Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNewport Technology Center (PA2003-122)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 3 March 4, 2004 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department James Campbell, Senior Planner, (949) 644 -3210 jcampbellOcity newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Newport Technology Center Traffic Study No. 2003 -001 (PA2003 -122) 500 -540 Superior Avenue APPLICANT: New Superior Group, LLC INTRODUCTION The applicant desires to change the range of allowable uses that can occupy the newly constructed Newport Technology Center, which is located at the comer of the intersection of Superior Avenue and Dana Road. The 415,500 square foot development was approved based upon the site being occupied by research and development uses. The applicant would like to lease 50% of the development to general office uses which increases the traffic to the site and therefore the change in use requires the review of a Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Traffic Study No. 2003 -001 by adopting the attached draft resolution. BACKGROUND The Newport Technology Center was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in early 2001. The City Council approved Use Permit No. 3679 and a Traffic Study in February of 2001. The project consisted of the approval of a Use Permit for structures to exceed the base height limit and a Traffic Study. The City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, which was also adopted with the approval of the project. The project consisted of the demolition, reconstruction and renovation totaling approximately 415,500 sq. ft. of research and development (R &D) space. The project has been completed for over a year and leasing of the site is not robust and the applicant believes that there is a better market for general office space as opposed to research and development space. Newport Technology Center (PA2003 -122) March 4, 2004 Page 2 of 4 Traffic Study No. 2003 -001 (PA2003 -122) Current Development: Newport Technology Center research and development facility To the north: City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard To the east: Landscaped slope and Newport Boulevard To the south: Across Dana Road are a residential condominium project, apartments, and a convalescent facility, To the west: Across Superior Avenue are the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center, the Harbor Homes Trailer Park, and the Superior Medical Center. A traffic study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) when a project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). The City Traffic Engineer prepared a preliminary estimate of trips and concluded that a traffic study would be required. A traffic study was then prepared by Kunzman Associates under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Exhibit No. 3). The traffic analysis also included a cumulative analysis. Newport Technology Center (PA2003 -122) March 4, 2004 Page 3 of 4 The approved development was projected to generate 3,947 daily trips, 457 of which would occur during the AM peak hour and 582 that would occur in the PM peak hour. It is important to note that this traffic was equivalent traffic of the previous R &D use operated at the site by Hughes Aircraft and later Raytheon. The change in use from. 100% R &D to 50% R &D and 50% general office is projected to generate a total of approximately 4,889 daily trips, 624 of which would occur in the AM peak hour and 679 that would occur in the PM peak hour. This resulting increase in traffic (942 total daily trips, 167 AM peak trips and 97 PM peak trips) is the subject of this application. Analysis General Plan & Zoning The site is designated General Industry by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This designation provides for the following manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, wholesale sales, professional service offices, service retail and restaurants. The proposed mix of general office and R &D uses in consistent with the designation of the property. The site is zoned M -1 -A (Controlled Manufacturing). Office uses are permitted, however, medical and dental offices require a Use Permit. The applicant is not seeking to lease the facility for any medical or dental office uses and the application does not include this consideration since the traffic analysis made no assumption for medicalldental office uses pursuant to the applicant's request. Due to the difference in trip generation between general office and medical office (medical/dental offices generate more traffic than general office uses), approval of this application will not provide the ability to have medical or dental office uses at the site. Traffic The Traffic Engineer, in consultation with the traffic consultant, agreed upon a list of study intersections (7 total) and a trip distribution as outlined by the TPO. The following 4 intersections will experience more than a 1 % increase in traffic during the AM or PM peak hour: 1. Superior Avenue at West Coast Highway 2. Superior Avenue at Hospital Road 3. Placentia Avenue at Superior Avenue 4. Placentia Avenue at Hospital Road Intersection Utilization Capacity (ICU) analysis was conducted for these intersections and it was concluded that none of the 4 intersections would operate at a worse that Level of Service D during the peak hours. Therefore, pursuant to the TPO, no mitigation is required and no significant impact to traffic circulation will result with the approval of the project. The traffic study also performed a cumulative traffic analysis. Reasonably foreseeable projects and approved projects that are not included in the committed project list were Newport Technology Center (PA2003 -122) March 4, 2004 Page 4of4 added to project related traffic and evaluated. The conclusion of this analysis also indicates that there will be a less than significant impact to traffic circulation and that no mitigation is required. Parking The project provides 1,336 parking spaces and the code requires 831 parking spaces for the approved project limited to R &D uses. The proposed mix of uses within the project will require parking as follows: Use Area (sq. ft.) Parking Ratio Parking R &D 207,747 1 space per 416 spaces 500 gross sq. ft. General Office 207,747 1 space per 831 spaces 250 net sq. ft. Totals 415,473 NIA 1,247 spaces required 1,336 spaces provided 89 space surplus As shown, the project will provide sufficient parking to accommodate the proposed uses. Environmental Review The C ity adopted a M itigated N egative Declaration for the construction of the Newport Technology Center in 2001. All significant environmental concerns were addressed in the previously certified Negative Declaration. The proposed project only changes the mix of uses and no physical changes to the site are part of this request. The traffic study shows that no project related traffic impacts to area intersections will result either in the short term as well as considering reasonable foreseeable projects not yet approved. No new potential environmental impacts have been identified. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Traffic Study No. 2003 -001 subject to the conditions of approval attached thereto. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner �c. �4�a�. `�� 7. 1. Draft Resolution of approval 2. Draft Traffic Study No. 2003 -001 3. City Council & Planning Commission and staff reports and minutes for Use Permit No. 3679 Exhibit No. 1 Draft Resolution of approval 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2003-001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 -540 SUPERIOR AVENUE (PA2003 422). The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was duly filed by the New Superior Group, LLC with respect to property located at 500 -540 Superior Avenue requesting approval of Traffic Study No. 2003 -001 to change range of allowable uses that can occupy the newly constructed Newport Technology Center. Specifically, the application requests the ability to lease 50% of the development for office uses and 50% of the uses for research and development uses. The project site is designated General Industry by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is zoned M -1 -A by the Zoning Ordinance. Section 2. A public hearing was duly held on March 4, 2004, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: a) A traffic study entitled, "City of Newport Beach, Newport Technology Center Traffic Impact Analysis dated February 19, 2004" was prepared by Kunzman Associates for the project in compliance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). b) The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on four primary intersections by one percent (1 %) or more during Peak Hour periods one year after the completion of the project. c) Utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that the four primary intersections identified will operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and no mitigation is required. d) The traffic study also performed a cumulative traffic analysis. Reasonably foreseeable projects and approved projects that are not included in the committed project list were added to project related traffic and evaluated. The conclusion of this analysis also indicates that there will be a less than significant impact to traffic circulation and that no mitigation is required. e) Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study the construction of the project will be completed within 60 I months of project approval, and with existing intersection improvements, the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection. f) The City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the construction of the Newport Technology Center in 2001. All significant environmental concerns were addressed in the previously certified Negative Declaration. The proposed project only changes the mix of uses and no physical changes to the site are part of this request. The traffic study shows that no project related traffic impacts to area intersections will result either in the short term as well as considering reasonable foreseeable projects not yet approved. No new potential environmental impacts have been identified. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Traffic Study No. 2003 -001, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit W attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is call for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 0 DAY OF MARCH, 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BY: Earl McDaniel, Chairman BY: Michael Torege, Secretary no EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Traffic Study No. 2003 -001 The occupancy of the Newport Technology Center located at 500 -540 Superior Avenue may be occupied by no more than 50% general office uses. The remainder of the development shall be occupied by research and development uses. No medical or dental office uses may occupy the development. 2. Traffic Study No. 2003 -001 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval pursuant to Section 15.40.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This approval shall be deemed exercised by the issuance of a building permit to construct interior tenant improvements for general office uses. I Exhibit No. 2 Draft Traffic Study No. 2003 -001 t i p Zt } 1 rAl MIN KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES ■ i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared by: Alicia Ayers, Carl Ballard, and William Kunzman, P.E. / � ✓�i /vww►^ ~ a Q/V\ w Sao. TR0056 * T .A eT E February 19, 2004 KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES 1111 Towns & COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 34 ORANGE, CA 92868 PHONE: (714) 973 -8383 FAx: (714) 973 -8383 EMAIL: MAIL ®TRAFFIC- ENGINEER.COM WEB: WWW.TRAFFIC-ENGINEEP,.COM 27591 Table of Contents 1. Findings .............................................................................. ..............................2 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................ ..............................2 TrafficImpacts .............................................................. ..............................2 MitigationMeasures ..................................................... ..............................3 2. Project Description ............................................................ ..............................4 Location....................................................................... ............................... ProposedDevelopment ................................................ ..............................4 3. Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................... ..............................7 Study Area Intersections .............................................. ..............................7 Existing Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls .......... ..............................7 Existing Master Plan of Arterial Highways .................... ..............................7 Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................... ..............................8 4. Project Traffic .................................................................... .............................18 TrafficGeneration ....................................................... .............................18 Traffic Distribution and Assignment ............................. .............................18 Project- Related Traffic ................................................. .............................19 5. TPO Analysis ..................................................................... .............................24 ApprovedProjects ....................................................... .............................24 One- Percent Methodology .......................................... .............................24 Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) ......................... .............................25 6. CEGIA Analysis .................................................................. .............................35 Cumulative Projects .................................................... .............................35 One- Percent Methodology .......................................... .............................35 Intersection Capacity Utilization ( ICU) ......................... .............................36 �5 7. Conclusions ....................................................................... .............................46 Existing Traffic Conditions ........................................... .............................46 TrafficImpacts ............................................................. .............................46 MitigationMeasures .................................................... .............................47 Appendices Appendix A Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B Year 2003 Worksheets Appendix C Approved Project Data Appendix D TPO One - Percent Analysis Calculation Worksheets Appendix E Cumulative Project Data Appendix F CEQA One - Percent Analysis Calculation Worksheets Appendix G Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) f List of Tables Table 1. Project Traffic Generation ...................................... .............................2d Table 2. Approved Project List ............................................. .............................26 Table 3. TPO Analysis One - Percent Threshold ................... .............................27 Table 4. TPO Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Levels of Service( LOS) ........................................................ .............................28 Table 5. Cumulative Project List ........................................... .............................37 Table 6. CEQA Analysis One - Percent Threshold ................ .............................38 Table 7. CEQA Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) and Levels of Service( LOS) ........................................................ .............................39 11 I List of Figures Figure 1. Project Location Map .............................................. ..............................5 Figure2. Site Pl an .................................................................. ..............................6 Figure 3. Existing Through Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls .....................9 Figure 4. City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element ...................10 Figure 5. City of Newport Beach General Plan Roadway Cross - Sections .........11 Figure 6. Existing Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes.............................................................. ............................... 12 Figure 7. Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes.............................................................. ............................... 13 Figure 8. Approved R &D Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ............................................... .............................14 Figure 9. Approved R &D Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................................... .............................15 Figure 10. Existing With Approved R &D Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................. :............. 16 Figure 11. Existing With Approved R &D Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............ ............................... 17 Figure 12. Project Traffic Distribution ...................................... .............................21 Figure 13. Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 22 Figure 14. Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 23 Figure 15. Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ............................................. ............................... 29 Figure 16. Approved Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes... .................. ................................ ..................... 30 ly Figure 17. Existing + Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes .................................... :......................... 31 Figure 18. Existing + Approved Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................... ............................... 32 Figure 19. Existing + Approved Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............ ............................... 33 Figure 20. Existing + Approved Projects + Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............ ............................... 34 Figure 21. Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ............................................... .............................40 Figure 22. Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning MovementVolumes ............................................... .............................41 Figure 23. Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..... .............................42 Figure 24. Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ..... .............................43 Figure 25. Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes........... 44 Figure 26. Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ........... 45 City of Newport Beach Newport Technology Center Traffic Impact Analysis This report contains the traffic impact analysis for the Newport Technology Center project. The project site is located at 500 Superior Avenue, near the intersection of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue. The existing use has been approved as 415,493 square feet of Research and Development (R &D). The proposed project will be the conversion of the existing 100 percent R &D use to 50 percent R &D (approximately 207,746 square feet) and 50 percent office use (approximately 207,747 square feet). The traffic report contains documentation of existing traffic conditions, traffic generated by the project, distribution of the project traffic to roads outside the project, and an analysis of future traffic conditions. Each of these topics is contained in a separate section of the report. The first section is "Findings ", and subsequent sections expand upon the findings. In this way, information on any particular aspect of the study can be easily located by the reader. Although this is a technical report, every effort has been made to write the report clearly and concisely. To assist the reader with those terms unique to transportation engineering, a glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A. M 1. Findings This section summarizes the existing traffic conditions, project traffic impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures. Existing Traffic Conditions a. The existing use has been approved as 415,493 square feet of Research and Development (R &D). b. The project site currently has access to Superior Avenue. C. Pursuant to discussions with City of Newport Beach staff, the study area includes the following intersections: Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Prospect Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Drive (EW) Traffic Impacts a. The proposed project will be the conversion of the existing 100 percent R &D use to 50 percent R &D (approximately 207,746 square feet) and 50 percent office use (approximately 207,747 square feet). b. The approved R &D project is projected to generate a total of approximately 3,947 daily vehicle trips, 457 of which occur during the morning peak hour and 582 of which occur during the evening peak hour. The proposed R &D /Office project is projected to generate a total of approximately 4,889 daily vehicle trips, 624 of which occur during the morning peak hour and 2 `� 679 of which occur during the evening peak hour. Based upon the difference in trip generation between the approved R &D project and the proposed R &D /Office project, the project site is projected to generate approximately 942 more daily vehicle trips, 167 of which occur during the morning peak hour and 97 of which occur during the evening peak hour. C. The City of Newport Beach staff provided the approved and cumulative projects in the study area. The approved projects consist of development that has been approved but are not fully completed. Cumulative projects are known, but not approved project developments that are reasonably expected. to be completed. or nearly completed. at the same time as the proposed project. d. Comparison on the one - percent of the Year 2003 peak hour approach volumes with the project peak hour approach volumes resulted in the following study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold and requiring additional analysis: Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to mitigate the impact of the project on traffic circulation: a. On -site parking should be provided to meet City of Newport Beach parking code requirements. b. The project site did not cause .a significant_ impact at the study area intersections (increase of one - percent or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the peak hours); therefore, no improvements are recommended at the study area intersections. W. \' 2. Project Description This section discusses the projects location, proposed development, and traffic characteristics of such a development. Figure 1 shows the project location map and Figure 2 illustrates the site plan. Location The project site is located at 500 Superior Avenue, near the intersection of Superior Avenue and Placentia Avenue. Proposed Development The existing use has been approved as 415,493 square feet of Research and Development (R &D). The proposed project will be the conversion of the existing 100 percent R &D use to 50 percent R &D (approximately 207,746 square feet) and 50 percent office use (approximately 207,747 square feet). The following describes the proposed land uses from a traffic engineering viewpoint: Office: Offices will have pronounced peak traffic during the morning and evening peak hour periods as employees arrive and leave. R &D: Research and development will characteristically have fewer employees per acre than most other business and commercial uses, and fewer non - employee visits. There are pronounced traffic peaks as employees arrive in the morning and depart in the evening. 4 3 a . Figure 1 Project Location Mop Kunzman Associates 67 2759/1 ;�d Figure 2 Site Plan I. l l tl , l I III I L I i .� awwmwA�c � _' I l n n i • I = I aro G1911(MA\E = wwaOlMC = _ _ N aaei � !AC eaw aano®a It 1, ---- -- - - �LL7 ' !p; ; I I Gllf�flfl�titi4�� '�4�'�4��4flflfi+fa 1111��fI�II�NffI�II�fI�HtfI�HD = '� F 1. .l. mI1 ..- .l 1 .. --------------------------- � 0/.MA IIOAO Ku=man Associates 2-M/2 A m 3. Existing Traffic Conditions The traffic conditions as they exist today are discussed below and illustrated on Figures 3 to 7. Study Area Intersections Pursuant to discussions with City of Newport Beach staff; the study area includes the following intersections: Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Prospect Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Drive (EW) Existina Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls Figure 3 identifies the existing roadway conditions for arterials near the site. The number of through lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. Existing Master Plan of Arterial Hiahways Figure 4 exhibits the current City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element. Both existing and future roadways are included in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and are graphically depicted on Figure 4. This figure shows the nature and extent of arterial highways that are needed to serve adequately the ultimate development .depicted by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Figure 5 shows the City of Newport Beach General Plan roadway cross - sections. a(o Existing Traffic Volumes The City of Newport Beach staff provided the Year 2003 morning and evening peak hour approach volumes at each study area intersection (see Appendix B). Existing morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 6 and 7, respectively. The existing use has been approved as 415,493 square feet of Research and Development (R &D). The approved R &D project is projected to generate a total of approximately 3,947 daily vehicle trips, 457 of which occur during the morning peak hour and 582 of which occur during the evening peak hour (see Table 1 within Section 4). The approved use of 415,493 square feet of R &D has been manually overlaid onto the study area intersections. The approved use (R &D) morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 8 and 9, respectively. The existing and approved use (R &D) traffic volumes have been added. The existing with approved use (R &D) morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 10 and 11, respectively. Al Figure 3 Existing Through Travel Lanes and Intersection Controls Legend Q=. = Traffic sxp,d ib= stop sign 4 = Through Travel Lanes D = Divided U = Undivided itunzTwn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left coma of turning movement boxes. 2759%3 0 �V 31a�+ db4s, db4a -+ db4s+s db4s2 .�lbsi JAbsi itunzTwn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left coma of turning movement boxes. 2759%3 0 �V Figure 5 City of Newport Beach General Plan Roadway Cross — Sections 28' MIN. R( -108' MIN: 8'—r- 8' MAJOR STREET (1)(3) PRIMARY STREET (1)(3) SECONDARY STREET (1)(3) 60' MIN. ROW 1D' 2o' — D' MIN. LOCAL STREET Notes: 56' MIN. ROW 36' MIN. (1) Streets may require special 10' 18'-- T -- -18' . 12' design. ( ) 3 d (2) May be reduced to 6 Ft. if no sidewalk is required. CUL -DE -SAC SINGLE FRONTAGE OR LOOP STREET (3) Where bicycle trail designated, sidewalk widths shall be adjusted as shown on Std. - 120 -L. Kunzman Associates Source: City of Newport Beach 11 2759/5 Figure 6 Existing Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Kunzman. Associates v X15 FIMS v 'L11 4 -1025 o 5F= =193 4-589 v 4 1 nil 2 _ Jb44 r a Jbbss 4 Jb4s2eAA a Jb6sa 4 ° vf'IYP ° 4 ��YP ° 693sa11 ° o'°91P nB w�� °?. 20� �� °fi 0 1 856 v 1 5 A l ®. -12 24 6 K� `c, 4-145 �- 4-244 db64 61 4 db6si44 a Jbr°s68 a ° j 415-+ ° 61s °11 P ° 194" 41 1 P n n a 1 S Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of tuming movement boxes. 2759/bbos 12 31 Figure 7 Existing Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes e „o 0 I >r «� it 4 -1015 2 R,_a t-R 4-17lg J m a�$ 4-fia 4 --16ze 4 Rie �blo�4a 4_gg 4-0 dbb4 -4J 4 41bWa15 4 4t10�-Iw 4 4 ° �f°ItP ° m�ti1P ° A1s YP ° 0s1YP 1377 -°SSS 1413�a «Ip 66,-C �+g J0-e i5� 2R�. Ma D� a e +0i v , v 5 Tm,.R 4 g6 4-772 6 48..756 41b1>s103 4 41b1°w -= 4. W7��49 %4-° s; E; B Zob-o AC � 64- '^' 247 0 1 Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left caner of fuming movement boxes 2759/6ba9 13 33, Figure 8 Approved R & D Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes Kunzman Associates o 6 o . .s6 Q . .�Q a . ° d b0aol-� ° b0 c Q�li° 0s f ° ostiaYo ° A o7 o 0 40 4:--42 7 t-0 5 6 .-n o .-0 ;it .-0 dbbs4 .dgbsQ a 0 6 0 g Y l° ° a-�6l it la--+ 0� 0� 4� a 0 n Intersection reference numbers are in upper left coma of tumhg movement boxes 2759/bbas fa D 1 v J�6.s Figure 9 a Approved R & D Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 14v } SSSo Jlbsa 1-0 a Iv Jb4eo a *Site a ° U a 5 Danolftoad fi 2 o 7 By 5 Jg�� to -IS . H Rd West coif ov o .�b�aso 4 6 Drtve� 3 m o� o�h1A e� a Kurtzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are In upper left comer of turning movement bares. 2759%bbo 1 v J�6.s to -o a v 2 'g4so tp a 14v } SSSo Jlbsa 1-0 a Iv Jb4eo a a ° i- -P°�1�° a o a By 5 Jg�� to -IS . /Bv ov o .�b�aso ' 1-a 1 ° �� o� o� o�h1A e� 15 I Figure 10 Existing With Approved R & D Project Morning Peok Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes o 6-1061 v 14 A -MOBS v !� A-58B v 4 0 JbbsSt a-p •^• «� Jbbs11 a Pb�O SS a Jbbsq7e C a alz� e o IB7B -° gt le 0-0 >r zt 2l � o mom- 1Be--*'- o� - e5B o C- -751 o Jbe bs65 < -n1 a s68 a 4 %� I t e % t F04-4' IT IIM-0 RA2 161 -0 =Ri` s Kumman Associates Intersectan reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. 27S/bba 16 35 i 49 v 1 Figure 11 v t Existing With Approved R & D Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes v 1 � �y 2 2 v tI7 v *Site dlp db4s�. s sn°. j Jt Dana Rood 2 M�o t H Id west Est aSsh11° 1 4 6 °nYe NF-04848 m� a b's 4 4772 v v v 9 956 v 5 VIM R . .--6K 6 6 K' X1 #� } }-174 � K41nzman Associates Intersection reference numbers ere in upper left comer of turning movement bores 2759M= 49 v 1 v t 1 v v 1 � �y 2 2 v tI7 v dlp db4s�. s sn°. j jbbs� . . M M�o t tasg11° 0 0 a aSsh11° 1 NF-04848 b's 4 4772 v v v 9 956 v 5 VIM R . .--6K 6 6 K' X1 #� } }-174 � � db4rlo . . d db4stm . . J Jbba151 a a e 514- ?°{tI° > > 9 99�hT > > m m'? t t{° « 4 Oi t2 u�, r r� « 4na — a 17 4. Project Traffic The existing use has been approved as 415,493 square feet of Research and Development (R &D). The proposed project will be the conversion of the existing 100 percent R &D use to 50 percent R &D (approximately 207,746 square feet) and 50 percent office use (approximately 207,747 square feet). Traffic Generation The traffic generated by the project is determined by multiplying an appropriate trip generation rate by the quantity of land use. Trip generation rates are predicated on the assumption that energy costs, the availability of vehicles to drive, and our Iffe styles remain similar to what we know today. A major change in these variables may affect trip generation rates. Trip generation rates were determined for daily traffic, morning peak hour inbound and outbound traffic, and evening peak hour inbound and outbound traffic for the proposed land use. By multiplying the traffic generation rates by the land use quantity, the traffic volumes are determined. Table 1 exhibits the traffic generation rates, project peak hour volumes, and project daily traffic volumes. The trip generation rates are from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). The approved R &D project is projected to generate a total of approximately 3,947 daily vehicle trips, 457 of which occur during the morning peak hour and 582 of which occur during the evening peak hour. The proposed R &D /Office project is projected to generate a total of approximately 4,889 daily vehicle trips, 624 of which occur during the morning peak hour and 679 of which occur during the evening peak hour. However, based upon the difference in trip generation between the approved R &D project and the proposed R &D /Office project, the project site is projected to generate approximately 942 more daily vehicle trips, 167 of which occur during the morning peak hour and 97 of which occur during the evening peak hour. Traffic Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is the determination of the directional orientation of traffic. It is based on the geographical location of employment centers, commercial centers, recreational areas, or residential area concentrations. The traffic distribution has also been based upon previous traffic studies for the project site. Traffic assignment is the determination of which speck route development traffic will use, once the generalized traffic distribution is determined. The basic factors affecting route selection are minimum time path and minimum distance path. �a Figure 12 contains the directional distribution and assignment of the project traffic for the proposed land use. Proiect - Related Traffic Based on the identified traffic generation and distribution, project related morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures 13 and 14, respectively. 19 3V Table 1 Project Traffic Generation' ' Source., NBTAM Trip Generation Rates 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 20 Peak Hour Mominq Evening Descriptor Quantity Units Inbound7 Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Daily Trip Generation Rates R&D TSF 1.00 0.10 1.10 0.30 1.10 1.40 9.50 Office TSF 1.69 0.21 1.90 0.32 1.55 1.87 14.03 Trips Generated Previous Proiect R&D 415.493 TSF 415 42 457 125 457 582 3,947 Proposed Proiect R&D 207.746 TSF 208 21 229 62 229 291 1,974 Office 207.747 TSF 351 44 395 66 322 388 2,915 Total 415.493 TSF 1 559 1. 65 624 128 551 6799 41889 Difference 1 +144 1 +23 1 +167 +3 +94 +97 +942 ' Source., NBTAM Trip Generation Rates 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet 20 Figure 12 Project Traffic Distribution 65% e a 20% h� 35 Site Dona Rood 25% H Sal r 10.% �4 C b 5% Le end 10% = Percent To/rrom Project Kunzman Associates 2759/8 21 4 Figure 13 Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 0 ip 0 ap v t0 4 4-0 I Z dgb�o db6so a ddbs0 ° 40-0 e 00 o pe .-0 dbbs3 a�Tbso a .�b�o -p • s 01 -+ eeR o-�e a��ee 0-y e a Kunzmmn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of tumfng movement boxes. 2759/bbas 22 q1 Figure 14 Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 1 v 0q db6so ap .- a v 2 0 Jb6 2.0 ffi 6-so a s 7 R ti o +-a Fo ao . a 4 R o db4so tp .-0 < ° , -0000 o;�ja° 0$ 0, 0 0 0 dbbsn .-31 a db46 -o . db��o . a� a a K9LTtzmn Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes 2M/bbos 23 lFJ 5. TPO Analysis Approved Proiects The City of Newport Beach staff provided the approved projects in the study area for the TPO analysis. The approved projects consist of development that has been approved but are not fully completed (see Table 2 and Appendix C). The approved project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 15 and 16, respectively. One- Percent Methodology One - percent of the projected peak hour volumes of each approach of each study area intersection were compared with the peak hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this TPO comparison is shown within Appendix D. If one - percent of the existing + approved projects traffic peak hour volumes of each approach are larger than the peak hour project approach volumes, no further analysis is required. Existing + approved projects morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 17 and 18, respectively. Existing + approved projects + project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 19 and 20, respectively. If project peak hour approach volumes are higher than one - percent of the projected peak hour volumes on any approach of any intersection, the intersection would require analysis utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Comparison of the one - percent of the existing + approved projects traffic peak hour approach volumes with the project peak hour approach volumes resulted in the following study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold and requiring additional analysis (see Table 3 and Appendix D): Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) 24 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU value the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An ICU value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The Levels of Service for existing + approved projects traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 4. Existing + approved projects ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix G. For existing + approved projects traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours. The Levels of Service for existing + approved projects + project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 4. Existing + approved projects + project ICU worksheets are provided .in Appendix G. For existing + approved .projects + project traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours. 25 4 Table 2 Approved Project List Project Name Balboa Bay Club Expansion Fashion Island Expansion Temple Bat Yahm Expansion Ford Redevelopment Cannery Lofts Village Hoag Hospital Phase II Ciosa - Irvine Project Newport Dunes Irvine Development 1999 1401 Dove Street Newport Auto Center Expansion Olsen Townhome Project 26 45 Table 3 TPO Analysis One - Percent Threshold Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of projected peak hour traffi Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. 27 6 Peak Approach Direction' Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Hour Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No No Prospect Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No No Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) AM No Yes No No PM No Yes No No Hospital Drive (EW) AM Yes Yes No No PM No Yes No No Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) AM Yes No Yes Yes PM No No No Yes Hospital Drive (EW) AM No No No Yes PM No Yes No No Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Drive (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No No Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of projected peak hour traffi Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. 27 6 Table 4 TPO Analysis Intersection Capacity Utifization (!CU) and Levels of Service (LOS) � VMene n11111gnbMia dKigateQfta blM Can erle Ea sbpetl ar urabiPea. Tofa�caonaserilMun Yra,rv:re mutbeavpdentYVJnfar ng9tunkgveMdea brmvlaulalae Feaaa14P4nas. L' LML T= Tlrwgh: ft =ftip41' hreroveman 2 OS= � Cepa.V Nlm4m -Level of SC . ITS =Tmf &gnl 28 ji Peak Four ICUdA52 EAsting + Intersection preach Larres E- ,Mi"g+ Approved Projects+ Nodhbound Southbound Eastbound I WeslbourA Traffic An Pro' Prowds prolect ICU Increase L T R L T R L T R L T R Morning I Evening Morning Ewring Momft Even Intersedon ConlroP Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Kghmy (EM TS 1.5 1.5 0 1.5 1.5 2 2 3 1 1 4 0 0.70 -8 0.83 -8 0.70$ 0.6346 +OA03 +0.001 Hospital Drive TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1.5 0.5 0 0.70.8 0.17 -A 0.71 -C 0.48 -A +0.011 +0.007 Placenlia Avenue (NS) et: Superior Avemre(EW) TS 0.5 1 MS 1 i 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.78 -C 0.8&D 0.79 -C 0.00 -D +OAl2 +0.008 Hospital Drive TS OS 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.42 -A 0.45 -A 0.42-A 0.45 -A +0.001 +0.003 � VMene n11111gnbMia dKigateQfta blM Can erle Ea sbpetl ar urabiPea. Tofa�caonaserilMun Yra,rv:re mutbeavpdentYVJnfar ng9tunkgveMdea brmvlaulalae Feaaa14P4nas. L' LML T= Tlrwgh: ft =ftip41' hreroveman 2 OS= � Cepa.V Nlm4m -Level of SC . ITS =Tmf &gnl 28 ji s, 2759/bbas 29 Figure 15 Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes *Site s 5 oonotttaad 2 7 H ital West sr 4 6 of1Ve d° esha — of h �a e o o v S dd° bbo ashDsh — �o bbo0o �do e O1Jo e P sgb0o � —� - JY ?boO n a o to daSe a fi - o—� se e ix� a � Kunzman Associates intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement bore a 6 a �b a s a92o — 4-34 a a d° esha — of h h1P > > ' ' 0 a > d o e e to 4 i0 6 a i i0 7 ix� a � o-+ 74'h> o P a �b pv Figure 16 a pv Approved Projects � Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes a v 4 ° e° dbbss ° 1 e ° d�bso 2 0 0 0 dbbso *Site ° ��hYP o� h` a $�hl� 5 Dana Road ° o- e'eIYP 6o tp 4-0 -6 a West cope � 4 6 Drive� e 69e S4 a �lbso Ap sp, 3 R m 5 o e dYbc 6 dbbss6 a ° °'°IYI° 0--b ° ras°lYl° Q-0 ° —° °xs° a Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of tumN movement boxes 2T59/bbas pv tp 4-51 a pv ap 4-SV � v tp Q-61 a v 4 ° e° dbbss 4-0 6-0 a 1 e ° d�bso 2 0 0 0 dbbso e o dbbsa ° ��hYP o� $�hl� ° o- e'eIYP 6o tp 4-0 -6 a itv }-p a 69e S4 a �lbso Q—a a 5 o e dYbc 6 dbbss6 ° °'°IYI° 0--b ° ras°lYl° Q-0 ° —° °xs° a 30 Figure 17 Existing + Approved Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes y. *Site U 5 Dana "Road 2 at 7 Wee( cow 4 6 Drive� ~a Y �v, 3 m . n a i�4E91Zfl' an Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 2759Jbbas v o v o 1 ti6 WJ6 d54 db6ssl a Jbbs7e a Jbbss e v� % 1 P > loeos 1 P > as 1 66B v v 1660 0 5��— +-12 75f 6r� pi G--t15 7'�1 =R +-266 Jbbs75 a OTbsat a Jbba -� , o ass %1P > �B�1P > 20' It 31 5b nm��a 0 066--0 - +� ->a�z: -a1R + e , , �v v Figure 18 Existing + Approved Projects 3 Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes *Site 3 ° >GR$ s rz h� 5 Dona Read 2 H Rd 7 West r 4 6 Drive.g W m ,� -ao m , m—a o o—a sw ° � �sr ° M 6 d VIE U M6�1 6 Kunaman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes 2759/bbos �v v v W 3 3 ° >GR$ s s,sz 4 4 , W ,� -ao m , m—a o o—a sw ° � �sr ° M 6 d M6�1 6 db4srs a a �-'glfs n a a 32 1 v Figure 19 Existing + Approved Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes v y � *Site 5 Ilona Road 2 a{g} e—ar �a, West cast 4 6 Drive •o e Sp 3 a m Jg6ss m� 4 a a ° �f'lYP 107 1 °nm��YP w A91 -°y,�g �1 -°soyt �--0 �C Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. 2759/bbo v o v v 3 a{g} e—ar Jbbsa < Jg6ss 4 Jbbs>9 a ° �f'lYP °nm��YP w A91 -°y,�g �1 -°soyt �--0 �C 72� tOZ 209 96B o 47 o v 5 a�°J- a {y C--ffi i r, ci aqg 4 -145 7 R g =�•�i a{g 6-ffi Jbbs7e a J�bstst a dbbs5e a ° ct� 1 P ° '�-"l 1 P tm-o «fig aw-e �se� tet-° Zt3 H� 751 - e 41B n a 33 ��, 199 1 Figure 20 Existing + Approved Projects + Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 1 1 ` 1�QIv Y *Site y 1 a dbba - -u a a d R .- 06 4 4 —y'.17 a d 5 Dana Road 2 a d H Rol 7 west C40 ast 4 6 b H•� sv, 3 v� = m %1P ° ° x 3 1 %�P ► a 1 P 11H�3= T T 1 a 910v f fRv Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left corner of turning movement boxes. �/� 199 1 1 1 1 1 1�QIv Y Y w 1 a dbba - -u a a d R .- 06 4 4 —y'.17 a d dbbstet a a d dbbsus � � ° q qP % 1169 -a a %1P ° ° x 3 1 %�P ► ► a 1 P 11H�3= T T 1 a 910v f fRv R l lay ° ° sus986--0 u NO R u� 34 6. CEQA Analysis Cumulative Proiects The City of Newport Beach staff provided the cumulative projects in the study area for the CEQA analysis. Cumulative projects are known, but not approved project developments that are reasonably expected to be completed or nearly completed at the same time as the proposed project. The cumulative project list is shown in Table 5 and the cumulative project traffic generation is included in Appendix E. Figures E -1 to E -7 (within Appendix E) contain the directional distribution of the cumulative project traffic. The cumulative project morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 21 and 22, respectively. One - Percent Methodology One - percent of the projected peak hour volumes of each approach of each study area intersection were compared with the peak hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this CEQA comparison is shown within Appendix F. If one - percent of the existing + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic peak hour volumes of each approach are larger than the peak hour project approach volumes, no further analysis is required. Existing + approved projects + cumulative projects morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 23 and 24, respectively. Existing + approved projects + cumulative projects + project morning and evening peak hour, intersection turning movement volumes have been calculated and are shown on Figures 25 and 26, respectively. If project peak hour approach volumes are higher than one - percent of the projected peak hour volumes on any approach of any intersection, the intersection would require analysis utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Comparison of the one - percent of the existing + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic peak hour approach volumes with the project peak hour approach volumes resulted in the following study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold and requiring additional analysis (see Table 6 and Appendix F): Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) 35 5� Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) The technique used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU value the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. An ICU value is usually expressed as a decimal. The decimal represents that portion of the hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. The Levels of Service for existing + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 7. Existing + approved projects + cumulative projects ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix G. For existing + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours, except for the following study area intersection that is projected to operate at Level of Service E during the evening peak hour: Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) The Levels of Service for existing + approved projects + cumulative projects + project traffic conditions have been calculated and are shown in Table 7. Existing + approved projects + cumulative projects + project ICU worksheets are provided in Appendix G. For existing + approved projects + cumulative projects + project traffic conditions, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate at Level of Service D or better during the peak hours, except for the following study area intersection that is projected to operate at Level of Service E during the evening peak hour: Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) As indicated in Table 7, the project does not cause a one - percent or more increase in ICU value during the evening peak hour at the intersection of Placentia Avenue /Superior Avenue for existing + approved projects + cumulative projects + project traffic conditions. 38 r� J Table 5 Cumulative Project List Project Name South Coast Shipyard Morman Temple St. Andrews Church Regent Newport Beach Resort Newport Coast - TAZ 1 Newport Coast - TAZ 2 Newport Coast - TAZ 3 Newport Coast - TAZ 4 Newport Ridge - TAZ 1 Newport Ridge - TAZ 2 New port Ridge - TAZ 3 Lower Bayview Senior Housing 37 56 Table 6 CEQA Analysis One - Percent Threshold ' Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of projected peak hour traffi Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. 38 51 Peak Approach Direction' Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Intersection Hour Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No No Prospect Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No No Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) AM No Yes No No PM No Yes No No Hospital Drive (EW) AM Yes Yes No No PM No Yes No No Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) AM Yes No Yes Yes PM No No No Yes Hospital Drive (EW) AM No No No Yes PM No Yes No No Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Drive (EW) AM No No No No PM No No No No ' Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of projected peak hour traffi Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis is required. 38 51 Table 7 CEQA Analysis Intersection Capacity Utilization (tCU) and Levels of Service (LOS) ' WMn• ddr Dan bile If desipWM, ero MM: cane9tw M aNtK4 auWripe4. Tofia[em of � dde NeYn. tlwm nfN Ee i�Elldnt Wd11M4d[MwgwliCln tobeve WL4e NSareurAYms. L=1.a11'.T =TfidgcR =qyf T ICW,OS =Masefem Cep4ry Uibxaecn -Lent Ol Servim 3 IS s Tralfe Si" 39 58' Peak Hour OJ-W 1 Eristing+ Exsting+ Approved Projects+ Intersection A h Lanes' Approved ProjeciS+ WmUlatne Projects + Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Trafic Cumutateve Proiects pa ect ICU Increase baereec0on CoMlols L T R L T R L T R L T R MomOV Even Evert M Evrn Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway(EM TS 1.5 1.5 0 1.5 1.5 2 2 .3 1 1 4 0 0.74 -C 0.67$ 0.76 -C 0.67$ +0.010 +MW2 Drive TS 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1.5 0.5 0 0.724 0.50-4) 0.74 -C 0.51 -A 11 +0.011 +OA07 Placentia Avenue (NS) at Superior Avenue (EW) TS 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 2 O 1 2 0 0.804) 0.92 -E 0.8243 0.93£ +0.012 40.007 Hospital Drive TS 0.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.42 -A 0.45 -A 0.42 -A 0.45 -A +0.001 +0.003 ' WMn• ddr Dan bile If desipWM, ero MM: cane9tw M aNtK4 auWripe4. Tofia[em of � dde NeYn. tlwm nfN Ee i�Elldnt Wd11M4d[MwgwliCln tobeve WL4e NSareurAYms. L=1.a11'.T =TfidgcR =qyf T ICW,OS =Masefem Cep4ry Uibxaecn -Lent Ol Servim 3 IS s Tralfe Si" 39 58' Figure 21 Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes *Site u 5 Uana�Rped 2 H tat 7 Drive West cppst y- 4 6 `3 $ m �3 a hd e e t JJlagbopp s0 v Z 6 �ipe bp0ppf-0 —s� v e ab. ae 9 es. 2759Abos 40 (% man Assocktes Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement box o i 51 so a a � 3 +-70 esaFs1e- T � 4 Jbpol� 0 ° b p ab4-m 0 ° p p 1 p p m b 5 4 p 13 t pv 1 a p n o alt ' owe e p 3 p at �o Figure 22 Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes *Site 1 5 Dona Road Z 7 H Ral Wept co an 4 6 Drive e r x 3 0. 0 0 0 0 Z p iSp l o La--ro p f e 4-109 a— ¢ -m to e o so 6 r a da boz a e b4 dde ggoos-7 bb a d�tbao� Disrya ° ° P ot10 17 p4 f00o a°"eYP INo-: n o{° e - n { O o 51L.0 �� a 6 o so sa a s a a Pv e ° ��° o�° o J P � —� ° � p Kunzman Associates Intersection reference numbers are i upper left eoner of turning movement boxes. 2759/bbo3 o at �o o o p a a 1 Figure 23 Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes *Site V 1 d 1 5 oanatHooa Z Ho ital % west coosf 4 6`a v •o `�Y � 3 Z m I a Kunz�man Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left comer of turning movement boxes 275g/bbas v v o AVE tp7 v 4 A55, <-0 = n n yt �1bs71 d-t76J a n e dlbss 0-178J a dlbs76 0 -767 a dlbcJS a JT67� e >1aBOs 7f7B -° %1P R e-o K' L51-° 62 Y S ? R 119M a� a n 1 1 6Tt e v 6 >•i Fi 4_� d-1� 765 5 d�bs7s7 a 4e ° 4n� Iff ° 61� %tP F251��: 27x-6 �7t� gg 21� M� 42 43 Figure 24 Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes 5 *Site 6 ` 5 oano�Road 2 � 7 . Ho Ral Wiest t 4 6 wVe � b 3 ao a o e I v o 1 C..il W tt7 R_S �7DF7 7 � i1T 4 ip� T+R'� {-1799 o�R �-a dbbsa a dbbsleW a a = a z M P� n91—o o—o e { e 464 v e 5�R+. i-975 6K'xS Y� a-t�j{ J--W dbbsl9W a Jbbs719 a �9 -+ F2. Ku=man Associates Intersection reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxes. 2759/6609 43 htP �fht qtP 43 o Figure 25 Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes , �. �.." � ° 4 *Site 2 db6sn a �b6ss�8Ba h` dlbs7s 5 Dana Road 2 db4ss H itd 7 weal ca 4 Drive 6 13 s %1P m a-m %1P a =16 72 -b 1 xl� on 298-a 3M �265 a� ° e 4-II l e 6 ip8 i v Kunzman Associates Intersect= reference numbers are in upper left comer of turning movement boxe& 2759/ o ° `II , �. �.." � ° 4 I n 2 db6sn a �b6ss�8Ba dlbs7s x-787 a db4ss e e ns %1P > 13 s %1P onms %1P 72 -b 1 xl� 298-a a� ° e 4-II l e 6 ip8 i v 8 dbbs7a a dYbsa7 a dbbsse a ms %1P ' �s %tP ° �f %1P Im�m�s w� °es� �� n 418 44 45 Figure 26 Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes *Site 1 nano Rood 2 2 in H itai West coagy 4 6 Drive a wo .� Svc 3 xm `Leg db6sa a 6a -tat 4 � w ° ws Ymr—o 1�>n it'1b9bZmen Associates Intersection reference numbers ore in upper left caner of turning movement boxes. 2759/bbos 45 1 an 2 in 1 i1T 4 `Leg db6sa a 6a -tat 4 � w ° ws Ymr—o 1�>n a a a 9N v P"— v 31 U1 a� r;x e—tli9 J b 4 sit a d b 4 .s-m a d b� e-tst a star P° �s Zoa —Da�fl 1 Y P ° �-+'1 m—e Y P „fig 981 a a 45 7. Conclusions This section summarizes the existing traffic conditions, project traffic impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures. Existing Traffic Conditions a. The existing use has been approved as 415,493 square feet of Research and Development (R &D). b. The project site currently has access to Superior Avenue. C. Pursuant to discussions with City of Newport Beach staff,-the study area includes the following intersections: Orange Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Prospect Street (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Newport Boulevard (NS) at: Hospital Drive (EW) Traffic Impacts a. The proposed project will be the conversion of the existing 100 percent R &D use to 50 percent R &D (approximately 207,746 square feet) and 50 percent office use (approximately 207,747 square feet). b. The approved R &D project is projected to generate a total of approximately 3,947 daily vehicle trips, 457 of which occur during the morning peak hour and 582 of which occur during the evening peak hour. The proposed R &D /Office project is projected to generate a total of approximately 4,889 as �5 daily vehicle trips, 624 of which occur during the morning peak hour and 679 of which occur during the evening peak hour. Based upon the difference in trip generation between the approved R &D project and the proposed R &D /Office project, the project site is projected to generate approximately 942 more daily vehicle trips, 167 of which occur during the morning peak hour and 97 of which occur during the evening peak hour. C, The City of Newport Beach staff provided the approved and cumulative projects in the study area. The approved projects consist of development that has been approved but are not fully completed. Cumulative projects are known, but not approved project developments that are reasonably expected to be completed or nearly completed at the same time as the proposed project. d. Comparison on the one - percent of the Year 2003 peak hour approach volumes with the project peak hour approach volumes resulted in the following study area intersections exceeding the one - percent threshold and requiring additional analysis: Superior Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Placentia Avenue (NS) at: Superior Avenue (EW) Hospital Drive (EW) Mitigation Measures The following measures are recommended to mitigate the impact of the project on traffic circulation: a. On -site parking should be provided to meet City of Newport Beach parking code requirements. b. The project site did not cause a significant impact at the study area intersections (increase of one - percent or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the peak hours); therefore, no improvements are recommended at the study area intersections. 47 0r Appendices Appendix A Glossary of Transportation Terms Appendix B Year 2003 Worksheets Appendix C Approved Project Data Appendix D TPO One - Percent Analysis Calculation Worksheets Appendix E Cumulative Project Data Appendix F CEQA One - Percent Analysis Calculation Worksheets Appendix G Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) 0 APPENDIX A Glossary of Transportation Terms GLOSSARY OF TRANSPORTATION TERMS COMMON ABBREVIATIONS AC: ADT: Caltrans: DU: ICU: LOS: TSF: V/C VMT: TERMS Acres Average Daily Traffic California Department of Transportation Dwelling Unit Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Thousand Square Feet Volume /Capacity Vehicle Miles Traveled AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC: The total volume during a year divided by the number of days in a year. Usually only weekdays are included. BANDWIDTH: The number of seconds of green time available for through traffic in a signal progression. BOTTLENECK: A constriction along a travelway that limits the amount of traffic that can proceed downstream from its location. CAPACITY: The maximum number of vehicles which can be reasonably expected to pass over a given section of a lane or a roadway in a given time period. CHANNELIZATION: The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite paths of travel by the use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other suitable means to facilitate the safe and orderly movements of both vehicles and pedestrians. CLEARANCE INTERVAL: Nearly same as yellow time. If there is an all red interval after the end of a yellow, then that is also added into the clearance interval. CORDON: An imaginary line around an area across which vehicles, persons, or other items are counted (in and out). CYCLE LENGTH: The time period in seconds required for one complete signal cycle. CUL -DE -SAC STREET: A local street open at one end only, and with special provisions for turning around. DAILY CAPACITY. The daily volume of traffic that will result in a volume during the peak. hour equal to the capacity of the roadway. DAILY TRAFFIC: Same as average daily traffic. DELAY: The time consumed while traffic is impeded in its movement by some element over which it has no control, usually expressed in seconds per vehicle. DEMAND RESPONSIVE SIGNAL: Same as traffic- actuated signal. DENSITY: The number of vehicles occupying in a unit length of the through traffic lanes of a roadway at any given instant. Usually expressed in vehicles per mile. DETECTOR: A device that responds to a physical stimulus and transmits a resulting impulse to the signal controller. DESIGN SPEED: A speed selected for purposes of design. Features of a highway, such as curvature, superelevation, and sight distance (upon which the safe operation of vehicles is dependent) are correlated to design speed. DIRECTIONAL SPLIT: The percent of traffic in the peak direction at any point in time. DIVERSION: The rerouting of peak hour traffic to avoid congestion. FIXED TIME SIGNAL: Same as pretimed signal. FORCED FLOW: Opposite of free flow. FREE FLOW: Volumes are well below capacity. Vehicles can maneuver freely and travel is unimpeded by other traffic. GAP: Time or distance between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, rear bumper to front bumper. HEADWAY: Time or distance spacing between successive vehicles in a traffic stream, front bumper to front bumper. INTERCONNECTED SIGNAL SYSTEM: A number of intersections that are connected to achieve signal progression. LEVEL OF SERVICE: A qualitative measure of a number of factors, which include speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. LOOP DETECTOR: A vehicle detector consisting of a loop of wire embedded in the roadway, energized by alternating current and producing an output circuit closure when passed over by a vehicle. MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GAP: Smallest time headway between successive vehicles in a traffic stream into which another vehicle is willing and able to cross or merge. MULTI- MODAL: More than one mode; such as automobile, bus transit, rail rapid transit, and bicycle transportation modes. OFFSET: The time interval in seconds between the beginning of green at one intersection and the beginning of green at an adjacent intersection. PLATOON: A closely grouped component of traffic that is composed of several vehicles moving, or standing ready to move, with clear spaces ahead and behind. ORIGIN- DESTINATION SURVEY: A survey to determine the point of origin and the point of destination for a given vehicle trip. PASSENGER CAR EQUIVALENTS (PCE): One car is one Passenger Car Equivalent. A truck is equal to 2 or 3 Passenger Car Equivalents in that a truck requires longer to start, goes slower, and accelerates slower. Loaded trucks have a higher Passenger Car Equivalent than empty trucks. PRETIMED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go on a predetermined time schedule without regard to traffic conditions. PROGRESSION: A term used to describe the progressive movement of traffic through several signalized intersections. SCREEN -LINE: An imaginary line or physical feature across which all trips are counted, normally to verify the validity of mathematical traffic models. SIGNAL CYCLE:. The time period in seconds required for one complete sequence of signal indications. SIGNAL PHASE: The part of the signal cycle allocated to one or more traffic movements. STARTING DELAY: The delay experienced in initiating the movement of queued traffic from a stop to an average running speed through a signalized intersection. TRAFFIC- ACTUATED SIGNAL: A type of traffic signal that directs traffic to stop and go in accordance with the demands of traffic, as registered by the actuation of detectors. TRIP: The movement of a person or vehicle from one location (origin) to another (destination). For example, from home to store to home is two trips, not one. TRIP -END: One end of a trip at either the origin or destination; i.e. each trip has two trip -ends. A trip -end occurs when a person, object, or message is transferred to or from a vehicle. TRIP GENERATION RATE: The quality of trips produced and/or attracted by a specific land use stated in terms of units such as per dwelling, per acre, and per 1,000 square feet of floor space. TRUCK: A vehicle having dual tires on one or more axles, or having more than two axles. UNBALANCED FLOW: Heavier traffic flow in one direction than the other. On a daily basis, most facilities have balanced flow. During the peak hours, flow is seldom balanced in an urban area. VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL: A measure of the amount of usage of a section of highway, obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by length of facility in miles. 1�_ APPENDIX B Year 2003 Worksheets q3 I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & ORANGE STREET 2285 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVEDPROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 107 Southbound Southbound 70 Eastbound Eastbound 3063 Westbound Westbound 1093 Project Traffic Is estimated to be less titan 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. t-J Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 11% of Projected Peak Four Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & ORANGE STREET 2285 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traf re 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 107 Southbound 49 Eastbound 1441 Westbound 2879 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic Is estimated to he equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: ed CH2285AM 2003 AM ................. PROJECT V/C Ratio I EL 1 1600 1 1 23 1 0.014 1 1 1 1 1 ....................................... ............................... ............... .. ---- ---- °.....................• ---- . -- °- °---- ...... ............... . ............ ..... i ET 1 1 3018 1 1 1 's I ---------------- } 4800 - --- - --- --- ------- - ---- ----- - - -- } 0.633 * - ---------- - - - - -- - --- -------------- -- } ................ } I ER I I 22 I I I I ---------------- - - ----------- -- - ------------------- - -- ° ............. . ............. ... .................. . .................... . ................... . ............... . ........ ..... I WL 1 1600 1 1 21 1 0.013 • I I I I ......................................................................... ......................... . . . . .. . ................ .................. . . . . .. ... ......................... . ..... I WT 1 4800 1 1 1056 1 0.220 1 1 1 1 I I---------------- . ............... . ................... . ................ . ............... ................... . .................... .................... ............... .................. I WR 1 1600 1 1 16 1 0.010 1 1 1 1 1 I-- ----- ----- --- - --------------- - --- -------- - - - --- - --- -- - ------ - -- ------ - - - --- - - -- -- ----- - --- -- - -------------- - - - --- - ---- ----- --- -- --- - --------------- - ----------------- I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.724 1 ................ . ............... . ................... ................. . ............... . .................. . .................... - ........ . I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I ................ . ................ .................... ................ . ................ ................... -- ---. ....-- °-...................•--- ................. ................ EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I -° ................ ................ . -- ......................... ............................ --° . ............................... ... ...... ..... . ................. I_I Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH2285AM FORM It 115 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C,' <rFpR��P INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & ORANGE STREET 2285 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC .........-- ° °---- . ............... ..................... I I EXISTING I °-- °-- -........ I .............. . - °- °--- ............................ PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL ................... . - - °---- °- °- . I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I I I I I I I I 1 Volume I I I NL 1 1600 1 1 55 i 0.034 * - --- - ---- - I I I I --- . - - ----- -- ---- ..._...._ ......................................... I NT 1 ......................... ... °-° ................... 1 4 1 ..................... - - ----- -- -- -- 1 1 ................ } 1600 - ----- ---- ----- °° - ---- -- --- ---- } 0.033 - ---- ------- - - - - -- - ----- ---- ---- -- ---- } ................ } I NR 1 1 48 1 1 1 ................ . --------------- - I SL 11 ------------------- - ----- ---- ------ - -- ------ - --- -- - - - ---------- - - - - -- 1 45 1 - ----- ---- -- ---- - --- - -- -- ----- ---- --- - --------- - - - - -- . 1 1 1 ................ } . ................... . - ° °- - ° °--° } . ----... ..............- ------------ ---- } ................ } I ST 1600 1 1 2 0.044 " I I I--- ----- --- --- } . ................... . ......... - } ............. . ................. - - } ................ } I SR 1 I-- ° °- - °--=- . --- °-- °...... 1 23 1 ----- --- --- --° . --- -- ........... .... ............................... 1 1 _ ................ . ................... ................ . 2003 AM ................. PROJECT V/C Ratio I EL 1 1600 1 1 23 1 0.014 1 1 1 1 1 ....................................... ............................... ............... .. ---- ---- °.....................• ---- . -- °- °---- ...... ............... . ............ ..... i ET 1 1 3018 1 1 1 's I ---------------- } 4800 - --- - --- --- ------- - ---- ----- - - -- } 0.633 * - ---------- - - - - -- - --- -------------- -- } ................ } I ER I I 22 I I I I ---------------- - - ----------- -- - ------------------- - -- ° ............. . ............. ... .................. . .................... . ................... . ............... . ........ ..... I WL 1 1600 1 1 21 1 0.013 • I I I I ......................................................................... ......................... . . . . .. . ................ .................. . . . . .. ... ......................... . ..... I WT 1 4800 1 1 1056 1 0.220 1 1 1 1 I I---------------- . ............... . ................... . ................ . ............... ................... . .................... .................... ............... .................. I WR 1 1600 1 1 16 1 0.010 1 1 1 1 1 I-- ----- ----- --- - --------------- - --- -------- - - - --- - --- -- - ------ - -- ------ - - - --- - - -- -- ----- - --- -- - -------------- - - - --- - ---- ----- --- -- --- - --------------- - ----------------- I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.724 1 ................ . ............... . ................... ................. . ............... . .................. . .................... - ........ . I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I ................ . ................ .................... ................ . ................ ................... -- ---. ....-- °-...................•--- ................. ................ EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I -° ................ ................ . -- ......................... ............................ --° . ............................... ... ...... ..... . ................. I_I Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH2285AM FORM It 115 CH2285PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS �CtFORN�P INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & ORANGE STREET 2285 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM ............................. ................... ............ . .............. - ................ .. ................... .................... { { EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I - --- °- °---- -- - - -- ---- ----- - PROJECTED i PROJECT { PROJECT I { Movement { Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I { Capacity { Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I { ---------- ------ - -------- - - - - -- - ------------ - ----- - ------ --- ---- - ---- --- - --- --- - --- -- ----- ---- -- --- ------ -------- - i NL 1 1600 1 1 44 1 0.028 * I I ------ •--- --- - - - - -- - -------------- - -- ---- ------- I I I i................... ............................... . ............... - °----- - °---- - ----------- - °-- - --------- °- °-- °- . I NT 1 1 14 1 1 ................... ............... - - --- ---- ---- 1 I I---------- --- --- } 1600 . ... ......... ............. ....... .. } 0.039 .- ----- ----- - - - - -- ......- .....- ....--- } ............... } I i NR 1 1 49 1 1 1 I 1 ................ ............... - .................. . ............... ............... - ................ . ................... . i SL 1 1 19 1 1 ................... . .............. .............. 1 1 I I--- ------- ----- } - -------------- °- - ............... } ...... ............................... } ..- ............ } 1 ST 1600 1 { 2 0.031 * I I I ................ } - .................. - ............... } ...... ............................... } ............... } 1 I SR { 1 28 1 1 1 1 -- -------------- - -- ------ - - - --- - ---- -- ------------ - ----- ---• - - ---- - -- -- --------- - - ------- --- --- - ------ --- ---- ---- - - I EL 1 1600 I 1 38 1 0.024 * I I - --- ------- -- ---- - -------------- .............. i I I 1 ---------------- - -------------- - ------------------ - --------- --• - -- - - --- --- ------- - -------- ---- --- - - -- ------ --------- - I ET I I 1373 1 I - ---------------- -- - - ------------- - ------- - ----- I I I 1 } 4800 - ----------- - - -- -- - --------- - - - - -- } 0.292 ........ } ..- ............ } I { ER I 1 30 1 1 1 i { .... .... ........ . .................. ..... ................. .. ....... . .............. . ..... ........... . ..................................... { WL 1 1600 I 1 43 { 0.027 1 1 1 ...... ................... ...... 1 1 I i---------------- - --------- - - - -- - -- °-------------- - ------- --- ----- - ---- -- --- --- - - ------- -- ---- - ---------- -- ------ - _. i WT 1 4800 1{ 2815 1 0.586 * I I -- ------------..-- - .............. - ............. I I I I i------ -- -------- - ------ ----- --- - ----- - ---------- -- - --------- - - - - -- - - ---- -------- - -- ---- ----- ---- - - -------- --- - --- - -- - { WR { 1600 { 1 21 1 0.013 I I I ------ ------ - -- --- - -------- - - - - -- - -------- - -- -- I I I I I-- ----- .. . . . .. .... ........... . .................. - ............... ............... - ----- - °- ° - °-- - ----------- -------- - I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.669 1 ------------------- - -------------- - - ------ - --- -- i I I --- ----- -- ----- - --- --- ---- - -- - --- ------- - -- ----- - - -------------- - -------- --- -- .......................... ...... ......................... I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I . I I 1 ....... ......... . -------------- - --- ------------- -- - --------- - - -- -- - - ------- ------ - ------- -- ---- - -- -- --- ---- --- - -- ---- - I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I -C -U. --- - °-- ..................... °-- - - ................ - ............... ............... - ....... - - -- °---- -- --- --- - ------ ------- ----- - --- ---- ------ - - --- - -- - -- 1 I { ............ ------ ......... - - °-- °- °--- - 1_1 Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 . I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.0 -U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH2285PM FORM II !Y I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & PROSPECT STREET 2260 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffw 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROIECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 66 Southbound I50 Eastbound 3152 Westbound 1091 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than t % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & PROSPECT STREET 2260 (Existing Traflic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traf w 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 39 Southbound 102 Eastbound 1446 Westbound 2831 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be kiss than t % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: 11 l CH2260AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C'9<lFpR�� INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & PROSPECT STREET 2260 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM ... ............................... . ................................................................................................................... I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED ............................... I PROJECT I PROJECT Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I WC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I WC I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I Volume I I ................ . --------------- - - ------ ---------- - - ----- ---- -- ---- - -- ----- ------- - -- -- ----- - - - --- - - ---- -- ------ ------ - ------------------- I NL 1 1 19 1 1 - --- ------- ----- - ---------------- 1 ................ } 1600 .............-- °-- - - - - --- -------- } 0.017 - ---------- --- ---- - - ----- ° °----- ------ } .............. } I NT I 1 8 I I I -------- -- - - ---- - ------------- ... .................. . ................ . ............... ................... . ..................... . ................... I NR 1 1600 1 1 39 1 0.024 1 1 1 . ............... . ................. 1 1 • ----------- --- - - ---- --- - ------ - --------- - ---- -- . ................ . ............... . .................. . ..................... . ................... I SL 1 1 147 1 1 . ............... . -- ......- -- ---- 1 ................ } ..... ........... . ................ } . .................. ............. ......... } ................ } ST 1600 1 1 0 0.094 ' i I ................ } ......- °......-- ...... } . .................. . ..................... } ................ } I SR 1 I 3 1 1 1 -- --- -------- .... ............................... . ---------------- - -- ------ --- -- -- - ----------- -- --- -- - - -- --- --- -- ----- ---- . ................... I EL 1 1600 1 1 13 1 0.008 1 1 1 . ......... .. .... . ............... .. 1 1 ................. ............... ................... - ---------- - - - - -- - - -- --- ------ - ---- -------- ----- - ------- ------ -- - - -- - -----•-- •---•------ I ET 1 1 3129 1 1 - --- ------ - - - - -- - ----------------- 1 - ---- ------ --- } 4800 . ° .. ............................... } 0.654 . ------ -- -------- - - -------- ------------ } . ............... } I ER I 1 10 1 1 1 ................ ................ . .................. . ................ . ............... . .................. . .................. ... ° °............... WL 1 1600 1 1 5 1 0.003 * I I • ............... .................. I I 1 ---------------- - ----------- - - -- - ----------- I...... - ----- -•------ --- - ---- ---- ---- -- - --------- --------- - ------ ------------ - - ---- --- -------- I WT 1 1 1075 1 1 - -------- ------- - ---------- ...... 1 I--- ------ ---• --- } 4800 - •-- ......... . ................ } 0.226 - ----- ---- -- ----- - - ------ --- ---- °° } ................ } I WR I 1 11 1 1 1 I---- -- . ........ . ............... . .................. ................. . ............... . .................. . ..................... . ................... I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.751 1 . ............... .................. I---- ................ ............................... I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I........................ .--.... .........................- - °--° . - - -- . . - -- . -- ---- - -- -- °- . ...................... . ................... I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ... ................ . ............. ` . -- ................ . ................ . ............... ......... -•------- - -------- --........... ----- ---... °---° . ............... .................. I . ............... ...I.............. I_I Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 f_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH2260AM FORM II J i CH2260PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS CP qC! FO RN INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & PROSPECT STREET 2260 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM - . ......_. °- -- . °-- --------- - ------------------ - ---------- ---- - I ............. . ................ .. ................... . I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL 1 COMMITTED I -- -- . .............. ............... .............. . PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT 1 1 Movement I Lanes 1 Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I 1 ................ . -------------- - ----- ------------ - ----- - ------ -- - --- ----------- - --- --- ---------- -- ------------------- - I NL 1 1 9 1 1 - -------- ---------- - -•------------ - --- ---------- I 1 i j................ } 1600 - --------- ------- - -- ---• ---- --- } 0.007 - -- -------------- . ................... } .......... } I NT 1 .1 2 1 1 1 i --- ------ ------- - --- -- °- - - - - -- - -- -- ----- ---- ----- - ----- --------- - --- ---- -- ---- - ---- -- ----- --- ° ....... ................... 1 NR 1 1600 1 1 28 1 0.018 1 1 1 ---- °........... - ----- --------- - ------------- i 1 I I I-------------- -- - ° °-- -------- - ---- ---- - --- ----- - - ---- ------ --- - --- -- - -- ---- - ------- ---- - - - -- - ------------- - - - 1 SL I 1 81 1 1 ------------- ------ . - --- ---- ----- .............. i 1 I I----- -- ----- --- } . ---- ° ............. ............... . ................ .................... } .......... } i I ST 1600 1 1 1 0.064 . 1 I 1 1 ......... :...... } .... ............................... } .................. .................. } ............. -- } i I SR 1 1 20 1 1 1 I i•-•-- ---------- - ------ ------ - -------------- ---- - -- -- ----- --• --• - --------- - ---- - ---- ------- - -- -- - - -- ---------------- - 1 EL 1 1600 1 1 18 1 0.011 " I I ---••------- -- - - - -- ............................. I I I i•--------•- ----- - -------------- - -- ----- ---- - - - - -- - -- -•----------- - ----------- -- - - --- ------------ . ................... . I ET 1 1 1413 1 1 ................... . ........ . .... .............. i 1 1 ................ } 4800 - ------------ - - - - -- - ---- ------ ---- } 0.298 - ------- ------ -- .................... } - -------- ----- } 1 i ER 1 1 15 1 1 1 I I•- •----•-------- - .............. . .................. . ............... . --- ° °-- ---- ................. - ---------- --• ------ - 1 Wt. 1 1600 1 1 25 1 0.016 1 1 1 ------------------- - -------------- - ------------- 1 1 1 i----- ---------- - .............. . .................. . ............... . .............. ................. - - ----- ------------- - i WT 1 1 2789 1 1 ---- ---- - ------ • -------------- - ------------- i. 1 I 1 ................ } 4800 - ------ ----------- - --------------- } 0.585 " - -- ---- ---- ---- - -------------- ----- } ............... } 1 I WR 1 1 17 I 1 1 I I- -------------- - -- -- --- ---- - ------------ - - - - -- - - -- ------- ---- - ---------- --- - - --- ---- ---- --- - ------------------- - 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.660 1 ---- --- -----•- --- - -- ---------- -- - ---- -•--•---- i I I- ------------ --- - - --- .......... .................. . ............... . .............. ................. - ------ ------ ------- - I EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I - ----- i I 1 I---------------- - ---- --- - -- - -- - --- ------ ------ -- - --------------- .-------------- - ----- -•-•--- - - -- -- - ----- ------------- - 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.0 -U. -° ................ ...------------ - -- -------- °- °-- . --- °---- °-- . .............. ................. -- -- --- °- °......... ------ ---- --- - - -- - ------ ------- - •-- ---•------ I I I - °----............. °........... .............. . I_I Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project - -- °- °- ° .... ............... . .................. . ................ . ..... . --------- . ----------- -- ---- .................... . .......... ......... ........ Description of system improvement: Description of system improvement: Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 CH226OPM 1� I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA / SUPERIOR 1855 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 729 Southbound 568 Eastbound 3270 Westbound 859 II Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA / SUPERIOR 1855 (Existing Tragic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traf e 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONALGROWTH VOLUME APPROVEDPROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 618 Southbound 1116 Eastbound 1572 Westbound 1930 t—J Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: M CH1855AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA / SUPERIOR 1855 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 AM °- °.-.. °........ .--------------- - I I EXISTING I --- .............. ................. . ............... . ....... ......... ... PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL ............ .------- ..................... . ............... .................. I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I . PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I 1 I I I I I Volume I I I I--- -- -- --- ------ 1 ... ............................... I NL 1 - -------- --- --- - -- -- •- -- -- --- - --------- --- --- 1 199 1 - --------------------- .------------------- - ----- -----•-• - - 1 1 1 1 --- ----- - ------ I I----- -- -- - - -- --- } . .................. . ........... ..... } . --- °---- °--- --- . ..................... . ................... . ............... . •--- -- ----- °-- 1 NT 4800 1 1 454 0.152 " I I I I I I................ } ------ '-' .............'-"' } - -- --- --- ---- ------ . ....... I ............. . ................... ................ . ....... I I NR I 1 76 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ................ . --------------- - 1 SL 1 - •----- -- -- - - - - -- - ---------------- . --------------- .------------------ 1 193 1 - ---- --•----- -•• °•--- - - -- ----- ---- - - - - -- - --------- - - - - -- - 1 1 1 1 --------- -------- I I 1 ................ } 4800 '° -- -- -- ------- . ................ } 0.065 * ------------------ - --------------------- - -------- ------ ---- - --------- - - - - -- - •---------------- I I ST i 1 121 1 1 1 1 1 1 I................ . ............... ................... I SR 1 3200 1 "- -----°°-.....: ............................."- 1 254 1 0.079 1 . ..... ............... . ................... . .......... :.... .......... 1 1 1 1 --- °° I 1 I................ . - - --' - . ......................... I EL 1 32001 ..'- "" -- - -- .. ........... . ... . .................. 1 9931 0.310 1 . ..................... . ............. ... ............... .................. 1 1 1 1 1 I- ----- ------- I ................... ET 1 4800 1 .................. . --- --............ -- ° ° - ° °'- . - °-'- ............. 1 1979 1 0.412 • ..................... . ... ................ . ............... .................. I I I I I -" .............. ......................"-"...... I ER 1 16001 - ---------- - - - - -- - --------- - - ---- - ----- ---- ---•- -- 1 2981 0.186 1 - -•------------- - - - - -- - ------------------- . --------------- . 1 1 1 1 =-'-------'._.. ----------------- 1 1 ................ ' --•-- -- ......................_....: I WL 1 1600 1 •- - ----- ' ............... . .................. I 78 1 0.049 * . .... ... I ............... . ............... .._.............. I I I I 1 --- -'• ...................."'' -- I WT 1 .................. ................. . ............... . .................. 1 588 1 . ..................... .................... . ............... • 1 1 1 1 ................. 1 I 1 --- ---- - -- -- } 6400 - ------- ---- -- - --- ................. } 0.122 . - ° °-- - ° ---- . ..................... . ................... . ........ .. ..... . ....... _........ I WR 1 1 193 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ------ ---- - - - --- - ---- ----- - - - - -- - -------- ---- - - ---- - ---------------- - --------------- ... I EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.678 1 1 ................ ................ ................-° ' ................ . ............... . .................. ' ---• °-' -• - --- -- I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I................ ................. - -'- ..........................._ .. ----------.....................................------........-- I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ... .- ............. ................ ' .............. I ... ................ ' ............... . .................. ...................... . ........ Split Phase N/S Direction 1_I Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 (_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less.than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH1855AM FORM II �1 CHIS55PM I--------- ---- --- - --------- ----- - - ------- ---- - - - - -- - --------- - - ---- - --- ---- -- - -- -- - ---------- - - - - -- - --- ----------- -. - - -----....... EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.603 1 ---° ............ ......................_.• --- --- - ----- --- - -- --- - ------- -. --- - --------- ---- --- .....-------- .................. I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 I ................ . -------------- - - ------ -- ------ - -- --- ---------- - ------- ------- - ---------------- -- ---- .............,- - -- ---------- I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ... ........ ....................... .................. . ........... ... . °'...... ---- . ................ ... .. ................ . ....... ..... Split Phase N/S Direction 1_I Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90. I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 i_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 2003 PM .............. . ....... I ..... - PROJECT 1 PROJECT I Volume I V/C I I Ratio I I I .............. ' ....... i I ............................ I I I .........._ ................ I I I ....................... ..... I I I .............. .............. I I ............... ............. I I ............................ I I I ............................ I 1 1 ............................ I I .......................... I I I ............................ I I I .............. • ............. I -----° ............................ ............ .. .................. ......... ...... . ................. . ... ........ ....... ...- ----- °......... ---- --- Description of system improvement: Description of system improvement: Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH1855PM FORM II 1 - INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS \� �7 F1F1 INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA / SUPERIOR 1855 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC .................... . ... ................ I . _ .................._.....--'--` I EXISTING I ............................. .. . '°— ........... ..................... PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT i V/C Ratio I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I I I I I I I I Volume I 1 ................ NL I -------- - - ---- - 1 ------------ - - - - -- - ----- --- ---- -- - - -------- - - - -- - -------- -- ---- -- - ------------- - - - - -- - 1 293 1 1 1 ------------------- . 1 I---- ------ • ----- } - --' °- . -- °---- °-- °- } °-- ................ ............................... . i NT 4800 1 1 270 0.129 * 1 I 1 I-------- --- ---- } ........... . ............... } - ............................... ' ................... . I NR 1 1 55 I 1 1 .................... ' 1 ................... . I--- ------ ------- I SL - .............. . I .................. . ............... . .............. . ................ 1 168 1 1 1 1 -- --•--------• } 4800 - --------------•--- - -----------•--- } 0.104 * -- - -- - --------- .................... ' ................... . I ST 1 1 330 I 1 1 -------------•---- - 1 ------------- - - - - -- - I................ i SR . -------------- - I 3200 1 ----------- ----•-- - --------- - - - - -- - - ------- -- ---- - ---------------- - - I 6181 0.193 1 I I . ................... .................... I . 1 ---------------- I EL - ------ -- ------ - 1 3200 I ------------ - - - - -- - -- -------- ---- • --- ------ ---- - ---- ......------ 1 311 1 0.097 * I I - -- ---- ......... ............................... I . -------- -- ------ I ET - ----- -------- - I 48001 ------- ------•---- - -- -•--- -- ----- - -------- - - --•- - --------- 1 9841 0.205 1 1 1 - ------------------- - 1 ----------- -- -- ---- - 1 --------- - --- --- I ER - - ------- -- - --- - 1 16001 ----- ------ - - - - -- - --------- - - - --- - ----- ------ - ---------- - - - --- 1 2771 0.173 1 1 1 - 1 ---------- ---- - - --- - I---- -----•-- ---- I WL - ----------- --- - I 16001 •--•-------- - - - - -- - -- ------------- - --- --------- -- - ---------- ------ - ------------------- 1 1821 0.114 1 I 1 - ------------- - - - - -- - I -- --------- --- - - -- . I................ 1 WT . -------------- - 1 - --- --- -----•---- • --- ----------- - -------- - - - - -- - ---------- - ----• I 1628 I 1 I I ................ } 6400 - --- ---- -- ----- --- - --------------- } 0.273 * - ----- •-------- - ------------ - - -- --- - ---•-•------ - - - - -- . I WR 1 1 120 I 1 I I I--------- ---- --- - --------- ----- - - ------- ---- - - - - -- - --------- - - ---- - --- ---- -- - -- -- - ---------- - - - - -- - --- ----------- -. - - -----....... EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.603 1 ---° ............ ......................_.• --- --- - ----- --- - -- --- - ------- -. --- - --------- ---- --- .....-------- .................. I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.0 I ................ . -------------- - - ------ -- ------ - -- --- ---------- - ------- ------- - ---------------- -- ---- .............,- - -- ---------- I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ... ........ ....................... .................. . ........... ... . °'...... ---- . ................ ... .. ................ . ....... ..... Split Phase N/S Direction 1_I Projected + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90. I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 i_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 2003 PM .............. . ....... I ..... - PROJECT 1 PROJECT I Volume I V/C I I Ratio I I I .............. ' ....... i I ............................ I I I .........._ ................ I I I ....................... ..... I I I .............. .............. I I ............... ............. I I ............................ I I I ............................ I 1 1 ............................ I I .......................... I I I ............................ I I I .............. • ............. I -----° ............................ ............ .. .................. ......... ...... . ................. . ... ........ ....... ...- ----- °......... ---- --- Description of system improvement: Description of system improvement: Description of system improvement: PROJECT CH1855PM FORM II 1 - I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. SUPERIOR AVE (E &W) & PLACENTIA AVE (N &S) 2565 (Edsring Tragic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 Ald) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAR HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME FPEAKHOUR OFPROJECTED VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 346 " Southbound Southbound 858 Eastbound Eastbound 1521 Westbound Westbound 316 —� project Traffic is estimated to be kiss than 1% of Projected Peak Four Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Harr Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVE (E&W) & PLACENTIA AVE (N &S) 2565 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 PAO APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECTS REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME l %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 842 Southbound 904 Eastbound 1 1532 Westbound 929 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: DATE: SU256SAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVE (E &W) & PLACENTIA AVE (N &S) 2565 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC .... ............ .................................... ............................... . . ............... ............. ---- .....--- .......... I EXISTING I PROPOSED 1 EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL 1 COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume 1 Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I Volume I 1 --- ----•----- -- I NL - -- -- ---------- - - -•-------- - ---- -- - --- ------ - - - - -- - -- 1 1 19 ------ ------ - ------------------ - - ------------- ------ - ------------------ . -------------- 1 1 1 1 ............... } . ............. ..... ................ } ... ............................... } ... °--- ...... NT 3200 1 1 284 0.108 1 1 1 I--------- ------ } . .................. . .......... ----- } . .................. ..................... } ............... I NR 1 1 43 1 1 1 I............... 1 SL . -------------- 1 1600 - --- ----•----- - - --- - ------ --- - ---- • .............. 1 1 18 1 0.011 . .................. . .................... . ................... ............... 1 1 1 - I --------- ------ I ST - - ------------- 1 1600 - -- ----- °--- - - ---- - ---- -•------ --• - -------- 1 1 556 1 - - ---• 0.348 - ------------------ - --- ----------- - - - --- - --------- - -- - - -- - --- ..- -- - - - - -- " I I I j............... I SR - -------- - -- --- 1 1600 - ---- ----- ---- - - --- • --------- ------ - •----- 1 1 284 1 ---- - - -- 0.178 - ------------------ - -------- -•------••- - ------------ -- - - -- - - ..._-- - - - - -- 1 1 1 1 ------- ---•---- 1 EL - -- -----•-- - - -- 1 1600 - --------- ----•-- -• - •---•---- - - -- -- - ------ 1 1 415 1 -• -•---- 0.259 • •- ---------- - - - - -- - ---------- ---------- - -- ---------- - - - --- - -------- -..--- 1 1 1 1 - I, :--- --- -- -••- ET - --•----- - - -- -- - ------ ------ - - - --- - --------- - - - - -- - ---•---- 1 I 1085 - - - --- - -- ------- -- --••--I- - ------- ------- - - - - -- I I I �,.. ...... 3200 - •------- ------- - -- - --------------- } 0.346 * ------------------ • --- ----- ----• ----•• } ......... - -.... I ER 1 1 21 1 1 1 - 1 ---- ----- - - ---- { WL - ----- I - ---•--- 1 1600 • .................. . ............. ...-------------- 1 1 61 1 0.038 - ----- ---•---- - - - -- - - -••---------- ------ - ---- ---- •---- - - - -- - -------- - -... * I I I •--------- - - - -- 1 WT ---- °......... .................. . ...... -- ....... . .............. 1 1 243 . ........ ........ ..... ........... ... ....... .... . ........ ...... I 1 I I............... } 3200 . ....... .......... . ...... ......... } 0.080 - ------------------ - ----- .......... } ............... I WR - -- ----- ------ - ---- ----- - - - -- 1 1 12 - - ----- •----- ----•• - --------- ----•- - --- ----- ---- -• 1 1 1 - ---- ------ -- ---- -- - ------- --•-- --- - - -- - ------------ - - - - -- - -------- - - - - -- 1 EXISTING I.C.U. I 0.732 1 •----- --- - -I - -- - - ------- ---- -- ------- ------ - --- -- - ---- ----- - - - - -- - --- -- •- --- ---- • •----------- - - - --• - •---- -- 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I -- ---- ------ -- - ----------• --- - ---- - ---- --- - - - -- • --- ---- - - - --- - ------ --------- - -- - ------ -------- ------ - ----- ----•---- - - -- . 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. -- ............... .... ..... .......................... I--............ • .........•... .................. . .................... ................... . 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal'to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 2003 AM . ............ ---- . I PROJECT i V/C I Ratio 1 I f I } I i } 1 I I i I I . .............. - I I I ................. I 1 - -------- ----• — I I } I } ......° .............................................. .........._... .. ......... ........ .................. --.......... .... -- ................... .. .......... ..... .. ........... Description of system improvement: ... °---......_ ... ................. .. ..................... ................ .. .............. ... ..... .-- -:........ .. .......... .......... _.-. ................ .. ............... .............. °ROJECT FORM II 12565AM D� SU2565PM I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVE (E &W) & PLACENTIA AVE (N &S) 2565 -" EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC .....................• . ................... . . ........................... I I EXISTING I ................... ............... PROPOSED I EXISTING ......... ° -- . .............. I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I I I I I I f I Volume I .. --• - NIL 1 ----- ----- -----• - -------- - - - ---- 1 79 - - -------- - - - -- - --------- ------- • 1 1 1 I•----- --- ---- --- } ....... ....... . ............... } .............. ............... } I NT 3200 1 1 573 0.263 * I 1 I................ } ......-- ........ ----- -- ----.. ) ..... ............................... } NR I 1 190 1 1 -------- --- - --------- ------- - ---------- -- ------- - ----- --- -- - -- - - -- . -----•---- - -- --- - -------- - - ---- - J SL 1 1600 1 ------------ - - - - -- - --- ------- -- -- 1 57 - --- 1 .0.036 1 1 1 -------------- - ------- -- ----- -- - --------- ---------- - I --- ------ •- ---- - -- . I- ------ -- ------ - -------- ------ - ST 1 1600 1. ------------ - - ---- - - -------- - - - - -- 1 349 - 1 0.218 1 _ ...... °.•. °° ! -------------- .........--° ...° 1 1 ....._..------- - •------- ------ - } SR 1 1600 1 ----------- - - - - --- - ------ --- - - - - -- 1 498 - 1 0.311 1 1 1 -- °.............. .....--- -............................. 1 ------ . 1 EL 1 1600 1 .................. ............................ 1 514 * 1 0.321 I I - -------- - - - - -- - ---•--- •--- - - - -- - -----•----- -- - - - - -- - I ------------- - - - - -- . I--- ------- - - - - -- - -- ------ - - - - -- - i ET 1 ------•--•---- - - -- - ---- ---------•- 1 954 1 1 1 •- -------•- } 3200 .... ............................... } 0.318 ................. - ---------- - ----•--- } I. .; ER 1 1 64 1 1 . ................ . ................... . 1 ....... --.......... . ................ . .............. . 1 WL 1 1600 1 .................. . ......... ....... I 101 . .............. 1 0.063 1 1 1 - •- -- ------ - - - - -- - --- --------- - - - - -- - I - ------------ ---- -- . 1 - --------- ------ - ------- ------- - I WT 1 - ---------- - - - - -- - -------- --- ---- 1 732 - -------- - ----- 1 1 * 1 1 ----------- °•-• } 3200 - ------------ - - ---- - -- •----------• } 0.259 ................ - ----------- - - ----- } WR 1 1 96 1 1 --------- - - - - -- - ------------ ------- - ------------ -----•- - - --------- - - - - -- - -------- •-- - -- - I EXISTING I.C.U. ------------ ------ - - -- -- ----- - -- - ------ - ---- --- - 1 0.843 1 - ------------------- - ------ ------•---- -• . 1 -------- -------- - --------- - - - -- - - --- - --- --• ----- - --------------- - --- -- -------- ........ ......... 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I -- - ----•- --- -- -- -- --- - ---- ----- - -- - I ---- --------- - - - - -- . I------------ ---- - -------- - - ---- - -- -•--------- - - - -- - ----- ---- -- --- - -- ---- ----- -- - 1 EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. -- -- °--........ - °---- °- ................... ...... --- °--- . .............. . ................ .. .. I ................ . - .................. . 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1-1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project 2003 PM . ........................... PROJECT (PROJECT Volume I V/C Ratio I } } } } ...................... ............... .................... -- ... -............ .. ............... .. ..... ........... -- ...........•........ -- -................... .. .... ........... -- ........... Description of system improvement: . .. ................. ................. - .................. ............. ---- -- ................. ........ --- ...... .. ........... .--. ..... .. .................... .. ............... .............. PROJECT FORM It SU2565PM �5 I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL ROAD 2490 (Existing TrafJlic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJECT REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1%OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1764 Southbound 506 Eastbound 0 Westbound 87 D Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. . Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECHON. SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL ROAD 2490 (Exisdirg Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVEDPROJE REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OFPROJEC7ED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 702 Southbound 873 Eastbound 0 Westbound 536 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. .... Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: EA SU2490AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL ROAD 2490 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC . ................... 2003 AM . .......... ..... .................. . ... ....... .. ........ ............. -' - ................... . ................ . ............... ....... ..........................• °- °- I I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I - -" ' ................. 1 I•-"' ................. -' ... -- ---- --- - -""'- .............. -- ' ............... ' '-.......................•-----._.... 1 NL 1 15001 1 01 0.000 1 1 ................... - ---- -- -- -- ---- - - -- .......................----- 1 - ------------------- 1 1 1 - ------ ---- - - - -- - ---- - ° °- -- ---- i '__ ............. ............... I NT 1 1 1390 1 1 * 1 I ° -_......._ } I 1 ................. } 3200 ..................° . ................ } 0.551 .................. . --- --- ------- - - ---- } NR I I 374 -' ' °....... I- ---- .._....... -• I ..................... ...... 1 1 I - ............... .. - ...........7 SL 1 1600 1 1 72 1 0.045 ° ' ° ..... I - ...... °--- '-"....... I ' °--........--- - -' I ........ - ! ................. j -"'-' ST ...............-'-.... ..............................� 1 1 ------------- --- ---- } i I . ....... ........ } ................. } 3200 • ................... ................. } 0.136 ................... - I SR I I 0 1 1 - -.............. ................... ........ .......EL--- -- ...... ........... - --'' °........... ........... -'O ................. ' 1 - -----•--- ---- } • - . .....................""'-'..... } J ET 16001 1 0 0.000 I 1 I I 1 ............ } ......--- °- - . ................. } . ........ -......... • -•-'-- --........... } ................ } I ER I 1 0 1 1 .................. . ..................... . ................... 1 I . ............... .................. I I................. . ............... • '-----_ ........... ... °-.......................... I I W L 1 2400 1 1 32 1 0.013 1 1 ...... °° I ... - ...... I --------------- I .. ...... ......... ....."...............-•--- °.... _............ . --- ---' - --'-" ................... f � .. I } ...............° } 800 ...... ............................... } 0.069 * .................. ...................... } ............ I WR . I . 1 55 1 1 ......... -'- ...... ......... - ........ °- -- _.......... i . - -'........... . ......--- -- - - .. . ' ° ............. .............. .... ................. . --- ............ . 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.665 1 ..................... ................... I................. ................ ' ................... . ................ . ° °'--......... -- °-- -- ......... I EXISTING+ REG GROWTH +COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. '-"- --......... ..................... I . ................... I . ............... .................. I................. ................ . _ ...............•.. ................ ............. -- . - I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ... .......... : ...... ..- . ............ . ............. 1-1 ... . -"-............. -°-- ...... .... . ..... .. ......... .. ..................... I . .............. ..... I 1 . ........... .... . ....... .. ........ . I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ... ............. ---- ... Description of system improvement: PROJECT SU2490AM FORM II %I SU2490PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS � L1F0P.N�P INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL ROAD 2490 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM ....... . ........ ..... ........ .......... . .... .......... . .............. .......... I ...... .. ......... .....• I EXISTING I PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED ---- ------ ..... . ........ .. .... . ...... -...... . I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I { { Capacity { Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I I I I I 1 I I Volume I I ............ .... . .............. . ........... 1--- ... . ............... . .............. ............... ............................ NL 1 16001 1 01 0.000 1 1 ........................ -..... I 1 1 1 1 ... ... .... ...... ... ..............................• . ............... . .............. . ................ . ...... I------------ NT I I 600 I I - •------- ------ - - -- - ------ ---- - -- - ----- •---- - -- I ................ } 3200 . .................. . ------ --- - - -- } 0.219 * -------- ------ - - -------- -- ---•---- } . °- °- -----• } :..1 NR 1 1 102 I 1 1 i---------------- . -------------- . ------------------ .--------------- - - ---- ---- - - - -- - --- ------ - - - --- . ................... { SL 1 1600 1 1 76 I 0.048 * I . ........ I---------- - ----- ----- - --- . -- ----------- I I I I I•--- ---- -------- - ----- ---••---- - -- ----- ----- - - - -- - - -------- ---- -- - -------------- .---------------- - -- ---- --- ---- - - - -- ST I . 1 797 1 1 - ------------- ------ - •------- ------ ..----- - --- --- 1 1 ................ } 3200 . •.. ...........•................... } 0.249 .........--- ---- - ------ ---------•--- } . .............. } I SR I 1 0 1 1 1 I I---------- ------ - -------- - - - --- - ---------- --•-•--- - -- --- -•-- - - - - -- - -- ------ - - - - -- - --------- -- ----- - ------------------- 1 EL i 1 0 1 1 - ------ ----- --- ----• • ------•------- - ---- -- - - - - -- 1 ------- --- - - - - -- } . ........... _...... ......... ...... } . •--. ........ . ................... } ..- --- --- } ET 16001 1 0 0.Om i I I .. -..— .. { ER I 1 0 1 1 1 - I................ • ... ............................... ............... . .............. ................. • ------•------ - - - - -- I WL 1 2400 1 1 448 1 0.187 * 1 - ------------- ------ - -------- - ----- - ------ . ------ I 1 I I -------- -------- - ------ -- ------ • •-- -•------ - - - --- - ------- ---••--- • •------ --- - - -- - ---------- - - ---- - ------------ --- ---- :.I WT I I 0 I ......... °--------- - -- •------ ---- - ---- --- --- --- 1 ................. } 800 . ------- ----•--- - -- - --------- - ----- } 0.110 . ................ - ------ ------- - - - - -- } ...........-- } I WR 1 1 88 1 1 : I 1 ---- -----•---- -- - -- ------ - - - -- - -•------- --------- • --------- - - - -- - -------- - ----- . ................ .. ................... i EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.454 1 . ................. . .............. . ............. 1 ------- ---•- - --- - -------------- .------------------ - ---- -•--- ----•• - -- ------ - - - - -- - ----- - -- 1 EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I 1 ................ . -------------- - -- --- ------- - - ---- - ------ --- ----- • - ------- - - - - -- - ---------------- -- ---------- ---- ----- I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ......... . .............. . ........ ......... . .......... .... . ..... ---..... ........... -- .............. ---... - -- ----------- - - - - -- - -•-------- - - -- - --- --- - - - - -- I I I ................... ............... • ...... ....... . LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT �1)2490PM 0 M 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA/HOAG & HOSPITAL ROAD 2485 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVEDPROIECT REGIONALGROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I%OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 106 Southbound 383 Eastbound 1 365 Westbound 649 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIAlHOAG & HOSPITAL ROAD 2485 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 1003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR APPROVED PROJEM, REGIONAL GROWTH PEAK HOUR VOLUME VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 172 Southbound 407 Eattbound 329 Westbound 650 O Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: PL2485AM 1 ................. - ............... ............ ........ . ................ - ............... - .................. ' ....... _ ............ . ----• .............. ............... EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.338 1 I................. . ............... ... ................. . . ..... .......... . ......_ -- .- ....-- ---- .._. -. EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I ---.- ....- - -_. -. - ....... ' . ....... . .... ...... ---- -.. - .- ...- .....---- - ........- -. -. -- - .................. ............... -. - - -- - ................... - -----.....- -° . I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I ......- --- °--..... - • ...................'----......-_.. .......---.........- ..- .....--- - ........... -- ..... . ...... '............. - - .......... -........ . _-- .......... - Split Phase N/S Direction j_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 i_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project .......... . .... .............. ... .............. . ... ............ Description of system improvement: --' ................. PROJECT PL2485AM FORM II rl INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS �CrFO RN�P INTERSECTION: P PLACENTIA /HOAG & HOSPITAL ROAD 2485 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2 2003 AM °- .... ........ .- ........... ..- . .- ......- -° -- - ................ ..... . ....... ... --- ............... - - ................... . .......... .......... . - .. ° °- -----.. - - . .............. I Movement I Lanes I L Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I I PROJECT I I V/C Ratio I Volume I V V/C I I Capacity I C Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I I Volume I I w/o Project I I R Ratio I I I I I I I 1 1 I I Volume I I I................. - ............. '. • . ................... - ................ ................ • .................. - - ..................... - - ................... ................ - . ................. ................. } 1600 .................... . . . .... .. ... . . .. .. } 0.022 * .................. - - ------------- --- --- - - ----- -- --- --------- • --------- ------ • - ---------------- I NT 1 1 1 20 1 1 1 1 1 I................. . ............... .................... - - ................ - ............... - -- ......... -- -....--'- . ..................... } } - ......... } I NR 1 16001 1 1 71 1 0.0441 1 1 1 1 - ..:....... - ............... . . .................. - ......... ...... - ............... . - .................. - - ......... --.......... - - - -- -- .....•-----... .............. - . ................. I------------ } . . .......... . ........ - ................ } - -- ....- ...... - - ..................... . .................... I --- .......... - . ......----------- I ST 3200 1 1 1 41 0.120 * 1 1 I I I I I............ } - . ................... - ----- ---------- } ...----- -........-- . ................... . ........ ........... - .--............ - . ................. SR 1 1 1 31 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 ................. - --....I .... . ... . . .................... ................ - ............... ................... - - ..................... - - ................... - ............... - ' '--.......•--'•-- I......... .. ...... . ............... - . ................... • ................ - ............... ................... - - ..................... . .................... - ............... - . ........ I........ ! ,............ } 3200 . . ................... ..... ------- - - -- } 0.095 - .................. - - ---- --- ------- - ----- } } . ............... } ER 1 1 1 40 I I I I I i.....---- •---.... . ---• ............ . .. ........ ......... . ............ '... . ............... ................... - - ..................... . .................... - ............... - . ................. ................. - ............... • . ................... . ................ ................ - .................. . ...................... - - ................... ................ • - -----------....- - --------------•• } 3200 . . ................... - ................ } 0.158 * ----.-- ......- --- . . ..................... } } - --........_. -. } I WR 1 1 1 360 1 1 1 1 1 ................. - ............... ............ ........ . ................ - ............... - .................. ' ....... _ ............ . ----• .............. ............... EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.338 1 I................. . ............... ... ................. . . ..... .......... . ......_ -- .- ....-- ---- .._. -. EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I ---.- ....- - -_. -. - ....... ' . ....... . .... ...... ---- -.. - .- ...- .....---- - ........- -. -. -- - .................. ............... -. - - -- - ................... - -----.....- -° . I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I I ......- --- °--..... - • ...................'----......-_.. .......---.........- ..- .....--- - ........... -- ..... . ...... '............. - - .......... -........ . _-- .......... - Split Phase N/S Direction j_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 i_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project .......... . .... .............. ... .............. . ... ............ Description of system improvement: --' ................. PROJECT PL2485AM FORM II rl PL2485PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA /HOAG & HOSPITAL ROAD 2485 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC .. ................ .. ........... ........I....... °--- . _ ............. . ........ ----- .. ......... :----- ......... ............................... . I EXISTING I PROPOSED .I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I I I I I I I Volume I I-- ------- ------ - ------- - - - ---- - -- ---------- - - - - -- - --------- ------ - -------------- - ---- ------- - - - -- -- --- -- ---- ---- - - ---- - ---- ------- ----- -- - i NL 1 1 27 1 1 1 1 ................ } 1600 - - - --- --- --- - - - -- - - -- -------- ---- } 0.046 • - -------- ------ - -- ---- ------ - - - --- - ------- ------ -- ---- - 2003 PM -------------- - --------- ---- - PROJECT 1 PROJECT I Volume I V/C I 1 Ratio I I I I NT I 1 -47 .. °......... I -- I................ . - --........-- - -- °- --- -- °-1111.. ........ °---- ----1111.-- } ------ -----...- °-- - ........... } NR I 16001 1 981 0.061 I I 1 I•-- ------------ - ----- --- --- --- - -- ----- - --------- ------- --------- *...... - ---------- * - ------- - ------ ---•----- - --- - ---- - - -- - I SL 1 1 307 1 1 1 1 I I-- ------ - ---- -- } ................... ..............° } * .......-- °- °- . ................... ....- --- °-- -- '---..._.•-- °- ... ST 32001 1 25 0.127 I I I I I................ } . ...... I ........... ........•--- --- } • ................ ........... ----- °• . ................... . SR 1 1 75 1 1 1 1 ------ --- ------- - -------- - - - --- - ---- -- - ----.........---------- ° - ---- --... * - ------ -- I EL 1 16001 ( 991 0.062 I I I 1 ---- -----•-- ---- - -------- ------ - ------------ - - - - -- - ---------- I---- - -11.11.....--- - --- ------ - -.... - ----------- - ----- - --------- ... ------- 1 1111. ET 1 1 206 1 1 1 g --- ER I ---.... } 3200 1 ............ ° I 2---- - ---------- --2 4 I } 0.072 - -------- -- - -.- I ------ -- - -.- - ---- } ¢1111- I I ................ • .............. . ........... -...... - ............... - ------ - -- - --- - ......... - ................... - --....------- ------ I WL 1 16001 1 1081 0.0681 1 1 1 ---------- - - - - -- - -- -- ---- -•-- - --- --- ------ - - - - -- - ---------- --- -- - - - 1111.. ------- ------ • --- ------ ---- - - - -- . a WT 1 1 174 I I 1 ------ -- -------- } 3200 . -- °- °---- °-•-° . ............... } 0.169 ` - ------------------- } ---- -------- ----- -- - I WR 1 1 368 1 1 1 I---•-•-------- -- - ----- --- --- -- - --- -------- - - - - - -- - ---- ----------- - - -- --- °- ° -1 ' 'I- - °- °- --- --- -- ------------------- - *...- ------ - -- - - -- . 1 EXISTING I.C.U. 1 0.404 1 ---------- - - - - -- - - ----------- -- - --- --------- - - - - -I - ------------ --- - - ---- • --- ..... ---- ------ ------ 111--- --- ---- - - - - -- .. °- --- --- ---..... EXISTING + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I I I................. .... °-------- - .................. - -----1111------ - -'--........... ................ 1111-- ° --'--- °1111.. ................... . I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. I I .................... ....... .......................... ............... . .......... .... . .......... ....... ................... .................... . Split Phase N/S Direction I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT PL2485PM } f FORM II 11 I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME I %OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1736 Southbound 1526 Eastbound 616 Westbound 350 IProject Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. O Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. I % TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traff a 2003 PM) APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAR HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1%OFPROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1443 Southbound 1956 Eastbound 849 Westbound 379 II Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. LJ Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: DATE: "U� NE2480AM 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ... ............ ...................... ... -------------- - Description of system improvement: °- --"------------ - PROJECT NE2480AM 2003 AM ................. . PROJECT V/C Ratio FORM It am INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS �� P r.rFOQN INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ............... . ............... ... ................ . ... ................. I . - " ............................ I EXISTING I .. .........I -- -.._ ............... - ......... .------ . .... .. PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED I PROJECT I I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio I Volume I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I .Volume I Volume I w/o Project I I I I I I I I I I I Volume I I . ..... .......... . I................ NL ............... . 1 1600 1 ................... . ................ . ............... ................... . ..................... 1 140 1 0.088 * I .................. ' ..................... . ................... I I I .................... ' ............... . NT - °'- .........'°' 1 4800 I ....... ............................... 1 1501 1 0.313 1 1 1 1 ---------- - - ---- - --------------- - ------------------- - ---------------- - ---- ---- - - - - -- - ----- ------- - - - - -- _ ..................... } } I NR 1 1600 1 1 95 1 0.059 1 1 - - -- - - --- ----- - - - - -- ...................... ' ................... .......... -- -- . --------- -- - - ---- SL - --------------- -. 1 1600 1 -- --------- - - - - -- - ---------------- - --------- - - 1 57 1 0.036 1 1 . .................. ..................--" 1 1 1 . ................... ................ • I................. I ST . ............... ' 1 ' - - °-'.._...............•' ° -'_ . ............... 1 1083 1 1 1 ) ................. } 4800 - - °-------- -- ---- - --------- ------- } 0.306 * .........' °...... • •- ------------ - --- -- } . ............... SR I 1 386 1 1 -..... .... .............. . "- -- ......-'-- .......... 1 ........... ° ........... . ...........-"' EL . ............... . 1 1600 1 .... ..•'-"' --...... ......-- -..............-- * 1 194 1. 0.121 I . ..................... I I I . ................... ................ . ................. ET ................ . 1 1600 1 ................... ................. • ............... ................... 1 183 1 0.114 1 1 . ..................... 1 1 1 . ................... ................ . I.... ER 1 1600 1 ................ . '- ............................... 1 239 1 0.149 1 1 :................ ........ -- ........... 1 1 1 . ................... . ........... ........... ...... I WL ............" ............ 1 1600 °'_..._ . ............. -- .................. 1 1 68 1 0.043 1 1 1 1 I I ----------------- .. - -- - --- - ---- ------- - -- - ---------------- .--------------- - --- I------ --- - - - -- ' ............' °-"--- ..... ............................... a I WT I................. } 3200 1 1 264 1 1 . ................... ................ } 0.088 * .................. - ..................... 1 } . ............... ) WR 1 1 18 1 1 . ................."''................... 1 ................ • I• °•-"- '' --'-' I EXISTING . ............... I.C.U. . ................... ................ ' ............... .................. 1 0.603 1 ................... ' i----------------- I EXISTING + . --------------- -------------------- - --- - ------ ------ - ----- --- ---- -- - ------------------ ...................... REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. -'.........._.......•-- -- I I . - °- .......-"---....." -'- ...... . 1 ................. ................ --------- - .... . .......... ._... ............... ...... ...- °- EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. - .. ................. . ............... ... ................. ' ................. ..... .......... . ..... ... .......... . ...... ........... .... I . ................... ................ . 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ... ............ ...................... ... -------------- - Description of system improvement: °- --"------------ - PROJECT NE2480AM 2003 AM ................. . PROJECT V/C Ratio FORM It am NE2480PM LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_i Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: ... .............. .. PROJECT NE248OPM ............. . FORM If QI�A INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS C'4CrFO0.N�P INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD & HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 2003 PM .. ........... .........--........ I EXISTING I ._----- -..................... -- . .............. . ................ .. ----- °`-.......... PROPOSED I EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL I COMMITTED ................. ................. ..........'..... . I PROJECTED I PROJECT I PROJECT I Movement I Lanes I Lanes I PK HR 1 V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT 1 V/C Ratio I Volume I V/C I I Capacity I Capacity I Volume I Ratio I Volume l Volume I w/o Project I I Ratio I 1 I I 1 1 I I Volume I I i ............. .............. NL 1 1600 1 -- ' ............... --- - °- °... .. . ............... -- ............ ...... 1 143 1 0.089 ` I • ................... ............... • ............. I I i I i............... . ... ..... ...... . NT 1 4800 1 ------------------ • -- ---- --- - - - - -- - - ------ - - - ---- - ---------------- . ................... 1 1235 1 0.257 1 1 .................... ' ........................ I 1 1 I 1 ° ........... ......... I... . ---' ............ I .. ....... .- ....... ........ ...... - ----- ........ _ ......... °- -..... } . •............. } NR 1 1600 1 1 65 1 0.041 1 1 1 1 1 1 I- --- -- --- - - - - -- - --- --- - -- ---- - 1 SL 1 1600 1 - ---•------- ------ - ----- - ------ - -- • -- ------ - - - - -- - -- ---•--- - - ----- - ------------------- 1 43 1 0.027 1 1 - •-- ---------- - - - - -- - -- ------ - - - --- • ------- ------ l 1 1 1 1 .................. ST 1 ............. . ... ......"- -- .....' °-' - - °- . ................ ........ ....... .-... 1 1701 1 1 ....... • ........... . .............. . ........... .- I 1 1 1 1 ---------- - - - - -- } 4800 - --------- ----- ---- • --- ------- - - - -- 1 0.399 * .......... --.... ........ ----------- } ............... } I 1 SR 1 1 212 I 1 1 1 1 1 .............................. ' EL 1 1600 f ............ . -- °• '---- '................... ............. .... .............. "... 1 471 I 0.294 * 1 • ................... . .............. ............ - I 1 1 1 I --•------- - - - - -- - - ----•----- - -- - 1 ET 1 1600 1 --•--------- ------ • • °• °--- -----• • ------- - - - - -- - ---------- - --•-- - ------------------- 1 152 1 0.095 I I - - ------------ - - ---- - •- ----- I - - - --- - ------- - ----• 1 I I I i r.... ....... ....... .. ER 1 1600 1 .. ......... ................."... ......... .............. ...... ............ 1 226 1 0.141 1 1 • ---. ............... . .............. .............. I 1 1 1 I - -------- - - - --- - -------- ----•- - { WL 1 1600 1 ---- --- ----- - - - - -- - -------- ----- -- - --- - ------ ---- • ----- ----- - - ---- • ------------- ------ 1 151 1 0.094 1 1 . ------------------- .-------------- - ------- - - ---- 1 1 1 1 i °_........... . ••- •--.... ... • WT 1 ............ ..... ................ .............. . ................ . ................... 1 179 f 1 . ................... ............... ............. i 1 1 1 I --- - ------ -•-•• } 3200 - ------ - ------ - - - -- - --------- - ----- } 0.071 * ---------- °• --- ........... ° °-- °' } ............... } I WR I 1 49 1 1 f 1 i I .......- -" .............. ._ -... EXISTING I.C.U. - --- • '- °-- ......... - -............. .......... I ..... . ..... ' .......... .... 1 0.853 1 ................ ................. .............. I I-•------- ----•-- - -------------- - ---- -------- ---- -- - --- --- -- --- --• - -- ----- - - - --- - -------- -- - - -- - -- ----------- - - - - -- I EXISTING + REGIONAL GROWTH + COMMITTED W /PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. - ----.....•---•-•--- I I I EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. ..... - °. - • ........... . ...... ........ I . ---........... '.............. .... ................... I { . ................... . .............. . ............. . . LI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_i Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w /systems improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: ... .............. .. PROJECT NE248OPM ............. . FORM If QI�A APPENDIX C Approved Project Data Traffic Phasing Data - 03- NOV-03 Projects Less Than 100% Complete Project Number Project Name Percent 147 BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION 0% 148 FASHION ISLAND EXPANSION 36% 154 TEMPLE BAT YAHM EXPANSION 65% 157 FORD REDEVELOPMENT 95% 167 CANNERY LOFTS VILLAGE 0% 168 HOAG HOSPITAL PHASE 11 0% 555 CIOSA - IRVINE PROJECT 91% 910 NEWPORT DUNES 0% 935 IRVINE DEVELOPMENT 1999 0% 936 1401 DOVE STREET 0% 937 NEWPORT AUTO CENTER EXPAN 0% 938 OLSEN TOWNHOME PROJECT (1 0% page: y 11 �A W, W, �, �• a m In M f 0 7 N W• W: W W. W' W' W' W' GC WJ; , W, W: W: G Y W Y W Y Y W N a a a a C N x �; 2 N, W i°n P h, ' y; t 0 fl. fns h, y, fV .- Ulu 0 ; co 0 tn; N, , N: to; C 00 m O. OD co m M < N Z; Z; Z; Z. a z ; W ; H 00 m Z' Z' N Q Z, N > Z. L ~ 0 O C z: ~ z. Z v z; a , z. O Q W p a (a x m,K �iW m J m;~ m, ca It ZIa m, �' m,0 z�tQWQQ) m, �' m,�= z�W m. �' Z�W �• r0 (� ' m m w 3§ �m, W' W' W; N W' H 9 12 Nm, mm: �j0> mm: mm. CL W. 0! CA: am, acn, to o 47 Z, C4 m' Z; O Z:N co A O Z: ;m'r 3 R Z;N I m. Z'Ot0 p V Z.N I M. Z Q C �, C• C• C Z �¢a ¢a ¢a as �A i N Wm G t0 E E m v m _ o CL O�� C n CO O a � � m v oL F � O Q CL 0 Z 0 I S ?J. W' W;00 J; W, W m a r co, ¢aI J' Ir' W• W' J; W. N m a a: y; z. U) U) z; Z; W Z U Z, W } m= 0: m 0� 0 d Z. F Y :E a �' m;3 'Z C E 3;AA U FW Y co a ai; Z, � Z. C' ¢aI J' Ir' W• W' J; W. N m a a: y; ¢a M 3 � N ?J?' 3' M: w' W, Y f0 m a ar; M LL'J 0 m -J; 0 m m Z; r N LU Q' O Z, K d J; N Z, m' x z.;ai:M� F W'�� Y aM:��' E;W) , ' ZiCO Z'NN C ¢a M z; U) U) z; Z; W Z O Z. } m= 0: m 0� Z;v� �' o -� U m' w� F Y :E a �' Lo Z;N 'Z C ¢a M 3 � N ?J?' 3' M: w' W, Y f0 m a ar; M LL'J 0 m -J; 0 m m Z; r N LU Q' O Z, K d J; N Z, m' x z.;ai:M� F W'�� Y aM:��' E;W) , ' ZiCO Z'NN C ¢a M APPENDIX D TPO One - Percent Analysis Calculation Worksheets 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: ORANGE STREET 8 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (E dsdng TraMe Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 107 0 0 107 1 0 Southbound 1 70 I 0 I 0 I ru 1 I 0 Eastbound 3146 0 50 3196 32 29 Westbound 1101 0 35 1138 11 5 Project Traffic is estimated to be teas than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes- Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to of greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Intersection Capacity Utilkation (ICI) Anatysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: ORANGE STREET & WEST COAST HIGHWAY Wsdng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daffy Traffic 2003 PH) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 107 0 0 107 1 0 Soumboum 1 49 1 0 I 0 1 49 0 1 0 Eastbound 1466 0 30 1496 15 1 Westbound 2970 0 54 3024 30 19 Project Traffic is estimated to be lass than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater then 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PROJECT.- Newport Technology Center DATE: 121412003 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PROSPECT STREET B WEST COAST HIGHWAY (bdsdal; Tin fic Volumes Based on Avenge Daily Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 66 0 0 68 1 0 Southbound 150 0 0 150 2 0 Eastbound 3235 0 50 3285 33 29 WasBwund 1099 0 34 1133 11 5 Projed Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. OProject Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Trafic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PROSPECT STREET 6 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2009 PM) ' PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 39 0 0 39 0 0 Southbound 102 0 0 102 1 1 0 Eastbound 1471 0 30 1501 15 1 Westbound 2922 0 54 2976 30 19 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic, Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Technology Center DATE: 1 2141 2 0 0 3 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS 1AMERSECTIOM SUPERIOR AVENUElBALBOA BOULEVARD 8 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (Enisdng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Tia9lc 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 750 0 2 752 6 7 SouMbound 1 576 I 0 I 3 1 561 6 I 0 Eastbound 3353 0 53 3406 34 29 Westbound 659 0 35 894 9 0 Project Traffic is, estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. C�Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utlzation (ICU) An*Wm H required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: I SUPERIOR AVENUEIBALBOA BOULEVARD 6 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (ddsdng Tra/Fc Volumes Based on Average Daily TralRe 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 624 0 2 626 6 0 Saufficatma_1 1290 0 5 1235 I 12 I 24 Eastbound 1597 0 40 1637 16 1 Westbound 1630 0 63 1993 20 0 Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. C�Project TMMC is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Tmft Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: . Newport Technology Center DATE: 121412003 1�� 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL DRIVE (E Isfing Tra/fie Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic, 2003 AN) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1916 OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1868 0 4 1872 19 36 Southbound 1 517 0 0 517 5 6 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 87 0 3 90 1 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 196 of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 196 of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization OCU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL DRIVE (fildsdng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 733 0 2 735 7 1 Southbound 987 0 0 987 10 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 rl Westbound 539 0 5 541 5 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �X Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Irdersec8on Capacity Utilization OCU) Analysis H required. PROJECT: Newport Technology Center DATE: 121412003 0 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE & SUPERIOR AVENUE (Edadng Tragic Volumes Based on Average Dally Tm lk 2003 AMJ AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME. PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTFDI PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 368 0 16 404 4 14 Southbound 858 0 10 868 Is I 0 Eastbound 1625 0 0 1625 16 36 Westbound 331 0 10 1 341 1 3 8 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak New Traffic Volumes, Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization QCU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE & SUPERIOR AVENUE Walling Tm lc Volumes Based oa Average Daily rndit 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 855 0 26 681 9 0 Southbound 904 0 6 910 9 0 Eastbound 1563 0 0 1563 16 1 Westbound 1089 0 6 1095 11 33 C� Project Traffic is estimmed to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. C�Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater then 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization QCU) Analysis is required. PROJECT:. Newport Technology Center DATE: 1214f2003 �6� 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE & HOSPITAL DRIVE (Exlsdog Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 /Ulq AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EJUSTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 106 0 101 207 2 0 Southbound 1 367 0 1 22 409 4 2 Eastbound 385 0 4 369 4 0 Westbound Sot 0 108 799 8 14 Project Traft is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Pro ect Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSJS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE & HOSPITAL DRIVE Mdsting Tragic Volumes Owed an Average Daily Tra/Nc 2003 Ph9 PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 172 0 161 333 3 0 Southbound 1 453 1 0 1 11 464 5 1 9 Eastbound 329 0 2 331 3 0 Westbound 663 0 56 719 7 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. �X Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Technology Center DATE: 12/4/2003 ab5 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD B HOSPITAL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daffy Traffic 2007 AMI AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1778 0 37 1815 16 14 Southbound I 1526 I 0 1 134 1660 17 1 0 Eastbound 620 0 82 702 7 2 Westbound 350 0 1 1 351 4 0 C�Project Traffic is estimated to be Less than 1 % N Projected Ptak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Uttliution (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD 8 HOSPITAL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daffy Traffic 2003 P1IJ PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1456 0 40 1496 15 0 Southbound 1956 0 I 89 I 2045 I 20 I 0 Eastbound 895 0 130 1025 10 9 Westbound 379 0 1 0 1 379 1 4 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volunxs. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Technology Center DATE: 12!412003 1Ub APPENDIX E Cumulative Project Data PA Table E -1 Cumulative Project Traffic Generation ' N/A =Not Available Ii� Peak Hour Morning Evening Project Daily' Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound I Total South Coast Shipyard 35 20 55 41 381 79 892 Morman Temple 20 5 25 16 10 26 410 St. Andrews Church 3 1 4 11 10 21 N/A Regent Newport Beach Resort 31 16 47 31 47 78 936 Newport Coast - TAZ 1 160 243 403 238 159 397 3,926 Newport Coast - TAZ 2 147 326 473 326 183 509 5,107 Newport Coast - TAZ 3 51 178 228 178 102 279 2,792 Newport Coast - TAZ 4 56 186 242 184 113 297 2,953 Subtotal 414 933 1,346 926 557 1,482 14,778 Newport Ridge - TAZ 1 183 267 450 311 206 516 5,353 Newport Ridge - TAZ 2 63 222 285 222 127 348 3,482 Newport Ridge - TAZ 3 243 118 361 121 56 177 1,821 Subtotal 489 607 1,096 654 389 1,041 10,656 Lower Bayview Senior Housing 15 45 60 45 15 60 600 Total 1,007 1,627 2,633 1,724 1,066 2,787 28,272 ' N/A =Not Available Ii� Figure E -1 South Coast Shipyard Traffic Distrbution lox s� �g *Site lo% �J g ` Dana Road < H Rd Dane 6 �M 15X 10% Le " en a Percent To/from Project Kulwman Associates 2759/E -1 Figure E -2 Dorman Temple Traffic Distribution s% � Site h � Own Road r H �nty� Orxrem x o, !Mend 10R = Percent To/rran Project Xunxman Associates 2759/E_2 Figure E -3 St Andrews Church Traffic. Distribution m 20% y�5�te Done Road ! H Ad (�,� Drive m 2UX o, Legend 10% = Percent To/From Project Ku=man Associates 2750/t -3 Figure E -4 Regent Newport Beach Traffic Distribution 1snz �w -)FSite ` Dano Road ! H Rd Drive m x 15Z 25% o• `' `'"v 10% = Percent To/Trorn Project Kunzmmn Associates 2759/E -+ 1�� Figure E -5 Newport Coast (TAZ's 1 to 4) Traffic Distribution 5x Iomx ite ` nano Road N *01 Drive % 2 1576 o Legend 1Dx - Percent To/rrom ProJed Ku=man Associates 2759/r -5 r Figure E -6 Newport Ridge (TAZ's 1 to 3) Traffic Distribution Kunzmau Associates LM end 1a= = Pa mt To/From Project 27W/t-6 J� 1� Figure E -7 Lower Bayview Senior Housing Traffic Distribution 15n% *Site lox a ` paw Road r H lid Drive 15% 10% e end 10% = Percent To/From Project Ku=t=n Associates 2759/t-7 J V APPENDIX F CEQA One - Percent Analysis Calculation Worksheets 0 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: ORANGE STREET & WEST COAST HIGHWAY (Edsdng TmfRc Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AMJ AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 107 0 0 0 107 1 0 Southbound 70 0 0 0 70 1 0 Eastbound 3146 0 50 100 3296 33 29 Westbound 1101 0 35 165 1301 13 5 �X Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % M Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: ORANGE STREET & WEST COAST HIGHWAY (Edsting Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME. 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 107 0 0 0 107 1 0 Southbound 1 49 1 0 1 0 0 49 0 0 Eastbound 1466 0 30 174 1670 17 1 Westbound 2970 0 54 108 3132 31 19 Project Traffic is estimated to be Was than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Ana" Is required. PROJECT: Newport Technology Ceder DATE: 12/412003 l0 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PROSPECT STREET 8 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (ESdsOng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AN) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 68 0 0 0 66 1 0 Southbound 150 0 I 0 0- 150 I 2 I 0 Eastbound 3235 0 50 100 3305 34 29 Westbound 1099 0 34 165 1298 13 5 �X Project Traffic is estimated to be less then I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PROSPECT STREET 8 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (Exisdng Traffic Volumes Based an Average Daily Trelfic 2003 PAQ PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 39 0 0 0 39 0 0 Southbound 102 0 1 0 0 102 I 1 0 Eastbound 1471 0 30 174 1675 17 1 Westbound 2922 0 54 1087 3054 31 19 Project Traffic is estimated to be lees than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peek Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Technology Center DATE: 12/4/200.9 144, 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSEC71ON: SUPERIOR AVENUE/BALBOA BOULEVARD 8 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily TiaA9c 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAT( HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 750 0 2 0 752 8 7 Southbound 578 0 3 49 630 6 6 Eastbound 3353 1 0 1 53 100 3506 35 29 Westbound 858 0 1 35 244 1 1138 1 11 0 C�Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 196 of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 16A of Projected Peak How Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS lNTERSECTM.' SUPERIOR AVENUE/BALSOA BOULEVARD 8 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (Existing TraMc Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 624 0 2 0 626 6 0 Southbound 1230 0 5 83 1318 1 13 24 Eastbound 1597 0 40 174 1811 18 1 Westbound 1930 0 63 159 2152 22 0 1� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peaty Hour Traffic Volumes. C�Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Voumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Anatysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Technology Center DATE: 121412003 1�� 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECT/Oiy: SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Daily Traffic 2003 AAO AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR .REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME i PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1866 0 4 79 1951 20 36 Southbound 1 517 0 0 49 566 6 8 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 87 0 3 0 90 1 1 0 r- - Project Traffic Is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Tmffiw Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE & HOSPITAL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 PAO PM PEAKHOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAKHOUR i iPEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAKHOUR VOLUME Northbound 733 0 2 51 786 8 1 Southbound 987 0 1 0 83 1070 11 24 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 1 536 0 s 1 0 541 s 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic H estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Now Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Technology Center DATE: 12/412603 }a'6 1 1 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE & SUPERIOR AVENUE (E fisting Traffic Volumes Based on Average Deity Traffic 2003 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 388 0 16 0 404 4 14 Southbound 858 0 10 4 872 9 0 Eastbound 1825 0 0 79 1704 17 36 Westbound 331 0 10 45 386 4 8 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to a greater than 1% of Projected Peak How TralfiC Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. PLACENTIA AVENUE& SUPERIOR AVENUE (Ez7sting Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dairy Traffic 2003 PM) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 %OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 855 0 26 0 881 9 0 Southbound 904 0 1 6 1 4 914 9 1 0 Eastbound 1563 0 0 51 1614 16 1 Westbound 1069 0 B 79 1174 12 33 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Technology Center DATE: 12/42003 )a\ 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE & HOSPITAL DRIVE (Edsdng Traffic Volumes Based on Ave-we Daffy Traffic 200 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME i% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 106 0 101 0 207 2 0 Southbound 367 0 22 0 409 4 2 Eastbound 365 0 4 0 369 4 0 Westbound 691 0 106 0 799 8 14 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE & HOSPITAL DRIVE (E)dsdng Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Traffic 2003 PIN) PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1 % OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 172 0 161 0 333 3 0 Southbound 453 0 I 11 0 1 464 5 9 Eastbound 329 0 2 0 331 30 Westbound 663 0 W 0 719 7 0 Project Traft is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilrzatlun (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Technology Center DATE: 12/412003 9a 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD 8 HOSPITAL DRIVE (Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Dally Tuft 2009 AM) AM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAKHOUR VOLUME PEAK HOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAKHOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OP PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1778 0 37 11 1826 18 14 Southbound 1526 0 134 13 1673 17 0 Eastbound 620 0 82 0 702 7 2 Westbound 350 0 1 0 351 4 0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak How Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic Is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % N Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization OCU) Analysis is required. 1% TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD d HOSPITAL DRIVE (Eddsting rmffic Volumes Based on Average Daily TraRlc 2003 PAQ PM PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUME PEAKHOUR REGIONAL GROWTH VOLUME APPROVED PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME CUMULATIVE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME 1% OF PROJECTED PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUME Northbound 1456 0 40 17 1513 15 0 Southbound 1956 0 89 16 2081 21 1 0 Eastbound 895 0 130 0 1025 10 9 Westbound 379 0 0 0 379 4 0 OX Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. Project Traffic is estimated to be equal to or greater than 1 % of Projected Peak Now Traffic Volumes. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Newport Technology Center DATE: 121412003 �a3 APPENDIX G Explanation and Calculation of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) �aA EXPLANATION AND CALCULATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) Overview The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred to as capacity. The capacity is usually greater between intersections and less at intersections because traffic flows continuously between them and only during the green phase at them. Capacity at intersections is best defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of green. If capacity is 1600 vehicles per lane per hour of green, and if the green phase is 50 percent of the cycle and there are three lanes, then the capacity is 1600 times 50 percent times 3 lanes, or 2400 vehicles per hour for that approach. The technique used to compare the volume and capacity at an intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). ICU, usually expressed as a decimal, is the proportion of an hour required to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all intersection traffic if all approaches operate at capacity. If an intersection is operating at 80 percent of capacity (i.e., an ICU of 80 percent), then 20 percent of the signal cycle is not used. The signal could show red on all indications 20 percent of the time and the signal would just accommodate approaching traffic. ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement of traffic, (b) summing the times for the movements, and (c) comparing the total time required to the total time available. For example, if for north -south traffic the northbound traffic is 1600 vehicles per hour, the southbound traffic is 1200 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either direction is 3200 vehicles per hour, then the northbound traffic is critical and requires 1600/3200 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for east -west traffic, 30 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 30, or 80 percent. When left turn arrows (left turn phasing) exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. The critical movements are usually the heavy left turn movements and the opposing through movements. The ICU technique is an ideal tool to quantify existing as well as future intersection operation. The impact of adding a lane can be quickly determined by examining the effect the lane has on the Intersection Capacity Utilization. ICU Worksheets That Follow This Discussion The ICU worksheet table contains the following information: 1. Peak hour turning movement volumes. 2. Number-of lanes that serve each movement. 3. For right turn lanes, whether the lane is a free right turn lane, whether it has a right turn arrow, and the percent of right turns on red that are assumed. 4. Capacity assumed per lane. 5. Capacity available to serve each movement (number of lanes times capacity per lane). 6. Volume to capacity ratio for each movement. 7. Whether the movement's volume to capacity ratio is critical and adds to the ICU value. 8. The yellow time or clearance interval assumed. 9. Adjustments for right turn movements. 10. The ICU and LOS. The ICU Worksheet also has two graphics on the same page. These two graphics show the following: 1. Peak hour turning movement volumes. 2. Number of lanes that serve each movement. ��p 3. The approach and exit leg volumes. 4. The two -way leg volumes. 5. An estimate of daily traffic volumes that is fairly close to actual counts and is based strictly on the peak hour leg volumes multiplied by a factor. 6. Percent of daily traffic in peak hours. 7. Percent of peak hour leg volume that is inbound versus outbound. A more detailed discussion of ICU and LOS follows. Level of Service (LOS) Level of Service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level of Service C is typically the standard to which rural roadways are designed. Level of Service D is characterized by fairly restricted traffic flow. Level of Service D is the standard to which urban roadways are typically designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop- and -go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A description of the various Levels of Service appears at the end of the ICU description, along with the relationship between ICU and Level of Service. Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Although calculating an ICU value for an unsignalized intersection is invalid, the presumption is that a signal can be installed and the calculation shows whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating the expected volumes with a signal. A traffic signal becomes warranted before Level of Service D is reached for a signalized intersection. Signal Timing The ICU calculation assumes that a signal is properly timed. It is possible to have an ICU well below 100 percent, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur if one or more movements is not getting sufficient green time to satisfy its demand, and excess green time exists on other movements. This is an operational problem that should be remedied. Lane Capacity Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width; however, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 or 14 feet wide. Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or a left turn lane, has a capacity of approximately 1750 vehicles per hour of green time, with nearly all locations showing a capacity greater than 1600 vehicles per hour of green per lane. Right turn lanes have a slightly lower capacity; however 1600 vehicles per hour is a valid capacity assumption for right turn lanes. This finding is published in the August, 1978 issue of ITE Journal in the article entitled, "Another Look at Signalized Intersection Capacity" by William Kunzman. A capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour per lane with no yellow time penalty, or 1700 vehicles per hour with a 3 or 5 percent yellow time penalty is reasonable. Yellow Time The yellow time can either be assumed to be completely used and no penalty applied, or it can be assumed to be only partially usable. Total yellow time accounts for approximately 10 percent of a signal cycle, and a penalty of 3 to 5 percent is reasonable. During peak hour traffic operation the yellow times are nearly completely used. If there is no left turn phasing, the left turn vehicles completely use the yellow time. Even if there is left turn phasing, the through traffic continues to enter the intersection on the yellow until just a split second before the red. Shared Lanes Shared lanes occur in many locations. A shared lane is often found at the end of an off ramp where the ramp forms an intersection with the cross street. Often at a diamond interchange off ramp, there are three lanes. In the case of a diamond interchange, the middle lane is sometimes shared, and the driver can turn left, go through, or turn right from that lane. If one assumes a three lane off ramp as described above, and if one assumes that each lane has 1600 capacity, and if one assumes that there are 1000 left turns per hour, 500 right turns per hour, and 100 through vehicles per hour, then how should one assume that the three lanes operate. There are three ways that it is done. One way is to just assume that all 1600 vehicles (1000 plus 500 plus 100) are served simultaneously by three lanes. When this is done, the capacity is 3 times 1600 or 4800, and the amount of green time needed to serve the ramp is 1600 vehicles divided by 4800 capacity or 33.3 percent. This assumption effectively assumes perfect lane distribution between the three lanes that is not realistic. It also means a left turn can be made from the right lane. Another way is to equally split the capacity of a shared lane and in this case to assume there are 1.33 left turn lanes, 1.33 right turn lanes, and 0.33 through lanes. With this assumption, the critical movement is the left turns and the 1000 left turns are served by a capacity of 1.33 times 1600, or 2133. The volume to capacity ratio of the critical move is 1000 divided by 2133 or 46.9 percent. The first method results in a critical move of 33.3 percent and the second method results in a critical move of 46.9 percent. Neither is very accurate, and the difference in the calculated Level of Service will be approximately 1.5 Levels of Service (one Level of Service is 10 percent). The way Kunzman Associates does it is to assign fractional lanes in a reasonable way. In this example, it would be assumed that there is 1.1 right turn lanes, 0.2 through lanes, and 1.7 left turn lanes. The volume to capacity ratios for each movement would be 31.3 percent for the through traffic, 28.4 percent for the right turn movement, and 36.8 percent for the 1�� left turn movement. The critical movement would be the 36.8 percent for the left turns. Riaht Turn on Red Kunzman Associates' software treats right turn lanes in one of five different ways. Each right turn lane is classified into one of five cases. The five cases are (1) free right turn lane, (2) right turn lane with separate right turn arrow, (3) standard right turn lane with no right turns on red allowed, (4) standard right turn lane with a certain percentage of right turns on red allowed, and (5) separate right turn arrow and a certain percentage of right turns on red allowed. Free Right Turn Lane If it is a free right turn lane, then it is given a capacity of one full lane with continuous or 100 percent green time. A free right turn lane occurs when there is a separate approach lane for right turning vehicles, there is a separate departure lane for the right turning vehicles after they turn and are exiting the intersection, and the through cross street traffic does not interfere with the vehicles after they turn right. Separate Right Tum Arrow If there is a separate right turn arrow, then it is assumed that vehicles are given a green indication and can proceed on what is known as the left turn overlap. The left turn overlap for a northbound right turn is the westbound left turn. When the left turn overlap has a green indication, the right turn lane is also given a green arrow indication. Thus, if there is a northbound right turn arrow, then it can be turned green for the period of time that the westbound left turns are proceeding. If there are more right turns than can be accommodated during the northbound through green and the time that the northbound right turn arrow is on, then an adjustment is made to the ICU to account for the green time that needs to be added to the northbound through green to accommodate the northbound right turns. \7 Standard Right Tum Lane No Right Turns on Red A standard right turn lane, with no right turn on red assumed, proceeds only when there is a green indication displayed for the adjacent through movement. If additional green time is needed above that amount of time, then in the ICU calculation a right turn adjustment green time is added above the green time that is needed to serve the adjacent through movement. Standard Right Tum Lane With Right Turns on Red A standard right turn lane with say 20 percent of the right turns allowed to turn right on a red indication is calculated the same as the standard right turn case where there is no right turn on red allowed, except that the right turn adjustment is reduced to account for the 20 percent of the right turning vehicles that can logically turn right on a red light. The right turns on red are never allowed to exceed the time the overlap left turns take plus the unused part of the green cycle that the cross street traffic moving from left to right has. As an example of how 20 percent of the cars are allowed to turn right on a red indication, assume that the northbound right turn volume needs 40 percent of the signal cycle to be satisfied. To allow 20 percent of the northbound right turns to turn right on red, then during 8 percent of the signal cycle (40 percent of signal cycle times 20 percent that can turn right on red) right turns on red will be allowed if it is feasible. For this example, assume that 15 percent of the signal cycle is green for the northbound through traffic, and that means that 15 percent of the signal cycle is available to satisfy northbound right turns. After the northbound through traffic has received its green, 25 percent of the signal cycle is still needed to satisfy the northbound right turns (40 percent of the signal cycle minus the 15 percent of the signal cycle that the northbound through used). Assume that the westbound left turns require a green time of 6 percent of the signal cycle. This 6 percent of the signal cycle is used by northbound right turns on red. After accounting for the northbound right turns that occur on the westbound overlap left turn, 19 percent of the signal cycle is still needed for the northbound right turns (25 percent of the cycle was needed after the northbound through green time was accounted for [see above paragraph ], and 6 percent was served during the westbound left turn overlap). Also, at this point 6 percent of the signal cycle has been used for northbound right turns on red, and still 2 percent more of the right turns will be allowed to occur on the red if there is unused eastbound through green time. For purpose of this example, assume that the westbound through green is critical, and that 15 percent of the signal cycle is unused by eastbound through traffic. Thus, 2 percent more of the signal cycle can be used by the northbound right turns on red since there is 15 seconds of unused green time being given to the eastbound through traffic. At this point, 8 percent of the signal cycle was available to serve northbound right turning vehicles on red, and 15 percent of the signal cycle was available to serve right turning vehicles on the northbound through green. So 23 percent of the signal cycle has been available for northbound right turns. Because 40 percent of the signal cycle is needed to serve northbound right turns, there is still a need for 17 percent more of the signal cycle to be available for northbound right turns. What this means is the northbound through traffic green time is increased by 17 percent of the cycle length to serve the unserved right turn volume, and a 17 percent adjustment is added to the ICU to account for the northbound right turns that were not served on the northbound through green time or when right turns on red were assumed. Separate Riaht Turn Arrow. With Riaht Turns on Red A right turn lane with a separate right turn arrow, plus a certain percentage of right turns allowed on red is calculated the same way as a standard right turn lane with a certain percentage of right turns allowed on red, except the turns which occur on the right turn arrow are not counted as part of the percentage of right turns that occur on red. Critical Lane Method ICU parallels another calculation procedure known as the Critical Lane Method with one exception. Critical Lane Method dimensions capacity in terms of standardized vehicles per hour per lane. A Critical Lane Method result of 800 vehicles per hour means that the intersection operates as though 800 vehicles were using a single lane continuously. If one assumes a lane capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour, then a Critical Lane Method calculation resulting in 800 vehicles per hour is the same as an ICU calculation of 50 percent since 800/1600 is 50 percent. It is our opinion that the Critical Lane Method is inferior to the ICU method simply because a statement such as 'The Critical Lane Method value is 800 vehicles per hour" means little to most persons, whereas a statement such as 'The Intersection Capacity Utilization is 50 percent" communicates clearly. Critical Lane Method results directly correspond to ICU results. The correspondence is as follows, assuming a lane capacity of 1600 vehicles per hour and no clearance interval. Critical Lane Method Result ICU Result 800 vehicles per hour 50 percent 960 vehicles per hour 60 percent 1120 vehicles per hour 70 percent 1280 vehicles per hour 80 percent 1440 vehicles per hour 90 percent 1600 vehicles per hour 100 percent 1760 vehicles per hour 110 percent INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) DESCRIPTION' Level of Service Description volume to Capacity Ratio A Level of Service A occurs when progression is 0.600 and below extremely favorable and vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of Service B generally occurs with good B progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles 0.601 to 0.700 stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C generally results when there is fair C progression and /or longer cycle lengths. Individual 0.701 to 0.800 cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Level of Service D generally results in noticeable D congestion. Longer delays may result from some 0.801 to 0.900 combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume to capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service E is considered to be the limit of E acceptable delay. These high delay values generally 0.901 to 1.000 indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume to capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. Level of Service F is considered to be unacceptable to F most drivers. This condition often occurs when 1.001 and up oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high volume to capacity ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. 'Source: Hiohwav Capacity Manual Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council Washington D.C., 2000. 1 ?A Existina + Approved Projects \�5 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE (NS) and HEST COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED GEOMETRIC$: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY RASE VOLUME (AN) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME .(AM) (PN) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PM) Northbound Left 3 4800 200 293 0 0 200 293 0.157• 0.130• Northbound Through 0 0 454 270 21 6 475 276 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right 0 0 77 57 0 0 77 57 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 0 0 193 168 0 0 193 168 0.000 0.000 Southbound Through 3 4800 121 330 2 23 123 353 0.066• 0.109•' Southbound Right Arrow 2 3200 257 623 8 91 265 714 0.053 0.223 Eastbound Left 2 3200 997 315 83 25 1050 340 0.338 0.106* Eastbound Through 3 4800 2028 1020 0 0 2028 1020 0.423* 0.213 Eastbound Right 1 1600 298 277 0 0 298 277 0.186 0.173 Westbound Left 1 1600 79 182 0 0 79 182 0.049* 0.114 Westboud Through 4 6400 622 1691 0 0 622 1691 0.127 0.283* Westbound Ri h 0 0 193 120 0 0 1 193 120 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turn (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southboud Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane & when 0.000* 0.000+ Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement Is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) 0.70 0.63 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; Sc.601-.7; C= .701-.8; D =.801 -.9; E =.9011.0; F= 1.001 *) R R PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 265 - 714 A 0 [23,700) A A I 1 2329 -1972 [23,654) 123 - 353 North North Y (2 Way Volumes) 193 - 168 A 582 -1235 1 9,9921 I 1 1748 - 736 [73,662] 2. 3.0 1.0 S__ I LSL WR 1-0.0- 193 - 120 V 1087 -2698 [20,8221 894 -1993 [15,8791 c- <- $I T (IT -4.D- 622 -1691 2.0 - Lanes 11-1.0- 79 - 182 WL 3406 -1637 [27,7371 2298 -1245 [19,4871 4493 -4335 [48,558) 3192 - 3238 [35,3651 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [48,6001 135,4001 EL 1080 - 340 -2.DJ NT A 500 - 812 1 7,2163 I 752 - 626 1 7,5797 V 2028 -1020 - 3.0 ---ET NL I R LEGEND: LEGEND: A 298 - 277 -1. R 3.0 0.0 0 - 57 Peak Hour [Daily] I 1252 -1438 [14,7951 Daily a (AM +PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West 114,8001 LEGEND: AN -PM Peak Hour 0 4 - 276 % Entering (AM -PM) 25 - 63 60 - 44 28 - 62 76 - 38 % of Daily in Peak '10 - 8 8 - 10 9 - 9 9 - 9 (Estimated 2-Way Daily] I 2 0 - 293 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman `)� INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE CNS) and HOSPITAL DRIVE (EW) COAT DATE: 01 -01 -03 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PH) PA'DDED TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000* Northboud Through 2 3200 1390 600 1494 631 0.585* 0.230 Nouthbond Right 0 0 378 104 378 104 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 72 76 72 76 0.045* 0.046 Southbound Through 2 3200 434 797 11 114 445 911 0.139 0.285* Southbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006* 0.000 Eastbound Through 1 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000* Eastbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1.50 2400 35 453 0 0 35 453 0.015 0.189* westbound Through 0.50 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.069* 0.110 Westbound Right 0 0 55 as D 0 55 as 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns 07) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment Ced light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustmient 0.000* 0.000! Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) 0.70 0.47 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A =.000-.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.0010 B A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 0- 0 0 120,7001 A I A A I ( 2065 - 1707 [20,745) Y (2 Way Volumes) 445 - 911 North North A 72 - 76 II WR 517 - 987 [ 8,2711 ( 1549 - 719 112,4741 V 0. 2.0 0 1 I SRJ LSL Lo. 0- 55 - 88 WT-Q. 5- 0 - 0 0 - 0 [ Ol 90 - 541 [ 3,6717 e- 0 - 0 [ 01 450 - 180 1 3,4651 453 2.0 = Lanes 1_1.5- 35 - WL 0 - 0 [ 01 540 - 721 1 6,9361 C2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [ 01 [ 6,9001 EL 0 - 0 -0. NT A 480 -13 [10,1411 I 1 1872 - 735 114,3391 64 Y 0- 0- 1.0 ---E1 NL I R �M` LEGEND: A AM -PM Peak Hour (Daily] - 2100 [24,479) 0 - 0 --0. ER 11 2.0 0 13 - 104 m2351 Deily - (AM +PM)* 5.5 Y (2 Way Voles) Leg: North South East West [24,5001 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour 0 11494 - 631 % Entering (AM -PM) 25 - 58 80 - 35 17 - 75 0 - 0 % of Dally in Peak 10 - 8 10 - 9 8 - 10 0 - 0 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily) I 0 - 0 Hour (AN -PM) - Kuuman 1p INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE (NS) and SUPERIOR AVENUE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED GEOMETRICS: Existing NOVEKENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PH) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PH) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PH) Northbound Left 0 0 19 79 0 0 19 79 0.000* 0.000 Northbound Through 2 3200 292 586 0 0 292 586 0.126 0.275* Northbound Right 0 0 51 203 42 13 93 216 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 18 57 0 0 18 57 0.011 0.036 Southbound Through 1 1600 566 355 0 0 566 355 0.354* 0.222 Southbound Right 1 1600 284 498 0 0 284 498 0.178 0.311 Eastbound Left 1 1600 415 514 0 0 415 514 0.259 0:321* Eastbound Through 2 3200 108S 954 104 31 1189 985 0.378* 0.328 Eastbound Right 0 D 21 64 0 0 21 64 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 71 107 4 46 75 153 0.047* O.D95 Westbound Through 2 3200 243 732 11 114 254 846 0.083 0.294* Westbound Right 0 0 12 96 0 0 12 96 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on O.DDO* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 rdnen 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 01000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of CaRwAnts with *) LEVEL OF SERVICE (0.000 -.6 ICU; B- .601 -.7; C =.701 -.8; D =.801 -.9; E•.901 -1.0; F =1.001 +) 0.78 0.89 C D PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A 284 - 498 o [20,300) I A A I 1587 -2106 [20,312) 566 - 355 North V (2 Way Volumes) North 18 - .57 a 868 - 910 [ 9,7791 I I 719 -1196 [10,533) WR 1. 1.0 0 .0- 12 - % V 557 -1423 [10,889) 341 -1095 1 7,8%1 WT -2.0- 254 - 846 T 1-1.0- 75 - 153 2.0 = Lanes WL 1625 -1563 [17,5341 1299 -1258 [14,064) <-> o--> 2181 -2987 [28,423) 1640 - 2353 [21,9601 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [28,400) [22,0001 EL 415 - 514 -I.OJ NT A 662 - 572 1 6,7861 I 404 - 881 1 7,0621 y 1189 - 985 - 2.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A 21 - 64 -0. R 2.0 0 43 - 216 Dally Peak Hour Naity) ( 1066 -1452 [13,848) y = CAN+PN)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [13,800) LEGEND: AN -PH Peak Hour o - 586 % Entering (AN -PH) 55 - 43 38 - 61 21 - 47 74 - 52 I of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 7 - 11 8 - 11 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] 9 - 79 Hour CAM-PH) - Kunzman .14 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE (NS) end HOSPITAL DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 Existing GEOMETR[CS: x9st9ng LA USE: EXISTING + APPROVED ID MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME ADDED VOLUME TOTAL VOLUME VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) (AN) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 18 32 0 0 0 0 18 36 32 73 0.034* 0.066* 0.000 0.000 Northbound Through Northbound Right 0 1 O 1600 36 73 153 228 0 0 153 228 0.096 0.143 southbound Left 0 0 311 307 4 46 0 0 315 63 353 36 0.000 0.000 0.128* 0.145* Southbound Through 2 3200 0 63 36 31 75 0 0 31 75 0.000 0.000 southbound Right Eastbound Left 0 1 1600 61 99 0 0 61 99 0.038 0.062* Eastbound Through 2 3200 264 206 0 0 264 44 206 28 0.096* 0.073 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Right Westbound Left 0 1 0 1600 44 28 252 216 0 0 0 0 252 216 0.158* 0.135 Westbound Through 2 3200 145 174 368 0 0 42 13 145 402 174 381 0.171 0.173* 0.000 0.000 Westboud Right 0 0 360 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment Cone of right turns CRT) are assumed to occur onn Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. O.00L* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (sum of Components with •) - 0.42 0.45 A LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8- .601 -.7; C- .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E =.901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 31 - 75 0 [10,600] A I A A I Y 908 -1016 110,5817 (2 Way Vol,aes) 63 - 36 North North A 315 - 353 409 - 464 [ 4,8017 I I 499 - 553 [ 5,7813 WR V 0. 2.0 LO 1-0-.0- 402 - 381 SRJ `SL 194 - 281 i 2,6137 �- 799 - 771 1 8,6301 <- WT-2.0- 145 - 174 IT ri.0- 252 - 216 F -> 369 - 333 C 3,8613 -> 732 - 787 [ 8,3541 UL 2.0 = Lenes 563 - 614 [ 6,4747 1531 -1557 [16,9831 (2 way Volumes) . (2 way Volumes) [ 6,5001 [17,000] EL 359 - 280 1 3,5151 I A I 207 - 333 [ 2,9707 61 - 99 -1. NT V 264 - 206 - 2.0 ---ET NL I R LEGEND: A AM-PM Peak Hour [➢wily] 5.5 V 566 - 613 [ 6,4853 (2 Way Volumes) 44 - 28 -0. 0.0 .0 Daily = (AM +PM)* R Ih - 228 Leg: North South East West [ 6,5001 0 6 - 73 % Entering (AN-PH) 45 - 46 37 - 54 52 - 49 66 - 54 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 9 - 10 9 - 9 9 - 9 9 - 9 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 8 - 32 Hour (AM -PM) - Kuntmsn Assoc Existing + Approved Proiects + Proiect ,At INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE (NS) and WEST COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT GEONETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PH) Northbound left 3 4800 200 293 0 0 200 293 0.158* 0.137* Northbound Through 0 0 454 270 28 6 482 276 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right 0 0 77 57 0 0 77 57 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 0 0 193 168 0 0 193 168 0.000 0.000 Southbound Through 3 4800 121 330 3 28 124 358 0.066* 0.109* Southbound Right Arrow 2 3200 257 623 13 110 270 733 0.084 0.229 Eastbound Left 2 3200 997 315 112 26 1109 341 0.347* 0.106* Eastbound Through 3 4600 2028 1020 0 0 2028 1020 0.423 0.213 Eastbound Right 1 1600 298 277 0 0 298 277 0.186 0.173 Westbound Left 1 1600 79 182 0 0 79 182 0.049 0.114 Westbound Through 4 6400 622 1691 0 0 622 1691 0.127* 0.283* Westbound Right 0 0 193 120 0 0 193 120 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment Nane of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment light when there is separate RT tane 8 Wnen 0.000* 0.000* movement Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0 -000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B- .601 -.7; C- .701 -.8; 0= .801-.9; E =.901 -1.0; F =1.001 +) 0.70 0.63 B B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A 270 - 733 0 [24,0001 I A A Z171 I V (2 Way Volumes) 124 - 358 North North A 193 - 168 587 -1259 [70,153) 1 1784 - 737 [13,864) V WR 2. 3.0 0 .0- 193 - 120 SR- LSL 622 -1691 1092 -2717 [20,957] 894 •1993 [15,879) -� -� 3435 -1638 127,8981 2298 -1245 [19,487) WT -4.0- T 1.0- 79 - 182 F-1 2i0 - lanes WL c -> 4527 -4355 [48,849) 3192 -3238 (35,3651 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [48,800) [35,400) IL 1109 - 341 -2.OJ NT 501 - 817 [ 7,2481 I I 759 - 626 [ 7,6191 V 2028 -1020 - 3.0-ET NL I LEGEND: A AM -PM Peak Hour [Uaity) I 1260 -1443 [14,8671 298 - 277 -1. 0.0 0 Daily a CWPM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West R [14,900) ( 77 - 57 o 482 - 276 % Entering (AM -PH) 25 - 63 60 - 43 28 - 62 76 - 38 LEGEND: AN -PN Peak Nour % of Daily in Peak 10 - 8 8 - 10 9 - 9 9 - 9 [Estimated 2 -Way Dailyl I 2 0 - 293 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman Associ 1A INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE (NS) and HOSPITAL DRIVE MEW) COUNT DATE: 01-01-03 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000• Northbound Through 2 3200 1390 600 140 32 1530 632 0.596* 0.230 Northbound Right 0 0 378 104 0 0 378 104 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 72 76 0 0 72 76 0.045* 0.048 Southbound Through 2 3200 434 797 16 138 450 935 0.141 0.292' Southbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000* 0.000 Eastbound Through 1 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000* Eastbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westboud Left 1.50 2400 35 453 0 0 35 453 0.015 0.189* Westbound Through 0.50 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.069* 0.110 Westbound Right 0 0 55 88 0 0 55 88 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment I none of right turns CRT) are assumed to. occur ono 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westboud Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) 0.71 0.48 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C =.701 -.8; D- .801 -.9; E =.901 -1.0; F- 1.001 +) C A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 0- 0 A i 121,100] I A A I V 2107 1 [21es081 450 - 935 North 2 Way North 72 - 76 522 -1011 1 8,4321 A I 1 1585 - 720 (12,676] 0. 2.0 1.0 SRJ IT LSL WR .O- 55 - 88 V 0 - 0 1 01 90 - 541 [ 3,4711 <- <- WT -0.5- 0 0.5 0 - 0 -> -> 2 .0 = Lanes - F-1.5 35 - 453 WL 0 - 0 [ 01 450 - 180 [ 3,4651 0 - 0 1 01 540 - 721 L 6,9361 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) 1 03 1 6,9003 EL 0 - 0 -0.01 NT A 485 -1388 110,3021 1 1908 - 736 [14,5411 V 0- 0- 1.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A 0 - 0 -01 R 2.0 0 3� - 104 PH Peak Hour [Daily] 2393 -2124 (24,8421 Daily = (AM+PN)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [24,800] LEGEND:. AN-PH Peak Hour 0 15 0 -.632 % Entering (AM -PM) 25 - 58 80 - 35 17 - 75 0 - 0 % of Daily in Peak 10 - 8 10 - 9 8 - 10 0 - 0 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I. 0 - 0 Nour (AN -PM) - Kunzman IV- INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE (NS) and SUPERIOR AVENUE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 GEONETRICS: Existing LAND USE: EXISTING r APPROVED + PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME ADDED VOLUME TOTAL VOLUME VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) (AM) (PM) (AN) (PH) (AM) (PH) Northbound Left 0 0 19 79 0 0 19 79 0.000* 0.000 0.131 0.275* Northbound Through 2 3200 292 586 0 0 292 586 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right 0 0 51 203 56 13 107 216 57 0.011 0.036 Southbound Left 1 1600 18 57 0 0 18 0.222 Southbound Through 1 1600 566 355 0 0 566 355 498 0.354* 0.178 0.311 Southbound Right 1 1600 284 498 0 0 284 514 0.259 0.321* Eastbound Left 1 1600 415 514 0 0 415 0.389* 0.328 Eastbound Through 2 3200 1085 954 140 32 1225 986 64 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Right 0 0 21 64 0 0 21 162 0.048* 0.101 Westbound Left 1 1600 71 107 7 55 78 0.302* Westbound Through 2 3200 243 732 16 138 259 870 % 0.085 0.000 0.000 Westbound Right 0 0 12 % 0 0 12 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur an 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment Ced Light when there is separate RT lane L when] 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) 0.79 0.90 LEVEL OF SERVICE (R= .000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C =.701-.8; D =.801-.9; E =.901-1.0; F- 1.001•) C D PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUTES 284 - 498 o [20,3001 A � A I A 1587 -2106 [20,3121 V (2 way Volumes) 566 - 355 North North A 18 - 57 lAR 868 - 910 1 9,7791 I 719 -11% [10,533] V 1. 1.0 1.0 �.0- SRJ IT LSL 12 - 96 WT -2.0- 259 - 870 562 -1447 (11,0507 349 -1126 1 8,1211 -> 1661 -1564 [17,7361 _> 1350 -1259 [14,3461 1.0- 78 - 162 2!0 = Lanes WL 2223 - 3011 [28,7861 (2 Way Vol use a) 1698 -2387 [22,4681 (2 Way Volumes) [28,800] [22,500] EL A NT 665 - 581 [ 6,8511 I 418 - 881 1 7,1431 V 415 - 514 -1. 1225 - 986 - 2.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: AM -PH Peak Hour [Deity] A ( 1082 -1462 (13,9941 21 - 64 -0. 2.0 I.0 1 107 - 216 Daily = CAN+PM)* 5.5 Leg: V (2 Way Volumes) North South East West R [14,0001 0 292 - 586 % Entering (AM -PH) 55 - 43 39 - 60 21 - 47 75 - 52 11 8 - 10 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 B - [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 9 - 79 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman Associ \A� INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE (NS) and SUPERIOR AVENUE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 LAND USE. EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Improved MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY SASE VOLUME (AN) (PH) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PN) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PH) Northbound Left 0 0 19 79 0 0 19 79 0.000* 0.000 Northbound Through 2 3200 292 586 0 0 292 586 0.131 0.275* Northbound Right 0 0 51 203 56 13 107 216 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 18 57 0 0 18 57 0.011 0.036 Southbound Through 1 1600 566 355 0 0 566 355 0.354* 0.222 Southbound Right 1 1600 284 498 0 0 284 498 0.178 0.311 Eastbound Left 1 1600 415 514 0 0 415 514 0.259 0.321* Eastbound Through 2 3200 1085 954 140 32 1225 986 0.389* 0.328 Eastbound Right 0 0 21 64 0 0 21 64 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 71 107 7 55 78 162 0.048* 0.101 Westbound Through 2 3200 243 732 16 138 259 870 0.081 0.272* Westbound Right 1 1600 12 % 0 0 12 96 0.008 0.060 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red tight when there is separate RT lane & whm 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Ad(uatmeni movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000• Westbo nd Right Turn Ad)ustment 0.000* 0.800* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) 0.79 0.87 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A =.000-.6 ICU; 5 =.601-.7; C= .701-.8; 0= .801 -.9; E =.901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) C 0 PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A 284 - 498 0 120,300] A A I 1 1587 - 2106 120,3121 566 - 355 North Y (2 Way Volumes) North 18 - .57 A us - 910 [ 9,7791 719 .11% [10,533] WR 1. 1.0 1.0 V I 1.0- 12 - 96 SR-+ `SL 562 -1447 [11,050) 349 -1128 1 8,1211 < -- <- WT-2.0- 259 - 870 1-1.0- 78 - 162 2.0 a Lanes WL 1661 -1564 [17,736] 1350 -1259 114,346] 2223 - 3011 [28,786] 1698 - 2387 [22,468) (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [28,800] [22,500] EL A 665 - 581 1 6,8511 418 -881 1 7,1433 f 415 - 514 -l.DJ NT V 1225 - 986 - 2.0 T NL I R LEGEND: A 21 - 64 -0.� 21 - 64 -0. R 2.0 I 167 - 216 Daily Peak Hour [Daily] 1082 -1462 [13,994] y OW M)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [14,000] o - 586 % Entering (AN -PH) 55 - 43 39 - 60 21 - 47 75 - 52 LEGEND: AM -PH Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 8 - 11. 8 - 10 [Estimated 2-11ay Daily] 9 - 79 Hater (AN -PH) Kunzman Associ ��a INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: PLACER71A AVENUE (NS) and HOSPITAL DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 LAID USE: EXISTING + APPROVED + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PH) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PH) Northbound Left 1 1600 18 32 0 0 18 32 0.034* 0.066* Northbound Through 0 0 _ 36 73 0 0 36 73 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right 1 1600 153 228 0 0 153 228 0.096 0.143 Southbound Left 0 0 311 307 7 55 318 362 0.000 0.000 Southbound Through 2 3200 63 36 0 0 63 36 0.129* 0.148* Southbound Right 0 0 31 75 0 0 31 75 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 1 1600 61 99 0 0 61 99 0.038 0.062* Eastbound Through 2 3200 264 206 0 0 264 2D6 0.096* 0.073 Eastbound Right 0 0 44 28 0 0 44 28 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 252 216 0 0 252 216 0.158* 0.135 Westbound Through 2 3200 145 174 0 0 145 174 0.175 0.175* Westbound Right 0 0 360 368 56 13 416 381 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn, Adjustment One o f right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000" 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment ed light when there is separate RT lane 8 when PIr O.oW* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment ovement is permitted. 0.000* O.ODO* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000 Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) 0.42 0.45 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A =.000 -.6 ICU; 8 =.601 -.7; C- .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; Ea .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 31 - 75 o A [10,700) I A A I 924 -1026 [10,727) Y (2 Way Volumes) 63 - 36 North North A 318 - 362 412 - 473 [ 4,8651 513 - 553 1 5,8611 V 0. 210 b 0 WR I SRJ IT `SL U-0.0- 416 - 381 WT 145 - 174 194 - 281 [ 2,6131 813 - 771 1 8,7101 -> _> 369 - 333 1 3,8611 735 - 796 1 8,4183 -2.0- 216 2.0 = Lanes �1.0- 252 - WL <-> c-a 563 - 614 1 6,4743 1547 -1567 [17,129) (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [ 6,5001 [17,100) EL I 207 - 333 [ 2,9701 359 - 280 [ 3,5151 1 A V 61 - 99 -1. NT 264 - 206 - 2.0 -ET NL ( R LEGEND: A AM -PN Peak Hour [Daily) 566 - 613 [ 6,4853 44 - 28 -0. R 0.0 .0 133 - 228 Daily a (AN +PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East Nest [ 6,5001 LEGEND: AN -PH Peak Hour 0 6 - 73 % Entering (AM-PH) 45 - 46 37 - 54 53 - 49 66 - 54 % of Daily in Peak 9 - 10 9 - 9 9 - 9 9 - 9 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily) I 8 - 32 Hour CAM-PH) Ku zman 10 Existing + Approved Proiects + Cumulative Projects 1` 6 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE (NS) and WEST COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01-03 GEOMETRIC$: Existing LAIR) USE: EXISTING + APPROVED + CUMULATIVE MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE ADDED TOTAL VOLUME TO VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PH) (AN) (PM) (AN) '(PM) (AM) (PM) Northbound Left 3 4800 200 293 0 0 200 293 0.157• 0.130` Northbound Through 0 0 454 270 21 6 475 276 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right 0 0 77 57 0 0 77 57 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sauthbou d Left 0 0 193 168 49 83 242 251 Southbound Through 3 4800 121 330 2 23 123 353 0.076* 0.126* 0.223 Southbound Right Arrow 2 3200 257 623 8 91 265 714 0.083 Eastbound Left 2 3200 997 315 83 Z5 1080 340 0.338• 0.106• Eastbound Through 3 4800 2028 1020 too 174 2128 1194 0.443 0.249 0.173 Eastbound Right 1 1600 298 277 0 0 298 277 0.186 0.114 Westbound Left 1 1600 79 182 0 0 79 182 0.049 Westbound Through 4 6400 622 1691 165 108 787 1799 0.165• 0.308* Westbound Right 0 0 193 120 79 51 272 171 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000• 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red tight when [movement there is separate RT Lane &.when 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment is permitted. 0.000• 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000• Clearance Interval 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZAT ION, ICU (Sun of B= -.7; C *.701-.8] components with D= •) -.9; E =.901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) 0.74 0.67 C B LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; .601 .801 PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AMID LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 265 - 714 i [25,1007 A 1 A I A Y 2457 - 2106 [25,093) (2 Way Volumes) 123 - 353 North North A 242 - 251 WR 630 -1318 [10,7161 Y 1 1827 - 787 E14,3773 2. 3.0 1.0 �.0- SR- LSL IT 272 - 171 WT-4.0- 787 -1799 1252 - 2807 [22,322] 1137 -2152 [18,094] <- 3506 _> -1811 [29,2481 -> 2447 -1502 [21,722] 79 - 182 2.0 = lanes r1.0- WL 4758 (2 -4618 [51,5701 Way Volumes) 3585 - 3655 (39,8161 (2 Way volumes) [51,600] [39,800] EL 1 A NT 500 - 812 1 7,2167 V I 752 - 626 1 7,5797 1080 - 340 -2. 2128 -1194 - 3.0-ET NL ( R LEGEND: AN -PM Peak Hour ]Daily] A 1252 -1438 114,7951 298 - 277 -1. ER 3 0 0 0 . I 77 - 57 Daily - CAM+PM)* 5.5 Leg: V North (2 Way volunes) South East West [14,8001 0 475 - 276 X Entering (AN -PM) 26 - 63 60 - 44 32 - 59 74 - 39 9 LEGEND: AM-PM Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 10 - 8 8 - 10 9 - 9 9 - [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 2 0 - 293 Hour (AM -PM) Kuniman Assoc vAA INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE (NS) and HOSPITAL DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED + CUMULATIVE GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AM) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PN) Northbound left 1 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000* Northbound Through 2 3200 1390 600 183 82 1573 682 0.610* 0.246 Northbound Right 0 0 378 104 0 0 378 104 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 72 76 0 0 72 76 0.045* 0.048 Southbound Through 2 3200 434 797 59 197 493 994 0.154 0.311* Southbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000* 0.000 Eastbound Through 1 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000* Eastbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1.50 2400 35 453 0 0 35 453 0.015 0.189* Westbound Through 0.50 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.069* 0.110 Westbound Right 0 0 55 88 0 0 55 88 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane & when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Ad�ustmum movement is permitted. Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with 0.72 0.50 LEVEL OF SERVICE .(A =.000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D *.801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F =1.001+) C A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A 0- 0 0 [22,2007 I A A I 2193 - 1841 [22,1841 493 - 994 North Y (2 Way Votunes) North 72 - 76 A 565 -1070 1 8,9951 I ( 1628 - 770 [13,1897 WR 0. 2.0 1.0 .0- 55 - 88 gRJ I LS' Y 0 - 0 [ 01 90 - 541 [ 3,4777 WT--0.5- 0 - 0 T _> -> ' �1.5- 35 - 453 2.0 = Lanes WL 0 - 0 1 Ol 450 -'180 [ 3,4651 0 - 0 1 01 540 - 721 [ 6,9361 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Votumes) [ 01 [ 6,9001 EL 0 - 0 _O.Oj NT A 528 -1447 [10,8657 V 1 1951 - 786 [15,0541 0- 0- 1.0-ET ML_ R LEGEND: A 0 - 0 -01 R 11 2.0 0 13 - 104 AN -PM Peak Hour [Daily] I 2479 -2234 [25,9181 Daily = CAM +PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [25,9001 LEGEND: AN -PM Peak Hour 0 11573 - 682 { % Entering (AM -PH) 26 - 58 79 - 35 17 - 75 0 - D % of Daily in Peak 10 - 8 10 - 9 8 - 10 0 - 0 [Estimated 2 -Way Dailyl f 0 - 0 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman 1A . INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE (NS) and SUPERIOR AVENUE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 LAND USE: EXISTING . APPROVED + CUMULATIVE GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PH) TOTAL VOLUME (AM) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PH) Northbound Left 0 0 19 79 0 0 19 79 0.000* 0.000 Northbound Through 2 3200 292 586 0 0 292 586 0.126 0.275* Northbound Right 0 0 51 203 42 13 93 216 0.000 0.000 Southbourd Left 1 1600 18 57 0 0 18 57 0.011 0.036 Southbound Thrones 1 1600 566 355 0 0 566 355 0.354* 0.222 Southbound Right 1 1600 284 498 4 4 288 502 0.180 0.314 Eastbound Left 1 1600 415 514 2 4 417 518 0.261 0.324* Eastbound Through 2 3200 1085 954 181 79 1266 1033 0.402* 0.343 Eastbound Right 0 0 21 64 0 0 21 64 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 71 107 4 46 75 153 0.047* 0.095 Westbound Through 2 3200 243 732 56 193 299 925 0.097 0.319* Westbound Right 0 0 12 96 0 0 12 96 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment of right turns CRT) are assumed to occur on] 0.000• 0.000• Core Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red Light when there is separate RT term 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with *) 0.80 0.92 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000-.6.ICU; Ba .601 -.7; C= .701-.8; D *.801-.9; E =.901 -1.0; F *1.001+) 0 E PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 288 - 502 a [20,4007 A I A A I 1593 -2114 120,3857 v (2 Way Votues) 566 - 355 North North A 18 - 57 WR 872 - 914 1 9,8211 I 721 -1200 [10,5647 V II 1 1. 1.0 0 ".0- 12 - 96 SR LSL WT 299 - 925 605 -1506 [11,613] 386 -1174 1 8,5787 < -- <- 1704 -1614 118,2497 1376 -1305 114,7471 -2.0- ri 0- 75 - 153 2.0 • Lanes UL 2309 -3121 [29,8627 1762 - 2479 [23,3257 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [29,9001 [23,3001 EL 518 A 662 - 572 1 6,7867 I 404 - B81 ( 7,0621 V 417 - -1.0i NT 1266 -1033 - 2.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A AM -PM Peak Hour [Deity] 1 1066 -1452 [13,8487 21 - 64 -0. ER 01 2.0 0 ( - 216 - Daily * (AW *PN)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West 113,8001 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour o 292 - 586 % Entering (AN -PH) 55 - 43 38 - 61 22 - 47 74 - 52 X of Deily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 8 - 11 8 - 10 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily? I 9 - 79 Hour (AM -PM) - Kunzman ,o INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE (NS) and HOSPITAL DRIVE (EV) COUNT DATE: 01-01 -03 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED . CUMULATIVE GEd(ETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LAMES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PH) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PH) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PH) Northbound Left 1 1600 78 32 0 0 18 32 0.034* 0.066* Northbound Through 0 0 36 73 0 0 36 73 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right 1 1600 153- 228 0 0 153 228 0.096 0.143 Southbound Left 0 0 311 307 4 46 315 353 0.000 0.000 Southbound Through 2 3200 63 36 0 0 63 36 0.128* 0.145* Southbound Right 0 0 31 75 0 0 31 75 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 1 1600 61 99 0 0 61 99 0.038 0.062* Eastbound Through 2 3200 264 206 0 0 264 206 0.096* 0.073 Eastbound Right 0 0 44 28 0 0 44 28 0.000 0.000 Westbo4 ad Left 1 1600 252 216 0 0 252 216 0.158* 0.135 Westbound Through 2 3200 145 174 0 0 145 174 0.171 0.173* Westbound Right 0 0 36 0 368 42 13 402 381 0.000 0.000 Northboud Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur onn 0.000* 0.000* Southboud Right Turn Adjustment ed light when there is separate RT lane & when FmNr 0.000* 0.000* Eastboud Right Turn Adjustment ovement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn .J.t... 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *> 0.42 0.45 LEVEL OF SERVICE (As.000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.77 C- .701 -.87 0 =.801 -.97 Ec .907 -7.07 F =1.001 0 A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A 31 - 75 o [10,600] I A A I 908 -1016 [10,5811 63 - 36 North Y (2 Way Volumes) North 315 - 353 A 409 - 464 [ 4,8017 I I 499 - 553 1 5,781] 0. 210 ko WR .0- 402 - 381 SR- 4 LSL Y 194 - 281 1 2,6131 799 - 771 [ 8,6307 <- <- $! WT -2.0- 145 - 174 T -a -> r7.0- 252 - 216 2.0 - Lanes IWL 369 - 333 1 3,8611 732 - 787 [ 8,3547 <- c-> 563 - 614 [ 6,4741 1531 -1557 06,9837 (2 way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) 1 6,5007 [17, D00] L 61 - 99 -7. � NT A 359 - 280 1 3,5757 I 207 - 333 (2,9707 Y 264 - 206 - 2.0 --ET NL LEGEND: A 44 - 28 -0. R .� 0.0 I 133 - 228 AN-PH Peak Hour [Daily] 566 - 613 [ 6,4851 y * (AN+PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [ 6,5001 LEGEND: AN -PM Peak Hour 0 - 73 % Entering (AN-PM) 45 - 46 37 - 54 52 - 49 66 - 54 % of Daily in Peak 9 - 10 9 - 9 9 - 9 9 - 9 [Estimated 2-Way Daily] I 8 - 32 Hour (AM -PH) - Kuntman y5b Existing + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project 0 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE (NS) and WEST COAST HIGHWAY (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PH) ADDED VOLUME (AM) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PH) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PH) Northbound Left 3 4800 200 293 0 0 200 293 0.158* 0.131* Northbound Through 0 0 454 270 28 6 482 276 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right 0 0 77 57 0 0 77 57 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 0 0 193 168 49 83 242 251 0.000 0.000 Southbound Through 3 4800 121 330 3 28 124 358 0.076* 0.127* Southbound Right Arrow 2 3200 257 623 13 110 270 733 0.084 0.229 Eastbound Left 2 3200 997 315 112 26 1109 341 0.347* 0.106* Eastbound Through 3 4800 2028 1020 100 174 2128 1194 0.443 0.249 Eastbound Right 1 1600 298 277 0 0 298 277 0.186 0.173 Westbound Left 1 1600 79 182 0 0 79 182 0.049 0.114 Westbound Through 4 6400 622 1691 165 108 787 1799 0.165* 0.308* Westbound Right 0 0 193 120 79 51 272 171 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns CRT) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment �ad Light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Tur Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with *) - 0.75 0.67 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A =.000 -.6 ICU; 6= .601 -.7; C =.701 -.8; D =.801 -.9; E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) C B PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES A 270 - 733 0 (25,5001 I A A 2499 -2130 125,4561 124 - 358 North V (2 Way Volumes) North 242 - 251 A 636 -1342 (10,877) I 1 1863 - 788 114,5791 lMt 2. 3.0 LO y .0- 272 - 171 SR- LSL 1257 -2826 122,4511 1137 -2152 (18,0941 WT-4.0- 787 -1799 T -a -> r1.0- 79 - 182 WL 3535 -1812 (29,4101 2447 -1502 121,7221 4792 -4637 (51,861) 3585 -3655 E39,8161 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) (51,900] (39,8001 EL A 1109 501 - 817 ( 7,2483 I I 759 - 626 ( 7,6191 - 341 -2.0J NT V 2128 -1194 - 3.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A 298 - 277 -1. R 0.0 77 - 57 AN PH Peak Hour [Daily] 1260 -7443 [14,867] y = (AN+PN)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West E14,9001 0 2 - 276 % Entering (AN -PH) 25 - 63 60 - 43 32 - 59 74 - 39 LEGEND: AM -PH .Peak Hour % of Daily in Peak 10 - 8 8 - 10 9 - 9 9 - 9 (Estimated 2 -Way Daily) 2 - 293 Hour (AN -PH) - Kuuzman Assoei INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: SUPERIOR AVENUE (NS) and HOSPITAL DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 GEOMETRICS: Existing LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME ADDED VOLUME TOTAL VOLUME VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AM) (PM) (AN) (PH) (AN) (PH) (AN) (PM) Northbound Left Northbound Through 1 2 1600 3200 0 0 1390 600 0 0 219 83 0 1609 0 683 0.000 0.000* 0.621* 0.246 Northbound Right 0 0 378 104 0 0 378 72 104 76 0.000 0.000 0.045* 0.048 Southbound Left Southbound Through 1 2 1600 3200 72 76 434 797 0 0 65 221 499 1018 0.156 0.318* Southbound Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Through 1. 1600 0 0 0 O 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Right 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 453 0.015 0.189* Westbound Left 1.50 2400 35 453 0 0 35 Westbound Through 0.50 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.069* 0.110 0.000 Westbound Right 0 0 55 88 0 0 55 88 O.ODO Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RT) ere assumed to occur an 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adj ustmxnt 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* Clear arc: Interval c INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) 0.74 0.51 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A=.000 -.6 ICU; 8= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.97 E= .901 -1.0; F= 1.001 +) C A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 0 - 0 i 122,5001 A I A I A V 2235 -1865 (2 Way ] Volumes) 499 -1018 North North A 72 - 76 WR 571 -1094 t 9,1563 V 1 1664 - 771 113,3913 II 0. 2.0 1 0 ".0- SaJ LSL WT - _0.S- 55 - 88 0 - 0 O - 0 [ 01 90 - 547 [ 3,4713 _> 0 - 0 1 O] -> 450 - 180 1 3,4651 7 35 - 453 2.0 = lanes F-(.5- WL <-> 0 (2 - 0 1 01 Way Volumes) 540 (2 - 721 1 6,9361 Way Volumes) 1 01 1 6,9001 EL N7 534 -1477 [11,026] V A 1 1987 - 787 115,2561 0 - 0 �. 0- 0- 1.0-ET ML I R LEGEND: AN-PH Peak Hour EDailyl A 1 2521 -2258 E26,2811 0 - 0 -0. ER 1.0 2.0 .0 138 - 104 Daily = (AM +PN)* 5.5 Leg: V North (2 South Way Volumes) East West 126,300] LEGEND: AN-PH Peak Hour 0 11609 - 683 % Entering X of Daily (AM -PH) In Peak 26 - 59 10 - 79 - 8 10 - 35 17 - 75 0 - 0 9 8 - 10 0 - 0 (Estimated 2 -Way Daily] 0 - 0 Hour (AN -PM) - Kunman `53 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE (NS) and SUPERIOR AVENUE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT GEOUETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PH) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PH) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PM) Northbound Left 0 0 19 79 0 0 19 79 0.000* 0.000 Northbound Through 2 3200 292 586 0 0 292 586 0.131 0.275* Northbound Right 0 0 51 203 56 13 107 216 0.000 0.000 Southbound Left 1 1600 18 57 0 0 18 57 0.011 0.036 Southbound Through 1 1600 566 355 0 0 566 355 0.354* 0.222 Southbound Right 1 1600 284 498 4 4 288 502 0.180 0.314 Eastbound Left 1 1600 415 514 2 4 417 518 0.261 0.324* Eastbound Through 2 3200 1085 954 217 79 1302 1033 0.413* 0.343 .Eastbound Right 0 0 21 64 0 0 21 64 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 71 107 7 55 78 162 0.048* 0.101 West= Through 2 3200 243 732 61 217 304 949 0.099 0.326* Westboud Right 0 0 12 96 0 0 12 96 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment one of right turns (RT) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when 0.000* 0.000* Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sun of Components with •) - 0.82 0.93 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A= .000 -.6 ICU; B =.601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801 -.9; E= .901-1.0; F *1.001 +), D E PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 288 - 502 A 0 [20,4001 1 A A I Y 1593 - 211VO120,38 1 566 - 355 North North t8 - 57 A 872 - 914 [ 9,8211 I1.1 721 -1200 (10,564] t. 1.0 0 tIR V SR_j LSL � .0- 12 - 96 611 -1530 [11,7741 394 -1207 1 8,8043 <- <- WT-2.0- 304 - 949 2.0 = Lanes r_1.0- 78 - 162 UL 1740 -1615 118,4511 1427 -1306 (15,030) < -> c-> 2351 - 3145 [30,225) 1820 -2513 12.3,8331 (2 way Votunes) (2 Way Volumes) [30,2001 [23,8001 EL A 417 665 - 581 1 6,8511 I 418 - 861 1 7,1431 - 518 -I.OJ NT V 1302 -1033 - 2.0 ---ET ML- �R LEGEND: LEGEND: A 21 - 64 -0. R 0.0 2.0 0.0 1�7 - 216 12- Daily Peak Hour [Daily) 1082 -1462 [13,994) Y CAN+PM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West [14,000) 0 586 % Entering (AN -PH) 55 - 43 39 - 60 22 - 48 74 - 51 LEGEND: AM-PH Peak.Nour % of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 8 - 11 8 - 10 [Estimated 2-Way Dally) � 9 - 79 Noun (AN -PH) - Kunzaan Associ �� l INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE (NS) and SUPERIOR AVENUE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01 -03 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT GEOMETRICS: Improved MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PM) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PM) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PH) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PH) Northbound Left 0 0 19 79 0 O 19 79 0.000* 0.000 Northbound Through 2 3200 292 586 0 0 292 586 0.131 0.275* Northbound Right 0 0 51 203 56 13 107 216 0.000 0.000 0.036* Southbound Left 1 1600 18 57 0 0 18 57 0.011 Southbound Through 1 1600 566 355 0 0 566 355 0.354* 0.222 0.180 0.314 Southbound Right 1 1600 284 498 4 4 288 502 0.324* Eastbound Left 1 1600 415 514 2 4 417 518 0.261 Eastbound Through 2 3200 1085 954 217 79 1302 1033 0.413* 0.343 Eastbound Right 0 0 21 64 0 0 21 64 0.000 0.000 0.101 Westbound Left 1 1600 71 107 7 55 78 162 0.048* Westbound Through 2 3200 243 732 61 217 304 949 0.095 0.296* westbound Right 1 1600 12 96 0 0 12 96 0.008 0.060 Northbound Right Turn Adjustment None of right turns (RI) are assumed to occur on 0.000* 0.000* Southbound Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT tare 8 when 0.000* 0.003* .Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000* 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION, ICU (Sum of Components with *) 0.82 0.90 LEVEL OF SERVICE (A =.000-.6 ICU; 6= .601 -.7; C= .701 -.8; D= .801-.9; E= .901-1.0; F= 1.001 +) D D PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 288 - 502 I [20,4001 p � A A I 1593 -2114 120,3851 V (2 Way Volumes) 566 - 355 North North A 18 - 57 872 - 914 [ 9,821] I 721 -1200 [10,564) !<394 WR 1.0 L,.0_ 12 - 96 SRJ L--SL 304 - 949 IT WT 611 -1530 1111 7747V -1207 [ 8,8041 _> _> 1740 -1615 [18,451] 1427 -1306 [15,030) -2.0- 78 - 162 r1.0- 2.0 = Lanes WL <--a -� 2351 -3145 [30,2251 1820 -2513 E23,8331 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [30,200] [23,8001 EL NT A 665 - 581 1 6,8511 I 418 - 881 1 7,1431 V 417 - 518 -1. 1302 -1033 - 2.0-ET NL I R LEGEND: A AN -PM Peak Hour [Daily) I 1082 -1462 [13,9947 21 - 64 -0. R 01 2.0 .0 I 47 - 216 Daily = (WPM)* 5.5 V (2 Way Volumes) Leg: North South East West (14,0001 LEGEND: AM -PM Peak Hour o 292 - 586 X Entering (AN -PH) 55 - 43 39 - 60 22 - 48 74 - 51 X of Daily in Peak 8 - 10 8 - 10 8 - 11 8 - 10 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] I 9 - 79 Hour (AN-PH) - Kunzman \�5 INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LANES, AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION CALCULATION INTERSECTION: PLACENTIA AVENUE (NS) and HOSPITAL DRIVE (EW) COUNT DATE: 01 -01-03 LAND USE: EXISTING + APPROVED + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT CEONETRICS: Existing MOVEMENT LANES CAPACITY BASE VOLUME (AN) (PH) ADDED VOLUME (AN) (PH) TOTAL VOLUME (AN) (PM) VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO (AN) (PM) Northbound Left 1 1600 18 32 0 0 18 32 0.034* 0.066* Northboud Through 0 0 36 73 0 0 36 73 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right 1 1600 153 228 0 0 153 228 0.096 0.143 Southbound Left 0 0 311 307 7 55 318 362 0.000 0.000 Southbound Through 2 3200 63 36 0 0 63 36 0.129* 0.148* Southbound Right 0 0 31 75 0 0 31 75 0.000 0.000 Eastbound Left 1 1600 61 99 0 0 61 99 0.038 0.062* Eastbound Through 2 3200 264 206 0 0 264 206 0.096* 0.073 Eastbound Right 0 0 44 28 0 0 44 28 0.000 0.000 Westbound Left 1 1600 252 216 0 0 252 216 0.158* 0.135 Westbound Through 2 3200 145 174 0 0 145 174 0.175 0.173* Westbound Right 0 0 360 368 56 13 416 381 0.000 0.000 Northbound Right Turn Adjustmenut N7 of right turns (RT) are assured to Occur ort . 0.000* O.00U* Southboxd Right Turn Adjustment red light when there is separate RT lane 8 when O.ODO* 0.000• Eastbound Right Turn Adjustment movement is permitted. 0.000* 0.000* Westbound Right Turn Adjustment 0.000* 0.000* Clearance Interval 0.000' 0.000* INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILISATION, ICU (Sum Of Components with *j LEVEL OF SERVICE (A =.000 -.6 ICU; B= .601 -.7; C =.701 -.8; D- .801-.9; E-.901 -1.0; F =1.001 +) 0.42 0.45 A A PLOT OF PEAK HOUR TURNING VOLUMES AND LANES PLOT OF INTERSECTION LEG VOLUMES 31 - 75 A 0 110,700] ( A A I 1 924 -1026 [10,7271 63 - 36 North Y (2 Way Volumes) North 118 - 162 310 � A 412 - 473 1 4,8653 I 513 - 553 [ 5,8613 0. 2.0 d. SRJ "L 1-0.0- 416 - 381 Y 194 - 281 L 2,6133 813 - 771 1 8,710] s- < -- T WT-2.0- 145 - 174 -r > ' 2.0 = Lanes F-1.0- 252 - 216 WL 369 - 333 1 3,8611 735 - 7% 1 8,4181 563 - 614 ['6,4743 1547 -1567 117,1291 (2 Way Volumes) (2 Way Volumes) [ 6,5003 [17,1001 EL 61 - 99 -1. OJ NT A 359 - 280 1 3,515) 207 - 333 ( 2,9701 V 264 - 206. - 2.0-ET NLi I R J. LEGEND: A 44 - 28 -0. R 1.0 1.0 113 - 228 DeiPM Peak Hour LDailyl 1 566 - 613 L 6,485] y PM)* 5.5 V (2 May Volumes) Leg: North South East West E 6,5001 LEGEND: AN -PM Peak Hour a - 73 L % Entering (AN -PM) 45 - 46 37 - 54 53 - 49 66 - 54 % of Daily in Peak - 9 - 10 9 - 9.'9 - 9 9 - 9 [Estimated 2 -Way Daily] 8 - 32 Hour (AM-PM) Kunzman 156 Page left intentionally left blank �5� Exhibit No. 3 Planning Commission and City Council staff reports for Use Permit No. 3679 o5 Page left intentionally left blank � 5� City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 Resolution No. 2001.13 declaring the results of the ballot tabulation, confirming the Assessment, ordering the acquisition of improvements, and approving the Assessment Engineer's Report for Assessment District No. 79 aeon Bay}; c) reserve and establish public utility easements over the pub real within the Beacon Bay development which include Cutter Road, Cape Co Ketch Road, Schooner Road, Rsef Cove, Yawl Road, and Beacon Bay as sho on Exhibit "B ", and direct the City Clerk to have the Mayor execute the Gra f Easement; and d} dedicate spot easements for electrical facilities to the Ediso Company, as shown on Exhibit "B" and direct the City Clerk to have the Mayor cute the Grants of Easements. Council Member Heffernan confbiked with City Attorney Burnham that the lien of the assessment is secured by tlbkleasehold interest of the homeowner. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway encouraged ibwe that voted against the assessment district by stating that the impro ents will benefit their community and increase their property values. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: \ Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Adams Noes: None Abstain: None 12. NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER (MARK BARKER FOR THE ST. CLAIR COMPANY, APPLICANT) - 500 SUPERIOR AVENUE - A USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE BASIC HEIGHT LIMIT OF 32 FEET UP TO 50 FEET IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SITE AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE THE DEMOLITION OF 208,926 SQ. FT. OF THE EXISTING 416,499 SQ. FT., REMODEL OF TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS TOTALING 214,210 SQ. FT., AND RECONSTRUCTION OF 201,283 SQ. FT. FOR A TOTAL OF 415,498 SQ, FT. OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT USE. Council Member Heffernan stated that he appealed the matter because of a concern for Hoag Hospital and the traffic study that was done by the applicant. He stated that the concern has since been satisfied and Hoag Hospital has waived the condition. Motion by Council Member Heffernan to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Use Permit No. 3679 and the Negative Declaration. Mayor Adams opened the public hearing. Carol Hoffman, representing the St. Clair Company, stated that the St. Clair Company is pleased to bring the project to Newport Beach and hopes the City Council will support the motion. Volume 54 - Page 133 INDEX Use Permit No. 3679 Newport Technology Center/ 500 Superior Avenue (99) 1O City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes February 27, 2001 Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Adams closed the public hearing. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Bromberg, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None UNSCHEDULED VACANCY ON THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD. Based on the ballots cast by the council members, City Clerk Harkless announced that Council Members Heffernan, O'Neil, Glover, Bromberg and octor, and Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway voted for nominee Bert Carson, and M or Adams voted for nominee Marilee Jackson. City rk Harkless announced that Bert Carson would fill the vacancy on the Ci ' ervice Board (term expiring June 30, 2005). CURRENT USI 14. GENERAL AMENDMENT 2001 -1 - REQUEST TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS O THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN, AS FOLLOWS: A) ARK AR.THIJR - 3901 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD: A P OPOSAL TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION FOR OFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS OFFICE SITE SA, AND TO CHANG THE LAND USE DESIGNATION (FROM RETAIL AND SERVI COMMERCIAL TO ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL COMMERCIAL) AND ESTABLISH A DEVELOP T ALLOCATION FOR AUTO CENTER SITE iB OF THE NEWPOR PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY; B) 2100 MAR VISTA DRIVE: A ROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION R TWO EXISTING CHURCH PROPERTIES BY 24,000 SQUARE JAMSTING FOR THE COMBINED PROPERTIES, TO ALLOW FOR THTRUCTION OF A NEW CHURCH, AND THE EXPANSION O ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; AND C) T. MARK YTFRIAN CHURCH - JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD: A PROPOSAL TO C NGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM RECREATIONAL AN ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE TO GOVERNMENTAL, ED CATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES, AND ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT LIMIT OF APPROXIMATELY 39,200 SQUARE FEET, 0 ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CHURCH COMPL .INCLUDING SANCTUARY, ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES, PRE HOOL/DAY CARE, FELLOWSHIP HALL, AND MISCELLANEOUS US Volume 54 - Page 134 INDEX Civil Service Board (24) GPA 2001.1 Initiate General Plan Amendments Park MacArthur/ Our Lady Queen of Angels Church/ St. Mark Presbyterian Church (45) \0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: February 27, 2001 d o PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 12 3 _ . 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell C4sna�� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200: FAX (949) 644 -3250 A Period: None REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL_ PROJECT: Newport Technology Center (Mark Barker for The St. Clair Company, applicant) 500 Superior Avenue SUMMARY: A use permit to exceed the basic height limit. of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing research and development site and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration. The project will include: • Demolition of 208,926 sq. ft. of the existing 416,499 sq. ft. • Remodel of two existing buildings totaling 214,210 sq. ft. • Reconstruction of 201,283 sq. ft. for a total of 415,493 sq. ft. of research and development use. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Hold a public hearing and Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Use Permit No.3679 and the Negative Declaration ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the option to deny the project or modify the project. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portion of Lot 169, Block 2, Irvine Subdivision GENERAL PLAN: General Industry ZONE: M -1 -A (Manufacturing, Industrial) OWNER: The St. Clair Company, Newport Beach Introduction On January 4, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for Use Permit No. 3679 and accompanying Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission continued the item to January 18, 2001, in order to obtain additional information from the applicant. On January 18, 2001, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3679 and a Negative Declaration which authorized the proposed buildings to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to a maximum of 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing research and development site. The project site is located at 500 Superior Avenue. Councilmember Heffernan requested that this project be brought before the City Council for review. 16a' Proiect Descrintion The project involves the rehabilitation of the research and development site located at 500 Superior, which was formerly occupied by Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon. The project will include the demolition of two buildings and the removal of all exterior manufacturing infrastructure. Three existing buildings will be remodeled and two, three -story buildings will be constructed on the site to replace the buildings demolished. The total gross square footage of all buildings currently on site is 416,499 sq. ft., of which 208,926 square feet will be demolished, 214,210 sq. ft. will be remodeled, and 201, 283 sq. ft. will be new construction for a total of 415,493 sq. ft. The proposal will result in a decrease of approximately 1,000 sq. ft. and the use of the site for research and development/office uses will continue. The new project will provide additional setback area than currently exists on three sides of the property, and a new roadway circulation system around the site. Parking spaces will be added and additional landscaping within and along the perimeters of the site will be included. The location of the new structures will provide interior parking areas that are shielded from public view by the buildings and landscaping. The new and remodeled buildings will be constructed with painted concrete tilt -up panels, stone veneer and a light reflective tinted glass in a mullion system. The two new buildings proposed would be 50 feet in height and exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet within the 3260 Height Limitation Zone. The 50 -foot height of the proposed buildings requires the approval of a Use Permit. The applicant chose to design the buildings at this height in order to accommodate a third story on each building to create comparable building area as currently exists and to locate parking more conveniently project occupants. The existing Building E and the existing parking structure to remain were previously approved by use permit to exceed the 32 -foot height limit up to 50 feet. Discussion Building Height In order to approve the a building to exceed 32 feet height up to 54 feet, the following findings must be made: 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Use Permit No. 3679 & Negative Declaration February 27, 2001 Page 2 �b5 In approving the project, the Planning Commission found that increased public visual open space is provided in and around the buildings and at the perimeter of the site. The architectural treatment of the buildings was found to be desirable and a significant enhancement over the existing buildings constructed within the basic height limit. The Commission made this finding with the understanding that the buildings could be remodeled at their present height that exceeds 32 feet or reconstructed within the 32 -foot height limit. In either of these re-use scenarios, a majority of the site would remain covered. The Commission believed that the increased open space was sufficient to warrant the increased building height. The Commission focussed attention to the scale of the buildings related to their surroundings especially to Superior Avenue, and believed that the landscaping along Superior softened the height of the proposed buildings. Lastly, the increased height does not permit additional floor area beyond the General PIan limit. The Commission considered each of these areas in detail and found that sufficient facts related to the overall design were present to approve the project. Trafc & Parking The issue of traffic and parking was also of primary concern for the Commission. Expansion of the facility was previously approved in 1981 relying upon "research and development" uses and manufacturing employees commuting outside of traditional peak hours. Concern was expressed about potential increases in traffic with the proposed redevelopment of the site creating what appears to be office buildings. A comparison analysis between the former Hughes Aircraft facility and the proposed project was performed to determine the difference in trip generation, if any, and any resultant project related traffic impacts. The project will decrease total average daily trips (ADTs) by I,844 when compared to the previous use. However, the project will increase trips compared to the previous use by 229 in the AM peak and 163 in the PM peak period due in part to the elimination of manufacturing employees working in special shift arrangements. Due to the reduction in ADTs, no Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) review is required. The increase in traffic during the peak hour was analyzed as part of the environmental review of the project to determine if area intersections would be impacted. The baseline traffic assumptions included all committed projects including Phase I of the Hoag Hospital Expansion. Two intersections were evaluated due to the proximity of the site: Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard/Hospital Road. Both of these intersections' volume will increase by more than one percent with this project. Based upon this increase, the traffic consultant performed an ICU analysis to determine if the project would create a significant impact. With the project, the Newport BoulevardlHospital Road intersection is projected to have an ICU of 0.605 and 0.711 during the AM and PM peak hour respectively and no significant impact is predicted and no mitigation is required. The Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue intersection is projected to have an ICU value of 0.920 (0.92) and 1.015 (1.02) during the AM and PM respectively. When the project is included, the intersection is projected to operate at 0.924 (0.92) and 1.023 (1.02) during the AM and PM respectively. Based upon the performance and impact criteria of the TPO, which is Newport Beach's standard for environmental review /CEQA compliance, a less than significant impact is predicted. Use Permit No. 3679 & Negative Dectaration February 27, 2001 Page 3 I(QA The City of Costa Mesa expressed concern about potential traffic impacts to several intersections. The intersections they identified were analyzed and were found to operate at acceptable levels of service with the project. The project will result in a 0.01 increase in the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICI) value for the intersection of Newport Boulevard and 191" Street which presently operates at Level of Service D (0.94 ICU). This increase is considered a less than significant impact based upon OCTA regional significance thresholds. The trips resulting from the project will be added to the committed project list if the project is approved, and will be included in the baseline traffic assumptions for any future traffic studies commenced after the date of project approval. The City is currently preparing a traffic study pursuant to the Hoag Expansion EIR and TPO for the second phase of the expansion of Hoag Hospital. The study was commenced in August of 2000 and the screen -check draft will be submitted to staff for its initial review within the next several days. Since this study was commenced prior to the proposed project, the Hoag Phase 2 study will not include the increased traffic resulting from the project. The proposed project was on file at that time but the traffic analysis and a trip generation characteristic was not completed until early December. The Commission was concerned about the facility being used as a general office complex rather than a research and development complex, thereby potentially increasing the amount of traffic generated. The General Plan specifies the use of the facility for industrial uses and staff is confident that through the review of tenant improvementplans and business licenses, the city can ensure that only appropriate uses occupy the site. The Commission applied a condition of approval that limits the total number of employees at a single time to 1,965. This limit will further ensure that the actual traffic volumes associated with the use of the site will not exceed projected volumes and impacts. The applicant agreed to the limitation on the number of employees on site at any one time. The Planning Commission concluded that project approval was acceptable as the previous use of the site by the Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon operated with the same employee limitation. Parking for the site will be provided within the existing parking structure and several reconfigured surface lots. A total of 1,421 parking spaces will be provided which exceeds the minimum number of spaces (83 1) using a I space per 500 square feet ratio. This parking ratio is used for research and development uses. The Commission applied a condition of approval that requires all employees and visitors park on -site in an effort to avoid exacerbate existing parking issues in the area. Negative Declaration An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and circulated for public in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. In considering the proposed project, the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, thirty -one mitigation measures were identified that will mitigate any potential impact to the environment to a less than significant level. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached to the Planning Commission staff report dated January 4, 2001. Comments on the Use Pemtit No. 3679 & Negative Declaration February 27, 2001 Page 4 \�5 Mitigated Negative Declaration were received and responses were provided in accordance with applicable procedures. Summary In malting this decision, the Planning Commission recognized that the applicant could reconstruct the same amount of square footage as currently exists on the site within the 32 -foot basic height limit without discretionary review by the City. That development would result in mole site coverage and the opportunity for additional landscaping and open space would be lost. A full discussion of the project and staffs analysis is contained in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Exhibit No. 2). As noted previously, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve Use Permit No. 3679 and the acceptance of the Negative Declaration. Submitted by_ PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Exhibits Prepared by: :ul, OPUPBELL 1. Planning Commission Staff Supplemental Report dated January 18, 2001. 2. Excerpt of minutes from the January 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. 3. Planning Commission Staff Supplemental Report dated January 4, 2001. 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 4, 2001 with attachments. 5. Excerpt of minutes from the January 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. 6. Excerpt of minutes from the December 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. 7. Newport Technology Center presentation re-print (separate spiral bound document) 8. Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations (separate bound document) F.dUsenlPllilS=gAtCrrYCNL1 WIW227Wp3679GUMN mport 2-27.01 ADc Use Permit No. 3679 & Negative Declaration February 27, 20Q1 Page 5 ;1 o Exhibit No. 1 \0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT D 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD c,;,••„v NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 664 -3200: FAX (949) 644 -3250 Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Newport Technology Center (Mark Barker for The St. Clair Company, applicant) 500 Superior Avenue January 1 Eugenia Garcia 644 -3208 SUMMARY: A use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing research and development site and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration: The project will include: • Demolition of 208,926 sq. ft. of the existing 416,499 sq. ft. • Remodel of two existing buildings totaling 214,210 sq. ft. • Reconstruction of 20I,283 sq. ft. for a total of 415,49' ) sq. ft. of research and development use. APPLICATION: • Use Permit No. 3679 • Negative Declaration This item'was continued from the meeting of January 4, 2001, in order to provide staff and the applicant time to provide additional information. Staff is providing responses to questions raised by members of the public and the Planning Commission, and additional recommended changes and clarificationsto staff s report for the project. The Planning Commission directed staff to further analyze the findings that are required to be made in the approving a use permit for additional height, specifically, finding No. 2. The finding states: "The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. " Staff s report analyzed the public visual open space and views as viewed from Dana Road and did not include an analysis from Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard. The proposed building No. 1 will be located within 15 feet of the front property line and will result in more building mass as viewed from Superior Avenue, which will diminish the openness provided by the existing large surface parking lot at the front property line and will result in more building mass as viewed from Superior Ave. The proposed building No. 3, although set back further from the top of the slope above Newport Boulevard than the existing buildings, with the proposed increase in height, will be more prominent as viewed from Newport Boulevard. However, in both cases, the increased height of the buildings will result in a smaller building footprint, than the same area spread over the site at a lower height. If building No. 3 were constructed without the additional height, the building could be built to the property line because the required setback is zero. If the building were built to the property line, a retaining wall would need to be constructed and the public visual open space from Newport Boulevard would be greatly reduced, in addition to the negative aesthetic appeal that would result. Further, if the site coverage was reduced due to larger building footprints and lower height, it is possible that a portion of the open space in the parking lot adjacent to Dana Road would be lost, which also provides some visual relief from Superior as well. When viewing the site from Superior Avenue looping back toward Newport Boulevard, a portion of the existing building is located to the rear of the site in the proposed open parking area, but with the new design, that area will be opened up and cleared for landscaping and parking, which will add to the visual appeal from Superior Avenue as well as Newport Boulevard. Additionally, the required enhanced landscape plan with mature trees and shrubs that is required for the Superior Avenue and Newport Boulevard streetscape, should soften the height of the buildings. The following is in answer to questions were received in writing from Commissioner Selich and Barry Eaton, member of EQAC. At the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant has provided information in support of the request and provided additional answers to questions raised at the public hearing. Attached to this report is a copy of the applicant's response. A. R & D USE L The argument is made that the present property owners could use the site for any permitted V- I -A use . ................ Under the M -1 -A Zoning, Section 20.20 allows for Industry. Custom, Industry. Limited, and Industry. Research and Develooment which are further defined in Section 20.05.060 (B), (D) and (F). Neither the Zoning Code or past approvals for the property limit the use of the property to a single use. As long as any tenant on the property falls within a defined use, they can develop the site as proposed. So long as they are also within the use limitations of the General Plan and the existing Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval. The authorized uses are detailed as follows: Industry. Custom Establishments primarily engaged in on -site production of goods by hand manufacturing involving the use of hand tools and small -scale equipment. 1. Limited. Includes mechanical equipment not exceeding two horsepower or a single kiln not exceeding eight kilowatts and the incidental direct sale to consumers of only those goods produced on -site. Typical uses include ceramic studios, candle- making shops, and custom jewelry manufacture. Industry. Limited Manufacturing of finished parts or products, primarily from previously prepared materials; and provision of industrial services; both within an enclosed building. This classification includes UP3679, 500 Superior Page 2 - l6q processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, and packaging, but excludes basic industrial processing from -raw materials and Vehicle/EquipmentServices. 1. Small Scale. Limited to a maximum gross floor area of 5,000 square feet. Industry, Research and Development. Establishments primarily engaged in the research, development and controlled production of high- technology electronic, industrial or scientific products or commodities for sale, but prohibits uses that may be objectionable in the opinion of the Planning Director, by reason of production of offensive odor, dust, noise, vibration, or storage of hazardous materials. Uses include biotechnology, films, and non -toxic computer component manufacturers. 2 ...........Why was the traffic not analyzed under the worst case traffrc scenario? ... ... office use....... Because the original traffic study assumed traffic generation factors for an R & D and manufacturing facility, the R & D use is the basis for the TPO approval. With the Dunes project, the applicant had proposed to use the "time- share" units for conventional hotel rooms part of the time and that was why it was analyzed as such, a worst -case scenario. 3. Single tenant vs. multiple tenants & D use ................ Because the Code does not make a distinction between single tenant R & D use and multiple tenant R & D use, it is difficult to assume that greater impact will exist with multiple tenants, as long as the use stays the same, as per the Traffic Study. None of the past approvals for the site or conditions have limited the property to a single tenant. Staff recognizes that not all tenants will require permits for a tenant improvement plan. However, it possible to review the uses though the Revenue Division's business license program. Further, a process has previously been established on other project in the City (i.e., Fashion Island, commercial uses in Mariner's Mile) through Plan-Check that when a tenant improvementis submitted, a log is kept of each tenant. Where there is doubt as to the use being consistent with the zoning, a letter is required of the proposed tenant describing the operational characteristics of the business. Of course, there will be some tenants that will not require a tenant improvement plan and, in that case, business licenses would be another source for compliance. B. PARKING Staff is conducting further research on the relative parking demands for office and research development business parks of a size similar to the proposed project, and will present modified informationprior to the meeting. The following are additional staff clarifications and recommendations to the staff report. Items No. 1 -6 were included in staffs supplemental report dated January 4, 2001, with changes to Items No. 4 and 5 included below and additional Item No. 7. UP3619. SOD Superior Page 3 t 1. On page IS, item number 10 in the listed attachments should be corrected as follows: "Traffic Analysis, Pirzadeh Associates, dated December 6, 2000 and December 20, 2000. Both Traffic Studies were included in the attachments, although the correct dates were omitted from the list on page I S. 2. On page 22, delete Conditions 15 and 17 due to the receipt of a letter, dated 1/4 /01, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board notifying the City of their oversight of the on -going remediation of the soil and groundwater on the subject property. See attached letter. 3. On page 22, Condition No. 16 should be amended to read: "Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur prior to the completion of the remediationas determinedly the Regional Water Quality Control Board." On page 24, Mitigation Measure No. 31 should be moved to the Use Permit conditions as Condition No. 35, and corrected and amended to read: "The Planning Director shall review all buildingplans and future tenant improvement plans and shall make a finding that the tenant occupancy is a use that is consistent with Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and as further defused In Section 20. OS. 060 (B), (D), and (1) and that commercial and office uses are ancillary and accessory to the research and development uses, and the project is in conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval. " This change will clarify the permitted uses for the site and cite the appropriate section of the Code. S. On page 27, Condition No. 16 should be clarified to read: "On -site retention or low flow diversion into the sanitary sewer system, or other system of equal effectiveness designed to filter and clean on site drainage to meet water quality standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the IVPDES requirements shall be provided for all on -site drainage in order to minimize the amount of pollutants transmitted to the Newport Bay and shall be approved by the Public Works, General Services and Building Departments." Because there are a variety of methods in which to meet this requirement, this will allow the applicant and the City an opportunity to utilize the most effective solution. 6. On page 17, Condition No. 20 should be clarified to read: `The landscape plan shall include the slope area along Newport Boulevard located on the subject property, which shall be modified to include drought - resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering." The majority of the slope is owned by Cal Trans and a small portion of the slope area is located on the subjectproperry. 7. Condition No. 36 should be added that states "The mitigation measures identified in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of Use Permit No. 3679, are required as part of and incorporated herein as a condition of approval and shall UP3679, 500 Superior Page 4 1�� be implemented and completed prior to final occupancy of any building for the proposedltse." If the Use Permit is granted, staff recommends that the Planning Commission incorporate the above changes and conditions to attached Exhibit "A." Submittedby: Preparedby: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE EUGENIA GARCIA, AICP Planning Director Associate Planner Attachments: Comments and questions from Planning Commission Chairman Selich Response to the Planning Commissionfrom applicant Comments received from Barry Eaton, member of EQAC Letter, dated January 10, 2001, from City of Costa Mesa UP3679. 500 Superior Page 5 Exhibit No. 2 ,�,3 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes Newport Riverboat Promoters 151 East Coast Highway • Use Permit No. 3684 • Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 78 Rem No. l Use Permit No. 3684 Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 76 A use permit to pemu use of the outdoor stem and bow sections of the boat Continued to to be used for acc door dining for hunch and evening food service, 02/08/2001 dosing at 10:00 p.m. AcousticbLpptertainment is proposed. Planning Director, Patricia Temple no the applicont is requesting that this item be continued for two weeks for ivrlher :menu of the project. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranttey to c ue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting on February 8 #. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Noes: None Absent: None SUBJECT: The St. Clair Company Item 2 500 Superior Avnue Use Permit No. 3679 • Use Permit No. 3679 A request for the approval of a Use Permit to exceed the basic height limit of Approved buldings of 32 feet up to 50 feet, in conjunction with the remodel of an existing 416,499 square foot research and development site. The project involves file demolition of 208,926 square feet of existing development and the construction of 207,920 square feet for a total of 415,493 square feet. Associate Planner, Eugenia Garcia noted that the applicant has been informed that a Sign Program for the site is required because it is a multi - building site on a single parcel. Currently, the Code requires a Sign Program to be approved by the Modifications Committee. However, the Planning Commission could allow the Sign Program to be approved by the Modifications Committee with the option to call it up for review. The Planning Commission could also condition the project that the Planning Commission reviews the Sign Program. A letter from the applicant's engineer regarding the storm water quality protection system that answers questions regarding one of the conditions on the on -site retention of low flow diversion system was presented. Ms. Temple added that in the list of questions asked by the Chairman, further information on the issue of consideration of the appropriate number of parking spaces would be provided. I have worked with Mr. Edmonton in trying to see whether there was any logical way to connect projected daily traffic trips or peak hour traffic trips to some relationship with required parking and could discover no relationship between those two factors. We looked at codes for City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 various forms of industrial and Research and Development (R & D) types of land uses from various agencies that range from the City's Code requirement of 1 space for 500 square feet or 2 per 1,000 ranging up to what is our standard office rate of 4 spaces per 1,000 or I space for every 250 square feet. Looking at the number of parking spaces on site, which number was based on the peak shift characteristics of the Hughes facility that formerly occupied the site, we discovered it was somewhat less but similar to the higher range of that potential occupancy and therefore the higher range of what could be considered an appropriate parking requirement. We concluded that parking requirement in the range of 3 per 1,000 seemed to make sense although we do not have anything more than our knowledge and some additional commentary by Commissioner Tucker that today's R & D type facilities do reflect a portion of office style occupancy in terms of the number of employees per square feet. Therefore, we do believe that providing higher than the Code compliment of parking would be necessary to support the facility over time. The second issue was related to the question of standing approvals for the project in that the particular approvals involved for exceeding the basic height limit for the existing parking structure and the existing Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) approval were based on a project that included a single tenant occupancy of the project site. I consulted with the Assistant City Attorney about whether the construction of those approvals was such that in order to be found consistent with the prior approval, most particularly the TPO approval, that the site necessarily should be occupied by a single tenant. We first went to the Zoning Code to try and discover whether the City had any authority through its Zoning regulations to impose a requirement of single tenancy, there is no such authority therein. We felt that the only existing approval that a reasonable construction between single tenancy and the project requirement could be through the TPO approval. We looked at that approval and it did not include a condition that required exclusive tenancy and again went through the ordinance to determine If there was any factor to conclude differently than our current determination that no further TPO approval is required for this project. In fact Ms. Clauson concluded that due to the construction of the TPO and the fact that it sets out thresholds to determine whether traffic studies are required and the fact that the new traffic circumstances surrounding the property didn't trigger any of the thresholds necessitating a new TPO approval, that in fact the project was consistent with the existing approval. No TPO approval was required for this project. We believe that there is no requirement under the existing approvals that the project remain in single tenancy. So long as the use characteristics of the occupancy remain the some, the City does not have the authority to compel single tenancy on the basis of prior approval. Commissioner Gifford noted that she was not present at the last meeting where this project was first discussed, however, she listened to the taped record of the meeting. She noted a few clarification issues: • Parking - the classification of industry research and development was defining and yet I presume we need to be assured that this is going to be used for industry research and development (R & D), which is 3 INDEX 1� City of Newport beach Planning Commission lNinules January 18, 2001 defined under the Code as establishments primarily engaged in the research, development and control production of high technology, electronic, industrial or scientific products or commodities for sale. I am not sure that the staff report and al the discussion seems to just say this is an R & D facility. I haven't seen any facts that appear to support why this is an R & D facility even if it is just statements from the applicant as to specifically the characteristics of the businesses that ore going in there. If someone comes in as an applicant and they have a restaurant, we know what that business looks like and we accept the fact that they say they are going to Out a restaurant there. Someone comes in and says I want to pork this as R & D because if is going to be used as R & D, for most of us that is more ephemeral, we can't recognize it as easily as we can a restaurant. I don't see anything in here that says exactly how the conclusion that this is R & D is supported. I heard on the tape the question about relating to the aspect establishments primarily engaged in, whether primarily, does it mean less than 50%, what does it mean as opposed to the ancillary use of office and -administration? With respect to those two things, I would like to get more information. Ms. Temple noted that this was and is part of the crux of the Commission's concern and questioning at the last meeting. Clearly when you are dealing with buildings that are open, leasable tenant spaces with the characterization to a particular kind of use in order to maintain consistency with prior approvals, I think the question really Is a good one and the City needs to feel comfortable with and can be assured, monitored and maintained on into the future. Because of that concern, we have attempted through conditioning, page 4 item 4 where we mode further modifications to originally proposed conditions. It is up to the City to monitor the ongoing use as to this property. That is done at several junctions of the project development and ongoing administration at the City level. When the initial tenant improvements come in, it is up to staff to look at what is being proposed and to make sure provided space is for the type of activities that one might ordinarily find in businesses that are doing product research and development and prototyping. Commissioner Gifford asked if someone is reviewing a permit to see that the .improvements and determining from looking at the building plans and improvements that it is primarily research and development, what are the characteristics of those plans and improvements that are looked for that would say, absolutely this is R & Da Ms. Temple answered that typically you find more open floor areas that have different characteristics for electrical service, maybe mechanical ventlation service, perhaps more storage areas for parts and assembly, things of that nature. I agree that it is not a simple thing; there is not a set pattem of floor area that really would be a determining factor. That is why beyond just the simple review of tenant improvement plans, there needs to be ongoing administration and look at the actual tenants themselves to determine whether 1j/6 G- City of Newport Beach Planning Cornimission Minutes January 18, 2001 they fall within the use character Commissioner Gifford asked as you look at those tenants, what characteristics are you looking for that are going to give the answer as to whether they are R & D under this defrnitlon8 Ms. Temple answered basically how we would do it is at such time a business license was requested, we would simply require all of the tenants to come to the Planning counter in order to receive information as to the types of permitted uses in the tenant spaces and to discuss with the business what the nature of their operation was. Through that discussion we con inform them as to whether they would be considered a permitted use. We would ask what the business is and would look for some type of manufacturing, product design, or product fabrication for resale. Commissioner Gifford noted that it is mainly the applicant's statement and no evidence to the contrary based on tenant improvements. Ms. Temple answered that when we deal with applicants, we have analyzed them based on how they have characterized the operation would be. I agree it is difficult in this case, but there are industrial areas that remain predominately industrial and we haven't experienced that kind of degradation to any notable degree. Ms. Garcia noted that during the plan check process, many times when staff is in doubt as to the use, will ask for a letter of operational characteristics and product information brochures, information about the company before we will approve the use. Those are scrutinized when there is a question and a lot of times the applicant if they truly are an R & D use, they will be able to supply that information, even if they are a start up company. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that the construction of Mitigation Measure No. 31 and Condition 35, represented in item 4 on page 4 of the Supplemental report has been set up to be as liberal as possible as to the permitted uses that fall within the use classification, but also as careful as we could be to ensure consistency with the prior approvals, particularly the TPO approval. It contains three components: • Refers to Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which is the MIA zoning district. There are many permitted uses within the MIA district that may not fall within the parameters of the prior approval. • Additionally, we have added a parameter that is use classification descriptions B, D and F. They are described earlier in the report as industry custom, industry limited and industry research and development, all of which we feel would contain uses that would qualify under the parameters of the existing approval. What that does is to provide a palette of permitted uses rather than creating a single use zone but dealing with all those uses that we Consider qualified under the existing approvals and to show the applicant that there are 5 INDEX ��1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 marry types of businesses that fail within this categories. It needs to be considered in conformance with the TPO approval, which is the one that sets the prior existing use as being a manufacturing and R & D type of use. It included a lot of ancillary offices in support of that principle permitted use. Hughes Aircraft did have a personnel office, accounts receivable and payable office and on administration type of office use but were part of a business that is a qualified use. The intent of that condition is intended to provide and give us the ability to enforce over time as we review not only tenant improvements but also the re -use even if a tenant improvement is not part of the request. Commissioner Gifford noted those ancillary office uses are built into the R & D parking ratio and would be part of the R & D facility. Ms. Temple agreed noting that this type of business use to be more distinctly manufacturing and industrial but the use itself as a qualified use has changed over time. There are a lot of businesses that we feel would be qualified which may have somewhat different characteristics and therefore greater occupancy. An example might be a software developer, where they don't need big rooms full of electronic equipment to do chemical experiments, but stilt in fact are developing a product to prototype and ultimately market. Therefore it would be a qualified use. Because of that, in order to make sure the project is not under parked that we probably should hold with the higher parking as provided an site and not reduce it: Commissioner Gifford noted that is what we are struggling with, how do you know when you see it. The Code isn't much help. if we have the ability to make the finding that this use is in fact an office use and not in fact an R & D use N that was the case. I have not heard enough about what they are doing there, because it Is not rented and who knows? Ms. Clouson noted to the extent you make a finding that it is an office use you have to have facts in evidence in the record that would show it is going to be an office use. We have facts that show it is going to be an R & D use from the point of view that is what the zoning authorizes. If the finding that it is going to really be an office use is based upon the fact that you don't think it is possible for any R & D use to be anything other than an office use, it is a way to make a finding that you are changing the Zoning Code. We have to work within the constraints of our Code and the way it is drafted. R the constraints of our Code are not drafted in a way to deal with the change in technology or the change in what an R & D use is, it still makes it difficult for us by this process to amend the Code to address that. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that office use is a permitted use in the MIA District, however, it would not be consistent with the General Plan or with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval. The land use designation on this property is general industry and provides for industrial uses and other use that is INDEX 0 Q 1, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 INDEX su000rtive of those uses. Commissioner Tucker noted that when you look at all of the General Plan and the Zoning text provisions, MiA allows or permits office. When I first looked at that, t thought that as long as it wasn't medical or dental there would be nothing further required. The Code says the MiA District provides areas for wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. It has that limitation on it and I think that what we are grappling with is that R & D has changed over time. Ether they put uses in that comply with the code or they don't. I donl think there is anything that we can do tonight to prejudge or pre- estobfish if the applicant uses the property in compliance with the code. That will have to be decided as it comes up. Commissioner Kran2ley noted that the MiA District allows for limited accessory. There Is some limit to the ability to have an office building there. Ms. Temple stated that what is being referred to is the intent and purpose of the MiA District. When there is some judgement involved determining the meaning and intent of that section, those are the guiding principles upon which the zoning district is based. The permitted use section lists these types of office uses as permitted uses. That probably was not an intention to just allow general office development in the district. I believe adjustment to that Zoning Code section should be made such that it is evident that those offices are permitted as ancillary or accessory to the otherwise permitted uses. A change of that nature certainly would strengthen the consistency between the Zoning District, the General Plan and the intent of the City in approving this project. The only other area that has MiA zoning is in this surrounding area on industrial Avenue and Production Place. The uses are industrial and R & D type uses. Commissioner Agoianion asked if the principle concern for this definition between R & D and office uses is an operational one related to parking or are there other issues? Commissioner Gifford answered that is the principle context in which she was bringing this up, with regards to the parking. Commissioner Agajan'wn stated that there is a condition that states that all employees of the facility shall park on site. If the ratio of parking there now eventually becomes under - supplied more parking would be required and would spill over onto the streets. Under that condition, they would be violating the Use Permit. We can address the operational issue of parking spillover with this condition and avoid the hassle of trying to define R & D and office if all we are concerned about is parking related aspect as opposed to other issues. Commissioner Gifford noted her agreement but from the applicants perspective, I think reading a definition of what constitutes R & D and what keeps that applicant in conformance with the Zoning Code would be a little kIR City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 INDEX scary because I think it is very subjective interpretation as to whether you are meeting the criteria with a particular tenant or not. 1 would like to propose that we have a discussion item to come up with some distinctions in R & D that give a Planning Director or whoever might be in a position to decide looking at building permits and applicants' statements to try to come up with criteria that might have some modernization in terms of R & D definitions. Continuing, Commissioner Gifford noted that when she looked at the site, she noticed the mature trees. I am hoping that the window material will give some degree of reflectiveness in it to mirror the view of those trees: The project people told me that staff had guided them away from anything reflective. I am assuming that is on a basis of the general concept to reduce the glare of headlights and signs that might reflect. I think that might be a nice way to enhance the landscaping that is there, but I want to hear from staff. Ms. Garcia answered that earls/ on when we discussed the design of the building, we had talked about light and glare on the site. The applicant is very sensitive to that issue as the residential areas and public streets are located close to this site. We did not guide them to any particular design pattern or materials but the applicant did keep in mind the glare issue. Public comment was opened. Carol Hoffman spoke representing the St Clair Company noting that there is a need for this type of use in the area. I know.how much you have struggled with office versus R & D, but the demand for R & D tenants is such that it is simply not going to be an issue from a leasing standpoint. The architecture of the building is defined by the color renderings of the LPA firm along with a colored elevation that attempts to provide more detail as to the landscaping on the parking structure from a standpoint of the size of the trees as well as the vines that will be placed on a large portion of the structure that does not have the openings into the parking levels. Referencing the exhibits she noted: • The building has definition with an awning and a different third floor. • Windows are slightly reflective. • The materials board depicts colors and stone to be used. Continuing, Ms. Hoffman noted that she had asked staff to bring along a copy of the Sign Program for 888 San Clemente, which is the latest office building the Irvine Company constructed and is right next to the Police Station. That Sign Program has the quality that we are all interested in modeling. It does limit the number of major tenant signs and the secondary signs that are permitted (eyebrow signs). To the extent that we can craft something similar, we would be happy to do that If you wish. The water quality is a concern and commitment of the St. Clair Company. The condition language allows for the flexibility of doing the best solution, whether fossil filter or something else. Referring to.the exhibit she explained the site drainage. We looked at whether or not there was an opportunity to do a detention basin, but the combination of the elevation, the existing grade, slope and parking ore such that to create Ir City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 113, 2001 a retention basin large enough to carry the volume on the basis of our preliminary analysis did not appear to be feasible. We recognize the interest in that being a solution but we are anxious to work with staff in the final designs and we are subject to the approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The parking structure is at one corner of the property and we recognize that it Is perhaps not as convenient to some of the buildings. That is why we are providing these parking bays more convenient to each of the buildings. Because of the complaints of area parking and the spillover by other uses, we wanted to make sure that this properly was not guilty of that. Lastly, with the evolution of R & D uses, the kinds of tenants we are looking at, this parking ratio is much closer to what the real demand is for those kinds of uses. A combination of all those things is reflective of the parking that is being provided even though we have added only about 100 spaces to what is existing there today. The reconfiguration, the design and the relationship between the parking and the buildings all result in that which is being provided. We look forward to a favorable resolution of this issue tonight. Commissioner Kranzley noted that he had spoken to the applicant's representative earlier regarding the issues we hove talked about, the issue of how to define this as an office or an R & D use. As long as we have some type of condition that limits the impact of whatever is there, the applicant made some proposals to my concerns. The first condition is that the project shall be limited to 5,214 average daily trips consistent with the previous approval for Hughes. The second condition is that the project shall be limited to a maximum of 1,965 employees, consistent with the previous approval far Hughes. I understand it is a nightmare for Code Enforcement, however, if we have issues in the surrounding areas with overflow parking or traffic, we at least have two clear-cut conditions that we can point to and call up this Use Permit, with the Hughes Aircraft Company, the assumptions were based on three shifts; however, this is based on all arriving at one time. Ms. Hoffman noted that the analysis that was done under the TPO has given us the limit on the number of trips that can be generated in the peak hour. To the extent that the owner was able to attract a tenant who did work on shifts, we would like the flexibility of being able to live within the previous average daily trip generation factor as long as we did not exceed the peak hour. That is the reason why we chose the figure from the previous approval since what you are really asking was how to make sure we were not going to exceed that which had been previously operating. Commissioner Kranziey agreed noting that under the TPO for instance, they leased out all their space and it is one shift. We allow for 1,965 employees and 5,214 average daily trips. They all came in one shift, what would the impact the TPO have on issues where the project is generating more than the study and more than the use peak hour trips? Ms. Temple answered that the project actually generates substantially less daily trips, which is the first TPO threshold of determining whether a traffic study is M City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18. 2001 required pursuant to the ordinance. The CEQA traffic work did find that because it was not a shift operation and not a single tenant who could control the hour at which the larger segment of employees would arrive and depart that the conventional peak hour traffic attributable to R & D was appropriate. The project has more peak hour trips than identified in the previous analysis, however, since it didn't trigger the threshold for a TPO report, we did analyze the impact of that change in the CEQA analysis and used TPO methodology to detemdne whether that would result in a significant effect and found that it did not. We felt that because the TPO analysis was not required, it did not increase the traffic In the area by more than 300 average daily trips, which is the first screening threshold. Even though analyzing the increase in trips, it did not trigger any TPO significant type effect, we could find it consistent with the TPO and did not create any significant environmental effect and make the Negative Declaration valid. Commissioner Kranbey noted that if I propose a condition and it is approved that we allow 5,214 daily trips, would we hove a problem since these would be all in one shift? Ms. Temple noted that if you have that many doily trips attributable in a single shift, then I think there could be a problem. A reason for the limitation in the original approval was for the adequacy of the proposed parking. Ms. Hoffman noted that if you did not exceed the number of trips allowed for Hughes previously, you might want to consider adding language that you can go up to the 5214 as long as you don't exceed the TPO peak hour of this particular use. We are required to comply with the TPO and this states what we are required to do. Ms. Temple stated this would be an enforcement problem. Either the City would have to proactively hire some consultant to go out and do both daft' and peak hour driveway counts on some annual basis or the applicant would have to submit such data prepared by a qualified professional. Once again. we would be relying on the applicant for the accuracy of the data. It is something of a monitoring issue. Commissioner Kronzfey noted it this condition combined with the other conditions with the review process as you are reviewing the business licenses, etc., I understand it is a monitoring nightmare, no matter what we do there is uncertainty here. I am trying to get to defined point that we can point to and say you are in violation of this condition in the Use Permit. At 1965 employees there was only 1536 on the first shift the rest were on the other shifts. I want to mirror the impacts of Hughes and I don't want to make it worst. I am struggling with micro-managing your business, but on the other hand, 1 want to make sure we have ways of shutting down a business that is negatively impacting the community. Commissioner Tucker stated that the Use Permit before us has to do with design 10 INDEK ' `61 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 features, and now we are trying to attach conditions that have to do with operational characteristics. Do we have a nexus type of problem here; do we have any ability to do any of these things that the applicant seems to be willing to consider? Ms. Wood answered that the nexus is through the TPO rather than the Zoning Ordinance because this is a development that is not doing a new traffic study, not getting a new TPO approval. It is trying to stay within that and your concerns about traffic, parking and occupancy of the building hove to do with staying within the TPO approval. Ms. Temple added that the TPO approval is its own entity and if the project became something other than what was approved pursuant to the TPO, the City would be within its rights to either conduct enforcement of that approval or to require new approvals. If it were to become 100% office accidentally because staff did not do a good Job, that would be more than 300 additional trips beyond the existing approval. You couldn't approve that because you could not make the finding of General Plan consistency. Therefore, they would need to come back for a General Plan Amendment and probably a Zoning Amendment. Commissioner Tucker noted that the use either complies with what the property is in general planned and zoned for or it does not. It may be a challenge trying to figure out exactly what that compliance is, but I don't see how that can be pre- conditioned now. The applicant has heard us discuss this for two meetings, they understand the risks of coming in and getting on R & D project approved and then building and leasing an office project. I am not sure what else we can do. Commissioner Kronzley asked that if we don't have any of these conditions about head count, or average trip generation, the TPO in essence provides protection prospectively as well? If we start seeing problems there and generating more average trips than greater than 300 average trips, the permit can be called up for review. Ms. Clauson noted that Commissioner Tucker's issue is that this is a Use Permit for height and so there are certain findings that have to be made by the Commission for that. There are also provisions of the City's TPO that talk about that no permit shall be issued except under certain circumstances. If you go by the City's code, we are meeting the TPO. then If this project meets the TPO then the permit can be issued. Staffs point is that the R & D designation, the conditions limiting to specific R & D uses within that R & D designation is what the TPO is based upon. The nexus still goes back to the TPO and that is the only connection that I think you have to condition your approval on. Other then that, the height or the use, I agree that there isn't any condition. Continuing, Ms. Clauson added that there is a Use Permit for height and then there is a requirement for an environmental document that has mitigation 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission iVlinutes January A 20D1 measures. These mitigation measures are incorporated into the project approvals, as they need to be. That is one nexus or requirement and then again, the TPO. Staffs concern is that under the provisions of the TPO that we're adopting these conditions to make the project look like the approvals that look like the traffic that is being generated by that study. The problem is the some kind of issue that the Planning Commission grapples with all the time. How do we know this restaurant is not going to turn into a bar? How do we know this office building is not going to turn into medical office? We have our Code Enforcement Issues and we can always look at our ordinances and update and require maybe floor plans in the future, but we hove what we have now to work with and that is all we can enforce. At Commission inquiry, Ms Clauson added that there are provisions in the Use Permit for looking into the design of the project. You can make a nexus. Ms. Temple added that the other Use Permit for this property was for the height in relation to the parking structure. That approval remains in place. The TPO approval was for the increased square footage at the same time the parking structure was approved. They are reconstructing that square footage so the TPO approval still remains relevant and enforceable. The prior approvals were used as the basis of this analysis. Commissioner Kranaiey asked if we do the findings regarding the TPO and it doesn't trip any of the issues then when the project is burst out whether it is this one or another one, but does not act the way the applicant proposed or the TPO proposed, does the TPO gives us any recourse? Ms. Ckauson answered no it does not. The TPO is not done for the purposes of conditioning projects. It is done for the purpose of analyzing the traffic impacts of the projects. If we have a situation where staff comes to us and says we have all kinds of problems with parking, traffic then we are going to have to kook at what the tenants are and if we find 100% or nothing but office tenants that do not qualify then we are going to court. We would ask for an injunction to keep them from leasing outside of the zoning as they are in violation of the zoning approvals. The zoning in this permit has limited their use to certain types of uses and that is the only use they can have in there. Ms. Temple added that when we approve a project pursuant to the TPO, we do not set a Condition that thou shall monitor and assure that you don't create any more daily trips or peak hour trips as analyzed in the traffic study. We simply say you have to stay a use as categorized by ITE or SANDAG, etc. use characteristics under which we analyzed your project. If a use change comes about at a later point in time for instance a retail space wants to become a restaurant, then we compare the two use rates, look at the thresholds for requiring a new traffic study and determine whether a new report is required. That is why we set that it has to be uses that qualify and are considered similar for traffic generating purposes to the existing approval in order to determine consistency. 12 INDEX f City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes INDEX Commissioner Tucker noted that therein lies the problem. We have a parking ratio of 2 per 1,000; traffic features that cue industrial, on average; and we know that neither of those things is how the property is really going to operate. Under the TPO the traffic engineer tells the applicant here is how you study this project. If It doesn't trip the TPO, it is not an issue based on the zoning that is there. We have a code versus operational inconsistency and we need to sort out these details. I don't think we have everything that we need in our Codes today to have that internal consistency. It is not the appl'icant's fault; they are playing by the rules. We know what this thing is likely to be, yet we are studying it based upon what the Code says it is today even though we know that use is not likely. Commissioner Gifford asked if we put a condition limiting the number of employees in the use permit and that condition was violated, would the remedy be to go to court to make them take off the excess height? Ms. Clauson answered that the remedy would be to enforce the conditions of the approval. We can not make them take away the excess height. The number of employees would be difficult to establish. I would have a hard time to do an investigation to go into court and say that they have this many employees. We would have to bring all of the businesses and tenants and document payroll records. I would rather look at the type of businesses that are operating in there. The permit stays in effect, it is not to take away the use permit, just to limit the number of employees. Commissioner Kranzley asked the appricanfs spokesperson if they would be willing to accept a condition that firnits the number of employees to 1965 with a maximum of 1536 on any one given shift? Ms. Hoffman answered that extended hours of operation would allow for traffic to be dispersed differently than what might have occurred under shifts. For example, a lot of these hi-tech firms may start at 7 in the morning and go through 3 in the afternoon. Is that a shift in your mind; it is not quite the some as having 3 eight hour shifts that do not participate at all in the peak hours. It seems to have as strict a condition over that one period might be more limiting than is necessary pursuant to the traffic limitations. In terms of the nexus between some of those conditions, If all we did was come In and ask for a building permit and ask for the square footage we would be allowed without that additional height, a lot of those conditions would be established and made pertinent to this project as part of the building permit. These conditions are listed here rather than have them just on a plan check at such time when we come in. With regard to the rest of it, there are R & D uses all over the County. Good people like the Irvine Company and others are leasing those buildings, they are operating and are kept that way. This company comes in and says we recognize that is what the zoning Is and we are willing to live with that. We are going to have leasing plans that deal that way and work with brokers to look for R & D uses. In R & D uses, consistent with what happened in 13 l�� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 Hughes, there was a 55% office related to R & D and a 45% that was a more technical manufacturing, assembly, fabrication. Some of the discussion that talks about if there is going to be office here is purely academic because frankly, there is office for this part of that. You can't have R & D without human resources and all those other elements of running a business. Yes, there will be office elements just as there were previously as listed in the staff report on page 5. Commissioner Kiser asked if you could give us an idea of what an R & D tenant is today; what are the types of uses; how large would you expect these companies to be. how many employees and what do you foresee as a mix of office and R & D type manufacturing space? Mark Barker noted that the R & D tenant of today is different than the ones in the past. There is no typical tenant out there, it is the tenants we hope we are lucky enough to attract and hoping to get similar ones to those in University Research Park. Those tenants are more office tenants as more research and development happens on computers today. However, they are still qualifying R & D uses. If we were getting an approval for an office, we would not be limiting it to 4 employees to 1,000 square feet as a maximum. if we bring in an R & D tenant and It is going to put us over, I don't think we should be held responsible and not be allowed to have the occupancy. We are responsible developers. Commissioner Kiser asked for an idea of what kinds of tenants are expected for these buildings? Will a tenant occupy an entire floor, two floors or an entire building? Are we expecting to have 18 - 20 tenants in one building? Should we expect that today R & D means someone in a cubicle on a computer developing software? I would like to get an understanding. Mr. Barker answered that your guess is as good as mine. R & D tenants are not typical. Ms. Hoffman added that there are companies that come in using computers to figure out new products, whether it is new software or hardware. There are companies that may be looking at a new car wash product doing testing with chemicals, bio- medical types of looking at data and developing cancer testing. It is the ability to test for some ways in which cancer patients can give their own medication and how is that packaged and develop the information doctors can give to the patients. It runs the whole gamut; some things are done on computers, some in test tubes, in cubicles, in a collaborative setting and/or done on an individual basis. Mr. Barker added that we do not have any information or statistics. We are hoping to have no more than two tenants per floor In any one given building. We would like one tenant to take the whole park; but the reality Is one tenant would have more bodies than multi tenants. You would add a multi tenant corridor that uses up useable square footage. INDEX 14 �� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 Public comment was closed. Chairperson Sekch asked staff If this project in your opinion are you convinced it will not create outside of the additional 163 peak hour trips that it has than what the existing approved facilities will do? Are you confident that you can keep it occupied in that fashion? Ms. Temple noted that in terms of additional impacts of CEQA level of significance it could be different, but I believe it will fan within the parameters of what had been there historically. Yes, I am confident that we can keep it occupied in that fashion. Mr. Edmonton answered that if it is occupied in the fashion that we have been told it would be and based the analysis on, I am confident that it will not create any significant impact from traffic over what is there now assuming it was occupied. Chairperson Sel ch added that 1 have obviously gone into this in depth by all the questions that I have asked. I come to the some conclusions that Commissioner Tucker has that we have some things that we need to deal with in our R & D regulations. We don't need to burden this applicant with them. I am satisfied with the conditions that staff has put forth, the only thing I would like to see is the landscape plan come back to the Planning Commission for review. Motion was mode by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Use Permit No. 3679 and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration with the additional conditions: • that the project shall be limited to a maximum of 1965 employees • that the landscape plan comes back to the Planning Commission for review • Condition 16 that talks about on site retention or low flow diversion is changed to add language that if fossil filters is what ends up being finally approved by the Public Works Department, that the filters are subject to a yearly maintenance requirement. • Condition 5 shall be revised to say that all employees and visitors to the facility shall park on site. • Add that the signoge program as well as the landscaping plan come back for approval. Ms. Temple noted that the Sign Program approval is on actual condition approval normally dealt with by the Modifications Committee. Ms. Hoffman, speaking for the applicant accepted the conditions as proposed. She asked for specifics to be included with the landscape plan. INDEK Chairperson SeGch answered that you should get with staff and take a look at the plan that the Lange Homes did on the Shores Apartment. It was an 15 n l� 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 INDEX excellent plan and accepted unanimously. It shows plant sizes and particulars. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajantan, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes. None Absent: None . EXIiIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3677 Mitigated Negative Declaration Fincrinas i. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared In compliance with the Environmental Quality Act jCEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. 2. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analyse set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 4. No cumulative Impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. r f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shah submit plans to, and obtain the approval of exterior fighting plans from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Exterior fighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal right sources and to minimize right spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer acceptable to the City. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the fighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the 16 l� IN City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18. 2001 building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shat schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of right and glare specified by this condition of approval. Particular attention shall be given to the light spillage and glare in the parking lot located on the south side of the property adjacent to Dana Road and the residential areas. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shag submit plans to the Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and solid waste disposal areas will be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties. 3. All grading activities shall comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. 4. Construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods include the following: a.) Use of low - emission construction equipment b.) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c.) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d.) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines e.) Use of low- sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment E) Use of on -site power instead of portable generators g.) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference 5. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to reduce odors from construction activities. 6. Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.12 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur, fuel for stationary construction equipment. 7. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment. An air quality analysis shall be conducted for the proposed mechanical equipment that identifies any additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment. 8. The project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient design regulations as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements 17 ,� 1 /, - K City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 The project shall comply with the vehicular trip reduction requirements of AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.64). 10. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to Inspect the underlying sod for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the outhority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. 11. In the event that significant archaeological remays are uncovered during excavation and /or grading, all work shad stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shod be the responsibility of the landowner and /or developer. 12. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shad waive provisions of AB952 related to the City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 13. All earthworks shall comply with the requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Sec. 15.04.140) and the City of Newport Beach Grading Manual. Requirements for grading plans and specifications will be established by the Budding Department. and may include the following: • Soil engineering report • Engineering geology report • Surface and subsurface drainage devices • Erosion, sediment and pollution control plans • Haul route plan for transport of earth material • Landscaping and inigation plans 14. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and over - watering. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach General Services. Public Works, and Planning Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in conformonce with the approved plan. 15. Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur prior to the completion of the remediation as determined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 16. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the applicant shall ensure that the identified hazardous 18 lqb City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18. 2001 waste and /or hazardous materials are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services and office of Statewide Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the Cafffomia Administrative Code, Title 30. 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach demonstrating that its Hazardous Materials and Waste management Plan and its Infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the applicant has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency. 18. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutants from the site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, material use, structure construction and painting, paving operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste management, and hazardous waste management. The SWPPP is subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a SWPPP shall be provided to The City of Newport Beach for approval. 20. The applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) general permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and implementation of best management practices (SMPS), implementation of erosion control measures, monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. 21. The applicant shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m_ on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shah, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides In the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. 0 ,�t City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes 22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that noise levels associated with all existing and proposed mechanical equipment is mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. 23. All construction equipment fixed or mobile, shall be maintained in proper operating condition with noise mufflers. 24. Vehicle staging areas shall be located away from the area adjacent to the convalescent facilities at Dana Road and Newport Boulevard. 25. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. 26. All equipment installed for all uses on site shall be screened from view and noise associated with the use of the equipment shall be attenuated as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be based on the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 27. The applicant shah submit a construction traffic control pion and identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e.. flagmen, signage, etc). This plan shop consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 28. The applicant shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform to Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code_ Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. B. Use Permit No. 3679: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "General Industry" commercial use, and a research and development facility is permitted within this designation. 2. The proposed height of the two new research and development buildings is appropriate in this case, and meets the intent of Section 20.65.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because: The increased building height results in a reduction in site coverage and more public visual open space between buildings. 20 4 Ot City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes INDEX • Increased ground cover and landscaping throughout the site will soften and partially screen the buildings along Superior Avenue. • By constructing separate buildings, instead of one large buffing, as currently exists on the site,, the buldings provide greater architectural articulation. • The new location of Building 1 provides a more Interesting project as viewed from the public streets, rather than viewing on open parking lot. • The increased building height results in more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character since the building is in scale and balance with massing and height of the existing structures on the property, particularly when considered in relation to the size of the parcel. • The glass mullion system design breaks up the fagade of the buildings to create buildings that appear less bulky. • The new buildings are in scale with the commercial buildings in the vicinity and are in scale with the existing parking structure. • Because the new buildings are of similar size and proportion. abrupt scale relationships are not created by the additional height of the two new buildings. • The proposed design of the buildings includes both vertical and horizontal articulation, which breaks up the building mass. • The increased building height will not result in more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit and redesigning the buildings to the basic height limit would result in changes to the building mass articulation and architectural style of the buildings that would be more bulky, or the overall building footprint would potentially increase and many of the benefits of the open areas between buildings would be lost. • The proposed project represents an aesthetic improvement on the site. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3679 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working In the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements In the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further, the use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Therefore, the increase in height for the proposed project will not be detrimental to surrounding properties for the following reasons: The construction of the two new buildings is a reuse of existing square footage that is being demolished on the site. There is no Increase in square footage, rather a slight reduction in the overall square footage of the site. The proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code 21 1C�*> City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 with the exception of height. Adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed uses. • 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. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation on the site is being provided with the proposed project. No significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project. Conditions of Aporoval: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. A minimum of 1,421 parking spaces shall be provided on site. The Planning Director may authorize a reduced amount based on the City Traffic Engineer's review of the on -site parking striping plan. 3. A detailed parking plan shall be submitted for approval by the Traffic Engineer. The plan shall show all surface and parking structure spaces. The plan will reduce the number of compact parking spaces to the extent feasible. Disabled parking spaces shall conform to current standards. 4. Construction workers shall park their vehicles and all equipment on site at all times. 5. All employees and visrTors to the facNity shall park on site. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Building Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. 7. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicant shag provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project. 8. Plans for the existing buildings and proposed buildings shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to ensure adequate fire prevention and fire suppression systems are provided. 9. All deliveries and storage shall be restricted to the site and shall not utilize any public rights -of -way. T0. Intersections of the private drives and Superior Avenue shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, 22 0A .�J City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 landscape, walls, and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight lire shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 11. Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all pubic utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 12. The drive approaches along Superior Avenue shall be reconstructed to meet handicap standards and any displaced or deteriorated sections of curb, gutter or sidewalk along the Superior Avenue and Dana Road frontages shall be replaced, all under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 13. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. . 14. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall conduct site hydrological analyses to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additional facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments for approval. 15. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical /hydrologic study (Including groundwater data) to the City of Newport Beach Buikiing and Pubic Works Departments. The study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program subdrdn system if deemed necessary by the Building Department based on the design and elevation of the foundation structures. 16. On -site retention or low flow diversion into the sanitary sewer system, OF a fossil Offer system, or other system of equal effectiveness designed to filter and clean on -site drainage to meet water quality standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the NPDES requirements shall be provided for all on-site drainage in order to minimize the amount of pollutants transmitted to the Newport Bay and shall be approved by the Public Works, General Services and Building Departments. N a fossil fi fer system Is what the Public Works Department chooses, then the filters shall be subject to a yearly maintenance program. 17. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction 23 f City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 schedule. Prior to occupancy of the buildings, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 18. The landscape plan shall be subject to the approval of the General Services Department, the Planning Department, and the Public Works Department. The plans shall include a berm along the Superior Avenue street frontage; the utiliaotion of existing trees on both the Superior Avenue and Dana Road street frontages, with any replacement trees to be a minimum of 24 inch boxed trees; ground cover and shrubs shall be planted along Superior Avenue and Dana Road street frontages to fill in the areas between the existing and proposed trees. 19. The landscaping shall be regularty maintained and shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 20. The landscape plan shall include the slope area along Newport Boulevard located on the subject property, which shall be modified to include drought -resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 21. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Deportment. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. 22. The facility shall be limited to a maximum of 1,965 employees on site at any one time. 23. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review by the Planning Commission. 24. The applicant shall submit a sign program for the site, to be reviewed by Me Planning Commission. Standard Requirements 25. The project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, including State Disabled Access, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. INDEX 26. All mechanical equipment, including roof -top mechanical equipment, shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with the building materials and noise associated with the equipment shall be sound 24 �� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 INDEX attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance. 27. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 28. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 29. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 30. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 31. Each building shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Pubric Works Department and the Building Department. 32. 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. The applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Public Works Department for the removal of all construction materials, excavated dirt and debris from the site. 33. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 34. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 35. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and related structures shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 32. Prior to the issuance of building penrats, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. 33. The Planning Commission may add to 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 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2001 INDEX 34. 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. 35. The Planning director shall review all building plans and future tenant improvement plans and shall make a finding that the tenant occupancy is a use that is consistent with Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and as further defined in Section 20.05.060 (B), (D), and (F) and that commercial and office uses are ancillary and accessory to the research and development uses, and the project is in conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance approval." The proposed use of the site shall remain a research and development use with ancillary commercial and office use, as defined by Section 2D.05 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 36. The mitigation measures identified in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of Use Permit No. 3679, are required as part of and incorporated herein as a condition of approval and shall be implemented and completed prior to final occupancy of any building for the proposed use. O Additional Business a.J C ty Council Follow-up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported t on January 9th, the Council referred the Fluter Mined Project back to the inning Commission for review the Naval residence was approved: the Ba a Inn expansion was approved with an amendment; the Starbucks 1 was continued to January 23rd as well as the signs for Jiffy Lube. b.) Oral report from PI ing Commission's representative to the Economic Development Commi - Chairperson Sellch reported that the IDC is continuing to meet to revs projects. The energy crisis was discussed at the last meeting and the co ittee may be coming up with some ideas to be presented to the City ounaT. The EDC has moved the Development Plan Ordinance towards the Planning Commission that will be brought for consideration in ruary. c.J Oral report on status of Newport Center neral and Specific Plan program - a brief commentary was given the Banning Ranch regarding resources being finalized for their land use n. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would Ike staff to rt on at a subsequent meeting - update the Planning Commission o he Santa Ana River Crossing Study; a presentation on the Hoag Hospital east addition -and seismic updating for the existing towers is scheduled ring 26 q u J f Exhibit No. 3 ,90 ` �eW CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: January 4, 2001 C(` • PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Eugenia Garcia �•� „�,,.•' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926SO 644 -3208 (949) 644 - 3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Newport Technology Center (Mark Barkerfor The St. Clair Company, applicant) 500 Superior Avenue SUMMARY: A use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing research and development site and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration. The project will include: • Demolition of 208,926 sq.-ft. of the existing 416,499 sq. ft. • Remodel of two existing buildings totaling 214,210 sq. ft. • Reconstruction of 201,283 sq. ft. for a total of 415,493 sq. ft. of research and development use. APPLICATION: • Use Permit No. 3679 Negative Declaration Staff is providing responses to questions raised by members of the Commission and suggested changes and clarificationsto staffs report for the project. The following questions were received in writing from Commissioner Selich and staff's response follows: A. General 1. Overall my greatest concern is that the proposed project not create any greater impact than the existing approved Hughes Facility does through its approved use permit. If the proposed project creates any additional impact over the Hughes project or over What it could do as a ministerial project Without a use permit then I would want to see a project that is demonstrably superior to the existing Hughesfacility. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment as demonstrated by the traffic analysis, the adequacy of the parking, and the findings for the approval of the use permit. Absent the request for additional height, the project with the proposed uses and parking provided could proceed with no City discretionary review. B. Land Use t 1. How is uselinairedtoR &D? All- A_oningregulo6onspermitmany uses.......... Because the original traffic study assumed the R & D use traffic generation factors, the R & D is the basis for the TPO approval. Any change to a greater traffic generating use would require a new TPO analysis. Therefore, office uses that are not ancillary or accessory to the R & D uses are not permitted. Additionally, all construction plans and tenant improvements will be reviewed to assure the project does not become predominantly offices. Staff will also monitor business licenses to insure compliance with this limitation. 2. Why are we not limiting maxim um number ofemployees ... (1,536DayShift). The employee limit was possible with a single employer and was specifically related to availability of on -site parking as provided. A condition of this nature is difficult to monitor for multiple tenants. Additionally, the prior limitation reflects an approximate 4 employees per 1,000 sq. ft., which is typical of most business establishments. 3. Why are we not Iimitingratio of office to manufacturing ............. In the R & D classification, for either zoning or traffic generation purposes, there is no set percentage of the ratio between manufacturing and office floor area. However, both allow R & D uses to include ancillary and accessory office use. 3. If St. Clair desired to use the existingfacilityas it presentlyexis is ................. There is no use limitation with the existing use permit as it was required for additional height only. No discretionary action is required for the square footage proposed. The primary limitations to use are founded in the Traffic Study approval where the trip rates reflected the R & D use. Additionally, the parking requirements and employee limits would stay in effect .0 Parking I. In 1997, the parking ratio for R d D teas ............... at 1 spoce per 500 sq. ft. How much was assumed to be office .............. One space per 500 sq. ft. is from a standard parking manual and no specific ratio of office to laboratory, fabrication or warehousing was assumed How does this relate to the current 11500 sq, ft. standard ................... The parking standard in effect at the time of the prior use permit approval was 3 /100 for R & D use. A higher parking standard was imposed (1/225 for administrative use) because of a concern at the time that the parking standard was inadequate. Despite those concerns, new standards were adopted by the City in 1997 (2/1000). Using any of these calculations, the project exceeds the Code requirement and staff feel s that the parking is adequate. 2. Rhy are all the compact car spaces not being removed .................. The City Traffic Engineer is requiring a new striping plan (see Condition No. 3 of the use permit) for the purpose of reducing to the extent feasible, the number of compact parking spaces currently on -site. The applicant has indicated a willingness to eliminate surface compact uapplicmiona P%U 1 Page 2 l parking spaces but the reduction of compact spaces in the parking structure may be limited due to its structural design. 3. Doesn't the 590 space surplus equate to additional potential square footage for office space....... As stated in B -I above, the project must conform to uses as analyzed in the TPO approval. Any intensificationof trip generating uses would require a new TPO analysis. D. Traffic 1. FT by not adjust or limit use so peak AM and PM traffic does not exceed the Hughes......... impact... This is a use permit to allow increased building height and the use itself does not require discretionary approval. A new TPO study was not required because the first TPO study threshold was not exceeded (did not add 300 ADT)_'.Since the CEQA traffic analysis did not show an impact, there is no nexus for imposing such a condition. The following are additional staff clarifications and recommendationsto the staff report: 1. On page 18, item number 10 in the listed attachments should be corrected as follows: "Traffic Analysis, Piradeh Associates, dated December 6, 2000 and December 20, 2000. Both Traffic Studies were included in the attachments, although the correct dates were omitted from the fist on page 18. 2. On page 22, delete Conditions 15 and 17 due to the receipt of a letter, dated 1/4/01, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board notifying the City of their oversight of the on -going remediation of the soil and groundwater on the subject property. See attached letter. 3. On page 22, Condition No. I6 should be amended to read: "Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur prior to the completion of the remediation as derermined by the Regional N -,ater Quality Control Board" 4. On page 24, Mitigation Measure No. 31 should be moved to the Use Permit conditions as Condition No. 35, and corrected and amended to read: "The Planning Director shall review all building plans and future tenant improvemeniplans and shall make a finding that the project is consistent with Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, that commercial and office uses are ancillary and accessory to the research and development uses, and the project is in conformance with the Traffic Phasing n aappfi efiow Page 3 Ordinance approval. " This change will clarify the permitted uses for the site and cite the appropriate section of the Code. S. On page 27, Condition No. 16 should be clarified to read: "On -site retention or low flow diversion into the sanitary sewer system shall be provided for all on -site drainage in order to minimize the amount of pollutants transmitted to the Newport Bay unless otherwise approved by the Public Works and Building Departments." Because there are a variety of methods in which to meet, this requirement; this allow the applicant and the City and opportunity to utilize the most effective solution. 6. On page 27, Condition No. 20 should be clarified to read: "The landscape plan shall include the slope area along Newport Boulevard located on the subject property, which shall be modified to include drought - resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoffand over- watering. " The majority of the slope are is owned by Cal Trans and a small portion of the slope area is located on the subject property. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Prepared by: EUGENIA GARCIA, AICP Associate Planner J mappilcMiolm Page 4 t .ent By: Land Development & Management; 949 721 g464; Jan -4 -01 11:57AM; Page 2/3 Comments and Questions On St Claire Project A. General Overall my greatest concern is that the proposed project not create any greater impact than the existing approved Hughes Facility does through its approved use permit. If the proposed project creates any additional impact over the Hughes project or over what it could do as a ministerial project without a use permit then I would want to see a project that is demonstrably superior to the existing Hughes facility. B. Land Use 1. How is use limited to R&D? M1 -A zoning regulations permit many uses, including Office and Professional (excluding medical and dental) without discretionary approval. Without limitations in conditions could not any office use permitted under M1 -A be established be established without discretionary review (except medical and dental)? 2. Why are we not limiting maximum number of employees at any one time as in the existing permit for Hughes Aircraft Facility? (1536 Day Shift) 3. Why are we not limiting ratio of office to manufacturing as the existing permit does? (55% Manufacturing, 45% Office) 4. If St Claire desired to use the existing facility as it presently exists would they have to adhere to all requirements of the Hughes Use Permit or could they abandon that use permit and establish multi tenant uses with each subject to ministerial or discretionary approval as appropriate under M1 -A zoning? If they can establish multi tenant uses outside the Hughes Permit what is the parking and traffic impact compared to the existing use and proposed project? C. Parking 1. In 1997 the parking ratio for R &D was established at 1 space per 500 sq. ft. <-- How much was assumed to be office in arriving at this. Logic seems to dictate that 25% is office space. Example for 10,000 sq, ft.: 10,000/500 = 20 7,5001750 (Industry Limited) = 10 2.5001250 (Office) = 10 10 +10 x 20 Is 25% the ratio? If so• how do you limit that 25% ratio or whatever the ratio i is? J�- .ent By: Land Development & Management; 949 721 9464; Jan -4 -01 11:57AM; Page 3/3 .. Also, I am having trouble reconciling this with page 5 and 14 of the staff report where it states that parking requirement is 1 space for every 225 sq. ft. (4.4x1000 sq. ft.) for office and 3 spaces per thousand sq. ft. for Assembly and testing. If you take 55% of 416,000 sq. ft (existing rounded off) you get 228.800 sq. ft. = 4.411000 x 229 = 1008 spaces required for office and 45% = 187,200 sq. ft. = 311000 x 187 = 561 spaces required for assembly and testing. This totals 1569 spaces but only 1206 were required and only 1338 were provided (the staff report is confusing to me on how many were actually provided with the last modification to the use permit). How does this relate to the current 11500 sq. ft. standard? How did we go from 55% office to an apparent 25% office? 2. Why are all the compact car spaces not being removed when there are 590 surplus spaces over R &D? (1421- 831 =590) . 3. Doesn't the 590 space surplus equate to additional potential square footage for office space? Worst case example - 416,000 sq. ft- and 1421 parking spaces: 294.500 sq. ft. Office at 411 DOO = 1178 spaces 121,500 sq. ft. R &D at 211000 = 243 spaces 416,000 sq. ft. total 1421 spaces total D. Traffic 1. Why not adjust or limit use so peak AM & PM traffic does not exceed the Hughes Aircraft Co facility impact? In other words adjust or regulate the uses so the 229 AM trip and 163 PM trip excesses over the Hughes Facility impact are eliminated. EDS 01 -04 -01 k� ab�) CITY OF NEW PORT BEACH Bearing Date: January 4, 2001 P1A1%NFr4c DEPARTMEW Agenda Item: 5 y &V9 WEWPOa.TR0U FVARD Staff Person: Eugenia Garcia tU NE"TOPT BLUR C& 9'60 (949) 644 -3208 (s+9) 6w-s1• fAX ("0 W+ -sus" APpeaI Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Newport Technology Center (Mark Barker for The St. Clair Company, applicant) 500 Superior Avenue SUMMARY: A use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing research and development site and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration. The project will include: • Demolition of 208,926 sq. R. of the existing 416,499 sq. fi. • Remodel of two existing buildings totaling 214,210 sq. R. • Reconstructionof 201,283 sq. R. for a total of 415,493 sq. R. of research and development use. ACTION: Approve, modify, or deny: • Use Permit No. 3679 • Negative Declaration LEGAL Portion of Lot 169, Block 2, Irvine's Subdivision DESCRIPTION: ZONING: M -1 -A (Manufacturing ,Industrial) /GencralIndustry OWNER: The St. Clair Company, Newport Beach POINTS AND AUTHORITY • Conformance with the General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "General Industry" uses. This land use category has been applied to areas which are predominantly used for research and development, manufacturing and professional services. Permitted uses include manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, wholesale sales, professional service offices, service retail and restaurants. The proposed project is consistent with this land use category. , r a • Environmental & moliance (CalifomiaErrvironmentalth 'tvAct) A Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection the application. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. The analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies thirty -one mitigation measures that will mitigate any potential impact to the environmentto a less than significant level. It is the intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. The Negative Declaration 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 attached to this report and are also available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department. • Use Permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code. 500 Su*w, Up 3679 �b January 4. 2001 Page 2 t r .ti•i�f 0 200 Feet l#436 VICINITY MAP 1 ub•ect Property d Surrounding Land Uses I nill- Current Development: Former Hughes Arcrafi/ RaytheonResearch and Developmentfacility To the north: City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard To the east III IV Mow To the south: Across Dana Road are a residential condominium project, apartrnents,andaconvalescent facility. To the west: Across Superior Avenue are the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center, the Harbor Homes Trailer Park, and the Superior Medical Center. ........... . � xM .� ii...♦ •.♦ • lix > nx dP 0 200 Feet l#436 VICINITY MAP 1 ub•ect Property d Surrounding Land Uses I nill- Current Development: Former Hughes Arcrafi/ RaytheonResearch and Developmentfacility To the north: City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard To the east Landscaped slope and Newport Boulevard To the south: Across Dana Road are a residential condominium project, apartrnents,andaconvalescent facility. To the west: Across Superior Avenue are the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center, the Harbor Homes Trailer Park, and the Superior Medical Center. $00 Superior, Up 3679 �lb� ranuwy 4.2001 d+ Page 3 BACKGROUND City Building Department records indicate that the original buildings on the site, Buildings "A," "B," and "C," were constructed in 1958 and 1959. The property was owned and occupied by the Hughes Aircraft Company, which operated as Hughes Aircraft Company Solid State Products Division, specializing in electronic testing, and assembly of hybrid components and administrative activities. The facility operated 24 hours with three work shifts. On June 17, 1965, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1141 to install a helipad on the subject property. On February 20, 1975, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. I748 to permit the installation of a gasoline pump island and underground gasoline storage tanks within the existing parking lot in front of the Hughes Aircraft Company. On January 20, 1977, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1810 to permit the temporary use of a relocatable building as an office facility. One of the Commission's primary concerns with the request for additional office space on the site was that no additional staffing be added to the day shift because of the traffic congestion in the Hughes parking lot and on the adjoining streets. However, the parking situation was improved with the paving of a previously dirt lot and restriping to increase the parking spaces from 859 to 1,090 spaces. At that time, the total number of employees had decreased from 1,641 employees in 1974 to 1,491 employees, because some of the employees moved to other facilities located in the Irvine Industrial Complex. The day shift included 1,472 employees under this proposal. In May, 1979, building permits were issued to construct Building "D," an annex to Building "C," the total square footage of the addition was 22,670 sq. ft. On July 9, 1981 the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit, and on August 24, 1981, the City Council sustained the action of the Planning Commission to approve a Traffic Study and Use Permit No. 1994, for a proposed 1 10,000 sq. ft. officeAaboratory addition to the Hughes Aircraft facility (Building "E'). The two -story building is located adjacent to Buildings "A" and `B." The request included the construction of a five -level parking structure with automobile parking on the roof that was to exceed the basic height limit within the 32/50 -Foot Height Limitation District, and the acceptance of an environmental document. A modification to the Zoning Code was also approved to permit a portion of the off -street parking spaces as compact spaces. The building height of the parking structure is 40 feet to the top of the parapet and 50 feet to the top of the elevator. The office/laboratorybuilding is 32 feet to the top of the parapet its mechanical penthouse structure is 41 feet. Building records indicated that the total square footage of all buildings on site was 286,054 sq. ft., althoughthe applicant represented a lower number of 228,000 sq. ft The traffic study, and use permit analysis were based upon the applicant's five year forecast of staffing and space requirements,but the critical factor was the 110,000 sq. ft. limitation on the gross . floor area and a 1,965 limitation on employees (1,536 on the day shift). The city issued building 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 page 4 E. permits for the addition for 109,893 sq. ft. and the applicant's agreement to provide staffing reports to the Planning Department twice yearly. , The parking structure contained 918 parking spaces and remaining surface parking provided 438 parking spaces, for a total of 1,356 parking spaces on site. Required parking was based on an assumed office use associated with the research and development use of 55 %, and 45% for assembly and testing use. Parking was based on one parking space per 225 sq. ft. for administrative use, and three spaces per 1,000 sq. fi. for manufacturing and assembly use. The total required parking was 1,163 spaces with 11 % (132 spaces) compact spaces and 1,031 standard spaces. On September 9, 1992, the Planning Commission approved an amendmentto Use Permit No. 1994 and a revised Traffic Study. Although the building permit was issued for 109,893 sq. ft. and approved for 110, 000 sq. ft., 112,916 sq. ft was actually constructed. The additional square footage was approved with the finding that the office floor area would not increase the previously approved traffic figures since the five year staffing forecast (used for the traffic projection) would not be increased. The same off -street parking requirements were applied to the expanded project. A total of 1,160 parking spaces were required and a total of 1,356 parking spaces were provided. On October 10, 1985, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3169 to permit the installation of a temporary modular building with 9,925 sq. ft. of net floor area to be used for interim office space in conjunction with the Hughes Aircraft facility. The proposal included a modification to the Zoning Code to allow a portion of the structure to encroach to within 4 feet of the front property line adjacent to Newport Boulevard, and the acceptance of an environmental document. The approval was granted for a period of three years. A total of 1,206 parking spaces were required and 1,338 parking spaces were provided on site. On October 20, 1988, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to Use Permit No. 3169 to permit the installation of a temporary modular building with 9,924 square feet of net floor area to be used for interim office space. The request was also to delete Condition of Approval No. 2 that limited the use of said modular building to 3 years and to allow the continued use of the temporary building for office purposes. The approval was granted for an additional three years and included a condition that the buildings were to be removed by November 11, 1991. The temporary buildings were subsequently removed on November 2, 1990. In 1997, Raytheon Company merged with Hughes, and subsequently acquired the site. Raytheon continued the established operations. The types of operations that occurred during Hughes' and Raytheon's ownership of the property include: 1. The manufacture of semiconductors and other solid state components in clean room environments. 2. Packagingof microelectronic devices. 3. Mounting of completed electron components on circuit boards or other assemblies. 4. Administrative offices and engineer's offices for research and development use. Raytheon has discontinued its operations within the last six months and has sold the property to the St. Clair Company. 500 Superior, Up 3679 JwWY 4, 2001 Page 5 a Site Overview The project site includes 13.7 acres of improved land located at 500 Superior Averme. The site is the location of the former Hughes Aircraft Company's Solid State Products Division and later, the Raytheon Company. The property, consists of five buildings, A, B, C, D, and F. and a five -level parking structure covering approximately 3.6 acres of the 13.7 acre site. There are several small tank storage areas surrounding the building and a security office. Most of the site's remaining area is paved and devoted to employee parking with small landscaped islands scattered throughout. EXISTING SITE PLAN Project DesS6R ion a The project involves the remodel of an existing research and development site with the demolition of Buildings A, B, F, and G and all exterior manufacturing infrastructure. Existing Buildings C, D, and E will be remodeled; and two new three -story buildings will be constructed on the site, to replace Buildings A and B (see proposed site plan, page 8). The total gross square footage of all buildings currently on site is 416,499 sq. ft. The proposal is to demolish 208,926 square feet, remodel 214,210 sq. ft., and reconstruct 201, 283 sq. ft., for a total of 415,493 sq. ft. The proposal j 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4.2001 Pagc6 �\� _ w 1 ) BWtDY768 1',. a011.PNGE ® u 1 0 tl 0 • BNILOINGA y lI I �. m era, r.:��,:..:'•::v .t • 1' 1 N.FY I:' �z �.7 L'!r;�'��S ' `F�,'•�o; \vd.yi 1f;"�� © � • Y�` u t L 1 .JI},.,� 1•I ..;+fir n F9 _ . -�. trot • � uu Existing site Plan Exhlbit 3 Nawporf�acltoobpyGultsr 0 1• II,N tYCx Ci Nf tll l,N6 Project DesS6R ion a The project involves the remodel of an existing research and development site with the demolition of Buildings A, B, F, and G and all exterior manufacturing infrastructure. Existing Buildings C, D, and E will be remodeled; and two new three -story buildings will be constructed on the site, to replace Buildings A and B (see proposed site plan, page 8). The total gross square footage of all buildings currently on site is 416,499 sq. ft. The proposal is to demolish 208,926 square feet, remodel 214,210 sq. ft., and reconstruct 201, 283 sq. ft., for a total of 415,493 sq. ft. The proposal j 500 Superior, Up 3679 January 4.2001 Pagc6 �\� will result in a decrease of approximately 1,000 sq. & The use of the site will continue with the �. previous research and development/officeuse. jThe applicant has requested the approval of a use permit to allow the new buildings to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet within the 32/50 Basic Height Limitation District because the increased height is needed to accommodate a third story on each building, and to construct comparable building area as currently exists. The existing Building E and the existing parking structure to remain were previously approved by use permit to exceed the 32 -foot height limit up to 50 feet. The proposed new buildings will be consistent with the height of the existing buildings. PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1 Exhibit 4 rA6-10F� The new project will provide additional setback area than currently exists on three sides of the property, and a new roadway circulation system around the site. parking spaces will be added and additional landscaping within and along the perimeters of the site will be added. The location of the new structures will provide interior parking areas that are shielded from public view by the buildings and landscaping. The new and remodeled buildings will be constucted with painted concrete tilt -up panels, stone veneer and a light reflective tinted glass in a mullion system. 500 Superior, Up, 3679 January 4, 2001 f1 ✓✓ Page 7 d Pro ' Au thorized under the TPO and previous use permits. For research and developm ent use the code requires I space per 500 sq. fL 500 Superior, up 3679 January 4, 2001 RegairediPermitted Proposed : She Area 10,000 s . fL 595,336 sq. fL (13.69 aars) Floor Aces 416,499 sq. R 415,493 sq. fL BUILDING l 1 100,407 Setbacks: 111,980 Front (Superior) IS& is fL Side (on Dam Rd,} ME 101 A Slde (north, 10 fL 44 fL Rear 15 fL 75 R BUILDING F 2 2,449 D DEMOLISHED Floor Area Ratio .75 (446,502 sq. ft.) .69 (F.A.R.p 211 D DEMOLISHED BuildingHeight 32 ft. averageroofheightor flat roof Building 1(new) : 48 M 6 in. to top of roof 37 fl. maximum ridge height parapet With Use Permit: 50 ft. average roofheight or flat roof Buildine2 texte.Buildina"E "1:32(L5 In. to 55 ft. maximum ridge height top of roof parapet and 41 fL 1 in. to top of penthouse parapet Baflding3 (nom: 48 fL 6 in. to top of roof parapet Building fextg. Buildings C and Dl: 43 ft. to top of roof parapet Parking Structure(extg): 40 ft. to top of roof parapet and SO ft to the top of the elevatorstructure on top oftbe roof. Parking Spaces 831r 1,421 ' Au thorized under the TPO and previous use permits. For research and developm ent use the code requires I space per 500 sq. fL 500 Superior, up 3679 January 4, 2001 EXISTING GROSS P PROPOSED GROSS BUILDING A 9 93,105 D DEMOLISHED BUILDIN B 1 104,708 D DEMOLISHED BUILDING l 1 100,407 BUILDING 3 1 111,980 LDING GD (4 8 86,723 LDING 4 (C(D) 8 86,077 r L 129,227 L LDBJG 2 (E) I I ! 7,029 BUILDING F 2 2,449 D DEMOLISHED GUARD STATION 1 7 76 D DEMOLISHED GUARD STATION 2 2 211 D DEMOLISHED TOTAL 4 416,499 4 415,493 Au thorized under the TPO and previous use permits. For research and developm ent use the code requires I space per 500 sq. fL 500 Superior, up 3679 January 4, 2001 Conformancewith the General Plan and Zoning j The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "General Industry" uses. This land use category has been applied to areas which are predominantly used for research and development, manufacturing and professional services. Permitted uses include manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, wholesale sales, professional service offices. service retail and restaurants. The project is located in Statistical Area A3 (Hoag Hospital). Development in this area is limited to a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75. The permitted floor area ratio for this use is 0.75 FAR. Increased or Maximum FAR is allowed by the General Plan for uses with low traffic generating characteristics, and Research and Development is in this category. The project as proposed is 0.69 FAR Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General PIan policies and guidelines. The project is located in the M-1 -A Zoning District which provides for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. Newport Technology Center is proposing to continue with the previous research and development use, which the Zoning Code defines as "...areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillarycommercial and office uses." The Code further defines the use classification "Industry, Research and Development' ' as "Establishments primarily engaged in the research, development, and controlled production of high- technology electronic, industrial or scientific products or commodities for sale, but prohibits uses that may be objectionable in the opinion of the Planning Director, by reason of production of offensive odor, dust, noise, vibration or storage of hazardous materials. Uses include biotechnology, films, and non -toxic computer component manufacturers. " Construction of the proposed three -story buildings with a height of 50 feet will require the approval of a use permit to exceed the Basic Height Limit of 32 feet. In accordance with Section 20.65.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the height limit for the subject property is established by the 32/50 -Foot Height Limitation District. The Code provides that structures may exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to a maximum average height of 50 feet, subject to the approval of a use permit. This section also provides that in granting any use permit for structures in excess of the basic height limit, the Planning Commission shall find that In accordancewith Section 20.65.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the height limit for the subject property is established by the 32/50 -Foot Height Limitation District. The Code provides that in granting any use permit for structures in excess of the basic height limit,. the Planning Commission shall find that each of the required four points have been complied with. ANALYSIS BuildingHeight The applicant is requesting the approval of a use permit to allow the construction of two new buildings that will exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet. Two of the existing buildings, (Building E and the parking structure) were previously approved in I981, to exceed the 32 -foot height limit _i by Use Permit No. 1994. The Building "E" (to be redesignated as Building 2) is 32 feet to the top 500 Superior. Up 3679 January 4, 2001 page 9 �i of the parapet above the roof its mechanical penthouse structure is 41 feet in height. The parking structure is 40 feet to the rooftop parking level and 50 feet to the top of the elevatorlwall on top of the roof. The proposal is to eonstructthe two new buildings (Buildings 1 and 3) from 48 to 50 feet to the top of the roofpatapet. Staff has provided the following analysis related to the required findings to exceed the basic height limit. 1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setbackand open areas. The increased height of the buildings will result in smaller building footprints than the same area built to the basic height limit, thereby providing more open areas between buildings and a reduced site coverage. The open areas between buildings 1, 2, and 3 will be parking and landscape areas, and will provide additional open view corridors than currently is provided, when viewed from Dana Road The buildings will be set back approximately 100 feet from Dana Road, which will also provide additional visual open space on the property. From Superior Avenue, a landscaped corridor through to the slope above Newport Boulevard will be more open than the mass of buildings currently in that location. Additionally, the buildings will be located further back on the lot from the top of the slope above Newport Boulevard. This will result in less visible building mass at the top of the slope as viewed from Newport Boulevard below the site. Additionally, landscaping will be added along the sides of the buildings along the Newport Boulevard slope to further soften the height of the buildings. The proposed project expands the pedestrian spaces by providing open areas between the buildings creating a campus -like setting. The project includes enhanced paving materials at the building entrance and throughout the open areas of the projecL The parking areas are designed to minimize pedesuiantvehicleconflicts by providing two parking area entrances on the south side of the site. The project is designed to visually fit in with other commercial buildings in the area and the proposed building located close to Superior Avenue (Building 1) will continue with the same landscape treatments as the parking structure landscaping, and will not create gaps in the streetscape system. The 15 -foot setback on Superior Avenue has an existing berm with mature pine trees, which will be enhanced with shrubs, additional trees, and increased ground cover. The landscaping will result in a more visually appealing site with the existing mature trees and proposed new trees used to soften and partially screen the building along Superior Avenue. Vine plantings are proposed to be planted around the parking structure to further soften the look of the structure from the public streets. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. 500 Superior, Up 3679 t�>n 4, zoos ^1 PW 10 0 e The increase in the height of the buildings is necessary in order to construct separate buildings. By constructing separate buildings, instead of one large building, the buildings provide greater architectural articulation. The new location of Building 1 provides a more interesting project as viewed from the public streets, rather than viewing an open parking lot Additionally, the increased building height results in more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character since the building is in scale and balance with massing and height of the remaining other structures on the property, particularly when considered in relation to the size of the parcel. The building articulation of the new buildings draws attention away from the existing parking structure to create a more aesthetically pleasing project 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk ofthe structure including both horizontaland vertical dimensions. The site is surrounded by a mixture of uses (the City's Corporate Yard, multi- family residential, a mobile home park, light industrial, ind two and three -story medical offices). The proposed three -story buildings (Buildings 1 and 3) are taller than the residential neighborhood to the south, as are the existing buildings on the site. The proposed project maintains the existing open parking along Dana Road, adds new open parking between the new buildings, and enhanced landscaping along Dana Road. These features make the difference in scale at Dana Road less abrupt The proposed project maintains the existing .3 scale with the commercial buildings across Superior Avenue and the general area, and the existing parking structure and existing remaining buildings. Because these existing buildings are of similar size and proportion, abrupt scale relationships are not created by the additional height of the two new buildings. The proposed design of the buildings includes both vertical and horizontal articulation,which break up building mass. 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit Finally, the increased building height, if approved, will not result in more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the use permmt In conclusion, staff believes that the request for the additional height is necessary to obtain a more aesthetically pleasing project with enhanced perimeter and internal landscaping, and the benefits of the project offset the additional building height However, if the proposed project were not approved, the buildings could be redesigned with two stories, although the building mass articulation and architectural style of the buildings would change, or the overall building footprint would potentially increase and many of the benefits of the open areas between the buildings would be lost The applicant has also submitted a statement related to these four findings, which is attached (0). SOO Superior, Up 3679 \� Jmuery 4, 2DO1 Page 11 r Traffic Circulado The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires special analysis and mitigation of traffic impacts if project - generated traffic is greater than one percent of the combined total of existing traffic, projected regional traffic growth, and traffic generated by "committed" projects (i.e. approved projects requiring no further discretionaryreview) on any approach to any of the study intersections during the morning and/or evening peak hours. The City's traffic standard is for intersectionsto operate at no greater than 90 percent of intersection capacity, or level of service "D." For those intersections already above the 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value, an increase of 0.01 in the cumulative ICU necessitates traffic mitigation. In 1981; the TPO traffic analysis determined that, after project completion, traffic generated by the project would contribute to the short -range cumulative degradation of the West Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd. /Superior Avenue intersection during the a.m. peak hour, and mitigation was required of Hughes Aircraft. In 1981, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Kunzrnan Associates for an expansion of the Hughes facility, per the requirements of the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) and the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates was for a proposed 110,000 square foot expansion (Building E) and the parking structure. The study indicated that there were 1,285 employees currently at the site and analyzed the addition of approximately 680 employees that would work in Building E (the 110,000 sq. ft. addition). The Traffic Impact analysis was based on three employee shifts and a projected five -year forecast of staffing and space requirements. The project information critical to the City was the I10,000 square foot limitation on gross floor area and a 1,965 limitation on employees (1,536 on the first shift). The City issued building permits for the addition on the basis of a reduced gross floor area of 109,893 square feet, and the applicants' agreement to provide staffing reports to the Planning Department twice yearly. The use permit was subsequently amended in 1983 to increase the square footage for the addition to 112,916 square feet and a revised Traffic Study for the Hughes expansion project was approved because staffing forecast remained unchanged despite the revisions to the final square footages of the project. The applicant and the City entered into an agreement to fund improvements to the one impacted intersection identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis, which was jointly funded with two other projects. A cap on the total number of employees and building square footage was determined by the study and Hughes "fair share" costs were paid to the City. At the request of staff, a Traffic Analysis was conducted in December, 2000, as part of the environmental review for the proposed remodel of the site. The purpose of the study was to quantify any new impacts on the circulation system, he the same land use. The applicant provided a supplemental traffic analysis conducted by Pirzadeh Associates, dated December 8, 2000 that is attached to this report. The analysis shows that, using the trip rates shown for Research and Development Centers (760), the proposed project is expected to generate 3,370 daily trips. (The City of Newport Beach uses the Trip Generation, 6* Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers 500 Superior, Up 3679 Jmuery 4.2001 !f P39c 12 ``� (ITE) to determine the appropriate trip generation rate for projects within the City.) The average daily trips for the previous Hughes and Raytheon uses were 5,214 trips. The Hughes Aircraft Company operated three shifts daily with a large percentage of the work force arriving and departing between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., which proportionately decreased the amount of project traffic during the PM peak hour of the adjacent roadway. Because the 1981 Traffic Study and 1983 Revised Traffic Study did not analyze the AM peak hour or provide an AM peak hour trip generation rate, the 286 PM peak hour trips that were identified in the study were assumed in the new study to be generated during the AM peak hour. The assumption is based on the. staggered work hours created by the shift work during the morning and evening, which causes the peak hour of the site to occur outside the peak hour of the adjacent roadway. Based on the comparative evaluation of the trips that were projected to be generated by the Hughes Aircraft Company facility and the trips that are expected to be generated by the Newport Technology Center, the Traffic Analysis concluded that the proposed use will generate 229 more AM peak hour trips, 163 more PM peak hour trips and 1,844 fewer daily trips than the Hughes Aircraft Company facility. To assess the potential impact from the additional peak hour trips being generated, two intersections were identified by staff to be analyzed: West Coast Highway/BalboaBivd./Superior Ave., and Newport Blvd./Hospital Road. The analysis was performed in accordance with the methodology prescribed in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The completion date for the proposed project is expected to be in 2002 and the traffic volumes were projected to the year 2002. The regional traffic projections are consistent with the City's methodology and procedures for forecasting the regional traffic annual growth rate. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis for the Newport Blvd./Hospital Drive intersection shows that the intersection, including the project's traffic, is projected to operate at 0.61 and 0.71 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This is well below the TPO limit of 0.90 and no mitigation is required The West Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd./Superior Avenue intersection is projected to have ICU values of 0.92 and 1.02 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. When the project's peak hour traffic volumes are added to the ICU value, the ICUs remain at 0.92 and 1.02. Therefore, there is no project impact to the West Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue intersection identified when analyzed in accordance with the City's performance criteria for determining project impact. As a response to comments on the Negative Declaration received from the City of Costa Mesa Traffic Department, and the close proximity of the site to the City of Costa Mesa boundary, staff directed the consultant to further study the impact the project could have on the three additional intersections located within the City of Costa Mesa: • Superior and 171" Street SOD Supalor. Up 3679 January 4, 2001 f Page 13. tk .. • Newport Boulevard and 17°i Street • Newport Boulevard and 10 Street The City of Costa Mesa Year 2000 conditions were used to establish the conditions without project ICU, or the baseline condition. The net new project volumes were derived from the percent of project traffic distributed onto the roadway network. The peak hour trips that are projected to be generated by the project were distributed on the roadway network to determine the additive project traffic at the study intersections. A copy of the study, as performed by Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc, dated December 18, 2000, is attached for reference. The study concluded that all of the study intersections, with the exception of Newport Boulevard and I SP Street, would continue operating at Level of Service A. B, or C. Newport Boulevard and 19* Street will operate at LOS E during both the AM peak hour (ICU = 1.00) and PM peak hour (ICU 0.95). The PM peak hour ICU value of 0.95 represents an increase of 0.01 from the baseline ICU of 0.94. The significance of this ICU increase on an intersection outside the City of Newport Beach was assessed on the regional impact criteria established by OCTA. OCTA has established the regional significance criteria, used to assess out- of- jurisdictionimpacts, at 3% of total capacity. The 0.01 ICU increase equates to a 1% increase. Therefore, this change is not significant. On-Site Parkin In accordance with Section 20.66.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, off - street parking in the M -I -A District for research and development use is based on one parking space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed project will require 831 parking spaces (415,493 sq. ft. /500 sq. ft. = 830.99 or 831 spaces), and is providing 1,421 parking spaces. In 1985, when the use permit for temporary modular buildings was approved, the Code required parking was based on one space per 225 sq. ft. of net floor area for administrativeoffices and three parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for manufacture, research and assembly use. At that time, 1,206 parking spaces were required, although 1,338 parking spaces were provided. In reviewing the history of the site, staff discovered that in 1981, when Use Permit No. 1994 was approved, Hughes Aircraft facility requested a modification to the Zoning Code for the use of compact parking spaces. The Planning Commission approved 347 compact parking spaces of the 1,163 required parking spaces. In March, 1997, the City adopted Chapter 20.66 for new off - street parking regulations. The requirement for research and development and industrial use was changed to one space per 500 sq. ft., which actually resulted in a decrease in the number of parking spaces required for the site (from 1,206 spaces to 831 spaces). Under current Code requirement, the proposed project will have 590 surplus parking spaces. Stab' would like to point out that it is possible that some of the surplus parking spaces are compact and the City Traffic Engineer has indicated that a thorough review of the proposed parking plan, both surface parking and the parking structure, will be required. A new striping plan would most likely result in a reduction in the amount of surplus parking spaces. 500 Supvior. Up 3679 January 4,2001 Page 14 The 1983 Traffic Study by Kunzman Associates indicated that the Hughes Facility operated with approximately 1,179 employees on the daytime shift with 1,338 parking spaces. Staff believes that since the use is not changing and the proposed project has approximatelythe same building area as the previous Hughes facility, the approximate 1,421 parking spaces are adequate to serve the proposed project. Negative Declaration An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and circulated for public review in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. In considering the proposed project and the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, thirty-one mitigation measures were identified that will mitigate any potential impact to the environment to a less than significant level. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached for the Commission's consideration. This project application was deemed complete on September 6, 2000 and the Permit Streamlining Act and California Environmental Quality Act require a decision on the negative declaration within I80 days from the date the project was deemed complete which is March 4, 2001. The review period was from November 3, 2000 to December 4, 2000. Copies of the DMND were distributed to the following agencies and departments: California Coastal Commission CaliforniaHighway Pawl Caltrans, District 21 Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game, Region 5 Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Toxic Substances Control Integrated Waste Management Board Native American Heritage Commission Office of Historic Preservation Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9 Resources Agency State Lands Commission Staff believes that, with the mitigation measures included in the approval of the project, the Negative Declaration adequately addresses potential environmental impacts. Additionally, because the site is devoid of significant resources and can be developed as proposed, without adversely affecting sensitive resources, the proposed remodel of the research and development facility will not result in significant impacts on the environment. No significant cultural, scientific, or biological resources will be adversely affected if the project is approved. Staff has identified an area of concern regarding site lighting. Because the south side of the property adjacent to Dana Road is primarily parking area only, there is the potential for the proposed lighting in that area to have an adverse impact, such as glare and light spillage, onto the 500 Superior, Up 3679 imary 4, 2001 Page 15 a residential neighbors across Dana Road. Staff' has included additional language in Mitigation Measure No. I to address this concern. The additional language is in bold type. "Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of exterior lighting plans from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer acceptable to the City. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. Particular attention shall be given to the light spillage and glare in the parking lot located on the south side of the property adjacent to Dana Road and the residential areas." It should also be noted that the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration contains mitigation measures that will be required to be satisfied "prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit" as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program in order to ensure timely implementation and conformity with mitigation measures. Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments and Responses The 45 -day public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ended on December 4, 2000. Five letters were received from public agencies and citizens regarding the Draft MND at the end of the public review period. The agencies that commented on the Draft MND include: A. California Department of Transportation B. City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) C. California Department of Toxic Substances Control D. Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) E. Owen Minney, Business Owner, Westport Marine, Inc., Newport Beach Responses to each of the comments in those letters have been prepared and are included with the attached Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in the attached Exhibit MND-1 accompanying this report. A subcommittee of the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) reviewed the DMND. The subcommittee report was accepted by EQAC on November 20, 2000. EQAC's comments and the responses to those comments by BonTerra Consulting, the City's environmental consultant on the project, are contained in Attachment 1. The comments 500 Superior. Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 16 y� A ✓1 received by EQAC are the most extensive and detailed of all the agencies commenting on the DMND. Therefore, these comments and responses have been placed in tabular form, with the comment on the left and the response on the right, as shown on Attachment 1. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach 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, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working 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. Based upon the analysis contained in this report, staff believes that the findings for approval of this use permit can be trade since the increased height of the buildings will allow for smaller building footprints in order to provide additional open view corridors between each building. The open corridors will be parking areas and landscape areas, which, when viewed from Dana Road, appear more open than with the current design. From Superior Avenue, an open landscaped corridor through to the slope above NewporrBoulevard will be visibly more appealing. Additionally, the increased building height results in a more desirable architectural treatment of the buildings and a stronger and more appealing visual character since the buildings are in scale and balance with massing and height of the remaining structures on the property, particularly when considered in relation to the size of the parcel. The proposed buildings are taller than the residential neighborhood to the south, as are the existing buildings on the site, although the proposed project maintains the existing open parking along Dana Road, adds new open parking between the new buildings, and enhanced landscaping along Dana Road. These features make the difference in scale at Dana Road less abrupt. Because the buildings are in scale with the existing remaining buildings on the site and the commercial buildings across Superior Avenue and the general area, abrupt scale relationships are not created by the additional height of the two new buildings. Finally, the increased building height, if approved, will not result in more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the use permit. However, if the use permit were not approved, a redesign of the buildings would be necessary and many benefits of the project would be lost, such as open view corridors and additional landscaping areas. Issues related to parking and vehicular circulation have been reviewed by the Traffic Engineer and a supplemental traffic analysis has been conducted and finds that the proposed project will not adversely impact vehicular circulation in the area and that adequate parking is provided for the project. The Traffic Engineer looked at the project's potential traffic impacts consistent with the methodology of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and has determined that there will be a reduction in daily trips from the previous use of the facility. Therefore, a Traffic Study pursuant to the TPO is not required because the proposed project does not result in an increase of greater than 300 trips to the site. Additionally, although the project will result in an increase in AM and PM peak hour trips, no significant effects will result based on local (TPO) and regional (OCTA) significance criteria. 500 superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Pegs n Ai5 Additionally, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and circulated for public comment in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. A MitigatedNegative Declarationhas been prepared and circulated for public comment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Thirty -one mitigation measures are identified that will mitigate any potential impact to the environment to a less than significantlevel. If approval of the Use Permit is granted, staff recommends that the Commission make the necessary findings related to the California Environmental Quality Act and adopt the attached Negative Declaration. Suggested findings are attached as ExhibitNo. "A" for this course of action. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Use Permit No. 3679, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested Should information be presented at the public hearing, or if it is the desire of the Commission to deny or request modifications of this application, the Planning Commission may wish to take such action and direct staffaccordingly. . . Although staffs analysis and conclusion supports approval, testimony received and Commission discussion could raise issues not analyzed by staff. Should the Planning Commission wish to deny Use Permit No. 3679, suggested findings for denial are set forth in the attached Exhibit" B ". Submittedby: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A" Prepared by: EUGENIA GARCIA, AICP Associate Planner 1 ,05�r as i I 2. Exhibit "B" 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Mitigation Monitoring Program 5. Applicant's Statement of Support 6. Responses to Comments/Letters 7. Errata to Mitigated Negative Declaration S. Traffic Study, Kunzman Associates, dated, May, 1981. 9. Traffic Study, Kun man Associates, dated, September, 1983. 10. Traffic Analysis, Pitzadeh Associates, dated December 8, 2000. 11. Chapter 20.20, Newport Beach Municipal Code, Industrial Districts. 500 Superior. Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page IS 12. City of Newport Beach Zoning Map. 13. Project Characteristics0art. $06 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2661 Pagc 19 �.a5 EXHIBrr "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMITNO.3679 . Mitigated Negative Declaration A. Mitigated Negative Declaration; Fmdines. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. 4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. 5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposedproject. Mitigation Measures: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of exterior lighting plans from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer acceptable to the City. The applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. Particular attention shall be given to the light spillage and glare in the parking lot located on the south side of the property adjacent to Dana Road and the residential areas. 500 superior. Up 3679 Jamey 4.20oi Pagc 20 a`P 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to the Planning _ Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and solid waste disposal arras will be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties. 3. All grading activities shall comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec.15.04.140)and AQMD Rule 403. 4. Construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods include the following: a) Use of low-emissionconstruction equipment b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines e) Use of low - sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment f) Use of on -site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to reduce odors from construction activities. 6. Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.12 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur, fuel for stationary construction equipment. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment. An air quality analysis shall be conducted for the proposed mechanical equipment that identifies any additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment. 8. The project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient design regulations as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements 9. The proj ect shall comply with the vehicular trip reduction requirements of AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance(NBMC Chapter 20.08). 10. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. 11. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer. 500 Superior. Up 3679 January 4. 2001 Page 21 12. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolitionpermits, the applicant shall waive provisions Of AB952 related to the City of Newport Beach responsibilitiesfor the mitigation of archaeologicalimpacts in a marmeracceptableto the City Attorney. 13. All earthwork shall comply with the requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Sea 15.04.140) and the City of Newport Beach Grading Manual. Requirements for grading plans and specifications will be established by the Building Department, and may include the following: • Soil engineeringreport • Engineering geology report • Surface and subsurface drainage devices • Erosion, sediment and pollution control plans • Haul route plan for transport of earth material • Landscaping and irrigation plans 14. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach General Services, Public Works, and Planning Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the approved plan. 15. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, owner of the property shall provide a "closure letter" from the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for completion of soil remediation activities, to the City ofNewport Beach. 16. Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur prior to the completion of the remediation if it is determined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that no adverse effect would occur to occupants. 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a closure letter regarding the groundwater remediatiou, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be provided to the City of Newport Beach. 18. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the applicant shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous materials are handled and disposed of in the manner specified• by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services and office of Statewide Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30. . 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the City of Newport Bach demonstrating that its Hazardous Materials and Waste management Plan and 500 Superio , Up 3679 Immy 4, 2001 Page 22 / its Infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the applicant has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire PreventionDepartment, and the Orange County Health Care Agency. 20. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutants from the site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, material use, structure construction and painting, pang operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste management, and hazardous waste management. The SWPPP is subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a SWPPP shall be provided to The City of Newport Beach for approval. 22. The applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (S WRCB) general permit for storm water discharges.associated with construction activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), implementation of erosion control measures, monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. 23. The applicant shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that noise levels associated with all existing and proposed mechanical equipment is mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. 25. All construction equipment fixed or mobile, shall be maintained in proper operating condition with noise mufflers. 26. Vehicle staging areas shall be located away from the area adjacent to the convalescent facilities at Dana Road and Newport Boulevard. 27. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. S00 Superior, Up 3679 lmumy 4, 2001 Page 23 �q �,a 28. All equipment installed for all uses on site shall be screened from view and noise associated wits► the use of the equipment shall be attenuated as required by the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be based on the recommendationsof a qualified acoustical engineer approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 29. The applicant shall submit a construction traffic control plan and identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 30. The applicant shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shall conform to Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above constructiontraffic plan. 31. The proposed use of the site shall remain a research and development use with ancillary commercial and office use, as defined by Section 10.05 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. B. Use Permit No. 3679: Findin¢s: The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "General Industry" commercial use, and a research and development facility is permittedwithin this designation. 2. The proposed height of the two new research and development buildings is appropriate in this case, and meets the intent of Section 20.65.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because: • The increased building height results in a reduction in site coverage and more public visual open space between buildings. • Increased ground cover and landscaping throughout the site will soften and partially screen the buildings along Superior Avenue. By constructing separate buildings, instead of one large building, as currently exists on the site, the buildings provide greater architectural articulation. The new location of Building I provides a more interesting project as viewed from the public streets, ratherthan viewing an open parking lot. The increased building height results in more desirable architecturaltreatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character since the building is in scale and balance with massing and height of the existing structures on the property, particularly when considered in relation to the size of the parcel. • The glass mullion system design breaks up the fagade of the buildings to create buildings that appear less bulky. 500 superior. Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page Z4 T' 2� • The new buildings are in scale with the commercial buildings in the vicinity and are in scale with the existing parking structure. ~� • Because the new buildings are of similar size and proportion, abrupt scale relationships are not created by the additional height of the two new buildings. • The proposed design of the buildings includes both vertical and horizontal articulation,which breaks up the building mass. • The increased building height will not result in more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit and redesigning the buildings to the basic height Omit would result in changes to the building mass articulation and architectural style of the buildings that would be more bulky, or the overall building footprint would potentially increase and many of the benefits of the open areas between buildings would be lost. • The proposed project represents an aesthetic improvement on the site. 3. The approval of Use Permit No. 3679 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morass, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further, the use is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Therefore, the increase in height for the proposed project will not be detrimental to surrounding properties for the following reasons: • The construction of the two new buildings is a reuse of existing square footage that is being demolished on the site. i 0 There is no increase in square footage, rather a slight reduction in the overall square footage of the site. • The proposed development fully conforms to the established development standards of Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code with the exception of height. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed uses. • 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. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation on the site is being provided with the proposed project • No significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project. 1 ,.J Conditions of Approval: Development shall be in substantial conformance. with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. A minimum of 1,421 parking spaces shall be provided on site. The Planning Director may authorize a reduced amount based on the City Traffic Engineer's review of the on -site parking striping plan $00 Superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 25 ,�5k 3. A detailed parking plan shall be submitted for approval by the Traffic Engineer. The plan shall show all surface and parking structure spaces. The plan will reduce the number of compact parking spaces to the extent feasible. Disabled parking spaces shall conform to current 1 standards. 4. Constructionworkers shall park their vehicles and all equipment on site at all tunes. 5. All employees of the facilityshall park on site. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Building Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project 7. Prior to occupancy of any building, the applicant shall provide written verification from the Orange County Sanitation District that adequate sewer capacity is available to serve the project g. Plans for the existing buildings and proposed buildings shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department to ensure adequate fire prevention and fire suppression systems are provided. 9. All deliveries and storage shall be restrictedto the site and shall not utilize any public rights -of- way. I0. Intersections of the private drives and Superior Avenue shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 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 11. Asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 12. The drive approaches along Superior Avenue shall be reconstructed to meet handicap standards and any displaced or deteriorated sections of curb, gutter or sidewalk along the Superior Avenue and Dana Road frontages shall be replaced, all under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department 13. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibilityof the developer. 14. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall conduct site hydrological analyses to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additional facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments for approval. -i 500 Superior. Up 3679 Jwuery4.2001 Page 26 i �3a- I5. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive geotechnical/hydrologic study (including groundwater data) to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments. The study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program subdram system if deemed necessary by the Building Department based on the design and elevation of the foundation structures. 16. On-site retention or low flow diversion into the sanitary sewer system shall be provided for all on -site drainage in order to minimize the amount of pollutants transmittedto the Newport Bay 17. A landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect The landscape plan shall integrate and phase the installation of landscaping with the proposed construction schedule. Prior to occupancy of the buildings, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordancewith the approved plan. 1 S. The landscape plan shall be subject to the approval of the General Services Department, the Planning Department, and the Public Works Department. The plans shall include a berm along the Superior Avenue street frontage; the utilization of existing trees on both the Superior Avenue and Dana Road street frontages, with any replacement trees to be a minimum of 24 inch boxed trees; ground cover and shrubs shall be planted along Superior Avenue and Dana Road street frontages to fill in the areas between the existing and proposed trees. 19. The landscaping shall be regularly maintained and shall include a maintenance program which controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. 20. The landscape plan shall include the slope along Newport Boulevard, which shall be modified to include drought — resistant native vegetation and be irrigated via a system designed to avoid surface runoff and over - watering. 21. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department. All work within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works Department. Standard Require ments 22. The project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, including State Disabled Access, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department 23. All mechanical equipment, including roof -top mechanical equipment, shall be screened from view in a manner compatible with the building materials and noise associated with the 500 supaior, Up 3679 hnuary 4, 2001 PW 27 X33 equipment shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance. 24. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 25. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 26. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 27. Arrangements shall be made with the . Public Works. Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 28. Each building shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 29. 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. The applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Public Works Department for the removal of all construction materials, excavated dirt and debris from the site. 30. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 31. public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 32. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and related structures shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. 32. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. 33. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocationof this Use Permit upon a determinationthat 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. 500 superior. up 3679 Jawy 4, 2001 Page 28 34. 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. 3 500 Superior, Up 3679 Jm "4,2001 Pagc 29 IAI �3 EMBIiT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF USE PERAUT NO.3679 Fludinga t 1. The approval of Use Pen-nit No. 3679 will, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for the following reasons: • Adequate parking is not provided on -site for the proposed use. • The research and development facility will generate noise and traffic that will adversely impact the surrounding residential neighborhood. The project could be constructed utilizing the Code requited height limit. The increased height is not necessary in order to accommodate the construction of a comparable size project. 500 superior, Up 3679 January 4, 2001 Page 30 �3t� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form To: State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Street, Room 121 P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 95814 -3044 (Tel. No.: 9161445.0613) SCR q Ph.# From: City Of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (Orange County) Contact Person: Eugenia Garcia, AICP, Associate Plasmer (949) 644 -3208 Project Location: 500 Superior Avenue Cross Street: Superior Avenue/ Newport BlvdIMosoital Road Total Acres: 13.69 A.P.No. 42518101 _Section Twp. Range Base te Within 2 Miles: Sta Hwy 9. Pacific Coast Highway Waterways: Pacific Ocean Airports: Railways: 'Schools: Present Land Use/Zooing/General Plan Use: MIA ( Manufacturing - ladustriall/Ceneral Industry Project Description: The Proiect involves the approval of a use permit to exceed the basic hereht Irmit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in coniuncrion with the remodel of an existine 416.499 square foot research and development site The proiect involves the demolition 0208.926 square feet ofexistine development and the construction of 207920 square feet for a total of 415.493 square feet. Document Type CEQA: NEPA OTHER • NOP O Supplement/Subsequent ❑ NOT O Joint Document • Early Cons O EIR (Prior SCE No.) ❑ EA O Final Document 0 Neg Dec. O Draft EIS O Other Local Action Type • General Plan Update O specific Plan O Rezone O Annexation • General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan O Premise D Redevelopment • Gen" Plan Element D Planned Unit Dev. ❑ Use Permit El Coastal Permit • Community Plan - ❑- Site Plan O Land Division (Sub O Other division Parcel Map, Tram map, etc.) ire opmeo ype O Residential: Units Acres__ D Water Facilities: Type MGD Cl Office: Sq.ft. ±13.493 Ames 1169 Employees O Transportation: Type O Commcrcial:Sq.R Acres- Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.R Acres__ Employees,_ O Power. Type Wam O Educational: ❑ Waste Treatment: Type - 0 Recrcasional O Hazardous Waste: Type Project issues Discussed in Docament 0 AesthmidJVlsual D Flood PlainMooding D SchoolsNnivetsitics Wares Quality ❑ Agriculmrai Land D Forest Land.The hazard D Scptle Systems 0 Weser Supply4roundwater © Air Quality 0 GeolDgic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity D Wetland/Riparian © Archeclogic/Histurle O Minerals O wildlire D Soil ErosimJCompaction/Gradin O Coastal Zone 0 Noise ❑ Solid Waste O Growth Inducing 0 Drainage/Absoption D PoputationlHousing/Balance Toxic/Hazardous © AalhetiWtsual O Flood PlainMooding Land Use O EconomiclJobs O Public Serrice/Facilhies 0 TraMe/Chculation O Cumulative Effects O Fiscal ❑ RecreatioNParks O Vegetation O Other t 02 J �3� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658.8915 (949) 644 -3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: aoffice of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 95814.3044 County Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana. CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.Q. Box t768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (Orange County) Data received for filing at OPRICounty Clerk: Public review period: November 3, 2000 to December 4, 2000 Name of Project. Newport Technology Center IProject Location: 500 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, California Project Description: The project involves the approval of a use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 31 feet up to 50feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing 416,499 square foot research and development site. The project involves the demolition q(208,926 square feet of existing development and the construction of 207,920 square feet for a total of 115,493 square feet . Finding. Pursuant to the provision of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the Califhmia 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 Q attached ❑ on rile n 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- makcr(s) prior to f rW action 00 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 significam, and what changcs 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 I f you have any question or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -3200. ` Date November 2. 2000 ugenia arcia. AICP, Am0 rate Planner a3� _ and NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the applicationof The St. Clair Company, property owner, for Use Permit No. 3679 and the acceptance of a Negative Declaration on property located at 500 SuReriorAvenue. The proiect is a request for the approval of a Use Permit from the City of Newport Beach to exceed the basic height limit of buildings of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of an existing 416.499 souare foot research and development site. The proiect involves the demoliton of 208.926 souare feet of existing development and the construction of 207,920 square feet for a total of 415,493 souare feet. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 30 -day public review period is November 3. 2000 to December 4, 2000. 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 (949) 644 -3200. NOTICE IS HEREBY- FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on the 7th day of December at the hour of 7:00 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 (949) 644 -3200. Steven Kiser, 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 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Newport Technology Center 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Eugenia Garcia, Planning Department (949) 644 -3208 4. Project Location: 500 Superior Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: St. Clair Company 4001 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation: Industrial Zoning: M-1 -A 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.) PROJECT LOCATION The Newport Technology Center project is located in the County of Orange, within the City of Newport Beach. Exhibits 1 and 2 show the project's regional location and local vicinity, respectively. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project site consists of a 13.69 -acre properly bounded by the City of Newport Beach Corporation Center to the north, Dana Road to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and Superior Avenue to the west. The site currently contains five connected buildings and a detached five -story parking structure occupying 416,499 square feet, and landscaped employee parking. Exhibit 3 (Existing Conditions) shows the current building configuration. The existing structures were used in the manufacture, mounting, and packaging of semiconductors and other electronic components by the Raytheon Company. Raytheon has discontinued Its operations at the site and the existing facility is vacant. Remediation of contamination associated with these operations is on going and is covered in more detail in Section VII of the Initial Study checklist (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Raytheon is responsible for decontamination and removal of equipment and contaminated soils prior to releasing the property to the buyer for demolition and redevelopment. Page Project Vicinity Map Exhibit 2 Newport Technology Center^ —� TO Sok S N SOWS: ilcmva6m M+us CO NS tlIrrNG Regional Location Map Exhibit t Newport Technology Center FNJ Not To Scale CONSULTING r+ 'ec' I ... ..... . ..... ...... .. .. ......... . --: I ib 14 - tllt i . . . .. ....... L -� --. . volulwall.. I ... .. w zo LLJ . . . . . 1. .... CD C*j zi zi to co N A ri. 'ec' I ... ..... . ..... ...... .. .. ......... . --: I ib 14 - tllt i . . . .. ....... L -� --. . volulwall.. I ... .. w zo PROJECT OBJECTIVE The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of the Raytheon Microelectronics Facility as a research and development office complex. The main goals of the project are: 1. the demolition of existing buildings A, B. F, and G (Exhibit 3), and all exterior manufacturing infrastructure; 2. the reuse and renovation of existing buildings C,D, and E; and 3. the construction of two additional three -story buildings. The total square footage of development would be reduced by approximately 1,007 square feet with project implementation. The proposed three -story structures, buildings 1 and 3, would be approximately 98,210 and 109,710 square feet in size, respectively. Additional project features include the reconfiguration of existing parking, provision of an additional 127 parking spaces and 9 motorcycle spaces, provision of an employee -use linear park and basketball court, and landscaping improvements. A Use Permit is requested to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel and addition to the previous research and development site. The proposed site plan is shown on Exhibit 4. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: Raytheon Microelectronics Facility: 5 connected buildings and a detached five -story parking structure occupying 416,499 square feet of a 13.69 -acre site. To the north: City of Newport Beach Corporation Yard To the east: Sunbrid a Care and Rehabilitation Center To the south: Apartments and Flagship Medical Care Center To the west: Harbor Homes Trailer Park and Superior Medical Center 10. Other public agencies whose approval Is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Implementation of the proposed project does not require land use or CEQA approvals from any other agencies. CHECKLIST Pagge 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. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Water ❑ Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources D Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION wili.be prepared. 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 t) 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. ❑ CHEMIST Page 3 9' 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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, nothing further is required. ❑ Associate Planner Planning Department Prepared by: Thomas E. Smith, Jr. AICP Signature (/ Date Principal BonTerra Consulting 0 F.,WSERSVn MSHARED11FORMSNIEG.OECIOMUST.00C CHECKLIST Page 4 J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST signifloard signifkant Impact unless impact Mnlgation Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ El b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed project is not located in a scenic vista or along a scenic highway; therefore, no impacts would result from project implementation. C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ O 0 ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial tight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Cl ❑ H ❑ The proposed project involves the demolition and reuse of the site for a technology center including the construction of two new buildings. Currently, the existing structures range in height from 26 to 46 feet. The proposed structures would be 50 feet in height The increase in building height would not impact views from surrounding buildings. The reconfiguration of the buildings and design features such as landscaping would result in an improved visual appearance for the project site compared to the existing conditions. See Exhibits 5 and 6 for existing conditions and project simulation respectively. The proposed project would construct additional window area thereby resulting in a potential increase in daytime glare. However, this increase would not constitute a significant impact to adjacent land uses because of building orientation and landscaping trees. Existing exterior nighttime lighting will be reconfigured to meet the City's required foot - candle radius for emergency and security purposes while avoiding potential negative glare impacts on surrounding properties. Less than significant impacts are anticipated and the following conditions of approval would be implemented: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans lo, and obtain the approval of exterior lighting plans from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to the Planning Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and solid waste disposal areas will be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ca Page 5 a�� 'JE .` Q7, G VAL d . Asn ` 'JE .` Q7, G VAL }4w Z Vs �s u :{i' _ � 3e-•.w [ti's. G Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The proposed project consists of the reuse of an existing technology center. No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be impacted as a result of project implementation. The project site is zoned for industrial use, and is not covered under a Williamson Act contract. No impacts are anticipated. [it. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implemeniation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides California into air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The City of Newport Beach is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB); a 6,600 square mile area comprised of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles. Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The Basin's climate and topography are highly conducive to the formation and transport of air pollution. Peak ozone concentrations in the last two decades have occurred at the base of the mountains around Azusa and Glendora in Los Angeles County and at Crestline in the mountain area above the City of San Bernardino. Both peak ozone concentrations and the number of exceedances have decreased everywhere in the SCAB throughout the 1990's. Carbon monoxide concentrations have also dropped s gnificantly throughout the air basin as a result of strict new emission controls and reformulated gasoline sold in winter months. A project's air quality impacts can be separated into two categories: short-term impacts from construction and long -term permanent impacts after completion of project construction. Both types of impacts may occur on a local or regional scale. To determine whether emissions resulting from construction or operation of a project are significant, the South Coast Air Quality Management District recommends significance thresholds in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, as revised in November 1999. The SCAQMVs emission; thresholds apply to all federally regulated air pollutants except lead; thresholds for lead have not been exceeded in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Construction and operational emissions are considered by the SCAQMD to be significant if they exceed the thresholds shown in the Table 1. In addition, the SCAQMD considers any increase in carbon monoxide concentrations in an area that already exceeds national or state CO standards to be significant if it exceeds one part per million (ppm) for a one -tour average or 0.45 ppm for an eight -hour average. TABLE f EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Construction Operations Pollutant Poundsiday Tonsf uarter Poundsfda Carbon Monoxide CO 550 24.75 550 Sulfur Oxides (SOJ 150 6.75 150 Nitrogen Oxides (NOJ 100 2.5 55 Particulate Matter PM 150 6.75 150 Reactive Organic Compounds 75 2.5 55 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 CHECKLIST Page 6✓ y I� a51 Y M �� , ✓i i ; y d K r,. 2 ` r �! 1 t'r I 2 t'r I Significant Significant significant Impact impact Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated The project involves reuse of existing buildings, and the demolition and construction of two office buildings. The total square footage of office uses onsite under the proposed project is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet of existing uses. The project would therefore not add new long -term regional or local operational emissions. The only air quality impacts to be evaluated are those from demolition and construction. Construction impacts may result from: airborne dust stirred up during grading, excavation, demolition and dirt hauling; gaseous emissions from heavy equipment, trucks, and employee vehicles; and application of paints and coatings. These emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the construction phase and weather conditions. Construction of the project is estimated to take approximately 10 months, divided between demolition, grading/excavation and building construction/rehabilitation. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook estimates that each acre of disturbed soil creates 26A pounds/day of PM,,. Although the project site is approximately 13.69 -acres in size, less than 8 acres will be gradedlexcavated with project implementation. Since the PM„ threshold is 150 pounds per day, impacts resulting from grading activities would be approximately 109.52 pounds per day, a less than significant impact. All other impacts relating to demolition/construction equipment operation emissions and employee vehicle emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level by the following City of Newport standard conditions of approval: 1. All grading activities shall comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. 2. Construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods include the following: a) Use of low - emission construction equipment b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees c) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts d) Maintain construction equipment with property tuned engines e) Use of low - sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment Q Use of on -site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction operations to minimize traffic interference 3. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to reduce odors from'construction activities. 4. Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.12 and 431.2 which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. 5. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment. An air quality analysis shall be conducted for the proposed mechanical equipment that identifies any additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment. 6. The project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient design regulations as well as the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements. 7. The project shall comply with the vehicular trip reduction requirements of AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.08). C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or stale ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ❑ 0 0 d CHECKLIST Pace 7 � Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated Daily operation of the proposed project would not produce emissions that exceed applicable thresholds. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ The proposed project is adjacent to the Flagship Medical Care Center, a convalescent home, located approximately 100 feet southwest of the southern comer of the existing buildings A & B in the southern portion of the project site. This sensitive receptor could be exposed to some increased pollutant concentrations compared to existing conditions during demolition of buildings A & B and to a lesser extent during construction of buildings 1 and 3. However, implementation of the standard conditions listed in response 38 would reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. No significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation is required. a) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed project would not involve any uses that would create objectionable odors associated with daily operations. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. Iv. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ ❑ ❑ El d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 13 11 13 El e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? CHECKI-IST Page 8 �a a5 gnificant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated The proposed project site is developed with office and industrial buildings. No native vegetation or habitat occurs onsile. Existing vegetation consists of native and non - native ornamental species planted as landscaping. Species consist of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), pine (Pins sp.), bottlebrush (Calistemon sp.), Ficus (Ffcus sp.), Locust bean (Robinia sp.), and Palm (Phoenix sp.). The site has been maintained and manicured and offers little habitat value to native wildlife species. In addition, the site vicinity is highly urbanized and does not contain viable contiguous habitat for any endangered, threatened, or rare plants, or wildlife. The only native wildlife species observed during site visits included northern mockingbird (Mimus polygfotfos), American crow (Corvus bractlyrynchus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), yellow - romped warbler (Dendmica coronata), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), white - crowned sparrow (Zonotrichie leucophrys), black phoebe (Sayomis nigricans), and mourning dove (Zenalde macroura). No locally designated species, natural communities, or wetland habitats occur onsile. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ E( b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ EI c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ CSI d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ H No historical, archaeological, paleontological or geologic features are known or expected to occur onsile. The project site was first developed as an industriaUmanufacturing complex In the early 196Vs. The proposed project would not require extensive grading or excavation and, therefore, Is not expected to result in the disturbance of unknown historiefprehistoric; archaeological, and/or paleontological resources. No impacts are anticipated. However, in accordance with City of Newport Beach standard conditions of approval, the following measures shall be implemented: 1. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. 2. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer. 3. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive provisions of A8952 related to the City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. CHECKLIST, Pagee, ., ! 91$b signs icant significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated vi. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to.potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ❑ ❑ El ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ Ei ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ivy Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ C) Be located on a geologic relit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ ❑ Q D The project site is located in Southern California, a seismically active region which is exposed to an ongoing threat of strong seismic ground shaking from major earthquakes. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting a site are dependent on the distance to active faults or seismic sources. The immediate site vicinity contains several inactive or bedrock faults. Known potentially active faults within three miles of the project area which are capable of inducing seismic hazards include the Pelican Hill fault and the Shady Canyon fault. The closest known active faults are the Newport - Inglewood Offshore fault (5 miles northwest), Palos Verdes - Coronado Bank fault (15 miles southwestZ and the Whittier -North Elsinore fault (18 miles northeast). Due to the distance between the proposed project site and these active faults, the potential for the occurrence of onsite fault rupture is less than significant. The proposed project is not listed in Division of Mines and Geology Seismic Hazard Zone Maps (Newport Quadrangle) as an area where historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements. Additionally, the proposed project would not require extensive grading and would therefore not expose soil to the threat of substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. No significant geology and soils impacts are anticipated. However, the project shall comply with the following City of Newport standard conditions of approval: 1. All earthwork shall comply with the requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Sec. 15.04.140) and the City of Newport Beach Grading Manual. Requirements for grading plans and specifications will be established by the Building Department, and may include the following: • Soil engineering report • Engineering geology report • Surface and subsurface drainage devices • Erosion, sediment and pollution control plans CHECKLIST Page 10 c' r .J' Mitigation Incorporated • Haul route plan for transport of earth material • Landscaping and irrigation plans Significant Impact impact 2. Prior to the Issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach General Services, Public Works, and Planning Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in cohformance with the approved plan. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or altemative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste wate(t ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The proposed project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. ML HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The proposed project would not involve the storage, routine transport, or disposal of hazardous materials or substances, or emit hazardous wastes. No impacts are anticipated. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ The proposed project site has been used by the Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon Companies in the manufacture of semiconductors and other solid state components, packaging of microelectronic devices, and mounting of completed electronic components on circuit boards or other assemblies. Hazardous materials were used in these operations. In April 1999, Phase I and it Environmental Assessments of the property were conducted by Environ International Corporation ( Environ). Environ identified twenty one areas of potential environmental concern, two of which were former underground waste solvent tanks known to have impacted soils onsite. The remaining areas consisted of Former and existing below grade process waste drain lines, wastewater neutralization or acid p tsAanks, a plating shop, and a spill containment tank. Soils in these areas were tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The compound detected most frequently in soil gas was trichloroethene (TCE). cHEC%USr Page I I a51 • Potentially Potentially Less than No significant significant significant Impact Impact unl "s Impact Mitigation incorporated Raytheon is responsible for decontamination and removal of equipment and contaminated soils prior to releasing the property to the buyer for demolition and redevelopment. Three underground storage tanks (USTs}; a solvent tank, a diesel tank, and a gasoline tank; their associated piping, and any related contamination must be removed. In addition to removing tie USTs, Raytheon wig: • Decontaminate and remove all manufacturing and process equipment; • Remove all hazardous materials stored onsits (fuels, chemicals, compressed gases); • Decontaminate and remove all hazardous materials storage containers; and • Decontaminate and remove gas and drain lines that formerly contained hazardous materials. Risk based screening criteria developed for the site show that measured soil contaminant concentrations pose no health risk to future users of the property (i.e.. occupants and construction workers who. prepare the sile). Nevertheless. Raytheon implemented soil remediation as a conservative measure. The RAP selected, and the RWQCB approved, soil vapor extraction (SVE) as the preferred technology for remediating site soils. SVE utilizes thermal destruction, catalytic oxidation, or carbon absorption to destroy or reduce VOCs to acceptable levels before discharging treated vapors to ambient air. The progress of the soil remediation program will be documented through routine monitoring of soil conditions and SVE system monitoring equipment. Raytheon also has a contingency plan to prevent delay of development of the site in which impacted areas which have not been remediated will be excavated, and the impacted soil treated or disposed of off -site. Groundwater samples collected since 1982 have indicated that groundwater beneath 'the site has been impacted by VOCs including TCE, dictoroethene (PCE), vinyl chloride (DCE), and acetone. Although groundwater beneath the site is brackish and would otherwise not be suitable for domestic use, the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) has indicated that groundwater remediation would be required based on the Inland Surface Waters Enclosed Says and Estuaries Policy due to the project site's proximity to Newport Bay, approximately 2,500 feet to the south, and the general direction of groundwater flow to the south. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP), prepared by Dudek and Associates, detailing Raytheon's approach for dealing with impacted groundwater and soil at the site was prepared and submitted to the RWQCB in December 1997, and approved in early 1999. The RAP found that groundwater data compiled since 1982 show a decreasing trend in the concentrations of TCE, PCE, and acetone. The sources of these contaminants were removed in 1983, and since that time, concentrations of these compounds have decreased by over 90 percent. Analytical groundwater data indicate that the cause of this decrease is due to the natural anaerobic biological degradation of these compounds by indigenous microbial anaerobes. These anaerobes are responsible for degrading PCE and TCE and are using acetone as a "food" source during the biodegradation process (Dudek 1998). Acetone concentration in the groundwater will be regulated and augmented in certain wells as needed because degradation appears to correspond with its presence in the groundwater. The biodegradation process will be monitored on a routine basis to determine the progress of the remediation. Raytheon is responsible for the enhanced in -situ bioremediation and routine monitoring of groundwater beneath the project site. For this reason the project applicant would provide Raytheon with access to the property for continued groundwater sampling and monitoring well inspection. With the exception of groundwater contamination, the proposed project site would be fully remediated by the previous occupant, Raytheon Company, prior to occupation by the applicant. Because the groundwater is not suitable for domestic use, contamination would have no impact on future users of the property, and remediation will continue regardless of site occupancy. However, the project shelf comply with the following City of Newport Beach standard conditions of approval: 1) Construction and occupancy of the facilities may occur prior to the completion of the remediation if it is determined by the Regional Water Quality Control Board that no adverse effect would occur to occupants. r� s• -N .°1 CHECKLIST Page 12 .4J Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated 2) In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the applicant shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste andlor hazardous materials are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services and office of Statewide Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30. 3) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the City of Newport Beach demonstrating that its Hazardous Materials and Waste management Plan and its infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the applicant has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Q For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q The proposed project site is located in a highly urbanized, industrial zone of the City of Newport Beach. The site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip. Furthermore, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, nor would it expose people or structures to wildland fire risk. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Demolition, construction, and renovation associated with the proposed project would increase the potential for erosion and release of sediment, and construction and post - construction pollutants into storm water runoff. Demolition, construction, and renovation associated impacts would be temporary in nature and implementation of the following conditions of approval would reduce impacts to a less than significant level: CHECKLIST Page 13_,� SlgnHicant significant significant impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. A stormwater pollution prevention plan ( SWPPP) shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutants from the site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, material use, structure construction and painting, paving operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste management, and hazardous waste management. The SWPPP is subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach 2. The applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) general permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity and shall comply with all the provisions of the permit Including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the developmenP and implementation of best management practices (BMPs), implementation of erosion control measures, monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. ' b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ❑ ❑ ❑ d The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an industrial/business complex and would not result in increased impervious surfaces. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ El e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ❑ ❑ ❑ O The proposed project site consists of approximately 80% impervious surface. Storm water runoff drains primarily to the eastern edge of the project site into an existing gunnite terrace cut into the embankment facing Newport Boulevard. The terrace directs flows into a stormwater drain in Newport Boulevard. To a lesser extent, some flows drain to stormwater facilities in Superior Avenue. The proposed project world not substantially modify the site's existing drainage patterns. However, the following standard conditions of approval shall be implemented: 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall conduct site hydrological analyses to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additional facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments for approval. 2) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive geotechnicaVhydrologic study (including groundwater data) to the City of Newport Beach Building and Public Works Departments. The study shall also determine the necessity for a construction dewatering program subdrain system if deemed necessary by the Building Department based on the design and elevation of the foundation structures. T. CHECKLIST Page 14 c t D D Slgnificant Significant significant Impact Impact unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ H ❑ See response to a) above. g) Place housing within a 100•year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an industriallmanufacturing complex and would not be located within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The project site is not located in a dam inundation zone and is not at risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or muditow. No impacts are anticipated. O(. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing industriallmanufacturing complex as a technology center. It would not result in community disruption or impact neighborhood cohesiveness. No impacts are anticipated. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ The proposed project is located In the City of Newport Beach and is designated in the General Plan and zoned for industrial use (M -1 -A). The project site is located in the Hoag Hospital Area (Statistical Area A3) as specified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and is designated for General Industrial uses. Development in this area is limited to a floor area ratio of 0.510.75. Therefore, oonstructloh of the proposed three -story buildings, with a designed height of 50 feet would require the issuance of a conditional use permit The M-1 -A Industrial District provides areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. The project is consistent with these designations. No other land use plans, policies, or regulations apply to the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ CHB=ST Page 1� trlgntocant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated The proposed project site is not within the boundaries of any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impacts are anticipated. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ El c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? D ❑ ❑ 0 The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an industriallbusiness complex. The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, nor would it displace people. 'No Impacts are anticipated- X1. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? D ❑ 0 ❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a description of the noise levels that occur over a 24 -hour period. CNEL is the sound level, in decibels (dB), usually measured with an A- weighting scale and denoted as dBA that corresponds to the average energy content of the sounds (or noise) being measured over a 24-hour period. Certain periods within the 24 -hour cycle are weighted to account for the sensitivities of humans to noise events in the evening hours: a 5 dB weighting is assigned for the period of 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and a 10 dB weighting is assigned for noises that occur during the period 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance requires that noise levels in the exterior areas of single - family residences not exceed 65 CNEL, and not exceed 45 CNEL in the interior areas. Where the ambient noise level is higher than the measured noise condition, the ambient becomes the relevant standard. Development of the project site would occur over an approximate 10 -month period. Noise would be generated by budding demolition and by grading, excavation, and construction. Noise levels generated by construction activities are based upon the type of equipment, the number of each type of equipment, the time of day the equipment is used, and the percentage of the day each activity occurs. Approximate noise levels from construction equipment is known from previous studies. Table 2 summarizes typical noise levels at 50 feet CHECKLIST 1 Page 16 Significant Significant Impact uniess Impact Mitigation Incorporated Noise generated by construction equipment and construction activities can reach high levels, ranging from 68 to 105 dBA depending on the type of equipment being used. * At 50 feet, grading activities commonly have average noise levels (e.g., Leq noise levels) of 85 dBA with noise level peaks as high as 95 dBA. General construction is considered to be quieter than grading operations. The same peak noise levels are often reached during general construction as during grading, but the average noise levels are approximately 5 to 10 dBA less. TABLE 2 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS Equipment Type Noise Level Range, dBA Average Noise Level, Leq at 50 feet Front Loader 71 -96 82 Bulldozer 72 -96 86 Truckffrailer 70 -92 82 Paver 80 -92 89 Truck 76.85 81 Roller 76 -84 79 Water Truck 79 -88 84 Backhoe 71 -93 85 Concrete Mixer 70 -90 85 Concrete Pump 74-84 82 Compressor 68-87 81 Source: Colia Acoustical Consultants, 1999 The most effective method of controlling construction noise is through local control of construction hours. The City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance does not allow construction activities between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday; construction activities that occur at other times (e.g. between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m, on Saturday) are exempted from the noise ordinance thresholds. Compliance with the noise ordinance is required and would reduce potential shot -term noise impacts to a level considered less than significant. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. The project would comply with the following conditions of approval: 1) The applicant shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8.00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment car machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who woks or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. 2) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Building Department that noise levels associated with all existing and proposed mechanical equipment is mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. 3) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be maintained in proper operating condition with noise mufflers. CHECKLIST Page 17 tz3 Significant Impact impact Mitigation Incorporated 4) Vehicle staging areas shall be located away from the area adjacent to the convalescent faciiNies at Dana Road and Newport Boulevard. 5) Stationary equipment shall be placed such. that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. 6) Noise levels in the residential areas located across Dana Road shall not exceed 110dBA for more than 30 minutes at a time. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 Ea The proposed project would result in reduced noise levels compared with the previous industrialimanufacturing tae. Existing exterior manufacturing equipment associated with the previous use will be removed. No impacts are anticipated. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (See response to a and b above) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 13 El 13 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project site is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport or the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project is not located within an airport land use plan. No impacts are anticipated. XIL POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ a b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ p H The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industrial/business complex. The project would not induce substantial population growth, or displace housing or people. No impacts are anticipated. ..y CHECKLIST Page 18. / "` a kP (Ii M. ianiffeaid Significant slpnitimnt Impact lmpaet Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated X111. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industriallbusiness complex. The project would not result in an increased need for public services such as fire and police protection, schools, or other facilities. beyond that already supplied to the previous use. No impacts are anticipated. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facitities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industriaVbusiness compfex. The Project would not result in the increased %use of local and/or regional recreational facilities. Project design includes provision of a linear park and half basketball court for employees onsite. No impacts are anticipated. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and rapacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in traffic from the previous use as a manufacturingfindustrial complex. Although project related demolition and construction activities would temporarily increase truck traffic on Superior Boulevard, this impact would be less than that of employee Trips to and from the site's previous use. Additionally, although long term operations could potentially result in additional employee trips, increases would.not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic bad and capacity of the street system. The project would comply with the following conditions of approval: rH> MIST Page 19 , Sigrlificart Significant Significant tmpaet Impact unless impact Mitigation Incorporated 1) The applicant shall submit a construction traffic control plan and identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (.e., flagman, signage, etc). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off -peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 2) The applicant shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and procedures shah conform to Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ ❑ ❑ H C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ ❑ H d) Substentially'inerease hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? D ❑ ❑ H e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ D ❑ H f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ D H The proposed project would not result in an exceedance of road or highway levels of service, changes in arc traffic patterns, increased hazards due to design features, inadequate emergency access or parking capacity, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No Impacts are anticipated. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? D ❑ ❑ H The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industriallbusiness complex. The project would not require expansion of existing utilities and service systems such as wastewater treatment. No impacts are anticipated. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ D D CHECKLIST Page 20 Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated The proposed project Involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industriallbusiness complex. The project would result in modifications in site hydrology and utility configurationfuse. No significant impacts are anticipated. However, the project shall comply with the following conditions of approval: t) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shalt ensure that site hydrological analyses are conducted to verify that existing drainage facilities are adequate. The applicant shall submit a report to line City of Newport Beach Budding Department for approval, verifying the adequacy of the proposed facilities and documenting measures for the control of siltation and erosive runoff velocities. A copy of this report shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a plan of water and sewer facilities for the project site. The applicant shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modifications or facilities necessitated by the proposed project d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) .Result in ;a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the - project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ❑ a f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ H The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industrial/business complex. The project would not require expansion of existing utilities and service systems such as wastewater treatment, Water supply, and /or solid waste disposal beyond that already provided for the previous use. No impacts are anticipated. However, the project shall comply with the following condition of approval: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, that all buildings shall be equipped with fire suppression systems. XVII. 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? 11 0 b) Does the project have impacts that 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.) 11 a CHECKLIST Page 21 Slanificam Impact no Impact Inowpvratad c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? D O ❑ 0 CHECKMT Page 22 �/�b6 SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available for review at Ne offices of the City Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 2 General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Specific Plan, District #8, Central Balboa. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. S. Chapter 10213, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 9. 'Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Fuscoe Engineering, 2000. 10. Remedial Action Plan, Dudek ;& Associates, Inc., 1997 . CHECKLIST ! Page 233 a 1 7 S L ad+ ap V 5 ¢ 2 0 C 00i m CL 3 uH yam zQrN» p0 �Z 3� g � z Z 0 F a 0 a aG O b«M •••Cppp C C m 2 c ZL a � o? F� a�-��3 a a or in-OF, " V c > G C LL > so R O G a- C mm c :a �$$ E is o °i� emeQQ ` 2.c w o C{ 2 no c °v � a --a m $g c mmom QSiO3EE� m= s� o,RSmmzocM= a,m3a p °'r m R�m m- m S w g -R ymmZ vmm Qpag3omw{' .=.r F O� w Daa ar� a 'MD a € mw am CL Q• cc g MEZ � Mc P! 0,= im8 aamm _c tn c� as �G vSm cA NS s O�Dw aOU L V ON -S aZ H - N C`2�=�'gw -TSE !w � �303� $m � ;E mmm 5=1 L C 7gc N m u � N m m E N w n m T i W 5mEN 5 ao � ° 0 c am w33m_°MY mm.P a Q 6 sEw o - o m vs_rianmm 9 0.5 .a SNwm af- BM -a ea ?m G we tRwOEm a.-._w m I x �� V r w m G Koo ° C �p oQz_a Cl CW C G P* �m0 z 3 a' O a+ � z P i� r f C a°@ O O � CC po CO 0cm C C CCE',mm C am 'L S m S$ g go'$ aC acs S a aam° aRmna+gm� �`� �a •o - o c Y } m 3 `o o ? m h o z a o 010 Vi m` 010 ? m o S °v�C$ �U� �C mcc�iR2 o •CC IL U-6 N 04' R cjr> ciz C C°W� a a a o> te jEa a 8¢ gm a m t --a Wg m` 3 �o Em ° a � �mm 33 3�+tFF « Q� m Ny C my� w E +y+y m m m c a m�A " °m Q`p ppC o �i c .. mwO 's• o � ° °m o � o M,m cw Qto g- Stn m cV�o ««m- ca a`zg 2 c� @ m �w .0 aa; » E °asp cp� «c $��+ fAc oq_° RC9Ea 9,F � �E wa mew c �ovf pE.o `An n $u VCL a9« -% m a $�1DgA Wm$ ; cV � C�C�aD _ .�$v0 �3 w0M 0222+ a CD mr`S k; DO.� ? 0 ° m ac E g E c Q Q m QV A c= C== wv "eac° wc $wn7$7 >ma r wcV Mix V3 2 mp sri� w m 'woV o M g Va°, V 'O m V8 U f C cr mm9mQ ,°M LD r m « Wi sNC C mi Vi zwp°wC .a VVi O.5 (n °�'$vVia ,°oa cV0�wl5K LV 00 R. ��1 f F H f O y C w^=L(P 3 Y � H K OQ?o Soi �o - C dxo� 0 n ma z U) 0 C 30 O f m 2 Z O H a E a 1 M Op a L, �W m w m�m$ �g�' 9ama a � 9 a °�°� o sa Flu$� a n@ ° ° c a a m ° o a T LPN law OE= PI� 'o o W o m' cm m o oy� $q c° ffi c try '�cV�p' L� iiii L VVO' y 3 c m y `� Vnmm Uttitt am NOLLJ cw OLL> m °ILA 5 =iz S °LL7 n. a 'a a. a0 c c c� c� �1O cm O P V pz' . CL @CmC C V O�U s°mg �y WLNCL F..6GpV jlOrN �rJC 3Um >$° wwaOL59 (ww9 m CL �OC Grc C,Q IS a � �' mm $TOC CO�m rcC oz— - atiavES Cm B 0 0 @$ 3 n c Q V E m S V =cgm n «C5 t c m= iyvw 9C0i5�iino v`mm m W@ E P+Q a m >0 p m �-5•tTv a T@ fr m� @@ p m mW �p @•cam Qm .0 @o SOB m CAW 3m w 3L�r m- �Z°,oc'S ff'Spnc r_ b�c �.m ° 13o. El ckN am o>Esc pit Q m KO vE E _ @ w s@ $.m Cm w @ . w . 00 t a5L m T o 0 sw c—rp- C @ @C =5 C= 5NOLCN OV l O mNm ma�ppm Ocon �Yw 'O0 E m m8 Mm ^wma ti Z3 N-6 •w . a�� m � w m =1 no siSn22 >5 °E c O2'5o1 E o 0 Ecc U0 a -mm. I- PU 0 wV rp m 3a � C wQ 9Wc�-MH w¢ 1 M Op a L, K N N n •' aezai m F W5 0<zg w0Op v r° v d a 02 > }m� 7 w c _ try)� a O o oz 3 z o y f Z O 1- a n IL'M C O O � a ZO 7 m f" ¢Fn and H aED og WM s° e u ScOi �' F I» IL m 00 N YG O 910 o ?Z� , cUa`s Ua � Ua 2 -c > OLL> M c°jL �! 0 c o wt E m0 c W a W.E -amron x ocm w3 ° WE_y-.. 'S 13e —a L Zp W m W N Lw 00) 3 CWL 3C. ®n L0 W S OC =SC�S¢� m W iV gGam" E oa' ys� ;mFL»s°'0 o Z, o m e a v u w imt3`r° � Av°t m �W�EamW�e4 mrmmS c me °o °'�Q Tmo�v `oo o+mcw cm c�mg n�`�Wt m� E C oys.,c°oZU.q c _w 3 EE = L o =3v m� °m.0 WW to s. ,icwW c wtl1 n v�prop 3�� cN fc c m a .0 c4a- to UO w now s w '�w � _ .6m> m v'3 W t°n W V1 E a v 2 0 m<tu COO • • • cnaLn E n.oii �d is ro P. a�3 g w C 600 F o grc9 O > z °o V C 0 a o°omn.m OFQD y» Ow p0 z }+�A 0 x z G V t f h 61 n o m qq v m E v m e c a00DA HIS 0o chi fi °o� a sm vm 'off `0 W6 t mm a 0 a a ov ?c'6c m z.c�c m m Zc'm m (pp m my m o °m or U q�8 me ,x yta cU� _ Ucnc nmma�m 7 _mm ROLL7 msix cm 0y.7 a a a O as o� o ? O}8 g T O� ° 9 C� a° p p p Sq €tmp S=rB o'� °mB§22Mo ='o° �K m sP }SO m&�EAUmce mrcc`c c Eoc m. `m cSviNoA mct6ILL m mm rs m Cr E maC,.e v� 'S "gg 0 o °�c °cam' Eg•9 H�.o 6z4!9° s m— m-OQo _ €mcg v mo�+i.2 a 15 At 99� c g649= � � a,� �s ma wa, mm4oaS$ y «m Ams�2 c mnV oV �o O 3�m °'• ° -o°z mA °cw'a am mC tHgo ° a - mm ayc « c ma mcc'S a P m m °�v Fe% v °g m°cmUW�a Sao ° ma°d.Ass c§mm3 °3� °sr °ec 10& 0 °Emg �C�'c 08=2°cm°a00a' w`0 —Ac mm'°ctg ba «ao i �q� is m8lm aL NPU IOc� �m m =m�m� i m£"�m E F-� tim o�vi m�wr �R°° -m `0x;m 16 `n c� �a�mv Cam•+ s m N tpV �Nfr V'— � G iz 9 r� m >m 6Dmnm6 —ipJ�t A°1 L m G� m•S g� m m �wm � s y cO C� V �� ry roc V.c3mmE tnao «3� n c m..n Vo ?mmV�wmz fnUv «ma�'soai5y m m.-. �O rS c-�=0 mi6"$,o�,�mm «�EwUl000VmamoEa oAE m V•ctmt0m h 61 n K Q g 7 N C7 �' �Z m ap Ci C . r O jr 0 O W a �Q� t O c 0 Z 3 u) z z 0 a C2 g 1 0 as 30 � m� m a O p E� s- a a « oro c ° c � L V C (GLL9 gj cc �� ap 0 co c• c� �a A> E ymtm mr �c cgaam�,,,;m m��m ac 'mmp °o�m Ham Om a Emc �.i6m COL d_E= cac3m am ao. swm`�o mac s «EmEES �o�mU r >E ° ?Nm �r m m p 3a mm$ -o a U o 3� B o m �' y n m bmgm E t c ,,., cnam �� ca.,. � a 3m m f� �Nm cmm�y�m m... Ya a� �^ r= m o: m Ll �a*4 0 W�a�cc 3.: & $�® mZ CD m mE E "m m $ °n 'w`-np m�.tv f a°pr £�c5mc oo °`$cm G-m�c nm m$aWB,p' c E m•' -a m�cr v`°E 9 ,r�•6 w a?Sm�: am cmo m a$ a'p mC� 3wf0o o L E co m$ N> o@ w o V m V 3 $•w a m c p .- 0 $Lac '9 E h-r =Hm 1 m .0 r m90 gm E a mmp «a m Em C Q .. N � c `3 E o m s oLD ro mE0 _ ° m> =gm� o a�noEEa`o3 tE�aUx mc031Uiia$ co b P. a1� I L M C apV 7 F c K�Q >Z °o O Oa�ev °° v no a v! » FWoO rz 3Ol m z z 0 E n n "i An u a ee tq a •�'&5 o v cm`3�m3��z v � mS� moQ �o a� 11 awm°�a a a a o 0 4 Q CP= cu =� F� Hn5 'S '$o ?C-55 its gm o 9310 E-51 � _ I CW m _ U m Y ^ V y 'Tom 0 Cg y 0 w v �na1 6 m am �m �oLLm �> o V; o" m > Oc CM> r0tL> K a S a S Ola° Q D �¢ e � ¢ a 0 S• E v t� ti ti W•m °O°�oC��r�%m.rm. t�,�a ao wW �� mrsm..mc mL'o ,g a��ca� caLa wrs -5a mm c o ro m'� �° 'm� rs n 0o ap 3Z �c °ro;sac$o n�� m =�3 �gme8 E$ �'� c3 ®a =m =s 08 9> �� m bW 8mm :EB o mo ag �€ � p eo m mw Qe ro A ` m m ro� m a c.o m c m a 8 3 0 po ES c m �v8�$ m g m Wym� °Ec�gq§ m � @ 0m�1°? 5 n mn mca f Erom ��'Ji C LuD a Z �Ol YO j ro y c am C m V m co� e $ � o°mmm C > L o 7E 8 ep o cro 3 •s i3 °m a�c B� n Em Qae m M .aea w EEC — =i' p��o2am0 °�o °c mro° 'cw Vt8 8- U>oroz�mVr3ooc m =dw :nrE $acio $$a o mw�v m � z n "i An u k \§ \ !. or &2C, - a§] �£ § §IOU I{ §$ { > Ems§ .k�m44 CL Lu 00 �zt� | z ;- � kk ; . f�ik f�rk �k �k a!,! ® �3 ! # !` !� I a o 0 %a k\ , co -Au ( �z \ 2 /}\ a m0 wo IL ,« A� 7L \ ; fk /m kk) \!a / ;,ID ,,a �i §ko =. \ \§k • B- -')£ -o! eff;° �E#a � ` ! £ ■ z af, { §, cis w1, � !k -a E�`f 7 •) ) )k�� 0- )kk ;Z,lK�fa�! z!!}t « �m w l ;ak0 S 4 \ \k \� ki:mv -0)mk }a 0 ak 2 § / { §5f0 7; ƒ § - \ {\ )§ /k0 !, w Ea k;0lUw0 , / �3� October 26, 2000 Ms. Genia Garcia Planning Department City of Newport Beach. . 3300 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Newport Technology Center Response to Section 20.65.055 LPA Project No. 20068.10 Dear Gen €a: RECEIVE€ PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPnRT BEACH LPr AM MOIL 0 6 2000 pct 71819i1013I11Z1112f3 €41618 �r The Newport Technology Center project complies with the four points of section 20.65.055. Below please find our response to each section idendf€ed by section letter. Section 20.65.055 item A. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit In any tuna. Particular attention she /1 be given to the location of the structure on the /oy the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of a// setback and open areas. The existing conditions are a single massive multi -story building with no visual public space other than a parking tot. The proposed three story components of the Newport Technology Center increases the visual public open area on the site by reducing the building footprints and providing greater distances between the structures. The three story components are arranged at the ends of the property to frame the visual open space, provide definition of the public courts and provide views within the project and towards the ocean. These public spaces are landscaped and furnished to enhance the views am provide for outdoor activities creating a professional class A campus type atmosphere while reducing the percentage of the site covered by the buildings. Section 20.65.055 item B. The increased building height would result In a more desirable archgedural treatment of the building and a stronger and more eppeeting visual character of the area than fs required by the basic height irmk in any zone. The existing conditions consist of a massive multi -story structure set deep on the property providing no sense of presence on the street or property. Surrounded by parking and dominated by a 5 level parking structure at the street the current building has no significant scale defining elements or architecture. The proposed three story components of the project provide an architectural frame to the street, project site and court spaces. The components of the building facades break the height of the building into the classical base and top with scaling components to provide visual interest and shadows. These components combined with location provide the project with architectural presence framing the street and visual public spaces within the site while drawing attention away from the existing parking structure. -uz ems_° PPS= PP. _,...a 1 a1 NIS Genta Garcia Project No. 20068.10 0 October 26, 2000 page 2 Section 20.65.055 item C. The increase bu>kGng height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Partmaer attention shah be gh!en to the total bulk of the structure including both hodzontel and vertical dimensions. The existing streetscape consists of a 5 story parking structure tight to the street and a row of mature pine trees fronting a large parking lot. The proposed three story components will complement the scale and street face created by the existing parking structure. Placed behind the mature pine trees, the buildings will provide a backdrop for the street trees and frame the visual public space of the streetscape. Space between the structures will generate public vistas as one passes along the street From Newport Blvd. the buildings will balance the height of the slope and mature eucalyptus trees, enhancing the visual corridor of the highway and providing architectural definition to the site from both the street and visual public spaces with in the site. Section 20.65.055 item R. The structure shall have no more area than could have been achieved without the uss'pennif, The existing building consists of multiple attached buildings constructed over a period of several years, creating one massive multi -story building surrounded by a vast parking lot. In contrast the proposed configuration of multiple buildings consists of two 2 -story buildings and two 3 -story buildings_ Although two new structures are being constructed, the total area on the site has not significantly changed from the existing project. The three story components allow for increased visual public space, broader vistas for the building occupants and an enhanced professional campus atmosphere. It is our hope this addresses your concerns related to the sections noted above. Please contact our office you have any further questions or clarifications. Sincerely, LPA, INC. Orange County Office James Raver Architect C-C: Jn20060.10\16663026d0c LBA 7� M E M 0 R A N D U To: Planning Commission City of Newport Beach From- Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committer: City of Newport Beach Subject: Newport Technology Center; 500 Superior Avenue (the "Project") Date: November 21, 2000 rage 1 M- Thank you for the opportunity to commenton the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ("DMND ") for the Newport Technology Center (the "Project ") which is located at 500 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, California 92663. ln'addition to other comments which you have received during the comment process in connection with the Project, which we incorporate herein, as well as our specific comments below, we offer the following general comments: the DMND fails to satisfy the requirements of CEQA for the specific reasons set forth below. For the specific reasons discussed below, we recommend that either a new DhfND with a complete Project Description and a Traffic.5tudy or an Envirormental Impact Report ( "EIR ") be prepared for the Project which document(s) should address our comments and concerns, and that such ducurnerrt(s) be re- circulated for additional comments. Among other things, the EIR or other document should include, for the reasons set forth below, a concise and complete description of the Project including the conversion of the current manufacturing facility to office use as well as a discussion of the traffic impacts of such a conversion. As to specific comments on the DMND, we offer the following: L Introduction. Legal Standard show that CEQA Guidelines section 15070(b) requires that a mitigated_negatiye declaration "project plans or proposals ... would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur." I;k�b ent ey: Hawxins law orrices; 949 650 iiei; Nov -27.00 2:58PM; Page 3 Planning Ca mntission ciry orttewpon Beach Page 2 November 2l. MO Id. (Emphasis added.) Further, environmental documents such as the DMND are reviewed using the "fair argument standard-" "Under this test, the agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Citations.) If such evidence is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary." Gentry v itv of Murri (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359,1399-1400. However, as discussed below, the DMND fails to satisfy this "fair argument standard:" as discussed below, the Project threatens to have many impacts including traffic, water quality, hazardous materials and others which have not been mitigated to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Hence, as concluded below, the Project requires a more complete environmental analysis; the Project requires either the re- circulation of a new DMND with a complete Project Description and a Traffic Study, or the preparation of a full EIR. LL Draft Notice of Completion Environmental Document Form and the 'Project Description," ;., The Project description is one of the key parts of any environmental document. As the Court of Appeal in County of Inyo noted long ago, "Only duvugh an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision- makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (Le., the `no project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." County of lnvo, v:City 9f LQs Anggle (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185,199. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines section 15124 requires that an environmental document describe the project "in a way that will be meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision - makers." Discussion, Guidelines section 15124. The "Project Description" contained in the Draft Notice of Completion fails to inform the public of the nature of the Project. The notice of completion states there will be a total of 415,493 square feet of office space in the project. The checklist and impacts discuss repeats that ibis description: 0` Planning Commission City of"stewpon Beach Page 3 November 2 1. 2000 "The total square footage of office uses ousitc under the proposed (P]roject is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet of existing uses." DMND, page 7, paragraph 1. However, the current use is not office use. For instance, the Project Description in the Notice indicates that the current use is "MIA (Manufacturing, Industrial)/General Industry." The Project proposes to change or convert the use of the Project site from manufacturing and industrial use to office use. However, nowhere in the Project Description or elsewhere in the DMND are the impacts of such a change in use analyzed or evaluated. Further, as discussed below, because the DMND tails to analyze such impacts, it faits to consider mitigation for such impacts. Further, as discussed below, the "Draft Environmental Checklist Form," "General Plan Designation," paragraph 6, states that the general plan designation is "Industrial.' In addition, "Description of the Project;' paragraph 8, subsection titled "Project Objective," "the total square footage of development would be reduced by approximately 1,007 square feet with [P]roject implementation." Two sentences later, the "Project Objective" subsection describe., "la]dditional (P]roject features," which include additional parking, recreational facilities and landscaping improvements. From the current Project description, the DMND fails to explain the treed for these additional facilities given the reduction in total square footage. We recommend that any subsequent environmental document including an El slruuld include a table which shows existing and proposed square footage as well as a table comparing in detail current and proposed land uses by individual buildings and type of use. Furher, the square footage of the parking structure should be separate from the other uses on site. This information is necessary to quantify and evaluate project impacts. lll= Environmental Checklist including Paragraph 8- "Description of Project—" "PROJECT LOCATION" purports to orient the Project within the community, and provide orientation for the DMND. Unfortunately, the location of the directional armws for all maps is confusing: the legend of each map contains the northern directional arrow, not the map itself. That is, this notation appears to be something connected to the legend and does not appear to apply to the maps. This application leads to confusion. For instance, the table regarding surrounding land uses on page 2 of the DMND mistakenly locates the Sun Care and Rehabilitation Center to the east of the Project. We believe that this facility is located to the northwest of the Project. Flenee, because the DMND fails to provide clear orientation, we recommend that the directional arrows be clearly and prominently placed in each of the maps, not in the legend, to avoid confusion and to facilitate orientation. M, ent ey: nawnalls Lea vIOsuesi a +a wV "Ol i nuv -&&.VV a:oyrmi rage o,a Planning C.nmmin;m City of Newport Bee h Pate 4 ".i Wowniber21,2000 filmskwut fnwo amlimai��il�Ce, "The existing structures were used in the manufacture, mounting, and packaging of semiconductors and other electronic components by the Raytheon Company." Notwithstanding this general statement, this section fails to discuss any existing or current office uses of the site. As indicated above, the description of the Project is unclear: the Project seems to include a conversion of manufacturing facility to office use. "PROJECT OBJ=IVE" attempts to explain the objectives of the Project. In addition to the above continents, this subsection fails to provide a concise description of the project objective_ The proposed use of the Project is "a research and development office complex." (Emphasis added.) As indicated above, this subsection fails to explain clearly an& concisely the nature of the changes or the additions proposed by the Project. As stated above, the DMND should include a tabulation of the changes and comparisons between existing and proposed uses and buildings. "SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTINGS" again fails to provide any orientation of the Project. Although current development is oriented on the points of the compass, this orientation appears to be in error. The DMND should orient all of the maps on the points of the compass, and then the public and the City may evaluate the orientation and any Project related impacts. "EN VIR NMENTAL FACTORS PQUNTIALLX AFFECTED" and "DETERMINATION" fail to address the impacts discussed below. Because the DMND fails to satisfy the legal standards set forth above for such documents, we recommend that "DETERMINATION" should require that either a new DMND with a complete Project Description and a "Praffic Study, or an EiR be prepared. L -ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLI A. "AESTHETICS." The purpose of the DMND and the Project's use permit which requires the environmental document is the Project's proposed height increase. Despite this stated purpose, the DMND contains no discussion to support the conclusion that the increase in height would not impact surrounding buildings. A subsequent environmental document including an EIR should include a detailed discussion regarding the requested height increase. Further, a subsequent environmental document including the E1R should state the height of each and every building in - Plaaning Commission Chy of Newport Beach Page S November 21, 2000 the Project, the heights of the buildings on adjacent properties, the height restrictions for this zone and the rationale for increasing this restriction. Further, Exhibit 4 shows Building, I adjacent to Superior Avenue. Neither the DMND nor the Checklist contain any discussion of this new building on the neighborhood. A subsequent environmental document including an EIR should discuss the view and aesthetic impact of this multistory building which is planned close to Superior Avenue on the environment. : • M This subsection states that the Project and its long term operation w-ifl not create new emissions. However, as indicated above, and discussed below in the °TRANSPORTATION ICRAFFIC" subsection on traffic impacts, the Project includes the proposed conversion of a manufacturing facility to an office park. As discussed below in "TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC" impacts, office use typically generates more traffic than manufacturing. Without more analysis of this conversion and the impacts on traffic and air quality, the DMND fails to satisfy CEQA standards. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should discuss in detail the previous manufacturing activities and number of employees as well as the projected future activities and numbers of employees. rolmonFrMY-007 1 :: • Y : The Project site is subject to a Remedial Action Plan ( "RAP "). To further the RAP, the Project includes allowing Raytheon access to the property "fnr continued groundwater sampling and monitoring well inspection." However, the DMND fails to discuss in detail the RAP and current remediation activities. Further, in addition to access for sampling and inspection, Raytheon may require access for further remediation. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should discuss the RAP, current remediation activities and propose as further mitigation allowing Raytheon access to the Project site for further remediation if necessary. Further, as indicated below in "WATER QUALITY," this area may be subject to high groundwater. The Project should facilitate the clean up of such groundwater resources. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should address this issue. . 1111001ilim ..1 ..1 1 e : .� The DMND states that the existing site is approximately 90% impervious surface. However, the DMND contains no such percentage or other discussion regarding the impervious surface of the Project. Such information is necessary for a determination that the quantity ofrunoff is not impacted. 'nt BY: MawKlns taw UTTlces; w9`.1'Ou Isol; WoV•Ll-VV o.vvrm, ray, .+V Planning Commission City of Newport $,acb Page 6 Nuvem(+er 21, 7A00 Further, we understand that the Project area has historically experienced springs and rising groundwater. Given this historic high groundwater, the Project should include extensive maintenance of drainage facilities in order to prevent surface flooding. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should discuss the impervious surface of the Project, the groundwater table of the area, and any mitigation for the high groundwater. E. "LAND USE AND ELANV_1= 'Phis subsection discusses the conversion of the site from manufacturing and industrial to office use. However, without any analysis or discussion, the next sentence states that this conversion "would not result in community disruption or impact neighborhood cohesiveness." The DMND must clearly state nature and extent of the conversion and fully discuss any differences between the current and the proposed use. The DMND states that the current zoning is for industrial use (M -I -A). ]'he DMND should confirm that the conversion of the site to office use is permitted under the current M -1 -A zone. Indeed, various statements in the DMND appear to generate a conflict: the area is zoned for "industrial use," see ld. but also allows "a wide range of moderate to low intensity J e •. ntdustrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial office uses," see DMND, Page 15, subsection IX, paragraph b). As indicated above, the Project appears to convert the site into a total office use, not limited accessory and ancillary office use. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should clearly state current zoning restrictions and explain the compatibility of the Project's office conversion under current zoning restrictions. Further, this subsection states that "fd]evelopment in this area is limited to a floor area ratio of 0.5 /0.75." U at page 15, subsection IX, paragraph b). However, the following sentence purports to conclude: "Therefore, construction of the proposed three -story buildings ... would require the issuance of a conditional use permit." ]d. The DMND fails to explain this conclusion. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should clearly explain the nature of the Project, should discuss the rationale for the use permit and current regulations as well as the standards for exceptions. In particular, such a document should refer to and explain any regulation permitting increased floor area ratio and/or increased height subject to a Use Permit. KION a %5 plannipg Commission City of Newport Beach Page 7 11 November 21.2000 FAMEWkiam The DMND discusses noise impacts of the Project but fails to explain adjoining land uses including any noise sensitive land uses. Further, the DMND applies the single family noise standard. However, the DMND fails to explain why this standard Is appropriate or whether the area has single family residences nearby that might potentially be affected. Further, the DMND discusses noise impacts for construction activities but fails to address noise 'impacts of the Project due to increased traffic impacts. As discussed below, the Project conversion from industrial to office use may generate traffic impacts which may require analysis. ,. Wall ; 'These subsections conclude that the Project will have no impacts under these items. However, the DMND provides no information or analysis to support the statements in these sections. A subsequent environmental document including an BIR should provide some discussion to support any conclusion regarding impacts. As discussed above, the Project involves conversion from industrial and manufacturing to office use. For traffic generation and impacts, the difference is substantial. Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, ITE addresses some general traffic statistics for various uses. First, the ITE description for the light industrial category 0110) applies to facilities which "employ fewer than five hundred ( 500) employees" and includes "printing plants, material testing laboratories, assemblers of data processing equipment and power stations." Mda Generation, Sixth Edition, ITE- Presumably, this is appropriate standard for the current use. The industrial rate (ITE # 110) is .92 trips per one thousand (1000) square feet in the mooting peak hour and is .98 per one thousand (1000) square feet in the afternoon peak hour. In contrast, the corporate offices generation rate (ITE #714) is more than one hundred -fifty (1500 /0) percent of the light industrial: 1.47 trips per one thousand (1000) square feet in the morning peak hour and 1.39 trips per one thousand (1000) square feet in the afternoon peak hour. The multiple- tenant office space generation rate (ITE 47 10) is even higher: 1.56 trips per one thousand (1000) square feet in the morning peak hour and 1.49 trips per one thousand (1000) square feet in the afternoon peak hour. These general figures indicate that the Project threatens to increase traffic in the area and may have a significant traffic impact. Yet the DMND fails to discuss any tong term �� tD nt By: narrxins t.aw UTTICeS; U4U oats Slat; Nov- 'Lt -VU J:u1rM; rage Ulu planning commission ' City of Newport Beach Page 8 November Si, 20W traffic impacts or to analyze the impacts of the office conversion. Further, the DMND contains no information or analysis to support the presumed traffic generation of the project. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should include detailed information on the previous manufacturing activities and number of employees, the projected future activities and numbers of employees, and finally and importantly, a detailed discussion of overall traffic impacts and probably a detailed traffic study which should address the following issues: the City's traffic models treatment of the existing facilities and the Project; long term traffic impacts and trip generation for the Project; and discussion of the items under discussion in subsection XV, subparagraphs b) through g) rather than simple check marks: any subsequent environmental document including an EIR must explain these items rather than simply check the boxes. ), -UTILITIES & SE$VICE SYSTEMS." Since this summer, California in general and Southern California in particular, have become increasingly subject to brownouts or power outages in the peak seasons. Cumulative additions or changes such as the Project may affect this problem. The DMND contains no discussion of these impacts or proposed mitigation. Further, the DMND does not serve to inform the public or the City's decision - makers regarding the Project impacts on utilities including mitigation for power conservation, and the cumulative impact analysis of the Project and probable future projects on utility demands including electric and other power demands. Any subsequent environmental document including an EIR should include a discussion of the increasing demands for power and the increasing numbers of power outages in the peak seasons. �%, Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the DMND is insufficient: we recommend that a new DMND with a complete Project Description and a Traffic Study, or an EIR be prepared. r� .y WESTPGRT MARINE INC. 447 NORTH NEWPORT BLVD., NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • (714) 645 -4520 uS� P4"117- AID :F6�q f � SOD S~J�&!LI vQ �J.✓,� ^_. 7- 6�r9cf/jGiL ; JAN inn%'x goo /Z1L �(?O/L 7 k�Ny /Li y 4ilf�T� Sfi�u /-D c57A4 6 A,61`11 -,Y40 0 F 71 '00� 77 rely �7 7'79n� /T'�-� �' F�4 c7�2 i.✓� 4vIt5 %IG.4i�'T Tih9T ef4 26ZT-Cv 07 P/9" f 101Vp f} %N1gr#7 .:r�1T- a D077- -1IY16o /iy "^ol�171V— ^.4oY i''%2 -40 Z" w /grf cT W J: AL' 7a g.C- ---5l 4140 WESTPORT. MMINE INC. 447 NORTH NEWPORT BLVD.. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • (714) 645-4620, vlz Wray -,� a leov x 77�q �2: i-%7� /�ar7�'c%'•' �{� �-CCf PT- /'irrG' � eV < �`,y4� �J�9.� -ride ��G.¢�7 --�� s �acno,,•.�r�y gy �%- yT7�'ea�Y �o v IviGt A/PnE 'y"� -T �,�� I-T, 77Z�, 7Z/e/, / y a %AFC /�v�f� �S �i�coR2�cT- ?` /N 1r4.`� r: ours ::.�� -v /�;s Lev.•,• y f7v STs-ilzel '6 swti a�' P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIFORNIA 92662 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NF.WDnRT BEACH AM WN 2 7 2000 PM November 28, 2000 7 8 9 ]0111212 S 4 S 8 Newport Beach Planning Commission ` 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -6915 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 500 SUPERIOR; USE PERMIT #3679 Dear Planning Commissioners: S SPON has received and reviewed the draft mitigated negative declaration prepared for the above referenced project. This document is inadequate for understanding the project and therefore is not an appropriate tool for the City's decision - makers. it appears that the consultant does not wish to address issues that may be controversial SPON believes the analysis of the following items remains unclear: • Project description —There is insufficient information to enable,16 reader to understand the nature of this project. A complete, clear description of the existing and proposed uses and square footage need to be provided. Transportation/traffic — Because of the lack of information in the project description, the traffic impacts cannot be evaluated. This project seems iQ be a conversion of a manufacturing facility to an office park. A statement under iX b. states that this zone allows industrial uses with "limited ancillary commercial and office uses, but this project is described as a research and development office complex. There is a sentence stating ".,:long term operations could potentially result in additional employee trips..." However, no quantifiable method is used to conclude what the traffic impacts might be. What traffic analysis has been performed for this project? If City regulations allow an increased floor area ratio and height under a Use Permit, the impacts of approving such a Use Permit need to be thoroughly explored. / vi) Newport Beach Planning Commission November 2g, 2000 Page 2 • Noise and Air Quality - Because the trdfiic analysis and trip generation are unclear, it follows that the noise and air quality discussions are incomplete. • Aesthetics — This use permit requests a height increase. What is the justification for such an increase, and what will be the impacts on surrounding buildings as well as on the streetscape? Why is the regulatory height in this district not appropriate for this project, especially given that the project seems to be an'expansion of site uses? • Water Quality — Given the region's current concerns about coastal water quality, this section should provide more quantifiable information to justify the conclusion that the quantity and quality of runoff is not impacted. Thank you for your careful consideration of the proposed project. Please continue to send project information to SPON at the address above. Sincerely yours, CLAUDIA OWEN ANDREA GLE Co- presiding officers, Stop Polluting Our Newport Steering Committee SANDY GENIS )" I?nl Winston K Hid= Agency Secretary Cel'domia Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control November 29, 2000 Edwin F. Lowry, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Ms. Eugenia Garcia Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard . Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER, 500 SUPERIOR AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA (SCH #2000111016) Dear Ms. Garcia: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Negative Declaration (ND) for the above - mentioned Project. Based on the review of the document, DTSC's comments are as follows: 1) The ND indicates that soil and groundwater at the site is contaminated with hazardous substances. Risk based screening criteria developed for the site show that measured soil contaminant concentrations pose no health risk to future users of the property. Additionally, Raytheon implemented soil remediation as a conservative measure. It also indicates that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) approved the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). If the RAP indicates no health risk from the soil contaminants, address the needs of the soil remediation. 2) The ND needs to identify when will the construction at the site will be initiated. No construction should be allowed before the completion of removal or remediation of the contaminated soil at the site. 3) The ND needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the close proximity of the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. DTSC's CalSites database indicates that the project site is adjacent to the Newport Beach Corporate Yard, located at 592 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach. This site is also a contaminated property and that RWQCB is Investigating. ® Printed on Recycled Paper J r � i a�� Mr. Michael Philbrick, AICP November 29, 2000 Page 2 4) The ND indicates that the proposed project site would fully be remediated by the previous occupant, Raytheon Company, except groundwater contamination. Though groundwater is not suitable for domestic use, RWQCB already indicated that groundwater remediation would be required. The ND should identify who will remediate groundwater after the applicant's occupancy. 5) The ND indicates that because the groundwater is not suitable for domestic use, contamination would have no impact on future users of the property, and remediation will continue regardless of site occupancy. Before the construction and occupancy of the site, engineering designs should be completed for groundwater remediation and that adequate space should be allocated to carry out groundwater monitoring and remediation. 6) Site occupancy before groundwater remediation should be consulted with the RWQCB. The suitability of the site occupancy is depending on the depth to groundwater. Volatilization of contaminants in groundwater may occur and that it will be a threat to the occupants in the future. 7) No soil disturbance should be allowed before. the completion of contaminated soil removal or remediation and that a regulatory agency certified that the site is clean. 8) If during construction of the project, soil contamination is suspected, stop the construction in the area and appropriate Health and Safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil exists, the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. DISC provides guidance for the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP or to meetldiscuss this matter further, please contact Mr. Johnson P. Abraham, Project Manager at (714) 484 -5476 or me at (714) 484 -5463. Sincerely, Haissam Y. Salloum, P.E. Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch ,; t Cypress Office Mr. Michael Philbrick, AICP November 29, 2000 Page 3 cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, Callfomia 95812 -3044 Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812 -0806 J November 29, 2000 Crrf OF COSTA MESA CA M2=Wt2LH MDOX12M Eugenia Garcia, AICP Associate Planner City of Newport Beach PO Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 RECEIVED BY PLAN F) ,SV4o()n - CITY r REACH O I UZ 01 PM AM qIg 19110111112111218141816 RE: NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dear Ms. Garcia: The City of Newport Beach has prepared a Negative Declaration for the proposed redevelopment project at 500 Superior Avenue. The Planning and Transportation Services Divisions reviewed the Negative Declaration and- offer the following comments: Traffic /Circulation: The site will be redeveloped as a technology center, which potentially could have multiple tenants. This will change the use significantly, resulting in higher vehicular trip generation to and from the site. A 1981 traffic study analyzing the expansion this facility indicated that the facility was operating in several shifts distributing trips throughout the day. The estimated trip generation during the p.m. peak hour for the expansion of this facility by 110,000 square -feet was 77, yielding a trip rate of 0.70 trips per 1,000 square feet during the p.m. peak hour. The evening peak hour trip generation for the entire site with the expansion was estimated to be 291 vehicle trips translating to a rate of 0.70 trips per 1,000 square feet (based on total square - footage of 416,499). This rate of 0.70 trips per 1,000 square feet during the p.m. peak hour is very similar to that for a "Manufacturing" facility provided in Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 61" Edition. The number of trips expected by this site according to ITE is 305 during a.m. peak hour, 310 during the p.m. peak hour and 1,590 during an average weekday. The conversion of this site to a "Technology Center" would change the use to a different category. The most likely type is "Office Park" with multiple tenants. According to ITE, the trip generation for 415,493 square -feet rd':? Office Park is 725 during the a.m. peak hour, 625 during the p.m. peak hour and 4,745 during an average weekday. Therefore, redevelopment of the above manufacturing facility to office park use will result in an additional 77 FAIR DRNE BuiMing Dwls (714( 7545273 Coft Enlo,ee r (7I4( 7545523 Ple,ming Dvisi n (711) 754 -5245 FAX (714) 754ABS6 T0D (714( 75452" 1 � .r 420 trips during a.m. peak hour, 315 trips during p.m. peak hour and 3,155 trips during an average weekday. This increase in trip generation could potentially result in significant traffic impacts at several intersections and roadway segments in the vicinity, contrary to the findings in the Negative Declaration. As such, the City of Costa Mesa requests a full traffic analysis based on the above to determine the exact impacts and necessary mitigations to the surrounding roadway system/intersections. The extent of this analysis in Costa Mesa should include all signalized intersections in the area bounded by Victoria Streetf22ntl Street, Newport Boulevard, Placentia Avenue and City of Newport Beach. The intersections to be analyzed in Newport Beach would be identified by their staff. Air Quality: The increased traffic volumes will also result in a corresponding increase in vehicular emissions. The impacts of the increased emissions need to be addressed in the air quality analysis. Population /HousinalEmolovment Balance: The Negative Declaration also needs to address the degree to which the redevelopment of the site as a multiple tenant technology center would impact the employment generation assumptions for the site. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Newport Technology Center Negative Declaration. Please forward a copy of your responses to our comments prior to f Planning Commission consideration of the related land use entitlement applications. Since the Notice of Public Hearing attached to the Negative Declaration indicates the Planning Commission is scheduled to hear the request just three days after the close of the public review period (December 7 and December 4, respectively ), I am hopeful that your responses will be provided in a timely manner to allow full review, consideration, and disclosure prior to final action by your Commission. Please feel free to call my office at (714) 754 -5610, or Raja Sethuraman, Associate Transportation Engineer, at (714) 754 -5032, if you have any questions on the above comments. Sincerely, PRMICQHAEL ROBINSON, AICP Planning & Redevelopment Manager cc: Raja Sethuraman, Associate Transportation Engineer OF TRANSPORTATION DISMCT 12 3347 Udwbm Dfie State 100 Ck 926124661 December 6, 2000 Eugenia Garcia City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Subject: Newport Technology Center Dear Ms. Garcia, UFr: 1 8 ?ODO File: ' IGR/CEQA SCHft. 2000111016 Log* 830 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration on Newport Technology Center. The project involves the approval of a use permit to exceed the basic height limit of 32 feet up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of ll an existing 416,499 square foot research and development site. The proposed project is located on 500 Superior Avenue. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans right way an encroachment permit is required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact our Transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. Sincerely, Robert FqJosph., Chia Advanced Planning Branch cc: Terry Roberts, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQRTRS Planning December 1, 2000 Ms. Anne Gifford City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA Re: Newport Technology Center 500 Superior Boulevard Use Permit 3679 Dear Ms. Gifford: We would-like ' t . o1hankyou for visiting the proposed Newport Technology Center at 500 Superior Boulevard. 1 would like to emphasize that the existing Toning of M -1 -A Research and Development would be maintained. With respect to the building area, the net effect of the proposed demolition and new construction will not exceed the existing entitlement of 416,499 square feet. You had expressed interest in the proposed tinted and reflected green glass, if you would like to see an example of this glass please visit 280 Newport Center Drive, Fashion Island. It Is a two story brick building at the corner of Avocado Avenue and Farallon. if you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 949- 260-1180 x159. Sincerely, LPA, INC. Orange Co. f /�2 CT Y%CIi+Z/ CA Gloria Broming Director of Entitlement Services. Cc: Mark Barker =$t Clair Cmipanj Chris Torrey - LPA, INC. IWA Yn VP Y � o'e pV O y OC o° L. aa3 swr# "mil RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER 500 SUPERIOR AVENUE REVIEW PERIOD NOVEMBER 3, 2000 TO DECEMBER 4, 2000 P COMMENTS FROM NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS CITIZENS Letter dated November 21, 2000 COMMENT RESPONSE EQAC -1 Proied Description. The Project Description Section of the Negative Declaration and Section 8 of the Draft Environmental The project threatens to Checklist Form, respectively, indicate that the proposed project have many impacts, which involves the demolition of 208,926 square feet of existing have not been mitigated to development and the construction of 207,920 square feet for a a point where clearly no a point total of 415,493 square feet and consists of the redevelopment of effects would the Raytheon Microelectronics facility as a research and occur. The Notice of development facility. A use permit is required because the at Completion states that states proposal includes the construction of two replacement buildings there will be 4 sq. ft. there that will exceed the 32 foot Basic Height Limit up to 50 feet; space in the project. The DMND fails to The project site is limited by the Newport Beach General Plan and explain the need for Zoning to research and development use with ancillary office use additional project facilities. associated with the research and development uses. There is not proposal to change the General Plan. A general office project is not permitted by the General Plan or the Zoning. The project is located in the M-1 -A Zoning District which allows for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. See response to comment below concerning land use for additional responses on this topic. Project features include additional parking, recreational facilities, and landscaping improvements that will contribute to a campus - like setting. EQAC — 2. Proiect Location. Comment noted. The maps are oriented as printed in maps of the site produced by Thomas Brothers Maps. The location of the directional arrows for all The project site contains approximately 13.69 acres and is maps is confusing; the bounded by Dana Road to the south, Superior Avenue to the legend of each map west, the City of Newport Beach Corporate Yard to the north, and contains the northern Newport Boulevard to the east. directional arrow, not the map itself. The table The location of the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center was regarding surrounding land incorrectly listed in the table on page 2 of the Initial Study as being uses is incorrect. located east of the project site. As noted in the comment, this facility is located west of the project site, across SuperiorAvenue, and north of the Harbor Homes Trailer Park and Superior Medical Center. Landscaped slopes and Newport Boulevard are located east of the project site. A Zoning Map is attached to the Response to Comments of the Negative Declaration. fy 7 EQAC-3 DMND fails to discuss any The existing structures were used in the manufacture, mounting, existing or current office and packaging of semiconductors and other electronic uses on the site. Appears components by the Raytheon Company. Raytheon has to be a conversion of use. discontinued its operations at the site and the existing facility is vacant. The proposed use of the site will remain research and development, as well as offices related to the primary use. Hughes and Raytheon operated the site with approximately 55% research and development and administrative use configured in typical office layout, and 45% for assembly and testing use. Parking at that time was based on the 55% administrative use and 45% for the manufacturing and assembly. The proposed reuse of the site will continue with some administrative office use related to the research and development use and some assembly, testing and manufacturing uses. At this time, the percentage is not known because the tenants are not known at this time. EQAC — 4 Proiect obeective. The project objective, as reflected in the Environmental Checklist, is to demolish three buildings and The DMND fails to explain replace them with two new, 3 -story buildings, with landscaping objectives of the project. It and other features. These improvements, as reflected in the should include a tabulation exhibits accompanying the Negative Declaration, would update of the changes and the character of the existing site development to a campus setting. comparisons between existing and proposed uses Existing buildings to be retained currently exceed the 32 foot and buildings. Basic Height Limit under a previously approved use permit. The two new buildings will be 48 feet 6 inches in height, to the top of the roof parapet. The main goals of the project are: 1. The demolition of existing buildings A, B. F. and G, which are a combination of one, two and three -story buildings, and all exterior manufacturing infrastructure; 2. The reuse and renovation of existing buildings C, D. and E (buildings 2 and 4), which are 32 feet to 43 feet in height; and 3. The construction of two new three -story buildings (buildings 1 and 3) to replace buildings A and B that will be approximately 48 feet 6 inches in height. A project characteristics table and building square footage table is attached to the Response to Comments. The M -1 -A District provides for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary Xr 'XI commercial and office uses. The use of the site is a continuation of the previous research and development use of the site, as permitted under the M-1 -A Zoning District. EQAC — 5 Surrounding j&nd Uses and Settings. As noted above, the orientationof the site discussed in the environmental document is Provided maps are not ce�ct' The reference to the location of the Suntxidge facility was oriented on the points of incorrect and has been corrected as noted above. The apartments the compass. are located approximately 80-100 feet southerly of the project site; the Harbor Homes Trailer Park is located across Superior Avenue from the project site, approximately 100 feet from the project boundary. A Zoning Map exhibit has been added to the Negative Declaration, which shows surrounding land uses around the site. EQAC — 6 Aesthetics. The following discussion is provided for clarification of the points raised in the EQAC letter DMND contains no discussion to support the The request for a height limit Increase from 32 feet to 50 feet is conclusion that the use described in the initial study checklist narrative and its potential permit for the increased impact on visual aesthetics Is described on page 5. Exhibit 6 in height of the buildings the Initial Study depicts the finished height of the proposed three would not impact story buildings and the character of the proposed project. The surrounding buildings. increased height is needed to provide for replacement research Should discuss the height and development square footage while allowing for additional of existing and proposed landscaping, reconfiguration of surface parking, the employee buildings and impacts on recreation area between the existing parking structure and neighborhood. existing Building 4 (see Exhibit 4) to create a campus -like setting on the project site. The overall development square footage on the site is slightly less than existing; proposed landscaped areas are increased, as portrayed in Exhibits 4 and 6. The proposed replacement buildings and the professional campus setting that would be provided are designed to be an aesthetic improvement to the site and the adjacent community (see Exhibit 5). The relocation of the buildings will result in a reduction in site coverage due to the reconfiguration of the square footage in five separate buildings instead of one building and the parking structure which provides more open space between the buildings than currently provided. The required 15 foot front yard setback on SuperiorAvenue and Dana Road will be enhanced with shrubs and ground cover to complement the existing berm and mature pine trees. Existing and proposed landscaping provided will aid in screening and softening the new building. Building 1 is adjacent to Superior Avenue as shown in Exhibits 4 and 6. The impacts of the new buildings on the neighborhood are described on page 5 of the Initial Study Checklist. The project will include additional window area on the buildings, thereby resulting 'XI in a potential increase in daytime glare. However, this increase would not constitute a significant impact to adjacent land uses because of building orientation and landscaping. Exterior nighttime lighting will be added and the existing lighting will be reconfigured to meet the City's required foot - candle radius for emergency and security purposes while avoiding potential negative glare impacts on surrounding properties. The site was previously used for research and development activities, including some manufacturing and assembly. The proposed project would continue these permitted uses and is not being converted to office uses. While offices may be included in the buildings, they are permitted in the M-1 -A Zoning District as accessory and ancillary to the research and development activities, and used to support the overall research and development activities on the project site. In approving a,use permit for the project to allow the new buildings to exceed the basic height limit, four findings must be made. Finding A states: "The increased building height would result in more public visuaf open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particularattention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas '. If the project is approved, as a condition of approval, a detailed' landscape and irrigation plan will be required that will aid in screening the appearance of the bulk of the buildings along Superior Avenue and Dana Road. Additionally, the landscaping around the perimeter of the existing parking structure will be required to be improved. The enhanced landscaping along both streets and the increased landscaping within the interior of the project results in more visual open space which enhances views of and from the property. Finding B states: "The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the budding and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone." The existing structures are set further back on the property and do not provide a sense of presence on the street nor does it provide an appealing visual character. By designing the project with four buildings instead of what is visually, one large existing building, greater architectural articulation is possible. The components of the proposed building facades are designed to break up the height of the building to provide visual interest and shadows. Finding C states: 'The increasedbudding height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created 363 between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions.' The existing Superior Avenue streetscape consists of a 15 foot landscaped setback for the five -level parking structure adjacent to the public street and a row of mature pine trees fronting a large parking lot. Placed behind the mature pine trees, the buildings will provide a backdrop for the street trees and frame the visual public Waco of the streetscape. Building heights in the general area range from one story to the high rise buildings near Hoag Hospital and the proposed building heights are. consistent with the height of other buildings in the general area. Finding D states: The structure shall have not more floor area than could have been achieved wdhout the use permit.' Although two new structures are being constructed, the total area on the site has not significantly changed from the existing project and is approximately 1,006 square feet less than the existing facility. The tree story components allow for increased visual public space, broader vistas for the building occupants and an enhanced professional campus atmosphere. EQAC — 7 a manufacturing facility to an office park. The proposed use of the The project includes a site is research and development. The project involves the reuse discussion of a proposed of existing research and development buildings, and the conversion of demolition and reconstruction of two new buildings for research manufacturing use to office and development use with ancillary office use. use that will not generate The total square footage of development under the proposed additional traffic. Need project is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet analysis on air quality with of existing uses. The project would therefore not add new long - traffic impact analysis. tern regional or local operational emissions. On page 6 of the Initial Study checklist, it is noted that emissions from daily operations at the project site would not exceed applicable thresholds. At this time, the tenants of the proposed project are not known, and without specific knowledge of the type of research and development tenants proposed for the site, it is difficult to ascertain the amount of emissions that might be generated. However; if any tenant proposes to use equipment that would require permits from the AQMD, the City will require, these permits be provided prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the affected tenant. All emissions are subject to the Air Quality Management District Regulations. Further, because the use is not changing, it is not anticipated that the project Will create additional emissions beyond that of the former use. X 3 °� :J EQAC - 7 (continued) As noted in the inMai Study, the square footage of research and development uses proposed onsite will be slightly less than the existing development square footage onsite. As noted in the Transportation Section of this Initial Study, there will not be a substantial increase in traffic to and from the site under the proposed project in relation to the permitted and existing land uses because the project is expected to generate 1,844 fewer daily trips than the previous use. See transportation and traffic section of response to comments. EQAC — 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The project site has been The DMND fails to discuss used by the Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon Companies in the in detail the RAP and manufacture of semiconductors and other solid state components, current remediation packaging of microelectronic devices, and mounting of completed activities. electronic components on circuit boards or other assemblies, in which hazardous materials were used in these operations. The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is summarized on pages 11 -13 of the Initial Study, and is referenced as a document available for review in the City Planning Department. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is the applicable state agency governing the hazardous materials remediation activities at the project site. The City's mitigation measures will insure that all regulatory agency requirements are being met at the project site. A mitigation measure has been added requiring a "closure letter" from the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board after the completion of soil remediation activities. As noted on page 12 of the Initial Study, remediation of groundwatercontamination is ongoing and subject to oversight by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A mitigation measure is included requiring a "closure letter' from the Regional Water Quality Control Board after the completion of the groundwater remediation and prior to construction. EQAC — 9 Hvdroloey and Water Quality. As noted on page 14 of the initial DMND needs discussion Study, the proposed project would not substantially modify the regarding impervious site's drainage patterns. Since the proposed project contains surface of the project to additional landscaping than currently exists on the project site, determine quantity of runoff there would be slightly less impervious surfaces on -site than the and its potential impacts. approximate 80 percent coverage that exists today. Therefore runoff from the site would also be decreased from existing Levels, but not by a substantial level. As stated on page 14 of the Initial Study, a condition of approval of any grading permit to construct the project will require that the applicant submit a hydrological i' 3�5 i Sato analyses to the City of Newport Beach, to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additforral facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City for approval. Additionally, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) is required to be provided to The City of Newport Beach for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. EQAC — 9 continued Because demolition, construction, and renovation associated with the proposed project would increase the potential for erosion and release of sediment, construction and post- construction pollutants into storm water runoff, impacts would be temporary in nature and implementation of included mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. EQAC —10 Land Use and Planning. The comment has incorrectly interpreted the opening sentence of. this section. The section does not DMND appears to generate discuss the conversion of the site to office use. As clarification, a conflict between the the text referenced in the comment is repeated below. zoning the property and the proposed use of the The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing property. A discussion of industriaUmanufacturing complex as an industrial technology the permitted Floor Area center. it would not result in community disruption or impact Ratio should be included. neighborhood cohesiveness." This statement was provided in response to the Initial Study question that asked whether the proposed project would physically divide an established community.' The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "General Industry" uses. This land use category has been applied to areas which are predominantly used for research and development, manufacturing and professional services. Permitted uses include manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, wholesale sales, professional service offices, service retail and restaurants. The project is located in the Hoag Hospital (Statistical Area A3) as specified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and is designated for General Industrial uses. Development in this area is limited a floor area ratio of 0.5/0.75. The project complies with the permitted floor area ratio because it is a Maximum FAR Use (Floor area ratios up to 0.75). Construction of the proposed three -story buildings with a height of 50 feet will require the approval of a use permit to exceed the Basic Height Limit of 32 feet. The existing and proposed research and development use will maintain the existing 0.510.75 F.A.R. use, and are proposing a .69 F.A.R. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan policies and guidelines. The proposed uses for the project will continue the research and i Sato ED 36 development activities that have historically occurred onsite and would not involve a conversion to office use. As stated in the description of allowed uses in the M -1 -A zone, the following uses are permitted in this zone without use permits: Commercial Uses Research and Development Services Offices, Business and Professional Industrial Industry, R &D The M -1 -A industrial District provides areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. The project is consistent with these designations. The Industrial Districts Land Use Regulations, Chapter 20.20 is attached to the Response to Comments for further information. EQAC —11 Noise. The Initial Study devotes over 2 pages to the description of potential noise levels that could occur during construction. DMND fails to explain Mitigation measures ( #1 thru #5) are specifically provided to adjoining land uses mitigate potential construction noise impacts to convalescent including any notes facilities and residential areas adjacent to the site. Noise from iv sensitive land uses. DMND tenants on the project site is not expected to exceed levels fail discuss noise specified in the City's ordinance. impacts due to increased traffic associated with the Since there are no limits on noise levels during construction, project mitigation measure No. 6 is eliminated. EQAC —11 (continued) With respect to noise increases from project traffic, since there are no traffic increases anticipated from the proposed project in comparison to the traffic from the existing uses, there would be no increases in traffic- related noise. EQAC —12 Population and Housing and Public Services. The Initial Study explains that the proposed project involves the reuse and ro DMND provides no redevelopment of an existing industriallbusiness complex. Since information analysis to the project description indicates that the proposed square footage support the statements to to be developed on the project site is slightly less than the existing this section. use and no significant changes in employee population, housing demand and demand for public services is anticipated. Therefore, no further analysis is necessary. EQAC —13 Transportationffraffic_ As noted above in these responses, the The project threatens to proposed project does not involve a conversion of use from increase traffic in the area research and development to office use. 36 and may have a significant traffic impact. DMND falls to 1981, a Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Kunzman to discuss any long -tens Associates for an expansion of the Hughes facility, per the traffic Impacts or analyze requirements of the Orange County Congestion Management the impacts of the office Program (CMP) and the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing conversion. Ordinance (TPO). The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires special analysis and mitigation of traffic impacts if project - generated traffic is greater than one percent of the combined total of existing traffic, projected regional traffic growth, and traffic generated by 'committed' projects (i.e. approved projects requiring no further discretionary review) on any approach to any of the study intersections during the morning and/or evening peak hours. The City's traffic standard is for intersections to operate at no greater than 90 percent of intersection capacity, or level ofservice "D ". For those intersections already above the 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value, and increase in 0.01 in the cumulative ICU necessitates traffic mitigation. In 1981, the TPO traffic analysis determined that, after project completion, traffic generated by the project would contribute to the short-range cumulative degradation of the West Coast Highway /Balboa Bivd./SuperiorAvenue intersection during the a.m. peak hour and mitigation was required of Hughes Aircraft. The Traffic impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, was for a proposed 110,000 square foot expansion (Building E) and the parking structure. The study indicated that there were . 1,285 employees currently at the site and analyzed the addition of approximately 680 employees that would work in Building E (the 110,000 sq. ft. addition). The Traffic Study analysis was based upon three employee shifts and a projected five -year forecast of manpower and space requirements. The project'' information critical to the City was the 110,000 square foot limitation on gross floor area and a 1,965 limitation on employees (1,536 on the first shift). The City issued building permits for the addition on the basis of a reduced gross floor area of 109,893 square feet, and the applicants' agreement to provide manpower reports to the Planning Department twice yearly. The use permit was subsequently amended in 1982 to increase the square footage for the addition to 112,916 square feet, and In 1983, a revised Traffic Study for the approved Hughes expansion project was approved due to manpower staffing changes and revisions to the final square footages. of the project. The applicant the City entered into an agreement to fund improvement to Coast Highway /Balboa Blvd. /Superior Ave. " : , 3b% r;i:•, Newport BlvdJHospitai Road. The analysis was performed in accordance with the methodology prescribed in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The completion date for the proposed project is expected to be in 2002 and the traffic volumes were projected to the year 2002- The regional traffic projections are consistent with the City's methodology and procedures for forecasting the regional traffic annual growth rate. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis for the Newport BlvdJHospitat Drive intersection shows that the ICU at the intersection, including the project's traffic, is projected to operate at 0.61 and 0.71 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This is well below the TPO limit of 0.90 and no mitigation is required. The West Coast Highway /Balboa Blvd. /Superior Avenue intersection is projected to, have ICU values of 0.92 and 1.02 during the /AM and PM peak hours, respectively. When the project's peak hour traffic volumes are added to the ICU value, the ICU's remain at 0.92 and 1.02. Therefore, there is no project impact to the West Coast Highway /Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue intersection identified when analyzed in accordance with the City's performance criteria for determining project impact. As a response to comments on the Negative Declaration received from the City of Costa Mesa Traffic Department, and the close proximity of the site to the City of Costa Mesa boundary, staff directed the consultant to further study the impact the project could have on three additional intersections located within the City of Costa Mesa. Specifically, the three intersections include: • Superior and 17'" Street • Newport Boulevard and 171° Street • Newport Boulevard and 19'" Street The City of Costa Mesa Year 2000 conditions were used to establish the conditions without project ICU, or the baseline condition. The net new project volumes were derived from the percent of project traffic distributed onto the roadway network. The peak hour trips that are projected to be generated by the project were distributed on the roadway network to determine the additive project traffic at the study intersections. A copy of the study, as performed by Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc, dated December 18, 2000, is attached for reference. )I ' 3a� Y' 3� The study concluded that all of the study intersections, with the exception of Newport Boulevard and 191 Street, would continue operating at Level of Service A, B, or C. Newport Boulevard and 11? Street will continue to operate at LOS E during both the AM peak hour (ICU =1.00) and PM peak hour (ICU + 0.95). The PM peak hour ICU value of 0.95 represents an increase of 0.01 from without the project ICU.of 0.94. The significance of this ICU increase on an intersection outside the City of Newport Beach was assessed on the regional impact criteria established by OCTA. OCTA has established the regional significance criteria, used to assess out-of-jurisdiction impacts, at 3% of total capacity. The 0.01 ICU increase equates to a 1% increase. Therefore, this change is not significant. EQAC —14 Utilities and Service Systems. As noted in the Initial Study, the The DMND fails to discuss proposed project involves slightly less development than has brownouts and power historically existed at the project site. Therefore, demands on all outages in the peak utilities and services will be less than previously generated. seasons and project Further discussion of this reduction in impact is not required by impacts on utilities. CEQA or warranted in the Initial Study. Y' 3� 'k COMMENTS FROM OWEN MINNEY undated letter received November 22, 2000 in the City Planning Department COMMENT RESPONSE MINNEY -1 Transoortation/Traffic. As noted above in the Response To Address concerns that Comments, EQAC -10 and EQAC -13, the proposed project does research and development not involve a conversion of use from research and development generates more vehicle to office use. trips per day than manufacturing uses. MINNEY -2 Parkin-g. In accordance with Section 20.66.030 of the Newport Research and development Beach Municipal Code, off-street parking in the M -1 A District for use would need more research and development use is based on one parking space for parking. each 500 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed project will require 831 parking spaces (415,493 sq. R. /250 sq. ft. = 830.99 or 831 spaces), and is providing 1,421 parking spaces. MINNEY — 3 Need for EIR The proposed project can be developed without a Comprehensive EIR is general plan amendment or a zone change. The determination of needed. whether an EIR is needed results from preparation of an Initial Study. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project by the City determined that the potential impacts could be mitigated to levels considered less than significant; an EIR is therefore not necessary or required. MINNEY -4 Height limit variance. As indicated in the Initial Study, the Need for a use permit for proposed project involves the construction two 3 -story buildings, height limit variance. approximately 50 feet high; the height limit in this zone is 32 feet. The additional 18 feet of height is needed to accommodate the third story. As a point of comparison and as noted above, the height of the parking structure ranges from 40 to 50 feet, and Building E ranges from 34 feet to 42 feet in height. The increased building height allows additional area onsite for landscaping, surface parking, and a recreation area for employees. Exhibit 4, Proposed Site Plan and Exhibit 6, Project Simulation depict the layout and character of the proposed project. The height variance would allow for improving the visual and aesthetic qualities of the project site by creating a professional campus atmosphere. Replacing the current site conditions with a professional campus setting is an environmental benefit to the community. Refer also to Response to Comments, EQAC -6. 3`X 3�a MINNEY— 5 'Raytheon High Volume Manufacturing Plant and Not an R & D Historical use of the site is Facility.' different than proposed Land Use and Planning. The comment has incorrectly interpreted Use• the opening sentence of this section. The section does not discuss the conversion of the site to office use. As clarification, the text referenced in the comment is repeated below. The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing industriallmanufactudng complex as an industrial technology center. it would not result in community disruption or impact neighborhood cohesiveness.' This statement was provided in response to'the Initial Study question that asked whether the proposed project would physically divide an established community." The proposed uses for the project will continue the research and development activities that have historically occurred onsite and would not involve a conversion to office use. As stated in the description of allowed uses in the M -1 -A zone, the following uses are permitted in this zone without use permits: Commercial Uses Research and Development Services Offices, Business and Professional industrial Industry, R &D The M -1 -A Industrial District provides areas for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. The project is consistent with these designations. 3�a COMMENTS FROM SPON (STOP OUR POLLUTION NEWPORT) Letter dated November 28, 2000 COMMENT RESPONSE SPON —1 Environmental Setting. The existing development on the 13.69 - There is insufficient acre site consists of five connected two -story buildings and a information to understand detached five -story parking structure occupying 416,499 square the project. feet, and an open landscaped employee parking lot. The existing parking structure ranges in height from approximately 40 feet at the top of the parapet above the roof to approximately 50 feet at the top bf the elevator structure and wall on the top of the roof. Existing buildings A, B, C, and D are approximately 30 feet in height with building Eat 43 feet to the top of the roof parapet. The height of the parking structure is 40 feet at the top of the parapet above the roof to 50 feet at the top of the elevator structure and wall on the top of the roof: The existing office/laboratory building (Building E) is 32 feet 5 inches high at the top of the parapet above the roof and the mechanical penthouse structure on top of the roof is 41 feet i inch in height. The existing parking structure and buildings C, D, and E will be retained and remodeled. The proposed two new buildings will be three stories (approximately 50 feet) in height. A use permit for the proposed buildings is required since they exceed the 32 -foot height limit of the M -1 -A zone. SPON — 2 Project Obiective. The project objective, as reflected in the The traffic impacts cannot Environmental Checklist, is to demolish three buildings and be evaluated based on a replace them with two new, 3 -story buildings, with landscaping .a and other features. These improvements, as reflected in the conversion of manufacturing facility to an exhibits accompanying the Negative Declaration, would update office park the character of the existing site development to a campus setting. The existing structures were used in the manufacture, mounting, and packaging of semiconductors and other electronic components by the Raytheon Company. Raytheon has discontinued its operations at the site and the existing facility is vacant. The proposed use of the site will remain research and development, as well as offices related to the primary use. Hughes and Raytheon operated the site with approximately 55% research and development use and 45% for assembly and testing use. Parking at that time was based on the 55% administrative use and 45% for the manufacturing and assembly. The proposed reuse of the site will continue with some administrative office use related to the research and development use and some assembly, testing and manufacturing uses. At this time, the percentage is not known because the tenants are not known at this time. 3�3 Based on the comparative evaluation of the trips that were projected to be generated by the Hughes Aircraft Company facility arid the trips that are expected to be generated by the Newport Technology Center, it can be concluded that the proposed use will generate 229 more AM peak hour trips, 163 more PM peak hour trips and 1,844 fewer daily trips than the Hughes Aircraft Company facility. Therefore, there will be a reduction in daily traffic with the proposed project. Existing buildings to be retained currently exceed the 32 foot Basid Height Limit under a previously, approved use permit. The two new buildings will be 48 feet 6 inches in height, to the top of the roof parapet. The main goals of the project are: 1. The demolition of existing buildings A, B, F. and G, which are two and three -story buildings, and all exterior manufacturing infrastructure; 4. The reuse and renovation of existing buildings C, D, and E (buildings 2 and 4), which are 32 feet to 43 feet in height; and 5. The construction of two new three -story buildings (buildings 1 and 3) to replace buildings A and B that will be approximately 48 feet 6 inches in height A project characteristics table and building square footage table is attached to the Response to Comments. The M-1 -A District provides for a wide range of moderate to low intensity industrial uses and limited accessory and ancillary commercial and office uses. The use of the site is a continuation of those uses permitted under the M-1 -A Zoning District. SPON — 3 Noise. The Initial Study devotes over 2 pages to the description Traffic analysis and trip of potential noise levels that could occur during construction. generation is unclear. Mitigation Measures ( #1 through #5) are specifically provided to mitigate potential construction noise impacts to convalescent facilities and residential areas adjacent to the site. Noise from tenants on the project site is not expected to exceed levels specified in the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Wdh respect to noise increases from project traffic, since there are no traffic increases anticipated from the proposed project in comparison to the traffic from the existing uses, there would be no increases in traffic- related noise. Air Quail . The proposed project does not involve conversion of a manufacturing facility to an office park. .r� 3`A The project involves the reuse of existing research and development buildings, and the demolition and construction of two new buildings for research and development use. The total square footage of development onsite under the proposed project' Is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet of existing uses. As noted in the Initial Study, the square footage of research and development uses proposed onsite will be slightly less than the existing development square footage onsite. As noted in the Transportation Section of this Initial Study, there will not be a substantial increase in traffic to and from the site under the proposed project in relation to the permitted and existing land uses. At the top of page 6 of the Initial Study checklist, it is noted that emissions from daily operations at the project site would not exceed applicable thresholds. At.this time, the tenants of the proposed project are not known; the exact amount and types of emissions that could be generated cannot be specifically determined. However, if any tenant proposes to use equipment that would require permits from the AQMD, the City, will require these permits be provided prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the affected tenant. SPON — 4 Aesthe , s. The following discussion is provided for clarification of the points raised in the EQAC letter. Justification for a height The request for a height limit increase from 32 feet to 50 feet is increase and impacts on described in the initial study checklist narrative and its potential the surrounding buildings impact to views is described on page 5. Exhibit 6 in the Initial as well as the streetscape. Study depicts the finished height of the proposed three story buildings and the character of the proposed project. The increased height is needed to provide for replacement research and development square footage while allowing for additional landscaping, reconfiguration of surface parking, the employee recreation area between the existing parking structure and existing Building 4 (see Exhibit 4) to create a campus -like setting on the project site. The overall development square .footage on the site is slightly less than existing; proposed landscaped areas be increased, as portrayed in Exhibits 4 and 6. The proposed replacement buildings and the professional campus setting that would be provided are an improvement to the site and the adjacent community (see Exhibit 5). Building 1 is adjacent to Superior Avenue as shown in Exhibits 4 and 6. The impacts of the new buildings on the neighborhood are described on page 5 of the Initial Study Checklist. The site was 345 previously used for research and development uses, inducting some manufacturing and assembly. The proposed project would continue these permitted uses and are not being converted to office uses While offices may be included in the buildings, they are allowed in the M -1 -A zone and will support the overall research and development activities on the project site. SPON — 5 Water Quality. As noted on page 14 of the initial Study, the proposed Proles would not substantially modify the site's Should provide more drainage patterns. Since the proposed project contains slightly information to justify the information t justify landscaped area than currently exists on the project site, there quantify. a would be slightly less impervious surfaces on site than the and quality of runoff not approximate 80 percent coverage that exists today. Therefore impeded. runoff from the site would also be decreased from existing levels, but not to a substantial level. As stated on page 14 of the Initial Study, a condition of approval to mitigate potential hydrology effects prior to issuance of grading permits requires the applicant to submit a hydrological analyses to verify that existing drainage facilities have sufficient capacity to serve the project. If additional facilities are required, the applicant shall submit plans for the proposed facilities to the City for approval. D r COMMENTS FROM CITY OF COSTA MESA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Letter dated December 1, 2000 COMMENT RESPONSE CCM-1 Transuortation/Traffic. As noted above in these responses, the It appears that the site is proposed project does not involve a conversion of use from being converted from research and development to office use. manufacturing use to office use, which would result in The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance requires special analysis increase and mitigation of traffic impacts if project - generated traffic is an of average dally trips. A lull traffic greater than one percent of the combined total of existing traffic, study should :be required projected regional traffic growth, and traffic generated by •committed" with an analysis of impact' projects (i.e. approved projects requiring no further on Costa Mesa discretionary review) on any approach to any of the study intersections in the area. intersections during the morning and/or evening peak hours. The City's traffic standard is for intersections to operate at no greaterthan 90 percent of intersection capacity, or level ofservice "D". For those intersections already above the 9.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value, and increase in 0.01 in the cumulative ICU necessitates traffic mitigation. In 1981, the TPO traffic analysis determined that, after project completion, traffic generated by the project would contribute to the short-range cumulative degradation of the West Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd. /SuperiorAvenue intersection during the a.m. peak hour and mitigation was required of Hughes Aircraft. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, was for a proposed 110,000 square foot expansion (Building E) and the parking structure. The study indicated that there were 1,285 employees currently at the site and analyzed the addition of approximately 680 employees that would work in Building E (the 110,000 sq. ft. addition). The Traffic Study analysis was based upon three employee shifts and a projected five -year forecast of manpower and space requirements. The project information critical to the City was the 110,000 square foot limitation on gross floor area and a 1,965 Imitation on employees (1,536 on the first shift). The City issued building permits for the addition on the basis of a reduced gross floor area of 109,893 square feet, and the applicants' agreement to provide manpower reports to the Planning Department twice yearly. The use permit was subsequently amended in 1982 to increase the square footage for the addition to 112,916 square feet, and in 1983, a revised Traffic Study for the approved Hughes expansion project was approved due to manpower staffing changes and revisions to the final square footages of the project. 3�� The applicant the City entered into an agreement to'fund Improvement to Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd./Superior Ave. intersection, that was being jointly funded by two other projects during the same time frame. The total cost of improvements was $600,000 with the Hughes project responsible for $312,000 of the total cost. A cap on the total number of employees and building square footage was determined by the study and Hughes Aircraft Company "fair share" costs of the Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd. /Superior Ave. remained per the terms of the 1981 agreement with the City. . In 199912000, the Hughes property was sold to the St. Clair Company, who is proposing to renovate the property. At the request of staff, a Traffic Analysis was conducted in December, 2000, for the proposed remodel of the site as part of the environmental review. The purpose of the study was to quantify any riew impacts on the circulation system assuming the same land use. The applicant provided a supplemental traffic analysis conducted by Pirzadeh Associates, dated December 8, 2000 that is attached to this report. The analysis shows that, using the trip rates shown for Research and Development Centers (760), the proposed project is expected to generate 3,370 daily trips. (The City of Newport Beach uses the Trip Generation, Ob Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to determine the appropriate trip generation rate for projects within the City.) The average daily trips for the previous Hughes and Raytheon uses were 5,214 trips. The Hughes Aircraft Company operated three shifts daily with a large percentage of the work force arriving and departing between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., which proportionately decreased the amount of project traffic during the PM peak hour of the adjacent roadway. Because the 1981 Traffic Study and 1983 Revised Traffic Study did not analyze the AM peak hour or provide an AM peak hour trip generation rate, the 286 PM peak hour trips that were identified in the study were assumed in the new study to be generated during the AM peak hour. The assumption is based on the staggered work hours created by the shift work during the morning and evening, which causes the peak hour of the site to occur outside the peak hour of the adjacent roadway. Based on the comparative evaluation of the trips that were projected to be generated by the Hughes Aircraft Company facility and the trips that are expected to be generated by the Newport Technology Center, it can be concluded that the proposed use will generate 229 more AM peak hour trips, 163 more PM peak hour trips and 1,844 fewer daily trips than the Hughes Aircraft _1 J` 7�s � To assess the potential impact from the additional peak hour trips being generated, two intersections were identified by staff to be analyzed: West Coast Highway/Balboa BlvdJSuperiorAve., and Newport BlvdJHospitai Road. The analysis was performed In accordance with the methodology prescribed in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beads Municipal Code, the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The completion date for the proposed project is expected to be in 2002 and the traffic volumes were projected to the year 2002. The regional traffic projections are consistent with the City's methodology and procedures for forecasting the regional traffic annual growth rate. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis for the Newport Blvd./Hospital Drive intersection shows that the ICU at the intersection, including the project's traffic, is projected to operate at 0.61 and 0.71 during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This is well below the TPO limit of 0.90 and no mitigation is required. The West Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd. /Superior Avenue intersection is projected to have ICU values of 0.92 and 1.02 during the /AM and PM peak hours, respectively. When the project's peak hour traffic volumes are added to the ICU value, the ICU's remain at 0.92 and 1.02. Therefore, there is no project impact to the West Coast Highway/Balboa Boulevard /Superior Avenue intersection identified when analyzed in accordance with the City's performance criteria for determining project impact. As a response to comments on the Negative Declaration received from the City of Costa Mesa Traffic Department, and the dose proximity of the she to the City of Costa Mesa boundary, staff directed the consultant to further study the impact the project could have on three additional intersections located within the City of Costa Mesa. Specifically, the three intersections. include: • Superior and 171" Street • Newport Boulevard and i7" Street • Newport Boulevard and 19'' Street The City of Costa Mesa Year 2000 conditions were used to establish the conditions without project ICU, or the baseline condition. The net new project volumes were derived from the percent of project traffic distributed onto the roadway network. The peak hour trips that are projected to be generated by the project were distributed on the roadway network to determine the 3�� additive project traffic at the study intersections. A copy of the study, as performed by Phadeh & Associates, Inc, dated December 18, 2000, is attached for reference. The study concluded that all of the study intersections, with the exception of Newport Boulevard and I Street, would continue operating at Level of Service A, B, or C. Newport Boulevard and 19" Street will continue to operate at LOS E during both the AM peak hour (ICU =1.00) and PM peak hour (ICU + 0.95). The PM peak hour ICU value of 0.95 represents an Increase of 0.01 from without the project ICU of 0.94. The significance of this ICU increase on an. intersection. outside the City of Newport Beach was assessed on the regional impact criteria established by OCTA. OCTA has established the regional significance criteria, used to assess out -of- jurisdiction impacts, at 3°% of total capacity. The 0.01 ICU increase equates to a 11% increase. Therefore, this change is not significant., CCM -2 The traffic impacts cannot Air Quality. The proposed project does not involve conversion of be evaluated based on a a manufacturing facility to an office park conversion of a manufacturing facility to an The proposed use of the site is research and development. The office park. project involves the reuse of existing research and development buildings, and the demolition and construction of two new buildings for research and development use. The total square footage of development onsite under the proposed project is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet of existing uses. As noted in the Initial Study, the square footage of research and development uses proposed onsite will be slightly less than the existing development square footage onsite. As noted in the Transportation Section of this Initial Study, there will not be a substantial increase in traffic to and from the site under the proposed project in relation to the permitted and existing land uses. At the top of page 6 of the Initial Study checklist, it is noted that emissions from daily operations at the project site would not exceed applicable thresholds. At this time, the tenants of the proposed project are not known; the exact amount and types of emissions that could be generated cannot be specifically , determined. However, if any tenant proposes to use equipment that would require permits from the AQMD, the City will require these permits be provided prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the affected tenant. . f 5�N6 CCM -3 Traffic analysis and trip Pooulation/HousinalEMplovment Balance. This is addressed in generation is unclear. the transportation and traffic section of the report, as there is projected to be a decrease in the number of total employees. 3a� COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL — Letter dated November 29, 2000 and received December 5, 2000 COMMENT RESPONSE DTSG1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The remedial action plan was The ND indicates that soil ND indicates developed prior to the findings of the risked based screening and t the site and reports, which indicated that soil remediation was not necessary, is with Soil gas sampling conducted in 1997 indicated that VOCs hazardous substances. detected in soil gas were a result of off gassing from the ground RAP addresses health risk water (i'a., soil gas concentrations were lower by an order of from so l contaminants, magnitude than the equilibrium concentration expected based on address the needs of the address the needs groundwater concentrations. Since Raytheon intended to vacate soil the property they decided to implement a SVE type remediation to allay any potential concerns of soil contamination. DTSG2 The NO needs to identify The SVE remediation was completed in August 2000. Sampling when the construction at conducted during the remediation indicates that no vadose zone the site will be initiated. No source was present prior, during or after the remediation. construction should be allowed before the A Mitigation Measure is included that requires: 'Prior to the completion of removal or issuance of a grading or building permit, owner of the property remediation of the shag provide a closure letter" from the Orange County Health contaminated soil at the Care Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for she. completion of soil remediation activities, to the City of Newport Beach." DTSC— 3 Per City staff, the fuel tanks that were located on the site at 529 The ND needs to identify Superior Avenue (The City of Newport Beach Corporate Yard), any known or potentially have been removed and all hazardous materials have been w contaminated sites within addressed in accordance with state guidelines. the close proximity the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the NO needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. DTSC's CalSites . database indicates that the project site is adjacent to the Newport Beach Corporate Yard, located at 592 Superior Avenue, Newport `r 1 'pa s r4 Beach. This site is also a contaminated property and that RWQCB is Investigating. DTSC -4 The ND indicates that the The Raytheon Systems Company is continuing to work with the proposed project site would RWQCB to complete the groundwater remediation. The fully be remediated by the groundwater remediation will be completed by Raytheon and their previous occupant, sub consultants. Such remediation will not be affected in any way Raytheon Company, by the proposed construction. except groundwater contamination. Though A Mitigation Measure is included that requires: Prior to the 'closure groundwater is not suitable issuance of a building permit a letter" regarding the for domestic use, RWQCB remediation, from the Orange County Health Care already indicated that Agency shall be provided-to the Crly of Newport Beech.' groundwater remediation would be required. The ND should identify who will remediate groundwater after . the applicant's occupancy. DTSC -5 Groundwater remediation is currently underway at the site. The The ND indicates that proposed project has been reviewed by Raytheon's environmental because the groundwater consultant and has been determined that the construction will not is not suitable for domestic have an impact on the groundwater remediation. use, contamination would have no impact on future uses of the property, and remediation will continue regardless of site occupancy. Before the construction and occupancy of the site, engineering designs should be completed for groundwater remediation and that adequate space should be allocated to carry out groundwater monitoring and remediation. DTSC -6 Site occupancy before The risk -based screening already conducted at the site were groundwater remediation based on soil gas concentrations volatilizing from the should be consulted with groundwater. Given the lack of a vadose zone source, relatively 3 3a RWQCB. The suitability of the site occupancy is depending on the depth to groundwater. Volatilization of contaminants in groundwater may occur and that it will be a threat to the occupants in the future. low fluctuations in groundwater elevations, and the continued decrease in groundwater concentrations, the risk -based screening has already accounted for the 'worst case' scenario. DTSC -7 Soil disturbances in the area covered by the SVE remediation will No soil disturbance should N N not be conducted until certification from the RWQCB is received. allowed before the Any exploratory borings or preliminary work will be conducted completion of contaminated contaminated ed under the supervision of the appropriate environmental soil removal or at Professionals. and that a regulatory agency certified that the site is clean. DTSC -8 If during construction of the If previously unknown soil contamination is encountered during project, soil contamination the construction of this project, appropriate soil is suspected, stop the screening /sampling will be implemented to determine the extent construction in the area and magnitude of the contamination. Since the RWQCB is and appropriate Health and currently providing regulatory oversight, they will be notified and Safety procedures should additional investigation and remediation would be coordinated be implemented. If it is directly with that agency. determined that Mitigation Measures have been included to insure compliance contaminated soil exists, with state and local regulations, policies and procedures. the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, , and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. � as 3 January 04, 2001 NEWPORT TECHNOLOGY CENTER ERRATA Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 Contact: Ms. Eugenia Garcia, AICP, Associate Planner Prepared by: Thomas E. Smith, Jr. AICP Principal BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive Suite E -200 Costa Mesa, California 92614 (714) 444 -9199 u� I 3a5 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata Newport Technology Center 500 Superior Avenue This Newport Technology Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata is provided to clarify, refine, and provide supplemental information for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Many of the DMND changes result from refinements and clarifications to the analysis in the Environmental Checklist for the DMND based upon the information and concerns raised by commentators during the public review period. None of the information contained in the DMND Errata constitute significant information or changes the analysis or conclusions of the Newport Technology Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The information included in the errata resulting from the public comment process and the City's normal planning process does not constitute substantial new information that requires issuance of a subsequent MND. As identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a Negative Declaration shall be revised and recirculated should certain criteria be met. Additional information, in and of itself, does not require a subsequent MND. A subsequent MND is only required where changes to the proposed project, changes in circumstances or new information not previously known, will result in new or increased significant effects. The new information and discussion included in these errata demonstrate that these changes do not trigger the need for a subsequent MND, based on the following criteria (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162): • No new significant impacts will result from the project or from new mitigation measures; • No substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact will occur, • No new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts previously found not to be feasible have, in fact, been found to be feasible. The changes to the DMND included in these errata do not constitute substantial new information indicating that there would be 1) any new, significant impact or a substantially more severe impact than previously analyzed and discussed in the DMND; 2) any substantial increase in severity of impacts will occur; and 3) any new feasible alternative or mitigation measure exists that would avoid an identified significant impact. An errata to the DMND is the appropriate document to address the changes to the DMND, because some clarification and additions to the DMND are necessary, but none of the conditions triggering preparation of a subsequent DMND are present. For simplicity, the errata below are in the same order that they are found in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Checklist. (New text is underlined deleted text is struck out. Bold type text is added for clarification.) a� 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING (Page I) Project Description Section 8 of the Draft Environmental Checklist Form, respectively, indicate that: The proposed project site consists of a 13.69 -acre property bounded by the City of Newport Beach Corporation Eenteg Yard to the north, Dana Road to the south, Newport Boulevard to the east, and Superior Avenue to the west. The site currently contains five connected two -story buildings and a detached five -story parking structure occupying 416,499 square feet, and landscaped employee parking. The existing narking stnretttre ranges in heig t from approximately 40 feet at the top of the parapet above the roof to aRMArnately 50 feet at the toy of the elevator structure and wall on the top of the roof. The five connected buildings are approximately 30 feet in height. The existing two -story laboratory building (Building E. Exhibit 3) and parking structure were constructed under a use vermit allowing the structures to exceed the 32 -foot basic height limit. The officellaboratory building is 32 feet 5 inches high at the ton of the parapet above the roof; the mechanical penthouse structure on top of the roof is 41feet I inch above grade. Exhibit 3 (Existing Conditions) shows the current building configuration. The proposal is to construct two replacement three -story buildings th t will exceed the 32 foot Basic Height Limit and a use permit is required to exceed the height limit up to 50 feet The two proposed buildings will be 48 feet 6 inches to the top of the roof parapet. The existing structures were used in the manufacture, mounting, and packaging of semiconductors and other electronic components by the Raytheon Company. Raytheon has discontinued its operations at the site and the existing facility is vacant. The R_NRosed use of the site will remain research and develgpment as well as offices related to the Rrimary use Remedistion of contamination associated with these operations is ongoing and is covered in more detail in Section VII of the Initial Study checklist (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Raytheon is responsible for decontamination and removal of equipment and contaminated soils prior to releasing the property to the buyer for demolition and redevelopment. PROJECT OBJECTIVE (Page 2): The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of the Raytheon Microelectronics Facility as a research and development use ef€ce eemplex: The main goals of the project are: 1. The demolition of existing buildings A, B, F, and G (Exhibit 3), which are two and three -story buildings. and all exterior manufacturing infrastructure; 2. The reuse and renovation of existing buildings C, D, and E ,(buildings 2 and 4), which are 30 feet to 41 feet 1 inch in height: and 3. The construction of two new additienal -three -story buildings (buildings I and 3) to replace buildings A and B that will be approximates 48 feet 6 inches in height ese improvements, as reflected in the exhibits aaomnanving the Negative Declanation. would IMdate the character of existing site development to a campus setting The total square footage of development would be reduced by approximately 1,007 square feet with project' implementation. The proposed three -story structures, buildings I and 3, would be approximately 10D.407 98;210 and 111980 409,4W--square feet in size, respectively. Additional project features include the reconfiguration of existing parking, provision of an additional 105 narking spaces and 9 motorcycle- spaces, provision of an employee -use linear park and basketball court, and landscaping improvements. A Use Permit is requested to exceed the Basic Height Limit of 32 feet in the M -I -A zone up to 50 feet in conjunction with the remodel of a previous research and development site.. The M 1 A District provides for a wide ranee of moderate to low of the site is a continuation of those uses permitted under the M--1 -A Zoning District. The proposed site plan is shown on Exhibit 4. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING (Page 2): Current Raytheon Microelectronics Facilitl+: 5 connected buildings and a detached five- Development: story Aing structure occupying 416,499 square feet of a 13.69 -acre site. To themorth: City of Newport Beach Corporation Yazd located immedi tely adjacent to the su 'ect ro To the east: T an.Isra�ed slopes and Newport RoulgalLadi acent to the rear of the property To the south: Aparhnents and Flagship Medical Care Center across Dana Road and adjacent to the 'te e o e 'ect e To the west: Harbor Homes Trailer Park, end- Superior Medical Center, and SunWdge Care and Rehabili tion Center a=g Sgggigr Av u The location of the Sunbridge Care and Rehabilitation Center was incorrectly listed in the table on page 2 of the Initial Study as being located east of the project site. As noted in the comment, this facility is located west of the project site and north of the Harbor Homes Trailer Park and Superior Medical Center. Landscaped. slopes and Newport Boulevard are located east of the project site. A Zoning Districting Map is added for clarification. See attached zoning map for surrqunding REMerties. Project Location (Exhibits 2, 3, and 4) The maps are oriented as printed in maps of the site produced by Thomas Brothers Maps. L AESTETICS (Page 5); The proposed project involves the demolition and remodel of an existing research and development site to he used as a research and development technology center with no change in 19- use enter and is not being converted to general office use. o . A use permit is required to exceed the 32 foot stay buildings that will exceed the 32 foot height limit Currently, the existing structures range in height from 3Q 26 WE 46 feet. The proposed structures willould be 38 48 feet 6 inches in height. The increase in building height would not impact views from surrounding buildings. The reconfiguration of the buildings and design features such as landscaping and mature trees would result in an improved visual appearance for the project site compared to the existing conditions. See Exhibits 5 and 6 for existing conditions and project simulation respectively. The relocation of the buildings will result in a reduction in site coverage and more open space between the buildings, The reouired 15 foot front Yard setback on Superior Avenue and Dana Road will be enhanced with shrubs and ground cover to complement the existing berm with mature pine trees Total landscaping provided will aid in screening and softening the new building. The proposed project would dgdd construct additional window area to the buildings, thereby resulting in a potential increase in daytime glare. However, this increase would not constitute a significant impact to adjacent land uses because of building orientation and landscaping trees. E969ting Exterior nighttime lighting will be added and the existing ligbting will be reconfigured to meet the City's required foot -candle radius for emergency and security purposes while avoiding potential negative glare impacts on surrounding properties. Less than significant impacts are anticipated and the following conditions of approval would be implemented: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans to, and obtain the approval of exterior lighting plans from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Exterior lighting shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize light spillage and glare to adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer acceptable to the City. The applicant shall provide to the Platming Tepartment. in conjunction with the lighting system plan lisilitin g fixture product tomes and technical specifications including photometric information to determine be made a part of the buildirg set of plans for issuance of the building permit Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final of building permits the applicant 2. Department which illustrate that all mechanical equipment and solid waste disposal areas will be screened from public streets, alleys, and adjoining properties.. III. AIR QUALITY (Page 6, 7 and 8) b} The proposed use of the site is research and development The project involves the reuse of existing research and development buildings, and the demolition and reconstruction of two replacement buildings for research and develoRment use d'W 3X The proposed project does not involve - conversion of a manufacturing facility to an office park C� e€fiee t;1ildi . The total square footage of research and development offiie"ses onsite under the proposed project is 415,493 square feet compared to 416,499 square feet of existing uses. The project would therefore not add new long -term regional or local operational emissions. Without knowledge df the We of research and development tenants p nosed for the site. it is to the Air Ouality Management District Regulations. The only air quality impacts to be evaluated are those from demolition and construction. Construction impacts may result from: airborne dust stirred up during grading, excavation, demolition and dirt hauling; gaseous emissions from heavy equipment, trucks, and employee vehicles; and application of .paints and coatings. These emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the construction phase and weather conditions. Construction of the project is estimated to take approximately 10 months, divided between demolition, gradinglexcavation and building constructiontrehabilitation. Mitigation Measures 3-9 numbering change. 4-2. All grading activities shall comply with the dust suppression provisions of the City's Grading and Excavation Code (NBMC Sec. 15.04.140) and AQMD Rule 403. :L 4. Construction operations shall utilize methods to reduce pollutant emissions to the greatest extent feasible. Such methods include the following: a) Use of low- emission construction equipment b) Rideshare program and incentives for construction employees C) Maintain construction equipment with properly tuned engines d) Use of low - sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment e) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts f) Use of on -site power instead of portable generators g) Coordinate construction-operations to minimize traffic interference -3 5. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to reduce odors from construction activities. 4:¢. Adherence to SCAQMD Rules 431.12 and 43I.2 which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. 3-7. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence for verification by the Planning Department that the necessary permits have been obtained from the SCAQMD for regulated commercial equipment. An air quality analysis shall be conducted for the proposed mechanical equipment that identifies any additional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the mechanical equipment. 6.8. The project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient design regulations as well as 1 B 3� the provision of window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements. -9. The project shall comply with the vehicular trip reduction requirements of AQMD Regulation 15 and the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (NBMC Chapter 20.08). c) Based upon the proposed square footases. there will be no additional daily trips to the site as discussed in the transportation section of this negative declaration, rather at decrease in average daily_Ldps is expected. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES (Page 9) Mitigation Measures 10 -12 camber change. 4:10. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. L411. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer. 3-.12. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive provisions of AB952 related to the City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. VI. GEOLOGYAND SOILS (Page -l0 and 11) Mitigation Measure No. 13 and 14 number change. 4-13. All .earthwork shall comply with the requirements of the Excavation and Grading Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Sec. 15.04.140) and the City of Newport Beach Grading Manual. Requirements for grading plans and specifications will be established by the Building Department, and may include the following: • Soil engineering report • Engineering geology report • Surface and subsurface drainage devices • Erosion, sediment and pollution control plans Haul route plan for transport of earth material • Landscaping and irrigation plans 33� ?.=-- Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which includes a maintenance program to control the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and an irrigation system designed to minimize surface runoff and overwatering.. This plan shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach General " Services, Public Works, and Planting Departments. The landscaping shall be installed in conformance with the approved plan. VII. HAZARDSAND HAZARDOUSMATERIALS (Page 11, 12 and 13) Mitigation Measure number 15 added: Regional Water Quality Control Board for completion of soil remediation activities to the City of Newport Beach. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP), prepared by Dudek' and Associates, detailing Raytheon's approach for dealing with impacted groundwater and. soil at the site was prepared and submitted to the RWQCB in December 1997, and approved in early ,1999. The RAP found that groundwater data compiled since 1982 show a decreasing trend in the concentrations of TCE, PCE, and acetone. The sources of these contaminants were removed in 1983, and since that time, concentrations of these compounds have decreased by over 96 percent Analytical groundwater data indicate that the cause of this decrease is due to the natural anaerobic biological degradation of these compounds by indigenous microbial anaerobes. These anaerobes are responsible for degrading PCE and TCE and are using acetone as a "food" source during the biodegradation process (Dudek 1998). Acetone concentration in the groundwater will be regulated and augmented in certain wells as needed because degradation appears to correspond with its presence in the groundwater. The biodegradation process will be monitored on a routine basis to determine the progress of the remediation. Raytheon is responsible for the enhanced in- situ bioremediation and routine monitoring of groundwater beneath the project site. For this reason the project applicant would provide Raytheon with access to the property for continued groundwater sampling and monitoring well inspection. The RAP is available foLn_ublic review in the Planning Department City of Newport Beach. With the exception of groundwater contamination, the proposed project site would be fully remediated by the previous occupant, Raytheon Company, prior to occupation by the applicant. Because the groundwater is not suitable for domestic use, contamination would have no impact on future users of the property, and remediation will continue regardless of site. occupancy. However, the project shall comply with the following City of Newport Beach standard conditions of approval: Mitigation Measure is deleted and replaced with Mitigation Measures No. 16 and 17. 17 I 33,1- 16. Construction and occupancy of the facilities may o .cur g1jor to the completion of the remediation if it is determined by tt a eegional Water Quality Control Board that no adverse effect would occur to occupants, the City of Newport Beach. Mitigation Measures 18 and 19 number changes. -11. In the event that hazardous waste is discovered during site preparation or construction, the applicant shall ensure that the identified hazardous waste and/or hazardous materials are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services and office of Statewide Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30. X12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the City of Newport Bach demonstrating that its Hazardous Materials and Waste management Plan.and its Infectious Control Manual have been modified to include procedures to minimize the potential impacts of emissions from the handling, storage, hauling and destruction of these materials, and that the applicant has submitted the modified plans to the City of Newport Beach Fire Prevention Department, and the Orange County Health Care Agency. VIL- H•YDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY(Page 13 -15) Mitigation Measure 20 and 22 number change. Add Mitigation Measure no. 21. 1-L0. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed to reduce the risk of the transport of sediment and pollutants from the site. The SWPPP shall implement measures to minimize risks from material delivery and storage, spill prevention and control, vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance, material use, structure construction and painting, paving operations, solid waste management, sanitary waste management, and hazardous waste management. The SWPPP is subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach 21 Nor to the issuance of building permits a SWPPP shall be provided to The City of Newport Beach for gyproval 2:22.The applicant shall apply. for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) general permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity and shall comply with all the provisions 'of the permit including, but not limited to, the development of the SWPPP, the development and �'33 implementation of best management practices (BMPs), implementation of erosion control measures, monitoring program requirements, and post construction monitoring of the system unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. t e) The proposed project site consists of approximately 80% impervious surface. Storm water runoff drains primarily to the eastern edge of the project site into an existing gunnite terrace out into the embankment facing Newport Boulevard. The terrace directs flows into a stormwater drain in Newport Boulevard. To a lesser extent, some flows drain to stormwater facilities in Superior Avenue. The proposed project would not substantially modify the site's existing drainage patterns. - No imRacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required: Mitigation Measures I and 2 are deleted, included in the conditions of approval of the use permit. VIII. LAND USE AND PLANNING (Page 15 and 16) Land Use Regulations for Industrial Districts added. The proposed project involves the reuse of an existing industriallmanufacturing complex as a research and development technology - center. Permitted uses in the M 1 A Zonine District include (see attached Section 20.20 of the NMort Beach Municipal Code: Industrial Districts: Land Use Reg_trlations Chartl. It would not result in community disruption or impact neighborhood cohesiveness. No impacts are anticipated. Section 20.20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code: Industrial Districts: Land Use Regulations Chart is attached to these errata. )a. NOISE (Page 16 -18) Mitigation Measures I through 5 number change, and delete condition No 6. 4jL3. The applicant shall ensure that construction activities are conducted in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28, which limits the hours of 10 33`� construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:0D p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 pan. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, ! remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or any holiday. 324. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate.to the Building Department that noise levels associated with all existing and proposed mechanical equipment is mitigated in accordance with applicable standards. 3M.All construction equipment, Exed or mobile, shall be maintained in proper operating condition with noise mufflers. 4)26.Vehicle staging areas shall be located away from the area adjacent to the convalescent facilities at Dana Road and Newport Boulevard. -S)27. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. c) Mitigation Measure No. 28 is added. The proposed project would result in reduced noise levels compared with the previous industrial/manufacturing use. Existing exterior manufacturing equipment associated with the previous use will be removed. No impacts are anticipated, however. to insure compliance with Ctv Noise ReauFations for future eauioment installed for the pronosed use. the following condition shall be implemented: XV. TRANSPORTATION17'RAFFIC (Page 19 and 20) Clarifying information based on 1981 and 1983 Traffic Impact Analysis and Traffic Analysis conducted in December 2000. Mitigation Measures 3 and 4 number changes and Mitigation Measure No. 31 is added. In 1981 A Traffic Impact Analysis was prqpared by Kunzman Associates for an expansion of the facility, per the requirements of the Orange County Congestion Management Program and th_e Newp2rt Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Hughes Aircraft Company proposed a 110,000 Nuare foot building expansion including a new parking structure 05 The City's TPO requires sg-r vial anahrsis and mitigation of traffic im asp is if molest- senerated trI& is mvAter than one percent of the combined total of existing tra fic protected regional Intersection Capacity Utilization fICU) value an increase in 0.01 in the cumulative ICU necessitates traffic mitigation The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates was for a proposed 110.000 gqua fool ex vision Building E) and the parking structure The study indicated that there were 1.285 employees currently at the site and analyzed the addition of approximately 680 employees that would work in Building E (the 110,000 sq ft addition) The Traffic Study analysis was based upon three employee shifts and a projected five -year forecast of manpower and space requirements The project information critical to the City was the 110.000 Square foot limitation on gross floor area and a 1.965 limitation on employees fl.536 on the first shift). The City issued building permits for the addition on the basis of a reduced gross floor area of 109.893 souare- feet nd the applicants' agreement to prgvide manpower reports to the Planning Department twice yearly. The use permit was ;gbsgguently amended in 1982 to increase the square footage for the addition to 112,916 square feet and in 1983 a revised Traffic Study for the approved Hughes expansion oroiect was approved due to manpower st_afftno changes and revisions to the final square footages of the ron lest. It was determined that one of the study intersections experienced a traffic impact and would rgquire a mitigation measure The a}lplicant and the City entered into an agreement to fund intersection improvements to Coast Highway 0, Balboa Blvd./ Superior Ave that was being jointly funded by two other projects during the same time frame The total cost bf improvements was 5600 000 with the Hughes oroiect responsible for $312.000 of the total cost However, in 1983 a revised Traffic Study for the approved Hughes expansion proiect was initiated due to manpower staffing changes and revisions to the final square foot ages of the project A &M —on the terms of the 1981 agreement with the City. In 1"9/2000. the Hughes property was sold to the St Clair Company who is proposing to renovate the property. At the request of staff. a Traffic Analysis was conducted in December. 2000 for the proposed remodel of the site The Ramose of the study was to quantify any new imp cts on the ciMlation systcm assuming the same land use The applicant provided a supplemental traffic analysis conducted by Pirzadeh Associates. dated December 8. 2000 that is attached to this report The analysis shows that using the trip rates shown for Research and Engineers (ITE) to etermine the appropriate trio generation rate for projects within the Citv). 12 S 33� The Hugbes Aircraft CoMgM ogMted three shifts daily with a large percentage of the word Traffic Study and 1983 Revised Traffic Study did not analvze the AM peak hour or provide an AM peak hour trig feneratim rate thg 286 PM peak hour trips that were identified in the study the peak hour of the site to occur outside the Weak hour of the adiggent roadway,. Based on this assumption_ the number of employees that were arriving and leaving the site would generate similar traffic volumes during the AM peak hour as documented during the PM Rea"our. The proposed project is expected to generate 449 trips during the PM Reak hour, which is 163 trips more than what was projected for the Hughes Aircraft Comganv facility. The increase in PM peak hour trips can be attributable to the Hughes Aircraft Company emlloyee's arrival and departure times. In _1983. prior to the addition of the 110.000 gross square feet of office/laboratory uses iBuilding E). 425 trips were recorded between the hours of 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. The assumption regarding the effect that the shift work had on the PM peak hour traffic eeneration can be demonstrated from information Drovided in the Kunzman Associates Traffic Study. Based on the comparative evaluation of the trips that were projected to be generated by the hour trips. 163 more PM peak hour trips and 1.844 fewer daily trips than the Hughes Aircraft Company facility. Although the _proposed project does not generate more than 300 aveon daily trips more than the former Hughes Aircraft Company facility instead there are fewer average daily trips there is an increase in the AEI and PM peak hour Rroigct trips To address the additional peak hour trips Blvd /Superior Ave and Newport Blvd /Hogpita) Road A one percent V=acb volume analysis was performed to examine the AM and PM peals hour traffic volumes for the two intersections The analysis is performed in accordance with the methodology prescribed in Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code entitled Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The one- percent analysis included the respective traffic volume for the peak hour for regional growth and approved proiects The completion date for the proposed project is expected to be in 2002 and the traffic vo)umes were projected to the Year 2002 The regional traffic projections are consistent with the City's methodolog and procedures for forecasting the regional traffic annual growth rate. The Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis for the Newport Blvd /Hospital Drive intersection shows that the ICU at the intersection is proiected to owe at 0.605 and Q.711 during the AM and PM peak hours respectively, No additional analysis or mitigation is recommended. The West Coast Highway/Balboa Blvd /Superior Avenue intersection is proiected to have an T 3 � �/,•' r✓ ��3'1 jt'ti value of 092 and 1 02 during the PM peak hour. When the pmjem eak hour traffic vohtmes are added to the ICU value the ICi 1's remain at 0 92 and 102 during the AM and PM 1 h� retie hy Then fore. there is no vroiect impact to the West Coast (;t �,__�___.,o_,,.__ Boulevard/Sogdor Avenue intersection identified when analyzed in e�ta+a�t�r,�.,a - ae mtance mdth the City's performance criteria for deIelrmining nroieet impact. As to rr mrnerits on the Negative Declaration received from the City of Costa Mesa Traffic Department and the closegroximity of the site to the City of Costa Mesa boundary staff • Smperior and 17' Street • NewmortBouleva rd and 17 h Street • NewRrt Boulevard and 19'" Street The Cily of Costa Mesa Year 2000 conditions were used to establish the without proiect ICU or the baseline condition The net new proiect volumes were derived from the percent of vroiect traffic distributed onto the roadway network The peak hour trips that are proiected to be Associates. Inc, dated December 1$ 2000 is attached for reference Rea' hour (IC + 0 95) The PM ge_ak hour ICU. value of 0.95 represents an increase or v.vt from without the project ICU of 0.94. This represents a less than significant impact on the Costa Mesa intersections that were studied Mitigation Measures land 2 numbering changed and Mitigation Measure No. 31 was added. })29. The applicant shall submit a construction traffic control plan and identify the estimated number of truck trips and measures to • assist truck trips and truck movement in and out of the local street system (i.e., flagmen, signage, etc). This plan shall consider scheduling operations affecting traffic during off-peak hours, extending the construction period and reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously. The plan will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 2}30.The applicant shall ensure that all haul routes for import or export materials shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and procedures shall conform to Chapter 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Such routes shall be included in the above construction traffic plan. 31 The proposed use of the site shall remain a research an d development use with ancillary commercial and office use as defined by Section 10.05 of the Newport' l 14 33� Beach Municipal Code. XVL WWTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (Page 20 and 21) Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 are deleted and included in the conditions of approval of the use permit. c) The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industrial/business complex. The project would result in modifications in site hydrology and utility configuration/use. No significant impacts are anticipated. However-, the projeef shell eemply g) The proposed project involves the reuse and redevelopment of an existing industrial/business complex. The project would not require expansion of existing utilities and service systems such as wastewater treatment, water supply, and/or solid waste disposal beyond that already provided for the previous use. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. :1� pr-qjeet awl .. .....1... ith the feLle;AA..« eanditigit .F.............1. SOURCE LIST Sources added: 11. Traffic Study. Kurtzman Associates. 1981. 12. Revised Traffic Study_ Kunzman Associates. 1983. 13 Traffic and Circulation Analysis Pirzadeh and Associates Inc December 2000 Reputations Chart t5 3� NNW" AWN SOURCE LIST Sources added: 11. Traffic Study. Kurtzman Associates. 1981. 12. Revised Traffic Study_ Kunzman Associates. 1983. 13 Traffic and Circulation Analysis Pirzadeh and Associates Inc December 2000 Reputations Chart t5 3�