Huntington Beach. At this time we have surveyed the existing mini storage facilities located at 1) Burroughs Avenue in the City of Irvine 2) 7611 Talbert, in the City of Huntington Beach and 3) 4200 Westminister Avenue, in the City of Santa Ana. The City Traffic Engineer requested that the traffic study includes the following intersections: 1. Jamboree Road/Eastbluff - Ford Road 2. Jamboree Road/Bison Avenue 3. Jamboree Road/Eastbluff N. - University 4. Jamboree Road/MacArthur Boulevard 5. Jamobree Road/Bristol Street 6. Jamboree Road/Bristol Street N. 7. MacArthur Boulevard/Ford Road 8. MacArthur Boulevard/Bison Avenue We will include the above eight intersections in our analysis., and a forecast will be made of the number and distribution of vehicles that would be generated by the project and would utilize the subject intersections. We will then utilize the City of Newport Beach traffic phasing ordinance, assess cumulative project, apply applicable regional growth, conduct the "one percent test" and perform ICU's analysis if necessary. Data will be analyzed, ADT's will be determined, trip generation rates will be developed and a forecast will be made of the number of daily trips associated with the proposed mini storage facility. DELIVERABLES Our study and its findings will be summarized in a report with a format customarily used for traffic impact reports. Up to six copies will be prepared. TIME SCHEDULE We will deliver our report in two weeks after receipt of your signed notice to proceed or signature on this proposal. FEE PROPOSAL We propose a lump sum of $4,740.00. This fee considers our analysis of one site development plan. Should that plan be revised, or should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the fee will be amended to reflect only that amount of work which was necessitated by the. revision. Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. The fee assumes that traffic counts will be taken by JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , for both Huntington Beach and Irvine sites. It also assumes that particulars pertaining to square footages, site plans, etc. . will be provided by Dahn Corporation in a timely manner. The fee does not include attendance at public hearings. Should we be requested to attend meetings, we will invoice at our regular hourly rates for the person attending such meetings. The proposed fee includes all costs, overhead, and profit for performing those work efforts resulting in the printed report. If this proposal is -acceptable, please so indicate by signing in the space provided on the following page and return a copy for our files. Thank you again for considering us for this work, as we look forward to working with you on this project. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. Shahir Gobr P.E. Manager of Transportation Planning SG:dk JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. November 5, 1993 Mr. John Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Re: Proposal for Data Collection/Trip Generation Study & Traffic Circulation Study Mini Storage Bison/Camelback Newport Beach California THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED Company 14 Lam- A'EV (k Gt C3 Sig"ha l I Title Date 70 — 1A , Name (Please type oe Print Clearly) 1 Address (c > ( 44 - 3 -)-541 Telephone Number FAX Number JUSTIN F. FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. JUSTIN F. FARMER • • TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS INC. 223 EAST IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, SUITE 155 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 TEL.(714) 447-6070 FAX (714) 447-6080 October 19, 1993 GF NFWPOk . , Mr. John Douglas Principal Planner AM OCT 2 ^ 1993 PM City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. "118191101ll11211i21314i516 Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Q Re: Proposal for Data Collection/Trip Generation Study Mini Storage - Bison/Camelback Newport Beach, California Dear John: First let me thank you for selecting us to conduct the traffic study for the above referenced project. As you are aware, we have conducted a number of such studies in the City of Newport Beach and are therefore familiar with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. I have spoken with Mr. Rich Edmonston, the City Traffic Engineer, and I believe I have an understanding of his concerns. We therefore offer the following scope of service. SCOPE OF SERVICES It is my understanding that the proposed mini storage will contain approximately 100,000 gross square feet and that the City Traffic Engineer has concerns regarding trip generation rates for such land uses. For purposes of determining the actual number of trips associated with mini storage facilities, JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , will collect 24 hour weekday data at two similar facilities. The specific weekday will be determined based on historical data to be provided by Dahn Corporation. We will visit the sites and inventory those street environmental features that will affect or be affected by the project. Specific attention will be 'directed to the location of driveways, at the proposed facility and the existing sites in Irvine and Huntington Beach. At this time we propose to survey an existing mini storage located at 1 Burroughs Avenue in the City of Irvine and another site located at 7611 Talbert, in the City of Huntington Beach. Data will be analyzed, ADT's will be determined, trip generation rates will be developed and a forecast will be made of the number of daily trips associated with the proposed mini storage facility. DELIVERABLES Our study and its findings will be summarized in a report with a format customarily used for traffic impact reports. Up to six copies will be prepared. TIME SCHEDULE We will deliver our report in two weeks after receipt of your signed notice to proceed or signature on this proposal. FEE PROPOSAL We propose a lump sum of $2 ,280.00. This fee considers our analysis of one site development plan. Should that plan be revised, or should additional work effort be requested after start of our analysis, the fee will be amended to reflect only that amount of work which was necessitated by the revision. Submittal of a revision or a request for additional analysis by you, or by the City, will constitute authorization to amend the scope of service. The fee assumes that traffic counts will be taken by JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. , for both Huntington Beach and Irvine sites. It also assumes that particulars pertaining to square footages, site plans, etc. . will be provided by Dahn Corporation in a timely manner. The fee does not include attendance at public hearings. Should we be requested to attend meetings, we will invoice at our regular hourly rates for the person attending such meetings. The proposed fee includes all costs, overhead, and profit for performing those work efforts resulting in the printed report. However, the fee does not include intersection capacity analysis customarily associated with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. If this proposal is acceptable, please so indicate by signing in the space provided on the following page and return a copy for our files. Thank you again for considering us for this work, as we look forward to working with you on this project. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, JUSTIN F. FARMER, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. Shahir Gobran, P.E. Manager of Transportation Planning SG:dk JUSTIN R FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. October 19, 1993 Mr. John Douglas Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Re: Proposal for Data Collection/Trip Generation Study Mini Storage Bison/Camelback Newport Beach California THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED Ct4Y 0� �'uj or-- llfRCj" Company r ' tE:�\J[CoikMe ,�v, ( Cvvcd1.'W Sign t e 1 Title Date JOL,�, A - -Dov la s Name (Please type r Print Clearly) 33vn � L�+ 81�d , NB Cla(s59 Address 11�- 6-A4-3x5c) Telephone Number FAX Number JUSTIN E FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. FEE SCHEDULE January 1993 EMPLOYEE HOURLY RATE Principal-In-Charge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 130.00 Vice President. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 100.00 Transportation Planning Manager. . . . .$ 95.00 Senior Engineer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 95.00 Design Supervisor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 85.00 Transportation Designer. . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 78.00 Transportation Analyst. . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 68.00 AutoCad/Intergraph Operator. . . . . . . . .$ 52.50 Executive Secretary/Word Processor. .$ 42.00 Field Enumerator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 32.50 TRAVEL $. 35/MILE OR ACTUAL COST PLUS 15% EXPENSES ACTUAL COST PLUS 15% HOURLY RATE INCLUDES ALL NORMAL EXPENSES, ALL LABOR, PAYROLL BURDEN, OVERHEAD AND PROFIT. INVOICES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT. PAYMENT MADE WITHIN 15 DAYS MAY BE DISCOUNTED 1% OF LABOR COST. UNPAID INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS WILL BE ASSESSED A LATE PAYMENT PENALTY OF 1% PER MONTH. JFF:dr JUSTIN R FARMER TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, INC. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659 (714) 644-3225 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM The Environmental Information Form is intended to provide the basic information necessary for the evaluation of your project to determine its potential environmental effects. This review provides the basis for determining whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, as required by state law. After this information has been evaluated by the Planning Department,a determination will be made regarding the appropriate environmental documentation for your project. If no significant environmental effects are anticipated, or if impacts can be mitigated or avoided by a change or specific requirement in the projecPs design or operation, a Negative Declaration will be prepared. If potential significant environmental effects are identified, an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared which focuses on the areas of concern identified by the Initial Study. After preliminary review of your application and the Environmental Information Form, you may be notified that additional information or technical studies will be required (e.g., traffic study, geotechnical survey, etc.) before an environmental determination can be made. PROCESSING SCHEDULE The time required to process the environmental analysis for your project will depend on dic nature and complexity of the proposal. If possible, the Planning Department will set a target date for public hearing at the time your application is determined to be complete. If special studies are required (e.g., traffic study,biological assessment), the hearing date cannot be set until these studies are completed. If a Negative Declaration is prepared, a 30-day public review period is normally required prior to the public hearing. Staff will notify you regarding the hearing schedule for your project as soon as possible. FILING FEE The filing fee for environmental review is $303. If a special study or an Environmental Impact Report is required, the City will retain a consultant with the cost to be funded by the applicant. The applicant may also be required to pay a California Department of Fish and Game review fee of up to $1,250. Planning Department staff will advise you regarding the applicability of this fee after the environmental review is completed. If you need assistance in completing the Environmental Information Form, or have questions regarding the environmental review procedures, please contact John Douglas, Environmental Coordinator, at 644-3225. R\...\F0 RMS\ENV-INFO.INS Revised 12/91 • ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION A City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 644-3225 A,. General Information 1. Applicant/Agent. DAHN CORPORATION Phone: 752-1282 Addresss 18552 MACARTHUR BLVD. #495 IRVINE, CA 92715 2. Property Owner: BELCOURT MEDICAL PARTNERS, L.P. Phone: 859-6500 Address: c/o RESCO 23052 ALCADE SUITE B LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 B. Project Description Please attach the following materials for the project: • Vicinity map • Plans drawn to scale • Proposed revisions to zoning map • At least 3 different site photos mounted and text using underline and on 8 1/2 X 11 cardboard with a key map atrikeeut notation, if applicable showing the photo locations and direction of view 1. Project name: MINI U STORAGE 2. Project location: NWC OF BISON AND CAMELBACK 3. Assessor's parcel #: TRACT 6680 LOT 6 4. Permit application #: 5a. Proposed user SELF STORAGE WITH 24 HR. CARETAKERS%MANAGERS LIVING QUARTERS 5b. Project size (dwelling units, gross floor area, etc. ) 89,793"NET/110,585 5c. Site sizes 2.788 ACRES 5d. Building height: 22' 6. Existing land use designations: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plant LCP: 7. Previous governmental approvals: TELEPHONE COMPANY PARKING LOT S. Other governmental approvals required: N/A Federal: N/A Stater Regional: N7A Local PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9. Begin construction: MARCH. 1994• Estimated occupancy: SEPTEMBER, 1994 (date) (date) C. Potential Environmental Effects On a separate page, please provide the following information. .If the question is not applicable, indicate "Not applicable" or "None". 1. Earth Please describe the earthwork that will be required for the project. Include grading quantities, and the location of borrow or stockpile sites, and 'haul routes, if applicable. Describe any geotechnical or soils investigations that have been conducted. Include exhibits showing existing and proposed topography, retaining walls, and erosion control devices. 2. Air . Describe any air emissions or odors that could result from the project, including emissions during construction, and any measures that are proposed to reduce these emissions. 3. Water Describe existing and proposed site drainage, and measures that will be employed to reduce erosion and, prevent' contaminated runoff from entering the storm drain system, groundwater or- surface water. Describe any changes that' could occur in groundwater levels or bodied of surface water. Is the project.located in a flood hazard zone? 4. Biological Resources Describe the existing vegetation on the, site, and any trees or large shrubs that are to be removed. Identify any fish or wildlife that inhabit the site. 5. Noise Describe any sources of noise that impact the site, and any noise-generating equipment that will be utilized on the property, either during construction or after occupancy. What means to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties or building occupants are proposed? 6. Light and Glare Describe exterior lighting that is proposed for the project and means that will be utilized to reduce light and ,glare impacts on surrounding properties, " 7. Land Use Describe: a) the existing land uses and structures on the project site and on adjacent parcels; b) the proj.ect's conformance with existing land use plans and regulations for the property; and c) its compatibility with surrounding land uses. 8. Public Health and- Safety Identify any aspects of the project that could present a risk to public health due to normal operations, or due to 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 spill. Is there any possibility that the site could be contaminated due to previous uses or dumping? If so, what measures are proposed to eliminate the hazard or contamination? 9. Population/Housing/Employment a. If the project is residential, please explain how the project will comply with the affordable housing policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan, and the average household size expected, b. If the project is commercial, industrial, or institutional, please identify the tenants and/or uses and the estimated number of employees. 10. Transportation/Circulation/Parkipg Please describe how the project will comply with parking regulations, and identify any changes or improvements to the circulation system that are proposed as part of the project. 11. Public Services/Utilities Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. • Communications Systems • Electrical power • Fire protection • Natural 'gas • Parks/recreational facilities • Police protection • Schools • Sewer systems or septic tanks • Solid waste and disposal • Storm water drainage systems 12. Aesthetics Describe whether the project could potentially obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public, or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Could the project block any private views? 13. Cultural and Historic Resources Please identify any known archaeological or paleontological resources that exist on the site. Would the project result in any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to any building, structure, or object having historical, cultural, or religious significance? Certification I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information. ARIBR DAHN CORPORATION Print name of owner or representative EXECU C PRESIDENT Date NOVEMBER 2, 1993 -----—-----______--------------- v ------ ------ Date filed: Fee: Receipt No: By: f:\...\JD\FORMS\ENV-INFO. Rev. 12/91 r t • • ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM ATTACHMENT "A" 1. EARTH The earthwork on the project will be minimal. We plan to utilize the existing material on site, with no import or export. We anticipate the total earth to be moved to be less than 1000 cubic yards. A geotechnical report indicates that the material currently on site is of sufficient quality to sustain the proposed use. A copy of the geotechnical report is available upon request. The final grading and drainage plan is being prepared and will be complete and ready for submittal within 60 days. 2. AIR The proposed use is not expected to generate any noise or emissions once the project is complete. During construction, the grading and contractor vehicles will produce limited vehicular noise and emissions. The construction period will be for a period of approximately six to seven months. 3. WATER The project is not located in a flood hazard zone . The existing drainage sheet flows from the south west corner of the property to the north east corner of the property then on to the curb and gutter flow line on Camelback Road. The site is currently covered almost entirely with asphalt. The proposed use is not expected to increase the current amount of storm water runoff. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The site currently has mature trees and vegetation along the Bison Ave. and Post Office sides of the property. It is our intention to leave the existing vegetation in tact. There are no fish or wildlife that inhabit the site, to the best of our knowledge. 5. NOISE The self storage use is a quiet use and not expected to generate significant noise. On an average there are less than 100 vehicles per day that will use the site. During the 6 to 7 month construction period, construction vehicles will create some additional noise on site. We propose to limit the daily construction hours from 7 am to 5 pm six days per week. Environmental Information Form Page 2 6. LIGHT The project will have building mounted lights approximately 9 feet off of the ground. The light will be reflected downward and the fixtures will have automatic sensing devices that will be motion activated. It is anticipated that no glare will emanate from the site . 7. LAND USE The current use of the property is vacant. It is completely paved and fenced. There are light stanchions scattered throughout the property. The property was formerly used as a parking facility for the telephone company repair vehicles. The property to the west is Southern California Edison transmission facility. The property to the north is a U. S. Post Office. The property to the east is a retail center. The property to the south is residential. The subject property is currently zoned PC. We have submitted an application to amend the zone to accommodate self storage. The proposed use is less intense than the retail uses currently allowed by the existing zone. The subject property is compatible with the surrounding uses because it generates very little traffic, is quiet, has limited operating hours and has a 24 hour caretaker. S. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY There are no foreseen risks to public health and safety attributable to the proposed use. 9. POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT The project will employ one full time couple, who will reside on the property. A relief manager will also be employed on a part time basis who will not reside on the property. The tenants will rent on a month to month basis individual storage units ranging in size from 20 square feet to 375 square feet. They will store personal goods within these units. The rental agreement will prohibit the storage of toxins, chemicals, flammable fluids, etc. A sample lease will be provided upon your request. • Environmental Information Form Page 3 10. TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION AND PARKING The project will have three parking spaces located in front of the office. The tenants will load and unload their vehicles in front of their individual storage space or near the elevators and hallway doors. Circulation within the property will be one way, with all tenants entering and leaving the property through a security gate system. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES There are adequate public services and utilities adjacent to the site to serve the property without the addition of new services. 12. AESTHETICS The subject property is located in a topographically depressed area. The design of the project will not impede or restrict the view of adjacent uses. The construction materials used on the property will incorporate earth tone precision and split face concrete block. 13. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES There are no known cultural or historical resources that will be impacted by the development of this property. iL /N�'• 1.,., Nq 3 y ;' " W s ZS W i a� 3 °3 araan/ w'bi A of � n � ■ •JE �. "U t�_ .,' ?y \ ' E i<� _tltS i xo.a:.. ' "AI �,......1'6 �,•\,.��=o�� � f1 ��S b °o&�Oo y+,aar�e ,3'.E� (��y'� I .•��� 9 � � ° shy y, 8� a . ,,�a'• Rp'VSP;�'j ���� a 6 P �� ��. `a `§R 4'/ •• ,� "•a. ,,..0 na 3�/•^:':•S;tRN� 9 ;'� x.: St :;.I' ••'ir`,..oman� �.' � ,$ •i i( I t;�$b � .\le u � ..R •00� / � .k 3 0 '•n � �).. :y xo iY Oy `Y3 � \ % ¢ PPa/ ES ' ,�eY ,`~sir:.• a✓ PxPP W� 8� • I/ �O Lyp ^.°y \ t '\� 8 J /. J O4Eli \ PI �,H =n � yp @3p3gtpga i�Yy ��i �� I■.5 to�I�+am \\ x r nn r s gyp. s w •,,, a.!� ,.j�y .eF GG y.' YYY ' e J � "Yw n':' — � • °d tl a gg pp 4 O//� ¢@g g d ty '`;j���ioa "jY^+�,1,yynw �anPy r� (\A / AN ,� ` ii �'/ V 3� 3 na MIN lnoe.ax— C a0 I,�• b ny, °�°v�� �w�Yi -`,'I�!°� �� W' gggg ....�D°g........... ��. ES F§§4 8g6g c': gfif''i °0,�•' �! .'t` \��.,y✓ip�./ its BWD ' S � 1����6��1�B���fg�i����'V � \ � ©; � r:°R5 �9 � '�4• o ��1.: yr.al+dhO,:,�(:I;11S'Ap yc N r t�fi:.• b gg§ G $w� y� \ ,rR . � 8 q Gla �k_ Is 3.. {rt.•, ,.g:,•., . ti, ° $ \ 'SN.�1 �ntr ae i��P•�w" Sy,„ � A?i3.f•'�n: uw, ' ,''�: ,1y1� • po Q I oxTiE[H& a'i3 O S ' /, "• 'h, •�1°.�' )� ,�jy� S�; o�•. `0 tSP �13e ri ar i•� `,t' %`:;;`'S., r r/�'�+"/:•?9�g2i � 888°�G �•� d+s�"\ ,�t ' v'si'e `•:xi;,c::�a`'•" � � �� � o fi:�.P a� o •�8 l cY nFe �tl':• '•y-::�,; :;::YI !`. © '' m .'N: `. �<I' t,"'�� '7W ,�,..��55q ��7Q � ry V�rg__t .`°, ?-,ti'.ry,:;. � '� 8¢ ah•::�k£y,,�� „4 ey ..I ���J,.r 4. �� � '/b ec/�rutP� . � "�i:S,'i'9'Ciri.r'_'�}",' < r F '� i :V d' x,,.'•• ��I •)4Sa' •b t,...i � _• f'p>::" 4 d . d i *'Pp , Sl:f <OR. `I 3� rf o °;' x •o y�.:o Itp .p•� 3'{ `�Arxtr / 7{vv;�� ;.rtt.7°�i;:L'��:%'cgV,T,adO= ?'Je �I� 4" r baO,yy i� °1 ;�• ��ts�,pY'S ��� � pavy � FP�R � •;}rc. f3.r `�� �\�� na s l.�= •'/1 1(• I;�£ M`:�.v:'I 2 "c x4 _,,,IvN °tri °i ` ti�'�:`T r W, r° � ^ '�• {/:;�' �'dtjf � �` ` 'O°i�. a� ♦rf� op` p4� 10 ,na. :yam'.°'n.:. �+r �'e �' -�.Vii vgN.'f�r`�qz,.���. ' '. �O kk� $1 ��','� /'^ll•�;��•51 � „wr 'S � ;G v oa. .g�\• 4 ?+yv- gb..�•I � / 5 C . eRr:.. y• • b a , q Sg P•\�. S •.2 :In'tia,• ,•�a� . +.icY�( N r..:u (r V' �dd ran. a uu.,o,� .�•:,1�i' / 6 a 5��� �r•:.�i}� � ? , .. o � ry+ f� „ V'� Oe�•.'y�''sury.t: t. l:g:s,u•.i.�,�°5 a�' a ta:•;Pb �+' uS m PYa ' "Jf i u .w'° b'' „i''I ):•:�:::;;'.Jd' �:' .J "�•'•br ba. /S' ,r` R R 9VnNNl.r'v 4�,a y •�i<?,ma.e<��•�J, 3. ,:i:': :•, ')'b w,. `�°P j [yni�-aF'x° °,,` Vim+vV '' •j\'�f m•' V,t. F � � wy � p, y, °p •! b 'c)•'- .•i .r a "'hi 96 ��_.'. � � 3 3 { 'S j 3 3 ��. �. ,ri'Si! , �y,�, N• '�• r 1 ydaP ,"Y�• aa$yp�y�ggp�gi �43 gsaagV }e} EI M '/;p� ,S;Ft"S': �'7lir,,, `-`` $ 9r) a °1` a 'I •Y � '•� ' y a�x�.&)�y$aas43$a:�&�Y�i� rl''.I•y i':''� i�•` "1•r•i�� 7,5'y/� F Ob� xl '� � ,< a.■ �l'`r.r. s-vasc=_aspxpxxa _ }• $?j�;r:J ,'F,;`i-4 P P 9 2 d �5: ,•AU 6 ' ij <� / 1`•`�m /ii^tl�P r �'°' t:,•a f °,: I'�r I}n .`i. i+�`. hs, �F � l� . rjr:• '�>W/ 9 + - a V � off— p � > y C I.N y Q A nwa bs - ;Y"YyfQy ua fi._ N . P ..'o ''ei •r,. �` a�� � °'+> ��'�' ' .r f ,� �'�P`a°� ro � 'k'+ s `� 3aaooruro �Y i :MS,•..��•�t:��,,y�r i / •'��:�`. . � ° `p QP2 > ' ''`�` 3iyr'Oyy, `�v,� •. '4, •yl oPOP N)gyy br�y yo 4 i r' ��"•'u\'•::}il:, Nj�Vry', ,�• . 'F. r''9 0.. S e< i N a. WbD'r a 9uyr��o ° '//o > '�a' $ / � 1j1 1 • �n x° aP° H / r 1 e ? r r 3•.1r•'r•o g'tv ° ° r a o �: c�Pay I. �`o P w HY r Jy I %�\Z j< a j 3lf[.•lYl� y yil�. Il. Jp /3 P aWaZ • ly�y,;f.J,'. �Nd° P cp 4 M1 w EQ ,,yy;; .I I 1 1 1 � ONVI51 b w .I:,. i.•, y \v 'a&6ao y3 r w SP�.eP�.� S'b_$Rg rO,tliy ea °' ;� CaC�ya � P�q g6'33 '� .;w,i•p " a�'�.w�. � rorr pti�° e' �4;, y 3 •¢'F oa,'`o Q.'�P,y� y,�,( .SWNr any na 4� N D � _.a mm� p 1 xPlwros, •V iFr;'.,i •l Jr,�.• xRax>n •ou �� s°' \°�3d °. � rP,o� .�y'�� °�5 � �63' y s 'tV$s ` �, .n�.jl..� .R I kl dl.i x ,s e 4, ),.x.` $ r. 4 ` •4i, y O.l�.g. g1/xr i'C'/ rS ° -.\anon 1'A, 3 e PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBIT l - � 2O E'SM'T R£SEKVED o �g VIEW #1 i 2I' £51'f'T fOR FOR ACCESS TO LETS FD3V TO THE SOUTHWEST fJTltrTY PVRfV5ED OfD- cv } S.L I7 ICAT£ Tfl TO CO;'Y Of , NEW ORTGi£l+c9 336.20' - "� i rpm• � �-- h 8 w E46r--- - - 60'- -- _ ry �-90 �Y a oc u d e/ 2g os-,4j/E.(/l/E,. ",VIEW # 3.. VIEW #2 .35- 5/,3 dti;f TO THE NORTHEAST - P/G��, T 259./G' TO THE NORTHWEST �_�43.88 T 274 59"' I' TRWRE1311 3 4 5 6 1-800-345-7334 1 THIS YAP WAS PREPARED FOR ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR OEPT,WRPOSES ONLY. THE ASSESSOR MARES NO GUARANTEE AS TO 442-04 OS ACCUMCY NOfl ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY FOR OINEfl USES.NOi TDBE.IEPROWI'EO •CO PYWONTOMMGECOUNTY ASSESSOR nY I ,09<c RB CT> PY$4-,9/ /.Eb C9�F4BgC OJ 23 :/ 22 /3>K• ,Pop PFP, > tt'p-R, P -I PY,IS -39 2l Y ' i�A• 26 15 I ...,, , NOR R �y ' h PAR V 1 V > 12 17 AB. 4/3K \ �- • LOT P<F 19 . '•TRA r a r 369 A:ICJ LOr> • O I 041 .3974: t1IA0. i s/ac pa D Q 4[ f •Ji A W b• 0 •s -J.� �� s LOT ; - ! : 30 " 4.44K NO. /2409• c 9Ycac«J znzK 66 �= i\-M LE1 '- a BISON 9 31 i RfLCWFr p FAFrP vOF i- �29 3 30 \\ T�&ORIrY MARCH 1970 NOTE-ASSESSORS !LOCK B ASSESSOR'S MAP CD NO 6680 MAR z60-(z•3 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK442PAGE O4 TRACT NO. I2309 AT.I[550-IrOBMC. OWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY Of ORANGE PARCEL MAPS P.M 4I-27.45-39 - • x NOTE ASSESSOR'S BLOCK L , 1 ASSESSOR'S MAP • -z v ATA4CH = 3 -Cr NO 5460 MM /96.35,36,37 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK440PAGE352 O SHOWN IN CIRCES COUNTY OF ORANGE TRWREDI 3 A 1-800-345-7334 s v.A+.5 A+E.Alc 10A ORANGE COYA'. . ASSESSOR UPI FW^OSaS ONLY iME ASRSSOr Y.nfS.GmRMi({A910115 a.•CURaCS POP ASSeYES AN•{IASKRI EON OSNER OSES NOa ro.E NEPAOQK(D LI.111S N[U-13 458-14 a COAaw6R'O Aka CO.Nla ASSESSOR 04 -s - 442-O3 - PAGE 1 OF 2 Tow AWj$E�SOR DEPiF%AZP S0&Y 458.36 •��: `Err�aR"` A4CYiEE A570 sa•rww.n•r S NO OJ n nA ru»a.» EE +, pp eie eARraR a AVFRr casYi• 1BEASSESSCyN ASSLUES�1111i 1 roRo"'e nurzros . 17S AECOB!`,..- h0••J BE RFPRODOCEO' :.owAcOSLK 92 FOBO"II1:R.. ` A 1991 mAcr All RIWpR 0aM1�GEO000N1Y 155E 31 Rue—11 �. 032 •«�_� "A" r e• . jrY/• •i AID•• \\ 14 13 ` •ice vs %RV/NE y 3353 mk it p _ 15 »sA6 _34 ' _' .,:. 21 a. .i• ,YR < 24 • •0;22 ,# BLK 92 12 R' r o= 29 " 9eu Ac r ?y0i �i.,;.\ ..'v`,-=' ri p''b'AV. .aS FLYOo _ 21 Rs 6..15 BLK 561F! lAY !. < NA` Ria)- ••x6-'..37: O/ _ 20 • 440-03 • • � ss rsAc •.�}s "ieiijs'- 032 :�• BLK 55 ` 35 0 S7 19 z S/B 1�9 . 440-02 A. c E 19 5 oiu�tA i •z 6 .25 z N< a ai`its y� i7 , At ®s „• . 6/RAC •••• •' Fc o 18 U � , +6 AR,mre srRrrr M,4RCR /970 /R SUB M.M. / - Bfi NOTE ASSESSORS BLOCK a ASOESSOR S MAP, TRACT TRACT CT NO 7 00 MM 274-7 rCI/8 /srneer aRc r) PARCEL NUMBERS N07BW /AIM.304-35,36,371srReer nv<rI BOOK 442PAGE 03 �1 TRACT NO/2/05 MM 553—//70/6,AC SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE PARCEL MAP 4/-40,/40-/ FRWI•REDI `' ```A T7= 1-800-34 -733-4 442-30 a4 • r e/soN roa-/so Si TRAG•" rw.ecr sS•v- � / r/00, ZZ /nrs Ac \1 0 03 \ 3 N/!CSDACEr Bare r.c ORNE 3 NO.11785 \\\ 03 . irovirc srwEErs VARO//Sig/ TRACT /.n.//785 M.M 503-27 TO 30 hW. NOTE-ASSESSOR'S RI00( i . ASSESSOR'S AUV CD NUA.ERS Rr10K442fAGE30 SHOWN IN CWCIES COUNTY Of ORANGE ' a TRWLREDI j 3 5 1-800-345-7334 11a YV1.N.IV.Ym IO�n1M4CO1MR • 1eO�pllppf.N-bftYlY.M1YlL R-rrm-awnnNTomBxwcr 442-31 0p'PONA -=ocane.~�Ow.oacwri waw�in 0FL ay •YIAq 45H.�J ,� -- _ /.</00. so• • n. �______ -_l r4Jl1Y_ -CO �l ______ /KIC .IPlryO.t B[YOJ TRACT44 • 2 � 4 __—____________ '�• fREEIYAY e Q PM[OOrA �,� .).'� �r s• �l'� if ,r _—__— ' + — yy FqY LOT A Lora�' 76 arw l�> POR. for B osT.r - t0I1 ,zua O i 3 TRACT x rj11 ; e > O . O 47 O 0 BO i!> ,t 46 cm zaa• N.r_ V P.e SO/•.B S.S `.'. l : • I O ;`y ,., yy',.. • (oTAw O u n a R Ec ,�• . ...,, NO. //605 Y. P.A<rno"s ; h �_.• s. � � � NO.: b- _ .44 w . I ,o,.• ' ,,> nn• r z• BELcg7 roe toorrt _°' ,may „•, ' V +Y O "° ti + •1 NORTH 1t�^ i r riRisl - .,.... zs£ s ........ • ORIVC�MrvAtt S "`k• +�� $ aZIAC ' IPKASPREPAFEDFOR 30 `•", O POB Lar '> S4A COJNTYASSESSORDEPT. T 4 03, ITSAASSESSOR SCWUCCYY hN ASS NO SIMETS In � �iRMSRESERYED iO K OC"GKT W)ff COM ASSEM IM MARCH /99/ NOTE-ASSESSORS BLOCK L ASSESSOR'$MA/ TRACT NO //450 M.M. 49/•4270461NC PARCEL NUMBERS 0009442 PAGE 31 q'L TRACT NO. 1/605 M M. 499-/0,//,/2 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGi PARCEL MAP P. M 208-48 ; --•-• ---�� rETmTFF7 : 1-800-345-7334 0 0 APN: 442-311-72 APN: 442-311-56 APN: 442-041-30 Belcourt Master Assn Belcourt Master Assn Belcourt Medical Partner P.O. Box 4708 P.O. Box 4708 3355 Via Lido No. 205 Irvine CA92716 Irvine CA92716 Newport Beach CA92663 APN: 442-311-69 APN: 442-041-20 APN: 442-042-10 Belcourt Master Assn Mariners Church Irvine Co P.O. Box 4708 1000 Bison Ave. 550 Newport Center Dr. Irvine CA92716 Newport Beach CA92660-420 Newport Beach CA92660 APN: 442-041-07 APN: 939-63-158 APN: 939-63-159 United States Postal Servi Barbara H. Carlson Gary L. Kramer Western Region 2 Hillsdale Dr. 4 Hillsdale Dr. San Bruno CA94099 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-160 APN: 939-63-112 APN: 939-63-113 James D. Tuccinardi Harold Newman Jay E. Myers 6 Hillsdale Dr. 8 Hillsdale Dr. 10 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-114 APN: 939-63-115 APN: 939-63-105 Paper Associates Inc Carl M. Frova Marvin R. Udkoff 12310 Slauson Ave. 14 Hillsdale Dr. 15 Hillsdale Dr. Santa Fe Spgs CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-116 APN: 939-63-106 APN: 939-63-117 John H. Connell George Eastman Ghobad Fakhimi 16 Hillsdale Dr. 17 Hillsdale Dr. 18 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-107 APN: 939-63-118 APN: 939-63-108 Robert R. Burge Charles A. Martin Anita Jeannie Ziebe 19 Hillsdale Dr. P.O. Box 34022 21 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Fullerton CA92634 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-119 APN: 939-63-109 APN: 939-63-120 Christopher W. Rose Thomas D. Keyes James T. Rountree 22 Hillsdale Dr. 23 Hillsdale Dr. 24 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-110 APN: 939-63-121 APN: 939-63-111 Donald Roy Sheetz James E. Lawson Richard Bizal 25 Hillsdale Dr. 26 Hillsdale Dr. 27 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-122 APN: 939-63-123 APN: 939-63-124 Gerlinde A. Gerlach Jeff Dennis Ferentz Lynda Kay Chikovani 28 Hillsdale Dr. 30 Hillsdale Dr. 32 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-125 APN: 939-63-126 APN: 939-63-127 Joan C. Maifeld George Raluy George N. Irwin 34 Hillsdale Dr. 36 Hillsdale Dr. 38 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-136 APN: 939-63-128 APN: 939-63-137 Paul F. Marx Diego Ostroski Cristy Scheuer 39 Hillsdale Dr. 40 Hillsdale Dr. 41 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-129 APN: 939-63-138 APN: 939-63-130 George M. Campion Timothy E. Green Donald M. Tarbell 42 Hillsdale Dr. 43 Hillsdale Dr. 44 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-139 APN: 939-63-131 APN: 939-63-132 George M. Anderson Roy E. Doupe Ronald L. Felsot 45 Hillsdale Dr. 46 Hillsdale Dr. 48 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-133 APN: 939-63-134 APN: 939-63-135 Victor H. Indiek Hamplon Inc Frank Joklik 5o Hillsdale Dr. 12304 Santa Monica Blvd. 1127 Oak Hills Way Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Los Angeles CA90025 Salt Lake Cty UT84108 APN: 939-63-140 APN: 939-63-141 APN: 939-63-142 Gerald L. Greer James T. Mc Kitrick Gary L. Davidson 55 Hillsdale Dr. 57 Hillsdale Dr. 5,9 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-143 APN: 939-63-144 APN: 939-63-145 Robert S. Borders Charles W. Hester Marian B. Reedy 61 Hillsdale Dr. 63 Hillsdale Dr. 65 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-146 APN: 939-63-147 APN: 939-63-148 Beverley June Goebel Bonnie Leetmaa Alan Howard Rifkin 67 Hillsdale Dr. 6819 Gulf of Mexico Dr. 71 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Longboat Key FL34228 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-149 APN: 939-63-150 APN: 939-63-151 H. Frank Yoder Virginia C. Zenzs Richard H. Wheaton 17291 Irvine Blvd. No. 41 75 Hillsdale Dr. 77 Hillsdale Dr. Tustin CA92680 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-152 APN: 939-63-153 APN: 939-63-154 James Gilbert Chandler Robert H. Curtin Howard H. Magor 79 Hillsdale Dr. 81 Hillsdale Dr. 83 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 • 0 APN: 939-63-155 APN: 939-63-156 APN: 939-63-157 Allen B. Massey Hilton Trust James M. Peters 85 Hillsdale Dr. 87 Hillsdale Dr. 49 Belcourt Dr. N Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660 APN: 442-042-09 APN: 442-311-71 Irvine Co Douglas De Cinces 550 Newport Center Dr. 2 Leesbury Newport Beach CA92660 Newport Beach CA92660-4237 APN: 442-311-72 APN: 442-311-56 APN: 442-041-30 Belcourt Master Assn Belcourt Master Assn Belcourt Medical Partner P.O. Box 4708 P.O. Box 4708 3355 Via Lido No. 205 Irvine CA92716 Irvine CA92716 Newport Beach CA92663 APN: 442-311-69 APN: 442-041-20 APN: 442-042-10 Belcourt Master Assn Mariners Church Irvine Co P.O. Box 4708 1000 Bison Ave. 550 Newport Center Dr. Irvine CA92716 Newport Beach CA92660-420 Newport Beach CA92660 APN: 442-041-07 APN: 939-63-158 APN: 939-63-159 United States Postal Servi Barbara H. Carlson Gary L. Kramer Western Region 2 Hillsdale Dr. 4 Hillsdale Dr. San Bruno CA94099 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-160 APN: 939-63-112 APN: 939-63-113 James D. Tuccinardi Harold Newman Jay E. Myers 6 Hillsdale Dr. 8 Hillsdale Dr. 10 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-114 APN: 939-63-115 APN: 939-63-105 Paper Associates Inc Carl M. Frova Marvin R. Udkoff 12310 Slauson Ave . 14 Hillsdale Dr. 15 Hillsdale Dr. Santa Fe Spgs CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-116 APN: 939-63-106 APN: 939-63-117 John H. Connell George Eastman Ghobad Fakhimi 16 Hillsdale Dr. 17 Hillsdale Dr. 18 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-107 APN: 939-63-118 APN: 939-63-108 Robert R. Burge Charles A. Martin Anita Jeannie Ziebe 19 Hillsdale Dr. P.O. Box 34022 21 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Fullerton CA92634 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-119 APN: 939-63-109 APN: 939-63-120 Christopher W. Rose Thomas D. Keyes James T. Rountree 22 Hillsdale Dr. 23 Hillsdale Dr. 24 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-110 APN: 939-63-121 APN: 939-63-111 Donald Roy Sheetz James E. Lawson Richard Bizal 25 Hillsdale Dr. 26 Hillsdale Dr. 27 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-122 APN: 939-63-123 APN: 939-63-124 Gerlinde A. Gerlach Jeff Dennis Ferentz Lynda Kay Chikovani 28 Hillsdale Dr. 30 Hillsdale Dr. 32 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 • 0 APN: 939-63-125 APN: 939-63-126 APN: 939-63-127 Joan C. Maifeld George Raluy George N. Irwin 34 Hillsdale Dr. 36 Hillsdale Dr. 38 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-136 APN: 939-63-128 APN: 939-63-137 Paul F. Marx Diego Ostroski Cristy Scheuer 39 Hillsdale Dr. 40 Hillsdale Dr. 41 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-129 APN: 939-63-138 APN: 939-63-130 George M. Campion Timothy E. Green Donald M. Tarbell 42 Hillsdale Dr. 43 Hillsdale Dr. 44 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-139 APN: 939-63-131 APN: 939-63-132 George M. Anderson Roy E. Doupe Ronald L. Felsot 45 Hillsdale Dr. 46 Hillsdale Dr. 48 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-133 APN: 939-63-134 APN: 939-63-135 Victor H. Indiek Hamplon Inc Frank Joklik 50 Hillsdale Dr. 12304 Santa Monica Blvd. 1127 Oak Hills Way Newport Beach CA92660-4234 Los Angeles CA90025 Salt Lake Cty UT84108 APN: 939-63-140 APN: 939-63-141 APN: 939-63-142 Gerald L. Greer James T. Mc Kitrick Gary L. Davidson 55 Hillsdale Dr. 57 Hillsdale Dr. 59 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-143 APN: 939-63-144 APN: 939-63-145 Robert S. Borders Charles W. Hester Marian B. Reedy 61 Hillsdale Dr. 63 Hillsdale Dr. 65 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-146 APN: 939-63-147 APN: 939-63-148 Beverley June Goebel Bonnie Leetmaa Alan Howard Rifkin 67 Hillsdale Dr. 6819 Gulf of Mexico Dr. 71 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Longboat Key FL34228 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-149 APN: 939-63-150 APN: 939-63-151 H. Frank Yoder Virginia C. Zenzs Richard H. Wheaton 17291 Irvine Blvd. No. 41 75 Hillsdale Dr. 77 Hillsdale Dr. Tustin CA92680 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 APN: 939-63-152 APN: 939-63-153 APN: 939-63-154 James Gilbert Chandler Robert H. Curtin Howard H. Magor 79 Hillsdale Dr. 81 Hillsdale Dr. 83 Hillsdale Dr. Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660-42 0 0 APN: 939-63-155 APN: 939-63-156 APN: 939-63-157 Allen B. Massey Hilton Trust James M. Peters 85 Hillsdale Dr. 87 Hillsdale Dr. 49 Belcourt Dr. N Newport Beach CA92660-4235 Newport Beach CA92660-423 Newport Beach CA92660 APN: 442-042-09 APN: 442-311-71 Irvine Co Douglas De Cinces 550 Newport Center Dr. 2 Leesbury Newport Beach CA92660 Newport Beach CA92660-4237