Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TS106
COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES 2ioRFoo92j� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL SUBJECT: Union Oil Item 1 1461 and 1465 Superior Avenue • Use Pernut No. 3566 0P 3566 • Traffic Study No. 106 TS 106 • Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-10 LLA 95-10 • and the acceptance of an environmental EiR document APPLICANT: Philip Dedge Approved Ms. Temple noted that Mr. Delino, the Assistant City Manager was unable to attend tonight's meeting due to an illness in the family. Ms. Temple then noted that this item would allow for construction of a new carwash in the APF District. The site was previously a gasoline service station. Two technical studies have been conducted, a Traffic Study and a Noise Impact Analysis. Design recommendations from these studies have been included in the Staff report. The Applicant has agreed to amend the hours of car wash operation to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily. The gasoline service operation is to be 24 hours. There are two main issues raised in this item, the noise and light generated from a 24 hours. A 24 hours service station may be considered incompatible to adjoining residential land uses of an apartment complex and a senior congregate living facility. Ms. Temple then spoke of employee on-site parking. Comparisons were made by staff to other car wash facilities in the area. She noted that employee parking demand is not high as they tend to carpool or bus to work.. Commissioner Adams asked for and received clarification of elevations of the structure and asked for a revised plan showing length and structure effects on the site. Ms. Temple deferred to the applicant for explanation. -2- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Kranzley asked staff if any study had been done on "stacking" of cars both before and after they are washed in comparisons to other facilities. Ms. Temple answered there were no "stacking" comparisons done and clarified that this was a full service car wash. Commissioner 'Selich asked staff about the lot line adjustment. He wanted to know if the applicant gave any reason for not aligning the parcels. Ms. Temple stated that the applicant wanted to keep the two parcels separate because of a future intention to add more retail uses if the City's ordinances were to be changed. She deferred more detail information from the applicant. The lot line adjustment is ordinarily done when development occurs on a property. There is a condition which requires that the parcels be held as a single building. Ms. Temple then proceeded to explain the site plan noting elevations, distance and wall extension with roofing. Plan Sheet GA-7 shows a change of parking arrangements verified by the applicant. Public Hearing was Opened. Mr. Scott Peotter, Project Manger, 17510 Von Karmen, Irvine. He noted that the previous Unocal gas station had been demolished over two years ago. He explained the service layout of the older station and compared it with the proposed station noting ingress and egress, acoustic remediation, underground vacuums, equipment housing and maintenance of noise standards of 55 decibels. A "stacking" analysis showed that there were 12 cars before and after loading. A revised site plan indicates the stacking areas for 15 cars after loading and 12 cars before loading. This is a full service car wash and gasoline station. An additional two parking spaces along the north property line and 4 parking spaces by the dry off areas will prc vide employee parking making a total of 14 spaces. The sides of the parcels will be landscaped. -3- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES 0i o—�°'� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �9 o ,s October 19, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL Commissioner Ridgeway asked about the extension of the roof line over the tunnel area. Mr. Peotter stated that the trellis areas in front of the building was used due to the requirements of the acoustical report. The requirement was to go over the width only of the tunnel area rather than extending whole roof area. A conventional roof framing could be incorporated within the trellis configuration if Commission requires. Commissioner Kranzley asked Mr. Peotter if cars are allowed to be left on site or will they be removed? Mr. Peotter stated that the cars will be removed due to the location of the site. If a problem occurs, then signage will be added. Commission noted a potential stacking problem with.potential users in the office buildings across the street leaving their cars. Mr. Peotter stated that Unocal would post signage to eliminate/prevent addressing stacking problem from occurring. Mr. Peotter stated that a revised site plan was posted on the wall. These revisions/adjustments were done as a result of concerns raised in the staff report. At the request of Commissioner Selich, the Applicant explained the reasons for a lot line adjustment. There are two existing parcels that comply for zoning as individual parcels. It would be hard to re-establish if they were combined. By establishing an active property line, the building code is used for distances and types of construction rather than rY imag ina property line which is arbitrarily placed in the middle between P P Y the projects.ro"ects. This allows for underground gas tank storage a with no use on top to remain separate from the car wash and service area. If the Commission recommends consolidation rather than adjustment tment that would be acceptable to Unocal. Commissioner Adams referred to conditions of underground tank construction. Is this governed by building code and what measures are -4- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES T\J+F'9p,°\�Gj�cj CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL being taken to insure public safety and concerns of future site remediation? Staff answered that this is subject to other agencies' permits. County Public Health is the primary agency that reviews and governs tank installation and if affected, the Regional Water Quality Control Board would look at these issues. The uniform Fire and Building Codes contain standard requirements. The Building Department does not issue permit(s) until the Applicant receives permits from the County Public Health Department first. Mr. Al Newman, 811 West 15th Street, B-2 - noted that residential build-out has occurred since the demolition of the previous station including apartment complex and a senior congregate facility. He stated that the residents are concerned with the all night operations, holding space of cars so near their spa area, lights, and traffic patterns of ingress and egress, noting that many accidents have occurred at this intersection. Commissioner Ridgeway suggested that Mr. Newman read the staff report that would answer his concerns regarding traffic and noise, etc., particularly pages 7 thru 13. He noted that the Commission would take in consideration his concerns of noise and light. Commissioner Adams asked the date of the demolition of the previous gas station and what other types of uses are in the APF Zone? Staff answered that the date of demolition was August, 1992. Permitted uses in an APF District (administrative, professional and financial commercial district) allows for a broad range of office and retail uses including restaurants, hotels and motels. Clarification was made that the apartment building and senior congregate facility were built when the previous gas station was in operation. Standard Conditions regarding light spillage and glare are included as part of the mitigation measures attached to the negative declaration. -5- �L COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES 0ioycF�'F2 "0�9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH oti \ October 19, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL The applicant stated that the existing station was opened 24 hours a day on and off according to market conditions and business promotions. The lighting will be dimmed when the wash facilities are closed, but allow enough light for security, it will be high density discharge metal halite aimed directly down on to the site with sharp cut offs. The applicant then brought forward an old aerial map of the location for site determinations. Traffic concerns were addressed by Mr. Edmonston. He stated that the recommendations in the staff report regarding access have been discussed with the applicant. The proposal is not to have any left turn access onto this site off Superior or Placentia. A double, double yellow line area painted on the street could allow a narrow raised median. This, could be an added condition that would be funded by the Applicant. The portion of the median that would be across the frontage of the proposed service station and car wash is presently stripped allowing left turns both north and south. Left turns could be made when the old station was in service. These double yellow lines were painted for traffic safety when the old gas station was closed. Mr. Newman approached the podium and looked at the aerial map and indicated his apartment building and pointed out the various destinations' of use by the service station. There is a building between the service station and the apartment complex. Commissioner Adams asked W. Edmonston if a Condition closing the access on Placentia could be considered. This would mitigate concerns of the local residents. Pierre Langevin, 403 Bolero Way - spoke up in opposition of this Use Permit. He expressed similar concerns with speeding and the noise of gas truck dropping gas loads any time of the day or night. Commissioner Kranzley asked Mr. Langevin the hours of operation, as he used to manage the old gas station. He answered, 6 a.m, to 10 p.m. and there was never all night service while he was managing. -6- COMMISSION ERS MINUTES Ol� O so c CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19, 1995 ti ROLL INDEX CALL Commissioner Gifford asked if he had observed the exiting patterns onto Placentia turning left. He answered that it had been a frequent occurrence and that most people drove very fast coming into and going out. Debra Des Jardins, 821 West 15th Street, No. 3A- spoke in opposition of this Use Permit. She presented a petition signed by several residents in the complex who are also in opposition. She addressed their concerns of increased noise. She asks the Commission to think about the residents and their property value. Commissioner Adams stated that all of the Commission are aware of the noise and the impact of land uses of surrounding residents. The conditions on this project are such that the applicant is required to provide noise attenuation and reduce noise levels established by City Ordinance. This is an established gas station site that has remained under the ownership of Unocal, anybody purchasing a condominium or taking residence in a retirement type facility next door should have known the established use. It should come as no surprise that the owner wants to rebuild the gas station. They are changing the use by proposing a car wash. This change in Land Use should not significantly impact the residences. Staff stated that supplemental acoustical analysis shall be performed to validate that the operation of the business stays within the parameters o the City's Noise Ordinance which is a maximum of 55 Decibels at each property line. The applicant is required to submit a lighting plan prepared by a licensed electrical engineer verifying that the proposed lighting plan will not produce direct light spillage and glare onto adjoining properties. This is also validated in the field- after construction. Any ongoing noise impacts, if the City receives reports o complaint they will be investigated by the Code Enforcement Division o Planning and Building Department and possibly by the Police Department if complaint occurred at night or on the weekend. Mr. Edmonston then responded to the question of driveway closure on Placentia. He stated that from a public access standpoint, a closure -7- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES ''soy� ��9a �, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL would have no particular impact, whether or not it would impact the ability of tanker trucks to service the site in any manner, he has no information. There is in increased traffic use in that area due to the City of Costa Mesa putting in diverters in some residential neighborhoods that cut out access to northern Newport Beach. Discussion ensued regarding traffic egress and ingress to the gas station off from both Placentia and Superior Avenues. Mr. Bob Richardson, 19485 Mariposa, Riverside - owner of the structure between the condominium complex and the gas station addressed the Commission. He asked for copies of elevation and plot view of the car wash. He is concerned with the lot being vacant with no development. He is opposed to medians on Placentia Avenue. Mr. Tom Hyans, 217 19th Street -'spoke for his mother-in-law who lives at the senior facility. The building is three stories with balconies on the second and third floors. The views from these balconies will be directly down the tunnel of the car wash as it is proposed. He is concerned with the additional noise. He would like inserted into the Conditions that the trees on the southerly property line be mature trees rather than small plantings. The Applicant, Mr. Peotter addressed the hours of gas drops. They could be restricted between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. There are two lighting levels, at the cashier with more intense lighting, and, by the gas canopies. The car wash closing at 6:00 p.m. would require a minimum of lighting in that area. The driveway on Placentia is where their tankers are proposed to come in to do gas drops. The driveway also allows extra stacking for gas pump queuing. Mature trees can be planted, with no protest by Unocal. Gas hours of operation are requested to be 24 hours because of their statewide push for uniformity. If not, they propose, close at midnight and open at 5 a.m. Discussion followed regarding gas deliveries timing, shut off time, conflict with uses on site during day and potential operational problems -8- I - COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES \o o°o� �`T° soti CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �°9� October 19, 1995 i ROLL INDEX CALL relative to the driveway on Placentia being a danger to the motoring public. Mr. Peotter stated that they are expecting a volume of approximately 9,000 gallons of gas to be sold at night per month with $11,000 to $12,000/month generated revenue in this credit card facility. This would be facilitated by approximately five deliveries per week. Mature landscaping purposes would be served by 40" box trees with minimum height of 15 feet. Mr. Peotter then was asked to point out the locations of the new gas tanks in relation to the location of the old tanks. It was noted the new tanks are further away from the pool area and closer to Placentia at the same depth. Commissioner Adams asked the applicant to agree to constructing a raised concrete median for the distance of their property on Superior Avenue. Mr. Peotter stated that Unocal would be agreeable. Ms. Clauson requested a Covenant be recorded stating that the properties will be held as one as long as the use is there. The applicant stated Unocal would have no problem. Mr. Langevin stated that he is concerned with the gas drops being done at any time. He was assured that if there is a violation of any condition or requirement, a call of complaint to the City or Planning Department would commence a Code Enforcement action to bring the operation into compliance with all Conditions of Approval. Public Hearine was Closed. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3566, Traffic Study No. 106, Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-10 and the acceptance of an environmental document with the following modifications: • Hours of gas delivery are limited to 7:00•a.m. to 8:00 p.m. s Hours of sales of gas limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. A concrete median is installed on Superior in a location to be designated by the Traffic Engineer at the cost of the applicant -9- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES 011- °� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'Po �9php9�s October 19, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX • Authority is granted to Traffic Engineer to close or limit the ingress and egress on Placentia if appropriate • Mature landscaping along all the borders consist of 40" box trees with minimum 15 foot height • Signs to be posted • Resubdivision of the two parcels into one, to be consistent with the Municipal Code. Commissioner Selich requested an amendment to the motion requiring a parcel map consolidating the two parcels rather than a Lot Line Adjustment. This amendment was agreed to by all parties and incorporated in the motion. Ayes * * * * ** MOTION CARRIED. 1 Absent, 6 Ayes. Absent * A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measures: Findings: 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a. significant effect on the environment, therefore a. Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the -10- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES Atoll, o�F9oo�gs CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Mnimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c)of Title 14, CCR i0itigation Measures: 1. That the project access along Superior Avenue, closest to Placentia Avenue, shall be eliminated unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 2. That the project access along Superior Avenue furthest from Placentia Avenue shall be restricted to "right-inhight-out" access only, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be appropriately signed in accordance with requirements of the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That the project access along Placentia Avenue shall be restricted to "right-in"access only, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall provide written certification acceptable to the City's Building Department signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contamination has been cleared. 5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department and Fire Department that the project is in compliance with the County o Orange Health Department and the City's Fire Department Regulations. 6. The wash tunnels shall be extended approximately 20 feet at the entrance and approximately 16 feet at the exit, as described in Exhibit 3 of the noise analysis showing the recommended extensions. These tunnels are required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control -11- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH moo c `9��o9s October 19, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL Regulations. The extensions shall have a roof that is at least as wide as the wash tunnel entrance and the inside wall of the tunnel extensions shall be constructed of a rough block face. The roof and wall structures for the extension shall have a surface density of at least 4.0 pounds per square foot. Any masonry material will meet this requirement. 'Two layers of 3/4 inch plywood will also meet the requirement (although this should be checked with the architect or structural engineer, since plywood densities do vary). The inside surface of the wall of the extension shall be of non-reflective surface. Rough split face block would satisfy this requirement. Acoustic panels and other options are available that would also be non-reflective. 7. That the blower that is to be installed in the project shall meet a requirement of generating a noise level of 83 dBA at a distance of 5 feet (Worldwide blower with the silencer kit or equivalent blower/dryer). 8. That the vacuum accumulators shall be enclosed in a structure that reduces noise by at least 10 dBA. These enclosures are required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City o Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations. 9. The proposed project will potentially generate noise levels that would exceed the City's maximum noise limits. The only noise source that is loud enough to exceed the maximum noise level limits are car horns. Therefore the use of car horns by attendants to signal customers that their cars are finished shall be prohibited. 10. That the skylight in the tunnel wash area shall be 1/4-inch glass or 5/8-inch Plexiglas. A thin plastic skylight will not suffice to reduce the car wash noise to levels that comply with the City o Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations. 11. That the hours of operation of the car wash shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., daily, and that the -12- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX gasoline dispensing shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. daily; unless further restricted by the Planning Commission or the City Council in conjunction with the use permit. 12. Prior to issuance of a certificate of Occupancy, a detailed acoustical analysis report shall be prepared describing the noise generation of the project based on the detailed project design, noise attenuation features, and equipment specifications. The report shall demonstrate that the project does not exceed allowable noise levels as described in County of Orange Noise Control Ordinance or the adopted Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations with respect to the residential properties adjacent to the project site, whichever is more restrictive. The report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director ofPlanning. 13. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system is designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer,with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion,this requirement has been met. B. USE PERMIT NO. 3566 Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. -13- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES T01'9°A�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That public improvements may be required of the developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. That adequate parking exists on-site to serve the gasoline station/car wash facility. 5. That the establishment of the subject business will not have an significant environmental impact. 6. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3566 for the proposed-use will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare o persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood o the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations (and in accordance with development standards specified in Chapter 20.70), except a noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-10 combining the two parcel into a single parcel or building site, shall be recorded and all conditions of approval shall be fulfilled, prior to issuance of an Building Permits. 4. That the subject car wash facility shall be operated as an integral part of the gasoline station as a single business entity (subject t the provisions of Chapter 20.70 of the Municipal Code), and an change in the status to create two independent operations shall be subject to an amendment to the use permit. -14- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES 0 c� ° �10 °c 9 �o0�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19, 1995 °2 °h�0� ROLL INDEX CALL 5. That the sale of merchandise from other than vending machines is prohibited, except as specified in Chapter 20.70 of the Municipal Code. 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 7. That a minimum of 14 parking spaces shall be provided on site for the proposed facility. 8. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Engineer may require the closure, or limit the ingress or egress on Placentia Avenue, if appropriate. 9. That the intersection of the private approaches and the public streets (Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue) be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 10. That the existing deteriorated drive approaches on Superior Avenue be reconstructed and that the deteriorated or displaced sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along the Superior Avenue and the Placentia Avenue frontages. A concrete median shall be installed on Superior Avenue in a location designated by the Traffic Engineer. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 11. That the drainage from the car wash be collected on-site so that it does not track out onto the public right-of-way. 12. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper -15- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES T\�,`�'�°� \ �0� , CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �ro2 October 19, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL 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 delivery of materials within the Superior Avenue or Placentia Avenue right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 13. 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. 14. That a sewer cleanout be provided at property line in conformance with City Standard 406-L. 15. That a landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Director and the Public Works Department. Said landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan and shall be permanently maintained. That the landscaping installed on all property borders be mature, including 40" box trees with a minimum 15 foot height. 16. That the landscaping shall not obstruct the line of sight of vehicles exiting the subject property. That the City Traffic Engineer shall approve the final location of the landscaping prior to issuance of building permits. 17. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be fully screened from view of Superior Avenue, Placentia Avenue, and adjoining properties(including from above). 18. That the outdoor storage of tires and other auto related parts or merchandise shall be prohibited on-site. 19. That the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. -16- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES °Po%y°Oc�F9 �os CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 20. That the wash tunnel area shall also be protected so as to prevent drainage from the parking lot from entering the sewer system. The drain shall be connected to the sewer system and have a grease trap. The design and installation of the above facilities shall be approved by the Utilities Department. 21. That the hours of operation of the car wash shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., daily; and that the gasoline dispensing shall be permitted from 6:00 a.m. to.12:00 a.m. That hours of gasoline delivery are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., daily. 22. That all signs shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 23. That all employees shall park on-site at all times. 24. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 25. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. C. TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 106 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L-18 (formerly S-1). -17- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES T\���9° -1 9�`3° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH oti 0�w�� October 19, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any'major,"primary-modified,'or'primary'street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on the four study intersections and that the ICU analysis for all four intersections indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90. D. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 95-10 Findings: 1. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal. parcels. 2. That no additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment. 3. The project complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. 5. The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and/or facilities. 6. That in this particular case, the proposal would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the modification as approved would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -18- COMMISSIIO\N\ERS MINUTES �\s o 1- o o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Aso October 19, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL Conditions: 1. Prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. 2. Upon approval of the lot line adjustment, the lot line adjustment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for checking. 3. The lot line adjustment and grant deeds shall be filed concurrently with.the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 4. That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3566 shall be fulfilled. 5. That this approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.81.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. em applicant) 2744 East Coast Highway • ,UsePerndtNo. 3568 UP 3568 APPLICANT: S Approved Establishment of a full-service resta t with on-sale beer and wine and live entertainment. Also included in the r est is a waiver of a portion o the required off-street parking. Staff explained that this was a request to convert an exi Use Permit of a fast food restaurant to a traditional restaurant operation. The ' a , issue -19- ,1` '�;•. �u`','¢�4"'4E�`4�,£�' yn���: .. ':. . '.� .' it s.s �� . PS "4i't+: .r•. �, ." VY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GARY L GIIA6VILLE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNTYCLERK U NTY O F= '1 (� (� TELEPHONE:7U/l042NE OCT•13 1995 OLD COUNTY COURTHOUSE 2 , AM PM 211 W SANTA ANASLVO. P.O. 'BOX 22013 •5 3 RANGE •Mf�Q`��`1,1iV1ll11i1-LA31415i6 SANTA ANA•CA 92702.2013 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK'ho ' f morandum TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports - Amendment of "Public Resources Code, .Section 21092 .3" . The attached Negati c a ion was received, filed, and a copy was posted on It remained posted for 20 (twenty) calendar days. Gad *nvl,00 C1 rof Ca if dof Orange. By: Deputy Public Resource Code 21092.3 The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080 .4 and 21092 for an evironmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county***in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative declaration shall be so posted for a period of 20 days, unless otherwise required by law to be posted for 30 days The County Clerk shall post notices within 24 hours of receipt. Public Resourse Code 21152 (c) All -notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days *** . Thereafter, the clerk chall return the notice to the local lead agency *** with a notation of the period it was posted. The local lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Addition or changes by underline: deletions by •«« L .,iMISSIONERS MINUTES 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 5, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX SUBJECT: Union Oil Item 1 1461 and 1465 Superior Avenue • Use Permit No. 3566 UP 3566 Traffic Study No. 106 Ts 106 I� • Lot Line Adjustment No. 9S-10 LLA 95-10 • and the acceptance of an emdronniental i ! rlocrunent APPLICANT: Philip Dedge Motion i I * i Motion to continue tonext Ayes. Commission on October 19, 1995. continued tc MOTION CARRIED. AllAll Ayes l l l ! 10/19/95 I I Item 2 i 1401 Bayside Drive i ! i • CRDPNo. 22 aml Resrrbrlivision No. 1017 CRDP 22 Resub 1017 I I ' APPLTCANT: Same iApproved Demolition of a 12 unit apa ent complex and the approval of a parcel j I map resubdividing an existing pare 1. f land into three lots for single-family residential purposes; a request to prove a Coastal Residential Development Permit for the purpose of a blishing project compliance pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for t is jimplementation of the State Law relative to Low and Moderate Income H using within the Coastal Zone. Commissioner Ridgeway stepped down from the dais because of a co ct of interest. -2- aE,p„oRr CrrY OF 2VEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: October 19, 1995 PIANNING\BUXLDING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 1 jg 33 o NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, AICP NEWPORT BEACH,U 9260 (714) 644-3206 (7r4)694g2—,FAX(74)644-VSO Avveal Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Union Oil(Phillip Dedge-applicant) 1461 and 1465 Superior Avenue SUMMARY: To construct a car wash and gasoline station facility in the APF District. Also included is a lot line adjustment realigning the interior lot be between two existing parcels of land. ACTION: If desired, approve,modify or deny: • Use Permit No. 3566, (Continued Public Hearing) • Traffic Study No. 106,(Continued Public Hearing) • Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-10, (Continued Public Hearing) • and the acceptance of an environmental document Background The Planning Department has in the recent past received inquiries related to the possibility of adding mini-marts or convenience markets to existing gasoline service stations. The applicants have indicated that the high cost of land, the relatively low profits generated from the sale of gasoline and service repairs make it difficult to survive economically. The original application submitted for this site included a convenience market in the area of the cashier. The applicant was presented with a copy of Chapter 20.70 of the Municipal Code related to Automobile Service Stations and subsequently redesigned the project to remove the upright refrigeration units and will only sell items as specified in Chapter 20.70 of the Municipal Code. OM33MOEUXISSIMS 1. Combining of Parcels Required: Is the approval of a Lot Line Adjustment which retains the two parcel configuration, where the Municipal Code requires that the two parcels be combined into a single building site, appropriate in this case. 2. Noise Impacts: Is the noise associated with the proposed facility compatible with the neighboring residential uses and if so, should the hours of the operation be limited? 0 p VICINITY MAP a R-2 R-2 r o \ s trrr w A•r .wr 4[A<n �` R-J Rd R-f / r i V C a A P F t%sc .� (GP Y G NFn H!Nl %AX p �` '•/} ^t blaW .r. N.oJ s 1, WA 1 m Nrn : °ctic �aty� �m � fated 0loW APf"' } (cool i } 7E W. ,. PF AP A'/rI/iAi i APF•„ �{ Use Permit No. 3566 Traffic Study No. 106 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-101 1 & ject PropgLtXand Sounding Land Uses The subject property is currently vacant and was formerly occupied by a Unocal Service Station and related oft-street ping spaces. To•the north, is a multi-unit apartment complex and residential condominium project beyond to the ? sou 'across Placentia Avenue, is a commercial entail center (Seven-Eleven convenience mart); to the south across Superior Avenue,is a bank building and commercial office uses;and to the southwest and west, are a congregate care i residential facility and a mature of residential uses and commercial office uses. us*rmnit No.3566,Traff c Study No.106 and Lot Line Adjustment No.95-10 October 19,1995 Page 2 Y 3. Traffic and Parking Impacts on Surrounding Neighborhood:Would the project create significant traffic and parking impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods, and if so, what measures can be employed to reduce these impacts. These issues are discussed in the Analysis Summary and in greater detail in the Analysis Section of Appendix"A", attached at the end of this report. ANALYSIS SUMMARY-KEY ISSUES COMBIMNG OFL07SREQUIRED-Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-10 Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that where a building site is comprised of more than one subdivided lot, or fraction thereof a resubdivision is required when new construction or alterations to existing structures in excess of$20,000 is proposed in any one year period. The construction cost of the proposed car wash facility will be considerably in excess of that limit and, therefore a resubdivision can be required to combine the lots into a single building site. The applicant has chosen to submit the accompanying Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-10 to reconfigure and retain two separate parcels,rather than combine them into a single parcel or building site. Staff has no objection with the proposed configuration, but has provided the appropriate condition of approval requiring that the project be operated as a single entity and any change in that status will be subject to an amendment to the use permit. However, should the Planning Commission desire to require the applicant to combine the two lots into a single parcel of land for the proposed project, the following substitute Condition of Approval No. 3 to Use Permit No. 3566, should be incorporated into the attached Exhibit"A". 3. That Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-10 combining the two parcels into a single parcel or building site, shall be recorded and all conditions of approval shall be fulfilled, prior to issuance of any Building Permits. Use Permit No. 3566 The applicant requests to establish a gasoline station (24 hour service) and a fiill service car wash facility. The car washing facility will be located within a tunnel structure at the southerly side of the subject property. The proposed facility is designed in accordance with all development standards for automobile service stations. The applicant has indicated that the facility will employ approximately ten to fifteen persons. Use Penult No.3566,Traffic Study No.106 and Lot Line Adjustment No.95-10 October 19,1995 Page 0 Proiect Characteristics 0 8t`dtlpil Hours: car wash service 8:00 am.to 6:00 p.m.,daily gasoline service 24 hour Gross Bldg.Area(sq.ft.): 854t Tunnel(sq.ft.): 1,240f TOTAL(sq.ft.) 2t094± Canopy s .ft. : 1960 Pump Islands otal' um s : 3 12 pumps) Building Setbacks: Superior Ave: 72 ft. Placentia Ave: 1841. Northerly Property Line: 84 ft. Southerly Property Line: 18 ft. Canopy Setbacks: Superior Ave: 20 ft. Placentia Ave: 40 ft. Northerly Property Line: 34 ft. Southerly Property Line: 118 ft. Heights of Structures Building: 21t ft. Canopy: 20f ft. Parking: Required for gas station only: 4 space?: Provided: 1 10 spaces NOISE ISSUE-Noise Analysis Study Staff is of the opinion that the noise issues have'been addressed by the noise analysis study and the mitigation measures.as recommended and incorporated into the attached Exhibit"A";related to hours of operation and construction requirements. 2 A detailed discussion of the parldng may be found in the attached Appendix"A". Uw Pcnnit No.3566,Traffic StudyNo.106 and Lot Line AdjusunentNo.95.10 octoba 19,1993 Page4 M Hours of Operation The Plans submitted by the applicant show the proposed hours of operation of the gasoline dispensing as 24 hours and the car wash facility from 6:00 am. to 8:00 p.m.. Staff contacted the applicant and agreed to change the hours to between 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily. This would lessen the noise and traffic impacts on the neighboring residential uses? The representative for the applicant has indicated that he may address the issue of the hours of operation at the hearing. Due to the proximity of residential uses adjacent to the proposed project,the Commission may wish to consider public comments which will be presented at the hearing with regard to the proposed 24 hour gasoline dispensing operation, and may choose to fiuther limit the hours by changing Condition of Approval No. 21 of Use Permit No. 3566, accordingly. 7R4FFICIMPACT ISSUES-Traffic Study No. 106 Staff is of the opinion that these issues have been adequately addressed by the traffic study, discussed in detail in Appendix"A'. Since the site has been vacant for more than one year,the construction ofthe new facility is not entitled to credit for the previously existing use, and the facility would generate more than 300 additional trips, thereby triggering the requirement for a traffic study. The proposed project will have a nominal impact on the level of service at the key intersections identified the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any 'major,' 'primary-modified,' or 'primary street and the ICU analysis of the four identified intersections will not exceed 0.90. Therefore, the project satisfies the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy Ir18. Off-Street Parkin The applicant has indicated that eight parking spaces will be provided on site to accommodate the employees and patrons. Staff is of the opinion that the parking may not be adequate to accommodate the projected 10 to 15 employees. The Commission may wish to consider requiring additional-parking spaces for employees. The applicant has indicated a willingness to provide 2 additional parking spaces on site(not shown on the plan),by additional striping along the northerly property line,for a total of 10 spaces. The appropriate condition of approval has been incorporated into the attached Exhibit"A". Specific Findings and Recommendations Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, 3 It should be noted that the car wash facility located at 1200 West Coast Highway was conditioned to operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 6:00 p.m.,daily. Use Pemtit No.3566,Traffic Study No.lOG and Lot Line Adjustment No.95-10 October 19,1995 Page t Y morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or worldng in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve these applications, suggested actions and appropriate findings and conditions are set forth in Exhibit"A" Should.the Commission desire to deny the applications the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit`B"are suggested. PLANNINGBUR DING DEPARTMENT Javier S. Gar ia,AICP Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit"A" Exhibit`B" Appendix"A" Negative Declaration Traffic StudyNo. 106 Noise Analysis.Study Proposed Plot Plan,Floor Plan and Elevations F.\WP51TLMNMCMPUBNOWN9510I9WP35MDW Use Pomut No.3566,TmlQc Study No.106 and Lot Lino AdjusUwdlio.95-10 October 19,1995 Page • • I ~ ENMIT"A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3566, TRAFFIC STUDYNO. 106 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 95-10 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Accept the environmental document, making the following findings and requiring the following mitigation measures: Findings: 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study,could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Mmimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c)of Title 14, CCR. Mitigation Measures: 1. That the project access along Superior Avenue,closest to Placentia Avenue, shall be eliminated unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. 2. That the project access along Superior Avenue furthest from Placentia Avenue shall be restricted to "right-intright-out" access only, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be appropriately signed in accordance with requirements of the City Traffic Engineer. 3. That the project access along Placentia Avenue shall be restricted to "right-in" access only, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide written certification acceptable to the City's Building Department signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has Use Pemdt No.3566,Traffic Study No.106 and Lot Line Adjustment No.95-10 October 19,1995 Page 7 undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contamination has been cleared. 5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department and Fire Department that the project is in compliance with the County of Orange Health Department and the CiWs Fire.Department Regulations. 6. The wash tunnels shall be extended approximately 20 feet at the entrance and approximately 16 feet at the exit, as described in Exhibit 3 of the noise analysis showing the recommended extensions. These tunnels are required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations. The extensions shall have a roof that is at least as wide as the wash tunnel entrance and the inside wall of the tunnel extensions shall be constructed of a rough block face. The roof and wall structures for the extension shall have a surface density of at least 4.0 pounds per square foot. Any masonry material will meet this requirement. Two layers of 3/4 inch plywood will also meet the requirement (although this should be checked with the architect or structural engineer, since plywood densities do vary). TheInside surface of the wall of the extension shall be of non-reflective surface. Rough split face block would satisfy this requirement. Acoustic panels and other options are available that would also be non-reflective. 7. That the blower that is to be installed in the project shall meet a requirement of generating a noise level of 83 dBA at a distance of 5 feet (Worldwide blower with the silencer kit or equivalent blower/dryer). 8. That the vacuum accumulators shall be enclosed in a structure that reduces noise by at least 10 dBA. These enclosures are required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations. 9. The proposed project will potentially generate noise levels that would exceed the City's maximum noise limits. The only noise source that is loud enough to exceed the maximum noise level limits are car horns. Therefore, the use of car horns by attendants to signal' customers that their cars are finished shall be prohibited. 10. That the skylight in the tunnel wash area shall be 1/4-inch glass or 5/8-inch Plexiglas. A thin plastic skylight will not suffice to reduce the car wash noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations. 11. That the hours of operation of the car wash shall be limited to between.the'hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., daily, and that the gasoline dispensing shall be permitted to operate 24 hours, daily,unless further restricted by the Planning Commission or the City Council in conjunction with the use penult. 12. Prior to issuance of a certificate of Occupancy, a detailed acoustical analysis report shall be prepared describing the noise generation of the project based on the detailed project design, U;o PcnnitNo.3566,Two Study No.106 and Lot Lino Adjustment No.95.10 October 19,1995 Page 8 noise attenuation features, and equipment specifications. The report shall demonstrate that the project does not exceed allowable noise levels as described in County of Orange Noise Control Ordinance or the adopted Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations with respect to the residential properties adjacent to the project site, whichever is more restrictive. The report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director ofPlanning. 13. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system is designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that,in his opinion,this requirement has been met. B. USE PERMIT NO. 3566 Findings: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. 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. 3. That public improvements may be required of the developer per Section 20.80:060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. That adequate parking exists on-site to serve the gasoline station/car wash facility. 5. That the establishment of the subject business will not have any significant environmental impact. 6. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3566 for the proposed use 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. Conditions: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations (and in accordance with development standards specified in Chapter 20.70), except as noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. Use Permit No.3566,Tic Study No.306 and Lot Line Adjustment No.95-10 October 19,1995 Page 3. That Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-10 shall be recorded and all conditions of approval shall be fulfilled, prior to issuance of any Building Permits. 4. That the subject car wash facility shall be operated as an integral ,part of the gasoline station as a single business entity (subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.76 of the Municipal Code), and,any change in the status to create two independent operations shall be subject to an amendment to the use permit. 5. That the sale of merchandise from other than vending machines is prohibited, except as specified in Chapter 20.70 ofthe Municipal Code. 6. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map, lot line adjustment or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public J g P P P improvements. 7. That a minimum of 10 parking spaces shall be provided on site for the proposed facility. 8. That the on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 9. That the intersection of the private approaches and the public streets (Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue) be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 40 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. 10. That the existing deteriorated drive approaches on Superior Avenue be reconstructed and that the deteriorated or displaced sections of sidewalk be reconstructed along the Superior Avenue and the Placentia Avenue frontages. That all work be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 11. That the drainage from the car wash be collected on-site so that it does not track out onto the public right-of-way. 12. 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 delivery of materials within the Superior Avenue or Placentia Avenue right-of-way unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Use Pemut No.3566,Traffic StudyNo.106 and Lot Line Adjudw dNo.95.10 October 19,1995 Page 10 13. 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. 14. That a sewer cleanout be provided at property line in conformance with City Standard 406-L. 15. That a landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Director and the Public Works Department. Said landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan and shall be permanently maintained. 16. That the landscaping shall not obstruct the line of sight of vehicles exiting the subject property. That the City Traffic Engineer shall approve the final location of the landscaping prior to issuance of building permits. 17. That all mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be fully screened from view of Superior Avenue,Placentia Avenue,and adjoining properties(including from above). 18. That the outdoor storage of tires and other auto related parts or merchandise shall be prohibited on-site. 19. That the entire site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 20. That the wash tunnel area shall also be protected so as to prevent drainage from the parking lot from entering the sewer system. The drain shall be connected to the sewer system and have a grease trap. The design and installation of the above facilities shall be approved by the Utilities Department. 21. That the hours of operation of the car wash shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., daily; and that the gasoline dispensing shall be permitted to operate 24 hours, daily. 22. That all signs shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 23. That all employees shall park on-site at all times. 24. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this �mlt or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit,upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety,peace,morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 25. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No.3566,Traffic Study No.106 and Lot Line'Adjustment No.95-10 October 19,1995 Page 11 C TRAFFIC STUDY-NO. 106 1. That a Traffic Study has-been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the peak-hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy L-18(formerly S-1). 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic on any'major,"primary-modified,'or'primar'street. 3. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project-generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on the four study intersections and that the ICU analysis for all four intersections indicates an acceptable ICU value of less than 0.90. D. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 95-10 Findings: 1. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal parcels. 2. That no additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment. 3. The project complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan. S. The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and/or facilities. 6. That in this particular case, the proposal would not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and'that the modification as approved would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Conditions: 1. Prior to recordation of the lot line adjustment, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review. 2. Upon approval of the lot line adjustment, the lot line adjustment shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for checking. Use Pcmilt No.3566,Tmaic Study No.106 and Lot Lim Adjus nent No.95.10 Octobcr 19,1995 Page12 3. The lot line adjustment and grant deeds shall be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 4. That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3566 shall be fulfilled. 5. That this approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.81.090 ofthe Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No.3566,Traffic Study No.106 and Lot Line Adjustment No.95-10 October 19,1995 Page 13 FINDINGSFOR DENIAL OF USEPERMITNO.3566,'TRAFFIC STUDYNO. 106 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO.95-10 AND THE RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT A. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT 1. No action is necessary for the environmental document on a project which is denied. 2. Make the findings listed below: Findings: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. 3. That the guidelines indicate that environmental documents are not required for projects that are denied. 4. The Findings made in regard to the Environmental Document described above also apply to the denial of Use Permit No.3566. B. USE PERMIT NO. 3566 1. Deny Use PemutNo.3566 with the findings listed below. Findings: 1. That the proposed use could potentially result in an increase in the demand for off-street parking which is not provided on-site. 2. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3566 will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in themeighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood'or to the general welfare of the City. 3. That the noise generated by the proposed car wash facility will adversely affect the residential uses adjacent to the subject property. Uso Permit No.3566,Tmaic StudyNo.106 and Lot Lane Adjustment No.95-10 October 19,1995 Page 14 0 • 4. That the facility cannot be adequately mitigated to alleviate the noise generation of the proposed car wash facility. 5. That the 24 hour operation of the gasoline station portion of the facility will generate noise problems which is not compatible with the adjacent residential uses. C TRAFFIC STUDYNO. 106 1. No action is required on the traffic study for projects which are denied. D. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 95-10 Finding: 1. That the proposed lot line adjustment is denied without prejudice on the basis that it is not consistent with Section 20.87.090 A, of the Municipal Code, which requires the combining of lots or portions of lots into a single building site. Use Permit No.3566,Traffic Study No.106 and Lot Line Adjustment No.95-10 October 19,1995 Page 15 il� APPENDIX "A" LOCATION: That portion of the south 66 feet of the easterly one-half of Lot 817, and that portion of Lot 818, of the First Addition to Newport Mesa Tract; and that portion of the southerly 66 feet of the easterly one-half of Lot 817, and that portion of Lot 818, of the First Addition to the Newport'Mesa Tract, located at 1461 and 1465 Superior Avenue ZONE: APF APPLICANT: Union Oil(Phillip Dedge-applicant),Industry OWNER Union Oil Company of California,Industry Points and uthority • Environmental Compliance(California Environmental Quality Act) A Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the project application. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in any significant effect on the environment. For the Planning Commission's information, staff has attached a copy of the environmental document. • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for"Administrative,-Professional and Financial Commercial" uses. The proposed use is a permitted use allowed under this designation subject to the securing of a use permit. The Land Use Element has also established area specific land use policies throughout the City. These"area" policies set a site-by-site floor area ratio (F.AR) development limit of 0.5/0.75. The.site consists of approximately 48,304f square feet of land area which will permit 24,152f square feet of commercial use. Given that the application is for a structure consisting of 2,094f square feet, the proposed development does not exceed the base development allocation of 24,152 square feet, and so the proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element policies and guidelines and Section 20.07 (F.AR Ordinance)of the Municipal Code. • In accordance with Section 20.33 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, automobile service stations and other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission are similar in character are permitted in the APF District, subject to the securing of a use permit iu each case. Application procedures(traffic study, lot line adjustment and use permit)are set forth in Titles 15, 19 and 20 of the Municipal Code and Council.Policy L-18(formerly'S-1). Use Pcmtit No.3566,Traffic Study No.106 and tut line Adjustment No.95.10 October 19,1995 Page 16 Combining of Lots Required The subject property consists of two lots established by the original subdivision. Section 20.87.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that where a building site is comprised of more than one subdivided lot, or fraction thereog a resubdivision is required when new construction or alterations to existing structures in excess of$20,000 is proposed in any one year period. The construction cost of the proposed car wash facility will be considerably in excess of that limit and thereby requires that a resubdivision be approved to combine the lots into a single building site. The applicants have been made aware of this requirement and has been informed that the parcel map or lot line adjustment will have to be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits in conjunction with this application. However, the applicant has chosen to submit the accompanying Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-10 to reconfigure but retain the two lots, rather than combine them into one parcel as a single building site. The applicant has indicated that the proposed canopy will cross the existing interior lot he and that the lot line adjustment will eliminate that problem. Staff has no objection to the proposed lot configuration which is intended�to eliminate any building encroachments across the interior property line. Background According to Building Department records, the original gasoline station was constructed while previously a part of unincorporated Orange County and was demolished in August 1992. Records indicate that the site remediation was also completed in November 1993. ANALYSIS Required Off-Site Parking- Section 20.70.060 (c), provides that four parking spaces be provided when no service bays are included in the automobile service facility. No parking requirement is established for car wash facilities, however, the applicant is of the opinion that the provision of six spaces, in addition to the four spaces required for the gasoline station portion (ten parking spaces total), is adequate to accommodate the proposed gasoline service and car wash facility. Staff has also included a requirement that all employees park on site. The applicant has indicated that the majority of the ten to fifteen employees will either carpool,walk or otherwise arrive by public transportation. This is similar to the operation of the car wash which is located at 1200 West Coast Highway(The Car Spa). Vehicular Access and On-Site Circulation The site plan shows that the existing two drive approaches on Superior Avenue(39 ft.wide)and single drive approach on Placentia Avenue(40 ft 7 in.wide)will be retained. However,the traffic consultant recommendations in the traffic study recommends the elimination of the northerly drive access on Superior Avenue nearest Placentia Avenue. The City Traffic Engineer is working with the applicant Usa Pemdt No.3566,Troffc StudyNo.106 and Lot Lim Adjustment No.95.10 October 19,1995 Page 17 Superior Avenue nearest Placentia Avenue. The City Traffic Engineer is working with the applicant and the traffic consultant to reach a compromise on the retention ofthe northerly drive approach. The attached Exhibit W incorporates a requirement that the drive access issues be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Study also indicates that the on-site circulation is adequate to accommodate the cueing of vehicles waiting for washing and at the drying end of the facility. Exnanded Traffic Study Analysis The attached traffic study satisfies the requirements of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy L-18. The City Traffic Engineer has identified the four intersections which could be affected'by the proposed project. These intersections are: 1. Superior Avenue at Hospital Road 2. Placentia Avenue at Superior Avenue 3. Balboa Boulevard at West Coast Highway 4. Newport Boulevard at Hospital Road The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a one percent traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg,project traffic is estimated to be greater than one percent of the projected 2'/2 hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, an Intersection.Capacity Utilization(ICU)analysis is required. Based on an analysis of each of the four intersections, the increase in traffic at each intersection leg exceeded 1% of the projected 2-1/2 hour morning and afternoon peak traffic on all four of the intersections, indicated on Table B, located on Page 9 of the attached traffic study. Therefore, an Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU)analysis was prepared,for each of the above noted intersections. As indicated in Table C, located on Page 12 of the attached traffic study, the ICU values during the A.Nt and PAL peak for these four intersections did not exceed 0.90. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed project will have a very nominal impact on the level of service.at the key intersections and that the project is in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The proposed project would generate 67 morning peak hour trips and 84•evening peak hour trips. The additional trips generated by the project would not deteriorate the existing Level of Service at the specified intersections. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any significant impact on the City's circulation network The ICU analysis is attached at the end of the Traffic Study. The Traffic Study for this project indicates that the proposed facility would generate 930 trip ends.per day. Um PemutNo.3566,Traffic Study No.106 and Lot Line Adjustment No.95.10 October19,1993 Page 18 -1-- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILED 0300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 • POSTED SEP 15 1995 Newport Beach.CA 92658-8915 SEP 151995 (714)644-3225 GARYL.GRANVIIIE,CIerk•Recorder GARY L. GRANVILLE,Gerk•Recoider DEPUTY NEGATIVE DECLARATION By-----.__._,DEPUTY To: ! From: City of Newport Beach El Officeof Planning and Research Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 I Newport Beach,CA 92658.8915 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange XX Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public review period OCTOBER 5, 1995 Nan i e of Project: UNOCAL CAR WASH AND GASOLINE STATION (USE PERMIT NO. 3566) Project Location: 1461-1465 SUPERIOR AVENUE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AND Project Description: GASOLINE STATION FACILITY WITH RETAIL VENDING MACHINE DISPENSERS. NO OTHER RETAIL SALES ARE PERMITTED. 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 environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is®attached❑on file at the Planning Department. 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 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 also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have an uesti rs or would like further information,please contact the undersigned at(714)644-3225. .s1 Date September 14, 1995 Javier . . arcia AICP Senior Planner Revised 1/95 `Q� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Project Title: UnocatCarwash and Gasoline Station 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,CA 92663 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier S. Garcia,AICP (714) 644-3206 4. Project Location: 1461-1465 Superior Avenue(formerly 377 Superior Avenue) located on the southwesterly corner of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue 5. Project Sponsoes Name and Address: Union Oil Company of Southern California 17700 Castleton Street Industry, CA 91748 6. General Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial 7. Zoning: APF 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project involves the approval of a use permit for the construction of a gasoline station and car wash facility with vending machines. The site is currently vacant site and was formerly occupied by a gasoline service station which provided automobile repair as well as gasoline sales. In accordance with Section 20.33 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code the approval of a use permit is required in,each case for such a use. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the projects surroundings.) The project is located at the intersection of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue on the Southwesterly corner. To the north, across Placentia Avenue is a Seven-Eleven in a ctnctaM unowaorwinic"0zWsmta Page 1 �,b commercial retail center; to the east, across Superior Avenue, is a bank and commercial office buildings; to the south, is a residential care facility and to the west, is a residential condominium project. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) The County of Orange and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. CHF.CA= Unow Oxwoh/cmErc su" Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. @i Land Use Planning Q Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Circulation ❑ Population&Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities& Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy&Mineral H_Aesthetics Resources ❑ Water 0 Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality El Noise ❑ Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance ctncKMr tmO►arw.u<icasouftsw6n Page 3 as DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. B I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL RvTACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL HOPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 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 all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ September 11. 1995 Sign ure Date Javier S. Garcia Printed Name F.1WPSPFrAW NGUPUBH k7M951005UM56MMW CHECK= Uww Car1Yx*/GM1wsh M Page 4 Poteneagy PoundaNr Less than No ftmoaant SkOW-ant Signinunt hK»d tnrpad Unk" knpad Mitigation bowporaw I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan ❑ ❑ ❑ LS' designation or zoning? ( ) / b) Conflict with applicable environ- ❑ ❑ ❑ L3f mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land ❑ iR/ ❑ ❑ use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or ❑ ❑ ❑ [J operations(e.g. impacts.to soils or farmlands,or impacts from Incompatible land uses)? ( e) Disrupt or divide the physical ❑ ❑ ❑ LW arrangement of an established community pncluding a low-income or minority community)? 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official ❑ ❑ ❑ M11 regional or local population projections?( ) —/ b) Induce substantial growth in an area ❑ ❑ ❑ [ either directly or indirectly(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ Ur especially affordable housing? 5 • po(wftay PotxA* Less than No Svificent sve scant SI9nHkant Impact Impact Unless Impact Incorporated III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?( ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Seismic ground shaking ( ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, Including ❑ ❑ ❑ 13' liquefaction? ( ) / d) 8eiche,tsunami, or volcanic El ❑ El fit" hazard? () e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ �/ f) Erosion, changes in topography or ❑ ❑ ❑ L`� unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expansive soils? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 1) Unique geologic or physical ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 features?() IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to ❑ ❑ ❑ water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or ❑ ❑ ❑ other alteration of surface water quality(e.g.temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface ❑ ❑ ❑ water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course ❑ ❑ ❑ `❑� or direction of water movements? 6 • 0 Potwtimy Pdwowly Less thm No slgmym t swalcu t signirkant Impact Impad ur"" Impact f) Change in the quantity of ground ❑ ❑ ❑ [yam waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q groundwater? ( ) h) imparts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1) Substantial reduction in the amount ❑ ❑ ❑ 0- of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ C9 ', contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?' b) Expose sensitive-receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ Be" pollutants? ( ) c) After air movement, moisture,or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0-40' temperature,or cause any change in climate?( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ tug VI. TRANSPORTATIONMIRCULATION Would the proposatresuft in Impacts to: / a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic ❑ ar ❑ ❑ congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design ❑ Me" ❑ ❑ features(e.g,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g,farm equipment? ( ) c) Inadequ ate emergency access or ❑ ❑ access to nearby uses? ( ) 7 PotwIla4y poterdiaAy Less than No sonirant Signircant Significant Impact impact UnIen Impact IncowaW Mltipetbn d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site ❑ ❑ Br" ❑ or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians ❑ EV' ❑ ❑ or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies ❑ ❑ ❑ [e, supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail,waterbome or air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ �f impacts?( ) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: / a) Endangered,threatened or rare ❑ ❑ ❑ L9 species or their habitats pncluding but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) b) Locally designated species(e.g. ❑ ❑ ❑ ae heritage trees)? ( ) / c) Locally designated natural ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 communities(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ uY and vernal poop? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration ❑ ❑ ❑ L� corridors? ( ) Vill. ENERGY&MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ L9� conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a ❑ ❑ ❑ L9 wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? { ) 8 • • PotenHaly Put"ay Less than No swift" sv*loant srgrincant Impact Impact urim Impact Mftaft incorporated IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or ❑ ❑ ar"" ❑ release of hazardous substances Qnciuding,but not limited to: oil, pesticides,chemicals or radiation)?b) Possible Interference with an ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 emergency response plan or emergency,evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ ❑ Ly p potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of.people to existing ❑ ❑ p IId' sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with p p p flammable brush,grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: _/ a) Increases in existing noise levels? p E3 ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise ❑ ar p p levels? ( ) XI., PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an,effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered governmentservicesin any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ L9" ❑ b) Police protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ CY c) Schools? ( ) ❑ p ❑ G7� 9 patentlaYy potent* Less than No signtricant SigNkant Sigwlcant Impact Impact Unbar Impact Mxorporated d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ C} including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ L+f XIi. UTILITIES d,SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? A) Power or natural gas? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ orb b) communications systems? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ G—r/ c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ❑ fd distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ❑ ❑ B"' ❑ e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ CCl7� f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ GY/ g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ L�l Xiii. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ highway? ( ) / b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ ❑ aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ❑ ❑ 13 d) Affect a coastal bluff? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 01/ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ LL b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ Cg c) Affect historical resources? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ Lei 10 n • PdwneaGy Potmu* Less thm No Swe"t sw4f m t s12ff ant Imped Impact urgm Irt pad Inmporated d) Have the potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑ tR physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restdct,existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ EB uses within the potential impact area?( ) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑ ❑ 1a neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ a opportunities? ( ) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ Me' ❑' 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 period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? it 10 Potwu ly Po(antW Le"#W No Slgniflcent Slgnftw t Slgnlltcant Impact inpxt Unless Imped Um Incorporated c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ ff/ are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have ❑ environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(1)). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. F:\W Indom%Plannfng%J W EP11E IR•DOCSNEIR•FORM 12 d2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECUJST EXPLANATIONS Unocal Car Wash/Gasoline Station 1461-1465 Superior Avenue Use Permit No.35" Pro iect Description The site was formerly occupied by a Union Oil service station. The proposed project is a mechanical car wash operation and dispensing of gasoline. The project is located at the intersection of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue on the Southwesterly comer. To the north, across Placentia Avenue is a Seven-Eleven in a commercial retail center, to the east, across Superior Avenue, is a bank and.commercial office buildings; to the south, is residential care facility and to the west, is a residential condominium project. The height of the proposed building is 21'±and the-structure contains a total of 2,012 sq.R area. The subject parcel is approximately 1.11 acre in size. ANALYSIS The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. L Land Use and Planning The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial by the City's General Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning is APF which designates the site for commercial development subject to approval of a Use Permit prior to the construction of a car wash or automobile service station on the site. The previous use of an automobile service station was consistent with the City's general Plan and Zoning requirements. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and a Coastal Permit is not required. The proximity of residential uses may be adversely impacted by the noise and traffic generated by the proposed use unless the mitigation measures recommended later in this,report are implemented. H. Population and Housing Population The proposed project would not cause any growth or reduction in the area's population. Housing No additional housing demand would result from the project since only a minor employment increase is anticipated. CHECiQ]3'r'WLLNAMONS UnoW Car Wash/G=Uae&atlas Page 1 IM Geologic Problems(Earth) The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. The construction activities associated with the removal and installation of underground gasoline storage tanks as part of the proposed development will result in some soil disruption and will require excavation, compaction and soil displacement. Soil contamination is discussed under Risk of Upset(item no. 10). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. IV. Water The proposed project would take place on a site that is already developed, therefore no drainage impacts would be anticipated. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code. Gasoline spill would be contained from entering'storm drain system by the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. Underground water contamination is discussed in item no. 10 of the analysis. The project is located outside flood hazard area. V. Air Quality 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. No additional stationary equipment is proposed that could generate additional emission as part of the project. VL Transportation/Circulation/parldng Currently the parcel is vacant and was formerly occupied by an automobile service station with three access driveways which are proposed to be retained, no new access driveways are proposed... Additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that based on traffic data of published sources, trip generation rate for car wash with gasoline service is equivalent to trips generated by a car wash with gasoline service. The proposed gasoline service station with car wash would generate approximately 930 trip ends per day an increase of approximately 930 trips per day since the site has been vacant for a number of years. Therefore, a comprehensive traffic study was required since the traffic increase of the proposed development exceeds trip generation CHECIQISrMIANAMNS Uooca GUNVAsh/Ccsolloe Sutton Page 2 w requirement(300 or more trips per day) of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The project is proposes 8 parking spaces per the general commercial parking requirement of the Zoning Code for the building and 12 spaces for the cueing of vehicles entering the carwash and 12 vehicles exiting the carwash.. There are 8 parking spaces proposed on the site plan and the project has satisfied the parking requirements and no adverse impact is anticipated. The study indicates that the parking provided is adequate.to meet the demands of the proposed carwash facility. The study's analysis of the project access, identified a number of recommendations which should be incorporated into the site plan Mitigation Measures No. 1,2 and 3 ensure that any foreseeable access problems due to access drives would be maintained to a level of insignificance. IVlitigation Measure No. 1 1. That the project access along Superior Avenue, closest to Placentia Avenue, shall be eliminated unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. Mitigation Measure No. 2 2. That the project access along Superior Avenue furthest from Placenia Avenue shall be restricted to "right-inlright-out" access only, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be appropriately signed in accordance with requirements of the City Traffic Engineer Mitigation Measure No. 3 3. That the project access along ,Placentia Avenue shall be restricted to "right-in" access only, unless otheriwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. VII. Biological'Resources(Plant and Animal Life) Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation Animal Life CIECKUSrL% MA-nONS Umd rar WwWCAwIlm SWOon Page 3 :.A The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. VDI Energy and Mineral Natural Resources Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. DL Hazards Although the proposed project utilizes hazardous materials on the site however, with the provisions contained in Mitigation No. 4(b), no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. Risk of Upset The proposal does not include the removal of any underground gasoline storage tank The former tanks were removed some time in 1992 and remediation was also completed at that time Replacement of the underground storage tank may involve a risk of the release of hazardous substances during the construction and development of the project in the event of an accident or upset condition. Any liquid or non-liquid flammable and combustible substances on, the site is controlled by Uniform Fire Code. Mitigation Measure No. 5 ensures that any foreseeable hazard due to upset would be maintained to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measures No. 4 and 5 4.. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide written certification acceptable to the City's Building Department signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contamination has been cleared. 5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate to the City Building Department and Fire Department that the project is in compliance with the County of Orange Health Department and the City's Fire Department Regulations. CHECK=MI-ANAnONS unowCarwash/CaSORM SCMIM Page 4 X Noise Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during, the construction period primarily due to construction related activities, and operational noise produced by the forced air dryers, vacuum cleaners, horn honking and door slamming. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the small scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations (NBMC Chapter 10.28). Because of the close proximity of residential properties to the west and south of the site,and the potential for adverse noise impacts on these properties, an acoustical consultant was retained to perform a noise analysis for the project. A copy of the study, prepared by Mestre Greve Associates is attached and is also available for review at the Newport Beach Planning(Building Department. The City Council recently adopted quantitative standards for noise generating services. The Noise Control Regulations were adopted on September 11, 1995 and will become effective in 30 days.. The study performed is based on the proposed standards contained in the Draft Noise Control Regulations which were adopted. The Ordinance specifies maximum allowable noise levels that may be generated by non-transportation sources adjacent to noise sensitive land uses such as residential neighborhoods. The analysis found that the yard areas of the adjacent residential neighborhood are already impacted by noise levels in excess of standards due to traffic along Superior Avenue. in such cases, allowable noise Whits for new sources of non- transportation noise are adjusted so that no perceivable increase is permitted. The study concluded that the proposed car wash operation would exceed allowable noise limits in the adjacent residential neighborhood if no mitigation were incorporated into the design of the projec, but through proper design (e.g., orientation and enclosure of the drying area), equipment(e,g.,dryer silencers), and restrictions on hours of operation and operational characteristics to preclude the use of automobile horns of patrons vehicles, the noise level could be reduced to comply with Newport Beach Noise Control Regulation standards. In order to ensure that the proposed project would be designed and equipped so that noise levels are not increased, the following mitigation measures are recommended. The adoption of these requirements as conditions of approval on the project would ensure that no significant noise impacts are generated. CHECK=E7 LMA710NS Unonl Car waL/Cawam statba Page 5 Ivfitigation Measure No. 6 6. The wash tunnels must be extended approximately 20 feet at the entrance and approximately 16 feet at the exit. Exhibit 3 of the attached noise analysis shows the recommended extensions. These tunnels are required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations. The extensions must have a roof that is at least as wide as the wash tunnel entrance and the inside wall of the tunnel extensions must be constructed of a rough block face. The roof and wall structures for the extension must have a surface density of at least 4.0 pounds per square foot. Any masonry material will meet this requirement. Two layers of 3/4 inch plywood will also meet the requirement (although this should be checked with the architect or structural engineer, since plywood densities do vary). The inside surface of the wall of the extension shall be of non-reflective surface. Rough split face block would satisfy this requirement. Acoustic panels and other options are available that would also be non-reflective. Itifitigation Measure No. 7 7. The blower that is to be installed in the project must meet a requirement of generating a noise level of 83 dBA at a distance of 5 feet (Worldwide blower with the silencer kit or equivalent blower/dryer). Mitigation Measure No. 8 8. The vacuum accumulators must be enclosed in a structure that reduces noise by at least 10 dBA. These enclosures are required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations. Mitigation Measure No. 9 9. The proposed project will potentially generate noise levels that would exceed the City's maximum noise limits. The only noise source that is loud enough to exceed the maximum noise level limits are car homs. Therefore. the use of car homs.by attendants to signal customers that their cars are finished shall be prohibited. C3IECIUM EXPLANATIONS UDOM Chr WMh ICkSORM SLgdm Page 6 Mitigation MeasureNo. 10 10. The skylight in the tunnel wash area must be 1/4- inch glass or 5/8-inch Plexiglas. A thin plastic skylight will not suffice to reduce the car wash noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations. Mitigation Measure No. 11 11. The operations of the car wash shall be limited to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Mitigation Measure No, 12 12. Prior to issuance of a certificate of Occupancy, a detailed acoustical analysis report shall be prepared describing the noise generation of the project based on the detailed project design, noise attenuation features, and equipment specifications. The report shall demonstrate that the project does not exceed allowable noise levels as described in County of Orange Noise Control Ordinance or the adopted Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations with respect to the residential properties adjacent to the project site, whichever is more restrictive. The report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. XL Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create additional demand for these services. XIL 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. XIM Aesthetics The site is located in a commercial zone, and the proposed car wash would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts as compared to other adjacent commercial uses. Light and Glare If exterior lighting is required,the proposed project could produce light and glare that would adversely affect the adjacent residential properties. CHECK[ISf EMANAMONS Unocal CYr wnh/cmzae Radon Page 7 The following mitigation would ensure that any exterior lighting is designed such that direct rays are confined to the site to the extent feasible. Wigation Measure No. 13 13. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion,this requirement has been met. XIV.. Cultural Resources The parcel has been developed previously and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site. There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic structures. XV. Recreation Recreational activities and opportunities would not be affected by the project. XVL 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. That, with incorporation of the mitigation measures listed, there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. F.\WP51WL1Nf1 CMKMNOT�M951005\MM6CKDOC CHECK=EXPLANATIONS Unocal Car wash/G=Vm&afim Page 8 MiT*noN MONITORING AND REPORAb PROGRAM [E"egative Declaration No. 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. The attached table summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. II. 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 plans Will be placed in the official project file. As part of thereview 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 plans and project description Field inspections will verify that,constructionconforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards,or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is,in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures-implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will'be placed in the official file. FA...VOHN-D\FORMS1MMv COVER.PRI MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Unocal Car Wash/Gasoline Station 1461-1465 Superior Avenue Use Permit No.3566 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification Mitigation Measures Action Verification Verification Person Date L Tnmporuflonxit-10-11parking: 1. That the project access along Supeior Avenue, closest to Condition of Plan Check Priortotheisanosof Public Works Placentia Avenue,shall be climnnated unless otinwwre approved by the approval anybuildingpemit DepaAment and the PublicWaksDVmftne mdtheCilyTra&c&&=. City Traffic Eagmeer 2. That the projai access along Supeior Avenue furthest from Conditionof Plan Check Priortotheissuanceof Public Works • Place is Avenue shall be restricted to `righd-h H&—ond' access only, approval anybuildmgpennit Department and the unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Dina; and slaLL be City Traffic Eagmeer appropriately signed in accordance with requhenients of the City Traffic 3. That the pr*d access along .Plaardia Avenue shall be Conditionof Plan Check Priortoth:issuanaeof Public Works restiictedto"right in"accessonly,unless o0criwise approval by the City approval anybmldmghwmit Dgxutnerd and the TmfficEngiueen City Traffic Engineer ffi. Hazards 4- Prior to the imanoe of a building permit,the applicant shall Condition of Plan Check Primtotheissuarceof Public Works provide written axtification acceptable to the Cigrs Bmldbg Department approval anygradingorlun7dng Director,and Building signed by a licensed Engheertlat the area has undegone a sod cleanup pant Department process and any gasoline leakage or soil oodarmnation has been cleared 5. Prior to the issuance of a arti6cate ofuse and occupancy,the Condition of Plan Check Priortotheissuanceof Public Works • applicant must denimate to the City Building Depanmad and Fne approval CatiticateofOcerpmcy Director,and Building Departmad that the project is in compliance with the County of Orange Department Health Department and the City's Fan Depadmat Regulation, X. Nobe 6. The washtumels must be extended approxhnntely 20 feet Condition of Plan Check Priortotheissuanceof Planning Department at theentrance and approxinately 16 feet atthe exit. ExHbit3ofthe approval anybuldingpamR and Building Dept attached noise analysis shows the reccumaended extensions. These tunnels are required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations. The extensions must bave a roof that is at least u wide as the wash tunnel entrance and the inside wall of the tunnel extensions must be constructed of a rough block faro The roof and wall structures for the extension r' Page 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Unocal Car Wash/Gasoline Station 1461-1465 Superior Avenue UsePermitN0.3566 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification Mifi ation Measures Action Verification Verification Person Date must have a surface density of at least 4.0 pounder per square foot - -Any masonry material will meet this requirement Two layea of3/4 inch plywood will also meet the requirement(although this should be checked-with the architect or structural engineer, since plywood densities do vary} The inside surface of the wail of the a dcresion shalt be of mn-reffective surface. Rough split face block would sandy this requirement. Acoustic panels and other options are • available that would also be non4eflective. 7. The blowerthat is to be installed intheproject must mat Conditionof Pha Check Pmioctothevaranceof Planning Department a requirvncit ofgmerating a noise level of83 dBAsta distance of approval artybuildmgpermit sad Brald'mg Dept feet (Worldwide blower with the silencer kit or equivalent bloweddryei} it. The vacuum accumulators; must be enclosed in a Cooditionof Pan Check D'licirtothemminceof Planning Department structurethatreducamise by at least 10 dBA Theseemlosuressre approval 'WhuiW¢g' pest and Building Dept required to reduce wise to levels that comply with the City of NeaportBachNoue Control Reguhtiom. 9. The proposed project will pally gate wise Condition of Plan Check Priortotheissumeof Planning Department levels that would exceed the City's maximum noise limits. Theonly approval anybuildngpam@ andBuildmg Dept wise sown that is loud enough to exceed the maximmn noise level limits are c rbmm. Therefore the use of err homs by attendants to Simla!cu4omasthat their cars are finished shall begofubited . 10. The skylight in the mane]wash area must be 1/44mcr Condidonof Plan Check Riartotheissrunced' Planning Department glass or 5/94whPladgas. AthmpasikskyligMmL not suffix to approval soybuildigpormit and Building Dept _ reduce the ear wash miss to-levels that comply with the City of Newport Bach Noise Control Reguations. it. Tlutthehoursofaperatimofthe arwashahallbe lnmitcdto Cooditionof Field Verification Priortotheisuanceof Planning Department between 9x hours of 8,00 am-and 10..,00-pm,daily,unless-further approval mybm7&c-sgpemmt and Building Dept restfcted bythe Pammmg Cormm=onurCity Cmtwg 12 Frier to issuance or a ce ffwde of ocavenay,a detailed awnsfialsmlys6mrpaeshan beprepmeddesmbmgtmmisee generation Condition of Post Construction r6ortotheissumosof Planning Department of the project based on the dftW pvjat design,cone animation approval Acoustical Report arybuild'agpermit and Building Dept features,sort equipment;sped5atiam The report"ll demonstrate that theproja"tdoa nalexoeedaiknvabkmix IevEls as dearbeda Caurtyof Page 2 I MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Unocal Car Wash/Gasoline Station 1461-1465 SuperiorAvenue Use Permit No.35" Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification Mitigation Measures Action Verification Verification Person Date Orange Noise Control Ordhwnoe m the adopted Newport Beady Noise Codrol Regula6ccs vihh respat to the resdetiat propatia adjacent to the prgectsne,vvhidreverismorerestrictive.Therepartshall be subjedto review and appoval by the Duector of Plamin& 13. PriOrtothe issuanced'arrybw7divgpemattbeappliaddall Condition of Plan Check Aiatotheissuanceof Plammg Department demoratrate to the Pbaaung Departrnert that the lighting systan shalt be approval mybu0dingpeem@ and BuHding Dept desip4 directed,andmeidained is such amarvwas to corkeal the fight source and to mmhr b E&spillage and glare to the adjacet residential • uses The plans d atl be prepared and sipped by a licxsed Elactrial Finghnea,with a letter from the a meer stating that,in his opkHA this mcpaerneathasbeenmet. F.\WP51\PLANNING\IPUBNOTTN951005\UP3566MM.TAB • Page 3 • DRAFT • LSAAuodates,Inc. Enaonmmul Analrsu Transportation Engineenng ResoLSD Com re.1/anagement Muming Community PGrnning Eau logsul Restoration Resource Economics Principals August8, 1995 Rob Balen Lyndon Cakrdine Les Cad Richard Edmonston Stsce Cranhohu City Traffic Engineer Roger Hams City of Newport Beach Art Honsngbausen Larry Kennings 3300 Newport Boulevard GeorgeKurilko Newport Beach, CA 92658 Caroll3n Lobell Btll.Ua,er Rob skQnn Subject: Traffic Study for Unocal Gas Station and Car Wash at Rob SrhonhM ,Ilalrohn J.Spmul 1465 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach (Traffic Study 106) Associates Dear Rich: Deborah Bacr-Milker Connie Wra LSA Associates, Inc. (ISA) Is pleased to provide the following traffic analy- Cary Doan sis for the proposed Unocal Gas Station and Car Wash, located at the Krrin Kncher southwest corner of Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue in the City of Richard Hadacher Newport Beach. Michele Huddlenon Ciwjuritk Clint Kellner The analysis has been prepared at the request of City staff to identify off- KarerrKiriland site project Impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis, to Benson Lee examine on-site circulation conditions to ensure that the proposed ac- Stbn'na,Vicholh cesses provide adequate Ingress/egress to the local street system, and that 6y,on tk"°s Jill on-site storage areas are adequate to meet the demands of the proposed Jill 91 MiG project. SUhfHARYOPFINDINGS 1. The site is currently vacant. Three full access driveways provide access to the adjacent street system: two along Superior Avenue and one along Placentia Avenue. The driveways closest to the Placentia/Superior intersection are located at the crosswalks to the Intersection. The project does not propose any new access drive- ways. 2. Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue adjacent to the project site are fully built out to their Master Plan arterial designations. 08Mi95(1:%CNB502%TttAFFlc.t.TB) One Park Plaza,Suite300 Telephone 714353.06 6 lmine,'Cdifornia97714 Facsimile714533.8076 � DRAFT • LSA Aswwto.Inc. 3. At the project driveways, approximately 1,860 vehicle trips per day are forecast to enter and exit the site, with 133 vehicle trips occur. ring during the am. peak hour and 166 vehicle trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Extensive studies have shown that much of gas station traffic gen- erated at the project driveways is already on the street for another purpose. These trips are denoted as pass by trips, and account for approximately 50 percent of the total daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveways. As a result, the proposed project generates approximately 930 new project trips, 67 new a.m. peak hour trips, and 84 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation network. 4. Per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance MO) analysis, no significant impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addi- tion of new project trips to the circulation network. 5. Per the project access analysis, the following recommendations should be incorporated Into the final site plan: • The project access along Superior Avenue closest to Placentia Avenue should be eliminated. • The project access along Superior Avenue furthest from Placentia Avenue should be restricted to"right-in/right-out" access only. The project access along Placentia Avenue should be re- stricted to "right-in' access only. 6. Per the proposed site plan presented In Figure 1, sufficient on-site storage area is available for a total of 12 vehicles at the rat' wash entrance and 12 vehicles at the car wash exit. The on-site storage areas are adequate to meet the peak demand at the car wash. No adverse impacts are anticipated with respect to the on-site storage of vehicles, with the proposed site plan. 7. Per the current site plan and the access restrictions identified previously, on-site circulation between the gasoline fueling area and the car wash area is adequate. 08ro9i95p:+cxs502.TSAFFtc.LTe) 2 Tl� .1:' 'il.�+�fr�...�••`..fir.� 5 •......r.w�..�.."' .. —. �..��• I �'••fw�4► v --- 1 `s•I - Ii < ASK -751:1�19pl ff� • Source:Unocal. 8/A95(CNB502) • %.- Figure 1 N LSA "°S`°l` Site Plan DRAFTLS.4.Uwiates,hoc. PROPOSED PROJECT The project site is currently vacant, and is proposed to be developed with a gas station and car wash. The proposed site plan Is illustrated In Figure 1. Development of the site would allow for the construction of a 56 foot full service car wash and operation of the primary business of gasoline sales via 12 pump dispenser. The proposed site plan retains the existing access driveways: two along Superior Avenue and one along Placentia Avenue. As identified in the site plan, the existing driveways adjacent to the Placentia/Superior intersection are located at the crosswallts to the Intersection. The project does not propose any new access driveways. Project Trip Generation The City of Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) does not define trip rates for gas station/car wash land uses. ISA reviewed avail- able trip generation rates for gas/service station and car wash facilities for application to the project site. Table A provides a summary of various trip generation rates based on: 1. Industry standard publications such as the Institute of Transporta- tion Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation and the SANDAG Tra_jj7c Generators; 2. The City of Irvine Traffic Analysis Model (ITAM) trip rates for a Gas Station and a Car Wash; and 3. Surveyed trip generation rates presented in Service Station Trip Generation, ITE Journal, March 1993 (p.23-28). ITAM trip rates are on a per site basis, while the Industry standard trip rates, published in ITE and SANDAG, and the surveyed rate are based on per vehicle fueling position (vfp). Table A presents the total trip genera- tion resulting from application of the Industry standard trip rates and the surveyed trip rates to the proposed 12 vehicle fueling positions at the project site. For purposes of this project analysis, the average trip generation identi- fied in Table A is used to determine traffic conditions on site and at the project driveways. The average trip generation volumes represent reason- able estimates based on industry standard rates, modelled trip rates for service station and car wash uses, and survey data gathered at similar facilities. As Identified in Table A, at the project driveways approximately 1,860 vehicle trips are forecast entering and exiting the site per day, with 133 oav9Mt1:%Crrs502%TWFIC.tTeI 4 • DRAFT 0 I.SAAssociates,Inc. Table A•Service Station/Car Wash Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates Dolly In Out Total In Out Total Per vebicle fueline Position ITE Trip Generation Manual,Update to 5th Edition' 145.7 5.54 5.33 10.87 6.20 6.20 12.39 SANDAG Traffic Generators,October 19931 155.0 6.20 6.20 12.40 6.98 6.98 13,95 Avenge Trip Generation Rates 150.0 5.90 5.80 11.70 6.60 6.60 13.20 Per site ITE Trip Generation Manual,Update to 5th Edition 1,748 67 64 131 74 74 148 SANDAG Traffic Generators,October 1993' 1,860 74 74 148 '84 84 168 iTAM Trip Rate for Gas Station and Car Wash' 1.912 62 62 124 102 102 204 ITE Jouroal,Service Station Trip Generation' 1,900 65 65 130 73 73 145 Avenge Trip Generation 1,860 67 66 133 83 83 166 ,AM Peok Hour PM Peak Hour Recommended Trip Generation Daily In Out Total in Out Tots] Project driveway trips 2,860 67 66 133 83 83 166 Pass by trips(50%)7 930 33 33 66 41 41 82 New project trips 930 34 33 67 42 42 84 Sources t Trip Generatlon,Institute of Transportation Engineer; Update to the5tb Edition,February 1995(Land Use 846). 2 Traffic Generator;San D logo AssociatlonofGovernment. October1993forGasolineWltbFoodMart/Car Wash. 3 Application of DE'trip rates to the proposed project number of vebicle fuelingposilion.;twelve. Application of SANDAG trip rates to the proposed project number of vebicle ftlelingpositlons, twelve. S City oflrvineTrafficAnalysisModel(ITM9 trip ratesfor Gas Station and CarWasb are combined 7 Trip generation for Gas Station witb Mart 6 Car Wash are from rMjournal,Marcb 1993(p.23.28)for 12 vJV& 6 Pass by trip reduction based on nE Trip Generation manual,5tb Edition,January 1991 (Land Use 846). 813195(7•1 MB5011TPOCALCALS) DRAFT is LSAA.w&er,Inc. vehicle trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 166 vehicle trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Pass by Trip Reduction Per the ITE Trip Generation manual, much of the service station traffic generated at the site driveways is already on the street for another pur- pose. Based on vehicular movements traced at eight service stations surveyed In the ITE Trip Generation manual, the findings indicate that 54 percent of the a.m. peak hour volume and 58 percent of the p.m. peak hour volume involves vehicles passing by the site on their way to another destination. Based on these findings and considering that the site Includes a car wash Facility, which may be regarded as a destination use, a pass by trip reduc- tion factor of 50 percent, rather than the 54-58 percent factor Identified above, was used. This factor Is applied to the daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveways in Table A. As a result, the proposed project generates approximately 930 new project trips, 67 new am. peak hour trips, and 84 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation network. These "new project trips" are used to determine off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance MO) analysis. Project Trip Distribution Figure 2 presents the trip distribution plan for the proposed project The distribution plan shows project trip distribution percentages to/from the project site. The majority of project trips (60 percent) are distributed north of the site along Superior Avenue, Placentia Avenue, and Newport Boulevard. The remaining 40 percent are distributed southbound, and split equally along Pacific Coast Highway. A nominal number of project trips (three percent) is distributed to and from Balboa Peninsula. Project trip assignments are based on these overall distributions with adjustments at the project driveways and the adjacent Intersections of PlacentiWSuperior and Superior/Hospital to account for the driveway access restrictions as follows: • The project access along Superior Avenue closest to Placentia Avenue should be eliminated. • The project access along Superior Avenue furthest from Placentia Avenue should be restricted to "right-in/right-out" access only. • The project access along Placentia Avenue should be restricted to "right-in" access only. 0"9N5(1:%CNB502%TRUFIC.LTR) 6 14� DRAFT LEGEND: 25% Project Trip Distribution <s 20010 Q Study Area Intersection �P s°¢ i 30% Ism sT m" PLACENM AVE-4 �, PROJECT 60%o�p SITE 10% PROJECT SITE yJ MEDICAL LN 10% 100%�40% 25% HOSPCCAL RD 25% 15% 18% IS%1 A: � o 5% PCII 19% �O 2%� 7� , �Lo r1% 8n95(CNa502) Figure 2 4? N LSANot to Scale Project Trip Distribution DRAFTLSAA�«w/ff.,,,c. Based on the assignment plan, "new project trips" identified in Table A are assigned at the TPO study area intersections. TRAFHC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO)ANALYSIS The City of Newport Beach TPO requires an analysis of potential project related traffic impacts on critical Intersections for any office, commercial, or industrial projects having a gross floor area greater than 10,000 square feet and for all residential developments of more than ten dwelling units. Consistent with the City of Newport Beach Admtttistrative Procedures for implementing the TPO analysis, trips are generated, distributed and as- signed to the four study area Intersections presented In Figure 2. These Intersections were selected because they are anticipated to be influenced by traffic generated by the proposed project. The list of intersections was reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. Existing traffic conditions for the intersections are based on winter/spring 1994 and winter/spring 1995 counts. The intersection at Balboa- Superior/Coast Highway is based on a winter/spring 1993 traffic count. Committed project traffic volumes at the study area intersections are taken from the City's cumulative projects list prepared on July 19, 1995. Cumulative growth volumes, also Included in this analysis, are based on City of Newport Beach Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rates for street segments within the City of Newport Beach's boundary. One Percent TraQ`Yc Volume Analysis The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" tests, as defined in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance No. 86-20, consist of a series of comparisons between the One Percent Test volumes and the proposed project's peak period trip assignment for the four study area intersections in the City of New- port Beach. The test year for the analysis is 1997, one year after occu- pancy of the proposed project. The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analy- sis"worksheets are presented in Appendix A. The results of the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" are summarized in Table B. This Table identifies the four study area intersections, along with their respective peak period comparison volumes. For each ap- proach leg of an intersection, the 1997 a.m. and p.m. peak period one percent test volumes, the proposed project's peak period trip assignment, and a comparison of the peak period volumes are presented. Under the "Project Volumes Exceed 1% Test Volumes," those approach legs to an Intersection where the project volumes exceed the one percent test vol- umes are identified. 08M/95(I:%CNB502%TR0FIC.LTR) 8 LSAAssoclate;Ina Table B -Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO)Analysis Summary 1%TEST VOLUMES PROJECT VOLUMES AM TOTAL PM TOTAL AM TOTAL PM TOTAL EXCEED 1%TPO INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB AM PM Superior Avenue(N/S)/Hospital Road (EM 31 12 0 2 19 25 0 5 17 66 0 10 21 84 0 13 YES Placentia Avenue Q96)/Superior Avenue(WW) 6 13 32 7 12 16 20 20 7 6 33 20 8 0 42 25 YES Balboa Blvd.-Superior Avenue 00)/Coast Highway(EM 16 12 62 22 19 25 42 52 1 17 12 3 2 21 15 4 YES YES Newport Boulevard(NM/Hospital Road(WW) 45 31 12 8 39 50 16 9 10 7 17 0 13 8 21 0 YES YES Q � III ICI 813195(LPOCALGXLS) • ©RAFT • LSA Arxrrmtrt.Grr. As outlined in the Administrative Procedure for Implementing the TPO, critical intersections are defined as those locations in which project gen- erated traffic adds one percent or more to the peak 2.5 hour period traffic volume, to any leg of the intersections in the committed plus pro- ject condition. As indicated In Table B, all four study area intersections will exceed one percent of the Intersection approach volumes. As a result, intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analyses are required at all four intersections. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICl9 Analysis The ICU methodology examines the turn volumes for each intersection to determine the volume/rapacity (v/c) ratio for each movement. Conflicting turn movement volumes and their v/c ratios are then examined to deter- mine the overall capacity utilization for each Intersection in the form of a v/c ratio, termed ICU. In effect, an ICU is the percentage of an intersection's capacity needed to adequately accommodate all vehicles travelling through the intersection. Hence, the higher the ICU, the high- er the percentage of capacity utilization, where an ICU of 1.00 would equal the utilization of 100 percent of the intersection's capacity. With lower rapacity utilization, residual rapacity will prevail. The ICU calcula- tions presented in this analysis are consistent with the City of Newport Beach TPO implementation guidelines. As required by the TPO implementation guidelines, critical intersections, where project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes, will need mitigation if the project causes an intersection to exceed an ICU of 0.90 or makes worse an intersection that already exceeds the 0.90 threshold during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. The ICU analysis worksheets for the four intersections examined in the City of Newport Beach are presented in Appendix B of this report. Figure 3 prints the peak hour project trip assignment at the study area intersections. Table C presents a summary of the ICU analysis for the existing, existing plus cumulative, and existing plus cumulative plus pro- ject conditions. Table C indicates that all the study area intersections are forecast to operate well below the 0.90 ICU (LOS D) threshold for cumu- lative plus project conditions. Therefore, per the TPO analysis, no signifi- cant impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addition of new project trips to the circulation network. 08MMp:%CNB502%TWF1c.crxl 10 6 t DRAFT LEGEND: 25/20 Project Trip Assignment(AM/PM) Q Study Area Intersection P¢ (3/4) Redistributed Pass By Trips(AM/PM) �`o¢ � SJ 15tb ST �O v O PLACENTIA AVE a I P¢' P SITE Tu� PROJECT SITE y° MEDICALLN 7 d / O Z S/6 HOSPCfAL RD .�O 4 314—} 5/6 F G i PCH Ap 7� Cp O M95(CNB502) Figure 3 N LSANot to Scale New Project Trip Assignment LSAAcroclate4 Inc Table C-Intersection Levels of Service Analysis Summary Existing Conditions Existing + Cumulative Exstng.+Cum.+Project AM PM AM PM AM PM INTERSECTION ICU LOS ICU Los ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Superior Avenue 00)/Hospital Road (WW) 0.53 A 0.43 A 0.53 A 0.44 A 0.55 A 0.44 A • Placentia Avenue (N/S)/Superior Avenue (E(W) 0.60 B 0.59 A 0.62 B 0.61 B 0.64 B 0.63 B Balboa Blvd.-Superior Avenue (NIS)/Coast Highway(WW) 0.62 B 0.75 C 0.71 C 0.83 D 0.71 C 0.83 D Newport Boulevard(N/S)/Hospital Road (WW) 0.59 A 0.71 C 0.62 11 0.83 D 0.62 11 0.83 D /V own • yam` 813195(IPOCALCJILS) • DRAFT t&t tra.,�r. PROJECT SITE ACCESS As identified in the site plan presented In Figure 1, three existing,drive. ways are proposed to provide access to the adjacent street system: two along Superior Avenue and one along Placentia Avenue. The project proposes to maintain existing curb cuts, and does not propose any new access driveways. The existing site was previously occupied by a service station. Therefore, the existing driveway locations are based on the previous development approval, which resulted in the two driveways closest to the Placentia/Superior intersection being located at the crosswalks to the Intersection. ISA has examined the proposed access locations and visited the site to observe morning and evening peak hour operationsat the existing drive- ways and the Placentia/Superior Intersection. The purpose of this on-site analysis is to ensure that adequate access to and from the local street system could be provided via the exsting access driveways, and to examine whether full or partial access can be provided based on the ability of project traffic to enter and exit the site without conflicting with the traffic flow on the adjacent arterials. Based on this analysis, Figure 4 presents the recommended access con- trols for the project site. They are as follows: 1. The project access along Superior Avenue closest to Placentia Avenue should be eliminated. This access Is located at the wester- ly, terminus�of the pedestrian crosswalk across Superior Avenue. Inbound and outbound vehicular access at this location would conflict with traffic flow along Superior Avenue due to the prox amity of this access to Placentia Avenue. As a result, left tutus in and out of the site would occur within the Intersection. Current- ly, the southbound right turn movement at the Placentia Avenue approach is Included as a separate phase in the signal cycle at Placenda/Superior. Observations indicate that when the through movement southbound along Superior Avenue is stopped at the 11ght, the right turn movement along Placentia Avenue Is given the green light to proceed. This results in a constant stream of traffic southbound along Superior Avenue at the project driveway. Therefore, any vehicular turning movements atthis drlveway4oca- tion would be difficult and would interfere with the traffic flow along southbound Superior Avenue. 2. The project access along Superior Avenue furthest from Placentia Avenue should be restricted to 'right-Wright-oue access only. Q8/Q9Mp:.ctaa502%TaeFF1c.tTa) 13 Jb CAR WASH ENTRANCE RIGHT IN (VACUUMING) ACCESS ONLY STORAGE AREA (12VEHICLES) "^""' a N �� �t� �, a 'tl •. {t� 01 -' , p �. ' rrrrrrrwwwwwss'.rywwwwww 'I-� ,, '• - � P � rrrrrr � • ♦ ', f �wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww�+ \ ♦ ♦�� ACCESS t" P ELIMINATED �; LI RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT ♦ f ACCESS ONLY NMI ♦�rI i i LEGEND: On-Site Circulation . c:N41 -4—Direction of Travel CAR WASH EXIT �p- (DRYING/FINISHING) STORAGE AREA SJ4� (12 VEHICLES) Source:Unocal. 817/95(CNB502) 4� Figure 4 N � LSANos�ale Circulation Recommendations * DR At1* !SA Auodata.Inc. The existing street striping along Superior Avenue adjacent to the project site is double double yellow, thereby restricting all left rum movements across Superior Avenue. 3. The project access along Placentia Avenue should be restricted to "right-in' access only. This access is located at the southerly ter- minus of the pedestrian crosswalk across Placentia Avenue. A left turn Inbound movement is not recommended as there is insuffi- cient left turn storage distance between the driveway and Superior Avenue. Due to the acute angle created by the intersection of Placentia and Superior, outbound left turn movements are awk- ward and would result In,vehicles travelling along Placentia Ave- nue in the wrong direction for a short distance. Right turns out of the site cannot be accommodated because the approach strip. ing along Placentia Avenue provides a dedicated right turn lane. Right turn vehicles exiting the site at this location would need to weave across this lane to reach the through lane along Placentia Avenue. The proximity of the driveway to Superior Avenue-results in a very short weave distance, precluding the outbound right turn movement at this location. With the recommended access controls presented In Figure 4, adequate inbound and outbound access to and from the site can be provided. However, the turn movement restrictions at the driveways could result In an increase in the number of"U-turns" being made at Superior Avenue/ Hospital Roam and at Placentia Avenue/15th Street. As identified in the TPO analysis, these additional turn movements at the intersections can be accommodated while maintaining acceptable peak hour levels of service. CAR WASH YEMCM STORAGE AREA ANALYSIS The following stacking analysis Is 'based on "Entrance-Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilities" prepared by Robert W. Crommelin, P.E. This analysis methodology Is consistent with the criteria used in the City of Newport Beach for determining vehicle storage areas. Determining the amount of storage area required at the car wash en- trance and exit requires defining the average arrival rate and dividing this by the average service rate, resulting In the site specific traffic intensity. Based on Crommelin's reservoir position needs data, the maximum num- ber of vehicles that will queue at she car wash entrance behind the ser- vice position can be determined at a 99 percent confidence level. Based on a survey of over 100 vehicles entering the Shell Gas Station, Mini Mart, and Car Wash, located at Barranca,and Paseo Westpark In the City of Irvine, approximately 40 percent of the vehicles entering the site used the car wash; the remaining 60 percent visited the site for gas only. 0AM/95(L.CNB502%TRAPFIC.LTA) 15 • 4 DRAFT o ISA.•LmrJtn./"c. Therefore, the peak arrival rate at the car wash entrance is estimated at 33 vehicles per hour, based on application of 40 percent to the total 83 inbound p.m. peak hour trips. The vehicle storage area analysis for the car wash Is presented in Table D. Car wash service rates are based on similar type facilities, which indicate that the vacuuming process takes approximately five minutes per vehicle and the drying/finishing process takes approximately nine minutes per vehicle. These estimated process times result in service volumes of 12 vehicles per hour per service position at the car wash entrance and 6.7 vehicles per hour per service position at the car.wash exit. Average service rates are determined by multiplying service volumes by the number of potential service positions identified in the site plan. At the car wash entrance, four service lanes and two vacuum areas provide a total of eight service positions. Similarly, at the car wash exit five service lanes, accommodating two vehicles per lane, provide,a total of ten service positions for drying/finishing. The resultant average service rates are 96 vehicles per hour at the entrance and 67 vehicles per hour at the exit. Dividing the average arrival rates by the average service rates results in traffic intensities of 0.34 and 0.50. Based on Exhibit 1 of the "Entrance. Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilities," these traffic intensi- ties equate to a maximum stacking of one reservoir position behind the service positions at the entrance and two reservoir positions behind the service positions at the exit. In combination with the number of service positions, the total stacking areas required are 9 vehicles at the entrance and 12 vehicles at the exit. Per the proposed site plan presented In Figure 1, sufficient on-site stor- age is available for 12 vehicles at the entrance and 12 vehicles at the exit. It should be noted that the stacking analysis is influenced by several vari- ables, including the estimated service rate. Reducing the service rate at the exit by adding additional dryers/finishers would reduce the vehicle stacking requirements and maintain efficient flow through the car wash. Therefore, it should be recognized that, although adequate storage area is provided at the car wash exit, it is unlikely that the vehicle stacking re- quirement would exceed the available storage area, as the operator could add dryers/finishers to prevent such a situation from occurring. As a result, the on-site storage areas are adequate to meet the peak de- mand at the car wash. No adverse impacts are anticipated with respect to the on-site storage of vehicles, with the proposed site plan. 08J09/95(I:%CNB502% RAFF1C1TR) 16 5� 0 DR /� F� LS.lAswdate;fne I, Table D •Car Wash Entrance and Exit Vehicle Storage Area Analysis Car Wash Car Wash Entrance Exit Average Arrival Rate(vehicles per hour)' 33 33 Estimated Service Rate (per vehicle)' 5 mins. 9 mins. Service Volume (vehicles per hour per lane) 12 6.7 Potential number of service positions 8 10 Average Service Rate(vehicles per hours 96 67 Traffic Intensity' 0.34 0.50 %Confidence reservoir ositionss 1 2 99 P Potential number of service positions 8 10 Maximum vehicle storage area required(vehicles)' 9 12 Available Storage Area(vehicles) 12 12 Notes: r Average arrival rates are based on surveyed data which indicates that 40 percent of veblcles entering the site will use the car wash. 2 Estimated service rates are for vaccuming the vehicle at the entrance and drying/finisbing the vehicle at the exit. 'Average service rates are derived by multiplying the service volume by tbopotentlal number ofservicepositions in the site plan. 4 Traffic intensities are determined by dividing the Average Arrival Rate by tbeAverage Service Rate. 2 Number of reserwirpositions behind the service position are based on"Entrance-Exit Design Control forMafor Parking Facilities"study,Crommetin. a Recommended vehicle storage area is the sum of the number of reservoirpositions behind the serviceposition plus the number of service positlons, 818,93(, u1;ut:sltrocucxl5) DRAFT • LSA.-Uwwtr.Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this traffic analysis. I trust that you will find the analysis useful in your planning needs. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 553.0666. Sincerely, LSA LS8qCIATES, INC. Ramzi Amman 1 Project Manager cc: Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner A.C. Atherton, Holmes & Narver O8M 95(t:NCNB5OZ%TRUFICXTR) 18 MAnodakj,Inc 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Superior Avenue (N/S)/Hospital Road (EM (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1994)AM Peak 21/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 2112 Hour Growth 21/2 Hour -Peak2 1/2 Hour Peak2112 Hour Peak2lf2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3,061 0 26 3,087 31 17 Southbound 1,106 0 74 1,180 12 66 �.�;,� Eastbound 7 0 0 7 0 0 Westbound 194 0 0 194 2 10 N '7 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Pak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic Is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected Pak 2112 Hour Traffic Voludte. Intersection Capacity Utiliz tion(I.C.U.)Analysis is-required. MAMCIatt;I= 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Superior Avenue (N/S)/Hospital Road (E/1V) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1994)PM Peak 21/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 21/2 Hour Growth 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 1,831 0 79 1,910 19 21 Southbound 2,472 0 43 2,515 25 84 Potbound 23 0 0 23 0 0 Westbound 498 0 0 498 5 13 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to he greater than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. �� 81%93(TPOf.ALC$LS) i 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Placentia Avenue (N/S)/Superior Avenue (E/W) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1995)AM Peak 21/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 21/2 Hour Growth 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2112 Hour - Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 571 0 24 595 6 7 Southbound 1,204 0 74 1,278 13 0 Eastbound 3,115 0 59 3.174 32 33 Westbound 710 0 19 129 7 20 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to be grater than i%of Projected Pak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. • Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. 813N5(lPOC.AWXL9 - LUAiwdafe;I= 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Placentia Avenue (N/S) /Superior Avenue (E/W) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1995) PM Peak 21/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 1,155 0 74 1,229 12 8 Southbound 1,518 0 42 1,560 16 0 Eastbound 1,922 0 35 1,957 20 42 Westbound 1,893 0 60 1,953 20 25 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity U6117-tioa(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. • (( �\ 913,9S OPOGALCM) AJ } LSA As dare;Inc 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Balboa BIv&-Superior Avenue (N/S)/Coast Highway(E/W) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1993)AM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 2112 Hour Growth 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 1/L Hour Pak 21/L Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1,595 0 18 1,613 16 1 Southbound 1,207 0 22 1,229 12 17 Eastbound 5,349 214 670 6,233 62 12 Westbound 1,925 77 241 2,243 22 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Pak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected Pak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection-Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. __ 8SN5 RrerucIa-9 fStAMdatet.Inc. 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Balboa Blvd.-Superior Avenue (N)S) /Coast Highway(E/W) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1993) PM Peak 2 1/2 Hour " Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project - Direction Peak 21/2 Hour Growth 2 1/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 1,864 0 32 1,896 19 2 Southbound 2,472 0 16 2,488 25 21 Eastbound 3.719 149 350 4,218 42 15 Westbound 4,252 170 739 5,161 52 4 X Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. MTI Project Traffic is estimated to he greater than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utllization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. • j 8505 MPOGtL=9 LSAAmdatt;Z= 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Newport Boulevard (NIS) /Hospital Road (E/W) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1995)AM Peak 21/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 21/2 Hour Growth 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Volame Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4,345 87 109 4,541 45 10 Southhound 2,663 53 378 3,094 31 7 Eastbound l,149 0 50 11199 12 17 Westbound 733 0 20 753 8 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Pak 21)2 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to be grater than 1%of Projected Pak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. 8lifJ aPO(.ALCM-9 bo MAAmdate;Inc 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Newport Boulevard (N/S)/Hospital Road (E/W) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1995) PM Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 21/2 Hour Growth 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume • Northbound 3,620 72 223 3,915 39 13 Southbound 4,692 94 227 5,013 50 8 Eastbound 1,461 0 144 1,605 16 21 Westbound 885 0 0 885 9 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. �71 Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. • e�,�s tr>xxvcnh DRAFT LSAA=dat�;Inc City of Newport Beach Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Suporior Avenue (NIS)/Hospital Road (E/W) EXISTING WITH CUMULATIVE GROWTH, CUMULATIVE GROWTH COMMITTED PROJECTS,AND PROJECT EXISTING 1994 AND COMMITTED PROJECTS PROJECT WITH PROJECT MITIGATION V/C V/C V/C V MOVE- VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES. RATIO MENT IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1,600 4 3 0:00 0.00 + 0 0 0.00 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 0.00 s 1 1,600 -4 3 0.00 0.00 NBT 2 3,200 1,328 591 0.47 • 0.20 13 40 0.47 • 0.22 9 11 0.47 ' 0.22 2 3,200 1,350 642 0.47 ' 0.22 NBR 0 0 169 59 0.00 0.00 O O 0.00 0.00 O 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 169 59 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1,600 32 30 0.02 ' 0.02 0 0 0.02 • 0.02 40 50 0.04 + 0.05 1 1,600 72 80 0.04 • 0.05 S13T 2 3,20o 469 1,116 0.15 0.35 f 37 22 0.16 0.36 ► 8 11 o.16 0.36 + 2 3,200 514 1,149 0.16 0.36 ' ! SBR 0 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 3 4 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 0 0 0.00 + 0.00 0 0 3 4 0.00 * 0.00 EBT 1 1,600 1 1 0.00 0.00 • 0 0 0.00 0.00 + 0 0 0.00 0.00 • 1 1,600 1 1 0.00 0.00 • ! EBR 0 0 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0.00 0.00 WBL 1.5 2,400 ' 37 192 0.02 0.08 ' 0 0 0.02 0.08 ■ 0 0 0.02 0.08 • 2 2,400 37 192 0.02 0.08 W8T 0.5 800 1 1 0.04 * 0.03 0 0 0.04 * 0.03 0 0 0.04 • 0.03 1 800 1 1 0.04 • 0.03 WBR 0 0 28 20 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 5 6 mo 0.00 0 0 33 26 0.00 NIS Critical Movements 0.49 0.35 0.49 0.36 0.51 0.36 0.51 0.36 E/W Critical Movements 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.08 Right Turn C.M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ICU 0.53 0.43 0.53 0.44 0.55 0.44 0.55 0.44 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A A L A A A A t e/3193 CrocluG-uJ UA F T LuI�tlDC/QIlS Inc City of Newport Beach Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Placentia Avenue (NIS) /Superior Avenue (E/W) EXISTING WITH CUMULATIVE GROWTH, CUMULATIVE GROWTH COMMITTED PROJECTS,AND PROJECT EXISTING 1995 AND COMMITTED PROJECTS PROJECT WITH PROJECT MITIGATION V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RAT* MENT IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM IN. CAP. AM PM AM NBL 0 0 7 27 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 7 8 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 14 35 0.00 ► 0.00 NBT 2 3,200 204 360 0.08 0.14 12 37 0.08 0.15 * (3) (4) 0.09 0.16 * 2 3,200 213 393 0.09 0.16 * NBR 0 0 46 69 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 46 69 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1,600 4 14 0.00 0.01 0 0 0.00 0.01 * 0 0 0.00 0.01 * 1 1,600 4 14 0.00 0.01 * SBT 1 1,600 287 184 0.18 * 0.12 * 36 19 0.20 * 0.13 (3) (4) 0.20 * 0.12 1 1,600 320 199 0.20 * 0.12 SBR 1 1,600 293 430 0.18 0.27 1 2 0.18 0.27 * 0 0 0.18 0.27 * 1 1,600 294 432 0.18 0.27 * EBL 1 1,600 386 270 0.24 0.17 * 1 2 0.24 0.17 * 18 23 0.25 0.18 * 1 1,600 405 295 0.25 0.18 * EBT 2 3,200 1,043 479 0.34 * 0.16 29 16 0.34 * 0.16 10 13 0.35 * 0.17 2 3,200 1,082 508 0.35 * 0.17 EBR 0 0 31 26 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00. 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 31 26 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1,600 36 48 0.02 0.03 0 0 0.02 * 0.03 0 0 0.02 * 0.03 1 1,600 36 48 0.02 * 0.03 WBT 2 3,200 242 852 0.08 * 0.27 * 9 29 0.08 0.28 * 10 13 0.09 0.28 * 2 3,200 261 894 0.09 0.28 ► WBR 0 0 11 8 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 12 9 0.00 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.17 E/W Critical Movements 0A2 0.44 0.42 0.45 0.44 0.46 0.44 Right Turn C.M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SO Yellow Clearance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ICU 0.60 0.59 0.62 0.61 0.64 0.63 0.64 0.63 LEVEL OF SERVICE B A B B B B B B 81%93(n'OGLC)ILS) DRFMAsswiatrA Ina City of Newport Beach IntersectiiioohSn Capacity Utilization Analysis Balboa Blvd.-Superior Avenue (N/S)/Coast Highway(E/W) EXISTING WITH CUMULATIVE GROWTH, CUMULATIVE GROWTH COMMITTED PROJECTS,AND PROJECT EXISTING 1993 AND COMMITTED PROJECTS PROJECT WITH PROJECT MITIGATION VIC V/C VIC V MOVE- VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO MENT IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM LN. CAP. AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1,600 205 323 0.13 0.20 * 0 4 0.13 0.20 * 0 0 0.13 0.20 * 1 1,600 205 '327 0.13 0.20 NBT 2 3,200 401 318 0.16 * 0.13 0 0 0.17 * 0.14 1 1 0.17 * 0.14 2 3,200 402 319 0.17 * 0.14 NBR 0 0 123 102 0.00 0.00 9 16 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 132 118 0.00 0.00 SBL 1.5 2,400 212 190 0.09 * 0.08 11 8 0.09 * 0.08 2 2 0.09 * 0.08 2 2,400 225 200 0.09 * 0.08 SET 1.5 2,400 142 380 0.06 0.16 * 0 0 0.06 0.16 * 1 1 0.06 0.16 * 2 2,400 143 381 0.06 0.16 * SBR 2 3,200 186 568 0.06 0.18 * 0 0 0.06 0.18 * 6 8 0.06 0.18 * 2 3,200 192 576 0.06 0.18 * EBL 2 3,200 796 326 0.25 0.10 * . 0 0 0.25 0.10 * 6 8 0.25 0.10 * 2 3,200 802 334 0.25 0.10 * EBT 3 4,800 1,634 892 0.34 * 0.19 402 210 0.42 * 0.23 0 0 0.42 * 0.23 3 4;800 2,036 1,102 0.42 * 0.23 EBR 1 1,600 204 292 0.13 0.18 0 1 0.13 0.18 0 0 0.13 0.18 1 1,600 204 293 0.13 0.18 WBL 1 1,600 50 204 0.03 * 0.13 3 9 0.03 * 0.13 0 0 0.03 * 0.13 1 1,600 53 213 0.03 * 0.13 WBT 4 6,400 597 1,740 0.12 0.29 * 137 473 o.14 0.37 * 0 0 0.14 0.37 * 4 6,400 734 2,213 0.14 0.37 WBR 0 0 187 130 0.00 0.00 3 9 0.00 0.00 2 2 0.00 0.00 0 0 192 141 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.25 0.36 0.26 0.36 0.26 0.36 0.26 0.36 E/W Critical Movements 0.37 0.39 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 Right Turn C.M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ICU o.62 0.75 0.71 0.83 0.71 0.83 0.71 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE B C C D C D C D (� 83ryS(I'POGILCXlSJ �r , �e A r L&tAssociatt;Irsc City of Newport Beach Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Newport Boulevard (NIS)/Hospital Road (E/W) EXISTING WITH CUMULATIVE GROWTH, CUMULATIVE GROWTH COMMITTED PROJECTS,AND PROJECT EXISTING 1995 AND COMMITTED PROJECTS PROJECT WITH PROJECT MITIGATION V/C V/C V/C O V/C MOVE- VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATW MENT IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM IN. CAP. AM PM AM NBL 1 1,600 160 133 0.10 0.08 * 0 60 0.10 0.12 * 5 6 0.10 0.12 * 1 1,600 165 *199 0.10 0.12 NBT 3 4,800 1,727 1,204 0.37 * 0.26 89 133 0.39 * 0.29 0 0 0.39 * 0.29 3 4,800 1,816 1,337 0.39 * 0.29 NBR 0 0 66 67 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 . 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 66 68 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1,600 20 47 0.01 * 0.03 0 0 0.01 * 0.03 0 0 0.01 * 0.03 1 1,600 20 47 0.01 * 0.03 SBT 3 4,800 834 1,763 0.23 0.41 * 131 108 0.28 0.44 * 0 0 0.28 0.44 * 3 4,800 965 1,871 0.28 0.44 SBR 0 0 287 184 0.00 0.00 75 39 0.00 0.00 3 4 0.00 0.00 0 0 365 227 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1,600 201 238 0.13 * 0.15 * 25 77 0.14 * 0.20 * 3 4 0.14 * 0.20 * 1 1,600 229 319 0.14 * 0.20 EBT 1 1,600 114 134 0.07 0.08 0 0 0.07 0.08 0 0 0.07 0.08 1 1,600 114 134 0.07 0.08 EBR 1 1,600 243 263 0.15 * 0.16 * 0 0 0.15 * 0.16 5 6 0.15 * 0.17 1 1,600 248 269 0.15 * 0.17 WBL 1 1,600 87 170 0.05 0.11 0 0 0.05 0.11 0 0 0.05 0.11 1 1,600 87 170 0.05 0.11 WBT 2 3,200 231 191 0.08 * 0.07 * 0 0 0.08 * 0.07 * 0 0 0.08 * 0.07 * 2 3,200 231 191 0.08 * 0.07 WBR 0 0 14 36 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 14 36 0.00 0.00 NIS Critical Movements 0.38 0.49 0.40 0.56 0.40 0.56 0.40 0.56 E/W Critical Movements 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.22 0.27 0.22 Right Tarn C.M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0t Yellow Clearance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ICU 0.59 0.71 0.62 0.83 0.62 0.83 0.62 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE A C B D B D B D �.•�-1� 813,95aXWAECXI.5) • TDR AF 4 • RESERVOIR NEEDS VS TRAFFIC INTENSITY Z 25 0 W 0 20 (L W o U � > IS W os - (n a Not exceeded a L 1 time in,l 100 z E 10 Not exceededAAvem�ge W ? I (n 5 times in 100M 5 h W 00 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 TRAFFIC INTENSITY (Average Arrivai Rate - Average Service Rate) Assumptions: 1. Arrivals follow a Poisson Distriaution enencia z. Service rate can be represented by an exP probability 'unctiurs. 3. Flow is equally divi@ed between ear..*. lane than one is available. '-( �� •*nta• Tn nhtain rAc^rvnir t�noth. it-to 22 feeL Noise Analysis for the Newport Beach Car Wash City of Newport Beach Prepared For: City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. Martin Beal Mestre Greve Associates 280 Newport Center Drive Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714)760-0891 Report#95-144 August 22, 1995 • •Mestre Greve Associates Newport Beach Car Wash ' Page 1 NOISE ANALYSIS FOR THE NEWPORT BEACH CAR WASH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed car wash will be located on the-northwest corner of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. The project site is shown in Exhibit 1. This report addresses the potential noise impacts due to the proposed car wash on the adjacent land uses. The land use of most concern is the residential areas in the project vicinity.The report will identify any significant noise impacts on, the adjacent residences and compare them with the outdoor noise ordinance ordinance of the City of Newport Beach. M dgationmeasures will be suggested; if necessary. 2.0 NOISE ORDINANCE The City of Newport Beach has adopted a noise ordinance. The ordinance is designed to protect sensitive land uses from excessive noise levels generated by loudspeakers, mechanical equipment, people, animals, or any other non-transportation related noise source (noise levels from transportation related noise sources can only be regulated by the Federal government). The types of noise sources covered by the Newport Beach noise ordinance include car wash noise, music, voices (or any amplified sound), pumps, fans, and air-conditioning equipment. Essentially,any activities on private property which generate noise can be regulated through the implementation of the City's noise ordinance. Noise from car wash facilities are typically comprised of both intermittent noise, like car horns and car doors shutting, and relatively constant noise such as that from car wash dryers and vacuums. To control these types of non-transportation related noise, communities have developed noise ordinances. The City of Newport Beach exterior noise criteria for non-transportation related noise are shown in Table 1. This criteria is given in terms of allowable noise levels for a given period of time at the residential property boundary. Greater noise levels are permitted during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) as compared to the.night-time period(10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Table 1 shows the day-time and night-time acceptable levels for different land uses. �I �J 1 • Q O Q Z < 0 �T JQ ,� PAClFlC� z COAST 1 HIGHWAy VICINITY MAP N.T.S. Exhibit 1 MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Vicinity Map Ofestre Greve Associates Newport Beach Car Wash Page 2 Table 1 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Ordinance Standards for Residential Areas Maximum Time Noise of Exposure Metric Noise Level Not to be Exceeded Daytime-7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 30 Minutes/Hour L50 55 dBA 15 Minutes/Hour L25 60 dBA 5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 65 dBA 1 Minutes/Hour L1.7 70 dBA Any period of time Lmax 75 dBA Nighttime - 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 30 Minutes/Hour L50 50 dBA 15 Minutes/Hour L25 55 dBA 5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 60 dBA 1 Minutes/Hour L1.7 65 dBA Any period of time Lmax 70 dBA The 30 minute criteria is the median sound level interpreted as that noise level that cannot be exceeded for more than 30 minutes in any one hour period (abbreviated L50 for 50th percentile). The 15 minute standard is interpreted as that noise level that cannot be exceeded for more than 15 minutes in any one hour period(25 percent of the time,abbreviated L25).The 5 minute standard is that noise level that cannot be exceeded more than 5 minutes in any hour-long period(8 percent of the time, abbreviated L8.3), and so forth. The hours of operation for the proposed car wash will be between the hours of 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. Gasoline pumping operations may occur 24 hours per day (the gas station operations are not an area of concern in relation to the noise ordinance).Car wash operations will be subject only to the daytime noise standards because they will occur only during the hours covered by the daytime noise ordinance. The City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance states that if the existing ambient noise levels at the sensitive receptor exceed those noise levels specified in the noise ordinance,then the period of time that the specified noise levels are allowed to exceed shall be extended to match the measured ambient noise levels.This is somewhat difficult to understand, but the stipulation is present in the ordinance because it would be unreasonable to restrict noise to levels that are lower than the ambient noise level. The ordinance means that if noise measurements show that existing ambient noise levels exceed the ordinance limits, then the ordinance shall be adjusted to make sure that the proposed project does not generate any noise that would be any louder than the existing ambient noise. . A re CreYe Associates Newport Beach Car Wash Page 3 3.0 AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENT LEVELS Ambient noise levels were measured at four locations surrounding the proposed project site. Exhibit 2 shows the four noise measurement locations (Sites MS 1 through MS 4). The measurements were conducted between the hours of 2 p.m, and 4 p.m. on August 15th, 1995. The measurement survey utilized a Br0el & Kjaer Type 2231 Sound Level Meter, which was calibrated before and after each measurement series. The noise measurement results are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Ambient Noise Measurement Results (dBA) Time Ln= L1.7 L8.3 L25 L50 L99 Lmin Site MS1 2:25 p.m. 75.8 65.3 60.8 58.3 57.3 54.8 54.2 Site MS2 2:46 p.m. 73.0 67.3 64.8 63.3 61.8 58.8 58.6 Site MS3 3:10 p.m. 69.6 66.8 62.8 60.8 58.8 55.3 54.6 Site MS4 3:20 p.m. 62.8 61.3 58.3 56.8 55.3 52.8 52.8 The ambient noise measurement levels presented in Table 2 show that noise levels at the four receptors nearest to the project are in excess of the levels allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. The sources of the noise levels during the measurements include traffic on Superior and Placentia Avenues, aircraft overflights, birds, and equipment on the proposed site. The following sections discuss how the proposed project will affect noise levels in the residential areas in the vicinity of the project site. 4.0 CAR WASH NOISE MEASUREMENTS The main noise sources associated with a car wash facility usually include semi-constant noise sources such as air dryer/blower and vacuum noise, as well as peak impulse noise levels such as car door slamming and,car horn noise. Noise measurements for car-door closing and car horns were conducted by Mestre Greve Associates at car wash facilities similar to the car wash facility proposed for the project site. Car door closing levels were measured to be 57.0 dBA(at 10 feet from the source)and car horn levels were measured to be,83 dBA(at 33 feet from the source). The proposed car wash will be using the 4000 Series Aerojet Dryer manufactured by Worldwide �Iestre Greve Associates Newport Beach Car Wash Page 4 Drying Systems. The dryer noise measurement data was also provided by the manufacturer. Based on the manufacturer noise measurement data, the proposed dryer will generate a noise level of approximately 83 dBA at 5 feet (this noise level includes the effects of a "hush kit" that is available from Worldwide; the hush kit will be installed on this project). The dryer/blower represents the largest noise source for the car wash, and therefore,the noise measurements will be used to represent the typical car wash levels on the project site. Other sources of noise for this type of facility include vacuum noise. There are two sources of noise for vacuums. The first is the turbulent air flow at the nozzle, the second is the mechanical equipment which generates the suction called the vacuum accumulator. The vacuum accumulatoris located outside near the vacuuming area in an enclosure.Noise data for the vacuum producers was provided by the U.S. Turbine Company.Acompanyrepresentativeverifiedthatnoiselevelsfrom the specific vacuum that will be used for the project will not exceed 85 dBA at a distance of three feet. The noise measurement data are shown in Table 3. The data in Table 3 represent the noise level near the source. These noise levels are then adjusted to account for the residences being further away and are presented the the following section. Table 3 Car Wash Noise Measurement Levels (dBA) Unmitigated Levels Sources Distance (feet) L50 Lmax Dryerlblower 5 83 - Vacuum producers 3 <85* -- Vacuum Nozzle 15 60' -- Car-door/closing 10 -- 57 Car hom 33 83 - This noise level is for an unenclosedaccumulator; the enclosure that will be used at the Newport Beach Unocal will reduce this noise level by at least 10 dBA. 5.0 POTENTIAL CAR WASH NOISE LEVELS The project-related noise levels with the greatest potential for noise ordinance violations will be generated by the blower and vacuuming operations.Project generated noise levels were calculated for seven locations surrounding the project site based upon the distance of the sites from the specific locations of these pieces of equipment.Exhibit shows these seven sites(representedas CS 1 through CS7). 'Noise levels drop 6 decibels for every doubling of distance away from the source. For instance,if a noise source is measured at 65 decibels at distance of 25 feet,the noise level at 50 feet will'be 59 decibels(65 dBA - 6 dBA= 59 dBA). This 6 dBA dropoff for every doubling of distance was applied to the measurement data to produce the noise levels at the residences.Table 4 shows the noise levels at the sites caused by the individual pieces of equipment as well as the combined'noise level from both sources, thus showing the potential for project related noise to exceed the ordinance criteria. ,�t✓J CS<i Project Boundary b.. a 4. b c•\ mn L.- CS3 o `?f.�\•giddy•- �''� p �y� �� Mst Cst j. 1v Exhibit 2 MESIRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Site Plan O, � estre Greve Associates Newport Beach Car Wash Page 5 Table 4 Unmitigated Project Generated Noise Levels Site and Source L50 Lam Site CS 1 Vacuum Producer 44.3 -- Vacuum Nozzle 28.9 -- Blower 53.1 -- Door Slam -- 45 Car Horn -- 81.3 COMBINM 53.7 81.3 Daytime Ordinance 55 75 Exceedance? NO YES Site C82 Vacuum Producer 47 -- Vacuum Nozzle 33.2 - Blower 45.9 -- Door Slam -- 45 Car Horn -- 81.3 COMBINED 49.6 81.3 Daytime Ordinance 55 75 Exceedance? NO YES Site CS3 Vacuum Producer 51.7 -- Vacuum Nozzle 43.9 -- Blower 40.4 -- Door Slam -- 45 Car Horn -- 81.3 COMBINED 52.6 81.3 Daytime Ordinance 55 75 Exceedance? NO YES Site CS4 Vacuum Producer 45.3 -- Vacuum Nozzle 41.7 -- Blower 50.9 -- Door Slam -- 38.9 Car Horn -- 75.3 COMBINED 52.3 75,3 Daytime Ordinance 55 75 Exceedance? NO YES M e Greve Associates . ewport Beach Car Wash Page 6 Table 4 (continued) Unmitigated Project Generated Noise Levels Source Distance L50 Lmax Site CS5 Vacuum Producer 49.7 Vacuum Nozzle 48 -- Blower 36.1 -- Door Slam -- 45.9 Car Horn -- 82.2 COMBINED 52.1 82.2 Daytime Ordinance 55 75 Exceedance? NO YES Site CS6 Vacuum Producer 46.7 - Vacuum Nozzle 43.5 - Blower 35.5 -- Door Slam -- 49.4 Car Hom -- 85.8 COMBINED 48.6 85.8 Daytime Ordinance 55 75 Exceedance? NO YES Site CS7 Vacuum Producer 41.7 - Vacuum Nozzle 37.5 Blower 38.7 -- Door Slam -- 51 Car Horn -- 87.3 COMBINED 44.4 87.3 Daytime Ordinance 55 75 Exceedance? NO YES Note that the noise levels shown in Table 4 assume that the wash tunnel is extended approximately 24 feet at the tunnel entrance and approximately 16 feet at the exit. Exhibit 3 shows these tunnel extensions. These extensions should be included as part of the project design in order to reduce noise levels in the residential areas that are directly adjacent to the proposed project site. The noise levels shown in Table 4 do not include any mitigation except for the tunnels on the entrance to and exit from the car wash, the silencer kit on the blower and an enclosure around the vacuum producers. The silencer kit is included because the blower that was measured for this study had the silencer ldt on it. The carwash proposed for the City of Newport Beach also will have the silencer kit. The vacuumproducer at the Newport Beach facility should have an enclosure 't \\ b a \\ o O N ® O O o i a a¢ © PTER / CASHIER I ' Q\4 Operi. • � i � � Open I..V.. . :;•:;;••.,.,••:: FULL-SERVICE CAR WASH ;.:;�; : • • • • .,h.V�r ..:•• •••'.•Y�� • , ••; }� o..0 L•:.—,«...H+....w.rr..ys. :`��:f1:,,� }#,:�:�:? •.j�{•41,':YNATf�•l:,•'�W,t � •wi-i wY..��.•r+i'.rt..a.w. ' . iC(:;:'. TER - - Solid Wall Solid Wall � N 23a 9Y f a!/,NiFR N 5 76C W 2E4.97' — y'%a hlNlln a.t(A / Exhibit 3 MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES Area Covered By Tunnel Extensions M tre Greve Associates Jewport Beach Car Wash Page 7 that will reduce noise levels by 10 to 20 dBA. Therefore, a 10 dBA noise reduction factor was applied to the noise levels generated by the vacuum producer. Table 4 shows that the proposed project will generate noise levels that exceed the maximum level allowed by the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance,but the the project will not generate noise levels that exceed the City of Newport Beach L50 Noise limit. Note that these noise levels are based upon worst case assumptions (i.e., no mitigation other than the silencer kit for the dryer system and the enclosure for the vacuum producers). No noise reduction provided by the block wall between the residences and the project site was considered, nor was any noise reduction added for the interior of the wash tunnel. Furthermore, the buildings that will be constructed as part of the shopping center will act as large noise barriers and will further reduce carwash- generated noise levels in the residential areas by 10 to 20 dBA. Mitigation measures that will bring the operations at the proposed carwash into compliance with the City of Newport Beach noise ordinance are discussed in the next section. 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES This section discusses measures that will reduce the car wash generated noise levels that will affect the nearby residential areas. The following are measures that should be implemented in the project design in order to reduce the car wash generated noise to levels considered acceptable to the City of Newport Beach. 1. The wash tunnels must be extended approximately 20 feet at the entrance and approximately 16 feet at the exit.Exhibit 3 shows the recommended extensions.These tunnels are required to reduce noise to levels thatcomply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance.The extensions must have a roof that is at least as wide as the wash tunnel entrance and the inside wall of the tunnel extensions must be constructed of a rough block face. The roof and wall structures for the extension must have a surface density of at least 4.0 pounds per square foot. Any masonry material will meet this requirement.Two layers of 3/4 inch plywood will also meet the requirement (although this should be checked with the architect or structural engineer, since plywood densities do vary). The inside surface of the wall of the extension should be a non-reflective surface. Rough split face block would satisfy this requirement.Acoustic panels and other options are available that would also be non-reflective. 2. The blower that is to be installed in the project must meet a requirement of generating a noise level of 83 dBA at a distance of 5 feet (Worldwide blower with the silencer kit or equivalent blower/dryer). 3. The vacuum accumulators must be enclosed in a structure that reduces noise by at least 10 dBA.These enclosures are required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. 4. The proposed project will potentially generate noise levels that would exceed the City's maximum noise limits. The only noise source that is loud enough to exceed the maximum noise level limits are car horns. Therefore the use of car horns by attendants to signal customers that their cars are finished should be prohibited. 5. The skylight in the tunnel wash area must be 1/4-inch glass or 5/8-inch plexiglass. A thin estre Greve Associates Newport Beach Car Wash r Page 8 plastic skylight will not suffice to reduce the car wash noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach noise ordinance. 6. The operations of the car wash should be limited,to between the'hours,of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. The measures listed above will insure that the car wash operations will comply with the City of Newport Beach noise ordinance. In order to further reduce noise in the adjacent residential communities,we believe that a six to eight foot wall constructed around the project on the-property lines between the project and the adjacent residential land uses would be beneficial and urge Unocal to consider constructing such a wall. I� �EW„Oa, CrrY OF NEWP•r BEACH Hearing Date: October 5, 1995 PLANNING\BUILDING DEPARTMENT o � Agenda Item No.: 1 33o NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Javier S. Garcia, AICP c+�"'.nn�•� NEWPORTBEACKCA92658 (714) 644-3206 1 (T4)644-V %FAX(74)6443250 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Union Oil (Phillip Dedge- applicant) 1461 and 1465 Superior Avenue,Newport Beach, CA SUMMARY: To approve a use permit and a traffic study for the construction of a Carwash and Gasoline Station Facility in the APF District and the acceptance of an environmental document. Also included is a lot be adjustment realigning the interior lot line between two existing parcels of land. REQUIRED APPROVALS: If desired continue this item: • Use Permit No. 3S66, (Public Hearing) • Traffic Study No. 106, (Public Hearing) • Lot Line Adjustment No. 95-10, (Public Hearing) • and the acceptance of an environmental document, procedures are set forth in Titles 15, 19 and 20 of the Municipal Code. REQUEST OF APPLICANT The applicant has requested that this application be continued to the meeting of October 19, 1995, to allow staff additional time to review revised architectural plans for the proposed facility which address recommendations suggested by the noise assessment study. Staff has no objection to this request. PLANNINGDEPARTMENT By c Javier S. Garc' AICP Senior Planner F:\WP5I\PLANNINO\1PUBNOTTN9510051UP3566.BLP C ® Alk OF NEWPORT BF !PO T E D e ' L 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 SJ,C) 95, L51111.5 (714)644.3225GARY .G Recorder GARY L Grk+Recorder ey DEPUTvNEGATIVE DECLARATION By DEPUTY To: From: City of Newport Beach ElOfficeof Planning and Research Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 960284 y 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 rr Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 L 4 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange x—x Public Services Division P.O.Box 838 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public review period OCTOBER 5, 1995 Name of Project: UNOCAL CAR WASH AND GASOLINE STATION (USE PERMIT NO. 3566) Project Location: 1461-1465 SUPERIOR ,AVENUE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CAR WASH AND Project Description: GASOLINE STATION FACILITY WITH RETAIL VENDING MACHINE_ DISPENSERS. NO OTHER RETAIL SALES ARE PERMITTED. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council PolicyK-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 environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is®attached El on file at the Planning Department. 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. f 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 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 also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have an ues . ns or would like further information,please contact the undersigned at(714)644-3225. Date September 14, 1995 Javier , . arcia,AICP Senior Planner Revised 1195 L_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Unocal Carwash and Gasoline Station 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning/Building Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Javier S. Garcia,AICP (714) 644-3206 4. Project Location: 1461-1465 Superior Avenue(formerly 377 Superior Avenue) located on the southwesterly corner of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Union Oil Company of Southern California 17700 Castleton Street Industry, CA 91748 6. General Plan Designation: Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial 7. Zoning: APF 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The project involves the approval of a use permit for the construction of a gasoline station and car wash facility with vending machines. The site is currently vacant site and was formerly occupied by a gasoline service station which provided automobile repair as well as gasoline sales. In accordance with Section 20.33 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code the approval of a use permit is required in each case for such a use. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The project is located at the intersection of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue on the Southwesterly corner. To the north, across Placentia Avenue is a Seven-Eleven in a CHEci= Unocal Car Wads/CAwU e,%ion Page 1 l k commercial retail center; to the east, across Superior Avenue, is a bank and commercial office buildings; to the south, is a residential care facility and to the west, is a residential condominium project. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) The County of Orange and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 0 CHECKUST UnwdCarWa4i/GavoHwSfatbn Page 2 4 z ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors-checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. E1 Land Use Planning 0 Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Circulation ❑ Population&Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities& Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy&Mineral 0 Aesthetics Resources ❑ Water EI Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality 0 Noise ❑ Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of ` Significance CHECIMST UnocdlCa Wash!Gosol(M SWtlon Page 3 4 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. ANEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 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 all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ C16tuzal September 11, 1995 Signs ure Date Javier S. Garcia Printed Name F:\WP51\PLANNING\IPUBNOT\PN951005\UP3566ND.DOC CBWI UBT Unocal Or Wasli/Gasoline station Page 4 , Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan ❑ ❑ ❑ designation or zoning? ( ) / b) Conflict with applicable environ- ❑ ❑ ❑ L� mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land ❑ [R/ ❑ ❑ use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or ❑ ❑ ❑ operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from Incompatible land uses)? ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical ❑ ❑ ❑ arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? it. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official ❑ ❑ ❑ regional or local population projections?( ) / b) Induce substantial growth in an area ❑ ❑ ❑ U either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ especially affordable housing? 5 , , Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Seismic ground shaking ( ❑ ❑ ❑ �/ c) Seismic ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ LR liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche,tsunami, or volcanic ❑ ❑ ❑ hazard?() —/ e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ , f) Erosion, changes in topography or ❑ ❑ ❑ unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19,11'/ h) Expansive soils? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ u 1) Unique geologic or physical ❑ ❑ ❑ 9?11" features? () IV. WATER.: Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, ❑ ❑ ❑ a ll drainage patterns, orrthe rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to ❑ ❑ ❑ L� water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) —/ c) Discharge into surface waters or ❑ ❑ ❑ other alteration of surface water quality(e.g.temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface ❑ ❑ ❑ water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course ❑ ❑ ❑ or direction of water movements? 6 Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Change in the quantity of ground ❑ ❑ ❑ 191" waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of ❑ ❑ ❑ 19/ groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1) Substantial reduction In the amount ❑ ❑ ❑ I� of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or ❑ ❑ ❑ temperature, or cause any change in climate?( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ VI. TRANSPORTATIOWCIRCULATION Would the proposal result in Impacts to: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic ❑ Lif ❑ ❑ congestion? ( ) _ / b) Hazards to safety from design ❑ 1�' ❑ ❑ features(e.g.sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.farm equipment? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or ❑ ❑ ❑ access to nearby uses? ( ) 7 4 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) insufficient parking capacity on-site ❑ ❑ C9" ❑ or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians ❑ LN ❑ ❑ or bicyclists? ( ) f) Conflicts with adopted policies ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ impacts?( ) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered,threatened or rare ❑ ❑ ❑ species or their habitats(including but not limited to plants,fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) b) Locally designated species(e.g. ❑ ❑ ❑ 09/ heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 111, communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ Lid' and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration ❑ ❑ ❑ 2/' corridors? ( ) Vlll. ENERGY&MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources In a ❑ ❑ ❑ L7 wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) / c) Result In the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ L� known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? ( ) 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or ❑ ❑ ❑ release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or ❑ ❑ ly ❑ potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing ❑ ❑ ❑ sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with ❑ ❑ ❑ flammable brush, grass, ortrees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: —/ a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise ❑ Cld ❑ ❑ levels? ( ) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ l� 9 L __ Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Maintenance of public facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 03, XII. UTILITIES&SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? A) Power or natural gas? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0011� b) Communications systems? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 2/ c) Local or regional water treatment or ❑ ❑ ❑ i/ distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ❑ ❑ m ❑ e) Stormwaterdrainage? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ Xill. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ highway? ( ) / b) Have a demonstrable negative ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 aesthetic effect? ( ) —/ c) Create light or glare? ( ) ❑ ❑ [3 / d) Affect a coastal bluff? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ LN' XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ C9� b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ I� c) Affect historical resources? ( ) ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated / d) Have the potential to cause a ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred ❑ ❑ ❑ LS uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for ❑ ❑ ❑ RIO neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ opportunities? ( ) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. —/ A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? it Potentially Potentially Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ L� are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed In connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). in this case adiscussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. F:\Windows\PlanningU.M\DEPT\EIR-DOCS\EIR.FORM 12 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Unocal Car Wash/Gasoline Station 1461-1465 Superior Avenue Use Permit No.3566 Proiect Description The site was formerly occupied by a Union OR service station. The proposed project is a mechanical car wash operation and dispensing of gasoline. The project is located at the intersection of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue on the Southwesterly comer. To the north, across Placentia Avenue is a Seven-Eleven in a commercial retail center; to the east, across Superior Avenue, is a bank and commercial office buildings, to the south, is residential care facility and to the west, is a residential condominium project. The height of the proposed building is 21't and the structure contains a total of 2,012 sq.ft. area. The subject parcel is approximately 1.11 acre in size. ANALYSIS The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Analysis Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. L Land Use and Planning The site is designated for Administrative, Professional and Financial Commercial by the City's General' Plan Land Use Element and the Zoning is APF which designates the site for commercial development subject to approval of a Use Permit prior to the construction of a car wash or automobile service station on the site. The previous use of an automobile service station was consistent with the City's general Plan and Zoning requirements. This project is located outside the Coastal Zone Boundary and a Coastal Permit is not required. The proximity of residential uses may be adversely impacted by the noise and traffic generated by the proposed use unless the mitigation measures recommended later in this report are implemented. IL Population and Housing Population The proposed project would not cause any growth or reduction in the area's population. Housing No additional housing demand would result from the project since only a minor employment increase is anticipated. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Unocal Car Wash/Gasoline Station Page 1 IIL Geologic Problems(Earth) The proposed project would be built on a level developed site. The construction activities associated with the removal and installation of underground gasoline storage tanks as part of the proposed development will result in some soil disruption and will require excavation, compaction and soil displacement. Soil contamination is discussed under Risk of Upset(item no. 10). Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140) would reduce the impacts to an insignificant level. IV. Water The proposed project would take place on a site that is already developed, therefore no drainage impacts would be anticipated. Provisions for drainage requirements are contained in the City Excavation and Grading Code. Gasoline spill would be contained from entering storm drain system by the provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. Underground water contamination is discussed in item no. 10 of the analysis. The project is located outside flood hazard area. V. Air Quality 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. No additional stationary equipment is proposed that could generate additional emission as part ofthe project. VL Transportation/Circulation/parldng Currently the parcel is vacant and was formerly occupied by an automobile service station with three access driveways which are proposed to be retained, no new access driveways are proposed... Additional vehicular movement will be generated as a result of the proposed development. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that based on traffic data of published sources, trip generation rate for car wash with gasoline service is equivalent to trips generated by a car wash with gasoline service. The proposed gasoline service station with car wash would generate approximately 930 trip ends per day an increase of approximately 930 trips per day since the site has been vacant for a number of years. Therefore, a comprehensive traffic study was required since the traffic increase of the proposed development exceeds trip generation CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS UnoulCar Wash/Gasoline Station Page 2 requirement(300 or more trips per day) of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The project is proposes 8 parking spaces per the general commercial parking requirement of the Zoning Code for the building and 12 spaces for the cueing of vehicles entering the carwash and 12 vehicles exiting the carwash.. There are 8 parking spaces proposed on the site plan and the project has satisfied the parking requirements and no adverse impact is anticipated. The study indicates that the parking provided is adequate to meet the demands of the proposed carwash facility. The study's analysis of the project access, identified a number of recommendations which should be incorporated into the site plan. Mitigation Measures No. 1, 2 and 3 ensure that any foreseeable access problems due to access drives would be maintained to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure No. 1 1. That the project access along Superior Avenue, closest to Placentia Avenue, shall be eliminated unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the City Traffic Engineer. Mitigation Measure No. 2 2. That the project access along Superior Avenue furthest from Placenia Avenue shall be restricted to "right-in/right-out" access only, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and shall be appropriately signed in accordance with requirements of the City Traffic Engineer Mitigation Measure No. 3 3. That the project access along .Placentia Avenue shall be restricted to "right-in" access only, unless otheriwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. VII. Biological Resources(Plant and Animal Life) Plant Life The proposed site is located in a developed area of the City and the project will not affect any natural vegetation. Animal Life CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Unocal Carwash/C Ikw SNHon Page 3 The project is located in an urbanized area of the community and no significant impact to wildlife would be anticipated. VIIL Energy and Mineral Natural Resources Energy No significant increase in the use of energy is anticipated. Natural Resources The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this project. IX. Hazards Although the proposed project utilizes hazardous materials on the site however, with the provisions contained in Mitigation No. 4(b), no adverse affect on human health is anticipated. Risk of Upset The proposal does not include the removal of any underground gasoline storage tank The former tanks were removed some time in 1992 and remediation was also completed at that time Replacement of the underground storage tank may involve a risk of the release of hazardous substances during the construction and development of the project in the event of an accident or upset condition. Any liquid or non-liquid flammable and combustible substances on the site is controlled by Uniform Fire Code. Mitigation Measure No. 5 ensures that any foreseeable hazard due to upset would be maintained to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measures No. 4 and_5 4.. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide written certification acceptable to the City's Building Department signed by a licensed Engineer that the area has undergone a soil clean-up process and any gasoline leakage or soil contamination has been cleared. 5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, the applicant must demonstrate to the City' Building Department and Fire Department that the project is in compliance with the County of Orange Health Department and the City's Fire Department Regulations. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Unocal Car Wash/Gas Rw Sf w Page 4 X. Noise Existing noise levels are anticipated to be increased during the construction period primarily due to construction related activities, and operational noise produced by the forced air dryers, vacuum cleaners, horn honking and door slamming. Construction noise is short term and insignificant since construction time is expected to be short due to the small scope of the project and construction hours are limited to the hours of operation regulated through the provisions contained in the City Noise Control Regulations (NBMC Chapter 10.28). Because of the close proximity of residential properties to the west and south of the site, and the potential for adverse noise impacts on these properties, an acoustical consultant was retained to perform a noise analysis for the project. A copy of the study, prepared by Mestre Greve Associates is attached and is also available for review at the Newport Beach Planning/Building Department. The City Council recently adopted quantitative standards for noise generating services. The Noise Control Regulations were adopted on September 11, 1995 and will become effective in 30 days.. The study performed is based on the proposed standards contained in the Draft Noise Control Regulations which were adopted. The Ordinance specifies maximum allowable noise levels that may be generated by non-transportation sources adjacent to noise sensitive land uses such as residential neighborhoods. The analysis found that the yard areas of the adjacent residential neighborhood are already impacted by noise levels in excess of standards due to traffic along Superior Avenue. In such cases, allowable noise limits for new sources of non- transportation noise are adjusted so that no perceivable increase is permitted. The study concluded that the proposed car wash operation would exceed allowable noise limits in the adjacent residential neighborhood if no miti&ation were incorporated into the design of the nroiect, but through proper design (e.g., orientation and enclosure of the drying area), equipment(e.g.,dryer silencers), and restrictions on hours of operation and operational characteristics to preclude the use of automobile horns of patrons vehicles, the noise level could be reduced to comply with Newport Beach Noise Control Regulation standards. In order to ensure that the proposed project would be designed and equipped so that noise levels are not increased,the following mitigation measures are recommended. The adoption of these requirements as conditions of approval on the project would ensure that no significant noise impacts are generated. CHUCKUSTEXPLANATIONS Unocal Car Wash/Gasoane Sfsaan Page 5 Mitigation Measure No. 6 6. The wash tunnels must be extended approximately 20 feet at the entrance and approximately 16 feet at the exit. Exhibit 3 of the attached noise analysis shows the recommended extensions. These tunnels are required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations. The extensions must have a roof that is at least as wide as the wash tunnel entrance and the inside wall of the tunnel extensions must be constructed of a rough block face. The roof and wall structures for the extension must have a surface density of at least 4.0 pounds per square foot. Any masonry material will meet this requirement. Two layers of 3/4 inch plywood will also meet the requirement (although this should be checked with the architect or structural engineer, since plywood densities do vary). The inside surface of the wall of the extension shall be of non-reflective surface. Rough split face block would satisfy this requirement. Acoustic panels and other options are available that would also be non-reflective. Mtigation Measure No. 7 7. The blower that is to be installed in the project must meet a requirement of generating a noise level of 83 dBA at a distance of 5 feet (Worldwide blower with the silencer kit or equivalent blower/dryer). Mfigation Measure No. 8 8. The vacuum accumulators must be enclosed in a structure that reduces noise by at least 10 dBA. These enclosures are required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control' Regulations. Mitigation Measure No. 9 9. The proposed project will potentially generate noise levels that would exceed the City's maximum noise limits. The only noise source that is loud enough to exceed the maximum noise level limits are car homs. Therefore the use of car horns by attendants to signal customers that their cars are finished shall be prohibited. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Unocal Car Wash!Gasollw Sta" Page 6 Mtigation Measure No. 10 10. The skylight in the tunnel wash area must be 1/4- inch glass or 5/8-inch Plexiglas. A thin plastic skylight will not suffice to reduce the car wash noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations. Mtigation Measure No. 11 11. The operations of the car wash shall be limited to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Mitigation Measure No. 12 12. Prior to issuance of a certificate of Occupancy, a detailed acoustical analysis report shall be prepared describing the noise generation of the project based on the detailed project design, noise attenuation features, and equipment specifications. The report shall demonstrate that the project does not exceed allowable noise levels as described in County of Orange Noise Control Ordinance or the adopted Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations with respect to the residential properties adjacent to the project site, whichever is more restrictive. The report shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. XL Public Services There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create additional demand for these services. XM 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. ME Aesthetics The site is located in a commercial zone, and the proposed car wash would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts as compared to other adjacent commercial uses. Light and Glare If exterior lighting is required,the proposed project could produce light and glare that would adversely affect the adjacent residential properties. CHECKMTEXPLANATIONS Unocal Ccr Wash/Gasolfw Sta0m Page 7 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 No._13 13. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the lighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the engineer stating that, in his opinion,this requirement has been met. XIV.. Cultural Resources The parcel has been developed previously and no archaeological or paleontological resources are expected to exist on this site. There is no impact on the cultural resources or historic structures. XV. Recreation Recreational activities and opportunities would not be affected by the project. XVL 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. That,with incorporation of the mitigation measures listed, there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. F.%WP51U'LANNINGUPUBN011PN9510051UP3566CKDOC CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Unocal Car Wrack/Gahm"On Page 8 MITIGATIPMONITORING AND REPORTING AGRAM [EIR/Negative Declaration No. 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. The attached table summarizes the adopted mitigation measures, implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project. Il. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances, policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction and verified by plan check and/or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation measures are summarized below. A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design. Upon project approval, a copy of the approved plans 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 plans and project description. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans. B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies, standards,or conditions of approval: Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to all applicable standards and conditions. C. Mitigation measures implemented through post-construction monitoring. If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. FA...UGHN-DWORMSVvIM-COVER.PRI MPITGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Unocal Car Wash/Gasoline Station " 1461-1465 Superior Avenue Use Permit Na 3566 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification Mitigation Measures Action Verification Verification Person Date L TransportaflanchrEdild"42173ang 1. That the project access along Superior Avenue, closest to Condition of Plan Check Priortotheissuanceof Public Works Placentia Avenue,shalt be eliminated unless ottiawse approved by the approval annybuild'mgpemxt Department and the Public Works Depamnatandthe CtyTtafficPnginea: City Traffic Engmcer 2. That the paged access along Superior Avenue furWatfrom Condition of Plan Check Priortotheismunceof Public Works • Placeoia Avenue shall be restricted to `flight idrigdorn"aacss only, approval aaybuldingperm3 Department and the unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Eng'uua,and shall be City Traffic Engineer appropriately signed in accordance with requherireafs of the City Traffic En 3. That the project acres slang Placentia Avenue shall be Conditionof Plan Check Pdortotheisanceof Public Works restricted to`4ight-m"aooes only,unks;otheriwise approved by the City approval anybuitd'mgpemirt Department and the Traffic Pngmeen City Traffic Engineer 1% Hanards 4" Prior to the issuance of a building permq the applicant shall Condition of Plan Check Priortotheimmunceof Public Works provide written arti6catim acceptable to the Citys Bwlft Department approval anygadingabunTdmg Director,and Building signed by alicemadFixgmea That the area bas undergone a soil ceertop permit Department Process and any gasciline leakageursoiil oanammationhasbeenckared S. Priormthe issuance ofa certificate ofuae and occupancy,the Condition of Plan Check Priortotheisuanceof Public Works . applicant must demonstrate to the City BurTdng Department and Fm approval Cati icdeofOccupancy Director,and Building Department that the;x6ect is in compliance with the County of Orange Department Beath Department and the Citys Fire Department Reguhalicm, x Nnle 6. The wash moods must be extended approximately 20 feet Condition of Plan Check Priortotheisuaooeof Planning Department atthe entrance and approximately 16 fed at the exit Edubit3ofthe approval anybuildiogpeninR and Building Dept attached noise analysis shows the recommended extensions. These tunnels are required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulation. The extension must have a roofthat is at least as wide as the wash tunnel entrance and the inside wall of the tum el emersion must be constmcted of a _ mudh block face. The roof and wall structures for the exnenion Page 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY Unocal Car Wash/Gasoline Station 1461-146S SuperiorAvenue UsePermitNo.3566 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification Mitigation Measures Action Verification Verification Person Date must have a surface density of at least 4.0 pounds per square foot Any masonry material will meet this requirement Two layers of 3/4 inch plywood will also meet the requirement(although this should be checked with the architect or structural engine, since plywood densities do vary). The inside surface of the wall of the extension shell be of von-reflective surface. Rough split face block would satisfy this requirement Acoustic panels and other options are available that would also be non-reflective. 7. The blower that is to be installed in the project must meet Condition of Plan Check Priortothe issu Of Planning Department a requirement ofgenemtinga noise level of83 dBAst a distance of approval anybudd'mgpemid and Budding Dept feet (Worldwide blower with the silencer kit or equivalent blower/dryer). 8. The vacuum accumulates must be enclosed in a Condition of Plan Check Priortotheisuenceof Planning Department struchmethat reduces noise by at least 10 dBA These enclosures are approval a uybuildingpermit and Building Dept required to reduce noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations, 9. The proposed project will pally generate noise Condition of Plan Check Priortotheisuanceof Planning Department levels that would exceed the City's maximum noise limits. The only approval anybildingpermrt and Building Dept noise source that is loud enough to exceed the maxdmum noise level limits are car horns. Therefom the use of car horns by attendants to simal customers that their cars are finished shall be prohibited 10. The skylight in the tunnel wash area must be 1/4-inch Condition of Plan Check Priortotheisuarceof Planning Department glass or 5/8-inch Plexdglm Athin plastic skylight will not suffice to approval anybuildmgpeemit and Building Dept reduce the car wash noise to levels that comply with the City of Newport Beach Noise Control Regulations 11. The operations ofthe carwash shall be limitedto between Condition of Feld Verification Fdortotheissuamof Planning Department the hours of 8 am and 10 p.m. approval anybuildingpenn@ and Building Dept 12 Prior to issuance of a certificate of Occupancy,a detailed Condition of Post Construction Priurtotheissusueeof Planning Department am,Mcalanal)wreportslxaHbo WWaredde ''bmgthemaegmmmhm approval Acoustical Report saybuiWmgpem@ and Building Dept of the pmjed based on the detailed project design,noise aaanaticn festmcs,and equipment specifications. The report shall demonstrate dial thepiojeddmio cmmdatlowabkwisektekasdesmbedinCoudyof Orange Nose Cared Ordinance or the adopted Newport Bwdr Noise Page 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY ; Unocal Car Wash/Gasoline Station ' 1461-1465 Superior Avenue Use Permit No.3566 Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Verification Mitigation Measures _ Action Verification Verification Person Date Control Regulations with roped to the resdmdial pmpaties adacent to theprojectsite,whid�ismorerotridise,Tberepmtshallbesubjecito ccwiewandWovelbytheDiredmofPhn mg. 13. PriormtheissuanceofmWbtildiogpmddtheapplicmtshaR Conditionof Plan Check Friortotheimianoeof riming Department deapr>stmte to the Plmaung Department that the lighting system shall be approval aaybuildmgpamit and Building Dept designed,d'veded,andmahtainedmsudaam=wa toconcedtholigl¢ source mdto ni®rze ligiat spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical En@ma,with a kttw from the eogheer dd mgtbat,m h opmioo,ibis basbcenmes F:\WP51\PLANNING\1PiJBNOT1PN95100SUP3566MM.TAB Page 3 DRAFT LSA Associates,Inc. Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering Resourr LSA y� Community Planning A\1J' Cormnrmity Planning Ecological Restoration Resource Economic Principals August8, 1995 Rob Balen Lyndon Calerdrne Les Card Richard Edmonton Steve Granbohn City Traffic Engineer Roger Harris City of Newport Beach Art Homrighausen Larry Kennings 3300 Newport Boulevard George Kurilko Newport Beach, CA 92658 Carollyn Lobell Bill Slayer Rob McCann Subject: Traffic Study for Unocal Gras Station and Car Wash at Rob Schonholt: 1465 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach (Traffic Study 106) MalcobnJ Sproul Associates Dear Rich: Deborah Baer-N'hlker Connie Calica LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to provide the following traffic analy- —�- Gary Doan sis for the proposed Unocal Gras Station and Car Wash, located at the Kevin Pincher southwest corner of Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue in the City of Richard Harlacher Newport Beach. Michele Huddleston Gina Jurick Clint Kellner The analysis has been prepared at the request of City staff to identify off- Karen Kirtland site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance MO) analysis, to Benson Lee examine on-site circulation conditions to enure that the proposed ac- Sabrina Nicholls cesses provide adequate ingress/egress to the local street system, and that Anthony Pettus on-site storage areas are adequate to meet the demands of the proposed Jill Wilson project. SUALMMYOFMArDINGS 1. The site is currently vacant. Three full access driveways provide access to the adjacent street system: two along Superior Avenue and one along Placentia Avenue. The driveways closest to the Placentia/Superior intersection are located at the crosswalks to the Intersection. The project does not propose any new access drive- ways. 2. Placentia Avenue and Superior Avenue adjacent to the project site are fully built out to their Master Plan arterial designations. 0S 09t95(1:%CNB502%TRAPFIC.L7R) One Park Plaza,Suite 500 Telephone 714353-0666 Irume,California 92714 Facsimile 714553.8076 DRAFT LSA iUsod tes,Inc. 3. At the project driveways, approximately 1,860 vehicle trips per day are forecast to enter and exit the sire, with 133 vehicle trips occur- ring during the am. peak hour and 166 vehicle trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Extensive studies have shown that much of gas station traffic gen- erated at the project driveways is already on the street for another purpose. These trips are denoted as pass by trips, and account for approximately 50 percent of the total daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveways. As a result, the proposed project generates approximately 930 new project trips, 67 new a.m. peak hour trips, and 84 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation network. 4. Per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis, no significant impacts are forecast at the study area Intersections with the addi- tion of new project trips to the circulation network. 5. Per the project access analysis, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the final site plan: • The project access along Superior Avenue closest to Placentia Avenue should be eliminated. • The project access along Superior Avenue furthest from Placentia Avenue should be restricted to"right-in/right-out" access only. The project access along Placentia Avenue should be re- stricted to "right-in" access only. 6. Per the proposed site plan presented in Figure 1, sufficient on-sire storage area is available for a total of 12 vehicles at the car wash entrance and 12 vehicles at the car wash exit. The on-site storage areas are adequate to meet the peak demand at the car wash. No adverse impacts are anticipated with respect to the on-site storage of vehicles, with the proposed site plan. 7. Per the current site plan and the access restrictions identified previously, on-site circulation between the gasoline fueling area and the car wash area is adequate. 08/09/95(1:%CNS502%TRAFFIC.LTA) 2 • 1: '1�•.r. :.•--, t. •-^�^�" t �AwMlrw• .•. �.. .•. .. �.��1���'�F+�4� ,�TP1'. ,; �}�.. a „� a �� a, �� a •t� —r ON a, s ♦4it C� P p 4 T Source:Unocal. 8!1l95(CNB502) 41�, Figure 1 N LS/�(�„ N°Scale Site Plan DRAFT LSA Az iatcr,Inc. PROPOSED PROJECT The project site is currently vacant, and Is proposed to be developed with a gas station and car wash. The proposed site plan is illustrated in Figure 1. Development of the site would allow for the construction of a 56 foot full service car wash and operation of the primary business of gasoline sales via 12 pump dispenser. The proposed site plan retains the existing access driveways: two along Superior Avenue and one along Placentia Avenue. As identified in the site plan, the existing driveways adjacent to the Placentia/Superior intersection are located at the crosswalks to the intersection. The project does not propose any new access driveways. Project Trip Generation The City of Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) does not define trip rates for gas station/car wash land uses. ISA reviewed avail- able trip generation rates for gas/service station and car wash facilities for application to the project site. Table A provides a summary of various trip generation rates based on: 1. Industry standard publications such as the Institute of Transporta- tion Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation and the SANDAG Traffic Generators; 2. The City of Irvine Traffic Analysis Model (ITAM) trip rates for a Gas Station and a Car Wash; and 3• Surveyed trip generation rates presented in Service Station Trip Generation, ITE Journal, March 1993 (p.23-28). ITAM trip rates are on a per site basis, while the industry standard trip rates, published in ITE and SANDAG, and the surveyed rate are based on per vehicle fueling position (vfp). Table A presents the total trip genera- tion resulting from application of the industry standard trip rates and the surveyed trip rates to the proposed 12 vehicle fueling positions at the project site. For purposes of this project analysis, the average trip generation identi- fied in Table A is used to determine traffic conditions on site and at the project driveways. The average trip generation volumes represent reason- able estimates based on industry standard rates, modelled trip rates for service station and car wash uses, and survey data gathered at similar facilities. As identified in Table A, at the project driveways approximately 1,860 vehicle trips are forecast entering and exiting the site per day, with 133 08M/95(L: CNB502%TRAFFIC.LTR) 4 DRAFTLSA Associates, Inc. Table A-Service Station/Car Wash Trip Generation Rates AM Peek Hour PM Peak Hour 'Trip Generation Rates Daily In Out Total In Out Total Per vebicle fuelinz Position ITE Trip Generation Manual,Update to 5th Edition' 145.7 5.54 5.33 10.87 6.20 6.20 12.39 SANDAG Traffic Generators,October 1993' 155.0 6.20 6.20 12.40 6.98 6.98 13.95 Average Trip Generation Rates 150.0 5.90 5.80 11.70 6.60 6.60 13.20 Per site ITE Trip Generation Manual,Update to 5th Edition 1,748 67 64 131 74 74 148 SANDAG Traffic Generators,October 19934 1,860 74 74 148 84 84 168 ITAM Trip Rate for Gas Station and Car Wash' 1,912 62 62 124 102 102 204 ITE Journal,Service Station Trip Generation° 1,900 65 65 130 73 73 145 Average Trip Generation 1,86o 67 66 133 83 83 166 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Recommended Trip Generation Daily In Out Total in Out Total Project driveway trips 1,860 67 66 133 83 83 166 Pass by trips(50%)7 930 33 33 66 41 41 82 New project trips 930 34 33 67 42 42 84 Source, t Trip Generation,Institute of Transportatio n Engineer; Update to the 5th Edition,February 1995(Land Use 84b). 2 Traffic Generators,San Diego Association of Government, October 1993for Gasoline WitbFoodMart/CarWasb. 3 Application ofrM trip rates to theproposedprofect number of vebicle fuelingpositions, twelve. A Application ofSANDAG trip rates to theproposedprofect number of vebicle fuelingpositions, twelve. 5 City of Irvine TrafficAnalysishfodel(ITAAD trip ratesfor Gas Station and Car Wasb are combined 7 Trip generation for GasStatlon with Mart 6 Car Wash are from ITEJournal,Mareb 1993(P.23.28)for 12 vfp's. 6 Pass by trip reduction based on 1TE Trip Generation manual,5tb Edition,January 1991 (Land Use 846). 813195(1.1 CNB5011TP0CALC.XLS) DRAFTLSA Auoaltcs,Inc. vehicle trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 166 vehicle trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. Pass by Trip Reduction Per the ITE Trip Generation manual, much of the service station traffic generated at the site driveways is already on the street for another pur- pose. Based on vehicular movements traced at eight service stations surveyed in the ITE Trip Generation manual, the findings indicate that 54 percent of the a.m. peak hour volume and 58 percent of the p.m. peak hour volume involves vehicles passing by the site on their way to another destination. Based on these findings and considering that the site includes a car wash facility, which may be regarded as a destination use, a pass by trip reduc- tion factor of 50 percent, rather than the 54-58 percent factor identified above, was used. This factor is applied to the daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveways in Table A. As a result, the proposed project generates approximately 930 new project trips, 67 new a.m. peak hour trips, and 84 new p.m. peak hour trips on the arterial circulation network. These "new project trips"are used to determine off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis. Project Trip Distribution Figure 2 presents the trip distribution plan for the proposed project. The distribution plan shows project trip distribution percentages to/from the project site. The majority of project trips (60 percent) are distributed north of the site along Superior Avenue, Placentia Avenue, and Newport Boulevard. The remaining 40 percent are distributed southbound, and split equally along Pacific Coast Highway. A nominal number of project trips (three percent) is distributed to and from Balboa Peninsula. Project trip assignments are based on these overall distributions with adjustments at the project driveways and the adjacent intersections of Placentia/Superior and Superior/Hospital to account for the driveway access restrictions as follows: • The project access along Superior Avenue closest to Placentia Avenue should be eliminated. • The project access along Superior Avenue furthest from Placentia Avenue should be restricted to "right-in/rightout" access only. The project access along Placentia Avenue should be restricted to "right-in"access only. 08/09/95(1.%CNB502%TRAFFIC.LT'R) 6 DRAFT LEGEND: 25% Project Trip Distribution < 20% a � O Study Area Intersection 4P 0 30% n. 9 15th ST PUCENfIA AVE F, PROJECT 60% 4P SITE �" ` 10% PROJECT SITE 544 MEDICAL IN �10% 100%�40% 25% OHOSPITAL RD O f�► 25%O 15% r IS%O `y IS% a 0 5% ~� 19% PCII 1►. ld�� �o 9� 2% o I% r 8n/95(CNB502) Figure 2 N LSi 1 Not to Scale Project Trip Distribution DRAFTLSA A.ixiatca.[tic. Based on the assignment plan, "new project trips" identified in Table A are assigned at the TPO study area intersections. TRAFFIC PIIASIIVG ORDINANCE(TPO) ANALYSIS The City of Newport Beach TPO requires an analysis of potential project related traffic impacts on critical intersections for any office, commercial; or industrial projects having a gross floor area greater than 10,000 square feet and for all residential developments of more than ten dwelling units. Consistent with the City of Newport Beach Administrative Procedures for implementing the TPO analysis, trips are generated, distributed and as- signed to the four study area intersections presented in Figure 2. These intersections were selected because they are anticipated to be influenced by traffic generated by the proposed project. The list of Intersections was reviewed and approved by the City s Traffic Engineer. Existing traffic conditions for the intersections are based on winter/spring 1994 and winter/spring 1995 counts. The intersection at Balboa- Superior/Coast Highway is based on a winter/spring 1993 traffic count. Committed project traffic volumes at the study area intersections are taken from the City's cumulative projects list prepared on July 19, 1995. Cumulative growth volumes, also included in this analysis, are based on City of Newport Beach Regional Traffic Annual Growth Rates for street segments within the'City of Newport Beach's boundary. One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" tests, as defined in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance No. 86-20, consist of a series of comparisons between the One Percent Test volumes and the proposed project's peak period trip assignment for the four study area intersections in the City of New- port Beach. The test year for the analysis is 1997, one year after occu- pancy of the proposed project. The "One Percent Traffic Volume Analy- sis"worksheets are presented in Appendix A. The results of the "One Percent Traffic Volume Analysis" are summarized in Table B. This Table identifies the four study area intersections, along with their respective peak period comparison volumes. For each ap- proach leg of an intersection, the 1997 a.m. and p.m. peak period one percent test volumes, the proposed project's peak period,trip assignment, and a comparison of the peak period volumes are presented. Under the "Project Volumes Exceed 1% Test Volumes," those approach legs to an intersection where the project volumes exceed the one percent test vol- umes are identified. 08M/95(1:*CNB502%TMFF1C.r.TR) 8 LSAAssoc[ate;Inc. Table B -Traffic Phasing Ordinance (1TO)Analysis Summary 1%TEST VOLUMES PROJECT VOLUMES AM TOTAL PM TOTAL AM TOTAL PM TOTAL EXCEED 1%TPO INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB AM PM Superior Avenue(N/S)/Hospital Road (E/W) 31 12 0 2 19 25 0 5 17 66 0 10 21 84 0 13 YES YES Placentia Avenue (VS)/Superior Avenue (EM 6 13 32 7 12 16 20 20 7 0 33 20 8 0 42 25 YES YES Balboa Blvd.-Superior Avenue OVS)/Coast Highway(FM 16 12 62 22 19 25 42 52 1 17 12 3 2 21 15 4 YES YES Newport Boulevard(N/S)/Hospital Road (E/W) 45 31 12 8 39 50 16 9 10 7 17 0 13 8 21 0 YES YES v �-1 8/3195(IPOCAW-W) DRAFT LSA Au sates,Inc. As outlined in the Administrative Procedure for Implementing the TPO, critical intersections are defined as those locations in which project gen- erated traffic adds one percent or more to the peak 2.5 hour period traffic volume, to any leg of the intersections In the committed plus pro- ject condition. As indicated In Table B, all four study area Intersections will exceed one percent of the intersection approach volumes. As a result, intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analyses are required at all four intersections. intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)Analysis The ICU methodology examines the turn volumes for each intersection to determine the volume/capacity(v/c) ratio for each movement. Conflicting turn movement volumes and their v/c ratios are then examined to deter- mine the overall capacity utilization for each Intersection in the form of a v/c ratio, termed ICU. In effect, an ICU is the percentage of an intersection's capacity needed to adequately accommodate all vehicles travelling through the intersection. Hence, the higher the ICU, the high- er the percentage of capacity utilization, where an ICU of 1.00 would equal the utilization of 100 percent of the intersection's capacity. With lower capacity utilization, residual capacity will prevail. The ICU calcula- tions presented in this analysis are consistent with the City of Newport Beach TPO implementation guidelines. As required by the TPO implementation guidelines, critical intersections, where project volumes exceed the one percent test volumes, will need mitigation If the project causes an intersection to exceed an ICU of 0.90 or makes worse an intersection that already exceeds the 0.90 threshold during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. The ICU analysis worksheets for the four intersections examined in the City of Newport Beach are presented in Appendix B of this report. Figure 3 presents the peak hour project trip assignment at the study area intersections. Table C presents a summary of the ICU analysis for the existing, existing plus cumulative, and existing plus cumulative plus pro- ject conditions. Table C indicates that all the study area intersections are forecast to operate well below the 0.90 ICU (LOS D) threshold for cumu- lative plus project conditions. Therefore, per the TPO analysis, no signifi- cant impacts are forecast at the study area intersections with the addition of new project trips to the circulation network. 08ro9,95t1:�CNB502%Taeav1C.LTsI 10 I DRAFT LEGEND: 25/20 Project Trip Assignment(AM/PM) (U O Study Area intersection a {3/4) Redistributed Pass By Trips(AM/PM) E 04 u Q�� a 5J 15th ST u PLACENTIAAVE� I PQ PROJ SITE T PROJECT 4~ SITE J4 9 MEDICAL LN n ti� 66�3 �INV `IV 1 / O 4 5/6 HOSPUAL RD �O 4 3/4 I 516-1 e h QQ a 174 OR�22 o PCH �O 9� 1p O 8/7/95(CNB502) Figure 3 N LSD Not to Scale New Project Trip Assignment LSAAssociate%Inc Table C-Intersection Levels of Service Analysis Summary Existing Conditions Existing+ Cumulative Exstng.+Cum.+Pmject AM PM AM PM AM PM INTERSECTION ICU Los ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Superior Avenue 00)/Hospital Road (E/W) 0.53 A 0.43 A 0.53 A 0.44 A 0.55 A 0.44 A Placentia Avenue (N/S)/Superior Avenue (EM 0.60 B 0.59 A 0.62 B 0.61 B 0.64 B 0.63 B Balboa Blvd.-Superior Avenue (N/S)/Coast Highway(FM 0.62 B 0.75 C 0.71 C 0.83 D 0.71 C 0.83 D Newport Boulevard qN/ )/Hospital Road (E/W) 0.59 A 0.71 C 0.62 B 0.83 D 0.62 B 0.83 D v Mn 813195(TPOCALCM9 DRAFTLSA Asmoclatet,Inc. PROJECT SITE ACCESS As identified in the site plan presented in Figure 1, three existing drive- ways are proposed to provide access to the adjacent street system: two along Superior Avenue and one along Placentia Avenue. The project proposes to maintain existing curb cuts, and does not propose any new access driveways. The existing site was previously occupied by a service station. Therefore, the existing driveway locations are based on the previous development approval, which resulted in the two driveways closest to the Placentia/Superior intersection being located at the crosswalks to the intersection. ISA has examined the proposed access locations and visited the site to observe morning and evening peak hour operations at the existing drive- ways and the Placentia/Superior intersection. The purpose of this on-site analysis is to ensure that adequate access to and from the local street system could be provided via the existing access driveways, and to examine whether full or partial access can be provided based on the ability of project traffic to enter and exit the site without conflicting with the traffic flow on the adjacent arterials. Based on this analysis, Figure 4 presents the recommended access con- trols for the project site. They are as foilows: 1. The project access along Superior Avenue closest to Placentia Avenue should be eliminated. This access is located at the wester- ly terminus of the pedestrian crosswalk across Superior Avenue. Inbound and outbound vehicular access at this location would conflict with traffic flow along Superior Avenue due to the prox- imity of this access to Placentia Avenue. As a result, left turns in and out of the site would occur within the intersection. Current- ly, the southbound right turn movement at the Placentia Avenue approach is included as a separate phase in the signal cycle at Placentia/Superior. Observations indicate that when the through movement southbound along Superior Avenue is stopped at the light, the right turn movement along Placentia Avenue is given the green light to proceed. This results in a constant stream of traffic southbound along Superior Avenue at the project driveway. Therefore, any vehicular turning movements at this driveway loca- tion would be difficult and would Interfere with the traffic flow along southbound Superior Avenue. 2. The project access along Superior Avenue furthest from Placentia Avenue should be restricted to "right-in/right-out" access only. 0W/95(I:%CNB502%TRAFFIC.LTR) 13 I CAR WASH ENTRANCE " "" RIGHT IN (VACUUMING) .:_:.. ACCESS ONLY STORAGE AREA (12 VEHICLES) 6 01) it Itn C) a •'• "TIT� • � � i ~ r•' ,,I , Ii "WPM...........wall 1 :.: i --- - �-� — ♦♦♦ ;%�jai J ♦!♦ \� ;s, i` ACCESS ♦♦ t P ELIMINATED ♦ / I ♦ 'j RIGHT IN/RIGHT OUT own ♦♦ / F , ACCESS ONLY Swat LEGEND: -—-— On-Site Circulation ::• -4— Direction of Travel `' -4 f� CAR WASH EXIT 4C (DRYING/FINISHING) c � STORAGE AREA 5J4 (12 VEHICLES) Source:Unocal. 8n/95(CNB502) - 41� Figure 4 N L C 1— /�(�„ Nescale Circulation Recommendations ■\A!'�i T LSA Auadatcs,Inc. The existing street striping along Superior Avenue adjacent to the project site is double double yellow, thereby restricting all left turn movements across Superior Avenue. 3. The project access along Placentia Avenue should be restricted to "right-in" access only. This access is located at the southerly ter- minus of the pedestrian crosswalk across Placentia Avenue. A left turn inbound movement is not recommended as there is Insuffi- cient left turn storage distance between the driveway and Superior Avenue. Due to the acute angle created by the intersection of Placentia and Superior, outbound left turn movements are awk- ward and would result in,vehicles travelling along Placentia Ave- nue in the wrong direction for a short distance. Right turns out of the site cannot be accommodated because the approach strip- ing along Placentia Avenue provides a dedicated right turn lane. Right turn vehicles coning the site at this location would need to weave across this lane to reach the through lane along Placentia Avenue. The proximity of the driveway to Superior Avenue results in a very short weave distance, precluding the outbound right turn movement at this location. With the recommended access controls presented In Figure 4, adequate inbound and outbound access to and from the site can be provided. However, the turn movement restrictions at the driveways could result in an increase In the number of"U-turns" being made at Superior Avenue/ Hospital Road and at Placentia Avenue/15th Street. As identified in the TPO analysis, these additional turn movements at the intersections can be accommodated while maintaining acceptable peak hour levels of service. CAR WASH VESICLE STORAGE AREA ANALYSIS The following stacking analysis Is based on "Entrance-Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilities" prepared by Robert W. Crommelin, P.E. This analysis methodology Is consistent with the criteria used in the City of Newport Beach for determining vehicle storage areas. Determining the amount of storage area required at the car wash en- trance and exit requires defining the average arrival rate and dividing this by the average service rate, resulting In the site specific traffic intensity. Based on Crommelin's reservoir position needs data, the maximum num- ber of vehicles that will queue at the car wash entrance behind the ser. vice position can be determined at a 99 percent confidence level. Based on a survey of over 100 vehicles entering the Shell Gas Station, Mini Mart, and Car Wash, located at Barranca and Paseo Westpark in the City of Irvine, approximately 40 percent of the vehicles entering the site used the car wash; the remaining 60 percent visited the site for gas only. 08/09/95(I:%CNB502%TWF1CX R) 15 DRAFTlSA Aamadtct,,nr. Therefore, the peak arrival rate at the car wash entrance is estimated at 33 vehicles per hour, based on application of 40 percent to the total 83 inbound p.m. peak hour trips. The vehicle storage area analysis for the car wash is presented in Table D. Car wash service rates are based on similar type facilities, which indicate that the vacuuming process takes approximately five minutes per vehicle and the drying/finishing process takes approximately nine minutes per vehicle. These estimated process times result in service volumes of 12 vehicles per hour per service position at the car wash entrance and 6.7 vehicles per hour per service position at the car.wash exit. Average service rates are determined by multiplying service volumes by the number of potential service positions identified in the site plan. At the car wash entrance, four service lanes and two vacuum areas provide a total of eight service positions. Similarly, at the car wash exit five service lanes, accommodating two vehicles per lane, provide a total of ten service positions for drying/finishing. The resultant average service rates are 96 vehicles per hour at the entrance and 67 vehicles per hour at the exit. Dividing the average arrival rates by the average service rates results in traffic intensities of 0.34 and 0.50. Based on Exhibit 1 of the "Entrance- Exit Design and Control for Major Parking Facilities," these traffic intensi- ties equate to a maximum stacking of one reservoir position behind the service positions at the entrance and two reservoir positions behind the service positions at the exit. In combination with the number of service positions, the total stacking areas required are 9 vehicles at the entrance and 12 vehicles at the exit. Per the proposed site plan presented in Figure 1, sufficient on-site stor- age is available for 12 vehicles at the entrance and 12 vehicles at the exit. It should be noted that the stacking analysis is influenced by several vari- ables, including the estimated service rate. Reducing the service rate at the exit by adding additional dryers/finishers would reduce the vehicle stacking requirements and maintain efficient flow through the car wash. Therefore, it should be recognized that, although adequate storage area is provided at the car wash exit, it Is unlikely that the vehicle stacking re- quirement would exceed the available storage area, as the operator could add dryers/finishers to prevent such a situation from occurring. As a result, the on-site storage areas are adequate to meet the peak de- mand at the car wash. No adverse impacts are anticipated with respect to the on-site storage of vehicles, with the proposed site plan. 08/09/95p:•cxs502,,TRAFFIc.tTx> 16 �I i DRAFT MAzodate;Ina Table D - Car Wash Entrance and Exit Vehicle Storage Area Analysis Car Wash Car Wash Entrance Exit Average Arrival Rate (vehicles per hour)' 33 33 Estimated Service Rate (per vehicle)' 5 mins. 9 mins. Service Volume (vehicles per hour per lane) 12 6.7 Potential number of service positions 8 10 Average Service Rate (vehicles per hour); 96 67 Traffic Intensity' 0.34 0.50 99% Confidence reservoir positions$ 1 2 Potential number of service positions 8 10 Maximum vehicle storage area required(vehicles)' 9 12 Available Storage Area(vehicles) 12 12 Notes: t Average arrival rates are based on surveyed data which Indicates that 40 percent of vehicles entering the site will use the car wash. =Estimated service rates are for vaccuming the vehicle at the entrance and drying1finisbing the vehicle at the exit. -'Average service rates are derived by multiplying the service volume by the potential number of servicepositions in the site plan. * Traffic Intensities are determined by dividing the A verage Arrival Rate by the Average Service Rate. $Number of reservoirpositions behind the service position are based on"Entrance•Exit Design Control forMafor Parking Facilities"study, Crommelin. Q Recommended vehicle storage area is the sum of the number of reservoirpositions behind the service posilionplus the number of service positions. 818,95 02UEUE9TPoCrI CM.9 DRAFT LSAAl datcs,Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this traffic analysis. I trust that you will find the analysis useful in your planning needs. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 553-0666. Sincerely, LSA IATES, INC. Ramzi Ammad Project Manager cc: Javier S. Garcia, Senior Planner A.C.Atherton, Holmes & Narver 0&09/95(E%CNB502%TRAFFICXTA) 18 LSAAaodate;Inc 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Superior Avenue (N/S) /Hospital Road (EyW) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1994)AM Peak 21/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 21/2 Hour Growth 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3,061 0 26 3,087 31 17 Southbound 1,106 0 74 1,180 12 66 .� Eastbound 7 0 0 7 0 0 D� Westbound 194 0 0 194 2 10 Jr Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. �7 X Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.).Analysis is required. s/3195(1'PiOCALCM-S) MAz Ddateq l= 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Superior Avenue (N/S)/Hospital Road (E/W) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1994)PM Peak 2 112 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1,831 0 79 11910 19 21 Southbound 2,472 0 43 2,515 25 84 Eastbound 23 0 0 23 0 0 Westbound 498 0 0 498 5 13 ------------ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than I%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. 813i95(rPOCALCM) MAS dates,Inc. 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Placentia Avenue QO) /Superior Avenue (E/W) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1995)AM Peak 21/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 21/2 Hour Growth 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 1/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 571 0 24 595 6 7 Southbound 1,204 0 74 1,275 13 0 Eastbound 3,115 0 59 3,174 32 33 Westbound 710 0 19 729 7 20 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. aB195(nOC4LC-W) ISAAanctate;Inc 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Placentia Avenue (N/S)/Superior Avenue (E/W) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1995) PM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1,155 0 74 1,229 12 8 Southbound 1,518 0 42 1,560 16 0 Eastbound 1,922 0 35 1,957 20 42 Westbound 1,893 0 60 1,953 20 25 —!1 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. _ Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. 813195(IPOCALCXLS) 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Balboa Blvd.-Superior Avenue (N/S)/Coast Highway(E/W) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1993)AM Peak 21/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1,595 0 18 1,613 16 1 Southbound 1,207 0 22 1,229 12 17 Eastbound 5,349 214 670 6,233 62 12 Westbound 1,925 77 241 2,243 22 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. a/3)95 CIPOCALcM-S) LFAA�rares,Jf= 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Balboa Blvd.-Superior Avenue (N/S) /Coast Highway(E/R) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1993) PM Peak 21/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 112 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 1,864 0 32 1,896 19 2 Southbound 2,472 0 16 2,488 25 21 Eastbound 3,719 149 350 4,218 42 15 Westbound 4,252 170 739 5,161 52 4 X Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. NMI Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. s/305 XIs) procncC MAAMdateg Inc. 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Newport Boulevard (N/S) /Hospital Road (E/1V) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1995)AM Peak 21/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 2 1/2 Hour Growth 21/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Peak 2 1/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 4,345 87 109 4,541 45 10 Southbound 2,663 53 378 3,094 31 7 Eastbound 1,149 0 50 11199 12 17 rracyy� Westbound 733 0 20 753 8 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. 81595(rPOCALCXLS) LCAAMdater,Inc 1%Traffic Volume Analysis TPO Sensitivity Analysis Newport Boulevard 00)/Hospital Road (E/W) (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 1995) PM Peak 21/2 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1%of Projected Project Direction Peak 21/2 Hour Growth 21/2 Hour Peak 1/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Peak 21/2 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 3,620 72 223 3,915 39 13 Southbound 4,692 94 227 5,013 50 8 Eastbound 1,461 0 144 1,605 16 21 �;-q Westbound 885 0 0 885 9 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. X Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1%of Projected Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. 71 Intersection Capacity Utilization(I.C.U.)Analysis is required. 813,95(rPOCALCM-9 DRAF II MA�dale41= City of Newport Beach Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Suporior Avenue (N/S) /Hospital Road (E/W) EXISTING WITH CUMULATIVE GROWTH, CUMULATIVE GROWTH COMMITTED PROJECTS,AND PROJECT EXISTING 1994 AND COMMITTED PROJECTS PROJECT WITH PROJECT MITIGATION V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO MENT IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1,600 4 3 0.00 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 0.00 * 1 1,600 4 3 0.00 0.00 NBT 2 3,200 1,328 591 0.47 * 0.20 13 40 0.47 * 0.22 9 11 0.47 * 0.22 2 3,200 1,350 642 0.47 * 0.22 NBR 0 0 169 59 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 169 59 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1,600 32 30 0.02 * 0.02 0 0 0.02 * 0.02 40 50 0.04 * 0.05 1 1,600 72 80 0.04 * 0.05 SBT 2 3,200 469 1,116 0.15 0.35 * 37 22 0.16 0.36 * 8 11 0.16 0.36 * 2 3,200 514 1,149 0.16 0.36 * SBR 0 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 3 4 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 3 4 0.00 * 0.00 EBT 1 1,600 1 1 0.00 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 0:00 * 0 0 0.00 0.00 * 1 1,600 1 1 0.00 0.00 * EBR 0 0 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 0.00 0.00 WBL 1.5 2,400 ' 37 192 0.02 0.08 * 0 0 0.02 0.08 * 0 0 0.02 0.08 * 2 2,400 37 192 0.02 0.08 * WBT 0.5 800 1 1 0.04 * 0.03 0 0 0.04 * 0.03 0 0 0.04 * 0.03 1 800 1 1 0.04 * 0.03 WBR 0 0 28 20 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 5 6 0.00 0.00 0 0 33 26 0.00 0.00 NIS Critical Movements 0.49 0.35 0.49 0.36 0.51 0.36 0.51 0.36 E/W Critical Movements 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.08 Right Turn C.M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ICU 0.53 0.43 0.53 0.44 0.55 0.44 0.55 0.44 LEVEL OF SERVICE A A A A A A A A 81595(TPOCAMM9 DRAFT 4 T MAwdate;Inc City of Newport Beach Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Placentia Avenue (N/S)/Superior Avenue (E/W) EXISTING WITH CUMULATIVE GROWTH, CUMULATIVE GROWTH COMMITTED PROJECTS,AND PROJECT EXISTING 1995 AND COMMITTED PROJECTS PROJECT WITH PROJECT MITIGATION V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO MENT IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM NBL 0 0 7 27 0.00 * 0.00 * 0 0 0.00 * 0.00 7 8 0.00 * 0.00 0 0 14 . 35 0.00 * 0.00 NBT 2 3,200 204 360 0.08 0.14 12 37 0.08 0.15 * (3) (4) 0.09 0.16 * 2 3,200 213 393 0.09 0.16 * NBR 0 0 46 69 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 46 69 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1,600 4 14 0.00 0.01 0 0 0.00 0.01 * 0 0 0.00 0.01 * 1 1,600 4 14 0.00 0.01 * SBT 1 1,600 287 184 0.18 * 0.12 * 36 19 0.20 * 0.13 (3) (4) 0.20 * 0.12 1 1,600 320 199 0.20 * 0.12 SBR 1 1,600 293 430 0.18 0.27 1 2 0.18 0.27 * 0 0 0.18 0.27 * 1 1,600 294 432 0.18 0.27 * EBL 1 1,600 386 270 0.24 0.17 * 1 2 0.24 0.17 * 18 23 0.25 0.18 * 1 1,600 405 295 0.25 0.18 * EBT 2 3,200 1,043 479 0.34 * 0.16 29 16 0.34 * 0.16 10 13 0.35 * 0.17 2 3,200 1,082 508 0.35 * 0.17 EBR 0 0 31 26 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00. 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 31 26 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1,600 36 48 0.02 0.03 0 0 0.02 * 0.03 0 0 0.02 * 0.03 1 1,600 36 48 0.02 * 0.03 WBT 2 3,200 242 852 0.08 * 0.27 * 9 29 0.08 0.28 * 10 13 0.09 0.28 * 2 3,200 261 894 0.09 0.28 » WBR 0 0 11 8 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 12 9 0.00 0.00 NIS Critical Movements 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.17 E/W Critical Movements 0.42 0.44 0.42 0.45 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.46 Right Turn C.M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ICU 0.60 0.59 0.62 o.61 0.64 0.63 o.64 0.63 LEVEL OF SERVICE B A B B B B B B 8/3195(7FOCALCM9 K AFT MAc dates;Ina City of Newport Beach Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Balboa Blvd.-Superior Avenue (N/S)/Coast Highway(E/W) EXISTING WITH CUMULATIVE GROWTH, CUMULATIVE GROWTH COMMITTED PROJECTS,AND PROJECT EXISTING 1993 AND COMMITTED PROJECTS PROJECT WITH PROJECT MITIGATION V/C V/C V/C V/C MOVE- VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO MENT IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1,600 205 323 0.13 0.20 * 0 4 0.13 0.20 * 0 0 0.13 0.20 * 1 1,600 205 '327 0.13 0.20 NBT 2 3,200 401 318 0.16 * 0.13 0 0 0.17 * 0.14 1 1 0.17 * 0.14 2 3,200 402 319 0.17 * 0.14 NBR 0 0 123 102 0.00 0.00 9 16 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 132 118 0.00 0.00 SBL 1.5 2,400 212 190 0.09 * 0.08 11 8 0.09 * 0.08 2 2 0.09 * 0.08 2 2,400 225 200 0.09 * 0.08 SBT 1.5 2,400 142 380 0.06 0.16 * 0 0 0.06 0.16 * 1 1 0.06 0.16 * 2 2,400 143 381 0.06 0.16 * SBR 2 3,200 186 568 0.06 0.18 * 0 0 0.06 0.18 * 6 8 0.06 0.18 * 2 3,200 192 576 0.06 0.18 * EBL 2 3,200 796 326 0.25 0.10 * 0 0 0.25 0.10 * 6 8 0.25 0.10 * 2 3,200 802 334 0.25 0.10 * EBT 3 4,800 1,634 892 0.34 * 0.19 402 210 0.42 * 0.23 0 0 0.42 * 0.23 3 4,800 2,036 1,102 0.42 * 0.23 EBR 1 1,600 204 292 0.13 0.18 0 1 0.13 0.18 0 0 0.13 0.18 1 1,600 204 293 0.13 0.18 WBL 1 1,600 50 204 0.03 * 0.13 3 9 0.03 * 0.13 0 0 0.03 * 0.13 1 1,600 53 213 0.03 * 0.13 wBT 4 6,400 597 1,740 0.12 0.29 * 137 473 0.14 0.37 * 0 0 0.14 0.37 * 4 6,400 734 2,213 0.14 0.37 WBR 0 0 187 130 0.00 0.00 3 9 0.00 0.00 2 2 0.00 0.00 0 0 192 141 0.00 0.00 NIS Critical Movements 0.25 0.36 0.26 0.36 0.26 0.36 0.26 0.36 E/W Critical Movements 0.37 0.39 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.45 0.47 Right Turn C.-M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ICU 0.62 0.75 0.71 0.83 0.71 0.83 0.71 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE B C C D C D C D a/3195 arOC r-MV i Ll RN LSrlAztocYul¢r,InaR. City of Newport Beach Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Newport Boulevard (N/S)/Hospital Road (E/W) EXISTING WITH CUMULATIVE GROWTH, CUMULATIVE GROWTH COMMITTED PROJECTS,AND PROJECT EXISTING 1995 AND COMMITTED PROJECTS PROJECT WITH PROJECT MITIGATION V/C V/C VIC ♦ V/C MOVE- VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO VOLUMES RATIO MENT IN. CAP. AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM LN. CAP. AM PM AM PM NBL 1 1,600 160 133 0.10 0.08 * 0 60 0.10 0.12 * 5 6 0.10 0.12 * 1 1,600 165 •199 0.10 0.12 NBT 3 4,800 1,727 1,204 0.37 * 0.26 89 133 0.39 * 0.29 0 0 0.39 * 0.29 3 4,800 1,816 1,337 0.39 * 0.29 NBR 0 0 66 67 0.00 0.00 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 66 68 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1,600 20 47 0.01 * 0.03 0 0 0.01 * 0.03 0 0 0.01 * 0.03 1 1,600 20 47 0.01 * 0.03 SBT 3 4,800 834 1,763 0.23 0.41 * 131 108 0.28 0.44 * 0 0 0.28 0.44 * 3 4,80o 965 1,871 0.28 0.44 SBR 0 0 287 184 0.00 0.00 75 39 0.00 0.00 3 4 0.00 0.00 0 0 365 227 0.00 0.00 EBL 1 1,600 201 238 0.13 * 0.15 * . 25 77 0.14 * 0.20 * 3 4 0.14 * 0.20 * 1 1,600 229 319 0.14 * 0.20 EBT 1 1,600 114 134 0.07 0.08 0 0 0.07 0.08 0 0 0.07 0.08 1 1,600 114 134 0.07 ORS EBR 1 1,600 243 263 0.15 * 0.16 * 0 0 0.15 * 0.16 5 6 0.15 * 0.17 1 1,600 248 269 0.15 * 0.17 WBL 1 1,600 87 170 0.05 0.11 0 0 0.05 0.11 0 0 0.05 0.11 1 1,600 87 170 0.05 0.11 WBT 2 3,200 231 191 0.08 * 0.07 * 0 0 0.08 * 0.07 * 0 0 0.08 * 0.07 * 2 3,200 231 191 0.08 * 0.07 WBR 0 0 14 36 o.o0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 14 36 0.00 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.38 0.49 0.40 0.56 0.40 0.56 0.40 0.56 E/W Critical Movements 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.22 0.27 0.22 0.27 Right Turn-C.M. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow Clearance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ICU 0.59 0.71 0.62 0.83 o.62 0.83 0.62 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE A C B D B D B D 65195(nIOGILCM) A T RESERVOIR NEEDS VS TRAFFIC INTENSITY O 25 N O 20 0. W o U 'o Cr > 15 W (n o Not exceeded a' 0 o i time inl 100 Z 0 10 = o Not exceeded W Z ¢` times (p 5 in 100 X 5 0 Average W lutn h W 00 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 t.0 TRAFFIC INTENSITY (Average Arrival Rate -- Average Service Rate) Assumptions : 1. Arrivals follow a Poisson Distri�)ution onencial 2. Service rate can be represented by an exF probabiliLy "unctiurn. 3. Flow is equally divided between each lane is than one is available. �'Mf-a • Tn n}+tain r�c�rv�+ir t.r+orh. tter! 22 feeL T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V T P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 cgClFO R��P PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3206 August 1, 1995 Mestre/Greve Associates 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Mr.Fred Greve Subject: Acoustical Study(Noise Assessment) for Unocal Gasoline Station and Car Wash 1465 Superior Avenue(aka 377 Superior Avenue),Newport Beach,CA (Reference: Traffic Study 106) CONTRACT APPROVAL: Approved By: Javier S. Garcia Title: Senior Planner Firm: City of Newport Beach Date: August 1, 1995 Consultant: Mestre/Greve Associates 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Date of Proposal: July 31, 1995, copy attached and on file Project Applicant: Union Oil (Ph' i Applicant Approval: Signature A.C. Atherton Project Address: 1465 Superior Avenue (formerly 377 Superior Avenue) PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. BEWICKE , DIRECTOR B • Javier S. Garcia, AICP Senior Planner cc: A.C. Atherton 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach SEW Pp�T • • ° @� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U T P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Cx cquFonN�r PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714)644-3206 August 1, 1995 Holmes and Narver 999 Town and Country Road Orange, CA 92668 Attention: A.C. Atherton Subject: Acoustical Study (Noise Assessment)for Unocal Gasoline Station and Car Wash 1465 Superior Avenue(aka 377 Superior Avenue),Newport Beach,CA (Reference: Traffic Study No. 106) Dear Ms. Atherton: Enclosed please find a copy of a proposal submitted by Mestre(Greve Associates regarding an ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS (Noise Assessment) required for the proposed Unocal Gasoline Station and Car Wash, 377 Superior Avenue in Newport Beach. The proposal contains an outline of the required work, schedule of time, and estimated fee required for preparation of the task. The requested Consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered appropriate and warranted. The fees are as follows. Consultant Fees $2,500 City Fees(0%) $ 0 Total Request: $2,500 Please submit a check in the amount of$2,500 payable to the City of Newport Beach and sign and return the attached the enclosed contract approval. Your prompt response in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D.HEWI {E DIRECTOR BY J� Javier S. GmiZ CP Senior Planner attachment: Copy of Mestre/Greve Associates Consultant Proposal 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach A.C. Atherton August 1, 1995 Page two attachment: Copy ofMestrelGreve Associates Consultant Proposal cc: Union OR Company of Southern California Attention:Phillip Dedge 17700 Castleton Street, Suite 500 Industry, CA 91748 P:\W PS 1l..VAY-G1TS l O6sn dCST 0?-31-1995 03:04PM FROM Mestre Greue Associates TO 6443250 P.02 tA ::;��5 Mestre Greve Associates July 31, 1995 Mr.Jay Garcia City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 Subject: Proposal for Noise Assessment for the Newport Beach Car 'Wash. Dear Mr.Garcia: Thank you for the opportunity to bid on the noise assessment for the proposed Unocal Car Wash Station#5089 in the City of Newport Beach. The following scope of work is proposed. Scope of Work 1. Determine Noise Criteria. The report will provide a summary of the appropriate requirement and reference the source. 2. Measure Existing Noise. We will make short-tetra noise measurements at two or more locations near the project sire. The city noise ordinance requires that ambient noise levels be measured, and allow for adjustments to the criteria if the ambient noise levels are high. 3. Project Noise Levels. Using our database of car wash noise levels, we will project the resulting noise levels at the property line or nearest residences as required by the City criteria. Shielding due to intervening buildings and/or soundwalls will be included in this projection. The resultant noise levels will be compared to the City Noise Ordinance or applicable criteria and the need for further mitigation identified. 4. Develop Mitigation. Additional mirigationmeasures will be developedif needed. For example, a soundwall may need to be located at the property line or equipment may need to be relocated or enclosed. We will develop mitigation measures as necessary. 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (714) 760-0891 • Fax (714) 760-1928 Propospror the Newport Beach Car Waslkoise Assessment Page Two Costs , We propose to conduct the above work on a time and materials basis with a cost not to exceed $2,500 for the noise assessment plus any travel expenses incurred. This costs includes all manpower, computer, and overhead expenses associated with completing the project. Any public hearings or resolution meetings with City staff can be accommodated on a time and materials expense if needed. Our hourly rates are$100 for Registered Engineers, $45 for staff engineers, and$35 for technicians. If this proposal is acceptable to you, please sign on the line below and return the original letter to our office. The signed letter will serve as a binding contract for our services. Sincerely, Mestre Greve Associates Fred Greve, PZ. to '/3- Principal Citf of New rt Beach Date Mail H N D RI:6a D BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Holmes&Narver DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC►' PROJECT NO. 2876.20/5089.004 AM AUG 91995 I'M TRANSMITTAL NO. 1384 TIVIlUlll1121112131 A6 TO: Mr. Javier Garcia, Sr. Planner DATE: August 7, 1995 City of Newport Beach - Planning Dept. P.O. Box 1768 SUBJECT: UNOCAL SS 5089 Newport Beach, CA 92658-3206 NEWPORT BEACH FROM: A.C. Atherton, H&N The enclosed material is transmitted for your information or action as indicated below: Released for procurement. ✓ For your information and record. ✓ Per your request _ For Review. Please sign and return one copy each by: _ Releases for fabrication, subject to corrections noted. Please correct and resubmit by: _ Released for construction. _ Released for construction, except as noted. _ Status-coded for your action. Per Contract requirements. DRAWING H&N QUANTITY NUMBER NUMBER STATUS REV DESCRIPTION 1 Check No. 673 in the amount of $2,500.00 ACA:jv cc: S. Peotter, Unocal Gfile Sfile Post Office Box 6240, Orange, CA 92613-6240 999 Town & Country Road, Orange, CA 92668 Telefax (714) 543.0955 (714) 567.2400 tce��. sr PLANNING DEPARTMENT ''?Y OF NEWPORT BEAPI AM AUG 21995 PV 7l8l9lMlnllll1l2l3l41516 Mestre Greve Associates ` July 31, 1995 itiir.Jay Garcia City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Proposal for Noise Assessment for the Newport Beach Car Wash. Dear Mr.Garcia: Thank you for the opportunity to bid on the noise assessment for the proposed Unocal Car Wash Station#5089 in the City of Newport Beach. The following scope of work is proposed. Scope of Work 1. Determine Noise Criteria. The report will provide a summary of the appropriate requirement and reference the source. 2. Measure Existing Noise. We will make short-term noise measurements at two or more locations near the project site. The city noise ordinance requires that ambient noise levels be measured, and allow for adjustments to the criteria if the ambient noise levels are high. 3. Project Noise Levels. Using our database of car wash noise levels, we will project ti,c rcaultiug i0veis t-t the pioperry line or nearest residences as required by the City criteria. Shielding due to intervening buildings and/or soundwttlls will be included in this projection. The resultant noise levels will be compared to the City Noise Ordinance or applicable criteria and the need for further mitigation identified. 4. Develop Mitigation. Additional mitigation measures will be developed if needed. For example, a soundwall may need to be located at the property line or equipment may need to be relocated or enclosed. We will develop mitigation pleasures as necessary. 280 Newport Center Drive, Suite 230 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • (714) 760.0891 • Fax (714) 760-1928 Proposal for the Newport Beach Car Wash Noise Assessment Page Two Costs We propose to conduct the above work on a time and materials basis with a cost not to exceed $2,500 for the noise assessment plus any travel expenses incurred. This costs includes all manpower, computer, and overhead expenses associated with completing the project. Any public hearings or resolution meetings with City staff can be accommodated on a time and materials expense if needed. Our hourly rates are$100 for Registered Engineers, $45 for staff engineers, and$35 for technicians. If this proposal is acceptable to you, please sign on the line below and return the original letter to our office. The signed letter will serve as a binding contract for our services. Sincerely, Mestre Greve Associates ��--�Q Ll�_ � Fred Greve,P.E. Principal Cit of New rt Beach Date n • • LSA Associates,Inc. Environmental'Analysis Transportation Engineering L Resource Management Community Planning Ecological Restoration Resource Economics Principals July21, 1995 Rob Balen Lyndon Calerdine ' Les Card Rich Edmonston, P.E. Steve Granbohn Traffic Engineer Roger Harris City of Newpon Beach An Hon+rigbausen 3300 Newport Blvd. Larry Kennings GeoTeKurilko P.O. Box 1768 Camilyn Lobell Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 Bill Mayer Rob McCann RobSchonholtz Subject: Unocal 76 Products Service Station/Car Wash Malcohn J.Sproul Associates Dear Rich: Deborah Baer-MIker Connie Calica At the City's request, the following provides our recommendations for pro- Gary Dow ject trip generation, pass by trip reduction, and trip distribution for the pro- Kevin Fincher posed Unocal 76 Products Service Station/Car Wash at Placentia and Superior Richard Harlacher in the City of Newport Beach. Michele Huddleston Gina fiaick Clint Kellner Karen Kirtland Project Trip Generation Benson Lee Sabrina Nicholls As you know, the City of Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) Anthony Petros does not define trip rates for Gas Station/Car Wash land uses. I have re- Jill Wilson viewed available trip generation rates for Service Station/Car Wash facilities for application to the project site. Table A provides a summary of various trip generation rates based on: 1. Industry standard publications such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation and the SANDAG Tragic Generators; 2. Surveyed trip rates from a study conducted by Robert Kahn, John Kain &Associates, Inc. (RKJI) for the Irvine Car Wash at University Park, December 1994; and 3. The City of Irvine Traffic Analysis Model (ITAM) trip rates. 07/21t95(1-.%CNB502•.TGEN.LTR) One Park Plaza,Suite 500 Telephone 714533-0666 Irvine,California 92714 Facsimile 714553.8076 • • LSA Associates,Lu. A copy of the "Trip Generation Comparison" discussion and actual traffic counts from the RKJK Service Station/Car Wash survey is included for your reference. The industry standard trip rates published In ITE and SANDAG are based on per vehicle fueling position, while trip rates for the surveyed site and ITAM are on a per site basis. Table A also presents the total trip generation resulting from application of the industry standard trip rates to the proposed 12 vehicle fueling positions at the project site. As indicated in Table A, the p.m. peak hour trips generated by application of the various trip rates range from 82 vehicle trips for the "ITAM Car Wash" and 168 vehicle trips for the SANDAG Traffic Generators. For purposes of this project analysis, it is recommended that the average trip generation identified in Table A be used to determine traffic conditions at driveways and on-site circulation. The average trip generation volumes represent reasonable estimates based on industry standard rates, modelled trip rates for service station and car wash uses, and survey data gathered at a similar facility. Pass by Trip Reduction Per the ITE Trip Generation manual, much of the service station'traffic gener- ated at the site driveways is already on the street for another purpose. Based on vehicular movements traced at eight service stations surveyed in the ITE Trip Generation manual, the findings indicate that 54 percent of the a.m. peak hour volume and 58 percent of the p.m. peak hour volume involve vehicles passing by the site on their way to another destination. Based on these findings and considering that the site also includes a car wash facility, which may be regarded as a destination use, it is recommended that a pass by trip reduction factor of 50 percent, rather than the 54-58 per- cent factor identified above, be applied to the daily and peak hour trips generated at the project driveways. The resulting 'New project trips" identi- fied in Table A will be used to determine off-site project impacts per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis. Project Trip Distribution Figure 1 presents the preliminary trip distribution plan for the proposed Unocal 76 Products Service Station/Car Wash. The distribution plan shows project trip distribution percentages to/from the project site. The majority (60 percent) of project trips are distributed north of the site along Superior, Placentia, and Newport Boulevard. The remaining 40 percent are distributed southbound and split equally along Pacific Coast Highway. A nominal num- 07/Z1/95(1:•.CNB502,.TGEN.LTR) 2 • • LSA Associates,Inc. ber (three percent) of project trips is distributed to and from Balboa Peninsula. Based on your review of the trip distribution, a trip assignment plan, consistent with the general distributions identified in Figure 1, will be pre- pared. Based on the assignment plan, 'New project trips" identified in Table A will be assigned at the ITO study area intersections. Please review the attached information and provide me with your comments at your earliest convenience. I would appreciate your verification of the recommended trip generation, pass by trip reduction, and trip distribution for the proposed Unocal 76 Products Service Station/Car Wash and your authorization to proceed with the ITO analysis based on this data. Sincerely, LS OCIATES, INC. Ramzi Ammari Project Manager Attachment: Trip Generation Comparison from the RKJK Study for the Irvine Car Wash at University Park, December, 1994. CC: Javier S. Garcia Without attachment) A.C.Atherton (Without attachment) 07/21/95(I:%CNB502,.TGEN.LTR) 3 • • • • LSAAssodates,Im.. Table A-Service Station/Car Wash Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates Daily In Out Total In Out Total Per vehicle fueling Position ITE Trip Generation Manual,Update to 5th Edition' 145.7 5.54 5.33 10.87 6.20 6.20 12.39 SANDAG Traffic Generators,October 1993' 155.0 6.20 6.20 12.40 6.98 6.98 13.95 Average Trip Generation Rates 150.0 5.90 5.80 11.70 6.60 6.60 13.20 Per site ITE Trip Generation Manual,Update to 5th Edition3 1,748 67 64 131 74 74 148 SANDAG Traffic Generators,October 19934 1,860 74 74 148 84 84 168 ITAM Trip Rate for Gas Stations 1,012 44 44 87 61 61 122 ITAM Trip Rate for Car Wash' 900 18 18 36 41 41 82 R19K Traffic Study Survey? 795 29 21 50 43 43 86 Average Trip Generation 1,270 50 40 90 60 60 120 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Recommended Trip Generation Daily In Out Total In Out Total Project driveway trips 1,270 50 40 90 60 60 120 Pass by trips (50%) 635 25 20 45 30 30 60 New project trips 635 25 20 45 30 30 60 Source: 1 Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers, Update to the StbEdition,February 1995(land Use 646). 2 Traffic Generators,San Diego Association of Governments, October 1993 for Gasoline Witb FOOdMartlCarWasb. 3 Application of ITE trip rates to tbeproposedproject number of vehicle fuelingpositions, twelve. 4 Application ofSANDAG trip rates to tbeproposedproject number of vehicle fuelingpositions, twelve. 5 City oflrvina Traffic A n alys is Mo de(ITAAD trip rates for a Gas Station 6 City oflrvine Traffic Ana lysisMode(1TAAO trip ra tes fo r a Ca r Wasb. 7 RlgK Traffic Study survey for a Service Station/Car Wash facility, October 11-17, 1994. 7121t95(1.•I am5011TGEN-m) LEGEND: 25% Project Trip Distribution ¢ 20% O Study Area Intersection 4P e f 30% 0. 5J 15th ST q PROJECTSITE j10% MEDICAL LN �10%O N 25% OHOAG RD HOSPITAL RD O 25%O 15%O q r 18% 15%O O A O 5%O f~ 19% PCH �o 9� 2% rLd 1% 7/21/95(CNE502) Figure 1 4? N LS— A Not to Scale Project Trip Distribution I'' • LSA Associates,Inc. Environmental Analysis Transportation Engineering L Resource Management Planning Cannunuq�Plmn+ing Ecological Restoration Resource£conorma July 17, 1995 Principals Janet Divan Associate Civil Engineer Rob Balen City of Newport Beach Lyndon Calerdine 3300 Newport Boulevard Stevea r Lesos Newport Beach, CA 92660 Granholm Roger Hams ' Art Hotnrrghausen Subject: Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis-Data Request Larry Kennings , George Kurilko Dear Janet: Carollyn Lobell Bill Mayer Rob AkCann I am following up on a data request I made last week regarding the pro- Rob Schonboltz posed Unocal 76 gas station/car wash located at the corner of Placentia and A4alcohnJ.Sproul Superior in the City of Newport Beach. Per our last conversation, I would Associates like to request baseline data to conduct the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis at the following intersection locations as identified by the City: Deborah Baer-llGlker Connie Calica Placentia/Superior PCH/Superior-Balboa Gary Dour Kevin Fincber Newport/Hospital Superior/Hospital Richard Harlacher AlicbeleHuddlesta+ The TPO baseline data should include: Girra finick Clint Kellner 1994195 AM and PM peak hour intersection turn volumes Karon Kirtland Benson Lee 1994/95 AM and PM peak period approach volumes • Sabrina Nicholls City's Approved Projects peak hour and peak period volumes Andtorry Petms ,fill Wilson Please call me if you have any questions regarding this request. I can be reached at (714) 553-0666. I can arrange to pick up the data or if you could fax and send a hard copy to the address provided below. Sincerely, LSA 4_,7S, C.aRamzi Ammad CC: Rich Edmonston, P.E. Jay Garcia 07/17/95(H.\RAMZWUESITRAFFICNDATAREQ.LTR) One Park Plaza,Suite 500 Telepbone 714 553.0666 Irvine,California 92714 Facstmile 714533.8076 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING . Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Union Oil(Phillip Dedte-applicant)for Use Permit No.3566,Traffic Study No. 106,Lot Line Adiustment No.95-10; on property located at 1461 and 1465 Superior Avenue,Newport Beach,CA, To approve the construction of a Carwash and Gasoline Station Facility in the APF District, NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTBER 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)644-3200. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 5 day of October 1995. 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. Mchael Kranzley, Secretary,Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. NOTE: The expense of this notice is paid from a filing fee collected from the applicant. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date: Sentember 14. 1995 X ADVANCE PLANNING DIVISION X PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT XPLANS ATTACHED(PLEASE RETURN) X TRAFFIC ENGINEER X FIRE DEPARTMENT PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. X BUILDING/GRADING DEPARTMENT _ COMMUNITY SERVICES X POLICE DEPARTMENT _ MARINE SAFETY X. REVENUE APPLICATION OF: Union OR(Phillip Dedge-applicant) FOR: Use Permit No. 3566,Traffic Study No. 106,Lot Line Adjustment No. 95- 10 and the acceptance of an environmental document DESCRIPTION: To approve the construction of a Carwash and Gasoline Station Facility LOCATION: 1461 and 1465 Superior Avenue,Newport Beach,CA REPORT REQUESTED BY: September 25, 1995 COMMISSION REVIEW: October5, 1995 COMMENTS: Signature: Date: ♦f r • •aEW PORT dI CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U r P.O.BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 Cq(./FofgL % (714) 644-3200 June 30, 1995 LSA and Associates 4 Park Plaza#500 Irvine, CA 92714 Attn: Ramzi Ammari Subject: Traffic Study for Unocal Service Station and Car Wash. 1465 Superior Avenue (formerly 377 Superior Avenue),Newport Beach (Traffic Study No. 106) CONTRACTAPPROVAL: Approved By: Javier S. Garcia Title: Senior Planner Firm: City of Newport Beach Date: June 30, 1995 Traffic Consultant: LSA and Associates 4 Park Plaza 4500 Irvine, CA 92714 Date of Proposal: May 23, 1995, copy on file Project Applicant: Union Oil (Phillip Dedge))�y-, Applicant Approval: Signature �p.Q. l K A.C. Atherton Project Address: 1465 Superior Avenue(formerly 377 Superior Avenue) PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAM[ES D. BEWICI R ]?IRE • B Ja ier S. Garcia Senior Planner cc: A.C. Atherton 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach JAIL-05-1995 08:56 FROM HOLMES & NRRUER TO 96443250 P.02 • • r� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH qt PO.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 C" ro F (714)644-3200 June 30, 1993 LSA and Associates 4 Park P1a7A#500 Irvine, CA 92714 Attn: Ran-Li Ammari Subject: 3 541 Studv for UOOCA)Service 6400n and Car Wash,1465 Su nor veljie (formWy 377 SyneAorAvenua New raf is Stu No .06) CONTRA T AFPROVAL: Approved By: Javier S. Garcia Title: Senior Planner Firm: City of Newport Beach Date: June 30, 1995 Traffic Consultant: LSA and Associates 4 Park Plaza#Soo Irvine, CA 92714 Date of Proposal: May 23, 1995, copy on file Project Applicant; Union Oil (Phillip b Applicant Approval: Signature Y A lerton�—� Project Address: 1465 Superior Avenue(formerly 377 Superior Avenue) PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICI M CTOR % 13 4...... Ja 'er S. Garcia Senior Planner Cc: A.C. Atherton 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. TOTRL P.02 • • LSA Associates,Inc. Environmental Analysts Transportation Engrneenng LSA PLANNING D R Resource Management PLANNING DEPARTMENT Community Planning CITY OF NEWPOPT BEAOI4 Reslogical Restoration Resource Economic MAY 2 1995 71 .8191101111V411218 41516 Principals May23, 1995 Rob Balen Lyndon Calenline Les Card Jay Garcia Steve Granholm City of Newport Beach Roger Harris Planning Department ' ArtHomnghausen 3300 Newport Boulevard , Larry Kennings George Krrrilko Newport Beach, CA 92659-8915 Carollyn Lobell Bill Mayer Rob McCann Subject: Proposal to Prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis for a Service Rob Schonholtz Station/Car Wash at Superior and Placentia in the City of New- MalcolmJ.Sproul port Beach Associates Deborah Baer-W61ker Dear Mr. Garcia: Connie Calico Gary Dom LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit the following proposal to Kevin Fincher provide a traffic impact analysis study for a proposed service station/car wash Richard Harlacher at 377 Superior Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. Michele Huddleston Gina Jurick Clint Kellner The following scope of work Is based on discussions with Rich Edmonton, Karen Kirtland City Traffic Engineer, and reflects our experience in preparing traffic circula- Benson Lee tion analyses for similar development projects in Newport Beach. Sabrina Nicholls Anthony Pettus fill Wilson TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE (TPO) The City of Newport Beach uses the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis methodology to determine off-site project impacts. LSA will prepare a TPO analysis for the proposed project consistent with City of Newport Beach TPO analysis guidelines. Per discussion with Rich Edmonston, LSA will recommend appropriate project trip generation rates based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and/or empirically derived trip rates from recently completed studies. 05/13/95(I:\UN0503\UN0CAL PRO) One Park Plau,Suite 500 Telephone 714553.0666 Irvine,California 92714 Facsimile 714553.8076 LSA Associates,Inc. Although the site was previously occupied by a service station, the site has been vacant for more than one year. As a result, no trip credits for previous service station use will be considered. It should be noted that the majority of project trips are not new trips to the local arterial circulation system, but are pass-by trips that are already on the arterial streets. For this reason, LSA will prepare for the City's consideration appropriate pass-by trip reduction factors prior to identifying off-site project impacts. Project trip distribution and assignment will be identified by LSA based on logical travel paths, and reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to preparation of the analysis. LSA will also meet with City staff to determine the extent of the study area, i.e., the number and location of intersections to be examined. For purposes of this budget estimate, a total of ten intersections will be included in the TPO analysis. LSA will utilize the City's most recent peak hour turn volumes and peak period approach volumes as the baseline condition for the TPO analysis. Consistent with the TPO analysis guidelines, a request will be made to the City for an "Approved Projects List" The test year for the analysis will be based on information provided by the applicant, and is one year after full occupancy of the proposed project. The results of the TPO analysis will identify the projects' potential to exceed the "one percent" test results and any study area intersections exhibiting an unacceptable level of service (LOS E or worse). If required, mitigation mea- sures will be recommended based on the City of Newport Beach General Plan guidelines for intersections where the project contribution is 0.01 ICU or greater. ON-SITE CIRCULATION As indicated previously, the majority of project trips are not new trips to the local arterial circulation system, but pass-by trips that are already on the arterial streets. For this reason, off-site project impacts are not expected to be significant. However, trips at the project driveways are considered new trips that would not normally occur without the proposed project. The purpose of the on-site circulation analysis is to ensure that the proposed access driveways are adequate to meet the demands of the proposed project and provide safe access to and from the local street system. LSA will distribute the peak hour trips in and out of the site to determine traffic demand at the access driveways. The analysis will examine whether 0523/95(1:\UN0503\UN0CAL.PR0) 2 1 �l ' , • • LSA Associates,Inc. full or partial access can be provided based on the ability of project traffic to enter and exit the site without significant interruption to the traffic flow on the adjacent arterials. LSA will review the proposed site plan to identify potential vehicle stacking at the car wash entrance to determine whether adequate vehicle storage area is available to meet peak car wash demand. BUDGET LSA estimates a budget of$6,000 will be required to accomplish the analysis outlined above. This work effort will be accomplished on an hourly basis, consistent with the attached rates. This amount will not be exceeded with- out prior authorization. SCHEDULE Upon receipt of authorization to proceed, LSA will coordinate with City staff to define project trip generation and distribution, and to request baseline traffic data. Once these parameters have been identified and collected, LSA will begin preparation of the TPO and on-site circulation analyses. We will prepare and submit the traffic analysis report for your review within two weeks of receipt of baseline from the City. Based on your comments, LSA will revise and resubmit the final report for City staff approval. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. We trust that you will find our proposal is comprehensive and meets your planning needs. Should you have any questions, please call me at (714) 553.0666. Sincerely, LSA IATES, INC. —A Ramzi S.Amman Project Manager Attachment: Rate Sheet 05/13/95(1.\UN0503\UN0CAL.PR0) 3 .,, �,,`• • . MAr date;Ina HOURLY BILLING RATES OCTOBER 4, 1993 Job Class y1cation Hourly Rate' PRINCIPAL $100-165 ASSOCIATERROJECT MANAGER $ 65-120 ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER $ 50-75 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT SCIENTIST $ 45-70 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST/ASST. PLANNER/ASST. ENGINEER $ 40-60 FIELD DIRECTOR (ARCHAEOLOGY/PALEONTOLOGYBIOLOGY) $ 35-50 RESEARCH ASSISTANT/rECHNICIAN $ 25-50 FIELD CREW $ 15-40 GRAPHICS $ 50 OFFICE ASSISTANT $ 35 WORD PROCESSING $ 45 ' The hourly rate for work involving actual expenses in court, giving depositions or similar expert testimony, will be billed at $175 per hour regardless of job classification. 10/06/93(L.%C0RP•.00NnUCT.PR0) 3 P— • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 cg41Foa��P PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714) 644-3206 June 13, 1995 Holmes and Narver 999 Town and Country Road Orange, CA 92668 Attention: A.C. Atherton Subject: Traffic Study for Unocal Gasoline Station and Car Wash, 377 Superior Avenue,Newport Beach CA(Traffic Study No. 106) Dear Ms.Atherton: Enclosed please find a copy of a proposal submitted by LSA and Associates regarding a traffic study required for traffic phasing analysis for the proposed Unocal Gasoline Station and Car Wash, 377 Superior Avenue in Newport Beach, The proposal contains an outline of the required work, schedule of time, and estimated fee required for preparation of the task. The requested Traffic Consultant fees have been reviewed by the City and are considered appropriate and warranted. The fees are as follows. Consultant Fees $ 6,000 City Fees(10%) $ 600 Total Request: $6,600 Please submit a check in the amount of$6,600 payable to the City of Newport Beach. Your prompt response in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D.HEWICKER,DIRECTOR BY 41 ,a Javier S. Gard Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach > r. A.C. Atherton June 13, 1995 Page two attachment: Copy of Traffic Consultant Proposal cc: Union OR Company of Southern California 37700 Castleton Street, Suite 500 Industry, CA 91748 F:\W PS I\..UAY-G\TS 106.C ST Courier NN Holmes&Narver DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL PROJECT NO. 2876.23/5089.000 TRANSMITTAL NO. 927 TO: Mr. Garcia DATE: May 19, 1995 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. SUBJECT: UNOCAL SS 5089 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8917 FROM: A.C. Atherton, H&N The enclosed material is transmitted for your information or action as indicated below: Released for procurement. ✓ For your information and record. ✓ Per your request _ For Review. Please sign and return one copy each by: _ Releases for fabrication, subject to corrections noted. Please correct and resubmit by: _ Released for construction. _ Released for construction, except as noted. _ Status-coded for your action. Per Contract requirements. VENDOR H&N QUANTITY NUMBER NUMBER STATUS REV DESCRIPTION 1 set Site Photos 1 Floor Plan of Car Wash ACA:jv cc: P. Dedge S. Peotter M. Flynn File Post Office Box 6240, Orange, CA 92613.6240 999 Town & Country Road, Orange, CA 92668 Telefax (714) 543.0955 (714) 567-2400 SEW PORT CITY OF NEWPORT BE•H U P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT(714)644-3206 May 22, 1995 LSA and Associates I Park Plaza#500 Leine, CA 92714 Attention: Ramsey Amari Subject: Traffic Study for Unocal Gasoline Station and Car Wash 377 Superior Avenue,Newport Beach CA(Traffic Study No. 106) Dear Mr.Ramsey Amari: This letter is to confirm my telephone conversation with you regarding the Traffic Study required for the Unocal Gasoline Station and Car Wash proposal. I have enclosed, for your information, a copy of the proposed site plan and a reduced copy of the site plan so that you can formulate your proposal for the scope of work. For traffic data or technical questions please contact Rich Edmonton, the Citys Traffic Engineer at (714) 644-3344. Should you have any other question regarding this project, or if you discover any issues that might delay the traffic study,please contact me at 644-3206. Very truly yours, PLANNING'DEPARTMENT JAMESS D.B EWIC 1KER,DIRECTOR BY � -1 an;,1 D� Javier S. Garcia Senior Planner F:\WP51\..\JAY-G\TS 106.WKO 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach A wig •� ._���„p�.r i. r� �� , � . ,�. ,� . ..; .� ,,,. f 4 �� �i.., :�C�'. .�� }, 1 i,144 WA f gc 1 1 i ' x o� �v � , I � _ � �i�� e +..ice.,. . _. _�_ - _— _�— i � `•. � � Y� .i+ , . 1 � _ '-T.�i� iL .Y � 1 f. r� ,C 4 Y J M �r r1 yi OIL hl f w , yY 2 Y v � 1►....'M14 S� Jy x � 3 - Ile A M a1lid, r ., J •yam a M a.,• 4 "7 r a a , a ,a w ' e i K i0•, •, A rfeY I .j . ' I Mw i ser - ♦ - a� l I ti �I lEf-: ,1 r � r pr too \ it I �y �, A •! :k c �' NM-' ... - — -�^;tC- � �. f vt ��' •� 'L♦ - 1 1 ti• s�x I i Ilk I � . } ;. ��-�.. `. 4 i..• ; f,�,� _ y :a. � . �'x; �, .. �. �. ai r.. ,,�r' `I'a,y.� 1 `� � �� :�. 1 ,., T"1 11 � r _ _ � �', I� 1 ,� 1� r i ^" wy _ _ �cy.,�_.. ,''M .SU f� �s'_6�m���� -' � _�.�-iu'�' _ -YES`.�:: a' i.:?-. i _— �� � ' � . �� i R nn � .. �'l��� _� . �. - _ �_ _ �:�' � - �r Ali N�. , +' • ` •� , � 1 Y' '� .,�YK �., .. b A� i . M b PG- C Tt ld! L � O6E.D L-OJ o j' lTh40 c w . T PICTURE LOCATIONS 1s 26 A 19 25 27 16 ----------- 24g 28 29 10 9 31 29 an 2 �30 O ! i W I VACANT LOT f w , 2 9 11 1 i 8 -----------12 4 15 13 7 5 4t 6 PLACENTIA NOT TO SCALE 5089 8 8 Mo ®lol olo 8 78 4 •t_. \�. rat�'�' v •�(y n 0 B \ } t Zm q 4U \ / ul Qm V SIGN SUMMARY o¢ V u n ¢a / nun. . ,u• o� n3 / •w7i w. z ow SITE PLAN 'nr . r ® ®� ,;.v.'.`,'„ ;m, HN G IE swc „o2876.20 is l — GA-1 t 021VIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM • V City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 (714) 644-3225 A. General Information 1. Applicant/Agent:PHILLIP DEDGE Phone: (818) 854-7096 Address: 17700 CASTLETON STREET, STE. 500, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 2. Property Owner: UNION OIL CO. OF CALIF. , dba UNOCAL Phone: (818) 854-7096 Address: 17700 CASTLETON STREET, STE. 500, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748 B. Proiect 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 --'gut notation, if applicable showing the photo locations and direction of view 1. Project name: UNOCAL 2. Project location: 377 SUPERIOR AVENUE @ PLACENTIA 3. Assessor's parcel 1: 424-011-13 4. Permit application #: CONSTRUCT FULL SERVICE CAR WASH AND PUMP ISLAND CANOPY WITH SIX NEW Sa. Proposed use:CREDIT CARD READER MECHANICAL DISPENSERS. 5b. Project size (dwelling units, gross floor area, etc.) 1,579 S.F. BUILDING 5c. Site size: 48,304 S. F. 5d. Building height: 20'-0" 6. Existing land use designations: General Plan: RSC Zoning: RSC Specific Plan: N/A LCP• N/A 7. Previous governmental approvals: NO S. Other governmental approvals required: Federal: N/A State.• UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE Regional: N/A Local: N/A 9. Begin construction: JAN. 1996 Estimated occupancy: JAN. 1997 (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 bodies 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 Aupodthat are to be removed. Identify any fish or wildlife that inhabit the site. 99 MAY 161995 K b / CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH `5. 'Noise 1 Describe any sources noise that impact the site, andw noise-generating equipment , that will be utilized on the property, either during construction or after occupancy. %.R what means to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties or building occupants are proposed? S. Licht 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 project's conformance with existing land use plans and regulations for the property; and c) its compatibility with surrounding land uses. S. 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/Parking 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. 12. 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. P P P 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? 23. cultural and Historic Resources Please indicate whether any archaeological or paleontological surveys have been done on the site. Could 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 beat of my knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of-thls applicati6n'oi 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. /f Print name of owner or representative Si natu Date aaaaaasaasaaaa -=ssaaassasaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassaassassssaasaaaasassssssaaaasaaaaasaaaaasasaaa For office Use Date filed: Fees Receipt No: By: f:%...WD\FORMS%ENY-INFO. Rev. 2/94 I i UNOCAL SS 5089 -NEWPORT BEACH C. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1. Earth The grading required shall be to maintain positive drainage for a relatively flat site. There will be less than 100 cubic yards of earth. 2. Air Minimum emission may occur during construction phase. 3. Water Surface and ground water will be designed with on-site storm drainage system. 4. Biological Resource Not applicable. 5. Noise Minor nuisance noise may occur during construction. 6. Light and Glare This project includes exterior florescent and metal halide light fixtures which provide energy efficient downlighting designed to have vertical light cone to minimize horizontal glare. 7. Land 37se The adjacent properties and immediate neighborhood surrounding this project site are Administrative/Professional/Financial - commercial zones. Currently, high density residential exists on three sides of property. Development across the street are allowable uses commercial nature. 8. Public Health& Safety There is no know contamination currently on existing site. 9. Po"lation/Housingffimployment The proposed hours of operation are 24-hours 7 days a week. The car wash will be open daily from 8 a.m.to 8 p.m. • There will be seven full time employees during operating hours of car wash. A full time employee will be available 24-hour basis for cashier area. 10. Transportation/Circulation/Parking The parking provided exceeds the city minimum requirements. Eight employee spaces are provided in addition to required customer parking. The existing on-off site circulation will be maintained as currently exist. There will be no foreseeable traffic generation by this project. 11. Public Services/Utilities All existing utilities were adequate for previous use and new proposed project. 12. Aesthetics This project will not potentially obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. This project will not block any private views. 13. Cultural and Historical Resources There is no known reasons to require archaeological or paleontological surveys to be done on the site. This project will not have adverse physical or aesthetic effects to the neighborhood. PROJECT TRACKING REPORT SS3 0666 p � 2G�A.sey 16nat ADDRESS 377 Sit( -r or Htilevu� DATE PROJECT NAME/ ((' p APPLICANTNAME "YXOGa,1 �$eruiwSlwh �cavw�sk PROJECT PLANNER J aVte r S. �ij afu a ENVIRONMENTAL SUBMITTAL DATE TRAFFIC STUDYNO. /d(o COMPLETION DATE USE PERMIT NO. OTHER APPLICATIONS SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING-DATE DATE ACTION 5^11-95 Fitz 5V4-ae oLmd fbAy +0 aju f(aKniiµ -For ira•ka s}u c2el�vmrya cs� ,..d1 � mts�(Eawt ACS��Nw+a ✓" S'1`�'9S Rc� C—d ,s fvv, ,Ce kerw.�K,�1 IraF � S(ud� cc rLs'cQ �Zasif ^'lea Ptc, . +-o "ol�a5a. �,-��f•-4� {����a� �,�A � V'ec�t.��eu1 a� �avw�'�e� .{v 1\y����,��,,�n.�-lu,, �r rGtew C,k Ae P "(� GC 1�o(yv C" �rnM cJ�E U"eca �n✓ s. ��oo 9-9-q� DI-C, -p 5 f -1-0 I r6 k k �n� Nov R'sszSs& ,� 5E� OL611 kee5Sr4-� C•jwytLfeJ 0 MI�g4yo llrele a I .5• i � 14 ADDRESS 3� S"�peY.or ��e DATE PROJECT NAME/ APPLICANT NAME ytoG DATE ACTION 2